!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.
1. Keep it civil.
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.
2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.
I should not need to explain this one.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.
Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Logo uses joystick by liftarn
I think Kojima gets it. For a lot of players, esp. on the more cinematic games, the story is the main driver and the action is how it progresses. The games I’ve played that were ordeals are often the ones I’ve given up on. It’s the ones you can start on story mode with, enjoy the narrative and then re-play at the harder levels that I’ve stuck with.
I'll keep saying it: I already have a job. I want to play a game to unwind.
Implementing a wide gamut of difficulty settings is also an accessibility feature, and allows people with certain physical or mental challenges the opportunity to enjoy your game firsthand. Why would you want to deny your audience this opportunity?
I mean, presumably because it'd compromise their vision for the game or some such? Some games use gameplay as part of the storytelling, so nontrivial difficulty swttings would compromise the story being told (for example if the game wants you to experience a gruelling trek through a hostile area). Now that doesn't mean a story mode or similar is bad, but there are reasons to consider for a game dev to consider such settings incompatible with their game. Also in a game with more complex mechanics difficulty would be more complicated than player and enemy stats, and a dev might simply consider implementing satisfactory difficulty settings not a good use of their time.
You don't have to play difficult games. Not everything has to cater to a wide audience. Most of today's re-boots and sequals were from stories that catered to a niche audience only to lose its appeal by going too mainstream..
Also Kojima:
"I want people to end up liking things they didn’t like when they first encountered it, because that’s where you really end up loving something."
God: .... I'll make a game ... random spawns ... one life ... no instructions .. no directions ... open world ... play as you want
And your game difficulty is RNG.
... and you happen to spawn during a period when a game wide PVP session is happening
Pathologic 2 Devs
My true desire was for this town to never have a direction or goal marker, not even once. It's intellectually offensive. Who do you have to be thrust a map marker under a free person's nose, saying "Here is your goal. You're too lazy and stupid to figure it out on your own, and I am not without mercy towards lesser minds, so I'll do the work for you. Go there. Go and don't forget to thank me for choosing your goal for you. Love, The Powers That Be.
Oh you died? Here's a debuff. Oh you thought you could save scum to get around the debuff? Ha! That debuff is on all your saves.
Why? We're Russian devs. Life is brutual and hard and so should this game.
You don't know how hard you're selling me on this game.
Get it. It's an experience.
(Don't bother with 1, the sequel is basically a remake)
Reading this thread has re-confirmed that gatekeepers are a blight on humanity.
I will cheat in your sacred games and you can't stop me. I'll make my own rules. What are you gonna do about it, break into my house and steal my computer?
If a game is particularly hard, I'll use mods or cheats to make it easier. Gamers who sweat for difficulty can play it as hard as they want. I just want to experience the story, even if my play style goes against the creator's vision.
I wasn’t expecting this post to bring out this kind of animosity in people. Jesus fuckin’ christ.
Video games are not a public service, there is no such thing as a 100% universally enjoyed video game for a reason. It’s ok that there are different types of video games, folks, be them too hard or too easy for your tastes, it’s kind of stupid to throw these kinds of stones about it.
I mean, is every book supposed to be palatable to everyone? Are we all supposed to feel the exact same way about every piece of art? This is like being mad that Guardians of The Galaxy involved sci-fi and super heroes and wasn’t a WWII documentary because that’s what you’d have preferred to watch.
I tried Dark Souls, got my ass kicked, tried again, got my ass kicked again, went "huh, guess it's not for me" and moved on with my life. I truly don't get this mentality where people think they're entitled to play a game that was clearly not designed for them.
And then there's Yoko Taro, who instead opts for the emotional difficulty in his games
And then there's Electronic Arts, who instead opts for technical difficulties.
Or financial difficulties
It may be a difficult debate between accessibility, experience and artistic vision. Though considering how many games are made every year, I think we can have difficult games with no easy mode. People who don't enjoy them or can't play them can simply play the thousands of other games.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for accessibility. During my time in the video game industry, I personally paid great attention to options for colorblind people. Unfortunately, pretty much everything else was outside my scope. But it doesn't make any sense to potentially ruin the entire work just so 3 more people on the planet will play it.
If a game is frustrating to play, but I enjoy the story - I watch a playthrough. If a game contains elements that I don't like - it's probably not a game for me, so I move on to other games. If I had some disability that made it very hard or impossible to play some games - okay, fair enough, that would genuinely suck. But again, I'd move on to other games.
Of course, it's possible to add detailed difficulty settings, so that everyone can customize their experience. Mostly a great solution, if the team has the time and resources to implement it well, which isn't always the case. However, it may still interfere with the artistic vision of the developers.
Some movies can cause epileptic seizures due to some of their scenes. Should the authors throw their vision and ideas out the window, because some people cannot safely watch the movie? I'd say no, because that would kind of ruin the whole point of artistic expression. I think we need to be able to depict and express all kinds and forms of art, even if some groups will be unable to experience them.
Maybe some time in the future we'll be able to solve all of this easily and reliably (e.g., some kind of neuralink for people with various conditions). But as of right now, it seems to me that this is practically a non-issue. The impact is incredibly limited, while proposed solutions are either costly, unrealistic or straight up counterintuitive.
Really well put. In general, I find it frustrating how many people use the word "acccessibility" as a means to argue no games like Dark Souls (intentionally having only 1 difficulty for a single intended experience) should ever exist. But to me that's conflating disability-accessibility with a more literal "accessible to more people" type of accessibility. I'd argue "approachable" would be a better word for the latter.
People with motor skill issues or whatever else beat Dark Souls all the time. Heck, fully abled people are intentionally giving themselves equivalent experiences by beating it with dance pads and guitar or drum controllers or whatever else all the time. So the difficulty isn't an accessibility issue, the game is actually pretty slow paced (you can make a decent argument that more recent From Soft titles speed things up to an unreasonable degree for some motor disabilities, but I'm talking about the OG here).
What I hear instead, most of the time, is some version of "I'm a dad, I don't have hours to throw at a boss every night". And my instinctive response, most of the time is simply.... I just don't think you like this game? Getting your ass beat and needing hours and dozens of deaths to learn a boss or beat an area is the intended experience, and you're having it, whether you put those hours in 1 or 12 at a time. If you don't enjoy that, that's just fine, there are millions of great games that don't force you into such a punishing experience. It's a little bit like complaining a puzzle game has too many puzzles in the way of the platforming.
Anyway, my point being, I think centering the From Software "accessibility" conversation around difficulty options, something the devs have determined is a pillar of the game's design that they won't change, prevents us from having a proper conversation about accessibility, in terms of actual disability accessibility. I think there's really cool conversations we should be having about how we can make attack animations more readable to a visually impaired player without compromising on difficulty, for example. None of the Souls games even have so much as a colourblind mode, and we should be putting pressure on From Soft to add something as trivial as that as the franchise explodes in popularity, but "dark souls accessibility" is an entirely unrelated conversation instead, which kinda drowns out any other.
I think there’s really cool conversations we should be having about how we can make attack animations more readable to a visually impaired player without compromising on difficulty, for example.
Good post, I agree with you and the above poster.
This brings to mind the parry system in Metroid Dread. Enemies flashed yellow before a parryable attack signalling you should hit the button at that moment. It's possible and it works.
So then why don't all games do this? Because Metroid Dread was designed from the beginning to support this system. In Souls games, parrying is not just a matter of timing on attacks, but if the attack can even be parried at all given the specific attack (not all can)/player stats/equipped items, 3D positioning of hitboxes for both the attack and the player's defensive parry, as well as variable parry windows based on the specific shield or weapon equipped. Now take into account that Souls enemies often have multiple attacks each and this becomes a very significant amount of developer work. Not to mention that given all these factors, timing a button press to a parry flash may not always result in 100% success rate. Imagine how frustrating a system like this would be if even when you did everything "right", the physical placement of hitboxes only resulted in an 80% success rate on any given parry. Would players not find this frustrating? The point I'm trying to make is how complex this system would actually be and how much work it would take to implement.
However, it may still interfere with the artistic vision of the developers.
I'm going to be honest here, I did not end up caring for Metroid Dread much. For a number of reasons I won't go into here, but partly because of this parry system. Parry windows were clearly telegraphed, did huge amounts of damage often resulting in one hit kills AND they guaranteed to drop health/ammo pickups. With the risk/reward system practically non-existent you were so highly incentivized to use them that it made combat feel much more defensive. Rather than attack enemies, it was often more beneficial to approach them, bait out an attack, and punish.
Now I do take some responsibility for my actions here. It was my choice to begin playing the game this way. But I do also think there's something to be said for design elements that train or at least encourage players to engage with them in certain ways. Difficulty options are not just game design decisions but also attempts to understand how individual players may engage with those decisions. Expecting developers to have the ability or even foresight to anticipate all these different interactions is an extremely high, if not unreasonable barrier.
But in the end, I simply say that Dread was not a game to my liking. I know there are a lot of people who absolutely love it. Just not a game for me.
Just allow users to mod the game to whatever difficulty they want and don't be dicks about it.
Devs get to stick to their original vision and gamers get to have whatever difficulty they actually want to make things fun for them.
I like to relax when I play. My days of stressing out over games ended when I had stress in real life.
I don't think I've played a game with fairer difficulty options than Halo: CE. On the lowest difficulty, even your grandma with arthritis can beat it, and on the hardest it's an actual challenge without making enemies infallibly accurate bullet sponges. But if you can't do it that way, do it Michael Zaki's way.
Try Nier Automata
You can install chips in your brain that automates gameplay features. Like getting your turret to shoot automatically, making you melee attack automatically when you are in range, dodge automatically, ...
You can really customize your difficulty to the point that the game basically plays itself.
The only downside is that you miss out on using other cooler chip abilities.