Should all games be required to have an Easy Mode ?

Greyfox

nix wrote: »

but i strongly believe them being one difficulty would be better for all.

Something has to be done for different skill levels though, particularly FP shooters. Games need to cater for someone playing games on hard for 20 years as well as someone new to games.

Azza

I mostly agree that their should be optional difficulty levels if that doesn't conflict with the game designers intent.

Take Doom Eternal. Its a challenging game with fantastic combat, but its got several difficult modes and an option to get damage reducing super amour if you die a few times. Regardless of the difficulty level you can play as the designers intended the game to played (though you likely won't if your playing on easy but you can if you want)

Something like Sekiro though, I think the designer intent was a challenging game where a core part of the experience is dying and learning from your mistakes and getting a little better each time and then gaining huge satisfaction when you eventually triumph. Its a core gameplay loop the designers intended and the game would be significantly diminished in my opinion if that wasn't there.

If its okay to not like challenging games, but I think in that case just say a game isn't for you and move along, there is a only a few game's like that, so you won't be missing out on too many.

Robert ninja

Greyfox wrote: »

Games need to cater for someone playing games on hard for 20 years as well as someone new to games.

But they don't. There's a thing called market demographic. Not every game has to cater to every taste, experience, skill, free time, age or sex.

The "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist isn't to change every game to be as wide appealing as possible. There has to be some agency on the consumer's part here. People who are casual gamers or have the reaction speed of a sloth tend not to get into hyper competitive or notoriously difficult games and rightly so - they're not the core demographic the game is designed for.

I don't expect games made for children to have an Ultra Nightmare mode and so people looking for an easy going experience shouldn't demand the likes of Sekiro to have an easy one either. Just choose a different game if it's too hard. That's easy considering there's a dizzying amount of choice these days.

johnny_ultimate

The key thing is that not everyone has the same level of skill or ability. There can be an assumption that ‘if I can beat it, everyone can’ which is simply not the case. People’s motor functions differ; experience with games differ; their abilities differ. It’s not just laziness or impatience - people can hit walls that are just a touch too high for them to overcome no matter how hard they try, and that can be very frustrating.

To me, an ideal ‘easy mode’ for a Souls game isn’t labelled as such. If you start the game the normal way, the game is exactly as the designers intended. But in a menu there are options for those who need it. There’s a clear disclaimer saying something like ‘the default is highly recommended, but here are some options for those who need them’. As gizmo suggested, it would be things like tweaks to damage levels or maybe a slightly more generous parry window. Things you wouldn’t ever need to worry about or be prompted about if you just wanted to play the game the normal way. Precisely how Pathologic 2 did it.

As I said, there was definitely a time I’d have been far more firmly in the ‘don’t mess with a designer’s intention’ camp. But after seeing games manage to be more welcoming without even slightly compromising their core challenge, it’s absolutely changed my mind. I love Souls games and don’t want their fundamental challenge to change - equally I’d be delighted if there were unobtrusive ways for more people to see those wonderful games through to their end.

Also: There’s a big difference between a fully realised game with completely optional difficulty settings (e.g. Celeste), and a half-baked, under-designed game that attempts to appeal to everyone and anyone without having a core vision at the centre of it (e.g. The Avengers or whatever).

_CreeD_

Arcadeheroes wrote: »

If your comment is directed at me , you have completely missed the point I was trying to make

Not at any one directly, just at a tone that was building imho.

Heres Johnny

Should movies have a less complex storyline so everyone can follow?

Should puzzles be easier so everyone can solve?

Should school exams be easier so everyone can pass (well, they are nowadays but that's a different story)

Should games be easier so everyone can finish

Answer to all the above is no, they should be as the developer/driving force behind it intends it to be. User doesn't dictate in any of the above situations.

Jimson

Playing Bioshock infinite on PC at the moment, even on normal its way too easy. Had to stick it on Hard.

Potential-Monke

Speaking from my own experience, and most on here will know I'm not a fan of the From games, but rather than an easy mode, there are options that could be enabled to make it more accessible. My main gripe with those games was spending x amount of time going through an area, getting to the boss, getting 1 hit killed (because you don't know the patterns, etc) and having to go all the way back and fight through the same enemies in the same places again before getting there, and getting 1 hit killed again. That's my main gripe. If there was an option to have a restart just before the boss again, that would be extremely welcome to me, and I'd most likely push through the hard bosses then.

