i don't want to make anyone feel like they're being dogpiled.
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.
Okay but I want to ask you why you think it matters that there are "canonical" difficulties? If it validates the effort you put into a game, I can understand that, but it's a form of validation that comes at the price of other player's frustration. And I ask that you consider that maybe you consider there's a happy medium where the validation of doing something harder than average is still attained while minimizing frustration? And that said happy medium demonstrably doesn't exist in the most widely accepted form?
"Demonstrably" is the word I want you to focus on. This isn't just my issue. People have been talking about the inaccessability of games for a long time.
i posted my thoughts on the specific case of Fire Emblem: Awakening on the bottom of the previous page. i don't consider that game's Classic/Casual distinction a typical case of mere difficulty settings.
But if you're going to talk about "validation at the price of other player's frustration" then you might as well ask whether *any* challenge in a game is worth the frustration it's going to inflict on a less experienced or less skillful player.
i haven't played Dark Souls 2 which i think limits what i can say about this happy medium of yours, but going by the description in that Extra Credits video it involves fundamental changes to gameplay (ranged attacks as opposed to close-quarters combat; levelling in particular skills stats), not merely increased challenge. So it's not what i typically look for in a hard mode, which is to play a game by the same rules but with the overall difficulty increased.
i posted my thoughts on the specific case of Fire Emblem: Awakening on the bottom of the previous page. i don't consider that game's Classic/Casual distinction a typical case of mere difficulty settings.
But if you're going to talk about "validation at the price of other player's frustration" then you might as well ask whether *any* challenge in a game is worth the frustration it's going to inflict on a less experienced or less skillful player.
i haven't played Dark Souls 2 which i think limits what i can say about this happy medium of yours, but going by the description in that Extra Credits video it involves fundamental changes to gameplay (ranged attacks as opposed to close-quarters combat; levelling in particular skills), not merely increased challenge. So it's not what i typically look for in a hard mode, which is to play a game by the same rules but with the overall difficulty increased.
wait wah
I didn't watch it because I'm fundamentally opposed to the concept but you don't level skills in the Dark Souls games
Also i guess to be brutally honest with you Kex i just consider the mentality you're describing - playing a game that's too hard for you, getting frustrated with it, and then demanding it be changed because it's too hard when other people are perfectly happy with the difficulty - to be, well, silly.
i don't actually see how it's my problem if other people are going to be silly, and i certainly don't see why i should be punished for other people's silliness.
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.
Then allow me to recontextualize what I said.
I see Fire Emblem: Awakening as a game with which my frustrations are a symptom of a more pervasive design issue in the medium as a whole. I think there are ways of implementing just about anything well, but I think that the manner of implementation is an issue here.
For example: Permadeath in Fire Emblem.
Death is a Big Fucking Deal. If you're going to make it a major aspect of the game, I think it makes sense that it not be an optional feature. Otherwise you cheapen one of the principal means of engagement with the game. Plus, even in Hardcore mode, you can always reload a save file. The length of battles and the high degree of memorization and understanding necessary to win makes completely, entirely final, unreversable, capital-D Death for very slight mistakes a very harsh penalty, which would be okay if the game were about nasty, brutish, short lives, but it isn't.
And incentivizing perfection is okay, but it's decidedly weird for a game that isn't about being an overwhelming tactical genius who does everything perfect but is ostensibly about flawed people who occasionally screw up.
It doesn't work because it's a game that mechanically encourages perfection but doesn't have a story that fits this.
I like the idea of permadeath but I don't agree with it's implementation. I don't suggest taking away a fundamental aspect of your game, that's ludicrous and I wish you'd give me more credit.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
And then when you get tired of constantly trying to save everybody, you take the hit and move on.
Like when they moved on after that very sweet, important person died in the story?
Like how that person who uses time travel doesn't decide to go back and change things again, and just decides to stand and fight?
Basically, I'm arguing that the story fits because if you're the person who tries to save everybody, you're not the sort of person who actually exists in the game. They're characters who get dealt bad hands, sometimes tries to change things, but then eventually just deals.
