It's not "just like" subtitles. Someone whose hard-of-hearing can't learn how to hear, an able-bodied person who can't beat the Asylum Demon in Dark Souls can almost definitely learn how to do so. Equating accessibility features for people who need them to difficulty features for people who want them is my biggest issue with this whole thing as I've further explained in my post above.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
How video game difficulty became a cultural battleground - Eurogamer article
- Thread starter Arion
- Start date
It's not "just like" subtitles. Someone whose hard-of-hearing can't learn how to hear, an able-bodied person who can't beat the Asylum Demon in Dark Souls can almost definitely learn how to do so. Equating accessibility features for people who need them to difficulty features for people who want them is my biggest issue with this whole thing as I've further explained in my post above.
BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO
Junior Member
Why do you expect movies and games to have the same rules of consumption? Media doesn't work like that.
I meant it is "just like" it in that it broadens the audience without making it for everyone.
Why do you expect media consumption to have "rules"?
Let's say book authors had remote control of all of their books and could force you to read a chapter before continuing on to the next. They could argue that chapter 3 is utterly important to the meaning of the text, and whatever circumstance is motivating you to want to skip the chapter is irrelevant. Would you be okay with this world?
MickeyPhree
Member
If Demon Souls had an easy mode, I feel the series wouldn't be popular.
Glass Rebel
Member
Yeah, the disability argument comes off as insincere and almost patronizing most of the time. There are games that have disability options (i.e. puzzle games with colour-blind mode), controllers for disabled people and plenty of games where physical disability isn't significantly limiting (i.e. turn-based games). Making Dark Souls easier won't help any disabled person.
Pretty much. People want to play these games but they don't want to play them.
Books are not relevant to this discussion because games have different standards as to how they are consumed and what is expected of the consumer. Video games even in their infancy in the 1950s were typically contests of skill or a fun competition. You are expected to be dextrous and skilled to take up that competition and if you're not that you could take the time to get better. There's nothing controversial about this. You can either play according to the rules or find a game that better suits your skill level. Expecting every game to have some sliding scale for every need is unrealistic.
Of course both broaden the game's audience, but the ways in which it does so differs greatly:
Subtitles: Broadens a game's audience by allowing those hard-of-hearing to experience a game's dialogue when they literally wouldn't be able to otherwise
Easy Mode: Broadens a game's audience by allowing those who don't want to overcome a challenge to finish the game despite them having the capacity for doing so.
You're co-opting the issues of disabled people so you don't have to die so many times to Ornstein and Smough.
Well, then I wonder if it will get complaints about difficulty and not being inclusive.
...I handled it just fine.For those of us who have played MH on PSP and 3DS having a second analogue stick is easy mode
DominusLeges
Member
While I agree with much that was said in the article Ive gotta say that at some point being terrible at a games mechanics will compromise the games experience for a critic. In order to engage in the sort of criticism am that would be of use to their audience there is certainly a basic level of competence/skill required and its very clear that many critics are not able to meet that basic level for whatever reason which is really quite odd given the number of games they surely play on a regular basis. Some are indeed even shockingly bad at executing even the most common widespread controls and mechanics in the industry. In such cases I certainly understand why people would treat their criticism on these games with utmost skepticism or chooose to disregard it entirely. At the very least I feel like its something that is reasonable to point out or call into question when relevant.
Yes, and all movies should offer a 60 minute-cut for those incapable of paying attention to a singular thing for more than that amount of time.
Nah. Not everything is for everyone.
KLoWn
Member
Honestly, I think the vast majority of the people wanting an easy mode in all things hard are not bad at games, or lack the skills to beat it, you're just lazy. Too lazy to learn whats needed to survive in whatever game you think it's too hard, whether it be learning a boss attack pattern or just giving the tutorial a look.
You're better than you think you are, just don't give up after dying a few times. Seriously.
Developers should not cater to lazy people, giving people with disabilities a few more options is never wrong though.
You're better than you think you are, just don't give up after dying a few times. Seriously.
Developers should not cater to lazy people, giving people with disabilities a few more options is never wrong though.
The calls for forms of art to be as customizable and changeable as a fast food hamburger is strange trend that I will probably never understand. I wonder if these people had to read Cliff's Notes for challenging books in college.
