No one SUFFERS it's a freaking challenging video game not freaking forced torture, it's not starvation, it's not a disease, a drug addiction or mental/physical abuse from others.
-
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.
Is "too difficult" an invalid complaint?
- Thread starter Weiss
- Start date
I personally view it as Ni No Kuni 2 feeling like a mismatch of mechanics (e.g. the huge wasted potential of the brilliant Tactics Tweaker in a game where you never need to so much as glance at that menu option to waltz through the game without dying) while Cuphead feels like a tight, designed artistic vision.
User Banned (1 Week): Persistent bad faith argument. Ignoring moderation guideline.
I'll 'move on' directly to talking to the administrators about how you object to accessibility. Failing a resolution on that front, I will abandon this dump, the offshoot of one of the worst sites on the internet.
There is a difference the size of the universe between not liking a work on grounds of aesthetics and being purposefully excluded for no valid reason - there is no reason that the gameplay systems have to apply challenge unevenly. It is possible for all parties to get what they are looking for with relatively minor changes to the title, a toggle in a menu and a handful of different 'rules'.
And no, it's not that they are unfortunately excluded. You are advocating in favor of that, because you see it as impossible for things to be better. But people know better, and they expect better.
I wonder, what about online games?.
The most popular games rigth now are online games that are really hard.
Fortnite when in every game you'll have 99 losers and 1 winner.
League of legends/Dota with more than 100 heroes, and enough combinations of items/masteries/spells that require months to understand. Where you'll lose around 50% of your 30-40 minute matches.
Yet millions of people around the world enjoy both and even enjoy losing while learning how to get better. PVP makes the game really hard since you're facing another person (and during your first games you know you'll face people better than you).
I think the same applies to single player games, a game can be really hard, but as long as it designed to teach you how to get better, dying/losing can still be a fun experience.
The most popular games rigth now are online games that are really hard.
Fortnite when in every game you'll have 99 losers and 1 winner.
League of legends/Dota with more than 100 heroes, and enough combinations of items/masteries/spells that require months to understand. Where you'll lose around 50% of your 30-40 minute matches.
Yet millions of people around the world enjoy both and even enjoy losing while learning how to get better. PVP makes the game really hard since you're facing another person (and during your first games you know you'll face people better than you).
I think the same applies to single player games, a game can be really hard, but as long as it designed to teach you how to get better, dying/losing can still be a fun experience.
Oh it's rampant all around me and it drives me insane. But I can't stop trying to do something about it because once upon a time I was such a sissy who needed a bunch of real shit thrown at him before he could grow up.
A lot of people in Western society live their entire lives without being forced to grow up or face challenge. Prosperity is a blessing and a curse.
Before you leave can you make this thread:
I'm not saying this to be mean; I genuinely hope he tries to make a game like that and have it fail miserably and have some reality slap him in the face.
Because he's delusional:
You can make a thread. I'm all for talking accessibility because the industry absolutely sucks about it.
I admire your persistence and optimism when basically every single poster in the thread strongly disagreed with you but you now suddenly think the admins will all universally be on your side.
"No, it's impossible that it's me that's mistaken and close-minded, it must be literally everyone else"
I am deep in writing a thread about the risks involved in Sony's big bet (Insomniac's Spiderman). When I finish that project, I'll move on to Dark Souls :)
I am fine with this discussion being a separate thread if all parties can live with that. I probably shouldn't be the one to make the thread, though.
This is why the discussion is silly to have. "Too difficult" would be an invalid complaint if one were listing reasons why a game should not be released, but since you'll never hear it in the context of that and only read it in something subjective like a review, it's subjective and valid along with the majority of content that always appears in a review.
Unironically looking forward to your ideas for difficulty scaling. Fingers crossed for revolutionary genius idea!
It has to be in the right context. Like unnecessary difficulty spikes for instance, which is often the result of bad game design. Games that set out to be very challenging from the start though should give you enough information to stay away if you do not like high difficulties.
Personally I find games that are too easy a much bigger offence, as there's no great incentive to explore or master the game in any way. But this is just me.
