The great "Difficulty in games" debate

[Icebox]

On 11/2/2020 at 6:26 PM, Psychotic Ninja said:

My stance is a simple one: Players should have the option to make a game as difficult, or easy, as they see fit. As long as it doesn't harm other people's experience or enjoyment (when it comes to online gaming), then let them. If Ross wants to use cheats to beat Dark Souls, then let him. If he decides, down the road, to go back, and beat it, this time without cheats, then good for him. If not, okay.

 

I agree with this, the problem isn't difficultly levels, it's when the gameplay mechanics themselves get dumbed down or removed.

[Arseniy Yavorśkyi]

responding to Psychotic Ninja:

Spoiler

4 hours ago, Psychotic Ninja said:

Huh, it's almost as if the issue you have has nothing to do with the difficulty in games, and more with how Ross chose to play a certain game.

it's almost like you're using a fallacy to support an illogical argument. difficulty in games is an issue I always took interest in — the Ross incident gave me a reason to bring it up on this forum.

4 hours ago, Psychotic Ninja said:

He didn't play it the way you wanted him to play it. No, he played it the way he wanted to.

doing what you want doesn't always give the best results. Ross ignored the advice of experienced players, and instead did what he always does in that kind of situation. in my opinion, this time he's worse for it. we can argue about specifics, about which way to play is better in which situation. but just because the decision was his doesn't automatically make it a correct one. to say otherwise is fallacious.

4 hours ago, Psychotic Ninja said:

I could be angry and upset at people not breaking FF8 to insane levels on their first playthrough, but I'm not. I could be angry and upset at people who don't beat KH2 FM on Critical Mode (Level 1) on their second playthrough, but I'm not. Should Speedrunners be angry and upset when people don't speedrun their favorite game? I don't get upset when people don't optimize their playthrough of FFX and go for Penance. I don't get upset when people don't optimize their Augments in FF IV 3D/DS, especially in NG+.

the insinuation that I expect unreasonably high-level performance from a first-time player is completely baseless. nobody expected or wanted him to play perfectly. in fact, it's the opposite — I was quite surprised by how well Ross did in that stream, as were many other viewers.

4 hours ago, Psychotic Ninja said:

If Ross hates the gameplay/difficulty of the Souls games, but loves the lore, he should be able to explore the games at his own pace. He shouldn't have to rely on others and their styles to get the lore.

except cheating is not a style of playing, it's a way to bypass the 'playing' part of the game.

 

as for story and lore — I've already made my point about those things not having the intended impact with cheats. if we suddenly get an hour-long Game Dungeon episode with Ross enthusiastically rambling about Souls lore, I'll happily eat my words. but, as of now, there's not a single bit of evidence that suggest he's gotten into it.

4 hours ago, Psychotic Ninja said:

I mean, using your logic, wouldn't Ross not get the experience of defeating a difficult boss? He didn't beat the boss, someone else did.

using my logic, he would've gotten more out this game by watching a let's play than by cheating. he still wouldn't get the full experience, but he'd at least see someone else get it, which is better than nothing.

4 hours ago, Psychotic Ninja said:

Ross can make the game easier. Not one shot everything easier, but easier if he so chooses.

either I'm not getting you, or you mixed something up. one-hit-kill is literally the cheat he used, along with invincibility.

4 hours ago, Psychotic Ninja said:

At the end of the day, how one plays a game is their own choice and no one, not you, not me, not even Ross's wife has any right to tell him "you're playing the game wrong".

we have the right to tell him whatever we want. what we can't do (or have any right to do) is to force him to do something, which is not something I ever had any intention of doing.

 

I'll try to put this in the least confrontational way I can, so listen carefully. there were too many fallacies in your post. if you are interested in having an actual discussion about the topic at hand, I suggest you be honest with me from now on. don't try to make me waste my time on dismantling statements that don't make any logical sense.

 

Edited November 4, 2020 by Arseniy Yavorśkyi (see edit history)

[Arseniy Yavorśkyi]

RaTcHeT302, will you chill out already? calm down. take deep breaths. it's like you're on acid or something.

 

the advice was to play the game without cheats. I wasn't talking about backseat gaming happening in the chat.

 

P.S. the reason I put the post under the spoiler was to reduce the space it takes up on the page.

Edited November 4, 2020 by Arseniy Yavorśkyi (see edit history)

[Arseniy Yavorśkyi]

 52 minutes ago, RaTcHeT302 said:

okay since this guy will just throw the "not logical" argument at me to hand wave all i'm saying away, here's an ACTUAL LOGICAL ARGUMENT

you mixed up the meaning of what I said, I clarified it in my response. that's it. I did not hand wave away anything, and I also didn't say anything about your arguments not being logical. although, in hindsight, I probably should have.

52 minutes ago, RaTcHeT302 said:

if you were given the option to cheat, and if you knew that you would never caught, knowing that you'd save 10 hours worth of time, would you not do it?

no, because if the game is THAT bad it's simply not worth my time. the only exception is in case of a bug.

52 minutes ago, RaTcHeT302 said:

i mean, morally, it doesn't matter, it's pure logic here

I don't think morality of cheating is a concern in the single-player part of the game.

52 minutes ago, RaTcHeT302 said:

a computer would always take the option to cheat, i mean, it's perfectly logical, i save 10 hours, it's a positive gain, it's always beneficial, why would i not do it?

if your objective is to simply reach the end credits as soon as possible, then yeah. but that's not why most people play video games.

52 minutes ago, RaTcHeT302 said:

none of what you are saying makes any sense to me, not only are your arguments just plain unreasonable, but they just don't make sense from even the most basic points of view

 

i mean i guess he'll say, "but he was livestreaming" and we'll just go on here forever

 

i just don't see the point, i'm getting nowhere here honestly

you know, you're right. let's just leave that for the people to figure out. I think they can tell which one of us is a raving lunatic.

[centersolace]

I play videogames to have fun. Not miserably failing to click the same 5 buttons over and over again.

 

I have a job for that.

[BTGBullseye]

19 hours ago, centersolace said:

I play videogames to have fun. Not miserably failing to click the same 5 buttons over and over again.

 

I have a job for that.

+1

[Im_CIA]

And for the rest there is EVE Online 

[BTGBullseye]

45 minutes ago, Im_CIA said:

And for the rest there is EVE Online 

The "game" for workaholics.

[centersolace]

If "getting gud" requires I give up my life it's not worth my time.

[Psychotic Ninja]

Who gets to define the "right" way to play a game? the "most optimized" way to play? How are these decisions decided? Does everyone have to follow these guidelines, especially on their first playthrough? What's to happen if someone doesn't? Are these answers universal? Should they be?

Edited November 6, 2020 by Psychotic Ninja (see edit history)

[Arseniy Yavorśkyi]

8 hours ago, centersolace said:

If "getting gud" requires I give up my life it's not worth my time.

have you ever seen a game with that sort of requirement? the only one that comes to my mind is Getting Over It.

2 hours ago, Psychotic Ninja said:

Who gets to define the "right" way to play a game? the "most optimized" way to play? How are these decisions decided? Does everyone have to follow these guidelines, especially on their first playthrough? What's to happen if someone doesn't? Are these answers universal? Should they be?

when developers design a game, it's done with a certain expectation of what players will be doing. that's where 'intended experience' is derived from. when you buy a game, you expect to get what you paid for — what the developers created. it would therefore make sense to try to get this experience, instead of intentionally breaking the game in fundamental ways, at least on the first playthrough.

[kerdios]

@Arseniy Yavorśkyi so did you get to watching the wisecrack video and what did you think about the three philosophies he demonstrated (maternity (not sure if correct term, but go with me), castration, desperation)?

[Psychotic Ninja]

11 hours ago, Arseniy Yavorśkyi said:

when developers design a game, it's done with a certain expectation of what players will be doing. that's where 'intended experience' is derived from. when you buy a game, you expect to get what you paid for — what the developers created. it would therefore make sense to try to get this experience, instead of intentionally breaking the game in fundamental ways, at least on the first playthrough.

And that's where we're at a disagreement. For I believe it's the player's decision as for the right/optimal way in playing a game. The Developers can intend all they want, but like with all art, it's up for interpretation.

[centersolace]

16 hours ago, Arseniy Yavorśkyi said:

have you ever seen a game with that sort of requirement? the only one that comes to my mind is Getting Over It.

when developers design a game, it's done with a certain expectation of what players will be doing. that's where 'intended experience' is derived from. when you buy a game, you expect to get what you paid for — what the developers created. it would therefore make sense to try to get this experience, instead of intentionally breaking the game in fundamental ways, at least on the first playthrough.

Any game that advertizies itself as being "super duper hard" is one of those.

[Arseniy Yavorśkyi]

1 hour ago, centersolace said:

Any game that advertizies itself as being "super duper hard" is one of those.

I wouldn't take marketing fluff at face value.

18 hours ago, kerdios said:

@Arseniy Yavorśkyi so did you get to watching the wisecrack video and what did you think about the three philosophies he demonstrated (maternity (not sure if correct term, but go with me), castration, desperation)?

I'm sorry, I didn't know you were expecting me to watch it. I generally avoid videos where every other comment points out how this or that part of the video is factually incorrect. besides, the whole idea behind those philosophies seems ridiculous and far-fetch. I'll give you my take on Joseph Anderson's videos once I finish watching all the parts, however.

[Psychotic Ninja]

If games were designed in a way so that what the developers wanted you to do, and exactly how they wanted you to do, then the games would be extremely hand-holdy, with zero deviation from the plot or world, telling you exactly what to do, when and how to do it from start to finish. If you tried to deviate from the plot/story, you would get a game over.

Edited November 7, 2020 by Psychotic Ninja (see edit history)

[kerdios]

2 hours ago, Arseniy Yavorśkyi said:

I wouldn't take marketing fluff at face value.

I'm sorry, I didn't know you were expecting me to watch it. I generally avoid videos where every other comment points out how this or that part of the video is factually incorrect. besides, the whole idea behind those philosophies seems ridiculous and far-fetch. I'll give you my take on Joseph Anderson's videos once I finish watching all the parts, however.

think nothing of it, the expectation was only there because you wrote you might watch it even despite the comments (or I misunderstood).

[Arseniy Yavorśkyi]

5 hours ago, Psychotic Ninja said:

If games were designed in a way so that what the developers wanted you to do, and exactly how they wanted you to do, then the games would be extremely hand-holdy, with zero deviation from the plot or world, telling you exactly what to do, when and how to do it from start to finish. If you tried to deviate from the plot/story, you would get a game over.

no, that's literally how all games are made. it's just that some games are much better at hiding their limits than others, and some games are bad at enforcing said limits. in an RPG quest, for example, if you manage to break the expected chain of events in a way that wasn't accounted for by the devs, sometimes you don't just lose the game — it crashes, the quest gets stuck, you fall through the floor, etc. haven't you seen the Deus Ex episode of Game Dungeon?

[centersolace]

8 hours ago, Arseniy Yavorśkyi said:

I wouldn't take marketing fluff at face value.

I would, that's why it exists.

[Psychotic Ninja]

4 hours ago, Arseniy Yavorśkyi said:

no, that's literally how all games are made. it's just that some games are much better at hiding their limits than others, and some games are bad at enforcing said limits. in an RPG quest, for example, if you manage to break the expected chain of events in a way that wasn't accounted for by the devs, sometimes you don't just lose the game — it crashes, the quest gets stuck, you fall through the floor, etc. haven't you seen the Deus Ex episode of Game Dungeon?

 

 

So, as a (former) speedrunner for Arkham Asylum, me throwing a remote batarang through a tiny gap in an invisible wall, to knock down the giant bell in the Manor, to skip a fairly big chunk of the game. You're telling me that's fully intentional by the devs, cause it didn't crash the game?!

 

 

 

 

 

I mean, I didn't lose the game. I can still beat it. I can still defeat Joker.