SSX and Dark Souls

#1LimbicPosted 5/1/2012 7:57:10 AM
The division on this board seems to come down to the game's difficulty.

A lot of people are raging because of what they see as unfair or just unfun mechanics and design, and the other side is raging at them for not being good enough. I'm firmly in the former camp.

But one of the last games I played before this was Dark Souls, and I beat it. My wife would watch me play it and asked me how on earth I could repeat the same thing and die over and over and over. I told her that it was because I was actually making progress. I was dying, yeah, and often in the same way, but I was I learning the game.

Why don't I approach SSX the same way?

I think the problem is my expectations. When Dark Souls came out, the only thing I knew about it was that it was supposed to be impossible (I never played Demon's Souls, but I heard the same thing). When SSX came out, I had a list of expectations. When SSX didn't meet those expectations but provided a Dark Souls level of challenge that can only be overcome by a high amount of repetition, I balked. SSX shouldn't have death pits. SSX shouldn't make you rewind, effectively traveling backwards. SSX shouldn't darken your path so that you can only see 5 feet in front of you. And then fall into a pit.

I think if SSX were released as a stand alone with no history, I'd like it a lot better. But when my expectations for the series aren't met, I feel put out. SSX shouldn't be about memorization, I tell myself. The penalties for falling off shouldn't be worse than they have been. You should be able to scream down a mountain at mach 12 on the very first run.

But that's just not the game EA delivered. I have to be much, much more careful, much less spastic. Based on Tricky, I was expecting a certain level of abandon that will be punished to death in this latest iteration.

Anyway, I really don't think it's challenge I'm against per se. I think it's when a sequel fundamentally shifts what has made the series enjoyable that I get so frustrated.

TLDR: This is not to say this SSX isn't fun, but its fun is of a different sort (i.e. careful progression and memorization calling back to the 8 bit period), and I'm having the hardest time adjusting.
---
Paid DLC at release = end of games.
#2SandrocoPosted 5/1/2012 11:00:19 AM
SSX isn't on the same level of difficulty as dark souls.

I've played and beaten both.
---
It's not enough that I succeed; others must FAIL!!!
#3TBeatty716Posted 5/1/2012 11:10:34 AM
Limbic posted...
When SSX didn't meet those expectations but provided a Dark Souls level of challenge that can only be overcome by a high amount of repetition, I balked. SSX shouldn't have death pits. SSX shouldn't make you rewind, effectively traveling backwards. SSX shouldn't darken your path so that you can only see 5 feet in front of you. And then fall into a pit.

I"m not particularly fond of these things either, but like many other critics of the game you're overlooking something pretty significant--you don't define what a game is & isn't. You especially don't set the guidelines for an entire franchise that has been around for more than a decade now. This is recent phenomena related to gamer entitlement which I for one hope to see go by the wayside.

The complaints about difficulty are similar to the other major argument among SSX players right now as to what constitutes a legit Trick It score. If you take your time and focus, you might be able to achieve a score vastly higher than those who just blaze through their trick runs as if time limits were in place (as with the previous games, where trick courses had time limits). Some are arguing that these longer Trick It runs are somehow not in the true spirit of the franchise. But time limits weren't simply removed by accident and gamers are overstepping when they assume the right to define what a game can't and can't be.
#4loom1215Posted 5/1/2012 11:11:12 AM
Limbic posted...
Anyway, I really don't think it's challenge I'm against per se. I think it's when a sequel fundamentally shifts what has made the series enjoyable that I get so frustrated.

I am a fan of the SSX series, and a special fan of this new one, and I really don't see any "fundamental" shifts here. Yes, it is harder. It takes much more skill to get gold medals, and there are, to be sure, far more death pits. None of this is very fundamental though.

Are the death pits new? No. Is the need for great skill to pull off master runs new? No. Honestly it seems like you were not playing at a very high level with the earlier games in the series, because they, too, required total track knowledge, and if not an understanding of exploits, then at least a perfect run to get a very good score. Nothing new here, really, except there is a lot more replayability in terms of the game itself because those who easily got gold medals in previous titles might have to be happy with bronze medals to begin with, and improve in skill to get gold before even entering the realm of high-score beating.

This is still the same SSX, though. It's just a different riff on it. Worse in some ways, but better in a lot of others. Just like Tricky->SSX 3. People who suck often complain that this isn't the old SSX. Well, it is. There's just less space here for poor playing if you want to "beat the game."

Here's another reason, perhaps, why this game compares somewhat unfavorably in people's minds with Dark Souls. You can easily beat Dark Souls without a lot of "skill" if you just keep dying and figure out the tricks that work in different situations - or, what most people do, just read a guide. Not possible in SSX. You have to know what to do, and then you have to exercise a lot of skill to do it.
#5Still__RippinPosted 5/1/2012 3:47:30 PM
If you are really comparing the "difficulty" of the Souls series to SSX then you sir have no idea what you are talking about. Let me explain a few things. The souls games are NOT HARD. As a matter of fac they are very very easy. l personally hate those games because they are not hard, they are punishing and cheap. Like you said, you died over and over and over in the same way. Not fun, and should not be allowed to called the reason why a game is "hard". People who are unhappy with this game don't suck. l'm unhappy with it and l'm failry good considering l mostly place in Diamond in almost any trick event l enter. The problem with this game is that the tracks don't have the FUN FACTOR that old SSX games did. The death pits, and other survival gimmicks are just that, gimiicks. They are fun for a little while but that's about it, there should be at the very least an option to turn that B?S off and be able to play all the tracks for fun.
#6Limbic(Topic Creator)Posted 5/1/2012 6:12:53 PM
I"m not particularly fond of these things either, but like many other critics of the game you're overlooking something pretty significant--you don't define what a game is & isn't. You especially don't set the guidelines for an entire franchise that has been around for more than a decade now. This is recent phenomena related to gamer entitlement which I for one hope to see go by the wayside.

You're right, I don't. But for a company like Blizzard, I really do.

I think companies, the smart ones anyway, are starting to listen to gamers' concerns. Metacritic is having a *huge* impact on the industry. So I'll agree that for EA I'm not defining the game, but in WoW, I think in some very small way I really have.

As for entitlement, I have $60 that says I'm entitled to a good game. If EA doesn't like that, they should give their games away for free. Then I think they'd have a better case against my entitlement.
---
Paid DLC at release = end of games.
#7Limbic(Topic Creator)Posted 5/1/2012 6:16:25 PM
The souls games are NOT HARD.

Every review I've read, every one, insists that they are hard.

If they aren't hard for you, you can safely consider yourself in the top 0.1% of gamers. I'm not being facetious here. From what I'm heard from the whole internet, if DS isn't hard for you you're probably way, way, way beyond the average.
---
Paid DLC at release = end of games.
#8Still__RippinPosted 5/1/2012 6:22:37 PM
Limbic posted...
The souls games are NOT HARD.

Every review I've read, every one, insists that they are hard.

If they aren't hard for you, you can safely consider yourself in the top 0.1% of gamers. I'm not being facetious here. From what I'm heard from the whole internet, if DS isn't hard for you you're probably way, way, way beyond the average.


I say they aren't hard because HARD shouldn't be defined as countless unforeseeable cheap insta deaths and memorizing them and enemy movements. It's a glorified memory game.
#9TBeatty716Posted 5/2/2012 10:18:52 AM
Limbic posted...
You're right, I don't. But for a company like Blizzard, I really do.
I think companies, the smart ones anyway, are starting to listen to gamers' concerns. Metacritic is having a *huge* impact on the industry. So I'll agree that for EA I'm not defining the game, but in WoW, I think in some very small way I really have.


I’m not taking issue with companies listening to feedback from players. The problem I see is when that feedback takes the form of SSX shouldn’t be this, SSX shouldn’t be that, Diablo shouldn’t be colorful, etc. That’s what the question really boils down to—is the development of a series reserved solely for the creative team commissioned to work on it, or do franchises somehow just exist in the ether to be molded by everybody’s expectations?

With a franchise there are always going to be those who want each experience to be as similar to the last as possible and those who hope to see things mixed up a bit. No portion of the fan base should ever be allowed to define what can & cannot change, or what the “true spirit” of a franchise is. Gamers can critique all they want but at the end of the day they aren’t creating. I’m not out for a flame war here, but waving around Blizzard credentials is pretty low. Even if you have partly defined WoW as you claim, that would’ve been in your capacity as a Blizzard employee and not as a consumer.


Limbic posted...
As for entitlement, I have $60 that says I'm entitled to a good game. If EA doesn't like that, they should give their games away for free. Then I think they'd have a better case against my entitlement.

To say that 60 bucks entitles you to something good totally overlooks the idea of subjectivity. Like I said in my first post, I don’t really care for the death pits and rewinds either, but surely some people do. It’s not possible to make a game that everyone likes. No matter what the end product is, that good game you feel entitled to will also be somebody elses idea of a total waste of $60.