Should all games be required to have an Easy Mode ?

Shanotheslayer

I prefer games to have 1 difficulty setting. No option for change.

It forces people to either get good and finish it or just move on to another game.

Kingp35

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

I prefer games to have 1 difficulty setting. No option for change.

It forces people to either get good and finish it or just move on to another game.

I don't understand this way of thinking. In what way does someone else's experience of a game effect your experience?

If you want to play on hard mode and I want to play an easy mode, how does me playing on easy mode effect you playing on hard mode?

The answer is simple, it doesn't. Play a game the way you want to play it.

It's the same for Souls games, adding in an 'easier' mode for players that want it will not effect the 'usual' mode in any way. It literally will not effect your game one bit.

I will never understand the argument against including an 'easier' mode other than it effecting the ego of the 'git gud' player. It's actually pretty pathetic.

nix

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

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.

Not disagreeing with you but just an added thought, is there an example of multiple difficulties/tweaks working in any game that isnt a 2d platformer?

Retr0gamer

nix wrote: »

Not disagreeing with you but just an added thought, is there an example of multiple difficulties/tweaks working in any game that isnt a 2d platformer?

Dark souls coop mode :pac:

Resident evil 4 was brought up as well

Robert ninja

Kingp35 wrote: »

In what way does someone else's experience of a game effect your experience?

How the game is fundamentally designed such as if it has difficulty levels at all effects your experience. Players seem to find a lot of value in games that you can just jump into and have not have to worry you selected the correct setting. GTA games do this... they don't even have a main menu it just dumps you into the world straight away.

By the far the most popular and trending games around right now are online multiplayer which have no difficulty settings because it's against real people of course.

Greyfox wrote: »

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

Appeal to as wide range as possible to maximise sales is the way you make pretty meh games and also hit no niche. For some blockbusters it can work out but for the majority of games you want to find niche/demographic and hit it hard. It can get popular from that like the way survival horror games got wider appeal from just being so good at what they focus on. Or take Yakuza, which primarily targets Japanese men that it actually got plenty popular outside of those demographics because it has focus.

To me this isn't really a topic of 'difficulty'. "Let's make something everyone will like" is not an attitude or business practice that conjures good products or interesting experiences.

johnny_ultimate

Star Wars Fallen Order is interesting. Not a great game by any stretch (and an inferior Souls like at a fundamental level), but things like increased / decreased parry windows depending on difficulty shows that such things absolutely are possible.

awec

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.

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

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.

Same here.

If a game is reviewed and called out as difficult, I don't bother buying it.

If I am playing a game and I get to a point that I can't progress past after 4/5 attempts then I'm likely done with it.

I just can't be arsed with it these days and don't play games to get frustrated.

AnniePowwa

Robert ninja wrote: »

How the game is fundamentally designed such as if it has difficulty levels at all effects your experience. Players seem to find a lot of value in games that you can just jump into and have not have to worry you selected the correct setting. GTA games do this... they don't even have a main menu it just dumps you into the world straight away.

By the far the most popular and trending games around right now are online multiplayer which have no difficulty settings because it's against real people of course.


Appeal to as wide range as possible to maximise sales is the way you make pretty meh games and also hit no niche. For some blockbusters it can work out but for the majority of games you want to find niche/demographic and hit it hard. It can get popular from that like the way survival horror games got wider appeal from just being so good at what they focus on. Or take Yakuza, which primarily targets Japanese men that it actually got plenty popular outside of those demographics because it has focus.

To me this isn't really a topic of 'difficulty'. "Let's make something everyone will like" is not an attitude or business practice that conjures good products or interesting experiences.

Top gatekeeping

Retr0gamer

I adored cuphead. I hadn't played a good contra game since Contra 4 on the DS and found they absolutely nailed the look, gameplay and design of that game. With these types of games though you really need the difficulty to make them fun and rewarding. You really need to design contra type games well otherwise they don't work. There's plenty of contra clones that are complete rubbish because they are either too easy or frustrating and unfair.

