Support NeoGAF

[fatgamecat]

There shouldn't be a problem with Dark Souls having an easy mode, or a hard mode. It's a more difficult form of sandbox RPG, not some kind of competitive game with a scoring system. Games should ideally appeal to a wide range of player skills, although in practice it's usually the upper end of skill that gets ignored.

 

[duckroll]

The point isn't about easier difficulty levels, it's about the quality of a difficulty level. You can make an Easy difficulty without it being a total waste of time. Keep the mechanics intact, make the encounters easier and more manageable for a person who is unfamiliar with how things work, but still force the player to learn how these things work before they can accomplish the objective. It's win-win, because you don't get your ass kicked and you still learn how to play the game.

Auto-gaming features help no one. If people aren't interested in the game and only want the "story" then I will suggest that spending 60 bucks on a game is probably a bad idea in the first place.

 

[The Jutty]

The point isn't about easier difficulty levels, it's about the quality of a difficulty level. You can make an Easy difficulty without it being a total waste of time. Keep the mechanics intact, make the encounters easier and more manageable for a person who is unfamiliar with how things work, but still force the player to learn how these things work before they can accomplish the objective. It's win-win, because you don't get your ass kicked and you still learn how to play the game.

Auto-gaming features help no one. If people aren't interested in the game and only want the "story" then I will suggest that spending 60 bucks on a game is probably a bad idea in the first place.

I can agree with that. It's definitely less lazy than developing a game with a brain dead easy difficulty. It just doesn't bother me personally or degrade my experience that it exists.

 

[Violet_0]

hey, easy mode is the only reason I could finish Dragon Age 2, for better or worse. Though that had less to do with the difficulty of the game and more with ingenious encounter design

 

[vocab]

Look ill agree save any where can be a detriment to a game, but in some cases who cares? Who cares if I want to save before a fight? Who cares if I want to save before I open a trap? Do you really want a game where if you die you permadie and start from the beginning?

Play rogue likes, or d2 hardcore mode. Some games are not balanced for both auto save, and fair encounters in some cases.

Im playing Might and Magic 4, it's almost recommend to save before doing anything because the games cheap, and you can die if you go one square where your not supposed to. You can open one chest and your whole party dies. Hell there's some things that you can do that permanently age your character to higher age, and they are weak the whole game. The game doesn't give a shit about fairness so why should you? IF you want to play the "fair" way, then by all means have a frustrating experience while doing so.

 

[Meccanical]

This thread man.

This thread.

I will just say I disagree.

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

Quake is casual because COD has auto aim

 

[params7]

I fail to see how it is "stupid". If you dont have the self control to follow it through, and weren't enjoying it, why would you start in the first place?

I am not saying all games should be like this. But what I am saying is that games which allow the player freedoms to make these choices are not inherently bad.

Its not merely about brute forcing imagined challenges but a well designed, developer intended adventures. I do not agree that games like Skyrim are intended to be played where you have to ignore the items and features given to you by the developer.

A fair argument. But I still contend as an example, that Itagaki could have added an absurdly easy mode to Ninja Gaiden Black ala Bayonetta's very easy difficulty, and the game's quality would still be fully intact. Both easy and hardcore players would have been satisfied.

Reminds me of the Dark Souls easy mode debate. An easy mode would be missing the point of the experience... but I don't see the problem with having one as an option, since anyone who's in it for the challenge and experience can play as intended, and scrubs could have their easy mode.

If Demon's Souls had a easy mode it would have never made it out of Japan. The game would have been reviewed in the easy/normal mode, that's the default mode for review from every major review publisher, it would have never gained the cult status that brought it to USA. Hard just would have been seen as some tacked on stuff like CoD's veteran difficulty. Demon's and Dark are good examples, because the whole game turns into a very generic hack/slash if you make it easy. The whole game was designed with one difficulty in mind, which is why it succeeds for many.

 

[djtiesto]

I don't particularly care for the "save-anywhere" feature... though I do agree that having a suspend state that disappears upon reload is ideal. I tend to like when games are balanced for a whole dungeon, instead of an encounter... i.e. you fight many battles and you slowly get worn down, where resource management is a vital part of the gameplay.