Also i guess to be brutally honest with you Kex i just consider the mentality you're describing - playing a game that's too hard for you, getting frustrated with it, and then demanding it be changed because it's too hard when other people are perfectly happy with the difficulty - to be, well, silly.
Shift your thinking. I'm describing an element that makes me unable to fully enjoy a work and suggesting that my lack of enjoyment is a valid response to perceived flaws, i.e. one major basis of criticism.
The difference is that many emotional responses are very much heightened by the nature of video games. So people think about the reactions differently.
Do you or do you not think there should be permadeath in Fire Emblem?
Also now i'm starting to suspect that part of our disagreement here might stem from differing views about what constitutes an acceptable break from reality and how far a game must be a cohesive work of art as opposed to simply something that's fun to play.
And then when you get tired of constantly trying to save everybody, you take the hit and move on.
Like when they moved on after that very sweet, important person died in the story?
Like how that person who uses time travel doesn't decide to go back and change things again, and just decides to stand and fight?
Basically, I'm arguing that the story fits because if you're the person who tries to save everybody, you're not the sort of person who actually exists in the game.
This incongruity is very obvious and is not addressed by the game. Perfectionism is directly incentivized in numerous ways but is not expressed by the narrative.
If we're talking about permadeath mechanics, you might want to mention LISA
-walks out of thread-
-pokes head in-
because it actually encourages you to permakill your party members to avoid certain punishments, and the game will kill them off itself if you're not careful
Do you or do you not think there should be permadeath in Fire Emblem?
Death is a Big Fucking Deal. If it is to be central mechanic, it must be committed to. Allowing the player to opt out cheapens that. Allowing the player a means of saving everybody simply by doing the right things hard enough through trial and error also cheapens that. Not fully addressing it in the narrative also cheapens that.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
It doesn't need to be a direct incentive for it to exist. One element interacts towards another which interacts with another element and through the process creates the something that matters.
It's called the Fruitful Void. It's not there directly, there's no system for it, but the system elements that do exist help make it a sort of meta-system.
It doesn't need to be a direct incentive for it to exist. One element interacts towards another which interacts with another element and through the process creates the something that matters.
It's called the Fruitful Void. It's not there directly, there's no system for it, but the system elements that do exist help make it a sort of meta-system.
The meta-system is incongruous with the narrative. The incongruity is present in the player's mind but is not addressed within the narrative.
The game could have dealt with the inevitable meta-system but did not. That is my issue with this particular case.
dude if something is not for you there are lots of other things out there
Fire Emblem is for me. I like the basic elements of gameplay, I find the idea of permadeath compelling, and I like the plot. There are certain elements of gameplay that serve to massively hinder my enjoyment of the game itself without being necessary to the gameplay or story.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
The narrative is that nobody is perfect. That you need other people to help you. That death is inevitable, and what matters is how you react to it.
Nobody is perfect, so you're going to get tired of saving everyone. You need other people to help you, and that's what the other units are for (you could even say that Spotpass also helps). Death is inevitable, and how you react to the loss of your units is what matters.
The narrative is that nobody is perfect. That you need other people to help you. That death is inevitable, and what matters is how you react to it.
Nobody is perfect, so you're going to get tired of saving everyone. You need other people to help you, and that's what the other units are for (you could even say that Spotpass also helps). Death is inevitable, and how you react to the loss of your units is what matters.
I see no incongruity.
Then it shouldn't allow the player to opt out. Again, cheapens a major thematic point of the game.
If it was "about" death of party members, it would be better demonstrated by making death have weight beyond "Fuck you you fucking asshole, go ahead and die for fuck's sake I'm sick of saving you" and more along the lines of "I screwed up, and I can't fix it, how do I deal with this?" And it should ideally shift the game mechanically to make deaths inevitable eventually, but not completely unavoidable to everyone except perfectionists.
Do you or do you not think there should be permadeath in Fire Emblem?
Death is a Big Fucking Deal. If it is to be central mechanic, it must be committed to. Allowing the player to opt out cheapens that. Allowing the player a means of saving everybody simply by doing the right things hard enough through trial and error also cheapens that. Not fully addressing it in the narrative also cheapens that.
