Go would be improved with a backstory and pretty game pieces? "Lower" expectations?
I'm going to assume all of the above is self-parody for the sake of conversation.
No self parody! I'm very sincere, especially when it comes to these conversations. No reason to be anything but sincere and understanding of different view points in these conversations from my experience
That's a fallacy, though. You say that you want all games made "to appeal to everyone", but that's at best a mistake and at worst a lie. Wanting all games to smile and hand out trophies to the most incompetent of players doesn't make them appeal to all players: it makes them appeal to players that don't want a challenge. In other words: you don't really want games to appeal to everyone: you want them to appeal to you, and you want to force everyone to like the games you like: watered down games that are only "for everyone" in the sense that Dora the Explorer is "rated E for Everyone".
Let's tackle your points down one by one.
Sure, I want games to appeal to me first and foremost. I am a human being and my life revolves around me, same as my taste. If I'm looking at it from the most closeminded selfish way possible, that makes sense.
However, what I described wasn't for me, even if you cynically believe it is. I've played and enjoyed many hardcore games that don't give a damn about whether or not they're accessible. Like Bloodborne, one of my favorite games of all time. However, that makes no difference to me when it comes to accessibility. Just because /I/ have a great time with it, doesn't mean that it can't do more to appeal to beginners. So yes, I'm describing what I want games to be, but not for myself, but for the greater purpose of sharing what I love with the people I care about. I am more amicable towards easier and accessible games because I understand how impenetrable this medium can be, and I strongly feel the need to fight to help those get on board with something I hold very dear to me.
Regarding the "lie" of appealing to everyone. I don't agree at all with that, naturally. As I stated, the best media can be enjoyed by players of all skill types, not those who are ultra beginners and not those who have mastered the art of the genre. One of the reasons why I adore Super Smash Bros over traditional fighting games is its accessible nature, yet it has a depth that allows players of all skill levels to enjoy. Chess is often described as "easy to learn, hard to master" and I think that's a great starting point for a game in terms of accessibility. Chess has its own problems, of course, but I think it's a great angle to approach what I think is best for games.
Regarding the handing out trophies, I never said such a thing. Granted, I think that's /a/ way to do it, but not quite the most elegant solution. I criticized Bayonetta and Wonderful 101, because they actively go out of their way to make you feel bad for playing poorly. Anyone who is playing poorly at the game knows it already. They don't need the game to comment "Hey, get good and we can stop making fun of you" because they already know that their skills aren't up to par. Additionally, given more depth and more difficulty options, players of higher difficulties can ignore the "trophies handed out to newbies", as you described. Again, not what I would do, but that's what you offered and I don't think it only appeals to the demographic you seem to want nothing to do with.
I also never said anything about watering down. I don't know where you're getting this. Being more accessible, giving more context towards content, and not actively berating a player for doing poorly doesn't sound like watering down to me. And again, in practice I give less of a damn about accessibility than when discussing it. Why? Because /I/ don't tend to need it. But that doesn't mean that I can't see that others might. Finally, I don't see how allowing others to enjoy themselves is "forcing down throats"
Pretty much every one of my favorite games (Dark Souls, Bloodborne, Spelunky, FTL, Platinum games) is made with hardcore gamers in mind and none of them are welcoming to newbie players, most of them notoriously so. This is not an accident, and yet many of them are hugely popular among hardcore gamers. Why? If your "for everyone" theory held any water, they would have to be the least popular games ever.
First things first, it's not a theory, it's a philosophy in regards to what I think makes for the best art. Transcends gaming and goes into movies, television, comics, etc. We can disagree when it comes to what makes good art, but I'm sure as hell not saying that there's only one way to do it or that it's the only way to be successful or popular (why would anyone ever say that, that's asinine). Besides, many "rules" are often broken in art to great effect.
In regards to your examples, I 1000% do believe that Bloodborne, the game I am most invested in in your list, has a long way to go in terms of accessibility. It is exactly not "welcoming to newbie players" and I think that's a significant problem. Not enough for me to not adore the game or think the game is extremely easy, but as someone who loves it and gives the controller off and seeing someone quit instantly, yeah it has work to do.
In regards to the Platinum Games, the three that I've played are significantly less forgiving and give less time to digest systems than Bloodborne ever did, which makes the games suffer significantly imo. Bayo 2 is the best out of the 3 I've played in regards to this aspect, but as mentioned before, I care so little about everything about Bayonetta and her adventures that even though TW101 is a giant accessibility disaster, it's my favorite of the three.
Haven't played Dark Souls, Spelunky, or FTL so can't comment on those.
You seem confident that this is such an easy task. Can you name examples of single player games that are as attractive to newcomers as to hardcore gamers?
First off, as a game dev heeeeeeeeeelllllllll no. There is no such thing as making a game an "easy task". The fact any game is made at all is a miracle.
