• Welcome to the Angry Joe Show Army!

    Join our community of gamers passionate about our community and our hobby! Whether it's playing, discussing, or watching games, regardless of platform, genre, or location, we have a place for you, always!

  • PS4 Forum

    The AJSA Playstation 4 Division: Game Nights and More!

    The AJSA is on Playstation 4! Join us for weekly Game Nights with a selection of the best games the PS4 has to offer!

  • XBO Forum

    The AJSA Xbox One Division: We Got You Covered!

    The AJSA Xbox One Division is ready to connect with you on XBox Live with a ton of events for the best Xbox games!

  • News Archive

    The Best News from the Best Sites, Every Week.

    The AJSA News Collection Team is hard at work condensing a week's worth of news into one giant-sze digest for you to chew on and discuss! Links to source articles are always provided!

  • More Info

    The AJSA Expeditionary Force: Every Month, a New Game.

    The elite vanguard of the AJSA, the Expeditionary Force (EF) chooses a new PC game to dive into every month! Join us for weekly events and help decide if the game has a future in the AJSA.

  • The Team

    Streaming Now: The AJSA Stream Team

    Joe can't stream every game, but our talented AJSA Stream Team covers a wide variety of games and personalities! Check them out, and show them some AJSA Love!

  • The Tube

    The AJSA Community YouTube Channel

    Featuring news, gameplay clips, and more from the community! The Community is a chance to showcase the best moments in AJSA Gaming!

omgdozer

Should video games be accessible to everyone?

21 posts in this topic

Cuphead has started a huge discussion about difficulty in video games. Is it fair for games to lock-off content from players that are unskilled enough to deal with a game's difficulty? 

Personally, I say yes. Not every game is made to be widely accessible. The developers do not have to make their game with the option to make the game easier. It is their vision for their game to be a certain way; that is how they want their game to be. If they lose a sale because of it, so be it. 

But what do you all think?

Nymphonomicon likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In something like Cuphead, a side scrolling shooter, it might as well have easier modes, for a variety of reasons but even just to allow younger people, older people with worse reflexes, or people with disabilities to play the game. Probably even more so because of the game's art style likely being something that can attract kids or older gamers and being something that some people might just want to observe and enjoy without having to do it while trying to survive. The only time it would feel right to not do an easier mode is if the games atmosphere or feelings it's trying to create are heavily reliant on challenge and when it wouldn't be a simple matter to add an easier mode because there are so many different reasons for why people might find a game to be difficult. Difficulty itself can mean a lot of different things and accessibility issues are usually adding obvious things like subtitles and larger text options or options to help people with certain disabilities (like not requiring mashing a button quickly for QTEs, having the ability to rebind controls or use third party controllers, or adding a colorblind mode), in those cases they should always be accessible but developers need to start the design process with that in mind because it can become costly, time consuming, and difficult to implement later.

This developer's thread on difficulty and accessibility partly explains designing around them.

 

Doctor likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that reminds me of a Youtube Reviewer who said a while ago:

" Videogames back then were hard, unforgiving and frustrating. Games were made for the Hardcores, the Elites and the Pros. You learned to had Machine like Reflexes and inhuman reactions. Until the Industry made Video games accessible for the other 6.5 billion Casuals out there, that still can't hit the broad side of the Great Wall of China".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I have to disagree. Whether people want a proper challenge in a game or to causually breeze through and enjoy the story, style and whatever else in a game then that should be thier choice, plus that's what higher and lowel difficulty settings are for. There are, of cource, exceptions. Games for very young children need to be designed to not frustrate them and there are games like Cuphead and Dark Souls that are designed to test the limits of your skill and patience to ultimately improve both and make you feel empowered for progressing and accomplishing. I truely get it, but 9 times out of 10 when a game is badly balenced, especially with limited difficulty settings, that's a flaw. Making games like this is often a way to pad them out, cover up bad AI (Demon Souls being a prime example of that), bad control set up or shitty stories. Look at Horizon: Zero Dawn, a game with literally none of those things, but it's still a challenging game. Easy to play, but not easy. Still, it gives one the option to make it a "turn on the death counter" nightmare or a casual breeze if all you want is to enjoy it's other elements without unnecessary frustration. That, to me, is an example of this done right.

