a boss with lots of moves that actually does unpredictable shit that can defeat even a seasoned player would be difficulty, this makes me think of ninja gaiden black
bosses that just spam huge shitty clipping weapons over and over with shitty animations and no creativity whatsoever just to make a challenging fight and hard checkpoint would be artificial, the game devs werent talented enough to know how to make something legit difficult so they made it annoying and unfair
Trial and error is not artificial difficulty, literally everything is trial and error including life itself.
difficulty that was not intentionally programmed, something like unresponsive controls and bad camera angles as well as mentally deficient AI.
Something like Superman 64 or ET for the Atari is a prime example of artificial difficulty.
A lot of the time "Artificial Difficulty" means "HP Sponge". I agree to a point - anyone can make a boss's HP 50 million and say it's "difficult". But at the same time, difficulty can come from having to endure for long times.
I think that the most clear-cut artificial difficulty is probably the IWBTG-type thing, where you have no indication of what is dangerous, what you need to do, in what direction, etc.
Which is funny, because that's probably some of the most difficult "difficulty" to make, besides better AI. Turning up the HP of an enemy is a matter of changing one number. Designing the levels of a game in such a random, haphazard way, but having it still end up being a coherent, playable game is almost certainly harder.
When a game artificially increases its difficulty.
i.e bosses that would otherwise be easy endowed with fucktons of health, or boss rooms full of low-level mobs that you're forced to go through to be able to do damage to the boss
If you say a game and something happens to you that makes you just say/think "man, that's bullshit", it's probably artificial difficulty.
Basically it's cheap and not fair at all.
Literally every game ever made has enemies with more HP than lower enemies, and mini-bosses with more HP than mid enemies, and bosses with more HP than mini bosses.
That makes no sense at all to call that artificial difficulty.
Luck-based progression, bugged mechanics, "must beat to progress" puzzles with zero ingame hints (the dev expects you to get info from other sources, usually paid ones like magazines and shit), and similar stuff.
Anything else is just casualfags being casualfags because they can't accept a single game over screen in their lives. It is like a PVE version of "if win, you are a noob. If I lose, you are a tryhard no life nerd".
Artificial difficulty is a real thing.
TV Tropes actually did a pretty good job putting together all the various flavors of artificial difficulty. It calls it Fake Difficulty for some reason though, but it's talking about the same thing.
This is not artificial difficulty. This is real difficulty you can't deal with so you act like its artificial.
Speak for yourself, I'm buddhist.
But you still get to try and retry thing as long as it takes to get it right. Learning to not shit yourself, learning to walk, learning to talk, learning to dress yourself, learning to tie your shoes, learning to write, learning math, etc.
It's all trial and error.
Difficulty I mash my keyboard to pass.
Difficulty that wrecks me.
There's nothing artificial about trail and error.
things there to pad out the game but have no real purpose or gameplay reason for existing
like in Morrowind when you move cripplingly slow until much higher levels, that along with the permanent fog and cliff racers is just there to hide how small the game world is and make traveling take more time
that or something which is impossible to avoid unless you had already played that secion and seen it before
like walking into a room and having the door lock behind you and the room fill with gas killing you
if there are no signs of any sort that the room in dangerous or any way to get yourself out or save yourself once you walk in other than dying and starting over then that's artificial difficulty
its testing memorization rather than ingenuity or quick thinking
Artificial difficulty can best be depicted by Cat Mario. Artificial difficulty is when the developer places a hazard or kill-zone in a time and place which the player could never hope to predict. At that point, the game unfolds with memory and repetition, remembering which trap/hazard is where.
That is artificial difficulty in it's purest form. Dark Souls ran the danger of being guilty of it, but this is why they allowed players to leave messages, so the player could save themselves by using their own observational intuition and patience.
AI that just know where you are all the time. Or RTS AI that know where all your units are, what unit types you're using, they attack where they know for a fact you don't have units and build the hard counter to yours all the time.
In total war, the AI get scripted money on top of just earning more than the player does from taxes, farms etc because they're incapable of making the AI difficult in a proper way, in battle their units will just have more stamina and morale than your troops ever can as well.
Scripted deaths, unavoidable damage, unwinnable situations that aren't the player's fault (i.e. If tetris started at the highest line as opposed to the idiot player fucking up so much that they let the pieces pile up to the highest line). That's pretty much it.
Not like that, you idiot. I mean things like Yiazmat, or Partners in Time, where they turn up HP values to ridiculous levels. That's one of the things I always see mentioned.
I don't necessarily agree with it, but I do agree that you can arbitrarily turn the HP of the asteroids in Asteroids to ten-billion and have a game which is harder, but in a cheating, easy sort of way. Anyone can make the HP of something higher, and for bosses, like you said, that works. What is artificial is turning up the HP of something far past where you would have had to show reasonable skill in defeating it.
artificial difficulty would describe a situation in which a seasoned player fares no better than an inexperienced player, an example would be an rpg where an enemy has a move that has a chance to outright kill your entire party. If the game has no counter for this move, such as an item or piece of equipment that resists said move, or one that revives a character upon death that would be considered artificial difficulty
No, that is what artificial difficulty is. When a developer deprives the player any subtle or implicit visual or atmospheric keys to at least notify the player of impending hazard, it becomes artificial.
If you so much as stifle a player's ability to conquer a scenario with their own skill by throwing in elements that undermine it in favor of memorization of unforeseen hazards, then you are really not playing a game, the game is playing you.
>There's nothing artificial about trail and error.
Agreed. Some gamers think this sort of shit is a negative without thinking about those who like that shit. Why are games like NES Ninja Gaiden and Hotline Miami loved so much?
A game should coherently teach the player the rules of the game, only using death as a punishment for not following said rules. If there was no reasonable indicator of a game mechanics ability to kill you its a pretty shitty game mechanic.
All good videogames require you to memorize techniques to apply to various situations. You should go play the Order 1886 or just drop the pretenses and go watch movies if you're too stupid to play video games.
Random generated levels with instakill traps and random enemy pattern.
that's not the point at all, its not predictability, its that no amount of prior awareness or investigation or quick timing could avoid the kill zone
your only option is to die and go back to an earlier save
otherwise there would be some way for a skilled player to get themselevs out of trouble without having to restart
a quick combo, a special item saved, a careful eye, a cautious step
all these things are irrelevant if the danger is an invisible wall or something which blocks you in and crushes you
I think that it's artificial because it's cheap, it's easy, it's the amateur's way of increasing the difficulty of something. Just make it take longer to kill! Haha!
I mean, it's not "artificial" in that it's not still difficult, it is difficult, that's the point, but it's artificial in that you're not necessarily adding any depth or complexity to the game's challenges, just making them way bigger. I think that multi-billion HP boss fights can be great challenges, well-tuned, and have varied mechanics, but at a certain point, without care, your tactics are going to remain the same for very long periods of time.
>game devs werent talented enough to make legit difficulty so they made it annoying and unfair
thats literally artificial difficulty you dummy, and why do you fucking losers automatically assume it means the person wasnt able to complete it? its ANNOYING AND SHITTY not impossible, why should i put up with something shitty just cause some faggot things hes HARDCORE for being able to do it, im amazed at peoples ability to eat unprofessional shit from second rate game devs
brag about your k/d ratio while youre at it faggot
But when a game makes it impossible for a successful technique from the first attempt, it becomes artificial. Play Cat Mario if you haven't, and see what I mean. Try and be as cunning and as patient and employ every technique you know. It won't work, because you must conform to memorizing where the hazards are and grinding through it.
>using the word kid as an argument
>when your base argument is how memorizing patterns to progress in video games isn't "real difficulty"
so...I'm gonna guess you're probably in senior year of high school, right? f
I would say that I agree with what you're saying. Games like cat Mario or whatever that kill you without telling you where the traps are is pretty shitty, games like Dark Souls where you're thrust into various situations and forced to quickly adapt and use your techniques to succeed are good games. Both require certain levels of memorization but Dark Souls does it right, while Cat Mario does it wrong (unless you're some masochist autist).
theres a difference between memorizing a pattern in game and relating it to a latter puzzle
and a game where dying in necessary to complete it no matter what you do or how hard you try because there is no way to work it out before that other than pure luck
I agree with this. I disagree with you saying that the message system in Dark Souls stops it from being a bad game though. Dark Souls is always fair if you've practiced the techniques enough. The continuous deaths make you better at reacting and executing game techniques, and also unintendedly at memorizing hazards and enemy locations or whatever. They're totally different concepts.
Unpredictable is artificial difficulty? So are plot twists bad? Surprises are now negative? Fuck that, games should NOT be predictable, so it's a fresh experience when you play rather than doing the same thing over and over but in different scenarios.
There are two kinds of people. Those who play games for the satisfaction of overcoming a challenge. And those who just want a victory screen.
The 2nd type want something that will never challenge them, that will never make them git gud. If they ever fail, it's not because they need to git gud but because the game is
Just because you had a tough time with it doesn't mean everyone did. "annoying and shitty" is purely opinion almost all the time.
Don't know why I'm arguing with you though, you're probably one of many people who made threads like
>plague rats in Royal Rat Authority so unfair such artificial difficulty grief melee
Which is a real thread that happened every day for weeks after DaS2 came out for PC (ironically about one of the easiest bosses in the game) because idiots like you think "boss too hard = artificial difficulty"
Easy Difficulty: Small amount of enemies. They are retarded.
Normal Difficulty: There's more enemies and more varied enemies
Hard Difficulty: There's a lot more enemies, a lot more variety in them and their AI is competent now.
Very Hard Difficulty: The AI is on par with your skill, as there's little to no basic fodder enemies
Artificial Difficulty: Literally the same as Very Hard, but the enemies now deal double damage/are faster.
They just added a difficulty for the sake of just having another one without giving it any thought.
RNGs are terrible artificial difficulty
No amount of planning and techniques can help if you don't roll the dice good
Artificial difficulty is a challenge you can't overcome by gitting gud. Stuff like leveling up and total randomness is artificial difficulty. Attacks with extremely short tells aren't artificial difficulty, it's just really, really hard.
This is objectively wrong and you sound like an idiot. The damage/speed scaling only happens in bad games like Skyrim where changing results in exactly that. Other games like Dark Souls have enemies that deal set amounts of damage and have set speeds, it's up to you to outskill them and win. Artificial difficulty is not being able to outskill them for some reason.
Unlogical advantages enemies have over you, or unlogical disadvantages you have that your enemies don't
Example: Enemies not flinching from attacks, while you fall on your ass from everything that touches you
Other example: Enemies your size have 10x your health
My god it amazes me how /v/ is incapable of thinking something through with out realizing that they aren't making any sense.
It's only slightly more amazing how many of you have the gull call other people retards.
Badly designed mechanics, enemies and encounters (bugged hitboxes, multiple huge enemies in a tiny ass room with a shitty camera, OHKO bullet sponges for no reason, etc), and changing the rules half-way through the game.
Nigga you stupid
That game is hard for one beautiful reason, it fucking rapes you if you fuck up but if you have your shit together you can win flawlessly
I can still pop that fucker in on Master Ninja difficulty and get MN rating
>Very Easy: enemies are killed effortlessly, deal very little damage, dumb overall
>Easy: enemies are killed easily, deal little damage, dumb overall
>Moderate: enemies are killed somewhat easily, deal normal damage, dumb overall
>Hard: enemies are hard to kill due to HP boost, deal more damage, dumb overall
>Very Hard: enemies are extremely hard to kill due to large HP boosts, deal oodles of damage, dumb overall
>Extreme: Thug Leader has twice the amount of HP that your party has - combined, instakills the mage/ranger, three-hits the tank, dumb overall
Consider the Cheep-Cheep. We all know what it does, it flies in an arc. When you first encounter one, you are given a safe opportunity to observe it's pattern and can evade accordingly. This is a fair difficulty that employs the skill and observation of the player.
Now consider Cat Mario, where you are deprived any chance to learn. You are killed by something unforeseeable, and the only way to progress is to memorize the spot of death. This is artificial difficulty.
These are very basic concepts that you will find in most video-games, no matter how complex. Good difficulty = teaches the player of the rules, and goes from there.
Any fool can get past artificial difficulty with repetition, but it leaves no room for the player's skill to shine through. You are literally forced into one method of approach, and that - in my opinion - is shit game design.
If it's not fair, it's artificial.
Of course, fair is subjective. Perhaps it (at least part of it) could be summarised as 'if it's not the player's fault, then it's artificial'.
An example would be if the opponent cheated the laws of physics within the game.
Why do you think you should be able to move wherever you want, as fast as you want, at any time?
What's artificial about falling into a trap? Why do you think every situation should be instantly reversible at any time?
number of deaths before succeding?
narrow window of opportunity?
time taken to pass an obstacle?
how punishing something is?
how little control over the outcome you have?
if the game is the kind of game that allows you to dodge damage then theoretically, if you're good enough you should be able to play without ever taking damage. I bet someone could do this in Dark Souls if they were good enough for example. In other games, you're forced to take damage at times and the gameplay usually involves you managing your health or shields or whatever. If it doesn't have those management elements, and you can't avoid damage then it's probably artificial difficulty
A term scrub lords spout when they get butt smashed.
>Walk into a Goomba
WOOOOOW HOW WAS I SUPPOSED TO KNOW THAT WOULD KILL ME FUCKING FAKE ARTIFICIAL DIFFICULTY GAME HOW DO I UNINSTALL THIS SHIT
>Badly designed mechanics
>changing the rules half-way through the game.
That's accidental difficulty not artificial.
Well if we look at the second word in "artificial difficulty", that is the word "difficulty", then the bed of chaos is not artificial difficulty since there's nothing difficult about it. It's just a puzzle boss. A bad puzzle boss. The only artificial difficulty is when the ground collapses directly underneath you, because otherwise you should be able to avoid plummeting to your death. The only time the ground collapses directly underneath you is when you're going directly for the bug thing.
Inconsistency of predetermined rules, however if these rules change then an appropriate amount of warning or information needs to be given prior.
Not artificial difficulty dark souls, there is consistentcy through out the game with proper information.
True artificial difficulty Limbo while a hard game by any means it suffers from trial and error gameplay and an inconsisteny of its rules without proper warning of the changes.
The way I understand it is that the game is rigged against you. A lot of the time, games that rely on RNG do this.
Lets take a look at Pokemon's Battle Mansion for example. The RNG in there is completely in the CPU's favor. A move could have 90 percent accuracy and not hit for turn after turn. I realize that there is a 10 percent chance to fail, but that number drops to abysmal percentages during repeated turns. The CPU on the other hand will land attacks that are 40 percent accuracy like a dream. Status effects from moves will happen and are almost guaranteed to. This doesn't happen anywhere outside of the Mansion either.
Let's say you're playing a Mario game and you see a big pit in front of you.
You think "No problem, I've encountered this already." and go to cross it.
Unfortunately for you, the game designer decided to put an invisible coin block right where the player would jump, you hit it, and Mario plummets to his death.
Something like this is artificial difficulty. There was absolutely no indication that would happen, and you had no time to react.
Precisely this. And the only apologists of this sort of 'difficulty' are players who are infatuated that they progressed through it and demand others to 'git gud' in a self-fulfilling bid to rub their ego.
Comparing games that intended to be bullshit unfair like IWTBTG and Cat Mario to games that let you discover how to play them on your own like Super Mario Brothers and Cave Story is completely retarded
is decreasing the delay between AI cicles artificial difficulty in action games?
>easy difficulty the enemy checks if he needs to dodge or attack or block every 600 ms
>medium difficulty the enemy checks if he needs to dodge or attack or block every 400 ms
>hard difficulty the enemy checks if he needs to dodge or attack or block every 200ms
>being forced to memorize content to pass it
>being forced to grind content to progress
>last areas of every single video game where it forces you to kill 500 generic enemies to get to the end boss which ends up being a cutscene QTE
souls franchise forcing you to blacksmith your weapons, suddenly with +10 weapons every boss is ez mode and a walk in the park
>>being forced to memorize content to pass it
that's not artificial difficulty
>>being forced to grind content to progress
that's what you call difficulty? really? are you a fucking casual?
>>last areas of every single video game where it forces you to kill 500 generic enemies to get to the end boss which ends up being a cutscene QTE
why is it difficult?
I agree with this statement, but I feel you're mischaracterizing his argument. He means that stupid shit like invisible coin blocks in Mario that pop up out of nowhere with no prior indication and leave you no time to react as you die are artificial difficulty since there was literally nothing you could do. What you're saying is that in videogames, you need to git gud at the controls in order to be able to overcome challenges, even if you die while failing. The differences is that in the first game, you die because of no fault of your own. in the second game, you die because your skills aren't good enough.
I think you're not understanding the point. Games like Cat Mario are in fact artificial difficulty since the game expects you to just keep dying to unavoidable shit until you pass the game. However, some people are into that and have fun playing the game. I think if the game clearly labels itself as that type of game then artificial difficulty can be fun to someone who enjoys it. Artificial Difficulty then is not bad in and of itself, but only in situations where it was not expected.
Surpassing artificial or cheap difficulty does not reflect skill in any way shape or form. At best all it takes is patience and repetition. Consider Street Fighter 3 or 4 for a moment. Their single-player arcade mode(s) are notorious for their cheap bosses where the AI reacts to your every input. The only way to best them is find a system and exploit them. That is not getting gud, that is being forced into one method of approach.
So let's you beat them, and you tell others to 'git gud'. You player multi-player, and you find out that even though you beat the cheap bosses, you're not actually 'gud'. In fact, you suck.
Being 'gud' has nothing to do with surpassing cheap/artificial ceilings.
You could make arguments for artificial difficulty in some games, but its most common form is:
>same rules do not apply to AI characters as player characters, making it harder by nature for the player without actually making the game any harder.
This can be bullshit AI or more commonly physics bullshit. Most often seen in racing games where AI cars blatantly break the laws of physics by driving several hundred MPH in cars that CAN'T to so, or things like spike strips effecting the player, but not the AI. You'll also see AI cars pull several perfect laps and go insanely faster than the player in the EXACT same car as the player, or even pull totally impossible maneuvers (like sliding sideways while traveling forward)
Also, fighting games can have AI that responds to the players button inputs, making it harder to get through their defense without making the AI an actual better fighter.
In /v/'s mind, artificial difficulty is any gameplay element they don't like.
The DeS/DaS series takes all your stat boosts away when you die. Even though the game lets you retry as many times as you like, abuse items and equipment that can render you unstoppable and use other cheap tactics to break the games...
I've also seen people call games like classic Resident Evil artificially difficult, because you have limited item spaces and have to solve puzzles.
So honestly, /v/ apparently thinks everything in an action game, no matter what, and that anything that you can't just effortlessly slaughter your way through is artificially difficult.
Are you sure? Wah about games like Ghosts and Goblins? It doesn't really matter how good you are, the game is going to throw a metric ton of bull shit at you that you have little to no time to avoid. Luck plays a lot into a game like that.
i dont think you even grasp what the concept is
artificial difficulty is about adding tedium
its not difficulty, its not a challenge, its just extremely fucking tedious
and here i have to use the word fucking every 5 fucking seconds to get it through your stupid fucking skull that i know what the fuck im talking about and youre a complete idiot who thinks artifical difficulty isnt devs copypasting the same encounter 500 times at the end of the game to pad out the length of the game and make the boss harder to get to
Using the techniques the game gives you to overcome a challenge. If it is impossible to overcome a challenge with these techniques then the game is artificially difficult. For example, some games often have scripted deaths (Demons' Souls right at the beginning for example). This is artificial difficulty, especially because the game just finished explaining all the techniques and then immediately kills you as part of a plot point.
no, it could add tedium but it's not mandatory
>its not difficulty
it is difficulty, artificial DIFFICULTY
>its not a challenge
it is a challenge, an artificial one, but a challenge
>i dont think you even grasp what the concept is
i think you do not grasp it
>its just extremely fucking tedious
i totally agree, except when it's the main goal of the game like I wanna be the guy, lost levels etc.
you want another concept of what artificial difficulty? go play any "survival" game or survival mods where they add meters that tic down endlessly preventing you from actually playing the game, you end up playing the system which is usually shit like fallout new vegas where you just end up wasting tons of time hoarding water and food because some stupid little hunger meter is determining whether you can progress or not
Any good RPG leaves room for a player to complete the game without grinding, albeit it will make it harder, but the option is there for both players to either push through using skill, or for a player to dampen/soften the difficulty for themselves by grinding.
>Shooting in FPS
And invoking the WOOOW a la DSP has me believe you're not even rational enough to discuss half of the shit you're saying.
something designed without a specific solve state, without a reasonable process by which the player can determine how to progress
ie something in a game that is designed to beat the player, not to make the player better through challenge
invisible blocks in mario romhacks
rubber banding in racing games
fighting game bosses than can perform inputs at a rate thats humanly unachievable
any instant win/loss mechanic dependent on rng in turn based games
also blanket includes things added that do not increase difficulty, but just increase the amount of time the player has to invest in the game
ie an enemy in an rpg with enough health to tank an hours worth of the strongest attacks in the game, regardless of its offensive capabilities
fetch quests without purpose but required for progress
What about them? It's luck based. It deals the player a hand, and the player uses his skill and liberty to play many strategies to make the most of what he's been dealt.
Artificial difficulty is a singular strategy that leaves no room for anything else but memorization.
hotline miami isn't trial and error, you can see the map, what the ennemies do and wha are their weapon before trying to kill them.
And hotline miami is liked because of its looks, its music and its violence. Difficulty has little to nothing to do with it.
I'm not saying it's good design for an RPG to suddenly force the player into an area with enemies twenty levels higher than the last one with no reasonable warning but a player should also know that stopping to train up is an option and should be able to make use of intelligent strategy like skill combinations, terrain effects, or even just items to overcome level differences rather than feeling like they need to grind to the point where everything can be OHKOd
Spouting this buzzword every time a comparison is made between two things does nothing to invalidate the comparison, particularly when you don't explain why you don't feel it's a fair comparison
>invoking the WOOOW a la DSP has me believe you're not even rational enough to discuss half of the shit you're saying.
Sorry I'm not taking this anonymous imageboard argument seriously enough for you
youre an idiot
artificial difficulty is not difficulty, its the illusion of difficulty by adding a tedious nature to the gameplay
forcing players to repeat the same area because of random sudden death traps and shit
forcing players to grind levels because if they tried to just play the game theyd die repeatedly
adding random bullshit like survival meters of hunger and thirst
that is artificial difficulty, tedious bullshit that makes it harder because you just have to deal with tedious bullshit
thats what it is, here i am explaining to a fucking 14 year old child what the fuck the word means
Then if you can't take it seriously, then you can't take your own premises or conclusions seriously. I also liked your critique on my use of the words false equivalency, and yet your only rebuke was to call it a buzz-word which is hilarious in and of itself.
