Then why have any challenge at all in the game? Clearly the enjoyment of his story does not depend on it being interactive. Might as well make it a pure walking sim.
The challenge is that YOU, each player, set your own challenge. If you feel the game is too easy, just literally turn up the difficulty. Everyone can enjoy the game at a difficulty option they're comfortable with. For some, the easiest, and who is he to demand that players can't be allowed to enjoy the game at that difficulty?
the problems that the entire concept of hazardous wasteland is gone from Death Stranding if you play it on easy. The game wasn't difficult at all even on Hard. The entire concept of the gameplay is thrown out the window in favor of the story, which is pretentious trash in this case.
I do. Easy mode homosexuals are analogous to real life homosexuals. It's always "it doesn't affect you, why do you care" and then you look around and see it affecting you and everything you love.
He cares that other people can play as comfortably as they want. Too easy? Bump up the difficulty. Too hard? Drop the difficulty. Still too hard? Drop the difficulty again. Still too hard? Add more cheat codes. The players feel appropriately challenged, no matter their skill level.
Like I said, players at all skill levels are all challenged, according to their ability. The Easiest-with-cheats players are challenged and have fun at that level, the Extreme players are challenged and have fun at that level.
It’s kind of adorable that Kojimbo actually thinks anyone wants to watch 28 hours of exposition dumps because he blew half his budget on a single b-list television actor. I actually liked Death Stranding but the story was pretty groan inducing.
I will never stop gatekeeping and I will never not insult and demean you for playing on easy. I will bully you until you cry for it, and cry you will because your kind is extremely mentally fragile.
Path of Acolyte is Normal in NG2 just like NG04 is Normal difficulty. Easy mode can be unlocked (which is Ninja Dog mode) by dying multiple times in normal difficulty of NG04/NGB/NGS while you wear purple ribbon in Ryu's hand. Meanwhile, NGS had Hero mode which is easy mode in difficulty selection (not directed by Itagaki) and NG2 doesn't have easy mode while NGS2 also had Hero mode which is easy mode (also not directed by Itagaki).
I miss the Oatmeal cookie so much.
He made a twitter a few months ago, if it really even if him lol.
https://twitter.com/ItagakiApex
We can hope that he will maybe return soon.
Have difficulty selection but lock achievements/other good stuff behind the hardest difficulty and take every chance to ridicule players who play on easy.
This is actually a good incentive to become better. Lock the good shit away. Imagine locking having sex with girls or romance behind high difficulty, normies would lose their shit.
I'm with Hackizaki on this one. I'm a very insecure person, and whenever I play a game with difficulty settings, I google what "the right" difficulty setting is to experience the game to it's fullest.
For example, you never play Doom on the hardest difficulty except if you want to suffer, but you always play Thief on the hardest difficulty to get all bonus objectives.
If there is no difficulty setting, my mind is at ease, because I know I'm playing the game how it is supposed to be played.
difficulty settings are moronic, seriously, grade A moronic.
player are moronic, and shouldnt be trusted to make decisions for their best interest and enjoyment in video games. This is game design 101, if there is an exploit that makes the game easier but is less enjoyable to do players will do it.
You cant ask a player to make a decision for themself, let alone a permanent decision about a game they know nothing about
This.
It's dumb. Make it dynamic difficulty based on how well the player is doing.
Player breezing through >>> Increase enemies' stats (to a certain extent)
Player dying too much >>> Decrease enemies' stats (to a certain extent)
Of course this should all be invisible to the player.
No
That is pure cancer
If the player is good at the game, the player beats the game. What the frick is this invisible garbage you are defending
How do you even defend that
The game is what it fricking is; from start to finish. No tampering with it. If you're good enough, you beat it. If you're not, you try again
You want some brownies and cookies for your big boy good job completion? Want to show off your big sticker star you got from beating the game?
Not everyone wants to play the game as a challenge. Some people want to play the game for... oh my god... I can't believe it... fun.
>You cant ask a player to make a decision for themself, let alone a permanent decision about a game they know nothing about
This is a very good point. At least if you're unable to play it.
For example I recently played Divinity 2 Origins blind on hard because I figured I'd beaten Swordstrat modded BG and such without too much issue but while I was able to progress a good way into chapter 2, I just got really fricking tired of every encounter being something I had to struggle with. Like it was fine when I was fighting big story bosses but when a stupid pack of dwarfs ambushing my party is harder than a chapter end boss, that's just bad balance.
Not insecure but same. Like how Doom 2016 is fun on Ultra-violence but boring on Hurt Me Plenty if you're even a little experienced with shooters. But you wouldn't know that going in, because HMP is called "standard", and I know at least one dude that picked this difficulty and found the whole game kinda boring.
I don't mind difficulty modes if they make this obvious, and have very clear levels: story mode, normal mode, challenge mode for veteran masochists. It's when you have 6 levels with vague names and 4 is the actually fun one that shit feels bad
Automata on Hard mode is good, the problem is that you only suffer greatly thorough the first half of the game, mostly on 2B route, the rest of the game get easier as you go along.
Can't comment on Very hard mode since i never touched it
Automata's main problem was how easy it was to get overlevelled, and that once you got overlevelled you'd kind of stay that way.
The difficulty settings did very little to help here as they only affected the damage you'd recieve, when at least for me, the problem was how fast everything would die.
Eventually my solution was to load up a save editor and drop my level by about 30, after which i felt like the game was in a good place in terms of the difficulty and pace of combat
the whole half-hearted attempt at being a soulslike was another of the dumb things that game did but that's not specifically a difficulty thing
nah it's hard but I never really felt it was super unfair and shitty in regular CE legendary, there's so many ways for the player to gain advantage over the enemies and some levels are basically solved by one weapon (usually the shotgun or pistol) and some grenades. Not to mention there's tons of ways to frick with the game to get around enemies if you need to that don't even abuse any glitches or skipping stuff, like hopping around the elevator in the Library to avoid wading through all the flood that spawn in some sections, or simply going back and waiting for the monitor to open the door then nading the group that spawned in the meantime because they're braindead and clump up.
2 is bullshit, CE is not.
2 years ago
Anonymous
then i guess i suck because i can't do it and i never will be able to beat it on legendary
2 years ago
Anonymous
probably
General advice >abuse the noob combo (pistol/plasma pistol) for any covenant heavy stages >if you think you can/you got camo, then just run through an area instead of blasting through >elites can be distracted by grenades thrown in their field of vision but not close enough to damage them >Use either the pistol to headshot flood (the red tentacles on the chest) or frag grenades if you don't have a shotgun (plasmas stick to them and they love running at you) >hiding behind cover is ok >jump off bridges, flip unused banshees, shoot hunters in the gun with a pistol or sniper, hop behind the first light on certain parts of the library to walk around the elevator (they WILL ambush you at the end, but it's easy to dispatch because they're in a clump) >abuse the shit out of vehicles
what stage are you having trouble with? The only one that really grinds my gears is Truth and Reconciliation.
That was one of my issues with that game (and a lot of RTSs, actually) >Easy mode the AI basically lets you win >Normal mode the AI is barely aggressive and once you break through their defenses you've pretty much won. >Hard mode expects you to have 600 APM to beat.
I just want a nice, challenging back-and-forth to keep me on my toes.
>normal makes bosses die too quickly >but hard makes regular enemies die too slowly and also makes a boss that's on a timer pretty much impossible unless you happen to have enough attack boosting consumables
If there is a normal, I'll play that first. I figure if it's called normal, that's the one that the developers balanced the game around.
If I enjoy the game enough to play again, then I'll try out higher difficulties. If they are just bloated health pools that don't actually change the difficulty but just make stuff take longer, I'll return to normal.
>If they are just bloated health pools that don't actually change the difficulty
There are genuinely games where this makes things harder. Tales of the Abyss comes to mind.
The higher difficulties are nothing but bigger numbers, but fundamentally change the way you play the game.
Builds in fromsoft games are straight forward once you gather enough weapons to test out yourself. The only thing to really be googling is scaling but even some of the weapons with shit scale can hit harder than a fast knife with an S scale.
having several difficulty modes already damages game designer's ability to truly inact his vision.
Every DS difficulty would suck because while making game Miyazaki would have had to keep all of them in mind
will someone just let kojima make a movie please? guy obviously has wanted that his whole career, so blatant with mgsv and death stranding its cringe worthy
They won't. Team Ninja made their next game chink oriented because west is trash and they don't want to bend their knee like the rest. And Wo Long will be better than any from reddit game just like Nioh 2 was.
PSO2 did the type1 and type2 thing but their excuse was to make every cosmetic work on everybody instead of having race or gender limitations like a robot girl being able to wear a tuxedo.
>PSO2 did the type1 and type2 thing but their excuse was to make every cosmetic work on everybody
Accessories work for everyone, but a lot of clothing and outfits are locked to their gender.
can you make a girl wear only swim trunks? If not, it's worthless.
>can you make a girl wear only swim trunks? If not, it's worthless.
Kek
He cares that other people can play as comfortably as they want. Too easy? Bump up the difficulty. Too hard? Drop the difficulty. Still too hard? Drop the difficulty again. Still too hard? Add more cheat codes. The players feel appropriately challenged, no matter their skill level.
The Chad 'The game should have a specific audience in mind and only appeal to it to make discussions coherent' versus the Cringe 'NOOO WE MUST HAVE A GAME WITH BRAINDEAD moronS AND HARDCORE GAMERS IN THE SAME COMMUNITY NOOOO'
The autism of Ganker never ceases to amaze me. The idea that both approaches have merit depending on the game doesn't even cross a Gankerirgin's mind. Myazaki is right, as was Kojima. The former designed a game the way he wanted it in terms of difficulty, so did the latter. The enemy is the liberal hivemind bugmen who insist on standardizing everything.
>Can we talk about >We need to move on from >Can we normalize
All of these sorts of sentence starters are indicative of the will to homogenize every fricking thing. Easy story game can be easy story game, Souls can be Souls. The way difficulty is handled is always going to vary by game, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Wanting such a solution present in every game is an awful, short-sighted, self-serving thought conjured by those who demand everything be passable by the lowest-common-denominator. If a man sucks at games and just wants to play Telltale and watch FromSoftware game full playthroughs on Youtube, more power to him. But slapping on an easy mode for that guy both robs him of the intended experience of the game (he may as well just watch a playthrough at that point) and compromises the experience of everyone else, because suddenly the thing filtering you isn't going to filter you anymore, because you can just select easy from the settings and waltz through.
inb4
>just don't set it to easy lmao
For an action game or a fighter or something, yeah, that's a fine option until you git gud enough to perform on the hard difficulties. But the game was just not designed with that in mind.
Different games and genres can have different approaches. There is no ultimate answer to this.
I dont need tight management and bank collectors storming my house in cozy cartoonish farming simulator. But at the same time I want enemies to create some tension in action games.
Miyazaki has the right idea. Itagaki would have the right idea if it wasn't for him blatantly making his games with broken difficulty on purpose. Miyazaki's games have a fair challenge while Itagaki's are badly designed.
Broken difficulty? NGB is like the first NG on arcade while NGII is like the NES one. It's just designed that way, so don't expect all games should caress you like a baby.
Broken difficulty? NGB is like the first NG on arcade while NGII is like the NES one. It's just designed that way, so don't expect all games should caress you like a baby.
you don't have any i-frames when you're sprinting. also he did a running attack, and his whole body will actively damage you during these animations. you could've dodged it with a roll and you wouldn't have taken damage. you could've blocked it and absorbed most of it but you'd still have taken damage because that shield probably doesn't absorb 100% damage inflicted and you look like you're at a low level in this clip. alternatively, most of his attacks can be parried so he's sort of a push over once you learn to parry most of what he can throw at you.
End the cope, not only was the player not touching the model of the enemy, but there is no reason for his entire """"model""" to be a hitbox to begin with. Usually souls games have good hitboxes, but that webm is inexcusable.
there were multiple ways he could've handled it without getting hit, so how is it cope? bear in mind I'm not arguing that the hitboxes are good or bad, I'm just saying that the there are tools at your disposal to avoid damage. he didn't use them and got rekt.
Every game can be someone's first game ever. Someone who doesn't have basic shit like movement and camera controls burned into their muscle memory shouldn't be expected to have same experience on same difficulty as someone who's been playing vidiya for decades. Miyazaki is a hack if he doesn't understand that. If this moron cared about everyone having same levels of enjoyment there wouldn't be magic in Dark Souls (or it wouldn't be as half-assed).
Easy difficulties should treat player with as much respect as highest ones. If devs make easy modes that treat players like morons it's on them.
Higher difficulties are a major source of replayability.
Soulsbabies are afraid of difficulty selection because they are insecure shitters.
Not gonna bother reading what Kojima has to say because he's a fraud and doesn't play video games.
>Every game can be someone's first game ever.
that's why most games are not challenging now, they all have to be a "good entry point" to appeal to first time players. if you never played hack and slash games you probably shouldn't start with ngb, and the fact that it expects players to already be experienced is why it's better than most others in the genre. i don't mind games having easy modes, but it should be made clear that it's not the right way to play the game.
Game should not have difficulty selection.
If the level design couldn't teach the players to play the game effectively, then the game have failed.
If the player is too moronic for the game, then the player shouldn't be allowed to play the game.
Simple as.
>Slay The Spire should start at Ascension 20 >Doom Eternal should've started at Super Gore Nest Master Level Ultra Nightmare Classic Mode >Mushihimesama should've had only Ultra Mode
Please refer to
>t. only plays AAA babyshit
Your normalhomosexual opinion doesn't fricking matter. Play real games before talking out of your ass.
>Every game can be someone's first game ever. Someone who doesn't have basic shit like movement and camera controls burned into their muscle memory shouldn't be expected to have same experience on same difficulty as someone who's been playing vidiya for decades.
They absolute should. You are moronic for thinking otherwise.
Dark Souls shouldn’t be your first game. Not if you want to win anyways. Plenty of first timers could enjoy it for the challenge and not mind slow progression.
You just neatly separate your difficulty options into "learning curve" and "I already know what I'm doing, I've probably played this before, don't waste my time".
Everything else is just extra design effort for no payoff and it lets journalists pretend they have an opinion.
If you want ways to make the game easier then they should be diegetic and force the player to engage with the game at some level or at least as much as is possible in the age of there being a wiki for everything.
The answer is difficulty you can change on the go >play game (normal) >too easy/hard >increase/decrease to fit your taste >can come back later and try hardest difficulty for fun
It's the most high effort option.
Miyazaki is in the right here, Itagaki shouldn't have even included an easy mode. Ninja Gaiden's normal difficulty should have been what the hard difficulty is, and then you can unlock hard and master ninja after beating the game
You mean Ninja Dog mode where you need to die multiple times first and when you choose it, it forced you to wear purple ribbon and you had infinite ninpos as it shows that you're not equal to the default hardcore gamers as it is making fun of you for being casual.
NTA but what I hated most in NG normal mode was it constantly asking if I wanted to abandon the path of the ninja after getting my ass beat, like obviously I don't if I already said no twenty times before. It forces you to not mash through the continue screen or else you will accidentally pick the yes option, which is irritating.
At least it stops asking you on the higher difficulties, otherwise I would have gotten endless "do you wish to abandon the path of the ninja" trying to do chapter 1 MN with no deaths.
Isn't it a good thing we have different games that encompass all 3 design philosophies? Not all games need difficulty settings, but it's good that some do. Not every game needs to be hard as balls and certainly every game shouldn't be a cake walk.
No game every should have an easy mode. Just play an easy game, but don't expect creators to gut their products to suit your tastes. The whole concept of "games" requires challenge.
He clearly only designs the combat and keeps the games dumbed down. Thats why Bloodborne and Sekiro have soulful world design and DS3 and Elden Ring have generic world design. Because Miyazaki is only there to keep the combat consistent.
Why does Ganker filter Ganker so hard that they go /misc/ apeshit whenever anyone set foot on Hollywood work? Do you frickheads know alot of people in the video game industry have actually wrote, produced, and made movies. I think this fixation on one guy is unhealthy.
>Kojima >Makes games with good premises that are bolstered by innovating game design techniques, with a unique style, tone, and presentation. He constantly pushes the boundaries of his games being cinematic. High game quality all around, regardless of difficulty played.
>Miyazacki >Has made the same game six times with slight variations, all of which center entirely on combat and RPG elements. Despite this every single one has basic combat and bad stat progression. Every single one of his games runs like ass and looks a generation behind, has input delay, poor weapon & skill balance, and devolves into cheese if the player doesn't purposefully create handicaps for themselves. His themes are all tired fantasy tropes stolen from better creators, never pushes boundaries, just makes the same thing repeatedly. Each game he makes declines in quality and becomes successively less difficult with worse game balance.
