Easy mode is the way to go in vidya guys

[MajesticSiN]

The difficulties are there for a reason. Any mode is valid as long as you are having fun.

 

[DarkTownStrutters]

Satisfaction through overcoming adversity. aka Git Gud, newb.

 

[qw90700]

okay then i agree with you

you likely have a high level of neuroticism in the Big Five traits, you take things too personally. I didn't want to seem harsh with you.

Post automatically merged: Today at 4:21 PM

because that wasn't my intention, but you perceive it that way because it offends you. we're just having a discussion bro

And I'm an ESTP, Cancer, my Chinese Zodiac is Dog (wooof woof) and my friends call me Fẽng Gǒu (Mad Dog™©℗®), I have B RH+ blood, and I have a different varience of AVPR1a!!!! 4649!!! lolol

If I use "lol" it means I wasn't serious, I'm just a joker loves to make jokes and play with words and shit and I'm rarely serious so no worries dude!!!! Carry on.

 

[metaretro]

I can appreciate when games don't hold your hand and lead you like a little old lady across the street, but still give players the option to have their hand-held modes

An easy game does not necessarily mean there is a yellow marker on the map to show you the way, as Mario 64 proves.

I would say that there are even games that don't require you to use your brain and feature a hardcore mode and GPS to guide you, such as Cyberslop 2077.

More power to ya, m8te.

Thank you for letting me enjoy my baby games

 

[X y b e r - S k u ll]

In my opinion, the success of difficult video games such as Souls is based on exploiting a market made up of young people who are looking for challenges to compensate for their monotonous lives and rewards for their efforts in an unfair world that values networking above all else.

Problem is you're saying this from a modern day perspective. What you're saying wouldn't really apply to 2011 when Dark Souls first came out, and even more so in 2009 when Demon Souls came out (The first of the Souls games). I just think Miyazaki and his team looked at a lot of older stuff they liked and wanted to apply that to what they were making and come up with something new and different. The "tough, but fair" approach a lot older games (Arcade games especially) is something they obviously admired and translated it to their own games. Every game known for being difficult really isn't that bad when you actually look and think about what you're playing. The games give you all the tools you need to beat them, it's just up to you to figure out where and when to apply them.

 

[qw90700]

Problem is you're saying this from a modern day perspective.

When I read it I directly remembered a psychology aspect regarding how young people like challenges regardless of timeline in history of humanity because it's how young humans are (especially teens) lol and the OP actually mentioned what they think about how people are without giving any specific time frame. Carry on.

 

[metaretro]

Problem is you're saying this from a modern day perspective. What you're saying wouldn't really apply to 2011 when Dark Souls first came out, and even more so in 2009 when Demon Souls came out (The first of the Souls games)

I don't know, is that true? In my opinion, this environment has existed since industrialization. Boomers enjoyed the best years, and everything went to hell after the internet.

The "tough, but fair" approach a lot older games (Arcade games especially) is something they obviously admired and translated it to their own games. Every game known for being difficult really isn't that bad when you actually look and think about what you're playing. The games give you all the tools you need to beat them, it's just up to you to figure out where and when to apply them.

I can understand why some people might like them, but they're just not for me, and looking back, that's what turned me off gaming. Arcade games were designed either to make you pay for tokens or to add artificial longevity by making the game incredibly difficult, because technical limitations meant that games couldn't have large storage capacities. Today, there's no justification for this, except for the reasons I've mentioned.

Post automatically merged: Today at 5:38 PM

When I read it I directly remembered a psychology aspect regarding how young people like challenges regardless of timeline in history of humanity because it's how young humans are

You might take this the wrong way again, but know that what you're saying is ignorant. My source comes from a researcher who spent 8 years studying human civilizations, see Luke Kemp.

 

[Strategist's icon Strategist Strategist]

I don't know, is that true? In my opinion, this environment has existed since industrialization. Boomers enjoyed the best years, and everything went to hell after the internet.


I can understand why some people might like them, but they're just not for me, and looking back, that's what turned me off gaming. Arcade games were designed either to make you pay for tokens or to add artificial longevity by making the game incredibly difficult, because technical limitations meant that games couldn't have large storage capacities. Today, there's no justification for this, except for the reasons I've mentioned.

Yeah, but you don't want to fall into the other extreme where the game spells out everything for the player so there's barely any neuron activation required to complete the game. And then the story is so generic and boring on top of that you want to skip every story scene. This is where modern gaming is trending towards and I'm not a fan of it.

 

[metaretro]

Yeah, but you don't want to fall into the other extreme where the game spells out everything for the player so there's barely any neuron activation required to complete the game. And then the story is so generic and boring on top of that you want to skip every story scene.

I agree with that

 

[qw90700]

You might take this the wrong way again, but know that what you're saying is ignorant. My source comes from a researcher who spent 8 years studying human civilizations, see Luke Kemp.

So what my professors taught me regarding psychology is ignorant thing? Instead of humanity you should study Cambridge English Dictionary™©℗®!!! lolol

To be serious I don't care about what someone think about anything because they are a person who has no opinion of themselves so they just relying on some random Luke Kemp so they are not aware how much they bullshit. Big Five traits my ass ayy lmao. This is not 80s anymore, we talk about human genes instead in the year 2025!!!! lolol

 

[Waffles's iconWaffles]

I agree.

I play games for the story, not to prove I can outlast hidden dice rolls or martial arts-level skills.

 

[metaretro]

Instead of humanity you should study Cambridge English Dictionary™©℗®!!! lolol

 

[X y b e r - S k u ll]

I can understand why some people might like them, but they're just not for me, and looking back, that's what turned me off gaming. Arcade games were designed either to make you pay for tokens or to add artificial longevity by making the game incredibly difficult, because technical limitations meant that games couldn't have large storage capacities. Today, there's no justification for this, except for the reasons I've mentioned.

Again, another take from a place of ignorance and lack of understanding immediately invalidated by the fact that the overwhelming majority of arcade games can be beaten on 1 credit (Which like I said; games give you all the tools you need, you just need to apply them yourself). Granted; I will concede some of them WERE designed to fuck over players for extra cash (Mostly American ones like Terminator 2 being the worst offender of this), but in the grand scheme of things machines like that were vastly outnumbered by better designed "tough, but fair" approach games I mentioned.

Really can't help but feel a bit more vindicated by my point in my first post about people treating games as something disposable or like junk food; something you don't think about and just exists to hold you over temporarily until something else comes along.

 

[Strategist's icon Strategist Strategist]

Again, another take from a place of ignorance and lack of understanding immediately invalidated by the fact that the overwhelming majority of arcade games can be beaten on 1 credit (Which like I said; games give you all the tools you need, you just need to apply them yourself). Granted; I will concede some of them WERE designed to fuck over players for extra cash (Mostly American ones like Terminator 2 being the worst offender of this), but in the grand scheme of things machines like that were vastly outnumbered by better designed "tough, but fair" approach games I mentioned.

Really can't help but feel a bit more vindicated by my point in my first post about people treating games as something disposable or like junk food; something you don't think about and just exists to hold you over temporarily until something else comes along.

Ummm, as someone who spent a lot of his youth at the arcades, I can't think of any games that could be beat with one quarter lol. I mean, theoretically they could be beat that way but I never saw it in practice. Many had some BS designs meant to draw quarters out of the player, especially fighting games like Street Fighter 2 where the AI could do counters and recover faster than any human player could do realistically.

 

[X y b e r - S k u ll]

Ummm, as someone who spent a lot of his youth at the arcades, I can't think of any games that could be beat with one quarter lol. I mean, theoretically they could be beat that way but I never saw it in practice. Many had some BS designs meant to draw quarters out of the player, especially fighting games like Street Fighter 2 where the AI could do counters and recover faster than any human player could do realistically.

I mean all you have to do is type in whatever arcade game name you want and 1cc and the end into your search engine of choice to find evidence of what I'm talking about (Yes, Street Fighter 2 is one of the games you can beat on 1 credit). Like I said though; some games WERE programmed or designed in ways to screw over the player (mostly American made ones) and sometimes even more evil was taking Japanese arcade games and making them harder when they came to America for the purpose of getting more cash (Konami's X-Men and Simpson's arcade games being examples of this).

 

[Bakuma1997]

Play as you see fit, i usually play in normal if the game is reasonable with the challenge, but if the game is going to pull BS in Normal, stick to easy with no regrets, i usually only play Hard when there is some significant change (Like Valkyrie Chronicles giving 2x EXP and a exclusive ending)

Otherwise why bother playing something that only frustrates me without any satisfaction afterwards if i will only get a "You win" when the dust settles?

 

[Roy U. OmOm]

It's the opposite: when the gameplay is bad, the easy mode becomes boring, so you add artificial difficulty to maintain a “tolerable” experience.

Rayman Origins is far from difficult, yet it is one of Ubisoft's best platformer game.

That's funny. Because they ruined Legends, by making it so easy even IGN reviewer infant could beat it.

