Support NeoGAF

[LuchaShaq]

I think I'd prefer the reverse: being able to start on a high difficulty but have the choice to bump it down mid-game if it gets too frustrating.

This.


The latest EA boxing game with the story campaign was fun, but I only lost once until the "final boss" where I lost 10+ times.

I'm not going to play through the whole game again on normal or easy, I'm going to youtube it and then sell your game or send it back to gamefly.

 

[Glass Rebel]

Sometimes they do for me. I had to use a launch command to unlock Nightmare mode in Alan Wake PC. Made the game much better because the enemies actually put up a fight. Anything easier than that would be a waste of time to me and I'd hardly call myself a good gamer.

Talking generally for the average AAA game I don't think so. It's not like people play these games for the challenge anyway and publishers blow money away on huge marketing campaigns anyway so a few additional weeks for balancing an Easy mode shouldn't do any harm. It gets problematic when games on a tight budget have to do it though.

 

[whalleywhat]

Narrative.

Gamed are a medium that can be used to tell stories. Do you require to be challenged when reading a book?

Yes. I expect a book to introduce ideas I haven't contended with and expand my understanding of the human condition. I expect it to enrich my life, not just serve up some comforting slop that I think I want.

 

[NinjaFridge]

Why the hell play a game if it's not game like and challenging you? Don't understand that. I'm not saying Ghost and Ghouls but you do want some challenge.

Because some people play to have fun, and challenging != fun for everyone.

 

[Soul_Pie]

I don't think it ruins a game but Easy mode often just neuters the experience. I mean, imagine if Resident Evil 1 was so easy that no enemy did any damage and you just ran throughout the mansion plowing through enemies? The threat factor suddenly just goes down to zero, and with no threat there can be no fear, so you'd lose a large portion of what makes the game great.

Take a game like Halo for instance and the experience of playing through on Easy vs Legendary. In Easy mode you just run through the game and don't come across any kind of resistance, you never encounter most of the great AI and you never develop a feel for your surroundings, you never get the incredible rush of having out-thought and out-manoeuvred some very clever enemies, every enemy encounter in Legendary has a tactical component to it because if you go in all guns blazing you will be smashed. The feeling of accomplishment is so much greater when you actually have to utilize skill and understand the game mechanics.

 

[Trigger]

They play videogames for the "story".

Reading books needs a easy mode.

They do? There are plenty of guides for people that don't understand the language and nuance in a book, and schools seperate books based on what grade level is appropriate all the time.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

No because all a book does is tell a story and the worst one does it a hell of a lot better than 99% of games do.

Granted, books tend to tell a story better than most games, but enjoyment can be had in simply following a tale if well told. I can play a game that is not challenging, but still have fun through it's narrative. Challenge is not required to enjoy all aspects of a given game.

Sure why not? I'm used to running across words that I'm unfamiliar with while reading, and view it as a challenge to understand what it means the next time I read it. That has actually become part of the reading experience that I enjoy.

This is also true, a good book can challenge perceptions of the reader, and where a plot may be going with misdirection, but it is not a requirement for you to enjoy all books surely?

I read alot of bolter pron ( for the eprar!) But can still enjoy a tale without mind bending use of the english language.

It exists, but is not a requirement of enjoyment. That seemingly being the reason we play games, read books, and watch movies. Entertainment for its own sake.

 

[muu]

Different for everyone.

Having difficulty levels enables people of all skill levels to be challenged. However, a certain group will feel shafted if the high-difficulty gets some special perk (be it some secret level or extra achievement). You also have another group that'll be irked if they're not recognized in some special way for beating the game in high difficulty (saw this a lot w/ the Fire Emblem casual/classic mode discussions, esp w/ Kakusei where you can choose). None of the methods ruin games, but it's all personal preference.

 

[Zeliard]

This gen is infested with games that look only to gather the largest amount of sales based on wide appeal, and are thus completely devoid of challenge even on their default difficulties and are transparently pandering. Demon's and Dark Souls were one of the very few that bucked the trend, and naturally, people want them to be exactly like the others. Because everything has be to the same, and every game has to appeal to everyone. Nothing can be niche; nothing can strive to be different. Nothing can be dead-set on rewarding skill, patience, and any sort of investment on the part of the player.

