• 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.

Accessibility vs Difficulty

  • Every gamer should be able to experience any game from start to finish

    Votes: 601 30.1%
  • Not everyone will be able/willing to see the end, and that’s ok.

    Votes: 1,394 69.9%

  • Total voters
    1,995
  • Poll closed .

spman2099

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,892
It seemed obnoxious. Fights that go on a bit long without any room for mistake, frame perfect deflects and parries.

Geeklat, did you put much time into Sekiro? I think you may have overestimated how demanding the timing is. It isn't in the neighborhood of frame perfect. The input window seems pretty generous, actually. I would encourage you giving it another shot (if you still own the game), you may find that you had gotten into your own head, here.

You still have to learn the timing of attacks, and enemies will delay their attacks to complicate matters, but there isn't anything that is mechanically demanding in Sekiro. Like, I don't think you need to worry about lacking dexterity.

If Sekiro required frame perfect timing I would actually be on your side here, as that is a pretty huge ask of the player. However, that simply isn't the case.
 

Heh

Member
Dec 12, 2017
611
Games should have their niche. Learn, play, fail and win. If you think it doesn't respect your time, move on. If you still want to know what happens watch someone on their first playthrough. You can still get a similar feeling of elation of seeing someone struggle and finally succeed.
 

jimboton

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,421
Well, don't ever cry then when developers fill the game with MTX because that was their intended way to play, right? Lol
I'm not sure what does have to do with anything that went before. That game designers can have terrible ideas? is that your "point"? How does it relate to the post you quoted, exactly?

Noticed that with a lot of your replies to people in this thread, you move the goalposts so wildly it's hard to keep track... MTX you say? uhh sure, ok pal ;)
 

CloseTalker

Member
Oct 25, 2017
30,634
I'm on team "not everyone needs to beat every game". The idea of a Dark Souls/Bloodborne/Sekiro that's easy is kind of funny to me, all you're left with is a generic action game with little to no story. The difficulty literally is a core mechanic of these game, it's a pillar of what makes them, them. That's certainly not true of every game, I think a lot of games are totally fine having difficulty options. But for cases specifically like this, it just feels weird.
 
Oct 26, 2017
8,734
Now this is an interesting thread, because I made a complaint thread about Hollow Knight's final Pantheon being one of the worst designs I have ever seen (from a pacing standpoint and the fact that they arbitrarily took away benches' ability to be a checkpoint). All I said was that I wish Team Cherry had the foresight to add in checkpoints to made the Pantheon less tedious, because ultimately 2 cinematics is not enough reward for the amount of time spent on the bullshit you go through, and I was still met with the same responses that people in here are saying:

"It's the developer's vision"
"Git gud"
"Hurr Durr Youtube it"

Hell some people even misinterpreted what I said as being entitled to see all the content, when that wasn't the point. All I said was that I wish checkpoints where a thing, because being thrown 40 bosses with varying difficulties makes the Pantheon itself feel like a dice roll to get to the tougher bosses. It's punishing beyond what is reasonable, and on top of that, Hollow Knight isn't an easy game to begin with (but it is a hell of a lot more fair than the Godmaster content). The elitism and attitudes is really stupid because it's just a game. It's not as if you're doing anything meaningful in life that's actually worth bragging about.

Okay back to the topic at hand. Now when it comes to the design of games in general, I do think there needs to be a balance between difficulty and accessibility because no matter how good some of you are with certain games, not all of the player base are video game gods. Not to mention, games are commodities so the general idea should be to appeal to as many people as possible (obviously not all games will appeal to everyone but you get my point). It's why I don't understand why some people here get so triggered if there's an inclusion of easy mode for those who aren't great at games, or those who have a physical disability where their skill is affected by lack of movement/reaction times. Hell, I have a disability (I'm deaf and require the use of a cochlear implant), and anything involving sound cues for boss fights is my biggest weakness. It's why I have to rely so much on visual cues as my implant registers sound differently than people with regular hearing (what people hear as clear sound cues, I sometimes end up hearing as gibberish because I can't make sense of what's being said). Not to mention, sometimes music really interferes with my ability to hear sound cues so that's another challenge. So, I am sympathetic to people who have disabilities where their motor control is affected, and it's not really fair to lock them out of enjoying games because of that.

