Support NeoGAF

[toythatkills]

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.

I don't really think this opinion would stand up to any kind of analysis. If Uncharted 2 gave me a "skip" option every time there was a hide-behind-cover-waves-of-enemies section that just advanced the game as if I'd done it, how would that weaken the experience of Uncharted 2 for you? You'd be playing the same game you ever were.

I'm sure there are games where it wouldn't work, like if the shooting is more organic, but where it's almostly entirely scripted there's no reason why a "no gunfights" option for some would change the experience for others.

 

[royox]

Because a challenge don't equal fun to some?

Shocking I know

Well, those "some" have like thousands of other games to play. I suck at racing games and you won't find me on a Forza/GT thread saying "the game is so hard, add X so it's easyer for people like me" but somehow dumbing down SoulsBorne games is a thing today.

The core of Souls games is being not casual friendly. "But it's frustrating!!" Then play OTHER games suited for you!!!

 

[ShaoranWright]

Yes, the more people can enjoy the games, the better.

 

[StuffRuff]

Unpopular opininon here but I would love this for some games I've been meaning to go through such as Last of Us.

I'm really not a fan of stealth games and I know there is a gem of a story underneath the rinse and repeat lob a brick at a clicker game play but I just can't bring myself to get through it.

 

[Aaltopahvi]

For me there already is. It is called Cheat Engine.
Some times when i really can't be bothered to actually play, grind, learn skills etc i just use it to ease the progress.
Also you can use it for a ultimate power fantasy.

But yeah. I'm all in for easy/baby/tourist modes for games.

 

[PillarEN]

Unpopular opininon here but I would love this for some games I've been meaning to go through such as Last of Us.

I'm really not a fan of stealth games and I know there is a gem of a story underneath the rinse and repeat lob a brick at a clicker game play but I just can't bring myself to get through it.

Go for it. I'm 99% sure there is an easy mode in that game right from the start.

 

[CyanideFuse]

As long as it doesn't take time away from development to any significant nature. Clever scaling of AI would be great for both ends of the difficulty scale but that isn't ever going to happen as good / great AI isn't going to sell a game.

So if it means just making it next-to-impossible to die and tissue paper enemies then there isn't a reason not to include this.

Games with a tonne of balancing would probably be more difficult to do (?) unless the same sweep of highs and low numbers are undertaken I assume.

 

[ozz ex machina]

Unpopular opininon here but I would love this for some games I've been meaning to go through such as Last of Us.

I'm really not a fan of stealth games and I know there is a gem of a story underneath the rinse and repeat lob a brick at a clicker game play but I just can't bring myself to get through it.

As someone who hates the uncharted gameplay. I really did enjoy the mechanics in TLOU. The pacing is unique and the atmosphere is amazing.

I'm not saying you will like it, but I am saying you should give it a go if you haven't tried it before.

 

[xevis]

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.

So you're OK with the idea that others must fail in order for your own successes to have meaning? Fucking hell man. We're talking about interactive leisure activities not world domination or even competitive sport. It's this kind of thinking that gave rise to the toxic cesspit that is today's core gamer culture.

 

[Elephant]

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.

I'm not sure about that analogy, because you wouldn't be changing the plot of the movie, you'd be changing the viewers ability to watch it entirely. (Making it accessible). We're not talking about changing the plots of games here.

What you're essentially saying is that there should be no variation of difficulty, games can only be played on normal. There should be no changing of control, video, sound and graphical settings, because that's not how it was designed and how it's intended to be played.

But now the company has got to try and sell this to the public. But they've just fucked off a lot of demographics from ever playing their game. Game loses money or is nowhere near it's potential had it just included those options. Options that don't affect anything about the game other than the accessibility.

 

[Maxey]

I want a difficulty mode in games where I don't even have to touch the controller to win.

Launching the game is winning at the game.

 

[YoRHa No.2 Type B]

This thread needs to be destroyed and it's very existence be erased from all memories.

