>press x for awesome combat is too hard and fast for snoys

but I'm 37

What is a 40y/o man doing consolewarring and using zoomer-touristspeak like "pozzed"? Shit is fricking sad, my guy. You deserve better.

There's no trying. The word is zoomerspeak and you should feel as embarrassed saying it as you would saying bussin. You just mistake it for not being autistic because you frequent the most zoomer-ridden board where it's used regularly.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pozzed
You can go back now, tourist.

40 year-old's are browsing /v and shitposting with anime pics

They were here before you anon, and they will be here still when you hit 40 and are still posting here. It'll happen to yooooou.

>I'm not trivializing anything
yes, yes you are. by claiming "just watch video games instead of playing them" you are trivializing them. you fricking idiot.
>american
lolno

Didn't say that. Please read carefully if you intend to try again.

It's to make more sheckels selling their movies, don't kid youself

Cucks that worship companies will give them more money

Maybe they're also "bad" at the game and need some help for non-disability reasons too? The accessibility options are also to account for less skilled players and allow them to enjoy the game whether or not they're disabled.

>putting easy baby mode features in the game = bad
>using cheat engine for those exact same features = good
your brain must be massive

I'm sure it took dozens of developers to put a switch in the menu that alters literally one single veriable

Knowing Sony's incompetent teams it probably did

That’s 99.9% of the people advocating for and using these options

true, I can't think of anything worse than a disabled person being allowed to enjoy something

it would be more enjoyable than not playing it at all, yes. Just like it's more enjoyable to watch a movie with captions for deaf people than to not watch it at all.
you must be moronic yourself if this is too hard to grasp

>I'd be fricking insulted if I had Parkinson's and someone put the game on toddler mode
you'd rather not play the game at all because the game asked you to mash square while your body is literally physically incapable of doing that?

all i can tell you is that other people aren't as blinded by pride and would in fact rather use an accessibility option than not play at all

you do realize no one is forced to turn this on if they'd rather not, right?

>you'd rather not play the game at all because the game asked you to mash square while your body is literally physically incapable of doing that?
lol yes! you realize that this is what most people do when they get too old to perform basic motor functions? they start adjusting and sometimes completely cut out past hobbies and activities they once enjoyed doing, because they realize they can no longer participate in it normally.

sure they can; it just also almost always turns the activity into a complete joke which is why it usually gets shot down pretty quickly.

No they don't, it's people lying on Reddit for fake points. Go back.

Do you really just pull shit out of your ass? Where are these people gushing over accessibility mode, huh? Those le epic 2000 updoot posts on /r/gamer? The latest xbox commercial showing a moron with birth defects playing a game with their nose?

If you think reddit isn't a bunch of liars posting shit for heckin updoots and people jerking off over being enlightened you're a fricking moron. GO BACK.

None, holy shit. The whole genre is bunch of homosexuals jerking off over saving the world and being so clueless they don't even realize this is a marketing tactic. You know they made Spider-Man 2 toddler mode? So you'll jerk off and buy the game.

I certainly wouldn't accept any of the shit websites you use. Reddit? Kotaku? Frick off. The fact is the morons that need this feature are an extreme minority. The morons of that extreme minority that will actually play that game could be counted on two hands. Unironically. So here's my opinion, this feature isn't for making the game reach a wide audience, it's a marketing gimmick for bleeding heart masturbators like you who updoot on Reddit when some moron takes a picture of Spider-Man 2 and says "THANK YOU SONY FOR MAKING THIS HECKIN ACCESSIBLE GAME FOR ME", an you're like "100% YES LIKE LIKE LIKE UPDOOT"

You're right, it's so a homosexual like you would lap it up.

