kex, I think you misunderstand why the mode is there. The mode exists purely as an option to add unreasonable levels of difficulty for veterans of the fire emblem games who want unreasonable levels of difficulty. the fact that it fucks you up and is broken and unfair is kinda the point. you arent the target audience for that mode, so complaining about it is kinda like being the dude who goes to the state fair, buys the beef jerky that is so spicy you need to sign a waiver before they will sell it to you, and then complains about it being too spicy.
i prefer to play on lower difficulty levels until i'm confident with a game, honestly
Yeah, no wrong in doing that far as I care. This is coming from someone that erratically tries out the hardest modes of games, and inconsistently sticks to them. It just makes me think of how FTL has Easy, Normal, and Hard, and it's a really nice progression. The game is largely fair and decently well-designed (though I have my issues with it), and Hard does exactly what it's supposed to do - make me pull my hair out at how difficult it is. Relatively speaking I'm a mid-level player at best, so there's still a long way to go.
Likewise for Binding of Isaac: Rebirth's Normal/Hard differences, even if Hard could do with some significant changes to really grind players into the dust.
I suck at Fire Emblem overall, right now, so I've always chosen to play without permadeath and on easy to medium difficulties specifically because they are designed for me. I hate to simply +1 naney's post at the top, but it's pretty spot on; you don't play the levels that require you to get good until you are actually good, or at the very least go in with the idea that you're pretty out of your league until you match those expectations.
I haven't watched the Dark Souls 2 video and would rather not until I'm more familiarized with the series. Even then I'm still talking about a game I haven't actually played, which while I've done that before and will continue to do so sporadically, still isn't the most ideal scenario.
I felt the Dark Souls 2 video here was broadly good, but I kind of doubt their belief that poor pathfinding and the ability to kite enemies around is as much an intended out for beginners and people looking for an easier time seem to think it is.
I felt the Dark Souls 2 video here was broadly good, but I kind of doubt their belief that poor pathfinding and the ability to kite enemies around is as much an intended out for beginners and people looking for an easier time seem to think it is.
that the Covenant of Champions makes the AI much better would seem to indicate that it being rather poor by default is intentional.
TBH i somewhat strongly disagree with the Extra Credits' opinion on this one.
If you pick your difficulty from the menu at the start, and when you start out on Normal, if the game's too easy, you just start a new save on a Hard difficulty. It's not, ahem, difficult. Likewise, if the Normal mode is too hard, you can start a new game on Easy. None of this requires you to have foreknowledge of how hard the different modes are, you can find that out for yourself by trial and error.
In-universe aspects that affect difficulty isn't a bad mechanic, but the menu-based difficulty adjustment is not a bad thing. It tells you where you are in relation to how good the devs expect you to be, and gives you something to work towards.
in fact i'm going to be even more of a contrary asshole and say that i'd rather have a difficulty setting i choose at the start and can't change without starting a new save
if you can toggle difficulty mid-way through then that kind of cheapens it to me; if you're stuck on a particular section you should keep at it until you beat it, it shouldn't be as easy as just switching to a lower difficulty setting, that's crap
kex, I think you misunderstand why the mode is there. The mode exists purely as an option to add unreasonable levels of difficulty for veterans of the fire emblem games who want unreasonable levels of difficulty. the fact that it fucks you up and is broken and unfair is kinda the point. you arent the target audience for that mode, so complaining about it is kinda like being the dude who goes to the state fair, buys the beef jerky that is so spicy you need to sign a waiver before they will sell it to you, and then complains about it being too spicy.
It's been the default gameplay mode for most of the series and is labeled "Casual." And it produces an adverse compulsive effect in at least myself, and to my understanding I'm not the only person.
All this stuff people are saying makes sense. On paper. In practice I've found that for myself- and other people who I play games with, and clearly to the Extra Credits people who know their shit when it comes to the nitty-gritty psychology of game design- a less black and white approach is necessary.
It's just a lazy way of thinking about difficulty, really. Plenty of games have methods of making the game massively easier/more difficult that feel much better than a menu choice.
