-
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
Having assist modes for the physical disabled shouldn't even be controversial. Every game should have them.
I do wonder what the age group is that wants easy modes for every game nowadays. Do they trend younger? Is it older gamers that don't have the time or patience anymore? I cut my teeth on 8 bit and 16 bit games, and they were tough. You had to work for that win. Games today, outside of the Souls genre, are dead easy.
I do wonder what the age group is that wants easy modes for every game nowadays. Do they trend younger? Is it older gamers that don't have the time or patience anymore? I cut my teeth on 8 bit and 16 bit games, and they were tough. You had to work for that win. Games today, outside of the Souls genre, are dead easy.
A lot of countries (including the US) have civil rights laws covering disabilities. And some of those laws have provisions that apply to videogames. As of last year, there are certain accessibility features that are required by law in the US. This particular law doesn't cover "easy mode" but people gotta understand that there may be laws that require that in the future. Developers can and should be made to include accessibility features. Just like the local pool or park or whatever is required to be accessible.
Mmm, good point. I did specifically mean difficulty settings in that context, but you're right.
I'm going to use your own position against you.
A release in the 90s for the Sega CD called "Penn & Teller's Smoke and Mirrors" was a compilation of several gimmicky games that the two magicians P&T designed. The system died out before it released, so it never officially came out. However, the most infamous game in the collection eventually made its way to mobile phones, and has most recently been remade in VR for PC gamers. It's called Desert Bus, a title which has been hailed as the "very worst game ever created".
The premise is simple. It is a first-person driving game that simulates a bus ride from Tuscon to Las Vegas and back. If you finish a one way trip, you earn one point. If you complete a round trip, you get another point. The visuals of the entire trip is the road and the flat desert (and MAYBE a bug splat on your windshield).
No radio tunes to select, no incoming traffic to maneuver. There aren't even any curves or turns to negotiate. Just drive straight until you reach your (round trip) destination and you get to enjoy all that the game has to offer.
There are several problem though. For one, the max speed for the vehicle is 45 miles per hour. The game runs in real time, so to complete the entire trip and back will take you eight hours each way (again - real time). Also, not only does the game have no option to save your progress, you can't even pause it once you start!
You should also know that the driving experience itself is atrocious. The wheel alignment of the bus is out of whack, so it is constantly drifting to the right. The entire experience forces you to adjust by steering left every 10-15 seconds, and it is impossible to hold the wheel steady with the controller in order to drive straight. Oh, you drifted off the road? Game over. Start from the beginning. Desert Bus has one of the most innovative bosses of all time... tedium. Anyone with the attention span of four-year old child should stay far away from this release. It's not an experience made for you to enjoy (or anyone else, tbh)..
Looking at your statement above, how many offenses has this game racked up in your view?
Yes, Desert Bus is the definition of a ruined gameplay experience. I completely agree with you that it is unbalanced. You are correct by saying it is boring, and most of all, you are 100% on point by saying it doesn't respect the player's time.
In the end though, why should the developer care what you (or I) think about what they *chose* to make themselves with their resources and imagination? Seriously, why should they have to do anything they don't want to do? That's what I can't wrap my head around, even when I agree with the complainers!
Before you respond, you should know this:
In an unanticipated turn of events (especially from the designer's PoV), Desert Bus became such a phenomenon in its terribleness that in 2007, a group decided to play it live over the internet to raise money for a charity that donates games and toys to kids in hospitals. They raised over $22,000.
The charity play-through got such a strong response from the public and media alike that they started broadcasting the event annually under the title of "Desert Bus for Hope". As of last year, they've raised in total over six million dollars! None of that would've been possible if the designers gave in to everyone who complained about the many, many ways in which it doesn't "respect the player's time" (as you put it).
Does that mean I only defend their game because they raised money for kids? Nope. That's just a pleasant by-product of what I do defend, which is the ability for the artist to have the last say in what they choose to do (or not do) when it comes to how easy/hard it is to fully enjoy their creation and everything that the artist put into it, whether that be games, plays, music, paintings, or whatever.
As a bonus contribution to this thread, here's an exciting, real time clip of somebody playing Desert Bus from start to finish:
Last edited:
Ahah, the judo attempt! Hyah!
I mean, I actually love the Desert Bus for charity. It's a great, good-natured thing.
But like...I don't know what your argument here is. Desert Bus is a straight garbage game. It is bad. Everyone is free to criticize it, despite the developer's intent. Are you saying they shouldn't be?
If you're trying to say that "you shouldn't criticize a game because look a game might end up being so awfully bad that people start ironically playing it and then get some donations because of it", like...uh...I think that's a bit of a non sequitur. Good for charity, I guess? The game still sucks. We can still criticize a game as being bad, even if some people decided to make the best of it.
It doesn't matter if the developers listen to us. They don't have to. None of us are saying they have to?
We're just *saying* it's good to do good things, and it's bad to do bad things. Apparently that's controversial, I guess.
I do not say it is arrogant to disagree with a design choice. I said the opposite actually, including times when I've been the complainer. I feel that in the end, the developer should make whatever experience they want even after I've complained. Sometimes they agree, sometimes they don't. It's up to them.
As for your Shakespeare/Dali counterpoint, I specifically addressed that in my post. You must've missed it. Just because some of the content is easily digestible, that doesn't mean all of it is. The main point in the first post is that all of the content should be easy to be enjoyed by everyone. That isn't the case in many examples in the artistic realm, and I disagree with that position.
Last edited:
Even though I agree with you OP, you seem oddly confrontational.
You don't like dying 10 times. Other people do. Beating NKG in Hollow Knight after dying, huh, 500+ times was the most sublime feeling I had with a game.
I'd argue assist modes are of even more value than just an "Easy" mode at the start. They're more useful for people with specific disabilities.
Also can we please ask for better Hard Modes as well?
You don't like dying 10 times. Other people do. Beating NKG in Hollow Knight after dying, huh, 500+ times was the most sublime feeling I had with a game.
I'd argue assist modes are of even more value than just an "Easy" mode at the start. They're more useful for people with specific disabilities.
Also can we please ask for better Hard Modes as well?
I'm not going to plant a flag and die on this hill because I think games need to be considered art regardless, but I do think that skill-gating the conclusion of a narrative game reduces its artistic value.
Options are a great thing. There are many games that my son sees me play and really likes them, but it's just too difficult. So even though I won't use the options for myself, I like seeing him happy.
Yes please, Hard modes should be more interesting than just upping enemy health and enemy damage to the player.
Using cheats and trainers was always a godsend to dynamically tailor my enjoyment of games when I was younger. My usage of these assists would also depend on my mood or time available. Maybe 'Mutators' should make a return so we can side-step this whole thing being linked to difficulty and more about accessibility and enjoyment. Something like Bravely Default allowed me to do story stuff with little interruptions from battles if I wanted to, but if I felt like I wanted/needed to grind I could adjust that too.
I do wonder how little the adjustments would have to be made to make significant change in the experience of people with slightly different capabilities. There is probably someone who can do the calculations on it. A simple example is what is the mean time/attempts between dying to a boss after dealing 95% damage to it and finally beating it. Could we have saved that player a significant amount of time if the boss had 5% less health? I'm sure a similar thought process can be applied to harder difficulty modes, to make those players have a better experience without the game being too easy.
Regarding control, I'm someone who has never fully gotten used to dual analog as well as button locations, so things like quick time events are something I fail at constantly. If the games has to do (failable) QTEs I would like an option where they showed where the button they want me to press is on the controller. If it takes up half the screen then so be it (then maybe the devs can asses if they want a failable QTE in the moment in the first place).
I do wonder how little the adjustments would have to be made to make significant change in the experience of people with slightly different capabilities. There is probably someone who can do the calculations on it. A simple example is what is the mean time/attempts between dying to a boss after dealing 95% damage to it and finally beating it. Could we have saved that player a significant amount of time if the boss had 5% less health? I'm sure a similar thought process can be applied to harder difficulty modes, to make those players have a better experience without the game being too easy.
Regarding control, I'm someone who has never fully gotten used to dual analog as well as button locations, so things like quick time events are something I fail at constantly. If the games has to do (failable) QTEs I would like an option where they showed where the button they want me to press is on the controller. If it takes up half the screen then so be it (then maybe the devs can asses if they want a failable QTE in the moment in the first place).
Difficulty options are accessibility options. This has been discussed by the disabled posters on this site. Also mutators is an extremely bad word to use for anything relating to what would be an accessibility option so I'd avoid that one and pick something else.
I don't need every game to be for everyone. Accessibility options should absolutely be available to make games playable by the disabled (and naturally that's going to lead to options available to everyone that can make a game less difficult, that's okay), but I don't think every game should set out to make sure every player otherwise can get through their game. If I hit a point in a game where I feel I just can't get through and I don't have any options to adjust difficulty I move on and feel okay about it, maybe complain about the difficulty spike and ruminate on my criticisms of it. I don't come to the conclusion that every game should conform to the one ideal, though.
while i don't completely agree with everything you're saying, this i can seriously relate to. rarely after beating a tough boss do i have a sense of satisfaction or gratification. more often than not, what i feel most of all is sheer relief - i finally managed to overcome this damn hurdle, & can now continue on with the game. some of us are more adventurer than warrior. we're in it for the journey, & those thrilling boss fights are basically just irritating obstacles...
Please tell me what game you are talking about that is not made by from software, because games nowadways are generally easy as hell and already include different difficulty modes.
Agree. Not every person is in gaming to learn or to overcome challenges, many wouldn't even find meaning in this productivity-like idea of gaming. Sometimes people just enjoy the artistry and interactability it provides to have fun.
So just give us options maybe.
So just give us options maybe.
I guess I've been wondering where multiplayer games fit into this. While something like an MMO (FFXIV) does have easier and harder fights, some fights are locked behind a much harder barrier of entry where they have exclusive rewards. Does that make 14 ableist because it's locking stuff behind harder difficulties?
Are MP focus games inherently more "ableist" than other genres?
Since as an MP game difficulty and accessibility can be limited.
Are MP focus games inherently more "ableist" than other genres?
Since as an MP game difficulty and accessibility can be limited.
I personally don't mind it, but I can see why it does for others. I think it works both ways. I think games should have options to help people who don't want to get stuck, but they should also accomodate players who want a massive challenge.
In just about every comment I've posted here, I've said that people are free to criticize or complain, and that I've done the same thing myself.
In the Desert Bus post you quoted I clearly said that the charity aspect of the game does not influence the main point I've been making - that artists should have the final say on how easy/difficult it is for all consumers to fully enjoy their creations.
???
I mean, the title of this thread literally states that *every* game should have an easy/assist mode! Multiple posters have chimed in that they agree with him. You yourself quoted a person that said some countries are forcing games to have certain options added. That's exactly what I've been disagreeing with here. Many times I've said the same thing:
- 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.... I say between all the voices of opinions on this, the developer's decision is the one that matters most.... it should remain their decision as to what they want to do.
- 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.
- The developer cannot tell me how to spend my money, and I cannot tell them how to make their game.
- That's not only unrealistic {expecting every work of art to be 100% accessible for all}, it's arrogant to impose that type of requirement on a person or team... We can ask of course, but they are not "wrong" for saying no.
- 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).... I still don't want them to be obligated one way or another.
- In the end though, why should the developer care what you (or I) think about what they *chose* to make themselves with their resources and imagination? Seriously, why should they have to do anything they don't want to do? That's what I can't wrap my head around, even when I agree with the complainers!
- I do not say it is arrogant to disagree with a design choice. I said the opposite actually, including times when I've been the complainer. I feel that in the end, the developer should make whatever experience they want even after I've complained.
You and others may disagree with what I'm saying, and still others may actually agree. Just don't try to say that it isn't clear where I stand on this issue, lol.
The idea that accessibility options should be included in entertainment, even by law, is nothing new. All films released in the United States are required to be sent out with closed captions so that the hearing impaired can enjoy them. It's not that big a deal to include these.
Game difficulty options are a thornier subject than things like "subtitles", because in certain cases, they may cause an high amount of effort to implement...puzzle games are a good example, where you can't really introduce easier puzzles without...just making entirely new puzzles. But my response was purely with regard to the legality of non-difficulty options...I even say so in my response.
There seems to be a disconnect here, where I say it's cool to criticize, and you say it's cool to criticize, and I say the developer can do anything I want, and you say the developer can do anything they want, but you seem to think that I (and the OP) are implying that difficulty options should be LITERALLY MANDATED. I don't actually think that, if for no other reason than viability and resource cost for the dev (see above puzzle game example). But saying games "should have" something just means you think it's a good feature and it should be implemented, because implementing it means the game will be better, full type. I think games "should have" 60 FPS. I think they "should have" inverted mouse control support. I think they "should have" a well thought out control scheme.
I don't know why you think someone saying a game "should have" difficulty options is any different from the above statements. I think it is good, therefore I think games should have it. The argument with "developer intent" doesn't ever come into play with things like whether or not inverted mouse control support is included, so I don't know why it's coming up now.
If you think difficulty options are BAD, that's another argument. But you don't seem to think that, so I don't know why there's such a disconnect for you.
Multiplayer games are definitely hard to include options for. But, FFXIV at least does provide -some-. For visual accessibility they have changed up colours and effects of aoes, dungeon floors and tethers after complaints from visually impaired and colourblind people. There's also a mode that displays audio on the screen for those with hearing issues.
The addition post ARR of normal mode raids allowed everyone to see the story that was previously locked behind the highest tiers of raiding was another choice in service of this, and the primal follow this theme too, with the Extremes being non-story tied or a gatekeeper to important story. This means the only things gated behind high end content are rewards like gear/mounts/minions, cosmetic optional content for a casual player, as the tomestone and crafted gear gives an alternative.
Speaking of which, Irregular Tomestomes and crafting have been making some of the exclusive rewards of high end content available to everyone (glamour weapons or irregular tomestone mounts for example)
The MSQ is designed to be easy so anyone can get through, and now after you wipe on a solo duty instance, going back in you get a choice of redoing that duty on Normal, Easy or Very Easy. The Echo (a buff to all statistics after wiping) can be helpful for current content, but is also used to ease more difficult content that is required to follow the story (Orbonne Monastery).
And the biggest one... Unsynced content. Other than the Ultimates and the new Unreals, all the old content, and their rewards remain, and unsyncing means that you can go back to that high end content you missed and experience that at a higher level and with Echo in some of the content on top and get those exclusive rewards. They also incentivise more experienced players to come back and do this content unsynced with initiatives like Wonderous Tales, increasing drop rates of rare mounts, adding orchestrions, achievements and adding rare crafting materials (you could maybe make an argument for blue mage spells too but, ehhhhh)
Control scheme wise, there's seamless controller and keyboard swapping, multiple control schemes for movement, lots of remapping, the customisable HUD and text size increases for text boxes, and probably more I can't remember off the top of my head cause I don't have the setting tabs in front of me
The patch cycle of design of high end patch -> catch up patch imo helps too. Every second patch, 3 1/2 months is devoted to helping people who are behind the top end catch up (in terms of item level) by providing them easier ways to attain gear and more alternatives to the high end gear.
I can't compare it to other big players in the MMO market (I've only played FFXI and FFXIV, and FFXI was released and peaked in the time where everyone needed to suffer so it's definitely not a fair comparison), but, at least in my opinion, there's been a deliberate attempt to make content more accessible and to incentivise returning to the content once it is more accessible, and a deliberate moving away of locking important story content behind clearing the high end content, as well as providing explicit difficulty options in solo content
The rules of the game are laid out by the creator. If you can't overcome the challenge, either put in more time or play a different game.
If someone is losing that many times to a single boss then there's something that has gone wrong along the way. Maybe the rules and mechanics haven't been communicated well enough, maybe the difficulty spike is too high in that section, maybe there's an underlying and unnoticed flaw in the design that makes this area harder than anticipated.
Just because they create the rules doesn't mean they can't be challenged over them. 'Git gud' is not a one and done response.
Wipeout HD on the PS3 was delayed when the developer had to tone down the visuals which were a risk to cause epileptic seizures. Obviously no one is advocating that game developers can release something that is a direct danger to the public. My comment against any potential laws governing content only pertained to mandates towards the topic being discussed here - forced difficulty. I wasn't referencing anything beyond that.
As for your other comments, now I'm the one who doesn't understand what you are saying. The only reason I posted here is because the OP's title says all games should have an easy/assist mode. You're telling me I'm wrong for taking him literally? How else can one consider what someone has said if their posts somehow don''t mean exactly what he said? Makes no sense to me, especially when plenty of other posters agreed with him.
In the end though, my argument was against a literal interpretation of the title of this thread. At least that much should be clear (even if some disagree with it). So there's no need to try to read nuance into what he may or may not have meant. I'm against what a literal interpretation of his words is stating.
I generally try to play games on 'normal' or 'medium,' but as I get older, i find I'm busting games down to easy more and more. TLOUII and now Ghost of Tsushima on Easy.
I have no patience to trying to beat a boss over and over.
There have also been plenty of games over the years where i'm happily able to play the majority of the game on Normal/Medium and then one encounter just kicks my ass over and over.
I have no patience to trying to beat a boss over and over.
There have also been plenty of games over the years where i'm happily able to play the majority of the game on Normal/Medium and then one encounter just kicks my ass over and over.
I feel like we have this thread once a month. I'm all for having the option, but I have to disagree on people feeling like feeling like shit for dying 20+ times to a boss is a waste of time when they just want to have fun or whatever. One of the best feelings for me is putting in the time and effort to overcome a difficult section, and being able to just bypass it because I just want to 'enjoy the story' is even more of a waste, because at that point you may as well just watch a walkthrough.
And for some people it's just frustrating and annoying, even if they beat the boss. Not everybody experiences or wants to experience what you feel.
Maybe look inwards instead of outwards.
If a game has communication or balance issues, I trust the dev to look into those and fix them. If he agrees with the complaints. If he doesn't, I'll accept it and move on to the next game.
Accept that not all games are for everyone. Some devs like to challenge their playerbase and thats fine by me.
By this logic every Soulsbourne game I've played is a design failure because I inevitably hit a point where I either can't progress or it takes an inordinate amount of attempts before I clear a boss.
Well the game mentioned by OP (CrossCode) has been made for everyone thanks to the assist mode. Devs can still challenge their player base - assist modes and difficulty options don't change that.
This'll be contentious but I personally don't disagree with that. Well, failure is strong but I don't think it's great design. Your mileage may vary.
Last edited:
Also cause I was curious for the FFXIV example, I went and had a look on the Reddit, FFXIV supports customised controllers for disability too, and and the community itself and some of the FFXIV team who follow/post on the Reddit have offered help in finding appropriate controllers/mice/control schemes/recommended jobs for redditors who ask for advice on how to play with their disability in mind.
If we're just playing a game of pure semantics here, I don't see how you can win it. The phrase "I think Uncharted 4 should have a better photo mode" in no way implies that I believe that Naughty Dog *has to implement this*. Or what? They can do whatever they want, I just THINK it SHOULD have a better mode. It's encouraging a thing that I believe is good, not a law. I think you're just fundamentally misreading it.
I think hot dog places should include relish as an option, but I'm not calling up my senators, ya know?
I have a legit question. Dark Souls-serie is PvE, coop and PvP-oriented. Let's say it has multiple accessibility options to max your level, have every gear available fully upgraded, max poise and immune to status damage. Player A wants to play to with all these options enabled to have easier time. After playing a while, this player decides to try online and invade another player (for PvP) who is playing the game with only max poise.
How exactly are you proposing to have a balanced matchmaking without splitting the community, especially for smaller games? Disabling online while using accessiblity options would be gatekeeping (especially for disabled players), so that's immediately out of the question.
How exactly are you proposing to have a balanced matchmaking without splitting the community, especially for smaller games? Disabling online while using accessiblity options would be gatekeeping (especially for disabled players), so that's immediately out of the question.
Yeah, no. This is not an okay response. Ever. I've been told this multiple times, and someone who has been disabled and hit by a barrier because of accessibility and/or bad game design, this is never an okay response to tell someone, especially with someone who's disabled. Seriously, both read the room and do your research how this impacts gamers like me.
This has been done before, yes. Plus, some games have spreaders with MUCH lower screen coverage depending on difficulty, which while still difficult, makes it easier for players with lower reaction time.
Also, I need to stress many Fighting Games have A.I. options for single player experiences, going from difficulty to A.I. aggression. Obviously competitive play is a bit of a different beast, but there's been progress to help those with disabilities also be able to participate a bit easier (from controller to remapping buttons).
Last edited:
I agree. Most games simply aren't good enough to warrant multiple attempts at any particular section without boredom / tedium / irritation setting in, none of which fall under my definition of entertainment.
So in other words, the developer is doing themselves a favor by giving you a frictionless means of passing through, if necessary.
So in other words, the developer is doing themselves a favor by giving you a frictionless means of passing through, if necessary.
How is it semantics when I've consistently said the same thing from the first post on? I wasn't parsing his words if I simply took his request at face value. Obviously I am responding to the mandate idea itself when I repeatedly say variations of, "the developer should not be obligated...".
Yeah, if you read it one way and I read it another way, debating over that interpretation is a game of semantics which I said in my last post is not worth doing. For arguments sake, if I am defending one specific thing only (that every game should not have to offer an easy mode unless each individual developer chooses to do it), we are in agreement, right?
Options are always good, and I am more likely to buy a game if I know it has accessibility options as it guarantees I will be able to see the end of it.