Nintendo Rewind Feature

[JPDunks4]

Agree or Disagree?

 

 

[Kal-El814]

LOL who cares. Disagree.

[AbsolutSurgen]

Disagree

[Biggie]

I’m confused. I guess it’s because I would never use a rewind type feature in a game. So agree?

[atom631]

What does the feature actually allow you to  do?

 

If you die, aren’t you essentially “rewinding” back to being alive anyway?

[Paperclyp]

This is one of those where he’s not necessarily wrong, but the whole point of the tweet is some gate keepy, penis measuring contest bullshit that I cannot stand, and it attracted all the types of people you’d expect it to.

[Paperclyp]

50 minutes ago, atom631 said:

What does the feature actually allow you to  do?

 

If you die, aren’t you essentially “rewinding” back to being alive anyway?

The rewind feature in a lot of games allows you to rewind even a few seconds back and just replay troublesome sections over and over rather than have to progress through the entire section / level again like the old days. 
 

As this super pleasant gentleman puts it, people who do that have the reward of finishing the game handed to them “on a silver platter,” thus not “earning” it.  

[Brian]

Disagree. Play how you want and enjoy.  #GameGenie4life

 

[AbsolutSurgen]

1 hour ago, Paperclyp said:

This is one of those where he’s not necessarily wrong, but the whole point of the tweet is some gate keepy, penis measuring contest bullshit that I cannot stand, and it attracted all the types of people you’d expect it to.

 

44 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

The rewind feature in a lot of games allows you to rewind even a few seconds back and just replay troublesome sections over and over rather than have to progress through the entire section / level again like the old days. 
 

As this super pleasant gentleman puts it, people who do that have the reward of finishing the game handed to them “on a silver platter,” thus not “earning” it.  

I agree with you.  Games are not an e-penis competition.

Older games were made harder for a variety of reasons:

1)  They were limited by the amount of content they could contain, so they were made harder so it would take longer to beat. (i.e. adding value for money)

2)  Arcade games were made harder to suck in more quarters.  This carried into their home versions.

They weren't always made that difficult because the designers thought that this would make "the best (i.e. most enjoyable) game".

[Keyser_Soze]

No different than using a save state, just more immediate 

You beat the game, just not the natural way.

And I also don’t really care 🤷🏼‍♀️

[SimpleG]

You never really learned to drive a car unless you drove with it out power steering

You never really have gone camping unless you started a camp fire by hand with 2 sticks

You cant call your self a hunter unless you have taken down a grizzly with just your knife

 

 

"I went sailing last week"

"Did you use only compass and the stars to navigate"

"No its called Marine GPS"

"Then you really didnt go sailing"

 

[JPDunks4]

It's really not that serious, but I do think it brings up an interesting discussion.

 

If the next gen consoles or Steam implement a system level rewind feature, how would that make many of the Dark Souls difficulty defenders feel?

 

Weren't many on this board adament defenders of From Software being able to make a game experience how they saw fit.  

 

A rewind feature virtually eliminates difficulty from all games.

[Paperclyp]

3 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

It's really not that serious, but I do think it brings up an interesting discussion.

 

If the next gen consoles or Steam implement a system level rewind feature, how would that make many of the Dark Souls difficulty defenders feel?

 

Weren't many on this board adament defenders of From Software being able to make a game experience how they saw fit.  

 

A rewind feature virtually eliminates difficulty from all games.

These are not the same issue. 
 

The debate about From is whether or not they should include a way to make their games more accessible. We can have that discussion, but it’s definitely not the same thing as using a feature that was retrofitted on to older games to allow for people to rewind. 
 

Let’s say in 15 years they put out dark souls and it has a rewind feature. You could say that people who use it didn’t really “beat” the game, but that would be just kind of a silly thing to worry about, and frankly would make you kind of an asshole. 
 

It’s akin to walking by strangers playing pool without the rule of if the 8 ball goes in you automatically lose and making them acutely aware that they didn’t really experience pool. Again, in some semantic way you are correct, but mostly you’re an asshole. 

