Support NeoGAF

[kraspkibble]

lol no.

 

[Airola]

I'm surprised so many people are against more people been able to play more games that they otherwise couldn't.

This is an attitude problem.

Every single one of video game players _can_ play these games.
They might not be able to beat the games or get far in them but they _can_ play each one of them.

Ok, let's assume that if someone isn't able to beat the game then we should say that person couldn't play the game.
What do you think an easy mode would do to that fact? Do you think the game is the same with an easy mode? They _still_ couldn't play the game they couldn't before. It's not the same game anymore. It's like playing chess and changing the rules into Checkers and claiming I've played chess.
Sure, they would be able to see whatever graphical designs and cutscenes those games have, but those aren't the _game_ part of the game. The _game_ in those games is that things are very risky and there is a huge punishment if you fail and a huge relief when you succeed, and you go through that by dedication and perseverance. On easy mode where integral parts of that are removed it is a different game. They would still not be able to play the game they want to play.

You are essentially claiming games are their audiovisual content and they matter more than the gameplay. While you might use hard modes by yourself you are advocating that philosophy to others and are trying to get developers change their design philosophies to reflect that. We are not entitled to win every game we play. If a developer wants to make a game where the game beats the player and only few can beat them, let them do that. Everyone is still able to play those games and when they are dying in those games and even quitting before finishing them, they are playing those games exactly in the way the developers designed them to be played. Why on earth would you want to change that?

It wouldn't effect us in anyway. If you think someone playing a game you enjoyed in a lesser difficulty would ruin the experience you had... well I dont really know what to say.

I've played hundreds upon hundreds of games and not one would have been ruined by adding a extra difficulty mode to let more people play IMO.

Telling other people they should ignore entire experiences or watch on youtube rather than ask the developers to be more inclusive of peoples abilities/disabilitys/time, that just seems crazy to me.

Maybe it hasn't effected you but it doesn't mean it doesn't effect others. I've seen someone (maybe you?) telling how others should have empathy towards others and let all games have easy modes, but what you don't see is that it is you who isn't having any empathy towards people who would be affected by the option of easy mode. And that's only because you don't feel the effect so you assume no-one else would feel the effect either. And if they claim they do, you get very condescending and claim how it must be just because they don't want others access "their games". You went with that approach for several pages here, and it seems you have toned down that a bit now. But you still assume that just because you don't feel it no-one else shouldn't feel it either, or if they do it's for some malicious reason.

What comes to time, what would you want the developers to do if they design a game that lasts for 200 hours? Should there be an option to finish the game in 5 hours because there are people who don't have time to play long games? Or would it be better to let the developers make the games they want even if it would mean that some people wouldn't have time to finish them?

 

[mr.dilya]

I’m currently playing ace combat 7 on easy until I feel comfortable with expert controls and I feel like a pussy.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

No.

The paradigm that "I bought it so I should beat it" has been poisoning gaming since the NES era.

I would go further to argue that diminishing the challenge is what makes gaming depressing to certain personality types: faux accomplishment and accolades for very little effort. From a value standpoint, why wouldn't you want your favorite games to last even longer (because they take longer to complete)? I'm not in a hurry to see the next Saturday morning cartoon-tier storyline dressed up as OMG AMAZING WRITING.

"But when I get home after a long day I don't want to struggle against..."

Cry harder. Overcoming that knot in your stomach is what life is about. If you can't do it in a game, when will you do it?

 

[nkarafo]

Games used to be something to challenge you, to overcome by practice. That was the whole point. It's a game, it's supposed to have some sort of a challenge.

Now it's only about the story i guess. Finish one as fast as possible and jump to the next. There are tons to "play", my backlog won't be cleared if i stall by dying in a game a couple of times...

 

[johntown]

Shouldn't this thread be called "Force all games to have difficulty options"? Does a game even exist that offers difficulty options that does not include an easy mode?

It seems like the real issue is forcing difficulty options on games that don't provide them.

I disagree with that 100%. Whoever makes the game chooses their audience. If they don't want to provide difficulty options they should not have to.

Do I have an issue if every game had difficulty options? Nope as I usually choose the hardest difficulty anyway. IMO not have any difficulty options is preferred as I can play the game as it was designed.

 

[VertigoOA]

No.

Games are designed to be what they are... hurting the vision of the game to cater to low skilled players is crap.

It’s not about finishing a game or seeing a narrative flesh out. That’s not the accomplishment; being competent at the game is. If you don’t have the patience to finish a game the way it was meant to be; your fault for pissing away money on something you suck at... your fault, not the game’s.

Get good.

Fighting games had this issue once where easy input commands replaced traditional SF inputs to appeal to less skilled gamers who can’t do a quarter circle motion. Garbage.... and if you were one of those players... you still suck and smash bros exists — you have options for casual gaming experiences and don’t expect everything to cater to no-skill gamers. And it shouldn’t...

Designing anything to be “one size fits all” ends up alienating gamers more than anything.

