Myth
Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2015
- Messages
- 1,262
- Reaction score
- 2,555
If I'm not addressing a certain point, feel free to point it out to me. I'm going to respectfully ask, however, that you cut out the assumptions (re: the bold) because it's not helping your argument at all. I don't intentionally ignore points and to be honest, we've been back and fourth with this for the past day or two, so forgive me if I forget to acknowledge every single detail.
It isn't an assumption. You rejected my example.
You made a statement stating that "if the player has an inherent advantage they will have no challenge". I've shown you that this isn't true with my example of a numerical advantage (however, I've used other examples responding to other parts of the post too), and then you rejected my example. That's what I meant.
Also, I didn't say that you "intentionally have ignored my point". I meant you rejected it. Sorry if the term used (ignore) wasn't the best. But I'd like to ask you to stop making assumptions about me being making assumptions. Actually, I agree with you that assumptions add absolutely nothing to the discussion.
It might not be. Again, significantly less challenging does not equal hard mode. That's... normal mode in most games.
Honestly, at what point do you want to get here? I mean, difficulty setting options would make different types of players having different types of experiences. Obviously, the easy mode would be the least challenging, and the difficult mode the most challenging, and that's the whole point.
The point is to be less or more challenging. I'm not discussing what would be a "hard mode" or not. You are trying to relativize what would be hard. I see no need to do that. But if you want to know, if even with the inclusion of all those systems and improvements you would still find the "challenge mode" to be the "normal mode", so I don't think I'm asking for a "hard mode", properly. I don't think the game needs to reach a soulsike difficulty-level or whatever.
The problem here is that the reason I had to strategize in the situation regarding Chikorita vs Falkner is because I was at a disadvantage from the start. Because Chikorita/Bayleef are weak to Flying-types, it takes more than just spamming one attack to win; it takes thinking creatively. The same can be said with Bugsy. When you're at a disadvantage, you have to strategize and think of ways to give you a proper advantage and turn the match in your favour. This goes full circle to what I mentioned before in regards to limitations on the player. The player may not intentionally limit themselves, but by the time they face Falkner or Bugsy they will likely only rely on their Grass starter for the heavy lifting, leading to more of a challenging feeling due to, again, being at a disadvantage from the start.
I just quoted Chikorita's example there because you had to do something more than just press A. Just because of that...But here's a question: do you agree with me that at the Flint's example (with the changes I've cited: better AI, better moveset, better team etc.), you would have to think creatively too, even at advantage?
There would be no challenge if, again, hard mode was implemented through incremental level increases in the same manner that B2W2 implemented. That's the entire reason I brought up the level argument in the first place.
But the Chikorita's example only contradicts that. I even said you that I got to Bugsy with Bayleef, with a great level advantage, and still lost. Not only was it challenging, but I also lost many times. Even if we're talking about incremental level increases in the same manner that B2W2 implemented, it would not mean that there would be no challenge, because levels aren't everything in Pokémon battles. You could grind a lot to reach the gyms levels, and still lose because of the AI's strategies, because of the items, or because of supereffective movements, etc.
If you can still hit the A button and spam (insert super-effective move) on Gym Leaders, then please do tell where the challenge is?
See the example above, it applies to types advantages, as well.
Glad we got that cleared up, then. It's pretty clear you see difficulty in a different lens than I do. From the way I see things, there is no difficulty if the game is handholding me. You seem to think that is still the case, so we'll just leave it be.
I find hand holding to be a problem too.
Yes, players can obtain these Pokemon if they wish to, that way they would have a significantly easier time later on in the game. These are elements intentionally placed by Game Freak to make the challenge easier. Does the challenge exist at all? I believe you still argue yes, but I would still firmly disagree in that. You can ignore getting a Mareep, place a limitation on yourself that you're not going to rely on a Pokemon pretty much thrown at you to make the first Gym Battle easier and place yourself at an intentionally disadvantage, therefore creating that challenge.
The challenge... just isn't there if you're utilizing the options the games give you to make that challenge easier. If you have an inherent advantage, that's no longer hard mode in my eyes. That's essentially Easy/Normal mode, but you may see things differently than I do, here.
Just because the challenge becomes easier doesn't necessarly mean it no longer exists. The whole relativization of what would be hard or not is another discussion, as I said above.
Of course, you could say that for you the challenge no longer exists, because you didn't even had to think creatively to go through the gym. But in a mode with a good AI, good movesets, well developed teams, using items etc., an elemental advantage would not give you that much of an advantage.
Again, if there's a point I'm not acknowledging here, feel free to explain it, but it's really not helping your argument at all to assume I'm glazing over details intentionally.
I've already addressed this up above anyway.
Please, sometimes you have interpreted things that I said wrongly, and even so I was not saying that you were doing wrong assumptions about it, I just focused on explaining it to you again, in the best possible way I could, could you have the same goodwill?
