Easy mode =/= accessibility.

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Hey, let's talk about a game that's the target of my latest obsession for a minute. Subnautica.

Which is a game that is essentially designed from the ground up to prey on the near-universal fear of the unknown, that renders it extremely challenging to play for gamers with anxiety issues -- to the point that it is one of the more-common complaints cited when people stop playing it, that I've found, and a commonly-cited warning by reviewers and critics. But at the same time it's eminently accessible, and the devs constantly tap their community for suggestions as to how to improve it. But, sadly, all the accessibility options in the world may not make it accessible to gamers with anxiety-related issues, so long as the core of its game play relies upon tension, anxiety, and terror.

But, it's also one of the easiest survival-exploration games on the market, most of all for the fact the game's perceived challenge level is a paper tiger. None of the game's fauna are particularly lethal, staying fed and hydrated are trivial, and not drowning or asphyxiating is simply a matter of paying attention to one's surroundings and not taking undue risks. The game preys on fear, but doesn't capitalize on it. There is only one timed event in the game, and the only cost of missing it is not getting a front-row seat to a scripted scene.

Neither the game's difficulty, nor its accessibility, have been particularly controversial, least of all among "critics" who in any other case break out the torches and pitchforks in the name of "accessibility". You'd think the game would get at least passing mention in larger discussions of differently-abled gamers and accessibility...why is that not the case?

Subnautica is an indie game, and turning the guns on it won't draw clicks and drive ad revenue. For starters.

In the other thread I linked an IGN article by a differently-abled gamer. The entire point of the article is to argue difficulty isn't accessibility, and to treat them as synonymous is harmful and insulting to all parties involved; accordingly, their take on the "controversy" amounts to "a plague on both your houses"...as it damn well should be. There's a huge difference between genuine calls for more accessibility made in good-faith, and the garbage shoveled by the overwhelming majority of "writers" at gaming "news" outlets. Without fail, the former includes suggestions and criticism on how to actually improve games to be more accessible, as relates to individual disabilities and how those disabilities impact game play, and more often than not scratching the surface those suggestions don't actually affect core game play. The latter rarely, if ever, goes past "add easy mode".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWxfFNcd2DA

And, how do I know it's bullshit? Well, let's take one of the simplest, easiest, and non-controversial accessibility options that's finally becoming industry standard: colorblind modes. You could take the gaming "news" whinging about a single FromSoftware game on a single outlet, stack it up against the sum of advocacy for colorblind modes in games across all outlets for the entire history of the hobby, and "Dark Souls whining" will probably still come out on top. Almost all advocacy for colorblind modes comes from game forums, from gamers themselves as opposed to their "representative" "press", and it's near-always without controversy.

Why is this the case?

Games "journalists" need to stop appropriating the issue to excuse being shitty at games and to clickbait; nobody buys it, even the people who defend them out of "stigginit" mentality. Because, in my opinion, using "accessibility" as an excuse trivializes the issue while marginalizing gamers who are differently-abled, and at the same time condescending to differently-abled gamers and insulting both their intelligence and skill. It's needlessly polarizing, parasitic, and highly toxic.

Here's an idea: why not cede the platform to disabled gamers who will happily describe their challenges and provide meaningful suggestions to improve quality of life.

 

[happyninja42]

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.

Who the hell are they to tell me I shouldn't play a game or not? They aren't the game police, they don't dictate what is made, none of them have any involvement in the game development process. All of them simply shill out their 60 bucks for the video game, like everyone else. What gives them the right to gatekeep what experience I should be allowed to have for my hard earned money that I spent on a game? They are entitled, elitist jerks who just seem to get insanely offended that the dirty peasants are enjoying something they enjoy. It's idiocy of the highest degree.

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.

Adding an easy mode doesn't change the game at all. If they don't utilize the easy mode, it has zero impact on their game, and changes absolutely nothing for them.

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.

Same here, the first and only thing I've ever heard about the From Soft games is "ermagurd they are brutally hard! Like so hard I think the game devs are sadists, and have made a game for their masochist followers! Because this game hates you! You will spend HOURS and HOURS dying to the same damn boss mob, over and over!" At no point in the various conversations about what made those games great was "Plus it has no easy mode!!" That only showed up in the conversation that I recall, when the fans started crapping all over the people who dared to suggest an easy mode for other people, who don't enjoy being frustrated with a game for hours on end, with no advancement.

Plus, another thing they seem to forget, is that there are people with disabilities that like video games. Perhaps there is somebody out there, who absolutely LOVES samurai/ninja genre of stories, and is absolutely thrilled to try and play Sekiro. But they have some actual physical limitations that make "git gud" a simple impossibility for them. But they'd REALLY like to experience this story about an immortal shinobi, sworn guardian of a noble child of magical origins, fight their way across a war torn Japan, trying to keep the forces of darkness from snuffing out light in the world. But you know, a neurological disorder, or missing fingers on a hand, make it kind of tricky to git gud enough to finish the damn story.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Snip

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?

Yup, we?ve organized; meetings are on Tuesdays. We were going to go with ?pro-choice,? but the group that assumed that designation before us refused to share their platform. Something about our cause being? ?less important?? No, ?Fucking ridiculously inconsequential? is what that group of mean ladies called it.

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.

And this is where the two sides of this ?argument? prove to not be of the same coin. I?m not saying games NEED difficulty options; I don?t think any rational (i.e.: pro-option) person in this or the other threads has argued that purely hypothetical optional additions to Souls (or any) games are necessary. We?ve argued that they don?t affect the experiences of those who opt not to use them or change the game in any substantive and unavoidable way, so ?why not?? And we?re met with ?NU-UH! Because [list of same-y , projective, hyperbolic reasons that fail to demonstrate how such choices would broadly and negatively affect a game and shouldn?t exist, even hypothetically]!!!

The reality is, anyone so staunchly against simple and very much hypothetical difficulty options, has the Souls games exactly as they want them: rigid ?git gud? experiences that demand blood, sweat and tears of their victim.. er, ?players.? And that?s FINE. I have the same Souls games, and I love them. What I don?t mind or see a downside to is the option that invites others of differing skill to enjoy them as well because they?ve so much more to offer than just punishing difficulty. Let?s give credit all around; good games demand multiple playthroughs; gamers like to test themselves; let?s drop the idea that someone (let alone everyone) who starts on ?Easy? (which has yet to be defined, so doesn?t necessarily mean ?no challenge at all?) will breeze through once and be done with the game entirely. Raise your hand if you?ve ever played a game on ?Normal? and enjoyed it enough to play it again (test yourself) on ?Hard?? I?m assuming that?s quite a few hands, so let?s stop pretending that rampant Easy modes will create a dystopian gamer society of mentally and physically atrophied and entitled ?try-nots.? The first time I played Dark Souls, I quit for three years. The second time, it took my almost 100 hours, but I crawled through with heavy armor, a shield and a weapon I grinded to max out about halfway through the game. Dozens of playthroughs later, I?m light armor, no shield, two-handing and loving the games more than ever. You know what they?re not anymore? DIFFICULT. So if difficulty is their point, why am I still enjoying them? And before anyone starts in on ?nyah, but you didn?t need easy mode, so you proved our point,? what?s more important than I ?got gud,? is that I ?HAD FUN? (y?know, the purpose of video games,) the difficulty is probably what I liked least and I had the most fun when it got out of my way; if the option existed to ratchet down the difficulty so others can ?have fun? too, what kind of person would die on the hill that it shouldn?t?

And in sticking with Souls games, let?s not forget the innate challenge that has nothing to do with Damage input/output ratios; there?s no pausing, no saving and every action has an air of permanence. Dying before getting back to a bloodstain, wasting resources on the wrong weapons, leveling the wrong stats, etc. all of these are challenges to overcome that could remain unchanged in a mode wherein the Capra Demon, in his same tiny room, does only 75% of his normal damage.

 

[CaitSeith]

let's drop the idea that someone (let alone everyone) who starts on "Easy" (which has yet to be defined, so doesn't necessarily mean "no challenge at all") will breeze through once and be done with the game entirely. Raise your hand if you've ever played a game on "Normal" and enjoyed it enough to play it again (test yourself) on "Hard?"

