Board 8 > Are there times you HAVE felt snobbish about Quality of life additions to games?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I guess one example I have is when they brought beat em ups to the 360, like Shadow of Mystara or Xmen, they have infinite continues, which is fine in of itself, but all people do is spam special moves, die, then spam the special moves again and rinse and repeat. then they complain the game sucked. You didn't play it normally! I think you can play with pools of credits, but those modes weren't that popular of course.
But at the end of the day they were just playing how they wanted to play it, ya know. and I guess to super casuals just playing with like 5 credits won't be so fun, especially if they are coming back for nostalgia

I remember when I played Banjo Kazooie and had a playthrough topic here, someone complained that the XBL version, which I was playing, saved it when you collected each note. In the N64 version if you died in the level, you had to recollect everything again from scratch. but I was hella thankful for it haha

whats an example of you feeling a bit elitist / gatekeeperish?

I'm an adult and thus want others to enjoy an entertainment product on their terms, not mine.

KCF0107 posted... I'm an adult and thus want others to enjoy an entertainment product on their terms, not mine.

I have a feeling everyone is gonna just quote that so I'm just gonna call that now

But I did make this topic because I was thinking about Banjo and that person came to mind, I just wanted to know if anybody felt that way with anything else

and in my defense, I guess I felt "snobby" about the beat em ups because people were bashing them afterwards and its like, wut. I did explain people do what people do though

There are times when I've felt an easy mode was too forgiving to be fun, like you said with the beat-em-ups.

R-Type Dimensions has an easy mode where you get infinite lives and immediately respawn at the point where you died without losing any progress. I'd much rather have the infinite lives and get sent back to a checkpoint (both so that you have a chance to power up again, and to make it so you actually have to practice and improve, not just wear down the boss over dozens of lives), but sadly, that's not an option.

Punnyz posted...

then they complain the game sucked. You didn't play it normally!

There are a few instances where I've gotten frustrated over people not playing a game "correctly", but those are independent of the main question that this topic is asking. (Clarification: This is mostly related to watching people play games on Twitch and being bad and then complaining about the game for reasons that I don't consider valid.)

I can't think of any case where I've felt "back in my day..." about quality-enhancing improvements to games.

I was snobbish years back about a lot of things, but not as much recently. There are some easy modes for farm games like Story of Seasons that in the back of my mind I think detract from the "intended" experience, but I also know that someone else playing that way won't affect my time with it.

the only example i can think of being against a QoL improvement is something that simplifies a strategic element of a competitive multiplayer game.

for example in league of legends they used to count your cs (creep score) in the jungle for each monster individually, even though some camps had 1 monster and others had like 8, even though both camps were worth roughly equivalent gold and xp. and based on looking at your opponent jungler's cs number you could do the math and figure out which camps they did. that was kind of a cool strategy that was exclusively done in higher levels of play.

but at some point a few years ago they normalized this so every camp was worth 4 cs to better reflect the actual gold value of each camp being equivalent, since cs is often a proxy for gold. it's a minor quality improvement that removed a unique strategic element.

in a single player game i don't think i would or could ever possibly care though

With Everquest, back in the day, with new expansions adding newbie equipment sets, the Luclin Bazaar, and easy transport from one side of the world to the other with the Planes of Power, as well as less hurt from hell levels and corpse degeneration... i got a slight bit salty.

Mega Mana posted...

With Everquest, back in the day, with new expansions adding newbie equipment sets, the Luclin Bazaar, and easy transport from one side of the world to the other with the Planes of Power, as well as less hurt from hell levels and corpse degeneration... i got a slight bit salty.

Luclin destroyed the main social gathering place for 2 and a half years prior to it and PoP completely ruined the immersion, not really what this topic is about. Though if you are actually salty about stuff like newbie equipment sets and removing hybrid exp penalty then those parts are applicable <_<

I am extremely judgmental about mods that remove encumbrance, inventory limits, or stamina/hunger systems.

I get a little annoyed when people play Fire Emblem without perma-death then complain it's too easy or strategically braindead. Like yeah, you intentionally removed by far the biggest part of the game's difficulty. What did you expect??

Honestly though I'm way more likely to be snobbish in favor of QOL changes. Every time someone says that, e.g., having an in-game map would ruin Dark Souls or that being able to save at any time would ruin [whatever game with restrictions on saving] I just see that "ok grandma let's get you to bed" meme in my head.

I kind of miss game overs taking you back to the title screen and limited save options. Now there's too many checkpoints and death isn't a punishment more than an inconvieance. Now when gamers get stuck at a point they just ram their head into the wall brute force rather than focus on their mistakes, because the stakes are low.

The problem with the old system is losing progress due to external factors like power outages, or a brain fart because you forgot to save the game after 4 hours of progress.

Yes, credit feeding most certainly does ruin the fun of a lot of arcade-based games. I don't think the notion is elitist since it goes against the grain of how they were designed in the first place; rewarding players who were skilled to get far on a single coin/ticket.

Many of the design aspects do not have a chance to shine if you're feeding your way through for a single run and moving on from the game.

That said I don't really have a problem with how people choose to play their games. If having a variety of ways to enjoy games without impacting design intent is possible, I'm all for it. I've never felt right judging people for how they spend their time or playing a game the "wrong way". But I also don't think it's far fetched to say that there's games that can be more fun if played in a certain way.

JoyMech posted...

I don't think the notion is elitist since it goes against the grain of how they were designed in the first place; rewarding players who were skilled to get far on a single coin/ticket.

I mean they were designed to get you to spend as much money as possible

I am a bit snobbish towards people playing in Casual mode for Fire Emblem, but especially FE3H with the rewind system. I try to not let it show but deep in my heart I know I look down upon them just a bit. v_v

I made it my hill to die on that I hate that Pokemon games now tell you what moves are super-effective against what you encounter. It's not a "Quality of Life" improvement for me - it takes away what makes it a game.

At least give the fucking option to turn the thing off so people like me can feel mentally stimulated!

Pokemon Arceus having forced EXP Share was 50% of the reason I didn't buy it (other 50% being graphics).

As someone who played Pokemon Arceus and not many other Pokemon games, I really don't get why you wouldn't want to have your whole party gain experience. Evolving Pokemon to complete challenges would be a much bigger pain without that.

Raka_Putra posted...

I am a bit snobbish towards people playing in Casual mode for Fire Emblem, but especially FE3H with the rewind system. I try to not let it show but deep in my heart I know I look down upon them just a bit. v_v

I played a few of the pre-Casual games, but I still like playing the new ones Casual. Casual Hard at least - Casual Normal is painfully easy.

I don't think I do the snobbish thing for any easy modes but maybe I'm forgetting a game.

All I can think of is Pokemon's descent into no-challenge handholding, which got so bad in Sun/Moon that I haven't played any later ones. Not sure if just being way too easy counts as QoL though

Devil May Cry 3 Special Edition Gold Mode kinda bugs me. The game is supposed to be difficult. We don't need resurrection stones.

Luckily you can turn it off so it only annoys me slightly.

The most recent and best example of this for me is Elden Ring.

A lot of people complaining about the difficulty of the game if you don't use Summons, Magic build or an OP build. All I want to say is that, yes Elden Ring is the hardest FromSoftware game if you restrict yourself from the options available to you but in no way, shape or form is it anywhere close to impossible like the majority of the fanbase complain it to be. Yes, you'll likely die hundreds of times before you overcome the hardest bosses in the game but it can be done.

My first playthrough of Elden Ring without using summons and sticking to my build from previous Souls games may have been one of the hardest experiences I've had in a video game but it was also one of the most satisfying ones. My subsequent playthroughs where I shredded Bosses with OP builds like Rivers of Blood and Moonveil Katana were nowhere near as gratifying and rewarding.

So I don't know why that aspect of the game is used as a sleight against the game by some of its detractors.

Edit: Topic-wise, I consider the various features of Elden Ring to be QoL improvements over its predecessors.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/9/2/1/AARWb-AADYC5.jpg

no give me all the QoL improvements

Quality of Life improvements are good.

Making a game easier isn't a quality of life improvement though. That refers to things like allowing the Iron Boots to be assigned to an item slot so you don't need to keep pausing...

Xuxon posted...

Luclin destroyed the main social gathering place for 2 and a half years prior to it and PoP completely ruined the immersion, not really what this topic is about. Though if you are actually salty about stuff like newbie equipment sets and removing hybrid exp penalty then those parts are applicable <_<

The main social gathering place for me was whatever dungeon I was using to grind, and I never had a true sense of immersion, so adding the bazaar and the plane of tranquility didn't really change that. I was still broke from buying peridots, so I was never shopping for anything anyway, and maining a non-port class simply meant PoT allowed me to get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. If making it so I could play an alt in EC without listening to a gazillion auction spam messages is the price to pay for that, eh.

Mobilezoid posted...

All I can think of is Pokemon's descent into no-challenge handholding, which got so bad in Sun/Moon that I haven't played any later ones. Not sure if just being way too easy counts as QoL though

I explained the worst of these issues. Pokemon Moon is legitimately one of the worst games I've ever played. The "QoL improvements" that people refer to are what make an easy series even easier.

I did play Pokemon Legends but I'm still only on the third area and am not sure if or when I'll ever beat it.

Only if they affect me. Don't keep bugging me about easy mode if I keep dying. If I want to throw myself against a wall over and over I'm going to. Pokemon XY, the EXP share, though. 50% EXP to all benched party members. To look at it simply, that adds up to a distribution of 350% EXP per KO. I played recently and tried to deny it to myself for the most part, do things that would make me struggle more like making a team that lacked type coverage. I discovered it's just a really poorly balanced single player game no matter what you do. I was still crazy overleveled without EXP share (the absolutely relentless random encounter rate may have encouraged that) and if anything I centralized even more into my starter because most new mon could never catch up to enemy level.

I think after playing the Forza Horizon series, probably the best racing games ever made, I expect other racing games to include those same improvements.

Like I was playing Hot Wheels Unleashed (excellent game) and noticed they have pretty much the same livery editor as the Forza Horizon series. Good move by them.

I don't really view gatekeeping as elitist. It's just people pointing out facts and others getting offended.

I used save states to 'beat' Zelda II. If someone says I didn't beat it that's fine, because yeah if you really get down to brass tacks I didn't. Now as far as my personal collection goes yeah I'm gonna mark it as finished and call it a day.

BetrayedTangy posted...

I don't really view gatekeeping as elitist. It's just people pointing out facts and others getting offended.

I used save states to 'beat' Zelda II. If someone says I didn't beat it that's fine, because yeah if you really get down to brass tacks I didn't. Now as far as my personal collection goes yeah I'm gonna mark it as finished and call it a day.

So what do you view as elitist?

BetrayedTangy posted...

I don't really view gatekeeping as elitist.

smh stop gatekeeping elitism

BetrayedTangy posted...

I don't really view gatekeeping as elitist. It's just people pointing out facts and others getting offended.

I used save states to 'beat' Zelda II. If someone says I didn't beat it that's fine, because yeah if you really get down to brass tacks I didn't. Now as far as my personal collection goes yeah I'm gonna mark it as finished and call it a day.

That's basically the definition of elitism right there. You're just saying that you're okay with it.

its only elitism if the person thinks they're better than you for having beaten it without save states. not "better at the game", but like, better morally, or just better as a human being.

Is it really elitism to say someone didn't really beat a game if they used Savestates. That just sounds correct. Like I certainly don't consider someone jamming a game genie into the game and putting in an invincibility code beating the game and I'm not sure why save states are much better than that.

I'd see elitism as more like "you didn't beat SMB1 if you used Warp Zones" or "you didn't beat Mega Man 2 if you didn't play on Difficult"

Lopen posted...

Is it really elitism to say someone didn't really beat a game if they used Savestates

bluntly? yes

i think people get caught up with the negative connotations of certain words, and get surprised when those words apply to situations they don't find overly negative*

you can absolutely say it's different from beating the game without save states, or that the player didn't beat it the way the devs originally intended, but leaving out those qualifiers is for sure elitist

on a separate note, i kind of enjoy witnessing speedrunning communities decide which glitches are okay, which aren't, and which merit a separate category

*the big word this applies to is "ignorant". we normally associate "ignorant" with "willfully incurious or malicious", but its actual definition is closer to "hasn't learned everything yet". "selfish" is a little tougher, but sometimes it is 100% good and necessary for someone to be selfish, and take a day off of work when they aren't feeling well

it's essentially saying "you didn't beat the game the right way," which suggests a certain level of condescension, so yeah, it is

I don't really worry about. I beat Castlevania and it was a brutal slog that took a lot of time and there was an elation as a kid playing those games that people using cheats/save states/etc won't feel, but, that's the exchange I made. I think most people understand how frustrating games used to be at this point and that QOL was either not feasible to implement, or ignored because the games wouldnt seem worth 50 bucks.

If someone uses a Game Genie to beat Ghosts N Goblins, that's fine. If they claim that it's legitimate... well no, but, oh well.

I mean it's not a matter of "the right way" it's using something that doesn't exist in the game to change the way the game is played to make it artificially easy.

I think if you're not using tools the game gave you to beat the game and are using cheats or savestates from an external factor, then you're not really beating the game. I don't think this is elitist.

It's like saying your teacher is elitist for catching you copying your friend's answers on a test and calling you a cheater rather than someone who successfully completed your test.

Well the difference with the test is that cheating isn't allowed

Cheats are allowed in video games. You can choose not to use them, but the fact that you feel the need to determine the legitimacy of someone's "beating" of a game is definitely gatekeeping and elitism. I'm not saying it's necessarily bad, but that's what it is.

i mean part of the issue is we don't have the vocabulary to differentiate whether someone "beat" a game with outside help or not

it's like people who don't know if they can say they "read" a book if they listened to the audio version or if watching a full playthrough of a gameplay-less VN counts as having "played" it

savestates and cheats are one case. but what about using a guide?

if i used a walkthrough to tell me every step in a turn-based puzzle game... did i "beat" it?

context matters here. if i categorize Baba is You as "beaten" on my backlog tracker, even though i used a guide for every step, is that a lie? it's pretty different than if someone says "what's the toughest puzzle game you beat?" and i answer "Baba is You".

Like the better hill to die on is whether using passwords/cheat codes given in the game is beating the game.

Did you beat Contra if you konami'd 30 lives?
Did you beat Mega Man 2 if you passworded to the end and only beat the wily stages.

I would say in those cases saying someone didnt beat the game while using those is probably elitist (though with the Mega Man example I'd be like "but why though"). But game genie or savestates? Shouldn't be elitist. I don't think it's a healthy mindset to think that's elitist it feels more like a defense mechanism at that point. Calling someone an elitist in some ways is a way to invalidate their criticism. If the so called elitist is objectively RIGHT is it actually elitism or just reality?

Leonhart4 posted...

Well the difference with the test is that cheating isn't allowed

Cheats are allowed in video games. You can choose not to use them, but the fact that you feel the need to determine the legitimacy of someone's "beating" of a game is definitely gatekeeping and elitism. I'm not saying it's necessarily bad, but that's what it is.

Cheating isn't allowed in a test because the administrators will punish you if they catch you. So you didn't really pass.

What if I download some mock exams at home and I cheat on them and I get 100%? Did I pass the test...? No one will punish me. Cheating is allowed.

beating a game with save states is like dunking a basketball with a trampoline. If someone says "you can't dunk" they aren't being elitist

now if someone says you shouldn't dunk off a trampoline and you're wrong for doing so, that's elitist

Your teacher is literally there to gatekeep you from passing the class if you cheat and they catch you.

Lopen posted...

I mean it's not a matter of "the right way" it's using something that doesn't exist in the game to change the way the game is played to make it artificially easy.

Save states frequently exist in modern rereleases of classic games

I mean, I'm fine with just calling it gatekeeping. The elitism is implied in the term.

I don't particularly care how someone beats a game or if you think I beat a game legitimately or not. It's not meant to be defensive. It's just what it is.

What about actual cheat codes?

GTA is big on those. They were very much in the game, you weren't using something from outside like a GameGenie. Did I beat San Andreas in 2004, when I first played it? Because I definitely used a lot of cheat codes.

Lopen posted...

Your teacher is literally there to gatekeep you from passing the class if you cheat and they catch you.

Well yeah, the teacher is paid to gatekeep. Sometimes gatekeeping is necessary. Like I said, I don't think the term is bad in and of itself. I also don't think video gaming really needs gatekeeping, so I don't really care.

To be clear I don't care if someone beats the game with savestates.

I'm just saying they objectively speaking didn't really beat the game. It's cool to do that if you just want to experience the game though. Beating some games is hard.

Just like it's okay to watch a let's play to experience the game. But no one that isn't LMS would say someone watching a let's play is beating the game either.

It's kinda like, maybe you need to look at it the other way-- do I really care if someone doesn't think I beat the game enough that I have to brand them as an elitist to cope? Or are they just being reasonable?

let's say i make a game, and i put in a menu called "Accessibility Menu" that lets you have invincibility and kill enemies in one hit.

then one day i change my mind and i rename the menu to "Cheat Menu" but i change nothing else.

is it cheating now to give yourself god mode but it wouldn't be cheating if it was called Accessibility?

if i play the SNES version with save states is that different than playing the Wii Retro Shop version that is exactly the same but has save states built in? did i cheat in one but not the other?