Support NeoGAF

[Ragnar Blackmane]

Why only take half-steps, give us an option to just skip to the final cutscene and the end credits. It's something I can do with movies too, hehe.

Honest opinion: The artistic vision of the developers is the most important thing. Just like with art, if one piece does not appeal to you then move on and accept that it just isn't for you. If the designers and devs want you to experience the game in a certain way as part of their vision, the that should just be accepted.

 

[RedSwirl]

I posted this in another thread but I have an idea for an easy mode for Souls: Just make a New Game -1.

NG+ already serves as hard mode, so just go in the opposite direction. My idea is that it would be designed for players who still want the Souls experience but need a little more time than others to fully acclimate to it. Think of it as a 40-plus-hour tutorial that eventually switches over to the "real" game once you start an "NG+" that's really just regular NG.

I just say this based on how I used to get through difficult games when I was a kid: I would start on the lowest difficulty and then just turn the difficulty up one more level each time I beat it, eventually making it to the highest difficulty. In effect it creates a more gradual difficulty curve that still eventually gets you to the same level more hardcore players are at.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

Seriously? That's pretty interesting.

Yep.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFv6KAdQ5SE

 

[Merc_]

This is because of Cuphead, isn't it?

 

[GlitchyDegree]

Yep.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFv6KAdQ5SE

That's actually pretty cool and a unique way Handling difficulty.

 

[nbnt]

Yes to options, always. Or how about god mode. Every game has it during development, just give players the option to enable it, it doesn't take "so much extra time and effort!" to do it. And you still have to beat the boss/whatever, but you can't die.

I've used god mode through cheat tables in some games, including Dark Souls 2 because I thought that game was garbo compared to the other Souls titles but I wanted to see the whole game anyway, so I used god mode to go through it as fast as possible, and I got some enjoyment out of just wrecking everyone while they desperately tried to kill me.
The easiest difficulty in Persona 4 is basically god mode, and I would've never finished the game without it because I don't enjoy turn based combat at all, but I loved the other aspects of that game.

People enjoy games for all kinds of different reasons. No one is saying From should dumb down their games and add generic shit, but you can have the exact same Dark Souls, Bloodborne, or the hardest game ever, but with an optional god mode. You'd still get the same game, just more accessible to an audience that don't want to deal with that difficulty for any number of reasons, but also don't want to "just go watch it on youtube."

 

[HomunculousBosch]

I posted this in another thread but I have an idea for an easy mode for Souls: Just make a New Game -1.

NG+ already serves as hard mode, so just go in the opposite direction. My idea is that it would be designed for players who still want the Souls experience but need a little more time than others to fully acclimate to it. Think of it as a 40-plus-hour tutorial that eventually switches over to the "real" game once you start an "NG+" that's really just regular NG.

That's fundamentally identical to an "easy mode". I don't see the point in making the distinction.

 

[letmetrythisname]

Just add a "very easy" mode if you're that bad. Quit making video games shittier than they already are right now.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Just finished reading this thread:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1425653

And wanted to say that I really appreciated your posts there. Kinda weird to just bring that up, but you put a lot of effort into writing some of them, so I thought it would be nice to say that, even more than a month later, they still have a lot of value.

Why thank you! ^_^ I do appreciate people reading what I take the time to write.

This is because of Cuphead, isn't it?

I would surely hope not, since bosses make up like, 80% of the game? Unless some people want to defend the asinine notion of being able to skip any part of any game now...?

 

[royox]

I'd finally be able to beat one then. I'd actually like that.

What's the point of playing a Souls Game without bosses? Gosh, the best thing about those games are the bosses and not all the bullshit they throw at you between bosses like traps, ambushes or unfair battles against stupidly OP enemies.

 

[letmetrythisname]

What's the point of playing a Souls Game without bosses? Gosh, the best thing about those games are the bosses and not all the bullshit they throw at you between bosses like traps, ambushes or unfair battles against stupidly OP enemies.

I half-agree with that. It depends on which Souls game. Bloodborne to me was the only one where "the full package" (bosses, exploration, challenge, etc.) was successful, while Dark Souls 1 and Demon's Souls both seemed to waver between tedious areas with cool bosses and really neat areas with dreadful bosses.

 

[RedSwirl]

That's fundamentally identical to an "easy mode". I don't see the point in making the distinction.

It works the concept of an "easy mode" into the Souls system. There would probably have to be some other details worked out, but I don't think it would be impossible to include one in a way that still feels like "Souls."

 

[Ascheroth]

It works the concept of an "easy mode" into the Souls system. There would probably have to be some other details worked out, but I don't think it would be impossible to include one in a way that still feels like "Souls."

Souls game already have the concept of easy mode worked into them. It's called summoning.

 

[Gbraga]

Yes to options, always. Or how about god mode. Every game has it during development, just give players the option to enable it, it doesn't take "so much extra time and effort!" to do it. And you still have to beat the boss/whatever, but you can't die.

I've used god mode through cheat tables in some games, including Dark Souls 2 because I thought that game was garbo compared to the other Souls titles but I wanted to see the whole game anyway, so I used god mode to go through it as fast as possible, and I got some enjoyment out of just wrecking everyone while they desperately tried to kill me.
The easiest difficulty in Persona 4 is basically god mode, and I would've never finished the game without it because I don't enjoy turn based combat at all, but I loved the other aspects of that game.

People enjoy games for all kinds of different reasons. Why does it bother you so much when other people play/enjoy games differently than you? Some people in this thread are basically like the guy behind the comments in this Jim Sterling Commentocracy.

I'm starting to really dislike this Commentocracy thing. Not because of the video itself, Jim is cool, but I'm seeing it used way too often to counter arguments that are completely reasonable and well explained.

Disagree with someone? "Oh, you'll end up on that Jim Sterling thing!", that's rubbish. It's basically shutting up dissonant opinions with the threat of ridicule.

Not to mention that the whole "why does it bother you when people enjoy games differently than you" is a strawman. No one is bothered by the way people play games that are already out, we're talking about games going forward, and design philosophies. We're discussing what the ideal forms of game balance and accessibility options are in our opinions, and what should or shouldn't be required of devs.

I've never seen a single Souls fan or whatever entering a Journey thread to complain that the game is too easy and needed a hard mode with some challenge because they're missing out on the considerable size of the market that looks for challenge in their games. Not one, ever. The only people who seem to be bothered by the existence of games that aren't made for them are the ones asking for an easy mode.

