Easy Mode Hate Explained

[shadowkrai]

At risk of saying something that's probably already been said, The ONLY reason I play games on the hardest difficulties is because I know that when I've completed it, there's not a huge chance of me going back to it, so I like to feel like I've actually completed it, not something I feel if I've only done easy mode.

 

[ThisGuyLikesNoTacos]

Easy mode gets hated because some people want to have difficult games, and having an easy mode devalues the games total difficulty, and since these days difficult games are rather niche.

It's only natural that the difficulty of Dark Souls is greatly exaggerated and overvalued because most of our games aren't that hard anymore.

 

[Something Amyss]

Which, ironically, conflicts with what the same people would be actually saying - that the devs are good at game/level design and know exactly how to make a game challenging but fair. If they can, they can make it just slightly less challanging without changing the entire game around that concept, if they cannot, then they don't deserve praise for this anyway.

That's an interesting point, and it does seem to fly in the face of the notion that "easy mode can't work."

I'm not particularly convinced the game is well-balanced to begin with, but considering people think the game is so well-balanced and that this is a feat, it seems funny that allowing a lower difficulty would somehow destroy the game.

However, it is interesting to see the masses supposedly clamoring, when one considers the outraged was based on a misinterpretation of a developer suggestion.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I have yet to see a single logical argument that proves how Modal Difficulty (Easy/Hard/Banana/etc) ruins their experience.

DUDE. Don't even fucking JOKE about Banana difficulty. Literally one of the hardest experiences of my life. I still have 'Nam flashbacks about it.

When you stare into the abyss of Banana Mode, it stares back. It changes you....

It starts out so innocent and harmless..how could a banana be threatening? It's so smooth, yellow and inviting like a sunny day.

But then...as time goes on, it takes on a sinister new tone; Banana Mode tricks you, deceives you, causes you to slip up over and over...eventually it peels back the smooth, firm exterior of your soul to reveal the softer, vulnerable, tasty innards.

You don't eat Banana Mode...Banana Mode eats you.

 

[-Samurai-]

Wait. People still brag about beating games? Is this the 80s? I thought bragging was reserved for people that accomplished something, not someone that does what millions of others have done, or will do.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Wait. People still brag about beating games? Is this the 80s? I thought bragging was reserved for people that accomplished something, not someone that does what millions of others have done, or will do.

Every time someone preens about beating a single player game I'm reminded of this guy:

If you haven't seen The King of Kong, I highly recommend it. Hilarious film, and a pretty cutting look at a gaming community obsessed with high scores as opposed to having a good time.

 

[-Samurai-]

Wait. People still brag about beating games? Is this the 80s? I thought bragging was reserved for people that accomplished something, not someone that does what millions of others have done, or will do.

Every time someone preens about beating a single player game I'm reminded of this guy:

If you haven't seen The King of Kong, I highly recommend it. Hilarious film, and a pretty cutting look at a gaming community obsessed with high scores as opposed to having a good time.

Oh god no. I don't know if it was The King of Kong, but I watched an arcade games documentary on Netflix that had that guy. Ugh.

 

[SweetLiquidSnake]

This is a double edge, and not just in gaming because things that could and should be easier aren't changed cuz some old coot keeps saying "i busted my ass and you better do it too". Say for university the program you want makes you take certain useless electives, and they won't change it cuz the most recent graduating class just did it and they'll be pissed so a useless tradition of shit keeps going for generations instead of fixing itself.

For games like Dark Souls, which I gave up on after a week of unfun shit gaming, an easy mode still wouldn't interest me since it's a lacking game to begin with (don't reply to that I frankly don't care) but have something detrimental to counter it out, such as achievements don't unlock on easy.

Like in Halo, 2 people can claim to beat a Halo game, but if one does it in Normal and one on Legendary, the legend can have their precious bragging rights and people will recognize it.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

Jesus christ it's like people don't seem to realise developers could just create the hard mode first and then put in the easy mode. That way you avoid all the "it'll change how its designed" bullshit and they no longer have a leg to stand on.

That would only work if making a game easier was as simple as scaling a few numbers. It isn't.

How do you make a platformer easier? Do you have two sets of almost identical levels? How do you make a driving section more difficult? Or how do you make strategy easy, without basically making the goals easy enough to accomplish that strategy isn't necessary? How do you pull out pieces of a complex system in order to make a game simpler without completely redesigning the system? How do you make a game that was designed around challenge not feel bland when the core aesthetic is removed? How do you keep all of the flashiness and cruft that comes from trying to keep a straight button masher interesting from impacting the careful balance of the game on hard mode?

Making a game that can be both extremely easy and genuinely challenging introduces a set of limitations and compromises that not all games should have to abide by. Saying that every game should have an easy mode is like saying that an entire genre of game shouldn't exist.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

How do you make a platformer easier

There is no platforming in Dark Souls.

Do you have two sets of almost identical levels?

You could use the identical levels.

How do you make a driving section more difficult?

There are no driving sections in Dark Souls.

Or how do you make strategy easy, without basically making the goals easy enough to accomplish that strategy isn't necessary?

All Strategy Games outside of highly simple ones could easily be modified simply by dialing down numbers. We already see this in all of the most popular strategy games on the market, from Civ to XCOM to HoMM...I could go on and on.

How do you pull out pieces of a complex system in order to make a game simpler without completely redesigning the system?

You don't need to.

How do you make a game that was designed around challenge not feel bland when the core aesthetic is removed?

The challenge is not removed, it is reduced, to appeal to an audience that requires a reduced challenge. It's not for you.

Saying that every game should have an easy mode is like saying that an entire genre of game shouldn't exist.

"Hard" is not a genre.

 

[Tony2077]

as long as its an option i don't see a problem other then people whining about it. if the whole game is made easier without having the option of changing it i can see getting upset about that but don't make a mountain out of a mole hole

 

[BloodSquirrel]

There is no platforming in Dark Souls.
There are no driving sections in Dark Souls.

It's called "demonstrating a concept".

You could use the identical levels.

You don't need to.

So you don't have an answer to the question, then.

All Strategy Games outside of highly simple ones could easily be modified simply by dialing down numbers. We already see this in all of the most popular strategy games on the market, from Civ to XCOM to HoMM...I could go on and on.

You aren't actually explaining how that makes the strategy easier without just removing the need for it so that players can take a more brute force approach.

The challenge is not removed, it is reduced, to appeal to an audience that requires a reduced challenge. It's not for you.

"I want the game to be so easy that anybody can beat it" is not reducing the challenge- it's removing it.

"Hard" is not a genre.

It's a defining element that radically changes the appeal of a game. It's as important as anything else we'd consider as part of defining a genre.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

It's called "demonstrating a concept".

You're going to want to pick a better analogy if you want to demonstrate a concept. Attempting to demonstrate that an easy mode in a non-platforming RPG is impossible because of platforming is a bit of a non-starter.

You aren't actually explaining how that makes the strategy easier without just removing the need for it so that players can take a more brute force approach.

Well that's basically what it does, yeah? It means your strategy can be more sloppy. Ergo, you have an easier strategy game, that a poor or learning strategist can more easily enjoy.

"I want the game to be so easy that anybody can beat it" is not reducing the challenge- it's removing it.

Whose quote is that? It sounds suspiciously like a quote attributable to Mr. Straw Man.

It's a defining element that radically changes the appeal of a game. It's as important as anything else we'd consider as part of defining a genre.

No, it isn't really. Otherwise 4 different difficulty levels of a first person shooter would suddenly find themselves in four different genres. It's an element of game play, of varying importance to different individuals. You can argue that it's important. You can possibly even argue, cogently, that it's essential in a game like Dark Souls in order to have an optimal experience. But it is not a distinct genre.

And, as always, "difficult" varies from individual to individual.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

I can see the argument for the difficulty itself contributing to the setting. This is actually kind of thought provoking. But this isn't necessarily mutually exclusive with an 'easy mode'. Putting in a disclaimer sort of like they did in Fallout NV for Hardcore mode seems a lot more accessible than simply foregoing a difficulty setting. "This game experience was designed to be played at X difficulty". In the past I could have sworn this was what 'Normal' meant, but what do I know.

I'm sure if I wanted the Demon Souls experience on PC I could just alter the .ini file to give me infinite health or something. But for console gamers it's kind of a sh!t or get off the pot kind of scenario. Every time I come into one of these heated Demon/Dark Souls threads the people who've played the game say it's an amazing game for it's story or setting or whatnot, while the unhappy folks are made about the difficulty. Would it be any skin off your back if they enjoyed these amazing atmospheres at an altered difficulty level?

One thing I never hear is casuals bragging about beating games. 'I beat Devil May Cry on Easy!' -said no person ever.
Do you ever hear casual gamers raging about the prospect of a hard mode? Bragging seems to be the main motivation here, this elitist cadre of gamers who've beaten X game. I personally don't care if you've beaten Dark Souls or I wanna be the Boshy or w/e the latest fad is. I've seen these games on Twitch, they look like garbage imo. The difficulty is just another reason to avoid them.

I don't know why I'm here typing this up, I think Jim did a video saying everything that needed to be said a month or so ago.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

You're going to want to pick a better analogy if you want to demonstrate a concept. Attempting to demonstrate that an easy mode in a non-platforming RPG is impossible because of platforming is a bit of a non-starter.

Look, if you can't follow a discussion when it starts to become about fundamentals of game design rather than one specific example, don't participate. Don't barge in rudely and demand that people don't have it. The basic concept of difficulty not always being trivially reducible is a important than whether Dark Souls has driving in it or not.

Well that's basically what it does, yeah? It means your strategy can be more sloppy. Ergo, you have an easier strategy game, that a poor or learning strategist can more easily enjoy.

Sloppy strategy means that you're not experiencing the game's mechanics, which is at least as bad as not experiencing some of a game's levels or story. It means that you have to pull a different set of tricks to make sure that the player has something new to experience as the game goes on, since you've removed the main impetuous for getting a player to experiment with new items, units, weapons or tactics.

Whose quote is that? It sounds suspiciously like a quote attributable to Mr. Straw Man.

No, people have quite literally called for every game to have a mode where even their grandmothers can beat it, and I'm not seeing anyone here arguing for an easy mode that they still can't beat.

Frankly, I was being generous with that quote- many people aren't even saying that they can't beat it as-is, just that they want to be able to beat it without having to try as hard.

No, it isn't really. Otherwise 4 different difficulty levels of a first person shooter would suddenly find themselves in four different genres. It's an element of game play, of varying importance to different individuals. You can argue that it's important. You can possibly even argue, cogently, that it's essential in a game like Dark Souls in order to have an optimal experience. But it is not a distinct genre.

And, as always, "difficult" varies from individual to individual.

Halo on Novice and Halo on Legendary are as radically different a pair of experiences as I would get from playing a shooter vs. playing a hack & slash. And that's a game that was designed with difficulty levels, versus a game that was designed without the need for an easy mode vs. one that was. I'm not sure what personal definition of genre you're using here, but it isn't helping you make a point.

 

[Vegosiux]

"I want the game to be so easy that anybody can beat it" is not reducing the challenge- it's removing it.

And you care about what kind of challenge or lack thereof that others are going to have, why exactly? I mean, you're still going to pick the hardest difficulty, the one with the challenge, right?

It's a defining element that radically changes the appeal of a game. It's as important as anything else we'd consider as part of defining a genre.

[citation needed]

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Look, if you can't follow a discussion when it starts to become about fundamentals of game design rather than one specific example, don't participate. Don't barge in rudely and demand that people don't have it. The basic concept of difficulty not always being trivially reducible is a important than whether Dark Souls has driving in it or not.

So whether or not reducing the difficulty of the GAME IN QUESTION is irrelevant, as long as we can demonstrate that OTHER games will experience difficulties for unrelated reasons? If you want to demonstrate "basic concepts" and bloviate about game design fundamentals, you might start by applying them to the question at hand. Otherwise it's not really applicable, is it?

Sloppy strategy means that you're not experiencing the game's mechanics, which is at least as bad as not experiencing some of a game's levels or story. It means that you have to pull a different set of tricks to make sure that the player has something new to experience as the game goes on, since you've removed the main impetuous for getting a player to experiment with new items, units, weapons or tactics.

That's not true at all. All of those games I listed, along with others, can easily communicate basic fundamentals of game play and introduce basic strategic elements without overwhelming the player with hard consequences for poor decisions. A new player picking up Civilization for the first time and starting on Chieftan is still going to be learning, and experiencing elements of strategic game play. They don't need to be shoved into Deity right from the get go in order to have "a proper strategic experience".

No, people have quite literally called for every game to have a mode where even their grandmothers can beat it, and I'm not seeing anyone here arguing for an easy mode that they still can't beat.

Who? What people? Can you quote some of these people? I imagine we could both cherry pick some pretty ludicrous quotes on both sides of this argument if we wanted to, but I'd like to see the people saying "I want the game to be so easy anyone can beat it". I find that to be an unreasonable request, and I would join you in censure of those individuals.

Halo on Novice and Halo on Legendary are as radically different a pair of experiences as I would get from playing a shooter vs. playing a hack & slash. And that's a game that was designed with difficulty levels, versus a game that was designed without the need for an easy mode vs. one that was. I'm not sure what personal definition of genre you're using here, but it isn't helping you make a point.

I'm using the dictionary definition of genre, which I assumed was the widely utilized employment of the word. Perhaps there are different colloquial uses, and genre can mean "difficulty" or "a type of cheese". I'm really not certain. Why we would need to substitute "genre" for "difficulty" when "difficulty" is already a perfectly serviceable word is beyond me, but English is a funny old language.

The "point" remains that tiered difficulty in games does not rob you of the "difficult" genre, if such a thing could be said to exist. You can speculate that madcap tinkering with the game mechanics of Dark Souls in order to shoehorn in some lobotomized easy mode would destroy the experience, but that's alarmist claptrap. Everyone is dancing in From's panties telling them what Good Guys they are at creating balanced but fair experiences, and suddenly we don't trust them to move a few numbers around without the game exploding like a novelty cigar. It strikes me as deeply disingenuous.

[citation needed]

You have misquoted me, chum. Pistols at dawn.

 

[Vegosiux]

[citation needed]

You have misquoted me, chum. Pistols at dawn.

I accept. High noon is just too risky what with the sun glare and all.

I'm not sure how I managed to pull it off tho. Ah well.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Here's my reasoning as to why including easy modes in game franchises known for their difficulty pisses people off. People like to brag!

Yeah, I think you're spot on with that assessment. Of course, I also think that's a terrible reason for anyone to be upset about it.

Bragging rights are not worth shutting out a huge portion of ones audience.

 

[Dogstile]

Jesus christ it's like people don't seem to realise developers could just create the hard mode first and then put in the easy mode. That way you avoid all the "it'll change how its designed" bullshit and they no longer have a leg to stand on.

That would only work if making a game easier was as simple as scaling a few numbers. It isn't.

How do you make a platformer easier? Do you have two sets of almost identical levels? How do you make a driving section more difficult? Or how do you make strategy easy, without basically making the goals easy enough to accomplish that strategy isn't necessary? How do you pull out pieces of a complex system in order to make a game simpler without completely redesigning the system? How do you make a game that was designed around challenge not feel bland when the core aesthetic is removed? How do you keep all of the flashiness and cruft that comes from trying to keep a straight button masher interesting from impacting the careful balance of the game on hard mode?

Making a game that can be both extremely easy and genuinely challenging introduces a set of limitations and compromises that not all games should have to abide by. Saying that every game should have an easy mode is like saying that an entire genre of game shouldn't exist.

You make a platforming easier in dark souls by either tweaking the jump distance (making jumps that required precise timing easier to manage).

Its not about making the section more difficult (its designed to be hard, remember?), you make it easier by making the AI you're against more forgiving or increasing speed/durability.

Strategy, you just buff the units you're using so brute forcing becomes viable on easy mode. Command and Conquer also just made the AI not produce as many units. FTL just gives you more resources on easy.

The appeal of dark souls for me was that the combat was tight and the tactics for different enemies were interesting. applying the platforming changes and buffing health would be two simple changes that would make the game still fun and way more accessible.