Lets say they keep everything as it is right now, like they literally have the games they already have and add some difficulty options like less annoying backtracking. How does this “ruin” your experience?
Every one of these arguments is based on the entirely made up idea that sacrifices must be made to achieve these improvements.
Dark souls would be a very different experience if the monsters weren’t threatening and there were no setbacks for defeat. People believe the experience is important. Accepting that defeat is only a temporary setback and you can just try again is a significant experience, and if you make the game trivial you won’t achieve that.
Dark souls would be a very different experience if the monsters weren’t threatening and there were no setbacks for defeat.
Crazy strawman argument here. Its not even remotely close to what is being argued.
People believe the experience is important.
What Im suggesting doesnt prevent them from having that. The fact they feel it must be imposed on others for them to play those games is ridiculous and childish.
Accepting that defeat is only a temporary setback and you can just try again is a significant experience, and if you make the game trivial you won’t achieve that.
This assumption that difficulty settings are all about making a game trivial is just so obviously bad faith nonsense.
More than that, some people do just enjoy things that way and they don’t care about the other parts of the experience. There is literally no reason all people involved cant have cake. Its literally just angsty gatekeepers whining that they think there needs to be a bar to entry to play a video game; something people do for fun.
Let me just skip ahead to asking you the question none of you annoying gatekeepy folks can answer.
Lets say they keep everything as it is right now, like they literally have the games they already have and add some difficulty options like less annoying backtracking. How does this “ruin” your experience?
I think our assumptions are not shared, so arguing more isn’t going to be productive until that’s straightened out.
When you say difficulty settings, I think of lowering enemy effectiveness, raising player effectiveness, and removing consequences for bad play (eg: permadeath of characters). Is that what you mean?
You mention less annoying backtracking. Can you imagine a game where the “annoying back tracking” is fulfilling an important role (eg: resources attrition, encouraging revisiting areas)?
If so, is there a threshold beyond which is too much? If there’s a slider that adjusts enemy damage, should it go to zero? If no, how do you decide the limits? What about the players who want to exceed them?
It seems like you have the assumption that everyone should be able to complete every game. Is that correct? Is that true for all media, or only video games?
I would write more but I’m on my phone and almost to my destination.
When you say difficulty settings, I think of lowering enemy effectiveness, raising player effectiveness, and removing consequences for bad play (eg: permadeath of characters). Is that what you mean?
Can be, doesn’t have to be.
Can be things like making it such that you can fast travel instead of travelling slowly back. Can be that you skip a minigame you just don’t think adds anything to the game. Can be that you do or don’t want certain queues etc.
Can be a lot of things and the point is basically that there are a lot of things which can be toggleable settings which are extremely easy to implement, and greatly improve the experience for some players, while players who want “what the developers envisioned” or whatever, can play it that way just fine.
Others can make certain elements harder or easier or non existent based on their preferences.
You mention less annoying backtracking. Can you imagine a game where the “annoying back tracking” is fulfilling an important role (eg: resources attrition, encouraging revisiting areas)?
I can imagine some situations where it could be sure, but most of the times it isn’t and the times it isn’t isn’t worth the effort for me. It just makes the game less fun for no conceivable benefit most of the time. The backtracking Im describing here is essentially filler (the type I don’t think most people like).
If so, is there a threshold beyond which is too much? If there’s a slider that adjusts enemy damage, should it go to zero? If no, how do you decide the limits? What about the players who want to exceed them?
I think the idea here that you seem to be putting out is that there is some point at which a players choice to change the difficulty is no longer valid, and I don’t think any such point exists. Let people do what they want, and give them some reasonable defaults that you’ve actually tested for/think blend well.
It seems like you have the assumption that everyone should be able to complete every game. Is that correct? Is that true for all media, or only video games?
I’ve seen someone ask this before and I think its an absurd question to ask. No one in their right mind buys any media to not finish it. No one walks into a movie hoping its so shit they walk out half way, or starts a novel hoping they’re so bored they put it down.
