It's cause I'm the type of person that only buys at most 3 games a year so having hundreds of games you don't play just seems crazy to me haha
-
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.
Sekiro success, sales, and winning Game of the Year is a huge strike against the "difficulty equals bad" notion
- Thread starter CenturionNami
- Start date
For some Nintendo games, it's part of the core of the series. Think Kirby. Pokémon's dalliance with difficulty levels is an utterly baffling episode (seriously, what is the point of hiding an easy mode behind a normal mode play through) and like a lot of thing in that series, got dropped immediately for no reason.
I would probably find an easier version of their games, still to be fucking hard, but maybe I would find it possible then to make a good amount of progress. People like to say in theory, it's not hard, you just have to be patient and learn it, but you can say that about anything, I'm sure sure would say some of those fucking insane bullet hell shooters aren't hard if you have the patience to adapt and treat it like a language you must learn through rigorous repetition. I think difficulty can be subjective as anything else , but think it's more complicated than saying it changes the quality of the game, because design choices don't have a homogenous effect on players. Someone who finds Sekiro's difficult not too bad but could argue your preferences have degraded the game's quality because it could be even harder.
I'm not saying they have to do it, it's their game, but the thing is challenge is also subjective.
To those having difficulty with Sekiro, experiment more with the Shinobi tools. Almost every enemy and boss in the game is weak to at least one of them, but that weakness is not always obvious. The firecrackers are probably the most useful tool in the game.
Having hundreds of games you don't play is pretty rare, most people, like you, buy 3 games a year.
That said, not beating games is the norm. Completion rates (on any difficulty), range between 10-40%, counting only people who have started the game (so that doesn't take into account people who have bought the game but never played it). For the most part, games with higher completion ratings are games that more highly rated by audiences (though there are a lot of exceptions). Difficulty usually isn't what stops people from completion, disinterest is.
For instance, the Dark Souls games have exceptionally high completion percentages (35-40%), likely due to a combination high quality, no padding, and (yeah) people wanting that "badge of honor" of being able to say they've completed it.
Most AAA games, with their mass market difficulties, have completion percentages around 20-25%. Games like Alan Wake, Borderlands 2, Bioshock Infinite, etc.
Indie games generally have really low completion rates, especially if they are difficult. For all the love Hollow Knight gets, it's only got about a 18% completion rating and the true ending at about 12%. Cuphead, with a 95+% approval rating on Steam has about a 12% completion rating.
Games with basically no difficulty (like Telltale style adventure games) usually have the highest completion rates at around 60%.
So yes, most people continue to buy video games while not finishing the ones they already own.
Last edited:
Let's devil's advocate this thing and contemplate how many people have finished over 30% of the game, and how many sales can be attributed to FromSoft's reputation and existing fanbase.
To be honest, I haven't really tried to get into them but what I've seen from the world and monster design, and audio design looks and sounds really cool in Dark Souls and Bloodborne, and the thing is I don't think people just want to play it with no difficulty, I think they want a difficulty they could actually manage.
People like to say anyone can finish these games with enough patience, but that's kind of meaningless to this point because I'm sure there's plenty of ultra hard games, probably niche ones, they just can't get effective at all, even if they had the patience or time to try of them. That was the theory, but in practically, anyone can be alienated from a game no matter their patience. Maybe you could say, not all games are for everyone, but I'm just saying it's not just about having the patience to get good, which simplifies things.
Beat Dark Souls, thought it was a fantastic game, but also eventually realized that I never wanted to put myself through a From game again so long as 'git gud' was supposed to be the hook. I started by going back to try to play Demon's Souls and quitting once I got to the a dragon on a bridge. I tried Bloodborne but couldn't make it past the first area. That's when I realized I don't have time nor desire to sit through frustration anymore. I don't see what the OP's getting at and it seems like it's setting up a strawman for a non-existent type of critic. Who's arguing that no hard games should exist? I'm as disillusioned with From games as it comes and I think the difficulty is fine for those who want and seek a challenge. What I'll happily call out is people pretending like the sanctity of their achievements is diminished by the existence of an easy mode.
