-
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.
Digital Trends - Forget easy mode. Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice needs an equal mode (article by Steve Spohn from AbleGamers)
- Thread starter Deleted member 51789
- Start date
User Banned (1 Week): Exclusionary and dismissive towards disabilities over a series of posts
What the author suggests aren't accessibility options, they are straight up cheats. Why aren't they calling it that? Accessibility options are color blind modes or visual cues for deaf people.
Making you invincible turns the game into a walking simulator. If you don't agree with the directors vision, buy a PC and use trainers or make your own game.
Every thread on this topic is more absurd than the last. Wtf happened? This wasn't a thing 2 months ago. Like, since WHEN can everyone finish every game? Easy mode or not, there are tons of games that tons of people wont be able to finish. And that's fine.
I hate all "git gud" memes, because you don't have to. I have played so many games growing up that I sucked at and that's fine.
But this fits better with the "mad cause bad"-meme, which... well seems to be the case here. No other reason why Sekiro is singled out like this.
Edit:
To clarify, I mean the thread, not the article. Accsibility options should be standard, and should get even better.
I hate all "git gud" memes, because you don't have to. I have played so many games growing up that I sucked at and that's fine.
But this fits better with the "mad cause bad"-meme, which... well seems to be the case here. No other reason why Sekiro is singled out like this.
Edit:
To clarify, I mean the thread, not the article. Accsibility options should be standard, and should get even better.
Last edited:
A deaf person playing a game or watching a movie with subtitles isn't able to hear the nuances of how lines are delivered. Vocal performance is a huge, massive part of cinema (less so games, but we're getting there), and losing it is absolutely not experiencing the work "as intended," but it's a compromise, the best that can be done to allow a large audience to access the work at all.
The questions about what accessibility options are appropriate for games are a lot more complex, but you can't just say "it compromises the work, so it's not an option," because it's always going to be a compromise. Options like those listed in the article could make Sekiro challenging but possible for players with motor or neurological disabilities that would make it literally impossible to play the game as it is. Even if some mechanical elegance is lost, it's worth it to let more people experience the world and story. (And if anyone posts "just watch it on YouTube" I'm going to scream.)
This happened with dark souls 3 to an extent but back then they didn't use the "disabled gamer" excuse.
By the same author:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2016/04/13/yes-dark-souls-3-badly-needs-an-easy-mode/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidt...ts-players-and-add-an-easy-mode/#7e1937071639
They are riling up the git gud crowd who take the bait and rage which will probably lead to a watered down version of the next fromsoft title.
Last edited:
OP
OP
'Mad cause bad' shouldn't really apply when accessibility options for disabled people are being *specifically* opined upon in the article...
Ok but what gives you the right to decide what an "actual" accessibility option is? Personally, I'm going to give more weight to the opinion of a person with a disability who runs an advocacy group for disabled gamers over people on message boards and twitter voicing the opposite opinion.
Accesibiloty is one thing. Color blind mode, vontroller support, etc, which i fully support...not an easy mode. I said it once and i will say it again, sekiro is not a hard game. Hell, ill go as far as to say ots easier than aoulsbourne games.
People really and truly have a myopic view of what accessibility options should include. It's like anything outside of colorblindness or being deaf must not exist as a disability, and therefore anything that makes a game "easier" is a disengenuos suggestion.
I truly hope none of you making these arguments ever have to experience a brain injury or nerve injury that results in your physical reaction times changing.
These stances have been some of the most embarrassing I've seen from this site, and I truly cannot understand why people clutch as these things for a single player game.
I truly hope none of you making these arguments ever have to experience a brain injury or nerve injury that results in your physical reaction times changing.
These stances have been some of the most embarrassing I've seen from this site, and I truly cannot understand why people clutch as these things for a single player game.
Yup. It's wild to see people in this thread not grasp that difficulty options/options that make the game easier (such as the things in Celeste which are widely celebrated) *are* accessibility
OP
OP
I missed this post earlier - usually I'd still be for being able to switch difficulties mid-game but this is quite a good compromise if people think the intended experience is sacrosanct to their enjoyment and that they wouldn't be able to resist the extra options.
Exactly.
