-
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
Not every game has "fun" as an objective. Even the concept of fun changes from person to person.
Some games are focused on horror experiences (which, even if I like them, I wouldn't call them "fun") or on beating challenges or improving youself. While fun can be a part of those, it isn't the main point of the experience.
So when a game is made with the focus on beating challenges (which would be the "fun" part, I suppose), selling or using cheat codes seems like a sure way to avoid that fun, doesn't it ?
Games are art, when you talk about games, and how people experience them, you are talking about how people experience art.
From what I can tell your argument is that Sekiro would not be Sekiro if you changed the game speed or granted invincibility. You are saying that the value of the game is achieved through its difficulty and, if you changed those things, something would be lost.
What does Celeste having these options take away from the game?
I haven't played Celeste, but does Celeste have multiple ways of going through a level ? Like changing the build of your character or going to another area to become stronger or even something similar to a training mode ? Considering it's a platform, I highly doubt it. So any challenge in the game can and probably will block the players advance without him/her having options to circunvent it. In those cases, yes, they do have multiple difficult options or even in-game cheats because the difficult cannot be made lower by using the in-game mechanics.
Which isn't the case with From games. So if there are plenty of in-game options that can make challenges a lot easier, why include cheats?
Sorry if I misunderstood you. But definitely, adjustable difficulty isn't enough, there are also many more specific needs that need to be adressed. Adjustable difficulty is just really good accessibility option (depending how it's implemented), because it can benefit people with many different disabilities. Colorblind mode in example is also important, even if it's not all-encompassing like well implemented adjustable difficulty can be.
https://accessible.games/accessible-player-experiences/ take this for better explanation. This site was mentioned in the article.
I don't disagree with you. I just really, truly believe that there are a lot of players who want to play on harder difficulties, and the only thing stopping them is the control scheme being stupid or some other little issues that actual accessibility modes could solve, without forcing them to resort to lowering the difficulty.
User Banned (2 Weeks): Consistent pattern of inflammatory generalizations and antagonistic behavior; accumulated related infractions
Around here? I dunno about that. The developers better do what Era wants or they're gatekeeping assholes.
This place is so fuckin embarrassing sometimes.
Yeah there most definitely are, remappable controls should absolutely be a default feature in games already. I think for PC they are, atleast for most games (only based on personal experience). And Valve has done great job with controller support in Steam, commendable and others should follow their lead. Steam allows for a lot of tinkering. I don't really play on consoles much, but to my experience it's bit lacking there. There should be more localized subtitles too probably, even though I personally manage just fine with English and don't need one for my native language. Recently Spyro got a lot of flack for missing subtitles altogether. And usually subtitles are localized only for the bigger regions and most used languages.
Last edited:
Yeah, better to not question or criticize. Nothing good has ever come from that.
I would. It's a dang shame you missed out on Guitar Hero. The entire point of the various difficulties in that game was providing note progressions that allowed anyone to enjoy the game.
And that's fine! My argument isn't that those people cannot play hard fuckin' games dude. There is nothing wrong with challenges. But most people are different, and if they want to lower the difficulty I am not going to go out of my way to define what's accessible and what's not because those people have more of an understanding about that than you or me. So when the topic of "easy mode" vs just accessible content comes up, it diminishes the conversation when we loudly proclaim that as a majority these minority voices are inconvenient because we're afraid they may somehow poison the well for those who truly want these changes.
Absolutely agree. With a single player game it's your own business how you want to make it fun. For example, I really enjoyed the challenge of getting S+ ranks in Hardcore mode in RE2 to get the bonus weapons, but that's just me. If someone wants to buy the unlock everything DLC or just use a trainer to have fun then good on them, if the alternative is just not enjoying themself.
on that issue its interesting to see how things have changed. I remember some getting upset at people when people called out the dev of a pc game, mostly ports from Japanese devs, for not including rebinding.
Remappable controls are a good start, and Sekiro has that, but a major issue for people with limited mobility is when there's a high frequency of different inputs required. For example, if you have to press buttons 1, 2, 3 and 4 all within a short interval of time. For someone who, as an example, has to move their entire arm just to push one button, playing a game designed for people who typically have four or more buttons at their fingertips is a true accessibility concern. So a true accessibility mode could concatenate or automate the functions of some buttons to reduce the number of different inputs required.
Just off the top of my head, Sekiro could have these options:
Auto guard
Auto target (for real)
Auto switch to closer target when targeted enemy leaves a certain radius
Continuously attack when button is held
Automatically collect loot (or move collect loot function to the same button as another function)
Automatically move camera to point at nearby grapple targets when attempting to grapple
And none of those options would have a meaningful effect on the difficulty of the game. It would just make it require fewer inputs.
Well, I think that correctly identifying what is an accessibility mode is important. It's important to actually consider what some people with disabilities may need to be put on an even playing field instead of just giving them the option of making the game easier.
For a game like Sekiro, I would argue that most of the things that you could do to make the game "easier" (short of infinite health/revives) would not make the game more playable for a person with a significant disability. It would only be good for the average player who wants the game to be easier. Give enemies half as much health, give the player double health, give the player infinite posture, and they will still die if the controls are not suitable for their level of physical ability. Whereas, true accessibility options would potentially enable them to clear the game even at the base difficulty.
Haven't played that game myself, but to me those don't sound bad at all as options to toggle on/off. But some of those do sound a bit like they would maybe make the game easier to everyone who choosed to use them. Like different levels of aim assist do in RDR in example. But as I said, I haven't played the game so I don't know how it would be in practise. I do like that suggestion nonetheless.
I do think developers should take the initiative in translating an experience to players of varying capabilities but that takes development resources. It would be nice to see a formal organisation rate games based on accessibility and provide suggestions and playtesting opportunities for improvements.
I know you agree with the following, so this is for everyone else; if an accessibility feature makes the game easier for everyone/anyone who chooses to use them, rising tide lifts all boats. Should never be an argument and I see it too often that "well, ANYONE can use it, therefore its giving people UNFAIR advantages"
Imagine Era, if you suffered a temporary injury or had some physical aliment that you had your bad days and good days. You wouldn't be what most people consider "disabled" but accessibility options would be important to you then.
And I think most people don't think like that. Look, I'm playing the game, yes it's hard, and yes it can be grating to get through a certain section of a level. But wading into this conversation, I can see how the Hell the difficulty could increase tenfold for a person someone who isn't able-bodied. You and I don't get to define true accessibility. I trust the guy who wrote the article because he gives some insights that are valid. A person with a significant disability should have the choice between being able to play at the base difficulty or having options that they can use to help them along the way.
Just because they might be an easier set of options they can choose from does not in-fact mean they aren't gonna go back and try something different. So why do we believe these things will be diminished if not for the sole fact that there is gatekeeping and it's inconvenient to some because of their content with these games. And I'm sorry if I came off rude to you. But I see the appeal to these games and that's why I bought Sekiro. But I'm not gonna deny people who wanna just have more options.
AbleGamers which the article writer is COO of does work directly with developers. But I don't know if they have any site up where they would rate/review games based on accessibility. This would be an excellent resource for everyone though. And AbleGamers and others do have resources up that anyone (mainly intended for devs) can check for accessibility guidance. I've only read invidual opinions/ratings from people, like this blog which praises Shadow of the Tomb Raider for it's vast accessibility options.
https://geekygimp.com/accessibility-in-shadow-of-the-tomb-raider/#more-2374 few snippets below
I wouldn't mind if we used Shadow of the Tomb Raider as industry standard, that it's a challenge on others to do it better. Unfortunately not everyone gets the budget they had. But even if it takes resources, that investment can give back too.
Edit: Another site with reviews from few different writers https://dagersystem.com/
Few games that got rather high scores for visual, fine motor and auditory.
https://dagersystem.com/disability-game-review-god-of-war/
https://dagersystem.com/disability-game-review-pillars-of-eternity-ii-deadfire/
https://dagersystem.com/super-smash-bros-ultimate-dagers-diamond-award-2018/
Last edited:
And I still haven't made a single argument against easier modes. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say it.
I'm saying that there need to be options that can help cater to the specific needs of players that are independent from the difficulty, such as options that reduce the number of required inputs or increase visibility of essential components of the game. Turning down the difficulty does not necessarily enable the player to control the game correctly, and accessibility options should first and foremost focus on allowing the player access to all functions of the game. I think some easier difficulty modes would probably be a nice thing in Sekiro, and I don't even care if you use cheats. But those things fail to solve the core problems of accessibility and I think they should do better than that for players who are unable to control the game correctly.
I'm perfectly willing to listen to an argument against this, but we're simply talking about different subjects.