 

[Strategist's icon Strategist Strategist]

I mean all you have to do is type in whatever arcade game name you want and 1cc and the end into your search engine of choice to find evidence of what I'm talking about (Yes, Street Fighter 2 is one of the games you can beat on 1 credit). Like I said though; some games WERE programmed or designed in ways to screw over the player (mostly American made ones) and sometimes even more evil was taking Japanese arcade games and making them harder when they came to America for the purpose of getting more cash (Konami's X-Men and Simpson's arcade games being examples of this).

Yes, but beating the game with one quarter requires almost perfect knowledge of the game on top of perfect play. That usually requires spending a lot of quarters on the game to acquire that knowledge.

 

[moonbits]

lol, lmao even
no

 

[dropsmegamega]

Yes, but beating the game with one quarter requires almost perfect knowledge of the game on top of perfect play. That usually requires spending a lot of quarters on the game to acquire that knowledge.

yeah these were extraordinary feats that very few players could pull, principally back then that there wasn't tools like emulation to study the mechanics in depth. Calling it fair just because it's technically possible it's really pushing it

 

[ThirteeTooBeets]

In all seriousness, play in whatever way you want man, if there's an easy option then that means that it IS an option. We play to have fun after all, and if that's what makes it fun for you then go for it, we're not your mom or the police do whatever you want

 

[Rocket2049]

you know it's fine IF THERE IS A DIFFICULTY SETTING TO BEGIN WITH
god damn, i've never been so mad at a game since Sekiro, like ever,
like seriously F that game, it needed an easy mode.
i've gone through NES castlevania games, battletoads, even freaking silver surfer NES i actually BEAT with no cheats, save states, no BS,

I almost entirely didn't care for Dead cells (i hate roguelike design in general)
BUT, after learning it had assist options I looked into it more.
the ONE SINGLE OPTION THAT MADE ME PLAY THE GAME was the "respawn on death" setting
other words you don't get sent back to the starting area on death and have to redo the entire randomly generated map all over again. you just respawn the start of the area you died in.
100%, i'd never play the game if that option wasn't there. i've done boss cell 5 and such just died a CRAPTON but just respawn and try again easily.
...you can imagine i had to replay it a lot anyways due to how the game works with unlocks/upgrades

more recently, i'm playing FF tactics remaster, i'm on easy mode so damn fast
i never got into PS1 or PSP FFT, idk it was just "hard enough" it ruined my mood to keep going
on remasters easy (squire) difficulty, it's literally just right
it's only "30% less damage to you, 30% more damage to enemies" as far as i know, so not super duper easy either (i've game overed and also had to restart form permadeath of units)
it actually also made me wanna play it more, some other remaster features like autosave (per TURN, and you get 3 in battle autosaves) and retry/leave battle at will, much appreciated....
I only wish they added a way to DISABLE PERMADEATH OF UNITS

speaking of permadeath, I almost always hated Fire emblem
prior to shadow dragon on DS which had like 9 difficulty settings
permadeath really made me mad, i used emulators and save states, but that wasn't enough for me
so i used cheats to "revive" the perma-dead units on the GBA games and otherwise played normally.
and then 3DS FE awakening came along... I literally bought this game as soon as i heard you can
just SHUT OFF PERMADEATH ENTIRELY, and damn did it really matter!
i put the game on hard mode and no permadeath,
basically a lot of the times someone dies, is because oh SHIT didn't think that enemy would've killed me, or a critical hit, or just some unexpected crap (like reinforcements spawn in near someone who's basically dead)
and also i absolutely play sacrifical wall with some units, to keep main character alive, with permadeath that doesn't work, without it, nah they'll be fine after the battle LOL, just a flesh wound.

 

[Sunnyside]

Yeah this highly depends on the genre of game you're playing. Etrian Odyssey loses all of the tension and planning involved with dungeon runs when you play on easy mode. But I do agree that I've got issues with picking the challenging "correct" difficulty in games that really just aren't worth the frustration. Certain RPGs I play mainly for story and characters. I really shouldn't be so opposed to turning the battle difficulty down to reduce the tedium of grinding.

 

[TruxtonTatsujin TruxtonTatsujin]

I get bored if the game is too easy. I need the challenge to stay engaged.

 

[X y b e r - S k u ll]

Yes, but beating the game with one quarter requires almost perfect knowledge of the game on top of perfect play. That usually requires spending a lot of quarters on the game to acquire that knowledge.

And yet ironically it would still end up being more cost effective in the long run to learn a game like that. How do you think most fighting game players ended up getting so good at things like Street Fighter? It wasn't from playing the weaker home ports!