Of course everyone should be able to complete every game. I can’t even think of what point this could be leading to except the obvious absurd idea that people should be expecting not to be able to enjoy the things they purchase.
Still on my phone so this might be a little limited.
I can imagine some situations where it could be sure, but most of the times it isn’t and the times it isn’t isn’t worth the effort for me. It just makes the game less fun for no conceivable benefit most of the time. The backtracking Im describing here is essentially filler (the type I don’t think most people like).
So when it is not filler, should you be disallowed from skipping it? Who is to say what the benefit is? Does the design intent matter?
Of course everyone should be able to complete every game. I can’t even think of what point this could be leading to except the obvious absurd idea that people should be expecting not to be able to enjoy the things they purchase.
This is a big disagreement. I don’t think everyone should be able to finish every game. They should be able to work the controls. If someone made Calculus Souls I’m just not going to beat it. I’m not good at math. I don’t expect them to give me the answers or add in an Arithmetic mode. If it’s there, fine, but that’s gravy. That’s like getting a second game for free.
Did you ever read the book House of Leaves? It’s great. Unreliable narrators, unconventional layout and use of form. Several friends of mine bounced right off of it. “Can’t read this”, they said. I wouldn’t say they were gatekept. I wouldn’t say the author is ableist because they didn’t also provide a linear narrative, without all the footnotes. I accept that not everyone is going to finish that book. Even if they paid money for it.
My dad bought a big jigsaw puzzle once. Loves puzzles. Couldn’t do this one. He put it back in the box and never finished it. He didn’t say it was an accessibility problem. It would never occur to him to ask for, like, the backs of the pieces to be numbered
People routinely accept that things will be hard, and maybe they can’t beat them. Maybe they could with more practice, but it’s not worth it. This is not a failure of the game or toy.
That’s what a lot of these discussions feel like. Someone made something interesting and challenging, and people want it changed. If you take all the footnotes out of house of leaves, you get a very different, much reduced, result.
I think the idea here that you seem to be putting out is that there is some point at which a players choice to change the difficulty is no longer valid, and I don’t think any such point exists. Let people do what they want, and give them some reasonable defaults that you’ve actually tested for/think blend well.
Well, earlier I said something about tuning difficulty down to the point of triviality, and you said that was a straw man.
But look, I’m not against options in games (assuming everyone playing gives informed consent. Unilaterally cheating is not okay). I just think the framing of it as accessibility in the same way that subtitles or changing controller inputs is dicey. “I think this would be more fun” is a fine, subjective, argument. “This game is ableist” is much shakier.
Of course, if you’re not saying lack of options is ableist but having them makes the game more fun, then I guess we violently agree.
Well, with the footnote that I do believe some people would ruin their own fun by turning the difficulty too high or low, but that’s not my business, and could be a net zero when compared to people not having fun with the available options. (But like for real when I was a kid I briefly ruined Diablo by cheating myself all the cool items.)
And the thing I was waiting for in real life has occurred. No more editing! Post away!
So when it is not filler, should you be disallowed from skipping it? Who is to say what the benefit is? Does the design intent matter?
Why should you? Why should the player be disallowed from doing anything? They bought the game. They should be allowed to do whatever to the point of unreasonable hardship for the developer. Like if a dev has to go out of their way, fair enough, but if its like, they’re just not exposing the ability to change a setting, thats ridiculous.
Did you ever read the book House of Leaves? It’s great. Unreliable narrators, unconventional layout and use of form. Several friends of mine bounced right off of it. “Can’t read this”, they said. I wouldn’t say they were gatekept. I wouldn’t say the author is ableist because they didn’t also provide a linear narrative, without all the footnotes. I accept that not everyone is going to finish that book. Even if they paid money for it.
These aren’t comparable situations. That one person almost certainly would have had to actually make significant effort, probably exceeding the effort of making the book to make it accessible. Video games aren’t that. More than that, the changes we are talking about are minor and relatively (compared to the scale of a game) easy to add. to add to that, people can still be into the majority of a game and not like one particular element, and there is no reason they shouldn’t be able to remove the bug bear. It is for entertainment after all.
