OP
OP
Why don't I play all my games in easy mode but rather play then in normal them? You're not making any sense.
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Easy/Assist mode is a blessing. Every game should have it.
- Thread starter Swift_Gamer
- Start date
The "path of least resistance"? That's your argument? That if an easy mode exists "people" will pick it so it shouldn't exist? Considering we've had difficulty modes for decades now and most people play games on normal mode I'm not sure this argument really pans out.
Where did I state my argument is if people pick it it shouldn't exist? I clearly was just expanding on why people choose easier options in a variety of ways. Y'all are tacking on someone else's argument to mine. Read the quote chain to see where I started.
Why did baked-in cheats and cheat codes end up disappearing, anyway? Some of my favourite things to do as a kid was play games with cheat codes enabled. And, surprise surprise, i still ended up enjoying the game and "appreciating" what the artist put out. And, afterwards, the basics I was able to practice through cheat-enabled playing around allowed me to come back to it and play it "as the artist intended".
You know what? Fuck what the artist "intends". The beautiful thing about art, and, for my money, what makes art, art... is how it is interpreted by the people who are exposed to it. Music, paintings, poems, stories... the magic of art is how it makes us think and feel. And, guaranteed, for every piece of art there are millions of different interpretations. As many as the number of people who were exposed to it. So fuck off with "artistic intent". If you're going to say video games are art you're going to have to accept that was a piece of art is released how it is interpreted is out of the artists' hands. If someone wants to experience the game but can't because of the difficulty or access, there's a problem. Give people the tools to let them fix the problem if the devs aren't willing to, but definitely don't bully people or look down on them for seeking a solution.
You know what? Fuck what the artist "intends". The beautiful thing about art, and, for my money, what makes art, art... is how it is interpreted by the people who are exposed to it. Music, paintings, poems, stories... the magic of art is how it makes us think and feel. And, guaranteed, for every piece of art there are millions of different interpretations. As many as the number of people who were exposed to it. So fuck off with "artistic intent". If you're going to say video games are art you're going to have to accept that was a piece of art is released how it is interpreted is out of the artists' hands. If someone wants to experience the game but can't because of the difficulty or access, there's a problem. Give people the tools to let them fix the problem if the devs aren't willing to, but definitely don't bully people or look down on them for seeking a solution.
Wonder, my friend, I am confused and upset by this post. I don't know if I am taking the brunt of your feelings which you've accumulated across other situations, but I feel like this is a very uncharitable reading of my opinion. I have admittedly not been my softest kindest self (perhaps we are all "covid posting") but I am struck with confusion over your reaction to my opinion here.
I am not against people playing games on lower difficulties or using modifiers — something I do myself and discussed in my own post. I merely objected to unforgiving generalizations about game quality and the efforts of their developers. I do find it distasteful to accuse creators and testers of ineptitude and failure based on one's own self-described resistance to difficulty. This is a position I take with compassion and respect towards the people who make games. Not with malice or contempt for any player. Players can do whatever they want, but I feel that it's disrespectful to the backbreaking labor of creating video games to discredit and demean their work in such broad strokes.
I am sorry this opinion has disappointed you so greatly. I don't know how to answer to your feelings about it. But you and I are old friends who feel similarly about many things. I am saddened our divergence in this particular thread has let you down to the point of publicly denouncing me. I will think twice before posting in the future.
Please take care.
it's because this site is going to shit, they have no idea what the fuck the to do anymore
Doesn't bother me at all, I even reminisce about the old days of game genie/gameshark where the game could really open up any way you wanted (or needed) it to.
A developer is still able to design their game with the vision they intend, it doesn't hurt anyone to include cheats for those that want it. Some games I have much more fun with in that regard, glad PC still has trainers and such.
A developer is still able to design their game with the vision they intend, it doesn't hurt anyone to include cheats for those that want it. Some games I have much more fun with in that regard, glad PC still has trainers and such.
I'm all for these options in as many games as possible, but it is absolutely true that they could affect the core experience of a game if the core experience of the game is built around a specific type of difficulty.
For instance, if Souls had traditional difficulty modes and options, many players who pushed through the challenges to find a rewarding experience may have given up earlier and just utilized these options to skip certain parts and not had the intended experience.
While many players would just ignore these options for the challenge, and while it wouldn't "ruin" the core experience it could potentially drastically change it for many.
Saying that... even so, I'm not against the idea of options in games like these at all, but I do think devs should be left to create specific experiences if they want to, and for all other games that it wouldn't affect the core, they should have as many accessibility options as possible.
UH ? ? This doesn't make sense, the OP even agreed on disabilities being another reason to have more options. If anything it shows that people that don't want more options are inherently selfishly gatekeeping, let more people enjoy games , always have easy mode/colorblind, its that simple. . Why does it matter what reasons they have to "not wanting more options"?!? It's bullshit either way.
I suppose it could be "different" (read: better), but you find me one person who decided to use the Assist Mode in Celeste and thought it was a worse game as a result, and I'll eat my hat.
Marketing won't have to change. I'm sure plenty of people would still die while playing an "easy" option, however that would be implemented.
Edit: Also, I think marketing depends on Publisher. When Demon Souls first came out, I just saw dark fantasy being pushed by Atlus. Namco seemed to take the "Prepare to Die" saying and turned it into a thing.
Last edited:
So this thread is somewhat triggering for me lol. Full disclosure, I've ignored it, the OP and Mendinso, and then reverted that decision. We should be able to have discussions without becoming so emotionally impassioned that it leads to disrespectful discourse. I'll preface this by saying I do not have answers to this, nor am I looking to be a conduit to change the world. I'm just speaking to how I feel in the moment after much consideration of even making an actual real post in here.
For the majority here on ERA, gaming is something you do. Whether you enjoy it or not is another discussion, but you at least like to discuss it. Obviously, outside of that realm lies the morbid reality that we all live in. Escapism in games has long been a cherished part of a lot of our lives. I personally, have been playing games since I was born in 91. Played a ton of different titles, haven't beaten all of them, still enjoy it to this day.
To address OP: Should ALL games have an Easy Mode? MY honest answer? No. Why? I'm not the one making the game, I play what was given by the developer, and then base my play-through on what they wanted to make. So if they made it without an Easy Mode, I'm not gonna bash them for that exact reason because it's not something that I personally utilize or use as a critique. For me that's usually what Normal mode is for. However, if they do add one, awesome!
There are so many comparisons to make about how a game having/not having an easy mode is like this or that, as many examples presented in this thread show. Not all examples are perfect, good, 1:1, or even made with good intentions... Which is cumbersome to say the least. I honestly can't stop thinking of comparisons in my head... But I don't want to hark on that.
