By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Difficulty vs Accessibility: A responsibility for the developers, not for the players.

Alcyon said:
SvennoJ said:

Yet what they want you to experience turns out differently for different people. It's great it fits your play style and abilities, but that doesn't mean it turns into a very different experience for someone else, far off from what the devs want you to experience. Unless there is some AI analyzing your gamepla, there is no way of knowing whether you are experiencing the game as intended. Did they intend it as a frustrating experience many people give up on. Did they intend it as a "read a guide, get op early" breeze through it experience. Did they intend it for those that played their earlier games and can finish it in 20 hours or less. Or is it meant for new players to struggle for 60 hours. There is simply no way to provide the "intended" experience with a fixed difficulty level to cater to new comers and veterans alike. So even if you just take the group it's "meant to appeal" to, it still is entirely dependent on their earlier experience with From's games.

Btw you don't alter the core game by skipping parts (boss battles) of it. You simply experience less of it. If you quit after a few chapters, you don't change the game. Flexible games are more fun. I skipped most of the story shoot outs in GTA5 since that's not something I enjoy. The game letting you enjoy it the way you want to makes it the behemoth it turned into. In Death stranding I simply ran through the shoot out bits in very easy, I wasn't playing it for that. In the end I clocked well over 200 hours in that game figuring out how to optimize things and get 500 legends of legends ratings. (which is only available in hard mode, but you can switch freely)

I'm well past the age that I have to eat my veggies first before I can have desert. No need to put up with that with games either :) Boss battles are not for me, I can't remember any enjoyable ones apart from Astro bot. I only remember them in ranks of most annoying and Dark Souls scores high on that list. Beating a boss doesn't give me any satisfaction, just a well that was a waste of time, can I get on with the fun part now please. Different people play games for different experiences, and of course if a developer doesn't want you to experience the 'fun' parts without passing a test first, then that's their choice. And my choice to not buy from them any more. Not adding options is in their right, but the defense that it would alter the "intended experience" whatever that might be, is a lame excuse.

Then Dark Souls isn't for you. I don't like racing games, so I don't play racing games. Should they add "more options" and give me a "non-racing option" in their racing game? Or perhaps, I say perhaps, I should not play racine games?

Didn't know being difficult was a genre per see. So we can say GT S License and challenges were of the hard genre?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network

I get that some get cross when they can't complete the game so they don't see the end of the story. But games are not only about the story.

Souls can be considered too hard, or not so hard and very enjoyable for those who're into that sort of game. It's all relative. This is not an accessibility issue. In my case I don't enjoy and don't get fighting games. It's not for me. I find it too difficult, too fast. But for many, it feels easy and fun. I find them repetitive and pointless. But for many, it's not repetitive at all, it's all about owning your favourite fighter and mastering the combos and that's the whole purpose.

Besides, a game is still it's own creator's art. It's not some sort of public service.

I've never played Souls, but I think the intention of the game is to make the player master the thing. On easier games you don't always have to master it to complete it. Soul is supposed to be a sort of "try again till you get it" experience. That can be very enjoyable.

Fire Emblem with real death is very enjoyable for me, for example. I find the deathless mode utterly stupid, doesn't make any sense to me. I enjoy repeating and trying again Fire Emblem stages 99 times over until I can go on with the ones I want to save. That's the point: the price of life, the price of carrying that piece over to the next stages. Many don't get it.

Some say once Nintendo put the easier mode available, a whole new world of players got the game and it's now mega popular. Well, I couldn't care less.



God bless You.

My Total Sales prediction for PS4 by the end of 2021: 110m+

When PS4 will hit 100m consoles sold: Before Christmas 2019

There were three ravens sat on a tree / They were as blacke as they might be / The one of them said to his mate, Where shall we our breakfast take?


DonFerrari said:
Alcyon said:

Then Dark Souls isn't for you. I don't like racing games, so I don't play racing games. Should they add "more options" and give me a "non-racing option" in their racing game? Or perhaps, I say perhaps, I should not play racine games?

Didn't know being difficult was a genre per see. So we can say GT S License and challenges were of the hard genre?

It has become a genre. Never heard of "soulslikes"? Or "soulborne"? Never wondered why Hollow Knight is often compared to Dark Souls? The whole genre revolves around fighting bosses. In these fight, you mostly dodge the attacks and hit when you can.



Alcyon said:
DonFerrari said:

Didn't know being difficult was a genre per see. So we can say GT S License and challenges were of the hard genre?

It has become a genre. Never heard of "soulslikes"? Or "soulborne"? Never wondered why Hollow Knight is often compared to Dark Souls? The whole genre revolves around fighting bosses. In these fight, you mostly dodge the attacks and hit when you can.

Not really a genre, but even if you call it a genre it isn't nearly the same as "racing".

Because hard itself is a difficult not a genre.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
Alcyon said:

It has become a genre. Never heard of "soulslikes"? Or "soulborne"? Never wondered why Hollow Knight is often compared to Dark Souls? The whole genre revolves around fighting bosses. In these fight, you mostly dodge the attacks and hit when you can.

Not really a genre, but even if you call it a genre it isn't nearly the same as "racing".

Because hard itself is a difficult not a genre.

"This is true because I say so" isn't a valid argument.