It's like going to Italy and ordering a Pizza, then the Pizza comes with a fork and a knife and you're upset that fork and knife are included because you're there for a traditional Pizza experience, and Pizza is traditionally eaten with your bare hands, therefore your whole Pizza experience is ruined.
Just don't use fork and knife, problem solved.
Just add an easy mode. Do it in the name of Pizza.
My god get a grip. This is a video game. Not some life altering thing every human being should have experienced before dying.
Its a niche game made for a subset of a very large market.
...which is the entire point of the article. The author is specifically not asking for an 'easy mode'.
Honestly I'd tell these people the same thing they tell others that might need the options: too fucking bad.
Let's start with the part where this person has two hands with fingers to work with. Yes, they may be quadriplegic but not all people with disabilities have access to hands to play games with.
You don't understand ALL disabled people are the same.
Check mate atheists.
Please, if you're going to make arguments that were addressed in the article, at least give some hint that you read it. Even if you disagree, saying "I know this was mentioned in the article and here's why I disagree" would help everyone else have a little more trust that you're posting in good faith.
I will never ever understand why some are so against adding easier modes that they in no way would have to use if they don't want to.
Even stuff like more health for player/less for enemies, more gourd uses etc would go a long way for many and wouldn't change the original experience at all.
More options is always better.
Even stuff like more health for player/less for enemies, more gourd uses etc would go a long way for many and wouldn't change the original experience at all.
More options is always better.
There's the got-mine attitude I find so endearing in internet commentators.
Someone's got a disability and can't enjoy a movie because it doesn't have subtitles, or read a book because there is no text-to-speech or braille, or play a game because they lost a hand and no one cares about remapping buttons; fuck em. These aren't "life altering" things, so why should anyone care?
Let's say you get a traumatic brain injury tomorrow and you lose the ability to use your right hand as well as you used to before, Suddenly you aren't allowed to play FROM games because "It's a niche game"?
Just because a game is difficult doesn't mean It shouldn't have OPTIONS So that everyone can enjoy it. Arguing against that is frankly Ableist and is a pretty shitty attitude to take in anything. Like how This person said
OPTIONS for the people that are unable to complete tasks with the same level of skill as you doesn't downplay your skill, It allows other people to experience the same adventure you argue is great.
For the amount of praise FROM games get on ERA, it's fucking ridiculous that the same group of people want to gatekeep other people from playing it to "Keep the sanctity of it's difficulty"
It just blows my fucking mind that accessibility options could ever be considered negative in a single-player game, of all things.
I don't know about Japanese games, but for US/Western games in general, the only reasons accessibility options aren't more universal are:
I don't know about Japanese games, but for US/Western games in general, the only reasons accessibility options aren't more universal are:
- Resourcing
- Lack of insight
The article itself is just a rehash of what has been said before and doesn't add anything new that hasn't been discussed ad nauseum on this forum and others. His reasoning is flawed on many of his arguments and he dismisses many of the arguments he does not agree with without propert engagement. The level of discourse needs to rise above this
Unfortunately, at this point, people seem pretty tired of this discourse and aren't really engaging with it anymore.
We'll have to wait for the next Miyazaki game to bring the discourse back.
We'll have to wait for the next Miyazaki game to bring the discourse back.
lol exactly. So why the gatekeeping?
These threads have been so transparent. People really just feel like their sense of accomplishment (from a video game) will be diminished if others can beat the game with difficulty altering settings.
Yep, it was always pretty telling to see where the real priorities are. Disappointing really.
This argument really resonates with me, and I think captures what so many people are missing. I think the 'got mine' attitude is not dissimilar to gamers feeling like their safe space is being encroached upon and that an experience they hold so dear will somehow be made less due to these options.
As I've said before, a lot of people seem to be taking the argument that failing over and over again (which a lot of gamers interpret as being difficult) is part of Sekiro's artistic value, and options that could make the game 'easier' would impact what the game is trying to accomplish. I would say that Celeste is a good example of a game that relies on that same mechanic in achieving its artistic vision, but is not impacted by its accommodating accessibility options.
I don't really mind if games add difficulty modes. For certain games it would take more resources from the dev team, which may not provide enough of a return, but that's a business decision for them to make. Also playing on PC will give players many more accessibility options through mods.
