Theory

[icycalm]

Future article, etc.

I decided to make this thread after reading this bunch of nonsense:

http://www.gamespy.com/articles/116/1165614p1.html

So I ask you, dear readers, do you have any ideas on the question of why some people seem to prefer easy games, while others prefer hard ones?

Hint: The problem is with the question.

[aaden]

Based on the hint I'd say a better way to phrase the question would be "Why are some people better at handling failure than others?" because harder games inevitably involve more failure to win the game than easy games do.

The same question applies to many other things, not just video games. People who can endure countless failures will eventually achieve more difficult and greater things than people who want only to succeed within a couple tries.

In order to have a great success, you have to have a lot of failure. Some people don't want to bother trying for great successes, so they settle for mediocre successes instead.

As for the answer to the question, it has to do with passion for whatever is involved. A person who is truly passionate about video games will seek out challenging ones to test his skills on. Someone whose passion for games is a little more tepid won't invest as much effort and will stick to games that aren't quite so demanding.

[Worm]

No one likes to find himself in situations for which he lacks the necessary strength to overcome.

http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?p=6484#6484

The reason some people don't like hard games is the same reason most cripples don't like rock climbing.

The problem with the question, though, is that "hard" and "easy" are relative to the player's skill level. You might as well ask why some people seem to prefer playing with bad players, while others prefer playing with good players in a multiplayer game. The answer is that most people simply prefer to play with others close to their skill level--at least, close enough that victory doesn't seem impossible.

EDIT: Notice how the author of that article doesn't even get past the second paragraph before bringing up "artificial" difficulty (lol, whatever that means), and "broken" or poorly-designed games. It's very common to see people finding supposed flaws in games that are too hard for them instead of admitting weaknesses in themselves, and of course they'll insult the players who actually enjoy these games too. Such dishonest reactions are analogous to what icy describes here: http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?p=13172#13172

[icycalm]

aaden's post is bullshit; some random shit and the word "passion" thrown in as a buzzword. As if JRPG fans were not passionate about their games, lol. Why even bother posting if you are not going to check your shit against reality, dude?

The following assertion is especially lollerific once you've read the rest of my post and (sorta) understood what's going on:

because harder games inevitably involve more failure to win the game than easy games do

But basically his entire post is stupid practically line by line.

As for Worm. He is in the general right direction. But he didn't focus on my hint, which is where the entire issue unravels.

The problem with that question is that IT IS A STUPID QUESTION. As if there were such a thing as an "easy" or a "hard" game, lol. And if there are no such games, then people's tastes do not differ at all, and hence we have no need to separate them into categories, let alone to invent separate new concepts in order to describe their identical behaviour, lol.

NO ONE LIKES "EASY" GAMES.

NO ONE LIKES "HARD" GAMES EITHER.

THESE STATEMENTS ARE NOT CONTRADICTORY.

HOW HARD CAN THAT BE TO UNDERSTAND?

[icycalm]

I just registered an account on Shmups to make the following post:

I am posting in this thread only for the sake of Randorama. I just couldn't bear see him making such a sophomoric mistake. Couldn't care less whether anyone else will understand what I am about to say, but here it comes:

THE PERSON WHO ENGAGES IN AN ACTIVITY MORE THAN OTHERS IS OBVIOUSLY ALSO ENJOYING IT MORE THAN THE OTHERS.

Seriously, it's that simple. And since "competitive players" play their chosen games more than anyone else, they are also clearly enjoying them more than anyone else -- OTHERWISE THEY WOULDN'T BE PLAYING THEM MORE.

All of this works out in terms of brain anatomy as well. The day will come when science will vindicate me in this (as in everything else).

Peace out, your friendly neighborhood icycalm.

The post was made in this thread:

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=37689

but apparently the first post of a new user needs to be approved by a moderator, and since I've been previously banned from that forum the chances of them approving the post (and therefore the new account) are rather slim, so I am saving it here for the sake of posterity.

The point made above will of course be included in this thread's title essay, and elaborated on as appropriate.

[icycalm]

A good quote from that thread:

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.ph ... 21#p708121

Credit feeding to see credits, not enjoyable.
Sucking is yes. Getting good at the game IS the game.

(From an Insomnia reader, unsurprisingly.)

Another one:

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.ph ... 96#p708296

Small correction: Getting better at the game IS the game.

And here's Rando's post that set me off:

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.ph ... 43#p710743

[icycalm]

On the latest IC podcast they discuss "fair" and "unfair" difficulty (I don't listen to the podcasts, I just check the frontpage now and then and they list the topics). And because I am sure that everything they have to say on the topic will be stupid, here is the answer to this age-old subhuman conundrum, straight from my upcoming essay:

In THIS universe, there is no such thing as "unfair". Everything that happens to you is fair, and exactly what you deserve, otherwise it wouldn't have happened to you, simple as that. From which it follows that the cry of "unfair" is merely a tactic, a stratagem to get others to do what you want. When you say that a game is "unfairly difficult" for you, then, all you are saying is that YOU ARE TOO WEAK FOR IT -- end of story. That's all that phrase really means. In the same vein, I might go around calling games "unfairly easy", because in my view it is unfair for games to be made to the standard of subhuman fagots instead of for superhuman overmen.

In short, the word "unfair" does not exist in the Human dictionary, and whenever it is heard, wherever it is spoken, one can, without further ado, infer that the speaker is subhuman, and for that reason promptly disregard anything he might have to say.

Now put THAT in your fuckin' podcast you little flaming fagots.

[icycalm]

http://www.edge-online.com/news/assassi ... ins-games/

Many games are ruined by developers’ desire to ensure they’re accessible to as many players as possible, according to Alex Hutchinson – the lead designer on Edge 245 cover star Assassin’s Creed III.

“A lot of games have been ruined by easy modes,” he asserts. “If you have a cover shooter and you switch it to easy and you don’t have to use cover, you kind of broke your game.

“You made a game that is essentially the worst possible version of your game.”

It's nice to see this posted on a journlolism site, but the article by no means follows it up -- on the contrary, they end up telling you that the developers will try to accommodate everyone, which by their own admission -- by the thing they admitted five fucking seconds ago -- means that they'll probably ruin it lol.

[icycalm]

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2 ... ine-gamers

Firstly, [Don Daglow] pointed out that American schools emphasise the student as a free thinker. Students do not fail in class. They are challenged and they are encouraged to learn from the experience, but the actual idea of failure has been dramatically reduced. Failure doesn't kick in until students reach the age of 17 and begin to apply for colleges and discover that rejection and failure is real and there's a steep impact from that. So American users see failure in a game or app as a problem with that game, not a user error. This is an issue for designers because traditionally failure is used as an inducement to succeed. So the solution for games designers is to break down the experience simply, minimise text and show the audience things rather then tell them. And reward success constantly, even in tutorials where there is only one button to press.

It's pretty insane if you know what kinds of games Don Daglow used to make. He is still smart, obviously, but he's now using his cleverness in a direction almost entirely antithetical to the progress of the art. (Almost, because streamlining is of course a good thing as long as it doesn't come at the sacrifice of real complexity. But what he's essentially asking for here is the opposite of streamlining, since all the tutorial hanholding and constant condescending backpatting he advocates is basically bloat.)

[icycalm]

I just had an epiphany. In the online forum I've stated that I don't want to play with bad players whom I'd have to carry the entire game. But seeing how easy most new games are, even on the hardest difficulty, and also how the revival mechanic has vastly lowered the difficulty even further (and the more players there are, the worse this will presumably get if the game requires all of them to be down simultaneously for game over -- I would imagine that in an 8-player co-op game it would be practically impossible to lose), playing with weak players -- indeed with downright limp-wristed retards that you'd HAVE to carry the entire game -- seems to be the only way apart from hacking the game to increase the difficulty. So give your grandma, your 6-year-old nephew, and some bum off the street a controller and get ready for a REAL Hardcore mode! If difficulty scales linearly, and 4 players means four times the enemies or the hit points, etc., you are in for a rough ride!

Of course this would turn every game into a giant escort mission and we all know how we love those, but anything's preferable to a boring walk-in-the-park so at least there is this option.

[icycalm]

All lists I've seen on /v/ are retarded, but this one takes the cake:

Just look at what comes out of those subhumans' pathetic excuse for a (non)brain. They complain about games journos being dumb, while their own shit is just as dumb if not dumber.

WTF does "skill" have to do with genre? That list makes zero sense; beating the visual novel champion takes as much work as beating Daigo Umehara -- it makes no difference how complex the game is, ONLY HOW COMPLEX THE OPPONENT, so as long as there are enough opponents around who've been playing the game long enough, it'll take a lot of training (or talent, or both, for games with huge and long-established competitive scenes) to beat the best of them. The most complicated game in the world could be released tomorrow, but if you are the only person playing it it will take ZERO SKILL to become number one BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OPPONENTS DUH. I remember for example some subhumans saying a while back that competitive FPS was easier with controllers than M&K, and me slamming their stunted faces in because WTF difference does it make if YOUR OPPONENT IS USING THE SAME CONTROLLER? The only way to rank genres is in terms of complexity, and that dumb shitty list has nothing to do with it. And another way to rank them is in terms of healthiness, by which I mean that a game which is very complex but focuses on your brain (e.g. RTS, grand strategy) will be better for you than a game which is very complex but focuses on a tiny little part of your anatomy, like your fingers for example (e.g. more or less any action game ever, and the 2D ones more than the 3D). But the list reflects none of that, because subhumans seem incapable of parsing what I am saying here.

tl;dr subhuman message board users are subhuman.

[icycalm]

Just like journalists' commentaries seem to have been generated entirely by reading other journalists, message boards comments (and lists) seem to be getting generated entirely by reading other message board comments -- with no one at any time exhibiting any hint of coming in contact with actual games. And just look at how much hatred FPSes are getting -- simply because they are popular! And why are they popular? Because they are the best games ever lol! Therefore we put them just above visual novels on the "skill" list lol. That's how message board posters think! And if you think you know people who don't think EVEN A TINY LITTLE BIT in this manner, I've got news for you sonny: apart from me you don't. Even Josh and Recap start thinking like this the moment the subject matter starts stepping out of their comfort zone. It is incredible but true. Under these circumstances, can you honestly blame me for developing a god-complex?