Are we doing too much hand-holding in today's society?

[FoxwolfJackson]

I looked through the first page of this board and could not find a related topic, so I figured I might start this one to get some discussion (that is hopefully not politically related).

This idea came to me in recent months as I was working with some of my students. For those that don't know, I am a volunteer instructor at a local high school's pep band and jazz band. The idea came to me as I was working with my drumline and I was teaching them something cool they could do and the general consensus was, "I don't want to learn anything new. What we already do is fine." Many of the people who are on the drumline are people who are not interested in music or putting in effort, but love the idea that they can just swing the stick and make a sound. No work. No effort. When something comes up that actually requires work, effort, and practice, they will stubbornly fight back and try to stick to "play the same beat and part for every. single. song."

Perhaps it is just me, but I have been seeing this pattern throughout our society. In our gaming, video games have seemingly become so much easier. There was a day where the gameplay and mechanics were simpler, but the game lasted a long time, because it challenged the player constantly. In this day and age, some games play out more like interactive movies than actual video games (and the first things that come to mind are Heavy Rain and Metal Gear Solid). One can argue that this is simply stretching the wings of the creative and technological advances of today's day and age, but I cannot help but nostalgically reminisce upon a time when "Nintendo Hard" struck fear in a player's heart.

Even in our curriculum today, it seems like things are getting easier. The students of today seem to have become more of professional test takers than actual learners. In some universities, they even are beginning to have such absurd concepts such as "safe spaces", as if there is some mythical energy pervading this arbitrary location that nullifies the meaning behind the phrase of "sticks and stones". Between common core and No Child Left behind, it seems as though the education system is part of the problem of pandering and pampering people into having atrocious attitudes in regards to persistent, perplexing problems.

In fact, from a personal observation, a lot of people today seem to give up too easily on anything that could potentially provide a challenge for them. When adversity comes up, instead of rising to the occasion to overcome it, it seems like more and more people nowadays are simply running away and hoping there is something out there that can take care of their problems for them. Many people, when faced with opposition, simply retreat... run away... or simply bury their heads in the sand.

I have to ask the people here. Is this more of an outlier concluded from personal observation based upon the locale of where I live (Southern New Jersey) and the communities I inhabit (ie: video games, fanfiction, etc.), or is this a real, pressing, widespread problem in today's society that can and should be addressed?

[Naughx]

Well since video games are an hobby, people usually actively seek for some form of challenge. (Also from the fact that failing has no consequences)

For other things, often you don't really want too much difficulty so you will tend to avoid it.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Naughx

[Phoenix Wright]

what's wrong with common core, particularly mathematics? math and science are taught poorly in this country, and tests consistently show this. common core math aims to deconstruct the way principal mathematics are taught (ie, via rote memorization) and teach it in a way that actually has some sort of structure. this can appear to be a little much for very simple operations like addition, but is very important. math should not be memorized until things become obvious. as an example, i'm familiar with things like vector calculus and partial differential eqns--i don't need to show why i know 8+5 = 13. a first grader should. students become frustrated because the people around them don't know math. but that's not an argument for why common core is ineffective, that simply bolsters the fact that generally people don't know math.

why is math important? it helps teach people how to think. lots of people falsely assume math always has single right answers--that isn't true. or, that there is typically only one method to achieve a correct answer. that also isn't true--introductory mathematics gives kids the impression that it is, and people become frustrated when they don't get it immediately. math is logic in number form pretty much, and both are very important in achieving a critical thinker in a young person.

who gives a shit if games are easier lol. things aren't much different from when you or i were in elementary school.

[FoxwolfJackson]

what's wrong with common core, particularly mathematics? math and science are taught poorly in this country, and tests consistently show this. common core math aims to deconstruct the way principal mathematics are taught (ie, via rote memorization) and teach it in a way that actually has some sort of structure. this can appear to be a little much for very simple operations like addition, but is very important. math should not be memorized until things become obvious. as an example, i'm familiar with things like vector calculus and partial differential eqns--i don't need to show why i know 8+5 = 13. a first grader should. students become frustrated because the people around them don't know math. but that's not an argument for why common core is ineffective, that simply bolsters the fact that generally people don't know math.

What's wrong with Common Core Mathematics? It takes the woman nearly a minute in

video to explain why 9+6=15. This really circular, roundabout way of learning things may work in later maths (I remember my Calculus professor in college telling us to learn HOW and WHY derivatives work and how they are found before using the "shortcut" way of finding a derivative), but really, good old-fashioned memorization is far superior when it comes to basic arithmatic and there is very little room for error. A kid counts from 9 and goes up six more digits. Memorization is key. If they keep reinforcing that those numbers add together, it creates a base that a child can intuitively draw from (not unlike a coding library when programming) because it is so ingrained in their memory.

Sure, multiple answers and multiple approaches, and all that is great for highly advanced equations. One might argue that it is even required in later maths. Granted, I didn't go much further into my math studies since it wasn't necessary for a music major to take more than two math courses, but I knew engingeering majors who say similar things that you do about higher level math.

who gives a shit if games are easier lol. things aren't much different from when you or i were in elementary school.