However, to answer your question, my favorite example in gaming in terms of accessibility improving the franchise is Fire Emblem Awakening. Hardcore fans may have a problem with the simplicity in map/objective designs, art style, poor Lunatic balancing, and story, however the options that they included in the game as well as the tone allowed new players to feel right at home to Fire Emblem, one of the most impenetrable franchises around. Even with all of the problems I've listed, Awakening is an extraordinarily polished experience that has some of the best beats in the entire franchise. The jump from Fire Emblem New Mystery of the Emblem to Awakening is practically unbelievable, and hardcore fans, whether or not they prefer the new style, recognize that.
My favorite example, however, is Breaking Bad. While not a video game, there is plenty of things to learn from other mediums, which is why it's healthy consuming them. Let's not mince words, Breaking Bad is one of the greatest works of art in any artistic medium ever. Its writing, characterization, cinematography, symbolism, pacing, music, color theory, etc are all so brilliant that it's all the result of absolutely brilliant people who excelled at what they did. HOWEVER, you don't need to understand a single piece of anything that I just said to have a good time. Even at the most surface level, you can enjoy a story of two people cooking meth and getting themselves into shenanigans. However, the second you look deeper, there's an ocean of depth out there. It doesn't interfere with the story, it's not inaccessible, it doesn't make fun of you for not understanding, it's there if you look for it. You get out what you put in and anyone, regardless of cinematic literacy can enjoy it.
You are genuinely distraught by a piece of software awarding you a digital trophy? And you find this a normal reaction?
Nope! Considering I was so uninterested in Bayonetta and the majority of The Wonderful 101, having the games tell me I'm awful at them didn't necessarily do them any favors. "Why am I still playing?"
Beat them anyway, and I'm glad I did because for its massive faults, TW101 had a great ending.
Again, you are not everyone. Hardcore gamers don't appreciate the condescension and want to be told they suck when they suck. Denying that shows a very feeble grasp on what makes games engaging. There is a whole field of game theory deciding how punishing failures should be in a game. There is a reason why Dark Souls games are so popular, and even those pale in comparison with the also hugely popular roguelikes and permadeath.
There is no simple, universal answer to that question. Don't cheapen it by pretending you have one.
Of course I'm not everyone. I don't ever pretend to be everyone, I speak for myself and what I think makes for a best work of art.
However, I think it's very hypocritical to follow "you are not everyone" with "Hardcore gamers don't appreciate the condescension and want to be told they suck when they suck." I mean... even reading them outloud one right after the other is kind of amusing.
I consider myself very hardcore and I don't want games to tell me I suck. I have barely enough time to play games as it is, if I'm trying to have a good time I don't want to be insulted. But apparently you speak for the hardcore?
When it comes to your comment on condescension, I don't think I ever made a comment saying that I wanted to condescend people. I said that I wanted to "motivate people who are struggling". If someone who is hardcore finds that condescending then... I don't know what to tell you besides that there are other people in this medium that exist and that they should be conscious that they are not the only people playing video games.
I find it very amusing that you bring up roguelikes, which is a genre that has made accessibility more of a concern than ever before and has reaped the benefits. My favorite roguelike, The Binding of Isaac, has tangible progression systems that allow any progress, no matter how small, to move a player forward in their macro and micro goals, which helps dissuade the feeling of "losing everything" in a roguelike. Additionally, a Google search tells me that FTL does the same.
I love Extra Credits' video on this, which I am more than happy to share with you as I agree with practically all of it.
Again, I am not pretending that my philosophy is the only right one or that it's "the universal solution". I will stand by my philosophies on game design however, regardless of whether or not you believe that this "cheapens" anything.
You are grossly and disingenuously exaggerating what "huge deal" P* games make about getting lower ranks. I.e. they make none of it, you just get a goddamn trophy. Being offended by that is not having thin skin, it's having no skin whatsoever.
Perhaps I'm being disingenuous, however that doesn't change the fact that I've often spoken with people who feel discouraged by their inability to play those games well. Is it a big factor into that? Perhaps not the solely one, but it's one that I find egregious because of how absolutely unnecessary it is and how a single change can make a world's of difference (in DmC with the Dirty example). You're right, it's a very small thing to get caught up on, but it's so pointless and meanspirited and that's what gets to me.
Well, it being a non-entity is entirely my point. You are the one saying that instant appeal is more important than depth. And if Cypher Peon-2 wrote a post extolling the virtues of Snakes and Ladders versus Go, the least one would expect is some counterarguments (in fact I just had a mental image of Weltall Zero-2 using a videogame example to illustrate his point).
More important? I'm pretty sure I've emphasized that "the best games do both". Mostly because as someone who considers themselves hardcore, I can see the perspective of those who put their lives into these games. I can see why some might be dismayed by the decreased difficulties of these games. I care about having a good time myself, therefore I naturally want a game to cater to a hardcore player as myself.
But I know how it is to be new at something when it's impenetrable and fans are determined to keep it that way. I got into comics a few years ago and I knew the struggle of the mess it was to get into them. Now that I'm more invested in that medium, I have a constant reminder as to why accessibility is important in not only that medium, but all others.
