This nails it pretty much. I think we video games too seriously sometimes.Things that should be obvious are now hot takes. What a world we live in
This nails it pretty much. I think we video games too seriously sometimes.Things that should be obvious are now hot takes. What a world we live in
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.But I really wanna be able to play Bloodborne and I suck at it, should I not have the right to enjoy the game?
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.I'm sorry I missed it. I'll check it out.
And yes, other people (like you) are discussing it. Topic is completely getting drowned out by the From Software talk and that's a goddamn shame.
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 SoulsIs this about people not wanting to learn mechanics of some certain set of games? Not everything can be brute forced (which sadly what most gaming has taught us). If it about achievements you can make difficulty ones. Though in Sekiro..what would be easy mode, almost god mode cheat like thing? They at least put spawn point near bosses this time around.
If people actually wanted to practice we wouldn't be having this entire discussion in the first place. They just want an "A" for awesome without actually engaging with the mechanics.
Still going to need that warning, combat is a lot faster in this game. Not to mention there's already special effect hits that happen when you parry that you need to keep track off, might get too visually messy. I don't even think it'd help people having difficulty parrying either. It's not the cues that are difficult, it is the speed.
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:
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.
Easy mode isn't ignoring missions and doing whatever you want. Your argument is very bad
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.So, closed captions, not just for speech but for environmental sounds, unfair advantage in multiplayer or fair trade off?
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.
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 answerYou'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?
Okay, and what if someone still couldn't beat the game despite all the adjustments that you have listed out?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
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 modeBut 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?
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 wrongOkay, 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
But what about accessibility? What about disabled gamers? What about them?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
I don't agree that it has to diminish the experience. It's easy to just ignore the escalator. This is like saying wall climbers can't feel a sense of accomplishment by climbing a hard wall because there are easier walls in the facility.
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.
Gamasutra said:The CVAA requires that communication functionality like in-game chat and the UI used to navigate and operate those elements must be accessible to people of varying sight, motor, speech, cognitive, and hearing ability. The requirements themselves are outlined in the full legislation, specifically in section 14.21.
Though for an example of features the FCC is after, at the time of the final waiver extension the commission called out accessible communication options added to games like Splatoon 2 and Minecraft like smartphone apps or text-to-speech tools as steps in the right direction.
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.But what about accessibility? What about disabled gamers? What about them?
I have a friend who insists on playing every game on the hardest difficulty. I roll my eyes everytime when he says it. Normal and easy mode for me lol
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).So, you never answered my question to you earlier. 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?
Then don't?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 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
Exactly, at some point, you're never going to please everyone. So you agree that "not every game is necessarily for everyone"?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 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.I also think you're 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.Why are people talking about practice areas? Sekiro already has one.
But what about accessibility? What about disabled gamers? What about them?
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.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).
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.You're ignoring my point.
To make it accessible, follow what Microsoft did with that one video with the disabled child, the one that played in previews before movies in theaters. They made controls he could use for the game to make it accessible. That should always be the priority to make it accessible. It's best to make the actual game playable by the disabled person, not to change the game experience.
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.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.
Offering a simple choice of difficulty is a fairly blunt but still good first step in accessibility, allowing some flexibility in the main challenge involved, such as level of AI, speed of enemies or difficulty of puzzles. This can be taken further by offering more detailed options for individual elements of game difficulty.
Allow as wide a choice as possible, at both ends of the scale, and avoid giving demeaning names for lower levels or or mocking players who use them. Bear in mind that difficulty is about allowing people with different levels of ability the same level of experience, even the easiest setting you can possibly implement will present a significant challenge for some.
I completely agree with you.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.
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 inclusionExactly, 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.
not an easy mode and quite frankly it's condisending implying otherwise as easy modes and accessibility options are completely different things.
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.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!
Now imagine a scenario where a child with cerebal paulsy plays Forza 4 with an adaptive controller and yet still struggles to come anywhere close to completing the games events because their motor skills aren't the same as yours, and they react quite a bit slower.
This child uses difficulty settings to lower the games difficulty and make the intended experience, a more accessible one for them. The controller allows them to move the car around effectively enough, and the difficultly settings make the game forgiving enough to react slowly and still have a chance of being able to complete the events and progress.
Now Microsoft decide to release Forza 5, but without difficulty options. The game isn't for them anymore, they can't finish the events and progress. That's a-ok? Because it was the designers vision not to include them?
Difficulty and accessibility aren't the same thing, but difficulty settings can help make the game more accessible. Having options for lower difficulties allows people with reduces motor or cognitive abilities to have an experience more closely aligned with the intended one.
Assist Mode (Deflect):
Off: The base Sekiro experience.
Low: The window to deflect incoming attacks is increased.
Medium: The window to deflect and Perfect Deflect incoming attacks is increased.
High (Automatic): While blocking, incoming attacks will be automatically deflected.
Extreme (Automatic): While blocking, incoming attacks will be automatically Perfect Deflected.
Assist Mode (Healing):
Off: The base Sekiro experience.
Low: The Wolf will have one extra use of the Healing Gourd.
Medium: The Wolf will have two extra uses of the Healing Gourd, and will receive less damage if attacked while healing.
High: The Wolf will have three extra uses of the Healing Gourd, and will receive less damage if attacked while healing.
Extreme: The Wolf will have unlimited uses of the Healing Gourd, and will receive less damage if attacked while healing.
Assist Mode (Resurrection):
Off: The base Sekiro experience.
Low: The Wolf recovers more health upon resurrecting.
Medium: The Wolf starts with one extra node of resurrection, and recovers more health upon resurrecting.
High: The Wolf starts with two extra nodes of resurrection, and recovers full health upon resurrecting. Dragonrot is slower to afflict others.
Extreme: The Wolf may resurrect as many times as wanted. Dragonrot no longer spreads.
Notice: Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice is a game about accomplishment in the face of unbeatable odds. As such, the intended game experience is without Assist Modes enabled. Certain Trophies/Achievements will not be available if Low options are enabled. Most trophies and achievements will not be available when enabling Medium or above settings.
As much as certain games may be about overcoming challenges, with proper presentation "easy modes" tend to be a net positive. Crushed's post below is a great example of applying Celeste's Assist Mode to Sekiro. Celeste is very much a game about overcoming challenge, both in its play and its narrative, yet I haven't seen anyone say that the Assist Mode has ruined the experience for them.
That said, implementing a mode like this is a question of resources. It may improve the game, but a developer is not obligated to include it.
There's lots of literature I will never be able to read because I cannot speak the language it is written in. Any translation of that literature is a net benefit, even if it does not replicate the exact experience of the original work, because it will let me approach it when I could not before. But it is not the author or the publisher's moral obligation to produce the work in every possible language, because that comes at a cost.
For a more exact parallel to games, SOMA, a horror game widely lauded for its story, added a "safe mode" for players via patch that removed failure states and altered enemy behavior to fit this. This is very much not what the developers had originally intended when they produced the game. I am not a fan of horror games, and I had resigned myself to never playing the game because of the horror. I had no expectation that Frictional Games would make something that would let me play. But I am happy that they did, and their doing so does not alter the original experience that fans of the game appreciated.
I think it'd be good if From added an appropriate mode that lowered difficulty for players, but I would understand if they wished to spend their limited resources elsewhere.
wouldn't the depth from which sekiro, as a piece of art, springs from is the satisfaction of overcoming difficult odds?
Speaking of this and looking at your avatar, how was Nier Automata on harder difficulties? Haven't played it yet. Usually character action games are the few to get it right.
On all difficulties, It's poorly balanced. There are several things in the game that are overpowered from basic moves 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 haveing 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.
No, in your example a different wall would be a different game.
Nobody is gatekeeping, people can just go play different games instead, there is a variety of genres and difficulties available out there. Sousborne games and Sekiro are fine the way they are and the difficulty should stay the way it is. Why does everyone have to like everything? There are different tastes and opinions, if something isn't your cup of tea, another thing probably is. This is like going to a football game and complaining about gatekeeping in regards to hockey fans who want to like football but just can't, because the rules don't allow for any use of hockey sticks.
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
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.