Easy mode =/= accessibility.

[Strategos]

In a classroom of x-grade/course level students:

Accessibility = Using any combination of audio-visual aid, writing/keyboard tools, etc. to help impaired students learn the curriculum presented at a required level.

Easy Mode = Dropping the curriculum a grade/course level or two for certain students because ?reasons? and then saying they ?passed? it like everyone else.

But... most educational systems do have multiple grades, of differing difficulty, depending on the student's capability.

In this analogy, surely arguing against difficulty modes would be arguing that remedial students and advanced students must take the same classes and perform the same tests, capability be damned. Which would be a terrible idea.

The intent there was that a particular class (whatever grade or course level it may be) represents a particular game. Sure, some students far behind or beyond its level of challenge may be able to complete it, but those who enroll or ?play? it are subjected to the same curriculum or challenges. It ties into the fact that again, not ?every? game needs to or even should be appealing to ?everyone?.

 

[Silvanus]

The intent there was that a particular class (whatever grade or course level it may be) represents a particular game. Sure, some students far behind or beyond its level of challenge may be able to complete it, but those who enroll or ?play? it are subjected to the same curriculum or challenges. It ties into the fact that again, not ?every? game needs to or even should be appealing to ?everyone?.

That's nonsensical. That means that in that analogy, a class doing Maths at grade 1 and a class doing Maths at grade 2 both represent entirely distinct games, even though the course is the same and only the difficulty level is different.

The only way to make the analogy work is for the course to represent the game. In which case, children can be enrolled at different difficulty levels (grades), suited to their capability.

Also, nobody here at all is arguing that games must appeal to everyone. That has never been the argument.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

As I said in the other thread on this...define "difficulty". And as I said in the other thread, the gaming industry has woefully inadequate answers considering it's almost exclusively reliant on definitions and trends from the "quarter-muncher" days. So with that in mind...

However, increasing health (or alternatively damage absorption, or healing capability) would result in mistakes being less punishing during a single run. The player would still need to learn to overcome the monster's moveset, but each run would be more forgiving in letting them learn it.

Even this is a means I don't think quite works, least of all for any good-faith discussion of actual accessibility in games. And no, I don't believe for a microsecond many of the high and virtuous advocates for "accessibility" are acting in good faith here.

As I said in the other thread, I believe the answer lies in...Halo 2 and Half-Life 2. And, now that I think of it, add to that Left 4 Dead and Alien: Isolation. Why? Those four games in particular have artificially intelligent enemies (well, storyteller in L4D's case) whose higher-order behaviors (and learning) are gated behind "difficulty" level. The typical "difficulty" cliches are there too, but the core experience hinges primarily around the enemies being smarter and deadlier, with a wider variety of moves and behaviors available to them which mandate higher-order play to beat.

How does that translate to accessibility without disrupting (real) difficulty? And I'll do you one better -- what I'm about to propose could actually allow players more ability to craft their own experiences which may actually be harder than "hard" modes themselves.

Well, let's say you have a sensory processing disorder and are prone to overstimulation and hypersensitivity. Well, you might be able to open the game's accessibility options, which would have a decent-sized list of options and check the best-fitting box(es). This gates enemies from using behaviors that might unduly tax a player with sensory processing issues, like for example attempting to flush a player out with grenades or using suppressive fire, but leave the rest of the enemies' behavior trees intact or even privilege one or two enemy types or behaviors that could still prove troublesome (like perhaps stealth-based tactics) in higher difficulty settings.

Anxiety problems that prove problematic in games that rely on jump scares? Click that box, and enemies' stealthy or flanking behaviors get gated...but on higher difficulties that game compensates by spawning enemies that are tough, but fond of frontal attacks with heavy defense. In Halo terms, fewer jackal snipers and stealth elites, but (on higher difficulty) more brutes and hunters. I don't even have anxiety problems that make jump scares problematic, but I'd love to see an option like that and would play it in a heartbeat...I hate jackals, love brutes and hunters.

Poor reflexes and/or hand-eye coordination is another common issue raised when it comes to these discussions. How about a "no-twitch" accessibility mode, where enemies' behavior trees are modified to heavily favor "swing for the parking lot" moves that are typically telegraphed and easily interrupted or avoided. At higher difficulties that translates directly to enemies that just do not fuck around, running around potentially spamming "uber" moves. But if you see it coming and have ample time to react, you can deal with it.

