As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

[Steam] Thread - Persona 3 now available!

17810121399

Posts

  • Options
    Pixelated PixiePixelated Pixie They/Them Registered User regular
    Sounds like a great start for difficulty settings then: "choose your number of starting flasks"

    ~~ Pixie on Steam ~~
    ironzerg wrote: »
    Chipmunks are like nature's nipple clamps, I guess?
  • Options
    KarozKaroz Registered User regular
    cB557 wrote: »
    Kalnaur wrote: »
    To give a possible example: If Dark Souls were to have 3 more flask charges than normal, from the beginning. That would alter the difficulty without greatly changing the play.
    Wait what? No, that's a massive change.

    Yet in DS1 you could kindle a bonfire to give an extra +5 up to 20 charges (with needed item) so in a sense this change Kal suggests is already baked in--but very poorly explained.

  • Options
    Golden YakGolden Yak Burnished Bovine The sunny beaches of CanadaRegistered User regular
    Scorn is out, yeah! Let's do it! Scorn it up. Scorn your face off.

    H9f4bVe.png
  • Options
    21stCentury21stCentury Call me Pixel, or Pix for short! [They/Them]Registered User regular
    cB557 wrote: »
    Kalnaur wrote: »
    To give a possible example: If Dark Souls were to have 3 more flask charges than normal, from the beginning. That would alter the difficulty without greatly changing the play.
    Wait what? No, that's a massive change.

    Dark Souls is a bad example because it's a multiplayer game at its core. If I were to make a single-player only version of Dark Souls, I'd definitely allow people to pick how many flask charges they start with though.

  • Options
    Pixelated PixiePixelated Pixie They/Them Registered User regular
    cB557 wrote: »
    Kalnaur wrote: »
    To give a possible example: If Dark Souls were to have 3 more flask charges than normal, from the beginning. That would alter the difficulty without greatly changing the play.
    Wait what? No, that's a massive change.

    Dark Souls is a bad example because it's a multiplayer game at its core. If I were to make a single-player only version of Dark Souls, I'd definitely allow people to pick how many flask charges they start with though.

    It can totally just be played offline. Flask away!

    ~~ Pixie on Steam ~~
    ironzerg wrote: »
    Chipmunks are like nature's nipple clamps, I guess?
  • Options
    MadicanMadican No face Registered User regular
    If I play offline though I don't get to see messages. Yes many of them are trolling but when they're not it's this massive network of players pointing things out to the people following after them.

    Playing Elden Ring on release was a magical time because nobody knew anything and there was no comprehensive wiki, so the messages became the main source of information being shared. Chest over here, watch out for trap, congratulations on beating that boss, etc.

  • Options
    Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    My (admittedly second or even third-hand) impression is that many or even most play those games with the trolling multiplayer "features" disabled.

  • Options
    Pixelated PixiePixelated Pixie They/Them Registered User regular
    My (admittedly second or even third-hand) impression is that many or even most play those games with the trolling multiplayer "features" disabled.

    That's how I've played them all... :lol:

    ~~ Pixie on Steam ~~
    ironzerg wrote: »
    Chipmunks are like nature's nipple clamps, I guess?
  • Options
    21stCentury21stCentury Call me Pixel, or Pix for short! [They/Them]Registered User regular
    edited October 2022
    cB557 wrote: »
    Kalnaur wrote: »
    To give a possible example: If Dark Souls were to have 3 more flask charges than normal, from the beginning. That would alter the difficulty without greatly changing the play.
    Wait what? No, that's a massive change.

    Dark Souls is a bad example because it's a multiplayer game at its core. If I were to make a single-player only version of Dark Souls, I'd definitely allow people to pick how many flask charges they start with though.

    It can totally just be played offline. Flask away!

    It can be played offline, and accessibility options should limit to offline play only, but the devs behind Dark Souls are pretty adamant that it's meant to be played online.

    EDIT: I don't see a reason why Accessibility options regarding difficulty are not possible for Dark Souls, but i see a reason why Accessibility options affecting difficulty were rejected.

    21stCentury on
  • Options
    DrascinDrascin Registered User regular
    Well, this Asterigos thing is actually pretty good, turns out. Enemy variety is not spectacular, and things are sometimes a little wonky (I just died to a boss because its attack trapped me in the level geometry), but if you're hankering for an interesting action game with more than a little bit of Souls in it, and Magitek Greco-Roman adventures sound like your jam, you certainly could do a LOT worse than this!

    Steam ID: Right here.
  • Options
    cB557cB557 voOOP Registered User regular
    Oh wait I brainfarted and read "If Dark Souls 3 had 3 more flask charges". Well, I'd still say that's a big change in DS1 as well, but I can kinda see the argument. DS3 is just seemed crazy to claim that's not a big change.

  • Options
    Pixelated PixiePixelated Pixie They/Them Registered User regular
    I am a couple hours into Asterigos and I still don't understand the Souls comparisons. What am I missing?

    ~~ Pixie on Steam ~~
    ironzerg wrote: »
    Chipmunks are like nature's nipple clamps, I guess?
  • Options
    destroyah87destroyah87 They/Them Preferred: She/Her - Please UseRegistered User regular
    edited October 2022
    Drascin wrote: »
    Well, this Asterigos thing is actually pretty good, turns out. Enemy variety is not spectacular, and things are sometimes a little wonky (I just died to a boss because its attack trapped me in the level geometry), but if you're hankering for an interesting action game with more than a little bit of Souls in it, and Magitek Greco-Roman adventures sound like your jam, you certainly could do a LOT worse than this!

    Yeah!

    Asterigos and Steelrising are both games that come from the same basic soulsborne design philosophy but feel very different. And are really nice because of it. Both feel about equally janky too. Still very fun for all that.

    I need to go finish Steelrising before I dig too deep into Asterigos but new thing is very tempting.

    Steelrising also has amazing accessibility options. Boom, tied it back. letsgo.

    destroyah87 on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    MadicanMadican No face Registered User regular
    edited October 2022
    I am a couple hours into Asterigos and I still don't understand the Souls comparisons. What am I missing?

    It has a roll button

    /s

    Madican on
  • Options
    HiT BiTHiT BiT 🍒 Fresh, straight from Pac-man's Registered User regular
    edited October 2022
    FromSoftware: Dark Souls games should be played online!
    Dark Souls 3 PC Servers: down for 7 months since February.
    Dark Souls 1 & 2 PC Servers: still down since February.

    HiT BiT on
  • Options
    Pixelated PixiePixelated Pixie They/Them Registered User regular
    Drascin wrote: »
    Well, this Asterigos thing is actually pretty good, turns out. Enemy variety is not spectacular, and things are sometimes a little wonky (I just died to a boss because its attack trapped me in the level geometry), but if you're hankering for an interesting action game with more than a little bit of Souls in it, and Magitek Greco-Roman adventures sound like your jam, you certainly could do a LOT worse than this!

    Yeah!

    Asterigos and Steelrising are both games that come from the same basic soulsborne design philosophy but feel very different. And are really nice because of it. Both feel about equally janky too. Still very fun for all that.

    I need to go finish Steelrising before I dig too deep into Asterigos but new thing is very tempting.

    Steelrising also has amazing accessibility options. Boom, tied it back. letsgo.

    Crap, I forgot Steelrising is a thing.

    Hrm.

    ~~ Pixie on Steam ~~
    ironzerg wrote: »
    Chipmunks are like nature's nipple clamps, I guess?
  • Options
    DrascinDrascin Registered User regular
    Madican wrote: »
    I am a couple hours into Asterigos and I still don't understand the Souls comparisons. What am I missing?

    It has a roll button

    /s

    It also has an absolute *legion* of doors that can't be opened from this side, which is a surefire sign of a Souls :P.

    But more seriously, the combat system is quite similar to the Souls formula (Bloodborne but slower, I'd say, including blood beads), the weapon upgrading runs on a very similar system, the whole "enemies revive when you rest at a bonfire" thing, controls are similar enough that my muscle memory actually occasionally gets confused and I try to attack with RB (even dash on left stick click!), the level design is fairly reminiscent... overall, Asterigos is not quite A Souls but it is pretty obvious the devs played a bunch of Souls and liked it.

    But I mean, I like soulslikes, so this is perfectly fine by me!

    Steam ID: Right here.
  • Options
    Pixelated PixiePixelated Pixie They/Them Registered User regular
    Okay but I haven't died yet several hours in so it can't be Soulsy. lmao

    ~~ Pixie on Steam ~~
    ironzerg wrote: »
    Chipmunks are like nature's nipple clamps, I guess?
  • Options
    ZavianZavian universal peace sounds better than forever war Registered User regular
    the reason why Dark Souls games don't have easy modes or accessibility options is because Miyazaki is a masochist and it's the whole point of those games
    Miyazaki: I'm a huge masochist, so when I make games like these… this is how I want to be treated!

    Murohashi: Ooh…

    Miyazaki: "I want to be killed this way!" That's how I make it!

    Isomura: Amazing! That's some really extreme masochism!

    Miyazaki: It's just that sometimes other people don't understand it; it's for my pleasure.

    Murohashi: Really? You want to be killed deep in the forest, getting punched by a huge mushroom?

    Miyazaki: Yes, yes. And the curse area… When I get cursed…

    Isomura: You want to die from a barrage of arrows?!

    Miyazaki: It's gratifying. I like that, I just wanted to emphasize it!

    Murohashi: Incredible!

    Miyazaki: I don't know about the other staff members' fantasies, but I'm not making it from a sadistic stance, but from a masochistic one. I want this done to me!

    Isomura: Oh… wow!

    Miyazaki: I actually like that. I got some strong responses from foreign media. They said "what the hell are you talking about?!""

  • Options
    MNC DoverMNC Dover Full-time Voice Actor Kirkland, WARegistered User regular
    If I was a dev on Dark Souls, I'd have an option to make your flasks unlimited. Wanna spam heal your way through a tough boss fight? Knock yourself out!

    The option wouldn't be tied to any achievements or difficulty levels. Something that would be brought up when you started play (off by default) and toggleable at any time during play.

    People would complain, but it's optional. You can make your game stupid hard and still have the option available to players. The reality is that some players would use it and some wouldn't. Any complaints would just go away after playing because it's optional.

    Every game should have multiple cheat codes available in-game that the players can access at any time.

    Need a voice actor? Hire me at bengrayVO.com
    Legends of Runeterra: MNCdover #moc
    Switch ID: MNC Dover SW-1154-3107-1051
    Steam ID
    Twitch Page
  • Options
    KalnaurKalnaur I See Rain . . . Centralia, WARegistered User regular
    cB557 wrote: »
    Kalnaur wrote: »
    To give a possible example: If Dark Souls were to have 3 more flask charges than normal, from the beginning. That would alter the difficulty without greatly changing the play.
    Wait what? No, that's a massive change.

    Dark Souls is a bad example because it's a multiplayer game at its core. If I were to make a single-player only version of Dark Souls, I'd definitely allow people to pick how many flask charges they start with though.

    The thing is, as far as I've seen invasion can trigger the invader to have less overall healing. If you can do that, you could temporarily limit healing for a player based on any number of reasons, including limiting the invaded player's healing until the invader was dealt with, not touching that experience. You could also have a threshold set for players playing co-op where extra flasks were limited or unavailable during co-op, if testing showed that's what was needed. None of these should be deal-breakers.

    Accessibility should always be foremost in a designer's mind.

    Also:
    HiT BiT wrote: »
    FromSoftware: Dark Souls games should be played online!
    Dark Souls 3 PC Servers: down for 7 months since February.
    Dark Souls 1 & 2 PC Servers: still down since February.

    Yeah, that. Like, if it was only meant to ever be played online, then, well, you'd need to always have servers up and online with no option of not connecting. There's should and then there's must, and just like Celeste's "should vs must", it should prioritize the player's ability to access your game, with all reasonable functions that entails, which includes everything from colorblindness modes all the way up to granular difficulty modifiers.
    cB557 wrote: »
    Kalnaur wrote: »
    To give a possible example: If Dark Souls were to have 3 more flask charges than normal, from the beginning. That would alter the difficulty without greatly changing the play.
    Wait what? No, that's a massive change.

    Eh, agree to disagree on that point. Having 3 more flasks would have given me like, maybe 20 less deaths, but no less of the experience of the game. It's still that puzzle to be solved, however you're going to, and even in Dark Souls 2 where there were potentially limitless healing items (healing stones were great), it didn't mean I was going to sail through ever fight. I feel like too often Souls fans plant their feet and claim the game as it stands could not be altered in any way without changing the experience totally, and I just agree. Like, if enemies did nothing damage and healing was always available and dodging windows were a month long then yeah, that changes the game. But a few extra healing items? Or, like, 2 extra i-frames in a dodge? That's a difference of millimeters, and in this case those millimeters could be what stands between a person having that same challenging yet possible experience as others do versus never being able to have that experience at all. I think that's a minor alteration worth having, and there's zero reason to not cater to it.

    I make art things! deviantART: Kalnaur ::: Origin: Kalnaur ::: UPlay: Kalnaur
  • Options
    Pixelated PixiePixelated Pixie They/Them Registered User regular
    I retract what I said about Asterigos not being Soulsy.


    I am hopelessly lost right now and I have no in-game map. A+ Soulslike.

    ~~ Pixie on Steam ~~
    ironzerg wrote: »
    Chipmunks are like nature's nipple clamps, I guess?
  • Options
    cB557cB557 voOOP Registered User regular
    I don't think Souls games are unalterable, but I do think more Estus isn't the way to go. Or at least, that it would greatly change the play. The early games of 2 and 3 are really characterized by your limited estus, such that adding more would be a huge change for those ones, I think.

    DS1 isn't as scarce with early estus, so I wouldn't shoot it down immediately for that one, but I still think it isn't the way to go. It's enough extra estus that I think it'd tilt the game a lot more in favor of making bad trades. Like obviously, the ideal way of doing things would still be hit the enemy and don't get hit, but for players making their way through undead burg for the first time they're gonna learn that getting hit and then hitting the enemy back is good enough. And that's a huge difference I'd say, that's a completely different combat flow and one I think is less interesting. As you get later into the game an enemies get harder to stagger and have faster moves I think that'd become less of a thing; that three extra estus won't matter if silver knights are hitting you out of your startup every single time. But that's kind of another problem, because players who didn't learn how to dodge and punish in the undead burg are gonna hit a wall because the game taught them the wrong lessons.

    More i-frames seems like it'd be the better change, because you've still gotta be paying attention to the enemy and reacting to them. Though idk you still need to be careful with tuning that, because maybe you accidentally turn the game into just spam roll all the time. I guess at least in that case the player is less likely to get walled halfway through the game.

  • Options
    CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited October 2022
    My friend loves all the world building in every Souls game but, being disabled, can only watch YouTube or her husband play. She perceives, and loathes, gatekeeping by both Miyazaki and the "git gud" players.

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • Options
    -Loki--Loki- Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining. Registered User regular
    Absolutely every game should have a ‘story’ difficulty.

    Difficulty gate keeping sucks.

  • Options
    Pixelated PixiePixelated Pixie They/Them Registered User regular
    I retract what I said about Asterigos not being Soulsy.


    I am hopelessly lost right now and I have no in-game map. A+ Soulslike.


    I just accidentally rolled off a cliff to my first ever death.

    ...dammit

    ~~ Pixie on Steam ~~
    ironzerg wrote: »
    Chipmunks are like nature's nipple clamps, I guess?
  • Options
    21stCentury21stCentury Call me Pixel, or Pix for short! [They/Them]Registered User regular
    cB557 wrote: »
    I don't think Souls games are unalterable, but I do think more Estus isn't the way to go. Or at least, that it would greatly change the play. The early games of 2 and 3 are really characterized by your limited estus, such that adding more would be a huge change for those ones, I think.

    DS1 isn't as scarce with early estus, so I wouldn't shoot it down immediately for that one, but I still think it isn't the way to go. It's enough extra estus that I think it'd tilt the game a lot more in favor of making bad trades. Like obviously, the ideal way of doing things would still be hit the enemy and don't get hit, but for players making their way through undead burg for the first time they're gonna learn that getting hit and then hitting the enemy back is good enough. And that's a huge difference I'd say, that's a completely different combat flow and one I think is less interesting. As you get later into the game an enemies get harder to stagger and have faster moves I think that'd become less of a thing; that three extra estus won't matter if silver knights are hitting you out of your startup every single time. But that's kind of another problem, because players who didn't learn how to dodge and punish in the undead burg are gonna hit a wall because the game taught them the wrong lessons.

    More i-frames seems like it'd be the better change, because you've still gotta be paying attention to the enemy and reacting to them. Though idk you still need to be careful with tuning that, because maybe you accidentally turn the game into just spam roll all the time. I guess at least in that case the player is less likely to get walled halfway through the game.

    Big disagree.

    I think every lever is valid to use, including extra estus.

    "they'll learn the game wrong" is a really bad argument for accessibility.

    I mean, you can have infinite jumps and dashes in Celeste, won't you end up making "impossible" jumps and still proceed? Won't that teach you how to play the game wrong?

    One of the points of accessibility options affecting difficulty is that it will allow you to learn the game differently, in a way that you might enjoy more.

  • Options
    Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    I retract what I said about Asterigos not being Soulsy.


    I am hopelessly lost right now and I have no in-game map. A+ Soulslike.


    I just accidentally rolled off a cliff to my first ever death.

    ...dammit

    1649898632-822.png

  • Options
    MadicanMadican No face Registered User regular
    Asterigos looks very neat but I've got lots of stuff in the library to play already

  • Options
    MorninglordMorninglord I'm tired of being Batman, so today I'll be Owl.Registered User regular
    edited October 2022
    My (admittedly second or even third-hand) impression is that many or even most play those games with the trolling multiplayer "features" disabled.

    If that were true there wouldnt be anywhere near enough messages as there are, you wouldnt ever find a coop summon etc.

    "I do this and so do all the people I know" is, to put it bluntly, worse than just not knowing at all. Not only do you still not know, youve walked into the anecdotal trap as well. You cannot work out the habits of 16 million copies sold with your own life.

    No, not even if you are very clever. The scale dwarfs you, and your entire life.

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • Options
    KalnaurKalnaur I See Rain . . . Centralia, WARegistered User regular
    I retract what I said about Asterigos not being Soulsy.


    I am hopelessly lost right now and I have no in-game map. A+ Soulslike.
    I retract what I said about Asterigos not being Soulsy.


    I am hopelessly lost right now and I have no in-game map. A+ Soulslike.


    I just accidentally rolled off a cliff to my first ever death.

    ...dammit

    This is sounding more Soulslike by the moment. :lol:
    cB557 wrote: »
    I don't think Souls games are unalterable, but I do think more Estus isn't the way to go. Or at least, that it would greatly change the play. The early games of 2 and 3 are really characterized by your limited estus, such that adding more would be a huge change for those ones, I think.

    DS1 isn't as scarce with early estus, so I wouldn't shoot it down immediately for that one, but I still think it isn't the way to go. It's enough extra estus that I think it'd tilt the game a lot more in favor of making bad trades. Like obviously, the ideal way of doing things would still be hit the enemy and don't get hit, but for players making their way through undead burg for the first time they're gonna learn that getting hit and then hitting the enemy back is good enough. And that's a huge difference I'd say, that's a completely different combat flow and one I think is less interesting. As you get later into the game an enemies get harder to stagger and have faster moves I think that'd become less of a thing; that three extra estus won't matter if silver knights are hitting you out of your startup every single time. But that's kind of another problem, because players who didn't learn how to dodge and punish in the undead burg are gonna hit a wall because the game taught them the wrong lessons.

    More i-frames seems like it'd be the better change, because you've still gotta be paying attention to the enemy and reacting to them. Though idk you still need to be careful with tuning that, because maybe you accidentally turn the game into just spam roll all the time. I guess at least in that case the player is less likely to get walled halfway through the game.

    Big disagree.

    I think every lever is valid to use, including extra estus.

    "they'll learn the game wrong" is a really bad argument for accessibility.

    I mean, you can have infinite jumps and dashes in Celeste, won't you end up making "impossible" jumps and still proceed? Won't that teach you how to play the game wrong?

    One of the points of accessibility options affecting difficulty is that it will allow you to learn the game differently, in a way that you might enjoy more.

    This is, really, the point that people should head towards; if someone plays the game differently than you, it's not that they played it wrong. That's where "beating it on story mode isn't beating it" comes from. Or "oh [character class/character options] are easy mode, you need to play [my way], which the dev intended, to really experience the game" comes from. Neither of those are fine, both of them are gatekeeping. They might not look like gatekeeping, but they actually are. And also? I don't give a good god damn if Miyazaki makes the games to punish himself. I like souls games, but "I only make games for me" is at heart bad game design. It is. It is a form of game design, but that design is bad. Because in doing that you're never going to learn, and here's the thing, as much as Miyazaki says this, that he wants the games to hurt him, Elden Ring, for its part is far more forgiving, far more open, and at least with the recent patch far more rewarding for the PvE soulslike player than older games. We don't need to go back and alter the old games, they're just what is being used as an example.

    If a person learns that they can heal and trade hits, well, we know they can build for that. Bloodborne (and some ER build options) even play into that. There's item options to give more i-frames, etc. The only barrier left is this: if your disabled player has to spend considerably more time in your game grinding, or finding the item to allow them to play on the same level as any other player, you've designed your game poorly. If it's a question of "should the player be able to alter this at the beginning of the game, on game start/character creation", the answer should always default to "yes, and changable later". Always. Every single time. That the older games haven't done that is simply because in that manner they are poorly designed games.

    I dearly enjoy Dark Souls, and all its ilk to one degree or another. But there are some crap decisions in design in those games, and Miyazaki isn't a god, he can and has made mistakes that have been adjusted in later games he's helped to create. I'm not saying "they shouldn't be hard", because part of the fun is that first boulder that pancakes you and you know that goddamn everything is going to try and kill you. What I'm saying is that my "hard" setting is other people's "easy" setting, and other people's "impossible" setting. And consideration must be made to try and recognize this unless you want to have a flawed game. Yes, they should still feel challenging and rewarding, but nothing is saying that they won't be with just a bit more of an easing up that is optional. This isn't any different than masochists who choose any other hard/nightmare/kick-me-in-the-mean-bean-machine setting, it's just noting that a well designed game should be flexible enough for anyone to at least buy into it, within reason. Like, yes. Yes. Sometimes you're going to have a particular thing that just . . . doesn't gel or work, even trying to make the game approachable. My mom loved the PS2 Ratchet and Clank games, and could not get a handle on the racing parts, and had my brother do them for her. And they could have and probably should have designed them better but I don't begrudge them not really knowing. But they do know better now, and yes, I'm saying that if for example my mother who could get through literally everything else in the game couldn't do the races, then those races hadn't seen enough diversity in testing.

    They should not feel like they've done "good enough", even when people are saying that Elden Ring is far more approachable, because there's still issues. Refinement is a life-long process, and that includes art. These games can still provide plenty of challenge, plenty of fun, and still have some of that center altered to accommodate more players. More players is good!

    I make art things! deviantART: Kalnaur ::: Origin: Kalnaur ::: UPlay: Kalnaur
  • Options
    SudsSuds Registered User regular
    There's now an entire website dedicated to Steam Deck custom boot animations that's collected quite a few. Preview them, download them for use on Deck, create and upload your own, it's all there.

    I have a custom animation. But I’ve had my Steam Deck since Feb and I can count on one time the number of times I’ve rebooted the device.

    camo_sig2.png
  • Options
    bloodatonementbloodatonement Registered User regular
    -Loki- wrote: »
    Absolutely every game should have a ‘story’ difficulty.

    Difficulty gate keeping sucks.

    This is essentially asking games to not be games. Games are more than their story.

    You just want a story, read a book, watch a movie, go to a play, read a comic, listen to a radio drama, grab a VN, watch a streamer play the game. There are endless options for story.

    The idea that every game should be beatable by anyone misses that gameplay is what differentiates games from other media.

    If we are going to call games "art" then we should respect the artist vision for how it is experienced.

    Zdy0pmg.jpg
    Steam ID: Good Life
  • Options
    Pixelated PixiePixelated Pixie They/Them Registered User regular
    -Loki- wrote: »
    Absolutely every game should have a ‘story’ difficulty.

    Difficulty gate keeping sucks.

    This is essentially asking games to not be games. Games are more than their story.

    You just want a story, read a book, watch a movie, go to a play, read a comic, listen to a radio drama, grab a VN, watch a streamer play the game. There are endless options for story.

    The idea that every game should be beatable by anyone misses that gameplay is what differentiates games from other media.

    If we are going to call games "art" then we should respect the artist vision for how it is experienced.

    Nah.

    The gameplay can be tweaked to be enjoyed by anyone and it's still a game. None of the things you listed are interactive.

    I could watch an LP of Dark Souls to suck up all the lore and worldbuilding, but I find it boring and unengaging to watch people play games. I can instead use a tool like WeMod to change the difficulty settings to something suited to my abilities and get to interact with the game and experience the lore myself. But how much better would it be if the devs respected everyone enough to put those options in in the first place so cheats/trainers/etc weren't necessary? And it wouldn't affect anyone else's enjoyment or experience of the game in the slightest.

    ~~ Pixie on Steam ~~
    ironzerg wrote: »
    Chipmunks are like nature's nipple clamps, I guess?
  • Options
    Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    edited October 2022
    Games are more than their story.

    Yeah, they're also visuals and sound.

    watch a streamer play the game.

    Don't mind if I do!
    I've been playing "adventure" games with a guide/walkthrough in front of me since the Sierra and Lucasarts days. If YouTube had existed back then, it would have saved me a fair amount of pointing and clicking.

    There are games which I play/engage with as "games", and there are others that I approach as, essentially, multimedia entertainment.
    Many of the games in the first category aren't necessarily ones where I want to be challenged (and overcome those challenges) so much as having the final state of the game world reflect my choices and preferences - how I build my character(s), base(s), etc - rather than someone else's.

    Commander Zoom on
  • Options
    cB557cB557 voOOP Registered User regular
    Kalnaur wrote: »
    I retract what I said about Asterigos not being Soulsy.


    I am hopelessly lost right now and I have no in-game map. A+ Soulslike.
    I retract what I said about Asterigos not being Soulsy.


    I am hopelessly lost right now and I have no in-game map. A+ Soulslike.


    I just accidentally rolled off a cliff to my first ever death.

    ...dammit

    This is sounding more Soulslike by the moment. :lol:
    cB557 wrote: »
    I don't think Souls games are unalterable, but I do think more Estus isn't the way to go. Or at least, that it would greatly change the play. The early games of 2 and 3 are really characterized by your limited estus, such that adding more would be a huge change for those ones, I think.

    DS1 isn't as scarce with early estus, so I wouldn't shoot it down immediately for that one, but I still think it isn't the way to go. It's enough extra estus that I think it'd tilt the game a lot more in favor of making bad trades. Like obviously, the ideal way of doing things would still be hit the enemy and don't get hit, but for players making their way through undead burg for the first time they're gonna learn that getting hit and then hitting the enemy back is good enough. And that's a huge difference I'd say, that's a completely different combat flow and one I think is less interesting. As you get later into the game an enemies get harder to stagger and have faster moves I think that'd become less of a thing; that three extra estus won't matter if silver knights are hitting you out of your startup every single time. But that's kind of another problem, because players who didn't learn how to dodge and punish in the undead burg are gonna hit a wall because the game taught them the wrong lessons.

    More i-frames seems like it'd be the better change, because you've still gotta be paying attention to the enemy and reacting to them. Though idk you still need to be careful with tuning that, because maybe you accidentally turn the game into just spam roll all the time. I guess at least in that case the player is less likely to get walled halfway through the game.

    Big disagree.

    I think every lever is valid to use, including extra estus.

    "they'll learn the game wrong" is a really bad argument for accessibility.

    I mean, you can have infinite jumps and dashes in Celeste, won't you end up making "impossible" jumps and still proceed? Won't that teach you how to play the game wrong?

    One of the points of accessibility options affecting difficulty is that it will allow you to learn the game differently, in a way that you might enjoy more.

    This is, really, the point that people should head towards; if someone plays the game differently than you, it's not that they played it wrong. That's where "beating it on story mode isn't beating it" comes from. Or "oh [character class/character options] are easy mode, you need to play [my way], which the dev intended, to really experience the game" comes from. Neither of those are fine, both of them are gatekeeping. They might not look like gatekeeping, but they actually are. And also? I don't give a good god damn if Miyazaki makes the games to punish himself. I like souls games, but "I only make games for me" is at heart bad game design. It is. It is a form of game design, but that design is bad. Because in doing that you're never going to learn, and here's the thing, as much as Miyazaki says this, that he wants the games to hurt him, Elden Ring, for its part is far more forgiving, far more open, and at least with the recent patch far more rewarding for the PvE soulslike player than older games. We don't need to go back and alter the old games, they're just what is being used as an example.

    If a person learns that they can heal and trade hits, well, we know they can build for that. Bloodborne (and some ER build options) even play into that. There's item options to give more i-frames, etc. The only barrier left is this: if your disabled player has to spend considerably more time in your game grinding, or finding the item to allow them to play on the same level as any other player, you've designed your game poorly. If it's a question of "should the player be able to alter this at the beginning of the game, on game start/character creation", the answer should always default to "yes, and changable later". Always. Every single time. That the older games haven't done that is simply because in that manner they are poorly designed games.

    I dearly enjoy Dark Souls, and all its ilk to one degree or another. But there are some crap decisions in design in those games, and Miyazaki isn't a god, he can and has made mistakes that have been adjusted in later games he's helped to create. I'm not saying "they shouldn't be hard", because part of the fun is that first boulder that pancakes you and you know that goddamn everything is going to try and kill you. What I'm saying is that my "hard" setting is other people's "easy" setting, and other people's "impossible" setting. And consideration must be made to try and recognize this unless you want to have a flawed game. Yes, they should still feel challenging and rewarding, but nothing is saying that they won't be with just a bit more of an easing up that is optional. This isn't any different than masochists who choose any other hard/nightmare/kick-me-in-the-mean-bean-machine setting, it's just noting that a well designed game should be flexible enough for anyone to at least buy into it, within reason. Like, yes. Yes. Sometimes you're going to have a particular thing that just . . . doesn't gel or work, even trying to make the game approachable. My mom loved the PS2 Ratchet and Clank games, and could not get a handle on the racing parts, and had my brother do them for her. And they could have and probably should have designed them better but I don't begrudge them not really knowing. But they do know better now, and yes, I'm saying that if for example my mother who could get through literally everything else in the game couldn't do the races, then those races hadn't seen enough diversity in testing.

    They should not feel like they've done "good enough", even when people are saying that Elden Ring is far more approachable, because there's still issues. Refinement is a life-long process, and that includes art. These games can still provide plenty of challenge, plenty of fun, and still have some of that center altered to accommodate more players. More players is good!
    I don't mean "if you beat Dark Souls by trading hits, you played the game wrong." What I said was that if you just upped estus counts as a way of making the difficulty easier, I think that'd cause a problem where players don't learn the basics of dodging and punishing in the early game and then hit a wall in the late game where just chugging more stops cutting it. Yeah, if you do a big poise build you might be fine, but only a fraction of players will do that so I don't think that's a solution to the problem.

  • Options
    destroyah87destroyah87 They/Them Preferred: She/Her - Please UseRegistered User regular
    edited October 2022
    -Loki- wrote: »
    Absolutely every game should have a ‘story’ difficulty.

