This nails it pretty much. I think we video games too seriously sometimes.
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Kotaku: An easy mode has never ruined a game
- Thread starter BAD
- Start date
Some people enjoy playing games they suck at. The big question is are you taking 5 hours to get past what almost anyone else would beat in 2 hours, or are you giving up after 1 hour because you get too frustrated from repeated failure and just assume everyone else must have beat the section in an hour or else they'd be too frustrated to continue too.
That's what makes me uncomfortable about putting it in terms of physical ability instead of pure subjective opinion about what you want out of games. Not that I'm necessarily against more options to satisfy a larger crowd, I just would like to be on the same page about what the problem is here.
You're free to bring up other examples, and I certainly would love to discuss other examples. But you can't really dictate what other people should discuss.
It's about people with physical disabilities who can't play games like Dark Souls but still want to have conversations with their friends about Dark Souls
For example
I mean...it's something that I'd personally want. I like training arenas because I like optimizing combat and sometimes death or getting to second forms are a waste especially nowdays when I don't have a lot of time to practice. I also agree they aren't required but are things that I think would make it more accessible while also not changing the gameplay at all.
That's fair, I'm still on Bloodborne at the moment so I am a bit behind. I'm just trying to think of ideas that could be more accessible that aren't "just make easy mode".
You're answer didn't make sense to me. I responded back with "So in the end, not all games cater to everyone?" but you never responded to that one. I'll reiterate my question:
How easy is easy? Say a genie granted your wish and you're allowed to put ONE easy mode on Sekiro. What will you do with that mode?
Ok.... sure, just venting.
So, closed captions, not just for speech but for environmental sounds, unfair advantage in multiplayer or fair trade off?
I started playing Dark Souls a couple of weeks ago. Immediately fell in love with the world From has crafted and thought the game was hard but satisfying. Now, 20 hours in, I just made it to Anor Londo and stepped inside a painting, but my satisfaction has definitely diminished. Beating bosses doesn't feel special because you know there is just going to be the next you have to try over and over again. It's like there is this gnawing feeling of not wanting to bother anymore. Why am I redoing sections of a game countless times even though I barely have any time to play video games as is. Knowing about the upcoming brutal O&S fight also works extremely deflating. I wish From had added easier settings for the game that would allow me to experience the world they have crafted fully, because I already know at this pace I will be long deflated far before I reach the end of the game.
But easy mode is saying "you don't have to learn how to play this part of the game to see the next part." Okay, so we make enemies do half damage and stop doing attacks that hit multiple times. When someone says that is still too hard, what should the dev do next? At what point can we finally just say "This game is not for you; there are many fine games that you would enjoy more," like we have been since the beginning?
That one is interesting, and I do think there are some requirements regarding this now, aren't there? I think Apex Legends had to implement a system like that, I should look it up.
Left 4 dead and source games are the ones I've come across. I do have Apex on the PS4, but only played a few rounds and didn't fiddle with settings. Would really help me if there was an options like that.....
I'm not sure of any requirements.
How did my answer not make sense lmao. I said easy is subjective to each game. "how easy is easy" is not a valid question because there is no universal answer
I think Sekiro's easy mode can very easily be done by adjusting the damage taken and the damage given, as well as making the healing and dodging invincibility windows wider and increasing the amount of healing items and resurrections
Okay, and what if someone still couldn't beat the game despite all the adjustments that you have listed out?
It's not saying that, it's saying we're going to lower the amount you need to learn in order to proceed. Your argument about doing what you want and then getting to the end regardless is in no way comparable and only serves to try and discredit what people want from an easy mode
Then they can't beat it. Easy mode isn't a guarantee to finish a game, it's just lowering the difficulty to make it easier for people to progress. You're framing the argument completely wrong
From Software games already have a linear curve. Bosses at the start tend to be a bit easier than those later in the game or side bosses.
Most people will progress in a FS game, even if they don't complete it. Ornstein and Smough, for example, were a notorious DS bottleneck. They were like halfway into the game.
Last edited:
But what about accessibility? What about disabled gamers? What about them?
No, in your example a different wall would be a different game.
Edit: Sorry, I thought it was for environmental sounds as well but turns out it's for the social part:
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13745730/5Cg4Ccs.png)
https://www.polygon.com/2019/2/10/18212897/apex-legends-settings-accessibility-disability
And I was thinking of these guidelines set by the FCC last year:
CVAA accessibility rules come into effect for games as FCC waiver expires
Gamasutra said:
Last edited:
It's very clear that you're arguing in bad faith, but an easy mode *does* make it more accessible. Ideally every game would have assist options to help with things like timing and precise platforming.
I also think you're greatly underestimating the ability of people with disabilities
This, i don't have my whole life to play a game. Plus i only get frustrated and lose interest in a game if i can't complete it.
I think as an early-game, easy option, float burst ruined Shovel Knight Plague of Shadows for a lot of players. Options should be designed to guide the intended audience to their own greatest enjoyment of the game. I'm not saying that the devs always know best, but they invariably know more about what lies ahead of a gamer who is coming in blind, and the best games restrict options available to prevent players from ruining the games for themselves. Obviously, it's impossible to design a game for everyone, and some games are going to be inaccessible to some subset of the population precisely due to the challenges that are the highlight to another subset of the population. So there is always going to be some tension between those that think a game is too easy, or too hard. Some of the time, this can be mitigated by adding multiple difficulty settings. On the other hand, adding a poorly designed easy or hard mode can lure a lot of otherwise able and willing gamers into a trap. Remember that gamers are 'blind' coming into an experience and will sometimes make near-sighted decisions to their own overall detriment. Also, sometimes developing several well-balanced difficulty modes is (due on the genre, development circumstances, or a multitude of other factors) prohibitive or unfeasible. I think the best way to address this tension is to accept that it will always exist, and weigh pros and cons in individual circumstances instead of making reductive arguments supporting either camp. I think it's reasonable to consider the spectra of difficulty and accessibility across the gaming landscape as a whole, instead of holding each game to the aggregate standard. If there are very few, truly difficult action games or puzzle games, I see no problem in a game being catered specifically to that audience. So long, as they are truly catering to that audience in good faith. i.e. the decision to omit difficulty options is solely to remove the temptation of modes of play that the player might* regret. (* and by might, I mean would if only the player could simultaneously experience all possible modes and paths through the game and then deliberate to themselves).
Returning to the Plague Knight example, I'm convinced that a majority of the players who struggled with the tutorial level--understandably due to not yet having a grasp on plague knights physics and bomb jump--and then subsequently bought float burst thinking it would solve the issue would've enjoyed the controls and campaigns more if they actually learned how bomb jumping momentum worked over the course of more levels. Not only does float burst slow the pace of the game to a crawl, but unbeknownst to the player it locks them out of the double bomb jump technique which directly contributes to a feeling of flying through levels after mastery. And this is not some elitist definition of mastery; most players would've gotten the grasp of the normal bomb jump throughout the campaign if only they hadn't opted out.
Returning to the Plague Knight example, I'm convinced that a majority of the players who struggled with the tutorial level--understandably due to not yet having a grasp on plague knights physics and bomb jump--and then subsequently bought float burst thinking it would solve the issue would've enjoyed the controls and campaigns more if they actually learned how bomb jumping momentum worked over the course of more levels. Not only does float burst slow the pace of the game to a crawl, but unbeknownst to the player it locks them out of the double bomb jump technique which directly contributes to a feeling of flying through levels after mastery. And this is not some elitist definition of mastery; most players would've gotten the grasp of the normal bomb jump throughout the campaign if only they hadn't opted out.
As much as I raged a lot at Sekiro, the thought of switching to a hypothetical easy mode never crossed my mind once.
