xbob42's forum posts

#1 Posted by xbob42 (484 posts) -

@rotnac said:

As much appreciation that I have for this being a thing, it still won't get me into DOTA 2. The community itself is far from being noob friendly. They need to do a lot more than this to get rid of the intolerant assholes.

I don't play Dota 2 either, but joining a moba on your own is never a good idea. Brad did it the right way -- he played with friends that showed him what was what and didn't get mad at him. Randoms on the internet will always be assholes, it's not exclusive to moba titles -- it just flares up more there because those randoms are relying on someone who has no idea what they're doing.

Whether that's a realistically fixable problem without bringing in friends, I dunno, but you kind of get a team going with these games anyway, queuing up solo even if you're experienced seems miserable.

#2 Edited by xbob42 (484 posts) -

@freddiefiasco said:

@xbob42: You seem to hate Giant Bomb. That's fine. We all have differing opinions, but complaining rudely to other commenters about people who probably aren't going to read your comments is kind of fruitless, in addition to being off-topic and annoying to those who aren't so passionate about difficulty levels.

Now, if you're simply annoyed about this single issue and otherwise you deeply respect Giant Bomb as a whole, as I do, then how about you shoot Jeff a Comic Vine PM detailing your concerns so he may address the issue at length during one of his fantastic Jar Time videos.

I don't hate Giant Bomb at all, what a silly comment. I'm irritated by this one aspect of their coverage.

Additionally, it's not off-topic at all, it's in the friggin' article. It's the first several paragraphs! It basically is the main topic!

And if anyone's "annoyed," by my posts... tough titty, I guess? I'm voicing legitimate complaints here in an article that starts out with the very subject I'm complaining about. And the idea that Patrick wouldn't read these comments is silly, he replies to his articles all the time.

Why would I shoot Jeff a Comic Vine PM about the issue? He made it very clear what his stance was just a couple days ago. It basically amounted to "this is what we think the typical player is going to do, slam A A A A and get playing."

Which is funny, because during that same topic he says about normal difficulties being easy, "What's the publisher trying to say about the average gamer?" So he believes that the average gamer is a brain dead idiot that slams A A A A to start a game and get to the "hot action," but laments publishers for thinking the same thing...? What could a complaint to him possibly amount to besides a "we've already talked about this a lot recently and you know my opinion on it"?

At least by addressing Patrick I could maybe be reaching someone who isn't as stubborn on the issue. But you know what? I'll shoot a PM to Jeff anyway, just to be sure.

#3 Edited by xbob42 (484 posts) -

@xbob42 said:

It doesn't take that much longer, and it provides more and more useful information to the reader. I see no reasonable stance the staff could take to try and NOT try other difficulties. At the very LEAST in games where they bitch about how easy it is.

To a certain extent, it's a no-win game. You either don't have enough time to really tinker around with the other difficulties in time for a review, or you only tinker around a little bit and risk misrepresenting it. Not many games let you switch the difficulty on the fly, and difficulty curves can bounce all over the place.

Considering GB rarely does actual reviews and the ones they do decide to write are almost never on time, I don't think I really buy the time argument. I'm talking mostly about their Quick Looks and Podcast/Bombin' chatter as that's where we get most of our game info from GB. Just because it's not a formal review doesn't mean I'm not listening to their opinions.

But if their opinion is "it's too easy and also I refuse to change the difficulty because I shouldn't have to for some reason" then I'm just left scratching my head. Is the game overall too easy? Does the harder mode make it more fun? Is it just people hyping up a harder mode that's actually bad? Why are you actively trying to be ignorant about this, GB?

It often means I have to turn to other sources to get actual relevant info from people who aren't insanely stubborn about such an important question, information-wise.

#4 Posted by xbob42 (484 posts) -

Theoretically, "Normal" should be the difficulty setting best tuned to fit the mechanics and level design of the game, and should thus be the optimal playing experience. In Shovel Knight, for example, you can tell that the number of hits enemies take to kill is very specifically chosen. Artificially cranking up the enemy HP values would completely ruin the flow of the action. If the optimal playing experience isn't "Normal" and the game fails to properly convey that before you jump in, then that's on the game.

Very few games pull a Ninja Gaiden Black and go above and beyond to actually alter anything more than some variables on different difficulty settings. Usually, games feel grindy and slow on higher difficulties.

And if that theory was always true, my post wouldn't exist. But it's not always true, and if you're going to try to be informative about a game, spend a little while longer toying with the difficulty settings! That's good information to know!