 

[Tunahead]

That's a hell of a question, OP. Not some games. Totally easy option for all games. Wow. There's a lot to unpack there.

I'll start with the answer that is correct: No. That would be stupid.

For starters, where would this totally easy option come from? Are we talking realistically, and all games should just have even longer development cycles where everyone from monolithic mega-developers to the indiest of indies implemented new systems, or is this like a "yes I think we should develop wings because being able to just fly whenever would be cool" situation?

What about games that are just harder versions of other games? What about Tetris The Grand Master 3: Terror Instinct? What can you possibly accomplish by just turning it into a different easier Tetris game, many of which already exist? This does not strike me as a good use of limited resources.

What about puzzle games? There's no guarantee that any person can solve any puzzle. Should we just remove the entire genre from existence, or perhaps have a mode where an assistant just tells you which pieces to move where? This feels very self-defeating.

What about old games? There's no way to do this for all past games. Should people just look back on every game in the past and go "well those were all shit because I can't automatically win"?

And what about competitive multiplayer? Is everyone the winner? How would you even implement this? Just have all the "human" opponents controlled by friendly pacifist AI? What about fighting games? Would those now be online only? No matchmaking? And if everyone is the winner, is anyone the winner? Would you just lie to people and hide that the other people "won" too? Just drive people apart and box them in and stop all communication for the sake of people wanting to always be successful at everything? You don't need those other people. You just need to love your government, which is always double plusgood correct.

And speaking of fascism, what about games like Papers, Please? The purpose of that game is to show you the banality of evil by having you participate in the dehumanizing bureaucracy of a fascist regime. How would you make this "easy"? Let the player transform into Captain America and smash the state until people are free? Is this the kind of easy option everyone should have in every game? I am frankly disgusted by all of you, especially those who agree with me. How dare you have agreeable opinions when I'm just working my way up to a good loathing.

Mind you, it's nice to get through Uncharted 4 easily so I can see what happens next, because Uncharted 4: The Motion Picture and Uncharted 4: The Video Game are two different experiences with very little in common and I like the former and just find the latter tedious. Crucially, however, Uncharted 4 is not all video games. It's one video game. We all have some video games that we wish would be easier. That just means some video games should be easier, which is a very different conversation.

 

[Asmodai48]

You can prob enable Godmode for most SP games on PC

 

[Sir Ilpalazzo]

So you're OK with the idea that others must fail in order for your own successes to have meaning? Fucking hell man. We're talking about interactive leisure activities not world domination or even competitive sport. It's this kind of thinking that gave rise to the toxic cesspit that is today's core gamer culture.

Yes, obviously. Flip this around - a challenge that no one can fail at is not an interesting one. In an action game, there's no real emotional texture in beating a level or boss fight that can't be failed, therefore the possibility of failure must exist to create tension and reward, therefore someone must end up failing, since every challenge is bound to trip someone up. It's unavoidable.

I'm not sure about that analogy, because you wouldn't be changing the plot of the movie, you'd be changing the viewers ability to watch it entirely. (Making it accessible). We're not talking about changing the plots of games here.

What you're essentially saying is that there should be no variation of difficulty, games can only be played on normal. There should be no changing of control, video, sound and graphical settings, because that's not how it was designed and how it's intended to be played.

But now the company has got to try and sell this to the public. But they've just fucked off a lot of demographics from ever playing their game. Game loses money or is nowhere near it's potential had it just included those options. Options that don't affect anything about the game other than the accessibility.

What I'm saying is that the difficulty of a game is often as essential to it as the game's plot, therefore changing a game's difficulty to make it to your liking is as major of a change as changing a movie's plot for the same purpose. This isn't to say there aren't certain options given to the end user that aren't positive ones (just look at all the games with great hard modes and the occasional game with a great easy mode) but it isn't the case that the player should always be able to modify the experience in any way they want 100% of the time. (It also isn't really accurate to compare difficulty selection to settings tweaks or controller layout changes in the majority of cases - to make another movie comparison, working an easy mode into Dark Souls or whatever is more like removing a particular violent scene in a movie because it distresses you than it is like turning up or down the brightness on your TV.)

