Jimquisition: Dumbing Down for the Filthy Casuals

[chikusho]

My point is that making the enemies more manageable won't affect anyone; heck it might make the game more challenging in the inverse. Then again, I'm not a video game developer. As for the online function, I don't even play multiplayer period, so they can do with that how they please. How my highscore appears on the rosters doesn't matter to me, I just want to immerse myself into the dark gothic setting and fight against the demonic hordes for the good of humankind...which I imagine is why a few players play the game in the first place.

But it will. If it's just the numbers that are fiddled with there's a good chance you never learn to respect the dangerous nature of the world. This can actually make you even more frustrated when you don't take care to be wary of your surroundings, and then the problem remains for those who think the game should be easier. Perhaps the game is simply not for them.

Who said anything about watering down or removing the threat or any other mechanic? When someone plays Silent Hill on an easier level, there's still a very real risk on messing up and dying if you don't manage thing correctly. The puzzles also remain cryptic and creepy; they're just easier to swallow. In the end, you still have that pervasive since of dread regardless of the difficulty, and a game like Dark Souls could very well do the same if they implement it correctly. Granted, they're different games, but you can have a more forgiving environment without loosing atmosphere; I certainly don't want that.

Well I don't play on PC, so I have no mods available to me, and even if that's the case I don't want entire armies falling to every hit of the button or to never die period, and neither am I asking for a personally tailored experience. All I'm asking, is for an easy mode, no different than all the other games that have easy mode, and if history is correct, it's not going to affect those who want a genuinely challenging experience. I don't want the setting to be dumbed-down like anyone else, but giving the option to have the foes be easier to contend with won't do that.

Well, getting a platform that allows for you to play games the way you want them might be the effort you need to take as a consumer in order to have the experience you're looking for.

 

[Sande45]

I would like to hear an argument for the excluding of an easy mode that doesn't really on idiotic elitism.

This thread is full of them. You just decided to jump on board after 20+ pages spewing the same parroted arguments that have been argued extensively already. It's really tiring having witnessed the arc of this thread and then you barge in starting it all over again.

And please, for the love of God, stop comparing games to books, movies etc as something one should have full access to no matter what. They are not the same and should never aspire to be. Having to actually play and actively complete games with a possibility of failure is the damn point.

 

[infinity_turtles]

It's less about what others think and about how much I think my time and effort was worth putting in, bragging rights are just icing on the cake.

Bragging ain't cool man.

But that's besides the point. The thing is, you know your time and effort was worth it because you completed the game on the hardest difficulty and you get a feeling of accomplishment. Other people might not get that feeling of accomplishment when playing the game on easy, but they might not be playing the game to get that feeling. They may be playing the game to be engrossed in the story and characters or to experience the atmosphere. Making more options will never diminish any accomplishment, it will just open up more avenues to fulfill peoples differing senses of enjoyment and accomplishment.

I don't feel accomplished for beating a game on the hardest difficulty, because I know any trouble I had was because there was a choice at the start of the game that had far more impact on my success then anything else I did in the game, and I chose the tactically stupid one of Hard Mode. Harder difficulty modes feel the same to me as a challenge run, like going through Dark Souls only using the broken straight sword. I feel like an idiot for doing it unless I'm already invested in the games challenge, which only happens if I experience said challenge while doing my damndest to win. To me, challenge runs are about re-experiencing what was a challenge after it's become rote. Sort of like a nostalgic trip back through something I enjoyed, trying to recapture those feelings and experience it anew. You add in an easy mode and I never enjoy the challenge and never will. There might be other things I enjoy about the game, but I like to be able to enjoy a games challenge now and then, and I have so few options left for that sort of thing.

 

[grumbel]

This thread is full of them.

Could you cite some? All I see is a bunch of boys that feel threatened in their manhood when somebody plays their games on easy.

They are not the same and should never aspire to be. Having to actually play and actively complete games with a possibility of failure is the damn point.