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

...so let?s stop pretending that rampant Easy modes will create a dystopian gamer society of mentally and physically atrophied and entitled ?try-nots.?

I'll see this statement and raise it by way of one game I knew quite intimately, that's a lot better known, widely played, and "more accessible" than Souls: World of Warcraft. Specifically, its transitional period between Burning Crusade, Wrath, and Cataclysm.

Vanilla raiding was Schrodinger's cat, simultaneously too hard and too easy, and to be treated as both at the same time. Too easy if you were a dedicated raider in an organized guild with like-minded folks, too hard if you were in a casual guild or your guild lacked organization. Trivial if you played with mods like Decurse, impossible without because Blizzard had to design and tune encounters around the mods. Too accessible if you'd been around forever and could attune with others, inaccessible if you were a latecomer and everyone was too sick of the lower-tier content to help you attune. As a result, only 2-3% of players ever saw post-release content because Blizzard found themselves racing the raiders.

Moving into BC, Blizzard made the dumbfuck move of all dumbfuck moves in MMO history and pandered to the progression raiders. Encounters were overtuned, attunements were made nigh impossible without a dedicated raiding guild, and gear requirements to really break into raiding skyrocketed despite the introduction of badge gear ("welfare epics"). Instances and their attunements were repeatedly nerfed throughout the expansion, only for Blizzard to repeat their sins with the next content drip-feed. As a result, only 2-3% of players ever saw post-release content because Blizzard found themselves racing the raiders.

Moving into Wrath, Blizzard made the second biggest dumbfuck move in MMO history by massively over-correcting the difficulty and accessibility issues found in BC. 10 and 25 man raid sizes, normal and heroic difficulty, badge gear was better (than tier gear in some cases) and attunements eased across the board. More players got to raid than ever, and most folks loved it...because the game turned into a faceroll fest that never really pushed players to achieve or improve themselves, and accordingly Wrath was the most toxic and tryhard period in WoW's entire history.

Moving into Cataclysm, Blizzard tried to correct the mistakes made in Wrath, by pushing up the skill basement. You know, by making crowd control, triage, positioning, aggro, and mana management relevant again. The most basic shit of basic shit. And, for their efforts, the player base all but revolted and stormed their Irvine offices with torches and pitchforks. Everything got nerfed all over again, and Blizzard's mea culpa was to introduce LFR, the final death knell of organized play in any serious fashion.

That was when I quit, by the way. I loved Cataclysm, but could tolerate the "community" no longer. I wasn't carrying simpletons too entitled and lazy to perform even the simplest of tasks that, in my heyday, were sine qua non for even being considered a passably-competent player, who lacked even the self-awareness to consider perhaps they may be the problem.

And not a fucking bit of what I just said was the root cause of Blizzard's woes throughout Wrath and Cataclysm. Cataclysm triggered a backlash because Blizzard made the game challenging again, not even "vanilla hard" let alone "BC hard", after the player base's average skill level had fallen through the floor. That, in turn, didn't happen because of "accessibility"; it happened because of cross-realm grouping and the LFG tool enabling players to act like complete, incompetent, donkeys without repercussion, and fail upwards despite atrocious behavior.

 

[Xprimentyl]

...so let?s stop pretending that rampant Easy modes will create a dystopian gamer society of mentally and physically atrophied and entitled ?try-nots.?

I'll see this statement and raise it by way of one game I knew quite intimately, that's a lot better known, widely played, and "more accessible" than Souls: World of Warcraft?

That was a lot of words, so clearly you?re very knowledgeable of the subject and passionate about the point you were trying to make, but I understood roughly none of it. The entirety of my exposure to WoW is literally 19 seconds I watched over the shoulder of a friend playing it over 10 years ago.

But I DO know it?s an MMO, multiple users in a shared experience in which everything within it affects every player of every skill; that?s not the same as a single-player experience wherein everything only need affect a SINGLE player. I?ve no idea what you said Blizzard did right OR wrong (your WoW lingo is well above my paygrade,) but it sounds like it was balancing issues, a common issue with multiplayer games, and as for the community, well, it?s an online community? surprised?

 

[Wakey87]

let?s drop the idea that someone (let alone everyone) who starts on ?Easy? (which has yet to be defined, so doesn?t necessarily mean ?no challenge at all?) will breeze through once and be done with the game entirely. Raise your hand if you?ve ever played a game on ?Normal? and enjoyed it enough to play it again (test yourself) on ?Hard??

I fear we are heading towards that dystopian future, especialy with several anticipated titles coming out one after another. I feel alot of people will take that instant gratification and hollow victory if offered to them and just move onto something else. At the end of the day all games should have varying levels of difficulty, its called a beginning, middle and end. And the End should meet your skill level if not exceed it.

If they must add an easy difficulty there should be some incentive for playing on a harder difficulty, maybe the final boss being cut out of easy mode and a 'Bad End' or a final form on the hard setting.

Somtimes it's not about skill level but allowing people to just be lazy and taking the path of least resistance.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

...But I DO know it?s an MMO, multiple users in a shared experience in which everything within it affects every player of every skill...

Let me break my main points down for you since you're not a WoW or MMO player.

- Difficulty doesn't equal accessibility.
- Difficulty changes, nor accessibility changes, alone don't amount to degradation in community or player quality.
- This is actually true in multiplayer environments as well as single player environments, so "multiplayer games are different" doesn't actually hold water as an argument against or for accessibility.

In WoW's case, over the course of its original release and first three expansions, difficulty didn't correlate with accessibility, and to conflate the two was to blind oneself to root causes of the game's issues. Vanilla was easy but inaccessible, BC was difficult and inaccessible, Wrath was easy and accessible, Cataclysm was difficult but accessible.

Players from back then like to demonize Cataclysm, but that's a poor analysis that reeks of personal bias. Wrath was actually the problematic expansion, because of one added feature that increased the level of anonymity in the player base, while all but eliminating social consequences for bad play. Had nothing to do with the game's actual difficulty or accessibility.

 

[Avnger]

let?s drop the idea that someone (let alone everyone) who starts on ?Easy? (which has yet to be defined, so doesn?t necessarily mean ?no challenge at all?) will breeze through once and be done with the game entirely. Raise your hand if you?ve ever played a game on ?Normal? and enjoyed it enough to play it again (test yourself) on ?Hard??

I fear we are heading towards that dystopian future, especialy with several anticipated titles coming out one after another. I feel alot of people will take that instant gratification and hollow victory if offered to them and just move onto something else. At the end of the day all games should have varying levels of difficulty, its called a beginning, middle and end. And the End should meet your skill level if not exceed it.

If they must add an easy difficulty there should be some incentive for playing on a harder difficulty, maybe the final boss being cut out of easy mode and a 'Bad End' or a final form on the hard setting.

Somtimes it's not about skill level but allowing people to just be lazy and taking the path of least resistance.

I started reading this as a rather funny hyperbolic takedown of the idea, but then I realized you're fucking serious...

If that is your idea of a "dystopian future," you have issues mate. Go outside. See the sun. Hear the birds. Talk to another human being in person. Get a grip on reality.

 

[Wakey87]

let?s drop the idea that someone (let alone everyone) who starts on ?Easy? (which has yet to be defined, so doesn?t necessarily mean ?no challenge at all?) will breeze through once and be done with the game entirely. Raise your hand if you?ve ever played a game on ?Normal? and enjoyed it enough to play it again (test yourself) on ?Hard??

I fear we are heading towards that dystopian future, especialy with several anticipated titles coming out one after another. I feel alot of people will take that instant gratification and hollow victory if offered to them and just move onto something else. At the end of the day all games should have varying levels of difficulty, its called a beginning, middle and end. And the End should meet your skill level if not exceed it.

If they must add an easy difficulty there should be some incentive for playing on a harder difficulty, maybe the final boss being cut out of easy mode and a 'Bad End' or a final form on the hard setting.

Somtimes it's not about skill level but allowing people to just be lazy and taking the path of least resistance.

I started reading this as a rather funny hyperbolic takedown of the idea, but then I realized you're fucking serious...

If that is your idea of a "dystopian future," you have issues mate. Go outside. See the sun. Hear the birds. Talk to another human being in person. Get a grip on reality.

Fair enough, Atleast your polite when your telling people to fuck off.

 

[Xprimentyl]

SNIP

I fear we are heading towards that dystopian future, especialy with several anticipated titles coming out one after another. I feel alot of people will take that instant gratification and hollow victory if offered to them and just move onto something else. At the end of the day all games should have varying levels of difficulty, its called a beginning, middle and end. And the End should meet your skill level if not exceed it.

If they must add an easy difficulty there should be some incentive for playing on a harder difficulty, maybe the final boss being cut out of easy mode and a 'Bad End' or a final form on the hard setting.

Somtimes it's not about skill level but allowing people to just be lazy and taking the path of least resistance.

More hyperbole.

Easier modes have been around for DECADES, yet the majority of the gaming community still aspires for fitting challenges. Be it higher difficulties, speed runs, completionist runs, personal restrictions, etc. etc., forever and ever amen, gamers largely want a challenge, and the existence of lower difficulties for those who choose them has not changed that at all; why you think they?re suddenly a sign of the End Times now is beyond me; I call wild and fallacious speculation to paint your point in unmerited austerity and weight.

As for titles coming out in rapid succession leading to instant gratification, ask people in this forum. Many boast of their already extensive backlogs; no one (to my knowledge) has outwardly admitted to opting for Easy modes their regular method to ?catch up.? We buy games to play them, appreciate them; [for most] it?s not chore or obligation to get through as quickly as possible.

Incentive? Good idea. Glad we have those already; they?re called achievements and trophies. What you?ve offered is not incentive; it?s negative reinforcement, the opposite of any incentive a GAME should offer. There are lots of games that have bonuses for ?above and beyond? accomplishments; the incentive to get them comes from within and is based on whether or not a given person is personally motivated to do so. But any of that aside, if just seeing the end of the game is enough for someone, what difference does that matter to ANYONE save for those people? I highly doubt the people ?git gud? advocating actually give a battered and deep fried shit about the quality of other gamers? experience outside of this ridiculous conversation; it?s just a weak appeal to feigned righteousness, i.e.: ?think of the CHILDREN!? from those of completely self-interested and exclusionary mindsets.

 

[Wakey87]

SNIP

I fear we are heading towards that dystopian future, especialy with several anticipated titles coming out one after another. I feel alot of people will take that instant gratification and hollow victory if offered to them and just move onto something else. At the end of the day all games should have varying levels of difficulty, its called a beginning, middle and end. And the End should meet your skill level if not exceed it.

If they must add an easy difficulty there should be some incentive for playing on a harder difficulty, maybe the final boss being cut out of easy mode and a 'Bad End' or a final form on the hard setting.

Somtimes it's not about skill level but allowing people to just be lazy and taking the path of least resistance.

More hyperbole.

Easier modes have been around for DECADES, yet the majority of the gaming community still aspires for fitting challenges. Be it higher difficulties, speed runs, completionist runs, personal restrictions, etc. etc., forever and ever amen, gamers largely want a challenge, and the existence of lower difficulties for those who choose them has not changed that at all; why you think they?re suddenly a sign of the End Times now is beyond me; I call wild and fallacious speculation to paint your point in unmerited austerity and weight.

As for titles coming out in rapid succession leading to instant gratification, ask people in this forum. Many boast of their already extensive backlogs; no one (to my knowledge) has outwardly admitted to opting for Easy modes their regular method to ?catch up.? We buy games to play them, appreciate them; [for most] it?s not chore or obligation to get through as quickly as possible.

Incentive? Good idea. Glad we have those already; they?re called achievements and trophies. What you?ve offered is not incentive; it?s negative reinforcement, the opposite of any incentive a GAME should offer. There are lots of games that have bonuses for ?above and beyond? accomplishments; the incentive to get them comes from within and is based on whether or not a given person is personally motivated to do so. But any of that aside, if just seeing the end of the game is enough for someone, what difference does that matter to ANYONE save for those people? I highly doubt the people ?git gud? advocating actually give a battered and deep fried shit about the quality of other gamers? experience outside of this ridiculous conversation; it?s just a weak appeal to feigned righteousness, i.e.: ?think of the CHILDREN!? from those of completely self-interested and exclusionary mindsets.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. But your right about it being a ridiculous conversation because game developers should be able to choose whether to include one or not. It's their creative vision for what they want the game to be.

I'll be honest with you, I don't play through many games more than once. But the the ones I do don't have a difficulty, and some I have never finished. I find a game you enjoy that you havn't finished is much more likely to be taken off the shelf again.

You could say why don't I just play games on hard then? Well, who actualy plays a new game on hard first time? Probably no one, plus we don't know what bullshit they have done to make it hard, it has obviously been optimised for Normal. I remember playing through Diablo 3 at launch, completing the last difficulty (which you are expected to play because they run consecutively) and then it being nerfed because people were complaining. I was like 'oh, ok'

 

[happyninja42]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. But your right about it being a ridiculous conversation because game developers should be able to choose whether to include one or not. It's their creative vision for what they want the game to be.

If the devs simply don't want to include an easy mode, that's their call, and I personally think any gamer that is angry at them about it, is a little silly. On the other hand, I don't think there's anything wrong with ASKING that an easy mode be included. If they are asking like "Hey, cool game, but it's way harder than I really enjoy messing with. I'd like to have an easier mode to mess with since I just can't get past some of these bosses, even after hours of trying it over and over". That's a reasonable request. The devs are under no obligation to oblige them, but it doesn't justify the other side losing their shit like they do in this debate. Describing it as some kind of mark of the decline of humanity, and similar rhetoric.

It's a game, it's meant to be played for fun. Not everyone has the same threshold for fun, or find fun doing the same things. Some people get an almost sexual gratification from flogging themselves on the altar of an uber hard difficulty, and that's fine. But for those same people to turn around and condemn anyone who doesn't share their same fetish for self-induced frustration is just bullshit.

I am firmly in the camp that it would be cool if the From Soft games had an easy mode, because I can personally attest that it WOULD increase accessibility, since I've pretty much avoided bothering buying any of their games, because the ONE defining trait that everyone seems to use when describing them is "brutally hard, like no game you've ever played." Well, that's fine and all, but that's not why I play video games. I play video games to enjoy myself, have fun, and enjoy a story that is being told by the creators. I do not seek out games just for the experience of frustration as I bang my head against their mechanics for hours on end, with little to no accomplishment. That is not my end goal, and in fact, games that have that kind of design, tend to be the ones I stop playing, and don't go back to. I've been playing video games since I was about 6 years old, I'm 42 now. I am a gamer, born and raised, and while I have no illusions that I am some uber-elite gamer, I do think I'm pretty good at most games I attempt, with enough time. But that doesn't mean I want to spend my time on a game who's sole defining trait in the community is based entirely on how hard it is.

I never hear anyone talk about the story of Dark Souls, or the writing, or anything really, about the game itself, other than "OMG, I fought *insert boss name*, and it was horrible! It took me *insert ridiculous number of attempts* and *insert number of hours* to even get him to half health!! I'm hoping by next week to find a way to actually kill him!"

That's not a game to me, that's just a frustration simulator. And I frankly have better things to spend my money on than that.
So if they made an easy mode, which for me would probably equate to "normal mode" for most other difficulties, I would probably actually go back and spend money on their library and try them out. As it stands though, I probably never will.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

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.

Isn't that pretty much every pre-N64/PS title?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

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.

Isn't that pretty much every pre-N64/PS title?

Snes actually had a bunch of lengthy rpgs. Genesis too on a lesser extent. Only stuff like sidescrollers were short and used their difficulty to pad their length. Also back in the day people were a lot worse at games and the playerbase was younger so it's not quite the same as a modern day speedrunner blasting through the game in no time. It took me forever to beat sonic 1-2 as a 5 year old lol.