I believe that you are separating things in black and white only because you're ignoring/rejecting any level of challenge that does not reach the exact point you want it to (that would be with handicaps), and try to narrow them down them to the same level of "non-challenges". I and other users have already given you several examples of challenges, and you try to narrow them down because it do not reach the level of challenge you are setting up yourself only.
If I'm misunderstanding you, feel free to explain.
I still think it's not and if I may be honest I feel like metaphorically you're comparing apples to pineapples and justifying the such because they both have "apple" a part of their names.
Yes, Pokemon is a grindy, turn-based JRPG. No, it is not like any other turn-based, grindy RPG because again, Pokemon follows its own rules.
We certainly disagree here, I don't think I'm making that kind of a comparison. But yeah, let's get over it.
The only example which you've given that's plausible that would make the game in any sense remotely challenging is level scaling, and that's pretty standard fare for... most difficulties in RPGs, iirc. The complex dungeon thing I don't really care about nor does that have anything to do with making battles themselves easier or harder (I mean, you mention ditching trainer healing, but I mean, what's stopping me from using a Super Potion instead?).
Except it was not the only plausible example I gave. And by using Super Potions you would be spending your own resources, which in turn are not infinite. So there is a clear difference there.
Less of a challenge is not hard mode, it's normal mode.
In the beginning, you were not arguing that it would not be a "hard mode," but rather that "it would not be challenging". That is what we are discussing. There is no need to relativize what is hard and what's not. That way you're changing the whole subject of the dicussion.
...?? Wait, what??
ok now this went way over my head. The player and the AI are scaled so that they're equal to each other in level, they have max EVs, IVs, and +natures (nothing's stopping the player from accomplishing the very same thing), and you're... bringing luck in the equation for some reason? I'm massively confused now.
Most of the time I lost in battle facilities, I was playing "perfectly" but ended up losing by hax. That's what I meant. I personally think it would be interesting to review that in battles facilities (but this has nothing to do with this dicussion at all).
Depends. Let's get into the details, shall we?
- Since we're talking about Gym Leaders, let's assume this is late game we're talking about here. I can send my Pokemon with an Amulet Coin first, likely a Pokemon that wouldn't matter too much if it fainted. I can weaken the Gym Leader's Pokemon and send in my strongest Pokemon later to basically finish the job.
- If all of the Gym Leader's Pokemon were level-scaled such that they all matched the level of my strongest Pokemon, then this would be a much riskier strategy to pull off. But the thing about it is, with the first bullet point, I can act a bit recklessly under the assumption that I have that advantage to start with and I can just click A all night and day.
It still made a difference, you lost a Pokémon slot, , so I don't really understand what you're trying to say here.
It depends on the handicap, does it?
Sure. There are few exceptions as I said earlier.
Disagree here. If I take a Water type from my PC to put in my team (using your words "prepare their team for that occasion") just to click A on Surf for all of maybe 15 seconds against a Fire-type Gym Leader, then I fail to see where the challenge lies. You prepare your team to make the challenge easier, to eliminate as much of that challenge as possible, therefore the challenge is barely there to the point of where it might as well not be a challenge at all.
Ok, let's just agree to disagree. Really, there is not much else I can say about it without sounding repetitive.
Game Freak has introduced difficult elements in Pokemon games, and this is more evident in SM/USUM more than any other game prior with the implementation of Totem Pokemon, Island Kahuna matches, and Elite Four battles. It seems to me that you're not satisfied with the "challenge" that Game Freak has offered players so far, so from the best of my understanding, you would like a hard mode such that you would intentionally be placed at a disadvantage (debuffing the player or buffing the AI in this context doesn't matter because you'd be starting at a disadvantage either way). Which is.... essentially my whole perspective regarding difficulty. Game Freak implements it poorly to try to get players at a disadvantage by focusing more on level and altering movesets, but the player can overcome this difficulty rather easily making the difficulty pretty much negligible.
No, because the player can't "overcome the difficulty rather easily making it pretty much negligible". The first question was: "If the difficulty is still present as Game Freak intends for it to be, does that mean there's not a need for a hard mode to begin with considering that there are already hard elements to Pokemon games? "
I disagree. Because I think that what Game Freak tries to do is to make the game accessible for beginners, but that ends up making it very easy for veterans. That's the point. I want a more challenging mode. I read about your perspective regarding difficulty, and I saw what do you think about B2W2-like difficulty options, but I don't agree with you about that.
Considering that Game Freak intentionally allows players to EV train early if they so desired as a part of game design, I'd argue otherwise. Sure, you can botch up EVs pretty easily given multiple trainer battles,, but that's far past the point. Why is it then, that Game Freak doesn't flat-out introduce a mechanic that forbids your Pokemon from gaining EVs at all until post-game? If it's something that Game Freak truly did not intend, then why didn't they go out of their way to prevent it, then?
Sorry, to me it's clear that even if they don't stop you from using it, it's not their intention to that to be used on the main run. I don't find it productive to continue arguing about it because there are many exceptions (for example, in XY we had Super Training), but for me it's something clear.