>rubber banding in racing games
it isn't difficulty, you just have to make no fault near the end
it's stupid because only 10% of the race matters, the first 90% are useless
I hate it because it removes the racing from racing but it's not difficult
>fighting game bosses than can perform inputs at a rate thats humanly unachievable
that's not artificial difficulty, that's how all the game work, because an AI can barely compete an human
>artificial difficulty is not difficulty
you're a moron
>forcing players to grind levels because if they tried to just play the game theyd die repeatedly
because that's difficult? that's just boring but not difficul
fucking casual, you don't even know what difficulty is
>adding random bullshit like survival meters of hunger and thirst
casual spotted, i love those survival meters
>here i am explaining to a fucking 14 year old
shut up kiddo
Not quite a definition, but I think part of it is when developers REALLY up the bullshit just to pad the games and make them seem longer.
Hmmm, would final Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi RPG bosses count? Final bosses seem to instantly get hard and end up being an obnoxious pain that suddenly take several tries to beat.
>Sen's fortress mimic
>Floor break before stray demon
>Invisible platforms in crystal cave
>Forced death vs Seith
can be skipped
its just bad developers compensating for lack of difficulty by making the game tedious
no it doesnt
its basically like bad horror games/movies just incorporating jump scares every 15 seconds, it adds the illusion of fear by surprising you constantly, but isn't actually scary
The only two things in that list that are artificial difficulty are the Mimic and the scripted death vs Seath. The Capra Demon is balls hard but fair. The floor break before Stray hurts you but it doesn't kill you. As to everything else,
Dice rolls as the result, not the options. If games gave you the RNG results before choosing your move, it'd be much more interesting. Even as it is, playing the odds does take some sort of skill. But when your only move is XX% to hit, it's not actually hard.
How would you git gud against a mimic without clairvoyance?
Would the only way to git gud be to literally hit everything in the game methodically as you advance to make sure it doesn't attack you?
>Sen's fortress mimic
Has a coiled chain, indicating a suspicion for the offline player, and for the online player, messages on the ground aid you.
You are presented with a lumbering demon and you clearly have 3 or 4 seconds to watch 2 dogs run at you upon entry, you had every chance to space yourself.
>Floor break before stray demon
While unexpected, does not do enough to kill you. In fact, it forces Chosen undead into a state of recovery animation, allowing you to clearly see where you are and who you're about to fight, if anything it provides a chance to prepare
A tight pocket that demands skill. The players should know that rolling has invincible frames.
>Invisible platforms in crystal cave
Players messages aid you, and if you're offline, the falling drops of snow show the platforms clearly when they crash onto it.
>Forced death vs Seathe
That forced death progresses you through the game, it does not stop progession, therefore it's not a valid complaint.
The only artificially difficult element in dark souls is lost izalith's bed of chaos, but that's it.
>if you can't take it seriously, then you can't take your own premises or conclusions seriously
So I have my own convictions about a thing, but because I don't care enough to make a serious carefully thought out detailed effort to convince some random anonymous casual fuckhead on the internet who as far as I know I will never meaningfully interact with again here or anywhere else that his opinion is wrong, I clearly don't actually believe anything that I am saying and am entirely just trying to epically troll you for the lulz
>yet your only rebuke was to call it a buzz-word
When you make an accusation about an opponent's premise, you have to actually support your accusation, which I'm sure you learned in Debating 101
You can't just yell MUH FALLACY and automatically invalidate someone else's point without actually demonstrating why it's fallacious. Clearly you're talking out your ass at least as much as if you're just going to shit on me for not taking internet fights seriously enough while completely disregarding basics of rational argument at the same fucking time
Imagine a game where all you do is hold one direction on the control stick. No other inputs, just continuous pressing of one direction. It takes 200 hours of uninterrupted input from that direction to beat the game. It is difficult to do, but requires no skill. That is artificial difficulty.
I agree with everything except the Mimic and Seathe. The Mimic may have a coiled tail but up until that point in the game, there has been no indication that a chest might kill you. Sure there's traps and shit but they're all organic traps like pressure plates and arrows and whatnot. I'd say it's a longshot to think that anyone would've noticed the coiled chain on the first go. As to Seath, considering that the game gives you no chance and you MUST die when you face him the first time without any indication that this will progress the game, it pretty much falls under the banner of artificial difficulty.
I'd also like to know why you think the bed of chaos is artificial difficulty
/v/ in a nutshell
>Defining difficulty by saying "it's difficult".
I agree with your counter-point with the mimic, but only as far as offline mode.
As for Seath, I still stand by my point. You are propelled into the latter half of the stage for the death, and you're put into a bonfire room to boot. It's a death, sure. But it left no room for possible victory, so there was no difficulty in any sense. It was just a ploy to get the player from point A to point B in an interesting way.
That's what I was telling the guy I'm responding to
This entire thread can be summarized by these two mongoloids
Nothing will be concluded by this thread, nobody's opinions will change, and everyone will go home a little more butthurt than they came
Not who you replied to, but I hate niggas like you. The type of person who hides behind a veil of subjectivity and when the veil is removed, you further recede further and further back insisting: ''Define (x)''.
It's a pretty shitty way of trying to mount an argument while offering no input of your own.
I see your argument but I feel it's flawed because of the way no one has agreed on a definition of artificial difficulty in this thread. Sure it's part of the way the game transports you but dying takes away your humanity and your souls, and getting all the way back to Seath to recover all that is nearly impossible for a first time player. Add that to the fact that you need to waste a humanity in order to revert back to human if you already were human, and the fact that Seath can curse you and you're pretty fucked for no fault of your own. That's pretty artificial in my book.
>bringing up the coiled chain when you find the mimic in a dark area with a dark floor that barely lets you see the chain
You only realize the chain thing until the game puts both a mimic and a chest near one another later in the game.
>3 or 4 seconds
Up until then, every boss in DaS either pops up with a cutscene or doesn't appear until you move a little further into the boss room
The game conditions you into thinking you can chill while crossing the gate and then explore your surroundings (in fact, it's necessary for Taurus Demon). Capra demon breaks this rule.
The fall takes half your health. There's no reason for you to think there's going to be a boss there, and it may kill you if you're exploring while trying to find a fog gate. You know, that thing the game usually puts before a boss.
If you attack after parrying the first archer when it goes meele, you usually fall to your doom (at least I did on my first run). Otherwise, I agree that it's not really artificial difficulty.
Not everyone plays online. Regardless, I agree. Snow + the 20 balls you get before hand are enough.
>Seith death does not stop progress
It's totally unexpected and may cost you a shitload of should / humanity, setting you back.
How can you ascertain something without knowing what the word used to identify it means? Is that not the purpose of language? If something can't be defined then there's no debate to be had.
It's not really an official definition but whatever. I think it's when a player has 0 control over something integral to the game. So in my mind, rng in general is artificial difficulty. I mean look at FTL. If you get the worst possible rng, you are unable to win. If you get the best possible rng, you can beat the game in record time. Your actions matter, but they pale in comparison to the rng. If at some point you literally cannot win because of a dice you rolled, that's artificial difficulty.
Your point on humanity/soul recovery is valid. My only refutation is that you can use a ring of sacrifice to mitigate the chance of completely losing them (even if you dropped souls, put that baby on and if you die, the dropped souls are still there).
In terms of being cursed, the first encounter with seath doesn't curse you, only the second and final encounter has that possibility.
How else would you explain the fact that it's apparently everywhere and in every game?
Putting on the ring of sacrifice is the only way to counter the Seath death but wearing one implies that you already know you're going to die which isn't the case. You could counter by saying that a cautious player would wear a ring of sacrifice but those rings are limited and you have no warning beforehand that Seath's bossfight is any different from any other boss fight which means that if you were cautious, you probably would've lost your rings on other bosses. And I'm pretty sure that Seath can curse you during the first encounter, or at least the wiki implies it.
I do think DaS2 is artificial difficulty while DaS and DeS aren't. Throwing a shitload of enemies at you in a battle system that is better suited to 1v1 or slower paced battles is fucking stupid.
>"boss" fights with 3+ bosses
>boss fights with a bunch of minions
It's difficulty that frustrates the player. The whole fair/unfair difficulty discussion is just bullshit, because both barely mean anything within the context of non-competitive video games.
The ring of sacrifice can be used to negate two things: losing souls/humanity upon death. And, on the event you have dropped the souls/humanity, you can pop one on and prevent it from vanishing from a 2nd death.
I'm sort of sure there is even a ring you find leading up to the first encounter.
As far as the curse issue goes, i'm pretty sure he doesn't. And if he does, Seath during the first encounter does x2 as much damage than his final appearance, almost ensuring that you die from damage before a curse.
So what you're saying is that you actually have to do something difficult like managing crowds and using the environment instead of parrying/back stabbing every enemy in the game.
Curses in the Binding of Isaac Rebirth
It tries to make the level harder but a good player isn't affected by them. The only one that can fuck you over is Curse of the Blind because you can pick up a shitty item.
I don't even know how to respond to that one. I would imagine the developer's intent to be sincere I suppose?
>feigned, false, unnatural, hollow
All of those would be self-contradictory. If they were true in this case it would mean that the game has zero difficulty.
>exaggerated, put-on, forced, contrived
Compared to what?
There's at least one ring that you can get on the bridge where Domnhall of Zena sits after you ring the second bell. Regardless, putting on a ring after you've already died implies that you'll die no more than one time getting to back to Seathe's room. And just from my personal experience, that's really hard to do on a first playthrough.
If you see the conversation I'm having with the above poster, then you'll see why I think Seathe is artificial difficulty. Considering that in DeS you don't really lose anything and there's no real consequence to that first death then i'm ok with not labeling it as artificial difficulty.
That's not what it means. It means there -is- no argument. You're trying to call something that already has a name and meaning something else entirely.
Coin a new term to describe what you want to discuss, or there won't be anything to discuss.
Look man, I'm sorry the dictionary couldn't help you counter an argument. You have my deepest sympathy. A dictionary only gives clarification on the meaning of words. How we use these words is up to the context and the subject matter being discussed.
Using a dictionary to win a debate is like relying on a car manual to win a race.
A better question would be "what is fair difficulty?" It's a tricky concept to define and explain. Can't really question anyone about artificial difficulty when it's not established what makes for fair/good difficulty in the first place.
Elements in the game that harm you with no foreshadow. Mainly an issue when the amount of harm dealt is significant. Artificial Difficulty is also hard to correctly pinpoint in games because the game could be made in such a way where the player is meant to/should get an idea something harmful is coming, without anything explicitly showing something is coming. This creates situations where people who weren't able to pick up on the implied incoming harm might think the they were harmed by something with no foreshadowing and is therefore 'artificially difficult', but another player going through the same scenario could have picked up on the implication and dealt tried to deal with it accordingly
If you're this oblivious then I don't know what else to tell you. I'm not trying to call you autistic, but if you are unable to read the context behind the title then you might want to get checked out.
I'll clarify then:
It doesn't matter if the realm of videogames is what the term is usually used for. Shovels are used to dig, but that doesn't mean every discussion about shovels has to relate to dirt.
Your "context" is another word for adding facets and wrinkles to a subject that aren't there.
Don't unnecessarily complicate matters.
How's this for a definition: When the expected difficulty for some event is far higher than anticipated compared to previous similar events in a game, or when you do not have information to complete a level, or were uninformed at the time of making of a critical decision that it would alter the game irreversibly.
For some of the definitions I read in the thread I swore people were trying to make chess a game based around artificial difficulty.
I am not entertained. This is not why I am here. Step up.
>It doesn't matter if the realm of videogames is what the term is usually used for.
What board are we on right now, and which medium are discussing? See this is my point exactly, a dictionary cannot capture context. That is it's limitation.
Since when do people actually talk about videogames on this board?
This context of yours is what creates the unsolvable dilemma everyone is stuck in: the "context" of adding unspecified stipulations to a simple question.
How about a different question:
What kind of term should be used to describe the type of difficulty of Pacman, and what term could be used to describe Minesweeper?
How about I say that the actual ramp up in difficulty for the average player versus the expected ramp up in difficulty for the average player makes it seem immensely greater than anticipated?
Gotta make sure I'm talking about the average player here. If a pro can do it easily, but 95% of people struggle with it and stop playing the game because of it, chances are it's too difficult for the average player. Whether or not it is artificially difficult has some additional criteria that I mentioned above, mostly on the developer side of things rather than the player side (i.e. bad game design).
Rather than making a challenge to the player they simply make things more tedious that it seems like a challenge.
Like taking longer to get skills and stuff, i get low level runs and all. But dont make me grind for things i need like a required skill or item because i need this to progress but it takes longer cause of the low money gained from battles
I'm not exactly skilled enough in statistics to give you a percentage, and I'm trying to think through it to give you a percentage and the numbers aren't really making sense. I'll try to walk through it and tell me if it makes sense.
Our average player (on a standard bell curve distribution) thinks that the game is moderately hard at the specific point in the game. At the left end we have players that think that part is nigh impossible, and at the other side we have geniuses that get through without issue. Artificial difficulty would be skewing that mean point towards the left, so that most people would think that part nigh impossible. Thus, if we calculate the number of people that sit within one standard deviation on the new graph versus that of the other one, if we have >84.1% of people think that the game is hard, probably in the range of 87.5-95%, then that may be an indication of artificial difficulty. (Note that 84.1% is calculated by taking 50% [number of people that think the game is hard to impossible] and adding one standard deviation to it [34.1% on a standard bell graph].)
I dunno, someone tell me if I'm wrong.
Hey, you've put more thought into it than I have at any rate. I don't think what you're describing should be called artificial since that has a definition, but something like "skewed difficulty" might work.