Hollow Knight: Silksong Sparks Debate About Difficulty and Boss Runbacks
'Criticism Isn't Hate' — Hollow Knight: Silksong Sparks Debate About Difficulty, Runbacks, and the Dreaded 'Git Gud' Comments - IGN
I like the game, but I definitely think it deserves some criticism. I really don't get the thinking behind not placing a bench directly in front of every boss arena. The run-backs don't make the game harder, just more frustrating. It's also something I disliked in older Souls games, but thankfully they realized the problem and fixed it in Elden Ring. And some mechanics are just baffling, like benches that are locked behind a paywall, which you have to pay every time you want to access the bench. Why on earth would they do this, with currency already being as sparse as it is?
like benches that are locked behind a paywall, which you have to pay every time you want to access the bench
I found this in one small area, which was probably done for the flavor, since it makes thematic sense there, but otherwise it's always been permanent unlocks.
The paid one time bench thing etc is for a narrative reason, the main point of the story as far as I played is about the church scamming people on every occasion. Money won't be an issue once you reach act 2, I always have more money then I can spend even after buying out all merchants I've seen.
As for no benches in front of bosses it's to discourage throwing yourself at the boss without reflecting on where to improve. The long runs I saw people complain about also were mostly like 2 screens. Worst bossrun so far was probably the judge which was only like 2 screens when you think about it.
I really enjoy the game so far, I'm about half way through act 2 I'd say so maybe it gets super hard later, but right now I think it's very balanced between a bit challenging but not frustrating. I do feel that the game was created with players like me in mind, someone who did all pantheon, steal soul mode as well as all achievements in hk but is a little bit rusty from the long wait.
Worst bossrun so far was probably the judge which was only like 2 screens when you think about it.
I think you can theoretically get the fleas to move in right before the boss room, but I don't know how many of them you need to find for that to happen. Maybe killing the boss is also a trigger, so in that case this won't work.
I do feel that the game was created with players like me in mind, someone who did all pantheon, steal soul mode as well as all achievements in hk but is a little bit rusty from the long wait.
I feared they might do something like this, but don't think they did. I finished Hollow Knight twice, last time was almost six years ago, never did any Pantheon or challenge stuff, same with other Metroidvanias. The game is difficult, but don't think it's unreasonable (I'm also in Act 2, maybe the beginning).
Worst bossrun so far was probably the judge which was only like 2 screens when you think about it.
I found that run back to be infuriating at first, but it quickly stopped mattering once I realized that you don't need to kill everything on the path over and are for the most part better off just running past the enemies.
As for no benches in front of bosses it's to discourage throwing yourself at the boss without reflecting on where to improve.
I like self reflection, especially when I died 10th time from the same boss... Self reflection like why I am torturing myself with this shit?
I have been running around the citadel, and with more fast travel options there I've gotten in the habit of constantly going back to belhart and making rosary necklaces. Sekiro had a similar mechanic with gold pouches. Also in this stage of game I'm finding a lot of silkeaters, so if I take a wrong turn at alburquerque and don't want to get locked into a fight or weird platforming area I can just recover my beads. It gets better kids. Keep playing.
We should definitely talk about how levying criticism, especially thoughtful criticism, is treated as a personal attack by other people playing the same game. It's a bizarre form of tribalism.
Steve Bannon recognized exactly this (with gamergate) and harnessed it for his fascist ends.
We should also talk about how "Difficulty is part of the game and if you find it too difficult then this game is not for you" is not a personal attack, but a perfectly valid response to said criticism.
If the criticism is limited to "It's too hard." then I would agree. But that's not a valid response to criticisms about specific design elements like "these power ups feel like they do nothing", even if it's a perception issue at hand you need to address the actual observation and not jump on with 'git gud'.
I was learning a game a few months ago and struggling with understanding a specific character, so I went to the official discord and asked for advice, not complaining it was too hard, just asking for what kinds of strategies work and I was met with endless 'try harder, scrub' responses and literally no actual advice. I quit playing the game because the community was so up it's own asshole.
And for sake of clarity. I don't play HK, it's not my preferred genre and my favorite game (that I can replay) is Noita so I am familiar with reviews that complain about difficulty. It's fine for games to be hard and it's also fine for people who find the games too hard to leave a review saying they found it too hard. That is part of informing buyers so people can only pick it up if they desire that kind of challenge.
It's just a trend that is all too common in gaming. People like a game or a developer and become incapable of seeing an opinion that they disagree without taking it as a personal slight. It's weird.
thanks. I hear a lot about this game and was wondering about it but Im a relaxagamer though so its good to know.
This excuse stopped working the day I opened a tough-as-nails game like Furi, saw it had a difficulty menu, said “That’s nice”, and went back to challenging myself against the bosses on default settings.
It’s such a huge cop-out of self control, and especially falls to acknowledge that the forms of difficulty in a game are often varied - and someone might suck at only one of them.
Every time a hard game gets made, we have to have this debate? Maybe the real easy mode is just not trying to please everyone.
Yea. I wont dismiss this criticism as hate, but I will dismiss it as dumb. The game was designed to be a challenge. Not everyone is up to that challenge, that's fine. The game isn't meant for you, then.
My friend can't play the Dark Souls games. He's really interested in the setting and has given a few multiple attempts, but the difficulty curve just isn't for him, so he just doesn't play them.
Not everything that makes the game harder or more challenging to play is good game design though, and a game shouldn't get a free pass just because its developers stated "well the game being hard is part of our artistic vision". It's fine to criticise things, even - or actually maybe especially - things we like. We don't have to be binary about things, we can like something while still recognising its flaws.
Excessive runbacks for example is something that is primarily concerned with disrespecting your time as a player and even FromSoft seem to have realised that they're not a good addition or a fun way of increasing difficulty seeing as they introduced Stakes of Marika in Elden Ring. Hell, even Ninja Gaiden went away from boss runbacks starting from the second game, and that came out in 2008!
It's undeniable that the challenge is part of the mystique for some games. I note with great respect the fact that Celeste offers accessible difficulty tweaks. I beat that game and it was a great experience.
Both choices can be good, when made with intention and care, and when motivated by specific goals as a creator.
With dark souls, at least the ones I've played, the difficulty can be tweaked by engaging with the world, learning the progression system and the character options that suit you. For example I didn't beat DSI until I tried playing a magic user, because I'm slightly bad at those games. DSIII was easy enough by comparison to beat as a straight up STR build, but that's beside the point. Difficulty is a design choice, and the conversation around it is tiresome when it ignores the aims of the creators.
well if you buy the game and it’s difficult enough to keep you from playing it all the way through that’s kinda shitty.
The thing is, there is no reason not to add accessibility settings.
Hollow Knight and Silksong are beautiful games with an intriguing world, great characters and lots of areas to explore. There's no reason to gatekeep games like these from people that just can't beat them because they are too hard.
Just add a simple accessibility menu where you can scale health, damage and loot drops. It's almost no work to implement, players can still try the regular difficulty and turn it down when it's too much and speedrunners can make their lifes more difficult. Everyone wins.
In a game like Hollow Knight (and Silksong), I can't help but feel such a crude setting would end up doing more harm than good. I mean, let's take health for example. Increasing your health wouldn't help much if you can't handle what the game is throwing at you; the few extra masks the game gives you only really help if you can handle the difficulty but need mistake tolerance, otherwise enemies will still hit you and you'll still fail at platforming and fall into spikes. Fundamentally the difficulty of a game like Hollow Knight comes from a lot more than just damage numbers, so a naive difficulty scale would only give an illusion of accessibility that would fade away at the first difficult part, and in that case it's better for everyone involved if the inaccessibility of the game is easily apparent.
The accesibility is called getting a controller that works for your disability, then training to beat it.
Let me start by saying I have a few thousand hours in Hollow Knight and I do for the most part enjoy the Git Gud type of games.
There are entire genres of games that I can't enjoy because they're too open/chill and if they had a hard mode I would probably really like them. This is the same problem the other way.
Maybe wait and some modders might make the QoL parts you want available, maybe never play it, maybe watch a streamer do it. But not every game has to be fun for everyone.
There might also be a generational divide taking shape. People my age grew up with "Nintendo hard" and the industry was all about making games seem longer by making them extremely difficult to beat. Our options were to get better, cheat, or give up.
These days the industry is all about mass appeal, and all the problems that we see with games having massive budgets and having to make sure as many people can like them as possible. Indie games have different incentives, and so when a game comes along that was made with priorities that aren't in step with what we're used to, it tends to ruffle feathers.
I know my kid doesn't have any sense that games should be difficult, or that a challenging game can be satisfying. Even FromSoft games are trending towards less difficulty, despite having the fans who famously chant "git gud". Bigger studios might know something my generation doesn't get about younger gamers - maybe games like Silksong are having their swansong, so to speak. I hope not, but it's hard not to notice once it's been pointed out.
I'm reminded of when Elden Ring first came out and we had a little panic attack about how much harder it was than other souls games.
Then like a year later it was widely considered to be the easiest Fromsoft game (if you're just doing the required content).
Time will tell. These games all have so much talk about how certain builds are "cheese" or how the ashes make the game too easy or whatever - that's all just dumb. The game itself is the difficulty settings, sometimes.
It seems too early to say how Silksong will be remembered, and Team Cherry still only had two games under its belt so it's arguably too early to judge them. Will their next game be totally different and a massive risk, or do we have a Vivaldi on our hands, doing masterful variations on a theme?
I have to agree. Although I would have said "the real easy difficulty is realizing that not every game is for you". And sometimes that includes really popular games, ones that everyone else seems to be enjoying. And that's ok.
The runbacks don't bother me too much so far. I do think there's some skills in the runback, but it relies heavily on the level designer as well. An ideal runback:
These factors make a run both interesting game play and still a form of progression. A badly designed run lacks these factors, being just a slow slog to get back into the boss fight.
My biggest complaint so far is the double damage. Every boss and so many common enemies do nothing but double damage. Why even have 5 HP instead of 3? And it being 5 (and bind healing 3) have compounding effects with this problem. Taking a single hit on the way to a boss actually costs you an entire "boss hit" so runbacks are worse all around. Trying to heal mid boss only gets you "one and a half" hits back which takes a lot of silk to build up and probably is a worse deal for you than just using the silk to power more attacks.
Double damage would suck a lot less (and be a better mechanic) if you had 6 HP to start, or if you healed 4 at a time, or if bosses didnt always do 2 damage. There's no tension to avoiding punishing hits because every move is equally punishing. It makes fights feel very conservative which is maybe intentionally meant to evoke Hornet as a careful hunter, using traps and plans to take down big foes.
I find the opposite though, she feels fragile and reactive. I wish starting damage was higher too. I had this issue in Hollow Knight as well, everything takes too many hits. Common enemies are spongy, bosses take at least 33% too long across the board. Especially it gets annoying since a lot of bosses so far get spammier and faster towards their final phases, so you spend so much time dodging the same attacks and looking for openings to chip hits in. Skills and traps don't do enough damage to feel especially useful either.
I also hate, and this is another compounding factor, the complete lack of enemy HP bars. On regular enemies this is annoying (gotta count my hits) but on bosses it feels negligent. Bosses have multiple phases and take so long to kill, it would be nice to know if my last run was just a hit or 2 away from the end or if I still had a 3rd phase to plan for. It adds to the poor perception of skills and traps as well. Sting Shard and Thread Storm both seem to hit several times, around a half-dozen, but neither seems to do much more damage than a couple of regular hits.
Overall I'm really loving Silksong, the art and music are top notch. The DLC for HK convinced me that Team Cherry and I disagree about some fundamental ideas in game design, and HKSS bears that out.
I, uh, have kinda given up on progressing for the foreseeable future. I'm bad at platforming, and after struggling for probably around half an hour to get through one aection that was particularly difficult for me, I was met with a surprise boss fight. Nearest bench before that section. It's brutal. It takes me about 5ish minutes to do that section now, but fuck I wish I were exaggerating. None of the other fights have anywhere near as nasty a runback and it honestly feels like they forgot a bench.
The game is hard and that's fine, but that instance I feel ok removed about and don't feel like I'm a qhiny pathetic fuck for doing so, which is incredibly telling given how easy it is to make me feel like a whiny pathetic fuck.
I'm not entirely sure which part of the game you're talking about but if you're talking about the section I think you're talking about then you're probably trying to go the wrong way as that section get significantly easier once you have more powers.
If something feels unbelievably difficult chances are you're supposed to go elsewhere. There are quite a few points at the start of the game where you get a difficulty spike and that just means there's a different route to take.
Skills and traps don't do enough damage to feel especially useful either.
There's one trap that actually is pretty strong if you know how to abuse it.
I'm not going to spoil where or how to get it, but flying beetles that home in on the enemy and repeatedly bump into it to deal damage can be pretty busted... especially when they still attack during phase change animations that stop the player from moving.
I also especially like a particular early game trap for this:
I definitely agree that the constant double damage just feels horrible. Hollow Knight was always about balancing heals versus punishes (one reason I loved Dark Souls 2 so much) but you basically need to heal if you get tapped once and... yeah.
I think a bigger issue is that upgrades feel so much rarer. Part of it is that you have MUCH fewer equipped charms at any given time... so there is much less point in just giving you a new one every 10 or so minutes. And I am not sure if max health is lower but it similarly feels like I find a mask shared maybe every 2 hours or so which further lends itself to feeling weak. And no idea what the deal is with silk but a single pip when it takes like five pips to even do a heavy attack feels pointless?
And while some vendors do sell upgrades, it always feels like a struggle to afford them unless you are actively grinding because of the constant need to buy maps and so forth (something I hated in 1 as well, but that at least had a single currency). Although I did get a nice stretch where I just mopped up and bought out most shops so that is at least nice.
And same with the attacks. Apparently I may have actually ran past Threadstorm while exploring and never even noticed it? And that is the power everyone says to use.
I also hate, and this is another compounding factor, the complete lack of enemy HP bars.
IIRC, HK1 had a badge that turns these on. I'm not far enough into the new game to have found this yet, though.
I'm pretty early into the game as well, so I almost didn't say anything. But even if theres a charm that adds HP bars later, I would be annoyed about it. Why wait so long? I'm over 10 hours in. Why take a slot with it? I get similar annoyances about the compass, but at least that one I can understand because maybe some people like the challenge of landmark navigation using just the maps. There is a skill there, and it is part of the skillset of Exploration (a major pillar of design in any metroidvania).
The yellow tools, in general, I'm iffy about the design of. So far I only have 3: compass, more shards, and auto-collect beads. Of these, auto-beads is the most obviously useful. You need many beads, and they get lost pretty easy. Shards are super common and don't have many uses. But none of these are essential, and all of them get less useful the later into the game you get. The tradeoff is only meaningful early game, and seems to encourage a balance between memorizing the levels and grinding, neither are amazing activities.
Having the compass charm tied to ALL map markers would certainly up the utility of it, though it's gating another feature behind both a purchase and a charm. I've also only found 1 semi useful trap\red-charm so far. Maybe having more traps and skills that required shell bits would put more pressure on needing them and make the charm that gives extras more appeal for a trap-heavy play style?
Again, I grant that maybe I'm too early in the game yet, but I feel like these systems should be coming together and cohering more after a half-dozen bosses and 10 hours of play.
"Fragile and reactive" IMO is a fair take, but I think what the game is pushing you to do is become comfortable enough with your mobility to be aggressive while still avoiding hits. I don't know exactly where you are in progression, but you continue to tack on new capabilities to your kit that make it easier and easier to avoid things while still laying out damage.
I am sure there is enough room in the game design for people to take totally different approaches here, though. If you know a given enemy's movement well, you can absolutely be confident in using your silk for attacks instead of healing.
Feels like healing in micro transactions form where you want to buy a thing that cost 3 currency but the shop only sells at five currency.
I agree with a lot of your commentary. A couple times so far a “good run back” has been the grind that let me buy some of the higher-cost items from shops. Sometimes it’s frustrating but usually once you get used to the path it goes quickly. There have been a few times where I didn’t realize there was a closer bench until after I already beat the fight lol.
Double damage would suck a lot less (and be a better mechanic) if you had 6 HP to start, or if you healed 4 at a time, or if bosses didn’t always do 2 damage.
Most of the bosses have 1-damage and 2-damage attacks. Also 6HP and increased healing are available relatively early (still a good way into the game but it’s a long game).
Skills and traps don't do enough damage to feel especially useful either.
I have to strongly disagree with this. Especially when you start getting more traps/tools and upgrades for them, they get very strong and don’t require you to get dangerously close to the enemy like the basic attacks. Some of the bosses and many of the arenas I’ve gotten through mainly thanks to the consumable traps.
Common enemies are spongy, bosses take at least 33% too long across the board.
Like in most metroidvanias, you start off struggling against common enemies but as you get upgrades they become weaker relative to you. However I do agree that the trash mobs are a bit too tanky. Maybe somewhere between 50% and 25% less health would be ideal. I’m not sure I would adjust the bosses though.
People forgetting that when you ran out of lives you used to have to go back to the start of the whole game.
People forgetting that when you ran out of lives you used to have to go back to the start of the whole game.