Your definition of gaming is rooted in some 20 year old arcade coin up machines. Games have long moved on and expanded into other areas.

 

[WWmelb]

4th option have online mode automatically set it to normal all weapons and armor scale properly. solved

No.. that is missing the problem entirely. The problem is how easy it would be for half the population to access the high end gear and putting them against the people who are going to have to try a lot harder, and take a lot more time to get to the same high end gear.




Now onto another point i probably should have made earlier. I'm against the concept of an easy mode overall (but still, believe it is the developers' choice as it is their work of art not mine).

However, i have neglected to point out that i am by no means a "HARDCORE GAMER" i work 70+ hours a week, and generally have time to game for maybe 2-3hours a day on the weekends. If i'm lucky.

I'm not that good at Demon's Souls/Dark Souls. They are a challenge and then some for me. I die a hell of a lot. Hell it took me about 30 attempts to beat gwyn on my first play through, and have still not managed to kill Smough/Ornstein solo.

I am not against modal difficulty in the slightest in 99% of cases, in fact, i generally relish it. I'm not good at FPS games, and to be honest, am not generally interested in them, with the exception of Bioshock. I loved that game. Not for the mechanics or the gameplay so much as the atmosphere and story in it.

that being said. I suck at FPS games. Badly. Normal difficulty in Bioshock i got my ass handed to me. Repeatedly, but i switched to easy, and it was SOOOO easy. I didn't die again in the play through at all. And although the story was great, this diminished the game so much because it was badly implemented imo.

anyways. Just pointing out another misconception: that it's only HARDCORE gamers that don't want an easy mode in dark souls. It's even the more casual gamers like myself who appreciate a piece of art for what it is, and love the hell out of it even if we suck at it. And yes, i ended up finishing NG+ even as a pretty poor player.

 

[BytByte]

I don't feel accomplished for beating a game on the hardest difficulty, because I know any trouble I had was because there was a choice at the start of the game that had far more impact on my success then anything else I did in the game, and I chose the tactically stupid one of Hard Mode. Harder difficulty modes feel the same to me as a challenge run, like going through Dark Souls only using the broken straight sword. I feel like an idiot for doing it unless I'm already invested in the games challenge, which only happens if I experience said challenge while doing my damndest to win. To me, challenge runs are about re-experiencing what was a challenge after it's become rote. Sort of like a nostalgic trip back through something I enjoyed, trying to recapture those feelings and experience it anew. You add in an easy mode and I never enjoy the challenge and never will. There might be other things I enjoy about the game, but I like to be able to enjoy a games challenge now and then, and I have so few options left for that sort of thing.

So you care more about beating a game first as fast as possible and then going back to put limitations on yourself? Picking a higher difficulty is just like those limitations you put on yourself, but they were designed by developers so that you could get a feeling of accomplishment. I thought it was obvious that beating something that has different difficulty settings on the highest setting would make someone feel more accomplished, but if beating the game is your only prerogative as your post makes it out to be, why would you ever want a challenging game?

Also, this gets back to the selfishness idea. I know for a fact that when I beat the same thing on higher difficulties like Pop n' Music, Super Hexagon, or even Batman, I feel more accomplished than if I did it on easier settings. Now, you could turn that around and say I am the only one ever who does that, but that still means that different people enjoy different approaches to playing games, and the more games that can offer more options (while still being the same functioning game like always, yes it will) the better.

 

[infinity_turtles]

So you care more about beating a game first as fast as possible and then going back to put limitations on yourself? Picking a higher difficulty is just like those limitations you put on yourself, but they were designed by developers so that you could get a feeling of accomplishment. I thought it was obvious that beating something that has different difficulty settings on the highest setting would make someone feel more accomplished, but if beating the game is your only prerogative as your post makes it out to be, why would you ever want a challenging game?