>Itagaki >Unashamed of what he wants to do. Sets out with a specific experience in mind and wants to award players with that experience. Despite this DoA games are hardly interesting or groundbreaking outside of being one of the last bastions of delicious fanservice. Ninja Gaiden's difficulty on the other hand is a testament to rewarding high mechanical skill in an action game, and doesn't devolve into a punching bag like DMC when the player gets better, though at the same time I wouldn't say they're the best Action games, they're iconic and remembered for what they are: Difficult.
Kojima has the most overall talent and originality.
Itagaki is the most focused when it comes to expressing what kind of difficulty he wants and presenting the player with options on how to overcome it. Everyone that plays NG on the same difficulty plays the same game.
Miyazacki undermines his own "vision" due to god-awful game balance between weapons and abilities. A player using Bleed in ER did not play the same game as anyone not using Bleed.
>becomes successively less difficult
DS3 was FAR harder than DS1/2, so I'm not sure where this comes from. Pretty sure Elden Rangz is harder than DS3 too, but I haven't played it to confirm since I'm burnt out on souls after playing 3 for hundreds of hours.
>I wouldn't say they're the best Action games
Whats the best to you? I'm assuming since you attack both DMC and NG then you are a Bayo player, despite it being very similar to DMC.
>DS3 was FAR harder than DS1/2 >Removes stamina management >Estus is completely instant and unpunishable >Lower stat requirements across the board >Broken weapons very early that can't even be missed
>Pretty sure Elden Rangz is harder than DS3 too
It definitely is if you play it like a Souls game, but the incredibly poor weapon and WA balance makes that a non-issue. Bleed and Cold completely erase the entire game's enemies outside of the last boss. There's numerous cheese weapons ashes in general. Patches have also nerfed most of the harder bosses and buffed literally everything.
>Whats the best to you?
DMC or Bayonetta, probably DMC as a series since Bayo 2 was awful. I didn't "attack" DMC. The punching bag aspect is there to reward stylist play, but doesn't keep the game difficulty once you learn how to juggle effectively, even on DMD in most cases, which is what the thread topic is.
The easier things you listed about DS3 don't make up for how far upgraded the enemy movesets are in the game, they basically took the Fume Knight from DS2 (the hardest boss in the series up to that point) and then designed every single enemy and boss around his philosophy (attack timing mixups, roll catches, multiple hit "anime" combos, relentless aggression, etc). I mean Pontiff is basically just Fume Knight, except sped up by 2x and then given a clone phase which is really hard to deal with.
I think most people play Elden Ring straight like a souls though no? I mean cheesing the game or finding broken stuff isn't really a knock on a game's difficulty imo, you can turn your screen away from enemies in DMC and spam judgement cuts to cheese everything, but I'm not going to pretend like DMD isn't hard because of that cheese existing. You can Killgore in Bayonetta too, and these games are much more limited in their systems (pure action games with no rpg elements) than Souls is.
I still need to get around to playing Bayonetta 2, but I did like how enemies don't let you just juggle them forever in Transformers Devastation, so maybe I will like it more than Bayo 1. Honestly I don't really get why there is a split between bayo/dmc players, both games function the same to me imo, sure you have superficial stuff like offset vs JC but both will let you dab on enemies mindlessly once you know how to juggle as you already mentioned.
Personally I think Itagaki's games are best and he has the most talent of the developers, because he thinks about what the player wants to do, and then designs ways for the enemies to stop you from doing it. Want to juggle? Enemy has air hitting attack. Want to block? Enemy has unreactable grabs. Want to dodge? Enemy has roll catch. Want to counter fish? Enemy can dodge it or use that unreactable grab. Want to GT? Enemies can dodge it by using movement. Want to use strings? Enemies will interrupt you with projectiles.
I won't debate which Souls game is easier. Everyone has their own difficult boss/game/whatever. I just found the removal of Stamina management to make the game significantly easier outside of a few bosses like Nameless King, Friede, and Demon Princes, but that's not really the thread topic, or comparison being made.
>I mean cheesing the game or finding broken stuff isn't really a knock on a game's difficulty imo
Miyazaki is quoted in the OP as not wanting a difficulty slider because he wants everyone at the same level of discussion. This is never true outside of Sekiro, in a single game he's made. Players using Drake Sword, Fire Longsword, Deep Battleaxe / Twinblades, Hunter Axe, Moonveil, etc. will not be playing the same game as other players. ER is particularly egregious with this in that anything with Bleed or Cold makes the game a cakewalk because you chunk the bosses for nearly 40% of their health. Compare that to a player using a basic mace they found, the experience is not "the same level of discussion" between them. One player erases bosses with almost no stat investment and the other has to pour levels into VIG/DEX/STR/END to survive.
>Honestly I don't really get why there is a split between bayo/dmc players
Ganker is the only place I see this.
> I think Itagaki's games are best and he has the most talent of the developers, because he thinks about what the player wants to do
I agree with this for the most part, but I just don't enjoy his games as much on a day-to-day. DMC and Bayonetta have significantly more style and interesting weapons to me. DMC5 in particular is fun to just turn on and frick around in while winding down from work.
I think it is important to talk about which is difficult because it was an attack on the games you made, and I really do think it is an objective thing here just because of how stark the moveset differences are between 1/2 and 3. Obviously webm related is a tutorial boss that becomes a minor miniboss later on, but just the lack of tracking, the animation speed, how much time you have between attacks, and how little he "combos" compared to index gundyr is enough proof for what I'm saying I think. Stamina management in 1/2 was generally not really an issue, mostly just requiring that every 3~ish openings you would rest during the next one to regain stamina. Its not that stamina management is no difficulty at all, more so that its simply not as big of a difference as the massive moveset upgrades were.
I think you are overemphasizing how powerful things like a fire longsword or deep battle axe are, you are still playing the same game as other people are, and stronger stuff like a drake sword are certainly going to be missed by 99.9% of players their first time if they don't look up guides. Most people I think just grab a generic longsword, claymore, UGS, etc and play it straight; maybe some delve into magic which can either break the game or make it much harder depending on who you are fighting and what spells you pick. Which magic is probably a more stronger point to a different experience honestly, especially in DS1/2 it was insanely strong to the point even generic builds would have you obliterating all foes instantly. This was compounded by the fact enemies were so much more sluggish, most tended to hang back and allow you to estus up or cast multiple spells on them in a row.
>Ganker is the only place I see this.
Fair enough.
True about how you must be on edge to play Ninja Gaiden, it is a tiring series to play sometimes because it never allows you to relax around it. Which is also its own unique beauty, but yeah not a winding down kind of game.
2 years ago
Anonymous
i tell you what most people did
they grabbed a rapier asap and cheesed every single fight since it was easy mode
2 years ago
Anonymous
I highly doubt that, most people didn't even touch magic in DS1/2 despite it obliterating the games difficulty. Bleed was insanely strong in DS3 too, yet no one touched it their first time. Lots of crazy strong stuff in souls games because of their rpg factor, but its mostly there for people to replay and find fun stuff to muck about with.
2 years ago
Anonymous
its not even comparable
getting rapier is so braindead easy and every streamer at that time used it (the reason people play the games in the first place). you would see rapier shitters everywhere from pvp to high end pve. i agree with that anons statement, these games have never been fair or balanced or given a feeling of camaraderie by overcoming anything together because some butthole could just have a +10 katana/rapier at the 4-5 hour mark and faceroll the entire game. This applies to all dark soulss.the scenario you describe is maybe at the release of the game when noone knows what items do what but thanks to community growth we see such things datamind by sweaty tryhard autists (even fastrer than before) to a point of if you play the game normally without a guide you will have a miserable playthrough
2 years ago
Anonymous
Just to be specific, are you speaking about Elden Ring or one of the other games? It is one of the games I haven't played, so its hard for me to dispute your probably exaggerated claims since most people do play these games blind as given by the endless hordes of fallen knight armor players there was in DS3.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I think it is important to talk about which is difficult because it was an attack on the games you made
Alright fine. I found DS3 to be the easiest, because all of the weapons, except the "Ultra Greats" are all absurdly fast and do high damage with a tiny consumption of Stamina. Typical enemies are constantly stun-locked and a third of the bosses are gimmicky "attack the weak point" encounters and/or they're giants with attack chains that cause them to swing at the air for a few seconds before an easy punish. I think the people that had any trouble at all with DS3 was due to the absurd input delay that was put on the roll due to poor coding and because it was such a departure from DS1 and 2, as it made a vain attempt at being an action game rather than when Souls was up until that point; an Adventure-RPG with some action elements.
>I think you are overemphasizing how powerful things like a fire longsword or deep battle axe are
I'm not. The Deep Battleaxe, Twin Blades, Fire longsword, Heide Knight Sword, Drake Sword, Hunter's Axe -All these weapons do significantly more damage than everything else available for the majority of the game's duration, and they all have strong move sets on top of that. That is not "playing on the same level", using those weapons makes the game significantly easier. Whether a player misses them or not doesn't matter. If anything it proves that DS3 is the easiest simply because all the most powerful weapons are on a linear path, Vordt's Hammer straight up 4-5 shots some bosses, and you have to get it to progress, and it's from the second/third boss in the game.
To be completely honest, I don't care about Dark Souls. They're all poorly made and have devolved more and more into a long chain of spectacle fights.
2 years ago
Anonymous
A lot of what you commented about enemies being stunlocked and gimmick bosses applies to DS1/2 too though, I would think DS1/2 actually had more gimmick bosses in a pound for pound contest. Of the 19 bosses only 3 in DS3 were related to weakspots, and another 2 might be defined as generic "gimmicks" for Yhorm and Deacons. DS2 meanwhile had at least 10 total gimmick bosses if you include "weakspots" as a gimmick, which out of 32 which is closer to one third than DS3 is. Its part of the action game vs adventure style you might be referring to. Although arguably these gimmick bosses usually fail to really play around with their environment or the tools of the player that more traditionally adventure type games like Darksiders or Zelda do.
The big attack chains I would easier argue are far harder to dodge and punish than for instance a single swing that DS1/2 enemies were fond of, the thing about DS3 is that they were designed around pretending like the combo was over, only to swing again in order to catch off greedy players.
>significantly more damage
But they really don't, firelongsword and deep axe are only good for maybe 1/4 of the game and do what, maybe 30% extra damage during that time? Its really not a game altering thing, to me a real difference is maybe magic users two shotting the final boss with dark bead, great lightning spear, or soul stream. At that point, yes one might have to admit that the differences are too great to pretend like melee vs magic players had similar experiences. Which is generally where the hatred of magic players comes from for soulsfans, extending that culture to DS3 too despite it actually being rather balanced in that game.
Personally I do enjoy Nioh and Monster Hunter more than Souls now for that slower style of game, but I don't think souls went in a wrong direction. The Mathew exceleb narrative around being "adventure" games is weak to me, I don't really think they were great at being zelda-type games either.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>despite it actually being rather balanced in that game.
DS3 doesn't have any balance at all, the magic is just bad in that one.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Of the three core Souls games its by far the most balanced. Even shields are properly balanced for how much easier they are to use compared to rolling, whereas in DS1/2 shields were utterly braindead broken. Of course I think some people dislike this factor about DS3, because finding broken bullshit was part of their fun in these games for replay value. DS3 still has some very strong stuff like Bleeds, or 1 hp red tier stone shenanigans, but nothing is like how broken 1/2 got.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Of the three core Souls games its by far the most balanced.
That's DS2. Unironically, as shit as it might be, DS2 is by far the most balanced for every playstyle, DS3 is the least.
2 years ago
Anonymous
DS2 is only balanced in pvp, and by balanced I mean rapier turtles beat everything objectively. DS3 pvp is unironically more balanced in pve and pvp.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Just stop talking about DS2. It's obvious that you like the third one in spite of its flaws, but I'm tired of this discussion and won't be bothered to talk about a relatively low-quality series of inconsistent wanna-be action games anymore.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You can go watch the autism tournaments of DS3 right now and see a huge variety of weapons and tactics there from poking spells, crossbows, bombs, curved swords, raper turtle, straight swords, spears, etc. DS2 late in its life was literally just skorband dicking people with rapier turtling because its objectively the best way to play in DS2.
I don't really care about pvp, but I can only assume when talking about DS2 "one shot everything that exists with dark magic, miracles, or spells" pve that no one would call that shitshow balanced.
Kojima hasn't been able to translate all of that into an overall good product ever since MGS2 (MGS3 is good, but feels like more of the same instead of innovative or boundary pushing). Basically, ever since he left Konami and has got total control over his "vision".
The more we learn about the way he works, the clearer it gets that he's the type of guy that would botch a segment of gameplay over some actor or song royalty.
>of being one of the last bastions of delicious fanservice. Ninja Gaiden's difficulty on the other hand is a testament to rewarding high mechanical skill in an action game, and doesn't devolve into a punching bag like DMC >Izuna drop
Kek
Izuna drop is the reward for what actual NG skill is, it is the payout for good play. Launching an enemy into the air isn't a given in NG, enemies will hit you out of it for usually massive damage. I've had times where I mindlessly launch an enemy only to get swatted out of the air and then grabbed while in hitstun, killing me from 80% hp instantly for a single mindless launcher. The reason izuna drop exists instead of combo autism is because the skill and effort is within finding the right moment to strike, that is Ninja Gaiden in a nutshell.
Not that your shitpost really deserves this kind of reply though.
>get hit out of the air and die from 80% hp because you are just randomly mashing
alternatively >enemy dodges your windspath and now you get raped during jump recovery frames
dodges your windspath and now you get raped during jump recovery frames >he can't do dodge to start launch
Sure
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't even know what you are saying, "he can't do dodge to start launch" are you saying you dodge an enemies attack and the punish him? If so, then why did you need to windspath if he is in recovery animation? Not only that, but again, you've made izuna into a REWARD for playing well by punishing the enemies attacks.
>enemies will hit you out of it for usually massive damage >launch any ninja, his buddies just sit and watch as I perform aoe iframe divebomb >launch every imp except crab, his buddies do nothing since they lack projectile attack
Only monks are a good counter to izuna drop but they disappear after monastery
Ninjas literally have their flip attack designed to hit you out of the air, they are also used mostly in chapter 1 where you don't have izuna drop yet.
>monks
Cat Fiends are the true izuna cuck, not monks.
None of what you said is true above easy/normal mode. Stop talking about NGB you got filtered or think you beat the game on normal. You haven't even seen half the enemy roster.
You act like you just get to izuna drop enemies for free. In reality tons of enemies block in NGB so you cannot just fish forever. Alot of enemies aren't grabbable in both games. Even chaining ET/UTs gay as it can be isn't free to start the chain of and doesn't necessarily go on for a entire fight nor can it be done during boss fights outside of losers like Volf.
>cat fiends
Confirmed larper who played on normal mode at best, these enemies are literally designed to nuke your fricking shit up the second you launch one of them. You CAN launch them, but it can literally only ever be done when the others are also in recovery frames, else they jump up and flying swallow your ass back to the continue screen faster than you can xxxy.
>Confirmed larper who played on normal mode at best, these enemies are literally designed to nuke your fricking shit up the second you launch one of them >launch a cat fiend >other cats do moronic flying swallow missing you
Black person did you even play the game
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah I did, and I remember losing 50% of my hp the second I went to izuna from bouncing off the walls cat fiends because they are programmed to do so. Even more fun was in Sigma where you don't get wallsplat protection, so sometimes the flying swallows will literally just nuke 100% of your hp instantly due to being hit multiple times from the same attack.
Did you play above normal homosexual? >Ninjas
Black spider ninjas move around to spastically to call the Izuna drop free. Also on higher difficulties you don't even get the scroll until mid game or later >Imps/soldiers
They can block. Also block flying swallow constantly on VH/MNM >Cat fiends
If you hit cat fiends you earn anything you do to them. They also can do their variant of the Izuna drop back to you.
Why do people who only beat normal feel like they deserve opinions? The AI flat out almost never blocks on normal. Cat fiends don't even really try to grab you much or move around. Congrats you beat the version of the game designed for feel gooders and everyone else moved on.
Finished both ngb and vanila 2 on mn keep coping >Black spider ninjas move around to spastically to call the Izuna drop free >throw shuriken and start izuna drop
Wow >Also on higher difficulties you don't even get the scroll until mid game or later
What the frick you talking about. You get izuna drop scroll in mission 4, just as black ninjas appear >imps >can block
Rofl >soldiers
Throw - izuna drop
2 years ago
Anonymous
Cute lying >Black spiders don't appear until chapter 4
They literally replace the chapter 1 encounters and appear with Murai. You are nothing but a larper. Please have a nice day you haven't been above normal on either game your words just proved that. Fricking first god damn encounter has black spider explosive ninjas on MN.
2 years ago
Anonymous
This is correct because I remember them raping me repeatedly in the first few chapters on MN.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You get izuna drop scroll in mission 4, just as black ninjas appear >black ninjas >mission 4
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH POSER MOMENT
Left has been in the industry for the longest and lived long enough to be a villain. He has made some decent narrative games that people like to shit on because he branded himself too much like Kanye.