That’s what a lot of these discussions feel like. Someone made something interesting and challenging, and people want it changed. If you take all the footnotes out of house of leaves, you get a very different, much reduced, result.
The question, as before, is, if the people who want that original experience can still just choose that, why are they up in arms at the idea of allowing people to experience things differently that don’t affect them?
Outside of completely made up arguments that this is not possible, no one has had an answer for this, just anger, as if they are mad at the idea of people not having to go through the “struggle” they feel they went to. Not having to have the “skills they built up”.
I’ve had countless people say the most toxic things I’ve seen on lemmy in this very thread over that idea, and I think thats the core of it. That behind all the bullshit excuses people have come up with, they feel like their achievements would somehow be worth less if other people could play the game differently to how they played. Like their other way of playing isn’t “official” enough and shouldn’t be supported at all.
I’ve had someone really iron in that this is the true intent when they revealed that they would prefer someone cheat in the game rather than the developer simply exposing those same things as options.
Well, earlier I said something about tuning difficulty down to the point of triviality, and you said that was a straw man.
It was. My point initially wasn’t about that, but when asked specifically, I think yea, why not, who cares. Why are other people caring so much about how others enjoy their media product.
But look, I’m not against options in games (assuming everyone playing gives informed consent. Unilaterally cheating is not okay).
I mean this conversation, I think, has pretty clearly morphed into a bunch of people vehemently angry about the prospect of souls like games having any difficulty changes, harder or less hard.
I don’t think anyone has been thinking about multiplayer.
I just think the framing of it as accessibility in the same way that subtitles or changing controller inputs is dicey. “I think this would be more fun” is a fine, subjective, argument. “This game is ableist” is much shakier.
I’m not sure I’ve used that as the core of my argument or my argument at all actually. Not sure though as, like you’ve probably seen, there are a shit ton of comments on this tree.
I think some forms of media will inherently be somewhat inaccessible, but there is no reason to go out of your way to support things being less accessible, even if accessible means to people who simply don’t like a thing one way vs the other.
Well, with the footnote that I do believe some people would ruin their own fun by turning the difficulty too high or low, but that’s not my business
See thats the thing. Everyone else in this thread has been violently angry at the idea that other people could have fun differently to them.
Ill give you one example. I liked Cyberpunk. It was a decent game, and I’ve played through it a few times.
The first time I played it, I played without any mods, very hard, just because (I’m honestly only including this to stop bs arguments, though you haven’t seemed supremely disengenous like many others on this thread so far, and feel I shouldnt need to, to make my point), and then every time after that I played with mods, and I wish I just played with the mods from the start.
What did I change? I completely removed the breach protocol minigame (I generally feel all minigames suck, add no fun, and are just literally wasting my time, easy or difficulty), I used teleportation to avoid needing to do lengthy backtracking or worrying too much about missing items, I added a multiplier to xp to reduce grind and I used mods to remove useless mods (in game term) from guns and skip the randomized store inventories in the game. These were all downsides to the game that some people swear up and down add to the game. They absolutely do not to me.
With much experience now, I can confidently say that had I been presented with the options to simply tune things in that way, it would have massively improved my experience with the game.
Cyberpunk luckily, is relatively open for a game in that mods like this are plentiful and easy to come by, and the code fairly accessible. Many games are not. In many games, you just have to deal with the shitty minigame, or random loot or whatever.
Its not that I would necessarily hate those games or that they “aren’t made for me” as many assholes in this thread have tried to imply must be the logic behind every critique, its that those elements were just generally subtractive to the experience, and I have yet to see anyone explain why I should be forced to play with them.
To many people, dying over and over isn’t fun, and in Cyberpunk if that was a problem for me, I probably wouldn’t find it all that fun either. Given this game has so many ways to solve every problem, and the combat I found pretty easy, I played with very hard, but if I was getting annoyed by having to repeat the same thing for hours on end, I would have no problem changing difficulties for this.