Furthermore, your experience won't be any less legitimate if you like playing games on a hard difficulty, while others play on easy mode. It's like people have no awareness to realize that gaming is a subjective experience. What you guys will experience is not going to be the same as what I experience and vice versa (best example: people like myself love the time limit in Majora's Mask, while others absolutely hate it). I've played my fair share of hard games from this generation all the way back to the NES, and not once did I feel like I was cheated bc the easy option was there. AND if anything, for the games that were ridiculously harder than I was used to, I would just use Easy mode as a training wheel and then work my way up to hard mode.
 

Weltall Zero

Game Developer
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
19,343
Madrid
Now this is an interesting thread, because I made a complaint thread about Hollow Knight's final Pantheon being one of the worst designs I have ever seen (from a pacing standpoint and the fact that they arbitrarily took away benches' ability to be a checkpoint). All I said was that I wish Team Cherry had the foresight to add in checkpoints to made the Pantheon less tedious, because ultimately 2 cinematics is not enough reward for the amount of time spent on the bullshit you go through, and I was still met with the same responses that people in here are saying:

"It's the developer's vision"
"Git gud"
"Hurr Durr Youtube it"

Hell some people even misinterpreted what I said as being entitled to see all the content, when that wasn't the point. All I said was that I wish checkpoints where a thing, because being thrown 40 bosses with varying difficulties makes the Pantheon itself feel like a dice roll to get to the tougher bosses. It's punishing beyond what is reasonable, and on top of that, Hollow Knight isn't an easy game to begin with (but it is a hell of a lot more fair than the Godmaster content). The elitism and attitudes is really stupid because it's just a game. It's not as if you're doing anything meaningful in life that's actually worth bragging about.

The point of the pantheons is to ensure that no matter what your skill level is, there will always be a challenge for you. I know for a fact I will never, ever, in a million years, clear the hardest pantheon (nor I will probably even attempt to), and that's perfectly OK. It's cool for me to know there's such a crazy challenge for people insane and devoted enough, and I enjoy people doing it.

Asking for checkpoints on a boss gauntlet is not so much missing the point as being in a different continent than the point. Dismissing someone clearing that pantheon as "not anything meaninful that's worth bragging about" is straight out eye-rolling. Who exactly made you the arbiter of what's meaningful? What's your measuring stick for it? If it's not meaningful, why do you care at all?
 

Kyuuji

The Favonius Fox
Member
Nov 8, 2017
32,155
Okay back to the topic at hand. Now when it comes to the design of games in general, I do think there needs to be a balance between difficulty and accessibility because no matter how good some of you are with certain games, not all of the player base are video game gods.
I'm still not understanding why that's a need.

Furthermore, your experience won't be any less legitimate if you like playing games on a hard difficulty, while others play on easy mode. It's like people have no awareness to realize that gaming is a subjective experience.
This implies adding an easy mode is something that would have zero impact on development and is as easy as 'changing numbers', when it isn't. Adding an easy mode needs to offer a quality gaming experience when it's a default mode in your game. It needs consideration, it needs testing, it needs to be an enjoyable experience that doesn't completely compromise the experience the developer intended.

So I disagree, adding an easy mode could affect my potential enjoyment of a game and it isn't subjective. It would mean either diverting or increasing resources and that has an impact on the game, be it in the quality/quantity of content on the hard/intended side or on the sales/income expectations to cover the increased resources. This is, obviously, when referring to games that didn't account for an easy option when being developed - like Sekiro or Bloodborne.
 
Oct 26, 2017
8,734
I'm still not understanding why that's a need.

So you can't understand the fact that you player base won't be 100% skilled gods as a good enough need for there to be balance between difficulty and accessibility?

This implies adding an easy mode is something that would have zero impact on development and is as easy as 'changing numbers', when it isn't. Adding an easy mode needs to offer a quality gaming experience when it's a default mode in your game. It needs consideration, it needs testing, it needs to be an enjoyable experience that doesn't completely compromise the experience the developer intended.

So I disagree, adding an easy mode could affect my potential enjoyment of a game and it isn't subjective. It would mean either diverting or increasing resources and that has an impact on the game, be it in the quality/quantity of content on the hard/intended side or on the sales/income expectations to cover the increased resources. This is, obviously, when referring to games that didn't account for an easy option when being developed - like Sekiro or Bloodborne.

Why are you assuming I was talking from a development standpoint? I was clearly talking about the player's perspective. Nowhere in that comment did I make the suggestion that it would be an ezpz add, nor am I that ignorant enough to assume it'd just be easily plopped in. Obviously there would have to be consideration and careful thought applied to its design. The bolded makes absolutely no sense either. You're implying that your potential enjoyment isn't subjective which is hilarious because that's your experience. That doesn't mean everyone else is going to experience games in the same way as you, so you've basically just proved my point about people lacking the awareness to realize the subjectivity of gaming experiences.
 

Kyuuji

The Favonius Fox
Member
Nov 8, 2017
32,155
So you can't understand the fact that you player base won't be 100% skilled gods as a good enough need for there to be balance between difficulty and accessibility?
Yes, I don't see why there's a need for every game to be accessible for everyone.

I say that as someone that isn't a 'skilled god' in any game.
Why are you assuming I was talking from a development standpoint? I was clearly talking about the player's perspective. Nowhere in that comment did I make the suggestion that it would be an ezpz add, nor am I that ignorant enough to assume it'd just be easily plopped in. Obviously there would have to be consideration and careful thought applied to its design. The bolded makes absolutely no sense either. You're implying that your potential enjoyment isn't subjective which is hilarious because that's your experience. That doesn't mean everyone else is going to experience games in the same way as you, so you've basically just proved my point about people lacking the awareness to realize the subjectivity of gaming experiences.
What are you on about?

I said your wish for an easy mode has tangible impacts on development, that could have tangible - non subjective - affects on the game and my enjoyment of it relative to not having an easy mode.

You can't just hand-wave the development ramifications purely to focus on the player side and then suggest adding an easy mode wouldn't have an impact on their enjoyment of the game.

So eager to have a "haha you proved my point" quip that you completely missed the point of the post. I'm not saying my enjoyment at the moment isn't subjective, I'm saying the development consequences of your wish aren't and those very much can have an impact on the 'hard/intended' experience.
 
Last edited:

Dracil

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,437
For me the "easiest" version of any game is literally the game autoplaying itself for you where there is 0 possibility of you failing something. In which case, just watch a LP of someone who finishes the game.

Or just go find a trainer/enable cheats like we all used to do.
 

Kyuuji

The Favonius Fox
Member
Nov 8, 2017
32,155
To clarify as well, if adding an easy mode didn't have any developmental impact on a game that wasn't originally intended or envisaged as having an easy option (like Bloodborne) then I'd be down for every single game to have an option for every single player to enjoy it (this arbitrary line of difficulty doesn't exist it's worth noting).

However, for so long as adding that easy mode would have redirected resources or increased costs - and considering the impacts that has - then I'm happy for a developer who wants to develop a hard game to do so and to not have to compromise on one side of the game to facilitate another.
 

Crayon

Member
Oct 26, 2017
15,580
I enjoy many games that are too hard for me to beat. Maybe not as much as if i was good at them.

That's the thing about being good at something. Isn't it?
 

Zen Hero

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,635
More options are good for players, but we have to remember that feature development doesn't come for free. Multiple difficulty modes take resources to make that could be put to other features instead. I'll leave it up to the devs to decide how they want to prioritize and decide what they believe is best for their game.
 

Ubik

Member
Nov 13, 2018
2,492
Canada
I like accessibility, but I voted for the second option. I am not going to shit talk a game that's too hard/time consuming to master if it's well liked and critically acclaimed. I think it's ok for there to be a niche segment of games to be too hard and not need an easy mode. Yes games are playthings, but they are also art. It's a very unique situation. You wouldn't say that a piece of literature can't have an obtuse prose, or a painting can't be abstract. We allow for accessible and challenging forms of other arts and media to coexist.
 

Retro!

Member
Oct 25, 2017
427
play any game the way you want to play it, let there e a easy, easy mode, how does that effect you.

Depends on the goals of the game. From Software games aren't designed to be hard, but rather designed to be satisfying when you persevere and complete something that you previously thought to be a barrier.

Having an easy mode undermines that experience. From a designer's stand point it's giving players a way out when they come up to a barrier and thus depriving them the experience of overcoming that, which is the entire experience they're attempting to craft with their game.

One might say to this "what if the player doesn't care about that experience in games", and I would respond that they probably make a different purchasing decision than Sekiro. It's why I voted for the 2nd option.

I don't want to gatekeep and I hate the "git gud" crowd but at the end of the day the struggle is the core identity of the game. You as the end user have to decide if that's the experience you want before purchasing. I don't think a game has to adapt itself to every possible subjective experience a particular player could want out of it. They craft their own experience and you as a user decide if that's one you want in your choice of media.


I'm all for accessibility in terms of letting a wide variety of people play, such as alternate control schemes and options for people with disabilities, but to me difficulty isn't a matter of accessibility. It's a content and design decision. I don't think difficulty excludes anyone.
 
Last edited:

Kahoots

Member
Feb 15, 2018
985
Appealing to those who wish to gatekeep people out of content on the basis of skill level is appealing to a character failing.
 

Cyberclops

Member
Mar 15, 2019
1,443
People should be allowed to get whatever experience they want out of any game. I understand From wants their players to get satisfaction from persevering and overcoming a difficult challenge, but theirs more to their games. If people like the general combat, atmosphere, and story of From games, they should be able to enjoy them in any way they want. Place them under 5 layers of menus or something so that the average player still get the developers intended experience, but let people have some damn freedom.
 

Kahoots

Member
Feb 15, 2018
985
The difficulty is the game content
People watch games on youtube because they're too difficult for them to play. They find worth in the game outside of its difficulty, and they'd find more worth if the game content was accessible to them at their level of skill. They're denied that option because others wish to keep it from them and the game wishes to appeal to those people.
 

Retro!

Member
Oct 25, 2017
427
People watch games on youtube because they're too difficult for them to play. They find worth in the game outside of its difficulty, and they'd find more worth if the game content was accessible to them at their level of skill. They're denied that option because others wish to keep it from them and the game wishes to appeal to those people.

Who decides this? That a game is too difficult for an individual and that they cannot play it?

Player skill is not some static, innate thing. What keeps these players from playing is not their skill level, but that they don't want to deal with the frustration of learning a game and improvement.

That's a valid choice about entertainment as any, but I don't think it should be presented and addressed as some sort of disability or anything equivalent to it. Skill level is not something one cannot change and as a result I don't consider games that demand more of a player for completion to be an issue of accessibility. Difficulty is as valid of a way to craft an experience in a game as any other element of their design.

What's keeping these players out is not the games, but their own personal tastes in entertainment.
 

impact

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
5,380
Tampa
People should be allowed to get whatever experience they want out of any game. I understand From wants their players to get satisfaction from persevering and overcoming a difficult challenge, but theirs more to their games. If people like the general combat, atmosphere, and story of From games, they should be able to enjoy them in any way they want. Place them under 5 layers of menus or something so that the average player still get the developers intended experience, but let people have some damn freedom.
People should be able to create the game that they want to make. Entitlement doesn't even begin to describe some of you holy shit. If you really want to play the game, you will learn how to play it. Playing a From Soft game doesn't require pro CS:GO player reactions, it just requires you to think instead of mashing.

"I exist therefor this creator needs to create for my needs because I might want to consume his creation, but maybe not too"
 

Tomeru

Member
May 7, 2018
673
Every game should be be accessible. However, not everyone will see the end of a game. That is ok.

Thread solved.
 

Retro!

Member
Oct 25, 2017
427
People should be allowed to get whatever experience they want out of any game. I understand From wants their players to get satisfaction from persevering and overcoming a difficult challenge, but theirs more to their games. If people like the general combat, atmosphere, and story of From games, they should be able to enjoy them in any way they want. Place them under 5 layers of menus or something so that the average player still get the developers intended experience, but let people have some damn freedom.

What if I don't like the combat? Or the story? Or the atmosphere?

Should I be able to change those as well? Like should From Software design Sekiro in a dark fantasy style in parallel for people that don't like the japanese setting?
 

aerozombie

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,075
When its converting the text to braille, I am all for accessibility, but when its lowering the diction then I take issue. SoulsBorne isn't an accessibility issue, as the people in question are capable of playing them, they just aren't capable of beating them. Capability and accessibility shouldn't be conflated, they are distinct and games are more than their graphics and dialogue, especially FromSoftware titles. You shouldn't be entitled to an ending of a game, else you have the massive decline of WoW all over again.
 

Cyberclops

Member
Mar 15, 2019
1,443
What if I don't like the combat? Or the story? Or the atmosphere?

Should I be able to change those as well? Like should From Software design Sekiro in a dark fantasy style in parallel for people that don't like the japanese setting?
The reason I'm focusing on the difficulty is because it can prevent people from experiencing the later parts of the combat, story, and atmosphere. A bad or convoluted story doesn't halt progress, and the same goes for tedious combat or a boring atmosphere. I don't like that people are acting like the only worth From games have is in their difficulty.
 

Trisc

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,488
Games are not solely defined by the challenge they present to players. There's more value to a Soulslike beyond the difficulty, and lord knows the marketing loves to play that up instead of the artistic direction, music, or exploration.

If your game is a joy to explore and fun to stroll through, but kicks your ass into next week if you trip an alarm and aren't terribly great at action games, then there's something wrong with your approach, and you should make it more accessible.

A game like Frostpunk isn't going to be for everyone, but even that game offers some means to make its extremely harsh gameplay loop more approachable to newbies. That Soulslikes don't offer the same convenience to newcomers, with defenders using the "pride and accomplishment" excuse that we all know is a giant load of crap is downright insulting.

I've played the Souls series to death. I finished DaS1, 2, and 3 multiple times, and got the Platinum in Bloodborne. I even played a bit of Demon's Souls, though it's much harder to go back to after playing more contemporary games in the subgenre. These are genuinely amazing games that could do well by being made more accessible to newcomers. They can "get good" by playing the game on a level that''s more appropriate to their skill, and gradually improving so subsequent playthroughs can ramp up the challenge.

Frankly, Soulslikes have always had a difficulty setting. It's just that you only saw the difficulty rise on NG+. The obvious solution, if you ask me, is to let players choose where they want the NG+ scaling to begin on their first playthrough, so the "easy" difficulty could scale back enemy health and damage a few steps, and "hard" could bring it up a few notches, while "normal" is the standard experience.
 

Bricktop

Attempted to circumvent ban with an alt account
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,847
Appealing to those who wish to gatekeep people out of content on the basis of skill level is appealing to a character failing.

Appealing to those who give up at the first sight of adversity is appealing to a failing of character. And no one is trying to gatekeep people out of content, you're perfectly capable of playing the same games as the next person. The only people gatekeeping are people who get easily frustrated and pretend they are incapable of working through these games. They aren't impossible, you will get better, and eventually succeed. It's all in your own head and developers shouldn't cater to people who just throw their hands up and cry foul when they aren't instantly good at something.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,789
I think it's okay to not see everything in a game. Play until you don't want to play anymore. It's okay to put a game down and this in itself doesn't mean it's a bad game. The problem might just be you and feeling that without that credit role you've haven't accomplished anything. Hell, if seeing the content is why you're playing it's all on Youtube anyway. Games trying to be everything to everyone are a substantially larger issue in this industry than games that know exactly what they are.
 

janoGX

Banned
Nov 29, 2017
2,453
Chile
What this is teaching me is that people shouldn't use 'accessibility' as a replacement word for 'make a game easier'.

You're actually using the word 'accessibility' wrong, because every game is accessible. You buy that game, adjust the options, put the controler of your choice and adjust the buttons, and you start it. The question is, are you capable to beat that game?
 

Bede-x

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,413
play any game the way you want to play it, let there e a easy, easy mode, how does that effect you.

It's not about it affecting someone, but about respecting the wishes of the creator. Does that mean I'll have to skip games sometimes, because someone's vision is different from what I enjoy in videogames? Sure, but that's how art works. Not everything is for everyone. I wouldn't want to demand that a director release his horror movies in several versions - some with the horror scenes cut out, so everyone can watch it without being frightened - either.

Art shouldn't be designed by committee, trying to appeal and ensure everyone can get something out of it. Sometimes the goals of the creator is different. Maybe the point of the puzzle game was the difficulty of the puzzles, at which point demanding an easy mode in which those aren't required, would mean asking the creator for a version without the point. It's no different from asking an author of a difficult to read book, to release several versions of it, so everyone can get through it.

Selectable difficulties works in some games, but in others the difficulty might be the point. Let's repect the creator's right to choose how they want to design things, instead of demanding everything be designed for everyone. Even if those design decisions sometimes make us skip their games.
 

Glass Arrows

Member
Jan 10, 2019
1,414
It's no different from asking an author of a difficult to read book, to release several versions of it, so everyone can get through it.

To be fair this is something that does exist. There are "basic english" versions of famous books where the prose is changed to a simpler vocabulary to make the text more accessible to people who aren't fluent english speakers. Obviously this will provide a different experience than the original text, but this different version can still have value to some people. Of course, the original writer isn't the one who does them most of the time, but this idea of accessibility for other artistic mediums isn't a novel concept and doesn't necessarily mean the original work is not preserved for those who want to experience it.
 

Sairagna

Member
Mar 28, 2019
13
Australia
User Banned (3 Days): Advocating PIracy
Streams, word of mouth, and my experience with other difficult games.
I normally never say this but you should actually pirate the game and have a go at it.
I think you're letting the marketing and discourse intimidate you far too much.
The game was designed to be beaten and if you really had a go at it you might be surprised at how far you will get.
It's this attitude that so many of us ITT have a problem with, you aren't even willing to try.
I'll say it again, no one is born with inherent game skill that never changes, you can rise to the challenge.
 

Deleted member 10601

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
348
It looks like a optional -25 or -50% damage taken modifier is heresy for many people or hurt them in any way. Stuff like this is something that could be easy to implement without killing or watering down the intended gameplay too much.

EDIT: Because of NO difficulty settings i discarded many games i would love to buy and play
 

CthulhuSars

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,906
It looks like a optional -25 or -50% damage taken modifier is heresy for many people or hurt them in any way. Stuff like this is something that could be easy to implement without killing or watering down the intended gameplay too much.

EDIT: Because of NO difficulty settings i discarded many games i would love to buy and play

A damage taken modifer would water down the intended gameplay. Every boss fight and level is designed in a way that can be overcome by learning the mechanics. Damage taken modifiers water down boss fights and thus the design itself.
 

Retro!

Member
Oct 25, 2017
427
The reason I'm focusing on the difficulty is because it can prevent people from experiencing the later parts of the combat, story, and atmosphere. A bad or convoluted story doesn't halt progress, and the same goes for tedious combat or a boring atmosphere. I don't like that people are acting like the only worth From games have is in their difficulty.

My point was meant to illustrate that designed difficulty is an element of the games equivalent to the others you listed. No greater or lesser.

It looks like a optional -25 or -50% damage taken modifier is heresy for many people or hurt them in any way. Stuff like this is something that could be easy to implement without killing or watering down the intended gameplay too much.

The presence of those options flies in the face of their design philosophy though. They want players to feel the satisfaction of clearing their game through perseverance. Have an option to freely toggle a damage option goes against that because it lets players have a way out.

So while it doesn't affect the experience of the individual end user who can decide to ignore such options, from a designer standpoint it sort of undermines the experience From Software is trying to create as I understand it.

EDIT: Because of NO difficulty settings i discarded many games i would love to buy and play

and that's fine. There are more games out there than one could ever play in 2 or 3 lifetimes. I encourage you to be discriminating with your entertainment choices.
 

Deleted member 10601

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
348
The presence of those options flies in the face of their design philosophy though. They want players to feel the satisfaction of clearing their game through perseverance. Have an option to freely toggle a damage option goes against that because it lets players have a way out.

So while it doesn't affect the experience of the individual end user who can decide to ignore such options, from a designer standpoint it sort of undermines the experience From Software is trying to create as I understand it.

I was a bit unclear about the damage modifier. I meant it as a additional difficulty mode like a Easy/Casual/Story mode? Is it still a way out? Would people still complain about it?