JayWood2010
Member
This saddens me this is even a topic. Here is your participation medal
I'm personally arguing for technical inclusiveness. I mean, of course certain genres are going to target different audiences, but there are a lot of people in those targeted audiences that aren't going to be able to experience as much of the product as they'd like due to a possible multitude of reasons. This discussion is how we can alleviate these setbacks for those people without harming the core experience, not make Jack who hates horror games love Dead Space. People are fumbling over themselves in this thread.
This is the real point right here.
To those worried about developers not investing in designing certain parts because they know people can skip it, they're pretty much at that state now because they know most people don't finish their games. Again, I don't think putting a level select in Call of Duty or Uncharted is gonna cause any fewer people to finish them or play all their levels, than already are. And we've already established that there are myriad other reasons someone may find use out of a level select or free-roam mode or whatever. Even in games with more niche audiences, is that really going to hurt the core fans? I say that based on what some people in development in this discussion have already said about how expensive it might actually be to add level select.
And that's not even talking about games like Horizon, Call of Duty, Witcher 3, or Uncharted, which are meant to sell millions or tens of millions of copies.
As someone aspiring to be a developer, I would fine it utterly insulting to spend hours of my time crafting an intricate boss- fight just to give anyone an option to skip it outright.
I don't like difficulty settings either.
I want everyone to experience my game the same way.
That's why you can't skip scenes in theaters, too.
Nah, watch a let's play if you don't want to play the game.
Cheat codes?
It sounds like you're saying "How can we make it so games are equally satisfying for bad players and good players," which isn't possible.
Then instead of calling for boss skips, we should be calling for a return to good gameplay and criticizing games that are poorly executed.
Can you give me an example (that isn't completely obscure) of a game where the only appeal is that it's rage inducing? Seems even the most difficult games have attractive elements to them besides the difficulty. I got into Demon's Souls not because of the notorious difficulty but because of the multiplayer and dark fantasy world, the difficulty was actually the only thing holding me back. Also, what does it matter if a game let you skip a boss fight that had narrative relevance when the majority of games let you skip million dollar cutscenes anyway? I'd never do either on a first play through, but I know a lot of people don't even bother with cutscenes and skip no matter what. If I were playing a great game that let me skip the boss fights I'd find it peculiar but it wouldn't bother me.That assumes "hard" or "rage inducing" isn't a worthy category for a genre of games. We're seeing a fundamental disconnect between 2 groups of people where one sees games which are designed to test one or more skillsets in the context of a fictional story as being no different and worthy of not compromising that aspect in the same way you view not changing Dead Space for "Jack who hates horror games."
We're also not equating didn't finish to didn't enjoy.
The problem isn't that developers would be less invested in design due to skipping, it's that skipping would create the need to design skippable encounters in ways that have no real decisions or consequence and minimal story tie-in, mechanic building or introduction or exposition to actually make games anything but more esoteric for the target audience here.
In other words we'd need more of what the article calls bad boss fights, and for everything else you want to make skippable the same applies.
Can you give me an example (that isn't completely obscure) of a game where the only appeal is that it's rage inducing?
Seems even the most difficult games have attractive elements to them besides the difficulty.
I got into Demon's Souls not because of the notorious difficulty but because of the multiplayer and dark fantasy world, the difficulty was actually the only thing holding me back.
Also, what does it matter if a game let you skip a boss fight that had narrative relevance when the majority of games let you skip million dollar cutscenes anyway? I'd never do either on a first play through, but I know a lot of people don't even bother with cutscenes and skip no matter what. If I were playing a great game that let me skip the boss fights I'd find it peculiar but it wouldn't bother me.
ONLY appeal? No, but that's not even remotely a decent or reasonable metric.
Primary Appeal? Cuphead/Souls series are both well known examples.
Why this needs narrowed to a game no one would create (where the only aspect that's attractive is the challenge and all other aspects are undesirable resulting in a knowingly bad game) is something I can't fathom.
True, as stated they need to else they end up as bad games.
Ironically that same difficulty is very likely a multiplayer driver, so which aspect do we change here? From made that choice, and it wasn't the one being advocated in the op.
Because it narrows the potential types of boss fights we can have which further narrows the types of experiences games provide in that aspect, which fundamentally affects all gamers across skill levels and option use whether they like it or not. You can't skip cutscenes in my game, so that becomes a fundamental difference where your choice cannot affect mine.
