Kotaku: An easy mode has never ruined a game

[Hugare]

Fromsoft are elitists confirmed.



Not really an option when the creator decides there is a way it should be played and enforces that through their design.

So again, Fromsoft elitist confirmed I guess.



And so with this Miyazaki is now full of shit as well. As is his team apparently. And logically yes, this is where you would have to stand for this to hold. Which is your place to be if you chose it I guess.

Click to shrink...

Well, maybe they are? They aren't armored from criticism, even when being the makers of the game

There are directors such as Lars von Trier that makes movies full of symbolism and etc. that the overral public don't notice. But the overral public may still love his movies for the cinematography, soundtrack, main story ...

The same could be applied to FROM games. The person playing on easy mode wouldn't have the exoerience that the director envisioned, but could still enjoy the game for other aspects of it.

Even if the person "dont get it" for what it is, art can still be enjoyed.

All the arguments presented here sounded like elitism to me

 

[RoninChaos]

I keep following this argument, but I still can't wrap my head around the repeated assertion that the presence of an easy mode somehow contaminates the experience of a gamer who chooses the hard mode. If you ignore the easy mode, for you, in essence, it may as well not exist. So what is the problem with it being there? Another person's experience has no direct impact on yours.

Click to shrink...

Because then they can't scream "git gud!"

 

[TheNamelessOne]

Because then they can't scream "git gud!"

Click to shrink...

Please read my post above as it covers this topic before you reduce the people on the other side of an argument to such a silly standpoint.

 

[NCR Ranger]

All the arguments presented here sounded like elitism to me

Click to shrink...

That is probably a little unfair, then again i don't know if my interpretation that it is more along the lines of fear of the unknown is much better. The arguments reminds me of the stories I heard over the years from when people who were legit worried TV and home video would be the death of the cinema experience.

It also kind of explains how in general there is little to no acknowledgement in these arguments about shared experience that people like me exist who are cheating in From games and any hard game in general assuming it has a PC version. We are using third party cheats so our experiences in the game don't matter. Great I love it. Now just extend that mentality to in game options and we are all golden.

 

[DerpHause]

Well, maybe they are? They aren't armored from criticism, even when being the makers of the game

Click to shrink...

Hey, if you're willing to own up to that you're a full step ahead of a lot of others with driveby posts leaning in the same direction. Good on you for that, though then I'd ask whether any sentiment other than elitism can be a motivator for a potentially exclusionary experience and why this doesn't/can't apply if there is (or do you just think the stated motivations are a lie?).

There are directors such as Lars von Trier that makes movies full of symbolism and etc. that the overral public don't notice. But the overral public may still love his movies for the cinematography, soundtrack, main story ...

Click to shrink...

True, and that's the benefit of a non-interactive medium that cannot demand anything but time from it's audience.

The same could be applied to FROM games. The person playing on easy mode wouldn't have the exoerience that the director envisioned, but could still enjoy the game for other aspects of it.

Click to shrink...

Yes and no. Lars von Trier's movies are what he makes them. There aren't a multitude of other cutss designed to follow each alternative taste, the only difference as stated above is that he can only demand the passive consumption of time rather than performance by the very nature of what they create.

Even if the person "dont get it" for what it is, art can still be enjoyed.

Click to shrink...

This is fundamentally no different in that regard. No matter what Miyazaki's intent is people who enjoy the games do so for their own reasons even while doing so within the limits of what he created.

All the arguments presented here sounded like elitism to me

Click to shrink...

And you're welcome to that just as much as individuals are free to feel your interpretations is grossly ignorant and conveniently oversimplified.

That is probably a little unfair, then again i don't know if my interpretation that it is more along the lines of fear of the unknown is much better. The arguments reminds me of the stories I heard over the years from when people who were legit worried TV and home video would be the death of the cinema experience.

Click to shrink...

Bringing this up feels ironic as the theater first business model is designed to directly combat the effects of TV and home video on media sales. It's a market that props itself up with a timed exclusivity advantage. The point being that the fear was made irrelevant by the model surrounding it and not just by consumers deciding the generally most expensive and intrusive way to consume content was the best.

It also kind of explains how in general there is little to no acknowledgement in these arguments about shared experience that people like me exist who are cheating in From games and any hard game in general assuming it has a PC version. We are using third party cheats so our experiences in the game don't matter. Great I love it. Now just extend that mentality to in game options and we are all golden.

Click to shrink...

That's actually wrong, I myself have addressed it several times, it's just that there isn't much to say. I'll go back to a more extreme example I used before: People making nude mods for games doesn't mean all games should become porn straight from the devs. The freedom allowed via modding on PC is both an impossible metric to account for as far as adding the same functions in the base product and, more importantly, not a factor that reasonably can or should override the creative or technical direction chosen for a game. Once you've obtained the product it's yours to mod but pretending the fact that you can do so means their ideas and priorities go out the window makes no sense.

 

[Moves]

This argument is hard for me because of a few things. While I think difficulty options in games are great, as well as being accessible, there's something about needing to include them in every game that doesn't sit right with me. (And of course it's okay for others to disagree/want an easier options, just as much as it's okay for me to not want them.)

1. It's hard to describe but I really enjoy the aspect of the shared experience, it's part of what makes the souls games so interesting and community driven. Introducing an easy mode creates two subsets of players with vastly different experiences. Is it "elitist" to want a game where everyone experiences the same thing? I just love the feeling that there's no easy way out, it's part of what makes the souls games so appealing to me. Someone above compared it to running a marathon with others, and I honestly think it's more unifying in that way than if there were multiple difficulties.

