Developer's/creator's choice: a gatekeeping excuse to keep easy modes out of games.

[Japanmanx3]

If your opinion is rooted in my inability to enjoy the same things that you do, because you consistently miss the point and counter with points that literally, again, prevent me from enjoying the same things you do, then yes, I'm going to call your shit points "shit points" because that's exactly what they are.

Excuse me for being absolutely tired of able bodied people attempting to compare accessibility options to physical sports.

Excuse me for being absolutely tired of able bodied people gatekeeping "creators vision" when that's never even been a thing.

Excuse me for being absolutely tired of able bodied people taking analogies of how accessibility works and taking it word for word literally.

Excuse me for being absolutely tired of able bodied people telling me that "well, not all games are made for everyone."

Don't engage in the conversation if you aren't willing to have your points viciously countered. We're tired.

Click to shrink...

I'll quote myself from the previous time we had this same thread...

So this thread is somewhat triggering for me lol. Full disclosure, I've ignored it, the OP and Mendinso, and then reverted that decision. We should be able to have discussions without becoming so emotionally impassioned that it leads to disrespectful discourse. I'll preface this by saying I do not have answers to this, nor am I looking to be a conduit to change the world. I'm just speaking to how I feel in the moment after much consideration of even making an actual real post in here.

For the majority here on ERA, gaming is something you do. Whether you enjoy it or not is another discussion, but you at least like to discuss it. Obviously, outside of that realm lies the morbid reality that we all live in. Escapism in games has long been a cherished part of a lot of our lives. I personally, have been playing games since I was born in 91. Played a ton of different titles, haven't beaten all of them, still enjoy it to this day.

To address OP: Should ALL games have an Easy Mode? MY honest answer? No. Why? I'm not the one making the game, I play what was given by the developer, and then base my play-through on what they wanted to make. So if they made it without an Easy Mode, I'm not gonna bash them for that exact reason because it's not something that I personally utilize or use as a critique. For me that's usually what Normal mode is for. However, if they do add one, awesome!

There are so many comparisons to make about how a game having/not having an easy mode is like this or that, as many examples presented in this thread show. Not all examples are perfect, good, 1:1, or even made with good intentions... Which is cumbersome to say the least. I honestly can't stop thinking of comparisons in my head... But I don't want to hark on that.

I think my full opinion to your suggestion is this: If a game is created with GOOD Easy Mode that helps many others to enjoy the game at varying degrees then great! I'm all for enjoyable gaming experience. Regardless, I don't believe a game should be vilified for being inherently hard or ask of its player to get better at certain mechanics rather than just allowing them to bypass it because they are tired of the challenge. I don't think of games an simple products that are obligated to be consumable by the masses. Some definitely are meant for that, but not all. If a director that plots a game design in a way to make certain challenging situations turn into rewarding ones, I don't feel compelled to tell them to make sure its something possible for literally everyone to do. If every dev had to make there games flexible enough that it can be watered down for everyone, it would make gauging demographics and general consensus weird, to to say the least. Consider how certain board games have discretionary age ranges for consumers. Can you be older than 12 and still enjoy monopoly? Of course. Can you be younger and still enjoy it? Yeah. Is the level of enjoyment going to be the same among both parties? No. If a 3-5yo was playing, they may not pay attention the rules of the Banker, or care about paying off property, whereas someone older may be able to grasp those concepts better, and int urn, may appreciate them and the game that much more. Can it be enjoyed differently? Yes. Though their experience isn't the exact same, enjoyment can still be had. But board games are tangible. So rules can literally be adapted based on how you want them to be. It's why we always play with barnyard rules in a game of Uno. Regular playing cards are universally fun, with no age range gating or anything. Can video games, which have to be developed with systems and frameworks and everything else be as explicitly flexible? Personally, right now at least, I don't think so.

I can see, however, the irony of a game that has "bad game design" leading to it being "unnecessarily" harder, even though that viewpoint is inherently subjective. I also understand that not everyone's circumstance permits them to play a game to the accord that a dev may want them to experience it (this is not addressing accessibility for those who are physically or mentally disabled... My response to Mendinso will address that; I mean this more in the sense of like From games not having a pause screen or Cuphead's Easy mode not letting you beat the game). I do not believe it is the dev's duty to make a game befitting of everyone and anyone to play all the time. They control the development process, not I. I don't think Game Design itself, paralleled with the time it takes to make games, would make that feasible. Would it be ideal? Yes. Is it feasible? At the moment, I don't believe so. Can it be something that changes later down the line? Possibly, but I won't claim to know with a certainty.

It is definitely your prerogative to express your opinions on the matter... I honestly just don't see what type of change you want to bring about in a realistic, not idealistic, manner. We can always speak to ideals but that doesn't alone will them into existence. Good that CrossCode had Assit/Easy Mode as an option for you. I can't claim to say that the reason you switched to the Easy Mode justifies it, if after 35 hrs of playtime on normal, the game had not demonstrated enough mechanics to help beat whatever boss you were facing. I don't know if I would call that bad game design seeing that 1) you played it that long without issue and 2) I've never played it, and at this time, haven't seen reviews implying that it had high difficulty spikes mid-game. I understand how that can be frustrating and the fact that Easy Mode assisted you is cool. If you have not already beaten the game at this point, it does make me wonder if later fights will still encumber you in the same manner should you switch back to normal or if you'll just continue on Easy Mode. Most games are made with challenge being a pillar in its development. That's an aspect of gaming that I appreciate, so I personally like overcoming challenge in most games I play. So I wouldn't personally, want to drop difficulty upon a few failed attempts at something. Having the option to do so, does not hurt or affect me, but also doesn't encourage me to profess for it to be necessary.

In a thread I a few weeks ago that didn't gain much traction, I did try to breakdown my reasoning on how discussions that seem to invoke the extreme sides of things often defeat the purpose of even talking about it. So I don't want to fall victim to just blurting out a response. At the end of the day, it would be great if maybe some type of system wide assist mode was placed in console OS's that help play a game for them. This wouldn't be a need for me and would probably push me to rely on people who play games in a similar manner to me for critical conversations on the game, since it would openly muddle discussion online with people, like this. But hey, at the end of the day this stuff is always just meant to be fun. It's not my fight to demand or deny that change. I just came from a time where conquering a challenge in games was expected to hold some back, cheat codes none-withstanding. We've all gotten older though, and this medium still is a lot younger than most other entertainment mediums. I guess we shall see...


