Support NeoGAF

[TheDuskwalker]

Boy it must fucking enrage you and fill you up with hate people hack the shit out of souls games on pc and play your precious hardcore game on EZ-mode.

So to come back at your statement i do whatever the fuck i want to MY game i bought with MY money.

Cant wait for from soft to release an EZ mode in one of their games and then i can go all "its their artistic vision" on yo ass

So you're saying a dev shouldn't waste time and money altering games for YOU to cater to your own inadequacies because you can cater to yourself.

Soooo, what's the problem? You both got to do whatever the fuck you wanted.

Edit: Also you don't have to wait, there QTE driven action game Ninja Blade had a easy difficulty if you died 10 times.

 

[BunzLee]

I really don't understand why this is such a big topic these days. Personally, I could not care less. Games have always had set difficulties, just look back at the NES era of games. Therefore, some games are for you, some aren't. I personally don't play Souls games because that experience is just not for me, but who am I to demand that the devs cater to me specifically? That said, if I feel the need to make things easier because I want to experience the story or whatever, I can always hack, mod or use a trainer. And who are "you" to tell me I'm not supposed to enjoy a game the way I do, when I clearly have different expectations to the experience I'm about to have. And that's fine - It does not ruin your game or your experience. To me it's simply BS if the only argument people have is "you don't deserve to be part of my elitist club I'm in because you didn't play the game as intended". Screw that. My money, my time, my rules.

 

[Panajev2001a]

I really don't understand why this is such a big topic these days. Personally, I could not care less. Games have always had set difficulties, just look back at the NES era of games. Therefore, some games are for you, some aren't. I personally don't play Souls games because that experience is just not for me, but who am I to demand that the devs cater to me specifically? That said, if I feel the need to make things easier because I want to experience the story or whatever, I can always hack, mod or use a trainer. And who are "you" to tell me I'm not supposed to enjoy a game the way I do, when I clearly have different expectations to the experience I'm about to have. And that's fine - It does not ruin your game or your experience. To me it's simply BS if the only argument people have is "you don't deserve to be part of my elitist club I'm in because you didn't play the game as intended". Screw that. My money, my time, my rules.

Correct, but while some games are super inclusive difficulty wise, some others like to focus on a single difficulty level and fine tune it for that... we do still appreciate polish that comes from focus instead of trying to be all different things at once, don’t we?

Instead of getting upset at games that ask you to trust their difficulty level and that are not just about entertainment, but that require more effort (there is space for both, there are people that try hard things for the joy of overcoming them as past time too), we could welcome them as we welcome games designed for the mythical “everyone”... and you can buy only what you like. Nobody should judge you one way or the other.

 

[Breakfast at Noon]

VR doesn't change the design-philosophy behind the game.

Difficulty settings might, like with From's games.

that's what "normal" settings are for though.. it's ok to have a hard mode and a easy mode as well, it's perfectly ok.

The more people that buy the games the better for the developer as they could probably afford a second studio and do more games.. or afford to port Demons Souls, You do not have to play easy mode as in the same way lots of people do not play hard modes.

 

[TheDuskwalker]

that's what "normal" settings are for though.. it's ok to have a hard mode and a easy mode as well, it's perfectly ok.

The more people that buy the games the better for the developer as they could probably afford a second studio and do more games.. or afford to port Demons Souls, You do not have to play easy mode as in the same way lots of people do not play hard modes.

Demon's Souls is Sony owned, that's Sony money we need.

Demon's Souls Remake Is Up To Sony Since They Own The IP; "Could Happen Through Another Developer" - Gameranx

The decision to make a remake rests in Sony's hands.

gameranx.com

 

[Saruhashi]

I like to use running a marathon as an analogy. Just to show how weird some of these takes on difficulty, achievement, gatekeeping and elitism really are.

Let's say you wanted to to the Rock n Roll Marathon in Vegas this November this year, about 7 months from now.
https://www.runrocknroll.com/en/Events/Las-Vegas/Vegas-Register
(I recommend the "Rock n Roll" series of races for anyone interested as they are great events and you'll have an awesome time)

First off you have to pay 142 bucks just to enter the race.
Then you are going to have to commit to training if you really want to run the thing and not find yourself shuffling around for 8 hours.
You're gonna need running gear so that's more money.
Travel to the event (maybe hotel stays). Food, transport. Etc etc.

So since you've paid all that money are you entitled to just cycle the course? Maybe take a taxi to the finish line?

One of the things you will find if you are into running is that there is a great sense of camaraderie among fellow runners and if you go online there are a few worthwhile communities. Personally I have the local running club here and we have a great time building up to big events.

One of the main things there is that we all face the same 26.2 miles. Some will drop out before the end. Some will aim for spectacular finishing times but will crash and burn on the day (exactly what happened during my first ever marathon). The big thing is that there is no getting around the fact that you need to do 26.2 miles to get your medal.

There ARE concessions made for people with disabilities. However, if you are able bodied then there's only one way to get the thing done.

Is it really "gatekeeping" if people say "able bodied people can't just use a scooter and get a finish time and a medal, that's not right"?
Is it really "elitism" to respond to "how can I improve my finishing time" with an answer of "train more and train better"?

I can hardly imagine the response in the running community if someone comes out with "I got a bus for 20 miles then just ran the 6.2k to the finish line... and I feel fine". Oh, no, I don't need to imagine.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/753976/con-your-marks/
https://forums.runnersworld.co.uk/discussion/347123/london-marathon-cheaters-lets-do-this
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...rs-caught-cheating-in-shenzhens-half-marathon

Is this gate keeping? Elitism.
After all, if I paid to enter the race then why does anyone care that I hopped on a bus to skip half the course?
I didn't affect their experience.

Of course you take one fucking look at Jim Sterling and maybe you do understand why...

So it is with From games.
Part of the appeal is the unflinching difficulty.
Part of the appeal is that the community all faces the same challenge and faces it together.

Maybe people trying to subvert or undermine that do deserve ridicule? Not abuse, not harassment, but I have nothing against someone having a gentle go at folks who have to "cheat" to beat the game. Even more so when the attitude is "I cheated and I feel fine". What a total fucking loser.

I've said it before, it's the same predictable people with the same predictable takes on this.
The same folks who seem to begrudge anyone feeling a sense of achievement in completing a challenge.
Suddenly we are all super interested in games just being a bit of fun. Great add the big ol titties back into Mortal Kombat then, I love those things! NOT THAT KIND OF FUN! Ah, I see.

Let's be honest here. If Sekiro has released to lukewarm reviews and didn't have all the hype and the entertaining streaming and hadn't sold well then this conversation never happens. However it's the popular game of the day so totally not entitled gamers need to whine about how it's not accessible for people who don't want to get good.

