So, Star Fox Zero will not only have a co-op mode that'll allow less experienced players to play as a gunner and pew-pew stuff through the GamePad, but also a friendly option where gamers will have an invincible Arwing and simply fly through a level regardless of their performance. In the very next sentence of the interview in question Shigeru Miyamoto also said there'd be options to ramp up difficulty, where players will be more powerful but - on the flipside - also more vulnerable to attack. That all seems hunky-dory to me.
Pleasingly a look through the comments on our own article for this topic showed that many seem to share the perspective that this 'invincibility' is harmless because, well, it's optional and means games can be enjoyed by more people. Of course, this being the internet, some argue - occasionally in an offensive and juvenile way depending on where you're looking - that this is the worst idea since Slippy's voice casting and that the Star Fox series is tainted forever. Well, ok, let's stay away from the extreme ends of the debate - what I do want to do is to take this excuse to argue why the 'Super Guide' or happy helper approach is actually a universally good thing for all gamers.
Let's kick off with Miyamoto-san's own words when speaking to TIME, which pretty much echo my own thoughts.
One thing that I think is a misunderstanding, is that I'm not very supportive of simply making a game easy so that people who don't play games can play the game themselves. Obviously part of the fun of taking on a challenge is that the challenge has to be a hurdle that you overcome. Simply lowering the hurdle doesn't necessarily mean that the challenge will be fun. What's fun is you mastering the skill and having that sense of accomplishment — of achieving something that's difficult.
So I think that action games like this have to have a certain level of difficulty to achieve that satisfaction. And particularly with Star Fox Zero, if you try to complete this game, I think you're going to find it to be quite challenging. But it's because of that, that we have things like Star Fox Guard and the cooperative mode in this game. What those do, is allow people who maybe can't deal with that level of challenge or difficulty to easily be a part of the gameplay and enjoy this universe.
The 'Super Guide' term first popped up - as far as I can remember - with New Super Mario Bros. Wii, in which dying a number of times gave you access to a block that, when activated, would bring Luigi in to beat the level for you. It's evolved as a concept depending on the game, in some cases with the 'Guide' aspect replaced by invincibility, meaning you still need to clear the level yourself but can't be hurt by enemies - rather like the special Tanooki outfit in Super Mario 3D World and multiple predecessors. I personally prefer the invincibility approach (which Nintendo is certainly favouring more in recent times) rather than a 'guide'. As Miyamoto-san says above, the idea is to help more to experience the game and improve, rather than actually do the job for them.
Personally, I've seen these helper modes as an added dynamic in some games. In some later levels in both Donkey Kong Country Returns and Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze I saw it as a sign of failure if the assist option appeared. I would refuse to use them, but seeing them offered would be as bad to me as another death - it provided extra motivation to me as Retro Studios found its sadistic side.
Of course, for gamers of reasonable skill even the occasional sighting of a help block doesn't mean they can't beat the game, it's just a teasing nudge and reminder that they're troubled by that stage. Modern Nintendo games, for example, throw so many lives and buffs at you that the actual 'Game Over' screen isn't seen anything like as often as in past generations. I understand why some bemoan this, I really do, but there are worse trends in modern games. For me, if a game gives me a fair challenge and makes me fight a little for the end credits - or the 'real ending' in some cases - then that's fine. Maybe it's an age thing - I don't have all day to master a crazy level to see the end - as sometimes I just want to beat the darn game.
The Star Fox Zero feature, such as it is based on Miyamoto-san's comments, is another sign that Nintendo is tweaking how it approaches accessibility based on fan feedback. For example The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess HD - developed with Tantalus - is a little easier than the original, and extra buffs can be found when scanning certain amiibo. Select 'Hero' mode and scan a Ganondorf amiibo, though, and you'll see plenty of Game Over screens. There's a clear desire to cater to a wide audience, and that's not a negative. Too often people treat accessibility as a dirty word - in actual fact it's integral to Nintendo's continual popularity.
The challenge for Nintendo, to touch upon broader topics, is to find a way to broaden the audience for its conventional games. In the DS and Wii era it won over a huge audience off the back of touch- and motion-based experiences - the 'Touch Generation', Wii Sports, Wii Fit and titles of that ilk were enormously lucrative. Yet that was a bubble, and while the 3DS has found a way to succeed the Wii U's been a victim of sorts to the fact that the audience hooked in the last-gen has moved on to other experiences.
Added to this is Nintendo's other problem, or strength in the right circumstances - the fact it's rather separate from the core gaming scene. PS4 and Xbox One have the controlling stakes in the market dominated by the likes of The Division, The Witcher 3, Dark Souls, Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain and hundreds of other games largely impenetrable outside of the sizeable audience that evidently enjoys them. Nintendo works in a different area, aiming to combine its considerable brand power with fun gaming experiences that appeal to as wide an audience as possible. If you want to know how big the 'hardcore' Nintendo audience is look at Wii U hardware sales - that loyal audience is very important, but Nintendo understandably needs to reach more people. Let's not forget, too, that the eShop scene in particular helps to cater to dedicated fans of tougher challenges.
And so the likes of Star Fox Zero will allow some players to fire through the GamePad, somewhat re-enacting the awesome gun turrets of the Millennium Falcon. Or those that like the idea of an action space adventure can enjoy it in an invincible ship. The optional aspect is important here, as those with greater skill need not worry about these features - they can shoot for all of the medals and top ranks and feel marvellous about it. Everyone wins.
Nintendo has been smart in how it's opened up more accessible difficulty settings in its games, largely allowing players of various levels to have their fill. The Fire Emblem franchise is a good example - my brother may opt to play without permadeath while I soft reset for days, but we both enjoyed Fire Emblem: Awakening a lot. We weren't bothering each other about our gaming choices. There are other games and experiences that my parents, non-gaming friends and their kids have also embarked upon and, yes, they often choose easier difficulty settings or use assist tools. For my part I crank the difficulty down on FPS games because I'm not very good at titles in the genre; surely that doesn't bother anyone? There are no negatives here, as it just means more people are playing Nintendo games that would perhaps otherwise be sticking to Crossy Road or Angry Birds.
I think the debate can always be had if Nintendo games offer little-to-no-challenge for anyone, as balancing is important. For the most part I think the balancing is sound, though, and I for one welcome the prospect of an option to increase the difficulty in Star Fox Zero. I get annoyed if I lose a single life in Star Fox 64 3D, such is its softly-softly level of challenge, so an extra degree of difficulty could be fun in the Wii U title.
Overall, though, I'm all for some games accommodating gamers of all types. After all, if we want Nintendo to thrive it needs to shift tens of millions of consoles and hundreds of millions of games. A rich Nintendo is an ambitious Nintendo that can make even more games and cool things, and to connect with the broader gaming audience - not just the dedicated fanbase that can beat Super Mario Bros. without thinking twice - it needs to give some players a helping hand.
Think of it less as a helping hand, and more as a hand offered in gaming friendship. The more people that can have fun in games like Star Fox Zero, the better.
Comments 116
...Don't really care for this option. It is nice for beginners and I don't think there's anyone bothered by this option.
@Pluto14 You'll always find people bothered by this option and use it as another excuse to hate on Nintendo.
