Because it alters the core design of the game. Its fundamentally a different game with those changes. Its like asking Twilight Struggle to be played with an open hand.
-
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.
Kotaku: An easy mode has never ruined a game
- Thread starter BAD
- Start date
Because it alters the core design of the game. Its fundamentally a different game with those changes. Its like asking Twilight Struggle to be played with an open hand.
There was like a whole microsoft initiative that garnered a lot of praise for enabling accessibility options for people to play games how they were able to. This isn't beyond the industries ability to address though it may be beyond it's empathy.
Hopefully not.
I have been having these arguments for years across many different formats. I find the majority of people against difficulty options are either elitist as hell or they can't control their own impulses to lower the difficulty, which is their own problem and no one else's. The "intended experience" thing that people hang on to from an interview is BS that they hide behind. If someone is considering spending $60 on a game, they have every right to criticize and call out why they disagree with your game's philosophy.
I love having options like that. Bastion and Transistor had adjustable difficulty settings and it is one of the features that I praise the most about them.
And that's why I'm informing you you're wrong. Because this often repeated and never actually justified mention keeps popping up when no one is saying easy mode eliminates hard mode for those that won't use easy. No one.
Actually someone is, because guess what? Those who do actually have control of how you play decided how they want you to play. You know, the factual thing that people are actually pointing out. The game that exists. Complete with the level of play that it enforces by intent rather than accident. Someone, who isn't in any way related to the people you're browbeating made this decision, because of how they wanted everyone to play, not because of being a player that would lose their mode.
That's what makes this whole argument a steaming pile of ignorant BS. It comes from a place that literally refuses to look at where the decision comes from or acknowledge there is a reasoning behind it whether agreeing with it or not.
If you don't give a shit about the author and what they said, why should they care about you? You have no concern about what they create and willfully ignore it, who would respond to that by trying to acquiesce to your demands?
They also have the right to be ignored or their ideas rejected. That $60 price tag creates no obligation for anyone. No one owes you anything other than the game you bought. And none of the people you're speaking against can or have denied you of that.
Last edited:
I mean more than just the given feeling, it's baked into every aspect of the game. Like if I just breezed through a location because enemies were more like decorations than obstacles it'd feel kinda jarring to be lectured by an NPC on how cold and cruel the world is and how it's going to try to tear us down any way it can
Well, sure, but that could be said for a lot of games that are meant for people who have been playing games for a while. Horse guy in Sekiro is not hard provided you have experience of moving a character and camera at the same time while attacking. Could my mom, who hasn't played a game with a controller since Dr. Mario on the NES, beat him? No, probably not. But she probably couldn't beat a Kirby game, either. At some point you gotta decide where the skill floor of your game is, and it's okay to say "this game expects you to want to play a tricky action game."
Sure it does change the game, but does it change it for you? That's what I'm struggling with, why are you against people enjoying the game different from you. Why is your experience not just more valid, but the only right experience? At what point does it come back to you, when someone else enjoys the game who prior didn't.
Last edited:
Some games are meant to be challenging. Thats pretty much what Miyazaki is going for.
Now you could argue that some people find moving their elbows from one position to another challenging but those people are not the target demographic for his games.
Now you could argue that some people find moving their elbows from one position to another challenging but those people are not the target demographic for his games.
This would be a pretty gross statement applied to any other product we have redesigned in the past to enable those with disabilities.
Hey guys, so you're saying that Miyazaki said that the game should be difficult.
If Miyazaki told you guys to jump off a bridge, would you? lol
If Miyazaki told you guys to jump off a bridge, would you? lol
I would absolutely love to see From come out with a DLC set of difficulty levels like one poster thought up back in the early stages of this thread. Just to see the rage/offense/meltdowns from people over something that would 100% not affect their own experience with the game. If that would be your gut reaction, you really need to take a step back from the video game.
I mean I can show you the quote that has been quoted in here a dozen times already if that helps you:
Miyazaki:
"We don't want to include a difficulty selection because we want to bring everyone to the same level of discussion and the same level of enjoyment," Miyazaki said. "So we want everyone … to first face that challenge and to overcome it in some way that suits them as a player."
The creator continued: "We want everyone to feel that sense of accomplishment. We want everyone to feel elated and to join that discussion on the same level. We feel if there's different difficulties, that's going to segment and fragment the user base. People will have different experiences based on that [differing difficulty level]. This is something we take to heart when we design games. It's been the same way for previous titles and it's very much the same with Sekiro."'
I can't even say "nice try" ironically with posts like yours.
I don't think anyone would react like that if that's the thing the devs want to put in their game, because this isn't about wanting to be "elite pro gamers." It's instead the idea that the game NEEDS an easy mode despite the games being fine (*for able-bodied people) without them that bothers us, and the contention that the game is somehow bad for not courting that market. But for what it's worth, people have been saying "just wait until From puts difficulty options in their next game to piss off those fucking elitists" since at LEAST Dark Souls 1, and they just keep making their games harder instead. Keep reaching for the stars.
