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

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

DonFerrari said:
Nautilus said:

Of course I deny.... it's the whole point I'm trying to defend.And It's irrelevant if said gamer has suffered difficulties with the game, that's the point.The game is made to be harder, no matter the skill set of the player.It's meant for you to get better at it and "suffer" to be able to improve yourself, because that is what the game is trying to achieve.If some compromise is made, part of what makes the game appealing is lost.

It's all written in the OP....

When you refuse to accept any counter argument you shouldn't even make a thread.

When the whole argument is general about how games, in general, should be accessible and never adress the point, which is "why this specific type of games should or not have an easy mode", I will also refuse the "counter-argument" since it doesn't even adress the point. The whole idea behind the topic is "there are tons of games, having some hard games appeal to some gamers".

If you continue to explain why games, in general, should have an easy mode, don't reply here. Or accept that we will dismiss it.



Around the Network
Nautilus said:
SvennoJ said:

The problem is, what makes a game appealing means different things to different people. What makes a game appealing to the developers could very well be very unappealing to others. And the experience of difficulty is different for different people. So what is the game really trying to achieve. To make you pass an arbitrary rather meaningless difficulty bar which for some isn't difficult at all yet will have others move on or not even try. Games are not like a driver's license test where you have to meet set performance requirements, which for some are very easy and some can never get a driver's license. So if the difficulty is what's supposed to make the game appealing, it can only be appealing to a certain subset of gamers with the right 'skill' level to match its difficulty curve. Luckily there are many more things that make the souls games appealing.

But games shouldn't have to be appealing to everyone.That's the point.I thought I made that very clear with my Original Post.

Its impossible to make different difficulty options in a game that applies the difficulty itself in every single part imaginable of the game, from the exploration to the combat itself, with reasons explained ad nauseum at this point.So I make the question to you: Is it fair then to the people that want truly hard games, to not have them, because some people just can't get better, for one reason or another?the moment you apply the logic " It's unfair for the ones that can't play better" the opposite is also true: " Is it unfair for those who can play better, to not have a game that is TRULY hard, not the "hard" difficulty levels that games usually have(which is still easy or just normal)"?

The answer is simple:There are enough developers out there to everyone have a game that appeals to them, even on the same genre.So I can't fanthom why people are so against gamers just having the opportunity to play something that really speaks to them.

Is it fair to people that want a harder experience to have to wait until ng+? Again, if it can have ng+, be more difficult for a second play through, the opposite is also possible! A static difficulty level simply does not work for everyone. But sure, if it's only supposed to be appealing to those that fit the difficulty curve, then well done.

It's just weird people complaining about extra health or bigger timing windows, enabling more checkpoints, ability to skip bosses, like that would alter the core game. It doesn't. But that's just my opinion :)



SvennoJ said:
Nautilus said:

But games shouldn't have to be appealing to everyone.That's the point.I thought I made that very clear with my Original Post.

Its impossible to make different difficulty options in a game that applies the difficulty itself in every single part imaginable of the game, from the exploration to the combat itself, with reasons explained ad nauseum at this point.So I make the question to you: Is it fair then to the people that want truly hard games, to not have them, because some people just can't get better, for one reason or another?the moment you apply the logic " It's unfair for the ones that can't play better" the opposite is also true: " Is it unfair for those who can play better, to not have a game that is TRULY hard, not the "hard" difficulty levels that games usually have(which is still easy or just normal)"?

The answer is simple:There are enough developers out there to everyone have a game that appeals to them, even on the same genre.So I can't fanthom why people are so against gamers just having the opportunity to play something that really speaks to them.

Is it fair to people that want a harder experience to have to wait until ng+? Again, if it can have ng+, be more difficult for a second play through, the opposite is also possible! A static difficulty level simply does not work for everyone. But sure, if it's only supposed to be appealing to those that fit the difficulty curve, then well done.

It's just weird people complaining about extra health or bigger timing windows, enabling more checkpoints, ability to skip bosses, like that would alter the core game. It doesn't. But that's just my opinion :)

Of course it does alter the core game, because you are skipping parts of it.Either way, the bolded is precisely what I mean.Not every game is meant to appeal to everyone, though the developers could broad as much as they want, so long as it is faithful to what they want you to experience.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Nautilus said:
SvennoJ said:

Is it fair to people that want a harder experience to have to wait until ng+? Again, if it can have ng+, be more difficult for a second play through, the opposite is also possible! A static difficulty level simply does not work for everyone. But sure, if it's only supposed to be appealing to those that fit the difficulty curve, then well done.

It's just weird people complaining about extra health or bigger timing windows, enabling more checkpoints, ability to skip bosses, like that would alter the core game. It doesn't. But that's just my opinion :)

Of course it does alter the core game, because you are skipping parts of it.Either way, the bolded is precisely what I mean.Not every game is meant to appeal to everyone, though the developers could broad as much as they want, so long as it is faithful to what they want you to experience.

By that logic, should the developers of Dark Soul change their mind and release Dark Souls 4 with an optional easy mode, you wouldn't have an issue with it?



