No I mean that the easy mode in most games might as well be the casual one in others. There not much of a difference. Games in general are easy.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
ArsTechnica: Every game should copy Death Stranding’s “Very Easy Mode”
- Thread starter Fiery Phoenix
- Start date
when you consider the actual act of playing the game between the story chunks "downtime" i guess is where we differ hardly on our opinions
as i said i have nothing against assist modes that do not compromise the overall design of the game. having double/triple/infinite jump or invencibility as an option in Celeste doesn't ruin the puzzles and action for anyone else. designing the courses in celeste in a more simplified and direct manner so people can get to the next chunk of madeline's story quicker on the other hand would
The Future Is Now
S.N... err... nope, conditioned reflexes ;)
Thanks for the info, it s good to know in case I m asked.
In general, it's disappointing how most games have nothing in terms of assistance. Be that very easy modes, one button modes, alternative control methods, colourblind modes, and so on. Not everyone has the skill level, and these's also people with disabilities who would, however, like to play your game from time to time, except your game excludes them from the get go because it's either played as intended or it's not played at all. Gears 5 was pretty impressive in it offering all kinds of visual, hearing and control helpers, but games can and definitely should do even more.
very easy/safety mode has been in plenty of games. Not sure what ArsTechnica is getting at
I can keep listing games that have a very easy mode. This argument makes no sense.
I can keep listing games that have a very easy mode. This argument makes no sense.
Once again, what you consider easy can be really difficult to others. It feels like you're only looking at this based on your own perspective and experiences. Very basic example is moving in a 3D space, using dual sticks to use another for movement and another for aim or camera. Of course it's very natural and effortless to you so you don't even consider it to be part of challenge playing the game provides, yet some people struggle with even that. Like Kojima's intent here was to accomodate people who aren't experienced gamers. I've also watched someone who plays a ton of World of Warcraft and Heroes of Might and Magic, to really struggle with Witcher 3, to effortlessly position the camera, to quickly change signs etc.
While you might think that considering basic controls to be part of challenge is bit extreme, it's where it starts. Then you start adding requirements for reflexes to avoid attacks, dexterity for more complex and fast inputs etc.
If I pay $60, I want the option to finish the story. It's that simple. It's like people's prides and ego's get offended because they beat it on tough difficulty. That's super petty. Don't be the road block to other people's enjoyment.
I'm not talking faceroll easy but at least let them get to the last boss.
I'm surprised devs don't do it just for more sales.
I'm not talking faceroll easy but at least let them get to the last boss.
I'm surprised devs don't do it just for more sales.
I do not agree with this as a blanket prognosis.
I think every artistic medium has barriers to entry for the vast variety of genres and creators it contains - whether that be visual/subject matter complexity, language, etc. 40 minutes of noise rock or all the movements of Der Ring des Niebelungen are not super accessible - and that is fine.
Games distinguishes itself as a medium through the interactive moment, and literature of all types through the reading moment. I think it is perfectly fine for a developer or write to make that moment as challenging or as "easy" as they see fit. There are a wealth of games as much as there are a wealth of books.
Perhaps easymode can just be let's plays on the web for some games.
I think every artistic medium has barriers to entry for the vast variety of genres and creators it contains - whether that be visual/subject matter complexity, language, etc. 40 minutes of noise rock or all the movements of Der Ring des Niebelungen are not super accessible - and that is fine.
Games distinguishes itself as a medium through the interactive moment, and literature of all types through the reading moment. I think it is perfectly fine for a developer or write to make that moment as challenging or as "easy" as they see fit. There are a wealth of games as much as there are a wealth of books.
Perhaps easymode can just be let's plays on the web for some games.
Well yeah, the article has a paragraph for "brief history of easy modes" so the writer knows. They're just using a popular upcoming game as a spring board for discussion, especially as there's been some mild controversy about it existing.very easy/safety mode has been in plenty of games. Not sure what ArsTechnica is getting at
I can keep listing games that have a very easy mode. This argument makes no sense.
Well none of this cross media stuff compares all that well if you ask me. People are just trying to find a baseline experience for all of art in this weird consume vs comprehend type of thing, and it doesn't totally make sense.
I have always been for super duper easy mode in games so a grandma can have at it if she wants. Or maybe a girlfriend or boyfriend who doesn't game. But then again I think the very easy modes in a lot of games pretty much exist already. I mean Uncharted 4 is easy as all hell in the beginner mode. If you can't beat that then maybe shit with a controller is not your bag idk. What is it people in this thread want? A escalator type mechanism that just shows you the game? It's called youtube.
I got to agree with this, because this conversation went way off the track when we started doing this analogy type thing like just being there in the vicinity of art, hence CONSUMING lmao, is somehow this great thing that everyone should be able to do with games.
And they can. On youtube. Youtube is your easy mode at this point. Not even sure you can make games like Uncharted easier than its beginner mode unless you just do a flyby mode. And basically you don't even have a game at that point. Like what exactly do people want here? Is it Dark Souls? People need Dark Souls as a walkthrough game? Again, youtube.
It's like should we translate some Dickens for foreign children into a Dr. Seuss book so they can consume it easier? Music and books don't even have these comparable attributes for these analogies. I'm sorry but a child paging through a work of high-tier English literature is not consuming anything. They paging through a fucking book looking at pictures. You aren't experiencing anything but the motions of paging through a book and maybe identifying a few determiners and adjectives. Again, this bears no resemblance at all to playing a game in any form. Nah, this convo stopped making sense to me.
Just put in an easy mode for games that are more cinematic. Really, they already have that mode. For games like Dark Souls or Hollow Knight. At some point you got to meet the medium head on if you want to experience its deeper intricacies.
Last edited:
Some people in this thread and the article writer want more options for players, so the game could better accomodate their skill level and capabilities. So they could still play it themselves, instead than just watching it from Youtube. Games offer so much more to experience and enjoy than strictly the challenge of it. Even games without any fail states at all, are most often better played than just watched. I personally sure as hell enjoyed Firewatch much more by playing it than I would have by watching it. If it's all the same to you, then by all means just watch it.
I'm pretty sure Dickens has been translated for foreign audiences.
Last edited:
I was editing my post up there. My point was these analogies across art disciplines are not logical. Being able to page through a book as a child to identify 1 out of every 20 words is not consuming, experiencing, et cetera. It's nothing. Similar values can be heard in music, where a child really has no clue what is going on in the music. Music is obviously the most accessible artform there is pretty much. Music and games are seriously not compatible for these types of analogies anyway.
What we are talking about in games is a person actually comprehending and physically playing a game to completion. If you gonna get like that you might as well take music and say well you got to play that track yourself on guitar to fully comprehend it. I'm gonna need some easy mode to play that guitar cuz I ain't got a clue how to play a guitar. Now we gettin' closer to the analogies being thrown around here.
A child barely comprehends Miles Davis circa 1968, nor do they understand any significance about Jazz or how to play Jazz. They aren't consuming it in other words. They are just literally hearing something from it. They might even dance to it if Miles Davis is bumping On the Corner for them from a couple years later. Music is a multifaceted artform live, as a copy of recording sessions, and it also gives you the ability to copy it in real life if you can. Kids can hear a record. Big deal. Music has and always will be immediate, but it has deeper layers and more to offer for those that dig deeper to fully understand it. Rarely are children or adults going to take music to its apex and start actually playing those tunes. Similar to coding, similar to playing, similar to a lot of things. Art is not a product to consume. The only people that think that shit are capitalist weirdos probably from the states.
Art is a complex array of people's dreams and willpower. What you do with it is your own choice, but you, the consumer, do not dictate what art should or can be. Everybody here is treating games like they are just this product of consumption that must be experienced the same way by everyone, and frankly that's just gross. Games don't always need to resemble the playback of a copy portion of musical art. As I said Uncharted 4 beginner mode is basically your easy mode rollercoaster. Immediate access. If you need more then there is youtube.
What is it people actually want in this thread? I don't get it. No, we should not have super duper easy mode for Hollow Knight. It ruins the game in itself. Just like making Dickens sound more like Dr. Seuss so children could read it is not going to be acceptable for every novel. It's like changing the actual gameplay in a game that moves away from the intended artistic platform. That may be okay in some places. And it sure is being done in a lot of cinematic games already.
Are people trying to say beginner mode in a game like Uncharted 4 is not easy enough? Then I don't think this artform is for you if you are asking for easier modes. I don't think they really exist outside god mode for the many games that already have super easy mode. If it was 1990 again I would agree they need easier access for those games. We have that now for those games in fact. Hell, I need to use them. Save states and whatever are awesome for people that just want to experience a game. But they do lessen the impact of some games, and that overall can hurt the experience sometimes. But that was then, this is now. Games are a lot more fair than they used to be, and not every game needs to be easy.
Last edited:
I am not talking about my own play here. I am saying that the difference between casual and easy mode is minimal. So games that don't feature difficulty settings are already just as easy as games that do have one.
To be truly accessible a game must play itself like a movie, because any difficulty setting will exclude millions of people due to the interactive nature of games.
So it's really about how many people you are willing to exclude because you always will with games. Some developers want to include more than others and I don't think it's my place to decide that for them. It's kind of like a spectrum of accessiblity. Were "plays itself" is the most accessible option.
It's also hard to agree with the author saying "with very easy modes we both can have our cake and eat it" when games are not offering "tough as nails" challenges for quite a while. And no, using the same old soulsbourne games example to complain about games being hard is disingenuous and outdated - most games today are far on the easier side than the harder, yet the complaints about games being too hard are way more frequent. Adapting to control in games is another issue - DS very easy mode wont make the sticks move and the buttons press for yourself either. Nothing does. The inability/difficulty of entering the medium due to its control schemes is a far different issue that game balance design does NOT cover.
So its clickbait? I thought most here didn't like that, guess its okay when it uses a game we're waiting for.
So its clickbait? I thought most here didn't like that, guess its okay when it uses a game we're waiting for.
If a game has difficulty modes, or is not specifically built around one, it should have a very easy mode.
If it is built around a specific single difficulty, it should not be expected to cater to others.
Dark Souls' core design is "get good".
Many people who have done that wouldn't have even bothered to try if there were and easy mode.
If it is built around a specific single difficulty, it should not be expected to cater to others.
No it should not.
Dark Souls' core design is "get good".
Many people who have done that wouldn't have even bothered to try if there were and easy mode.
It's misguided to compare the physical challenge of games which is dependant on things like motor skills to understanding a book or a movie. As games also have stories and themes that may go over someone's head, this discussion isn't about that. And I already explained what people want I'll quote it here again. "Some people in this thread and the article writer want more options for players, so the game could accomodate their skill level and capabilities better." That's the gist of it.
No it's not a clickbait. It's participating on the on-going discussion around Death Stranding and accessibility in gaming overall. Quote from the article "Death Stranding's Super Easy mode is part of a trend toward extreme difficulty tuning that's slowly seeping into the industry at large." There were articles headlined with Apex Legend because of it's ping system too, it's not a clickbait. The headline is informative and the article discusses what's in the headline. Let's not call an article a clickbait just because you don't agree with what it's saying.
While very easy mode doesn't remove the barrier of adapting to controls, it often makes it much less punishing. So it still lowers the barrier. Though there are games like Bayonetta with "one button mode", many people have enjoyed that.
Of course it's impossible to accomodate every single invidual. But an effort to accomodate more is greatly appreciated. The differences between casual, easy, normal, hard, expert etc. modes, varies from game to game. The differences can of course be small, but still meaningful to the person. Personally I see the ability to fine tune certain things as the better option than just a difficulty preset. But the intent is the same with assist modes like in Celeste than it's with difficulty settings e.g. in Doom. For people to play in a way that suits them the best.
Last edited:
Has nothing to do with gatekeeping. Because you are literally changing the art for the consumer, when the art itself has nothing to do with the consumer. Art is to be experienced. Art should not be held down and shackled, not all of it anyway, so everybody can experience it the same way. THAT is not fucking art man. That is a product. Y'all are crazy. Hell no to this line of thinking. We already have easy mode in games. Games are not movies. If you want to experience a game like a movie then watch youtube. Nobody is gatekeeping anything but the core tenets of art itself. And they need a gatekeeper. Reducing gameplay to nothingness is basically destroying the video game. Why the hell do you want to do that to Dark Souls? Literally, just watch youtube. Or better yet get good at the things you are interested in. Practice. Just like people practice so they can play the bass lines on the new Tool record, or they study enough to understand the lyrics, people can practice until they can play a game like Dark Souls 3, which is literally not that hard if you put your mind to it and coop.
To the people saying that "there are movies/songs/books that are more complex and require more of their audience" and comparing those to difficult videogames: Are you aware of the complete lack of equivalency between the two?
No movie, book or song will stop at some random part because its audience is unable to beat a boss, solve a puzzle or complete a platforming challenge. No matter how complex the story, no matter how nuanced the language, no matter the techniques used, the whole thing will be there for anyone to experience. How they will experience it, however, will change completely depending on the intellectual background each person has. One might get to the very last word/scene/note without understanding what they just experienced, but they'll have experienced it nonetheless.
Games, on the other hand, are the only form of art that requires its audience to be skilled at it in order to experience its stories from start to finish. Stories that more often than not pale in comparison to movies and literature. A player may not be good at learning patterns, have shitty reflexes, suck at aiming/stealth/platforming, have a physical disability, and so on. Why should those hurdles keep them from enjoying an interactive story?
SOMA, a game with one of the best stories in any generation, has a "Safe Mode" in which monsters will not kill the player. That mode arguably improves the story since SOMA is not a game about avoiding monsters in cramped areas, but something deep and meaningful to literally everyone (and I will not spoil it because everyone should play SOMA).
Unless losing/dying has direct relevance to the story (say, Dark Souls), I don't see why most games couldn't have a mode in which the player can't fail (deeply sorry for the triple negative). Yet even in Dark Souls there could be workarounds to make the experience more manageable to people with less skill or mobility.
No movie, book or song will stop at some random part because its audience is unable to beat a boss, solve a puzzle or complete a platforming challenge. No matter how complex the story, no matter how nuanced the language, no matter the techniques used, the whole thing will be there for anyone to experience. How they will experience it, however, will change completely depending on the intellectual background each person has. One might get to the very last word/scene/note without understanding what they just experienced, but they'll have experienced it nonetheless.
Games, on the other hand, are the only form of art that requires its audience to be skilled at it in order to experience its stories from start to finish. Stories that more often than not pale in comparison to movies and literature. A player may not be good at learning patterns, have shitty reflexes, suck at aiming/stealth/platforming, have a physical disability, and so on. Why should those hurdles keep them from enjoying an interactive story?
SOMA, a game with one of the best stories in any generation, has a "Safe Mode" in which monsters will not kill the player. That mode arguably improves the story since SOMA is not a game about avoiding monsters in cramped areas, but something deep and meaningful to literally everyone (and I will not spoil it because everyone should play SOMA).
Unless losing/dying has direct relevance to the story (say, Dark Souls), I don't see why most games couldn't have a mode in which the player can't fail (deeply sorry for the triple negative). Yet even in Dark Souls there could be workarounds to make the experience more manageable to people with less skill or mobility.
The headline is informative? Are you fucking kidding me? No, not every game needs to learn - sorry, COPY, which is even worse - from Death Stranding's Easy Mode. Not only because it isnt a thing that needs to be standardized (not even if you believe every game needs easy mode - cause "easy mode" is vague enough on itself and some games need different forms of "easier" features) but because this is a thing in gaming way, way before this release.
It's clickbait and you're literally glossing over it because you either like the idea or the game.
It's clickbait and you're literally glossing over it because you either like the idea or the game.