 

It's created another problem as well, elitist ass holes. I mean, what is wrong when somebody is stuggling with a section in a game, goes to a forum or something like that to seek advice and instead of being answered with, "Well, I tried this and it seemed to work..." they're met with, "Git Gud!" and all that stupid bollocks these idiots say. I know the creation of these monsters are not the fault of the games, but this is a consequence that probably won't have happened or at least be greatly reduced is these games were designed differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

" Videogames back then were hard, unforgiving and frustrating. Games were made for the Hardcores, the Elites and the Pros. You learned to had Machine like Reflexes and inhuman reactions. Until the Industry made Video games accessible for the other 6.5 billion Casuals out there, that still can't hit the broad side of the Great Wall of China". Like this

They certainly do love their made up history to try to make themselves look special

Beatmaster A.C. likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Legolas_Katarn said:

They certainly do love their made up history to try to make themselves look special

yep. i second that. I personally like games like "easy to learn, hard to master".

Crazycrab likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's pretty interesting question. I personally (also) like games that are hard to learn and hard to master (Dwarf Fortress, Distant Worlds: Universe, etc.) and trying to make them "accessible to everyone" sounds quite impossible task to me. As long as we do have indie games and crowdfunding projects I think there will be made games for wide variety of people.

Nymphonomicon likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different strokes for different folks. I tried to play the first Mega Man again few years ago and for the life of me couldn't get through the Zippo stage. That being said, there are definitely far more casual games out there because just like the absence of the R rating, broader demographic for improved sales. Luckily there are developers out there that still follow their ideals and make that challenging game (Dark Souls, Cuphead, DOA Extreme Beach Volleyball).

 

So when people start crying it's too hard...not every game has to be easy or lacking that uber headache inducing challenge, there's no rules regarding a difficulty requirement all games have to follow. A developer shouldn't be obligated to regulate the difficulty or include options to make it easier after making a game catered to a certain demographic. But at the same time a broken game that just doesn't function properly therefore upping the difficulty is a completely different story and shouldn't even be released.

Crazycrab likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/10/2017 at 7:31 PM, Rain said:

Different strokes for different folks. I tried to play the first Mega Man again few years ago and for the life of me couldn't get through the Zippo stage. That being said, there are definitely far more casual games out there because just like the absence of the R rating, broader demographic for improved sales. Luckily there are developers out there that still follow their ideals and make that challenging game (Dark Souls, Cuphead, DOA Extreme Beach Volleyball).

 

Is that game really got a reputation for being hard?  I had no idea.

 

On 17/10/2017 at 2:13 PM, Doctor said:

That's pretty interesting question. I personally (also) like games that are hard to learn and hard to master (Dwarf Fortress, Distant Worlds: Universe, etc.) and trying to make them "accessible to everyone" sounds quite impossible task to me. As long as we do have indie games and crowdfunding projects I think there will be made games for wide variety of people.

 

Just like @Beatmaster A.C.I'd say I prefer easy to learn and hard to master, It creates a learning curve that is easier and more fun to digest.  It keeps you invested long enough to actually learn and the challenge comes from the playing the game itself rather than trying work your head past how exactly your supposed to play it.

 

Developers have the right to design the aspects of their games according to their creative vision that they have including difficulty, but with that being said I don't really think designing a games to be uber hard for that reason alone is a good idea in most circumstances.  I think the "less accessible" approach works best in games which are really all about the gameplay and challenge and don't have much focus on other elements like story like the aforementioned Dark Souls and Cuphead.

 

Otherwise people should be allowed to enjoy their games in whatever way they want.  If someone is struggling with a game on a harder difficulty setting but is still engrossed in the story, characters, lore or whatever then they obviously should not be forced to continue playing on the that setting if it is effecting their enjoyment.

 

In most circumstances accessible is a better way to go, it makes it available to a wider audience and that's a good thing not just for business but for gaming in general.  Don't get me wrong, I like a challenge but that's no reason to slam a door in people faces with the slogan "Git Gud" on it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, both sides of the debate have valid points.

