@lyisa: Just to piggyback on this, Ladykiller in a Bind is also very good. It’s from the same creator as Digital and came out last year. It is a bit porny, but OP seems ok with that.
@onarum: Cheat engine is great! And for the portion of Cuphead's users who play on PC and have the know-how to get it up and running, it may be the solution they're looking for. But there remains the Xbox users, who don't have that option. Isn't it reasonable, then, for them to ask the developers if they'd be willing to patch in some way to lower the difficulty?
Also, to that end, I just want to address some of the criticisms in a general way. I think some people on this forum using the word "demanding" or similar when describing those that want an easy mode are immensely mis-characterizing the situation. What's actually happening is that a contingent of players want an easy mode in Cuphead and are for the most part politely asking the developers to put it in. The developers are free to respond to that ask however they wish (which, to my knowledge, they haven't yet). Can we dig up some jerk on Twitter being an ass to the developers over this? Of course, because Twitter. But that doesn't mean the ask from the vast majority of civil people becomes invalid.
@justin258: So I have to ask, are you ok with people modding video games? Or how about the tools certain speedrunners use to do crazy stunts in games? Or how about developers releasing their remastered games with such features as skipping random battles or faster leveling? All of these scenarios involve an alteration of the developers' original intent not unlike the situation you present here. Do you really want us to live in a world where we must only play games in a strict manner that the developer dictates? Because to me that scenario just seems so dreary.
The better option would be to do something like Nintendo where they add optional challenges that only dedicated players will acquire while still being able to complete the game. An "invincibility" option is a no-go for most any developer because it would allow the player to far too quickly finish their game.
But to the point about a consumer being able to get what they want out of a product they paid money for... gaming has changed. It is NOT all about the consumer anymore. You don't want a player to one and done your game in a span of a few hours. It seems like the entire industry is shifting towards maintaining player activity in a game. It used to be to hold off trade-in's, but now it's mostly for "games as a service." In fact, very few games just offer a basic single-player game to play through anymore. You could view the difficulty of the now sadly abnormal release of a standard single-player game like Cuphead as an avenue to gain a large blip on the internet of players conversing with each other and sharing their struggles. Hell, I'm half-convinced that it's why From Software never fully explains anything in their Souls games. The community goes wild piecing their games together for months, keeping the attention from dying out.
Game developers have always been concerned with players beating their games too fast; that's exactly why older games were made to be hard! But that didn't stop players from using non-standard means to reduce that difficulty, like cheat codes. Maybe the Cuphead devs don't want a top level menu option to turn on invincibility. There's nothing stopping them from unlocking it via a cheat code, or the player dying too many times, or simply by burying it in the options. They have every right not to include such an option, but players are also within their right to ask that the developer include it. I just don't see how anyone can oppose them for asking for an option that presumably keeps the original vision intact for those that want it.
To the people arguing that devs should be able to make the game they want and not have to cater to those wanting an easier experience, I present the Game Genie. Back when most games were designed to be hard, those of us who wanted an easier time used the Game Genie, the Game Shark, or just plain cheat codes. Nowadays you really can't do that. And since there's no easy way to get something like invincibility in Cuphead, some people are lobbying the developers to create an easy mode. Do we really need to treat that as some sort of controversy?
@deathstriker: Technically, Overwatch was $40 US on PC, but I get your larger point that they shouldn't have charged for it. I do disagree with that notion, simply because I feel that the content provided was worth the price of admission. I mean, if you sum up the total number of textures, sound effects, and code, it probably does pale in comparison to something like Shadow of War. But that's an overly reductive way of looking at games IMO. In the past year I've put in over 60 hours into Overwatch, and plenty more people out there have played it for a lot longer. I'd consider that to be a good value, and that there are similar free-to-play games doesn't change that fact.
Also, it's not like the microtransactions in Overwatch is just extra money for Blizzard. A big chunk of that revenue goes back into paying for ongoing maintenance, new maps, and new characters. In an earlier era those additions would have certainly been paid DLC, but now we all can get them for free.
Meanwhile, Yacht Club Games keeps handing out Shovel Knight campaigns like candy, Blizzard puts out free to play games and free maps/characters for their paid games, and Humble Bundle continues to sell obscene amounts of games for practically nothing. It’s almost as if the games industry is massive and diverse enough to support different types of business models!
Echoing the other Canadians on here, it's a brutal $80 plus $10 tax. If it wasn't for Green Man Gaming and their slight discounts I'd almost never purchase day one new.
Maybe it's American Netflix that's bad, because I've been quite happy to pay for Canadian Netflix. Plenty of great shows keep getting added (e.g. The Good Place, Riverdale), the original programming is fantastic (Big Mouth, Bojack Horseman, Love), and there's always some funny stand-up being added. I'd happily keep paying $15/mo for the service.
Log in to comment