Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
That's fine. Just don't go in the cave. That's what we've been saying all along.
Read the thread...
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
I want to talk about " super easy mode " or " story " difficulty in game
- Thread starter UnluckyKate
- Start date
Lol.Man, this thread is full of:
I didn't even pick that difficultly in that game!
But people want to get through games easier I guess which works fine for them.
However, I tend to prefer normal and hard difficulties and love games like the Souls series.
DeathbyCheerios
Member
But what you are saying that if someone wants to use their GPS to explore the cave they shouldn't be allowed because it ruins YOUR cave exploring.
Airola
Member
You completely missed the point. Obviously for the Souls players and for the creators of them the essence of the game is that it's a video game version of that kind of a "cave experience."
Why would you want to take that away from them? Just because you'd like it to be more for your liking?
It's not a personal problem when it's a thing that is designed to be like that, and there are people who enjoy that. It's more of a personal problem for you if you can't handle the fact that it won't get easier for you and you probably will not play it ever again. You have all rights to not play the game or not like the game. But to say that more options would only be a good thing for the Souls games is just wrong and I've explained it over and over again how it's wrong.
Some people like to walk on a rope without having a safety net. It most certainly makes that experience even more terrifying (and exciting if you are into things like that). But obviously as it's real life it's something that most people would not do and no-one recommends to do. But as an analogy it makes sense.
I've explained this thing in with and without a real life comparison in this thread and I think my point still stands. It's about the feeling of that cave. That cave and whatever worlds the Souls games have will lose that feeling when there is the easy option for it.
Sure you don't want to access that kind of a cave in both real life and video games, but let those who want to access that cave in video games have that experience. Easier difficulty options will stop that experience be that experience in the ways I've said many times here.
Intense situation always feels more intense when there is no option to make the situation less intense. As soon as the option is brought in, it stops being as intense as it used to be.
DeathbyCheerios
Member
So people who tight rope walk would have a better experience if people didn't tight rope walk with safety wires? People who free climb would have a better climbing experience if other people couldn't climb with safety gear?
Fuck if you really want to get rid of that crutch have it impossible to change difficulty in game, make it so you have to reset it. Then it's more like, "You go to a cave and leave your phone and map at the entrance. You go explore it yourself. You can of course go back grab your map and phone and start all over again, or cause you have already started you can continue on and push thru.
Your argument only makes sense if difficulty can be toggle at any time. Just make that not doable. There your issue goes away and your metaphors vanish.
Airola
Member
You can look at it like that, yes.
But note that you are at the same time saying the cave shouldn't be gps-free because otherwise YOUR exploring is ruined.
Really, you are claiming that more options is better, but you are essentially taking away the option for a game to be like that gps-free cave. Just let some games be like that. Options aren't always for the best of the game. It might make the game more accessible to you but it would make the game less interesting to the main audience.
People have claimed that it's only about options that you don't have to use, but I have over and over again shown how options can change how the game is perceived by the players even if they never use those options.
You don't have to play the games if you don't want to but don't try to make the games different just because you want to play them too but aren't willing to play it the way they want you to.
DeathbyCheerios
Member
The way you have "shown" it to ruin those experiences for people literally sounds like a made up issue designated to souls fans.
I have beaten every Halo game on Legendary, is that cheapened by the fact that I could of gone to play it on an easier difficulty? Hell no. I still did it, I still beat the game at it's hardest and I am proud of that. Does that mean I wish people could only ever play it on the hardest difficulty? No that makes zero sense.
If an experienced is ruined because you can go back at any time and restart it to make it easier than that is a very strange issue that I have never actually be seen used anywhere else.
Is riding a bike made worse because training wheels exist? No. Some people need to start with training wheels before they get it and then they can ride a bike properly. Some people can just jump straight in without the training wheels and they learn fine.
Are pro golfers experience ruined because non pro golfers can play with a handicap?
Airola
Member
Not all would have. Some do. And I think they are insane and they should not do that.
But we are talking about video games. Video games can bring you closer to that experience of wall climbing without safety gear without putting your life in danger. It's more exciting to watch Cliffhanger when Stallone doesn't have any safety gear on when climbing the mountain. It's more exciting to play some video games when you know there is nothing to help you. Easy mode adds extra safety gear for Stallone. It makes the experience less thrilling.
No.
The cave still feels more menacing when the maps and phones and all aren't even in the entrance.
It's even more menacing when there's not even the chance that someone gets you back to the beginning and gives you help from there. The cave doesn't lose its sense of mystery and dread if you decide to bail out and "reset" yourself out of it.
The metaphor is still as valid as it ever was.
Love easy mode. Beat Wolfenstein New Order on easy. Tried it on the second hardest difficulty first but it was no fun. Turn it down to easy, I'm a nazi killing machine just like I've always wanted to be.