Fire Emblem: Awakening was so laughably easy in non-lunatic mode (and I don't touch Lunatic because it is what my girlfriend calls a "false difficulty"). Super Mario Galaxy is far easier than Super Mario 64. Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword and Link Between Worlds were so much easier than Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask. Every generation of gaming has grown increasingly easier than the last, so I beg to differ from the "things aren't much different". It is, in its essence, pandering to the audience...

I HIGHLY doubt Fi would have existed if we had this video game technology in '85. Yes, gaming may merely be a hobby, but there is an underlying pattern that reflects in the attitude of the children of today toward actual, important things. Like studies.

[Naughx]

For the video games, there is not much point in playing if your aren't looking for a challenge.

Buying a movie costs around 7-10 dollars, getting a (modern AAA) video game costs around 60$ and you also require a console.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Naughx

[eclipse]

Fire Emblem: Awakening was so laughably easy in non-lunatic mode (and I don't touch Lunatic because it is what my girlfriend calls a "false difficulty").

Whoa, STOP.

I've done really stupid/crazy things on Lunatic. The beginning is unfair, and very few will argue that. Once Chapter 7 rolls around, things dip down in difficulty, to give everyone a chance to catch up. Things kick up again in Chapter 12, and then again in 17. . .and a couple more times in 21 and 23. Lunatic is one of those difficulties that will force you to decide how you'll use what you've got, and when. There's a hell of a lot of stat inflation (which is bad), but take a look at the enemy type distribution - you'll rarely see more than five classes at a time. The later maps require some thought, once the breaker skills become a little too common (CHAPTER 24 I AM LOOKING AT YOU).

If you want to see what insanity looks like, go find the Chrom Lunatic solo topic. I still need to collect a ton of regalia, but my next goal is to solo RaR 3. . .assuming my theory is correct.

What does this have to do with the topic? You're talking about how things are easier, yet when it comes to something difficult, you haven't even taken the time to evaluate why it's hard! I believe the wealth of conclusions, and lack of analysis, is why there's so much hand-holding.

[FoxwolfJackson]

Whoa, STOP.

I've done really stupid/crazy things on Lunatic. The beginning is unfair, and very few will argue that. Once Chapter 7 rolls around, things dip down in difficulty, to give everyone a chance to catch up. Things kick up again in Chapter 12, and then again in 17. . .and a couple more times in 21 and 23. Lunatic is one of those difficulties that will force you to decide how you'll use what you've got, and when. There's a hell of a lot of stat inflation (which is bad), but take a look at the enemy type distribution - you'll rarely see more than five classes at a time. The later maps require some thought, once the breaker skills become a little too common (CHAPTER 24 I AM LOOKING AT YOU).

If you want to see what insanity looks like, go find the Chrom Lunatic solo topic. I still need to collect a ton of regalia, but my next goal is to solo RaR 3. . .assuming my theory is correct.

What does this have to do with the topic? You're talking about how things are easier, yet when it comes to something difficult, you haven't even taken the time to evaluate why it's hard! I believe the wealth of conclusions, and lack of analysis, is why there's so much hand-holding.

Lunatic is a "False Difficulty" (as my girlfriend puts it), because it artificially creates difficulty by jacking up the stats. Awakening itself is a broken game where you can, with minimal effort, OP your characters by chapter 5 or so (I forget the actual number) and a downfall of the franchise that I had spent a good portion of my life being a huge fan of.

Radiant Dawn's hard mode was a real difficulty. It removed the Weapons Triangle (so you had to rely more on your own skill as a tactician in movement rather than utilizing this often forgotten mechanic), hid enemy movement, raised enemy stats marginally, halved the exp. that was gained, and lowered BEXP. Part 1 was cruel and punishing, but it was a rewarding difficulty. Lunatic Mode... hardly seems like it. The numbers are jacked up abnormally high, and personally, I think it had to do with the fact that the game proper was easy to break and very easy in difficulty compared to most of the US-released FE games (aside from Sacred Stones).

Essentially, Lunatic mode is actually quite relevant, because it was Intelligent Systems' attempt at appeasing the old guard, while using the main game to bring in the newer crowds. As a marketing tactic, it's brilliant, I'll begrudgingly admit...

Edited February 2, 2016 by FoxwolfJackson

[Phoenix Wright]

What's wrong with Common Core Mathematics? It takes the woman nearly a minute in

video to explain why 9+6=15. This really circular, roundabout way of learning things may work in later maths (I remember my Calculus professor in college telling us to learn HOW and WHY derivatives work and how they are found before using the "shortcut" way of finding a derivative), but really, good old-fashioned memorization is far superior when it comes to basic arithmatic and there is very little room for error. A kid counts from 9 and goes up six more digits. Memorization is key. If they keep reinforcing that those numbers add together, it creates a base that a child can intuitively draw from (not unlike a coding library when programming) because it is so ingrained in their memory.

Sure, multiple answers and multiple approaches, and all that is great for highly advanced equations. One might argue that it is even required in later maths. Granted, I didn't go much further into my math studies since it wasn't necessary for a music major to take more than two math courses, but I knew engingeering majors who say similar things that you do about higher level math.

the fact that you endorse memorization is the root problem. rote memorization is a cancer in mathematics, as it does not teach math. it doesn't matter that it took her a minute because a student can now use similar methods to calculate not only 9+6, but also 4+22, 17+3, 815+17, etc. at some point, the student will have developed and will be able to count in their head (eg, 487+66), but this typically waits until middle or high school. it isn't perfect, but it's better than past methods.

with memorizing math comes none of the intuition, which is the whole point of learning math. learning why an integral can be interpreted as an area under a given curve vs memorizing that an integral yields an area under a curve is extremely important when attempting to understand integrals and infinitesimals. and if you want to have a well-prepared student, you make it so that the fundamentals are known, not memorized. take it from someone who does (will/wants to) math for a living, basically.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Water Mage]

In fact, from a personal observation, a lot of people today seem to give up too easily on anything that could potentially provide a challenge for them. When adversity comes up, instead of rising to the occasion to overcome it, it seems like more and more people nowadays are simply running away and hoping there is something out there that can take care of their problems for them. Many people, when faced with opposition, simply retreat... run away... or simply bury their heads in the sand.

This is the problem. People are giving up to easily these days.

And game developers know that and so they are making games easier, otherwise people might find the games to hard and won't buy them or won't recommend it to their friends.

A good example of this is Pokemon Omega Ruby and Alpha Saphire, the games were going to have the Battle Frontier, but it was considered to hard and so it was removed.

Also, from what I've heard, it's not uncommon for parents to complain about games being to hard for their kids.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Water Mage

[Snowy_One]

Two things I want to address.

1) In regards to 'handholding'. The answer is simple. Yes. Right now I'm studying insurance law. I also work as a volunteer game critic. Guess which job I adore more? Guess which job I'd LOVE to get paid for, even if it's a easily 30 bucks a week? Maybe if I sold off my Steam account I'd get a few thousand dollars from the various games I've gotten but I don't get paid an actual cent. I then turn around and see people try to pass off lazy reviews as 'professional' when all they did was play the game for a few moments, decide it wasn't like X game, and then give it remarkably low scores. Especially if these same people then turn around and worship something like Gone Home while shunning something like The Stanley Parable. This is doubly true if the game is one everyone expects to be awesome and it gets a low score. Remember the Twilight Princess 8.8? I didn't read the review (I was a dumb kid and never thought to after), but even if the reason was purely bribery he had to know just how much flak was coming back at him.

Think I'm just being a gamer belly-aching? Well, I also do stuff down in city hall and I've seen quite a few people walk in and act like everything is corrupt and they are the special little snowflake who is going to change the system and that everyone should yield to their demands even if it's outright against the law and, if the council/committee/whatever refuses it's not because what they did was unreasonable but because of internal corruption. They expect to be above the laws and for everyone to yield to them.

One of the biggest, and most brutal, lessons I had to learn about this was back on a roleplay forum called 'Celestial Refresh' where I obtained mod status. My role was minor. Go in and keep the various players active on their own, personal, stuff. I'm not going to claim I was the best but I tried to ensure things were kept moving even during college classes. However I also decided that I was THE mod who stood for the people and against all the lazy people who gladly let topics slip so they could spend time giving each other great rewards and designing Sailor Moon characters in Soul Caliber. To this end I became hostile and vitriolic to the GM's, constantly trying to 'change' things, but all I ever did was argue and rarely ever actually work. When someone got punished for bad roleplaying I wasn't mad at them for the sucky stuff but at the GM's who were willing to break out the belt. When someone got treated lazily I didn't try to help them fix it but, instead, got accusatory at others. When I finally got kicked out I came here and started Lord of Azure Flame. Did I do the right thing? Maybe. Maybe not. But I sure expected the world to bend to me as I was certainly 'right' and didn't have to work because everyone else was clearly in the wrong.

Today I see a bunch of these dumb college and university kids complaining about things like racism and micro-aggressions and the like and, you know what? I despise them. I see how I used to act in them. Lots of shrill cries, demands for others to change, but no understanding, listening, or desire to actually change how they act; just accuse others about their own shortcomings. They say it's racist to wear braids because it's culturally appropriating Black culture but put no effort into knowing where braids actually came from, if they are actually part of black culture, or if anyone else possibly decided to braid their own hair who wasn't black and had no contact with them. Gladly accuse MLK of being non-inclusive because he didn't include gays in his civil rights fights but not even bother to learn that homosexuality wasn't even on the plate back then and the idea of simply getting colored people on the same level as white people was, in of itself, a dream until he came along and started to change things.

I'm not going to say 'well, they need to go out and earn their scars THEN they can talk'. I'm saying 'you speak from a position where you almost never face a challenge or do anything but complain and then are willing to accuse ME of being racist/sexist/whatever and think YOU are in the unconditional right? Guess whose privilege needs to be checked!'

2) On the 'casualization' thing... This one really rubs me the wrong way because I've seen plenty of games on both sides of the spectrum. Here's the thing. Making something difficult or complicated does NOT make it 'hardcore'. It makes it difficult and complicated. Many of the advances in games today have tried to reduce the complexity of games that were complicated for stupid reasons. For example, I got assigned both the Tales of Zestiria game and Tales of Symphonia PC re-release to review. I started playing ToS today and, after coming off of games like Vesperia, Graces, Xillia, and Zestiria, I got a rude awakening when I set the game to 'normal' figuring that, since I handled the hardest difficulties in all the prior games (except Graces), Symphonia, the game I grew up with, would be cake. The very first thing I tried to do in battle was free-run. I could not. I tried to do many of the sidesteps and backsteps and found it to be far more sluggish and, thusly, difficult to dodge than in those games. I'm re-adjusting but the combat, after coming from games where it held more options, seems well below average. Likewise, I heard a LOT about the mythical 'Morrowind' game and how amazing it was. I tried it, loaded it up, and died on the first cave without even damaging the people inside because the game didn't tell me how easy it was to have my spells interrupted. I then made a stock fighter and managed to survive until I opened up the journal. People had praised Morrowind in the past because it wasn't 'just follow the arrow'. The journal was a complete ****ing mess and I could only complete quests by outright ignoring everything else or being dumb lucky enough to stumble on the various bits without the aid of a guide because of how disorganized it was. Given the choice between that 'depth' and being able to know what I'm actually doing I'd MUCH rather have the Oblivion and Skyrim systems. People praised its complexity. I found it stupidly obtuse until I went online and looked up some guides and found some broken spells and potions that turned the combat that I had no clue as to what was going on into a complete joke. Not because I had learned something or gained some hidden knowledge or insight, but because there was some exploit that shattered whatever balance the game held and wasn't even a 'glitch' or oversight.

I see this repeated a lot in the games I review. Quite often I'll see something marketed as 'hardcore' and it turns out that their definition of it is either 'you strayed from the set path to collect some herbs. You missed the OBVIOUS trap that someone who invested multiple ranks into 'detect traps' would have spotted and got surrounded by twenty bandits that you were OBVIOUSLY supposed to fight once you leveled up twenty more times. Since you didn't obsessively focus on a skill you had no clue was even related to this situation that was presented in a time you couldn't possibly have handled it the bandits will now defeat you and sell you into slavery while spending the coin on drugs and booze' (I.E. Unfairly punishing and presenting unfair challenges) or 'What? You DIDN'T look through the massive compendium of knowledge on every obscure detail of the game to learn that, in order to cast the basic fireball spell, you need six pounds of an ingredient that you can ONLY buy from a back-alley dealer instead of a legitimate market and must spend two days meditating on and can only cast if you were born under the birth moon of Hidrixialish and you chose Hidrixailish as your birth moon at character creation. What? You had no clue that the standard starting spell was limited to back alley deals, birthdays that were never explained, and couldn't even access the compendium until you had made your character? Well... SUCKS TO BE YOU!' (I.E. Pointlessly obscure) or 'In this game of high evasion combat where your health depletes unreasonably fast, you can only harm certain enemies with certain attacks, and the last checkpoint was well over ten minutes ago, I'm going to refuse to give you any health drops and, instead, lock you into a tight and fixed space of which swarms of enemies, each with different weaknesses to one thing that they're otherwise immune to, will attack you ensuring your demise' (bad design). These are neither idle or hypothetical situations either for 'hardcore' games but actual examples I've run into. Hence why this word makes me very irritated. There is challenge, difficulty, and depth in games, yes, but there is also obtuseness, unfair situations, and simple bad design. Removing the latter three is NOT making a game more casual. It's making it so that the game doesn't turn into a continual bash against the wall due to bad design.

[solrocknroll]

I'd say that making things easier for people is positive. Common Core, for instance, helps a lot of people who could fall behind otherwise. Safe spaces are only positive. I mean, you pay to go to college. Why not offer the option to those who feel they need it?

For instance, games becoming easier is only a good thing. I prefer Skyward Sword to older Zeldas. I adore Kirby, especially Epic Yarn, and I prefer the magical Galaxy to 64.

I can't play hard games. I don't enjoy them, so easier games is a trend that only helps me.

To put things into perspective, I'm still stuck on Mole Knight's stage in Shovel Knight. It's really difficult.

[henrymidfields]

As far as games are concerned, it could also be that the past games were rigged in favour of the AI because of primitive artificial intelligence which otherwise makes such games too easy. Thus more recent games considered easier could actually be due to CPUs who act fairer/cheats less. At least TV Tropes Fake Difficulty entry reckons that is one reason.

[Lord Raven]

This idea came to me in recent months as I was working with some of my students. For those that don't know, I am a volunteer instructor at a local high school's pep band and jazz band. The idea came to me as I was working with my drumline and I was teaching them something cool they could do and the general consensus was, "I don't want to learn anything new. What we already do is fine." Many of the people who are on the drumline are people who are not interested in music or putting in effort, but love the idea that they can just swing the stick and make a sound. No work. No effort. When something comes up that actually requires work, effort, and practice, they will stubbornly fight back and try to stick to "play the same beat and part for every. single. song."

People already used to do stuff like this. Our parents do stuff like this. Most people are immune to change no matter what, and this has always been an issue in our society. Unless you're saying this is an issue in our society and has persisted, then sure I agree. Unless you're saying this is a new issue, then I disagree heavily.

Routine is kind of a huge deal, but you should also keep in mind that like 75% of people in band aren't there because they care about music. It's more about the social aspect. I don't think that has changed at all since my friend's parents were at my high school marching/pep/concert band. I would've personally been one of those students that would've loved the new challenge, but I also hated marching band too much to really even care. Concert band, sure.

Perhaps it is just me, but I have been seeing this pattern throughout our society. In our gaming, video games have seemingly become so much easier. There was a day where the gameplay and mechanics were simpler, but the game lasted a long time, because it challenged the player constantly. In this day and age, some games play out more like interactive movies than actual video games (and the first things that come to mind are Heavy Rain and Metal Gear Solid). One can argue that this is simply stretching the wings of the creative and technological advances of today's day and age, but I cannot help but nostalgically reminisce upon a time when "Nintendo Hard" struck fear in a player's heart.

Video games haven't gotten easier. Heavy Rain is meant to be an interactive movie and a different way of story telling. I don't think it's fair to really compare that to most video games, but it's an example that is not indicative of video games as a whole.

Metal Gear is pretty heavy on gameplay boss, and there's a lot of stuff you can do in it that is fairly difficult. You still have to be able to master the mechanics to play it at the highest difficulty and at the highest level.

Even in our curriculum today, it seems like things are getting easier. The students of today seem to have become more of professional test takers than actual learners. In some universities, they even are beginning to have such absurd concepts such as "safe spaces", as if there is some mythical energy pervading this arbitrary location that nullifies the meaning behind the phrase of "sticks and stones". Between common core and No Child Left behind, it seems as though the education system is part of the problem of pandering and pampering people into having atrocious attitudes in regards to persistent, perplexing problems.

Again, this has always been the case with "professional test taking." But I'm pretty sure Phoenix Wright has covered some of this. The education in this country and its mentality towards math and science has always been an issue in our society and I fucking scoff at every single person - adult or child - that reacts a certain way when I tell them what I'm doing. I've also been a TA for like 5 years now for various universities and many students just don't wanna be in a physics class. I can tell by my cross-generational encounters that if anything, more kids want to do science, but this has never not been an issue.

There was a debate about safe spaces in another thread. Might be worth checking out.

In fact, from a personal observation, a lot of people today seem to give up too easily on anything that could potentially provide a challenge for them. When adversity comes up, instead of rising to the occasion to overcome it, it seems like more and more people nowadays are simply running away and hoping there is something out there that can take care of their problems for them. Many people, when faced with opposition, simply retreat... run away... or simply bury their heads in the sand.

This has always been the case.

I have to ask the people here. Is this more of an outlier concluded from personal observation based upon the locale of where I live (Southern New Jersey) and the communities I inhabit (ie: video games, fanfiction, etc.), or is this a real, pressing, widespread problem in today's society that can and should be addressed?

This has been a pressing, widespread problem in all society that I'm not sure is getting better or worse. The only reason I ponder whether or not it's getting better or worse is because society has become significantly more competitive and in some cases if you're not first, you're last. It almost incites a fear of failure, people giving up, and people needing to get the best grades so they can get the best scholarships so they're not swimming in debt in college. All the while their parents are poor and their parents can't really avoid this kinda stuff either. This means people often seek the much easier way out because it's really significantly more difficult and stressful to be a teenager nowadays in America than it used to be.

Finally,

Lunatic is a "False Difficulty" (as my girlfriend puts it), because it artificially creates difficulty by jacking up the stats. Awakening itself is a broken game where you can, with minimal effort, OP your characters by chapter 5 or so (I forget the actual number) and a downfall of the franchise that I had spent a good portion of my life being a huge fan of.

Lunatic FE12 predates it by like 2 or 3 years? Had none of these issues. But this seems like a design oversight with Nosferatu and Dark Mages if I'm reading it right, but let's not pretend that it's easier to shitstomp through FE13 than it is to shitstomp a game like FE3/4/7/8/9. FE9 had bonus EXP for the love of god and FE8 had Seth.

Radiant Dawn's hard mode was a real difficulty. It removed the Weapons Triangle (so you had to rely more on your own skill as a tactician in movement rather than utilizing this often forgotten mechanic), hid enemy movement, raised enemy stats marginally, halved the exp. that was gained, and lowered BEXP. Part 1 was cruel and punishing, but it was a rewarding difficulty. Lunatic Mode... hardly seems like it. The numbers are jacked up abnormally high, and personally, I think it had to do with the fact that the game proper was easy to break and very easy in difficulty compared to most of the US-released FE games (aside from Sacred Stones).

Essentially, Lunatic mode is actually quite relevant, because it was Intelligent Systems' attempt at appeasing the old guard, while using the main game to bring in the newer crowds. As a marketing tactic, it's brilliant, I'll begrudgingly admit...

Are you serious about removing Weapon Triangle and enemy movement as real difficulty? Weapon triangle didn't really affect the game much at all because Biorhythm often times crapped on it. Even in normal mode with good WTA you could have really mediocre hit with bad biorhythm. FE10's biorhythm gave it a fake difficulty element too because it was like a 40% hit swing and it followed a set path but you had to manipulate it a lot to get it where you wanted.

Getting rid of enemy movement means you gotta count the tiles yourself. How is that real difficulty to get rid of it? It's just a minor annoyance if anything. That's actually the definition of fake difficulty; it's difficulty that's not even there, something that's just more of an annoyance.

t least with FE13 Lunatic mode you needed to hit statistical benchmarks which is where the difficulty came in, with the stuff you list in FE10 you have to do a little more work that you shouldn't even have to do and it makes it more annoying to play than difficult. And don't forget various things that trivialized the game (namely reliably beating 2-E with Haar, most of Part 3, and all of Part 4). The Dawn Brigade also all blow, you said that stats were jacked up in Lunatic which made it fake difficulty but you're also saying that Part 1 and all the Dawn Brigade maps were brutal - but this is exactly because most of your units suck and are outmatched by enemies except like Sothe. You know Micaiah/Laura are getting doubled/2HKO'd forever and shit like Edward/Leonardo/Ilyana get killed in two hits in every map right? Even Nolan can't take more than like 3-4 hits and him and Sothe are the only people until Volug that can take hits. Normal mode was the same way. The difficulty is partially in stats too, and you can't escape stats when it comes to FE difficulty.

Unless we're talking about FE5 which is loaded with all this fake difficulty that you're complaining about. Let's just remove Fake Difficulty as a buzz word unless we can give it a relatively rigid definition, because you appear to be contradicting yourself when you mention it.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Snowy_One]

As far as games are concerned, it could also be that the past games were rigged in favour of the AI because of primitive artificial intelligence which otherwise makes such games too easy. Thus more recent games considered easier could actually be due to CPUs who act fairer/cheats less. At least TV Tropes Fake Difficulty entry reckons that is one reason.

Too be fair I don't think fake difficulty counts as 'hardcore' except by the most sadomasicistic of gamers. I mean, sure, it's cool to overcome an unfairly stacked challenge like a massively OP'ed boss in a fighting game, but the real challenge comes from beating other players which is only rarely AI-biased. Of course that's not always true... But still.

Regardless I think everyone can agree that the days where not saving the mouse you didn't even know was savable are a good thing to be moving away from.

[Rapier]

I blame it more on the way people are being educated and the bad influence of the more experienced people that should be helping instead of hindering the youth. Since they do not know any other way, they follow what they're being taught and this leads to trouble. For example, I thought I was a good student because I could memorize things better and do well in tests, but cramming is not such an efficient way of learning as it seems to be. It is actually the worst for the long-term memorization that one needs in order to learn, and getting a good grade in a test but forgetting about the content you just saw is not a good thing at all, yet we're rewarded for cramming, so we do it anyway. I believed in this illusion for a long time, until I had the choice to pick a course that I intend to dedicate my life to and discover that I'm horrible at studying and long-term memorization. Now I have issues fixing my own errors because I thought that what I've been taught was right.

I see a terrible system that teaches people in a wrong way, and obviously these people will grow up to be troublesome. I've discovered that I can only count on myself and I'm the only one who can help myself, and this is like walking in the dark. These troublesome people are merely being what they've been [wrongly] taught to be.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Rapier

[amiabletemplar]

Are we doing "too much" handholding?

Well, the question is pretty damn loaded, since "handholding" is an inherently negative, pejorative term. Any amount of "hand-holding" is "too much," the way most people use the term.

However, in general I would say no, we are not "babying" our society that much. What we have, generally speaking, is a cultural shift that we're still progressing through. The Baby Boomer generation grew up with a subtly different set of values than the ones we have today. America was a lot more culturally homogeneous, people could leave their doors unlocked at night, people trusted the President to have the nation's best interests in mind (this was before Nixon, remember!), etc. Politically, economically, philosophically...in a lot of ways, the US of the 50s was almost a completely different country.

Also, I'm sorry but...are you seriously using video games as an example of "babying" people? You're absolutely right that video games often have a different kind of challenge today than they had 30 years ago. Some of it is a matter of technology--we can do so many more things than we could before. Some of it is a matter of genuinely better design: it's now easier to figure out what you've done wrong, and a lot fewer things depend on completely arbitrary, unalterable chance. Some of it, yes, is seeking an audience that merely wants to be entertained, rather than challenged...and there's nothing wrong with that. But we also have the "Souls" series, and the spinoff Bloodborne. We have a greater variety than ever before of difficulty possibilities (and sometimes they get hilarious names, like the Galactic Civilizations difficulty levels). We have the absolute profusion of "roguelikes" and procedurally-generated worlds, that in no way "hold your hand" unless you ask them to, and which are immensely popular (Minecraft, anyone?)

Yes, we're facing challenges of how to conduct education (something that will always need a personal touch) across a vast and populous nation (therefore needing a comprehensive system to be even remotely manageable). We're facing cultural issues, like how to balance the need for universities to be places of free expression with the need for them to fight predation (of all kinds--sexual, economic, political). We're facing economic issues, like the blunt reality that people 40 years ago could easily pay for college and a place to live, while now the majority of students continue to live with their parents because there is no economically viable alternative while they go to school.

Things change. New issues rise. Old issues rear their ugly heads in new ways. Pointing fingers, or wailing and gnashing teeth in lament of how awfulhorribleterrible our society has become, accomplishes exactly nothing. You see a problem? Find a way to fix it. Your problem, right now, seems to be that your students were not as enthusiastic about a technique as you were. The correct response is not to pout and complain that "KIDS THESE DAYS" are so ungrateful, so lazy, so lackadaisical that they don't respond the way you want them to. The correct response is to learn what does motivate them, and find ways to engage with them on that level. Stop characterizing modern children as impatient idiots. Why should they care? Sure, you think this technique is awesomesauce, but to them, it may very well be no more exciting than being shown how to compute an integral on a calculator, just a mechanical motion without context or significance. It's your job to try to do that impossible thing: to get someone else to be motivated about something. I don't know your students, so I cannot hope to provide anything but platitudes for how to treat them, but I definitely think there's an old saying that applies quite well to your situation. "It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools." Though, in this case, it would be the materials he works with.

[CallieSandy]

It all leads down to the common saying that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink it.

[Alertcircuit]

I think it's fine for games to be getting easier. Why should a means of escaping frustration be frustrating also? Plus, there's more options now. You can play easy games, or you can play harder games like Bloodborne and LOL.

[Skynstein]

The students of today seem to have become more of professional test takers than actual learners.

Oh boy, that's exactly the problem.

"Handholding" is an euphemism here. It's worthless to work your ass off during college, as your diploma is worth the same as that from a slacker who barely passed the tests. Knowing the right people is far more important.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Cerberus87

[TitanicIcebergs]

Oh boy, that's exactly the problem.

"Handholding" is an euphemism here. It's worthless to work your ass off during college, as your diploma is worth the same as that from a slacker who barely passed the tests. Knowing the right people is far more important.

Indeed. Here in Norway, you could have the best diploma achievable with straight 6s (A's) and still lose out on job opportunities to "worse" candidates. Here we value work experience far more than the diplomas themselves, so someone desiring to be an engineer or architect should work as a carpenter first to get good refs, and that way you'll always be picked first.

Regarding the whole difficulty issues, I honestly see no issues with them. The first generations of gamers are growing up and simply lack the time to devote themselves as much to their games of choice, meaning that the challenge these games propose often could go blind and pointless. At the same time, newer games are made for the international audience, meaning the games' mechanics simply need to be easier to be sustainable; not because of children necessarily requiring it easy (I grew up on Morrowind ffs), but because they can't explain the mechanics nearly as easy to people struggling with English as well. If you don't know the mechanics, the game will simply be too tough unless said mechanics are completely pointless.

Furthermore, the increase in PvP means that single player games lose out a lot on sales, because PvP will always be more challenging than PvE (if in an even matchup). This is obviously due to the fact that there are no Chess-like OP AIs made yet, and difficulty nowadays is more treated as an unfair challenge (I personally do in fact enjoy that but whatevs) than an even test of outsmarting your opponent. Just take Awakening Lunatic as an example. Your units will most of the time always be inferior to the opposition both stat and skill-wise, and sometimes RNG makes or breaks your chapter. This is an unfair challenge, where you're up against the odds as well as having stupid bs screw you over. Yet, its hard to adjust it into a fairer form...

Which is why my conclusion is, and has been for a while, that the only true difficulty in PvE is unfair. I may be wrong, but that's the only form of real challenge I've actually come across in single player games.

[Rapier]

"Handholding" is an euphemism here. It's worthless to work your ass off during college, as your diploma is worth the same as that from a slacker who barely passed the tests. Knowing the right people is far more important.

I'm not so sure about that. Your notes, as far as I know, do weigh on your curriculum (just as the university you've studied on does), and not all employers can have the luxury of employing slackers who they have contact with instead of talented people who better contribute to their business. Also, when you're in an university and working part-time, depending on your work and dedication, you can be definitively employed - big companies look for competent workers, not slackers. Knowing the right people is important, but if the person in question is not competent they'll just stagnate on the job they're given, while others gradually broaden their horizons and achieve what their lesser counterparts only dream off. That's why I think that talent/competence is far more important than knowing the right people (which is still very important, by the way), at least in the long run.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Rapier

[Lord Raven]

Oh boy, that's exactly the problem.

"Handholding" is an euphemism here. It's worthless to work your ass off during college, as your diploma is worth the same as that from a slacker who barely passed the tests. Knowing the right people is far more important.

Well, it depends - is all your work going towards classes? If so, then you've already messed up. There are many ways to have a good college experience that will give you connections and get better work - internships, on-campus research, TAing, jobs, and shit like that. Then your experience is much greater than the guy who barely passed the tests.

In order to be well equipped to do these internships and whatnot you do need the basic training that school provides you. If we're worried about "professional test taking," then your curriculum either sucks or you're not using your education to the fullest extent either.

[BlindCoco]

That's the thing though. People think that because they have a diploma, they are entitled to have a job.

Yeah, diplomas help a lot, but your personality/confidence during the interview matters just as much (maybe even more).

Getting to know people in your work field also helps a ton. Going out of your way to meet people can really help you find the job you're looking for.

[Rethel34]

So, the thing about Common Core on page 1:

I was raised without it. This worked well all the way through school. I knew what I was doing, scored really well on my ACT compared to most in my high school class, and aced some of our school's top math courses (which don't hold a candle to most, but I went with the most complicated classes we had).

My younger sister has been raised with it. From the time it was introduced to her, she struggled with math. The circular reasoning used in the textbooks baffled even the teachers as to why one would use such reasoning to figure something as easy as 5+6=11. However, she is now in the middle of her Junior High years, the teachers don't care as to whether she follows Common Core or not, and now that this is the case, my parents and I have been able to teach her the fundamental points of math that she didn't grasp using Common Core, this time teaching her the way WE learned, and now she UNDERSTANDS it and math has gone from her worst subject to one of her best.

@ The OP:

I am a volunteer instructor for my school system's marching band, similarly to you, and what I've noticed is very similar, despite being a number of states away from you (I'm in Tennessee). Many students come in looking to not give much effort and simply are looking for ways to blow off steam. Having been in their shoes only a few short years ago, I do understand how they feel. Yet there are also those few students who give their best effort and tend to "carry" the band. I believe this form of attitude stems from a number of things:

1) Much of the problem begins at home. Many of these students' parents are looking for every possible thing the child does wrong, wanting their children to live up to their expectations. The parents inadvertently begin what I consider a form of abuse, though a court system is unlikely to recognize it as such, not disciplining them for things necessarily done "wrong", but rather punishing or grounding them for not living exactly the life they expect to live (i.e.: ONE low grade on ONE test). This is something present in nearly every household across the U.S.

2) This "abuse" is further encouraged by a government which places education at a high value. But my question is "why?" What do we hope to gain by this? Yet it is a constant thing that the government at some level is looking to start education earlier, lengthen school hours, remove recess and the all-so-needed nap time from younger students, and all manner of things which detract from children enjoying their childhood. Instead we force them to take standardized, state-oriented tests and standards that the teachers can't even live up to, let alone the students, and say "this will make our country smarter!" In reality, we are doing the exact opposite. Students are so engrossed in preparing for all these big tests that they are, indeed, professional test takers rather than students who are actually learning anything worth using in the real world.

I speak from experience. I came out of high school and went straight into the workforce. I was ill-prepared. School didn't teach me how to do anything I've used as a working citizen (barring teaching students of the marching band) save one thing: discipline. This discipline didn't come from my teachers, though. And I hardly got it from my parents. The only discipline I got was from marching band. I learned in there, after having been a follower for many years, a leader my senior year, and a teacher now, how to follow. I don't mean just taking orders and/or giving them out. I mean being dedicated to what I do, giving my best effort, and always striving to improve what I'm doing. If schools were required to teach this rather than how to calculate the best trajectory for a rocket flying around the moon, society would likely be better off because of it.

3) The third point is the students themselves. Sometimes, there is a lack of interest in learning. Sometimes--many times--this is due to the factors above. They are so worn out by the expectations of their parents and their government, they enter a state of self-preservation in which they don't care. Why? Because caring means living up to impossible goals, which previously has literally been killing them. They can lose out on sleep, food, and other necessities most of the time because they are so stressed trying to achieve these goals, as well as trying to be their own definition of "normal", yet despite possibly not eating as much, they still become overweight as a side effect of stress, which makes them feel lesser of themselves, and when they find nothing they do can live up to the big goals, even the small goals begin to look like too much effort and thus they enter into this state where they don't care. Not caring means they don't have to worry, because nothing matters to them. This results in a circle where test grades drop, parents become angry, the government increases schooling again, the child sees more impossible goals, and they care even less. This same mindset will be passed down to these children's children, and so on and so forth, until the world is destroying itself.

While yes, video games also have become less interesting, they are following the exact same trend as society. Can you look at the above and tell me why Fire Emblem has introduced the "casual" way of doing things? Kids don't care. They want something they can beat, something where falling short of the goal doesn't always mean failure.

So these video games that aren't what they once were are another means of blowing off steam for students. Something they can feel accomplished at without giving much effort. Why? Because in the real world, giving their best effort still resulted in failure and punishment. They are given many times more negatives than positives. "Discipline" comes from shouting, red-faced old people that more than likely have some grudge they're taking out on the wrong person.

I guess I said all that just to get to this major point. Society teaches that you have to be successful. They don't teach you how to be, though. It says, "You attract more flies with honey than vinegar," then goes and pours vinegar everywhere. Society is good at telling people what to do, but without an example to LEAD, we're falling apart at the seams. If telling people what to do means we're "hand-holding", then yes, we're doing far too much of that. People are more likely to follow and do what you want them to do, if you can do it yourself. Lead and love. I've never put that into words until today, but that's my new motto. If those of us who are "in-charge" can't do that, then why are we doing what we're doing?

[Phoenix Wright]

what math are they currently learning?

it sounds like it wasn't even taught properly.