-
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.
Kotaku: An easy mode has never ruined a game
- Thread starter BAD
- Start date
It seems like a fair amount of people want to complete Sekiro but are unable to, so I would ask I guess for that pool of people to be smaller
It's... radically different though haha
To bring up my previous point,
Pretty much everyone would be more than ok with my first example if FROM made a similar easy mode. The 2nd Example is what many do not want as an easy mode.
Just because you don't give a damn about a developers set goal for their games, for their design philosphy, or simply their vision, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or doesn't hold any water.
Yeah I didn't, but that's irrelevant. Most of us in this thread haven't. Most of us aren't even developers, few are. But most of us still have opinions on games and have been arguing in this thread.
My point was more sound design can be quite different from gameplay design, even if sound can and is used to supplement and enhance gameplay. It's something that the end user might have more control over, externally, just by nature of what sound is and how speakers work.
Some people play in 2.1, some in 5.1, some in 7.1, some at volume 99 on their home cinema and some in incredibly low volume because their wife is sleeping in the next room.
As much as there is great audio in Souls (everyone remembers the creepy lanterns in Bloodborne) and the graphics/atmosphere can be a sensory overload, the gameplay is its bread and butter. The design of it is what put From Software on the map and you can be sure with those frequently posted Miyazaki quotes in here, much of what he refers to primarily is gameplay orientated. Not necessarily sound design.
I'd like to complete DMC1 but I'm horrible at it. Sometimes it doesn't work out. Moreso in a game where the design ethos works against maximizing completion. So why can't a game that resists players be welcomed?
Sure, but you're the one demanding opposing rationale be dropped purely on the basis it doesn't agree with your goals or can be worked around in some scenarios while claiming it has no effect. Meanwhile those with a more impressive resume seem to think it will. It's an appeal to authority, but in subjective matters I'm more inclined to go with what I've experienced vs someone who says the whole is somehow unrelated to the parts chosen to create it.
Compromising a things identity and/or unigueness for the sake of wider appeal not making it necessarily better seems like the takeaway. Assuming I got that right.
Last edited:
Accessibility with respect to players who use non-traditional controllers due to physical conditions gives a certain wrinkle to these kinds of talks that I wouldn't be willing to dismiss outright just because "it's From's vision". As big a fan as I am of their Souls games, I don't want to advocate ableism.
And honestly, with respect to players who simply don't want to power through these games' difficulty, I really don't care. I think no-easy-mode made sense for the Souls games and Bloodborne because of the games' tight integration with the online and the weird ways in which differing difficulties could break things (an easier difficulty in a Souls game would include changing environment and enemy placement rather than just buffing the player and/or nerfing the enemies). But for a single-player game like Sekiro? I don't care, honestly. If people wanna play an easier game with the understanding that it may compromise From's intent with delivering a hard-as-nails experience, I think it's up to the player.
See also: Celeste. A hard-as-fuck game that also gave you plenty of ways to make the game easier and didn't care if you beat it that way.
And honestly, with respect to players who simply don't want to power through these games' difficulty, I really don't care. I think no-easy-mode made sense for the Souls games and Bloodborne because of the games' tight integration with the online and the weird ways in which differing difficulties could break things (an easier difficulty in a Souls game would include changing environment and enemy placement rather than just buffing the player and/or nerfing the enemies). But for a single-player game like Sekiro? I don't care, honestly. If people wanna play an easier game with the understanding that it may compromise From's intent with delivering a hard-as-nails experience, I think it's up to the player.
See also: Celeste. A hard-as-fuck game that also gave you plenty of ways to make the game easier and didn't care if you beat it that way.
This is such a ludicrous debate to me. I've never seen anyone asking for Aphex Twin's music to be made more accessible and less demanding, or Gaspar Noé's movies to feature less flashing lights, because some people who suffer from epilepsy might not be able to watch them. It's always just accepted that these things are not for everyone, but somehow that same principle doesn't seem to apply in the video game world.
And I don't even get the whole "superiority complex" and "elitist gamer" bullshit that's been thrown around here. Why is it so bad that people have a sense of pride and accomplishment when they do something that not everyone might be able (or willing) to do? I fought tooth and nail to get through Bloodborne, and you can bet your bottom dollar that I was insanely proud once I beat it. And yes, I believe that this feeling would have been diminished by the presence of an easy mode.