But then I think Cuphead also has a great example of an easy mode where you can take on bosses with simplified attack patterns, learn them that way so you are better prepared for taking on the full fat boss. And even with that there's an easy mode that also gives you a lot more health than the standard mode and doesn't penalise progress.

A recent example of bad difficulty is Hollow Knight's final DLC. The Grimm DLC adds a two insanely tough bosses which are actually really fun to fight because there's no punishment to failing and restarts are quick. Really enjoyed learning them.

The final DLC however locks behind the true ending behind boss gauntlets that can last about 45 minutes a run for the last one. And it introduces a number of new or remixed bosses that are insanely hard. There's no save points. You have to do one complete run to beat the game.

That's the point were I gave up on a game I adored up to that point. I put 40 hours into the game and figured it would take me another 40 more to get the training and skills to beat the final pantheon and I just said **** it and moved on. The fact that the canonical ending is hidden behind the challenge is stupid.

Azza

To me a video game must offer some degree of challenge and effort to beat it. It doesn't have to be Dark Souls or X-Com difficult, but playing a game with no challenge to me would feel pretty pointless. If I wanted a good storyline alone, I'd just go read a book or watch a movie as they are still far better in that regard than games.

As I said I think Souls series as a gaming experience is fundamentally designed around overcoming the challenge and if the challenge isn't there you would not be experiencing the game as it was to be intended to be.

If that isn't for you, that's fine and I'm not criticizing anyone for that, but I think its fine just move along and let the people who enjoy these type of games have them. There isn't that many of them anyway.

Quantum Erasure

I'm too young to die

gizmo

Azza wrote: »

To me a video game must offer some degree of challenge and effort to beat it. It doesn't have to be Dark Souls or X-Com difficult, but playing a game with no challenge to me would feel pretty pointless. If I wanted a good storyline alone, I'd just go read a book or watch a movie as they are still far better in that regard than movies.

As I said I think Souls series as a gaming experience is fundamentally designed around overcoming the challenge and if the challenge isn't there you would not be experiencing the game as it was to be intended to be.

If that isn't for you, that's fine and I'm not criticizing anyone for that, but I think its fine just move along and let the people who enjoy these type of games have them. There isn't that many of them anyway.

This only holds true if the aim, or even end result, of the easy mode is to remove the challenge. This absolutely does not need to be the case and is more indicative of a poorly implemented solution. The approach I imagine most would encourage is a scaling of the difficulty so that it offers an experience which is still challenging to someone of a lower skill level without compromising the designers vision for the game.

Retr0gamer

Azza wrote: »

If that isn't for you, that's fine and I'm not criticizing anyone for that, but I think its fine just move along and let the people who enjoy these type of games have them. There isn't that many of them anyway.

This here.

I was so disillusioned during the PS360 era. All the big games were just bubblegum rollercoaster rides that offered no challenge. There were very few games I actually enjoyed and I was hungry for a game with some challenge and gameplay mechanics to sink my teeth into. You'd get the odd game like Ninja Gaiden 2, DMC 4 or a few DS/PSP games like Etrian Odyssey.

Demon's Souls was exactly what I was looking for in a game. I'm glad that it took off and the gaming landscape is diverse enough to offer these types of games alongside the bubblegum rollercoaster games.

Varik

Raising your health, lowering the enemies, boots to damage, or as mentioned parry/block timing only work in certain games. You can also only raise those to a certain point before they just break or render an aspect of the game pointless, if you don't have to solo the ball then it may as well be a different game.

But how does that apply to games where the objective isn't to just kill something.

gizmo

Varik wrote: »

Raising your health, lowering the enemies, boots to damage, or as mentioned parry/block timing only work in certain games. You can also only raise those to a certain point before they just break or render an aspect of the game pointless, if you don't have to solo the ball then it may as well be a different game.

But how does that apply to games where the objective isn't to just kill something.

In that specific example?