 

[Eumi]

Of course not. Why would you even think that every single game needs to have the same mode?

 

[Pegasus Actual]

So you're OK with the idea that others must fail in order for your own successes to have meaning? Fucking hell man. We're talking about interactive leisure activities not world domination or even competitive sport. It's this kind of thinking that gave rise to the toxic cesspit that is today's core gamer culture.

I'll take the cesspit over flowers and kittens kumbaya any day. And competitiveness has always been a core element of gaming. Winning and losing is part of what makes a game a game, even down to "I beat that game and you didn't"!

If people want interactive story time that's fine. If people want to make interactive story time for them, good for them! But if you're telling me that I and other core gamer scumbags should cheer on game developers as they focus resources on stuff like that instead of features that we actually want, I think you're crazy.

 

[Kill3r7]

Sure. I won't hurt my enjoyment of the game any. Obviously not possible for a MMO or competitive MP but folks should be able to play and enjoy games anyway they see fit.

 

[Kudo]

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
No.

 

[orava]

Watching other people playing games is exactly this.

 

[Pegasus Actual]

Watching other people playing games is exactly this.

Actually watching someone playing games is more engaging because you can watch them fail.

 

[Spukc]

Ofcourse more players more money

 

[Maxey]

So you're OK with the idea that others must fail in order for your own successes to have meaning? Fucking hell man. We're talking about interactive leisure activities not world domination or even competitive sport. It's this kind of thinking that gave rise to the toxic cesspit that is today's core gamer culture.

You need to understand that some people here aren't so much against putting easy modes in games as they are questioning how or why some games even need or should have it.

I don't care if they put it in or not, but I can still bring up the discussion of why or how, can´t I?

Effectively the OP puts forth the question if *ALL* games should have a very easy mode, to which there are three clear answers to: "Yes", "No" and "Depends on the game".

You're very firmly on the "Yes" camp, and very defensive about it too.

I fall firmly on the latter answer but that doesn't mean I would be offended if every game ended up having one but I'd still want to discuss their inclusion.

 

[whalleywhat]

Yes, the more people can enjoy the games, the better.

-Stockholder, 2017

 

[excelsiorlef]

I bought a copy of War and Peace but the characters all talk like old fashioned people and use big complicated words that I can't understand.

Should publishers release editions of books with the option to have the book be readable by someone at a third grade level?

Should there be a grade 3 reading level for all books?

Would you complain about Finnegan's Wake being too hard to understand when all you really want is an easy beach read at the moment? No. You'd read a book that isn't Finnegan's Wake.

Should Ulysses be written in "normal" straightforward manner because people could find it confusing? How a game is played can be the very heart of the game just as much how a novel is written is the heart of that medium.

The idea that its somehow wrong for a piece of work to aim at a committed audience wiling to put the work in need to understand and engage with it hurts my damn soul.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wishbone_books

 

[RurouniZel]

If the game is mostly about exploring a large virtual world rather than it's combat system or challenge, then sure, why not? It's not quite the same as just watching someone else play the game because while they're watching the video they may see something they want to explore but the person their watching never goes to see what it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wishbone_books

See also: Cliffs Notes

 

[Gravy Boat]

I'm totally fine with there being some games that people just aren't suited to. Like I enjoy the idea of fighting games, and will occasionally play them casually at friends. I bought both MKX ant SFV on release with the intention of getting good at them to play online, but no matter how much I practice I get creamed every time, and I'm fine with that. Fighting games just aren't for me. I wouldn't argue that they need to be made easier or more accessible though.