I'm reminded of this article:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ape-the-relentless-pressure-to-improve-myself

Something that's very telling for me is that so many of the opinions on this revolve around disdain for, or mockery of, people who do seem to take pride in the achievement of beating a hard game. Like there is this underlying hatred of people who are not only good at these games but are somewhat proud of their achievements.

It's like looking at the winners podium after a marathon and going "who the fuck do they smug gits thing they are? Fucking going on about training and hard work... ooooh you trained hard and feel a great sense of achievement do you? Fucking get over yourself!"

Why not just let people enjoy their achievement? Even if you don't respect that achievement you can't just let them have it?

I think, no matter what anyone says, that having a single difficulty mode and making that quite challenging does give the games a sense of exclusivity and prestige. I don't really get why anyone would want to take the shine off of that other than just outright pettiness because they can't stand the few people who are quite arrogant and smug about it.

Jim using that aristocrat character just looks like the mask slipping right off for me. His beef is with people who think they are "all that" cos they can complete hard games. Can't you just ignore them? Who gives a fuck?

"I don't care about difficulty in games. Wait, is that guy bragging about beating tough games!? FETCH MY MAKE UP AND MY COSTUME!"

I know this video is shared a few times on the thread now but I will also encourage others to watch it.


Unfortunately, I think eventually From Software will cave in and their next big "souls" style release will be dogged with similar arguments until they just relent and make the game a bit less FromSoft and a bit more UbiSoft.

Then we can all be happy that we don't need to work hard to achieve the thing anymore. Throw those medals in the bin boys because any old asshole can just cycle to the finish line. Fuck it.

 

[Saruhashi]

I really wonder though, why the psychotic focus on this "series" of games in particular? I mean there's plenty of difficult games out there, but there's just something about these games and its fan/consumer base that REALLY grinds people's gears, isn't there.

Flexing of power.

Imagine game journos and clowns like Jim Sterling patting themselves on the back if they manage to use this passive aggressive bullshit to actually make FromSoft change their games.

What's the point in having influence if you can't use it?
How would you know if you even have influence unless you try it?

 

[Saruhashi]

Something I am interested in is how people would feel if "easy mode" did something like making the game technically easier to beat BUT it would take twice as long for you to beat it?

So they remove the risk of death and failure but they make sure that the easy mode cannot be used simply for convenience.

So with Sekiro you could make every enemy easily beatable but what you do is analyse how long the average player might take to complete the game and then artificially double this in the "easy" mode.

It could be done with more fog gates and respawning enemies that keep you in a certain area for a set amount of time.

This way every player gets to experience the world and the story blah blah blah but people doing that in easy mode need to invest a lot more time in the experience since they are not willing to invest more effort.

I think at least this concept could be used to distinguish between people who want the game to be "easier" and people who want the game to be "more convenient".

 

[Helios]

Boy it must fucking enrage you and fill you up with hate people hack the shit out of souls games on pc and play your precious hardcore game on EZ-mode.

So to come back at your statement i do whatever the fuck i want to MY game i bought with MY money.

Cant wait for from soft to release an EZ mode in one of their games and then i can go all "its their artistic vision" on yo ass

The classic "I don't have a convincing argument so I'll just act smug and say you're mad, lmao"

 

[Terce]

The fact you state easier games to be brain dead says a lot about your elitism. Do you really think i would give a flying fuck if nintendo added a optional ultra hardcore elite mode to animal crossing?

NO then why do so many SOULS gamers give a fuck about an easy mode being in theirs.

You sound very angry, are you OK?

*and sorry I don't mean that to dismiss any argument you're trying to make but you honestly seem extremely emotionally invested in this. Is everything alright?

 

[synchronicity]

To what end here? What does a broader definition of art mean in this discussion?

Maybe I would ask you how restricting games from the category we call art is useful, or by what reasoning would you have them excluded?

 

[zenspider]

Maybe I would ask you how restricting games from the category we call art is useful, or by what reasoning would you have them excluded?

Well, I'll paraphrase DunDunDunpachi here: being artful doesn't make art. If art is being defined as some vague transcendent quality of an activity, I don't think it's very helpful - it opens the door to conflation, confusion, and "critical creep". We shouldn't be applying the same concepts to games as to paintings or music or sushi making because they don't follow all the way down. They're simply not the same thing at any level it's worth digging into.

It think it's really inappropriate in this topic because we are talking about the most fundamental difference between games and the other "art" that getting dragged in here; you can't win a book or a sculpture. Games can be artfully crafted or played, but to call them art in the same vein is changing the subject, and calling anyting art if certain subjective are met is way too vague to be useful in a discussion.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I like to use running a marathon as an analogy. Just to show how weird some of these takes on difficulty, achievement, gatekeeping and elitism really are.

Let's say you wanted to to the Rock n Roll Marathon in Vegas this November this year, about 7 months from now.
https://www.runrocknroll.com/en/Events/Las-Vegas/Vegas-Register
(I recommend the "Rock n Roll" series of races for anyone interested as they are great events and you'll have an awesome time)

First off you have to pay 142 bucks just to enter the race.
Then you are going to have to commit to training if you really want to run the thing and not find yourself shuffling around for 8 hours.
You're gonna need running gear so that's more money.
Travel to the event (maybe hotel stays). Food, transport. Etc etc.

So since you've paid all that money are you entitled to just cycle the course? Maybe take a taxi to the finish line?

One of the things you will find if you are into running is that there is a great sense of camaraderie among fellow runners and if you go online there are a few worthwhile communities. Personally I have the local running club here and we have a great time building up to big events.

One of the main things there is that we all face the same 26.2 miles. Some will drop out before the end. Some will aim for spectacular finishing times but will crash and burn on the day (exactly what happened during my first ever marathon). The big thing is that there is no getting around the fact that you need to do 26.2 miles to get your medal.

There ARE concessions made for people with disabilities. However, if you are able bodied then there's only one way to get the thing done.

Is it really "gatekeeping" if people say "able bodied people can't just use a scooter and get a finish time and a medal, that's not right"?
Is it really "elitism" to respond to "how can I improve my finishing time" with an answer of "train more and train better"?

I can hardly imagine the response in the running community if someone comes out with "I got a bus for 20 miles then just ran the 6.2k to the finish line... and I feel fine". Oh, no, I don't need to imagine.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/753976/con-your-marks/
https://forums.runnersworld.co.uk/discussion/347123/london-marathon-cheaters-lets-do-this
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...rs-caught-cheating-in-shenzhens-half-marathon

Is this gate keeping? Elitism.
After all, if I paid to enter the race then why does anyone care that I hopped on a bus to skip half the course?
I didn't affect their experience.

Of course you take one fucking look at Jim Sterling and maybe you do understand why...

So it is with From games.
Part of the appeal is the unflinching difficulty.
Part of the appeal is that the community all faces the same challenge and faces it together.

