Developer's/creator's choice: a gatekeeping excuse to keep easy modes out of games.
- Thread starter Swift_Gamer
- Start date
Ok. I'm reading through all your posts again. Why not?
Let's start here. Specifically you are arguing that "you can include accessibility options for these games without compromising on your vision for creating that sense of a accomplishment." I am directly responding to this argument in my post by saying: some games require a great deal of skill and effort to create a sense of accomplishment while maintaining accessibility. You are implying it can be done easily. Perhaps I'm assuming a little there though. Regardless, you're still making the assumption that it can always be done, and I don't agree. I think you're being obtuse to the actual developers who say "I'm trying but it's hard" or "I'm trying but I failed". I'm responding to your words. If you're not implying it can be done easily, at the very least, you are implying that it can always be done.
I don't agree with this point, and I don't mean to falsely represent your arguments. I am only trying to respond to the arguments that you are making.
I'm trying to say that once a piece of work leaves the developers hands, that it has its own intentions. The games' design exists outside of the developers intent for it.
I could design my game in a way that's very accessible (in my head). And it could fail miserably due to a failure of design. A creative failure but my intents were pure. That is what I am trying to convey.
Celeste basically allows you to turn on cheat mode, but you do not get level designs that accomodate the changes behaviour of the game (be it making it slower or giving her additional dashing abilities), so it is a solution, but it is very different from a traditional easy mode.
The...words you are choosing are not conveying that, but if that's what you mean, it still doesn't fully track. Any game that attempted to offer accessibility options but didn't do a very good job of it would be a reasonable try, though we could still criticize it for doing it poorly.
I can't even *think* of a game like that off of the top of my head, really. The argument here is against devs not even intending to include them, so it does indeed come back to the nonsense argument of "developer intent" trying to justify dumb/bad/gatekeeping decisions.
Can't play or can't perform well against other players? Does not performing well cut them from the content? In my experience with multiplayer games, I can suck ass and still get to play my favorite maps. In multiplayer PVE, absolutely adjustable difficulty is great and needed. Like I mentioned WoW earlier with LFG. And for PVP the game allows you to create macros, if you have problems with more complex button pressings.
For your point about bots, there's absolutely no one arguing against inclusion of bot matches. But as you can see threads like this, attract a lot of very dismissive assholes. You can see where the vitriol comes from don't you. You'd get heated arguments if someone was arguing against bot games too.
I feel you're really twisting yourself to a knot trying to compare singleplayer difficulty to a competitive PVP. And honestly I can't talk you much about accessibility through adjustable difficulty in PVP, because it's not a discussion people have really had as already stated. I'm interested to hear about this from people if it's an issue. While adjustable difficulty as an accessibility option in singleplayer is commonly discussed topic and it's been done in many different ways, so we have working examples already. Some more succesful than others.
Sure. It doesn't matter that it's not a traditional easy mode. The point is about adjustable difficulty, not just strictly about difficulty presets. There's many ways to do it, some better than others and often very dependant on the game. And you can have both, traditional easy mode and additional "cheat menu". Or even simple "skip shit" option.
Last edited:
It is. And then it's hellish when you go online and everyone is telling you to go fuck yourself for even trying.
That's the point I'm trying to respond to though. I don't think they're justifying dumb gatekeeping decisions, but rather these are the complexities of trying to make these games more accessible. They are intending to improve difficulty. Sekiro for example seems to have taken notice of difficulty criticisms because it features a lot of things that try and make the game easier and more accessible. Multiple "lives" (the ability to respawn), an adjustment to combat style, etc. Some of those changes could be argued to be for difficulty or accessibility. They definitely don't go far enough, but I have no doubt there is someone in the game design room at From Software asking themselves (and the rest of the team) "How can we make this game more accessible?" With respect to what I'm saying, the game Sekiro isn't accessible even though I think that developers did try and ask themselves how to make it more accessible. Yet the game fails to become accessible due to other aspects of its design. In this way the game has a life of its own, and inferring developer intent isn't as easy as I think some are presenting it.
Last edited:
They are not offering *options*, though, which is the key thing.
Look, let's say everyone's skill level was just a single number, 1 through 100. 100 meant you would never die in Dark Souls, 1 meant you would die to the first enemy fifty times before killing him once.
The idea that Dark Souls is meant to be "challenging, and if you keep trying hard enough, you will persevere". But here's the deal. "Very difficult but not impossible" will only be true to a narrow slice of that difficulty range, let's say, 50 through 65. If you're *higher* than 65, you're kind of breezing through, not having to "struggle" like so many people say is so important to the experience. And the people under 50 are suffering so much frustration and annoyance that they'll either never accomplish it or even if they do, have a much worse experience than the people from 50-65.
The only way to handle this is a modifiable system. Someone at skill level 25 could experience *just the same level of struggle and triumph* at a skill 60 player, if only the game would allow it. Likewise, the skill level 90 people could get that same experience too, if some extra steps were taken to spice things up.
The idea that "anyone can beat Dark Souls if they just try" is elitist and dumb. And I will never stop yelling about it.
I'm able bodied, so have the privileges' to no really think about this too much.
I agree that all media should be as accessible as possible, but I need help understanding more of what the real world challenges that some gamers are currently facing and what are the expected solution/implementations that would alleviate.
The main disability I see other gamers contend with is colour blindness, and generally find most games are pretty good accounting for it.
Taking Souls, and other big popular AAA single player games, what are the challenges we are talking about?
And what are options gamers want to see/enable that will make them feel like they are experiencing a properly adjusted difficulty experience tailored to their needs that wont invalidate the challenge/fun.?
Or can some one point me to any good articles/videos that cover this a bit more. Its something I really would like to be less ignorant about.
I agree that all media should be as accessible as possible, but I need help understanding more of what the real world challenges that some gamers are currently facing and what are the expected solution/implementations that would alleviate.
The main disability I see other gamers contend with is colour blindness, and generally find most games are pretty good accounting for it.
Taking Souls, and other big popular AAA single player games, what are the challenges we are talking about?
And what are options gamers want to see/enable that will make them feel like they are experiencing a properly adjusted difficulty experience tailored to their needs that wont invalidate the challenge/fun.?
Or can some one point me to any good articles/videos that cover this a bit more. Its something I really would like to be less ignorant about.
sigh
- Developers can include accessibility options without compromising on their vision of creating a sense of accomplishment for players.
- Accessibility options are about leveling the playing field.
- Playing games made for able bodied people is inherently more difficult for disabled players, and due to the increased difficulty that is not intended by developers, that's also going directly against their "wishes"
- I have never stated ever in this thread or elsewhere that adding accessibility options is easy.
- I am making the assumption that it can always be done because assuming you can't is based on nothing, and I've addressed multiple times that developers and publishers hit record profit goals yearly and can clearly afford it. How can an entire industry that loves to crunch its workers not have the time to create accessibility options?
- Developers that exist within this conversation have not tried and said its hard or that they failed. In fact they've said that difficulty isn't their vision, but creating a sense of accomplishment is.
Is there anything else you want me to address? At this point i've rehashed everything I've said.
And what would the use of that be? If you design your game with a progressive difficulty curve and stick to the main gameplay throughout, "skipping shit" just leads to even more frustration.
I don't understand the idea that creators shouldn't just be able to create what they want. It's great that more and more teams are trying to make their games more accessible, but if a certain level of challenge is core to the design and vision of a game and how the creator wants the audience to experience it then who am I, of anyone, to judge them for that?
This isn't a black and white issue. One can truly believe that accessibility is important while appreciating that it's also okay for a creator to want their works experienced in a very specific way. I can't even think what games/studios this applies to other than FROM/Souls/Souls-likes, anyway.
The bigger issue accessibility issues in the medium right now, impacting a much wider range of games, are much more granular than difficulty modes.
This isn't a black and white issue. One can truly believe that accessibility is important while appreciating that it's also okay for a creator to want their works experienced in a very specific way. I can't even think what games/studios this applies to other than FROM/Souls/Souls-likes, anyway.
The bigger issue accessibility issues in the medium right now, impacting a much wider range of games, are much more granular than difficulty modes.
What are you talking about? Demon Souls had a room where it showed you other players and how many times they died completing the game. You still die later in the game even with better stats and gear. I think you're making up things like "surface level aspect of the games, the challenge was never limited to how much you die". The game is designed to basically kill you and everything is geared towards letting you know that. I cannot take your position seriously if you're going to argue that these games aren't meant to kill you over and over so you learn.
Like, it's a game marketed, designed, and even lore-based to where you die repeatedly. You cannot go, "well, an easier mode won't really change the game" when making things easier will impact how many times you die and the overall experience because dying a lot is part of it and that's what the creators want to achieve. You cannot make an easier difficulty without making players die less or why even have an easier difficulty if they die roughly the same amount of times.
This is where Dark Souls isn't really a good target for wanting an easier difficulty because the game is made so the player will face challenges that will kill them repeatedly until they overcome it. An easier difficulty means less death, and that means you don't actually experience what the game is. A lot of death is part of the experience for the general audience, so if an easier mode is implemented where you die way less then what is really the point of Dark Souls?
Do they? Some, yes, others don't. I can tell you that our profits are far (far far far) from even covering minimum wage for the people involved and I know a lot of other indie devs for whom this holds true, too. Please do not make such generalising statements.
For one of our games, difficulty was part of the vision. We aimed to make a challenging 3d platformer that is about as difficult to complete (any %) as Super Mario Sunshine is to 100% and gets really tough if you go for 100%. It is probably not the most important of our design goals, but the higher than usual difficulty level was one of the explicit design goals (the game does have an optional easy mode, but the game still wouldn't be a good choice for players with severly limited motor skills and I wouldn't see any way to adapt the design to make it accessible for players with very limited motor skills without redoing the whole game).
You're right that the only way to handle is a type of skill level, but what the hell does a skill 60 Sekiro player even mean? Like I can't measure that and neither can the developers. I can't put in numbers in certain games like that besides making really broad adjustments like "All enemy health reduced 10%", which many players find distasteful. It's still probably the best solution in this case though.
I'm not saying that anyone can beat Dark Souls if they try. I'm saying that Dark Souls not having an easy mode isn't gatekeeping. It's the developers making a piece of art and that art is not perfectly accessible. We can still criticize it to be more accessible, and it's definitely a creative failure on their part. But I do disagree with the inherent premise of the thread that it's gatekeeping. Especially since the game acts in own interests. Even if I dogmatically support further accessibility options in games, I still feel that some (with an extreme amount of emphasis on some) art cannot be accessible. We don't say that artists are gatekeeping because blind people can't see their paintings.
Presumably matching up players using the assist mode against each other?
Not enough people in the world who can see some level of nuance in a situation.
Because there is absolutely no way for a blind person to see paintings. There IS a way for a blind person to read a book, and if an author was like "we feel that the importance of seeing the words on paper is a core part of the essential experience, therefore we will not release a braille version", they'd be a huge dick.
There *is* a way for a Level 25 player to experience the same general feeling as a Level 60 player. And yes, obviously this is reductive and maybe a 10% HP decrease is not the BEST way to handle it, but it's at least an ATTEMPT, and unlike a painting, the player can simply toggle this option on or off. If you don't like the 10% HP decrease, DON'T USE IT.
Celeste has accessibility options. There isn't a person alive who thinks the core message of that game, which is literally about overcoming incredible difficulty to climb the mountain, is in any way diminished. No one. Anywhere. Period.
- EA
- Ubisoft
- Nintendo
- Microsoft
- From Software
- Sony
- Activision
- Blizzard
And the singular studios beneath them all have the means to include accessibility options. Why am I not allowed to make a generalized statement about developers and publishers being able to afford this stuff? I don't need to qualify the statement with a caveat that ensures that I also say "there are some devs who don't have the ability" because I'm not busting any indie developers balls over accessibility. And tbh, indie games actually seem to have a greater focus on accessibility than triple A titles.
C'mon.
This is why I see things like The Game Awards introducing their accessibility award as a really good thing (and I hope it isn't just one of the ones they throw out on the bottom of the screen after the ad break though I totally expect it will be). It's a tangible reward, encouragement and acknowledgement that this is something worth something. It's all baby steps but, steps are still steps
https://caniplaythat.com/ is a fantastic site that does reviews of games, discusses games, and details options that help make games more accessible across the spectrum of disability, not just audio/visual disabilities but motor and cognitive disabilities too, which are often the ones that get neglected in the gaming space
On this site, I have a thread talking about how difficulty options are helpful as a blunt tool for accessibility, and there are other disabled voices chiming in and sharing their experiences
Easy/Assist mode is a blessing as a current accessibility option. Let's encourage the adoption of more.
And not just for the visual/hearing disabilities. Historically, easy/assist modes, cheat codes and nodding games to be easier on the PC side have been used by disabled gamers to brute force accessibility. Especially for those that have motor/motor processing/mobility issues, these options have...
www.resetera.com
Hopefully this helps as a bit of a jumping off point!
To skip the shit you're not interested in, like Spiderman puzzles, to get to the good shit like slinging web through the city. I hope one quick example is enough.
This is pretty great site for more information http://gameaccessibilityguidelines.com/
And here's a suggestion for possible specific Sekiro tweaks from a Celeste developer.
🤷♀️ That's honestly my thought process and to me it's always been clear that Souls was designed primarily as being always online. I hope you can see from my other posts in the thread that I'm sincere about this.
Sure, I was more trying to push the discussion in a direction about what's "good enough" as far as options go since the standards seem to vary pretty wildly. To make an analogy to real life, the ADA mandates "reasonable" accommodations for people with disabilities, but the precise definition of "reasonable" is up for debate. Literally, in the courts.
Pretty confident there huh sport? Viciously countering my points?
I am responding first and foremost to your first bullet point, and I'm not trying to misrepresent you. You say that they can include accessibilty options without compromise. I disagree. My assumption that you cannot is not based on nothing, which is your fifth point. It is based on several examples. How do you improve accessibilty for a game like Ittle Dew? How about BOTW? Should you remove item durability? How about Baba is You? The point is that these games are good for showing that design and difficulty and accessibility are inexorably tied, and so my assumption that developers cannot always maintain a sense of accomplishment is not based upon nothing. There is difficulty and skill involved in maintaining that sense of accomplishment regardless of skill level. It is based upon thinking about several games, and not knowing a way to make it easier while maintaining a sense of accomplishment. This is a game design problem. And an open problem at that. I would consider this a research problem even. That's not saying it's impossible. But it's hard and it's not gatekeeping, and I'll be damned happy when someone comes up with a good idea that I can praise the shit out of.
Further you continue to argue the following: "I've addressed multiple times that developers and publishers hit record profit goals yearly and can clearly afford it. How can an entire industry that loves to crunch its workers not have the time to create accessibility options?"
This is not every developer. And this is just very short-sighted. You have several develoeprs in this thread trying to calmly explain why this doesn't match their experience, and you're ignoring them.
I'm just convinced that most gamers don't want accessibility/QoL features added in so they can have "legitimate" reasons to brag about how they beat a hard game.
You are allowed to dismiss indie developers, but it is not very nice to do so in a grandsweeping way. In times where many small developers struggle with visibility and price dumping through sales in a highly competitive market, reading a broad statement like " developers (...) hit record profit goals yearly" feels pretty dismissive and especially with indie developers that try to make a living out of it (I do not, so I am not personally affected in that way) such a statement will read as mockery.
Yeah that's a really stellar suggestion. I like it a lot. Good ideas in there.
Yeah like tbh as a developer when I read that I "hit record profit goals yearly and so it shouldn't be a problem" it's hard not to get really upset. Like I want to put myself in the shoes of the people who are upset by this because clearly it matters a lot, and it's clearly ,very, upsetting. But in a massive corporate company there are genuinely whole teams of people devoted to accessibility, like dozens of people, and they are trying very hard to do this stuff right.
Oh I'm sure you're sincere, absolutely not suspecting you of any intellectual dishonesty or something. And I appreciate that you're here to discuss rather than to dismiss. And yeah I think I finally understand what you were trying to get at. I just hadn't really considered Souls as a multiplayer game first and foremost. As the PVP isn't even necessary at all for the "overcoming overwhelming odds" aspect. But it surely is designed as an always online game, but once again we don't usually see "developers vision" as a proper defense for always online requirements in games (or consoles). I personally feel that invasions should be optional, which they are if you just play offline. There are already means to bypass that on any platform, but on consoles you can't mod your game or use cheat engine like you can with PC. On other online MP games, playing offline with bots should be an option too when possible. And would your stance on adjustable difficulty to be different with Sekiro then? As it's without similar online component.
Last edited:
Baba is You is a *somewhat* good example, because unlike most other games, offering an easier version of Baba is You is brutally expensive; puzzles cannot be easily altered without their core ideas being broken, so many dozens or even hundreds of new puzzles would need to be made to truly make an "easy" mode. It's definitely not comparable to something like Celeste or Dark Souls, which would only involve some high level coding changes regarding damage, HP, stats, and death.
However, Baba is You *could* theoretically offer a hint mode. There is actually a great site that does this for players, if they want, and worst case, they can just look up a solution on YouTube...a solution that does not exist for hard combat games.
I hate how people like to construe "Accessibility" and "Difficulty" options as being the same thing.
They're not.
There's no reason and no justification for not including accessibility options in a game.
There are reasons devs may not want to futz with actual game balance and difficulty.
They're not.
There's no reason and no justification for not including accessibility options in a game.
There are reasons devs may not want to futz with actual game balance and difficulty.
In fact, I think that the ideas for Sekiro would feel much less like cheating and more like an actual easy mode than Celeste's
You're focusing on a broad word of "developers" and just attatching it to indie devs. I just said I'm not talking about them.
Interesting, I focused on your points, and you want to start off with ad hominem.
Given that, I don't care to respond to the wall of text you wrote, I know there's nothing of value to gain by interacting with someone who argues in bad faith.
I don't think "Getting Over It with Bennett Foddy" should have an easy mode, and I'll never be able to get 10% through the game, let alone beat it. My opinion on this is in no way tied to my ego.
But, options that affect difficulty are accessibility options for people with motor/motor processing/cognitive disability.
Listen, you've done nothing but talk down and incredibly condescending to me while I've been trying to respond to you. All I did was say you seemed pretty confident. Don't even think that hits ad hominem level in my view. And furthermore you didn't respond to my points or my words.
I don't have a wall of text. My points are right there and I'm trying to respond to the words that you're responding to me with. If I met you doubt we'd actually disagree that much, and as a developer I'd be happy to further listen to your concerns and suggestions for accessibility options. But like, when you say things like "Wow such a wall of text" or "AD HOMINEM", or "All developers are making record profits" am I really the one acting in bad faith?
Last edited:
People without disabilities using accessibility options to lower the difficulty of a game is a choice they can make. But that does not mean those options are intended to be used to lower the difficulty of the game. I don't need to shunt a feature meant to account for someone's disability relating to their motor processing or cognitive disability behind an easy mode. I can make that an entirely separate feature.
here's a visualization:
People with disabilities are inherently going to have a more difficult and inaccessible experience with games that don't include accessibility options.
Was it the creators vision to essentially make the game harder and out of reach for entire group of people? No. In the case of Sekiro, they wanted the playing field to be equal.
What able bodied people in this thread and elsewhere FAIL to recognize is that accessibility options literally takes the inaccessible game and makes it accessible, and levels the playing field with able bodied people.
Able bodied people continuously forget in these discussions where they so passionately gatekeep the creators vision that they don't realize that its a fallacy.
Dark Souls, Sekiro, etc are created to be difficult so that players feel a sense of pride and accomplishment, right? They lack difficulty options so that everyone is on the same playing field, right?
How am I supposed to feel a sense of pride and accomplishment, and be on the same playing field with able bodied people if options don't exist for that to occur?
Shouldn't the people who so passionately gatekeep the creators vision be fighting with me for these options?
"But won't people who aren't disabled use the accessibility options to make the game easier for them, thus violating the creators vision?"
Won't we think of the able bodied people :(?
It doesn't make it less difficult than the devs intended, it makes the playing field level.
I exaggerated because you've upset me. Congratulations, you got me good. I'll edit my post accordingly.
Yes, just as you've exaggerated what my points were, and then exaggerated that I insulted you after I correctly called you out for ad hominem.
We're done here.
I don't think saying "Listen, you've done nothing but call me names" when they haven't called you any names is an "exaggeration" exactly lol
Maybe take a breather and come back.
This is a bad faith argument because it creates a strawman position that many who oppose adding difficulty modes to games don't support.
I do not mod games. I do not disable any visual effects such as film grain. I definitely don't get bothered by games being too easy. I may state that's why I don't personally enjoy a game, but I don't complain that the developer isn't trying to appease me.
I do not mod games. I do not disable any visual effects such as film grain. I definitely don't get bothered by games being too easy. I may state that's why I don't personally enjoy a game, but I don't complain that the developer isn't trying to appease me.
If you don't want adjustable difficulty into games (or in few specific games), that's one thing. But saying adjustable difficulty isn't directly tied to accessibility is just plain bullshit and it can't be reasoned. You have accessibility experts/consultants and people with disabilities saying that adjustable difficulty is an accessibility option, with reasoned arguments. Going "Nah I personally don't think so" doesn't invalidate that. Just like anti-maskers can't reason how wearing masks wouldn't be saving lives. No matter how much they insist. Some things just are true and not up for debate, because it's not a matter of opinion.
Yeah but you're still being condescending and you're still talking down to me even though I'm trying to calmly respond to your points. It's clear you're just mad and want to vent at me. If we want to throw out logical fallacies, there's one for using a logical fallacy to escape argument and just attack people who you disagree with.
I don't think I"m the one who needs to take a breather. I said they're calling me names and talking down to me. I exaggerated cause it's hard not to get upset when people act in such ludicrously bad faith. That seems like an exaggeration to me.
I think the general sentiment there is that difficulty settings are not substitutes for accessibility. Yes, they may be used that way now, but there should be better tools for that.
It's like saying a knife is not a screwdriver. Yeah, I can use a knife to kinda tighten a screw, but it's not the best tool for the job. Difficulty is a blunt object; accessibility should be a scalpel.
And believe me, it's greatly appreciated to have them separately, that way it can be customised to exactly what your needs are. But, I also recognise doing that is expensive, and dev intensive. To quote myself
I have a physical and motor processing disabililty, and I used to be, well, more able bodied than I am now. That's why I know that the options that specifically help me do affect difficulty for an able bodied person. But, I'm just looking to make a game playable to the same level as challenge an able-bodied person would have
Indeed! Quoting myself again :D
Saying someone is "doing nothing but calling you names" when they haven't called you names is a flat out lie, not an exaggeration.
Ah, okay. We align on this topic, I think our approach to how we interpret the definitions is a little different. Absolutely well said in that quote.
"Doing nothing but calling me names and talking down to me" is not a flat out lie. Like really, come on. They are talking down to me. That's happening. I exaggerated because it sure as hell felt like they were calling me names.
Just wanna say again (if I hadn't already) that this is a really good point and way to look at it.
And hey, totally agree! Easy modes are a blunt force tool that doesn't address the more granular details that may be causing us issues, and that's why TLOU2's suite of options are absolutely amazing, and I'd love to see that kind of spread become the gold standard industry wide. But, I also entirely recognise that sometimes, it's cheaper and easier to develop a blunt force tool, than it is to provide a specialised toolbox, and that's why, at this point in time, that blunt force tool is still important as an option