Personally I find games that are too easy a much bigger offence, as there's no great incentive to explore or master the game in any way. But this is just me.
Exactly a game that doesn't expect you to learn it's tools is a shallow experience vs something that wants you to try and master them even if it's a simple game
It drives me insane too, that's why I'm an alcoholic and am on medication lol. Never stop trying, I sure haven't - I'm always trying to find ways to express my views that others can understand without resorting to arbitrary shit to dismiss me - but some people you just can't get through to. I was able to do what you did, I know rednecks who were able to rise above the presumptions of their community because they saw a need for self-reflection, and we've spent years trying to express this to help outsiders learn and insiders to do better... but so many people are raised to think that their opinions are some kind of inviolable piece of their identity and nothing will change that. They'll go to their graves standing up for shit that matters to no one but themselves.
Don't let those people bring you down.
This is a good point to think about.
I really really really want to get into Planetside 2, but every time I play it I get rekt immediately. I am already not good at FPS games, so one that's this intense is just way too much for me.
But people I know eat that game UP. I see all these crazy stories and see the memories people are making, and as much as I want to be part of that I know that, like many occupations and hobbies IRL, I just don't have what it takes to get that good.
That's fine with me, though. The few memories I have of that game were magical, just in realizing the scope of it all. My friends' stories still resonate with me, because I've been in relatively similar situations in other games, and even in real life. I'm sure I could boot up some games that many of those players couldn't ever hope to match me at.
Isn't diversity wonderful?
Last edited:
Yes it is if game is part of the game's major appeal is the difficulty. Assuming the difficulty just requires certain level of skill and not cheap bullshit. All games are not meant to cater to the masses.
I know this topic will focus on Souls games, but I will never play Cuphead because I know it more difficult than I am willing to tolerate. I won't ask that it be made easier though. Plenty of other games to play.
I know this topic will focus on Souls games, but I will never play Cuphead because I know it more difficult than I am willing to tolerate. I won't ask that it be made easier though. Plenty of other games to play.
Depends if it's the point of a game to have an extremely tough section that demands the player have a good understanding about the mechanics of the game itself. I can't really say it's bad form as well it is what the designers wanted. but I do think it is fair to be frustrated if the game is not offering ways to make it easier for players who do not have a solid grasp of the games mechanics to improve themselves or give them a crutch to get past a particularly difficult section.
This imo. If the Twin Princes' teleporting really was unreadable, that would be a valid criticism. Criticizing a game for being too difficult means little, everyone has a different idea of what's difficult and everyone has a different experience playing a game. It should be targeted on the specific things that are a problem.
Honestly at this point I'm interested in hearing stories from people who have jumped into games (especially online games) and have had to adapt to a massive learning curve, not to dismiss OP's topic of course but just to hear cool stories of how other players have overcome seemingly impossible circumstances and ended up really good at some shit they were completely clueless about at first
Appreciate that you listened. Much love
Hot take: In Dark Souls "gitting gud" usually equates to gaining a few levels and upgrading/changing your gear (in PvE). As long as you defeated that hard boss you're gud right? Right?
Anyway: Any complaint for not finishing a game because you're not enjoying it is valid. If you feel it's too hard for you and there's no way you can overcome it, be it not enough time to master it or other reasons, you might as well be playing another game. Feeling you're not adequate at a game and getting nowhere despite effort can be exhausting. I have this problem with fighting games, mainly. I've tried to learn them properly, but I was getting nowhere and I just didn't find it fun to practice, so I quit trying and played something else.
Anyway: Any complaint for not finishing a game because you're not enjoying it is valid. If you feel it's too hard for you and there's no way you can overcome it, be it not enough time to master it or other reasons, you might as well be playing another game. Feeling you're not adequate at a game and getting nowhere despite effort can be exhausting. I have this problem with fighting games, mainly. I've tried to learn them properly, but I was getting nowhere and I just didn't find it fun to practice, so I quit trying and played something else.
I played Demon's Souls - or at least I tried.
There's a huge input delay to everything you do - if that's the skill set needed to tolerate input lag and clunky controls to be "good" at these games, then no, I don't have that in me. Lol
It ultimately comes down to the design, how fair the challenge is and how fun the game is. Most danmakus like Touhou, Dodonpachi, Deathsmiles, Guwange, etc. can be very, very difficulty on the highest difficulties, insanely so, but that kinda is the point: learning patterns, optimal strategies, as you replay through the stages a hundred times or more. That's a fair challenge. Similarly, games like Shovel Knight or The Surge have a pretty high base difficulty, but at the same time you're allowed to farm to improve yourself to great lenghts to make the game easier for you, though the game, as is, while difficult is feasible if you play it smart and are pretty good.
The problem is when the difficulty goes against the fun factor. Multiple Call Of Duty games had parts that were just unfun because they relied on bullshit mechanisms disguised as difficulty. Four places pop to mind:
- the entirety of World At War on the highest difficulty: enemies spam you with grenades with laser precision, that's just bullshit considering that leaving cover usually equals death
- the endless spawn of enemies while waiting for the chopper in Modern Warfare: you are rewarded for exploiting the game, basically, otherwise it's very much luck based
- a similar situation in the first Black Ops when you have to get down a hill between trenches: enemies never stop, on higher difficulties you need tons of luck to find a path to go through
- and another equally annoying one at the end of Black Ops III, where you need to access a door with neverending spawns of robots: it's a long battle either way, and at the end you take a leap of faith
My experience with Dark Souls in particular has been hit and miss. I think that in many cases the difficulty is very high, but also fair. However, there are situations that you honestly can not anticipate no matter how skilled or careful you are, causing you pretty much unavoidable deaths. When I first started Dark Souls, I went straight on for the skeletons. Took me hours to learn how to beat them efficiently and to get past them without problems, only to find out that path leads me to a mage that I simply can not beat with such low level items since he one shots me easily. That's what I consider unoptimal game design: nothing in the game suggested I shouldn't attempt that route, but the reward was an enemy I could only beat far later in the game, thus placing a difficulty block in front of me without any chance to foresee it.
Likewise, there are horrible examples like bullet sponge enemies. The reason certain parts of loot-based games like Borderlands, Destiny or The Division don't work too well is because the enemies are the same cannon fodders you've learnt to deal with dozens of hours earlier, but suddenly they have 100 times their regular health, so while the strategy doesn't really change it all becomes a battle of attrition, shooting from your cover for even 15 minutes if you're unlucky just to pop that guy's head off. That is difficult because his damage is also probably increased, however it is more than anything a battle of attrition, of patience. You don't need extra skills compared to the initial part of the game, you only need to concentrate for a longer amount of time. That is a bad example of difficulty.
So yes, "too difficult" can definitely be a complaint in a game, because there can be areas (or entire games, of course) where the difficulty comes for all the wrong reasons. The original Crash Bandicoot games, for example, allows you to finish levels just about how you wish, you can take your time and mind your own business. "Getting gud" is only required if you want to complete all stages 100%, therefore the difficulty doesn't really impact the enjoyment of the game itself. But if a game's difficulty is all over the place, it rewards luck rather than skill (see Mario Party games), if attrition is the main strategy, if the game mechanics are not explained properly which actually causes the difficulty to be there in the first place, etc., a high difficulty can easily be a complaint.
The problem is when the difficulty goes against the fun factor. Multiple Call Of Duty games had parts that were just unfun because they relied on bullshit mechanisms disguised as difficulty. Four places pop to mind:
- the entirety of World At War on the highest difficulty: enemies spam you with grenades with laser precision, that's just bullshit considering that leaving cover usually equals death
- the endless spawn of enemies while waiting for the chopper in Modern Warfare: you are rewarded for exploiting the game, basically, otherwise it's very much luck based
- a similar situation in the first Black Ops when you have to get down a hill between trenches: enemies never stop, on higher difficulties you need tons of luck to find a path to go through
- and another equally annoying one at the end of Black Ops III, where you need to access a door with neverending spawns of robots: it's a long battle either way, and at the end you take a leap of faith
My experience with Dark Souls in particular has been hit and miss. I think that in many cases the difficulty is very high, but also fair. However, there are situations that you honestly can not anticipate no matter how skilled or careful you are, causing you pretty much unavoidable deaths. When I first started Dark Souls, I went straight on for the skeletons. Took me hours to learn how to beat them efficiently and to get past them without problems, only to find out that path leads me to a mage that I simply can not beat with such low level items since he one shots me easily. That's what I consider unoptimal game design: nothing in the game suggested I shouldn't attempt that route, but the reward was an enemy I could only beat far later in the game, thus placing a difficulty block in front of me without any chance to foresee it.
Likewise, there are horrible examples like bullet sponge enemies. The reason certain parts of loot-based games like Borderlands, Destiny or The Division don't work too well is because the enemies are the same cannon fodders you've learnt to deal with dozens of hours earlier, but suddenly they have 100 times their regular health, so while the strategy doesn't really change it all becomes a battle of attrition, shooting from your cover for even 15 minutes if you're unlucky just to pop that guy's head off. That is difficult because his damage is also probably increased, however it is more than anything a battle of attrition, of patience. You don't need extra skills compared to the initial part of the game, you only need to concentrate for a longer amount of time. That is a bad example of difficulty.
So yes, "too difficult" can definitely be a complaint in a game, because there can be areas (or entire games, of course) where the difficulty comes for all the wrong reasons. The original Crash Bandicoot games, for example, allows you to finish levels just about how you wish, you can take your time and mind your own business. "Getting gud" is only required if you want to complete all stages 100%, therefore the difficulty doesn't really impact the enjoyment of the game itself. But if a game's difficulty is all over the place, it rewards luck rather than skill (see Mario Party games), if attrition is the main strategy, if the game mechanics are not explained properly which actually causes the difficulty to be there in the first place, etc., a high difficulty can easily be a complaint.
I think fighting games on the regular is sort of this experience. Each match is unpredictable, stressful and you have to will your way through plus adapting/making adjustments during a match.
This is absolutely my experience with fighting games. I got friends who are good enough to seek sponsorships - a couple of my high school friends are even known in the regional Smash Bros scene (the biggest one retired recently, LoZR of anyone keeps up) - but I just can't dedicate the time to get on that level. I still go to friends' apartments to play games and sit out fighting games because I know I just can't get into the flow without a lot of practice first, while others who have hardly touched the actual game we're playing can stand their ground far better than I. I quit trying specifically because it's exhausting. You don't get a lot of time to figure out what you're doing if you aren't accustomed to playing lots of fighting games.
Still love watching my friends play tho
I don't think it's a valid complaint when it comes to Souls series, since you can summon other players and NPCs to help. I did the latter against Twin Princes in DS3, and summoned Orbeck there. I also summoned another player to help me with Nameless King. You can also overlevel your character, and cheese some of the bosses/enemies, like Oceiros in DS3.
It's a valid complaint considering games are products. But it isn't necessarily an objective flaw. If it's good enough for most people, then supply and demand dictates you're an outlier.
Honestly, I thought this thread was going in a different direction considering the SMT avatar.
Honestly, I thought this thread was going in a different direction considering the SMT avatar.
I'm in the minority here but I do believe customers have the right to access the content they've paid for, regardless of skill level.
But hey - we can always override the developer's preference with Cheat Engine etc.
But hey - we can always override the developer's preference with Cheat Engine etc.
Would be a good idea for a thread. I'd be interested in that too.
The souls games allow for many approaches. As long as you did it, who are others to tell you that victory wasn't valid?
That said, it's definitely important to habe some difficulty gates to ensure you are really improving and not just cheesing your way through the game, because honestly you'll have more fun with the game when you can actually, like, play it more fully. Like parties for examples. They were tough for me to learn, but the game is now more enjoyable due to me learning how. And man, every, single, parry and subsequent riposte is so satisfying every time. And whooping something's ass that whooped your ass when you were just a scrub is so fun. It's exhilarating.
But screw people who try to harsh your vibe if that vibe is using magic or whatever. Do you. Whatever let's you have fun and whatever you need to triumph. Everyone's abilities are different. I appreciate that the souls games don't pigeon hole me in a specific difficulty. They keep the game play dynamic without making it annoying, by teasing me to try something different or daring. It's fun and engaging even for me.
And I'm extremely average. I've never been nor will likely ever be the best at anything. But games like dark souls allow me to have fun at my skill level.
...mightn't ....the difficulty be that something?
I went in completely blind at the beginning, and knew the enemies we're way too high level for me. Of course, that made it all the more fun to discover the zweihander all while running away from the enemies. It was fun because I wasn't supposed to be there, but I could.
So idk for me that was a really memorable experience and it wouldn't have happened without a high level area next to the starting area that I was free to access at any point. Like I'm just getting wistful remembering that. It was so fun.
I think we're accustomed to games just directing us through certain areas, but idk I like an area just being hard because that's just how it is. Makes it feel more organic to me. Like the world is real and doesn't care about you.
Last edited:
You are absolutely right about that. Also, it is an rpg after all. If you can manipulate your stats in your favor to gain an edge, why shouldn't you? The tools are there for you to use.
There are some cases where an advantage might become a crutch. For some people the Drake sword was one. However, it's really different person to person. For me, the Drake sword (also called the noob sword for those who don't know), allowed me to kind of get the leg up that I needed to really get into the game and feel like I could progress. That momentum encouraged me to keep at it through the rest of the game, and I just got better as I went and switched up my weapons. So personally while I know some people don't want it in the game, I think things like that are important.
I wish more games had organically dynamic difficulty like that.
A game can definitely be too hard or too easy to a particular person. There's a vast range of experiences out there from people picking up their first game, to people that play 12+ hours a day. Someone that hasn't played a video game before could die a hundred times to the first enemy in Dark Souls while someone else can beat the whole game without getting hit once.
"Too hard" or "too easy" mostly comes down to community experiences though, at least as far as branding a game goes.
If a game advertises "hard as nails" I'll usually be on my way and the developer loses any chance to earn my money because their pride is too high.
A simple difficulty setting that's not insulting or stupid would have made a sale from me.
If these developers are trying to not make the most money like those who made bloodborne and cuphead then they're doing a good job at it.
This is NOT to say those who want a difficulty setting always want to play on easy.
There's a great chance they might want to enjoy the game minimizing frustration.
Where's the harm in that?
A simple difficulty setting that's not insulting or stupid would have made a sale from me.
If these developers are trying to not make the most money like those who made bloodborne and cuphead then they're doing a good job at it.
This is NOT to say those who want a difficulty setting always want to play on easy.
There's a great chance they might want to enjoy the game minimizing frustration.
Where's the harm in that?
I think just plain "too difficult" is not a valid point of criticism, but a valid point of personal dislike. It is not symmetric to "too easy", because if a game completely lacks challenge, this directly concerns the lack of stakes with the interaction. At least in single player games, the main game design question is what problems players have to solve and if solving these problems is entirely trivial, this indicates bad game design. If the tasks are just hard to solve, then this is not an issue in itself. However, bad learning curves, gotcha-game design (and here Souls is a rather good example), grinding-based difficulty scaling (because this makes it impossible to properly design the difficulty to the player's toolset and devalues the obstacle in question, while encouraging busywork as problem solving, rather than cleverness or dextrousness; again, Souls is a significant culprit here), bad communication by the game, inconcenient controls etc are all valid criticisms that can be the reason for a perceived high difficulty.
Now, another example brought up here is DKC Tropical Freeze and such a game is a good example why difficulty levels are not good solutions for most games. For mainly combat-based games like Souls (or other RPGs), character action games or shooters, this often is an option, because you can scale enemy strength, usually, maybe even speed or put some restrictions on the moveset. Similar arguments hold for racing games. However, if the difficulty comes primarily from the level design, like for instance in DKC TF and in good Zeldas, then difficulty settings come down to designing a whole new game or to drastically alter the balance of game elements in the overall challenge. Zelda games recently offered "hard modes", where just the damage dealt was upped and the opportunities to heal were reduced. This completly changes the bnalance of the game elements and puts extreme emphasis on combat, when compared to the standard difficulty. Proper difficulty settings should not work like this.
Now, another example brought up here is DKC Tropical Freeze and such a game is a good example why difficulty levels are not good solutions for most games. For mainly combat-based games like Souls (or other RPGs), character action games or shooters, this often is an option, because you can scale enemy strength, usually, maybe even speed or put some restrictions on the moveset. Similar arguments hold for racing games. However, if the difficulty comes primarily from the level design, like for instance in DKC TF and in good Zeldas, then difficulty settings come down to designing a whole new game or to drastically alter the balance of game elements in the overall challenge. Zelda games recently offered "hard modes", where just the damage dealt was upped and the opportunities to heal were reduced. This completly changes the bnalance of the game elements and puts extreme emphasis on combat, when compared to the standard difficulty. Proper difficulty settings should not work like this.
Some people want that level of challenge though. That's who the games are aimed at. Not every game needs to cater to everyone.
I can mostly understand your position, but I'm not really a fan of how you view this as a pride thing. I think you're really misinterpreting things here. They are finding a target audience and focusing on what that audience wants to hear to be interested, same as another dev might make a more relaxing game and advertise it with things you want to hear. It's just good business and they would be foolish not to.
Yet games like God of War 2018 offer challenges from near impossible to die to near impossible to stay alive.
Difficulty settings gives you want you want.
There's no reason to not have it when there's clear as day evidence that difficulty settings work.
The git gud shit reads like little man syndrome at this point. I get that back in the day it was used to stave off a bunch of shitposters, but after 4 successful games, it's become shitposting to deflect any potential criticism.
Souls has a niche as a difficult game. Who is to say what will happen if you strip away that aspect? Will it magically sell better? Will it sell worse within its tried and true fanbase? The difficulty is a part of the artistic process and part of the game's marketability, and it's generally agreed to be in the game's favor. Like I said in my prior post, it's valid to critique the high learning curve and difficulty curve in general, but that isn't the same as pointing out a flaw. It's more of a critique for yourself or a postulated critique towards its mainstream potential (it's mainstream, but not AAA mainstream).
What would be legitimate criticism levied towards difficulty are specific aspects of the game that are poorly designed. Like how in Dark Souls 3, magic is kind of bad and you're handicapping yourself if you choose anything but a one-handed build. Or in Bloodborne, part of its content march is a set of RNG copy+paste dungeons, and the fanbase can't agree on whether blood vials are worse than estus. Or how the frame-pacing and motion blur and camera can get in the way at very unfortunate times. Every boss is able to be mastered, but these technical flaws needlessly raise the difficulty of the learning process.
Souls has a niche as a difficult game. Who is to say what will happen if you strip away that aspect? Will it magically sell better? Will it sell worse within its tried and true fanbase? The difficulty is a part of the artistic process and part of the game's marketability, and it's generally agreed to be in the game's favor. Like I said in my prior post, it's valid to critique the high learning curve and difficulty curve in general, but that isn't the same as pointing out a flaw. It's more of a critique for yourself or a postulated critique towards its mainstream potential (it's mainstream, but not AAA mainstream).
What would be legitimate criticism levied towards difficulty are specific aspects of the game that are poorly designed. Like how in Dark Souls 3, magic is kind of bad and you're handicapping yourself if you choose anything but a one-handed build. Or in Bloodborne, part of its content march is a set of RNG copy+paste dungeons, and the fanbase can't agree on whether blood vials are worse than estus. Or how the frame-pacing and motion blur and camera can get in the way at very unfortunate times. Every boss is able to be mastered, but these technical flaws needlessly raise the difficulty of the learning process.
Last edited:
It is a valid complaint. I like to breeze through my games on easy, usually for the story and spectacle, and I really don't find too challenging games any fun.
But in the case of the Souls games, I guess they are just built that way, so I don't care. And wouldn't care anyway, since the games are waaaay too Japanese for my tastes.
But in the case of the Souls games, I guess they are just built that way, so I don't care. And wouldn't care anyway, since the games are waaaay too Japanese for my tastes.
