First it talks about Marvel vs. Capcom 3 and being accessible to newcomers. I see no problem having options. If one wants to make the game easier for themselves why should anyone care? Unless of course this pertains to online play. If it does there should be settings put in place to make things fair and not force those who want a difficult setting get beaten by someone who is cheating so to speak.

If however the game has been changed to appeal to noobs then i do have a problem with this. Some like the difficulty. So there is a huge difference between having an option in a game like Forza 3, that has a rewind feature that nobody should be complaining about and is just an option, as opposed to changing Forza 3 by having all assists turned on without an option to turn them off to make it harder. One makes the game more accessible to more people while retaining it's core gameplay while the other example takes away what Forza was just to become more accessible and making it less accessible to the core gamers.

This is why i can see the frustration of PC gamers on some games. Bioware has been making games for years and you can see in both Mass Effect and Dragon Age that they have made the games more accessible in both of the sequels but the more hardcore gamer may not like those changes. I like it as i dont like the micro-managing too much. However i'm sure many do and like having complete control.

The reason these "so-called" accessible games suck for harcore gamers is because it kills the competitive credibility of games. If NBA players were to play some middle school kids but the basket was lowered to 5 feet and the court became the size of a football field and regardless of which basket you scored on it counted towards your point total it would be so rediculously easy, yes there would be alot more points then originally expected especially with the stamina that middle school kids have but you couldn't take the end score seriously, there's no structure. thus killing any competitive credibility it could of had. I couldn't tell my son hey you played pretty decently against those NBA players because the game they played wasn't even recognizable

You don't make a competitive game then make it easy to play. Seriously?

I didn't really like this article. I mean, I agree on certain things, like yes - sometimes complaints are unwarranted, like when someone complains about the simple mode in MvC3 or the level helper in New Super Mario Bros Wii, because you never have to touch them, ever.

But there are lots of times where it is valid to be annoyed. Like you want to abolish the word "noob" - well, I don't. Because I only use it on people that it is well deserved. Like, I play WoW. If someone goes into a heroic without knowing the fights and gets me killed, then I will bitch them out, because it's really easy to not be a noob. Just research the fights, watch the videos, read about them, etc.

Also, the consolization of PC games is a real thing. System Shock 2 was the original BioShock, and you had an inventory, so you could save your food for when you needed it, and keep things around to be more tactical. BioShock has no inventory, to keep it simple for the console. They also put save points every 2 feet.

Accessibility can be a bad thing.

Killzone 3 has been dumbed down compared to KZ2. KZ3 promotes trigger holding now since there is no recoil on the weapons. Thus spraying and praying is very effective in KZ3 compared to KZ2. Also the health has been reduced to CoD levels which further makes noob spraying effective. KZ2 had 24 variables for detecting bullet damage KZ3 only has 7. KZ3 has been reduced to where anyone can pick up the controller and own. KZ2 required you to put in hours to be good.

I don't mind making a control scheme easier for new players, but I hate devs making games so easy that it becomes a pick up and own game.