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

Chazore said:
Nautilus said:

No, this discussion has nothing to do with elitism.It has, however, with the notion that everything has to appeal to everyone at the same time, and the subsequent "silent" rule that if the game you like dosen't fit in that rule, you are alt-right(stupid expression)/elitist/gatekeeper or whatever expression people come up these days to insult people when they run out of arguments.You could call it to be political correctness, but I like to call it the Dictatorship in the guise of the Greater Good.

The Epic Store discussion is just stupid because no one is stopping you from playing that game, you just have to download a free launcher.If you call what I am saying "elitism", then yours is just plain arrogance, since it costs you and anyone nothing a game coming to one launcher than the other.

And yeah, I am in the minority, if you could call millions of players(that like this type of gameplay) minority, sure.But you also are.Why? Because it boils down to one thing that no one going against me has presented thus far:Evidence. How large is my minority?Well, the 4 million+ players that bought Sekiro, the 2 millions+ that bought Hollow Knight, the 4 million+(Not sure of this one) players that bought Dark Souls 3, and so on and so on.

So I ask you: How large is your majority, that would " only" play games with multiple difficulties?How would you prove that you are the majority, other than a supposed "common sense"? And even if 51% of the players worldwide wants multiple difficulties in every game, would you trample the minorities right to have SOME games with the difficulty they desire?Because fuck them, since they don't share your opinion?Or would you trample over the developer wishes to make the game as they seem fit, since they over the games right and thus to do whatever they want to do with it?(outside of mods, once someone buys a game, they can do whatever they want with it as long as they don't profit over it)

There is one quote, that I don't remember where I read, that I always really liked:

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions". 

Yes it does. The very fact you have to argue the validation of not allowing for optional difficulty stems from it. If you have no qualms of games (especially Souls-like) having options, you wouldn't bar the gates.

Also no, enough with the "every game doesn't have to appeal to you" as a means of deflection the mere staple of all games, in having difficulty choices. Having choice does and will never equate to "game having to be made for X person", trying to suggest it is, is simply warping and twisting it to the extreme.

It's funny you call the likes of Gatekeeper as an insult, when it specifically states: 

Definition of gatekeeper
1: one that tends or guards a gate
2: a person who controls access

Nowhere does it state that it is used as an insult or invented as one. Only those who tend to feel in the wrong will claim it as such (If you don't want to be cited as it, don't do it, it's that simple).

EGS has nothing to do with the topic, nothing to do with elitism, and it feels like you just want to call me stupid because I don't follow your viewpoint. I feel like my mere mentioning of "whining" had touched a soft spot, hence your need to mention me and EGS in a topic where it doesn't fit at all. Also no, I don't support EG as a company, their philosophy nor their practices, and I especially dislike their anti-consumer, anti-competitive take, and to top it all off, no, I don't want to use another shitty bare-bones client, I've got enough of those already. I prefer having my library in at least 1-2 places, 1 at most (like console gamers mostly want).

Yes I can, because if you're wanting to not call them a minority, then what does that make the non souls gamers out there, ghosts, nothing?. You have to look at it from the bigger angle, there are more gamers out there not interested or not playing Souls or Souls-like games in general, be they PC gamer, console gamer and mobile gamer. You know very well mobile gamers already dwarf console gamers, and as such they'll dwarf Souls-like, hell even CoD gamers dwarf Souls and Soul-like. We could look at a myriad of specific genres and franchises where said player numbers dwarf Souls games. Souls is not the new CoD, they aren't within the same vein of casual shooters, they are niche for a reason, and yes, there's billions of us on this tiny rock so a few million becomes a drop in the bucket within this industry, let alone outside it. You can't just defy the laws of reality and go "millions>billions", because that'd never fly, and you know this. I already know full well I'm the minority within the RTS genre, but I'm not going to kick a fuss and turn blue in trying to argue that my genre isn't a minority, because I know it's a reality, and one I cannot deny.

Also, you're forgetting the one thing that the vast majority of games come with: Normal difficulty at the start. Most games start out like this, rather than hard or extreme modes, because that "choice" is left up to the gamer to decide, which makes for the majority of a gamer's playthrough session at the start.

I don't know why you're starting out anti-pol at the start of your quote, but near the end you're pulling a minority victim excuse with "you wouldn't dare trample a minority!".

