What is it about HAL that allows them to constantly pump out good Kirby games?

What is it about HAL that allows them to constantly pump out good Kirby games?

I dont even like Squeak Squad or Dream Land 3 that much but id never say theyre "bad".

Not being bad =/= being good

They're a consistently average series that does absolutely nothing out of the ordinary. They're not even that hard, and I despise games that don't want to offer a challenge. They have to hide it behind true arenas and endgames, because being allowed a challenge at the beginning of the game? Too videogamey, it might scare the children off!

The real issue is that Kirby keeps getting better and better. When Return to Dreamland came out that was THE kirby game. Then Triple Deluxe topped it. Then Planet Robobot topped that one which is why its one of the best games in the series now.

Same goes for Superstar to Superstar Ultra and Canvas Curse to Rainbow Curse.

It's because they're a decently-sized, experienced studio that only makes relatively low-manpower projects like Boxboy and Picross3D when they're not working on Kirby.
Semi-related, Squeak Squad was mostly developed by Flagship rather than HAL.

>The real issue is that Kirby keeps getting better and better.
I don't see that in the slightest. Honestly, I'd rather play Gone Home then consider Planet robobot good.

...

...

If you genuinely believe Robobot isnt a well designed fun experience then i dont know what to tell you.

The robobot armor alone solves issues with the gimmicks of past games. The robot feels way more integrated into the gameplay than say super abilities did.

>If you genuinely believe Robobot isnt a well designed fun experience then i dont know what to tell you.
There's nothing objectively wrong with the gameplay itself, but they do absolutely nothing with it. Every level is essentially casualized garbage where you go down a corridor and maybe fight an enemy or two. At no point are you ever asked to actually use your brain or pull off any kind of skillful maneuvers. But people give it a pass because "OMG KIRBY SO KAWAII ^_^"

It's cancerous.

>People are complaining that Kirby games are "casual" now
It's almost like these are children's games in which all of the truly challenging content is intentionally designed to be optional

>It's almost like these are children's games
I was under the assumption that they were fun for the whole family, which means that they'd have content for all ages, not just kids. keeping any semblance of challenge or difficulty away from the player until the very end of the game is an extremely jarring move, and it frankly isn't worth wading through the garbage that is the singleplayer.

The series is made for literal children, you faggot. They don't care about man children like you.

>oh, Planet Robobot looks like another spinoff title. No thanks. Not in the mood right now
>oh, it's actually a regular Kirby but the robot replaces the shitty Super powers and hyper nova and is actually good
>oh fuck the last level is The Literal end of Gurren Lagann by way of Star Fox starring the Halberd and Galactic Nova
I think it's a top 3 Kirby for me. Holy shit.

Kirby has evolved since the Game Boy era, youre aware right?

By the time you get to the modern entries theres multiple elements at play now so that it doesnt just become reach the end of the level.

In Dream Land 1 you had no abilities and you just did exactly as you described. If anything youd be describing a modern NSMB game with that attitude.

Kirby games are explicitly designed to be appropriate for kids who are just getting into videogames. The entire singleplayer campaign has to be reasonable for children to clear.
And really, Kirby games are harder now than they've ever been.

I've enjoyed every Kirby game I've played except for Canvas Curse. I think HAL just knows exactly what kind of game they want to make when they set out to do it. And it helps that the core mechanics remain largely unchanged for main entries.

>B-BUT IT'S A CHILDREN'S GAME

And isn't that what difficulty modes are for? Making the game's casual parts mandatory does nothing but age it poorly, and make it unreplayable for an older person. And I shouldn't have to slave away at a terribly designed, overhyped SP just to hope that the True Arena might be better.

There is absolutely no reason why the games shouldn't have some kind of difficulty modes accessible for me right away.

>cancerous
Jesus, what an edgelord. The series gets praise because its a collection of well designed games. They can be an excellent entry level game for children or a fun distraction to a more seasoned gamer. Not every gaming experience has to be some hardcore challenge. I can't believe I have to even spell that out.

Kirbyfags are literally the worst

>ohhh loook my game series has had NO BAD GAMES EVER because I don't count the boring or gimmicky ones as bad!

Piss off

Squeak squad sucked
Rainbow curse was shit
Tilt and tumble barely worked
Mass attack was a meme

>this much shit taste

>Shitting on Mass Attack

Mass Attack was fucking amazing you take that back.

>The series gets praise because its a collection of well designed games
This is nothing more than an opinion. The fact that you're using "it's popular" as an argument is severely flawed, as many games receive undue praise for no reason other than hype and pandering to certain audiences. Take Undertale or TLOU for instance. those games sold millions and have high metascores.Does that automatically make them perfect games that can never be criticized? According to your logic, it does.

>Not every gaming experience has to be some hardcore challenge
I'm not asking it to be mandatory, but I'd like it to be instantly accessible. You know, like any GOOD game would offer?

They haven't in a long time, though. And not because they're easy.

You sound like even more of a child than the target audience, to be honest.
You can shotgun the mandatory parts of a Kirby game in what, like a day?

>these games that arent designed for me in any way should change based on what i, someone not part of the target demographic, thinks makes a good game

MRRRROOOOOOWWW

>games are made for fucking babies
>theres an actual fanbase for it

literally manchildren
theres not 1 game in this series that is beyond mediocre

>proclaim the series as a perfect godsend that's fun for everyone and that nobody could ever find issue with them
>someone points out the issue that they're not even that difficult, and that some people might enjoy a little more challenge
>"w-well they're not for you, stupid manchild"

Really making a convincing argument with this rampant ad hominem.

I wasn't saying they were good simply because they were popular. I was insisting that they were popular due to good game design. You seem to dislike children's games, yet your reading comprehension appears to be on their level.

But I'll give you a chance here. The games are very popular and the general consensus is that they are good games, but you are making the opposite claim. So the burden of proof is now on you; what makes the games poorly designed? And you need a better argument than "the difficulty" as we've established that the games are designed with an easy difficulty in mind for the target audience--that being children. Go on, I'll be waiting for your eloquent and nuanced critique.

So your problem is what, "I have to play through the easy part of the game to get to the hard part of the game"?
You're acting as if there's nothing for you.

>>proclaim the series as a perfect godsend
Literally no one here has done that. No one has even praised them strongly enough to warrant such ridiculous hyperbole. Stop putting words in other people's mouths.

I enjoy the games as ones that aren't very difficult and don't think games are objectively bad because they don't cater to people concerned with difficulty

You know its a cold day on Sup Forums when people wont even admit kirby is fun.

Even epic yarn with its non-existent difficulty has its merits.

>talk shit
>get hit
>try to claim that Sup Forums is one person when people are commenting on your shit taste
I don't have to agree with OP to call you a faggot, faggot.

>If anything youd be describing a modern NSMB game with that attitude.
Even NSMB games have you exploring the level for hidden shit. I can't think of any game that fits that description.

>I was insisting that they were popular due to good game design.
Which is, again, an opinion. Good game design would imply that it's enjoyable by people of all ages, and yet by leaving out the most basic of elements, like oh say, an optional difficulty level selection, it means that the game will only appeal to the lowest common denominator.

>what makes the games poorly designed?
Pretty much what I said above. You can say it's not an argument, but I ask you right now why someone would play a video game when it doesn't ask anything of you, and the game essentially plays itself while you watch the pretty imagery. This subsequently kills all replayability as well, because the lack of selection in how hard you want the game means that you can never go back and re-enjoy it with an improved curve. It will forever stagnate at the same level of challenge, and you'll never be asked to improve.

>as we've established that the games are designed with an easy difficulty in mind for the target audience--that being children
I could make that exact same argument about any game, even garbage visual novels like Katawa Shoujo, or terrible quality RPGs like Undertale. "They're made for people who hate those problematic videogamey elements, so they're super easy to play and have very little gameplay. That makes them perfect!"

This is the logic you're operating on, that they're good because they're designed for children. I ask you this: why can't they be designed for all ages?

NSMB has its star coins in plain view or obvious spots with no hassle.

Never felt like that for the various kirby collectibles in RTDL or Robobot, they were clever with ways you obtained them.

I didn't really care for triple deluxe. The hypernova shit was an awful gimmick, somehow managing to be worse than the ultra abilities in the previous game. Robobot was actually pretty decent I'll give it that, but to say they only shit out good kirby games is wrong.

I thought Rainbow Curse was good.

>What is it about HAL that allows them to constantly pump out good Kirby games?
But squeak squad was shit.

It's pretty much
>I really enjoy these, and most people that are fans of the series did as well
vs
>I didn't enjoy these and you shouldn't either, they are bad games with no difficulty
Pretty much the same argument Sup Forums has against any easier games, like Pokemon, Kirby, etc. This is why Kirby threads should just begin with "Kirby thread" and no extra text, because it'll attract people like this who think difficulty is the only measure of quality, or the other type that seems to not have come here, the "X game sucked and my opinion is objective fact" (usually a newer title, 64, or SS).

Sup Forums is a cold, unfeeling place where most posters only come to tell others that anything they like is shit, so really, it isn't a surprise.

>replying to six posts
>trying to assert that all of them are trying to argue with the same line of thought
shit nigger what are you doing. I said a game it isn't a truth in of itself that a game that isn't difficult isn't good. An easy game can be bad, but being easy doesn't imply it's bad. Kirby games have good gameplay. They are easy, but who gives a shit? I'd rather they make good games that also happen to be easy than cater to you who only cares about difficulty at the expense of an overall worse game

What about that is so hard for you to understand? People enjoy the game REGARDLESS of difficulty. It has nothing to do with your "children's game" nonsense that you keep returning to. It's that people don't care if it's easy because that in of itself does not make a game bad.

>Good game design would imply that it's enjoyable by people of all ages
No it doesn't.

>This subsequently kills all replayability as well
Not necessarily. Children who enjoy the game may want to experience the game as-is more than once.

>I could make that exact same argument about any game
Yeah, so? People gravitate towards different games for different reasons, and many developers choose to tap into specific genres, markets, or niches.

>why can't they be designed for all ages?
Cause they don't want to. See: above.

You seem to be upset that games don't cater to everyone (read: you) and that's somehow an inherent problem with a game. The Kirby series is a solid franchise with several good games and a few less-than-stellar gimmick titles built with low difficulty for children. But your reasoning continues to be
>muh challenge
Unless you can find other issues with any of the games, you've constructed a weak argument for yourself. Otherwise, just admit they're not for you.

>I said a game it isn't a truth in of itself that a game that isn't difficult isn't good
>essentially, games shouldn't have any difficulty because then they wouldn't be "comfy"

Then for what purpose am I playing a game? For it to pat me on the back and give me a participation award? Where's the entertainment in that? In a game, should I not earn my right to continue onward with hard work? If I'm not working for my good ending, I don't deserve it. It doesn't feel like I've worked for it, and comes across as shallow. This is why I insinuate that every game should have some semblance of easily accessible difficulty, regardless of developer or genre.

>Kirby games have good gameplay
If you wish to say this, then I'd like to see some factual citations. "It's good because it's popular" is not an argument.

>Then for what purpose am I playing a game?
Maybe if you read the post you replied to, I wouldn't have to copy paste it.
>An easy game can be bad, but being easy doesn't imply it's bad. Kirby games have good gameplay.
>It's that people don't care if it's easy because that in of itself does not make a game bad.

When people analyze the gameplay of game, it does not start and end at difficulty. One can make a good game without making it difficult. At that point, if you care about anything other than difficulty, you can still think a game is good.

Your issue stems from only caring about difficulty. People can enjoy something without feeling challenged it. People don't play game solely to feel like they accomplished something or to be awarded as you imply by saying "For it to pat me on the back and give me a participation award? Where's the entertainment in that?"

>No it doesn't.
I beg to disagree. A game designed for people of all ages implies gameplay that can be adapted for people of multiple preferences, whereas a game designed solely for children is the lowest of the low, meant to have no thought put into it whatsoever because, as Nintendo and HAL will gladly admit, children are easy to pander to.

>Not necessarily. Children who enjoy the game may want to experience the game as-is more than once.
And if the game had difficulty options, they could do this without sacrificing someone else's desire to enjoy the game at a higher skill level. Why must one be sacrificed?

>Yeah, so? People gravitate towards different games for different reasons, and many developers choose to tap into specific genres, markets, or niches.
And what exactly about my above proposal would "alienate" the current Kirby audience? Would they refuse to play the game because of optional difficulty settings?

>Cause they don't want to. See: above.
so why should I consider the series anything but below average? If you want to convince me that Kirby is this perfect wonderful 10/10 godsend above all else, you need to convince me why it's better than other games that do offer difficulty and have better gameplay design. If it's "just your opinion" and you can't back it up whatsoever, then it would be helpful if you clarified that at the outset.

Wasn't even replying to you dude, I was just summing up that you're the exact stereotype of a standard Sup Forums poster. I commend you for not using too many buzzwords though, good job.

I suppose these just aren't the games for you man. Idk what to tell you because I wasn't the guy you were arguing with. Just play something else I guess, maybe some game you enjoy rather than complaining about ones you don't?

>Maybe if you read the post you replied to, I wouldn't have to copy paste it.
According to the post you're referencing, a game shouldn't be too "videogamey" because then it becomes not fun. The game should have very little challenge, or it won't be comfy. I believe that's the argument being made.

>Your issue stems from only caring about difficulty. People can enjoy something without feeling challenged it.
This here is the root of the issue. If you don't want to play the game, then why not just watch it on youtube? That would make it much more "comfy" than playing through it yourself, wouldn't it? That's the general gist of the arguments so far ITT. As if people have a problem with a game actually asking you to improve. That's the entire point of a game, it's been the point of video games since the inception of games back in the days of Pac-man and tetris; that a game would challenge you and it was your job to beat it.

Removing that aspect leaves nothing more than stagnation in its wake. at that point, what's being accomplished? Nothing. There's no improvement, there's no learning. You're just dancing the same macabre siesta, and before you know it, the game is over. And yes, that is an inherent problem.

Hammer is the best power exclusively for finishing off the final boss with a hammer throw like a real nigga.

>I was just summing up that you're the exact stereotype of a standard Sup Forums poster
I would like to argue otherwise. I don't have a problem with liking Kirby. By all means, if you want to enjoy the series, go ahead.

but posts like OP's are pretentious, as are many posts where people claim that kirby is "objectively good" and "nobody can ever say anything bad about it." What kind of arguments are those, anyway? They're non-arguments.

Honestly, I never even post in Kirby threads when people are just talking about the games. I hide them and go about my day. But when OP implies that Kirby is this perfect 10/10 masterpiece, I'll be inclined to disagree.

>Tilt and tumble barely worked

As for gameplay, it's both fast paced and responsive. These are separate because you can have a game where you can move through a level quickly, but it's bogged down by shit controls or overly long animations. Dropping abilities and picking up new ones are fast, you can easily move between jumping, sliding, and flying quickly, and abilities themselves often have very fast attacks that can be cancelled and reinitiated without much hassle.

The levels themselves often have interesting items hidden away that require specific abilities, or enemies that offer something special if you react to them fast enough. This breaks up the game from simply going to point A to point B (if it's a kirby game with linear levels which isn't always the case).