Signature goes here!

TruckOSaurus said:
Nautilus said:

Of course it does alter the core game, because you are skipping parts of it.Either way, the bolded is precisely what I mean.Not every game is meant to appeal to everyone, though the developers could broad as much as they want, so long as it is faithful to what they want you to experience.

By that logic, should the developers of Dark Soul change their mind and release Dark Souls 4 with an optional easy mode, you wouldn't have an issue with it?

I personally would, since I wouldn't like it(unless the "standard mode" managed to maintain the usual difficulty level they are known for, but I doubt it if the easy mode is really an easy mode). I would complain and all that, but I would respect their wishes.Especially since now that all developers know there is a market for (truly) hard games, there will always be other games I can play, if Dark Souls 4 drops the ball.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Around the Network
Nautilus said:
TruckOSaurus said:

By that logic, should the developers of Dark Soul change their mind and release Dark Souls 4 with an optional easy mode, you wouldn't have an issue with it?

I personally would, since I wouldn't like it(unless the "standard mode" managed to maintain the usual difficulty level they are known for, but I doubt it if the easy mode is really an easy mode). I would complain and all that, but I would respect their wishes.Especially since now that all developers know there is a market for (truly) hard games, there will always be other games I can play, if Dark Souls 4 drops the ball.

But how would it be "dropping the ball" if the standard mode remains true to the previous games? Or would the simple existence of an easy mode somehow poison the game? The game would still be truly hard but there would be a not so hard mode to go along with it.



Signature goes here!

Nautilus said:
SvennoJ said:

Is it fair to people that want a harder experience to have to wait until ng+? Again, if it can have ng+, be more difficult for a second play through, the opposite is also possible! A static difficulty level simply does not work for everyone. But sure, if it's only supposed to be appealing to those that fit the difficulty curve, then well done.

It's just weird people complaining about extra health or bigger timing windows, enabling more checkpoints, ability to skip bosses, like that would alter the core game. It doesn't. But that's just my opinion :)

Of course it does alter the core game, because you are skipping parts of it.Either way, the bolded is precisely what I mean.Not every game is meant to appeal to everyone, though the developers could broad as much as they want, so long as it is faithful to what they want you to experience.

Yet what they want you to experience turns out differently for different people. It's great it fits your play style and abilities, but that doesn't mean it turns into a very different experience for someone else, far off from what the devs want you to experience. Unless there is some AI analyzing your gamepla, there is no way of knowing whether you are experiencing the game as intended. Did they intend it as a frustrating experience many people give up on. Did they intend it as a "read a guide, get op early" breeze through it experience. Did they intend it for those that played their earlier games and can finish it in 20 hours or less. Or is it meant for new players to struggle for 60 hours. There is simply no way to provide the "intended" experience with a fixed difficulty level to cater to new comers and veterans alike. So even if you just take the group it's "meant to appeal" to, it still is entirely dependent on their earlier experience with From's games.

Btw you don't alter the core game by skipping parts (boss battles) of it. You simply experience less of it. If you quit after a few chapters, you don't change the game. Flexible games are more fun. I skipped most of the story shoot outs in GTA5 since that's not something I enjoy. The game letting you enjoy it the way you want to makes it the behemoth it turned into. In Death stranding I simply ran through the shoot out bits in very easy, I wasn't playing it for that. In the end I clocked well over 200 hours in that game figuring out how to optimize things and get 500 legends of legends ratings. (which is only available in hard mode, but you can switch freely)

I'm well past the age that I have to eat my veggies first before I can have desert. No need to put up with that with games either :) Boss battles are not for me, I can't remember any enjoyable ones apart from Astro bot. I only remember them in ranks of most annoying and Dark Souls scores high on that list. Beating a boss doesn't give me any satisfaction, just a well that was a waste of time, can I get on with the fun part now please. Different people play games for different experiences, and of course if a developer doesn't want you to experience the 'fun' parts without passing a test first, then that's their choice. And my choice to not buy from them any more. Not adding options is in their right, but the defense that it would alter the "intended experience" whatever that might be, is a lame excuse.



TruckOSaurus said:
Nautilus said:

I personally would, since I wouldn't like it(unless the "standard mode" managed to maintain the usual difficulty level they are known for, but I doubt it if the easy mode is really an easy mode). I would complain and all that, but I would respect their wishes.Especially since now that all developers know there is a market for (truly) hard games, there will always be other games I can play, if Dark Souls 4 drops the ball.

But how would it be "dropping the ball" if the standard mode remains true to the previous games? Or would the simple existence of an easy mode somehow poison the game? The game would still be truly hard but there would be a not so hard mode to go along with it.

The "Dropping the ball" would be if the standard difficulty wasn't as difficult as it should(compared to previous games) or if you could feel that the game suffered in quality because the easy mode was put there, and thus the whole game suffered for it, for one reason or another(already explained how that would be the case throught the thread and it's also written in my OP).



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

SvennoJ said:
Nautilus said:

Of course it does alter the core game, because you are skipping parts of it.Either way, the bolded is precisely what I mean.Not every game is meant to appeal to everyone, though the developers could broad as much as they want, so long as it is faithful to what they want you to experience.

Yet what they want you to experience turns out differently for different people. It's great it fits your play style and abilities, but that doesn't mean it turns into a very different experience for someone else, far off from what the devs want you to experience. Unless there is some AI analyzing your gamepla, there is no way of knowing whether you are experiencing the game as intended. Did they intend it as a frustrating experience many people give up on. Did they intend it as a "read a guide, get op early" breeze through it experience. Did they intend it for those that played their earlier games and can finish it in 20 hours or less. Or is it meant for new players to struggle for 60 hours. There is simply no way to provide the "intended" experience with a fixed difficulty level to cater to new comers and veterans alike. So even if you just take the group it's "meant to appeal" to, it still is entirely dependent on their earlier experience with From's games.

Btw you don't alter the core game by skipping parts (boss battles) of it. You simply experience less of it. If you quit after a few chapters, you don't change the game. Flexible games are more fun. I skipped most of the story shoot outs in GTA5 since that's not something I enjoy. The game letting you enjoy it the way you want to makes it the behemoth it turned into. In Death stranding I simply ran through the shoot out bits in very easy, I wasn't playing it for that. In the end I clocked well over 200 hours in that game figuring out how to optimize things and get 500 legends of legends ratings. (which is only available in hard mode, but you can switch freely)

I'm well past the age that I have to eat my veggies first before I can have desert. No need to put up with that with games either :) Boss battles are not for me, I can't remember any enjoyable ones apart from Astro bot. I only remember them in ranks of most annoying and Dark Souls scores high on that list. Beating a boss doesn't give me any satisfaction, just a well that was a waste of time, can I get on with the fun part now please. Different people play games for different experiences, and of course if a developer doesn't want you to experience the 'fun' parts without passing a test first, then that's their choice. And my choice to not buy from them any more. Not adding options is in their right, but the defense that it would alter the "intended experience" whatever that might be, is a lame excuse.

You are reading too much into it.You all are.It's as simple as: If its in the game, the developer intended that(outside of bugs, of course).If its not, its not intended.The ability to skip parts is also included.If they allow you to skip, then the devs wanted.If they dont, then they dont want to.

Of course people more skilled at games will have an easier time and all, but if the developer wants a certian difficulty in their games, and no compromises, then so be it.It's as simple as that.The rest, if a player manages to beat the game or not, dosen't matter.If people in general don't like that, they will vote with their wallet.Which they did.

And again, you boiled down what I have been saying all this time, yet again(the bolded part), be it lame or not.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

SvennoJ said:
Nautilus said:

Of course it does alter the core game, because you are skipping parts of it.Either way, the bolded is precisely what I mean.Not every game is meant to appeal to everyone, though the developers could broad as much as they want, so long as it is faithful to what they want you to experience.

Yet what they want you to experience turns out differently for different people. It's great it fits your play style and abilities, but that doesn't mean it turns into a very different experience for someone else, far off from what the devs want you to experience. Unless there is some AI analyzing your gamepla, there is no way of knowing whether you are experiencing the game as intended. Did they intend it as a frustrating experience many people give up on. Did they intend it as a "read a guide, get op early" breeze through it experience. Did they intend it for those that played their earlier games and can finish it in 20 hours or less. Or is it meant for new players to struggle for 60 hours. There is simply no way to provide the "intended" experience with a fixed difficulty level to cater to new comers and veterans alike. So even if you just take the group it's "meant to appeal" to, it still is entirely dependent on their earlier experience with From's games.

Btw you don't alter the core game by skipping parts (boss battles) of it. You simply experience less of it. If you quit after a few chapters, you don't change the game. Flexible games are more fun. I skipped most of the story shoot outs in GTA5 since that's not something I enjoy. The game letting you enjoy it the way you want to makes it the behemoth it turned into. In Death stranding I simply ran through the shoot out bits in very easy, I wasn't playing it for that. In the end I clocked well over 200 hours in that game figuring out how to optimize things and get 500 legends of legends ratings. (which is only available in hard mode, but you can switch freely)

I'm well past the age that I have to eat my veggies first before I can have desert. No need to put up with that with games either :) Boss battles are not for me, I can't remember any enjoyable ones apart from Astro bot. I only remember them in ranks of most annoying and Dark Souls scores high on that list. Beating a boss doesn't give me any satisfaction, just a well that was a waste of time, can I get on with the fun part now please. Different people play games for different experiences, and of course if a developer doesn't want you to experience the 'fun' parts without passing a test first, then that's their choice. And my choice to not buy from them any more. Not adding options is in their right, but the defense that it would alter the "intended experience" whatever that might be, is a lame excuse.

Then Dark Souls isn't for you. I don't like racing games, so I don't play racing games. Should they add "more options" and give me a "non-racing option" in their racing game? Or perhaps, I say perhaps, I should not play racine games?