Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

The Jimquisition: Zero Difficulty (Patreon)

Published:
2016-03-21 14:03:57
Imported:
2020-05

Content

The news that Star Fox Zero would feature an invincible mode encouraged an almost predictable onslaught of outrage from the Hardcore Gamers who are Hardcore.

The idea of hand-holding and dumbing down has been a contentious topic for years, but if you scratch away the surface, there's another concern that just isn't hidden well enough.


The concern of an exclusive little club not being so exclusive anymore.

Files

Zero Difficulty (The Jimquisition)

http://www.patreon.com/jimquisition http://www.thejimquisition.com http://sharkrobot.com/collections/jimquisition-merch The news that Star Fox Zero would feature an invincible mode encouraged an almost predictable onslaught of outrage from the Hardcore Gamers who are Hardcore. The idea of hand-holding and dumbing down has been a contentious topic for years, but if you scratch away the surface, there's another concern that just isn't hidden well enough.

Comments

Anonymous

"I am invincible" --Boris Grishenko, GoldenEye

Anonymous

totally ok with cheat modes

Anonymous

I'm one of those people that consider the default difficulty to be the "proper" experience that the developers intended (as wanky as that sounds). As long as stuff like this is optional, I couldn't give a toss. To be honest I don't see how these things could help bring in people as it's usually used to appeal to people that may not even like games in the first place, but again, no tosses are being given on my end. Except for Iron Bull.

Anonymous

The Konami Code was the only way I got to see the advanced parts of Contra when I was a kid. The same is true for a lot of "Hardcore Gamers" out there who are throwing up this particular bullshit argument.

Anonymous

Do people just not understand that Nintendo is still trying to provide video games for younger children? Where the XBox and Playstation are geared for older audiences, Nintendo has always tried to remain the family console.

Ashe Celeste

Personally, I like the idea of star fox zero having an invincibility mode. That means that my 4 year old niece (just starting in video games and can't even read yet) can enjoy the game when I get it and be able to progress in it. That's not a bad thing.

Anonymous

How could they possibly have denied the joy of ragequitting to the kindergarten set?

Anonymous

If there's an easymode on dark souls I'd not even mind like... That'd attract new people. Holy shit. That'd be pretty awesome. I suck at dark souls myself and still try to bang my head against it until it breaks but I can understand why some people would be like y'know I just wanna experience the world n see the scary shit. "tru herdcore gamers" make me want to commit sudoku.

Anonymous

If there's an easymode on dark souls I'd not even mind like... That'd attract new people. Holy shit. That'd be pretty awesome. I suck at dark souls myself and still try to bang my head against it until it breaks but I can understand why some people would be like y'know I just wanna experience the world n see the scary shit. "tru herdcore gamers" make me want to commit sudoku.

Anonymous

With difficulty options, having these sort of things (which, let's be honest, were cheat codes back in the day) freely available from the start *do* cheapen the experience. The fact that I beat SFZ means nothing--my 9 month old nephew can and will also beat it. Not only will my 9 month old nephew get no sense of accomplishment from playing a game that he can't lose, but it also cheapens my own sense of accomplishment--and while that's arrogant for me to say that my own sense of accomplishment should matter to Nintendo, the fact is that the sense of accomplishment is one of the primary reasons that we play games. <br><br>When I did my review of the Android version of Final Fantasy IX, I criticized the "instant level 99" button that is freely available, and I stand by that. These Invincible Modes/I-Win-Buttons cheapen the experience AND turn simply playing through the game normally into a self-imposed challenge. So it's not accurate to say that it has no effect--at least, it's no more accurate to say that than it is to say that the existence of optional microtransactions have no effect. <br><br>The main issue, however, is simply that it turns "playing the game normally" into a self-imposed challenge; it fundamentally changes what it means to play the game. My personal problem with features such as this is that they very rarely do enough to punish those who use the I-Win Button, or reward players for not using it. Even something as simple as a Bad Ending for players who use the I-Win Button would go a long way, but yes--the sense of accomplishment is a big part of it. A sense of accomplishment is largely derived from how many people have achieved it, and how difficult it is to do. I don't care enough to complain about it (and I'm not complaining about it here)--just trying to explain the position and where we're coming from.<br><br> I'm fine with the modes being included, but I hold that using the I-Win Button should result in a Bad Ending, or foregoing the use of said button should unlock extra, meaningful rewards, like extra characters or stages. In SFZ, using the Invincible Mode should lock the player to the "easy path" (assuming it keeps the multiple path mechanics of previous entries). Then many people would still bitch, of course, like the people you mentioned who think the very existence of the game mode is the problem--it isn't. The problem is that there are often no rewards for completing the self-imposed challenge of playing the game normally.<br><br>I don't mind sharing my toys at all. But if I take the time to set up a huge playset of action figures that spawns an entire acre of land, I'll be damned if I'm going to let someone else come, throw their toys around haphazardly, and then proclaim, "See? I set mine up just as well as you did!" Is that elitism? Perhaps. But what's wrong with elitism? There's nothing wrong with excellence or striving for excellence. Elitism is a problem when it becomes exclusive of those who don't want to strive, and that's wrong--we shouldn't exclude those who don't want to strive for excellence. We should, however, always ensure that those who do choose to strive toward excellence have some sort of plateau to reach and some sense of accomplishment from doing so. Considering the increasing ubiquity of modern video games, video games are certainly part of the culture and having a real influence on people's behavior and ideas--humans <b>can</b> be trained. It happens all the time.<br><br>An old bass player in a band I was in had a vehicle that dinged incessantly if he didn't wear his seatbelt, and after having the vehicle for a few weeks it became automatic: as soon as he sat down in a vehicle, he fastened his seatbelt. He had been trained--conditioned by a system of reward and punishment, to behave a certain way. We are all being affected in subtle ways by such things at virtually every moment of the day--it is <b>critical</b>, in the long run, that we reward people who strive for excellence--and to punish them when they exclude others for not doing so.

shadowscribble

I'm cool with options to have a easier time. Sure I feel bad when they pop up and suggest hand holdy mode, but at least it was pretty damn irrefutable I wasn't the hotness at the moment. I remember when games themselves treated easy mode as a lesser state and easy mode players like lesser people. Nothing's more demeaning than finding out they literally chopped out a game's proper finale and ending because only the high born deserved it.

