Counterargument to "Get Good" When It Comes to Video Games & Difficulty

[act]

I've rapidly developed a little bit of a counterargument in the case that someone argues that a video game is bad because it's "too hard", and someone responds with "get good". Difficulty in a video game is like spice; if the video game is good, as in the food in the analogy is good, then the difficulty of the game will not matter. But in the case that the video game is bad, the difficulty (the proverbial spice) immediately comes to the forefront - as it's usually the least egregious of problems.

If the game was fundamentally good, then people would actively go out of their way to ignore the difficulty and continue to improve their skills with the game. However, if the game is bad, then players will be discouraged from improving, and subsequently notice issues with the difficultly of a game.

[Xcalibur]

That makes alot of sense. Also, the "just right" amount of difficulty varies between players, so it makes sense to have different game modes (easy, medium, hard). Some like to push it to the limit with kaizo hacks, which I'm fine with, but that will always be a niche interest, because most people can't get into such extreme challenge (myself included). An example of a good but difficult game is Battletoads. I've actually 1cc'd it, and it was alot of fun, with all sorts of variety, different ideas, control schemes etc. but man, it deserves its reputation for being relentless. The Japanese version is watered down quite a bit and is much more accessible. Ideally, Battletoads would've combined the Japanese & American versions into two different difficulty modes. American Battletoads is at the high end of difficulty without being kaizo, and some ppl enjoy that, but others would rather have a chill experience. So, there should be something for everyone.

 

Other than that, the only time "git gud" really applies is if the game is perfectly well-designed, and the player is just being lazy with a short attention-span. That applies sometimes, but not all the time.

[Murdoch]

I have another counter to "get good". I call it "get fucked".

[roadworx]

counterargument: don't get good, getting good is for weenies

Edited January 24, 2023 by roadworx

[Redneckerz]

1 hour ago, Murdoch said:

I have another counter to "get good". I call it "get fucked".

Just woke up and stayed for this post. A good start of the day, thanks.

[Professor Hastig]

If it just was so simple. I have seen games that were a chore to play on harder skills but blasting fun on the lower ones.

"Getting better" doesn't magically improve the fun factor of the harder skills because the added difficulty is done in a way that just makes the fun evaporate.

 

Blood is a good example where higher skills not only mean more enemies - which would  be fine - but also higher enemy health, which only adds to the grind the higher the skill level gets.

 

 

[Azuris]

7 hours ago, act said:

 difficulty and continue to improve their skills with the game. However, if the game is bad, then players will be discouraged from improving, and subsequently notice issues with the difficultly of a game.

 

The Problem with that is, that it assumes that Games should fit everyones Taste and this is just wrong, because this leads to Games that turn down their Specialization and with it often their Genre at all.

 

For Example: I like Strategy Games as Starcraft, i can play through the Camping but online? No Chance at all, it is not my Genre and it never will.

 

 

Many Games deliver you Difficulties to chose one that matches you, so also People that aren't as good it it can have fun.

But others just are there for their Audience.

 

To go with Food:  I don't like Liver, i don't like Licorice.

I never will, you can't change the Taste of it.

You have to bring me something else, but than it is no Liver, than it is a Steak or Choclate.

 

But i can't say that they should change it for everyone because it isn't my Taste.

They can enjoy their Liver and i will enjoy my Steak.

 

Noboy should assume that they must enjoy everything and that People should make it possible for them to enjoy.

[BGreener]

12 hours ago, act said:

I've rapidly developed a little bit of a counterargument in the case that someone argues that a video game is bad because it's "too hard", and someone responds with "get good". Difficulty in a video game is like spice; if the video game is good, as in the food in the analogy is good, then the difficulty of the game will not matter. But in the case that the video game is bad, the difficulty (the proverbial spice) immediately comes to the forefront - as it's usually the least egregious of problems.

If the game was fundamentally good, then people would actively go out of their way to ignore the difficulty and continue to improve their skills with the game. However, if the game is bad, then players will be discouraged from improving, and subsequently notice issues with the difficultly of a game.

 

Agreed entirely. I’ve been playing FromSoft action RPGs for awhile now, and have had plenty of exposure to this “become better at game LOL” crowd that fully reared it’s head once Dark Souls 1 blew up in popularity.

 

Some do it for simple, mostly harmless fun. Then there are those who don’t, who place way too much emphasis on the difficulty, and lose sight of what actually makes their game “good”. Those few can’t be reasoned with, like any typical internet troll.

[dasho]

The hard part of Dark Souls is thinking that some of the obtuse things are obvious if you just "pay attention to the lore," but sometimes an item description is like "In the olden days, people carried these trinkets for hope, but alas..." and somehow that means you were supposed to hit a hidden wall behind an off-color rat.

[MrFroz]

I was once told by someone I used to talk a lot about how I thought that the achievement most Metal Slug games on Steam have requiring to beat the entire game without using a single continue are in my opinion a load of bull crap. He replied to me with "get good" and nah, I think its just bogus.

[act]

11 hours ago, Murdoch said:

I have another counter to "get good". I call it "get fucked".

Gianni Matre...something I can't spell the last name: you found your new meme.

[vyruss]

I skirt the problem completely by not interacting with people in online gaming if I can help it thus making them unable to sound oh-so-clever, original and witty by using the same phrase 50% of the world population has used by now.

[act]

3 minutes ago, vyruss said:

I skirt the problem completely by not interacting with people in online gaming if I can help it thus making them unable to sound oh-so-clever, original and witty by using the same phrase 50% of the world population has used by now.

skill issue

[BoxY]

It's not good enough to merely find excuses for not playing better. To truly overcome the curse of tryharding, you have to actively practice playing worse.

[vyruss]

44 minutes ago, act said:

skill issue

beautiful.

Edited January 24, 2023 by vyruss

[hybridial]

I honestly do blame From's marketing for fostering this attitude and it sucks. The really dumb thing about this is the Souls games aren't even consistently very hard.

 

They have their moments, but in actuality the difficulty of them judging from playing 1 and 2 is extremely uneven, often offering no challenge at all as often as they do. I did not find them much fun or satisfying to finish partly because of this. I respected the exploration element but not the combat element. It was just tedious most of the time. If someone says the game wasn't fun for them, chances are that is exactly the case because they are not some perfect product that does no wrong. The difficulty has nothing to do with it. 

 

But ultimately it's about fun, it's about what someone looks for in a game, there are games that were hard that I enjoyed because of the gameplay. The fun I had was the reason I played, not the challenge. Given I play with a controller, I don't play Blood on a very high difficulty. I tried it once, I beat the first level... gave up pretty fast on the second. Wouldn't recommend it. Doom is often an interesting case. I beat Doom 1 and 2 on Ultraviolence, they're not that difficult but I felt the game experience was worse than Hurt Me Plenty, it's a tad more obnoxious to play. Getting into most other wads the difficulty shoots up so I wouldn't even bother with UV on the likes of Plutonia. I finished TNT Revilution, Back to Saturn X E1 and No End in Sight on Hurt Me Plenty. I finished Plutonia 2 on Not Too Rough. My experience of that told me I would not enjoy going any higher on that one in particular. Ironically most of the more reasonable maps I liked more were in the second half. Well... admittedly that might be a bit true of Plutonia itself. But my point is... it's best to find a comfort zone. If the game doesn't offer it, then it's fair to criticise it depending on the specifics, but it's also rarely worth bashing your head against it. 

[Mr. Freeze]

Counter-counter argument: Not every game wants to or needs to appeal to a mass audience. Difficulty is a natural barrier to entry. 

 

[act]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Freeze said:

Counter-counter argument: Not every game wants to or needs to appeal to a mass audience. Difficulty is a natural barrier to entry. 

 

Counter-counter-counter argument: This was never about "appealing to a mass audience". This was about a game being bad, a game also being difficult, and then critiquing the game - citing the difficulty as an issue, and having all critiques ignored from the old epic gaming adage of "Git gud".

[HeatedChocolate]

Ahem "Improve"

^(gottem)

[Helm]

to use the spicy food analogy: if you have a spicy food tolerance a lot more cuisine opens up, and it's more fun and less torture to explore the extremes. For those without a tolerance there are things that will literally murder you if you just wade in. Bad experiences shape us, some have natural tolerance to spice, some ramped up in a way that worked for them where the trauma was minimal, others just ate spicy food for 30 years and took the good with the bad. In any case, if you don't have the taste for it (yet) it's natural and normal for you to sometimes think that the people that do eat spice don't actually actually enjoy it, that they're just masochists, or that they're lying to themselves. We do this constantly to other people's lived experience, we treat it with suspicion because we don't share it. Thankfully it's also natural and normal to reflect on this behaviour and find it short-sighted. How can a person that can't take the heat tell if the food is actually balanced? First you enjoy the level of heat and then you see how it mixes with the rest of the flavour. Same with these fucked mapsets, only way to tell if it's balanced is to be good enough that it's balanced for you. If it's not, why UV?

Life is easier if one takes other people's interests in earnest, that they do actually enjoy what they proclaim to enjoy. That they worked up their heat tolerance and now only carolina reaper will do it for them. That they're excited for you to get your heat tolerance up, and that it doesn't have to be about machismo but rather expanding your taste buds. Doom has existed for 30 years and a lot of stuff is really spicy. If you build up your tolerance with practice, you get to taste some of the really spicy stuff, but there will be always even spicier stuff that real enthusiasts get to savor. What a horrible predicament to be in, right, all these decades of free community content spanning all skill levels just sitting there, waiting for us to get to practice :P

[BGreener]

49 minutes ago, hybridial said:

I honestly do blame From's marketing for fostering this attitude and it sucks. The really dumb thing about this is the Souls games aren't even consistently very hard.

 

A lot of that could also be attributed to their publisher, Bandai-Namco. Pre-order starter gear, giving streamers the game a month in advance, the introduction of season passes, day-one strategy guides - it’s hard to tell who was entirely in charge of these decisions, but next to none of this was in Bloodborne, a non-Bamco published game.

 

The developer also seems to have built up enough clout to where they don’t have to do any of this as much.

[LexiMax]

1. People who play games should not be obligated to "Get Gud" at a game just to enjoy it.
2. Games should not be obligated to appeal to gamers of all skill levels.
3. People who play hard games are not superior to people who don't.
4. There's nothing wrong with a hard game gaining functionality to make it easier, either in a patch, in a sequel, or through cheating, to make the game easier.  As long as it makes the game enjoyable for the player, it's valid.

Or, put another way:

1. It's okay to dislike a game because it's too hard.
2. It's okay for a game to be hard and not be accessible to all skill levels.
3. You're not better than a game journalist because you beat Dark Souls.
4. There's nothing wrong with a Dark Souls sequel getting an "Easy" mode.

Edited January 24, 2023 by AlexMax

[Graf Zahl]

Since it bears on this discussion:

 

I have made a Revenant replacement mod that I use increasingly often with modern map sets that treat Revenants as lower tier enemies.

I have no desire to "get gud" at fighting hordes of Revenants - I find them supremely un-fun to fight in general and for me those map sets are more enjoyable without them - not because it's easier but because I find fighting against more balanced enemies more fun.

 

There's also games/map sets which I have beaten at a higher skill level but prefer to play them on a lower one, because it feels overall more balanced and less stressful.

 

With that being said, I find any discussion that somehow implies that lower skill levels are akin to "selling out" supremely dumb because it ignores that not all potential players are equal. In the end most publishers want to maximize their audience - and with experts-only skill settings that's simply not doable.

 

[Wilster_Wonkels]

respond with their exact home address and phone number

[Rudolph]

"It's just a game."

[Noiser]

That can be easily solved by using skill levels. That way everyone is happy, I guess.

Having easy as an option is great for people who are less skilled or have special needs and I will always advocate for acessibility on any media - that said, I hate when games are compulsorily easy to appeal for a mass audience (which is something that really happens). Having options for everyone - including those who prefer an extra challenge - is always a good thing. I find medium-to-hard games thriling and they can be a good exercise for the brain.
 

Spoiler

Also, devs... can I just ask you to not remove lives from old games like Sonic? That's just weird lol. Thanks.

Edited January 24, 2023 by Noiser

[hybridial]

37 minutes ago, Noiser said:

 

  Hide contents

Also, devs... can I just ask you to not remove lives from old games like Sonic? That's just weird lol. Thanks.

 

No, the lives mechanic always sucked and always needed to go. It's nothing more than an archaic equivalent to arcade games demanding hard cash but limiting someone's playtime with a game and forcing to start over after x tries never made any sense in game design outside of arcades and at the end of the day, that was pretty aggressive monetisation, only really justified by the expensive tech involved.  Outside of that context it never did and it only ever denigrated games that could have been so much better with out, that is going to be my controversial statement for the thread :P

 

As a choice, an optional way to play, go nuts, but that's a different matter. 

Edited January 24, 2023 by hybridial

[Noiser]

21 hours ago, hybridial said:

No, the lives mechanic always sucked and always needed to go. It's nothing more than an archaic equivalent to arcade games demanding hard cash but limiting someone's playtime with a game and forcing to start over after x tries never made any sense in game design outside of arcades and at the end of the day, that was pretty aggressive monetisation, only really justified by the expensive tech involved.  Outside of that context it never did and it only ever denigrated games that could have been so much better with out, that is going to be my controversial statement for the thread :P

If that was true, there would be no lives on console games of that time, like Mario or Sonic - which doesn't have monetary gain on the player's death. It's true that arcades did it for the reason you said, but console games no. Lives have a reason to exist, it's a way of giving consequences for dying. And in my pov, a game where you can't lose is not a game.

But hey, If you want lives out I'm fine with that option. Still, just removing it on games that was designed for it sucks imo.

Edited January 25, 2023 by Noiser

[hybridial]

58 minutes ago, Noiser said:

If that was true, there would be no lives on console games of that time, like Mario or Sonic 

 

It's true, it's just at the time, consoles were still new, game design for home retail was in it's infancy, and so the lives system was conceived because it was *similar* to the arcades. The fact of the matter is lives fell by the wayside for a reason, and today, even intentionally retro designed games generally don't utilise lives and continues in the same manner.

 

Even say, Blazing Chrome, Contra clone extraodinaire, saves your progress between levels. It does operate on continues and lives within levels, but even that game has no actual game over, which I define as a game ripping all progress from you, and it's one of the most stringent modern takes on a classic 8bit/16 bit series. 

 

And honestly if your game isn't going to have Game Over(absolutely the right decision), it ultimately questions the point of having lives at all.

Edited January 24, 2023 by hybridial

[Individualised]

3 hours ago, Graf Zahl said:

Since it bears on this discussion:

 

I have made a Revenant replacement mod that I use increasingly often with modern map sets that treat Revenants as lower tier enemies.

I have no desire to "get gud" at fighting hordes of Revenants - I find them supremely un-fun to fight in general and for me those map sets are more enjoyable without them - not because it's easier but because I find fighting against more balanced enemies more fun.

 

There's also games/map sets which I have beaten at a higher skill level but prefer to play them on a lower one, because it feels overall more balanced and less stressful.

 

With that being said, I find any discussion that somehow implies that lower skill levels are akin to "selling out" supremely dumb because it ignores that not all potential players are equal. In the end most publishers want to maximize their audience - and with experts-only skill settings that's simply not doable.

 

I have a Revenant sprite and sound replacement wad that simply serves to cheer me up every time I fight one.

1 hour ago, Noiser said:

If that was true, there would be no lives on console games of that time, like Mario or Sonic - which doesn't have monetary gain on the player's death. It's true that arcade did it for the reason you said, but console games no. Lives have a reason to exist, it's a way to give consequences for dying. And in my pov, a game where you can't lose is not a game.

But hey, If you want lives out I'm fine with that option. Still, just removing it on games that was designed for it sucks imo.

Nah, the only reason console/portable/mobile games have lives was simply due to most early console games either being conversions of arcade games or stylised after them, and it just became practice from there. I otherwise do agree with you though, I think lives systems encourage the player to become better at the game. (also they can technically extend your time first playing through the game so I mean you're technically getting more of your money's worth lmao)

Edited January 24, 2023 by Individualised