I know someone will come back and say "but you can find a nearer bonfire/checkpoint", but that's not always the case. It's the repetition that gets me, and not for the bosses, but the grunts en route. And it's not just From games, it's any game regardless of difficulty, if it makes you go through the same route with the same enemies in the same places doing the same things, it just gets tiring.

So not necessarily a reduced difficulty, but easier navigation and better checkpoints would make From games a bit more accessible. As for an easy mode, if it's possible to do it, it should be an option, and they can go the Wolfenstein or other game routes where it puts a childs hat and pacifier. As for games like Super Meat Boy, Hollow Knight, Dead Cells, etc, I don't know what could be added to them to make them more accessible, as they're literally built around quick reflexes.

Greyfox

Robert ninja wrote: »

But they don't. There's a thing called market demographic. Not every game has to cater to every taste, experience, skill, free time, age or sex.

Well if they want the game to sell well then it makes sense to try to cater to all skill levels.

Retr0gamer

But dark souls has an easy mode? It's called coop.

Retr0gamer

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Speaking from my own experience, and most on here will know I'm not a fan of the From games, but rather than an easy mode, there are options that could be enabled to make it more accessible. My main gripe with those games was spending x amount of time going through an area, getting to the boss, getting 1 hit killed (because you don't know the patterns, etc) and having to go all the way back and fight through the same enemies in the same places again before getting there, and getting 1 hit killed again. That's my main gripe. If there was an option to have a restart just before the boss again, that would be extremely welcome to me, and I'd most likely push through the hard bosses then.

I know someone will come back and say "but you can find a nearer bonfire/checkpoint", but that's not always the case. It's the repetition that gets me, and not for the bosses, but the grunts en route. And it's not just From games, it's any game regardless of difficulty, if it makes you go through the same route with the same enemies in the same places doing the same things, it just gets tiring.

So not necessarily a reduced difficulty, but easier navigation and better checkpoints would make From games a bit more accessible. As for an easy mode, if it's possible to do it, it should be an option, and they can go the Wolfenstein or other game routes where it puts a childs hat and pacifier. As for games like Super Meat Boy, Hollow Knight, Dead Cells, etc, I don't know what could be added to them to make them more accessible, as they're literally built around quick reflexes.

I think in this case if I resist the reflex to call you a disgusting casual maybe just these types of games aren't for you. The repeat, learn and get get better by building on the knowledge you gain from repeating each section is a very valid for of videogame design, it's how most old games work. However it might just not be for some one like you and I kind of think in that case if it's not clicking you should move on.

There might be pressure on you from people to experience the game telling you it's one of the greatest videogames of all time but if you aren't enjoying it then why force yourself. Plenty of other games to play that will suit you better. I doubt an easy mode is going to help you enjoy the game, especially when a massive part of the game experience is about over coming its challenges.

I might come across as aiming this at you but equally can aim this at myself. For instance Spiderman I recognise as a damn fine and well made game but the ubisoft style of game design just isn't for me so I move on to other games.

Potential-Monke

Oh I agree, and we've argued debated this before. I've given plenty (imo) time for these games to click, but because of the repetition I know they're not for me. I'll still give them a go though, and have yet to try Sekiro (but not willing to spend more than €20 to find out). I'd give all of them a go if I got them for free!

But again, I think with a better checkpoint system, I would have lasted longer in all From games I've tried.

K.O.Kiki

Easy modes are bad - if used as a "blunt instrument".

However: it is very hard to design a game in such a way that the player learns how it works.
Thus the tempting option for game designers/producers, stuck for dev time, is to simply change health/damage values to make clearing a challenge easier/harder.
This can have an adverse effect in that if the player keeps playing the game on Easy mode, they could arrive at a point where they are understanding the game's mechanics but are no longer experiencing a challenge; or vice-versa, by playing on Hard mode they are constantly running out of health/ammo (resources) because the game was balanced around "Normal".

The best way to approach "Easy" mode IMHO is to do it Resident Evil 4-style:
Never tell the player you're making it easy/give them the option to choose Easy mode - however if they keep dying, are missing shots or running low on ammo constantly, gradually ramp down the enemy AI / increase the chance of rewards so that they can learn the game.