Star Orpheus
Member
I admit I wouldnt mind if Bloodborne had let up on the difficulty a little. I love everything about the games setting and lore but it was so hard I just got frustrated not even being able to make it to the second binfire or whatever it is that I ended up selling it. There are just too many games in my backlog for me to bother getting good in one.
But I also understand that for a lot of people that difficulty is a part of the appeal, and I wouldnt want that taken from them. I compare it to the social aspects in modern Persona. Some people would like it more if they were taken out but there one of my favorite aspects of the series.
Just dont be a jerk about it.
But I also understand that for a lot of people that difficulty is a part of the appeal, and I wouldnt want that taken from them. I compare it to the social aspects in modern Persona. Some people would like it more if they were taken out but there one of my favorite aspects of the series.
Just dont be a jerk about it.
Some people have a warped idea of inclusion and diversity.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
One of the drumbeats I keep pounding on is the concept of "taking", ie, a random subset of players that deem fit to require titles to adhere to a list of personal requirements or they are "wrong" and should be changed or they are archaic and will fail financially is toxic to game design. Thing is, it's a political play. The Bullet Hell crowd, the Git Gud crowd, etc are annoying but small in number; they only dominate small corners of the overall video game discussion, so their bellicose whining and subsequent political power is weak overall. Those like you who claim to speak for huge masses who might buy a game if only it wasn't soooooooooooo haaaaaaaaaaard? Much bigger. Just as loud. Just as demanding and annoying.
The Bullet Hell/Git Gud crowd are playing defense 24/7. Yall play offense 24/7 with these arguments. "That game there, make it like I desire....or I WONT BUY IT AND IT IS WRONG!"
And all this while this other faction demand changes where it's purported rewards are by no means a financial reality. I mean, shit, Cuphead has an easy mode and we still had this claptrap astroturfed up. Just don't look behind the curtain, Dorothy! Do not understand the nuance! There is NO sating this hunger for more more more, as hunger for more more more IS the movement!
There is no higher ground of legitimate accesibility in your claim to launch from on high from, there is only the base "I want that game, CHANGE IT to suit me, even though I don't buy every game imaginable". It almost never is. Ever. For 12 years since this mindset latched on.
I swear, "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it", but the rest of us without this greedy notion that any and all games should be made to others whims instead of anyone elses (especially those for who are huge fans thereof) will be threatening to drag-ass the rest of us back thru the negative, unhealthy, exclusive recent history of this industry with them.
In short, your argument is giving the pragmatic amongst us aneurysms, bogging the industry down in debunked dogma instead of moving forward, and legitimizes demanding other kids' toys.
KLoWn
Member
Right there. You're making the decision not to "get good" at it knowingly, and after that some people are going to blame the developers for their own laziness, and that's the major problem here.
I'm NOT calling you out here though my dude, just pointing out the mindset of a lot of people that aren't as reasonable as you about it.
Bill R Boggess
Member
You certainly can if youre watching the film at home but any half-decent filmmaker would probably tell you that such behavior is antithetical to what the experience of a movie is supposed to be and subsequently would probably prefer you didnt bother watching it at all.
Theres a reason why many directors have their names removed from edited versions of their films.
Most artists want/expect their vision to be experienced in an unfettered manner. If a developer or programmer opted not to include an easy mode, there is probably a reason that relates directly to the experience they want the gamer to have.
Take something like Ninja Gaiden. Itagaki clearly wanted people to learn the deeper mechanics of that game and instead of giving the player a mode that allowed them to mash buttons blindly for the win, they were forced to actually think about the mechanics of combat and how to effectively chain those mechanics together.
For that particular game, making the combat easy and accessible would have actually harmed the overall experience. (There was an easy mode per se, but even that wasn't all that easy.)
Riposte
Member
Having given the article a full read, it kind of sucks.
It's not saying anything worthwhile you haven't already seen in the average forum debate in less articulate language (but possibly argued better). It's not really a neutral look either, it's just passively "anti-difficulty" (I guess you might like it if you agree), though less passive during the points it tiredly invokes gamergate and nonsensical (borderline projection) interpretations on why people dislike easy games (and bully poor game journalists, blah blah - pro tip: always make sure your argument is about the meanest people on twitter you can find and not the actual ideas involved). There's two parts that baffled me upon looking closer and I think there's some value in addressing them.
