cryocore wrote:Fargol wrote:to cryocore ....
Nice attitude.
So why are you against adding OPTIONS to render CERTAIN PARTS of the game (i.e. timed puzzles) more forgiving?
It DOES NOT affect YOUR game. As a matter of fact, it isn't your game, and anyone who paid for it has EVERY RIGHT to make requests of the development team, provided they do so in a polite and civil manner, which people have done in this thread.
Because its the typical PC pandering that slowly erodes complexity and challenge.
This is non-responsive. It's an option. Don't want it? Don't use it.
The timed puzzles were designed to offer a specific challenge, the combat is designed to offer a specific challenge. People inability to cope/deal with them is the players fault/issue asking a developer to completely rewrite a specific part of the game only because certain individuals are incapable of meeting the set challenge is frankly idiotic.
Spoken like someone who is not one of those individuals.
It's not idiotic at all. A game which can be tuned to challenge different players is providing a richer experience for more people. More happy customers => more money.
Should we lower college requirements so that its easier for people to get in just because they lack the intelligence or drive to meet the current requirement?
Boy, that's totally comparable, because people use whether or not you completed a given game to decide whether you are qualified to do a particular job.
Note, BTW, that many colleges now provide substantial support services for people with localized disabilities. There are people who are pretty smart, and can do the work, but need a hand with some aspect of it.
Should we remove certain words or phrases from movies/TV shows because some people dont understand them?
Should we make it easier to pass exams just because some people struggle?
Should we lower the requirements for passing your drivers licence because some people struggle and will never pass?
The first of these... you do realize, don't you, that most movies and TV shows are carefully written down to a very large degree already?
The second: Both of these result in
harm to other people. We get diluted qualifications, or dangerous people on the roads. Those are actual problems which affect other people!
Should we decrease difficulty because some people cant cope with it?
This, by contrast, simply has
no effect at all on the people who don't decide to use that option. Sure, it "costs development time" -- and also brings in
funding. Broader appeal is often a very good way to fund development.
The issue I have is that people are asking for something to be removed/made easier because they are unable/unwilling to meet the challenge set. Not due to poor implementation, not due to it being broken, but because its too difficult. It was designed to be difficult its not the games failure its a failure of the player.
Gosh, you sure are a lot better than all those people who aren't able to play this game as well as you can. Can I have your babies? It's part of my eugenics program to cull the week and infirm, defined as "people who have trouble with twitch reflex games".
Sorry but its a game and not every game is made for everyone. If you cant deal with the challenge then this game was not meant for you regardless of any desire you might have to play it.
If some people miss out then why should I or anyone care?
Well, the
developer might care because those people would turn into non-customers. And thus not pay them money.
I am not arrogant or self-centred enough to even suggest that the designed complexity be reduced just to cater to my inability to play the game.
But you are arrogant and self-centered enough to demand that another game be kept at a level you like. Demanding no-change is no less demanding than demanding change.
If the game is too hard... too bad. Its your issue, deal with it yourself.
Yeah, see. This is a fascinating attitude that would doubtless be suitable if you were writing literature for art's sake with the intent that it be read by three or four critics and ignored by everyone else. It's a bad way to approach game design.
Thus far, I'm finding Grimrock pretty fun, although the puzzles are a little simple. But I am totally fine with the idea that people might prefer to have different settings. I mean, there's a reason games have difficulty settings; I don't see any reason for which it's perfectly acceptable to have a combat-damage-numbers setting, but not a puzzle-timing setting.