Tried Halo on the hardest difficulty. No fun doing trial and error and turtling behind rocks and shit. Turn it down to easy, I'm the real Master Chef/Locke shooting and smashing fools.
I don't have time nowadays to do trial and error, or sit around all day while my health comes back. I want quick hits of fun and the ability to see the whole game, and that's easy mode for me.
Tried Halo on the hardest difficulty. No fun doing trial and error and turtling behind rocks and shit. Turn it down to easy, I'm the real Master Chef/Locke shooting and smashing fools.
I don't have time nowadays to do trial and error, or sit around all day while my health comes back. I want quick hits of fun and the ability to see the whole game, and that's easy mode for me.
DeathbyCheerios
Member
What?
Thats completely untrue. If you want to do something without help then you will do it. Fuck man, I built my own desk before. I could of gone to ikea and bought a similar desk but I didn't. Did having the easier option exist worsen the experience of doing it myself? Fuck no.
What it sounds like is you are weak willed. That having an easier option means you will always be tempted to take it and you need to have no options or else you will chicken out and take the easier one.
It is like the damn argument that gay marriage ruins normal marriage because thats not the way it was meant to be.
I am not saying that Dark Souls absolutely needs an easy mode and it's stupid that it doesn't. I am saying that I wish it did and that adding an easier mode doesn't ruin the experience for everyone who doesn't want the mode.
I always play XCOM with Iron Man mode (only one auto-save file so you can't save scum), since it absolutely makes the game more exciting and your choices more meaningful. I could play normally and just not load an earlier save when shit hits the fan, but as you said I would be tempted. With Iron Man mode it prevents me from doing that. Then again, Iron Man is entirely optional and I still choose to play with it on since to me it's the way it's ment to be played. And I encourage everyone else to use it too, but I don't think it needs to be the only way to play the game. And absolutely others can and will enjoy the game while playing differently than me. Won't matter to me how people enjoy the games, as long as they do. I'm just glad if people pick the game up and have fun with it.
DeathbyCheerios
Member
The other guys argument is you playing Iron Man is made worse by the fact that you could not play on iron man but could play on normal if you found it to hard.
Yeah I know, they've told me as much =P But they haven't convinced me, got me thinking about it atleast.
DeathbyCheerios
Member
It's literally only an argument I have heard from Dark Souls fans in gaming.
I have heard it elsewhere in real life but its usually the angry yelling at clouds types.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Good grief, now we've truly heard it all.
More_Badass
Member
Regarding Dark Souls, I feel like people sometimes talk too narrowly about difficulty. I think there are fundamentally different types of difficulty, not in terms of easy/normal/hard/etc but implementation and integration. There's a fundamental difference between, for example, the nature of difficulty in Dark Souls and playing Uncharted on Crushing.
I'd argue that in the former, as well as other genres/games like precision platfomers (ie Super Meat Boy), certain puzzlers (ie Stephen's Sausage Roll, Snakebird, etc), and so on, that the challenge is as essential and as much a part of the games as being turn-based is for XCOM. This is not a mere adjustments of values like the concept of difficulty levels in games like Uncharted, Halo, and others where a change of difficulty is an adjustment in the rates of health, damage, etc. plastered over the existing design of the games. In these games, the challenge is as inherent to the game design as the aesthetic or control scheme. The challenge is what influences the controls, decides the pacing, establishes atmosphere, dictates level design, enemy placement, weapon types and attacks, and every other aspect of the game. Much like how being turn-based informs everything about XCOM's enemies, skills, moment-to-moment gameplay, arena design, and more
Consider a game like Super Meat Boy. Would it be the same game if there were mid level checkpoints, or rewinding, or slow motion, or being able to take multiple hits, or if the amount of hazards onscreen were reduced? The stage structures, tutorializing, control schemes, presentation, and so on are tied to the challenge at a deep design level.
Now compare this to the nature of difficulty levels in say Uncharted. At least in 3 and 4, you're expected to be mobile, climb and leap, sneak if you can, run from cover to cover, use Drake's agility as an advantage over his enemies. But in Crushing, staying behind cover, shooting, waiting for health to recover is far from more effective than acrobatics and melee and run n gun. Yet that approach seems antithetical to the approach that the core mechanics and level design expects of you. Thus the difficulty is not an essential element of the game where the challenge is deeply rooted in the design and structure, but a variable element where easier and higher difficulties alter the nature of play from the expected.
So rather than think of difficulty and challenge through a broad singular lens of "but how do I want to play", think of it in the context of the individual game, its design, the intent and integration of challenge in the game.