 

[Lionel Richie]

So you're OK with the idea that others must fail in order for your own successes to have meaning? Fucking hell man. We're talking about interactive leisure activities not world domination or even competitive sport. It's this kind of thinking that gave rise to the toxic cesspit that is today's core gamer culture.

Others won't fail if they put some effort into it, simple as that. You're not talking about an insurmountable barrier or something that is physically impossible to some, like dunking a basketball. I can't grow taller, but I can get better at a game and there's pretty much no game that can't be beat if the person playing it really tries to do so.

Some of you are acting like a game being hard will cause your eyes to fall off and your asshole to explode. It's okay if you fail a few times, but with some perseverance you absolutely will be able to eventually beat the challenge and this feeling of accomplishment is why I love videogames so much. Take that away and you have a story and let's be honest here if you want a story you'd be better served watching a movie or reading a book.

 

[Liquidsnakeiv]

I think yes it's okay to have a mode that allows players to enjoy the story and not worry too much about the difficulty. I find as I get older and my time to game is so much less that I play more on the easier difficulties.

 

[Alienfan]

The notion that this would take a lot of resources to implement is ridiculous, most games have difficulty modes, this is just lowering the sliders even more for people that want it (whether that be because of a disability or just because they're finding the game frustrating), who the heck cares if they're not getting the "full hard core gamer mountain dew" experience, you don't personally have to use the option!

 

[Tunahead]

I bought a copy of War and Peace but the characters all talk like old fashioned people and use big complicated words that I can't understand.

Should publishers release editions of books with the option to have the book be readable by someone at a third grade level?

This doesn't actually work at all as a parallel to the premise of this thread, though.

The point of an "easier" War and Peace would be to introduce the characters and themes and story in an easy to understand way to a younger audience, because those things are what make the novel good.

Some games have no other purpose besides being difficult, like Tetris The Grand Master 3: TERROR INSTINCT. If you remove the difficulty, you're already taking away everything that makes the game interesting and unique. No one's going to watch Tetris for the story or because they're that interested by the colors, sizes and shapes of various tetromina.

 

[Gravy Boat]

The notion that this would take a lot of resources to implement is ridiculous, most games have difficulty modes, this is just lowering the sliders even more for people that want it (whether that be because of a disability or just because they're finding the game frustrating) you don't personally have to use it!

How would that work for a Souls game though, with the online component that includes PvP and co-op? You'd probably need to segregate the player base, because your suggestion just would not work in that situation. And when you segregate the playerbase, you reduce the lifespan of the online community. It's not as if these people who want an easy more are going to 'graduate' and go on to play it on a higher difficulty, most would play it once then be done with it. Mainly because the Souls series would be boring as hell if it weren't for the challenge it offers.

I'm sure there is a solution here but you're over simplifying it quite a lot. It's not as easy as flipping a few switches and saying 'Don't play it on that mode if you don't like easy mode' for a lot of games.

 

[Rumblebones]

Fuck. No.

Watch Let's Plays if you can't be bothered to play the game.

 

[Tunahead]

The notion that this would take a lot of resources to implement is ridiculous, most games have difficulty modes, this is just lowering the sliders even more for people that want it (whether that be because of a disability or just because they're finding the game frustrating) you don't personally have to use it!

What numbers would you lower to make a puzzle game easier?

 

[Metal B]

I don't really think this opinion would stand up to any kind of analysis. If Uncharted 2 gave me a "skip" option every time there was a hide-behind-cover-waves-of-enemies section that just advanced the game as if I'd done it, how would that weaken the experience of Uncharted 2 for you? You'd be playing the same game you ever were.

I'm sure there are games where it wouldn't work, like if the shooting is more organic, but where it's almostly entirely scripted there's no reason why a "no gunfights" option for some would change the experience for others.

The point isn't, that my experience get worse, which is the the strawman argument many throw around here. The problem is, that YOU don't experience the game, like it is meant to be, which includes struggling, failing and overcoming it finally. Negative emotions are still emotions and games can give us experience, which are unique to the medium. So it's undermines the vision of the artist, if you can skip those negative emotions. It's pissing on there work for cheap drills.

Games are also not just a collection of cut-scenes, backgrounds and stories, Gameplay is as or even more important (depending on the genre). By skipping the gameplay you skip the game. Therefore an "easy-mode" is for some games harder to include, while keeping the original vision in tact.

 

[RurouniZel]

Others won't fail if they put some effort into it, simple as that.

This is provably untrue. Have you ever seen someone who tries and tries to learn how to draw or paint but lo and behold, they simply don't have the talent? I have seen people who have no talent at the guitar try desperately to learn it because they're like "chicks LOVE men who can play guitar" but even after a couple of years it was just beyond them to play anything beyond the most basic of chords.

Yes, most people can learn the most basic of basics if they try hard enough. People can learn a few words from another language, draw an apple, do basic math, play a sport at a basic level etc. etc. but that does not mean that absolutely everyone can learn how to do any of those things with any real skill or mastery. I've been playing games for 30 years and shooters are still just beyond my skill set. I've tried all sorts of 1st person shooters going all the way back to the original Doom and I'm still terrible at them. Sure, I can control them and move the character around, but I just don't have the aptitude to play the game with any skill. Not enough to win, anyway. I fair a little better with 3rd person shooters but only marginally.

So yeah, no. Take the high horse argument out of here, because it's not actually true.

 

[Widge]

For appropriate titles, I'd love to see more options for 5yr old and under. On mk7, my lad just reverses into walls and gets pissed off.

 

[Filter]

If you are not actually engaged in the gameplay of the game, then where is the game?
It's more like passively watching a movie at that point.

I play and appreciate games for the 'game' part of them.

This is like the thread where someone proposed that all old games should have an automatic rewind whenever you make a mistake. Let's put automatic rewind on ALL games. Then we can sit there drooling as we mindlessly trudge our way through games until we inevitably reach the end and can tick the box that says we've completed it. Devoid of any real investment in it. No need to learn the game, no need to improve the way we interact with it.

Completing a game seems to have taken over as the most important goal that many people have for games. In many cases games have become a series of beautiful cut scenes, interspersed with gameplay sections that just seem to frustrate many people. It's like the gameplay is the annoying bit that you have to get through, so that you can continue to the end.
Imo that's pretty much the antithesis of a game.

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

I'd rather have developers work towards engaging the player, not creating modes that set them aside.

 

[Steve.1981]

While I'm hesitant to side with the elitist types who's very manhood seems to be at stake whenever this question comes up, I do genuinely believe that developers should be free to create the experience they want with their game. To express themselves artistically, however they want to. So no, I don't think every game should have to include an easy/tourist mode.

I'm not against easy difficulty settings. I don't think there's anything wrong with playing games on easy. But some of the very best games I've ever played, like The Witness for example, were specifically designed to be the way they are, with a set difficulty.

Edit: The whole argument about, "Just watch a Let's Play instead" is an absolute nonsense and I can't be the only one who is fed-up to see it mindlessly regurgitated over and over again in these threads.

 

[toythatkills]

The point isn't, that my experience get worse, which is the the strawman argument many throw around here. The problem is, that YOU don't experience the game, like it is meant to be, which includes struggling, failing and overcoming it finally. Negative emotions are still emotions and games can give us experience, which are unique to the medium. So it's undermines the vision of the artist, if you can skip those negative emotions. It's pissing on there work for cheap drills.

So why does Uncharted have difficulty modes at all? It should just ship with Crushing so everyone experiences the joy of failure?

Anything else would undermine the vision of the artist, right?

Like I say, your opinion doesn't stand up to analysis. I'm sure there's something there, but you need to give some thought to your words before just spitting them out. Think about what you're saying and what the next logical step is because otherwise your argument just breaks down.

 

[Alienfan]

What numbers would you lower to make a puzzle game easier?

I guess I was more thinking of this in the context of combat (often the games that people new to video games struggle to pick up)

 

[Basketball]

Go watch a twitch stream or a lets play

if playing a video game is too hard ...

devs definitely do not need to lower standards.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I agree no developer should ever have to feel the need change their art... That's why Mass Effect 3's ending should never have been changed...

 

[Steve.1981]

I agree no developer should ever have to feel the need change their art... That's why Mass Effect 3's ending should never have been changed...

What does this have to do with a discussion about difficulty settings?

 

[Alienfan]

How would that work for a Souls game though, with the online component that includes PvP and co-op? You'd probably need to segregate the player base, because your suggestion just would not work in that situation. And when you segregate the playerbase, you reduce the lifespan of the online community. It's not as if these people who want an easy more are going to 'graduate' and go on to play it on a higher difficulty, most would play it once then be done with it.

I'm sure there is a solution here but you're over simplifying it quite a lot. It's not as easy as flipping a few switches and saying 'Don't play it on that mode if you don't like easy mode' for a lot of games.

Very good point, although Dark Souls is pretty unique, few games merge the single player + multiplayer together like that, so it is an odd case. Also I think the game's online lifespan has little to do with casual players stumbling upon a copy months after release, and more to do with the souls community continuously playing the game for unlocks / new game + etc. I can imagine the person playing on " accessibility mode " is unlikely to have gotten past for first level or so had they been playing on hard, and thus wouldn't have contributed to the online life span. But still, you might be right in that it would segregate the community too much, so I'm not sure what the solution there would be.

 

[Easy_D]

I'll say yes because why not and because it'd piss people off for no reason, which is funny as hell.

 

[PillarEN]

I agree no developer should ever have to feel the need change their art... That's why Mass Effect 3's ending should never have been changed...

I agree.
It didn't have to be changed.

 

[Gravy Boat]

Very good point, although Dark Souls is pretty unique, few games merge the single player + multiplayer together like that, so it is an odd case. Also I think the game's online lifespan has little to do with casual players stumbling upon a copy months after release, and more to do with the souls community continuously playing the game for unlocks / new game + etc. I can imagine the person playing on " accessibility mode " is unlikely to have gotten past for first level or so had they been playing on hard, and thus wouldn't have contributed to the online life span. But still, you might be right in that it would segregate the community too much, so I'm not sure what the solution there would be.

It's not even unique to Souls games, take something like the Witness. How do you lower the difficulty on that game? Or Tetris? Some games just don't work with difficulty levels. They're designed to be played a very specific way and that's fine if people are just willing to admit that not every game is designed with them in mind. I don't expect to be able to understand or enjoy every movie/book/TV show that comes out so it seems silly to expect the same from games.

 

[Alienfan]

If you are not actually engaged in the gameplay of the game, then where is the game?
It's more like passively watching a movie at that point.

I play and appreciate games for the 'game' part of them.

This is like the thread where someone proposed that all old games should have an automatic rewind whenever you make a mistake. Let's put automatic rewind on ALL games. Then we can sit there drooling as we mindlessly trudge our way through games until we inevitably reach the end and can tick the box that says we've completed it. Devoid of any real investment in it. No need to learn the game, no need to improve the way we interact with it.

Completing a game seems to have taken over as the most important goal that many people have for games. In many cases games have become a series of beautiful cut scenes, interspersed with gameplay sections that just seem to frustrate many people. It's like the gameplay is the annoying bit that you have to get through, so that you can continue to the end.
Imo that's pretty much the antithesis of a game.

Games can mean and be many different things. Some occupy the space of "interactive film", others focus purely on gameplay mechanics . That's kind of the beauty of games now vs back then, they're so much more diverse today, offering something for everyone. Adding these accessibility features as options (where ever possible) lowers that bar to entry a little more, while not removing the quintessential elements that others might be looking for in a video game.