He conflates a bunch of ideas about difficulty, arcade games, and arcades (there's even a reference to credit-feeding as "delaying the inevitable"), most of which is a non-sequitur to the argument over "difficulty as art" outside the context of sleazy arcade owners, and eventually, somehow, stumbles out with a theory that mean difficulty names programmed gamers to dislike low complexity or low challenge games out of pride. It's a colossally stupid point, because it comes down to taste, not pride, what type of games people choose to play and champion, not to mention there were many popular story-centric and low difficulty games concurrently (he's talking about 90's era STGs). Maybe it's not really worth dwelling on, but any sort of push back towards walking simulators is not about trivial things like "gamer pride" or infantile ideas like "they just hate us because we're different!", it's because of people value different things in game design and want these values to be considered what is "good", or "art", in critical discussion (which game journalists participate in, if not dominate, by being published "critics", thus open to criticism themselves). If people value difficulty, skill, complexity, etc., then it will be reflected in their impression of games and the opinions of others, including those they dislike.
The part that sticks out to me is how he acknowledges the mean difficulty names, but before allowing himself to contemplate why they bother with rudeness in the first place, he implies they are useless from the perspective of the developer and merely accidentally bound the concept of difficulty and pride (as if the concepts are not directly linked without this little flair, might as well throw in "expertise" while you are at it) - wow, I guess this whole difficulty business was a misconception from the start! Difficulty names with this sort of flavor do serve a (small) purpose though. Having made the compromise of allowing the game to be clearable by a much lower bar (or more rarely, risen the bar to a ridiculous degree), they signal to the player what is the best or most meaningful ways to play the game among these now very different options. "Monkey", "Baby", or some other taunt says "this is a bad way to play, aim for a higher difficulty (if not now, then later)", differentiating one option from another. This is similar to the effect of a "game over", where the game tells "you chose wrong" in more explicit terms, giving interactivity meaning by introducing success and failure. It's certainly an "artistic" choice. (Note that this idea really isn't present in the scenario he draws where the arcade operator changes settings otherwise invisible to the player, making his whole point here all the more aimless.)
He goes on to reference Updike as an authority on criticism, which is not unreasonable at all, but he doesn't really say much besides "Updike said this and it is good". He doesn't spend any effort explaining the kind of criticism Updike used nor how people perceived him (not even a penis joke!). And in light of that superficiality, the rules he brings up though are pretty trite and easily dismissed without further elaboration. From here on, the author only contributes cliche lines.
A cynical part of me thinks the author cared more about name-dropping Toaplan and Updike within the same article for novelty's sake rather than making sense.
It's not saying anything worthwhile you haven't already seen in the average forum debate in less articulate language (but possibly argued better). It's not really a neutral look either, it's just passively "anti-difficulty" (I guess you might like it if you agree), though less passive during the points it tiredly invokes gamergate and nonsensical (borderline projection) interpretations on why people dislike easy games (and bully poor game journalists, blah blah - pro tip: always make sure your argument is about the meanest people on twitter you can find and not the actual ideas involved). There's two parts that baffled me upon looking closer and I think there's some value in addressing them.
He conflates a bunch of ideas about difficulty, arcade games, and arcades (there's even a reference to credit-feeding as "delaying the inevitable"), most of which is a non-sequitur to the argument over "difficulty as art" outside the context of sleazy arcade owners, and eventually, somehow, stumbles out with a theory that mean difficulty names programmed gamers to dislike low complexity or low challenge games out of pride. It's a colossally stupid point, because it comes down to taste, not pride, what type of games people choose to play and champion, not to mention there were many popular story-centric and low difficulty games concurrently (he's talking about 90's era STGs). Maybe it's not really worth dwelling on, but any sort of push back towards walking simulators is not about trivial things like "gamer pride" or infantile ideas like "they just hate us because we're different!", it's because of people value different things in game design and want these values to be considered what is "good", or "art", in critical discussion (which game journalists participate in, if not dominate, by being published "critics", thus open to criticism themselves). If people value difficulty, skill, complexity, etc., then it will be reflected in their impression of games and the opinions of others, including those they dislike.
