Quantcast
Should video games play themselves (easy mode for Sekerio?)

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Should video games play themselves (easy mode for Sekerio?)

Should games like Sekerio have an easy mode?

Yes. 15 35.71%
 
No. 25 59.52%
 
Unsure. 0 0.00%
 
Other/comments. 2 4.76%
 
Total:42

Hum no way sekiro is easier than dark souls , you are out of your fucking mind. Sekiro have way harder bosses, Almost  all of them need a diferent tactic, the bosses have Parry also making it even harder to damage, it takes more time to kill them and more time = more mistakes. AND the second rate bosses are most of the time as harder as the main onesnd they are so many. Needs amazing reflexes and timing. Dark souls = Patience  and study. Sekiro is Patience, skill, reflexes, timing and nerves of steel. and i love every minute of ir, fuck these imbeciles that call themselfs  jornalists, sick of these motherfuckers , these leeches of gaming industry. And fuck snake eyes, yes fuck you.



 

Around the Network

No.

So far in my playthrough of Sekiro, it is easy compared to previous Souls games. It's easy to get the hang of and way more linear (so far).



A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of his first breath to the moment of his last.



I don't think From Software has any obligation to make any kind of easy mode.  

I'd argue that difficulty is kind of arbitrary.  

It's easy to define an easy or a difficult mode in the context of the same game.  Clearly enemies with more health are going to be challenging.  But "easy" in one game can be a very different thing from another game.  For example what if From Software made the current mode the "easy" mode,and made a more challenging mode?  The real crux of the conversation is about making the game more accessible, and the question there is how accessible does a game need to be?


What kind of standards should that easy mode have?  I think the best way to think about it is statistically, what percentage of players should be able to complete easy mode?

Someone might put out that 95% of players should be able to get through a game like Bloodborne.  Or some other (arbitrary) percentage.  

However you put it, these difficulty standards are at least somewhat arbitrary.  I don't think that any developer should have some set standard like that, that they should be aiming for.  



Sekiro doesn't need an easy mode, but having one wouldn't in any way take anything away from the game. People who want to play the standard, developer-intended way could still do so, and others who can't play the game that way would have a chance to play the game through too. FromSoftware is in no way obligated to put an easy mode in the game as they are working with a specific vision in mind for it, but people who say having it would somehow ruin the experience are just being stupid. The existence of an easy mode wouldn't in any way harm the experience for anyone not using it.



Yes, so I can play it while high and get real euphoria while experiencing the game.



Around the Network
haxxiy said:

I think a lot of people are saying this about Sekiro specifically because parrying took the place of dodging as the main damage-avoiding mechanic, compared to Souls games. And a lot of people didn't notice it, or insisted in ignoring game mechanics you were specifically told to use by the tutorial. But it's not particularly harder than the Souls games. Honestly, it's their most acessible yet.

Good to know, now it's for sure off my radar. I can never get parrying right, not in any game, not even zelda. I relied on shield and magic in the souls games, timing is not my thing. A larger timing window or clear cues could help, yet apparently having an option like that is an insult to the artistic vision.



It's NEVER a bad thing to have more options.



Bofferbrauer2 said:

Some games have a fantastic story, onto which the gameplay is actually more of a hindrance sometimes, espeically for those who just want to enjoy the story.


I really hope this is a joke or a sarcastic comment.

Gameplay is what makes it a game. Story is and should always be secondary. If you want storys go watch a movie or read a book, I've not played one game in my entire life that has a story better than a sub-par movie or book. Surley I've not played all games ever made, but I've played enough game to make this blanket statement. What I can give some games credit for is, in some instances is interesting worldbuilding and/or atmosphere, but story always simplistic.

Back on topic of difficulty:

I thing I would like to see being used more, that was a thing in mainly older adventure game (like the Sierra kind), is games that allows the player to actually fail. What I mean with this is that some action/actions (or in action) you make in the game makes it unbeatable later on. This without actually telling you that you made the wrong action when you make it but leaves it up to you to discover it further down the line.

This is a pipe dream tho since all the focus currently is about accessability and all that crap.



Yes, definitely! I love that I can just simulate in games like FM and ROTK and just let the AI play each other. Especially useful after playing around with the editors a bit to see what kind of effect that has in the long term. Something that would take far too long if I had to play it all myself.



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

KLAMarine said:
It's NEVER a bad thing to have more options.

I hate this saying. It can often be a bad thing to have more options, Playing on PC is a turn off for many because of the shear amount of options. PC for me is a bad thing because of this, too many options cause me to cease up and play less games. "It's never a bad thing to have more options" is plain old parroted crap from journalists yet it doesn't even make a lick of sense when applied to games or art, as quote often less options mean a refined experience and a refined experience can lead to a better game. 



 

Everything in the above reply is my opinion, from my own perspective and not representative of reality outside of my own head!

-Android user, please be gentle with critique on my spelling.