Do we need "easy mode" any more?

[Gamer_152]

Absolutely, I think it's very easy for us to get stuck into our little bubble of thinking that the dedicated kind of gamers you see on these forums represent all gamers, but the matter of the fact is there are a lot of people out there who don't play games on as regular a basis as we do, and value easy mode.

 

[Laser Priest]

Different people like different things.

An easier difficulty for inexperienced players or players who want shenanigans without risking their hide is always welcome. Lessening your variety is simply a stupid choice altogether.

 

[A.A.K]

- snip -

I always play on easy.
The only time I play a game on something else, is when I'm playing with friends and they're harassing me about achievement points.

Why? because I never want to be frustrated when playing a game. I have never enjoyed frustration, and the only time I play games is when I'm recovering or it's too late in the day to paint or train.
So when I play games I want relaxed fun. Challenge is fine, but if I get frustrated, I put down the game and don't usually play it for a few months.


...This is also why I never play online, I hate playing with people who spend hours a day on a game, particularly online. They're there to win and have some competitive fun..
I don't.

 

[Nazulu]

You need an easy mode for those who don't have great skills or are just slowly get into gaming. Sometimes you don't want to play a challenging game as well, it's a great option to have.

That said, I don't support options to cheat from the beginning, and I don't believe every single game has to have different difficulties.

 

[somonels]

Yes we will need an easy mode because we should make the new normal the current hard mode.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I'm a fan of games that have authentic difficulty, balance around that difficulty, but feature an easy mode for players who want a lower level of difficulty.

 

[neoontime]

But.....But....I naturally suck at video games. Seriously, every game I try I'll fail miserably at. This is ignorant to the few who just suck at so many things.

 

[Evil Cabbage]

I think FFXIII-2 did a good thing in having an easy mode ... But a bad thing in not having a hard mode . I think every game should have 3 difficulties . That's the easiest way to make a game more accessible and widen the audience .

I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment (in regards to both FFXIII-2 and games in general). At the end of the day, people play games for different reasons and in different circumstances.

Some people need the 'easy' mode due to a lack of experience with games, and, simultaneously, others need a 'hard' mode in order for a game to conform to their expectations.

Generally, I'm a person who likes to play on 'normal'. However, sometimes (particularly when I'm tired), I may knock the difficulty down to sustain my enjoyment. Similarly, if I particularly enjoy a game's mechanics, I might play on 'hard' to enjoy that game in a different way.

So to answer the OP, 'easy mode' has existed and still exists because there are people who demand it (the same can be said for 'hard mode').

 

[this account is gay]

I let my pride get the best of me when I'm playing games. I never play on anything other than the highest possible difficulty. It teaches me to be better, because if something is killing me repeatedly, I have to learn a new strategy, or a different path to get past it. It does get quite annoying, but it's also fun. (To me.)
When I was younger, I did the same thing. I think. I may have put it to normal, then up to the highest. I don't really remember.

OT: Yes, but for other people. Not me.

 

[Mitzeh]

Some people need the easy mode either for allowing them to actually complete the game or to let them have a bit more fun and freedom...I for one never play on easy mode, even if the game is completely new I always go with normal difficulty because if I play on easy I tend to get bored fast. I need a sense of achievement when I do something in a game and if I play on easy I just don't get that.
Anyway, I don't feel the need to use the mode but having it there doesn't bother me in no way and it is a useful feature. And it being an option and allowing the player to choose if he wants it or not is good and developers should try and make varied difficulty settings as people that play games vary as well. To each his own, right?

 

[Signa]

I think it depends on the game. So many "normal" modes feel like they are just easy mode, and easy mode feels like it thinks you're a child. It wouldn't be so offensively stupid if it weren't for the fact most of the games I've noticed this in are aimed at adults.

 

[jklinders]

I don't see any reason not to have an easy mode. I usually play normal or sometimes easy depending on the game because while I enjoy gaming, I do not want to be frustrated by repeated save loads after a long hard day at work. I play games as part of my wind down routine and excessive difficulty is a deterrent rather than a benefit to this.

I see no real need for the question as having an easy mode does not hurt the higher difficulties at all. Regardless of what you call it, the lowest difficulty is easy.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

I like a four tier system

Easy: The enemies are weaker and/or have more simple AI (eg. rush right into the path of your bullets) You are stronger, you have more health, there are hints and tips on screen, a fully comprehensive HUD etc etc

Normal: Enemies are at normal strength and somewhat tactically minded (use cover, flank, use grenades) You are at normal strength, no extra health. No hints and tips on screen, HUD contains basic information.

Hard: Enemies are stronger and/or have good AI (lots of grenade use, always in cover or flanking, better at dodging). You are at normal strength but possibly it is harder to find health (in a game with health packs) or you lose it easier. No hints or tips on screen, HUD has things taken away (map, ammo counter, other things)

Very Hard: Enemies won't leave cover ever, except to flank you with their much much stronger buddies using a tactical nuke. You are weaker, and it is easier to lose your health, which is lowered as well. Ammo and health packs are sparse, and your HUD is stripped down to the bare necessities (health counter, ammo counter, targeting reticule) This mode only unlocked through gameplay.

I like easy modes for two reasons:

1. If I want to enjoy the story, I don't want to get bogged down on one particularly difficult section, I want to breeze through to watch the cutscenes.

2. Sometimes I like to feel like an invincible immortal unstoppable badass tearing through waves of enemies like they're papier mache.

 

[RJ 17]

I'd say that easy mode is still necessary. For a utilitarian purpose it makes for a good way to run through a game getting all the collectables and secrets that you missed on your first playthrough. I normally try to get everything that I can get done on my own on my first playthrough of a game, playing on Normal or even Hard (if it's a game/series that I'm pretty experienced at). After I've given it my best shot, I bust out gamefaqs for all the secrets I missed, pop it onto Easy, and go collectable hunting and such.

But beyond that, I think it's mostly to keep the games accessible to more people. Some games ae just flat-out harder than others, having a way to nerf it down a bit lets inexperienced players get a chance to experience the game - perhaps even learn the tricks needed to improve - without getting their faces smashed in every five minutes.

 

[k-ossuburb]

I don't understand, what changed? There's always been easy difficulty in games for the people of lower skill levels. Why would we not need that anymore, especially now that gaming has diversified? If it worked in the past it stands to reason the system will continue now.

How about instead of putting the pressure on us to defend a system that gaming has openly embraced for decades why doesn't OP give us an explanation for why he thinks we don't need easy mode anymore.

I'm merely saying that, technically, you don't really need an "easy" or a "hard" mode if you can simply apply them gradually with a difficulty curve which makes the game ramp up the challenge fairly. Using EgoRaptor's example in Megaman X, he showed that the game doesn't need a difficulty setting because the challenge ramps up gradually anyway from "easy" to "hard" later on in the game but it also presents mechanics in an easy-to-follow and unfrustrating way by presenting them in-game instead of through prompts or cutscenes by demonstrating them as you play.

Some games have no difficulty settings to them, I'm not saying "easy mode" is a bad thing, I'm just wondering why it's still around when it's entirely possible to have a game that doesn't require them. A fair number of Nintendo games, fighting games and some of the older generations like the Ultima series did perfectly well without difficulty settings at all. My argument is not that "easy mode" is a bad thing, just that it might be unnecessary with the application of intelligent game design.

By all means, keep it, it's a good thing to have in certain types of games, I'm just saying that it's not something that every game must have.

 

[k-ossuburb]

Wow what an elitist question. I guess you forgot all about how frustrated you were when you were new to gaming and some games just wiped the floor with you over and over.

I used to play with easy mode AND cheats when I was younger, and on some games I still hit a wall.

