On Difficulty and the State of Gaming.

GreaterGamingGood

New member
Mar 12, 2013
12
0
0
I'd just like to address this issue. I've been thinking about it a lot and I've decided to speak up, mainly to find out how others feel about it.
I recently watched Jims "Dumbing Down for the Filthy Casuals" video and I'm a little concerned by his views, mostly that they could be the majority view. I'll be honest, I just don't understand them.
Not only do I believe that it's a shortsighted view, but it could in fact be (and probably is) hurting the gaming industry (and me). I'm going to try to put my thoughts across as clear as I can, so bare with me. Since Dark Souls was the main focus of the video, I'm going to use that as the example game. There will be others, but I'll use that as the primary focus too.
(I'd like to start by saying I have played/completed the game. These are my concerns over the industry as a whole, not just the Dark Souls issue, and reflective of my personal opinions.)

The main point was that there's no reason Dark Souls shouldn't have an easy mode because it's not hurting anyone to have one and it's allowing more gamers to play the game that may not have ordinarily done so.
My points against.

1. Learn the game. It's as simple as that, harsh maybe, but true. Dark Souls, to me, was a throw back to the classics, a game you had to learn by trial and error, forcing you to adapt and to play the game smartly in order to progress. That was the point of the game. I honestly can't stress this enough. One of the game's core mechanics was it's difficulty, if you remove that, if the option even exists, it's a detriment to the experience. The tag line is "You're going to die". Doesn't that say it all? I know it's an extreme example, but I don't remember anyone asking for an easy mode for Battletoads or Ghouls & Ghosts. Let's be honest with ourselves, those games were awesome /because/ they pushed us to the max.

2. It cheapens the game and gamers. By even giving gamers the option to make the game easier you're not only cheapening the experience within the game itself, but you're also making gamers reliant on these methods. Many people might think that adding the option of difficulty allows people to adapt their skills in order to play the higher difficulties. While this is true for /some/ I disagree almost all the time. It's my opinion that it actually hinders smart thinking and skill progression because nothing's pushing you to improve. If it's too easy there's nothing to think about.
People might also say that "That's not you're problem. Why do you care if some people play it on the easy setting." That leads to my next point.

3. It does affect me. One of the main points of Jim's video and perhaps many other people is "It doesn't affect you." Well I think it does. I like these games. I like innovation. I like new, unique, varied gameplay. If the concern of the developer (or publisher) is "Well, we need to make it easier for gamers, because last time it was too hard for them." how long is it gonna be before they say something like "Hey do you want to make Dark Souls 3?" "Nah, those games were too hard, remember? We should just make a generic game that everyone can play, it'll be less hassle for us in the long run and we'll make more money." You might be thinking that it'll never happen, but it /is/ happening. I can't help but think that this "pandering to the casuals" is going to break what little innovation the industry has left.

Side note. It's kinda sickening when I look at modern games and I see how they lead you by the
hand. Every. Step. Of. The. Way. It's tedious and often frustrating. This hand-holding gameply
spurs from this exact kind of thinking. Examples; Tomb Raider (2013) I haven't played it yet, but I'm looking forward to it. But my heart pretty much sank when I found out that you could get a map that showed the locations of all the treasures/artifacts. Shouldn't those be, you know, hidden? Assassins Creed III (Haven't played) - Same thing, items/treasures displayed on mini-map. Ni No Kuni is probably one of the worst examples I've seen in a while. While I enjoyed the game, I can't help but feel it would have been immensely better without the constant hand-holding >.>
(I'd like to see you get 100% on the original Tomb Raider. -Without a guide-)

4. Older gamers could do it, why can't you? Most games in the classic Megadrive/Snes era were difficult and still are even today. But, we persevered and kept playing them. We completed them (eventually). Imagine if Sega re-released Sonic the Hedgehog and added an easy mode. Yeah, less enemies, less obstacles, less danger, less gameplay action, yeah! That's awesome right? Wouldn't you be horrified to your f****** core? When is it going to stop? When Sonic just runs across a completely flat screen with no enemies? Is that what you want? Huh? Huh?!

I could probably go on, but what I'm trying to say is that, to me, this is a complete non-issue. It should never have been brought up in the first place and it should never have even /existed/ as a problem. I'm not saying I'm some kind of super, elite, gaming genius because I can play Dark Souls and you can't, you can too. I died a lot in that damn game (and Demon's Souls), but I learned how to play it and I enjoyed that experience. I felt like I'd accomplished something and honestly, I want more gamers to feel like that. I don't think I'm alone in saying that games have become really stale and almost insultingly easy lately. Experiences like this don't come around very often and attitudes like this hurt the chances of there ever being any more.

I'd like to know what others feel about this. Am I alone in my feelings?
 

Smooth Operator

New member
Oct 5, 2010
8,162
0
0
So this is just the Dark Souls thing again, no you are not alone in wanting your precious Dark Souls club to stay precious, as seen in the dozens of threads on this very topic.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
You are not alone in your feelings. I also keep getting into arguments over how certain games are supposed to be clubs only for the "cool people", with people advocating such views define "cool" so that they themselves are "cool" and as many people as possible are excluded from being "cool".

But, my views on the subject are all over the board. One of my more controversial opinions about it is that Dark Souls isn't actually "difficult", that it doesn't test your skills and mettle nearly as much ass it tests your patience and tolerance to being taunted. I also do not see what's so "innovative", "new" and "unique" about it.

That said, I think there should be a game nobody that doesn't use "Vegosiux" as their Escapist username can beat it. Because people who use "Vegosiux" as their Escapist username are just hoopy froods, and really shouldn't be tossed into the same pot with all the other rabble.

The last paragraph may not actually be serious, just taking a concept to its logical extreme.
 

viking97

New member
Jan 23, 2010
858
0
0
I agree in the case of Dark Souls specifically just because difficulty was a core aesthetic of it and Demon's Souls from the beginning, but any other game I don't think the argument applies.

Fact is, more people being able to play your game is good. Nothing can change that, it's simple business. If you don't like it, I'm sorry.
 

Pulse

New member
Nov 16, 2012
132
0
0
Sometimes I wonder if dark souls never having been made would be a fair trade off to stop threads like this one.
 

Dryk

New member
Dec 4, 2011
981
0
0
I wouldn't neccessarily say it cheapens the experience but it certainly muddles it. I'm not sure whether or not I'm okay with that.
 

Gethsemani_v1legacy

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,552
0
0
Frankly, I don't get it. What exactly are you losing when a game introduces difficulty levels (no hyperbole, no slipper slopes, I want a concrete example)? The people who want to brag about how totally hardcore they are can still beat it at "Impossible"-difficulty level, while those that aren't as good at the game, for whatever reason, can select easy and still enjoy the gameplay mechanics and story.

There are loads of reasons why someone can't get good at a game and would want a lower difficulty level that isn't "I am being entitled and don't want a challenge". No matter if it is inexperience with games in general, physical handicaps, slow reflexes, lack of time to properly master the game or just a desire to enjoy the gameplay without getting so riled up that you want to throw your controller into your TV-screen. And catering to these people by introducing an "easy" difficulty level does not in any way remove the fun for those that want a challenge.

As Vegosiux so snarkily remarked, this seems to be less an issue of the game having the option of difficulty levels as it is an issue of some people not wanting "casuals" playing "their" game.
 

PeterMerkin69

New member
Dec 2, 2012
200
0
0
It has nothing to do with any Cool Clubs. That's unnecessarily condescending and missing the point entirely. It's everything to do with so many games not being games, but watered down CGI films with convoluted play buttons.

The awesome thing about video gaming is that it's an alternative to passive entertainment. Literary interpretation is fine, sometimes. Sometimes, you just want to use your brain to solve a different kind of puzzle, or exercise your hand-eye coordination, or timing/patience. There's nothing wrong with this. It's not shameful, it's not childish, it's no less worthy of ones time than any other way to amuse oneself. Does working out need foxes eating themselves to be a worthy endeavour? Does Chess need to be Checkers so that everyone can enjoy it? No. We have Chess for people who want it, and Checkers for those who don't. Everyone's happy! Yay!!

