Would we be permitted to have a serious discussion about the

Sound like mental masturbation to me. Either git gud or get out.

>>4024303

In general, the less save points you have, the harder a game is. SMB Lost Levels is far easier on the SNES, because you can save after every level. Difficulty is mostly about how well you have to perform, and for how long.

File: 66664248f8cf579cbf3c556bec318026.gif (2MB, 321x245px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 321x245px

>>4024303
>Would we be permitted to have a serious discussion about the concept of difficulty in games?
difficulty is there to keep us playing longer or to pad out the game, it also however presents the player with a sense of self-satisfaction when the problem is eliminated. that satisfaction tends to be fleeting seeing that you will always reach another troublesome area

everything after this post will probably be mindless semantics and others measuring their self-worth on how they waste their free time

yeah if you like games, git gud

>>4024312
>mental masturbation
It's not. There has been no drive to analyze the archetypal elements of game design by gamers that I know of, ever. To this day they remain ambiguous, incomplete terms of indeterminate worth to many who might think to use them. I know /v/ is not the best sample but, to illustrate my point, there they presume to rank gameplay, atmosphere, and story but leave out numerous other terms, have no idea why they included the ones that they did, and wrongfully assume they even know what gameplay is, fundamentally. I see this not as a problem in itself, but as a symptom of a larger problem, the blindness of gamers in general, as an audience, to all but the most basic and dim-witted view of games. I think it would be useful to better conceptualize how games work, how to view them, how to evaluate them, etc.

>>4024358

You're not exactly giving us something to discuss. What, specifically, did you want to know about difficulty?

>>4024319
>In general, the less save points you have, the harder a game is.
A fair assessment. But there's a series of questions embedded therein.

So to what degree, hypothetically, is difficulty related to or determined by checkpoints at a given density over a given span of level?

Basically, how much might checkpoints in the scenario you described affect difficulty? And in what ways? And how, exactly? And what makes you think so? And who says that's accurate? And how do they know? And so on.

Odds are none of these questions are answerable. I laid them out just to hint at the scope of a serious discussion of this nature. For now, let's conclude simply that difficulty is modified by checkpoint placement.

Then, abstract that: projected perceptible difficulty on-average declines, in one aspect, in proportion to the number and frequency of safety nets that occur, decreasingly with distance.

Now, this raises the question of the purpose of safety nets. Do they exist solely to limit or reduce difficulty? No, for without difficulty there would be no reason for their existence in the first place.

They are a mechanism of controlling difficulty, they depend on it for meaning and existence. They are a self-regulatory function of difficulty, a natural process by which difficulty manifests as something detectable, dangerous to players. They are a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy, right?

And yet, the checkpoints are also working in relation to any number of other elements occurring simultaneously, all of them affecting each other in different ways. There is an ecosystem everywhere, which consists in the interplay between the landscape and its content, including checkpoints which serve to mitigate difficulty yet at once partially facilitate it.

It's so complicated, Jesus Christ... either that or I'm far more autistic than I ever thought possible.

>>4024429

You may just be autistic because it's like you're casting rays from every concept and seeing each one through to it's final destination, even though there isn't one. It's like reading a Wikipedia article on fucking spoons and clicking on hyperlinks until you end up on the Iran/Iraq war article and then pretending they are directly related.

They are checkpoints. They are a means of regulating difficulty, as you said. That's about it. The developer needs some intuition on where to place them to correctly balance difficulty so as to not make the game too easy or too frustrating. No, there is no be-all-end-all law on checkpoint placement, it's on a game-by-game and checkpoint-by-checkpoint basis. Intuition and playtesting is the only law here.

>>4024445
Sorry I got so carried away. Some questions for you:
>What are checkpoints, symbolically?
>Do they regulate difficulty, or the other way around, or both?
>Is intuition+playtesting really enough to populate an entire game by itself? What other means of deciding content's placement within a level are there?
>How the Hell does anyone know whether or not difficulty is balanced 'correctly'?
>Why, for that matter, does it need to be 'balanced'? Why can't it simply be set, implemented, or placed into a level? Why is its potency so erratic in a given scenario?
>Who even knows if the 'correct' balance is in the Goldilocks Zone? This may indeed be the case, but it, too, is based on assumptions.

>>4024445
>there is no be-all-end-all law on checkpoint
There doesn't seem to be, now, but that doesn't mean there isn't, necessarily. Perhaps by considering this topic in time a kind of rule as that will reveal itself from hiding.

>>4024445
>game-by-game and checkpoint-by-checkpoint basis.
Sure, but hypothetically you could imagine a set of games that employ this mechanic and extract out of them commonalities. That's the archetypal checkpoint, then. Eventually, every aspect of games could be distilled to its underlying universal structure. And we could finally understand them, properly.

Of course everything must be considered individually, ultimately, but that will be made easier and more effective when supported by structural knowledge of games in general.

This thread would honestly go better on /v/. Modern gamers care more about difficulty with their soulslikes, roguelikes, esports, and whatever else they play.

Retro games being hard is a meme

>>4024303
>>4024358
you are over intellectualizing shit

>>4024485
>souls
>difficult

>>4024485
I was just thinking about why retro games are harder, earlier today. Technology limits, and the conception people had of what games were or could be - the then state of the art - yielded harsh difficulty. That's all that anyone knew how to do, and moreover that's largely all that was technically possible.

Is that a meme? I don't know. Perhaps the real meme is the idea that retro games' difficulty is a meme?

Oh, but I only meant to say I do not wish to interject this topic where it may not be welcome. I could try /v/ again, I suppose.

>>4024478
>What are checkpoints, symbolically?
Nothing, just checkpoints. Unless they're meant to symbolize something in-game, lore-wise or whatever.

Or unless your question regards semantics, in which case, check points are points where a portion of the game is "checked" as finished.

>Do they regulate difficulty, or the other way around, or both?
Kind of an irrelevant question. Yes, they can regulate difficulty and difficulty can regulate them (as in, how often they appear), but suffice it to say that checkpoints are there due to difficulty, either way.

>Is intuition+playtesting really enough to populate an entire game by itself? What other means of deciding content's placement within a level are there?
Lore/story, possibly, of course it will depend on the game.

>How the Hell does anyone know whether or not difficulty is balanced 'correctly'?
Intuition. Failing that, lots of playtesting to determine a certain average. Good designers will not stop there - they will then compare that average with the highest possible skill ceiling and work from there.

>Why, for that matter, does it need to be 'balanced'? Why can't it simply be set, implemented, or placed into a level? Why is its potency so erratic in a given scenario?
There's no need for balanced checkpoint placement, sure. You can intentionally eschew a checkpoint on an expected location to throw the player off and achieve a certain effect. Once again, intuition.

>Who even knows if the 'correct' balance is in the Goldilocks Zone? This may indeed be the case, but it, too, is based on assumptions.
The presence of checkpoints in and of itself sort of creates a "goldilocks zone". It's just a matter of who this zone is tailored for - the skilled or poorly skilled.

>cont

>>4024507
>cont

>Of course everything must be considered individually, ultimately, but that will be made easier and more effective when supported by structural knowledge of games in general.

Still not quite convinced there's a need for this. There's some common sense considerations, such as putting a checkpoint right before the bossfight instead of a few trivial mob waves before - but still, games regularly break this rule to varied effect. Dark Souls is an example.

So, the value of the concept of a archetypal checkpoint is kind of under a question mark.

>>4024494
>I could try /v/

Haha, no.

Even if >>4024485 is correct and modern gamers such as /v/tards care a lot about difficulty, that does not mean they care about it as a concept to be explored. You'll find your average /v/ turd cares about a whole lot of things without actually caring about them truly. Just repeating various things as memes and second hand non-opinions.

Also prepare for a lot of parroting of various youtube gaming philosophers such as Matthewmatosis and whoever else. Not that they're necessarily wrong, but there's not quite as grating as parroting someone's opinion as gospel without considering what the opinion entails.

>>4024507
>Nothing, just checkpoints. Unless they're meant to symbolize something in-game, lore-wise or whatever.
>Or unless your question regards semantics, in which case, check points are points where a portion of the game is "checked" as finished.
In S3K, they double as portals to different places depending on number of rings held. I wonder, what are they then, fundamentally? Teleporters or checkpoints, first and foremost?

Who knows. It doesn't matter. But, it's noteworthy as S3K was one of the major titles of that time and it pushed the envelope for what a checkpoint could be.

A checkpoint might primarily be defined as a point within the level, usually marked by uprights, that acts like a savestate, snapshotting the hero's condition upon reaching that point and returning him back there in case of accidental death. It must do at least this much, but it may also do more than that depending on circumstance.

But how do you evaluate that? Should the checkpoint's snapshot retain score, points, or powerups held at crossing, on respawning, or ought those things be dispensed with as a penalty of death?

This decision impacts difficulty, ever so slightly.

To really answer the question we'd have to actually examine in this much detail checkpoints from several games. And like I said, extract out what we can. I mean that's prerequisite to even beginning to aim with any degree of accuracy at deriving an agreeable solution.

It would take a team of researchers to do everything I envision, sadly. Is this what college kids are doing when they study games design? Or are they too busy listening and believing tropes vs women instead?

>>4024507
>but suffice it to say that checkpoints are there due to difficulty, either way.
Ah, yes. So difficulty preceeds checkpoints, it's fair to say. This is like a discovery. It's exactly the kind of thing I'm after in all of this.

A piece of puzzle, assembled. Does any of this remind you guys of the Thing in Itself? I don't know why but I keep recalling it... though I forget what it is.

>>4024507
>that checkpoints are there due to difficulty,
Agreed, and get this: I would go so far as to argue that virtually everything that exists within the game does so due to difficulty, in varying degrees. I thought about it this afternoon, I'll save my explanation for now.

So I guess it wasn't news per se that difficulty preceeds checkpoints, but you could say I only became acutely aware of that fact just now.

You see I am working on a theory of difficulty in which its effect on games is equatable to the effect of gravity on the universe. Or something like that.

>>4024507
>Good designers will not stop there - they will then compare that average with the highest possible skill ceiling and work from there.
A game that's worth the weight of its cartridge will be carefully manicured, finely tuned to adjust the difficulty in at least the following two ways: in favor of the lower end of the spectrum, when in doubt; and to render the game playable in a basic sense, and to enable reasonably easy progression through it, specifically by young people and inexperienced players, usually in an intuitive fashion so as to build subtle cues into the level design itself which help to guide the player subconsciously without their realizing it.

Difficulty seems to be of prime concern at every stage of design. And it appears to consist, fundamentally, in between the system of possibilities accorded to a level by its configuration of content.

Agreed?

>>4024569

Uh, I guess?

You really, really seem to be overstating the obvious. I'm really not sure what you're trying to glean here. Like here for example:

>Ah, yes. So difficulty preceeds checkpoints, it's fair to say. This is like a discovery. It's exactly the kind of thing I'm after in all of this.

While I'm sure there's a lot of thought behind checkpoint systems and individual checkpoints themselves, I really don't think there's a lot of thought required before you reach the "we need checkpoints because otherwise it's kinda too hard" stage. I mean, the equivalent of this is "we need save points because folks will want to save their game, you know?"

I'm trying to pinpoint exactly what cocktail of drugs you're on here.

>You see I am working on a theory of difficulty in which its effect on games is equatable to the effect of gravity on the universe. Or something like that.

You can build a theory on anything. Why would you though? Yeah, difficulty in video games is an interesting topic, but not if you're gonna deconstruct every single thing down to it's constituent. We don't exactly need to collide particles here, some things are a given.

>Difficulty seems to be of prime concern at every stage of design. And it appears to consist, fundamentally, in between the system of possibilities accorded to a level by its configuration of content.

Sometimes, difficulty is simply emergent. And no game can have perfect difficulty because no player is exactly alike.

Here's a thought: video games are elaborate hamster wheels. Their primary design principle is conditioning the player into suspending disbelief and accepting the experience/product. Difficulty is simply one of the tools employed to command attention. What the difficulty is and how it's employed depends entirely on the original premise of the experience. The role difficulty plays is different between Overwatch, Monkey Island and Dark Souls - the difficulty itself comes from different things.

There is difficulty in slicing bread with a dull knife as there is in giving birth to a child or playing Prehistorik 2. And while the last two have lots in common, my point is that difficulty is not a phenomenon to be examined directly, but gleaned from the context.

A bad designer will sit there and think "how can I make this more/less difficult". He will considering how engaging something is and then consider how more or less difficulty can aid in making it more engaging. If something is too difficult, he will isolate the aspects that make that scenario difficult and very carefully decide what needs to be changed while maintaining the overall experience engaging. What that exactly is will - I hate to say it again - depend on what it is the designer is trying to do.

And here I am hoping each game tries to do it's own thing and to be a unique experience, so considerations will be different every time. So there's a sort of an unsatisfying answer here:

- The givens are obvious, common sense considerations that are either documented or staples of the genre.
- The less obvious is on a case by case basis and the duty of the developer to fine tune, relying on his own instinct and talent.

>>4024596
>I really don't think there's a lot of thought required before you reach the "we need checkpoints because otherwise it's kinda too hard" stage.
I understand your confusion. The simplest conception often happens to be the most obvious, most common one come. The abstraction of that may or may not lead, in a round about way, back to beginning. My approach is to explore as much as I can in as much depth as I can. To that end, even redundant results are worth coming to, just to know that stone has been turned. The usefulness of the analysis may vary... every small step is valuable in constructing more sophisticated conceptualizations, okay?

>>4024596
>but not if you're gonna deconstruct every single thing down to it's constituent.
Why not then?

>>4024596
>Why would you though?
To become the Einstein of video games, obviously.

>>4024596
>Their primary design principle is conditioning the player into suspending disbelief and accepting the experience/product.
Thoughtful, but I would disagree and point out that as an interactive pasttime the primary design principle is to actively engage audiences. >>4024596
>Difficulty is simply one of the tools employed to command attention.
This is true, but incomplete. It is one of many aspects of difficulty, but far from its sum total.

>What the difficulty is and how it's employed depends entirely on the original premise of the experience.
How do you mean? It will be different from game to game, surely, but what differentiates games? Their content, their engine? What difficulty 'is' at any given time is not merely 'potency' but also an 'effect' upon surroundings. You have really good ideas, but you are wrong on that last point. For example, difficulty is always employed by content, mechanics. That's because there is an amount of difficulty built into them, implicitly. That's universal.

>>4024625
>That's because there is an amount of difficulty built into them, implicitly.
That's the product of their nature (function) and complexity. The amount of potential difficulty - the maximum hypothetical difficulty ceiling - is proportional to the range of possibility the mechanics accord within the context of their role and position as nodes in the system of mechanics operating in the relevant portion of the level, within the confines of the maximum hypothetical possibility ceiling of the game world or engine as a whole.

>>4024596
>The role difficulty plays is different between Overwatch, Monkey Island and Dark Souls - the difficulty itself comes from different things.
I appreciate your concern, but again I think you are wrong. The fundamental role of difficulty remains the same across all games. It is transcendent, because it is an archetypal element of design, a part of a class of things which do not change their role by definition. Only the nitty gritty details will be altered.

Now, how it accomplishes its role? That's what you meant, I think. That is unique.

>>4024613
>my point is that difficulty is not a phenomenon to be examined directly, but gleaned from the context.
Yes! It is like gravity: it defies definition and detection, except by proxy, and can never be observed, directly, because it is like an illusion, and a paradox; it never really 'there', yet it is always everywhere, in everything. It's omnipresent nothingness in games, it's like... well, it's God-like, really.

>>4024312
Fuck this dismissive bullshit. I want to talk about games in ways where we are actually talking about games.

Going "git gud" is totally mental masturbation. Its a complete zero effort, automatic assertion of superiority that you could apply blanketly in any situation difficulty gets brought up.

>>4024490
Sounds like somebody doesn't want to put in even a tiny bit of effort to enjoy his hobby more.

I think this stuff is interesting and a lot of fun.

>>4024429
The extent to which save points mitigate a games difficulty is in part determined by how that save point reinforces your ability to beat a given portion of a game.

I argue that games like SMB2 are greatly eased by save points because skill is both memorization as well as some baseline assessment of competency with the games mechanics insofar as they allow you to complete a given level. For instance, someone who has beaten SMB1 has a stronger grasp of Mario's inertia and speed compared to a new player, allowing them to gauge long or precise jumps more easily

>example: SMB 4-2: single block precision on long jump found in beginning of stage.

Likewise, a player who has played the game multiple times may perform better because they know what to expect through quick repetition allowed by save points.

>example: SMB2 8-4 invisible blocks containing dangerous mushrooms and spoiling jumps can be avoided.

File: 1451584419397.png (538KB, 500x565px) Image search: [Google]

538KB, 500x565px

>>4026289
Hey. I'm around, if you want to chat about it.

File: Unit_illust_329.png (426KB, 466x568px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 466x568px

1cc'd Metal Slug 3 here. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

I really like having everyone just play through your arcade game casually, with friends if you have any, comparing how many continues you each used to make it to the end... And then taking on the serious challenge of a 1cc later if you feel you're up to it.

>>4026298
Also consider that SMB 2 has minimal resource allocation between stages which allows for minimal chances to place yourself in a more difficult or unwinnable situation due to saving. While preserving a fire flower state (a state not preserved via saves) will let you more easily win, any given stage in the game can also be completed starting as small mario without too much trouble.

Conversely, a game like Zombies Ate My Neighbors has amble passwords, but because navigating levels and managing enemies is so heavily dependent on having lots of tools at your disposal a player starting from midway or near the end of the game will find the game nearly impossible to complete.

For example, "Day of the Chainsaw", a later level you can begin at via password, requires rare items needed to break down walls as well as substantial weaponry to halt or at least survive the eponymous chainsaw maniacs that populate the stage. A player who begins here starts with only a squirtgun and a healthkit, leaving them vulnerable to both the enemies as well as the possibility of entering an unwinnable state in which the player cannot break down walls and therefore cannot proceed.

Difficulty is rather arbitrary, but there's a fine line as to where the difficulty begins to kill the flow and detract from the somatic aspect of the gameplay.

Beating a tough part can give you a sense of accomplishment, provided you're made to feel like you actually built skill or knowledge and could replicate that achievement. This stands in contrast to endurance-type challenges where there's a degree of fluky tenacity required, and it's likely that if you tried to hack it out a second time you wouldn't do any better than your first run.

Plenty of great games are really rather easy. For example, it's tough or impossible to truly get set back in Mario 64, and most challenges are short and forgiving. But that's a great game because the design is so elegant and the controls are so refined—just playing it is the real pleasure. On the other hand, focus on difficulty alone and you end up with uninspiring, tedious dreck like I Wanna Be the Guy.

>>4024429
This thread is too long and too complicated for me to follow but I wanted to bring up an example. If you play a game like Fire Emblem while saving every turn, you don't need to do any thinking because you can just reload every time you fail and you will eventually win. If you save every chapter, you need to do a bit of planning but you can often still rely on a risky tactic to clear a chapter because you don't lose too much progress if you fail. But if you intend to beat the entire game without saving your tactics must be super reliable and account for every contingency. Although this is more of a self-imposed challenge than a game requirement, there are games with this sort of restriction e.g. ironman mode in xcom (but I'm less familiar with that game), and all three of these play styles are common in Fire Emblem games.
Anyways I'd say that 'difficulty' increases in relation to the complexity of thought required from the player, and more complex tactics are encouraged by larger distances between save points.

Once you finish your analysis of video game difficulty please consider translating it into simple English, I'd like to read it.

>>4026329
I think Fire Emblem has a nice balance. You save every chapter and rng is saved during every attack, which is to say you cannot restart a turn if your character is killed, you need to replay the entire chapter.

I disagree that no saving at all would require that much more skill for the simple reason that Fire Emblem is a series where RNG can and frequently does cause characters to die due to critical hits and various misses. There is no "perfect" strategy.

Furthermore there are elements like enemy reinforcements, treasure chest prioritization, and recruitable characters that often cannot be anticipated and require experimentation with your party setup and general strategy in order to succeed "tactically"

>>4026342
You can guarantee success regardless of RNG if you use the tools the game provides you with, there are ways to prevent critical hits, increase accuracy, etc.
And not only are there many reliable strategies, there's a further layer of depth when you aim to not only complete the game but to complete it in the fewest number of turns possible.

But that's just one way to play the game. I'm not saying what is more fun (that's up to each person). I was just rambling before getting to my point
>Anyways I'd say that 'difficulty' increases in relation to the complexity of thought required from the player, and more complex tactics are encouraged by larger distances between save points.

>>4026318
IWBTG is a parody of those kind of games. It works because it goes out of its way to make most of its deaths feel humorous (or at least unique) in some way. A better example that plays it straight would be something like Super Meat Boy or Kaizo Mario.

>>4024485
Kids nowadays would throw the controller at the screen playing megaman on nes. I say retro was harder and punishing. Modern games are full of rewards . Retro games punish you for not gitin gud. And that punishment get worse as the game progresses. I think that was the mentality behind the souls games. You cant gear up. Stock up potions or whatever cheap trick you may try in other games. You have to get better as a player or you wont progress at all. The ones that grew up with that mindset felt challenged but not overwhelmed. I say most of the nes generation has a shot on soloing any games of the souls series. Most millenials dont even try

>>4026568
The really great thing about them was they didn't let players choose the difficulty. It expected them to rise to the occasion. That's what really made them hard. Which, they weren't really. But comparatively, they were.

In my opinion, Contra on the NES is a game with a perfect difficulty curve and reasonable setbacks.

The only way to get extra lives is via points, but points are awarded for every kill and big amounts for bosses and mini bosses (like the bulldozer tanks in Snowfield). Death puts you back on the same screen, perhaps a few spaces behind where you died--this is only ever bullshit in a handful of spots in Waterfall and Energy Zone, and once you git gud you shouldn't fucking die in those spots.

Losing all lives gives you a continue screen, of which you get 3. You start at the beginning of the level, no checkpoints, because they aren't needed. Dying strips you of weapons, which are VITAL to keeping the game manageable. It's not impossible to pea shooter run through the game but it is very difficult. Keeping the Spreader makes everything easier, but you have to keep alive to keep it, and one level doesn't have a Spreader at all, and it's the worst fucking level.

Contra is a perfect game. It's my favourite, and I always come back to it.

>>4029024
Remind me, that game didn't let you choose the difficulty, did it?

If it didn't, what if it had? Would you still like it?

>>4024303
The DKC games have too many extra lives. Get 100 nanners? Get a life. Find a balloon? Get a life. Get KONG letters? Get a life. Get a couple coins, etc? Get a life. You don't die that often, especially if you click into the rhythm of the levels (Al great games have a specific rhythm, and once you click into that rhythm the game becomes easy, you just need to know what the beats are.) I can count the number of times I've seen the game over screen in DKC IN MY LIFE on one hand. Also, allowing you to revisit levels and consequently farm lives is IMO the worst thing you could do in a game like this as it destroys all sense of challenge. SMB3 had the right idea but once you get to Vanilla Dome, SMW is a cakewalk since you can ALWAYS start EVERY level as Cape Mario with an extra feather and have 99 lives. Meanwhile in SMB3 you have a finite amount of spare items, and if you game over you have to beat every level in the world again

>>4029037
Of course Contra lets you choose the difficulty.

Up up down down left right left right B A Start

>>4029038
>The DKC games have too many extra lives. Get 100 nanners? Get a life. Find a balloon? Get a life. Get KONG letters? Get a life. Get a couple coins, etc? Get a life.
I agree with what you're saying. They suffer from lack of other interesting mechanics. Lives and all sources of them become less worthwhile as a result.

You could criticize DKC, therefore, for a certain lack of depth. But I still love the first two, but this I think is a valid complaint.

>>4029040
Well, I mean in the form of pre-determined difficulty tiers selectable via menus.

>>4029048
Contra 4 is IMO the second best game in the series, and it does have selectable difficulty. C4 introduced stackable weapons (collecting a weapon twice gives you a powered up version of that weapon). On Easy they just give you the super powered weapons and 10 lives per continue, and they don't let you have the last 2 levels or ending. Medium/Normal gives you 5 lives and standard upgrades while Hard is only 3 lives, eg the traditional Contra experience. I don't mind this as it allows the player to learn the game easier to build up to the hardest difficulty.

If NES Contra did have a difficulty select that (probably) just added more lives it wouldn't be any functionally different from the Konami code because literally EVERYONE knew that code. Most people who played Contra in those days as a kid couldn't dream of playing the game without it because we sucked. As a kid I never minded putting a maximum amount of lives and continues in the options menu of a Genesis or SNES game, because I just wanted to play casually and wasn't trying to play anything legit.

Likewise we used to use the SMB1 warp zones to immediately warp to World 8. When I got older though I started to play through all the game consecutively because if you actually do that, you git gud and then World 8 seems significantly less challenging because it's not much harder than world 7, which is slightly harder than 6, etc. (These days I'll skip to world 3 or 4 simply because the early worlds are no challenge at all; similarly, when I play Tetris I start on difficulty 3-5 because 0-2 are too slow).

>>4029076
So, the right amount of difficulty is important to continued engagement. Too little, it's not engaging; too much, it's not engaging.

So what of the general practice of difficulty selects, letting players choose their level of engagement? I don't think I approve of this, on principle. A game as a product should offer a given level of difficulty, one that should not be open-ended. Which is not to say there shouldn't be in-game defacto difficulty modifiers, like, say, the warp zones; that's how difficulty should be broken down, not through some stupid menu. That's just lazy.

>>4024303
whats the hardest nes game?

>>4029102
It partially depends on the type of game. For a puzzle game it's downright necessary as that's the only way for the game to include any kind of difficulty select. In theory the game is perfectly balanced/curved but experienced players may want the game to start faster; there's no organic way to do this though

How do you feel about passwords anon? Anyone can skip straight to Mike Tyson with 11 numbers.

I agree with your assessment though. The difficulty needs to be high enough that the player will reasonably feel tension throughout the play through. Some may disagree but I think the original KDITD episode of Doom on UV (highest difficulty without respawning enemies and fast monsters) is genuinely tense and has the best curve of IMO any Doom episode (officially anyway).

But let's talk more about BAD design/difficulty. I hate the NES Metroid because every time you die, you start with 30 health. The game revolves around exploration but if you explore into a difficult area you have no chance of surviving and if you die, you have to farm health AND get the whole way up there again. Metroid 2 (underrated IMO) and SM added save points and health/ammo refill stations that make exploring actually possible.

>>4029131
Probably something with a stupid amount of broken bullshit. Or a puzzle game since they can't technically be beaten

File: puyo2-arcade2.png (17KB, 320x224px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 320x224px

>>4024319
>Difficulty is mostly about how well you have to perform, and for how long.

This to me is the least interesting kind of difficulty. For games where the difficulty is based a lot on memorization I get bored very quickly.

If you play the game as intended, a lot of your play is re-doing early levels over and over again. And though that does build stamina, I find it really hard to sit down to play something knowing it's going to be half an hour of playing or more before I get back to the point I was having fun with the challenge. A game has to be truly amazing for me to stick with it like that.

I think it's why I lean so much towards fighting games and roguelikes. Both tend to be fairly challenging and also have a lot of learning involved in the process of your building skill, but there's also less direct repetition.

Even though some gamers may scoff, if I have half an hour to play and I feel like spending it on Puyo Puyo, I would much rather spend that whole half hour battling high level opponents and dying often as I try to win than spending 20 minutes on easy opponents and then 10 on the harder ones until I lose my lives and start at the beginning again.

Not to say anything bad about playing it traditionally, but I like having the choice and in my experience my method isn't a whole lot "easier" than playing normally. It's just faster.

File: eccofgc018etdslide.gif (2MB, 250x224px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 250x224px

>>4029102
>So what of the general practice of difficulty selects, letting players choose their level of engagement? I don't think I approve of this, on principle. A game as a product should offer a given level of difficulty, one that should not be open-ended. Which is not to say there shouldn't be in-game defacto difficulty modifiers, like, say, the warp zones; that's how difficulty should be broken down, not through some stupid menu. That's just lazy.

I disagree with this. Selectable difficulty is good because it makes any given game accessible to a wider range of people and levels of skill.

So take a look at Ecco the Dolphin for example. There's a game that I have always loved for the challenge it presents, but there are a ton of people who think the idea and look of the game is appealing but find it hard to the point of frustration and not being fun to play.

If there was a version with an easier mode which gave the player more health, a longer air meter and made some things like the rock dissolving starfish last longer it could have made the game accessible to a whole other group of people who might then really like it.

To me that's good on all fronts, those who want more challenge have it and those who want less can play like that.

>>4029176
Ecco's difficulty is also literally artificially inflated from the dev's mouths themselves, it was a victim of that classic early 90s "make the game harder so they can't beat it in a rental period" bullshit

>>4029138
>How do you feel about passwords anon?

Now there's an outdated mechanic if there ever was such a thing, huh? Heh.

It's like a save: like any save, you have to earn it. It's like a checkpoint. Yet I suppose it provides more of a quality of life ease, than difficulty.

>>4029176
>Selectable difficulty is good because it makes any given game accessible to a wider range of people and levels of skill.
How is this self-evidently good? Casual appeal never served me well...

>>4029176
>There's a game that I have always loved for the challenge it presents, but there are a ton of people who think the idea and look of the game is appealing but find it hard to the point of frustration and not being fun to play.
Well, and not to be mean, but just to be honest, that's literally their problem, not the game's, isn't it?

>>4029176
>If there was a version with an easier mode which gave the player more health, a longer air meter and made some things like the rock dissolving starfish last longer
But wouldn't that also cheapen the experience for those who did enjoy the game? Those for whom the game was designed with in mind? Such a game was likely designed by people who would enjoy that type of thing themselves, so they naturally wanted to share that with like-minded people. Isn't it just shameless, shallow greediness to stray from that guiding principle, to sell out to mass appeal? Isn't customizable difficulty selling out, inherently?

>>4029176
>To me that's good on all fronts, those who want more challenge have it and those who want less can play like that.
And those who want a finished product are shit outta luck.

It depends on the game and the personal taste of the player.

I fucking love Alien Soldier but i'm going to use it as an example. No lives and just a few continues is horrible once you get deeper into the game. It only becomes a problem once you get far into the game and start running into the hardest bosses. Having to replay the entire fucking game over and over just to ATTEMPT to kill a boss is bullshit. Part of the fun is about gitting gud and learning how to master the mechanics, but it's tedious to learn if you keep having to start over and go through the parts you've already mastered. I wouldn't mind if you went back a few stages, but goddamn having to start all over again is not fun.

Everything about that game is 10/10 but I think that that kind of punishment holds it back. There's a difference between a good punishment for losing and something frustrating.

>>4029268
>How is this self-evidently good? Casual appeal never served me well...

I see it as good because I don't just care about me. I would like more people who aren't me to also be able to enjoy a wide array of games. Putting an easy mode in doesn't affect me negatively in any way, but it could affect someone else positively.

>that's literally their problem, not the game's, isn't it?

That's a way to look at it. Another is that it's not really a "problem" in any context. But giving options could make a good thing better.

>But wouldn't that also cheapen the experience for those who did enjoy the game?

Only if there wasn't an option to play the game normally. If the game was made with only an easy mode that would be bad, but with modes that appeal to different levels of skill I think it only adds.

Keep in mind that a more forgiving air meter and timer on some sections would hardly turn it into an easy game. But it could make it more accessible to some. I don't see anything bad about that at all.

>And those who want a finished product are shit outta luck.

Not necessarily. I actually consider a game with two fully realized and well balanced difficulty choices to be a more finished product than one with just one.

>>4029256
Even still, the difficulty the game has is a lot of fun for me. Really it's more about being patient and careful under pressure than anything. It's just not for everyone and to me it would be a bonus if the game could appeal to more potential gamers.

>>4029256

Not him, but i'd like to see where they said this. I like interviews and that kind of stuff from retro devs.

>difficulty exists in the mechanics, and the relation between mechanics at any given time, and in relation to the player's skill, and in its own right, and in other ways
>gameplay is player's interaction with game mechanics
Is there any difference between gameplay and difficulty?

>>4029316
Difficulty refers to inherent challenges of the game. Gameplay just refers to how the player interacts with the game and isn't necessarily tied to planned challenges.