It's the same tortured piece of reasoning behind telling women not to dress too provocatively, and the religious saying that people need the fear of God's justice to keep them in line, because otherwise everybody would rape and kill each other. It's like, what? Just exercise some self-control you wackos.
It's because you're making the point that you aren't arguing against an easy mode while also stating that you don't want to circumvent the difficult aspect of the game. What I'm trying to say is it doesn't have to be one way or another. Those options you listed are fine, but the embargo that we can't get past is wanting to keep the difficulty of the base game. They would not just remove the base difficulty, it will be there. And if people with disabilities think they can wade into it, but with those tools, you listed above, then let them. But also don't use those people as an example when these conversations come up because people are in fact different with different circumstances. One person might be fine with it, the next might not mind having laxer games. It's their money, and if FROM wants to listen to the person who tried their game for the first time and takes theit critique--because they are designers presenting their works to us the gaming community--then they should.
But here's the thing FROM don't have to implement a mode like that, and haven't budged on that position for a decade. You can have better inputs, lax enemy attack windows to dodge, better color-blindness options, better subtitles, and still, have an easy mode for those who might want to utilize that option if they think the base game might hinder their experiences.
That "identical world" isn't going to be experienced identically by color blind people, deaf people, older players, etc. Not to mention people who view the game on a crappy small monitor versus a 100" 4K OLED display, or people who turn off the music and play their own soundtrack over the game, or people who listen to the Japanese voices while reading English subtitles versus listening to the English dub, or people who play with a chatty friend by their side.
So this notion that the game is presenting an identical world by offering barebones accessibility features and no difficulty settings -- this idea that most players will experience the same version of the game under the exact same conditions as others -- is flawed to the core. It serves only to excuse an exclusionary development approach.
I do not agree at all with the article.
Difficulty can be a defining aspect of a game. Obviously it is for games, like Sekiro, that does not permit to change difficulty.
Not all games are for everyone. I don't like certain genres, I don't want said genres to disappear simply because I don't like them.
Difficulty can be a defining aspect of a game. Obviously it is for games, like Sekiro, that does not permit to change difficulty.
Not all games are for everyone. I don't like certain genres, I don't want said genres to disappear simply because I don't like them.
For real, lol. It is bizarre how many people make a general argument against accessibility and difficulty options, which boils down to, "Please don't put options in the game, I don't want to use them and I have zero impulse control!"
Yeah, From doesn't have to make an Easy Mode. But they should try and add more Accessibility Modes, just like the rest of the industry. And whether they add one, or both of these, it doesn't affect your experience at all. Just don't turn them on!!
I didn't say I don't want to circumvent the difficulty of the game. I've not made a single point against an easy mode of the game, and in the post you just quoted, I even said that I would be in favor of having an easy mode.
I'm saying that an easy mode is pointless if a player can't even control the game to begin with. If I want to play chess, but I'm physically incapable of moving the pieces, you're offering to give me a weaker opponent to play against. First, you need to give me a way to move the pieces.
I feel like making Sekiro the center of the accessibility discussion is kind of missing the forest for the trees. It isn't an efficient use of resources to have every developer come up with their own unique software/game design solutions so that every single person who could conceivably want to play a game can play it. What makes more sense (to me) is to have people who are knowledgeable about individual needs coming up with general solutions that can be used for all games.
e.g. If someone needs a colorblind mode to play Sekiro, then that should fall on console or TV manufacturers to add one through their hardware. And if someone has difficulty using a conventional controller, then the solution to me isn't too change the game but to change the controller (and there are alternative controller styles out there that aim to do just that!).
Making gameplay changes that then have to be tested and designed around and have all sorts of unintended implications for other players (Argument #8 in the article) seems like the less efficient and more cumbersome way to solve the problem.
Moreover, general solutions have the potential to affect all games in the past, all games in the future, and even other sorts of media (namely movies). This is part of why I find the Sekiro discussion weird also, because there have been a bajillion games in the past that require using some sort of controller with some level of precision to progress through the game, so it's weird that it's suddenly becoming a big thing with Sekiro and (to my knowledge) wasn't nearly as big of an issue with, say, DDR, or Super Meatboy, or Counter Strike or whatever. Which isn't to say that we shouldn't try to improve for the future (we should!), but the most efficient way to do that isn't to single out an individual game and try to make design changes to it, because there are going to be a dozen real-time indie games released today and tomorrow and the day after that that suffer from the exact same issues.
e.g. If someone needs a colorblind mode to play Sekiro, then that should fall on console or TV manufacturers to add one through their hardware. And if someone has difficulty using a conventional controller, then the solution to me isn't too change the game but to change the controller (and there are alternative controller styles out there that aim to do just that!).
Making gameplay changes that then have to be tested and designed around and have all sorts of unintended implications for other players (Argument #8 in the article) seems like the less efficient and more cumbersome way to solve the problem.
Moreover, general solutions have the potential to affect all games in the past, all games in the future, and even other sorts of media (namely movies). This is part of why I find the Sekiro discussion weird also, because there have been a bajillion games in the past that require using some sort of controller with some level of precision to progress through the game, so it's weird that it's suddenly becoming a big thing with Sekiro and (to my knowledge) wasn't nearly as big of an issue with, say, DDR, or Super Meatboy, or Counter Strike or whatever. Which isn't to say that we shouldn't try to improve for the future (we should!), but the most efficient way to do that isn't to single out an individual game and try to make design changes to it, because there are going to be a dozen real-time indie games released today and tomorrow and the day after that that suffer from the exact same issues.
I don't really agree with the "but this way everyone gets an identically designed game" argument at all. A game being designed the same way for everyone doesn't mean everyone will get the same experience out of it.
There is a vast difference between not being interested in a game and choosing not to play it, and not being physically capable of playing a game despite being interested in it.
You're practically telling them to learn the game before giving them any more options. They cannot roll with what they got when they barely have anything, to begin with. A person can learn chess, and even if the opponent they have isn't strong, that does not mean they do not learn the nuances of the game; That goes especially for people who are physically incapable of picking up the piece. If anything those options could help bring them along if and when they decide to play the game again. Sometimes, people don't just put down a game and that's that. Most people don't learn from a trial by fire mentality. I cannot stress this enough people are different, my dude.
Last edited:
I basically said what about to say in another thread but I'll say it again here.
My handeye coordination is toss. Like, completely toss, and I'm very sure this an autism thing. Games with real-time combat are always extremely challenging to the point of inaccessible when played on the default settings. Being able to take in the environmnet (e.g. how many enemies are there, what are they doing), being able to understand what is a good counter to what they are doing, and actually doing it is just often too much for the my brain to handle. As I'm typing this, I'm wondering if it's an executive function issue (too?). Anyway, because of this, I've almost always needed to default to the easy difficultly to have a game where I could simply keep pace. Obviously, how well the easy mode difficultly works, etc. varies from game to game.
So, games not having an easy mode is a very real accessibility concern for me. Like... I don't really know what to add. There reaches a point where games are simply too much for me to handle. And when I look at this, I wonder how many people understood that Let's Go forced motion controls are inaccessible, how many people understood that Spyro's lack of subtitles are inaccessible and why does it suddenly seem like the tune is changing when we talk about difficultly? Like, we all get artistic merit isn't compromised by allowing mulitple control options or subtitles, but suddenly we talk about difficultly and I see more concern for FromSoft's creative vision than the people who can't access the game because of it.
My handeye coordination is toss. Like, completely toss, and I'm very sure this an autism thing. Games with real-time combat are always extremely challenging to the point of inaccessible when played on the default settings. Being able to take in the environmnet (e.g. how many enemies are there, what are they doing), being able to understand what is a good counter to what they are doing, and actually doing it is just often too much for the my brain to handle. As I'm typing this, I'm wondering if it's an executive function issue (too?). Anyway, because of this, I've almost always needed to default to the easy difficultly to have a game where I could simply keep pace. Obviously, how well the easy mode difficultly works, etc. varies from game to game.
So, games not having an easy mode is a very real accessibility concern for me. Like... I don't really know what to add. There reaches a point where games are simply too much for me to handle. And when I look at this, I wonder how many people understood that Let's Go forced motion controls are inaccessible, how many people understood that Spyro's lack of subtitles are inaccessible and why does it suddenly seem like the tune is changing when we talk about difficultly? Like, we all get artistic merit isn't compromised by allowing mulitple control options or subtitles, but suddenly we talk about difficultly and I see more concern for FromSoft's creative vision than the people who can't access the game because of it.
Going to extremes there are certain forms of art that blind people can't experience.
Thanks for sharing your perspective. And as you mention, how the "easy difficulty" works depends from game to game. So how to implement adjustable difficulty is most likely even more important discussion than if to implement it.