What do people think of having a limited amount of saves, but at the same time being able to save anywhere? Something like the early Tomb Raider games and their save crystals, or Lunar 2's US Sega CD version, where saving the game would cost MP.

And hell, aside from the final dungeon of FF3, the DQ games, and tri-Ace games (seriously, they usually make fantastic games but their dungeons are huge and lacking in save points), most games with save points have them placed very liberally. If anything, you may have to redo 20-30 minutes of progress at the worst.

So yeah where are these hard JRPGs?

Right in the OP, Resonance of Fate. (incredible game BTW)

They design a world, some characters, maybe an over-arching story, a load of quests and some rules. The rest is up to you and I think that's the way RPGs should be.

For me, balance and level design go a looong way, and it's why I'd prefer a tightly designed experience to an open-ended sandbox any day of the week. That goes for any genre not just RPG. Trying to break through the rules and limitations of the game world can be an extremely enjoyable experience.

 

[Riposte]

The hopelessness of gaining an understanding between these two sides I think can itself be understood by looking at how the arguments of the most staunch proponents of "quick-saving" can almost always be boiled down to a position of being persecuted. People, like me, who dislike quick-saves and would like to see games both without them and without a dependency on them (or at least wish to criticize games which fails to be without them) are doomed to be attacked as bullies by those who want (need) them. Apparently I want to practice the cruel injustice of "taking away options", which "doesn't make sense" because "they are optional!". Perhaps it doesn't matter how many arguments are demolished (as they have been in this thread by myself and others - if you haven't read them, then engaging this post is a waste of time), when people are a little too eager to beg for mercy. This is what the hilariously self-condemning "you lack self-control" argument comes down to: even in the face of superior game design, you demand a fairness which allows mediocrity to exist. This is misguided because what we argue for is not the extinction of your ability to enjoy games (which apparently requires all sorts of handicaps), it is for it not to interfere with good game design. It is not about taking away how people play games, it is to make them great even if it hurts the way those people want to play games. Even if good arguments can be made from the other side, I believe this resentment poisons the conversation.

This actually loops back to my original comments in this thread quite nicely. We should be more concerned whether quick-saves are good or bad (I see that there is little room to argue that they are at least mostly for the worse), rather than working from the idea that we should cater to certain players despite whatever negative consequence (or even that quicksaves are not bad because they cater to certain (mediocre) players).

Also, why the fuck are people still using "casual" as a derogatory term? Are we back in 2006 and I didn't notice?

"Casual" will remain derogatory for as long as "expertise", "dedication", and "passion" remain virtues.

 

[zoukka]

"Casual" will remain derogatory for as long as "expertise", "dedication", and "passion" remain virtues.

In the case of being a consumer of mass entertainment, this can be flipped upside down.

 

[FieryBalrog]

1) Install official Ascension mod for BG2

2) cry

 

[Riposte]

In the case of being a consumer of mass entertainment, this can be flipped upside down.

The subject doesn't change that rule as long as we remain within the boundaries of that subject. In this case we are not talking about "what people consume", but rather videogame criticism. Those concerned with videogame criticism may look down on the "casuals" of videogame theory because they are differentiated by a lack of the positive qualities that enable deeper understanding and appreciation of videogames. All the more true when we are dealing with competing theories (may it be theories on videogames as a whole or theories on how best to strategically play a specific game). I get the feeling this is just posturing on your end, so spare me.

 

[zoukka]

The subject doesn't change that rule as long as we remain within the boundaries of that subject. In this case we are not talking about "what people consume", but rather videogame criticism. Those concerned with videogame criticism may look down on the "casuals" of videogame theory because they are differentiated by a lack of the positive qualities that enable deeper understanding and appreciation of videogames. All the more true when we are dealing with competing theories (may it be theories on videogames as a whole or theories on how best to strategically play a specific game). I get the feeling this is just posturing on your end, so spare me.

I can't disagree with how you put it here.

 

[AppleMIX]

Collective quality. As long as it exists, the game is worse.

What a complete load of bullshit. Does your enjoyment of a game go down because someone might be using a trainer? If so you might be playing games for the wrong reason.

