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.

Alcyon said:

I am 38, so we are from the same generation. I don't have an issue with games having different level of difficulty, I have issues with crybabies complaining that Dark Souls or Sekiro don't have an eay mode. And the crybabies will write pages and pages on why most games, in general, should have an easy mode but never explain why a specific game must have an easy mode. I can also explain why books in general should be translated, but that doesn't explain why the book "la disparition" (a french book) should be. And the whole idea is stupid: the book with written with the letter e, translating the story would defeat the purpose of the book itself.

huh, I'm the opposite. I take issue with the crybabies complaining that games must not have an easy mode.



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

Around the Network
Alcyon said:

Since all games for these 2 gens were so easy would you mind showing your playstation profile with all the platinum you have for crushing these easy games?

So you consider quantity instead of quality? Wonderful, I understand why you struggle to understand why we consider that games are easier today.

With that being said, developers are not obligated to provide a lower-difficulty mode, and I do think there's plenty of merit in having a good challenge in a game. I personally don't want to simply breeze through a game. However, the existence of an "easy" mode (or other optional assists) shouldn't be viewed as a negative. Multiple difficulty levels does not inherently detract from the experience, and a game is not all the lesser for having them. There's nothing wrong with someone wanting to start off on a lower difficulty so they can practice and "git gud" without things getting too frustrating, or even being able to (heaven forbid!) have a more casual experience. There's too many elitist gamers that want their hobby to be as exclusive as possible. If there are difficulty levels, then the "hardcore" players can play on the harder difficulty level, simple as that. And I do think more games with multiple difficulty levels would be nice. I'm days away from turning 40. I don't have the time I used to have, and honestly my reaction time isn't what it was (my muscular dystrophy may be contributing to that as well). But even if a hard game doesn't have an easier mode, I'll still try to practice, assuming it's not too frustrating.

I am 38, so we are from the same generation. I don't have an issue with games having different level of difficulty, I have issues with crybabies complaining that Dark Souls or Sekiro don't have an eay mode. And the crybabies will write pages and pages on why most games, in general, should have an easy mode but never explain why a specific game must have an easy mode. I can also explain why books in general should be translated, but that doesn't explain why the book "la disparition" (a french book) should be. And the whole idea is stupid: the book with written with the letter e, translating the story would defeat the purpose of the book itself.

I just finished Hollow Knight. The difficulty of the game can be cut in 2 categories

1) Lack of direction

2) Boss fights

Let's talk about the game pre-DLCs.

Giving more "hints" would defeat the purpose of the game. A big part of the game is exploring areas, finding new powers to get acess to new areas. For the boss fights, having more health/doing more damage wouldn't help much, and you can do that by getting the upgrades. So what would an easy mode achieve? Giving you the ability to face tank the bosses earlier in the game?

Where did I say it needed to be 300 games? I'll take you don't have much to show for your elitism right?

Chazore said:
Speaking of difficulty and all that jazz, a modder on PC just released a mod for REmake 2, in that it allows for head-shots to be instant, permanent kills for zombies. They've also offered two variants of the mod, where one just goes with the insta kill head-shots, while the other does the former, but also makes ammo/first aid way more scarce, giving players options of difficulty.

I cringe with the 10 headshots and enemy still doing fine. I can accept that you may need 2 or 3 shots on the knee to down an enemy, but over 2 HS to kill is wrong. Sure make bullets less available but sponge zombies (you take 3 hits wherever it is you die, 10 HS on regular zombie and he is still coming) is BS that just serve to both make you always be starving (because the more bullets you have the less damage you do) and also trap you when Mr. X is circling you.



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

I think another side to this is something along the lines of Necessity vs Playability. Difficulty keeps necessity in line, but without a decent amount of playability a game can feel too restrictive. Too many game mechanics can make some parts to a game feel inconsequential or like you're overpowered perhaps, but personally I'd op for that vs a game that practically wants you to play the game their way. A balance of both is nice.



Lube Me Up

DonFerrari said:

I cringe with the 10 headshots and enemy still doing fine. I can accept that you may need 2 or 3 shots on the knee to down an enemy, but over 2 HS to kill is wrong. Sure make bullets less available but sponge zombies (you take 3 hits wherever it is you die, 10 HS on regular zombie and he is still coming) is BS that just serve to both make you always be starving (because the more bullets you have the less damage you do) and also trap you when Mr. X is circling you.

Yeah, the fact that head-shots mean next to nothing in the game, really burnt me out with the fun factor quite quickly. I even figured out it was actually better for me to shoot them a few times in the leg, then walk away, but even then they'd still get up or crawl around forever. Capcom just didn't give any rhyme or reason with how their zombies acted. In Night of the living dead, we're told a "bullet to the head", everyone knows what that means, and the movie and it's sequels executed it perfectly. With REmake 2, we see a cutscene with Leon saving Claire, by shooting a single bullet to a zombie's head, killing it instantly. In the game, that never seems to even work, so you're instantly given the suspension of disbelief.

It's like Capcom borrowed from old zombie movies and general zombie fantasy lore, but they decided to not read the important pages. I know some people like to claim "it's their game, it's theirs to do with as they wish", but here's the thing:

Capcom does not own the lore on zombies.

They've made a game featuring zombies, but they also act exactly like the sort you see in the oldest of zombie films. The only part they scrubbed out, was actually the most important part to zombie lore, which is basically crippling their head, in order to fully kill the being. I mean we got this with other Resi titles too, like Resi 4-6, with beings that could withstand multiple body shots, but also headshots too, despite having either exposed muscle or decaying flesh. Like, your eyes are telling you "decayed flesh=very brittle/weak skin=easy to damage", yet the game is telling you: "decayed flesh=4 layers of solid steel", and it doesn't even make any sense.

I'm so glad a modder actually made this though, and that they've provided options for us to either make life easier or harder, instead of actually going with making it harder by default (mod originally started out as just hard, but they listened to user requests). Now I can finally play the rest of the game, knowing a headshot is a headshot, and I could even try ramping up the difficulty if it feels too easy for myself (though I rarely do that, unless it's an ARPG).



                                       

Chazore said:
DonFerrari said:

I cringe with the 10 headshots and enemy still doing fine. I can accept that you may need 2 or 3 shots on the knee to down an enemy, but over 2 HS to kill is wrong. Sure make bullets less available but sponge zombies (you take 3 hits wherever it is you die, 10 HS on regular zombie and he is still coming) is BS that just serve to both make you always be starving (because the more bullets you have the less damage you do) and also trap you when Mr. X is circling you.

Yeah, the fact that head-shots mean next to nothing in the game, really burnt me out with the fun factor quite quickly. I even figured out it was actually better for me to shoot them a few times in the leg, then walk away, but even then they'd still get up or crawl around forever. Capcom just didn't give any rhyme or reason with how their zombies acted. In Night of the living dead, we're told a "bullet to the head", everyone knows what that means, and the movie and it's sequels executed it perfectly. With REmake 2, we see a cutscene with Leon saving Claire, by shooting a single bullet to a zombie's head, killing it instantly. In the game, that never seems to even work, so you're instantly given the suspension of disbelief.

It's like Capcom borrowed from old zombie movies and general zombie fantasy lore, but they decided to not read the important pages. I know some people like to claim "it's their game, it's theirs to do with as they wish", but here's the thing:

Capcom does not own the lore on zombies.

They've made a game featuring zombies, but they also act exactly like the sort you see in the oldest of zombie films. The only part they scrubbed out, was actually the most important part to zombie lore, which is basically crippling their head, in order to fully kill the being. I mean we got this with other Resi titles too, like Resi 4-6, with beings that could withstand multiple body shots, but also headshots too, despite having either exposed muscle or decaying flesh. Like, your eyes are telling you "decayed flesh=very brittle/weak skin=easy to damage", yet the game is telling you: "decayed flesh=4 layers of solid steel", and it doesn't even make any sense.

I'm so glad a modder actually made this though, and that they've provided options for us to either make life easier or harder, instead of actually going with making it harder by default (mod originally started out as just hard, but they listened to user requests). Now I can finally play the rest of the game, knowing a headshot is a headshot, and I could even try ramping up the difficulty if it feels too easy for myself (though I rarely do that, unless it's an ARPG).

Yep it is one of the biggest immersion break in gaming when cutscene vs gameplay are very different. Like on some games you can take 3 dozen slashes without any consequence but a single small cut in a cutscene and you are fucked. Also that enemy when you play him you destroy, but your party is OHKOed in cutscene by same enemy.

For RE2 the game was made for you to avoid all enemies that aren't bosses, you are supposed to give couple shoots on the leg if necessary to escape or collect stuff, if you want to be safe after you make it drop on the floor you cut the legs (in the library that is quite necessary because of the bookshelf puzzle and later Mr. X making it worse). RE2 is so dumb on the headshot that even on easiest it still takes several shoots on the head.

The tank control was better on this part because you could believe that you weren't really giving a good HS, it could miss or hit the side of the head, but when you can aim and see you hit perfectly 4 times it is moronic. Even bosses when their weakness is exposed take more damage.

And Capcom could make these 2 special modes available, like they have for DMC "Dante Must Die" and "Heaven or Hell". Let people play the game in different ways add value.



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
DonFerrari said:

Yep it is one of the biggest immersion break in gaming when cutscene vs gameplay are very different. Like on some games you can take 3 dozen slashes without any consequence but a single small cut in a cutscene and you are fucked. Also that enemy when you play him you destroy, but your party is OHKOed in cutscene by same enemy.

For RE2 the game was made for you to avoid all enemies that aren't bosses, you are supposed to give couple shoots on the leg if necessary to escape or collect stuff, if you want to be safe after you make it drop on the floor you cut the legs (in the library that is quite necessary because of the bookshelf puzzle and later Mr. X making it worse). RE2 is so dumb on the headshot that even on easiest it still takes several shoots on the head.

The tank control was better on this part because you could believe that you weren't really giving a good HS, it could miss or hit the side of the head, but when you can aim and see you hit perfectly 4 times it is moronic. Even bosses when their weakness is exposed take more damage.

And Capcom could make these 2 special modes available, like they have for DMC "Dante Must Die" and "Heaven or Hell". Let people play the game in different ways add value.

Oh god that reminds me exactly of DBZ Kakarot, in the mission where you play as Vegeta on Namek vs Freiza. You're supposed to fight him like he does in the anime, but in the anime he naturally loses to Freiza, because well, he's OP, yet in the game you can finish him so damn fast that the next cutscene will play. That wasn't really supposed to happen at all, since Freiza was supposed to naturally beat vegeta, and a few youtube reviewers I've watched point this out, and find it a bit glaring that it can even happen. The devs should have made that fight one that you cannot win, but not that I'm saying it has to be difficult, but one that you canonically cannot win. Like RDR2 with Dutch, you can't kill him because he's supposed to die in RDR1, since it's canonical and makes sense.

Honestly, I really hope that next gen zombie games allow a little more creativity with killing zombies, because as of right now, all we can do is rely on a headshot or slicing the head/legs off completely. We've seen enough years of the Walking dead to know what you can do to incapacitate the dead, and I'd love to see us be able to be more creative next gen, rather than doing the 7 headshots and they're dead sort of thing that we currently have now.

I'm pretty sure L4D allows for one hit kill headshots with most of it's arsenal. 

Yeah, the tank controls weren't all that accurate and it added to the tension, and the fact that you couldn't always line up a good shot, and event times where the enemy was off-screen, so you could miss a bunch of times, but now we've got third person over the shoulder controls, we're allowed to be more precise than ever, yet we're not being rewarded with said precision.

What really sucks about this, is that the mod is PC only. We saw mod support with the likes of Fallout 4/Skyrim SE on consoles, but it seems to have just stopped with those two games. I'd hope that next gen allows for more mod support, because mods like these can be must haves for some people (I know I absolutely want this mod, as it'll make my experience more fun and actually immersive). 



                                       

Chazore said:
DonFerrari said:

Yep it is one of the biggest immersion break in gaming when cutscene vs gameplay are very different. Like on some games you can take 3 dozen slashes without any consequence but a single small cut in a cutscene and you are fucked. Also that enemy when you play him you destroy, but your party is OHKOed in cutscene by same enemy.

For RE2 the game was made for you to avoid all enemies that aren't bosses, you are supposed to give couple shoots on the leg if necessary to escape or collect stuff, if you want to be safe after you make it drop on the floor you cut the legs (in the library that is quite necessary because of the bookshelf puzzle and later Mr. X making it worse). RE2 is so dumb on the headshot that even on easiest it still takes several shoots on the head.

The tank control was better on this part because you could believe that you weren't really giving a good HS, it could miss or hit the side of the head, but when you can aim and see you hit perfectly 4 times it is moronic. Even bosses when their weakness is exposed take more damage.

And Capcom could make these 2 special modes available, like they have for DMC "Dante Must Die" and "Heaven or Hell". Let people play the game in different ways add value.

Oh god that reminds me exactly of DBZ Kakarot, in the mission where you play as Vegeta on Namek vs Freiza. You're supposed to fight him like he does in the anime, but in the anime he naturally loses to Freiza, because well, he's OP, yet in the game you can finish him so damn fast that the next cutscene will play. That wasn't really supposed to happen at all, since Freiza was supposed to naturally beat vegeta, and a few youtube reviewers I've watched point this out, and find it a bit glaring that it can even happen. The devs should have made that fight one that you cannot win, but not that I'm saying it has to be difficult, but one that you canonically cannot win. Like RDR2 with Dutch, you can't kill him because he's supposed to die in RDR1, since it's canonical and makes sense.

Honestly, I really hope that next gen zombie games allow a little more creativity with killing zombies, because as of right now, all we can do is rely on a headshot or slicing the head/legs off completely. We've seen enough years of the Walking dead to know what you can do to incapacitate the dead, and I'd love to see us be able to be more creative next gen, rather than doing the 7 headshots and they're dead sort of thing that we currently have now.

I'm pretty sure L4D allows for one hit kill headshots with most of it's arsenal. 

Yeah, the tank controls weren't all that accurate and it added to the tension, and the fact that you couldn't always line up a good shot, and event times where the enemy was off-screen, so you could miss a bunch of times, but now we've got third person over the shoulder controls, we're allowed to be more precise than ever, yet we're not being rewarded with said precision.

What really sucks about this, is that the mod is PC only. We saw mod support with the likes of Fallout 4/Skyrim SE on consoles, but it seems to have just stopped with those two games. I'd hope that next gen allows for more mod support, because mods like these can be must haves for some people (I know I absolutely want this mod, as it'll make my experience more fun and actually immersive). 

Want to make the game harder consider Leon is a newbie and Redfield is a civilian, so make their hand shakes a lot so it is hard to aim the head and then you'll shoot the torso more. Sure with time you'll learn how to time and control that shaking but at least it would make sense.



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

SvennoJ said:
Nautilus said:

That logic is so flawed.If I like everything about a racing game(its graphics, atmosphere, story, RPG systems and so on) except the driving itself, it means that the devs screwed up?

Is it so hard to understand that some people just like it hard, and to make a truly hard game, it needs to be made hard from a level design point of view, which simply makes it impossible to have multiple levels of difficulty because its either financially prohibitive, or simply because the devs dont want to?

And I mean, regarding some things that I have seen written here: If the first Dark Souls had ssell well, but then the sequel had done badly, then that would have sent a message that yeah, the public hated the difficulty and just a tiny portion of gamers liked that way.But with every new From games, they jusst sell more and more, with Sekiro selling more than 4 million units, recalling from the top of my head.And thats in less than one year.And Im not even mentioning Nioh, Code Vein, Dead Cells, etc.

Well yes, the Project cars devs screwed up adding terrible controller support. Result, PC2 no buy. It could have been a good series but they want to cater to wheel users only. So be it.

Gamers always want bigger and better, higher budgets, better graphics, yet then they also don't want more people to enjoy their games. Meanwhile complaining that the masses just play Call of Duty and Fortnight. It didn't hurt TW3 one bit to expand to consoles and include different difficulty levels to increase their audience.

Anyway, there are plenty other things to play. I wouldn't mind exploring the world of Sekiro or any of the other games you mentioned. However I still have Bloodborne waiting to be played and it seems more and more unlikely I'll ever have the focus and time again to git gud just for the sake of enjoying the art and work that went into the game.

And thats fine.

Not every game needs to be hard to be successful, and not every game needs to be easy to be successful.If you dont have or want to spend the time to get gud, then just play something else.The video game industry nowadays is big enough and diverse enough to cater to everyone, really.



Ka-pi96 said:
Nautilus said:

That logic is so flawed.If I like everything about a racing game(its graphics, atmosphere, story, RPG systems and so on) except the driving itself, it means that the devs screwed up?

Is it so hard to understand that some people just like it hard, and to make a truly hard game, it needs to be made hard from a level design point of view, which simply makes it impossible to have multiple levels of difficulty because its either financially prohibitive, or simply because the devs dont want to?

And I mean, regarding some things that I have seen written here: If the first Dark Souls had ssell well, but then the sequel had done badly, then that would have sent a message that yeah, the public hated the difficulty and just a tiny portion of gamers liked that way.But with every new From games, they jusst sell more and more, with Sekiro selling more than 4 million units, recalling from the top of my head.And thats in less than one year.And Im not even mentioning Nioh, Code Vein, Dead Cells, etc.

Nah, your logic is flawed since you seem to think gameplay = difficulty. It doesn't. If you don't like the driving of a racing game then you don't like the gameplay of it, that has nothing to do with difficulty whatsoever. The difficulty of a racing game is the AI. If they AI are absolutely perfect, never make mistakes and always accelerate, brake and turn at the exact right time then it's only going to be an enjoyable experience for a very small number of people. It really doesn't take much to add a few other difficulty levels where the AI is more prone to errors. Oh, and the same applies in the other direction too, if the AI is so shit that your only chance of losing is if you drive poorly on purpose then the game's shit as well and should really have some harder AI options.

I challenge you to present a single example that couldn't be made easier/more difficult very easily if the devs wanted to. Seriously, do it!

Racing games = increases/decrease player/AI top speed/acceleration stats
Action games = adjust health/damage stats for the player/enemies
RPG games = adjust player/enemy stats, increases/decrease exp gain rate or enemy encounter freqeuency/size of encounters
Platformers = adjust player jump height, make gaps narrower/wider, increase/decrease enemy frequency, increase/decrease how often health/life items are found
Strategy games = Give boosts/penalties to player/AI economy, increase/decrease unit stats
Sports games = increase/decrease stats, adjust the RNG factor on player/AI actions

There, a whole bunch of ways to easily change the difficulty in a bunch of different games. Level design has absolutely nothing to do with it. AI doesn't even need to be changed for any of those either, so you can save the whole `developing a separate better/worse AI would be expensive and time-consuming` excuse too.

... I honestly dont get what you are saying.

Difficulty has to do with... everything about the game.

Level Design: Its easier to kill an ranged enemy if he stands in the same ground level as you, opossed if he was on higher ground.Thats level design.

Gameplay: There are some games that have bigger windows of oportunity to attack and deflect attacks.Enemies might have a more aggressive and passive behaviour.The game might demand quicker reflexes.Gameplay isnt just about health or damage.

Sound: Paying attention to the sound enemies makes, especially if its done on purpose to identify when someone is comming from you, or from where the attack comes from.The lack of a proper "sound system" might makes things harder(though that simply would make it unfair, not harder)

And so on and so on.Thats is just me giving examples on how difficulty could be incorporated into everything that contemplates a game.

But thats not even the main point Im trying to make.The main point is: Sure, you could dumb down Dark Souls to the point that any attack from a boss does 1% of the damage and call it a day.But that would just ruin the game, and its clearly not what the devs want for the game.Period.

Making a inherently difficult game in which every single part of it was designed to make you think, plan, and learn really well the mechanics dont fit well with different difficulty levels.Not to say that some hard games cant have difficulty levels, they sure can, but usually these games either have very little difficulty inbued into the level design and demands more of the player in its skill alone, or its just plain unfair(Dying in like 2 shots in the hardest difficulty is simply unfair for example, especially for someone who just began the game).



mysteryman said:
Nautilus said:

But if a developer dont want to, because that's how they designed their game, why should it have cheat codes or an easy mode?

It's not a matter of having fun or not;Clearly people are having fun with those games.With each new entry, From is selling more and more.Code Vein just reported that it sold more than 1 million units, and Dead Cells is a huge success.

Its a matter of just the game itself not being appealing to these gamers in particular.Much like I dont like racing game in general and I can do nothing about this, nothing can be done to tailor these games to people that dont like the challenge.That's all.

Cheat codes don't impact any of this.

Of course it does.If a dev dosen't want it in its games, because he wants the player to learn the game and play as it is intended, why would he put something that goes against it?