As an example, the difficulty of Mario 64 is based around beating the game and collecting everything possible. You can also do a lot of crazy platforming and parkour type stuff which is difficult to execute properly. But since doing that isn't linked to the inherent challenges designed for the game that would just be gameplay.

So they are related, but also distinct.

>>4029324
So games must by definition be challenging, inherently? I agree.

>>4029324
>Gameplay just refers to how the player interacts with the game and isn't necessarily tied to planned challenges.
Yet, as much as difficulty may seem secondary to gameplay, the fact is that all gameplay mechanics are subject to difficulty. Any situation can conceivably be made unplayably boring or frustrating by swaying difficulty far enough; the best mechanic can be broken in an instant by difficulty. Difficulty mediates all interactions with the game.

>>4029324
>As an example, the difficulty of Mario 64 is based around beating the game and collecting everything possible.
I would agree that's it's purpose, ostensibly, but not necessarily its difficulty per se. The goal of a game's separate from what makes it difficult.

I know I sound like I'm refuting you here but I don't mean to argue, just relaying my thoughts. As in life, the primary problem in any game is: what do you do with your body as you travel through space and time? Controlling the character properly is of prime difficulty, right? It's literally 'the difficult' part.

>>4029349
>So games must by definition be challenging, inherently?

That's not what I said. And no, not all games are challenging. An easy game is no less a game. It's just of a type that's easier. It also depends on the skills of the player though.

>The goal of a game's separate from what makes it difficult.

Incorrect. The difficulty of completing the goal of the game is what sets the difficulty for a given game.

>Controlling the character properly is of prime difficulty, right?

In a well made game usually, but it's not necessary. Some games are easy enough that they can be completed without mastering the controls.

>>4029403
An easy game is still challenging, including controls, to some degree. Just a small one.

>>4029403
>The difficulty of completing the goal of the game is what sets the difficulty for a given game.
Difficulty overall is the sum of difficulty at every given point along the way, though, right? The supposed goal of a game is almost like a plot point, it's an excuse for embarking on the journey. It's the alibi, the facade, that provides the context for the challenges to occur.

>>4029292
>Only if there wasn't an option to play the game normally. If the game was made with only an easy mode that would be bad, but with modes that appeal to different levels of skill I think it only adds.

Well if there's multiple settings, how do you really know which one is normal? What, just because one setting is labeled 'normal' that means it is? This seems like an arbitrary designation of the title.

The question is what is the intended vision of difficulty for the game? There can only be one. Is there any evidence that normal, generally, fits that vision? Or could it be argued what developers themselves may have labeled as normal in the menu - they only did for lack of better terms, and because they probably didn't think too deeply about it at the time?

I guess I'm saying if there is multiple difficulties, there can be no 'true' difficulty; the 'true' difficulty in that case is inherently variable, it's a variably difficulty. There are much better ways to vary difficulty.

>Keep in mind that a more forgiving air meter and timer on some sections would hardly turn it into an easy game. But it could make it more accessible to some. I don't see anything bad about that at all.
We can agree to disagree about that, but wouldn't you agree, though, there are better ways of achieving this than simply modifying the code? Solutions for casuals could be implemented into the gameplay itself, as mechanics: hidden short cuts, hidden air bubbles, etc. That's the responsible, respectable approach to modifying difficulty.

Generally, however, I completely agree with your sentiment that more options that don't detract from one group of players' enjoyment but may afford another group more enjoyment, are a good thing.

>>4029289
...what? Maybe I'm wrong but doesn't Alien Soldier have infinite continues??

>>4029309
http://www.factfiend.com/this-is-why-ecco-the-dolphin-was-so-hard/

This article points to another one that 404s but it's a pretty common thing said about the game.

>>4030076
Only on easy, superhard has limited continues.
Man, I think I'm replaying it.

i'm a fan of higher damage/lower survivability. which inevitably leads to trial and error. i totally acknowledge that depending on the style of game it can be more irritating that damage sponge enemies.

>>4024492
mate don't be a dick. those games are tough.

>>4029289
>>4030108
I'm actually playing through this game right now. I think the most bullshit thing is how some bosses are just straght-up immune to certain weapons. I was enjoying the flamethrower weapon until I got to the endgame and found that fuckin everything is suddenly fireproof.

It's a very fast-paced game with no filler, so I don't think the game overs are much of a problem. At least, not right now (I haven't seen the final bosses yet).

>>4030108
That explains a lot. I only ever played it on easy, because I had never played it before so I figured I'd play it on the easiest to get a feel for it

I got stuck on Valkyrie Force though and eventually gave up.

>>4030115
What about games that assume bad faith--intentionally fuck over the player on purpose to make things harder by doing shit they can't possibly know about?

For example in Castlevania there are some bosses where the ideal strategy is to use the holy water or boomerang, but right before the boss they put a stopwatch for some fucking reason. A less experienced player might grab the stopwatch to fight Death only to learn the stopwatch LITERALLY DOES NOTHING against Death. The devs intentionally put it there to be a dick.

Speaking of, weird case: in the US Castlevania 1 is a one-session marathon game but in Japan, as originally designed, you could save at every level. Is the US game a case of artificial bullshit or did we just git gud?

Speaking of, CV3's difficulty differences are hella weird

>>4030124
I personally think the level with the multi-form boss is bullshit and even harder than the final boss, still a great game. I just love how before starting you are in thin gun selection which at the same time is a simple and fast tutorial, I love it.

>>4030152
Playing on easy is so nice. The limited continues on superhard are bit too harsh for me.

>>4030163
>What about games that assume bad faith--intentionally fuck over the player on purpose to make things harder by doing shit they can't possibly know about?
well, that's tricky. i think it's a bit of bullshit on the one hand, but on the other it's so satisfying to work out what the ''correct'' strategy is.

>The devs intentionally put it there to be a dick.
but after finding out it does nothing you'd presumably try something else. the save system is a big part of difficulty in games. you can be the worst player in the world but if the save system covers you every step of the way you'll have no problem beating the game. that's the balance.

i'll say one thing for dark souls (not retro i know) but the save system really is excellent. regardless if it's true or not it really feels like your own fucking fault when you fail to get souls back/fall of a ledge.

>>4030184
>I personally think the level with the multi-form boss is bullshit and even harder than the final boss, still a great game. I just love how before starting you are in thin gun selection which at the same time is a simple and fast tutorial, I love it.

The worst part for me is that gauntlet after the dark area, where you fight the flower, giant fly, spider, and robot bird back to back. Is there something you can counter-force to refill your health at that part?

>>4030223
giant flower is just good positioning in the air while straight, continuous shooting. On the giant moth while it is being introduced, place youself over the head aim at it with you best weapon (I use the flamethrower) and shoot as soon the fight starts. Spider is hard if you ended up bad from the moth, I remember using that autoaiming fire gun so the fire goes after the little spiders as well, cool laser for finishit it off.
The important thing is to get to those 3 bosses unscratched from the dark area.

For the robot bird I tend to double jump on the center of the robot and while flying in my place continuously shoot the autoaiming fire. I can recall what to counter-force.

At least that's what I do. The area that ruins me is the saw-handed lobster

>>4024303
>Would we be permitted to have a serious discussion about the concept of difficulty in games?
It really depends on what game on what method of difficulty is in it? is it a game programmed to be difficult by intention (ghosts and goblins) or is one due to programming error (superman 64 with the glitchy walls)?
>>4024319
>In general, the less save points you have, the harder a game is.
Captures it somewhat but not fully since savepoint is not the only criteria for gameplay, how many hits does the enemies take? what is the randomness of enemy pattern? what is the health system and how much of it do you get (for example 2 hits in ghosts and goblins and you are dead)? how many continues are in the game? what amount of checkpoints are there etc?

>>4029131
I'd argue "Holy Diver". Its an action platformer not dissimilar to Megaman, but the platforming and enemy placement require such specific usage of limited spells that it almost feels like a puzzle game at times.

>>4030263
>On the giant moth while it is being introduced, place youself over the head aim at it with you best weapon (I use the flamethrower) and shoot as soon the fight starts.

Neat, that worked. I didn't even need to stop firing to kill the worms.
Also found you can counter-force the crescent projectiles on the spider boss for +100 health drops. The full-health zero dash kills the small spiders too.

To get back on topic, I think this is one of appeals of long endurance challenges. It's fun to learn better strategies for previously-beaten challenges to make yourself more consistent (Even if it's as simple as "sit on the boss and hold down flamethrower").

>>4029424
>Difficulty overall is the sum of difficulty at every given point along the way, though, right?

Not who you are replying to but if we're all going to be as painstakingly precise with our definitions as this thread has been so far, I think it's worth quantifying overall difficulty as an average and not a sum. Or rather than an average, a tempo, as a game's difficulty may be generally very easy or hard with certain spikes one way or the other. The pacing of the difficulty has a very significant effect on the player's perception of the overall difficulty of the game.

If you have a game that's 90% incredibly easy, but with a few absurdly hellish difficulty spikes, is that an easy or hard game? If it's a hard game because of the high difficulty spikes that not many players can get past, then that means the sole defining aspect of a game's difficulty is its most difficult moment (or at least the most difficult part mandatory to finish the game, but getting into optional content opens up a whole new can of worms). If it's an easy game because the majority of it is easy, well, does that mean that a game where you need to overcome at least some absurdly hard challenges, that many players will not be able to clear, is easy? Would Kirby's Adventure be an easy game if you replaced the final boss with the whole final level of DoDonPachi?

Of course the main issue here arises from treating the dichotomy of easy and hard as a binary one, when it's really a scale. But the pacing, that is the tempo or the escalation of difficulty, is an integral part of defining a game's overall difficulty. Kirby's Adventure with the final DoDonPachi level wouldn't be an easy game or a hard one, it would be a mostly easy game that gets really hard at the end.

(cont)

>>4030437
A game with a really tough first world, where every subsequent world is barely any more difficult, would probably be seen by anyone who completes it as overall a pretty easy game, simply because difficulty wouldn't scale with most player's acquisition of skill and understanding of mechanics. There would really only be one real hurdle (the beginning), and the number of hurdles, roadblocks, whatever you want to call them, are a MAJOR part of what defines difficulty for a player. So even if this game was actually harder than most, having to only really overcome hurdles at the beginning could very easily give the illusion (would it be an illusion?) that the game is actually quite easy.

My point is to not take the difficulty of a game as a whole, or to examine each difficult part on its own in a vacuum. The difficulty scaling is one of, if not the, most important elements when it comes to defining the difficulty of the, well, difficulty.

In casual conversation it's totally fine to reduce the difficulty scaling of a game to just be "easy" or "hard" or whatever. That kind of shorthand is convenient. But I think if we're going to belabor the specific definition and aspects of difficulty in games, properly defining what we'd call the overall difficulty of a game is a pretty vital component of the conversation.

>>4030439
>>4030437
Gonna add one more thing for clarity: I'm not claiming that difficulty scaling is the sole determining factor of difficulty. Just that it is a major component. There is some intrinsic difficulty in any challenge, and this is especially important in the first level(s) of a game, since that is the only part that the player will experience in a relative vacuum.

I guess the whole point I'm trying to make is that if we're going to go in depth on game difficulty, it's better to think of a game's overall difficulty as a linechart than as "easy" or "hard." The skill of the player determines the initial starting point of that line, but in most cases I would expect to see the changing positions of those lines to be similar, as players generally agree on certain parts of the game being harder or easier than other parts, if we're using a sample of players of various skill levels but similar skillsets (that is, not having players who are great at puzzles and shitty at a game's combat system mixed in with a sample pool of players who are the opposite, as then you'd naturally see very divergent lines at different challenges).

There was actually a pretty decent article about the health/damage system in YI being about the player redeeming their mistakes instead of being forgiven for them. Seems pertinent enough to the thread topic to be worth sharing.

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/ChristopherGile/20160509/272205/Health_101_with_Professor_Yoshis_Island.php

>>4029471
>What, just because one setting is labeled 'normal' that means it is?

Yes. Because that's the level of challenge the game developer chose to be the "normal" one.

> There can only be one.
Not at all.

>I guess I'm saying if there is multiple difficulties, there can be no 'true' difficulty

There are as many true difficulties as there are settings.

> but wouldn't you agree, though, there are better ways of achieving this than simply modifying the code?

Possibly, but it doesn't mean changing the difficulty in traditional ways is bad.

>Solutions for casuals could be implemented into the gameplay itself, as mechanics: hidden short cuts, hidden air bubbles, etc. That's the responsible, respectable approach to modifying difficulty.

I consider this a worse solution. Short cuts and hidden resources like health or ammo make the game easier for people who are already knowledgeable about it. Or those who are wanting to look for such things, which is the opposite to the type of person an easy mode is designed for.

>>4030681
>Yes. Because that's the level of challenge the game developer chose to be the "normal" one.
The normal or true difficulty in that case is 'variable.' It's like, in life, the only thing that doesn't change is change itself. In a game like that, the only real difficulty is variable difficulty. Its variability is what defines and characterizes it.

>>4030681
>Not at all.
Either it varies, or not. It's set, or it isn't. There is a difficulty select menu, or there is not.

>>4030681
>There are as many true difficulties as there are settings.
True in the sense that it exists; it's technically real. However, there's no evidence proving any one setting is more definitive than any other. You might say 'normal' is definitive - but why, exactly? I can't think of any reason, because there's also no evidence that, generally, games are designed specifically around 'normal' mode; if there is variable difficulty at all, the game is designed around that: variable difficulty modes, of which 'normal' is only one.

>>4030681
>but it doesn't mean changing the difficulty in traditional ways is bad.
If there are better ways then actually it does, comparatively. If there are more desirable ways of doing something, then not doing it accordingly is less desirable; it's undesirable; it's bad.

>>4030681
>Short cuts and hidden resources like health or ammo make the game easier for people who are already knowledgeable about it. Or those who are wanting to look for such things, which is the opposite to the type of person an easy mode is designed for.
No offense my friend but this argument is ridiculous and I'm pretty sure it's obvious enough why, so I'll spare you guys my tedious refutation. And your second sentence doesn't even make sense, at least not to me.

Thoughtful, though, anyway.

>>4030910
>The normal or true difficulty in that case is 'variable.'

"Normal" and "true" are different. "Normal" if it's named such is the middle difficulty setting designed for "normal" people. And easy for those who want it easy, hard for those those who want it hard. The "true" difficulty is any of the choices.

>Either it varies, or not. It's set, or it isn't.
I was replying to
>The question is what is the intended vision of difficulty for the game? There can only be one.

Clearly there doesn't have to be only one. The vision of a game can be for it to have variable difficulties.

>However, there's no evidence proving any one setting is more definitive than any other.

They're all equally definitive.

>If there are better ways then actually it does,
Variety is good. Trying things different ways is good. What works for one kind of game doesn't work for every kind of game.

>No offense my friend but this argument is ridiculous and I'm pretty sure it's obvious enough why, so I'll spare you guys my tedious refutation.

No it's not. The kind of gamer who goes though a level looking for secret routes and hidden items typically isn't the kind of person wanting to play a game on easy. If the purpose of putting an easy mode in a game is to make it more appealing to a casual player, then that's a terrible way of doing it.

>>4030920
>"Normal" and "true" are different.
Well, what I meant was 'standard' there. Poor choice of words on my part. But even standard isn't great. It just means the default setting of the game is variable, which variation is selected by anyone at any time is irrelevant to that fact.

>>4030920
>The vision of a game can be for it to have variable difficulties.
Yes, and it must necessarily be either variable or invariable.

>>4030920
>They're all equally definitive.
...Do you know what definitive means?

>>4030920
>Variety is good.
Yes, but is variable difficulty - in the form of tiered difficulty presets selectable via menu - better than a fixed, predetermined difficulty that may be modified more subtly, through nuanced design? Variety is not exclusive to one or the other, it just comes in different forms.

If you insist I'll debunk your last argument but it's going to take awhile.

>>4030957
>but is variable difficulty - in the form of tiered difficulty presets selectable via menu - better than a fixed, predetermined difficulty that may be modified more subtly, through nuanced design?

Possibly, but not necessarily.

>...Do you know what definitive means?
Yes.

>Yes, and it must necessarily be either variable or invariable.
Miscommunication then. Yes, the designer would choose whether there's one difficulty or not.

