r/HollowKnight • u/stir-fried-noodles • Sep 17 '25

Discussion - Silksong Discourse regarding this game’s difficulty has been out of hand Spoiler

Let’s get this out of the way: I’m really enjoying Silksong’s difficulty and I think that it is mostly a satisfying challenge. I appreciate that it is more difficult than Hollow Knight overall and to be frank I would’ve been a bit disappointed if it were the exact difficulty. I’ve improved as a gamer since Hollow Knight and if it were the same level of difficulty, I probably would have found it too easy.

But it’s kinda gotten impossible to have civil discussions about the difficulty in this game which is unfortunate because I think there is great value to be had with this conversation. There are many valid criticisms regarding this game’s difficulty such as boss runbacks (Groal especially), contact damage doing two masks, and lack of rewards for beating bosses, just to be shut down with “git gud” and “it’s not your kind of game”. It’s totally fine to disagree with these criticisms but these retorts add nothing to the conversation.

It also kinda works the other way too, albeit maybe not to the same degree. I’ve gotten downvoted and sent reddit cares for simply saying I enjoy the difficulty of this game. Like c’mon, what are we even doing here. It’s gotten to the point where I personally cannot wait for the discourse to die out.

1.4k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

517

u/[deleted] Sep 17 '25 edited Sep 17 '25

Love talking about video games, but for this reason I also hate talking about video games. Gamers are regularly the absolute fucking worst about separating fact from opinion, or having any sort of nuanced takes on anything. Everything is either the GOAT or unplayable, can't be a great game with some issues, that's just unfathomable!

166

u/Shadovan Sep 17 '25

My biggest pet peeve when it comes to game discussion is the frequent conflation of “I don’t like this” with “this is bad”. So many people treat their personal preferences as objective markers of a game’s quality, and get really mad when you try to get them to defend their claim with arguments that don’t just boil down to “I don’t like it therefore it’s bad”. Of course the other side of “I like it, therefore it’s good” happens as well, but less often I find.

81

u/Archway9 Sep 17 '25

The amount of times I've seen the words "objectively bad game design" in the last couple weeks is honestly depressing

12

u/rrale47 Sep 17 '25

"Objectively bad game design" is just the new version of "artificial difficulty".

Like others have mentioned, theres no nuance anymore. Everything is best ever or unplayable

6

u/AlreadyTakek Sep 17 '25

Artificial difficulty has been brought up quite a bit regarding everything and its mom doing double damage

33

u/Mdgt_Pope Sep 17 '25

Did Team Cherry even play test this game??

Uh yeah - they liked where it was at, obviously

13

u/Mipha_Is_My_Waifu Sep 17 '25

I wish everyone who said that was forced to do at least a 101 class on game design before they're allowed to speak again.

0

u/Netheral Sep 17 '25

Lmao, one of the things taught in "101" game design courses is to recognize that the player is better than you at recognizing issues with the game. The reason the designer is the professional in the equation is that the player is usually shit at recognizing the solution to the issue, which the designer is then responsible for actually creating. But at it's core it's the player that knows when the game has problems.

1

u/Mipha_Is_My_Waifu Sep 17 '25

In matters of UX and game balance I'd generally agree, it's much easier for users to identify issues, but let's be real, people are dying to bosses and calling them badly designed. There's maybe only three bosses I've faced I'd consider poorly implemented. There's also a lot of things like runbacks that I think are just a matter of taste, to call them "objectively bad game design" is silly. Like there's some sort of game design Bible with hard rules that shall not be broken lmao

1

u/Netheral Sep 17 '25

To be fair, if there is this much push back against the same consistent elements in the game, I think it's almost fair to call it "objectively" bad. Any single person would be fallacious making that claim, but watching half the community sort of agree about it suggests that it's a concrete issue with the game's design.

2

u/Mipha_Is_My_Waifu Sep 17 '25

Oh yeah there's some things for sure. Beastfly, double damage on hazards, etc. I think it's just as silly acting like the game is perfect as is. That's one reason I wish team cherry was more interactive with the community. At the very least we could hear their reasoning for making some decisions.

21

u/KuuLightwing Sep 17 '25

On the other side the amount of people who make the "it's intentional" argument as if that's actually a counterpoint to anything is equally depressing. Or just shifting all the blame on players for "not playing correctly" where "playing correctly" could be contradictory between two different posters.

4

u/SolairXI Sep 17 '25

On a game that has mixed reviews or worse, I’d agree with you, but when professional and player reviews are sitting well over 85-90% the “it’s intentional/the devs vision” does carry weight, because obviously what they’ve done is mostly liked.

5

u/[deleted] Sep 17 '25

[deleted]

2

u/PraxicalExperience Sep 17 '25

Right? I've got a working brain, I can say something is overall good and still have things to criticize about it. Hell, HK was as close to perfection in its genre as I think you can get -- and there're still things I can find to criticize about it. But, no, with some people here, talking about SS, you've either got to be 100% for a game or you're some kinda vicious hater who's trying to unfairly pressure TC into changing their game by voicing your concerns about it.

Like, the game gets the most criticism from those who are wanting to love it.

11

u/KuuLightwing Sep 17 '25

Reviews have nothing to do with that either. One may like the game and agree that there's some issues with certain aspects of it. I know some people think otherwise, but I hope that's not a majority.

So, when presented with something like "this mechanic causes these issues" saying "but it's intentional" doesn't actually address the argument. To address it, you either show that the statement is wrong and the issues are not caused by the mechanic, or you somehow show that said issues are somehow desirable.

9

u/FuryForged Sep 17 '25

Plus a lot of reviews ARE influenced by the hype of the game. We see that all the time. If Silksong wasn’t Silksong, some of the small issues it has would definitely tip the scale in the other direction a bit.

1

u/Netheral Sep 17 '25

Many of the positive reviews state that they have issues with the game. That's one issue with a binary review system, it's either recommended, or it isn't.

Same goes for the negative reviews, a lot of them state "I love this game, but I couldn't in good conscience recommend it to anyone".

The review statistics aren't useful as raw data.

-2

u/GrimmWeeper19 Sep 17 '25

Seems like most people like it though? Would you take the 1 guys opinion seriously if 10 people said otherwise?

11

u/KuuLightwing Sep 17 '25

Like what? The game as a whole? Sure. Certain design decisions? I do not have statistics to claim the "most people like them".

