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

[CritialGaming]

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.

You are right, my touchpad screwed me over. I fixed the post.

 

[Silvanus]

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?

Nothing is the problem with that. Neither is there a problem with an easier difficulty mode; that challenge will still exist. In the other mode.

I still would like my newbier friends to experience the world/ basics of combat, precisely because I like it so much.

 

[CritialGaming]

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?

Nothing is the problem with that. Neither is there a problem with an easier difficulty mode; that challenge will still exist. In the other mode.

I still would like my newbier friends to experience the world/ basics of combat, precisely because I like it so much.

https://www.pcgamer.com/sekiro-mod-makes-the-game-easier-and-unlocks-the-frame-rate/

Here you go then. Become a lightning ninja with this mod

 

[Chewster]

I always like how elitist gamers get when anyone suggests any change to their precious games. Normal person: Give the option of an easier game for accessibility for diaabled people or to help people who have to hammer out reviews in this ridiculous media landscape hell we all live in. "True" gamer: GRAAHHHHHBREAAAAHHH HOW DARE YOU *head explodes*.

Come on man. Fuck off with this attitude. This is no better than gamers of the Golden PC Master Race shitting on people who play phone games and consider themselves gamers. Stop being a sensitive, gatekeeping wanker.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

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.

My point was rather universal for all games as people come into every game with different skills and experience, some are first timers, some are veterans of the series and/or genre. The Souls games and Sekiro are actually toughest at the start (especially when you never played one) and you actually level up in Souls to basically keep the game the same (outside of grinding). In Sekiro, you're especially gimped at the start of the 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.

Dunkey is a bit random but pretty funny, he did a Sekiro video. What wasn't true in the video (outside of probably a bit of exaggerating)? I couldn't disagree with anything he said and satisfaction does come with getting better vs just winning. Do you feel satisfied when you cheese something in any game or something like a Souls tough enemy falling to their deaths? Hell, even when you do well and fail, you feel accomplishment like a baseball player hitting a rocket right at someone for an out. I feel beating a game that isn't about any challenge is more in-line with watching a movie because you're playing the game for obviously some other reason (like story or Hollywood set-pieces ala Uncharted). I like Rurikhan as I discovered his channel through Monster Hunter World. His example was pretty poor in the video because he was saying basically god mode was equivalent to easy mode and god mode breaks pretty much any game. I would say I pretty much mastered Souls combat for PvE but PvP like any game there is far more to it.

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?

Literally for the exact reason as your opening sentence there.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I always like how elitist gamers get when anyone suggests any change to their precious games. Normal person: Give the option of an easier game for accessibility for diaabled people or to help people who have to hammer out reviews in this ridiculous media landscape hell we all live in. "True" gamer: GRAAHHHHHBREAAAAHHH HOW DARE YOU *head explodes*.

Come on man. Fuck off with this attitude. This is no better than gamers of the Golden PC Master Race shitting on people who play phone games and consider themselves gamers. Stop being a sensitive, gatekeeping wanker.

Funny enough, I just read this article [https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/04/05/sekiro-accessibility-in-games-is-about-far-more-than-difficulty] over on IGN. I'd strongly recommend you read it.

No one with a reasonable opinion is arguing games should not be accessible. As that article points out, accessibility is not the same as difficulty, and it is entirely possible to make a game accessible without compromising challenge. The closest thing to a real problem here, is games "journalists" who are just shitty at games keep muddying waters and poisoning wells by justifying arguments born of their own inadequacies as matters of "accessibility".

 

[CritialGaming]

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.

My point was rather universal for all games as people come into every game with different skills and experience, some are first timers, some are veterans of the series and/or genre. The Souls games and Sekiro are actually toughest at the start (especially when you never played one) and you actually level up in Souls to basically keep the game the same (outside of grinding). In Sekiro, you're especially gimped at the start of the 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.

Dunkey is a bit random but pretty funny, he did a Sekiro video. What wasn't true in the video (outside of probably a bit of exaggerating)? I couldn't disagree with anything he said and satisfaction does come with getting better vs just winning. Do you feel satisfied when you cheese something in any game or something like a Souls tough enemy falling to their deaths? Hell, even when you do well and fail, you feel accomplishment like a baseball player hitting a rocket right at someone for an out. I feel beating a game that isn't about any challenge is more in-line with watching a movie because you're playing the game for obviously some other reason (like story or Hollywood set-pieces ala Uncharted). I like Rurikhan as I discovered his channel through Monster Hunter World. His example was pretty poor in the video because he was saying basically god mode was equivalent to easy mode and god mode breaks pretty much any game. I would say I pretty much mastered Souls combat for PvE but PvP like any game there is far more to it.

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?

Literally for the exact reason as your opening sentence there.

It also basically refutes your own reasoning. What?s wrong with people struggling and getting better by learning the game? This thread was about Sekiro?s difficulty, which isn?t nearly as difficult as a lot of classic era games since it was designed to give ways to overcome difficulty if the player looks for them. I?ll bring up this video [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w8wrZ25ewIY#] again, which makes its point plain as day. Why does every game need to introduce its challenges at a joke easy level? Why can?t part of the challenge you speak of actually involve learning the game vs just barely interacting with it much different than a movie?

I think this topic essentially boils down to a difference of opinion. To some people it?s sacrilege if a game?s design doesn?t bend to the player?s will or preferences. To others like myself it?s not always the game?s or developer?s duty to enable the player, like in the cases of SoulsBorne or Sekiro; it?s the game?s duty to give them a challenge. If that?s too much for them for some reason, then it simply isn?t a game for them. Preferences or taste are completely allowed to extend to challenge, and there?s nothing wrong if one game is designed to be more challenging than another, or ask that the player engages with it in a meaningful way by learning its secrets and systems to succeed (even if it?s cheesing or exploiting flaws) vs just selecting an option to breeze through it all with a yawn.

 

[EvilRoy]

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.

DS definitely has a habit of trying to suck your soul out your peehole with their DLC bosses. Even as a person that generally enjoys the idea of dlc being more post game content (you get here at your peak and have an opportunity to keep growing) they definitely way overdo it in DS.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

It also basically refutes your own reasoning. What?s wrong with people struggling and getting better by learning the game? This thread was about Sekiro?s difficulty, which isn?t nearly as difficult as a lot of classic era games since it was designed to give ways to overcome difficulty if the player looks for them. I?ll bring up this video [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w8wrZ25ewIY#] again, which makes its point plain as day. Why does every game need to introduce its challenges at a joke easy level? Why can?t part of the challenge you speak of actually involve learning the game vs just barely interacting with it much different than a movie?

I think this topic essentially boils down to a difference of opinion. To some people it?s sacrilege if a game?s design doesn?t bend to the player?s will or preferences. To others like myself it?s not always the game?s or developer?s duty to enable the player, like in the cases of SoulsBorne or Sekiro; it?s the game?s duty to give them a challenge. If that?s too much for them for some reason, then it simply isn?t a game for them. Preferences or taste are completely allowed to extend to challenge, and there?s nothing wrong if one game is designed to be more challenging than another, or ask that the player engages with it in a meaningful way by learning its secrets and systems to succeed (even if it?s cheesing or exploiting flaws) vs just selecting an option to breeze through it all with a yawn.

You can still struggle and learn the game on an easier difficulty. I'm not sure why you're equating easy difficulty to god mode or being able to breeze through a game. Easy difficulty is just easier than normal, not eliminating challenge from the game. For some people and easy difficulty will be harder than it is for you on normal. Even doing some drastic things like say enabling an option to not take damage at all would allow the player to stay in fights learning the enemy's attacks, experimenting with the mechanics, learning the timing on deflects, etc. Some would use that to brute force everything but it would be a great learning tool as well. I think the biggest problem with early Sekiro for new players (which like everyone is because the combat is unique) is your margin for error is really low and greatly inhibits learning. Multiple difficulties also allow players to adjust games if the difficulty progression is off (which it most games) like say Sekiro of God of War (which has like the exact opposite progression a game is supposed to have).

 

[I can't enter my old name]

Uhh... How do you think Normal difficulty is reached during development? By changing damage and health modifiers!!! During the development, the lead designer will at some point say the game is a bit too easy, and all you have to do is save that and you have easy difficulty. Easy and Hard difficulties are attained before Normal difficulty

What I was trying to say was that easy mode (and hard mode) is usually slapped together, where it will have less attention put to it than whatever difficulty that most players will choose. If devs are going to spend time on to make sure that easy mode is as enjoyable for those who would choose easy mode on their first playthrough, then that takes effort beyond modifying damage multipliers.

And games are hardly playtested for balance purposes, they're playtested for bugs. Playtesters literally play the game complete opposite of how it's supposed to be played to find bugs. More proof to that is how fucking unbalanced games are, just look at shooters and how unbalanced normal guns are like ARs, SMGs, shotguns, etc. and there's tons of those every year and devs still can't balance such simple shit.

I don't know how most studios playtest, but I'm sure they have some feedback they get about how "fun" the game is, and difficulty has to factor into it.

AAA multiplayer shooters put variety > balance. However, fun guns keep the title unique over other yearly releases, and while MW2 and BFBC2 were fan favorites, they were the most unbalanced, which made them the most memorable. MW2 had noobtubes, akimbo winchesters and glocks, and a thematically ridiculous kill-streak that instantly ended the match, unfun for everyone except one person. BFBC2 every sniper could call a mortar stike and level a base, everyone had slug shotguns, and engineers had tracking darts that allowed you to snipe the snipers with homing rockets.

Future titles went too far with variety to keep things fresh, but since they were more balanced from experience, the choices you made were bland. Sure, on the receiving end of an OP weapon sucks, but if anyone can pick from a variety of OP weapons, things get interesting.

 

[CritialGaming]

It also basically refutes your own reasoning. What?s wrong with people struggling and getting better by learning the game? This thread was about Sekiro?s difficulty, which isn?t nearly as difficult as a lot of classic era games since it was designed to give ways to overcome difficulty if the player looks for them. I?ll bring up this video [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w8wrZ25ewIY#] again, which makes its point plain as day. Why does every game need to introduce its challenges at a joke easy level? Why can?t part of the challenge you speak of actually involve learning the game vs just barely interacting with it much different than a movie?

I think this topic essentially boils down to a difference of opinion. To some people it?s sacrilege if a game?s design doesn?t bend to the player?s will or preferences. To others like myself it?s not always the game?s or developer?s duty to enable the player, like in the cases of SoulsBorne or Sekiro; it?s the game?s duty to give them a challenge. If that?s too much for them for some reason, then it simply isn?t a game for them. Preferences or taste are completely allowed to extend to challenge, and there?s nothing wrong if one game is designed to be more challenging than another, or ask that the player engages with it in a meaningful way by learning its secrets and systems to succeed (even if it?s cheesing or exploiting flaws) vs just selecting an option to breeze through it all with a yawn.

You can still struggle and learn the game on an easier difficulty. I'm not sure why you're equating easy difficulty to god mode or being able to breeze through a game. Easy difficulty is just easier than normal, not eliminating challenge from the game. For some people and easy difficulty will be harder than it is for you on normal. Even doing some drastic things like say enabling an option to not take damage at all would allow the player to stay in fights learning the enemy's attacks, experimenting with the mechanics, learning the timing on deflects, etc. Some would use that to brute force everything but it would be a great learning tool as well. I think the biggest problem with early Sekiro for new players (which like everyone is because the combat is unique) is your margin for error is really low and greatly inhibits learning. Multiple difficulties also allow players to adjust games if the difficulty progression is off (which it most games) like say Sekiro of God of War (which has like the exact opposite progression a game is supposed to have).

I understand people have different abilities, patience, whatever, but whenever they play on different difficulty levels they?re still winding up with vastly different experiences which will influence their base opinions of the game. That?s not something the developers are going for with these games, and there?s nothing wrong with that. Same with even other games like GTA, RDR, or Kingdom Come: Deliverance. There are also very few games with thoughtfully implemented difficulty levels, where you?re not just adjusting damage sliders or item scarcity.

If you?ve read the IGN article [https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/04/05/sekiro-accessibility-in-games-is-about-far-more-than-difficulty] that Eacaraxe mentioned above it does a good job of explaining accessibility vs difficulty, and which really matters more in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

There are also very few games with thoughtfully implemented difficulty levels, where you?re not just adjusting damage sliders or item scarcity.

I'm currently playing the hell out of Rimworld (again), and since it's fresh on my mind I'd like to throw it out as a case example of game difficulty done really, really right. There are so many different ways for players to tweak difficulty for themselves even setting aside the AI storyteller for the moment, by changing climate sliders and biome selection, and starting colonists' traits and skills, that a player can craft whatever experience they want.

Then come the AI storytellers. Three (or more with mods) storytellers with their own characteristics, weights, and preferences, distributed over five more typical difficulty levels that determine resource collection, threat weight, sale values, and the like. People love to harp about how difficult Randy Random can be, but the truth is Randy on Peaceful, Base Builder, or Medium is still going to be a more laid back experience with easier challenges to overcome than Phoebe on Savage or Merciless.

But the truth of the matter is, even Phoebe on easier difficulty levels will throw sets of challenges at the player that are exceptionally difficult to overcome for inexperienced or unprepared players. Hell, my last complete playthrough, I was playing on Phoebe Medium and she was still nailing me with kentucky fried bullshit like solar flare/heat wave combos, and constant eclipses after I transitioned food production to indoors with sun lamps.

Still nothing compared to my Cassandra Rough playthrough a couple years back when I first got the game, when I had to deal with a toxic fallout event that lasted an entire game year, during which a psychic ship crashed. Not that the toxic fallout/psychic ship combo was entirely bad. A couple raids happened during it that would have wiped my colony, had they not imploded due to mental break spirals, raiders getting sick and dying, and/or animals turning manhunter and going after the raiders instead of my colonists.

Now that I'm thinking of it, it's awfully funny how these arguments always seem to be centered around action games.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I always like how elitist gamers get when anyone suggests any change to their precious games. Normal person: Give the option of an easier game for accessibility for diaabled people or to help people who have to hammer out reviews in this ridiculous media landscape hell we all live in. "True" gamer: GRAAHHHHHBREAAAAHHH HOW DARE YOU *head explodes*.

Come on man. Fuck off with this attitude. This is no better than gamers of the Golden PC Master Race shitting on people who play phone games and consider themselves gamers. Stop being a sensitive, gatekeeping wanker.

The problem is when you have people saying that the disabled-person-mode is more to their speed than the regular mode and they are not disabled.


Also, why should someone whose job is to tell people how the actual experience of playing a game is like do so from an easier than the actual form of the game version of it? Won't that cripple their ability to properly offer advice when they didn't even experience the real meat of the game? This is kinda like with fighting games where you're reading a review and about half way through the reviewer has a throwaway line about an integral system that is actually the prism the entire game must be analyzed through and how they never got their head around it "but that doesn't matter" and then continue prattling on, not realizing they just disqualified themselves from offering a valuable opinion. There's this state where you don't know how much you don't know that a lot of journalists operate under, completely unaware. This is why they get badmouthed.

 

[Erttheking]

That is not me saying they should appeal to every gamer, it was me challenging your unfounded stereotypes. You?ll note I included myself in there despite me being a Souls fan.

And to that I reiterate my original comment, which is that those who don't give a shit can play other games. I don't think From Software designed their games for people who don't give a shit, hence no easy mode.

Oh you really need to stop with the strawman. I have said over and over again, and I think you?re just ignoring me at this point, that easy mode should still be challenging. Because there comes a point where smashing your head against a brick wall stops being meaningful if the gap is too wide and you just can?t clear it. 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.

If I am a painter, and I paint a picture of horses, I don't really care that some people like cows better. I painted it for people who like horses, not cows. The people who like cows can go look at cow paintings.

There are not many 5-year-olds who can read and understand Moby Dick. But nobody expected Herman Melville to create a comic book version for them.

I don't understand why this view is so incredibly difficult for some people to tolerate. Why do people go 8+ pages on a message board trying to prove that this is wrongthink? And none of you are even directly affected by it, because you've already completed Dark Souls as is. Why can't you just let it go, especially considering the massive success of these games? Why can't you just chalk it up to, you know what, I may not like it, but I can't argue with their business model because it's certainly been very successful for them? It's baffling.

Let it beee... let it be... let it beeeee... let it be... whisper words of wisdom... let it beeee...

Again with assuming that people don't give a shit. I'm getting this weird paradox from you. That if you put in an easy mode everyone would play it, but also an easy mode shouldn't be put in because no one gives a shit about it. I mean, make up your mind. Which is it?

I think you just encapsulated a major problem I have with the Souls fanbase. Any adjustment to accommodate for more people, regardless of how little it would affect the main fanbase

Also your Moby Dick comment falls apart when you remember that abridged versions of books exist. There's an abridged copy of Romance of the Three Kingdoms on my bookshelf right now. I think you really need to stop with comparisons to other mediums because they've nearly all come up flat.

And I don't get why an optional difficulty mode that you never need to touch infuriates people so deeply. And I really don't know why people want to prove that an easy mode is wrongthink, it's a little weird, don't you think? I know! None of the people who don't want an easy mode would be affected by it! (The sarcasm in the last few sentences were there because I think you were starting to project there.) Also I feel like you're trying to force the argument into a "heads you lose, tails you lose," area. "You need the easy mode? You need to buckle down and get better. You don't need the easy mode? Why do you care?" I care because I have this skill that's apparently becoming a superpower nowadays, the ability to care about people who aren't in the same circles that I am. Also you talk about the suceess of Dark Souls as if an optional easy mode would detract from it in any shape or form. I'd laugh my ass off at the guy who loved Dark Souls yet refused to buy the next game in a series because of an optional difficulty mode that he never touched. It'd be like boycotting a game because the soapstone summon limit got increased.

 

[Erttheking]

Also, why should someone whose job is to tell people how the actual experience of playing a game is like do so from an easier than the actual form of the game version of it?

The article said nothing about that. I've lost count of the number of times in this thread that people have flat out made shit up about games journalists because game journalists are the boogeymen of this community.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Also, why should someone whose job is to tell people how the actual experience of playing a game is like do so from an easier than the actual form of the game version of it?

The article said nothing about that. I've lost count of the number of times in this thread that people have flat out made shit up about games journalists because game journalists are the boogeymen of this community.

I wasn't referring to any articles, I was responding to the suggestion of the person I quoted.

 

[Erttheking]

Also, why should someone whose job is to tell people how the actual experience of playing a game is like do so from an easier than the actual form of the game version of it?

The article said nothing about that. I've lost count of the number of times in this thread that people have flat out made shit up about games journalists because game journalists are the boogeymen of this community.

I wasn't referring to any articles, I was responding to the suggestion of the person I quoted.

Fair point, my bad.

 

[Trunkage]

From me: You know those old sort of games were about forcing micro transactions on you, right? It's the same principle that mobile games have, stupidly difficult to make you spend more money.

Also, fixed level games are being punished? By who? The people who think that the game is too hard? I feel like you need to reread your last paragraph. Becuase you've failed to realise that the only people punishing FROM is FROM. These people are telling FROM exactly what they need to buy their game. It's called feedback. It's up to FROM to decide if they want their money or not.

Lastly, didn't the world suddenly turn upside down? Did difficulty modes ruin Doom? System Shcok? Dues Ex? Dishonoured? Otherwise your claim that difficulty mode ruins games is false. It CAN ruin some games but it's definitely not all.

From You: I only remember paying one retail price for games like 8-16 bit Castlevania, Super Mario, Super Ghouls n Ghosts, all the old Zeldas including N64 entries, etc. where are you getting MT?s from?

And speaking of FROM, they clearly must not be too concerned with their bottom line under their current design philosophy as they?ve stuck with it so far. I think it?s more a case of them having the integrity to realize that some things (like being able to make games how they want) are more important. I already mentioned above that it?s up to the consumer, and they?ve still managed to speak in droves despite the continued absence of a difficulty select. Nothing was a problem until people started complaining that the game needed more difficulty options. So there?s that.

You also kinda contradicted and then self-corrected your own comment at the end there, so...ok.

Let's start with the last bit. Let me paraphrase. Could having difficulty modes ruin an experience? There are thousands of games out there, I'm sure there is at least one incompetent designer. But is it common? Nope. Unless you can prove that all or even most games are ruined difficulty modes, making these modes actually does nothing. (Unless you find that infrequent badly designed game)

Also, you say integrity, I say marketing ploy. I remember many people complaining about Dark Souls 3, because they enjoyed Dark Souls 1 for its story and it just happened to come with a side of good gameplay. Now, FROM was focusing on difficulty because that's how it seared into some people's minds. They only focussed on that and not the story OR Gameplay, which has alienated a bunch of people. There's a podcast called Bonfire Side Chat that detailed this constantly. I'll give you that FROM might have had integrity for DS1, but by they time DS3 rolled around, all that integrity was gone for a quick buck.

Or let me say this another way. Originally, FROM games werent just about difficulty. Focusing on Difficulty detracts from the game/ series. It's ruining their design of games.

As for Super Ghouls and Ghosts, I actually didnt realise they had a separate thing for consoles. But, seeing Super at the front of the title (like Super Star Wars) should have clued me in. I played the orginal also (Ghosts and Goblins) but on an Apple IIgs, I think. I dont know what the differences were but the ones I played were difficult and seen as such.

I would suggest using your peer group as an indication of how everyone in the world thought Super Ghouls and Ghosts is a bad assumption. It's like when you played something like StarCraft or Halo, and you might have been the best in your friends' group. But once you acutally get online, you were handly defeated by some Korean.

EDIT: I deleted too much of the quote. I sort of fixed it

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

What I was trying to say was that easy mode (and hard mode) is usually slapped together, where it will have less attention put to it than whatever difficulty that most players will choose. If devs are going to spend time on to make sure that easy mode is as enjoyable for those who would choose easy mode on their first playthrough, then that takes effort beyond modifying damage multipliers.

But Normal difficulties are already slapped together and poorly balanced to begin with. Being able to "fix" it to your preferences as an option is only a good thing. MODs are rather popular for that reason.

I understand people have different abilities, patience, whatever, but whenever they play on different difficulty levels they?re still winding up with vastly different experiences which will influence their base opinions of the game. That?s not something the developers are going for with these games, and there?s nothing wrong with that. Same with even other games like GTA, RDR, or Kingdom Come: Deliverance. There are also very few games with thoughtfully implemented difficulty levels, where you?re not just adjusting damage sliders or item scarcity.

If you?ve read the IGN article [https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/04/05/sekiro-accessibility-in-games-is-about-far-more-than-difficulty] that Eacaraxe mentioned above it does a good job of explaining accessibility vs difficulty, and which really matters more in the grand scheme of things.

You're already have people winding up with vastly different experiences regardless of difficulty or not, you can't make something in a way that forces people to have the exact same experiences. Opinions of games (or anything) aren't inherently bad, it's the reasoning that you can criticize. Much like Rurikhan's video you linked criticizing the game for having no depth due to using something that puts enemies at max posture is pretty dumb logic. Whereas having mastered the mechanics, you can break down how reasons why you feel there's is little depth. The Souls games' and Sekiro's difficulties aren't that well designed either. Basic difficulty levels accomplish what they're going for regardless of how simplistic the alterations are. Does Uncharted's basic levels do anything wonky? Basic combat, which most video games are, is really simplistic to balance compared to pretty much all other types of games like say a worker placement board game.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Also, you say integrity, I say marketing ploy. I remember many people complaining about Dark Souls 3, because they enjoyed Dark Souls 1 for its story and it just happened to come with a side of good gameplay. Now, FROM was focusing on difficulty because that's how it seared into some people's minds. They only focussed on that and not the story OR Gameplay, which has alienated a bunch of people. There's a podcast called Bonfire Side Chat that detailed this constantly. I'll give you that FROM might have had integrity for DS1, but by they time DS3 rolled around, all that integrity was gone for a quick buck.

What I remember about DS1 at launch is a bunch of people complaining that the game was too hard and had no story and they had no idea what was going on or what they needed to do. The story of Dark Souls was really only figured out months after the game's release, and there's still debate about that story to this day. The community of people who pieced it together weren't casual players. The game requires a fair bit of obsessiveness on the part of the player to figure out the story, to read all of the item descriptions, to figure out the context clues, and I don't think that obsessiveness exists in people who find the game unenjoyable due to its difficulty.

If the game had been easier would those people who complained about the game being too hard have figured out the story? Probably not. The people who found the game too hard were people who refused to change the way they played the game, didn't read item descriptions, and didn't really pay attention to environmental queues, and got frustrated by having to run through the same areas over and over again. The story of Dark Souls is tied into all of the design decisions, including the difficulty, and the people who couldn't gel with the gameplay weren't going to be enjoying the story if the difficulty was removed because they still wouldn't put the work in to find it.

Trust me, I know, I bounced off the game multiple times before it finally clicked with me. If the combat in the game had been easier and allowed me to just cruise through it, I would have figured out nothing, and then complained that there wasn't a story and that the whole game is a confusing mess of poor design decisions because on the surface that is exactly what it seems like.