Patcher on FF and the Hardcore vs. Casual rift

http://www.gametrailers.com/videos/u5i8c1/pach-attack---i-don---t-understand-japanese-companies--

Can I get a summary? Don't really care for Pachter. Personally I believe there doesn't have to be a rift. Difficulty settings exist for a reason ; to make any game cater towards someones challenge preferences. Platinum Games absolutely nails this philosophy with having one button casual modes for those that just want to see cool shit happen while having their harder difficulties brutal. Same thing with Bioshock Infinite , wanna see the story? Play easy. For those wanting a challenge there's 1999 mode which I did beat and enjoyed.

There will always be exceptions like Dark Souls that probably shouldn't be neutered even though I personally would love to just have fun and see everything in a timely manner. Gaming was once this niche hobby but it's not anymore. The industry would probably collapse over itself if every game were Souls hard because much like current generation WWE, audiences have shifted. Yesterdays casual gamer is todays core gamer. If a game has piss poor AI or something that's one thing , but as long as the difficulty is moderately balanced on normal I'm not going to complain in either direction. Most gamers today either want a thrilling cinematic experience or a robust multiplayer component. That's what is selling. Dark Souls is simply your nostalgia trip which is totally fine. It's not going to cause a grassroots movement that devolves gaming back to its niche days much like CM Punk isn't going to bring back the Attitude Era. The most you can realistically ask for is for current games to actually use difficulty settings and make challenging modes. 1999 mode and any Platinum Games game , hell even CoD Veteran modes are a step in the right direction.

He was talking more about consoles than games really. He pretty stated that the Wii presented itself as an causal console and while it was the leading console this gen, 90 million house wives and grandmothers buying a console means little if they do not buy games. So a casual console is good for the one making it, but it does nothing but hurt devs and consumers. On the hardcore side he pointed towards the original Xbox, it might not of done as well as the PS2, but it and by extension the XB360 by being the "more" hardcore of the console offerings see software sales vastly higher than the Wii gets and on most games than the PS3. He presented Sony and their consoles as the happy medium, a little bit for everyone and for that it will always see healthy sales. In summary casual consoles hurt everyone but the one making it by not selling software, Hardcore consoles might not sale as highly, but they have a higher loyal buyer base, and the "do it all" consoles might not do as well but are more consistently balanced in sales.

As to FF, basically he stated that SE is basically clueless because they have a huge profit treasure chest in remaking FF7, but while we the gamers might see that, their own research states otherwise. And by extension he stated this is true of all Japanese companies, they instead of making games they know will sell, such as Capcom with a Japanese developed DMC, they make games based on shaky sales science like the N DMC that blow up in their faces.

What bothers me about game these days is how alot of them just outright tell you where you have to go because apparently we as gamers dont have the common sense to try figure that out ourselves. Most recently I was playing Enslaved and it bothered me how they essentially highlighted any which you can use to climb on which sort of broke immersion for me because one thing I always liked is figuring out where to go as it sort of give his "there we go" type of feeling once you figure out where to go or solve a puzzle but the game was essentially well go here as if telling you to finish this as soon as possible.

Maybe gamers these days really are that stupid, I know that gamers today are vastly less skilled than in the past. I see so many bitching about any game that presents a challenge, and I think back to when I was young and the beast of a challenge games like Contra and Ghost and Goblins presented, I think today's gamers would shit their pants at the thought of games like that today. Take NG3 Razor for example, I see so much bitching about how hard it is, and I am like ehhhh, its not really all that. I just think the new generation crap at games, all that COD has to warp your skills after a while I guess.

Highlighting stuff obviously can get annoying. I think games like Uncharted and God of War get that stuff right by just giving you visual cues that don't affect immersion. Like those small rectangular white rocks, colored walls, indentations in the environment, etc. You don't need to light something up in bright ass gold , that's lazy designing.

There is a lot of laziness going around, I am enjoying NG3 but a lot of its difficulty is due to cheapness like unending floods of enemies, that is just lazy programming

Yeah, it could use less fighting and more platforming/puzzles. I don't wanna say they should copy GoW but it's something that strikes a good balance in gameplay. Fight after fight after fight with like no interesting story gets too repetitive. It could also use more and better boss fights

LuxAeterna wrote:

Highlighting stuff obviously can get annoying. I think games like Uncharted and God of War get that stuff right by just giving you visual cues that don't affect immersion. Like those small rectangular white rocks, colored walls, indentations in the environment, etc. You don't need to light something up in bright ass gold , that's lazy designing.

The way they handle it in GOW and Uncharted is fine but Enslaved literally highlights the damn platform which is outright stupid and makes it feel like the developers think that the people they are targeting their game to has no thought process in their head.

What's worse is Enslaved is already linear. I can understand something like Deus Ex: Human Revolution doing it but if you need guidance to navigate Enslaved gaming isn't for you. I actually like the game btw but the ending is truly retarded

LuxAeterna wrote:

What's worse is Enslaved is already linear. I can understand something like Deus Ex: Human Revolution doing it but if you need guidance to navigate Enslaved gaming isn't for you. I actually like the game btw but the ending is truly retarded

Ending was retarded because they had planned to follow up on the game with a sequel or two but the game didnt do very well so that didnt happen. I wanted to like the game but couldnt bring myself to it and I am very open minded to anything including games so its kind of rare for me not to like something.