The part that sticks out to me is how he acknowledges the mean difficulty names, but before allowing himself to contemplate why they bother with rudeness in the first place, he implies they are useless from the perspective of the developer and merely accidentally bound the concept of difficulty and pride (as if the concepts are not directly linked without this little flair, might as well throw in "expertise" while you are at it) - wow, I guess this whole difficulty business was a misconception from the start! Difficulty names with this sort of flavor do serve a (small) purpose though. Having made the compromise of allowing the game to be clearable by a much lower bar (or more rarely, risen the bar to a ridiculous degree), they signal to the player what is the best or most meaningful ways to play the game among these now very different options. "Monkey", "Baby", or some other taunt says "this is a bad way to play, aim for a higher difficulty (if not now, then later)", differentiating one option from another. This is similar to the effect of a "game over", where the game tells "you chose wrong" in more explicit terms, giving interactivity meaning by introducing success and failure. It's certainly an "artistic" choice. (Note that this idea really isn't present in the scenario he draws where the arcade operator changes settings otherwise invisible to the player, making his whole point here all the more aimless.)
He goes on to reference Updike as an authority on criticism, which is not unreasonable at all, but he doesn't really say much besides "Updike said this and it is good". He doesn't spend any effort explaining the kind of criticism Updike used nor how people perceived him (not even a penis joke!). And in light of that superficiality, the rules he brings up though are pretty trite and easily dismissed without further elaboration. From here on, the author only contributes cliche lines.
Not exactly a revelation for videogame criticism. This is a popular debate strat for any fanboy of a poorly received game. Here's a better idea: express yourself, what/how/why the piece made you feel, and if you are not a helpless ape, maybe you'll say something of value to other humans with tastes similar to yours. Of course, the statement isn't worthless, but what the author feels it says, in "other words", certainly is:
So hard games are hard and easy games are easy, some games are about combat and some are not. This doesn't address anything at all and you definitely didn't need to quote a famous author to say it. The issue is that at the end of the day, everyone is still going to have an opinion (and be compelled to share that opinion wide and far if they are paid for), whether you think a game has too little or shallow interactivity or if you think the game is too hard or "cheap". They are also going to have opinions on a meta-level, where very different forms of games are compared and contrasted. And videogames can be very complex, do you even know what the developers were trying to do? I guess his point is don't criticize walking simulators for being simplistic and don't whine about a lack of difficulty settings, just don't criticize certain things in certain ways, because John Updike said so (he thinks). There's also another rule with an even more meaningless closing line added to it:
More so than the previous line, it's largely misused. The author's trick is that he's calling people ideological warriors, he himself turning the debate of game difficulty in a "cultural" one, and then using this line to dismiss what it isn't really talking about. I mean, it has way more to do with feminist critique or being friends with a developer and so on, than thinking videogames with complex interactivity are better (an "aesthetic" concept in the wider sense).
A cynical part of me thinks the author cared more about name-dropping Toaplan and Updike within the same article for novelty's sake rather than making sense.
First of all, I consider your last line a kind of personal attack, and I have no tolerance for that. You don't even know how I play games, and you know nothing of my motivations. If you go for a personal insult again, I'll just stop responding. I'm not saying this because I think you care, this is just an FYI.
I think games should strive for a broader audience (not "everyone"), and I think difficulty modes do assist with individuals who have lesser hand-eye coordination due to disabilities. And experts on game accessibility agree with me. The AbleGamers foundation lists difficulty levels as one of the best practices for helping people with cognitive impairments. Even if there are individuals who are arguing only for their own interests, and not those of the disabled, those interests happen to overlap in this case. Just as allowing system-level controller configuration on consoles helped both disabled and non-disabled gamers.
Bill R Boggess
Member
Because they use those terms irresponsibly to obfuscate the fact that what truly motivates them is entitlement.
The notion that they should have easy access to everything at all times.
By that logic, there should exist an easier version of chess to cater to those unwilling to learn the nuances and complexities of the full game.
I have no snobbery in regards to ease in games - I play normal and easy modes all of the time. But I also recognize that some games are developed specifically to challenge us and the idea that every game should include an easier mode even when such an inclusion defies the very crux of that experience is ridiculous.
Fortunately, I don't think many people in here are actually advocating for that.
Stormblessed
Member
This is as laughable as it was when the Dean Takahashi video was being circulated. I would expect a book reviewer to be well read or a film critic to know about cinematography, but apparently I shouldn't expect game reviewers to be able to be good at games. Why, then, should their opinion have any merit?
Games journalists are (very obviously) appropriating the language of equality and inclusion because, despite the lack of applicability in this debate, it's really effective at influencing opinion. It's actually kind of disgusting, since no one talks about colour-blind modes, controller mapping, or other actual accessibility features in games when they write their reviews.
