Quantcast
Difficulty vs Accessibility: A responsibility for the developers, not for the players.

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Difficulty vs Accessibility: A responsibility for the developers, not for the players.

Ka-pi96 said:
eh, as far as I'm concerned games that are either too hard or too easy (don't know why you're not including that in the OP, since it's definitely an issue too) are just hallmarks of bad developers. If you either don't care enough, or simply aren't good enough, to make games that allow for people of a variety of play styles/skill levels to enjoy the game then you clearly aren't as good at making games as you think are.

Well sometimes that is due to using mechanics that no one but that public likes =p



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:
eh, as far as I'm concerned games that are either too hard or too easy (don't know why you're not including that in the OP, since it's definitely an issue too) are just hallmarks of bad developers. If you either don't care enough, or simply aren't good enough, to make games that allow for people of a variety of play styles/skill levels to enjoy the game then you clearly aren't as good at making games as you think are.

People play games for lots of different reasons on different time schedules. Some like to binge play a game, some will only play half an hour a week. Some play to relax, enjoy a good story, get immersed in the world, make their own story while exploring, get a good challenge, get scared, get that adrenaline rush, play for competition, or just play to keep their hands busy.

Not everyone has the same time to put enough effort in certain games and not everyone has the same experience or affinity with games and their rules and timing. It also changes as you get older. I certainly don't have the same reflexes and finger dexterity anymore as 30 years ago. Nor the time.

Accessibility is a responsibility for developers. But if they only want to cater to those that have 60+ hours to spend on getting good, then that's their choice. Extra checkpoints and on the fly to adjust difficulty levels, (timing windows/dmg/health), even a boss skip option doesn't alter the contents of a game. It only encourages people to try another play through. When a game can have NG+ and NG++, it can also have NG- and NG--. The excuse that it's only good at the intended difficulty level is just that, an excuse for not trying harder.



SvennoJ said:
Ka-pi96 said:
eh, as far as I'm concerned games that are either too hard or too easy (don't know why you're not including that in the OP, since it's definitely an issue too) are just hallmarks of bad developers. If you either don't care enough, or simply aren't good enough, to make games that allow for people of a variety of play styles/skill levels to enjoy the game then you clearly aren't as good at making games as you think are.

People play games for lots of different reasons on different time schedules. Some like to binge play a game, some will only play half an hour a week. Some play to relax, enjoy a good story, get immersed in the world, make their own story while exploring, get a good challenge, get scared, get that adrenaline rush, play for competition, or just play to keep their hands busy.

Not everyone has the same time to put enough effort in certain games and not everyone has the same experience or affinity with games and their rules and timing. It also changes as you get older. I certainly don't have the same reflexes and finger dexterity anymore as 30 years ago. Nor the time.

Accessibility is a responsibility for developers. But if they only want to cater to those that have 60+ hours to spend on getting good, then that's their choice. Extra checkpoints and on the fly to adjust difficulty levels, (timing windows/dmg/health), even a boss skip option doesn't alter the contents of a game. It only encourages people to try another play through. When a game can have NG+ and NG++, it can also have NG- and NG--. The excuse that it's only good at the intended difficulty level is just that, an excuse for not trying harder.

For me that is almost like giving carte blanché to devs and saying "you don't need to improve, anyone complaining is an ignorant peasant".

Sure some games will be unaccessible to some people, but when majority can't really enjoy the game that is a different issue.

On the too easy... Mario games usually start very easy and you are learning concepts while difficult keep increasing, that phillosophy of easy to learn hard to master. And for general games that people like to say "when I was young games were harder", you can play today games as if you were on the 80s. If you die once reset and start again, don't pick all ammo, finish that RPG with only 40% of max level, etc.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
Ka-pi96 said:
eh, as far as I'm concerned games that are either too hard or too easy (don't know why you're not including that in the OP, since it's definitely an issue too) are just hallmarks of bad developers. If you either don't care enough, or simply aren't good enough, to make games that allow for people of a variety of play styles/skill levels to enjoy the game then you clearly aren't as good at making games as you think are.

Well sometimes that is due to using mechanics that no one but that public likes =p

True, and as a fan of turn based strategy games I definitely know that from personal experience too

You don't need to appeal to everybody, no game will be able to do that. But if there are people that like almost everything about your game but don't enjoy it because of the difficulty, then you screwed up. It's as simple as that. Adding difficulty levels shouldn't be hard, and it certainly isn't going to ruin the game for other people.

I mean, look at FIFA. That's a game that some people are ridiculously good at and play professionally, does the fact that the beginner difficulty is easy enough for even a 3 year old to win at ruin that game for those people? Absolutely not, they just play on legendary difficulty (or more likely online multiplayer) instead. Or as I said I'm a fan of strategy games and Civilization has like 10 difficulty levels, that just makes the game better. Not only does it mean more people can enjoy it, but it also means that as you get better you can up the difficulty and still be challenged.



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

Ka-pi96 said:
DonFerrari said:

Well sometimes that is due to using mechanics that no one but that public likes =p

True, and as a fan of turn based strategy games I definitely know that from personal experience too

You don't need to appeal to everybody, no game will be able to do that. But if there are people that like almost everything about your game but don't enjoy it because of the difficulty, then you screwed up. It's as simple as that. Adding difficulty levels shouldn't be hard, and it certainly isn't going to ruin the game for other people.

I mean, look at FIFA. That's a game that some people are ridiculously good at and play professionally, does the fact that the beginner difficulty is easy enough for even a 3 year old to win at ruin that game for those people? Absolutely not, they just play on legendary difficulty (or more likely online multiplayer) instead. Or as I said I'm a fan of strategy games and Civilization has like 10 difficulty levels, that just makes the game better. Not only does it mean more people can enjoy it, but it also means that as you get better you can up the difficulty and still be challenged.

That is a good example, and I hope FFVIIR make it a good case where both turn based and action are plenty good so more games can use more than one mechanic.

Another problem besides people liking almost everything on the game except dying all the time and having to replay all, or grind for the fuck sake to correct the step in difficult, is that it could be like 10x more people than what currently like the game as is but the ones that like it don't accept some improvements for those people to enjoy the game because they would lose the status he attained by mastering that game.

I love the fact that I platined GoW on Give me God of War, and don't feel any less valued because several people have done it on the Give me a Story (well some couldn't even finish the game on this difficult, and that was really easy =p).

Like Resident Evil, I don't like the fact that you basically have to get S+ on the most difficult setting to enable the best cheat weapons, people that can do that don't need the cheat weapons. Just disable the trophies adequately (if at all) and allow people to decide if they want to use those weapons (they rather do knife only or no heal runs). Lock clothes and lore as achievements for finishing on the hardest difficulties with good grade.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network

Gotta say that I'm impressed about how elaborately the OP made such a long answer when it could have been boiled down to " git gud "



Switch Friend Code : 3905-6122-2909 

a easy difficulty would totally destroy every from software game for me. I know it seems like a good idea to just add a easy mode for people who needs it and keep the base game the same. but that wouldn't work for me and propably for many. if I stuck too much in a game, because it's too hard, I always look for an easy way out, I just can't help it, if dark souls would have that difficulty, I would use it and miss the true dark souls experience which only works through suffering.





ruffy37 said:
a easy difficulty would totally destroy every from software game for me. I know it seems like a good idea to just add a easy mode for people who needs it and keep the base game the same. but that wouldn't work for me and propably for many. if I stuck too much in a game, because it's too hard, I always look for an easy way out, I just can't help it, if dark souls would have that difficulty, I would use it and miss the true dark souls experience which only works through suffering.



Seems like you have higher issues, like lack of self-control.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Mar1217 said:
Gotta say that I'm impressed about how elaborately the OP made such a long answer when it could have been boiled down to " git gud "

No. I am also tired of "the game isn't made for ME, so they should change it to suit ME". FFS, we are in 2020, there are several THOUSANDS games available, if you find a game too hard, don't play it and move on. If you still want to play it, use a cheat engine. But stop asking "MAKE CHANGES FOR ME". If the game is not for you, find another games. There are plenty.



Extra Credits had a Video about that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJoax1Z1x4Y

They focus not only on difficulty, but also making games more accessible to people with disabilities or other problems like low reaction times.

Jim Sterling did one, too: www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIWivb-8C1w&list=PLlRceUcRZcK0E1Id3NHchFaxikvCvAVQe&index=46&t=0

He basically says that it's to the developers to include easy modes - but that they aren't obliged to. However, he lambasts the mentality that easy modes are ruining video games since you don't have to play on easy and thus wouldn't be affected by it - but it would allow others to play it who otherwise can't.

Edit: Both are also stressing one thing in particular: That gamers wouldn't lose a thing from it, but rather possibly gain something instead.

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - 4 days ago