I mean look at what they did to Star Wars. Designed by committee and to cater to all demographics ... ends up insulting everyone who ever loved it.

 

[synchronicity]

What about a hypothetical "worst gamer in the world" that can't even beat the proposed included easy mode? Now we have to include movie mode or narrative mode / put-down the controller mode.

And what about the gamer who can't stay focused on movie mode because they get too bored or distracted, BUT THEY REALLY WANT TO ENJOY THE GAME. Now we have to include Red bull mode - a version of the game with enough Red bull to stay awake all the way until the end.

Why not just have a mode where the game plays itself and you can press buttons on the controller but they don't actually do anything.

Like when you have a little kid pressing buttons on the 2nd controller while you play and they can make believe that they are beating the game on the screen.

David Cage has it covered.

 

[sol740]

Why should I even have to play at all? Why can't the game just be a series of images that plays back at a consistent rate of speed, telling me the "story" of the game, but not hamstringing me with the responsibility of needless inputs? With this more user-friendly and simplified format you could even have mass-playthroughs of the game, at auditorium-style events and just charge a ticket fee, thus saving the gamers from even having to purchase a copy of the game or even the hardware needed for playback.

 

[Whitesnake]

There amazing games but not because they don't have an easy mode. I think your giving a disservice to the games there. Theres so much more to them than that.

You’re missing the point. In Fromsoft games, the harsh difficulty has been designed specifically to complement the dark and oppressive atmosphere of the game’s world. Fromsoft has crafted the player experience very intentionally and deliberately, and to take away the difficulty is to take away an important piece of that experience and would subsequently dull all the other pieces.

An easy mode of dark souls would inherently be a lesser experience, and any player playing that mode would robbing themselves of the experience that the game’s fans have fallen in love with.

 

[KungFucius]

Should all? Not sure. Should most, absolutely. Devs aren't necessarily designing the minutia of all sequences in games, and with multiplatform shooters they are likely designing to KB/M instead of hard to aim with controllers. Most people who play games want to have fun without having to endure frustrating difficulty. Give them an easy button. Give them a way to configure the level of fun they want to have.

For games that are trying to be challenging as in that is there hook, like the Souls games, it just needs to be made clear to consumers that these games are not for those looking to spend a few hours on the weekend killing bad guys and looking for secrets. An easy mode on those games really doesn't do much to make the game easy, it would just be less hard. But they could still gimp the enemy stats a little and still provide roughly the same experience. So why not?

I think the argument that devs made artistic choices is flawed. They make choices based on their own biases and with limited feedback. If they are incapable of understanding that some people don't like the level of challenge but still want to enjoy the game, then they really should find a different line of work.

 

[MaestroMike]

Nah the appeal of some games is that they're difficult something that's really challenging and that they'll stimulate ur mind causing u to really think in how to overcome the games said challenges. if u can't beat a game then u can't beat a game. try again. victory is sweeter after many losses. I died like hundreds of times and spent many many hours before I finally completed that darker side of the moon challenge in mario odyssey. I replayed it the other day and beat it again after like 2 tries. I pretty much perfected my technique on completing it after many hours of practice. It was very enjoyable along the way.

 

[Whitesnake]

I think the argument that devs made artistic choices is flawed. They make choices based on their own biases and with limited feedback. If they are incapable of understanding that some people don't like the level of challenge but still want to enjoy the game, then they really should find a different line of work.

So you believe that an easy mode is SO inherently necessary to games that if a dev doesn’t wish to add one, they shouldn’t be devs?

Nah, that’s bullshit. A game doesn’t have to be for everyone, and to demand that a dev MUST attempt to appease everyone, even if it cripples their creative vision, is a childish feeling of entitlement.

No one is putting a gun to these people’s heads forcing them to play Dark Souls. They can just choose not to buy a notoriously-difficult game.

 

[Airola]

I think the argument that devs made artistic choices is flawed. They make choices based on their own biases and with limited feedback. If they are incapable of understanding that some people don't like the level of challenge but still want to enjoy the game, then they really should find a different line of work.

If I make a game with Satan as the final boss, and I want Satan in that game be the example and epitome of ultimate struggle, and I want players to experience that and possibly conquer that, and I want the game to have the possibility of Satan being unbeatable by many to make a point, then why should I offer a mode where he becomes easier?

Wouldn't it go against the whole idea if I would make an option for people who don't like the struggle to be able to beat him more easily? Why would I make my creation who should be the symbol for ultimate struggle to have a version that isn't that.

There will be people who like the idea and there will be people who don't like the idea. Why would the will of those who don't like the idea go above the will of the developers and the players who like the idea? To even go so far that you would say if the developers don't ditch the idea but instead cater to those people who don't like the idea they should quit their job as game developers, dude............. *insert greta_how_dare_you.gif here*

 

[Hostile_18]

If I make a game with Satan as the final boss, and I want Satan in that game be the example and epitome of ultimate struggle, and I want players to experience that and possibly conquer that, and I want the game to have the possibility of Satan being unbeatable by many to make a point, then why should I offer a mode where he becomes easier?

