# Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice Easy Mode



## KimberVaile (Apr 15, 2019)

www.forbes.com: 'Sekiro: Shadows Dies Twice' Needs To Respect Its Players And Add An Easy Mode

So a very insightful and well written article was published on Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice needing to respect it's players and have an easy mode.

I couldn't agree more!

We should take this philosophy further and improve other aspects of life with it.

-Surfboards installed with gyroscopic motors to keep my balance for me automatically.

-Pants that unzip themselves when I want to take a piss.

-Basketballs installed with magnets so that they automatically hone in towards the hoop

-Toilets that wipe my ass for me.

Think of the possibilities people.
Games should be for everybody! If my grandmother with parkinsons can't beat the game, maybe it's not a good game.


----------



## ConorHyena (Apr 15, 2019)

I quote: "Children today are just soft fools sitting inside with their videogames! Back in my day we still shot people outside!"


----------



## Pipistrele (Apr 15, 2019)

Why games _shouldn't _be for everybody though? I'd be happy if more people could play Sekiro, even if that means skipping out on challenge if they want so.


----------



## KimberVaile (Apr 15, 2019)

Pipistrele said:


> Why games _shouldn't _be for everybody though? I'd be happy if more people could play Sekiro, even if that means skipping out on challenge if they want so.


I think it's the same argument that posits that niche games aren't 'modern' and that games should always be for everybody. I just don't agree? In the same way some fighting games aren't for me, I'd say certain games aren't made for certain people. Sekiro comes across as a game of reflex and planning, alot of it's core gameplay loop is built on that premise. I do think you kind of lose something when you take that away.

Not every game needs to be super niche, not every game needs to be for everyone. Room for both.

Just my take on it though.


----------



## Pipistrele (Apr 15, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> I think it's the same argument that posits that niche games aren't 'modern' and that games should always be for everybody. I just don't agree? In the same way some fighting games aren't for me, I'd say certain games aren't made for certain people. Sekiro comes across as a game of reflex and planning, alot of it's core gameplay loop is built on that premise. I do think you kind of lose something when you take that away.
> 
> Just my take on it though.


There's a lot more to From Software games than challenge and planning, though - be it story bits or gameplay mechanics or exploration, etc. While I don't see easy mode being easily implemented due to their design being so specific, some optional built-in cheats (like in FF7 remasters, Mario games or Celeste) aren't such a bad idea. If anything, Celeste proved that you don't need to compromise challenge to make game more accessible, as long as you give underskilled players tools to push through should they choose so.


----------



## Vitaly (Apr 15, 2019)

Pipistrele said:


> Why games _shouldn't _be for everybody though? I'd be happy if more people could play Sekiro, even if that means skipping out on challenge if they want so.


Eww, thats communist


----------



## KimberVaile (Apr 15, 2019)

Pipistrele said:


> There's a lot more to From Software games than challenge and planning, though - be it story bits or gameplay mechanics or exploration, etc. While I don't see easy mode being easily implemented due to their design being so specific, some optional built-in cheats (like in FF7 remasters, Mario games or Celeste) aren't such a bad idea. If anything, Celeste proved that you don't need to compromise challenge to make game more accessible, as long as you give underskilled players tools to push through should they choose so.



Like, this is kind of my whole issue with that. If you want an easy mode and you can incorporate it without harming the overall design for the game. Well, I'm not going to knock you for it.

This is my main gripe though. Game design philosophy is always either or. It's like you make it for everybody, or you make it niche. People seem to want all games to either be niche and challenging or built for everybody. Why can't we have both? Why does it have to only be one or the other?

There is a weird sort of shaming on both sides of the fence when a game is made a certain way.


----------



## Niedlich the Folf (Apr 15, 2019)

I have no idea what the heck these people are saying as I've never played a FromSoftware game before until Sekiro and I find this game only really hard at the bosses. The normal enemies aren't very hard and I remembered people geting trouble from those chickens and dogs but when I played it they were the easiest enemies to fight cause their attacks are very predictable and they doe in like 2-3 hits with the default attack power.


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Apr 15, 2019)

Yeah a lot of those gamer's are elitists wanting to keep their special snowflake status to themselves and are getting offended over nothing.


----------



## KimberVaile (Apr 15, 2019)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> Yeah a lot of those gamer's are elitists wanting to keep their special snowflake status to themselves and are getting offended over nothing.



Well, I have to reiterate the question. Why does it have to be that games are either more niche or just for everybody?
I think both types of games can exist. I think that is ok.


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Apr 15, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> Well, I have to reiterate the question. Why does it have to be that games are either more niche or just for everybody?
> I think both types of games can exist. I think that is ok.


Four words: Black and White Morality
Seriously that is the problem that plagues present society is the fact no one wants to make a third option as the aforementioned morality has been drilled into modern societies heads as the only right way.


----------



## KimberVaile (Apr 15, 2019)

ZeroVoidTime said:


> Four words: Black and White Morality
> Seriously that is the problem that plagues present society is the fact no one wants to make a third option as the aforementioned morality has been drilled into modern societies heads as the only right way.



I can agree with that. It kind of feels like whenever a difficulty argument comes up one side is saying: All games should be designed to be accessible. Or All games should be niche and difficult. But I think that is harmful to variety in the games industry to eliminate either.

Variety should be embraced, not vilified.


----------



## Doodle Bunny (Apr 15, 2019)

In my opinion, I don’t see what the big deal is. It’s just an option. If you’re in to challenge yourself, you don’t have to do easy mode. 

Unless “easy mode” is some sort of affront to every gamer alive, I don’t really get the anger. I play games when I have the spare time and want to relax. I’m not an easy mode person myself, but I don’t see games as all that serious. It’s a way to entertain myself when I can’t draw anymore and I don’t feel like sleeping either.


----------



## Jackpot Raccuki (Apr 15, 2019)

EASY MODO!?





I play Touhou and of course I get my ass thrown to the curb.
However this has a difficulty so I won't go much about it other than that playing on easy mode means you're a laughing stock to the community.

Also why do we care what "reviewers" think? Remember that problem where a reviewer couldn't pass a TUTORIAL on Cup head?

Don't Starve does not offer an "easy mode" (Other than the option to delet the 'harder' seasons like Summer, Winter and even Spring which is just Autumn but wet.)
People complain Don't Starve is a hard game but really, that's called "git gud, nub."




As someone who mains Maxwell who has the LOWEST health in the game, I still don't die since I know how to "kite" since the game involves skill, not tanking.
I also took time to learn the seasons and the mechanics, such as when I should start preparing to get stuff for winter, the ideal place to build a base and even what to expect.
Because unlike some people, I am willing to get invested in a game.

Also I'm usually agaisnt mods in the game, the only exception are quality of life mods such as making the hud more slim, or even how in L4D2 I have a hud that shows OTHER PLAYER'S health, which is good considering I have to babysit people... ON EXPERT MODE! (ffs)
I have a friend who I play with who often tries to get mods and he has to convince me they're balanced and we'd discuss it heavily.
We had a long talk about the mod that adds a backpack slot and a amulet slot. However I am a sucker for more space so that was somewhat easy.


To sum this up:
Please stop crying a game doesn't have easy mode, git gud or find a different game suited to your babysitting needs.
If a dev doesn't want to have a difficulty, they are not required to have it since any good dev will have a difficulty curve in a game.
Any arcade-like games WILL have difficultys, and those get repetitive fast anyway so, that's your problem.


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 15, 2019)

Translation: "I suck at games. I suck more at games than 10 year old who have played for only two weeks. My reaction times are slower than that of a sloth, and sense of understanding game mechanics are in essence the same as that of a rock.

If I were to play any sort of competitive game with others, I would straight out lose to any 10 year old out there."

When you have people who outright _*SUCK*_ at games and want games to cater to their shitty skills, you end up with articles like these: Self-entitled, narcissistic and egotistical morons who believe they are owed anything on the sole basis that they exist.

Two words come to mind: "Git gud". 

Please tell me we will see another moronic "game reviewer" from Polygon(preferably the same idiot who did the latest DOOM) who reviews another "hard"(note: Normal) game.


----------



## Firuthi Dragovic (Apr 15, 2019)

I'll admit I've skipped on Sekiro for the time being, but the talk of easy mode just bugs me somehow.  I still have to catch up on Jim's video on the subject, but didn't Sekiro already HAVE some "easy" concessions by FromSoftware standards?  I don't remember if any of the Souls games had a training dummy (which would have been REALLY handy in deciding weapon choices in Dark Souls, I tell you).

I may have gotten less "hardcore" as the years went by (as evidenced by me not having the patience to go through killer7 in Deadly mode from the get-go, and that time I bitched in the Discord about Dark Souls because I literally went the wrong way from the start - and in general having less patience for harder difficulties than I used to have), and I'm already something of a "generalist" gamer (I'll try every genre once, but I'm not so dedicated to one game as to know everything about it unless I set out to speedrun it or something - said lack of dedication also precludes any sense of satisfaction from something like League of Legends for me), but I really don't comprehend the demand that every game must be accessible.  That would seriously make them all the same.  Something has to go above and beyond or only one company could ever fill this market at a time.

If I want an accessible game, that's why I keep basic puzzle games around in my Steam library.  There are so many games out there that something HAS to be niche.

(I've seen the far end of "accessible" too - there was at least one arcade puzzle game that was down to just one button.  Uo Poko, I think its name was?)


----------



## Pipistrele (Apr 15, 2019)

FrostyTheDragon said:


> I'll admit I've skipped on Sekiro for the time being, but the talk of easy mode just bugs me somehow.  I still have to catch up on Jim's video on the subject, but didn't Sekiro already HAVE some "easy" concessions by FromSoftware standards?  I don't remember if any of the Souls games had a training dummy (which would have been REALLY handy in deciding weapon choices in Dark Souls, I tell you).
> 
> I may have gotten less "hardcore" as the years went by (as evidenced by me not having the patience to go through killer7 in Deadly mode from the get-go, and that time I bitched in the Discord about Dark Souls because I literally went the wrong way from the start - and in general having less patience for harder difficulties than I used to have), and I'm already something of a "generalist" gamer (I'll try every genre once, but I'm not so dedicated to one game as to know everything about it unless I set out to speedrun it or something - said lack of dedication also precludes any sense of satisfaction from something like League of Legends for me), but I really don't comprehend the demand that every game must be accessible.  That would seriously make them all the same.  Something has to go above and beyond or only one company could ever fill this market at a time.
> 
> ...


