One of the values of Celeste is difficulty as well.
It's a game about a character literally climbing a tall mountain.
The metaphor isn't even that hard to parse.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Digital Trends - Forget easy mode. Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice needs an equal mode (article by Steve Spohn from AbleGamers)
- Thread starter Deleted member 51789
- Start date
It's a game about a character literally climbing a tall mountain.
The metaphor isn't even that hard to parse.
Really? I think part of Celeste's narrative is losing over and over again, facing the difficulty, but eventually overcoming it. I think the difficulty is actually quite central to Celeste's experience and artistic value. Did you play it?
Easy mode with a defense boost and extra damage to bosses would be fine. Let me choose at the start and make you commit for that save file. You'd still have to learn the deflect system to win in most cases depending on the buffs. It's really only the bosses and mini bosses that make this game hard.
Right now I'm near the end of the game (or at least I hope so; I'm getting kinda fatigued by the bosses) and I had to cheese the last two bosses. They were still hard, but I'm sure as hell glad I could easily get by so that I can see the rest of the game. If I had more time, I'd be happy to spend 5 hours on one boss, but I just don't have that anymore these days.
Right now I'm near the end of the game (or at least I hope so; I'm getting kinda fatigued by the bosses) and I had to cheese the last two bosses. They were still hard, but I'm sure as hell glad I could easily get by so that I can see the rest of the game. If I had more time, I'd be happy to spend 5 hours on one boss, but I just don't have that anymore these days.
Celeste's designers set out to make a game whose difficulty you can tune to your preference.
Sekiro's designers set out to make a difficult game.
I've beaten and love both games.
I know death of the author is a thing and all but the game is VERY clear about its theme.
To claim that Celeste isn't a game about overcoming difficulty is an hilarious misread of the game.
I guess I just disagree
"We believe that difficulty is essential to the experience," the game says
I'm not saying it isn't. I'm saying the design goals of the developers were different.
The design goals of a game which gives the player the option to tune the difficulty to a level they find enjoyable, and a game which offers one difficulty for all players, are obviously different.
You want those trousers in a larger size that don't make you look like a muffin? Tough, you should just be thinner.
So Ubisoft/EA/anyone else instead of selling cheats in their in game store should really be putting them in as standard?
There is no denying that there are people who are physically incapable of engaging with Sekiro in a meaningful matter. That is a downside of the way the game is designed. The upside is that every individual who does engage with it are met with an identical world with which to interact.
It's a trade off. A game can't have both.
There is no upside with that tradeoff, you end with a game with less variation.
Options aren't a bad thing you know.
Slowing the combat speed is the most reasonable "easy mode" concession to me. I've tried this with mods on PC and it still retains the core gameplay but gives you more time to react - which might be necessary for people with disabilities. It still means you have to parry just as much but gauging moves is much easier and the timing is more sparse.
To me a big aspect of Sekiro is its rhythm-game like combat that requires judging the situation and reacting accordingly. This is fundamentally different from Souls games' reaction which is just "get out of the way and use those iframes". But the key element to all Souls type games is overcoming difficult enemies or levels and the enjoyment that you get from finally defeating a boss etc. If they don't pose a challenge you can not achieve that experience.
For able bodied gamers I don't think it's too hard as it is. It doesn't require frame perfect timing or lightning fast reflexes. I found for example the Valkyries in God of War 2018 more difficult than many bosses in Sekiro.
To me a big aspect of Sekiro is its rhythm-game like combat that requires judging the situation and reacting accordingly. This is fundamentally different from Souls games' reaction which is just "get out of the way and use those iframes". But the key element to all Souls type games is overcoming difficult enemies or levels and the enjoyment that you get from finally defeating a boss etc. If they don't pose a challenge you can not achieve that experience.
For able bodied gamers I don't think it's too hard as it is. It doesn't require frame perfect timing or lightning fast reflexes. I found for example the Valkyries in God of War 2018 more difficult than many bosses in Sekiro.