We remember. It was bullshit back then. It's still bullshit now.
Edit: I beat those games on three lives. It was still some bullshit.
It wasn’t bullshit. You could get through those games in about an hour and that set of levels was the game. Games like Sonic sunk or swam based on whether playing through those levels over and over to achieve a better run was actually enjoyable. Not to say that today’s much longer games aren’t valid too, but they don’t have to be as tight.
Why is it bullshit? If you couldn't die nobody would play those games. The stakes were the reason to play.
As someone who isn't necessarily big on the notion streamlining is "objectively" good game design... That more or less began to be disposed of the minute we had the technology, minus a few now-niche genres that rely on it. It was gradual, but mass market games as early as Zork in 1981, had save schemes.
Zelda: Pwr off Rst. Must ensure progress is saved. Far end of the spectrum: Sewer Shark. Fuck that game, I didn't want that beach life anyhow.
I spent 3 hours stuck on one boss fight.
In most games, finally beating it would have me saying "thank fuck its over".
In silksong, I'm saying "fuck yeah that was a good boss". It's a very different feeling, and one that I haven't had the pleasure of enjoying in quite some time.
That said.
I think both hollow knight and silksong should have easy modes. It would be fine. It doesn't hurt me any that someone else can have an easier time. People need to remember that video games are entertainment, and the sweaty "hardcore gamers" can fuck off with their usual judgemental elitism.
This is exactly it. I think the game is a goddamn masterpiece. The most infuriating fights feel like huge accomplishments, not just relief. Phenomenal game all around, but that difficulty curve isn't for everyone. I can say the same about any Soulsborne game, love them to death but it's definitely too much for some folks. Difficulty options are a good thing, if a compromise has to be made just have it disable achievements or w/e.
After you unlock godhome, you can practice against any boss youve fought once, so practicing against bosses is arguably easier than many other meteoidvanias, which is what you're arguing the run backs prevent you from doing.
Sigh this shit again, if it's the creators decision to have a game with finely tuned hard difficulty, so be it, that's the creators creative decision and it should be respected
"death of the author" suggests some of the author's intent is lost when a work is consumed by the audience.
Then it's not the developer's fault anymore that the game is hard.
It exists by itself.
To a degree I guess as the audiences own experiences will determine there own interpretation of the work, but in this situation I don't think someone's own experiences is going to impact too much the fact that silksong is hard as nails at points
I can accept stupid decisions. I don't have to respect them.
Respect is a weird word. It seems to have 2 nearly opposite meanings (kind of like literally):
So the first one implies that respect must be earned. The second implies that everyone must be respected by default (their due regard), thus respect is unearned.
No you don't, so you can either mod the game or not play the game right?
Runbacks are a lame attempt at artificially increasing difficulty. I'll happily die on that hill. I love difficult games, but there is a fine line between frustration and difficult.
Elden Ring (at least all the bits I played through) and Sekiro absolutely nailed it. None of the run backs were particularly egregious, and it let me really focus on experimenting and learning to feel out the difficult fights. Celeste is another good example. I have dropped hours on some of the later levels trying to master them, but never once got frustrated.
Hollow Knight I never finished because I got stuck on a boss and the runback was just way too long and annoying. I loved everything else about the game and want to finish it eventually.
Edit: I think they have their place as "mods" that you could enable to increase difficulty, and i'd actually probably enjoy it that way. Just designing the game around them is where i draw the line.
Unpopular opinion but I like boss runbacks.
To me it feels like "if you don’t survive the journey, you’re too weak for the boss itself" it brings me down and makes me calmer until I reach the boss.
I like them because it forces you to try to salvage a fight instead of just conceding after a bad start. The time spent getting to the boss is investment you don't want to waste.
I think this is really just an issue of the tools and abilities not being inherently linked to the related bosses.
FYI quickhop attacking is faster than ground combos and you can weave in the trio dagger throws when you are dodging away from close attacks. Also your attack will negate enemy attacks weapon hitbox(but you still have to dodge bodily contact). The poison tool upgrade is overbalanced and makes a lot of fights a joke.
I like them because I will think what I did wrong, not just going to do that wrong thing again until I get lucky with my wrong strategy.
I'm loving it, and the runbacks and difficulty just feel like standard metroidvania to me. Yeah, it takes time and caution, but that's just the genre.
If anything I find the walkbacks much shorter than in the original. There is always a bench 30s/1m away from each boss or tough platforming section. At least so far...
Yeah the game's definitely harder than HK was, but by no means impossible. It's not nearly as difficult as say Elden Ring for a recent-ish example. The true ending final boss didn't even take me as many tries as Last Judge or that frog fucker lmao
None of the runbacks are egregious either. There's just about always a bench barely 30-40 seconds away at absolute most.
Groal's runback is egregious. Even if you find the closest bench.
I think we don't have enough language to talk about difficulty in a productive way.
You could keep all the boss mechanics the same in a game but add a 1 minute unstoppable cut scene at the start and the game is "more difficult" because it takes you longer to learn boss patterns and experiment with different strategies. But that feels very different to narrowing the windows to react or expanding the move set of a boss which feels different again to changing the values so you need to grind more/fewer levels or resources to pass it.
"Runback too long" and "git gud" sound a lot like people talking past eachother, but maybe thats just an artifact of the journalist reporting rather than the discussion itself
I think we have the language and you just proved it, but often people are just not reading or thinking enough about other perspectives before talking, and so do talk past each other like this.
I like your comparison to an unskippable cutscene; these are, I think, universally reviled at the start of boss fights. For some reason I don't think long runbacks are reviled in nearly the same way, yet repeatedly running through the same area with no challenges (jumping off the staircase for the shortcut to Ornstein & Smough in DS1 does not count ffs!) is not really any less boring.
The ideal runback to me has a few enemies that you can soon work out how to run around. You actually get a feeling of having accomplished something, but don't have to get perfect at defeating those enemies, nor waste time doing so (running will always be faster than fighting, pretty much).
I think "git gud" is just a knee-jerk meme though - there is no reason to believe that someone saying it has engaged in the slightest with what has been said to that point; they're just trolling.
they are related and compound each other. it’s harder to “git gud” if you have to do a bunch of runbacks too.
Add an easy mode just half the boss health and damage. Easy fixed
is nobody going to define what "runbacks" are?
I'm guessing it's something like when you lose to a boss you have to travel a senselessly difficult and long way back to the boss to try again?
That does sound annoying and I hate when I even have to sit through a cutscene on each retry of a boss..
I'm guessing it's something like when you lose to a boss you have to travel a senselessly difficult and long way back to the boss to try again?
That's exactly it. The runbacks aren't too long in this game despite all the complaints, but some of them are tricky and can get annoying if you keep dying 10 seconds into a fight.
There have been several boss fights so far where I die to the path to the boss more than the boss itself and it takes way longer to get to the boss than actually beating it.
That being said though, I do think there’s some merit to runbacks as an actual consequence for failure. I definitely strategize more cautiously because of it.
So it's basically the standard platformer formula going back three or more decades?
I mean, there are some really bad runbacks, but yeah most of them are fine.
Some of these mother fuckers never dealt with nosk and it shows.
Most runbacks aren't too bad, but fuck the Bilewater one. That shit was too hard and annoying. I had less trouble with the First Sinner than that boss.
Unskippable cut scenes should be dragged into the street and shot.
Along with unpausable cutscenes. My kid will cry exactly during your 10 minute cutscene, and I want to know the story.
I'm guessing it's something like when you lose to a boss you have to travel a senselessly difficult and long way back to the boss to try again?
Exactly. Lots of bosses don’t have convenient save points nearby, so you’re forced to walk back from the save point every time. And many of the treks are either long or just outright annoying (cheesy enemies, obstacle courses, etc). It’s like the 5 Minute Long Unskippable Cutscene’s more annoying older brother, because this unskippable cutscene requires actual gameplay and focus.
I'm in act 2 and while Im in love with the game, I can agree. The game could be impossible for people who aren't already very good at platformers. Benches are very sparse and money is always an issue. I hope Team Cherry make the game more reasonable through updates.
I have no idea what people were expecting to be honest. Hollow Knight was already known for being an extremely difficult game with punishing anti-fun elements like runbacks and corpse runs. Which game had everyone played that got them so hyped for Silksong?
There's a reason I stayed away from HK, and I will be staying away from Silksong too. Game looks great but I won't be able to beat it and I won't have any fun failing to do so.
I think the big difference is that HK had a smooth difficulty curve as you slowly unlock new abilities. Silksong by comparison picks up where HK left off and is immediately hard which makes it hard to approach for new players. Early game areas feel as hard as late game areas from the first game. That's throwing everybody off who is either new to the franchise or hasn't played Hollow Knight since it came out checks notes 8 years ago
Honestly, Hollow Knight 1, and what I've played so far of Silk Song have frustrating runback only if you feel that exploration should carry no risk. And also if you feel the consequences--dropping your resources and needing to abandon them--are game ending.