Abilities themselves are satisfying as most have a good moveset which again, can be chained together easily. They are also visually and audibly satisfying which goes for the game as a whole. The game is fast paced, the control are fluent and responsive, and it sounds and looks charming which makes it fun for me regardless of difficulty. If all I cared about was needing to feel a serious challenge in a game, I'd have maybe a dozen games I was allowed to play
>If you want to convince me that Kirby is this perfect wonderful 10/10 godsend above all else
Again, nobody claimed this but you. You're only devaluing your own argument by trying to push this bullshit onto others

All it boils down to is that a game doesn't need to be difficult to be enjoyable. That's the crux of what everyone here has told you and you don't seem capable of approaching that idea. You try to distance your self from answering by asking us to provide evidence of why it's a good game otherwise, or by accusing posters of claiming the game is perfect, but it doesn't matter when
>A game does not have to be difficult to be good
applies to every game. It's not singular to Kirby.

>But when OP implies that Kirby is this perfect 10/10 masterpiece
Where the fuck are you getting this? OP just says Kirby is "consistently good" which is true. That's not even remotely close to gushing adoration and praising perfection.

I think maybe you have a victim complex as you're greatly exaggerating the OP. You're the only person with posts that have "10/10 masterpiece" and "nobody can ever say anything bad about it."

I genuinely think you have some kind of disorder if you think any of this thread has made a claim like that.

Wow. How much of a fag can one be. It's fucking palpable.

I didn't buy Planet Robobo because fuck Amiibo

Kirby threads are one of the few threads I ever look forward to on Sup Forums.
Don't you shitposters have another thread to piss in?

Idk man, just ignore it. People like different things than you and use different metrics to measure quality. By all means, the same people you're arguing that these are shit games to probably think some of the games you think are objectively good because of difficulty (or whatever other metrics you use to determine quality) are poorly made, unfair drivel. As far as functionality and other standard game aspects go, Kirby delivers pretty well, and I can't really say I believe that anything can be "objectively" 10/10, as 10/10 is an opinion and is thus, subjective. There's really no point to arguing such a subject because even games that are generally agreed to be masterpieces will have people that view them as poorly made, or unfair, or too easy, etc., and games that are absolute shitpiles will have rabid fans that defend it to a T. Everything ends as subjective in the end in regards to stuff like this.

I'm the poster you replied to this time btw.

>I can't think of any game that fits that description.
Is this bait, or are you just not playing video games at all?

>As for gameplay, it's both fast paced and responsive.
This is an opinion. even Nu-Doom is faster, and it isn't bogged down by poor controls. So again this is attributed to lower standards.

>The levels themselves often have interesting items
This is only assuming that the person playing isn't tired of collectathons with generic trinkets.

>Abilities themselves are satisfying as most have a good moveset which again, can be chained together easily
Again an opinion. For someone who enjoys higher tier games like Mechwarrior and Unreal, the "satisfying attacks" as you claim will barely even make a dent in how I feel an attack should feel.

>The game is fast paced, the control are fluent and responsive, and it sounds and looks charming which makes it fun
It's fine if you find it fun, but being "charming" and "fast paced" means absolutely nothing if there's nothing for you to do in the game. To put it this way: if I can fly and shoot fireballs and turn into a statue as Mario, it means nothing if all I'm fighting are easily dispatched goombas, and they already die by one jump to the head.

>All it boils down to is that a game doesn't need to be difficult to be enjoyable.
Then what point is there to playing it? I could get the same experience just watching it on youtube. the point of a video game should be to make my input feel important. I should have the ever-present feeling that my actions will lead to further actions later in the game. What Kirby is guilty of is making my actions as minimal as possible. I'm not affecting anything, I'm not being asked to put any effort forth. So really, I could be watching some let's player run through the game and I'd hardly feel any different. And that's definitely not a good sign for a product.

There isn't anything exclusive to amiibo though.

Potential spoiler: The "exclusive" ability from the amiibo is actually the prize for 100%ing the game.

It's not just that, but the claims that the game has good gameplay based on nothing but opinions and hearsay.

Also, an ever present issue amongst most posts in the thread is this: they actively campaign against optional difficulty settings for no reason. Even though that would allow them to enjoy the game as-is with no sweat off their backs, while allowing other people to enjoy the games with a higher difficulty curve, everyone ITT seems to be against this idea. As if nobody is allowed to enjoy the game in any other method other than their own.

And that's the real puzzler here.

You can say bad things about the Kirby games. Just be prepared to get your shit slapped for being wrong. That's all :^)

>being wrong

Hammer is the best power for anything because of those i-frames.

>"Why would I play a game instead of watch it?"
Gee, I wonder...

>this is an opinion
No shit. So is "the game needs to offer this subjective level of difficulty in order to be objectively good"
>Then what point is there to playing it?
I'll say it one last time since you're going in circles. Your opinion is that a game must be difficult for you to enjoy it. A game has elements beyond difficulty, therefore a game can be good without difficulty. Your specific argument on the difficulty of Kirby and its relation to being a good game is meaningless as it only applies to you who observes difficulty on its own.

If you want a game to be hard, good for you. Kirby is not the game for you. No objectivity exists in arguing that it needs to be difficult to be good how ever.

I think you need to comprehend the posts you're replying to first.
>According to the post you're referencing, a game shouldn't be too "videogamey" because then it becomes not fun. The game should have very little challenge, or it won't be comfy. I believe that's the argument being made.

Is clearly not a point being made and to even imply such a thing gives me the assumption that you're only reading what you want to read. The word "videogamey" was never used, what you're implying overall in that sentence is the exact opposite of the post you replied to, and the rest of what you interpreted from my post, "The game should have very little challenge, or it won't be comfy." is made false simply by reading "a game doesn't have to be hard to be good" which was in the post you replied to every other sentence.

>Robobot
>Good

The amiibo functionality is only really there if you want to cheese the True Arena with ones that give you health.

I don't care if you like or dislike the game or any reasoning for either of that. I'm saying you legitimately have a disorder if you're inventing posts that say "this game is a 10/10 masterpiece" and than complaining about said posts as if they stemmed from anything but your own schizophrenia.

Nobody in this thread has made any of the claims you're complaining about. You are arguing with your self. You might as well go on /fit/ and accuse them of calling Kirby a "10/10 masterpiece that can't be criticized" because just as many people there have said that as in this thread nobody but your self

>Say it's shit
>Don't say why it's shit

Can Kirby beat the touhous?

>A game has elements beyond difficulty, therefore a game can be good without difficulty
No, it really doesn't. The only aspect of a game that matters is its gameplay, and if it's not offering even a small challenge, then your input isn't even necessary. You could glue down the right button or analog stick and the game will win itself for you. At that point, interactions stop being necessary.

Again, as I've said multiple times, I wouldn't mind this in the slightest if the game had optional difficulty levels at the beginning. You could enjoy your game the way you want, I could enjoy it the way I want. Neither of us loses anything here. Why you vehemently argue that all difficulty in games is somehow evil is anyone's guess.

It's like the Story in Pokemon games. I don't like it that much, but I know some people do like it. So why the hell can't I skip the cutscenes? Same here, why can't I skip the casual gameplay and get right to what I'd consider the meat of the game?

>MFW not matter how hard i try, i can't beat the true arenas without using rock
I am a failure.

You didn't reply to me So I guess I'll just plop it here.

How would you make Kirby more difficult?

Make all the game play like the true arena.

is this the power of a sonyponies shitposting?

I don't like it.

>The only aspect of a game that matters is its gameplay
I can get behind that po-
>and if it's not offering even a small challenge, then your input isn't even necessary. You could glue down the right button or analog stick and the game will win itself for you. At that point, interactions stop being necessary.
Okay, so I just did that in kirby super star and kirby got hit a couple times before being stuck at a wall. Guess "completion" means "as soon as you hit a wall".
I can both enjoy Dark Souls and Kirby games for what they are. I don't want to play hard games 24/7. You do know that if you were anywhere close to the truth, comfy/relaxing game like Stardew Valley would make no money?

>Squeak squad sucked
>Rainbow curse was shit
>Tilt and tumble barely worked
>Mass attack was a meme
how can you be this gay? how can you talk so much with a mouth full of cock? what the FUCK

I didn't see your post. By all means, allow me to rectify my mistake.

>By all means, the same people you're arguing that these are shit games to probably think some of the games you think are objectively good
I'm gonna stop you right there. You might assume me to be some fart sniffing elitist, but I assure you that I'm trying to be level headed. For you see, I don't consider any game to be objectively good. I like many games, and will argue in their favor, but I also consider all games to be flawed. If you guys were to see my favorites and consider them subpar, I would certainly argue otherwise, but I would not imply that you weren't allowed your right to say such.

I mostly try to argue using facts.

>No, it really doesn't. The only aspect of a game that matters is its gameplay,
see
specifically
>When people analyze the gameplay of game, it does not start and end at difficulty. One can make a good game without making it difficult.

Again, I think your reading comprehension skills are below what is necessary to have a conversation with another person. I have said straight up several times that gameplay is not solely difficulty and yet you cannot read my posts well enough to stop your self from claiming that I am not talking about gameplay.
> Why you vehemently argue that all difficulty in games is somehow evil is anyone's guess.
Feel free to quote me saying that. As I never made such a claim and have made several statements that imply the opposite.

Like I said, your reading comprehensions skills are too low to have a conversation with another person. has no relevance to anything I've said so it's more that you're arguing with your self and quoting my posts than actually responding to me. If you feel differently, defend anything in by pointing to my posts and saying how it holds relevance to what you just said.

>MFW beat Kirby super star ultra and Kirby triple delux true arena with the fire ability
I can't seem to beat planet robobot's true arena. That one's a bit of an endurance test. I'll get there eventually.

>sonypony
>when sony games are even more casual and promote watching cinematics over actual gameplay

Holy strawman, Batman!

>I can both enjoy Dark Souls and Kirby games for what they are. I don't want to play hard games 24/7
I guess so. I mean, it's not like there's a system I just referenced where you can choose your difficulty.

That's all well and good but if you're going to argue what other people say, you need to understand what they are saying instead of replacing their words with your own concept of what person defending something would say. If your response to people arguing about difficulty is "I assume people that don't think Kirby needs to be difficult hate difficulty altogether so I'll respond to every post as if they claimed they hate all difficulty" than you aren't actually arguing with anyone. You're arguing with your self.

I'm worried about your mental health as many times in this thread you have claimed that people had made arguments that are not there. You claimed people have said the game is a masterpiece or cannot be criticized when nobody did. You claimed that people think gameplay isn't important when nobody did. You claimed people said difficulty is inherently bad which nobody did.

You can't pull shit out of your ass and say other people are making those arguments when they're not. That's just stupid.

Well now I can see you aren't the stereotypical "lol ninturds ecks dee" shitposter that is typical for Sup Forums, but I must ask, why bother trying to argue that the games are bad to an audience that is hard set that they are good? The games have every aspect that their target audience expects and wishes them to have, and doesn't usually radically change it in a manner that upsets longtime players. I can't say that you NEED to find it good, but it makes no sense to try and argue that it's bad when the target audience and general playerbase is satisfied with the quality and gameplay. Not saying that fan-satisfaction is the absolute measure of quality, but it certainly is one of the major goals of a game, and one that Kirby achieves admirably. People enjoy different things user.

The poster you replied to.

>I have said straight up several times that gameplay is not solely difficulty
I understand that it's not solely difficulty, but it's a very large part of it. The game is supposed to give you tools of gameplay and how to progress, then it tests your ability to use your tools. What Kirby does is give you a bunch of tools (which isn't a bad thing, don't get me wrong) but you're never asked to use them. i don't know how to say it. It's like you're given every tool in a Zelda game, but you only have to complete Mario levels. It's overkill and the game isn't asking anything of you other than the laziest of bare minimums.

>Feel free to quote me saying that.
see>I don't want to play hard games 24/7.

Probably your post. Probably not. Either way, it encapsulates this attitude that having OPTIONAL difficulty is a bad thing.

I see what you're saying, but every argument by yourself has been something along the lines of "you want the game to force difficulty on you". Is that the crux of it? Do you think I've been saying that? Because I'll gladly point to multiple posts where I say otherwise.

Reasonably, there is no reason to disagree with me here. Having optional settings benefits both everyone ITT and myself. I get the difficulty I want, you get the regular play through that you enjoy. How this could be bad is beyond me.

I'm arguing that the games are missing a critical ingredient in what makes many games fun for all ages. Kirby purposely limits itself to an age of children for no reason, when it could easily offer incentives for older audiences to enjoy it.

I mean, it's not like Sakurai is even foreign to this concept. didn't he make a game in 2012 starring a pre-pubescent angel kid who fought aliens and an ancient greek god who looked like he came out an 80's punk rock band? That had a sliding difficulty scale. And it was optional. I don't see why he couldn't do the same for Kirby. Replace hearts with pieces of cake to make it thematically appropriate. have the hardest difficulty be "having your cake and eating it too". There, I saved Sakurai a few hours in his think chamber.

If you understood that, you would never have said
>The only aspect of a game that matters is its gameplay
As I have only defended that point of view since I started replying to you. You clearly can't comprehend my posts

>I don't want to play hard games 24/7.
Both not my post and
> it encapsulates this attitude that having OPTIONAL difficulty is a bad thing.
is not my attitude.

All I said was that a game can be good and easy. Like I said, your reading comprehension skills are not on a level where you can have a conversation with another person. You repeatedly accuse me of claims that are not just irrelevant but opposite of what I've posted.

I just cheesed it with Hammer's Down/Dash B

>All I said was that a game can be good and easy.
And I'm arguing that a good game would have provisions for people who want a challenge. Being mechanically sound (which I'm sure you'd defend Kirby being) is not the same as being good overall.

>I don't see why he couldn't do the same for Kirby.
Because Kirby and Kid Icarus set out to achieve two different things. That's like saying having a hunger and death mechanic is a good thing in Animal Crossing because Sims has it.

Anyway Kirby is meant to be a chill game that you take your time and enjoy instead of one where you get annoyed because of the ballbreaking difficulty.

Yes, but I'm saying that people enjoy it regardless and it IS enjoyable by all ages. The Kirby games separate the difficult areas from the main campaign in the form of things such as True Arena and the side-games, which are extremely difficult (sometimes unfairly so). I understand wanting more difficulty options, but the games still satisfy most fans or players in terms of difficulty because of the contrastingly difficult Arena and battle games.
And again, why argue this in a thread with people hard-set that the games are perfectly fine as they are? It makes no sense, it's like trying to ride a boar into a forest filled with hunters.

Get some fucking taste.

> but every argument by yourself has been something along the lines of "you want the game to force difficulty on you". Is that the crux of it?

No, actually it's been a game can be good and easy. You responded to said post in with the exact words "This is the logic you're operating on, that they're good because they're designed for children."

Which, like I've mocked you for several times, is an argument nobody made, but you supplemented because you lack reading comprehension.

I do not think the game is good because they're designed for children. I think a game can be good and be designed for children. Pretty simple.

I think you shoot your self in the foot, by inventing inane bullshit and accusing people of saying it. I've only responded to you this much because you somehow think it helps to sputter garbage like
>this is the logic you're operating on, that they're good because they're designed for children.

when nobody in the thread says so, or
>proclaim the series as a perfect godsend that's fun for everyone and that nobody could ever find issue with them
when nobody came close to saying anything like that
or
> But when OP implies that Kirby is this perfect 10/10 masterpiece, I'll be inclined to disagree.
when he did no such thing

or even my own posts when you reply to them with
>Why you vehemently argue that all difficulty in games is somehow evil is anyone's guess.

When I made no such claim

Maybe if you stopped putting so much bullshit in all of your posts people would find you more agreeable.

Look man, dude clearly isn't getting it.
Why don't we just bring this back to Kirby and ignore him because this shit is getting nowhere fast.

tell me where
>This is the logic you're operating on, that they're good because they're designed for children.

Plays into it.

This is like /m/ tier shitposting