Maybe people trying to subvert or undermine that do deserve ridicule? Not abuse, not harassment, but I have nothing against someone having a gentle go at folks who have to "cheat" to beat the game. Even more so when the attitude is "I cheated and I feel fine". What a total fucking loser.

I've said it before, it's the same predictable people with the same predictable takes on this.
The same folks who seem to begrudge anyone feeling a sense of achievement in completing a challenge.
Suddenly we are all super interested in games just being a bit of fun. Great add the big ol titties back into Mortal Kombat then, I love those things! NOT THAT KIND OF FUN! Ah, I see.

Let's be honest here. If Sekiro has released to lukewarm reviews and didn't have all the hype and the entertaining streaming and hadn't sold well then this conversation never happens. However it's the popular game of the day so totally not entitled gamers need to whine about how it's not accessible for people who don't want to get good.

I'm reminded of this article:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ape-the-relentless-pressure-to-improve-myself

Something that's very telling for me is that so many of the opinions on this revolve around disdain for, or mockery of, people who do seem to take pride in the achievement of beating a hard game. Like there is this underlying hatred of people who are not only good at these games but are somewhat proud of their achievements.

It's like looking at the winners podium after a marathon and going "who the fuck do they smug gits thing they are? Fucking going on about training and hard work... ooooh you trained hard and feel a great sense of achievement do you? Fucking get over yourself!"

Why not just let people enjoy their achievement? Even if you don't respect that achievement you can't just let them have it?

I think, no matter what anyone says, that having a single difficulty mode and making that quite challenging does give the games a sense of exclusivity and prestige. I don't really get why anyone would want to take the shine off of that other than just outright pettiness because they can't stand the few people who are quite arrogant and smug about it.

Jim using that aristocrat character just looks like the mask slipping right off for me. His beef is with people who think they are "all that" cos they can complete hard games. Can't you just ignore them? Who gives a fuck?

"I don't care about difficulty in games. Wait, is that guy bragging about beating tough games!? FETCH MY MAKE UP AND MY COSTUME!"

I know this video is shared a few times on the thread now but I will also encourage others to watch it.


Unfortunately, I think eventually From Software will cave in and their next big "souls" style release will be dogged with similar arguments until they just relent and make the game a bit less FromSoft and a bit more UbiSoft.

Then we can all be happy that we don't need to work hard to achieve the thing anymore. Throw those medals in the bin boys because any old asshole can just cycle to the finish line. Fuck it.

 

[wzy]

I really don't understand why this is such a big topic these days. Personally, I could not care less. Games have always had set difficulties, just look back at the NES era of games. Therefore, some games are for you, some aren't. I personally don't play Souls games because that experience is just not for me, but who am I to demand that the devs cater to me specifically? That said, if I feel the need to make things easier because I want to experience the story or whatever, I can always hack, mod or use a trainer. And who are "you" to tell me I'm not supposed to enjoy a game the way I do, when I clearly have different expectations to the experience I'm about to have. And that's fine - It does not ruin your game or your experience. To me it's simply BS if the only argument people have is "you don't deserve to be part of my elitist club I'm in because you didn't play the game as intended". Screw that. My money, my time, my rules.

Me, me, me

 

[#Phonepunk#]

Why are people still complaining about this?

Souls games don’t have an easy mode. They have been coming out for ten years now and they have added modes for increased difficulty but none for easy. GET OVER IT!

Complaining about Souls fans not wanting a nonexistent easy mode is pitiful. It doesn’t exist. You are upset at people over something that doesn’t exist.

Look, it’s time to realize that once you handed someone your money and they handed you a product, the transaction is complete. You don’t get to keep making demands. You don’t get to threaten returning the money if you don’t get your way. It’s called being a responsible consumer. If you can’t handle that, if you start attacking other consumers because you lack the self control to not purchase a product you already know you will not enjoy, the source of the problem is YOU

 

[Dacon]

One game launches with a bit of difficuly amidst a sea of easy to complete, cakewalk games and everyone loses their mind.

Is it really so bad for this one game to be uncompromising in its delivery? Is it so wrong for it to be made for a specific kind of gamer looking for a challenge?

 

[wzy]

It is a hypothetical. The argument is if a game like Sekiro had an optional easier mode that FromSoft chose to add, of their own free will (or was part of the game day 1) , and you could play through on standard difficulty, never having to touch the easier mode, would it detriment your enjoyment of the game? If yes, how? Jim thinks it wouldn't in any material way.
Hypotheticals are more useful than you make out - important for decision making and weighing up potential choices in the face of uncertainty. They have limits and aren't perfect but not pointless.

This argument only works as a hypothetical, which is why its so stupid and grating to constantly have to deal with (also because it's very obviously a bit of programmatic received wisdom courtesy of our beloved gaming press). Yes, just in case game difficulty is actually a line of code in the engine that gets commented out in "hard" games so babies can play them too, there's no consequence to having an easy mode.

In the real world, where games are made with finite resources and designed towards a specific experience, the inclusion of easy mode inherently and obviously will touch every other aspect of the game--largely to the detriment of the core experience. You have to design a game from the ground up to support a scaling difficulty. You can't just go in after the fact and start tweaking numbers, as virtually any modern "hard mode" will show you. The game stops working in very fundamental ways that require the attention of everyone on the team. You need design, production, testing, and planning involved in the whole process or you're going to ship garbage.

Look at the Demon Bell in Sekiro. It's an optional "extra hard" mode with a few extra gameplay tweaks, and having it activated completely fucks the whole experience in a bunch of minor and major ways, because all it really does is dramatically boost the health and damage of enemies with a few bonus perks thrown in as a reward. Enemies that are supposed to die in lightly scripted ways survive instead, attacks that are supposed to be survivable in some cases (i.e., with consumables) become instant kills in every scenario. Mini-bosses meant to be minor speedbumps become obnoxious chores. Tactics that added to the depth of the game become ineffective; others become mandatory. Everything not touched by the Demon Bell gets worse; other quantitative elements like health and damage upgrades become weirdly overpowered and necessary, emblems become twice as valuable but also twice as likely to be completely depleted against more difficult enemies, encouraging grinding. A third of the boss encounters are ten times harder than they originally were, a third are totally unchanged, and a third scale about how you'd expect them too, but they all become fundamentally less fun and less interesting.

Sekiro is simply not designed in a way that supports this kind of arbitrary scaling. And with the Demon Bell, this is mostly fine--you have to go out of your way to find it, and there's a basic skill test required of any player who wants to activate it. It serves a useful function in allowing a player to quickly farm desired items or to compensate for being overpowered in NG+ runs. And thankfully Demon Bell is really not figured into the critical consensus that will emerge around the game (I'll stake any amount of money in saying not one single reviewer chose to activate it in the course of their play through). The system here doesn't "work", but if fails in a mostly harmless way.

Easy mode will have all the same drawbacks but not a single one of these safeguards. Rather, because this is what always happens in games with scalable difficulties and people who actually play games have years of experience and intuition telling them this is so, easy mode becomes normal and normal becomes Demon Bell. The game is either designed around easy mode, which fucks hard mode players, or it spends not-insignificant time and resources ensuring the easy mode is worth playing even to the people who prefer easy games--which also fucks hard mode players, because they should have been the ones getting that extra attention.

Maybe there are solutions that will work here, but you haven't thought of them. Because you haven't thought about this at all--because you let someone else do it for you.

 

[synchronicity]

Well, I'll paraphrase DunDunDunpachi here: being artful doesn't make art. If art is being defined as some vague transcendent quality of an activity, I don't think it's very helpful - it opens the door to conflation, confusion, and "critical creep". We shouldn't be applying the same concepts to games as to paintings or music or sushi making because they don't follow all the way down. They're simply not the same thing at any level it's worth digging into.

It think it's really inappropriate in this topic because we are talking about the most fundamental difference between games and the other "art" that getting dragged in here; you can't win a book or a sculpture. Games can be artfully crafted or played, but to call them art in the same vein is changing the subject, and calling anyting art if certain subjective are met is way too vague to be useful in a discussion.

The difficulty with art is that it is, by its nature, creative and interpretive. No discourse can draw a border around what art is - it is dependent on subjective experience and judgment. To say that sushi making, for example (yours), is more of an art than game making is an incredibly subjective valuation, and one that I would firmly disagree with.

For me, game design - which is the crux of this thread and issue - is very much a creative thing, an art. No one can tell me what art is. I am the sole judge of that definition - as are you, in your experience. You can say this or that isn't art all day long, but you are assigning borders to the concept that are your own - not mine. (or belongs to a group to which you subscribe)

 

[DeepEnigma]

Jim always talks from a place of, "it's so easy to implement" when it comes to game development.

No pun intended.

 

[Sqorin Hammerfarf]

Jim always talks from a place of, "it's so easy to implement" when it comes to game development.

Only if that's what he named his ass.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

My god. He is still fucking fat!

 

[Dacon]

My god. He is still fucking fat!

Lol, did you really expect that to change ?

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Lol, did you really expect that to change ?

I'm surprised he hasn't died of a heart attack.

 

[Sqorin Hammerfarf]

I'm surprised he hasn't died of a heart attack.

It's coming. I'm not a fan of Sterling as a person or his work, but I don't wish him dead. He really, seriously needs to do something about his weight, and soon. The math teacher at my kids' school lost her husband to a heart attack. He was Jim Sterling sized and 36 years old. It's not a possibility for Sterling. It's an eventuality. I really hope that he takes more care with his health.

 

[zenspider]

The difficulty with art is that it is, by its nature, creative and interpretive. No discourse can draw a border around what art is - it is dependent on subjective experience and judgment. To say that sushi making, for example (yours), is more of an art than game making is an incredibly subjective valuation, and one that I would firmly disagree with.

For me, game design - which is the crux of this thread and issue - is very much a creative thing, an art. No one can tell me what art is. I am the sole judge of that definition - as are you, in your experience. You can say this or that isn't art all day long, but you are assigning borders to the concept that are your own - not mine. (or belongs to a group to which you subscribe)

I don't disagree with your defining of art - it's quite beautiful actually. But in this discussion, if you keep drawing a bigger circle around the point it's only getting harder to get at it.

Maybe we can agree on a bright line here: art can be highly subjective, but winning much less so. Designing a game has to have that limitation in mind. A game without a win condition is no longer game, wether it is art, artful, or not. Can we agree on that?

 

[Danjin44]

I don't disagree with your defining of art - it's quite beautiful actually. But in this discussion, if you keep drawing a bigger circle around the point it's only getting harder to get at it.

Maybe we can agree on a bright line here: art can be highly subjective, but winning much less so. Designing a game has to have that limitation in mind. A game without a win condition is no longer game, wether it is art, artful, or not. Can we agree on that?

But there is in Sekiro!!! the game gives you lots, LOTS of option to make the fight easier. Not only that in Sekiro most of the time it will try to prepare you for the actual boss fight through mini bosses, for example when you try to reach the Genchiro you first fighting the samurai mini boss which will teach you the importance of posture damage. Genchiro's posture is weak, you can easily kill him with almost full health same way you did when fighting the that samurai mini boss.

 

[zenspider]

But there is in Sekiro!!! the game gives you lots, LOTS of option to make the fight easier. Not only that in Sekiro most of the time it will try to prepare you for the actual boss fight through mini bosses, for example when you try to reach the Genchiro you first fighting the samurai mini boss which will teach you the importance of posture damage. Genchiro's posture is weak, you can easily kill him with almost full health same way you did when fighting the that samurai mini boss.

Haven't grabbed Sekiro yet, but that sounds par for course from From - masters of the craft. That's one of the problems with this discussion - From's design is incredibly fair. It should be very difficult to make an example of as a design that needs an "easy mode", yet here we are again.

 

[Ivellios]

I think From dont need to make a easy mode of their games if they dont want to, as that can probably mess up their carefully planned balance of the games.

However i dont judge if someone gets stuck on Sekiro for example and cheats to beat a hard boss, its single player people can play however they want.

But there is in Sekiro!!! the game gives you lots, LOTS of option to make the fight easier. Not only that in Sekiro most of the time it will try to prepare you for the actual boss fight through mini bosses, for example when you try to reach the Genchiro you first fighting the samurai mini boss which will teach you the importance of posture damage. Genchiro's posture is weak, you can easily kill him with almost full health same way you did when fighting the that samurai mini boss.

Nothing prepared me for

Spoiler

Owl father

He is the hardest boss of the game for me so far.

not ranting, just joking.

 

[EDMIX]

Boy it must fucking enrage you and fill you up with hate people hack the shit out of souls games on pc and play your precious hardcore game on EZ-mode.

So to come back at your statement i do whatever the fuck i want to MY game i bought with MY money.

Cant wait for from soft to release an EZ mode in one of their games and then i can go all "its their artistic vision" on yo ass

This.

I can't complain about how someone wants to play a game. If they want to play on easy, with mods etc I don't care. So long as its not cheating in some MP title, it matters not to me.

 

[EDMIX]

I like to use running a marathon as an analogy. Just to show how weird some of these takes on difficulty, achievement, gatekeeping and elitism really are.

Let's say you wanted to to the Rock n Roll Marathon in Vegas this November this year, about 7 months from now.
https://www.runrocknroll.com/en/Events/Las-Vegas/Vegas-Register
(I recommend the "Rock n Roll" series of races for anyone interested as they are great events and you'll have an awesome time)

First off you have to pay 142 bucks just to enter the race.
Then you are going to have to commit to training if you really want to run the thing and not find yourself shuffling around for 8 hours.
You're gonna need running gear so that's more money.
Travel to the event (maybe hotel stays). Food, transport. Etc etc.