But i'm not talking about Death, the IRL phenomenon. i'm talking about the death mechanic in Fire Emblem. Removing Casual mode altogether would make Awakening into a typical Fire Emblem game, which is fine by me but is less accessible to the casual player, and i thought accessibility is what you wanted. Removing the ability to save everybody if you play well enough changes the rules of the game, and i like the rules as-is.
Narrative is an issue with writing rather than gameplay, and kind of beside the point, imo. i'm not about to claim the writing in Fire Emblem is perfect, though.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
It allows people to opt out because some people don't want to deal with that headache. It might be a good headache but some folks don't want to do that shit.
This is also accessibility.
Also, functionally, there's no difference between "go ahead and die I'm sick of saving you" and "I screwed up, I can't fix it, how do I deal with this" to the game. These are individual player reactions, different to everyone.
At the price of making the game massively frustrating and inaccessible to others.
That is assuming I accept that pretense, which I don't. I think it's more a matter of enjoying the central mechanic and accepting the surrounding implementation. I *like* the central mechanic. I think its implementation was poor in just enough ways that it makes the game frustrating, and while with a book or movie it would be easier to accept in a game frustration actively hinders, no, completely halts ability to engage with a work.
People who don't like shaky cam are capable of watching Cloverfield. Most mechanical flaws in games serve not just to dampen enjoyment but to actively bar engagement.
Do you or do you not think there should be permadeath in Fire Emblem?
Death is a Big Fucking Deal. If it is to be central mechanic, it must be committed to. Allowing the player to opt out cheapens that. Allowing the player a means of saving everybody simply by doing the right things hard enough through trial and error also cheapens that. Not fully addressing it in the narrative also cheapens that.
But i'm not talking about Death, the IRL phenomenon. i'm talking about the death mechanic in Fire Emblem. Removing Casual mode altogether would make Awakening into a typical Fire Emblem game, which is fine by me but is less accessible to the casual player, and i thought accessibility is what you wanted.
I'm not asking for the gutting of a thematic element. I'm suggesting that the implementation of a thematic element is such that it is almost impossible for people to engage with the theme for more or less arbitrary reasons.
Removing the ability to save everybody if you play well enough changes the rules of the game, and i like the rules as-is.
Narrative is an issue with writing rather than gameplay, and kind of beside the point, imo. i'm not about to claim the writing in Fire Emblem is perfect, though.
It allows people to opt out because some people don't want to deal with that headache. It might be a good headache but some folks don't want to do that shit.
Then the game is playing halvsies with how it deals with death within the game's narrative and mechanics. Problem.
Also, functionally, there's no difference between "go ahead and die I'm sick of saving you" and "I screwed up, I can't fix it, how do I deal with this" to the game. These are individual player reactions, different to everyone.
You can't fully control player reaction. But like any other medium, you can take steps to guide and foster intended reactions. I don't think Awakening guides emotional reactions adequately to the engagement it seemingly kinda-sorta halfway wants to create.
Kexruct what do you actually want out of this game?
I want whatever the game intends to provide. It is not providing according to its pretense. That is my problem.
And I've tried to argue why I don't believe it is fully providing, but it seems like a lot of people are hellbent on proving that my emotional reaction is what is fundamentally wrong and that I need to change that, without actually engaging what I'm saying. (Tachyon and Crackers are not doing this.)
Kexruct what do you actually want out of this game?
I want whatever the game intends to provide. It is not providing according to its pretense. That is my problem.
And I've tried to argue why I don't believe it is fully providing, but it seems like a lot of people are hellbent on proving that my emotional reaction is what is fundamentally wrong and that I need to change that, without actually engaging what I'm saying. (Tachyon and Crackers are not doing this.)
once again we're at the "the only reason you don't agree with me is that you don't get it, man" stage of the argument.
At the price of making the game massively frustrating and inaccessible to others.
I'll try saying this one more time:
No matter what else you say or think, accusing Nintendo, of all companies, of making their games inaccessible is utterly ridiculous.
