This game is proof for how soft trophy hunters have become in recent times.

[Lordidude]

On ‎21‎.‎08‎.‎2020 at 6:40 PM, ThatMuttGuy said:

I've seen many people claim they wouldn't play this game because of the trophies, or that they hate the devs for putting this trophy in the game. I have to say, shame on them for passing on such a fun game for such a shallow reason. It's even funnier as most of the people claiming they're skipping it don't even have near perfect completion rates (not that there's anything wrong with that, just look at mine lol). People just see a bit of challenge and cry about it, instead of taking the time to get good at a game until they can earn the trophy. 

 

This is a very weak strawman argument.

People aren't crying because it's a challenge. People are crying because it's not only a lot of RNG involved it's deliberately designed this way by the developpers.

Add to that they are mocking part of their demographic - whatever you think of it it's at least questionable PR.

[WeissRat]

For me i have no problems with not getting trophies... It makes getting the ones i struggle for even more enjoyable.

If people want to moan and whine about trophies let them. We all have ways of dealing with annoyance. 

On the bright side.. Least it is actually possible to get and not broken... 

 

[ThatMuttGuy]

21 minutes ago, Lordidude said:

 

This is a very weak strawman argument.

People aren't crying because it's a challenge. People are crying because it's not only a lot of RNG involved it's deliberately designed this way by the developpers.

Add to that they are mocking part of their demographic - whatever you think of it it's at least questionable PR.

 

It is a challenge, and people are upset because they aren't good enough to do 5 in a row, exploit or no. 

 

I've done it multiple times already. If you're skilled at the game, luck has nothing to do with it. 

[Dreakon13]

There's definitely a semblance of "wanting something for nothing" in people these days.  In all walks of life, but gaming/trophies included.

 

The more games give out easy plats, the less people will understand why some games have harder ones.  Maybe even ones they consider unreasonable.

 

 

14 minutes ago, DeadNeka said:

If people want to moan and whine about trophies let them. We all have ways of dealing with annoyance. 

 

TBH, I would agree if it were just venting.  But most of the whining and moaning you see out of gamers these days are basically virtual petitions demanding change, where every social media post is another signature and a PR hellstorm awaits the devs who don't give in.  Not saying that's the case with this Infallable trophy (yet?) but it's a fine line we walk these days.

[Rias Gremory]

Getting Infallible trophy with 5 wins in a row isn't worth it.

[AJ_Radio]

6 hours ago, dieselmanchild said:

It’s not like this is a really popular singleplayer game or some huge AAA release that people might really want to play and platinum for whatever reason (not those are appropriate conditions for whining about trophies, but just saying). This is a 100% online, MMO style of. game which you should have expected to have a shitty trophy list to begin with. Most of these fully online type of games do! And it’s for this reason that I had zero interest in this game, or in adding this game to my profile.

 

I stopped playing MMOs after Runescape and World of Warcraft practically drained my life. But in addition to having a shitty trophy list, you have to deal with a shitty online community.

 

Grand Theft Auto V comes to mind when I think of a piece of shit online community, even if the game isn't a MMO.

 

I will probably never add anything that is 100 percent online.... because I can't stand a lot of people in general anymore.

 

6 hours ago, dieselmanchild said:

I think this entitled attitude you’re seeing from trophy hunters more and more these days is a direct consequence of the “E Z plat” era of trophy hunting we’re living in. People are so used to collecting fast, easy platinums with no effort required, that now there is a big resistance every time a game presents them with any sort of challenge.

 

Funny how times change. I was a kid who played some pretty hard NES and Sega Genesis titles. No saves, no continues, not even a code. Just keep playing until you get better.

 

Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus is a good example of how resistant people are to hard trophy lists. People took Mein Leben far too seriously, and even if a few stop at 98 percent who freaking cares?

 

Reminds me of the shit kids and young adults play on their iPads and Androids. Those mobile games that just hand them free shit, basically participation trophies. Now that has spilled over into console gaming.

 

6 hours ago, dieselmanchild said:

It’s starting to set a really pathetic precedent too. Just look at the TLoU2 example we saw recently where the “challenging” trophies added to the game (Grounded/Permadeath) came with the ability to use accessibility options so that everyone was able to get those trophies. What the fuck is that about?!

 

I think I can understand where they're coming from. Horizon Zero Dawn, Far Cry 5, Marvel's Spider-Man and Days Gone all have a tacked on New Game Plus mode that does absolutely nothing but put more padding on the games. When I did Marvel's Spider-Man it was basically a chore because I was skipping every cutscene and doing the exact same things as I did on my first playthrough.

 

That is just lazy design. The Last of Us Part II having to add grounded/permadeth mode is sort of how western developers do it. Cheap and uninspired ideas.

 

1 hour ago, TurtlePM said:

However, I absolutely agree that people shouldn't be extreme, insulting developers and create petitions to change anything. They have to accept the list as it is, they don't like it, they don't have to play it.

If people accept and respect this, nobody should also judge a person for not starting the game.

 

This got tossed out the window a few years ago.

 

The entitlement really annoys me sometimes.

[Dreakon13]

53 minutes ago, Lordidude said:

People are crying because it's not only a lot of RNG involved it's deliberately designed this way by the developpers.

 

What is the crying meant to solve exactly though?  If the devs changed it, would they feel better because they got the plat?  Or would they feel worse because they got the plat with a big asterisk attached to it, because they literally had the game changed and the plat handed to them?  Maybe it would be time better spent earning the trophy as intended (which tbh you would just earn through naturally playing eventually if you're capable of winning, which it seems many people are, just not 5 consecutively very easily)... or just not playing the game if it bothers them enough.

 

While it should be a devs goal to make their customers happy, opinions on games are subjective and people need to understand that not all games have to be "fixed" to their personal tastes or abilities.

 

EDIT: And the majority of the "luck" in the game boils down to the online element and the unpredictability of other human players, which is the single most key component of the game.  It's not really an RNG.

Edited August 24, 2020 by Dreakon13

[Lonemankane]

I think the fact this topic is up is kind of pointless, I mean more power to you, you think this is good and all and there is people out there who want it gone and or don't like it and so on I mean does it make you loses sleep because someone does not want to play this game because of a trophy? I mean even if they removed it or made it more easy who cares.

 

Just enjoy the game. I mean I hatred the idea of the mein labin mode in wolf 2 because it is not a fair challenge it kills you in unfair ways and you have to use glitches to make your life a lot better along with having luck on your side. there is no skill in the game as your dealing with how unfair it is. Fall guys from what I can see is not just skill but luck as well, it is not just skill luck always plays in it in a game like this.

 

I am all for people enjoying what ever game they enjoy just do what you like. I mean I hate unfair modes in games always has pissed me off as I much rather have fair modes such as ones you see in devil may cry or rage 1

Edited August 24, 2020 by KANERKB

[AJ_Radio]

21 minutes ago, Dreakon13 said:

While it should be a devs goal to make their customers happy, opinions on games are subjective and people need to understand that not all games have to be "fixed" to their personal tastes or abilities.

 

Tell that to the people who freaked the fuck out over The Last Us Part II leak back in April this year.

 

I wish these guys would go back to 20 years ago and see how difficult games were in general. Not only were N64 games more expensive, if they were buggy people were stuck with them!

 

Sometimes I just hate this generation of gamers. One reason why I very rarely if at all, play any online.

[Lordidude]

37 minutes ago, Dreakon13 said:

While it should be a devs goal to make their customers happy, opinions on games are subjective and people need to understand that not all games have to be "fixed" to their personal tastes or abilities.

 

EDIT: And the majority of the "luck" in the game boils down to the online element and the unpredictability of other human players, which is the single most key component of the game.  It's not really an RNG.

 

It's not about bending towards the customers wishes at any cost. They have deliberately made trophy really hard and mocked the trophy hunting community when questioned about it.

This is a really good reason to actually not support a video game.

 

Remember all the games who have had horrible backlashes due to lootboxes or the Battlefront scandal?
Of course you can always say "it's possible to get them without paying! Just be good at the game and earn a lot of credits".

 

55 minutes ago, ThatMuttGuy said:

 

It is a challenge, and people are upset because they aren't good enough to do 5 in a row, exploit or no. 

 

I've done it multiple times already. If you're skilled at the game, luck has nothing to do with it. 

 

They aren't upset because they 'aren't good enough'.

