I've really been enjoying Cold Take these past few months, and this one might be my favorite. The underlying point about what you say only being half of the conversation, and it's up to the interlocutor/audience to interpret it as intended, is something that colors my entire video-writing process, as it hopefully does for many other video-makers. Being "Right" is subjective and fiddly, while being Understood is achievable and absolute. That, and the "one man's frustration" joke nearly made me spit out my tea, good times all around. -B
I do wonder how you two+ coordinate to post comments. Do you rotate the account per day/hour? Or is it like: "Hey Red, I wanna post something in the Escapist, log off so I can cooment!" Appreciate all the work you and Red do.
“No one ever asks if you played the game right if you say you enjoyed yourself” I’d never realised that before but that’s exactly right. Best video yet Frost
But this also highlights an important part of game design. The game has undeniably succeeded if you enjoyed yourself - so if one player's playstyle means they enjoyed it less, it is a failure on the developer's behalf, not the player's, for not successfully guiding them towards a more enjoyable one. Games can and will be played in every possible way afforded to them by the game's mechanics, and people won't necessarily latch onto the best one - in fact, when you leave people to their own devices, they will often follow goals that are actively counterproductive to their enjoyment of the game. You need to make it so that pursuing the most common and attractive goals happens to lead them naturally towards the "right" way to play, without expecting players to know how to get there from the start.
Escapist giving me just that little bit of hope for humanity. We need more voices like Yahtzee and OtherFrost. A reasonable perspective, with a clear explanation leading to its conclusions, while openly conscious of the inbound knee jerk reactions and still giving them fair consideration. Looking forward to the next Cold Take!
It's more important to me that a reviewer has a clear consistent point of view than it is that they like all the games I like. If I know they aren't really into a certain type of game, I can watch or read the review with that in mind and form my own opinions.
This is part of the reason why I'm not remotely bothered-besides the fact that it would be exhausting to be chronically offended-when Yahtzee rips on a perfectly good JRPG or uses the word anime as an epithet. They're just not his bag, and having likes and dislikes is perfectly okay. Instead, I get some laughs as he parodies tropes, then I go check out what my JRPG and anime enjoying reviewers with similar tastes to mine are saying.
I remember letting my nephew play Portal 2. He didn't care or listen to any dialogue. He rushed through the first few puzzles as fast as he could, ignoring every set piece along the way. Proudly proclaiming he beat it! Where as I had expected him to soak in the atmosphere, enjoy the dialogue, be curious about the world's story telling all around him. No, not to him. It was just puzzle rooms to be solved and completed as fast as possible. I still assert he played it wrong.
I like that a lot of games frame easy and hard mode as story and challenge mode and make it clear that they're different experiences for different people.
well said. My brother is a huge gamer but prefers easy mode because he wants the story and doesn't care about the gameplay being too easy. He will never try Dark Souls because for him it's not worth the grind to enjoy the story whereas I'm a huge DS fan and love the grind even more than the story in some cases. Different strokes for different people and I respect my brother for doing what he likes, not doing things to seek validation from others.
@@MistaZULE Even among Soulslikes, I love the challenge and grind of Sekiro that makes you earn victories, but I also played Jedi Fallen Order on easy mode because sometimes you want to feel like an MC too
@@carrot708 Great way to put it. At the end of the day someone judging us for our game preferences says a lot more about them than it does about us. It's our hobby and there's no wrong way to play.
What I personally believe is that a player can go into a game with the 'wrong' expectations. I think every player should try to understand what the game they're currently playing is trying to achieve and accept that. That is not a guarantee they'll like it, which would be perfectly valid, but playing a game wishing - or even believing - it to be something else very likely will lead to, what I would genuinely call, an unfair dislike or evaluation of the game. This holds especially true for critics and reviewers.
I disagree with such evaluations being unfair. If the player doesn't realize what the game is trying to do then it's a failure on the part of the game and/or the game's marketing for leaving them with the wrong impression. I've watched several a review of Watch Underscore Dogs where the reviewer talks about how the protagonist's demeanor, attitude and actions make him very unlikable and unpleasant to play. This was responded to in the comments by some people claiming that the reviewer missed the point, that protagonist Aiden was intended to be unlikable, that he was supposed to be perceived as being in the wrong. That he was a true anti-hero, a character of borderline tragedy as the player watches his continual death spiral of failing relationships and increasing life-threatening danger. _However._ If this was the intent then the marketing for Watch Underscore Dogs did an awful job. It was advertised like pretty much any other Ubisoft open world sandboxy game, as a power fantasy where you're playing a modern day Robin Hood using your l33t hakking skillz to steal money and take down Big Business and avenge your niece! It was, in short, not advertised as a game about deep pathos and a PC that you may find genuinely disgusting. To my mind, the players were sold what was claimed to be a boat but was actually a car. Does that mean it's a _bad_ car? No. But because they were promised a boat they're unhappy with it because they were misled about what they were buying. So evaluating the game as bad because it's not what the player was promised seems entirely fair to me.
@@ExNihil0 it's not about being right since there isnt an objective "right", it's about phrasing ur subjective opinion. watch the vid if u need a better explanation, im bad with words.
@@ExNihil0there's a difference between being right and doing right. I say this because being right is implied that you can say or do no wrong. Doing right is knowing that even if you're wrong, there's a reason beind said motive which in turn was a "right move" depending on who you ask.
People conflate "intended way" with "right way". The devs create a game, intending the player to play in a specific way (sometimes wayS). That doesn't mean the player is wrong for not playing that way though. Also, I'm on board with this for single player games. Multiplayer is more complex. To combine the argument with another common one, easy mode in souls games: If I play a souls game, and summon help, I want to know that the other player has a certain level of mastery of the game, so I don't waste my items/time. Easy solution is to lock multiplayer encounters to other players who chose the same difficulty as you. Also, for coop games, there's an implied agreement between players that "I'm going to fulfill my role, be it dps, tank, heals, whatever, in order for us to complete this challenge" It might be fun to die on purpose in funny ways by yourself, but as the infamous and 100% not scripted Leeroy Jenkins video showed us, there is a wrong way to play multiplayer games.
I'm sure The Escapist knows that ZP is their flagship - just for a laugh, sort their videos by 'Most Popular' and keep scrolling until you see a non-Yahtzee title or your PgDn button breaks, whichever comes first... That said, I'm glad I clicked on this because a) the writing is stellar, b) I feel this deeply in my soul as a veteran casual gamer with picky tastes, erratic attention span, and limited free time, and c) holy hell, I could listen to Sebastian all day. Dude's voice sounds like a cross between smooth jazz, every detective novel ever, and drinking hot cocoa under a weighted blanket.
I howled with laughter at the two streaming guinea pigs. Enough so that my spouse had to come check to see if I'd finally turned the rest of the way mad.
This is touched on a bit with what's said about Stray or Signalis, but I think it really is less about how you play any particular title, but more about what your background in games is going into the title. Stray is just easy to play, not in a bad way, anyone can see the intended experience. Its easy to leave more gameplay focused people cold though, its a near walking sim for its level of depth, but cats are just likable. I've had the 'played too much' experience recently with a *very* beloved game, Neon White. Having vastly more time than anyone should on TF2 jump maps, the game felt a bit basic, I felt slow moving through the maps, even when getting platinum metals compared to how *fast* TF2 rocket jumping combat is, and with moving enemies doing the same moves back to you to boot. A bit like a tutorial for TF2 air control. Of course, my experience with that is the vast minority, how many people are going into a game with 1000+ hours in another, incredibly similar title's competitive scene.
i think that's also partially because neon white may deal in a different kind of speed. TF2's cool feeling came from controlling yourself going at high velocities, while neon white isn't specifically about velocity but more like platformer puzzle solving just with a timer to encourage "cleanness", but youre right i never felt truly "fast" in that game in the same sense as something like Hover or Super Cloudbuilt or Cyberhook, but after coming to terms with what the game was going for i actually feel like it was one of the most enjoyable games of that year.
I felt a similar feeling when I played Titanfall 2 for the first time. As someone with hundreds of hours of Lucio playtime in overwatch, Titanfall's wall riding was just similar/different enough that I had a hard time enjoying it, I wanted to be playing Overwatch instead
No one asks if you played a game right when you say you liked it because it doesn't matter at that point. It only matters if you did it right when you didn't like it. Imagine playing golf with a baseball bat, and saying you hated it, then someone points out that you didn't do it right. Do you get defensive and say "there's no wrong way to play golf!" Or "you're just a fanboy that can't accept someone not liking golf!" No. You go back and play it with a damn golf club. Then form a proper opinion. There may not be a "right" way to play a video game, but more often than not, there are certainly wrong ways. Those wrong ways can be used as fun challenges for experienced players, like speedruns or nuzlockes in Pokemon, but for everyone else, those wrong ways will likely ruin the experience. Like skipping the dialog in a story driven RPG and then bitching about how the story sucks. That's just not how the game is meant to be played.
Was Yahtzee represented by the guinea pig Lulu from Little Adventures? Great guinea pig channel! Also that 3rd guinea pig was a capybara. A very close cousin to guinea pigs, and a great visual metaphor for trying so hard to find someone who validates your opinion that you have to stretch the definition of the source.
I like the thoughtful depth of this series, and hope it has enough traction to justify sticking around. Frost's insistence on trying to keep an open mind throughout the whole experience in games, and everything around them-and communicating that it's a good quality to cultivate and maintain-is the yin to Yahtzee's yang on the Escapist for me, atm. And, so, I continue to be impressed by Nick's ability to scout talent that brings new things to the table, while delighting the old guard and newcomers alike. In addition to listening to the audience, gracefully taking constructive feedback, and growing the brand in a direction that I really think is going to throw off the common perceptions of the Escapist from the before times, and bring it into a real golden age. While I'm handing out praise, Marty is also one of the goats, and he must be protected at all costs.
i think escapist only had that reputation temporarily after the PCMR meme died down but people still associated escapist with its iconography, other than that "phase" of the internet i think escapist was always considered high brow gaming journalism, at least by my circles and i.
Love the specific wording in this one, Frosts writing has an immediate unique voice that keeps you enthralled. Also, obviously, Guinea pig bit was great 👍
That was good. It's an interesting idea to explore deeper. I remember watching friends play growing up and thinking they were playing "wrong" but it was really just how they enjoyed the game and a matter of shifting perspective.
I recently started playing Unsighted, which has a mechanic where the player character and most NPCs have a time limit until they lose their consciousness and become mindless killing machines (they're all robots) The game gives you the option to turn this mechanic off, which I did once I saw how fast the timers actually go down. I feel a little guilty for not engaging with this game's core mechanic, but I know that if I turned it back on, I would be too stressed out to really enjoy the rest of the game. This dilemma was recently compounded when I got stuck on one section where I need to find the key to a certain room, but I've been unable to find the key yet. It made me wonder how many NPCs would have died just in the time it's taken me to search for this one key in this large, maze-like environment.
when my nephew played crash bandicoot, a game of my childhood, one side of me was saying calmly "a game is to be enjoyed, and he is enjoying it, I am not going to be a gate keeper, I am not to judge if he enjoys" while the other was screaming "YOU DONT EXPLORE A CORRIDOR! HOW COULD YOU EXPEND HALF AN HOUR IN LEVEL 1 OF CRASH 3?" the funny thing is, now that he got LoZ Breath of the wild, he is trying to speedrun the game as much as he can
This was a good video. I may absolutely love Signalis and roll my eyes a bit at 'those who just don't get it' but you clearly communicate why expectations differ for everyone. Like you say, one man's frustrations are another man's kink.
Well, there's your problem: that third guinea pig was a capybara in disguise. That aside, I often wonder how much of this boils down to people not thinking for themselves; we're all different people, so why do so many band together and say that something is the best or worst thing ever, when most things are far more nuanced than that? It certainly doesn't help that more often than not, the term, objective, is used as the adult version of a nuh-uh, because objective means it's a fact, and you can't disagree with a fact. The debate quickly shifts from two clashing opinions to whether or not a statement is truly objective; the goalpost has been moved, and the focus derailed. Though being told what to say and do is an inevitability in this life, nobody has the right to tell you how to think and feel, and it seems like we've forgotten that, ridiculing each other's tastes and opinions as though objectivity has anything to do with it.
I have a friend that consistently plays some games the "wrong" way. I showed him a city builder I enjoy, he plunged the city into debt and was exiled. I showed him a Rougelite I love, he found a way to enable friendly fire and turn it into an unnecessary duel to the death before we move on to the next stage. I showed him a beloved survival game, he draines me of my hard earned resources while contributing nothing. While there are times I wish he would play these games "correct". He offers unique incites I never considered, new paths I've never walked. And at the end of the day, I honeslty play his favorites "wrong" too.
Great take, thanks! The people who mystify me are the Steam reviews, usually for fighting, RPG, RTS, Econ games etc who say: "I found an exploit/bug that let me beat everything easily in a boring way, terrible game etc etc" It's like the idea of just not using the exploit/bug to enjoy the game more isn't an option for them.
Might be the best take yet. Pure poetry, and with a depth that is liable to induce vertigo. It's interesting that you are never asked "did you read it the right way?" when you don't like a certain book. Everything is not for everyone.
Validation is important for us, and it is fine to seek out humans that "understand" things same way we do. However, it is very rewarding to be more open minded about other people's opinions about art, entertainment, games. In the past I was scared that I liked thing no other liked. I was thinking constantly that there is something wrong with me. Now I just openly say I like something and why I like something - and vice versa. As for "intended way" that could mean different things and that also might impact experiences differently. Again, something I have learned to promote more than "judge". If someone struggles to beat certain type of enemy or boss, it is worth to drop a hint. But it is still up to others to come up with their own solutions using those hints.
When I love a game because it provides A and B that i cant' find in other games, there's always someone talking happily about how much they only enjoyed C and tried their best to avoid interacting with B and that the game would be better without A. And my poor gamer heart is starved from A and B in the current gaming landscape and is getting paranoid, what if the publishers listen to them more than me? "We heard you gamers, here's silent hill battle royale!"
Whenever this topic comes up, I always think of XCOM. On the one hand, there's the issue of how often to save, which is very much a personal preference thing. I always encourage people to experiment with less frequent saves, because I know that _I_ certainly found myself enjoying the game on a whole other level once there were genuine consequences and I couldn't simply reload a save to undo my stupidity (or bad luck). I also got better once I was actually _forced_ to plan contingencies for when plan A inevitably went south, rather than trying various combinations until it finally worked... but that was _my_ experience. And while I tend to prefer playing ironman (or a style close to it that relies more on self-discipline), I'm certainly not going to accuse someone who needs a bigger safety net to have fun of playing it "wrong". I simply encourage them to experiment a bit, rather than pigeonholing themselves into a style they might actually find less enjoyable. On the other hand, there are issues like players who will bring out the same team on every, single mission, completely ignoring the rest of their squad (which, to be fair, was kind of encouraged by the mechanics of the games before _War of the Chosen_ even if it was still a bad idea), then they'd complain about being completely screwed when their colonel takes an unlucky blast to the face and keels over and all they've got left are rookies to pick up the slack. In that case they were definitely playing it wrong. That game doesn't require them to put all their eggs in once basket. There's more than enough experience to go around to easily field multiple squads of fully-leveled soldiers, by the end. Rotating soldiers in and out means you have some depth to your roster and no one is horribly under-leveled relative to where you are in the game, but if your best troops get killed or taken out of commission with a wound, you have someone _almost_ as good ready to step up and fill in. One approach leads to people praising the tense strategy and tactics that keeps them on their toes while other other leads to people rage-quitting and never coming back after they've screwed themselves over. There definitely seems to be a "right" way, there (which is why I'm surprised it took Firaxis until _War of the Chosen_ to finally borrow the fatigue mechanic from the original _Long War_ mod).
The escapist remains unparalleled as far as I know when it comes to the enthusiast gaming channels on YT. All videos in this series have been awesome and nuanced.
Given the recent changes at the Escapist, I initially thought you meant Enthusiast Gaming, the old parent company. So my knee jerk thought was "oh no, they found a way out from under them because EG was negligent af."
Every point in this video is amazing As for difficulty I always tell people “start harder and don’t have to much pride to go lower if needed” because usually you will know when a game is too hard but not really notice when a game is to easy. As for Signalis I understand peoples love for the game but personally it felt a little underwhelming and it’s mostly all to do with me. See I had recently finished most of the silent hill games and a good chunk of resident evil as well. So I had a bit of burn out on survival horror this compounded with the fact that some this in signalis were just not to my tastes ( some art design and gameplay choices) I found it much harder to enjoy that game. I know how to have fun when I play a game (I love a challenge and when death or failure has a more tangible consequence then resetting to a checkpoint) like you said “many people’s frustrations are another man’s kink”. I always try to be that one individual to go against modern gaming cynicism. As I like to say “the reason you always hear negative opinions on games is because those that enjoy them are to busy playing them”.
There is definitely a wrong way. I tried some games and got frustrated and went to reddit to find someone sharing my frustrations. But not always i would be right to be frustrated and many times i been smacked with realization i was playing it wrong. Shadow of mordor, doom eternal, re2 and many. I didn't pay attention and played them wrong and got frustrated and hated the game. Then found joy after realizing my mistake.
I recently played Cyberpunk 2077 as a "Lucy" a character from Edgerunner that was trained as an advanced netrunner at a young age by Arasaka. I started the game as a Corpo of course, and used mod tools to give my female V level 20 intelligence, a legendary Cyberdeck, and a Legendary stealth abiility (the one that grants 10 seconds every 40 seconds) at the very beginning of the game. If that sounds like too strong of a cheat here's the negative: I did not allow myself to use any weapons, no guns, no melee weapons, no enhanced gorilla fists, nothing, only cyberdeck hacks, and I forced myself to craft all the cyberdeck chips from the beginning, so I was stuck with green one early until I got enough money and salvage to upgrade. It was fun. There were times where you play as Johnny, where you have to use guns, but when playing as V I had to rely on spells and stealth. Bottom line, sometimes changing the rules and modding can breath new life into a gaming experience to make it more challenging and/or enjoyable.
Some of the most fun I've ever had are the artificially-limited builds in games. The necromancer in the original Baldur's Gate with only 3 CON (yes, really). The "How long can I go without a long-rest?" plays of BG3 EA. The Crowbar Half-Life Experience. The Explosives-Only, Pistols Only, or Energy-Weapon-Only builds in the Fallouts. The immersion-breaking Mass Effect playthroughs where Shepard is by far the strongest biotic ever but no one else recognizes it. Pacifist runs in any game that supports them. Did I need any other ability besides Launch in CONTROL? Nah. Fun is fun.
I love the writing and vocal performance in this series so much. If I may be critical though, I do find it hard to absorb all the points because of how the video is edited. I was confused for a bit why so much of the Stray trailer/cinematic was on the screen while Sebastian was talking about Skyrim. I didn't even realize he had transitioned into talking about Stray at some point. There's a dissonance between the footage and writing at times that is distracting. Regardless I click on these videos as soon as they show up in my inbox, and watch through the series playlist regularly. Looking forward to more.
Dark Souls made me realize I like difficulty in games, I was just too scared of dying. But in the desire to beat Witcher 3, but finding it too boring, I turned up the difficulty, and holy hell it was a whole different game. It quickly became such a hook when I had to interact with all of the systems in the game and not just looking at them like they're a fire extinguisher you're forced to carry with you but never actually using.
Lowering the difficulty actually helped me to enjoy God of War Ragnarok. I started the game on the highest difficulty initially because I figured that if I was good at souls games I would be good at God of War. I was very wrong. I got my ass kicked repeatedly. I only found enjoyment in the game once I played it on normal. It allowed me to learn the games systems at my own pace without frustration. Now I’m replaying the game on the hardest difficulty and finding a lot of enjoyment in it. Sometimes you just have to check your ego at the door.
I learned this a long time ago with yahtzee being my favourite TH-cam video game reviewer since 2011. There's been so many games that I've loved but he hated, and vice versa. I used to often (despite still enjoying the reviews) think he didn't play the games I liked the "right" way. Flipping that around left me trying games he liked in the way he played them to see if I had approached it wrong. I rarely found a game that I changed my opinion of by playing his way. Sometimes you just don't gel with a game, sometimes you find your own right way of playing that clicks. Sometimes your own "game of the year" is trash in others opinions. Differing opinions is why we have variety, why indie developers can make that obscure title that draws you in for tens of hours while others only get 60 minutes in before they go play something else. Long live varieties of taste, and the ever changing discussion of what makes a "good" game!
One thing that really changed how I view entertainment was somebody saying they liked "Batman & Robin", largely considered the very worst of the franchise. Everyone else piled on with "oh no, it's total crap, you should watch THIS instead", to which they replied "If that'd make me like something I like less, then no thanks." It made me pause and realise how invested I'd become in everyone having the same (obviously right) tastes as me. Now, when I criticise something, I try to make it very clear that this is just what I think, that this piece of entertainment didn't work FOR ME, and that if you liked it more, I'm not going to try and tell you you're having wrong fun.
Im funnily enough that 3rd guinea pig for Signalis, never played SH2 or old RE but knew them via reputation, interest in foundational games and pop culture osmosis enough to know what i was getting into but not enough to say i actually knew what i was getting into, and yeah i enjoyed the game it stuck with me for weeks after beating it almost beating a second playthrough enjoying the fact i could skip various things with my foreknowledge but i would never say it's faultless and also a very specific taste, not everyone will get it an i don't think most should, i personally dont think it would or should have beaten Elden Ring in term of capturing the popular zeitgeist, its too specific
I noticed the games talked about in this video are single player games, which never ceases to baffle me when players criticize others for not playing the “correct” way. No one really cares if someone beats a dark souls/elden ring boss with a DDR pad without getting hit versus someone beating it using ranged attacks and spirit ashes/co-op - both are legit in the eyes of the game. As long as the player is having fun doing whatever they want to do, then no harm no foul. The issue crops up far more in multiplayer focused games, where the performance of other players impacts the enjoyment one has. There was a TH-cam video released a few months ago about WoW, but it described players whose unusual styles (i.e. never wearing shoes or walking everywhere) went from being fun, tolerated character quirks to being railed against by other players for lost efficiency/wasting time. That’s where it gets a lot less black and white on the subject of playing games right, since I assume players, on average, hope to be matched with others who motives align with what the game expects.
I agree with a lot said here. I'll state up front that I've been following Yahtzee's career to varying levels over the years, but often I can gauge whether or not I will like a game he reviews by listening to what worked well and what didn't. His review of Dark Souls got me to take the plunge and love the genre. From streams and such I know he didn't really get through Elden Ring, while I beat it 3 times last year. I don't have to review a game every week and I could take the time I wanted through most of the game, I only had to manage my other life commitments. Getting a gauge of author and perspective can say a lot more than the words alone. I think I'm slowing down in my age, but that might just be that I was trying to keep a pace that I couldn't and needn't sustain.
I've got a similar taste in games to Yahtzee, except when it comes to JRPGs. When he knocks one, I don't get offended or upset. Instead, I have a good laugh with his writing, then go and check out what my JRPG folk are talking about before making a decision about my purchase. Bonus points for any game that still has the confidence to drop a free demo though.
I get great entertainment from watching Zero Punctuation. It's great well written comedy, and good for giving me an insight into gameplay loops in a short time. I just find in terms of tastes, Yahtzee and I are almost polar opposites. Games he glowingly reviews I tend to not enjoy, Games he barfs on or doesn't review because they aren't interesting enough, I tend to love.
Skyrim is an interesting one for me. I agree with his arguments, but for a different reason. I think the fact that the game can be played so many ways is why the game was reviewed so well. That's it. Everyone played the game they wanted, the way they wanted. Meaning the devs just had to stitch together some very basic system together and people would play it for that reason. I actually played through level 8 to 40 by just building houses. My friend played all the mystical stuff and then just went side mission exploring. Another one got so invested into one area of the game that he out leveled everything else, and actively role-played himself into scenarios to return to that area for a while. The game is a pure sandbox, which means you make your own enjoyment. That means the devs don't need to create a right way to play the game. In a competitive game like league of legends, the players decide which way is the right way to play (meta), and devs work around that. In shooters like COD, there has to be a right way to play each game, that's why some people like BO3 more than BO2 or MW (either one). Each game has its own set of rules, and you learn those rules. The problem comes when you take the rules of BO3 to MW... you get fast paced FPS gamers raging at campers who enjoy slow paced safe game play. So I do believe there is a right way to play a game, from the developers' side. They have to balance the game somehow. That's what normal difficulty is supposed to be, the "right way" to play a game. The intended way for everyone. For those who struggle with the new mechanics, there is easy, for those who want a challenge, hard. And for the delusion fans, there is grounded mode. For the gamers who love grind and needless padding, there is any difficulty above Hard in open world games.
I believe things like difficulty, controller buttons/key bindings, move sensitivity, graphics settings, are all just noise. The game essence lies in the narrative, characters, gameplay, competition etc. As time goes on and technology evolves, we will find ways to become closer and closer to that essence, and no one will question what is right and wrong. There will only be what is and what isn’t.
That is why one needs to find and value reviewers and peers whose tastes and experiences consistently align with one's own. They are more likely to have played an unfamiliar game "your way".
Getting told how to play a game really puts me off the game. I grew up playing games and putting my own storylines onto them - maybe jumping into a level of mario as a part a story i had been playing out with action figures, but it i wasn't Mario anymore, it was whatever I wanted. Now I can't say I really do this as an adult, but I do like having the freedom to decide what I think is fun for myself. Last time I really felt like a game was punishing me for playing how I wanted and not how the game wanted was Doom Eternal. Can't remember the name of the specific enemies, but they basically stop the fun and force you to do one particular thing. Felt like when they're trying to get into Newman's PC in Jurassic Park... "nuh uh uh!"
I think the right way is the way that extracts the most the essence of the experience of the particular title.. like.. if you wanna play a fighting game the right way there is no way around it, you have to sit down and learn the moves or you're immediately snapped in two by a noob who learned to block.. but for other types of games there is a less harsher punishment if you don't "play the right way", and that can be deceiving. I wanna say something about Cyberpunk 2077.. it's "right way" of playing is quite esoteric.. although in your face not many people can actually go through with it.. because it requires you to actually role play your last moments in life and how you will face death.. now that's a high psychological requirement. If you get it right you can go through some heavy, transformative stuff.
If there is anything I've learned about video games and video game discourse over the last 20+ years I've been playing them: you have your own specifics for what makes a game good, your own tolerances for what makes a game bad. Depending on the day you picked it up, how you felt, what mood you were in, a game might fail the sniff test and forever be branded "not your kind of game". Depending on the stories you've been told about it, the game might be different to your expectations. Every critic, every youtuber, every gamer friend, has their own voice for what makes a game good to them. Understand that you will agree on some things and disagree on some things, because you're different people with different needs. So enjoy what you enjoy, avoid what you know you won't, don't get sucked into the hype, and play every game your way.
The "right" way to play a game is whatever way allows you personally to have a worthwhile experience playing it. That could be the way the devs intended you to play it. It could be doing your own thing completely independent of the intended experience. it could be somewhere in between. It could be multiple different ways at different times or in separate playthroughs. Or, and this is regrettable but important to admit when it happens, there could be no "right" way for you to play a game because it just can't provide you personally with a worthwhile experience no matter how you choose to approach it.
I think about this a lot, particularly in any creative critisism. When I was 13ish I remember how personally offended I was when I read a movie review in the newspaper (to totaly date myself) that was very negative of a movie I really enjoyed. My grandfather said to me, "if your job was to watch every movie that ever came out you'd see it different from someone like you who only sees two movies a year." Video game reviewing I think in particular suffers from this issue. So many reviews talk about a game in perspective to a bunch of other games. Oh this combat system was done better here, oh this entry to the franchise fourteen game catalog was better, etc. That review isn't wrong, but for someone that plays maybe three games a year to completion its a somewhat meaningless perspective to me.
The same way I know pretty much only useless real life dramas can get a score higher than 90s on the review aggregators for films people should simply get to know their sources. Nobody can enjoy all different experiences and unless critics only watched the films they wanted, which will never happen, they will always be disconnected even if objectively right on the palpable side of things, the only objective part. Not saying that all reviewers are right, but if they are it's still informaton if you know that's a deal breaker for you. For example: if you're a fan of the hunting genre you only need to hear a couple details to understand what Wild Hearts is, or if you're a fan of the ARPG genre why Diablo 4 will suck ass. How useless it is will depend on the reader/spectator the same way you can easily get trapped into buying overpriced stuff irl if you don't make some proper comparisons and research. People who don't have critical thinking or experiences will eventually build it, the only thing is that they should understand their position and avoid spreading misinformation in turn. I mean, the better the game is the more you need to talk about what it does that others do not, since the human being only understand comparisons. Really hard to say why this is good in a vacuum
Video games are also impressively terrible at setting expectations. It doesn't help that many games try really hard to cater to everyone and end up catering to no one (I'm looking at you Forspoken). That or they are trying to be the next big live "service" money printing machine..
I hate to be "that guy" who keeps talking about their favourite game but the third guinea pig for Signalis is easy to imagine, and it has nothing to do with having a "medium" experience of Silent Hill. I understand there are people who play horror games best with company, and I am not saying it is a wrong way to play that way, however, I am fairly sure talking about other games and simultaneously not paying much attention to the documents on screen has resulted in a subpar experience. There is atmosphere from reading those documents, by not taking the time read them and chatting with Yahtzee at the same time it detracts from the immersion and understanding of the world.
I view it as not a case of playing it right or wrong, but in most cases, it's playing the game the way the developers thought it was going to be played. If you've ever watched a Spiffing Brit video or something from Josh at Let's Game it Out, you'll see that games can be enjoyed in ways developers didn't link of. I remember when I was playing Fallout 4 when it came out and watching videos from people that were not. I remember thinking to myself that it didn't sound like the game I was playing, and then I realized I was correct. They were playing the game as Bethesda made it, a father desperately looking for his missing son, but I on the other hand was a guy making my own faction by building up settlements. As long as another players fun isn't being ruined, you aren't playing a game "wrong". I think too many developers waste to much effort trying to "guide" players actions. Instead, it would be more useful to consider their game a framework people create their own version of fun in.
When you realize that "your way" is the "best way" to play a game it removes a lot of frustration from games imo and let's you enjoy them better. For example I modded Subnautica to have a map and make crafting a lot easier with infinte storage. That let me enjoy the exploration parts of the game and it became one of my favourite games ever even though I hate crafting games, all beaceus I chose to play it how I liked. Same with Signalis, I modded the game to have 8 inventory slots and the flashlight and camera were always there so still 6 slots which removed a lot of the tedious backtracking even though I don't dislike that kind of thing.
What is the wrong way to play a game? If you’re playing on your own for your enjoyment then there is no wrong way, I acknowledge that. Exploit, cheat, mod, whatever.If you’re playing for review, what is the wrong way?
I am almost blind and I play games on hard just to proove myself I am not going blind. Right way to play the game is a myth just like Buzz Aldrin's moonwalk. You and Yahtzee agree again?! weeell that is new. Cheers Frost!
I've long said, "there's no right way to play a game," but I had never arrived at this idea/distillation that the mythical "right" way might simply be "your" way. I love being wrong, and I really loved this video!
Its always good to try games outside your comfort zone from time to time, but its also entirely fine to end up deciding you didn't enjoy something and that it alright, and no one can take your experience away from you. No amount of "You did it wrong" will suddenly change that.
If you are not playing a game the right way, that means the game is probably not well made. That's why the fanatic fan boys attack you to defend the game that probably is crap, games that are well made won't easily let you play it wrong, in fact you have to find ways just to play it wrong.
There was a somewhat controversial article a while back that basically said people who wanted difficulty settings on something like Dark Souls were just wrong - you need to either enjoy the game for what it is or find a different game. Many people argued back and forth. There were a lot of people who had physical disabilities who were like "If I can beat this game, anyone can, and no one has any right to complain. Just git gud." And many other people who were like "I love the world and the story and just want to experience it at my own pace without getting stuck and dying in the same spot fifty thousand times. But I want to play the game, not just watch cutscenes. I spent money, why am I not allowed to enjoy it?" To me this always contrasted with games like Minecraft or Skyrim, where almost any veteran player will tell you "You really need to play the game modded, mods add so much to the game, both visually, story-wise and gameplay-wise." So why is Skyrim allowed to have difficulty settings and mods and Dark Souls isn't? I've been gaming almost as long as I've been alive, and I've always been terrible. Finding a happy medium between something that's challenging enough to be rewarding and force me to adapt without being tedious or hitting a brick wall is honestly pretty tough. I guess my point is I don't feel there's a right or wrong way to play a game. If you can find a way to get enjoyment, great! If you can't, there's plenty of other fish in the sea.
The issue from that conversation isn’t that random individuals want to play the game on an easy mode. DS is a popular series and I’m sure there’s all sorts of mods to make it easier. The issue is _journalists demanding_ there should be an easy mode under the guise of “accessibility”. “It’s not about me, it’s actually about other people” which is a lie because accessibility isn’t about lowering the game to your level, but about _raising you_ to the same level as everyone else. These are things like colourblind modes, or changing a “hold” button to a toggle, different text fonts or text describing chatter/noise for those who are deaf. It’s about giving those people as close to the “intended experience” as everyone else. The other thing is developer intent. Mods aren’t something the developer intended, but you have to go out of your way to change it. There’s some level of back-and-forth with fans and what they want and whether developers take on that feedback. But the difference is one changes the experience for themselves (mods) and the other is demanding it change for everyone. Some claim “adding an easy mode doesn’t change your experience” but it does. Because the series is known for having one difficulty, and the shared experience around that. I mean, the original had people leave comments in-universe. That wouldn’t work if there were different difficulties. I guess you could limit comments to your specific difficulty mode but that’s more work and might mean not being able to change after you start. Regardless, the whole conversation about DS difficulty is stupid. There’s about 1000 clones in some form of DS. If DS doesn’t have what you want, it’s not like you don’t have options. At some level you have to accept what the game is and/or what the developer wanted (especially if the same group is going to say games are art). You don’t go into a Chinese restaurant complaining they don’t have pizza. Virtually every other video game has difficulty options. Why is it that this _one_ series (seemingly the only one people point to) is an issue? Mod or play something else. And I’ve never even touched the series so I’m not some ardent fan defender. I just think the discourse is dumb. EDIT: Plus, despite all the complaining that “p they should do it because “it would increase sales”, the games still sell millions of copies. Clearly, the difficulty isn’t a barrier to its success. If it was, no one would complain it’s too hard because it would’ve died off.
Two distinct issues emerge when the topic of "good" is broached: 1. Assumed common definition of "good." 2. Assumed objective nature of the definition of "good." For example, every man will say, "I am good." But that definition tends to be horribly subjective. No one rates himself less then average, unless he's objective enough, or broken enough to do so. Even then, every bloodthirsty criminal will say he is good, and whole heartedly agree with it. This leads into the disputed objectiveness of "good." In games, what makes a game objectively "bad," "okay," "good," "excellent," and "perfect?" The core idea tends to be the same: A solid gameplay loop, easy to understand controls, a well crafted story, and a strong visual design constitute the basics. Which works well for "bad," and "okay," but "good," "excellent," and "perfect" all require something more. That something more is a niche of subjective preferences. For example, I prefer tactical gameplay, where I do not need to use fast twitch muscle fibers, and must maintain security at all times, but others thrive off of that adrenalin rush. Naturally, that means any FPS will be rated lower than a RTS which will be rated lower than an adventure game, in what I enjoy. Fighting games are so beyond me, that I don't even consider them. This means, I will not put something above "okay" without it being in my wheelhouse. Unfortunately, this makes the definitions not objective pass that point.
I can share my experience with Death Stranding. I had it pre-ordered, picked it up day one. Played as much as I could often. I accumulated enough time. 50+ hours with enough of the road built. But I still had story progression to tackle. Thing is, the story revolves on time spent, communication with others, and exploration. The story itself? It is a puzzle, a mystery that you need to take notes on. Because none of it makes sense at first. But the more you do in the in game world, it changes. The more connected you make everyone, it opens up ways of travel, not just for you, but others too. It is easy to get lost. But marking territory, or making delivery ports at key spots will aid traversal. Even the way you get around changes. The story itself is weird, a choose your own adventure tale. But it does have an ending. Sort of Point being. It is up to the player to make sense of the journey. It is not for everyone. But worth a dive getting into Plus the soundtrack is fantastic. When you reach key destinations, you unlock music. Which can be played at rest stops, and while driving. I would honestly call it Kojima's "Oregon Trail"
Mass Effect made me realize this issue, and how my nephew played it. I LOVED the game because I explored and spoke to everyone. The little side stories and choices being standouts to me.....He ran past everything. Making it a clunky shooter where he died often because of being underpowered. The main story offering less morally gray choices, thus being less interesting. Watching him play, I tried not to interject much since Mass Effect is supposed to be the tale YOU shape, but....God he made it boring.
as someone who played silent hill 1-3 and a couple resident evils beforehand, playing signalis afterwards felt amazing, it's a game with familiar mechanics and plenty of homages but with a different setting and perspective, the game felt difficult but I wasn't struggling or finding any part of it tidious and the setting felt unique enough to be immersed. However I can easily understand if you didn't play silent hill or earlier resident evils how the game might not gel with you
Maybe we should stop to think a "good player" is the one that completes the game fast/easily/efficiently and think more that it's the one that can find his fun even in a game not commonly considered all-around good : by abusing mechanics (speedrun is the common example), by ignoring the parts he finds boring (as much as possible anyway), by creating his own challenges/limitations etc.
I think one important point to bring up regarding this topic is how some people like their expectations to be met, and some people like to be more surprised. Similarly, many people like to stick with things that are more familiar to them as opposed to those who prefer to experience things less like what they already know. Designing a game that appeals to all of those people is practically impossible, so there will always be some people who can't stand a game that is truly beloved by others. It has nothing to do with the quality of the game, or the way in which it was approached. Although, it's certainly true that a lack of understanding can lead to frustration which could lead to mistakes without recognizing them as mistakes which leads to even more frustration. The cause of this lack of understanding can be interpreted in multiple ways depending on the point of view. Did the game fail to explain itself? Was the point that you have to figure it out on your own? Or did you just look at TikTok when the game was telling about how it works? These concepts are quite complicated because we are quite complicated. This is separate, but related to "developer's intent" and whether going with or against that intention is going to lead you personally to more fun.
playing a game the right way comes with the assumption it's your way. maybe it's cooler or more effective in someone's opinion to do it another way, but if that was the right way then it would by definition have been my way. the experience of a game is not just the product you buy, but your brain's processing of it, so every game is essentially different to everyone and every "right way" is an extremely personal way of engaging with a game based on everyone's unique mindset, regardless of how popular or unpopular said "right way" is.
3:14 I haven't noticed being asked if I played the game "the right way" specifically, but I have definitely noticed that people expect way more justification for criticism than praise, and that double standard drives me crazy. Whatever you think it takes to justify an opinion, negative ones should have the same requirements for validation as positive ones. But nope, say you love something and that's that. Say you hate it and suddenly you have all sorts of hurdles to cross to earn that opinion.
As far as I'm concerned, the only "wrong" way to play any game is stubbornly ignoring all of the ways the game hands to you on a silver platter to make it fun for you or flat out refusing to engage with the central mechanics. Outside of that, it's okay to just not like something. Nobody should be jumping at people's throats with the "you played it wrong" deflection unless there's a very good reason to.
I'm suddenly reminded of Under the Mayo and his review of ultrakill ignoring his insulting fans he deliberately played the game like a bozo despite the game screaming at him to get into the game be more aggro and stylish, yet he played the game incredibly passively despite not having fun with it to die on the hill that he needs to be challenged by the game to want to do anything with it.
There is no right way to play, even with video games. You can enjoy the story, be great at min maxing the attributes and mechanics, you can literally turn off and let it be white noise to you, or you can figure ways to utterly break or speedrun the hell out of it, and every one of that will be right. Play is play.
The only games I'd suggest have a "right" way one should play them to derive maximum enjoyment are those made by Koji Pro or otherwise developed with Kojima working as the Creative Director. The most widely agreed upon way to correctly play these games are simple! As the game starts up you should begin to think of Hideo Kojima until an image of the man takes hold in your mind, and from there you need but only maintain that image for the duration of your time playing the game. It's easy, fun, healthy, and a great way to show full respect and appreciation!
Here's the article that was referenced throughout the video: www.escapistmagazine.com/death-stranding-favorite-games-changing-the-difficulty/
Another fantastic video
Great Intro
I've really been enjoying Cold Take these past few months, and this one might be my favorite. The underlying point about what you say only being half of the conversation, and it's up to the interlocutor/audience to interpret it as intended, is something that colors my entire video-writing process, as it hopefully does for many other video-makers. Being "Right" is subjective and fiddly, while being Understood is achievable and absolute.
That, and the "one man's frustration" joke nearly made me spit out my tea, good times all around.
-B
I do wonder how you two+ coordinate to post comments. Do you rotate the account per day/hour? Or is it like: "Hey Red, I wanna post something in the Escapist, log off so I can cooment!"
Appreciate all the work you and Red do.
OSP!!!!! Glad to see we're all enjoying the good stuff.
Read this immediately after watching the new trope talk wtf
You know you're in good company when OSP shows up to say "hell yeah, and here's why."
Your faith in humanity is much greater than mine. I don't think being understood is always achievable, sadly. I love your work and keep on trying!
“No one ever asks if you played the game right if you say you enjoyed yourself”
I’d never realised that before but that’s exactly right. Best video yet Frost
But this also highlights an important part of game design. The game has undeniably succeeded if you enjoyed yourself - so if one player's playstyle means they enjoyed it less, it is a failure on the developer's behalf, not the player's, for not successfully guiding them towards a more enjoyable one.
Games can and will be played in every possible way afforded to them by the game's mechanics, and people won't necessarily latch onto the best one - in fact, when you leave people to their own devices, they will often follow goals that are actively counterproductive to their enjoyment of the game.
You need to make it so that pursuing the most common and attractive goals happens to lead them naturally towards the "right" way to play, without expecting players to know how to get there from the start.
"One mans frustrations are another mans kink" Stealing that one lol
Same. This guy’s a wealth of truisms.
My favorite quote of the video.
The Hidetaka Miyazaki motto
Quite literally when it comes to orgasm denial.
This is my favorite series on this channel since ZP
I wouldn't even stop at "since". This episode is comparable with some of the best ZP episodes. The top 5% I'd say.
Escapist giving me just that little bit of hope for humanity. We need more voices like Yahtzee and OtherFrost.
A reasonable perspective, with a clear explanation leading to its conclusions, while openly conscious of the inbound knee jerk reactions and still giving them fair consideration.
Looking forward to the next Cold Take!
It's more important to me that a reviewer has a clear consistent point of view than it is that they like all the games I like. If I know they aren't really into a certain type of game, I can watch or read the review with that in mind and form my own opinions.
This is part of the reason why I'm not remotely bothered-besides the fact that it would be exhausting to be chronically offended-when Yahtzee rips on a perfectly good JRPG or uses the word anime as an epithet. They're just not his bag, and having likes and dislikes is perfectly okay.
Instead, I get some laughs as he parodies tropes, then I go check out what my JRPG and anime enjoying reviewers with similar tastes to mine are saying.
The only upside to standing in a room with people who agree with you is you'll likely enjoy something they recommend.
I remember letting my nephew play Portal 2. He didn't care or listen to any dialogue. He rushed through the first few puzzles as fast as he could, ignoring every set piece along the way. Proudly proclaiming he beat it! Where as I had expected him to soak in the atmosphere, enjoy the dialogue, be curious about the world's story telling all around him. No, not to him. It was just puzzle rooms to be solved and completed as fast as possible.
I still assert he played it wrong.
I agree with you.
I like that a lot of games frame easy and hard mode as story and challenge mode and make it clear that they're different experiences for different people.
well said. My brother is a huge gamer but prefers easy mode because he wants the story and doesn't care about the gameplay being too easy. He will never try Dark Souls because for him it's not worth the grind to enjoy the story whereas I'm a huge DS fan and love the grind even more than the story in some cases. Different strokes for different people and I respect my brother for doing what he likes, not doing things to seek validation from others.
@@MistaZULE Even among Soulslikes, I love the challenge and grind of Sekiro that makes you earn victories, but I also played Jedi Fallen Order on easy mode because sometimes you want to feel like an MC too
@@carrot708 Great way to put it. At the end of the day someone judging us for our game preferences says a lot more about them than it does about us. It's our hobby and there's no wrong way to play.
I like a little bit of a challenge so I usually always play on Normal. But I still love games like Nioh
For a 9 year old reader, this guy sure can write a good script.
He's a 9 year old reader but a 40 year old writer. Balances out.
What I personally believe is that a player can go into a game with the 'wrong' expectations. I think every player should try to understand what the game they're currently playing is trying to achieve and accept that. That is not a guarantee they'll like it, which would be perfectly valid, but playing a game wishing - or even believing - it to be something else very likely will lead to, what I would genuinely call, an unfair dislike or evaluation of the game. This holds especially true for critics and reviewers.
I disagree with such evaluations being unfair. If the player doesn't realize what the game is trying to do then it's a failure on the part of the game and/or the game's marketing for leaving them with the wrong impression. I've watched several a review of Watch Underscore Dogs where the reviewer talks about how the protagonist's demeanor, attitude and actions make him very unlikable and unpleasant to play. This was responded to in the comments by some people claiming that the reviewer missed the point, that protagonist Aiden was intended to be unlikable, that he was supposed to be perceived as being in the wrong. That he was a true anti-hero, a character of borderline tragedy as the player watches his continual death spiral of failing relationships and increasing life-threatening danger.
_However._ If this was the intent then the marketing for Watch Underscore Dogs did an awful job. It was advertised like pretty much any other Ubisoft open world sandboxy game, as a power fantasy where you're playing a modern day Robin Hood using your l33t hakking skillz to steal money and take down Big Business and avenge your niece! It was, in short, not advertised as a game about deep pathos and a PC that you may find genuinely disgusting. To my mind, the players were sold what was claimed to be a boat but was actually a car. Does that mean it's a _bad_ car? No. But because they were promised a boat they're unhappy with it because they were misled about what they were buying.
So evaluating the game as bad because it's not what the player was promised seems entirely fair to me.
"It's not about being right, it's about being understood"
this my dude comes on my list with smort things someone said.
Is being wrong but being understood equivalent to being right?
@@ExNihil0 it's not about being right since there isnt an objective "right", it's about phrasing ur subjective opinion. watch the vid if u need a better explanation, im bad with words.
@@ExNihil0there's a difference between being right and doing right. I say this because being right is implied that you can say or do no wrong. Doing right is knowing that even if you're wrong, there's a reason beind said motive which in turn was a "right move" depending on who you ask.
People conflate "intended way" with "right way". The devs create a game, intending the player to play in a specific way (sometimes wayS). That doesn't mean the player is wrong for not playing that way though.
Also, I'm on board with this for single player games. Multiplayer is more complex.
To combine the argument with another common one, easy mode in souls games:
If I play a souls game, and summon help, I want to know that the other player has a certain level of mastery of the game, so I don't waste my items/time. Easy solution is to lock multiplayer encounters to other players who chose the same difficulty as you.
Also, for coop games, there's an implied agreement between players that "I'm going to fulfill my role, be it dps, tank, heals, whatever, in order for us to complete this challenge"
It might be fun to die on purpose in funny ways by yourself, but as the infamous and 100% not scripted Leeroy Jenkins video showed us, there is a wrong way to play multiplayer games.
I'm sure The Escapist knows that ZP is their flagship - just for a laugh, sort their videos by 'Most Popular' and keep scrolling until you see a non-Yahtzee title or your PgDn button breaks, whichever comes first...
That said, I'm glad I clicked on this because a) the writing is stellar, b) I feel this deeply in my soul as a veteran casual gamer with picky tastes, erratic attention span, and limited free time, and c) holy hell, I could listen to Sebastian all day. Dude's voice sounds like a cross between smooth jazz, every detective novel ever, and drinking hot cocoa under a weighted blanket.
I loved the guinea pig transition
I howled with laughter at the two streaming guinea pigs. Enough so that my spouse had to come check to see if I'd finally turned the rest of the way mad.
Chill incarnate
This is touched on a bit with what's said about Stray or Signalis, but I think it really is less about how you play any particular title, but more about what your background in games is going into the title. Stray is just easy to play, not in a bad way, anyone can see the intended experience. Its easy to leave more gameplay focused people cold though, its a near walking sim for its level of depth, but cats are just likable.
I've had the 'played too much' experience recently with a *very* beloved game, Neon White. Having vastly more time than anyone should on TF2 jump maps, the game felt a bit basic, I felt slow moving through the maps, even when getting platinum metals compared to how *fast* TF2 rocket jumping combat is, and with moving enemies doing the same moves back to you to boot. A bit like a tutorial for TF2 air control. Of course, my experience with that is the vast minority, how many people are going into a game with 1000+ hours in another, incredibly similar title's competitive scene.
i think that's also partially because neon white may deal in a different kind of speed. TF2's cool feeling came from controlling yourself going at high velocities, while neon white isn't specifically about velocity but more like platformer puzzle solving just with a timer to encourage "cleanness", but youre right i never felt truly "fast" in that game in the same sense as something like Hover or Super Cloudbuilt or Cyberhook, but after coming to terms with what the game was going for i actually feel like it was one of the most enjoyable games of that year.
I felt a similar feeling when I played Titanfall 2 for the first time. As someone with hundreds of hours of Lucio playtime in overwatch, Titanfall's wall riding was just similar/different enough that I had a hard time enjoying it, I wanted to be playing Overwatch instead
No one asks if you played a game right when you say you liked it because it doesn't matter at that point.
It only matters if you did it right when you didn't like it.
Imagine playing golf with a baseball bat, and saying you hated it, then someone points out that you didn't do it right. Do you get defensive and say "there's no wrong way to play golf!" Or "you're just a fanboy that can't accept someone not liking golf!"
No. You go back and play it with a damn golf club. Then form a proper opinion.
There may not be a "right" way to play a video game, but more often than not, there are certainly wrong ways. Those wrong ways can be used as fun challenges for experienced players, like speedruns or nuzlockes in Pokemon, but for everyone else, those wrong ways will likely ruin the experience.
Like skipping the dialog in a story driven RPG and then bitching about how the story sucks. That's just not how the game is meant to be played.
Was Yahtzee represented by the guinea pig Lulu from Little Adventures? Great guinea pig channel! Also that 3rd guinea pig was a capybara. A very close cousin to guinea pigs, and a great visual metaphor for trying so hard to find someone who validates your opinion that you have to stretch the definition of the source.
I like the thoughtful depth of this series, and hope it has enough traction to justify sticking around.
Frost's insistence on trying to keep an open mind throughout the whole experience in games, and everything around them-and communicating that it's a good quality to cultivate and maintain-is the yin to Yahtzee's yang on the Escapist for me, atm.
And, so, I continue to be impressed by Nick's ability to scout talent that brings new things to the table, while delighting the old guard and newcomers alike. In addition to listening to the audience, gracefully taking constructive feedback, and growing the brand in a direction that I really think is going to throw off the common perceptions of the Escapist from the before times, and bring it into a real golden age.
While I'm handing out praise, Marty is also one of the goats, and he must be protected at all costs.
i think escapist only had that reputation temporarily after the PCMR meme died down but people still associated escapist with its iconography, other than that "phase" of the internet i think escapist was always considered high brow gaming journalism, at least by my circles and i.
I really appreciate the measured and relaxed vibe of these videos. Really helps sell the point
This is the best response to gatekeeping in video games I've seen. Frost is some sort of mad genius.
Love the specific wording in this one, Frosts writing has an immediate unique voice that keeps you enthralled. Also, obviously, Guinea pig bit was great 👍
That was good. It's an interesting idea to explore deeper. I remember watching friends play growing up and thinking they were playing "wrong" but it was really just how they enjoyed the game and a matter of shifting perspective.
I recently started playing Unsighted, which has a mechanic where the player character and most NPCs have a time limit until they lose their consciousness and become mindless killing machines (they're all robots) The game gives you the option to turn this mechanic off, which I did once I saw how fast the timers actually go down. I feel a little guilty for not engaging with this game's core mechanic, but I know that if I turned it back on, I would be too stressed out to really enjoy the rest of the game. This dilemma was recently compounded when I got stuck on one section where I need to find the key to a certain room, but I've been unable to find the key yet. It made me wonder how many NPCs would have died just in the time it's taken me to search for this one key in this large, maze-like environment.
when my nephew played crash bandicoot, a game of my childhood, one side of me was saying calmly "a game is to be enjoyed, and he is enjoying it, I am not going to be a gate keeper, I am not to judge if he enjoys" while the other was screaming "YOU DONT EXPLORE A CORRIDOR! HOW COULD YOU EXPEND HALF AN HOUR IN LEVEL 1 OF CRASH 3?"
the funny thing is, now that he got LoZ Breath of the wild, he is trying to speedrun the game as much as he can
This was a good video. I may absolutely love Signalis and roll my eyes a bit at 'those who just don't get it' but you clearly communicate why expectations differ for everyone. Like you say, one man's frustrations are another man's kink.
Well, there's your problem: that third guinea pig was a capybara in disguise.
That aside, I often wonder how much of this boils down to people not thinking for themselves; we're all different people, so why do so many band together and say that something is the best or worst thing ever, when most things are far more nuanced than that? It certainly doesn't help that more often than not, the term, objective, is used as the adult version of a nuh-uh, because objective means it's a fact, and you can't disagree with a fact. The debate quickly shifts from two clashing opinions to whether or not a statement is truly objective; the goalpost has been moved, and the focus derailed. Though being told what to say and do is an inevitability in this life, nobody has the right to tell you how to think and feel, and it seems like we've forgotten that, ridiculing each other's tastes and opinions as though objectivity has anything to do with it.
I have a friend that consistently plays some games the "wrong" way.
I showed him a city builder I enjoy, he plunged the city into debt and was exiled.
I showed him a Rougelite I love, he found a way to enable friendly fire and turn it into an unnecessary duel to the death before we move on to the next stage.
I showed him a beloved survival game, he draines me of my hard earned resources while contributing nothing.
While there are times I wish he would play these games "correct".
He offers unique incites I never considered, new paths I've never walked.
And at the end of the day, I honeslty play his favorites "wrong" too.
This video here is amazing. It’s something I’ve always thought about but could never say! Bravo!
Great take, thanks!
The people who mystify me are the Steam reviews, usually for fighting, RPG, RTS, Econ games etc who say:
"I found an exploit/bug that let me beat everything easily in a boring way, terrible game etc etc"
It's like the idea of just not using the exploit/bug to enjoy the game more isn't an option for them.
Might be the best take yet. Pure poetry, and with a depth that is liable to induce vertigo.
It's interesting that you are never asked "did you read it the right way?" when you don't like a certain book. Everything is not for everyone.
Love this ever loquacious series. Please keep them coming!
I howled at the Nicholas Jicholas slander in this video. What a take. Loved it as always.
Validation is important for us, and it is fine to seek out humans that "understand" things same way we do. However, it is very rewarding to be more open minded about other people's opinions about art, entertainment, games. In the past I was scared that I liked thing no other liked. I was thinking constantly that there is something wrong with me. Now I just openly say I like something and why I like something - and vice versa.
As for "intended way" that could mean different things and that also might impact experiences differently. Again, something I have learned to promote more than "judge". If someone struggles to beat certain type of enemy or boss, it is worth to drop a hint. But it is still up to others to come up with their own solutions using those hints.
When I love a game because it provides A and B that i cant' find in other games, there's always someone talking happily about how much they only enjoyed C and tried their best to avoid interacting with B and that the game would be better without A.
And my poor gamer heart is starved from A and B in the current gaming landscape and is getting paranoid, what if the publishers listen to them more than me?
"We heard you gamers, here's silent hill battle royale!"
Whenever this topic comes up, I always think of XCOM.
On the one hand, there's the issue of how often to save, which is very much a personal preference thing. I always encourage people to experiment with less frequent saves, because I know that _I_ certainly found myself enjoying the game on a whole other level once there were genuine consequences and I couldn't simply reload a save to undo my stupidity (or bad luck). I also got better once I was actually _forced_ to plan contingencies for when plan A inevitably went south, rather than trying various combinations until it finally worked... but that was _my_ experience. And while I tend to prefer playing ironman (or a style close to it that relies more on self-discipline), I'm certainly not going to accuse someone who needs a bigger safety net to have fun of playing it "wrong". I simply encourage them to experiment a bit, rather than pigeonholing themselves into a style they might actually find less enjoyable.
On the other hand, there are issues like players who will bring out the same team on every, single mission, completely ignoring the rest of their squad (which, to be fair, was kind of encouraged by the mechanics of the games before _War of the Chosen_ even if it was still a bad idea), then they'd complain about being completely screwed when their colonel takes an unlucky blast to the face and keels over and all they've got left are rookies to pick up the slack. In that case they were definitely playing it wrong. That game doesn't require them to put all their eggs in once basket. There's more than enough experience to go around to easily field multiple squads of fully-leveled soldiers, by the end. Rotating soldiers in and out means you have some depth to your roster and no one is horribly under-leveled relative to where you are in the game, but if your best troops get killed or taken out of commission with a wound, you have someone _almost_ as good ready to step up and fill in. One approach leads to people praising the tense strategy and tactics that keeps them on their toes while other other leads to people rage-quitting and never coming back after they've screwed themselves over. There definitely seems to be a "right" way, there (which is why I'm surprised it took Firaxis until _War of the Chosen_ to finally borrow the fatigue mechanic from the original _Long War_ mod).
The escapist remains unparalleled as far as I know when it comes to the enthusiast gaming channels on YT. All videos in this series have been awesome and nuanced.
Given the recent changes at the Escapist, I initially thought you meant Enthusiast Gaming, the old parent company. So my knee jerk thought was "oh no, they found a way out from under them because EG was negligent af."
You mentioned a stream between you and yahtzee, where can i find that
Thanks for the subtitles! Finally i can not only hear your beautiful voice but also understand what it's saying.
Every point in this video is amazing
As for difficulty I always tell people “start harder and don’t have to much pride to go lower if needed” because usually you will know when a game is too hard but not really notice when a game is to easy.
As for Signalis I understand peoples love for the game but personally it felt a little underwhelming and it’s mostly all to do with me. See I had recently finished most of the silent hill games and a good chunk of resident evil as well. So I had a bit of burn out on survival horror this compounded with the fact that some this in signalis were just not to my tastes ( some art design and gameplay choices) I found it much harder to enjoy that game.
I know how to have fun when I play a game (I love a challenge and when death or failure has a more tangible consequence then resetting to a checkpoint) like you said “many people’s frustrations are another man’s kink”.
I always try to be that one individual to go against modern gaming cynicism.
As I like to say “the reason you always hear negative opinions on games is because those that enjoy them are to busy playing them”.
There is definitely a wrong way. I tried some games and got frustrated and went to reddit to find someone sharing my frustrations. But not always i would be right to be frustrated and many times i been smacked with realization i was playing it wrong. Shadow of mordor, doom eternal, re2 and many. I didn't pay attention and played them wrong and got frustrated and hated the game. Then found joy after realizing my mistake.
I recently played Cyberpunk 2077 as a "Lucy" a character from Edgerunner that was trained as an advanced netrunner at a young age by Arasaka. I started the game as a Corpo of course, and used mod tools to give my female V level 20 intelligence, a legendary Cyberdeck, and a Legendary stealth abiility (the one that grants 10 seconds every 40 seconds) at the very beginning of the game. If that sounds like too strong of a cheat here's the negative: I did not allow myself to use any weapons, no guns, no melee weapons, no enhanced gorilla fists, nothing, only cyberdeck hacks, and I forced myself to craft all the cyberdeck chips from the beginning, so I was stuck with green one early until I got enough money and salvage to upgrade.
It was fun. There were times where you play as Johnny, where you have to use guns, but when playing as V I had to rely on spells and stealth. Bottom line, sometimes changing the rules and modding can breath new life into a gaming experience to make it more challenging and/or enjoyable.
Some of the most fun I've ever had are the artificially-limited builds in games. The necromancer in the original Baldur's Gate with only 3 CON (yes, really). The "How long can I go without a long-rest?" plays of BG3 EA. The Crowbar Half-Life Experience. The Explosives-Only, Pistols Only, or Energy-Weapon-Only builds in the Fallouts. The immersion-breaking Mass Effect playthroughs where Shepard is by far the strongest biotic ever but no one else recognizes it. Pacifist runs in any game that supports them. Did I need any other ability besides Launch in CONTROL? Nah.
Fun is fun.
“People only ask if you played the right way if you didn’t enjoy the game”. That’s actually really profound I never considered that point of view
I love the writing and vocal performance in this series so much. If I may be critical though, I do find it hard to absorb all the points because of how the video is edited. I was confused for a bit why so much of the Stray trailer/cinematic was on the screen while Sebastian was talking about Skyrim. I didn't even realize he had transitioned into talking about Stray at some point. There's a dissonance between the footage and writing at times that is distracting. Regardless I click on these videos as soon as they show up in my inbox, and watch through the series playlist regularly. Looking forward to more.
Dark Souls made me realize I like difficulty in games, I was just too scared of dying. But in the desire to beat Witcher 3, but finding it too boring, I turned up the difficulty, and holy hell it was a whole different game. It quickly became such a hook when I had to interact with all of the systems in the game and not just looking at them like they're a fire extinguisher you're forced to carry with you but never actually using.
Lowering the difficulty actually helped me to enjoy God of War Ragnarok. I started the game on the highest difficulty initially because I figured that if I was good at souls games I would be good at God of War. I was very wrong. I got my ass kicked repeatedly. I only found enjoyment in the game once I played it on normal. It allowed me to learn the games systems at my own pace without frustration. Now I’m replaying the game on the hardest difficulty and finding a lot of enjoyment in it. Sometimes you just have to check your ego at the door.
Dude.... your voice + your scripts are next level!
100% my favorite series on Escapist been binging it since I tripped into it
That last bit about having transparent opinions with a consistent voice reminded me of Dunkey's video on game critics
I learned this a long time ago with yahtzee being my favourite TH-cam video game reviewer since 2011. There's been so many games that I've loved but he hated, and vice versa. I used to often (despite still enjoying the reviews) think he didn't play the games I liked the "right" way. Flipping that around left me trying games he liked in the way he played them to see if I had approached it wrong. I rarely found a game that I changed my opinion of by playing his way. Sometimes you just don't gel with a game, sometimes you find your own right way of playing that clicks. Sometimes your own "game of the year" is trash in others opinions. Differing opinions is why we have variety, why indie developers can make that obscure title that draws you in for tens of hours while others only get 60 minutes in before they go play something else. Long live varieties of taste, and the ever changing discussion of what makes a "good" game!
One thing that really changed how I view entertainment was somebody saying they liked "Batman & Robin", largely considered the very worst of the franchise. Everyone else piled on with "oh no, it's total crap, you should watch THIS instead", to which they replied "If that'd make me like something I like less, then no thanks." It made me pause and realise how invested I'd become in everyone having the same (obviously right) tastes as me. Now, when I criticise something, I try to make it very clear that this is just what I think, that this piece of entertainment didn't work FOR ME, and that if you liked it more, I'm not going to try and tell you you're having wrong fun.
Im funnily enough that 3rd guinea pig for Signalis, never played SH2 or old RE but knew them via reputation, interest in foundational games and pop culture osmosis enough to know what i was getting into but not enough to say i actually knew what i was getting into, and yeah i enjoyed the game it stuck with me for weeks after beating it almost beating a second playthrough enjoying the fact i could skip various things with my foreknowledge but i would never say it's faultless and also a very specific taste, not everyone will get it an i don't think most should, i personally dont think it would or should have beaten Elden Ring in term of capturing the popular zeitgeist, its too specific
I noticed the games talked about in this video are single player games, which never ceases to baffle me when players criticize others for not playing the “correct” way. No one really cares if someone beats a dark souls/elden ring boss with a DDR pad without getting hit versus someone beating it using ranged attacks and spirit ashes/co-op - both are legit in the eyes of the game. As long as the player is having fun doing whatever they want to do, then no harm no foul.
The issue crops up far more in multiplayer focused games, where the performance of other players impacts the enjoyment one has. There was a TH-cam video released a few months ago about WoW, but it described players whose unusual styles (i.e. never wearing shoes or walking everywhere) went from being fun, tolerated character quirks to being railed against by other players for lost efficiency/wasting time.
That’s where it gets a lot less black and white on the subject of playing games right, since I assume players, on average, hope to be matched with others who motives align with what the game expects.
Also, woof, that's a lot of words I wrote. I don't think I can blame anyone for skipping past that.
I agree with a lot said here. I'll state up front that I've been following Yahtzee's career to varying levels over the years, but often I can gauge whether or not I will like a game he reviews by listening to what worked well and what didn't. His review of Dark Souls got me to take the plunge and love the genre. From streams and such I know he didn't really get through Elden Ring, while I beat it 3 times last year. I don't have to review a game every week and I could take the time I wanted through most of the game, I only had to manage my other life commitments.
Getting a gauge of author and perspective can say a lot more than the words alone. I think I'm slowing down in my age, but that might just be that I was trying to keep a pace that I couldn't and needn't sustain.
I've got a similar taste in games to Yahtzee, except when it comes to JRPGs. When he knocks one, I don't get offended or upset. Instead, I have a good laugh with his writing, then go and check out what my JRPG folk are talking about before making a decision about my purchase. Bonus points for any game that still has the confidence to drop a free demo though.
I get great entertainment from watching Zero Punctuation. It's great well written comedy, and good for giving me an insight into gameplay loops in a short time.
I just find in terms of tastes, Yahtzee and I are almost polar opposites. Games he glowingly reviews I tend to not enjoy, Games he barfs on or doesn't review because they aren't interesting enough, I tend to love.
This just gets better and better
Skyrim is an interesting one for me. I agree with his arguments, but for a different reason. I think the fact that the game can be played so many ways is why the game was reviewed so well. That's it. Everyone played the game they wanted, the way they wanted. Meaning the devs just had to stitch together some very basic system together and people would play it for that reason. I actually played through level 8 to 40 by just building houses. My friend played all the mystical stuff and then just went side mission exploring. Another one got so invested into one area of the game that he out leveled everything else, and actively role-played himself into scenarios to return to that area for a while.
The game is a pure sandbox, which means you make your own enjoyment. That means the devs don't need to create a right way to play the game. In a competitive game like league of legends, the players decide which way is the right way to play (meta), and devs work around that. In shooters like COD, there has to be a right way to play each game, that's why some people like BO3 more than BO2 or MW (either one). Each game has its own set of rules, and you learn those rules. The problem comes when you take the rules of BO3 to MW... you get fast paced FPS gamers raging at campers who enjoy slow paced safe game play.
So I do believe there is a right way to play a game, from the developers' side. They have to balance the game somehow. That's what normal difficulty is supposed to be, the "right way" to play a game. The intended way for everyone. For those who struggle with the new mechanics, there is easy, for those who want a challenge, hard. And for the delusion fans, there is grounded mode. For the gamers who love grind and needless padding, there is any difficulty above Hard in open world games.
I believe things like difficulty, controller buttons/key bindings, move sensitivity, graphics settings, are all just noise. The game essence lies in the narrative, characters, gameplay, competition etc. As time goes on and technology evolves, we will find ways to become closer and closer to that essence, and no one will question what is right and wrong. There will only be what is and what isn’t.
Ah. Nothing like a refreshing ice cold take after a long day. Thanks for the video
That is why one needs to find and value reviewers and peers whose tastes and experiences consistently align with one's own. They are more likely to have played an unfamiliar game "your way".
Oh wow. That was so cool. I love the vibe of the narration. 👏🏻👏🏻
As someone who doesn't love hollow knight, I know the feeling.
Your writing is so good. I love this series! They deserve more attention.
"Being led around an environment covered in yellow paint is fun."
Is that... an Adventure Line TM reference?
Getting told how to play a game really puts me off the game. I grew up playing games and putting my own storylines onto them - maybe jumping into a level of mario as a part a story i had been playing out with action figures, but it i wasn't Mario anymore, it was whatever I wanted. Now I can't say I really do this as an adult, but I do like having the freedom to decide what I think is fun for myself. Last time I really felt like a game was punishing me for playing how I wanted and not how the game wanted was Doom Eternal. Can't remember the name of the specific enemies, but they basically stop the fun and force you to do one particular thing. Felt like when they're trying to get into Newman's PC in Jurassic Park... "nuh uh uh!"
I think the right way is the way that extracts the most the essence of the experience of the particular title.. like.. if you wanna play a fighting game the right way there is no way around it, you have to sit down and learn the moves or you're immediately snapped in two by a noob who learned to block.. but for other types of games there is a less harsher punishment if you don't "play the right way", and that can be deceiving. I wanna say something about Cyberpunk 2077.. it's "right way" of playing is quite esoteric.. although in your face not many people can actually go through with it.. because it requires you to actually role play your last moments in life and how you will face death.. now that's a high psychological requirement. If you get it right you can go through some heavy, transformative stuff.
If there is anything I've learned about video games and video game discourse over the last 20+ years I've been playing them: you have your own specifics for what makes a game good, your own tolerances for what makes a game bad. Depending on the day you picked it up, how you felt, what mood you were in, a game might fail the sniff test and forever be branded "not your kind of game". Depending on the stories you've been told about it, the game might be different to your expectations.
Every critic, every youtuber, every gamer friend, has their own voice for what makes a game good to them. Understand that you will agree on some things and disagree on some things, because you're different people with different needs.
So enjoy what you enjoy, avoid what you know you won't, don't get sucked into the hype, and play every game your way.
The "right" way to play a game is whatever way allows you personally to have a worthwhile experience playing it. That could be the way the devs intended you to play it. It could be doing your own thing completely independent of the intended experience. it could be somewhere in between. It could be multiple different ways at different times or in separate playthroughs. Or, and this is regrettable but important to admit when it happens, there could be no "right" way for you to play a game because it just can't provide you personally with a worthwhile experience no matter how you choose to approach it.
I think about this a lot, particularly in any creative critisism. When I was 13ish I remember how personally offended I was when I read a movie review in the newspaper (to totaly date myself) that was very negative of a movie I really enjoyed. My grandfather said to me, "if your job was to watch every movie that ever came out you'd see it different from someone like you who only sees two movies a year." Video game reviewing I think in particular suffers from this issue. So many reviews talk about a game in perspective to a bunch of other games. Oh this combat system was done better here, oh this entry to the franchise fourteen game catalog was better, etc. That review isn't wrong, but for someone that plays maybe three games a year to completion its a somewhat meaningless perspective to me.
The same way I know pretty much only useless real life dramas can get a score higher than 90s on the review aggregators for films people should simply get to know their sources. Nobody can enjoy all different experiences and unless critics only watched the films they wanted, which will never happen, they will always be disconnected even if objectively right on the palpable side of things, the only objective part. Not saying that all reviewers are right, but if they are it's still informaton if you know that's a deal breaker for you. For example: if you're a fan of the hunting genre you only need to hear a couple details to understand what Wild Hearts is, or if you're a fan of the ARPG genre why Diablo 4 will suck ass. How useless it is will depend on the reader/spectator the same way you can easily get trapped into buying overpriced stuff irl if you don't make some proper comparisons and research. People who don't have critical thinking or experiences will eventually build it, the only thing is that they should understand their position and avoid spreading misinformation in turn. I mean, the better the game is the more you need to talk about what it does that others do not, since the human being only understand comparisons. Really hard to say why this is good in a vacuum
Video games are also impressively terrible at setting expectations. It doesn't help that many games try really hard to cater to everyone and end up catering to no one (I'm looking at you Forspoken). That or they are trying to be the next big live "service" money printing machine..
I hate to be "that guy" who keeps talking about their favourite game but the third guinea pig for Signalis is easy to imagine, and it has nothing to do with having a "medium" experience of Silent Hill.
I understand there are people who play horror games best with company, and I am not saying it is a wrong way to play that way, however, I am fairly sure talking about other games and simultaneously not paying much attention to the documents on screen has resulted in a subpar experience. There is atmosphere from reading those documents, by not taking the time read them and chatting with Yahtzee at the same time it detracts from the immersion and understanding of the world.
I view it as not a case of playing it right or wrong, but in most cases, it's playing the game the way the developers thought it was going to be played. If you've ever watched a Spiffing Brit video or something from Josh at Let's Game it Out, you'll see that games can be enjoyed in ways developers didn't link of. I remember when I was playing Fallout 4 when it came out and watching videos from people that were not. I remember thinking to myself that it didn't sound like the game I was playing, and then I realized I was correct. They were playing the game as Bethesda made it, a father desperately looking for his missing son, but I on the other hand was a guy making my own faction by building up settlements. As long as another players fun isn't being ruined, you aren't playing a game "wrong". I think too many developers waste to much effort trying to "guide" players actions. Instead, it would be more useful to consider their game a framework people create their own version of fun in.
When you realize that "your way" is the "best way" to play a game it removes a lot of frustration from games imo and let's you enjoy them better. For example I modded Subnautica to have a map and make crafting a lot easier with infinte storage. That let me enjoy the exploration parts of the game and it became one of my favourite games ever even though I hate crafting games, all beaceus I chose to play it how I liked. Same with Signalis, I modded the game to have 8 inventory slots and the flashlight and camera were always there so still 6 slots which removed a lot of the tedious backtracking even though I don't dislike that kind of thing.
What is the wrong way to play a game?
