254 réponses à ce sujet

[Kidd]

Kerilus wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Kerilus wrote...

"I suck at life, so you can give me more money on welfare programs?"
Pretty much.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

No.

No? Why not?
Welfare programs are there for the weak and the unfortunate. You think you are more unfortunate and weaker than te others, you demand more.
Almost as nonsensical as demanding easy mode to be even easier, except those on welfare are actually in need, while you(OP) just suck and are asking people to compensate for that fact more so than they should.

I suggest you calm your tone. Speak your mind as you wish, but you're showing pretty uncivil tendencies.

[JimboGee]

@ SilentK Because I believe you have to be willing to play the game the way it was originally intended. When I was 18 I played my first ever RPG Baldurs Gate. never played an RPG before. I was thrown in at the deep end by a friend who refused to tell me how to proceed. I got chased through mines by Kobolds and chased through forests by wolves. I could have rage quit and claimed the game was too hard but I went back read the manual, looked onlne for help. READ AND FOLLOWED instructions that were given to me. TOOK MY TIME.

When I mentioned my MMO experience I was actually told to "F-off and go play streetfighter" because my build or whatever wasn't very good. Fine I will. I'm not gonna sit on the forums and demand that the game be reshaped to suit the needs of someone who doesn't actually give a rats ass about "holding the aggro".

Now, I'm not suggesting the OP "Play Street Fighter" what I am suggesting is that they take their time and to pause the game figure out WHY they are getting beaten. rather than just asking for the game difficulty to be lowered so they don't have to think as much. Maybe I'm just an old poop who refuses to change with the times. Who knows ?

[Kidd]

Learning new game systems and game types is indeed very interesting, I agree. But not all people will agree with us, Jimbo. Some people want to enjoy the great characterisation and interactive story of BioWare games without having to spend a lot of time learning how to play a (to them) quite intricate tactical game that frankly doesn't interest them.

And to some other people who may get the game then be put off by the difficulty, they may want to start out on a very easy setting to learn what's what at their own pace. For future playthroughs or perhaps future games, they may adapt the idea of upping the difficulty to get the full experience. Thus we've embraced and trained a new gamer to not only enjoy more games, but also to allow more future sales for BioWare.

I started out playing BG on the core rules setting just like you, cause we're hipsters like that We're not everybody however. The beauty of a single player experience (as opposed to going online to play an MMO) is that a developer can let us tailor the gaming experience after our own tastes by quite a bit.

Also, whoever told you to go back to Street Fighter cause you hadn't built your character right certainly doesn't realise how much excel sheet studying is required to get good at the games, haha =)

Modifié par KiddDaBeauty, 29 novembre 2012 - 10:59 .

[Fredward]

Kerilus wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Kerilus wrote...

"I suck at life, so you can give me more money on welfare programs?"
Pretty much.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

No.

No? Why not?
Welfare programs are there for the weak and the unfortunate. You think you are more unfortunate and weaker than te others, you demand more.
Almost as nonsensical as demanding easy mode to be even easier, except those on welfare are actually in need, while you(OP) just suck and are asking people to compensate for that fact more so than they should.

People on social welfare aren't playing life on easy mode, they're on social welfare because their lives are harder than the average citizen. Also in a game, whatever difficulty you're playing on, the experience is standardized, life is not like that you could be at a disadvantage for a multitude of reasons, disability, social status, gender etc etc etc. As a analogy it just doesn't work at all. You're comparing something a person can choose vs something that people are often (if not always) born into.

And the OP was asking for easy mode to be easier. He wasn't asking for the game to made easier. He wasn't even asking for the default difficulty to be made easier. This is the beauty of difficulty levels. If you don't want a super easy experience, don't play easy. If you do then the option is there. HEY! This is an example of where the mythical TOGGLE actually exists!

But yeah, I honestly do not get why people are climbing the walls over this.

[Lucy Glitter]

Wow. The claws are coming out in this thread.

Modifié par Lucy_Glitter, 29 novembre 2012 - 01:27 .

[Fredward]

Lucy_Glitter wrote...

Wow. The claws are coming out in this thread.

This one is MUCH less creepy than the owl. xp

[SafetyShattered]

I don't understand why I see so many people getting worked up about this. Some people aren't as good as you at videogames. I play halo 4 coop with my best friend on EASY and he dies a lot. But why would I get mad at him for that? After all he's great at plenty of things I can't do. I mean if the OP really has that much problems with videogames then of course I see why he wants an easier difficulty. I mean all he wants is to be able to play too. What's wrong with that?

[Solmanian]

developer console has a code for immortality.

[dreman9999]

LOL at all the people coming in here tell the op to stop playing video games.

A bw emplyee brought this up and all she got inresponse was a mess of trolls attacking her. Then bw did a super easy story mode with ME3 which people hated on despite the fact it was optional.

A suddenly the op pops up with this issue of difficulty again which show bw was right on a concept of a story mode.

It time for people to look past themselves and face the fact that video games is made for everyone.
Be more open minded people.

[dreman9999]

Kerilus wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Kerilus wrote...

"I suck at life, so you can give me more money on welfare programs?"
Pretty much.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

No.

No? Why not?
Welfare programs are there for the weak and the unfortunate. You think you are more unfortunate and weaker than te others, you demand more.
Almost as nonsensical as demanding easy mode to be even easier, except those on welfare are actually in need, while you(OP) just suck and are asking people to compensate for that fact more so than they should.

Oh dear god....People  that think this way exsist?

[Maria Caliban]

sycophanticchallenger wrote...

...the term GAME necessitates challenge...

I'd say it necessitates non-trivial choices, but that doesn't mean challenge. Especially since people come at a game from a number of skill levels.

Monopoly, for example, hasn't been a challenging game for me since I became good at adding things up. Alternatively, Scrabble is a game I cannot win against the majority of adults. Looking at a bunch of letters and making a word from them is painfully difficult for me.

[Fast Jimmy]

Maria Caliban wrote...

sycophanticchallenger wrote...

...the term GAME necessitates challenge...

I'd say it necessitates non-trivial choices, but that doesn't mean challenge. Especially since people come at a game from a number of skill levels.

Monopoly, for example, hasn't been a challenging game for me since I became good at adding things up. Alternatively, Scrabble is a game I cannot win against the majority of adults. Looking at a bunch of letters and making a word from them is painfully difficult for me.

By the same token, would you want to play Scrabble if there was no challenge? Where, say, you could just lay down random letters anywhere on the board?

Not trying to be antagonistic, but saying "not everyone is great at all games" and "there shouldn't be challenge in games" are two big steps. Not to say that's what you were implying, but it does seem to be the general theme people are arguing about on here.

[ObserverStatus]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm starting to understand why so many people look down on casuals.

I don't. If you do based on this thread, you're coming to a bizarre conclusion. Why someone would judge another human being simply for liking something different is beyond me.

I do.  It's not so much that I need to judge people just who don't share my taste in difficulty settings, I just need to judge people in general. If you believe that morality is independent of any creed, how else can a man measure his own character but by comparing himself to other people? In my opinion, we all define ourselves by things that we see in others that we do not like to a degree, whether that may be their religious practices, political affiliations, or console preference, because their is no source of self evident truth on such matters.  I judge other human beings simply for liking things different because it helps me to better understand myself.
TL:DR Judging people for superficial reasons builds character.

Orrrr it's because you're of a tribalist mindset, where people that like the things you do are intelligent and superior beings and people that don't do things you do are subhuman and deserve to be mocked. You're merely attaching your own self worth to an idea or a 'side' and disparaging those who disagree with you, because it's easier than standing on your own merits.

You poor thing, if only you knew how lost you truly were.

[Maria Caliban]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

sycophanticchallenger wrote...

...the term GAME necessitates challenge...

I'd say it necessitates non-trivial choices, but that doesn't mean challenge. Especially since people come at a game from a number of skill levels.

Monopoly, for example, hasn't been a challenging game for me since I became good at adding things up. Alternatively, Scrabble is a game I cannot win against the majority of adults. Looking at a bunch of letters and making a word from them is painfully difficult for me.

By the same token, would you want to play Scrabble if there was no challenge? Where, say, you could just lay down random letters anywhere on the board?

I don't find Monopoly challenging but I enjoy playing it. I find Scrabble challenging and I will refuse to play it with most people.

If Scrabble were randomly placing tiles on a board, I wouldn't play it because it's boring. Your suggestion doesn't just remove challenge, it removes gameplay.

Not trying to be antagonistic, but saying "not everyone is great at all games" and "there shouldn't be challenge in games" are two big steps. Not to say that's what you were implying, but it does seem to be the general theme people are arguing about on here.

There can be challenge in games. Challenge isn't what makes a game a game though, which is what I was responding to.

[Fast Jimmy]

RainbowPuppy wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

By the same token, would you want to play Scrabble if there was no challenge? Where, say, you could just lay down random letters anywhere on the board?

Not trying to be antagonistic, but saying "not everyone is great at all games" and "there shouldn't be challenge in games" are two big steps. Not to say that's what you were implying, but it does seem to be the general theme people are arguing about on here.

But the particular request the OP is making - that there should be a a really simple difficulty setting for people not interested in challenges - does not mean that challenge should be removed from every difficulty setting of the game, does it? By this same analogy, some people would be playing Scrabble and finding the challenge in it thrilling, while some people would not care for the challenge at all and play solely for the social aspect.. If they got the challenge removed while the people who like the challenge kept it, why would it matter?

It wouldn't. And I actually said as much earlier, just to put a super easy mode like what we got with ME3 in there. 

But I also stated that I don't think that is a game any longer. More of an interactive story. Like a book or a TV show, except you are called upon to press buttons occassionaly to affect how things play out, but not ever faced with failure. 

Perhpas this isn't an esoteric enough statement, but to me, the very definition of a game implies the possibility of failure. Not that failing is the worst thing ever, but having a goal and being faced with the option of not meeting it (in many cases, winning vs. losing) is the fundamental nature of a game.

[upsettingshorts]

Kerilus wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Kerilus wrote...

"I suck at life, so you can give me more money on welfare programs?"
Pretty much.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

No.

No? Why not?
Welfare programs are there for the weak and the unfortunate. You think you are more unfortunate and weaker than te others, you demand more.
Almost as nonsensical as demanding easy mode to be even easier, except those on welfare are actually in need, while you(OP) just suck and are asking people to compensate for that fact more so than they should.

Isn't there an Ayn Rand fanfiction forum somewhere you can post this in?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 29 novembre 2012 - 11:44 .

[Maria Caliban]

Finally, a story as messed up as the original.

[mickey111]

And I thought that the hardest Bioware difficulties were too easy... this, coming from a guy who rarely ever finds himself on the upper half of the score board of any multiplayer games and I still can beat Mass Effect trilogy on insane without breaking a sweat or needing to pause.

[NasreddinHodja]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I have no problem with a 'story mode.'

^This.

I'm a casual gamer who largely plays RPG's for the stories and only tolerates the combat.  Sure, I can finish Dragon Age on Normal (and I have done that), but to me it's an exercise in frustration.  I play games to have fun, and I think it should not be too hard from a technical standpoint to cater to gamers like myself while still entertaining the gamers who like their games to be challenging.  Mass Effect 3 did it, after all.

[Tigerman123]

There needs to be a difficulty higher than nightmare, for people who value replays, DA2 became very easy after a while, albeit it was still much more challenging than Origins

[Fishy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm starting to understand why so many people look down on casuals.

I don't. If you do based on this thread, you're coming to a bizarre conclusion. Why someone would judge another human being simply for liking something different is beyond me.

Enjoying something different and wanting to have something you don't enjoy changed,  so you can enjoy it .. Is different. I love piano. I want to learn it but I don't have the time. So .. Should the piano be changed just for people like me ? It's called a song. Maybe they should watch movie instead of making a game a movie ? SOme people talk about how they changed and have less time. So maybe find a different hobby to suit your lifestyle ?

Having some lower difficulty level is fine with me. But if you pick a game like ARMA 3 and complain that it's too difficult.. Seriously just go away. You're at the wrong place and will get no sympathy from the community. This game was not designed for people like you obviously. If you pick SF4 and complain to the developper that doing a combo is too difficult and they should give you special treatment... Seriously ? In the community we call them scrubs. People who want to be driven around.

This is what I detest. It's not about enjoying spagehtti and I don't like it. it's about making me eat your spaghetti because you hate lasagna.


If you make a game super easy . .Don't make it at the cost of the game design. Don't give me a magic button in Street fighter that do all the work.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

My God, I can't imagine some of you people playing games in the 90's. Seriously, casual is very easy. Yes, it's not one hit easy but really at the end of the day, a game should have some challenge.

Modifié par DarkKnightHolmes, 02 décembre 2012 - 09:24 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Enjoying something different and wanting to have something you don't enjoy changed, so you can enjoy it .. Is different. I love piano. I want to learn it but I don't have the time. So .. Should the piano be changed just for people like me ? It's called a song. Maybe they should watch movie instead of making a game a movie ? SOme people talk about how they changed and have less time. So maybe find a different hobby to suit your lifestyle ?

This is a horrible analogy.

If we can provide something to a group of people without changing anything for a different group of people then there's no cost to you. At this point it just because elitism.

This isn't a case of someone going "I completely hate your entire game. Change it so that I can enjoy it." It's a case of someone going "I really like your stories but struggle with the combat. Please help me get through the combat so I can enjoy your stories."

Furthermore, the purpose of ArmA 3 is to appeal to it's target audience. I have zero problems with someone coming in and saying it's too difficult. In the end, Bohemia Interactive decides what type of game they would like to make and whether or not such requests should be adhered to based on that. It's no skin off anyone's back.

If you make a game super easy . .Don't make it at the cost of the game design. Don't give me a magic button in Street fighter that do all the work.

Street Fighter 4 actually does this you know (you can bind one button to effectively push 3 at once).

[THEE_DEATHMASTER]

I guess the difference between what is 'casual mode' and what is being proposed here is the difference between what is classified as a RPG and a visual novel.