New hard game comes out. Idiot press wants easy mode.

[Marik2]

https://www.escapistmagazine.com/v2/2019/04/04/git-over-yurself/

 

[CaitSeith]

Step 1 of these discussions, when they rear their ugly heads, should always be "define difficulty".

These discussions seem to always start whenever a From Software game is involved, so it's a safe assumption to define difficulty as "From Software" difficulty.

I think it is more of a "define what makes the game hard" in terms of difficulty. Once you do that, you then have to decide how you would make the game easier? What would make Sekrio (since this topic is about Sekiro) easier?

Lowering the enemies health wouldn't work because they don't technically have traditional health and most of the enemies instantly die or lose 50% of their "hp" thanks to stealth attacks.

More healing? Sure that could work, except the enemies can rip through your health quicker than you can heal it.

You could lower the damage of the enemies, but if the player can't learn how to deal with the attacks they will still lose.

So what do you to Sekiro, without completely changing Sekiro's core?

Well, first things first. What does make Sekiro hard?

 

[Fappy]

I just realized I haven't actually given my opinion on this directly yet.

I've seen a lot of discussion on here, Reddit, Youtube, etc., and it has kind of baffled me to be frank. It seems way more polarizing that it really deserves to be. It's the kind of argument you'd have with a friend as an amicable debate in real life, but take it online and suddenly the knives are out. Personally, I found the game a bit harder than it ought to be, but that's just in service to my personal taste in game difficulty.

As for whether a demand for an "easy mode" is warranted, well, I am of two minds on this:

1. Who cares if someone wants to play the game differently?
2. Is an easy mode actually appropriate for the game they wanted to make?

Is there a right way to play a game? Are there wrong ways? Is there a wrong way to design a game experience? Do games have to be accessible to everyone? Is a game being "too hard" objectively bad, or is it just something some (or even most) people won't enjoy?

I think players have a right to express their feelings towards a game and ask for things to be changed they don't like, but also I think the developers have to weigh the desires of their audience with the vision they have for the experience. If they intend for the game to force the player to adapt to its challenges by playing it in a specific way, having a high difficulty is just another tool in the toolbox.

From my interpretation, the difficulty of Sekiro is there to create a specific kind of experience:

- They want you to perfect the combat system and utilize everything available to you to overcome the challenges they present. Considering the high skill ceiling of the game, they probably felt that the only way to achieve this is to make the game so hard you are forced to achieve a certain level of system mastery or fail. Allowing for a "dumbed down" version of the experience would likely not achieve this end.
- With the above in mind, they want to set a baseline for people's experience so that the community can feel more united in their triumph and tribulations.
- Euphoric dopamine hit after overcoming extreme challenges.
- Make the player feel weak and small against overwhelming odds.

Some of the above could have been achieved to some degree through other means of game design, absolutely, but that would ignore my last point:

- That's their target niche and marketing gimmick.

The game doesn't have an "easy mode" because it works against the marketing niche they have established for themselves as a studio. And you know, that's okay with me. I liked the game, but as I mentioned before, it is a bit harder than I would have preferred. I am all in favor of some balance tweaks if they decide they want to patch the difficulty in some spots.

That said, the game is what it is. If they think an "easy mode" would diminish the experience they want to give people, they won't add it. If they don't think it's a big deal, they might add it. Generally, I don't believe in catering to everyone, because if you try to make everyone happy you make no one happy. On the flip-side of that coin, however, I do think that players have the right to voice their opinions and desires.

At the end of the day they probably won't even consider it because, well, its FromSoft and that's just how they are. If they for some reason decided to add it in I wouldn't really care. I always play games on their intended difficulty anyway as it usually makes for the best experience available. If offered an easier experience in Sekiro I would have ignored it because I am just a really stubborn guy.

 

[Kerg3927]

snip

Wow, nuance. Nice post.

 

[CaitSeith]

https://www.escapistmagazine.com/v2/2019/04/04/git-over-yurself/

Game Genie: So much for retro-hard...

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I played Bayonetta on the harder difficulty and I still regret it. I got not satisfaction from it and I just got frustrated from all the bad scores it gave me. But I soldiered on and beat the game with no satisfaction. I imagine plenty of other people would be like that.

Perhaps, but again, they can play other games. I don't really care that certain types of people exist who might feel a certain way because I don't really care if everyone gets to complete those games. Sometimes a game is just not for you. It's okay. There's nothing immoral about that. That's just life. Learn to accept it and move on.