I'd argue that in the former, as well as other genres/games like precision platfomers (ie Super Meat Boy), certain puzzlers (ie Stephen's Sausage Roll, Snakebird, etc), and so on, that the challenge is as essential and as much a part of the games as being turn-based is for XCOM. This is not a mere adjustments of values like the concept of difficulty levels in games like Uncharted, Halo, and others where a change of difficulty is an adjustment in the rates of health, damage, etc. plastered over the existing design of the games. In these games, the challenge is as inherent to the game design as the aesthetic or control scheme. The challenge is what influences the controls, decides the pacing, establishes atmosphere, dictates level design, enemy placement, weapon types and attacks, and every other aspect of the game. Much like how being turn-based informs everything about XCOM's enemies, skills, moment-to-moment gameplay, arena design, and more
Consider a game like Super Meat Boy. Would it be the same game if there were mid level checkpoints, or rewinding, or slow motion, or being able to take multiple hits, or if the amount of hazards onscreen were reduced? The stage structures, tutorializing, control schemes, presentation, and so on are tied to the challenge at a deep design level.
Now compare this to the nature of difficulty levels in say Uncharted. At least in 3 and 4, you're expected to be mobile, climb and leap, sneak if you can, run from cover to cover, use Drake's agility as an advantage over his enemies. But in Crushing, staying behind cover, shooting, waiting for health to recover is far from more effective than acrobatics and melee and run n gun. Yet that approach seems antithetical to the approach that the core mechanics and level design expects of you. Thus the difficulty is not an essential element of the game where the challenge is deeply rooted in the design and structure, but a variable element where easier and higher difficulties alter the nature of play from the expected.
So rather than think of difficulty and challenge through a broad singular lens of "but how do I want to play", think of it in the context of the individual game, its design, the intent and integration of challenge in the game.
Airola
Member
Yeah because people have literally said here that even with the Souls games should have options to make them easier. And that those are just options and nothing more.
I have not played a single Souls game in my life but I love the idea enough to defend that type of design decisions to my grave.
I have mainly just argued against people who say and easy option is just an option and nothing more when it can be and is more to many players.
I'm not calling all games to be like that. The Halo games weren't designed to be that type of an experience. What I'm arguing here is that if there are games that are specifically designed to be hard from the get go, there is no reason to add easier difficulties to them.
Letting some games have their hard difficulty without the option to make it easier might mean you can't enjoy the game but you don't have to play that game at all. Just let those experiences be the way they are. There are plenty of other games for you to play.
I would not like La-Mulana to be like that. The world of La-Mulana has this special feeling because it is what it is.
I would not like Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels to be like that.
I would not like lots of games to be like that.
I'm glad there are some games where the base difficulty is hard. I might not ever be able to beat them but that's on me. It's not the game's fault. And that's perfectly ok.
You just hear Souls being mentioned in this context often because the games are contemporary and popular and people want to talk about them. Not only those want to talk about it who love the challenge but also those who hate the challenge. Hell, even I want to talk about them even though I haven't played a single game in the series (I own Dark Souls II on 360 but haven't played it - got it cheap and thought that maybe someday I will try it).
Do every bike need to have training wheels? Is it necessary to have training wheels on a motorcycle or a professional bmx bike?
You can train playing games by playing different games. You don't have to be riding the sports bike immediately. See, comparing this to riding bikes in general is the same as talking about games in general. Different bikes are like different games. You can learn to ride a bike by using different bikes and at first maybe training wheels just like you can learn to play games by playing other games and using whatever "training wheels" they might offer for them. But not all bikes are for people who still need to use the training wheels or who just don't dare to ride them for some reason.
No, that's one sport with certain set of rules and this possibility has been given to those who play it. But this certainly shouldn't be applied to all sports. Running a Marathon and participating in Triathlon should be the same for everyone. If they'll give handicaps to those then I'd argue against that.
Just as you would train running Marathon by just running and building your stamina for a few months, you would practice playing the Souls games by trying it over and over again. If you don't want to do it then don't, but let Marathon be Marathon and Souls be Souls.
This analogy would fit for some "make your own games" vs. "play games made by others" arguments. Not for this.
So far I've argued this from the perspective of how the game feels like. I've even said many times that even for those who wouldn't ever use the easy mode the existence of it can make the game feel less exciting.
What comes to being weak willed, yeah I probably am that too. It especially annoys me in The Disney Afternoon Collection where you can rewind the games at will. I would rather be frustrated and start the game over than struggle with a thought that "maybe I should use the rewind mechanism just this one time."
But this isn't about the temptation to use it. It's about the general feeling is affected by the inclusion of an option.
I would argue though that "weak willness" can also be a valid argument against having an easy mode. Why leave that option to tempt anyone if you don't have to?
Huh, what?
Ok.
What?
Yeah. Just like not every game is ruined by an easy mode and not every game should be hard.