So since you've paid all that money are you entitled to just cycle the course? Maybe take a taxi to the finish line?

One of the things you will find if you are into running is that there is a great sense of camaraderie among fellow runners and if you go online there are a few worthwhile communities. Personally I have the local running club here and we have a great time building up to big events.

One of the main things there is that we all face the same 26.2 miles. Some will drop out before the end. Some will aim for spectacular finishing times but will crash and burn on the day (exactly what happened during my first ever marathon). The big thing is that there is no getting around the fact that you need to do 26.2 miles to get your medal.

There ARE concessions made for people with disabilities. However, if you are able bodied then there's only one way to get the thing done.

Is it really "gatekeeping" if people say "able bodied people can't just use a scooter and get a finish time and a medal, that's not right"?
Is it really "elitism" to respond to "how can I improve my finishing time" with an answer of "train more and train better"?

I can hardly imagine the response in the running community if someone comes out with "I got a bus for 20 miles then just ran the 6.2k to the finish line... and I feel fine". Oh, no, I don't need to imagine.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/753976/con-your-marks/
https://forums.runnersworld.co.uk/discussion/347123/london-marathon-cheaters-lets-do-this
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...rs-caught-cheating-in-shenzhens-half-marathon

Is this gate keeping? Elitism.
After all, if I paid to enter the race then why does anyone care that I hopped on a bus to skip half the course?
I didn't affect their experience.

Of course you take one fucking look at Jim Sterling and maybe you do understand why...

So it is with From games.
Part of the appeal is the unflinching difficulty.
Part of the appeal is that the community all faces the same challenge and faces it together.

Maybe people trying to subvert or undermine that do deserve ridicule? Not abuse, not harassment, but I have nothing against someone having a gentle go at folks who have to "cheat" to beat the game. Even more so when the attitude is "I cheated and I feel fine". What a total fucking loser.

I've said it before, it's the same predictable people with the same predictable takes on this.
The same folks who seem to begrudge anyone feeling a sense of achievement in completing a challenge.
Suddenly we are all super interested in games just being a bit of fun. Great add the big ol titties back into Mortal Kombat then, I love those things! NOT THAT KIND OF FUN! Ah, I see.

Let's be honest here. If Sekiro has released to lukewarm reviews and didn't have all the hype and the entertaining streaming and hadn't sold well then this conversation never happens. However it's the popular game of the day so totally not entitled gamers need to whine about how it's not accessible for people who don't want to get good.

I'm reminded of this article:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ape-the-relentless-pressure-to-improve-myself

Something that's very telling for me is that so many of the opinions on this revolve around disdain for, or mockery of, people who do seem to take pride in the achievement of beating a hard game. Like there is this underlying hatred of people who are not only good at these games but are somewhat proud of their achievements.

It's like looking at the winners podium after a marathon and going "who the fuck do they smug gits thing they are? Fucking going on about training and hard work... ooooh you trained hard and feel a great sense of achievement do you? Fucking get over yourself!"

Why not just let people enjoy their achievement? Even if you don't respect that achievement you can't just let them have it?

I think, no matter what anyone says, that having a single difficulty mode and making that quite challenging does give the games a sense of exclusivity and prestige. I don't really get why anyone would want to take the shine off of that other than just outright pettiness because they can't stand the few people who are quite arrogant and smug about it.

Jim using that aristocrat character just looks like the mask slipping right off for me. His beef is with people who think they are "all that" cos they can complete hard games. Can't you just ignore them? Who gives a fuck?

"I don't care about difficulty in games. Wait, is that guy bragging about beating tough games!? FETCH MY MAKE UP AND MY COSTUME!"

I know this video is shared a few times on the thread now but I will also encourage others to watch it.


Unfortunately, I think eventually From Software will cave in and their next big "souls" style release will be dogged with similar arguments until they just relent and make the game a bit less FromSoft and a bit more UbiSoft.

Then we can all be happy that we don't need to work hard to achieve the thing anymore. Throw those medals in the bin boys because any old asshole can just cycle to the finish line. Fuck it.

The majority of that post doesn't really make sense as this isn't some competitive multiplayer game. If a easy mode exist or someone mods the game, why is that even some issue to you? So no one in most games needed to "work hard to achieve" anything as mods have existed for many games. So no one "need" to, that is a choice for someone to do that. JUST like its a choice for someone to mod a game to do something. Someone is always going to play easy mode or mod a game etc.

As to why that makes you upset is beyond me.

Neither of those options requires you to remove the normal or hardmode.

 

[tassletine]

Ha! Nice try.

 

[tassletine]

Why does this always come down to "elitism" when it's anything but that?

Sure there are always a few assholes who think that they are some how better than other people because they can play a game, but 99% of people don't give a fuck which game you finished or how hard it was. I can't remember a single time in my life where I said "wow man, you beat the game on HARD?! You must be a pro-gamer!" No one gives a shit about the difficulty level of games you play, it's more about how difficulty levels can drastically alter the feel of a game, and gives up something interesting.

However, I remember many times in my life where I said to a friend "are you at X yet?" or "did you get to y, it's so hard!" Then generate a discussion over how we overcame a tough section, often laughing at my own ineptitude.
Completing a tough game does not make you "elite" it's just a feeling of accomplishment that you can actually discuss. If I had told my buddy that I beat O&S in Dark Souls, and he had gone "huh, on easy there was just one guy" it wouldn't have the same effect.

You also don't see "elite" gamers clamouring for hard modes in all games. I don't ask the devs of easier games to give me a difficult option if it's not in their vision.
I also don't ask devs to take away difficulty modes that already exist. Bayonetta is a great example of a game where the difficulty modes add to the score-chasing gameplay.

Sorry for the rant, but this shit is so old. It's such a straw man.

It's not Elititsm, per se, but it does play into that sort of attitude.

When you say that 99% of people don't give a fuck, you're probably right.
But Sekiro is not your average game, it's one that has been hyped for it's difficulty, so it attracts a specific type of competitive gamer.
I'd also say that 99% of people won't have played a game this hard and judging by the trophy scores, very, very few people are actually getting through this.

So what we're left with are a select few as the game has already weeded out most of the mainstream.
When there are only a few skilled people at the top, this leads to a certain type of behaviour, that if it's left to fester turns into an eleitist attitude. You can see some of this in forums.

You're right that completing a game doesn't make it eletist ... But bragging about that and banding together with others to mock, is an elitist attitude. It's punching down -- And this game, more than most stokes those sorts of attitudes in people.

But this is intended and not without comment from Miyazaki.

All his games have this theme woven through them. The longing for waelth and perfection and how that corrupts you and eventually makes you hollow.
Miyazaki is a very clever man who knows his fans well.

