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

[Dalisclock]

The problem with Souls is that its progression curve is opposite of what a game is supposed to be. You're not only the most gimped in the beginning but you also just don't know the game. The amount of DPS your character and enemies do basically stays the same throughout the whole game so you die in the same amount of hits you did at the start that you do at the end. With getting more estus flasks as you play means the game gives you more margin for error as you get better, which makes no sense. Sekiro is much much worse in that regard than Souls is. Also, the controls and enemy placement only serve to punish the player for trying to play at a faster pace. The controls and lock-on system are archaic and don't work well outside of 1v1 fights and then From likes to hide enemies in corners and shit to "trap" players into a BS death because the game's controls don't function well enough. An easy difficulty can help players have a better progression curve along with not punishing people for not checking their corners (these games ain't online shooters after all), especially Sekiro at least, which should play a lot faster than it does but it's full of cheap enemy placement as well.


I kinda explained health changes already. For Souls, maybe you should start with a lot of estus flasks and lose them as the game goes on, that would make more sense honestly. Difficulty is really all just increasing/decreasing margin for error and health does that inherently. It's not really hard to change enemy behavior, most spectacle fighters have a taunt move specifically to increase enemy aggressiveness, it's really not hard to do. Also altering the frequency of certain attacks is easy as well or adding some attacks on harder difficulties. Making the player stronger is basically health altering. If you can kill an enemy in 3 hits instead of 4 hits, your margin for error just increased 25%.

I'm not sure how germane this is to the dicussion but there's indie game called Superbrothers: Sword & Sworcery EP that had an interesting gimmick(aside from being a prog rock fantasy rhythm game at times). You started off the game with about 5 or 6 hit points/health segments and each time you'd complete a plot significant battle(there were a couple of random ones here and there) one of your health segments would be gone forever, thus giving you less margin of error for the next fight. In story I believe it was supposed to be the toll the whole ordeal was taking on the PC's health/life and by the endgame, the PC is down to 1 health segment so that a single hit from the final boss was fatal. To make it even more tricky, every so often she would stop briefly to vomit because of how poor her health was at that point.

It's an system I wouldn't mind seeing adapted for something else.

Back to Dark Souls, I believe there's a mod out there where each boss you defeat assigns you a permanent debuff particular to that boss. It's called Scorched Contract. I don't know if it's actually balanced though.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Amazing, this thread is; fourteen pages of back and forth and nothing really changed.

Point still remains that this all started because some people refuse to accept that a handful of games in this industry could be geared towards a certain kind of experience, and by extension a certain kind of player. Maybe that?s asking for too much.

I thought it started because a Forbes writer thought the game's "difficulty" could stand to have some options bolted onto it and "Gamers" started strawmaning the fuck out of them.

Anyway, never got an answer: how does rushing the man in story change if you one shot the bosses instead of get killed by the bosses dozens of times? Aren't you just rushing the story both ways? Or do the bosses give extra exposition your 4th time through?

 

[Trunkage]

Amazing, this thread is; fourteen pages of back and forth and nothing really changed.

Point still remains that this all started because some people refuse to accept that a handful of games in this industry could be geared towards a certain kind of experience, and by extension a certain kind of player. Maybe that?s asking for too much.

Hasn't changed the fact that FROM has been actively disregarding one portion of their fandom to satisty another. And it hasnt really been going for 14 pages. I noticed this discussion with Dark Souls 2. It's been going for years.

But then, that's what Freedom of Speech does. Calcify ideologies

 

[Dalisclock]

Or do the bosses give extra exposition your 4th time through?

I'm well assured by the internet that Micolash gets less annoying with his fucking repeated exposition once you turn the sound off. It turns out the internet was right for once.

Speaking of artificial difficulty....

 

[CritialGaming]

Amazing, this thread is; fourteen pages of back and forth and nothing really changed.

Point still remains that this all started because some people refuse to accept that a handful of games in this industry could be geared towards a certain kind of experience, and by extension a certain kind of player. Maybe that?s asking for too much.

I thought it started because a Forbes writer thought the game's "difficulty" could stand to have some options bolted onto it and "Gamers" started strawmaning the fuck out of them.

Anyway, never got an answer: how does rushing the man in story change if you one shot the bosses instead of get killed by the bosses dozens of times? Aren't you just rushing the story both ways? Or do the bosses give extra exposition your 4th time through?

