Support NeoGAF

[Fraeon]

I'm pretty sure people thought I was trolling in the Dark Souls thread but I do think that the easiest way to solve this would be a mode for every game selectable in the menu that gave you infinite life / resources / what not, literally making it impossible for you to fail. You might even disable achievements, though I don't really think much of those so if someone wants achievements for plowing a movie, let them. This would all be really dead simple to implement since you really don't need to even think about balance.

That would leave all the resources of balancing the game to the difficulty that the developers mean to have us play as. The game could be as hard or as easy as the developers want it and there'd be still that god mode option mentioned earlier. Why this isn't even considered in today's games is beyond me

I mean, this would make me disagree with Hutchinson but I do think that's by far the easiest solution.

 

[Stat!]

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.

Not really. Sometimes, I don't half the funds to purchase games but I am curious in the story and cutscenes. Or I like the story but could never finish said game since I ran out of time.

NG2 on the 360 was one of the worst difficulty experiences. It made things unneedingly hard. For example, I got half way through the game, skipped the market (despite having plenty of money but not needing anything), jumped down to an area (meaning I couldnt get back), fought a bunch guys, ended up with zero health, hit a checkpoint, and got a 15 minute boss battle in which after the boss, I had to fight 30 more guys. I couldnt get past it because I couldnt buy potions or anyhting. Nor could I go from normal to easy on the fly. I stopped playing the game since I didn't want to restart the whole game.

I don't really understand why people feel the need to hate when if I want an easier gameplay mode that I would be allowed. Perhaps, they feel that by me some how playing an easier difficulty, I ruin their experience. I never really understood any reason? So I have a dumbed down experience? Or I remove a core element? Its not like I'm hurting you! So I might ruin mine. Im the one who is missing out.

 

[HyperCubed4]

I play games on Normal/Medium. The way nature intended.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

I'm pretty sure people thought I was trolling in the Dark Souls thread but I do think that the best and easiest way to solve this would be a mode for every game selectable in the menu that gave you infinite life / resources / what not, literally making it impossible for you to fail. You might even disable achievements, though I don't really think much of those so if someone wants achievements for plowing a movie, let them. This would all be really dead simple to implement since you really don't need to even think about balance.

In a game like dark souls that uses pvp, that could be game breaking though. It would allow players on easy to aquire the best upgrades and equipment earlier than normal players, putting them at an advantage. Of course they would possibly be at a disadvantage for perhaps not learning how to use the mechanics properly, but it would certainly fuck with balancing issues.

Otherwise, in purely single player games, why not? I don't see any valid reasons for not having more options for a player.

 

[Last Hearth]

The problem with the argument of "how can more option be bad" is that people don't always choose what's good for them. If you include a god mode in a game, most people will take it, and then have no fun with the game. That's just how people work.

If an RPG had an instant win button and gave your character the highest level, with the best gear, most people with take it, and then complain that there is no progress in the game.

 

[Tain]

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.

I'm not sure that "player expression" is something clear enough to talk about. I can fill a house full of spoons in Skyrim just as I can choreograph flashy fights in Virtua Fighter 5 or practice ridiculous combos in DMC3 or clear Metal Slug without pressing "up".

I don't criticize games based on what the developers are trying to do with them, though, if that helps clarify things.

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

I consider the less enjoyable difficulties (in Thief's case, the two below Expert, and in Blood Money's case, everything below Professional) to be small blemishes, sure. I can only evaluate games from my own perspective, after all, and as Riposte said in the other thread, climbing one side of a mountain is made a little bit less enjoyable knowing that there's an ugly opposing side.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

The problem with the argument of "how can more option be bad" is that people don't always choose what's good for them. If you include a god mode in a game, most people will take it, and then have no fun with the game. That's just how people work.

If an RPG had an instant win button and gave your character the highest level, with the best gear, most people with take it, and then complain that there is no progress in the game.

But then the player is at fault. Not the existence of the option for those that use it and still enjoy the game.

 

[Selvaria]

Both arguments are valid.