Wouldn't it go against the whole idea if I would make an option for people who don't like the struggle to be able to beat him more easily? Why would I make my creation who should be the symbol for ultimate struggle to have a version that isn't that.

There will be people who like the idea and there will be people who don't like the idea. Why would the will of those who don't like the idea go above the will of the developers and the players who like the idea? To even go so far that you would say if the developers don't ditch the idea but instead cater to those people who don't like the idea they should quit their job as game developers, dude............. *insert greta_how_dare_you.gif here*

Would you not agree a less skilled player playing on easy, would be the equivalent of a skilled player playing on hard?

I think your problem in your scenario would be people choosing the wrong difficulty for them. Even if that happened I wouldn't think it would be the worst thing in the world.

 

[Airola]

Would you not agree a less skilled player playing on easy, would be the equivalent of a skilled player playing on hard?

It's beside the point.

The availability of Satan in easy mode would make that creation exist in a form that is under the original certain level of minimum threat and dread.
It doesn't matter if it's skilled or unskilled player playing the easy mode. That enemy would have a form that is not as dreadful as it was designed and supposed to be.

It is about the design. If the design is supposed to be able to get certain amount of hits and is supposed to hit with certain amount of power and is supposed to move with certain precision and speed, then that is what it is. If the design is supposed to be part of a bigger design where losing to that enemy would make the player lose certain amount of items and be sent back to a certain point in the game, then that is what it is. If all of that is designed to create certain type of average dread to players, then that is what it is. Some people will face that danger with more struggle and some will face that danger with less struggle. The enemy will have a certain level of danger and dread on average. People will face that danger with different skills but the design stays the same. Its lowest form of difficulty will be exactly the same designwise. How that design will be approached by people will differ. But the design remains the same. It will have those certain design elements so that on average it will be of certain difficulty in its easiest form.

An enemy will be remembered as whatever its easiest form is.
No enemy in a game with normal difficulty and hard difficulty are generally remembered as how they are in the hard mode.
The enemies of Souls games are infamous because even in the easiest difficulty in the game they are tough to get through. As soon as you include easier form into the game, the enemy will lose its status as an enemy of certain hardness at its easiest form.

I think your problem in your scenario would be people choosing the wrong difficulty for them. Even if that happened I wouldn't think it would be the worst thing in the world.

Not getting far in a video game isn't the worst thing in the world either.

 

[LazyParrot]

I think the argument that devs made artistic choices is flawed. They make choices based on their own biases and with limited feedback. If they are incapable of understanding that some people don't like the level of challenge but still want to enjoy the game, then they really should find a different line of work.

Every artist who doesn't practice their art solely for its own sake is faced with the exact same issue, so I don't see how you could say these choices aren't artistic. Do you really believe that Hidetaka Miyazaki and other designers out there making hard games without an easy mode only do it because they're too stupid or stubborn to understand that there are people out there who'd buy their games if they were easier? I'm fairly sure they understand perfectly well, but that does not mean they have to agree with these people or change their games to appease them.

The Souls games, Bloodborne, Sekiro and Nioh all reviewed and sold well despite not featuring any overt difficulty options, and as long as the people responsible for making them are happy with that level of success there's no need for them to change their approach. If you think those games are too hard for you, just look up ways to make them easier (pretty much all From Software titles can be trivialized by abusing certain builds or the summon system) or just go and play something else.

 

[Silvawuff]

For me the biggest thing is difficulty vs. time investment to overcome a challenge. Challenges are fine, but I want games that respect my time. If I have to replay an entire section or sit through an unskippable cutscene just to get to a section or boss I have to git gud at, that's bad game design imo. This goes for games that push minigames/races with crappy controls that are outside the scope of the game itself, or games that place their difficulty behind a grind or collection wall, also outside of the scope of the game.

 

[GametimeUK]

I was in the camp of "no" a few years ago. Now I'm in the camp of I'd rather have as many people experience the game as possible. As long as it's optional there's no reason for it not to exist.

 

[Aidah]

I'd rather developers make whatever they want.

 

[Airola]

I was in the camp of "no" a few years ago. Now I'm in the camp of I'd rather have as many people experience the game as possible. As long as it's optional there's no reason for it not to exist.

I think that instead of experiencing the game you mean beating the game.

I think one can experience the game without beating the game.

The experience for some will be not being able to get far in a game. The experience for some will be to get halfway through the game. The experience for some will be getting to the last boss of the game. The experience to some will be getting to see the victorious ending of the game.

 

[bad guy]

No, might as well watch a movie then.

 

[brap]

Imagine being so entitled you think devs need to cater more to the lowest common denominator.
Play something else, get better, etc.

 

[Hostile_18]

Imagine being so entitled you think devs need to cater more to the lowest common denominator.
Play something else, get better, etc.

People who play on easy are "the lowest common denominator"?

And heres me thinking games are about fun.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

The new pokemon games are too easy, but I do not demand that the devs make an entire difficulty system just to appease me.