Pretty much.

Assuming you meant ?main story? (completely empathetic that typing from a phone is and will always be shit, if that?s the case), it?s been explained on almost every page here I?m guessing, that story is only one aspect of FROM?s design, and a few other like minded developers. The struggle against the game?s difficulty is what makes it more worthwhile when players finally succeed.

The people calling for easy modes or whatever else stifles that challenge might not care, but as of yet FROM doesn?t appear to be developing these games with them in mind anyways. There?s nothing wrong with that, because for the nth time ?every game? isn?t and shouldn?t need to be designed for ?everyone?; there should be room in the industry for these types of games that are made for a certain kind of audience, like any other medium allows, because it?s part of what makes them significant.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

snip

It has nothing to do about that. I don't understand your attitude here. It would be the same thing if the article was "My Little Pony needs a hardcore difficulty to respect it's older players".

Not every game has to be suitable for everybody. This discussion has been made already and it's nonsense. The game doesn't have to change it's core design to suit every potential player. It's why target audiences exist, because a product appeals to it's target. While people outside of this audience may find the game and may find themselves loving or hating it, the game isn't at fault that they don't like it or can't figure it out.

It's like hating romance films because there isn't enough explosions. There are movies for explosions, simply go watch those because the romance film doesn't need them. Sekiro doesn't need an easy mode, as it isn't the way the game is designed. A circle isn't a square because it's a circle, you cannot give that circle edges and keep it a circle.

MLP has a hardcore mode? get in!

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Amazing, this thread is; fourteen pages of back and forth and nothing really changed.

Point still remains that this all started because some people refuse to accept that a handful of games in this industry could be geared towards a certain kind of experience, and by extension a certain kind of player. Maybe that?s asking for too much.

I thought it started because a Forbes writer thought the game's "difficulty" could stand to have some options bolted onto it and "Gamers" started strawmaning the fuck out of them.

Anyway, never got an answer: how does rushing the man in story change if you one shot the bosses instead of get killed by the bosses dozens of times? Aren't you just rushing the story both ways? Or do the bosses give extra exposition your 4th time through?

Pretty much.

Assuming you meant ?main story? (completely empathetic that typing from a phone is and will always be shit, if that?s the case), it?s been explained on almost every page here I?m guessing, that story is only one aspect of FROM?s design, and a few other like minded developers. The struggle against the game?s difficulty is what makes it more worthwhile when players finally succeed.

The people calling for easy modes or whatever else stifles that challenge might not care, but as of yet FROM doesn?t appear to be developing these games with them in mind anyways. There?s nothing wrong with that, because for the nth time ?every game? isn?t and shouldn?t need to be designed for ?everyone?; there should be room in the industry for these types of games that are made for a certain kind of audience, like any other medium allows, because it?s part of what makes them significant.

...the video you quoted as showing why you shouldn't have an easy mode was explicitly because "you wouldn't get the story if you didn't wander around and find it" because the dude with god mode rushed through instead of wandering around.

If you beelined the bosses playing completely legit, you'd still end up missing most of the details and story, negates that video entirely.

 

[I can't enter my old name]

It has nothing to do about that. I don't understand your attitude here. It would be the same thing if the article was "My Little Pony needs a hardcore difficulty to respect it's older players".

Not every game has to be suitable for everybody. This discussion has been made already and it's nonsense. The game doesn't have to change it's core design to suit every potential player. It's why target audiences exist, because a product appeals to it's target. While people outside of this audience may find the game and may find themselves loving or hating it, the game isn't at fault that they don't like it or can't figure it out.

It's like hating romance films because there isn't enough explosions. There are movies for explosions, simply go watch those because the romance film doesn't need them. Sekiro doesn't need an easy mode, as it isn't the way the game is designed. A circle isn't a square because it's a circle, you cannot give that circle edges and keep it a circle.

MLP has a hardcore mode? get in!

It has a hardcore original audience, ironically little girls.

One of the reasons G4 MLP went to shit was because the studio eventually found out had created a social phenomenon, and they began to acknowledge and accommodate their obsessive grown ass men audience. The show quickly declined and became irrelevant and forgotten after season 3.

 

[Trunkage]

Amazing, this thread is; fourteen pages of back and forth and nothing really changed.