Last edited:
It's informative since it tells what the article is about which is adjustable difficulty and it gives context to it with a game that's very recently been said to include such a mode. Shouting clickbait doesn't make it a clickbait, argue your points if you have them. It's bit silly that you even started a discussion about the headline rather than the article contents. Criticizing the headline doesn't invalidate the article.
And what I am saying is that people are using music in the wrong way with their analogies. Music as an artform is not just a song on itunes man. Musicians make albums. They play that shit. Just like people code games, musicians make music. But they also play it live, and they enable you to play it live as well if you want. That is not possible with games. People are taking all the good and complex things about the arts of music and literature and trying to handwave them away, preaching how they are just products for consumption and games should be to. Nah, fuck that. Can't beat Hollow Knight? Well, it's just like trying to find meaning in Eraserhead or struggling to read Middlemarch. It's just not for you. Art shouldn't be tailor made for just you. It's not art then. It's a fucking product waiting for your fat-ass dirty dollar.
And like I said that's fine for some games. It's not fine for all games.
You are right, games definitely do distinguish themselves through interaction, but that doesn't justify the notion that games have to arbitrarily restrict consumption based on those interactions. Similarly, there is no reason for why a book should arbitrarily restrict the ability for one to turn its pages based on how well they've read it up until that point. You can make a book as complicated or as simple as you want, but if you went to a publisher and said "OK, so in my novel the reader will not be able to progress past each chapter until they've completed a quiz based on the themes of the prior chapter," you'd be laughed out of the room.
I think you're intentionally overblowing what I was trying to say (perhaps because you keep thinking my usage of 'consumption' is some bad capitalist phrase despite that not actually being the case), which is that there is nothing that stops anyone who can read from consuming every book out there. The only barriers to entry are those set up by the literal accessibility of the work (price, availability, etc) and those that come from one's own decisions and not one's own skill. That is not the case with games, where getting to the next level is something that demands playing the previous level, and where there is very often no way to skip sections that you simply aren't able to finish for whatever reason. The developers place arbitrary restrictions on consumption that make it so that some people would literally not be able to finish it, and because I believe consumption and comprehension/understanding are mutually exclusive I can't see any reason for why games simply cannot allow as many people as possible to consume them.
no, not every game should have an very easy mode as some games live and die by a challenge aspect, if this is eliminated the experience isn´t true to the developers vision.
people should accept that not every game needs to be beaten/played by everyone. for me it is the same but in the other way around, i don´t play easy games as they give me nothing. otherwise, practice and you will succeed, even if it takes months.
people should accept that not every game needs to be beaten/played by everyone. for me it is the same but in the other way around, i don´t play easy games as they give me nothing. otherwise, practice and you will succeed, even if it takes months.
Jesus.
I've tried to explain many times that when I say "consumption," it literally just means "being able to experience the work at the most basic of levels." It has nothing to do with the value of the work, or capitalist ideals, or whether the work is a product or not, it's simply the word I've chosen because I wanted to make a clearer point than having to say "watch/read/listened" every single time. You're creating an argument in your head that simply doesn't exist. If you're not willing to listen then that's on you, not me or anyone else in this thread.
And I just explained why I don't stand for anything you said here in my last post. Can't get past it, deal with it. Same thing with a book. Can't read the paragraph? Yer fucked. Learn to read. Just because you can stare at words don't mean they should make the book more simple. Just because you can't press a joystick correctly don't mean they should make the game any easier if it doesn't suit the game and its artistic intent. It's really that simple. Art is not a product for you or your consumption. Art is a message that you can choose to or not to experience. If a game is not art then do whatever the fuck you want with it. And hey it looks to me like we got plenty of easy modes in tons of games. But you guys want all games to be this prepackaged product fit for the dumbest and the dullest. No. Youtube.
One button mode in bayonetta doesnt make handling the camera any better. Someone who cant hold a joystick properly might get some mileage doing combos by pressing one button but wont be any closer to 'properly' (and by properly i mean getting through the game start to end not doing it in an arbitrary way) playing it than in other difficulties. You know what does? Co-pilot mode. The Adaptive Controller. Not making enemies die easier or cutting entire sections of the map/game for streamlining purposes.
Guess that "Gears V have the best graphics ever" article had a good headline as well since it does indicate the article is about Gears V and it had great graphics. You glossed over my points as well and the fact that arguing the headline was but one part of my post so its pretty clear you have no good faith in arguing, lets save our times not doing it then.
I've explained many times why I firmly disagree with you. You aren't experiencing or consuming anything looking at a book you can't understand dude. Your turning pages thing is ridiculous. Think over your analogies at some point. Now you are equating playing a game with turning pages in a book. This is just off the wall. These two mediums are not comparable in this way. Turning random pages in a book is like watching youtube in a game. If you can't control the damn game then you can't play the game. If you can't read then you can't play the book. You can certainly teach yourself to play a game with a controller better.
I've listened and easily comprehended what you and a couple others are trying to say. I don't agree with it. The end.
Last edited:
Well of course you can't read a book if you can't read. That's simply the inherent restriction to the medium of literature, same way being able to interact with something is the inherent restriction to the medium of videogames. I never denied that yet you keep taking it to the very extreme as some kind of attempt at a 'gotcha' as if I did.
And you're still not getting it, so I'll put it in bold:
Consumption and comprehension/understanding are not the same thing. If you cannot comprehend a book you can still consume it, but if you cannot consume a book then there is literally no way for you to comprehend it as you would literally not be able to get to the end of the book.
As I said you're intentionally overblowing my argument to make it seem like I'm attacking the very nature of art, when all I'm actually saying is that games have arbitrary barriers to consumption that no other art form has. There is nothing stopping you from skipping to the end of a book, or fast-forwading through scenes in a film, or stepping outside to come back for the end of a theatre production, but there is something stopping you from getting through a game. If you're going to keep arguing against something I'm literally not saying then why should I even attempt to argue back?
I don't need or want you to bold that or type it again, dude. I don't give a shit what great thing you think you just typed out. It don't even make sense. As I have shown you multiple times your analogies for your barriers are precariously stupid and don't make a lick of logical sense.
All art has barriers. Music has tons of barriers. You just look at music from a packaged product sense, when in reality music is meant to be enjoyed live straight from the musicians. It can be played by you too. But if you are disabled you might not be able to see that music live. If you can't hear you might not be able to hear that music. If you are blind you might not be able to see that movie. If you don't have hands you might not be able to play a game. If you can't take the time to learn to use a controller you might not be able to play that game. It's that simple.
What you are doing is trying to artificially construct some weird ass socialist barriers on gaming. And I have nothing to do with this.
I edited this article in the message, you might have missed it. https://www.engadget.com/2014/10/10...bled-gamers-fight-for-inclusion/?guccounter=1
Bayonetta automatic mode positions the player to perform attacks on the enemies and the person only needs to time the button presses, unless they wish to perform their own choice of movements. Things like adaptive controller are excellent devices you're right, but that often only gets over the first barrier of being able to interact with the game at all. There's much more the developers can also do to accomodate players, who play with or without adaptive controllers or other similar hardware like eye tracking.
"Gears has the best graphics" is as good of a headline as "Persona 5 is the best game of the year". But this is still beside the point of the discussion and the article. And I think I've argued plenty in good faith at this topic, as you can see from my multiple responses here.
You're getting really angry over this and I honestly don't know why. It's the most basic of concepts yet you keep turning it into some devious attack on the very idea of art itself whilst arguing that it "don't even make sense," due to your own intentionally disingenuous misinterpretation of what the concept actually means.
Gatekeeping my man. You're a prime exemple of gatekeeping. "No, I don't want you to experience the game the way you want, do it MY WAY". Toxic behaviour. When I buy a movie, I can watch it in any way I want, while eating, while doing other shit, or in the dark with my phone shut off and a home cinema system. Not a single of these way is invalid. And I say this as someone who solo'd the enterity of the souls series. I know how difficulty/progress/learning is part of the experience first hand. But nah, if my fellow homie want to just walk and look at the environment, I don't see any reason why not.
Videogames are supposed to be a somewhat of a challenge. You can't just lump them in with books/movies/TV.
My argument for an easier mode would have more to do with the customer paying $60 and should be able to play however they like.
My argument for an easier mode would have more to do with the customer paying $60 and should be able to play however they like.
People need to learn that is okay to not have everything accesible to them.
Games aren't art too but that's another topic.
Games aren't art too but that's another topic.
The amount of "consumption" in this thread. Good god
Let's not even ask for things like localization and true accesibility options like fully customizable controls, because everyone who doesn't speak English or Japanese is missing out on almost 95% of the medium right now, same goes for lots of action games for disabled people
Let's not even ask for things like localization and true accesibility options like fully customizable controls, because everyone who doesn't speak English or Japanese is missing out on almost 95% of the medium right now, same goes for lots of action games for disabled people
Games are not movies. Movies are not games. Deal with it. Youtube is the destination where people that want to engage a physical artform like gaming can go to do away with the physical aspect in certain games. Not all games need to be catered for your buddy, you, your mother, and your household pet. Games are not specifically made for you. Not all games are products waiting for your beautiful money so you can own them and do whatever you want with them in any capacity whatsoever.
You don't get to change anything about that movie you are watching. Why? Why not let Francis Coppola release an Apocalypse Now version that is an EDIT IT YOURSELF cut. I mean what do you people want lol?
Anyway, I'm good with this conversation. Everything that need be said has pretty much been said. No hard feelings. You all have a good morning.
It's arguably not a difference, but with book or a movie you can scrub past a chapter/song if it's boring you. In games you are ubiquitously, mechanically blocked from doing so.
This is completely different from "esoteric art" like House of Leaves or Infinite Jest which require the user to consume ALL the content then go back and forth deciphering it.
Exceptions include Rockstar's recent games which let you choose "Skip" checkpoints once you die enough at them.
As you say games are not movies, certainly you realize that Youtube isn't the solution. You're contradicting yourself hard. People want to be able to play the games, not watch them.
On PC you can play any FROM game with "god mode" on. I'm sure it didn't ruined the experience to anyone else.
It's honestly just terrifying how that word works itself into gaming. Consumption and content. It's so fucking gross it makes me want to throw up sometimes.
Actually you can tho but I mean lol ppl gotta learn everything isn't meant for you there are movies that I see the appeal but have no desire for them they aren't for me and that's okay
So? ON PC you can hack in aimbots for most online FPS. That's not reason to put them in game.
It didnt, specially for the devs that never had to account to mods when designing their game and difficulty
Using mods as an argument is silly. I doubt many if any would be against things being better moddable so people can make the experiences they want. People don't want the base game to change, they don't care if you want to put your changes over it.
You said that people wouldn't be bothered to "get good", but it didn't happened in PC, many people play as intended regardless of the option.
They are, but there is really nothing that inherently requires the arbitrary restrictions on consumption that most games have. Good literature is supposed to have some sort of depth to it, and but I don't think you'd ever see someone argue that simply getting to the end of a book must be reliant on the reader understanding that depth. That isn't the case with games where, to get to the end of most titles, one is required to 'understand' the 'depth' of the work.
Why not both?
I think you honestly need to take a step back, because if you're getting this worked up over a word that literally just means "the reception of information by an audience," then that's not on anyone else but you. Nobody is attacking art, artistic integrity, or anything like that here, and I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop trying to make it look like they are.
Give people options, plain and simple. I see nothing wrong with that. In games that are meant to be difficult and competitive they give you options to tone it down. Like games aiming for realistic goal (I like to play on hard racing sims). But if your game is aiming for stories, narratives and for reasons that I don't know your game design is flawed to the point of ruining for me the experience of just having little input and explore the universe you created, I won't even bother playing your game. That's why I'm perfectly fine with the trend of subscription services for games, download, play, good continue, if not for me fine no loss here. I have no issue with people liking difficulties, same way they should not having an issue with me liking the difficulties toned down for "slow mind" like me.
Games are supposed to be fun, not frustrating.
Games are supposed to be fun, not frustrating.