FROM is only hurting themselves by alienating ppl and this not receiving as much $$$ potential due to the lack of options
That's like saying metal is hurting themselves by using swear words and demonic themes.
You can also say God of War is only hurting itself by not adding in microtransactions and thus not making as much $$$.
Of course everything can make more money if they ''open up'', but doing that loses the soul.
Also adding an easy mode won't make your game sell better, period. Making your game easier doesn't make your game more popular either.
By that logic Ni No Kuni II should be the best selling game ever due to how insanely accessible it is.
Part of the reason why Dark Souls got so popular in the first place is because the difficulty was blown out of proportion and people start seeing it as some sort of impossible video game and thus the gaming community starts talking about it. Because of that, more people are willing to give it a try and found out just how amazingly well made & well designed the game is.
The truth is:
It's reputation is precisely what draws attention, and that attention is what makes people want to give it a try, and that's how people find out it's a really good game and starts recommending it. The game basically advertise itself by being both really challenging and really good at the same time.
You really think Souls games would be nearly as successful as today if Demon's Souls & Dark Souls had easy mode on day one?
The sales they lost from scaring off potential buyers isn't even worth considering compared to the sales they gain from people drawn by its reputation and word of mouth.
Last edited:
Everyone knows what they're getting with a FROM game nowadays, get it on PC and use cheat engine if you want an easy mode.
You can't blame people for not liking [anything about any game here] really.
But "That said, difficulty is pretty much all these games have going for them... " is just factually wrong considering their games has big communities mainly interested in builds and PvP and they always spark more discussion about lore and characters than most other games, all of which have nothing to do with the difficulty.
Lol noone argues that
I only tried to play Bloodborne from the Souls-genre and it was a terrible experience, dying from one/two attacks and having to wait almost a minute of loading is horrible design. The game, apparently, is made revolving around dying until you learn how to kill each type of enemy (mostly timing, learning pattens etc) and I dont have time for that, sorry. Making the game easier wouldn't make it better though, seems like everything is adjusted for that single difficulty.
I only tried to play Bloodborne from the Souls-genre and it was a terrible experience, dying from one/two attacks and having to wait almost a minute of loading is horrible design. The game, apparently, is made revolving around dying until you learn how to kill each type of enemy (mostly timing, learning pattens etc) and I dont have time for that, sorry. Making the game easier wouldn't make it better though, seems like everything is adjusted for that single difficulty.
This is why the argument that the challenge set by the game is important because of developer intent / it's part of the narrative is absolutely bunk. Difficulty is relative.
This game was not easy. It was fucking hard. I was having fun and then hit a mini boss that some said is "easy" and I spent two hours failing. I was getting better but I didn't have much more time to game. I decided to try some other path. The next session I played I hit another boss or mini boss and once again, a couple hours and the best I managed was 1/4-1/2 health. I was hitting walls everywhere.
I loved this games style, and even the combat when I could actually take things down. But I had to quit and sell the game cause I'm just not good enough and don't have the time to get there. Fuck all you guys that say this game isn't for me, because if I'd been allowed to adjust the difficulty, maybe have enemies have less health, the game very well could have become one of my all time favorites.
Seems like the solution is an easy mode with little to no attention paid to make sure its balanced well
If From ever did an easy mode, they definitely would put a lot of time and effort into balancing it.
Good on FROM for being so deliberate with their design choices and still finding an audience. They're making the games they want to make instead of catering to everyone else and that's why their output is so consistently great — there's an obvious passion for their work. I wish more devs would do the same and that gamers would realize that they don't need to be a part of every zeitgeist.
Here's hoping that same design philosophy caries forward with Elden Ring.
Here's hoping that same design philosophy caries forward with Elden Ring.
We choose to play Sekiro... we choose to play Sekiro and play the other things, not because they are easy but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too.
I have only briefly played Dark Souls 2, and it wasn't my cup of tea as there are number of aspects of the game which I don't like. But From Software shouldn't change there approach as I hate games being dumbed down to suit the masses I do tend to play games on Easy due to me getting older and not having as much time to put up with die every 5 minutes unless it's something like Trails etc..