>>4030681
>Short cuts and hidden resources like health or ammo make the game easier for people who are already knowledgeable about it. Or those who are wanting to look for such things, which is the opposite to the type of person an easy mode is designed for.
1. Nobody has to take advantage of them. Their mere presence in the game does not necessarily cheapen the experience for skilled players, but at the same time it does provide potentially needed help to those who might need it. This is depth of design, and is a good thing.
2. By your own logic, all difficulty settings lower than the hardest one are guilty of the exact same consequences you profess shortcuts and hidden items come with; the presence of other, easier settings makes the game easier for better players, even though they don't have to use them, and therefore that alternative approach to difficulty is just as bad.
3. There is no possible way you know 'the type of person easy mode is designed for.' This is purely your imagination.
4. The presence of extra, hidden content is inherently fun for everyone, especially those who like to set out in search of it. It's enjoyable to discover new things even if you may not need them.

So basically your argument is, for example, that Super Mario Bros would have been better if all hidden powerups were removed from the game and replaced with 'Easy, Normal, and Hard' modes which... I don't know, gave Mario more hits or more lives to start with... whatever the case may be. Clearly, this is not ideal.

>>4030957
I like selectable difficulty settings. They let a game designer make a game complex enough for hardcore fans without forcing it to be a financial failure. Generally I think the ideal approach to designing selectable difficulty settings is to start with the hardest difficulty setting and create the level design and stuff based on that, then remove and simplify a portion of the challenges for the other settings.
This also gives a game more replay value since a player might start on normal mode when they're less skilled then move on to hard mode.

>>4030978
>Nobody has to take advantage of them.

That's not the point though. The point is that if they're hidden they won't be found by most of the people the easy version of a game exists for, which makes it pointless.

> easier settings makes the game easier for better players, even though they don't have to use them

Of course they don't have to use them, but it's there if the player wants that.

>There is no possible way you know 'the type of person easy mode is designed for.' This is purely your imagination.

Of course there is. All games are designed with a target gamer in mind.

> The presence of extra, hidden content is inherently fun for everyone,

No, not everyone. Many people sure, but not everyone. Certainly not everyone who wants the game they're playing wants to have to search out hidden items to make it easier.

> It's enjoyable to discover new things even if you may not need them.

For you and me yes, not necessarily for everyone.

>So basically your argument is, for example, that Super Mario Bros would have been better if all hidden powerups were removed from the game and replaced with 'Easy, Normal, and Hard' modes

I said nothing of the sort and disagree with that. Mario is fine as is and wasn't designed with variable difficulty in mind.

I am saying that adding in more hidden powerups and items as way of trying to make it easier would be a poor course of action.

>>4031006
>Certainly not everyone who wants the game they're playing to be easy wants to have to search out hidden items to make it easier.

fixed

>>4031006
>The point is that if they're hidden they won't be found by most of the people the easy version of a game exists for, which makes it pointless.
In theory, if they're really stuck, and really need it, they'll find it. Good level design practically ensures this.

>>4031006
>Of course they don't have to use them, but it's there if the player wants that.
What about the players who specifically don't want that? Who don't want variable difficulty, for whatever reason? I for one don't want it, generally, for a number of reasons.

This argument is that it's good for catering to the interests of some, yet it ignores that catering to one group's tastes discriminates against an opposing group's tastes. There's consequences of doing something, and consequences of not doing something.

Also the quoted line above defeats your own prior argument:
>>4030681
>Short cuts and hidden resources like health or ammo make the game easier for people who are already knowledgeable about it.

>>4031006
>All games are designed with a target gamer in mind.
That fact is completely unrelated to the point called into question: your implied knowledge of 'the type of person easy mode is designed for.'

>>4031006
>No, not everyone.
I can't believe I'm actually having to debate this but... this is an extraordinary claim; do you have extraordinary evidence to back it up? It seems self-evident that people like unlocking secrets in games, so much of games design in history incorporates that element.

And anyway, #NotAll is a ridiculous argument in the first place. Of course not literally everyone, but the vast majority.

Also, you seem to be assuming that these means we're discussing of offsetting the latent difficulty of a game other than by select screens - that gaining access to them requires extensive effort by the player. A quest for something that has to be sought out.

That would be, again, your imagination. In short I believe you're underestimating the ease with which (cont)

File: 47070_back.jpg (136KB, 640x909px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 640x909px

>>4024303
Let me give you some of my wisdom.

Games back then were not "harder" as a rule. You were young, inexperienced, and the concepts and limits of what made up a "game" were not ingrained into you at all. They were also far shorter to where you could complete them in 30-60 minutes, thus the difficulty curve increased at a more rapid pace.

There were easy games, and there were hard games. The exact fucking same way it is now. Games are not "made easier" to sell more copies because "easy" has never been a selling point except on games made for literal toddlers. Pic related. You're either playing easy games, or you're playing them on an extremely low difficulty. Very few games are actually difficult, and are instead frustrating or grossly unbalanced.

I've been gaming for almost thirty years, and I can tell you that the situation has not changed.

>>4031034
optional elements might be accessible by the player. And I think, perhaps, you underestimate the average IQ of players, specifically those who might play on Easy or otherwise require a little extra help succeeding in a game. They might not be good players, but that doesn't mean they are stupid.

>>4031006
>Mario is fine as is and wasn't designed with variable difficulty in mind.
Yes, exactly. Mario's approach to difficulty is precisely the alternative to variable difficulty I have been describing, and which you have been attempting to refute as inferior to the variable variety. So, I'm afraid you did say that. It is, after all, a dichotomy; as we already established, either a games difficulty is fixed and unchangeable, or it is variable.

>>4031006
>adding in more hidden powerups and items as way of trying to make it easier would be a poor course of action.
What do you think the existing powerups, shorts, and other secrets in Mario do, already? How do they not accomplish exactly what you just described?

>>4031034
>In theory, if they're really stuck, and really need it, they'll find it.

It sounds like you just don't understand the whole reason for putting an easy mode in a game.

>What about the players who specifically don't want that? Who don't want variable difficulty, for whatever reason?

The same as players who don't want a game without variable difficulty. Not everyone gets everything they want all the time. Not every game appeals to every gamer.

>Also the quoted line above defeats your own prior argument:
Then you didn't understand the point I was making with that.

>your implied knowledge of 'the type of person easy mode is designed for.'

Easy mode is designed for people who want the game they're playing to be easy.

>this is an extraordinary claim

It's really not. There are people who just want to play through a game, jump on the platforms, punch the dudes and whatever. They're not interested in a lot of challenge or having to seek out hidden items to make it easier.

I'm not one of those people and it sounds like you're not either, but they certainly exist. Sticking an easy mode in a game where the player takes less damage and does more makes the game appealing to those kinds of people and I am happy for that. It doesn't negatively impact me in any way, but makes the game appealing to a wider audience.

>>4031050
>Mario's approach to difficulty is precisely the alternative to variable difficulty I have been describing, and which you have been attempting to refute as inferior to the variable variety.

Except that Mario is always pretty easy. Making Ghosts N' Goblins easy with extra hidden items wouldn't work.

>What do you think the existing powerups, shorts, and other secrets in Mario do, already?

The point is that hiding more of them as a way to make the game even easier is a bad method since they probably won't be found by the people who want it to be easier. It only makes it easier for the people who want to explore a lot and look for hidden things, and they're the ones already engaged enough that they probably don't want a piss easy experience.

>>4030282
NES Ghosts and Goblins isn't programmed to be difficult. It's just shitty because Micronix developed it, not Capcom. The arcade version is not nearly as difficult.

>>4031062
>It sounds like you just don't understand the whole reason for putting an easy mode in a game.

Would you care to explain what you mean by this? It sounds like your saying:
>in the ideal playthrough, regardless of difficulty setting, players should never at any point get stuck
Maybe I just come from a time period when getting stuck or lost, occasionally, was part of the fun. It makes the overall experience more memorable. Even on Easy mode, a game's better off having players get stuck; otherwise, it's too easy, even for Easy.

>>4031062
>The same as players who don't want a game without variable difficulty.
>double negatives
Wat? Rephrase that, please. As far as I can tell, yes, you restated my point refuting you, but failed to actually address it?

>>4031062
>Then you didn't understand the point I was making with that.
Then you understand neither my point nor your own.

>>4031062
>Easy mode is designed for people who want the game they're playing to be easy.
Oh really? Yet you would have to know something about their personality, as a basis for the claims you were making, which you do not and cannot.

>>4031062
>It's really not.
It really is.

>>4031062
>There are people who just want to play through a game, jump on the platforms, punch the dudes and whatever.
So what? This statement does not relate to your assertion that people don't like finding secret rewards.

>>4031062
>They're not interested in a lot of challenge or having to seek out hidden items to make it easier.
Again, not an argument for your position.

>>4031062
>Sticking an easy mode in a game where the player takes less damage and does more makes the game appealing to those kinds of people and I am happy for that.
But don't you see that can only be done at cost of other, better approaches to difficulty? Ones you, personally, would prefer as someone who doesn't just want to play the game casually? Them getting that deprives you, who arguably deserves to get his way more, by virtue

>>4031092
of being the more enthusiastic hobbyist, of what you want, which would be a nicer thing. Yet you are happy for them? And defend them? You are a cuck, I'm sorry, but it's true by definition.

It does impact you, whether or not you realize it, and it makes the game more casualized but at cost to enthusiasts, which is not good, from an enthusiast perspective. Basically, that argument is the games industry today is better than it was in the 90's, when it was still relatively niche.

>>4031092
>in the ideal playthrough, regardless of difficulty setting, players should never at any point get stuck

No what I mean is, that someone who plays games on easy doesn't want to get stuck. You think getting stuck is good because it's something you like in a game, but that's also why you don't play on easy.

>Wat? Rephrase that, please.
Not everyone gets what they want. You don't want a game that has hard, medium and easy modes. Some people only want games that have hard, medium and easy modes.

>Yet you would have to know something about their personality, as a basis for the claims you were making, which you do not and cannot.

No, that's beyond obtuse. You just have to assume that in the pool of people who may play your game, some will want it easier and some will want it harder. Easy mode is for the people who want it easier.

>This statement does not relate to your assertion that people don't like finding secret rewards.

That's exactly what it's about. There are some people with no interest in looking for secrets and hidden rewards.

>But don't you see that can only be done at cost of other, better approaches to difficulty?

I don't necessarily agree with that.

>who arguably deserves to get his way more, by virtue

I very much disagree with this. I don't think I deserve to get my way any more than someone else.

>>4031075
>The point is that hiding more of them
As opposed to what? More than what? More than what's already there? Everything that's there is more than what would be there, otherwise.

Originally, let's say there were zero powerups when they were first creating the game. Then, powerups were added. This is them 'adding more of them as a way to make the game even easier.'

In practice, if they added more than currently exists in the game, to the game, then sure, you are correct; but not in principle, as a general rule.

>>4031075
>since they probably won't be found by the people who want it to be easier.
Preposterous assertion. Wrong.

>>4031075
>It only makes it easier for the people who want to explore a lot and look for hidden things,
What about someone who likes to explore but also plays on Easy, hm?

>>4031117
The important point is the hiding of them.

>Preposterous assertion

I fundamentally disagree.

Let's talk about linearity. I'm watching a thing about the launch of the 64 in the background right now and I'm remembering why I don't like Mario 64.

For one: They said they wanted to make just controlling Mario feel fun, and I feel like they actually succeeded. The problem with this is it's often more fun to just fuck around in levels or in the castle than it is to complete objectives--the GTA problem.

Modern gamers love to praise nonlinearity and especially complain about "hallway shooters" like COD or whatever (there's a famous meme that shows I think E1M6 of Doom and says "1993 level design" whereas they show a line with several cutscenes as "2012 level design" or something) but let's look at Mario 64; the levels are so open ended that there's rarely a specific idea of where you need to go or what you need to do. I've NEVER been fond of this. Just tell me where to go and make the JOURNEY the difficult part. Ironically, the Bowser levels do exactly this--they are, for all intents and purposes, completely abstract level designs that more resemble what a 3D evolution of a sidescrolling Mario level would be, and are WAY more fun for me as a result. There's a clear objective--get to the fucking end--and the challenge is 100% in the level design itself.

I'm not fond of older games that have this approach either--Zelda 2 isn't very fun at all, too cryptic. Same for games like Rambo or Battle of Olympus or Rygar. Meanwhile Zelda 1 (or Breath of the Wild) seem really really fun to me despite their occasional hard spots.

>>4031116
>that someone who plays games on easy doesn't want to get stuck.
So the underlying assertion here is Easy players don't want challenge. If you were to claim, they don't want very much challenge, I would agree, but your assertion implies they don't want any. This is obviously wrong, however, as video games are inherently interactive; interactivity consists, fundamentally, in some form and degree of challenge. And human beings in general become bored of activities that do not challenge them enough.

Easy is not about zero challenge, it's about little challenge. They want to get stuck a little bit.

I know getting stuck is something everyone enjoys in games regardless of their preferred difficulty because it's basic human psychology.

>>4031116
>Not everyone gets what they want.
Well that's a ground breaking thesis, but the whole purpose of this discussion is to consider which might be the better mode in theory.

>>4031116
>Easy mode is for the people who want it easier.
Assertion: Easy is for people who want to play Easy.
Conclusion: People who play Easy will not discover secrets.
See the problem with your argument yet?

>>4031116
>There are some people with no interest in looking for secrets and hidden rewards.
Not having an interest doesn't preclude the possibility of experiencing enjoyment should such an event occur, obviously.

>>4031116
>I don't necessarily agree with that.
So you maintain difficulty is not either fixed or variable then? Do explain how it can be both or neither, or a little of either?

>>4031138
>They want to get stuck a little bit.
Maybe, but I don't think adding more hidden items for them to find when they're stuck is better than the more common way of varying difficulty. In my opinion it's a worse way.

Assertion: Easy is for people who want to play Easy.
Conclusion: People who play Easy should not be expected to look for secrets as the method of making it easy.

>Not having an interest doesn't preclude the possibility of experiencing enjoyment should such an event occur, obviously.

Sure, but it's no reason to force it on them.

>>4031136
>The problem with this is it's often more fun to just fuck around in levels or in the castle than it is to complete objectives--the GTA problem.

That's only a problem if you see it as one. There's a reason GTA is so popular.

>>4024358
Go find a .pdf of "A Critical Analysis of Wario Land 4", seems like it'd be right up your alley.

>>4031142
>Conclusion: People who play Easy should not be expected to look for secrets as the method of making it easy.
Why not? There is nothing apparent about Easy mode that people who prefer it should 'not be expected to look for secrets' - for any reason, regardless. This is your imagination of the type of person who plays on Easy, clouding your perspective.

And now it's 'should not be expected' but before it was 'will not be able to.' Two different things, so which one is it?

>>4031142
>Sure, but it's no reason to force it on them.
>hidden secrets
>forced

>>4031136
>the levels are so open ended that there's rarely a specific idea of where you need to go or what you need to do. I've NEVER been fond of this. Just tell me where to go and make the JOURNEY the difficult part.
I don't know, the star titles hint at this, and sometimes the content changes noticeably. I find that open endedness much preferable in a game like SM64 to 'follow the green arrow: the game." In a bigger game world, like Morrowind, for example, maybe I would prefer the arrow. But SM64 is small enough that the wonderment never becomes a burden - at least not to me, it didn't. For me, figuring out where and what to do was happily a part of the journey.

>>4031153
>hidden secrets
>forced

If hiding more powerups is your way of varying the difficulty then yes, it's forced.

>There is nothing apparent about Easy mode that people who prefer it should 'not be expected to look for secrets'

Easy mode is for casual players. That's exactly what it is.

>>4031161
>If hiding more powerups is your way of varying the difficulty then yes, it's forced.
But we weren't talking about that; we were talking about:

>>4031142
>>Not having an interest doesn't preclude the possibility of experiencing enjoyment should such an event occur, obviously.

One is a discussion of variance of difficulty, the other is of interest in exploration and enjoyment of discovery.

Besides, in any context, hidden secrets by definition are not, and cannot be, forced. You really don't make much sense.

Which explains why you assume, with certainty, 1.) casual players tend to play on Easy 2.) Easy was designed specifically for them and 3.) that they should not be expected to do basics like look for/find secrets, which seems to suggest 4.) your belief in the unproven hypothesis that hidden secrets are intrinsically linked favorably to difficulty.

>>4031175
>One is a discussion of variance of difficulty, the other is of interest in exploration and enjoyment of discovery.

That came out of your description of how to ad variable difficulty though. So if not that, then what are the methods for making variable difficulty that you think are better than standard easy, medium and hard modes?

This is the core of what I've been replying to and disagree with.
>Solutions for casuals could be implemented into the gameplay itself, as mechanics: hidden short cuts, hidden air bubbles, etc.

Hiding things as your way of making it easier of casual players is a bad method in my opinion and so far you haven't said anything to sway that.

> 1.) casual players tend to play on Easy
They typically do

>2.) Easy was designed specifically for them

It was

>3.) that they should not be expected to do basics like look for/find secrets,

I'm not saying they shouldn't have to, I'm saying that hiding more things as a way of making it easier doesn't work very well. Unless they only appear in the easy mode of the game.

>>4031181
>That came out of your description of how to ad variable difficulty though.
Yeah, and? It arose pointing out the flaws in your position against invariable difficulty. You still need to address that.

>>4031181
>Hiding things as your way of making it easier of casual players is a bad method in my opinion and so far you haven't said anything to sway that.
>>4030978
>So basically your argument is, for example, that Super Mario Bros would have been better if all hidden powerups were removed from the game and replaced with 'Easy, Normal, and Hard' modes which... I don't know, gave Mario more hits or more lives to start with... whatever the case may be. Clearly, this is not ideal.
And really that whole post in general.

>>4031181
>They typically do
>It was
[citations needed]

>>4031181
>I'm saying that hiding more things as a way of making it easier doesn't work very well.
This is objectively false as I demonstrated by referencing Mario, and on top of that you still have not answered my follow up question to that which involved the nature of 'more' in this context, and finally you continue to ignore that I pointed out that such secrets need not be particularly well hidden in order to fit the task.

>>4031213
>It arose pointing out the flaws in your position against invariable difficulty.

I don't have a position against invariable difficulty. I just think variable difficulty is also good. It depends on the game. Mario doesn't need variable difficulty, Ghosts N Goblins is better for it. Ecco might have been better with it.

>This is objectively false as I demonstrated by referencing Mario,

No it's not. If you load up the game with easily found powerups it makes the whole thing easy. It means if you want a harder experience you as the player have to ignore those power ups and make your own limits to make it more challenging.

I don't see how that is better in any way at all than standard easy, medium and hard modes. You haven't even articulated very well what's supposed to be bad about them in the first place other than you don't like it.

>>4031040
>Games are not "made easier" to sell more copies because
because it's impossible to tell how hard a game is without playing it yourself.

>>4031181
>>4031175
I don't think you idiots know what casual means, so both of you leave the thread.

SPOILERS: It doesn't mean easy, it means you can play without any form of long-term investment or long-term consequence

>>4031302
>splitting hairs
Casual games are easy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casual_game

>>4031223
>I don't have a position against invariable difficulty. I just think variable difficulty is also good. It depends on the game.
Well you did. Before you said it was not as good, much worse, etc. Things along those lines.

>>4031223
>Mario doesn't need variable difficulty
The only reason you think that is because it doesn't have variable difficulty. If you grew up in an alternate universe were it did, you would be here right now arguing it doesn't need invariable difficulty.

The reason it doesn't need variable difficulty is because it effectively uses invariable difficulty. There's no way you're going to present a coherent case that Mario, as a game, doesn't 'need' that.

>>4031223
>No it's not.
Yes it is. You literally just admitted your feeling that Mario doesn't need to accomplish difficulty by other means than hiding things to make it easier. We all know that worked out well for Mario.

>>4031223
>If you load up the game with easily found powerups it makes the whole thing easy.
That's what Mario did. Is it easy? Too easy? For whom?

>>4031223
>It means if you want a harder experience you as the player have to ignore those power ups
Oh no!

>>4031223
>make your own limits to make it more challenging.
Oh no!

These are not demonstrably bad things and in fact you argued in favor of this underlying principle not long ago. After all, you would agree this makes the game accessible to more audiences.

>>4031223
>I don't see how that is better in any way at all than standard easy, medium and hard modes.
It's more creative, and it is the responsibility of the developer to release a finished product, which, in games, includes a specific vision of difficulty for their game, not a selection of them. And I did posit this before, you apparently just didn't read.

And there's numerous points you haven't addressed yet but whatever.

>>4031040
>Let me give you some of my wisdom.
Nice try. Really. There is some wisdom there. However...

>Games back then were not "harder" as a rule.
I think they definitely were harder. They don't have that reputation for nothing. But insofar as you mean to say they weren't designed that way, specifically, I kind of agree with you. Their difficulty emerged naturally, as the inevitable conclusion of two factors: the states of the art and tech of the times. They were shorter because they had to be. And yes, the difficulty curve naturally increases more dramatically as a result of shortness. But that's not the only reason for the sharp increase: some games depended on that to add value, replay value or other forms of padding out the length of the experience, the life of the product. It's impossible to determine exactly but surely some games sometimes included some degree of effort aimed specifically at bolstering difficulty beyond the natural minimum.

>You were young, inexperienced, and the concepts and limits of what made up a "game" were not ingrained into you at all.
The same is also true of developers of the time, in regards to the medium of games. They were still figuring out what games could be, or should be. The one thing every dev knew was what games were, then, and had been up to that point; hence they were hard.

>>4031040
>There were easy games, and there were hard games. The exact fucking same way it is now.
Now? Not so much... mostly only easy now.

>Games are not "made easier" to sell more copies because "easy" has never been a selling point except on games made for literal toddlers. Pic related.
That's a very literal example. Without question, they have been dumbed down, made easier, to attract wider audiences. Nintendo's entire strategy for the last decade or so has been to do precisely that, for example.

>Very few games are actually difficult, and are instead frustrating or grossly unbalanced.
All games have difficulty; few are actually difficult. I like that.

But balance is what determines the fairness or cheapness of difficulty, and frustration is a symptom of unfair, excessive, or punishing difficulty.

>I've been gaming for almost thirty years
Based /vr/.

But overall yes, I grant you some degree of the perception of the difficulty of old games is based on memories of people who understandably struggled with them, being that they may have been children on release of those games.

>>4031495
>Without question, they have been dumbed down, made easier, to attract wider audiences
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this is in any way true.

Also, cleaning out redundant, clunky, underused, or overly-complicated shit isn't "dumbing down". It's very possible to have depth without complexity.

>>4031313
Super Meat Boy and Binding of Isaac are casual, both of which are "You will die all the time" games.

>>4031313
>Citing wikipedia for anything game-related
Seriously, look at the Gamer article, it goes on about faggots and gurl gaemurs.

>>4024319
Try Adventure of Little Ralph.

>>4031510
Well, maybe it's hard to prove a general trend within the industry. That's no small task. But certainly, individual pieces of evidence of that do exist. Look at the FF re-re-re-re-re-re-re-releases, particularly on Steam. FF9, for instance, includes such 'features' as:
>Seven game boosters including high speed and no encounter modes.
>Autosave

They have retroactively inserted into it a kind of weird variable difficulty, when previously it was invariable. The games nowadays include literal casual modes.

And as one more example that comes to mind I think Pokemon games now show elemental strengths/weaknesses in battle, automatically, for everyone, always.

>>4031434
>Oh no!

Not exaclty "Oh no!" but it is poor game design. Certainly worse than selectable difficulty. And just saying "Oh no!" to it really throws all your high minded hand wringing over ethical difficulty options out the window. At this point I can't even tell if you're serious or just saying whatever random bullshit you can to keep this going, and I've stopped caring.

>>4024485
>roguelikes
>modern
Fuck off.

>>4031695
>nope
>other difficultys is stupid lol
>wow ur rly dumb
>oh well who cares i win bye

You denounce the quality of my posts, yet continue your usual pattern: spouting simplistic assertions without bothering to actually explain or defend any of them. You accuse me of that which you do.

I realized you were baiting some time ago but humored you because it did result in some decent discussion, but now that you have given up conversation is no longer productive, so it is well that you should go, that proper discourse may resume.

I know this conversation is kind of dying down but I'd like to weigh in on the variable difficulty thing. Haven't posted about it yet.

Earlier today I played some Ikaruga co-op with a friend. He'd never played a shmup before so I set it to easy. Thinking about that now, I like the convenience and simplicity of this system, of just setting the game to go down a certain path.

In spite of liking this, I would say having the difficulty of a game be inherently tied to the choices you make in-game is the better system, most of the time. To claim one as better in every situation is too dogmatic a statement to make about such a design element. There's a very strong clarity about just selecting a difficulty mode, and while this is clearly less involved than choices inherently built into the play of the game, given a certain kind of game that may be the beneficial choice.

Puzzle games let you set a speed at the start, fighting games let you modify the difficulty level of the cpus, these are both good things. To reiterate, I would say in-game difficulty variables are the better option most of the time. But I think you should never say never when it comes to just about any kind of design element.

And in-game difficulty modifiers don't have to be hidden secrets, not sure why people are acting like that's the case. To use Ecco as an example since it came up earlier: what if when you start the game, there was an airtank you could swim into at the very start? It could be placed right in front of the player when the game begins and function as a powerup to the air guage. While this is functionally barely different than just toggling an option setting, it's still more inherently tied into the game itself, and would be an example of variable difficulty. I haven't played Ecco and I'm not claiming the game should be this way, just putting forth an example.

Sorry if this is nonsensical or rambly, I'm a tad fucked up right now.

I wish more games got rid of saving anytime. Im not gonna save scum but I hate to have to find approriate save-restrictions for every game.

Also less damage adjustments and more enemy count.

>>4024303
Nice pastiche of the academia.

t. former academic

>>4031747
Believe it or not, none of that was baiting. It was me trying to make sense of your lunacy.

>it is the responsibility of the developer to release a finished product, which, in games, includes a specific vision of difficulty for their game, not a selection of them

That's straight up crazy. I'm just surprised it took me so long to recognize you.

>>4032282
It sounds like you haven't played Ecco, the game is already like that. There's always air near where you start and then strategically placed through the level along with schools of fish and clams for health. Some people still find it too hard.

In order to make it easy enough for them you'd have to litter the levels with tons of air and health which would break challenge for everyone else. That's the problem with that whole idea. If you take difficulty options out of something like Doom there would have to be health packs and ammo every 2 feet for the easy players and those wanting it hard would be left having to choose to ignore them to have some challenge. Pretty awful game design.

>>4031739
Roguelikes aren't modern but their popularity is. It's so wonderful to finally see the genre gaining wide spread love and interest.

>>4024312
and your post sounds like mental masochism

complaining about difficulty is like complaining about spicy foods

some don't like spice at all
some want it as spicy as possible
some want a happy medium where it compliments the taste (though there are differing degrees on what that "happy medium" is)

>>4032974
>(though there are differing degrees on what that "happy medium" is)

Exactly. Everyone has different tastes, so even if there was an average 'happy medium" it would still be too spicy for some and bland for others. The problem comes when people can't understand that opinion and taste varies and different people like different things.

If you go on /ck/ and tell them you like Tabasco sauce more than most other hot sauces they will flip their shit on you and basically say your taste sucks so your opinion is worthless. Tell them you're something of a connoisseur of hot sauces, make them yourself as well as usually have a dozen different bottles around at any time for different flavors and still hold Tabasco easy in your top 3 and they'll call you a troll.

Point out how popular it's been for so long and that must be because there are people who like it and they'll give you conspiracy theories about how it's forced on a public that wouldn't pretend to like it if not for social pressure.

>>4031159
I think he's talking about how you know there's a destination at the ending and you're only platforming to get there. The open world design is nice and all, but there isn't much intuitive design in the platforming .

>>4032974
also the happy medium ranges between pokemon (mild salsa) and rom-hacks (flat-liners)

>>4032815
>Believe it or not, none of that was baiting.
The fact you remain unwilling to concede anything I said as anything but crazy betrays you. If you really aren't, though, then you're just dumb, or butthurt about being wrong to point of denial.

>>4033125
>still be too spicy for some and bland for others.
Not all art needs to be accessible to everyone. If all paintings were easily interpretable, there would be not enough variation in style or depth to distinguish great works from all others. They would all become equally devoid of true meaningfulness. Variety is the spice of life; there should be a variety of games accessible to a variety of people. Therefore the fact that a game can or cannot be enjoyed by certain categories of people has absolutely zero bearing on its overall worth - except positively, insofar as such a game rightfully discriminates categorically - and hence it is not a valid argument for or against either fixed or variable difficulty.

I'm not saying variable difficulty should be abolished, I'm saying fixed difficulty is theoretically more sophisticated.

>>4033206
Once I realized who I was talking to I dropped it. I'm sorry but saying it's the responsibility of the developer to only have one difficulty is batshit crazy and I have better things to do than write paragraphs for you about why. Enjoy the rest of your continued riveting proper discourse.

>>4033264
Someone more intelligent than you? Thank you for sparing us any further autistic rants. Goodbye.

>>4033206
You know the guy is saying that there is/should be variety right?

also saying that paintings should be interpreted with difficulty to be a great painting is the same as saying that food should be spicy as all hell to be considered great food

>>4033325
Reread my post and try again.

>>4032718
>I wish more games got rid of saving anytime.
>I hate to have to find approriate save-restrictions for every game.

wait do you want saving anytime or don't want it?

>>4033330
You typed about fixed and variable difficulty which had nothing to do with the post you were responding to so I'm like "he doesn't bother reading other people's posts so why should I?"

>>4033338
>which had nothing to do with the post you were responding to
Apparently you had already rationalized not reading other people's posts by the time you read mine.

>>4033342
>Exactly. Everyone has different tastes, so even if there was an average 'happy medium" it would still be too spicy for some and bland for others. The problem comes when people can't understand that opinion and taste varies and different people like different things.

>If you go on /ck/ and tell them you like Tabasco sauce more than most other hot sauces they will flip their shit on you and basically say your taste sucks so your opinion is worthless. Tell them you're something of a connoisseur of hot sauces, make them yourself as well as usually have a dozen different bottles around at any time for different flavors and still hold Tabasco easy in your top 3 and they'll call you a troll.

>Point out how popular it's been for so long and that must be because there are people who like it and they'll give you conspiracy theories about how it's forced on a public that wouldn't pretend to like it if not for social pressure.

ok point out where he talks about variable or fixed difficulty

>>4033348
The first fucking paragraph you mongoloid.

Let me preempt your next response by telling you he did it metaphorically.

>>4033352
>Everyone has different taste
>WTF HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT VARIABLE DIFFICULTY IS BETTER THAN FIXED!

not everyone is out to get you.

>>4033354
>>WTF HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT VARIABLE DIFFICULTY IS BETTER THAN FIXED!
Not what I said.

>>4033361
but you said it metaphorically

>>4033362
Not even in metaphor, sorry retard.

>>4033367
>Exactly. Everyone has different tastes, so even if there was an average 'happy medium" it would still be too spicy for some and bland for others. The problem comes when people can't understand that opinion and taste varies and different people like different things.

and this is a metaphor

File: photo_2914_landscape_650x433.jpg (258KB, 650x433px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 650x433px

>>4033370

>>4029131
Battletoads

>>4033573
Games that are beaten through memorization are never truly difficult. It's just a process of practicing until the whole pattern is memorized. It's almost questionable if it's really even a game.

File: imgres-1.jpg (9KB, 290x174px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 290x174px

>>4035441
>every game is just a qte

>>4035447
Not every one by far, but a bunch pretty much are.

>>4035441
>It's just a process of practicing until the whole pattern is memorized
Yes, that's where the difficulty comes from. Just because it's unfun and shitty doesn't mean it's not difficult.

>>4035441
How are all games NOT beaten this way, to some degree?

More options are never a bad thing. No game would be ruined by an easier difficulty mode, and no game would be ruined by a harder difficulty mode. Most devs are too retarded to make actual heightened difficulty without just making enemies damage sponges though, which is a shame.

>>4035584
A game cannot reach the highest form as a work of art if it includes multiple difficulties, for its artistic vision being obfuscated then, and its creative integrity compromised for mainstream appeal and profitability.

>>4033337
He doesn't want it. What he's saying is when given the freedom to save any time, he doesn't like coming up with an arbitrary time when it's "okay" to save.

IMO I just save when I feel like saving or when I quit.

>>4033189
Yes! Very rarely in a 3D platformer collectathon like SM64 or the Banjo games do I feel like I have a clear idea about how to get from point A to point B, so the challenge becomes less about reflexes and rhythm and more about "how the fuck do I get over there, like the exact steps"

It doesn't help that rarely in these games is there an actual platforming challenge that doesn't rely on the game's iffy controls, bad camera or whatever. Like there is rarely an actual challenge in getting across a series of floating platforms in SM64 in most levels. I know it's the first level but like, the part in Bob-Omb Battlefield where you climb the mountain and avoid the bowling balls is just boring to me because it's not hard at all. Conversely the platforming in the Bowser levels and in most of the earlier 2D Mario games is very tight and relies on rhythm and reflexes.

File: bottom crop s1.jpg (1MB, 2835x1023px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2835x1023px

>>4035584
>Most devs are too retarded to make actual heightened difficulty without just making enemies damage sponges though, which is a shame.

This. There's obviously nothing wrong with difficulty options, but many times they weren't done well.

>>4035618
Please stop talking about art. It's almost physically painful.

>>4035894
I'm operating under assumption that games are art. I don't want to discuss that, and I don't care if anyone else agrees with me. Accord me the same courtesy if you disagree, please. It's beside the point of this thread, anyway, so who cares?

>>4035907
Well it's a faulty assumption so your conclusions from it are bad. I agree that it depends on the game but for most a choice of difficulties is good if it's well done.

>>4035618
But one difficulty can and will be the artist's intention while the others will just be there for accessibility's sake. A translation of a book or a movie with subtitles isn't the artist's vision but it doesn't make the unmodified version of the work any less artistically valid.

>>4036135
What principles are good in theory are under no obligation to be good for people. And whether or not they happen to be good or bad for people makes zero difference.

>>4036229
>But one difficulty can and will be the artist's intention while the others will just be there for accessibility's sake.
If a game includes multiple difficulties, then it has no true difficulty level. Instead it has a range of difficulty, formed of variably difficult, yet equally worthy parts.

It is completely arbitrary to designate any given difficulty level within the range as the definitive one, because there is no evidence that it is. The word assigned to describe it in the menu says nothing about its relative value in the range, its theoretical utility in the game. Meanwhile, the very fact of each level's inclusion as part of the range shows it is at least equally worthy as each other level.

The process of fragmenting difficulty changes its fundamental role, which is why all games must be either fixed or variable. And it erodes artistic vision and creative integrity intrinsically, especially if done increase accessibility, specifically. And that is because a vision of difficulty in which it is variable is a vision of multiple difficulties, so it is demonstrably less focused, less precise.

It is a less clear vision of the game as a work of art, and no matter to what extent a team of developers may or may not consider themselves artists or set out to create artwork, it's not possible to produce a representation of that which holds more artistic merit than an equally well-produced one based on a clearer picture.

>>4036318
No fragmentation, difficulty settings add to the game. Each setting stands on its own merit just as much as an individual game would, plus the difficulties can work together to improve the player's overall experience. Art or not, video games are made to provide the player an experience, and if someone enhances that experience then it's a good thing.

>>4036392
>No fragmentation,
There's no need to bicker about semantics. The point is one mode offers a single difficulty, the other mode offers multiple difficulties. Any implicit benefits of more difficulty settings come at the cost of potentially more sophisticated means of implementation that singular fixed difficulty affords; in theory, a game subject to the same financial, temporal, and talent-based resources can either do one thing well, or do several things mediocre. This is basic math.

You cannot argue a game whose difficulty is designed to accommodate multiple settings is implicitly more qualitative the ability of the game to do that hinges on rigidity: the means of the implementation of difficulty will be limited, and generic. Game design will be forced to become less creative as an additional.

An integrated difficulty can manifest on a case-by-case basis, and is therefore extremely versatile. The other has to manifest more generally, more vaguely.

>>4036392
>difficulty settings add to the game.
Not necessarily, no. I just showed how they detract artistry. You can't just ignore that and reaffirm they do nothing wrong in the same breath. Either explain how, or hold your breath.

>>4036392
>Each setting stands on its own merit just as much as an individual game would,
1. How, in the actual fuck?
2. No.

>>4036392
>plus the difficulties can work together to improve the player's overall experience.
How? And compared to what? I'm skeptical of this.

>>4036392
>and if someone enhances that experience then it's a good thing.
Yes, even if they accomplish that by depriving casuals of casual modes. The argument that multiple difficulties = more experiences = therefore better, presupposes quantity over quality of experience.

There is no evidence this is ideal. And as I explained above, it seems to be the case this is actually worse.

>>4036318
>What principles are good in theory are under no obligation to be good for people. And whether or not they happen to be good or bad for people makes zero difference.

Are you high on something? You talk about art and philosophy like you're five.

>>4036850
How so? It's just logical.

>>4036392
>Each setting stands on its own merit just as much as an individual game would, plus the difficulties can work together to improve the player's overall experience.

This guy gets it. There's no one true difficulty for Street Fighter 2 and if there was the game would be worse for it.

>>4037019
I think it depends on the game and not every one fits having different difficulties, but for most if it's done well it improves it. Fighters are a perfect example. You need low levels for beginners to learn on but also hard ones for experts to test their skills on. That's how it is with most games.

>>4036945
None of it is logical.

>>4037292
Nope

>>4037325
You're judging games as if they're works of art which is questionable from the get go, but then your understanding of art itself is almost non existent. There's no logic at all. You're just spewing word salad and don't even seem to realize how ridiculous you sound.

>>4037526
Baseless accusations, zero refutations. No one can defeat my point. All you have are insults.

File: DSCF4906.jpg (1MB, 2000x1534px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1534px

>>4037530
Your point is automatically defeated because it's all based on your assumption that games are art. And deep down you probably know it's all bullshit which is why you get so defensive about it. >>4035907

Because of course it isn't beside the point of this thread at all, it's the basis for it. And every time you try to talk about art you sound literally like a child just randomly throwing around words he heard somewhere and hoping it means something. You're embarrassing yourself.

>>4038647
You don't understand how conversations work do you? If you think my point is wrong by default because games are not art, you are wrong by default because for the purpose of this discussion the assumption is that games are. If you don't like that, get out. Make your own thread where that is up for debate. It is not up for debate in this one because that would derail it, genius. You aren't mentally equipped to have such a discussion anyway, I guess that's why it triggers you that other people do. My understanding is fine, and the way I talk about it is fine.

>>4039059
>My understanding is fine, and the way I talk about it is fine.

Seek help.

What's there to discuss ? Just make the game harder in accordance to its genre.

A danmaku just needs more projectiles to dodge, whereas a stealth game should improve the AI and add new behaviors etc.

>>4039831
Lol you have been intellectually crushed at every step of the way. Seek education first, if you wish to continue the discussion.

>>4024303
Bumping this thread so I can post in it tomorrow. I gotta think about this.

>>4040032
Pretty hard to crush anything when what you're saying is mostly based on a faulty premise. Really I just want you to stop talking about art, and not just in this thread. It really is almost painful to read some of the shit you spew.

Since I read the OP of this thread, I've been working on a huge essay about what difficulty really is and why it matters to games.

If anyone is interested in my take on difficulty (as an economics/mathematics nerd) I can post it.

>>4040624
Post it my man.

>>4040613
Only a retard would dispute there is artistry in vidya, at this point. If you wish to do that, take it elsewhere. This thread is inspiring real discourse:
>>4040624
Instead of flinging shit you pulled out of your ass, that no one cares about, why don't you endeavor to do something productive to the thread you're in? Instead of just smearing shit on the walls.

Your attempts to silence my comparatively intelligent views about it (what have you espoused about art in general? Nothing.) only compel me to discuss the subject further; specifically, the subject of difficulty, insofar as there is an art in exacting it in a game.

>>4040852
>Only a retard would dispute there is artistry in vidya

See, this is the thing. I didn't and wouldn't dispute that because of course there's artistry to them. There's artistry to throwing a basketball, but it doesn't make throwing a basketball a work of art. You only think you sound intellectual because you don't know enough of what you're saying to realize how idiotic it all sounds.

Besides, even pretending you had a real point you're still just wrong. Not all need them, but most games are better with a well implemented choice of difficulty. Even something like Metal Gear Solid which is closer to a trying to be art than most games is only made better by it.

Ohh and this >>4040624 obviously wasn't me, but it was funny to watch you lose your shit on him.

Seriously man, get some help. I don't know what's wrong with you but around here you sure come off like a mental case. And please stop thinking you understand art. It's kind of funny, but it's mostly just sad.

>>4042848
Not the guy you're replying to, but as someone who lurks photography forums, I read your whole autistic rage fuelled debate and I can confirm nothing said about art in this thread is even that bad. You really just seem like a childish faggot who can't handle being wrong on the internet. You belong on /v/.

>>4024319
Repeating levies you have already passed is not part of difficulty. It's just monotony.

>>4042895
Monotony is a form of difficulty. Perhaps not the most enjoyable form, but a form nonetheless.

>>4042891
Ohh wow a real life honest to god lurker on photography forums? I had no idea I was in such esteemed company! That sure showed me.

All ribbing aside, OP is a fucking moron.

>>4042848
>I didn't and wouldn't dispute that because of course there's artistry to them.
That's not what you said before, and your analogy is stupid.

It is like
>>4042891
said:
>>>/v/

The adults are talking.

>>4024303
>Word salad, the thread

>>4044242
Indeed. I agree, OP is a sesquipedalian faggot. Learn to casualise your language you uptight cunt. This isn't a fucking TED talk.

>>4040624
Post it, save the thread from the two shitflinging chimpanzees who refuse to let the other poster have the last word.

Let's see if we can get this thread back on track.

>>4044026
>That's not what you said before,

Go ahead and quote where you think I said that so I can laugh at your reading comprehension.

>>4045512
Seconding this. Would like to hear from someone else.

>>4046035
Just as soon as you respond to any of my various points which you have yet to address.

>>4046035
>Seconding this.
Says chimpanzee B as it continues flinging shit.

File: passage1.png (2KB, 615x345px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 615x345px

>>4046056
>nothing at all
What a surprise. Because you know I never claimed otherwise.

And I don't need to address your individual points, they're all made moot by your basic premise being flawed.

It's possible for games to be works of art, even very interesting ones where it being a game is intrinsic to it working. Pic related is an excellent example.

But it's rare, and most are not and are not trying to be. So judging games as a whole based on that leads you to all sorts of faulty conclusions like

>one difficulty can and will be the artist's intention while the others will just be there for accessibility's sake.

You are just plain flat wrong. Even in a game that is a work of art there is no reason why varying difficulties couldn't be used to add to it.

And yes, I would like the other guy to post his thoughts. I am as tired of this as anyone, so hopefully you finally understand and we can move on.

>>4047429
>refutes nothing
>continues turning topic into a question of art, not difficulty
>>4043785
>All ribbing aside,
>ribbing
Trolling isn't allowed outside of /b/, which is literally where you belong.
>>>/b/

>>4048017
>continues turning topic into a question of art
You're the one doing that. I want you to stop using art as your reason why variable difficulty is bad.

File: serveimage.gif (2MB, 450x259px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 450x259px

>>4047429
>It's possible for games to be works of art, even very interesting ones where it being a game is intrinsic to it working. Pic related is an excellent example.
>But it's rare, and most are not and are not trying to be. So judging games as a whole based on that leads you to all sorts of faulty conclusions like
>>one difficulty can and will be the artist's intention while the others will just be there for accessibility's sake.
>You are just plain flat wrong. Even in a game that is a work of art there is no reason why varying difficulties couldn't be used to add to it.
>And yes, I would like the other guy to post his thoughts. I am as tired of this as anyone, so hopefully you finally understand and we can move on.

>>4048186
>You're the one doing that.

>>4048193
Okay, so you concede and we can move on? Can you give an actual reason why with many types of games variable difficultly when done well isn't obviously and objectively better?

>>4048209
I already did autismo, many posts and several days ago. Explain to me again how you presume to laugh at my reading comprehension?

>>4048230
Everything you've said so far has been nonsensical garbage based on false presumtions so far. That's the whole problem. So if you've nothing else to say, we're done?

>>4048240
This is wrong, sorry. You don't get to retroactively win the debate by stubbornly refusing to acknowledge any flaws whatsoever in your deeply flawed line of reason, completely ignoring all logical evidence against them, you, and your position and then claiming it never happened.

>>4048245
That's how it is, you're just wrong.

>>4048256
Can you provide any evidence of that, by refuting my points? No, you can't and won't. GG.

>>4048264
>I'm operating under assumption that games are art.

Any claim made under a false assumption is worthless. So again, you have nothing of value to say?

>>4048282
The validity of the assumption doesn't matter and is beside the point. Just think, all of this could have been avoided if only you had the intellectual capacity to comprehend how assumptions work without me having to explain it to you like a down syndrome child.

You see, an assumption, true or false, is still an assumption; it is implicitly invalid as a meaningful metric of legitimacy. When someone says they are 'operating under the assumption,' it means they recognize that, to some extent, and wish to put that aside for the sake of argument or illustrating a hypothetical point.

It doesn't mean it can't be used for the sake of discussion in a thread, if I so choose. And if so, then to attack the validity of assertions based on that assumption is dumb to begin with, and to single out the assumption because you feel it is 'false,' especially when your best efforts to demonstrate that it is have only had the opposite effect for their futility, is flat out retarded.

>>4048310
Wrong on all counts but we're in circles. I'm open to other people to chime in but clearly we're done.

>>4048282
>>4048310
He's got you there.

>>4048336
>we're in circles.
When you're so wrong your head spins.

>>4048346
That's nice.

Anyways, hoping this guy wasn't permanently scared off by your tantrum. The thread could use some fresh air. >>4040624

>>4048369
Oh yes, nevermind your childish antics which amount, intentionally or otherwise, to troll tactics; clearly I, the OP of this thread you find so fascinating, am the problem.

>>4024303
Are you this guy? >>4045074

>>4036318
>What principles are good in theory are under no obligation to be good for people.

What did he mean by this?

>>4039059
Your understanding is fine - games can objectively be art. But the way you talk about it is not fine. You often state your opinions as if they were facts - and things like "No one can defeat my point." are absurdly antagonistic when there is no reason to be. If you had used "No one has yet to discredit my point, I have only received insults so far" would go a long way to establish credibility.

When someone is only using insults and not refuting an argument itself, that is a great indication that they are a troll or idiot and not worth paying attention to. By pointing out that that is what your detractors are doing I would have reason to take a 2nd look at their posts and see if this was the case, analyzing their arguments and seeing who has supported their claim better. But you claim that your point can never be defeated, past, present, and future tense it will be correct for all time. A complete unwillingness to admit the possibility that you are incorrect is also a great indicator that someone is not worth paying attention to. I don't know if there is autism or something but these are the social cues you may not have picked up on that have pushed people away.

>>4024485
Modern video games are easy.

Fighters have dailed down on a.i and shorten the command inputs.

Arcade games on high are the hardest things back then.

>>4052546
Only partially true. There are more games now that are designed to be easy, but there are also still games designed to be hard and some of those are very very challenging.

Some fighters have shorter inputs, but combo inputs tend to be longer. AI has gotten a little more refined so it doesn't cheat as glaringly but it's still pretty bad.

>>4052316
>Your understanding is fine - games can objectively be art

I was the one butting heads with him over this and if that's what he said I would agree. Games certainly can be works of art, and very interesting ones. It's judging them all as if they are and that's the problem. As well as his general attitude.

>>4051413
Thought I'd replied to this, guess not. It's hard to tell obviously. Given the context presumably something about how what people think is good about a game doesn't really matter. That's the trouble with this guy though, it's hard to even tell if he was being serious and even if he knows he's spewing bullshit or not. It's surreal.

>>4030978
Just ignore the trolls m8, the guy you replied to is clearly retarded.

>>4052546
The hardest arcade games are non-retro (at least by /vr/'s rules).

>>4054337
It was me he was replying to, but don't pay it much mind. He didn't understand at all. This
>Super Mario Bros would have been better if all hidden powerups were removed from the game and replaced with 'Easy, Normal, and Hard' modes which

Isn't at all what I was talking about. The mention of hidden items was from his suggestion of other ways to add variable difficulty to a game. That's what was being talked about, ways to add difficulty options. I was explaining why it wouldn't be good for that. Or at least worse than standard easy, medium, hard selection.

