Of course competitive gamin is a different beast, since you are dealing with a multiplayer enviroment, but even then, you have matches against bots and handicaps. For single player games, you can go from simple difficulty sliders (which could, for example change the speed or pattern of enemy bullets), to giving the player the ability to turn on invincibility or infinite lives (usually in exchange for score and achievements).
-
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.
Easy/Assist mode is a blessing. Every game should have it.
- Thread starter Swift_Gamer
- Start date
Raiden Developer Makes Bullet Hell Shooters More Accessible With Caladrius
www.siliconera.com
Risk System is a shmup that prioritizes accessibility while still being a challenge
The side-scrolling shooter aims to be playable by anyone, not just hardcore bullet hell fans.
www.pcgamer.com
Stylish Type
The Stylish Type (スタイリッシュタイプ, Sutairisshu Taipu) is a control scheme available from BlazBlue: Continuum Shift onwards. It is geared for beginning players, and it automatically turns every sequence of buttons into basic combos. The Stylish Type changed drastically with each main installment of...
For some examples in games that already do this
Raiden Developer Makes Bullet Hell Shooters More Accessible With Caladrius
Risk System is a shmup that prioritizes accessibility while still being a challenge
The side-scrolling shooter aims to be playable by anyone, not just hardcore bullet hell fans.
Stylish Type
The Stylish Type (スタイリッシュタイプ, Sutairisshu Taipu) is a control scheme available from BlazBlue: Continuum Shift onwards. It is geared for beginning players, and it automatically turns every sequence of buttons into basic combos. The Stylish Type changed drastically with each main installment of...blazblue.fandom.com
For some examples in games that already do this
thanks for this. some of the CAVE ports also have no bullet/no damage modes (like the Arika ports on PS2) but I'm not sure how gratifying it is to play those? i guess it's about the experience rather than utilizing the score sysytem.
Nope, I completely reject the OP's position. How arrogant would it be for me to express to a developer that they are 100% obligated to make their creation in a way that I see fit? It literally makes no sense to me.
As I've mentioned before, yes, some people (for a variety of reasons) are left behind in fully enjoying content in a game if the developer makes the hurdles too high for them. That's a fact no one can argue. But having an option at lowering the hurdle so everyone can get over the hurdle has consequences as well - it takes away from the developer's vision if they feel that the full content of their game should not be available to anyone unless they make it over the hurdles that they chose to impose as originally designed. Having the developer concede to change this simply creates a new problem while solving the earlier one. I say between all the voices of opinions on this, the developer's decision is the one that matters most.
Again, it is their game, and just like Shakespeare shouldn't have to make a play or Salvador Dali shouldn't have to paint a picture that the masses can easily digest, so too should a game developer have the freedom to decide if they want to make their game so challenging that some (many? most?) people will never see it all. Again, they can also choose to make it in a way so everyone can see everything... it should remain their decision as to what they want to do.
For the consumer potentially "left out", it is our individual decision to support the artist's creation or not with our $$$. Sure, we can ask for changes to make things easier/harder, and sometimes the requests will be accommodated. However, if the answer is no (as in the case of Cuphead), that's as far as as the issue should go. The developer makes the final call for pretty much any reason they see fit.
As I've mentioned before, yes, some people (for a variety of reasons) are left behind in fully enjoying content in a game if the developer makes the hurdles too high for them. That's a fact no one can argue. But having an option at lowering the hurdle so everyone can get over the hurdle has consequences as well - it takes away from the developer's vision if they feel that the full content of their game should not be available to anyone unless they make it over the hurdles that they chose to impose as originally designed. Having the developer concede to change this simply creates a new problem while solving the earlier one. I say between all the voices of opinions on this, the developer's decision is the one that matters most.
Again, it is their game, and just like Shakespeare shouldn't have to make a play or Salvador Dali shouldn't have to paint a picture that the masses can easily digest, so too should a game developer have the freedom to decide if they want to make their game so challenging that some (many? most?) people will never see it all. Again, they can also choose to make it in a way so everyone can see everything... it should remain their decision as to what they want to do.
For the consumer potentially "left out", it is our individual decision to support the artist's creation or not with our $$$. Sure, we can ask for changes to make things easier/harder, and sometimes the requests will be accommodated. However, if the answer is no (as in the case of Cuphead), that's as far as as the issue should go. The developer makes the final call for pretty much any reason they see fit.
Yeah, it can be a way to engage with the plot (if there is one, like there is in the first link I posted) and... For me at least, even if I had a no damage mod on, I would be doing my best to dodge regardless, and not just sitting there doing nothing. The shmup genre isn't one I find fun, so I don't actually have the experience in doing it, but, I have processing issues with physical movement + pain/numbness in my fingertips that makes engaging with things hard. I still like challenge! Just, my bar is different.
For shmups, at least, options would be good. Things like difficulty levels and modifiers, unlimited continues, extending the deathbomb windows, no damage modes, autofire, etc. Mainly, let go and let people figure out something that works for them. Should probably finally do away with the tradition of locking TLBs away, too.
You don't really need a dedicated competitive mode because the community will figure it out themselves.
Fighters are a bit more complicated, but I'm sure there could be something worked out.
out of curiosity, and forgive me for asking questions about whatever your condition is, would an arcade stick make something like fingertip pain easier? the way you grip the stick is much different than for a controller after all.
i mean, i use autofire because it is 2020. unlimited continues (or at least earning unlimited continues after playtime) is ideal i'd imagine.
autobomb is a godsend in later cave stuff.
Why not let other people experience that feeling? I mean there are probably alot of people who would have your reaction even if they're playing on easy. An easy mode can be challeging enough for some people.
I'll repeat myself from many threads now, artistic vision rooted in ableism is still ableism (Cuphead's definitely an offender here) and that -should--be called out. Whether or not a dev listens is up to them but, ableism's ableism, whether it has flowery language around it or not.
Arcade stick would be easier for the pain yeah, though I'm getting good at adapting my grip on a controller to minimise discomfort (this is still a new disability to me). It's the processing issue that gets me in a lot of cases, I basically have dyslexia but for physical movement and spacial awareness, so sometimes my brain is like "Hand make stick go left or we die!" and my hand is like that monkey playing a tamborine in its brain and doesn't listen to the signal. Or I go "hand make stick go left!" and I go right, because I didn't take a split second to actively think about which way was left and so my hand just went "Uhhhhhhh. Idk what brain is talking about. 50/50 shot let's GOOOOOOOOO"
thanks for helping contextualize this here. that sucks and i hope you get even better at adapting to gripping to minimize discomfort.
I'll go further. Every game should have at bare minimum cheats for everything from the start but preferably a host of gameplay tweaks to adapt difficulty rather than "MoRe EneMiEs and LesS HeaLtH". Unlimited health or time or ammo or MP or whatever all day every day if I enable it. If I wanna play Doom Eternal in God mode then let me do it. I'm playing Last of Us 2 with the aiming bullet time enabled because I like it better and I love that Naughty Dog doesn't have a stick up their ass like some people here.
I like accessibility options myself because visual impairment gives me natural input lag - and people are always moaning about how much that ruins games!!
Thank you! And I hope so too, I've been gaming for over 20 years, and I don't intend to stop and I'm always figuring out new ways to make interacting with things better.
I think it should go in both directions, they should have easy/assist modes and hard modes that still gives you a challange at the end of the game.
I'll probably bring up TLOU2 as an example in every single difficulty thread but that game got so many options it's insane. I love that you can customize your own difficulty setting with enemy AI, health and resources etc.
This way everyone can adjust a game to the experience that they'll enjoy the most.
I'll probably bring up TLOU2 as an example in every single difficulty thread but that game got so many options it's insane. I love that you can customize your own difficulty setting with enemy AI, health and resources etc.
This way everyone can adjust a game to the experience that they'll enjoy the most.
The first thing I said is that these options are good and more games should have them. Literally the first thing.
So feel free to slam Shakespeare for making plays watched/read by millions of people that cannot fully comprehend all the themes and personal commentaries he is making. Feel free to throw out derisive name-calls to Salvador Dali for producing paintings that millions of people cannot make sense of at all. Free free to verbally attack Nikolai Rimsky-Korsako for composing Flight of the Bumblebee, a piece where I'd be surprised if even 1% of the pianists out there can play it the way he envisioned it, let alone the entire public a large with zero music training.