The devs make no attempt to hide the fact that the father afield you get, the more dangerous it gets, but that you can get stronger if you make the most of what you've already explored.
Resources are unlimited in the world, so you can always get back to where you were even if you abandon your cocoon/shade. You can also go back and spend the resources before you lose them.
Once I realized that venturing too far off carries a growing risk, I started looking out for the telltale signs that I'm entering a boss room. When this happens or even when I just feel like I'm going to lose all health, I just venture back and spend at the nearest shop or just prioritize finding a bench. Where I don't heed the warning and go in anyway, I take it as my fault I can't recover my shade/silk before I once again prioritize finding a bench.
All that said, at least so far I've found that whereas in Hollow Knight, if you die in a boss fight you're not equipped for, you MUST abandon it or try again. In Silk Song, the silk cocoon actually helps with the fight: instead of also trying to kill you, it's extra health that you can save until mid-way through the fight. Also, some boss rooms don't lock the entrance (at all or as quickly) so you can die closer to the entrance and safely recover your stuff.
After starting Silk Song, I went back and started replaying the original and some changes like this are actually actually a quality of life improvement over the first 😂😂😂.
(I'm just irrationally mad that they removed the cheeseable pogoing. It was so cheeseable but I get why they tweaked the mechanic to become harder to use in exactly the same way. I'm actually using the other offensive abilities more.)
(I'm just irrationally mad that they removed the cheeseable pogoing. It was so cheeseable but I get why they tweaked the mechanic to become harder to use in exactly the same way. I'm actually using the other offensive abilities more.)
I mean personally I don't have any issues with an easy mode in games, casual play is nice when you come back home from work half dead. Silksong is advertised as a soulslike though. Feels a little counterintuitive to take away the aspects that define a soulslike, even if it makes the game accessible to a wider audience.
something that i think gets lost in the sauce in thrse discussions is whether fun is derived from playing or winning. people are comparing Silksong- and to get ahead of it right now i haven't played and am not criticizing either of the Hollow Knights- to old arcade and early console games and their legendary difficulty, but a lot of those games were meant to be complete and fun experiences even if you game over very early on. they also didn't have levels full of bespoke Stuff in them, it was the same few tiles and entities in different configurations., so being stuck on level 1 didn't mean you were missing out on a narrative and worldbuilding. with how the lines have blurred between games and narrative art forms in the last few decades, there are different incentives at play and someone stuck on world 1 of SMB isn't missing out nearly as much as someone stuck on whatever the first stage of Silksong is. it's all ultimately apples and oranges
I recently started gaming again after a twenty year gap. Back in the day I used to go for high difficulty and complete everything. Now, I'm playing on easy difficulty setting. Partly cos I'm in my 50s, reactions are slower and my hands are a bit fucked up. Partly because I want to enjoy the story and the experience - if I get stuck on a fight and keep dying I get frustrated eventually and angry with myself for not being as good as I want to be. That feeling is not what I'm gaming for, so yeah, easy setting.
I haven't played hollow knight because I'm told it's frustrating and difficult, and, while the aesthetic really appeals to me I don't wanna be frustrated. But I'm so happy for all the people who have been waiting for this and are enjoying it, sometimes we do get nice things!
I'm older also and am enjoying Hollow Knight a lot, it's hard but I wouldn't say frustrating, the game lets you say "Hmn this is not working out, I'm coming back here later after I get more skills or abilities" and it's relatively non-linear for a metroidvania type game.
Part of why it was very popular is the difficulty straddled a good line between challenging and manageable enough to keep making progress. But every player has different experience levels, distractions or time-limits on how much we can dedicate to gaming so it should be standard to allow players to choose difficulty. However, in a game like Hollow Knight you might be able to adjust the difficulty of boss fights but that's only part of the challenge, the rest of the challenge in inherent in the game's layout and mechanics.
For me, much of the fun is making progress. i never finished the first game because I kept getting lost and stuck and unable to progress for extended periods. In a From Software game I can spend weeks on a single boss and masochistically enjoy every moment because I know what I have to do. The problem I had with Hollow Knight was I kept finding myself completely at a loss about where to go or what to do. I would spend days retreading the same empty caverns looking for a clue or a new path and not finding any. When I knew what I had to do, I enjoyed it immensely, but progression was often too obscure and my interest slowly evaporated.
This is the “metroidvania” genre part of the game but, it’s not for everyone.
That being said, both Hollow Knight and Silksong make the exploration a lot more streamlined than in older metroidvanias with the map features. When you don’t know where to go, check your map and look for paths that lead to areas that aren’t filled in yet. When you get a new power, see if you can remember any locations where that might be useful.
The problem with “old difficulty” was that in arcades especially, and even on consoles by way of the industry being smaller and the same people working on both, were designed around quarter-munching.
Stuff was hard to get people to pay up.
I would have preferred modern ideas like bosses are hard because you have to learn their patterns- and to be clear, this is also present - but also the feeling that I’m not strong enough to do anything more than chip damage is a bit annoying.
I think there’s validity in all the arguments I’ve seen people making; but at the same time I’m glad the game’s not easy. I just don’t know if it always needs to be punishing through frustration.
(The thing that pisses me off the most are those
So that’s why I say there’s a difference between “tricky” hard and “annoying” hard.
I would have preferred modern ideas like bosses are hard because you have to learn their patterns- and to be clear, this is also present - but also the feeling that I’m not strong enough to do anything more than chip damage is a bit annoying.
This is why I stopped playing Elden Ring. I have no problem learning patterns for boss fights but the perpetual feeling that I'm fighting Godzilla with a badminton racket is obnoxious. Especially after I spent the last 20 hours of play grinding out equipment upgrades and levels. It doesn't feel fun or rewarding.
I know what you mean with the downward thrust. It just fucks with my platforming.
I think it's a great game for veterans who like challenges like myself.
But I have to call out team Cherry for their interviews: They said they wanted anyone to be able to pick up this as their first Hollow Knight game and just start playing... Sorry, but, bullshit. the difficulty ramp is too quick, double damage comes out to early and the boss fights get more challenging quickly. See the weaver for instance, a fight I'd place around the difficulty of Grimm, but there's double damage and you probably only have 5 health.
Also they mentioned part of the game's difficulty was due to Hornet's competence and utility... Ghost is canonically a better fighter than Hornet, so by that logic they should have made the game easier (yes I'm being silly about this part).
I think its fine for a player new to the series but you've got to the type of person that is willing to learn and willing to die over and over. For people who play these kinds of games its not insane to expect them to pick it up.
Didn't personally watch the interview in question (or forgot by now) so I don't know what they meant, but it definitely feels like lore wise Silksong can stand as an independent game with what I've discovered so far.
Regarding difficulty, Hollow Knight isn't the only game that could have prepared you for Silksong I think.
I think what it helps a lot with is familiarity and mindset. The overall game loop is very similar.
That said, I think it's wise to give HK a try before buying Silksong. It's a cheaper game, worth playing through if you're into these kinds of experiences and if you don't enjoy it, chances are Silksong will not be much fun for you either.
This is to be expected. Silksong gained so much hype that now you have a bunch of people trying it who are finding out it's not their thing.
I know people these days are used to early access garbage being shoved out the door as a full release, and are ready to rush to the comments to explain why the game is wrong, but I promise you this is not one of those cases.
So far, every run back I've experienced in silksong has a purpose. If it's not something you enjoy, I recommend not playing the game. But don't be in that overlap of the Venn Diagram between people who are enjoying the game and people who are complaining they aren't enjoying the game. Either stop playing, or finish it and then we can talk about its design.
Name one with purpose, then. There is the big cave with the boss. It is separated in two halves by a long ass platform. There are no enemies, exploration, rewards or challenges on the platform. The sole purpose of it is to make you run right and then left, instead of just facing the boss right away.
If it's the one I'm thinking of, I barely consider that one a run back. It's like 40s to get to the boss from the bench. And at that point I the game, I noticed myself start hitting the bounce plants much more consistently after having to do this run many times. Up until then I hadn't been forced to repeat the same small section yet.
And (staying vague to avoid spoilers), the bench itself was particularly "surprising" specifically because of the long gap without any benches leading up to it, forcing you to repeat the same long platforming/combat sections over and over. Players would not have been "surprised" by it if they weren't so desperate for a bench.
My biggest complaint is the sheer lack of rewards when I finish a fight. Give me any currency.
I have spent so much of this game broke, unable to buy the things I need to advance any side plots.
