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.

Nautilus said:
SvennoJ said:

Now that attitude is ageism! Professional football players often become trainers and can still play friendly games in lower leagues. That's all people are asking, a friendlier version for those that want that. Old doesn't mean obsolete. Reaction time and strength may go down, patience and experience still counts.

Games don't need to cater to old people, but as gamers are growing older, it would be a shame to leave that market behind.

That's exactly my point.Old football players retire as players, but still are inside the "football cosmos": They become teachers, trainers, narrators, club presidents.They use the experience they have and go to a tangent field, thats still related to football bvut isn't football per se.

That's the same for games.You either use that experience to compansate for the reflexes, or you move on to other, different genres.Or play games in the same genre that the devs intended to be either easier, or to have a different experience compared to "pure hard" games.(more focus in exploration, story and less on reflex-like gameplay)

Or they move on to the less demanding leagues like... wait for it... an "easier mode" of football

Last edited by TruckOSaurus - on 27 February 2020

Signature goes here!

Around the Network
TruckOSaurus said:
Nautilus said:

That's exactly my point.Old football players retire as players, but still are inside the "football cosmos": They become teachers, trainers, narrators, club presidents.They use the experience they have and go to a tangent field, thats still related to football bvut isn't football per se.

That's the same for games.You either use that experience to compansate for the reflexes, or you move on to other, different genres.Or play games in the same genre that the devs intended to be either easier, or to have a different experience compared to "pure hard" games.(more focus in exploration, story and less on reflex-like gameplay)

Or they move on to the less demanding leagues like... wait for it... an "easier mode" of football

Maybe, if such equivalent in games exist.

And they usually do!There is always a similar yet different game out there, and thus there is always a game for everyone.That's the beauty of this industry.



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

@Alcyon

You are very well spoken and I couldn't agree more. Also, this x 1000:

"Yes, when at the beggining I have to decide a level of difficulty, it affects me. I don't have a clue if hard means "just a bit harder" or "your tears will be made of blood". So I have to decide. If the game is too easy/hard, I either have to restart from the beggining or not fully enjoy the game. And I don't even know if after that point, the game will be harder or keep a similar level of difficulty."

@Nu-13 & @Svenno

I reject the notion that every game needs to be accessible to every person. Developers should be free to create the game they envisioned. Explain the difference in logic between wanting every game to have difficulty accessibility options and the following:

"GTA games should be modified so they are Rated E for Everyone, as it's not fair for those that are not old enough to play these games."

Here's what I think is going on. You found the Souls games (or any other particular game) too difficult for you, and were further bothered by the toxic fanbase that seems to follow these types of games (the git gud memes). This conditioned you to have very strong opinions about the difficulty of these games. I believe you are blinded by your bias against this sub-genre, and have therefore come to the conclusion that all games should have at least some mechanism to allow for all people to overcome their obstacles. In addition to this, your stubbornness has caused you to double-down and overextend on your opinions by making claims that additional difficulty options do not impact anything (while ignoring things such as additional development costs or sacrifices in game mechanics that may need to be made in order to accommodate this).

Alcyon's quote at the beginning of this post is a perfect reason why difficulty options may lessen the experience. I remember having to restart my first playthrough attempt in the Witcher 3 because I chose the hardest difficulty option (was it Death March, perhaps?), and one of the quirks of this difficulty setting was that you were unable to lower the difficulty after making this selection (hence, having to restart the game).

I think the issues that people have with this is that it seems like it should just be a matter of opinion, and there are clear examples given in this thread of how it *does* impact peoples' enjoyment of the game, but yet there has been no admission or clarification to the statements made about how difficulty options have no impact on the player.



Nautilus said:

It's really funny you saying that, when you yourself have problems with things that can be classified as "obnoxious elitist bs" such as the whole Epic Store discussion, which you certainly have a grudge against(which is stupid by the way)

Anyways, me and the others are not in the minority.Again, sales of these games point otherwise.

Except the EGS discussion isn't classified specifically as "elitist". It's obnoxious yeah, but not elitist.

Honestly, the whole slant against adding in options to a game is entirely stupid onto itself.

Anyway, yes you are, especially when you consider how many out there who do not play one specific sub genre and play games on varying difficulty settings. Souls may have sold a new mil, but there's more than just a few mil of gamers out there, and a lot more that play games that aren't designed the way Souls are. You are by definition, the minority, and no arguing is going to change that, it's an actual fact, unless you want to personally go out there and tally literally a few billion people on the concepts of difficulty and not wanting life made easier.



               

Chazore said:
Nautilus said:

It's really funny you saying that, when you yourself have problems with things that can be classified as "obnoxious elitist bs" such as the whole Epic Store discussion, which you certainly have a grudge against(which is stupid by the way)

Anyways, me and the others are not in the minority.Again, sales of these games point otherwise.

Except the EGS discussion isn't classified specifically as "elitist". It's obnoxious yeah, but not elitist.

Honestly, the whole slant against adding in options to a game is entirely stupid onto itself.

Anyway, yes you are, especially when you consider how many out there who do not play one specific sub genre and play games on varying difficulty settings. Souls may have sold a new mil, but there's more than just a few mil of gamers out there, and a lot more that play games that aren't designed the way Souls are. You are by definition, the minority, and no arguing is going to change that, it's an actual fact, unless you want to personally go out there and tally literally a few billion people on the concepts of difficulty and not wanting life made easier.

No, this discussion has nothing to do with elitism.It has, however, with the notion that everything has to appeal to everyone at the same time, and the subsequent "silent" rule that if the game you like dosen't fit in that rule, you are alt-right(stupid expression)/elitist/gatekeeper or whatever expression people come up these days to insult people when they run out of arguments.You could call it to be political correctness, but I like to call it the Dictatorship in the guise of the Greater Good.

The Epic Store discussion is just stupid because no one is stopping you from playing that game, you just have to download a free launcher.If you call what I am saying "elitism", then yours is just plain arrogance, since it costs you and anyone nothing a game coming to one launcher than the other.

And yeah, I am in the minority, if you could call millions of players(that like this type of gameplay) minority, sure.But you also are.Why? Because it boils down to one thing that no one going against me has presented thus far:Evidence. How large is my minority?Well, the 4 million+ players that bought Sekiro, the 2 millions+ that bought Hollow Knight, the 4 million+(Not sure of this one) players that bought Dark Souls 3, and so on and so on.

So I ask you: How large is your majority, that would " only" play games with multiple difficulties?How would you prove that you are the majority, other than a supposed "common sense"? And even if 51% of the players worldwide wants multiple difficulties in every game, would you trample the minorities right to have SOME games with the difficulty they desire?Because fuck them, since they don't share your opinion?Or would you trample over the developer wishes to make the game as they seem fit, since they over the games right and thus to do whatever they want to do with it?(outside of mods, once someone buys a game, they can do whatever they want with it as long as they don't profit over it)

There is one quote, that I don't remember where I read, that I always really liked:

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions". 



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
RaptorChrist said:
@Alcyon

You are very well spoken and I couldn't agree more. Also, this x 1000:

"Yes, when at the beggining I have to decide a level of difficulty, it affects me. I don't have a clue if hard means "just a bit harder" or "your tears will be made of blood". So I have to decide. If the game is too easy/hard, I either have to restart from the beggining or not fully enjoy the game. And I don't even know if after that point, the game will be harder or keep a similar level of difficulty."

@Nu-13 & @Svenno

I reject the notion that every game needs to be accessible to every person. Developers should be free to create the game they envisioned. Explain the difference in logic between wanting every game to have difficulty accessibility options and the following:

"GTA games should be modified so they are Rated E for Everyone, as it's not fair for those that are not old enough to play these games."

Here's what I think is going on. You found the Souls games (or any other particular game) too difficult for you, and were further bothered by the toxic fanbase that seems to follow these types of games (the git gud memes). This conditioned you to have very strong opinions about the difficulty of these games. I believe you are blinded by your bias against this sub-genre, and have therefore come to the conclusion that all games should have at least some mechanism to allow for all people to overcome their obstacles. In addition to this, your stubbornness has caused you to double-down and overextend on your opinions by making claims that additional difficulty options do not impact anything (while ignoring things such as additional development costs or sacrifices in game mechanics that may need to be made in order to accommodate this).

Alcyon's quote at the beginning of this post is a perfect reason why difficulty options may lessen the experience. I remember having to restart my first playthrough attempt in the Witcher 3 because I chose the hardest difficulty option (was it Death March, perhaps?), and one of the quirks of this difficulty setting was that you were unable to lower the difficulty after making this selection (hence, having to restart the game).

I think the issues that people have with this is that it seems like it should just be a matter of opinion, and there are clear examples given in this thread of how it *does* impact peoples' enjoyment of the game, but yet there has been no admission or clarification to the statements made about how difficulty options have no impact on the player.

It's not that the games are too difficult, as I said before, I find them unbalanced with a steep initial difficulty curve that loses its challenge further in the game while bosses still throw up annoying roadblocks. Despite that, Dark souls is still in my top 10 best games of all times:

1 Everquest 10, 1999, PC
2 Civilization 10, 1991, PC
3 Ico 10, 2001, PS2
4 Zelda BotW 10, 2017, Switch
5 Shadow of the colossus 10, 2005, PS2
6 Rez Infinite 10, 2016, PSVR
7 Grim Fandango 10, 1998, PC
8 Dark souls 9.5, 2011, PS3
9 The last guardian 9.5, 2016, PS4
10 The last of us 9.5, 2013, PS3

Btw Everquest is far harder than Dark Souls, but I don't have the time for that anymore. Dark Souls 2 had the same problem, hard at the start, then snoozing through the end game. A difficulty slider would have helped a lot which made God of War a much better experience. Annoying boss, turn it down. Exploration getting a bit too easy/fast, turn it up. Same with Diablo 3.

My frustration is that I love the artwork, the level design, minimalist story telling, the atmosphere of the souls games, even most of the game play. Yet some of it can be so annoying it has turned me away from the series.

Locking you to one difficulty setting, or locking out harder settings until you complete the game is bad as well (why can't an experienced player start at ng+), but adding trophies for never going below a certain settings is a perfect compromise!

TW3 was bad as well. It was fine at the start but later I would have liked to be able to switch to hard without starting over. Since you could not, I remember the last half of the game as a chore instead of fun challenge.

Anyway, for me, and likely others, freely being able to switch difficulty levels (or skip roadblocks to again later or not) only improves games. A positive impact on the player. The only counter arguments I hear are that people have no self control and make it too easy on themselves when the option is there. The reason that it costs too much in development, that I don't buy. It's insignificant compared the rest of the work load and if you don't know what to choose, simply add (recommended) behind the level it was intended/made for.



Nautilus said:

No, this discussion has nothing to do with elitism.It has, however, with the notion that everything has to appeal to everyone at the same time, and the subsequent "silent" rule that if the game you like dosen't fit in that rule, you are alt-right(stupid expression)/elitist/gatekeeper or whatever expression people come up these days to insult people when they run out of arguments.You could call it to be political correctness, but I like to call it the Dictatorship in the guise of the Greater Good.

The Epic Store discussion is just stupid because no one is stopping you from playing that game, you just have to download a free launcher.If you call what I am saying "elitism", then yours is just plain arrogance, since it costs you and anyone nothing a game coming to one launcher than the other.

And yeah, I am in the minority, if you could call millions of players(that like this type of gameplay) minority, sure.But you also are.Why? Because it boils down to one thing that no one going against me has presented thus far:Evidence. How large is my minority?Well, the 4 million+ players that bought Sekiro, the 2 millions+ that bought Hollow Knight, the 4 million+(Not sure of this one) players that bought Dark Souls 3, and so on and so on.

So I ask you: How large is your majority, that would " only" play games with multiple difficulties?How would you prove that you are the majority, other than a supposed "common sense"? And even if 51% of the players worldwide wants multiple difficulties in every game, would you trample the minorities right to have SOME games with the difficulty they desire?Because fuck them, since they don't share your opinion?Or would you trample over the developer wishes to make the game as they seem fit, since they over the games right and thus to do whatever they want to do with it?(outside of mods, once someone buys a game, they can do whatever they want with it as long as they don't profit over it)

There is one quote, that I don't remember where I read, that I always really liked:

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions". 

Yes it does. The very fact you have to argue the validation of not allowing for optional difficulty stems from it. If you have no qualms of games (especially Souls-like) having options, you wouldn't bar the gates.

Also no, enough with the "every game doesn't have to appeal to you" as a means of deflection the mere staple of all games, in having difficulty choices. Having choice does and will never equate to "game having to be made for X person", trying to suggest it is, is simply warping and twisting it to the extreme.

It's funny you call the likes of Gatekeeper as an insult, when it specifically states: 

Definition of gatekeeper
1: one that tends or guards a gate
2: a person who controls access

Nowhere does it state that it is used as an insult or invented as one. Only those who tend to feel in the wrong will claim it as such (If you don't want to be cited as it, don't do it, it's that simple).

EGS has nothing to do with the topic, nothing to do with elitism, and it feels like you just want to call me stupid because I don't follow your viewpoint. I feel like my mere mentioning of "whining" had touched a soft spot, hence your need to mention me and EGS in a topic where it doesn't fit at all. Also no, I don't support EG as a company, their philosophy nor their practices, and I especially dislike their anti-consumer, anti-competitive take, and to top it all off, no, I don't want to use another shitty bare-bones client, I've got enough of those already. I prefer having my library in at least 1-2 places, 1 at most (like console gamers mostly want).

