• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.

(Insert game here) isn’t even that hard.

Oct 28, 2017
2,107
#51
Depends on the context.

Souls games are more technical than most big games, so it take a couple of hours to learn. Some people have enough drive/time to do this and some not. Once you get exactly what's happening in the combat mechanics and builds systems, it's really not that hard as the meme implies.

While some group of players can feel themselves superior because they learned stuff and like to use git gud seriously, the other will give up in 5 minutes and act like they're so cool because they don't take videogame seriously like those nerds.

I think it's different from something like Battletoads and Ninja Gaiden where the game is just unfairly hard to anyone that didn't know the games by muscle memory alone.

So like, if you bought a Souls game and are interested in actually playing it, you will probably need to learn how stuff works and get how "not that hard" the games are to have an enjoyable experience.

In proper context, "Souls games aren't that hard" could mean "you will get how the game works with some perseverance".
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,891
#53
I didn't find main game Bloodborne that hard (at lease until The Old Hunters) or Dark Souls 3 hard either (only 2 bosses really gave me any real difficulty).

Rocket Knight Adventures is a game I'm really good at, beat Maniac mode with relative ease (which is one kit KO mode). Don't know for sure, but I'm sure it was considered challenging at one point, who knows.
 
Oct 27, 2017
657
#54
Honestly Sekiro is NOT the same vein of game as Soulsborne imo. The design philosophy is totally different to me. Sekiro is more Super Meat Boy than Bloodborne. You're expected to repeat a challenge a lot, but you're never set back far and the challenge is always fair. Soulsborne is more.....dick moves and haha gotcha moments. And about being punishing by forcing players to repeat long stretches. The design philosophy is very different to me. Sekiro is not a Soulsborne game.

I can see this somewhat, although I honestly didn't feel like there was nearly as much trickery and gotcha type moments in Bloodborne as I was told there would be, and usually I'm staying alive longer and encountering more bosses that I could beat on the first try once I got past the first 3rd of the game. And there was less penalty for dying as you had a good opportunity to reclaim your blood echos.

I'm loving Sekiro, but it feels more disjointed because of the difficulty and the minibosses in particular create a situation where you get stuck a lot more and it can hurt the flow of the game. And also, while idols are close to the big bosses, the bosses themselves are multi-phased so you might be fighting them for 8-10 minutes and then have to start from scratch all over again. So its not entirely like a Celeste where I might take 60 tries in the same room, but its still the same room and each try is only ~10-30 seconds long.
 
Oct 27, 2017
267
China
#57
In proper context, "Souls games aren't that hard" could mean "you will get how the game works with some perseverance".
This. Most of the souls veterans had this moment: "oh, now I get it. It really is NOT THAT HARD. It's about switching mindset." In most cases, they're not making a condescending argument when they saying that.
 
Oct 27, 2017
582
#58
Unfortunately saying something isn't even that hard is usually just a dismissive way to stroke one's ego. It can be useful when it's used in addition to actual advice though, such as "X isn't that hard if you use item Y and/or strategy Z."
 
Jul 14, 2018
3,927
#59
I sort of had this reaction to Sekiro recently, but only because it was my first FromSoftware game after years of hearing people treating these games as gauntlets of pure torture. In reality, it's not much harder than other hard games, you just die a handful of times against the boss until you figure out what their whole deal is, then it becomes manageable and you beat them. It's nowhere near the 50 attempts per boss level of hard I expected.

I support easy modes for these games btw, because I recognize that they still take a number of tries per difficult boss, depending on the person. Parents with less free time, older or not as skilled gamers, disabled players, etc. would still like to see the content and experience the adventure, and they should be free to. An easy mode doesn't affect me in any negative way, provided the core experience is still available for players seeking challenge (which, of course it would be, multiple difficulty settings have been a thing for a long time now).
It's pretty much like this for Super Meat Boy or Celeste too. Sure, you'll spend more time per level than Mario, but it really isn't hard. Dying is intended and accounted for in the game design, if you don't die it's because you've already mastered the game.
 
Nov 17, 2017
5,477
#61
Sometimes I think this about certain Zelda games. Most Zelda fans would not say that Zelda games are difficult but have you ever watched someone who wasn't a big gamer play them? I watched a friend of mine play Twilight Princess and I was surprised how much trouble she had with certain parts but of course, I have been playing Zelda for years and have played TP many times. I still wouldn't call Zelda games hard but they can be challenging, I think.
 
Dec 1, 2017
1,775
#62
Honestly Sekiro is NOT the same vein of game as Soulsborne imo. The design philosophy is totally different to me. Sekiro is more Super Meat Boy than Bloodborne. You're expected to repeat a challenge a lot, but you're never set back far and the challenge is always fair. Soulsborne is more.....dick moves and haha gotcha moments. And about being punishing by forcing players to repeat long stretches. The design philosophy is very different to me. Sekiro is not a Soulsborne game.
I know Dark Souls has its share of dick moves once in a while(not too often to be honest, but enough that I'd say it's fair to say it has them) but I'm struggling to think of that in Bloodborne. There's like one boulder trap(that is super telegraphed) and not much else in the way of dick moves. It doesn't have a Sen's Fortress or anything like that. Unless you consider the way the games are designed to punish you if you don't know the layout of the map and overextend yourself(like say having enemies behind you, then try to run away past them and get trapped between two enemies/traps), which I personally don't consider to be dick move game design at all.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,041
#70
I would make a distinction.
"It's no that hard, I got pass it the first time"
"It's no that hard, once You got how to master it"

First one is useless and bad.
Second one is telling other players that the actual mechanic behind a game or fight, once understood, makes it "easy"... so that is actually just a matter of "learn how to play the game" more than "You need skills to win".
And I dont understand why that should be considered a bad thing... not all game are "playable out of the box", the same for some books or movies... some of these needs more attention and focus on them to be enjoyed.
 
Oct 25, 2017
821
#73
It's masturbatory more often that not, yeah.

In some cases a game's difficulty is mythologized to potential newcomers and becomes offputting right out of the gate. Ideally veterans would use more considered, reassuring language, being sincere about what the game is and what the player can do to overcome its challenges.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
2,931
#76
People often only find a game hard because they're playing it wrong. Tell them that and they just get bent out of shape.

If you don't have enough time to invest in learning a game's systems, play something else. If wanting/needing to be part of the conversation makes that a problem, there's always the option to go start a debate over difficulty in games. And when you do, ask yourself if people are only saying such and such a game isn't too hard because you just proclaimed it was.