-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Kotaku-Article: Easy Modes Can Ruin Games? Um, No.
- Thread starter Chairmanchuck
- Start date
No other medium offers interactive story telling and immersion the same way videogames do.
There are quite a few videogames out there that I play or push onward solely due to the story.
NoirVisage
Banned
because..there's an option for easy..in the game. seriously, are you even reading what i'm typing?
I have no problem with easy modes in games. I don't use them ever (if there are 4 options I pick 3rd toughest, if there's 3 I pick normal), but for people that don't play games often, and just want to have fun, no issue from me.
Now, if reviewers are playing review copies on Easy Mode? That's no good. That will almost never give an accurate result of how the game really is.
Now, if reviewers are playing review copies on Easy Mode? That's no good. That will almost never give an accurate result of how the game really is.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
But the quote that started all this talk isn't about a Fallout, Deus Ex, Mass Effect, or Walking Dead. It was a quote that was basically about Gears of War 3, where you can play without cover easily on easy and maybe even normal mode even though cover is entirely what that game is about.
That game doesn't revolve around it's story. The story it does have can easily be enjoyed on a nice hd video on youtube.
What makes it worthwhile at all is its cover based shooting. So the player better damn well be using and having fun with cover based shooting. And the point is that wont happen on easy mode.
Would you play a selectable easy mode where you'd have infinite life and/or resources and it'd literally be impossible to fail? I'm not asking this to troll, I'm legitimately curious. Since that's the easiest solution for everyone, really.
Pimpbaa
Slop Inspector
Maybe this guy should just stick to goddamn books and movies. I mean, what is the point of playing a game if you don't want to be challenge at all by gameplay? It's clear he doesn't like games.
You mean when games were games? Get out of my hobby, people like you are ruining it.
NoirVisage
Banned
dude, no body knows who you are, same as myself, developers are going to continue to make the games they make , just as this hobby existed before you and is full of people that enjoy it for a myriad of reasons..gamers like yourself are why the basement dweller stereotype will never die, get over yourself.
depends on the game, an rpg where i was mainly getting through the story sure, an action game, i need some challenge, just not hairpulling challenge..
NoirVisage
Banned
edit- dopple post 
UncleSporky
Member
"What is the point of watching a movie if you don't typically enjoy movie soundtracks? It's clear you don't like movies."
"What is the point of reading a book if you don't want to expand your vocabulary? It's clear you don't like books."
"What is the point of browsing message boards if you don't want to argue with anyone? It's clear you don't like forums."
I always hate when people bring up that topic.
Anyways, not really sure why people are upset at Plunkett here, and it seems some of the reactions are downright hating on it simply because it's a Kotaku piece, not necessarily because of the content. Some days, I want to play a game on easy mode, particularly if it's a game someone's recommended to me that they really, really want me to play even if I'm not all that interested, or if it's in a genre I'm really not passionate for, but I'd like to at least play the game.
Other times, like Halo, I absolutely need the friction that a higher difficulty level provides, and that's awesome. Different people play for different reasons, and that's okay.
As for Hutchinson's remark that multiplayer can be broken by easier difficulties, isn't this really a failure on the part of the designers? Kinda like how some developers have said "you can't have choice in games! It doesn't work!" when it's really a failing on their end, not a limitation of the medium (seeing as how developers like CD Projekt and 2K Marin have done choice just fine).
Guess what! Games aren't games.
Sure, some of them are, but they aren't all. I'd be hard-pressed to call STALKER, for instance, a game. It's more of a whole new virtual reality to explore. Then you've got The Witcher, which is an interactive story more than anything else.
Both STALKER and The Witcher are some of the greatest, most advanced examples of the medium out there, but I'm not really sure I'd want to call them games, because they're not... necessarily gamey. Video games don't need to be a purely gameplay-centric medium. The medium is really better classed as electronic virtual entertainment, because of things like Visual Novels and Virtual Realities, which have a lot in common with video games--same technology and everything--but they're not really games, per se.
When I was five, I used to play soccer with my dad. I was horrible at it and no matter how hard I tried, I just couldn't really get any better. I still had a lot of fun and kicking a soccer ball around is still great fun for me today.
I'll decline any time one of my uni buddies of mine asks me if I want to play with them because I know playing with them will limit my fun greatly. When I play knowing that I cannot really mess up anything for my team or that I can score a goal even though I'm really bad is a good thing for me. There's no need for me to be as good as them to really enjoy playing soccer - if it happens in the right environment.
Why don't I play handball instead, which I'm actually really, really good at? Because I like kicking soccer balls with my feet and that's sadly not part of the sport I'm actually really good at.
Pimpbaa
Slop Inspector
People in the hobby before me played pong. Developers dying left and right, and all because of them trying to make their games "cinematic". If you care more about the narrative than the gameplay, the hobby isn't for you.
I care about emergent narrative, or, in other words, narrative that evolves from gameplay.
As well as emergent narratives, my interest lies in exploring virtual realities. One of the biggest problems I had with Darksiders II was that I kept asking myself how this world made sense in context. What was the world like when it wasn't ruined? How would War have solved these puzzles? The levels were designed for Death, not War.
It's a great game, and I love it, annnnnd I think it kinda wastes 3D space by attempting some form of reality... and then not being realistic. So where you might praise the combat or loot grinding or puzzles or whatever, and I might as well, you might be wholly satisfied, but I'm not.
So, y'know, maybe you might want to calm down? There are a lot of reasons to be involved in the medium; gameplay isn't, and shouldn't be, the be-all, end-all.
Little Green Yoda
Member
I can appreciate gaming extending its reaches to other realms of entertainment. But gameplay should always be the priority because it's the one thing it will unequivocally do better than other media. Until the writing in gaming storylines improves a lot, the cinematic plot stuff you see in games are all done better in movies, books, etc.
A lot of people blaming the end consumer for choosing a lower difficulty instead of blaming game designers for not designing decent actual difficulty modes. If 'Hard' mode is simply 50% more health to enemies and an extra wave of enemy spawns (ala fucking Uncharted fucking 3), then that difficulty mode can sod off. It's a piece of shit and makes every enemy encounter an unbearable exercise in frustration for those not looking for bullet sponge gameplay. At best it's functionally lazy, at worst it breaks the game and exposes flaws in its set pieces and enemy AI. And of course this goes both ways; if the game is balanced for Normal difficulty then there is every chance that Easy will upset that balance as much as Hard will.
The onus needs to be on better game designs and as a result, a functioning difficulty system. By and large I don't think the majority of games have got their AI right and as a result we see arbitrary distinctions between 'Easy' and 'Hard'. I'm sure organic AI design has taken a back seat to set piece design this generation, largely due to the relative ease of implementing one over the other under given time and money constraints.
If actual game critiquing took place we might get it along with the added power of next gen, in the next gen. Not expecting it though.
Prima facie, there is nothing wrong with Easy difficulties. I would never have bothered or attempted to see the end of a few games these last few years without them. Many people would never have tried to play a plastic guitar, either without them (though to be fair, GH/RB Easy difficulty is quiet a bit different to implement than in a shooter/racer whatever).
The onus needs to be on better game designs and as a result, a functioning difficulty system. By and large I don't think the majority of games have got their AI right and as a result we see arbitrary distinctions between 'Easy' and 'Hard'. I'm sure organic AI design has taken a back seat to set piece design this generation, largely due to the relative ease of implementing one over the other under given time and money constraints.
If actual game critiquing took place we might get it along with the added power of next gen, in the next gen. Not expecting it though.
Prima facie, there is nothing wrong with Easy difficulties. I would never have bothered or attempted to see the end of a few games these last few years without them. Many people would never have tried to play a plastic guitar, either without them (though to be fair, GH/RB Easy difficulty is quiet a bit different to implement than in a shooter/racer whatever).
There is nothing wrong at all about a game having the choice of an easy mode available.
But like many have already expressed in this thread, it matters how the easiness is implemented. Playing a videogame should always still include the playing, which is why I find this quote in the original article disturbing:
But like many have already expressed in this thread, it matters how the easiness is implemented. Playing a videogame should always still include the playing, which is why I find this quote in the original article disturbing:
Pimpbaa
Slop Inspector
It is, and should be. Without it, there is no game. And something developers need to get back to before they destroy themselves trying to make their games movies. Game budgets can't continue the way they are going.
I ultimately think it's about what the creators want to make, and I believe the negative reaction people have to certain games stems from their priorities and the way they perceive games. I think if we focus on games being games, and ignore the insanely massive field of virtual reality (there are non-gaming applications for futuristic versions of VR, such as, say, triage training for doctors, pain management through soothing environments, cheap vacations for people with little time or money, etc), we lose sight of what could be.