2. It's likely the game benefits that all the development is focused around one set of rules, allowing for more time to be spent on the most balanced and tight game-play experience possible without needing to account for how something would work on different difficulty levels. I think its part of why from software games end up being so well built. A from software game with additional difficulty levels would likely require the effort of creating an entirely new game since the difficulty is so mechanics based. I think it's great that many games include difficulty settings to include as many people as possible, but if i'm being completely honest I love knowing that the difficulty I'm playing on is how the developer specifically intended me to be playing it. It's like when I'm playing a board game and want to make sure we're all playing by the rules in the rule-book and not made-up rules that change how the game-maker intended the game to be played.

 

[DanteSparda504]

Every game should offer difficulty options. I'd love to play From games. The worlds are fascinating, but the games are too difficult for me, and I don't have the time to "get good".

It doesn't hurt anyone to have these modes added. The developers can still have their intended way and vision of playing the game, and giving people who wouldn't play the game at all, the ability to play it doesn't hurt anyone, and only benefits From.

Not every player lives to be "good". Some people just want to relax and experience the world of a game.

 

[Deleted member 48897]

Fromsoft are elitists confirmed.

Click to shrink...

I mean my central thesis for just about all my posts is "we can and should regularly criticize artist visions, for without that what is the point of criticism" so you're trying to be sarcastic but I don't see any reason why we have to take the intent of FromSoft as inherently good. If people are going to be sarcastic and reductive about this then I see no problem in exaggerating my own stance to be this opinion, expressed unironically.

(For me the issue with Dark Souls was never that it was hard, but that it was extremely stodgy. I know people care about the world and the environment but I was almost immediately bored on starting it up and never bothered to go back to it when there were also a lot of difficult games I could choose that were, like, actually fun to play. This is separate from the difficulty discussion and a huge reason why I don't want the focus to be on the FromSoft games specifically. This is also why I don't like the "not for you" answer, because I think a lot of the people making the complaints specifically about FromSoft games are actually interested in playing them where I am not.)

 

[Budi]

I think this thread is the best place for it, wanted to share yet another older article about game difficulty which was prompted by Assasin's Creed. This too isn't From Soft related article either. It touches upon some of the arguments in this thread. I'll do few choice quotes and rest is here https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/02/assassins-creed-origins-tourism-difficulty/

Ubisoft made a fascinating announcement this week. They revealed that the latest Assassin's Creed [official site] is to add a "Discovery Tour" mode, removing all the combat and challenges from the game, to let players just freely experience their in-depth recreation of Ancient Egypt. It's fascinating, to me, because it's a big deal. And goodness me, it shouldn't be a big deal. Because games should be delighted to include modes that remove all their difficulty and challenge, and players should cheer when they hear about it.

Oddly enough, a lot of players don't cheer. In fact, people can get awfully angry about it. Since the announcement I've seen on Twitter a combination of people declaring, "Hooray! I'm interested in playing Assassin's Creed for the first time in years!", alongside others pointing toward those utterly furious that it demeans their hobby, cheapens games, and most heinous of all, lets in the riff-raff.
I say: BRING ON THE RIFF-RAFF.

Click to shrink...

The argument against the skip button, the tourist mode, the skippable combat, the fast-forward a level, all these ideas that keep coming up, is always the same. It's always, "BUT SOMEONE MIGHT PRESS THEM!" It's not an enormously strong argument, all things considered. It's one I'd like to try to counter.

Yes, they might.

Goodness me, it's like Hegelian dialectic in here.

Ok, it's slightly more nuanced than that, although it's never actually expressed truthfully. The argument tends to go, "But someone other than me might press them, and then they'd get to see a bit of the game that was meant only for the Deserving Champions!" Because, the real nub of it is, it's about exclusivity. It's about keeping the Thems, the riff-raff, the outsider, out. THIS section of the game, this is special to me and only those as great as I am! I DESERVE this bit of the game! Those weaklings do not! Gosh, it's an ugly way of thinking, isn't it? And so utterly idiotic too. Because it requires the mental gymnastics of somehow believing that one's own isolated experience of a game is cheapened, lessened, impacted in any conceivable way, by the isolated experience of someone else playing that game. It is the transference of one's ego onto the game itself. It's not a healthy way to go about experiencing life.

Click to shrink...

The better argument, although it's a lot less frequently uttered, is, "But I might press the button!" And here things get a lot more tricky. How many's the time you regretted pressing the 'hint' button on your favourite mobile puzzle game? How often have you felt that incredible sense of achievement of having succeeded at a part of a game that challenged you so, which you know – you just know – you'd have skipped three tries back if you'd had the option? Yes, here, there's a concern. But it's not a concern about games, it's a concern about yourself.

So even to use this far more valid worry, that you might spoil your own experiences when offered a tempting shiny red button, is an exercise in unacceptable selfishness. Because that shiny button becomes the thing that allows a multitude more people than you to enjoy their experience of playing this game, and refusing it because of your own inability to self-regulate isn't a good enough argument!

Click to shrink...

Yes and no. Lars von Trier's movies are what he makes them. There aren't a multitude of other cutss designed to follow each alternative taste, the only difference as stated above is that he can only demand the passive consumption of time rather than performance by the very nature of what they create.

Click to shrink...

Well there's two cuts to his latest, in theaters too. https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/11...s-von-trier-unrated-r-rated-theater-streaming

The film prompted mass walkouts at its Cannes premiere in May. Early reviews ranged in tone from outraged to unenthused to almost ecstatic. On the whole, reactions to the film were so vehement that some wondered if the movie was too controversial to be released at all.

But now, The House That Jack Built is getting not just one, but two different theatrical releases before the end of the year.

The first was on November 28, when the film's unrated "director's cut" played in a series of one-day-only screenings. On December 14, an R-rated version of the film opened in limited theaters and became available to rent on digital platforms.

The release of two versions will likely maximize the audience — or at least bring in everyone who's curious

Lars von Trier is obviously not concerned with his films' marketability to a broad audience. He often makes the kind of films that give even extreme horror obsessives pause. You don't go to see a von Trier movie about a serial killer to scream a little; you go to be pushed, to be challenged, to be scandalized and horrified.

Click to shrink...

 

[NCR Ranger]

Bringing this up feels ironic as the theater first business model is designed to directly combat the effects of TV and home video on media sales. It's a market that props itself up with a timed exclusivity advantage. The point being that the fear was made irrelevant by the model surrounding it and not just by consumers deciding the generally most expensive and intrusive way to consume content was the best.

That's actually wrong, I myself have addressed it several times, it's just that there isn't much to say. I'll go back to a more extreme example I used before: People making nude mods for games doesn't mean all games should become porn straight from the devs. The freedom allowed via modding on PC is both an impossible metric to account for as far as adding the same functions in the base product and, more importantly, not a factor that reasonably can or should override the creative or technical direction chosen for a game. Once you've obtained the product it's yours to mod but pretending the fact that you can do so means their ideas and priorities go out the window makes no sense.

Click to shrink...

The cinema experience still exists though and people can still get the "best" experience 80 years or so after the TV came out and some decades after home video, too lazy to look that up. We can argue all day about how and why my analogy was not one to one and is flawed and all that but that is in general a waste of time as the above was my point.

The devs are free to do what they want. That is not my argument. I am free to ask and even strongly insist that they do this and to even bluntly state that I think they are doing it wrong, but they are more than free to tell me to fuck off they won't do it. Fine they are making the game I will keep asking anyway when the topic comes up again.

My argument is with the idea that the fans can pretend that they have this perfect walled garden and that the best thing about it is anyone is free to experience this garden as well, but if you want to experience this wonderful garden you have to do it a specific way. That idea doesn't exists. It's pure fantasy. I am free right now to hop over the wall and prance around in the garden. in fact they know I can as well they just don't care. It doesn't effect their experience in the garden one bit. My argument is that yeah you are right it doesn't change anything for you and guess what neither will it if the developer decides to build in more ways to experience the garden for others. The fear that the garden will be ruined for everyone is unfounded.

 

[DerpHause]

I mean my central thesis for just about all my posts is "we can and should regularly criticize artist visions, for without that what is the point of criticism"

Click to shrink...

Agreed, but not in a one sided manner. "All detractors are elitist" is more dismissive than "this was their vision" and we see how that got accused of stifling conversation.

so you're trying to be sarcastic but I don't see any reason why we have to take the intent of FromSoft as inherently good.

Click to shrink...

You don't have to take it as inherently good, you just probably shouldn't avoid acknowledging that reasons other than elitism could even exist and arguing against the strawman created from that false assumption.

If people are going to be sarcastic and reductive about this then I see no problem in exaggerating my own stance to be this opinion, expressed unironically.

Click to shrink...

Look where I'm putting that response. It's the same thing it's in response to each time. The same condescending dismissal of all opposing reasoning whatsoever. Those posts do NOT get the benefit of genuine engagement for driveby trash posts save repeating succinctly that we're not the decision makers and pointing you towards who is and why. And if you want more elaboration than that, you can start your post with something other than the same oft refuted BS. If you don't want trash don't give trash. You didn't, that's why you get a real post.

(For me the issue with Dark Souls was never that it was hard, but that it was extremely stodgy. I know people care about the world and the environment but I was almost immediately bored on starting it up and never bothered to go back to it when there were also a lot of difficult games I could choose that were, like, actually fun to play. This is separate from the difficulty discussion and a huge reason why I don't want the focus to be on the FromSoft games specifically. This is also why I don't like the "not for you" answer, because I think a lot of the people making the complaints specifically about FromSoft games are actually interested in playing them where I am not.)

Click to shrink...

I'm not sure why preference in difficulty can't be the same subjective measure that being stodgy or fun is. For me at least difficulty is related, but granted not a total determiner.

 

[Somni]

Git gud or get off the sticks.

It's not about ruining a game, that's not the argument most reasonable people are even making. It's about changing a game fundamentally to be something that it's not. One of the core tenants of these sorts of games is the challenge. The learning curve is higher because the audience for the game are seeking a greater, and arguably, more fulfilling challenge that they wouldn't otherwise get in titles with more accessible gameplay. They can be played by anyone, but they're not made for everyone.

Saying that people disagreeing with the call for adding easy modes in games with grueling difficulty are being "ableist" is a weak argument, and a poor attempt at labeling them as discriminatory. It's also rather condescending to the disabled. It assumes the notion that disabled people are somehow either too incompetent or entirely incapable to even want to take up that challenge like any other person. Those attempting to put that forth as an actual argument, whether they realize it or not, are othering them with no regard to the personal fortitude, determination, or will power of those individuals. For example, there are disabled people who are perfectly capable safe and competent drivers, while there are able-bodied people who are also some of the worst fucking drivers around.

In this day and age, when information is readily available to anyone with a smart phone or computer and internet access, there is no excuse to not consider looking up reviews or previews about titles you're unfamiliar with. You have no one to blame but yourself if you blind buy a game to find that it's too difficult for your liking because you didn't take the time to do any research about the developer or the game. You can always get a refund, trade it in, or make a private sale. It most cases, you have multiple options.

You can either be willing to fail 1000 times and try again to over come the challenges like everyone else, or move on to something more your speed. It's pretty simple.

 

[DerpHause]

Well there's two cuts to his latest, in theaters too. https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/11...s-von-trier-unrated-r-rated-theater-streaming

Click to shrink...

Fair observation. Worth noting the difference in motivation between a critical flop and a critical darling amidst a series of strong performers.

The cinema experience still exists though and people can still get the "best" experience 80 years or so after the TV came out and some decades after home video, too lazy to look that up. We can argue all day about how and why my analogy was not one to one and is flawed and all that but that is in general a waste of time as the above was my point.

Click to shrink...

Then why is linking it to my point, that steps taken to incentivize or restrict to that "intended" experience can be used to preserve and enhance it, now being ignored if we're not worried about 1 to 1.

The devs are free to do what they want. That is not my argument. I am free to ask and even strongly insist that they do this and to even bluntly state that I think they are doing it wrong, but they are more than free to tell me to fuck off they won't do it. Fine they are making the game I will keep asking anyway when the topic comes up again.

Click to shrink...

And others are free to agree with their motivations both more and less strongly than the colorful method of dismissal you describe. Disagreeing with you isn't saying you can't disagree with them.

My argument that the idea that the fans can pretend that they have this perfect walled garden and that the best thing about it is anyone is free to experience this garden as well, but if you want to experience this wonderful garden you have to do it a specific way. That idea doesn't exists. It's pure fantasy. I am free right now to hop over the wall and prance around in the garden. in fact they know I can as well they just don't care.

Click to shrink...

The difference in perception there is that others don't see a wall around the garden, they see a garden people, from their perspective, largely don't like disabilities aside. And they see themselves enjoying the garden in what they see as a variety of different ways, so the claim that it can only be enjoyed one way looks effectively wrong. They just see the tools in the game as the knobs vs specific settings to change the encounter setups.

It doesn't effect their experience in the garden one bit.

Click to shrink...

Sure, but as stated that has not a damn thing to do with the decision that was made to begin with and as such doesn't have jack all to do with rescinding it. You might as well argue easy modes are good because bees exist in the real world.

My argument is that yeah you are right it doesn't change anything for you and guess what neither will it if the developer decides to build in more ways to experience the garden for others. The fear that the garden will be ruined for everyone is unfounded.

Click to shrink...

That's not the fear once again, so rest assured. But you'll need to convince them that certain players playing at all is a better metric than the experience they were trying to achieve for those same players themselves and that they need those players at all somehow. That you haven't really done.

 

[Cooking]

Well there's two cuts to his latest, in theaters too. https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/11...s-von-trier-unrated-r-rated-theater-streaming

Click to shrink...

This is a bad example to reply to his original point - the cuts amount to less than 5 minutes of footage (if that, the R rated cut is plenty graphic). Not really the same thing as designing and balancing around a new mode for a 30 hour game

 

[Budi]

This is a bad example to reply to his original point - the cuts amount to less than 5 minutes of footage (if that, the R rated cut is plenty graphic). Not really the same thing as designing and balancing around a new mode for a 30 hour game

Click to shrink...

Sure, it's kinda tricky to do comparisons with film and games to begin with. It's impossible to be one for one. If we wanted to, we could argue that we should be able to pick chapters, pause, rewind, skip forward in our games like we can our movies. That would be one on one.

 

[DarkShame3]

Nobody is asking them to change the game as you play it now. Just to give more options to others. Yes, it is their right to make their game however they want. We are also free to criticize it.

Click to shrink...

Exactly. I can't figure out why there is this urge people have to argue that their experience is somehow being altered because somebody else is having a different experience. The presence of easy mode does not transform "hard" mode. Asserting that it does seems illogical.

 

[DerpHause]

Exactly. I can't figure out why there is this urge people have to argue that their experience is somehow being altered because somebody else is having a different experience. The presence of easy mode does not transform "hard" mode. Asserting that it does seems illogical.

Click to shrink...

Who is saying this? Who are you talking about?

 

[60fps]

Are we going to act like critiques are bad because they serve to compromise the vision of the developers? Reviews are an integral part of the free market system that lets producers know what the consumers want. While it would be argumentum ad populum to suggest that if more people critique a certain point of a game, that aspect of the game is inherently and objectively bad (this is not what I'm saying!), it does suggest that more people, perhaps, would be willing to come back to games by the developer should the change be implemented, which to them, financially, would be a win.

Of course they are free to stick to stricter creative integrity, which isn't necessarily better than appealing to the people who give you your money, and not change what they want to do from the get-go. But even then, it isn't grounds to outright be antagonistic of people who present criticisms. The public forum is integral to the producer, whether they choose to utilize it or not.

Click to shrink...

Come on, look at this guy's name and avatar. It's just not possible to argue with him. As Kotaku perfectly describes in their article he "belongs to an exclusive club full of other people who get it".

 

[TheNamelessOne]

Exactly. I can't figure out why there is this urge people have to argue that their experience is somehow being altered because somebody else is having a different experience. The presence of easy mode does not transform "hard" mode. Asserting that it does seems illogical.

Click to shrink...

It's neither illogical or about someone elses experience being different. It's about YOU having to overcome the challenge of the game and the reward you feel from overcoming it. The fact that there is only ONE way to do it is a big part of the experience. There are no compromises - and it's quite a refreshing and valuable experience that you have to develop the skills and knowledge to complete the challenge, instead of the challenge adjusting to what you want.

If that's not something you see value in, then fine. But other people DO, and there are very few games that work on the level FROMs game do.

 

[Deleted member 3038]

and it's quite a refreshing and valuable experience that you have to develop the skills and knowledge to complete the challenge, instead of the challenge adjusting to what you want.

If that's not something you see value in, then fine. But other people DO, and there are very few games that work on the level FROMs game do.

Click to shrink...

And why would giving other people a way to have assistance or a easier time playing the game downplay your challenge? your experience is what makes the whole thing work, not that it's implicitly difficult for everyone.

I can play a game on the hardest difficulty and feel proud that I beat it through tooth & nail, but at the same time I'm not going to downplay letting other people enjoy a game just because they aren't good.

 

[Cooking]

Exactly. I can't figure out why there is this urge people have to argue that their experience is somehow being altered because somebody else is having a different experience. The presence of easy mode does not transform "hard" mode. Asserting that it does seems illogical.

Click to shrink...

No one is saying this

 

[DerpHause]

And why would giving other people a way to have assistance or a easier time playing the game downplay your challenge?

