Installera Steam
logga in
|
språk
简体中文 (förenklad kinesiska)
繁體中文 (traditionell kinesiska)
日本語 (japanska)
한국어 (koreanska)
ไทย (thailändska)
Български (bulgariska)
Čeština (tjeckiska)
Dansk (danska)
Deutsch (tyska)
English (engelska)
Español - España (Spanska - Spanien)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanska - Latinamerika)
Ελληνικά (grekiska)
Français (franska)
Italiano (italienska)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesiska)
Magyar (ungerska)
Nederlands (nederländska)
Norsk (norska)
Polski (polska)
Português (Portugisiska – Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugisiska - Brasilien)
Română (rumänska)
Русский (ryska)
Suomi (finska)
Türkçe (turkiska)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamesiska)
Українська (Ukrainska)
Rapportera problem med översättningen
Diskussionsregler och -riktlinjer
Anmäl detta inlägg
If it were just me why does it seem like there is a strong consensus among both roguelike developers and players alike that these games are more fun if they are hard without easy mode?
What makes you belief that your opinion is any more objective than that of the people who create them?
Dead cells might have harder difficulties on top of it's normal difficulty but I would argue it still doesn't have an "easy" mode.
That's only true for cheatengine. When the gamedevlopers make changes to the game - it does literally affect my game unless I were to disable steam updates.
I wouldn't choose the easiest mode. I would choose the mode that suits me best. If you start a game with difficulty ranging from a walk in the park to your bones being substituted with bricks, you would (hopefully) pick a difficulty that you believe you can handle, and still feel challenged.
Playing on an easier difficulty would not guarantee that you would find every spell, unless they meant some kind of sandbox mode. I like the idea of a sandbox mode myself, but only with spells and perks that have already been found.
As this is a roguelike, have you not already played it several times over? Why would difficulty options change that?
Both series reduced and removed the unfairness from the early games as new ones came out, as lessons were learnt about what is fun and what is not. Seeking wider audiences probably made the games easier over the years, though.
Noita doesn't have to be difficult. Games can have stories and cutscenes while still being difficult.
Reloading saves would ruin it, as it would ruin just about any other roguelike. People generally savescum the fun out of games if there is an option to, seeking efficiency and perfection over fun.
Easy mode doesn't have to be non-challenging though, just less frustrating for those who can't handle Noita as it is now. There is nothing wrong with adding more options.
Of course, my Argument is the other way around - they can't afford to be beaten in an hour without a challenge unless they DO have great stories and cutscenes. Or Atmoshphere, highend-graphics etc.
What about the players who want to experience all content but not struggle to find it?
If you found a spell that's avaible only in lategame and immediately killed yourself - do you not think that experimenting with it in sandbox mode in all possible way wouldn't change the risk/reward and change your experience the next time you find it naturally?
An experience that I would argue is unique to roguelikes.
Why would it ruin them? Why can't people use savestates the way that suits their playstyle and what they consider fun best?
Never said it does. What is objective is that people have asked for it. The only objective reasons I can think of not to add it is developer time and money, and that never came up in your argument.
I never said they were less fun or more fun when difficult. You said that you would only play the game once, and that you would play the game on easy to learn the secrets. Those both apply mainly to you, not necessarily others. I love when roguelikes are difficult, I'm just saying that for those who don't want to struggle that much in the beginning, there isn't much reason not to give them the option
The dead cells thing may be accurate, so I agree that wasn't a great example on my part.
Adding an easy mode technically only affects you if you use it. So unless you plan on using it, it won't affect you. It only alters the experience for those who use it.
I can think of at least a few. Let's see if we can agree on one.
Do you think it's possible that people will leave negative steam reviews afterwards? From a developers point of view, would that qualify as an objective reason not to do it?
What is also an objective fact is that one of the highest ratest submissions on the Reddit community (It's on the first page if you search by Top) is people asking the developers not to lower the difficulty.
https://www.reddit.com/r/noita/comments/d9k2a9/an_appeal_to_the_devs_dont_nerf_the_difficulty/
It's a fair reason, but I feel that misses the point. If the normal game difficulty was lowered, I could understand why the developers wouldn't change it. That would almost certainly create negative reviews. I'm talking about options though. If you make a lower difficulty option, then it's the players fault for using it and then saying the game is too easy. Those who want the hard experience would just use the regular mode. I can't really imagine why any one would leave a negative review over adding options to the game.
The same applies to your reddit post. An option doesn't make the game any easier for them, it's a choice. They don't have to make it easier for themselves. If they want the normal noita experience, then all they have to do is pick the normal difficulty. For those who want it to be easier, they pick the easier difficulty. Now everyone has the option to play at the difficulty they want. Seems like a win win to me.
That said, game developers are allowed to have a specific vision of what their game oughta be like. Which is the kind of vague concept that creates a thousand different reasons - good reasons, bad reasons or non-reasons - for why they might do anything or everything or nothing.
Having to chug through two thirds of a run just for a chance at getting to experiment with a spell again is not ideal. Besides, spells are generally simple enough that a single use can explain all you need to know; pushing the limits in a sandbox mode/area would be some extra fun on top of that.
You yourself said: Can you elaborate?
In my opinion, savescumming lets people grind their heads against a near-impossible task in hopes of succeeding against all odds. Limiting saves to each holy mountain would be less bad than saving and reloading anywhere, but still not ideal for a roguelike. Reloading saves makes death meaningless, replacing the risks taken and challenges endured with time spent trying to perfect every step, every shot. This is subjective, of course.
You do notice that the poster of that thread says that options to make the game easier would be good, right? We aren't asking for the difficulty to be nerfed, only for easier options to exist.
I understand that in your suggestion there would be an option to continue playing the game as it is.
- but it would still ruin part of the appeal of this game to me. Some other users here said as much.
I'm convinced the developers think alike. Otherwise I can't see a reason why they wouldn't had implemented these settings to begin with. It certainly doesn't cost a lot of time or money to increase your starting health bar or let you start with a better wand. Or give you some life-reg, perhaps in the form of a unique perk.
Then either everyone else including the developers must be very irrational or your assessment is wrong.
I could.
But I want you to argue against settings YOU consider too easy and believe that players shouldn't have even the option to use.
If someone wants to make death negligible or better their odds they could just change the difficulty settings.
There will always be people asking for an even easier setting. If the devs cater to as many people as possible (since you are very favorable of giving players a choice...) this will in the end always be an option.
In a way a difficulty setting that's too easy is much worse than savestates. Because if you savescum you still have to overcome the next challenge. A lot of games with savepoints or quicksaves are still very challenging to beat!
I kind of just assumed it was either A: you're right, and they don't want difficulty settings or B: they haven't added them yet. Can't really see how it ruins the appeal for something completely optional that you never have to touch, but to each their own.
I personally don't see how it isn't a win win for everyone to have an option, but it doesn't really affect me so.
I'm very certain it's A) because this game really is brutal in it's difficulty. There is no way they let a friend, partner or family member play it and haven't been asked to make it easier.
If someone would offer you 500$ for every halfway reasonable reason they might have, do you think you could come up with some?
Amen I agree its gross and immature. However theres a lot of us who arent we just dont make as much noise.