I bet you have seen plenty of Souls fans being against adding an easy mode settings to the game. I often see people mocking those people by saying that they just want to brag or whatever else. But couldn't it be that the lack of an easy mode _actually_really_matters_ to those players? That they get that exact feeling from those games the way I have many times explained here? You can mock them as much as you want but it doesn't change the fact that even the thought of an easy mode feels like something would be missing from the experience to them.
Sure not all Souls players would mind having an easy mode. But it still doesn't mean the option wouldn't change how the game feels like to many Souls players who would mind.
Airola
Member
No, I am not saying that.
XCOM might very well be a game where it doesn't matter.
I don't know what the history of X-COM games is and how they have previously handled the difficulty settings, but with the Souls games we have a series that has been like that from the beginning. And I would argue it wouldn't be the series it now is if its difficulty would've been set in some "super hard mode" setting and having easier settings to choose from.
Besides, the X-COM games are a completely different genre. It could very well be that different difficulty settings are better fit for games like that.
This specific thing about Demon's Souls difficulty is what made it interesting to a lot of people in the first place. I would say that not many people would've even tried that "super setting" if it was optional, and if there would've been sequels maybe in that scenario the following games would've been different. Now all who played it had to experience it in a certain special way which made it a cult classic and gave the series a special identity that is different from most games.
And there are other games like that too. It's not only Souls that has gained something from that design. Hell, even Zelda II feels special because the game doesn't want to hold my hand. I am glad there never was an option to go and change the difficulty of the enemies. The feeling of that game was very special because of that. It left me stumped and I just had to wonder what kind of mysteries the game might hold if I'd be any better playing it.
Indeed, I have so little gaming time that I've become a easiest option gamer. It's made games like Doom and Horizon a fun excursion.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Good post. I agree and that is why I think games like Uncharted are better with difficulty levels, and Souls games are better without them.
NoctisVsStar
Member
This is true.
Sir Ilpalazzo
Member
It's accurate to say an easy mode is a "watered-down" version of the standard game experience, just like a hard mode can be a superior version. Games are not purely mechanics (collision data and menus and the like), nor are they purely aesthetics - they are the intersection between the two. Both are necessary to stimulate and immerse the player. This immersion is the important part - games suck the player in using both visual and audio feedback and an interactive, mechanical component. And of course, the latter is the specific thing that's unique to video games compared to other media.
So an easy mode is necessarily a toned-down form of the game it belongs to. It literally exists to reduce interactivity, and strips away elements from the game. I don't think it can be argued a "lite" version of a game is not watered-down - as people have mentioned in the thread, it is the same as a Reader's Digest version of a novel or something, and I think most people would agree that those don't really have merit compared to their original incarnations. My point is that I don't think it's really a question of whether we should "deny" experiences to other people by not wanting tourist modes in every game - I don't think it's really a net positive to strip down games' interactivity, the strength that makes them uniquely immersive, as a solution to the "problem" of not every person being able to play every game in a matter of minutes (that is to say, the problem of interactivity, solved by indulging content tourism and completionism).
As for people finding games like Gone Home more engaging than the ones I listed, there's no accounting for taste, I suppose. My point is that the most interesting games are ones with rich aesthetics and mechanics. Games with minimized interactivity can't really compare, even if they have their own values that more complete games don't always match. I also think it's self-evident that not all art is created equal and that not all opinions are necessarily well-informed. It's difficult to say Gone Home is truly a better game than even something primitive like Super Mario Bros. unless you just really value aesthetics over everything else, which is kind of suspect.
Tacoma might not have something like a fail state but my understanding of it is that there is still some degree of pushback even if you aren't in danger. Otherwise you would have a game where every option results in your victory. Exploration in an adventure game like that is only interesting if there are possibilities that you can waste some time going down a wrong path. From there it's easy to see why dangerous elements like pits and enemies are necessary to give meaning to Mario's acrobatic abilities in Super Mario Bros., and so on. This is why I'm saying you can't really divorce the concept of challenge, difficulty, from the other elements of a game - "difficulty" is really just something that is inherent to mechanics. To argue that difficulty can not be a core part of a game experience is to argue that mechanics can't have an emotional or mental impact on the player, which I think is an intensely regressive view of game design.
I used the language I did with regards to Dark Souls because that is what that game does. The action in that game is as much a part of the Souls experience as everything else it contains - so why should the game let people inhale it like a bag of junk food just because they don't feel like putting the time into it? (You say someone might not have the time to devote to beating Dark Souls otherwise, but, I mean, it's not like there's a hard limit. The question isn't whether they can work towards beating the game (even if it's over the course of months), but whether they'd rather devote more time to it over several other games (as you see on GAF, even a lot of devoted gaming enthusiasts prefer to simply beat as many games as possible, which seems to be where a lot of the "I play games on easy so I can clear out my backlog" sentiments come from).
So Dark Souls respects itself in this sense because it doesn't devalue its mechanics by allowing you to turn down a slider and remove them from a game. In doing so, it makes it clear that the engagement you get out of combat is every bit as valid and important a part of the game as looking at environments and reading item descriptions. It would be like making an alternate mode where the game is reskinned into a bright Zelda-style fantasy world or something.- the challenge is a part of the game's identity, it exists for a reason.
autoduelist
Member
The idea that all games should be for everyone is a plague upon gaming. Games are niche by design across many different criteria, most obviously both genre and difficulty. Bullethell shmups, precision platformers, and permadeath roguelikes are niche upon niche,and appeal to those gamers who love challenge. This idea that niche genres should be watered down so that everyone can appreciate them is wrong headed, because it fundamentally misunderstands gaming.
Not every game needs to cater to you. Not every game needs to be beaten by you. It is okay if you cant beat world 3. It is okay if you are not good enough. It is okay if you can't beat a game with unlimited restarts that another player can 1cc.
Entire genres have been destroyed by this desire to make things accessible. But not everything needs to be accessible. We don't put elevators on mountains so everyone can reach the peak.
The fact that d*souls keeps being brought up is borderline ridiculous, since that's a game so wonderful designed that people of almost any skill level can beat it. Mobs can be run past and pretty much every boss has a cheese method built in so that unskilled players can get by. Losing souls may feel stressful but is effectively meaningless since there are easy methods to farm souls if required scattered throughout the game.
You do not need to beat every game. Not every game is for you. We would never force literature to use accessible vocabulary, so why expect games to use accessible mechanics? Gaming isn't a huge community, it is many niche communities rolled into one.
Give me permadeath or give me death.
Not every game needs to cater to you. Not every game needs to be beaten by you. It is okay if you cant beat world 3. It is okay if you are not good enough. It is okay if you can't beat a game with unlimited restarts that another player can 1cc.
Entire genres have been destroyed by this desire to make things accessible. But not everything needs to be accessible. We don't put elevators on mountains so everyone can reach the peak.
The fact that d*souls keeps being brought up is borderline ridiculous, since that's a game so wonderful designed that people of almost any skill level can beat it. Mobs can be run past and pretty much every boss has a cheese method built in so that unskilled players can get by. Losing souls may feel stressful but is effectively meaningless since there are easy methods to farm souls if required scattered throughout the game.
You do not need to beat every game. Not every game is for you. We would never force literature to use accessible vocabulary, so why expect games to use accessible mechanics? Gaming isn't a huge community, it is many niche communities rolled into one.
Give me permadeath or give me death.
None of them, however, comprimises the core themes of the work, which are death and loss.
I don't really get the rage. Most games can benefit from trivializing their gameplay. Souls hardly does, for that is very strongly operates on a "That which is obtained with no effort has no value" principle.
A select few, for which the difficulty and the loses and the repeats are a core theme of the work, do not.
UNDERTALE:
Would an Undertale where Genocide!Sans doesn't kick your ass make sense? Not really.
The issue is that the AAA exporation adventure \ sandbox has perpetuated an idea of games as something with "A gameplay, AND a story". Separate.
However, there's a lot of titles where the main function of the gameplay loop is telling a story.
And "But i have no time to play difficult games" isn't really an argument. Finishing more games doesn't mean having more fun.
If difficult games aren't your thing, maybe don't look for a game which main point is being difficult. There's plenty of stuff for you, and so little well-balanced, fair, diffcult gameplay loops out there.
No one is saying most narratve-driven or exploration-driven games, like the crop of 90% of the AAAs in the last decade have been, can't massively benefit.
But for games that use the player's failure in their gameplay loop as a major thematic point? That gets an exception. An option to trivialize the combat means making a different game.
Dark Souls is dark and atmospheric and big and mysterious because it's dangerous. It's not meant to be played ala Skyrim, and trivializing the combat wouldn't magically make that true.
GlitchyDegree
Banned
I don't think that peoples right to marry someone they love is comparable to difficulty modes in video games.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
I was with you the entire time, until the very end where you lost me.
Fuck rogue-likes!Some people are just ridiculously tone-deaf, I swear...
To be fair to the poster, they didn't say that those are equally important issues. They were talking about the argument of "this is how it's intended and if people have the option to do it in another way it's ruined for everyone else." I don't think playing video games are really comparable with reading books either. But that didn't prevent it from being part of the discussion.
MisterShine
Member
Actual easy mode exists on PC: just grab a trainer program and flatten the game before you.
Just make it formal From Soft and on other platforms.
Just make it formal From Soft and on other platforms.
GlitchyDegree
Banned
It still rubs me the wrong way. Even if I understand the point they're trying to make it just comes off as tone-deaf.