This is an entire generation of coddled gamers weaned on experience points that glitter the screen, achievement points for the simplest things, and other endless, superfluous forms of feedback targeted at tickling the pleasure centers in the most ham-fisted way imaginable. It's the equivalent of giving every kid a gold star so it doesn't impact their self-esteem. Something comes along that dares to be different - that dares to challenge - and people inevitably backlash against it.

There can be easy games. There should be. There should be games with various difficulty options. And guess what? There should also be games that forgo that, put everyone on the same level playing field, and create an environment where people share stories that everyone else can readily relate to. Some in the Dark Souls easy mode thread kept saying "options are good." Yeah, well, those are your options right there - the idea that not every single game out there has conform to the same absolute standard, and the option to pick the ones that personally appeal to you.

Options = variety in game design styles and philosophies. You have the ability to pick the game that's right for you, not to have everything under the sun conform to your own personal standard of what makes it worthwhile. Homogenizing is what truly reduces options, and the notion that everything must be absolutely accessible to every type of player is what has led to such a stark dumbing down of games in recent years.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

Making games accessible to more people is a good thing, especially when it's an optional mode that doesn't impact others. However, it's a bad thing if this socializes most or all people to choose easy modes and the skill element of gaming gets diluted because more attention is given to the experiential elements.

This is true for most types of creative content; easy, accessible books and movies are a good thing, but the collective dumbing down and shrinking of our thoughts is a bad thing.

So it's a pretty thin line to walk.

I'm on board with this.

I can also generally agree with Plunkett's point of view. Doesn't matter to me how people play games. The one exception for me is if the person is reviewing the game. They would need to disclose that they played on easy and address how that might have affected their experience compared to playing on normal.

pedantic edit: actually, Plunkett's headline is poorly worded, because conceivably there is some possible case in which an easy mode could ruin a game. I just don't think it's a problem in general.

 

[KittenMaster]

I don't think it ruins a game but Easy mode often just neuters the experience. I mean, imagine if Resident Evil 1 was so easy that no enemy did any damage and you just ran throughout the mansion plowing through enemies?

Silent Hill 2's "no action" difficulty (combat and puzzles are separate difficulties by the way).

I heard it was actually possible to kill an enemy on that mode by simply bumping into them though I never tried the mode myself.

 

[IC_Champion]

Mocking Kotaku is kind of like easy mode :|

lol

easy mode is optional.... how is this even a debate?

True. The game isn't forcing you to play easy mode first and work your way to hard.

 

[dark_inferno]

Kotaku plays on Easy Mode?

Who plays on easy? Thats complete Bullshit.

 

[Setero]

Easy mode on a game designed to be hard is a waste of (finite) resources, especially since devs\pubs seem willing to bend over backwards to please these people.

 

[Trigger]

I'm on board with this.

I can also generally agree with Plunkett's point of view. Doesn't matter to me how people play games. The one exception for me is if the person is reviewing the game. They would need to disclose that they played on easy and address how that might have affected their experience compared to playing on normal.

I agree.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

Easy mode is a waste of (finite) resources, especially since devs\pubs seem willing to bend over backwards to please these people.

If easy mode makes more people like the game, and this leads to greater earnings, how is it a waste of resources? Maybe I'm not understanding you.

 

[Effect]

I play games for fun. Sure a challenge is nice but I don't find struggling to complete something fun. I don't want to be tested. I want to enjoy some nice jumping, shooting, puzzles, etc and then call it a day. Providing difficulty options is needed because people do not find the same level of challenge fun. I don't care what some developer's vision is. I care how enjoyable the entertainment I paid for is. If I enjoy a game on easy or normal I might want to go back to it and try it on a harder difficulty to see how I do. It's my choice at that point.

 

[AndrewDean84xX]

Easy mode is a waste of (finite) resources, especially since devs\pubs seem willing to bend over backwards to please these people.

Well, they are(most likely) the majority.

 

[RurouniZel]

They play videogames for the "story".

Reading books needs a easy mode.

Gross over generalization.

Games are more complicated to execute than ever before. Compare

NES: D pad and 2 buttons

vs

PS2-->: D pad, 2 analogue sticks, 4 face buttons, 4 shoulder buttons

People like the ability to play games because they like interacting with things. That's fun. But beyond a certain point it's very hard to execute quickly no matter how much they practice. Think of an office worker who's been typing for 10+ years, but still needs to stop and look at the keyboard from time to time. Some people need games to be less insta-death and give them a moment to remember which button does what.

