By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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%
Other/comments. 2 4.76%

And Easy mode doesn't even guarantee that a person with disabilities will be able to play it, defeat the game or enjoy it. There are different disabilities and there is no way to tackle them all. Some people will always be left out.

I guess that for the sake of people with challenges they should make turtles, etc. in Mario games stop when you go near them and stay still so that people that find killing enemies challenging can jump on them and not lose. I am sure that we can have that and there is no need to point out that the whole Mario game is unmade if it is turned into something like that.

Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:

Around the Network


Instead of moaning, some people should use the alternative called "don't buy and don't play it, then" instead.






If it has an online component Dark Souls, no absolutely not as that would divide the user base and ruin the premise of the game. For a game like Sekiro, it is not quite as black and white. On one hand, it is an offline game and would have no impact on anyone else. On the other hand, it may affect it from a design perspective and alienate the core fans, even with harder difficulties. The challenge would be less about how the game is designed and more about the stereotypical, "enemies hit harder and have more health" way of things. This is because the design would now have to take into account this easier mode.

So I say overall for both instances, no. The game is designed to be challenging, and if you do not like that, play something else. There are plenty of other games out there.

Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261

It isn't as hard or problematic as most think to make an easier mode that is after the game is finished.

Like in Nioh they could have made it that when you die you don't lose anything you collected option, so you'll be getting stronger continuously, also yes you can make it a lot easier with bosses dying with less hits and you tanking more.

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

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"

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

No, just out of spite towards idiot games-journalists who spends more time complaining about games than playing them

Last edited by melbye - on 11 April 2019

Around the Network

I'm a big souls fan, so I'm clearly biased to the way From handles it.
In my opinion it's very tough to balance games in a way that the easy difficulty isn't a compromised experience, which asks too little of the players and hence never really teaches them how to make effective use of their skill systems. Why learn how to avoid enemy attacks and which skill to use etc if advancing is just as quick/easy by spamming a standard attack? On the other hand even the slightest bit of challenge will see the percentage of ppl able to complete a game plummet, especially the players defaulting to "easy" would be impacted and (rightly?) feel mislead/scammed if the game is still just too hard for them.
I think devs should stick to their vision of how the game experience is supposed to be and PR, journalists etc has the job to communicate to players how demanding the result is.

No. If you don't like a game because it's diofficult go play something else there are a lot of options.

As I've stated in an earlier thread: I find Dark Souls (only played remastered) to not be a particularly good game, not because of difficulty or the unforgiving gameplay, but because of design choices.

Difficulty = good
Bad design = bad

melbye said:
No, just out of spite towards idiot games-journalists who spendt more time complaining about games than playing them

This 2000%.



It's up to the developers, of course, but there is no real reason not to give players options whenever possible in single-player games. Options hurt no-one but they do allow those who might not have been able to to handle a game the chance to play it. Yeah, I know gamers are known for their childish "get gud" bullshit but those kinds of people shouldn't be allowed to define the entire medium. If their ego needs validation from videogames then they're not really worth worrying about to begin with.

There is just no good reason to exclude people. Especially when you look at it from an economic perspective. Series like Elder Scrolls have a ton of female gamers, older gamers, and "casual" gamers who just want an enjoyable experience. Easier modes let them join in the fun without any loss to those who want more difficulty.

Bloodborne would be ruined by an easy mode...part of it's design and addictive nature is the fact that you keep dying, so every small step of progress feels incredibly rewarding and that's by design.