Middle is still young (director years) but doesn't have that much room for variety. After ER I don't think he'll break out from mediocrity. He takes the easy and safe route. His games have good designs and atmosphere but lacks narrative which is smart.
Last one pioneered a genre but fell off the face of earth for a bit and came back as a disappointing fart. His games are the epitome of character action and makes DMC look like casual garbage.
i play games to have fun. if i find the game fun and cool, no matter what difficulty i will play it.
if some moron played the game on easy mode, that doesnt matter because he had no influence on how much i enjoyed the game.
if some homosexual played on the hardest mode, that doesnt matter because he had no influence on how much i enjoyed the game.
i think you guys should take this mentality too and stop being influenced by what other peoples subjective opinions are.
if you dont enjoy playing the video game, i believe you should play something else instead of sulking in negativity. video games are entertainment products and i see no value in trying to negate others peoples enjoyment. i could understand the argument being that critiquing the product would influence the developers into changing said product into something that more aligns your enjoyment— and i agree with that statement — but i still see no value in insulting the enjoyment others are having. it appears to share the same mentality with 'if i dont like it, you wont either' and i find that illogical and childish
All three of these are valid perspectives. Kojima vs Miyazaki is a difference in artistic direction- Kojima designing so everyone can play, Miyazaki designing for all players to have the same experience.
Itagaki is talking more from a social dynamic point of view than a game design view: Those who accomplish less will be treated differently than those who accomplish more. Merely a statement of fact.
I know this is bait but I'll give my opinion anyway
First off I think when games are too easy or too difficult it kinda sucks the fun out them. When a game is challenging for me, it just tends to piss me off and to me it's not worth feeling good for a minute if it means hours of rage beforehand but a game being too easy isn't much better. Difficulty modes are a good thing because some people are just gonna have a naturally easier time playing games than other people. Some peeps might say "git gud" but you're born with a set limit to your capabalities, some people won't ever be able to beat some difficult vidya no matter how hard they try
The obvious response to this is.
Not all games should be for everyone.
Look at ubishit they try to make their games as widely appealing as possible and they end up being bland trash. It is better to have niche games that perfectly appeal to a certain group of people.
People who play on easy mode just wants games to be eye-candy and only care about the story and graphics of the game.
There's no way you can tell whether the game has good gameplay or not if the game itself doesn't offer a slight ounce of challenge.
Right-most is best. Just don't pull the "NOW PLAY ON HARD TO GET THE REAL ENDING :)" at the end, state it outright at the beginning. Also, add shit which ridicules easy players like a little baby sound when you hover over it, as opposed to the regular sound when you hover over medium and hard.
Why do millennials have a superiority complex when it comes to games? It's an escape medium and not a race nor competition unless you're getting paid. Bragging about beating a sp game on hard mode and rubbing it on people's faces is sad.
i can't enjoy games because i make 1 mistake and enter babyraeg
i really wish i could enjoy them more but i have to be so careful and play on easy so i don't get frustrated but then it's too easy so i get bored and don't want to play blah blah blah, i can't handle getting hit once even though it doesn't really mean much, like 1/10 of my hp is gone, chill bro you can keep playing
This man made fighting games, great ones might I add. How do you even begin to implement such a philosophy into a fighting game? Obviously 80% of people won't know what to do against some input reading AI or vastly better player than them.
Itagaki. Unlike Souls mememan his games are actually hard past surface level and mechanically deep and not reddit fancore games. Although i like Souls games that is what they are. "hard" enough games for babies to beat and feel good about themselves but overall good experiences collective.
>debate >having game devs with different way of thinking is a bad thing lefties degenerates and gender politics baits need not applied
the quality of Ganker seems to sink into another level
Ninja Gaiden also has difficulty settings and Itagaki is the correct answer in OPs picture. Notice how Soulsgays are the ones so defensive about difficulty settings. In reality Souls games aren't even hard and on top of that have 101 ways to cheese the entire thing some of which you don't even need to do intentionally. Half the weapons in the game count as "cheese" nowadays.
Middle is the best way of doing it. Left brings the entire game down and right most likely is dumb artificial difficulty that amounts to HP bloat or where you have to be stupidly autistic.
Craft a single experience and it'll be best
Itagaki is a hack so not him. Miyazaki's stance is great but it only really works for games where you can have different builds for your character, since difficulties can provide replay value for games where your player character can't change much.
The funny thing about Kamiya is for a guy who is so resolute in his vision, he'll often make a random last-minute change that adds tons to the game. Dodge Offset and Multi-Unite were both late additions to Bayo 1 and W101.
>Left brings people who dont like vidya >Middle eventually ruins it for everyone when they eventually try to appeal to a bigger audience.
That has nothing to do with the attitudes though?
From Software games are played by plenty of people who don't like vidya, because it's mainstream. And anyone can at some point appeal to a bigger audience, it has frick all to do with the attitude towards difficulty.
Miyazaki is right. Difficulty selections shouldn't exist unless they bring a meaningful choice to gameplay itself and can be swapped on the fly, like how TWEWY has enemy drops changed based on difficulty.
I think people should be able to play what they want HOWEVER I wish they would unlock hard mode from the start instead of only unlocking it once you beat the game Ie. re4
Especially if you've already beaten the game before but don't have your old save.
However, it may make sense for dumbasses like
Always play on hardest difficulty.
who will always choose the most difficult setting. Then later complain it's too difficult because they don't know what to do and then say the game sucks.
Dynamic difficulty is the only way.
Dynamic difficulty is shit, the game shouldn't be arbitrary made easier for me because I died. Ruins any sense of progression for yourself as a player if you win just because the game decided to make it easy mode for you. Load of shit that idea is. Manual difficulty is the only real option.
difficulty settings are moronic, seriously, grade A moronic.
player are moronic, and shouldnt be trusted to make decisions for their best interest and enjoyment in video games. This is game design 101, if there is an exploit that makes the game easier but is less enjoyable to do players will do it.
You cant ask a player to make a decision for themself, let alone a permanent decision about a game they know nothing about
archaic design that should be discarded.
brings up great points
Difficulty is vague. How the hell should the player know what "Hard" difficulty is? Some games it's basically Easy. Some games it's impossible. And this is before the player even started the game.
Dying too much is not fun. Breezing through the game is not fun. What is fun is a balance of both. Just a bit of challenge. It's not possible to do that for all players without dynamic difficulty, which will automatically accomplish that.
>How the hell should the player know what "Hard" difficulty is?
Through descriptions of the modes, most developers frick this up but when you say "gives an experienced (x genre) a serious challenge" then they should mean that. Viscerafest (indie shooter) was a game where I felt like the descriptions lined up with the experience, and the reason for that is probably because the dev is also someone who plays 300+ hours of Doom Eternal on NM and UNM. Most devs don't play video games, so they don't understand what difficulty modes mean. Shmups are also pretty good about their difficulty levels, usually their ultra modes really are too fricking much unless you live on these type of games.
Dynamic difficulty is shit and always will be shit, your problem is you blame the players when its the devs fault for creating difficulties that lie about their own experience. Usually the hardest mode possible is what a proper "normal" mode would be for an experienced gamer.
Developer can NEVER give accurate descriptions because there is no such thing. "Hard: We think this difficulty will provide some challenge" can be trivial to one person but unbeatable to another.
You keep saying "Dynamic difficulty is shit" but don't give any valid reasons.
2 years ago
Anonymous
But they can, I just listed games which do because you state what kind of player would find it difficult. I also already gave valid reasons for dynamic difficulty being shit in my very first reply to you, it ruins the progression of the player arbitrary even if they just want the challenge for themselves. Your burying your head in the sand as I gave examples and then claiming I never did is not an argument.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You didn't read my post. Let's say I've never played shooters or I'm terrible at shooters. Maybe "Normal" is too difficult for me then.
What exactly is this "progression of the player"? And it's not arbitrary. It happens by a small amount when necessary.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Let's say I've never played shooters or I'm terrible at shooters
Then play on the mode that says "for those who are new to shooters or looking for less of a challenge", I already said this. You projectile your own lack of reading since this was literally my entire fricking point.
>What exactly is this "progression of the player"?
When you "Git gud", there is nothing more demoralizing then the game arbitrarily making itself easier so you can win. This instantly removes any sense of reward for getting better, it wasn't you getting better - it was the game letting you win. Dynamic difficulty is dogshit and always will be.
2 years ago
Anonymous
And what if someone is normally good? Are all Normal difficulty the same? No. Use your brain, think.
Some people want to have fun. What is this "demoralizing" crap? You studying for an exam or something? I play to have fun and have a bit of challenge, but not so much that I keep dying for the 100th time.
Let me guess, you enjoy flaunting that you beat DS?
2 years ago
Anonymous
"Normally good" no, you mean "experienced with this genre" or "not experienced with this genre" with an added "looking for a challenge" description or not. As I said Shmupsand other games like Viscerafest do difficulty modes right, probably because their devs actually play vidya.
>just want to have fun
Then play on easy mode if thats fun for you - as I said "for those who are new to shooters OR looking for less of a challenge", fun for others like myself is playing on modes that ask them to step up and play better rather than being given a participation award. Its demoralizing to have your efforts taken away from you while being having the game let you win. Dynamic difficulty is dogshit, and your imaginary headcanon about me being a DS player doesn't make sense since I am stating you should have manual difficulty modes. You are running out of steam and your attempts to provoke me into your petty insult battles is proof enough of that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
There are different levels of "experienced with this genre" and it is different for different people.
>Then play on easy mode if thats fun for you
Did you seriously not read what I said? I repeated it so many times. I've got no comment on your stupidity. Just read above what I said.
>provoke me into your petty insult battles
That is called projection, btw
And yes, I am indeed running out of steam, by how stupid you are. It's discouraging to know someone like you exists in this world.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You can argue that there are differences in distance to the planck length, in real life situations no one can see them with the naked eye nor do they have any real effect on manufacturing. You don't have a real point to make besides time wasting technicality.
I did read what you said, and what you said suggested to me you wanted to not be challenged because you don't like dying. If you don't like dying then play on easy mode, if you want a bit of challenge and haven't played much of the genre, then play on normal mode. If you play the genre and want some challenge then go play hard mode.
If I projected then quote my insults towards you, unless you mean to say my suggestion you play on easy mode to be an insult. Which if that's true then its your own problem and not mine, because its you who perceives his pride to be held together by video game difficulty.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>differences in distance to the planck length, in real life situations no one can see them with the naked eye nor do they have any real effect on manufacturing
You need to take your pills.
That's enough.
If you refuse to even read what I said then that's that. There's no point.
Never once did I said I didn't want to die. In fact, I said dying will dynamically change the difficulty to be a proper challenge. Logically I am FOR dying.
>you who perceives his pride to be held together by video game difficulty
It's funny cause this is exactly what you're trying to say. Whereas I am saying the exact opposite.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'll accept your buzzwords about pills to mean you couldn't figure out a better response.
>Never once did I said I didn't want to die.
But you did " I play to have fun and have a bit of challenge, but not so much that I keep dying for the 100th time.", if you don't like dying then play on easy mode, its that simple. If you are "FOR dying" then pick the harder mode. Let me guess - its some arbitrary number of "ok deaths" to you that you are fine with, that number being something you will never actually state what the correct amount is the "ok amount". Which is another time wasting technicality, that same technicality would defeat your own arguments since knowing the correct amount of deaths for each player is impossible according to yourself due to infinite differences. The reality is that it seems to me like you've defeated yourself here, which is typical if you are more interested in saving face with technicalities and insults than real conversation.
Are you going to quote where those insults were, or just dance around the issue endlessly because in reality you got caught making it up.
2 years ago
Anonymous
A: (Say something unrelated and confusing on purpose)
B: Wtf bro
A: What? You too dumb?!
100 is an example. I could've easily said 1000. You cherry pick on the technicalities because that's all you can argue. You know what I mean. It's not fun dying 1000 times in a row.
Just read your own posts. But realistically though, your own pride prevents you from seeing. I find this extremely ironic. And pathetic and a little sad, really.
2 years ago
Anonymous
If you don't understand what I said, then you can just ask me to clarify instead of using buzzwords and insults like you seem very fond of doing. A planck length is the smallest unit of measure I believe is currently known or measurable. Yet two objects being "different" to each other in length by one planck length has no real difference to the naked eye or in manufacturing products. Yes the objects are "different" to each other, but that is just a needless technicality.
100, 1000, you never even bothered to say in what regard that you are dying to - a single trash mobs? A boss? A level? The whole game? Except you never will state how many deaths is the "ok deaths" amount, or what situation the "ok deaths" is for. Even if you did, that would only be the "ok amount" for yourself, and according to yourself there are infinitely different people who would all require infinitely different amounts, meaning you have beaten your own argument.
So you can't even quote one, in other words you are a liar or at the very least someone who does not think before he posts accusations of others. Your "projecting" accusation hold no water, and now I will return to saying "You are running out of steam and your attempts to provoke me into your petty insult battles is proof enough of that." Or perhaps now it is "you have ran out of steam altogether", since your posts barely hold a single attempt at an argument at all.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I also could've Wikipedia it. The fact is your example sucks and doesn't support any of our discussions.
"Ok deaths" is relative. Seriously, think about it. If we do it your way: Easy, Normal, Hard, for example. We have an example player. He starts the game and chooses Normal because that's the description best fits him. Some parts are too easy he breezes through. Some parts are too difficult he dies many times and gets frustrated, or perhaps gets stuck and gives up.
With dynamic difficulty, there will be almost never a point that you will die 1000 times. Simply because the difficult will adjust to you. That's the point.
I won't deny that I am getting tired, but it's because of having to argue with someone that can't read what I posted nor even try to comprehend, or perhaps the lack of brain power to do so.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Unless you can explain what is wrong with the example, you have no argument. Saying "it sucks" is no different than your buzzwords from before. It directly has to do with our conversation because of your distinction of "different players" having no real standard and effectively creating an infinite amount of "difference".
It is relative isn't it, which is why you defeat yourself. With your own endorsement and acknowledgement of this, you cannot even suggest you don't understand it. Your dynamic system fails because there are "different" people who search for different experiences. Unless you mean to say there is now only one correct way to play and there is only one correct amounts of deaths for a correct amount of time or correct amount of levels, enemies, etc. Obviously you will not do this, since this contradicts everything you have previously said, and so your own arguments have circled back around to attack and eat itself like an ouroboros. You may now either see the truth of this, and accept you have made a mistake in your line of thinking, or more likely simply go back to insulting me with buzzwords like you seem eager to do.
Well I've quoted you many times in what you said, in fact I might argue I understand your own arguments and posts better than yourself - since you haven't realized that you have beaten yourself many posts ago. Unless you can explain what I don't understand, then this is just another mindless insult.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Using confusing examples is a "sucky" tactic and does not contribute to the discussion other than to distract from it.
You say a lot of words but there's no substance. Basically what you're saying is you enjoy dying 1000 times. See, most people don't enjoy that. There's always going to be outliers. Those that enjoy dying over and over are far and few. Most people enjoy challenge but not frustratingly so. Most people don't enjoy steamrolling the game as if they're on cheats, as it's boring. A balance is what covers most people.
Thing is, your pride is preventing you from understanding that you actually do NOT understand what I'm saying. Only what you think I'm saying so you can "win" against my argument in your head.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Not only is it fairly straightforward as an example, but I fully explained it to you. Either explain what is wrong with the example, or you have no argument.
You can't even state where you or anyone else is dying this 100 or 1000 times, you have no standard "ok deaths" and by your own admission it is relative anyways. You simultaneously wish to present forth an objective one correct path forward mode, while not being able to state who or what this experience is for beyond a nebulous "normal person" which is the same non argument as "ok deaths", you will admit others don't want this experience "There's always going to be outliers", yet a solution which solves this issue of outliers by having outlier modes is not acceptable to you. The reality is that your argument defeats itself as I've shown you many many times before.
Except you can't explain where I'm wrong, unlike myself who has been exceptionally patience with you and your insults, to the point I even clarify my posts several times for you even after your pety insults, only to be met with "it sucks" in response.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm quite certain you're able to understand your own example. But that doesn't mean others can. Your example sucks, period. I think there's no one here that will argue against that besides you (the one who created it).
There you go again, cherry picking technicalities. Perhaps it's better to say "dying X times". 100 or 1000 is just a number, it doesn't matter. The idea is what I'm trying to get at.
You're basically arguing that's there's only 3 correct paths (for example a game that has Easy, Normal, and Hard). I argue that I can improve that and provide many more paths, and paths that are customized for each player, automatically. Maybe dynamic difficulty isn't perfect, but it's far better and covers far more players than your 3 paths.