If you’re playing on your own for your enjoyment then there is no wrong way, I acknowledge that. Exploit, cheat, mod, whatever.If you’re playing for review, what is the wrong way?
Love this take. Keep up the good work.
I am almost blind and I play games on hard just to proove myself I am not going blind. Right way to play the game is a myth just like Buzz Aldrin's moonwalk. You and Yahtzee agree again?! weeell that is new. Cheers Frost!
I've long said, "there's no right way to play a game," but I had never arrived at this idea/distillation that the mythical "right" way might simply be "your" way. I love being wrong, and I really loved this video!
"...I love being wrong..."
Ahoy, fellow lifetime learner! I see you.
Its always good to try games outside your comfort zone from time to time, but its also entirely fine to end up deciding you didn't enjoy something and that it alright, and no one can take your experience away from you. No amount of "You did it wrong" will suddenly change that.
5:55 holly shit what a metal album worthy line
If you are not playing a game the right way, that means the game is probably not well made. That's why the fanatic fan boys attack you to defend the game that probably is crap, games that are well made won't easily let you play it wrong, in fact you have to find ways just to play it wrong.
your presentation is great, you deserve more views
There was a somewhat controversial article a while back that basically said people who wanted difficulty settings on something like Dark Souls were just wrong - you need to either enjoy the game for what it is or find a different game.
Many people argued back and forth. There were a lot of people who had physical disabilities who were like "If I can beat this game, anyone can, and no one has any right to complain. Just git gud." And many other people who were like "I love the world and the story and just want to experience it at my own pace without getting stuck and dying in the same spot fifty thousand times. But I want to play the game, not just watch cutscenes. I spent money, why am I not allowed to enjoy it?"
To me this always contrasted with games like Minecraft or Skyrim, where almost any veteran player will tell you "You really need to play the game modded, mods add so much to the game, both visually, story-wise and gameplay-wise."
So why is Skyrim allowed to have difficulty settings and mods and Dark Souls isn't?
I've been gaming almost as long as I've been alive, and I've always been terrible. Finding a happy medium between something that's challenging enough to be rewarding and force me to adapt without being tedious or hitting a brick wall is honestly pretty tough.
I guess my point is I don't feel there's a right or wrong way to play a game. If you can find a way to get enjoyment, great! If you can't, there's plenty of other fish in the sea.
The issue from that conversation isn’t that random individuals want to play the game on an easy mode. DS is a popular series and I’m sure there’s all sorts of mods to make it easier. The issue is _journalists demanding_ there should be an easy mode under the guise of “accessibility”. “It’s not about me, it’s actually about other people” which is a lie because accessibility isn’t about lowering the game to your level, but about _raising you_ to the same level as everyone else. These are things like colourblind modes, or changing a “hold” button to a toggle, different text fonts or text describing chatter/noise for those who are deaf. It’s about giving those people as close to the “intended experience” as everyone else.
The other thing is developer intent. Mods aren’t something the developer intended, but you have to go out of your way to change it. There’s some level of back-and-forth with fans and what they want and whether developers take on that feedback. But the difference is one changes the experience for themselves (mods) and the other is demanding it change for everyone. Some claim “adding an easy mode doesn’t change your experience” but it does. Because the series is known for having one difficulty, and the shared experience around that. I mean, the original had people leave comments in-universe. That wouldn’t work if there were different difficulties. I guess you could limit comments to your specific difficulty mode but that’s more work and might mean not being able to change after you start.
Regardless, the whole conversation about DS difficulty is stupid. There’s about 1000 clones in some form of DS. If DS doesn’t have what you want, it’s not like you don’t have options. At some level you have to accept what the game is and/or what the developer wanted (especially if the same group is going to say games are art). You don’t go into a Chinese restaurant complaining they don’t have pizza. Virtually every other video game has difficulty options. Why is it that this _one_ series (seemingly the only one people point to) is an issue? Mod or play something else. And I’ve never even touched the series so I’m not some ardent fan defender. I just think the discourse is dumb.
EDIT: Plus, despite all the complaining that “p they should do it because “it would increase sales”, the games still sell millions of copies. Clearly, the difficulty isn’t a barrier to its success. If it was, no one would complain it’s too hard because it would’ve died off.
Two distinct issues emerge when the topic of "good" is broached:
1. Assumed common definition of "good."
2. Assumed objective nature of the definition of "good."
For example, every man will say, "I am good." But that definition tends to be horribly subjective. No one rates himself less then average, unless he's objective enough, or broken enough to do so. Even then, every bloodthirsty criminal will say he is good, and whole heartedly agree with it.
This leads into the disputed objectiveness of "good." In games, what makes a game objectively "bad," "okay," "good," "excellent," and "perfect?" The core idea tends to be the same: A solid gameplay loop, easy to understand controls, a well crafted story, and a strong visual design constitute the basics. Which works well for "bad," and "okay," but "good," "excellent," and "perfect" all require something more. That something more is a niche of subjective preferences.
For example, I prefer tactical gameplay, where I do not need to use fast twitch muscle fibers, and must maintain security at all times, but others thrive off of that adrenalin rush. Naturally, that means any FPS will be rated lower than a RTS which will be rated lower than an adventure game, in what I enjoy. Fighting games are so beyond me, that I don't even consider them. This means, I will not put something above "okay" without it being in my wheelhouse. Unfortunately, this makes the definitions not objective pass that point.
I can share my experience with Death Stranding.
I had it pre-ordered, picked it up day one.
Played as much as I could often. I accumulated enough time. 50+ hours with enough of the road built. But I still had story progression to tackle.
Thing is, the story revolves on time spent, communication with others, and exploration.
The story itself? It is a puzzle, a mystery that you need to take notes on. Because none of it makes sense at first. But the more you do in the in game world, it changes.
The more connected you make everyone, it opens up ways of travel, not just for you, but others too.
It is easy to get lost. But marking territory, or making delivery ports at key spots will aid traversal. Even the way you get around changes.
The story itself is weird, a choose your own adventure tale. But it does have an ending. Sort of
Point being. It is up to the player to make sense of the journey. It is not for everyone. But worth a dive getting into
Plus the soundtrack is fantastic. When you reach key destinations, you unlock music. Which can be played at rest stops, and while driving.
I would honestly call it Kojima's "Oregon Trail"
Love these cold takes so much. Great thought-pieces
For some strange reason, When Frost mentioned a 3rd guinea pig. I instantly thought of Marty
Mass Effect made me realize this issue, and how my nephew played it.
I LOVED the game because I explored and spoke to everyone. The little side stories and choices being standouts to me.....He ran past everything.
Making it a clunky shooter where he died often because of being underpowered.
The main story offering less morally gray choices, thus being less interesting.
Watching him play, I tried not to interject much since Mass Effect is supposed to be the tale YOU shape, but....God he made it boring.
I've often been told I played Breath of the Wild the wrong way, as I'm not keen on it.
Hey there are at least two of us. It just isn't fun to me and I don't know why.
I'd be much more into Stray if it was a dog instead of a cat, but oh well
as someone who played silent hill 1-3 and a couple resident evils beforehand, playing signalis afterwards felt amazing, it's a game with familiar mechanics and plenty of homages but with a different setting and perspective, the game felt difficult but I wasn't struggling or finding any part of it tidious and the setting felt unique enough to be immersed. However I can easily understand if you didn't play silent hill or earlier resident evils how the game might not gel with you
Maybe we should stop to think a "good player" is the one that completes the game fast/easily/efficiently and think more that it's the one that can find his fun even in a game not commonly considered all-around good : by abusing mechanics (speedrun is the common example), by ignoring the parts he finds boring (as much as possible anyway), by creating his own challenges/limitations etc.
You sound like Keith David sort of
3:49 is that a Stanley Parable reference??
I think one important point to bring up regarding this topic is how some people like their expectations to be met, and some people like to be more surprised. Similarly, many people like to stick with things that are more familiar to them as opposed to those who prefer to experience things less like what they already know. Designing a game that appeals to all of those people is practically impossible, so there will always be some people who can't stand a game that is truly beloved by others. It has nothing to do with the quality of the game, or the way in which it was approached.
Although, it's certainly true that a lack of understanding can lead to frustration which could lead to mistakes without recognizing them as mistakes which leads to even more frustration. The cause of this lack of understanding can be interpreted in multiple ways depending on the point of view. Did the game fail to explain itself? Was the point that you have to figure it out on your own? Or did you just look at TikTok when the game was telling about how it works?
These concepts are quite complicated because we are quite complicated.
This is separate, but related to "developer's intent" and whether going with or against that intention is going to lead you personally to more fun.
playing a game the right way comes with the assumption it's your way. maybe it's cooler or more effective in someone's opinion to do it another way, but if that was the right way then it would by definition have been my way. the experience of a game is not just the product you buy, but your brain's processing of it, so every game is essentially different to everyone and every "right way" is an extremely personal way of engaging with a game based on everyone's unique mindset, regardless of how popular or unpopular said "right way" is.
3:14 I haven't noticed being asked if I played the game "the right way" specifically, but I have definitely noticed that people expect way more justification for criticism than praise, and that double standard drives me crazy. Whatever you think it takes to justify an opinion, negative ones should have the same requirements for validation as positive ones. But nope, say you love something and that's that. Say you hate it and suddenly you have all sorts of hurdles to cross to earn that opinion.
As far as I'm concerned, the only "wrong" way to play any game is stubbornly ignoring all of the ways the game hands to you on a silver platter to make it fun for you or flat out refusing to engage with the central mechanics. Outside of that, it's okay to just not like something. Nobody should be jumping at people's throats with the "you played it wrong" deflection unless there's a very good reason to.
I'm suddenly reminded of Under the Mayo and his review of ultrakill ignoring his insulting fans he deliberately played the game like a bozo despite the game screaming at him to get into the game be more aggro and stylish, yet he played the game incredibly passively despite not having fun with it to die on the hill that he needs to be challenged by the game to want to do anything with it.
I'd play Stray just to watch the different robots humaning about the place
There is no right way to play, even with video games.
You can enjoy the story,
be great at min maxing the attributes and mechanics,
you can literally turn off and let it be white noise to you,
or you can figure ways to utterly break or speedrun the hell out of it,
and every one of that will be right. Play is play.
6:58
Wow, Yahtzee is Lulu from Little Adventures.
The only games I'd suggest have a "right" way one should play them to derive maximum enjoyment are those made by Koji Pro or otherwise developed with Kojima working as the Creative Director. The most widely agreed upon way to correctly play these games are simple! As the game starts up you should begin to think of Hideo Kojima until an image of the man takes hold in your mind, and from there you need but only maintain that image for the duration of your time playing the game. It's easy, fun, healthy, and a great way to show full respect and appreciation!
This guy sounds like a 1940s detective, love it