Also, this gets back to the selfishness idea. I know for a fact that when I beat the same thing on higher difficulties like Pop n' Music, Super Hexagon, or even Batman, I feel more accomplished than if I did it on easier settings. Now, you could turn that around and say I am the only one ever who does that, but that still means that different people enjoy different approaches to playing games, and the more games that can offer more options (while still being the same functioning game like always, yes it will) the better.

That's not really what I'm saying at all. It's not about beating the game as fast as possible. It's about trying my best to win, making smart choices and still being challenged. I'm not testing my reflexes, I'm learning and making tactical choices, which from my perspective is what Hard and Easy mode are. Very clear tactical choices where Easy mode is the good one, and Hard Mode is the stupid one unless you're trying to cripple yourself. To pick it my first time through is the exact same thing to me as using the crappy weapon. It's me saying explicitly that no, I'm not going to try my best here. And if I'm not trying my best, how can I enjoy the challenge? If I did it once already and enjoyed the challenge while trying my best I can at least bank on, for lack of a better word, nostalgia but if I'm picking the crippling option from the start my mindset becomes one of "meh, I'm just half-assing it anyway." It's hard for me to explain, or at least others to understand, but I suppose you can say I can't see Hard and Easy mode as anything other then a tactical choice, as hard or easy mode they're still the same game just with some clear mechanical consequences based on your choice, and if a game needs me to make stupid choices to be challenging it was never challenging in the first place.

I realize I'm in the minority here, but I have to ask, does that mean that some games can't cater to a minority? You literally have almost every other modern game doing things how you want. Why can't I enjoy the challenge in the few I have? Why do you need to take them from me and people like me? There are so few games like this anymore. Isn't it more selfish to try and take them away when you have so many more that do things the way you like? I'm not trying to be exclusive. I just don't want to be excluded from the few games left I can play for challenge because you and others want to bring in lots of other people who have plenty of other games they can play.

And you have no idea how tempting it was to jokingly throw in "Why do you hate minorities".

 

[Sande45]

This thread is full of them.

Could you cite some? All I see is a bunch of boys that feel threatened in their manhood when somebody plays their games on easy.

If you really give a shit about this topic, why not bother reading it? I'm too lazy to start wading through it for you but this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.395777-Jimquisition-Dumbing-Down-for-the-Filthy-Casuals?page=26#16114556] recent reply sums up why "it's OPTIONAL, so it doesn'f affect YOU at all!" is bs. You've probably already read it though and if you have and you still see us as nothing but elitist whiny brats then there's nothing more to discuss. Another point is that easy mode in and of itself is pretty problematic. There's the PvP aspect which wouldn't work, as well as the fact that balancing the game for both modes (which could end up affecting normal, because they would be designing everything with easy mode in mind as well as normal) is tricky and possibly not worth it. Or they could just double the player hit points or some such bullshit and end up with a horrible easy mode that wouldn't be all that different (because difficulty mostly derives from other factors than stats like HP) and some parts wouldn't be at all easier (Anor Londo snipers for example).

They are not the same and should never aspire to be. Having to actually play and actively complete games with a possibility of failure is the damn point.

Your definition of gaming is rooted in some 20 year old arcade coin up machines. Games have long moved on and expanded into other areas.

But what you're saying is that those other areas are all that have a right to exist in today's world. That there's no place for a game that's challenging and success isn't certain the moment you pop the disc in. That's ridiculous in so many ways and against what most of gaming is about.

 

[BytByte]

That's not really what I'm saying at all. It's not about beating the game as fast as possible. It's about trying my best to win, making smart choices and still being challenged. I'm not testing my reflexes, I'm learning and making tactical choices, which from my perspective is what Hard and Easy mode are. Very clear tactical choices where Easy mode is the good one, and Hard Mode is the stupid one unless you're trying to cripple yourself. To pick it my first time through is the exact same thing to me as using the crappy weapon. It's me saying explicitly that no, I'm not going to try my best here. And if I'm not trying my best, how can I enjoy the challenge? If I did it once already and enjoyed the challenge while trying my best I can at least bank on, for lack of a better word, nostalgia but if I'm picking the crippling option from the start my mindset becomes one of "meh, I'm just half-assing it anyway." It's hard for me to explain, or at least others to understand, but I suppose you can say I can't see Hard and Easy mode as anything other then a tactical choice, as hard or easy mode they're still the same game just with some clear mechanical consequences based on your choice, and if a game needs me to make stupid choices to be challenging it was never challenging in the first place.

I realize I'm in the minority here, but I have to ask, does that mean that some games can't cater to a minority? You literally have almost every other modern game doing things how you want. Why can't I enjoy the challenge in the few I have? Why do you need to take them from me and people like me? There are so few games like this anymore. Isn't it more selfish to try and take them away when you have so many more that do things the way you like? I'm not trying to be exclusive. I just don't want to be excluded from the few games left I can play for challenge because you and others want to bring in lots of other people who have plenty of other games they can play.

And you have no idea how tempting it was to jokingly throw in "Why do you hate minorities".

Alright, I understand your idea that making the best "tactical" choice makes sense yes, but trying your best to win equates to win as fast as possible. Where I see a disconnect is why you wouldn't try your hardest at any difficulty setting or really anything ever for that matter. At least to me it seems like you're putting so much stress on difficulty and the desire to win, that any enjoyment of the mechanics, whether played on easy, medium or hard, take a back seat. I think this is the place where we just fundamentally disagree in what makes a game fun to a certain extent.

EDIT: Also, the minority of gamer thing is basically the same point. You see difficulty changes as compromising, I disagree. Therefore, I would believe that a "minority" group of players could still enjoy their niche experience while also allowing new people to experience it as well.

 

[infinity_turtles]

Alright, I understand your idea that making the best "tactical" choice makes sense yes, but trying your best to win equates to win as fast as possible. Where I see a disconnect is why you wouldn't try your hardest at any difficulty setting or really anything ever for that matter. At least to me it seems like you're putting so much stress on difficulty and the desire to win, that any enjoyment of the mechanics, whether played on easy, medium or hard, take a back seat. I think this is the place where we just fundamentally disagree in what makes a game fun to a certain extent.

In terms of what makes a games challenge fun, yeah, we probably do disagree. But to reply to a couple of these, if I choose a harder difficulty mode, I'm not trying my hardest to win. I just made a choice that more then any other is likely to cause my death. And I knew it. That's the opposite of trying my hardest. I just tried to make it more likely that I'd lose. And it's less the desire to win, as the desire to try my best and be challenged. To try my best and breeze through is boring. To be challenged when I'm not trying my best is pointless. I need both.

 

[SoopaSte123]

You make a compelling argument as usual. And wonderful gay marriage tie in as well!

5 days in a row of the Jimquisition?? I'm excited.

 

[Upbeat Zombie]

While there is nothing wrong with easy modes. I do think some games just don't benefit from them. Dark Souls being one of them.

I think this, because while making games have broader appeal isn't a bad thing in itself. It's how game developers try to create this by simplifying game mechanics, and making strategy less important if needed at all.

Then later creating the challenge of harder modes by changing enemy health, and damage ratios.

While there is nothing wrong with these kind of games. I see the reason some people might be worried, when developers say they are going to make a easy mode for a game that they like for its depth of mechanics or strategies.

 

[BytByte]

In terms of what makes a games challenge fun, yeah, we probably do disagree. But to reply to a couple of these, if I choose a harder difficulty mode, I'm not trying my hardest to win. I just made a choice that more then any other is likely to cause my death. And I knew it. That's the opposite of trying my hardest. I just tried to make it more likely that I'd lose. And it's less the desire to win, as the desire to try my best and be challenged. To try my best and breeze through is boring. To be challenged when I'm not trying my best is pointless. I need both.

Not trying to be a jerk, I really don't understand. To clarify, you want to be challenged, but not if there is an easier option because you wouldn't be trying your best. However, trying your best and beating an easy game is boring, so you need challenge. But does this challenge mean you're not trying your best? I am honestly confused, especially in the fact that choosing a harder difficulty somehow means you stop trying. Do game options control your effort that much?

 

[Atmos Duality]

I got five quotes in my inbox, but I will only be answering one, for the sake of brevity.
It should hopefully be obvious to those whom this general response is addressed to.

Hi, I haven't directly spoken to you yet because I spend most of my time just reading this forum instead of posting in it (due to the fact the arguments on both sides don't seem to have changed all that much).

While you seem to be civil and gentlemanly enough in your later posts, your entrance into the fray was rather condescending. Saying we are all "whining (our) ass(es) off like a pretentious fuckhead(s)" and saying that our fears are invalidated because they are "first world problems" is not a good way to try and get someone to see your point of view.

Yes, I redacted that and edited my original post.
With an apology for the pretentious fuckhead line.

I do not apologize for the First World Problems line however.
It is my opinion that the response to the hypothetical problem has been is blown FAR out of proportion.

Will you please engage me in meaningful conversation?

I make no promises for "meaningful" conversation.
For future reference, there is a PM system in place.

As for this particular topic, I am not motivated to argue any further, right or wrong.
I've read through the rest of the topic and noticed how the argument literally goes in circles.

I will say this: Game Concepts themselves are modal and game design requires them to be modal in order to exist, let alone function.
That is what I meant about numbers and programming.
Math and Logic is how we translate between action and concept in games; any games, not just video games.
If you look at the Math or Programming strictly as character stats or physical processing, you are missing the single most essential, powerful concept in the entire medium.

 

[infinity_turtles]

In terms of what makes a games challenge fun, yeah, we probably do disagree. But to reply to a couple of these, if I choose a harder difficulty mode, I'm not trying my hardest to win. I just made a choice that more then any other is likely to cause my death. And I knew it. That's the opposite of trying my hardest. I just tried to make it more likely that I'd lose. And it's less the desire to win, as the desire to try my best and be challenged. To try my best and breeze through is boring. To be challenged when I'm not trying my best is pointless. I need both.

Not trying to be a jerk, I really don't understand. To clarify, you want to be challenged, but not if there is an easier option because you wouldn't be trying your best. However, trying your best and beating an easy game is boring, so you need challenge. But does this challenge mean you're not trying your best? I am honestly confused, especially in the fact that choosing a harder difficulty somehow means you stop trying. Do game options control your effort that much?

I'm probably going to cram as many metaphors into this post as possible in an effort that maybe one of them will make sense. It's not that game options control how much effort I put into a game. It's that what options I choose are part of playing my best. As I said, I can't help but see the Easy and Hard modes as a tactical choice. Just like I know it's a stupid tactical choice to only use pawns in Chess, and as such I would never say I'm doing my best if all I used in chess was pawns, if I choose the clearly tactically inferior choice of hard mode I'm doing something stupid on purpose. Doing something stupid on purpose is not my best. I also wouldn't be doing my best to win a race if I purposefully shot myself in the leg first or tied a ball&chain to my leg, regardless of the effort I put into it. Hard mode is handicapping yourself and is thus never your best. At least, that's how I see it.

And I don't stop trying on a harder difficulty, I just stop caring. If I fail, I no longer feel as if it's because the game was challenging. I feel like I made a stupid decision that I knew was a stupid decision, did it anyway for some stupid reason, and that's why I failed. Back to previous metaphor, it's like losing a race because I had a ball&chain tied to my leg. Even if I could've won, I'm still going to feel like the most important reason I lost was because of the ball&chain. And if I win, well I don't really care because I never cared about losing. If there's only two options and you don't care about one, it's hard to care about the other either. That might actually be the best way to describe it. I can't enjoy winning if I never cared about losing.