If summarizing Jim's video, it's more or less about how silly it is to try and "gatekeep" personal enjoyment by trying to restrict developers from introducing easy modes, as well as how much value some people put into "beating game the hard way" instead of putting that value into genuinely meaningful achievements. Honestly, I think he has a good point

I can dig the "niche" argument, but again, that's assuming the game has a good reason to be niche. Sekiro has a lot of enjoyable stuff to it that's not hardwired to challenge - it can easily be a fun game without being a "niche game", therefore trying to pass it off as one is kinda unnecessary. If going for "niche games with necessary diffuculty", then something like Simcity or EVE Online are much better examples.



KimberVaile said:


> Like, this is kind of my whole issue with that. If you want an easy mode and you can incorporate it without harming the overall design for the game. Well, I'm not going to knock you for it.
> 
> This is my main gripe though. Game design philosophy is always either or. It's like you make it for everybody, or you make it niche. People seem to want all games to either be niche and challenging or built for everybody. Why can't we have both? Why does it have to only be one or the other?
> 
> There is a weird sort of shaming on both sides of the fence when a game is made a certain way.


That argument I can dig more. It's just the whole snarky way you put it felt like you have a personal agenda against easy modes or something


----------



## KimberVaile (Apr 15, 2019)

Pipistrele said:


> That argument I can dig more. It's just the whole snarky way you put it felt like you have a personal agenda against easy modes or something



I'm just tried of seeing the same argument about difficulty being brought up over and over, lol.

For me I've always been against arguments professing that the game "shouldn't be hard/have an easy mode" or "Should be made this way cause otherwise it's discriminating against people who can't beat it".
A developer shouldn't be strongarmed into something because people feel entitled to something out of them. This includes people who clamor for easy mode and decry a game for not having it, as well as people who say a game is "too accessible".

Having played Sekiro for a bit, I do think alot of the core gameplay loop is combat focused. Exploring is another aspects to it, but it takes a backseat to the combat. If the devs felt the game was better served without an easy mode to deliver their vision of the game, I think that is ok. I heavily dislike strongarming devs over his issue no matter what side of the fence you are on.

To give an example, I also played Yoshi's Crafted World for the Switch at a Friends place. Personally speaking, I found it very boring and not terribly challenging. It was a game that was easy to the point of seeming almost patronizing. Yet, I've kept in mind the reason it is made that way is to appeal to children and people who've probably never played a game in their life. I was outside of the target demographic, and I think that's alright. I was a fan of Super Mario World 2 for the Snes, so I guess on some part I was a tad dissapointed. But I mean, it's a game made for kids, I'd look unreasonably stupid to froth at the mouth over how devoid of challenge it is.

I've always considered it important to be cognizant of the mantra of "Not every game is made for everybody in mind". Different strokes for different folks and all. Last thing I'd want to do is make every traditional fighting game like Smash cause I suck at Traditional fighting games, lol.


----------



## luffy (Apr 15, 2019)

It's hard because you have to practice it.  Most people want to jump in and understand controls, have good timing with attacks, etc.  That's not how Bloodborne, Dark Souls, or Sekiro will ever work, and that's what makes them so fun to me.  I LOVE Bloodborne, so many hours played and so little progress.


----------



## Pipistrele (Apr 15, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> I'm just tried of seeing the same argument about difficulty being brought up over and over, lol.
> 
> For me I've always been against arguments professing that the game "shouldn't be hard/have an easy mode" or "Should be made this way cause otherwise it's discriminating against people who can't beat it".
> A developer shouldn't be strongarmed into something because people feel entitled to something out of them. This includes people who clamor for easy mode and decry a game for not having it, as well as people who say a game is "too accessible".
> ...


I actually agree with "strongarming" thing. I just also think that:

1) "Not having difficulty modes" can actually be a pretty valid criticism. How much would Sekiro really lose from having some sliders for adjusting speed of battles or other specific settings? How much would traditional fighting game lose from having preset super/combo buttons for casual play, like it was with Street Fighter 4 for 3DS? It doesn't cost very much, doesn't force developers into redesigning anything, and it doesn't ruin the gameplay for anyone. I mean, you can defend lack of such options under "Not every game should be available to everyone", but in reality, why shouldn't they be available for as many people as possible, aside of arbitrary "Well it's supposed to be niche and stuff"? It's something I can understand with games where difficulty curve comes specifically from how fundamentally complex the games are (Dwarf Fortress, Simcity, etc.), but those are few and far between.

2) Challenge isn't really a necessary part of enjoyable experience. I think your Yoshi's Crafted World example shows misunderstandings that came with it pretty well - you're saying that the game was designed primarily for children and unexperienced players, while in reality, it was designed around searching for collectables, enjoying scenery, playing around with different power-ups and discovering cool setpieces; something very easy to pass by if you just judge the game on merits of "Is it hard to beat or not". That's why I am so much against Sekiro (or any other From game for that matter) being some kind of niche game that should be kept away from underskilled/uninvested players - there's just so much to enjoy about them aside of challenge, and in a way, trying to push brutal difficuly as defining characteristic of Dark Souls/Bloodborne/Sekiro is severely undermining all the little elements that actually make those games stand out, from fun realistic melee combat to amazing environmental storytelling.


----------



## KimberVaile (Apr 15, 2019)

Pipistrele said:


> I actually agree with "strongarming" thing. I just also think that:
> 
> 1) "Not having difficulty modes" can actually be a pretty valid criticism. How much would Sekiro really lose from having some sliders for adjusting speed of battles or other specific settings? How much would traditional fighting game lose from having preset super/combo buttons for casual play, like it was with Street Fighter 4 for 3DS? It doesn't cost very much, doesn't force developers into redesigning anything, and it doesn't ruin the gameplay for anyone. I mean, you can defend lack of such options under "Not every game should be available to everyone", but in reality, why shouldn't they be available for as many people as possible, aside of arbitrary "Well it's supposed to be niche and stuff"? It's something I can understand with games where difficulty curve comes specifically from how fundamentally complex the games are (Dwarf Fortress, Simcity, etc.), but those are few and far between.
> 
> 2) Challenge isn't really a necessary part of enjoyable experience. I think your Yoshi's Crafted World example shows misunderstandings that came with it pretty well - you're saying that the game was designed primarily for children and unexperienced players, while in reality, it was designed around searching for collectables, enjoying scenery, playing around with different power-ups and discovering cool setpieces; something very easy to pass by if you just judge the game on merits of "Is it hard to beat or not". That's why I am so much against Sekiro (or any other From game for that matter) being some kind of niche game that should be kept away from underskilled/uninvested players - there's just so much to enjoy about them aside of challenge, and in a way, trying to push brutal difficuly as defining characteristic of Dark Souls/Bloodborne/Sekiro is severely undermining all the little elements that actually make those games stand out, from fun realistic melee combat to amazing environmental storytelling.



I think it depends on the game. For some games, I might be able to agree. But Sekiro really doesn't quite work if you start taking reflex and finesse out of the equation. Best you can do, I imagine is lower the health punishment for getting hit, but the reaction times demanded would still be uncompromising. If you remove the reflex and parrying portion or dumb it down. It just feels like you're missing the point of the game. It's why I'm not going to fault the devs for sticking to their guns.
And I think the traditional fighting game thing was more about like. How difficult it can be to pull off the moves in the first place. Takes a lot of time and finesse. When you take that away, the combo memorization and technical practice, it just feels less unique. Which is kind of my big take away. When easy modes start to dig into what makes the game unique. I consider it, well. Bad I guess? Homogenizing video games to be more similar is not what I consider good industry practice. If you try to appeal to everybody all the time, sometimes the end product becomes watered down, and nobody ends up liking it. Seen this first hand alot.

Even if the standards or practices seem dumb or overly complex. Not every game needs to be like the other. In that sense, I think Sekiro's unified focus on it's direction has made it an admittedly niche but very enjoyable game. I think it could be argued if it had to split some time to developing an easy mode, it can be argued that it could have diverged and fractured the focus it was going for. As an example Halo 2 on Legendary difficulty is infuriating because I don't think there was enough time vetted to it. I beat Halo 2 on most difficulties and Heroic simply was alot more fun to play, as opposed to legendary where you get one shot by body shot snipes, and have to rely heavily on the plasma pistol + BR to take out enemies for optimal play. (Finished Legendary still regardless of how annoying it was to play) The opposite is true for it's easy mode, it's meandering and clueless in direction and a total breeze to play, even for a casual gamer. There is an art to balancing difficulty modes and a process towards making it fun to play. It's certainly no cakewalk to put in the game.

I'm aware people come to games for different reasons. Alot of the appeal to Yoshi's Crafted world is the cute aesthetic, the charming little pop up book arts and craft vibe. I liked that part, it was a very cute game, but it just doesn't ask alot of the player. There does have to be some baseline amount of resistance there. Some sort of pushback, but it's almost completely absent. I'm aware that wasn't the big selling point, but challenge or some sort of test of finesse is usually a part of making a game engaging, and I don't think anybody, even kids, were coming to Yoshi's Crafted World for story. I do think it's a very charming game, but it just doesn't ask much of me at all. Games have a lot offer the player in terms of engagement, I never felt a game was simply one singular aspect in terms of engagement. Like, a game can have compelling characters/art as well as being very challenging. I think the collectibles play a part too in the Yohi's Crafted World, but they don't seem to be terribly difficult to collect, which I think is part of the fun in it.

Some games do focus more on one aspect than the other. I can say Sekiro is definitely more reliant on its polished combat than storytelling. Not that both aren't aspects that draw people in. This does seem to be their vision of the game though, and I want to respect that, whether it lines up with what I want or not. There are other elements that make a Souls Game great but challenge is a big part.

"We don't want to include a difficulty selection because we want to bring everyone to the same level of discussion and the same level of enjoyment," Miyazaki said. "So we want everyone … to first face that challenge and to overcome it in some way that suits them as a player."

From the director of the souls games, Hidetaka Miyazaki

I think that is a fine artistic vision, and I think it should be allowed to exist alongside other creative visions. His vision can coexist with others in harmony.


----------



## Le Chat Nécro (Apr 15, 2019)

Had to put my Lady Maria icon on before coming in here, lest anyone challenge my nerd cred while saying this. 