Games journalists are (very obviously) appropriating the language of equality and inclusion because, despite the lack of applicability in this debate, it's really effective at influencing opinion. It's actually kind of disgusting, since no one talks about colour-blind modes, controller mapping, or other actual accessibility features in games when they write their reviews.
TatteredHat
Member
If it became a cultural battleground it's because some people started shouting that everything in every game should be accessible to everyone, regardless of time dedicated to said game.
That simply doesn't work, some games are designed for you to spend time on them in order to get good at them.
That simply doesn't work, some games are designed for you to spend time on them in order to get good at them.
Ultimately an easy mode should be left to the developers' discretion and not forced in because a small subset people who don't want to spend time to learn a game need to have their egos massaged. AC Origins actually does something more interesting with an "Easy" mode and makes it a complete non-combat educational exploration mode.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
This is what I feel too in arguments with regards to various threads like this - I feel that handicapped people being used as a shield is rather offensive and patronizing.
I'm surprised no one is bringing up that Cuphead video even.
I believe experts make the best critics, but if you don't, you should at least look for someone who has casually played a wide range of racing games and is not completely unskilled. Praise for a game is meaningless without a clue if it's any good compared to its peers. An unskilled player's take is not useful even to other unskilled people because people suck in radically different ways, and furthermore, sufficiently unskilled people have no way of knowing or conveying to a reader the degree of their skills.
Apparently chess players agree with that logic, because there are an impressive number of chess variations, some of which are designed to be easier, such as Endgame Chess, which involves only kings and pawns.
I agree that the presentation of a challenge itself can be a form of expression, and certainly some books/films demand a bit more effort to follow than others, but the stretches in these analogies are going a bit far. I've never read a £60 book that stopped me going past chapter two unless I passed an exam on the previous chapter first. Interactive media that refuses access to the rest of it is different enough from books with an index, films with a chapter select and cheeseburgers that glib comparisons really don't work.
More_Badass
Member
I think there is merit to the reviewer playing a genre they're not experienced with or disliked before, as that's a valuable perspective if it's a good gateway into the genre. There was a great review of Horizon from a reviewer who finally understood the appeal of open world action adventure games while playing it and the game really clicking with her
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
though to be fair, I feel like that cuphead review is more of a testament to problem solving concepts, or lack thereof, than having to do with anything with video game skills
SatelliteOfLove
Member
I'm glad other people are noting the bait-and-switch reguarding input for the disabled vs make it easier argument
It's a delicate thing; you have skilled players that don't understand that people just can't "do it" like they can, and unskilled that don't realize the skill slope is a slope and not a wall and misunderstand or overlook the whirring parts within that made it so. Gotta find people that see outside themselves (it's what makes a good reviewer a good reviewer!)
PS buy Legend of Grimrock it does the former.
It's a delicate thing; you have skilled players that don't understand that people just can't "do it" like they can, and unskilled that don't realize the skill slope is a slope and not a wall and misunderstand or overlook the whirring parts within that made it so. Gotta find people that see outside themselves (it's what makes a good reviewer a good reviewer!)
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Humanity wasn't finite in DS 1 in fact you had more humanity than you feasible had uses for which is why many ended up using it as superior healing.
Stormblessed
Member
As an editorial piece, maybe. But for reviews - something that will inform purchases - I think this is still bad practice. Their ability to effectively critique is too limited. A good reviewer should be able to step outside themselves and evaluate whether a gateway title is a good entry point or not, in the same way adult film reviewers can tell you whether a kids movie is good for its intended audience.
Wasn't Legend of Grimrock the one where they added a new input option via arrows because a user requested it, they couldn't see why not and it only took a couple of hours? I thought that was cool.
New control options/Allowing control remapping on games is a different argument to allowing easy modes, but I don't really see how the latter is automatically a dishonest argument. One of my best friends always plays on easy due to missing two fingers, and basically just investigates how tough a game is going to be before he buys it. Quite a lot of mass-market games, as controllers have added more and more buttons over the last thirty years, have become harder and harder for him as they expect players to have more and more ability to do multiple things at once with increasing complexity. Both remappable controls and easy modes allow him to take on more games, while obviously able-bodied gamers can take advantage of both too. Control options are better as you can tailor to specific needs, but easy modes still offer a benefit through more forgiving gameplay.
