ult
Junior Member
Posts: 78
|
Post by ult on Oct 17, 2014 15:01:17 GMT -5
I know I'm being captain obvious here, but it all really depends on the genre of your game and who you are aiming for.
|
|
|
Post by Garamoth on Oct 18, 2014 16:02:28 GMT -5
Tom Chick's last two reviews were both about racing games and parts of them are quite relevant to this topic since the games are on both sides of the accessibility/difficulty spectrum. I have no opinion on those games (haven't played either), but it's still an interesting read. You can probably guess which side of the issue he's on: Forza Horizon 2 reviewDriveclub review
|
|
|
Post by Ace Whatever on Oct 19, 2014 5:40:49 GMT -5
Taking that Forza review at face value, the line system really sounds like a bad gimmick if it can be used in the competitive part of the game without any penalties. I haven't seriously played any driving games since the original Gran Tourismo but I respect the skill of being good enough at it that the idea of reducing it to following a line sounds flat out ridiculous to me. Can you imagine if fighting games had indicators telling when to block high or low?
I'm also on the side of the fence that thinks games shouldn't enable content tourists to breeze through unchallenged, but I'm not against games toning down difficult aspects aspects that I never cared for to begin with.
The infamous example of course being Fire Emblem Awakening's "no perma-death" mode. I never gave two flips about FE's perma-death legacy and this was a really welcome change.
Here's the bottom line though: Content tourists are here to stay.
A content tourist will buy a game at launch, wrap it up in a few days (optionally sell it to recoup costs) then immediately move on to the next game. This way he'll buy 20 times as many games in a month than a "hard work and guts!" gamer. Guess whose money publishers want more? If you're fully aware of this but still feel the need to run around in circles whining about it for 5 forum pages, then I don't know what to say to you.
|
|
|
Post by Snarboo on Oct 19, 2014 6:09:21 GMT -5
Is it wrong to play a game purely to experience it on some level, though? Easier difficulty modes have been a thing for ages, but it's only now that people are complaining about it. I'm not even sure I'm bothered by games being simplified to the point of abstraction anymore, as in Forza's case. Forza's not even the first racing game to inform players of turns! Ultimately there are plenty of complex games - sometimes within the same series - to fall back on if the most recent thing isn't your cup of tea. BTW, this is the first time I've heard the term "content tourist", which is funny because Serious Sam literally has a mode called "tourist" that lets you walk through the levels without enemies.
|
|
RAGilmour
Full Member
please visit my gallery please
Posts: 205
|
Post by RAGilmour on Oct 19, 2014 9:49:08 GMT -5
edit
|
|
|
Post by Ace Whatever on Oct 19, 2014 9:54:57 GMT -5
My main issue with the line system is that it seems to affects the competitive scene, so I won't pursue that discussion anymore.
As was explained before, in ye olde days easier difficulties usually locked the player out of playing the full game or unlocking bonus content. Also if I'm not mistaken most first party Nintendo games don't have difficulty modes in the sense that you go into an options menu and click on a difficulty slider.
Most of the complaints seem more focused on specific aspects that make the games easier than the actual lowered difficulty levels.
I've generally made peace with the existence of content tourists, but I can assure you the snobbery isn't one-sided. It's fine if they just want to experience the story, but when they start referring to people who play all games to completion as no-life addicts or that there's no point to playing games without plots, things just get ugly.
|
|
RAGilmour
Full Member
please visit my gallery please
Posts: 205
|
Post by RAGilmour on Oct 19, 2014 10:59:02 GMT -5
I'm a supporter of the idea of making Super Easy Modes so that less committed players can see all the content they paid for. I think it's sensible to have these modes to sell more to people who otherwise wouldn't buy the games. The less games you are able to complete the less likely you are to buy more. But I respect how difficult it is to make a variety of difficulty modes (more on that later). I used to be crazy about games and put obsessive time and effort in but now I'm a far less committed player who cant find time for them.
Now the complexity of the hardware is more offputting than there not being modes that are easy enough for me; so I would gravitate towards handheld systems now if I ever buy another console (which I have a hard time seeing myself doing again).
I understand the principle of difficulty being more rewarding to some people but nowadays when I don't ease through a game, I feel like I should be doing something else. When I try to beat a challenge numerous times and finally succeed I feel like I was wasting that time. This might sound dismissive of the games but I really don't mean it that way. I have a lot more priorities than I used to (and I don't even have a job, a home to pay for or real responsibilities to worry about!) and most things inevitably aren't as impressive as they used to seem to my younger self (so less worthy of devotion). I still enjoy games enough to want to keep up with them and I'd rather play an super easy pushover mode than watch a youtube expert (which I do occasionally). Sure, you wont enjoy it on as deep a level as the expert players on the most difficult mode but that's a very small price to pay. Nobody totally understands and appreciates or even cares about all the aspects of everything they experience, often for fair reasons.