Yes I can, because if you're wanting to not call them a minority, then what does that make the non souls gamers out there, ghosts, nothing?. You have to look at it from the bigger angle, there are more gamers out there not interested or not playing Souls or Souls-like games in general, be they PC gamer, console gamer and mobile gamer. You know very well mobile gamers already dwarf console gamers, and as such they'll dwarf Souls-like, hell even CoD gamers dwarf Souls and Soul-like. We could look at a myriad of specific genres and franchises where said player numbers dwarf Souls games. Souls is not the new CoD, they aren't within the same vein of casual shooters, they are niche for a reason, and yes, there's billions of us on this tiny rock so a few million becomes a drop in the bucket within this industry, let alone outside it. You can't just defy the laws of reality and go "millions>billions", because that'd never fly, and you know this. I already know full well I'm the minority within the RTS genre, but I'm not going to kick a fuss and turn blue in trying to argue that my genre isn't a minority, because I know it's a reality, and one I cannot deny.

Also, you're forgetting the one thing that the vast majority of games come with: Normal difficulty at the start. Most games start out like this, rather than hard or extreme modes, because that "choice" is left up to the gamer to decide, which makes for the majority of a gamer's playthrough session at the start.

I don't know why you're starting out anti-pol at the start of your quote, but near the end you're pulling a minority victim excuse with "you wouldn't dare trample a minority!".

Well no, I wouldn't need to, because to be frank, society does that in general. Society doesn't want everything to be so hard or difficult, which is why we strive for "options", rather than regressing to medieval times and I dunno, acting like big burly Scotsman, pining for that hard as hell log toss challenge. Also, I want to see games with options, rather than the minority becoming the majority in 50+yrs time and warping an industry, because they thought their ideals were better (they aren't, because it means to regress, and that's not something we should be doing as a species). 

"would you trample the minorities right to have SOME games with the difficulty they desire?Because fuck them, since they don't share your opinion?"

You know that can be thrown right back at you with those simply wanting optional difficulty right?. Fuck them for asking, no, fuck them for thinking it, right?. 

The road to hell doesn't exist, and I'd like to keep religion well away from this topic. 



               

Many of my favourite games of all time are not what I'd call accessible:
Dwarf Fortress, Crusader Kings 2, Final Fantasy 8, Final Fantasy 1, etc...

I consider them less accessible because the games all have necessary features that are not obvious. I was watching a video recently of a guy who hated FF8, but also said that he never used the crafting system - which, to me, explains his dislike for the game entirely; it's like someone saying they hated Super Mario Bros, but never got mushrooms or extra lives. I always find it funny when they dis other elements as their justification rather than admit they just weren't playing the game the right way.

Dwarf Fortress is a phenomenal game. There are people who think the concept is amazing, but refuse to even try the game based on its reputation. YES, the game is inaccessible, it does have a learning curve, but the game is very playable, you just need a bit of a guide. It's also fantastic, I love watching my Empire grow on its own, the lineages, and also when shit goes wrong (like a big war where many cities fall... honestly though, my own fortress rarely falls, even after massive invasions. If it does fall, it's because I was playing in a very risky location.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

This discussion foes not make any sense. What would be next? This game is too fast and it makes it difficult to me to appreciate it? Or the game is too violent and it takes away my enjoyment of apreciating its story? Or maybe this does not have auto save?
The approach of go playing something else is totally valid and from software games are a perfect example. It pushes you to understand the game and the combat, to stop and think before rushing like crazy, makes you need to get familiar with an area instead of relying on a map all the time. And the thing is once you do it you realise the game is not even that hard, its actually easy except for a few boss fights. Hell, the game even gets you an option to have friends to help you in battle.
Its too hard? Go play something else. Its too fast or slow? Go play something else. It does not give you enough tips on what to do? Go play something else.
The same should be applyed to movies, music and etc.
Its not like there are only 10 games available in the world.



Chazore said:

Yes it does. The very fact you have to argue the validation of not allowing for optional difficulty stems from it. If you have no qualms of games (especially Souls-like) having options, you wouldn't bar the gates.

Also no, enough with the "every game doesn't have to appeal to you" as a means of deflection the mere staple of all games, in having difficulty choices. Having choice does and will never equate to "game having to be made for X person", trying to suggest it is, is simply warping and twisting it to the extreme.

"I don't like this argument and I can't refute it so I will just ditch it. Also this is true because I said so".

Again, for the 1000th times, with thousands of games if some games are different, there isn't any problem. This is tiring. Just check the success of some really hard indie games. Celeste, Hollow Knight, Shovel Knight, Binding of Isaac, I wanna be the Guy, Super Meat Boy, Cuphead, Dead Cells, Braid, etc

But of course you will tell us that they would be "better games" with an easy mode. You wouldn't even have heard of these games if they weren't ultra-challenging, but you don't care. Yes, the difficulty is appealing for some players. That's also why we have so many Kaizo levels in SMM2. That's also why we have so many rom hacks of SM.

So yes, not every game should be made for you.