They were always easy. I remember all these retarded ass 4th graders that were failing fucking history had all beaten the game within a month of it coming out.

 

[BusierDonkey]

As someone that grew up getting his shit pushed in by Battletoads, Castlevania and Ninja Gaiden.

A well designed game can be extremely hard while encouraging players to improve. The argument that there should be an easy mode for kids is laughable. The games I played as a kid make modern hard games look like an adventure in candyland, but I still played them and either got better or moved on. If you want to "beat the game" while someone holds your hand, you might just as well watch lets play.

 

[Victor Omega]

I find that casual like my wife still struggles with dual analog controls. I propose a "fixed camera, single analog" east mode

 

[Deleted member 740922]

Imagine getting all annoyed that people finished a game on a lower skill than yourself and thinking that's diminished your (still worthless) achievement

 

[royox]

Not every game should be for everybody so the answer is a NO.

I'm a Souls-Borne-Kiro fan, if FROMsoft releases one of those with Easy mode I'm not buying it or at least i'm not doing it on 1st day (as I always do with those games).

If those games are too hard for some people, too bad. There are millions of easy games in the market. Football and Driving games are too hard for me and I don't intend to change them to please me.

 

[Hostile_18]

Not every game should be for everybody so the answer is a NO.

I'm a Souls-Borne-Kiro fan, if FROMsoft releases one of those with Easy mode I'm not buying it or at least i'm not doing it on 1st day (as I always do with those games).

If those games are too hard for some people, too bad. There are millions of easy games in the market. Football and Driving games are too hard for me and I don't intend to change them to please me.

I suspect you dont have a desire to play football or racing games though? If you did why wouldn't you wish there was an optional mode that made it more accessible for people like yourself?

Heres one for the people that argue it would affect "a developers vision". Weve looked alot on this thread about a game such as Dark Souls and how that would be perceived as a lesser game with an easy mode. Let's look at it the other way round can you explain a time you've played a game that's got difficulty levels and you actively believe you've had a lesser time because you knew an easier mode existed?

Also likewise have you ever played a game on anything above normal difficulty? If you have have you not compromised the developers vision? If an easy mode does that in your opinion surely a hard mode would also do that by your same logic.

 

[GreatnessRD]

Games have been created with "Easy mode" in mind since 2007. They already hand out trophies and yellow brick road guides as you play through the game. What else do you want, lol

 

[anthraticus]

AAA/mainstream games already do....it's called normal mode.

 

[Airola]

Heres one for the people that argue it would affect "a developers vision". Weve looked alot on this thread about a game such as Dark Souls and how that would be perceived as a lesser game with an easy mode. Let's look at it the other way round can you explain a time you've played a game that's got difficulty levels and you actively believe you've had a lesser time because you knew an easier mode existed?

First of all, a lot of games that have easy modes don't have a core gameplay mechanic that's supposed to be very punishing when failing and very satisfying when overcoming the obstacles. In games where that isn't the point of the normal mode it's much easier to forget the easy mode.
Secondly, I'm not sure many are advocating for the removal of easy modes from all games. People accept easy modes. They just don't want all games to have an easy mode. They want games with certain feeling in its normal mode be what it is.

That said, not sure I can recall any games where I've only played on normal mode and have been annoyed about easy mode existing, but I can give examples of games where playing it on the easiest mode was a mistake and made me appreciate the overall experience less.

1) Rescue: The Embassy Mission on NES
This game has a lot of difficulty options. I think there are about 10 or so. The first time I played the game I picked the easiest one. I beat the game in one go and claimed victory. While it was pretty fun to play it through, when I later tried out the harder difficulties I started to regret I played it on the easiest difficulty the first time. It was fun to try to avoid those very hard spotlights and the last section was much more intense too whenever I was able to get that far at all. But as I had already finished the game, I felt something is missing. I had already finished the game before so that feeling of seeing things for the first time after going through a struggle wasn't there.

2) Metal Slug 2 (Steam version)
The ability to have infinite continues in arcade ports is a stupid stupid stupid thing!
Sure, technically the original games had infinite continues too as you just had to put another coin in to continue, but at the very least doing that was punishing in that you were one coin poorer after doing that and you wouldn't have pocketful of coins to spare anyway.
So, we were playing co-op with a friend on Steam one day. My friend kept insisting how it's better to be able to see all in the game so infinite continues shouldn't bother. So that's what we did. While the game itself is very fun, it got very redundant quite quickly for me especially at the bosses because nothing encouraged to get better in dodging bullets. All the bosses essentially became to be was a graphical thing that did whatever and we button-smashed them all. The next levels and enemies and bosses started to feel less special as it always was inevitable we got to see them. So while we got to see them all (not really as we stopped playing at some point) it technically was more like just watching new graphic asset files. Their behavior and actual design mattered very little. All we got was to see how they looked. Even my friend who insisted it's better to be able to see everything in the game eventually laughed at how the whole thing feels going through the motions and the bosses having zero substance because of infinite continues, seeing the irony in the whole thing.
So now I will never be able to see new levels and enemies and bosses as really fun rewards. I've now already seen them. I've already been able play the later levels. I've beaten those bosses having only experienced them through their visual design and not through the gameplay design. I don't remember much of the levels and the bosses because I wasn't forced to be alert. I didn't have to repeat any of them. I just went through them once, kinda took a look at them, and forgot it. How much more exciting it would've been to go through the levels with no continues or limited amount of continues! How much more appreciative would've I felt about the levels and the enemy attack patterns had we not have the option to continue infinitely.