    Difficulty gate keeping sucks.

    This is essentially asking games to not be games. Games are more than their story.

    You just want a story, read a book, watch a movie, go to a play, read a comic, listen to a radio drama, grab a VN, watch a streamer play the game. There are endless options for story.

    The idea that every game should be beatable by anyone misses that gameplay is what differentiates games from other media.

    If we are going to call games "art" then we should respect the artist vision for how it is experienced.

    There's some truth to this, and no one has really said anything about art or the artist's vision of a game. It's totally ok for any game director to make their game(s) as hard and punishing as they want. All it means is their story is put behind the wall that is the requisite effort to overcome the obstacles. It's also fair to say their story is in some way those same obstacles. That's still valid.

    What I am saying is that that is, at the end of the day, unnecessarily limiting the potential audience that can engage with such a hypothetical. It is also, by definition, restricting the kind of person that can give an informed review of the game to the subset of people that can engage with it at that required level. That, I posit, will absolutely have an effect on the next games said creator puts out as they iterate on their ideas and look for feedback.

    To employ a not-quite perfect analogy; it's like a gym that doesn't have any weights smaller than 50lbs. Could it get enough clients to stay afloat? Sure, but it's only gonna be people that can start off lifting that level of weight. Someone that isn't that strong yet but wants to be, someone that likes going to the gym with their stronger friend but isn't themselves up to that level and won't be, or someone that likes lifting but has a weak leg and needs lighter loads on that side. Those would be unable to engage with such a gym.

    To close, I'd say accessability options should be seen as a challenge for dev's. Let's find options that still produce an engaging and challenging experience. Let's see games that give the player access to dials that let them finetune their difficulty in ways that give them a memorable game experience. I want to see the creativity of a tailored game experience like that, instead of: This is my game. Beat it the way I made it or don't.

    destroyah87 on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    I take it back.

    The Eternal Cylinder beats Terra Invicta for my How do They Come Up With This Shit award.

    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • Options
    -Loki--Loki- Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining. Registered User regular
    -Loki- wrote: »
    Absolutely every game should have a ‘story’ difficulty.

    Difficulty gate keeping sucks.

    This is essentially asking games to not be games. Games are more than their story.

    You just want a story, read a book, watch a movie, go to a play, read a comic, listen to a radio drama, grab a VN, watch a streamer play the game. There are endless options for story.

    The idea that every game should be beatable by anyone misses that gameplay is what differentiates games from other media.

    If we are going to call games "art" then we should respect the artist vision for how it is experienced.

    There’s nothing stopping you playing a game on the hardest difficulty when a Story difficulty also exists.

    A story difficulty just means someone who doesn’t have naturally fantastic reflexes or muscle memory or, you know, two fully working hands can hand you money for your game and experience it.

    Just from a business point of view it’s a good idea because it maximises the amount of people that can pay you to play it.

    If your vision for the game is based on a difficulty, slap a ‘we intended for this difficulty to be played’ notification on it.

    Also, watching a streamer pays the streamer, not the developer or publisher. In some cases, it costs the developer/publisher because it’s sponsored by them. Which is fine, but I assume they would rather you gave them money.

  • Options
    shoeboxjeddyshoeboxjeddy Registered User regular
    -Loki- wrote: »
    -Loki- wrote: »
    Absolutely every game should have a ‘story’ difficulty.

    Difficulty gate keeping sucks.

    This is essentially asking games to not be games. Games are more than their story.

    You just want a story, read a book, watch a movie, go to a play, read a comic, listen to a radio drama, grab a VN, watch a streamer play the game. There are endless options for story.

    The idea that every game should be beatable by anyone misses that gameplay is what differentiates games from other media.

    If we are going to call games "art" then we should respect the artist vision for how it is experienced.

    There’s nothing stopping you playing a game on the hardest difficulty when a Story difficulty also exists.

    A story difficulty just means someone who doesn’t have naturally fantastic reflexes or muscle memory or, you know, two fully working hands can hand you money for your game and experience it.

    Just from a business point of view it’s a good idea because it maximises the amount of people that can pay you to play it.

    If your vision for the game is based on a difficulty, slap a ‘we intended for this difficulty to be played’ notification on it.

    Also, watching a streamer pays the streamer, not the developer or publisher. In some cases, it costs the developer/publisher because it’s sponsored by them. Which is fine, but I assume they would rather you gave them money.

    If they paid a streamer to play their game, they would like it if you watched it. That's called a commercial, they want you to watch their advertising, otherwise the money they paid goes to waste.

This discussion has been closed.