The amount of contorting over the issue of adding options like this from the other side of the aisle is counterproductive to those people who want those who aren't in the know to A) see the game and B) show these people that beyond these FROM games are more than difficult and a world that they can get into. Why the Hell is it such a big deal that people want to experience the game with easier options? Is it because you beat it and therefore you're the arbiter of how a game's accessibility should implement? Because to me, that doesn't sound like inclusion at all.
I'm fully in support of accessibility options, but I don't think that's the same as trivializing the game. If you had infinite revives, you could just mash the attack button until you win. A drinking bird could beat the game. The other suggestions, too, are more like difficulty options, and not related to the accessibility of the gameplay itself.
I think accessibility options should be things like giving options to make the game require fewer buttons, give clearer prompts for attacks that need to be countered a certain way (while still requiring the player to counter them correctly), and generally just giving disabled players a better opportunity to clear the same challenges that it asks of everyone else.
If you want the game to be easier, that's a fine thing to argue too, but it's a different argument.
I think accessibility options should be things like giving options to make the game require fewer buttons, give clearer prompts for attacks that need to be countered a certain way (while still requiring the player to counter them correctly), and generally just giving disabled players a better opportunity to clear the same challenges that it asks of everyone else.
If you want the game to be easier, that's a fine thing to argue too, but it's a different argument.
I'm sorry my word choice offended you. But this is a message bored where people voice their opinions. So you shouldn't be reading them if they don't matter.
I've never seen invincible mode under accessibility setting in anything though. I didn't know accessibility modes were suppose the negate the gameplay mechanics. Like even having 800% faster revive recharge speed would be better than invincibility. Atleast make it seem like they're doing something
Last edited:
I agree that those aren't really accessibility options. But I actually think engine level mod options are a great way to adapt a game to your physical abilities, since they allow you to fine tune the experience to your own individual needs.
I agree that developers aren't obligated to expose the innards of their game to provide those mod options but if achievements are disabled I don't see the harm either. Modding as a whole seems to provide a net benefit for the longevity of a game.
There is an upside. For me, and my friends, and the millions of people who have enjoy the concept of a challenge that at no point gives the player the option to alter the rules of the game. Yes, people are left out because of these design decisions, but it is simply wrong to say there is no benefit.
I don't see how variation is affected.
So you have a game that is basically a more restrictive Souls game and that is an upside?
That's like saying Rise of the Robots having ridiculously obtuse controls is somehow an upside because that way people can enjoy a game that gives no option to have competent controls.
And it's not even that true as the game offer various options to tackle problems with various implements.
The rules are far from the same depending on your choice of implements (and it's kind of the point really).
What do they sell that would fall under the umbrella of accessibility features?
Those are accessibility options. Accessibility means making these games as accessible as possible. That ranges from easier prompts to difficulty changes. If a player wants to button mash through the game, I'm not going to stop them, because it doesn't affect my experience and doesn't ruin the "core values" of the game. And people keep getting hung up on this because there's a glitch in their system where they've knocked their head against a brick wall thinking they can break it down with enough persistence and moxie that their also stopping the people who just wanna walk through the door next to the wall just to experience what's inside.
Well he's COO of Ablegamers, so kinda? Not sure if he's the spokesperson, but spokesperson, accessibility advocate and consultant nonetheless.
I don't see anybody talking about the OS. Things like customization button layouts, colour blind mode, subtitles/narrator, and variable time-step could probably be implemented at an OS level so that every game would have these features. Asking every developer to spend time to do this is just going to result in it rarely happening like now.
I'm not sure Invincibility or infinite resurrections is the correct solution to preserving the challenge of Sekiro while enabling more to play; That's closer to getting rid of any challenge all together so you no longer need to play the game.
I'm not sure Invincibility or infinite resurrections is the correct solution to preserving the challenge of Sekiro while enabling more to play; That's closer to getting rid of any challenge all together so you no longer need to play the game.
If cheats are seen as accessibility features I think anything that allows you to level things up quicker, reduce grind or get power/health in some way?
The thing I don't get is how the hell is From Software being singled out here when the vast majority of games lack those kind of specific options... like I even saw a bunch of indie devs (not going to single anyone out) on twitter harping on this, fist clenched and I'm just thinking... "Ummm... I've played your game, it also has none of these accessibility options that you're slamming another developer for not including".
I think it's good that there is a discussion on it, but it really irks me when people take what should be a productive moment and instead of just bringing it to attention and trying to find solutions; they take it as an opportunity to beat the fuck out a single horse inside of a massive crowded stable of horses that look mostly the same.
Anyways, I think Trainers accomplish a lot of these things that people are adamant about. Sucks that they aren't officially released but on PC at least, people are able to sort it out themselves.
I think it's good that there is a discussion on it, but it really irks me when people take what should be a productive moment and instead of just bringing it to attention and trying to find solutions; they take it as an opportunity to beat the fuck out a single horse inside of a massive crowded stable of horses that look mostly the same.
Anyways, I think Trainers accomplish a lot of these things that people are adamant about. Sucks that they aren't officially released but on PC at least, people are able to sort it out themselves.
The point is that these are simple options added on-top of the game to help those who are struggling to play the game, which you could tune depending on your disability. No changes are made to the actual game. All of the options you suggest would require extensive design and implementation from the dev team.
If it really is as simple as they claim to add the options then I don't really see any reason not to have them.
-btw- Did they try to approach From about this?
-btw- Did they try to approach From about this?
User Banned (2 Weeks): Inflammatory false equivalencies surrounding accessibility and dimissing concerns regarding disabilities
This is such a non issue.
Also why ONLY Sekiro needs another version that is compatible with for say gamers who are unable to perform those reflexes - for whatever reason.
Persona5 is too long (it is), shorten it for officer goers.
Undertale got shitty graphics, 4k it for masterracers.
EVE Online has too big of an entry barrier..etc
Well there will be no end to it. Even something as essential as Space Exploration needs to have a monetary gain behind it, else no commercial company would touch it. It sounds rude and dis-humane but that's the truth of it. it's nice to think that company should create a hammer that can be used by everyone, to toddlers to grandpas, but it's bloody hard to do and you know it, and second - they don't want to. It defeats the purpose of a specialized hammer for upholstery nails in your notice boards.
The difficulty is half the selling point.
Also why ONLY Sekiro needs another version that is compatible with for say gamers who are unable to perform those reflexes - for whatever reason.
Persona5 is too long (it is), shorten it for officer goers.
Undertale got shitty graphics, 4k it for masterracers.
EVE Online has too big of an entry barrier..etc
Well there will be no end to it. Even something as essential as Space Exploration needs to have a monetary gain behind it, else no commercial company would touch it. It sounds rude and dis-humane but that's the truth of it. it's nice to think that company should create a hammer that can be used by everyone, to toddlers to grandpas, but it's bloody hard to do and you know it, and second - they don't want to. It defeats the purpose of a specialized hammer for upholstery nails in your notice boards.
The difficulty is half the selling point.
Accessibility features are there to help people who wouldn't be able to play a game otherwise (loosely speaking)--so things like "time savers" wouldn't count, I'd imagine. But if they were selling things like "longer time frame to parry", yeah. Something like "infinite life" or "more life" kind of falls into a gray zone though, so I see what you're getting at. Those kinds of solutions are kind of lazy though.
sure, if sekiro had shipped with an easy mode, i would have elected to ignore it because of my experience with FS's prior games. but if Bloodborne (my first taste) had provided me with an option to tone down the difficulty when I was stuck on the first 15 minutes of the game for weeks, would opting for such been assailable as "poor impulse control" on my part? that's for you to answer. but would I have ultimately enjoyed the game as much? no, because I hugely value (more than anything else in gaming, it turns out, but my 38 year old ass had semi-forgotten this until the souls series so brutally reminded me) the mechanical and psychic satisfaction of overcoming a challenge that at first seems nigh impossible.
i at once hope that more and more games in this art form add thoughtful accessibility modes, while allowing for games of Sekiro's ilk to exist exactly as they are off in their little corner as a gateway (to play on the "gatekeeping" accusations thrown around here) to the pleasures of pain.
i at once hope that more and more games in this art form add thoughtful accessibility modes, while allowing for games of Sekiro's ilk to exist exactly as they are off in their little corner as a gateway (to play on the "gatekeeping" accusations thrown around here) to the pleasures of pain.
You haven't said what this benefit is. "I like that you can't change the difficulty," isn't about a positive feature of a game in the first place, but just expressing a preference. That's like you saying that an upside of Sekiro is that people enjoy playing as a ninja. Second, Sekiro and the Soulsbourne games do give you options to change the difficulty, and so that cannot be what people like about them. All of these already provide options to increase or decrease the challenge that you face, in the form of summons, items that alter rules, starting conditions/weapons/classes, covenants, and so on. Third, you're conflating liking the game with liking the fact that the game does not have options to alter the rules.
Perhaps not necessarily an upside point, but here is the reason Miyazaki gave for the lack of difficulty options (which I think is similar to what Zornack is trying to say as well):
Gamespot Interview said:
I think this is the biggest problem that I see with these options or the idea of an "easy mode"... that you take something that has been fine-tuned as best as possible by the developers, the level of challenge (which is pretty much the main core of the game) and believe you could get to the same experience by adjusting it yourself. How would you know if you're not making it too easy? A game that is built around the design philosophy of dying over and over until you master your opponents, learning their pattern perfectly and finally succeeding only when you feel like you truly figured it out... after how many tries would you say "it's still too difficult... let me lower it even further"? 10 tries? 5? 1?
I'm very torn by these problems, because while I've always thought easy mode =/= accessibility necessarily, I'm also not trying to be insensitive to others who really want to experience the game but can't due to different, unfortunate circumstances. And in the end it doesn't really affect me or change my experience, so not sure how valuable my input is at the end of the day. But this idea of an equal mode (one that I totally support)... I don't think is answered with these tune-your-own-difficulty options. Because I think you'll end up playing a completely different game...
I agree with most of, but not all, the things in the article.
at the same time it's simply not fair to keep talking about Sekiro (or dark souls) when so many games don't have difficulty settings (not to mention other accessibility options).
I like Steve and I almost always agree with him, but making it about From Sof games doesn't help and does make it seem about targeting Sekiro (in this case) rather than the industry as a whole, and I'm sure that is not the point.
at the same time it's simply not fair to keep talking about Sekiro (or dark souls) when so many games don't have difficulty settings (not to mention other accessibility options).
I like Steve and I almost always agree with him, but making it about From Sof games doesn't help and does make it seem about targeting Sekiro (in this case) rather than the industry as a whole, and I'm sure that is not the point.
Cory Barlog wants God of War to be accessible and for everyone to be able to experience the story, and we're all on board with that.
Miyazaki wants the game to be the same for everyone regardless of player abililty (and this includes disabilities) and to have the same bar that must be reached to pass its tests, and we have to respect that too.
Miyazaki wants the game to be the same for everyone regardless of player abililty (and this includes disabilities) and to have the same bar that must be reached to pass its tests, and we have to respect that too.
not taking a side on this, but one upside that jumps to mind is the fact that most people talk about their experiences fighting bosses. with a baseline, you dont even have to ask.
That's fine, but the fact is that we're not talking about the same thing. I don't give a fuck what difficulty options the game has or doesn't have. But I do believe the term "accessibility" is generally accepted to mean making something accessible for people who have a disability which would otherwise make it inaccessible. I would hope that people can recognize that there's a difference between making the game more accessible for people with disabilities and making the game more "accessible" for people who just want the game to be easier. Difficulty modes have existed in games for about as long as they've been around, so I don't see why you need to conflate the two things.
My argument is that the game should have options that give people with limited mobility the chance to play the same game that other people can play, to the best degree possible. Don't insult them by arguing that making the game easier is the same thing.
Mod tools don't come under the auspices of being a developer authored experience so they don't really have the same philosophical issues that an easy mode might, in my opinion. One of the design tenets around accessibility options is that they don't fundamentally alter the game being accessed.
Just interested in seeing where developer vision clashes with developer should be able to charge money for cheats, instead of them being free for accessibility.
I know many games that charge for cheats have easy modes, but within this debate you usually find cheats include everything from resources to god mode.
Heck a minority have gone as far to say in the past if you use trainers and PC mods in games which charge for things, like Shadow of War used to, you're entering piracy territory.
Taking something the developer wants to charge you for and getting it for free.
So if cheats are accessibility features I would suggest instead of focusing everything on From Software it seems like games that charge for cheats should be getting asked if they value accessibility for the player?
As adressed in the article, there's plenty of accessibility options that are beneficial to everyone. Subtitles, adjustable audio, remappable controls etc (adjustable difficulty too). I don't think "everyone can benefit from this" is really a valid argument against those. And if we just could get rid of the mindset that there's something wrong with playing games on easy or easy games, nobody should then feel insulted by adjustable difficulty. And for people with different disabilities, it's still not necessarily easy per se. The challenge can be greater to someone on "easy difficulty" than it's to someone else on "hard difficulty", it's entirely dependant on the player.
I remember this from the last thread, I'm glad that he got an article out.
Ablegamers really does amazing work. <3.
No more than you would have to respect Cory Barlog.
Ablegamers really does amazing work. <3.
No more than you would have to respect Cory Barlog.
We seem to constantly conflate accessibility options like colorblindness, arthritis, disabilities etc. with an Easy Mode. I'm pretty sure most people who mention "Easy Mode" are refering to a global switch that neuters the NPC behavior and life stats or other traditional means of adapting difficulty.
I'm not excited by Easy Mode in Souls, in fact I would like not to see it. I'm 100% on board with accessibility, but again I'm irritated people seem to circle around the distinctions with so much semanticism
I'm not excited by Easy Mode in Souls, in fact I would like not to see it. I'm 100% on board with accessibility, but again I'm irritated people seem to circle around the distinctions with so much semanticism
I don't understand why I'm being quoted as if I'm arguing against an easy mode. I'm arguing that making the game easier isn't good enough. Real accessibility options would allow as many disabled players as possible to play the same game, and not force them to turn down the difficulty if they would prefer not to do that.
It's like if you made a color matching puzzle game, and instead of just offering a colorblind mode to make the same game possible to everyone, you just added a mode that gives hints about the solutions and suggested that colorblind people should use that. Easier modes don't address the core issues of accessibility.
This strikes me as the opposite of what will happen. With one difficulty, people will have very different experiences, because people have different abilities and so the variation in challenge that players face will be vast. Professional players and those with high-level skills will find things relatively easy in many respects, good players will experience a decent challenge, average players will experience a strong challenge, weak players will face an almost insurmountable challenge. If you have varying difficulty levels, those segments of players have the possibility to face roughly the same level of challenge and so talk about their experiences in equivalent ways.
This is almost self-evident from discussions on Dark Souls, where weaker players often get roadblocked at the Gargoyles or Capra Demon, while stronger players breeze through and the discussions and experiences they have are quite different. "I beat them first try and cut off the tail," is very different to, "I beat my head against the wall and had to summon and use a lightning buff." The player development is also different, with weaker players often resorting to cheesing, guides, and exploits, while stronger players discuss tactics, builds and theorycrafting. Varied difficulty settings here would allow some players to learn, experiment and develop skills so that they can transition to higher difficulty and engage more deeply with the game. I don't really see how this is antithetical to the games, anyway, because they are already about developing skill and learning as you go along, and try to give you an escalating level of challenge related to this, with later fights usually more demanding that earlier ones.