• Fade out the Jump instructions slightly once the player has successfully jumped off the cube and is now in the area to the right of it.
• After x seconds, if the player has not made the second jump, highlight the Dash instructions with a subtle pulse or sound effect if necessary.
• Shoot instructions should be moved further to the right to clean up the area as they are irrelevant to what you're currently teaching the player.
• Do not let Dean Takahashi play your game with a recording device unattended.

Arcadeheroes

A more recent game that comes to mind when a game was affected from being too easy is Kirby Star Allies.
A fantastic platformer , but one that got alot of negatives towards it at launch for being too easy , while not offering alot of challenge which resulted in lower scores than it should received

Kyle Hilliard from Game Informer saying that "[Kirby Star Allies] demands so little from the player that I sometimes felt like I was barely involved at all"

not every game needs to have a level of difficulty as high as sekiro , but games that do ask for a certain level of skill , needs to be embraced .
No one should ever demand for a game to have an easy mode as a mandatory option.

Street Fighter 5 is another game that comes to mind that removed all aspects of its Chess like mechanics that saved Fighting games with Street fighter 4 , tried to include mechanics that were more casual friendly and split the SF community down the middle that hurt the game.

if games can benefit both crowds without games being compromised then I am all for it , but there should always should be a system in place that does not jeopardise developers vision

Azza

gizmo wrote: »

This only holds true if the aim, or even end result, of the easy mode is to remove the challenge. This absolutely does not need to be the case and is more indicative of a poorly implemented solution. The approach I imagine most would encourage is a scaling of the difficulty so that it offers an experience which is still challenging to someone of a lower skill level without compromising the designers vision for the game.

But if a game is scaled back to the skill level of the player, is it any longer a challenge?. Does the game just keep scaling back no matter how bad a player is?

Because at some point its no longer a challenge.

Again going back to Sekiro, you are meant to die at the hands of the bosses over and over and suffer and experience some frustration along the way, your meant to get absolutely dominated and think there is no way in hell I can beat this boss. But gradually you get better and come closer and closer to beating them, and as you get closer the pressure mounts on you as well and that can lead to more frustration, but at the end of it sense of satisfaction from doing so is immense. It wouldn't be the same if after 5-10 attempts they start slowing the bosses attack done, nerfing there health and damage, its the game scaling to the plays skill level, not the player rising to the challenge.

Azza

Arcadeheroes wrote: »

Street Fighter 5 is another game that comes to mind that removed all aspects of its Chess like mechanics that saved Fighting games with Street fighter 4 , tried to include mechanics that were more casual friendly and split the SF community down the middle that hurt the game.

I wouldn't say they removed all chess like aspects in SFV but it was made more casual friendly. Street Fighter IV got the same criticism but V went more down the casual road that IV did. Many established SF players did not like IV at all.

Penn

Azza wrote: »

But if a game is scaled back to the skill level of the player, is it any longer a challenge?. Does the game just keep scaling back no matter how bad a player is?

Because at some point its no longer a challenge.

Again going back to Sekiro, you are meant to die at the hands of the bosses over and over and suffer and experience some frustration along the way, your meant to get absolutely dominated and think there is no way in hell I can beat this boss. But gradually you get better and come closer and closer to beating them, and as you get closer the pressure mounts on you as well and that can lead to more frustration, but at the end of it sense of satisfaction from doing so is immense. It wouldn't be the same if after 5-10 attempts they start slowing the bosses attack done, nerfing there health and damage, its the game scaling to the plays skill level, not the player rising to the challenge.

I think though that you're not going to know if you can (or want to) rise to the challenge unless you play the game, at which point you've already bought the game and now part of the game is blocked off to you.

It's like Dara O'Briain's bit on games, that games are the only entertainment medium that if you're not good enough, stops you from progressing, like if you were reading a book it stops you unless you can answer questions about the theme or intentions of the author etc.

