IGD: PARENTS VS. STEAM.

Anything else
User avatar
Phoenixwarrior141
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.

Re: IGD: PARENTS VS. STEAM.

Post by Phoenixwarrior141 » Wed Jun 04, 2014 7:37 am

Obviously post 2010, everything was fine until then...

Here's my perspective on how things happened:

CoD wasn't the first game to attract kids for obvious reasons, but it's community has one of the most prevalent of them, it ruined it as kids ran rampant through the games and did obnoxious things, ruining the experience for others and they stopped playing. It is accepted that consoles are a source for family gaming and kids are more frequent on them (Due to how these are cheaper then most PCs, with little experience needed to use them).

Fast forward a bit, and Minecraft came out, kids obviously turned this into the next big thing and automatically tempted their friends to buy it and so on and so forth. This didn't happen overnight, and the game gradually grew itself. The community quickly deteriorated after children joined in.

This isn't the sole blame, Mojang outsourcing Curse for mod, wiki and forum hosting didn't help anyone, and CoD was already deteriorating (Or even deteriorated) from the inception of Black Ops and Modern Warfare.

It certainly would make sense that kids are the most vocal of the community, and generally what's left after it deteriorated, thus subject to more criticism and judgment then other parts.

Very sleepy, I woke up at 1:00 PM yesterday, so expect some grammar errors there.

User avatar
Grayswandir
Short end of the stick
Posts: 3655
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 12:37 am
Location: Robbing the cradle.

Re: IGD: PARENTS VS. STEAM.

Post by Grayswandir » Wed Jun 04, 2014 3:24 pm

So your main issue is that kids are "ruining your games".

User avatar
Assaultman67
Posts: 2109
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 9:06 pm
Location: U.S.

Re: IGD: PARENTS VS. STEAM.

Post by Assaultman67 » Wed Jun 04, 2014 6:25 pm

I skipped over that huge wall of text there ...

Why would it be bad to have an easier difficulty setting?

Just because you don't want to play in an easy setting, doesn't mean everyone else would want to ...

I guess if the game is designed to be overwhelming it kinda makes sense, but to make up for this, I would just put a huge gap in difficulty between levels so people can't easily make the transition from easy to medium without the sense of difficulty going up.

So easy would be piss easy. normal would be kinda nerve racking, and hard would be like trying to ass fuck Satan with a dildo.

By doing this, you reach a larger audience.

This completely makes sense from a business viewpoint and a gameplay viewpoint.

User avatar
Phoenixwarrior141
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.

Re: IGD: PARENTS VS. STEAM.

Post by Phoenixwarrior141 » Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:25 pm

Assaultman67 wrote:I skipped over that huge wall of text there ...

Why would it be bad to have an easier difficulty setting?

Just because you don't want to play in an easy setting, doesn't mean everyone else would want to ...
You remember that " A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link" well for this it's "A game is only as easy as it's easiest difficulty setting.
I guess if the game is designed to be overwhelming it kinda makes sense, but to make up for this, I would just put a huge gap in difficulty between levels so people can't easily make the transition from easy to medium without the sense of difficulty going up.
That's kind of how it is now, the spike from easy to normal is rather high, and normal to hard is hell on earth (2006).

[quote[So easy would be piss easy. normal would be kinda nerve racking, and hard would be like trying to ass fuck Satan with a dildo.[/quote]

Easy is a lighter challenge, normal is a challenge, and hard is...
like trying to ass fuck Satan with a dildo.
By doing this, you reach a larger audience.

This completely makes sense from a business viewpoint and a gameplay viewpoint.
I'd have to see it to believe it.

User avatar
Grayswandir
Short end of the stick
Posts: 3655
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 12:37 am
Location: Robbing the cradle.

Re: IGD: PARENTS VS. STEAM.

Post by Grayswandir » Wed Jun 04, 2014 10:43 pm


User avatar
EPR89
Posts: 1845
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:57 am
Location: Germany

Re: IGD: PARENTS VS. STEAM.