Of course, in instances where they find they DO enjoy a higher or lower difficulty better, I bet we'd see some sort of irrational indignant stance toward it, like the person playing was insulted that the developer had the audacity to not tailor the experience to THEIR preference. Brad is particularly bad with that, getting mad any time he has to change a setting to fit how he likes to play ("The auto aim makes this too easy." "So turn it off." "NO I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO!" Pigheaded nonsense!), not realizing that not everyone is as good/bad as him at video games.

It doesn't take that much longer, and it provides more and more useful information to the reader. I see no reasonable stance the staff could take to try and NOT try other difficulties. At the very LEAST in games where they bitch about how easy it is.

#5 Edited by xbob42 (484 posts) -

@timeshero said:

@xbob42: Perhaps they should relabel "Hard Mode" in all games to "Normal" just to satisfy your needs.

I've reread your post like 5 times and I still can't see how it makes any sense at all in the context of what I was saying, which was a problem with Giant Bomb "faking a typical playthrough" rather than the actual difficulty of the game itself.

Even if they did that, having GB play a bit of each difficulty to see how they feel is useful information. Some games are better on easy, like Spec Ops: The Line. Some are better on hard, like Child of Light. A good chunk are decent on Normal, but Normal is becoming easier and easier so that's why they should toy around rather than trying to convince us that they're playing everything on normal "for us."

#6 Edited by xbob42 (484 posts) -

I still don't get why you guys always play games on normal to "simulate" a "typical" experience.

1. Your audience isn't "typical" gamers. Stop trying to cater to people that aren't here.

2. Don't try to simulate my experience, have your own and tell me about it. If you thought Child of Light, for example, was super dumb easy, but never bothered to crank up the difficulty, then I think there's something wrong with you, not the game.

The normal setting on most games is designed for people who aren't very good at games. Quit trying to make some sort of absurd statement about that and just choose a proper difficulty if the game is too easy. There's little about gaming I find more annoying than someone complaining about something they can fix by toggling a single option.

And don't start in on that "Well raising some health values doesn't fix the problem!" guff, because for some games that's all it is -- the initial values are simply ludicrously low. If the difficulty option ALSO sucks, then tell us about it! You are actually being less useful to your readers by not exploring the difficulty levels!

#7 Posted by xbob42 (484 posts) -

And arguing for such a feature totally misses the point of console games and really outs him as an ''arrogant PC master race smug''. People who pay for AAA games, console gamers, inlarge don't want to have to think about what option to choose for the optimal experience. They trust game designers to make the choice between visuals (the order, uncharted, heavy rain, etc) or 60 fps (burnout, COD, etc). If you want a choice, play on PC, end of story.

I think this line of thinking is total arrogant bullshit.

You don't want to go into the options? Fine. Don't.

Why the hell would you assume no one else would? Why would you defend not having an option? What benefit do you accrue from that logic? The idea that you can talk for all of console gamers as though they're some sort of hive mind in pure agreement with each other is far more arrogant than anything TB is saying -- which is just advocating for a better experience for consumers who prefer a smoother experience to a prettier one.

#8 Edited by xbob42 (484 posts) -

My absolute favorite part of all this is that the lunatic idiot who started all this, in addition to all her other inane ramblings, posted these gems:

I think anyone, anywhere, should be able to say whatever the fuck they want, whenever the fuck they want, no matter how "offensive," because words are just words. Even the silly shit this girl's saying, I'm totally fine with! Say even crazier shit! That's the beauty of it all. You can say whatever the fuck you want, and if I'm for some reason offended, I can just elect not to listen.

#9 Posted by xbob42 (484 posts) -

@mister_v said:

Yes, it's not been uploaded yet but you can still watch it here


Just popped in to say thanks, totally forgot about the ability to rewatch streams there.

#10 Posted by xbob42 (484 posts) -

I do not have unlimited income, so no argument this man ever makes would convince me to pay his full price for his game. Sales allow me to buy more games. A temporary minor price reduction when the game is new is fine, but the rhetoric of "not punishing early adopters," is silly. Their reward for early adopting is getting the game sooner.

The reward for patient gamers is a lower price. This is how things like games work. Something 5 years old should not cost as much as something that came out today, for so many reasons. Less demand, the fact that game design doesn't age well a lot of the time, interest in other products, etc.

This man is taking a hard-line stance that really makes no sense, based on a flawed concept of what it means to be an early adopter or what a sale is for. "You know most of those people never play your game, right?" That's great. I play the games I buy on sale, so what, exactly, does he say about me?

It's just silly.