It's not Sekiro, but if you'd accept an idea for Bloodborne, how about a "shadow boxing" area in the Hunter's Dream where you can, at your discretion, practice the game's mechanics (particularly parrying) against enemy illusions that can't kill you, possibly with an actual tutorial element and/or the ability to practice fighting encountered bosses/refight slain bosses. That way you can actually learn to "git gud" instead of trying to figure out the game's obtuse instructions (re: by doing what almost everyone else did and read a guide/watched a video).
The games are already accessible. Anyone, barring certain disabilities that make all games less accessible, can start these games and work through them the same as anyone else. Yeah, not everyone will be able to get to the end, or have time to practice and get better, etc. How is this different from most other games that offer a level of difficulty above the sort of everyone-wins baseline that publishers tend to aim for these days? I'm trying to understand if you're just saying it would be nice to have these things, or if you're arguing that this is a necessary part of game design.
Exactly, at some point, you're never going to please everyone. So you agree that "not every game is necessarily for everyone"?
I agree, people who use the disabled as a shield for their argument in asking for an easy mode is greatly underestimating the ability of people with disabilities.
That's progress! I'm just now catching up on Bloodborne myself due to having just gotten a PS4 relatively recently, so it not having one is fresh on the mind.
Some From fans need to get over the fact that some people having opinions that aren't entirely positive about their games. Saying x game doesn't have to be for you doesn't invalidate somebody's opinion that they or someone else might enjoy the game with an easy difficulty added in.
They might be disabled but many with disabilities are amazing at games. It's things like colour settings, accessible controllers and the like that make games accessible to people with disabilities, not an easy mode and quite frankly it's condisending implying otherwise as easy modes and accessibility options are completely different things.
That would be nice in hindsight and most likely why they implemented the punching bag guy in Sekiro. It something that would be nice to see moving forward. I disagree though with practicing on undefeated boss fights, that completely undermines the point of the fight. But yes, practicing on defeated bosses would be a nice option.
I think you mean the adaptive controller. And that does rock indeed, unfortunately not available outside of Xbox and PC I think. It definitely should be usable also on PS4 and Nintendo Switch (with any platform). I'm strongly in favor, just like mouse and keyboard should be allowed on every platform and every game. Essentially every platform should be like PC in this regard, the player chooses the control method and nobody else. But to many, the control input is just the first barrier. It doesn't necessarily solve whatever further excludes them. And to some, the controller isn't the barrier to begin with.
I'm not sure where the thought comes from that difficulty isn't accessibility option. When people and organizations working/consulting on accessibility classify it as such.
http://gameaccessibilityguidelines.com
It's right there in the basic category. http://gameaccessibilityguidelines.com/offer-a-wide-choice-of-difficulty-levels/
Last edited:
Options are always great. Being against easy mode just seems like a weird way of gatekeeping.
I don't agree that the "not every game is for everyone" argument stands against difficulty options, and I don't agree that there is a binary of enjoyment between whether you can finish a game or not. I do think that games that were overly difficult for some people including an easy mode could be beneficial for enjoyment and accessibility and don't see why anyone would argue against its inclusion
You saying "well nothing will ever be easy enough for someone so we shouldn't do it" is both fundamentally misunderstanding the argument and is incredibly obnoxious and unhelpful. You've failed to actually make a solid argument outside of the tired "not every game has to be for everyone" argument without even bothering to elaborate why that should be the case
So, in short, bye!
Sekiro easy mode is watching Youtube videos that document every one of a boss's moves and tell you how to respond.
They do cross over in some cases as not all disabilities are the same and some hinder more than others. Framing easy mode/difficulty settings as being just for disabled gamers is wrong but if it helps someone to enjoy the game more who is disabled then I do not see the problem. Having the option is surely better than not having the option?
Because the developer chooses not to implement a difficulty mode in order to follow through with their vision knowing very well that it might alienate a portion of gamers who would otherwise be interested in their game, and that they are willing to take whatever hit there is on their bottom line as long as they can follow through with their vision.
The issue with practice arenas is people don't want to actually learn to play the game. If they can't beat an enemy by mashing the attack button they say 'this game is too hard.' As I'm typing this, my coworker is raging after repeatedly dying to normal enemies because he refuses to block or stop mashing attack like he's playing DMC.
I don't know how you'd even implement an easy mode, but one thing that would make bad player's lives easier would be putting Buddha statues right outside of boss doors instead of putting enemies in their paths because new players quickly get frustrated at having to run back to the boss after each death. They don't understand that those enemies are opportunities for resources because, again, they are playing the game wrong.
Some of the game is difficult. Some times deaths are cheap. There are a lot of UX elements that could be improved to make new player onboarding better. But there's not an easy way to implement difficulty sliders without rewarding bad play and dramatically changing the way low-skill players engage. If the point of the Souls series is to create a large number of unique combat encounters with a wide arrange of subtle mechanics then the barrier to entry will always be high. These games are complex, but they're difficulty is mostly imagined since much of the encounters require situational knowledge you just can't obtain without practice and observation.
I don't know how you'd even implement an easy mode, but one thing that would make bad player's lives easier would be putting Buddha statues right outside of boss doors instead of putting enemies in their paths because new players quickly get frustrated at having to run back to the boss after each death. They don't understand that those enemies are opportunities for resources because, again, they are playing the game wrong.
Some of the game is difficult. Some times deaths are cheap. There are a lot of UX elements that could be improved to make new player onboarding better. But there's not an easy way to implement difficulty sliders without rewarding bad play and dramatically changing the way low-skill players engage. If the point of the Souls series is to create a large number of unique combat encounters with a wide arrange of subtle mechanics then the barrier to entry will always be high. These games are complex, but they're difficulty is mostly imagined since much of the encounters require situational knowledge you just can't obtain without practice and observation.
...I've only gotten to skim this thread, but what I have read has been pretty depressing. For anyone who is casually tossing around 'gamer entitlement' when discussing more difficulty options/accessibility, please read Ian Hamilton's twitter thread. I also think equating film and television = games is a terrible discussion point, because games are fundamentally interactive, and that's the draw with the medium.
Difficulty in games is a complicated area, and it's also hard not to tie it into a discussion on accessibility, as the Kotaku article from the OP does delve into really well. Again, this twitter thread from Ian Hamilton is an absolutely excellent must read (great quote: As Hidetaka Miyazaki said in an interview their goal is not to make games for people who have a high skill level, their goal is to make games for people who enjoy the feeling of success through persistence, which is a fundamentally different thing ), as is this personal opinion piece of someone living with chronic and debilitating health issues, with the importance of gaming as an escape.
I understand the time and resources that may have to go into giving more difficulty options (or making the game more accessible outside of difficulty), but I do think there is so much worth in exploring these avenues if possible for developers. Gaming is such an extraordinary medium, and the more people that get to experience these games, the better.
It's been linked previously, but Mark Brown did an excellent video on the topic - not just exploring Celeste's Assist Mode, but the ways many other games have become more accessible without losing the primary appeal of the game:
Excellent posts.
Difficulty in games is a complicated area, and it's also hard not to tie it into a discussion on accessibility, as the Kotaku article from the OP does delve into really well. Again, this twitter thread from Ian Hamilton is an absolutely excellent must read (great quote: As Hidetaka Miyazaki said in an interview their goal is not to make games for people who have a high skill level, their goal is to make games for people who enjoy the feeling of success through persistence, which is a fundamentally different thing ), as is this personal opinion piece of someone living with chronic and debilitating health issues, with the importance of gaming as an escape.
I understand the time and resources that may have to go into giving more difficulty options (or making the game more accessible outside of difficulty), but I do think there is so much worth in exploring these avenues if possible for developers. Gaming is such an extraordinary medium, and the more people that get to experience these games, the better.
It's been linked previously, but Mark Brown did an excellent video on the topic - not just exploring Celeste's Assist Mode, but the ways many other games have become more accessible without losing the primary appeal of the game:
Excellent posts.
I think that's an absolutely defensible position. I personally don't think it's the only way to create that sense of achievement or distinction but I'd never reject its intent or meaning.
On all difficulties, It's poorly balanced. There are several things in the game that are overpowered from basic moves (dash/evade) to your loadout (chip system). It's enjoyable enough on any difficulty I guess but the hard mode will definitely make many people feel compelled to explore the games' many cheesy tactics.
I'm assuming this is done to make sure rpg players coming for the story can get thru without having to have the dexterity of an action player. While the control and moves are lifted from an action game, it's not an action game so the gameplay is sort of a mismatch.
The gameplay is enjoyable on normal (AND EASY!) but seeking a challenge on hard mode seriously exasperates the poor balance.
Last edited:
This has already been said but I think there is a big difference between "I want to breeze through this game because I do not find the process of playing it and getting better to be enjoyable" and "I would like to play this game and experience a challenge according to my own skill level, but my disability prevents me from meaningfully being able to do so". I feel like people are conflating the two when they are totally different and accessibility to me seems much more about the latter than the former.
Yeah this is pretty much what every person who's played the game has told me. I believe either Yoko or someone else said that Automata was deliberately built to not be as in-depth as other action games because the first Nier had a lot of casual rpg fans who would find it too intimidating if it was more complex. Truth be told Normal eventually became pretty trivial, it was still fun to move around and hit things but I would never suggest people play Automata purely for the gameplay because it has good mechanics that the game doesn't take full advantage of, at least in terms of the combat proper.
Yeah this is pretty much what every person who's played the game has told me. I believe either Yoko or someone else said that Automata was deliberately built to not be as in-depth as other action games because the first Nier had a lot of casual rpg fans who would find it too intimidating if it was more complex. Truth be told Normal eventually became pretty trivial, it was still fun to move around and hit things but I would never suggest people play Automata purely for the gameplay because it has good mechanics that the game doesn't take full advantage of, at least in terms of the combat proper.
Last edited:
Wait, what? How does that even begin to make sense? Same activity (walk climbing) but different levels of difficulty. That's much closer to a single game than different games entirely.
I made this a few weeks ago for a similar thread:
http:///8Vkd.png
A lot of people like the Souls games but ultimately find that the difficulty shuts them out. Characterizing those people as weirdos who insist on playing games that hold zero appeal to them seems misguided at best.
Edit: Sorry, I thought it was for environmental sounds as well but turns out it's for the social part:
https://www.polygon.com/2019/2/10/18212897/apex-legends-settings-accessibility-disability
And I was thinking of these guidelines set by the FCC last year:
CVAA accessibility rules come into effect for games as FCC waiver expires
Hmmm... I think I remember hearing about this. CC or voice to text for in game chat.
I was thinking about environmental sounds but yeah, this would be nice as well.
Now I can see how well this works.
I like this post and missed it earlier; you are totally right. To expand it to Dark Souls for a bit, I see a lot of people saying that Dark Souls 3 is slower than Bloodborne because they hide behind a shield for the whole game, when in reality it is just as fast as Bloodborne if you simply don't use a shield and learn how to dodge through attacks. People won't take kindly to being told they're playing the game wrong, but as hbomberguy's Bloodborne video points out, they are playing the game in a way that is less enjoyable, and it's not even entirely their fault because the game seems to push you towards playing passively with a shield. Similarly, playing Bayonetta without dodge offset is not "wrong," per se, but you're not exactly playing the game well, and you're not going to get the kind of satisfaction from playing it that people who have mastered the dodge offset are getting.