I absolutely get that. Being against gender-neutral marriage is so often tied to irrational hate. People are awfully discriminated and even in physical danger. And the other is about how people want to engage with their video games.
Here's my take: it's good that games exist with different kinds of difficulties. Maybe there should be an organization like ESRB/PEGI but for rating game challenge? What I'm not for is homogenizing games.
I'll for once be somewhat serious with a post here. "More options is always better" is a thing that only exists in a world where option paralysis and budgets don't exist. For the latter... if, say, we take the above example of Bloodborne shipping with minimaps, compasses, objective markers and difficulty modes, all of these features would be relatively simple to implement individually. However, all of these combined would create a not so trivial amount of work (someone actually has to test all of the difficulties and features). As for the former, if you were given 5 different difficulties with a bunch of sliders for modifiers then there'd be quite a few who'd complain that presenting the player with such options makes it harder for them to know what the optimal settings are for them.
The thing with AAA games these days is that, at least in the single player realm, big publishers are so afraid of making the players even slightly frustrated that they'd rather undermine the systems their developers are building. This is largely why I've scaled back on those types of games lately. There was a mention of Shadow of Mordor above and its Nemesis system and I can echo the same thing: I had to intentionally get myself killed to fully experience it. Dead Rising has gone from a game with interesting if flawed systems to generic zombie beat 'em up in the span of 4 games by removing everything that differentiated it from the rest of the pack. As a pure business move it might make sense: if you're already catering to the more casual base that is there for the story, why bog down the development time with features a tiny percentage would even appreciate? This is, ultimately, where a lot of games lose me. I've seen a lot of franchises going from "providing QoL features to the less patient" to becoming different types of games altogether. Dead Rising and Fallout come to mind from recent examples.
With more niche titles you mostly know that you're getting what the developers want. Gone Home and Life is Strange are story driven experiences where the narrative takes the forefront. Not my kinds of games but them existing is great! Could the games be better with a timer and actual danger? Maybe... but those weren't the games the devs set to make. And if they did add those, even as an option, they'd become fundamentally different games.
Mind you, what I'm saying isn't just about combat either. When was the last time a puzzle stumped any of you in an AAA title? I can't even remember thanks to how eager developers are to give out the answer to puzzles before I even start to solve it (Nintendo has been especially egregious of this). Would a game like The Witness be improved by it starting to solve puzzles for you if you were stuck in one for a while?
Admittedly this is a bit of a stream of consciousness but the underlying point is that different games set out to do different things and those "options" could very well be undermining what they set out to do. And if that thing doesn't happen to align with what you want from a game, then some other game likely does.
I'll for once be somewhat serious with a post here. "More options is always better" is a thing that only exists in a world where option paralysis and budgets don't exist. For the latter... if, say, we take the above example of Bloodborne shipping with minimaps, compasses, objective markers and difficulty modes, all of these features would be relatively simple to implement individually. However, all of these combined would create a not so trivial amount of work (someone actually has to test all of the difficulties and features). As for the former, if you were given 5 different difficulties with a bunch of sliders for modifiers then there'd be quite a few who'd complain that presenting the player with such options makes it harder for them to know what the optimal settings are for them.
The thing with AAA games these days is that, at least in the single player realm, big publishers are so afraid of making the players even slightly frustrated that they'd rather undermine the systems their developers are building. This is largely why I've scaled back on those types of games lately. There was a mention of Shadow of Mordor above and its Nemesis system and I can echo the same thing: I had to intentionally get myself killed to fully experience it. Dead Rising has gone from a game with interesting if flawed systems to generic zombie beat 'em up in the span of 4 games by removing everything that differentiated it from the rest of the pack. As a pure business move it might make sense: if you're already catering to the more casual base that is there for the story, why bog down the development time with features a tiny percentage would even appreciate? This is, ultimately, where a lot of games lose me. I've seen a lot of franchises going from "providing QoL features to the less patient" to becoming different types of games altogether. Dead Rising and Fallout come to mind from recent examples.
With more niche titles you mostly know that you're getting what the developers want. Gone Home and Life is Strange are story driven experiences where the narrative takes the forefront. Not my kinds of games but them existing is great! Could the games be better with a timer and actual danger? Maybe... but those weren't the games the devs set to make. And if they did add those, even as an option, they'd become fundamentally different games.
Mind you, what I'm saying isn't just about combat either. When was the last time a puzzle stumped any of you in an AAA title? I can't even remember thanks to how eager developers are to give out the answer to puzzles before I even start to solve it (Nintendo has been especially egregious of this). Would a game like The Witness be improved by it starting to solve puzzles for you if you were stuck in one for a while?
Admittedly this is a bit of a stream of consciousness but the underlying point is that different games set out to do different things and those "options" could very well be undermining what they set out to do. And if that thing doesn't happen to align with what you want from a game, then some other game likely does.