That being said, while accessibility and difficulty overlap to some extent, they're not exactly the same thing. Making a game more accessible doesn't always make it easier. For example, a color blind mode or button remapping don't really have a significant impact on difficulty in most cases. On the other hand, making a game easier doesn't always make it more accessible. If every enemy in sekiro had half the health, some bosses would still be unbeatable by players who have cognitive or motor impairments because parry windows would still be the same. Changing parry windows could impact animations, and could require more QA. Adding a slowdown mode could introduce physics bugs, like for example how an uncapped frame rate on PC actually impacts your grappling hook distance which lets you go out of bounds. Oftentimes adding more complex options would require extra development time, QA, and more. And there really isn't a floor on how accessible you can make your game, so there will always be some people unfortunately left out. Can you make your he playable by a one handed person? Someone who is legally blind? Someone who is completely blind? Maybe some of those can be done, but most developers choose to draw the line somewhere. I don't think there's a catch-all accessibility solution, so refunds are really important in this case.
All of that being said, able bodies people using disabled people to ask for easy modes on popular games because they have FOMO is not a good look. It's telling that accessibility usually only comes up when difficult games are concerned. Much easier games often have big accessibility issues as well, but the able bodied general public just doesn't care at that point because their actual concern usually isn't disabled people. For example, Nintendo's forced motion controls on many of their games don't draw anywhere near the ire that something like this does, and that's a much bigger accessibility concern. Voices like ablegamers are mostly highlighted when a difficult game comes out. Kudos to Mark Brown, for example, for making a video series about this even when difficulty isn't a concern.
That being said, while accessibility and difficulty overlap to some extent, they're not exactly the same thing. Making a game more accessible doesn't always make it easier. For example, a color blind mode or button remapping don't really have a significant impact on difficulty in most cases. On the other hand, making a game easier doesn't always make it more accessible. If every enemy in sekiro had half the health, some bosses would still be unbeatable by players who have cognitive or motor impairments because parry windows would still be the same. Changing parry windows could impact animations, and could require more QA. Adding a slowdown mode could introduce physics bugs, like for example how an uncapped frame rate on PC actually impacts your grappling hook distance which lets you go out of bounds. Oftentimes adding more complex options would require extra development time, QA, and more. And there really isn't a floor on how accessible you can make your game, so there will always be some people unfortunately left out. Can you make your he playable by a one handed person? Someone who is legally blind? Someone who is completely blind? Maybe some of those can be done, but most developers choose to draw the line somewhere. I don't think there's a catch-all accessibility solution, so refunds are really important in this case.
All of that being said, able bodies people using disabled people to ask for easy modes on popular games because they have FOMO is not a good look. It's telling that accessibility usually only comes up when difficult games are concerned. Much easier games often have big accessibility issues as well, but the able bodied general public just doesn't care at that point because their actual concern usually isn't disabled people. For example, Nintendo's forced motion controls on many of their games don't draw anywhere near the ire that something like this does, and that's a much bigger accessibility concern. Voices like ablegamers are mostly highlighted when a difficult game comes out. Kudos to Mark Brown, for example, for making a video series about this even when difficulty isn't a concern.
This is where I want the debate to take place. Difficulty isn't the problem but accessibility is. I feel like this is something manufacturers should circumvent with a better mapping tool.
Not every single game has to be for everyone. If you don't want to deal with the difficulty, there's tons of other games out there that aren't challenging.
Demon's Souls became a niche success because it was challenging and fair. The word of mouth on how to beat unbelievable enemies and the happiness on doing so is what carried the series to what it is today. It became the basis for the entire series and From's wants to keep serving that subset of players that enjoy it's experiences.
Accessibility is one thing, asking to change the rules of the game itself is another completely different thing.
Demon's Souls became a niche success because it was challenging and fair. The word of mouth on how to beat unbelievable enemies and the happiness on doing so is what carried the series to what it is today. It became the basis for the entire series and From's wants to keep serving that subset of players that enjoy it's experiences.
Accessibility is one thing, asking to change the rules of the game itself is another completely different thing.
I mean if you're arguing that things that make the game easier for people who have an inherent difficulty playing games could constitute and easy mode...yes? Curb-cutting arguably makes it easier for people to use sidewalks as well, whether or not they have mobility issues that would otherwise make adding cut curbs necessary. The question I think is salient isn't "do games need difficulty modes?" but "what sort of changes should difficulty relaxation / accessibility options consist of?" because the former one is overly vague in terms of what solutions to bring to the table in terms of how to deal with difficulty.