 

[Starlight Lotice]

Arcade games were also meant to be perpetual money-makers that players rarely owned. It’s worth noting that arcade games also had adjustable difficulty settings, which arcade operators could tinker with based on customer reaction. Finally, many arcade games from the Golden Age could not be “beaten”; they were quests for points, with either kill screens or score rollovers as close to “beating” them as players could ever get.

If you buy an arcade game, you can set the difficulty lower. You can set the game to Free Play. You can tinker with all kinds of settings to “beat” it or run up a ridiculous amount of points. And it doesn’t matter how you do it, because you spent your money on it, and it’s yours to play as you wish.

The gatekeeping and elitism among today’s video game players is fucking shitty, full stop. Nobody fucking owns this hobby, nor is there a designated arbiter to tell players how they should play and enjoy games. I don’t give a fuck what others think when I play through modern games on Easy. I have nobody to impress, no e-penis to grow and flaunt. If others want to play on higher difficulty settings, then good for them. It’s nice to have various options so that more people can play and— most importantly— enjoy games.

And lest we forget that these are fucking video games. Things that, once upon a time, were allowed to be fun things. Now it’s serious business. “Artistic vision”. “Git gud”. “If you’re not frustrated, it’s not rewarding when you succeed.”

Fuck all that. In a world where real life is frustrating enough, I don’t need to be more frustrated. I want to get away from that shit for awhile and just enjoy myself without wanting to snap a controller in two.

If developers don’t want to put easier difficulty settings into their games, fine. I won’t buy them. If marketing teams want to promote their games as being ball-bustingly difficult, fine. I won’t play them. It’s all about choice— and thanks to having tons of modern games to pick from and decades worth of games from the past to revisit, nothing major is lost if I decide to skip a few. These hard games— whether hard in reality or hard based on reputation— just aren’t my thing.

Agree 100%

I did want to comment in the Easy Mode thread about my own experience but was worried I'd get a bad reaction to it.

I think an Easy Mode is fine to add, se a Player can improve and start again on a harder difficulty. That is how I can beat Streets of Rage 2 on Hardest after playing Easy Mode as a kid.

Perhaps they can offer an easy mode if you really struggle a few times on the intended difficulty.

In regards to whether someone earns the right to beat a game because they paid for it, I would say they at least deserve an ending even if it isn't a true ending. Some people can't afford to pay for a game they want and never finish it as it was intended. I hate selling games I got frustrated with due to one boss or a difficulty spike. People can learn the mechanics and never improve and see it as a waste of their time and money. Games are meant to be a fun pasttime and provide a challenge for those who seek it as well.

That is my take on it all.

 

[Airola]

For me, game design - which is the crux of this thread and issue - is very much a creative thing, an art. No one can tell me what art is. I am the sole judge of that definition - as are you, in your experience. You can say this or that isn't art all day long, but you are assigning borders to the concept that are your own - not mine. (or belongs to a group to which you subscribe)

But isn't it different to say something is an art than something being art.
Like, there is an art of knife throwing, but someone throwing knives isn't a piece of art.

In my opinion games aren't art by default, but there can be games that are art. I don't think every piece of music is art either, or that every movie is are or every painting is art. There is an art of making them but the end result or the process of doing them isn't art. Some are but not all.

I don't think something being pleasing to the eye alone is art or that if something brings out emotions is art either. I think there has to be this layer of the work telling things and truths that a person can understand but what can't be put to words easily.

You're right that completing a game doesn't make it eletist ... But bragging about that and banding together with others to mock, is an elitist attitude. It's punching down -- And this game, more than most stokes those sorts of attitudes in people.

Even if that happens I don't understand why people care too much, even to the point that they start to make claims that the games should be easier and claiming that giving an easy mode doesn't take out anything from the normal mode in any game, when that's simply untrue.

I think there's something a bit like school kids mocking the kids who are good at math and other subjects. And if they ever "boast" with their skills and accomplishments, that makes those kids even angrier. In this analogy those people would start to tell we should have an option to use seventh grade math problems to pass the eight grade, that having an option like that doesn't hurt anyone and people who want to go through the eight grade by calculating eight grade math problems still can do so.

Like really, why do these people care even if someone brags about what they have done?
In any case the bragging usually comes only after someone makes claims that things are too hard and something else than personal practice should be done to it.
These people don't care if someone just plays the game and can't go far in it and accepts that.

Boy it must fucking enrage you and fill you up with hate people hack the shit out of souls games on pc and play your precious hardcore game on EZ-mode.

So to come back at your statement i do whatever the fuck i want to MY game i bought with MY money.

Cant wait for from soft to release an EZ mode in one of their games and then i can go all "its their artistic vision" on yo ass

I'm sure it doesn't enrage them more than the creators of the game not making those tools for you to get from the main menu enrages you

 

[Airola]

In regards to whether someone earns the right to beat a game because they paid for it, I would say they at least deserve an ending even if it isn't a true ending. Some people can't afford to pay for a game they want and never finish it as it was intended. I hate selling games I got frustrated with due to one boss or a difficulty spike. People can learn the mechanics and never improve and see it as a waste of their time and money. Games are meant to be a fun pasttime and provide a challenge for those who seek it as well.

Game Over is an ending.

Sometimes heroes just fail. I think people should accept Game Over being one of the endings of the game.

 

[nkarafo]

I really don't understand why this is such a big topic these days.

Because now we live in the "entitlement" era. Everyone wants everyone to cater for them.

If someone doesn't have his needs covered for every single thing, they feel "excluded".

 

[Danjin44]

Should I start complaine about MMOs or online only games don't have offline mode? Logic here is every game needs to cater to my needs. Why games like FFXIV don't have offline mode for someone like me who doesn't care about online gaming?

 

[EDMIX]

Should I start complaine about MMOs or online only games don't have offline mode? Logic here is every game needs to cater to my needs. Why games like FFXIV don't have offline mode for someone like me who doesn't care about online gaming?

Sounds like false equivalence to me. Many online only games can only be designed that way based on the core concept. So titles like Minecraft have a offline mode too, but its only with titles that can actually do that. So its not really a feature that is found on many online titles for a reason. You can find difficulty settings on many titles for a reason....because its something that is easily doable and quite normal for many games.

Taking a massive server and having it compressed to fit on disk and download to be played offline isn't so easy and even goes against the actual concept of some of the titles if they are made for many people to play as the core concept. You can how ever play many MMO's solo as lots cater to that now a days, so its not even as if all are made that way, simply that technically you are talking about a much more massive undertaking for something very little might really use or get the game for.

So offline mode in a game built on a server is nothing like different modes in terms of difficulty.

How many online games do you know that have actually done that besides Minecraft or No Man Sky? Like actual MMO as suppose to optional semi online titles. Doesn't that alone tell you how rare that is vs multiple modes etc?

