Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
Este tema ha sido cerrado 
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
6 
Denunciar este mensaje
Lets go back to early game to disprove you ideas about difficulty settings
Sabre wulf on the spectrum 48k and ported to other systems massively popular as a game not 1 difficulty setting on the game.
or should every first person shooter on the planet have its speed reduced for people with slower reaction times?. after all I don't play them due to my slower reactions I am retired.
And how is giving options give more 'credence' to the it cheats argument? It would actually allow the player to adjust it so they always win, thus eliminating the 'it cheats' hypothesis.
You can claim the game is a tactical niche game, but does that improve sales, perhaps even future sales of follow on titles? Not in any way, you remain in your niche. And personally myself as a programmer, I would rather have more sales and more profit for my hard work. And people wonder why we only see a battletech "niche" game every decade or two?
Those fronting the money see no profit, so why would they put up their money on a title that is niche? This game had to get their money from the community because of that.
If that 'first person shooter' is a single player game, then yes, it should be accessible to more people because like I said, it is about sales, not what you or any other games thinks is right or wrong. Why limit your sales to a smaller audience 'just because'?
As for more sales interesting question is this game exceeded it predicted sales by multiples of those predictions, would it have sold this well if it had been given those settings and made easier, would we be facing people that still would be on the forums complaining its too hard, at what point do you draw a line and produce the game. You will always have people that cant play the game and whine about it.
In my opinion and the 8 year old son of the person living next door this game is too damn easy at the moment.
If the financial and being outnumbered is a problem for you Skirmish mode has just cured your problem its 4 vs 4 you can set what each side has.
That cannot be done by a vast majority of the gamers.
Just because the game exceeded the 'predicted sales' does not mean it could not have done better. That is abusing the meaning of the words. It is like saying we only expect 50 people to buy the game, but our sales were 200. Wow, we exceeded our expectations! When the game could have sold 1000 copies if it were more inclusive with more options.
If you feel limiting the game to a small handful of players in a niche is the way to go then that is your opinion and I still respect it as such. Just as what I am saying should be respected as such.
No, you can't do it that way. It undermines the credibility of the game.
I've played a couple of sports management titles which worked like this. Where if you are playing on hard level and you sign a player, that player will not play as well for you as he does for everyone else. It doesn't work, because games work around a suspension of disbelief to achieve immersion and those types of changes break the established rules of how the world works. Giving the AI more or less resources is one thing, but affecting performance in a management game is something else... you simply can't bend those kinds of rules.
Think of it from the opposite perspective. Would you play a game that gave you, specifically, a -10% chance to hit for no other reason than because you were the player? In the sports games I mentioned above I only ever played normal level because I didn't want either a benefit or a penalty in that kind of fashion.
Besides that even with that adjustment you're still going to get rolls which defy probability and elicit complaints.
I've developed a little bit, too, though the stuff I did was before Steam's time. You have to seriously watch how you handle difficulty, because after a player beats a game once they have seen all they have to see. Generally they don't go back and say, "let me do the same thing again on hard". That's even true if the player has played a little bit on an easy level and beaten the crap out of the AI. Most don't usually change levels unless they're getting beaten up. And so you've lost their attention, which might be fine in terms of getting you a sale but I like to hold it as long as possible. In general I'd rather a game err towards being a bit too hard than a bit too easy, though that's just me.
FWIW I believe the BT difficulty settings give you an above average array of choices for a game of this type. As an earlier post mentioned, you can pick and choose what missions you want to do, withdraw from a battle as soon as you see you don't like a setup, have pilots eject, and adjust resources (at least at the beginning). It's hard to support the claim that the player doesn't have enough options.
That is hilarious. Credibility of the game...
---
As usual, the elitists on this forum fail to see anything past their own mastery of the game and think everybody should be as good.
I don't think the game is that hard which you fail to understand from my messages. I am simply arguing for those that are having difficulty with the game and could use some help to actually enjoy the game.
Games are meant to be enjoyable or would you like to argue that as well...
Anyway, I am done with this thread, continue to complain about how people just should tuff it out and get good and fun be damned.
the sales figure were available on a site which used to be able to get data from steams own servers, when the sales on steam passed 300,000 its easy to believe the sales exceeded 500,000 including other sales platforms.
I don't think that people who enjoy a game come to these forums as much I frequent them to try and help people that are looking at mods. and at the same time put perspective on some of these threads that act like a huge majority of people think the game is super hard or that it cheats, the truth is its a tiny minority think its that hard.
Uh, what?
Ignoring the part where I don't believe in (or suffer from) "immersion". . .
How is it any different than any other difficulty tweak? More or less salvage, "harder" enemies, salvaged mechs having their stock gear or not. . .
If it's an optional handicap that I chose myself, for the sake of More Challenge? I don't see a thing wrong with that. This is a game. It's not some true-to-life reality sim. Change the gravity, tweak the shooting system, do whatever. Go for it.
. . . and I'm really not sure why you're comparing this to a "sports management" game.
I believe you are referring to Steeamspy they are not completely reliable anymore but generally in the ballpark
" Release date: Apr 24, 2018
Price: $39.99
Old userscore: 82% Metascore: 78%
Owners: 1,000,000 .. 2,000,000 "
The numbers have been over a million for quite awhile now.
IMO aiming at the widest audience possible is respectable but it is being more frowned upon. Notice the "widest" and the "possible", which is very extreme. A game will have to dumb down the gameplay a lot in order to do that, probably with a completely different game experience. To me that's fine, provided there are alternatives and not all games do the same.
A dev may have a vision about how the game should be experienced and having more difficulty levels may encourage many players to go the path of less resistance instead of becoming proficient with the mechanics so it can be enjoyed at a much deeper level. That's not necessarily good per se, I'm not saying that's inherently better. Not everybody has the time or the patience to get good at more demanding games.
A wider audience means more potential buyers but the competition also increases dramatically, so it's not a clear choice. A developer might have a lot more success in a niche were it can satisfy the needs of a niche and not have a lot of competition.
I think that's rare, at least openly, but it happens. I was in a discussion where one guy said that using the (recent at the time) "Custom Mode" in Dead Cells was cheating. One mode where you can tweak the item pool for custom runs and also lots of difficulty settings (many of which disabled achievements in order to keep it somewhat fair), while I argued that option wasn't in an obscure menu deep into the settings, using a console or command line but well visible in the main menu when creating a game, so it wasn't cheating. And even if it actually was a explicit cheat code (which actually wasn't) still wouldn't be necessarily cheating, because that depends on the consensus. A exploit or cheat can be 100% legit depending on the case, like some cheat codes (but not others) in Tetris tournaments are explicitly allowed (and actually expected to be used).
At some point the devs made a public statement (not directly in that thread) saying that using Custom Mode is not cheating, that they want players to use it. And while I think many still prefer not using it for "real" runs it can be very useful for practicing, for actually getting good.
So there are people like that. But I think most of the time is the "prestige" that comes with beating a game where there is only one difficulty level.
Videogames are not TT games or P&P rpgs. The creator of the game has a lot to say about how the game is intended to be played, be it giving the player a lot of flexibility on how to play it, like in a sandbox, or almost none like in a visual novel with just a couple choices here and there.
If you buy a graphic adventure, like an old style one, and you find it very hard you don't get to say to demand the dev that the puzzles should be easier so you can beat them. You have the right to complain but that's it.
I disagree. Sometimes is better and sometimes isn't.
So is this a popularity contest, so the most mainstream, the minimum common denominator is better and other games should be forced to have easier modes implemented?.
I think not every game is for everybody and game devs should have the freedom to choose what they want to do, from no difficulty settings at all up one button wins.
There are a resurgence of harder games in the last years. I already touched above the Dark Souls and the increasing popularity of that philosophy, which while far from mainstream now many ppl know about that as a thing. That there are some games that will likely be a challenge and require to become skilled at the game before you can beat it, instead of being able to brute force it.
It is not about sales so it doesn't have to be accessible. It is about what the dev considers right and wrong. And sure, part (or all) of it can be sales, but also may not, it can be even a net cost with no return expected at all (like games made as a hobby).
If you try to cater to a wider audience you have more competition as well, and you'll may have to make changes to the gameplay, to dumb down. And many players, going for the path of least resistance may play at a lower difficulty level than they should be able to with a little effort. And then in the long run enjoy the game a lot LESS than they would with a higher difficulty setting. So it is a matter of quality over quantity, preferring than those who choose to play your game have a great experience rather than more players playing your game but with a more bland and more generic experience.
In Hollow Knight some bosses and the Colosseum took me dozens of attempts (like 60-70) over several days, but at some point you just "click" and when you do it is really really great. I absolutely love that game. That feeling of overcoming obstacles, that what before (and for a long time), seemed utterly impossible now it is very easy. If I had beaten the game in an afternoon I would have it forgotten long ago. That's just one example.
One of my favorite games of all time is Guitar Hero, even though I didn't beat the whole game but still did most of the max diff songs, which before seemed absolutely ludicrous.
https://xcom.fandom.com/wiki/Game_difficulty_(XCOM_2)
The only effect those modifiers seemed to have on the player base was, that inexperienced and learn-unwilling players take each and every potshot and run to the forum to vent, as the strategy fails with bonus as much as without.
The graphics are an abstraction of the actual battle.
(Also, the mechs themselves are substantially oversized in order to make them more visible on the map)