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

[Dirty Hipsters]

To me that's different than moving a slider and cutting the damage of the boss and his hp in half, and so now it doesn't matter what armor one uses, and it doesn't really matter if one misses some blocks or dodges because the boss doesn't do that much damage anymore, and it doesn't matter what weapon one uses because the boss doesn't have that many hp anymore. So then that person just charges forward and spams some buttons until the boss is dead. And then he probably turns around and COMPLAINS to everyone about how BORING the game is, and how it is WAY overrated. Well, duh, he just ruined it for himself. He took a shit in his own sandbox. The absence of an easy mode toggle helps prevent this from happening.

Why are you assuming people want an easy mode that reduces the difficulty to "braindead"? That's not the logical first step down.

The point is that different people find things difficult to different degrees. Turn it down a little, and my shite-at-games friend would still find it bloody difficult. Would still find it harder than I find the standard game. Just not insurmountable anymore.

So how many difficulty modes should there be? How many "steps down?" What if an easy mode gets implemented and it's still not easy enough for everyone? If you're arguing for inclusivity and making the game as accessible as possible wouldn't that mean that the easy difficulty would have to cater to the lowest possible denominator of skill to be as inclusive as possible?

Most games don't do that though, most games don't have a difficulty that is literally braindead. Most games still present a certain level of challenge even at the "easy" setting right? So who is to say what the appropriate level of challenge is? Who is to say what is or isn't too hard? We still expect a certain level of competency from people to be able to interact with a game right? A person is expected to be able to aim and move at the same time to play an FPS right? I know plenty of people for who are entirely unable to do that, does that mean that all shooters should have a mode that can be completed without the ability to move and shoot at the same time?

My friend's wife likes to play games with us sometimes. When we play with her we typically play something 2D, or we'll play a story based game like Until Dawn or Life is Strange and let her make the choices and just enjoy the story together. She's never trained her dexterity enough to be able to use 2 joysticks at the same time. Should all games cater to people like her, or is she expected to put in some effort and learn to use 2 joysticks to be able to interact with most 3D games? Is asking her to learn to play with a controller properly any different than asking someone to learn the mechanics of Sekiro properly in order to play it? I'd say it took me a hell of a lot less practice to get decent at Sekiro than it would take my friend's wife to be able to play Call of Duty on the easiest setting.

 

[DarthCoercis]

So because I've worked at a career that has left my hands, among many of other body parts, damaged, I'm suddenly excluded from my favourite hobby, one I've been involved in for longer than most of you have likely been alive? Companies aren't allowed to add options that would make gaming less painful and more accessible for me? Why, because some of you are pretentious, elitist snowflakes that think having the reflexes of a teenager/20-something is an achievement? Grow up and get over yourselves. The amount of undeserved entitlement in this thread is preposterous.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

So because I've worked at a career that has left my hands, among many of other body parts, damaged, I'm suddenly excluded from my favourite hobby, one I've been involved in for longer than most of you have likely been alive? Companies aren't allowed to add options that would make gaming less painful and more accessible for me? Why, because some of you are pretentious, elitist snowflakes that think having the reflexes of a teenager/20-something is an achievement? Grow up and get over yourselves. The amount of undeserved entitlement in this thread is preposterous.

There are plenty of games that you can play that don't require the reflexes of a teenager.

You're not being excluded from your hobby, no one is taking anything away from you. You're being excluded from a single game that wasn't built for you.

There are plenty of things that people are "excluded" from for various perfectly legitimate reasons. You aren't entitled to get to participate in everything. Get over yourself.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

So because I've worked at a career that has left my hands, among many of other body parts, damaged, I'm suddenly excluded from my favourite hobby, one I've been involved in for longer than most of you have likely been alive? Companies aren't allowed to add options that would make gaming less painful and more accessible for me? Why, because some of you are pretentious, elitist snowflakes that think having the reflexes of a teenager/20-something is an achievement? Grow up and get over yourselves. The amount of undeserved entitlement in this thread is preposterous.

There are plenty of games that you can play that don't require the reflexes of a teenager.

You're not being excluded from your hobby, no one is taking anything away from you. You're being excluded from a single game that wasn't built for you.