But erttheKing played Bayonetta because of having interest in the game or why play it? Bayonetta was also my 1st spectacle fighter and if I was forced to start on hard, I probably wouldn't have loved the game as much as I do (it is literally my favorite game of last-gen). Having multiple difficulties allows one to ease themselves into the game mechanics at their own pace. After having played Bayonetta many times now, the combat shines brightest on the NSIC difficulty due to witch time being disabled but forcing everyone to start on that is similar to making your kid hit against a major league pitcher when learning to play baseball, they going to hate it and that has nothing to do with baseball just not being for them.

What would make Sekrio (since this topic is about Sekiro) easier?

Lowering the enemies health wouldn't work because they don't technically have traditional health and most of the enemies instantly die or lose 50% of their "hp" thanks to stealth attacks.

More healing? Sure that could work, except the enemies can rip through your health quicker than you can heal it.

You could lower the damage of the enemies, but if the player can't learn how to deal with the attacks they will still lose.

So what do you to Sekiro, without completely changing Sekiro's core?

You do realize Sekiro easy mode already exists right? How do you think From even created the game's base difficulty... by tuning the game throughout development. At times, it was too easy or too hard. Making a game easier/harder hardly changes the core game unless you think over development the core of Sekiro was ever-changing. Sekiro has a hard mode, in your world I guess that has a different core too. Or does making something harder not change the core but only making something easier changes the core because that makes literally no logical sense as that would make Sekiro Normal mode a different core than Sekiro Hard since Normal is easier than Hard and thus changing the core based on your logic.

It's pretty simple to make Sekiro easier with minor changes. You can have Breath of Light be a default skill to at least allow players to fuck around with the game's systems fighting normal enemies and not be out of health fighting a mini-boss without resting. You can start with more estus flasks because just 1 IIRC isn't enough leeway for new players. You really have such low margin for error at the start of the game when you just don't know the game very well. Lowering enemy attack damage would go a long way to allowing players to experiment and try things out without being punished so very strongly for each and every mistake. That tends to get players to find a cheese method like this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INPvBOb41rg] vs actually getting better at the game. You can also increase posture damage on the player's attacks, especially the harder to execute moves to reward players for utilizing them. None of that would change the core of the game and many of those things were actually mentioned by other people in the Sekiro Impressions thread.

I also would remove all the Souls elements because all they really accomplish is wasting the player's time vs making the game actually harder as they don't even make thematic sense. I would also have dragonroot only happen on resurrections as that actually makes sense with regards to the lore and would also make resurrection a risk/reward mechanic vs just something you always should do. And, of course, make dragonrot more interesting itself since it's overall pretty lame.

I've already stated my opinion; I'm just here to point out that one of this website's features have weighted in on the issue.

https://www.escapistmagazine.com/v2/2019/04/04/git-over-yurself/

That, and to ask for a link to the article xprimentyl referred to. It sounded highly relevant.

Bob is pretty much spot-on with that. This thread really should've ended at like the 1st reply.

 

[CritialGaming]

Spoiler

Reading the comments in this thread...makes me wonder how anyone ever played videogames in the classic 2D era. Obviously most of the big names were a few notches above SoulsBorne difficulty, yet there weren?t nearly the cries for including easy modes back then. People look back and say, ?Oh yeah, a buddy and I took turns and finally beat Super Ghouls n Ghosts together. It was awesome!? Everyone familiar would instantly recognize it for what it was: a difficult game. There was no need to ask, ?Oh, well what difficulty did you play it on??

Ok, comparisons to the good ol? days of 2D difficulty is willfully ignoring WHY it was so. Due to the obvious hard/software limitations, 2D games had less to work with than modern games by orders of magnitude and thusly were much shorter; they HAD to be difficult to merit their asking price. There?s an achievement for ?Contra? on XBL Arcade for beating the game in 12 minutes; how pissed would you be if you paid full retail for a game and saw the credits within an hour let alone 12 minutes? No, the high difficulty, lives and continues systems ensured that kids (for whom games then were largely made) didn?t exhaust their expensive new toy?s value too quickly; they weren?t in place to test the mettle of 8-year-olds.

Videogames aren?t a passive activity, so concepts like challenge naturally shift to the forefront of factors that can build appeal. Even single player games are played for challenge and the feelings of overcoming the odds against you, let alone the entertainment value. If some games are designed to have a fixed level of challenge, then they shouldn?t be penalized for it. The fact that they are ?just games? is beside the point.