You might give the excuse that at least you are seeing all the art the developers do and that you appreciate that more when you can see it more, but what you don't notice is that you are giving less appreciation to the actual game design in favor of the visuals. The easier you want to be able to see the art in the game, the less you will be able to see the actual game design.

By the way!
The best example of an easy mode ever is in Double Dragon II on NES.
Pick the easiest mode, the game ends after three levels.
To be able to see the game fully through, to encounter the real final boss, you have to choose the hardest difficulty.
If an easy mode would be forced to be in every single game out there, the Double Dragon 2 way how they should do it. Taking the easy mode would give you an ending after the first few levels/areas. The more difficult the game, the more you would be allowed to see and experience.

Also likewise have you ever played a game on anything above normal difficulty? If you have have you not compromised the developers vision? If an easy mode does that in your opinion surely a hard mode would also do that by your same logic.

Remember that we are talking about games that don't currently have an easy mode.
If those games have a hard mode, it's most likely by the developers' deliberate design. It's part of their vision. If an easy mode isn't part of their vision, they shouldn't be forced to put that in.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I think it'd be fascinating to get a cross-poll asking -- if deciding between the two -- whether the individual wants a good story/lore/atmosphere from their game or a stimulating challenge?

I imagine those who want "games to be for everyone" are thinking of stories, of characters, of settings, of songs that had a great impact on themselves as they played through the game.

But what about people who want a stimulating challenge? The satisfaction of finally beating Seven Ashina Spears can never be conveyed by a "Top 100 RPG soundtracks" video or a "Saddest plot twists" clickbait article. The satisfaction of finally chaining Stage 4 in Daioujou can never be conveyed by watching a streamer or a Let's Play online.

That gut-exhale of "finally" is entertaining to me as a gamer. I'm sure feathers would be ruffled if I suggested that New RPG #3,715 cut out all the nonsensical teenage-drama cutscenes.

And that is setting aside the fact that 99.999% of all games can be learned and cheesed with a bit of persistence.

What, you don't like learning? Not the game's fault.

 

[Hostile_18]

Great answers guys

I do appreciate when we get little different endings based on what we did in game rather than what difficulty we played on (for example Bioshock, Dishonoured etc). I agree in the case of coop infinite lives can be boring (but then I'd just ignore that option). Its unfortunate you and your friend had opposite views on this as theres no real middle ground but at least you both dont have to compromise in single player as you both have a choice.

Speaking for myself I tend to play normal first and if I really like a game do a harder play through next. To me it almost feels like double the value. If a game just had one difficulty i wouldn't be so inclined to play it again so shortly afterwards.

I can accept theres no right or wrong answers. Just the question is does the end justify the means. I.E does the drawbacks of having an easy mode in everything outweigh the positives. The answer to that is a personal thing based on both artistic merit as you've explained and personal skill level/ability of the individual as I've explained.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

Most games difficulty don't give me trouble (apart from Sekiro) but I'm thinking about other users more. I believe if someone buys a game no matter the skill level they should be able to see everything just like any other piece of entertainment.

The problem with this is that you assume that seeing the whole of a game is that important... There are many games that were too hard and I could never finish them (I love racing games and I am not so good at them).... I keep coming back of the challenge is good, sometimes I eventually get through, and it means something.

If all games had a movie difficulty level they just become button mashers... Which is pointless in most cases, and what do you do of games that rely on puzzles/skills (like tetris or point and click adventures).

Many games are just empty if you take out the difficulty, and when you talk to someone about how you struggled to beat boss X in a game it loses all meaning of people play on easy mode.

That sounds like a false good idea to me, you can see another example of why in games reviews, often publishers will offer a gaming journalist mode and this will break their impression of the balance of games mecanics (weapon x is useless, their impression of the difficulty curve is skewed, etc.).

 

[Airola]

I think it'd be fascinating to get a cross-poll asking -- if deciding between the two -- whether the individual wants a good story/lore/atmosphere from their game or a stimulating challenge?

I imagine those who want "games to be for everyone" are thinking of stories, of characters, of settings, of songs that had a great impact on themselves as they played through the game.

But what about people who want a stimulating challenge? The satisfaction of finally beating Seven Ashina Spears can never be conveyed by a "Top 100 RPG soundtracks" video or a "Saddest plot twists" clickbait article. The satisfaction of finally chaining Stage 4 in Daioujou can never be conveyed by watching a streamer or a Let's Play online.

That gut-exhale of "finally" is entertaining to me as a gamer. I'm sure feathers would be ruffled if I suggested that New RPG #3,715 cut out all the nonsensical teenage-drama cutscenes.