Yeah, they like me being an edgelord and i enjoy being one, so i don't know why you think i should stop being one

0/10
trying way to hard

You should be saying this to your family and friends. They are enabling your mental illness by letting you accept your psychosis. No other psychotic mental illness is treated by letting the afflicted giving in their psychosis and that's because it shatters their grasp of reality and causes suicidal tendencies for those groups to skyrocket. You are not a woman. No amount of mutilating your body will change that. I respect that you probably feel like your body is wrong but it's not. You are sick. I hope you eventually learn to love yourself for who you are rather than giving in to your body dysmorphia.

try googling what a word means if you don't know instead of embarrassing yourself like this

That was a different anon (although I agree somewhat with his ideals). I understand your point, but now the thing is we're discussing target audiences for media. Ultimately, this is the type of shit that concerns AAA game slop who want a slice of all demographics' pies, which inherently dilutes the content of the game itself, game design tweaking notwithstanding. As much as I think Souls games have lost their identity starting from DS2, I still respect them because they have a defined target audience who likes grimdark fantasy ARPGs with a reflecting difficulty, and modern media dumbed down for the braindead normalgay absolutely cannot provide that experience.

I also agree that Souls games were never particularly hard and have been hyped up to be difficult by marketing, but the thing is, phantoms? Magic? Summoning? Those are all features of the game that add to the game itself and support different playstyles, and this is part of why I think Souls games have won over hearts years ago, because to get those features you actually have to engage with the game: in short, actually PLAY IT: going back to the heart of what games were about in a time of brown shooters. Souls games are organic and emergent in their difficulty that support the narrative feeling: that boss was easier because you teamed up with a fellow knight to take him down or added pyromancy to the mix, not because you tweaked player damage to be 500% of what it is normally. Changing the explicit "rules" of game design in a mechanical menu makes games feel more like simulators, honestly. I guess this isn't really a discussion of difficulty anymore, but one of what makes games feel like good "games" and not "simulations", although difficulty is but aspect of that. I hope you see my point anon, because I do like this rare honest discussion of games.

>How the frick is that engaging with the game?
I suppose if the end result is to have a different experience on a new playthrough, one that doesn't necessarily equate to being difficult. Playing the game while roleplaying as a lowly, solitary peasant warrior will most likely be much harder than playing as a noble magician shooting big-dick sorceries and summoning shit, but I guess the thing is they're different experiences supported by the game. Each not equally difficult, sure, but equally valid as permitted by the game. Players will never experience the same game in the same way owing to the differences in their general gaming skills, that I agree with, but the level of discussion that the game brings should try and be the same, regardless. I sense the root of our debate is that accessibility and game integrity (which includes difficulty) are unfortunately often intertwined. I just think accessibility options that are just game design options to make the game easier are a really clunky and immersion-ruining way of de-intertwining them (instead of being shit like color-blindedness adjustments), and I'd probably like them better if they were organically put into the game world themselves in some way and so their existence is ludonarratively justified. But you've given me some food for thought, anon. I hope I've given you some too.

If you want to watch the video game play itself you can do that on YouTube
When you make accessibility options you're literally wasting money developing features that will only be used by trophy hunters for ez plats hoping it means a tard buys your game to watch it instead of watching it on youtube

>I already addressed this like 3 posts ago. Difficulty options don't erode the ludonarrative, they fix it by making the difficulty level consistent across skill levels.
You were wrong then and you're wrong now. Giving agency to THE PLAYER to gauge what is the right amount of difficulty will ensure that challenges are never what they should be, hence why any developer that relents to difficulty options puts in a recommended setting because they are the only ones that know how challenging it should be. This would be like changing words in a novel because some sentences and metaphors are hard to read for some people and giving them the choice of what words to slot in. They don't know the artistic intent. You are wrong in this instance.

If you want to argue this the smart way to do it would be to point out a lot of games giving varying emphasis on their ludonarrative, Spiderslop included.

>Sure, but there's no solution to this. The alternative is not having difficulty adjustments at all which results in an even worse problem of the game being wildly different for differently skilled players.
This worked fine for 6 console generations. People just accepted some games weren't for them.
>No, it's more like if the artist wrote multiple versions of the novel for people of different reading skills. This would undeniably lead to more people end up with a better understanding of what they read.
Depending on the studio, most games are tuned for a single difficulty option and the others are modifiers. They don't do four times the testing for four separate difficulty options. That's a colossal waste of time. Usually the default is tested the most and if they have a turbo hardcore autist mode they'll do a quick run just to make sure encounters are possible if it's a modifier ontop of the base diffuclty. In some instances the hardest difficulty is the intended and the default becomes a compromise.
>Or are you gonna say that when someone has to google a word every other sentence they're definitely reading the same book as someone who understands everything to start with?
I think the person googling every other word is improving their reading comprehension and once they are able to digest what they read then they can appreciate the prose as written, rather than a watered-doen compromise. Who tf wants to read an adlibbed Joyce or Fitzgerald? Words, regardless of whether they have synonyms or not, are chosen for precise rhetorical purposes and changing them removes that rhetorical concept.

I think anyone that enjoys books would not want dumbed downed versions of their favorite novels because they cease to be those works. Same with games.

Chasing the lowest common denominator is stupid, just stop. It's why modern video games suck. It's why modern movies suck. It's particularly egregious in movies because they're basically writing them for the mom on the ironing board going "What? Why is Han Solo suddenly dead?"

No frick off, it's chasing the lowest common denominator, the game is built around the lowest common denominator and the entire game suffers from it. And no one cares about outliers too, you shouldn't make the mistake of making your games for pro players either. Something I think D4 actually suffers from, because PVP they based shat all over the single player experience.

Huh anon, what might be between toddler and the top 1% pro player? I don't get why people like you are this fricking disingenuous. You can infer from my post that the *common man* is who you should base the game on. Not the moron who needs 30% speed mode, not the pro playing on 200% speed mode.

The lowest common denominator is a bunch of morons stacked together. The "moron" is the lowest common denominator.

What is the lowest common denominator of 2, 8 and 16?

>And how is this better than having options to give a more consistent experience for most people?
Because those people are unknowingly giving themselves a cheap imitation.
>this is irrelevant to my point
No it's very relevant. You deny my analogy and say it's like the author writing multiple novels and I am telling you I have never heard of a single game studio that designs and tunes around more than one difficulty. So no, your analogy is inaccurate because the designers are not redesigning the game for every difficulty, they let the players choose; ergo, with the novel analogy it's akin to players choosing the words in a novel.
>Sure, the book analogy is shit but you're the one who came up with it. A closer analogy would be a book that has tons of author notes that explain the nuances of the writing.
It's only shit because you can't force it to fit your argument. Let's use an example:
Pathologic 2 has very calculated weights to the infection system, how quickly a given resource depletes, how fast time progresses, and how freqeuntly certain items show up. It was designed this way because most players were supposed to make mistakes, miss things, and have bad events play out all in the name of having the player struggle. Making food show up more frequently or infections happen less frequently throws that delicate balance out the window because suddenly hunger matters less, you can sprint further on full thirst (and thus travel more quickly), and suddenly you're not experiencing the systems that meant to make you feel like you're living through an epidemic along with the town. Changing a system value in P2 is like changing a sentence in The Great Gatsby. We, as a society, just have more reverence for books than games so we can recognize that it's absurd to change Fitzgerald's prose.
>The point is, what is a "dumb downed version" for one person, is a version that fits perfectly for another person.
See above. A player can't know how to gauge that balance.

>you don't need to redesign the game. you just need to adjust values and test it. Which is what they do.
Fren, adjusting the values has knock-on effects. Their planning of the game at its intended difficulty all included specific states, difficulty curve, and learned skills at a specific pace and it building on each other. Giving an enemy less health in Doom tweaks more than just the DPS and TTK of that enemy, it lowers the value of ammo, how much of surplus you have going into another fight, how wreckless you can be/how far from the intended playstyle you can deviate before the game reigns you in.
>Either way, you seem to agree that difficulty options are a good thing because they provide a more consistent experience
No. I think that a designer makes a game with a set intended experience and what skills a player brings into that game to change that ludonarrative experience is a personal thing irrelevant from how quickly they cleared a given objective. Using P2 again, me being better at survival games than the average person doesn't make objective things like how much food one is expected to consume in a given run, how quickly one can get from one end of town to another, and how many side quests you can do before the end of the day any different. More importantly, if someone without survival experience plays that game and sets hunger multiplier lower then they are giving themselves a stockpile which removes that stressers. If I can organically stockpile from being frugal it's either because I am playing efficiently enough and it's the game giving me a slight reward for playing it properly or I am neglecting other things.
>But that's still going to be a much smaller number of people than ones who are going to be filtered by a game being too hard or bored by the game being too easy if there are no options
I don't agree with the implication that the maximum number of people need to experience a game. Art is not meant to be broadly appealing.

No one cares that timmy is playing fricking fortnite. The only thing they're worried about is some troony trying to brainwash them. It was always the same with even the worst possible example of conservative censorship you can point to like satanic panic in the 80s. They weren't upset because their kids were listening to music, even though recorded music was a somewhat new industry. They were afraid the music was being used as a vehicle to convey some harmful ulterior message and frick with their kids.

This is some serious cope.
They consider gaming itself to be bad as well.
>They were afraid the music was being used as a vehicle to convey some harmful ulterior message and frick with their kids.
Or thats just a cope you came up with right now

I have seen many conservatives say that they are harmful
Its not me simply thinking that
Matt walsh for example says that games are for kids, joe rogan considers gaming to be harmful / addictive, and many conservatives i see on social media consider gaming to be harmful
People who shit on games are almost always conservative.
But whatever, keep coping

What the frick are you talking about?
A product aimed at kids can still be harmful for them.

My point was that conservatives generally dislike video games or look down on them
They either think that they are for kids, or that they are harmful. Or they think that they are both at the same time

This is some serious cope.
They consider gaming itself to be bad as well.
>They were afraid the music was being used as a vehicle to convey some harmful ulterior message and frick with their kids.
Or thats just a cope you came up with right now

>They consider gaming itself to be bad as well.
You think because video games are a "new thing" conservatives automatically consider them harmful, but again, conservatives are not luddites. You fundamentally do not even understand the people you disagree with. All you can do is disregard anything that makes logical sense because it would conflict with your disingenuous strawmans.

I have seen many conservatives say that they are harmful
Its not me simply thinking that
Matt walsh for example says that games are for kids, joe rogan considers gaming to be harmful / addictive, and many conservatives i see on social media consider gaming to be harmful
People who shit on games are almost always conservative.
But whatever, keep coping

Plenty of conservatives hate video games, it's just not the popular target right now
Evangelical politics is a perpetual cultural scare. When one loses steam they start up a new one, usually very heavily based on an old panic.
Drug panic, satanic panic, lavender panic, TV panic, immigration panic, the war on christmas, rainbow panic, they're always going to be screeching and demanding something be banned.

>@647552641
>>>Haha I simply baited you and have "BTFO"d you as the kids call it
>No more for you. You can ctrl+f from now on, assuming that's not too difficult for you.

your (you) anon from

@647552641
>>Haha I simply baited you and have "BTFO"d you as the kids call it
No more for you. You can ctrl+f from now on, assuming that's not too difficult for you.

i will never understand how people get this upset during online arguments

>60 seconds later

thanks anon.

>i will never understand how people get this upset during online arguments

/v/misc/ isn't known for their constraint.

or patience.

or intelligence.

or looks.

or manners.

>same reddit spacing

Oh... Oh my. That's the kind of creature we're dealing with.

>xx:08:22
>xx:09:38

>60 seconds apart

the buttmad is real

[...]
[...]

get back in here

my sides