🐱 Microsoft Calls For An End To 'Git Gud' - Beating the game on the lowest difficulty is still beating the game

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
CatParty


Before the weekend, Microsoft’s Xbox Twitter account sent a surprisingly important tweet: “Beating the game on the lowest difficulty is still beating the game.” This was then followed up by Double Fine who added that completing Psychonauts 2 with the “invincibility toggle on” still counts as beating the game. Which is just about the most refreshing thing I’ve seen come out of gaming in forever.

It was probably about four years ago that one of gaming’s most tiresome, festering corners was at its peak. The “Git Gud” crowd furiously policed the internet, looking for any and all signs of gaming weakness, and swifty punished it with pile-ons and abhorrently personal abuse. As Dark Souls III was at its peak of popularity, and every other game was attempting to ride in FromSoftware’s wake, along came Cuphead, and we entered a perfect storm of gamer douchebaggery.

I experienced the frankly baffling force of this fury on plenty of occasions, but never more than when I published an article on jaunty Kotaku tribute site Rock Paper Shotgun. Calling for a button that allowed players to skip boss fights, this rather innocent suggestion that the whole of a game should be accessible to those who’d bought it was met with all manner of suggestions of how I should kill myself, how I was proof of the demise of games journalism, and of course how I must “git gud.” In other words, it was a coordinated torrent of panic from scared little boys whose only source of pride was being threatened by my suggestion.

It’s quite extraordinary that just four years later I’m reading Xbox shooting down this attitude that Nightmare Difficulty is the only acceptable way to play, finally (and so very belatedly) taking a stand against Git Gud attitudes that poison this hobby. It’s even better to see individual developers joining in, taking the same stand. While to you or I it may seem completely innocuous to read Double Fine saying completing Psychonauts 2 with what’s essentially a “cheat” switched on still counts as completing the game, it’s really hard to convey just how contentious and controversial a position this is out there on the internet.

G/O Media may get a commission
They continue, mocking the previously louder, more prevalent attitude. “‘uh, excuse me I beat Sword Guy Serious Time on a no hit hard mode and if didn’t do that I don’t respect you. and like, can you even comment on things if you’re not diamond six rank in shooty mcBlam? I don’t think so.’” they tease, concluding, “cool bud. you’re soooo cool!” Then slightly more sensibly spell it out,

“All people should be able to enjoy games. All ages, all possible needs. It’s an ongoing and important process for our industry and a challenge we need to met. [sic]
“End of the day? We want you to have fun, to laugh, to experience a story that affects you. On whatever terms you want.”
Amen. I mean, it’d have been nice to hear these voices half a decade ago, but thank goodness we’re hearing them now.

Of course, both sets of tweets have been met with all manner of fury. “Going to school while sleeping through classes is still going to school,” quote-tweets one poster, failing to understand the difference between participating differently, and not participating at all. A podcast with 6 followers explains for us, “Whether they’re played on a screen or in real life, games are largely about bettering yourself or being a part of a team,” which is the most impressively blinkered perspective to not be able to see outside of. Others obviously opt for the more nuanced position of using homophobic slurs, but my favorite is the guy who begins, “Tangibly and provably false,” before telling game developers how games are developed.

Any objection to the notion that completing games by any means is acceptable can only be rooted in a desire to exclude others. Just a picosecond of thought gets any reasonable human being to the point of recognizing that not all people playing games might be as able-bodied as they are. Additional thinking time might see others reaching conclusions like, “How someone else plays this single-player game in their own house cannot have any impact whatsoever on my experience,” and how it would be deranged to think otherwise.

The only reason for gatekeeping gaming via this intransigent attitude toward difficulty is to protect the most fragile of egos, that are only propped up by the belief that gaming skill affords the individual superiority over others. The lack of perspicacity to realize this, while so feverishly raging about it in public, is utterly peculiar.

There’s still work to be done, of course. It depresses me that both Xbox and Double Fine chose to use the term “beat the game” rather than “complete” or “finish” it. Whenever I read or hear someone saying how they “beat the game,” I can’t help but imagine their finishing watching a subtitled philosophical movie on Netflix and then thrusting their arms in the air, bellowing to all around how they “BEAT THE FILM!”

Anyhow, the good news is Psychonauts 2 will come with an option to make yourself invincible, in case you reach a level or bossfight that proves too tricky for you to get past. And extraordinarily, for everyone else who doesn’t believe it has any right to exist, they can just… not use it!

Update 12:19p.m: Disclosure: Heather Alexandra, an ex Kotaku staffer, currently works at Double Fine.
 
Wow, this article is so clickbaity I don't know whether or not to laugh or cry.

Any "game" which counts using an invincibility code as "winning" isn't a game worth playing other than for manbabies and neckbeards of the DSP variety.

Not to mention it's ignorant of basic game-design principles - playing a game with an invincibility code is not playing "the same game" to begin with, since the "skillset" is completely different (in this case, the "skillset" just boils down to turning on invincibility and meandering through the levels). It's only the same software, not the same "game" at all. That would be like busting open a pinball machine with a hammer and manually putting the silver balls in the score holes is still "playing pinball".
 
In other words, it was a coordinated torrent of panic from scared little boys whose only source of pride was being threatened by my suggestion.
I, too, proactively insult my target audience and experience justified righteous anger everytime they insult me back. I'm sure I'll be the top salesman soon.
The only reason for gatekeeping gaming via this intransigent attitude toward difficulty is to protect the most fragile of egos, that are only propped up by the belief that gaming skill affords the individual superiority over others.
My god, for someone who works as a marginally employed corporate-syncophant blogger, that's a shit ton of projecting ego. Imagine being someone who writes about how there aren't enough girl dicks in video games for a living (also supplimented by the first bank of dad), and thinking you're better than someone with a normal job chilling out on a Saturday night. It's like a meth head trying to lecture on the dangers of diet coke.
 
Why is there such a massive campaign against competitiveness or excelling, even if it's something turbo autistic? I can't imagine whining that devs should LET me beat their game and then being proud I finished it, that's such a sickeningly bitchmade attitude. If git gud is annoying to hear there's nothing stopping them from saying they're just playing it for the story/experience and ignoring the jab, which is honestly perfectly fine, so I'm forced to assume that just being able to beat it isn't the problem. It's not just games but sports/fitness, the creative fields, etc. Someone is trying to make mediocrity a thing to be proud of and I can't see it as anything but trying to condition people to actively enjoy being losers.
These people were raised with "everyone gets a trophy" as the overriding feature, their education, socialization and political indoctrinations were all based on the idea that they had already succeeded by just being alive, no need to prove it to anyone.

Consequently they cannot draw a connection between working towards a goal and achieving it, let alone the thrill of doing so.

To them, they just push some buttons, and success just eventually happens to them, like the rains.

And if it doesn't? Then someone subverted them or stole their just rewards out from under them.
 
Last edited:
Before the weekend, Microsoft’s Xbox Twitter account sent a surprisingly important tweet: “Beating the game on the lowest difficulty is still beating the game.” This was then followed up by Double Fine who added that completing Psychonauts 2 with the “invincibility toggle on” still counts as beating the game. Which is just about the most refreshing thing I’ve seen come out of gaming in forever.
Will the Invincibility Mode at least disable trophies when it is used? Or are Double Fine afraid of bad reviews from the journoscum that will be using it?
 
It is to disclose a potential conflict of interest, given she is former Kotaku staff.
I guess I should have specified, my question is more "What forced Kotaku to do it?" than "Why do these exist?"

My expectations of Kotaku is that they avoid doing anything respectable until they're made to. I assume that if they edited it in instead of posting it the first time, they tried to get away with skipping the disclosure but were caught.

I wonder if something prompted people to look the name up and complain, or if this Heather Alexandra person was just recognized and noteworthy. Like the guy who sent pics of his child to a pedo to cheer the pedo up levels of noteworthy. Could be an introduction to a tire fire.
 
Why is there such a massive campaign against competitiveness or excelling, even if it's something turbo autistic?
More money. Same reason almost every FPS became a shittier(and just as shit colored) COD in the 7th gen. Same reason Bethesda has been stripping away the R part of their RPGs since at least Fallout 3.
 
I guess I should have specified, my question is more "What forced Kotaku to do it?" than "Why do these exist?"

My expectations of Kotaku is that they avoid doing anything respectable until they're made to. I assume that if they edited it in instead of posting it the first time, they tried to get away with skipping the disclosure but were caught.

I wonder if something prompted people to look the name up and complain, or if this Heather Alexandra person was just recognized and noteworthy. Like the guy who sent pics of his child to a pedo to cheer the pedo up levels of noteworthy. Could be an introduction to a tire fire.
'Heather Alexandra' isn't even mentioned in the article. Given she's former Kotaku, it might just be that she herself told them to mention it.
 
When it comes to video games, it deeply troubled me if I couldn’t play the game at the highest difficulty. On DOOM, it meant getting the highest-tier badge on the highest difficulty in arcade. On Skyrim, it meant completing the story and all side quests on Legendary difficulty. Hell, even in team shooters I’m pissed if my team doesn’t perform well and I barely manage to squeak our team past a victory.

Seeing this kind of shit just doesn’t make sense to me. Why even bother playing a genre of game that is competitive or challenging in nature if you don’t want to be challenged? There are plenty of games available for you to choose from that don’t necessarily challenge you and are actually marketed as more relaxed games. Animal Crossing, Stardew Valley and Minecraft are some right off the top of my head.
Like almost every company these days they want to expand their net as wide as possible to get as many customers as possible. They'll kowtow to the wokoharam and LBGTQA (or however it goes) in order to attract every single possible person to play purchase their game. Even people who do not enjoy video games and would never enjoy video games. They want to dumb games down to the point where they are little more than theme park rides with a couple of optional game play elements.
 
"BEAT THE FILM!"

This is the entire mindset behind this article. The idea that a video game and its story is a movie for you to watch. No, Heather, they are entirely separate mediums. There is skill and work that goes into completing a video game, and challenges and obstacles for you to overcome. That's why you can beat a game and not beat a movie.
 
27311E1E-8681-4209-8DA9-490CA8E44013.jpeg
 
Nintendo and Sony have og legit games going back generations

Then you're a fucking retard. Sony hasn't touched any franchise pre-PS2 (and that's only cause of God of War) for a while now. Also they totally cater to the movie gamers and game journos or did you just completely fucking miss the 4 years of gaming with shit like Last of Us, Horizon, Detroit Become Human and Spider-Man?

Stop fanboying, faggot. All the console makers are gay now.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom