this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2026
87 points (98.9% liked)
Rimworld
3741 readers
34 users here now
A community for Rimworld,A sci-fi colony sim driven by an intelligent AI storyteller by Ludeon Studioes
Only posts related to Rimworld
Also check RimWorldPorn Lemmy / Mbin #RimWorldPorn (or directly for faster speed)
We follow the rules of the lemmy.world server and the rules of the ludeon forum
Modest self promotion is allowed, for instance videos of interesting or funny in-game events
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
π
Yeah, just like freedom of speech is about freedom, and yet to enforce it you need to block toxic behaviors.
See my other comment about accessibility, if you want, I'm not going to write it again.
You're talking about the paradox of tolerance, which isn't a paradox and isn't relevant here.
You said games should be about having fun, and then immediately proceeded to proscribe one kind of fun by baselessly denigrating the people who enjoy the challenge of a difficult game.
Some perspective for you: RimWorld is single player. There are no toxic behaviours to block, except the very ones you're complaining about and perpetrating here like gatekeeping.
Or just wilfully ignore me and strawman me, whatever, it's the internet so most likely that one π€·ββοΈ
The fucking post is called "I have a confession" and you're telling me that there is no problem with people being shamed for not playing the game at the "proper" difficulty?
My point is that this love of "hardcore" is bringing a lot of toxicity in all games (including other than video games) and so yeah, right now I have a problem with hardcore gamers because they lead the movement of hardcore games, which are making games worse for everyone else.
It is similar to the paradox of tolerance because with the way things are now, not fighting against hardcore gaming actively makes everyone else have less fun with games. It wouldn't be like that in a world of empathy and inclusion, but that's not where we are at, just like "colorblind" would be a good term in a perfect world but for now it's just racist.
I will add, you can always make a game more challenging on your own. Play with one hand, don't save, don't look at the screen, whatever suits you. But you cannot make the game easier without accessibility settings to do so, and even when they exist, then you get mocked online for using them or not playing the game the "right way". So I call bullshit, rejecting hardcore games does not prevent anyone from having a challenging game.
And you're taking a gentle poke in fun far too seriously (which is a bad idea, because you can't seriously defend yourself - the charge of hypocrisy is accurate). Complaining about toxicity in the RimWorld community, no less, widely known as one of the nicest communities in gaming. Get off your high horse, you smug git.
Or don't, and keep being insufferable. Again, it's the internet, so most likely that one π€·ββοΈ
I cant stand toxic comments like this. Just joking.
I think you are somewhat wrong by saying love of hardcore is bringing toxicity. Its toxic people that are bringing in the toxicity.
I love playing games like Rimworld on harder difficulties, because it creates emergent stories in to the games. It makes the game richer for me and it makes the colonies feel unique and i enjoy that quite a lot, but i dont feel the need to ridicule anybody for playing the game on peacefull.
In a way you are doing exactly the same thing than the "HC-players", but on the different end of the spectrum.
Also i want to say im firm beliver that not everything needs to be for everyone. If somebody wants to make a SHMUP that is impossible for people who have not played them before or kaizo Mario that only few people in small community can finish, its their artistic decition. I cant eat seafood, so sushi is not for me, but i cant resent the cheff who wanted to start a allfish restaurant, nor i cant blame my friend who loves to eat salmon.
How ever i do belive that aslong as the difficulty is not part of the games core design philosophy, it should be adjustable. Also there is no good reason to not add things like colorblind mode, adjustable font sizes and possibility to remap key bindings to games. Accessibility and difficulty are not the same thing.
I know that I'm pushing a bit too far in the opposite direction, but that's because basically no one is trying to counter this endless trend of "hardcore is cool and edgy"
Obviously not all players are like that.
The problem is that the norm now is to assume that a game needs to be hard, and that anything less is "too easy".
Recent example that comes to mind, Songs of Syx (you probably know it already, if not you can look it up, it's not a bad game). The game has unlocks in an achievement-like way, which help make the game a bit easier; logical one would say, it's along the lines of rogue-like unlocks, you can play and lose while still progressing, amazing. But the game itself can be pretty hard, and while there are difficulty settings, changing any to be easier prevents unlocking anything (but harder difficulties don't, which clearly gives the vibe of "you are too bad at the game to deserve the achievements"). There's no good reason to do that, the developer is far from being incompetent, but yet there is the idea that you cannot enjoy the full game if you don't want it as hard.
It's not about the core of the game being hard, nothing actually would change badly if the achievements were never locked from a difficulty setting, but here it is. And you are put with the background thought that you're not really playing the game properly if you reduce the difficulty (even though the achievements themselves do that, but the " hard" way so it's ok I guess)
I dont know this game well enough to really say anything.
If it is the way you say, it sounds bad way to handle the difficulty and i wholely agree.
Does the game have any progress beond the achiviements? Is the game run based?
If the achiement system is done in the same style that in The Last Spell, where the gameplay loop is build so that at the start the game is supposed to be impossible to win, but where after every run you get stronger in small increments until you are just barely able to beat a level and move on to the next one, it is fine. It means that by the design you are meant to loose and the progression of the game is that you get every time little further. Changing the game difficulty to easy and having the ability to get the same upgrades could ruin the gameplay loop.
But again. I havent played the game so i dont know. All i know that some games use roadblock enemies or level gates to make sure players have progresses enough to be ready for the next levels. Its not just to make game longer. It is also about to rythming the game. Devs can calculate that average player needs X tries to level up enough to progress in to the next part of the game and it can help them make sure players spend enough time in certain level, biome or what ever but not long enough to get bored to it.
The game is not run based, but there is an expectation of losing easily.
You cannot "win", since it's just a city builder in the end, but you don't necessarily get any progress after a run. I've been playing it for some time, and most things are locked away because I'm not playing "hardcore" enough to unlock them. Which in turn makes the game harder, which makes me not get the achievements. It's a vicious circle.
And I would gladly adjust the difficulty (which can be changed precisely) to make some parts that bother me a bit less tiresome, but even if I increase the difficulty of other parts of the game to compensate, the fact that I dared make anything easier at all is enough to prevent unlocking anything.
Some games are like what you described, made to make you progress very slowly, and that's okay. But what I've observed is not generally a slow progress rate, but an actual roadblock that tells you that you cannot continue playing/progressing until you invest a significant amount of effort in the game.
And for the argument of ruining the gameplay loop... So what? If I want to play Monopoly with my homemade rules, does it matter if the gameplay loop is broken, as long as I'm having fun with it? No, because the point is to have fun. So why is it different with games, where there is the holy way to play properly, and every other way is invalid? If breaking the planned gameplay loop doesn't prevent me from having fun, why is it a problem? And if it does prevent it, then I would just not do it. It doesn't change anything for anyone else. If someone has fun playing dark souls with a cheat that makes them invincible, it ruins the intention of the game, but they are having fun, which is the goal of most games.
That's my point: people and games, by default, consider that having fun is less important than playing "the right way", which is already favouring hardcore players over others.
Again im not familiar with the game so i cant speak spefically about it, but they way you describe it makes me agree with your assestment.
Im glad you said the monopoly as a example as it is a game infamous for people playing it with homemade rules and make it last forever. A perfect example how players thinking they are making the game better, make it worse without even knowing it. That is the reason why gameplay loops are important. The game is designed around it. Devs have made the game for specific audiense and they are trying to make it as fun as possible for that audience. If there is a way to by accident deviate from that loop it means the audience they are targeting might accidently make the experience worse for themself. If you dont enjoy the basic design the game is build around, then it is not the game for you and you would most likelly be happier playing something else. You cant just expect the devs compromising their target audiences fun just so they cater the game to the people outside of that audience.
But you are absolutelly right. Games should be enjoyed by the players and i adore games like Rimworld, Project Zomboid and Minecraft with its creative mode. Those games really let the player mold the experience to their liking. And things like speed running the game or doing challenge runs are just wonderfull ways people can enjoy their game even more. And i truly think that if modding dark soul to be easier feels more fun for somebody, nobody should try to stop it. But that way you are not getting the intented experience. You will loose some moments devs have designed for the player to feel and in the end they are the ones who are trying to curate the best experience for the player they are targeting the game for.
I noticed that you bring Souls games up a lot and you have said that the souls games means they are unfair.
I just want to bring up that while the souls games are hard, but they are not unfair. In some games, like Binding of Isaac you just might get unfair room at the start of the game, or have run where you dont get good items.
In souls games enemy positions are always the same. Every attack they do is telegraphed. Bonfire is always safe to approach, killing a boss gives you always souls, bosses dont drop random loot so you get the same things every playtrough. Enemies respawn only when you rest. You never loose anything by dying that you cant get back. And even if the game is hard, there are suprisingly few thing that one shot you without warning.
About the roadblocks. You make it sound like people making games just want to prolong the game up to tedium. The level gates or roadblocks are meant fie completelly opposite thing. They are meant to pace the player. It should take average player this many tries i.e. this much time to level up enough to win this boss. Now is a good time to indroduce a new biome to them. They have spend enough time in the earlier one that it will start to get bland so new biome will feel fresh.
Or the player has now learned enough of this mechanic and we can indroduce a new one to them without them feeling overwhelmed.
Or even the player can now defeat the troll guarding the shortcut. It means they have been trough the long way enough times so there is nothing new or challenging in there, so lets not force them to go that way again.
My point is still the same. Not every game needs to be for everyone. Same like not every movie should be made to please everyone or every music genre or art piece.
I basically don't disagree with much of what you're saying, but I do have a few comments.
For the monopoly, I guess that I made myself fall into this because what typically causes a problem here is that it's multiplayer, which changes everything. People trying to make others play a certain way is what makes it unbearable, it's not really about messing up the gameplay loop; the proof of that is that no matter how messed up the loop is, if the players are liking the alternate system, they will enjoy it fully. With a solo experience, it's different. If I start playing rimworld on easy difficulty, and it's boringly easy, I can just pick a different difficulty that I prefer. No one else will ever be impacted, and I'll pick whatever is more fun for me.
Where there is a little nuance that I will give to you, is that some games are meant more as an art form or an experience than as a game (narrative games, horror games, etc) and in such a case things are much more constrained. But most games aren't like this, and can be enjoyed either way.
For dark souls, they are unfair as a lot of things involve an unexpectable event that kills you, that you then memorize to be able to avoid it. That first part is what is unfair, the second part is what requires skills (and the skill requirement is another issue)
Even for minecraft, the game has a peaceful mode that locks out a lot of the content, because the devs didn't bother changing the hostile drops to be given through alternate ways.
And for the roadblocks, you're totally right, but those roadblocks are always tailored to the "average player" that the devs defined, which generally will completely block (at least for a good amount of time) the less "skilled" players. And my observation is that the definition of "average player" has been leaning more and more towards the hardcore gamer, and that's in my opinion making things worse and worse.
I would say that not every game needs to be for everyone, but that most games should be for playing, not working. And most games now like to make you work for them.
But overall, I still agree with you on many things, we're just seeing the same things from a different perspective in a way.
Now I understand what you're saying
The Rimworld community is and always has been one of the most welcoming, civil, collaborative, and supportive in general and specifically nonjudgmental about play-styles
That's one of the reasons why I still love this game. The general consensus is that Rimworld is made to be played whatever way you like. The fact that is has a scenario editor and doesn't use achievements confirms this
I donβt think itβs accurate to map patterns from other gaming communities onto RimWorld. The comparison doesn't fit well