I completed Yoshi's Island when I was about 11 or 12 (and I probably couldn't have done some of the bonus levels without the help of a friend). I replayed it in my late teens on Gameboy Advance and it wasn't nearly as pleasurable as the first time. My friend had an emulation of it on his PC and I kept using the rewind tool whenever I made a mistake, amazingly this made me far more excited and I breezed through the game and I got a real rush from that. This might sound crazy to many serious gamers but I wish I had a rewind tool for every single player game, it made it way more fun for me. I don't want to speed through all games because some really need to be wallowed in so you get immersed in the atmosphere and appreciate all the design around you.
It can be very hard for developers to make a variety of difficulty modes for different levels of players and be satisfying. For some games it is hard to think how they could make an easier mode. Online multiplayers sometimes have separate places for lower skill players but not all such games can integrate this. Some games will have complex maps that cannot be simplified. Some fighting games have moves that are far too difficult for some players to pull off (some games have easy control modes but they usually don't account for every single move). How many games have easier modes for the puzzles? (I found two of the puzzles in Zelda Twilight Princess impossible without a guide). For some games, a large part of their appeal and reputation revolves around their extreme difficulty and I can see why some developers would be reluctant to let go of that.
How do you make a easy mode for reissues of old tricky shooters and platformers? I think the rewind tool is the only way you can do that and I'd love to see developers use this in official versions of the games. I'd love to play through the early Castlevania games with a rewind tool. I completed about 8 of the Advance, DS and PS2 games in the series and there were a few I couldn't complete but I doubt I could replay most of them without a rewind tool. Maybe some optional cheats too for people who need additional help, on a non-secret menu. But some games are just always going to be long and challenging no matter how many cheats you use.
Yes, I used to be elated after beating some games after much effort but those days are behind me and I actually regret many hours that I spent when I could have done so many other things. Life can speed by scarily fast and games scare me especially in that respect. I feel worried for some of my friends who are totally immersed in games because I think they're missing out on oceans of great stuff I can barely scratch the surface of even when I'm spending most of my time on it (particularly books, music and images). It might sound patronizing but I'm concerned for a lot of people who might lose large portions of their life to games and perhaps only a small amount of that time was really worth it.
|
|
|
Post by Snarboo on Oct 19, 2014 17:00:54 GMT -5
My main issue with the line system is that it seems to affects the competitive scene, so I won't pursue that discussion anymore. I can understand why this bothers people! It reminds me of a big issue F2P games have where the difficulty is directly tied to how much money you're willing to put in. Not a huge fan of either of those measures, but there's nothing stopping people from using the same tactics as other players. In fact, you have to if you want to stay competitive. As was explained before, in ye olde days easier difficulties usually locked the player out of playing the full game or unlocking bonus content. Also if I'm not mistaken most first party Nintendo games don't have difficulty modes in the sense that you go into an options menu and click on a difficulty slider. I'm fine with unlocking bonus content on higher difficulties. That's a nice reward for players willing to put the time and effort into the game. Denying the player the ending or game content on the other hand? Absolutely despise that. It was always the hardest games that denied you this, too, making it even more frustrating to the player since they couldn't practice harder levels. So glad this trend died out in the 16-bit days. Most of the complaints seem more focused on specific aspects that make the games easier than the actual lowered difficulty levels. Right, but in most instances mechanics that make the game "easier" either make them more fun to play, more accessible to all players, or both. The only time I've taken issue with easier mechanics was if they came at the expense of making the game blander, but that's usually pretty rare. I've generally made peace with the existence of content tourists, but I can assure you the snobbery isn't one-sided. It's fine if they just want to experience the story, but when they start referring to people who play all games to completion as no-life addicts or that there's no point to playing games without plots, things just get ugly. I must not frequent enough forums, because I've only encountered snobbery from the "pro skillz" group. I imagine most "content tourists" are simply reacting to people like felixm that insist that their experiences are inferior to theirs. :p The thing that always gets me in these discussions is that people that argue for higher difficulties at the expense of accessibility usually forget that most games aren't as tightly designed as they could be. I've beaten a large number of games that were hard, but ultimately unrewarding or infuriating because they were poorly balanced, thought out, or just downright mean to the player on purpose. A lot of classically hard games were hard because the mechanics were obtuse or controls were unwieldy and inaccessible, too, not because they were actually challenging! A well designed and balanced game can be "hard", but is really just challenging until you learn the tricks behind it, at which point it becomes the player's fault if they lose. A game can be hard for all the wrong reasons, and we shouldn't champion them just because they are uncompromising.
|
|
|
Post by Weasel on Oct 19, 2014 17:49:03 GMT -5
A well designed and balanced game can be "hard", but is really just challenging until you learn the tricks behind it, at which point it becomes the player's fault if they lose. Very, very much this! There is a huge difference between a game like Silver Surfer, that is hard because of inherent problems in game design, and a game like God Hand, where every death can be a learning experience (whether it be which enemies are threats, which moves work best, or the attack patterns of a specific boss). Compare that to, say, a game where bosses are unpredictable, attacks travel far too quickly, your hitbox is too big, or the player's pain animation is long enough that it is impossible not to get stunlocked by everything. That is problematic game design. A death in this game teaches the player nothing except that the game is broken.
|
|
|
Post by The Great Klaid on Oct 19, 2014 18:40:50 GMT -5
I'm fine with unlocking bonus content on higher difficulties. That's a nice reward for players willing to put the time and effort into the game. Denying the player the ending or game content on the other hand? Absolutely despise that. It was always the hardest games that denied you this, too, making it even more frustrating to the player since they couldn't practice harder levels. So glad this trend died out in the 16-bit days. This, sums up how I feel about it all. To like a t.
|
|
|
Post by Exhuminator on Oct 20, 2014 8:46:19 GMT -5
Content tourists are here to stay. A content tourist will buy a game at launch, wrap it up in a few days (optionally sell it to recoup costs) then immediately move on to the next game. Why don't they just watch Let's Play videos then? Tour all the content, deal with zero difficulty, spend none of the money. That's what I'd do if I was a "content tourist".
|
|
|
Post by Ace Whatever on Oct 20, 2014 9:20:21 GMT -5
I guess they probably still want some degree of interactivity maybe? However, they WILL switch to Let's Plays/Youtube if they get bored or hit a difficult part they can't get past.
Also keep in mind that regardless of methodology, some content tourists still want to support the industry, hence the willingness to pay for games. Kinda hard to argue against that.
|
|
|
Post by moran on Oct 20, 2014 9:43:08 GMT -5
But why is it a problem that people experience the games that way? It doesn't effect how anybody else plays or how you would experience it.
|
|
|
Post by Feynman on Oct 20, 2014 10:34:53 GMT -5
I think accessibility features that allow for more people to enjoy a game are great. The white tanooki suit was a good idea, as it doesn't interfere with your game unless you allow it to. Bayonetta is a fantastic action game, and getting Pure Platinum rankings in the hardest difficulty is an enjoyable challenge for even veterans of character action games... but the game also has an "easy automatic" mode where you can more or less slam your forehead against the controller and Bayonetta will still kick everyone's ass, allowing players of any skill level to have a good time. This month's GC9X game, System Shock, allows you full control of the difficulty of no fewer than FOUR different aspects of the game (Combat, Cyberspace, Puzzles, and Story). Make the combat hard and the puzzles easy. Make the puzzles and cyberspace hard but remove all combat from the game. The player gets to control exactly how much challenge the game offers, and the game does not suffer one bit from this.
Allowing more people enjoy a game is a good thing!
Now, where I start to get cranky is when I play a game where I feel that ONLY unskilled players are being catered to. The recent 3DS Zelda game has a lot of great content, but holy crap it is pathetically easy. There's a hard mode that actually offers a reasonable challenge... but you have to beat the game first to unlock it. I just finished your damn game, I don't want to play it again! Why the hell didn't you give me access to hard mode right from the beginning!? That kind of nonsense annoys me.
I feel that making a game too easy without anything for more skilled players to sink their teeth into isn't really any better than making a game so hard that only the best players can enjoy it. Games should have worthwhile content for a wide variety of skill levels (and don't lock basic hard modes behind game completion).
|
|
|
Post by The Great Klaid on Oct 20, 2014 11:55:39 GMT -5
Fighting games used to do that auto thing. I wonder why they stopped. But Alpha used to block for you if you weren't touching anything. Actually, I think any game in that engine did that Zelda style blocking. Quick research tells me it was limited number of hits. Also, it allowed easy supers by just hitting punch and kick. But, you got 1 super bar, which IIRC in Alpha is an awful handicap. But, it gave new players at least the tools to figure out to play. Even if they were limited.
|
|