It's not elitist in the slightest, I'm not saying it doesn't serve a purpose nor am I saying "LOL YOU SHOULD ALL BE PLAYING ON TEH HARD MODE BECOZ DAT MAEK YOU A REEL GAMER LOLOLOL!" I'm merely saying it's seems like something that we could easily drop and not really lose out on if it actually vanished completely.

Take games like Kirby for example, the difficulty is actually very easy, but there is no "easy mode", it's just an easy game and is designed specifically to be fun, cute and casual for a specific audience and it's a game I play a lot despite this because I do enjoy it for its elegance in design and ability to just be a "put-in-and-play" game that doesn't require too much over-thinking of things.

Then there are games like The Binding Of Isaac, again, another game with no difficulty settings at all, yet remains a difficult game that requires repeated play-throughs to fully comprehend. This is a little bit of an old-school "see how many coins we can get you to pump into the machine" style of gameplay, but it works for the game and TBoI is a very successful game because of its inventiveness and challenge which says that you can get past this boss next time, try again. There's an obvious Skinner Box addictive quality to it that makes it an enjoyable game for a specific type of gamer who's willing to put up with that kind of design.

Then there are various fighting, sports and racing games, which also don't have a difficulty setting simply because how well you do in those kinds of games is purely about how well you know the mechanics, again, this is something for a specific type of gamer but the requirement for any difficulty setting is null-and-void because of the way the game is designed.

There's also my previous example of EgoRaptor's take on Megaman X. He showed that a difficulty setting is also not really required when you design a game elegantly enough that it doesn't need one. If you have a difficulty curve which gradually ramps up the difficulty as you play but also presents new mechanics in an easy-to-understand and un-frustrating manner then the requirement to make things easier seems redundant.

Some games do need a difficulty setting, I understand that, but it's not a requirement in every game and it's a testament to the games design and mechanics if you're capable of making a game that doesn't require a difficulty setting at all because it simply holds to a specific oeuvre that makes the challenge inherent in the design instead of an arbitrary three-tier (or four-tier) system. Some games require no challenge at all (Kirby) and some games require a lot of challenge (TBoI, Ninja Gaiden) but don't need to have you select your challenge level because it's inherent to the game's design and mechanics from the start.

 

[jklinders]

I don't understand, what changed? There's always been easy difficulty in games for the people of lower skill levels. Why would we not need that anymore, especially now that gaming has diversified? If it worked in the past it stands to reason the system will continue now.

How about instead of putting the pressure on us to defend a system that gaming has openly embraced for decades why doesn't OP give us an explanation for why he thinks we don't need easy mode anymore.

I'm merely saying that, technically, you don't really need an "easy" or a "hard" mode if you can simply apply them gradually with a difficulty curve which makes the game ramp up the challenge fairly. Using EgoRaptor's example in Megaman X, he showed that the game doesn't need a difficulty setting because the challenge ramps up gradually anyway from "easy" to "hard" later on in the game but it also presents mechanics in an easy-to-follow and unfrustrating way by presenting them in-game instead of through prompts or cutscenes by demonstrating them as you play.

Some games have no difficulty settings to them, I'm not saying "easy mode" is a bad thing, I'm just wondering why it's still around when it's entirely possible to have a game that doesn't require them. A fair number of Nintendo games, fighting games and some of the older generations like the Ultima series did perfectly well without difficulty settings at all. My argument is not that "easy mode" is a bad thing, just that it might be unnecessary with the application of intelligent game design.

By all means, keep it, it's a good thing to have in certain types of games, I'm just saying that it's not something that every game must have.

I get what you are saying but I do not agree that it is a worthwhile way to do it.

There will be gamers who will resent the handholding at the beginning of the game and others who will not not be able to crest the difficulty curve at the top and resent not being able to finish the game. In other words the current system works just fine. Why break it by trying to fix it? Why are having options to set difficulty apparently a bad thing? You say you do not have a problem with them but you are arguing against the need for them. They may not be needed but they make the playing experience better for those both t the upper and lower end of the skill spectrum.

Discuss.