Should Hard Games Have An Easy Difficulty?

[dr. b 486]

I think it's OK if a game has an easy mode and I think it's also OK if a game doesn't have an easy mode. If that's OK for you - or not OK - that's OK with me.

[webhead 518]

@Revolver

They can do that. Anyone can do anything.

 

@Galeigh

There's nothing WRONG with wanting an easy difficulty.  You might say sometimes it can be... Difficult to do it right so maybe they should git gud.

 

I don't think anyone is demanding they do it and no one wants to see games watered down.  If a game is crappy because they can't balance the difficulties they chose to put in it correctly then it's just a bad game.  No one is stupid for wanting the option of lowering the difficulty.  That git gud mentality is what keeps people from trying these things out tbh.

 

Also let's be cool here.  Starting to get a little angry in here.

[Galeigh 284]

It's not a matter of "git gud" when creating an easy mode for games designed to be hard. The 2 design philosophies just don't mesh. It's either gonna be a "tough but fair hard mode and babbies first video game easy mode" or "unfair difficulty hard mode and slightly challenging easy mode"

 

The options listed for lowering the difficulty here (health and damage changes) only work on games designed from the ground up to have multiple difficulties, and even then the hard modes are usually just more frustrating than fun. Video game difficulty is a carefully balanced and very delicate process of give and take. Most games designed to be hard, like souls, have systems already in place to ease new players: co-op summons, higher end gear that can be obtained with some exploration, and level grinding to over power some sections. The game was designed with these systems in mind and don't effect overall balance. You just have to go a little out of your way sometimes instead of charging headlong into the difficulty wall. 

 

Edit: Not trying to talk down or rage. Hard to set tone in text. I get why people want easy modes, I used yo be on that side. I am merely explaining why some games simply can't accommodate them. 

[dr. b 486]

I like the special version treatment that Nintendo has given some NES games on the Switch Online thingy. Why not let somebody start Zelda loaded up with items? Whether you're a beginner who needs the help, or a grizzled Zelda vet who just wants to goof around, it's just another way to experience and have fun with the game.

 

Games that are primarily story driven might as well have a TOC menu that lets you play whichever chapter of the story you want. It doesn't necessarily have to be linear if you don't want it to be.

[Revolver 26]

15 minutes ago, webhead said:

@Revolver

They can do that. Anyone can do anything.

Wait, what?

[Mera'din 306]

"Uncommonly hard game" is not a genre despite what some people want to think. These games are Action RPGs. Yes, it's a unique take on the concept in some ways, but that's still the genre that it is. The game is designed to be hard. Cool. It can still be that. AND it can still have a lower difficulty option without sacrificing the integrity of the original experience on the non-easy difficulty AT ALL. Literally nothing is lost to the people that want that. NOTHING. It's not comparable to making a scary movie less scary. The genre and thematic content of something is a completely different thing. 

 

And my point with the guide thing is you're basically saying "These games can't have an easier difficulty because it sacrifices the integrity of the game and the work you have to put into it to overcome the challenge which is the point of these games! I did it by watching videos and reading guides on how other people figured out how to overcome the challenge, thus making it easier for me to do it myself."  IE: The game teaching you the ins and outs via an easier mode and having to utilize external content to teach you the ins and outs has little to no functional difference outside of the method of the teaching. Excepting if the lower difficulty is just a completely cocked up "press X to win" scenario that doesn't actually teach you anything.

More to the point: your anecdotal evidence on why the difficulty is important doesn't mean anything to the next guy down the line. Difficulty is rather relative anyway. I've definitely seen complaints about how they made this or that Souls game "too easy", etc. Some say nothing will top Demons Souls. Some say that was the easiest. I'm sure they could make an easy mode in one of these games and there would be people that bitch about it being too hard still. You can't please everyone, but my point is having the OPTION hurts absolutely nothing and no one regardless of the game.

 

This is like Jimmy Page bitching about Guitar Hero and Rock Band games wanting Led Zeppelin because "you should learn to play it on a real instrument".

 

I'll state it simply: I like the concept of and want to play the Souls games due to things that have absolutely zero to do with the difficulty of the game. That difficulty is a barrier for entry and I don't have the time to read or watch a damn dissertation on the intricacies of dodging, blocking and backstabbing (or whatever) to get into them without hours of frustration.  Fuck me for liking the sound/idea of something and just wanting to have fun enjoying it and getting immersed I guess? Pardon my plebeian ways.

[Galeigh 284]

I'm trying to explain to you, that from a sheer technical Aspect to make a game focused on a rock hard, but fair difficulty you have to be laser focused on balancing around that trait. Trying to make "options" for a more casual audience distracts from the overall goal of the game's design. It hurts it. Dark Souls 2 is UNIVERSALLY seen as the weakest entry in the series by the core audience the game is geared to. Yes, some people adapt to games differently and will find some installments harder than others, the point you seem to be missing in that explanation is this: They tried to make the Souls series accessible and made it OBJECTIVELY worse mechanically. there is a reason DS3, Bloodborne, and now Sekiro abandoned most of the features added in it. They didn't work, and reason for that is no matter how much they try Fromsoft cannot makes a souls style game that still maintains what made them famous to begin with AND appeal to the more casual audience cause the casual audience is still not going to enjoy the mechanics. They clash. It's an Oil and Water scenario.

 

Hard Games (in modern times referred to as Souls Like) are a Genre btw. Just like: Looter Shooters, Grind Heavy games, and Modern Military Shooters. Those Genre tags aren't as popular as Action RPG, MMO, FPS, etc. But they exist to make it easier for people to find games similar to ones they KNOW they will like.

 

---

 

 

 

also this:

 

 

[webhead 518]

Your argument is that they tried, people didn't like it, so they should never try again.

 

There's more than one way to skin a cat, my dude.

[Galeigh 284]

No. My argument is that it failed when they tried because the difficulty is so intrinsically tied to ever other aspect of the game that tweaking it mucks up the formula. 

[webhead 518]

I don't believe that's actually true.  I think with some inventiveness you can find ways around it.  Selecting easy mode in a Souls game could be as simple as giving you extra stats and equipment to start.  Again, there are multiple ways to approach a problem.  Claiming that it's impossible because difficulty is all the game about is partly missing what the game is about.  I think people get annoyed by these arguments because it sounds like people patting themselves on the back (I know that's not your intention).  The game is about more than "being hard" and you can find creative ways to make it easier for people that are looking for it.

[Ulyster 35]

30 minutes ago, webhead said:

Selecting easy mode in a Souls game could be as simple as giving you extra stats and equipment to start. 

That would not work in a Souls game. You could start the game with the best gear for your preferred play-style and start at level 50, but if you don't have a head for pattern recognition, any given boss in those games will still kick your ass 7 ways from Sunday.

 

The only way to make the Souls/Bloodborne/Sekiro games easier is to tweak the AI in some way. Someone mentioned it earlier, but slowing down their movements, increasing the time between their attack cycles, making it more obvious what's blockable and what has to be dodged, that kind of thing. Things like one-shot-kill attacks should stay in the game however, as making it more obvious when it's coming should counter them.

 

The downside to all of this is that it means a lot more testing and tweaking for each individual difficulty. More time and more money, and even then some people will still say it's too hard, others will say it's too easy now and they want a 3rd, 'normal' option.

[webhead 518]

6 minutes ago, Ulyster said:

That would not work in a Souls game. You could start the game with the best gear for your preferred play-style and start at level 50, but if you don't have a head for pattern recognition, any given boss in those games will still kick your ass 7 ways from Sunday.

 

The only way to make the Souls/Bloodborne/Sekiro games easier is to tweak the AI in some way. Someone mentioned it earlier, but slowing down their movements, increasing the time between their attack cycles, making it more obvious what's blockable and what has to be dodged, that kind of thing. Things like one-shot-kill attacks should stay in the game however, as making it more obvious when it's coming should counter them.

 

The downside to all of this is that it means a lot more testing and tweaking for each individual difficulty. More time and more money, and even then some people will still say it's too hard, others will say it's too easy now and they want a 3rd, 'normal' option.

 

Yeah those are great ideas too.  I think they should try to do this but I will say, I'd never say they should have to do it at the expense of their vision for the game.

 

I just think the easier difficulties have some value.  If you're going to do a shitty job, just don't bother, right?

[Ulyster 35]

Oh, for sure. Easier difficulties would always be welcome in games. I would personally love it if more people felt like they could play the SoulsBorne games. They have some of the best character, world, and level designs I have ever seen in games, and the more people that can experience that, the better.

 

I must say however, that I don't think that the Souls games are really as difficult as people make them out to be. They're punishing and unforgiving, sure. But not hard. The 'difficulty' comes from having to redo an entire section again if you die. If it was checkpointed like most games are, it would be a lot easier. Most deaths come from:

a) Rushing in to a new area, yolo style

b) Getting 'greedy' with attacks and being punished for it

c) Timing a roll wrong and going off a cliff

d) Trying to rush back to where you died, thinking you have everything memorized, and being punished for it

 

As long as you take your time through new areas, and 'drag' enemies back to where it's empty, you shouldn't have too much of a problem (there are, of course, some exceptions to this rule). I think a lot of people have unfortunately been scared away because of the 'git gud' toxicity that comes with them, and I think a good portion of those people could probably finish the game no problem. All 3 games have tutorial areas where you can practice all the basics of the game, at a point in time where you literally have nothing to lose. 

 

If you beat Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance on normal mode, you can beat a Souls game.

If you've beat any Devil May Cry game on normal mode (especially 3), you can beat a Souls game.

You will die more than you did in those games, but you can do it.

[Eizan 126]

I do agree that people make out the Soul games to be harder than they actually are. 

 

10 minutes ago, Ulyster said:

If you've beat any Devil May Cry game on normal mode (especially 3)

DMC 3 was pretty brutal, I remember struggling a lot with the Mission 5 boss in that game. 

[Galeigh 284]

6 hours ago, webhead said:

I don't believe that's actually true.  I think with some inventiveness you can find ways around it.  Selecting easy mode in a Souls game could be as simple as giving you extra stats and equipment to start.  Again, there are multiple ways to approach a problem.  Claiming that it's impossible because difficulty is all the game about is partly missing what the game is about.  I think people get annoyed by these arguments because it sounds like people patting themselves on the back (I know that's not your intention).  The game is about more than "being hard" and you can find creative ways to make it easier for people that are looking for it.

Please watch the videos I linked. They explain what I mean better. 

 

Basically it's not just the enemies that create the difficulty of DS and games like them. It's people's own ability or inability to see the tells and the level itself

[Hornet 114]

Sekiro Should Respect Its Players and Add Big Anime Titties

[Vic Boss 610]

5 hours ago, Ulyster said:

The 'difficulty' comes from having to redo an entire section again if you die.

 

I think this might chase more people away more than anything else. Losing forward progress, sometimes significant progress, and having to reclaim your body afterwards or lose even more feels a lot like artificial bullshit when we live in a save-scumming/auto-save/checkpoint era.

[webhead 518]

I'm split on that.  On one hand, I absolutely fucking hate shit like that in most games.  On the other hand, the point of that is to punish you in the DS games.  Maybe part of "easy mode" is you simply not losing your shit when you die.  Makes progressing a fuckload faster without the artificial difficulty/risk/reward of losing all your shit potentially if you die in the same place twice.

 

Like you'd still have to learn how to defeat enemies.  You just wouldn't get mad as fuck losing all your souls all the time.

[Galeigh 284]

Learning to not lose your shit on a death is the first step to learning how to play a soulsborne game. Death is part of the process and does, in fact, lead to few secret areas in some of the games. 

[webhead 518]

Here's the thing though.  You can cling to these notions stubbornly or you could admit that maybe they could make it easier for people that choose to do so.  There default difficulty can still be exactly what it is.  That shouldn't change. Giving people that are frustrated a leg up isn't going to hurt them.  It might even give them enough time to get good enough to try out the regular difficulty.  I know when I get particularly good at a game, I'm much more likely to try out hard mode but I'm not going to start there.

[Galeigh 284]

That's just it. I'm NOT good at soulsborne games. Takes me forever to get over some of the hurdles, but every loss is MY fault, not the games. 

 

Games don't have to cater to everyone. Trying is how you get the shitty, watered down abominations EA and Activision like to call games... Oh, I'm sorry... Live services. You say I am stubborn, but the people demanding easy modes in games not even made for their gaming demographic is not only extremely stubborn, it's entitled. 

[MT 900]

Wanting to be included in the hot new thing is being entitled?

[webhead 518]

4 hours ago, Galeigh said:

the people demanding easy modes in games not even made for their gaming demographic is not only extremely stubborn, it's entitled

 

Bro, slow your roll here.  We're discussing why we think easy modes should be included.  There's no need to get into people being demanding or calling them entitled.

 

You're denying it is even possible to have an easy mode in a Souls game.  I completely disagree.  I'm also not advocating for watering the game down.  Slippery slope arguments need not apply here.  If someone selects an easy mode, they know what they want from that.

 

 

Because it has been done badly in the past does not mean that it is impossible to do or that it's a bad concept.  I would definitely agree with you that developers should be careful to not turn their games into boring shit to cater to the lowest common denominator but they could certainly make some efforts to include an easier mode for people that want it right?  Be careful, there are plenty of examples of people ruining their games, but the concept is still one people can strive for.  The more people you get to buy your game, the more money you have to make more of them.  Offering an easy mode, when done right is something that is a win for everyone.

[Galeigh 284]

It was done poorly because it cannot BE done correctly. At least not with a soulsborne game. Literally every part of the game comes together to create it: Item scaling, enemy health and damage, level design, player mentality, enemy placement, character leveling, boss placement, pvp invasions, healing items, and spell effects. There are probably a ton more, but altering ANY of these elements ruins the way the game feels, and to make a proper easy mode you would have to change EVERYTHING. To the point that you would be making an entirely different game. Cannot be done, literally impossible from a technical perspective. 

 

Note: Player mentality is controlled building up an expectation of the games, in this case that you will die often, and that expectation is the real wall most people have with these games. "Git gud" doesn't actually have any toxic implications, its a joke, because the only thing stopping people from progressing in these games are themselves. You don't actually "git gud" you overcome your own hesitations and embrace the failures as learning experiences rather than obstacles. Rilled off a cliff? Time to be more aware of your surroundings. Got ambushed? Time to be more careful entering new areas. Got smashed by the boss? Time to pay more attention to his movements to see the tells. All of this would be lost in an "easy mode" and thus making the easy mode pointless, so why even try if it was possible?

[webhead 518]

I'm sorry but I think that's ridiculous that you think it is literally impossible.  Agree to disagree.

[Galeigh 284]

I am just going to stop. I have made my case, a case based on experience and extensive research in to game design and theory as well as an established case illustrating my point. At this point it would just turn into a full blown argument rather than a debate so I am willingly withdrawing.

[Vic Boss 610]

TBH I missed nerd arguments

[Downshift 54]

3 hours ago, webhead said:

slow your role

[webhead 518]

Fucking phone keyb---I mean I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

1 hour ago, Galeigh said:

I am just going to stop. I have made my case, a case based on experience and extensive research in to game design and theory as well as an established case illustrating my point. At this point it would just turn into a full blown argument rather than a debate so I am willingly withdrawing.

 

Well that's what I was doing.  Agree to disagree.

 

[MT 900]

17 minutes ago, Downshift said:

[Downshift 54]

He used to have hair??

 

 

21 minutes ago, webhead said:

Fucking phone keyb---I mean I have no idea what you are talking about.

This is how you know touchscreens were a mistake.

[MT 900]

4 minutes ago, Downshift said:

He used to have hair??

Yup

 

[Downshift 54]

[MT 900]

Perhaps this is needless to say, but that version of Dwayne Johnson didn't last too long.

[Galeigh 284]

Ok this is funny, this video was on the top bar of YT subcriptions list when I got home

 

 

 

[Ulyster 35]

"I'm tired of talking about this!*

*makes a video about it*

 

Gotta get dat youtube money I suppose

 

Edit: You know, the more I hear the people on the side of 'No! Leave it as it is!' cry about artistic vision or whatever, the more I get the impression that they feel like adding an Easy Mode will, for some reason, erase the original difficulty mode... which isn't what anyone is suggesting. I'm going to turn this on it's head now, if you feel that the Easy Mode of a game breaks the artistic vision of the game... well, you don't have to play that difficulty.

[MT 900]