 

[Loxley]

So, the OP created a joke thread and it actually sparked another genuine casual vs. hardcore debate? Sigh.

 

[levitan]

Playing RoF does that to you, OP. I can understand that. You think the game is difficult now, just wait til NG+ with higher difficulties...

But yeh, RoF is hardcore man. In battles you are always thinking a few steps ahead and be mindful not to get your party KO in 10 seconds.

 

[Laughing Banana]

Playing RoF does that to you, OP. I can understand that. You think the game is difficult now, just wait til NG+ with higher difficulties...

But yeh, RoF is hardcore man. In battles you are always thinking a few steps ahead and be mindful not to get your party KO in 10 seconds.

Eh, not really.

ROF is pretty much a one trick-pony, once you figure out Triangle Attacks and everybody gets their crazy gun customization; just like any other RPG, leveling up (or in this case, powering up your guns) can make the game battles succumb to the same tactics over and over and over and over again; even on the secret dungeons and such.

Also, I am somewhat mindblowned by the fact that apparently some people here feel like other people who are not as skilled as them having access in playing the same games as them is an offensive thing to do. Wow.

 

[redcrayon]

Jrpg and Wrpg are shitty ways to define a type of rpg since both regions make games that overlap. Since many people have their unique way of defining what a jrpg and wrpg consist of, most of the conversations end being arguments over which game is what genre instead of the actual topic. With terms like action rpg, turn-based rpg, strategy rpg, dungeon crawler, etc, why use the incredibly broad and easily misinterpreted "jrpg" and "wrpg"? They're basically meaningless now.

This. Otherwise we get ridiculous arguments where Japanese RPGs that people actually like, such as Etrian Odyssey and Dark Souls, are swiftly 'adopted' as western.

Also, using 'JRPG' to describe any game that uses a certain turn-based battle mechanic such as FF and DQ is just silly- if the series changes to being more of an action RPG without random battles, does it stop being a JRPG? Is Xenoblade less of a JRPG than FF, despite using more of the cultural baggage (boy from village with magic sword)? The mind boggles.

'action' 'turn-based' and 'dungeon crawler' are a far better shorthand if we need to have one than assigning a category based on country of origin, let alone the idea of dividing gaming into 'japan' and 'not japan'. Made sense 20 years ago, it's just an anachronism now.

 

[deviljho]

*a bunch of stuff that makes way too much sense*

 

[levitan]

Eh, not really.

ROF is pretty much a one trick-pony, once you figure out Triangle Attacks and everybody gets their crazy gun customization; just like any other RPG, leveling up (or in this case, powering up your guns) can make the game battles succumb to the same tactics over and over and over and over again; even on the secret dungeons and such.

Also, I am somewhat mindblowned by the fact that apparently some people here feel like other people who are not as skilled as them having access in playing the same games as them is an offensive thing to do. Wow.

That is very true. It's always about the tri attack and knock down. Once you can go with the flow, there will be no big problems. I still suck at the theme park dungeon in the ng+ though. : (

 

[Boss Doggie]

Eh, not really.

ROF is pretty much a one trick-pony, once you figure out Triangle Attacks and everybody gets their crazy gun customization; just like any other RPG, leveling up (or in this case, powering up your guns) can make the game battles succumb to the same tactics over and over and over and over again; even on the secret dungeons and such.

Also, I am somewhat mindblowned by the fact that apparently some people here feel like other people who are not as skilled as them having access in playing the same games as them is an offensive thing to do. Wow.

I dunno, you have to position them in the first place and you have to get resonance first to do a tri-attack so there's still that, and it's pretty hard to do on crowded arenas. Gun customization is a given, but tri-Ace games are all about breaking the game via customization... with the AI still screwing you.

 

[doubleplusgood]

I love my quicksave. I don't mind bashing my head on something hard over and over again. What I do mind is getting in a situation where I have to do a ton of boring stuff before I can get back to the hard stuff. If I can get away with having a save right around the corner from some superhard scary monster, great! If I have to run around town to get potions, talk to five different people and watch three cutscenes between each try then I get annoyed.