What's wrong with cheat codes exactly?
They're usually already present in the game's coding anyway so there's no extra work required and anyone wanting a challenge can just ignore their existence like they always did anyway.
Heck people hacked an easy mode in Souls games already anyway.
First, nobody is asking for From to change the rules to the game. Second, I don't think it's really fair for you to assign where the value of any piece of art comes from. For you, it may have been in what you described, but it can be enjoyed by anyone for any number of reasons. I realize you want to protect the experience you had, and ensure it continues in future games, but you must know that nobody is trying to take that away from you.
If people want to hack any game, there's little anyone could do to prevent them from doing so.
Some games do have similar things for after you finish the game and/or give the player enough liberties to become overpowered using it's own mechanics.
However, that doesn't mean those options should come as standard inside each game. I especially believe that those shouldn't be used at all in the first time someone is completing a game.
First, change speed, ask for invencibility and similar, are changing the rules of the game. This is taking some examples from the article of course.
Second, I didn't value any piece of art. I didn't even said anything about art AT ALL. I said a bit on how those games became somewhat popular and that's it.
I'll continue it later as I have to leave. The individual experience might not change much, but the ames do go beyond from what happens in the screen.
It's insane to me reading some of this crap in here. It's a bunch of people who can't control their own impulses to enable "cheats" that are trying to put accessibility options in a box. Just don't use them, and if you do, no one should freaking care. Let people have their options to make the gaming experience better for things they are unable to control.
If these types of accessibility options are what devs should consider putting in their games, let me tell you 95% of them are failing, not just FROM. These types of options used to be a available after a couple of button combinations back in the day. Thankfully if you play on PC these are not so hard to set up with a cheat engine.
Why?
If the game is more fun for someone else with cheat codes on, there's no reason why they should have to sludge through something they find entirely not fun for the access of the fun part.
If someone can't play the game the normal and can have fun with what they paid hard cash for with cheats, devs would be better served making the game in a way that that person can have fun without impacting the experience that much.
If more people get to have fun because of cheat codes or whatever, it's better than having gatekeepers feel smug over their false sense of superiority.
OP
OP
Which is why their voices should be amplified when the discourse uses disabled people as a reason for wanting an easy mode, or invoking a single disabled person playing a game well as a de facto 'well they can do it, argument over'.
Mark Brown's series is great, would really recommend people watching it. Would also suggest people look out for the speedrunner halfcoordinated who has been advocating for better a accessibility for as long as I've been following him.
And yes, Nintendo's forced waggle needs to have alternatives - I have seen articles and threads about it but certainly not the the extent Sekiro has.
You know what it could use, a reaction time/lag calibration like Rock Band had. Adjust those parry windows for us old folks.
I've already beat the game but definitely missed some parries along the way.
I've already beat the game but definitely missed some parries along the way.
Any argument that rests on "this would be easy to program" is a bad argument.
Also, none of the options he listed are present in any Activision Blizzard games.
I'm sorry, but are you insinuating that developers should make sure their games are playable if you have no functional use of your hands?
At what point are these requests unrealistic?
Not every game can be for everyone. It sucks, but that's the nature of the hobby. Thankfully we live in a time where there are countless other games for people to play.
I was never able to play Guitar Hero because I have pretty bad epilepsy and for some reason that game, more than others, really strained me to even watch, let alone play. I would never ask them to patch the entire backgrounds and note progression just so I could play.
Steve seems like a really cool dude and just seeing how he deals with the trolls he gets on Twitter is inspiring. He has my sword on this issue, the self righteousness and the way a large proportion of gamers dismiss those with disabilities is pretty disgusting yet he just beats them away nonchalantly.
Games are art, when you talk about games, and how people experience them, you are talking about how people experience art.
From what I can tell your argument is that Sekiro would not be Sekiro if you changed the game speed or granted invincibility. You are saying that the value of the game is achieved through its difficulty and, if you changed those things, something would be lost.
What does Celeste having these options take away from the game?
One of the values of Sekiro is the difficulty. That doesn't hold true for all games. The developers of Celeste and Sekiro had different design goals.