To Mendinso: I'll start this with an apology, because I judged you before trying to understand you, and for that I am sorry. For the past few weeks I've seen you post more and more about being disabled and how it affects your experience with playing games. The tone of your post would always rub me the wrong way since they came off so extreme, and sometimes seemingly out of nowhere. Like the discussion in this thread wasn't set for disabled people as framed in the context of the OP, and then in post #3 you turned it into that. So in my shallowness I allowed myself to dismiss what you were saying. However, it kept biting at me. This word Ablelism that I've been seeing used so often in threads your in was new for me. So it caused me to do some research on the term. That compelled me to not stay quiet anymore. It's obvious these discussions affect and upset you, and even attempting to put myself in just a semblance of your shoes helps me understand some of our frustration. I don't think OP is disabled. I don't think that was the point of the topic. But since it's here in the present now, I did want to take a clearer stance.

Accessibility in gaming has never been a concern for me. I don't have any disabilities that cause me to play games differently or change various settings to find enjoyment of them. When a new system comes out, I play with the new controller it comes with. When I buy a game and play, I just play it. The thought of how someone else goes through that process of playing a game never really reaches into my realm or reality. But your points about accessibility are something that have caused me to at least think about them. I know people praise TLOU2 about its options, along with Celeste, and I'm sure other games as well. I wish the world was befitting enough to make it standard that all games could have those degrees of options. It's not something mandated at the moment, at least to the degree that certain other aspects of society are mandated and regulated. All I can say is that it takes time for these things to become universal. I don't know if that challenge will be conquerable sooner rather than later. And indie dev party probably is more tighter and focused and able to adapt certain options to its game. Naughty Dog wants its experiences to be something the masses can consume however they want to, and that is an honorable position. Faceless companies like EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc. are so big though, that I don't see them adjusting to the demand of flexibility overnight.



For those who are disabled, these are great suggestions and make sense. I do hope it becomes more standard for games to gives option to make QTE's easier or minigames skippable. Your situation doesn't represent the majority, and just like it took time for the world to adapt certain changes, albeit not at a great pace or anything, it is worth discussion because that can lead to potential change. I just feel like on one hand, please don't assume that the majority of posters here are willingly disregarding you and your disabilities. Same goes for those who expressed similar concerns in the thread you created. I can't speak for everyone of course, but my hope in society isn't that low to think that people are thoughtfully making their comments in the framework of disabled people. Again, I don't think that was the goal of the thread in the first place. But, on the other hand, I do think open discussion about this is warranted because awareness of it is lacking severely. I hope you follow-up with the mods about what a reasonable way to conduct that conversation would look like. It just sucks to see you get so extremely flustered and it causes the internet to react like how it does...

Click to shrink...

 

[Ashes of Dreams]

Just say you want to gatekeep dude, it's a much shorter sentence to write that encapsulates your point than the lines upon lines you write trying to justify yourself.

Click to shrink...

This is the exact thing I was talking about in my first post of this thread. Rather than actually talk about this you are ignoring any differing opinion to just tell someone that they are something you want them to be because it's easier for you to say "you're gatekeeping" rather than actually address what they have to say. Have fun with your strawmen.

I know, how dare people be frustrated and try to raise awareness of accessibility perspectives, all while people continue to make assumptions about them.

We have had multiple threads and conversations on this topic. Because this is a community site, each new thread carries the history of the previous conversations with it, and all the frustrations too. And after all that, someone being told what their behavior is and reducing what they want from this topic down to a style of conversation, is completely missing the picture.

Click to shrink...

This is literally what I'm talking about. This is the exact thing people are doing when they say "anyone who makes this argument is actually secretly just trying to gatekeep". The irony here is incredible.

Question: how often are you obstructed from participating in something that seriously interests you?

Click to shrink...

Not as often as someone in a wheelchair, most likely, but often enough that I have experience with it. You don't know me, so don't act like you do. That's my entire point. This thread is based around the notion of "Everyone who feels differently about a contentious issue is actually secretly a gatekeeping asshole, here's three bad faith arguments why they are" and then people screaming at anyone who disagrees that they are actually a gatekeeping asshole. This thread is such a wild example of people assuming so much about others they don't know and then losing their shit when someone says "actually, no, that's not what I think"

 

[Swift_Gamer]

There is always going to be somebody not able to have access to something due to their disabilities or finances, etc. It's better if the game developers implement as many accessibility features as possible, but eventually they'll have to move on.

Some games are just going to be naturally inaccessible due to mechanics. For instance a fast paced reaction based game is going to leave a lot of people unable to keep up. Should the developer implement features to help alleviate this? Sure, but its up to them because it may fundamentally ruin the game they set out to make. It'll also take time and money to implement where some developers may just not have that ability.

You need to remember games are essentially part art and you're asking them to adjust their art work to be more accessible. But in doing so, it may effectively ruin the art as it was intended. It really takes a case by case basis in seeing what can be done and what can't.

Click to shrink...

Funny you say that when people read books in e-readers, see paintings through Google and watch movies with smoothing filter on. So, people don't care about creator's intention. Thanks for bringing the art argument up.

 

[PAFenix]

The problem with this entire topic of yours is that you've invented a fake person who argues about developer's vision and also mods games at the same time. Your whole topic is about people being hypocrites but we have no idea that these people exist in any percentage that warrants this discussion.

Click to shrink...

There were users on TESNexus that make fun of mods for "ruining the developer's vision"

The one I remember specifically is someone introducing a mod that removes "rape" from a description of one of the Daedra Lords' items in Morrowind, I think. They were tore into by other users with the usual "this game isn't for everyone" despite them all being users of.....TESNexus......a mod site.

 

[Nameless]

One thing that's probably always going to be a barrier in this debate, at least as it relates to Souls games, is Miyazaki's approach to game design. Any options to make experiences easier will be baked organically into the world & lore, just like everything else – even if they function the exact same way as various difficulty sliders would. Embers in Dark Souls 3, which effectively double your health, are a recent example of this. Optional trinkets in Sekiro that buff the player are another.