Cyberpunk is no worse for wear for having these options available to people. People who don’t know modding exists and who like the game as it is, aren’t affected by this.
I think its a great example of how this mentality of “made to be played this way” is all elitist gatekeeping in gaming. People don’t know fuck all about development. Their opinions aren’t coming from some deep love of a genre. They’re coming from feeling like a part of their identity will die if the game they feel they are “good at” is more accessible, and thats it really. This isn’t a job or for money, so that idea is just absurd.
You’re objectively wrong. I just wanted to make sure you understood that.
No one cares what “you” want, unless “you” perfectly describe the purchasing power of 100k potential customers.
FROMsoft doesn’t care if you play their game, which is great for me because I like their artistic vision unfettered by useless contrarianism.
Oh, and to answer the question you think is a gacha - I’d rather the team spend every second making the game they want to then to spare even one developers afternoon to add “difficulty settings” - that employee could have been doing something actually useful to the game and its target audience.
You really following me around to just assert that your bad take is “objectively” right over and over again?
No one cares what “you” want, unless “you” perfectly describe the purchasing power of 100k potential customers.
This is a common complaint, and its what the folks like you are bitching about; the idea that anyone would dare have criticisms that you dont agree with.
Oh, and to answer the question you think is a gacha - I’d rather the team spend every second making the game they want to then to spare even one developers afternoon to add “difficulty settings” - that employee could have been doing something actually useful to the game and its target audience.
This isn’t an answer at all, as expected from you given that the stipulations are that this is separate to the games creation. The fact you can’t answer really goes to show that it is indeed just useless gatekeeping. That you follow me around for this really goes to show how toxic your mentality is.
You’re right, that was overly harsh. I have 0 respect for this clown shoes opinion of yours, don’t bother, goodbye. It’s possible not all of your opinions are this asinine - not likely, but possible. Not interested in learning really.
Why do you keep commenting to me? You seem to be extremely bothered by my opinions, I assume mostly because you have no real rebuttal, just weird gatekeepy anger.
The only one posed in the question this spawns from??
Lets say they keep everything as it is right now, like they literally have the games they already have and add some difficulty options like less annoying backtracking. How does this “ruin” your experience?
What makes you think every game should be for every person?
No, it absolutely isn’t a made up idea that allowing barnacles to glomp on to an experience so that they can feel included cheapens the whole experience.
I do not want McDonald’s Souls. I get that you’re fine with it, I’m not.
What makes you think every game should be for every person?
What makes you want to make such a clear strawman argument?
No, it absolutely isn’t a made up idea that allowing barnacles to glomp on to an experience so that they can feel included cheapens the whole experience.
I love that you literally cant answer the question because you know its immature gamer gate keeping. You just completely avoided it.
I’ll repeat:
Lets say they keep everything as it is right now, like they literally have the games they already have and add some difficulty options like less annoying backtracking. How does this “ruin” your experience?
Edit: for a real answer, since the advent of video games there have been people like you claiming that they’re too hard. Video games are meant to be beaten. They are literally designed that way, just because you can’t seem to beat them doesn’t mean everyone should conform to you.
Seriously, go pick a different game. Thousands of games exist with difficulty sliders. Pick one and shut the fuck up about the ones that don’t.
for a real answer, since the advent of video games there have been people like you claiming that they’re too hard. Video games are meant to be beaten. They are literally designed that way, just because you can’t seem to beat them doesn’t mean everyone should conform to you.
This is not a real answer at all.
This is you first poisoning the well by insinuating that I’m bad at games firstly, and then pretending that these settings only have to do with hardness in 1 dimension. Its not remotely a good faith effort to answer.
Why would I assume anything but ineptitude on your part?
You either have a fundamentally flawed understanding of why single difficulty games exist or you are just bad at games. I don’t care which, I will say that Atomfall is extremely fucking boring.
Why would I assume anything but ineptitude on your part?
If you were being a reasonable well rounded human being and not a toxic gamer trope, that would be a reason.
You either have a fundamentally flawed understanding of why single difficulty games exist or you are just bad at games.
Given that not a single person has been able to make a cogent argument for them existing and the second thing is the comment of a toddler, Im going to go with the third option that Im shocked this level of toxicity exists on lemmy.
I don’t know why I expected better, but this is bottom of the barrel. You get better conversation on reddit, legitimately. This is all over a difference in opinion on difficulty settings in gaming. Its amazing really. Like you never sat back for a second and thought about how you were acting over a video game opinion.
No, this is all over you deciding that what you think is superior to everyone simply because you’ve declared it.
There are games that are designed to have varying difficulties. There are games that are not. Both can be complete experiences, both can be dogshit and lazy. I really don’t care what you ‘expect’ because Atomfall absolutely falls in the ‘lazy as fuck’ category. Gunplay is basic. Melee combat is basic. Stealth consists of ‘be behind something, don’t not be behind something’.
And you want to know something? It’s ok to be entertained by a game like that! What’s not ok is turning around and acting like you have some valuable opinion centered on games being more like fucking Atomfall.
Edit: I’m gonna quote you
Apples are so much better than oranges. You don’t have to peel Apples, the skin is actually good for you. I honestly fucking hate oranges because I can’t just bite into them.
If the above seems like an unreasonable statement to you, congratulations — you have conceded the argument. If you agree with the above statement, congratulations — you have outright lost the argument.
No, this is all over you deciding that what you think is superior to everyone simply because you’ve declared it.
At this point you arent even pretending to argue in good faith so there isn’t much point in continuing. You’re incapable of good faith discussion it seems, cant answer simple questions and couldn’t make an honest comparison to save your life.
Hopefully you don’t explode over every minor disagreement you have.
Lets say they keep everything as it is right now, like they literally have the games they already have and add some difficulty options like less annoying backtracking. How does this “ruin” your experience?
Every one of these arguments is based on the entirely made up idea that sacrifices must be made to achieve these improvements.
Dark souls would be a very different experience if the monsters weren’t threatening and there were no setbacks for defeat. People believe the experience is important. Accepting that defeat is only a temporary setback and you can just try again is a significant experience, and if you make the game trivial you won’t achieve that.
Crazy strawman argument here. Its not even remotely close to what is being argued.
What Im suggesting doesnt prevent them from having that. The fact they feel it must be imposed on others for them to play those games is ridiculous and childish.
This assumption that difficulty settings are all about making a game trivial is just so obviously bad faith nonsense.
More than that, some people do just enjoy things that way and they don’t care about the other parts of the experience. There is literally no reason all people involved cant have cake. Its literally just angsty gatekeepers whining that they think there needs to be a bar to entry to play a video game; something people do for fun.
Let me just skip ahead to asking you the question none of you annoying gatekeepy folks can answer.
Lets say they keep everything as it is right now, like they literally have the games they already have and add some difficulty options like less annoying backtracking. How does this “ruin” your experience?
I think our assumptions are not shared, so arguing more isn’t going to be productive until that’s straightened out.
When you say difficulty settings, I think of lowering enemy effectiveness, raising player effectiveness, and removing consequences for bad play (eg: permadeath of characters). Is that what you mean?
You mention less annoying backtracking. Can you imagine a game where the “annoying back tracking” is fulfilling an important role (eg: resources attrition, encouraging revisiting areas)?
If so, is there a threshold beyond which is too much? If there’s a slider that adjusts enemy damage, should it go to zero? If no, how do you decide the limits? What about the players who want to exceed them?
It seems like you have the assumption that everyone should be able to complete every game. Is that correct? Is that true for all media, or only video games?
I would write more but I’m on my phone and almost to my destination.
Can be, doesn’t have to be.
Can be things like making it such that you can fast travel instead of travelling slowly back. Can be that you skip a minigame you just don’t think adds anything to the game. Can be that you do or don’t want certain queues etc.
