I'm wondering what /v/'s opinion is on "inclusion".
From a certain crowd I keep hearing how major alterations are good just because they'll introduce it to new people. Examples like
>StairFax Zero adding babby mode
>Bitching about respeccing cost in Grim Dawn
>Dark Souls 3. Just all of it.
The response from this crowd is always "why do you care if the devs let another person do X?" That ultimately the best thing a game can do is bend itself to the player's will as much as possible.
I have a great feeling that this is utter bullshit but I'm unable to put it into a strong argument. Am I bonkers or just missing something?
>>334896952
It only further moves towards the dumbing down of vidya in general.
Games like dark souls and even the hotline miami duology are a direct response to this trend so maybe games will start being harder as a whole again. But we can only hope.
>>334896952
>Bitching about respeccing cost in Grim Dawn
I... what? There is little-to-no cost in doing this. GD is even barely discussed here.
>>334900123
I guess I wasn't clear: I wasn't saying from a crowd "here", I just meant from a crowd of the gaming audience.
Secondly, that was just an example from my own experience; I'm playing it myself now, felt I made a small mistake and found threads of people on the GD forums whining about how expensive it is to respec 100's of levels dozens of times.
But what I'm talking about is not how stupid their wishes are, it's the excuse they give of "Why do you care what I do in my game?" I feel like that's a weak defense and non-existent argument for their stupid wishes, but I was wondering what others thought.
>>334900690
Ah okay, that makes more sense.
I can see respeccing getting expensive since it costs more and more each time you do it but I have not respecced too often so I don't know if there is an upper limit or anything. There aren't even hundreds of levels but still. At least iron means something in the game, and otherwise, they can easily get a trainer to give them however much they need.
Of all things, it seems like a silly thing for them to complain about.
>>334900690
>>334896952
I guess you could argue that some developers forego their artistic vision in favour of pleasing a wider array of people. This usually results in a game that's made with monetary gain as primary objective, while usually, good games are good because the dev put love in the game.
Ofcourse making games is a buisiness and money must be made, but it shouldn't be a primary factor.
at a certain point, you need to tell super casuals to fuck off
this is why dark souls is so popular
"inclusion" is complete shit and it ruins everything
By making something appealing to everyone you inevitably take away what made it appealing to the people who liked it before it was changed. There are more people in the world who enjoy just switching off and playing an easy game than there are people who enjoy the satisfaction of rising to a challenge and playing a difficult game, so the latter group are inevitably going to end up losing out because that's how the market is. It's a shame.
>>334900964
It's a ridiculous issue, to be sure, it's just a good example that I ran into of people avoiding the issue of justifying something because "but I waaaaaaant it."
>>334901027
True enough, but for some reason people seem to draw a line between shit they like and shit they don't. For example, OP pic (Jim Sterling) mocks publishers for using the phrase "appeal to a wider audience", but then calls the people who were upset about StairFax's babby mode "selfish pricks".
My own personal opinion is that the idea of "inclusion" is fabricated bullshit. You play a game genre because it appeals to you, and you skip ones you don't; that's not exclusion, that's personal taste. Trying to make everything likable to everyone is impossible, illogical, and belittles the large part of the game that isn't about the player playing it "however they want" but instead about fitting into a world someone else has created.
The appeal of Dark Souls is its niche hardcore status. If you kill that and reduce it to something for the dumb masses, you also kill what made it popular to begin with.
Fat cucks like Jim Sterling don't realize that but only repeat what his fat cheating wife tells him to say.
I don't care if games do not specifically cater to me. I will still like games that I like.
>>334901404
Appreciate the comic. Think the "chicks" and "dudebros" is a bit much, but I get the message.
>>334901531
To play the devil's advocate, I'd imagine the other side would say "But why can't you just make the game appeal to both sides?"
>>334901693
If I get what you're saying, you're saying that making it "inclusional" to all takes away what made it unique and interesting?
And again as devil's advocate, "why can't hardcore people play it hardcore and casuals play it casually?"
Appreciate the discussion, chaps.
>>334901941
>And again as devil's advocate, "why can't hardcore people play it hardcore and casuals play it casually?"
Why do you make the assumption that casual gamers are shit at video games?
>>334896952
I used to be mad about this too but I eventually realized it really doesnt harm me at all as long as the non-babby mode experience isnt changed.
For example, my Starfox Zero having a babby mode doesnt affect me, but Dark Souls players summoning 200 phantoms in a row when I try to invade does
>>334902083
I suppose I was trying to say "why can't hardcore people play it for the challenge and people who don't want challenge play it without the challenge?" but that doesn't sound nearly as succinct.
>>334901941
>And again as devil's advocate, "why can't hardcore people play it hardcore and casuals play it casually?"
Because it completely loses its status as a hardcore game if you can just easy mode it. How fucking difficult is it to comprehend?
These "inclusive" commie shits won't be pleased until every game plays and looks the same. Good thing nip devs don't listen to cucks.
>>334901941
If some people can get a reward without the effort, the reward loses meaning. People who enjoy easy games just want to sit back and relax. People who enjoy difficult games want to get something more complex: a feeling of accomplishment. That feeling comes from knowing that because you put in effort and had skill, you were able to experience the whole game, and that most people were unable to do that because they didn't put in the effort or aren't skilled enough. The satisfaction of that feeling is lost if someone else can just say they finished it on easy mode in much less time, with much less effort. Instead of having achieved something meaningful, you're a sucker.
>>334896952
Really it depends on how well implemented it is. If I have the feeling that the inclusion of any a feature worsens my experience with the game I am less interested. Not necesarrily a deal breaker though.
>>334901027
>>334901623
I don't mind something beeing constructed to appeal to a wide demographic. Marvel movies for example rely heavily on focus testing but in general they are enjoyable most of the time.
The industry tore itself apart to appeal to the widest possible demographic a long time ago.
Any steps about taking it further? Frankly I don't give a shit anymore. My demographic is old news.
Depends. There is nothiny wrong with adding certain convience features for less experienced player if they are optional and nonintrusive. Star Fox' invincibility mode is one such occasion.
On the other hand, something like Hitman Absolutions Instinct mode is quite the opposite because the game is built around it so not using it isn't much of an option. In that sense I'd say it's badly implemented.
What we have to keep in mind is that video games have gotten a lot more complex since most of us got started. My first ever game was Mario land which had incredibly simple controls that didn't need to be explained and everyone could pick up on immediately.
Most modern games aren't that straightforward and need to explain their mechanics to newcomers. And there is nothing wrong with that as long as it doesn't mean that experienced players have hours of tutorials to sit through or have to play with training wheels on, so to say.
>>334902403
Well it's pretty standard that anyone who likes "inclusivity" will turn their nose up at the idea of a "hardcore" game. So it makes sense that they don't comprehend it.
Basically their main gripe is that viewing something as a "hardcore game", i.e. a status symbol, is nonsense and that your personal fulfillment in achieving something difficult is separate from other people's ability (or lack thereof) to do the same.
Which I think acts as though human nature is not what it is, as though we all are in a vacuum. But then that's them, not me.
>>334902516
Yes! Thank you! You expressed it wonderfully. Honestly, I don't know why people like Sterling don't understand this. I thought this was a universal human experience, or maybe he's just never been good/better at anything than anyone else?
>>334902516
>Instead of having achieved something meaningful, you're a sucker.
That's why we have achievements and trophies. Some are creative and interesting but its just a way to have the developer wave a flag and throw a handful of confetti "You managed to headshot a guy for the first time!"
I really hate how obnoxious some in games are to get and how it squeezed out unlockable content and cheat codes.
>>334902992
>Honestly, I don't know why people like Sterling don't understand this
He probably does. But he's being cucked majorily by his wife. As in actually cucked while she's fucking niggers. So he's forced to make these videos where he keeps shilling for games to be easier and more friendly to whores.
>>334902894
Tutorials are just a small part of it.
Obviously the most obvious is difficulty, the most clear examples the games that add an "easy" mode. But even beyond that, I remember playing a game a while ago (can't remember what it was now) that, after I died 6-7 times, suggested that I step down the difficulty in the settings. I found this to be retarded. The difficulty options are already there, me dying multiple times on a hard part is not a _bad thing_. It's part of the game, not something to "fix".
It's as if people aren't allowed to not like things anymore. If you don't like a genre, it's not because it just doesn't gel with you, it's because the genre needs to adapt to every goddamn person to pick up a controller, rather than the person adapting to the game, which is what I thought was the main point of video games.
I think that's the biggest problem with "walking simulators". Getting told a story while having a small amount of control is one thing and people can go ahead and well enjoy it all they want (though calling it a "game" is a bit much). But when people act like EVERYTHING should be like a walking sim (or "story driven" or whatever bullshit lingo) because anyone can playing a walking sim ergo it is the best, they seem to miss what made 99% of video games as popular as they are now and why most people continue to play them.
>>334903061
I don't even go for achievements anymore. I truly don't. Almost all of them I've come across are either (a) there because "games need to have achievements now", (b) something involved in the goddamn story, or (c) something to pad the game time out.
But that's getting off topic.
Souls games have summoning fat fuck can go fuck his fat.
>>334903652
Transistor had good achievements.
I am pretty sure art is lessened by building it around target audiences.
I don't think mona lisa was made by altering a general concept around demographics they wanted to enjoy it.
>>334902516
>If some people can get a reward without the effort, the reward loses meaning
The reward never had any meaning.
Its just a video game.
By your logic anyone who plays any video game is a sucker cos they could have just watched a lets play and seen the ending and spent no effort.
>>334904423
>The Super Bowl is meaningless, it's just a sporting event.
>"Worlds Greatest" is meaningless, it's just a title.
>Human existence is meaningless, we're just a small blip on an insignificant planet in the void of space.
Fuck off with that shit.
>>334902894
Wow, a sensible oppinon.
>>334904650
>comparing competing in a high level sports event with beat a single player video game
Fuck off with that shit.
>>334896952
I don't give a shit, I'm bad at games and I always play on easy mode anyway. Play on hard mode if you want to play a hard game, I just want to be able to beat it.
>>334904415
>I don't think mona lisa was made by altering a general concept around demographics they wanted to enjoy it.
I don't think you know as much as you think you know about art history
>>334904423
How is watching a game the same as playing a game?
>>334904423
Personal achievements have personal meaning. This often involves competition, competency, etc. This is what I meant when I said "Which I think acts as though human nature is not what it is".
>>334905086
The same way that playing on hard is the same as playing on easy.
>>334905237
But in one case you're watching and in the other you're playing. Those aren't the same action. It's like saying listening to a game is the same as playing it.
