responding to @StrixLiterata:
ExpandPersonally, I think that the debate about difficulty is actually a debate about inclusion: those championing difficulty want to keep the communities of the difficult games they enjoy a closed space for "real gamers", while those championing ease of play want those communities to welcome them despite beign unable or unwilling to invest much of their time or identity into the games in question. So ultimately, the right choice to make for a develpoer depends on the kind of community and fanbase they want. While inclusion sound like the better option, I understand the need for a community of like-minded people, so I don't think this desire is inherently toxic; after all, it mirrors that for "safe spaces".
I find such notion to be utterly ridiculous. let me assure you: this has nothing to do with keeping people out. have you ever met a gamer who'd want less people to enjoy the game he likes? I haven't. and "safe spaces"? that's just absurd. I don't see how I, or anyone else, could feel threatened by sharing a passion for a game with more people. I enjoy challenging games precisely because they're not "safe spaces" — because they challenge my ego, instead of placating it.
ExpandAnother question that's wrapped up in the Great Difficulty in Games Debate is that of Intended Play: wether games should be played as the developer intended or however the player pleases. Some of these arguments are about inclusion as well: cheating and mods that make the game easier being viewed as ways to intrude in the community of a game without having "earned" it, and about that I still think the same as above.
the only people who brag about beating a game with cheats are "journalists" that have a vested interest in the matter. more on this in the video from my original post.
ExpandAbout the arguments on these subjects that are sincere, I believe in the Death of the Author, that the interpretation of a work of art is the exclusive privilege and responsibility of the audience: if the player does not understand how to engage with the game the way the developers intended, it's the developer's fault for not communicating it properly; however, if the player, knowing how the developers intended the game to be played, chooses to engage with it otherwise, wether they like the experience they get rests on their shoulders alone, and cannot be blames or praised on the developer. Mastering a deep and challenging game is a unique and powerful experience, and changing such a game to avoid the challenge is valid, but doesn't detract from the validity of going through with it: calling those who invest themselves out for any reason is like booing at a Conesseour for being knowlegeable about vintage wine, and calling out those who skip the challenge is like the same Conesseour insulting normal consumers for adding sugar to Absinthe.
Personally, I think making a game that requires the player to behave in a very specific manner to work correctly is faulty design: a developer should either strive to make their game engaging in as many ways as time and budget allow, and prevent those behaviours that would result in a sub-par experience, or make it as customizable as possible to let the players find their own best experience.
well, this isn't really about the blame. it's about value. if a game is good, then cheating ruins it. if the game is so bad that the intended gameplay is not worth preserving, then there's no point in spending time on it in any capacity.
ExpandSo, about Ross and Dark Souls: @Arseniy Yavorśkyi asked "Is Ross having more fun when playing with cheats like he said he is? He just looks bored and annoyed to me, more so than in the first stream."
I think he made an informed decision: he tried playing like From Software intended, and then decided he'd have more fun playing with cheats. It's tue he might have had more fun if he put in the effort to master the game, but his time, as everyone's, is limited. Not everyone can, or should, be a Conesseour.
except the way he explained his decision to cheat proves that the decision was not informed. he based it on incorrect assumptions about the rest of the game — that it would just be him bashing his head against the wall forever. in Dark Souls, the first few hours are always the hardest — because the player is learning the basics. and Ross? when he started playing, he was already doing better than most. if he persistent, he'd have no problem beating the rest of the game legitimately, I'm sure of it.
ExpandThere are four certaintities in this debate:
1) Some kinds of game require the player to rise to a challenge in order to make them experience something that would be incomunicable otherwise
2) Many players will try to make the game as easy for themselves as possible, even at the cost of their own fun (for example, by favouring safe but boring startegies to riskier but more exciting ones)
3) Difficulty is subjective
4) Difficulty can arise from errors in developement and miscommunications beteween developer and players, as well as from deliberate intention
I agree with this wholeheartedly. in fact, the first two points seem to reflect what I've been getting at this whole time. but, judging by what's been said in this discussion so far, these things aren't as obvious or clear-cut as one might presume.
ExpandIt's important to give players some kernels of validation at regular intervals: even if a game is cultivating an atmosphere of dread and confusion, letting the player know they are on the (or at least a) right track is indispensable to keep them engaged.
A well designed game should have a learning curve that starts low, but takes only as much time as it strictly needs to bring the player to it's intended difficulty level. This is accomplished by keeping the skill floor low (at least at the beginning) and the skill ceiling high, so that a player that already knows what they're doing can skip the parts of the learnign curve they don't need.
This requires a relatively low complexity, which is the number of possible inputs, including wether an input can be given wrongly (for example: a dodge that has no cooldown and keeps you invulnerable for it's entire duration has almost no complexity, while a dodge that has limited invincibility farames and a cooldown is more complex) but great depth, that is to say, a great number of possible outcomes (for example, an attack that locks you into the animation without being able to do anything else is shallow, but one that allows you to turn during the animation, altering the trajectory of you hitbox, is deep).
I agree with this too, except for the last example. from personal experience, unlocked attack animations feel atrocious, and I don't see how removing the necessity for tactical thinking when choosing the initial attack direction makes the mechanic less deep.
ExpandIf you think about the most acclaimed game swith high difficulty, you'll realize that they always give the player milestones and feedback to encourage them even as they put them through the grinder, and ramp up the challenge instead of presenting a wall.
sometimes players see walls where there are none. here's common story: I remember playing Sekiro and having a really hard time, only to later realize that I wasn't playing the game properly. I was stuck in my "Dark Souls ways", relying too much on dodging, while parrying was the primary defense mechanic in many of the encounters. some people refuse to accept the fact that they were wrong — they refuse to learn, and, thus, make the game much harder than it needs to be.
ExpandAchieving this equilibrium can can be very difficult for the developer for certain genres, or if they lack time or budget, but in my opinion a game should only be as difficult as can be accomplished while respecting these precepts: if you can't make a game that's difficult in an engaging way, make it easier and better, instead of requiring the player to get past your bullshit
I suppose that's fair — but only if challenge was never the point in the first place. surely you've been in a situation where an epic story moment is undermined by trivial difficulty of the encounter.
responding to @Konrad:
ExpandDamn this formatting system is sucki sucki big timey... Ooph
you can quote by selecting part of the text, and then clicking on the "quote selection" button that pops up near the selection (the quote will be inserted into the current position in the editing box). to "mention" a user, type "@", then space, then part of the name, then select from a list.
ExpandWhat you rather would is not part of the debate. It's not your place to say these things.
I don't think it's your place to shut me up — but here you are, trying to do it anyway. it's interesting how these things work, isn't it?
anyway, I said it to show that I don't have double standards. nobody is above criticism.
ExpandYour example isn't working. When you rent a car you have to proof that you can drive it (show actual driving license). It is absolutely clear what you are supposed to do with it. Besides there are clear regulations and government sanctioned rules how to handle cars on state-owned roads. What you do with your own car on your private property is mostly your business.
not all vehicles require a driving license, but that's besides the point. what matters is that desired result was not achieved because of misuse rather than any faults of the product.
ExpandPersonally, I wish videogames were clearer about what clients they want cater to oh and I wished that they would be heavily regulated and that there would be more standards and less idiots around, but no one listens to me anyway. But game publishers, especially the big ones are the ones who want to *sell as much as possible* so if they can attract a broader audience they will try that. So yeah. Your car example shows how wrong this is and how they basically sell lies to their customers to sell more. It's like some car dealer selling your blind grandma a car and your dog, even though they are fully aware that it's not meant for those people.
misadvertisement is a real problem, no question about that. but how are games supposed to explain what type of players they're made for? you'd think a tag line such as "Prepare To Die" would work, but — no kidding — I've seen people confuse lines like these for flavor text.
ExpandBecause videogames and some noisey, inappropriate demographic of players.
I don't understand what you mean by this.
ExpandNope, not the point I made. Games (and Game developers) who treat me disrespectfully can go ffff-them selves. If the game doesn't provide me with the tools to have fun it failed its purpose. Not enough choices for me. End of story. Dark Souls is an excellent example for that.
Dark Souls is an example of a game which doesn't treat you as if you were a small child. it provides you with so much choices it's all too easy to screw yourself over by mistake. on the other hand, you can literally beat this game with your starting gear, naked, without leveling up, or with any other crazy setup. literally everything is possible — as long as you develop enough skill. if you still feel like this game "insults" you with lack of choices, I got bad news for you — you just can't get over the fact that you're bad at something. having the capacity to get over one's ego is a prerequisite for playing this game.
ExpandI don't know what you are talking about. I played over 150 hours of Darkest Dungeon backing up my saves, circumventing the shitty rogue-like bit of the game only to have needed to revert to a former save 5 times, maybe. That's one reload per 30 hours. Wow, I wish other games would manage that. And mostly because I wasn't paying attention, or misclicked, so for me it never felt like a test of luck at all. I would have told you to get gud but then I wouldn't be any better than those infantile anal-rententive dark soul-tards, so probably I just had a very very lucky 150 hours with Darkest Dungeon and you just had really bad luck at that game. Sucks to be you, man. You have my sympathies.
would you look at all that foul language and those personal insults. running out of arguments, are we?