For example, if we were to talk about XY, you have battles before gaining access to Super Training, and that already messes up your EVs. So you could argue that you would get a reset bag etc., but this is what is really "far past the point".
To begin with, I don't think Game Freak expects you to even spend that time leveling the EVs early in the game. But as I said, I don't find it productive to be arguing about this, we can agree to disagree here if you still think otherwise.
Sure. As a huge RPG player, there are tons of difficult games that don't make use of handicaps per se. Here, I'll list them for you:
My gaming livelihood doesn't revolve around handicaps, despite what you seem to be implying. I just think that would be a better route for Game Freak to take in the implementation of better difficulty as a whole, but it won't happen, so I feel it's kind of pointless to argue about.
- Chrono Trigger
- Xenosaga Series
- Wild Arms Series
- Dragon Quest (more specifically, VIII)
- Pokemon Mystery Dungeon series (depending on the situation but can be difficult
- Some Final Fantasy games
Please, I would like to ask you to stop already. I wasn't implying anything about your "gaming livelihood". Why are you saying these things? It doesn't have anything to do with the dicussion.
"Better difficulty", I don't understand why the difficulty has to reach the level that you are setting yourself only. But let's just agree to disagree here.
.... Because I was talking about B2W2's challenge mode and how that's not a good way of implementing difficulty. For some strange reason you assumed that was my core point against difficulty as a whole, when it isn't.
The B2W2 challenge mode is also not just about levels tho.
Incremental level gains, not level scaling. Keep that in mind whenever I argue "overleveling".
And? I came back to see what was being discussed, and I already knew that.
Training multiple Pokemon is a element of what Pokemon games are. It doesn't say anything either way about difficulty whatsoever.
If you train many of them at the same time, they would stil end up getting underleveled by consequently tho.
Your entire preference of how Game Freak should implement difficulty period is subjective. We're simply arguing from different angles.
And no, it's not personal.
Sorry, but the way I see it, it is. What was proposed is something that makes the game more challenging. You even used phrases such as "would not be implemented in the best way", or "better difficulty," and "less challenge". Even regarding the B2W2 system, it still makes the game more challenging and harder. But it doesn't reach the level of difficulty you want to. As you yourself said, in your view it would be "a normal mode", not a "hard" one. But the discussion is not about that (the relativization about what is really hard). So yes, in the way I see it, you are the one who is judging on a personal and subjective side.
Pokemon games already do incremental levels gains, that's how Pokemon games have always worked. Each Gym Leader is progressively stronger than the last, each Gym Trainer as you go further in Routes are usually stronger than the ones in the routes before, etc. The problem here lies (at least, from my perspective), is that Game Freak's current implementation of incremental levels is not satisfactory to those arguing for more difficulty. But it becomes a circular problem because then if Game Freak increases the level even more, then who's to say that won't be enough? There's a fine line between a proper challenge and flatout being unfair to the player. If Game Freak took B2W2's challenge mode, put it in steroids and doubled the level of every Gym Leader from the last, that would by all technicalities be a "challenge", but it would be an unfair one. There's a balance to be had here and incremental leveling is just not it.
I meant incremental levels over a "normal" mode. About incremental leveling not being able to reach the "balance", I disagree.
edit:
one thing:
- Again, overleveling the NPC is an argument against B2W2's Challenge Mode and arguing why it's a poor implementation of difficulty in general. There's a difference between you personally disagree with me and it not being true as a matter of objective fact. You personally disagree with me, which is fine, but your opinion is not a matter of objective fact and I appreciate it if you would stop insinuating as such. I would like to think I'm not spouting falsities and simply expressing my personal belief of difficulty modes not meshing well with Pokemon games, so the implication that I am is fairly offensive, if I'm going to be honest.
Disagree with me all you'd like. That's fine, everyone has a different ideas and approaches in regards to Pokemon games and I think that's what makes discussions like these very interesting. It starts getting into unnecessary territory when you imply or claim that one side is spouting falsities so I'm going to respectfully ask you to refrain from such terminology. If you disagree with me personally, you can say explicitly as such.
Discussions are clashes between ideas, but commonly one side can make use of fallacies (even if unconsciously). Dismantle those fallacies should not be offensive. You've made statements that are not true at all. And obviously, anyone can speak about or point that out. I would see why not.
As for the example cited especifically, I have already said and explained with all good will in earlier parts of the discussion why that statement isn't true. If you still do not think so, feel free to prove me otherwise, if you feel like doing it.
Otherwise, please, unless I'm really offending you (or breaking some other forum's rule), do not try to oversee what I'm saying or not.
edit 2:
whew this is starting to get way past the point of this thread -- i have a good feeling this may go on for a while so @Myth if you want, we can continue this in PM or drop it altogether but at this point I feel like we're clogging up the thread. Let's just leave it at you have your personal perspectives about difficulty and I have mine.
Wall texts are not a problem regarding forums. But when the subject begins to stray too far from the thread subject, it begins to become one. But I think you still have the right to reply, so if you still want to add something to the open points, feel free to.
Last edited: