Easy Mode Hate Explained

[maninahat]

If you find the easier modes too easy, pick a harder mode for yourself and don't decide for me what standards I should be playing at.

And if you find a game too hard, pick an easier game for yourself and don't decide for the developer what kind of game they should be making.

NO, you see, that makes no sense to either myself or the developer. The dev wants to sell games to people, and I want to play games. If they pointlessly exclude less skilled players with frustrating, time consuming, non-optional, high difficulty levels, they're losing perfectly good customers and I'm losing a perfectly good game. Most people have the mindset that more gamers and more games played are a good thing.

As I said, being able to play STALKER on easy mode has not deprived more skilled gamers of anything. Refusing to put in an easy mode in STALKER does deprive less skilled gamers of an enjoyable game.

 

[hermes]

Here is the deal with "Easy Mode", as well as any other choice: Its an option. If you don't like it, don't use it; but stop talking as everyone should play games the same way as you. If you are so weak willed as to think difficulty setting is a "temptation" and your self esteem is tied to finishing a game "properly", you probably has little bragging rights in real life to begin with.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

EDIT: I'd like to add that From Software said they want to make Dark Souls II more accessible. This does not mean easy mode. It means more accessible. In the same way that Dark Souls was made to be more accessible than Demon's Souls.

Given that a statistically significant portion of the game's fabled difficulty comes from its opaque, user hostile environment that artfully hides useful information from the player, a more accessible Dark Souls would inevitably be an easier Dark Souls.

I seriously question if those in favor for a dark souls easy mode has actually played the game in question. Because here's the thing; Dark souls is not in need of an easy mode. The game is not cheap, the game does not have numerous unfair challenges, the enemies are not unbalanced, and the bosses are not brick walls with death lasers.

I say this out of experience, I just recently decided to give dark souls a go and I can honestly say that I never found the game to be hard. Now that's not to say that I didn't die, I certainly did, a lot. But the deaths were never unfair, the traps were never invisible.

Nonsense. I'm playing it right now! It depends on how you define cheap, though, I'll give you that. The game has a lot of "forced failure". It will dump you cheerfully into situations you cannot reasonably expect to survive without knowledge of how the situation works. Which you gain by experiencing it, and dying. The archers in Anor Londo are a prime example of this. Capra Demon would be another. Most recently in Tomb of the Giants I went sledding down a coffin to find myself on a narrow ledge. Because I was alert to danger and had my shield up, I spotted the skeleton to my right immediately, and turned to engage. While fighting him, I took two arrows in the back. Oh, a skeleton archer, off in the gloom, taking cheap shots. New information! So I wound my way around my opponent so I didn't have an exposed back. Oh, a 2nd skeleton hiding behind the first. Dead. There is really no way to reasonably expect someone will do anything upon first discovering that than die. The fucking game is CALLED "prepare to die". There is most definitely an element of cheapness in Dark Souls. It's not omnipresent in every encounter, but there are plenty of moments where the developers clearly felt it was time for the player to take a ganking.

...well, we just had a topic about easy mode in Dark Souls in which I, and PLENTY OF OTHER DARK SOULS PLAYERS, outlined the reasons, as we have done in EVERY easy mode Dark Souls topic, that easy mode would be a bad thing, and elitism is NOT a prevalent concern!

We've had like twelve discussions on it actually, it seems to be a hot topic. If you've grown tired of it, by all means abandon the threads. But don't throw a strop because people have the temerity to continue discussing something after you've weighed in on it. You're not the final authority. You don't come in, issue the last word, and close the discussion.

And elitism has most definitely been a prevalent concern amongst a healthy proportion of debaters when it comes to this issue. However that's a dead end discussion, because almost without exception the people being the most elitist are the last to recognize it.

 

[The_Echo]

EDIT: I'd like to add that From Software said they want to make Dark Souls II more accessible. This does not mean easy mode. It means more accessible. In the same way that Dark Souls was made to be more accessible than Demon's Souls.

Given that a statistically significant portion of the game's fabled difficulty comes from its opaque, user hostile environment that artfully hides useful information from the player, a more accessible Dark Souls would inevitably be an easier Dark Souls.

I don't think accessibility = ease.

Take, for example, Super Mario Bros. Super accessible; anyone can play Mario. But those later worlds are hard as butts.

Accessibility is how quick a player can understand the game, not how quick they can be good at it.

 

[Fasckira]

many people like myself don't want the temptation of an easy mode option there, because we could so easily fall into that trap, robbing us of the sense of enjoyment and fulfillment when we finally beat and complete a hard game.

So wait, because you're weak willed that means less experienced or skilled gamers have to suffer? I'd say thats some misplaced hate if so.

 

[chikusho]

NO, you see, that makes no sense to either myself or the developer. The dev wants to sell games to people, and I want to play games. If they pointlessly exclude less skilled players with frustrating, time consuming, non-optional, high difficulty levels, they're losing perfectly good customers and I'm losing a perfectly good game. Most people have the mindset that more gamers and more games played are a good thing.

As I said, being able to play STALKER on easy mode has not deprived more skilled gamers of anything. Refusing to put in an easy mode in STALKER does deprive less skilled gamers of an enjoyable game.

YES, you see that makes perfekt sense to both you and the developer. The dev wants to create a unique and engaging high quality experience with a specific purpose and artistic integrity in mind, and you want to experience a unique, engaging, high quality experience with a specific purpose and artistic integrity.
If they pointlessly include unnecessary options that takes a lot of time, effort and resources to implement and lowers the quality and integrity of the experience, they risk alienating their perfectly good niche audience that they are making the game for as well as tarnishing their brand, and you will never get the opportunity to experience something potentially amazing that you wouldn't have had the chance to do otherwise by actually using the product in the way that it was intended.
Most people have the mindset that higher quality games are a good thing.

I don't know anything about STALKER, so I can't comment on how their difficulty is implemented.

 

[chikusho]

Accessibility is how quick a player can understand the game, not how quick they can be good at it.

Aaaaaand, a key element of Dark Souls is that it's supposed to be difficult to understand the game.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

...well, we just had a topic about easy mode in Dark Souls in which I, and PLENTY OF OTHER DARK SOULS PLAYERS, outlined the reasons, as we have done in EVERY easy mode Dark Souls topic, that easy mode would be a bad thing, and elitism is NOT a prevalent concern!

We've had like twelve discussions on it actually, it seems to be a hot topic. If you've grown tired of it, by all means abandon the threads. But don't throw a strop because people have the temerity to continue discussing something after you've weighed in on it. You're not the final authority. You don't come in, issue the last word, and close the discussion.

And elitism has most definitely been a prevalent concern amongst a healthy proportion of debaters when it comes to this issue. However that's a dead end discussion, because almost without exception the people being the most elitist are the last to recognize it.

Fair enough, I have been abrasive and I should probably realise some people may be seeing this topic for the first time. I'm not suggesting it's my opinion that's final, more that all that can be said has been said and that already existing opinions should be taken into account when discussing a topic so thoroughly discussed already. But anyway - I would like it pointed out to me how I in particular am being elitist. Because I've seen a lot of posts I sympathise with, and they have, by my reckoning, not been elitist, as I myself profess not to be. Introspection is famously flawed however, and if I'm making an idiot of myself I'd like to know. What I see are often - not always - the accusations of elitism come from non-players responding to avid fans who have other concerns. Occasionally a player has cited elitism as being one of the benefits of Dark Souls, but in my experience it is a rare stance to take.

 

[The_Echo]

Accessibility is how quick a player can understand the game, not how quick they can be good at it.

Aaaaaand, a key element of Dark Souls is that it's supposed to be difficult to understand the game.

That's... not true. If that were the case, why would From bother to make it more accessible than its predecessor? I understand every bit of Dark Souls, but that doesn't make it any easier. Knowing how a game works is what makes it playable, not what makes it easy. Making a game opaque is counterproductive, artificial 'difficulty' and poor design.

 

[chikusho]

That's... not true. If that were the case, why would From bother to make it more accessible than its predecessor? I understand every bit of Dark Souls, but that doesn't make it any easier. Knowing how a game works is what makes it playable, not what makes it easy. Making a game opaque is counterproductive, artificial 'difficulty' and poor design.

Oh It's true alright. Very few things in Dark Souls come with a description, and a few of them are inaccurate.
You learn how things work by doing them, not by the game teaching you how but by figuring things out for yourself.
Making a game opaque is a very useful tool for establishing uncertainty in a hostile environment, and it's great design if that is what you are designing.

 

[burningdragoon]

Well the biggest reason is the same biggest reason for pretty much anything. It's the "leave my toys alone" hate. Some instances are sillier than others, for example things with a lot of racism, sexism, etc. In the case of Dark Souls, it's more along the lines of there being so few things like it being made. Being worried that a change in design will eventually, if not right away, lead to the game no longer appealing to it's original niche is not unreasonable. People (seem to) like to throw around the word "optional" like every option is created in a vacuum.

There are plenty of mechanical arguments for and against easy mode of varying validity, but at the moment what's most important to me is pretty simple. Modal difficulty runs counter to the game's setting. You can't be a cold, unforgiving world that doesn't care about the character or the player if you are also providing an explicitly easier experience by flipping a switch.

By all means, most games should have explicitly easier modes, but please just leave this one toy of mine/ours alone.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I don't think accessibility = ease.

Take, for example, Super Mario Bros. Super accessible; anyone can play Mario. But those later worlds are hard as butts.

Accessibility is how quick a player can understand the game, not how quick they can be good at it.

Well, no...accessibility does not necessarily = ease, but a lack of it can certainly make things harder. Classic Everquest was renowned for this too (and remains to this day the best comparable for Dark Souls). Obfuscate enough information, and everything becomes harder. There's a reason people are constantly saying that the first few hours in Dark Souls are by far the most brutal, even though they are the most mechanically forgiving. It's because you have no idea what the fuck is going on, or how anything works.

But anyway - I would like it pointed out to me how I in particular am being elitist. Because I've seen a lot of posts I sympathise with, and they have, by my reckoning, not been elitist, as I myself profess not to be. Introspection is famously flawed however, and if I'm making an idiot of myself I'd like to know. What I see are often - not always - the accusations of elitism come from non-players responding to avid fans who have other concerns. Occasionally a player has cited elitism as being one of the benefits of Dark Souls, but in my experience it is a rare stance to take.

Oh I have no idea if you specifically have been. My memory isn't that good. A lot have been, though. The actual definition of elitism may be the problem here. Like entitlement, there seems to be some confusion over what it actually means, and I think people are defending themselves against a charge they fundamentally misunderstand. Being elitist simply means that you hold yourself above and apart. You believe you have superior X, Y and Z, and that these superior attributes should grant you certain privileges not available to your inferiors. In this particular case, the game in its entirety.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

When easy is the default thing they make the game too there is a reason why most real gamers hate it and noobs do not understand as they can not keep up and whine its unbalanced and hard....

 

[gorfias]

I beat Star wars: The Force Unleashed on the hardest difficulty. Look at my huge Wang.

The fact that the game has multiple difficulties does not take away from that, where is your God now OP?

Yeah, way, way, waaaaaaaay back in the day, I beat Castle Wolfenstein 3D. So did a cousin that promptly asked, "on what mode?" Easy. He said he'd done it on hard. Fixed. He still had bragging rights, I told him I'm not worthy, done. But, as someone that really stinks at games, but loves them a lot, I got to blow up Adolf Hitler in a robot suit. That wouldn't have happened at all if the game were impossibly hard for me.

A TRUE easy mode expands your user base and the number of people that can be satisfied. Bragging rights can still be had by including a hard/expert/insane mode.

 

[Jezzascmezza]

I get a lot of crap from friends for never playing a game above the normal difficulty setting, often going down to the easy setting at times.
My justification is that I play games recreationally, and as something I do for enjoyment. I'm not terrible at video games, I just mostly prefer to stay away from difficulty in games. I sometimes get stressed about school, or work, or friends, and gaming can be a lot of fun when I'm not playing on a difficulty setting that's too difficult. Personally, I don't want my gaming to be stressful, but maybe that's just me.
Gaming can be very cathartic, people.

 

[Xariat]

snip

I honestly have to disagree, I never felt that the game forced me to take a beating. It might come down to build or strategy or simply dumb luck*, but my point still stands. The game is designed to give you enough clues to make it through the game without dying at every turn. The silver knight archers are stationed a long way away so you will notice their arrows long before they can hit you once. you can also outrun the arrows fairly easily. The giants in the tomb have glowing eyes to tell you when you will encounter one and the giant archer fires at you long before you encounter two giants at once so you know that you have to watch your back.

The capra demon was poorly handled though, as was the bed of chaos, and while you will very likely die the first time you encounter them, neither of them one shots you without telling you whats up.

*by dumb luck I mean something along the lines of suddenly decided to up a point in vitality for no reason and that extra 30 hp saves your ass.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I honestly have to disagree, I never felt that the game forced me to take a beating. It might come down to build or strategy or simply dumb luck*, but my point still stands. The game is designed to give you enough clues to make it through the game without dying at every turn. The silver knight archers are stationed a long way away so you will notice their arrows long before they can hit you once. you can also outrun the arrows fairly easily. The giants in the tomb have glowing eyes to tell you when you will encounter one and the giant archer fires at you long before you encounter two giants at once so you know that you have to watch your back.

The capra demon was poorly handled though, as was the bed of chaos, and while you will very likely die the first time you encounter them, neither of them one shots you without telling you whats up.

*by dumb luck I mean something along the lines of suddenly decided to up a point in vitality for no reason and that extra 30 hp saves your ass.

The glowing eyes is true, but you can't see those guys until you're down the coffin, at which point you're on a tiny outcropping and there's no way back up. The archer doesn't start shooting at you until you've slid down, either. Trust me. I died twice there, and it was just a few days ago.

There's lots of situations where you can't reasonably know what to expect until you've already died to it.

Stray Demon? Who is going to see that coming? If you're a little banged up by the time you go down that hole, you're as good as screwed.

Havel? Why would you assume he can ONE shot you? Yes, his hammer is big, but he's no more threatening looking than, say, the Demon in the tutorial area, who does not one shot you. You learn by dying.

Nito? How would you know about his giant skeleton adds until you'd backed into them? As I did, and died to?

Four Kings? How would you know what happens there? You basically have to eschew standard protocol and run up and start wailing on them without restraint. If you play that fight normally and carefully you get murdered.

And on and on. If you accept that dying is part of life in Dark Souls and don't view it as a fail state but rather part of the natural learning curve, it's fine for stuff like that to happen. But I can certainly see where someone might make the argument that the game felt "cheap".

 

[TheDoctor455]

snip

Hello my friend! stay a while and listen:


Unlike what some people say, gamers want to actually feel like the thing they were expecting when they buy it. When one plays Fallout 3, we expect to see a world fighting for survival of even the most basic things (like non-poluted water supplies) And if an "easy mode" makes things like food, medicine and everything else to be more abundant so the player doesnt suck......that would make the setting quite weak, isnt it? there is no shortage of everything, so why NPCs act like it is the end of the world or something? you can find everything you need at the drop of a hat.

Umm... what game were you playing? Fallout 3 had tons of food lying around (mostly junk food), and most animal-ish enemies dropped meat. Hell, humans did too if you were a cannibal. (I think, that might have been a mod)

Also...

what struggle for survival? At best, vanilla Fallout 3 had some hard firefights. There was no survival element to it by default. There were mods that introduced those elements...

like say...

making the radiation something to actually watch out for by making your movement more difficult as it went along (or even outright turning into a Ghoul if it went far enough)

or...

a hunger/thirst/sleep/excretion system. I'm not kidding about that last part. There was at least one mod that introduced all four of those elements.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

The problem is that if the developer is under the impression that the gamers are morons, he will design a game for rabid morons.

Nope, developers want money. Which titles are liable to make the most money? Those with universal appeal and a wide entry gate. If Dark Souls had kept its base difficulty AND offered an easier mode, along with its New Game Plus function, they would've received an even better reception - and Dark Souls was extremely well received already.

No game should "not be" for someone else. If I'm interested to try out a genre I don't have a lot of experience in, that should be my right. I don't have to play a genre or game I don't LIKE, that's true enough, but do I have the right to try out Dark Souls as someone who isn't particularly skilled at it? Absolutely.

I'm reminded of MovieBob's arguments as the Game Overthinker, concerning the Easy Mode hate. He's right, honestly. Video games used to be an exclusionary, niche thing. They're not anymore, and this is undermining the crazy difficulty levels we've grown up with, cheaply ripped straight off of the arcade model. Some of us loved that exclusionary feel, the sense that some games were meant to be played by the Chosen Few. That's falling apart, and there's a fairly appalling mass of guys out there being butthurt about it.

Not every game needs to feel like I'm replaying TMNT 3 or Battletoads and Double Dragon. If I want to take the difficulty down a notch, it's my right. And no, we "lesser skilled" types are not turning the gaming industry into a formless morass of Easy Poo-Poo titles all dedicated to "Filthy Casuals". There's still plenty of challenging games coming out every year. If you can't find any that meet your criteria, I can't help you.

 

[DoPo]

I like the arguments presented by those in the pro-easy mode camp. "It's just a hobby." "It's more accessible." "Get a life." "Just don't play easy mode."

I like how you just conjured up some arguments there.

Let's go back to the easy part. Does this mean not dying? Are you serious? Can you imagine if Planescape: Torment had this? Can you imagine how much it would throw off the dynamics of the game??

Also how you can apparently mind read devs. Well, that's probably how you came with the arguments above. I won't bother typing more, you can mindread the rest.