This is entirely missing the point and a very weak strawman.

[Dreakon13]

10 minutes ago, Lordidude said:

 

It's not about bending towards the customers wishes at any cost. They have deliberately made trophy really hard and mocked the trophy hunting community when questioned about it.

This is a really good reason to actually not support a video game.

 

Remember all the games who have had horrible backlashes due to lootboxes or the Battlefront scandal?
Of course you can always say "it's possible to get them without paying! Just be good at the game and earn a lot of credits".

 

 

For one, no one is making you support the game if you don't like parts of it.  But there's a difference between not supporting the game (not buying it, not playing it, playing something else)... and coming online to protest against it.  The latter is gamers trying to "bend the game to their wishes" more often than not, which isn't right IMO.  Not every game will work out for you.  C'est la vie.  If you like it, play it... if you don't, don't.

 

And two, there's a difference between difficult trophies and greedy microtransaction practices.  Namely that there's money involved.  One is just annoying, relatively easy to move on from... the other exploitative and can hurt people (albeit naive people that need to be protected from themselves) financially.

Edited August 24, 2020 by Dreakon13

[ThatMuttGuy]

6 minutes ago, Lordidude said:

They aren't upset because they 'aren't good enough'.

This is entirely missing the point and a very weak strawman.

 

Not really, as it's the whole crux of the debate. If people had the skill to get consistent wins, people wouldn't be crying over this trophy. It's a difficult trophy without the exploit, but it's entirely doable if you're halfway decent at platformers. It make take some time, but it's certainly not impossible by any means. 

 

Also, not relevant to your post, but I need to bring it up here. A lot of people have missed the point of my topic. You can skip games you don't want to play for any reason, which is completely valid. However, this topic is in response to people berating the devs for putting in a trophy and harassing them for it. Those kinds of people are the reason for this topic's creation. 

[AJ_Radio]

5 minutes ago, ThatMuttGuy said:

Also, not relevant to your post, but I need to bring it up here. A lot of people have missed the point of my topic. You can skip games you don't want to play for any reason, which is completely valid. However, this topic is in response to people berating the devs for putting in a trophy and harassing them for it. Those kinds of people are the reason for this topic's creation. 

 

Case in point, the very guy you're responding to.

[Lordidude]

12 minutes ago, ThatMuttGuy said:

 

Not really, as it's the whole crux of the debate. If people had the skill to get consistent wins, people wouldn't be crying over this trophy. It's a difficult trophy without the exploit, but it's entirely doable if you're halfway decent at platformers. It make take some time, but it's certainly not impossible by any means. 

 

You can play as perfectly as you want and still lose in one of the team games without being able to do anything about that.

People compare it to RL and I think that is fair.

 

If you would have to get 5 wins in a row in Rocket League no one would care because it's doable with pure skill.

Fall Guys is skill + too much RNG for a trophy like that. Whoever programmed it knew that and this is the reason they made fun of this community.

[sepheroithisgod]

What a nasty topic, trying to shame people that don't want to deal with the stress that comes with infallible.

 

While I agree that this is a fun game and people are missing out, you are outright wrong to think this is 100% skill-based. It's much more along the lines of 50% skill and luck. You cannot carry your team in the majority of team games, Jinxed, team tail grab, hoarders, etc. (Maybe its different in a full squad but not as a solo player)

 

What's more ironic about the whole situation is that we do not have a stats page because they do not want to create stress/anxiety over them, but they still added a trophy for winning 5 games in a row...its pretty contradictory.

Edited August 24, 2020 by sepheroithisgod

[MikeCheck--]

2 hours ago, BloodyRutz said:

 

Whether you like it or not, the way others play games, especially when it's influencing their decision to buy or not to buy a game, is directly impacting the video game industry hence you as a gamer. we've stepped into a war with the Cabal on Mars

 

 

[Herbalistiikka]

2 hours ago, Lordidude said:

Add to that they are mocking part of their demographic - whatever you think of it it's at least questionable PR.

 

There are bazillion trophies out there that are just outright ridiculous in terms of grind and all that (Star Ocean 4 or White Knight Chronicles for example) it's kind of funny that this trophy here is something that was supposedly the last straw. On the other side of things some developers HATE achievements and when they're forced to put them in anyway they just throw something random (Tobyfox and Keita Takahashi are at least some that have done this) and at least in the former's case he just made the trophies piss easy instead of actual challenge. But hey, that's a freebie platinum for those hardcore players out there so they can skip out on all the actual challenge because it doesn't reward them with a bling. Anything for useless pixel pop-up dopamine, lol. So is it really any different?

 

Ultimately though, those trophy hunters that are just seething so hard that they don't want to play a game or complain about the trophy are in the hundreds at best. I mean this game has had 16 million players already on PS4.

[thefourfoldroot]

On 22/08/2020 at 0:05 PM, TheSleepyBeauty said:

Thats why I miss the old PS2 days where trophies didn't existed. At the end of the day though no one's really going to care that you have the Platinum and if they do than they really need to get a life. At this point it's hard for people to enjoy games when their so focus on getting the platinum. I've been that trophy hunter before and all it leads to is depression. Honesty, I was burnt out, tire and depressed when I had to force myself to get trophies. Let them starve themselves trying to get this platinum. Me, I'm just enjoying the game trying to get all legendary skins and even that doesn't involve a trophy lol. 

I find this has only been an issue for completionists For most of us, trophy challenges add fun, and the second it stops being fun to go for that challenge we stop. That’s why my completionist ranking hovers around 40%, because I don’t “force myself to get trophies”

[Property_Damage]

Heard this game might be coming to the switch

thats when and where ill probably play this game

where i can play without worrying about stupid trophies and achievements and just have fun with it

[SeedersPhD]

4 hours ago, Spaz said:

I wish these guys would go back to 20 years ago and see how difficult games were in general. Not only were N64 games more expensive, if they were buggy people were stuck with them!

 

M8, games weren't that much harder back in the older generations, you were just younger. The only real difference between then and now is that we've evolved past the need for lives because they're an antiquated mechanic that a developer would implement because they were to lazy to make a sufficient amount of content. Sure, there were games like Contra, Battletoads, SHMUPS, etc., but we have just as many challenging games with things like the Souls games, plenty of rougelites, more SHMUPS, and plenty more. And the only reason no one complained about it was there were no massive internet boards to do so until mid-gen 6 to mid-gen 7. Do you need a reminder of how many people threw a hissyfit and returned E.T. the Extra Terrestrial for the Atari 2600 because it was too hard?

[KaKrackle]

19 hours ago, Spaz said:

The issue isn’t the choice of games people play. The issue is when people cry when difficult trophy lists like Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus come out and they avoid a game entirely because of that. When previously, they had an interest in the game, but are now avoiding it because it ‘hurts their completion rate’. 
 

Not everything should be Ratalalika stacks, but people take the easy way out and when they argue about something being too difficult or luck based the entire conservation goes full circle.
 

I blame both sides, because they are both guilty in fostering a ‘toxic community’.

 

Around 200 pounds, or 90 kgs.  
 

Well yes. Look at some old threads and you’ll see people complain about Killzone 2’s Valor Grand Cross trophy for being in the top 1 percent in multiplayer in any given week. Or those challenges in Vanquish, particularly Challenge #6 that stopped many people from the platinum.

 

Case in point, we cried about Nintendo 64 games and Playstation 2 games. The people before me cried about NES and SNES titles. 
 

It’s no different. It’s just a younger generation complaining, just like we did 10 - 15 years ago.

Best get hitting them triceps harder in that case!!!

[JohnCenaSong-]

42 minutes ago, SeedersPhD said:

 

Do you need a reminder of how many people threw a hissyfit and returned E.T. the Extra Terrestrial for the Atari 2600 because it was too hard?

No, it was because it was hyped since it was E.T and the game was shit, nothing to do with difficulty. E.T isn't hard, in context of the time there were dozens of A2600 titles that were harder and popular/well recieved. That being said E.T is overhated and is far from the worst A2600 game, it's clearly a rush job but it's playable.

 

Also boards and general communication among the wider gaming community go back further than you think.

 

Generally I have to disagree with the 'games weren't harder you were just younger' argument when you look at remakes of old games being called 'the Dark Souls' of whatever genre they're in (and don't get me started on how overrated Dark Souls difficulty is...). Sure, there are niche games that still fill the void for difficulty and theres plenty of indies that are tough as nails today, but mainstream/AAA? No contest, today's stuff is a cakewalk by comparison. It's not just because of the lives feature either, even when retro games get ported over with cheat codes or rewind features modern day gamers STILL complain.

 

Whether by good design or unfair and poor design, it really can't be disputed that older games were harder than today's games, it's just such a stark contrast I can't see it even being debatable.

[SeedersPhD]

1 hour ago, JohnCenaSong- said:

No, it was because it was hyped since it was E.T and the game was shit, nothing to do with difficulty. E.T isn't hard, in context of the time there were dozens of A2600 titles that were harder and popular/well recieved. That being said E.T is overhated and is far from the worst A2600 game, it's clearly a rush job but it's playable.

 

Also boards and general communication among the wider gaming community go back further than you think.

 

Generally I have to disagree with the 'games weren't harder you were just younger' argument when you look at remakes of old games being called 'the Dark Souls' of whatever genre they're in (and don't get me started on how overrated Dark Souls difficulty is...). Sure, there are niche games that still fill the void for difficulty and theres plenty of indies that are tough as nails today, but mainstream/AAA? No contest, today's stuff is a cakewalk by comparison. It's not just because of the lives feature either, even when retro games get ported over with cheat codes or rewind features modern day gamers STILL complain.

 

Whether by good design or unfair and poor design, it really can't be disputed that older games were harder than today's games, it's just such a stark contrast I can't see it even being debatable.

 

The main reasons people cite E.T. as being shit is because it was confusing and frustrating, which are things a player could easily overcome with the right amount of time and effort. It was shit, but it was also hard.

 

Boards and general communication were a thing, but it wasn't as mainstream as now and you didn't have casual players voicing their opinions that much back during the geocities era. It was mainly the more hardcore people, which aren't the same people who complain about difficulty nowadays.

 

The best-selling AAA games have basically always been easy compared to the rest of the libraries, with the NES and maybe the Atari being the only outliers. The SNES had many of it's most popular titles be easy like Super Mario World and Super Mario All-Stars, A Link to the Past, the DKC games, Aladdin, etc. N64 didn't even really have that many difficult titles, PS1's only real notable hard mainstream titles were the Abe titles, Crash 1, and Rayman. Then by PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube games were modernized about to what they are now. The only real mainstream remakes that were called the "Dark Souls" of X was the Crash Trilogy. Spyro Reignited, Medievil, Shadow of the Colossus, etc. never got the same treatment.

 

The main aspect of poor design in older titles was the fact that players used to lose much more progress when they died and would therefore be overly punished by sending the player back far more then they needed to go just to retry the same section. Plenty of casuals likely die the same amount in modern games then in older games, but because we've refined the checkpoint system, games appear easier because there is less unnecessary punishment.

 

Also, people like to not choose the harder difficulty and then complain the game is too easy. Like, what did you expect? Plenty of modern games are pretty challenging so long as you know how to pick a "hard mode".

[ViniciusSCampos]

To each their own i guess. If not playing games because of thropies makes someone happy, cant judge them. At the end of the day, you are the person who Will Care the most about your trophy list right

[JohnCenaSong-]

1 hour ago, SeedersPhD said:

The main reasons people cite E.T. as being shit is because it was confusing and frustrating, which are things a player could easily overcome with the right amount of time and effort. It was shit, but it was also hard.

True, it being shit made it somewhat difficult, but difficulty wasn't the deciding factor that's all, I think more people were concerned with how E.T was the hot property yet this thing was a stinker. It all kinda culminated together, there's loads of shit on the A2600 as I'm sure you're probably aware and E.T wasn't as bad as any of them, nor as hard as many other games which were beloved but it just all exploded over E.T. Many still credit it as being the cause of the videogame crash (it wasn't the cause exactly, but it was a tipping point for sure) and I don't think just being difficult or confusing would have that much of an impact as shown by the success of so many franchises through history that have been equally/more confusing and difficult. But now I weirdly fancy playing E.T again

 

1 hour ago, SeedersPhD said:

Boards and general communication were a thing, but it wasn't as mainstream as now and you didn't have casual players voicing their opinions that much back during the geocities era. It was mainly the more hardcore people, which aren't the same people who complain about difficulty nowadays.