Mass Effect 2 have heavy weapons, which very much feel like a temporary "easy mode"
Final Fantasy games tend to have "No EXP" settings which COULD produce the compulsive effect I mentioned before but to anyone aware of genre conventions it's well understood how massive of an undertaking it is
Games like Zelda allow for low HP runs, going through the game without a sword/etc.
Even Fire Emblem offers characters that are clearly much more powerful than others and can be easily used as a crutch.
Pokemon allows for damn near endless challenge runs
All of these intuitively feel like they make the game easier or harder without the sting of switching to an "easy" setting or making the player feel obligated to make it harder. And they allow a player an understanding of how they want to play the game before forcing the player into a decision about how vaguely difficult the game is.
Honestly this is something where it's especially important to delineate what intuitively makes sense and what actually happens in practice. I think a bit of deference to the EC crew might be something to consider as well just because they work really closely with playtesters and devs and such.
Mm . . . i just feel like all that stuff, heavy weapons and pieces of hearts, stronger-than-average units and what not, are merely strategic choices you can make - or choose not to make, if you're doing a challenge run, which most people probably won't. That's cool, and that's fine, but it's even better if there's *also* a difficulty setting selection, which is more of a meta aspect.
i'm sure the Extra Credits people know more about game design than me, so maybe i'm in the minority here, but i like having a hard mode to work towards. Challenge runs don't feel like hard mode, they feel like self-imposed limitations, not part of the game proper. This is obviously an abstract distinction but difficulty settings feel "canonical" in a way that challenge runs don't.
Mm . . . i just feel like all that stuff, heavy weapons and pieces of hearts, stronger-than-average units and what not, are merely strategic choices you can make - or choose not to make, if you're doing a challenge run, which most people probably won't. That's cool, and that's fine, but it's even better if there's *also* a difficulty setting selection, which is more of a meta aspect.
i'm sure the Extra Credits people know more about game design than me, so maybe i'm in the minority here, but i like having a hard mode to work towards. Challenge runs don't feel like hard mode, they feel like self-imposed limitations, not part of the game proper. This is obviously an abstract distinction but difficulty settings feel "canonical" in a way that challenge runs don't.
1. This is part of the problem. 2. This is why video games need to be more accommodating towards this style of play.
Let me go more in depth with 1.
For a minute, let's operate under the assumption that I'm not terribly unique in the sense that I'm not the only person who compulsively plays games on the hard setting. Given that the EC video mentioned this tendency, I don't think this is a stretch.
This means that these settings create an environment where a certain demographic will very frequently experience unnecessary frustration. Logically we can change the difficulty, but come on, it's a compulsion, you can't just say "Stop it!" and it'll stop happening. And efforts to discourage it, like lowering difficulty automatically (see Kid Icarus: Uprising, easily the most fucking infuriating game in existence for almost exclusively this reason) tend to make the problem worse.
And difficulty settings are not adjusted to different playstyles either, given that they almost universally equate to changing damage ratios. It removes player agency in what they consider easy or hard.
Like, the "canonical" nature of these choices assigns a much greater weight to difficulty than it really should have. It directly reinforces the compulsive behavior, as well as gatekeeping("fucking scrubs playing Dragon Age on Casual Mode, pft")
Logically we can change the difficulty, but come on, it's a compulsion, you can't just say "Stop it!" and it'll stop happening.
You can though, because it's not actually a compulsion and that's not what a compulsion is.
I am pretty damn sure that being the guy who has to play every game on Expert is not the same as like, alcoholism or self-harm.
I'm not saying it's on that level, I'm just saying it's a tendency that exists and really isn't helping anyone.
k well
like
don't do that???
I don't know what to tell you here. The entire reason difficulty levels exist is that one.
Like I'm saying that this is a tendency and if people logically knowing it causes undue frustration was enough to cause people to stop being frustrated, it wouldn't happen. And yet it does.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
This is what this sounds like; you decided to choose something you didn't know what you were getting into, because that's what you always choose. Now you're frustrated that you don't know the game, and complaining about it.