Best, I think, not to limit ourselves.
In another thread, someone mentioned how awful they felt that Skyrim was, because it had bad combat. Me? Well, I loved my time in the game, because I spent it walking around and hunting deer in the mountains and tundra. Sometimes, I'd go into town and sell my pelts, but before you know it, I'd be back out there again, hunting for more deer.
The Elder Scrolls' design philosophy has always been about role-playing (that is to say that it's a better RPG than most RPGs, as it focuses on removing abstraction between the player and the game, rather than throwing in a lot of silly numbers) through immersion, and in that way, I enjoy the game.
It's shit at combat--if you want good first-person combat, check out Dark Messiah of Might & Magic or Arx Fatalis. The dungeons are boring. The Radiant quest system generates boring fetch quests. Gameplay-wise, it's not a great game. The epic story that most people expect with RPGs isn't all that wonderful.
But in creating a living, breathing reality, it's actually pretty good, given the limitations of the technology we have now and the small number of people working on virtual realities.
I like getting lost in that world. I don't care about playing it. I think insisting that games must be about gameplay... kinda misses the point.
I'd argue that the medium should be about interactivity, because that is the medium's strength, just like the film's is through images and performance, and the novel's is through words on a page, but interactivity doesn't have to be gameplay. It does, however, exclude the bullshit "lol let's take away your camera control and make you watch our terrible story happen while explosions EVERYWHERE!" stuff that are anti-gameplay, since they're also anti-interactive.
I point to my example of interactive. I think it's limiting to insist that every thing that could be classified as a video game should be a video game. I think that establishes a mindset--a way of thinking about the work--that inherently limits one's ability to see things in different ways. I believe that what we call video games should be about interactivity of any kind, and not limit themselves solely to straight-up gameplay.
This is actually more all-encompassing than, say, raging at Uncharted for its cinematic events, because it also covers a game like Dragon Age 2, which has plenty of gameplay, but so little interactivity as to ultimately insult the player and waste his or her time playing the game. The game basically says "fuck you, gamer, I don't care that you chose X or Y, because the outcome is always going to be this really bad story I want to tell you, regardless of how stupid it is."
Heavy Rain, Phoenix Wright and Flower exist.
But I do agree with you. I can't play games without gameplay. Telltale's The Walking Dead is literally virtual Nyquil to me.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
Easy modes do not ruin games, Easy modes mascarading as Normal modes do.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Easy mode is for chumps.
Little Green Yoda
Member
Seems to me like you're simply describing a different type of gameplay. Not every game has to be action-oriented with explosions and guns everywhere. I mean, stuff like The Sims or Animal Crossing aren't confused with non-games, right?
okay, some people will argue that, but I don't think anybody plays The Sims or Animal Crossing for their plot
And it's possible that I am. I think there's room there to move to things that aren't even games, though. Real, full-blown simulation matrioshka brain alternate self virtual reality shit.
Kite
Member
Any mode in single player is "easy" mode in my book, beating up on the computer AI never has been and never will be praiseworthy. The enemy either becomes unrealistically godlike in their behavior or they become boring bullet-sponges that still don't have that unpredictability and intuition that a human opponent can provide. Single player is for the story, experience and a tutorial, multiplayer and co-op is where the real gameplay is found. Easy vs hard-mode, depends on how long you want that tutorial to last~
whalleywhat
Member
I find this depressing.
Everyone should be able to enjoy the game they bought, whether they are experienced players or low skilled casuals.
As long as I get the choice I do not care, that being said as usual Kotaku is riding the coat tails of another story which has another thread, why give them a thread?
As long as I get the choice I do not care, that being said as usual Kotaku is riding the coat tails of another story which has another thread, why give them a thread?
Cameron122
Member
I wish gaming journalism had an easy mode, because it's getting hard to read all this shit.
Augemitbutter
Member
i'm glad so many people on gaf still appreciate good game design.
most games on easy don't even demand the use of basic game mechanics. it's random button mashing from start to finish. this is extremely damaging to the industry, because plenty of game reviewers play on easy, and consequently aren't even playing the game they are trying to review.
they are in no position to write a review.
most games on easy don't even demand the use of basic game mechanics. it's random button mashing from start to finish. this is extremely damaging to the industry, because plenty of game reviewers play on easy, and consequently aren't even playing the game they are trying to review.
they are in no position to write a review.