this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2025
69 points (100.0% liked)
Greentext
4961 readers
1468 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nintendo is way ahead of these guys. The last few mario games let you pick a character that can't be hurt or killed. And if that's too hard for you, they'll even show you exactly how to play the level.
I can at least support baby mode for, like, extremely small kids and maybe co-op with that one person who's never touched a video game in their life but wants to play along with the other three. You know, the kids are over at grandpa's, and he wants to feel like he's playing and having fun with them instead of just setting and forgetting them on the magic dopamine box, but he's no good at it, so he takes the invincible character. I think that's reasonable, inclusive game design.
What I take issue with is when baby mode drags down the difficulty of the rest of the game modes. For example, you as a game designer benchmark "normal mode" against "being literally invulnerable", and so you now have to play hard mode to even vaguely feel any sort of tension.
I agree completely. Idk why they do it. They got filthy rich off kids 5-10 playing the shit out of NES games.
The way it works is this: The people catch hold of something, and make magic. It makes a ton of money, because people can recognize magic. Then other people with investment money get involved. Gradually, the magic oriented people are outnumbered, the fun of their average working day declines, and they leave or simply get shouldered into some niche somewhere by the unimaginable torrent of motivated people who have something else on their mind.
No one involved in Mario, Zelda, Metroid, or Contra has been anywhere near the design team at Nintendo for decades. These guys own the rights to call it "Mario," but if they weren't making games where you can turn Mario into an elephant, they could be just as happy making sweat pants with writing on the ass. And the magic is off somewhere else, doing its thing.
Mario Wonder both had a “baby mode” mechanic and yet also had some genuinely interesting and challenging levels.
Celeste is extremely difficult yet also has a baby mode feature.
Many games have a “tell me a story” difficulty level which is more or less the same idea.
Games having an easy difficulty without detracting from the game’s main challenge and balance is not a problem IMO.
The real problem with the "improved" SMB from the post is not that it has ways of making the game easier, it's that the "fixes" amount to a microtransaction hellhole, complete with intrusive prompts.
I'm all for games with configurable difficulty. Nobody thinks less of Doom for having difficulty settings. But everybody does think less of games that pair frustrating mechanics (like difficulty spikes or countdown timers) with bypass MTX.
To use the default controversial genre, I think that a soulslike with difficulty settings would work just fine. But a soulslike where your healing flask only restores one charge every ten minutes unless you buy more charges from the store (but store-bought ones can exceed the normal maximum) or where game-breakingly OP equipment is available as MTX would not go over well.
Don't tell Soulslike players that. They think that even the slightest concession to accessibility makes the game unplayable garbage, even if you choose not to use it.