Asklemmy

44152 readers

1202 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

What discussion you know you are on the wrong side of? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 3 weeks ago by lorty@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

159 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Maybe you haven't been convinced by a good enough argument. Maybe you just don't want to admit you are wrong. Or maybe the chaos is the objective, but what are you knowingly on the wrong side of?

In my case: I don't think any games are obliged to offer an easy mode. If developers want to tailor a specific experience, they don't have to dilute it with easier or harder modes that aren't actually interesting and/or anything more than poorly done numbers adjustments. BUT I also know that for the people that need and want them, it helps a LOT. But I can't really accept making the game worse so that some people get to play it. They wouldn't actually be playing the same game after all...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] semperverus@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

It goes deeper than just simple engineering though. It affects tone and overarching game design. It is multiple extra dimensions that have to be considered across every aspect of the entire game. If it is done poorly, you get paper dolls on easy mode and damage sponges on hard and nothing of merit to compensate for these facts. The difficulty of the game goes from being genuine to artificial.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That's why you design for accessibility, and don't try to cram it in at the last moment. It's not actually difficult, it just requires engineering discipline.

There are also plenty of Dark Souls clones for people like you who demand nothing but punishment.

[–] semperverus@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't need a game to be hard, I need it to be consistent and well thought-out. Animal Well for example is a rather easy game, but because it only has one difficulty, the developer was able to keep a very tight focus on the world and puzzle design. Everything is layered there, because they don't have to be containerized and sliced into pieces to account for adjustable difficulty settings.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Or they could have thought it out even better and included difficulty settings.

They have every right to ignore accessibility, but it will always limit their audience.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 1 points 3 weeks ago

"artificial difficulty" is poorly defined. Most parts of a video game are artificial. You get 100 health and 5 healing potions? Well those numbers were just made up, and could easily have been 50 and 1, or 200 and 10. The boss takes 5 hits to defeat, or 10, or 3?

I think people say "artificial difficulty" when they mean "I don't like this", but that's not very useful for a discussion without digging deeper.