4 ms·

I'm not sure I follow. I'm assuming the easy mode is something you have to explicitly select or at least have to the option to change to and from. Could you not

by jai_ 8y ago

I'm not sure I follow. I'm assuming the easy mode is something you have to explicitly select or at least have to the option to change to and from. Could you not have simply ignored the option of the easy mode and continued playing the way you had done before?

babuskov 8y ago
Once the option is there, it's hard to ignore it.
- burgerboy 8y ago
  Sounds like a failure that you orchestrated
- mrguyorama 8y ago
  That is not a given. Plenty of people ignore easy modes by choice, either because they prefer harder games, or because they sneer at the "plebs" playing "their" games
  - JamesBarney 8y ago
    I don't think he was arguing it's impossible to ignore it. Just that it's hard.
  - babuskov 8y ago
    Of course. The thing is, once the option showed up, I turned it on once to try it. A couple hours later and I beat the whole game. At that moment, I didn't even know the game was ruined for me. It felt nice being able to see all the levels and content. But a couple days later, when I thought about turning it on, I figured there's no point because I have seen it all. It's so easy to fall into the trap of playing easy mode.
    - EliRivers 8y ago
      I wonder if part of the problem is the attitude that games are there to be "beaten". That the aim is to beat it, and then you're done. If games were seen as something to be played and explored rather than beaten, perhaps people would approach them differently and get a lot more out of them, even if they'd already completed a playthrough.
      - numo16 8y ago
        I read an opinion piece[0] recently that suggested one of the (many) reasons that No Man's Sky was so poorly received at launch was due to the fact games have commonly been boiled down to constant action and "gotta beat the game" mentality, and that players don't know how to just explore and enjoy games as an open-ended single player experience. As someone who plays almost exclusively single player games across a vast numbers of genres, I enjoyed No Man's Sky's "exploring and discovering the unknown" game play at launch and have ever since, as they add more and more content. 0: http://www.thegeeklygrind.com/opinion-no-mans-sky-doesnt-multiplayer-problem-gamers-solitude-problem/ http://www.thegeeklygrind.com/opinion-no-mans-sky-doesnt-mul...
        setr 8y ago
        I’m pretty sure the bigger issue was that it was a very weak simulation, with relatively little interaction. Exploring a simulation/procedural generation is not about getting to view the infinite permutations that randomness gives us — it’s to explore the rules that create the simulation, and then to manipulate those rules. The reason sim city and dwarf fortress are intersting, and NMS and Spore were not, is because the simulation is sufficiently expanded as to be worth manipulating (while of course not being so expanded to hinder understanding your manipulations; this is the craft); whereas NMS and Spore had very trivial rules: they didn’t really have any. Which is also why when Dwarf Fortress breaks down, its interesting, while in NMS, it’s pathetic. Note that I’m only referring to NMS on release; though I doubt the simulation has been developed since (I’d bet that the game has since gotten prettier worlds, but not more interesting ones) Tldr; it was poor simulation/generation game, regardless of whether the current market has ADD
      - babuskov 8y ago
    - imustbeevil 8y ago
      > But a couple days later, when I thought about turning it on, I figured there's no point because I have seen it all. I just had the same experience with Pathfinder Kingmaker, but came away with the opposite sentiment. I am super glad to have an easy mode. I don't want to waste more time than I already do playing video games. I want to see what narratives and mechanics they have to offer, not reload the same level for 20 hours.

by jai_ 8y ago

babuskov 8y ago

Once the option is there, it's hard to ignore it.

burgerboy 8y ago
Sounds like a failure that you orchestrated
mrguyorama 8y ago
That is not a given. Plenty of people ignore easy modes by choice, either because they prefer harder games, or because they sneer at the "plebs" playing "their" games
- JamesBarney 8y ago
  I don't think he was arguing it's impossible to ignore it. Just that it's hard.
- babuskov 8y ago
  Of course. The thing is, once the option showed up, I turned it on once to try it. A couple hours later and I beat the whole game. At that moment, I didn't even know the game was ruined for me. It felt nice being able to see all the levels and content. But a couple days later, when I thought about turning it on, I figured there's no point because I have seen it all. It's so easy to fall into the trap of playing easy mode.
  - EliRivers 8y ago
    I wonder if part of the problem is the attitude that games are there to be "beaten". That the aim is to beat it, and then you're done. If games were seen as something to be played and explored rather than beaten, perhaps people would approach them differently and get a lot more out of them, even if they'd already completed a playthrough.
    - numo16 8y ago
      I read an opinion piece[0] recently that suggested one of the (many) reasons that No Man's Sky was so poorly received at launch was due to the fact games have commonly been boiled down to constant action and "gotta beat the game" mentality, and that players don't know how to just explore and enjoy games as an open-ended single player experience. As someone who plays almost exclusively single player games across a vast numbers of genres, I enjoyed No Man's Sky's "exploring and discovering the unknown" game play at launch and have ever since, as they add more and more content. 0: http://www.thegeeklygrind.com/opinion-no-mans-sky-doesnt-multiplayer-problem-gamers-solitude-problem/ http://www.thegeeklygrind.com/opinion-no-mans-sky-doesnt-mul...
      - setr 8y ago
        I’m pretty sure the bigger issue was that it was a very weak simulation, with relatively little interaction. Exploring a simulation/procedural generation is not about getting to view the infinite permutations that randomness gives us — it’s to explore the rules that create the simulation, and then to manipulate those rules. The reason sim city and dwarf fortress are intersting, and NMS and Spore were not, is because the simulation is sufficiently expanded as to be worth manipulating (while of course not being so expanded to hinder understanding your manipulations; this is the craft); whereas NMS and Spore had very trivial rules: they didn’t really have any. Which is also why when Dwarf Fortress breaks down, its interesting, while in NMS, it’s pathetic. Note that I’m only referring to NMS on release; though I doubt the simulation has been developed since (I’d bet that the game has since gotten prettier worlds, but not more interesting ones) Tldr; it was poor simulation/generation game, regardless of whether the current market has ADD
    - babuskov 8y ago
  - imustbeevil 8y ago
    > But a couple days later, when I thought about turning it on, I figured there's no point because I have seen it all. I just had the same experience with Pathfinder Kingmaker, but came away with the opposite sentiment. I am super glad to have an easy mode. I don't want to waste more time than I already do playing video games. I want to see what narratives and mechanics they have to offer, not reload the same level for 20 hours.