Can be a lot of things and the point is basically that there are a lot of things which can be toggleable settings which are extremely easy to implement, and greatly improve the experience for some players, while players who want “what the developers envisioned” or whatever, can play it that way just fine.
Others can make certain elements harder or easier or non existent based on their preferences.
I can imagine some situations where it could be sure, but most of the times it isn’t and the times it isn’t isn’t worth the effort for me. It just makes the game less fun for no conceivable benefit most of the time. The backtracking Im describing here is essentially filler (the type I don’t think most people like).
I think the idea here that you seem to be putting out is that there is some point at which a players choice to change the difficulty is no longer valid, and I don’t think any such point exists. Let people do what they want, and give them some reasonable defaults that you’ve actually tested for/think blend well.
I’ve seen someone ask this before and I think its an absurd question to ask. No one in their right mind buys any media to not finish it. No one walks into a movie hoping its so shit they walk out half way, or starts a novel hoping they’re so bored they put it down.
Of course everyone should be able to complete every game. I can’t even think of what point this could be leading to except the obvious absurd idea that people should be expecting not to be able to enjoy the things they purchase.
Still on my phone so this might be a little limited.
So when it is not filler, should you be disallowed from skipping it? Who is to say what the benefit is? Does the design intent matter?
This is a big disagreement. I don’t think everyone should be able to finish every game. They should be able to work the controls. If someone made Calculus Souls I’m just not going to beat it. I’m not good at math. I don’t expect them to give me the answers or add in an Arithmetic mode. If it’s there, fine, but that’s gravy. That’s like getting a second game for free.
Did you ever read the book House of Leaves? It’s great. Unreliable narrators, unconventional layout and use of form. Several friends of mine bounced right off of it. “Can’t read this”, they said. I wouldn’t say they were gatekept. I wouldn’t say the author is ableist because they didn’t also provide a linear narrative, without all the footnotes. I accept that not everyone is going to finish that book. Even if they paid money for it.
My dad bought a big jigsaw puzzle once. Loves puzzles. Couldn’t do this one. He put it back in the box and never finished it. He didn’t say it was an accessibility problem. It would never occur to him to ask for, like, the backs of the pieces to be numbered
People routinely accept that things will be hard, and maybe they can’t beat them. Maybe they could with more practice, but it’s not worth it. This is not a failure of the game or toy.
That’s what a lot of these discussions feel like. Someone made something interesting and challenging, and people want it changed. If you take all the footnotes out of house of leaves, you get a very different, much reduced, result.
Well, earlier I said something about tuning difficulty down to the point of triviality, and you said that was a straw man.
But look, I’m not against options in games (assuming everyone playing gives informed consent. Unilaterally cheating is not okay). I just think the framing of it as accessibility in the same way that subtitles or changing controller inputs is dicey. “I think this would be more fun” is a fine, subjective, argument. “This game is ableist” is much shakier.
Of course, if you’re not saying lack of options is ableist but having them makes the game more fun, then I guess we violently agree.
Well, with the footnote that I do believe some people would ruin their own fun by turning the difficulty too high or low, but that’s not my business, and could be a net zero when compared to people not having fun with the available options. (But like for real when I was a kid I briefly ruined Diablo by cheating myself all the cool items.)
And the thing I was waiting for in real life has occurred. No more editing! Post away!
Why should you? Why should the player be disallowed from doing anything? They bought the game. They should be allowed to do whatever to the point of unreasonable hardship for the developer. Like if a dev has to go out of their way, fair enough, but if its like, they’re just not exposing the ability to change a setting, thats ridiculous.
These aren’t comparable situations. That one person almost certainly would have had to actually make significant effort, probably exceeding the effort of making the book to make it accessible. Video games aren’t that. More than that, the changes we are talking about are minor and relatively (compared to the scale of a game) easy to add. to add to that, people can still be into the majority of a game and not like one particular element, and there is no reason they shouldn’t be able to remove the bug bear. It is for entertainment after all.
The question, as before, is, if the people who want that original experience can still just choose that, why are they up in arms at the idea of allowing people to experience things differently that don’t affect them?
Outside of completely made up arguments that this is not possible, no one has had an answer for this, just anger, as if they are mad at the idea of people not having to go through the “struggle” they feel they went to. Not having to have the “skills they built up”.
I’ve had countless people say the most toxic things I’ve seen on lemmy in this very thread over that idea, and I think thats the core of it. That behind all the bullshit excuses people have come up with, they feel like their achievements would somehow be worth less if other people could play the game differently to how they played. Like their other way of playing isn’t “official” enough and shouldn’t be supported at all.
I’ve had someone really iron in that this is the true intent when they revealed that they would prefer someone cheat in the game rather than the developer simply exposing those same things as options.
It was. My point initially wasn’t about that, but when asked specifically, I think yea, why not, who cares. Why are other people caring so much about how others enjoy their media product.
I mean this conversation, I think, has pretty clearly morphed into a bunch of people vehemently angry about the prospect of souls like games having any difficulty changes, harder or less hard.
I don’t think anyone has been thinking about multiplayer.
I’m not sure I’ve used that as the core of my argument or my argument at all actually. Not sure though as, like you’ve probably seen, there are a shit ton of comments on this tree.
I think some forms of media will inherently be somewhat inaccessible, but there is no reason to go out of your way to support things being less accessible, even if accessible means to people who simply don’t like a thing one way vs the other.
See thats the thing. Everyone else in this thread has been violently angry at the idea that other people could have fun differently to them.
Ill give you one example. I liked Cyberpunk. It was a decent game, and I’ve played through it a few times.
The first time I played it, I played without any mods, very hard, just because (I’m honestly only including this to stop bs arguments, though you haven’t seemed supremely disengenous like many others on this thread so far, and feel I shouldnt need to, to make my point), and then every time after that I played with mods, and I wish I just played with the mods from the start.
What did I change? I completely removed the breach protocol minigame (I generally feel all minigames suck, add no fun, and are just literally wasting my time, easy or difficulty), I used teleportation to avoid needing to do lengthy backtracking or worrying too much about missing items, I added a multiplier to xp to reduce grind and I used mods to remove useless mods (in game term) from guns and skip the randomized store inventories in the game. These were all downsides to the game that some people swear up and down add to the game. They absolutely do not to me.
With much experience now, I can confidently say that had I been presented with the options to simply tune things in that way, it would have massively improved my experience with the game.
Cyberpunk luckily, is relatively open for a game in that mods like this are plentiful and easy to come by, and the code fairly accessible. Many games are not. In many games, you just have to deal with the shitty minigame, or random loot or whatever.
Its not that I would necessarily hate those games or that they “aren’t made for me” as many assholes in this thread have tried to imply must be the logic behind every critique, its that those elements were just generally subtractive to the experience, and I have yet to see anyone explain why I should be forced to play with them.
To many people, dying over and over isn’t fun, and in Cyberpunk if that was a problem for me, I probably wouldn’t find it all that fun either. Given this game has so many ways to solve every problem, and the combat I found pretty easy, I played with very hard, but if I was getting annoyed by having to repeat the same thing for hours on end, I would have no problem changing difficulties for this.
Cyberpunk is no worse for wear for having these options available to people. People who don’t know modding exists and who like the game as it is, aren’t affected by this.
I think its a great example of how this mentality of “made to be played this way” is all elitist gatekeeping in gaming. People don’t know fuck all about development. Their opinions aren’t coming from some deep love of a genre. They’re coming from feeling like a part of their identity will die if the game they feel they are “good at” is more accessible, and thats it really. This isn’t a job or for money, so that idea is just absurd.
The difficulty is a key part of the developer’s vision for the game, and changing that compromises it.
It’s interesting you literally cant answer the question.
Its because there is no answer. The truth is its 100% about useless gatekeeping.
You’re objectively wrong. I just wanted to make sure you understood that.
No one cares what “you” want, unless “you” perfectly describe the purchasing power of 100k potential customers.
FROMsoft doesn’t care if you play their game, which is great for me because I like their artistic vision unfettered by useless contrarianism.
Oh, and to answer the question you think is a gacha - I’d rather the team spend every second making the game they want to then to spare even one developers afternoon to add “difficulty settings” - that employee could have been doing something actually useful to the game and its target audience.
You really following me around to just assert that your bad take is “objectively” right over and over again?
This is a common complaint, and its what the folks like you are bitching about; the idea that anyone would dare have criticisms that you dont agree with.
This isn’t an answer at all, as expected from you given that the stipulations are that this is separate to the games creation. The fact you can’t answer really goes to show that it is indeed just useless gatekeeping. That you follow me around for this really goes to show how toxic your mentality is.
I have 0 respect for you, don’t bother. Goodbye.
Its very obvious. You seem very toxic.
You’re right, that was overly harsh. I have 0 respect for this clown shoes opinion of yours, don’t bother, goodbye. It’s possible not all of your opinions are this asinine - not likely, but possible. Not interested in learning really.
Why do you keep commenting to me? You seem to be extremely bothered by my opinions, I assume mostly because you have no real rebuttal, just weird gatekeepy anger.
What question?
The only one posed in the question this spawns from??
Oh so literally the question that I just answered.
In no conceivable way did you answer that question.
What makes you think every game should be for every person?
No, it absolutely isn’t a made up idea that allowing barnacles to glomp on to an experience so that they can feel included cheapens the whole experience.
I do not want McDonald’s Souls. I get that you’re fine with it, I’m not.
What makes you want to make such a clear strawman argument?
I love that you literally cant answer the question because you know its immature gamer gate keeping. You just completely avoided it.
I’ll repeat:
Shrugs
Git gud
Edit: for a real answer, since the advent of video games there have been people like you claiming that they’re too hard. Video games are meant to be beaten. They are literally designed that way, just because you can’t seem to beat them doesn’t mean everyone should conform to you.
Seriously, go pick a different game. Thousands of games exist with difficulty sliders. Pick one and shut the fuck up about the ones that don’t.
This is not a real answer at all.
This is you first poisoning the well by insinuating that I’m bad at games firstly, and then pretending that these settings only have to do with hardness in 1 dimension. Its not remotely a good faith effort to answer.
Why would I assume anything but ineptitude on your part?
You either have a fundamentally flawed understanding of why single difficulty games exist or you are just bad at games. I don’t care which, I will say that Atomfall is extremely fucking boring.
If you were being a reasonable well rounded human being and not a toxic gamer trope, that would be a reason.
Given that not a single person has been able to make a cogent argument for them existing and the second thing is the comment of a toddler, Im going to go with the third option that Im shocked this level of toxicity exists on lemmy.
I don’t know why I expected better, but this is bottom of the barrel. You get better conversation on reddit, legitimately. This is all over a difference in opinion on difficulty settings in gaming. Its amazing really. Like you never sat back for a second and thought about how you were acting over a video game opinion.
No, this is all over you deciding that what you think is superior to everyone simply because you’ve declared it.
There are games that are designed to have varying difficulties. There are games that are not. Both can be complete experiences, both can be dogshit and lazy. I really don’t care what you ‘expect’ because Atomfall absolutely falls in the ‘lazy as fuck’ category. Gunplay is basic. Melee combat is basic. Stealth consists of ‘be behind something, don’t not be behind something’.
And you want to know something? It’s ok to be entertained by a game like that! What’s not ok is turning around and acting like you have some valuable opinion centered on games being more like fucking Atomfall.
Edit: I’m gonna quote you
If the above seems like an unreasonable statement to you, congratulations — you have conceded the argument. If you agree with the above statement, congratulations — you have outright lost the argument.
At this point you arent even pretending to argue in good faith so there isn’t much point in continuing. You’re incapable of good faith discussion it seems, cant answer simple questions and couldn’t make an honest comparison to save your life.
Hopefully you don’t explode over every minor disagreement you have.