Current Events > What is it with social justice types and shitting on difficulty in videogames?

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://archive.is/DSDUO



---

Too edgy

Eh, I could see somewhat of the point of the third post, but I mean at the end of the day it's designed to be that type of game and maybe it's just not for you.

The second tweet is just straight up idiotic.
---

there are sporadic moments of unpredictable and unavoidable damage that are poorly designed but also Cuphead is amazing and I hope the trend of amazing indie platformers continues
---

Reviewers that barely know how to play the things they're supposed to review are upset by the backlash when people call them out on their bullshit. Rather than actually recognize that maybe there's a point to all this feedback, the only solution is to slander the game and the fans.
---

---

This isn't restricted to social justice types. Look at the Souls series.

That Polygon article seems fine as well. It's a fine thing to discuss and it doesn't really make a conclusion either way.

So if a game is designed to be played a very particular way and Cuphead asks you to treat failure as a chance to learn and rewards repetition and memorization arent you subverting those goals by asking for a mode that removes that method of play? Museums may not quiz you between rooms, but they also dont offer to let you choose the color palette of every painting depending on how youd like to see them.

Theres a wonderful, although often contradictory, Twitter thread about these questions started by developer Rami Ismail, and theres no easy or correct answers to be found.

It's an interesting discussion to have really.
---

C_Pain posted...

Eh, I could see somewhat of the point of the third post,

Think about who you're agreeing with before saying things like this
---

C_Pain posted...

Eh, I could see somewhat of the point of the third post, but I mean at the end of the day it's designed to be that type of game and maybe it's just not for you.

The second tweet is just straight up idiotic.

Basically this. The third post has nothing to do with 'social justice', it's a criticism of the sort of fanbase that enjoys elitism and ignores any genuine criticism.

its because these types of people dont like struggle, and life is about struggle, which means that they couldnt survive in life if their doors were to be removed.
---

who makes a point is irrelevant to it's merits
---

It's funny. People are often saying it's because gamers are coddled these days or whatever. And I'm sure that's a factor.

But people are completely ignoring that games like this used to have cheat codes like level select and god mode. Who didn't do this as a kid who wanted to see levels they couldn't reach?
---

Darmik posted...

It's funny. People are often saying it's because gamers are coddled these days or whatever. And I'm sure that's a factor.

But people are completely ignoring that games like this used to have cheat codes like level select and god mode. Who didn't do this as a kid who wanted to see levels they couldn't reach?

Most of those people are also in complete denial that difficulty was often implemented to eat your quarters. They act like the challenge of older games was some sort of artistic merit or something, instead of just a clever way to get kids to shell out ten bucks a pop to play the same seven or eight levels over and over again.

Darmik posted...

It's funny. People are often saying it's because gamers are coddled these days or whatever. And I'm sure that's a factor.

But people are completely ignoring that games like this used to have cheat codes like level select and god mode. Who didn't do this as a kid who wanted to see levels they couldn't reach?

Games like this (Contra, as a great example) explicitly didn't have cheat codes to explore later levels, and ALSO most game genie cheat codes were ROM hacks and not actual cheats put in by developers.
---

Dash_Harber posted...

Darmik posted...

It's funny. People are often saying it's because gamers are coddled these days or whatever. And I'm sure that's a factor.

But people are completely ignoring that games like this used to have cheat codes like level select and god mode. Who didn't do this as a kid who wanted to see levels they couldn't reach?

Most of those people are also in complete denial that difficulty was often implemented to eat your quarters. They act like the challenge of older games was some sort of artistic merit or something, instead of just a clever way to get kids to shell out ten bucks a pop to play the same seven or eight levels over and over again.

You're correct however once you remove quarters from the equation the difficulty simply is. Most arcade games could be 1 credited, it's just that very few people had the opportunity to practice enough to do it.

This generally isn't the case anymore.
---

Hope they don't change it. Probably the most disappointing part of being a value gamer who only buys on sale is finding out they nerfed the hardest parts of the game before you got your hands on it

s0nicfan posted...

Games like this (Contra, as a great example) explicitly didn't have cheat codes to explore later levels, and ALSO most game genie cheat codes were ROM hacks and not actual cheats put in by developers.

That's a very specific example. If a game supported cheats it usually wasn't limited.

A lot of us found this site by looking for cheat codes on the internet. Go look at a random page of games for the Genesis or Super Nintendo and a lot of those will have cheat codes.
---

jesus this game isnt that hard

you seem like the kinda guy who was upset when the nes didn't have the game switch on it like the atari 2600 did lol
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Darmik posted...

It's funny. People are often saying it's because gamers are coddled these days or whatever. And I'm sure that's a factor.

But people are completely ignoring that games like this used to have cheat codes like level select and god mode. Who didn't do this as a kid who wanted to see levels they couldn't reach?

Most of those people are also in complete denial that difficulty was often implemented to eat your quarters. They act like the challenge of older games was some sort of artistic merit or something, instead of just a clever way to get kids to shell out ten bucks a pop to play the same seven or eight levels over and over again.

You're correct however once you remove quarters from the equation the difficulty simply is. Most arcade games could be 1 credited, it's just that very few people had the opportunity to practice enough to do it.

This generally isn't the case anymore.

Not really, the difficulty also served a secondary purpose of covering up the fact that the games had very little in terms of content. The majority of games from that era had about 8 levels, each taking a maximum of ten minutes. If a game lasted you one and a half hours nowadays, people would scream bloody murder.

It doesn't really matter, though. My point was both that it was a business then, just as it is now, and that comparing the games in terms of actual design is pointless because the purpose and technology has changed so much that things accepted now would not be accepted then, and vice versa.

Darmik posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Games like this (Contra, as a great example) explicitly didn't have cheat codes to explore later levels, and ALSO most game genie cheat codes were ROM hacks and not actual cheats put in by developers.

That's a very specific example. If a game supported cheats it usually wasn't limited.

A lot of us found this site by looking for cheat codes on the internet. Go look at a random page of games for the Genesis or Super Nintendo and a lot of those will have cheat codes.

My point is that this notion of "I'd like to turn off the gameplay in this game and explore the world" is a relatively new one, and not something to be retroactively applied to classic titles as if this has always been a thing developers wanted for players. Level skips were more a way to get back to a favorite stage in a game without saves (or a debug tool to let developers test later levels, as was their original purpose).

It's fine to say "It would be nice if Cuphead had this feature", but it's a totally different thing to criticize it for not having said feature by pretending that classic games used to have the same one by design.
---

Dash_Harber posted...

Darmik posted...

It's funny. People are often saying it's because gamers are coddled these days or whatever. And I'm sure that's a factor.

But people are completely ignoring that games like this used to have cheat codes like level select and god mode. Who didn't do this as a kid who wanted to see levels they couldn't reach?

Most of those people are also in complete denial that difficulty was often implemented to eat your quarters. They act like the challenge of older games was some sort of artistic merit or something, instead of just a clever way to get kids to shell out ten bucks a pop to play the same seven or eight levels over and over again.

You'd have a point if not for the fact that most of the "Nintendo hard" games people have in mind were on home consoles and not (just) in quarter arcades.

As someone who has been gaming since the hayday of the NES, I do find games journalists who complain about games being too hard or complain about gamers who make fun of or criticize them for being bad at games to be tiresome. If you aren't good at playing games, you have no business writing about them on any critical level.

I am firmly in the "git gud" camp.
---

Esrac posted...

You'd have a point if not for the fact that most of the "Nintendo hard" games people have in mind were on home consoles and not (just) in quarter arcades.

As I pointed out, that also served the purpose of covering up the fact that the game was about an hour and a half long.

Esrac posted...

As someone who has been gaming since the hayday of the NES

I've been playing games just as long. Literally since I was three years old. I don't struggle with difficulty on most games. I completely disagree with you, though. That's like saying "You can't be a food critic unless you are a 3 michelin star chef" or "You can't review cars unless you have one a NASCAR cup". The fact is that games are specifically marketed to people of all abilities, so it's ridiculous elitism to act like you have to be a video game savant to even understand them.

I actually hate when critics complain too much about difficulty, or when players ignore genuine criticisms with 'git gud'. It's pointless 'advice' that amounts to nothing and just makes it look like the person complaining might actually have a point.

Dash_Harber posted...

Esrac posted...

You'd have a point if not for the fact that most of the "Nintendo hard" games people have in mind were on home consoles and not (just) in quarter arcades.

As I pointed out, that also served the purpose of covering up the fact that the game was about an hour and a half long.

Esrac posted...

As someone who has been gaming since the hayday of the NES

I've been playing games just as long. Literally since I was three years old. I don't struggle with difficulty on most games. I completely disagree with you, though. That's like saying "You can't be a food critic unless you are a 3 michelin star chef" or "You can't review cars unless you have one a NASCAR cup". The fact is that games are specifically marketed to people of all abilities, so it's ridiculous elitism to act like you have to be a video game savant to even understand them.

I actually hate when critics complain too much about difficulty, or when players ignore genuine criticisms with 'git gud'. It's pointless 'advice' that amounts to nothing and just makes it look like the person complaining might actually have a point.

It's more like asking someone who can't read to review the quality of a book. If you aren't capable of performing the interactive function of an artform, you aren't qualified to critique it.

Saying "git gud" isn't advice, it's ripping on someone who sucks. Especially when they complain about not being able to win because they suck.
---

s0nicfan posted...

My point is that this notion of "I'd like to turn off the gameplay in this game and explore the world" is a relatively new one, and not something to be retroactively applied to classic titles as if this has always been a thing developers wanted for players. Level skips were more a way to get back to a favorite stage in a game without saves (or a debug tool to let developers test later levels, as was their original purpose).

Except it isn't. That's how you did it. But that's not how everyone did it.

There were guides and hint lines that made profit on this stuff. This isn't because people wanted to replay their favorite sections.

If someone got too frustrated and got stuck it was completely common to check if there were cheats for it. Hell you'd be surprised how many people played the PS2 GTA's solely with weapon cheats activated.

Cheats became less common when achievements became popular.

Cuphead is an absolutely gorgeous game. I think a level select and god mode cheat would be completely fine and would still fit the old school design of the game. If people want to play it like that why not?
---

Esrac posted...

It's more like asking someone who can't read to review the quality of a book. If you aren't capable of performing the interactive function of an artform, you aren't qualified to critique it.

Not really, though. The idea that you either are a master of all games or not at all is stupid. There are degrees and obviously some games are harder than others.

Esrac posted...

Saying "git gud" isn't advice, it's ripping on someone who sucks. Especially when they complain about not being able to win because they suck.

'Ripping on people' is only funny and entertaining when you do it creatively. Mindlessly parroting a meme because you think it will make you look clever is the absolute opposite of creative or clever.

Basically, it's unhelpful and if you are going to be unhelpful, you better at least be clever.

Another ZP topic complaining about SJWs doing something that is either not unique to SJWs or has nothing to do with SJWs in the first place.
---

Bio1590 posted...

Another ZP topic complaining about SJWs doing something that is either not unique to SJWs or has nothing to do with SJWs in the first place.

Another asshurt Bio post where he completely pretends I don't havs a point because of his own confirmation bias. Social Justice types have always bitched about gaming difficulty.

Also I fucking DARE to tell me with a straight face that neither Bob Chapman, Andrew Dobson, and Ben fucking Kuchera aren't SJWs
---

Dash_Harber posted...

Esrac posted...

It's more like asking someone who can't read to review the quality of a book. If you aren't capable of performing the interactive function of an artform, you aren't qualified to critique it.

Not really, though. The idea that you either are a master of all games or not at all is stupid. There are degrees and obviously some games are harder than others.

Esrac posted...

Saying "git gud" isn't advice, it's ripping on someone who sucks. Especially when they complain about not being able to win because they suck.

'Ripping on people' is only funny and entertaining when you do it creatively. Mindlessly parroting a meme because you think it will make you look clever is the absolute opposite of creative or clever.

Basically, it's unhelpful and if you are going to be unhelpful, you better at least be clever.

Yes, really. Expecting someone who sucks at playing video games to give an adequate review of a game is like expecting someone who sucks at reading to give an adequate review on a book.

Meanwhile, it's not at all like expecting someone to be a Michelin star chef before they can review food. That would be like expecting someone to be good at making games, rather than playing them, before they can review them.

Don't be a dipshit. No one is saying they have to be a master of all games or a savant. This isn't The Wizard. However, if someone isn't competent at playing a game (or game genre), then they aren't going to be able to accurately judge the quality of that game.

For example, if you lack the skill to reliably perform a QCF+P, you almost assuredly aren't qualified to judge the quality of a fighting game. If you can't aim for shit, you aren't qualified to judge shooting games. If you can't time jumps well, you aren't qualified to judge platformers. And so on.
---

Why are you talking about reviews? Which review are you talking about?
---

how is cuphead about memorizing when the attacks are randomized and procedurally generated?
---

BlackHorse6969 posted...

how is cuphead about memorizing when the attacks are randomized and procedurally generated?

I was a little confused by this too. I haven't played the game, but I've been watching a LP of it. I don't recall bosses making any attacks that aren't telegraphed.
---

Eh, I didn't really like Dark Souls (not because of difficulty, just didn't really care for it) and I agree with some of the criticism for how these games are designed and the criticism for the "git gud" culture, but, that's how these games are designed and its the intention of the creators. Yeah, sucks that the game is too hard for you, but not every game is designed for you. Such is life. There's obviously a market for these "hardcore" games and you're not in it.

They want participation trophies for just playing easy mode.
And it 's never made a very flattering outlook of their demographic.

"Social justice cheerleaders are too wimpy to handle playing challenging video games."

Whether or not that's true is not the point. It's that ugly message it's sending about people with similar narratives: that outspoken "SJWs" on social media are also often crybabies when it comes to game difficulty and therefore their opinions on it have lower validity than the majority of consumers.

We're talking about a recreational title in which there are even 8 year olds who can play it masterfully after enough time. And yet we got adults whining that it's too hard; grown people who have far more control over when and how long they can play a game...

The "git gud" meme is aptly applicable to them. And it's even funnier when it's little kids saying it to those adults in online games.
---

Darmik posted...

Why are you talking about reviews? Which review are you talking about?

Started as a simple example to use while I type on my phone quickly. I should probably expand that to cover critical coverage in general. In this case, "review" is a misnomer on my part.
---

Esrac posted...

Don't be a dipshit.

Was actually a nice discussion up until this point. Alright then, good luck with that.

They like to be coddled in games just like real life.
---

Let me guess, Jim Sterling brought this up... right?
---

Esrac posted...

Darmik posted...

Why are you talking about reviews? Which review are you talking about?

Started as a simple example to use while I type on my phone quickly. I should probably expand that to cover critical coverage in general. In this case, "review" is a misnomer on my part.

But even then it's a weird point to make. A reviewer is talking about the game to a potential audience that is varied in level of skill. Someone who is skilled in a game can still recognize if it's not friendly to beginners or frustrating.

I love Wonderful 101 for example but I completely recognize that the learning curve and how the game throws you into it can be a negative for lots of people out there.
---