Agreed, challenge is an integral part of many games, maybe even the point of some, but fortunately, games have evolved WELL beyond that simplistic focus. Games have narratives, characters, worlds to explore; they offer so much more than simple progress gated off behind frustrating difficulty spikes. Have you ever seen Vaatividya?s Dark Souls lore videos? Watching any of those shows you just how much can be appreciated in game like a Souls game without even MENTIONING the difficulty which is apparently the whole point in some people?s minds. I can see someone into high fantasy being intrigued by Dark Souls and wanting to explore it for themselves, yet simultaneously not having the skillset, time or patience to best it challenges, and that person is forced to miss out simply because the option to level the difficulty to something they can personally manage doesn?t exist. And no one?s penalizing Souls for not having difficulty options; obviously, they don?t and we of the mindset that lower difficulties would be fine still love them; we?re asking why shouldn?t they have them and how would they adversely affect the broader experience. The answers are ?dev choice? and ?they wouldn?t? respectively.

To reiterate, the notion that adding difficulty options won?t change anything falls apart when considering that?s the very point of them to begin with. Then the argument usually pivots into ?Oh, well you must be an elitist to want to keep people from enjoying something!? Uh, no. Consumers choose with their dollars what they consider to be intriguing game design, and FROM has clearly garnered a significant following and acclaim with their current philosophy. Their fanbase has also grown exponentially in the last decade based on the same. Very doubtful the same could be said if they made their games like everyone else. True, the challenge is only a part of their success model, but still a vital one nonetheless.

Miyazaki?s philosophy on his choice not to implement difficulty setting ins Souls games is largely an existential one, a quote from a Twinfinite article:

?We want everyone to feel that sense of accomplishment. We want everyone to feel elated and to join that discussion on the same level. We feel if there?s different difficulties, that?s going to segment and fragment the user base. People will have different experiences based on that [differing difficulty level]. This is something we take to heart when we design games.?

I respectfully disagree with him, the operative reason being he said ?everyone,? and NOT ?everyone good enough to get through my games.? This choice has done the exact opposite of his stated intent; the userbase is ?segmented and fragmented? between the ?cans? and ?can?ts;? the only unified groups are the elitist who smugly expect everyone else to ?git gud;?some of us would like to think the smart thing to do would be to bridge that gap so that more people ?could,? but FROM didn?t, and that?s their choice. Point is, many in here have stated that not every game need be for everyone, but I don?t hear that direct an intent from Miyazaki, that his games are intended for a niche hardcore sect; I feel ?everyone? means ?everyone who buys the game,? and that broad a stroke should account for ?everyone? being a significant mix bag of ability, availability, and how ?accomplishment and elation? are attained, a FACT that simple options could account for.

But, as stated, dev choice, and I continue to love the games as I respectfully feel the rigid experiences they offer that exclude anyone, particularly the willing, could be even better.

So how easy is ?easy enough? for ?everyone? to enjoy the games though? If the goal is the be all-inclusive, the games would almost literally need to play themselves before that goal is attained. At that point, people might as well just be watching a YouTube feature on them, like one of VaatiVidya?s. Also at that point, a significant piece of the appeal of these games would be completely lost, because there would be very little sense of satisfaction gained in overcoming the odds.

It?s rather irrelevant what your skill level going into these games is under FROM?s design. The fact that millions have somehow gotten through them as Miyazaki intended shows that their philosophy has worked, and rather well. Just like how people don?t really appreciate things the same when they are merely given to them vs having to work for them. Like I said before, I?m sure FROM is happy enough with their current profit margin that they don?t feel the need (or greed) to bolster that by sacrificing or compromising a formula that has served them well and helped build their reputation and a level of admiration not always seen in this industry.

 

[Kerg3927]

But erttheKing played Bayonetta because of having interest in the game or why play it? Bayonetta was also my 1st spectacle fighter and if I was forced to start on hard, I probably wouldn't have loved the game as much as I do (it is literally my favorite game of last-gen). Having multiple difficulties allows one to ease themselves into the game mechanics at their own pace. After having played Bayonetta many times now, the combat shines brightest on the NSIC difficulty due to witch time being disabled but forcing everyone to start on that is similar to making your kid hit against a major league pitcher when learning to play baseball, they going to hate it and that has nothing to do with baseball just not being for them.

Did I say anything about Bayonetta? I've never played that game. Not calling for it to have its easy modes removed. I don't think I've ever called for a game to have its easy modes removed. I generally respect a developer's game design and either play or don't play it.

I don't think it's a good comparison anyway. Obviously, games like the Souls games, which don't have an easy mode are going ramp up the difficulty progression more gradually, because that's how they are designed. They don't put Fume Knight as the first boss.

- That's their target niche and marketing gimmick.

The game doesn't have an "easy mode" because it works against the marketing niche they have established for themselves as a studio. And you know, that's okay with me.

This is a great point that I failed to emphasize enough. Dark Souls' marketing slogan is "Prepare to Die." In Dark Souls II's intro to the game, a witch mocks you and basically double dog dare's you to succeed, questioning whether you have what it takes. The whole theme of the games is despair, hopelessness, but you should keep going anyway, because wtf else are you going to do? Because there is no other option (i.e. there is no freaking easy mode). They want you to feel just like the character feels. They want you to get discouraged. They want you to despair, yet keep going anyway and overcome it, because they know that the greater the adversity the greater the rewards. It really is brilliant.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

.

And all that hassle in Vanilla and, to a lesser extent, Burning Crusade was NOT FUN.

Herding cats would be a dream come true, even when you had guilds (many of whom had to combine forces to even attempt it, leading to it's own brand of drama). You think I had fun waiting around hours at a time to run AQ just so I could get one more purple and have one less justification for being called a scrub? No. It was not. I don't know how many times I asked if I could be playing on my PS2 or maybe a movie with my wife while having my thumbs up my ass for a raid that might not happen. I actually dropped out of raiding until Lich King and it was more manageable.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I just realized I haven't actually given my opinion on this directly yet.

I've seen a lot of discussion on here, Reddit, Youtube, etc., and it has kind of baffled me to be frank. It seems way more polarizing that it really deserves to be. It's the kind of argument you'd have with a friend as an amicable debate in real life, but take it online and suddenly the knives are out. Personally, I found the game a bit harder than it ought to be, but that's just in service to my personal taste in game difficulty.

As for whether a demand for an "easy mode" is warranted, well, I am of two minds on this:

1. Who cares if someone wants to play the game differently?
2. Is an easy mode actually appropriate for the game they wanted to make?

Is there a right way to play a game? Are there wrong ways? Is there a wrong way to design a game experience? Do games have to be accessible to everyone? Is a game being "too hard" objectively bad, or is it just something some (or even most) people won't enjoy?

I think players have a right to express their feelings towards a game and ask for things to be changed they don't like, but also I think the developers have to weigh the desires of their audience with the vision they have for the experience. If they intend for the game to force the player to adapt to its challenges by playing it in a specific way, having a high difficulty is just another tool in the toolbox.

From my interpretation, the difficulty of Sekiro is there to create a specific kind of experience:

- They want you to perfect the combat system and utilize everything available to you to overcome the challenges they present. Considering the high skill ceiling of the game, they probably felt that the only way to achieve this is to make the game so hard you are forced to achieve a certain level of system mastery or fail. Allowing for a "dumbed down" version of the experience would likely not achieve this end.
- With the above in mind, they want to set a baseline for people's experience so that the community can feel more united in their triumph and tribulations.
- Euphoric dopamine hit after overcoming extreme challenges.
- Make the player feel weak and small against overwhelming odds.

Some of the above could have been achieved to some degree through other means of game design, absolutely, but that would ignore my last point:

- That's their target niche and marketing gimmick.

The game doesn't have an "easy mode" because it works against the marketing niche they have established for themselves as a studio. And you know, that's okay with me. I liked the game, but as I mentioned before, it is a bit harder than I would have preferred. I am all in favor of some balance tweaks if they decide they want to patch the difficulty in some spots.

That said, the game is what it is. If they think an "easy mode" would diminish the experience they want to give people, they won't add it. If they don't think it's a big deal, they might add it. Generally, I don't believe in catering to everyone, because if you try to make everyone happy you make no one happy. On the flip-side of that coin, however, I do think that players have the right to voice their opinions and desires.

At the end of the day they probably won't even consider it because, well, its FromSoft and that's just how they are. If they for some reason decided to add it in I wouldn't really care. I always play games on their intended difficulty anyway as it usually makes for the best experience available. If offered an easier experience in Sekiro I would have ignored it because I am just a really stubborn guy.

This is basically what I wrote last page. I think the issue ultimately is that asking for an easy mode is seen as a more legitimate think to ask for than asking for a story to turn out differently or asking for a gun to fire differently and so on. It is not. Difficulty is just one more game component that's as integral as any other and asking it be changed shouldn't be seen under a different light. People who ask a game be made easier shouldn't pretend to have this mantle of virtue that they carry themselves around with. They just...don't like this one thing. It's their opinion. There's no greater cause. The whole "we're fighting for the sake of accessibility" nonsense is a red herring. You're just masking your own personal opinion with the virtue of justice to dodge deserved criticism.

Like in that article posted last page they should just "gyt over thymselves ". Their tastes in gaming difficulty are unremarkable, not noteworthy in the slightest.

 

[CritialGaming]

Dunkey's video nails what accomplishment in gaming actually is and no easy mode will take that away from any game ever.

"The idea of accomplishment doesn't stem from beating the game, but rather mastering it." It's just that those 8/16-bit games required mastery to beat. Thus, beating them was an accomplishment, which isn't true of beating a Souls game.

That?s not fully true though (and the rest of the video was too much of an incoherent mess for me to gather just how the hell he?s accumulated 5+ million subs. I?d counter with this [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w8wrZ25ewIY]). For some people just beating a game is enough of an accomplishment before they move onto the next. If they take the time to master something they must either not have anything else to do or nothing else to play, unless the game is joke easy to begin with. Maybe you?ve mastered Dark Souls on a single play through, but it?s doubtful. Would be fun to watch actually.

 

[Dalisclock]

I know I harped on it earlier in this thread, but I could care less about if the FROM games get an easy mode or not. I'm honestly more interested in FROM games having parts of the game that are unbalanced or broken that make the game difficult or cheap which serve no other purpose then the frustrate the player.

Does anyone remember the Bed of fucking Chaos? The devs fucking apologized for the fact it was broken(oh, and it apparently is still broken in the remaster) and even made it perhaps the only boss in the series that lets you carry over progress between deaths. That's not finely fucking tuned difficulty, that's "We didn't do our jobs right the first time so we essentially put in a cheat to let people finish the fight/beat the game without rage quitting". THis is shit that is less solved with "Git Gud son" and more "Devs, do your job properly".

 

[Fappy]

I know I harped on it earlier in this thread, but I could care less about if the FROM games get an easy mode or not. I'm honestly more interested in FROM games having parts of the game that are unbalanced or broken that make the game difficult or cheap which serve no other purpose then the frustrate the player.

Does anyone remember the Bed of fucking Chaos? The devs fucking apologized for the fact it was broken(oh, and it apparently is still broken in the remaster) and even made it perhaps the only boss in the series that lets you carry over progress between deaths. That's not finely fucking tuned difficulty, that's "We didn't do our jobs right the first time so we essentially put in a cheat to let people finish the fight/beat the game without rage quitting". THis is shit that is less solved with "Git Gud son" and more "Devs, do your job properly".

Bed of Chaos wasn't due to laziness, it was just a victim of budgeting and time constraints. In fact, then entire zone of Lost Izalith suffered for it. We can all agree that it sucks, but I won't blame the devs when they did what they could within the limitations of the development cycle.

I think there are other "cheap" encounters worth complaining about that were not a result of running out of resources. Fuck Midir's needlessly humongous HP pool, basically.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I know I harped on it earlier in this thread, but I could care less about if the FROM games get an easy mode or not. I'm honestly more interested in FROM games having parts of the game that are unbalanced or broken that make the game difficult or cheap which serve no other purpose then the frustrate the player.

This is the difference between Fromsoft difficulty and difficulty in other games. I've played games that were harder than Fromsoft, some I couldn't even finish, but they didn't have this almost needlessly sense of punishment to them. And a lot of it stems from Fromsoft just not polishing up their controls all that much, or their camera.

 

[Kerg3927]

I think there are other "cheap" encounters worth complaining about that were not a result of running out of resources. Fuck Midir's needlessly humongous HP pool, basically.

 

[CritialGaming]

I know I harped on it earlier in this thread, but I could care less about if the FROM games get an easy mode or not. I'm honestly more interested in FROM games having parts of the game that are unbalanced or broken that make the game difficult or cheap which serve no other purpose then the frustrate the player.

This is the difference between Fromsoft difficulty and difficulty in other games. I've played games that were harder than Fromsoft, some I couldn't even finish, but they didn't have this almost needlessly sense of punishment to them. And a lot of it stems from Fromsoft just not polishing up their controls all that much, or their camera.

I found Celeste, Rogue Legacy, and Dead Cells far harder than any FromSoft game even Sekiro. Though Sekiro's NG+ has an option to quadripple it's difficulty with two debuffs, which I am trying and it makes even the common enemies boss level hard.

 

[Fappy]

I know I harped on it earlier in this thread, but I could care less about if the FROM games get an easy mode or not. I'm honestly more interested in FROM games having parts of the game that are unbalanced or broken that make the game difficult or cheap which serve no other purpose then the frustrate the player.

This is the difference between Fromsoft difficulty and difficulty in other games. I've played games that were harder than Fromsoft, some I couldn't even finish, but they didn't have this almost needlessly sense of punishment to them. And a lot of it stems from Fromsoft just not polishing up their controls all that much, or their camera.

The controls in general I don't find a problem with outside of micro-movements during platforming sections (which are generally poorly designed in their games anyway). The camera and lock-on has been a consistent issue in all of their games though, that is definitely true. The lock-on range in Sekiro is actually surprisingly far despite having few ways to utilize it.

 

[Bedinsis]

I know I harped on it earlier in this thread, but I could care less about if the FROM games get an easy mode or not. I'm honestly more interested in FROM games having parts of the game that are unbalanced or broken that make the game difficult or cheap which serve no other purpose then the frustrate the player.

This is the difference between Fromsoft difficulty and difficulty in other games. I've played games that were harder than Fromsoft, some I couldn't even finish, but they didn't have this almost needlessly sense of punishment to them. And a lot of it stems from Fromsoft just not polishing up their controls all that much, or their camera.

I found Celeste, Rogue Legacy, and Dead Cells far harder than any FromSoft game even Sekiro. Though Sekiro's NG+ has an option to quadripple it's difficulty with two debuffs, which I am trying and it makes even the common enemies boss level hard.

All those are 2D titles... neither of which I've played so I might be talking out of my behind but: is it not possible that their gameplay is sufficiently different from what you are accustomed to that that is the reason you find them more challenging than From Software's titles?

 

[CritialGaming]

I know I harped on it earlier in this thread, but I could care less about if the FROM games get an easy mode or not. I'm honestly more interested in FROM games having parts of the game that are unbalanced or broken that make the game difficult or cheap which serve no other purpose then the frustrate the player.

This is the difference between Fromsoft difficulty and difficulty in other games. I've played games that were harder than Fromsoft, some I couldn't even finish, but they didn't have this almost needlessly sense of punishment to them. And a lot of it stems from Fromsoft just not polishing up their controls all that much, or their camera.

I found Celeste, Rogue Legacy, and Dead Cells far harder than any FromSoft game even Sekiro. Though Sekiro's NG+ has an option to quadripple it's difficulty with two debuffs, which I am trying and it makes even the common enemies boss level hard.

All those are 2D titles... neither of which I've played so I might be talking out of my behind but: is it not possible that their gameplay is sufficiently different from what you are accustomed to that that is the reason you find them more challenging than From Software's titles?

I mean I played a lot of other 2D titles. But you bring up an interesting point about difficulty don't you?

If I never play 2D titles, then it stands to reason that those games will be really hard to deal with. Just like if someone isn't a 3rd person action game player, FromSoft titles will be really hard.

You can't know someone's experience or gaming preferences, and thus when someone who isn't used to a game like Souls or Sekiro clearly they are going to struggle more than someone who plays other action games like them even if those games aren't on the same plane of difficulty level. So why does the game need an easy mode? People all struggle with different games, someone who isn't an RTS player then they'll have a lot of struggle in a game like Dota or League. Soulslikes are a lot like Rogue-likes in a way due to the way death and failure is treated. However the player levels their own skills in a Souls game instead of whatever mechanic the Rogue-like has. Nobody demands the Rogue-like games have easy modes, because they are designed for you to fail over and over and get better every time.

These games have difficulty for reasons, and it is okay for them to be hard without compromise. Don't like it? Can't deal with it? Maybe it's not your cup of tea, the game doesn't have to change for you. Clearly they appeal to a lot of other people, you just aint one of them.

What is the problem with that?

 

[Bedinsis]

You can't know someone's experience or gaming preferences, and thus when someone who isn't used to a game like Souls or Sekiro why does the game need an easy mode?

What? I think this sentence is missing a paragraph or two.