There are plenty of things that people are "excluded" from for various perfectly legitimate reasons. You aren't entitled to get to participate in everything. Get over yourself.

Lotta words to just say "yes"

Got another dark, atmospheric ninja game on modern consoles in your back pocket or...?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Easy difficulty can be a tool to help people get better faster. Sekiro is really tough to learn early on because of how fast you can die; if you could stay in fights longer and/or have less penalty for death, you can learn the enemies and systems faster. And something optional is not a significant cost.

That's one school of thought. Another is that an easy mode can be something that discourages people from ever learning to play the game competently, before they ditch it for something else and decry how boring and overrated the game is, and every casualty that results from that bears a cost.

As I said before, a crackhead who is trying to quit does not benefit from walking around carrying a little crack in his pocket, just to keep his options open.

I'd bet you'd get more people working their way from easy to hard than you'll get playing easy and then saying the games too easy. Especially compared to be people that buy into the hype then get ground into paste because From can't design a tutorial to save their life. Mega Man 2's the most popular Mega Man game after all

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

NG+ paradoxically is this game's easy mode. I was able to get to the final boss in a quarter of the time it took me to beat it the first time. It really drove home how crucial the difficulty of this game is to its pacing, because Sekiro is actually really short when you know what you are doing. Easy mode would essentially dump players into this mode without going on the journey to get to that point. They would be missing out on the game just as much as not playing it. Its not about gate-keeping, its about keeping the experience intact and respecting this game as art rather than disposable entertainment.
...
There is no harm in watching a playthrough or lore video either if you really want to see the story.

Sooooo, if they're really interested in the lore and the story, why's an easy mode and being able to wander around and find things at your own pace somehow worse than watching somebody else playing the game?

Because between those two options, I'd much rather be the one wandering around looking at stuff instead of watching some other mook talk over it. You know, if I'm interested in the lore and the story. Like, I am well and truly spoiled on what happens in Bloodborne, but that's not a substitute for going in and making those choices for myself. The fighting, at least against the trash mobs, is largely irrelevant.

 

[Trunkage]

So because I've worked at a career that has left my hands, among many of other body parts, damaged, I'm suddenly excluded from my favourite hobby, one I've been involved in for longer than most of you have likely been alive? Companies aren't allowed to add options that would make gaming less painful and more accessible for me? Why, because some of you are pretentious, elitist snowflakes that think having the reflexes of a teenager/20-something is an achievement? Grow up and get over yourselves. The amount of undeserved entitlement in this thread is preposterous.

There are plenty of games that you can play that don't require the reflexes of a teenager.

You're not being excluded from your hobby, no one is taking anything away from you. You're being excluded from a single game that wasn't built for you.

There are plenty of things that people are "excluded" from for various perfectly legitimate reasons. You aren't entitled to get to participate in everything. Get over yourself.

I think you proved Darth's point exquisitely.

 

[Trunkage]

Got to say, its really funny when a bunch of pretentious people exclude others from a game and then turn around complaining how Captain Marvel is excluding them.

Wait, I meant hypocritical

 

[Dalisclock]

Got to say, its really funny when a bunch of pretentious people exclude others from a game and then turn around complaining how Captain Marvel is excluding them.

Wait, I meant hypocritical

Shamus made an interesting point in his article.

There are the Dark Souls Evangelists who insist Dark Souls is one of the best games ever and everyone should play it. If you listen, play it and find it too difficult and suggest maybe certain parts of the game could be easier(or there could be an "easy mode"), the Dark Souls Purists will insist you should go play something else and there are other games for you.

Notice how these two opinions contradict each other and it makes me wonder how much overlap there is between the Purists and the Evangelists(Everyone should play the game but if you think it's too hard you can fuck right off and play something else).

 

[Strategos]

Got another dark, atmospheric ninja game on modern consoles in your back pocket or...?

People don't carry Aragami around in their pockets, digital downloads are kind of how it's done these days.

 

[Erttheking]

So because I've worked at a career that has left my hands, among many of other body parts, damaged, I'm suddenly excluded from my favourite hobby, one I've been involved in for longer than most of you have likely been alive? Companies aren't allowed to add options that would make gaming less painful and more accessible for me? Why, because some of you are pretentious, elitist snowflakes that think having the reflexes of a teenager/20-something is an achievement? Grow up and get over yourselves. The amount of undeserved entitlement in this thread is preposterous.

There are plenty of games that you can play that don't require the reflexes of a teenager.

You're not being excluded from your hobby, no one is taking anything away from you. You're being excluded from a single game that wasn't built for you.

There are plenty of things that people are "excluded" from for various perfectly legitimate reasons. You aren't entitled to get to participate in everything. Get over yourself.

*Man accuses gamers of being exclusionary.*

*You act exclusionary*

Well you sure showed him. Also I love how people in this thread were heaping praise onto the one handicapped guy who beat Sekiro, but another guy with physical handicaps comes in and says that his handicap gets in the way and the reaction is that he needs to get over himself.

This is why I don't feel a speck of guilt for all the crap I've talked about Dark Souls fans in this thread.

 

[Silvanus]

So how many difficulty modes should there be? How many "steps down?" What if an easy mode gets implemented and it's still not easy enough for everyone? If you're arguing for inclusivity and making the game as accessible as possible wouldn't that mean that the easy difficulty would have to cater to the lowest possible denominator of skill to be as inclusive as possible?

Nobody is arguing that games must be easy enough for absolutely everyone. You've just taken it to the extreme.

It's just a bloody suggestion for something, not a necessity which has to tick all boxes and satisfy everyone. Imagine if somebody said that Yoshi was a little too easy and they'd appreciate a hard mode for the more veteran players; it's not a rational response to then ask whether they want a hundred harder and harder modes for every possible skill level.

Why would they?

We can just suggest things we'd like to see without crafting a perfect system to cater to everybody. That's a frankly silly standard that doesn't get applied to suggestions of any other nature.

Most games don't do that though, most games don't have a difficulty that is literally braindead. Most games still present a certain level of challenge even at the "easy" setting right? So who is to say what the appropriate level of challenge is?

The developers! This is just feedback! People offer feedback on things they'd like or don't like in games all the time, on every element, from story to design to music to combat etc. Why is it now such a big deal?

 

[Kerg3927]

OTOH, you could just as easily argue that people learn better when they're not getting repeatedly ground into the dirt. The idea of a difficulty curve exists for a reason and if you're able to pick up concepts/skills as you go along, you're more likely to stick with it and train then if you just get thrown in the deep end face first with a shark and told to swim.

Probably a wierd example, but I'm reminded of the Disney film Mulan during the Boot Camp sequence(it's also the most famous song from the movie) where they're shown teaching the recruits how to shoot arrows through apples thrown into the air(and of course they're failing at it). I can't help but think "Shouldn't you teach them how to hit the broad side of a barn first and then work up to flying apples?"

Actually, I'm just gonna throw this out here because he hits a lot of good points https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=46431

Most people who don't feel challenged enough will find ways to make something fit their preferred level of challenge. Hell, that's the reason "No Death/No Bonfire runs" exist. It's harder to scale down the other way, baring certain exploits you can cheese(the summon system is a real double edged sword because it also enables invasions).

Like I said, it seems there are multiple schools of thought on that, and that's one of them.

That article ends with this very mature and wise advice...

This is my main problem with the Soulsborne games, and it's basically insurmountable. There's no way to fix the game for me without ruining it for fans, which is why my criticism is descriptive rather than prescriptive. I don't think changing the game to suit my needs would be a good investment for the developer. It's also why I'm not interested in pleas from fans to give the game another chance, or that I should try "thinking of it differently".

No, playing with a buddy won't help. If I was going to play one of these games, I'd want to learn to do it myself. If I wanted to watch someone else do it I could skip the goofy matchmaking and just watch the dang thing on YouTube. It's fine that the game has multiplayer, but the ability to summon help is in no way a justification for not having an easy mode.

And to be honest, I don't think we NEED a justification for not having easy mode. Hidetaka Miyazaki made exactly the game he meant to. I don't personally enjoy the result, but he's sticking to his vision and not compromising in pursuit of sales or mainstream appeal. Frankly I wish this industry had more of that sort of thing. The Soulsborne games are a very specific game for a very specific audience, and as long as the game is pleasing its intended audience then I'm happy it exists.

 

[Kerg3927]

Shamus made an interesting point in his article.

There are the Dark Souls Evangelists who insist Dark Souls is one of the best games ever and everyone should play it. If you listen, play it and find it too difficult and suggest maybe certain parts of the game could be easier(or there could be an "easy mode"), the Dark Souls Purists will insist you should go play something else and there are other games for you.

Notice how these two opinions contradict each other and it makes me wonder how much overlap there is between the Purists and the Evangelists(Everyone should play the game but if you think it's too hard you can fuck right off and play something else).

I don't see a contradiction at all. The Evangelists want people to play it, but only in its original form, as they and everyone else played it.

I bought a copy of Dark Souls Remastered for my brother and his son. They haven't played it yet. My brother hasn't because he just doesn't have time to play games much anymore. My nephew hasn't because he just turned 11, and is not mature enough yet. He is currently more interested in Lego games and the like. And so the game is just sitting there. And that's fine. I hope one day my brother finds time and my nephew gets mature enough, and he probably will in the next 2-3 years, but I'd rather them not play it at all than play a dumbed down version. I want them to experience it as intended or not at all.

 

[CritialGaming]

Criticism is great, but but when it involves wanting a successful formula

Adding an easy mode doesn't change the formula, and criticism doesn't affect the formula.

EDIT:

The issue is it changes the game. People asking for easy modes seem unable or unwilling to simply respect the game for what it is.

Jeez! Talk about fanboyism. You can't make a counterargument without making unfounded accusations, can you?

[tweet t="https://twitter.com/halfcoordinated/status/1113696637061402625"]

Not sure what you?re getting at as that?s already been addressed several times

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YD7CAL7f60c
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qTk4NnrpwJI
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHGbeVYOcI
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w8wrZ25ewIY

Some of which have already been posted (and likely ignored). Put it this way, if people didn?t have a problem with it, this thread would?ve ceased activity many pages ago.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

So because I've worked at a career that has left my hands, among many of other body parts, damaged, I'm suddenly excluded from my favourite hobby, one I've been involved in for longer than most of you have likely been alive? Companies aren't allowed to add options that would make gaming less painful and more accessible for me? Why, because some of you are pretentious, elitist snowflakes that think having the reflexes of a teenager/20-something is an achievement? Grow up and get over yourselves. The amount of undeserved entitlement in this thread is preposterous.

There are plenty of games that you can play that don't require the reflexes of a teenager.

You're not being excluded from your hobby, no one is taking anything away from you. You're being excluded from a single game that wasn't built for you.

There are plenty of things that people are "excluded" from for various perfectly legitimate reasons. You aren't entitled to get to participate in everything. Get over yourself.

*Man accuses gamers of being exclusionary.*

*You act exclusionary*

Well you sure showed him. Also I love how people in this thread were heaping praise onto the one handicapped guy who beat Sekiro, but another guy with physical handicaps comes in and says that his handicap gets in the way and the reaction is that he needs to get over himself.

This is why I don't feel a speck of guilt for all the crap I've talked about Dark Souls fans in this thread.

Darth said that by not being able to play Sekiro he is excluded from his favorite hobby. Unless his favorite hobby is specifically playing Sekiro and nothing else then that's not true. No one is stopping him from playing video games, but some video games are not made for everyone and that's ok.

If Darth was a paraplegic would he be saying that the existence of Dance Dance Revolution excludes him from playing video games because he can't use his legs? Would he be asking for Dance Dance Revolution to be playable by someone without using their legs, and if it was wouldn't that fundamentally change the game into no longer being Dance Dance Revolution?

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

That's one school of thought. Another is that an easy mode can be something that discourages people from ever learning to play the game competently, before they ditch it for something else and decry how boring and overrated the game is, and every casualty that results from that bears a cost.

As I said before, a crackhead who is trying to quit does not benefit from walking around carrying a little crack in his pocket, just to keep his options open.

You can literally say the same thing about most of the Souls mechanics already. Being able to respawn enemies allows you just farm souls to level stats and items like pyromancy flame to become more powerful than you're supposed to be. How is that stuff different from easy difficulty? What's to stop you from cheating yourself out of the "proper" challenge/experience with built-in Souls mechanics? Someone else already deconstructed how stupid the drug addict analogy was when you first brought it up, not to mention you can use the same argument, like I just did, with staple mechanics of the Souls series.