@Pluto14 oh you'd be surprised, some people really do take "options" as "we hate you and want to ruin your gameplay experience".
Nintendolife is just going full force with the Nintendo apologism lately.
@JaxonH - Look, TW wrote an entire editorial just for me.
@ThomasBW84 - If you really found an assist mode in DKC:TF I'd really like to know about. Most of my anger towards that game was the removal of that feature from Returns to TF. Yes, you can buy balloons and extra armor, but there is no "superguide" level skipping like in the first game (or in Sonic Lost World, checkpoint to checkpoint, I really liked that one too.). Not to my knowledge, and believe me I spent a long time looking for it.
Oh, and you should have included Yarn Yoshi's "mellow mode" in the article. It wasn't a "super guide", you still had to play the level, but it made it difficult to die. Not imposible, I still died a lot - stupid overly sensitive ground pound. Also in Yarn Yoshi single player had the assist Yoshi, the best use of an amiibo in a game I've seen so far. Using the mellow mode and amiibo combo made Yoshi quite enjoyable. Well except for the random unsolicited ground pound.
Good to see Miyamoto giving people "choices". It's not about making a game too hard or too easy, for $50 or $60 a game should offer the option of hard or easy. Or english or japanese voics. Or voices or no voices. Choices are better than no choice.
Only elitists will have a problem with this feature.
Completely agreed with your editorial. It comes down to this: options are a good thing.
As long as such features are entirely optional and have no impact on the game for regular players, it's all good.
This is great, now people who don't like being challenged at any point in their life can play just for the original story and great visuals. Oh wait.
I like this approach because it works in two ways. It offers accessibility to newer, more casual or less confident players while equally allowing Nintendo to develop content for the more capable players without the issue of blocking the other audiences.
Fire Emblem gaining casual mode and Phoenix has made the skill floor lower but ever since Lunatic mode was introduced the series the skill ceiling is even higher. Then add Conquest, Birthright or Revelations design differences. You have Fire Emblem Fates having essentially having 21 different difficulty options.
Broadening accessibility but also the ability for the games to provide a challenge is much better than narrowing it in either direction.
Can already expect speedruns to use it.
Ugh, who cares! Ninty want this to sell to all people, not just fans of Star Fox 64.
Whats the problem? Why are people nerd raging over this online? Pathetic.
@rjejr We both have the responsibility of kids so lets both take this article as a kick up the arse for the wider gaming world.
Not everyone is a god at games. I've been going for 18 years now, and started playing games with my sister. Aspergers, low attention span, so she needs to be kept engaged. Playing through Woolly World with her was good because not only was it age appropriate, it also had options to make her time more enjoyable so she wouldn't freak out and stop playing. And I could play with her. Same with Kirby.
Hell, I think I'll play Star Fox Zero with her. Either put her on Invincible mode and let her fly around and learn the game, or have her fly while I aim.
I had a discussion last year with Sammy over on PushSquare about how he thinks I would enjoy Bloodborne and games like that, but can understand how the way it is marketed is a turn off. It's meant to be hard. It's pushed as ball-bustingly hard. And while seemingly in the case of Bloodborne they exaggerated, he also understood that the game caters almost exclusively to those who have hours to sink in, learn intricacies and die a lot. Others want to feel like they are making progress.
For many people, this is going to be their first space shooter. Their first experience at Star Fox, this kind of gameplay, or even games in general. The absolute one thing humanity needs to understand is that not everyone is the same, and that it will always be someone's first, and if I gave my sister or a lot of people I know a game that was hard for the sake of pandering to a hardcore audience with no other options available and for the sake of entertaining an audience that has been gaming for over a decade or more, they wouldn't touch gaming again and that's a guarantee.
There will always be younger people needing experiences they can handle, and giving options is simply a strong way of appeasing everyone.
As for anyone saying Star Fox is dead I'm going to quote what I say about the Melee fans who hate later games. Because the newer game exists and changes something or offers features for the newer players that may have been realistically born in the gap between this game and the last release, doesn't mean the older games were wiped from existence never to be played again. They are still there!
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-03-14-star-fox-zero-adds-invincible-mode-for-beginners-internet-reacts
Here is the article from Eurogamer reporting on the feature and the outrage over the invincibility mode in Star Fox Zero.
Geek.com is reporting that Star Fox Zero invincibility mode has taken the challenge out of the game, turning the game into a children's game.
http://www.geek.com/games/nintendo-takes-challenge-out-of-star-fox-zero-by-giving-it-an-invincibility-mode-1649707/
This is just a snippet of what is being reported about this game and feature today in the press.
Readers and users are raging hard on IGN, Gamespot, NeoGaf, Eurogamer, other traditional gaming outlets about this to absurd proportion.
January and February were spent raging about Nintendo ruining Fire Emblem Fates by traditional gaming outlets.
We had similar outrage on Smash Bros Wii U/3DS, Mario 3D World, The Wonderful 101, XCX, etc...
Every time Nintendo announces a mode like this, it causes a huge backlash.
When other gaming companies announce stuff like this, it goes unnoticed.
Personally I see nothing wrong with it.
Though I do say each outrage over this stuff against Nintendo is getting bigger each time.
I wonder when Nintendo is going to address the outrage?
You really can't tell the difference between easy mode and god mode?
I actually prefer this approach, because Nintendo is now making games more challenging like they did during the glory days of video gaming without losing the more casual gamers who don't like the challenge of retro games. It's a win-win situation for all parties involved!
@Xenocity
You know, I don't get this, but god forbid there is 7 billion people on the Earth with different tastes and cultures and levels of skill and patience, with differing ideas of a game and difficulty.
But yeah, this kinda press wont do the game any favours but hey ho, the sky is blue when it comes to this company and the wider world huh?
The internet complaints about this are ridiculous. It's an option. Don't like it,don't use it. I should be used to gamers acting like idiots, it seems there will always be a group of 'gamers' available to be offended about everything that any games company do, but I'm still constantly surprised.
I read a good article a while back on gamasutra (I think) about this. The gist was that you as a game designer don't really want the player to die as it interrupts the flow of the game. However, players have to have a sense that they might die otherwise the game again loses its appeal. So you have dynamic difficulty - enemies do less damage the more the player is struggling.
A good example being the zombies from Half life. Because they're so in the player's face when attacking, the player rarely looks down at their health to see oh it's only doing 5 damage. The zombie also has 2 attacks, one of which takes way more time to spin up and does way more damage. So the AI gives you a load of soft punches, then eventually gives a big whack so you still die if you just stand there.
Same game also has swarms of low damage dealing enemies, such as the sonic dog thingies. Having loads of enemies attack at once masks the fact that maybe not all enemies are actually dealing damage. The player has too many targets to notice that some are really going easy. But the swarms feel more intense for the same reason of the player having slightly too much to cope with than is comfortable.
Edit: Don't know obviously how Star Fox's enemies, fights etc are set up, so may be it wasn't possible for Nintendo to take the above approach. But still feels like maybe Nintendo are solving the wrong problem. that's my gut instinct fwiw
@BLPs Aspergers isn't always a crippling disability, some people suffering from the condition can still be highly functioning and enjoy a challenge in their games. I should know since I suffer from Aspergers, yet I'm the owner of a fairly successful Nintendo oriented press website and prefer my games to be challenging. As I've already said I really do like the option being there, and as long as it stays optional I think it's a great feature to have.
@Pluto14
And that first comment is all that needs to be said. Really. Let noobs enjoy the game in a noob-ish way, as long as everyone gets his or her own difficulty setting, it's all fine. And people who feel entitled because "if I had to play a hard game back in the day, young kids must do so too" should just shut up. Of course I'm enjoying Pokémon Yellow, but this doesn't mean I have to bother people with how games were harder back in the nineties.
Kind of like I said in the other thread, this will be great for my 3-yr-old. I won't be using it myself though. I only used the invincibility leaf once in super Mario 3d world, by accident, because I didn't know what it was...
It's like this gen (and last?) is designated to "hate Nintendo for everything they do, even if what they do is optional to the player and logical from a design PoV". I mean, there are even people who are complaining because "it's a waste of money" to implement, when all it does is flips a switch in the game code so you don't take damage.
I just can't believe people are angry over "optional" stuff....
@BLPs
The press might cause everyone else to buy the game or demo it to see what the uproar is all about.
It might even sell well.
I mean even UK's most important gaming and computer publication is even reporting the backlash to this announcement. Yes MCVUK closing paragraph to the invincibility mode talks about the backlash over it.
I truly believe all the negative press FE: Fates received in January and February about Nintendo censoring and ruining the game, drove others to buy the game to see what it is all about in the U.S.
I doubt FE: Fates would have had a record breaking launch in the U.S. if the press wasn't going crazy negative over it.
The outrage over Star Fox Zero is only getting started, I bet it will be in full force come Wednesday and be picked up by the mainstream media and the BBC News World service.
I do see Nintendo being forced to publicly address it, unless Microsoft's GDC plans on how they are merging Xbox fully into Windows 10 creates a huge industry backlash (it's this week).
FYI: Most of us with Asperger's can kick most people's asses at all the games we play. Most of us are Obsessive on stuff we like... I've been Obsessing on FE:Fates.
It's rare for a person with Asperger's to reject gaming and have short attention spans.
@JamesCoote I read an article a while back, I think it was on Gamasutra, about how difficulty levels are normally ignored. How is a player supposed to know what difficulty level is correct for them? And how likely will someone change the difficulty level while progressing through the game? The Player is more likely going to quit before lowering the difficulty which leads to the difficulty level being pointless. To drive that point home most designers create a optimal way to play then lower or increase damage outputs to make the game "easier" but not actually changing things to make the game easier. If someone is having difficulty with a platforming section, damage output isn't going to make it easier for them.
Having "auto-play" ability for players allows them to learn from their mistakes, seeing what they are doing wrong. This invincibility mode will allow players to learn the gameplay and switch to a challenging mode when they want. Encouraging the players to get better rather than punishing them for not being good enough.
That is how I see it.
I wish I had a Ganondorf amiibo. The enemies in Twilight Princess deal so little damage it's basically like you took no damage at all. (Yes I know Hero Mode exists, but I'd rather play the GC version.) Also, I'm fine with an easier mode so more people can play, but it just shouldn't be "invincibility". That's what I don't like. EDIT: Well, this stuff is optional like all you people above are saying, so I probably shouldn't complain. (But I also agree that difficulty should not be locked behind AMIIBO!)
@Neko_Ichigofan Oh it's not bad for her. She just needs routine and her attention span when frustrated is...well...not terrible but not great. I am expected to have something similar yet I can enjoy Megaman and all sorts like that, and have been for near 2 decades now. It's different people and different things. And of course, she likes colourful things (As do I, but I'm colourblind XD)
@Xenocity The media will eat it up and it can go either way.
And regarding my sister, yes she has aspergers, and yes she does obsess over things, but again, its a spectrum and appears in a lot of people in different ways. I'm a ball of OCDeliciousness that HAS to 100% everything I play otherwise it just feels wrong. She is someone who has to have a routine. Has to focus on certain tasks. I don't quite know what makes her tick but when she played Sonic 2 she did eventually throw the controller and say she didn't like it because it was too hard. So any opportunity to help her is appreciated, and who knows, maybe she has more than just aspergers that results in this.
@BLPs
She probably has more than Asperger's
Most including myself due.
Science has shown people who have a set routine are better off than those who don't.
I was wondering when we'd get people posting about having easier difficulty modes is hurting gaming...
Back in the 80ies I had lots of cracked C64 games with "trainers". The trainers were unofficial hacks for popular games. A trainer added options like unlimited lives, unlimited weapons, unlimited time, etc. It actually made many games a lot more fun, especially when most games back then were hard as nails. You could play without the frustration of dying and just enjoy the full game.
When I first played SNES back in the 90ies this was gone. And unnecessary because Nintendo made extremely balanced games that everybody could enjoy and beat.
I believe a trainer would have made certain hard games like Mega Man or Castlevania more enjoyable and more popular for kids, new gamers, and casuals. Secret cheat codes helped a lot on that matter. They weren't a standard though, and that era seems to have passed as well.
I didn't like Nintendo's NSMBWii approach though. You can destroy a perfect save file and won't have access to shimmering stars anymore if you accidentally hit a Super Guide Block.
"Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain ...... largely impenetrable outside of the sizeable audience that evidently enjoys them"
Actually, Metal Gear followed Nintendo's example, there is a chicken hat unlocked if you fails too many missions and that hat makes you invisible to enemies or something close to that.
And personally I don't see anything wrong with these helps as long as they can be avoided by players like me that in the worse scenario prefer to fail too many times, till eventually succeding, then take a easier shortcut. Problem is... some games fails at this, Sonic Lost World for example had some helps popping out in places hard to dodge, forcing me to restart the level for play it fully, no need to mention how that was annoying -.-;;;
@Xenocity, give it time. Its this site afterall.
@BLPs
You missed the other article on it and how it got away from an easy mode to VR and other stuff.
I am seriously thinking about buying this game next month, especially if I have a decent amount of rewards credit.
But Pokken comes first and I'm using my saved up rewards credit to get the game ~$20 off this Friday.
@Lizuka
Some people have trouble with any real difficulty in gaming.
Dexterity, hand eye cordination, 3D space and others don't come easily to large part of the population.
Many people just have a low tolerance to being frustrated and want an option to tone it as far down as possible (Especially if they are playing FE:Fates Conquest).
It has been shown time and again that the harder game is, the less it sells. and vice versa.
@Lizuka
Some people find it too disorienting to play games with heavy action and movement.
Some people just want to have fun playing a game without having any consequences.
Some people like to do speed runs and turn off certain features.
Now both will be happy.
Honestly, people brag so much of Fire Emblem's difficulty.
I'm right now in Conquest and I've played the game in casual mode for two reasons.
1. I simply am not too smart like any FE fan I know and I need those save slots simply because the maps are too big despite them being simple. I don't mind the complexity, just its length.
2. Because of how much I got burned when beating the hell out of Final Fantasy Tactics that I never want to go through with horrible AI and unbalanced enemies.
The way I am playing Conquest is like how I played Genealogy of Holy War. If I find the situation worth saving over, I save and resume battle for trial and error. If I find the situation where no matter what I do, I end up losing one unit, I start the chapter all over again.
I can honestly say that Conquest isn't extremely difficult like how everyone claims so far from what I have played. The only time I felt frustrated is in Chapter 19 but other than that, its well balanced and its not really a hell game like Final Fantasy Tactics.
Fun Fact: the amount of times you have to die in NSMBW to get the guide is 8.
I think if you beat eight levels in a row no problem, the opposite of a super guide should pop up like a bowser block, bump and boom, more difficulty
@Socar
Conquest is one of the hardest FE games ever made.
With that said the game heavily uses RNGing which benefits the CPU characters.
Conquest normal mode = FE normal modes
Conquest hard mode = hard mode + in FE games
etc...
I beat the first 10 chapters on hard mode wondering why the game was so difficult.
I thought the game is difficult enough on normal mode.
By the time I reached chapter 20, I already spent 50 hours playing it.
Chapter 20 kept defeating me with great ease, I gave up after 5+ hours of trying to beat said chapter.
It just wasn't worth it to me to keep going, so I switched the game to casual mode just to beat the chapter and not having to lose anyone.
This is coming from someone who beat every previous Fire Emblem gaming without losing a character on classic mode.
I'll never play Conquest again after this.
The CPU just gets too damn lucky with misses and critical hits especially when crit is < 5%.
Yet my characters hardly get misses when the CPU, even when it is < 50%.
Yeah I don't have the will or the time to beat Conquest on classic, when what I've done will net me over 70+ hours when I am done.
I was planning to introduce this game to my younger cousins so this is actually a positive. Also, god mode is fun in a different way.
I've been gaming since the 80s, and this article sums up fairly well why I prefer Nintendo to Microsoft and Sony. I like my games to be fun. I don't have excellent reflexes and I don't have good spatial awareness, so button-mashers and shooters are not fun for me. I don't want (and now I'm a mum with a job and all the adulting that entails, don't have time) to replay a battle or a level a gazillion times until I don't die. I don't want my games to be so easy they are no challenge, but my favoured challenges tend to come in the form of puzzles rather than hack 'n' slash a gazillion enemies in 0.6 seconds, or pixel-perfect jumping (anyone else remember how evil Jet Set Willy was for that?)
I have no problem with difficulty modes, especially if it brings more people into the gaming world. I wonder how many people out there are not reading this because they had a go at a game once and got nowhere, found no fun only frustration and decided gaming wasn't for them.
Nintendo doesn't share the same gaming space as XBox and PS, and thank Arceus for that. Because without Nintendo I for one would have very little to play. I don't want Angry Birds and Candy Crush, and I don't want Witcher and CoD. I want stories and adventures and good old-fashioned fun - Yo-kai Watch, Pokemon, AC:NL, Zelda, Layton, AA, Return to Popolocrois, Zero Escape, Dragon Quest, Bravely Default. A couple of those have difficulty settings of various kinds, and no I don't need to have them all on easy, but it is great to have the option to tone it down a bit when you just can't get past a boss and want to throw your console out of the window, or want to just get to the next area without getting ambushed every 30 seconds.
My daughter's playing Pokemon right now. She is 6. She loves it. She has no clue or care about IVs and EVs, but is great at type match-ups. If all games were "hard" and could only be beaten by people with super reflexes and endless amounts of time to play the same 5 minutes over and over again, would she even be playing? No. And she'd probably never play any game. And neither would I. And neither, I suspect, would be enough people to make the gaming industry profitable. So give us options, with extra rewards for solving/beating on "hard mode" for the incentive to progress and get better, and keep the fun.
@Yorumi While I'd also like a game that's built to be challenging from the ground-up, it's funny you mentioned Goldeneye because I'm secretly hoping that this invincibility mode will be as much of a glitch factory as that one.
@DefHalan With regards to something like a platform being universally difficult for players to reach, it can sometimes be a clue the control scheme is poorly designed. Or it could be that the game is purposely designed to appeal to people who like difficult games. And even then, you're giving the player super-quick respawn times and frequent checkpoints. So that since you're dying all the time, the actual cost of death is lowered dramatically. Or could be that platform gives you access to a secret area or rare item. But beyond that, it probably is bad level design, if a player can't progress through the main storyline of the game because it's so linear that they have to do a singularly difficult task. Rather than say taking a longer route but with more enemies or an alternative route that's not obvious at first, or needs a puzzle solving to unlock.
I guess you could say that the inverse of dynamic enemy difficulty is dynamic ally difficulty. So your squad mates become that little bit more badass. And I guess that'd fit right in with how Star Fox is constructed.
Though you can also over do it. There's a good story I heard about I think it was Gear's of War, where the author had to leave the room to go attend to their kids or something, came back and found they'd forgotten to pause, and their team mates had cleared the level without them. Without knowing that they'd do that in advance, all the situational stuff, voice acting, explosions etc mean that you feel compelled to start shooting and move through the level, even though you could just stand there and "win" by doing nothing.
Another game I actually quit was Total War: Battles Kingdoms, because whenever you levelled up, the game would always nudge up the difficulty of the battle enemies correspondingly. I wasn't good enough to win a fight more than maybe 1 in 5 times. After spending ages in the game waiting for the damn harvest timers to feed me some measly amount of resources to upgrade my soldiers, any feeling of progress was taken away soon as I tried to then use those better soldiers in battle. The game would up the enemy difficulty in line with how much I'd upgraded by. The difficulty curve was just a permanently high flat line, rather than a series of peaks and troughs.
When you give people the invincibility opt-out in a game, you screw up the difficulty curve, and so consequently, the pacing of the game. That big crecendo moment when the boss is defeated becomes a bit of an anti-climax if it's moved forward because you took that opt-out.
It's different as well from, say, giving the player a Big Frikking Gun, as then, they still have to aim that BFG. And/or maybe they have limited ammo. Then it becomes a feeling of the game giving them a single all-or-nothing chance type of helping hand, but one they still need to take. Rather than simply offering to take control and finish off for them.
An alternative, more cynical argument to all this could just be that when stuck, some people just hop on youtube to see how others play. Whereas that's not so easy in the Nintendo ecosystem.
The other thing is that sometimes it's a nice social thing if you're playing with a younger cousin or family member and you can be cool Uncle Jim who can help complete the difficult sections. Then it's kinda like "yeah, we beat the game together!"
To anyone who thinks there aren't people bothered by this feature, go read the GameSpot News comments.
To those defending it here... you're preaching to the choir, take the fight to the people posting on GameSpot, lol.
I don't really get why someone would be against these types of modes. Many gamers start when they are young children (I started at 3...my mother wanted to improve my hand and eye coordination in a manner that was safe for a baby/young child) and when you are little you are easily frustrated and you don't often have the comprehension or coordination skills that many games require. I know I threw a bunch of NES controllers due to Nintendo Hard (TM) games. Easy modes allow one to enjoy a game without making it a chore...after all isn't that the point of GAMES? Aren't they there to be played and to have fun? Some gamers act like it is a test of personal fortitude or perhaps equate it to learning a musical instrument. If you play competitively sure, but many people just game because it is a fun hobby to have.
Besides, how is this different from Game Genies/Cheat codes? That stuff was popular for a reason.
That being said there is a place for super hard games. If they are actually hard and its not a crap control scheme or poor level or AI design. I love the Souls series and I know I've cursed at my TV a few times playing those games. But I see nothing wrong with games that try to have a more middle of the road design (so anything in the E-T range) having modes that allow for more age and skill groups to enjoy the games.
Invincibility mode seems fairly pointless to me. Having a very easy mode where enemies deal a very small amount of damage would still add a small amount of challenge, but I don't think invincibility is necessary. However, I'm not going to complain over a completely optional difficulty setting.
@Yorumi Maybe. Seen plenty of games teach people this way at the start of a level for sure.
I mean I'm sure it won't be a problem, just feels off to me.
@Xenocity I've not faced too many times where the enemy misses critical hits only very rarely assuming we're talking about normal mode.
Have you raised your units right by any chance? You do get a few that are pretty overpowered around Chapter 14.
But its not the worst FE game that I've played yet and I still like it. Infact this game is hell of a lot better than what Final Fantasy Tactics will ever be.
One reason why many would choose casual isn't because of the permadeath option. Its probably because of the save battle feature that should have been there on classic which it technically isn't there.
@NinChocolate I like that idea of an alternative to the easy mode.
I prefer the inclusive approach. In gaming and other things too. If Nintendo thinks they might have lost the elite squad to Sony/Microsoft/PC anyway, it makes more sense to stick to the "for everyone" formula.
@JamesCoote I don't disagree with you. I do like the idea of increasing your team AI to decrease difficulty. Maybe they could balance out the invincibility by not allowing secret exits in levels while it is on, but that would take away from the exploration that people might do with that mode on. I just wonder how you could design a game to be more accessible while still keeping the challenge and excitement. Honestly, I think anyone that turns on invincibility isn't looking for a challenge, they are looking to get through the story. Which means they get to target two kinds of players. Those wanting challenge and those wanting story, without cutting either side out.
I think it's a good thing. I don't think I'd like Fire Emblem Fates as much as I am if it didn't have the easier modes for a beginner like me. It makes want to get better and try the harder, more purist, type modes.
@DefHalan I really like the idea of doing the opposite: Opening up a secret area when you summon your iWin button (whether that's your invincible ally turning up or your BFG spawning or whatever). Then you're forced to choose: Wait for the iWin button to beat the boss and progress on the main path, or choose the secret path but know you've then got to go back at some point and beat the boss without your get-out-of-jail-free card
@Neko_Ichigofan @BLPs Speaking as a 30 year old whom has Asperger Syndrome, and one who has no shame in admitting it, I can tell you that I often find myself playing on easy. Unfortunately I usually do so in secret as I discovered one or two people made fun of me for doing so. It is also one reason I have a love for Nintendo games, though I do play on other consoles too.
With Star Fox Zero I will try the normal mode, see how it clicks with me. But if I feel it too hard then I will try the invincibility mode until I get used to the game, it's controls and know my way through.
@BLPs You have kids?!?!?!? Since when? I feel like I know some stuff abut you but I can't recall that ever coming up. Don't you live in university w/ a bunch of flatmates, or whatever passes for dorms over there? I kind of zoned on the rest.
It's nice that it's there, but there's a fine line between optional and obtrusive.
Before Mario games went multiplayer lives have not only lost their meaning design-wise, but you amass so much in just casual play made them meaningless in play too. (Am I the only person who thought Mario taking off his hat with 99 lives felt like a punishment?)
Mario could do well with difficulty levels, and Maker showed the way without changing the level design. Easy can be how modern Marios are now, while harder options have stricter 1up per level limits.
@Yorumi - why does it have to be only one or the other? The way Nintendo is implementing this seems to be giving players more options than "God awful hard" or "movie watching easy". I don't want to play the same level over and over again for a week just to move the story forward by 5 minutes and then hit another wall. I also want a game to actually play. If I want to watch a movie, I'll watch a movie.
Game breaking modes like the RPG stats you mention would be bad, but nobody's hurt by an option that allows for an easier ride. It's optional, after all. The easy mode player won't get the same experience (or the same rewards, most likely) but how does having the option of an easy mode hurt the hard mode player?
@Yorumi Some of it comes down to the person paid for the content, shouldn't they get to see all of it? You don't pay for a movie but only get to watch 30 minutes of it because you don't understand something in it. You don't read a book and are forced to stop reading because you don't understand the words. Games require effort from you, which is one thing that makes games unique but also keeps paying customers from getting to all the content. Just because someone can't complete 1 task means they don't get to experience the next 20, even though they paid for the content?
Back in arcades you paid for a try to see all the content, a life or a set of lives. Now you just pay for the content and get to play it ask much as you want. So why should someone who isn't as skilled be punished and not get to all the content they paid for?
Also that person is unlikely to purchase a sequel if they couldn't complete the first game. By giving players this option, you can give them a way to continue enjoying your products and still make challenges for those that want it.
When I was a kid, we used a Game Genie in order to get infinite lives, moon jumps, what not. It allowed us to develop the motor skills needed to play the game without them. I don't see this as any different than that.
@Samuel-Flutter, when I was a kid we didn't have Game Genie, just platformers that are still famous today for being ridiculously hard - which is possibly why I never did develop the motor skills needed to play them. Or maybe I just never had the right motor skills to develop (I can do a lot of fine, delicate work in other fields, but don't ask me to get the jumps right in Rayman). You're right though, and I really hope that this mode in Star Fox will allow a new generation (or even the disaffected part of the old generation) to develop those skills and learn to play on and enjoy harder modes.
@BakaKnight "Sonic Lost World for example had some helps popping out in places hard to dodge, forcing me to restart the level for play it fully, no need to mention how that was annoying -.-;;;"
As somebody who liked having that option in Sonic and used it a lot, it was poorly placed and a LOT of times I used it when I didn't want to. I was still glad it was there, but they needed to place it much higher, or simply add a pop-up screen "Do you wan to use the Superguide? Yes No".
The placement in DKCR was much better, having it behind the pig desk to our left when the levels tended to always move to the right. I may have accidentally hit it once or twice in DK, just randomly jumping around, but for the most part it was in the right spot.
@Yorumi I think that is a little bit of an extreme case. But I have to ask, is there a big enough audience that would want a new MMO designed like they use to be?
Giving players an option to make it easier for themselves isn't that big a problem. Giving players an option to make it easier to do better than others is a problem. It sounds like MMOs messed up because they forgot their big draw was multiplayer, not single player. If someone turns on invincibility mode in battle toads, that does affect you. You can still play it normally. It does become a problem if they take away the challenging option or if there were online leaderboards, but these games don't have those problems.
@rjejr
@BLPs has a sister he considers his responsibility from what I can make out in his post.
I wasn't paying attention to all the reaction, but what on earth is wrong with gamers? I've been avoiding easy modes since early days in gaming. This is not new. Now that I have less time I appreciate them in some circumstances. I'm not sure how disconnected from reality some gamers have to be to somehow make this into an issue that is important enough to have an article this big explaining it. Kids, I guess.
Click-baiting faux-anger-fueled articles on game sites with the opposite stance are almost disgraceful.
Bah, daylight savings time change is making me tired and grumpy.
@Yorumi, for the record I don't subscribe to the "I paid for it, therefore I must have it all with no effort" mentality. I do play games for a challenge, but I also play them for the experience and the story. I do not expect all games to cater to my particular tastes - I am glad that there are so many available that I am likely to enjoy, I just don't buy the ones I probably won't enjoy.
I understand about the measuring game-time in years thing (I know it's hardly the same, but I'm over 2.5 years and 900 hours into AC:NL), but that isn't what's going to make money for Nintendo in the long run, short of massive amounts of paid for DLC. They want us to buy the game, play it, have fun with it, eventually (hopefully) beat it - and buy the next game. Time is not an infinite resource for most players, so those playing MMOs are not going to have a huge amount of time available for other games, and therefore won't be buying them.
Everybody should be able to have games that suit them - from Angry Birds for the only-have-time-for-one-level-at-the-bus-stop gamers to in-depth years-long MMOs and all points in between. MMOs don't suit me personally, and neither does Candy Crush, so I'm not going to be buying/downloading those. Being able to tailor my own personal experience with a game is a great thing, and I really don't see how having the option of playing on easy mode, so long as harder modes are available, can possibly hurt anyone who only wants the hard modes.
@rjejr My sister didn't have a father figure around for quite some time, and I was often her entertainment. Played games with her since before she could crawl, and even today we have a special greeting that she only does with me. So in a way she is very much my responsibility.
And I do live at university, with 9 other people in a house (This will soon change to 5 in June/July) and they all argue and shout and stuff. Even today
I am engaged though...so maybe kids one day. Maybe.
Yeah, totally harmless, so why not make amiibo exclusive features accessible in other ways? Oh wait. It's not as convenient, sorry. They're gonna lose extra money.
It's an optional mode, and isn't even hard to program into the game.
damage_taken = damage * damage_multiplier;
"damage_multiplier" can be the default 1.0, 2.0 for double damage, or 0.0 for being invincible.
Don't want it? Don't use it. As it is with other games Nintendo has done the Super Guide with, there's likely a consequence attached to it.
@Yorumi
Do you not understand how expensive and hard it is to get people to buy MMOs and standard games?
Most MMOs have died or are in the process of winding down because they don't make enough money.
Even if they do make money, it's not enough to appease shareholders (most are publicly traded).
With ever rising development costs, consumers demanding faster releases and top tier graphics, and shareholders demanding ever increasing profits, it's only a matter of time before another contraction takes place in the gaming industry.
People and gamers have been proven to ignore difficult games.
People and gamers also prefer established IPs as well.
Now with the bulk of the market ignoring anything that isn't AAA Blockbuster, shooters, and sports, not many are going to be willing to invest in different games.
Now if Steam, PSN, and XBL stats are correct the majority rarely finish 1 game, let alone 2 games a year.
A shorter game is going to net your more sales than a long game these days due to most people not having the time to complete them.
TL:DR it's too expensive for most MMOs to succeed these days, easy games sell way better, and very few games are completed to the end on XBL, PSN and Steam.
@Yorumi But that isn't what is happening. It is what could happen. It could go south and negatively affect the industry. Anything new has the potential to negatively affect the industry, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. If games start coming out that are mind numbingly easy, don't play them and don't buy them. Vote with your money. Having options isn't bad until they start taking away other options, which I have said in an early comment. Having these options actually allow them to make games harder while providing a way for those that don't want the challenge to still get their money worth. If the person is only interested in playing with the invincibility mode on then they wouldn't have been interested in the game without it. It is a way to increase sales and increase the audience without negatively affecting the ones that want a challenge. It is only when they take away challenge in general is when it negatively affect that audience. Nintendo is taking away the challenge, they are giving an option to those that don't want the challenge
Now that I think about it, Star Fox 64 did a pretty good job of gating content behind accessible difficulty walls. "Easy" routes and even an expert mode! I still think Invincibility will lead to some classic gaming hilarity, but they could easily have just gone down that....route again.
@Yorumi, but the Hero mode + Ganondorf Zelda = extra super hard mode Zelda proves that giving different modes for games will be good for gamers like you, who want difficult, while still keeping them accessible to people like me, who want a challenge without the frustration caused by failing to beat the first boss a million times and giving up, and also to people like my daughter, who just doesn't have the motor skills yet. Thus expanding the customer base and keeping everybody happy.
If easy mode became the only mode available, that would be awful for nearly all of us, and also, I think, for the people who design the games in the first place.
I do see what you're getting at here, and to a point I agree with you. We know that smartphone games sell (or not, since the vast majority of them are at least FTP) the most copies, hence shareholders screaming for Mario Kart for Android. We the gamers don't want smartphone games, in the main. So it would be worrying if the games companies went down that route of only having easy, easier and movie-watching difficulty levels, because they know that easier games sell more. But if difficulty modes were available from VN-style difficulty up to Hero mode, and Hero mode was a challenge for even dedicated, experienced and skilled gamers, wouldn't that be a good thing? Especially if the game gave different rewards, similar to 999 and VLR, as an example, where you got more information for playing on Hard. I purposely went with that mode, on my first play, to get those rewards, so I know from experience that rewarding harder modes does give the gamer an incentive to take up the challenge.
If Nintendo can do this for Star Fox, maybe it will eventually be possible for Etrian Odyssey and Fire Emblem to have extra-hard modes for people who want them as well as easier modes for newer or more casual players. Let's hope so - and let's also hope that you don't have to play through the whole thing on Normal to get to those modes.
Adding more options to a game for a more customizable experience is pretty much always a good thing. I see no harm here. Anyone trying to speculate on what the long term, butterfly effects of this, could be, that's something that will never be anything more than speculation, and fortune telling.
IMO, if I were to design an easy mode, I'd make the enemies very passive. They'd shoot you once and move on. Invincibility doesn't teach you anything but allow for recklessness. While it's nice and all that's it's optional, it's a recurring trend in Nintendo games that they offer ridiculously easy options. It's nice when you are a new player but eventually when you step out of that zone and play harder games, you are going to be frustrated to no end because you simply don't know what it's like to lose.
Invincibility in this type of game is a bit excessive in my opinion.
In Mario games, it made perfect sense. Your main obstacle is the stage itself. Enemys just add on to that challenge. By eliminating those, you have a much easier time tackling your main problem, the platforming.
In Starfox however, your main obstacle are said enemys, while the sages are a secondary threat. Rarely do you need to avoid structures that require more finesse than to simply move in one cardinal direction.
So, in comparison, granting your ship collision imunity would be the closest comparison. Also, it gives you way more options to tinker with the overall difficulty. Make enemys shoot you less, reduce their accuracy, reduce their numbers, double your hitpoints, double your shot power etc.
Variables you dont really have in a Mario game.
Making you outright invincible to your main threat is not what i would call good game design really, as it doesnt ease a player into tackling the games normal difficulty at all.
If there is nothing to loose, there is nothing to learn.
There is nothing wrong with having more optional features, but tjis could have been solved way more elegant.
I'm glad if they produce a wide range of difficulty ranges. but at the same time, I'm also fine with a game being "too easy" & "too hard" it just means that some of these games are not for me, and that's fine, because there is more than enough to play out there, just find something you like, and leave the developers to do as they wish.
I am super-excited that Nintendo continues to champion local co-op play!!! I love playing games with my Wife on Wii U (pikmin 3, yoshi wooly world, super mario 3d land, nintendoland, affordable space adventures). I avoid playing online at all times because I can't stand hate speak you encounter online and laggy games. Give me my best friends in same room so I can punch their arms when they win! Wii U is my favorite system EVER for this fact.
While I have never needed to utilize any of the assist power ups in any of the games I have played I certainly don't have a problem with Nintendo adding them in since it doesn't affect me at all. Maybe people complaining about it want everyone to be on the same level playing field but the reality is that this isn't Dark Souls where you are expected to overcome the challenges with nothing but pure effort and though I don't see a need for it in a game like this either I am not going to let the inclusion of this feature deter me from playing the game, as I love how it is shaping up. Just enjoy the game however you prefer to play it!
I'm excited for this option. My kids are 5 and 3. They were quite excited to see the Star Fox trailers. Now they can actually play the game. They won't care they are invincible. They will have fun and that's what matters. When I was young we always turned on infinite lives on our NES game genie. It allowed us to enjoy SMB3, TMNT2 etc. who cares if it's easier. We had fun and got to levels we would never have seen without it.
@Xenocity Glad to hear I'm not the only one dealing with RNG bull in Fates. I got fed up and switched to casual when playing Birthright because towards the end I would do well on chapter 24 and the exact scenario happened after the rest of my startegy worked:
I have a 99% hit chance and 45% crit rate, it misses.
CPU soldier has an 11% hit chance and a 2% crit chance, gets the crit, hits me, and my guy dies. It happened about 5 or 6 times before I just quit.
I've always wanted Nintendo embrace what I call "Accessibility Mode"; games that are designed with ALL audiences in mind, so even people with disabilities can also enjoy the game. This wouldn't be possible with EVERY game of course (FPS immediately springs to mind), but I feel that at least some games (especially Nintendo's broader reaching IP) should be designed not only for their core audience, but also for those who love gaming but are simply not capable of the reflexes and other factors that may be preventing them from fully enjoying the experience.
My sister, who has spastic cerebral palsy, used to game with me in my childhood (we only had a PC growing up). She was no good at racing games, so sometimes I'd pretend that she was playing as me and she would fill with such joy and excitement. A few years ago, I bought her a Wii for her birthday, which proved too difficult for her as her mobility is quite poor, and her eyesight isn't the best either (she's cross-eyed).
Games like 3D World and the Super Mario Bros. games also have far too many obstacles and what have you to render the game accessible for somebody like her. I wish Nintendo had implemented an always-on guide for players with difficulties, such as preventing characters from falling into chasms, for example (or just being able to pick up wherever the death occurred instead of being forced to return to the last checkpoint).
This is a completely untapped market, and I think it's absolute madness that nobody has jumped on it yet.
One thing I like about Halo is the difficulty levels. It encourages you to try and win on all of them, and it's very tough to win on the highest - but if you can't, it doesn't matter. It means you can make the difficulty really high for those who love the challenge while also adding accessibility for other gamers.
@MadAdam81 totally agree. Achievements help with that too, I hope NX incorporates them the way Sony and MS does.
There's been easy options on console and PC games since forever. How this is suddenly a problem? I'm guessing Internet 🙄
I think what many gamers need to understand, is that little kids are growing up into gamers too, and they need something that can be easy for them to get the hang of. My kids are 4 and 5...they love games, which is why I still own all of the nintendo systems (except the virtual boy). The Playstations are for myself and my wife, but the nintendo consoles are clean and kid-friendly games that I can trust. There isn't a lot of learning a dozen buttons. Adding easy mode to these games, lets my kids (and I'm sure many others), experience the story and actually make it through the game on their own! They feel good at accomplishing this, and later on, when they get older, they can try it again in a harder mode. I think it's good that these are optional, and I wish there were many other companies that follow this! This is why Nintendo will always be the great Family-Console!!!
@Fandabidozi Because the internet always wants to put nintendo down, and continue calling them the 'kiddie' console. In my opinion, nintendo makes the games the way they were meant to be...fun and with family. This is what gaming was about in the late 70's and into the late 80's...arcades, pinball machines and various others where it was fun to beat the other players high scores and have fun...something many kids are missing these days.
Hooboy, sure are lots of people of the "there are no gutter shields in life, kid" persuasion here. Hope you restrict that kind of premature "tough love" pointlessness to internet comment sections, prospective parents.
@Xenocity I know it is ridiculous that such a minor thing bothers people so much.
I could handle losing at games even as a child, and enjoyed overcoming the challenges in games, but whatever I'm not peoples mom no need to care.
I disagree with the premise of the article, by the reasoning that it lessens the significance of challenge in games when it's blatantly avoidable. The elegant obstacle course loses at least some of its meaning when there's a flower-lined path right next to it.
As evidence, I present that Nintendo's glory days were before all this Super Guide stuff, while they've only served to become the butt of the gaming community's jokes in the years, now, since they've gone down this road.
My heart goes out to the impaired, but aside from them, if "accessibility" was such a game-changer, you'd think the big N would be going gangbusters about now.
..um... Konami has something to say... Go ahead Konami.. ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ← → ← → B A
More raging about optional features, lol. Didn't they hint that SFZ would also have harder difficulties as well? Gamers need to realize that not everyone plays on the hardest difficulty setting.
@Dr_Lugae It will also help beginners become advanced as well. No different to different difficulties in Mario Kart.
@Fath so Mario Kart should only have 200 cc?
@sonicmeerkat By having multiple difficulty levels, you have people wanting to complete the game in each one, and people progressing from easy to hard. Easier difficulty options can be balanced out by having harder difficulty options as well. It is always better than a one size fits few option.
@Pluto14 Accessibility works both ways. Option for easier mode allows addition of an option for an even more challenging mode.
I swear these people complaining about this sound like "I had to walk uphill both ways in the snow with no shoes on and I liked it" stories our parents/grandparents used to say (or still say). Remember that feeling you got when you heard them say that ad nauseam?
It. Is. A. Game. Some people game to unwind because their real life is challenging enough. Others are may not have the skill or vision or coordination the play super hard mode. Some folks don't have the time to invest in playing to get the skillset required. I always considered gaming to be the hobby that anyone can do. Since there is a game in every genre, but it seems like more and more people want to make it exclusionary rather than accessible. Which is why much of the mainstream public consciousness holds gaming in disdain. There is room on your lawn for others.
@MadAdam81 [you know what, just ignore what was here at first entirely] I should have acknowledged that it's a complex give-and-take, and that there are upshots to multiple difficulties as well as downsides. That still means I take issue with this article's premise, though, which denies the downsides entirely.
I can see how my first post could have come off as abrasive by sticking to the downsides, as it bugs the hell out of me when people take the opposite position unconditionally.
I think the only idea I can come up with in support of unpopular argument that this sort of option shouldn't exist is that, in certain genres, and, if widely adopted, mass market may always opt for the easy option and devs could use this to skimp on AI.
I honestly don't believe or support that idea, I'm attempting to rationalise the irrational. Truth be told I believe that gaming has to be all about options and a customised experience. Without choices, we'd be watching TV.
I'm liking the Co-op idea in this game
If they say "We included an invincible difficulty setting", that does not sound as good as if they say "There is a practice mode where you don't get damage".
@Fath My point is that without 50cc, if Mario Kart was only 150cc and Mirror Mode, Nintendo would never have brought a 200cc mode.
I always see one difficulty mode games as medium difficulty, and if you add more difficulty modes, not only can you add easier ones, you can also add harder ones that provide more challenge.
Mario Kart has always done this, with 50cc getting people ready for 100cc and 100cc getting people ready for 150cc. If they didn't have easier modes, nobody would be as good, even the best players learn on easy mode.
Beginners will never become good at a game if their hand is held and given easy mode straight away.
A few seem to be equating invincibility with "the game plays itself". But this is probably not the case. We don't know how it will work but most likely you will still have to fly around, shoot enemies, meet objectives. The difference is you can't die.
@Mr_Diabolical "Beginners will never become good at a game if their hand is held and given easy mode straight away."
Exactly. This is why I taught my son to read by giving him a copy of War and Peace and telling him to get on with it.
Accessibility is a dirty word in gaming. It pretty much destroyed the MMO market and is rearing it's ugly head at other genres as well. Once you make the decision to be everything to everyone you lose the hardcore market. I like to think of it as the entitlement generation's contribution to the hobby.
@Xenocity Do they really NEED to address the bitching and moaning of what is most likely a vocal minority?
@BLPs ah, sister thing. OK, I get it now. Just a word of wisdom though, when you have your own kids, it isn't even remotely the same. My mom went back to work to when I was about 15 and my sister 5, and even though I had another sister age 13 I was responsible for the 5 year old. Come to think of it I have no idea were the 13 year old was, but I watched my sister and cooked some simplistic dinners - mac and cheese, pork and beans and hot dogs, when I was in my teen years. My sister and I also have a special bond b/c of it, and even though she's a very successful businesswoman and supermom of kids she still looks up to me b/c of those years we spent together. Didn't nearly prepare me for fatherhood though like I thought it would. Not even close.
@aaronsullivan "Bah, daylight savings time change is making me tired and grumpy."
Preach it my brother! I can almost guarantee that whatever MEN in congress or elsewhere decided on daylight savings time they were NOT the ones responsible for getting kids out of bed in the morning to go to school. (sorry for the male bashing, but I really think it's deserved in this case)
If these options remain exactly that then there is absolutely no need for people to make a fuss. It's one thing for a game to implement hand-holding on a regular basis. It is an entirely different thing if a game offers help if so desired. Nintendo are giving players a choice.
I am in favor of more options, and think it's a great idea to include variable levels of adjustment to difficulty (caters to a lot of skill levels). It may make the quality of the game more variable, but that should be somewhat remedied if the standard / normal level is well game play tested / balanced (i.e., variable difficulty levels are good, as long as devs don't be lazy per testing/balancing).
Per invincible mode, it does seem a bit excessive (reduces game to be more like a movie), but as long as the gameplay isn't watered down for the gamer who gets fun out of overcoming challenges for the normal/hard modes, this is fine. Those who play on invincible mode will probably not receive the same level of quality in the experience since there's a level of thrill that comes from overcoming challenges and the conflict (and it'd be up to them to decide/choose to do or not do that), but that's up to them if they want that. Could be good for kids, but if they don't have the motor skills for the basic level, they'll probably get stuck whenever a boss arrives and they have to shoot specific targets. Can't really remedy that without full on automating the game at that point, though.
In other consideration, it could get new gamers/kids to become accustomed to winning all the time with no real effort / motor skills / mental effort /challenge involved. It's fine for just relaxing, but it may not lend well to real world skills in overcoming homework and struggling with new concepts to learn them. May also make their tastes in games to be those that are not any challenge, and if the majority desires said games, they'll pay for said games, and the market will appease /produce games of easier difficulty (we know how 'willing' big companies are to risk / try new things in games). It's fine if that easy mode is just an option, bad if 'invincible mode' or equivalent level difficulty becomes the standard level of difficulty (and there are no options, in general or in making it more difficult in a non-superficial way). Part of creating a masterpiece for a game is not just to make it playable, but to make it memorable. I think invincible easy would detrimentally effect memorability, always. I am a gamer who likes challenge, but I play games because they are more interactive than movies, and I feel like I play a part in the outcome/ending. I get a thrill by having a challenge. If the victory is guaranteed, it's not as memorable/fun for me. I realize this is my tastes, but I think in general for life, if there's no real sacrifice/commitment/investment towards something, there also tends to be no real attachment/connection.
So, with this game, applause for variable levels of difficulty options, but invincibility mode may be a bit too much (assuming the option is available where you could equivalently get that by reducing the variable difficulty level to 3x/4x/5x health and firepower, but then still have a bit of challenge), such that I think it detrimentally affects the memorability / quality a gamer (even one just wanting to relax) would have with the game. It could work well for kids with low motor/gaming skills, but those same kids would probably get stuck and not be able to move past bosses / mandatory enemies.
Depends on the game to choose the best easy mode option, with mario (or platforming genre) invincibility works as someone else mentioned, platforming is more about overcoming the stage and enemies are extra challenge. So, invincibility works because it just removes one layer of challenge, but still allows for the player to work on the core mechanics. In a game like Star Fox, invincibility may take away too much from the game, a better alternative may be to improve other stats (extra health/firepower) to just reduce rather than eliminate the environmental hazards (which is good and sounds like it will be available). Could be a good options test for Nintendo to include it, and get feedback from people who play the game on what difficulty they play on and what they think of the experience. Or to collect said data in-game and automatically send it back to Nintendo.
@rjejr Me and my fiancée have agreed to not have kids. Raising my sister was enough XD
By the way, this is kinda the look I'd like to see used for a new Star Fox game:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qwim52Xui0c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcN_Rl4dINs
Imagine if you could actually play the Landmaster missions like that (with option first or third person).
It's in-keeping with the original game's flat-shaded polygons but still looks totally gorgeous by modern day standards—and, even with the simple flat-shaded polygons, it still looks more visually and technically impressive than Star Fox Zero.
@BLPs Man, you're barely old enough to even be talking about kids, don't tell me you aren't having any. I met my wife at 32 - fixed up on a blind date - married at 35, kids at 37 and 39 1/2 - no way was I having kids at 40! - and I've been in a virtual standstill ever since. You may have kids, you may not have kids, but you haven't decided, not by a long shot. You practically ARE a kid.
@rjejr My fiancée hates kids. She is having nothing to do with it. Plus my parents don't exactly want to be grandparents at 36 and 40. And considering all the babysitting I've done since I was 7, I don't fancy it either. Plus my job doesn't allow for that kind of time.
@BLPs Wow, from where I'm sitting your parents are barely old enough to have kids. Man, I'm old.
You have a whole life ahead of you BLPs, you've just begun to be an adult, you never know. Things happen.
@rjejr Yep. And I'm 20. Let that sink in.
Well, I'm a game dev. Currently obsessed with Xenoblade Chronicles X (Best game of last year moving on) and I just love sitting with the missus and playing games. As it stands, I'm happy.
@BLPs Can't disagree on XCX. Splatoon - for me - is a close 2nd - but after 150 hours I burned out on it. Though I'm kind of done w/ XCX after 150 hours as well. I may have a 150 hour limit for games.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...