Do you like Overpowered Options or nerfs in Bloodstained?

Everybody including myself is going to vote "yes I like being powerful" here and the things they're doing aren't changing that. It's more about when and how you become OP than the state of it happening. I don't see how this poll is meaningfully different from the other one that asks pretty much the same question, either.

Again, even in the obvious Symphony example, you're not OP until the later half or final third of the game unless you're using glitches.

I like "uber" and "cheese". I hate watered down, dumbened down nerfs, based on arbitrary perception. That and nerfs rarely stop, once they start coming. Next thing some nerds will perceive as "op", they are going to yell again for it to be neutered, so as they can live through their own guilty-syndrome of "abusing" it. We 're dealing with regular, typical, obsessive-compulsive patients, here.

I can stomach down this bunch of nerfs, even if with great grudge. Since i myself, do not even use weapons anymore and my standard shards, have nothing to do with the noobish ones in the nerflist. But touch my Void Ray and Chisels and there will be blood. Anybody nagging for further nerfs, should be shown to the door asap. They simply won't know where to stop. Luckily, most of the bunch, didn't even bother beating normal, as per their own words, that is why the list contains only those things. Excerpts from Steam forums: "Hurr durr, i stopped playing, waiting for those nerfs, to have a normal experience with the game", "ugg ugg, this weapon was too OP and ruined my gaming experience, i won't play it again i am spooked for life".

Lazy bums, who didn't even bother trying other things... Where and when, there is an endless abundance of and much better choices, to employee.

I feel that this is a loaded question (as in you own the dealer, judge, broadcast, and ref type of loaded) and it misses the reason behind the nerfs. Barely anyone is going to answer no unless they fall within some rather specific categories. The question is also just plain worded badly. I like being OP, during the endgame, but I want to struggle in the path up to that so what do I answer? A lot of nuances are missing here.

I've already made my reasons for being supportive of the nerfs here and I won't needlessly repeat myself.

As much as I don't like some of these nerfs, I have to agree with you here. Unable to answer since the poll is so extremely black and white.

I'm assuming you are referring and replying to my linked post here. I said I'm not going to talk on this matter anymore but your gross oversimplifications just spurred something in me. I've been meaning to get these words out anyway so thanks for this chance.

These OP tools are being nerfed for the casual player. These nerfs do not effect people who never used them in the first place and have the potential to make the game more enjoyable for the casual player.

To begin, it is less I didn't choose the use them it's more I didn't bother equipping them in the first place during my first playthrough (this was release day and I wanted to get to the ending before going to sleep). In later playthroughs it was my choice not to use them but for my first it was ignorance so the nerfs don't affect everyone. I think I would have had a much lower opinion of Bloodstained if I did use WC, Bunny, and Dullaheads because I'm a player that naturally seeks a challenge and if that challenge just vanishes the instant I get one of those shards my enjoyment and, more importantly, engagement plummets. This is why I prefer NG over NG+ playthroughs, NG+ just puts me to sleep. Something that a lot of people don't think about is that an easy game can also feel dull and forgettable which is probably the worst legacy a game can have. While my bar of "this game is too easy to be fun" is definitely more difficult that what many other people's are, this bar exists for everyone and if a game's difficulty goes below this bar, the game is no longer engaging and thus not worth playing for most people.

However, these OP items are not there for people's immediate gratification, they are there as tools every player eventually stumbles upon. Unfortunately, a lot of the OP tools are extremely easy to get. You do not have to go out of your way to get Welcome Company, in fact it is mathematically improbable you go through the game and not get it unless you are skipping enemies. Bunny is missable but the first time you're on the train you have Zangetsu to get you the shard for doing absolutely nothing but going to the right. There's nothing wrong with getting power for natural or minimal progression and/or effort, but there's a problem in the balance when you get them without even trying to and they are better than everything else to the extent they invalidate every piece of equipment from that point onward. What these nerfs try to accomplish is to knock these things down to something closer to the level of everything else around them (with a few confusing exceptions), they're still strong, all shards are in their own way, but not so strong that you reach the peak of power in the first third of the game. This allows room for the player to grow and for the game's difficulty to not drop like a rock.

Seta

I have a feeling you're missing the main point of what I was trying to say (or maybe I presented it poorly), but for now I'll respond to these points and elaborate later since I need to sleep. EDIT: Elaborated


Do not mistake will for apathy. I called it a choice because I knew it existed, but I didn't care to use them so I made the decision not to.

And I never claimed otherwise, but there exists a theoretical point where a game is too easy for everyone. Whether they know it or not everyone has a minimum difficulty they are willing to stomach.

That list is a false equivalence and correlation vs causation problem if I ever saw one.

