Hardcore gamer = someone who plays only cinematic grizzed white dude games and/or military fetishizing FPS
Casual gamer = anyone that is not a 15-25 yo male, and/or plays anything outside of the previously mentioned games, especially if those games are colorful.
So basically the gaming community is full of gatekeeping, misogyny, toxic masculinity and general chuddery. They make sure they're the loudest voice heard when anything about games is talked about, and won't be happy until all games a homogenous stream of bland, hyper-realistic but with a grey filter slog of mindless action with no heart or soul. And don't you dare force them to read any dialogue or story.
No need to take it that far, I'm not against difficulty levels but it's not always easy to tell how to make a game easier in that sense. If a "scene" in a game revolves around "get the ball in the cup when I say go," not getting the ball into the cup when the screen says go means you don't progress. It's within the scope of "artistic vision" for the dev to want a character in the scene to congratulate you for getting that ball in that cup only when you've done it is all I'm saying.
Like sure, in a big AAA game with a cinematic story broken up by combat sections, I think it's fair to say that an easy mode, even the "story mode" without any way to fail that some of them offer, is understandable. But isn't it fair for a rhythm game to expect you to follow a beat, or for a jigsaw puzzle to withhold the picture the pieces make until you put it together? Plenty of indie games don't really have anything to offer beyond the "toy" they present the player with. Sometimes a game is made to teach you its systems until you can do it, like learning an instrument, and I wouldn't say that's ableist.
How wide is the rim of the cup? How heavy is the ball? How viscous is the air the ball flies through? What counts as "doing it" or "not doing it" in any given system either involves an arbitrary line or error-bars of some sort. There's no harm in having a setting to move that line slightly or to make those error-bars wider. Or must we bow to an auteur's artistic vision (or a community's bigotry) about these things? Perhaps if the artistic point of the thing is to make people suffer in some way, but otherwise?
It doesn't have to be about making a player "suffer," I'm just saying that being able to "lose" in a game doesn't have to be ableist or done for the sake of masculine ego. And winning or losing doesn't have to be arbitrary, I can imagine the size and physics of the ball being designed to mimic the real thing rather than being designed for maximum accessibility, which would be the choice of the dev. I feel kinda silly arguing about this now but this rhetoric about a game that might not be immediately accessible to all players being "masked ableism" and of "bowing" to artistic vision is surprising to hear. Risk of failure and design that takes advantage of mechanical depth can add to the fun, it doesn't have to be interpreted as bigotry.
All mediated representations involve making arbitrary decisions, even if “reality” (whatever that really means in a game) is the goal. To continue torturing this metaphor: what kind of real ball and what kind of real cup are you simulating, and to what level of precision? These are choices and never have to be made just one way.
Of course you’re right, it’s not masked ableism to lose occasionally, that’s a normal part of properly adjusted difficulty. But it is quite another thing to make it impossible - that’s exclusionary and is probably not something that should be celebrated.
I can't speak for Poogona, but balancing a game for different difficulty levels while still making the game enjoyable is going to be harder for some games than others. That doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done, just that the task is non trivial. I imagine things would be better in this regard without booj cracking the whip on devs.
deleted by creator
Yes, making games does involve a lot of intense labour, especially with the absolutely gargantuan scale and budgets many of them have now.
Yes! That's it! You've hit the nail on the head. People don't pay $60 to feel frustrated. They pay $60 to feel good. If the game doesn't deliver what they paid for, why does it even exist?
People also don't pay to be unchallenged, which is how we wound up with derogatory nicknames like "walking simulator"
People's threshold for challenge and fun are all over the place and so are the games that do and should exist
But it doesn't work that way. They get lowered to the level of the customers who don't want to overcome challenges. All they want is a good feeling. And those brain chemicals that get released by being led by the nose around a level are real.
When you pay full price for a game, do you deserve to experience all of the content contained therein? Or do you have to spend hours of tedious frustration, feeling bad brain chemicals, just to get what you already paid good money for? You feel enough bad brain chemicals with your job and your family already, why are you spending your precious few free hours doing the same?
Because getting good at something and overcoming challenges also feels good?
But getting good feels like frustration to these customers. They don't want any negative feelings whatsoever. They want to turn on the game and receive a pleasing dose of brain chemicals, and it is up to the game to figure out how to deliver.
Basically, throw out that old-fashioned idea of read the manual, figure out how to play the game, die a lot, get better, die some more, feel like you know what you're doing, die less but still some, and then achieve mastery and you can make the game do what you want. Video games have gone past this and are into a next-level experience. It's a relative of the Skinner box now.
In older games. If turning down the difficulty in the intended way didn't work, then they'd let you skip the section after, say, 20 failures. Or the game would have branching mission paths that made losing not a game over.
When I think of "old games" I think of the opposite, of games that had limited lives and no save systems. Not defending that, but considerations of differing player ability are certainly a newer development rather than the old way of things.
Games back then didn't have to consider differing player abilities (which honestly isn't that true either since multiple difficulties were already a thing) because cheat codes existed. Story mode was basically the easiest difficulty on top of a god mode and infinite ammo cheat code.
Sure but those cheat codes weren't always easy to access before widespread internet use. You used to be able to buy books of cheat codes in fact.
That's what libraries were for. That's how I looked up cheat codes before I used GameFAQs. Most people knew about the existence of cheat codes and things like game genie even if they didn't know the specific cheat code.
I sometimes play old games and I do not consider save states to be even remotely cheating. A challenge is one thing, but forcing you to repeat an entire 8 minute level full of tricky jumps only to make it at the boss at the end with 2 health and losing...that's just not fun. And it was bullshit even back in the day.