I've only said "it sucks" to your confusing example, which it does and I have explained. It's ironic and I'm quite literally flabbergasted at your "exceptionally patience with you" because that is exactly how I feel about you. I seriously don't know if you're just trolling me right now.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I explained my example to you. Either explain what is wrong with the example, or you have no argument.
You are right that your 100 or 1000 number doesn't matter as I said, because its a pointless throwaway number that equates to nothing of substance since you will never state what the correct "ok deaths" is. If you can recognize that, then you can stop bringing it up. You suggest that your dynamic system is capable of providing more paths, yet in reality only provides one singular path based on whatever "ok deaths" is and thats it. You admit it cannot handle outliers, and effectively all you offer is a "normal mode" and nothing else for anyone else who wants more than that. If someone does not like dying such as yourself then there is no option for them, if someone likes the game to be harder than there is no option for them. Your system is a failure by your own admission of there being different people and relative experiences.
>you're basically arguing that's there's only 3 correct paths
I did not actually argue that, this is what is called a strawman. Try again.
You never actually explained how it sucks or even how its confusing to yourself, indeed all you have done is say "it sucks" over and over again with no real argument at all because you don't want to actually take on the example for what it means. Even if it "sucked" or was "confusing", you can't can't tackle it, nor explain how it sucks or is confusing. You dodge and dodge and dodge the example, but all you do is show off that it must be correct if you can't attack it on any level.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I've already explained it to you. Do you not read...?
I've also already said what the "ok deaths" is, it's relative. Read on top. Dynamic difficulty is not "one singular path". It's many simultaneously to different players. It's also many simultaneously to the same player. One player beats the game and gets way better at it after. Players the game again, will still get challenged because the dynamic difficulty has "increased". It is NOT the same path as his first playthrough. It is NOT a "normal mode". They will get challenged and they will die, but it will properly adjust. That is the point.
Again, I say it's not perfect. But it's far better than 3 strict paths. Oops sorry, let me say there's "X strict paths", in case you cherry pick again.
Whether someone gets it or not is no longer really the point. The point is it's confusing as an example.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You explained nothing besides saying "it sucks" or that it confused you, to which I clarified it to you and now all thats left is "it sucks", which you need to explain why it sucks.
If "ok deaths" is relative, then why are you pushing for a mode that only offers a single path with a set amount of allowed deaths. By your admission you yourself have stated it cannot account for outliers. If someone wishes to be more challenged your mode does not allow for that, If someone wishes to be less challenged your mode does not allow for that - only your arbitrary "ok deaths" is allowed based on literally nothing since you have no actual standard for what "ok deaths" is or isn't. Your arguments defeat themselves because you admit people are relative, yet force them into a one sized fits all mode, this is contradictory as I've explain endlessly.
Correct, it doesn't matter if you got it or not. Some people get things while others don't, thats ok. What matters is that now you do after being explained to, so do you have an argument against it or will you just admit you are dodging it because you clearly don't after 9+ posts where you refuse to touch on it at all.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It's confusing. That alone is enough to say it's a bad example to provide.
Please read. Dynamic difficulty is not a "single path". What is this "set amount of allowed deaths"? No point does it matter. You definitely aren't reading what I posted. You will always be challenged with dynamic difficulty. There's no need to find "ok deaths" because that will automatically be found for the player. Dynamic difficulty is the opposite of "one sized fits all". Easy, Normal, Hard is forcing people into X sizes. The only contradiction is this, and how you avoid responding to it.
Again, that's not the point. The point is you the example you provided is confusing and unnecessary.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The only person who found it confusing was you, and that situation was resolved by me explaining it to you. Do you have a real argument against it or not?
You tell me what set amount of allowed deaths is, thats your system. Die more and it gets harder, die less and it gets easier. Both options are based around a perfect "ok deaths" amount that you force people into. >that will automatically be found
So its going to read their minds? Will you input a "ok deaths" number before you start the game, which will make it easier or harder for you, sort of like... difficulty modes? I'm having a bit of trouble following you here, why don't you explain some more.
The only person who found it confusing was you, and that situation was resolved by me explaining it to you. Do you have a real argument against it or not?
2 years ago
Anonymous
It's confusing. That alone is enough to say it's a bad example to provide.
Please read. Dynamic difficulty is not a "single path". What is this "set amount of allowed deaths"? No point does it matter. You definitely aren't reading what I posted. You will always be challenged with dynamic difficulty. There's no need to find "ok deaths" because that will automatically be found for the player. Dynamic difficulty is the opposite of "one sized fits all". Easy, Normal, Hard is forcing people into X sizes. The only contradiction is this, and how you avoid responding to it.
Again, that's not the point. The point is you the example you provided is confusing and unnecessary.
>Die more and it gets harder, die less and it gets easier.
Obviously this was meant to be "Die more and it gets *easier*, die less and it gets *harder*"
2 years ago
Anonymous
It will automatically be found, because it gets easier if you die more and harder if you don't. So you can say the "ok deaths" is completely unneeded. It will sort itself out and you'll reach equilibrium of challenge that personally suits you. I'm not sure why you're so stuck to "ok deaths", it doesn't matter.
Now it's your turn to stop avoiding and answer why you think Easy, Normal, Hard provides more paths than this infinitely dynamic automatic adjusting system?
2 years ago
Anonymous
So dodging the example fully this time by simply not even bothering a single word to it? I wish you were enough of a man to admit you have no argument against it instead of running away like that, but I can't say I expected you to do that after 11+ posts of your nonsense dodging.
How can "ok deaths" be automatically found if you admit you are already balancing around an "ok deaths" number? You aren't even thinking at all about this are you? Are you currently inebriated on some level? This is an insult because honestly despite my usual good faith I honestly cannot imagine anyone seriously putting out replies this poor in thought unless intoxicated or otherwise distracted.
If could be only two modes and it provides more paths than a dynamic single path objectively
2 years ago
Anonymous
Different things to different people. Dynamic difficulty supports that.
It is not "balancing around an okay deaths number". It's balancing around how well the player is doing, which may be the amount of deaths. There's a small but important difference.
Also, no one is fooled by your "holier than thou" attitude. If you truly believe that, it is due to your pride.
>If could be only two modes and it provides more paths
Okay... how? Cause that sounds bullshit.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Dynamic difficulty does not support that, as you already admitted "There's always going to be outliers." and that people are relative and have relative experiences.
So its not around an "ok deaths" amount, then what is it balanced around, but wait you already said its searching for an "ok deaths" number "automatically" so now it both is and isn't balancing around that. Just like how it already has a preset "ok deaths" amount to the game, and then you also suggest it will "automatically" find the correct number for the player, despite already using the correct number it has to balance already. Can you put 1 + 1 together or not, tell me.
I explained how dynamic systems are offer only one path, you have a single preset allowed "challenge" to the player and thats it. Those who want more or less have no options, and you admit "outliers" (in otherwords, people who aren't yourself) will have nothing for them.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I've also said it's not a perfect system but it's far better than what you're saying. Please don't just cherry pick what is most convenient to you.
Also let me make a prediction: you aren't going to address this but will continue to ignore it.
It's so simple, I'm honestly surprised you don't/can't understand.
You die >>> game gets slightly easier
You don't die >>> game gets slightly more difficult
Eventually an equilibrium is reached where it will be challenging but not frustratingly difficult.
You still cannot understand? Or are you refusing to understand?
And I have also explained so many times. Dynamic difficulty is NOT one path. A "Hard" difficulty is one path. There are far more outliers using Easy/Normal/Hard difficulty than there are for dynamic difficulty.
Again, I predict that you will avoid responding to this again. Probably repeating something stupid again without any explanation.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You die >>> game gets slightly easier >You don't die >>> game gets slightly more difficult
How could I not understand if I literally said myself "Die more and it gets harder, die less and it gets easier."
[...] >Die more and it gets harder, die less and it gets easier.
Obviously this was meant to be "Die more and it gets *easier*, die less and it gets *harder*"
, I had to explain your bullshit for you and then you turn around and tell ME I don't understand something I wrote, which you are now copying almost word for word? I'm done lad, you are the dumbest Black person alive honestly. I've wasted my time on a fricking idiot, congratz. I'm out.
2 years ago
Anonymous
If you really understood then you would know the "ok deaths" thing you push for is irrelevant. Which is what I'm saying but you're not listening.
You really need some professional help with yourself.
2 years ago
Anonymous
A: (Say something unrelated and confusing on purpose)
B: Wtf bro
A: What? You too dumb?!
100 is an example. I could've easily said 1000. You cherry pick on the technicalities because that's all you can argue. You know what I mean. It's not fun dying 1000 times in a row.
Just read your own posts. But realistically though, your own pride prevents you from seeing. I find this extremely ironic. And pathetic and a little sad, really.
>call someone stupid >meanwhile too stupid to understand basic arguments finding it too "confusing" for himself
Dunning kruger moment kek
Depends on the priorities of the game
Kojima wants to tell stories, make movies, so he's perfectly fine with people consuming them as movies with extra steps, the fact that his games still have significant gameplay should be celebrated because most people with that mindset would just neglect the mechanics entirely.
If you're developing any other kind of game it becomes a lot harder to design difficulty settings. You'll see this any time people talk about the way a lot of difficulty settings in games are designed, it's usually just increasing health or damage values, and nobody really likes these sorts of solutions to make the game harder. I also think there's very little point to an easy mode in a lot of games, maybe I lack perspective but most games do plenty to let you learn the game.
Dark Souls in particular has always amused me as the center of these discussions because... the game already has an easy modo, just grind. Want bosses to have less health? grind damage stats. Want them to deal less damage? grind health and stamina. Grinding isn't even as annoying here as it is in turn-based games, just because it's faster to run up on a guy and beat him with a stick than it is to go into a battle transition, command several party members, wade through a results screen, and then run around for another random encounter.
Anyway the people here giving all or nothing answers can suck my nuts, games aren't all sames
What about Resident Evil 4 with it's adaptive difficulty? Left 4 Dead kind of adapts as well, with the AI Director, but it still includes actual difficulty selections.
I've never known how to feel about that kind of system, the point of RE4's system is to not notice it, which doesn't seem like a great mentality behind a difficulty system, I wish you could turn it off.
L4D's does serve a purpose since L4D is more focused on being a smooth, simple game you and a couple friends can pick up and get going with little instruction, so the difficulty adapting directly for the players is pretty much strictly a good thing, and the higher difficulties let you still get some of that gamer pride.
Miyazaki is just wrong and up his ass. Two players could play the same game and have widely different experiences and challenge depending on playstyle or build choice. Someone could summon or not summon etc. Itagaki is real and king.
depends on the game
set difficulty is usually better but some games like fallout if you want to experiment with difficulty a slider is good and movie games you should be able to play it on cinema mode if they want, they are different experiences, one is more closer to a traditional video game
I only play easy mode if it's a game from my backlog and I'm trying to get it finished, or if I'm playing the game through a second time in an Ng+ and wavy to really frick shit up for fun but that does admittedly get boring after a while.
Miyazaki. Unlike wheover that homosexual is on the right, Miyazaki doesn't make his games hard for the sake of being hard, but simply wants to mix fun content with challenging content.
>Unlike wheover that homosexual is on the right
Look how pissed your homosexual ass are. You got filtered by his games. Maybe some games are not for everyone. I bet you need to summon some frickers just to beat your fromdrone game.
I will always choose right. I play Fighting games, Quake and Starcraft and want to turn all RPGs into skill-based rather than character/numbers based. No, I don't do it for cool internet points or that moronic normies like me, I genuinely get satisfaction from mastering difficulty things, deal with it. You all talk about dumbing down games but nearly all of them are dumbed down, it's rare to see a genuine difficult game.
There's no wrong way to do it but Miyazaki's approach is actually the most clever of the three because the difficulty of the game is built into the tools, not a setting. Souls games have always been as easy as you want to make them and while yes, that ties difficulty partially to your build, there is still some variability with which tools you choose to/not to use.
It all depends on the target audience for a game. If you're making a game with easy mode in mind, you're fine diverting resources away from core content to make sure everyone can have their own playthrough. If you're focusing on one difficulty, you're trying to craft a catered experience in which everyone is under the same conditions and taking away from that ruins the point of the game.
Hideo Kojima is just saying his typical "game is for everybody" marketing ploy. But trust me there's a very hard mode in Death Stranding. There's also extreme mode in the MGS games. And European Extreme in MGS2. Try to beat those games homosexuals and let me know if you actually beat it.
Kojima
Who fricking cares how others play
creators who care about the interactive part of the experience they created
Well that’s kojima. He wants you to experience the whole game/plot. He does’t want to gate keep his story behind high difficulty.
Having high difficulty isn't gatekeeping, just play through it like you would any other game. Why can't you just beat it?
Then why have any challenge at all in the game? Clearly the enjoyment of his story does not depend on it being interactive. Might as well make it a pure walking sim.
The challenge is that YOU, each player, set your own challenge. If you feel the game is too easy, just literally turn up the difficulty. Everyone can enjoy the game at a difficulty option they're comfortable with. For some, the easiest, and who is he to demand that players can't be allowed to enjoy the game at that difficulty?
the problems that the entire concept of hazardous wasteland is gone from Death Stranding if you play it on easy. The game wasn't difficult at all even on Hard. The entire concept of the gameplay is thrown out the window in favor of the story, which is pretentious trash in this case.
if he wanted to make things more enjoyable he should have gone all the way, Death Stranding is just annoying
FPWP
He couldn't break into the film industry but the games industry shouldn't suffer because he dropped his pseudobabble off here.
I do. Easy mode homosexuals are analogous to real life homosexuals. It's always "it doesn't affect you, why do you care" and then you look around and see it affecting you and everything you love.
we have had difficulty selection since the 90s. how is it affecting you now?
based. It's these easy mode trannies that popularized movie games and dlc.
homosexuals molest kids, what is easy mode doing to effect you personally?
>Who fricking cares how others play
Kojima, he said it.
He cares that other people can play as comfortably as they want. Too easy? Bump up the difficulty. Too hard? Drop the difficulty. Still too hard? Drop the difficulty again. Still too hard? Add more cheat codes. The players feel appropriately challenged, no matter their skill level.
Honestly, just watch a movie at that point. Why are you playing a game if you're just going to disable it like a cripple?
Like I said, players at all skill levels are all challenged, according to their ability. The Easiest-with-cheats players are challenged and have fun at that level, the Extreme players are challenged and have fun at that level.
The post that mindbroke Ganker
It’s kind of adorable that Kojimbo actually thinks anyone wants to watch 28 hours of exposition dumps because he blew half his budget on a single b-list television actor. I actually liked Death Stranding but the story was pretty groan inducing.
FPWP
Cringe apathetic tranon
Abe did
Kojima doesn't forgive
You didn't beat the game.
You didn't do anything useful
I will never stop gatekeeping and I will never not insult and demean you for playing on easy. I will bully you until you cry for it, and cry you will because your kind is extremely mentally fragile.
first post worst post
best post itt
By that same logic: Why do you care about how other people judge how you play?
Stop being insecure and own your flaws.
Anyone that says FPBP is a braindead cuck. have a nice day asap.
right
it's all over once you dumb down your game for the moronic masses
Right's games have Easy and Path Of The Acolyte. Middle and Left stood by their belief.
Well right just said he would look down on you
Path of Acolyte is Normal in NG2 just like NG04 is Normal difficulty. Easy mode can be unlocked (which is Ninja Dog mode) by dying multiple times in normal difficulty of NG04/NGB/NGS while you wear purple ribbon in Ryu's hand. Meanwhile, NGS had Hero mode which is easy mode in difficulty selection (not directed by Itagaki) and NG2 doesn't have easy mode while NGS2 also had Hero mode which is easy mode (also not directed by Itagaki).
This, we need to gatekeep the npcs out of our vidyers.
This. Frick Kojirambo and his boring ass movie games.
I miss the Oatmeal cookie so much.
He made a twitter a few months ago, if it really even if him lol.
https://twitter.com/ItagakiApex
We can hope that he will maybe return soon.
if this was true, explain Elden Ring's success, the moronic masses ate that shit up.
Do you really thing a game where most people literally have other people beat it for them via summons is difficult?
I love when Ganker pretends to not be casul as frick
You can't even do a dragon punch motion in fighting games and yet you are talking about "dumbing down" video games
Fabio
Frick the casuals
Isn't he in the Mets farm?
Kojima, because then I can make fun of people who player on Very Easy and feel superior when I beat it on Normal.
Have difficulty selection but lock achievements/other good stuff behind the hardest difficulty and take every chance to ridicule players who play on easy.
This is actually a good incentive to become better. Lock the good shit away. Imagine locking having sex with girls or romance behind high difficulty, normies would lose their shit.
If they don't want to play the game why don't they just watch the cutscenes online?
I'm with Hackizaki on this one. I'm a very insecure person, and whenever I play a game with difficulty settings, I google what "the right" difficulty setting is to experience the game to it's fullest.
For example, you never play Doom on the hardest difficulty except if you want to suffer, but you always play Thief on the hardest difficulty to get all bonus objectives.
If there is no difficulty setting, my mind is at ease, because I know I'm playing the game how it is supposed to be played.
difficulty settings are moronic, seriously, grade A moronic.
player are moronic, and shouldnt be trusted to make decisions for their best interest and enjoyment in video games. This is game design 101, if there is an exploit that makes the game easier but is less enjoyable to do players will do it.
You cant ask a player to make a decision for themself, let alone a permanent decision about a game they know nothing about
archaic design that should be discarded.
brings up great points
This.
It's dumb. Make it dynamic difficulty based on how well the player is doing.
Player breezing through >>> Increase enemies' stats (to a certain extent)
Player dying too much >>> Decrease enemies' stats (to a certain extent)
Of course this should all be invisible to the player.
No
That is pure cancer
If the player is good at the game, the player beats the game. What the frick is this invisible garbage you are defending
How do you even defend that
The game is what it fricking is; from start to finish. No tampering with it. If you're good enough, you beat it. If you're not, you try again
God you people make me fricking sick
You want some brownies and cookies for your big boy good job completion? Want to show off your big sticker star you got from beating the game?
Not everyone wants to play the game as a challenge. Some people want to play the game for... oh my god... I can't believe it... fun.
>You cant ask a player to make a decision for themself, let alone a permanent decision about a game they know nothing about
This is a very good point. At least if you're unable to play it.
For example I recently played Divinity 2 Origins blind on hard because I figured I'd beaten Swordstrat modded BG and such without too much issue but while I was able to progress a good way into chapter 2, I just got really fricking tired of every encounter being something I had to struggle with. Like it was fine when I was fighting big story bosses but when a stupid pack of dwarfs ambushing my party is harder than a chapter end boss, that's just bad balance.
no one can do difficulty right, thats why it always gets a stigma, i mean just look at the garbage thats oblivions difficulty
Not insecure but same. Like how Doom 2016 is fun on Ultra-violence but boring on Hurt Me Plenty if you're even a little experienced with shooters. But you wouldn't know that going in, because HMP is called "standard", and I know at least one dude that picked this difficulty and found the whole game kinda boring.
I don't mind difficulty modes if they make this obvious, and have very clear levels: story mode, normal mode, challenge mode for veteran masochists. It's when you have 6 levels with vague names and 4 is the actually fun one that shit feels bad
I'd go with middle, difficulty settings are usually a meme that just pump numbers up
>normal is too easy
>easy is too brainded
>hard is too hardcore with no room of error
name 57 games
Fire Emblem 3H (maddening)
Nier Automata
Ys has perfect difficulty options
>Nier Automata
frick it's true
>halo
FRICK
>Fire Emblem 3H (maddening)
Prime example. Hard was meh, Maddening was awfully balanced and a huge slog at the start.
>Nier automata
If I can get to the first checkpoint, I'm ok for the rest of the game
I keep dying at the saw arm.
Automata on Hard mode is good, the problem is that you only suffer greatly thorough the first half of the game, mostly on 2B route, the rest of the game get easier as you go along.
Can't comment on Very hard mode since i never touched it
Automata's main problem was how easy it was to get overlevelled, and that once you got overlevelled you'd kind of stay that way.
The difficulty settings did very little to help here as they only affected the damage you'd recieve, when at least for me, the problem was how fast everything would die.
Eventually my solution was to load up a save editor and drop my level by about 30, after which i felt like the game was in a good place in terms of the difficulty and pace of combat
the whole half-hearted attempt at being a soulslike was another of the dumb things that game did but that's not specifically a difficulty thing
>Nier Automata
It's only the prologue to be fair. That is the only part of the game where dying would be plausible.
halo
More like Gaylo homosexual
regular CE legendary isn't that bad
yes it is
nah it's hard but I never really felt it was super unfair and shitty in regular CE legendary, there's so many ways for the player to gain advantage over the enemies and some levels are basically solved by one weapon (usually the shotgun or pistol) and some grenades. Not to mention there's tons of ways to frick with the game to get around enemies if you need to that don't even abuse any glitches or skipping stuff, like hopping around the elevator in the Library to avoid wading through all the flood that spawn in some sections, or simply going back and waiting for the monitor to open the door then nading the group that spawned in the meantime because they're braindead and clump up.
2 is bullshit, CE is not.
then i guess i suck because i can't do it and i never will be able to beat it on legendary
probably
General advice
>abuse the noob combo (pistol/plasma pistol) for any covenant heavy stages
>if you think you can/you got camo, then just run through an area instead of blasting through
>elites can be distracted by grenades thrown in their field of vision but not close enough to damage them
>Use either the pistol to headshot flood (the red tentacles on the chest) or frag grenades if you don't have a shotgun (plasmas stick to them and they love running at you)
>hiding behind cover is ok
>jump off bridges, flip unused banshees, shoot hunters in the gun with a pistol or sniper, hop behind the first light on certain parts of the library to walk around the elevator (they WILL ambush you at the end, but it's easy to dispatch because they're in a clump)
>abuse the shit out of vehicles
what stage are you having trouble with? The only one that really grinds my gears is Truth and Reconciliation.
age of empire 2
That was one of my issues with that game (and a lot of RTSs, actually)
>Easy mode the AI basically lets you win
>Normal mode the AI is barely aggressive and once you break through their defenses you've pretty much won.
>Hard mode expects you to have 600 APM to beat.
I just want a nice, challenging back-and-forth to keep me on my toes.
Mario 1 - Mario 64. There, I beat you by 7 games.
just played a few skirmishes in CoH against AI
>normal makes bosses die too quickly
>but hard makes regular enemies die too slowly and also makes a boss that's on a timer pretty much impossible unless you happen to have enough attack boosting consumables
An argument between these three would be EPIC
GODzaki is right once more
Right: "I don't argue with subhumans"
In theory, yeah, but From games just amount to normies googling "BEST ELDEN RING BUILD" or going to youtube and searching "Elden Ring [Boss] cheese".
normies dont know how to enjoy things
You can do that with literally every RPG
If there is a normal, I'll play that first. I figure if it's called normal, that's the one that the developers balanced the game around.
If I enjoy the game enough to play again, then I'll try out higher difficulties. If they are just bloated health pools that don't actually change the difficulty but just make stuff take longer, I'll return to normal.
Didn't mean to reply
>If they are just bloated health pools that don't actually change the difficulty
There are genuinely games where this makes things harder. Tales of the Abyss comes to mind.
The higher difficulties are nothing but bigger numbers, but fundamentally change the way you play the game.
Builds in fromsoft games are straight forward once you gather enough weapons to test out yourself. The only thing to really be googling is scaling but even some of the weapons with shit scale can hit harder than a fast knife with an S scale.
This is actually alluded to in his quote. Same challenge, many approaches.
isn' tthe last guy the one of ninja gaiden? when those games have difficult settings?
Yes but the game mocks you for picking it
having several difficulty modes already damages game designer's ability to truly inact his vision.
Every DS difficulty would suck because while making game Miyazaki would have had to keep all of them in mind
I bet he thought Assasinating the Prime Minister was easy mode. This Japanese John Wick needs to be stopped
Pls stop he will sue us for ten for gorgrillian dollars
Easy mode should be paid content.
middle
Kojima is trash
Miyazaki is reddit/soi version of Itagaki
Itagaki is pure based
will someone just let kojima make a movie please? guy obviously has wanted that his whole career, so blatant with mgsv and death stranding its cringe worthy
the absolute state of Hackjima
The debate of the century
>implying team ninja wont jump on the body type train when they put their next shitty souls clone out
dumb vocal minority poster
They won't. Team Ninja made their next game chink oriented because west is trash and they don't want to bend their knee like the rest. And Wo Long will be better than any from reddit game just like Nioh 2 was.
the Elden Ring option isn't even accurate since it changes your character's pronouns anyway
Shut up fromdrone. Fromreddit is mass appeal soulless and woke company. It's over.
Because the type 1 and 2 bullshit is bamco being homosexuals
Captcha:NPYAWN
nuke america
japanese are pozzed
it's over
Buying Nioh 2 right now
PSO2 did the type1 and type2 thing but their excuse was to make every cosmetic work on everybody instead of having race or gender limitations like a robot girl being able to wear a tuxedo.
can you make a girl wear only swim trunks? If not, it's worthless.
>can you make a girl wear only cat ears and a collar? If not, it's worthless.
>PSO2 did the type1 and type2 thing but their excuse was to make every cosmetic work on everybody
Accessories work for everyone, but a lot of clothing and outfits are locked to their gender.
>can you make a girl wear only swim trunks? If not, it's worthless.
Kek
God I'm so looking forward to their next game when they are inevitably going to have body type like everybody else
Seriously how have so many Niohgays deluded themselves into thinking it's going to stay that way
>next game
Nioh is over, anon.
I'm just answering what was asked.
Squeenix had the answer all along
The only real answer
YWNBT02
>
The Chad 'The game should have a specific audience in mind and only appeal to it to make discussions coherent' versus the Cringe 'NOOO WE MUST HAVE A GAME WITH BRAINDEAD moronS AND HARDCORE GAMERS IN THE SAME COMMUNITY NOOOO'
Theres literally just me, my cosole and the game. Where the frick is that community you keep Talking about?
So Kojima's in the Chad camp then? His audience in mind is Film Bros
The autism of Ganker never ceases to amaze me. The idea that both approaches have merit depending on the game doesn't even cross a Gankerirgin's mind. Myazaki is right, as was Kojima. The former designed a game the way he wanted it in terms of difficulty, so did the latter. The enemy is the liberal hivemind bugmen who insist on standardizing everything.
>Can we talk about
>We need to move on from
>Can we normalize
All of these sorts of sentence starters are indicative of the will to homogenize every fricking thing. Easy story game can be easy story game, Souls can be Souls. The way difficulty is handled is always going to vary by game, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Wanting such a solution present in every game is an awful, short-sighted, self-serving thought conjured by those who demand everything be passable by the lowest-common-denominator. If a man sucks at games and just wants to play Telltale and watch FromSoftware game full playthroughs on Youtube, more power to him. But slapping on an easy mode for that guy both robs him of the intended experience of the game (he may as well just watch a playthrough at that point) and compromises the experience of everyone else, because suddenly the thing filtering you isn't going to filter you anymore, because you can just select easy from the settings and waltz through.
inb4
>just don't set it to easy lmao
For an action game or a fighter or something, yeah, that's a fine option until you git gud enough to perform on the hard difficulties. But the game was just not designed with that in mind.
Miyazaki's method basically filters out the non core audience but in a way that is natural rather than forced which is a good thing.
The easy mode in DS doesn't actually do much of anything, it's basically a placebo.
I use the right ideology as a baseline but adamantly support the middle
Different games and genres can have different approaches. There is no ultimate answer to this.
I dont need tight management and bank collectors storming my house in cozy cartoonish farming simulator. But at the same time I want enemies to create some tension in action games.
asanagi
the fourth option
Miyazaki has the right idea. Itagaki would have the right idea if it wasn't for him blatantly making his games with broken difficulty on purpose. Miyazaki's games have a fair challenge while Itagaki's are badly designed.
>Miyazaki's games have a fair challenge while Itagaki's are badly designed.
This is the most moronic thing i've read this month.
>they hated him because he spoke the truth
just acquire proficiency bro
I can't even tell what the frick is going on, that camera is atrocious and there's too many enemies on screen.
a true ninja must see beyond the borders of the screen
I do have masochistic tendences but not that much.
>I had babyrage so it's bad
based journalist
Broken difficulty? NGB is like the first NG on arcade while NGII is like the NES one. It's just designed that way, so don't expect all games should caress you like a baby.
>Miyazaki's games have a fair challenge
We should have bi-weekly laugh as Soulsgays threads. I doubt you've even played a Ninja Gaiden game.
Outfrickingskilled. Git gud kiddo.
you don't have any i-frames when you're sprinting. also he did a running attack, and his whole body will actively damage you during these animations. you could've dodged it with a roll and you wouldn't have taken damage. you could've blocked it and absorbed most of it but you'd still have taken damage because that shield probably doesn't absorb 100% damage inflicted and you look like you're at a low level in this clip. alternatively, most of his attacks can be parried so he's sort of a push over once you learn to parry most of what he can throw at you.
End the cope, not only was the player not touching the model of the enemy, but there is no reason for his entire """"model""" to be a hitbox to begin with. Usually souls games have good hitboxes, but that webm is inexcusable.
there were multiple ways he could've handled it without getting hit, so how is it cope? bear in mind I'm not arguing that the hitboxes are good or bad, I'm just saying that the there are tools at your disposal to avoid damage. he didn't use them and got rekt.
Its cope because the hitbox is inexcusable and obviously unfair. You dealing with a dogshit hitbox does not make it acceptable.
> Playing as a samurai
> Dont wanting to get the enemy pass him and then die when the enemy face the other side
Every game can be someone's first game ever. Someone who doesn't have basic shit like movement and camera controls burned into their muscle memory shouldn't be expected to have same experience on same difficulty as someone who's been playing vidiya for decades. Miyazaki is a hack if he doesn't understand that. If this moron cared about everyone having same levels of enjoyment there wouldn't be magic in Dark Souls (or it wouldn't be as half-assed).
Easy difficulties should treat player with as much respect as highest ones. If devs make easy modes that treat players like morons it's on them.
Higher difficulties are a major source of replayability.
Soulsbabies are afraid of difficulty selection because they are insecure shitters.
Not gonna bother reading what Kojima has to say because he's a fraud and doesn't play video games.
>Every game can be someone's first game ever.
that's why most games are not challenging now, they all have to be a "good entry point" to appeal to first time players. if you never played hack and slash games you probably shouldn't start with ngb, and the fact that it expects players to already be experienced is why it's better than most others in the genre. i don't mind games having easy modes, but it should be made clear that it's not the right way to play the game.
>higher difficulties are a major source of replayability
lol, lmao even
>t. only plays AAA babyshit
Game should not have difficulty selection.
If the level design couldn't teach the players to play the game effectively, then the game have failed.
If the player is too moronic for the game, then the player shouldn't be allowed to play the game.
Simple as.
>Slay The Spire should start at Ascension 20
>Doom Eternal should've started at Super Gore Nest Master Level Ultra Nightmare Classic Mode
>Mushihimesama should've had only Ultra Mode
Please refer to
Your normalhomosexual opinion doesn't fricking matter. Play real games before talking out of your ass.
Should different games have *gasp* different design?
Oyy Veeyyyy Stop the press!! We got a century discovery over here!!
>Every game can be someone's first game ever. Someone who doesn't have basic shit like movement and camera controls burned into their muscle memory shouldn't be expected to have same experience on same difficulty as someone who's been playing vidiya for decades.
They absolute should. You are moronic for thinking otherwise.
Dark Souls shouldn’t be your first game. Not if you want to win anyways. Plenty of first timers could enjoy it for the challenge and not mind slow progression.
You just neatly separate your difficulty options into "learning curve" and "I already know what I'm doing, I've probably played this before, don't waste my time".
Everything else is just extra design effort for no payoff and it lets journalists pretend they have an opinion.
If you want ways to make the game easier then they should be diegetic and force the player to engage with the game at some level or at least as much as is possible in the age of there being a wiki for everything.
>European Extreme
Kojimbo
is kojima legit moronic
The answer is difficulty you can change on the go
>play game (normal)
>too easy/hard
>increase/decrease to fit your taste
>can come back later and try hardest difficulty for fun
It's the most high effort option.
Miyazaki is in the right here, Itagaki shouldn't have even included an easy mode. Ninja Gaiden's normal difficulty should have been what the hard difficulty is, and then you can unlock hard and master ninja after beating the game
You mean Ninja Dog mode where you need to die multiple times first and when you choose it, it forced you to wear purple ribbon and you had infinite ninpos as it shows that you're not equal to the default hardcore gamers as it is making fun of you for being casual.
NTA but what I hated most in NG normal mode was it constantly asking if I wanted to abandon the path of the ninja after getting my ass beat, like obviously I don't if I already said no twenty times before. It forces you to not mash through the continue screen or else you will accidentally pick the yes option, which is irritating.
At least it stops asking you on the higher difficulties, otherwise I would have gotten endless "do you wish to abandon the path of the ninja" trying to do chapter 1 MN with no deaths.
>Receive Ayane's love
>Get Infinite Ninpo
How is the game making fun of me again?
>Ayane's love
I don't think it has that meaning
Sure it does. Watch the unlock cutscene again.
Ok
>ywn have ayane babysit you and feed you with spirit elixirs (ayane gamer girl pee)
Is this some kind of modded stuff?
Why does this chick have huge breasts?!
Far as I remember she was always the smallest of the NG girls?
It's modded, but Ayane in Venus Vacation is pretty big comparing to everyone else.
Ayane's love
Ok Doaavatargay
Isn't it a good thing we have different games that encompass all 3 design philosophies? Not all games need difficulty settings, but it's good that some do. Not every game needs to be hard as balls and certainly every game shouldn't be a cake walk.
No game every should have an easy mode. Just play an easy game, but don't expect creators to gut their products to suit your tastes. The whole concept of "games" requires challenge.
The center is a level of genius that cultivated the identity of a brand and genre.
He clearly only designs the combat and keeps the games dumbed down. Thats why Bloodborne and Sekiro have soulful world design and DS3 and Elden Ring have generic world design. Because Miyazaki is only there to keep the combat consistent.
Frick Kojima, fricking murderer
Why do japs insist on making villains as ugly as possible?
story telling 101.
They don't? I can give you a million examples to destroy that claim. For now i'll use sephiroth.
The moral character of a person reflects in the physical aspect.
>Why do japs insist on making villains as ugly as possible?
Most Nip villains look like male strippers or big tiddy b***hes.
It's an upside down bell curve
whats the original source? looks fun
Salesman vs Game developer vs Gamer
If he has nothing to fear then why taking legal actions? Pretty suspicions to me
He shouldn't have killed that politicians if he didn't want any attention.
>kills people
>get mads when people point it out
Dumb asiatic
Abe will be revenged at last, you frick!
When was the last time Oatmeal did anything?
What is his plan bros?
is this bait or do you not have the snipping tool
>telstra
ew
only missing the 5G and an icon noting 99+ tabs
Why should Miyazaki have to sacrifice his artistic vision because of your dumb casual babby ass?
Why is his artistic vision "trial and error based combat"
Pattern recognition and reflex testing is not trial and error. You don't know what actual trial and error gameplay is you moron zoomer.
Who's the indian looking guy on the right ?
To think that this board started Kojima's power trip.
Do you think the same is going to happen to Moyazaki?
No because Kojima's hubris stems from him wanting to be a Hollywood director. Miyazaki actually makes video games.
Why does Ganker filter Ganker so hard that they go /misc/ apeshit whenever anyone set foot on Hollywood work? Do you frickheads know alot of people in the video game industry have actually wrote, produced, and made movies. I think this fixation on one guy is unhealthy.
>Kojima
>Makes games with good premises that are bolstered by innovating game design techniques, with a unique style, tone, and presentation. He constantly pushes the boundaries of his games being cinematic. High game quality all around, regardless of difficulty played.
>Miyazacki
>Has made the same game six times with slight variations, all of which center entirely on combat and RPG elements. Despite this every single one has basic combat and bad stat progression. Every single one of his games runs like ass and looks a generation behind, has input delay, poor weapon & skill balance, and devolves into cheese if the player doesn't purposefully create handicaps for themselves. His themes are all tired fantasy tropes stolen from better creators, never pushes boundaries, just makes the same thing repeatedly. Each game he makes declines in quality and becomes successively less difficult with worse game balance.
>Itagaki
>Unashamed of what he wants to do. Sets out with a specific experience in mind and wants to award players with that experience. Despite this DoA games are hardly interesting or groundbreaking outside of being one of the last bastions of delicious fanservice. Ninja Gaiden's difficulty on the other hand is a testament to rewarding high mechanical skill in an action game, and doesn't devolve into a punching bag like DMC when the player gets better, though at the same time I wouldn't say they're the best Action games, they're iconic and remembered for what they are: Difficult.
Kojima has the most overall talent and originality.
Itagaki is the most focused when it comes to expressing what kind of difficulty he wants and presenting the player with options on how to overcome it. Everyone that plays NG on the same difficulty plays the same game.
Miyazacki undermines his own "vision" due to god-awful game balance between weapons and abilities. A player using Bleed in ER did not play the same game as anyone not using Bleed.
>becomes successively less difficult
DS3 was FAR harder than DS1/2, so I'm not sure where this comes from. Pretty sure Elden Rangz is harder than DS3 too, but I haven't played it to confirm since I'm burnt out on souls after playing 3 for hundreds of hours.
>I wouldn't say they're the best Action games
Whats the best to you? I'm assuming since you attack both DMC and NG then you are a Bayo player, despite it being very similar to DMC.
>DS3 was FAR harder than DS1/2
>Removes stamina management
>Estus is completely instant and unpunishable
>Lower stat requirements across the board
>Broken weapons very early that can't even be missed
>Pretty sure Elden Rangz is harder than DS3 too
It definitely is if you play it like a Souls game, but the incredibly poor weapon and WA balance makes that a non-issue. Bleed and Cold completely erase the entire game's enemies outside of the last boss. There's numerous cheese weapons ashes in general. Patches have also nerfed most of the harder bosses and buffed literally everything.
>Whats the best to you?
DMC or Bayonetta, probably DMC as a series since Bayo 2 was awful. I didn't "attack" DMC. The punching bag aspect is there to reward stylist play, but doesn't keep the game difficulty once you learn how to juggle effectively, even on DMD in most cases, which is what the thread topic is.
The easier things you listed about DS3 don't make up for how far upgraded the enemy movesets are in the game, they basically took the Fume Knight from DS2 (the hardest boss in the series up to that point) and then designed every single enemy and boss around his philosophy (attack timing mixups, roll catches, multiple hit "anime" combos, relentless aggression, etc). I mean Pontiff is basically just Fume Knight, except sped up by 2x and then given a clone phase which is really hard to deal with.
I think most people play Elden Ring straight like a souls though no? I mean cheesing the game or finding broken stuff isn't really a knock on a game's difficulty imo, you can turn your screen away from enemies in DMC and spam judgement cuts to cheese everything, but I'm not going to pretend like DMD isn't hard because of that cheese existing. You can Killgore in Bayonetta too, and these games are much more limited in their systems (pure action games with no rpg elements) than Souls is.
I still need to get around to playing Bayonetta 2, but I did like how enemies don't let you just juggle them forever in Transformers Devastation, so maybe I will like it more than Bayo 1. Honestly I don't really get why there is a split between bayo/dmc players, both games function the same to me imo, sure you have superficial stuff like offset vs JC but both will let you dab on enemies mindlessly once you know how to juggle as you already mentioned.
Personally I think Itagaki's games are best and he has the most talent of the developers, because he thinks about what the player wants to do, and then designs ways for the enemies to stop you from doing it. Want to juggle? Enemy has air hitting attack. Want to block? Enemy has unreactable grabs. Want to dodge? Enemy has roll catch. Want to counter fish? Enemy can dodge it or use that unreactable grab. Want to GT? Enemies can dodge it by using movement. Want to use strings? Enemies will interrupt you with projectiles.
I won't debate which Souls game is easier. Everyone has their own difficult boss/game/whatever. I just found the removal of Stamina management to make the game significantly easier outside of a few bosses like Nameless King, Friede, and Demon Princes, but that's not really the thread topic, or comparison being made.
>I mean cheesing the game or finding broken stuff isn't really a knock on a game's difficulty imo
Miyazaki is quoted in the OP as not wanting a difficulty slider because he wants everyone at the same level of discussion. This is never true outside of Sekiro, in a single game he's made. Players using Drake Sword, Fire Longsword, Deep Battleaxe / Twinblades, Hunter Axe, Moonveil, etc. will not be playing the same game as other players. ER is particularly egregious with this in that anything with Bleed or Cold makes the game a cakewalk because you chunk the bosses for nearly 40% of their health. Compare that to a player using a basic mace they found, the experience is not "the same level of discussion" between them. One player erases bosses with almost no stat investment and the other has to pour levels into VIG/DEX/STR/END to survive.
>Honestly I don't really get why there is a split between bayo/dmc players
Ganker is the only place I see this.
> I think Itagaki's games are best and he has the most talent of the developers, because he thinks about what the player wants to do
I agree with this for the most part, but I just don't enjoy his games as much on a day-to-day. DMC and Bayonetta have significantly more style and interesting weapons to me. DMC5 in particular is fun to just turn on and frick around in while winding down from work.
I think it is important to talk about which is difficult because it was an attack on the games you made, and I really do think it is an objective thing here just because of how stark the moveset differences are between 1/2 and 3. Obviously webm related is a tutorial boss that becomes a minor miniboss later on, but just the lack of tracking, the animation speed, how much time you have between attacks, and how little he "combos" compared to index gundyr is enough proof for what I'm saying I think. Stamina management in 1/2 was generally not really an issue, mostly just requiring that every 3~ish openings you would rest during the next one to regain stamina. Its not that stamina management is no difficulty at all, more so that its simply not as big of a difference as the massive moveset upgrades were.
I think you are overemphasizing how powerful things like a fire longsword or deep battle axe are, you are still playing the same game as other people are, and stronger stuff like a drake sword are certainly going to be missed by 99.9% of players their first time if they don't look up guides. Most people I think just grab a generic longsword, claymore, UGS, etc and play it straight; maybe some delve into magic which can either break the game or make it much harder depending on who you are fighting and what spells you pick. Which magic is probably a more stronger point to a different experience honestly, especially in DS1/2 it was insanely strong to the point even generic builds would have you obliterating all foes instantly. This was compounded by the fact enemies were so much more sluggish, most tended to hang back and allow you to estus up or cast multiple spells on them in a row.
>Ganker is the only place I see this.
Fair enough.
True about how you must be on edge to play Ninja Gaiden, it is a tiring series to play sometimes because it never allows you to relax around it. Which is also its own unique beauty, but yeah not a winding down kind of game.
i tell you what most people did
they grabbed a rapier asap and cheesed every single fight since it was easy mode
I highly doubt that, most people didn't even touch magic in DS1/2 despite it obliterating the games difficulty. Bleed was insanely strong in DS3 too, yet no one touched it their first time. Lots of crazy strong stuff in souls games because of their rpg factor, but its mostly there for people to replay and find fun stuff to muck about with.
its not even comparable
getting rapier is so braindead easy and every streamer at that time used it (the reason people play the games in the first place). you would see rapier shitters everywhere from pvp to high end pve. i agree with that anons statement, these games have never been fair or balanced or given a feeling of camaraderie by overcoming anything together because some butthole could just have a +10 katana/rapier at the 4-5 hour mark and faceroll the entire game. This applies to all dark soulss.the scenario you describe is maybe at the release of the game when noone knows what items do what but thanks to community growth we see such things datamind by sweaty tryhard autists (even fastrer than before) to a point of if you play the game normally without a guide you will have a miserable playthrough
Just to be specific, are you speaking about Elden Ring or one of the other games? It is one of the games I haven't played, so its hard for me to dispute your probably exaggerated claims since most people do play these games blind as given by the endless hordes of fallen knight armor players there was in DS3.
>I think it is important to talk about which is difficult because it was an attack on the games you made
Alright fine. I found DS3 to be the easiest, because all of the weapons, except the "Ultra Greats" are all absurdly fast and do high damage with a tiny consumption of Stamina. Typical enemies are constantly stun-locked and a third of the bosses are gimmicky "attack the weak point" encounters and/or they're giants with attack chains that cause them to swing at the air for a few seconds before an easy punish. I think the people that had any trouble at all with DS3 was due to the absurd input delay that was put on the roll due to poor coding and because it was such a departure from DS1 and 2, as it made a vain attempt at being an action game rather than when Souls was up until that point; an Adventure-RPG with some action elements.
>I think you are overemphasizing how powerful things like a fire longsword or deep battle axe are
I'm not. The Deep Battleaxe, Twin Blades, Fire longsword, Heide Knight Sword, Drake Sword, Hunter's Axe -All these weapons do significantly more damage than everything else available for the majority of the game's duration, and they all have strong move sets on top of that. That is not "playing on the same level", using those weapons makes the game significantly easier. Whether a player misses them or not doesn't matter. If anything it proves that DS3 is the easiest simply because all the most powerful weapons are on a linear path, Vordt's Hammer straight up 4-5 shots some bosses, and you have to get it to progress, and it's from the second/third boss in the game.
To be completely honest, I don't care about Dark Souls. They're all poorly made and have devolved more and more into a long chain of spectacle fights.
A lot of what you commented about enemies being stunlocked and gimmick bosses applies to DS1/2 too though, I would think DS1/2 actually had more gimmick bosses in a pound for pound contest. Of the 19 bosses only 3 in DS3 were related to weakspots, and another 2 might be defined as generic "gimmicks" for Yhorm and Deacons. DS2 meanwhile had at least 10 total gimmick bosses if you include "weakspots" as a gimmick, which out of 32 which is closer to one third than DS3 is. Its part of the action game vs adventure style you might be referring to. Although arguably these gimmick bosses usually fail to really play around with their environment or the tools of the player that more traditionally adventure type games like Darksiders or Zelda do.
The big attack chains I would easier argue are far harder to dodge and punish than for instance a single swing that DS1/2 enemies were fond of, the thing about DS3 is that they were designed around pretending like the combo was over, only to swing again in order to catch off greedy players.
>significantly more damage
But they really don't, firelongsword and deep axe are only good for maybe 1/4 of the game and do what, maybe 30% extra damage during that time? Its really not a game altering thing, to me a real difference is maybe magic users two shotting the final boss with dark bead, great lightning spear, or soul stream. At that point, yes one might have to admit that the differences are too great to pretend like melee vs magic players had similar experiences. Which is generally where the hatred of magic players comes from for soulsfans, extending that culture to DS3 too despite it actually being rather balanced in that game.
Personally I do enjoy Nioh and Monster Hunter more than Souls now for that slower style of game, but I don't think souls went in a wrong direction. The Mathew exceleb narrative around being "adventure" games is weak to me, I don't really think they were great at being zelda-type games either.
>despite it actually being rather balanced in that game.
DS3 doesn't have any balance at all, the magic is just bad in that one.
Of the three core Souls games its by far the most balanced. Even shields are properly balanced for how much easier they are to use compared to rolling, whereas in DS1/2 shields were utterly braindead broken. Of course I think some people dislike this factor about DS3, because finding broken bullshit was part of their fun in these games for replay value. DS3 still has some very strong stuff like Bleeds, or 1 hp red tier stone shenanigans, but nothing is like how broken 1/2 got.
>Of the three core Souls games its by far the most balanced.
That's DS2. Unironically, as shit as it might be, DS2 is by far the most balanced for every playstyle, DS3 is the least.
DS2 is only balanced in pvp, and by balanced I mean rapier turtles beat everything objectively. DS3 pvp is unironically more balanced in pve and pvp.
Just stop talking about DS2. It's obvious that you like the third one in spite of its flaws, but I'm tired of this discussion and won't be bothered to talk about a relatively low-quality series of inconsistent wanna-be action games anymore.
You can go watch the autism tournaments of DS3 right now and see a huge variety of weapons and tactics there from poking spells, crossbows, bombs, curved swords, raper turtle, straight swords, spears, etc. DS2 late in its life was literally just skorband dicking people with rapier turtling because its objectively the best way to play in DS2.
I don't really care about pvp, but I can only assume when talking about DS2 "one shot everything that exists with dark magic, miracles, or spells" pve that no one would call that shitshow balanced.
>His themes are all tired fantasy tropes
I can understand hating the games for being copy pasta but come on now.
Kojima hasn't been able to translate all of that into an overall good product ever since MGS2 (MGS3 is good, but feels like more of the same instead of innovative or boundary pushing). Basically, ever since he left Konami and has got total control over his "vision".
The more we learn about the way he works, the clearer it gets that he's the type of guy that would botch a segment of gameplay over some actor or song royalty.
>of being one of the last bastions of delicious fanservice. Ninja Gaiden's difficulty on the other hand is a testament to rewarding high mechanical skill in an action game, and doesn't devolve into a punching bag like DMC
>Izuna drop
Kek
Izuna drop is the reward for what actual NG skill is, it is the payout for good play. Launching an enemy into the air isn't a given in NG, enemies will hit you out of it for usually massive damage. I've had times where I mindlessly launch an enemy only to get swatted out of the air and then grabbed while in hitstun, killing me from 80% hp instantly for a single mindless launcher. The reason izuna drop exists instead of combo autism is because the skill and effort is within finding the right moment to strike, that is Ninja Gaiden in a nutshell.
Not that your shitpost really deserves this kind of reply though.
>for what actual NG skill is, it is the payout for good play.
Rofl
>Windpath - start launch
Yeah bro such a good play
Frick off moron
>get hit out of the air and die from 80% hp because you are just randomly mashing
alternatively
>enemy dodges your windspath and now you get raped during jump recovery frames
dodges your windspath and now you get raped during jump recovery frames
>he can't do dodge to start launch
Sure
I don't even know what you are saying, "he can't do dodge to start launch" are you saying you dodge an enemies attack and the punish him? If so, then why did you need to windspath if he is in recovery animation? Not only that, but again, you've made izuna into a REWARD for playing well by punishing the enemies attacks.