Mario is a game I agreed didn't need difficulty options. Not all games need them, but some are made far, far better than them. Though I will say this if there was a well done and interesting hard mode it would probably make me like the series more.

>>4054385
>He didn't understand at all.
This is wrong. You are the one who didn't understand what I was saying. You didn't even understand your own idiotic point. You didn't even understand how assumptions worked, until I explained it to you like a down syndrome baby.

You have yet to refute any of those 4 points I mentioned, by the way.

>>4054309
>It's surreal.
>it's surreal that somebody might have a different opinion than I do

>>4054390
>You have yet to refute any of those 4 points I mentioned, by the way.

No, I already did. You just didn't like my answers because I didn't always agree with you. >>4031006

Using lots of hidden items and power ups instead of difficulty options means people wanting a harder experience have to place those limits on themselves. To this you just replied

>Oh no!
>Oh no!

Incredibly childish and misses the point. It's objectively worse than having difficulty options. The whole point of difficulty options in a game is to give the player a choice of different experiences. Easier or harder depending on what they want at the time, their skill level, practice etc.

>all difficulty settings lower than the hardest one are guilty of the exact same consequences you profess shortcuts and hidden items come with

This barely makes sense. Are you really saying you don't see how to most people it's preferable to have a choice at the beginning to make a game hard or easy? Or why a dedicated hard mode is better than having to limit yourself?

>3. There is no possible way you know 'the type of person easy mode is designed for.'

This must be miscommunication somewhere. Of course you can know that, it's very simple to ask the game developer. Anyway it doesn't really matter. Easy is for people who want it easier for whatever reason.

>4. The presence of extra, hidden content is inherently fun for everyone

It's fun for most, yes but not necessarily everyone. It certainly doesn't mean there's no need for difficulty options.

>You are the one who didn't understand what I was saying.

At least admit the part quoted was you not understanding me. I was in no way saying "Super Mario Bros would have been better if all hidden powerups were removed from the game and replaced with 'Easy, Normal, and Hard' modes "

>>4054391
Okay. Care to clarify what you meant by this?
>What principles are good in theory are under no obligation to be good for people.

>>4054942
Just because you replied doesn't mean you refuted anything. Furthermore, your failed attempt to do so resulted in my pointing out yet more flaws in your line of thinking, which you also have yet to refute. You may have replied to those, but you obviously failed to counter any of my arguments:
>>4031034
>>4031050

>>4054942
>Using lots of hidden items and power ups instead of difficulty options means people wanting a harder experience have to place those limits on themselves
How is this any different than is the case when there are variable difficulty settings? In principle people wanting harder experiences have to 'place limits on themselves' in terms of not choosing one of the easier difficulties. This argument is completely retarded. And, on top of that, so what if they do have to place limits on themselves? As I already explained in an earlier post, which you would have realized if you weren't almost completely illiterate, this is design depth and it is a good thing. And you seriously wonder why I didn't offer a more serious response? Do you have any common sense?

>>4054942
>The whole point of difficulty options in a game is to give the player a choice of different experiences.
Can you explain why it is impossible to still have that in fixed difficulty via better, more thoughtful, richer level design? Can you then explain how that method of achieving the same result is 'objectively worse'? No, you cannot; yet I have already argued a strong case that your favored method is in fact objectively worse, at least in theory:
>>4036427

>>4054942
>This barely makes sense
It makes perfect sense. Can you explain how it does not? Are you sure you don't have down syndrome?

That is, according to you, they detrimentally force experienced players to place limits on themselves not to use them; not to select lower difficulty options in the menu. Do you understand? I'm not sure how much simpler I can express this.

>>4055165
>How is this any different than is the case when there are variable difficulty settings?

Are you seriously asking that? You don't see the difference between picking hard at the beginning and having the game be set up for that and going through and easy game but making it hard for yourself by never using healing and power ups?

>Can you explain why it is impossible to still have that in fixed difficulty via better, more thoughtful, richer level design?

In a game with no difficulty options, making it more challenging is left to the player to set his own limits. I consider that poor game design.

Also there are many ways to make something more difficult that the player doesn't always have control over. Sure you can choose to ignore health upgrades and power ups, but that's only one thing.

A hard mode optimally makes the game more difficult in various ways. More enemies to fight at the same time, more challenging attack patterns to deal with, faster speed, etc etc. You can't do that in a game with no difficulty options.

>Can you explain how it does not?
Read the first paragraph of this post again that explains it.

Still waiting on this
>What principles are good in theory are under no obligation to be good for people.

>>4054942
>Are you really saying you don't see how to most people it's preferable to have a choice at the beginning to make a game hard or easy?
No, that is obviously not what I'm saying and it baffles me how anyone capable of operating a computer could misinterpret my remarks so badly. I'm sure I expressed this more clearly elsewhere than in the example I'm about to give, but that's actually what I was getting at with:
>>4036318
>What principles are good in theory are under no obligation to be good for people.

What you're really saying is you don't understand what the point of this thread has become. That is, not that most people wouldn't prefer to have difficulty select, but rather that such implementation of difficulty is, in theory, inferior to the alternative. That's my fundamental argument, you retard.

>>4054942
>Of course you can know that,
No. Of course you cannot. You made a sweeping generalization based on absolutely nothing but your own imagination. Case closed.

Unless you conducted a very broad, in-depth survey of all different types of games players and the reasons why they choose to play on Easy, what you are suggesting - that you know 'the type of person' 'easy mode was designed for' - is self-evidently false.

>>4054942
>It's fun for most, yes but not necessarily everyone.
>#NotAll
This is a shitty argument. Try again. And try reading again, as I already countered this point days ago:
>>4031034

>>4054942
>At least admit the part quoted was you not understanding me.
Remind me again what, if any, parts of my argument you have conceded on? And I'm sorry but yes, that is what you were saying. Why don't you try re-reading your post a few dozen times until you figure that out?

>>4054942
>Care to clarify what you meant by this?
See above.

>>4036318
>If a game includes multiple difficulties, then it has no true difficulty level

I don't see this as a problem in any way. Does Street Fighter 2 or Doom have no true difficulty level? Perhaps, but they're better games for having different difficulty settings.

>>4055185
>but rather that such implementation of difficulty is, in theory, inferior to the alternative.

Okay then we completely and fundamentally disagree. Other than you saying you don't like it I don't think you've said anything that really supports variable difficulty being bad.

>>4055179
>Are you seriously asking that? You don't see the difference between picking hard at the beginning and having the game be set up for that and going through and easy game but making it hard for yourself by never using healing and power ups?
1. You didn't answer my question.
2. Are you seriously asking that? You don't see how quantity and placement of healing and powerups directly correlates with difficulty, and the lack or excess thereof constitutes, effectively, Easy or Hard modes?

>>4055179
>In a game with no difficulty options, making it more challenging is left to the player to set his own limits.
That happens either way, you fucking retard. >>4055179
>I consider that poor game design.
Also, this shows you believe in the presupposition that challenge correlates favorably with game design quality. This is retarded, and juvenile, and a decidedly unsophisticated view of difficulty and games evaluation in general and I could write paragraphs about why that is.

>>4055179
>Also there are many ways to make something more difficult that the player doesn't always have control over. Sure you can choose to ignore health upgrades and power ups, but that's only one thing.
O rly?

>>4055179
>You can't do that in a game with no difficulty options.
Why on Earth not? You can, you just can't let the player control when and how many and how complicated the enemies are. This is not inherently bad, in my opinion.

You may disagree with that, but you are simply wrong if you think that's not possible to do in fixed difficulty.

>>4055179
>Read the first paragraph of this post again that explains it.
Once again, you did not explain anything, you did not answer my first, and now last, questions; all you did was ask more of your own dumb questions.

>>4055190
>Perhaps, but they're better games for having different difficulty settings.
More accessible, perhaps, but that does not necessarily make them better in principle.

>>4055194
>Other than you saying you don't like it I don't think you've said anything that really supports variable difficulty being bad.
That's because you don't know how to read beyond a fourth grade level. Or more likely, you're just being disingenuous because you are petty and childish.

>>4055202
>You don't see how quantity and placement of healing and powerups directly correlates with difficulty,

I agree with that.

and the lack or excess thereof constitutes, effectively, Easy or Hard modes?

It's a good start, but not the only thing that should be different in easy vs hard. What I am saying is that it's better to be able to choose easy or hard and have the game be balanced for that, than only having it be easy and "hard mode" being ignoring those items.

>Also, this shows you believe in the presupposition that challenge correlates favorably with game design quality.

Not at all. But I think Street Fighter is a much better game having the choice for how hard the enemies will fight you. And that applies to most games.

>Why on Earth not?
You just explained it yourself
> You can, you just can't let the player control when and how many and how complicated the enemies are.

There are many ways to make a game harder or easier that the player could not have control over.

>You may disagree with that, but you are simply wrong if you think that's not possible to do in fixed difficulty.

So how would you make Street Fighter or Doom work with fixed difficulty? Given how different it is to play Doom on "I'm Too Young To Die" vs "Ultra Nightmare" \

If you removed difficulty options how would you make the game cater to both the players of the easy and hard modes?

>>4042895
Just because you pass something with a D, doesn't mean you did good. I think you'll understand what I'm getting at.

>>4055204
>More accessible, perhaps,

Not just more accessible. It offers more of a learning experience and more of a game. Most people who had never played Street Fighter or Doom before would find the hard modes impenetrable to the point of the game being unplayable.

By the same token, anyone who has been playing either of those games for years would find the easy mode far too easy to be interesting even if they did avoid ever picking up health. In a game like Street Fighter it's even more glaring.

Most importantly, a player can get the game never having played it. On day 1 they can play on easy as they are learning and the game will be fairly challenging since they don't know what they're doing.

As they keep playing and learn they get better and if they want, they can up the difficulty and retain having an interesting challenge while still playing the game.

Again, as I've said not every game needs variable difficulty. But in many it's almost necessary.

If you can explain a way you'd make Doom interesting and challenging for both a new player and a very experienced one without difficulty options I'd love to hear it. (just ignoring health packs and power ups isn't nearly enough)

File: etrian_odyssey_iii_3_the_drowned_city_box.jpg (53KB, 300x268px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 300x268px

Not retro, but Etrian Odyssey is a perfect example of variable difficulty being good for a game.

Etrian Odyssey is a wonderful series of games. They're dungeon crawling RPGs that are very challenging and require a lot of strategy and careful party building to deal with what gets thrown at you.

They are very popular with fans of old school dungeon crawlers and RPGs because they offer a level of challenge few games of this type go for these days.

However, that also meant that the games were too hard for many people to enjoy and it's one of the reasons the first three games in the series were very niche. I didn't mind because I love the games as they were, but many people wanted to like them but found they just didn't.

So with the 4th game they did something wonderful. At the start they give you a choice whether you want to play a traditional EO game or if you would like it made a little easier. The result is that that game was able to be enjoyed by far more people.

The "easy" mode is still quite challenging for normal RPG players, but at the same time it let them make the "hard" mode even harder for the players who are into that. The result is that more people got to play and enjoy the game, and the people who did got to play it in a way that suited them better.

It was a great series in it's original form, but adding that only made it better.

>>4055219
>It's a good start, but not the only thing that should be different in easy vs hard.
Obviously. These are merely a couple of examples, for simplicity.

>>4055219
>What I am saying is that it's better to be able to choose easy or hard and have the game be balanced for that
Yeah, I know that's what you're saying. What I don't know is how that is better in theory than the alternative, because you have failed to explain that, while being utterly annihilated by me and my arguments at every turn.

>>4055219
>than only having it be easy and "hard mode" being ignoring those items.
Why do you assume the game is not hard, and Easy is ignoring those items? And how is it possible, except for mental retardation, that in the same post you profess to understand how fixed difficulty, in theory, can be implemented in such a way as to constitute variable difficulty, in effect, and then demonstrate, as you just did, that you clearly do not yet understand this?

For variable difficulty does the same thing as fixed difficulty. It just does it in an inferior way theoretically, artistically, and principally.

>>4055219
>Not at all.
See, this is what I meant about replying without actually refuting. What you just said amounts to 'Nope.' That is not an argument. You then proceed to change the subject. Incidentally, have you considered the reason you do not see how Street Fighter could be equally if not more enjoyable with fixed difficulty is because you lack imagination for ways it could be implemented?

For example, what if the game kept track of how well you performed, and automatically upped the difficulty based on that? What if enemies responded, in terms of difficulty, in real time, during battle, at key moments?

Even with this hint, I doubt you will be able to imagine or understand any way whatsoever in which this might be favorable.

File: puyo-puyo-2-05.png (93KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 640x480px

For another take, think of Tetris or Puyo Puyo. When you're new to Puyo Puyo you don't know how to put chains together very well or deal with garbage blocks coming down.

For most people just starting out, even easy can be quite challenging. But as you keep playing and get better and better, it would suck to have the game be stuck on easy mode forever.

It's great to be able to change it to give yourself more of a challenge and keep the game interesting.

>>4055264
>but many people wanted to like them but found they just didn't.
Too fucking bad. Git gud or git out.

>>4055264
>The result is that that game was able to be enjoyed by far more people.
>>4055264
>The result is that more people got to play and enjoy the game, and the people who did got to play it in a way that suited them better.
That's all well and good, but I'm still waiting for anyone to explain why this makes the game better in principle, especially artistically but also in theory.

>>4055264
>The "easy" mode is still quite challenging for normal RPG players, but at the same time it let them make the "hard" mode even harder for the players who are into that.
The presence of an overarching difficulty modification system inherently limits the flexibility of difficulty as a system (fixed vs variable) and its ability to manifest in-game in creative, situational ways. It also deprives it of its artistic vision:
>>4036318
>It is a less clear vision of the game as a work of art, and no matter to what extent a team of developers may or may not consider themselves artists or set out to create artwork, it's not possible to produce a representation of that which holds more artistic merit than an equally well-produced one based on a clearer picture.

>>4055271
>For example, what if the game kept track of how well you performed, and automatically upped the difficulty based on that?

I don't see that as being better in any way.

>>4055297
Why not?

>>4055291
>Too fucking bad. Git gud or git out.
That's your opinion. But I like the game to be enjoyed by as many people as possible.

>I'm still waiting for anyone to explain why this makes the game better in principle

You're waiting for it to be explained why being able to play a game at the challenge level you prefer is good? And my example of a game that many people found impenetrably hard vs one that they can enjoy wasn't sufficient?

>The presence of an overarching difficulty modification system inherently limits the flexibility of difficulty as a system (fixed vs variable) and its ability to manifest in-game in creative, situational ways.

No it doesn't. It's two modes. Both fully realized and carefully balanced.

It doesn't hurt it's artistic vision in any way whatsoever.

You should not be talking about games as if they're works of art. You misunderstand both art and gaming. This is non-negotiable.

>>4055301
Because there's no clear benefit to it. I as the player know how hard I want the game to be. I know if I want to push myself for the challenge of playing on hard or if I want to play on easy and practice my skills in a more forgiving environment.

To me as the player it's a benefit to be able to tell the game how hard to fight back given what I want out of it at that time. If I want to practice some combos and inputs, easy mode would be good because I can put all my focus on that. If I want to practice defensive play or how to deal with a certain character then hard mode would be good where I can have them go all out on me and see how well I fare.

Keep in mind that single player in fighting games is mostly a learning tool. Being able to select the difficulty depending on the situation make it a much better learning tool.

>>4055306
>But I like the game to be enjoyed by as many people as possible.
Why? Casualization/normalization has been the cancer that's killing the industry.

>>4055306
>You're waiting for it to be explained why being able to play a game at the challenge level you prefer is good?
Yes. That's exactly right.

>>4055306
>And my example of a game that many people found impenetrably hard vs one that they can enjoy wasn't sufficient?
No. Again:
>>4036318
>What principles are good in theory are under no obligation to be good for people. And whether or not they happen to be good or bad for people makes zero difference.

>>4055306
>Both fully realized and carefully balanced.
Carefully balanced, perhaps, but the fact that there are two modes implicitly prevents either one of them from being fully realized precisely because they are each balanced by a system which is limited by the constraint of applying balancing equally across two different modes of play.

>>4055306
>It doesn't hurt it's artistic vision in any way whatsoever.
You can say that if you want, but it is meaningless and I will continue to assume untrue until you refute:
>>4036318
That means you have to carefully and convincingly explain the flaws in the ideas expressed. You can't just nope your way the fuck out of it.

>>4055306
>You should not be talking about games as if they're works of art. You misunderstand both art and gaming. This is non-negotiable.
Quit language policing me, SJW.

>>4055313
>Because there's no clear benefit to it.
It makes the game unpredictable, more dynamic, more exciting.

Your first sentence is utterly wrong and stupid. Therefore the rest of your post, and any opinions expressed therein, are all discarded until you refute my above assertion; until then, I stopped reading there.

>>4055318
>Why?
I explained why. And that this was at no cost to the game being made worse for hardcore players. If anything they made the "hard" mode even harder. So it's better for both of us.

>Casualization/normalization has been the cancer that's killing the industry.

I disagree with this. I think the industry is doing very well. I love many retro games, but I think gaming in general has just been getting better and better.

>Yes. That's exactly right.
I think being able to pick how hard the game is going to be gives the player more choice in what kind of experience they want which is inherently good.

>but the fact that there are two modes implicitly prevents either one of them from being fully realized

It doesn't do that in any way.

>Quit language policing me, SJW.
>SJW

lol this has come down to that has it? It's possible for games to be art, but most are not. Judging them all on that basis is very foolish.

>It makes the game unpredictable
That's not necessarily good or what's wanted in every situation.

Alright fuckstains, let's sort this out.

What is this alleged "casualization"? Examples please, actual measurable ones where a specific game is named.

>>4055330
Why do you defend casualization? The people that depend on it, because they couldn't be bothered to enjoy the game properly, don't even deserve the casualized version, let alone the original; yet casualization gives them the former and the illusion of knowing the latter. How is it right that poser hipster non-gamers get to masquerade, thusly, as real gamers? They delude themselves, annoy true fans, and ruin the hobby and the industry all at once.

>>4055330
>And that this was at no cost to the game being made worse for hardcore players. If anything they made the "hard" mode even harder. So it's better for both of us.
Also, you're wrong. Casualization does make games worse for hardcore players, in general and overall.

Also, this view contradicts your reasoning for disliking fixed difficulty's de facto variability via hidden item placements, a fact which I've already explained multiple times now. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

>>4055330
>I think being able to pick how hard the game is going to be gives the player more choice in what kind of experience they want which is inherently good.
How is having that choice inherently good when it inherently deprives them of having a more guided, well-defined experience that fixed difficulty provides? You can personally feel more options trump more defined experiences, but you have yet to demonstrate that this is true in theory. No one cares what your personal opinion is, dumbass, this thread is expressly stated in the OP as being a serious discussion about the concept of difficulty. If you don't want to participate in that discussion, you shouldn't be participating in this thread. It's not a survey.

>>4055334
In the old days games mostly catered to "the hardcore" as they're known, and high difficulty was a key focus. As time went on companies realized that there was a large market for people wanting something more forgiving.

Now there's a mix where some games are hard and others are easy. So if you took some sort of average of the difficulties it would look like games now are easier. But it's really just because there's more variety.

>>4055330

>>4055330
>It doesn't do that in any way.
How does it not? While you explain this, be sure to refute:
>>4036427
>You cannot argue a game whose difficulty is designed to accommodate multiple settings is implicitly more qualitative the ability of the game to do that hinges on rigidity: the means of the implementation of difficulty will be limited, and generic. Game design will be forced to become less creative as an additional.
>An integrated difficulty can manifest on a case-by-case basis, and is therefore extremely versatile. The other has to manifest more generally, more vaguely.
As well as:
>>4055318
>the fact that there are two modes implicitly prevents either one of them from being fully realized precisely because they are each balanced by a system which is limited by the constraint of applying balancing equally across two different modes of play.
Hard mode: no noping.

>>4055330
>It's possible for games to be art, but most are not.
By your logic, it's possible for pictures to be art, but most aren't. This is technically false. Even the crappiest kid's drawing is technically art; it just happens to be very poor art work.

And again:
>>4055185
>>#NotAll
>This is a shitty argument. Try again.

>>4055330
>That's not necessarily good or what's wanted in every situation.
Nor is variably difficulty, fuckwit.

>>4055356
>Why do you defend casualization?
Because I really don't think that's what's happening. I tend to like quite hard games and am always swamped with more I want to play than I have time for.

I game one great example of a series that was probably saved and invigorated by it being able to appeal to a wider audience meanwhile keeping it very challenging for it's core players.

Monster Hunter is another series that not only continues to get better and better, it also gets harder and harder.

>Casualization does make games worse for hardcore players, in general and overall.

Can you explain how it made Etrian Odyssey IV worse?

>How is having that choice inherently good when it inherently deprives them of having a more guided, well-defined experience that fixed difficulty provides?

Because I as the player know more about what I want out of game at any given time than the game does.

>>4055361
>How does it not?
It simply doesn't. The same way you can balance a game for one difficulty, you can balance it for two.

>they are each balanced by a system which is limited by the constraint of applying balancing equally across two different modes of play.

>By your logic, it's possible for pictures to be art, but most aren't.

It's plenty possible for a drawing not to be a work of art.

They aren't limited by that.

>Nor is variably difficulty, fuckwit.
Like I said, it's not all games need it. But those that do are made better for it.

>>4055362
>Because I really don't think that's what's happening.
>Easy modes aren't a form of casualization.

>>4055362
>Can you explain how it made Etrian Odyssey IV worse?
>>4055362
>in general and overall.

>>4055362
>Because I as the player know more about what I want out of game at any given time than the game does.
That's what you think, casualization-apologist casual. You must have no appreciation for the appeal of challenging gameplay, and gameplay the difficulty of which you aren't in direct control. Seriously, you are biased by your own personal opinion. Try to think about this objectively. Forget about players entirely: how does a game, in theory, benefit more from variable difficulty than fixed?

>>4055334
How about FF7 and FF9 on Steam? They include literal casual modes, "press A to win" 'features.' The kind of person who would use that is playing the game for the wrong reasons, for these 'features' totally trivialize difficulty, they trivialize battles, which are fundamentally the most interactive part about those games. They literally are 'the game.' Think about what happens to the player psychologically and interactively in battle versus not-in battle, wandering around towns and shit. It's literally an interactive story.

They're the wrong people playing for the wrong reasons, and the game is definitely not better for it allowing them to get away with that.

>>4055370
>The same way you can balance a game for one difficulty, you can balance it for two.
But not for both at the same time, without a cost. Dumbass. I already explained this. Can't you read?

>>4055370
>It's plenty possible for a drawing not to be a work of art.
Fuck you. You're continually wrong, you continually refute nothing and act like you have. Stop derailing this thread into a retarded discussion about art. This thread is about difficulty.

>>4055370
>But those that do are made better for it.
Like I've shown repeatedly, you are incapable of backing up this claim.

>>4055375
Games have had easy modes for fucking eons. Don't pretend they haven't.

>>4055383
Yeah, and?

>>4055375
Show us your Playstation trophies or steam achievements. Prove to us you're a balls-of-iron hardcore AAA gamer.

You wont, you will make an excuse and puss out because you know we'll laugh at you.

>>4055375
>Easy modes aren't a form of casualization.
You can call it that if you want. I think it's a good thing though.

>That's what you think, casualization-apologist casual.

Insults and ignoring that most of the games I like skew towards being very hard. I wasn't happy about Etrian Odyssey IV having an easy mode for my benefit. I was happy because it made the game enjoyable for others.

To me that's a way it objectively benefits from it. I know people personally who tired earlier EO games and didn't like them because of the high difficulty.

However they loved EO IV on easy mode. Where as I loved EO IV on hard mode and thought it was the best and one of the most challenging games in the series. Broader appeal plus a more interesting game is a win-win to me.

>How about FF7 and FF9 on Steam? They include literal casual modes, "press A to win" 'features.' The kind of person who would use that is playing the game for the wrong reasons

I don't think you or I are the ones to judge what reasons someone may have for playing FFVII or IX in a casual mode. I don't have any interest in that, but if someone else does and they enjoy the game that's fine.

> It's literally an interactive story.
Maybe that's what they want, and if so I see nothing at all wrong with that. In my mind it's only for the better if the game is able to cater to them without impacting the way my game plays.

>>4055375
Your only examples are a pair of PC ports which have that modded onto games old enough to post on 4chan. What was your go-to before those came out?

>>4055382
>But not for both at the same time
It doesn't need to do them at the same time, they're different modes.

> Stop derailing this thread into a retarded discussion about art.

If you didn't bring it up, I never would. Leave artistic vision out of it and it never has to come up again.Agreed, let's talk about difficulty.

>you are incapable of backing up this claim.
I think I've backed it up many times, you just never agree.

>>4055390
I don't have to be one, to be an advocate for them.

>>4055391
>I think it's a good thing though.
Right. You approve of casualization.

>>4055391
>I was happy because it made the game enjoyable for others.
You realize you can feel that way about a specific game, yet hold another view of the practice in gaming in general?

>>4055391
>To me that's a way it objectively benefits from it.
>>4055291
>I'm still waiting for anyone to explain why this makes the game better in principle, especially artistically but also in theory.

That's fine if you feel that way - if it's a win-win to you - but remember, we're discussing the principle of the matter as objectively as possible.

>>4055391
>but if someone else does and they enjoy the game that's fine.
>>4055391
>and if so I see nothing at all wrong with that. In my mind it's only for the better if the game is able to cater to them without impacting the way my game plays.
I agree to disagree.

File: angry_sjw-600x353.jpg (43KB, 600x353px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 600x353px

>>4055395
Show us your achievements, boy. We're calling your bullshit.

>>4055394
>It doesn't need to do them at the same time, they're different modes.
Dumbass, difficulty as a system doesn't simply consist of what you experience on a given mode while you're playing it. It is designed, fundamentally, to accommodate all modes at all times regardless of which one is being played.

>>4055394
>If you didn't bring it up, I never would. Leave artistic vision out of it and it never has to come up again.
Bullshit. There is no question of the artistry of games and of the ways in which difficulty relates to it - at least, as I've stated, that is the assumption I'm operating under which makes your questioning of it retarded in the first place - so it's reasonable to discuss that aspect, but it is not reasonable to turn the whole thread into a debate about the question of art in games and difficulty, which is what you seem to wish to do.

>>4055394
>I think I've backed it up many times, you just never agree.
Bullshit again. Show one example that I didn't raise counter arguments to that you also refuted.

>>4055395
>I don't have to be one, to be an advocate for them.
The modern gen-x or whatever, everyone. "I can advocate for people even if I'm not one of them"

>>4055404
>>4055398
>ur not a pro gamer so everything you said is wrong

File: eccoH.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>4055395
>You realize you can feel that way about a specific game, yet hold another view of the practice in gaming in general?

Sure. But I feel that way both in general and about this game in particular.

Similarly, I will reiterate that although Ecco the Dolphin is one of my favorite games of all time, in large part because of how challenging it is, I think it could have benefited from an easy mode that made it more accessible to a wider audience.

>we're discussing the principle of the matter as objectively as possible.

\I think it's objectively a win-win. If that's supporting casualization, then sure I support that. I support anything I think leads to better games.

>I agree to disagree.

I think this is the most sensible thing you've said.

File: tumblr_n1ntkzmEPL1sq0xmpo1_500.gif (357KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 500x281px

Y'all niggaz posting in a troll thread. The guy outright admitted that he isn't a "hardcore" gamer according to his own definition of the word yet keeps screaming about "casualization". He literally does not know what he is talking about, this is like a deaf man complaining about music.

File: 1414647397566.png (31KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x500px

>>4055408
>Ecco the Dolphin is one of my favorite games of all time, in large part because of how challenging it is, I think it could have benefited from an easy mode that made it more accessible to a wider audience.
I think it's better that it didn't and in hindsight I respect it more for not doing so, and I say this as one of those people who hypothetically would have enjoyed it more if it had been easier, and I've at least presented a case for why Ecco is theoretically better as a result.

>>4055409
Pic related.

>>4055403
>difficulty as a system doesn't simply consist of what you experience on a given mode while you're playing it.

Yes it does.

>that is the assumption I'm operating under
You're operating under an assumption you refuse to have questioned. It makes all those arguments not hold water. Something having artistry and being a work of art are different.

>Show one example that I didn't raise counter arguments to that you also refuted.
You haven't made a single good refutation about Etrian Odyssey being made better by having a choice of difficulty.

>>4055410
Screenshot of your steam achievements, please. Darkest Dungeon preferred, Doom 4 also preferred, VVVVVV acceptable.

>>4055410
>I think it's better that it didn't
Then we have a fundamental disagreement.

>and I've at least presented a case for why Ecco is theoretically better as a result.
Where did you do this? Here? >>4032282 because I already refuted that. >>4032815

>>4055414
>Yes it does.
No it does not.

>>4055414
>You're operating under an assumption you refuse to have questioned.
That's the point of assumptions. We've been over this:
>>4048310

>>4055414
>Something having artistry and being a work of art are different.
Attempting to derail the discussion again.

>>4055414
>You haven't made a single good refutation about Etrian Odyssey being made better by having a choice of difficulty.
How can I refute what you have yet to argue?

>>4055415
>>4055407

>>4055415
Anon, anything after 1999 is casual shit. You can't have expected him to play that.

>>4055419
That wasn't me. I would advise you to actually read the thread.

>>4055420
Screenshot of your achievements, please. Prove to us you have at least completed a game in the past decade.

>>4055420
Post your trophies, you fucking pussy.

>>4055420
>Attempting to derail the discussion again.
I'm attempting to get you to stop using words that mean different things to mean the same thing. Also you can't have it both ways. Base all your arguments on artistic vision and then refuse to have that be brought into question.

>How can I refute what you have yet to argue?
I laid out well why the game is better for having two difficulty modes. You haven't been able to give a solid reason why it's bad.

>>4055429
>>4055407

>>4055427
Okay, then link where you did mean. I just scanned every mention of Ecco in the thread and didn't see anything worth noting.

>>4055432
>Also you can't have it both ways. Base all your arguments on artistic vision
Good thing that never happened.

Also: attempting to derail the discussion again.

>>4055403
>Show one example that I didn't raise counter arguments to that you also refuted.

>>4055437
Ecco is a game with fixed difficulty. Try scanning for that instead.

>>4055434
>>4055420
>>4055410
>>4055407
>>4055395
Enough excuses, let's just report this shitposter because he obviously has zero intention of proving his worth and only wants to start fights

>>4055446
You should be banned for trolling.

>>4055442
>Good thing that never happened.
It's happened every time. You are misusing words and when called out for it you have a fit that I'm changing the subject.

I'm not scanning the thread again, if you have a specific reason post it. If not, whatever.

>Show one example that I didn't raise counter arguments to that you also refuted.
>>4055391 You didn't really counter anything said here.

The closest you came is "but remember, we're discussing the principle of the matter as objectively as possible." which doesn't refute anything.

>>4055446
Bans don't work on 4chan. It's part of the reason we're stuck with him and probably a big part of the reason he comes here in the first place.

>>4055453
Protip: Ctrl+F

>>4055391
How does this post back up the claim that games that have variable difficulty are objectively better for having it?

Remember:
>>4055291
>I'm still waiting for anyone to explain why this makes the game better in principle, especially artistically but also in theory.
By 'this' I meant games being better for being easier and more accessible.

>>4055456
It's hilarious to me I'm now being falsely accused of trolling. I started this thread, clearly in good faith, and I've made dozens upon dozens of well thought out posts that hit the character limit. I'm still here over a week later trying to have an earnest discussion about the concept of difficulty, but because I've consistently BTFO'd my detractors, they claim I'm a troll and try to get me improperly banned. I just hope the mods have the good sense to see through your pathetic smoke screen, your death throes. Even if I am banned, I will be content with the knowledge of the strength of my position in regards to difficulty's implementation. And for all your guys' actual trolling, I've managed to better formulate my conception of difficulty, so you've only helped me in the long run.

>>4055462
You were asked to prove you at least play games and you made more excuses than a crack addict caught sucking off a tranny for spare change.

You don't play games, anon. You're probably posting from an LG Pop. Just admit that your entire thread came crashing down the instant your gaming ability was called into question.