Sekiro as-is is already on its easy mode by default.
You add hard mode by ringing an in-game bell to increase difficulty.
NG+ raises it further by giving players the choice to make the game even harder by turning off 100% damage blocking.
So one could say that the devs have already provided difficulty options. People just don't like where the baseline is, but options exist.
It's been posted a dozen times but it still doesn't answer the question I try to keep bringing up in here, which is, like, if someone gets frustrated enough with the game that they give up playing it, did Miyazaki and co. actually manage to deliver on their intentions?
This is pretty much it. So many just jumping in the From Software bus and being fine with where it takes us and aside from a few truly glaring issues just being along for the ride. And you know what? We also want to encourage others to get on that bus, but there is no easy mode sections so the only way is to get on it as it is or mod it on PC. That's not our fault though, we're not driving. We're just having a good time.
Yes?
I'm not sure we're supposed to be in a "no player left behind" type of scenario. They've been presented with the knowledge that some either turn away from their games or never engage at all, yet they've stuck with the decision (10 years of this...). At some point if the player isn't interested in trial and error/practice to mastery type gameplay you can't bring them along. How does the game distinguish between that and a low skill floor?
And if it can't, do you just give up on the goal?
Somehow the desire to see more people enjoy the game has been equated with people not liking it. It's my favorite from game outside of bloodborne. That you and likely others are equating my desire to see it improve more by enabling others as saying it's "bad" is pretty indicative.
Things can be better than they are. It won't hurt you either way and only help others. That's what I'm pushing for.
This sentence is especially troubling.
"It's instead the idea that the game NEEDS an easy mode despite the games being fine (*for able-bodied people) without them that bothers us, and the contention that the game is somehow bad for not courting that market."
"Courting that market" as if they're some small demographic that developers can't wring enough money out of to justify considering them.
Edit: The "build a pc" solution seems especially putative. "Spend 1500 extra dollars even though you already have a console that could theoretically play this game"
The git gud crowd keep arguing using the developers. The developers this, the intended experience that, the creators, the artists...
First of all you can criticize both, the intention and the execution of any work.
Second: no one is demanding anything from the developers. NO ONE is saying their game sucks because it's hard. Read the title of Kotaku's article again: "An easy mode never ruined a game". How is that implying that their game is bad? The only thing that it is doing is addressing the people that are saying the opposite, that an easy mode could ruin a game (which doesn't make sense). Because that's what this conversation is about: a bunch of people shutting down a very valid stance, based on I don't know what, a superiority complex? Idk. I actually can imagine why lol, but I won't get into that cause then we're gonna lose more time with #NotAllGitGuders
First of all you can criticize both, the intention and the execution of any work.
Second: no one is demanding anything from the developers. NO ONE is saying their game sucks because it's hard. Read the title of Kotaku's article again: "An easy mode never ruined a game". How is that implying that their game is bad? The only thing that it is doing is addressing the people that are saying the opposite, that an easy mode could ruin a game (which doesn't make sense). Because that's what this conversation is about: a bunch of people shutting down a very valid stance, based on I don't know what, a superiority complex? Idk. I actually can imagine why lol, but I won't get into that cause then we're gonna lose more time with #NotAllGitGuders
The problem for me is that these demands pop up every time there is a new From game. It's clear that for the developer it is important to keep with their intended core design. So much so that they are willing to "leave money on the table" to stay true to their desired artistic choice. Let them do that and vote with your wallet.
But others are able to play the game, with a little bit of effort put in like everyone else who plays it. I am sure there are other people who have the same "issue" as me and wouldn't want the option of an easy mode to be in the game, maybe not the majority, but some. It just goes to show that even an addition of a non mandatory difficult setting could change the game for some people.
Well, I'm not implying that they're a small market. It's probably a sizable one, but in From Software's own words they're doing well as a studio who does what they want to do. So they don't need to expand for the time being, preferring instead to be (paraphrasing) "a studio who does well by making good games." And plenty of people have said the game is trash because they can't beat the Ogre or the dude after him, but I didn't mean to imply that was you, so I'll try to be more clear about who I'm talking about in the future.
Edit:
I didn't want to buy a PS4 to play Persona 5 and Bloodborne, but I did. That's just the way it works sometimes.
Last edited:
If someone stops playing a video game because it's too hard, that's perfectly fine. I'm sure From Software is well aware of this.
That's fine I appreciate it. But I addressed the issue of budget on another page. Indie masocore platormer celeste was able to include these options, both without compromising design integrity and with budgetary pressure. That's the model I am pursuing.