 

[mugurumakensei]

can we factor in summoning?

Click to shrink...

This makes the solution have someone else do it for you. Thus, the person's only options are a literally impossible to overcome challenge or let someone else do it for you.

 

[Swift_Gamer]

The problem with this entire topic of yours is that you've invented a fake person who argues about developer's vision and also mods games at the same time. Your whole topic is about people being hypocrites but we have no idea that these people exist in any percentage that warrants this discussion.

Click to shrink...

Not fake person. There are people in this very thread arguing what I said and in the whole internet doing the same.

 

[Budi]

I want to thank people being active about this. I'd be too, but it's incredibly exhausting to do in a long run. Atleast for me. People arguing against this are often, illogical, rude and intellectually dishonest.

Like people "missing" the point with OP:s example. There's so many things where players already get to alter the "developers vision". From audio and graphical settings to different translations. But this isn't seen as a problem, mainly seems to happen only when it comes to difficulty. And people rarely bring up "developer's vision" when the criticism is on something like weapon detoriorating in Botw. It comes up with accessibility and representation discussions mostly. Which both are about inclusion of people. Using "developer's vision" to handwave everything developers choose to do, would stop a lot of discussions going on this board.

Here's a great way to include more people, to a game where the high challenge is also very intentional. The game didn't suffer at all, nor did any of the players, by including this. And yes I think that something like this should be a standard, just like customizable controls should.

Video games are not a jar of cookies up on a shelf, they're an activity. There are some activities that a person in a wheelchair cannot do. It's definitely nice to keep them in mind when making your product if you aren't intentionally trying to make something that requires dexterity they don't have, but you should not be obligated to. Rather than use the example of something up on a shelf they can't reach, you're suggesting that nobody should be able to play football because someone in a wheelchair can't. Instead we should keep football and then make another sport they CAN play. How is THAT so bad to some people? Let everyone have their thing.

Click to shrink...

But people in wheelchairs do play football, the real kind and the American kind.

 

[Deleted member 25606]

Also, i feel like the attention this particular issue gets is conspicuous

It is very largely a won war - Practically all mainstream games release with either easy options, or very forgiving anti-frustration features, or a very low baseline difficulty
On the other hand, proper accessibility option - colorblind modes, full remapping, different feedbacks, twitch bypass, anti-epilepytic switches, etc are nowhere near as common

Different well-done difficulty modes are a much higher effort than practically any other accessibility option, yet somehow they're the only part of accessibility ever brought up

I won't ever get tired of saying this: Causes don't exist just to make you feel superior to others. Study them, understand them decently, talk with people affected, and then evangelize for the best actions to be taken

Click to shrink...

And this is the problem. An easy mode in Sekiro just makes me take longer to die without option that let me interact in a way I can do the moves. My issues are motor and nerve so complex button presses/precise presses are my issue. Also keeps from playing most (and it sucks since I love them) rhythm games.

I am not saying difficulty can't be accessibility, but it's not one size fits all and when people act like it is I dont feel like they are championing me, I feel like they are using me as a shield because they want easy mode without being criticized for it, when a lot of disabled people depending on their issue still cannot play those games.

 

[Spehornoob]

These threads turn into moralizing over actual discussion, every time.

 

[Swift_Gamer]

The notion that everyone who may think games shouldn't be forced to have an easy mode if they don't want to is "actually secretly gatekeeping" is one of the things that makes this conversation so frustrating. You have a group of people so adamant that anyone with the opposite opinion of theirs must actually be an asshole that they choose to ignore any point they actually make and the debate becomes someone trying to twist someone else's words so they can prove their were gatekeeping. Inevitably a gatekeeping asshole WILL come around, at which point the person can just point to them and go "see, that's what it's all about".

No, everyone who says "it's the developers choice" is not secretly only saying that as an excuse to gatekeep. People actually do care about the developer's choice and this may shock you but a lot of people (myself included) dislike the idea of using mods on a first playthrough. There are also people who like the game specifically because they know there's no easy mode. Has nothing to do with other people, that's just part of the appeal for them. You being catered to is no more important than them being catered to and since most games have easy modes the actually inclusive thing to do would be to let games exist that cater to both types of people.


Video games are not a jar of cookies up on a shelf, they're an activity. There are some activities that a person in a wheelchair cannot do. It's definitely nice to keep them in mind when making your product if you aren't intentionally trying to make something that requires dexterity they don't have, but you should not be obligated to. Rather than use the example of something up on a shelf they can't reach, you're suggesting that nobody should be able to play football because someone in a wheelchair can't. Instead we should keep football and then make another sport they CAN play. How is THAT so bad to some people? Let everyone have their thing.

Click to shrink...

Very bad take. Disabled people practice various types of sports adapted to them and whatnot. There are Olympics specifically made for them. Really inside the bubble bad take.

 

[MrWindUpBird]

There is a world of difference between creators vision and creators resources. Everything that goes in a game have to be made by someone, supervised and checked, if the creator care enough about their work. This demands a thing called time. A time that could be used in anything else, like adding a new move/weapon or even fixing a bug. So, if the creators don't think they are making the game any better, why should spend their limited resources on it?

Why do devs need to add easy modes themselves if the community can easily mod to it?

Click to shrink...

Creators delay their games all the time for various reasons all the time, you can't be serious.

Not to mention the mods are only available on PC which, while a big demographic, is still only a portion of it. Mods aren't accessible on console.

 

[mugurumakensei]

And this is the problem. An easy mode in Sekiro just makes me take longer to die without option that let me interact in a way I can do the moves. My issues are motor and nerve so complex button presses/precise presses are my issue. Also keeps from playing most (and it sucks since I love them) rhythm games.

I am not saying difficulty can't be accessibility, but it's not one size fits all and when people act like it is I dont feel like they are championing me, I feel like they are using me as a shield because they want easy mode without being criticized for it, when a lot of disabled people depending on their issue still cannot play those games.

Click to shrink...

I mean one way of decreasing difficulty is to increase the duration of iframes, simplified command systems, and larger windows for QTE type events.

 

[Ashes of Dreams]

But people in wheelchairs do play football, the real kind and the American kind.

Click to shrink...

Very bad take. Disabled people practice various types of sports adapted to them and whatnot. There are Olympics specifically made for them. Really inside the bubble bad take.

