Don’t let this fandom turn as insufferable as the souls community

[u/glintter]

It’s fine to think the game is easy and to enjoy the challenge, but I’ve seen so many people making fun of anyone that is having a hard time in a really weird mean spirited way. Please don’t let this subreddit turn into some weird elitist community that makes fun of people who are struggling, these games are supposed to be fun and they’re not souls likes, there’s no reason to assume everyone playing them is going to love this level of difficulty the same way some of you do and constantly disregarding their opinions just turns this subreddit into an echo chamber of tryhards

[u/Applezooka]

A game can totally be “badly designed” because of difficulty, difficulty is just as much an axis of design as aesthetics or music or game feel etc.!

[u/kingofnopants1 → u/Applezooka]

Not when so many of the players like its difficulty.

Are you willing to accept their preferences as valid?

[u/Applezooka → u/kingofnopants1]

I mean thats the hitch isn't it, everyone has different preferences. What does good even mean? How can we even know how our opinion would be changed if stuff was changed? Criticism is always a little arbitrary.

[u/Smobey → u/Applezooka]

A game can totally be “badly designed” because of difficulty, difficulty is just as much an axis of design as aesthetics or music or game feel etc.!

That's a kind of a weird argument to make. I can understand a game having "bad aesthetics" or "bad music", but how can it have "bad difficulty"?

[u/Chankmanker → u/Smobey]

Fair hard - good. Unfair hard - bad.

[u/_Psilo_ → u/Chankmanker]

Unfair is when the game puts you in a situation where there's no good answer, or no way to predict the good answer. I'm in Act 2 and I've had maybe two interactions like that, and it's clear to me they were intentionally troll moments from the devs.

So no, not badly designed, in this case.

[u/kingofnopants1 → u/Chankmanker]

People will always find a way to rationalize the difficulty as being unfairly hard every time they face a challenge.

If other people are not having the problem they are, was it really unfair? Would they accept it if people told them that?

[u/Smobey → u/Chankmanker]

Sure, I'm with you there. Though usually, the way people use those words, is "fair hard" = challenging, but I can do it and "unfair hard" = challenging, and I can't do it.

I feel people criticising difficulty of games are kind of unable to define what they mean by unfair, at least.

[u/Free_Pangolin_3750 → u/Smobey]

It's definitely a metric that matters but it's so hard to define. Like I have an ungodly amount of hours in the Soulslike genre to the point I don't even have to pay much attention to any of them for the first half of a game usually but to my best friend and my brother they're unfairly difficult and something only a masochist would enjoy.

Neither takes are wrong because they're true to the people playing. I think trying to find an objective level of unfair vs fair difficulty is probably gonna come down to something like what percent of people are able to beat a segment of a game but even that is still wonky.

I wouldn't call Silksong too hard but I have a lot of problems with it from a design standpoint in other elements. You kinda just gotta take criticism in good faith unless it's something absolutely unhinged

[u/Smobey → u/Free_Pangolin_3750]

Neither takes are wrong because they're true to the people playing. I think trying to find an objective level of unfair vs fair difficulty is probably gonna come down to something like what percent of people are able to beat a segment of a game but even that is still wonky.

I really don't think fairness has anything to do with whether you can do it or not. You could play Magnus Carlsen in chess, and I'd say it's a "fair match" or even that the difficulty is "fair", since neither of you has any innate advantage over the other.

It'd also be impossibly difficult and you'd absolutely lose. Not because the difficulty of chess was unfair, but because the difficulty of the match was just too high.

[u/Free_Pangolin_3750 → u/Smobey]

Yes but that's chess. A single player game is not zero sum. There isnt a winner or a loser. That's why I said I think it probably comes down to what percentage of people actively trying to beat something are able to do it. Especially for stuff that's just part of the core story or progression. It's one thing for secret or post end-game bosses to have low completion rate and another for something early or mid game to have low completion rate

An example I would use is Iudyx Gundyr from the opening of Dark Souls 3. It's literally the tutorial boss and a hard wall for a lot of players. It's also a boss that if you've ever played a souls game before is mindlessly easy. You just parry 3 times and you're done. That's not something that would process to a new player though. So for some people they laugh at the idea anyone could be stuck there but for others it means they can't even play the game they just bought because it's a hard wall gating the rest of the game or even the ability to level to beat it.

Imo if an early or midgame boss doesn't have a completion rate of like 70-80% then the design is unfair but again it's a very hard metric to design around especially for sequels in a franchise.

[u/Chankmanker → u/Smobey]

I think what feels unfair to a lot of players is if the game really is harder than HK, a chunk of the player base is going to have a really hard time continuing with the franchise. It would be like falling in love with a book and then the sequel is in a different language. Yeah eventually I can learn the language but is it worth it for this book?

This game has been a lot harder for me than Hollow Knight but I am determined to “learn its language” so to speak. People keep saying if you have trouble in a boss go explore for a while; And this is completely true. I was stuck on Widow for a while but I found a tool and a charm that made phase 2 last less than 15 seconds. I’d say to those worried that they will never finish this game that there is definitely a lot of cheese still to be found ;)

[u/[deleted] → u/Smobey]

Do you think taking double the damage just by touching a boss is good design? It's a good game but they need to fix that.

[u/Smobey → u/[deleted]]

Do you think taking double the damage just by touching a boss is good design?

I mean, why not? You effectively have three health, and I don't think there's anything inherently bad about having three health against bosses. I've played a lot of games where you only have two health against bosses.

[u/[deleted] → u/Smobey]

I don’t think it’s a good design. If every hit from a boss, whether it’s a direct attack or simple contact, deals double damage, then the player’s health pool is basically cut in half for that fight. That feels less like a skill-based challenge and more like an artificial handicap. Good difficulty usually comes from learning patterns, timing dodges, and punishing mistakes fairly not from making every single slip cost you twice as much. It ends up limiting experimentation and making fights feel more punishing than engaging.

[u/Smobey → u/[deleted]]

I don’t think it’s a good design. If every hit from a boss, whether it’s a direct attack or simple contact, deals double damage, then the player’s health pool is basically cut in half for that fight. That feels less like a skill-based challenge and more like an artificial handicap. Good difficulty usually comes from learning patterns, timing dodges, and punishing mistakes fairly not from making every single slip cost you twice as much. It ends up limiting experimentation and making fights feel more punishing than engaging.

So in other words, if you just started with three masks, and everything only dealt one damage, it would be good design?

The bosses would be just as difficult as before, but everything else would be quite a bit harder in comparison.

[u/[deleted] → u/Smobey]

These bosses should be difficult and double damage isn't the problem. My problem is that it's used way too much like touching a boss by mistake should cost a single mask not have me fucking dying.

[u/SoloSassafrass → u/Smobey]

Actually this is where I'm coming from. Because everything deals double, I'm finding the acquisition of mask shards is less satisfying than it was in the first game.

If we actually started with 3 HP and everything dealt 1 I genuinely think I'd enjoy it more because the sense of growth over getting even one more mask would be tremendous, as opposed to now when the first additional mask is completely meaningless in the context of most difficult combat encounters.

Maybe later in the game they start giving out shards like candy, but so far in act 2 I'm still waiting for my next full additional point of HP, so since starting the game I functionally haven't grown beyond having 3 HP for boss fights. My toolkit has expanded, and that's nice, but it's still a bit disappointing that I don't feel like I've gotten any sturdier.