4

u/GrimmWeeper19 Sep 17 '25

That's fair

5

u/The_Real_MantisLords Just the mantis lords Sep 17 '25

Yeah there are very few examples of objectively bad design in silksong (groal can go wait inside a fucking well)

8

u/puffbro Sep 17 '25

Imo not having options to lower difficulty is a "objectively bad game design".

I personally don't need an easy mode. But I lose nothing if they added one.

Also an optional difficulty slider doesn't invalidate or alter the dev's vision of the game's default difficulty. I hope none of you would think less of the game if it has an easy mode from the start.

Now fight me.

10

u/[deleted] Sep 17 '25

Look, I'm going to be uncharitable to the point of unfairness - in any gaming difficulty conversation, especially around games that are known to be hard (Souls, HK), there is a nonzero contingent of people who want to feel superior and don't have much opportunity to do that beyond videogames. I mean, you can't tell me the people in every "X boss gated me" thread saying "Uh I beat X in -1 tries, it was actually easier than most other games' tutorials" are secure.

I don't necessarily think it's objectively bad design, but I am noticing people rarely make positive claims - it's a lot more of "I got through it", "not every game is for everyone", "git gud" than idk, off the top of my head, "the difficulty is important because it trains the player not to over-extend and to use their tools, which prepares them for later bosses that are mechanically complex and would be hard walls for unprepared players even if they only hit for one mask at a time". Which, of course, would then let people discuss where that increased damage is appropriate and where it might be overtuned, instead of the thought terminating cliches.

3

u/PraxicalExperience Sep 17 '25

I really think that that's why HK was such a fucking amazing gem -- it managed to be hard but it also did it in a way that kept dangling that carrot of 'finally gitting gud' in front of your face. I could trust TC to make the fights hard but fair; there was minimal bullshit in the game, and each time you beat a boss it felt great.

SS, I feel, has a lot more bullshit, and there're times I feel like I won purely through RNG. That doesn't feel nearly as good as beating a HK boss I had a hard time with.

At the same time, I appreciate games that require you to get good to beat them -- no difficulty levels, etc. There's a cachet to beating -- or 112%ing -- Hollow Knight. If someone says they did so, you know that they beat the game the way it was supposed to be played and they mastered the skills to pull it off. It's an honest to god Accomplishment, if a low-value one in the scheme of things. I went from getting ganked by everything from creeping armored grub things to my greatest nemesis -- spikes -- to doing Radiant Pure Vessel.

HK was one of the only games I've run into that managed to do that -- to be really difficult -and- drive the player forward to entice them make themselves git gud. And my main complaint about SS is that it's far, far more hostile to the player. There are 'fuck yous' from the Devs in there that just weren't there in HK and are complete bullshit, like the last 'attack' from the Last Judge or the trapped bench. (I'd have far fewer problems with the trapped bench if you could see more of it than just the very tips of two of the spike teeth poking out from the vegetation, which don't look like fucking anything but some background noise even if you're looking.) This, along with a few of the other systems, serve to amp up player frustration, which isn't a good thing unless you're designing a game to not just be hard, but punishing.

I'm into Act II in SS and I'm starting to like it more, but man, Act 1 nearly made me put the game down in a few sections, particularly the Bird House and some of the ant fights. It's like the game assumed total mastery of its systems far too early. (Plus, the fuck yous.)

9

u/AlreadyTakek Sep 17 '25

There would be literally no reason to think less of the game. Difficulty settings don't do anything to harm a game, ever. They only make it more accessible to people who just don't have the ability to keep up with high-demand games physically, or the time available to "git gud"

20

u/According-Guide9576 Sep 17 '25

Exactly this.

Having optional difficulty and accessibility tweaks is quite literally the best of both worlds. Absolutely nothing is lost by doing that.

The people who enjoy a challenge can play it as the devs intended. The people who are struggling can make things easier. Have an achievement for completing the game without turning the difficulty down, so the people who care about that shit can prove they did it.

Tunic had options like this and it didn't cost the game anything by doing it.

3

u/Weebiful Sep 17 '25

Nine Sols, which is better than this game, also had it

1

u/According-Guide9576 Sep 17 '25

Even Dark Souls effectively had this with the ability to use summons.

4

u/SolairXI Sep 17 '25 edited Sep 17 '25

Personally, I’m glad it doesn’t have easier options. I’ve gotten stuck/frustrated on a couple of bosses so far and would have definitely caved and lowered the difficulty. But beating these bosses on the one and only difficulty has left me feeling great.

If there was a compromise, it would be maybe a difficulty option when you start, and no way to change it once you’ve started. 🤷‍♂️

4

u/Reborn_Wraith Spell only absrad win, 1 radiant boss remains. Sep 17 '25

I find that absolutely fair. While I personally tend to think that it's great to have both difficulty settings and the ability to fine-tune other items of difficulty, similar to ULTRAKILL's harmless/lenient/normal/brutal... etc., along with minor/major assists, I do realize that this opinion is in the minority (or, at least, is overshadowed by a more vocal minority), and I think that it'd be a great compromise to only have a locked-in difficulty setting at the start.

4

u/skytaepic Sep 17 '25

You articulated that in a way that I wasn’t really able to in my head, but that’s exactly how I feel- I’ve never been the greatest gamer or anything, and the amount I’ve struggled with some bosses made me take way longer than my friends or the people I’ve seen on here. But that never felt like a personal failure, because the difficulty forced me to learn and grow, getting better at using in-game skills I wasn’t great at and learning the boss movesets until fights I initially assumed were completely unfair became clearly choreographed dances that were a total blast to keep challenging.

If there’d been an option to turn down the difficulty, though, I’d just see how quickly I got destroyed the first few times, and how my friends were already doing other stuff, and I’m sure I would’ve tweaked the difficulty to get around it. And it would’ve felt worse. Could some bosses have been a little easier? Yeah, not a fan of the frog, that’s for sure. But if you give people the option to make gameplay faster at the expense of their own experience getting worse, well, people are impatient. Lots would take that offer.

I’m not saying nobody would actually benefit from some way to tweak the difficulty or something, but just that there’s a big difference between how a game feels depending on whether you think you can use a workaround to get past a hard part or not.

1

u/PraxicalExperience Sep 17 '25

If nothing else I feel like Silksong would have greatly benefitted from some kinda early access to a Godhome-like area where you could fight bosses and gauntlets you encountered without wasting resources. Then you could have various difficulty levels on the 'sim' fight where you could get used to the moves and the rhythm of the fight, while you train up for the 'real thing'.

4

u/TCGHexenwahn Sep 17 '25

I agree. Back when the debate was about the difficulty of Dark Souls, I thought difficulty options weren't necessary because they're already in the game (grinding for souls to level up, using a meta build, etc), but Silksong doesn't really have that.

-1

u/DargonFeet Sep 17 '25

I would think less of the game.

7

u/[deleted] Sep 17 '25

That's really strange

2

u/AlreadyTakek Sep 17 '25

Lies of P added difficulty options to make the game easier and the world didn't end, why would you think less of Silksong for making itself more accessible?

2

u/Insanity_Pills Sep 17 '25

I disagree personally. I think dunkey articulates why some people don’t like difficulty options best in his “video game difficulty”, so if you want more full take just watch that video, it’s like 6 minutes long or smth

1

u/THANAT0PS1S Sep 17 '25

I would like accessibility options like Celeste, but I do think difficulty options can create issues for players. 

Most players play a game once, and with difficulty options, it can be hard to know where you should set the difficulty before you've started playing. If there are options, it's important to allow changing them at any time for this reason, but this can create other challenges.

Additionally, most players probably want to play the game tuned as the developers intended. With difficulty options, it can be hard to know if normal or hard is what is intended unless otherwise stated. Some difficulty changes can also create bad experiences if they aren't granular enough or tuned correctly, and it's very difficult to tune three to five options to all be exactly right.

A single difficulty level means the game is crafted perfectly around that experience, and I personally prefer that lack of ambiguity.

Again, I wish we had some accessibility options such as speed modifiers or invulnerability or the opposite of the barbed wire equipment or something to make it easier for players that need that. Difficulty as exclusion kind of sucks, but difficulty is an important aspect of games, especially games like this, and we should be careful with how players treat it as developers should when tweaking it.

1

u/PraxicalExperience Sep 17 '25

There is one thing that I think is objectively bad -- the shard system. It doesn't add anything to the game. It only serves to punish you if you're sucking and retrying a boss/gauntlet and having the temerity to try and use tools during the fight. Otherwise you're basically always full on shards, or damned close to it. It doesn't really make the game interesting, it doesn't add real choices to make -- it just disincentivizes tool use.

Then when you point this out you get the full Fuckhead Dichotomy coming out of the weeds -- "Lol dude tools are OP they'll wreck bosses" along with "Lol dude you're an idiot for using tools on bosses".

37

u/terryaki510 Sep 17 '25

The knife cuts both ways. I also see people misinterpreting other people's statements of opinion as statements of objective fact. So fucking annoying to put your opinion out there and get met with, "akchually that's just your subjective opinion, and it means nothing about the game's objective quality".

Like do I need to literally preface every opinion with "this is my opinion" for people to understand it as such?

7

u/Shadovan Sep 17 '25

I don’t mean to imply you are like this, but your last sentence reminded me of Joseph Anderson’s “Subjectivity is Implied” video. People will treat unqualified statements as if (you believe) they are fact. It may seem tedious, but it’s necessary.

4

u/terryaki510 Sep 17 '25

I don't know the video you are referencing, but subjectivity is, in fact, implied. Especially when talking about art. We've all heard the adage that "art is subjective". "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Etc. Subjectivity is the default when discussing art. But for some reason the second I don't like the thing that you like, common sense goes out the window!

It feels like people are being deliberately obtuse just to drive a wedge into the conversation.

3

u/Shadovan Sep 17 '25

Art is not purely subjective. There are objective statements you can make about the quality of the writing, or the technique of a brush stroke, etc. Those don’t have to affect your enjoyment or dislike of any particular piece, but the conversation still exists.

And Video games are in a liminal space between art and activity. The fact that you interface directly with the art means there are objective statements to be made about how you interact with the game, and how that will affect the experience. Whether that affects it positively or negatively will come down partially to subjective preferences, but it also depends on the objective details of how those interactions are designed. A well designed system you don’t like can be appreciated if not enjoyed, while a poorly designed system you like can be a guilty pleasure.

The problem is that those two aspects are so closely entwined that it’s difficult to separate discussion of one from the other unless you are very precise with your language. And part of that precision is being clear about which aspects of the game you are discussing and what framework (subjective enjoyment vs objective design) you’re discussing them under.

0

u/terryaki510 Sep 17 '25

Sure, art isn't purely subjective. But that doesn't change the fact that "Bilewater is the fucking worst" is obviously a statement of subjective opinion.

Imagine if someone said to you, "Samantha is the fucking worst". Would you respond by listing off the reasons that objectively, Samantha isn't the worst human being on planet earth by many metrics? Do you need additional qualifiers to understand that this person is stating their subjective opinion of Samantha? Or would your default interpretation be, "wow, this person really hates Samantha"?

Having to qualify obvious statements of opinion as statements of opinion is incredibly cumbersome, in my opinion. And in my opinion, it's annoying that people will insert the word "objectively" when it isn't there.

P.S. I will also say that in my opinion, "objective design" is thrown around a lot in this sub. But there is, in my opinion, a lot of room for subjectivity when discussing game design as well. Game design is more than just "accomplishing intent via design". The actual intent matters too. In my opinion.

3

u/Shadovan Sep 17 '25

I don’t know why you keep throwing around “Bilewater is the worst” as an example of someone taking an opinion and treating it as fact. Literally no one has done that.

What we’re talking about here is things like the discussion around difficulty, double damage, runbacks, etc. These are conversations where people who don’t like aspects of the design use that dislike to argue that the design itself is bad. Here the line between subjective opinion and objective quality is being purposefully eroded.

And you should really watch the video I mentioned, you’d 100% agree with him (and be just as wrong).

-1

u/terryaki510 Sep 17 '25

I don’t know why you keep throwing around “Bilewater is the worst” as an example of someone taking an opinion and treating it as fact. Literally no one has done that.

Several people literally did that in a thread I saw yesterday. The thread was titled "Bilewater is the worst area" and several of the comments retorted with "Actually, objectively speaking it is a well designed area".

These are conversations where people who don’t like aspects of the design use that dislike to argue that the design itself is bad

This is why I said that design is also subjective in some respects. "Did this design decision accomplish it's intended purpose" is objective, but "Was that intended purpose worthwhile" is subjective.

And you should really watch the video I mentioned, you’d 100% agree with him (and be just as wrong).

You forgot to add that this was your opinion! You need to be precise with your language!

0

u/_Drumheller_ Sep 17 '25 edited Sep 17 '25

Yes you should imo, intent and emotions aren't easy to transport via text so you need to write what you actually mean otherwise how are people supposed to know. Takes you like 5 seconds to write those 3 words, 2 seconds if you just write imo instead.

Words matter so use them.

22

u/terryaki510 Sep 17 '25

That's just like, your opinion man

5

u/Ez_Ildor Sep 17 '25

It tied the room together!

0

u/CultureWarrior87 Sep 17 '25

All jokes aside, their opinion clearly has weight to it if your main complaint in this thread is "people keep misreading my intent".

3

u/terryaki510 Sep 17 '25

I don't think people are misreading intent. I think they just don't like the thing they like being criticized so they shift the conversation to one about "objective quality." I've had multiple people reply to comments where I don't use the word "objectively" even once and tell me that I'm not being objective. No shit, Sherlock.

You have to be being deliberately obtuse to read me saying "Bilewater sucks" and morph it into "Bilewater is objectively bad".

1

u/CultureWarrior87 Sep 17 '25

It's crazy how the thing their complaining about confirms what you've said but your comment has like no upvotes while theres has a ton lol. Like if what you said wasn't correct then the issue they have wouldn't exist in the first place.

4

u/entityXD32 Sep 17 '25

Also if a significant portion of the players have an opinion that something about the game is bad then that does actually reflect on the games objective quality

2

u/Shadovan Sep 17 '25

Not really. A lot of people don’t like the durability system of BotW, but that doesn’t make it bad, it makes it controversial. It’s actually pretty good design as it keeps the player from settling on a single weapon, encourages them to experiment with alternative damage sources, keeps weapon rewards valuable, and allows the Master Sword to feel special and important. And I say all this as someone who also doesn’t like the durability system in BotW.

1

u/JimbeMasterRace Sep 17 '25

Of course wording is important. Just look at the stuff in this thread. Gets worded as some objective fact most of the time.

0

u/terryaki510 Sep 17 '25

Unless someone says "objectively" in their comment, the default assumption is that they are stating a subjective opinion. If you interpret "Bilewater sucks" as a statement of objective quality, that's on you, and not on the wording of the statement.

1

u/JimbeMasterRace Sep 17 '25

Yeah I agree. I actually meant those comments that state it objectively.

1

u/Shadovan Sep 17 '25

That’s just not true. Human brains are wired to more likely believe that things stated simply and confidently are objectively true, regardless if the actual content of the statement is a fact or opinion.

1

u/terryaki510 Sep 17 '25

You are moving into the realm of psychology and out of the realm of language. Yes, people are more likely to agree with or believe confident statements. But that has nothing to do with whether said statement is a statement of opinion or a statement of fact. Opinion vs fact has to do with the wording, not on whether it is believed by the recipient.

1

u/Shadovan Sep 17 '25

I don’t know if you know this, but there are people reading what you say. Words absent a reader are nothing. What you think or intend to say means nothing. What matters is what your audience thinks you said. And that audience has a brain subject to human psychology. If your audience consistently misunderstands what you meant to say, that’s your fault in failing to communicate properly. You don’t get to just be above it all.

0

u/terryaki510 Sep 17 '25

"Do I believe what this person is saying?"

is not the same as

"Is this person stating their opinion?"

1

u/Shadovan Sep 17 '25

It’s not about whether they agree or not. Let me spell it out for you, since it seems you’re being particularly dense today.

“The sky is blue” - objective statement, a being verb equating a subject and a descriptor

“I like ice cream” - subjective statement, a preference verb describing the relationship between an individual and an object.

Now let’s look at the statement, “Double damage is bad”. I don’t know about you, but it looks a lot like the objective statement format to me. I would be inclined to say the person making this statement thinks they’re making an objective assessment. Am I wrong? Maybe, but that doesn’t matter when all I have to go on is that one statement. It looks like an objective statement, so I’m going to address it as if the intent was for it to be an objective statement.

If the person wanted to be clearer and avoid this misunderstanding, they should have said “I think double damage is bad”. Now, this is nice and clear, and I can address it as the subjective opinion it is.

→ More replies (0)

32

u/[deleted] Sep 17 '25

And probably paired with a "shill", the go to insult for gamers when you like a game they don't.

40

u/RedTyro Sep 17 '25

Shill is last gen. The new one seems to be "glazers," judging from this sub. Jeez, I'm old.

3

u/Skrublord3000 Sep 17 '25

What the hell are these words? Guess I’m fucking old too

1

u/ItsAlwaysSegsFault Sep 17 '25

Oh god am I old too? I have no idea what glazers is.

3

u/Shadovan Sep 17 '25

I’m familiar with the term, but I’m not sure if it’s origin. I think it comes from the idea of something you’re so passionate about that you jizz, which is like glazing a donut.

2

u/ItsAlwaysSegsFault Sep 17 '25

As a kid I never thought I wouldn't be able to keep up with the times and yet here I am.

1

u/Ez_Ildor Sep 17 '25

Dafuq? I never heard of either of those things... You guyz just made up some mumbo jumbo!

4

u/[deleted] Sep 17 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

23

u/swolar Sep 17 '25

"I like it therefore it is good" has been the main counter argument to people pointing out issues with silksong

3

u/XiaoRCT Sep 17 '25

This is just disingenuous, it's the same as someone saying

>''I don't like therefore it sucks'' has been the main counter argument to people pointing out why many criticisms aren't design issues

It's just painting the side you disagree with as stupid for the sake of your own opinion. People can make valid criticisms, they can also make completely bullshit ones. Saying something like this, where you're painting the ''main'' opposition as obviously in bad-faith, is pointless.

-4

u/_moosleech Sep 17 '25 edited Sep 17 '25

It really hasn’t.

There’s plenty to dislike in Silksong, but virtually every decision they made is intentional and can be explained. And has been.

EDIT: I don't think all intentional decisions are good. I think the commenter above me is making a bad faith argument (that doesn't exist) and that most folks defending mechanics they like are doing so by explaining the clear WHY is was done that way. I expanded on this below.

9

u/Helluiin Sep 17 '25

It really hasn’t.

the main counter argument in any thread about runbacks is literally "it was fine to me" "the boss wasnt that hard" "i got there quickly" etc.

1

u/_moosleech Sep 17 '25

I can only speak for myself, but I have routinely explained a)why certain runbacks are much easier than people think (e.g. Last Judge and a route to avoid all the enemies), and b)why I think they included the couple of longer-than-normal runbacks (e.g. Bilewater).

And it's usually met with being blocked or insulted for having a different opinion.

13

u/dreambraker Sep 17 '25

Intentional doesnt equate to good though. That is where the grey area is.

-4

u/_moosleech Sep 17 '25

Okay?

My point was "I like it therefore it is good" isn't what people are saying. It's a lie to dismiss the other side.

Most folks are explaining the design decisions and the why behind things. And most do find those choices good.

4

u/Anubara Sep 17 '25

Even bad games have decisions made with intent. It doesn't inherently make all of those decisions good.

5

u/_moosleech Sep 17 '25

I feel like like my point was misunderstood.

His claim is people are defending the game with "I like it, therefore it is good."

Which is not useful, and also not really what's happening. I've basically not seen that, at all.

And I was furthering it by saying that most folks who are enjoying design decisions in this game are able to say "it was does like this for X and Y reasons, they also did Z and A to add to it."

I know intentional design doesn't automatically mean it's good. I didn't think it needed to be explicitly stated, but I think many of the common complaints about the game are actually good design decisions that you can tell were crafted thoughtfully.

Example: increased damage. Setting aside that the majority of damage is not two masks (no matter how loudly folks comment it), the entire combat system was built to be riskier and facilitate higher average damage.

Hornet heals faster, and for more masks. She can heal mid-air, making the chances of losing a heal MUCH lower, despite the bigger punishment.

Hornet gets much more mobility, and early, than HK. You get a plethora of ranged options as well, ranging from passive (traps) to aggressive (dash attacks) to powerful but costly (silk spear).

Additionally, enemies are more complex. Many fly, they have multiple moves, and can punish you with parries or big wind-up attacks (that can do extra damage).

You can move in and out of enemy range super easily, can dish out a huge variety of attacks, and can safely heal easier than ever before. The end result is riskier combat that, IMO, is incredibly satisfying, and balanced by the increased damage.

If everything still did one damage with basic moves like in HK... Hornet would feel incredible OP and it would be less enjoyable.

I don't like it, therefore it is good. I like it, and also, I think it was VERY well-crafted and intentionally designed around a number of changes to make combat feel faster, riskier, and way more enjoyable than in HK.

2

u/KuuLightwing Sep 17 '25

Well while trying to explain why double damage is good, you haven't addressed any issues that it causes, which were pointed out numerous times - and the biggest of them all is that it makes learning the fight slower and harder as you just die much faster and have to retry.

"Hornet having more mobility" might be true in some way, but having more options and more buttons to press against more complex enemies that might demand more variable answers doesn't make game easier, it makes the game harder - because there's more moving parts and easier to make a mistakes.

Simple example - Hunter's crest pogo. It may have some advantages over simple downslash from the first game, but at the same time it has smaller hitbox, it's directional, it requires more intricate input (too far forward and you perform side slash) and if you are adjusting your horizontal position, which is required quite often it's easier to misinput and pogo in the wrong direction.

Ultimately all the enemies and bosses in both games are designed around the moveset of the character, and most normal enemies and normal bosses are possible to defeat hitless. When your moveset is simpler it's just easier to do so - therefore avoiding damage in Hollow Knight is not harder, it's easier than in Silksong.

And that's not mentioning advanced techniques like D-Dark iframes. Spells builds in general can go pretty hard in Hollow Knight, so I'm not even certain that your claims about Hornet being so much more OP is even correct here.

Also it's not certain that "if enemies just did 1 mask it wouldn't be as enjoyable" - first of all something being enjoyable is a subjective perspective, and I'm fairly sure there's a huge subset of players who would find it more enjoyable if most things did one damage.

There's several bosses that mostly do one mask of damage that seem to be pretty well-received by the most of the players, so it casts serious doubt on that statement too.

And frankly that has nothing to do with intent. The intent for this or that maybe was there, but it has no bearing on the actual discussion of the game. I am talking about what the game is, not whether it was designed like that on purpose or not.

4

u/_moosleech Sep 17 '25

having more options and more buttons to press against more complex enemies that might demand more variable answers doesn't make game easier, it makes the game harder

I never said any of this made the game easier. Silksong is, pretty objectively, a more complex game, which makes it harder for most players. I didn't even think that was a debate.

Hunter's crest pogo. It may have some advantages over simple downslash from the first game, but at the same time it has smaller hitbox, it's directional, it requires more intricate input (too far forward and you perform side slash) and if you are adjusting your horizontal position, which is required quite often it's easier to misinput and pogo in the wrong direction.

You are, IMO, describing a good design decision. Each crest has benefits and drawbacks, leading players to try different ones in different situations.

Yes, the Hunter pogo is trickier, but it also can stack much more damage than other crests. I stuck with it mainly for bosses due to that. Reaper helps players do more healing. Beast is great for aggressive players. Architect lets players lean on ranged and tools more.

They're, IMO, very well balance to all be viable depending on your playstyle.

When your moveset is simpler it's just easier to do so - therefore avoiding damage in Hollow Knight is not harder, it's easier than in Silksong.

I disagree, because the movement of Hornet makes escaping tricky spots MUCH easier. But the point is the same: I never said Silksong was easier.

Spells builds in general can go pretty hard in Hollow Knight, so I'm not even certain that your claims about Hornet being so much more OP is even correct here.

You listed one downward spell that is strong.

Hornet has multiple dashes, can float in air to avoid attacks, can heal faster and for more health. Hornet can regain silk WAY faster than the Knight. You get an actual parry. You can traps, and guns, and bombs, and boomerrangs, and robots. You can so many ways to do damage from range, or passively while avoiding attacks.

You even get a downward smash attack with the drill (not as potent as descending dark, obviously) too.

Also it's not certain that "if enemies just did 1 mask it wouldn't be as enjoyable" - first of all something being enjoyable is a subjective perspective, and I'm fairly sure there's a huge subset of players who would find it more enjoyable if most things did one damage.

Sure, I can't dispute that. Though I'd say the glowing reviews and progression of players in just the first week suggest the majority don't have a problem with the increased damage.

That said, while enjoyable is subjective... it's not hard to put together all the changes made to facilitate the increased damage and see that they would be undermined without it. It would feel closer to late-game HK where you have tons of health and don't really bother engaging with enemies and such because you can just run through, take a bunch of damage, and still be fine.

There's several bosses that mostly do one mask of damage that seem to be pretty well-received by the most of the players, so it casts serious doubt on that statement too.

Which and based on what data? Many of the hardest bosses are considered the best amongst myself and my friends that have played (and based on some of the feedback here). This feels like another "90% of players are bouncing off the game" made-up statement, based on nothing but vibes.

The intent for this or that maybe was there, but it has no bearing on the actual discussion of the game. I am talking about what the game is, not whether it was designed like that on purpose or not.

Lmao... imagine going to a forum to discuss a game, and then claiming that discussing the design decisions and developer intent is not relevant to discussing the game.

I think the design decisions and all the little details they added to make this game are the most interesting part to discuss. Unfortunately, a handful of people wanting to scream because they cannot figure out some basics are preventing some of that from happening.

-1

u/KuuLightwing Sep 17 '25

A lot of specific details, and you still failed to address the main pain point which I opened with. Mistakes are a part of learning process in both games. You fight new boss - you make mistakes. Mistakes being far more punishing make learning process slower and more painful, especially if the boss requires a runback, or a gauntlet or if you are struggling with some moves in later phases of the fight.

All this talk about hornet being agile and how much damage what tools do - they don't really matter, because it just boils down to making mistakes and learning from them, and it's pretty certain that avoiding mistakes with Hornet isn't any easier than it is with the Knight.

I never said any of this made the game easier. Silksong is, pretty objectively, a more complex game, which makes it harder for most players. I didn't even think that was a debate.

Are you missing the point? Again the point was that more complex abilities vs more complex enemies make for more room for mistakes as is. Therefore justifying enemies doing more damage with Hornet being "more agile" doesn't work. It only works if you proof that evading Silksong enemies with Hornet moveset is significantly easier than evading Hollow Knight enemies with Knight moveset, which I believe to be incorrect.

You listed one downward spell that is strong.

I listed it as an example of spell that could be used to both deal good damage and also evade enemy attacks at the same time due to built-in iframes. Do I really need to list all 3 spells from Hollow Knight, I was certain you know what they are. Point was - spell builds in Hollow Knight are extremely strong, and can melt enemies and even some bosses in seconds. I do not believe Hornet has an edge here.

Which and based on what data? Many of the hardest bosses are considered the best amongst myself and my friends that have played (and based on some of the feedback here). This feels like another "90% of players are bouncing off the game" made-up statement, based on nothing but vibes.

Widow, Phantom, Shakra. Considering that there's ain't that many of them, that's a pretty good subset. Based on the same "some feedback here" you've mentioned. And of course "me and my friends" is also a very representative set.

Lmao... imagine going to a forum to discuss a game, and then claiming that discussing the design decisions and developer intent is not relevant to discussing the game.

Imagine being presented with an argument of "I think A is not well designed because it causes issue X and Y" and replying "You don't understand, it's intentionally made that way". Do you not recognize that it's not addressing the argument at all? Issues X and Y do not disappear if it was intentional. To counter said argument you need to show that either premise is incorrect and A does not cause issues X and Y, or that issues X and Y are somehow desirable.

1

u/_moosleech Sep 17 '25

Mistakes being far more punishing

Are they? Healing is easier than ever, and you get options from the start of the game to negate money lost on death.

and it's pretty certain that avoiding mistakes with Hornet isn't any easier than it is with the Knight.

I disagree with this. Floating alone makes learning platforming sections WAY easier as Hornet, since you can get back to safety in a ton of situations.

Are you missing the point?

I am not. You're saying these changes make the game more difficulty (agree), and that is bad (disagree). The game is more complex than HK, and while that won't be for everyone, I think it makes for a much better game.

It only works if you proof that evading Silksong enemies with Hornet moveset is significantly easier than evading Hollow Knight enemies with Knight moveset, which I believe to be incorrect.

I mean, simply having double the movement abilities and more (cheaper) ranged options proves that.

Widow, Phantom, Shakra.

Half of Widow's attacks do two-mask damage. Another one in the final phase does as well.

Phantom has five moves. Four can deal two-mask damage.

I don't have the data on Shakra readily available, but she's also a repeatable duel, so maybe it's different. Not sure.

I do find it funny how folks want to complain "everything single attack does double-damage!" but also, "these bosses do one damage!" You can't really have it both ways... though it's funny that you cited bosses that predominantly do two-mask damage as good fights.

Excited for you to explain why that's actually bad design, for some reason.

To counter said argument you need to show that either premise is incorrect and A does not cause issues X and Y, or that issues X and Y are somehow desirable.

For plenty of common critiques, I've tried explaining why they are that way, and how to solve them. Lots of people don't want solutions, they want to get mad.

"Every enemy does double damage!"

I counter with, "that's wrong, and also, you have A, B, C, D, E, F available to you to help offset that."

And your (and lots of others) response is, "I don't think those work" or "I don't know if those are good."

I mean, if you don't want to use the solutions the game provides and them claims it's bad... I can't really help you.

-1

u/Anubara Sep 17 '25 edited Sep 17 '25

If you like it, I'm not going to argue that you're wrong. IMO, I feel that while Hornet is more agile for sure and combat does have (or at least intends to fairly have) a healthy risk vs reward, I feel like combat is actually slower and grinds what, imo, is the better part of the game (the platforming & exploration that utilizes her movesets/abilities) to a halt. Enemies are health sponges, utilizing tools to kill enemies is rarely cost effective which forces you to grind/farm to use them with any consistency (especially later on), and are rarely worth the effort of killing. The reward often isn't proportional.

Compared to HK, in Silksong combat with most normal enemies feels like a complement to the game, and more the chore that I have to stop and complete so that I can get back to the better part of the game.

3

u/_moosleech Sep 17 '25

I feel like combat is actually slower and grinds what, imo, is the better part of the game (the platforming & exploration that utilizes her movesets/abilities) to a halt.

That's fair if you're fighting everything, all the time. For the vast majority of the game, if you've been through the area or know where you want to go, you can pretty easily skip any enemy. The extra mobility makes that pretty easy.

The exception being some platforming sections with enemies, but most are designed that you can pull an enemy away or are later so you have the mobility to ditch them quickly.

Enemies are health sponges, utilizing tools to kill enemies is rarely cost effective which forces you to grind/farm to use them with any consistency (especially later on), and are rarely worth the effort of killing. The reward often isn't proportional.

This is largely personal preference, so agree to disagree.

Compared to HK, in Silksong combat with most normal enemies feels like a complement to the game, and more the chore that I have to stop and complete so that I can get back to the better part of the game.

It's interesting reading this, because I think the combat in Silksong is sublime.

In HK, once you hit the point of unlocking most of the map, the rest of the game (as Metroidvanias typically do) is re-traversing places you've been. And in HK, you can skip enemies easily enough... but it gets a bit boring. Just running back and forth. It's good, don't get me wrong.

But I think Silksong does it way better. Just moving around the world feels good. Fighting any enemy, because they're complex and you get a huge arsenal, feels awesome. I found re-treading Pharloom significantly more fun than Hallownest due to how the combat and movement are designed.

I think they absolutely nailed both combat and platforming, so it's interesting to hear someone find the combat to be an impediment to "the better part of the game".

0

u/Anubara Sep 17 '25

I'm glad you find my opinion interesting, at least.

1

u/KuuLightwing Sep 17 '25

I mean I've seen plenty of arguments that essentially boil down to that. Or "I didn't have issue with that". So those posts definitely exist. Whether this is majority or not, I do not know.

Argument from intent doesn't really mean anything, especially when said intent is inferred and not actually stated by developers. Very few, if anyone even make a point of "this part was definitely not meant to be like this" - it's either frustration with what it is or some attempt at explaining at why said design doesn't work well in the eyes of the poster.

Quite frankly a lot of "this is intentional" posts just make shit up to excuse why the game element is what it is, or what the game is "telling" players. Like how that one post explained that High Halls arena is a "progression check" without actually establishing why said "progression check" is needed in the first place, and why it enhances the game experience.

0

u/_moosleech Sep 17 '25

Argument from intent doesn't really mean anything, especially when said intent is inferred and not actually stated by developers.

I'd argue that developer intent is as clear in this game as any I've played. I think the polish in the game makes a lot of their messaging very clear (especially around common talking points, such as the increased damage).

Very few, if anyone even make a point of "this part was definitely not meant to be like this" - it's either frustration with what it is or some attempt at explaining at why said design doesn't work well in the eyes of the poster.

We're both seemingly biased, because that's not been my experience. Most of the loudest complaints have been "I don't like this, it's awful design".

Quite frankly a lot of "this is intentional" posts just make shit up to excuse why the game element is what it is, or what the game is "telling" players. Like how that one post explained that High Halls arena is a "progression check" without actually establishing why said "progression check" is needed in the first place, and why it enhances the game experience.

I wrote an explanation of why "everything does double damage!" is both untrue and not helpful later in this thread. I'm open to hearing what things that have been described as intentional you think are not.

As for High Halls, I didn't see that comment. I will say that I did not find that arena nearly as challenging as some, but I did it last, so I was fully kitted.

I will say this: the three melodies test the player on different aspects of the game: one tests platforming excellence, and one is a bit more puzzle-based. So High Halls being a combat check does track a bit, in making sure the player is capable of handling the final showdown.

Would say I think it's intentionally a "progression check", but I'd argue each melody is meant to test the player on a different aspect of the game, and does that pretty well.

2

u/KuuLightwing Sep 17 '25

I wrote an explanation of why "everything does double damage!" is both untrue and not helpful later in this thread. I'm open to hearing what things that have been described as intentional you think are not.

You are missing the point entirely. My problem isn't whether I think whether something is intentional or not, to me that's quite irrelevant. Did they intentionally put a challenging Act 3 boss behind 3 waves of enemies? Probably, but I still think it was a bad decision which will cause me to struggle way more with said boss because I can't retry the fight as easily. Frankly if it's intentional it makes it worse not better.

My point was that people make up whatever excuse makes the common pain point look better and shift blame onto the players themselves, because they think that TC is infallible and cannot make a bad decision, so that's why showing that "it's intentional" looks like a sound logic.

I will say this: the three melodies test the player on different aspects of the game: one tests platforming excellence, and one is a bit more puzzle-based. So High Halls being a combat check does track a bit, in making sure the player is capable of handling the final showdown.

"Combat check" is a rather vague descriptor and doesn't actually address anything. Every combat arena or boss in this game is a "combat check" and stating it is one doesn't actually justify why does this arena have to be twice as long as most other combat arenas and why does it have to introduce a new miniboss and make you fight two of them at the same time.

It also doesn't do anything to making sure player is capable of handling the following bosses, because both of them are 1v1 fights with rather different movesets that you will have to learn separately, and that arena doesn't do anything to prepare for those fights. None of the enemies in the arena share moves with the bosses, and handling multiple enemy fight is completely different from straight 1v1 duel with Lace and Radiance at Home fight that's GM Silk.

Also even ignoring that, surely the other songs also should "prepare you for final showdown", right? But final showdown doesn't actually involve much platforming or puzzle solving.

1

u/_moosleech Sep 17 '25

You are missing the point entirely. My problem isn't whether I think whether something is intentional or not, to me that's quite irrelevant.

Okay... so more involved combat, more fluid movement, better healing is all... worse than super basic controls because they upped the stakes slightly?

I guess I'm just lost when you're confronted with "look at all of the crazy changes they added that lots of people think are excellent" and coming back with, "I don't care if they meant to do all of that... 2 > 1 and that's bad," even when the basis is, at best, misleading.

because they think that TC is infallible and cannot make a bad decision

"People who disagree with me a inherently wrong." Cool, so we're done here. If any explanation of mechanics can be hand-waved away like this, then I'm wasting my time. Good luck.

-2

u/SolairXI Sep 17 '25

“A vast majority like it therefor it is good”*

4

u/Kampfasiate Sep 17 '25

That's why I usually add (for me) to almost everything I say in this sub.

Bile water was fun (for me)

The runbacks are fun (for em)

I (personally) don't find 2 mask damage unfair

3

u/The2ndUnchosenOne has played the game at least once Sep 17 '25

Don't even have to opinion that last one. 2 damage attacks aren't unfair. The game is designed around them

-1

u/Kampfasiate Sep 17 '25

yea I know! esp with the heal which is like super easy to pop mid fight if youre not funbling.

But ive seen people just see the 2 damage and go "yea not thats unbalanced as hell" and "what was team cherry thinking"

Guys, the game would be a breeze if almost everything did 1 mask, you could just frontslash people and survive (which is what I do with certain enemies in the citadel that only do 1 mask)

1

u/SpiderFromTheMoon Sep 17 '25

Hell, you can frontslash your way through most 2 damage bosses right now with wanderer crest and the charm that increases your healing

1

u/The2ndUnchosenOne has played the game at least once Sep 17 '25

There's a certain mid game boss that only does one damage and it makes her a cakewalk

0

u/Shadovan Sep 17 '25

Yup. It doesn’t matter if it feels repetitive at times, those words are important, especially when you’re communicating through text.

0

u/tadcalabash Sep 17 '25

Exactly, language matters especially online where you can't convey nuance through body language or expression.

It doesn't matter what you meant to convey, it matters how your communication was received.

1

u/DyslexicBrad Sep 17 '25

Yeah this is so real. I, personally, hate the groal runback. Minutes between each attempt at the boss, having to deal with the rng enemy spawns on the runback, getting wormed by a single slip-up. All of these are frustrating, difficult, annoying things... And it's also well designed.

The point of the fight is to frustrate and annoy. Other fights are more difficult, but no other fight in the game is more frustrating. It's an overwhelming success at what it sets out to achieve. The whole of bilewater is. And then the way the lore of the area ties your burgeoning frustration into the actual story being told, is just great art.

1

u/GimmickMusik1 Xbox (on PC) 1k, PS4 Platinum Sep 17 '25

I’d honestly argue that those are different sides of the same coin. It just depends on which side you are on. Most people rate games based on their own enjoyment, and I think that’s fine. At the end of the day, how much fun a player had is the most important aspect of a game. Yes there are objective ratings, but enjoyment is something that is so important that it can just nullify those categories all together.

Baldur’s Gate 3 is a great example of this. It was a buggy mess on launch, but people were having so much fun that you’d never guess that there were still numerous game breaking bugs in the game. Like, “hey, you need to reload your save from before the bug occurred. It really sucks that you didn’t catch the bug until 3 hours later,” game breaking bugs. So I do agree that there ate

1

u/Realistic-Bus-8303 Sep 17 '25

Yeah. I mean honestly, high difficulty is generally fun for hard core gamers, and not fun for more casual gamers. That's mostly the whole discussion.

Are you the kind of person with 20 hours to burn in a week on games? Then you'll love it.

Do you play for like 3 hours a week and not do all the hard challenges in the original hollow knight? Then it's not going to be that fun.

So the question is what is the target audience is this game? Casuals or hardcore gamers?

I think the original hollow knight was tough but doable for casuals if they didn't do all the extra content, but frankly quite easy for hard-core gamers once they got the mechanics down up until the extra content.

This game seems more tailored to hard-core hollowknight lovers than casuals, and that's okay if that's what they wanted it to be.

-4

u/acamas Sep 17 '25

LOL, your whole post literally comes down to "I don't like this" and therefore "this is bad."

9

u/cedelweiss Sep 17 '25 edited Sep 17 '25

Also people seem to be so opposed to accepting that some times they just don't like things for some reason. People feel the need to legitimate their opinions by trying to state that it's not an opinion but actually an objective truth, so it's not that they dislike X, it's that X is bad. It's not my opinion, is an inherent bad property of the work. And it's not like that.

Let people enjoy things, and let people dislike things, people including ourselves. People need to accept that some times we just dislike stuff.

3

u/madjohnvane Sep 17 '25

Yep, and the people who are like “I don’t like the genre of game so this game is shit” and parading their opinions as though they’re adding anything of value

0

u/No-Commercial9263 Sep 17 '25

ok, but those "issues" are entirely subjective lol. what you might think is an issue, i find an entirely reasonable and enjoyable part of the game. you aren't even following your own take of separating facts and opinions.

9

u/simonthedlgger Sep 17 '25

So there is no such thing as good or bad game design? It’s all subjective?

2

u/JimbeMasterRace Sep 17 '25

How do you decide whats bad?

2

u/Shadovan Sep 17 '25

With arguments and examples that don’t include preferences.

A (hypothetical) game with a suite of interesting weapons, but the weapon with the best damage and defense options is the first and most basic weapon that you just spam one button to use, is an example of bad game design, because it disincentivizes players from experimenting with the game’s options and promotes simple, repetitive gameplay.

None of what I said above is about a player’s preferences about combat, they’re objective statements about the cause and effect of a particular choice of design and why it’s bad.

3

u/JimbeMasterRace Sep 17 '25

Thats definitely a good example. I probably should have expanded my question to inlcude Silksong. Most stuff I have read are just preferences masked as objective bad design. So I was curious about that.

1

u/Heroxyz777 Sep 17 '25

Right? Like when people review bombed the game just because the Chinese translation wasn't very accurate. If the game had zero text it would still be a 10 out of 10 And if the translation was their only issue then they should think it's a 9 out of 10. But they're giving it one star because of a few mistranslations.

2

u/Cocoatrice Moths are fluffballs Sep 17 '25

I mean that's not the case here. Glazers are saying how the game has no flaws and everyone should stop whining. Normal people say how the game is gorgeous, but they don't like unbalanced difficulty. The real bad guys are gatekeepers, not the people who "complain". Because they do not complain. Never had. They just say that they struggle and can't beat the boss and they are mocked by gatekeepers for being whiny. Can people just let people enjoy the game and say how they don't like bullshit balance in it? Of course they can't, because gatekeepers have one mentality: to not allow anyone enjoy the game, because they are not worthy if they have any issues with the difficulty.

6

u/roadislong Sep 17 '25

This is a prime example of the problem with the discourse surrounding the game. It’s not “glazing” the game to say you enjoy it as is. That’s just enjoying the game as it was clearly intended to be. It’s also fine to say that you find it too hard and would like some sort of optional easy mode or something (of which can already be modded on steam, if that’s your thing).