The same can't be said when design paradigm shifts occur (microtransactions are a prime example here).
There are a lot of 'bad' players of games that have a hell of a lot more fun than the 'good' players of said games, there's no way to make an experience equal for everyone and that's not what I want. There are so many games and genres that there is absolutely no way to set a universal standard for how to make everything more accessible, but I do think that each game individually can do interesting things to make the experience as inclusive as possible whilst keeping the core experience intact.
A lot of games have experimented in different ways to do this within the last couple of years and I'm absolutely cool with it. I don't think anyone is upset that you can skip missions in Red Dead and GTAV, or that Bioware games have a narrative difficulty setting, and Uncharted 4 is especially great considering it has a narrative difficulty and assistance options for the physically disabled. Options that help people get past button mashing sequences that are otherwise easy to most but sadly function as a stonewall for many eager players.
These are examples of how I think videogames can be more technically inclusive without upsetting the people that don't require these additions, and honestly, I'd even be cool with certain games having an outright 'skip encounter' option in the pause screen. It wouldn't be an option for everything of course, but would it really hurt to say, skip LA Noire's combat sequences (which you already can, just gotta die a few times first) so one can move onto the other investigative elements of the game?
What is Summoning and Magic builds?
Because the lesson we want games to teach people is that you should just skip past any challenge you don't feel like overcoming.
Sounds like a great idea. What could go wrong?
You're making assumptions that these things would change how the common videogame boss is developed but you don't seem to be specifically telling me how this would actually happen and what changes would occur.
Either way, I don't personally think skipping boss fights is an elegant way to make a game more accessible, but I also don't think if some games started doing this that it'd be destructive to the industry as a whole.
I've expressed my thoughts on how Dark Souls could hypothetically have an easy mode that wouldn't effect the core experience earlier in this thread, but I'll quote myself directly from the last page so that you can have a better understanding of my perspective.
Every one of these threads where someone suggests something quite timid that would make the experience more user friendly for a lot of people without compromising on the core gameplay for others is immediately descended upon by nerds looking to polish their credentials.
"hur durr the intended experience blah blah not how the developers want you to play "
And I swear to god, 75% of them are inevitably Souls fans. Gaming's absolute worst fanbase.
Feels like browsing https://www.reddit.com/r/gatekeeping/ in these threads.
We're already going into the wrong way people are ready to buy achievement when an acheivement should be something your worked for... That's what I fear, people want to dumdown games because of their own selfhiness.
The author of the article even said that even if Zelda breath of wild bosses were easier compared to other game he still hated them. Then why don't he just play visual novel games where ther eis 0 bosses fight ? something is just not right.
I'm okay with an easy mode for newcomers at a videogame but not the skip button for boss fight, if the person doesn't want to bother himself to "learn" then he would begin to ask a skip button in Mario games too if we begin to go down that road, which is stupid and will just plain out kill gaming.
I think From Software do an excellent job balancing their games with all the multiplayer elements in mind and I would never want them to compromise that experience to make their games easier. But if there were a separate easy mode, singe player only that disabled the trophies and merely activated god mode or something, I don't really see how that would effect anything and I'd have no problem with it. I don't think it's necessary, I won't mind if From Software doesn't do this for any future games, but if they did and had done, I really would not have minded. Hell, I'd probably use the mode to quickly run through the games just to experience the world and characters again without all the stresses of the actual game.I understand the argument, I just disagree for a subset of games. And I gave a specific example on the souls series in particular.
I think From Software do an excellent job balancing their games with all the multiplayer elements in mind and I would never want them to compromise that experience to make their games easier. But if there were a separate easy mode, singe player only that disabled the trophies and merely activated god mode or something, I don't really see how that would effect anything and I'd have no problem with it. I don't think it's necessary, I won't mind if From Software doesn't do this for any future games, but if they did and had done, I really would not have minded. Hell, I'd probably use the mode to quickly run through the games just to experience the world and characters again without all the stresses of the actual game.
I've already said due to the varied and large number of videogames that there'd never be a universal standard of accessibility, but that doesn't mean that even your specific subset of difficult games couldn't have modes like my Dark Souls example, which wouldn't in any way be resource intensive or harmful to the core experience. As I've said many times now, my argument is simple, I support developers that try to make their games as technically inclusive as possible and I don't think doing so has to always harm or 'dumb down' the core experience.