Well no, I wouldn't need to, because to be frank, society does that in general. Society doesn't want everything to be so hard or difficult, which is why we strive for "options", rather than regressing to medieval times and I dunno, acting like big burly Scotsman, pining for that hard as hell log toss challenge. Also, I want to see games with options, rather than the minority becoming the majority in 50+yrs time and warping an industry, because they thought their ideals were better (they aren't, because it means to regress, and that's not something we should be doing as a species). 

"would you trample the minorities right to have SOME games with the difficulty they desire?Because fuck them, since they don't share your opinion?"

You know that can be thrown right back at you with those simply wanting optional difficulty right?. Fuck them for asking, no, fuck them for thinking it, right?. 

The road to hell doesn't exist, and I'd like to keep religion well away from this topic. 

I only brought EGS as an example of your hypocrisy towards the "options" argument. They are bringing options to the table, whether those "accusations" of being anti-customer are true or not, and yet you deny it being good to the PC space because of simply don't like them, even with the Store being a success story(with its discounts, free games and whatnot). Nothing more, but I'll drop :)

And yeah, it's an insult, whether the terminology is correct or not.People may decide to not buy the games due to the difficulty, but I'm not stopping them from going in.Its like a night club with an etiquette code.If you want in, you have to come dressed a certain way.Its private property, so the owner can do whatever he wants.Same for games: The devs can do whatever they want with their games, including difficulty, and you are the one who decides if you want to get in or not.Im not stopping you from doing anything, nor any company would do that, it just dosen't make any consumer sense.It does however, make sense making purely hard games, because there is a big market out there for it, as proved ad nauseum in the thread already.

And yet again, you are wrong.If the majority decided what everyone would do(in the videogame industry), we wouldn't have had so many hard games by this point.Yet here we are, growing by the day.So I ask you one more time:Where is your proof that you are the majority, and that the majority even cares that there are a few hard games that they are not good enough to play?Show me the facts, while i stay here seeing the sales numbers for most hard games just keep rising.That actually makes me curious about how much Sekiro has sold so far.Last time was 4 millions.Wonder if it's at 6 millions already?

Oh and I din't even need to bring that up, but your argument is easily countered.First because of facts backing it up.Does your billions all play videogames, let alone even care about the fact that there are 10 games released every year, out of 300, that they can't play? But most importantly: Since you cant back up these "There are billions of us!", I can say the same for any argument: - Racing games only sell up to 8 millions.That's a waste of money, since Billions of people aren't playing that.There should be an option to turn it into a action adventure game! - You know where I'm going with this.

Just because something is standard, it means that every game should come with it!Color me surprised!It makes me wonder now why sometimes devs take a chance with something new, if it isn't standard... Maybe because the game might be... more fun that way?!?!?

...

...

Nah, the devs must be wrong.I'm sure of it.

And its funny, society wants options on everything?That's also new for me.Guess I must have been hallucinating when I saw places/stores that only catered to a certain niche of the society.I mean, I MUST have been hallucinating when i saw a story that only sold natural food, or a restaurant that specialized on italian food and nothing more, or even bars that catered more to homosexuals to, I don't know, make them feel more comfortable in a place they know they will feel safe.Yeah, I was seeing things, because as you have shown me right now, those things don't exist.All supermarkets sell everything, because options right?And all restaurants also prepare anything, because options right?People dont... *gasp*... go to different places because of different needs, do they?...

...

...

Nah, I must be wrong.I'm sure of it.

About the quote: Dude, do I really need to explain it?It's a metaphor for usually things go south(I mean it backfires, if you didn't know) when people do something with good intentions but without caring about the reality of things.It means harming society and/or the place where you live without intention, thinking that what you had done was right but in actually was wrong.It has nothing to do with religion.Can't believe I had to explain it.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Around the Network
Nautilus said:

I only brought EGS as an example of your hypocrisy towards the "options" argument. They are bringing options to the table, whether those "accusations" of being anti-customer are true or not, and yet you deny it being good to the PC space because of simply don't like them, even with the Store being a success story(with its discounts, free games and whatnot). Nothing more, but I'll drop :)

And yeah, it's an insult, whether the terminology is correct or not.People may decide to not buy the games due to the difficulty, but I'm not stopping them from going in.Its like a night club with an etiquette code.If you want in, you have to come dressed a certain way.Its private property, so the owner can do whatever he wants.Same for games: The devs can do whatever they want with their games, including difficulty, and you are the one who decides if you want to get in or not.Im not stopping you from doing anything, nor any company would do that, it just dosen't make any consumer sense.It does however, make sense making purely hard games, because there is a big market out there for it, as proved ad nauseum in the thread already.