---

Regarding From Software games:
People (including me!) make a simple mistake in them, which is they try to fight everything!
But that isn't the game.
You're really learning patterns & routes, and I think people simply don't put in the time to understand the games' flow.

The greatest thing about From Software's games are, once you've spent a decent amount of time in them, you actually understand the maps, learn how to navigate through mobs & around monsters.
Contrasting to open-world games (even GTA or The Witcher), you can tiptoe your way around a map intuitively - you never "follow the dotted line", eyes glued to a GPS in the corner of the screen.
Sure, you will die a lot - but a decent amount of your deaths are due to haste; not entering the flow, not learning the pattern.

---

I am still running through Monster Hunter World: Iceborne. I'm encountering new monsters.
Today, I met Barioth & it utterly wrecked me - I carted 3 times without really damaging it.
So I took a moment, and realised that I wasn't fighting it correctly - I was too hasty, didn't look at its patterns. I also neglected to use Armorskin & Immunizer, hastening my deaths.
And thus, the second time I fought it, I didn't cart once - I simply took it slower, waited for attacks to dodge, felt it out.

At the victory screen, I felt elated - I beat it because I learned the game, not because I said "hey, take it easy on me!"

quokula

Anything with progression to an ending should have difficulty levels.

Something like Tetris or Civilization is fine because the challenge is the game and you get better and play it again and you don’t lose anything if you lose.

But to deny the player access to later content or the conclusion to the story in a product they’ve paid for, on the basis of motor skills, really goes against the kind of accessibility we should be trying to encourage in the modern world.

Personally if I die more than once or twice in a game I will usually turn the difficulty down. I play games for entertainment and relaxation, not to prove myself, and I don’t want to waste my time redoing the same thing repeatedly. While I’m sure mastering Sekiro or whatever is satisfying for many people, personally if I want to put in hard work learning a new skill I’ll focus on something with real world applications over something that will be lost when I move to the next game.

ozmo

Really liked the visuals on Cuphead - but not enough for me to spend weeks learning off by heart the long attack sequences required to complete the game.

Waste of 20 quid.

gizmo

Arcadeheroes wrote: »

Apologies for the wording of the title , my first original one was too wordy :pac:

The one that always comes to mind is the Sekiro one by forbes

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2019/03/28/sekiro-shadows-dies-twice-needs-to-respect-its-players-and-add-an-easy-mode/?sh=545256616393

I am going to use FromSoft games as an example here , but I think if you tamper with the way the souls games and sekiro are designed you lose too much on what the games are truly meant to be.

Souls series theme is the ending cycle of death , it lasted so long in peoples memories for almost 12 years because it took the risk of trusting the player to get through areas and bosses on their own .

No worries at all, I had a feeling this was going to be the one referenced which is why I suggested the underlying argument should be geared more towards "should include" rather than "required to include".

The Souls example is a good one though as it allows the focus to be on what the aim of the easy mode could be. Take your average Souls player, they're going to have a particular skill level and a particular tolerance for deaths in-game through which they'll learn and get better. The type of player to which Easy Mode would probably appeal would be someone who would generally have lower levels across these variables. A reasonable easy mode implementation in Souls should aim to offer the same relative level of challenge to the latter as it does the former. Practically speaking, it shouldn't allow people to get through the game without dying, it should just allow them to get through it dying roughly the same number of times as a more skilled player. This would be accomplished by making whatever balance changes would be required in order to account for the points I mention above.

Not only is this important to preserve the theme of the series as you've described but also to ensure that any lessons which need to be learned along the way can still be taught.

Ian Hamilton touches on this in the tweet thread linked in the Forbes article, even invoking Miyazaki as he does so, I'd recommend checking it out.

Arcadeheroes wrote: »

Yes Cuphead has a simple mode , but people who play that mode compared to the way its supposed to be played , are two very different games and got two very different experiences finishing it .

There is so much to love about the design and effort that went into creating such different variety of bosses , I simply cant see people appreciating it playing on a easy mode which to me is insulting the devs hardwork they put creating such amazing different experiences of games .

See I'd consider that a prime example of a game where the developers made a reasonable effort to make the game more accessible without compromising on their vision or the experience for the more skilled players.

From the players perspective, what's important here is they still got to experience the game, albeit a curated one designed to allow for their relevant skill level. If given the choice between that and not really being able to engage in the game at all, I know which one I'd appreciate.

Retr0gamer

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

I personally think a game where the make and break is tied only to its difficulty mode is a weak game to begin with and I reckon the reason FS don't add easier modes is because they're worried that people might find that out. I have not played Bloodborne or a Souls game because all I hear from its fans is about the difficulty. I never hear any praise for the story, characters, lore, level design. Nothing. All I hear from the gitgud type people is how difficult the games are and how badass they are for beating it. Each gameplay video I've seen looks boring, gloomy and janky with the exception of Sekiro where they at least made an effort to make it look somewhat stylistic.

Kind of have to disagree heavily with everything here. Just because a game is difficult doesn't mean it's a bad game. Quite the opposite.

There's a massive difference between difficult and challenging and frustration. Frustration comes from bad and unfair game design. Having a fair difficulty and challenge though, that's an art and one of the toughest things to get right with game design. From Software games fit into the later. They are really well designed and their challenge rather than frustration is testament to that. Many modern games are poorly designed and offer no challenge but overly compensate for that with crutches like recharging health and overly generous checkpoints.

As for Souls games offering nothing but difficulty, nothing could be further from the truth. Some of this can be levelled at the marketing of the games. Dark Souls prepare to die doubled down on promoting the difficulty but if difficulty was all these games offered they wouldn't be regarded as some of the best games of the last 15 years. They are excellently crafted and designed games, they are a masterclass is level design and enemy design. No story or lore? How come there are sop many youtubers that have based their entire career on exploring the lore and story of these games. The world design and atmosphere is incredible as well and the dark fantasy aesthetic has been praised. And as for the community being all git gud and elitist, the series has got a pretty great community that will help you through the game as they just want other people to experience and love the games they discovered and love.

The misconceptions people have about the game baffle me. The way they just totally dismiss it as if it being difficult is an insult to them. I think the marketing and the press are the biggest issue here, bleating on an on about how hard the games are. They make it seem like Souls games are just this big troll game where they do nothing but punish the player. It makes them sound something like 'I wanna be the guy' when really they are more an expansion on classic japanese action games like Castlevania, Megaman X or Super Metroid where the focus is on tight mechanics, level and encounter design.

K.O.Kiki

It's like people intentionally confuse Dark Souls with I Wanna Be The Guy.

Retr0gamer

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

I literally never said that.

It's in relation to this:

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

I personally think a game where the make and break is tied only to its difficulty mode is a weak game to begin with and I reckon the reason FS don't add easier modes is because they're worried that people might find that out.

Which I heavily disagree with. I'd be of the opinion that a game that can balance difficulty is in fact a example of great design, of which From Software are masters of.

Arcadeheroes

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

No. What you said I said and what I actually said are two different things.

I said a game where high difficulty is the only thing it has to offer, to the point where without it all the other aspects fall apart, show weak game design. I specifically noted that the reason why FS games do not appeal to me is because story, lore, characters, level design seem to be an afterthought and this is proven by the fact that all I hear from the fans that hype the games up so much are how hard the bosses are.

I never said a game being difficult makes it inherently bad.

All those aspects of Souls games are far from being an afterthought , and you cannot make an assumption like that based on not playing the games nor listening to what other people who have played have said .

Level design , especially in Dark Souls is all connected from ringing the two bells , to anor Londo to New Londo , its one seemless world with each path you take is covered in Envoirment Lore , and the characters you meet , the items you pick up all tell the story how DS world came to be .

If everything was an afterthought the likes of VaatiVidya , Epic Name Bro and other youtubers who based their entire youtube channel on almost 10 years and still given story details about the game .

Silent Hill 2 you are told nothing aswell , nothing is ever explained to the player and its perhaps the best story ever written in a videogame that rivals the best of movies has to offer .

For people who play games for a story , dark souls offers it if you seek it. and for people who just want to play a game without Cutscenes getting in the way , Dark Souls offers that too .

Its a masterfully designed game .

Retr0gamer

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

No. What you said I said and what I actually said are two different things.

I said a game where high difficulty is the only thing it has to offer, to the point where without it all the other aspects fall apart, show weak game design. I specifically noted that the reason why FS games do not appeal to me is because story, lore, characters, level design seem to be an afterthought and this is proven by the fact that all I hear from the fans that hype the games up so much are how hard the bosses are.

I never said a game being difficult makes it inherently bad.

Well the point still stands that From Software games offer so much more than just difficulty, a difficulty that some people mistakenly blow way out of proportion. You are kind of making a blanket statement about a series of games that you appear to have no experience of other than second hand information you've misinterpreted because everything you've said about the games is quite frankly factually and provably wrong. It shouldn't take more than a quick google to find entire articles and videos discussing the lore, characters, storytelling and level design of From games.

I'm fine with you deciding the games aren't for you and not experiencing them but to then to throw out your misconceptions about the game which you haven't experienced as fact is just plain wrong. Potential-Monke at least has given the games a try and found them not to his tastes.

Royale with Cheese

Too many games, nowhere near enough time play them. Any long story driven games these days I play on easy, I'd never get them finished otherwise.

tghkhbd

This is such a great idea!
It is a good suggestion to allow users to choose a simple version to use, because some users have limited mobile phone/computer equipment memory, too much software will cause the game to freeze and affect the player experience.
Many user hope developers can consider this suggestion.

MOH

quokula wrote: »

But to deny the player access to later content or the conclusion to the story in a product they’ve paid for, on the basis of motor skills, really goes against the kind of accessibility we should be trying to encourage in the modern world.

Well then they possibly shouldn't buy a game that relies on motor skills.

I'm useless at any games involving music/rhythm sections. Don't know if I'm totally tone deaf or something, but I just can't do them. But I'm not going to demand they rewrite Crypt of the Necrodancer , I'll just skip it.
It's cause me problem when it suddenly crops up in other games - The Witness had a pitch based puzzle, that I think I had to brute force.

There's been other games where it just crops up randomly in the middle and I end up either having to repeat it a load of times or give up. Worst case, there's always Twitch/videos/walkthroughs if somebody really wants to experience the end of the story. But it's ridiculous to suggest these sections should be rewritten just for me or people like me. I've encountered far more games which ended due to game breaking bugs. Which there'll be a lot more of the more extra features are added.

Penn

ozmo wrote: »

Really liked the visuals on Cuphead - but not enough for me to spend weeks learning off by heart the long attack sequences required to complete the game.

Waste of 20 quid.

Cuphead ended up being a really frustrating experience. The one part that really annoyed me (in terms of 'easy modes' in games) was I got stuck on one last boss and couldn't move past without defeating it. As much as I ploughed on with some other bosses I had been stuck on and eventually defeated them, I just couldn't get past this guy (some dude in a robot), and also didn't want to go through the torture or trying to defeat him. So just to get past him and move on, I chose to fight the Simple version of him instead of the Regular. Beat him easily.

Except beating him on Simple meant you don't get his contract which meant I still couldn't move on past him. I still had to defeat him on Regular. Ended up not bothering. Just deleted the game. If a game is difficult, the payoff needs to be worth it and I didn't get enough of that from Cuphead because most of the time I defeated a boss I felt relief from frustration rather than a sense of achievement.

I'll also say though, I played the first Devil May Cry several times on the one playthrough and loved it. Then I remember seeing things on the internet about certain enemies and I realised I'd never seen those enemies in the game. Realised I'd been playing on Easy Automatic mode. Played through again on Normal and it felt like a brand new game due to the difficulty, and better experience.

You do often lose things by playing on Easy modes rather than Normal or above, but Easy modes should still be included and should still be the full game (but easier). Even going back to Cuphead, I know my nephews would probably love it, but not a hope they'd ever get past the first area on Regular. But most of the game would remain locked to them by just playing on Simple. There's no real reason for that imo.

johnny_ultimate

Crypt of the Necrodancer is actually a perfect example here. For the Cadence of Hyrule spin-off they added a ‘fixed-beat mode’ which removes the need to play to the rhythm of the music. It’s not an ‘easy mode’, it just allows people who can’t figure out the rhythm-based gameplay to still enjoy what the game has to offer.

I think there can be a fundamental misunderstanding that entirely optional tweaks to the difficulty or approachability means fatally undermining the core game design. With developers ever more consistently showing that does not have to be the case (and in many cases small developers with limited resources), for me the argument becomes stronger that there is more potential there.