RPGs are a genre where I could care less about difficulty. I play them for the questing, the looting, and the joy of exploring large environments.

On the other hand, there are games like Ninja Gaiden where difficulty and overcoming challenges is key. And yet, I can still occasionally play it on Ninja Dog and have fun.

The way I see it, if a game's core mechanic is fun, the game is fun. How hard or challenging it is comes second.

 

[snap0212]

Difficulty settings in games these days are usually a joke anyways. When you set the difficulty in Call of Duty to 'Veteran' then you can feel from the very first second that that difficulty didn't get any attention at all. If you beat it on Veteran, it's not because you've gotten better as a player but because you've done the same segment often enough until you reach the checkpoint. And while CoD certainly doesn't represent every single game out there, it clearly shows what's wrong with difficulty settings in most games.

Halo, on the other hand, is a game where the developers actually think about higher difficulties. They don't just cut your health in half and double the amount of incoming fire, they actually change up the game a bit. That's where I like higher difficulties, because I can master them. Dark Souls is very similar, though not really that hard if you know what you're doing.

What's also important is that, while games have evolved over the recent years, difficulty settings have not. When your game is built around the idea of rewarding me every five seconds then you better think about something to reward me for playing on the high difficulty. Resident Evil games did this very good in the past. I've enjoyed a challenging run through the game on Professional but that also meant that I'll be able to bad-ass my way through the game again because I got rewarded with some ridiculously over powered weapon. The main reason for me to play these games on the highest difficulty is because I know there's some kind of awesome reward at the end of the tunnel.

In my opinion, no one should have to stop playing a game because it's too difficult. It's their experience and if that one's destroyed for such a stupid reason then I don't think that's a good thing. I don't care about developers saying “but the game was intended that way”. Who are they to decide whether someone should have fun a certain way? Give people unlimited souls in Dark Souls and let them have their experience. Allow people to unlock all the cars in a Need for Speed game if that's what they want to do, don't charge them extra for it for a ridiculous reason. I have no problem with devs having an idea of how the game should be played. The only thing I don't like is when they think that their idea of fun, or how that fun can be achieved, is simply not true for many people.

 

[Codeblue]

I play games on Normal/Medium. The way nature intended.

I play games on normal when they lock hard mode.

 

[Last Hearth]

But then the player is at fault. Not the existence of the option for those that use it and still enjoy the game.

It is the player's fault, but as a game designer, your goal is to give the player's a good experience, and that sometimes requires you to protect the player from his own worst instincts.

This is done in real life too. Why force kids to go to school? Because we know left to their own they wouldn't, they'd rather take the ease of playing games over the difficulty of learning, but we know that in the long run that is going to lead to a poor life experience as someone with no education, so we set up the system that don't give them the option of not attending school.

 

[JABEE]

Does anyone else have a problem with people reviewing games blowing through them rather than coming up with an appraisal of a game that is how it was intended to be played?

People reviewing these games should have a base line of competency at the games they are playing. If reviewing games is an essential part of your job, you should give the game enough time to beat it on normal difficulty.

 

[RionaaM]

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.

Don't you think maybe their like of games is why they choose to play the game, whatever the difficulty, instead of Youtube-ing it? I don't get how playing on easy could be the same as watching a cutscene.

 

[GravityMan]

So what do you guys think? Do you also play for the sole purpose of enjoying the story or do you expect more from Games than this?

It depends on the game...

One of the reasons I love Demon's Souls and Dark Souls is because I liked the challenge and unforgivingness of those games. It just makes sense with those particular games. Something we don't see much of anymore.

However, that doesn't mean I want that approach in every game I play. I don't WANT Zelda games to be as tough as Dark Souls. (Although Nintendo could make them harder...Majora's Mask was perfect difficulty-wise.) Likewise with Mario. And I really don't want some cutscene-heavy, exposition-laden RPG to be hard or unforgiving. (Worse if the cutscenes are unskippable.) A mild/moderate challenge is enough. Something like Heavy Rain...I'd probably prefer it be a bit on the easy side.

On the other hand, there are some games that are SO easy that I almost feel insulted. Yoshi's Story and Wind Waker are guilty of that.