You used cheats in Dark Souls II? Cool. As long as you don't use them in multiplayer, I have no issues with that. It's not From Software's job to allow you to do it, though. If consoles don't give players that level of customization, then play on PC. If devs do start to give the option to enable god mode, then whatever, it's fine, I just have an issue with the mentality that they absolutely should and even thinking otherwise is elitist. They should do whatever the hell they want. You're free to ask for it, of course, as others are free to say they disagree and hope they won't include it, as I'm free to say I don't care either way.

The whole comparison with other media should make this very obvious. You can skip pages in a book due to the nature of books, you can fast forward dvds because that's how they work, you can't go to a cinema and fast forward, because when you don't have control over the hardware playing the movie, you're forced to experience it in the way the creators envisioned, for better or worse. No one expects them to include such option in their dvds in case there's a dvd player that doesn't allow that by default. Would it be cool if cheats came back? Sure. You know what's even more useful than hoping, though? Using Cheat Engine like you did, and applying that to any game you want. If that's only available in one platform, well, that's not the game developer's fault.

If Netflix out of nowhere stopped allowing users to fast forward or use chapter select, would you complain to each film maker or to Netflix? I know it's a terrible comparison that doesn't really makes sense in the context of videogames, but that's precisely the point, it should never have been used in the first place, it's nonsense. By comparing games to other forms of entertainment that are widely recognized as art, you'll push people who are a bit insecure about games being art in their current form to agree with you out of principle. If books and films do it, then it must be the right thing. Except that's not even true between those two art forms, as you can see in the movie theater example, where, unlike books, you're not able to skip anything in its original form.

 

[Captain Fun]

Souls game already have the concept of easy mode worked into them. It's called summoning.

While this is the game's way of providing assistance for players who are struggling, it's still not that similar to an actual easy mode. Players you summon are inconsistent, summoning opens you up to invasion and only works in some areas, and it costs a resource to try. People seem to want a mode where players do more damage and enemies do less.

I don't think every game needs or benefits from an easy mode. Take Souls for example- since having the ability to summon other players rather than skip bosses or bump the difficulty down has played a big role in shaping both the games themselves and the communities around them. There are in-game covenants that incentivize helping other players who are struggling and those would risk drying up if players would just rather skip them, or play on easy.

 

[DerpHause]

Souls game already have the concept of easy mode worked into them. It's called summoning.

To be honest I feel mechanics like this are more beneficial than skipping section of a game. Dynamic difficulty, especially when it's under the users control and works within the lore of the game is imho always preferential to a skip.

That skill leaves games where a skill check and pattern learning are the whole point, but those are so few as to be not requiring diluting that focus.

 

[Danjin44]

Souls game already have the concept of easy mode worked into them. It's called summoning.

Also in Catherine you can buy items to make puzzle much easier but if you do by them then you will won't able to get gold on that stage.

 

[Manu]

Not to mention that the whole "why does it bother you when people enjoy games differently than you" is a strawman. No one is bothered by the way people play games that are already out, we're talking about games going forward, and design philosophies. We're discussing what the ideal forms of game balance and accessibility options are in our opinions, and what should or shouldn't be required of devs.

I've never seen a single Souls fan or whatever entering a Journey thread to complain that the game is too easy and needed a hard mode with some challenge because they're missing out on the considerable size of the market that looks for challenge in their games. Not one, ever. The only people who seem to be bothered by the existence of games that aren't made for them are the ones asking for an easy mode.

You used cheats in Dark Souls II? Cool. As long as you don't use them in multiplayer, I have no issues with that. It's not From Software's job to allow you to do it, though. If consoles don't give players that level of customization, then play on PC. If devs do start to give the option to enable god mode, then whatever, it's fine, I just have an issue with the mentality that they absolutely should and even thinking otherwise is elitist. They should do whatever the hell they want. You're free to ask for it, of course, as others are free to say they disagree and hope they won't include it, as I'm free to say I don't care either way.

Thank you.

 

[UncleSporky]

Souls has difficulty options, we've been over it on this same page. Cuphead is one example and as successful as the game is (and I want it be) where do you see the sales cap on that? If MS doesn't see the returns on that title there is no way they are investing money for a sequel. Now compare that to most popular, breakout new IPs like Angry Birds or Minecraft. There's been a resurgence in roguelikes/lites. Again, you're still missing the point that these creators can still make the game they want to while accommodating for the lowest common denominator in an unskilled player. You still have yet to prove how introducing options is a negative thing.

You keep going after people's specific examples, and they keep giving you all sorts of different ones which you reject for arbitrary reasons. Yet I've yet to see you provide any actual good examples that support your own points. Where are all these games that suddenly provided boss skip options and immediately broke all the sales records? As opposed to all the modern games that are getting more difficult and "exclusionary" and yet breaking sales records? You have yet to prove that allowing boss skipping is a positive thing. You've made a few hollow statements but have nothing in the way of proof. But there are tons of counterexamples of massively popular games without those options.

Multiplayer games are an entirely different beast and not what we're talking about at all. Not sure you want to cite MMOs either since most encounters continuously get nerfed after their introduction so players will be more successful at tehem.

Oh of course, let's just not talk about a major counterexample because it doesn't fit your view. Seriously, where's your call to make multiplayer games more easy and welcoming, skipping the competition and claiming a win? Some games need to be more welcoming but not others? Earlier you said that if players lose too much they'll never go back and buy DLC and sequels, so how are you planning to fix multiplayer games in the same way as single player ones to stop this from happening?

Nerfing of battles =/= skipping bosses and still getting rewarded. It falls completely in line with what I've been talking about: developers care about the difficulty of their encounters. That is, not that it simply be difficult, but tuning it to be as difficult as it's intended to be without adding a literal skip button. That's the one thing you don't seem to be able to understand. You keep bringing it back to "brutal difficulty" and not thinking that it's about intentional design and balance of any kind, not just ultra-hard. Part of a game getting slightly easier isn't supporting your point. It supports the idea that developers would rather take time to fix what is wrong than abandon it entirely by letting players skip it.

Everything is hardcore permadeath? Really? That's a literal statement you want to make?

False incredulity when you know the proliferation of that game type doesn't support what you're saying. Face it, the facts show that A) developers aren't chasing the dollar so hard that they want all their games to be finishable by all people, and B) players aren't so upset by game difficulty that they're turning against developers and avoiding buying those games. Quite the opposite, they're selling better than ever. And all you can muster is "really?"