On the flip side, what about all the blood, sweat and tears that went in to designing and building the content after a boss? Does it not bother you that the player is missing out on that too? Someone else mentioned Rockstars solution of offering a pass after a number of failed attempts. That way the player experiences the content, and gets to experience everything beyond the boss too. Seems like a good compromise to me.
I think it's more that the identities of souls games are based around being deliberately uncompromising.
I think From Software do an excellent job balancing their games with all the multiplayer elements in mind and I would never want them to compromise that experience to make their games easier. But if there were a separate easy mode, singe player only that disabled the trophies and merely activated god mode or something, I don't really see how that would effect anything and I'd have no problem with it.
I don't think it's necessary, I won't mind if From Software doesn't do this for any future games, but if they did and had done, I really would not have minded. Hell, I'd probably use the mode to quickly run through the games just to experience the world and characters again without all the stresses of the actual game.
I've already said due to the varied and large number of videogames that there'd never be a universal standard of accessibility, but that doesn't mean that even your specific subset of difficult games couldn't have modes like my Dark Souls example, which wouldn't in any way be resource intensive or harmful to the core experience. As I've said many times now, my argument is simple, I support developers that try to make their games as technically inclusive as possible and I don't think doing so has to always harm or 'dumb down' the core experience.
My hypothetical mode wouldn't really change that identity, people would know that my mode is not the intended way of play but merely an option for the few. Much like Bayonetta and DMC are regarded as tough games, but both series have really easy modes that people can choose to take advantage of if they so please.
My hypothetical mode wouldn't really change that identity, people would know that my mode is not the intended way of play but merely an option for the few. Much like Bayonetta and DMC are regarded as tough games, but both series have really easy modes that people can choose to take advantage of if they so please.
Is someone forcing you to skip boss fights?
Yeah...
Yeah...
Without comment on having an issue with it, it's a very real argument that fragmenting the playerbase would have a detrimental affect on the multiplayer aspects. Making it easier reduces participation in the coop aspects specifically (and to a possibly lesser extent the predatory PvE aspects).
That's a real affect on those offering help and not just those no longer seeking.
No thinking it's a big deal is fine. Not caring is fine. Saying no such affects exist is something I disagree with though...
...And you're not even trying to prove me wrong here.
We'd discussed the dark souls example from the standpoint of simple multiplayer mechanics, we've yet to even discuss the actual feelings the developer intended you to feel. If you quit due to a feeling of hopelessness and stalled progress and the eventual triumph isn't a draw, that might not be a failing, you got the feeling the dev intended and decided you didn't like it. That should be no more valid a reason to demand a change than simply not liking the art or characters.
Most other games don't have the idea of being an uncompromising experience as closely tied in as Souls games do.
Having an easier mode is a compromise, which makes it no longer uncompromising. It's against what those games are about.
Yeah...
Guess what. Games used to give you codes for levels after you cleared the level including the boss. Now they give you checkpoints/autosave or even save anywhere options
The only people that'd take advantage of my hypothetical mode are people that were never gonna play enough to be part of the multiplayer community in the first place. I really don't think it would hurt the multiplayer population in any meaningful way at all. Also, I'm not trying to actively prove you wrong, I just don't agree with you that an easy mode in Dark Souls is an impossible addition.
That's really only part of the marketing if anything, and I honestly hate the marketing for Dark Souls, it's embraced the cesspool that is the 'git gud' community. I think most with a little bit of experience with Dark Souls know that it's not really uncompromising at all, each Souls game has many additions that function to help most player eager enough through. My mode would really only be used by a select minority for touristic purposes and those with limited time but an interest in the aesthetics and such.
The only people that'd take advantage of my hypothetical mode are people that were never gonna play enough to be part of the multiplayer community in the first place. I really don't think it would hurt the multiplayer population in any meaningful way at all.
Also, I'm not trying to actively prove you wrong, I just don't agree with you that an easy mode in Dark Souls is an impossible addition.
That's really only part of the marketing if anything, and I honestly hate the marketing for Dark Souls, it's embraced the cesspool that is the 'git gud' community. I think most with a little bit of experience with Dark Souls know that it's not really uncompromising at all, each Souls game has many additions that function to help most player eager enough through. My mode would really only be used by a select minority for touristic purposes and those with limited time but an interest in the aesthetics and such.
God mode already exists in Dark Souls and is rather easy to implement, as it is with most games on PC. My mode would be for those not wanting to mod and of course console users. Anyway, about that Miyazaki quote, he isn't saying that he actively tries to make make his games difficult or unrelenting, they just turn out that way by design. The marketing I'm referring to is the literal 'PREPARE TO DIE... AGAIN!' plastered on my games back cover.It isn't just marketing though. It's talked about by the director in interviews:
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/dark-souls-3-hidetaka-miyazaki-interview
WIRED: As far back as 2009's Demon's Souls, your games have been renowned for their difficulty. What compels you to make such challenging experiences?
Hidetaka Miyazaki: I have no intention to make the game more difficult than other titles on purpose! It's just something required to make this style of game. Ever since Demon's Souls, I've really been pursuing making games that give players a sense of accomplishment by overcoming tremendous odds. We've added new items and weapons over the course of the series, and having a certain level of difficulty adds value to those because they incentivise players to experiment more with character builds and weapon load-outs.
FWIW I'd love to see a mod or something with your idea if only to see how it could work within this scope
We live in an age when most games are consumed like airport novels, read in passing and quickly forgotten. The Souls games change our mode of consumption, or rather return us to a time when video games were a rare thing, and a new game was an event or a celebration. If the Souls games were novels, we would be glued to themeach word could be a trap or a revelationand closing the book before its end would represent a veritable defeat.
The greatest quality of Dark Souls in my opinion is its relationship with learning. The game is a series of pain-based tutorials punctuated by bosses who serve as our examiners. A bit like disciples of Mr. Miyagi, we learn in spite of ourselves, and surprise ourselves as we grow stronger. In Souls, its the player who levels up, not the character.
Through marketing hype and biased word of mouth, the arduous challenge posed by the Souls games eventually superseded all of the games other qualities. Worse still, the difficulty was seen as an end in itself, rather than an opportunity to have a certain type of experience, associated with particular emotions or sensations. The series creator, Hidetaka Miyazaki, has addressed this on many occasions. From the beginning, he has maintained that the games difficulty is only a means by which players can experience intense exaltation after overcoming seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Above all, he has always taken pride in the fact that almost anyone can conquer his games: the key to success does not lie in the players agility or virtuosity with the controls, but rather in their sense of observation, strategy and self-control.
As long as they play their part and fully immerse themselves, any player can embark on the Souls adventure. The difficulty should not be seen as discouraging, but rather as one part of the games experience, conducive to strong sensations. Deaths are frequent, yes, but never prohibitive. Here, death is not a game over: it is integral to progression. To die means to learn: it represents a cycle of renewed attempts until players fully assimilate the games mechanics, environment, enemy placement and boss approaches. Death in the Souls series should not frighten or discourage. This is why the series reputation did as much harm as it did good. When you focus too much on one specific element, and a potentially frustrating one at that, the overall experience is lost from view.
People can easily destroy the Dark Souls experience with easy to install mods, yet all the Dark Souls games even now on PC have pretty active communities. I don't think an additional mode titled 'Demo Mode' that could only be selected in the menu separately and came with a warning saying that trophies would be disabled, multiplayer deactivated, and explaining that this mode is only for inexperienced players new to videogames would really change anything. I feel the PC already has enough exploits to prove this, these games are still active with a dedicated community, and Dark Souls is still renowned for its unrelenting difficulty. Identity intact.What makes you think that? Multiplayer coop exists for the purpose of providing assistance and altering the skill barrier, so part of it's use is obviously driven by that. Removing that barrier can't not have an affect unless some invisible force prevents the lower end of the skill curve from using it.
Impossible? No. Beneficial? Not according to the design language we've seen from the series thus far.
Marketing is nothing but the design goals from Hidetaka Miyazaki himself amplified by a fun house mirror to comedic effect. You are intended to die, learn, change tactics, seek help and triumph in the face of the challenges presented.
And to be fair since DS2 we've been playing the easy mode. Hard is covenant of champions.
God mode already exists in Dark Souls and is rather easy to implement, as it is with most games on PC. My mode would be for those not wanting to mod and of course console users. Anyway, about that Miyazaki quote, he isn't saying that he actively tries to make make his games difficult or unrelenting, they just turn out that way by design. The marketing I'm referring to is the literal 'PREPARE TO DIE... AGAIN!' plastered on my games back cover.
Yeah...
...I don't even know
Even there though, I think a lot of people would actually disagree with Miyazaki about the sense of accomplishment being the main reason to play Souls. I know it may same crazy to disagree with the director of the game, but that's been one of the main points of this discussion -- people playing the games they bought however they want, for whatever reason they want.
Marketing wank is marketing wank, but the quote I posted demonstrates to me at least that the difficulty curve is very targeted for the experience they're aiming for. It's a challenging game that has a set challenge level and I don't see anything wrong with wanting to do that and not compromise on it because it's in service to what they're going for.
People can easily destroy the Dark Souls experience with easy to install mods, yet all the Dark Souls games even now on PC have pretty active communities.
I don't think an additional mode titled 'Demo Mode' that could only be selected in the menu separately and came with a warning saying that trophies would be disabled, multiplayer deactivated, and explaining that this mode is only for inexperienced players new to videogames would really change anything.
I feel the PC already has enough exploits to prove this, these games are still active with a dedicated community, and Dark Souls is still renowned for its unrelenting difficulty. Identity intact.
I completely agree with you. I don't think From Software has to make an easy mode either, but if they did, and it was implemented like my hypothetical example, I honestly think it'd be harmless and would be fine with users taking advantage of said mode.
We're arguing the results of something that doesn't exist. Unless From Software actually implement something like this we'll never know the outcome. At worst it might weaken Dark Souls difficult reputation, but I doubt it'd have any effects on the games multiplayer community. Either way we're just arguing hypotheticals, do you not think there'd be anyway to implement an easy mode into Dark Souls without the outcome to you being negative?We already agreed they wouldn't die off, but that same mod community has created issues with multiplayer and hassles that do diminish the experience. No one is arguing the death of gaming, so arguing game haven't died with mods misses the point. But when people talk about the reputation of the games, they speak of the unmodified mechanics, meaning the game is still judged in it's developer provided state. That's what you're altering.
No one reads EULAs either but people violate them all the time. no one cares about intent. And that's kind of why we're having this conversation.
Again, the games isn't judged on the content created by those who break it. Nor witll they cause it to fail mainly because there are always communities around the breaking of games. And yes, the identity is in tact, because dark souls still doesn't compromise it's identity regardless of what others may do to their instances of the software.
So what is this hypothetical exploring at it's core? That from is wrong? That they are being consciously exclusive? We know the decisions regarding difficulty are conscious, so either the assumptions is being made that we know better how to construct the experience or we believe their being mean for the sake of being mean so far as I can tell.
Is it something else?
We're arguing the results of something that doesn't exist. Unless From Software actually implement something like this we'll never know the outcome. At worst it might weaken Dark Souls difficult reputation, but I doubt it'd have any effects on the games multiplayer community. Either way we're just arguing hypotheticals, do you not think there'd be anyway to implement an easy mode into Dark Souls without the outcome to you being negative?
stuff
Because it'd be optional and help people who aren't up for the challenge. That would be its purpose separate to the core experience. Also I've said multiple times that this is the developers choice dude, if they don't want to implement then they don't have to. But if they did want to implement something like this I'd be totally cool as long as it didn't change the core experience. That's my point, kinda repeating myself here.You're arguing it should exist against the reality of why it wasn't implemented, and while you yourself have gone with the reasoning of saying it probably wouldn't be detrimental if it was, we have the creator of the series stating it was made as it is to serve a purpose.
Those 2 views are in direct disagreement. So I guess what I'm asking is, why specifically do you think the outcome here is better or at least inconsequential to what the product is and what makes you certain over the creator asserting otherwise?
Also, yes, this is something that doesn't exists, but I don't see why it should if those who have the ability to make it a part of the package don't desire it to be.
Because it'd be optional and help people who aren't up for the challenge.
OK, time out. What am I arguing for?
Because those people might be interested in other elements that the game offers and just because they don't have the time or skill doesn't mean they should be locked out of a potential fun experience. That's what a hypothetical easy mode would be good for.Why not just acknowledge those individuals aren't looking for the experience you're trying to provide and move on? I guess what I'm missing is the impetus to act on this proposed change here. At least when looking at the intent.