Ultimately that's just part of the medium, and there's only so much you cater for different skill levels. But I would still think games should try where possible to offer different difficulty levels (and at least an easy mode) so people can experience the game they've paid for, even if it's a lesser experience due to the reduced difficulty. At least you have a better chance of finishing the game.

gizmo

Azza wrote: »

But if a game is scaled back to the skill level of the player, is it any longer a challenge?. Does the game just keep scaling back no matter how bad a player is?

Because at some point its no longer a challenge.

It's scaled to a level which offers them a challenge suited to their skill level, that's the important distinction here, as I said above it should never indicate a removal of challenge.

Obviously a line will need to be drawn somewhere though as otherwise you're talking about the difference between a fully dynamic difficulty system and an Easy Mode which has been specifically designed to cater for a skill level, just one lower than Normal.

Azza wrote: »

Again going back to Sekiro, you are meant to die at the hands of the bosses over and over and suffer and experience some frustration along the way, your meant to get absolutely dominated and think there is no way in hell I can beat this boss. But gradually you get better and come closer and closer to beating them, and as you get closer the pressure mounts on you as well and that can lead to more frustration, but at the end of it sense of satisfaction from doing so is immense. It wouldn't be the same if after 5-10 attempts they start slowing the bosses attack done, nerfing there health and damage, its the game scaling to the plays skill level, not the player rising to the challenge.

Same as above, whatever about ones feelings about a fully dynamic system like that, I'd happily argue it has no place in a game like Sekiro.

Retr0gamer

To be perfectly honest these supposedly hard games are perfectly surmountable by anyone with even a low amount of skill at videogames. If you get frustrated by what the game demands of you and give up it's kind of on you. It's perfectly fine to move to something else that you will enjoy more but to then call the call garbage is disengenuous.

I recently played Ys Oath in Felghana and every single boss I came up to my initial reaction was 'how in the name of bejaysus am I meant to beat this?' And yet every time I persevered, learnt the pattern, improved my execution and felt immense satisfaction from beating them. That might seem like I invested a massive amount of time into the game but really it amounted to maybe not more than 20 minutes on each boss.

Maybe it's just my experience with videogames. I grew up wit 8 and 16 bit games and the way I looked at it was 'this game is by Nintendo\Konami\Capcom\Falcom etc. They don't make crap games so the boss is beatable' and would keep at it until I won. Those companies make bosses and design levels were every challenge can be beaten without taking any damage if you are good enough. The frustration comes from challenges where you can't avoid damage, that's just bad design. I've played my share of downright frustrating games as well and had to cheese past bosses (PC FPS games from the 90's have the worst bosses!) and can recognize when something is just plain bad design.

AnniePowwa

Retr0gamer wrote: »

To be perfectly honest these supposedly hard games are perfectly surmountable by anyone with even a low amount of skill at videogames. If you get frustrated by what the game demands of you and give up it's kind of on you. It's perfectly fine to move to something else that you will enjoy more but to then call the call garbage is disengenuous.

I recently played Ys Oath in Felghana and every single boss I came up to my initial reaction was 'how in the name of bejaysus am I meant to beat this?' And yet every time I persevered, learnt the pattern, improved my execution and felt immense satisfaction from beating them. That might seem like I invested a massive amount of time into the game but really it amounted to maybe not more than 20 minutes on each boss.

Maybe it's just my experience with videogames. I grew up wit 8 and 16 bit games and the way I looked at it was 'this game is by Nintendo\Konami\Capcom\Falcom etc. They don't make crap games so the boss is beatable' and would keep at it until I won. Those companies make bosses and design levels were every challenge can be beaten without taking any damage if you are good enough. The frustration comes from challenges where you can't avoid damage, that's just bad design. I've played my share of downright frustrating games as well and had to cheese past bosses (PC FPS games from the 90's have the worst bosses!) and can recognize when something is just plain bad design.