TheThreadsThatBindUs
Member
I know it's tangential to the topic of the OP (which I agree with wholeheartedly and celebrate alongside you), but I can't help but chafe at statements like this.
It's as if the modern gamer generation equates combat mechanics with "gameplay".
Am I the only one living in a world where text adventures and the legendary point&click adventures of old were a thing?
I merely see Telltale games, Quantic Dream games and Supermassive games games (e.g. Until DawnGOTG!) as a natural evolution of these classic adventure genres.
Just because you can shoot/slice your way out of a confrontation or challenge, it doesn't mean it's not gameplay.
And tbh, in most cases I'd love to see AAA games exploring gameplay mechanics and gameplay challenge that requires gamers to think their way out of situation.
I adore visual novel games from Japan, like Phoenix Wright, because these games are different, narrative-driven and a lovely less stressful, more mentally challenging experience.
On-Topic:
I'm certainly all for these "story-only" mode games. Tbh, I must admit that I've spent countless hours on Youtube watching the cutscenes for games on platforms I don't own, so that I can enjoy the story. Sometimes, that's what mostly interests me.
I don't, however, like it when streamlining gets in the way of me actually wanting to enjoy the gameplay challenge of a game; e.g. It tooks me ages to figure out how to turn of the shitty "simple combo" option in Tekken 7 story-mode. It almost made me abandon the game, as I spent like an hour or so screaming at the TV "why are the controls not working!!!"
You know what some sandbox games need to try to do? Non-combat development paths.
Games like Elite and No Man's Sky have "exploration" or "mining" or "trading" development paths where you can still get experience points and money by doing things that don't involve combat. I think it'd be great if there was a Skyrim-style game where, without adjusting the difficulty, there were ways to develop a character who never actually fights anyone. Maybe make it possible to get through the world as a really successful merchant.
I don't think I agree with this. Gone Home has lots of interaction in it. You spend the whole game picking up stuff and investigating thing. The whole point of the game is to investigate an environment. You're not just walking straight through rooms without touching anything. That interaction still gives it value as a game (I think it could have done without the automatic audio logs). Firewatch is the same thing -- you perform actual tasks in that game. There's enough interaction in Firewatch that you always feel like you're doing something. It may not have any "difficulty" but it's still a fulfilling interactive experience. The concept of "victory" and "defeat" doesn't even play into games like these. They're just interactive fiction, and that's what a lot of people want. "Story mode" in AAA games is just a play to appeal to some of that audience because those games need to sell a huge number of copies.
Games like Elite and No Man's Sky have "exploration" or "mining" or "trading" development paths where you can still get experience points and money by doing things that don't involve combat. I think it'd be great if there was a Skyrim-style game where, without adjusting the difficulty, there were ways to develop a character who never actually fights anyone. Maybe make it possible to get through the world as a really successful merchant.
I don't think I agree with this. Gone Home has lots of interaction in it. You spend the whole game picking up stuff and investigating thing. The whole point of the game is to investigate an environment. You're not just walking straight through rooms without touching anything. That interaction still gives it value as a game (I think it could have done without the automatic audio logs). Firewatch is the same thing -- you perform actual tasks in that game. There's enough interaction in Firewatch that you always feel like you're doing something. It may not have any "difficulty" but it's still a fulfilling interactive experience. The concept of "victory" and "defeat" doesn't even play into games like these. They're just interactive fiction, and that's what a lot of people want. "Story mode" in AAA games is just a play to appeal to some of that audience because those games need to sell a huge number of copies.
More_Badass
Member
What is your definition of "minimized interactivity" and how you can apply that to Gone Home, when the core gameplay is interacting with most everything in the house?
I assume you mean "minimized agency" or "simple mechanics" or something along those lines? In regards to that, I say that 1) agency is overrated in games, more options and freedom is not always better than modulating player options and control and 2) simple doesn't equal lesser or worst. What makes gameplay rich and worthwhile is decided by the context and intent in any individual game. Gone Home's simple mechanics is perfect for that particular game and for what is expected of the player, narrative, and gameplay. While the excellent level design and carefully-designed controls in SMB are as perfect and precise as they need to be for that game.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Not just combat. Exploration, platforming or traversal, puzzle solving, looting, character customization/tweaking, inventory management (or whatever other kind of menu-driven/number crunching you can think of), decision-making/dialogue choices, are all gameplay.
Watching cut scenes and occasionally pressing a button is also technically gameplay, but sure as hell is the most minimal form of it.
Ugh, no. There is a world of difference between Sierra and LucasArts' point-and-click adventure games and the garbage of modern Telltale and Quantic Dream games. Old p-a-c games had tons of puzzle solving, sometimes quite challenging and obtuse, too, and typically had inventory management too.
I hate the fact that they are often compared. Honestly, I don't get it at all. Modern Telltale/Quantic Dream games are closer to Dragon's Lair, if any comparison had to be made.
True. But this is a strawman argument because no one is saying gameplay is only combat.
I'll take the easy option for $100, Alex. I've got nothing to prove. I play games for fun and to enjoy a good story. My life is too busy these days to do anything else. I play games to relax and spend time with friends, not to get angry or somehow prove that I'm better than someone else.
JetSetRadio
Banned
Next from arpg or whatever they're calling the next soulsborne should definitely have an easy mode and also a true hard mode.
Not the predictable boring ride we all know now, maybe ubi quebec should buy them, they already share half a name.
Not the predictable boring ride we all know now, maybe ubi quebec should buy them, they already share half a name.
Generally I'm all for easy modes, but I'm torn when it comes to Soul games due to entirely selfish reasons.
Selfish reasons being that I'd absolutely have picked easy mode if it was an option and that would have made it so I didn't have the absurdly satisfying "learning to play Bloodborne" moment. Slowly making my way from dying to the first enemy to the end of the game felt awesome and that's an experience I could have easily missed. Doesn't really work as an argument against easy mode, that's just my prejudice.
My other selfish reason is that I love how the difficulty and bullshit is a shared experience. It's just a nice feeling to be able to be like "hey know that bullshit? Yeaaaah that was great" and know that the other person went through the same dumb boss you did. It's a weird community feeling that comes with it and I love it. Met one of my best friends this way haha.
So like I don't pretend to know whether games should always have an easy mode or not. I just have some bias here. But I admit it's selfish and maybe it would be fair to give up on it so that people can all enjoy games.
Selfish reasons being that I'd absolutely have picked easy mode if it was an option and that would have made it so I didn't have the absurdly satisfying "learning to play Bloodborne" moment. Slowly making my way from dying to the first enemy to the end of the game felt awesome and that's an experience I could have easily missed. Doesn't really work as an argument against easy mode, that's just my prejudice.
My other selfish reason is that I love how the difficulty and bullshit is a shared experience. It's just a nice feeling to be able to be like "hey know that bullshit? Yeaaaah that was great" and know that the other person went through the same dumb boss you did. It's a weird community feeling that comes with it and I love it. Met one of my best friends this way haha.
So like I don't pretend to know whether games should always have an easy mode or not. I just have some bias here. But I admit it's selfish and maybe it would be fair to give up on it so that people can all enjoy games.
UnluckyKate
Member
You can already play easy mode in Souls game :
- pick a fast weapon that stunlock most basic enemies
- summon help for bosses
- read help online to not miss valuable items
- use magic to stay away from big enemies if you want
the entire game design of the game, by the choices it offers to the players, is already some sort of difficulty slider
If this counts as a difficulty option, what games don't have difficulty options of any kind?
hardcastlemccormick
Banned
Youve already lost me. We are talking about other mediums where you can get movies with subtitles and descriptive audio, right? Or books in abridged or easier text forms? Annotated versions of books that walk you through the meaning and context of the book?
Edit; shit, didnt realize this was a different thread. Sorry for the bump.
SomedayTheFire
Member
They're great, people that don't like them being included are weird ass fucking dorks.
Edit: damn bumps. We need an easy mode for this forum that flags old bumps
Edit: damn bumps. We need an easy mode for this forum that flags old bumps
The Albatross
Member
2012 and 2013 were the unfortunate height of the "YOU WILL DIE" super-manly ultra-masculine "git gud" mantra that swept up all of gaming after the runaway success of the Souls series. Some of that has carried through, but thankfully, it's been culled back a bit.
The argument was convincing but the loud, boarish enthusiasts met it loudly and boarishly, and I'm glad it resonated with many developers. It doesn't have to be in every game, but I'm glad the direction the industry has gone in to be more adaptive and responsive to different play styles.
The argument was convincing but the loud, boarish enthusiasts met it loudly and boarishly, and I'm glad it resonated with many developers. It doesn't have to be in every game, but I'm glad the direction the industry has gone in to be more adaptive and responsive to different play styles.
Someone said it earlier, but Undertale is a great example of why boss fights are necessary in some cases. Without the very first boss in the game you wouldnt know about a mechanic that changes the way you play the game and an end goal you can pursue. If they removed that fight, the entire games design would have to change. Down to how the NPCs react to your character and the things the developer wants you to feel.
This can be the case with a lot of games. Boss fights can be used to teach you mechanics that are important for progression. Where do you stand with that? It trickles down if you remove the teaching mechanism and you have to change the design of the game.
This can be the case with a lot of games. Boss fights can be used to teach you mechanics that are important for progression. Where do you stand with that? It trickles down if you remove the teaching mechanism and you have to change the design of the game.