Anonymous

THANK YOU, JIM. I tried playing Dark Souls and Bloodborn but quickly grew bored and frustrated by them. I would LOVE to get into those games but the cumulative effect of the difficulty, the non-existent story, and the total lack of tutorials makes them feel like work and not like a game. I want to have fun when I play, not get frustrated endlessly. I always play games on whatever "Normal" difficulty setting is available. If DS or BB want to have an "Easy" mode, then I am all for it. I don't measure my self-worth by my gaming ability, so I don't give a shit if I play on an easier difficulty level if that's what it takes to enjoy the game. I do, however, want an answer to the same question you do: why the hell does anybody care what difficulty levels are used by OTHER PLAYERS???

Anonymous

You are a goddamn delight, Mr. Sterling xD

Anonymous

I've always thought than any "fan" of something that does or supports things that push non-fans away isn't a fan. Fans should want as many people as possible to enjoy the thing they do. That being said, a fan shouldn't hate someone who isn't a fan of their thing. You should want people to like the thing you're a fan of but understand that not everything is for everyone. It should also go both ways; if you're not a fan of something you don't need to go out of your way to be antagonistic to fans of that other thing.

Anonymous

I've always thought than any "fan" of something that does or supports things that push non-fans away isn't a fan. Fans should want as many people as possible to enjoy the thing they do. That being said, a fan shouldn't hate someone who isn't a fan of their thing. You should want people to like the thing you're a fan of but understand that not everything is for everyone. It should also go both ways; if you're not a fan of something you don't need to go out of your way to be antagonistic to fans of that other thing.<br><br>I do realize this is unlikely to ever be the most used outlook. If someone can hide behind a mask and be a dick there will always be someone who chooses that. Not everyone can be a rational human being, as sad as that sounds.

Anonymous

Adding cheat codes to your game: Has been an established part of games since the 1980s at least. Is included in some of the most classic, "hardcore" games. Who doesn't remember IDKFA and IDDQD? But god forbid you actually put those cheat codes on a menu. A menu that you don't have to play the game "properly" first to unlock. Then it's for BABIES!

Anonymous

Ted Bundy... you crack me up.... good one. the one and ONLY good that has come from that name

Anonymous

100% agree Jim, the lack of empathy from gamers (and the internet in general) for others is just utterly astounding sometimes. Every winter in Star Trek Online there's a fun little on-foot race that you can do daily to unlock a new ship. For most people it's pretty easy, but because it requires a certain amount of precision, it can be difficult for people with fine motor skill disabilities. So these people asked on the official forums for a bit of help, maybe make it so you get a consolation prize if you don't win the race that everyone else says is super easy etc. The response from other players? "Well if you're not good enough to win it then you shouldn't be playing the game". Fucking disgraceful. Nothing else in the game requires twitch reflexes but "fuck you if you can't do this one thing we find easy", basically. If it's so easy then why is it a problem that disabled people have a chance to do it too? "well then it cheapens the reward". Fuck off. Just fuck off your selfish cunts. There is no reason people should be punished for trying to enjoy a videogame because of reasons that are out of their control. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a soulless prick.

Anonymous
>>1532111

Commit....sudoku? My mom commits sudoku every time she takes a dumper.

Anonymous
>>1532476

Aria, at the risk of sounding contrarian, what do you care how I play a game? Or how anyone does? When I sit down to a game, I play for the joy of the experience. If I want to challenge myself, I change the settings. If I'd rather relax, I'll change the settings. Having those settings does not cheapen the experience for another person because that other person (be it you or your nephew or Jim or whomever) is not playing my game with my settings. That's what makes it mine. Yes, I didn't code it or have a hand in its creation, but I did pay for it and because of that, I am entitled to play the game as I see fit. And if I feel like drifting through it while admiring the scenery and the soundtrack, I will do so if there's an option available to do so. And no, I'm sorry, I don't buy that putting an easy mode in a game is equivalent to a micro-transaction (and yes, I punned it on purpose). A micro-transaction is an insidious reminder that, for a few dollars more, you can have an easier time or a more fulfilling game. An easy mode has no cost beyond the player's personal choice. Don't want easy? Don't use it. You might get a gentle suggestion after being crushed repeatedly that you might want an easier difficulty setting, but if that's all it takes to ruin your experience, you might have issues that go beyond a game chiding your success-to-failure ratio.

Anonymous

Star Fox Zero with easy mode is fine with me - as is easy mode in pretty much any game. Options are usually better than no options (as long as they don't make things confusing). But Dark Souls? Isn't for many - if not most - the difficulty the defining aspect of Dark Souls? Would Dark Souls with easy mode still be Dark Souls? Or just a Dark-Souls-like? It seems a bit too silly. I'm not sold on Jim's view there.

Anonymous
>>1536278

Dark Souls is the only game I can think of (on the spot), where allowing an easier mode would be somewhat of a shame (IMO). Part of Dark Souls' charm is its inherent difficulty. I say this as someone who didn't get very far in the game before abandoning it.

Holy Zen!

Similar argument as the SFZ one: The original DooM and its sequel are for babies because the IDDQD code exists.