And I'll preface this by saying that I really like the Soulsborne games. I own all of them, including Sekiro (which I realize is not Soulsborne) and have had a fun time with each despite not being the best at them. They're good games made by smart and creative people who did a great job making a world and a system that is interesting and immersive and above all challenging. 

That said, I absolutely do not think that an easy mode would be an absolute betrayal of the games. And one could even argue that the Dark Souls games.. by virtue of having different classes... already comes with its own sort of difficulty threshold. The enemies do not change, but there is a vast difference between starting out as a Deprived on a Quest for Pants and starting as a Knight which comes with a 100% block shield. Not to mention self-imposed challenge runs that my boyfriend is so very fond of. Bloodborne doesn't have as much variety and Sekiro does not have any variation of starts and play styles, so I think the difficulty is much more apparent there. You _have_ to git gud... and git gud in a very specific way... if you want to beat those games. In Sekiro, there really isn't an option to "overcome it in some way that suits them as a player" because there is really one way of playing the game (see Jim's review here for a better analysis of this point: 



)

And if that appeals to you, great! Gold star! But it doesn't make you better at the game or a cooler person for negging people for not liking that. While I'm not necessarily in favor of changing Sekiro or any of the Souls games or any game at all to better fit the widest common denominator, I'm *definitely* not in favor of people demeaning other gamers for wanting to enjoy a great gaming experience just at a different speed. It's really fucking absurd to me that people wanting games to be more inclusive and accessible are supposedly "Self-entitled, narcissistic and egotistical" when even the very mention of a difficulty _option_ (as in _optional_, as in* not required for you to do*) sends some gamers into a tizzy. Like.. that just ain't cool and it makes us look like entitled, self absorbed assholes that no one wants to hang out with. 

The creator of Celeste had some good ideas on how to ease things up in various non-intrusive and, again, *optional* ways that I think have a lot of merit to them. www.pcgamesn.com: Celeste’s creator outlines how a Sekiro easy mode could work Again, not necessarily advocating for retconning this game in particular, but it is something to keep in mind going forward. And I think what's most important is not jumping to condemn one style of games or another and approaching this with a modicum of empathy. This is not an issue that has to be black and white, either/or, us vs them. Gaming should, and does, have room for everyone.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Apr 15, 2019)

I think a game can or can't jave an easy mode either way, and there is nothing wrong for asking for it. There is this completely toxic mentality about harder games that is entirely elitist and exclusionary. For fucks sake, get gud started as a joke because it was the most purposefully useless advice to give new souls players, and an insult when pwning people in pvp. 

And if a game does have an easy mode by default, the git-gudders bitch still. Because other people than their niche group enjoying the game offends them. 

And god forbid we mod a game to make it more enjoyable or less tedious. There are git-gudders who defend the timesink that is the original Windwaker Triforce Shard collection bullshit. There are gamers who defend literally unbreakable stunlocking.

Not everyone has the same skill level at games. Brickwalling because of that is unlikely to teach anything other than self deprication, especially when people paid for a full price title. I'm not saying ram an easy mode in everything, but getting offended because noobs and those less skilled would actually like to HAVE FUN is petty as hell. 

Do y'all want the gaming community to grow or go back to being a toxic niche outcast from society for all eternity? Because this kind of toxic and hostile response to newer or worse players makes us all look like assholes, and our community a cesspit. Well.......more of a cesspit I should say.


----------



## KimberVaile (Apr 15, 2019)

Le Chat Nécro said:


> Had to put my Lady Maria icon on before coming in here, lest anyone challenge my nerd cred while saying this.
> 
> And I'll preface this by saying that I really like the Soulsborne games. I own all of them, including Sekiro (which I realize is not Soulsborne) and have had a fun time with each despite not being the best at them. They're good games made by smart and creative people who did a great job making a world and a system that is interesting and immersive and above all challenging.
> 
> ...



Well, my argument has always been in favor of the developer expressing their own artistic vision. I'll crack jokes about it, but I'm not mocking people who dislike hard games. I've always kind of come from the perspective of. Games don't need to be homogenized or universalized. If the developer wants to exert their artistic vision for the game and that included only one difficulty, that's ok. They shouldn't be shamed for it. Whether that makes the game easier or harder. I think his core philosophy still applies to Sekiro, even if it is more focused, there is still more than one way to go about fighting a boss. He's also been cited as saying the challenge offered helped immerse players in the world. It's something I also strongly resonate with, because it helped make the world of the souls games more real for me.

What I dislike is this mentality that the developers are purposely being dickholes or elitist for their design choices. I actually don't think Hidetaka Miyazaki actually set out to make the game difficult first. Paraphrasing but I think he mentioned that he made the game difficult to better actualize his game world and provide players with a sense of accomplishment.

So I do think it would comprise his game vision to allow players to bypass truly difficult portions of the game with an easy mode. I think, Miyazaki gave the design of the game more thought than people would assume at first glance.

I think, a big part of it, is just, human beings are inclined to find the most optimal way to beat a game, and often times, that takes the form of them playing on an easier difficulty or switching it over. And I'm not saying it to talk down to anybody. It's more, I think I understand the reasoning behind Sekiro's singular difficulty. I think it has always had more to do with providing the players with a sense of accomplishment, of selling the world through shared adversity between all players. It provides a common through line for all players. I think that makes the game community closer knit in a way.

My arguments has always been. What is so inherently bad about a game designer sticking to their artistic vision? Maybe you don't agree with it, and I think that's fine, but it should at least have a right to exist, is all I am saying.
Like, there are some more niche titles that appeal to a certain audience. Some of them are games I'll never be great at, but I think the industry is still richer for them existing. Appealing to smaller audiences is not always as bad or exclusionary as people may think at first glance, I think. And I think both game design philosophies can exist without issue.

Hopefully that made some sense, not sure how well I conveyed myself.


----------



## KimberVaile (Apr 15, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> I think a game can or can't jave an easy mode either way, and there is nothing wrong for asking for it. There is this completely toxic mentality about harder games that is entirely elitist and exclusionary. For fucks sake, get gud started as a joke because it was the most purposefully useless advice to give new souls players, and an insult when pwning people in pvp.
> 
> And if a game does have an easy mode by default, the git-gudders bitch still. Because other people than their niche group enjoying the game offends them.
> 
> ...



They're jokes dude, relax. I don't mind games having an easy mode, my own concern with this arguments was always founded in keeping variety and unique artistic vision alive in the games industry. Pro developer, if you will.
I have sympathy for players struggling in games and I'm not going to lambaste them for using a developer made difficulty mode in a video game.
But seriously dude, why do people rag so much much on developers over difficulty modes? Both a lack of and an inclusion of them. Let the devs realize their artistic vision. It's ok if two opposing visions exist at once, seriously. The world isn't going to end because one game decided to forgo the inclusion of an easy mode. You'll still have plenty of games that do include an easy mode.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Apr 15, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> I'll crack jokes about it, but I'm not mocking people who dislike hard games.





KimberVaile said:


> We should take this philosophy further and improve other aspects of life with it.
> 
> -Surfboards installed with gyroscopic motors to keep my balance for me automatically.
> 
> ...



You are an ass who wants a "get out of jail free" card for the nasty shit you say. You are belittling and cruel, and an example of the offense culture you so proudly despise. That's not to mention that lovely Parkinsons comment at the end. That is just special. 

So you don't get a pass for gatekeeping because you chased it with virtue signaling. League of Legends was hard as hell, but it wasn't the difficulty that made me drop it. It was toxic community full of assholes trying to gatekeep new players from getting better. Even as my skill level improved, I always had someone telling me I should uninstall the game. I never even played competitive because I wanted to hone my skills thoroughly first, but I got berated for every little thing in quickplay. 

And I'll never go back to League because all the fulfillment I got from getting better, winning games, and pwning enemies got undercut by a constant deluge of abuse from elitist jackholes.

Toxic bullshit like this litteraly makes gaming less fun on the whole, and reflects unfortunately accurately on the gaming community as a whole.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Apr 15, 2019)

As long as literally any activity exists there will be people who are good at it and people who suck at it. No matter what. I like challenging activities, they make you stronger.


----------



## KimberVaile (Apr 15, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> You are an ass who wants a "get out of jail free" card for the nasty shit you say. You are belittling and cruel, and an example of the offense culture you so proudly despise. That's not to mention that lovely Parkinsons comment at the end. That is just special.
> 
> So you don't get a pass for gatekeeping because you chased it with virtue signaling. League of Legends was hard as hell, but it wasn't the difficulty that made me drop it. It was toxic community full of assholes trying to gatekeep new players from getting better. Even as my skill level improved, I always had someone telling me I should uninstall the game. I never even played competitive because I wanted to hone my skills thoroughly first, but I got berated for every little thing in quickplay.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry for my sins of humor, lmao. God, you'd find reason to find moral outrage over cereal not being packed the way you want. I honestly wonder how people with your mindset go about their day without melting down.
I'm not going to apologize for having a sense of humor, get over yourself. Seriously, at this point I can't even say derp without somebody making it out to be some insidious moral attack. The way people act in this day and age is unreal.

How am I trying to gatekeep? Never made a stink about any other game having an easy mode. Do you like, actively seek out things to get offended over? Genuinely curious. But yes, how dare I have higher reasoning for my stances. I disagree with you, therefore I'm doing something bad, apparently.

Like, here's the cold truth. People are cunts online, especially online with people they don't know. Don't even think it has anything to do with skill, people are just emotional and naturally looking for somebody to blame for their faults.
If my jokes seriously ground your day to a halt, I would unironically suggest you see a therapist.


----------



## Le Chat Nécro (Apr 15, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> Well, my argument has always been in favor of the developer expressing their own artistic vision. I'll crack jokes about it, but I'm not mocking people who dislike hard games. I've always kind of come from the perspective of. Games don't need to be homogenized or universalized. If the developer wants to exert their artistic vision for the game and that included only one difficulty, that's ok. They shouldn't be shamed for it. Whether that makes the game easier or harder. I think his core philosophy still applies to Sekiro, even if it is more focused, there is still more than one way to go about fighting a boss. He's also been cited as saying the challenge offered helped immerse players in the world. It's something I also strongly resonate with, because it helped make the world of the souls games more real for me.
> 
> What I dislike is this mentality that the developers are purposely being dickholes or elitist for their design choices. I actually don't think Hidetaka Miyazaki actually set out to make the game difficult first. Paraphrasing but I think he mentioned that he made the game difficult to better actualize his game world and provide players with a sense of accomplishment.
> 
> ...