Define a "genre". FFS, this is getting boring. A genre is defined by its gameplay mechanics, and for the soulbornes, difficulty is one of the feature.



Around the Network
Alcyon said:

Then Dark Souls isn't for you. I don't like racing games, so I don't play racing games. Should they add "more options" and give me a "non-racing option" in their racing game? Or perhaps, I say perhaps, I should not play racine games?

There's way more to souls games than just beating the difficulty. Racing games have many options as well. Only 5% of people owning GT Sport actually play in sport mode. Some just like to collect cars, make liveries and take pictures of cars. You never have to race one bit to have fun, although a bit of driving to get cars speeds things along. So yep, plenty non racing options in GT Sport ;)

I'm glad PD doesn't listen to the die hard sim racers that want everyone locked to cockpit mode, wheel only, no assists and full damage. They do expect you to use a wheel without (most) assists when invited to the top drivers live events which is completely fine. But they do understand that you're not getting a new audience to your games if you expect them to be experts from the get go, and that the average majority keep the lights on and the free content updates going.



SvennoJ said:
Alcyon said:

Then Dark Souls isn't for you. I don't like racing games, so I don't play racing games. Should they add "more options" and give me a "non-racing option" in their racing game? Or perhaps, I say perhaps, I should not play racine games?

There's way more to souls games than just beating the difficulty. Racing games have many options as well. Only 5% of people owning GT Sport actually play in sport mode. Some just like to collect cars, make liveries and take pictures of cars. You never have to race one bit to have fun, although a bit of driving to get cars speeds things along. So yep, plenty non racing options in GT Sport ;)

I'm glad PD doesn't listen to the die hard sim racers that want everyone locked to cockpit mode, wheel only, no assists and full damage. They do expect you to use a wheel without (most) assists when invited to the top drivers live events which is completely fine. But they do understand that you're not getting a new audience to your games if you expect them to be experts from the get go, and that the average majority keep the lights on and the free content updates going.

And, again, using general arguments to discuss about a few games isn't the best way to get a point. If, out of 20 racing games, A SINGLE ONE is for the die hard sim racers, where is the problem?



I love difficult games, I'm an older gamer, games used to be really hard in early 90's.

With that said, games are algo much longer to finish, so I prefer not that hard but hard enough to be a real challenge, If games become too easy, then there is no reason to play, games are made for challenge, if I just wanted the story I'd read a book or watch a movie.

Some people feel the need for easier games so they could finish all the games, the big issue here is people shouldn't play all games, pick 1 or 2 great games per month and that's it. I don't like sports games so I never buy them, and there hasn't been a good racer on ps4 at all, so that's another genre that I don't have to play. I limit myself to around 20 games per year, so that I can enjoy without rushing, without having to chose it on easy mode.

When I review games I drop a star/point if the game is too easy on the hardest mode. I remember doing this for all the uncharted games for example. The worst offender for me was GT sport, the campaign mode is just far too easy compared to the older ones, I remember GT1 and 2 spending hours to get gold, on GT sport I get gold on the first try, it makes the game boring.



Alcyon said:
SvennoJ said:

There's way more to souls games than just beating the difficulty. Racing games have many options as well. Only 5% of people owning GT Sport actually play in sport mode. Some just like to collect cars, make liveries and take pictures of cars. You never have to race one bit to have fun, although a bit of driving to get cars speeds things along. So yep, plenty non racing options in GT Sport ;)

I'm glad PD doesn't listen to the die hard sim racers that want everyone locked to cockpit mode, wheel only, no assists and full damage. They do expect you to use a wheel without (most) assists when invited to the top drivers live events which is completely fine. But they do understand that you're not getting a new audience to your games if you expect them to be experts from the get go, and that the average majority keep the lights on and the free content updates going.

And, again, using general arguments to discuss about a few games isn't the best way to get a point. If, out of 20 racing games, A SINGLE ONE is for the die hard sim racers, where is the problem?

Can you name 20 current racing games :p

Sim(cade) racing games naturally share the same tracks and cars, so it's totally fine to have iRacing next to Asetto Corsa next to GT Sport. What other games have the same lore, art, level design, atmosphere and story as the souls series? Difficulty is just a small part of what defines the souls series, and imo not the important part.



SvennoJ said:
Alcyon said:

And, again, using general arguments to discuss about a few games isn't the best way to get a point. If, out of 20 racing games, A SINGLE ONE is for the die hard sim racers, where is the problem?

Can you name 20 current racing games :p

Sim(cade) racing games naturally share the same tracks and cars, so it's totally fine to have iRacing next to Asetto Corsa next to GT Sport. What other games have the same lore, art, level design, atmosphere and story as the souls series? Difficulty is just a small part of what defines the souls series, and imo not the important part.

Series/games I remember

Grand Turismo

Forza

Need for Speed

Sega Rally

V Rally

Ridge Racer

Micro Machines

Mario Kart (and clones)

Formula One

WRC

Project Cars

Gear

Dirt

Driveclub

Nascar games (I don't remember any but they exist)

Moto GP games

Burn-out (I think, the game with Takedowns)

For the rest, I need some help

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_driving_and_racing_video_games

And "all racing games are similar duh" isn't a valid answer. Seriously, stop making nonsense.

Last edited by Alcyon - on 20 February 2020