A bit of context: this is in reply to a game adding a "no death" option, something we've plainly had in video games in one version or another since the goddamn Konami code.
In this case what they're referring to as an "indicator" of something bad, something they put alongside Nazis and the KKK, is giving people the option to turn off death in a video game.
Which is apparently a totally new thing we've never had ever in the history of the Nintendos.
There's no way they didn't make this post without a specific example they were making reference to... right? Was there something they were calling out, or were they making reference to a problem that didn't exist?
Any feature that respects the time of the audience is a good one.
Save anywhere, cheat codes, anything that lets everybody participate in the experience no matter what their circumstances. Otherwise it's like being shut out of a movie because you had to go to the bathroom.
Any game dev that includes a 20+ minute cutscene that you can't pause is a sign of an overworked employee because they haven't seen their children in so long they forgot what it's like to have a kid in the house.
That moment of early game anxiety where you gingerly move your finger to the equivalent of the "start" button, hoping it doesn't skip the cutscene but pauses it.
Some games are nice enough to bring up commands if you move the analogue stick. And those games are the best games.
Any game dev that includes a 20+ minute cutscene that you can't pause is a sign of an overworked employee because they haven't seen their children in so long they forgot what it's like to have a kid in the house.
Or, heck, forgot what it was like to BE a kid.
Parent: "Supper's ready! Come eat!"
Kid: "But I'm in the middle of an unpausable cutscene!"
Parent: "If your butt's not in this chair in 5 minutes..."
I used to be against the idea of the yellow outline around Crash's shadow when jumping in Crash Bandicoot 4. THEN I actually played it and realized they shifted his weight around and I was missing so many jumps without it.
Accessibility options are a damn boon and I have learned this.
And that is the real root of the problem, it is:
Chuds putting their mouth where they won't put their money and insisting on this one linear experience where you HAVE to Git Gud™ or you're not a True Gamer™. No cheats, no items, Fox Only, Final Destination, European Extreme difficulty only.
I remember when one of the Metal Gear games had a 90 minute cutscene, and people were saying critics had no attention span, as if people sit down to play games and block out hours of time just in case they hit a feature length movie right before bedtime.
Fuck that sounds like the people who argue that #TTRPGs "must" have character death as a possibility, because something something verisimilitude, something "no risk".
I wish I'd known back in the mega drive days that invincibility cheats were nazi coded. Of course, someone would've had to explain nazis first, I was six.
Can't believe KKKool Spot got away with it really.
I wonder how these "gamers" would react if we brought back lives, continues and game overs?
Imagine if you had 3 lives and 3 continues (9 lives total) in, I dunno Dark Souls 1 and when you used all of those up, you were thrown back into the tutorial area and had to start over?
They'd cry *so* hard
Waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitaminute.
They're Godwin's Law-ing *cheat codes*?!
What did they smoke and do we need to be worried about the composition?
Maybe I'm having too much faith but I think more what they're saying is you wouldn't play a game that upfront tells you it's Nazi shit, and people who want no death modes should just not play games where they'll die if they don't want it.
It's a version of the 'games aren't for everyone!' thing
To be clear it's still stupid (not playing a game that's a genre you don't like =\= wanting to play a game but not being able to because life)
I'm just saying my first thought was it was stupid for different reasons
There's no way they didn't make this post without a specific example they were making reference to... right? Was there something they were calling out, or were they making reference to a problem that didn't exist?
I think I understand the message they are trying to tell; avoid games that seem to indicate that the creator has a harmful belief system. But this example sounds so specific that it probably happened and they are referencing it?