I really don't want to be an asshole today, and if I am, I apologize in advance.
I mean all of this is ignoring the fact that a much more vibrant culture has sprung from challenge runs and the like than ever has from the existence of damage ratio sliders. Because challenge runs imply different strategies and ways of interacting with the game and allow the player an informed decision as to what difficulty they want, whereas difficulty settings tend to be overly prescriptive and less organic.
The games of From Software are revered for punishing difficulty and they conspicuously lack difficulty levels and yet still have much broader appeal than many similar games because they directly incentivize players to come up with strategies they're comfortable with without any sort of implied judgement.
This is what this sounds like; you decided to choose something you didn't know what you were getting into, because that's what you always choose. Now you're frustrated that you don't know the game, and complaining about it.
Again, my point exactly. My behavior is logically incoherent, I'm aware of that fact, and generally opt to not play a game rather than take steps to actually, y'know, relieve the frustration. My behavior is likely not unique, and that's an issue that better game design can fix.
If you suck at a game and won't change the difficulty then as far as i'm concerned you have only yourself to blame. Yeah, the "lol easy mode, what a noob" attitude exists and yes it's obnoxious, but i don't see it as a reason to remove part of the fun, and hard mode is part of the fun. Games are not generally a competition to see who's the most skilled - and when it is a competition, if hard mode is too much for you then you're not realistically in the running, are you? In which case why not chill out, swallow your pride and practice on normal until you get better at the game? Anything else is just punishing yourself, and that's hardly the devs' fault.
i'm not knocking challenge runs, but as far as i'm concerned that's something i'd associate with the hardcore crowd, not something that's of much interest to me as a somewhat casual gamer who enjoys a challenge now and then.
As an aside, i find it kind of amusing - you're normally a person i associate with holding positive opinions about media and staunchly defending them, so it's kind of weird to see you slagging off two of my brother's favourite games in the space of a single discussion. However i have never played Kid Icarus: Uprising and can't possibly comment.
I mean all of this is ignoring the fact that a much more vibrant culture has sprung from challenge runs and the like than ever has from the existence of damage ratio sliders. Because challenge runs imply different strategies and ways of interacting with the game and allow the player an informed decision as to what difficulty they want, whereas difficulty settings tend to be overly prescriptive and less organic.
The games of From Software are revered for punishing difficulty and they conspicuously lack difficulty levels and yet still have much broader appeal than many similar games because they directly incentivize players to come up with strategies they're comfortable with without any sort of implied judgement.
From's games aren't the punch-a-wall masochism-fests people seem to believe they are.
This is what this sounds like; you decided to choose something you didn't know what you were getting into, because that's what you always choose. Now you're frustrated that you don't know the game, and complaining about it.
Again, my point exactly. My behavior is logically incoherent, I'm aware of that fact, and generally opt to not play a game rather than take steps to actually, y'know, relieve the frustration. My behavior is likely not unique, and that's an issue that better game design can fix.
They could but should they have to, if it's a problem that's entirely on your end?
Basically i'm a little miffed at the suggestion that a feature which i enjoy should be removed because some gamers apparently have a perverse fascination with playing on higher difficulties than they're capable of beating and then crying about it when it's too hard for them.
Like I honestly don't understand why any of what I'm saying is contentious and controversial just because I don't think anyone really loses in a situation where hard and fast rules of what constitutes "difficult" are slackened and devs instead focus on understanding player psychology and crafting difficulty around that.
Basically i'm a little miffed at the suggestion that a feature which i enjoy should be removed because some gamers apparently have a perverse fascination with playing on higher difficulties than they're capable of beating and then crying about it when it's too hard for them.
Like I honestly don't understand why any of what I'm saying is contentious and controversial just because I don't think anyone really loses in a situation where hard and fast rules of what constitutes "difficult" are slackened and devs instead focus on understanding player psychology and crafting difficulty around that.
It's not contentious, it's nonsensical.
"Difficulty modes make me feel bad and should therefore be removed from all games" is not a statement that makes any sense.