Also, adding an easy mode to something like a future Souls game is different than adding it to Ninja Gaiden. I remember when the first Ninja Gaiden came out for the original Xbox...it did not have an easy "Ninja Dog" mode. Some people bitched, on this forum and elsewhere. Then Team Ninja added an easy mode to NG Black. While I personally loved the difficulty of NG, I had no problem with them adding an easy mode, because the challenge is entirely contained within the enemies you fight. The harder modes weren't affected at all. Dark Souls on the other hand...the challenge is interwoven directly into the core fabric of the game. It's not just the enemies, but also their meticulous placement and the layout of the level. Two examples -

Spoiler

Capra Demon

boss fight (consider the dogs and the small room), and the first two fat dudes you face on that narrow bridge when you first enter Blighttown from the Depths.

Spoiler

Capra

would be piss easy if he were simply in a large arena-like room with no dogs. Most gamers would defeat him in 1 to 3 tries.

I play most difficulty-selectable games on Normal my first time through, with a few exceptions (God of War games I go straight to Hard).

 

[demidar]

It is the player's fault, but as a game designer, your goal is to give the player's a good experience, and that sometimes requires you to protect the player from his own worst instincts.

This is done in real life too. Why force kids to go to school? Because we know left to their own they wouldn't, they'd rather take the ease of playing games over the difficulty of learning, but we know that in the long run that is going to lead to a poor life experience as someone with no education, so we set up the system that don't give them the option of not attending school.

Very good point, more options aren't always good because people generally don't know what's good for them. My question is if people have been playing games for a while and haven't improved past playing on easy mode, what are you doing? You naturally get better at something the more you do it, but people who play on easy mode haven't attained the skills to be able to take on normal or hard. Is your brain switched off?

 

[Neff]

Article completely misses the point. Criticising easy mode isn't disdain toward removing challenge and by extension accomplishment, it's about lamenting carefully-constructed design and mechanics becoming superfluous. Easy mode reduces even great games to little more than story/graphics/music, which is fine if you want a vaguely interactive, poorly-told movie. It's not so great if you're playing videogames to play videogames.

I have no problem with easy mode being there for people who need it. I do have a problem with perhaps writing off a great game (ie the fucking story sucked) because the player is too lazy to experience the game as they should, which happens even professionally.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

With less time to play, I need easy modes to get thru games. I don't want to be stuck on a part due to difficulty.

For instance, I'm playing Bioshock 1 for the 5th time, at least. Maybe even more. I'm doing it on the hardest difficulty, no vita chambers. I would have given up on the game the first time around at this difficulty (that fisheries level with the first encounter with the shooting big daddies). The rest of the game is much easier. Or, the game presents you with a decision point-try and tackle the big daddies first or last. I learned on the hardest difficulty, you should pretty much finish the level, then take on the big daddies vs trying to gather more adam in the beginning of the level.

Let us wimps and people with no time have our fun. Not every one has the means or motivation to plow thru ridiculously hard games because a select few cannot enjoy a game w/o dying. Options should be the key.

The problem with the argument of "how can more option be bad" is that people don't always choose what's good for them. If you include a god mode in a game, most people will take it, and then have no fun with the game. That's just how people work.

If an RPG had an instant win button and gave your character the highest level, with the best gear, most people with take it, and then complain that there is no progress in the game.

You don't know that. I would assume most play a game to have fun. If they like less difficulty, why would you assume you have the knowledge to give them 'what's good for them'? Besides, why would you assume developers and publishers who push DLC and horse armor have any of the gamers 'best interest' in hand? I would counter this entire generation shows that they do not care for the gamer.

 

[DR2K]

Games like Vanquish are ruined by playing on easy, imo.

Then don't play it on that difficulty. Play it on the difficulty that you would get the most enjoyment out of for your money.

 

[Mysterious Stranger]

Kotaku plays on easy so they can push out reviews.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Some people simply want to enjoy a game and see everything there is to it. They spent their $60 for it, so let them enjoy it how they want to.