Yeah, complaining is the easy part, and everyone is entitled to do that I suppose. I still say that through all the bickering and whining about making a game easier or harder (I'm often in the latter group), in the end it's the developer's call for nearly any reason they decide, just as it should be.
Yeah, I'm with this. The devs should do what they want when they envision a difficulty they created for the game. Now normally it should be fair, but hard enough to be a challenge that can be overcome in various ways. Not every game has to be easy and not every game has to be hard, it's how the devs design the game is what matters the most.
My wife was able to beat Super Mario Odyssey because of the generous assist mode. She really enjoyed the game and would never have been able to do so without assist mode, so I really do think they're a great idea as long as they don't degrade the regular experience.
options are good
shakespeare was popular entertainment enjoyed by a wide variety of people in his day, both in terms of class and education. he's the exact opposite of what you're talking about
shakespeare was popular entertainment enjoyed by a wide variety of people in his day, both in terms of class and education. he's the exact opposite of what you're talking about
Yes! TLOU2's options are an absolute gold standard
Calling out ableism isn't derisive name calling but okay. Asking for options to aid in disability access isn't 'whining' either, it's asking for equity. Should we have not whined to building and planning to get things like ramps installed either?
I think all games should have it for accessibility just so people with disabilities like my dad can have an easier time
Because the other half of the OP's thesis was "do you feel good beating super hard bosses?" And I answered that. I addressed the two things the OP said. Please keep up.
There are plenty of games that I've soured on because of one badly made encounter. That's not necessarily an easy-mode thing or even a broad accessibility thing. BUT more generally, I think there are plenty of games where I find that the challenge or overcoming the dififculty is not what I find fun about the game. Being able to change that on the fly to suit how I'm feeling is a good decision. It allows me to get to the parts I really enjoy, especially if I can change it back where appropriate.
Still, easy mode doesn't mean "no challenge mode", which I think is the design challenge. If someone had issues designing a good encounter for just ONE difficulty, what are the chances that they'll get it right for 3 or 5? I wonder if we'll eventually get to a future where we have really competent machine learning adaptive difficulty.
Still, easy mode doesn't mean "no challenge mode", which I think is the design challenge. If someone had issues designing a good encounter for just ONE difficulty, what are the chances that they'll get it right for 3 or 5? I wonder if we'll eventually get to a future where we have really competent machine learning adaptive difficulty.
Nope, let the developers decide how difficult they want to make their game. Not every game needs to be for everybody. Let them choose how big they want their audience to be. Just like an author can decide how approachable they want to write their book.
It's almost as though singular works of art with no reasonable method of altering the way its viewers interact with it aren't the same as games.
There are SparkNotes of Shakespeare's works and they sell millions. There are plenty of guides and essays to help explain the themes of Salvador Dali. And Flight of the Bumblebee was composed to be heard, not as a fun challenge for pianists (this would be like saying a video game is not accessible because other programmers couldn't make it).
Adding an easier mode can cost resources (though far less than people think), and certainly a developer is within their rights not to include it. But we're also more than justified in thinking that games are better with it and should be included.
It's funny how no one gets mad when people complain that a game was rushed, unfinished, broken, or boring, but suddenly it's against "developer intent" if they didn't include accessibility options. It's a more-than-justified complaint. And everyone is free to make it.
Pretty much, not everyone likes the same kind of games too so I would assume that would apply to how games handle difficulty as well.
I think it's more basic than that. If the designer wants to make a game that literally no one is good enough to complete, that's their choice. If they want to make something that is impossible for anyone to lose, same thing... it's their decision.
I can disagree with them, but my ultimate input is in whether or not I support them or not. The developer cannot tell me how to spend my money, and I cannot tell them how to make their game.
You can find Spark notes and discussions of every Shakespeare play and every play under the sun. There are hundreds of ways to learn about every play in ways that are easily digestible. There are thousands of beginner discussions on every painting lauded by every art forum in the world. And this is on top of there being literally no wrong way to interpret art so the idea of someone "not fully understanding" artwork is bullshit from the start. Flight of the Bumblebee was not written for you to learn to play it, it was composed for you to listen and enjoy and every person can do that, including deaf people because we have people to facilitate that. That music was made for you to consume, like a video game, which is made for you to consume.
This is just a bunch of ableist bullshit hiding behind flowery words and it doesn't even work.
The resistance to this idea is always hilarious to me. Literally nothing would be hurt if every game ever made had a super easy mode. You still get your "Artistic Intent" mode right on top of it. You can still wag your epeen around because you didn't play it on the whiny baby setting.
For the record I wouldn't ever use the super easy mode but I think they're awesome for people who want them.
For the record I wouldn't ever use the super easy mode but I think they're awesome for people who want them.
This is so bizarre to me. Sure, no one can "tell a developer what to do". They have the basic freedom of autonomy. But criticism is a thing? It's always a thing?
I'm imagining a discussion about ANYTHING ELSE, and this is how it should go, according to you:
Me: "The addition of Break mechanics here completely ruins the game. It's unbalanced, boring, and it doesn't respect the player's time."
You: "That's the developer's intent and they have the right to make whatever game they want to. You can decide not to support them but ultimately it's their decision."
Like...what? What in the world? Of course they can make whatever decision they want. Just like it's our decision to discuss why it doesn't work and criticize it. This line of thinking is so vapid to me.
If it's "their vision" and "their game", then the question "who is this game for?" makes no sense. The game is theirs, it is for no one.
Therefore, if the game is for no one, the only winning move is not to play.
Congratulations, you played yourself. Options and assists are just fine after all. You think it's a matter of developer "vision"? Maybe it's your vision that needs an assist. You might just discover that you, too, have options.
Therefore, if the game is for no one, the only winning move is not to play.
Congratulations, you played yourself. Options and assists are just fine after all. You think it's a matter of developer "vision"? Maybe it's your vision that needs an assist. You might just discover that you, too, have options.
There's a number of games with multiple difficulty settings that have one described as 'the way the game was meant to be played'.
In that case, surely we can just throw away those other difficulty settings? They obviously go against the developer's vision and only dilute the intended experience.
In that case, surely we can just throw away those other difficulty settings? They obviously go against the developer's vision and only dilute the intended experience.
Exactly. That line of thinking shuts down discussion, which is... the whole point of this site to begin with.
The take that accessibility compromises artistic vision will never not be absolutely fucking hilarious to me.
C'mon man, you know that what you brought up still does not "solve" the problem expressed by people in this thread that agree with the OP.
There have been millions of students forced to study Shakespeare in high school and college literature classes. That can be far more involved and engaging than reading Spark/Cliff Notes by one's self because they literally have someone teaching it to you and addressing their specific problem areas of comprehension, and for many they still can never grasp the depth and intricacies of all the themes, character motivations, plot developments, etc. that are going on for a variety of reasons. Pretty much all of his major writings are not fully accessible to everyone.
It's been said he added fighting and romantic scenes to some of his works to entertain those who prefer that type of storytelling, but, no one can accuse him of simplifying every concept he tried to present so that everyone went away grasping all he had to say at every intellectual/emotional level. The same is true for your other counter-examples. Sure, plenty of people enjoy listening to Flight of the Bumblebee just like plenty of people are satisfied watching a YouTube video of a player speed running through a game that the viewer could never personally finish on their own.
There are works in the artistic realm that simply cannot be "mastered" by 100% of the public to the point where everyone can grasp the full scope of what the artist put together. That's not only unrealistic, it's arrogant to impose that type of requirement on a person or team that perhaps might just be making their project first and foremost for their own, personal enjoyment (I think that's what happened with Cuphead). No one (including me) should demand that they do it differently. We can ask of course, but they are not "wrong" for saying no.
I think the options in Last of Us 2 is the best I've ever seen. You can basically customize exactly what parts you want to be easier. Good at shooting but suck at contextual minigame stuff? Just make the latter parts easier while keeping the shooting part hard. These kinds of options are awesome and I wish more games continue to use them.
My love for Souls would not exist without Miyazaki's vision to want to challenge the player. The feeling of triumph is like no other game experience. I'm so glad I had to gitgud. I do agree where Flight Simulator is concerned though! Lol....hypocrite? I guess.
