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.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.
Even Souls genre have become dead easy nowadaysHaving 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.
Mmm, good point. I did specifically mean difficulty settings in that context, but you're right.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.
I'm going to use your own position against you.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.
Me: "The addition of ______ mechanics here completely ruins the game. It's unbalanced, boring, and it doesn't respect the player's time."
Ahah, the judo attempt! Hyah!
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.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.
Yes please, Hard modes should be more interesting than just upping enemy health and enemy damage to the player.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?
Maybe 'Mutators' should make a return so we can side-step this whole thing being linked to difficulty and more about accessibility and enjoyment.
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. I usually feel bad about how I wasted my time because the boss wasn't balanced enough to match the difficulty from the previous area. Difficulty spikes are bad design.
That's why easy/assist mode on the fly is so good, you can make the badly designed boss easy or manageable if you want to. And then you can go back to the original difficulty. So good.
"Git gud"? Git gud my ass. I have a lot going in my life to waste hours upon hours grinding because the developer threw in a badly designed boss in the middle of the game.
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.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. I usually feel bad about how I wasted my time because the boss wasn't balanced enough to match the difficulty from the previous area. Difficulty spikes are bad design.
That's why easy/assist mode on the fly is so good, you can make the badly designed boss easy or manageable if you want to. And then you can go back to the original difficulty. So good.
"Git gud"? Git gud my ass. I have a lot going in my life to waste hours upon hours grinding because the developer threw in a badly designed boss in the middle of the game.
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
how do you make a bullet hell shmup that has an assist mode? just allow credit feeding? a fighting game with competitive play?
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...".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?