Post by EPR89 » Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:09 am

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:
Assaultman67 wrote:I skipped over that huge wall of text there ...

Why would it be bad to have an easier difficulty setting?

Just because you don't want to play in an easy setting, doesn't mean everyone else would want to ...
You remember that " A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link" well for this it's "A game is only as easy as it's easiest difficulty setting.
I still think that this is grade A bullshit.
An additional easier difficulty takes absolutely nothing away from a higher difficulty setting. On the contrary. It gives weaker players a chance to ease into the game and learn how to play it.
You earlier said that this is what a tutorial is for. I disagree. A tutorial helps you to understand specific features of a specific game and maybe some basics of the genre. Learning to play a type of game properly takes way longer than a tutorial. It is absolutely ridiculous to say that an easier difficulty can be substituted by a tutorial. People want to play the game, not the tutorial.

You also have to consider that hardcore players are usually more creative when it comes to adjusting the difficulty for themselves, especially in games like RPGs. I'll try to describe it with the way I have played Skyrim. I have constructed a backstory for my character that made it a cardinal sin for him to kill humans. I had to find ways to finish quests without killing people and I had to leave out some optional quests. On top of that, I installed a mod that stopped the world from levelling with me. Instead, certain enemies now had more or less fixed levels. Draugr would kick your butt until around level 20. Trying to take on the two wolves outside Riverwood? Forget about it. They'll maul you in no time.
What this meant was that I had to wait with the main quest until I was pretty well trained. It also meant that the game was extremely slow in the beginning. I had to train by crafting and hunting. The important thing is, I had to make an effort to play like this. I did it because I wanted to. It was absolutely clear to me that the majority of players does not want to play like this at all and that it would be no fun for them. For these people there are lower difficulty settings and different play styles. The fact that they exist meant nothing for my enjoyment of the game.
You are for some reason thinking that the audience of FTL consists solely of hardcore gamers and that they would take offence to there being as little as an option to make the game easier. You completely forget about the real make-up of the audience and your point, frankly, doesn't make a lot of sense in itself. A lower difficulty setting does not lower the difficulty of the higher difficulty setting and it does not influence the way people play on the higher setting.

By doing this, you reach a larger audience.

This completely makes sense from a business viewpoint and a gameplay viewpoint.
I'd have to see it to believe it.
See, the problem is, you don't want to see it.
The whole point of this thread is that someone suggested this and your reaction was:
"Go die in a hole, noob!"

User avatar
Endoperez
Posts: 5668
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:41 am
Location: cold and dark and lovely Finland

Re: IGD: PARENTS VS. STEAM.

Post by Endoperez » Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:18 am

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:
By doing this, you reach a larger audience.

This completely makes sense from a business viewpoint and a gameplay viewpoint.
I'd have to see it to believe it.
Which are more numerous, casual gamers or hardcore gamers?

Answer: casuals.

Which do casual gamers like more, easy games, or hard games?

Answer: easy.

So you indeed reach a larger audience by doing that. So it makes sense from a business viewpoint.

Gameplay viewpoint?

Depends on one's definition of gameplay. In my opinion, if the original game is included in the dumbed-down version, the original gameplay is still intact.

For example, Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands includes the 1989 Prince of Persia. They are different games. Does the 1989 Prince of Persia have different gameplay now that it's a game mode ? If it's different, the difference is in the controller, not in the way you launch it.

...

See it yet?

User avatar
Phoenixwarrior141
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.

Re: IGD: PARENTS VS. STEAM.

Post by Phoenixwarrior141 » Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:47 pm

Sadly.

But, even if the original game is still there, doesn't FTL lose it's purpose due to the integration of an even easier mode?

The point of FTL is to be hard, so removing that difficulty and trying to appeal to the community you tried to avoid (And alienating your original audience) is kinda against the point.

User avatar
Glabbit
Posts: 4917
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 8:38 am
Location: A mile away, with your shoes!

Re: IGD: PARENTS VS. STEAM.

