I’ve come to firmly believe that all games should have an invulnerability setting for the sake of accessibility. It’s probably one of the easier settings to implement for most games and it would have the most impact for the wide range of accessibility needs out there.
Anything that circumvents the design of the game to gain an advantage is technically cheating. I wasn’t necessarily saying it shouldn’t be there. Just pointing out, there is usually a wat to do it in most games. The devs have to have a way to test things and move the stories forward without playing hundreds of hours of game.
Maybe you’ve read it before and you want to skip to the good parts. Maybe it’s non-fiction and you’re only interested in something specific. Maybe there are parts of the story that make you uncomfortable, but you’re enjoying it overall. Maybe a page is missing. Maybe it’s an abridged version and it’s not up to you, that’s just what was available.
And to the original point, what of translations? Maybe the original author is dead, and somebody translated their book. Are you ‘circumventing’ the author’s original intent to ‘gain an advantage’? I mean, yes. Does that mean you’re ‘cheating’?
What about audio books? Was the book intended to be read on a page? Are you cheating by having the book read to you?
Calling these things ‘cheating’ is silly and unnecessarily loaded, and they assume that the goal of a work is completion. That the only reason you would start a thing is to finish it. I don’t believe that’s the case for any art. One might say that the challenge in a game is the point, but that’s only sometimes true, and challenge is relative. If something comes naturally easier to you, is it ‘cheating’ to use mods to make the game more difficult, because you’re gaining the advantage of improving your experience, against the original intent of the game? I don’t think so, so I don’t see why it is any different the other way around.
To think about it another way: if you subtract that paragraph from that book, does it cease to be a book? No, it’s just a different book, and that can still have value to people. You’re not ‘cheating’, you are making a new experience for yourself.
I could go on and on so I’m gonna stop myself here.
I like Jedi: Survivor’s method of accessibility. They let you slow down the game if you need a little more leeway with the bosses. You can crank that slider down to like 10% speed and it’s like being Neo in that scene where he dodges bullets. You can still fuck up but it’s pretty easy. I used it for the platforming because I hate platforming so much.
Would be nice if there was a dynamic difficulty that constantly changes based on how well your performing. You can always have a hard fought and be victorious but just barely to have a great experience. Would need a different implementation to have some penalty or reduce reward for not performing well so you will be motivated to try your best. Although properly implementing that is definetely a difficult task but seems possible enough to hope for. The closest thing I can imagine is hades that gradually increases damage resistance each time you die and I really like that implementation for a rougelike. I am someone who likes a bit of challenge but will definitely lose interest if I have to repeat something multiple times. Hades is an exception as each runs varies a lot but soulslike game that you have to try multiple times to learn and defeat a boss is a massive turn off for me.
Super Mario Bros Wonder threads this needle expertly, in my opinion.
Each level has a difficulty rating from 1 to 5 stars with 1 being easiest and 5 being “Mario Hard.”
To complete the main story, you only really need to beat mostly the easier levels, like difficulty 1-3 stars. All other levels are really optional, but there are a lot of them, and they are the 4-5 stars level difficulty.
So the “main game” by default should be “easy enough” for most gamers, and for those who want a challenge, there are tons of extra challenges for them to pursue.
I think I prefer this to a “difficulty setting” because it allows both casual and hardcore gamers to approach the same game in different ways. It doesn’t make you feel like you are missing anything from either way you choose to play. It also allows you to practice the harder levels if you want to get better.
Some games like Halo, if I recall correctly, literally rewarded you with special cutscenes for the hardest difficulty in beating the game. That can leave players who “aren’t good enough” for such high difficulty to feel a bit left out.
I don’t feel the same about Super Mario Bros Wonder, it just feels pretty accessible to all and I think more companies need to attempt something similar.
Some games like Halo, if I recall correctly, literally rewarded you with special cutscenes for the hardest difficulty in beating the game. That can leave players who “aren’t good enough” for such high difficulty to feel a bit left out.
Those players can either youtube it or keep trying.
I beat Reach on SLASO (minus the skull that hides your gun and HUD after the first level) and it would have been less satisfying if the game made it easier when I died.
