Support NeoGAF

[Durante]

One of the most disappointing trends in the industry (among fandom anyway) in the last few years is the notion of 'not all games are for everyone'.

I know it has been replied to a lot, but I disagree so hard with this that I also want to add my own take.

In every mature medium, there are works which are designed to appeal to specific people, even with the almost certain knowledge that this will also mean that they do not appeal to others.

There are design decisions which can be made which *will* mean that a game is not for everyone, and which also make it a much more enjoyable game for those who appreciate these decisions. Not all -- nor even most, I would argue -- such decisions can easily be gated by options, at least not without also reducing the strength of the overall design.

The reason many people prefer "B" games over "AAA" titles is that the former do not have the limiting financial impetus not to make any decisions that might lead to anything other than near-universal appeal.

 

[Bill R Boggess]

Um have you played Defender?

Yep, it's hard as hell.

But my question was if either of these gamers could demonstrate their respective mastery of a game they claimed is the equivalent of baby steps in comparison.

I was young but around for those early arcade games. They were incredibly difficult - largely by design. But the notion that modern games are easier by default is something I take issue with, especially when talking about something like Dark Souls.

 

[AALLx]

Well, I think this points out something important though. Most games are commercial art, that is, art designed explicitly to be sold. Design decisions are almost always made with at least some eye to their impact on audience size and sales. The potential audience for Rain World was partially dismayed by its difficulty, and this has ostensibly motivated the developers to consider alternate modes.

Art isn't always just a statement by the artist, it can also be a conversation between the artist and the audience.

Conversely, when an artist is trying to convey something, shouldn't the audience at least try to engage the topic? Otherwise, you know, we'll be falling to the realm of anti-intellectualism here...

 

[Rncewind]

Well, at the risk of sounding pedantic, all art forms are unique.

But there is copious overlap and all mediums are inevitably compared to what came before - for better and for worse.

There are non when in comes to the topic at hand, difficulty, so it doesnt matter.


Things like this imo are the reason why in many peoples eye videogames are not considered "real" art.

 

[diaspora]

Has anyone ever attempted to mod a considerably well thought out easy mode into Dark Souls to see how it affects the game?

That's what a trainer is no?

 

[-COOLIO-]

One of the most disappointing trends in the industry (among fandom anyway) in the last few years is the notion of 'not all games are for everyone'.

By all means, keep Demon's Souls hard and challenging at its default level, but offering an easier mode (or harder) in addition to this hurts no one, except, apparently, the fragile ego of the 'git gud' crowd.

Give us more difficulty options, more accessibility options, more diversity and the industry will keep moving forward in a positive, healthy and inclusive way.

I disagree, I like playing through games at decent difficulty and also knowing that I can't fall back on, or be tempted by, a lower difficulty. There's a subtle pleasure in knowing that you're being as economical as you can in trying to complete the task, and the task still being challenging.

Multiple difficulties levels are fine and I understand why they exist but this is just something that I happen to appreciate, personally.

 

[Bill R Boggess]

There are non when in comes to the topic at hand, difficulty, so it doesnt matter.


Things like this imo are the reason why in many peoples eye videogames are not considered "real" art.

I actually think that comes more from the fact that anytime you have a new medium/art form arise, people are inherently dismissive of it and regulate to popular culture and commercialism.

There was a time when the theater was considered lowbrow entertainment and people forget Dickens was literally paid by the word so I would argue the lack of respect for gaming stems more from its relative newness than anything else.

 

[Yukinari]

Remember all the arcade games that stopped you from playing them further if you picked easy or "practice" mode?

I imagine if any major triple A release did that today we would get tons of articles about it cause people are too unsure of their skill level to just play on normal or higher.

Star Fox 2 just came out and the difficulties for it are extremely mislabled considering you cant fully experience everything.

 

[Berserking Guts]

I'm fucking shit at Spelunky, I'm god awful at the game. I've bought 3 games on PSN that are roguelikes and I'm absolute rubbish at them. But I respect that they exist, I'm happy they exist, and I realize that they're not for me. I wouldn't dream of compromising the things that make Spelunky so special by throwing a fucking spanner at it and making an easy mode. Put me in the not all games are for everyone crowd.

I loathe this recent trend that every game needs to be for everyone. I hate it, and I resent the notion that everyone who wants this relatively niche style only wants it for gloating and elitism cred, as if their enjoyment of their favorite challenging video game is all about you. I hate it and I hope we move past it.