[SimpleG]

16 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

If the next gen consoles or Steam implement a system level rewind feature, how would that make many of the Dark Souls difficulty defenders feel?

I love me some dark souls but I could give a fuck less how anyone else plays the game.

 

18 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

Weren't many on this board adament defenders of From Software being able to make a game experience how they saw fit.

Yup but that discussion isnt the same as this one so why bring it up?

19 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

A rewind feature virtually eliminates difficulty from all games.

Yup and ?

[JPDunks4]

25 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

The debate about From is whether or not they should include a way to make their games more accessible. We can have that discussion, but it’s definitely not the same thing as using a feature that was retrofitted on to older games to allow for people to rewind. 
 

Let’s say in 15 years they put out dark souls and it has a rewind feature. You could say that people who use it didn’t really “beat” the game, but that would be just kind of a silly thing to worry about, and frankly would make you kind of an asshole. 

 

 

17 minutes ago, SimpleG said:

Yup but that discussion isnt the same as this one so why bring it up?

 

I'm asking a question, if PS5/XSX and Steam implemented a system level rewind feature for all games, so a company like From Software loses it's ability to dictate the difficulty of their own game, would anyone have issue with that?  Based on the responses in previous threads, I'd assume many wouldn't like that.

 

If Dark Souls 4 comes out next year with a mandated system level rewind feature, does that take away from From Softwares work or experience they intended players to have?

 

[Paperclyp]

Just now, JPDunks4 said:

 

 

I'm asking a question, if PS5/XSX and Steam implemented a system level rewind feature for all games, so a company like From Software loses it's ability to dictate the difficulty of their own game, would anyone have issue with that?  Based on the responses in previous threads, I'd assume many wouldn't like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Would some people take issue with it? Of course, especially the gate keeping dudes like the guy this thread is about. This is exactly the scenario I presented to you in my post you just quoted though. 
 

I was one who doesn’t have an issue with From not including multiple difficultly modes, and again we can have that discussion if you want to, but it’s not the same as a system level rewind feature (which just to be clear I think would literally break a From game if implemented from a system level as currently constructed). 
 

So we either need to discuss why that’s different (I’m not sure you’re understanding that it’s different?) or if you have a different point you’re just not surfacing it’d be good to hear it.

[SimpleG]

2 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

I'm asking a question, if PS5/XSX and Steam implemented a system level rewind feature for all games, so a company like From Software loses it's ability to dictate the difficulty of their own game, would anyone have issue with that?  Based on the responses in previous threads, I'd assume many wouldn't like that.

As long I can choose to play the game as From designed it , I dont care how anyone else does it.

 

5 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

If Dark Souls 4 comes out next year with a mandated system level rewind feature, does that take away from From Softwares work?

Nope

[JPDunks4]

14 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

Would some people take issue with it? Of course, especially the gate keeping dudes like the guy this thread is about. This is exactly the scenario I presented to you in my post you just quoted though. 
 

I was one who doesn’t have an issue with From not including multiple difficultly modes, and again we can have that discussion if you want to, but it’s not the same as a system level rewind feature (which just to be clear I think would literally break a From game if implemented from a system level as currently constructed). 
 

So we either need to discuss why that’s different (I’m not sure you’re understanding that it’s different?) or if you have a different point you’re just not surfacing it’d be good to hear it.

 

I pivoted the discussion around the idea of having system level cheats built in.  I understand having them in Retro Consoles just to add something to the experience of playing those old games is seen basically as a bonus feature and fun.  I just got me thinking, what if they built those same features into current or next gen consoles, for current and upcoming games.  

 

I personally don't think I'd ever use it, but would the existence of it be an issue for anyone.  I personally just felt like it did compare to the From Software debates.  The arguments were typically should they include easier game modes that would make the game more accessible for all players, and many argued no, they wanted the game to be that hard and beating it and learning to progress through them was part of the experience.  Well a system level feature essentially takes the control out of From Softwares hands and forces an easy mode into the game. 