And I don't even get the whole "superiority complex" and "elitist gamer" bullshit that's been thrown around here. Why is it so bad that people have a sense of pride and accomplishment when they do something that not everyone might be able (or willing) to do? I fought tooth and nail to get through Bloodborne, and you can bet your bottom dollar that I was insanely proud once I beat it. And yes, I believe that this feeling would have been diminished by the presence of an easy mode.
Yeah sure, the difficulty can be more integral to his vision. Though we don't know for sure how important he thinks the audio is, as that's probably not asked in interviews as often. It has really impressed me from what I've seen, or more precisely heard. Personally I felt that in Ori and the Blind forest, the music was kinda also related to the difficulty. In the escape sequences which many considered rather difficult, the continuous flow of inspiring music encouraged to keep on going despite of failings. Worked super well. Though of course also how you get to retry immediately after failing, Super Meat Boy is similar to that.
Well, it is by some and not by others, it all comes down to personal feelings. Ultimately the consumers are going to decide, but I want my part in the discourse to represent the "side" of advocating for accessibility.
I could be wrong but I don't think anyone here is against control customization/colorblindness support/hearing impairment options/specialized input mechanisms/etc.
I want people to be able to make what they want to make. The more divergent they become the more interestingly unique things we might get. And to that end I'll never have time to play all the games anyways. So the ones that don't work for me for whatever subjective reason are ok for me to put down. And most relevantly, that might include Sekiro once I reach my limits with it. But I support a game wanting to be beyond my limits.
What are you guys going to do when he makes an easy mode on his next game and it's still too hard?
User banned (1 day): hostility, antagonistic rhetoric
Eh, Sekiro's kicking my whole ass right now and it upsets me, but I'm not gonna bitch to the devs about it, I'll spend time getting better instead of being an entitled prick.
You already know the answer lol. This ride never ends. What I do wonder though is how many people will stop arguing for others who can't beat the game as soon they can beat it themselves.
It's pretty wild that people still don't understand that difficulty is relative. It's not a hard concept
I'll try to use an analogy here. It may not be perfect, but does a "perfect analogy" exist? :P
The Sound and the Fury is largely considered one of the most difficult novels to read. It switches points of view without easy signpost that that's the case, and is written in a way that evokes people's internal stream of consciousness (complete with disjointed thoughts.) This makes it almost impenetrable to people who are not seasoned readers, or to people not willing to put in the time and thought to understand it.
Yet it's these very same characteristics that make it a powerful book. Pardon the pun, but the style of writing makes up a large part of the novel's soul. (And, BTW, it's not that it makes it an accomplishment to read. I agree that's a silly argument.)
Could Faulkner have rewriten it to be easier to read for all ages and skill levels? Almost certainly. But I imagine he felt what makes it a difficult read is also what makes it worth reading. It wouldn't be the same book if those elements were missing.
That's not to say no art can ever be modified while maintaining its essence. But sometimes you reach a point I'll liken to "irreducible complexity." If you remove something the artist deems necessary to the work's heart, it's no longer the same work anymore. I feel like this is how Miyazaki feels re: difficulty in his Souls games.
Ask for those more detailed settings, blunt easy mode isn't as good as letting the player choose what to alter and how much.
Well of course, I get that. Just like I've referenced to the accessibility guidelines website because of it's authors. So it's understandable you would accept and respect the views of Miyazaki. And you're right, his vision doesn't agree with my goals. So I definitely still wish he would be more lenient about it and players would get more control.
But even if you created Rez... someone can still mute their TV. Why would they do it? Fuck knows. But as a creator audio design is something you have that tiny bit less control over, once the end user gets their hands on it.
Would you say playing Rez on mute wastes the experience? You can still play it (I think), but that's totally fucking up the experience. But there's not much the developer can do about that because of the way audio works at the end users side.
Gameplay design doesn't quite succumb to the same end user manipulation potential, hence why if you create something like Souls, you can put out 6 games without the player being able to use their TV remote to fuck around with the gameplay.
Sure, muting Souls makes the experience less optimal, but not quite in the same way muting Rez would. IIRC I've played Souls pretty much muted a few times when my ex was sleeping and I had no headphones. I'm sure it was one of the Dark Souls games. Certain games that are gameplay focussed can have less of a restrictive experience with audio being messed around with.
Gameplay (and by extension, difficulty) is the bread and butter of this series/style of game from From, that's the tldr here. Just in the same way audio is the bread and butter for Rez.
Not really. It was a very poor comparison.
Certain games have achievements tied to difficulty levels. Like Nightmore or Hardcore etc.. If a person really cares that much about their gaming accomplishments to the point of alienating or condescending less "skilled" players why don't they try to derive their e-pride from said achievements. I really hate this overly wrought way people have now come up with for saying "get gud" because no matter how much they layer an art debate upon it that's basically what they are saying.
Needlessly condescending and hostile? Welcome to ResetEra.
If a game is too hard to soldier through than one should reexamine their desire to play the game at all. Is it FOMO or are they fighting through because they really enjoy the game? If it is too hard to enjoy and the challenge isn't fun then move on. That said I don't have a problem with difficulty levels if the creators are fine with it.
I'm not saying the comparison was good.
I'm saying that the comparison was easy to understand based on context.
You can't point to a feature the creators intentionally included and claim it violates their creative intentions. It's an absurd claim on the face of it.
If you think about it the game is already set on the easiest difficulty.
Personally, I understand the concept. What's difficult for one isn't necessarily for another. And if someone has a disability, a game that's "easy" may be as difficult as a standard Souls game for them. Totally get it.
The problem lies in the fact that it's impossible to account for everyone. Some need a tiny boost, some a much larger one. You can't account for them all, unfortunately. So the director probably just goes for what he feels the average gamer can complete with enough time and perseverance.
The problem with adding lower difficulty options is that people who *could* finish the game (but with a lot more time and effort required, which we've established Miyazaki feels is integral to these games) would likely pick the path of least resistance. There are people in this thread attesting to this, stating they don't want to waste hours and hours on a single area or boss. And that's understandable. The problem is, that's the Dark Souls experience. It's not just that people do it to brag (which I find tasteless,) but the difficulty keeps the game's tone and ludonarrative consistent. Clearly, From feels this is the case as well.
So, yes, it kind of is a case of "people can't be trusted to adjust the game's difficulty" -- at least not if they are going to have the experience the creators intended. Yes, a large amount of people would likely still enjoy Souls games immensely if they could adjust the difficulty. But they wouldn't be playing the game From intended at that point, and it's the developer's choice to minimize the chance of that happening. Unfortunately, that's the reality of the situation, as I see it.
That's all there is to it in the end.
I've said it many times throughout this thread and others: Some people are operating under the assumption that the people who say it's okay if From's games don't have selectable difficulty levels are part of a gaming elite that prides themselves on beating hard games or whatever. That's not true, at least not in every case.
To me, quitting a game because it was too hard is just a normal part of playing games, and just as normal as dropping it because I didn't like the gameplay or the artstyle or the progression system or whatever. Some games that I was loving up to that point I dropped after reaching a roadblock and didn't think the devs were terrible people for not giving me the option to drop the difficulty or skip that section.
In the same way, I'd be okay if Miyazaki decided that his next game needs difficulty options because ultimately it's their game and their choice. And of course, accessibility options would be great.
There's been a conscious effort by some posters in this thread to paint fans of Souls games (who, bears repeating, are fans of one of the few series which doesn't offer a lower difficulty, at least one of the very few mainstream ones, so this is not like a widespread issue in modern gaming) as elitist, gatekeeping, immoral, ableist, and all sorts of terrible things, creating strawmans and putting words on our mouths only to get angry at the things we didn't say, when I know from my own experience that Souls fans will jump at the very first chance to offer help and advice when you can't progress through the games. That's how I got through Demon's Souls, after hating it and quitting for an entire year before I gave it a second chance. They have been mostly in favor of accessibility options too, by reading this thread. So the disingenuous attempts at making them look like shitty people are not appreciated at all.
I guess. Still seems bit weird. But I've also stayed up for over 30 hours already so I'm running on fumes
I just ment that the creator allows us to play around with his vision. Something I think could be implemented for difficulty too. Could be that I have hard time internalizing the lack of adjustable difficulty as important artistic vision in itself. I understand how the difficulty can be that. But they're linked for sure.
Why do people request bans when people don't agree with them and they don't immediately convince everyone? I don't get it. Like, have an opinion. Share it. Don't get upset that people disagree. Have a discussion without getting mad or condescending.
I'd be very interested in discussing ways to improve accessibility in Sekiro without compromising the inherent challenge of the game. Maybe based on a better article. This one is tainted by the idea that difficulty=accessibility. Poor form from Kotaku Imo. Seems like the same articles that get shat out every time a From game comes out, with a special moralistic twist.
I'd be very interested in discussing ways to improve accessibility in Sekiro without compromising the inherent challenge of the game. Maybe based on a better article. This one is tainted by the idea that difficulty=accessibility. Poor form from Kotaku Imo. Seems like the same articles that get shat out every time a From game comes out, with a special moralistic twist.
I can't tell if this is a joke or a real quote. It's hard to tell with Itagaki.we need more of this, not less
Its a real quote during a Q&A about ninja gaiden.
He also says things like "gamers who think that Ninja Gaiden is too hard are losers - there are always winners and losers - just fight your best fight! "
He comes off a bit harsh, but I respect him for having a crystal clear vision of what he wanted Ninja Gaiden to be. And it shows by how perfectly fine tuned Ninja Gaiden Black is.
Yet still challenging and still making players learn and engage in the combat. A few extra potions and taking a little less damage is not going to make you play better. Also you can tell he did not like adding it xD.
He name it Ninja Dog mode, and restricted the player from ever getting a Master Ninja ranking at the end of chapters. And I quote, he says " how can a dog ever become a master."
He makes ryu wear a pink ribbon all of the time, and Ayane keeps sending notes about how not to get too confident because you have gotten this far, and how you have a long way to go.
He also says things like "gamers who think that Ninja Gaiden is too hard are losers - there are always winners and losers - just fight your best fight! "
He comes off a bit harsh, but I respect him for having a crystal clear vision of what he wanted Ninja Gaiden to be. And it shows by how perfectly fine tuned Ninja Gaiden Black is.
Yet still challenging and still making players learn and engage in the combat. A few extra potions and taking a little less damage is not going to make you play better. Also you can tell he did not like adding it xD.
He name it Ninja Dog mode, and restricted the player from ever getting a Master Ninja ranking at the end of chapters. And I quote, he says " how can a dog ever become a master."
He makes ryu wear a pink ribbon all of the time, and Ayane keeps sending notes about how not to get too confident because you have gotten this far, and how you have a long way to go.
Last edited:
yeah I dont' get it. Like, I get your point, I just don't agree so your response is to ask for a ban? Maybe its just to cool off for a while but I see it alot on this site.
This industry has a long way to go with accessibility. The only time I ever see anyone talk about developer intent and vision is if it's for tits or difficulty.
Because that would take effort and not be "easy". Noticing a trend here?
Pretty much what I was thinking as well. I am not going to argue that I want the option to adjust the difficulty on the behalf of disabled gamers, but the last time i saw the "developers vision" line trotted out so often was when I saw people defending Kojima over some people's dislike of Quiet.
That's just not true. You've got things like the now-defunct Iwata Asks, the AV Club, and YouTubers like hbomberguy doing deep dives into developer intentions fairly regularly.
Last edited:
Pretty much.
Other games allowed players to at least finish the game.
Some games like Gradius, Super R-Type etc do remind the player to try the next difficulty setting.
Taking out actual boss attacks instead of giving the player more hit points is bad design.
At least with more hits you'll enjoy the game enough for multiple playthroughs eventually making normal cake walk.
Personally for me when I was younger I always played on easy and then eventually I made hard look like I was cheating because I mastered the game down to stupid good levels.
Like Beating Super R-type on hard without dying.
Uhm, is this really necessary? I've seen plenty of people on both sides make well reasoned, respectful arguments. Saying one side is "the dumbest fucking thing" is not conducive to friendly discussions. It's stirring the pot for no reason, other than to put an exclamation point on a hot take.
Also, as an aside, I think calling the forum you moderate a "fiery hellscape" isn't a good look, even if it's obviously an exaggeration. You're pretty much talking down to your own community.
It's talked about a lot, actually. Whether it's modes, changes to gameplay in sequels, monitization, or localization changes. Trying to lump people into a sexist box (or imply it's at least adjacent to it) isn't fair. IMO, you should address the arguments themselves instead of trying to assign ulterior motives to people.
For the record, I'm in the camp that would be perfectly fine if difficulty options were added. If From thinks they can add it without compromising anything, or maybe a future game doesn't have difficulty as one of its pillars, that'd be great! I just won't get upset if they don't feel it's possible to have their cake and eat it too.
What a fucking jerk lmaowe need more of this, not less
Yes
Person with disability: I'd like to play games but I need better accessibility options, or really any accessibility options
Dev: Hmm we never really thought about that
Some peeps: Don't ruin the devs' art
Like if movies and almost every other creative medium on earth can accommodate for people with various disabilities, games can too. Netflix supplies descriptive audio for the blind, subtitles for those with hearing impairment have been around for decades, braille books exist, I can keep going
I moderate Twitter?
Ok, let's say the next FS game, let's call it "Shadow Keeper - Serenity in Existence: RE", is so absurdly hard that only 100 people in the whole world can finish it.
Maybe any enemy in this game kills you in one hit, and you have to begin from scratch again, and this mechanic is all explained by some nonsensical background story, so it's deeply manifested into the game's core philosophy, which means options like easy modes absolutely cannot be added (as this would undermine the game's design philosophy!!!1).
Would that still be ok with you? After all, in this hypothetical case, From is still following their own design philosophy, right? And the 100 people who actually manage to beat the game and are satisfied with it just say: "Well if you think the game is too hard, then it's just not for you. That's ok. Not every game has to be for everyone."
What I'm trying to say is: There must be SOME limit to when a game is just too difficult for its own good, right? How many people have to say a game is too hard to a point it's not fun anymore until this statement can be considered legit? Just because a game is still selling well, that does not mean its design philosophies are fine and developers should continue with them, see the Battlefront 2 lootbox debate.
The fact that we get articles like the one from Kotaku, which about half the people in this already very extensive thread agree with, and that even hardcore Dark Souls fans, for example on this forum or via 1 Star scores on Amazon, feel Sekiro is too absurdly hard and unfair, I'd say this is pretty telling that something might not be quite right.
Maybe any enemy in this game kills you in one hit, and you have to begin from scratch again, and this mechanic is all explained by some nonsensical background story, so it's deeply manifested into the game's core philosophy, which means options like easy modes absolutely cannot be added (as this would undermine the game's design philosophy!!!1).
Would that still be ok with you? After all, in this hypothetical case, From is still following their own design philosophy, right? And the 100 people who actually manage to beat the game and are satisfied with it just say: "Well if you think the game is too hard, then it's just not for you. That's ok. Not every game has to be for everyone."
What I'm trying to say is: There must be SOME limit to when a game is just too difficult for its own good, right? How many people have to say a game is too hard to a point it's not fun anymore until this statement can be considered legit? Just because a game is still selling well, that does not mean its design philosophies are fine and developers should continue with them, see the Battlefront 2 lootbox debate.
The fact that we get articles like the one from Kotaku, which about half the people in this already very extensive thread agree with, and that even hardcore Dark Souls fans, for example on this forum or via 1 Star scores on Amazon, feel Sekiro is too absurdly hard and unfair, I'd say this is pretty telling that something might not be quite right.
Last edited:
There is a limit. Sekiro is nowhere near it, as thousands upon thousands of people have already finished it. That said, if a developer's intention is to simply make a game no one can surmount because it requires 20,000 frame-perfect inputs in a row, they can make it, and I will just not play it, and I won't mind even if it has the greatest art direction and world-building video games have ever seen.
I mentioned this earlier, and it's 100% conjecture, but it's entirely possible FromSoft's devs are just completely unfamiliar with disabled people's struggles and just have never thought about the possibility that someone with a disability might want to play their games.Not that this is acceptable, but it wouldn't surprise me, since people with disabilities often have a hard time getting visibility for their issues. I can't pretend to know what their response would be but from my experience, developers don't want to exclude disabled people from enjoying their game.