Its insane how many times these quotes need to get posted because people pretend that this isn't the fundamental design of the games.
Yes. Because many many MANY more people do finish. I imagine they know people will try the game and not finish it, which only further adds to the identity of the game.
They lay the groundwork for people to persevere, they can't and appearently don't want to influence whether people actually will. So far it worked great for them. Do you think Miyazaki sits at home, full of glee that some people might not finish his game? Do you think more people don't finish than people that do?
Not every game is ment for everyone, I don't even think From games are extremely hard you just have to understand how the game and the mechanics.
Who are these mythical people in 2019 still buying From games without knowing what they're getting into?
Yes, we use their words in a way consistent with their meaning and context. nothing shady there.
True, but the primary focus of criticism has said "those intentions don't matter" so far as this is concerned. To which i ask you again: why should someone uninterested in what they want to offer dictate what they get to offer?
No, you're just trying to create a moral imperative around an easy mode and use that as a bludgeon against those who are fine with or prefer the game as is.
And we're pointing you to an authoritative source on the games that both disagrees and controls the implementation of modes to the game. Further, no one is saying you're saying that the game is bad persay, we're saying you're saying the decision not to include an easy mode is bad and players are bad for supporting it, which you are.
Ironic because the negativity is pointed the other way around. I've never called someone a "fucking elitist gatekeeper" for wanting a souls easy mode. But boy have we gotten that for thinking it's fine without one. And how dare we say it out loud. lest we be blessed with BS like, well "I don't know what, a superiority complex? Idk. I actually can imagine why lol, but I won't get into that cause then we're gonna lose more time with #NotAllGitGuders"
And not including one doesn't hurt anyone either so I seriously don't even understand the title of the article. No one is getting hurt because there isn't an easy mode.
Bravo.
Pretty Much. I trust Miyazaki 1000℅. Should he feel it's worth it to offer an easier difficulty setting, can do it without compromising the experience too much, and has the resources to make it happen, cool. I just don't subscribe to the notion the base difficulty is some superfluous thing, or that art should necessarily bend to the consumer, creator vision be damned.
Last edited:
And it's perfectly fine that you love having them, just as it's perfectly fine that other people prefer not having them.
Not sure why you're asking me lol, I'm not making that argument.
At this point, I don't think From cares about those people who don't finish the game. lol
Some of us even are developers. How about that!
Like pretty much every sentence starting with a variation of "nobody is saying that...", this one is also tragically, demonstrably wrong.
So regarding the difficulty debate, one example keeps coming to me, I can't stop think about it.
The final fight for that is known to be particularly brutal, to the point where it just can't be finished by a lot of people.
But giving the option to be able to lower it down for more people to finish it destroys the entire point of it. Toby fox in a way does not want people to finish it.
At some point should difficulty be an artistic intent?
So in Undertale, if you go the genocide route, you will be met with challenges that are far, far tougher. It's the whole point of the game. If you deliberately want to go out to hurt others, don't expect them to not hurt you back.
The final fight for that is known to be particularly brutal, to the point where it just can't be finished by a lot of people.
But giving the option to be able to lower it down for more people to finish it destroys the entire point of it. Toby fox in a way does not want people to finish it.
At some point should difficulty be an artistic intent?
But why would you prefer not having them?
It's just options. They're optional.
It's one thing to dislike a feature that is mandatory (like, say, weapon-breaking in BotW), but complaining about the existence of options?
Excellent example. And to me, it's immediately obvious that difficulty is artistic intent at every point. I don't care for the notion that you have to meet a series of requirements for the difficulty in your game to be considered a legitimate and deliberate way of expression.
Sure it can be taken as artistic intent. But does that mean that it shouldn't be adjustable by the player? Games are interactive after all. Music and sound design are absolutely about artistic intent too, yet we are altering those sliders all the time. The artistic intent isn't treated as untouchable by the player.
Because some people might like being forced to not use them when they otherwise might? Because it past games it was a good multiplayer driver? Because they think From is right when they say they believe it helps build community around a shared encounter? Because they think From is right in it being a strong contributor to the "feeling" and "atmosphere" of the games and they're genuinely reduced with the option being requested? That's off the top of my head. Might be others.
Yes, but people throw that concern out the window when a triple-A action-adventure game with cool art comes along. Heck, even the regular good ending bosses of Undertale are tough and show what some would call a lack of respect for the players' time because you'll likely have to play through the game multiple times to get that ending. But that's an indie bullet-hell RPG with pixel graphics so by and large people are fine with ignoring it. Action-adventure games have conditioned some, over the last two gens or so, to reject any game that asks them to slowly iterate on their performance, either because performance isn't required or because devs consciously put things on rails (like Batman/AC combat) to briskly transport players from point A to point B with a minimum of fuss. And those games are good, don't get me wrong, but I feel like a lot of people want those games to be what it means to play an action game, full stop.
Yeah for sure, if the game allows you to change it at any time to pass those harder moments. However would you still feel the same way if the player wasn't able to change the difficulty mid-game? In that scenario, there still would not be an easy way out of a challenging situation.
Last edited:
If they have been paying attention to the game at all, they should have at least have a hint of what Miyazaki and co are trying to convey. The game is literally called Shadows die twice, implying if you mess up and die you get up and try again. The entire resurrection mechanic embodies what they are trying to tell the player to persist and overcome challenge.
Using Dark Souls, the game tells you people go hollow without a goal or purpose to work towards. They give you the simple goal of ring the 2 bells and hope you persist towards this goal no matter how many tries it takes. The more you die, the more your character goes hollow. Metaphorically (and lore wise), if the player gives up and never plays the game again, the game character loses his purpose and truly goes hollow and becomes of one of the may mindless zombies in the game.
But it is not adjusted in the work itself. Like for music EQing is usually done through programs outside of the music files.
Same never understood this.... video games is a time investment hobby you either "make" the time for it or you don't. You either "want" too and have the will to play said games... If you have a stressful life ( who the fuck doesnt) and want a stress free game then play a stress free game. Every game released doesnt and shouldn't cater to your life situation.
I also dont understand why people want to blow through enteriment as fast as humanly possible I want this game to last me at least a month.. i just got at the owl boss im gonna play ng+ and get that plat... its like people are in a race or something.. just chill and take your time.
I like the fact that from can balance the game around one difficulty, as I played through Dark Souls I really only had one build that I beat the game with, hardly did the online, when they came out with Bloodborne, they also removed options and I didn't mind because the game they made fit my niche pretty well. Not using a shield and dodging, parrying with the gun that kind of game fit me very well. Bloodborne is my fave game of the generation. Now with Sekiro, they focused the experience even more with it being solely single player, solely one build, solely on weapon. They took out options that were in their previous games and ya know what, I'm fine with the options they took out. I understand why having less options doesn't sit well with others, especially things like summoning, different builds, etc. Now if they were to include the option for easy mode in the future, that's fine by me. I have my preferences, but From is allows to add or not add an easy mode.
See, this whole "I can't help myself but use it and that sucks" is the one argument that's been brought up many times and I have never been convinced that's not pathetic. It's people blaming their lack of self-control on the game.
Other games have done it, and no one ever said they were ruined, like Celeste.
I can see the community argument as more legitimate, even if I don't really 100% agree with it. I believe such a thing can encourage gatekeeping, but I do not think it's a bad goal to pursue.
I believe that Miyazaki has a specific intent with his work. I also believe that specific choices in the design of these games can and sometimes do conflict with that intent, which is why I'm bothering with this thread at all. In fact, if his goal is to get players to express catharsis, then I think he's probably not feeling gleeful about people being unable to beat the games!
I would argue this is a rather significant misread of what people mean when they cite a notion of "death of the author"
My reaction is to let them make what they want to make. Easy mode or no.
Ok, that's one down, there are several others as well. And I'm not here to question the legitimacy of a player not wanting an easy mode for "self control" in the same way I'm not going to chastise someone playing a game with selectable difficulty for playing it at a lower difficulty than I or they themselves can handle. I'm just going to accept that people will react to what their offered and that's their business. It's not for me to judge.
the death of the author is a fine concept, but in this case the argument was being used to ignore the author and blame the players. That post wasn't addressing Miyazaki's stated vision. It was attacking players for deferring to Miyazaki's statements. Addressing the man himself other than to say "people might find lower difficulties challenging as well" has been lacking because I think we're easier targets than someone you can't actually talk to and who seems to not be listening.
The death of the author is also an odd concept here because regardless of your read on the intent and how it may differ from the statement, the effect is inescapable. Otherwise the conversation loses all meaning.
Ok, that's one down, there are several others as well. And I'm not here to question the legitimacy of a player not wanting an easy mode for "self control" in the same way I'm not going to chastise someone playing a game with selectable difficulty for playing it at a lower difficulty than I or they themselves can handle. I'm just going to accept that people will react to what their offered and that's their business. It's not for me to judge.
the death of the author is a fine concept, but in this case the argument was being used to ignore the author and blame the players. That post wasn't addressing Miyazaki's stated vision. It was attacking players for deferring to Miyazaki's statements. Addressing the man himself other than to say "people might find lower difficulties challenging as well" has been lacking because I think we're easier targets than someone you can't actually talk to and who seems to not be listening.
The death of the author is also an odd concept here because regardless of your read on the intent and how it may differ from the statement, the effect is inescapable. Otherwise the conversation loses all meaning.
Last edited: