Support NeoGAF

[groansey]

This reminds me of a thread in the World of Warcraft forums some time back, where the people who only played through the absolute easiest tier of raiding basically demanded that they got the same loot as the people who dedicated days/weeks learning boss tactics as they fought through the hardest raid tier just because they payed for the game. And that's a disgusting attitude to have.

You want something, earn it.

I can understand for some unlockables, weapons and aesthetics. Even gating off certain areas. But the core experience?

It's a videogame not a fucking qualification. Being able to master Soulsborne games, or compete in Pro League gaming, is not something that most players of a retail game are aspiring to. This new hardcore mentality is alienating for a lot gamers.

 

[Kevdo]

No. Not every game has to be that accessible. Stuff like Mario Kart's Smart Steering are wonderful because they're games that everyone plays together to have fun, it's not that kind of competitive game. Now Dark Souls with an easy mode wouldn't be really cool, it would kinda diminish the game overall.

If you could ignore the easy mode and have your normal difficult experience be 100% unchanged, why would it diminish the game overall? Someone could enjoy it that way.

 

[Mik317]

If you could ignore the easy mode and have your normal difficult experience be 100% unchanged, why would it diminish the game overall? Someone could enjoy it that way.

at bare minimum, that easy mode has to be coded and tested and that is time taken away from that core experience. Now this isn't the case for all games obviously but those who lack difficulty options tend to have them for design reasoning.

and again if you are going to try to make a game to appeal to more...why stop at the difficulty?

 

[Necro900]

The people that are chalking this up to entitlement are kind of pissing me off. This is not an issue of whinging to get something you don't deserve simply because you want it. Saying "some things just aren't for you" and shrugging it off is a cop out.

Video games are at a really unique and tricky position in this sort of discussion. They're the only entertainment medium that actively prevent you from experiencing it based on your level of skill. You can't fail at watching a movie. You can't fail at reading a book. But a game has the liberty of being able to say "you bought me and own me but you aren't good enough to fully access everything that I am".

For some people, the process of learning, adapting to, and overcoming the challenge of a game is part of the fun. Kudos! You have successfully enjoyed your game, gotten your money's worth, and accessed everything available. For other people maybe they want to experience the full content but they're just bad and have to give up. They end up not getting their entire money's worth simply because they lack a skill. Would you deny them the chance to experience the game? I think that's pretty fucked up.

To those saying they should just watch a Let's Play, that's not the same. There is a satisfaction to controlling and experiencing a game at your own pace, by your own rules and design, that watching a video doesn't offer. You can't make the movie comparison here. Making a game easier doesn't mean that nobody gets satisfaction at being the agent of the game's completion.

So like I said, games as an entertainment medium are unique. If a dev specifically wants their game to be hard as balls with no easier mode and 90% of the people that buy it will never complete it, well, that's their prerogative. Of course they get the final say in what their game is and should be. But if you ask me, if you can include modes that make it possible for less skilled people to buy and experience your game without hampering the experience of those who want a challenge, well, where's the harm? I enjoyed the challenge of beating a Souls game, but I guarantee you that there are people who would be happy and have fun with a Dark Souls easy mode. It doesn't affect you and it makes someone else happy. Why not?

The thread can end now.

Seriously, screw all these "I don't want easy mode in muh gamezzz" posts. What do you care? It's a toggle in the options, and doesn't impact your enjoyment of the game at standard (or higher) difficulties.
There's literally no valid reason to deny other people of a way for them to enjoy art/entertainment. Unless you're a kid that believes everyone should git gud, I guess?

Did the existence of safety mode in P5 prevent me from enjoying my run? Not at all, why would it? More people finished the game thanks to this? Then more power to them, as long as they enjoyed it.

Fuck, more power to them for even finding the time to play a game in this day and age, juggling it with work, family and whatnot.

at bare minimum, that easy mode has to be coded and tested and that is time taken away from that core experience. Now this isn't the case for all games obviously but those who lack difficulty options tend to have them for design reasoning.

and again if you are going to try to make a game to appeal to more...why stop at the difficulty?

So this is the argument of the no-easy-mode defense force?

Well, it's a little bit far-fetched. Why are you worrying about time management during the development of a game? It's the developer's business.
Do you have proof that implementing an easy mode makes the core game less polished? Any actual developers that back this claim?

This is getting ridiculous, lol.

 

[groansey]

A lot of my frustration with Bloodborne could've been resolved if they added save lanterns in areas before a boss fight, like how they do in Castlevania, and remove the need for grinding vials early on. Hardly game-breaking stuff.

 

[Kevdo]

at bare minimum, that easy mode has to be coded and tested and that is time taken away from that core experience. Now this isn't the case for all games obviously but those who lack difficulty options tend to have them for design reasoning.

and again if you are going to try to make a game to appeal to more...why stop at the difficulty?

Sure, definitely. If having accessibility options ends up hampering the main default experience, then yeah, that's bad. But since we're talking hypotheticals anyway, would you say that, were it possible to have both, we still shouldn't?

 

[RoadHazard]

Sure, definitely. If having accessibility options ends up hampering the main default experience, then yeah, that's bad. But since we're talking hypotheticals anyway, would you say that, were it possible to have both, we still shouldn't?

Not if "leisurely Sunday stroll mode" wasn't what the designer intended. It's not your right to have an easy mode in a game that wasn't designed to offer one. Challenge and reward is such an integral part of the Souls experience.

 

[Fraeon]

The way I understood the question was that it wasn't just about having easy mode, it was about having a mode where failing is completely impossible.

Almost every game these days has an easy mode.

at bare minimum, that easy mode has to be coded and tested and that is time taken away from that core experience. Now this isn't the case for all games obviously but those who lack difficulty options tend to have them for design reasoning.

The implementation of a god mode/tourist mode would be a trivial thing most of the time and the only testing required would be to check that the game doesn't break (e.g. if you make a set piece that the player is intended to lose and the mode prevents that from happening.)

Would such a mode existing be detrimental to my enjoyment? For sure, no. I wouldn't use it.

 

[royox]

If you could ignore the easy mode and have your normal difficult experience be 100% unchanged, why would it diminish the game overall? Someone could enjoy it that way.

Just knowing you can't lower the difficulty when you get stuck changes your whole experience.

 

[xevis]

Just knowing you can't lower the difficulty when you get stuck changes your whole experience.

lol, muh experiences!

 

[OmegaX0]

Just knowing you can't lower the difficulty when you get stuck changes your whole experience.

Yeah, it can become a frustrating experience for some people.

 

[Lemstar]

pretty much every critical piece of writing I've seen on the Souls series recognizes that the difficulty is a fundamental part of their design and a crucial reason they're so revered, not an unrelated element arbitrarily added because of ~elitism~ or whatever

a couple of quotes I dug up:

I played Demon’s Souls last fall. Its unremittingly bleak vision would seem to have little to offer a land as enchanting as Hyrule. And yet, it captured my imagination (claws sunk into my brain, to be more precise) in a way that few have since the original Legend of Zelda. Its world seemed real, lived-in (died-in), with a history and an artistry that burned every twisting passage into my memory. Its gameplay was focused, coherent, and deep, built around encounters that were far more intellectual than Zelda’s puzzles. Its famous difficulty demanded so much, not just from my hands but from my entire ragged nervous system, even from my temper, my character. It never explained itself and so conjured, via ingenious online components, a community as helpful and treacherous as any group of humans. And yet its difficulty was also exquisitely balanced and eminently fair. It respected me enough to let me fail, then gave me reasons to try again.

The greatest quality of Dark Souls in my opinion is its relationship with learning. The game is a series of pain-based tutorials punctuated by bosses who serve as our examiners. A bit like disciples of Mr. Miyagi, we learn in spite of ourselves, and surprise ourselves as we grow stronger. In Souls, it’s the player who levels up, not the character.

Through marketing hype and biased word of mouth, the arduous challenge posed by the Souls games eventually superseded all of the games’ other qualities. Worse still, the difficulty was seen as an end in itself, rather than an opportunity to have a certain type of experience, associated with particular emotions or sensations. The series’ creator, Hidetaka Miyazaki, has addressed this on many occasions. From the beginning, he has maintained that the game’s difficulty is only a means by which players can experience intense exaltation after overcoming seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Above all, he has always taken pride in the fact that almost anyone can conquer his games: the key to success does not lie in the player’s agility or virtuosity with the controls, but rather in their sense of observation, strategy and self-control.

p.s. the games aren't even actually very difficult

 

[Greddleok]

I will never understand why people like games without challenge.

 

[miller.skippins]

"shall we allow an easier mode for Marathon races i.e. allow people to cycle or take a bus to the finish line too?"

"Shall we allow an alternative cut of pulp fiction where the movie progress according to time instead of the original 'out of order' approach?"

"Shall include an automatic win button in tetris?"

 

[Randy Monk]

You know, even if I don't want to play a game like Spelunky because it's too hard and cryptic for me. I at least respect that it exists and that it's secrets have to be worked for.

Same here. I've never gotten past the jungle stages in Spelunky after hundreds of attempts but not once did I wish there was a cheat or easy mode. One day, I'll make the breakthrough and if I never do then so be it.

 

[Tecnniqe]

I will never understand why people like games without challenge.

Because a challenge don't equal fun to some?

Shocking I know

 

[myco666]

"shall we allow an easier mode for Marathon races i.e. allow people to cycle or take a bus to the finish line too?"

"Shall we allow an alternative cut of pulp fiction where the movie progress according to time instead of the original 'out of order' approach?"

"Shall include an automatic win button in tetris?"

I didn't know single player games are a competition. Also you can watch Pulp Fiction in that order, just use chapter select.

 

[Murkas]

Sure, as long as the game insults them for it (for the higher age rating games so the kids don't cry).

If Dark Souls has an easy mode, it should have the following:
Half the amount of enemies at half health
Much more generous equip load, fast roll in Havel's armour
More generous attribute requirements
Constant rainbow phantom outline
Locked offline
Trophy/achievement locked
Game ends 3/4 of the way in

Serious answer no. No certain feature should be in every single game. Some game series get really popular because they go against the norm. I've always thought if a game is too hard for me, I just back off.

The dark levels in Super Meat Boy are brutal, I just say I'm finished, it's ok, rather than ask for a no clip mode so I can walk through the obstacles straight to bandage girl.

 

[Red Liquorice]

I don't like team sports, but I might watch if all the men in a football match suddenly stripped off and started rubbing each others bare chests with oil and then it all devolved into a big sweaty orgy.

Should every football match have this at the middle as an option for those who want it? Those who don't can just go get a drink or something during that part. It doesn't effect them right?

 

[2+2=5]

Not mandatory but more options are always better.

 

[Tecnniqe]

I don't like team sports, but I might watch if all the men in a football match suddenly stripped off and started rubbing each others bare chests with oil and then it all devolved into a big sweaty orgy.

Should every football match have this at the middle as an option for those who want it? Those who don't can just go get a drink or something during that part. It doesn't effect them right?

Yeah because nobody is forcing me to watch the orgy but you can choose to watch the football orgy if you want.

 

[duckroll]

Should every football match have this at the middle as an option for those who want it?

When you put it like that, absolutely. They -should-. They don't because they're afraid. Fear is the enemy of universal satisfaction.

 

[woopWOOP]

Why all games

Dunno, if you can't beat a game then looking at a longplay video on Youtube seems like a good substitute. You can still experience the whole thing

Other than that I guess you can hope for cheats to make a return, tbh it's how I got anywhere in Doom when I was like 9 years old

 

[Elephant]

Absolutely, options are always good. Jim Sterling had a great video on this topic yesterday which is well worth a watch. (Unable to post a link unfortunately).

The great thing about options is that they're optional.

EDIT: Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5vIAJqu8gM - It's based around the steer-assist in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe.

 

[MoonFrog]

Also just because you don't like the arguments as to why a game shouldn't have an easy mode, doesn't mean it should have an easy mode.

Could be there's no should either way. Or that there's another argument.

Idk. Still failing to see why every game should shoot for the broadest audience. I just think there is business and artistic discretion with regards to this.

...

Also options always good? Really don't think that's true. I love me plenty of highly preset games, with chosen art, narrative, roles, etc. And I think that's a perfectly fine sort of game.

 

[ResidentDante]

If such an option will let even more people casually enjoy games I don't see why not. Though I'm guessing it will mostly be for cinematic, storydriven games.

 

[Elephant]

Also options always good? Really don't think that's true. I love me plenty of highly preset games, with chosen art, narrative, roles, etc. And I think that's a perfectly fine sort of game.

Of course it is, for you. But if someone had the option to lower the difficulty of the game to suit THEM (Not you), then ace!

If you think this game is too easy and decide to use the option of upping the difficulty to provide yourself with a greater challenge, then ace!

Neither of these things have any impact on the other player, so everybody wins.

Options are always good.

 

[Maxey]

Alternative option: add level viewers to games. If you somehow want to see the game without playing it, there you go, have fun.

 

[rochellepaws]

No, the elements of difficulty, effort and reward are crucial aspects in quality game design. Providing options to diminish these would reduce the satisfaction and enjoyment for everyone involved. The desire to climb a mountain wouldn't be the same if you were aware that there was an escalator to take you to the top and the feeling of satisfaction from conquering the climb would be lesser from knowing that your actions were ultimately unnecessary effort.

 

[Sir Ilpalazzo]

Who are you to gate or decide what the value of playing is to others? You were gud enough and enjoyed the challenge therefore all other players will measure against the same?

My point is that in games, difficult segments of levels or challenging bosses exist to create emotional engagement in the player. To put it another way, in any challenging game that happens to be worth anything, "getting good" is as integral a part of the game experience as the game's visuals or audio, or its stage design, enemy layouts. So I think it's a little thoughtless to say that those elements don't really count - to say "of course every game should ship with a debased version of itself, options are always good!"

The Souls games really are worthy of mention in this discussion because the reason they've developed the reputation and fanbase that they have is because they do not include a discrete easy mode. I firmly believe that had the developers included a compromised mode that would allow players to blow through to the end without coming to understand the game's systems, they would not have taken off the way they had.

 

[oni-link]

Is Odallus considered a brutally hard game?

 

[matrix-cat]

I don't see why not. Flip on God mode and infinite ammo and let anyone who wants to play that way have their fun.

 

[toythatkills]

Prince of Persia 2008 was a bit like that, since you couldnt really die.

You can die in PoP 2008 as much as you can die in any game these days, the only difference was that checkpoints were way more frequent.

For some that made it "impossible to die," for some that made it "less frustrating," and I'd tend towards the latter. I definitely would have no issues with a game like Uncharted ditching all the shitty* gunfights and just letting me jump about experiencing all the cinematic and story stuff.

(*I'm sure they're competent enough really, there is just nothing in gaming I personally find duller.)

 

[xevis]

The desire to climb a mountain wouldn't be the same if you were aware that there was an escalator to take you to the top and the feeling of satisfaction from conquering the climb would be lesser from knowing that your actions were ultimately unnecessary effort.

Some Ghenghis Khan thinking here

 

[Lord Phol]

If the developer wants to add such a mode for their games then sure but I don't think they should have any obligation to. Not all games are for all people, and they shouldn't be either.

 

[MoonFrog]

Of course it is, for you. But if someone had the option to lower the difficulty of the game to suit THEM (Not you), then ace!

If you think this game is too easy and decide to use the option of upping the difficulty to provide yourself with a greater challenge, then ace!

Neither of these things have any impact on the other player, so everybody wins.

Options are always good.

That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the many ways games preclude player choice and options that most people would say are fine. Unless you think linear, set-narrative, set-character, set-roles, etc. are bad things for games in all cases, then no, options aren't always good and it is a bad argument to say "options are always good, so this option should be in."

The argument "I go one way, you the other" does more work than it even should if it were to work as intended. So I'm suspicious of the argument.

There is room in gaming for taking choice from the player. Hard to have games, otherwise, really.

...

even in choice heavy games, choice has meaning in context and that context is some sort of constraint on choice.

 

[ebullientprism]

As long as the design and the intended experience isnt compromised, absolutely.

Not everyone plays games for the same reason.

 

[Elephant]

No, the elements of difficulty, effort and reward are crucial aspects in quality game design. Providing options to diminish these would reduce the satisfaction and enjoyment for everyone involved. The desire to climb a mountain wouldn't be the same if you were aware that there was an escalator to take you to the top and the feeling of satisfaction from conquering the climb would be lesser from knowing that your actions were ultimately unnecessary effort.

That depends on the climber and their reasons for reaching the top of the mountain. If you think it's unnecessary to begin with then what are you even doing at the mountain?

Is the climber old enough and practiced enough to reach the top of the mountain and do they enjoy the climb?

What about the people who can't climb due to age/disability, or simply don't want to, but still want to experience the view?

What about the people who want to make it more difficult for themselves by strapping a horse to their back before making the climb? perhaps falling off a few times.

In my view, if you see the escalator and say "Hell no, I'm going to climb this shit" then that's fantastic. Your sense of achievement is not diminished by those stood on the escalator because you're in it to enjoy yourself and experience it in a way that's good for you.

 

[Elephant]

That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the many ways games preclude player choice and options that most people would say are fine. Unless you think linear, set-narrative, set-character, set-roles, etc. are bad things for games in all cases, then no, options aren't always good and it is a bad argument to say "options are always good, so this option should be in."

The argument "I go one way, you the other" does more work than it even should if it were to work as intended. So I'm suspicious of the argument.

There is room in gaming for taking choice from the player. Hard to have games, otherwise, really.

The thread is about difficulty in games, is it not? What on earth does any of that have to do with the topic? You're attempting to have a completely irrelevant conversation. How about if I say "Difficulty options are always good"? Hopefully that puts an end to the confusion.

 

[MoonFrog]

The thread is about difficulty in games, is it not? What on earth does any of that have to do with the topic? You're attempting to have a completely irrelevant conversation. How about if I say "Difficulty options are always good"? Hopefully that puts an end to the confusion.

I'm not confused. The majority of my post was on topic. Then I picked up another strand of the conversation.

And yes. I think what I said does apply to difficulty options.

 

[Metal B]

For some that made it "impossible to die," for some that made it "less frustrating," and I'd tend towards the latter. I definitely would have no issues with a game like Uncharted ditching all the shitty* gunfights and just letting me jump about experiencing all the cinematic and story stuff.

In my opinion this only shows, that many people would love an adventure game without gunfights. Instead of having one game to satisfy two needs, which only weakens both experience, there should be two games, which are designed for two different target groups and make the best out of there concept.

There is a bigger problem of games tackling too many subjects to appeal to the biggest audience possible, which wants one part of a game but not another. It looks like, there is a market for an easier Dark Soul. Similar how Kirby games fill the market for easy platformers (the series sells surprisingly well).

 

[KingBroly]

Not all games are the same, so not all games should have something like that.

You could completely ruin a Souls game by putting in an Easy Mode half-hazardly. It's probably something the developers want to do, but haven't been able to do because it'd destroy the rest of the game's design for everyone else by not thinking through every angle.

If there was one game/version I'd say needs some accessibility is Overwatch on PC. Give me Aim Assist if I'm using a Controller. I'd like to use a Controller for Overwatch on PC, but I know it's at a major disadvantage.

 

[Rellik]

Not all games are the same, so not all games should have something like that.

You could completely ruin a Souls game by putting in an Easy Mode half-hazardly. It's probably something the developers want to do, but haven't been able to do because it'd destroy the rest of the game's design for everyone else by not thinking through every angle.

If there was one game/version I'd say needs some accessibility is Overwatch on PC. Give me Aim Assist if I'm using a Controller. I'd like to use a Controller for Overwatch on PC, but I know it's at a major disadvantage.

Having a mode with more health and less damage does not destroy anything. It's just an option, just like it's already an option on all Souls games on the PC.

 

[AtlAntA]

From reading a bit of GAF it seems a lot of people want to just enjoy some games without facing any difficulty. They wanna sit down after work and play a game like that.

Gaf is full of old people lol.

 

[ebullientprism]

Having a mode with more health and less damage does not destroy anything. It's just an option, just like it's already an option on all Souls games on the PC.

Well they would have to cordon it to offline only but other than that, yeah. It is absolutely an option. Increase player health. Reduce enemy damage.

You dont even have to tune any other options. WRPGs have been doing it for a while.

 

[Mista Koo]

All games? No. Although I'm ok with games having a noclip mode.

I think games with focus on narrative should have a difficulty option for people who are there just for the narrative. And games with great world design should have an option for people who just want to see that world.

I do however wonder if developers would rather have you watch the game on Youtube over watching the game as an option in the game.

 

[Sir Ilpalazzo]

Some Ghenghis Khan thinking here

Well, yes, that is what makes challenging things interesting. If you couldn't fail at them, then they wouldn't actually be challenging, would they? Anyone who enjoys being tested in games is okay with the fact that not everyone will succeed at overcoming the same trials they have, it's only natural.

The thread is about difficulty in games, is it not? What on earth does any of that have to do with the topic? You're attempting to have a completely irrelevant conversation. How about if I say "Difficulty options are always good"? Hopefully that puts an end to the confusion.

His point is that you can't really separate them. Difficulty modes allow you to modulate the game experience to your liking, potentially creating game experiences that may differ from the standard mode's. A game's level of difficulty - whether it be easy or hard - is as much a part of its design as anything else, and just as it would not necessarily be good to allow a person to change the plot of a movie they're watching at will in order to make it more comfortable for them, it wouldn't always be good to give a player the option to lower a game's difficulty for themselves.

 

[MilkBeard]

An easy difficulty is good for some games, but not others. I think it's fine to have some games be more accessible, while others are catered to a particular audience that wants a particular experience. Souls is a good example of the "particular experience" in my opinion.

 

[febLey]

The jimquisition on "Zero Difficulty" is a good video on the subject
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TanzVLIA8sQ

Came here to post this.

I don't care, but don't force those options on me. Nintendo should give me an option to disable smart steering by default. Every time when playing splitscreen the other players need to disable smart steering.

 

[mclem]

Prince of Persia 2008 was a bit like that, since you couldnt really die.

The interesting thing there, really, is that PoP2008 does act as a death, pretty much, in the way many similar games would do - it resets you to a recent checkpoint - it just doesn't represent itself as a death, and the checkpoints are pretty generous. It's very much a psychological thing, there.