Click to shrink...

Very much missing my point, but that actually still works. It's absolutely wonderful that there are games of football in which people in a wheelchair can play. Love that, need more of it. There should be inclusive sports for everyone and I commend anyone who goes out of their way to make a game of football that they can play. My problem is that how I see this argument of "every video game needs to have these options" is like someone going up to every football game, professional major games on TV and small games in someone's backyard, and telling them they need to have it so people in a wheelchair can play too.

I don't think the existence of one should negate the other. Games that people with disabilities can play should exist. Games with easy modes should exist. Every game doesn't need to have these things, especially if the designer feels that they would go against their wishes.

 

[Deleted member 18944]

rather than actually address what they have to say.

Click to shrink...

I quite literally addressed the points you made, and your response to how I addressed your points, which was largely countering them and not insulting you, was to boil it down to "you're being rude to me!"

As wonderment correctly pointed out, yall continue dismiss us with these bullshit developer's vision points, and then wonder why we aren't exactly willing to educate you.

And here is my quote from the last time I participated in these threads, that still succinctly expresses my observations.

The biggest problem i see is the excessive gatekeeping of "difficultly" for games and peoples unrelenting efforts to basically say "able-bodied only" without saying it.

Click to shrink...

 

[Sean Mirrsen]

Are you fucking serious with this post?

Accessibility is the difference between having the choice of whether a game is right for you, and literally not being able to decide because ITS LITERALLY INACCESSIBLE TO YOU. AS IN YOU CANNOT REACH IT.

If you are bound by wheelchair and there is a product on the top shelf, are you really going to fucking tell them that not all products need to be for everyone?

No, you aren't. What you're going to do is find a way to make the product more accessible to this person in the wheel chair so that they can actually arrive at the able bodied option of deciding if it is right for them or not.

Honestly, how does this shit fly over people's heads so much?

Click to shrink...

Language.

No amount of accessibility will help a blind person compete on par with able-bodied (able-eyed? What's the correct term here?) people in video games. No amount of accessibility will let a person with heavy cognitive disability be good at real-time strategy, unless it just so happens it's one of the skills they attained. Games cannot be forced to cater to everyone equally. Some people, somewhere, will always be at a disadvantage no matter what the game does.

Are you going to install a scissor lift so that a wheelchair-bound person can reach the top shelf and browse the hoverboards and skis? Or are you going to realize that maybe there's product categories that don't really need that kind of attention, and it's a good idea to put just those products up there?

Yes, won't we think of the able bodied people and their apparent inability to innovate on game design because they are forced to think of an underserved part of the population? The horror.

I'm not going to respond to your other point about the olympics because you're attempting a false equivalence.

Click to shrink...

I am all for innovating in game design, no matter who it benefits. But just as some people deserve to have easier games and accessibility options that allow them to enjoy the games, so do some people who can't enjoy games without a challenge deserve games that are designed to cater to them.

What I can't understand is "the horror" of there being some games you can't enjoy. Like it's a choice that's been made for you, and it's horrible. Entire game genres made the choice for me, because I don't l like them on principle. I don't campaign for romantic visual novels to add elements of action, strategy, and violence to satisfy my needs - I'm fine with those games existing way over there where I don't have to see them. I never played a second of Animal Crossing, any of them, and I immediately know just from looking at it that I won't enjoy playing it, or any of the games that emulate it. Those decisions are made for me by those game's designers, and I'm fine with them being the way they are. They're not 'gatekeeping' me out of them with their design, I just can't enjoy them so I don't play.

The difference with disability is one where you physically can't play certain games, which is unfair as life tends to be, but isn't it equally unfair that when it comes to asking for something to be added, it's the "able-bodied" people that have the handicap in the discussion? Accessibility is already a widely trending matter, and many games compete with each other for adding the most accessible ways to play, for everyone. But when it comes to having a challenge, any game that attempts focusing on it is shouted down on as if they're committing a cardinal sin of being "gatekeeping" when all it is is just catering to a specific audience - which by all accounts should be fine. Some products are on the top shelf because they're not meant for people in wheelchairs. Your own analogy, much of the same points the other post touched on, and no false equivalence. Let's be civil.

 

[Euler007]

This makes the solution have someone else do it for you. Thus, the person's only options are a literally impossible to overcome challenge or let someone else do it for you.

Click to shrink...

Not for you, with you. Cooperating to succeed. It's also fun. I summon to mix it up.

 

[F4r0_Atak]

How so? Do you have evidence of that? Demon's Souls remastered uses motion blur and it's simply for artistic purpose. Disabling it would be challenging creator's vision.

Click to shrink...

I graduated in 3D animation and Digital design for Video Games at University, it's one of the things we learn.

 

[Iron Eddie]

You can easily add easier modes without impacting gamers who still want a challenge unless there is an online component.

 

[justiceiro]

Creators delay their games all the time for various reasons all the time, you can't be serious

Click to shrink...

And these delays cost money all the time. Why do you think games that "should have been delayed" keep being released? You can't be serious.

 

[Swift_Gamer]

Very much missing my point, but that actually still works. It's absolutely wonderful that there are games of football in which people in a wheelchair can play. Love that, need more of it. There should be inclusive sports for everyone and I commend anyone who goes out of their way to make a game of football that they can play. My problem is that how I see this argument of "every video game needs to have these options" is like someone going up to every football game, professional major games on TV and small games in someone's backyard, and telling them they need to have it so people in a wheelchair can play too.

I don't think the existence of one should negate the other. Games that people with disabilities can play should exist. Games with easy modes should exist. Every game doesn't need to have these things, especially if the designer feels that they would go against their wishes.

Click to shrink...

Except games are digital products and you can tailor the experience with easy modes. Your point is moot.

 

[PAFenix]

On the OP's main points, I see #3 happen all the time. The thing is though, there's just not a lot of push back from other people, so it feels like "not everyone complains about easy games."

Like....has everyone forgotten about KH3's initial launch? Complaints EVERYWHERE about how easy it was compared to previous games. I guess when they patched in a higher tier that it became out of sight, out of mind?

Also I find it highly amusing how fans of From boast at how From are master crafters of their game, but lose all faith that they can masterly craft an experience for others.

 

[Deleted member 13101]

This is literally what I'm talking about. This is the exact thing people are doing when they say "anyone who makes this argument is actually secretly just trying to gatekeep". The irony here is incredible.

Click to shrink...

You're feeling gatekept by this conversation? Why?

 

[Deleted member 25606]

I mean one way of decreasing difficulty is to increase the duration of iframes, simplified command systems, and larger windows for QTE type events.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, GoT actually has what I am talking about and you just said, parry windows are longer, more visible and you get I think it's one extra block and can block a normally unblockable. But it just affects that. If I use a difficulty slider it makes everything easier which I don't personally want. And if it's just a numbers slider it doesn't affect that at all.

 

[Deleted member 18944]

Language

Click to shrink...

Quite literally the easiest ignore of my life.

You're feeling gatekept by this conversation? Why?

Click to shrink...

It's amazing.

 

[mugurumakensei]

I don't think the existence of one should negate the other. Games that people with disabilities can play should exist. Games with easy modes should exist. Every game doesn't need to have these things, especially if the designer feels that they would go against their wishes.

Click to shrink...

The biggest games where this is an issue are From titles, but here's the thing the dev didn't achieve the stated vision. The stated vision is to have players all achieve the same feeling of accomplishment.
1) To achieve the same thing, some gamers would have to expend substantially more effort just to maybe overcome the challenge because they have to overcome both the game and their disability.
2) even if we take this at face value, these games have summons where you can have someone else win for you which kind of violates the premise of the developer in the first place.

 

[collige]

But people in wheelchairs do play football, the real kind and the American kind.

Click to shrink...

I was thinking of bringing up that exact point and I would argue that those people are playing a modded version of the sport. A person in a wheelchair can't play basketball by NBA rules for example because then travelling makes no sense. The rules are literally modified.

I think the difference with video games is that while in IRL games the design is just a bunch of rules written on a piece of paper, adding additional features to a video game comes with a material development cost. It's not practically feasible for every game to design around every disability proactively; that's why I think mods are important and why I agree with Aureon in his complaint that there are other lower effort, high impact accessibility changes that get ignored in these conversations.

 

[mugurumakensei]

Yeah, GoT actually has what I am talking about and you just said, parry windows are longer, more visible and you get I think it's one extra block and can block a normally unblockable. But it just affects that. If I use a difficulty slider it makes everything easier which I don't personally want. And if it's just a numbers slider it doesn't affect that at all.

Click to shrink...

People also have problems with pattern finding/matching, puzzle solving, etc so it needs to be in that direction too. You can have giant spongey bosses I guess if you want, but the game needs to be able to adapt across multiple dimensions to try to account for a variety of issues that may impede the player outside of skill.

 

[Budi]

Very much missing my point, but that actually still works. It's absolutely wonderful that there are games of football in which people in a wheelchair can play. Love that, need more of it. There should be inclusive sports for everyone and I commend anyone who goes out of their way to make a game of football that they can play. My problem is that how I see this argument of "every video game needs to have these options" is like someone going up to every football game, professional major games on TV and small games in someone's backyard, and telling them they need to have it so people in a wheelchair can play too.

I don't think the existence of one should negate the other. Games that people with disabilities can play should exist. Games with easy modes should exist. Every game doesn't need to have these things, especially if the designer feels that they would go against their wishes.

Click to shrink...

My mama definitely told me to include anyone who wanted to play in our backyard games. Professional games are much different thing don't you think? (it's a bad comparison to begin with though). They don't include able bodied people either, unless they're helping the team win. It's a profession and business. And of course there are leagues for people with disabilities and paralympics etc. And people aren't barred from playing the sport altogether, on their own terms. Beating Dark Souls isn't exactly like winning the Stanley Cup you know.

 

[Duffking]

One of the difficulties in this discussion is player expectation, and this never really comes up in these threads at all. In true resetera fashion, this thread contains already a lot of toxic and aggressive posts directed at other users and just... collective groups of people, tilting against imagined antagonists and so on. Including from moderators, of all people. Every time this thread comes up, it's a damning indictment of how awful this community is for doing anything resmbling actual discussion of video games, and nobody seems to care to make this place a less nasty place to be, sadly.

I digress though, onto player expectation. There is, across any given genre, a certain unspoken expectation among players about what consistutes a "normal" amount of struggle or challenge to face in any given game. If I buy a Super Mario game, I have a certain reasonable level of difficulty expectation; sometimes they're a little easier, sometimes they're a little harder. But there's a sort of, baseline lane these games occupy.

So then, I purchase another 3D platformer game, and it's maddeningly difficult. It has an option for easy mode, great. But... how do I know that that's what's supposed to be happening? That the entire game isn't designed around the exact level of challenge I'm currently experiencing? Well, I don't.

In some games, there's a legitimate worry I think, that you might end up with a worse experience if you turn the difficulty down. But at the same time, for some players, it would absolutely be the correct thing to do - by lowering the difficulty, or better, providing customisability, those players would be able to achieve the same level of challenge I feel.

Difficulty is just a preset; it cannot accurately predict how much trouble the player will have at getting past the game's obstacles. Take Dark Souls, player A might die 100 times in the game, player B might die 10000. You can't argue that these two players are getting the same experience.

The problem, then, isn't difficulty settings. The problem is that a designer has no way, really, to ensure that every player encounters the same amount of friction in playing the game, while adjusting individually for each of those players in a way that maintains the feel of the experience. And at the same time, the player might arrive with a different expectation of difficulty; like someone loading up Auto Modellista and expecting Ridge Racer.

Games don't typically arrive at default difficulties that are harder or easier than average because some game director said "our game will be easy". It's a combination of factors, from narrative, to art and atmosphere, to game feel. I'd not be surprised at all if Dark Souls combat is as punishing as it is, because the developers tweaked and tweaked and tweaked at the values attached to damage, stagger and so on when paired with their animations and arrived at something that felt good. It just happened to also be really difficult.

The "correct" or miracle pie in the sky way/solution is to somehow be able to magically convey to everyone what the "expected" experience is for the player; how much they should struggle, die, get stuck at puzzles, whatever. And then provide them with a suite of options they can tweak so that they can get the experience they have, as close to the one that was intended, because no two players will have the exact same skill level or struggle at the same thing.