True for the most part, there were still mainstream voices though. It certainly isn't as prevalent as today for sure but I do feel people discount how mainstream gaming had been talked about for quite some time pre-social media era. In part probably because traditional media back in the day pictured gamers as basement dwellers yet the stats show gaming was pretty much just as mainstream then as it is now so it wasn't all hardcores talking games. Now of course the industry has grown a lot since then (woohoo, or maybe not woohoo if you're not a fan of the direction AAA is heading ) but it's always been a pretty chunky market. You're certainly right though, message boards and such were typically hardcore oriented for the most part.

 

1 hour ago, SeedersPhD said:

The best-selling AAA games have basically always been easy compared to the rest of the libraries, with the NES and maybe the Atari being the only outliers. The SNES had many of it's most popular titles be easy like Super Mario World and Super Mario All-Stars, A Link to the Past, the DKC games, Aladdin, etc. N64 didn't even really have that many difficult titles, PS1's only real notable hard mainstream titles were the Abe titles, Crash 1, and Rayman. Then by PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube games were modernized about to what they are now. The only real mainstream remakes that were called the "Dark Souls" of X was the Crash Trilogy. Spyro Reignited, Medievil, Shadow of the Colossus, etc. never got the same treatment.

Oh yeah it's always been easy in comparison to the rest of the libraries but when you take those game out of that context, an 'easy' AAA then and an 'easy' AAA now I just cannot see in any way how the modern game could match it. Was Super Mario World hard? No, could a casual player back then beat it fine? Sure. Would a casual player today who's never played it before struggle and maybe consider it a slightly difficult game? I reckon so to be honest, don't see many people jumping back but sometimes you see the odd person trying them out with them on Nintendo digital stores and things and it can make for difficult viewing ? but that's a whole different level of casual that would struggle just as much with most games

 

For N64 I can't think of anything difficult either off the top of my head but I reckon today's gamers would have difficulty with some super iconic games despite not being particularly hard. Without using a guide I reckon OoT and MM would trip people up, especially when you compare to something modern in the same franchise with BotW which is an infinitely easier game I find (still fairly fun though)

 

Oh, and I did see MediEvil get the 'it's Dark Souls' treatment  even though that game was super easy. Didn't see it for Spyro, seen the attitude around retro collections like some Sega/Atari etc. Doom as well, MegaMan, none of which were considered particularly difficult when they came out (aside from maybe some of the megaman games).

 

1 hour ago, SeedersPhD said:

The main aspect of poor design in older titles was the fact that players used to lose much more progress when they died and would therefore be overly punished by sending the player back far more then they needed to go just to retry the same section. Plenty of casuals likely die the same amount in modern games then in older games, but because we've refined the checkpoint system, games appear easier because there is less unnecessary punishment.

See, I don't necessarily think losing progress is poor design, overly generous checkpointing is part of what makes something easy. If you need to beat a section not taking too much damage you've gotta be decent and overcome each obstacle. If you can just run through over and over taking loads of damage trying to make that next checkpoint, die immediately after it, respawn now half way into the section with full health you have an even easier job at the second half of this section with unlimited tries to just run through that barely even paying attention. Obviously starting the game from scratch if you run out of lives is overkill, but, if you have infinite attempts at the smallest little segment you can effortlessly bruteforce your way. If something can just be just bruteforced then that's just easy no matter how high your death count is because you never had to improve to overcome it, it just happened. In some CoD games you can literally hold run and not fight anything, may die a few times but eventually you'll run through enough bullets to activate the next checkpoint  how is that difficult? Sure, you died, but I don't think death count is an explicit measure of difficulty because the effort made there was so minor yet still lead to a successfull completion.

 

1 hour ago, SeedersPhD said:

Also, people like to not choose the harder difficulty and then complain the game is too easy. Like, what did you expect? Plenty of modern games are pretty challenging so long as you know how to pick a "hard mode".

☝☝☝☝☝

"Oh my god this game is too easy"

"What difficult are you on?"

"Easy"

But I also feel the same with the reverse, no one should be complaining the highest difficulty is too hard for them because they can just lower it too, I don't like seeing optional higher difficulty modes nerfed, they exist for those who want the challenge after all.