 

[bababouille]

The problem with easy or extreme difficulties is that the games are not optimized for them. It's likely you are not playing the way the designer intended you to.

For instance, I absolutely hate playing harder difficulties in single player modes in modern shooters because of how silly it is to die within one shot. The enemy placement, level design and mechanics set in place are not made for you to lose in that amount of shots. I almost feel insulted by the devs when harder difficulty simply means less HP for the player.

But when I play SHMUPs, I feel like the difficulty is justified and part of the game design, so that's why I find it enjoyable. Same thing for Etrian Odyssey, and roguelikes.

But I guess it is a hard task for developpers to gauge difficulty in narrative driven single player games. Maybe theories in game design are simply changing with time and I am more used to arcade-style play. However I find that the Souls series is a great example of how to implement hard difficulty within the game narrative in a coherent way.

However I do feel pissed at a game when you're stuck at a certain part that you have to do over and over again and it disrupts the flow of the narrative, especially when it's good, like in El Shaddai or Deadly Premonition.

 

[King of the Potato People]

Games can be satisfying without being difficult.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Some people simply want to enjoy a game and see everything there is to it. They spent their $60 for it, so let them enjoy it how they want to.

No no no, you have to enjoy it my way. Not on IOS, not on medium difficulty. I determine how you enjoy it.

Games can be satisfying without being difficult.

Not bad games. That's the rub. Everybody thinks about Ghouls and Ghosts as a very hard game. I rarely hear about how good of a game it is. It's a weird predicament but you can cover up bullshit choices by blaming difficulty. Halo 1 was the first time I saw that argument pushed thru. 'No, it's you. Ur not playing it right unless your on hardcore.' It was complete bullshit to overemphasize average AI (duck and cover) and downplay the balance of the shield, nevermind the large argument to be had about level design. Instead of balancing out weapons, enemies and perfecting level design, they can just ramp up the difficulty and talk about how hardcore the game is. Easy games should not falter if it's designed well.

 

[Anteater]

Games like Vanquish are ruined by playing on easy, imo.

This is one of the games where easy doesn't affect hard and god hard difficulties, I've played through both hard and GH and I would think GH is too hard for me and I wouldn't find it fun for a replay, that's where multiple difficulties are useful for.

Same goes to god hand, hard wasn't as fun as normal for me, so I'm glad there are multiple difficulties, it's a lot better than having 1 difficulty mode that only cater to one group of people, even worse is that some games like assassin's creed and dragon's dogma only have 1 difficulty and there's nothing you could do about it if you find it to be too easy.

Not everyone are on the same skill level as other gamers, so it's good to have options.

 

[not_so_special]

luke plunkett one of the worst writers of kotaku

 

[cuyahoga]

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.

Hitman games are maybe the ideal way to approach multiple difficulty modes—other developers should take notes.

How about you make an Easy mode for the the entire game and let me play it whenever and however I want? I'm bad at videogames, and some genres in particular. I'd like to be able to enjoy videogames. I'll probably have the same difficulty curve on some action game as anyone else on Easy.

Don't put in incentives, don't make the experience better or worse. That's stupid. Just don't change anything except for the difficulty.

Yep. Some of us are not good at playing games and might not like being frustrated for the sole purpose of some dick measuring contest. The lack of difficulty options this gen in games like Max Payne 3 is a bad trend that just dissuades me from finishing a game.

And trial-and-error tedium like Limbo is just flat-out terrible game design.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

They play videogames for the "story".

Reading books needs a easy mode.

It has one. Theyre called audio books.

 

[demidar]

This is one of the games where easy doesn't affect hard and god hard difficulties, I've played through both hard and GH and I would think GH is too hard for me and I wouldn't find it fun for a replay, that's where multiple difficulties are useful for.

Same goes to god hand, hard wasn't as fun as normal for me, so I'm glad there are multiple difficulties, it's a lot better than having 1 difficulty mode that only cater to one group of people, even worse is that some games like assassin's creed and dragon's dogma only have 1 difficulty and there's nothing you could do about it if you find it to be too easy.