 

So no, I'm not really talking about the original post.  My personal feeling is that gaming shouldn't be treated differently than any other activity.  If I had infinite mulligans at a local golf course, could I still claim I hit a -18 and that's my record.  Could I claim to have hit 100 3 pointers in a row while ignoring the fact I actually missed a lot along the way, but "rewinded" back to correct the mistake.  Why would gaming be different where I can claim to have accomplished something with a "cheat" on without specifying?

 

I don't care if people choose to use a rewind feature to enjoy and experience the games as they see fit.  But I also think if you claim to accomplish something, there should be a merit to that accomplishment.

[Paperclyp]

5 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

I personally don't think I'd ever use it, but would the existence of it be an issue for anyone.  I personally just felt like it did compare to the From Software debates.  The arguments were typically should they include easier game modes that would make the game more accessible for all players, and many argued no, they wanted the game to be that hard and beating it and learning to progress through them was part of the experience.  

Ok so this part is wide-ranging. 

 

There was a wide swath of arguments about this and I think even between two people who agree that there should or should not be difficulty variations of the game would have differing opinions on why. 

 

Broadly I think many people were arguing that From should not feel compelled to include difficulty options and that they should make the game they want to make. I'll say that, broadly, I agree with that. I think there was an extreme on the other side of the argument that feels (or pretends to believe, I'm not sure which) that all games should be accessible to all people, and that's just not something I can get on board with from an developer specific level. To me, the way From designed the games, especially before their style blew up into the mainstream, was dictated by making them difficult and by NOT including difficulty levels. But the thing is with that, this is a sidebar, shit changes over time. I think its reasonable to believe they could certainly include difficulty levels in their upcoming games without sacrificing their vision for the overall design. My stance on it was always just that I didn't want them to feel like they NEEDED to do that to please or appease a group of people. 

 

There's also a more personal level to this, where it took me several attempts through demon souls, an attempt of dark souls, and finally my attempt at Dark Souls 2 before the series finally clicked with me. When it clicked, it became one of my favorite gaming series of all time. It's very possible that had I been able to knock the difficulty down in Demons Souls, I might not have had the same experience. And I think this idea is where the people who are not making this argument in bad faith are coming from. I'm not trying to discount that idea, but at the same time there are millions of people out there who honestly could give two shits about something like that but are still very interested in participating in these games, and their experience matters too. 

 

15 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

Well a system level feature essentially takes the control out of From Softwares hands and forces an easy mode into the game. 

It does, but if this were to happen it would come with a lot of caveats. Like, the game wouldn't be available to play online, which would strip a lot of the features from the game. Which is fine. 

 

25 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

So no, I'm not really talking about the original post.  My personal feeling is that gaming shouldn't be treated differently than any other activity.  If I had infinite mulligans at a local golf course, could I still claim I hit a -18 and that's my record.  Could I claim to have hit 100 3 pointers in a row while ignoring the fact I actually missed a lot along the way, but "rewinded" back to correct the mistake.  Why would gaming be different where I can claim to have accomplished something with a "cheat" on without specifying?

That's the thing though it's not different, but who is walking around saying they hit a -18 at a golf course? The original twitter post presents this fictional character to get mad at. And let's say it's less extreme than that and experience two versions of a conversation: 

 

Version one

 

Guy one: Hey I beat Mega Man 2!

 

Guy two: Hmmm, really. Did you do it all the way without like the rewind feature? 

 

Guy one: Oh, no, I used the rewind feature on a few parts.

 

Guy two: Oh, so you really didn't beat the game then, huh? 

 

Guy one: I mean, I guess? I don't really want to hang out with you anymore. 

 

Version two

Guy one: Hey, I beat Mega Man 2!

 

Guy two: Cool! 

 

30 minutes ago, JPDunks4 said:

I don't care if people choose to use a rewind feature to enjoy and experience the games as they see fit.  But I also think if you claim to accomplish something, there should be a merit to that accomplishment.

So yeah, just to put a cap on this post, and this isn't really aimed at you specifically, it just strikes me as extremely odd and a little creepy that someone would be attempting to judge the merits of the accomplishment of beating an NES game, and bringing those people down a notch if they feel they haven't met their personal standard. 

[johnny]

Why would I care if somebody rewinds a single player game. I despise getting sent wayyyy back in progress because I died. Call it lazy or whatever you want but I don’t find it worth my time to sludge my way through a section several times just to get to the one part I have trouble with. Some people like having challenges where that’s a consequence and that’s fine. I don’t really enjoy it. 
 

like a game that has a long ass mission, you fail at the end of it, so they make you do the whoooooole mission over again. Fuck off. 

[Moa]

Imagine having so little to be proud of that you tweet about other people not really beating NES games.

[Xbob42]

I mean if you want to get philosophical about it, no developer can ever truly dictate the difficulty of their game because there are an insane number of variables for every player during every play session (how much sleep they had, if they're hungry or have to pee, is there glare on the screen, are they distracted by some real life thing, do they have all the digits required to actually play the game, how familiar are they with the genre, are they having trouble with the controls, individual skill level, whether the person is on a platform that allows cheating programs to work, the fucking internet, etc) and that alone can be just as dramatic of a change in difficulty of a game depending on the severity of the issue.

 

In the end, who gives a fuck? It's not on From Software to dictate how my system works or how it might interact with their game, just how their game works. If there's a feature that lets me break their game, boo-fucking-hoo. They'd need to focus on making their game as high quality as possible and trusting that most people would play it the "intended" way, not that the argument even makes much sense since the game is basically always online and has PvP, so rewind wouldn't work anymore than pausing does, although I understand the comparison.

 

From Software should not be forced to make their games easier, but they also should not be able to force whether or not users can have useful system level features (or features by law) that make the game easier. Those are NOT the same thing.

[Kal-El814]

17 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

In the end, who gives a fuck?

ME. If you save in any game you are a coward.

[Keyser_Soze]

3 hours ago, SimpleG said:

You cant call your self a hunter unless you have taken down a grizzly with just your knife

 

Why you gotta call Apoc out like that?

[skillzdadirecta]

44 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

There's also a more personal level to this, where it took me several attempts through demon souls, an attempt of dark souls, and finally my attempt at Dark Souls 2 before the series finally clicked with me. When it clicked, it became one of my favorite gaming series of all time. It's very possible that had I been able to knock the difficulty down in Demons Souls, I might not have had the same experience.

 

So for me this is kind of the point and the genius of From's design philosophy vis-a-vis the Soulsbourne games. The whole POINT of those games is to learn by dying... those games build a specific kind of tension and gameplay experience that is very deliberate and by design. They're very similar to the 8-bit games of old in that regard in that there is very little hand holding and that perseverance is rewarded when you finally overcome a difficult section. I recently played through Darks Souls and when I beat Ornstein and Smough it evoked a feeling in me that I hadn't felt since the 8 and 16 bit days. The Souls games even allow you to "cheat" by summoning more powerful and experienced NPC'S and other players... this is balanced out by the threat of getting invaded. The designers of the Souls games have a very specific experience in mind and THAT'S why an "easy mode" would essentially break the game. What are you left with then? The narrative in the game is very obtuse and they make you work for that as well. Removing the difficulty in a From Software game (which to be honest, aren't that hard to begin with) robs the persistent player of the experience YOU yourself describe here.

 

Quote

And I think this idea is where the people who are not making this argument in bad faith are coming from. I'm not trying to discount that idea, but at the same time there are millions of people out there who honestly could give two shits about something like that but are still very interested in participating in these games, and their experience matters too. 

 

Not everything is for everybody and every experience doesn't need to be "accessible". Not all works of art are and if we are going to regard gaming as an artform then designers need to be able to make the games they want the WAY they want without having to "dumb down" the experience for folks who want to be in on the conversation but don't want to put in the work. It's not like there aren't plenty of other options for those gamers to experience. If they don't want to put the time in to these games to play them the way the designers intended, the why should the designer compromise their vision to accommodate them especially when it ruins the experience the designer is going for?

 

Quote

 

That's the thing though it's not different, but who is walking around saying they hit a -18 at a golf course? The original twitter post presents this fictional character to get mad at. And let's say it's less extreme than that and experience two versions of a conversation: 

 

Version one

 

Guy one: Hey I beat Mega Man 2!

 

Guy two: Hmmm, really. Did you do it all the way without like the rewind feature? 

 

Guy one: Oh, no, I used the rewind feature on a few parts.

 

Guy two: Oh, so you really didn't beat the game then, huh? 

 

Guy one: I mean, I guess? I don't really want to hang out with you anymore. 

 

Version two

Guy one: Hey, I beat Mega Man 2!

 

Guy two: Cool! 

 

 

So i've had a variation of this conversation a couple of times in my experience gaming, specifically with folks (Like my younger brother and an old co-worker) who liked to use cheat codes and game genies. In my version the conversation went more like this..

 

ME: Hey did you finally finish (insert game here)

 

THEM: Oh yeah... took me awhile but yeah I beat it the other night. 

 

ME: So what did you think?

 

THEM: It was okay... Got a little boring towards the end and I couldn't wait for it to be over.

 

ME: Really? I enjoyed it from start to finish. I like challenging games... you thought it was boring?

 

THEM: Yeah I didn't deal with that, I dropped the game to easy/used cheat code and played the game that way.

 

ME:  

 

For me it's less about bragging rights and more about being able to accurately discuss game based on its merits. It's like discussing a book with someone who has only read the cliff notes or discussing a movie with some one who only watched bits and pieces of it (Another friend used to do this shit ALL of the time)

Games should be played however you want to, but I think there are caveats when folks offer an opinion on a game when they didn't play it the way it was intended 

[Xbob42]

5 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

The designers of the Souls games have a very specific experience in mind and THAT'S why an "easy mode" would essentially break the game. What are you left with then?

If all you got out of the Souls games is that "they're super duper hard" then I think the only one here missing out on an intended experience is you.

[skillzdadirecta]

48 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

If all you got out of the Souls games is that "they're super duper hard" then I think the only one here missing out on an intended experience is you.

Sigh... First of all, I don't even think they're "Super duper hard" as I said in my post.  Did you just get to that point in my post and stop reading? They are just "harder" than most other modern games because they don't hold your hand and they incorporate real consequence for dying. The games require more patience than anything else... and pattern recognition. The exploration and lore are part of it, but the big appeal of the games is coming up with different builds to suit your play style to overcome the challenges in the game. Do you think for one second that if you took away the "difficulty" of these games they would have caught on the way they did? I would argue they wouldn't, Nobody is playing the Souls games "for the story". I would also argue that Miyazaki has a specific experience he has in mind when he designs these games and part of that experience is challenging the player. If you don't want to experience the game in that way, that's fine but it kinda makes your opinion about the game a little moot. That's my point. I really don't give a shit how people consume their games. I do get irked when people offer half baked opinions on shit when they have no idea WTF they're talking about.

[Paperclyp]

1 hour ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Not everything is for everybody and every experience doesn't need to be "accessible". Not all works of art are and if we are going to regard gaming as an artform then designers need to be able to make the games they want the WAY they want without having to "dumb down" the experience for folks who want to be in on the conversation but don't want to put in the work. It's not like there aren't plenty of other options for those gamers to experience. If they don't want to put the time in to these games to play them the way the designers intended, the why should the designer compromise their vision to accommodate them especially when it ruins the experience the designer is going for?

I think I explicitly said that I don’t think every game needs to be for every person. 

[Xbob42]

1 hour ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Sigh... First of all, I don't even think they're "Super duper hard" as I said in my post.  Did you just get to that point in my post and stop reading? They are just "harder" than most other modern games because they don't hold your hand and they incorporate real consequence for dying. 

You essentially said an easy mode would leave the game with nothing. i.e. "If there was an easy mode, what would even be left?" or in other words "If it's not hard, is there even anything left?" And to that I say absolutely! 

[skillzdadirecta]

22 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

I think I explicitly said that I don’t think every game needs to be for every person. 

Sure but you also said this

 

Quote

I'm not trying to discount that idea, but at the same time there are millions of people out there who honestly could give two shits about something like that but are still very interested in participating in these games, and their experience matters too. 