 

[TheMink]

The only issue i have with easy mode is the fact that (and i wish this was a joke) people have complained/bragged about how easy a game was playing on easy...

But generally people who play on easy who i know have kids and a wife and/or dont want to invest that much time into it.

 

[SonicMegaDrive]

This gen is infested with games that look only to gather the largest amount of sales based on wide appeal, and are thus completely devoid of challenge even on their default difficulties and are transparently pandering. Demon's and Dark Souls were one of the very few that bucked the trend, and naturally, people want them to be exactly like the others. Because everything has be to the same, and every game has to appeal to everyone. Nothing can be niche; nothing can strive to be different. Nothing can be dead-set on rewarding skill, patience, and any sort of investment on the part of the player.

This is an entire generation of coddled gamers weaned on experience points that glitter the screen, achievement points for the simplest things, and other endless, superfluous forms of feedback targeted at tickling the pleasure centers in the most ham-fisted way imaginable. It's the equivalent of giving every kid a gold star so it doesn't impact their self-esteem. Something comes along that dares to be different - that dares to challenge - and people inevitably backlash against it.

There can be easy games. There should be. There should be games with various difficulty options. And guess what? There should also be games that forgo that, put everyone on the same level playing field, and create an environment where people share stories that everyone else can readily relate to. Some in the Dark Souls easy mode thread kept saying "options are good." Yeah, well, those are your options right there - the idea that not every single game out there has conform to the same absolute standard, and the option to pick the ones that personally appeal to you.

Options = variety in game design styles and philosophies. You have the ability to pick the game that's right for you, not to have everything under the sun conform to your own personal standard of what makes it worthwhile. Homogenizing is what truly reduces options, and the notion that everything must be absolutely accessible to every type of player is what has led to such a stark dumbing down of games in recent years.

It's just going to continue to get worse. And there is no turning back now. All these 'coddled' gamers aren't going anywhere.

That's just how it is. The type of gamer that used to brag on the playground about beating 'Contra' with one life is slowly going extinct. Games in general are reshifting their focus, broadening themselves to appeal to a wider demographic, just as you said. Business-wise, this makes sense. Companies don't want to exclude anybody, and they want every one of their games to appeal to the largest audience they possibly can. It is unfortunate for the gamers who grew up with the older gaming sensibilities, as that sort of game is definitely falling by the wayside as time goes on.

As budgets continue to grow and grow, further making it less likely for developers to take expensive risks, we can only hope that a market will continue to exist for niché games and developers continue to make games that appeal to the older gaming crowd in the future.

 

[Cipherr]

I cant disagree with them. I like a challenge, so I choose the challenging difficulties in games that give that choice.


How someone else chooses to experience the game they paid their $60 for doesn't really mean a damn thing to me, so I dont really feel any desire to irrationally suggest game developers stop adding easy difficulties just because I don't personally bother with them.

 

[Setero]

If easy mode makes more people like the game, and this leads to greater earnings, how is it a waste of resources? Maybe I'm not understanding you.

You're being sales minded I'm being quality minded, all the work towards making a hard game easy could have been used to improve the game in other ways.

 

[Kai Dracon]

One problem with 'easy mode' is that much of the time, it doesn't demonstrate to people what the game is really about.

A good example is how we already have folks right here who think it's 'bad design' if you don't respawn the instant you die, with no interruption, no consequences evidently, and thus no reason to be forced into learning how to play the game well and get more out of the experience.

It's possible to lower the difficulty of a game without compromising teaching the player how to actually play the game, and what they're really supposed to be getting out of it. But often easy mode is done the easy way - by dumbing the overall game down, by simply removing too many elements core to the design.

This in turn, results in people who "just want to get through the game" becoming used to games being a "push a to continue" experience. This is the dumbing down of the entire medium that some are talking about. People stop expecting games to be anything more than Full Reactive Eyes Entertainment.

In a sense, it's a miracle that games like Dark and Demon's Souls actually got recognized for asking the player to learn how to play a game for a change rather than rushing through to see cut scenes or get to the end. And even then, we've seen entirely misguided rants about how those games are "all wrong" and perhaps most crucially, the sentiment expressed "nobody should have to play a game that long, video games aren't worth your time".

Which does in itself display a massive degeneration of the medium in progress right there.

 

[Jackpot]

If I'm replaying a game for the story options than Easy mode is a godsend.

 

[UrbanRats]

I usually play on medium/normal.
I don't seek the challenge, but i want to play the game as the devs envisioned it, then, if it's too hard and it's getting in the way of my enjoyment, i lower the difficulty.

Difficulty and handholding though are two separate concepts.
You can very easily reduce a game's difficulty without touching its exposition.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

This gen is infested with games that look only to gather the largest amount of sales based on wide appeal, and are thus completely devoid of challenge even on their default difficulties and are transparently pandering. Demon's and Dark Souls were one of the very few that bucked the trend, and naturally, people want them to be exactly like the others. Because everything has be to the same, and every game has to appeal to everyone. Nothing can be niche; nothing can strive to be different. Nothing can be dead-set on rewarding skill, patience, and any sort of investment on the part of the player.

This is an entire generation of coddled gamers weaned on experience points that glitter the screen, achievement points for the simplest things, and other endless, superfluous forms of feedback targeted at tickling the pleasure centers in the most ham-fisted way imaginable. It's the equivalent of giving every kid a gold star so it doesn't impact their self-esteem. Something comes along that dares to be different - that dares to challenge - and people inevitably backlash against it.

There can be easy games. There should be. There should be games with various difficulty options. And guess what? There should also be games that forgo that, put everyone on the same level playing field, and create an environment where people share stories that everyone else can readily relate to. Some in the Dark Souls easy mode thread kept saying "options are good." Yeah, well, those are your options right there - the idea that not every single game out there has conform to the same absolute standard, and the option to pick the ones that personally appeal to you.

Options = variety in game design styles and philosophies. You have the ability to pick the game that's right for you, not to have everything under the sun conform to your own personal standard of what makes it worthwhile. Homogenizing is what truly reduces options, and the notion that everything must be absolutely accessible to every type of player is what has led to such a stark dumbing down of games in recent years.

You nailed it. Developers should primarily be focused on making the game they want to make with the vision they choose. If they have time to add in a few options that make the game more approachable for more people that's great but I don't think it should be a primary focus because at some point their overall vision will suffer because of it.

 

[Reigan]

I play video games for the story and cut scenes.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

You're being sales minded I'm being quality minded, all the work towards making a hard game easy could have been used to improve the game in other ways.

I care more about quality than sales myself, but developers have to consider both.

Also, there just isn't that much work put into easy modes, just like there usually isn't that much work put into hard modes. Very few games take the Ninja Gaiden approach, where encounters are completely redesigned throughout the game. It's usually just tweaking the damage taken/given out by the player.

Of all the things that detract from the development of the core game, easy mode seems like it should be low on the list.

I think the argument that easy modes promote a culture of ease and passivity in videogames and contributes to the movement towards "experiences" over "games" is the best argument for at least questioning easy modes.

 

[Cipherr]

You're being sales minded I'm being quality minded, all the work towards making a hard game easy could have been used to improve the game in other ways.

Thats assuming the developer would bother with the additional man hours if they didnt think they could net additional money from those efforts. You want to exclude sales from the discussion but you cannot, because the business is at the very core of the industry whether you care about it or not. In the end, generally these companies dont bother with game development unless they profit from it in the end.

Sure, maybe they spend 2 months of time adding additional difficulties that are easier, and balancing them. But maybe thats because they expect to profit off of that time spent by reaching a broader audience. There's no guarantee that they would bother spending those two months "shining shit up" at all if they didn't think they would reach more people. Instead, they might just ship the same shit, without the easier difficulty, but 2 months earlier.

 

[TheMink]

You're being sales minded I'm being quality minded, all the work towards making a hard game easy could have been used to improve the game in other ways.

How long do you think it takes to make an easy mode...

Its not like "oh are we going to include an easy mode? I guess we will just nix multiplayer then."

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

But often easy mode is done the easy way - by dumbing the overall game down, by simply removing too many elements core to the design.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying but can you give some examples of this form of easy mode? It sounds more like you're talking about sequels that simplify systems to gain wider appeal than about different modes within a single game.

 

[Jarmel]

Lord Almighty, it's an optional mode. If you don't want to use it, then don't. However there are people who aren't good at shooters or whatever and so easy mode is a good thing for them. People need to pull the stick out of their ass.

As for the bullshit argument about finite resources, unless you're in the boardmeeting or actually work at the studio then you can't make this argument.

 

[Garou]

If playing a game that challenges you is such a hassle, why not just watch a movie instead. Then you don't even have to press any buttons!