Agreed.

Not only that from the player's perspective, but the developers should also be free to lock their story and lore content behind whatever amount of skill they prefer.

People might say they want to appreciate the story, but are they really appreciating it if the developers had intended it to be understood through actual struggle and certain type of challenging gameplay? Stories in video games aren't just what they show in the cutscenes. In video games the way you play and what you can do while playing the game is part of the same story. And changing that gameplay into something else changes the layers of the story, and at worst the soul, core and the purpose of the story.

 

[Hostile_18]

If someone struggles on a boss on normal as the developer intends.

If someone struggles on a boss on easy as the developer intends.

In this case wouldn't the onus be on the user to select the right difficulty level for themselves? I genuinely do believe not everyone is equal in skill. Even if an easy player was forced to play the normal mode and spent hours beating a boss a normal player beat in 10 minutes that would still be a disparity to what the developers intended? I.e they never intended for you to be on the first boss for multiple hours for example. Or see the same pre fight cutscene 30 times before pushing on.

 

[Airola]

Its unfortunate you and your friend had opposite views on this as theres no real middle ground but at least you both dont have to compromise in single player as you both have a choice.

I would appreciate the game never giving me the choice to do that in single player mode.

It's like with Kid Icarus and Zelda 2 on Wii U virtual console. I thought I would FINALLY beat both of those games LEGIT! At first I thought I'd just use the saving ability in between levels if I have to stop playing. Then it was just saving this one time here. Then it was just once more there. And by the end I was save scumming like hell, and especially the further I was the lower the barrier to save and load was.

Sure, using whatever choices there are is on me, but I can't help but feel that me and a lot of other players would get far more interesting and ultimately satisfying playthroughs that actually go hand-in-hand with the designed integrity of the games if that choice wasn't given to us in the first place. I would even go as far and say that Nintendo has ruined part of the magic of their original games by offering the chance to save in the Virtual Console versions. Sure it's convenient that we have the ability to continue to play if we have to go somewhere, but it has come with the cost of giving everyone the possibility to save scum their way through the games instead of playing them the way they were designed to play.

 

[Hostile_18]

I would appreciate the game never giving me the choice to do that in single player mode.

It's like with Kid Icarus and Zelda 2 on Wii U virtual console. I thought I would FINALLY beat both of those games LEGIT! At first I thought I'd just use the saving ability in between levels if I have to stop playing. Then it was just saving this one time here. Then it was just once more there. And by the end I was save scumming like hell, and especially the further I was the lower the barrier to save and load was.

Sure, using whatever choices there are is on me, but I can't help but feel that me and a lot of other players would get far more interesting and ultimately satisfying playthroughs that actually go hand-in-hand with the designed integrity of the games if that choice wasn't given to us in the first place. I would even go as far and say that Nintendo has ruined part of the magic of their original games by offering the chance to save in the Virtual Console versions. Sure it's convenient that we have the ability to continue to play if we have to go somewhere, but it has come with the cost of giving everyone the possibility to save scum their way through the games instead of playing them the way they were designed to play.

I must admit I dont like manual saves as it can stop and start the flow of gameplay. Of any saving method I always preferred well thought out checkpoints.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

That gut-exhale of "finally" is entertaining to me as a gamer. I'm sure feathers would be ruffled if I suggested that New RPG #3,715 cut out all the nonsensical teenage-drama cutscenes.

Old school JRPGs were pretty hard, at least Phantasy Star 1 & 2, especially the 1st one, you won't get away with only grinding, you need to manage your inventory pretty well in some portions of the game to get through.

And there wasn't that much high school level drama back in the days.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Old school JRPGs were pretty hard, at least Phantasy Star 1 & 2, especially the 1st one, you won't get away with only grinding, you need to manage your inventory pretty well in some portions of the game to get through.

And there wasn't that much high school level drama back in the days.

I think player skill -- whether that's mental knowledge or reflexes or both -- should be rewarded. I'm not against RPGs that provide the player the ability to grind. It's a feature of the genre.

As an aside I never played the first Phantasy Star but I'm a sucker for the second one. Strikes that perfect balance between old-school simplicity with enough cool twists to keep me hooked. Some of those later dungeons though...

 

[OmegaSupreme]

Not every game should be for everybody so the answer is a NO.

I'm a Souls-Borne-Kiro fan, if FROMsoft releases one of those with Easy mode I'm not buying it or at least i'm not doing it on 1st day (as I always do with those games).

If those games are too hard for some people, too bad. There are millions of easy games in the market. Football and Driving games are too hard for me and I don't intend to change them to please me.

It's interesting to me the most vocal critics of this topic are souls type fans. You even go as far as to say if they made a game with an easy mode you wouldn't buy it. I don't understand that logic at all. After all, it would be the creator's intent and vison if they did. Beating a souls game isn't getting you laid.

 

[Airola]

It's interesting to me the most vocal critics of this topic are souls type fans. You even go as far as to say if they made a game with an easy mode you wouldn't buy it. I don't understand that logic at all. After all, it would be the creator's intent and vison if they did.