Well it's certainly admirable to advocate on behalf of the designers, but you're hardly going about that in a way that makes it sound admirable. While the OP certainly wasn't the worst of the bunch in this thread, it wasn't exactly conveying this core message you have here. 

And honestly, at least in my experience, it's not so much people railing against the devs (lofty think pieces not included) but the average people who seem to put above average importance on how quickly one can push a series of buttons. It's becoming a crime in the gaming sphere to even say "it's a good game, but I didn't have fun with it because of the difficulty". Hence Jim's constant disclaiming in the video I posted. And the article you posted even agreed with you that there was more to the game than the difficulty, and thus more reason to play it than just proving your digital penis is bigger than everyone else's. Which sometimes means modding things to help you over those hurdles that you just can't seem to "git gud" enough to get over. 

Personally, I do not like the Souls fandom and I do not feel close knit with them because of this very issue. There's too much peacocking and demeaning and I absolutely hate this culture of "git gud" that it has spawned. Honestly, I feel like if that phrase had never shifted from silly joke to fandom mantra, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. These conversations didn't really happen.. or maybe they did but so low key as to not matter... before the fandom made it "the thing to do" to belittle people who like it fun and easy.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Apr 15, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> I'm sorry for my sins of humor, lmao. God, you'd find reason to find moral outrage over cereal not being packed the way you want. I honestly wonder how people with your mindset go about their day without melting down.
> I'm not going to apologize for having a sense of humor, get over yourself. Seriously, at this point I can't even say derp without somebody making it out to be some insidious moral attack. The way people act in this day and age is unreal.
> 
> How am I trying to gatekeep? Never made a stink about any other game having an easy mode. Do you like, actively seek out things to get offended over? Genuinely curious. But yes, how dare I have higher reasoning for my stances. I disagree with you, therefore I'm doing something bad, apparently.
> ...


My day is fine.

"It's just a joke bro!"


----------



## Lexiand (Apr 15, 2019)

I honestly think every game should have an easy mode.
This would attract new fans to the game in general.


----------



## Le Chat Nécro (Apr 15, 2019)

Mmm.. additional thought: I feel like the majority of people in this thread are pro-capitalism/freemarket etc, yet there seems to be a very strong push back to what could be considered the most economical thing to do. Better accessibility = bigger market.


----------



## KimberVaile (Apr 15, 2019)

Le Chat Nécro said:


> Well it's certainly admirable to advocate on behalf of the designers, but you're hardly going about that in a way that makes it sound admirable. While the OP certainly wasn't the worst of the bunch in this thread, it wasn't exactly conveying this core message you have here.
> 
> And honestly, at least in my experience, it's not so much people railing against the devs (lofty think pieces not included) but the average people who seem to put above average importance on how quickly one can push a series of buttons. It's becoming a crime in the gaming sphere to even say "it's a good game, but I didn't have fun with it because of the difficulty". Hence Jim's constant disclaiming in the video I posted. And the article you posted even agreed with you that there was more to the game than the difficulty, and thus more reason to play it than just proving your digital penis is bigger than everyone else's. Which sometimes means modding things to help you over those hurdles that you just can't seem to "git gud" enough to get over.
> 
> Personally, I do not like the Souls fandom and I do not feel close knit with them because of this very issue. There's too much peacocking and demeaning and I absolutely hate this culture of "git gud" that it has spawned. Honestly, I feel like if that phrase had never shifted from silly joke to fandom mantra, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. These conversations didn't really happen.. or maybe they did but so low key as to not matter... before the fandom made it "the thing to do" to belittle people who like it fun and easy.



I'll be the first to admit I just wanted to joke around with my op, but I don't regret how the conversation developed. I didn't really come in with the intent to belittle, but I guess in hindsight, it could come off my way. So I guess some fault is mine, but I was just trying to have some fun.

And, I do actually agree, some people who shout the git gud mantra genuinely are elitists and kind of shitty.  Always more to a game than just the challenge, I agree. Though I think it's a very important part of the souls series regardless. Never had an issue with modding either, I actually quite enjoy Skyrim modding myself. Though, it should be mentioned, Skyrim was made with the intent of it being modded, or supporting modding.

An experience with a community will always vary, but I guess anecdotally, I found the souls community very helpful while running through the first and third game (skipped the second because it wasn't directed by Hidetaka Miyazaki and it showed). I got alot of decent tips and general pokes in the right direction playing the game. I know everybody's experience will vary but, I enjoyed my time there for what it was worth. Of course, there were assholes, just like in every community, I'd argue.
Not to say it was a perfect community, I do know where you are coming from.


----------



## KimberVaile (Apr 15, 2019)

Le Chat Nécro said:


> Mmm.. additional thought: I feel like the majority of people in this thread are pro-capitalism/freemarket etc, yet there seems to be a very strong push back to what could be considered the most economical thing to do. Better accessibility = bigger market.


I've actually been against how corpratized the game industry has been. I've always felt it crushed  variety and innovation and contributing to making alot of games more samey. I don't always agree with Jim Sterling, but he made a good point about that. Not one of capitalism's best aspects in that regard.


----------



## KimberVaile (Apr 15, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> My day is fine.
> 
> "It's just a joke bro!"



I barely even know what I can even joke about these days, because somebody is always getting offended over something you didn't expect. Can't even tell what territory is even safe to joke about these days.


----------



## Le Chat Nécro (Apr 15, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> I'll be the first to admit I just wanted to joke around with my op, but I don't regret how the conversation developed. I didn't really come in with the intent to belittle, but I guess in hindsight, it could come off my way. So I guess some fault is mine, but I was just trying to have some fun.


I mean.. fine, but kicking down someone's sandcastle for a laugh is really only funny to the kicker. It saddens me a bit that it takes hindsight to put that one together, but I'm glad you're open to seeing it from a different perspective. 

And I really do appreciate you taking the time and effort to read my replies and acknowledge where I'm coming from. I'll be honest I was ready for a fight, but this has been rather pleasant and I do enjoy reading your thoughts on this when you table your jokes. You make valid points and respecting a dev's vision is an actually really solid argument to make when talking about this. 

It's a tricky issue for sure. As mentioned, I'm not necessarily advocating for easy modes/mods on every game. I personally think that gaming is best when there's a diversity of choices so you can find the gaming experience that's right for you without sacrificing good content.. a world with both easy and hard (and middle ground) games that are all great in story, strategy, and execution. I'm just wary of this cultural shift in gaming towards looking down on anyone who's not "on your level" and complete (and often times cruel) dismissal of anyone who'd like to get in on the latest gaming craze without pulling their hair out at the roots. 

I mean, we're all antisocial weirdo hermits, let's not act like we're better than any other one of us. 



KimberVaile said:


> I've actually been against how corpratized the game industry has been. I've always felt it crushed  variety and innovation and contributing to making alot of games more samey. I don't always agree with Jim Sterling, but he made a good point about that. Not one of capitalism's best aspects in that regard.


Well.. I did say most.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Apr 15, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> I barely even know what I can even joke about these days, because somebody is always getting offended over something you didn't expect. Can't even tell what territory is even safe to joke about these days.


It's not about subject matter being offensive, its about mocking people and excusing that as "just a joke". 



Le Chat Nécro said:


> Mmm.. additional thought: I feel like the majority of people in this thread are pro-capitalism/freemarket etc, yet there seems to be a very strong push back to what could be considered the most economical thing to do. Better accessibility = bigger market.


Niche pandering and failure to grow a fanbase has strangled multiple IPs to death, especially as their mechanics became stale. 

Warhammer 40,000 which is my favorite tabletop game almost died because it couldn't grow a fanbase, in no small part due to convoluted rules that acted as a barrier to entry. The changes of 8th edition revived the franchise, and traded some complexity for balance and rules streamlining. The game is actually more fun as a result. New players are picking up the game, and new model lines are getting older hobbiests to buy things again.

There are legitimately people who would rather play 7th edition which is objectively a more broken game than embrace these changes. 

I used to be a big Call of Duty player. That IP is a shadow of its former self. 

And when game companies can't grow their fanbase, they can't grow their company. That means new means of generating revenue must be used. Thus begins the microtransactions. Eventually companies reach a new baseline for revenue though, and the microtransaction bubble is going to pop if these companies don't bring in more players.


----------



## KimberVaile (Apr 15, 2019)

Le Chat Nécro said:


> I mean.. fine, but kicking down someone's sandcastle for a laugh is really only funny to the kicker. It saddens me a bit that it takes hindsight to put that one together, but I'm glad you're open to seeing it from a different perspective.
> 
> And I really do appreciate you taking the time and effort to read my replies and acknowledge where I'm coming from. I'll be honest I was ready for a fight, but this has been rather pleasant and I do enjoy reading your thoughts on this when you table your jokes. You make valid points and respecting a dev's vision is an actually really solid argument to make when talking about this.
> 
> ...



I mean, I always come from the perspective of just joking to lighten things up or have fun. When you come from a friend group that likes to rib each other, you can get tunnel vision I guess? I unno. I've always been just as quick to make fun of myself too, so it never really came from ill intent. I never minded having a little banter, it's just what I'm accustomed to, bad comedy brightens my day I guess. But I understand not everybody thinks like I do, but it's a habit. Just want to make it clear I'm not intentionally trying to offend anyone.

I mean I never liked comparing myself to a comedian, cause I'll never attest that I'm terribly funny, but, sometimes you have to toe the line, sometimes it works, other times, people get all uppity. I always saw comedy as a way to lighten the mood though. Yeah, I think alot of people assumed the worst with the OP, but I always felt it was important to promote variety in the games community. New things should be encouraged, not scorned. It's why all the anger directed at Sekiro's chocie of difficulty is a bit extreme. It'll hurt game variety if you twist their arm too much to change something. It comes off as mean spirited and entitled.

I always felt Dark Souls had a good method to finding a compromise already. Like, you can summon or use magic if you want to ease the challenge a bit, and I think it was a clever way to find a respectable middle ground. Sekiro is a little more focused, and I think that's ok too. It's a more focused game that (imo) kind of mirrors a common Japanese trait of pushing past your limits and pushing you to the limit of your abilities. I wouldn't say it's exactly, difficult for the sake of it. More like, I think it really want to test you and to really test your determination. It's inspiring really, I've really loved the game for that.


----------



## KimberVaile (Apr 15, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> It's not about subject matter being offensive, its about mocking people and excusing that as "just a joke".



I made a joke about the dude's article man, seriously. Making mountains out of molehills over a few jokes intended to get people to laugh.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Apr 15, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> I made a joke about the dude's article man, seriously. Making mountains out of molehills over a few jokes intended to get people to laugh.


Getting people to laugh at others, and at the expense of others is still shit.


----------



## KimberVaile (Apr 15, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Getting people to laugh at others, and at the expense of others is still shit.


All this time, I was abusing my friends with what I thought was friendly ribbing. The horror!


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Apr 15, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> All this time, I was abusing my friends with what I thought was friendly ribbing. The horror!





KimberVaile said:


> If my grandmother with parkinsons can't beat the game, maybe it's not a good game.



If this is what you consider friendly ribbing.....

I don't know why I bother.


----------



## KimberVaile (Apr 15, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> If this is what you consider friendly ribbing.....
> 
> I don't know why I bother.



Yes, Misha. I am an individual with a different sense of humor than you, and am friends with people who enjoy a different sense of humor than you.
Crazy concept, I know.

I'm amazed you're still dragging this out, just accept we find different things funny and move on. Call it edgy, or offensive if you will. Some people cope with life through edgy jokes, unless you know that person's entire life, I'd save the sanctimonious scolding.

Which btw, grandma's perfectly healthy. She don't have Parkinsons, lol. Because guess what. It was a jooooooooooooooooke.


----------



## Sarachaga (Apr 15, 2019)

I mean being myself a very casual player, soulsborne games' difficulty has always kept mw from going very far. I think the game being hard is a big part of the experience though.



Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> There are legitimately people who would rather play 7th edition which is objectively a more broken game than embrace these changes.


I'll just put this here... 4th edition ftw


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Apr 15, 2019)

Sarachaga said:


> I mean being myself a very casual player, soulsborne games' difficulty has always kept mw from going very far. I think the game being hard is a big part of the experience though.
> 
> 
> I'll just put this here... 4th edition ftw


----------



## Le Chat Nécro (Apr 15, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> It'll hurt game variety if you twist their arm too much to change something. It comes off as mean spirited and entitled.


I'll kind of leave it at this.

This point right here? It goes both ways. Yes, twisting someone's arm to make something just for you can hurt variety. But just as much as people are asking for easier options there are people getting their panties in a bunch about games _choosing_ to include difficulty options in the first place. Or discouraging "causal gamers" from having fun in their own ways. Or not even counting some things as games if it doesn't pass some mysterious and ever changing bar.

"Demanding" that a game be made easier can definitely come off as mean spirited and entitled. But so can whining about _optional_ features in games that might mean someone else can do what you did just in a different way. Personally I feel that forced exclusion will always be worse than forced inclusion in this case... like one is a person just wanting to have fun and the other is a person wanting _just_ them to have fun... but neither is super great. 

For this market to thrive, we as a fandom need to stop being little shits to each other is basically what I'm saying.


----------



## KimberVaile (Apr 15, 2019)

Le Chat Nécro said:


> I'll kind of leave it at this.
> 
> This point right here? It goes both ways. Yes, twisting someone's arm to make something just for you can hurt variety. But just as much as people are asking for easier options there are people getting their panties in a bunch about games _choosing_ to include difficulty options in the first place. Or discouraging "causal gamers" from having fun in their own ways. Or not even counting some things as games if it doesn't pass some mysterious and ever changing bar.
> 
> ...



If devs choose to add an easy mode of their own volition, I don't mind it too much. How they want to game to be made should be respected. So long as that as upheld, I don't mind what transpires.

My biggest issue with it, is that, devs are feeling pressured to change their game in a way that wasn't intended, because people don't really seem to much care about the way they designed the game. It could set a very bad precedent if left unchecked. I understand causal games want to a stab too and I respect that, but I don't want to harm developer expression at the same time.  It's not an easy issue to face. It'd be bad if one game design philosophy was wholly destroyed over the debate, I think. Just overall, I mean. I feel like most games have made strides to be very inclusive and accessible. Is it dangerous if one or two companies go their own way? 

I dunno, but it does worry me, how much further this outrage can be taken. And yeah, I can agree to that, sounds like a good takeaway from all of this.


----------



## Pipistrele (Apr 16, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> I think it depends on the game. For some games, I might be able to agree. But Sekiro really doesn't quite work if you start taking reflex and finesse out of the equation. Best you can do, I imagine is lower the health punishment for getting hit, but the reaction times demanded would still be uncompromising. If you remove the reflex and parrying portion or dumb it down. It just feels like you're missing the point of the game. It's why I'm not going to fault the devs for sticking to their guns.


But that's the thing - just like with Celeste (where reflex and finesse are the main focus, even more than in Sekiro), such sliders/settings will allow the player to fine-tune whatever "point" they want to make out of the game. If you want an artistic vision, you play the game with settings untouched; if you want to spice things up or slow things down, then feel free to do so - that's the intent of accessibility. And again, as Jim put it well in his vid, "If someone has so much problems with the game that they have to switch to Easy, that means they'll still struggle on lower difficulty", so challenge of reflex and finesse is still there for them.



> And I think the traditional fighting game thing was more about like. How difficult it can be to pull off the moves in the first place. Takes a lot of time and finesse. When you take that away, the combo memorization and technical practice, it just feels less unique. Which is kind of my big take away. When easy modes start to dig into what makes the game unique. I consider it, well. Bad I guess? Homogenizing video games to be more similar is not what I consider good industry practice. If you try to appeal to everybody all the time, sometimes the end product becomes watered down, and nobody ends up liking it. Seen this first hand alot.


Except not really? Such options are, well, _optional_ - they don't affect the core gameplay, they aren't used in competitive play or tournaments, and if anything, they act as a good introduction for novices. BlazBlue (one of the most complex and technical fighters out there) has "Stylish Mode" to show you the ropes by doing some complicated stuff for you while letting you focus on zoning/footsies/etc., and the game as a whole doesn't suffer from it one bit.



> Even if the standards or practices seem dumb or overly complex. Not every game needs to be like the other. In that sense, I think Sekiro's unified focus on it's direction has made it an admittedly niche but very enjoyable game. I think it could be argued if it had to split some time to developing an easy mode, it can be argued that it could have diverged and fractured the focus it was going for. As an example Halo 2 on Legendary difficulty is infuriating because I don't think there was enough time vetted to it. I beat Halo 2 on most difficulties and Heroic simply was alot more fun to play, as opposed to legendary where you get one shot by body shot snipes, and have to rely heavily on the plasma pistol + BR to take out enemies for optimal play. (Finished Legendary still regardless of how annoying it was to play) The opposite is true for it's easy mode, it's meandering and clueless in direction and a total breeze to play, even for a casual gamer. There is an art to balancing difficulty modes and a process towards making it fun to play. It's certainly no cakewalk to put in the game.


I can agree here, but mostly because I think separating difficulty in "modes" is outdated in itself, and approach of Celeste or FF7 remasters (i.e. giving tools to overcome complicated stuff instead of dumbing the whole game down) is an infinitely more laconic way to lower the ceiling for some.



> I'm aware people come to games for different reasons. Alot of the appeal to Yoshi's Crafted world is the cute aesthetic, the charming little pop up book arts and craft vibe. I liked that part, it was a very cute game, but it just doesn't ask alot of the player. There does have to be some baseline amount of resistance there. Some sort of pushback, but it's almost completely absent. I'm aware that wasn't the big selling point, but challenge or some sort of test of finesse is usually a part of making a game engaging, and I don't think anybody, even kids, were coming to Yoshi's Crafted World for story. I do think it's a very charming game, but it just doesn't ask much of me at all. Games have a lot offer the player in terms of engagement, I never felt a game was simply one singular aspect in terms of engagement. Like, a game can have compelling characters/art as well as being very challenging. I think the collectibles play a part too in the Yohi's Crafted World, but they don't seem to be terribly difficult to collect, which I think is part of the fun in it.


I rarely play games for "difficulty as engagement", so it's matter of tastes, I guess - but that kinda speaks of general debate on difficulty. If turning argument around, what if some people don't consider difficuly on Sekiro engaging - what if they consider the fact of climbing around and learning the story engaging in itself, while all the brutal combats requirements only go in the way of having fun? In a "troll argument" way, complaining about YCW being too easy while denying complaints about Sekiro being too hard is kinda weird; YCW has an artistic vision too after all, and criticizing the game for it is "not caring about the way they design the game".



> Some games do focus more on one aspect than the other. I can say Sekiro is definitely more reliant on its polished combat than storytelling. Not that both aren't aspects that draw people in. This does seem to be their vision of the game though, and I want to respect that, whether it lines up with what I want or not. There are other elements that make a Souls Game great but challenge is a big part.
> 
> "We don't want to include a difficulty selection because we want to bring everyone to the same level of discussion and the same level of enjoyment," Miyazaki said. "So we want everyone … to first face that challenge and to overcome it in some way that suits them as a player."
> 
> ...


Said quote loses a lot in context, since Dark Souls is by default a game with a ton of choices, shortcuts, paths and cheese opportunities - Dark Souls games don't require difficulty modes because they're very accessible to all sorts of players by nature. In that case, he's not entirely wrong. Sekiro, on the other hand, is a very linear experience with limited amount of customization options and extremely specific playstyle that you can't really get around, which makes possible accessibility options all the more valuable.


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 16, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> I think a game can or can't jave an easy mode either way, and there is nothing wrong for asking for it. There is this completely toxic mentality about harder games that is entirely elitist and exclusionary. For fucks sake, get gud started as a joke because it was the most purposefully useless advice to give new souls players, and an insult when pwning people in pvp.
> 
> And if a game does have an easy mode by default, the git-gudders bitch still. Because other people than their niche group enjoying the game offends them.
> 
> ...


Games by their very nature are exclusionary due to how they work, i.e. game mechanics. Some are good at games, some are not. That is not the fault of the game. That is the result of people being individuals. Wanting an easy mode in games you suck at = Self-entitled and lazy.

Every game out there have skill barriers. If you can't break those barriers the problem is you, not the game. The game won't lower its skill barrier just because we have people out there who suck at games.


----------



## CrookedCroc (Apr 16, 2019)

There's nothing wrong with adding an easy mode, my favorite game of all time Ninja Gaiden Black has an easy mode and it's still challenging.

What people need to understand is that increasing/decreasing damage is not the only way you can modify difficulty. You could change enemy placement, item locations, item prices, special enemies and weapons that only appear in certain difficulties, less aggressive AI, more healing options, etc.

Also, easy is not the same as accessible.
SkullGirls is one of the most accessible fighting games out there, it has a fantastic tutorial that teaches you everything  you need to know for fighting games AND it provides  players with information like hit/hurt boxes, frame data and such but despite that it isn't an easy game.

And if your argument is that games need to be designed to be accessible for disabled people then that's not the problem of game devs, they can't provide a tailored experience for every kind of disability.
That responsibility falls into the hands of the guys making controllers and guess what, they are already working on it.






With all of this being said I think this whole Sekiro thing is stupid as hell, every time Fromsoftware releases something gaming websites flood the internet with these kind of articles.
There is room for discussion about difficulty but I can't help to laugh when this topic is always brought back whenever Fromsoftware makes a game.


----------



## Pipistrele (Apr 16, 2019)

CrookedCroc said:


> And if your argument is that games need to be designed to be accessible for disabled people then that's not the problem of game devs, they can't provide a tailored experience for every kind of disability.
> That responsibility falls into the hands of the guys making controllers and guess what, they are already working on it.


In terms of controls yeah, but there's also stuff like hearing loss, photosensitive epilepsy, color-blindness, etc. Thankfully, a lot of it is being dealt with lately, but I remember frustration of my color-blind friend when he couldn't solve the stone puzzle in one adventure game because he can't distinguish the colors (a problem that could easily be fixed by tiny tweaks in coloring the stones).

Here's a good series of videos on how game designers can (and probably should) tweak their game to make it more playable for people with disabilities, all without skipping on non-disabled audience.





On a control note, I do think there are quite a few games that would benefit from one-hand mode yet don't have one - particularly JRPGs or turn based strategy games. It's not even that new of a concept - you can play Earthbound solely by using your left hand, for example.


----------



## CrookedCroc (Apr 16, 2019)

Pipistrele said:


> In terms of controls yeah, but there's also stuff like hearing loss, photosensitive epilepsy, color-blindness, etc. Thankfully, a lot of it is being dealt with lately, but I remember frustration of my color-blind friend when he couldn't solve the puzzle in one adventure game because he can't distinguish the colors.


Yeah, thankfully game options for colorblind people and such things are being covered in most AAA games nowadays. 
Now they only need to make games more accessible for my wallet lol


----------



## Pipistrele (Apr 16, 2019)

CrookedCroc said:


> Yeah, thankfully game options for colorblind people and such things are being covered in most AAA games nowadays.
> Now they only need to make games more accessible for my wallet lol


They are! Most games are free to play now, you just need to pay tiny sums of money for completely optional upgrades that won't affect your gameplay experience or somethin


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Apr 16, 2019)

Yakamaru said:


> Games by their very nature are exclusionary due to how they work, i.e. game mechanics. Some are good at games, some are not. That is not the fault of the game. That is the result of people being individuals. Wanting an easy mode in games you suck at = Self-entitled and lazy.
> 
> Every game out there have skill barriers. If you can't break those barriers the problem is you, not the game. The game won't lower its skill barrier just because we have people out there who suck at games.


News flash; New players and new gamers suck ass at games. Brickwalling noobs does nothing but drive players away from a series, especially if they get mocked for seeking help by "get gudders".

And if you think easy mode is lazy, give the story or endurance mode for Frostpunk a go on easy.

Gaming isn't your own personal club where you get to gatekeep new members. Acting like it is the kind of toxic shit that that reflects poorly on gaming culture. 

Again, you are almost as bad as employers seeking 5 years experience for an entry level position. New players don't start good. And an easy mode can help them master the fundamentals before turning up the difficulty. 

This kind of shit will slow and stagnate gaming communities and starve IPs as they stagnate to cater to the core niche "hard core" gamers. That is on top of rising costs and worsening quality control. And if the game markert busts, our favorite IPs are going to die and rot in copyright bullshit.


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 16, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> News flash; New players and new gamers suck ass at games. Brickwalling noobs does nothing but drive players away from a series, especially if they get mocked for seeking help by "get gudders".
> 
> And if you think easy mode is lazy, give the story or endurance mode for Frostpunk a go on easy.
> 
> ...


Thing is. If you can't handle a game on its default difficulty you either suck at games in general and/or you need to improve your skills. Skills are not something you will be handed over simply by existing. You get them through training, various exercises and doing some research. If you can't even be assed to do some basics in terms of training and/or research the problem is you, not the game. Practice makes the master. 

No two games are similar in what demographic(s) they cater to. If you can't handle a game then the game's difficulty may just be too hard for you. Simple as that.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Apr 16, 2019)

Yakamaru said:


> Thing is. If you can't handle a game on its default difficulty you either suck at games in general and/or you need to improve your skills. Skills are not something you will be handed over simply by existing. You get them through training, various exercises and doing some research. If you can't even be assed to do some basics in terms of training and/or research the problem is you, not the game. Practice makes the master.
> 
> No two games are similar in what demographic(s) they cater to. If you can't handle a game then the game's difficulty may just be too hard for you. Simple as that.


If you can't train because the game's default difficulty is above your skill level, then you won't build the skills needed to be succesful. It's almost if games have this thing called an easy mode so people that are new can improve their skills and get better without brickwalling. 

By your argument, anyone who can't play at normal/medium difficulty setting should quit playing a game rather than play on easy and build the fundamentals so they *can* play on higher difficulty. 

Being exclusionary to new players like that is shitty and going to drive players away from your IP, which will ultimately kill it.


----------



## Doodle Bunny (Apr 16, 2019)

Huh. I never knew this argument was so heated.

I must be living under a rock.


----------



## KimberVaile (Apr 16, 2019)

Pipistrele said:


> But that's the thing - just like with Celeste (where reflex and finesse are the main focus, even more than in Sekiro), such sliders/settings will allow the player to fine-tune whatever "point" they want to make out of the game. If you want an artistic vision, you play the game with settings untouched; if you want to spice things up or slow things down, then feel free to do so - that's the intent of accessibility. And again, as Jim put it well in his vid, "If someone has so much problems with the game that they have to switch to Easy, that means they'll still struggle on lower difficulty", so challenge of reflex and finesse is still there for them.



Wouldn't it be fair to say that balancing so many slider options could take focus away from the game's vision? If there are so many sliders to adjust so many parts of the game it could be argued the actual meat of the game is less fine tuned. That the challenge presented might not be as consistent with slider options. If you change one aspect, a game so finely tuned as Sekiro would have the balance kind of warp. Maybe not super dramatically, but I do think it'd hurt the game balance. So, I'm left to wonder, if there was some sort of slider options, would it still live up to the director's artistic vision? I imagine it'd be very difficult to.



Pipistrele said:


> Except not really? Such options are, well, _optional_ - they don't affect the core gameplay, they aren't used in competitive play or tournaments, and if anything, they act as a good introduction for novices. BlazBlue (one of the most complex and technical fighters out there) has "Stylish Mode" to show you the ropes by doing some complicated stuff for you while letting you focus on zoning/footsies/etc., and the game as a whole doesn't suffer from it one bit.



I wouldn't be against something like that for training purposes or versus. Though I'd prefer the game make some push to eventually have the players do things on their own, by say disallowing it in arcade mode or what have you. I'd see it kind of like training wheels.



Pipistrele said:


> I can agree here, but mostly because I think separating difficulty in "modes" is outdated in itself, and approach of Celeste or FF7 remasters (i.e. giving tools to overcome complicated stuff instead of dumbing the whole game down) is an infinitely more laconic way to lower the ceiling for some.



Right, but remember, some devs really value a tailored and unified experience. So the slider options could have an effect on that unified experience. If you drastically scale back the reflex challenges, the game is being played in a drastically different way than the developer intended. So then you have to design the game to be able to adapt to any change in reflex, stealth where you're invisible, so on.  It'd not be an easy task for the game to be that adaptable.



Pipistrele said:


> I rarely play games for "difficulty as engagement", so it's matter of tastes, I guess - but that kinda speaks of general debate on difficulty. If turning argument around, what if some people don't consider difficuly on Sekiro engaging - what if they consider the fact of climbing around and learning the story engaging in itself, while all the brutal combats requirements only go in the way of having fun? In a "troll argument" way, complaining about YCW being too easy while denying complaints about Sekiro being too hard is kinda weird; YCW has an artistic vision too after all, and criticizing the game for it is "not caring about the way they design the game".



I can respect that, if you play for different reasons, more power to ya. But I mean, my point about YCW was, It's not a game for me, and that I see complaints about difficulty as needless. The game simply was not deigned for me, it was designed for  younger audience and tailored specifically to things they might enjoy. I am very much against YCW at all being more difficult, because it hurts the dev's artistic vision of their game. I have the same stance about Sekiro, if they truly believe their unified and uncompromising difficulty is a part of their vision, I support them keeping the game as it is. My point was, my stance on this is firm and unbiased, I will always side with the developer's intent. The devs for YCW clearly care about their artistic vision, and it was made with an audience in mind that was not me, and I respect that. Same goes for Sekrio. I feel Sekiro wants to push their players to the limit, it seems to be a big part of the ideal behind the game, having a player push past their limits. It's a different way of making games, it is not inherently bad.



Pipistrele said:


> Said quote loses a lot in context, since Dark Souls is by default a game with a ton of choices, shortcuts, paths and cheese opportunities - Dark Souls games don't require difficulty modes because they're very accessible to all sorts of players by nature. In that case, he's not entirely wrong. Sekiro, on the other hand, is a very linear experience with limited amount of customization options and extremely specific playstyle that you can't really get around, which makes possible accessibility options all the more valuable.



Sekiro is more focused, yes. But, the devs felt the need to keep their games with a unified difficulty for Sekiro, so I feel like it is reasonable to assume they have similar sentiments for a unified difficulty mode, yeah? There are less options, yeah, but the same desire to have players have a shared struggle, of say, actualizing the game world through difficulty. Those are still design concepts present in the game. Alot of the Dark Souls formula was changed for Sekiro, but they did keep the unified difficulty. I think it says something about what they value in a game. I think there is more to it than just them trying to be elitist. And I feel, if they value this shared experience, this shared adversity to unify players that much, it's not bad their artistic vision can continue to exist alongside games that might prefer a more say, broad approach to game design.