I'm not "accusing." I'm not insinuating it was intentional gatekeeping. I'm saying that the implementation of a mechanic in the game served to prevent people from engaging with what it wanted to do thematically or emotionally.
I don't think that that idea is immediately risible because of the company that published the game.
Kexruct what do you actually want out of this game?
I want whatever the game intends to provide. It is not providing according to its pretense. That is my problem.
And I've tried to argue why I don't believe it is fully providing, but it seems like a lot of people are hellbent on proving that my emotional reaction is what is fundamentally wrong and that I need to change that, without actually engaging what I'm saying. (Tachyon and Crackers are not doing this.)
once again we're at the "the only reason you don't agree with me is that you don't get it, man" stage of the argument.
OK dude, whatever.
No, I am saying a reason this argument is getting uncomfortably accusatory and dog-piley is because people are overly focused on the validity of my response and not the reasons I have given for why I had this response.
I'm not delusional enough to believe people don't agree with me for want of knowledge. I'm really bothered that this was an assumption about me that you were entirely comfortable making.
At the price of making the game massively frustrating and inaccessible to others.
I'll try saying this one more time:
No matter what else you say or think, accusing Nintendo, of all companies, of making their games inaccessible is utterly ridiculous.
I'm not "accusing." I'm not insinuating it was intentional gatekeeping. I'm saying that the implementation of a mechanic in the game served to prevent people from engaging with what it wanted to do thematically or emotionally.
I don't think that that idea is immediately risible because of the company that published the game.
I still find the idea that From Software is somehow being ultra-accessible and Nintendo is somehow being ultra-inaccessible rather bizarro thinking.
Kexruct what do you actually want out of this game?
I want whatever the game intends to provide. It is not providing according to its pretense. That is my problem.
And I've tried to argue why I don't believe it is fully providing, but it seems like a lot of people are hellbent on proving that my emotional reaction is what is fundamentally wrong and that I need to change that, without actually engaging what I'm saying. (Tachyon and Crackers are not doing this.)
once again we're at the "the only reason you don't agree with me is that you don't get it, man" stage of the argument.
OK dude, whatever.
No, I am saying a reason this argument is getting uncomfortably accusatory and dog-piley is because people are overly focused on the validity of my response and not the reasons I have given for why I had this response.
I'm not delusional enough to believe people don't agree with me for want of knowledge. I'm really bothered that this was an assumption about me that you were entirely comfortable making.
it's not an assumption if you continually prove it right.
I tried to be reasonable and have a discussion with you, and you proceeded to simply ignore me. Now you're claiming that I'm somehow misinterpreting what you're saying without actually saying what you really mean.
How am I supposed to take that as anything other than
the only reason you don't agree with me is that you don't get it, man
I don't think From Software is accessible and Nintendo is unaccessible.
I think Dark Souls is an individual game that successfully sells its atmosphere, its world, its story, and its themes because they are supported by its mechanics, and its mechanics are justified by its atmosphere, its world, its story, and its themes. I think Dark Souls works mechanically for a wide variety of very minute technical reasons that I don't feel like fully articulating.
I think Fire Emblem: Awakening is a game that allows itself to be unnecessarily frustrating in a way that is incongruous to its goals, and that it does not successfully guide player emotion.
I don't think From Software is accessible and Nintendo is unaccessible.
I think Dark Souls is an individual game that successfully sells its atmosphere, its world, its story, and its themes because they are supported by its mechanics, and its mechanics are justified by its atmosphere, its world, its story, and its themes. I think Dark Souls works mechanically for a wide variety of very minute technical reasons that I don't feel like fully articulating.
I think Fire Emblem: Awakening is a game that allows itself to be unnecessarily frustrating in a way that is incongruous to its goals, and that it does not successfully guide player emotion.
What does this have to do with anything.
We were talking about difficulty levels as a concept, these were examples, we are not actually talking about those games, they are bullet points here.
Kexruct what do you actually want out of this game?
I want whatever the game intends to provide. It is not providing according to its pretense. That is my problem.
And I've tried to argue why I don't believe it is fully providing, but it seems like a lot of people are hellbent on proving that my emotional reaction is what is fundamentally wrong and that I need to change that, without actually engaging what I'm saying. (Tachyon and Crackers are not doing this.)
once again we're at the "the only reason you don't agree with me is that you don't get it, man" stage of the argument.
OK dude, whatever.
No, I am saying a reason this argument is getting uncomfortably accusatory and dog-piley is because people are overly focused on the validity of my response and not the reasons I have given for why I had this response.
I'm not delusional enough to believe people don't agree with me for want of knowledge. I'm really bothered that this was an assumption about me that you were entirely comfortable making.
it's not an assumption if you continually prove it right.
I tried to be reasonable and have a discussion with you, and you proceeded to simply ignore me.
You posted responses seven times. I responded to them individually at least four times. I'm sorry I can't be precisely one to one but if you haven't noticed, this is a slightly uneven discussion.
Now you're claiming that I'm somehow misinterpreting what you're saying without actually saying what you really mean.
How am I supposed to take that as anything other than
the only reason you don't agree with me is that you don't get it, man
?
Because I was saying that I think people were focusing on the wrong part of what I said. I felt like this was hampering our ability to adequately communicate.
I don't believe the natural result of understanding what I'm saying is people agreeing with me. I'd have to be either terrifically unobservant or an amnesiac (given how many times this has happened in the past) to think that was the case.
I think the reason why my meaning was not understood (not outright unstated) because there was inordinate focus on a certain part of my statement that did not contain the meaning of it.
I don't think From Software is accessible and Nintendo is unaccessible.
I think Dark Souls is an individual game that successfully sells its atmosphere, its world, its story, and its themes because they are supported by its mechanics, and its mechanics are justified by its atmosphere, its world, its story, and its themes. I think Dark Souls works mechanically for a wide variety of very minute technical reasons that I don't feel like fully articulating.
I think Fire Emblem: Awakening is a game that allows itself to be unnecessarily frustrating in a way that is incongruous to its goals, and that it does not successfully guide player emotion.
What does this have to do with anything.
We were talking about difficulty levels as a concept, these were examples, we are not actually talking about those games, they are bullet points here.
I was responding to Section. I forgot to quote them.
I attempted to move the discussion from specific examples. The discussion did not go in that direction.
Because I was saying that I think people were focusing on the wrong part of what I said. I felt like this was hampering our ability to adequately communicate.
ok so what is your actual problem then
I'm sorry if I seem short but you have a bad habit of making your sentences like four times as long as they need to be and it makes your posts confusing to read.
Comments
"Demonstrably" is the word I want you to focus on. This isn't just my issue. People have been talking about the inaccessability of games for a long time.
But if you're going to talk about "validation at the price of other player's frustration" then you might as well ask whether *any* challenge in a game is worth the frustration it's going to inflict on a less experienced or less skillful player.
i haven't played Dark Souls 2 which i think limits what i can say about this happy medium of yours, but going by the description in that Extra Credits video it involves fundamental changes to gameplay (ranged attacks as opposed to close-quarters combat; levelling in particular skills stats), not merely increased challenge. So it's not what i typically look for in a hard mode, which is to play a game by the same rules but with the overall difficulty increased.
i don't actually see how it's my problem if other people are going to be silly, and i certainly don't see why i should be punished for other people's silliness.
I see Fire Emblem: Awakening as a game with which my frustrations are a symptom of a more pervasive design issue in the medium as a whole. I think there are ways of implementing just about anything well, but I think that the manner of implementation is an issue here.
For example: Permadeath in Fire Emblem.
Death is a Big Fucking Deal. If you're going to make it a major aspect of the game, I think it makes sense that it not be an optional feature. Otherwise you cheapen one of the principal means of engagement with the game. Plus, even in Hardcore mode, you can always reload a save file. The length of battles and the high degree of memorization and understanding necessary to win makes completely, entirely final, unreversable, capital-D Death for very slight mistakes a very harsh penalty, which would be okay if the game were about nasty, brutish, short lives, but it isn't.
And incentivizing perfection is okay, but it's decidedly weird for a game that isn't about being an overwhelming tactical genius who does everything perfect but is ostensibly about flawed people who occasionally screw up.
It doesn't work because it's a game that mechanically encourages perfection but doesn't have a story that fits this.
I like the idea of permadeath but I don't agree with it's implementation. I don't suggest taking away a fundamental aspect of your game, that's ludicrous and I wish you'd give me more credit.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
The difference is that many emotional responses are very much heightened by the nature of video games. So people think about the reactions differently.
Do you or do you not think there should be permadeath in Fire Emblem?
Also now i'm starting to suspect that part of our disagreement here might stem from differing views about what constitutes an acceptable break from reality and how far a game must be a cohesive work of art as opposed to simply something that's fun to play.
(i haven't played LISA.)
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
The game could have dealt with the inevitable meta-system but did not. That is my issue with this particular case.
If it was "about" death of party members, it would be better demonstrated by making death have weight beyond "Fuck you you fucking asshole, go ahead and die for fuck's sake I'm sick of saving you" and more along the lines of "I screwed up, and I can't fix it, how do I deal with this?" And it should ideally shift the game mechanically to make deaths inevitable eventually, but not completely unavoidable to everyone except perfectionists.
But i'm not talking about Death, the IRL phenomenon. i'm talking about the death mechanic in Fire Emblem. Removing Casual mode altogether would make Awakening into a typical Fire Emblem game, which is fine by me but is less accessible to the casual player, and i thought accessibility is what you wanted. Removing the ability to save everybody if you play well enough changes the rules of the game, and i like the rules as-is.
Narrative is an issue with writing rather than gameplay, and kind of beside the point, imo. i'm not about to claim the writing in Fire Emblem is perfect, though.
That is assuming I accept that pretense, which I don't. I think it's more a matter of enjoying the central mechanic and accepting the surrounding implementation. I *like* the central mechanic. I think its implementation was poor in just enough ways that it makes the game frustrating, and while with a book or movie it would be easier to accept in a game frustration actively hinders, no, completely halts ability to engage with a work.
People who don't like shaky cam are capable of watching Cloverfield. Most mechanical flaws in games serve not just to dampen enjoyment but to actively bar engagement.
You don't like Awakening's death mechanic. Fine. OK. We can agree to differ. i really don't see anything gained from arguing this further.
oh
No matter what else you say or think, accusing Nintendo, of all companies, of making their games inaccessible is utterly ridiculous.
I want whatever the game intends to provide. It is not providing according to its pretense. That is my problem.
And I've tried to argue why I don't believe it is fully providing, but it seems like a lot of people are hellbent on proving that my emotional reaction is what is fundamentally wrong and that I need to change that, without actually engaging what I'm saying. (Tachyon and Crackers are not doing this.)
I don't think that that idea is immediately risible because of the company that published the game.
I'm not delusional enough to believe people don't agree with me for want of knowledge. I'm really bothered that this was an assumption about me that you were entirely comfortable making.
I think Dark Souls is an individual game that successfully sells its atmosphere, its world, its story, and its themes because they are supported by its mechanics, and its mechanics are justified by its atmosphere, its world, its story, and its themes. I think Dark Souls works mechanically for a wide variety of very minute technical reasons that I don't feel like fully articulating.
I think Fire Emblem: Awakening is a game that allows itself to be unnecessarily frustrating in a way that is incongruous to its goals, and that it does not successfully guide player emotion.
one about Fire Emblem and the other about the wider issues discussed in the Extra Credits video
Because I was saying that I think people were focusing on the wrong part of what I said. I felt like this was hampering our ability to adequately communicate.
I don't believe the natural result of understanding what I'm saying is people agreeing with me. I'd have to be either terrifically unobservant or an amnesiac (given how many times this has happened in the past) to think that was the case.
I think the reason why my meaning was not understood (not outright unstated) because there was inordinate focus on a certain part of my statement that did not contain the meaning of it.
I was responding to Section. I forgot to quote them.