I don't like Dark Souls because it's hard. I like that Dark Souls is hard because it means I have to put myself into it. I feel like my input is necessary and that I'm not just going through the motions. Most games make me feel like I'm going through the motions. Doesn't that defeat the whole point of interactive media?

I was playing Heavy Rain the other night and I thought to myself, "why do I have to push these buttons to see this story? This isn't adding anything to the experience. If I were watching a film version I could be doing something else with my hands right now." The whole Uncharted series was the same way. I certainly didn't play it for its terrible shooter mechanics or its one-button hallway platforming. I played it for characterization and story; the others seemed to exist solely to sell it as a game, and took away from my enjoyment of the story because they padded the damn thing with the essence of bad itself. It was padded with pure, unadulterated, distilled bad. But at least everyone gets to see just how bad it was!

Accessibility. You can't get something for nothing. While everyone may be able to play a game, which some of you may think is a good thing, it means that a considerable amount of gamers won't actually want to play it. That's effectively making it inaccessible to them. And developers work with finite resources. Monetary. Time. There are trade-offs for accessibility here, too. The more time and money you spend creating and polishing lower difficulty levels, the more time and money is diverted away from the core experience. The easier a boss becomes, the less challenging he is for people who want that. No, accessibility is a marketing-friendly way of saying you're shifting your preferential treatment from one group of customers to another.

Bu-bu-but it's what the market demands! It's good for business? Well, okay, you have a point there, but remember what you advocated when your artconsumer entertainment all degenerates into bird swiping and zombie planting because that's what's best for business.

Jim Sterling et al seem to think it's selfish for me to want the option to play something I'll actually enjoy. I submit that the opposite is true. I'm okay with games like Heavy Rain and Uncharted existing for those who want them. Not everything has to be made for me. So why does everything have to be made for everyone else?
 

yaydod

New member
Nov 29, 2011
246
0
0
Gethsemani said:
Frankly, I don't get it. What exactly are you losing when a game introduces difficulty levels (no hyperbole, no slipper slopes, I want a concrete example)? The people who want to brag about how totally hardcore they are can still beat it at "Impossible"-difficulty level, while those that aren't as good at the game, for whatever reason, can select easy and still enjoy the gameplay mechanics and story.

There are loads of reasons why someone can't get good at a game and would want a lower difficulty level that isn't "I am being entitled and don't want a challenge". No matter if it is inexperience with games in general, physical handicaps, slow reflexes, lack of time to properly master the game or just a desire to enjoy the gameplay without getting so riled up that you want to throw your controller into your TV-screen. And catering to these people by introducing an "easy" difficulty level does not in any way remove the fun for those that want a challenge.

As Vegosiux so snarkily remarked, this seems to be less an issue of the game having the option of difficulty levels as it is an issue of some people not wanting "casuals" playing "their" game.

This is so true, there is no real reason to not introduce a simple "difficulty" selection, and sadly most that are against it it seems that their arguments boils down to:
"It lowers the feat of MY achievement, so you don't touch MY game. MINE MINE MINE"

For example there is a difficulty setting in God of War, did it ruin the game? Na not at all, on the lowest setting the game is a breeze, on the highest it kicks my ass so hard i fly into an other galaxy. Same goes with the DmC series.

In the case of Dark Souls, Yes the difficulty is part of the game, but allot of it also feels very artificial, as in 1 hit deaths by enemies, stun locks, or just insane amount of health. All this could be adjusted with a silly difficulty setting, you would still get destroyed by traps and all but, the enemies would not feel so "artificially" boosted and might slightly more enjoyable for the players who like the exploration/discovery part of the game but loath the 1 shot kills by enemies in ill contrived areas (Giants Tomb any one?).

I find it silly that people get their panties in a knot over this, it is some what normal to try to make a game as accessible as you can without altering the core content of the game, hence the difficulty setting.

Although i do not agree with the removal/extreme simplification of game play mechanics(Xcom is a good example of GOOD simplification), i think this is what people take for "difficulty" and complain about since this is unaffected by difficulty settings in most cases.

It is true that old school difficult games are almost instinct, but by looking back at them, it seems like they were designed with the arcade principle in mind (Ring out as many pennies as you can out of our pockets), so there is allot of "artificial" difficulty, especially at that time.

There are still some difficult games today like The Binding of Isaac or Faster Than Light, which are easy to play and are also very hard to finish, the big difference is that you do not feel like cursing at your screen after the first 15mins of the game because you didn't know what to do.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
PeterMerkin69 said:
Jim Sterling et al seem to think it's selfish for me to want the option to play something I'll actually enjoy.
Incorrect. He and the others think it's selfish for you to want that option to be the only available option and exclude all other possible options.

This is akin to a vegetarian walking into a restaurant and demanding that they can't serve meat for anyone else, either, despite being fully able to order a no-meat meal while others can still order their meals with meat. But no, if I don't want meat in my meal, others shouldn't be allowed to have it either!
 

PeterMerkin69

New member
Dec 2, 2012
200
0
0
Vegosiux said:
This is akin to a vegetarian walking into a restaurant and demanding that they can't serve meat for anyone else, either, despite being fully able to order a no-meat meal while others can still order their meals with meat.
The analogy works better if the vegetarian is the one who wants increased availability; I don't mind having distinct meals for each customer. I'm a huge fan of that. What the people who demand accessibility are doing is more like if the vegetarian ran around snatching everyone's side dishes, leaving them with incomplete meals.

Why not just go next door and order a nice bowl of borscht? Then everybody's happy.
 

AndrewF022

New member
Jan 23, 2010
378
0
0
As long as the challenge remains there for those who want it then I see no problem with easy mode for any game to be honest.

The day they make the overall experience easier for the sake of mass market, that is where I have issues. If the next game came out and people who enjoyed a constant challenge in Demon/Dark Souls were finding it easy, they took it too far and I think that is a problem (especially in the case of Dark Souls since struggle and death are basically themes at this point). But... As long as hard mode is still as challenging as ever I can't see any problem with an easy mode.

I think it is a good thing if more people play games, who cares if people play an easier version of it? Their experience will just be different from those who play it the way it was intended to be played. As long as they still have fun then it doesn't matter if it's not the ideal circumstances.

Whether they manage to strike this balance between easy and challenge is yet to be seen, but can't we give them the benefit of the doubt this first time?
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,769
5
43
GreaterGamingGood said:
1. Learn the game. It's as simple as that, harsh maybe, but true. Dark Souls, to me, was a throw back to the classics, a game you had to learn by trial and error, forcing you to adapt and to play the game smartly in order to progress. That was the point of the game. I honestly can't stress this enough. One of the game's core mechanics was it's difficulty, if you remove that, if the option even exists, it's a detriment to the experience.
It's only to the detriment of those who chose to play on easier difficulties. And if they're choosing to play on easier difficulties, they clearly don't consider it a detriment.

2. It cheapens the game and gamers. By even giving gamers the option to make the game easier you're not only cheapening the experience within the game itself, but you're also making gamers reliant on these methods. Many people might think that adding the option of difficulty allows people to adapt their skills in order to play the higher difficulties. While this is true for /some/ I disagree almost all the time. It's my opinion that it actually hinders smart thinking and skill progression because nothing's pushing you to improve. If it's too easy there's nothing to think about.
People might also say that "That's not you're problem. Why do you care if some people play it on the easy setting." That leads to my next point.
This is your first point repeated in different words.

Once again, it only applies to those who chose to play on easier difficulties. You don't have to be one of those people.

3. It does affect me. One of the main points of Jim's video and perhaps many other people is "It doesn't affect you." Well I think it does. I like these games. I like innovation. I like new, unique, varied gameplay. If the concern of the developer (or publisher) is "Well, we need to make it easier for gamers, because last time it was too hard for them." how long is it gonna be before they say something like "Hey do you want to make Dark Souls 3?" "Nah, those games were too hard, remember? We should just make a generic game that everyone can play, it'll be less hassle for us in the long run and we'll make more money." You might be thinking that it'll never happen, but it /is/ happening. I can't help but think that this "pandering to the casuals" is going to break what little innovation the industry has left.
Or, y'know, they might make Dark Souls 3 much like DS2, but with an optional easy mode that you are free to ignore. Crazy, huh?

Examples; Tomb Raider (2013) I haven't played it yet, but I'm looking forward to it. But my heart pretty much sank when I found out that you could get a map that showed the locations of all the treasures/artifacts. Shouldn't those be, you know, hidden?
I liked that it did that. Cut down on the tedium. Finding stuff wasn't about systematically combing every inch of the level in a boring and time-wasting fashion. It was about trying to suss out sneaky hiding spots within a given location and find a route to get to them. Much more fun.

4. Older gamers could do it, why can't you? Most games in the classic Megadrive/Snes era were difficult and still are even today. But, we persevered and kept playing them. We completed them (eventually).
Because that sounds boring as all hell.

It isn't necessarily a case of "can't", but rather one of "don't want to". Yes, I could learn to play like the noble gamers of old, but the thing is I don't want to play like the gamers of old, because most of the games of old were boring, poorly designed and tedious.

Imagine if Sega re-released Sonic the Hedgehog and added an easy mode. Yeah, less enemies, less obstacles, less danger, less gameplay action, yeah! That's awesome right? Wouldn't you be horrified to your f****** core?
Imagine if the easy mode was optional. Imagine how little it would affect your experience.
 

Mitsukuni

New member
Mar 12, 2013
4
0
0
It's a bit like dumbed down language versions of great classics of literature, right? Some will find the thought of reading Shakespeare or Goethe in "1000 words or less" revolting while others may see it as a good way to introduce literature to the unwashed masses.

I don't really care for the option to play a game easy, but one should be concerned about the general trend in those kind of things... Today, it's all about instant gratification. People don't have the frustration tolerance they used to.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
battletoads was crap.
yeah, i said it.

now into the point. i disagree with you. You can learn the game with easy difficulity settings as much as with hard. this is another problem gamingi s facing - lack of complexity, not lack of difficulity. you look at the 90s simulators and strategy games, then look at modern ones and it feels like the graphics are getting better, but gameplay keeps dissapearing. a great example is settlers, heroes or Stronghold.

It does not cheapen the game. If anything, it adds value, as people of all types, not only those that want to go and find strategies to defeat a single overpowered enemy can play it. i know people who always go on easiers difficulity because the only thing they care about in game is its story. they just want the experience, not the challenge. having easy mode AS AN OPTION allows both type of players to enjoy the game.
i started civilization on easiest mode, im playing on hard now because i want the AI to have an advantage, since im that good. but a new player will pick easy one to learn the basics as i did back in the day.

im all for niche games for niche gamers. that was the time when best games were created, beucase they were designed for that niche and not to get as much wallets as possible. but difficulity settings does not remove that in any way. no, having a loss because people didnt buy it because it was "too hard" for them is what makes games go generic. you, the gamers, are who is at fault here.

older games could do it is a false argument. older games COULDN'T do an easy mode, they were restricted like that, so they did ony one mode, now we have an option, and options are always good.

even capcha agrees: pocket sized.
 

Vegosiux

New member
May 18, 2011
4,381
0
0
the hidden eagle said:
I hate those who try to change something because they don't like it and it pisses me off when games try to be unique and everyone else demands it be turned into gray sludge.
Ouch, a sweeping generalization. I cannot resist.

You hate Galileo, Copernicus, Marin Luther, Martin Luther King Jr., Susan B. Anthony, Claus von Stauffenberg, the people of Slovenia who decided to leave the federation of Yugoslavia...?