I just feel, this type of difficulty design, isn't trying to be exclusionary, it's trying to find a common thread. That design approach at least deserves to exist doesn't it? Maybe this variant is a little more focused and linear, that's true, but I think the core of it is still there.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Apr 16, 2019)

Difficulty sliders for days, but it has a wonderful artistic vision and is fairly balanced, with an emphasis on being brutal. Even easy is challenging, but it gives you just enough room to scrape by as a new player. 

It has multiple game modes and challenges too. All fitting in the same themes. There is even an option for a low intensity endless mode to cater to people who want to make something that looks nice as opposed to OH SHIT I NEED MORE COAL NOW! *frantic clicking*


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 16, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> If you can't train because the game's default difficulty is above your skill level, then you won't build the skills needed to be succesful. It's almost if games have this thing called an easy mode so people that are new can improve their skills and get better without brickwalling.
> 
> By your argument, anyone who can't play at normal/medium difficulty setting should quit playing a game rather than play on easy and build the fundamentals so they *can* play on higher difficulty.
> 
> Being exclusionary to new players like that is shitty and going to drive players away from your IP, which will ultimately kill it.


No game is for everyone. That is a fact people have to learn to live with. No one's saying you can't buy the game, literally no one is. The only thing that IS said is that you need a certain level in terms of skill in order to be at bare minimum decent/competent at the game. The more decent you are at a game the more enjoyment you will get out of it. And if you have sub-20 hours in a game, you're still practically new to the game and are still in the learning phase. Unless we're talking about  Tetris or some shit.

Dark Souls is like that. It's not a game for everyone. Hell, it's not a game for casual gamers. That is how the developers envisioned the game. Some people will like it, some won't. Imagine if you had a few people complaining that the game was too easy? Do you think the developers would listen to a whiny minority? No, they wouldn't. It's called self-entitlement and being egotistical.

Being adequate at a game doesn't automatically translate to enjoyment, so keep that in mind. I suck at plenty of games, doesn't mean I don't enjoy them however.


----------



## Pipistrele (Apr 16, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> Wouldn't it be fair to say that balancing so many slider options could take focus away from the game's vision? If there are so many sliders to adjust so many parts of the game it could be argued the actual meat of the game is less fine tuned. That the challenge presented might not be as consistent with slider options. If you change one aspect, a game so finely tuned as Sekiro would have the balance kind of warp. Maybe not super dramatically, but I do think it'd hurt the game balance. So, I'm left to wonder, if there was some sort of slider options, would it still live up to the director's artistic vision? I imagine it'd be very difficult to.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Combining most of the points together, I don't think putting sliders or assist modes takes away from artistic vision. Instead of balancing the game around different people, it's letting the devs execute on that artistic vision, and _then _adding some sliders on top of that - artistic intent is intact, and more people can play the thing.

As for unified experience, it makes for a good argument on surface, but just doesn't hold much water in actuality, at least in my opinion - I mean, what is exactly "unifying" about alienating people from playing the game in the first place? There's a certain threshold at which some people literally can't play the game, which is a complete opposite of what Miyazaki tried to achive. Sure, you can argue that by turning challenging things down, player will "ruin the fun" or something like that, but not being able to play the thing is a much more fun-ruining proposition, if you ask me. 

Speaking shortly, sliders/assist modes don't dilute original experience in any way not intended by the developer (as many games that have those prove), and "game not being as fun" is an acceptable trade-off over "game not being playable for me", not to mention a completely optional one.


----------



## CrookedCroc (Apr 16, 2019)

Why not just make games where the better you perform the harder it gets? Godhand already did this and it worked pretty well


----------



## Pipistrele (Apr 16, 2019)

CrookedCroc said:


> Why not just make games where the better you perform the harder it gets? Godhand already did this and it worked pretty well


It's hard to implement from a technical standpoint without sacrificing good design, I can tell that much. For some of the more "fun" examples, check Battle Garrega - a shmup infamous for its dynamic difficulty, where you literally had to periodically perform poorly or downright kill yourself to keep difficulty at manageable level


----------



## KimberVaile (Apr 16, 2019)

Pipistrele said:


> Combining most of the points together, I don't think putting sliders or assist modes takes away from artistic vision. Instead of balancing the game around different people, it's letting the devs execute on that artistic vision, and _then _adding some sliders on top of that - artistic intent is intact, and more people can play the thing.
> 
> As for unified experience, it makes for a good argument on surface, but just doesn't hold much water in actuality, at least in my opinion - I mean, what is exactly "unifying" about alienating people from playing the game in the first place? There's a certain threshold at which some people literally can't play the game, which is a complete opposite of what Miyazaki tried to achive. Sure, you can argue that by turning challenging things down, player will "ruin the fun" or something like that, but not being able to play the thing is a much more fun-ruining proposition, if you ask me.
> 
> Speaking shortly, sliders/assist modes don't dilute original experience in any way not intended by the developer (as many games that have those prove), and "game not being as fun" is an acceptable trade-off over "game not being playable for me", not to mention a completely optional one.



Right, but plenty it's the fact most people would use the sliders and end up getting wildly varying experiences with extreme variances on the content and gameplay. Which, I think is why Miyazaki kept the unified difficulty as is. He did direct Sekiro himself and kept the difficulty as is, because those who did play the game and persevered all had experienced some similar sentiment from the game. Adversity hanging over the players and actualizing game worlds. Like, I just would not be bold enough to say Miyazaki didn't achieve what he set out to do in Sekiro. He's a good director, and if the message boards are anything to go by, it holds alot of the same positive (and negative) sentiments as the Dark Soul boards. Like, I think the guy knows what he is doing, I think it's more about missing all the feelings the game cane eeek out of you rather than ruining the fun. A look of a unified experience creates fractures and dissonance in the community. I mean, I'm not going to claim a unified experience doesn't have downsides. I think it does, and I acknowledged they have downsides, but I think there are good upsides to it as well. Sekiro's experience is uniform, and through that, those who played it are brought closer together. It's a part of why I like Miyazaki as a director, he has very unique takes on how a game should be made.

If I had to guess, his take on difficulty might be loosely rooted in Japanese values. It's different, and different can be very interesting.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Apr 16, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> Right, but plenty it's the fact most people would use the sliders and end up getting wildly varying experiences with extreme variances on the content and gameplay. Which, I think is why Miyazaki kept the unified difficulty as is. He did direct Sekiro himself and kept the difficulty as is, because those who did play the game and persevered all had experienced some similar sentiment from the game. Adversity hanging over the players and actualizing game worlds. Like, I just would not be bold enough to say Miyazaki didn't achieve what he set out to do in Sekiro. He's a good director, and if the message boards are anything to go by, it holds alot of the same positive (and negative) sentiments as the Dark Soul boards. Like, I think the guy knows what he is doing, I think it's more about missing all the feelings the game cane eeek out of you rather than ruining the fun. A look of a unified experience creates fractures and dissonance in the community. I mean, I'm not going to claim a unified experience doesn't have downsides. I think it does, and I acknowledged they have downsides, but I think there are good upsides to it as well. Sekiro's experience is uniform, and through that, those who played it are brought closer together. It's a part of why I like Miyazaki as a director, he has very unique takes on how a game should be made.
> 
> If I had to guess, his take on difficulty might be loosely rooted in Japanese values. It's different, and different can be very interesting.


But what is wrong with people enjoying a game their own way? Speedrunners have run pretty much everything regardless of the normal game pacing. Dark Souls offers multiple starting character options that varry the game difficulty substantially. Manyplayers of even casual games contrive difficulty challenges. 

No two people truly enjoy a work of art in the same exact way.

Designing games solely for "hardcore gamers" isn't wrong, but it does make your game more niche. And there is nothing wrong with players wanting an easy mode. 

And if I'll be perfectly frank, _Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice _has godawful and easy stealth and the worst part of Dark Souls' combat mechanics to the point of Zeldaesque wait strike wait with a less forgiving Windwaker parry.


----------



## KimberVaile (Apr 16, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> But what is wrong with people enjoying a game their own way? Speedrunners have run pretty much everything regardless of the normal game pacing. Dark Souls offers multiple starting character options that varry the game difficulty substantially. Manyplayers of even casual games contrive difficulty challenges.
> 
> No two people truly enjoy a work of art in the same exact way.
> 
> ...



Have no problems with people wanting to enjoy games their own way within the parameters of the game, but if the devs want a more specific vision for the game, I will support it.

There is nothing wrong with making a more niche game, and if the devs feel adding an easy mode would hurt their vision of the game, more power to them. Twisting their arm because you disagree with direction is not the bets way to go about it.

And honestly, I couldn't disagree more, stealth is well implemented, and the combat (To me) is a beautiful dance, it flows seamlessly, impressively responsive and quite engaging. I like the emphasis on parrying and having to prioritize thinking quick in the game. I've had more fun with it than Dark Souls tbh. Don't regret buying it for a second.

Devs deserve to make the game they want, it doesn't always have to conform to industry standards, and that is fine.
Sekiro is fine as it is.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Apr 16, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> Have no problems with people wanting to enjoy games their own way within the parameters of the game, but if the devs want a more specific vision for the game, I will support it.


Do you have problems with mods then? Because there are mods that change game difficulty in many games, not all of which were intended as easily modable. Smash Brothers comes to mind.


----------



## KimberVaile (Apr 16, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Do you have problems with mods then? Because there are mods that change game difficulty in many games, not all of which were intended as easily modable. Smash Brothers comes to mind.



They own the game at that point, so no. I wouldn't personally mod difficulty, but if somebody else wants to make a mod to change the difficulty, why not?


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Apr 16, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> They own the game at that point, so no. I wouldn't personally mod difficulty, but if somebody else wants to make a mod to change the difficulty, why not?


So what is the difference between adding a difficulty setting and modding a difficulty setting? Both change the game experience and thus alter the "artistic vision".


----------



## KimberVaile (Apr 16, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> So what is the difference between adding a difficulty setting and modding a difficulty setting? Both change the game experience and thus alter the "artistic vision".


Because you're asking the developers to officially endorse something that is not within their artistic vision. Developers don't have to add something if they don't want to. Developers deserve a say over how the game is presented and built out of the box.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Apr 16, 2019)

That's fine, but the only difference between a mod and a patch with an easy mode is that said easy mode will be less in line with the developer's vision and more likely to be poorly balanced. People want devs to add an easy mode because it offers the developer that respect while meeting their needs and wants, rather than downloading a random mod that potentially overcompensates snd makes the game too easy.