As an aside, i find it kind of amusing - you're normally a person i associate with holding positive opinions about media and staunchly defending them, so it's kind of weird to see you slagging off two of my brother's favourite games in the space of a single discussion. However i have never played Kid Icarus: Uprising and can't possibly comment.
Clarification: I love Kid Icarus Uprising. Doesn't mean I don't fucking hate it. Also my frustration mainly stems from these being fundamentally good games with a major barrier to my enjoyment of them. I don't mind quitting a shitty game, but a game like Kid Icarus or Fire Emblem is one I really get bothered by when they're frustrating.
I mean all of this is ignoring the fact that a much more vibrant culture has sprung from challenge runs and the like than ever has from the existence of damage ratio sliders. Because challenge runs imply different strategies and ways of interacting with the game and allow the player an informed decision as to what difficulty they want, whereas difficulty settings tend to be overly prescriptive and less organic.
The games of From Software are revered for punishing difficulty and they conspicuously lack difficulty levels and yet still have much broader appeal than many similar games because they directly incentivize players to come up with strategies they're comfortable with without any sort of implied judgement.
From's games aren't the punch-a-wall masochism-fests people seem to believe they are.
Exactly. That level of frustration is not a positive aspect of gaming. Dark Souls manages to be challenging and strategically rich without the factor of causing frustration. That's a good thing.
This is what this sounds like; you decided to choose something you didn't know what you were getting into, because that's what you always choose. Now you're frustrated that you don't know the game, and complaining about it.
Again, my point exactly. My behavior is logically incoherent, I'm aware of that fact, and generally opt to not play a game rather than take steps to actually, y'know, relieve the frustration. My behavior is likely not unique, and that's an issue that better game design can fix.
They could but should they have to, if it's a problem that's entirely on your end?
If it were a problem on my end I'd agree (to an extent, I don't like that I do this) But thing is, it's a behavior that more people than just I exhibit. Clearly that's not a good thing, right? And if the actions of a small portion of people doing things consciously (game devs creating a game) is resulting in a negative felt by a larger group of people behaving in an non-rational, emotional way (players compulsively taking on challenges just because they're marked as challenges) who do you think should have the burden of changing this effect?
That's ignoring that, like I said, it fosters gatekeeping tendencies. Which we can all agree aren't good.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
Uh...the people who compulsively take on the challenges...should probably control themselves better...?
Like...I know what you're trying to say...? But I also totally disagree...with...it...?
Because I don't actually care? About what kind of "gamer" I am? I don't care about the status or the reputation or the label? I just play games...for me?
Exactly. That level of frustration is not a positive aspect of gaming. Dark Souls manages to be challenging and strategically rich without the factor of causing frustration. That's a good thing.
ok so what does this have to do with what we're talking about then
If it were a problem on my end I'd agree (to an extent, I don't like that I do this) But thing is, it's a behavior that more people than just I exhibit. Clearly that's not a good thing, right? And if the actions of a small portion of people doing things consciously (game devs creating a game) is resulting in a negative felt by a larger group of people behaving in an non-rational, emotional way (players compulsively taking on challenges just because they're marked as challenges) who do you think should have the burden of changing this effect?
Nobody cuz it's not actually a problem in the same way that something like bad level design is.
I'm not saying a game needs difficulty levels, but they're a feature that can be implemented well or poorly just the same as any other. Their presence does not make a game better or worse by itself, and if you're playing on a difficulty that is above your skill level, that is your problem, not the dev's.
Basically i'm a little miffed at the suggestion that a feature which i enjoy should be removed because some gamers apparently have a perverse fascination with playing on higher difficulties than they're capable of beating and then crying about it when it's too hard for them.
like so
It's a specific mechanic (adjusting damage levels) that is applied across the board. I can't think of a genre where such a setting would really make much sense (if it adjusts enemy health, it mainly serves to lengthen battles. If it adjusts enemy damage, it just ends up punishing imperfection without creating an environment where players can learn) but even if it did it really really doesn't work for damn near every genre even though it's super common.
Also, this isn't a "damage ratio slider." Permadeath is a consequence. It's a wound, a loss of resources, that you must live with.
Only one thing changes between Casual and Classic and that's the fact that you lose your units if they die.
Choosing between "I want to casually suicide my units" and "I must keep my precious babies alive" settings is player agency. It's a choice.
In this case it's more an issue of the implied jab at players who don't find this mechanic compelling and the way it doesn't really feel like it fits the gameplay. I could get into the reasons why I don't think this works but that isn't the discussion at hand.
Uh...the people who compulsively take on the challenges...should probably control themselves better...?
Like...I know what you're trying to say...? But I also totally disagree...with...it...?
Because I don't actually care? About what kind of "gamer" I am? I don't care about the status or the reputation or the label? I just play games...for me?
Certain mechanics serve to make these ideas more pervasive. I'm glad you're capable of transcending it, but not everyone is. And in my opinion it should be the responsibility of devs to curb these tendencies, but if nothing else I think moving away from simple damage sliders (which is ultimately what difficulty settings tend to amount to because it's an easy way to quantify a very subjective thing) would be a positive step in reconsidering how to make games hard.
That's ignoring that, like I said, it fosters gatekeeping tendencies. Which we can all agree aren't good.
all the dynamic difficulty in the world won't change actual gamer culture.
I disagree. And I disagree because difficulty levels provide an easy shorthand to divide players by skill level. When difficulty is integrated as an actual mechanic rather than a menu option it allows players a means to more rationally approach the issue, even if it doesn't radically change gamer culture.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
Look, there's a lot of things that are basically insults and they should be taken as such. But in this case, this is only an insult if you think it is.
I am a casual player. I play things on casual difficulties. I cannot even play Bayonetta 2 on normal. That's what I am, and I don't care who knows it. I am bad at video games.
And you know what? With Fire Emblem Awakening, that mode absolutely is casual. In Casual, there are no consequences to having your units die except for that particular moment (aside from whatever heartache you feel in your heart for letting them get hurt). And that's fine. It's fine to be casual.
But it is one of the functions of media (not the only function for fucks sake please please please don't start killing me over this please please please please please please please please please please please) to allow things that are rationally understood to be understood emotionally. And video games demonstrably don't create that understanding.
Look, in the specific case of Fire Emblem: Awakening, it's a choice between, on the one hand, the style of gameplay i associate with the Fire Emblem series and, on the other, a more conventional approach to strategy with drastically lowered stakes.
i have no objection to the inclusion of the Casual mode, nor do i think less of someone who enjoys that mode but has no interest in Classic. i *do* object to the suggestion that the Classic mode should be removed - reducing my choices as a player, and in the process obliterating what is for me a big part of the appeal of Fire Emblem - just because some people don't like it but choose to play it anyway.
Basically you're saying i shouldn't be allowed the game i want because some people don't like it but feel "compelled" to play it.
Comments
i prefer to play on lower difficulty levels until i'm confident with a game, honestly
i prefer to play on lower difficulty levels until i'm confident with a game, honestly
Yeah, no wrong in doing that far as I care. This is coming from someone that erratically tries out the hardest modes of games, and inconsistently sticks to them. It just makes me think of how FTL has Easy, Normal, and Hard, and it's a really nice progression. The game is largely fair and decently well-designed (though I have my issues with it), and Hard does exactly what it's supposed to do - make me pull my hair out at how difficult it is. Relatively speaking I'm a mid-level player at best, so there's still a long way to go.
If you pick your difficulty from the menu at the start, and when you start out on Normal, if the game's too easy, you just start a new save on a Hard difficulty. It's not, ahem, difficult. Likewise, if the Normal mode is too hard, you can start a new game on Easy. None of this requires you to have foreknowledge of how hard the different modes are, you can find that out for yourself by trial and error.