Point still remains that this all started because some people refuse to accept that a handful of games in this industry could be geared towards a certain kind of experience, and by extension a certain kind of player. Maybe that?s asking for too much.

I thought it started because a Forbes writer thought the game's "difficulty" could stand to have some options bolted onto it and "Gamers" started strawmaning the fuck out of them.

Anyway, never got an answer: how does rushing the man in story change if you one shot the bosses instead of get killed by the bosses dozens of times? Aren't you just rushing the story both ways? Or do the bosses give extra exposition your 4th time through?

Pretty much.

Assuming you meant ?main story? (completely empathetic that typing from a phone is and will always be shit, if that?s the case), it?s been explained on almost every page here I?m guessing, that story is only one aspect of FROM?s design, and a few other like minded developers. The struggle against the game?s difficulty is what makes it more worthwhile when players finally succeed.

The people calling for easy modes or whatever else stifles that challenge might not care, but as of yet FROM doesn?t appear to be developing these games with them in mind anyways. There?s nothing wrong with that, because for the nth time ?every game? isn?t and shouldn?t need to be designed for ?everyone?; there should be room in the industry for these types of games that are made for a certain kind of audience, like any other medium allows, because it?s part of what makes them significant.

...the video you quoted as showing why you shouldn't have an easy mode was explicitly because "you wouldn't get the story if you didn't wander around and find it" because the dude with god mode rushed through instead of wandering around.

If you beelined the bosses playing completely legit, you'd still end up missing most of the details and story, negates that video entirely.

I don't know why missing the story is a problem unless your reviewing it.

Is it such a terrible thing?

 

[The Lunatic]

The entire point of video games is that they're an interactive medium.
That interaction will always require input from the player, and doing something vs doing nothing always have a difficulty.

If you want a medium which you can experience start to end without any expectation from your interaction. Its called a movie. And they're pretty good.

As such, we have to accept that video games have to feature some degree of difficulty. Even if it's as simple as a walking simulator where you hold W.
How much difficulty is entirely down to the individual. Not all games are for all people, and there's really nothing wrong with that.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

...the video you quoted as showing why you shouldn't have an easy mode was explicitly because "you wouldn't get the story if you didn't wander around and find it" because the dude with god mode rushed through instead of wandering around.

If you beelined the bosses playing completely legit, you'd still end up missing most of the details and story, negates that video entirely.

I don't know why missing the story is a problem unless your reviewing it.

Is it such a terrible thing?

Only if you turn God Mode on to do so, apparently.

 

[Avnger]

How much difficulty is entirely down to the individual. Not all games are for all people, and there's really nothing wrong with that.

Agreed. By the exact same token, there's absolutely nothing wrong with making games for all people through the inclusion of options such as difficulty modes/sliders and accessibility tools.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

How much difficulty is entirely down to the individual. Not all games are for all people, and there's really nothing wrong with that.

Agreed. By the exact same token, there's absolutely nothing wrong with making games for all people through the inclusion of options such as difficulty modes/sliders and accessibility tools.

Yeah so if there was a game that had chosen to do that it'd be fine, forcing it to remove the difficulty options would be wrong.

It's EXACTLY just as wrong for a game which originally didn't have those modes to be made to add them.

Basically, the fact that Sekiro has no difficulty setting is what shows us it shouldn't have a difficulty setting cause it if should it'd have had it to begin with.

 

[Avnger]

How much difficulty is entirely down to the individual. Not all games are for all people, and there's really nothing wrong with that.

Agreed. By the exact same token, there's absolutely nothing wrong with making games for all people through the inclusion of options such as difficulty modes/sliders and accessibility tools.

Yeah so if there was a game that had chosen to do that it'd be fine, forcing it to remove the difficulty options would be wrong.

It's EXACTLY just as wrong for a game which originally didn't have those modes to be made to add them.

Basically, the fact that Sekiro has no difficulty setting is what shows us it shouldn't have a difficulty setting cause it if should it'd have had it to begin with.

Because you don't seem to be able to understand the nuance...

Saying Sekiro should have or would benefit from having difficulty options is completely separate from saying the developers of Sekiro should be forced to add them. You're arguing against the second statement which no one in this thread nor the original article in question has advocated.***

***unless, of course, you are arguing against people saying the former point. In that case, I'd wonder why you are trying to commit cEnSoRsHiP of people's opinions and in what world consumers and potential consumers of a product are not supposed to give advice to producers on how to improve said product.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

How much difficulty is entirely down to the individual. Not all games are for all people, and there's really nothing wrong with that.

Agreed. By the exact same token, there's absolutely nothing wrong with making games for all people through the inclusion of options such as difficulty modes/sliders and accessibility tools.

Yeah so if there was a game that had chosen to do that it'd be fine, forcing it to remove the difficulty options would be wrong.

It's EXACTLY just as wrong for a game which originally didn't have those modes to be made to add them.

Basically, the fact that Sekiro has no difficulty setting is what shows us it shouldn't have a difficulty setting cause it if should it'd have had it to begin with.

Because you don't seem to be able to understand the nuance...

Saying Sekiro should have or would benefit from having difficulty options is completely separate from saying the developers of Sekiro should be forced to add them. You're arguing against the second statement which no one in this thread nor the original article in question has advocated.

It's the same thing though, just like how saying a game with difficulty options would benefit from not having them is wrong so is saying that a game without them would benefit from adding them is wrong. Having access to an easy mode will make the lazier players go for it opposed to getting the most out of the game (or just quitting, either way there's nobody deluded that they got the real experience of the game just cause they cleared the easy mode) which will dilute the caliber of experience the game wishes the entire playerbase to have (or to whine about failing at, which is also a positive with regards to those who did not fail, as that makes them feel better than those other folks, which in turn can act as motivation for those who are contemplating giving up, pushing them to take that one more step they need to succeed).

 

[Silvanus]

It's the same thing though, just like how saying a game with difficulty options would benefit from not having them is wrong so is saying that a game without them would benefit from adding them is wrong. Having access to an easy mode will make the lazier players go for it opposed to getting the most out of the game (or just quitting, either way there's nobody deluded that they got the real experience of the game just cause they cleared the easy mode) which will dilute the caliber of experience the game wishes the entire playerbase to have (or to whine about failing at, which is also a positive with regards to those who did not fail, as that makes them feel better than those other folks, which in turn can act as motivation for those who are contemplating giving up, pushing them to take that one more step they need to succeed).

Why do you think you know better what other people will enjoy than they do? Having the option is not making anybody go for it, unless their self-restraint is so very very bad that the game could not be blamed anyway.

Take a look at the kind of hyperbolic language here-- "deluded that they got the real experience"? We're not talking about some kind of spiritual rite of passage, or integral coming-of-age ritual. It's a game. It's for fun. Some people might enjoy different things, or in different ways.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

It's the same thing though, just like how saying a game with difficulty options would benefit from not having them is wrong so is saying that a game without them would benefit from adding them is wrong. Having access to an easy mode will make the lazier players go for it opposed to getting the most out of the game (or just quitting, either way there's nobody deluded that they got the real experience of the game just cause they cleared the easy mode) which will dilute the caliber of experience the game wishes the entire playerbase to have (or to whine about failing at, which is also a positive with regards to those who did not fail, as that makes them feel better than those other folks, which in turn can act as motivation for those who are contemplating giving up, pushing them to take that one more step they need to succeed).

Why do you think you know better what other people will enjoy than they do? Having the option is not making anybody go for it, unless their self-restraint is so very very bad that the game could not be blamed anyway.

Take a look at the kind of hyperbolic language here-- "deluded that they got the real experience"? We're not talking about some kind of spiritual rite of passage, or integral coming-of-age ritual. It's a game. It's for fun. Some people might enjoy different things, or in different ways.

Basically, this game markets itself based on ridiculing people who can't have fun the way it wants them to. The community of the game similarly will want to encourage people to try to get the most out of the experience. It may broaden one's definition of fun or expand it. You'll never know you like something until you actually TRY it.

It's kinda like cow tongue or sheep kidneys, to someone who never tried them growing up they would seem disgusting but they're actually delicious cuts of meat. Lots of people would end up liking them if they threw away their prejudices and just gave them a proper chance. The fact that some people will dislike them (or be right in their prejudice) is completely irrelevant to our concerns here.

 

[Silvanus]

Basically, this game markets itself based on ridiculing people who can't have fun the way it wants them to. The community of the game similarly will want to encourage people to try to get the most out of the experience. It may broaden one's definition of fun or expand it. You'll never know you like something until you actually TRY it.

Now, I've not played Sekiro, but I've got a ton of hours in the Dark Souls series and Bloodborne. And I definitely want other people to experience them, and to get the most out of them when they do.

But expecting other people to enjoy it in precisely the way that I did is a non-starter. And I kind of respect my friends enough to trust them to know what they would find fun, and not to insist they play my way.

Also, "trying" it costs ?40 - ?50.

It's kinda like cow tongue or sheep kidneys, to someone who never tried them growing up they would seem disgusting but they're actually delicious cuts of meat. Lots of people would end up liking them if they threw away their prejudices and just gave them a proper chance. The fact that some people will dislike them (or be right in their prejudice) is completely irrelevant to our concerns here.

Well, sure, but there's not a skill-barrier or an immense time investment involved in trying a cut of meat.

Nor do I think changing something like difficulty would fundamentally change the experience so drastically. To continue the analogy, changing the difficulty mode would be like cooking the same cut of meat more to someone's taste. This is why chefs will usually ask people how they'd like their steak.

 

[CritialGaming]

Well, sure, but there's not a skill-barrier or an immense time investment involved in trying a cut of meat.

Nor do I think changing something like difficulty would fundamentally change the experience so drastically. To continue the analogy, changing the difficulty mode would be like cooking the same cut of meat more to someone's taste. This is why chefs will usually ask people how they'd like their steak.

While it is true that they'll cook your meat however you want. They will also call you crazy and, in some cases, be insulted if you ask for something like a Filet well done. Why? Because they know that overcooking a great cut of meat, ruins it. Regardless of the preferences of the individual person, most people know that over doing a great piece of steak is ruining the experience of that expensive cut of meat.

I guess the point is, the option is there even if it does ruin the experience and it is upon the person to decide to ruin the experience for themselves.

But there is a reason we control things for people. A child would love ice cream and candy all day every day, but we don't give them those choices because we know that it is harmful to them overall. It doesn't hurt anyone else, nor would it change anyone's experiences so why not let kids eat nothing but fries and chicken nuggets? Because it's not a good way to have a balanced diet.

Even if we ignore the health reasons for denying choices, we can migrate the metaphor to gaming.

The difficulty is like eating your vegetables. It might suck as a kid. But as you eat veggies and mature, you start to like them. Suddenly you WANT broccoli with your chicken, things you thought tasted terrible actually don't taste so bad. If you never try to stick something out, then you never figure it out, you never get to see how good it actually is.

Whatever though. Let's see if this breaks 20 pages.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Basically, this game markets itself based on ridiculing people who can't have fun the way it wants them to. The community of the game similarly will want to encourage people to try to get the most out of the experience. It may broaden one's definition of fun or expand it. You'll never know you like something until you actually TRY it.

Now, I've not played Sekiro, but I've got a ton of hours in the Dark Souls series and Bloodborne. And I definitely want other people to experience them, and to get the most out of them when they do.

But expecting other people to enjoy it in precisely the way that I did is a non-starter. And I kind of respect my friends enough to trust them to know what they would find fun, and not to insist they play my way.

Also, "trying" it costs ?40 - ?50.

If a friend of mine is unsure about trying a game I love, I just let them borrow my copy. Easy~

Well, sure, but there's not a skill-barrier or an immense time investment involved in trying a cut of meat.

Nor do I think changing something like difficulty would fundamentally change the experience so drastically. To continue the analogy, changing the difficulty mode would be like cooking the same cut of meat more to someone's taste. This is why chefs will usually ask people how they'd like their steak.

And how many steaks does letting people choose their prefered doneness let be ruined by overcooking, hmm? How many steaks that would have been amazing end up getting practically wasted, all their moisture squeezed out, made as though they're trash cuts of low quality meat?

When you go to a really good steakhouse where they're serving kobe wagyu, you don't choose how your steak is cooked, the chef knows the best way to cook it and you trust them with it. Even if you don't like it you at least know that you experience it as it's supposed to be. Same with really good sushi done omakase style. You don't get any wasabi or any soy sauce to dip, the chef will put the right amount on (or in, in the case of wasabi) it right before he hands it to you.

Sekiro is the kobe of action games. Let it handle the small stuff and just sit back and enjoy.