While yes, all of the best selling games can be considered "easy" but it would be wrong to say that GTAV sold as well as it did simply because it was easy when there are dozens of factors to consider, same with Minecraft. Yes GTAV can be considered an easy game that sold well, but it also had a marketing machine bigger than the GDP of some countries and a long established legacy to roll off of. Minecraft can be considered easy, but it also unintentionally exploited the Youtube algorithm on a scale that wasn't seen again until Fortnite which is a small thing until you remember that Youtube is one of the most visited websites in existence. FF7 sold 11 million copies on the PS1, but it also had a plot twist to rival Darth Vader being Luke's father to drive word of mouth in a pre-mass-internet age, coupled with strong visuals, sound, and story.

Now let's get into your second list "popular games." Yes SOTN is remembered for being easy and hammy voice acting, but it's also remembered for inventing and codifying an entire sub-genre. When SOTN is brought up in discussions more people will generally bring up the latter point unless a series entry point is being referred to. Skyrim is popular, yes it might be because it is easy but it could also be because it, like GTAV, had a pre-established legacy, a marketing machine that could make Cthulhu shudder, and, unlike GTAV, it has been re-released on basically everything that isn't mobile phones and is moddable on pc for extra longevity. I won't speak for Chrono-Trigger's difficulty as I don't know enough about it but from some Wikipedia browsing it is known for, game design, sound design, story, and visuals.

If I made a game that essentially gave players 9/9 hellhound with the mana cost of flame canon right from the beginning and plopped them in a world full of big, threatening-looking enemies with 10 hp, I highly doubt it would become a best seller despite making people "feel powerful." There are many factors to a game's success: genre, marketing, legacy, design, visuals, presentation, trends, etc. Yes difficulty and "feeling powerful" can be considered one of those factors, but if it was the only factor I highly doubt Dark Souls would have ever sold more than a million.

This one's on me, that point about it not affecting everyone was a response to your blanket claim because these nerfs don't affect everyone if I had decided to just play through the game once it certainly wouldn't have affected me or anyone who went through the game in a similar manner.

As for the latter half of that sentence, it is a sort of shrodinger's cat / jcpenny effect scenario if someone never uses it in the first place could it be considered a chance? What if someone buys the game a year from now? And even if they do use the OP tool at its best, is that a guarantee it results in a better experience for the player? What if their playstyle is antithetical to the OP tool and using it is less fun for them, but they aren't skilled enough to switch to something that better suits them? Is a balanced game considered better than an unbalanced one? There's no right answer here as it will vary from person to person and it all depends on personal opinion.

I don't believe it is as futile as you make it out to be. You mentioned not using them due to them clashing with your playstyle, and they clash with mine too, to the extent that the statistical advantage granted isn't enough to outweigh the effort needed in the shift (in my case, I won't presume yours). However, while casual gamers, and all players to an extent, gravitate to the "easy and convenient" skills, those criteria shift from player to player even if they aren't consciously aware of them. I've always played my games more slowly/cautiously than most and I have a friend that can be charitably described as a "24/7 Leeroy Jenkins" when he plays games. Our definitions of easy and convenient differ and there's nothing wrong with that. Problems arise when convenience in raw power outweighs all other criteria which results in a large majority of players playing the exact same way, using the exact same tools, regardless of their preferences. This is a problem more pronounced in multiplayer games because it quickly becomes obvious due to constant player-t0-player interaction, but it still exists in certain single-player games, like Bloodstained, and one deserving of attention because these "gravitating builds/tools" will usually result in less engaging/entertaining experience for those who would have otherwise have chosen a different playstyle.


You could argue that nerfs to the gravitating tools come at the cost of the enjoyment of those who are naturally drawn towards them and you'd be right. It's a balancing act that ultimately depends on what the developer wants out of their game and there is no right answer, just a giant spectrum of possibilities.

This turned out longer than I expected but when I read that I just had to get this down.

You're experienced enough to recognize that this is sadly the common cycle of most games.  I'm no less guilty.  Something that was dearly beloved at the initial stages is diminished once the romance wears thin and I get to picking apart the trivial areas where it falls short.  I can't speak generally, but for detail-specific people such as I am, it seems inevitable.

I think human nature also leads us to dote more heavily on what dissatisfies us than what does not, which is a huge shame. At day's end, Bloodstained is one of my favorite games in years. It's imaginative (despite being largely derivative), I absolutely love the art direction (which is something I'm incredibly selective about), and the gameplay is a ton of fun, which is easily my favorite aspect of this gem of a game.  It's that last criterion that accounts for my sometime-bitterness and also skepticism.  There are few modern games that I consider "just good, honest, *#@%ing fun."  Bloodstained is one of these, and while I trust Iga and his vision, I also know the insidious, creeping nature of self-doubt which leads a creator to amend his vision to please the mob, a futile endeavor, and a dangerous one.

I fully support the opportunity to hit things more times before they die.