Sonic Mania's "FATAL FLAW"

[Nautilus]

IkePoR said:

Nautilus said:

But I dont think that every game needs to be "acessible".Most of the time, a game quality is tied to its difficulty.The experience playing Dark Souls, for example, would be vastly different if you had a difficulty that lets say, the enemy did 50% less and the AI were much more forgiving, but your charachter stats would remain the same.I would say the same holds true for Sonic Mania, even if in a lesser capacity.

The question now would be if developers would be ok to jeopardize their vision for the game and the thrill that the player is suppossed to feel with each acomplishment in the name of acessability, since the player that is playing on easy in not having the experience the developer crafted and intended to have(which would be on normal difficulty for example).

My point is, not every game needs to appeal to someone, both in genres and difficult.If someone is not good at gaming, it should research beforehand if the game is hard or not, the same way you research is the type of game you like or if the game is good.

Dark Souls is marketed to be "hard as balls" and it's near impossible to hear about the game without it's scathing difficulty being mentioned.  Much like Fire Emblem games before casual mode, every preview and review talked up permadeath to warn players.  Sonic Mania doesn't do this, it's just another Sonic game to the average person.  But let's be real here - the average consumer doesn't research any game they play.  It's why terrible games that have terrible practices do so well(Shadow of War will be a huge success despite the awful controversies for example).  The majority who are willing to research things are gamers already and won't have an issue with the difficulty.

You make a point - no game should have to compromise their vison.  However, with the ideas I proposed, I don't think it's being compromised. You don't have to pick up the invincible tanooki tail in New Super Mario Bros. You're not forced to play casual mode in Fire Emblem Awakening.  Those games are still true to their series when those options are ignored.  Developers are always up to giving options when it comes to DLC and microtransactions, why is it any different with something as simple as a optional power up?  Keep in mind these companies want as many people playing as possible and consumer frindliness goes a long way in that reguard.

There are games that what I propose should be enforced, games that trive on raw difficulty and the improvement of ones skills, such as Dark Souls, but there are also games that I agree that difficulty isnt as essential and could have an easier mode or something to ease up the game, such as the Mario games.I still think that if you implement something that just makes the player breeze through a stage that should otherwise be challenging, like an invincibility mode or the tanuuki suit on the newer Super Mario Bros, you are stripping away a part of the game that should be enjoyed by that player, even if he had to bang his head against the TV a few times.

Its just that sometimes theenjoyment is striped away a bit of the enjoyament when the developer puts in easier difficulties(not always of course).One such example is KH Birth By Sleep, where the easier modes made the gameplay less enjoyable than playing on harder difficulties(which I will assume here was the standard difficulty that Nomura thought this game should have).Just look up the IGN review where he says that.

Maybe is just me but, outside of the situations where the franchise is in serious danger of dying(like it was the case for Fire Emblem), developers shouldnt be afraid of making hard games and let it stay that way if they think its for the best(design and enjoyment wise).Many games could have been so much more enjoyable for everyone if they had a more streamlined difficulty, instead of just being afraid that the normal difficulty being too easy or the hard difficulty being too hard(I usually have these kind of problems when I start a game).