Difficulty Levels have damn near always been a thing for many games. I always play on normal because I'd prefer to play the game as originally designed. For most of these types of games, the difficulty setting will either remove or add elements not originally apart of the base game experience.

Easy Mode = Any or All of the following conditions, typically;
-Enemy A.I. dumbed down.
-Fewer Enemy Encounters. (Less Mobs)
-Reduced Enemy Damage.
-Permanent Buffs for the Player.

Hard Mode = Any or All of the following conditions, usually;
-Enemy A.I. on steroids. (More complex with algorithyms designed to attack more frequently and with dynamic behavior, constantly changing patterns)
-More Enemy Encounters. (Crap loads of Mobs, often chaining aggro if you're playing in an MMORPG like Mabinogi)
-Increased Enemy Damage.
-Negative Conditions imposed on the Player. (Your HP used to auto regen? Not anymore~)

Normal Mode = None of the above, just the base game without any augmentations.

I'm totally alright with this setup. It allows weaker players the opportunity to also enjoy and learn said games and then, if they want to, they can go and increase the difficulty at their leisure. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

However...

My issue is when this debate starts to impact game development. Case in point, Crash Bandicoot is a Platformer. That Bridge level? I'm still fucking stuck on it. That shit is just flatout hard to do. There is no real way to make that easier for people, not unless you compromise the game's own design. For example, there are at least 2 parts in that bridge level that can and will royally screw someone over. Both involve making jumps across large holes in said bridge. The only way to make this easier is if you legitimately make that gap smaller, thus making it easier to jump over. Which basically defeats the purpose of the game being a platformer.

Granted, I suppose you could have two different versions of that level...? Easy Mode has it where said gaps are shorter and Normal Mode has the stage left as is.

Personally, I find both sides guilty of being entitled.
The Elitists who think they're better than everyone else are wrong for demanding games not have an Easy Mode for people, because why should that even matter to them?
Meanwhile, those who think EVERY game SHOULD have an Easy Mode are wrong for thinking that the world has to revolve around them.

Both groups are equally as self-centered. And the debate itself is potentially damaging to the industry as a whole. There are games that don't offer a choice in difficulty setting. What happens when said games, in an attempt to cater to those who demand easier experiences, end up designing their games to actually be easy? The gaps in said bridge either no longer exist or are a simple cake walk to get across. This whole matter is a two way street.

I'm alright with there being a choice. However, I am concerned about the future ramifications this topic will have on the industry.

 

Crazycrab and Shagger like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got multiple opinions I wanna share on this...

 

1: I like difficulty options. I get sad when games that are loads of fun but dirt easy have no hard mode like zelda (most of the older ones, I haven't played breath of the wild yet which I hear is actually challenging, I dunno if it is or not just saying). However I can respect someone who may want an easier setting for games perceived to be too hard for them. I honestly think it's stupid to be like 'hurr, the game would be RUINED if it had an easy OPTION'. Bear in mind however, that someone said something about people being entitled or something. I think games should have an easy mode every time if possible and believe me I wouldn't be wanting that for myself. I almost never touch the setting myself. Whenever I do, it's pretty much only when someone says 'omg this ___ on easy is harder than hard!' and I'll be like 'really?' and check for myself. Last game that came to mind was Kanako's final spellcard in Mountain of Faith, which incidentally, I didn't find it to be much harder.

I find a lot of the time people have expectations for difficulty settings, that they MUST be done 'right', with completely different AI and mechanics and such, that tweaking numbers and speeds is 'cheap'. I completely disagree. I mean yeah changing enemy behavior and strategy is great and all. But that takes time to develop. I would like that time to be invested. But many games have no difficulty settings at all, so I would at the very least like them to include a 'cheap' number/speed tweak for easy/hard settings. You'll still have the normal setting to play it 'as it was designed'. So why the hell would you deny a simple option that takes no time at all to develop when there are plenty of people who would enjoy it?