Now I get invited to give panels regarding accessibility in comics! Pretty great stuff, I feel like I get to use my experiences for good and helping others while reminding those deeply entrenched that it's easy to forget the new reader.
What I'm saying is that, yes it may be a nonentity that means nothing to me, but if someone were to come up to me and say that they prefer it over, say Silent Hill 2, my favorite game of all time, that's totally fine. There's no reason to take that personally. Also are you saying I offered no counter arguments? I'm confused.
Yes, we do have reasons. Some of us are old enough and have been gaming for long enough to remember how the past two decades have been a massive slide from games that actually demanded something of the player, to autoplaying "press A for awesome" barely-games with progressively insulting (non)challenge levels. It's only relatively recently that some developers said "fuck it" and started releasing games that a braindead ape can't complete (when Demon's Souls released it was revolutionary precisely because it was so unusual among modern games). It's been quite a struggle to convince publishers that there is a market for hard games: having even that small counter effort threatened by people who aren't content that 90% of modern games can be completed playing with one's feet, it has to be 100% of them, on the highly hypocritical excuse that "that way they can be enjoyed by everyone", yeah, that pisses us off royally.
The gaming industry isn't only for those who are old enough to remember the 80s. Regardless of whether or not you personally enjoy the games or disagree with my philosophies, I think you've been extraordinarily rude this entire discussion.
People can have different opinions, you shouldn't take it personally. I thoroughly believe that art is of the utmost importance, but we're only discussing it. I'm not here to take away your video games or shove mind down your throat. Hell, it would be counter intuitive, since I think Bloodborne is one of the greatest games of all time. But that doesn't mean I won't fight the good fight to make a stand for those who want to partake in the greatest artistic medium on this planet and find it difficult to do so.
--alright different poster *breathes*--
All of these games have context and stories. I couldn't really explain even the most basic facets of the plots of many of these games, half because most of them don't get localized at all, half because I never cared, but the story is still there. That being said, games like Ketsui were designed for arcades. You put in 100 yen (or whatever) and play as long as your skill holds out. If you get a game over, you can continue from where you left off, but your score is reset. In this way, the game gives you control over how you play it. The incentive not to credit feed is the right to enter your name on the high score leaderboard.
It's basically impossible to get a high score after a game over, because you will have a strictly lower score than any player that beats the game on one credit.
Credit feeding through a shmup is kinda like pouring a beer wrong and drinking a glass full of mostly-foam.
I think that score resetting is a good way for players who simply want to get to the ending to be punished for their lack of skill, and yet still have an engaging time. I understand you disagree in the form that credit feeding is "missing the point" of the depth, but I think you also understand that there are other people who enjoy the games in a different way. Which is good! It's a rather basic technique, though, and I'm certain that you know more than I about cool examples in regards to games that incentivize "getting good" in ways that don't make the first experience a lackluster one.
I can't speak to DmC as its presentation turned me way off, but Undertale, IIRC, doesn't have a scoring system, so it's not really trying to challenge you that much. You kind of get through it and play for the story more than anything.
Those Stone awards are the game's way of telling you "fine, I guess you survived the encounter, so technically you pass even though you aren't playing the game in a fun way." These games aren't about that participation award life.
I understand 100% about your feelings on DmC. Truth be told, that game had a lot of good will from me because of its aesthetic approach, so even if it had Bayonetta's systems, I'd still be invested in trying to get into it. If you have a preference for the Bayo style, then all the power to you! That doesn't make Bayo's story any less of a convoluted mess imo
I brought up Undertale knowing it didn't have a scoring system. The reason I brought it up is the reason why I brought up Breaking Bad in my previous quotes. Because I believe there is merit in seeing how others approach problems and seeing what you can learn from them. Undertale may not grade your abilities, but the way that it approaches gameplay absolutely can be co-opted and learned from to make moment to moment gameplay more engaging for those who aren't about that score hunting life. That way everyone can win, and hell as Undertale focuses on blending its story with gameplay, I'm sure more hardcore audiences will get a kick out of a deeper story too.
Kamiya wants you to get good at Bayonetta so you can enjoy it as much as possible. He is doing his due diligence by designing the game such that it tells you how well you played at the end of each fight. What you do after finding that out is on you.
It's a pen and paper game. The rule about not repeating numbers across rows and columns is only enforced if you enforce it. That's the point I'm trying to make.
What you're saying is that you'd rather Bayonetta not allow you to play it badly, which I'm not sure can be implemented in a fun way at all. What you're suggesting would be like... having every fight that would end with a Stone rating instead trigger a Game Over.
Honestly, I can't tell you what I want out of Bayonetta, mostly because there's so little about it that appeals to me. Me being asked to have "my take" on the game would mean working it from the ground up, which I'm sure wouldn't please you. I guess I have a problem with the core philosophy that Kamiya brings into the game.
But that's okay! It's not a big deal (I mean games are a huge deal but not enough for me to take a different philosophy personally, the man didn't do anything to me). In fact, I welcome it because it brings up points that I think can be learned from, both on aspects that I agree on and those I don't.