Ace Combat 7: Skies Unknown
DMC5
Resident Evil 2 remake
Anthem
KH3
Far Cry New Dawn
Metro 3
Crackdown 3

and all of that is just from the top of my head have many modes.

You don't need to agree with it in a game, but I see no reason to pretend anyone is asking for the impossible or rare compared to what you just asked for as if it was the same thing. Many modes can be found in MOST games, what you are asking for is quite rare and I think you know that...

 

[EDMIX]

Agree 100%

I did want to comment in the Easy Mode thread about my own experience but was worried I'd get a bad reaction to it.

I think an Easy Mode is fine to add, se a Player can improve and start again on a harder difficulty. That is how I can beat Streets of Rage 2 on Hardest after playing Easy Mode as a kid.

Perhaps they can offer an easy mode if you really struggle a few times on the intended difficulty.

In regards to whether someone earns the right to beat a game because they paid for it, I would say they at least deserve an ending even if it isn't a true ending. Some people can't afford to pay for a game they want and never finish it as it was intended. I hate selling games I got frustrated with due to one boss or a difficulty spike. People can learn the mechanics and never improve and see it as a waste of their time and money. Games are meant to be a fun pasttime and provide a challenge for those who seek it as well.

That is my take on it all.

Agreed. Solid post. If someone pays for it, I have no issue if they play on easy or mod the game etc. I have a much new found respect for developers that have many modes in their games to allow others to join in on the fun. That is a solid part of design too, accessibility. So I LOVE playing Resident Evil series on the hardmodes, but I know many that love the series just as much as me that play it on easy. Though we see things differently, at least we can at least talk about the ending and different bosses etc. Why should my love for the harder setting and limited saves ammo etc get in the way of someone else playing it? If the developer makes that easier mode for them, who cares? So I can play it my way and so can other gamers. Everyone wins. So Capcom had to change a bit to make the normal and easy mode work in the RE series and it makes me respect developers like that even more that think of those things.


RE2 remake is basically a return to those older concepts with limited ammo, saves, health but only for Hardcore. So I'm ok with that as if someone doesn't beat RE2 remake cause that limited save and never buys RE3 remake, it could mean less sales and less people playing which means less RE for me.

I don't care if someone wants to play THEIR WAY, if the team has a unique creative way to alter modes, I'm for it. It doesn't get in the way of the mode I enjoy. People just need to stop all this hate in the community as I see no reason someone modding or having a easy mode should upset folks like this. So just because I played RE2 remake or KH3 or DMC5 on hard modes, doesn't mean I'm going to attack, demean, disrespect other gamers that played it on easy.

We going to start attacking gamers that don't platinum games now too?

 

[Majukun]

i'm in the "let developers do as they please camp"

if they want to give people an easy mode, let them do it

if they don't want to spend timeand money in making an easier mode, leave them alone, they just don't want your money and it's fine.

also, nobody argued for more challenging game when i was enjoying gaming less because every game was a dumbed down,too easy boring fest,so i'm not gonna get up in arms for other people that want an easy mode for those, like, 4 games that are not catered to them.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

This way every player gets to experience the world and the story blah blah blah but people doing that in easy mode need to invest a lot more time in the experience since they are not willing to invest more effort.

I think at least this concept could be used to distinguish between people who want the game to be "easier" and people who want the game to be "more convenient".

Japanese RPGs.

In almost all cases, you can grind. Exploiting enemy weaknesses, learning patterns and exploits, etc could be seen as "getting better" at the game, whereas anyone with 100 spare hours on their hands can grind up a team of characters in an RPG and steamroll the game. The difficulty slider is your time invested.

EDIT: it should be noted that Soulsborne games follow this same rule. In Bloodborne, for instance, the health bar (Vitality stat) is basically your difficulty bar, and pumping inordinate amounts of points into Vitality makes the game much easier. At any point, you can stop attempting to progress and grind on the enemies in your current area.

Sekiro is a tad bit different in that it doesn't really offer players the option to grind stats in this way (if I'm not mistaken; I haven't played it yet) so I can understand why some gamers would be upset when they can no longer grind through the game like they used to.

 

[Airola]

We going to start attacking gamers that don't platinum games now too?

Why you have this attitude that someone is attacking gamers?
It's not an attack towards you if someone doesn't make a game where the easiest possible difficulty is still hard.

And people have said it over and over again that people can use whatever mods they want. They can turn their games into whatever they want. The problem is when people start to demand those games to be released with things equivalent of those mods when the developers don't want to.

You have been told all of this over and over again. I have posted several posts where I explain why the presentation of the game in some cases might suffer from having an optional easy mode, but you never address those points but constantly come back to say "but it's optional."

Just as it's ok to not platinum your games, it's ok to not beat the final boss and it's ok to also not beat the first boss. It's all ok. I don't understand why people have so much issue with not beating their games. Why is it so hard to accept that if I don't practice more, this is as far as I can get?

 

[zenspider]

The majority of that post doesn't really make sense as this isn't some competitive multiplayer game. If a easy mode exist or someone mods the game, why is that even some issue to you? So no one in most games needed to "work hard to achieve" anything as mods have existed for many games. So no one "need" to, that is a choice for someone to do that. JUST like its a choice for someone to mod a game to do something. Someone is always going to play easy mode or mod a game etc.

As to why that makes you upset is beyond me.

Neither of those options requires you to remove the normal or hardmode.

It's the same reason nepotism, diversity quotas, corporate tax loopholes, and double standards in general bother people. We don't like when people get to where we are and didn't earn it. At the very least, it makes a mockery of the games we invest in playing.

To use EDMIX 's example: no, it doesn't affect my personal win condition of finishing a marathon if you decide to take an Uber to the finish line, but it undermines the integrity of the game, and is an insult to my accomplishment that you are now in the exclusive group of winners. Your bad faith efforts cheapen my experience.

 

[Closer]

People demanding for the game to have an easy mode are a problem just like people demanding for the game to not have an easy mode are a problem.

 

[EDMIX]

It's the same reason nepotism, diversity quotas, corporate tax loopholes, and double standards in general bother people. We don't like when people get to where we are and didn't earn it. At the very least, it makes a mockery of the games we invest in playing.

To use EDMIX 's example: no, it doesn't affect my personal win condition of finishing a marathon if you decide to take an Uber to the finish line, but it undermines the integrity of the game, and is an insult to my accomplishment that you are now in the exclusive group of winners. Your bad faith efforts cheapen my experience.

??? "We don't like when people get to where we are and didn't earn it. " Ummmm this is a video game. Its not a competitive game or multiplayer or speed running or anything like that so the the majority of that post is just false equivalence.

I don't care that someone beat RE2 on a different mode bud....

I don't care that someone beat RE2 with mods....

Did they cheat on a speed run? Thats an issue
Did they cheat in a multiplayer game? Thats an issue

A offline, single player that they are playing for fun? Ummmm don't care, no one is really getting hurt by that. It would be like getting mad that someone used a book on tape instead of reading the book for a book club or spark notes or watched the movie etc.

How I play a game I bought has next to nothing to do with how you invest your time playing the ones you buy. I'm sorry but the example is extremely forced and doesn't really make sense.

 

[zenspider]

Agreed. Solid post. If someone pays for it, I have no issue if they play on easy or mod the game etc. I have a much new found respect for developers that have many modes in their games to allow others to join in on the fun. That is a solid part of design too, accessibility. So I LOVE playing Resident Evil series on the hardmodes, but I know many that love the series just as much as me that play it on easy. Though we see things differently, at least we can at least talk about the ending and different bosses etc. Why should my love for the harder setting and limited saves ammo etc get in the way of someone else playing it? If the developer makes that easier mode for them, who cares? So I can play it my way and so can other gamers. Everyone wins. So Capcom had to change a bit to make the normal and easy mode work in the RE series and it makes me respect developers like that even more that think of those things.


RE2 remake is basically a return to those older concepts with limited ammo, saves, health but only for Hardcore. So I'm ok with that as if someone doesn't beat RE2 remake cause that limited save and never buys RE3 remake, it could mean less sales and less people playing which means less RE for me.

I don't care if someone wants to play THEIR WAY, if the team has a unique creative way to alter modes, I'm for it. It doesn't get in the way of the mode I enjoy. People just need to stop all this hate in the community as I see no reason someone modding or having a easy mode should upset folks like this. So just because I played RE2 remake or KH3 or DMC5 on hard modes, doesn't mean I'm going to attack, demean, disrespect other gamers that played it on easy.

We going to start attacking gamers that don't platinum games now too?

Two things here - I don't think anti-inclusivity argument is attacking people who do take the easy mode when offered, but when that is acceptable is a substitute for the "proper" experience. You don't have to go far down the threads to see someone defend TLOU's gameplay by "mode shaming". I think it's a fair point to make in discussions, and highlights the problem with making lower difficulty options - if there was a better experience, it should have been communicated by being the default.

I think the real venom of the anti-inclusivity argument is against the media and agenda. It's not gamer v. gamer, but gamer v. the anti-gamer agenda.

These media clowns who can't get through games to make thier deadlines want heaven and earth to move so they can, and then write critical pieces that do not represent the intended experience.

 

[EDMIX]

Two things here - I don't think anti-inclusivity argument is attacking people who do take the easy mode when offered, but when that is acceptable is a substitute for the "proper" experience. You don't have to go far down the threads to see someone defend TLOU's gameplay by "mode shaming". I think it's a fair point to make in discussions, and highlights the problem with making lower difficulty options - if there was a better experience, it should have been communicated by being the default.

I think the real venom of the anti-inclusivity argument is against the media and agenda. It's not gamer v. gamer, but gamer v. the anti-gamer agenda.

These media clowns who can't get through games to make thier deadlines want heaven and earth to move so they can, and then write critical pieces that do not represent the intended experience.

"These media clowns who can't get through games to make thier deadlines want heaven and earth to move so they can, and then write critical pieces that do not represent the intended experience. " Good point all around. Their view might be aimed at the consumer, but very much about them not liking some game's difficulty.

 

[GenericUser]

The fundamental question is this: do you deserve to beat a game just because you spent money on it?

The arcades didn't seem to think so. Entire genres don't seem to think so. People complain if spending money gives you a leg up on your opponent in an online multiplayer game ("pay to win").

So why do people believe they should beat a game just because they bought it? The difficulty is part of the developer's artistic vision.

No and people need to understand that not being able to beat a certain game is one of the downsides of an interactive medium.

 

[zenspider]

??? "We don't like when people get to where we are and didn't earn it. " Ummmm this is a video game. Its not a competitive game or multiplayer or speed running or anything like that so the the majority of that post is just false equivalence.

I don't care that someone beat RE2 on a different mode bud....

I don't care that someone beat RE2 with mods....

Did they cheat on a speed run? Thats an issue
Did they cheat in a multiplayer game? Thats an issue

A offline, single player that they are playing for fun? Ummmm don't care, no one is really getting hurt by that. It would be like getting mad that someone used a book on tape instead of reading the book for a book club or spark notes or watched the movie etc.

How I play a game I bought has next to nothing to do with how you invest your time playing the ones you buy. I'm sorry but the example is extremely forced and doesn't really make sense.

I think it makes perfect sense when you frame things as games. The job market is a game, getting good seats at the movies is a game, getting your groceries is a game: you can win or you can lose.

You can play for fun, and that's great. I play a ton of games for fun. But the line where my fun affects those who play to win, is when the condition for my fun affects the integrity of the game.

We can look at golf as a sort of hybrid single-player/multi-player experience. Do you really want to see some shlub with a 20 handicap playing on the Masters course with Tiger Woods? Maybe I kinda wouldb but I definitely don't want to hear what he has to say about the proper way to play golf. That's where the critical component comes in.

This isn't about gamer v gamer, "you can't have fun playing games I take seriously". The more the merrier. This is about protecting the integrity of games and winning them from the top-down against this nonsense agenda.

 

[Saruhashi]

As to why that makes you upset is beyond me.

This is why conversing with people like you is a complete waste of time.
What's the point of this misinterpretation?

It's beyond me how you came away with the impression that I was "upset".
Allow me to disabuse you of that idea right now. I am in no way upset about this.

If anything I find it to be an incredibly interesting subject since there are very few, if any, forms of entertainment that it applies to.
As they say, a movie or a book doesn't test your ability before allowing you to proceed.

So it comes down to what people think video games should be.

However that idea of what a game ought to be sometimes gets pushed to the point of criticizing a developer when their concept of "challenge" or what a "game" is is not in line with the idea of the "game" as a story-telling medium.

On the other hand there is no shortage of people saying "games can be anything" or whatever. Implying that from an artistic perspective a game can be anything to anyone and the scope of what a game can do is so broad.

Except for one thing.

A game can't be "too hard".
Games "can be anything" and games can "take us anywhere" but they can't do that. They can't be too difficult.

So let's say it's true. Nobody "needs" to get good. Cos there's all these options right?
What happens when a developer says "nah, we want to make a game where you DO need to get good, not exceptions"?
Suddenly games can't "be anything" or "do anything"? I see.

It's simple. I agree that a challenge where you NEED to be good enough is a valid challenge.
No easy mode, no hacks, no cheese? Brilliant! That would be amazing game design. I'd want something like that, for sure.

Adding an easy mode goes against that. So I don't want it.
If the developers want to add it then that's up to them. I think the game is better off without it.

So I can't get my challenging game from a developer that shares my philosophy because these crying manbabies need an "easy mode" to help them "experience the game" in their own way? Kindly, piss off.