But isn't it logical that if they are enjoying a certain vision in a game and if that vision isn't there in the next game they might not be interested in buying another game. It's not like people always have to be loyal to everyone. I'm personally not a Souls game fan. I don't like playing those games. But I'm a fan of the idea of them. For me a good example would be that if a new La-Mulana game would have the option to solve half the puzzles and read half the lore by just clicking a button in a menu screen, I would start to doubt the overall vision of its creator and wouldn't necessarily be interested in buying a new game even though La-Mulana 1 & 2 are my all time favorite games.

I would even understand people who are not interested in Resident Evil 2 remake because some of the tougher game mechanics of the original are only available in the hardest mode. To me, it tells something about their overall vision and it could tell a lot about what other things might be wrong in the game. To me that wouldn't be too big of an issue but I'm not interested in that game anyway because of its overall gameplay regardless of the difficulty setting (a lot of modern gameplay mechanics just puts me off and that's why I'm not playing a lot of modern action games, be it Souls or whatever else).

I don't think the original Resident Evil would've felt quite the same if there were unlimited Ink Ribbons and unlimited pistol ammo, even if they were just as an option. It felt really fun to know there was no easy way out.

In a Souls game them caving in and making an "accessibility mode" would tell a lot about their current vision and priorities. I would be quite certain that if that would happen, there would be some other studio that would try fill in the space their step outside of that certain type of experience would create. And then there would be people again asking for easy modes to those games.

And of course there's always the "slippery slope" danger of trying a bit of an easy mode in the next game, and that escalating into something worse in games after that. "Just an option" could very well mean the contents of that option creeping into main modes later in the studio's games once they've given their little finger to forces that make them change their vision. They'd look at numbers and see people are buying the game a lot and most are playing on easy. They'd make some calculations and decide to go further in trying to please those new fans. And the games would lose their uniqueness and they would become more of the same than whatever else is in the market. It happened with Resident Evil. Let's focus a bit more on action and make this and that and that and this... and BOOM, years later Resident Evil 6 exists (and Revelations too - f that shit too, "back to the roots" my ass, game was terrible).

Beating a souls game isn't getting you laid.

You know the same can be said to those people who are calling for easy modes in games they seem to be way too desperate to play through, right?

 

[Trogdor1123]

No, games should be made however the dev wants. If that includes an easy mode, no problem. But that's a developer decision

 

[Gun Animal]

i would prefer a dark souls style co-op mode for a more natural difficulty modifier, but it should be one or the other. sekiro should have co-op (or in lack of co-op, an easy mode)

No, games should be made however the dev wants. If that includes an easy mode, no problem. But that's a developer decision

This too, though. Not all games need to be accessible to everyone all the time.

 

[Danjin44]

sekiro should have co-op (or in lack of co-op, an easy mode)

The thing with Sekiro, you have so many tools to make fights easier for yourself.

 

[synchronicity]

I think it'd be fascinating to get a cross-poll asking -- if deciding between the two -- whether the individual wants a good story/lore/atmosphere from their game or a stimulating challenge?

I imagine those who want "games to be for everyone" are thinking of stories, of characters, of settings, of songs that had a great impact on themselves as they played through the game.

But what about people who want a stimulating challenge? The satisfaction of finally beating Seven Ashina Spears can never be conveyed by a "Top 100 RPG soundtracks" video or a "Saddest plot twists" clickbait article. The satisfaction of finally chaining Stage 4 in Daioujou can never be conveyed by watching a streamer or a Let's Play online.

That gut-exhale of "finally" is entertaining to me as a gamer. I'm sure feathers would be ruffled if I suggested that New RPG #3,715 cut out all the nonsensical teenage-drama cutscenes.

And that is setting aside the fact that 99.999% of all games can be learned and cheesed with a bit of persistence.

What, you don't like learning? Not the game's fault.

I also think part of the issues is the current cultural climate. What I mean by that is that there are so many games to experience - so much entertainment on offer. Couple that with the general lack of patience many people have ( in part because of being so spoiled for choice) and when a game throws up the slightest resistance, many just drop it, even if they are enjoying what they've experienced.

Now to be clear, I have no issue dropping a game I'm not enjoying either. But there's a difference in a game that doesn't seem to have much that resonates with you and a game that asks something of you in terms of effort or learning, as you mentioned.

If I can tell a game is made with care and it's clicking with me but I find myself challenged, I'm not less intrigued, I become more intrigued. And that's part of the appeal of Souls, for example, for me. I don't like games just because they offer challenge, but if they require investment and offer consequence *and* I'm enjoying it to begin with, I really get invested.

But that's a big off topic. In regards to the crux of the issue for me, it has always been a matter of respecting creative freedom. If FROM suddenly started making all Souls super easy, I'd been sad and would probably drop the series (depending on the total package), but I wouldn't feel entitled to ask them to serve my personal preferences. They're a company in a creative industry, and they can create whatever they wish. The market will respond with their financial investment, or lack thereof.