And yet again, you are wrong.If the majority decided what everyone would do(in the videogame industry), we wouldn't have had so many hard games by this point.Yet here we are, growing by the day.So I ask you one more time:Where is your proof that you are the majority, and that the majority even cares that there are a few hard games that they are not good enough to play?Show me the facts, while i stay here seeing the sales numbers for most hard games just keep rising.That actually makes me curious about how much Sekiro has sold so far.Last time was 4 millions.Wonder if it's at 6 millions already?

Oh and I din't even need to bring that up, but your argument is easily countered.First because of facts backing it up.Does your billions all play videogames, let alone even care about the fact that there are 10 games released every year, out of 300, that they can't play? But most importantly: Since you cant back up these "There are billions of us!", I can say the same for any argument: - Racing games only sell up to 8 millions.That's a waste of money, since Billions of people aren't playing that.There should be an option to turn it into a action adventure game! - You know where I'm going with this.

Just because something is standard, it means that every game should come with it!Color me surprised!It makes me wonder now why sometimes devs take a chance with something new, if it isn't standard... Maybe because the game might be... more fun that way?!?!?

...

...

Nah, the devs must be wrong.I'm sure of it.

And its funny, society wants options on everything?That's also new for me.Guess I must have been hallucinating when I saw places/stores that only catered to a certain niche of the society.I mean, I MUST have been hallucinating when i saw a story that only sold natural food, or a restaurant that specialized on italian food and nothing more, or even bars that catered more to homosexuals to, I don't know, make them feel more comfortable in a place they know they will feel safe.Yeah, I was seeing things, because as you have shown me right now, those things don't exist.All supermarkets sell everything, because options right?And all restaurants also prepare anything, because options right?People dont... *gasp*... go to different places because of different needs, do they?...

...

...

Nah, I must be wrong.I'm sure of it.

About the quote: Dude, do I really need to explain it?It's a metaphor for usually things go south(I mean it backfires, if you didn't know) when people do something with good intentions but without caring about the reality of things.It means harming society and/or the place where you live without intention, thinking that what you had done was right but in actually was wrong.It has nothing to do with religion.Can't believe I had to explain it.

Except it's not HYPOCRISY!. You're just finding an excuse to call someone a nonce out of your own personal view on what you think is stupid, which itself is showing the REAL hypocrisy here. Me not liking to use a stupid, objectively shit fucking store is somehow stupid, because I chose not to want to use it?. Are you being cereal right now, you're giving me no option but to use EGS or I'm the "stupid one"?. Really?, we're really going the ultimatum route with this one?.

EGS aren't bringing options, they are literally taking options away, by making sure the game isn't being sold on OTHER storefronts. I don't think you actually truly understand what it is like to allow for choices here, hence why I'll continue seeing you as a gatekeeper (now an advocate for gatekeeping games being sold anywhere else).

The dictionary doesn't actually define nor describe it as one, so at the end of the day, the sun shines, grass grows, birds fly, and Gatekepper is exactly what it is, and it is not documented as an insult. You just choose to see it that way, because of what it describes you doing, which is a negative thing. You not stopping them from buying games is an impossibility already, it's you trying to stop people from wanting options within said games, because you don't want options in them, as you think it will destroy the game, so you want to protect it above all else. I've been watching this thread, on how you've been trying to shoot down every other argument or point in wanting options for difficulty modes, I'm not stupid to this. Also no, Souls is not a Nightclub, and that makes for a poor example. 

Also, the market isn't nearly as big as you're making it out to be.

And yet again I am not, because you're trying to base a few million, while trying to assume it's insanely massive, when compared to other venues and franchises, it really isn't. The proof is all around you mate, in terms of games that allow for varying options of difficulty, storytelling that isn't left completely ambiguous, t hat isn't crushingly difficult, those games greatly outweigh those that are the latter. It's funny how you're asking me to tally up billions of people, when really that's on you for claiming you're not a minority. It's your job to prove you aren't, and sales numbers aren't telling the entire story either. 

Except it isn't, but that's how you keep acting towards every other poster that makes an argument or a comment you extremely disagree with. Yes actually, these "billions" are an amalgamation of all the platforms put together THAT PLAY GAMES. What, you think PC gamers are a small minority, as well as mobile gamers now?. You know damn well there are so many more mobile gamers out there than console already. You say the same for any argument, because you're literally only basing your entire argument solely on "game sales", but even then those games sales are so damn tiny compared to other games out there to begin with, but you'll ignore them for unexplained reasons, and ask me to tally up individual users, but that isn't a sales data grab now is it?. 

Well yes actually, when something is the standard, people tend to uphold and follow to that standard, that's why it's called the "default standard", because that's exactly what it is. It's the norm for games to include the options to change the difficulty settings, and it has been for decades. Going with only one setting is counted as something "new" these days?, wow, what's next, only one weapon throughout an entire game?, what fresh hot takes!.

Fun is subjective at the end of the day, just going to nip that entirely in the bud.



               

Chazore said:

Fun is subjective at the end of the day, just going to nip that entirely in the bud.

That's why you don't FORCE an easy mode in some games. Simple and easy. Thank you for agreeing to this particular point.



Alcyon said:
Chazore said:

Fun is subjective at the end of the day, just going to nip that entirely in the bud.

That's why you don't FORCE an easy mode in some games. Simple and easy. Thank you for agreeing to this particular point.

lmfao so now having the option = forcing? You have to try harder.



Alcyon said:

That's why you don't FORCE an easy mode in some games. Simple and easy. Thank you for agreeing to this particular point.

Except there is no being FORCED into playing on easy mode, when you have the choice to SELECT between 3-4 different game modes in MOST games. 

Thank you for completely misunderstanding the point, and replacing it with something else, in order to make it sound like I'm agreeing with you. 



               

Around the Network
Nu-13 said:
Alcyon said:

That's why you don't FORCE an easy mode in some games. Simple and easy. Thank you for agreeing to this particular point.

lmfao so now having the option = forcing? You have to try harder.

I don't think there is any point, because all this thread has been, is 2-3 people arguing for less choice, while shooting down any pro arguments for including choice.

Ultimately these folk want less choice and they want things done their way, while deflecting it with stealing previous arguments and trying to toss it back at the former, without making up an argument to save their own skin. This is why this topic has already bored me to death. It's nothing new, it's gone nowhere, and these same people are going to argue for less choice till the cows come home. 



               

Chazore said:
Nu-13 said:

lmfao so now having the option = forcing? You have to try harder.

I don't think there is any point, because all this thread has been, is 2-3 people arguing for less choice, while shooting down any pro arguments for including choice.

Ultimately these folk want less choice and they want things done their way, while deflecting it with stealing previous arguments and trying to toss it back at the former, without making up an argument to save their own skin. This is why this topic has already bored me to death. It's nothing new, it's gone nowhere, and these same people are going to argue for less choice till the cows come home. 

Yeah, their intentions are pretty obvious.



Chazore said:
Nu-13 said:

lmfao so now having the option = forcing? You have to try harder.

I don't think there is any point, because all this thread has been, is 2-3 people arguing for less choice, while shooting down any pro arguments for including choice.

Ultimately these folk want less choice and they want things done their way, while deflecting it with stealing previous arguments and trying to toss it back at the former, without making up an argument to save their own skin. This is why this topic has already bored me to death. It's nothing new, it's gone nowhere, and these same people are going to argue for less choice till the cows come home. 

It is basically "don't ask for options or changes in the game I like because that will ruin my fun since if there is an easier option I'll be forced to play it". Makes 0 sense.



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

Chazore said:
Alcyon said:

That's why you don't FORCE an easy mode in some games. Simple and easy. Thank you for agreeing to this particular point.

Except there is no being FORCED into playing on easy mode, when you have the choice to SELECT between 3-4 different game modes in MOST games. 

Thank you for completely misunderstanding the point, and replacing it with something else, in order to make it sound like I'm agreeing with you. 

I said "IN SOME GAMES" not "FORCING ME". Learn to read, please.

And, for the millionth time, when I start a game, I don't have a clue if hard is "more HP but still easy" or "your tears will be made of blood". So, yes, it affects me.

And we have two spammers who are spamming the same debunked lines over and over. I understand why some communities are toxic toward people like you, so "git gud" would probably be a decent answer after so much spam.



DonFerrari said:
Chazore said:

I don't think there is any point, because all this thread has been, is 2-3 people arguing for less choice, while shooting down any pro arguments for including choice.

Ultimately these folk want less choice and they want things done their way, while deflecting it with stealing previous arguments and trying to toss it back at the former, without making up an argument to save their own skin. This is why this topic has already bored me to death. It's nothing new, it's gone nowhere, and these same people are going to argue for less choice till the cows come home. 

It is basically "don't ask for options or changes in the game I like because that will ruin my fun since if there is an easier option I'll be forced to play it". Makes 0 sense.

Learn to read. Ok, for you too "git gud" is a decent answer.