Yeah, also a way to skip certain missions in older GTA games. I usually play games on easy because I have a low tolerance for frustration. Hence, I tend to avoid souls-likes, etc, although I would love to play them.
I think there is a wide difference between soulslikes and GTA. The most obvious being that soulslikes are understood to be difficult, while GTA difficulty spikes are almost random and tend to be a result of poor design.
In something like GTA there shouldn’t be a need to skip story critical missions, because those mission should be ironed out. The really frustrating missions either need to be reworked or pushed into optional side missions.
Sure, I’m generally in favour of more options when feasible. Hell, if someone wants to skip 90% of a single player game, more power to them. Hell, any non-competitive online game too, though I doubt many publishers would consider not charging extra for it…
Around 2010, I remember this game studio sharing a innovative technique of game design where as people failed a boss battle, the game would slowly make the battle easier.
Some companies ran with it. Nintendo gives you extra help if you die multiple times in a level. Where some studios do it more behind the scenes. For example - giving you a bit more ammo. Or slowing the boss down a little more. I can’t remember the game, but they have a feature where a boss can’t one-shot you. And they give you more of that buff the more you die, so it “feels fair”.
Making the boss easier after I die to it would frustrate the hell out of me unless it was optional. I want it to be a challenge, not just something I can beat if I die enough times.
You’d have to die a few times to it too even notice it getting easier. Almost nobody wants to grind out a boss 20 times in order to beat it. And if properly done, the variables changed are so small each time, that it’s not noticeable.
It’s a system to help everyone enjoy the game without quitting out of frustration. Because the majority of people, in general, quit after a bit too much resistance.
There’s a quick drop off of enjoyment when a player feels the game is too difficult.
People’s views on IP boil down to: I want to pirate games. None of you are thinking about patents and trademarks and how they benefit people from having their work shat on. Lemmy is infuriating.
I’m playing Jedi: Survivor on story mode right now and this is exactly how I feel. It’s a shame because even on story mode, boss fights in Fallen Order were still a little challenging.
In certain circumstances, I agree. I am currently playing The Outer Worlds RPG. In the game there is a companion quest which culminates in fighting a “Mantinqueen”- a giant monster space bug. There is a ton of build up to it. The monster had previously killed the companion’s entire mercenary group. The lair was spooky and atmospheric.
Problem was, mantiqueens were creatures I’d already fought in the open world. I could demolish one is about a minute with my upgraded weapons. This made the boss fight underwhelming.
I wouldn’t want the solution to be just tacking on more healthpoints, but there are other options to make the boss creature more interesting to fight and the game took none of them.
Yeah I was going to say… in many cases bosses seem to be easier than the normal fights. The bosses sort of focus on being a novel gimmick with easily telegraphed attacks, which often ends up being easier than normal fights in some games.
Totally solid option for some people, but not everyone. Depends on the game (some can’t be judged in two hours), your available time (can’t refund a game you bought a year ago that you only just now played), etc., and limits you to buying only from Steam. What if you’d rather buy from GOG or Humble Bundle?
I think my preference would be to have the game offer to reduce the difficulty temporarily after failing or offer other forms of support to make the boss encounter easier. If I selected Hard then I probably want the challenge of Hard, but if this difficulty spike is too much, then smoothing it out could be acceptable.
This is also ideally in addition to a way to adjust the difficulty mid-game as needed, of course.
I agree. I honestly hate boss battles. I love playing video games on hard mode, but for some reason boss battles have never filled my soul with joy or given me a sense of satisfaction when I’m done. They just irritate me. I definitely have games where I’m on the hardest difficulty for normal game play and then right before every boss battle I’m going into settings changing the difficulty to story mode so I can knock them down in 5 hits and move on with the game.
Totally depends on the game. Some games, like Ratchet and Clank Size Matters, yes for the final boss. Games like Brok The InvestiGator, no because I found the combat easy on the hardest difficulty.
No, not at all. Games used to have demos and trial versions, like basically all games, but game studios used to have to actually finish making a game before they shipped it. Trying before you bought was the business model of the whole industry. Now so many games are shipped in such bad condition they wouldn’t dare let you try it first. Trying before you buy is just prudent, as long as you actually buy the ones you like enough to play through.
bin.pol.social
Najstarsze