View Poll Results: Should games force you to be good to complete?

Voters
23. You may not vote on this poll
  • no

    11 47.83%
  • yes

    9 39.13%
  • I'm a fence riding p*ssy

    3 13.04%
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 234568 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 84

Thread: Should games be easier?

  1. I personally like easy to beat/hard to complete, but there's definitely a place for ball-bustingly difficult games.

  2. #32
    I think it depends on why it is difficult. I don't have enough life left in me for badly defined hit boxes

  3. I've always maintained that Kirby games would be wildly popular with casual and core gamers alike if they just threw in a harder difficulty option. Not even any mechanical reworking required, just bring the life bar down from being able to take 6-8 hits to 1-3.

  4. Look at all the Duke Amiels in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gohron View Post
    I like doing stuff with animals and kids

  5. I just don't think there should be such a thing as "should."

    Braindead easy games? There's a place for those.

    Tough-as-nails frustration inferno? There's a place for those.

    Games with lots of options? There's a place for those.

    Games with no options? Well, you get the idea.

    The only "shoulds", in my opinion, are in the facts that the developers should make whatever the hell they want to make, and everyone else should stop whining as if they're entitled to something different.

  6. While I think difficulty levels often serve as a good way to reach a bigger audience while still maintaining developer control, viewing games as straight-up “content to see” (which is a prereq to considering access to content as some sort of consumer rights issue) is so off base.

  7. While I agree with koda in spirit, I can't imagine buying any other form of entertainment and then being gated off from experiencing it because of some arbitrary boundary set by the content producer. Could you imagine buying the latest Harry Potter and while chapter 1 and 2 were in modern English, every chapter following devolved into a more and more arcane old English script? Then Rowling mocking you telling you to "get gud" at English. Or buying Transformers 5 on bluray and having to answer trivia between each chapter stop in order to continue the movie.
    Games painted themselves into this corner when they decided story trumped game play. If I dropped $60 on a new game in order to experience it- as games are often sold as experiences these days, then I better damn well be able to do so.

  8. But plenty of novels have stretches of untranslated text in non-native languages for all kinds of reasons, at least some of which are non-arbitrary. Sometimes authors alienate us on purpose. Somehow being forced to translate it might injure whatever effect the developer of that content was going for. Fiction does have "git gud" moments because if it doesn't challenge easy consumption of familiar experience then it's no different than perceiving normal stuff in a normal way, the way we do in nearly every waking moment of a normal day. The point of fiction is to challenge exactly that, and the thing about challenges is that they're often challenging.

    Finnegan's Wake might as well have been in an arcane script when I was 18. But does that oblige publishers to package it with a easy summaries? No Fear Shakespeare (original on the left page, plain speak "translation" on the right) is a great thing, but obviously stuff gets lost on that right page. Should we expect difficult contemporary authors like Will Self or Don DeLillo to No Fear-ize their novels for the sake of accessibility? Surely we've all felt something that we could only express in an obscure way difficult for our listener to immediately understand, and to modify that expression would be to stop it from expressing that thing.

    And beyond expression, the moment Transformers gates progress like that, it stops being a movie and starts being a game. Part of what it means to play a game is overcoming gates to progress, isn't it? I get what you're saying, but a game isn't a game without barriers. That's what distinguishes a game from just being "content to see" like Tain said. At a certain point, don't we have to accept that we can all buy dartboards knowing we might never see a bullseye?
    Last edited by A Robot Bit Me; 28 Oct 2017 at 01:44 PM.

  9. You can play a full game of darts without hitting the bullseye. You might not win, but you'll play the game in its entirety.
    The disconnect appears when winning=seeing the game through to the end. Based on the youtube lets play sensation, I bet plenty of people that buy games would be just as happy picking a "watch the game be played for you" option as they would actually having to play it. I can play Asteriods and not get bummed because I didn't see the score roll. No matter how awful I am at it, I still got to enjoy a whole game of Asteroids. Again, I blame game makers. I can't tell you the number of times someone will come in and bitch about some game sucking and when I ask why, it's not because of gameplay- "The story was awful." If people are buying a game to see its story then they should be able to do so since its the developers intention to tell the story. Ever goddamn developer interview I read these days is all story, story, story.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name View Post
    If people are buying a game to see its story then they should be able to do so since its the developers intention to tell the story.
    But it's also the developer's intention to present obstacles to progression through that story. The enemies in The Last of Us aren't there against Naughty Dog's will.

    And it's the narrative games that do have those easy modes more often than not. The games that only have one gear, the Really Hard gear, tend to have little or no story: Dark Souls, Cuphead, Meatboy, every shooter, etc.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Games.com logo