 

[GametimeUK]

I think that instead of experiencing the game you mean beating the game.

I think one can experience the game without beating the game.

The experience for some will be not being able to get far in a game. The experience for some will be to get halfway through the game. The experience for some will be getting to the last boss of the game. The experience to some will be getting to see the victorious ending of the game.

Experiencing the game in its entirety if they so choose. Also having more options to experience the game how they want to in general. No, I don't mean simply "beating the game".

 

[Saruhashi]

I'm firmly of the opinion that it should.

Most games difficulty don't give me trouble (apart from Sekiro) but I'm thinking about other users more. I believe if someone buys a game no matter the skill level they should be able to see everything just like any other piece of entertainment.

I honestly dont believe it takes away from my experience in any way if a user plays in say "Adventure mode" where enemy's hardly fight back at all.. or its impossible to die etc. One persons easy mode is another persons hard mode as well, so I don't really buy the "get good or give up philosophy", when everyone has payed the same price to be entertained.

Also I'd argue gate keeping content based on skill checks only works to the detriment of less skilled players. Higher skilled players have no games they cant access. If they want to play "Barbie goes to the Mall"... they can for example.

I'm all for games telling me this is the recommended difficulty by the developers (where the challenge had been fine tuned etc) but ultimately games should be about fun for all. I want to see a renewed focus on accessibility next gen.

"I believe if someone buys a game no matter the skill level they should be able to see everything just like any other piece of entertainment."

I see this a lot but it simply isn't true.

Take sporting events, for example. Supporters of both sides may buy tickets and may pay the same price BUT only one set of fans is going to spend the later stages of the evening celebrating victory.

Bad comparison, maybe.

Sure with something like a Marvel movie anybody can watch the film and have a right good time but that's how these movies are meant to be. They are specifically made that way.

For movies I think you could argue that some movies are very "challenging" and every person who sees the movie may not "get" it on the same level. Meaning while everyone in the audience can technically sit through the same 2 to 3 hours of visual and audio "stuff" the core content of the movie may simply be beyond some viewers.

Books can be especially tricky in this regard because some readers may not be at a level of literacy where ALL books are appropriate to them and some degree of actual education and experience may be needed. Sure, anyone can look at the pages but not everyone can read the words and understand them and see how it all works together to create narrative and themes and whatnot.

Certain types of music are certainly not made for "everyone" and, in fact, many genres may be deliberately weird and challenging and inaccessible.

I think before questions about whether or not games should have an "easy mode" we need to take a good few steps back and ask what a "game" even is. Ask what a game can be, might be or even should be.

Is a game closer to a theme park ride or a competitive sport? Somewhere in between? Or can many games be many different things?

Should a game try to sell itself to as many customers as possible to maximize profits?
I would say no as this really just encourages a generic medium where products are built by marketing experts to get the most units sold.

Even if a game is to be 100% the developers vision then they will still be constrained by some "corporate" factors.
They'll have deadlines and budgets and in line with that an easy mode will cost more money or time or both.

On a personal level I kind of really hate messing around with difficulty options.
When I buy a game I want to play as the developer intended me to play.
These folks are supposed to be the best at what they do and I want to experience their content as they intended.
Not sit back and let the game play itself, not struggle through because they never properly balanced the higher difficulty.

I generally feel that a game that actively FORCES the player to learn and master the games mechanics and actually get the point of the game is a well designed game.

Father Gascoigne in Bloodborne being a good example of this.
If you can't master the parrying, dodging and the way that being aggressive can help you win back lost health then, honestly, you have no business going beyond that boss because you do not understand the game.
Even using the music box to make the battle easier is a lesson that these in-game items contain hints and tips in their descriptions. This is a key aspect of the game and how Bloodborne tells it's story and delivers the lore of the world.

In a sense, using all those mechanics and skills to beat Father Gascoigne IS THE GAME.

So what's the point in putting the game into "easy mode" and then sitting back and "experiencing" Bloodborne?
It's like proclaiming your favorite food is pepperoni pizza but only after the pepperoni is removed.

Like I said you kind of need to go back and define what a "videogame" ought to be and then consider if it's possible for some developers to move out of that definition and do their own thing, make their own genres etc.

"This game should have an easy mode" feels like demand that only really serves to reel developers back in and make sure that they do not stray from established norms. Even then you will just have "rogue" developers who decide that they want to make a super difficult game with no options and then what? Force them to get back in line?

I think it's a conversation that can kind of go along with "games are art" and "games don't have to be fun" because if "all games should have an easy mode" becomes an industry standard then you basically limit the scope of what can be done in this medium.

Games are art but also artists don't your artistic license to make a game that is too difficult! There's a massive contradiction there, in my opinion.

Better in the end to just think of different types of games as genres and then consumers need to ask themselves "are the genres I just don't like" and then just don't play those games.

It seems mad to me that someone would look at Sekiro and say "I want to see everything this game has to offer EXCEPT for mastering the gameplay mechanics".