Post by Glabbit » Thu Jun 05, 2014 4:43 pm

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:The point of FTL is to be hard
How dipshit-shallow are you?
That might sound rude, but I am leaving you full discretion to reply 'not very much at all, really' if you find it appropriate.
But more to the point, the point of a game is never to be 'hard'. Dark Souls' hype might've been that is was a challenging game, but I don't like it just because it is 'hard'. I like both FTL and Dark Souls, yes. They're both supposedly tough, yes. But I like them for very different reasons, though both sets do simply boil down to the fact that I enjoyed both games.
In Dark Souls, that came from the satisfying exploration, the depth of characters and lore, and indeed was helped along a little by the challenge of progression. Dark Souls is an interesting experience, with fun developments, and even some deeply emotional realisations if you know where to look.
FTL is an entirely different type of fun. There's some story, sure, but what you're there for is discovering new combinations of known elements that you've found in previous playthroughs. It's a hoard-'em-up where you know every playthrough will be different, with plenty of random elements. This makes it all the more satisfactory when you stumble upon or invent a new successful combination of weapons or items with which you achieve what essentially is the sub-goal; winning the game.
It's not about being hard. Frankly I wouldn't mind winning FTL a little more often, yet even as I type that I realise that I have not switched to the easy mode in the games I've played since that update. Simply a choice of vanity, no more, and the game has not suffered for it.

Thus you see, it does not matter that there is an easier difficulty setting, for the difficulty is not what makes the game enjoyable, and it does not remove the choice of playing the harder settings.
So there.
Yes.

User avatar
Phoenixwarrior141
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.

Re: IGD: PARENTS VS. STEAM.

Post by Phoenixwarrior141 » Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:03 pm

I can't tell if I should argue against that point or not.

BUT, I will point one thing out.
the point of a game is never to be 'hard'.
I have to say this is demonstrably false, some games are meant to be hard for the feeling of accomplishment when you do beat them, they aren't fun in the actual game, but the end result is fun nonetheless.

This qualifies for FTL as well, if FTL was any easier (Which is hard, the easy game mode is really easy once you know what to do [Which I have figured out, but haven't executed]) it would be borderline impossible to fail, death wouldn't be a feeling of "I screwed up" it would be "Well ass, try again".

So would FTL be changed if it was any easier?

Yes, very.

Would it remove the point? To me, yes. I feel FTL is about over coming difficult odds which has a feeling of accomplishment at the end, the journey is fun and the experience can be fantastic.

But this would be subjective, some (Because I don't want to say many) would believe other factors are better points of the game then the difficulty, while others would disagree.

User avatar
EPR89
Posts: 1845
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:57 am
Location: Germany

Re: IGD: PARENTS VS. STEAM.

Post by EPR89 » Fri Jun 06, 2014 12:44 am

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote: So would FTL be changed if it was any easier?

Yes, very.

Would it remove the point? To me, yes. I feel FTL is about over coming difficult odds which has a feeling of accomplishment at the end, the journey is fun and the experience can be fantastic.
Great.
Don't play it on the easier settings then.

User avatar
Endoperez
Posts: 5668
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:41 am
Location: cold and dark and lovely Finland

Re: IGD: PARENTS VS. STEAM.

Post by Endoperez » Fri Jun 06, 2014 1:06 am

Old PC games such as Doom had built-in cheats that enabled god mode and other such stuff.

You literally can't lose after you IDDQD or whatever.

Did cheats make those games less fun?

User avatar
Glabbit
Posts: 4917
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 8:38 am
Location: A mile away, with your shoes!

Re: IGD: PARENTS VS. STEAM.

Post by Glabbit » Fri Jun 06, 2014 6:26 am

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:I have to say this is demonstrably false, some games are meant to be hard for the feeling of accomplishment when you do beat them,
'Demonstrably false'? Using fancy words does not make your statements truthful.
Games are marketed as intentionally hard because it attracts spectacle and boasting. People love to boast, so of course the publishers are going to push for that. Difficulty is not what harbors fulfilment, despite how likely the correlation makes the causation seem. An example? Dark Souls II.
The II on the end should have already tipped you off that this was a publisher-pushed game, intended to milk more money off the market best they can. DSII has been marketed as harder, more challenging, it will kill you, etc. There's an achievement you get for your first death called 'This is Dark Souls'. DSII isn't actually much harder than its predecessor, and yet whilst it's certainly enjoyable to a degree, I find it far less enjoyable than Dark Souls or even Demon's Souls. Why? Because in DSII, the atmosphere is shallow. The intrigue is lacking. The world feels phony and patched together. Sure, you'd feel good about yourself for beating it, because you're told that this game is really hard. But it's the experience the elation comes from, the exploration and the discovery and the figuring out how this next boss works.
What an easier difficulty setting could do to disrupt things is throw the balance off so much that you don't need to think, you don't need to plan, you don't need to *do* anything to win but press forward. I know of a few games where things can be that easy and thus boring due to lack of investment, but none where the difference between difficulty settings is so great that the experience is ruined or significantly altered from one option to the other.
Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:they aren't fun in the actual game, but the end result is fun nonetheless.
Nay. The end result is you sitting there thinking 'hey I beat difficulty X', which is a shallow joy.
I don't suppose you ever played Oni? As a kid, I loved that game to bits. And as a kid, I always played on the easiest setting. And as an impatient entitled little bugger, I usually played using..
Endoperez wrote:cheats that enabled god mode and other such stuff.

Did cheats make those games less fun?
And no they didn't! I played Oni again and again, testing out my own mettle using different cheats every time, breaking the game world, exploring impossible corners, and roleplaying ridiculous scenes of immortality with all the ease of cheat access. I was still immersed in the experience of the story progression, as I knew what was cheated in and what was story canon, and had a jolly ol' time throughout. If anything, the ridiculous freedom the immense ease brought me made it *more* fun, as I was free to muck about however I wished.
Years later, I attempted a couple no-cheats runs on the harder difficulties and realised how the game was originally meant to be played, and whilst it was certainly quite enjoyable, the only real "extra" enjoyment was from my own thought "Hey I beat the hardest difficulty". There's merit and fun in facing the challenge, but truly, again, it's the overall experience that makes a game fun, not how hard you struggled to reach the end.

Also, it's entirely possible to never be able to beat a game and still enjoy it, and conversely also entirely possibly for too much of a challenge to make a game unenjoyable.

Wait, why am I bothering with this again?

User avatar
Phoenixwarrior141
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.

Re: IGD: PARENTS VS. STEAM.

Post by Phoenixwarrior141 » Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 pm

I'll pick out my one favorite line (Even though I agree with most of that) to show:
Also, it's entirely possible to never be able to beat a game and still enjoy it, and conversely also entirely possibly for too much of a challenge to make a game unenjoyable.
This, The Dark Souls community is far too entitled to realize that parts of the game were simply poorly designed in terms of difficulty (Blighttown...Ohhh, Blighttown...) and many followed the general idea that if you couldn't beat it, you were a casul.

I never beat the original Dark Souls and used cheats almost every time I played, and loved every minute of it.

User avatar
Endoperez
Posts: 5668
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:41 am
Location: cold and dark and lovely Finland

Re: IGD: PARENTS VS. STEAM.

Post by Endoperez » Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:21 pm

Glabbit wrote:
Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:I have to say this is demonstrably false, some games are meant to be hard for the feeling of accomplishment when you do beat them,
'Demonstrably false'? Using fancy words does not make your statements truthful.
He's true though, that's one of the selling points of roguelikes. With permadeath. You know, the genre of games that are more punishing than Dark Souls series has ever tried to be. :D

That said, roguelikes have always been a niche market, and the difficulty is one of the reasons for that. Dungeoncrawler games like Diablo usually make the game much easier and less punishing, which makes the game as a whole a more enjoyable experience.

So yes, games like that exist - but that doesn't mean it's good game design. I loathe IWBTG, I don't see what draws some people into it... I could understand it if it was just a platforming challenge, but the meta-gamey puzzles like a save point that kills you, ugh.

Post Reply