Maybe there should be two modes for each game. One mode tuned for people that expect something out of their game, and one that is just for content tourists. That's basically what is being asked for. Why even present the pretense of a challenge for the that people just want a fast forward button. Platinum games has easy automatic mode which is basically what is being asked for here. You can either one button your way through Bayonetta as it plays itself or actually play the game as intended.

Earthpainting said:

If the goal is to set up a struggle and letting you overcome the hardships, it's important to realise that some people may be locked out of the latter part where the payoff is supposed to happen for reasons beyond their control. If that is supposedly the entire point of making a game challenging in the first place, the game fails at the very thing set out to achieve for those players. If you think that's fine and those people should go do something else, that's an opinion you're entitled to, but that's why some people are criticising it as an arbitrarily exclusionary attitude.

Click to expand...

If someone is supposed to struggle and overcome the goal yet they ease through it..
yet it's just appropriately challenging for the rest of the population, do you believe the game "fails at the very thing set out to achieve for those players"?
I'd assume yes, but I believe the best way to look at it is the game sets up a challenge, and players either succeed or fail. I don't think it's the game itself that fails the consumer unless it's bug-ridden or has performance issues.

a previous example I used is Dangun Feveron where the true last boss of the game can only be experienced by beating the game without being hit a single time. the goal is obviously to reward players who have overcome the obstable of beating the game without being hit, and there is possibly 10s of players in the world who have ever experienced the true last boss. do you believe the game failed at the very thing it set out to achieve since 95% of the population who play the game will not be able to see the true last boss?

"letting you overcome the hardships"
unless it's specifically designed in a way that when you fail enough times the game allows you to continue, I don't believe developers "let you overcome the hardships". you as the player either overcome the hardships or you don't.

TheRedSnifit said:

Most games don't ease players into challenge because they're built around easy mode. It's the same reason that barely any games these days have have a clear visual style with effective signposting: because they know that their target audience is just going to follow a giant arrow anyways.

One example here is Prey 2017, which was originally going to have a lot more "survival" elements, but Arkane/Bethesda decided they were too hardcore for the average player and removed them. This gimped the challenge and and cut down on a lot of players' engagement with it. You might think the solution is obvious -- just have a Hardcore mode for people like me, and forgiving difficulties for everyone else! In fact, that's basically what Walker is suggesting. But that ignores the fact that developing and refining game systems takes time. The developer has a choice to make between easy-mode players, or players who want challenge.

Like it or not, this is precisely how "one’s own isolated experience of a game is cheapened, lessened, impacted in any conceivable way, by the isolated experience of someone else playing that game."



This is bizarre when the vast majority of games are incredibly easy. If anything, single-player games are in danger of losing more and more marketshare to the multiplayer space, which is becoming one of the only places in the medium you can find challenge. The traditional, AAA single-player game is dying out while while multiplayer games like PUBG, CoD, and CSGO dominate the charts; maybe it's time devs start trying to win back that audience, instead of everybody trying to appeal to the same hyper-casual walking-sim fan who doesn't seem to actually exist in the huge numbers game journalists claim.

Click to expand...

See thats an opinion, are games incredibly easy. They are for us gamers that have been playing them for years but maybe not so much for people that haven't.

Like we used to have hundreds of side scrolling platformers, now we dont have so many and the majority of them are difficult hard core experiences because their providing to the audience that is there.

The amount of varied games is diminishing, so you have fewer games to introduce people and those games that are left are providing for an exclusive hard core audience and doing little to help newer players.

I really cant understand how there is a downside to letting people, skip boss's or have easy modes.

Honestly after giving it some thought I have to agree.

I'll use the souls series as an example because to many people it's on a pedestal as to why you shouldn't have difficulty selections or skipping bosses.

One of the early posts said that the reason it would be bad is because it would be the equivalent of skipping chapters in books. I don't see how that's an issue. I usually read books completely yes, but I have had times where I skipped chapters that simply didn't interest me .

This criticism then implies that because the player isn't struggling with it, they won't have the intended experience, or won't feel the same level of accomplishment that most other players that did it normally felt. I assume this is a negative in that these posters are afraid that the players skipping will not like the game as much, or tell others that the game is not as good as people say while not having experienced the "intended experience".

I can understand this would be distressing to a fan of the game, but the truth is that there are many ways to enjoy games, and in fact Souls Fans often have very different criteria for why they love the series. A good example demonstrating this is the emphasis some players put on the short cut level design of DS1, and how they feel that anything less than that is a step back.