>enemies will hit you out of it for usually massive damage
>launch any ninja, his buddies just sit and watch as I perform aoe iframe divebomb
>launch every imp except crab, his buddies do nothing since they lack projectile attack
Only monks are a good counter to izuna drop but they disappear after monastery
Ninjas literally have their flip attack designed to hit you out of the air, they are also used mostly in chapter 1 where you don't have izuna drop yet.
>monks
Cat Fiends are the true izuna cuck, not monks.
None of what you said is true above easy/normal mode. Stop talking about NGB you got filtered or think you beat the game on normal. You haven't even seen half the enemy roster.
>filtered
Ah, ngtard larping as fromdrone.
You act like you just get to izuna drop enemies for free. In reality tons of enemies block in NGB so you cannot just fish forever. Alot of enemies aren't grabbable in both games. Even chaining ET/UTs gay as it can be isn't free to start the chain of and doesn't necessarily go on for a entire fight nor can it be done during boss fights outside of losers like Volf.
>You act like you just get to izuna drop enemies for free
Yes
>ninjas
>imps
>soldiers
>cat fiends
>cat fiends
Confirmed larper who played on normal mode at best, these enemies are literally designed to nuke your fricking shit up the second you launch one of them. You CAN launch them, but it can literally only ever be done when the others are also in recovery frames, else they jump up and flying swallow your ass back to the continue screen faster than you can xxxy.
>Confirmed larper who played on normal mode at best, these enemies are literally designed to nuke your fricking shit up the second you launch one of them
>launch a cat fiend
>other cats do moronic flying swallow missing you
Black person did you even play the game
Yeah I did, and I remember losing 50% of my hp the second I went to izuna from bouncing off the walls cat fiends because they are programmed to do so. Even more fun was in Sigma where you don't get wallsplat protection, so sometimes the flying swallows will literally just nuke 100% of your hp instantly due to being hit multiple times from the same attack.
Did you play above normal homosexual?
>Ninjas
Black spider ninjas move around to spastically to call the Izuna drop free. Also on higher difficulties you don't even get the scroll until mid game or later
>Imps/soldiers
They can block. Also block flying swallow constantly on VH/MNM
>Cat fiends
If you hit cat fiends you earn anything you do to them. They also can do their variant of the Izuna drop back to you.
Why do people who only beat normal feel like they deserve opinions? The AI flat out almost never blocks on normal. Cat fiends don't even really try to grab you much or move around. Congrats you beat the version of the game designed for feel gooders and everyone else moved on.
Finished both ngb and vanila 2 on mn keep coping
>Black spider ninjas move around to spastically to call the Izuna drop free
>throw shuriken and start izuna drop
Wow
>Also on higher difficulties you don't even get the scroll until mid game or later
What the frick you talking about. You get izuna drop scroll in mission 4, just as black ninjas appear
>imps
>can block
Rofl
>soldiers
Throw - izuna drop
Cute lying
>Black spiders don't appear until chapter 4
They literally replace the chapter 1 encounters and appear with Murai. You are nothing but a larper. Please have a nice day you haven't been above normal on either game your words just proved that. Fricking first god damn encounter has black spider explosive ninjas on MN.
This is correct because I remember them raping me repeatedly in the first few chapters on MN.
>You get izuna drop scroll in mission 4, just as black ninjas appear
>black ninjas
>mission 4
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH POSER MOMENT
Miyazaki just copy pastes the same game and calls it a day. He's what lazy ass millennials aspire to be. Dark Souls is just poormans Monster Hunter.
>talks about how repetitive Souls is
>then praises Monster Hunter
The irony
MonHun is good though.
Left has been in the industry for the longest and lived long enough to be a villain. He has made some decent narrative games that people like to shit on because he branded himself too much like Kanye.
Middle is still young (director years) but doesn't have that much room for variety. After ER I don't think he'll break out from mediocrity. He takes the easy and safe route. His games have good designs and atmosphere but lacks narrative which is smart.
Last one pioneered a genre but fell off the face of earth for a bit and came back as a disappointing fart. His games are the epitome of character action and makes DMC look like casual garbage.
Right and center.
>Kojima adds extra options to his games just so his friends can enjoy it
Seems based
i play games to have fun. if i find the game fun and cool, no matter what difficulty i will play it.
if some moron played the game on easy mode, that doesnt matter because he had no influence on how much i enjoyed the game.
if some homosexual played on the hardest mode, that doesnt matter because he had no influence on how much i enjoyed the game.
i think you guys should take this mentality too and stop being influenced by what other peoples subjective opinions are.
if you dont enjoy playing the video game, i believe you should play something else instead of sulking in negativity. video games are entertainment products and i see no value in trying to negate others peoples enjoyment. i could understand the argument being that critiquing the product would influence the developers into changing said product into something that more aligns your enjoyment— and i agree with that statement — but i still see no value in insulting the enjoyment others are having. it appears to share the same mentality with 'if i dont like it, you wont either' and i find that illogical and childish
All three of these are valid perspectives. Kojima vs Miyazaki is a difference in artistic direction- Kojima designing so everyone can play, Miyazaki designing for all players to have the same experience.
Itagaki is talking more from a social dynamic point of view than a game design view: Those who accomplish less will be treated differently than those who accomplish more. Merely a statement of fact.
I know this is bait but I'll give my opinion anyway
First off I think when games are too easy or too difficult it kinda sucks the fun out them. When a game is challenging for me, it just tends to piss me off and to me it's not worth feeling good for a minute if it means hours of rage beforehand but a game being too easy isn't much better. Difficulty modes are a good thing because some people are just gonna have a naturally easier time playing games than other people. Some peeps might say "git gud" but you're born with a set limit to your capabalities, some people won't ever be able to beat some difficult vidya no matter how hard they try
The obvious response to this is.
Not all games should be for everyone.
Look at ubishit they try to make their games as widely appealing as possible and they end up being bland trash. It is better to have niche games that perfectly appeal to a certain group of people.
People who play on easy mode just wants games to be eye-candy and only care about the story and graphics of the game.
There's no way you can tell whether the game has good gameplay or not if the game itself doesn't offer a slight ounce of challenge.
Right-most is best. Just don't pull the "NOW PLAY ON HARD TO GET THE REAL ENDING :)" at the end, state it outright at the beginning. Also, add shit which ridicules easy players like a little baby sound when you hover over it, as opposed to the regular sound when you hover over medium and hard.
I miss the trend of games cutting you off right when things started to get good if you picked easy difficulty
Miyazaki has it right. Game development shouldnt be compromised by having to bend the design backwards to accommodate difficulty settings.
Why do millennials have a superiority complex when it comes to games? It's an escape medium and not a race nor competition unless you're getting paid. Bragging about beating a sp game on hard mode and rubbing it on people's faces is sad.
It's not about how hard you can make it on the player. It's about how hard the player will make it on themself.
i can't enjoy games because i make 1 mistake and enter babyraeg
i really wish i could enjoy them more but i have to be so careful and play on easy so i don't get frustrated but then it's too easy so i get bored and don't want to play blah blah blah, i can't handle getting hit once even though it doesn't really mean much, like 1/10 of my hp is gone, chill bro you can keep playing
This man made fighting games, great ones might I add. How do you even begin to implement such a philosophy into a fighting game? Obviously 80% of people won't know what to do against some input reading AI or vastly better player than them.
why does the right one look like an american indian
Japanese aren't that far off genetically, plus long hair
Itagaki. Unlike Souls mememan his games are actually hard past surface level and mechanically deep and not reddit fancore games. Although i like Souls games that is what they are. "hard" enough games for babies to beat and feel good about themselves but overall good experiences collective.
Ninja Gaiden it the epitome of artificial difficulty.
>debate
>having game devs with different way of thinking is a bad thing
lefties degenerates and gender politics baits need not applied
the quality of Ganker seems to sink into another level
If I were a director I'd add an 'Easy Mode' that just plays the credits when you select it.
Doom is considered one of the best games ever made
It also has difficulty settings
Make of that what you will
Ninja Gaiden also has difficulty settings and Itagaki is the correct answer in OPs picture. Notice how Soulsgays are the ones so defensive about difficulty settings. In reality Souls games aren't even hard and on top of that have 101 ways to cheese the entire thing some of which you don't even need to do intentionally. Half the weapons in the game count as "cheese" nowadays.
It's not even a fricking debate. If a developer adds easy mode to their game, it's part of their vision for their game.
Middle is the best way of doing it. Left brings the entire game down and right most likely is dumb artificial difficulty that amounts to HP bloat or where you have to be stupidly autistic.
Craft a single experience and it'll be best
I hate difficulty modes in my games, that's why I always play on normal, unless normal mode is actually extremely easy.
Itagaki is a hack so not him. Miyazaki's stance is great but it only really works for games where you can have different builds for your character, since difficulties can provide replay value for games where your player character can't change much.
All three when it comes to their own games. They aren't collaborating or trying to make the same games, just doing what they do.
I like the way Kamiya does it. Just look at Non-Stop Infinite Climax.
The funny thing about Kamiya is for a guy who is so resolute in his vision, he'll often make a random last-minute change that adds tons to the game. Dodge Offset and Multi-Unite were both late additions to Bayo 1 and W101.
Right
Left brings people who dont like vidya
Middle eventually ruins it for everyone when they eventually try to appeal to a bigger audience.
>Left brings people who dont like vidya
>Middle eventually ruins it for everyone when they eventually try to appeal to a bigger audience.
That has nothing to do with the attitudes though?
From Software games are played by plenty of people who don't like vidya, because it's mainstream. And anyone can at some point appeal to a bigger audience, it has frick all to do with the attitude towards difficulty.
Miyazaki is right. Difficulty selections shouldn't exist unless they bring a meaningful choice to gameplay itself and can be swapped on the fly, like how TWEWY has enemy drops changed based on difficulty.
Always play on hardest difficulty.
I think people should be able to play what they want HOWEVER I wish they would unlock hard mode from the start instead of only unlocking it once you beat the game Ie. re4
Especially if you've already beaten the game before but don't have your old save.
However, it may make sense for dumbasses like
who will always choose the most difficult setting. Then later complain it's too difficult because they don't know what to do and then say the game sucks.
Dynamic difficulty is the only way.
Dynamic difficulty is shit, the game shouldn't be arbitrary made easier for me because I died. Ruins any sense of progression for yourself as a player if you win just because the game decided to make it easy mode for you. Load of shit that idea is. Manual difficulty is the only real option.
See
Difficulty is vague. How the hell should the player know what "Hard" difficulty is? Some games it's basically Easy. Some games it's impossible. And this is before the player even started the game.
Dying too much is not fun. Breezing through the game is not fun. What is fun is a balance of both. Just a bit of challenge. It's not possible to do that for all players without dynamic difficulty, which will automatically accomplish that.
>How the hell should the player know what "Hard" difficulty is?
Through descriptions of the modes, most developers frick this up but when you say "gives an experienced (x genre) a serious challenge" then they should mean that. Viscerafest (indie shooter) was a game where I felt like the descriptions lined up with the experience, and the reason for that is probably because the dev is also someone who plays 300+ hours of Doom Eternal on NM and UNM. Most devs don't play video games, so they don't understand what difficulty modes mean. Shmups are also pretty good about their difficulty levels, usually their ultra modes really are too fricking much unless you live on these type of games.
Dynamic difficulty is shit and always will be shit, your problem is you blame the players when its the devs fault for creating difficulties that lie about their own experience. Usually the hardest mode possible is what a proper "normal" mode would be for an experienced gamer.
Developer can NEVER give accurate descriptions because there is no such thing. "Hard: We think this difficulty will provide some challenge" can be trivial to one person but unbeatable to another.
You keep saying "Dynamic difficulty is shit" but don't give any valid reasons.
But they can, I just listed games which do because you state what kind of player would find it difficult. I also already gave valid reasons for dynamic difficulty being shit in my very first reply to you, it ruins the progression of the player arbitrary even if they just want the challenge for themselves. Your burying your head in the sand as I gave examples and then claiming I never did is not an argument.
You didn't read my post. Let's say I've never played shooters or I'm terrible at shooters. Maybe "Normal" is too difficult for me then.
What exactly is this "progression of the player"? And it's not arbitrary. It happens by a small amount when necessary.
>Let's say I've never played shooters or I'm terrible at shooters
Then play on the mode that says "for those who are new to shooters or looking for less of a challenge", I already said this. You projectile your own lack of reading since this was literally my entire fricking point.
>What exactly is this "progression of the player"?
When you "Git gud", there is nothing more demoralizing then the game arbitrarily making itself easier so you can win. This instantly removes any sense of reward for getting better, it wasn't you getting better - it was the game letting you win. Dynamic difficulty is dogshit and always will be.
And what if someone is normally good? Are all Normal difficulty the same? No. Use your brain, think.
Some people want to have fun. What is this "demoralizing" crap? You studying for an exam or something? I play to have fun and have a bit of challenge, but not so much that I keep dying for the 100th time.
Let me guess, you enjoy flaunting that you beat DS?
"Normally good" no, you mean "experienced with this genre" or "not experienced with this genre" with an added "looking for a challenge" description or not. As I said Shmupsand other games like Viscerafest do difficulty modes right, probably because their devs actually play vidya.
>just want to have fun
Then play on easy mode if thats fun for you - as I said "for those who are new to shooters OR looking for less of a challenge", fun for others like myself is playing on modes that ask them to step up and play better rather than being given a participation award. Its demoralizing to have your efforts taken away from you while being having the game let you win. Dynamic difficulty is dogshit, and your imaginary headcanon about me being a DS player doesn't make sense since I am stating you should have manual difficulty modes. You are running out of steam and your attempts to provoke me into your petty insult battles is proof enough of that.
There are different levels of "experienced with this genre" and it is different for different people.
>Then play on easy mode if thats fun for you
Did you seriously not read what I said? I repeated it so many times. I've got no comment on your stupidity. Just read above what I said.
>provoke me into your petty insult battles
That is called projection, btw
And yes, I am indeed running out of steam, by how stupid you are. It's discouraging to know someone like you exists in this world.
You can argue that there are differences in distance to the planck length, in real life situations no one can see them with the naked eye nor do they have any real effect on manufacturing. You don't have a real point to make besides time wasting technicality.
I did read what you said, and what you said suggested to me you wanted to not be challenged because you don't like dying. If you don't like dying then play on easy mode, if you want a bit of challenge and haven't played much of the genre, then play on normal mode. If you play the genre and want some challenge then go play hard mode.
If I projected then quote my insults towards you, unless you mean to say my suggestion you play on easy mode to be an insult. Which if that's true then its your own problem and not mine, because its you who perceives his pride to be held together by video game difficulty.
>differences in distance to the planck length, in real life situations no one can see them with the naked eye nor do they have any real effect on manufacturing
You need to take your pills.
That's enough.
If you refuse to even read what I said then that's that. There's no point.
Never once did I said I didn't want to die. In fact, I said dying will dynamically change the difficulty to be a proper challenge. Logically I am FOR dying.
>you who perceives his pride to be held together by video game difficulty
It's funny cause this is exactly what you're trying to say. Whereas I am saying the exact opposite.
I'll accept your buzzwords about pills to mean you couldn't figure out a better response.
>Never once did I said I didn't want to die.
But you did " I play to have fun and have a bit of challenge, but not so much that I keep dying for the 100th time.", if you don't like dying then play on easy mode, its that simple. If you are "FOR dying" then pick the harder mode. Let me guess - its some arbitrary number of "ok deaths" to you that you are fine with, that number being something you will never actually state what the correct amount is the "ok amount". Which is another time wasting technicality, that same technicality would defeat your own arguments since knowing the correct amount of deaths for each player is impossible according to yourself due to infinite differences. The reality is that it seems to me like you've defeated yourself here, which is typical if you are more interested in saving face with technicalities and insults than real conversation.
Are you going to quote where those insults were, or just dance around the issue endlessly because in reality you got caught making it up.
A: (Say something unrelated and confusing on purpose)
B: Wtf bro
A: What? You too dumb?!
100 is an example. I could've easily said 1000. You cherry pick on the technicalities because that's all you can argue. You know what I mean. It's not fun dying 1000 times in a row.
Just read your own posts. But realistically though, your own pride prevents you from seeing. I find this extremely ironic. And pathetic and a little sad, really.
If you don't understand what I said, then you can just ask me to clarify instead of using buzzwords and insults like you seem very fond of doing. A planck length is the smallest unit of measure I believe is currently known or measurable. Yet two objects being "different" to each other in length by one planck length has no real difference to the naked eye or in manufacturing products. Yes the objects are "different" to each other, but that is just a needless technicality.
100, 1000, you never even bothered to say in what regard that you are dying to - a single trash mobs? A boss? A level? The whole game? Except you never will state how many deaths is the "ok deaths" amount, or what situation the "ok deaths" is for. Even if you did, that would only be the "ok amount" for yourself, and according to yourself there are infinitely different people who would all require infinitely different amounts, meaning you have beaten your own argument.
So you can't even quote one, in other words you are a liar or at the very least someone who does not think before he posts accusations of others. Your "projecting" accusation hold no water, and now I will return to saying "You are running out of steam and your attempts to provoke me into your petty insult battles is proof enough of that." Or perhaps now it is "you have ran out of steam altogether", since your posts barely hold a single attempt at an argument at all.
I also could've Wikipedia it. The fact is your example sucks and doesn't support any of our discussions.
"Ok deaths" is relative. Seriously, think about it. If we do it your way: Easy, Normal, Hard, for example. We have an example player. He starts the game and chooses Normal because that's the description best fits him. Some parts are too easy he breezes through. Some parts are too difficult he dies many times and gets frustrated, or perhaps gets stuck and gives up.
With dynamic difficulty, there will be almost never a point that you will die 1000 times. Simply because the difficult will adjust to you. That's the point.
I won't deny that I am getting tired, but it's because of having to argue with someone that can't read what I posted nor even try to comprehend, or perhaps the lack of brain power to do so.
Unless you can explain what is wrong with the example, you have no argument. Saying "it sucks" is no different than your buzzwords from before. It directly has to do with our conversation because of your distinction of "different players" having no real standard and effectively creating an infinite amount of "difference".
It is relative isn't it, which is why you defeat yourself. With your own endorsement and acknowledgement of this, you cannot even suggest you don't understand it. Your dynamic system fails because there are "different" people who search for different experiences. Unless you mean to say there is now only one correct way to play and there is only one correct amounts of deaths for a correct amount of time or correct amount of levels, enemies, etc. Obviously you will not do this, since this contradicts everything you have previously said, and so your own arguments have circled back around to attack and eat itself like an ouroboros. You may now either see the truth of this, and accept you have made a mistake in your line of thinking, or more likely simply go back to insulting me with buzzwords like you seem eager to do.
Well I've quoted you many times in what you said, in fact I might argue I understand your own arguments and posts better than yourself - since you haven't realized that you have beaten yourself many posts ago. Unless you can explain what I don't understand, then this is just another mindless insult.
Using confusing examples is a "sucky" tactic and does not contribute to the discussion other than to distract from it.
You say a lot of words but there's no substance. Basically what you're saying is you enjoy dying 1000 times. See, most people don't enjoy that. There's always going to be outliers. Those that enjoy dying over and over are far and few. Most people enjoy challenge but not frustratingly so. Most people don't enjoy steamrolling the game as if they're on cheats, as it's boring. A balance is what covers most people.
Thing is, your pride is preventing you from understanding that you actually do NOT understand what I'm saying. Only what you think I'm saying so you can "win" against my argument in your head.
Not only is it fairly straightforward as an example, but I fully explained it to you. Either explain what is wrong with the example, or you have no argument.
You can't even state where you or anyone else is dying this 100 or 1000 times, you have no standard "ok deaths" and by your own admission it is relative anyways. You simultaneously wish to present forth an objective one correct path forward mode, while not being able to state who or what this experience is for beyond a nebulous "normal person" which is the same non argument as "ok deaths", you will admit others don't want this experience "There's always going to be outliers", yet a solution which solves this issue of outliers by having outlier modes is not acceptable to you. The reality is that your argument defeats itself as I've shown you many many times before.
Except you can't explain where I'm wrong, unlike myself who has been exceptionally patience with you and your insults, to the point I even clarify my posts several times for you even after your pety insults, only to be met with "it sucks" in response.
I'm quite certain you're able to understand your own example. But that doesn't mean others can. Your example sucks, period. I think there's no one here that will argue against that besides you (the one who created it).
There you go again, cherry picking technicalities. Perhaps it's better to say "dying X times". 100 or 1000 is just a number, it doesn't matter. The idea is what I'm trying to get at.
You're basically arguing that's there's only 3 correct paths (for example a game that has Easy, Normal, and Hard). I argue that I can improve that and provide many more paths, and paths that are customized for each player, automatically. Maybe dynamic difficulty isn't perfect, but it's far better and covers far more players than your 3 paths.
I've only said "it sucks" to your confusing example, which it does and I have explained. It's ironic and I'm quite literally flabbergasted at your "exceptionally patience with you" because that is exactly how I feel about you. I seriously don't know if you're just trolling me right now.
I explained my example to you. Either explain what is wrong with the example, or you have no argument.
You are right that your 100 or 1000 number doesn't matter as I said, because its a pointless throwaway number that equates to nothing of substance since you will never state what the correct "ok deaths" is. If you can recognize that, then you can stop bringing it up. You suggest that your dynamic system is capable of providing more paths, yet in reality only provides one singular path based on whatever "ok deaths" is and thats it. You admit it cannot handle outliers, and effectively all you offer is a "normal mode" and nothing else for anyone else who wants more than that. If someone does not like dying such as yourself then there is no option for them, if someone likes the game to be harder than there is no option for them. Your system is a failure by your own admission of there being different people and relative experiences.
>you're basically arguing that's there's only 3 correct paths
I did not actually argue that, this is what is called a strawman. Try again.
You never actually explained how it sucks or even how its confusing to yourself, indeed all you have done is say "it sucks" over and over again with no real argument at all because you don't want to actually take on the example for what it means. Even if it "sucked" or was "confusing", you can't can't tackle it, nor explain how it sucks or is confusing. You dodge and dodge and dodge the example, but all you do is show off that it must be correct if you can't attack it on any level.
I've already explained it to you. Do you not read...?
I've also already said what the "ok deaths" is, it's relative. Read on top. Dynamic difficulty is not "one singular path". It's many simultaneously to different players. It's also many simultaneously to the same player. One player beats the game and gets way better at it after. Players the game again, will still get challenged because the dynamic difficulty has "increased". It is NOT the same path as his first playthrough. It is NOT a "normal mode". They will get challenged and they will die, but it will properly adjust. That is the point.
Again, I say it's not perfect. But it's far better than 3 strict paths. Oops sorry, let me say there's "X strict paths", in case you cherry pick again.
Whether someone gets it or not is no longer really the point. The point is it's confusing as an example.
You explained nothing besides saying "it sucks" or that it confused you, to which I clarified it to you and now all thats left is "it sucks", which you need to explain why it sucks.
If "ok deaths" is relative, then why are you pushing for a mode that only offers a single path with a set amount of allowed deaths. By your admission you yourself have stated it cannot account for outliers. If someone wishes to be more challenged your mode does not allow for that, If someone wishes to be less challenged your mode does not allow for that - only your arbitrary "ok deaths" is allowed based on literally nothing since you have no actual standard for what "ok deaths" is or isn't. Your arguments defeat themselves because you admit people are relative, yet force them into a one sized fits all mode, this is contradictory as I've explain endlessly.
Correct, it doesn't matter if you got it or not. Some people get things while others don't, thats ok. What matters is that now you do after being explained to, so do you have an argument against it or will you just admit you are dodging it because you clearly don't after 9+ posts where you refuse to touch on it at all.
It's confusing. That alone is enough to say it's a bad example to provide.
Please read. Dynamic difficulty is not a "single path". What is this "set amount of allowed deaths"? No point does it matter. You definitely aren't reading what I posted. You will always be challenged with dynamic difficulty. There's no need to find "ok deaths" because that will automatically be found for the player. Dynamic difficulty is the opposite of "one sized fits all". Easy, Normal, Hard is forcing people into X sizes. The only contradiction is this, and how you avoid responding to it.
Again, that's not the point. The point is you the example you provided is confusing and unnecessary.
The only person who found it confusing was you, and that situation was resolved by me explaining it to you. Do you have a real argument against it or not?
You tell me what set amount of allowed deaths is, thats your system. Die more and it gets harder, die less and it gets easier. Both options are based around a perfect "ok deaths" amount that you force people into.
>that will automatically be found
So its going to read their minds? Will you input a "ok deaths" number before you start the game, which will make it easier or harder for you, sort of like... difficulty modes? I'm having a bit of trouble following you here, why don't you explain some more.
The only person who found it confusing was you, and that situation was resolved by me explaining it to you. Do you have a real argument against it or not?
>Die more and it gets harder, die less and it gets easier.
Obviously this was meant to be "Die more and it gets *easier*, die less and it gets *harder*"
It will automatically be found, because it gets easier if you die more and harder if you don't. So you can say the "ok deaths" is completely unneeded. It will sort itself out and you'll reach equilibrium of challenge that personally suits you. I'm not sure why you're so stuck to "ok deaths", it doesn't matter.
Now it's your turn to stop avoiding and answer why you think Easy, Normal, Hard provides more paths than this infinitely dynamic automatic adjusting system?
So dodging the example fully this time by simply not even bothering a single word to it? I wish you were enough of a man to admit you have no argument against it instead of running away like that, but I can't say I expected you to do that after 11+ posts of your nonsense dodging.
How can "ok deaths" be automatically found if you admit you are already balancing around an "ok deaths" number? You aren't even thinking at all about this are you? Are you currently inebriated on some level? This is an insult because honestly despite my usual good faith I honestly cannot imagine anyone seriously putting out replies this poor in thought unless intoxicated or otherwise distracted.
If could be only two modes and it provides more paths than a dynamic single path objectively
Different things to different people. Dynamic difficulty supports that.
It is not "balancing around an okay deaths number". It's balancing around how well the player is doing, which may be the amount of deaths. There's a small but important difference.
Also, no one is fooled by your "holier than thou" attitude. If you truly believe that, it is due to your pride.
>If could be only two modes and it provides more paths
Okay... how? Cause that sounds bullshit.
Dynamic difficulty does not support that, as you already admitted "There's always going to be outliers." and that people are relative and have relative experiences.
So its not around an "ok deaths" amount, then what is it balanced around, but wait you already said its searching for an "ok deaths" number "automatically" so now it both is and isn't balancing around that. Just like how it already has a preset "ok deaths" amount to the game, and then you also suggest it will "automatically" find the correct number for the player, despite already using the correct number it has to balance already. Can you put 1 + 1 together or not, tell me.
I explained how dynamic systems are offer only one path, you have a single preset allowed "challenge" to the player and thats it. Those who want more or less have no options, and you admit "outliers" (in otherwords, people who aren't yourself) will have nothing for them.
I've also said it's not a perfect system but it's far better than what you're saying. Please don't just cherry pick what is most convenient to you.
Also let me make a prediction: you aren't going to address this but will continue to ignore it.
It's so simple, I'm honestly surprised you don't/can't understand.
You die >>> game gets slightly easier
You don't die >>> game gets slightly more difficult
Eventually an equilibrium is reached where it will be challenging but not frustratingly difficult.
You still cannot understand? Or are you refusing to understand?
And I have also explained so many times. Dynamic difficulty is NOT one path. A "Hard" difficulty is one path. There are far more outliers using Easy/Normal/Hard difficulty than there are for dynamic difficulty.
Again, I predict that you will avoid responding to this again. Probably repeating something stupid again without any explanation.
>You die >>> game gets slightly easier
>You don't die >>> game gets slightly more difficult
How could I not understand if I literally said myself "Die more and it gets harder, die less and it gets easier."
, I had to explain your bullshit for you and then you turn around and tell ME I don't understand something I wrote, which you are now copying almost word for word? I'm done lad, you are the dumbest Black person alive honestly. I've wasted my time on a fricking idiot, congratz. I'm out.
If you really understood then you would know the "ok deaths" thing you push for is irrelevant. Which is what I'm saying but you're not listening.
You really need some professional help with yourself.
>call someone stupid
>meanwhile too stupid to understand basic arguments finding it too "confusing" for himself
Dunning kruger moment kek
Why do they look like the same person
Is the h+ capitalism? What does the logo mean?
Kojima, he killed a prime minister and got away with it.
Depends on the priorities of the game
Kojima wants to tell stories, make movies, so he's perfectly fine with people consuming them as movies with extra steps, the fact that his games still have significant gameplay should be celebrated because most people with that mindset would just neglect the mechanics entirely.
If you're developing any other kind of game it becomes a lot harder to design difficulty settings. You'll see this any time people talk about the way a lot of difficulty settings in games are designed, it's usually just increasing health or damage values, and nobody really likes these sorts of solutions to make the game harder. I also think there's very little point to an easy mode in a lot of games, maybe I lack perspective but most games do plenty to let you learn the game.
Dark Souls in particular has always amused me as the center of these discussions because... the game already has an easy modo, just grind. Want bosses to have less health? grind damage stats. Want them to deal less damage? grind health and stamina. Grinding isn't even as annoying here as it is in turn-based games, just because it's faster to run up on a guy and beat him with a stick than it is to go into a battle transition, command several party members, wade through a results screen, and then run around for another random encounter.
Anyway the people here giving all or nothing answers can suck my nuts, games aren't all sames
What about Resident Evil 4 with it's adaptive difficulty? Left 4 Dead kind of adapts as well, with the AI Director, but it still includes actual difficulty selections.
I've never known how to feel about that kind of system, the point of RE4's system is to not notice it, which doesn't seem like a great mentality behind a difficulty system, I wish you could turn it off.
L4D's does serve a purpose since L4D is more focused on being a smooth, simple game you and a couple friends can pick up and get going with little instruction, so the difficulty adapting directly for the players is pretty much strictly a good thing, and the higher difficulties let you still get some of that gamer pride.
Miyazaki is just wrong and up his ass. Two players could play the same game and have widely different experiences and challenge depending on playstyle or build choice. Someone could summon or not summon etc. Itagaki is real and king.
depends on the game
set difficulty is usually better but some games like fallout if you want to experiment with difficulty a slider is good and movie games you should be able to play it on cinema mode if they want, they are different experiences, one is more closer to a traditional video game
The post that killed Ganker
>help
its not a debate, all answers are correct.
Include super easy mode but point fingers on anyone who uses it
I only play easy mode if it's a game from my backlog and I'm trying to get it finished, or if I'm playing the game through a second time in an Ng+ and wavy to really frick shit up for fun but that does admittedly get boring after a while.
Curse of the backlog, I still play on the hardest difficulty it offers though. Otherwise can you really say you beat the game or know what its about?
Right is the only one who made good games Ninja Gaiden Black and DOA2U shit on everything From Softdick and Kojima have made.
>Left
troony games
>Middle
reddit games
>Right
incel games
>Only DOAX or maybe main DOA
Not NG at all, it's a total badass
Miyazaki. Unlike wheover that homosexual is on the right, Miyazaki doesn't make his games hard for the sake of being hard, but simply wants to mix fun content with challenging content.
>Unlike wheover that homosexual is on the right
Look how pissed your homosexual ass are. You got filtered by his games. Maybe some games are not for everyone. I bet you need to summon some frickers just to beat your fromdrone game.
Right and left are the same, only one insults you for playing on easy mode (and thats a good thing).
how the frick is someone unable to beat the first level of pacman
I will always choose right. I play Fighting games, Quake and Starcraft and want to turn all RPGs into skill-based rather than character/numbers based. No, I don't do it for cool internet points or that moronic normies like me, I genuinely get satisfaction from mastering difficulty things, deal with it. You all talk about dumbing down games but nearly all of them are dumbed down, it's rare to see a genuine difficult game.
>t. larper
EHHH? EASY MODO?
The real answer is that all of these are right.
Kojima doesn't even make real games anymore.
There's no wrong way to do it but Miyazaki's approach is actually the most clever of the three because the difficulty of the game is built into the tools, not a setting. Souls games have always been as easy as you want to make them and while yes, that ties difficulty partially to your build, there is still some variability with which tools you choose to/not to use.
Yeah Kojima, all those people bought PS4s and gaming PCs to play Death Stranding because it had Norman Reedus in it.
Probably this, but unironically. Playstation is a move console.
>Playstation is a move console.
I wish, there where just a few move games
Miyazaki, no difficult slider lets you just make the game how you want to. People who want to challenge themselves can make self imposed challenges.
What's wrong with making games more accessible? Not everyone can or wants to play on a hard difficulty. If it bothers you so much, you're ill.
if you didn't play the highest difficulty you didn't beat the game
It all depends on the target audience for a game. If you're making a game with easy mode in mind, you're fine diverting resources away from core content to make sure everyone can have their own playthrough. If you're focusing on one difficulty, you're trying to craft a catered experience in which everyone is under the same conditions and taking away from that ruins the point of the game.
Japanese Rick Owens speaks the truth.
Miyazaki has not made a bad game yet. Kojima hasn't made a good game since mgs3, arguably mgs2.
Play on Extreme mode on all of his MGS games. You wouldn't last.
Hideo Kojima is just saying his typical "game is for everybody" marketing ploy. But trust me there's a very hard mode in Death Stranding. There's also extreme mode in the MGS games. And European Extreme in MGS2. Try to beat those games homosexuals and let me know if you actually beat it.
who is the third one. OP you made this image right?
Zoomies obviously don't know who Tomonobu Itagaki is. He's the creator of DoA and Ninja Gaiden..
I never seen him without the glasses tbh.
also
>creator