Click to shrink...

It is explicitly not his personal challenge that he's talking about.

 

[TheNamelessOne]

And why would giving other people a way to have assistance or a easier time playing the game downplay your challenge? your experience is what makes the whole thing work, not that it's implicitly difficult for everyone.

I can play a game on the hardest difficulty and feel proud that I beat it through tooth & nail, but at the same time I'm not going to downplay letting other people enjoy a game just because they aren't good.

Click to shrink...

The fact that you have to persevere to win is the point. If there was an easier difficulty I would have used it several times in FROMs games - but there aren't. And I am so glad because that made me overcome the challenges by myself.

Another game that does something similar is The Witness. It succeeds in making me develop solutions and solve puzzles with nothing to rely on by myself. If there was a hint system in that game it would ruin it.

As I said, there's real value in overcoming difficult shit - especially when you can't take the easy way out (or even have the option to). Not because you get a better score - but because something happens to you, the player.

 

[Deleted member 30151]

Currently playing it for a few hours now and as always, love the designs, the world, the cryptic story, the main character especially this time because it is not a silent protagonist (while he may not be the most talkative guy during a Scrabble evening with friends) and of course, also the combat system.

But, and now comes the but, the time will come that I won't be able to progress anymore. No matter how long I try to get better, there will be the point where I reach my limit. It's not different with Shmups. Lock me in in a room, hand over Ikaruga to me and come back 2 months later: You left me when I barely managed to beat the first stage. When you come back, I was most likely not be able to beat stage 2.

Yes, there are folks who would really love to enjoy these type of games on various difficulty modes. To actually finish this game with this wonderfully crafted world and characters and all the other brillant stuff what's going on there. But there is a limit when it comes to skill for many folks.

The only stuff from the From Software community I've read so far was toxic bullshit. "You don't have enough skill? Then you don't deserve to play this game". Or "Get better or get lost". It's not only arrogant, it's like being a jerk to everyone.

Everyone who is interested in the game and paid money for it deserves it to finish the game. You can make Sekiro easier without sacrificing it's hard and very hard mode. Yes, there is an even harder mode when you ring this bell. So this is possible, but lowering the difficulty isn't?

It's a sensible topic, but the time will come, even From Software has to evolve when it comes to quality of life stuff.

 

[NCR Ranger]

I am not going to go point by point forever. I will discuss a few points because I am bored and because while my interest in this topic is enough to get me to post a few times it is less than what ever it would need to be to keep discussing everything point by point for any period of length.

And others are free to agree with their motivations both more and less strongly than the colorful method of dismissal you describe. Disagreeing with you isn't saying you can't disagree with them.

Click to shrink...

I feel there is something else we are talking about that I am not aware of. I read that and my response has been only what? I feel like you are arguing against something I never said in that post.

EDIT: I think i see the problem. I was using the original quote of whoever it was as a segue for my argument. Not necessarily as a continuation of theirs. I will work on making that clearer next time.

The difference in perception there is that others don't see a wall around the garden, they see a garden people, from their perspective, largely don't like disabilities aside. And they see themselves enjoying the garden in what they see as a variety of different ways, so the claim that it can only be enjoyed one way looks effectively wrong. They just see the tools in the game as the knobs vs specific settings to change the encounter setups.

Click to shrink...

I don't know if I buy it. I really don't buy the idea that From fans in general believe the world hates their beloved games. I really don't. Like i wish people hated the games i loved as much as people hate From games. Maybe then i wouldn't of had to wait 15 years for a sequel to one. I just can't comprehend that perspective, just can't. My limited imagination I guess.

Sure, but as stated that has not a damn thing to do with the decision that was made to begin with and as such doesn't have jack all to do with rescinding it. You might as well argue easy modes are good because bees exist in the real world.

Click to shrink...

I guess to put it as plainly and a simple as I can. If third party cheats to make the game easier haven't ruined the believed communal experience then neither will ingame options to make the game easier. I don't see them as completely unrelated. I see them as two ways to achieve the same goal. The rest of it is just people getting hung up on unimportant shit.

This is another time I feel like we are discussing two different things because I am not arguing with the people who made the decision to do jack shit. Like if I was sat down at From Software my argument wouldn't be well mods do it so you know might as well to. I am arguing against people who live in a make believe ideal about how things are and argue based off that world view. Just a bunch of random jerkoffs like myself who have no real input into what any developer decides to do or not do and just wants to argue their point of view.

That's not the fear once again, so rest assured. But you'll need to convince them that certain players playing at all is a better metric than the experience they were trying to achieve for those same players themselves and that they need those players somehow. That you haven't really done.

Click to shrink...

First, I don't believe it. There are countless posts in the various threads on this topic that reek of either fear or gatekeeping. Sure not all of them maybe not even a majority of them. Some people really want to debate the various interesting conflicts between developers intentions vs people's demands and that's cool. You are trying to sell me a bridge though if you want me to believe that is the vast majority. I am not buying.

Second, I am not interested in convincing anyone of anything. I get some enjoyment out of discussion and debating but I am not going to pretend that anyone will be convinced of anything by the time I am done. At best I might convince a few I am not all bad and most likely I will just convince many others that Almighty is a giant ass clown but that is about it.

 

[Alexhex]

Not really? Serious?

4 THREADS made about the same thing, only different on the titles and the OP post content just so an entire agenda could roll. All 4 threads point to From, all 4 threads talk about the """"""""""accessibility"""""""""" problem.

I really think this is backlash to FromSoft after they did Sekiro difficult. Because to any other game you don't even say anything. Using this as a springboard? Again, whenever a hard game comes out you don't say anything.

Click to shrink...

Yes really. My involvement in this thread has been talking about games in general, or specifically first-person titles. The reason you don't notice it normally is because aren't looking for it, and the reason you aren't seeing it here is because you're in conspiracy mode.

Hand-waving this discussion as a trojan horse meant to sneak criticism of fromsoftware onto the scene is insanely disrespectful to the issue at hand on top of being totally unsubstantiated. Did serkiro's metacritic score suffer? Are people saying the game, as a piece of art, is worse off? No. Waypoint has a great article both praising the design and difficulty from a personal perspective while suggesting some ways the game, as a product, could be more inclusive. Is this bad faith too?

And really, I don't even see how it's a problem that this discussion crops up whenever fromsoftware games come out. Even though I would like for it to happen more frequently, it has to start somewhere. They're popular games so of course they're what get rallied around. If someone who is able-bodied, neurotypical, and otherwise doesn't make use of or ever need to think about accessibility options, hears and posts in favor of it for the first time because of this discussion, that's a win. Asking where they're been this whole time shows your own hand more than it does theirs.

Also like, how dare you with your accusatory use of "you" and facetious use of quotations around accessibility? Don't fucking presume what I do and don't care about. I make use of these options. I care about others who do. I put effort into the considerations I make for my own games. So shove off with this "you don't say anything" nonsense

 

[Metal B]

Accessibility for disabled people should always be an option, if it isn't a very difficult undertaking. Anything else should be free for the designer and artist to decide. If they want to make it difficult, easy or have options, it is there choice.

People have to learn, that not everything needs to be for them. If a designer or artist chooses a smaller target group, then its there choice to make.

 

[Dog of Bork]

Everyone who is interested in the game and paid money for it deserves it to finish the game

Click to shrink...

I fundamentally disagree with this. This is a goal almost no games reach, and to expect it is just insane to me. To expect it of a studio literally successful and famous because of the difficulty of their games is so ludicrous it beggars belief.

 

[Deleted member 30151]

I fundamentally disagree with this.

Click to shrink...

Please feel free to express yourself.

 

[Dog of Bork]

Please feel free to express yourself.

Click to shrink...

See my edit.

If you think "literally everyone on Earth" is an appropriate target demographic for a game, especially a game from a developer whose major design philosophy is challenging players, you're expecting something impossible (something that would result in a terrible game or a product that is antithetical to the game we received, I might add).

 

[Metal B]

Please feel free to express yourself.

Click to shrink...

As well as the designer of any game.

 

[TheNamelessOne]

Currently playing it for a few hours now and as always, love the designs, the world, the cryptic story, the main character especially this time because it is not a silent protagonist (while he may not be the most talkative guy during a Scrabble evening with friends) and of course, also the combat system.

But, and now comes the but, the time will come that I won't be able to progress anymore. No matter how long I try to get better, there will be the point where I reach my limit. It's not different with Shmups. Lock me in in a room, hand over Ikaruga to me and come back 2 months later: You left me when I barely managed to beat the first stage. When you come back, I was most likely not be able to beat stage 2.

Click to shrink...

The thing is, unless you've got some disability hindering, you can do it. You might not want to do it - but that's something else all together. FROMs games aren't very complex in a mechanical sense - it's about knowledge of what you're facing. It makes you learn the environments and enemies inside out, so the hard thing isn't executing, it's knowing what to execute.

Yes, there are folks who would really love to enjoy these type of games on various difficulty modes. To actually finish this game with this wonderfully crafted world and characters and all the other brillant stuff what's going on there. But there is a limit when it comes to skill for many folks.

The only stuff from the From Software community I've read so far was toxic bullshit. "You don't have enough skill? Then you don't deserve to play this game". Or "Get better or get lost". It's not only arrogant, it's like being a jerk to everyone.

Click to shrink...

I don't really know where you've been looking. Sure, there are assholes - they're everywhere on the internet. But have you really read the Sekiro OT here for example? It's full of people helping each other out and rooting for others to succeed. There aren't many online "communities" like it.

Everyone who is interested in the game and paid money for it deserves it to finish the game. You can make Sekiro easier without sacrificing it's hard and very hard mode. Yes, there is an even harder mode when you ring this bell. So this is possible, but lowering the difficulty isn't?

It's a sensible topic, but the time will come, even From Software has to evolve when it comes to quality of life stuff.

Click to shrink...

Of course you don't "deserve" to complete a game just because you bought it. That's setting the bar way too low. There's an argument to be made about being able to return games you don't like (like a lot of other things you can buy), that might be an important one. But you're asking every game to cater exactly to what you want from it - regardless if it conflicts with what others want from it. And in the end there's only one view that's relevant: What the developer wants it to be.

 

[Jakke_Koala]

Do people also expect to play guitar without practicing?

I honestly can't understand why people want an easy mode in From games. We love these games Because they are what they are. You don't need to get good, you just need patience and tactic. They have options to make it easier ingame, but if you don't want to adjust to the rules and use the available tools, that's not the dev's or fans fault.

If you are hurting your hands because the fights are too difficult, you're doing something wrong.

 

[DerpHause]

I feel there is something else we are talking about that I am not aware of. I read that and my response has been only what? I feel like you are arguing against something I never said in that post.

EDIT: I think i see the problem. I was using the original quote of whoever it was as a segue for my argument. Not necessarily as a continuation of theirs. I will work on making that clearer next time.

Click to shrink...

To be fair some of it might also be me conflating posts and posters.

I don't know if I buy it. I really don't buy the idea that From fans in general believe the world hates their beloved games. I really don't. Like i wish people hated the games i loved as much as people hate From games. Maybe then i wouldn't of had to wait 15 years for a sequel to one. I just can't comprehend that perspective, just can't. My limited imagination I guess.

Click to shrink...

Not hated, as that's rarely an appropriate reaction to a product of this nature. Just not preferred by a lot of people. It's a popular series in that no one questions if sales were the reason they decided to play with the formula rather than creating DS4/BB2. But being popular and being ubiquitously so are 2 different things. We're not talking record breakers or chart toppers here. As such people not preferring it due to whatever aspects it may have as it exists makes perfect sense to me. That said the word of mouth from the more devout members of the cult of from probably are creating a strong FOMO effect. I mean, these games consistently review well and receive massive critical praise. They spawned an overused point of comparison (the dark souls of 'x') and their own microgenre. Surely there is something one needs to experience there, right?

And I think that's at the heart of why this conversation follows these games so heavily.

I guess to put it as plainly and a simple as I can. If third party cheats to make the game easier haven't ruined the believed communal experience then neither will ingame options to make the game easier. I don't see them as completely unrelated. I see them as two ways to achieve the same goal. The rest of it is just people getting hung up on unimportant shit.

Click to shrink...

That assumes that we're simply talking about ruining it vs pushing people into it and if the latter has any meaningful effect (I don't expect we'll agree there) and the impact of mods vs developer created content in reach by way of platform choice, knowledge of options and need for self selection. Those render the 2 somewhat incomparable over the breadth of the game's population even if they achieve some of the same goals. And mind you that was only one goal as it pertains to community, and leaves aside the goals of the experience for the individual player, though again I doubt we'll agree on the importance or effect there. Or for that matter whether it has to be universal to be relevant.

This is another time I feel like we are discussing two different things because I am not arguing with the people who made the decision to do jack shit. Like if I was sat down at From Software my argument wouldn't be well mods do it so you know might as well to. I am arguing against people who live in a make believe ideal about how things are and argue based off that world view. Just a bunch of random jerkoffs like myself who have no real input into what any developer decides to do or not do and just wants to argue their point of view.

Click to shrink...

I mean, you're in a way arguing they should do something without addressing why they aren't. It seems unconvincing from either standpoint because those who can identify with their reasoning aren't going to be swayed by you not addressing what they think about the subject. And fundamentally we aren't wrong about how things are, there is no make believe land. The functions of how it works are right in front of us but a lot of it is obfuscated by blatant misinterpretations that go directly against the plainly stated language people are using.

First, I don't believe it. There are countless posts in the various threads on this topic that reek of either fear or gatekeeping. Sure not all of them maybe not even a majority of them. Some people really want to debate the various interesting conflicts between developers intentions vs people's demands and that's cool. You are trying to sell me a bridge though if you want me to believe that is the vast majority. I am not buying.

Second, I am not interested in convincing anyone of anything. I get some enjoyment out of discussion and debating but I am not going to pretend that anyone will be convinced of anything by the time I am done. At best I might convince a few I am not all bad and most likely I will just convince many others that Almighty is a giant ass clown but that is about it.

Click to shrink...

I'm going to keep this one short.

If you want to discuss with me feel free. And I'm going to engage in good faith as best I can. That said, I'm not going to try to answer for things not even happening here that never came from me. I refuse to be held responsible for things I haven't done or have them used as a bludgeon against me, intended or not.

 

[BradGrenz]

Or maybe they can just have like an easy mode button that won't affect anything if you don't press it lol

Click to shrink...

Exactly. I can't figure out why there is this urge people have to argue that their experience is somehow being altered because somebody else is having a different experience. The presence of easy mode does not transform "hard" mode. Asserting that it does seems illogical.

Click to shrink...

It's not that hard to comprehend. If a game is largely about facing a challenge with no easy way out, the mere existence of an easier option undercuts that theme, whether you use it or not.

 

[Deleted member 26684]

This is more complicated than the debate between drawing people in versus "git gud". Neither of those sides have a complete picture of what's going on.

The former side runs into problems like people using lower difficulties as an excuse to undercut game design* (see also: escapism), and making it significantly more difficult to develop a game because resources spent on game design have to be multiplied (no one likes simply raising or lowering enemy health/damage). The latter side runs into problems such as not being able to use difficulties as "stepping stones" (an issue even in games that do have difficulties), and having to limit aspects of game design in ways that don't necessarily make sense (there are difficulty levels within difficulty levels).

There is at least one middle ground. There is likely more than one, even. Absolutes like "easy modes have never ruined a game" and "lower difficulties completely nullify a game's design"* never work.

For what it's worth, arguing that you haven't really beaten a game on a lower difficulty isn't "gatekeeping". This is a strange take that's been coming up a lot lately, and it doesn't make sense. However, this gets more complicated too, when you start factoring in higher difficulty levels as well as certain design elements such as character upgrades.

*these are not the same thing

 

[Deleted member 19954]

Currently playing it for a few hours now and as always, love the designs, the world, the cryptic story, the main character especially this time because it is not a silent protagonist (while he may not be the most talkative guy during a Scrabble evening with friends) and of course, also the combat system.

But, and now comes the but, the time will come that I won't be able to progress anymore. No matter how long I try to get better, there will be the point where I reach my limit. It's not different with Shmups. Lock me in in a room, hand over Ikaruga to me and come back 2 months later: You left me when I barely managed to beat the first stage. When you come back, I was most likely not be able to beat stage 2.

Yes, there are folks who would really love to enjoy these type of games on various difficulty modes. To actually finish this game with this wonderfully crafted world and characters and all the other brillant stuff what's going on there. But there is a limit when it comes to skill for many folks.

The only stuff from the From Software community I've read so far was toxic bullshit. "You don't have enough skill? Then you don't deserve to play this game". Or "Get better or get lost". It's not only arrogant, it's like being a jerk to everyone.

Everyone who is interested in the game and paid money for it deserves it to finish the game. You can make Sekiro easier without sacrificing it's hard and very hard mode. Yes, there is an even harder mode when you ring this bell. So this is possible, but lowering the difficulty isn't?

It's a sensible topic, but the time will come, even From Software has to evolve when it comes to quality of life stuff.

Click to shrink...

You know what you paid for.
Nobody deserves anything even if they pay for it.
You dont deserve the platinum trophy if you dont complete every other trophies.
Do we demand easy trophies for all games because we all pay for the games?

Get into the OT and let people guide you, full of fans who tried to help each other and go through the same hardship like everyone else.
this helpful community will not exist without such difficulty.
With easy mode, instead of "git gud", people will just say go play easy mode.
And if people cant even beat it with easy mode, what next? Every games must have godmode?
Every consoles should have gameshark support.

Lastly, these mode do not affect the other playing it normally.
Good if From want to do so, but people simply point out that they most likely wont, because that is not what they wanted with their games.

 

[jipewithin]

These "fromsoft toxic fanboy elitist club" comments are always pretty amusing. Even internet cesspool sites discussions about From games are wholesome. Check Era OT and it's full of people cheering, helping and praising others.

From games are pretty much only ones which communities are NOT toxic.

 

[Retozhe]

Everyone who is interested in the game and paid money for it deserves it to finish the game.

Click to shrink...

Should Witcher and Assassin's Creed have "short mode" so anyone could beat it in one hour?

 

[Edgar]

Should Witcher and Assassin's Creed have "short mode" so anyone could beat it in one hour?

Click to shrink...

I mean for those games doing main quest only will takes about 20h, that's pretty short compared to doing most content

 

[Izzard]

Should Witcher and Assassin's Creed have "short mode" so anyone could beat it in one hour?

Click to shrink...

Silly question and you know it.

 

[Siggy]

Silly question and you know it.

Click to shrink...

Is it? The sheer length of The Witcher 3 is the main reason I haven't bought or started it. I ain't got that kinda time.

I'm not actually saying it needs a short edit. I'm fine with simply not playing it — I'm drowning in games to play! People are saying the same should go for people not willing to put in the time to overcome challenges (assuming they're able-bodied and their hurdles are actually surmountable.)

 

[Arebours]

Everyone who is interested in the game and paid money for it deserves it to finish the game. You can make Sekiro easier without sacrificing it's hard and very hard mode. Yes, there is an even harder mode when you ring this bell. So this is possible, but lowering the difficulty isn't?

Click to shrink...

Nobody who is interested in and buys a game deserves anything but a potential refund. You don't even deserve to have a good time with your game.

 

[WhiteNovember]

Silly question and you know it.

Click to shrink...

He made a comment to a bullshit Argument, it really isnt a silly question in this context.

 

[Hokey]

The games are literally designed around dying (most of the systems in the game are designed around this), the games are also advertised and marketed around the fact that you will die a lot. This is the whole point of the game!

I can understand people are stuck or finding it too difficult but that is what the game is about, if you try and skip this part of the game then you're not really playing the game, it's not about story, atmosphere etc...those are all secondary to the difficulty.

Also it is not other posters here who don't want you to progress in the game or think it will ruin their own experience, they are literally just sticking up for the creator of the game who has already gone on record (many times) to say that the difficulty is integral to the experience. If you can't understand that then yes the game is not for you despite the fact that you purchased it or a myriad of other reasons you may come up with.

 

[Budi]

Is it? The sheer length of The Witcher 3 is the main reason I haven't bought or started it. I ain't got that kinda time.

I'm not actually saying it needs a short edit. I'm fine with simply not playing it — I'm drowning in games to play! People are saying the same should go for people not willing to put in the time to overcome challenges (assuming they're able-bodied and their hurdles are actually surmountable.)

Click to shrink...

Most of it's content was made entirely optional, you do have plenty of options to tailor the game to fit your needs in lenght already. Anything between 50-180 hours (rushed 31-116 hours). But the game could do more to let people enjoy just the story if they aren't digging the combat even on easy. But there's a lot to choose from. They also have helpful markings for the quest to tell you what type of quest it is. There's main quests, secondary quests, contracts, treasure hunts and points of interest. Having these separated for the player is quite nice. The game also has quick travel, you can ride, walk or run if you want to take in the sights. You can explore at your own pace. For impatient and busy player there's a quick travel to save time. You can skip cutscenes and also jump to the next line of dialogue if you read the subs faster than the character speaks.

 

[Siggy]

Most of it's content is entirely optional, you do have plenty of options to tailor the game to fit your needs in lenght already. Anything between 50-180 hours (rushed 31-116 hours). But the game could do more to let people enjoy just the story if they aren't digging the combat.

Click to shrink...

Appreciate the input, but I try to do most of the content in games I play, as long as it's sane. I don't see value in just getting to the credits and from what I've seen, the side content is of pretty high quality. I'd feel bad if I just passed by it. I'll get around to playing it some day when I both feel like it and can allocate sufficient time for it.

 

[Budi]

Appreciate the input, but I try to do most of the content in games I play, as long as it's sane. I don't see value in just getting to the credits and from what I've seen, the side content is of pretty high quality. I'd feel bad if I just passed by it. I'll get around to playing it some day when I both feel like it and can allocate sufficient time for it.

Click to shrink...

If you're short on time, don't start Gwent =P It can add a sizeable chunk of playtime if you really get into it.

Edit: Which reminds me, Thronebreaker the stand-alone singleplayer Gwent campaign allows for skipping fights and puzzles. Atleast on easier difficulty. So it can be played bit visual novel style too.

 

[jipewithin]

Silly question and you know it.

Click to shrink...

It's not. Witcher is what, 40-50 hours long? Many posters say they "dont have time" to play sekiro meaning as dying over and over again.

Took almost 50h to beat sekiro for the first time and im sure second playthrough is much, much shorter as the length comes from trial and error, overcoming the challenge. Delete it and it's just as valid to ask for shorter game mode for long ass rpg games. They don't respect my time because they are too long.

See how dumb it sounds? It's just as ridiculous to ask for easymode for sekiro (other from games have it already)

 

[Grizzel Greedigut]

I agree that games need easy modes. I dont have time to grind out levels anymore lol