 

[BytByte]

I'm probably going to cram as many metaphors into this post as possible in an effort that maybe one of them will make sense. It's not that game options control how much effort I put into a game. It's that what options I choose are part of playing my best. As I said, I can't help but see the Easy and Hard modes as a tactical choice. Just like I know it's a stupid tactical choice to only use pawns in Chess, and as such I would never say I'm doing my best if all I used in chess was pawns, if I choose the clearly tactically inferior choice of hard mode I'm doing something stupid on purpose. Doing something stupid on purpose is not my best. I also wouldn't be doing my best to win a race if I purposefully shot myself in the leg first or tied a ball&chain to my leg, regardless of the effort I put into it. Hard mode is handicapping yourself and is thus never your best. At least, that's how I see it.

And I don't stop trying on a harder difficulty, I just stop caring. If I fail, I no longer feel as if it's because the game was challenging. I feel like I made a stupid decision that I knew was a stupid decision, did it anyway for some stupid reason, and that's why I failed. Back to previous metaphor, it's like losing a race because I had a ball&chain tied to my leg. Even if I could've won, I'm still going to feel like the most important reason I lost was because of the ball&chain. And if I win, well I don't really care because I never cared about losing. If there's only two options and you don't care about one, it's hard to care about the other either. That might actually be the best way to describe it. I can't enjoy winning if I never cared about losing.

So it comes back to the tactical style of thinking, right? You have sort of explained it, but I still see no reason why you should feel stupid just for picking a harder difficulty when an easier one is better. The harder difficulty will challenge you, and that is what you want right? Difficulty choice isn't part of how the game mechanics work. You are able to do the same thing on easy as you are on hard, and personal preference on how much you want to be challenged is the only thing differentiating the two.

At least from my perspective, it seems like you're saying you can't enjoy an easier mode because you don't feel threatened to lose, but you can't enjoy a harder mode because when you lose, you feel like you could win. And ignoring the easy mode just doesn't work for you?

 

[VampLena]

I have to fully agree with Jim here. People who ***** and moan casuals are ruining the gaming industry and games should only be for "The Few, the Hardcore" are woefully fascist. Yes, I respect some people want a challenge, and get their rocks off from overcoming them in games, instead of you know, Real life like the majority of people (Which is why they just see games as entertainment and not as a means of challenge). That option is usually there with hard or even nightmare modes, but some of the problem I've seen also is some people are stupid stubborn and only want to play on normal mode and want that to be harder instead of tuning up the difficulty.

Jim is completely right, blaming the game and casuals because YOU dont have the self control to not hit the easy mode setting to get past something is no ones fault but your own, people like that really need to grow up and accept personal responsibility.

Let me spell it out for some people, like that idiot Cliffy B, alot of people play games for FUN, its why cheating has been common as long as games exist like with Game Genie to now with game trainers, alot of people do not care if there is no risk of loosing, just because a hardcore player wants that risk does not mean all people are created equally.

 

[infinity_turtles]

So it comes back to the tactical style of thinking, right? You have sort of explained it, but I still see no reason why you should feel stupid just for picking a harder difficulty when an easier one is better. The harder difficulty will challenge you, and that is what you want right? Difficulty choice isn't part of how the game mechanics work. You are able to do the same thing on easy as you are on hard, and personal preference on how much you want to be challenged is the only thing differentiating the two.

At least from my perspective, it seems like you're saying you can't enjoy an easier mode because you don't feel threatened to lose, but you can't enjoy a harder mode because when you lose, you feel like you could win. And ignoring the easy mode just doesn't work for you?

Yes, that's more or less what I'm saying. And I'd say difficulty choice is part of how the game mechanics work. It's a static debuff on all your enemies forever. That's a very clear part of how the mechanics work and that makes it a tactical choice as far as I'm concerned. I really can't see it as anything else, and so I can't just ignore it when it comes to doing my best to win. Not playing on the easiest difficulty will always look like handicapping yourself to me, because that's what it is from a tactical/mechanical perspective.