 

2: Reviewers sucking at games thing. I don't think anyone thinks game reviewers need to be great gamers. But they should at the very least play better than a senior with brain damage who can only use one hand because of a bad stroke... And don't think I'm being ablist here. I volunteer at a care home and I regularly play games with a guy with just that issue. Frankly... he sucks. But the reviewers who get caught doing worse. I'm sorry but it really is telling that they have no passion for games if they suck that bad. I mean I hate fighting games, and I never play them, but give me a controller or keyboard and a fighting game, and I'll still figure out that the object is to hit the enemy and try to not get h it in return, and not whiff at the clouds or whatever. I know there are only a few examples of reviewers being caught playing a game like they never touched a controller in their life but I've seen reviews where it's painfully obvious they spent very little time with a game before judging it, or flat out spew incorrect information because evidently they didn't care to learn or understand the game... I'm not talking about hard to understand games involving alt-tabbing into wikis or whatever. But just simple things like.. oh i dunno. That you can gain perks when you level up.

 

3: dark souls/git gud.

I'm starting to side with the dark souls community here. Why? Because I've must have seen people rag on them over a hundred times now. Talking about how awful they are, how they scare everyone away with 'git gud'. Guess how many times I've actually seen them 'git gud' away newcomers who don't already come at them swinging. zero. literally honestly zero. What I DO see in regards to 'git gud'. Is them responding to people who make their first post something like this:

"This game is bullshit, the hitboxes are so unfair, I don't see why everyone loves this game, hard but fair my ass. Maybe if From could code a hitbox better than a preschool student, I'd try the game more, but it's obvious it's overrated and shit'.

THATS when I see 'git gud'.. and then people will actually get on a high horse about how the community is bad.. really?

 

I mean sometimes I even see people post something like

"Zomg, the twin dragon riders keep owning me. How do you guys not get killed by the melee one while looking up at the archer?!"... Did I see 'git gud'? No, I saw

"you can knock the archer down and stun him alot by making the melee one break the pillar he's standing on"..

The thing is I didn't even fucking know that MYSELF. I wasn't stuck on that boss, beat it plenty of times, and was like holy shit I learned something and I wasn't even trying to!"

Toxic community my ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to this.

From a developer standpoint i want to make the game i want to make. If i want to make it ball busting hard that only 10% of people will actually complete it. I want to have the creative freedom to do that and should have that freedom.

As a consumer if i buy a game i want the satisfaction of completing that game. If that game is too difficult i would like an option to make it easier. another thing that i saw someone else bring up is people with disability game. Making a game stupid hard alienates them as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading this just reminded me of the obvious thing I typically never see people bring up when talking about difficulty and old games. When people bring up older games being so hard and needing hours to memorize boss patterns I always tend to focus on things like that not really being true and I don't really believe they played many games, that the more difficult games are not really popular for their difficulty, design/AI/space/programming limitations that lead to things developers likely wouldn't want or learned to stop including for player enjoyment that made the games more difficult. But that aside, the most obvious things is that people fucking cheated, all the time. Use the code, buy Nintendo Power to find the codes and secrets, buy the guidebook for codes, buy a Game Genie. Contra might be hard and there might be a reason why the Konami Code is one of the most popular and remembered things in gaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Legolas_Katarn said:

Reading this just reminded me of the obvious thing 

Gahhh thank you Legos, you single-handedly told me Santa Clause, Easter Bunny and the Great Pumpkin aren't real with that article. It was an interesting read but he went all Matrix and taking the red pill when it comes to playing games. From the developers perspective, the difficulty is manufactured by the player's mind and even though we "figure out" how to conquer a specific area/boss we actually didn't figure out anything and simply progressed as intended by the Dev Gods. So in that regard he's kind of contradicting himself because the developers designed the game to function a certain way therefore creating the difficulty curve. It's simply that some people can analyze, adapt and overcome and others can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

From the developers perspective, the difficulty is manufactured by the player's mind and even though we "figure out" how to conquer a specific area/boss we actually didn't figure out anything and simply progressed as intended by the Dev Gods

I would consider that to almost always be correct. The player mind and understanding of the game is typically what's going to create the challenge that the developers going to have created the game that, in almost all cases, they want you to be able to complete in the ways that they have allowed you to complete it all while maintaining the kind of suspension of disbelief that keeps you in and enjoying the world and gameplay of the game, which is typically easier done when the challenge isn't too much or too little for a player. People can play Halo or Gears of War on the most difficult setting but for almost everyone it's going to be such an odd and/or overly challenge experience that it would completely take you out of the world and how playing those characters were made to feel. The exception being what he mentions by bringing up speedrunning and how they typically play outside of the rules and goals established by the game. He talked about their game LUFTRAUSERS and how many people view it as a difficult game but that the skill of the players wasn't relevant because a challenge and difficulty isn't what they made the game wanting people to get out of it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Legolas_Katarn said:

Reading this

There was something he mentioned in there that really did not sit right with me.
"an article arguing for skippable bosses"
...............What?
Hold on a second. That sounds like a totally different topic from the one concerning an Easy Mode in games. I didn't even know that was a thing. Are there seriously people out there trying to push the industry into implementing a legitimate SKIP feature for bosses? O_o

I know when I voiced my concern in the previous post about the potential impact this debate would have for the future of gaming, I didn't think we were already to that point. Holy Christ on a cracker, THAT is just ridiculous. Like why even play the fucking game at that point? You essentially just spent $60 on a movie you could have just as easily enjoyed via Let's Play video. And hell, if you can skip boss fights why not just go further and implement the option to skip whole stages?

Now this is something I stand totally opposed to. This is very potentially harmful to not just the industry, but the culture itself.

Being an Indie Dev myself, I've taken great pride in my effort in creating a vast variety of enemy types and challenges. This is an experience I wish to share with players and I derive my satisfaction from their experience. Its no different from when I DM for my D&D group. So as a developer, I simply can't fathom this notion of giving players the option to just "skip" large elements of the adventure. Again, referencing my D&D group, it would be like the party stumbling across the final encounter that is supposed to serve as the climax for the adventure, and out of nowhere the party just "skips" the whole thing and automatically win.

No. That is not alright.

At that point, why should I even bother taking the time to make the game challenging at all in the first place?
Yes, there are players out there who wouldn't simply abuse the Skip Button. But the mere fact its there as an option automatically takes a hit to my motivation as a developer. And yes, I do have the choice to not implement that feature. But what happens when (Because its no longer a question of "IF" anymore...) the game or myself start getting backlash and attacked by these entitled advocates of "Easy Gaming" over me refusing to fall in line with other developers?

That is the potential damage/threat this mentality poses to the industry as a whole.
The loud, vocal advocates harass, protest and continue pushing until one by one, one company after the next caves in. Till eventually, it becomes just another "expectation" for games to have these sort of features. And anyone who doesn't will be made to suffer for it.

Now, I also said this didn't just impact the industry, but the culture as well.
Simply put, back in the 90s this conversation would never be happening. Yes, Cheat Codes were always a thing back then. I remember back in Armored Core you could unlock Human Plus that removed the game's limiters for AC weight requirement and using the GNL without having to kneel. But you were still playing the damn game. That was how players could access an "Easy Mode" for said games back then. Again, I have nothing against that. But at no point in time do I recall any of those Cheats allowing you to Skip playing the game. The games got easier for you with said cheats, but just like in Armored Core, it was still very possible for you to get killed. Same with Contra, getting extra lives didn't mean you couldn't still die. You were still EXPERIENCING the game.

Easy, Normal, Hard; whatever the preference, Gamers are still always being presented with a challenge. The difficulty of said challenge just changes.

But this debate is having a negative impact on the culture. Whatever happened to the mentality that if something is difficult that you take a moment, step away from the game for a bit, then come back and try it again? Is it possible that we're seeing a shift in psychology? That the players themselves are finding it easier to just give up rather than sticking with it and persevering? Is this evidence that our society as a whole is losing the will to fight or the motivation to push through so as to overcome challenges?

In the end, I'm left questioning my faith in humanity. Are we evolving and becoming better or are we going in the opposite direction?
"This game is too hard, I give up."
"This life is too hard, I give up."

Its a notion that fills me with dread...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I know when I voiced my concern in the previous post about the potential impact this debate would have for the future of gaming, I didn't think we were already to that point. Holy Christ on a cracker, THAT is just ridiculous. Like why even play the fucking game at that point? You essentially just spent $60 on a movie you could have just as easily enjoyed via Let's Play video. And hell, if you can skip boss fights why not just go further and implement the option to skip whole stages?

But this debate is having a negative impact on the culture. Whatever happened to the mentality that if something is difficult that you take a moment, step away from the game for a bit, then come back and try it again? Is it possible that we're seeing a shift in psychology? That the players themselves are finding it easier to just give up rather than sticking with it and persevering? Is this evidence that our society as a whole is losing the will to fight or the motivation to push through so as to overcome challenges? In the end, I'm left questioning my faith in humanity. Are we evolving and becoming better or are we going in the opposite direction? "This game is too hard, I give up." "This life is too hard, I give up." Its a notion that fills me with dread...

This seems like an extremely overblown reaction compared to just accepting that people play games for different reasons and wants to experience them in different ways, someone wanting to skip over some Mass Effect combat encounter they deem to be dull (you're also assuming the developer did a good job with the thing in the first place and that it is a player's first time through the game and that it's even the same person that purchased the game) to continue the plot or lore of the game they care about is perfectly reasonable and likely a much healthier state of mind than someone forcing themselves to get through things they don't want to do to try to finish something. Treating having the potential of including more options for players in an entertainment focused luxury product as if it must mean that everyone who would use those options just quits at anything and wants to give up on life because its too challenging (which often isn't even the central reason for why you would include something like that) would say much more negative things about the way you are viewing the world and video games than them, even more so if even entertaining the thought of people wanting to play games differently has immediately negatively impacted your motivation to make games even though you would have access to the exact same audience who would want to play your game through without skipping anything. Not everyone wants to or has the time to try to beat one difficult/potentially impossible if there is a reason why they can't do it/boring/tedious thing over and over and over again, even less so when it might not even be an element of the game that they enjoy and not why they bought the game in the first place. One of the best features of emulators is being able to get to scenes or walking segments that you don't care about or that you've already seen and to turn on frame skip and fast forward past it.

As a developer, if you were given the data on similar games or your own games that told you what part of your game people skipped or had a desire to skip and when they skipped them (if it was after a certain number of tries or after a certain number of playthroughs) that seems like it would be an extremely useful way of letting you know what kind of audience you have, what that audience you attracted enjoy or didn't enjoy, and what you did right and what you did wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On phone eill type like dung.

I have mixed opinions on boss skipping. On one hand its no big deal to me because its basically a lesser level select skip. Rather than skippable bosses you can just have a stage/scene select cheat.

 

But at the same time it IS a chest of sorts and I cant help but feel people who are calling for such a feature are simply bad gamers or dont want to be gaming. The former are gamers too and I have respect for people who can enjoy something even if they arent good at it. The latter shouldnt be playing games. And game critics simply shouldnt fit in either catagory unless they are playing a genre they hate, in which case the publication or site should have another staff cover said game.

 

Also about difficulty being non existant or whatever. Thats just sophistry imo. While its true that a developer likely has intentions and guidelines to how a player will play to beat said game, and while each player follows them the vast majority of the time. There is still a level of sifficulty to follow that path.

 

Just like a team sport. The path to victory is always the same where you try to shoot balls into your opponents net or whatever, and keep the ball away from your opponants in general. However beating. The local schoolkids in basketball is going to be easier than beating the chicago bulls or whatever even though your fundamental strategy is going to be much the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Legolas_Katarn said:

This seems like an extremely overblown reaction compared to just accepting that people play games for different reasons

If you are legitimately skipping sections of the game can you even justify the claim that you're even playing the game?
We need to learn to draw a distinction here between these two concepts. There is a VERY real difference between an "Easy Mode" for a game and an option to "Skip" entire sections of a game.

I don't see it as being an overblown reaction in the least, in fact I'd say my response to the concept is rightfully warranted. The article you presented was the first time I have personally heard of this "Skippable Bosses" argument.

 

37 minutes ago, Legolas_Katarn said:

you're also assuming the developer did a good job with the thing in the first place

At what point did I make such an assumption?
And honestly, if said developer gave the player an option to just skip said parts then I should think that said developer clearly doesn't have much faith in their own work to begin with. If the gameplay is really that tedious then the obvious conclusion is that aspect of their game has failed. Offering players a means to simply Skip it is not, nor should it ever be, treated as a free pass to compensate for their own shortcomings. That is just straight up lazy game design. That is something the developer needs to acknowledge and own up to and, honestly, do whatever they can to fix it as I would personally believe they have an obligation to do so for their players.

 

44 minutes ago, Legolas_Katarn said:

to continue the plot or lore of the game they care about is perfectly reasonable and likely a much healthier state of mind than someone forcing themselves to get through things they don't want to do to try to finish something.

No, it is not reasonable. Why did they buy the game in the first place? There are only two reasons here.
1) To play a Video Game experience.
2) To just see what happens in the story.

The second option is no different from watching a Movie or reading a Book. It is likewise no different from simply watching a video of someone doing a Let's Play.
Games are much more than that. It is the evolution of Art, combining so many different elements together into a single medium. As such, there is much more to it than simply the story element.

Am I saying its wrong to only want to enjoy a game's story without all the other aspects? No.
For example, I'm not intending on spending the money to buy the new Awakening the Nightmare expansion for Halo Wars 2. Mainly because I'm pinching my pennies as is. But that doesn't mean I can't still enjoy the story aspect. I went on youtube and watched a video someone put together of all the cutscenes. Yes, this means I effectively skipped actually playing the content. And the simple fact of the matter is that this does not count as me playing the game. The truth of the matter is that this does ultimately spoil the experience for me.

Had I actually gone and played the expansion myself, it would have been an entirely different experience altogether.
Kinda like if someone were to skip playing BioShock Infinite and just watch all the cutscenes. You're still going to miss out on the actual experience itself. This is also the reason why people don't like spoilers. It ruins the overall experience. It undermines the game design.
 

1 hour ago, Legolas_Katarn said:

Treating having the potential of including more options for players in an entertainment focused luxury product as if it must mean that everyone who would use those options just quits at anything and wants to give up on life because its too challenging

I believe you missed the point of what I said.
The concern stems from the discussion existing in the first place. People are advocating for it, meaning there are people who want it.
WHY do people want it?
SHOULD people want it?
You seem to be dismissing my concerns as nothing more than hyperbole when in reality no, these are legitimate concerns and serious questions I'm presenting. Your accusation likewise doesn't make sense considering I also stated;
 

2 hours ago, Malphisto said:

Yes, there are players out there who wouldn't simply abuse the Skip Button.

So where exactly are you getting this idea that I'm saying EVERYONE would use said options?

I'll give you that perhaps my "Life is too hard, I give up" analogy could have used some better clarification. Looking back on that, I wasn't trying to imply a suicidal notion with it. I was trying to demonstrate that the psychology itself of bypassing challenges like "Skippable Bosses" is sewing this harmful mentality that its alright to just give up if something is too challenging. One needs to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here; "What are the potential ramifications of this? How does it impact the culture and industry in the long term?"

I realize you tried to respond back to this be presenting the generalized groups of players out there and how not everyone is the same. I get that, and as you can see I had already acknowledged that as well. But that isn't the point I was making.

There are two videos here that I feel contribute much to this conversation.
 

Followed up with;

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2017 at 9:13 AM, Doctor said:

That's pretty interesting question. I personally (also) like games that are hard to learn and hard to master (Dwarf Fortress, Distant Worlds: Universe, etc.) and trying to make them "accessible to everyone" sounds quite impossible task to me. As long as we do have indie games and crowdfunding projects I think there will be made games for wide variety of people.

Precisely. So long as there is a demand for walking simulators and other games that are essentially nothing more than an interactive movie, there will be a market for them... and there's nothing wrong with that. The appearance of games like that has given some people this idea that the entire industry should appeal to that demographic. Let the industry appeal to all the consumers and all the genres, don't demand they appeal to your tastes alone. That kind of thinking will just hurt games in the longrun.

Crazycrab and Rain like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Games are big enough for everyone, and if a challenging game like Cuphead has an 'easy mode' for less skilled players to enjoy it, then more power to them. It's all optional, after all.

Crazycrab likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now