----------



## KimberVaile (Apr 16, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> That's fine, but the only difference between a mod and a patch with an easy mode is that said easy mode will be less in line with the developer's vision and more likely to be poorly balanced. People want devs to add an easy mode because it offers the developer that respect while meeting their needs and wants, rather than downloading a random mod that potentially overcompensates snd makes the game too easy.



And if the developers think adding an easy mode violates their artistic vision, I will respect their decision. If they don't think it violates their artistic vision, I will respect that decision as well.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Apr 16, 2019)

KimberVaile said:


> And if the developers think adding an easy mode violates their artistic vision, I will respect their decision. If they don't think it violates their artistic vision, I will respect that decision as well.


While demeaning people for asking or needing an easy mode....


----------



## KimberVaile (Apr 16, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> While demeaning people for asking or needing an easy mode....


Back to splitting hairs over jokes? If you so loathe the way I bring levity in my life, don't read the thread.


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 16, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> While demeaning people for asking or needing an easy mode....


Demeaning people for lacking the skills necessary to be competent at the game? If someone don't have the skills they don't have the skills. Game developers are not obligated to lower the game's difficulty because a few people will always end up falling short in terms of skills in the game.

With the logic the guy in OP's article use, League of Legends should have an easy mode because you have people "stuck in ELO hell" in Silver and below. Sorry, no. You will always have people whose skills are subpar, if not outright bad. This goes for every game. And it's not the game developer's jobs to cater to a minority nor is it their job to make their game inclusive for as many as possible.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Apr 16, 2019)

Yakamaru said:


> Demeaning people for lacking the skills necessary to be competent at the game? If someone don't have the skills they don't have the skills. Game developers are not obligated to lower the game's difficulty because a few people will always end up falling short in terms of skills in the game.
> 
> With the logic the guy in OP's article use, League of Legends should have an easy mode because you have people "stuck in ELO hell" in Silver and below. Sorry, no. You will always have people whose skills are subpar, if not outright bad. This goes for every game. And it's not the game developer's jobs to cater to a minority nor is it their job to make their game inclusive for as many as possible.


You do realize League of Legends has non-competitive, bots, and solo training modes right? It has low difficulty modes for building the skills necesary to get out of low elo.


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 16, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> You do realize League of Legends has non-competitive, bots, and solo training modes right? It has low difficulty modes for building the skills necesary to get out of low elo.


I do know. I've played the game since Beta. RIP Force of Nature.

League is a bit of a special case, as you need more and more skills as you go higher and higher on the rankings tree. Some people just won't go above a certain level no matter how much they play. Be it lack of understanding of game mechanics to not having the awareness necessary for higher skill play, there are many plausible and possible reasons for why someone is stuck in "ELO hell".

League in and of itself have a ton of players, so adding non-competitive kinda comes with the territory. It's how they've envisioned the game. League itself is easy. All you need is a mouse and keyboard. Getting to Platinum V or above isn't.

My point is this: League is made for a lot of people and to be inclusive. Sekiro, Dark Souls and other games like it are not, and therein lies the differences. One tries to cater to as many as possible and be a generic and non-specific game, the others are more for those with a generally higher skill set and/or for a more specific demographic.

If you don't meet the "necessary" skills needed in order to be decent at a game, you need to practice more. No one are going to hand you that, and if someone think they should be catered to because they are not good at the game, then the problem is that person and their lack of willingness to put in some actual effort into learning some of the basics for the game and not the game itself.

If a game's difficulty is too hard for someone, they either
a) Need to practice
b) Put the game on the shelf
c) Ask if someone can teach them the game, possibly team up and learn together


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Apr 16, 2019)

Yakamaru said:


> I do know. I've played the game since Beta. RIP Force of Nature.
> 
> League is a bit of a special case, as you need more and more skills as you go higher and higher on the rankings tree. Some people just won't go above a certain level no matter how much they play. Be it lack of understanding of game mechanics to not having the awareness necessary for higher skill play, there are many plausible and possible reasons for why someone is stuck in "ELO hell".
> 
> ...





Yakamaru said:


> *With the logic the guy in OP's article use, League of Legends should have an easy mode because you have people "stuck in ELO hell" in Silver and below. Sorry, no. *



Leage of Legends: Has an easy mode.

You talked out of your ass mate.

There is nothing wrong with asking for an easy mode, or a game not having one; but a game can be improved by its inclusion in many cases.

What is not ok is being a toxic asshole like this guy;


Yakamaru said:


> Translation: "I suck at games. I suck more at games than 10 year old who have played for only two weeks. My reaction times are slower than that of a sloth, and sense of understanding game mechanics are in essence the same as that of a rock.
> 
> If I were to play any sort of competitive game with others, I would straight out lose to any 10 year old out there."
> 
> ...


Oh wait, that's you. 

Behavior like that makes gaming look like a toxic hellhole.


----------



## Yakamaru (Apr 17, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Oh wait, that's you.
> 
> Behavior like that makes gaming look like a toxic hellhole.


You know what's toxic? Self-entitled narcissists who think they can demand shit to cater to their sorry asses for not wanting to put in any effort into actually learning the game and its mechanics. I hope you understand that the article's creator are basically demanding shit that someone isn't in any way, shape or form obligated let alone mandated to conform to? The game developers could quite easily say "no, we won't make an easy mode" and the same nitwits would whine and complain about not getting their way. 

Fun part is? This kind of person want to be handed things without any effort. Unfortunately, the real world doesn't cater to spoiled children.



Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Leage of Legends: Has an easy mode.
> 
> You talked out of your ass mate.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with asking for an easy mode, or a game not having one; but a game can be improved by its inclusion in many cases.


There is nothing wrong about_* asking*_ for it. There IS something wrong about _*demanding*_ it, as if you have a right to play X game in "easy mode" mode to begin with. It's called, as I have stated numerous times earlier, narcissistic and egotistical. 

League as a game is meant for pretty much as many as possible, and is one for a large as possible audience. Sekiro however is not, the same Dark Souls and other games are not. If you can't be decent at the game then the problem lies with the person, not the game. It's on the person to improve, not the developers to give in to a few whiny idiots who don't want to put in much if any effort into actually becoming decent at the game. 

"Git gud", i.e., put in the effort, time and energy needed to be decent at a game. The people at the top didn't become the best on the planet by behaving like spoiled children and whining about the game being "too hard". Wanna know how they got there? Through dedication and passion to put in the time, energy and research to get to their level. 

Gaming by its very nature is merit-based for the most part.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Apr 18, 2019)

Yakamaru said:


> You know what's toxic? Self-entitled narcissists who think they can demand shit to cater to their sorry asses for not wanting to put in any effort into actually learning the game and its mechanics. I hope you understand that the article's creator are basically demanding shit that someone isn't in any way, shape or form obligated let alone mandated to conform to? The game developers could quite easily say "no, we won't make an easy mode" and the same nitwits would whine and complain about not getting their way.
> 
> Fun part is? This kind of person want to be handed things without any effort. Unfortunately, the real world doesn't cater to spoiled children.
> 
> ...


I wonder were they built their fundamentals? Was it on ultra-hard difficulty? Dark Souls? Or was it more likely playing Legend of Zelda or easy mode.

Great gamers don't start out great, they start out shit. Playing easy mode and being challenged by it until they master the skills necesary to move on to more difficult challenges.

Git Gudders like yourself would rather pretend that period of their time gaming ever existed, or worse they think the old arcade games which were designed to milk money from players are admirable game design.

And guess what, the Forbes article isn't pissing and moaning. The writer is a fan and player of Bloodborne. He makes the case that an easy mode would improve the game and that the idea players will ruin their experience if they have an easy mode is asinine.

But anything that disagrees with your worldview must be the stereotypical SJW strawman bullshit you LOVE to trot out.

If you can't read an article that makes a pointed argument for why a game should have an easy mode without getting offended, then you are probably the type of person described in its later paragraphs.

But I doubt you seriously read the article given your choice of canned "git gud" brand insults.


----------



## CrookedCroc (Apr 18, 2019)

Why are you guys getting this mad about videogames? You guys are clearly not going to convince each other of anything and no one is gonna change their minds in here.

Ragging here won't change anything either. If you want a game to have or not have an easy mode then just ask the devs and if they don't make any changes then that's their problem. Don't like it? Don't buy it


----------



## HistoricalyIncorrect (Apr 18, 2019)

While we are at it. Let's do an easy mode for Dark Souls, Bloodborne, Hotline Miami and Arma!

Yeah now you see why this won't work.


----------



## CrookedCroc (Apr 18, 2019)

HistoricalyIncorrect said:


> While we are at it. Let's do an easy mode for Dark Souls, Bloodborne, Hotline Miami and Arma!
> 
> Yeah now you see why this won't work.


Dark Souls and Bloodborne already have an easy mode, it's called mage build and Ludwig's holy blade.


----------



## Le Chat Nécro (Apr 18, 2019)

Read the article through again and would like to point a few things out.

1) it's on Forbes, a business magazine, so I think it's not a stretch to say they're probably coming from a point of view that favors large markets and more sales. As mentioned in one of my earlier comments, an easy mode or accessibility options would accomplish that. At least as far as this one particular think piece goes, it makes sense that this is the conclusion (or do you all just hate capitalism, huh? :V)

2) for most of the article, he seems to be addressing angry fans more than the developers themselves. This is not an angry letter to From demanding anything. It's a think piece explaining his ideas to the fans who are very clearly very quick to leer and insult anyone who doesn't agree.

3) he even ends the article in a very non aggressive way by saying he in no way expects to get his wish but it's his wish all the same. Those are not the words of someone hell bent on twisting the developer's arm or whining until he gets his way. He has no illusions that a think piece on Forbes will change anything. He's just using his right to free speech to voice his opinions.

So maybe it's a good idea for us all to take a step back, remove the great sword from our asses, and think about what words mean. Words like "demand", "optional", "narcissistic", and "entitled".


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Apr 18, 2019)

Le Chat Nécro said:


> (or do you all just hate capitalism, huh? :V)


I mean I do...




(No hate on OW, I love both)


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Apr 18, 2019)

Let's just straight up put an easy mode on real life


----------



## KimberVaile (Apr 23, 2019)

Just beat the game a couple hours ago. Must have had to take like 20 shots at the final boss. Though, it was a lot of fun and a real triumph finally beating him. Love how to game pushes you to your limit and tests your determination!
Already putting in some time in New Game plus too, it's real great to see how far I've improved since the beginning of the game.


----------