But we can't really do that first bit, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't both a) provide options to let players tweak the experience, and b) try to communicate to players what the intended experience is.

So yes, intended experience matters. Of course, if a player doesn't want the intended experience, then if we provide options, they can always get around that, I guess. But thinking the intended experience matters doesn't make you some kind of gatekeeping arsehole automatically.

 

[Dphex]

There is something like dev´s/creators choice and it doesn´t have something to do with gatekeeping.

besides that why is the OP obsessed with having easy modes in every game? the "easy mode is a blessing, every game should have it" thread had a lot of the same arguments that this thread will produce.

reminder:

Easy/Assist mode is a blessing. Every game should have it.

So you're playing the game, it's challenging enough, you die a bit, you make some mistakes and it's ok, that's how games are. And then you get at the boss. You fight the boss, 3, 4, 5, 20, 30 times. You get frustrated, you finally win after 40 tries. Do you feel good about you? Well, I don't...

www.resetera.com

once again: let people have their 5% of hard games, 95% of all games releasing nowadays are too easy anyways because they want to cater to as many people as possible(which is fine but just let people have a few hard games on the market.)

not everything has to be for everyone, it is the same like asking a Death Metal band to maybe have some pop songs on their album because their other songs are too rough.

maybe just accept that some things are too hard for you and other games are too easy for other people, simple as that.

 

[Deleted member 18944]

not everything has to be for everyone

Click to shrink...

peoples unrelenting efforts to basically say "able-bodied only" without saying it.

Click to shrink...

 

[Bigg]

I mean they say that for a reason. If you are decent at shooters normal is way to easy. You admit you are bad at shooters, so how many people would bounce off of the game if they made heroic difficulty the norm?

Click to shrink...

I mean, the average Halo player is probably not that great at shooters either, by nature of it being a huge mainstream game. That's why Normal is what it is. But if a developer says "*THIS* is the way to play our game," it means most people are going to play on that difficulty, even though they shouldn't.

And I would personally argue someone is far more likely to bounce off of a game if its too difficult rather than too easy. CoD campaigns are easy on Normal too and I don't see people complain about this, they just play on Hardened.

 

[Dphex]

@ Hobbes

nope. not every music is for everyone, not every drink is for everyone, not every sport is everyone, not every clothes are for everyone, not every meal is for everyone, not every game is for everyone. simple as that.

don´t try to paint that is some sort of entitlement, it is the same entitlement to demand that every game should have easy modes.

What can be viewed as gatekeeping on one side can just as easily be viewed as entitled on the other side.

You are not in any way required to play a given game and, at the same time, developers are not required to cater to you.

Accessibility is of course a whole other matter, but that can and should be addressed in ways other than strict difficulty settings. Accessibility should be addressed with things like control options, colorblind modes, etc. which don't "dumb down" the game but just address specific issues that impact the player and allow them to have an equal chance to others in their own way.

Being generically hard is not an accessibility issue though...it's a style and a choice.

Click to shrink...

+1, couldn´t say it better.

and here, a good example: Ni No Kuni 2.

nearly everyone said "too easy, boo!" when that released, even people who are usually not into hard games.

did anyone say: "well, this is the devs vision, respect that!" nope, everyone was complaining that the game was too easy. it was the opposite of the "game is too hard, give easy mode" situation.

 

[Issen]

Totally agreed, OP. Just add an easy mode for people who'd rather just take it easy and a hard mode for people who want a tough challenge. Shit, if you don't want to painstakingly craft a perfectly balanced super tough challenge, I understand. But for the easy mode? Just reduce damage taken, remove instakills, that kind of stuff. Nobody who's playing the easy mode is going to complain that it's too easy unless it's practically impossible to lose.

 

[A Regular Bear]

Not as often as someone in a wheelchair, most likely, but often enough that I have experience with it. You don't know me, so don't act like you do.

Click to shrink...

I'm asking you to tell me something about yourself. And now I'm wondering why you're arguing in favor of inaccessibility when you've been on the receiving end to some extent yourself.

My problem is that how I see this argument of "every video game needs to have these options" is like someone going up to every football game, professional major games on TV and small games in someone's backyard, and telling them they need to have it so people in a wheelchair can play too.

Click to shrink...

Well you're seeing the argument wrong then. Nobody's arguing for just anyone to participate in any given pro league (which are competitive and thus exclusive by nature), just like how nobody's making this about pro gaming leagues. But if your friend was in a wheelchair and they wanted to play in your backyard game, you're not gonna say "well football's not for everybody", you're gonna change the rules.

Or maybe you're gonna be a jerk and tell them they can't play, I dunno, I don't know you.

 

[waugh]

Alright this is a very loaded topic so I can to try and cover this as compassionately as possible.

Creative vision is real, not all teams are allowed control over this but in the case of FROM SOFTWARE they absolutely do. I think it's valid that we allow creators to control how their art is experienced. Difficulty matters, it undeniably has an effect on game design and experience. Plenty of games have bad easy modes imo because they allow players to pass by without interacting with any of the systems set up.

(It's actually why I find the argument that Souls games already have easy modes because of co-op a bad argument. Co-op lets you brute force your way through bosses by relying on npc characters and or skilled real players. )

However once art leaves the artist they can no longer control it. This means you can mod a game and change it however you want. Yet no matter how much you change it, the creators vision still remains valid. Yeah sure you can skip scenes you don't like on DVD but that's not an argument for creators giving you that option in games. That's a choice out of the creators control that you have made.

Difficulty and accessibility are not always the same thing. For me personally I'd love more accessibility options in games because they could help me play the game better without effecting the game design. Increasing text size would be something my eyes would very much appreciate. However for some people their disability means no matter what they cannot play the game without drastically changing the difficulty. For some developers more people playing their games is more important than their vision so they allow options. This is something to be respected and vice versa to in my opinion. If you have created an expertly bespoke experience then you should damn well be allowed to defend it.

Not everyone can play everything and that's okay. Support the people who create the art we love and if we don't love it then don't demand it be changed to fit our desires.

 

[Mr Spasiba]

There's nothing wrong with admitting defeat on a game that's too hard.

 

[Datajoy]

Edit: Apologies for this post in poor taste, reading through the replies now I realize this topic goes beyond just wanting a game to be easier and has implications for accessibility and making games enjoyable by all.

 

[Budi]

I was thinking of bringing up that exact point and I would argue that those people are playing a modded version of the sport. A person in a wheelchair can't play basketball by NBA rules for example because then travelling makes no sense. The rules are literally modified.

I think the difference with video games is that while in IRL games the design is just a bunch of rules written on a piece of paper, adding additional features to a video game comes with a material development cost. It's not practically feasible for every game to design around every disability proactively; that's why I think mods are important and why I agree with Aureon in his complaint that there are other lower effort, high impact accessibility changes that get ignored in these conversations.

Click to shrink...

You're correct that it comes with bit of additional cost. How much I can't tell, but it obviously varies. The good thing about adjustable difficulty as an accessibility option though, it can benefit pretty much anyone. Including people without any disabilities. Unlike let's say colorblind mode, doesn't do much to benefit people with motor or cognitive disabilites. So it's pretty cost effective, if you want to think about this in financial sense. Also being able to include more people to your game, can help with the profits your game makes.

Also I really wish that developers and publishers wouldn't just be thinking about profits with accessibility. Eat the cost, do the right thing for people.

Sekiro does have a DIY easy mode: watching a YouTube playthrough while holding an unplugged controller and pressing buttons at random.

Click to shrink...

What's the point of trolling the thread?

 

[subpar spatula]

How so? Do you have evidence of that? Demon's Souls remastered uses motion blur and it's simply for artistic purpose. Disabling it would be challenging creator's vision.

Click to shrink...

I find it weird how since demon's souls can turn off motion blur that means it's logically OK for them to upend what they wanted demon's souls or dark souls to be: a grueling slog where you will die repeatedly and a lot of more occasionally players will quit due to the difficulty. Just because a small change is made doesn't mean we should be wanting the identity of the game itself to be changed.

 

[collige]

.

Click to shrink...

I feel like framing the discussion around "able bodied" people ignores a wide variety of non-physical disabilities and subsequent accommodations. If we take arachnaphobia for example, getting triggered could prevent someone playing a game just as much as physical issues with controls, reaction time, etc. And it's certainly great that there are devs that are starting to take this into account as well as a wide variety of mods for popular games to remove them. However, we don't see same outcry to classify such a game as Ableist in a broad, binary sense as we do for difficulty. I think it's partially because the idea of plot and content is well established as being in the purview of "artistic vision" in other mediums.

One of the difficulties in this discussion is player expectation, and this never really comes up in these threads at all. In true resetera fashion, this thread contains already a lot of toxic and aggressive posts directed at other users and just... collective groups of people, tilting against imagined antagonists and so on. Including from moderators, of all people. Every time this thread comes up, it's a damning indictment of how awful this community is for doing anything resmbling actual discussion of video games, and nobody seems to care to make this place a less nasty place to be, sadly....

Click to shrink...

This is hands down the best post I've seen on this topic, well written.

 

[Deleted member 18944]

There's nothing wrong with admitting defeat on a game that's too hard.

Click to shrink...

how do I admit defeat if I can't even play the game.

 

[DeaconOfTheDank]

I don't like games just because they're hard, but FromSoftware games are like hot sauce to me -- I absolutely love hot sauce. There's a certain flavor/experience that can only be achieved by hot sauce that takes itself seriously and doesn't pull punches. I wouldn't expect someone with asthma or respiratory issues to like hot sauce and I wouldn't expect hot sauce vendors to cater to that group. That doesn't mean we don't have hot/medium/mild variants for many popular hot sauces, but it's certainly not the expectation.

 

[Drifting in a Dream]

The same thread again? :P

Some people enjoy being catered to. I like that I get games that MAKE me put in effort to win them. It's that simple. It's not about keeping others from it, it's about wanting that for myself, and knowing that 99% of "hard modes" out there are just inflated HP Pools/stats.

The term gatekeeping itself is used to throw the perspective in a negative light from the onset, in order to poison the well for discussion that's already been had ad nauseum on this and many other sites.

We could go on and on about how having the same standard entry point and difficulty has made a community work together to find solutions and the meta commentary on how Dark Souls players learn to "break" the games, we could go into the fact that having everyone on one difficulty means that multiple solutions are found for problems that would have just been "flip it to easy mode before" or we could go into things like Souls games having summons which makes it easier (but apparently not easier enough) help negate this thread's premise.

But we won't, because it'll just come down to anyone wanting that experience being a "notorious gatekeeper" instead of just enjoying what putting everyone through the shit together has brought to the gaming experience.

If there were actual examples of people doing the things you're saying, like "dogpiling easy games" when people love games like Kirby and I never hear people going "Fuck this game we need a hard mode for this to be worth playing" or modding meaning that the difficulty is nerfed in any way (things like bug fixes or texture enhancements are just iteration not reinvention) then we'd have something to go off of, but you've created a theoretical strawman so we can have the same thread we have every month, where the people who want easy modes go against people who like hard mode being the "default" and the lack of nuance and discussion between those view points that will continue.

Click to shrink...

This is a great post. As well as some others in this thread.

Unfortunately, discussions on difficulty often seem to boil down to straw man arguments and name calling. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like the opening post is another example of this (I'm sorry OP...) To use myself as an example: I care about the developer's vision. Particularly because I think developers often deliver something I can't imagine or expect beforehand. They can make me feel emotions I didn't initially set out to feel, but am glad I did. They can reveal things I didn't know about myself and the world. In this sense, I like to give developers a certain degree of control over my experience (including difficulty). Because of this, I don't mod games, I try to follow the darkness settings suggested by the developer (I've never played a game with film grains), and I don't dog pile easy games. At the same time, I prefer 'difficult' games. I say 'difficult' because I get the sense that that's the wrong way to look at things.

I'm personally grateful From Software has made the games the way they have, Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, Sekiro... They've all been great experiences for me personally. On top of that, they've been experiences that can't really be replicated in any other medium due to their gameplay. I think many, though certainly not all, "gatekeepers" and people saying "get good" are not trying to put other people down or be discriminatory. Some say "get good" because they want people to enjoy the same experiences they did. Some say developers should be free to do whatever they want, in fear that games like Demon's Souls will never be made again. These are valid perspectives, especially when these types of games make up only a small fraction of the industry.

All that said, I'm all for accessibility options and 'easy' modes. However, I'm not in a position to demand these things from developers. Working in the music industry, I make my living from something inherently exclusionary. So, I understand it would be hypocritical of me to make these types of demands. Music and games aren't a 1:1 comparison, but I think there is some merit to loosely comparing the two. Using From Software games as an example, I honestly believe that simply adjusting health bars to make things easier would make the games worse. I've seen some say that this means the gameplay is bad or poorly designed, but I disagree. Needing to practice patience, plan your character, and learn the ways each enemy moves is the gameplay, and it's fantastic. From Software hasn't come out and said it, but I think two big reasons they avoid an 'easy' mode is because they 1) don't want to put out a game below their standards and 2) don't have the time/resources to redesign the world, enemies, weapons and movement for a well-done easy mode. For many gamers, it would certainly be awesome if they did though. At the same time, just like it's unfair to demand that musicians stop making music because it's exclusionary, I think it's also unfair to demand that game developers implement accessibility options and 'easy' modes (albeit to a lesser extent). I'm not saying these things are bad, but I am saying that there are valid reasons for developers not to. It would be great if every game could have a well-made 'easy' mode and all kinds of accessibility options, but developers are under tough limitations.

Under these limitations, developers choose to emphasize different parts of gaming as a medium. Some easy, some hard. Some both. And so on. Honestly, the diversity of approaches in gaming these days is incredible, especially considering how difficult it is to make a game, let alone one that people enjoy. It would be cool if developers had the resources to diversify each individual game (raising game prices seems like a step in this direction tbh), but at least we have diversity when taking in the industry as a whole.

 

[Datajoy]

What's the point of trolling the thread?

Click to shrink...

You are right, please see my edit on that post.

 

[Deleted member 18944]

nope. not every music is for everyone, not every drink is for everyone, not every sport is everyone, not every clothes are for everyone, not every meal is for everyone, not every game is for everyone. simple as that.

don´t try to paint that is some sort of entitlement, it is the same entitlement to demand that every game should have easy modes.

Click to shrink...

This line of thinking is based on the idea that that all of those things are accessibile to the person, and therefor they can provide their own choice on whether its right for them.

But once again:

How can you decide if a game is right for you if you don't have the ability to even access it in the first place, and that's the entire point.

 

[Timeaisis]

Taking less damage, doing more damage, increase perfect parry window, increase invulnerability window when rolling / dodging, increase time between two ennemies attack ? That's not difficult to do.

Click to shrink...

lol

Gatekeeping right here, people.

Click to shrink...

Is asking legitimate questions gatekeeping now? Love how you made this thread to talk about it but you refuse to.

 

[Dphex]

and here, another thing from a dev, i´ve posted this already and i will happily do it again. It is from the Game Bakers, devs of Furi and someone was asking why the "easy mode" has shorter boss fights and missing bosses.

the Game Bakers said this:

"Here is some clarification about the intention behind the Promenade mode.

The game was designed to be played in Furi mode. It's the right difficulty for someone who discovers the game and wants to experience the full experience: meet a boss, get crushed, stand up, try again, get crushed again, a bit further in the fight, try once more, go further, learn to recognize some patterns, get crushed. Cry a little, take a break, try again, shout "ha ha" when you finally dodge this pattern that got you previously, reach the final phase and by miracle and in a awesome last burst of concentration, survive his last pattern and jump all around crying "I GOT YOU!!! I GOT YOUUUUUUUU!".

Eventually, all this perseverance and frustration during the fight converts into great satisfaction.
For the lovers of the genre and the true masochists, we made a Furier game mode, which is REALLY hard but REALLY fun when you master all the game mechanics. In order for it NOT to be just the HP and damaged increased, we spent MONTHS designing new patterns, so that it feels like a real new challenge. I personally love Furier mode and I'm one KO away to make a 0KO run... (some players are currently attempting 0 hit, so yep, they are way better than me).

The Promenade mode was made with a different idea in mind. It's not exactly an "Easy" mode. It's a mode that focuses on other aspects of Furi: the story, the atsmosphere, the music, the concept of duels. The bosses have less life (you actually deal the same amount of damage but they have less HP), less phases and deal less damage. So the fights are shorter (and that makes them easier). This mode was made for people who like the universe, who like the concept, who want to discover all the bosses but who don't want to spend hours of training and frustration trying to master a timing or learn patterns. We have a lot of respect for these players and wanted them to be able to enjoy the game, without letting down the true audience of the game. If you switch to promenade, it's a real choice, you can't comeback to Furi mode later unless you start over.

All modes are enjoyable, just choose the one you think will make you enjoy the game more."

It basically says that "yes there is an easier mode, but we don´t call it easy mode because the experience is not the same as you will normally have because the game was designed to be played in Furi mode"

and they go so far to call the Furi mode "the full experience". you can play Promenade mode but it will not be the experience the devs have intended for this game.

and that is a very important point because it gets overlooked. even if the next From Soft joint will have an easy mode, will people have the same experience as playing on regular mode? nope, they won´t.

 

[collige]

You're correct that it comes with bit of additional cost. How much I can't tell, but it obviously varies. The good thing about adjustable difficulty as an accessibility option though, it can benefit pretty much anyone. Unlike let's say colorblind mode. It's pretty cost effective, if you want to think about this in financial sense. Also being able to include more people to your game, can help with the profits your game makes.

Click to shrink...

In the context of difficulty specifically, I think the problem comes with the fact that a mode included in a game implicitly comes with a developer endorsement, so if the easy/hard modes aren't tested and balanced thoroughly it could end up frustrating or boring players in unintentional ways, which in turn makes a more uneven (and thus worse) product. Things like mods and cheat codes don't set up the same expectations for individual players.

It basically says that "yes there is an easier mode, but we don´t call it easy mode because the experience is not the same as you will normally have because the game was designed to be played in Furi mode"

and they go so far to call the Furi mode "the full experience". you can play Promenade mode but it will not be the experience the devs have intended for this game.

and that is a very important point because it gets overlooked. even if the next From Soft joint will have an easy mode, will people have the same experience as playing on regular mode? nope, they won´t.

Click to shrink...

I think the tricky next question this brings up is "Are Promenade and Furi modes even the same game?"