In-universe aspects that affect difficulty isn't a bad mechanic, but the menu-based difficulty adjustment is not a bad thing. It tells you where you are in relation to how good the devs expect you to be, and gives you something to work towards.
if you can toggle difficulty mid-way through then that kind of cheapens it to me; if you're stuck on a particular section you should keep at it until you beat it, it shouldn't be as easy as just switching to a lower difficulty setting, that's crap
All this stuff people are saying makes sense. On paper. In practice I've found that for myself- and other people who I play games with, and clearly to the Extra Credits people who know their shit when it comes to the nitty-gritty psychology of game design- a less black and white approach is necessary.
It's just a lazy way of thinking about difficulty, really. Plenty of games have methods of making the game massively easier/more difficult that feel much better than a menu choice.
All of these intuitively feel like they make the game easier or harder without the sting of switching to an "easy" setting or making the player feel obligated to make it harder. And they allow a player an understanding of how they want to play the game before forcing the player into a decision about how vaguely difficult the game is.
Honestly this is something where it's especially important to delineate what intuitively makes sense and what actually happens in practice. I think a bit of deference to the EC crew might be something to consider as well just because they work really closely with playtesters and devs and such.
i'm sure the Extra Credits people know more about game design than me, so maybe i'm in the minority here, but i like having a hard mode to work towards. Challenge runs don't feel like hard mode, they feel like self-imposed limitations, not part of the game proper. This is obviously an abstract distinction but difficulty settings feel "canonical" in a way that challenge runs don't.
2. This is why video games need to be more accommodating towards this style of play.
Let me go more in depth with 1.
For a minute, let's operate under the assumption that I'm not terribly unique in the sense that I'm not the only person who compulsively plays games on the hard setting. Given that the EC video mentioned this tendency, I don't think this is a stretch.
This means that these settings create an environment where a certain demographic will very frequently experience unnecessary frustration. Logically we can change the difficulty, but come on, it's a compulsion, you can't just say "Stop it!" and it'll stop happening. And efforts to discourage it, like lowering difficulty automatically (see Kid Icarus: Uprising, easily the most fucking infuriating game in existence for almost exclusively this reason) tend to make the problem worse.
And difficulty settings are not adjusted to different playstyles either, given that they almost universally equate to changing damage ratios. It removes player agency in what they consider easy or hard.
Like, the "canonical" nature of these choices assigns a much greater weight to difficulty than it really should have. It directly reinforces the compulsive behavior, as well as gatekeeping("fucking scrubs playing Dragon Age on Casual Mode, pft")
That might be my roots in SNES/GBA games speaking, though.
The games of From Software are revered for punishing difficulty and they conspicuously lack difficulty levels and yet still have much broader appeal than many similar games because they directly incentivize players to come up with strategies they're comfortable with without any sort of implied judgement.
i'm not knocking challenge runs, but as far as i'm concerned that's something i'd associate with the hardcore crowd, not something that's of much interest to me as a somewhat casual gamer who enjoys a challenge now and then.
As an aside, i find it kind of amusing - you're normally a person i associate with holding positive opinions about media and staunchly defending them, so it's kind of weird to see you slagging off two of my brother's favourite games in the space of a single discussion. However i have never played Kid Icarus: Uprising and can't possibly comment.
That's ignoring that, like I said, it fosters gatekeeping tendencies. Which we can all agree aren't good.
Nobody's gotten mad at Kex yet, which tends to happen during an inadvertent gang up.
But at the same time, Kex, i really disagree with what you're saying, and no, it's not that i don't understand you, i just don't agree.
i'd like to post my thoughts on the actual difference between a challenge run and hard mode, but i'm not sure whether i really should at this point.
But it is one of the functions of media (not the only function for fucks sake please please please don't start killing me over this please please please please please please please please please please please) to allow things that are rationally understood to be understood emotionally. And video games demonstrably don't create that understanding.
i have no objection to the inclusion of the Casual mode, nor do i think less of someone who enjoys that mode but has no interest in Classic. i *do* object to the suggestion that the Classic mode should be removed - reducing my choices as a player, and in the process obliterating what is for me a big part of the appeal of Fire Emblem - just because some people don't like it but choose to play it anyway.
Basically you're saying i shouldn't be allowed the game i want because some people don't like it but feel "compelled" to play it.