 

Now maybe I'm misunderstanding what you meant, to me it seems you're saying that there are people out there who want to experience the Souls games without the difficulty, and the point I was making then maybe they don't REALLY want to experience the souls games then. Like maybe the games despite their popularity are not meant for those types of gamers. Which I think is fine. I'd be curious to find out what the percentage is of gamers who bought the Souls games is vs the people who actually played through them.

13 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

You essentially said an easy mode would leave the game with nothing. i.e. "If there was an easy mode, what would even be left?" or in other words "If it's not hard, is there even anything left?" And to that I say absolutely! 

 

No... what I said was THIS:

 

2 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

The designers of the Souls games have a very specific experience in mind and THAT'S why an "easy mode" would essentially break the game. What are you left with then? The narrative in the game is very obtuse and they make you work for that as well. Removing the difficulty in a From Software game (which to be honest, aren't that hard to begin with) robs the persistent player of the experience YOU yourself describe here.

 

I then further expanding on the point I was trying to make with this:

 

1 hour ago, skillzdadirecta said:

The exploration and lore are part of it, but the big appeal of the games is coming up with different builds to suit your play style to overcome the challenges in the game.

Miyazaki designed these games in way that encouraged experimentation and rewarded persistence and exploration. Watering that stuff down, in my opinion, defeats the ultimate point of the games in the first place. Why would they do that, especially when there are plenty of games on the market that cater to those sensibilities? It makes sense to include an easy mode in RPG'S and Narrative driven games like Jedi Fallen Order because there are gamers who legit want to just kick back and enjoy the story in those games. Narrative and lore are secondary concerns in the Soul's games to gameplay and exploration. Dumbing those down in games like this kinda defeats the point of the game.

It's like someone playing one of those "Bullet hell" shooters with an invincibility code because they want to "See how the story turns out"  To me, that's the equivalent of drinking non-alcoholic beer... I mean you're drinking something that kinda tastes like beer...

[Paperclyp]

@skillzdadirecta I’m saying that in a world where there were planned difficulty tiers that didn’t affect the design of the game, be it Dark Souls or something else, people who chose to experience a game on a lower difficulty have just as much right to doing that as those who want a challenge. 
 

I think I’ve made it pretty clear on how I feel about a developer making the choices they want to make, so you’re barking up the wrong tree there. 
 

I do find your hypothetical conversation to be in the spirit of what I find to be absurd and gate keepy. 
 

It keeps getting couched with “play games however you want, I don’t care,” but it really means, “I very much care about how you play your game.” 

[skillzdadirecta]

17 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

@skillzdadirecta I’m saying that in a world where there were planned difficulty tiers that didn’t affect the design of the game, be it Dark Souls or something else, people who chose to experience a game on a lower difficulty have just as much right to doing that as those who want a challenge. 
 

I think I’ve made it pretty clear on how I feel about a developer making the choices they want to make, so you’re barking up the wrong tree there. 
 

I do find your hypothetical conversation to be in the spirit of what I find to be absurd and gate keepy. 
 

It keeps getting couched with “play games however you want, I don’t care,” but it really means, “I very much care about how you play your game.” 

How so? There's a difference in riding a bike and riding a bike with training wheels. I mean you're both in the seat and both riding a long, but if a third party came along and asked both of you the merits of riding a bike, who's in more of a position to accurately describe it? The guy who took the time to learn how to ride or the one who clearly couldn't be bothered? There's nothing gate keepy about saying some one who invested more time into a specific activity may be in a position to more accurately assess the merits of that activity. And again, I really don't give a shit how anyone plays their game as I said. But I'd like to think if you're giving me an opinion about the game, you at least PLAYED the game the way it was intended to be played. Let me ask you this, I don't know how you feel about game reviewers, but if you found out some one used god mode or a cheat to playthrough a game and then reviewed that game, would you trust that review? Is that person the person best qualified to speak about the plusses and minuses of the game? I'm seriously asking. 

My position boils down to this, if you are playing a game in a way the designers didn't intend, then I don't believe you really experienced the game. Sure you may have seen all of the content, but you probably cheated yourself out of a similar experience you described yourself having when you took the time to really get into the Souls games and if that's the case, you probably are not the person in the best position to critique said game. That's all 

 

Planned difficulty tiers are different than introducing rewind mechanics in a game that didn't have them initially.

[Paperclyp]

25 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

How so? There's a difference in riding a bike and riding a bike with training wheels. I mean you're both in the seat and both riding a long, but if a third party came along and asked both of you the merits of riding a bike, who's in more of a position to accurately describe it? The guy who took the time to learn how to ride or the one who clearly couldn't be bothered? There's nothing gate keepy about saying some one who invested more time into a specific activity may be in a position to more accurately assess the merits of that activity. And again, I really don't give a shit how anyone plays their game as I said. But I'd like to think if you're giving me an opinion about the game, you at least PLAYED the game the way it was intended to be played. Let me ask you this, I don't know how you feel about game reviewers, but if you found out some one used god mode or a cheat to playthrough a game and then reviewed that game, would you trust that review? Is that person the person best qualified to speak about the plusses and minuses of the game? I'm seriously asking. 

My position boils down to this, if you are playing a game in a way the designers didn't intend, then I don't believe you really experienced the game. Sure you may have seen all of the content, but you probably cheated yourself out of a similar experience you described yourself having when you took the time to really get into the Souls games and if that's the case, you probably are not the person in the best position to critique said game. That's all 

Again, you guys are inventing an absurd world where people are going around bragging about beating nintendo games or people are coming up to you and asking about the merits of riding a bike. Nobody is asking these people who play games on easier difficulty levels to be authorities on the intricacies of the game. They likely are not interested in even participating in that. They’re playing the game, enjoying it, and now being told that experience wasn’t as good as it could have been for them. It’s absurd. 
 

If a reviewer cheated or didn’t invest time in a game, I expect them to share that information, and then their opinion from there is as valid as anyone else’s. I’ve heard plenty opinions from people who have invested hours upon hours in certain games, and many of those (opinions) are pretty trash as well. 
 

25 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Planned difficulty tiers are different than introducing rewind mechanics in a game that didn't have them initially.

I essentially made this point 3-4 times to start this thread lol. 

[skillzdadirecta]

18 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

Again, you guys are inventing an absurd world where people are going around bragging about beating nintendo games or people are coming up to you and asking about the merits of riding a bike. Nobody is asking these people who play games on easier difficulty levels to be authorities on the intricacies of the game. They likely are not interested in even participating in that. They’re playing the game, enjoying it, and now being told that experience wasn’t as good as it could have been for them. It’s absurd

 

 

First, who is "You guys?" I'm not even talking about the Nintendo game thing... I was mainly talking about the Souls games. Second, if you think folks don't do EXACTLY what you described then go into the Jedi Fallen Order thread... There were guys in the routinely complaining about the combat and lack of depth thereof and then you found out they were playing easy mode or some shit. That scenario I described in my post was a REAL thing that happened that I paraphrased with a co-worker of mine who would buy every game that came out and routinely off his opinions on games that he either didn't play fully or he used cheat codes to get through. He never bothered to actually learn the game play.

 

18 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

I essentially made this point 3-4 times to start this thread lol. 

 

Yeah which is why I was agreeing with you... I even used your exact wording. The Souls games don't have difficulty levels BY DESIGN.

[Paperclyp]

7 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

First, who is "You guys?" I'm not even talking about the Nintendo game thing... I was mainly talking about the Souls games. Second, if you think folks don't do EXACTLY what you described then go into the Jedi Fallen Order thread... There were guys in the routinely complaining about the combat and lack of depth thereof and then you found out they were playing easy mode or some shit. That scenario I described in my post was a REAL thing that happened that I paraphrased with a co-worker of mine who would buy every game that came out and routinely off his opinions on games that he either didn't play fully or he used cheat codes to get through. He never bothered to actually learn the game play.

I can agree that if someone is making specific claims about the depth of a game and they haven’t actually attempted to learn about the systems, they are ill informed and should initially be nudged in the right direction and if they remain uninterested in learning from there yet remain assertive in their opinion, they are to be discounted. 
 

I think that’s getting away from the thread original topic and even the subsequent side discussion though.