The king of video games has spoken, git gud 😂

Potential-Monke

I came here to mention Jedi: Fallen Order, and I see it mentioned on the last page. It is described as being a Souls-type combat but easier. Playing it the last few nights, and I've dropped the difficulty down 2 from Master. Not because it was hard, but because the combat is not fun, but I want to see where the story goes. Even at the easier level, the combat is frustrating and poor. I'd imagine with more powers being unlocked, it'll get more enjoyable, but for now if there's more than a few enemies, it's just frustrating.


I would have stopped playing if lowering the difficulty wasn't an option, and only the story is (barely) keeping me going. So to go back to Dark Souls and its ilk, if there was an option to lower the difficulty I would most likely keep playing to find this story ye keep going on about. Like Fallen Order, I don't enjoy the combat in the From games, but I'd imagine it gets better the further you level up or whatever happens, better weapons, etc. And I would like to explore the world and lore, but not having the option to lower the high bar means I won't.

It was also mentioned above, but all you hear people talk about was how hard it was to beat x boss, or mainly around the combat, and rarely about the story/lore. If the story/lore was as good as ye make out, it would take up a lot more of the conversation imo. Again, I'd like to find out, but the high difficulty is preventing me from it, because I don't believe it's worth the time and effort it will take. I appreciate there are gamers who love a challenge, and it's why they love the From games, but I don't see why a lower difficulty for those who want it would in any way affect ye.

AdamD

Personally I don't find games enjoyable if they offer no challenge. I'm not against having easier difficulties as options but they idea that the should be compulsary is a bit mental. Let the developers do what they want, if you don't like it - don't buy it.

Penn

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

Ask yourself this: what does the difficulty in From Software games add? How does it enhance the other aspects of the game? Because if the only thing it has is the satisfaction of beating a boss after hours of trying then, by that logic, any game can just be made exceptionally difficult and give you the same feeling.

Vampyr is a game where the difficulty is crucial to the experience and playing on anything lower than hard undermines the point which is to tempt you with the prospect of getting stronger by feeding on people who you have come to care for. It follows the Dark Souls combat model but is not merely difficult for the sake of it. It wants to get you to think about the characters. It wants an emotional reaction to the story.

I've seen FS gameplay videos and, other than Sekiro, they're boring AF. Whatever lore or "story" is there does not interest me personally. I stand by my statement that FS won't add difficulty modes because they don't want people to realise that without it being as hardcore as it is their games are average. When the core of the game hinges on only the difficulty for the sake of difficulty there is a problem.

If you say the story and lore is interesting then there should be no reason why FS don't want to add lower difficulty modes for those who just want to explore those aspects of their games.

I've actually come around a lot on the likes of From Software games having played Sekiro and Bloodborne to the point where I agree that the supposed difficulty is overstated. The beginning parts of each game, you die a hell of a lot, but it's about training you in the games systems. In both games, once I learned how to get past the initial stages, that training substantially reduced number of deaths in the rest of the game because of what I'd learned in that first part. The enjoyment of the rest of the game doesn't come from the difficulty, but in the variety of how to attack, the huge number of different types of enemies, encountering new skills or items or mechanics, and gradually levelling up. Yes, you then encounter some bosses or groups of enemies that can kill you a few times and it can be a struggle to get past them, but it rarely feels difficult for the sake of being difficult.

That said, there can be a lot of what I would call induced difficulty in it, including some needlessly difficult mechanics and cumbersome traversal sections (eg. one part in Bloodborne where you have to try descend the inside of a tower using broken platforms, or the Frenzy mechanic in the Nightmare of Mensis section, or Terror mechanic in Sekiro). An argument could be made that these parts are perhaps too difficult during your first playthrough when you don't know how to get around it and can compound frustrations that might already be there, but at the same time there are ways around them. There's also the multiple endings in both games where unless you do some very specific things in a specific order, you lock out good endings even though you have no real way of knowing what you're supposed to do to get those endings.

So I would say the FS games aren't built to be unnecessarily difficult, but they're just outside of what most modern games do that they can seem difficult for the sake of it. At the same time though, I disagree with the regular chants of "You'd enjoy it if you gave it a chance (aka. played it for 20+ hours)". The games definitely aren't for everyone. Sekiro tends to be the black sheep of the SoulsBorne games but I enjoyed it way more than Bloodborne and doubt Demon's Souls remaster will top it either.

Retr0gamer

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

Because if the only thing it has is the satisfaction of beating a boss after hours of trying then, by that logic, any game can just be made exceptionally difficult and give you the same feeling.

That is not how game design works. You can make things artificially hard but it just turns enemies into frustrations or bullet sponges. It's really not that easy. You don't want difficult, you want challenge, where the game challenges the player and gives them satisfaction of overcoming that challenge. That is the difference between good and bad game design and quite frankly From Software are a masters when it comes to game design. They are on another level up there with the likes of Nintendo EAD

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

I've seen FS gameplay videos and, other than Sekiro, they're boring AF. Whatever lore or "story" is there does not interest me personally.

Playing them and watching them is a completely different experience. You can't judge it from just watching it. Take it from someone that has actually played them, the Souls games have some of the best combat in any videogame. It's nuanced, tactical and there is a huge amount of scope for variety given to the player on how to approach it. It's far from a dumbed down button masher. And it's not just me that thinks it, it's a common held view of people that actually played them.

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

I stand by my statement that FS won't add difficulty modes because they don't want people to realise that without it being as hardcore as it is their games are average. When the core of the game hinges on only the difficulty for the sake of difficulty there is a problem.

Partially right. From Software games wouldn't be the games they are if they were less difficult. They would much worse experiences. However to say that Dark Souls is difficult for the sake of being difficult is quite frankly factually incorrect. It's challenging but perfectly surmountable. It's a perfectly design challenge curve that keeps things interesting and constantly feeds the player rewards to keep persevering.

Again there's a difference between challenging and difficult for the sake of difficult and the difference is good game design. Dark Souls is unarguably an amazing well designed game whereas say a Naughty Dog game stuck up to the hardest difficulty for me is artificially hard, frustrating and not fun at all.

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

If you say the story and lore is interesting then there should be no reason why FS don't want to add lower difficulty modes for those who just want to explore those aspects of their games.

But again you aren't getting it. Souls games aren't normal games where you get spoon fed the story through codices or cutscenes. It's mostly delivered through the environment and through gameplay. The whole point of the story is the players struggle through these hardships. It's a personal story. And while it's weaker in the sequels it's absolutely paramount to the original Dark Souls and feeds into the overall narrative.

actuallylike

I don't expect an author to write a slimmed down, easily digestible version of their book just so ol' thicko here can 'get it' so I kind of feel the same about games. The accessibility options in TLOU2 opened my eyes to how much they can do, but that's a huge developer with the means to do that. For an indie dev, they're just trying to get their vision out and shouldn't be shamed for "excluding people"

As well, to keep with books. They can be made accessible through cliff notes, Braille versions or audiobooks. But often/mainly, that is out of the hands of the author so not on them. With a game the developer has to be 100% involved/responsible for making it more accessible.

Greyfox

AdamD wrote: »

Let the developers do what they want, if you don't like it - don't buy it.

The thing is developers want their games to sell as many copies as possible so it makes sense for them to cater for people who want a bit more help. It doesnt have to be an easy mode, it could just be a little unintrusive assist when the game knows a player is struggling.

nix

Greyfox wrote: »

The thing is developers want their games to sell as many copies as possible so it makes sense for them to cater for people who want a bit more help. It doesnt have to be an easy mode, it could just be a little unintrusive assist when the game knows a player is struggling.

Some developers like to try and make a great game and take pride in their work and are lucky to be given the freedom and resources to do so, and then some are hired to make a game that will make the company they work for a lot of money, quality be damned.

The prior being the likes of From software/Rockstar/Capcom, with the former being EA/UBI/Square and the absolute bollocks they shovel out :pac: