[ SECRET POST #4516 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4516 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[The Secret Etiquette Of Lady Takashima]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Avatar: The Last Airbender]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Harry Potter]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Stephen Fry as Inspector Thompson in Gosford Park]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Dragon Age/Dragon Age: Origins/DA4]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Queer Eye, S03 E01 "From Hunter to Huntee"]


__________________________________________________



09.
[A View to a Kill]











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 58 secrets from Secret Submission Post #647.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Is it? I don't find it difficult to understand why some people enjoy challenges, pun not intended.

Or is this a "if I like it, then it's a preference, and if they like it, it's fetishization" thing?

[(Anonymous)]

I have no problem with people liking difficult challenges. What I'm thinking about is stuff like people arguing that a game adding an easy mode lessens the game, or that people who use cheat codes in single player are doing Something Wrong, and the general attitude that underlies those things.

[(Anonymous)]

Eh I'd call that less of a fetishization of difficulty, and more elitist gatekeeping

The focus being less on positive "I love difficulty" and more on a negative "get out, easy mode peasants"

[(Anonymous)]

You have more faith in humanity.

These people are very much of the opinion that games shouldn't be accessible, because THEY enjoy it being super difficult and a fucking achievement to even finish.

[(Anonymous)]

Just because someone likes the difficult in the Souls games and other similar games doesn't mean they think every game should be insanely hard. But those particular games being hard is a feature/the point of them and if someone doesn't like that they can feel free to l,at one of the hundreds of other games without an insane difficulty setting.

[(Anonymous)]

But why? This is what I don't understand at all. OK, you like the games to be hard. But having an easy mode doesn't mean that the hard mode suddenly stops existing. It doesn't make the game any easier for people who like the difficulty. So what's the problem with it? I'm not saying they necessarily should or shouldn't, but I don't see why it would be bad if they did. Similarly, someone else using cheat codes during the game has no impact whatsoever on how you play the game, so why do people care?

[thewakokid]

No, it doesn't mean that, but it does mean that when you say "I beat this game" it means less. Because people at the moment KNOW what you went through to beat it. They know you have skill and determination. an easy mode invariably lessens the achievement.

Like, ok, two people come up to you, one says "I just beat Devil May Cry" and the other one says "I just beat bloodborne", no you don't have to be a dick about it, but admit it, you are inherently more impressed with the bloodborne player. MAYBE the person who beat DMC did it on dante must die mode, and that is still an incredible achievement to me, but you know the statement "I just beat bloodborne" means more about the persons skill and determination than "I just beat Devil May Cry".

[(Anonymous)]

Considering you can cheese bloodborne by endlessly grinding and abusing AI exploits for some of the most difficult fights idk it’s really not that impressive to beat bloodborne either. It just means you have a shitton of patience.

-signed a player who dumped 30 points into VIT and abused Spin2Win early game tactics to carry me all the way to post-Rom.

[(Anonymous)]

Because that's the point of those games. It's like complaining Fallout is about shooting mutant monsters and role-playing and not about, idk, building, farming and crafting. You play other games for that if you want to. There is a huge variety of games with easy modes to choose from. And if you have those hard games for a PC, you can often cheat, anyway, so I don't see the issue.
Adding additional game modes costs additional time and money. Those difficult games are made for a certain group of people who enjoy playing them and buy them. People who don't like that can play different games. Not every game has to be accessible for every single person.

[thewakokid]

I have to argue against one or two points:

Accessibility is not about easy modes. That is something the Journos are pushing to make it seem like their calls for easier games are actually to help disabled people.

Accessibility is things like subtitles for the deaf, the ability to turn off flashes for epileptics etc. I can get behind that stuff. Toning down the challenge is not an accessibility thing. it's a "This thing wasn't made for my skill level and that IS NOT OK!"

Additonally I have to fix one point about your characterisation of the argument:

"These people are very much of the opinion that this games shouldn't be accessible easy, because THEY enjoy it being super difficult and a fucking achievement to even finish."

If you'd said that, I'd have actually agreed with the sentiment, but again, it's not an accessibility thing, and it's not about all games. it's about these specific games being explicitly about the challenge and reward. I'm pretty ok with DMC having an easy mode. I don't mind the creative mode in mine craft.

Think of it like reading a book. A book like lovecraft. I find his style to be... difficult to follow. I find his word choices to be... esoteric. I do not enjoy his works so I do not read them. I do not get to complain that HP Lovcraft books need to come with a less wanky option. People who like lovecraft like the wanky. And sure they could still enjoy the original text even if I got my dumbed down version printed, but I don't have any right to expect them to print that for me.

[(Anonymous)]

"That is something the Journos are pushing to make it seem like their calls for easier games are actually to help disabled people."

Fuck off, I am a disabled person and I agree "DA JOURNOOOOEEEEEZ." Take your sexist, hardcore, "I need to stroke me e-peen" dickish attitude and shove it, I'm so fucking SICK of your paranoia and conspiracy theories. Easy mode is for people like me whose hands don't fully work. Fuck the hell off, you absolute fucking wanker.

[thewakokid]

I'll level with you, I don't believe this is sincere, but on the off chance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tso8u4OJLuI

Might I suggest that certain games are not for you? Not because of your disability but because you are not of the level where you can overcome? There is no shame in that, there is no insult intended, it's just a fact. Rhythm games are not for me, as being white leaves me with the crippling lack of rhythm.

[(Anonymous)]

nyart

Don't get me wrong, this is amazing, but how does that prove anything? That's one single person, not every gamer who happens to be disabled.

[thewakokid]

Generally I'm ok with a game dev doing whatever they want, but I think in the case of the souls game there is a real argument to say it should stay difficult.

It is universally acknowledged that getting to the end of a souls game is an achievement. that is the value a game like souls has. There's no way to get around it. if you got to the end you have accomplished something and everyone knows it. An easy mode inevitably lessens that.

That's my general feeling on it.

My more specific feeling on it is games journos who're using the "But think about the disabled people Make this game something we can play quickly and easily because otherwise you hate cripples!!" is pretty gaddam scummy.

[(Anonymous)]

It is universally acknowledged that getting to the end of a souls game is an achievement. that is the value a game like souls has. There's no way to get around it. if you got to the end you have accomplished something and everyone knows it. An easy mode inevitably lessens that.


But the actual value of the accomplishment wouldn't be changed at all by adding an easy mode. So, in other words, the real problem that you're pointing towards is that it would be less impressive to other people.

[thewakokid]

Yeah, for the most part that is probably the main thing. It's a competitive thing.

Like beating your own previous best time in a run by 20 seconds should feel like more of an achievement than beating someone elses best time by 3 seconds, but we all know that's not the case.

It feels better to be able to say "I did this" to someone else and have them acknowledge it than it ever does to simply /know/ you did this. So I'd agree that's probably a big thing in it.

But there is another thing to it. Maybe a lesser thing, but... well when I heard how hard Darksouls was I decided then and there I was not going to play it. I don't like being frustrated, and the game sounded like torture. so I a avoided it.

Then recently I decided "Hell, there is a quadriplegic who just beat sekiro. Maybe I should toughen up and see what I can do" so I played Darksouls. And I LOVED it. I was frustrating, no doubt but I got something out of it. I felt like a true and utter badass. I don't like excessive challenge so I avoided it but when I was ready to push myself I found I was capable of more than I had thought.

If the game had released all those years ago with an easy mode, I'd have played it with an easy mode, I know I would have. And I wouldn't care about it in the least. It would be just another game in my completed list. It would have meant nothing to me.

So while I agree a big part of it is the prestige of being recognised for playing these games at a certain level, there is also a certain innate reward in not being given the opportunity to cheapen the experience, if that makes any sense?

[(Anonymous)]

I just fundamentally don't think those are good justifications for why it would be actively wrong to add an easy mode.

And it's definitely not really an explanation for the vitriol and criticism directed at people who do want that feature, or for people who use cheat codes to complete the game.

[(Anonymous)]

There only needs to be one justification.

1. The devs don't want to, in order to maintain the integrity of what their brand and intellectual property stands for, difficult and unforgiving gaming.

I think, after they've made that clear, continuously angrily demanding that they go against their own creative vision is actively wrong. All else is irrelevant.

[thewakokid]

That is also fair.

I remember the one of the bayonetta or DMC guys saying "I don't see a problem with adding an easy mode to my game" like it meant anything.

I'm like, "Sure, good for you, and I do enjoy your games, but we're not talking about your games right now."

[(Anonymous)]

1. The devs don't want to, in order to maintain the integrity of what their brand and intellectual property stands for, difficult and unforgiving gaming.


That's a valid reason for not doing it but it doesn't make the people who want it wrong, either.

I think, after they've made that clear, continuously angrily demanding that they go against their own creative vision is actively wrong.

I disagree in the strongest possible terms.

[thewakokid]

No, it's not actively wrong to want it.

It's actively wrong to DEMAND it. And to pretend like making that demand is you being the morally right person who is only trying to stand up for the poor little handicaps. That's what I'm seeing most people fight against.

And the Vitriol about using a cheat to beat it... was mostly aimed at a journo who wrote an article saying "I used cheats, it's no big deal" but then ALSO wrote an acticle "These are some tips to beat the game!"

You can cheat the game or you can get paid to pretend to be an authority on how to play the game properly. Doing both is shitty.

[(Anonymous)]

I get this. I'm more confused by people who seem to not get this.

It's the same reason you (in theory) don't allow doping and steroids in competitive sports. Because that cheapens it for everyone involved. Of course the roided guys are going to beat the other guys or have it much much easier. So then the title means far less than it did.

"B-But the only way I can do this activity is if you allow all that stuff." Then maybe find another sport? Start performance drug league? Make your own games that allow whatever, and stop demanding the championships that existed, cheapen the meaning of their titles? Or content yourself with watching other people play?

Not all of us get to be super Olympians and that's OKAY. That's WHY being an Olympian - meaning qualifying at all to compete - is such a huge deal. BECAUSE not everyone can be one. If they just let anybody ever compete and call themselves technically an Olympian that means nothing then.

[(Anonymous)]

my dude this is a videogame

playing a story mode game by yourself on easy inherently does not affect anyone else at all. thats the entire point of solo story mode games.

it's not comparable

jesus you just compared playing a souls game to training to be an olympic

and that's coming from someone who really likes souls games

[(Anonymous)]

This is a bafflingly bad analogy.

You realize that, like, the Olympics and professional sports leagues are not the only venues in which people play organized sports? Not everyone who plays basketball, or goes running, or whatever, is trying to be an Olympian or a professional basketball player. There's generally a huge number of different levels of competitive and non-competitive ways that people play sports, and there are often huge rule differences across those different levels, because not everyone needs to, is interested in, or can compete in the same way that professionals or Olympians can. A casual baseball league might have very different rules than Major League Baseball, and that's OK, because they're not at all doing the same thing. Someone who's playing in a casual baseball league isn't doing something wrong, or somehow weakening The Spirit Of The Game, by doing so. Sports leagues actively do what you're saying that they don't do, and it's a good thing, too. If the creators of Sekiro or Bloodborne don't want to add an easy mode, that's obviously their right, but it doesn't make the idea morally wrong somehow.

Also, adding an easy mode wouldn't lessen the accomplishment of actually beating the game on the harder mode at all. It would still be just as difficult an accomplishment. So I don't get all that part of it, either.

[(Anonymous)]

I get this viewpoint and I don’t. People act like there is a certain level of skill in soulsborne games and there is to an extent. But there also isn’t. There are numerous ways to make the game easier without the standard “git gud response” due to having RPG mechanics. You can grind out to have max stats and that’ll basically carry you the whole game. Sure it would take forever and infinity and obscene amount of patience but I wouldn’t cal the person who does that skillful. It’s the downfall of all games with RPG mechanics. Not good enough the regular way? That’s okay. Just grind forever and eventually you’ll beat it.

Sekiro got rid of the RPG mechanics which is where I think a lot of the complaints came in. People who weren’t good at soulsborne games to begin with lost their cushy safety net of stats and equipment and weapons to carry them through the game.