I'm not even saying don't have an easy mode, or cheat modes or whatever. But not every fucking game needs to adhere to the same set of rules, we're allowed to have outliers that benefit from being unorthodox and different.

 

[Crossing Eden]

That's what a trainer is no?

Yea but I'm asking if anyone has ever actually done this without just making the player laughably OP.

 

[NexusCell]

One of the most disappointing trends in the industry (among fandom anyway) in the last few years is the notion of 'not all games are for everyone'.

This is the complete opposite of what is actually happening. A good majority of games have casualized their gameplay and design as a way to appeal to larger audiences and recoup development costs. Compare the game design and quest structure of Morrowwind to Skyrim and you'll see how Bethesda simplified questing and discovery to appeal to the mainstream. It's only because of harder games like Dark Souls and Cuphead (Pretty much just these two. I can't think of another game that caused this amount of controversy regarding difficulty) that you have people trying to portray difficulty as some sort of "exclusionary" mechanic that "oppresses" its audience. It's not, and people who like to claim that difficult games are exclusionary or oppressive or alienating are just trivializing actual exclusion and issues in gaming.

 

[JamesHolden]

I think people are way too invested in Review scores. If someone want to criticize a game and give it a bad review score for being too hard or too easy, that is their perogative. If games shouldn't be for everyone, then clearly they should suffer on review scores when reviewed by people they weren't for.

 

[Teeth]

Yea but I'm asking if anyone has ever actually done this without just making the player laughably OP.

It's never going to make navigation easier or the story more scrutable or falling off edges less likely.

You could reduce the mental stack by making the enemies attack less often, have lower health, and do less damage. The player just has to do less at that point.


Everyone keeps citing Cuphead and Dark Souls as the only two difficult games they can think of, but the only reason they keep coming up is because they are the only two games that created a Zeitgeist around their difficulty. There are hundreds of more difficult games out there; military strategy games, hardcore racing and flying sims, bullet hell games, programmer puzzlers, masocore platformers, and more.

It's just that general audiences don't care about those games.

 

[Crossing Eden]

It's never going to make navigation easier or the story more scrutable or falling off edges less likely.

You could reduce the mental stack by making the enemies attack less often, have lower health, and do less damage. The player just has to do less at that point.


Everyone keeps citing Cuphead and Dark Souls as the only two difficult games they can think of, but the only reason they keep coming up is because they are the only two games that created a Zeitgeist around their difficulty. There are hundreds of more difficult games out there; military strategy games, hardcore racing and flying sims, bullet hell games, programmer puzzlers, masocore platformers, and more.

It's just that general audiences don't care about those games.

Fair points.

 

[Mik317]

people act like hard games are the norm.

they aren't. Those who want to play games at their own speed are already being catered to. Why should they be catered to more?

Most hard games would not benefit from a difficulty slider., The difficulty is apart of their inherent design. Making a Souls game easier isn't just about lowering some numbers here and there. The difficulty comes from the encounters, learning how and when enemies attack, enemy placement, and so on. Honestly its never really about the number of hits one takes. So to make them easier would require AI changes, enemy placement changes, and so on. That takes time. Time taken away from what could have been used to make other more important things rather than catering to someone who probably will give up regardless.

Cuphead is the cause of this recent uproar but even that is silly (it even has an easy mode) because the whole point of the game is quick twich bullet hell that requires skill. I will probably never play it because I know I'm not good enough and i'd be butthurt...and thats ok. There are tons of games out there more my speed.

This idea that everything has to be for everyone is a really bad one and it handicaps creativity in a sense. Sometimes you aren't the intended auidence. Hold dat shit and go find something that does cater to you. Shadow of War seems like a neat game, but I hate the setting and artstyle....should it change to meet my standards? Fuck no. I hate most FPS, should they change to TPS for me? NO. I suck at most FG. I hold that shit and either get bodied or appreciate them from afar. There is enough variety and titles out there to fill any void.

Are some people dicks about it? HELL YEAH. The git gud scrub mentality is just mean spirited bullshit....but that doesn't mean there should be this standard entry level for everything. Thats lame and potentially creates a medium in which everything is this samey mismosh of mediocrity. I love the Arkham battle system but damn did every game need that fighting engine? no. But it was done because it was easy enough for most to get by without being brainless and "just" enough depth for those looking for a challenge...but then it got fucking old quick because everyone was doing it. Unique things often are unique because they aren't easy to get into or for everyone...and that is the best part of this medium.

 

[Stinkles]

Either you or this "legend" have any videos demonstrating your mastery of DS?

Because some of the speed runs and minimalist gear runs on those games requires some serious fucking talent.

I mean, we were just joking around at lunch so I'm probably not gonna supply videos for a throwaway observation. But I stand by Defender being gloriously difficult.

 

[Catdaddy]

FIrst off, I'm old - pushing 50. I've enjoyed games since 70s Pong followed by Atari/Commodore64/Nintendo, etc. I still enjoy a wide range of game styles that I may have played in my teens up until now. My wife and I are empty nesters, and my only child is finishing a Masters program and will have a good career, so we've done our job there.

So now games are a primary hobby of mine, while we still enjoy life via travel and stuff, over the past few years - time is available to play. The flip side - I'm pushing 50.. the dexterity I once had isn't there any more, my breaks in games and exercise are to ensure I don't develop something along the lines of carpal tunnel or arthritis, but still may get who the fuck knows...

I can't play some games on harder levels any more, my reaction time, my eyesight, isn't up to it..Some of the strategy games, i.e. XCOM maybe, but anything with reaction times or QTEs - I need some slack built in, my generation is the first with video games in our house and now we are getting old - give me an easy mode so I can still play your cause my "get gud" days are behind me.

I know the Souls series is not for me and I'm okay with that, but all those that can gloat how "easy it is" play something similar in 20 years and then lets hear those comments.

I like to have the choice, if I can start at a normal or even hard difficulty and adjust down, thank you. I'm not in this to gloat, I want to play the game and enjoy a weekend afternoon and in less than 10 years....retirement...

 

[Abstrusity]

Not all games are for everyone, but if you don't make all games for everyone, they won't sell nearly as well as games that are explicitly for everyone. Ergo, the people who like difficult games that were made to be difficult, even if it's just because tradition dating back to quarter-sucking arcades, are going to be afraid that people who can't make the cut are going to demand games LIKE it be made, but accessible. In the process, they'll be made easier because accessibility is hard, and making a game piss easy is easy.

And those games that are made are going to be more popular than their previous incarnation. The free market speaks, and it says "fuck the games you like, yes, you."

So on one hand, you have people who want to enjoy games that are relegated mostly to the people who are willing and able to put in the time and effort to get good at them, but because they are not willing and/or able to get to that level of play, are excluded from ever really experiencing them. And on the other hand, you have people who take joy in the suffering when they try and fail and try and fail and try and finally succeed, who fear they will LOSE something when games no longer do that in an even half-way organic way.

And because there are more people in the former than there are in the latter, the industry will move toward that, instead. Just like the industry moved from skill based shooters with variable movement, weapons, mods, and maps, to more drudgery like Call of Duty, shoot first win first, etc.

Making a game more accessible doesn't always mean making it easier, but most of the time, it's "making it easier to fake accessibility," which actively harms MY enjoyment, for instance.

So then it turns people against each other. Why should I care what the casual scum wants when they need gimmick waggle, verticality and speed scares them, and if they count more than two weapons at a time they get panic attacks? Why should they care about the neckbeard who sweats cheeto dust, when what they enjoy is anathema to what the rest enjoy?

Difficulty levels lessens animosity, allows people to enjoy a hard game, without sacrificing what makes the "real gamers" attracted to it. ...When done right. But even then, there's certain elitist views.

And this is present across multiple cultures, too.

Two characters from the Touhou series, a series primarily consisting of "bullet hell" games. Easy mode allows more people to enjoy the game. It has fewer bullets than Normal, or Hard, or Lunatic. But then, the question arises; WHY are you playing Touhou if you don't want a challenge? WHY would you play in Easy mode when there's harder difficulties? "Why are you playing a game that is not for you?" "What right do you have to try to tell us what we should enjoy in our own genres?"

Everyone enjoys something, and I would contend that it's not that hard to please everyone, but the divisions by skill and derision because of them are going to exist regardless. Hell, it's the ONE thing humans are good at.