 

[Setero]

People I'm talking about games that are designed as hard being given an easy mode, I realize some of you quoted before my edit, these are cases where simple damage\health changes aren't going to do it. When a game is designed to be hard the amount of work it would take to make an easy mode is in my mind too much effort, i'll acknowledge that an easy mode could lead to more sales but its not a guarantee.

 

[Htown]

Anything that helps them get that exclusive review out in time, right?

 

[scy]

Read title -> Post.

GAF Easy mode.

 

[Syril]

Why are people getting so annoyed that other people enjoy things that they don't?

 

[whalleywhat]

On the level of sales, the Souls game have proven successful for From in part because they provide something you can't get many other places in the modern gaming landscape. The depressing reality might be that this success only causes them to see the prospect for increased sales, which could lead to them undercutting the very things which made their games stand out in the first place. Because they're never going to look as pretty as Assassin's Creed or be as narratively engrossing as Red Dead Redemption or whatever. You don't find success by airing a lesser Super Bowl at the same time as the Super Bowl. You air something which appeals to those people who don't care about the Super Bowl.

 

[NinjaFridge]

If playing a game that challenges you is such a hassle, why not just watch a movie instead. Then you don't even have to press any buttons!

Because playing on easy without a challenge can still be fun and enjoyable.


Come on people this is hard to understand.

Why are people getting so annoyed that other people enjoy things that they don't?

Because this is the internet dammit!

 

[Htown]

If you can get the same enjoyment from watching a custscene on youtube as you can by playing a game, then you probably don't actually like video games.

 

[airmangataosenai]

Finally! An opportunity to....

Easy mode?!

Fuck you.

 

[Levyne]

I was of this mindset until I turned 16

 

[Tain]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying but can you give some examples of this form of easy mode? It sounds more like you're talking about sequels that simplify systems to gain wider appeal than about different modes within a single game.

Removing pressure on the player to make use of certain abilities or strategies is, as Kaijima put it, "dumbing the game down" and "removing elements core to the design". This is as true for Doom as it is for Ninja Gaiden.

But you're probably looking more for games like Thief and Hitman, which have unique objectives and limitations for the higher difficulty levels.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

If you can get the same enjoyment from watching a custscene on youtube as you can by playing a game, then you probably don't actually like video games.

That's probably true but I don't think anyone here is claiming this about themselves.

Even the perfunctory play of a game on easy mode between story/cutscenes can yield a qualitatively different experience from watching a video. It might not be a sufficiently different experience for you or many others. But if it is for some people, who the fuck cares if that's how they experience a game?

 

[scy]

But if it is for some people, who the fuck cares if that's how they experience a game?

The article that spun this article doesn't even say this. It just says that easy modes should be the same experience and not a dumbed down one. Give them an easier version of the same game, not a stripped down version of it.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

Removing pressure on the player to make use of certain abilities or strategies is, as Kaijima put it, "dumbing the game down" and "removing elements core to the design". This is as true for Doom as it is for Ninja Gaiden.

But you're probably looking more for games like Thief and Hitman, which have unique objectives and limitations for the higher difficulty levels.

Aren't there entire games built around player expression that don't force the player to make use of certain abilities or strategies? Are those games inherently bad games? I actually prefer games that focus on mastery over expression, but it would be stupid for me to argue that Elder Scrolls games suck because of that.

Do people think that's a bad thing about Thief and Hitman?

 

[Cymbal Head]

There sure are a lot of people in this thread who want to dictate to others how they ought to be enjoying games. Different strokes, people.

If it's possible to include an easy mode that leaves the developer's intended core experience intact, then I don't see the harm in it.

 

[Mindlog]

There are so many games available. Probably too many. The variety is fantastic. Why should every game need to cater to my taste?

RTS is one of my favorite genres. Dawn of War 2 is not one of my favorites. However, from a distance I can appreciate its uniqueness. I don't want that game to become Company of Heroes in DoW skins. Let players that enjoy the game have their niche! There are several other excellent games to choose From. There's no need to lose your identity and move From your specialty into a crowded market.

 

[Guri]

I think there can be a balance. First of all, options are great. But games should challenge you. If you want a minimal challenge, then go for easy mode. And all the core gameplay must be there. Also, there are kinds of games that can't even have a difficulty mode. Take the Portal series, or Limbo.