Not everyone are on the same skill level as other gamers, so it's good to have options.

If the play the game on easy, they wouldn't be getting the experience the designers intended. Not only that, they'd have no reason to string together crazy boost moves because they would just shoot everyone. They would completely miss the depth of the game and wouldn't even know it, and worse still they'll just be as bad when they hop into the next game and wonder why Vanquish is so highly regarded when it was so forgettable.

 

[Pachinko]

Not all easy modes are created equal. If your game is , as the example in the article states- a cover based shooter and the easy mode removes the need to use cover then it's not the player who failed, it's the designer.

I feel like difficulty should be a more organic experience underneath the hood of a game. Give the player the option of adjustment after 3 failed attempts at any task like devil may cry had years ago. Do not penalize the gameplay scope just to make the game easier either, perhaps place a "trainer" behind the scenes that records how you play - how much damage is coming from certain enemies , how quickly you manage to do certain things, etc etc.

An example- let's say you're playing a game like gears of war and you get to a big open area with tons of cover , the game starts up an encounter for you. Now for a more experienced player- there's an obvious corpse holding a sniper rifle right near the start of this room and the enemies are coming from the other end with no easy path to you, in other words you are aware that grabbing that weapon will help you clear this room faster. For not so astute players, they might start just randomly going into cover options forgetting the gun. At this point the game would drop hints for the second player, maybe Dom starts shouting "sniping these guys would make this shit a shit load load easier man, shit" (gears of war dialog) and if the player starts moving and looking around and finds the weapon great!, should you keep getting shot for say another 30 seconds then perhaps Dom or Baird or whoever would run back to the location of the sniper rifle and shout "shit man, there's a sniper rifle and some ammo back here, come grab this shit" at which point the player would be alerted on their map as well. Moving on- the same player is now using cover and a sniper rifle to shoot guys across the map, but let's say they miss a dozen shots in a row, well at that point the difficulty monitor could step in , perhaps one of your team mates would say "shit man, just focus and pop those mofos", then when you'd open the scope the whole game would slow down and let you get a sure fire shot off, after killing a few dudes the game would speed up to normal again and a team mate would announce "got your head back in the game now ?".

This to me is the sort of scenario that works best for harder games, teach the player more skills rather then dumbing down the experience. Slow down the pace of the game temporarily to give the player a chance to keep up with the game.

This obviously wouldn't work with every single game out there but I feel is a better step in the right direction then simply having an "EASY" option where you get unlimited health or the enemies all die in 1 hit.

Just make sure that the player never has to re-do any segment of your game lasting more then 5 minutes at any point. If the player does fail (which will happen occasionally regardless) the harsh penalties present in 8 bit software only serve to frustrate in this day and age.


As far as only playing games for story... well It's not as though I dislike this option , I feel there is a small audience out there for it. I just don't "get" it, games are meant to be played and I kind of wonder why anyone would bother with the medium if they dislike the biggest portion of the experience but to each his own I guess.

 

[Nealand Liquor]

Easy mode doesn't ruin games, developers that make their games easy do.

 

[demidar]

Not all easy modes are created equal. If your game is , as the example in the article states- a cover based shooter and the easy mode removes the need to use cover then it's not the player who failed, it's the designer.

I feel like difficulty should be a more organic experience underneath the hood of a game. Give the player the option of adjustment after 3 failed attempts at any task like devil may cry had years ago. Do not penalize the gameplay scope just to make the game easier either, perhaps place a "trainer" behind the scenes that records how you play - how much damage is coming from certain enemies , how quickly you manage to do certain things, etc etc.

An example- let's say you're playing a game like gears of war and you get to a big open area with tons of cover , the game starts up an encounter for you. Now for a more experienced player- there's an obvious corpse holding a sniper rifle right near the start of this room and the enemies are coming from the other end with no easy path to you, in other words you are aware that grabbing that weapon will help you clear this room faster. For not so astute players, they might start just randomly going into cover options forgetting the gun. At this point the game would drop hints for the second player, maybe Dom starts shouting "sniping these guys would make this shit a shit load load easier man, shit" (gears of war dialog) and if the player starts moving and looking around and finds the weapon great!, should you keep getting shot for say another 30 seconds then perhaps Dom or Baird or whoever would run back to the location of the sniper rifle and shout "shit man, there's a sniper rifle and some ammo back here, come grab this shit" at which point the player would be alerted on their map as well. Moving on- the same player is now using cover and a sniper rifle to shoot guys across the map, but let's say they miss a dozen shots in a row, well at that point the difficulty monitor could step in , perhaps one of your team mates would say "shit man, just focus and pop those mofos", then when you'd open the scope the whole game would slow down and let you get a sure fire shot off, after killing a few dudes the game would speed up to normal again and a team mate would announce "got your head back in the game now ?".

This to me is the sort of scenario that works best for harder games, teach the player more skills rather then dumbing down the experience. Slow down the pace of the game temporarily to give the player a chance to keep up with the game.

This obviously wouldn't work with every single game out there but I feel is a better step in the right direction then simply having an "EASY" option where you get unlimited health or the enemies all die in 1 hit.

Just make sure that the player never has to re-do any segment of your game lasting more then 5 minutes at any point. If the player does fail (which will happen occasionally regardless) the harsh penalties present in 8 bit software only serve to frustrate in this day and age.


As far as only playing games for story... well It's not as though I dislike this option , I feel there is a small audience out there for it. I just don't "get" it, games are meant to be played and I kind of wonder why anyone would bother with the medium if they dislike the biggest portion of the experience but to each his own I guess.

Agree, making things easier (and conversely making things harder) requires much more effort than dialing down/up a few numbers. For example in DMC games, a higher difficulty would not only make enemies stronger and tougher, but gives them new moves and strategies for the player to adapt and overcome.

Counter-example, play COD on veteran, perhaps the trashiest was to up the difficulty. Superhuman accuracy, more numbers, more grenades thrown, but by and large they acted the same.

 

[Alcoholikaust]

People are too lazy and demand constant hand holding

When i started gaming nintendo power wasnt even out yet.

god-

We need more hardcore games to seperate the game players from the children.

 

[Like the hat?]

I get 3 hours maybe of console time a week. Damn right I'm going to play on easy.

 

[Flachmatuch]

No, I mean "You do want challenge". If you don't then go knit or something because a game is all about overcoming challenges not a stroll through some damn virtual grass.

Sorry but you cannot tell me what I want or should want, that's just pure idiocy. I want to play games and I often do not care about challenge. Not always.

This is all part of everything being watered down and babied. i understand making things accessible with different degrees of a challenge, but if you don't want any challenge from a game then it's not a game. It's simply pixels on a screen dancing for you.

Bullshit. I may like to walk around and enjoy interacting with shit, progress the story, listen to the game music and so on. I can go around, push two buttons and still feel badass without basically any challenge. I still enjoy playing through Ratchet games even though they pose no challenge whatsoever. Who the hell are you to proscribe to me what I should want?

People are too lazy and demand constant hand holding

When i started gaming nintendo power wasnt even out yet.

god-

We need more hardcore games to seperate the game players from the children.

Errr, sorry to inform you but actually it's younger people who have the free time to enjoy the challenge in games. Some people have other things to do in their lives and cannot spend 50 or 100 hours on a game. In fact, it's not exactly normal for a 30-something to have that kind of time. Kids don't understand this until they grow up, and I guess most of the "EASY MOD SUCKS" people are actually kids so no wonder they don't understand it. In fact, if your biggest pride is in your gaming achievements, you're either a kid or someone who lacks a life :-D

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Easy mode doesn't ruin games, developers that make their games easy do.

Devs do ruin the games but not by making them easy. By not doing their damn job and developing good gameplay that is balanced. RE4, pretty easy. Doesn't change the nature of the game. I never got that far in Pacman yet the game is still pretty good on the first couple of boards. I never said to myself, 'hey, this game sucked up until the 5th board, then really turned it on.' That just sounds stupid.

People are too lazy and demand constant hand holding

When i started gaming nintendo power wasnt even out yet.

god-

We need more hardcore games to seperate the game players from the children.

Why would you want to seperate them? It may be hard for you to see during your 3 hour hardcore run thru COD but you need casuals and children playing. Otherwise, most hardcore games will stop being made. PS2, NES....all great systems that thrived because of casuals. Everyone, including you, needs stupid casuals giving money to pubs/devs to keep this ship moving. 'Memba that last great system to not get casuals to jump on in? Yes, the Dreamcast.

I get 3 hours maybe of console time a week. Damn right I'm going to play on easy.

I do like the hat and would love to subscribe to your newsletter. However, you don't have enough time. How about I write the first paragraph and you take the second?

 

[MrCunningham]

You pay 40-60 dollars for a game, you should be able to play the game in anyway you damn well please. That includes playing through a game using easy mode or using cheat codes. As a customer, you should be able to be able to experience the game from start to finish, whether or not you are good at it.

Of course, this is purely talking about single playing gaming.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I play games on Normal/Medium. The way nature intended.

What about games that offer you a Normal/Medium but the difficulty descriptions say a higher one is the way it is meant to be played?

 

[ghibli99]

For me, I always play the first time on default difficulty. I do this because in most cases, the most attention has been spent tweaking and balancing this mode.

For games that I'm not having that much fun with, but that have other things I want to see to the end (like story, music, cutscenes, etc.), I'll knock the difficulty down, or cheat. I don't really care in those cases since I'm not being satisfied by the gameplay itself.

My favorite is the single difficulty game. DKCR and Super Meat Boy are great examples of this. To get 100% on either game (or 106% for SMB and 200% for DKCR for the sticklers ) takes a lot of skill and effort, and even getting to the end of either game is quite challenging. Both games have a nice difficulty ramp-up, and you're not faced with having to choose a difficulty in the beginning.

 

[megashock5]

Multiple difficulty levels are a good thing, I wish more devs used them (Nintendo hardly ever does).

Sometimes I want to relax and play a game, in those moods I don't want a huge challenge. The guitar games are far more fun on higher difficulties, but would present to much of an entry barrier to new players.

 

[Sojgat]

What I think Alex Hutchinson is trying to say is that the intended experience of a game can be ruined by an easy mode (look at it from the point of view of a designer), and I totally agree. This article is by far the most eloquent and well thought out thing I have ever read from Luke Plunkett, and he has still totally missed the point IMO. Perhaps this is because he feels slighted due to the fact he plays everything on easy and stills enjoys himself, I don't really care. Sorry Luke but in many cases you are playing the "worst possible version" of those games. Just because they aren't ruined for you personally (you play games for the story) doesn't make this any less true. Also sometimes games are just flat out ruined or damaged by the implementation of an easy/story mode. Changes which branched from their inclusion have gone on to diminish the design of the entire end product (hello Ninja Gaiden 3 and Mass Effect 3). Easy mode is just a lazy way of making a game accessible to more players. Others may hold differing opinions, my response to them would not be to misquote the context of their arguement, rephrase it as a question, and punctuate it with "Um, no".

 

[Shinta]

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.

I think you nailed it. Great post. I'd just add that the only other thing that bothers me is the deterioration of designers' ability to make genuinely difficult games in a satisfying way.

There's a good and a bad way to make hard mode. The good way is a careful balancing act between encouraging player skill, and still making it enjoyable. It rewards the right kind of play style. The bad way just takes easy mode/normal mode, and ups the damage enemies do, lowers your health bar, tosses more enemies on screen and calls it a day. If everyone is now focused on developing games for a broader, easy mode group of people, the ability to develop quality hard mode games almost always suffers.

Even Cliff Blezinski has started to turn around on this issue, and said recently that he doesn't want to compromise the design of his games any longer, and that if that excludes some easy mode gamers, he's completely fine with that. It seems clear that designing with easy mode in mind from the beginning can potentially have some negative consequences. I'm fine with the option most times, as long as it doesn't dilute the quality of the overall game design and the harder modes (but it almost always does exactly this).

I think it's potentially really problematic for a game reviewer to always play on "very easy" though. That is how you miss a lot of what makes the game work in the first place, and makes it enjoyable. It's very easy (haha) to get a totally skewed perspective that way, and to then report that inaccurate perspective to your readers.

 

[Anteater]

If the play the game on easy, they wouldn't be getting the experience the designers intended. Not only that, they'd have no reason to string together crazy boost moves because they would just shoot everyone. They would completely miss the depth of the game and wouldn't even know it, and worse still they'll just be as bad when they hop into the next game and wonder why Vanquish is so highly regarded when it was so forgettable.

The designers intended the game to have multiple difficulty modes, people are still having fun on easy, I'm still having fun playing through normal and higher skill players are playing on hard, I don't see the problem unless it has something to do with multiplayer.

 

[Riposte]

With a few exceptions, I play most games on easy. Sometimes very easy. I do this because of the reason I play video games.

Note to self: Never ever listen to a word Luke Plunkett says about a game.

 

[Htown]

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.

I think you nailed it. Great post. I'd just add that the only other thing that bothers me is the deterioration of designers' ability to make genuinely difficult games in a satisfying way.

There's a good and a bad way to make hard mode. The good way is a careful balancing act between encouraging player skill, and still making it enjoyable. It rewards the right kind of play style. The bad way just takes easy mode/normal mode, and ups the damage enemies do, lowers your health bar, tosses more enemies on screen and calls it a day. If everyone is now focused on developing games for a broader, easy mode group of people, the ability to develop quality hard mode games almost always suffers.

Even Cliff Blezinski has started to turn around on this issue, and said recently that he doesn't want to compromise the design of his games any longer, and that if that excludes some easy mode gamers, he's completely fine with that. It seems clear that designing with easy mode in mind from the beginning can potentially have some negative consequences. I'm fine with the option most times, as long as it doesn't dilute the quality of the overall game design and the harder modes (but it almost always does exactly this).

I think it's potentially really problematic for a game reviewer to always play on "very easy" though. That is how you miss a lot of what makes the game work in the first place, and makes it enjoyable. It's very easy (haha) to get a totally skewed perspective that way, and to then report that inaccurate perspective to your readers.

These posts are good posts.

 

[Man God]

I love games that punish people for playing it on easy.

My favorite example is Double Dragon II. Easy mode is basically a modern demo.

 

[boredofcanada]

Modding and hacking is what ruins games ( online one's) yet no one does anything about it (yeah you MS)

 

[Slayven]

The fact that this is a hot button issue in gaming news is what is wrong with gaming news.

 

[Coinspinner]

I hate it when we aren't even allowed to finish a game on easy. Youtube exists! We can see the ending even if they try to lock us out of it, it is stupid to deny us the chance to play the final level or fight the last boss on the easy setting. A shitty ending I can understand, but not cutting out content.

 

[NoirVisage]

Why is that any of your business? What does it matter to you?

He wants to play games to just have some fun. Stare at some pretty images for a while. Whatever. That's his style.

Is he preventing you from playing on Normal? Hard?

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!
it annoys the heck out of me when someone questions how i chose to enjoy what i spent my money on, i got this a lot when i would provide or request code breaker codes back in the day, there's was always some concerned citizen with something to say about me wasting my money or even worse that i was somehow the scum of the earth.

I don't think comparing games to other media works honestly.



I'm sorry bro. Games just aren't for you.

seriously, Who the **** are you to make that call?
that pompous, narrow minded elitist mentality permeates gaming, unless its a competitive game, the fact that you even feel that way is absurd.

 

[Riposte]

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!
it annoys the heck out of me when someone questions how i chose to enjoy what i spent my money on, i got this a lot when i would provide or request code breaker codes back in the day, there's was always some concerned citizen with something to say about me wasting my money or even worse that i was somehow the scum of the earth.

Frankly, I don't think anyone cares about what you or anyone else who chooses to play on "easy" does. It is the integrity of the game that matters. The immediate reaction to this conversation is "Why don't they just play something easier?"