So how many difficulty modes should there be? How many "steps down?" What if an easy mode gets implemented and it's still not easy enough for everyone? If you're arguing for inclusivity and making the game as accessible as possible wouldn't that mean that the easy difficulty would have to cater to the lowest possible denominator of skill to be as inclusive as possible?

Nothing would ever get done if you could only implement the perfect solution and nothing in-between. Games themselves would never get out the door because the creators are always in the mindset where they think they can improve it. Dark Souls itself obviously wouldn't have gotten released. Why have countries with governments at all when there is still no perfect government system? Implementing something that makes something better is worth doing even when it's not the perfect solution.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

So how many difficulty modes should there be? How many "steps down?" What if an easy mode gets implemented and it's still not easy enough for everyone? If you're arguing for inclusivity and making the game as accessible as possible wouldn't that mean that the easy difficulty would have to cater to the lowest possible denominator of skill to be as inclusive as possible?

Nothing would ever get done if you could only implement the perfect solution and nothing in-between. Games themselves would never get out the door because the creators are always in the mindset where they think they can improve it. Dark Souls itself obviously wouldn't have gotten released. Why have countries with governments at all when there is still no perfect government system? Implementing something that makes something better is worth doing even when it's not the perfect solution.

The point is that people are saying that Souls players are gatekeeping the games to keep them out of the hands of people who might enjoy them if they were easier. My point is that no matter how easy and accessible you make the game someone is still going to be excluded. So why is it ok to exclude one group of people that's not good enough to play the game, but not another group of people who is not good enough to play the game?

Obviously no one is asking for games to be so easy that someone who can't properly use a controller can beat them, but that means that certain people are being excluded from playing the game on any difficulty. Some games are still too hard for people on easy difficulty. Why is it ok to exclude those people, but it's not ok for Souls games to exclude people who don't want to learn the mechanics of those games properly?

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

I could be replying to specific people, but I'll just make a blanket statement here: You can shove all this elitist exclusionary bullshit up your asses.

Sekiro does not need an easy mode. The only thing it needs is to scale down the damage. That's it. Then you wouldn't be three-shot by mook enemies in the early game, or one-shot by minibosses all the way through. Healing items would last you longer, you wouldn't spend as much time watching the same loading screens or making the same treks over and over again, you could learn the combat faster because each failure wouldn't be followed by practically instant death, bosses would be more engaging because you wouldn't be one-shot from 80% health by that one special move you hadn't seen yet.

I beat Sekiro once already, and am replaying it now. But I can tell you with 100% honesty that I did not enjoy about 50% of the first playthrough at. fucking. all because of the difficulty. And this is coming from someone whose favorite game of all time is Bloodborne and has beaten every Souls game at least twice. All this wankery of "oh if you can't handle it then it's not for you" as if the challenge is the only thing people enjoy in fromsoft games is such intergalactic horseshit I hope it burns alive. Just let me list some things I did enjoy about Sekiro that have nothing to do with the challenge:

- the art direction
- the atmosphere
- the voicework
- the setting
- the environments
- the feeling of mystery and never knowing what's ahead of you
- the freedom of movement in the environments

How would any of these be lessened if the enemies dealt less damage?

If anything, combat might be the one thing I enjoy least in Sekiro because it's so limited, and therefore repetitive. When you're learning it, it's an endless sea of frustration, and therefore not very enjoyable. When you have learned it, there's little else to discover, and then it turns boring. There's no alternative builds, no special tactics or moves to utilize, no other weapons, no ranged options to speak of etc. It's just parry, parry, parry.

 

[Kerg3927]

You can literally say the same thing about most of the Souls mechanics already. Being able to respawn enemies allows you just farm souls to level stats and items like pyromancy flame to become more powerful than you're supposed to be. How is that stuff different from easy difficulty? What's to stop you from cheating yourself out of the "proper" challenge/experience with built-in Souls mechanics? Someone else already deconstructed how stupid the drug addict analogy was when you first brought it up, not to mention you can use the same argument, like I just did, with staple mechanics of the Souls series.

And I've already pointed out how silly the "there are already ways for people to cheat themselves so why not just add an outright cheat button?" argument is. Two wrongs don't make a right.