I enjoy FPS games tremendously. But I'm almost 30 and the dexterity is reduced from what it used to be. I used to be pretty goddamn good, but now arthritis and nerve injuries are real risks, and I can't play 14 hour marathon sessions in the games that I used to against other people. I'll never get out of diamond league in Overwatch now. But 10 years younger...definitely. So there's a good argument, on both sides, about difficulty and accessibility. There's a good argument for putting it in games, as long as you don't sacrifice what made it enjoyable to do so.

There is no argument for NOT doing so. There's no argument for no easy mode. There's no argument for why we treat others derisively because t hey can't play at the same level (or anymore).

 

[Amibguous Cad]

I generally prefer more accessible difficulty levels, but I can't blame the more "hardcore" for being concerned.

The broader audience is always going to be carry the most commercial weight. If they start to get on board at one point in a series or genre or company's lifespan, pleasing them will soon become the company's biggest priority. Depth will suffer, higher difficulty levels will see less support and then disappear altogether.

We've seen it almost everywhere that games have seen broad commercial success. Difficult games have gone from most of the industry to a tiny niche.

Sometimes there really are competing interests that can't be both be accommodated.

 

[Abstrusity]

I generally prefer more accessible difficulty levels, but I can't blame the more "hardcore" for being concerned.

The broader audience is always going to be carry the most commercial weight. If they start to get on board at one point in a series or genre or company's lifespan, pleasing them will soon become the company's biggest priority. Depth will suffer, higher difficulty levels will see less support and then disappear altogether.

We've seen it almost everywhere that games have seen broad commercial success. Difficult games have gone from most of the industry to a tiny niche.

Sometimes there really are competing interests that can't be both be accommodated.

I don't think it's entirely true that they can't, I think it's just harder than tacking on an easy mode or, more presently, tacking on a hard mode that just makes everything damage sponges, or spawn forever, or kill in one shot. When games are designed from the ground up to be easy and accessible, it's easier to crank them out. Money is the reason this is an issue. Money alone. Not design, not incompatibility. Money.

 

[DireStr8s]

Crossfire
Battles
Proxy Wars
Trumpian movements

Lastly, Updike.

 

[nynt9]

It's never going to make navigation easier or the story more scrutable or falling off edges less likely.

You could reduce the mental stack by making the enemies attack less often, have lower health, and do less damage. The player just has to do less at that point.


Everyone keeps citing Cuphead and Dark Souls as the only two difficult games they can think of, but the only reason they keep coming up is because they are the only two games that created a Zeitgeist around their difficulty. There are hundreds of more difficult games out there; military strategy games, hardcore racing and flying sims, bullet hell games, programmer puzzlers, masocore platformers, and more.

It's just that general audiences don't care about those games.

This is pretty key. I've never seen a large scale call to make grand strat games or real roguelite easier because they're not the zeitgeist. The only reason we're having this conversation is souls games and cuphead are popular and appealing games and people who normally don't participate in more challenging games want to experience those games without actually experiencing them, and getting upset that they can't. The conversation isn't really about difficulty per se. It's about a few particular games who aren't intended for a mainstream audience but got the visibility for that audience to notice them. The audience is realizing that there are so many more games outside of their bubble and some of those games can actually look appealing.

Normally many challenging games don't have an appealing aesthetic so we don't get this overlap of people interested in them, and we don't get all these hot takes from people suddenly being faced with the fact that if we want games to be considered art, we need to allow for challenging art.

Also to the long post above, there is an argument for no easy mode. These things take time and money to develop if you want to do them right. You need to tune, test, QA and debug multiple different versions of your game. Small budget niche games usually can't afford that.

 

[petran79]

It's never going to make navigation easier or the story more scrutable or falling off edges less likely.

You could reduce the mental stack by making the enemies attack less often, have lower health, and do less damage. The player just has to do less at that point.


Everyone keeps citing Cuphead and Dark Souls as the only two difficult games they can think of, but the only reason they keep coming up is because they are the only two games that created a Zeitgeist around their difficulty. There are hundreds of more difficult games out there; military strategy games, hardcore racing and flying sims, bullet hell games, programmer puzzlers, masocore platformers, and more.

It's just that general audiences don't care about those games.

Prior to the above games, Super Meat Boy is still notorious for its difficulty. It was the first example I can think off where a difficult got very popular, despite the fact that only a fracture of the players managed to actually finish it. I gave up after World 4.