I hate "Git Gud"

Post Reply New Topic

Better steer away from Demon's Souls.. Only way to play that game is to git gud pretty much

"Git gud" can be annoying as hell.

-LegoMaster2149 (Written on October 12, 2017)

I hate when people tell me to "git gud". Though it makes all the more satisfying when you beat those same people in battle because they get really mad.

I faced a person in Smash Bros Wii U, I was using Link and the other person was using Donkey Kong. The person kept trying to do a combo (Grab+Throw up+Up air) which was failing over and over. I then saw that outside of that combo the person had no idea how to really use Donkey Kong. It was so hilarious!

That's why you don't cheat and take shortcuts in life, you won't get very far!

Well, you might not be the best at some games. Just look for games you are good at then tell people to git gud lmao. oh my sadistic side is showing oh well In a more serious note the reason why challenging games exist is to take pleasure in being good at a game despite it being stacked against you.. It feels a lot better to have all these reasons why you shouldn't be good at the game but are good at the game regardless. Some games are hard some games you have to learn from experience. Some games you can't tell people how to play they have to learn themselves. So in some cases saying get good might be a bit of a troll but it basically means no matter how much I'd want to teach a new person its' just harder than it would be worth it. Now with that being said some games aren't for you. If the fundemental nature of the games are causing more problems then they solve you should abadon the game despite how hard it might be to do so.

Who cares, I just play for the fun of it and that's all. I take my time in games because I fool around and do everything I wanna do (;

To be honest, I haven't encountered anybody who has used the phrase 'git gud' without irony.

I don't think that gaming elitism is something that benefits anybody, and people should be constructive when offering aid or criticism of a person's play.

That said, challenge is integral to gaming; games that aren't purely expressive or film-like rely on mechanical challenge, it's their raison d'etre. It's why games like Dark Souls are popular, and changing that difficulty would be transformative. Dark Souls is actually a particularly good example, because winning is a test of your ability to understand the mechanics and pay attention, it's not a twitchy reflex-based game that might genuinely benefit from difficulty settings. If you aren't prepared to pay attention, if you don't want to become invested in the world (in which difficulty is central to its flavour), then you should play one of the many other games designed to appeal to you. That isn't intended to be patronising, either, I don't think it's a bad thing for us all to accept that certain games aren't designed for us! I'll never play map games, but I'm not about to petition Paradox to make their games more inclusive.

Just about every game that has a strong secondary appeal should allow for a difficulty setting, though, and that includes most games. You know what I'd love? A mode that allows you to play through only the story scenes in something like Witcher 3, without even a second of gameplay. Witcher 3 is a far stronger interactive story than it is a genuine role-playing game, and the same is true of all big-budget RPGs nowadays.

Cuphead is notable as a recent controversial game, for its difficulty, and the fact that the easy mode cuts content. I'm mixed on this issue, and inclined to say that they made the right decision, in that people may have been pushed out of their comfort zone and then experienced the appeal of gaming beyond what they understood. On the other hand, I feel like a game that is sold on its incredible 30's animation style should allow full access to anybody who buys the game. On balance, I think I'm glad that they promoted the challenge model, that they expected people to engage with the game in order to view its secondary appeals, but even now I'm struggling with this...

I like difficult games. I can project real world problems into the game, beat them to death, and drink out of their skulls lol

Also, some games seem difficult at first, and then something clicks and they're not so tough anymore. The learning aspect is often lost with streamlined cinematic games.

From a developer's point of view, I can say this much: There is never, ever a genuine disadvantage to offering varying difficulty modes to the players. Not only does it mean more people will buy your game, it means more people CAN buy your game (because without it, some literally cannot even play it; consider players with handicaps, for instance, who might often be forced to choose lower difficulty modes in many games no matter what) and it means more people will be getting into and talking about it.

Enter the Gungeon is a great example... people looked at it alot like they looked at Dark Souls. OMG, cant add difficulty options, it'll ruin it, blah blah blah... but those same players didnt bother to think about anything other than their own experiences. The game sold well enough, but it could have sold MUCH better... if it wasnt for the fact of the sheer number of players that didnt even buy it and got something else instead, due to it offering no difficulty modes other than "murder".

Gungeon is a bullet-hell roguelike, which is a genre I'm not only familiar with, but have done development work in (the game I work on is the exact same combination of genres, actually, and I handle the difficulty mode balance/creation myself). And, contrary to what so many in that community think, adding difficulty modes to a game like that does NOT ruin it, or damage anything in any way. All it did was cause players who otherwise would have utterly avoided the game in question to instead buy it and find some fun with it. Some of those players later "graduated" from the easier modes to the harder ones (which is the other benefit).

Remember, difficulty is VERY subjective. People say 'Oh but if you arent playing it on Hard you arent getting any challenge!" but that's a load of crap if I've ever heard it. What isnt challenging to one player might be extremely challenging to another.

Hell, as far as I"m concerned, 98% of games arent hard whatsoever. I'm used to bullet hell games like Mushihime-sama, which make the Souls games or something like Cuphead look stupidly easy. But that doesnt mean others dont find those games very difficult. For players of lesser skill (or skill that's focused in other genres, such as strategy, as we all have different things we're better at), those lower difficulty modes that are so awful WILL still give them "the full experience" due to the subjective nature of difficulty in an overall sense. The challenge will absolutely be there for those players. But so many seem to never think of this fact.

Note that Cuphead's lowest difficulty mode is the exception to that rule. I cant think of any other that actually removes content.

Wolfenstein, DOOM, Quake, Thief, Goldeneye/Perfect Dark, etc...especially series like the latter three, where harder difficulties would open up more mission objectives.

Then of course, you have oldschool arcade games like Double Dragon II (on the NES), where easy mode let's you play just a few levels before dropping you with a happy "Now try a harder difficulty!" message.

Seems like Half-Life kind of started the trend of lazy dev difficulty settings, where you would just take more damage and deal less damage on the harder settings. I guess it's better than nothing, but doesn't offer much in the way of replay value (unless you REALLY like achievements).