I'm currently stuck on the fight for the Music in the top left of the citadel. The double boss at the end is brutal. But because no enemy in that fight drops monster parts, I have to quit to grinding it to go grind more materials to build equipment, despite having slain 20+ enemies each run.
Did these people forget how ball-smackingly hard Hollow Knight was???
Yes.
I think time has made people look at Hollow Knight through rose tinted glasses. When I picked up the game in 2018, I got to the Soulmaster and gave up entirely because of its runback, it was just too annoying.
I ended up finishing the game a few years later and absolutely loving it, but runbacks are to this day my main criticism of the game, and I know a lot of people agree about that.
For this reason I hoped that they’d make things better in Silksong, but at least now I know what to expect so it doesn’t annoy me as much as it used to.
HK can be trivialized pretty early on by stacking charms and upgrades. Silksong spaces out meaningful upgrades in a way that really forces you to learn the ins and outs of the game before you can start buildcrafting.
FWIW, all the final bosses are easier than HK's true final boss. The difficulty scaling starts with a rough curve but evens out over time.
I was all-in on Hollow Knight. Beat it multiple times, including Path of Pain and the Nightmare King. But I'm struggling with Silksong.
I went back and started up Hollow Knight again just to sanity-check myself, and, yes, it's definitely an easier game. Many fewer enemies can hit for 2 health; there's more variety in paths in the early game, so if you hit a wall in one direction you can try another; and you get access to upgrades that actually feel impactful relatively early instead of skills that use up my magic pool that I can't spare because I need them because I'm always one hit away from dying.
My pet theory is that Silksong is actually just exactly what they originally pitched: DLC for players that have mastered the highest skill points in Hollow Knight. And maybe that would be fine if I were coming straight into it off of the back of Godhome. But it's been years since I was playing those areas, and my skills have atrophied. It's okay for a DLC to expect mastery from the start, but a standalone game should have more of a curve.
I imagine a non-insignificant portion of Silksong players never played HK and just jumped on the hype bandwagon. Which makes sense considering it was built up like it would literally pay off your mortgage and reunite you with your high school sweetheart.
Regarding difficulty: I've lived through the 80's, where difficulty was ramped up to make the game last longer, as you only had precious few kilobytes to fill with content. I've grown to hate difficult games.
It is your right as creator to go that way if you wish, but it is my right as player to hate your guts if I buy your game and it kills me over and over again in the first minutes.
Another 80s child here. The difficulty of ganes of that era was to extend tge game duration and made them seem longer. They were designed that way to eat quarters at the arcade, the original "games as a service". What happened with home computer and console games at the time was that developers used the same paradigms for "buy to own" games that they used for arcade, thus the idea of limited lives, game over screens, high dificulty, etc.
If you dislike impressionist art, would you still go to a museum exhibition on that topic and then get angry at the curators?
If it is clear that the topic is Impressionist art, I would not go. If I buy the ticket to see Expressionism and get Impressionism instead, I would fell upset.
(Actually, I'd go either way, I love art)
I'm about 10 hours into silksong and it's amazing, don't get me wrong. But the majority of the boss fights seem... cheap?
Like, their difficulty doesn't come from their various attacks, or their environment. Instead, it usually comes from the fact that they do double damage, or the fact that they spam the same two attacks over and over way too quickly, or the fact that they can do the same add summon three times in a row and make what was a controllable situation practically impossible
Now, I've 112% the OG hollow knight and beaten true radiance, so I'm not against difficult boss fights. In fact I relish the feeling of learning their moves and patterns after every single death
But when the moves are "ram into wall. Then ram into wall again" it becomes incredibly annoying
Some of the boss fights felt amazing once you start learning their attack patterns, but then others were just... lacking. The savage fly one comes to mind. It wasn't particularly a difficult boss itself. But when it summoned ads, it became a fight around rng. It wasn't a fun fight at all. Felt like the devs realised it was too easy and chucked in ads then left it there.
Separately, why on earth the boss doesn't receive damage for slamming down on the spiky enemy when its spikes are deployed... Missed opportunity!
The Beastfly in the Chapel isn't too bad, since you can leverage its slam to take out any ads, however there is another arena where you fight it again and it spawns flying ads who shoot projectiles which deal double damage AND the boss breaks the platforms you're standing on.
Feels like bullshit fighting against it.
I disagree about the fly that they just wanted to make you die more.
The boss itself is super easy, it has two attacks which are not only easily dodged but also leave a lot of opportunities to attack and move around.
So in essence the boss is a bag with silk to heal or use magic attacks while the real problem you face is using those resources to control the minions it summons.
So yeah if you go with the strategy to kill the boss fast you will suffer but if you act as a hunter to control the fight you will win.
Just my take on this boss after 100+ tries, and do consider it a good and interesting boss fight.
Or you can just rely on luck and brute force.
Don't like it, don't buy it. I'm happy for team cherry and their success. It's not for me but I don't resent them that it isn't. This nothing burger discussion is yet another herring designed to drive clicks and traffic off of the work of people who ACTUALLY create something of worth. Modern parasitism at its best.
Very well said
I think this discussion has more merit when framing this from an ableism viewpoint. Games having accessibility sliders to either slow down puzzles or enemies helps players who have a disability.
A game that comes to mind is Crosscode! You had options that could change the speed and damage for various things in the game. Was nice because sometimes I'd change the settings when I had been stuck and frustrated on a puzzle which made the game far more enjoyable.
skill issue
The main goal of a game is to be fun, not to be a bragging right; even more in a single player game.
If someone, for any reason, prefers a more casual experience, let them have it. On the other hand, if you prefer to brag, go for it and cramp up the difficulty.
There us no point of gating a single player game. Single player games should be accessible for all.
For myself? Definitely! But someone shouldn't be prevented from playing a game because of a disability. Just like how Frostbite engine games have great accessibility options for colour blindness.
yea, that's entirely valid. I love these games (Metroidvanias) because of the exploration and worldbuilding. The combat is a way to advance further into that world, but it's just a means to an end to me. Make it too tough, and you're preventing me from enjoying the parts I like.
I played a good 4 or 5 hours of Silksong so far and loving it. It's a little tough though, and I think it could use a nerf.
I haven't played this yet, so I don't know anything about what difficulty settings it may or may not have But in general, I see difficulty settings as an accessibility feature.
I liked the way that Ender Magnolia did it, where, at a save point, you could adjust several settings to customize the difficulty. I was able to temporarily make it slightly easier just for a few bosses that I lost my patience for.
Mandragora had the exact same difficulty system, you could adjust enemy HP, Damage and even Stamina cost at every bonfire. Great accessibility feature.
I personally think Outer Wilds should give you the whole lore as an audiobook, not everyone wants to go hunting for clues and reading a bunch of old conversations between dead people in order to figure out what's going on...
I mean, an audio book of Outer Wilds would be dope.
as an outer wilds fanatic, i think that would be a great option!
If you're not able to commit to learning new strategies and using game mechanics to adapt to a game's difficulty, and experience it as the developers intended, maybe it's not for you. You can always watch a lore video or let's play by other gamers to get the story if that's the goal. This is Dark Souls 2 all over again, and I will personally say as someone who initially hated it, then gave it another chance; When you persist and triumph through grit, the game leaves a lasting impression and sense of accomplishment that you cheat yourself out of with a difficulty slider. That's my favorite game in the series now, which is a deeply unpopular opinion, unsurprisingly.
This debate pops up every now and then and my opinion remains the same, there are plenty of games that aren't meant to be a challenge to choose from. Part of games that are built to be a challenge is being able to reflect on how far you grew in the process, and people hate to hear it but 'git gud' is a real thing for those who believe things worth doing are hard.
Yeah I think as long as the devs are forward about it no problem. I have plenty of 'hard things' in my day to day life and I'm not looking for more of that in a videogame. Give me a Stardew or Factorio everytime - I want to relax and design things. Different games are for different people and that's a good thing. Any game made to satisfy everyone will almost certainly satisfy no one.
Absolutely, it's important to know what you like and want. Hell, lots of people work off vibes and go through phases where certain game types stimulate them, then fall off of those. Like MMOs and online FPS used to be my main thing, now I stick to single player story driven games. I'm not about to go loudly pout about how Stellaris doesn't work for me and should be changed to appeal specifically to my wants, too busy with other games (and life).
In my opinion, the game is not particularly difficult. That is, if you've played through the original Hollow Knight. Which most people haven't. In fact, it looks to me like a lot of people jumping on the hype don't have too much experience with metroidvanias and soulslikes.
It's a sequel, so intended to be played after the original. Why do we care what people who haven't played the first game think?
It's difficult for me and I like it. I played Hollow Knight but didn't finish it because it was too frustrating late game. Silksong to me is not frustrating because difficulty is mainly in figuring out how to pass the challenge, not doing reflexes which I don't have. Most of the things I heard people complain about are solved by not rushing around with failing strategy but by thinking what the game recently suggested you to do for this particular encounter.
I actually think bringing in Hollow Knight experience aka "I already know everything" might be the reason why some people are frustrated. Like I heard a person who claimed to get all the achievements in HK complain that the second phase of one boss is terrible because they spent a hundred tries to dodge all the projectiles while you can just stand at the corner of the arena where non of them will hit you and use the tools this game gives you to win the fight.
There are mods and cheats for this game already—and they even run on Linux. I turn 50 next month: though I'm still playing, I don't have as much time for gaming as I used to and my reflexes aren't what they were. I haven't entirely removed the challenge with mods, but I feel no shame in tweaking this game to go easier on me and chew up less of my time as punishment for failure. I wish they had these as accessibility options built-in, but I'm fine with hacking it.
Anybody telling me I should "git gud" can pound sand: I'm already good at a bunch of things that get me a paycheck. I play games so I can relax and be terrible at something for fun. I'm certainly not playing for bragging rights.
I think this game is not for you then.Harfd games are hard so that you can feelproufd of yourself after completing something hardet than you though you could. You may not complete the story but if you "git gud" you may actually enjoy it more.
Some games are not meant to be relaxing. Why would you even play a hard game if you want something easy?
I'm very provoced by this. Sorry.
Difficulty is subjective. Creating multiple levels of difficulty either takes tremendous effort to do well or, as is the case with most games, an adjustment to some numbers that is less an increase/decrease in difficulty and more an increase/decrease to the tediousness of combat.
Puzzle games with difficulty settings alter the complexity of the puzzles. Action games can alter the encounters themselves (how many, of what kind of enemies and their placement in the arena), or even changing the enemy behavior to be more/less complex. Yet this kind of difficulty adjustment isn't common at all anymore.
I think the game is difficult, probably a bit more difficult than the first game (which I haven't played in over 5 years, so I might be wildly off), but I don't find it unreasonable.
I know a lot of the time it's my fault that I died, because I'm someone who likes to trade damage with enemies, which just isn't really possible in this game, but I can't stop doing it.
As for runbacks, I think there are a few weird ones, that can be terrible, depending on if you found/unlocked the nearest bench, but otherwise I don't remember anything truly awful.
A high difficulty is not inherently good game design. Making a game more approachable through lower difficulty settings with additional checkpoints doesn't make it worse for people who like a challenge. It just makes it enjoyable to more people.
Claiming it's down to "artistic vision" just feels dishonest. You could claim Studio Ghibli movies should never be dubbed or subbed. You just have to learn Japanese to enjoy them, just don't watch them if that's not for you... but why? How is it a bad thing if more people can enjoy something?
Cup Head is a great example. It's a fantastic game with an art style that younger kids love. But it's too difficult for most kids, which doesn't make the game better, it just locks them out from a game they'd otherwise love.
Studio Ghibli movies should never be dubbed or subbed. You just have to learn Japanese to enjoy them, just don't watch them if that's not for you...
I feel this is a false equivalence.
If you wanted to make a movie analogy, I'd say it's more like a movie having subtle subtext or context which would make it's message or intent more difficult to comprehend.
Imagine if someone watched The Cabin in the Woods (satire movie about horror movies) and said it was a bad movie because it wasn't scary.
I think its fair to say that person would have low film literacy at least.
How do we compensate for that? Should movies start offering accessibility features so every viewer can have the ability to know foreshadowing, film cliches, or meta-narrative devices?
I feel like giving viewers an option before a movie to say "i have low media literacy", which would result in popups during the movie to say "hey, this is a callback to the Hellraiser franchise" would be insulting to the creators.
The film wasn't made for casual movie viewers, it was made for a specific audience. The creators aren't obliged to make it more easily digestible.
Edit:
Satire falls apart when it's spoon fed.
If difficulty is part of the games design, then reducing it is functionally similar to explicitly stating irony to a viewer.
Cabin in the woods was a satire movie???? I like the movie...
But The Cabin In The Woods is exactly what I'm talking about. A product with mass appeal that still caters to a small group of people. Much like Paul Verhovens old movies. You can watch them as dumb action or social criticism.
And movies have several accessibility features. Things like subtitles, which often translate cultural references or jokes that don't directly translate to viewers from foreign countries. Descriptive audio tracks for visually impaired, directors commentary to learn things behind the scenes. Many services and devices also allow you to even out dynamics and enhance speech.
The problem with games that have a too high difficulty threshold isn't that you're missing out on some hidden subtext. It's that you will never get to see 70% of the game, for absolutely no good reason.
Cuphead is such a good example of this, according to xbox achievement stats 31% never made it past the first part of the game, 72% never got to the end of the game.
Is it not fair for the game developers’ artistic vision to not be accessible to all? Accessibility is nice, expands the potential audience, but if it compromises my artistic vision and I’m ok with giving up reach and money to preserve it, that doesn’t make my game bad or my vision invalid.
It would be ridiculous to call up the bar or the ama and complain to them that becoming a lawyer or a doctor is not accessible to all.
One last addition, adding control remapping, color options, and text to speech are true accessibility. Easy mode is fake accessibility
Easy mode is not fake accessibility. Celeste has the correct idea in allowing players adjust the difficulty for accessibility purposes. Not everyone has the same reaction speed, same cognitive abilities, same eyesight. There are people who can only use one hand and that automatically makes reacting to attacks many times harder, should they be excluded from being able to enjoy the game because they are not physically capable enough for the boss fights? And boss fights are probably 5% of the game anyway!
Why everything should be for everybody? And why artists should care about your opikion when they are creating what they want to create.
Cup head is great example. Everything in the game is meticiusly hand crafted. The big part why its so popular is the difficulty that forces you to focus on the aninations and sprites. The difficulty also is economical in game as labor intensive as cup head. Because every sprite was hand drawn devs could not just churn unlimited levels and the games lenght came from the difficulty. Making the game easy would ruin the pacing of the game.
Games are art form like any other. There are mainstream movies, plays, songs, paintings and games etc etc etc. that try to reach as large audience as they can. But there is also obscure art pieces that only small group of people can enjoy. And both ways are fine
I find it obnoxious when people removed about desing choices that devs have consciously made. Its not like they have any obligations to make a game in one way or another.
Cuphead is a throwback in every sense. Making it easy would just make it a throwaway game that is seen once and never again.
Following up on this, I think the studio ghibli is a good example of where community adding accessibility in the form of mods or cheats (or fan subs or dubs in the case of ghibli)
Yes, community mods that add accessibility options are great. But unfortunately they're generally limited to certain platforms.
A tale as old as time, the more things change the more they stay the same.
So glad they fixed the slow/boring difficulty curve the first game had. I shouldn't need to slog through 20 hours of gameplay before I feel challenged.
Binged it all weekend, it's a great game, but folks whining about some of the game's earlier challenges are unlikely to finish it.
Silksong sparks debate about git gud and scrub
I dont think there is any conversation to be had about an easy mode or boss runbacks. Any time this small dev team spends on an easy mode is time wasted IMO.
If its to hard you can play another game. I see this the same as people demanding a complex movie be changed to be easier to understand. Its just a dumb complaint and im sick of seeing these people flood every comment section of every slightly challenging game.
The difference between "I don't like this" and "this is bad" is too often overlooked
I’m ok with there being a conversation on this topic, even if the arguments devolve to ‘waaah’ vs. ‘git gud’.
Ultimately though, I agree that a small dev team shouldn’t have to focus on a game-mode outside their vision - and any such demand for an easy-mode or other additions can and should be left up to mod makers.
It’s a single-player game, so in the end how the individual user wants to play is how they should be able to play.
They’re saying your taste in games isn’t valid and shouldn’t be catered for. Instead, theirs should be in every case.
I haven't played Silksong yet, in part because truthfully, Hollow Knight was alright but not my favorite Metroidvania. The one thing I really disliked about the original was the runbacks. I remember getting stuck on one platforming section, and I could easily get to the halfway point where I kept dying to retrieve my money, but then drop it again because there was no turning back from this halfway point, had to keep trying to finish it. I wanted to just explore a different part of the map and come back to this section later, but sunk cost fallacy forced me to keep bashing my skull against it.
Which then felt like this mechanic conflicted with the exploration I expect from a Metroidvania. That's the real problem IMO.
You yourself admit it's a fallacy! This isn't exactly a "skill issue" situation, but in future efforts on these kind of games you might try being more thoughtful about when to take a break and spend accumulated currency.
Although as others have pointed out elsewhere in the thread, learning to accept not retrieving your stuff is sometimes necessary too. I lost around 1500 at a certain boss by getting too cocky trying to fight enemies on the runback instead of skipping them, and it took me a while to make peace with it lol.
If you do end up playing Silksong you should know that there is a mechanic specifically addressing this, where you can convert your currency into consumable items at a bit of a loss to keep them across deaths.
I don't mind difficult games. I recognise that they exist as a kind of pushback against mobile games and casual games that have risen in popularity. I don't mind that they exist. Likewise, I strongly believe that gaming is for everybody, but not every game has to be for everybody.
I think it's perfectly fine, though, to ask the question: if the game — any hard game, to include the Dark Souls game and its spinoffs (e.g. Elden Ring) and knockoffs (e.g. Breath of the Wild) — had an easy mode, where virtually anyone could win it eventually, would that truly make the game less fun for people who like hard games? What if the game were hard by default, and easy mode cost $5 extra? That way, you would never be presented with the option, but those who want it can get it for a slight upcharge. (Maybe less on a $20 game, I'm thinking the $5 would be for a $70 game.) Case in point: Final Fantasy XV was never hard. But for 49¢, you could buy a "DLC"/"mod" that made gas cost half — 5 gil instead of 10 for any fill-up — and also made hotels (which give a big XP buff) half price. So one early-game strategy was equipping a ring that would not pay out experience when you camp, and saving your XP (which is normally paid out every time you sleep) until you could afford a room at the XP-doubling Galden Quay resort hotel, gaining you several levels by then. With the DLC/mod, you could afford it much sooner, and you could actually do it a few times, setting you up for later parts of the game. It wasn't an easy mode, but it did soften the grind a bit, and it wasn't presented as an option in the game. You kinda had to know about it and go look for it.
I actually think there's something to that. Making a game and selling parts of it never really goes down well with players. But most players can't beat hard games. So what if instead of new games being $70 or $80, they were $50 or $60 still, but people who want help can buy things that will make the game easier. Let those players subsidize the ones who are good enough to beat it without them, incentivising them to get better. Ideally, to get better at that game so they uninstall the helpers, beat it without them, then when the next one comes out, they're ready.
I don't hate hard games. But I'm not going to pay for them. If they make their money off people who have that much time on their hands, that's fine. It's a sound business decision. But I also think a game can't say "we wish we made more money" while intentionally excluding players who maybe have full-time jobs, families, or other valid reasons to not learn the perfect button combinations and ultra-precise timing some of these games require. I think if they could find a way to include those players while not putting off their base, they'd have a winning solution on their hands. And no, we're not gonna quit our jobs or neglect our families to "git gud" like we live with our parents and are half our age.
I agree with most of it, except I think it's fine for developers to make a hard (or very hard game) if that's their vision. Not every games is for everyone. And if developers are fine with targeting just a niche, there is no issue with it.
That being said, I do have issue with players / gamers saying there should be no easy mode. Adding an easy mode doesn't take away anything for anyone who isn't playing easy mode. All it takes away is their ability to brag that they finished a game half the people can't finish. There are ways for developers to handle even that. Give some special achievement or something for those who finish on non-easy mode, but that's again up to developers, and I am fine if there isn't one.
Rockband was a good example of achievement-gating the higher difficulties. You got an achievement for beating the game on Medium, Hard, or Expert. And doing it on one of the two higher ones would unlock the ones below if you didn't already do it on those difficulties. So if you were good enough to beat it on Expert, you got three or four achievements. Now I know you're probably thinking "wait how do you beat Rockband"? By completing the Endless Setlist, which is unlocked when you beat the story mode. The story mode just unlocked the higher tiers of difficulty. The Endless Setlist was all the songs. Six hours and 20 minutes minimum. Oh, and when I said "three or four achievements"? The fourth one is if you do it without pausing or failing (at any difficulty Medium or higher). That one was called the "Bladder of Steel Award." Yes, I own it. You food prep in advance, you do it on vocals, and you time your bathroom breaks very carefully (and drop a deuce in advance as well). But those three achievements for beating it at difficulty? Those are per instrument. I only have the gold (expert) vocals award. I may have the bronze (medium) bass award, but I never got any for guitar or drums.
That's just one example of difficulty and incentives. I like how Deus Ex 1 did it, too. On Easy, you did more damage and took less. On Hard, you did less and took more. On Medium, it was balanced. On Realistic... everyone takes more. That was how I played. I wasn't getting hit. I played a sniper. Even on Easy it was hard to one-shot enemies with a good gun and a headshot. For some reason that didn't kill them. On Realistic, a shot to center mass with my .30-06 will drop any human enemy. A shot to the head will drop the augmented ones. So that's how I play... played. It's not on Xbox and it's not on the Mac. My Mac can run it through Whisky, but I haven't played much more than parts of the first level, so I'm not sure what the compatibility looks like later.
I don't mind difficult games. I recognise that they exist as a kind of pushback against mobile games and casual games that have risen in popularity
You got that backwards: difficult games are as old as arcades. If anything, casual games exist as pushback against difficult games, not the other way around.
Yes indeed, when arcade games were the norm devs specifically designed for absurd difficulty ramp ups and cheap deaths to finagle another quarter out of you.
I grew up with Atari and the NES. I think it's actually both ways. I don't think casual games were ever really a pushback against difficult games though, I think they were just trying to reach a wider audience. Take Subway Surfers for example, it's probably the best example of the casual (phone) game. Anyone can pick up and play it, and if you fail, you just start over. IIRC you had to watch an ad first though? I dunno, I got hooked on it and I bought the coin doubler for $5 which also removed the mandatory ads (not the ones you can opt to watch to double some prizes or open ad-gated prize boxes though). That's all I ever paid for it — far less than any paid game. Of course you can't "win" at it either, it just goes on forever. On consoles, you also have Animal Crossing and the like. Games that never end but you can't lose, either. Like you can get stung by wasps or scorpions or bit by tarantulas (though the latter two encounters are rare), but you just pass out and wake up in front of your house with nothing lost. But no, I don't think casual (e.g. Animal Crossing) or accessible (e.g. Subway Surfers) was an active "push back" against the "NES Hard" trend of hard gaming.
Of course, arcade games weren't just hard to be hard — like Subway Surfers and other phone games, they exist to get you to spend money. An arcade game that isn't generating revenue isn't desirable to people who operate arcades.
The game was designed for people to have played the first one first. I think the difficulty curve works best if you consider Silksong as a direct continuation of the first game, picking off where the main story left off rather than the extra challenges they added through updates like godhome.
glad poe 2 added sprinting
Tangentially related but I agree. It makes the long run through sections of the campaign more bearable.
On a more related note, POE2 has checkpoints practically on top of the bosses during the story so you can bash your head against it as much as you want. The only time you're punished for dying is endgame bosses.
yea agreed. in general though our attitudes with gaming have changed due to how many titles are available (over abundance) and the history of gaming, etc. we’ve become spoiled in ways. there needs to be a ‘penalty’ of sorts to encourage trial and error growth. get some true dopamine overcoming a trial.
there’s a place for all types of games and difficulties though. let the artists create their vision.
Once you
, none of this is even a problem. You can jump and glide over any normal enemy in the game back to a boss room in about two to three minutes.
Every game should have difficulty settings, the more, the better.
That goes for indi darlings too.
And all music should be under three minutes long. Every book should have page numbers. Photographers should have familiar subjects. Paintings should have a full explanation by the artist telling you exactly what they meant to communicate. /s
If the game isn't for you, just move along. There are tons of games out there.
are you aware of the meaning of the word "setting" in this context?
Just in case I can explain:
It means you can switch something from one behaviour or effect to another, basically giving you a choice of how something should work.
So, adding a difficulty setting changes nothing about your experience of the game.
do you need more words to explain this simple thing?
I can try to use simple language and shorter sentences if you require it?
In this thread: people complaining who are apparently bad at game mechanics and can't or won't learn to improve.
Just beat Widow second attempt.
The run back has you start on one screen, traverse two screens, and done. I got as high as 12 Mississippi counting during it.
So far I have only found two or so runbacks that really bothered me. One is THAT BOSS (TLJ...) which isn't actually too bad (once you figure out the safe path) but a single missed jump or tag by an enemy is 2 masks of damage. So just spend all your souls ahead of time and if you flub, end it all and respawn.
The other is a much earlier boss in Widow (?). The runback is actually zero danger and just a matter of holding R2 and running. My big issue is that there is an elevator right next to the bench. So you start the sprint back because you want to get it right this time and slam into a cage and have to wait for it to reach the top then hop back in to get back down and it just feels horrible.
But yeah. I actually like a good runback as a way to reset your brain and avoid getting on tilt against a boss. Elden Ring very much spoiled people by putting the bonfire right outside the fogwall for effectively every single boss and it just leads to making the same mistake over and over again until you warp away to do something else. But Silksong's balance is definitely rough.
People have nothing better to do than complain, I suppose. Don’t like the game? Don’t play it. The game is good, imo.
The game screams passion and devs spend seven years making it the way they like it. It is also a dirt cheap.
Critisism is fair and everybody has right for opininion. My opinion is that people who are removed about the boss runs can shove it up to theirs.
Don't coddle whiners, make them git gud or get out.
git gud
Why are these side scrollers premium price?? Seems like such a cash grab. That’s why franchises are going backwards into side scrollers, easy money, i avoid them
Kids crying because a game is not a walkthrough? Maybe they should play something more suitable for their age group.
Why people resort to insulting anyone who criticizes things they like
It's not about me liking it or not. I don't even have that game. The point is that one should play games fitting ones abilities. There are people who will master this game, like I mastered Elite about forty years ago. Complaining about a game being difficult is either they overestimated their abilities, or they lack perseverance.
For the rest, there is always tictactoe or animal crossing.
Seems to me it’s usually “kids” that don’t mind difficult games. I’m in my 40s and I don’t have the time or inclination anymore to replay a boss for hours on end, but when I was younger I loved a challenge like that and would usually set difficulty to hard.
A lot of comments tying runbacks to difficulty, when they have nothing to do with each other. I haven't playing silksong but I played about half of the original and uninstalled it, despite the fact it is so many people's favorite metroidvania and metroidvania is one of my favorite genres.
Not putting checkpoints close to boss fights is not difficulty. It is disrespectful of the player's time, which is a problem hollow Knight was full of.
I liked Hollow Knight, but yes, it kind of was. Frequent destinations were far away from fast travel, and there was a low level area that they transformed into a high level area later in the game specifically so that crossing the map wouldn't be a cake walk. I'd argue that earning the power to make an area like that into a cake walk is a core part of the fun.
Hollow knight had a custom fast travel option in late game. You could place a dreamgate almost anywhere and just zwoop to it.
You're pointing a finger at the Soulslike genre here, not only HK. Some games may abandon it, but this is common enough to be called a genre stable.
Just like the "hit hit, dodge/parry, hit hit" combat pattern, losing/recovering currency, enemies respawning on bonfire use… etc.
I think this whole genre is wack, TBH. I don't even find it difficult, I just think what they test is perseverance in the face of misery and tediousness, which's a bizarre thing to test in a video game. It's almost as if it's straight up telling you: this is a serious video game, no room for fun here.
Meanwhile, Ninja Gaiden proved you can simultaneously have extreme difficulty AND fun like one million years ago.
It's true that I'd prefer it in no games, but it's also less frustrating in straight soulslikes. The problem with HK is that it is a synthesis of metroidvania and soulslikes in the most time-disrespecting ways possible. Really most of my frustrations are with map design, and then they add not getting maps until you find the map guy (in samey environments I can't remember well enough without a map).
What made me put it down was playing for an hour going through multiple zones without finding either a map guy or a bench somehow then dying. I'm pretty sure just being able to see the map would have been enough to keep me playing.
For this new fangled soulsvania genre there are numerous better entries that I thoroughly enjoyed. Ender Lilies and Blasphemus are the first 2 that come to mind.
To be fair Ninja Gaiden Black did also have boss runbacks. It's one of a handful of small complaints I have about what is otherwise a very close to perfect game (Chapter 9 in the military base being one of the others).
But NG2 did have boss checkpoints, yes, and was much better for it. Even the notoriously player-challenging Itagaki realised after one game that boss runbacks sucked, and this was in 2008 - Demon Souls wasn't even out.
Agreed. I'm not sure why I would waste my time with shit like this when it's just objectively not fun for me to play.
Different strokes for different folks, so if you like it more power to you, but I'd rather play games that are fun to play for me.
I only have a certain amount of time to play video games, and if I can't make any progress at all in an hour or two, why would I bother continuing when an hour or two is usually all I have in a day to play your game?
I've decided not to bother picking up silksong because I found HK tedious, frustrating, and unrewarding.
I played some Elden Ring and as I recall there were check points next to the bosses.
Ender's Lilies is a metroidvania listed as a soulslike and always has a check point next to the boss room (highly recommend it btw).
You can make the case that it's not a fun use of our time but how is it not tied to difficulty? Being able to get to the boss with enough health or consummables is certainly part of the intended challenge.
I haven't played silksong, but most games like Dark Souls and the like, getting back to the boss without taking damage is pretty easy. It's not difficulty, it's just time.
I'll admit I don't even remember doing runbacks in hollow Knight (or even having to fight any boss in the part of the game I played more than one or twice), but in other games where you have to run to the boss you normally just run past everything without fighting it and go into the boss with full resources. No challenge - just running past everything, which not only wastes time but also totally breaks immersion for me.
In any case, my overall discontent is with all the time wasting added together than any specific thing.
I'm not really used to metroidvanias having runbacks honestly. Most I've played either have save points close to the bosses or just drop you outside the boss room if you die.
I never actually liked FromSoft’s themselves, but several Soulslikes I really enjoyed did away with runbacks, or always had checkpoints right before bosses.
I really just want people to start evaluating each design decision Dark Souls made on its own - stop worshipping the whole as being perfect, because it most definitely is not. So many of the knowledge checks (poise, anyone?) are just there for experienced players to lord over confused shrubs.
My partner loved that aspect of the game. Each to their own, that's why it's good games have differences.
I wouldn’t mind checkpoints before the boss even if it’s not a bench and more of a “retry” option.
But the annoyance of run backs raises the stakes of the fight a bit. Like, “Please let me win this time so I don’t have to do another run back.”
But I was annoyed at a particular fight that started without warning and I had not really explored the new area yet, so I didn’t have a chance to find a closer bench.
I disagree, runbacks are as much difficulty as having to recover your currency after death, or even having to recover your items after dying in Minecraft. It's a punishment for dying, and a way to make you treat it seriously.
It can incentivise the wrong things, punish experimentation and make players stick with what they know, even if better options exist. You're free to dislike it, and it has downsides, but dismissing it as "not difficulty" is just dishonest.
The crystal boss that you first encounter sitting on the save bench though, that's was just evil 😆
disagree. they are related and absolutely add to the difficulty of learning how to beat a new boss. it’s way easier to develop a strategy and muscle memory if you can retry the boss fight as soon as possible without having to redo other sections of the game first.
I disagree. Having a slight forced intermission between attempts both gives me pause to reflect on what I needed to do better, and presents a risk of not making it back to my death point, which keeps me mindful.
I like Silksong's runbacks a lot more than I've liked the ones in 3d soulslikes though. In Dark Souls for example the risk of losing your corpse felt really high, whereas in Silksong you very often have either a gate that unlocks a quicker route back, or a clever acrobatic solution that reliably avoids all the enemies.
Have you considered that the run back is trying to tell you something? The game doesn't want you to bash your face against the same enemy the same way. It may not even want you to fight that boss yet at all.
The run back is meant to be an incentive to think about your options. Do I have other areas to explore? What do I keep dying to? Am I overlooking an obvious weakness during a particular boss mechanic, or am I not using an ability as effectively as I could be to stay alive?
If you let the player immediately run back into a boss, they will veg out and do just that until they eventually get lucky and barely down a boss by the skin of their teeth. But that's not how you should be approaching these fights.
Sometimes the most productive run back even involves a good night's rest.
I agree with this argument in Dark Souls. It isn't quite the same in Silksong though. Upgrades are very limited. You can't just swap weapons and go farm upgrades for it. You have one weapon and can't upgrade until a few hours into the game, and after the one you can't upgrade again until some future point. Health and silk upgrades are also incredibly limited, and you ability upgrade slots are equally limited.
In DS/Elden Ring, you're supposed to go explore and spend your souls on upgrades. I'm Silksong there are very few real combat upgrades to be purchased. You can't just level up or upgrade weapons to get more powerful.
Would be a lot more effective if I didn't have to go pick up my shade. Which often can't be accessed without locking yourself into the fight again.
The other day, I fought the boss of the abyss in the dark souls 1 dlc. It took me 5ish attempts, and I changed my gear to have more magic resist after I got further in the fight and got merked by magic attacks. All spending 2 minutes between each attempt running back to the fog gate did was make me zone out and wish I could just get right back to it.
Btw, the original runback was mega man, where you get to try the boss until you run out of lives then you have to do the entire level again. Still way more interesting than running past everything in souls games.