The game never was too hard. It is also rewarding if somebody sits down with it and learns it...like many games from back of the days did. not every game has to cater to everybody and that is a good thing.
I'm not gonna tell them they have to add difficulty options, but I'm probably not going to buy any of their games unless they do.
I have ADD and bounce off games pretty easily, plus I don't really get the smug self satisfaction that some people seem to get when they beat something hard.
If there's a boss I can't beat in a game I usually keep at it until I can beat it (provided it's within a couple of hours) but then after I finally do it's like: "That was it? Well I'm gonna play something else for a while" and I never come back.
I have ADD and bounce off games pretty easily, plus I don't really get the smug self satisfaction that some people seem to get when they beat something hard.
If there's a boss I can't beat in a game I usually keep at it until I can beat it (provided it's within a couple of hours) but then after I finally do it's like: "That was it? Well I'm gonna play something else for a while" and I never come back.
You know this isn't exactly a bad thing, like at all.
People keep bringing up that it would be "hard to balance" but they seem to be forgetting one key thing.
The people who want accessibility options don't exactly care about how "balanced" the game is. Balance is an incredibly nebulous term that for a lot of people isn't a point of contention and is hard to define. For a lot of people it's ultimately not worth sacrificing playability for balance. If the simple act of playing the game is a physical hurdle for someone then it ultimately doesn't matter how balanced it is.
There are several people who played Sekiro outright using Cheat Engine to one shot everything and they still loved the game. If it's possible to enjoy the game like that then balance is nowhere near as important as some people are claiming it to be.
They just keep one difficulty settings, not everything needs to be for everyone and I am okay with it.
On the other hand, people have been 10 years bitching about from games lol
On the other hand, people have been 10 years bitching about from games lol
From threads keep delivering hahaha
The only part of this game that I found unreasonably difficult are the optional bosses. One in particular is a late-game boss that breaks all the rules of the mechanics that the game had previously trained you to "git gud."
The others were not so bad once I was able to unlock more of the stuff that actually allowed me to damage them.
But...because they were optional, I was cool with them.
The others were not so bad once I was able to unlock more of the stuff that actually allowed me to damage them.
But...because they were optional, I was cool with them.
Zacmortar isn't wrong about artistic vision. On this forum and the previous for years now and in many enthusiast forums and circles, the only time artistic vision ever, ever, comes into an argument is in regards to anime titties or game difficulty. Rarely is artistic vision discussed in such heated debate except for those two things.
I've been playing DS2.
I love the atmosphere
I think the lore is quite interesting
I like the weightiness of the combat, plus the vast amount of options you have
Even though a lot of routes are very obtuse, I love the verticality of the environments and the sense of discovery
The difficulty only gets in the way of me enjoying those things. I fucking love when I'm allowed to have two summons for a boss fight.
Real life is hard enough I don't wanna put an insane amount of energy into a game.
And I also think Miyazaki is stupid and is selling his games short by sticking to the high difficulty level. There's way more to the games than just the obnoxious unfriendliness and difficulty.
I love the atmosphere
I think the lore is quite interesting
I like the weightiness of the combat, plus the vast amount of options you have
Even though a lot of routes are very obtuse, I love the verticality of the environments and the sense of discovery
The difficulty only gets in the way of me enjoying those things. I fucking love when I'm allowed to have two summons for a boss fight.
Real life is hard enough I don't wanna put an insane amount of energy into a game.
And I also think Miyazaki is stupid and is selling his games short by sticking to the high difficulty level. There's way more to the games than just the obnoxious unfriendliness and difficulty.
The one thing I have learned over the years is that a lot of people who call themselves gamers are some of the most noninclusive groups out there. You experience this if you just asked for the option for motion controls in games like a FPS on PS4 and Xbox with people calling your a 'casual'. So it is really no surprised that the reaction of asking for an option for difficult or a more accessibility is almost always met with 'git gud' or 'creator's intent'. However, these same people more often than not will have no problem lambasting a game for being 'too easy' and creator's intent goes straight out the window. Heck, I remember people complaining about Nintendo introducing the Super Guide.
i think back to the beginning of the year and how many people claimed the game was too hard at first. It was entertaining at least.
theres a difference between actual difficulty, and game design.
sekiro perfectly conveys a samurai, ninja type game better than any i have ever played. discipline!
theres a difference between actual difficulty, and game design.
sekiro perfectly conveys a samurai, ninja type game better than any i have ever played. discipline!
But sekiro doesnt need accessibility options. Its fine just as is.
Instead of difficulty settings, these kind of games should have more fleshed out tutorial systems that explain the game mechanics.
I read a Miyazaki interview where he said that his aim with his games isn't to make them difficult, but to allow the player to feel a sense of accomplishment at defeating an enemy that seemed impossible at first. And I totally agree there. That's exactly the feeling that got me (and I guess many others) hooked onto Souls games. Dark Souls repeatedly shows you how far you have come as a player by making erstwhile bosses common enemies in later levels.
So I think adding an Easy option would severely impact the core of these games, by diluting that sense of accomplishment. Accessibility isn't a bad thing, but repeated failure and eventual conquest is literally the core loop of these games. When you remove that, you change the soul of these games (pardon the pun).
If your problem with the game is that you don't have the time to go through that loop, that simply means these games aren't for you.
With all that said, I think there are clever ways to add accessibility without subverting and diluting what makes these games work. Whether Miyazaki and team wish to put in the time and effort to figure out those ways is obviously their call.
So I think adding an Easy option would severely impact the core of these games, by diluting that sense of accomplishment. Accessibility isn't a bad thing, but repeated failure and eventual conquest is literally the core loop of these games. When you remove that, you change the soul of these games (pardon the pun).
If your problem with the game is that you don't have the time to go through that loop, that simply means these games aren't for you.
With all that said, I think there are clever ways to add accessibility without subverting and diluting what makes these games work. Whether Miyazaki and team wish to put in the time and effort to figure out those ways is obviously their call.
I remember those times. I also remember another time with how angry the comments were about the white tanooki suit in 3D World. Something not too different from the P-wing, yet met with so much scorn. And it was totally optional. Any skilled player will likely never see it unless they die at least 3 times in a stage. Many comments had a "back in my day" type of attitude and how kids should learn to "git gud". Completely ignoring how Nintendo makes Mario for kids and families because Mario may be someone's very first platformer and they may need some help here or there because they don't have the knowledge or skill set yet to not die repeatedly in a stage. Plus using the white tanooki suit also meant it didn't save your high score for that particular stage too.
I don't think the challenge behind these games disappears when you think about accessibility options. Notice that so far I haven't said anything about an easy mode. Take the options Celeste has, for example. By nature, disabled people already have it hard. Similar options that Celeste has would only make it playable.
Disabled people like challenges in games, too. That's why a variety of options related to game speed and other stuff instead of an easy mode is part of the solution. Again, using the same argument as before: does anyone think that enabling those settings in Celeste make it a subgame? Of course not. It's just offering disabled people a chance to experience a game known for its challenge. I think they'd be happy to say they've beaten Sekiro without making it easy for them. They've managed to overcome another challenge in their lives. That's huge.
Has anyone in these 8 pages brought up that even the Forbes article by Dave Thier that CenturionNami links in the OP as "evidence" about disrespecting the player or saying difficulty = bad is incredibly false and is about accessibility options? That having difficulty settings like Celeste is a good thing and doesn't have to affect the balance or development of difficulty. The whole OP is based on a false strawman premise!
Games are VERY frequently panned for being too easy/boring. It happens all the time. These people feel under-served and would like a more difficult version of the game. They criticize it, or stay away, fairly.
I say give it to them! (Most Mario games have final challenges that are pretty tough, mind you.) It'd be rad if Pokemon offered a built-in Nuzlocke option, IMO.
"This game isn't for everyone" wouldn't be gatekeeping bullshit if it genuinely affected your experience with the game. If it does not...if the original experience is still there, untarnished...it's gatekeeping. Plain and simple. It's "fuck you got mine" in videogame form.
No idea why this debate still rages. FROM can do whatever they want, but they'd be smart to allow options. They clearly do well enough without it, so whatever, but it's dumb and I'm free to criticize it.