I agree but that game was not designed around it's challenging game play. It was a cinematic story game. I did love the accessibility options for disabled gamers though!
I agree but that game was not designed around it's challenging game play. It was a cinematic story game. I did love the accessibility options for disabled gamers though!
The OP (and others here that support him) has a dogmatic point of view in this discussion: all games should be accessible by everyone. I have a dogamtic view as well: the developer can make their game as easy or as hard as they want.
I've clearly said multiple times that consumers can ask for changes if they want (which I have done myself). I've also said they are to whine and gripe if they don't get their way (which, as I said above, I've also done).
The key point that I don't agree with some here is this... who makes the final decision? I say it's the developer, and it should be the developer. There should be no standard in place where they are forced to make a game my way (or your way). Others disagree. So when I disagree with their disagreement of my disagreement (etc.), you call that bizarre? Isn't that a contradiction?
We complain about the games, the developers, other posters, on and on and on (again, me included). The one thing I hope never changes is for developers to give in if, for reasons of their own, they don't want to listen to us. If they pay the price for their choice/stubborness/whatever with poor reviews, low sales, etc., it is what it is. I still don't what them to be obligated one way or another.
It doesn't *matter* if they cannot grasp it fully. That's what you're absolutely refusing to see. Sure, it's quite possible someone who uses SparkNotes will never fully comprehend the full meaning and weight of Shakespeare, just like someone who puts on Assist Mode in Celeste may never achieve the sweet satisfaction of overcoming incredible difficulty to reach the summit. But it *doesn't matter*. They just want to enjoy the game, even if in your eyes it's "diminished". You're not them. They're not you. They have different values, skill levels, and preferences. And the original works are still there for anyone who wants them.
I will criticize anything I goddamn want as a consumer. I will criticize games for being too short, too long, padded out, poorly performant, badly written, and yes, not accessible to me or others. And trust me, I'm a developer, I hear those criticisms every day. It's absolutely fine. The developer doesn't have to listen. But consumers are free to tell them how dumb it is.
You're like...really not getting this? I'm sorry. THE DEVELOPER CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO. No one is denying that. The original OP is phrased in a way that said "should have this", but clearly he means he thinks they're great and believes more games should have them. He's not for instituting a industry-wide mandate that all games have assist modes. No one is.
If we can't advocate for a thing or criticize developers for its exclusion, why are we even here?
Accessibility and difficulty options are an absolute godsend. They've got me to try so many games and genres that I otherwise would never have touched.
I'm playing through Final Fantasy IX right now with the built-in cheats enabled making the game play in a high-speed mode, turning off all random encounters and making my characters do 9,999 damage with every attack in the unskippable fights, and it's a great experience. If I had to play this game exactly as it was on the PSX with its molasses-slow battles I would have given up long ago, but this way I'll happily play through to the end and have a wonderful time with it.
I'm playing through Final Fantasy IX right now with the built-in cheats enabled making the game play in a high-speed mode, turning off all random encounters and making my characters do 9,999 damage with every attack in the unskippable fights, and it's a great experience. If I had to play this game exactly as it was on the PSX with its molasses-slow battles I would have given up long ago, but this way I'll happily play through to the end and have a wonderful time with it.
I don't think it's arrogant to disagree with a design decision in a game, which is really all the OP did.
I think it's fine to argue that it easy mode detract from your enjoyment of a game (it doesn't do it for me, but I'm a filthy casual), but I don't think "it was the developer's vision" is a good enough reason. We can defend the worst games in history like that.
p.s.
Shakespeare made plays that the masses could easily digest, that why he became so popular.
So were Salvador Dali's paintings.
This sounds more like you sped through a game and were undergeared for the end because of how much you skipped/didn't spend time on rather than a balancing issue. Im usually an advocate for easy/assist mode as a learning tool or as a straight up modifier for the game in its entirety but that doesn't sound like something you'd make use of.
What you need is that spider man ps4 skip button
What you need is that spider man ps4 skip button
Not if they aren't implemented right. The Automatic modes in DMC4 and DMC5 feel like they weren't even playtested and ironically make the game harder since you lose player control.