catbarf on 29/5/2017 at 17:16
Quote Posted by Yakoob
For me? I like a challenge, but welcome the crutches. I played Bioshock 2 relying heavily on the quest arrow, because I wasn't in the mood for location-hunting, just taking my mind off of shooting some splicers. There is a place for complex, brainy games, as much as dumb, relaxing entertainment
I agree entirely. There are a lot of times when mechanics can be simplified or eliminated entirely to aid players, without compromising the core appeal of the game. In the case of Bioshock, exploration isn't a core gameplay component, so making it easier by telling you where to go is a bit of hand-holding to help you get to the real gameplay (the combat system).
So, here's a rough thought for a conceptual model- reducing difficulty of a game only ruins it if it compromises the core gameplay challenge.
For example, if Portal gave you hints I don't think it would be ruined, but if it told you exactly where to go and how to get there, thereby destroying the puzzle aspect, I would call it ruined. Or if in Mirror's Edge there was an assist that made you automatically perform the necessary parkour actions, I'd call that ruined. There's a subtle difference here from something like god mode in a shooter, where it becomes impossible to fail. You could still jump into an abyss or get shot to death in Portal or Mirror's Edge even with the 'ruining' changes I suggested, so it's still possible to fail, but it's not possible to fail at the core gameplay that defines the game (puzzles and parkour movement respectively).
Bioshock giving you a quest arrow doesn't ruin the experience because finding your way to the end of the level isn't the core gameplay. But if you hypothetically had a maze level for Bioshock where the core gameplay became finding the exit, then having a quest arrow might ruin that experience.
That's my working theory, so feel free to poke holes in it or point out some really stunningly obvious counter-example I've missed.
Gryzemuis on 29/5/2017 at 18:50
Quote Posted by catbarf
So, here's a rough thought for a conceptual model- reducing difficulty of a game only ruins it if it compromises the core gameplay challenge.
I absolutely disagree.
I'm going to take World of Warcraft as an example. Originally WoW was a world. A world in which you could have adventures. Travel around, fight monsters, make friends, see new areas, crawl deep through dungeons. You'd be a warrior or a mage or a priest. You'd be a human or an elf or a troll, or whatever you'd wanted to be.
In the end, WoW was just another game. You'd level to maximum level asap. You'd be busy earning gold. Maybe playing the Auction House. You would gather the cap in valor-points or honor-points each week. You'd watch your ranking on the pvp arena rankings. You'd try to get into a good guild, because that would give you better opportunities at playing the hard content. Every 6 months a new raid-dungeon gets released, so you'd play on the beta-servers weeks ahead of time, so you'd know the dungeon inside out by the time it was released. You watch videos on YouTube to learn the best strategies for new bosses. You'd use online spread-sheets to learn how your character does maximum damage. Etc, etc. Nothing of the original game was left. It wasn't an adventure anymore. It was just farmville with Orcs.
One thing Blizzard did was exactly what you mention. Taking things away from the game that do not compromise the core gameplay challenge. The core gameplay challenge was doing 25-man (or maybe 10-man) raids on the highest difficulty (mythic), or maybe one below (heroic). Everything else was for casuals. And was deemed not important. So Blizzard made leveling faster. They made it so that achievements are shared between characters. And mounts and pets too. Rogues used to have to mix their own poison. Not anymore, you can buy pre-made. Then you didn't have to buy poison anymore, it became a spell, and you will never run out of poison anymore. It used to be that for cooking you needed a fire (find), an ingredient (hunt yourself), and some spices (buy). Too inconvenient for people, now you can just click the button and cook anywhere, without a fire or spices. There used to be class-quests for certain classes to acquire a legendary item. Gone, you get them dropped ready-made in raids. In early WoW, for some quest-lines you had to travel half the world to get quest-items. Those quests are gone now. Every quest can be done within a 50 meter radius from the quest-giver. Travel to another continet ? No need to take the zep or a boat, teleports everywhere. Run through barren lands ? Nope, jump on your flying mount, point in the right direction, and go afk/alt-tab for 5 minutes. Some quests required assistance from another class ("can you blacksmith this metal thingy for my new leather shoes please ?"). Gone, you can do everything solo now.
Well, you get the point.
All the flavor removed.
Only the core gameplay challenge left.
Wow went from 6 million players in the west (US+EU) in 2009, to under 1 million today.
I'm not surprised.
I thought Blizzard had me by the balls for the next 40 years.
But I stopped. 2 Years, 5 months and 17 days today.
They fucked up.
catbarf on 29/5/2017 at 19:12
Point taken, but I think there's a distinction between making gameplay elements easier and removing them entirely. Going back to Bioshock, you'd definitely be losing something if they got rid of the exploration and just shuttled you from setpiece to setpiece through cutscenes. That's going a lot further than the quest arrow that makes the mechanics of exploration easier, but still don't do it for you. What you describe sounds more like stripping out gameplay elements wholesale until there's just the core left, and that's a little different from what I had in mind.
Starker on 29/5/2017 at 19:17
Here's the Mark Brown video on this, making the point that Dark Souls already has the options to decrease the difficulty:
[video=youtube;K5tPJDZv_VE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tPJDZv_VE[/video]
WingedKagouti on 29/5/2017 at 20:25
Quote Posted by Starker
Here's the Mark Brown video on this, making the point that Dark Souls already has the options to decrease the difficulty:
Some issues with those "options" are a) you'd only know those things decreases the difficulty if someone told you (especially classes), b) much of the difficulty doesn't come from the actual combat but rather knowing the environment (traps, ambushes, shortcuts, loot) and c) you shouldn't really expect to get much ingame help from random players a year or so after release.
Starker on 29/5/2017 at 20:38
There aren't really any classes in Dark Souls. The point in the video is more that using magic makes the game much easier. If you are merely curious enough to try it out, you'll see immediately that it can make a big difference.
As for b), true enough. But there are some bosses where all beginning players struggle (Gargoyles, O&S) and, for example, summoning an NPC to help there can make it quite a bit easier.
And c), you'd be surprised. Dark Souls is really a communal experience and IMO people are even too eager to help at times to the point of spoiling new players. I've seen people giving walking tours through levels pointing out every secret the player might have missed.
heywood on 30/5/2017 at 21:02
Games CAN be ruined by optional player aids, but they don't HAVE to be.
I'm with NV and Thirith. Make the game difficult but still playable without the aids, and then add player aids to bring the difficulty down for more casual players. When designing levels, don't assume the player will have quest arrows, location markers, automaps, et al. Make sure there is a way for the player to figure out where to go and what to do on their own. Make sure that important quest items are visible without having to turn on usable object highlighting for everything.
Nameless Voice on 30/5/2017 at 21:32
I'd also suggest asking the player to choose between player type presets when they first start a game, so players who don't want those features can opt out, right at the start, without having to rummage around in the options screens for ages.
EvaUnit02 on 1/6/2017 at 00:53
Having options hurt no one, people should stop being elitist cunts. As long as their actions aren't damaging the hobby as a whole (eg partaking in anti-consumer practices and setting a precedent for companies to screw us all) how other people their enjoy single player games is none of your concern.
Multiplayer games can be an entirely separate of fish though. PvP games especially need to be properly balanced, otherwise you end up with bullshit fests like Modern Warfare 2.
TannisRoot on 2/6/2017 at 02:15
Dark Souls has an easy mode? It's called co-op.