What I'm talking about, is using AI to provide challenges derived dynamically from a player's input preferences and disabilities. I'm not even suggesting anything particularly complex, here, simply flagging a branch or individual behavior in an entire tree as no-use based upon check boxes in an options screen; this is something that literally already happens as a matter of course. And I'm using a game that came out fifteen years ago, discussing it in the context of how simply gating behaviors and enemy spawns alone can create wildly variable scenarios that don't just cater to disabled gamers, but cater to individual types of disabilities and the ramifications those types can have on game play.

From a broad design-based perspective, rocket science this is not. Actually programming AI to perform this kind of behavior, yeah that's pretty much rocket science nowadays...and that's not a comparison I make flippantly, considering (counting marketing) MW2 cost more than TESS and GTAV cost about the same if not a little bit more than the Kepler Space Telescope (the $550 million listed on the 'net includes allocations and operating costs over the course of its decade-long mission).

These sorts of design decisions are the way forward...for everyone, not just one particular class of gamer, differently-abled or "hardcore". It's fucking criminal a game released twenty-one years ago is still considered the gold standard for enemy AI, not when it can and should be a defining characteristic of accessibility in games today.

 

[wings012]

My issue with From games(and other 'difficult games') is less their difficulty and more how unforgiving they are. Also to a lesser extent a complaint I have with checkpoint based systems vs player controlled saves.

You die, you lose a lot of shit and you might die again trying to recover them. Sometimes dying to certain bosses require you to run through a gauntlet of nonsense just to get back to the boss room.

Then there's some status effects which just completely bugger you over. Getting cursed in DS1 was some utter nonsense and it just made me farm easy shit to buy purging stones.

I don't think the Souls experience would be too watered down if they just threw a few more bonfires around the place. One before each boss room. Maybe a soul bank mechanic rather than being forced to lug it all around when saving enough to level up when at higher levels. This would just allow players to focus better on parts they have trouble instead of just being repeatedly kicked when they are down.

Though on a side note, I'm completely fine with games just not being for absolutely everyone.

 

[Silvanus]

Even this is a means I don't think quite works, least of all for any good-faith discussion of actual accessibility in games. And no, I don't believe for a microsecond many of the high and virtuous advocates for "accessibility" are acting in good faith here.

Hmmm. I'm sure we'll find it easy to have some kind of amicable discussion, in that case.

As I said in the other thread, I believe the answer lies in...Halo 2 and Half-Life 2. And, now that I think of it, add to that Left 4 Dead and Alien: Isolation. Why? Those four games in particular have artificially intelligent enemies (well, storyteller in L4D's case) whose higher-order behaviors (and learning) are gated behind "difficulty" level. The typical "difficulty" cliches are there too, but the core experience hinges primarily around the enemies being smarter and deadlier, with a wider variety of moves and behaviors available to them which mandate higher-order play to beat.

How does that translate to accessibility without disrupting (real) difficulty? And I'll do you one better -- what I'm about to propose could actually allow players more ability to craft their own experiences which may actually be harder than "hard" modes themselves.

Well, let's say you have a sensory processing disorder and are prone to overstimulation and hypersensitivity. Well, you might be able to open the game's accessibility options, which would have a decent-sized list of options and check the best-fitting box(es). This gates enemies from using behaviors that might unduly tax a player with sensory processing issues, like for example attempting to flush a player out with grenades or using suppressive fire, but leave the rest of the enemies' behavior trees intact or even privilege one or two enemy types or behaviors that could still prove troublesome (like perhaps stealth-based tactics) in higher difficulty settings.

Anxiety problems that prove problematic in games that rely on jump scares? Click that box, and enemies' stealthy or flanking behaviors get gated...but on higher difficulties that game compensates by spawning enemies that are tough, but fond of frontal attacks with heavy defense. In Halo terms, fewer jackal snipers and stealth elites, but (on higher difficulty) more brutes and hunters. I don't even have anxiety problems that make jump scares problematic, but I'd love to see an option like that and would play it in a heartbeat...I hate jackals, love brutes and hunters.

Poor reflexes and/or hand-eye coordination is another common issue raised when it comes to these discussions. How about a "no-twitch" accessibility mode, where enemies' behavior trees are modified to heavily favor "swing for the parking lot" moves that are typically telegraphed and easily interrupted or avoided. At higher difficulties that translates directly to enemies that just do not fuck around, running around potentially spamming "uber" moves. But if you see it coming and have ample time to react, you can deal with it.

What I'm talking about, is using AI to provide challenges derived dynamically from a player's input preferences and disabilities. I'm not even suggesting anything particularly complex, here, simply flagging a branch or individual behavior in an entire tree as no-use based upon check boxes in an options screen; this is something that literally already happens as a matter of course. And I'm using a game that came out fifteen years ago, discussing it in the context of how simply gating behaviors and enemy spawns alone can create wildly variable scenarios that don't just cater to disabled gamers, but cater to individual types of disabilities and the ramifications those types can have on game play.

From a broad design-based perspective, rocket science this is not. Actually programming AI to perform this kind of behavior, yeah that's pretty much rocket science nowadays...and that's not a comparison I make flippantly, considering (counting marketing) MW2 cost more than TESS and GTAV cost about the same if not a little bit more than the Kepler Space Telescope (the $550 million listed on the 'net includes allocations and operating costs over the course of its decade-long mission).

These sorts of design decisions are the way forward...for everyone, not just one particular class of gamer, differently-abled or "hardcore". It's fucking criminal a game released twenty-one years ago is still considered the gold standard for enemy AI, not when it can and should be a defining characteristic of accessibility in games today.

All of this is stuff I could wholeheartedly get behind. Now, you're talking about AI options and compartmentalisation which is quite a bit more sophisticated than what we have in HL2 or Alien: Isolation, but not out of the reach of the AAA developers.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

All of this is stuff I could wholeheartedly get behind. Now, you're talking about AI options and compartmentalisation which is quite a bit more sophisticated than what we have in HL2 or Alien: Isolation, but not out of the reach of the AAA developers.

On the level I'm discussing, not really. The techniques I brought up -- behavior tree/state gating, discretionary spawning -- are already in use and have been for 15-20 years; all I'm suggesting is re-purposing them for accessibility options as opposed to straightforward and mostly linear "difficulty" levels. But, what I'm suggesting is using AI to enhance accessibility in the most primitive and simple terms and means available, as a starting point.

 

[Schadrach]

I understand that you are applying this to the SoulsBorneiro games, which only have one difficulty setting. I'm just wondering if that mindset of "get good, or play something else" would apply to, say, the Mario series.

That just makes me wish for a "Games Journalist Mode" hack for one of the Mario games where all the bottomless pits have a platform over them so you can't fall in and you need to get hit 5 times to lose a powerup or kill Mario.

You know, to make the game more accessible. That wouldn't really change the experience, after all.

 

[Dalisclock]

My issue with From games(and other 'difficult games') is less their difficulty and more how unforgiving they are. Also to a lesser extent a complaint I have with checkpoint based systems vs player controlled saves.

You die, you lose a lot of shit and you might die again trying to recover them. Sometimes dying to certain bosses require you to run through a gauntlet of nonsense just to get back to the boss room.

Then there's some status effects which just completely bugger you over. Getting cursed in DS1 was some utter nonsense and it just made me farm easy shit to buy purging stones.

I don't think the Souls experience would be too watered down if they just threw a few more bonfires around the place. One before each boss room. Maybe a soul bank mechanic rather than being forced to lug it all around when saving enough to level up when at higher levels. This would just allow players to focus better on parts they have trouble instead of just being repeatedly kicked when they are down.

Though on a side note, I'm completely fine with games just not being for absolutely everyone.

I don't think the Souls Experience would be watered down if they had included proper player training at the beginning instead of just throwing you at a boss with a broken sword and like "Here ya go. Git Gud!". Or if they had fixed the Bed of Chaos Boss fight at some point instead of just adding a "Boss retains damage" mechanic. Or if they had fixed the general jankiness like enemies being able to hit you through walls, which certainly doesn't apply to you. Enemy arrows that will curve to hit you. I could go on all day.

I've brought this up numerous times in the other thread. I was mostly ignored. FROMSOFT has plenty of places they could easily fix and rebalance to make the game more fair without having to make it easy, but apparently jankiness is the intended experience.

 

[happyninja42]

As someone who hasn't played any of the From Soft games, primarily because they are only known for "being brutally hard and will make you throw your controller across the room" kind of stuff. That and I just really don't like the asthetic design choice for Dark Souls at all. I loaded up the first game, played for like an hour, didn't like the look of the world at all, and frankly got really tired of having the shit beat out of me over and over.

My amount of time I have to game is limited, due to things like work and a wife, and god children and friends. So the idea of "you must smash your face against this game for hours on end, to make any amount of measurable improvement, only to then move onto a new brutal enemy that will just start the whole process over" is frankly not appealing at all. I have better things to do with my time than try and git gud.

So yeah, an easy mode would actually make me consider buying their games and playing them. I don't find enjoyment from frustration and torture, I find enjoyment from the story of a game, and me moving through that story. The difficulty of the enemies, to the extreme that From Soft likes to use, isn't a draw, it's detracts for me.

Also, having an easy mode doesn't negatively impact anyone that doesn't use it, just like the millions of games that have had an easy mode that people never used before.

That's what I don't get. Some people in this discussion act like easy mode is some new concept, and that it hasn't been in video games for decades, longer than some of these Git Gudders have been alive. Did the fact that other games they really loved had an easy mode (that they never likely used in the first place), detract from the quality/enjoyment of that game? No, of course not, because it had zero impact on their experience. Why? Because they never used it.

 

[Xprimentyl]

As someone who hasn't played any of the From Soft games, primarily because they are only known for "being brutally hard and will make you throw your controller across the room" kind of stuff. That and I just really don't like the asthetic design choice for Dark Souls at all. I loaded up the first game, played for like an hour, didn't like the look of the world at all, and frankly got really tired of having the shit beat out of me over and over.

My amount of time I have to game is limited, due to things like work and a wife, and god children and friends. So the idea of "you must smash your face against this game for hours on end, to make any amount of measurable improvement, only to then move onto a new brutal enemy that will just start the whole process over" is frankly not appealing at all. I have better things to do with my time than try and git gud.

So yeah, an easy mode would actually make me consider buying their games and playing them. I don't find enjoyment from frustration and torture, I find enjoyment from the story of a game, and me moving through that story. The difficulty of the enemies, to the extreme that From Soft likes to use, isn't a draw, it's detracts for me.

Also, having an easy mode doesn't negatively impact anyone that doesn't use it, just like the millions of games that have had an easy mode that people never used before.

That's what I don't get. Some people in this discussion act like easy mode is some new concept, and that it hasn't been in video games for decades, longer than some of these Git Gudders have been alive. Did the fact that other games they really loved had an easy mode (that they never likely used in the first place), detract from the quality/enjoyment of that game? No, of course not, because it had zero impact on their experience. Why? Because they never used it.

The ?git guds? would argue that the difficulty of a Souls game is its ?point? and that mitigating it in any way as overtly as an optional setting that changes the game from its intended experience isn?t playing the ?real? game and instead, we should just accept that the game isn?t ?for? some people and those not willing to play the ?real? game should just go play something else. Oh, and they don?t think the Souls games NEED to change, a response to an argument no proponent of an optional easy mode ever made and one that those same proponents largely agree with.

 

[Wakey87]

Like it or not From Software has made a name for themselfs for making games that are brutaly hard, I wonder whether they would of had the same fame if their games could of been beat in an evening and thrown in the bargain bin.

 

[Avnger]

Like it or not From Software has made a name for themselfs for making games that are brutaly hard, I wonder whether they would of had the same fame if their games could of been beat in an evening and thrown in the bargain bin.

For the ten thousandth time, no one has suggested or demanded that FromSoft change anything about the current difficulty mode. There's been requests that an easier (and a harder cause, why not) option be added in addition.

 

[Wakey87]

Like it or not From Software has made a name for themselfs for making games that are brutaly hard, I wonder whether they would of had the same fame if their games could of been beat in an evening and thrown in the bargain bin.

For the 10 thousandth time, no one has suggested or demanded that FromSoft change anything about the current difficulty mode. There's been requests that an easier (and a harder cause, why not) option be added in addition.

I think you missed my point, its the fact there isn't an easy mode that has made that reputation. There are hundreds of games with exteme difficulty settings but no one bats an eye lid because people don't actualy play a difficulty they struggle with.

 

[Silvanus]

I think you missed my point, its the fact there isn't an easy mode that has made that reputation.

That's sure as hell not why I heard about it. That'd be a very silly basis for a reputation.

 

[Wakey87]

I think you missed my point, its the fact there isn't an easy mode that has made that reputation.

That's sure as hell not why I heard about it. That'd be a very silly basis for a reputation.

I actualy love hard games; Splunky, ghosts and goblins, SMB2J. I'm actualy fine with having games that progress difficulty to a point I am no longer able to continue. But I feel if I came to a point I was struggling in Normal mode I would probably just end up giving up early thinking I just choice the wrong difficulty.

I understand that accessability might be a problem for some people tho, how about we meet half way and bring back good old cheat codes? That way it doesn't cheapen the experience for people who want to play legit but gives people a chance to see atleast more of the game. I'd prefer them to be patched in at a later date tho so people actualy try to play legit at launch (considering we now have the internet) and even then I don't want them to be an selectable option but a code you have to look up online.

I guess this would mean you character would be blocked from any online stuff tho.

 

[Saelune]

If people want Dark Souls to be easier, look up how to play the game. Don't play a fucking wizard. Kill the merchant and take his sword, THATS easy mode.

I realize that my problem with 'get good' as a response isn't that I disagree with it, it is that it doesn't answer how to 'get good'. If someone says 'I am having trouble with Dark Souls, any advice?', the response should be 'Well, here are some tips' and then list some tips.

 

[CritialGaming]

If people want Dark Souls to be easier, look up how to play the game. Don't play a fucking wizard. Kill the merchant and take his sword, THATS easy mode.

I realize that my problem with 'get good' as a response isn't that I disagree with it, it is that it doesn't answer how to 'get good'. If someone says 'I am having trouble with Dark Souls, any advice?', the response should be 'Well, here are some tips' and then list some tips.

I've never been given the "get gud" response in places in which I've asked for help with a DS game. I know that the "get Gud" is a troll answer that people kind of tease each other with, but that remark is also always mixed in with genuine tips for the section where help is requested.

It's one of the reasons why I never understood when people say the Souls community is toxic or gatekeepy. I mean if you struggle just look for summon signs and summon someone. Or put your own sign down and get summoned into the section that's hard to try and help someone else through it and learn how to do it yourself by proxy or just get advice from reddit, or some other forum. This is literally a problem I've never had in asking for help through four different games.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I understand that accessability might be a problem for some people tho, how about we meet half way and bring back good old cheat codes? That way it doesn't cheapen the experience for people who want to play legit but gives people a chance to see atleast more of the game. I'd prefer them to be patched in at a later date tho so people actualy try to play legit at launch (considering we now have the internet) and even then I don't want them to be an selectable option but a code you have to look up online.

So, instead of an option that lessens the difficulty but still allows lesser-skilled players to experience the core-if-less-punishing gameplay, an acceptable compromise would be cheat codes that literally disregard and break the core game experience because obviously that?s just as good as gameplay tailored to one?s particular skill set?

Well, at least you?re giving us ?pro-option? folks something? I guess?

If people want Dark Souls to be easier, look up how to play the game. Don't play a fucking wizard. Kill the merchant and take his sword, THATS easy mode.

I realize that my problem with 'get good' as a response isn't that I disagree with it, it is that it doesn't answer how to 'get good'. If someone says 'I am having trouble with Dark Souls, any advice?', the response should be 'Well, here are some tips' and then list some tips.

Simply telling someone ?how? doesn?t mean it immediately follows that they then ?can.? I?ve watched countless videos on how to beat Kalameet, and to this day, he remains the only boss in DS1 that I have never beaten.

 

[Wakey87]

I understand that accessability might be a problem for some people tho, how about we meet half way and bring back good old cheat codes? That way it doesn't cheapen the experience for people who want to play legit but gives people a chance to see atleast more of the game. I'd prefer them to be patched in at a later date tho so people actualy try to play legit at launch (considering we now have the internet) and even then I don't want them to be an selectable option but a code you have to look up online.

So, instead of an option that lessens the difficulty but still allows lesser-skilled players to experience the core-if-less-punishing gameplay, an acceptable compromise would be cheat codes that literally disregard and break the core game experience because obviously that?s just as good as gameplay tailored to one?s particular skill set?

Well, at least you?re giving us ?pro-option? folks something? I guess?

Pro-option folk? Didn't know you guys had your own movement lol. If we are talking about options theres plenty of games with difficulty settings can't we have just a few that dont?

My point of cheat codes is that it isn't as good as one tailored to ones skill level. as much as I hate the phrase 'get good' for the same reasons as Saelune brought up. It's a damn shame if we don't have games anymore that expect you to get good.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I don't even understand why people like to frame difficulty as an issue of accessibility. You can have all the access to the peak of mount Everest in the world, it's not gonna do you one iota of good if you lack the capacity for mountain climbing. And no, taking a helicopter ride or being carried by a mule part of the way up is not the same as climbing the mountain.


People have equal access to a game no matter its difficulty. The same way someone who is blind will be unable to enjoy the graphics of a game (but can still actually play pretty well, I saw this video of a blind fighting game player winning matches based on sound ques alone) but that isn't something that's the fault of a game is the same way that someone who is bad at action games won't be able to experience all of souls games or Sekiro. It's just a part of life and why we feel bad for those people. I guess sucking at games isn't treated as the disability it really is in modern society.