However there are other players that are more interested in how Souls games let you beat them with countless builds and strategies, and as such place a larger emphasis on that aspect, or even preferring a more open environment that moves and flows rather than doubling in on itself, providing more variety.

Further yet you have those that love the lore, and how the series conveys that lore, while other players don't care about such things at all.

The point of this is that even in a fairly specific group such as Souls fans, there are multiple ways to find joy in series that each player has. So the question then becomes, why should one of these ways be wrong? Should a player that prefers build variety over lore, or a style of level design be told that they are "enjoying it wrong"?

What does it matter if someone were to skip the boss fights, or disable the Ai, and literally walk through the game, admiring the art design, and picking up items and learning about the lore in-game? If it has no direct impact on your own play session (such as them being separated from multiplayer etc) then I can see no valid reason why it wouldn't be a good thing if they were able to do that.

And even if they do that, and then complain about the game, any fan of the game, and really any person that played it, would recognize that their lack of enjoyment is their own doing. Much like if I "read" lord of the rings and skipped more than half of each book and then complained non of it made sense and I didn't recognize and characters or situations.

At the end of the day, not providing the option prevents people from enjoying the game in a way you might not have ever considered. It in no way would affect the opinion of an unreasonable or stubborn person, who probably already feels it has cheap difficulty. And it would not have any direct affect on you personally.

Another good example of a game that provides these types of options is Xcom 2. I choose to play ironman mode, but selected the option to double the mission time limits. My own reason for this is to counterbalance bugs and issues that can cause me to lose entire squads. .

I've now nearly completed the main story for the first time ever and I'm having a blast. I intend to up the difficulty my next campaign but keep my time stipulation. Based on the responses in this thread, I'm doing it "wrong", and I have to disagree. Nor am I bothered by the idea that someone might decide to play ironman on the easiest difficulty with all player benefit modifiers on. I'd just be glad they're enjoying the game in their own way.

Calabi said:

See thats an opinion, are games incredibly easy. They are for us gamers that have been playing them for years but maybe not so much for people that haven't.

Like we used to have hundreds of side scrolling platformers, now we dont have so many and the majority of them are difficult hard core experiences because their providing to the audience that is there.

The amount of varied games is diminishing, so you have fewer games to introduce people and those games that are left are providing for an exclusive hard core audience and doing little to help newer players.

I really cant understand how there is a downside to letting people, skip boss's or have easy modes.

Click to expand...

The amount of varied games (in the AA and AAA space) are diminishing because most AAA games are trying to appeal to the same audience. This audience loves linear narratives, dislikes challenges, and gets frustrated and bored whenever he runs into puzzles or mazes.

The concept that the only "games that are left" are challenging and hardcore is laughable. Even "dumb" action games like Doom used to be filled with puzzles and mazes, but these days even the most "hardcore" and "oldschool" shooters like Wolfenstein and nuDoom don't have anything resembling a maze, because they're considered too tough for the target audience.

If you want to skip boss fights you may as well just not play the game if you don't want to experience them. If dark souls is an example, then I wouldn't nearly have enjoyed or have been as immersed in the game as I was without them. Seeing the penultimate part of an area, overcoming them with dedication and grit is a feeling you can't get anywhere else but in this medium.

So, sure. Go ahead and have your option of skipping boss fights and such, but then again don't be surprised if you don't get the same experience as anyone else anyway.

TheRazielim said:

If you insist in making this baseless comparison, what are these random options in the context of a boss fight, then?

Click to expand...

It's not a baseless comparison. People are talking about 'artistic vision' being compromised by letting you skip boss fights, I'm saying that dozens of games already let you forgo the developers 'artistic vision' by letting you skip important narrative and story information in narrative focused games. Games like The Witcher 3 put a ton of work into developing characters, relationships and detailed side quests which you semi dictate through making choices. All that goes out the window if I'm skipping every cutscene and fast forwarding through every conversation. I have no idea who these characters are or why I'm making these decisions, which really goes against everything the game was designed to be. I'm probably not going to enjoy the game as much, but I'm still able to do it if I want to.

Gravy Boat said:

It's not a baseless comparison. People are talking about 'artistic vision' being compromised by letting you skip boss fights, I'm saying that dozens of games already let you forgo the developers 'artistic vision' by letting you skip important narrative and story information in narrative focused games. Games like The Witcher 3 put a ton of work into developing characters, relationships and detailed side quests which you semi dictate through making choices. All that goes out the window if I'm skipping every cutscene and fast forwarding through every conversation. I have no idea who these characters are or why I'm making these decisions, which really goes against everything the game was designed to be. I'm probably not going to enjoy the game as much, but I'm still able to do it if I want to.

Click to expand...

Okay, maybe I'll give in to certain part of your argument, but I still think it is not comparable, even on interaction level. You can skip all dialogue and information, that is, presumably necessary information to make a certain choice in dialogue, that is true. In fact, you can do by blindly pressing buttons and you will make a choice. None of those choices, by the way, result in an overall fail state (death). On the other hand, you can't just blindly press buttons or not internalize any gameplay mechanics to beat a boss.

Mind you, the argument is made ridiculous because it's made by an actual game journalist, not someone new to gaming. Plus I think the argument begs an obvious question: why boss battles? Why can't every single thing in a game be presented as an option slider so that you can modify and skip everything you want?

In any case, let the creator decide. If an artist wants to exclude certain people because they are not worthy of his art, so be it. If he wants everyone to experience and modify it to his needs, so be it. But there's no need for some universalist mantra that every game should have something. Yes, some people will be excluded, but so what?

As a indie game developer l do not really understand this discussion.

Getting the difficulty just right is one of the hardest part of game development. Somebody asking for multible difficulty setting would be the same as asking for a Sci-fi setting instead of a Fantasy setting because they prefer Sci-fi. The difficulty is an integral part of game development and very time consuming.

jahasaja said:

As a indie game developer l do not really understand this discussion.

Getting the difficulty just right is one of the hardest part of game development. Somebody asking for multible difficulty setting would be the same as asking for a Sci-fi setting instead of a Fantasy setting because they prefer Sci-fi. The difficulty is an integral part of game development and very time consuming.

Click to expand...

This discussion is about people that want all games to have a zero difficulty mode. They just want to experience the game, as opposed to "beating" the game. Content tourism is a real thing. It doesn't make much sense for indie games which are targeting specific game types, but for the $60 AAA game many people have an expectation to "beat" the game just by virtue of holding the controller for long enough.

TSM said:

This discussion is about people that want all games to have a zero difficulty mode. They just want to experience the game, as opposed to "beating" the game. Content tourism is a real thing. It doesn't make much sense for indie games which are targeting specific game types, but for the $60 AAA game many people have an expectation to "beat" the game just by virtue of holding the controller for long enough.

Click to expand...

Okay, but what is the difference between that and looking at the game on YouTube?

jahasaja said:

Okay, but what is the difference between that and looking at the game on YouTube?

Click to expand...

Interactivity. They want the immersion of playing themselves without the hassle of having to put any real effort into the experience. They are willing to play along with the game as long as there isn't any real resistance en route to the ending. They consider having to replay something they have already experienced multiple times to be tedious and unnecessary. Because AAA games have to cater to everyone they expect every game to make similar concessions.

I won't say anything new here, but this is just asking for (free) cheat codes. Which is fine, but trying to integrate the thing into the game as anything else is just admitting defeat at game design.

Or, let's leave it to the developer. I still see this shit like saying "I like to look at your art, you should paint what I want to see." It's not up to you to skip whatever or add a story only mode. If the point the developer was going for was a specific gameplay that they want players to experience, more than likely, they won't give an option to skip because that wasn't the purpose of their art. If they did, then they had something different in mind.

TSM said:

Interactivity. They want the immersion of playing themselves without the hassle of having to put any real effort into the experience. They are willing to play along with the game as long as there isn't any real resistance en route to the ending. They consider having to replay something they have already experienced multiple times to be tedious and unnecessary. Because AAA games have to cater to everyone they expect every game to make similar concessions.

Click to expand...

I guess I have no problem with the way Nintendo implement a system were you can choose to become invincible if you die too many times.

However, I have a problem with the way the author speaks about "Them" and "Us". Like it is something bad to like hard games. Hard games are almost a genre into itself and a game like Cuphead is better because hard according to many people including myself. Furthermore, very few games are hard these days AAA games have already almost completely removed difficulty in order to cater to the mainstream. I would even argue that the Souls game became such a success because people were starving for that kind of AAA games.

Preferring hard games does not make you an elitist just like preferring easy games does not make you a wimp.

Nuts2U said:

I say, let us have full control over as much of the game as possible. I can chapter select any movie, show or book I purchase, what makes games different?

Click to expand...

Yeah, we vote at the movies where to skip to, too.

Rather, can we skip everything that isn't a boss fight?
Especially in raiding MMOs. Trash ain't fun.