Personally, I remember really struggling with Kid Icarus Uprising as a left hander, and my pal laughing at my ridiculous indignation over the one single time I'd found it a mild inconvenience since can-openers in the 1980s
Well, there is, sorta. It's called checkers.
Also, you guys are acting like requests for easy mode are a new thing.
It is incredibly offensive and happens every time someone brings up the souls games and difficulty specifically. Meanwhile there's a streamer/YouTuber (can't remember) who plays through the souls games and he has one hand. There's also people who play these games with alternate input methods like DDR boards or guitar hero controllers.
Thing is, like I said earlier, adding extra difficulty modes isn't free. If a developer cares about game balance, it's a lot of extra effort testing and tuning these difficulty modes. And in an online game like dark souls, it can splinter the community. It's easy to ask for difficulty modes, but people rarely think of the consequences these would have on the developers. It's rarely as trivial as just multiplying all damage values by 0.8 or something.
More_Badass
Member
But...that absolutely does inform purchases, for a specific audience? And reviews are impressions and opinion first, informing purchases second IMO. The former is far more valuable than the latter.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Well, there is, sorta. It's called checkers.
Also, you guys are acting like requests for easy mode are a new thing.
pretty sure calling duckpin bowling as "easy mode bowling" will have bowling balls rolled at you, same as checkers for that matter
Well, there is, sorta. It's called checkers.
Also, you guys are acting like requests for easy mode are a new thing.
A video game's parameters on difficulty are controlled by a developer who are the be-all end-all on the rules. Sports have changeable or totally unbending rules depending on who is playing so it's not really the same thing. Plenty of people have "house rules" for games like Monopoly too. Again, it's not similar to an external force of developers who are forcing the standard for the players because they have an artistic vision about how the game is played.
TheRazielim
Member
I don't think it's easier on account of less pieces.
What? This is completely wrong. No, not all videogames are for everyone, nor should they be. Its ok for games to target a specific audience. Thats what gives us unique games. Having developers chase the mass market results in every game looking and playing the same, and the threat of them dumbing down the entire experience just so more people can play it is a very real threat.
grandwizard
Member
A lot of games have challenge ingrained into their mechanics and removing that would change the game entirely. That's the problem with catering to people who just want to breeze through everything, they won't have an actual idea of what the game design is since they are literally changing it so they won't have to learn or get a handle on it. If you could XXY through Demon's Souls it would have never been recognized for the actual game it was, people would just go the path of least resistance and think it was another god of war clone. Likewise in XCOM if you never had to worry about being flanked or your soldiers dying you would never have to engage in the systems that XCOM is built upon to keep them alive.
Assholes need to stop harrassing people because of their gaming skill but that happening should not be used as reasoning that all (or most) games need easier modes to be more inclusive. I'm all for fully customizable control options to allow people with disabilities to play.
Assholes need to stop harrassing people because of their gaming skill but that happening should not be used as reasoning that all (or most) games need easier modes to be more inclusive. I'm all for fully customizable control options to allow people with disabilities to play.
hellishimp
Member
Eric the Red
Member
This is NOT the argument. What a way to spin it. Writing ability is most important and playing skill is usually not a big issue. There is a certain point where the critic is so inept that they fail to engage with the game on it's own level and start drawing the wrong conclusions about it's systems and gameplay flow.
This confuses me in a way. Aren't the majority of games built with difficulty settings and easy modes in? Why not have a few games build their narrative/gameplay around the difficulty? That's the whole reason some games got popular, they catered to a starving niche of people who like a challenge. The current state of the industry in terms of game difficulty seems fine tbh (could always use more accessibility settings for the disabled though).
Because people who are accustomed to easier games somehow are unable to parse that a small handful of games aren't made to accommodate them and for some reason this offense cannot stand with them.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Most games "easy mode" is just lowering the stats for enemies so they dont have as much health or hit as hard.
Some games like Resident Evil VII will completely rebalance the game with each difficulty setting, for instance, in the hard mode on REVII you need a tape to save, and there are limited number of tapes, they also move items around so they aren't where they were in your previous play throughs, there's less ammo, less resources in general. This is the ideal way of handling it, but not every developer can afford to do this because its alot of work.
True, many games are also inherently relaxing and more about the atmosphere and narrative. I fucking love Stardew Valley for those days where I need to unwind and chill.