 

[Aters]

At first my reaction is hell no. Then I remember beating UC4 recently. Please let me skip the final fight in UC4.

 

[Exodust]

You’re arguing semantics. The game’s easiest difficulty with all auto mods on, which was how I played, means that I literally could have just done nothing during most encounters and still beat the game. I could have put the controller down and watched the game play itself. I don’t see how that’s really any different than just having a “skip” button.

By no means I am to judge someone for playing a game on easy as long as they enjoy it. But that involves playing it. Why not just watch a let's play at that point? Why waste your money if you have issues with the act of playing a game, due to a disability or not?

 

[DerpHause]

At first my reaction is hell no. Then I remember beating UC4 recently. Please let me skip the final fight in UC4.

I'm not sure we're arguing against chapter selects for revisiting favorite parts of a game, are we?

On that note, more chapter selects for revisiting favorite parts of a game please.

 

[Ascheroth]

I'm starting to really dislike this Commentocracy thing. Not because of the video itself, Jim is cool, but I'm seeing it used way too often to counter arguments that are completely reasonable and well explained.

Disagree with someone? "Oh, you'll end up on that Jim Sterling thing!", that's rubbish. It's basically shutting up dissonant opinions with the threat of ridicule.

Not to mention that the whole "why does it bother you when people enjoy games differently than you" is a strawman. No one is bothered by the way people play games that are already out, we're talking about games going forward, and design philosophies. We're discussing what the ideal forms of game balance and accessibility options are in our opinions, and what should or shouldn't be required of devs.

I've never seen a single Souls fan or whatever entering a Journey thread to complain that the game is too easy and needed a hard mode with some challenge because they're missing out on the considerable size of the market that looks for challenge in their games. Not one, ever. The only people who seem to be bothered by the existence of games that aren't made for them are the ones asking for an easy mode.

You used cheats in Dark Souls II? Cool. As long as you don't use them in multiplayer, I have no issues with that. It's not From Software's job to allow you to do it, though. If consoles don't give players that level of customization, then play on PC. If devs do start to give the option to enable god mode, then whatever, it's fine, I just have an issue with the mentality that they absolutely should and even thinking otherwise is elitist. They should do whatever the hell they want. You're free to ask for it, of course, as others are free to say they disagree and hope they won't include it, as I'm free to say I don't care either way.

The whole comparison with other media should make this very obvious. You can skip pages in a book due to the nature of books, you can fast forward dvds because that's how they work, you can't go to a cinema and fast forward, because when you don't have control over the hardware playing the movie, you're forced to experience it in the way the creators envisioned, for better or worse. No one expects them to include such option in their dvds in case there's a dvd player that doesn't allow that by default. Would it be cool if cheats came back? Sure. You know what's even more useful than hoping, though? Using Cheat Engine like you did, and applying that to any game you want. If that's only available in one platform, well, that's not the game developer's fault.

If Netflix out of nowhere stopped allowing users to fast forward or use chapter select, would you complain to each film maker or to Netflix? I know it's a terrible comparison that doesn't really makes sense in the context of videogames, but that's precisely the point, it should never have been used in the first place, it's nonsense. By comparing games to other forms of entertainment that are widely recognized as art, you'll push people who are a bit insecure about games being art in their current form to agree with you out of principle. If books and films do it, then it must be the right thing. Except that's not even true between those two art forms, as you can see in the movie theater example, where, unlike books, you're not able to skip anything in its original form.

I made that same point earlier, but you put it a bit more eloquently.
The onus is not on the developers to provide the tools for players to customize their experience in ways that weren't intended, it's on the platform.
Play on PC if you want to do what you want or bug the console platform holders for the ability to cheat in games again, 'problem' solved.

 

[Saint Pablo]

Dara Ó Briain Loves Videogames

cry me a river and all that

learn the game and improve your skill

 

[Airola]

Here lies the problem:

Last year I talked about how deeply peculiar is the perceived notion that people have to be GOOD at games for them to be properly enjoyed. Of course they don’t!

While the writer is right in that people don't have to be good at games for them to be properly enjoyed, he seems to assume that properly enjoying a game means you have to be able to finish them.

No, properly enjoying the game means that if you are good enough you will get further in the game and if you are not you won't and If the player can't enjoy that, the fault is in the player who plays the game. It is very much ok and very achievable to enjoy a game without getting far in it.

You can't skip a tennis match and take the prize too. You can't skip an event in decathlon and get enough points to get the prize.

 

[Effect]

Imagine is Souls games did this.

I would love them if they did this. I generally hate the bosses in souls games. They're the WORST part of those games for me. I enjoyed the challenge the non-boss enemies give though. The bosses are a frustrating mess and outright bad game design. I don't think they're in anyway shape or form fair. Just because people can do them doesn't make them good. I've yet to encounter anything that makes me think differently in regards to those games. I want to skip them in the worse way.

 

[Ascheroth]

Here lies the problem:



While the writer is right in that people don't have to be good at games for them to be properly enjoyed, he seems to assume that properly enjoying a game means you have to be able to finish them.

No, properly enjoying the game means that if you are good enough you will get further in the game and if you are not you won't and If the player can't enjoy that, the fault is in the player who plays the game. It is very much ok and very achievable to enjoy a game without getting far in it.

You can't skip a tennis match and take the prize too. You can't skip an event in decathlon and get enough points to get the prize.

Very true.
I like playing horror games. But I absolutely suck at most of them. I made it a grand total of 30 minutes into Amnesia so far

Spoiler

I spent more time playing the Pokemon mod though

. I played DreadOut in 2 minute steps until I got comfortable.
I'm not complaining though, because I love it even though I take ages to get through those games if at all.
I mean what would the alternative be? The "super-bright lights no scary-scary" mode where you just walk through corridors and nothing happens? What's even the point then?

 

[TheRedSnifit]

You've named four, five at best. How many games have been created? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? You can name specific examples, but they are a drop in the bucket.

So you're saying that, in order for me to prove that there's an appreciable number of games that attempt to be difficult, I have to personally assemble a list of several thousand? Yes, this sounds reasonable and absolutely is not moving the goalposts.

And you still haven't answered the core question, which is why you're so upset at what this fraction of a percent of games are doing, while 99.99999% apparently cater to you.

Yes, they are. Do you think it's healthy if people purchase a game, get stuck on an encounter, and can no longer progress in the game? Because more than likely they won't come back and purchase the next installment of the series, they won't be buying DLC, more likely to resell the game, etc. This is bad business for the developers and again, the overwhelming majority of them are making games to make a product, not art.

An R-rated movie is just a suggestion, and just because it's an R-rated movie is intended for older audiences doesn't mean it won't make people 17+ cry or have nightmares. I don't get this point at all.

You have a shockingly utilitarian take on this, where media isn't truly art and its worth is determined solely by how many copies it sells. Are Call of Duty and Guitar Hero the epitome of what games should strive for?

This is a great example of some things I was talking about earlier, which is that people who support this don't think that gameplay is art and see it as disposable, and that "games should be for everyone" is a thinly-disguised way of saying "all games should be for this one specific audience, everyone else be damned."

 

[Majora]

While the writer is right in that people don't have to be good at games for them to be properly enjoyed, he seems to assume that properly enjoying a game means you have to be able to finish them.

No, properly enjoying the game means that if you are good enough you will get further in the game and if you are not you won't and If the player can't enjoy that, the fault is in the player who plays the game. It is very much ok and very achievable to enjoy a game without getting far in it.

You can't skip a tennis match and take the prize too. You can't skip an event in decathlon and get enough points to get the prize.

This is bollocks. If someone pays 60 dollars for an experience the developers should be bending over backwards to ensure that as many people as possible have the opportunity to see as much of the game as possible. Doing otherwise is a dereliction of duty on the part of the developer, akin to taking the money and running.

60 dollars is not an insignificant amount of money to spend on an entertainment product and players have every right to expect that for that amount of money all skill levels will be catered for. If the tools and options available in-game do not allow a player of a particular skill level to progress past a particular point that is a failure of the developer not the player.

Games have long since evolved past the point where most people see them purely as tests of skill or reflexes. To say that players should just get good to see the rest of the game they spent good money on is archaic.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I'm starting to really dislike this Commentocracy thing. Not because of the video itself, Jim is cool, but I'm seeing it used way too often to counter arguments that are completely reasonable and well explained.

Disagree with someone? "Oh, you'll end up on that Jim Sterling thing!", that's rubbish. It's basically shutting up dissonant opinions with the threat of ridicule.

Not to mention that the whole "why does it bother you when people enjoy games differently than you" is a strawman. No one is bothered by the way people play games that are already out, we're talking about games going forward, and design philosophies. We're discussing what the ideal forms of game balance and accessibility options are in our opinions, and what should or shouldn't be required of devs.

I've never seen a single Souls fan or whatever entering a Journey thread to complain that the game is too easy and needed a hard mode with some challenge because they're missing out on the considerable size of the market that looks for challenge in their games. Not one, ever. The only people who seem to be bothered by the existence of games that aren't made for them are the ones asking for an easy mode.

You used cheats in Dark Souls II? Cool. As long as you don't use them in multiplayer, I have no issues with that. It's not From Software's job to allow you to do it, though. If consoles don't give players that level of customization, then play on PC. If devs do start to give the option to enable god mode, then whatever, it's fine, I just have an issue with the mentality that they absolutely should and even thinking otherwise is elitist. They should do whatever the hell they want. You're free to ask for it, of course, as others are free to say they disagree and hope they won't include it, as I'm free to say I don't care either way.

The whole comparison with other media should make this very obvious. You can skip pages in a book due to the nature of books, you can fast forward dvds because that's how they work, you can't go to a cinema and fast forward, because when you don't have control over the hardware playing the movie, you're forced to experience it in the way the creators envisioned, for better or worse. No one expects them to include such option in their dvds in case there's a dvd player that doesn't allow that by default. Would it be cool if cheats came back? Sure. You know what's even more useful than hoping, though? Using Cheat Engine like you did, and applying that to any game you want. If that's only available in one platform, well, that's not the game developer's fault.

Couldn't agree more with all of the above. Well said.

I would love them if they did this. I generally hate the bosses in souls games. They're the WORST part of those games for me. I enjoyed the challenge the non-boss enemies give though. The bosses are a frustrating mess and outright bad game design. I don't think they're in anyway shape or form fair. Just because people can do them doesn't make them good. I've yet to encounter anything that makes me think differently in regards to those games. I want to skip them in the worse way.

Care to back up this ridiculous and inflammatory assertion in some way? Because right now I'm just gonna assume that you're bad at the game and are whining.

Edit:

This is bollocks. If someone pays 60 dollars for an experience the developers should be bending over backwards to ensure that as many people as possible have the opportunity to see as much of the game as possible. Doing otherwise is a dereliction of duty on the part of the developer, akin to taking the money and running.

LOL, fucking what

Talk about childish entitlement, holy shit.

60 dollars is not an insignificant amount of money to spend on an entertainment product and players have every right to expect that for that amount of money all skill levels will be catered for. If the tools and options available in-game do not allow a player of a particular skill level to progress past a particular point that is a failure of the developer not the player.

Games have long since evolved past the point where most people see them purely as tests of skill or reflexes. To say that players should just get good to see the rest of the game they spent good money on is archaic.

I can't even... no. Archaic? I mean... that's what games are and always have been. If a game requires zero skill of any kind (doesn't have to be reflexes, mind, can be tactical skills, puzzle-solving skills, etc.) it's boring, and I don't want it. You're free to play those types of games, but to claim that games that DO require skills to progress are "archaic" is laughable.

And frankly, the insinuation that devs making hard games that not everyone can complete are essentially thieves ("taking the money and running") is so preposterous and offensive, I can only laugh. Are you trolling?

 

[letmetrythisname]

This is bollocks. If someone pays 60 dollars for an experience the developers should be bending over backwards to ensure that as many people as possible have the opportunity to see as much of the game as possible. Doing otherwise is a dereliction of duty on the part of the developer, akin to taking the money and running.

60 dollars is not an insignificant amount of money to spend on an entertainment product and players have every right to expect that for that amount of money all skill levels will be catered for. If the tools and options available in-game do not allow a player of a particular skill level to progress past a particular point that is a failure of the developer not the player.

Games have long since evolved past the point where most people see them purely as tests of skill or reflexes. To say that players should just get good to see the rest of the game they spent good money on is archaic.

You can still trade the game back in, or in the case of platforms that at least try to care about their customers, get a full refund. It's just a game; an entertainment product. Regardless of its price, it does not have to be for everyone. It's not like this is healthcare or education, which are things I do believe everyone should have access to. This is just video games.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

 

[DerpHause]

I would love them if they did this. I generally hate the bosses in souls games. They're the WORST part of those games for me. I enjoyed the challenge the non-boss enemies give though. The bosses are a frustrating mess and outright bad game design. I don't think they're in anyway shape or form fair. Just because people can do them doesn't make them good. I've yet to encounter anything that makes me think differently in regards to those games. I want to skip them in the worse way.

Just because you personally don't like them doesn't make them poorly designed any more than people being able to do them makes them well designed. If you actually have a reason to call them poorly designed I am interested in hearing it though.

This is bollocks. If someone pays 60 dollars for an experience the developers should be bending over backwards to ensure that as many people as possible have the opportunity to see as much of the game as possible. Doing otherwise is a dereliction of duty on the part of the developer, akin to taking the money and running.

How deliciously contradictory and nonsensical. People pay $60 for an experience, so that experience needs to be altered, diminished and/or reduced to ensure that value is preserved? Further the cost of something is actually determinant of how accessible it needs to be how exactly? What relationship actually exists there? Does that obligation your creating for the types of experiences you're mandating scale directly or inversely with cost? And why is that even a factor?

Is this some strange world where you hand someone $60 and they give you a game at random, where you're liberated of the burden of choice to pick up what suits you, and thus everything must suit you because you have no choice?

 

[RedSwirl]

So a main argument in the "games are their own medium" thing is that something like chapter skip would have to be individually employed by each developer, whereas individual authors and directors don't have to do that for their media. I think that actually speaks to a more general problem in gaming: There are a lot of quality-of-life features or other features that probably should be universal but aren't. It might be possible to get some of these under the control of platform holders.

One example: skipping or pausing cut scenes. We used to complain about unskippable cut scenes all the time, then it pretty much became universal for players to be able to skip them. These days it's very common but not universal to be able to pause cut scenes. That's someting every developer has to individually code in, but everybody still thinks it should be universal because you don't wanna deal with situations like the 30-minute cut scene towards the end of Metal Gear Solid 2. Imagine watching a whole 30-minute episode of a TV show and not being able to pause, fast forward, or rewind? Sure in video games it's not a platform-wide automatic feature, but the end user doesn't care. It's little things like this that probably turn a lot of potential mainstream consumers away from video games.

Another example: saving the game. We still wrestle with this, and the current popular solutions seem to be either just having checkpoints everywhere or letting you save and load anywhere like most PC games have always been doing. I just believe people should be able to stop playing a game whenever they need to without losing progress. It'd be great if a game console or platform could have some kind of universal save & quit function.

How many times have you had tell another person you can't stop playing the game right at that moment because you can't save your progress right there or you can't pause?

Remappable buttons used to be near universal too but that's gone now on consoles. I don't know man. Maybe certain things should be requirements for cert, or maybe console manufacturers should try to implement them at the OS level (a successful example would be screen capture). Or maybe all developers should just accept them as common things you should put in your game.

Personally I think little niggling issues like this are part of the reason console gaming never broke out of a certain limited audience compared to mobile and PC gaming. PC gaming gives each customer more control over their game (I'm including the really mainstream PC games here), whereas mobile gaming puts more constraints on developers in service of greater accessibility. Console gaming in contrast has always forced users on some level to play on the game's terms, terms which aren't always designed for the most accessibility. Those terms often stem from an era when console games were still primarily played by children with lots of free time.

But I see people in this thread defending that as "the developers' artistic vision" or something. Others make posts suggesting a somewhat narrow view of what video games are supposed to be, like if you're not wiling to "git gud" at this challenge then just go to YouTube. I'm not saying all games should be all things to all people, but this mentality is part of the reason console games have such limited appeal today. Is it really that bad if some people have a bit more control over how they play a game and how they spend their time with the game they bought?

A small point: How many people against chapter skipping have also played old ROMs using save states which circumvent the game's original save systems?

 

[TheRedSnifit]

I'm starting to really dislike this Commentocracy thing. Not because of the video itself, Jim is cool, but I'm seeing it used way too often to counter arguments that are completely reasonable and well explained.

Disagree with someone? "Oh, you'll end up on that Jim Sterling thing!", that's rubbish. It's basically shutting up dissonant opinions with the threat of ridicule.

Not to mention that the whole "why does it bother you when people enjoy games differently than you" is a strawman. No one is bothered by the way people play games that are already out, we're talking about games going forward, and design philosophies. We're discussing what the ideal forms of game balance and accessibility options are in our opinions, and what should or shouldn't be required of devs.

I've never seen a single Souls fan or whatever entering a Journey thread to complain that the game is too easy and needed a hard mode with some challenge because they're missing out on the considerable size of the market that looks for challenge in their games. Not one, ever. The only people who seem to be bothered by the existence of games that aren't made for them are the ones asking for an easy mode.

You used cheats in Dark Souls II? Cool. As long as you don't use them in multiplayer, I have no issues with that. It's not From Software's job to allow you to do it, though. If consoles don't give players that level of customization, then play on PC. If devs do start to give the option to enable god mode, then whatever, it's fine, I just have an issue with the mentality that they absolutely should and even thinking otherwise is elitist. They should do whatever the hell they want. You're free to ask for it, of course, as others are free to say they disagree and hope they won't include it, as I'm free to say I don't care either way.

The whole comparison with other media should make this very obvious. You can skip pages in a book due to the nature of books, you can fast forward dvds because that's how they work, you can't go to a cinema and fast forward, because when you don't have control over the hardware playing the movie, you're forced to experience it in the way the creators envisioned, for better or worse. No one expects them to include such option in their dvds in case there's a dvd player that doesn't allow that by default. Would it be cool if cheats came back? Sure. You know what's even more useful than hoping, though? Using Cheat Engine like you did, and applying that to any game you want. If that's only available in one platform, well, that's not the game developer's fault.

If Netflix out of nowhere stopped allowing users to fast forward or use chapter select, would you complain to each film maker or to Netflix? I know it's a terrible comparison that doesn't really makes sense in the context of videogames, but that's precisely the point, it should never have been used in the first place, it's nonsense. By comparing games to other forms of entertainment that are widely recognized as art, you'll push people who are a bit insecure about games being art in their current form to agree with you out of principle. If books and films do it, then it must be the right thing. Except that's not even true between those two art forms, as you can see in the movie theater example, where, unlike books, you're not able to skip anything in its original form.

.

 

[Ascheroth]

This is bollocks. If someone pays 60 dollars for an experience the developers should be bending over backwards to ensure that as many people as possible have the opportunity to see as much of the game as possible. Doing otherwise is a dereliction of duty on the part of the developer, akin to taking the money and running.

60 dollars is not an insignificant amount of money to spend on an entertainment product and players have every right to expect that for that amount of money all skill levels will be catered for. If the tools and options available in-game do not allow a player of a particular skill level to progress past a particular point that is a failure of the developer not the player.

Games have long since evolved past the point where most people see them purely as tests of skill or reflexes. To say that players should just get good to see the rest of the game they spent good money on is archaic.

How about informing youself about a game before you buy it? Or refund it. Or use cheats or mods if you really want to have it your way.
See my post above. If I buy a horror-game but am too scared to play through it, would you say there should be a "no-horror" mode provided by the devs, just so that I can 'complete' the game?

 

[Manu]

This is bollocks. If someone pays 60 dollars for an experience the developers should be bending over backwards to ensure that as many people as possible have the opportunity to see as much of the game as possible. Doing otherwise is a dereliction of duty on the part of the developer, akin to taking the money and running.

Jesus Christ.

 

[RenegadeXV8]

I would love them if they did this. I generally hate the bosses in souls games. They're the WORST part of those games for me. I enjoyed the challenge the non-boss enemies give though. The bosses are a frustrating mess and outright bad game design. I don't think they're in anyway shape or form fair. Just because people can do them doesn't make them good. I've yet to encounter anything that makes me think differently in regards to those games. I want to skip them in the worse way.

What is this latest trend of people calling something "bad game design" simply because they don't like it?

Saw someone earlier call Divinity's turn based combat "bad gameplay design" because it "limits the players' movement freedom". Utterly stupid.

It's ridiculously disingenuous.

 

[Kusagari]

This is bollocks. If someone pays 60 dollars for an experience the developers should be bending over backwards to ensure that as many people as possible have the opportunity to see as much of the game as possible. Doing otherwise is a dereliction of duty on the part of the developer, akin to taking the money and running.

60 dollars is not an insignificant amount of money to spend on an entertainment product and players have every right to expect that for that amount of money all skill levels will be catered for. If the tools and options available in-game do not allow a player of a particular skill level to progress past a particular point that is a failure of the developer not the player.

Games have long since evolved past the point where most people see them purely as tests of skill or reflexes. To say that players should just get good to see the rest of the game they spent good money on is archaic.

Forcing developers to cater to every demographic and compromise their own vision is when this industry dies for good.

 

[Sir Ilpalazzo]

This is bollocks. If someone pays 60 dollars for an experience the developers should be bending over backwards to ensure that as many people as possible have the opportunity to see as much of the game as possible.

Everyone has the same opportunity to finish any game if they have the desire to see it through.

Beyond people who are unfortunately severely physically disabled, there is not a single person on NeoGAF who does not have the ability (has been given the opportunity) to finish Dark Souls. Everyone here can beat Cuphead, if they want. Everyone here can beat Cuphead on Expert mode with all S ranks - if they want. The issue here is not a matter of "opportunity".

 

[Murkas]

I'm starting to really dislike this Commentocracy thing. Not because of the video itself, Jim is cool, but I'm seeing it used way too often to counter arguments that are completely reasonable and well explained.

Disagree with someone? "Oh, you'll end up on that Jim Sterling thing!", that's rubbish. It's basically shutting up dissonant opinions with the threat of ridicule.

.

Yeah I so seeing it becoming Gaming side's PC Principal from South Park.

*Says something a bit progressive*

"LOL YOU PC BRAH? PC PRINCIPAL!"


My go to example in this argument is always Super Meat Boy, I know I've posted this in a few similar threads. It's a great game, finished it on 360, PC, and PS4. Completed the game and the Cotton World as Bandage Girl. I could not for the fuck of me complete the Dark World levels (or even unlock some of them). I just wasn't good enough, and that's ok. I just moved on, it would be weird if I would make threads or ask that they add a feature that just lets me teleport to the end or insta clear it. It would also be weird if I went into Gran Turismo threads and ask why there isn't a mode where there's weapons like Mario Kart and Wipeout, I mean hey it's an option and more options are always good right?

Although having said that, this every game should have an easy mode thing has been happening for years now and I think I'm at a point were I'm just like "fuck it, fine whatever."

Not every game needs to appeal to everyone at every time.

 

[Duchess O'Death]

Forcing developers to cater to every demographic and compromise their own vision is when this industry dies for good.

Giving us more options would mean they don't have to compromise anything though, wouldn't it?
How's that forcing them to do anything other than sticking to their vision without worries?
They can make the game as difficult as they want with no compromises because they know people who don't like it would have options to skip it.

 

[DerpHause]

So a main argument in the "games are their own medium" thing is that something like chapter skip would have to be individually employed by each developer, whereas individual authors and directors don't have to do that for their media. I think that actually speaks to a more general problem in gaming: There are a lot of quality-of-life features or other features that probably should be universal but aren't. It might be possible to get some of these under the control of platform holders.

Platforms run code. Code has to explicitly create and enable a feature. If we're talking about comparing the inherent differences in media we have to acknowledge that it takes 0 effort to create a video or book one can skip through since the mediums inherently support the act.

One doesn't explicitly need to create the ability to access a page in a series of pages or a image in a sequence of images, that's fundamental to the nature of the way information on those media is packaged. That's not the case for media that's sequentially dependent on occurrences in that instance of the media prior. As such it's not a given that skipping is ever costless to implement on the game or platform level.

Personally I think little niggling issues like this are part of the reason console gaming never broke out of a certain limited audience compared to mobile and PC gaming. PC gaming gives each customer more control over their game (I'm including the really mainstream PC games here), whereas mobile gaming puts more constraints on developers in service of greater accessibility. Console gaming in contrast has always forced users on some level to play on the game's terms, terms which aren't always designed for the most accessibility. Those terms often stem from an era when console games were still primarily played by children with lots of free time.

Right, it's accessibility rather than ubiquity in ownership driven by other, more essential functions on the mobile side, or by open platforms allowing less curation (while ironically falling well behind console in sales in many "mainstream" genres).

But I see people in this thread defending that as "the developers' artistic vision" or something. Others make posts suggesting a somewhat narrow view of what video games are supposed to be, like if you're not wiling to "git gud" at this challenge then just go to YouTube. I'm not saying all games should be all things to all people, but this mentality is part of the reason console games have such limited appeal today. Is it really that bad if some people have a bit more control over how they play a game and how they spend their time with the game they bought?

It seems like we're rewriting history here, or at least creating the assumption that gaming is not a widespread hobby either by excluding casual gaming or presuming that casual gaming isn't being catered to on the platforms most suited to it, thus making consoles a poor alternative for that segment. Rather, it's the fault of games not made for that segment for not being made for that segment somehow.

 

[Sir Ilpalazzo]

Giving us more options would mean they don't have to compromise anything though, wouldn't it?
How's that forcing them to do anything other than sticking to their vision without worries?
They can make the game as difficult as they want with no compromises because they know people who don't like it would have options to skip it.

Giving the player less options can be part of a vision too - and a commendable one. Demon's Souls gained the reputation it did (and spawned the series it did) because its creators didn't compromise on their vision for the sake of less dedicated players.

 

[Radnom]

But where does the line end? Where does it become a situation where the entire game has no identity. "I don't like scary games so let me turn Alien: Isolation into Super Mario Bros?" Sounds preposterous but I think it is pulling at the same strings that the author is mocking. Where is the line? I personally don't care for Boss Battles but I am not calling for them to be completely removed from gaming. It seems different from what he is saying but is it really? I don't like scary games so the next Resident Evil should have what, a 'no fear' mode? A walk around the colorfully reimagined locale painting it with bright colors? There is already a game for that, it is called Splatoon.

What on earth are you talking about!? This is a simple statement - 'let us skip boss fights'. Along the lines of 'let us skip cutscenes'. Not 'change the entire game into another game'.

Upon completing the game I see no issue with turning off bosses in a separate mode. Cinema mode or speed run mode, or chapter select or whatever.

The core experience needs to be a fluid one from start to finish and one that should require completing the base content.

Once you beat it all bets are off though, and is fine.

How do you know if someone's completed the game before or not though? I've often deleted games and their save files after playing them. If I want to play it again and skip fights I am not interested in replaying I shouldn't need to keep my save file.

But outright wanting to skip boss fights?
What kinda pussies are these people?

Back in my days we couldn't even save the game!
So get off my lawn with your cheap ass "skip the boss fight" nonsense bullcrap.
[/grumpy old ass oldschool gamer]

Read my other post with myriad reasons to skip that aren't all "I can't beat it".

• Played it before, find the boss tedious/not fun
• Played it before, find the boss too easy and don't want to waste time
• Played it before, already perfected it, trying to learn to speed run the section after it
• Want to show a friend a cool moment later in the game
• Sometimes it's fun to cheat - 'IDDQD' is legendary as a famous cheat code. There are probably thousands of people that could still input a GTA cheat code from memory. This person's using God Mode in Doom to blow off steam. I had an example earlier of Civilization including cheats menu in the game's menu that I really enjoyed playing around with as a kid. Lode Runner: The Legend Returns in my display picture had a similar thing, cheats from a dropdown. If I recall correctly, there was a skip level option. It didn't ruin the game.
• Some people enjoy the story parts of the game more than the boss battles. Maybe they really enjoy the story of Horizon: Zero Dawn but find the bigger battles too stressful.
• Maybe the boss battles are broken or don't support the player's preferred gameplay style, i.e. the Deus Ex Human Revolution example I brought up in a previous post.
• And then, maybe this one boss battle is simply too hard for the player and they don't want to play it.

If you don't have time to watch The Godfather, sure you can skip to the end. But you didn't watch the Godfather. You skipped most of it and found out how it ends.

Sure, it's obviously not the ideal way to experience it. But the option is there for people who, for example, want to see a particular scene. The chapter select option isn't locked on the DVD until after it detects you have watched the film before. And it doesn't get in the way of the film for people who want to watch it all the way through (unless it has spoilers in the chapter titles, I hate it when that happens).

Games aren't movies or books, the medium is different. Of course I know that. But as a developer I have the ability to add a 'skip boss' button that won't take anything away from the game for people who want to fight them, and will allow more people to enjoy more of the game.

*buy Monster Hunter*
*skip quest*
*skip all the way to final hunter rank*
*enjoy rubies and plates*

Sure, why not?
Don't let them take their hunter online, but yeah! Maybe they've played every Monster Hunter in the series and don't want to take down any more Great Jaggis ever again and just want to see the new stuff?
Or even better, let them take it online to play with their friends who need a fourth hunter but they just got the game and haven't had time to rank up to their status yet.

But yeah. I'm not against easy difficulties and such in general, but the concept that developers are obliged to give you the "full experience" even if you're playing on the easiest mode and skipping bosses, which naturally follows including such options in the "official" game. This almost inevitably leads to the game being dumbed down in nearly all respects (compare Doom 2016, still a fantastic game, to OG Doom in terms of level design), with harder difficulties simply being tacked on and usually not that hard anyways.

It's not the full experience - if you skip the boss, you're missing out on the fun (or perhaps not fun for some) experience of fighting the boss, the cool animations, the feeling of victory - skipping the boss is absolutely the 'wrong' way to play the game. But the option should be there.

I also think that an easily-accessible "Skip boss" button is a negative, because people have trouble resisting these things. It's like when people play Metal Slug, mash the Continue button forty times, and then complain about how the game is too short. They're ruining it for themselves, they know they're ruining it, but they can't resist Continuing when it's right there.

That's why I reckon there should be an 'enable continues' option in the main menu of the game (right next to 'enable boss skip'), so the option can be displayed as obviously not the intended way to play the game. At that point if you're mashing continue in Metal Slug you know you're doing it wrong. Of course, in Metal Slug's case it's because it was originally an arcade game where every continue required a coin, and now people play ports that don't require that obstacle.

Cuphead having a boss skip button doesn't make any sense because there wouldn't be anything much left. However it could have an 'infinite lives' option hidden in the menu.

Hell, the article in the OP states as much:

There are obvious solutions. The most simple being the option to switch off the option of such a button when starting a new game, and impossible to switch on without restarting. Perfect, right? Those without the self control to impulse use it can remove the option, those who just want to enjoy the game differently than you have it on. Done. Then, if that weren’t enough (and it is), there can be reward mechanisms.

Clearly not, because now we have people wanting skippable bosses and shit like this and I for one am glad we are spared this garbage:

This is a topic about skipping bosses, not overbearing HUDs and quest compasses and minimaps and stuff, stick to the topic at hand.

Having the option is not free/instant. Devs have to make it work into the game and that takes time and resources that could be spent on other things that the people actually playing the content will want.

It's true, but overall, a boss skip option is in most cases probably easier to implement than, for example, difficulty settings.

And, again, just because someone wants to skip a boss doesn't mean they haven't beaten it previously.

People saying "it's trivial, just add a skip button, there, done!" are completely ignoring game design and game progression.

A lot of bosses are there to teach you about core mechanics. Take early Nioh bosses for example.
[snip]
Not only do these bosses teach, and test, the player about important gameplay mechanics, they are an important part of the game content themselves and pretty much the most fun and interesting part.

Sure, the bosses in Deus Ex HR were trash and could probably be skippable, but that's because they were badly designed and didn't fit in with the game's design philosophy. But that doesn't apply to every game. Souls games, Nioh, Ys games with skippable bosses are a patently absurd idea.

Sure, you're absolutely missing out on potentially crucial knowledge if you skip a boss the first time you encounter it. If someone skips a boss it's really easy to see that they will likely struggle against other areas of the game without that knowledge. But, as I've stated, there are other reasons to skip bosses than 'it's too hard', and there are other ways of gaining that knowledge too (i.e. watching or reading a guide).

Multiplayer is massive these days too. Are you going to let people "skip" in PUBG and get to experience being that final winner? What a terrible dev, to make a game that some people just won't ever be able to win.

NOBODY here is saying that! This is a topic about Let Us Skip Boss Fights. Stop changing the topic into crazy strawmen arguments. Nobody wants the ability to hit a button to get a chicken dinner in a multiplayer game.

Yes to options, always. Or how about god mode. Every game has it during development, just give players the option to enable it, it doesn't take "so much extra time and effort!" to do it. And you still have to beat the boss/whatever, but you can't die.

I've used god mode through cheat tables in some games, including Dark Souls 2 because I thought that game was garbo compared to the other Souls titles but I wanted to see the whole game anyway, so I used god mode to go through it as fast as possible, and I got some enjoyment out of just wrecking everyone while they desperately tried to kill me.
The easiest difficulty in Persona 4 is basically god mode, and I would've never finished the game without it because I don't enjoy turn based combat at all, but I loved the other aspects of that game.

These are great reasons for the skip to be included! Even shows how a skip can be used in Dark Souls. It doesn't take anything away from anyone else for easy mode Persona 4 to exist, and it wouldn't take anything away from anyone else for Dark Souls to have a hidden option to enable god mode or skip bosses.

I've never seen a single Souls fan or whatever entering a Journey thread to complain that the game is too easy and needed a hard mode with some challenge because they're missing out on the considerable size of the market that looks for challenge in their games. Not one, ever. The only people who seem to be bothered by the existence of games that aren't made for them are the ones asking for an easy mode.

I enjoy boss fights a lot, but I can absolutely see the benefits of adding a 'skip boss battle' option. And, again, it's not the equivalent of an easy mode.

You used cheats in Dark Souls II? Cool. As long as you don't use them in multiplayer, I have no issues with that. It's not From Software's job to allow you to do it, though. If consoles don't give players that level of customization, then play on PC. If devs do start to give the option to enable god mode, then whatever, it's fine, I just have an issue with the mentality that they absolutely should and even thinking otherwise is elitist. They should do whatever the hell they want. You're free to ask for it, of course, as others are free to say they disagree and hope they won't include it, as I'm free to say I don't care either way.

Would it be cool if cheats came back? Sure. You know what's even more useful than hoping, though? Using Cheat Engine like you did, and applying that to any game you want. If that's only available in one platform, well, that's not the game developer's fault.

If you agree that it's fine for this player to have used cheats, then why argue against the inclusion of a skip boss fight (at least, I think that's your position)?

 

[DerpHause]

Giving us more options would mean they don't have to compromise anything though, wouldn't it?
How's that forcing them to do anything other than sticking to their vision without worries?
They can make the game as difficult as they want with no compromises because they know people who don't like it would have options to skip it.

That assumes the artistic vision doesn't include the emotional responses created by the experience in question. If it does, then yes, skipping it obviously compromises the intent.

Additionally if the encounter presents information or a choice in which action is required and/or later activity is dependent and that is seens as integral for the vision, it would be compromised by the skip.

 

[Duchess O'Death]

Giving the player less options can be part of a vision too - and a commendable one. Demon's Souls gained the reputation it did (and spawned the series it did) because its creators didn't compromise on their vision for the sake of less dedicated players.

Making the game easier would be a compromise.
Giving us an option to skip a fight is not a compromise. It's just an option.

That assumes the artistic vision doesn't include the emotional responses created by the experience in question. If it does, then yes, skipping it obviously compromises the intent.

Their target audience would still play the game with no compromises whatsoever.

Like, how's giving us options different than asking a friend to finish a boss fight for me?
If anything, I'm compromising my own the experience. Not the devs. Not yours. Not anyone else's.

 

[Ascheroth]

If you agree that it's fine for this player to have used cheats, then why argue against the inclusion of a skip boss fight (at least, I think that's your position)?

Because the developers don't have to spend time, money, or thoughts on cheats.
They make the game however they want to. If the player disagrees with some of that, he can use cheats to circumvent it and play however he wants to.
Again, this makes 1) clear that it's a "on your own risk" thing, because the game isn't designed around it and 2) doesn't need the devs to do anything

 

[zephyrsquall]

Everyone has the same opportunity to finish any game if they have the desire to see it through.

Beyond people who are unfortunately severely physically disabled, there is not a single person on NeoGAF who does not have the ability (has been given the opportunity) to finish Dark Souls. Everyone here can beat Cuphead, if they want. Everyone here can beat Cuphead on Expert mode with all S ranks - if they want. The issue here is not a matter of "opportunity".

This. If you don't want to take the time to complete a game the way the developer intended, due to your lifestyle or skill set, then the game is not for you. Try something else or take the time to practice and get better.

I don't have a problem with games having, or not having, difficulty settings, but the way some people in this thread act as if they are entitled to the "full experience" because they paid for it is baffling. You have the opportunity to beat any game, but the dedication to beat the game is completely on you

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

This is because of Cuphead, isn't it?

Seems that way.