I think my full opinion to your suggestion is this: If a game is created with GOOD Easy Mode that helps many others to enjoy the game at varying degrees then great! I'm all for enjoyable gaming experience. Regardless, I don't believe a game should be vilified for being inherently hard or ask of its player to get better at certain mechanics rather than just allowing them to bypass it because they are tired of the challenge. I don't think of games an simple products that are obligated to be consumable by the masses. Some definitely are meant for that, but not all. If a director that plots a game design in a way to make certain challenging situations turn into rewarding ones, I don't feel compelled to tell them to make sure its something possible for literally everyone to do. If every dev had to make there games flexible enough that it can be watered down for everyone, it would make gauging demographics and general consensus weird, to to say the least. Consider how certain board games have discretionary age ranges for consumers. Can you be older than 12 and still enjoy monopoly? Of course. Can you be younger and still enjoy it? Yeah. Is the level of enjoyment going to be the same among both parties? No. If a 3-5yo was playing, they may not pay attention the rules of the Banker, or care about paying off property, whereas someone older may be able to grasp those concepts better, and int urn, may appreciate them and the game that much more. Can it be enjoyed differently? Yes. Though their experience isn't the exact same, enjoyment can still be had. But board games are tangible. So rules can literally be adapted based on how you want them to be. It's why we always play with barnyard rules in a game of Uno. Regular playing cards are universally fun, with no age range gating or anything. Can video games, which have to be developed with systems and frameworks and everything else be as explicitly flexible? Personally, right now at least, I don't think so.
I can see, however, the irony of a game that has "bad game design" leading to it being "unnecessarily" harder, even though that viewpoint is inherently subjective. I also understand that not everyone's circumstance permits them to play a game to the accord that a dev may want them to experience it (this is not addressing accessibility for those who are physically or mentally disabled... My response to Mendinso will address that; I mean this more in the sense of like From games not having a pause screen or Cuphead's Easy mode not letting you beat the game). I do not believe it is the dev's duty to make a game befitting of everyone and anyone to play all the time. They control the development process, not I. I don't think Game Design itself, paralleled with the time it takes to make games, would make that feasible. Would it be ideal? Yes. Is it feasible? At the moment, I don't believe so. Can it be something that changes later down the line? Possibly, but I won't claim to know with a certainty.
It is definitely your prerogative to express your opinions on the matter... I honestly just don't see what type of change you want to bring about in a realistic, not idealistic, manner. We can always speak to ideals but that doesn't alone will them into existence. Good that CrossCode had Assit/Easy Mode as an option for you. I can't claim to say that the reason you switched to the Easy Mode justifies it, if after 35 hrs of playtime on normal, the game had not demonstrated enough mechanics to help beat whatever boss you were facing. I don't know if I would call that bad game design seeing that 1) you played it that long without issue and 2) I've never played it, and at this time, haven't seen reviews implying that it had high difficulty spikes mid-game. I understand how that can be frustrating and the fact that Easy Mode assisted you is cool. If you have not already beaten the game at this point, it does make me wonder if later fights will still encumber you in the same manner should you switch back to normal or if you'll just continue on Easy Mode. Most games are made with challenge being a pillar in its development. That's an aspect of gaming that I appreciate, so I personally like overcoming challenge in most games I play. So I wouldn't personally, want to drop difficulty upon a few failed attempts at something. Having the option to do so, does not hurt or affect me, but also doesn't encourage me to profess for it to be necessary.
In a thread I a few weeks ago that didn't gain much traction, I did try to breakdown my reasoning on how discussions that seem to invoke the extreme sides of things often defeat the purpose of even talking about it. So I don't want to fall victim to just blurting out a response. At the end of the day, it would be great if maybe some type of system wide assist mode was placed in console OS's that help play a game for them. This wouldn't be a need for me and would probably push me to rely on people who play games in a similar manner to me for critical conversations on the game, since it would openly muddle discussion online with people, like this. But hey, at the end of the day this stuff is always just meant to be fun. It's not my fight to demand or deny that change. I just came from a time where conquering a challenge in games was expected to hold some back, cheat codes none-withstanding. We've all gotten older though, and this medium still is a lot younger than most other entertainment mediums. I guess we shall see...
To Mendinso: I'll start this with an apology, because I judged you before trying to understand you, and for that I am sorry. For the past few weeks I've seen you post more and more about being disabled and how it affects your experience with playing games. The tone of your post would always rub me the wrong way since they came off so extreme, and sometimes seemingly out of nowhere. Like the discussion in this thread wasn't set for disabled people as framed in the context of the OP, and then in post #3 you turned it into that. So in my shallowness I allowed myself to dismiss what you were saying. However, it kept biting at me. This word Ablelism that I've been seeing used so often in threads your in was new for me. So it caused me to do some research on the term. That compelled me to not stay quiet anymore. It's obvious these discussions affect and upset you, and even attempting to put myself in just a semblance of your shoes helps me understand some of our frustration. I don't think OP is disabled. I don't think that was the point of the topic. But since it's here in the present now, I did want to take a clearer stance.
Accessibility in gaming has never been a concern for me. I don't have any disabilities that cause me to play games differently or change various settings to find enjoyment of them. When a new system comes out, I play with the new controller it comes with. When I buy a game and play, I just play it. The thought of how someone else goes through that process of playing a game never really reaches into my realm or reality. But your points about accessibility are something that have caused me to at least think about them. I know people praise TLOU2 about its options, along with Celeste, and I'm sure other games as well. I wish the world was befitting enough to make it standard that all games could have those degrees of options. It's not something mandated at the moment, at least to the degree that certain other aspects of society are mandated and regulated. All I can say is that it takes time for these things to become universal. I don't know if that challenge will be conquerable sooner rather than later. And indie dev party probably is more tighter and focused and able to adapt certain options to its game. Naughty Dog wants its experiences to be something the masses can consume however they want to, and that is an honorable position. Faceless companies like EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc. are so big though, that I don't see them adjusting to the demand of flexibility overnight.
For those who are disabled, these are great suggestions and make sense. I do hope it becomes more standard for games to gives option to make QTE's easier or minigames skippable. Your situation doesn't represent the majority, and just like it took time for the world to adapt certain changes, albeit not at a great pace or anything, it is worth discussion because that can lead to potential change. I just feel like on one hand, please don't assume that the majority of posters here are willingly disregarding you and your disabilities. Same goes for those who expressed similar concerns in the thread you created. I can't speak for everyone of course, but my hope in society isn't that low to think that people are thoughtfully making their comments in the framework of disabled people. Again, I don't think that was the goal of the thread in the first place. But, on the other hand, I do think open discussion about this is warranted because awareness of it is lacking severely. I hope you follow-up with the mods about what a reasonable way to conduct that conversation would look like. It just sucks to see you get so extremely flustered and it causes the internet to react like how it does...
For the majority here on ERA, gaming is something you do. Whether you enjoy it or not is another discussion, but you at least like to discuss it. Obviously, outside of that realm lies the morbid reality that we all live in. Escapism in games has long been a cherished part of a lot of our lives. I personally, have been playing games since I was born in 91. Played a ton of different titles, haven't beaten all of them, still enjoy it to this day.
To address OP: Should ALL games have an Easy Mode? MY honest answer? No. Why? I'm not the one making the game, I play what was given by the developer, and then base my play-through on what they wanted to make. So if they made it without an Easy Mode, I'm not gonna bash them for that exact reason because it's not something that I personally utilize or use as a critique. For me that's usually what Normal mode is for. However, if they do add one, awesome!
There are so many comparisons to make about how a game having/not having an easy mode is like this or that, as many examples presented in this thread show. Not all examples are perfect, good, 1:1, or even made with good intentions... Which is cumbersome to say the least. I honestly can't stop thinking of comparisons in my head... But I don't want to hark on that.
I think my full opinion to your suggestion is this: If a game is created with GOOD Easy Mode that helps many others to enjoy the game at varying degrees then great! I'm all for enjoyable gaming experience. Regardless, I don't believe a game should be vilified for being inherently hard or ask of its player to get better at certain mechanics rather than just allowing them to bypass it because they are tired of the challenge. I don't think of games an simple products that are obligated to be consumable by the masses. Some definitely are meant for that, but not all. If a director that plots a game design in a way to make certain challenging situations turn into rewarding ones, I don't feel compelled to tell them to make sure its something possible for literally everyone to do. If every dev had to make there games flexible enough that it can be watered down for everyone, it would make gauging demographics and general consensus weird, to to say the least. Consider how certain board games have discretionary age ranges for consumers. Can you be older than 12 and still enjoy monopoly? Of course. Can you be younger and still enjoy it? Yeah. Is the level of enjoyment going to be the same among both parties? No. If a 3-5yo was playing, they may not pay attention the rules of the Banker, or care about paying off property, whereas someone older may be able to grasp those concepts better, and int urn, may appreciate them and the game that much more. Can it be enjoyed differently? Yes. Though their experience isn't the exact same, enjoyment can still be had. But board games are tangible. So rules can literally be adapted based on how you want them to be. It's why we always play with barnyard rules in a game of Uno. Regular playing cards are universally fun, with no age range gating or anything. Can video games, which have to be developed with systems and frameworks and everything else be as explicitly flexible? Personally, right now at least, I don't think so.
I can see, however, the irony of a game that has "bad game design" leading to it being "unnecessarily" harder, even though that viewpoint is inherently subjective. I also understand that not everyone's circumstance permits them to play a game to the accord that a dev may want them to experience it (this is not addressing accessibility for those who are physically or mentally disabled... My response to Mendinso will address that; I mean this more in the sense of like From games not having a pause screen or Cuphead's Easy mode not letting you beat the game). I do not believe it is the dev's duty to make a game befitting of everyone and anyone to play all the time. They control the development process, not I. I don't think Game Design itself, paralleled with the time it takes to make games, would make that feasible. Would it be ideal? Yes. Is it feasible? At the moment, I don't believe so. Can it be something that changes later down the line? Possibly, but I won't claim to know with a certainty.
It is definitely your prerogative to express your opinions on the matter... I honestly just don't see what type of change you want to bring about in a realistic, not idealistic, manner. We can always speak to ideals but that doesn't alone will them into existence. Good that CrossCode had Assit/Easy Mode as an option for you. I can't claim to say that the reason you switched to the Easy Mode justifies it, if after 35 hrs of playtime on normal, the game had not demonstrated enough mechanics to help beat whatever boss you were facing. I don't know if I would call that bad game design seeing that 1) you played it that long without issue and 2) I've never played it, and at this time, haven't seen reviews implying that it had high difficulty spikes mid-game. I understand how that can be frustrating and the fact that Easy Mode assisted you is cool. If you have not already beaten the game at this point, it does make me wonder if later fights will still encumber you in the same manner should you switch back to normal or if you'll just continue on Easy Mode. Most games are made with challenge being a pillar in its development. That's an aspect of gaming that I appreciate, so I personally like overcoming challenge in most games I play. So I wouldn't personally, want to drop difficulty upon a few failed attempts at something. Having the option to do so, does not hurt or affect me, but also doesn't encourage me to profess for it to be necessary.
In a thread I a few weeks ago that didn't gain much traction, I did try to breakdown my reasoning on how discussions that seem to invoke the extreme sides of things often defeat the purpose of even talking about it. So I don't want to fall victim to just blurting out a response. At the end of the day, it would be great if maybe some type of system wide assist mode was placed in console OS's that help play a game for them. This wouldn't be a need for me and would probably push me to rely on people who play games in a similar manner to me for critical conversations on the game, since it would openly muddle discussion online with people, like this. But hey, at the end of the day this stuff is always just meant to be fun. It's not my fight to demand or deny that change. I just came from a time where conquering a challenge in games was expected to hold some back, cheat codes none-withstanding. We've all gotten older though, and this medium still is a lot younger than most other entertainment mediums. I guess we shall see...
To Mendinso: I'll start this with an apology, because I judged you before trying to understand you, and for that I am sorry. For the past few weeks I've seen you post more and more about being disabled and how it affects your experience with playing games. The tone of your post would always rub me the wrong way since they came off so extreme, and sometimes seemingly out of nowhere. Like the discussion in this thread wasn't set for disabled people as framed in the context of the OP, and then in post #3 you turned it into that. So in my shallowness I allowed myself to dismiss what you were saying. However, it kept biting at me. This word Ablelism that I've been seeing used so often in threads your in was new for me. So it caused me to do some research on the term. That compelled me to not stay quiet anymore. It's obvious these discussions affect and upset you, and even attempting to put myself in just a semblance of your shoes helps me understand some of our frustration. I don't think OP is disabled. I don't think that was the point of the topic. But since it's here in the present now, I did want to take a clearer stance.
Accessibility in gaming has never been a concern for me. I don't have any disabilities that cause me to play games differently or change various settings to find enjoyment of them. When a new system comes out, I play with the new controller it comes with. When I buy a game and play, I just play it. The thought of how someone else goes through that process of playing a game never really reaches into my realm or reality. But your points about accessibility are something that have caused me to at least think about them. I know people praise TLOU2 about its options, along with Celeste, and I'm sure other games as well. I wish the world was befitting enough to make it standard that all games could have those degrees of options. It's not something mandated at the moment, at least to the degree that certain other aspects of society are mandated and regulated. All I can say is that it takes time for these things to become universal. I don't know if that challenge will be conquerable sooner rather than later. And indie dev party probably is more tighter and focused and able to adapt certain options to its game. Naughty Dog wants its experiences to be something the masses can consume however they want to, and that is an honorable position. Faceless companies like EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc. are so big though, that I don't see them adjusting to the demand of flexibility overnight.
For those who are disabled, these are great suggestions and make sense. I do hope it becomes more standard for games to gives option to make QTE's easier or minigames skippable. Your situation doesn't represent the majority, and just like it took time for the world to adapt certain changes, albeit not at a great pace or anything, it is worth discussion because that can lead to potential change. I just feel like on one hand, please don't assume that the majority of posters here are willingly disregarding you and your disabilities. Same goes for those who expressed similar concerns in the thread you created. I can't speak for everyone of course, but my hope in society isn't that low to think that people are thoughtfully making their comments in the framework of disabled people. Again, I don't think that was the goal of the thread in the first place. But, on the other hand, I do think open discussion about this is warranted because awareness of it is lacking severely. I hope you follow-up with the mods about what a reasonable way to conduct that conversation would look like. It just sucks to see you get so extremely flustered and it causes the internet to react like how it does...
I really don't get the "artistic expression" argument some people make. Look at a game like Celeste: incredibly challenging and perfectly balanced around its mechanics on default settings, but with a bunch of toggles in the options so anyone can find the right amount of difficulty for them. The rest of the game is left alone, unaffected by that list of options in the menu. I played through the game knowing they were there but never once looked at what they were specifically. And guess what? It didn't have any effect on my experience. I had a great time with the challenge that the game offered, and plenty of others used those options to find the right amount of difficulty for their abilities. Nothing was compromised. The game I wanted was still there. Hell, it's not like the argument about needing to rebalance the game even applies here; the game is exactly the same in every other way than what these options specifically apply to, no extra design needed. Just programming in whether a certain element is restricted or not, which, as others have mentioned in this very thread, is something that is usually already in the game as dev tools. I can't imagine it's all that hard for someone who knows what they're doing to put in a menu with each of those options. And honestly, that should be way easier than the implementing the difficulty settings that so many AAA games have these days. Just let people play around with what's there and find the right balance for them.
This is something I've read quite a few times here and I'll never understand the need for the condescending tone.
"Oh look at me, I'm an ADULT and as such I don't have time for GAMES*, because unlike you useless fucks with nothing better to do in life, I have to work 42 hours each day, commute for another 7, then take care of my 15 children and if I get 10 minutes of gameplay, I consider myself lucky. You kids just don't understand."
*except that I totally do because I'm complaining about a 35 hour long game
Indeed. Difficulty is relative.
Like, that's one of the points of difficulty modes, right? That what's hard for one person might be extremely easy for another, and what's easy for one might be the most difficult thing for another.
And that's where difficulty modes enter to begin with. To give players the ability to standardize the difficulty for whatever gives them that "right" Goldilocks level of challenge. Precisely so it can be that "developer intended" level of difficulty.
Because that's the thing. No matter how skilled they are, no matter how hard they try, no developer can get around the fact that different people are well, different.
And that's the point of difficulty options. To accommodate for that as much as possible. That of course it's impossible to truly consider the case of literally every single potential individual player, but difficulty levels are a simple way of vastly increasing the scope of prospective players.
Like, to further explain this, let me give this example:
Consider the case of someone who vastly struggles to control 3D games period, who like has a very difficult time just understanding the concept of controlling a 3D in-game "camera" with a second analog stick.
Obviously, whether we're talking about something like day a From Software Soul's game, or a 3D Mario game, or a game like God of War, or The Last of Us, or Halo or Gears or or so many other 3D video games, something like just being able to control the in-game camera is extremely, extremely rarely meant to be part of the intended difficulty-balance.
Stuff like the enemies and bosses and terrain hazards and plenty of other things like that, yes, but not the in-game camera, or stuff like that. The enemies and bosses are meant to be threats in their own right, not because you struggle to control the camera. That's not part of the artistic vision at all.
But that's where of course both difficulty options and accessibility options come in. Because while they can't consider the case of literally every possible theoretical person, by having such options, so they can all have an experience as close to the intended one as possible.
Precisely because such situations are so personal, so idiosyncratic.
And that while it's impossible to consider every personal case, at the same time, more than nothing can be done to recognize that difficulty is indeed not absolute, but relative, and cast as wide a net as possible to meet as many situations as possible.
Thus, I fully agree with as many games having easy modes and the like as possible.
Like, that's one of the points of difficulty modes, right? That what's hard for one person might be extremely easy for another, and what's easy for one might be the most difficult thing for another.
And that's where difficulty modes enter to begin with. To give players the ability to standardize the difficulty for whatever gives them that "right" Goldilocks level of challenge. Precisely so it can be that "developer intended" level of difficulty.
Because that's the thing. No matter how skilled they are, no matter how hard they try, no developer can get around the fact that different people are well, different.
And that's the point of difficulty options. To accommodate for that as much as possible. That of course it's impossible to truly consider the case of literally every single potential individual player, but difficulty levels are a simple way of vastly increasing the scope of prospective players.
Like, to further explain this, let me give this example:
Consider the case of someone who vastly struggles to control 3D games period, who like has a very difficult time just understanding the concept of controlling a 3D in-game "camera" with a second analog stick.
Obviously, whether we're talking about something like day a From Software Soul's game, or a 3D Mario game, or a game like God of War, or The Last of Us, or Halo or Gears or or so many other 3D video games, something like just being able to control the in-game camera is extremely, extremely rarely meant to be part of the intended difficulty-balance.
Stuff like the enemies and bosses and terrain hazards and plenty of other things like that, yes, but not the in-game camera, or stuff like that. The enemies and bosses are meant to be threats in their own right, not because you struggle to control the camera. That's not part of the artistic vision at all.
But that's where of course both difficulty options and accessibility options come in. Because while they can't consider the case of literally every possible theoretical person, by having such options, so they can all have an experience as close to the intended one as possible.
Precisely because such situations are so personal, so idiosyncratic.
And that while it's impossible to consider every personal case, at the same time, more than nothing can be done to recognize that difficulty is indeed not absolute, but relative, and cast as wide a net as possible to meet as many situations as possible.
Thus, I fully agree with as many games having easy modes and the like as possible.
Didn't know that particular program existed. Thanks for the recommendation.
The thing about Celeste is that it has this extremely good set of screens
Like a game can still feature the developer's original vision while also opening it to more players because a good game is more than just its difficulty level. In Celeste's case it may be the narrative, or the general game feel. In the case of something like Dark Souls or Bloodborne, someone might fall in love with the lore, or the art assets, or the enemy designs, or countless other things that aren't instrinsically tied to the difficulty. IMO it's actively doing a disservice to those games to assume there's only one way to appreciate them. Especially when there are well known exploits that trivialize the game already, they just require a few more hoops to be jumped through.
Just copy Celeste's example and outright tell the player "this isn't the way we built the game but for those who want to experience the game on their own terms, here are some options."
Last edited:
You can have time to invest 35 hours into a game if you are on a limited schedule, but it stings harder when that time ends up being wasted by bashing your head against a wall.
I wanna apologize that I can't really easily respond in the same articulate manner as you did with this post (plus, just tired and run down overall from this thread and other issues happening in my life), but I wanna thank you for this and I appreciate it.
I think sometimes, regarding people hitting a road black, that sometimes those options are helpful to even able-bodied users. Not they inherently skip it (though really, I think it's ultimately up to the user in that regard, in my personal opinion, since you should play it how you want to), but to help deal with an overwhelming difficult fight, whether due to poor mechanics or it's just a legit roadblock that can't be overcome by the player.
Either way, I appreciate you taking the time into researching the whole issue and I really do appreciate the response. I wish I could articulate my thoughts more on the other things you said, but I'll leave it at that.
Also, I wanna apologize how aggressive I've been coming off with these issues, given this might be the most hostile I've become thus far on the whole issue. Between recent world events and being hand-waved disabilities and mental health issues my entire life, it's something I really care about and I want people's voiced to be heard on the subject and I just am so tired of people talking down to me and others on it.
Exactly, the "developer's vision" is left wholly intact, for anyone who wants it, while letting the player know there are other options if they'd like to look at them. It even goes the extra mile of suggesting that you play with the default settings, since that's what the game was designed around, but also offering options for anyone who wants them, and without belittling you for using them.The thing about Celeste is that it has this extremely good set of screens
Like a game can still feature the developer's original vision while also opening it to more players because a good game is more than just its difficulty level. In Celeste's case it may be the narrative, or the general game feel. In the case of something like Dark Souls or Bloodborne, someone might fall in love with the lore, or the art assets, or the enemy designs, or countless other things that aren't instrinsically tied to the difficulty. IMO it's actively doing a disservice to those games to assume there's only one way to appreciate them. Especially when there are well known exploits that trivialize the game already, they just require a few more hoops to be jumped through.
Just copy Celeste's example and outright tell the player "this isn't the way we built the game but for those who want to experience the game on their own terms, here are some options."
I'd love to start up Elden Ring, whenever it comes out, and see a screen like that, giving people whatever options they choose. I get to have my intense challenge, and now anyone else can find the right amount of challenge for them. Literally nothing is lost.
I think people are using the term "artistic expression" in a mocking way to discount a valid argument: Developers balance their games FOR YOU, for the player. Most times this is the reason, not because they want to achieve some higher art form. So wildly changing this balance with an easy mode can completely destroy the experience they carefully designed FOR YOU. I´m completely against games implementing an easy mode that way and we should all fight it. I'm totally supportive of devs going the extra mile and thinking of other ways so that the main experience can be enjoyed by people in all the spectrum of skills (Celeste is a great example with stuff like the option to reduce game speed). Also, I think the priority must be for the game to be enjoyed, not to be beaten, and all actions should try to accomplish the first option, the second should be just a consequence. Unfortunately it seems the priorities right now are the polar opposites and everyone seems OK with it.
I wonder how games haven't fallen under the ADA umbrella. Is it just not enforced? In websites and some software while not enforced perfectly you would be open to lawsuits if your site or program is not accessible. This is mostly for big or important sites (e.g. baking) but still.
Indeed, this is all true.
And another problem with the "artistic expression" argument is that I'd wager the number of people who TRULY consistently hold that position are extremely low.
As, indeed, it's easy to say something about artistic expression in topics such as these.
But how many people who invoke that argument also make sure to say, never criticize a game for merely existing?
Like, say, stuff like Metroid Prime: Federation Force. Not the best game, but it got a lot of nonsense directed its way for merely existing that it didn't deserve.
Or consider a game like Animal Crossing: Amiibo Festival. Same thing. Extremely different from other Animal Crossing games, it wasn't a main line game, and because of the way it worked and the focus on Amiibos, got a lone of stuff thrown its way. But if artistic expression is paramount, then all that should be beside the point as its nonetheless what the creators wanted to make.
Or hell, what about that Commander Keen mobile game that was recently announced to be cancelled? I recall a thread about that here where people were outright gleeful it was cancelled. Again, it may not be what any particular person was interested in when it comes to Commander Keen, but if artistic expression and creator's intent and all that is all that matters, then those reactions are downright shameful.
And of course that argument has other implications as well.
As indeed, if artistic expression is all that matters, then, well, the logical endpoint of that better be you don't criticize games ever, because, well, artistic expression is all that matters.
Better not, say, criticize any of the decisions with what's happening with Destiny right now or any of the decisions that's been made over the lives of both Destiny 1 or 2.
Better have never criticized any of the writing in any of the Mass Effect games, or the Last of Us games, or God of War games, or anything else, because "artistic expression."
Hell, the logical endpoint would be not even being able to criticize homophobic or transphobic stuff in games like Persona 4/Persona 5 because that's nonetheless still "artistic expression," which is something I certainly don't agree with at all.
The point of all that being, that I'm naturally extremely skeptical of anyone who brings up "artistic expression" as a defense in these kind of threads, that there's not SOMEWHERE they let that defense slide and suddenly stop caring. If they are indeed that consistent then, well... I'd have to admit, I'd be impressed in a very weird sort of way because that kind of consistency would not be very easy to maintain, across all games, but like I said, I"m skeptical to begin with.
So why difficulty and accessibility of all things, to suddenly care? Why, more than any other topic in gaming, where people are fine for criticizing games on any number of fronts for any number of reasons, is difficulty the one part of artistic vision and intent that's so paramount, that you just see that more than like so many other parts of games?
That being the case at all, that I naturally have seen so many topics like that over the years, whether talking about like Federation Force or Amiibo Festival or stuff like "Dexit" in Pokémon Sword and Shield, or the Commander Keen mobile game, or, fuck, recall the time that Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze was announced and so many people just getting mad that it wasn't another Metroid game, forget about "artistic intent" on difficulty, people didn't even give a fuck about what motherfucking video game series Retro wanted to develop a game for, and like so many other things, where people don't much care one way or the other for artistic intent and just want better games or different games entirely, so like, yeah, on top of everything you've mentioned, I just can't help but be skeptical of "artistic intent" arguments for those kind of reasons. Because like, with so many of those things happening over the years, the chance of any given person being the part of any given such "controversy" is low, but avoiding each and every single one of them on top of never criticizing any particular game in any particular way and just actually maintaining artistic intent as paramount in those kind of ways? I can't help but just have so many questions like that whenever that particular subject gets brought up.
Mendinso,
Please don't take it that way. You and I are on the same side, you know this. I had your back 100% in the last thread where people were disrespecting our needs, I was mad and things had to be said, consequences be damned. This is a different situation though.
I respect the hell out of your fight for all disabled gamers. You give voice to things I care about deeply myself and in no way do I want to fight with you. But I want you to be able to best focus your passion and there are multiple facets to discussing difficulty. Someone saying, "I don't care if a game if super difficult", is not automatically an attack on US. Accessibility is not all about difficulty modes. We can play hard games when we're given enough customizability and control options, things that developers have shown they can offer when they are motivated. Games don't need Easy-Medium-Hard, they need Menus. Look at Tangledeep, this is what we should be fighting for:
Not every difficulty mode thread and not every poster who likes hard games is against us. There are OPs who are just coming at difficulty from a different angle and do not want to exclude us. Just assuming that folks are the enemy and doing this in bad faith gets us nowhere. I don't understand how you read my last post and took nothing from it.
When I was in my car accident in November of 2003, I was in the hospital for 5 months. My hands were contracted and through all of the occupational therapy I knew gaming would never be the same for me. I had my brother bring a Dualshock controller to my room so I could "get it over with", as I knew the answer. I couldn't even get my hand around the controller myself without him doing it for me. Can anyone understand how damaging that was for me? I don't know.
After all of these years I have done all I can to make gaming easier for me and others like me, and now we have come to the point where developers, publishers, and even Microsoft and Sony are coming around to considering the disabled when they make games. I think that's progress.
We both want the same thing. Will you work with me on this?
I really don't think anyone is against difficulty modes, assist modes, etc. Hell the majority of games already have difficulty modes where you can select easy, medium, hard etc. but not many of them have assist modes which i think is what most people are actually asking for. The fact of the matter is that this ultimately up to the devs to plan for and implement into their games. So one can say, 'they should put assist modes like tlou2 or celeste in their game' but if the dev doesn't want to put a mode in their game that gives the player unlimited stamina or hp, that is ultimately on the devs. They may just not like the idea of letting the player have that option. I think is a choice that i can disagree with but respect since its their game. I do think its gotten much better recently. More and more games are placing assist modes in their games which I think is a good thing. Hopefully more games in the future will adopt more assist modes for people who need them.
I never fail to be disappointed whenever a thread like this comes up and most of the replies can be narrowed down to "I'm good at hard videogames and people who aren't can always find something else to play".
If you're skilled and love a challenge, congratulations, this thread isn't about you. Still with us? Good, so please make an effort to put yourself in somebody else's shoes. Imagine spending dozens of hours enjoying a game you bought, loving every second of it until you found a challenge you couldn't overcome even after countless tries. Imagine expressing your frustration on a forum and having people tell you some games are not for everyone and you should play something else, that they breezed through it, that it's okay to drop a game you like but can't beat a boss, that you should git gud or some other somewhat polite way of saying "fuck you, got mine".
I do enjoy a challenge. I've beaten every Dark Souls game multiple times, ditto for Bloodborne and many other games in the same genre. I'm currently enjoying Demon's Souls and Sekiro for the first time, and I don't mind beating my head against the wall for hours against a particularly challenging boss. I love hunting for platinum trophies and playing games at their hardest difficulties because I find that satisfying. The same can't be said for my wife, though. She doesn't play for the challenge, trophies or any sort of accomplishment related to difficulty, she just wants to enjoy the story and have fun, and her experiences are as valid as mine. I don't think being stuck at a particular boss for hours would improve her gaming experience in any way, especially considering how she doesn't want a hobby to be a source of frustration. And we're both completely able, so I can't even begin to imagine how much harder it is for people with disabilities.
Some people are adamant that difficulty is part of the creator's artistic vision or whatever, but people are not equally skilled or abled, so there is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to difficulty. From's approach shouldn't be praised because the "solutions" they offer are patronizing and limiting in their own way (say, forcing a less skilled or disabled player to summon someone else or play as a spellcaster and deal with every threat from afar). The Last of Us Part II's accessibility options should not only be praised but also adopted by every game (yup, every game) moving forward. They're not mandatory for anyone who wants a challenge, and they make games playable to people who literally wouldn't be able to enjoy them otherwise.
If you're skilled and love a challenge, congratulations, this thread isn't about you. Still with us? Good, so please make an effort to put yourself in somebody else's shoes. Imagine spending dozens of hours enjoying a game you bought, loving every second of it until you found a challenge you couldn't overcome even after countless tries. Imagine expressing your frustration on a forum and having people tell you some games are not for everyone and you should play something else, that they breezed through it, that it's okay to drop a game you like but can't beat a boss, that you should git gud or some other somewhat polite way of saying "fuck you, got mine".
I do enjoy a challenge. I've beaten every Dark Souls game multiple times, ditto for Bloodborne and many other games in the same genre. I'm currently enjoying Demon's Souls and Sekiro for the first time, and I don't mind beating my head against the wall for hours against a particularly challenging boss. I love hunting for platinum trophies and playing games at their hardest difficulties because I find that satisfying. The same can't be said for my wife, though. She doesn't play for the challenge, trophies or any sort of accomplishment related to difficulty, she just wants to enjoy the story and have fun, and her experiences are as valid as mine. I don't think being stuck at a particular boss for hours would improve her gaming experience in any way, especially considering how she doesn't want a hobby to be a source of frustration. And we're both completely able, so I can't even begin to imagine how much harder it is for people with disabilities.
Some people are adamant that difficulty is part of the creator's artistic vision or whatever, but people are not equally skilled or abled, so there is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to difficulty. From's approach shouldn't be praised because the "solutions" they offer are patronizing and limiting in their own way (say, forcing a less skilled or disabled player to summon someone else or play as a spellcaster and deal with every threat from afar). The Last of Us Part II's accessibility options should not only be praised but also adopted by every game (yup, every game) moving forward. They're not mandatory for anyone who wants a challenge, and they make games playable to people who literally wouldn't be able to enjoy them otherwise.
(snipping just so it doesn't take up the whole thread)
For what it's worth, I'm willing to work with you and the mods on this, and I want more done to protect members here (and more options in games for that matter, since we NEED to have this discussion with the devs more-and-more), it's just I was so tired of being hand-waved, by multiple users in the thread, and it wasn't my intention to start stuff. And I definitely was so upset, because the post did absolutely come off like some people in my life who've handwaved me, including those who themselves are disabled (be it mental health, mental disabilities, and/or physicals). That's how I read it and I apologize if I completely, 100%, misconstrued it. But it was absolutely triggering for me (even if the intent was unintentional). Just wanted to make that clear, if that's okay.
It's to a breaking point I'm crying over it and I legit felt very called out by the post.
Honestly, a lot of these discussions, and even by the OP's admission the games difficulty options are accessibility, deal with accessibility with difficulty. Since skill set is different between person, and at it's roots, those options were a form of accessibility (including games giving continue and live and health modifiers back in the day) So when I saw your response, I was honestly both confused and upset.
And I understand Difficulty options is not the end-of-all to this discussion. But I DO agree with what you said games, in general, need options, and I think personally, as for other members too, difficulty is just one side of the coin for these options, as it represents a greater issue at hand.
That said, yes I'm willing to work with you on it. The only thing I ask, I may just need to take a break from these threads for a bit, but my DMs are open, and I'm willing to talk, but I just need time if that's okay? Plus, I need to kinda articulate the issues at hand a bit better, and that definitely takes me time.
Again, I'm sorry for coming across so hostile in the thread, and like I said both here and to the user, it's just mostly due to how users and people in my life over the years, have really attacked me over these issues. I am also sorry if I'm struggling to articulate what I want to say here, and I also keep editing this, because I don't want it to become ill-intended.
Last edited:
Okay great.
Definitely did not mean to hand-wave you man. Take all the time you need. I'll hit you up in DMs.
This is disingenuous.
There's very rare cases where, indeed, difficulty is front-and-center of the vision - i'm talking about FROM Software games, obviously - and for those, it's fair to trot out "Vision" as an argument
I mean, they branded das 1 remaster as "Prepare to Die".
Anything that doesn't weave harsh difficulty in all it's design, yeah, the argument doesn't make sense.
I mean, nobody every whined that XCOM should remove difficulties below Commander - but really, there's one developer that wants to do interesting ludonarrative things with death, loss and challenge - is that too much?
And i'd absolutely support accessibility for Souls - but it starts before difficulty, with pause buttons, decent rebindability, easier checkpointing, color options, and whatnot.
The point of accessibility should be to let everyone access the experience on their own terms, not creating a completely different one.
There's also games where an hard mode would alter radically the experience - things like, say, Animal Crossing, or pure-narrative anything, or really a wide array of games where skill testing wouldn't create any value, and isn't done.
Now, i also hard failed at Sekiro pretty early in, and honestly resent how railroaded it is compared to the various Souls - which provided an entire toolbox of tools, from grinding to summons to more forgiving builds (think parry dual wield vs mage heavy shield in das1\2), but eh. It's one game, and the playstyle i wanted from it just isn't in that game - and it's not going to appear because difficulty was tweaked.
I've just been lurking this thread, seen a few others like it recently and haven't really taken part in the discussions because I have my own complicated feelings on the subject that I'm undecided on, so if my input isn't welcome then feel free to ignore me for sure. Nonetheless, I did want to interject here to suggest that, seeing as the topic being discussed obviously matters a great deal to you and other users, some of whom you seem to be friends with, including a mod, perhaps several of you could colloborate together on a new topic that the mods could also "promote", as it were?
Speaking only for myself, this is something that I only became strongly aware of in the last couple of years since an American friend I've never actually met in person (a former user here too) seriously damaged one of his hands and has since found it difficult to play a lot of games. I recently looked forward to speaking with him about Death Stranding, for example, but when I booted it up and started playing it I realised, before I even asked him, that it was a game he couldn't have gotten far in, which I think is a great shame. It was also quite sad to learn, last year I believe, that Mark Brown's GMTK video series focused on the issues of accessibility in gaming were much less popular than most of his other videos, even though those videos were great and he has an excellent platform for that sort of thing.
I don't know how feasible my suggestion is but I feel like it could be interesting, and eye-opening to a lot of users on this forum perhaps, to see the perspectives and opinions of multiple users who are affected the most by the lack of accessibilty issues in gaming in a topic that has a higher chance of being given the attention of the forum and wouldn't be locked because of the same arguments taking place if accompanied by clear guidelines. I'd like to think that most of the more contentious posts in this thread and ones similar to it are coming from a place of ignorance rather than selfishness.
The ADA was written in 1990 and while it has some stuff about telecommunications, but it didn't really covered video games.
The CVAA that was passed in 2010 cover them, but video games were getting a waiver for that for a while.
I remember reading it expired last year, but I have no idea if and how it is enforced.
Can you go into more detail on this? What would ADA compliance mean here? Closed captioning and button remapping? Or would everyone have to be able to beat Dark Souls? ADA is a very large and very serious piece of law, and it could have absolutely massive effects on the entire industry. Legit asking here, I don't know how it applies to entertainment products.
I have collated many of the things we've been saying in this thread in another (as it seemed the original intention of the mod post was for us to get out of this thread)
Easy/Assist mode is a blessing as a current accessibility option. Let's encourage the adoption of more.
And not just for the visual/hearing disabilities. Historically, easy/assist modes, cheat codes and nodding games to be easier on the PC side have been used by disabled gamers to brute force accessibility. Especially for those that have motor/motor processing/mobility issues, these options have...
www.resetera.com
But we also have this thread on Off-Topic.
We need to have a talk about how Era Users Interact with users with Disabilities and Accessibility Issues.
Over the course of... honestly, forever, we've had issues often talk down to users about accessibility and those who suffer from disabilities, whenever discussions of controllers and difficulties come up. However, this is not exclusive to just the gaming section and other views have extended...
www.resetera.com
Ah, this brings up another thing I meant to discuss in my prior posts, but completely forgot about:
The subject of cheat codes.
Now, this might be completely mistaken, and I do apologize if any of it is wrong.
But it's my understanding that cheat codes, back when they originally existed during the days of the NES and SNES and the like, that where a lot of those cheat codes originally came from were that such things were often originally just development tools to test things, look for bugs, easily get to various parts of games quickly in order to do the prior two things, etc.
And that such development tools would be removed, if and when possible. But one if not both of the following things were often the case:
1.) The programming languages many games were programmed in at the time made it very difficult to remove functions once implemented and it's just easier to leave them be and hope people don't find them, and if they do, whatever.
2.) In addition, precisely because of the games being intended for video game cartridges, in addition to online patches and the like not being a thing for years, it was very difficult and costly to update games in general. Which is just one more reason to let things like that be.
For those kind of reasons, in certain cases, development tools were essentially left in particular games, and it was just hoped that people wouldn't find them. But some did. And thus "cheat codes" began. And then, from there, certain developers kept just leaving them in and hoping that other players wouldn't find them in their particular games, others left them in and didn't really care one way or the other, and yet others started seeing "hey, this could just be a cool thing to leave in on purpose, just like, in general/for PR/etc," and so some intentionally started creating "cheat codes" in their games, and that's how everything got started. I could be mistaken, but I believe the history of cheat codes is something to that effect.
It's my understanding that in the modern era, that in the process of developing games, stuff very reminiscent to "cheat codes" of olde are still used.
It's just that modern development tools and programming languages, in addition to patching and updating games being easier in general, makes it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay simpler to removing that kind of stuff before release, as it was intended to begin with, and so that's one of the reasons such things make it into far fewer modern releases (in addition to not wanting to conflict with stuff like Achievement/Trophy systems on game consoles).
But nonetheless, while I could quite easily be mistaken about such things, it's my understanding that it's nonetheless common while games are in development to use tools reminiscent of cheat codes to test and y'know do QA and the like on all aspects of games. As, after all, it would be quite insane to literally have to play through all of a 100+ hour RPG or MMO to test one specific thing in a late-game dungeon or raid or something.
So, what I'm getting at, would be is at least in single-player games (as obviously stuff like multiplayer is its whole other can of worms that's waaaaaaaaaay more complicated), just leaving some of those developer tools/dev-mode stuff in there, instead of patching it all out before release.
Like, obviously not all of it. Like, obviously people shouldn't have access to the LITEREAL development tools or source code, or things like that as that could cause any number of problems, so I understand being extremely careful with stuff like that.
But leaving like godmode/other invincibility or warping tools or chapter-select/dev-saves and the kind of tools specifically for testing stuff in as accessibility options and the like?
That would be a more fair compromise and way of handling those kind of situations that wouldn't require more work, as those are things that do exist regardless and have to be patched out before release. Obviously entirely like bespoke options and difficulty modes and the like are ideal, but when not possible, something of the sort like that would be a more fair middle ground and address those kind of concerns of needing to devote resources to those kind of things (as it's just using stuff that has to be made regardless).
Now, obviously that's contingent on my understanding being correct, which is may not be, and I also realize that even if it were to be correct, that obviously still wouldn't apply to all games, as development is different for each games. Nonetheless, that's still a way more games could deal with that, assuming that stuff is correct; just leaving "cheat codes"/tools in there instead of patching them out.
Last edited:
I have collated many of the things we've been saying in this thread in another (as it seemed the original intention of the mod post was for us to get out of this thread)
Easy/Assist mode is a blessing as a current accessibility option. Let's encourage the adoption of more.
And not just for the visual/hearing disabilities. Historically, easy/assist modes, cheat codes and nodding games to be easier on the PC side have been used by disabled gamers to brute force accessibility. Especially for those that have motor/motor processing/mobility issues, these options have...
But we also have this thread on Off-Topic.
We need to have a talk about how Era Users Interact with users with Disabilities and Accessibility Issues.
Over the course of... honestly, forever, we've had issues often talk down to users about accessibility and those who suffer from disabilities, whenever discussions of controllers and difficulties come up. However, this is not exclusive to just the gaming section and other views have extended...
Those are something, certainly, especially the latter; but I gotta think it should be possible for a bigger topic to be put on the gaming side of the forum that also won't be buried. It is kinda fucked up how some disabled users are spoken to on here and I think it would be pretty nice if there were a way for your voices to be amplified in some way for a change. I don't see how that shit will change otherwise nor indeed the industry's approach to this sort of thing in general.
I appreciate the support for it, and it'd definitely be nice to get that. Until then, all we can do is just speak up when we can and generate discussion and advocate. Thank you
Well on pc that is possible since you can open up console commands and give yourself godmode or whatever you need. Worse case scenario you can use cheat engine. That's much harder to do on console obviously, but maybe something like that would work unless there is some legal reason that cannot be done. There is also debug mode but i think you need a modded ps4 for that.
I'm almost afraid to post in this thread but seeing as I had thought about making a similar thread before I might as well say what I want to say.
I think any game that can have accessibility options should have them. Everyone should be able to enjoy every game they can.
I got Celeste a few weeks ago and even though I tried to play normally whenever I could, there were times I was glad to have options. Celeste has some really good options too. Lower the speed, give you more dashes, disable stamina and just all around make you invincible. If I hadn't had the ability to choose one or more of those options in some of the really tough parts, I'd have dropped the game way early on and regretted my purchase. But I wanted to experience the story because it's a really good game. In fact I bought the game because of the options.
Also, if it weren't for lower speed options, I'd have never been able to do Veni Vidi Vici. More games need accessibility options.
I think any game that can have accessibility options should have them. Everyone should be able to enjoy every game they can.
I got Celeste a few weeks ago and even though I tried to play normally whenever I could, there were times I was glad to have options. Celeste has some really good options too. Lower the speed, give you more dashes, disable stamina and just all around make you invincible. If I hadn't had the ability to choose one or more of those options in some of the really tough parts, I'd have dropped the game way early on and regretted my purchase. But I wanted to experience the story because it's a really good game. In fact I bought the game because of the options.
Also, if it weren't for lower speed options, I'd have never been able to do Veni Vidi Vici. More games need accessibility options.
Not that I fault you for not reading through a full eleven page thread, but you definitely haven't read through this thread.
Or, really, any discussion on the subject here, since people pretty consistently show up in these thread to trip over themselves to justify arguing against them.
I've haven't read through the whole thread but i have through at least half of it to get an impression on what people are saying. I didn't get the feeling they were arguing against all difficulty modes. Maybe they have a preference sure, but i don't think they are saying all difficulties modes need to be flung into the sun never to be seen again.
I used to be mixed on this idea. But after playing FF7R on Easy, I am all for it. Hell House on harder difficulties was a chore, so I bumped it down and never looked back. I'm a believer in it (if implemented well).
OP
OP
If that's what you get from that message I feel really bad for you lol
A number of people have literally argued that the mere existence of easier or more accessible modes ruins their experience, because they couldn't resist choosing an easier difficulty in order to bypass the level they apparently (???) want more.
it is ableist gatekeeping insanity, but hey, they're still goin' hard in the paint.