Xbox Says ‘Gatekeeping And Elitism’ Have No Place In Gaming

This is cool. I loving playing video games but admittedly I'm not very good at the more challenging kind. I'll often avoid any game that doesn't offer an easy difficulty setting.

Every time I say I want an easy mode on Bloodbourne and the souls games I get hounded with the "git gud" comments.

@Carck nah, too much effort. I'll just wind that difficulty setting wayyyyyy down =)

Arrogant little pr**ks should go back to school and learn to spell. We're not using T9 keyboards anymore, there is no excuse for these silly abbreviations.

@UltimateOtaku91 I think they say that because they believe the experience is ruined by playing the games on an easier difficulty, which I agree with because I've played through both Dark Souls and Bloodborne by grinding and I made the game much easier on myself and I regret doing that.

However, when I look at the survival horror genre, I see plenty of franchises like Resident Evil, Silent Hill and Dead Space that offer easier difficulty levels and you can arguably say that by playing those games on easier difficulty levels, you're ruining the experience by e.g. having an abundance amount of ammo and easier time killing the enemies. But the developers still added that option there and nobody bats an eye to those games.

Simply put, it doesn't ruin anything by offering options to people. Forcing people to play a certain way is something I believe all developers should avoid doing in their video games. In the beginning, I played through most horror games on the easiest difficulty setting and now I'm choosing to play on normal because I've become better at them. Everyone has different ways of learning and that's something people should try to keep in mind.

@LtSarge the main reason I want an easy mode for those games is because I have ps5, series s and a switch, the amount of games I have to play is unreal and my backlog is over 100 games and a 40 hours a week job, I don't have time to keep dying and spending hours on one boss and getting good, for Rpg's and JRPG's I have on easy if possible to save on grinding so much, like for persona 5 Royal I put it on easy the second half and must of saved me 20 hours.

For other games though like resident evil, far cry and assassins creed I play on normal.

I honestly think if the souls games had a difficulty setting they would sell more copies, the amount of people who don't buy just because of the difficulty. Its frustrating trying to learn to play Bloodbourne buy destroys me as soon as I start lol like you said if Bloodbourne had a difficulty slider I could start on easy to learn the controls then move onto higher difficulty when I'm ready

I completely disagree.

Conflating “elitism” with “elite” is the first mistake, and sneaking these new political terms in to redefine concepts is a bit silly.

A professional sport league is elite. It is not “elitism” that you can’t play in it.

There’s nothing wrong with “gatekeeping” per se. It’s the reason why people are being left behind that matters. Is it a skill check? Is it a paywall? Is it an “accessibility” issue? These are good and important discussions to have, and to paint with a big brush saying all gatekeeping is bad is ridiculous and counter-productive.

There’s something to be said for exclusivity. Broadly speaking, gaming should be for everyone, but that doesn’t mean each game should be. No, there should not be an easy mode in Dark Souls for those who don’t want to put the effort in. There should be spaces for elite players to enjoy games at higher level than others. “Smurfing” sucks, why should we accept the inverse version? Accessibility should only bring you to the same starting line as other players. From there on, either get good enough to enjoy yourself or play something else.

I have been playing video games for over 30 years in and I really like a challenge but my life has gradually changed (as with many people) and sometimes there is simply less time to play games. An easy mode sometimes gives a solution to play a game to the end every now and then instead of being stuck for days. Furthermore, it is always good to help each other instead of judging each other on how you MUST play a game. Let everyone know that for themselves and above all enjoy the game. It remains a hobby after all 😉

@UltimateOtaku91 That’s not a good reason. I want to learn French, computer programming, and lose ten pounds but I also don’t want to or can’t put in the time and effort.

The only difference I see between that and beating Dark Souls is the feeling of being entitled to it because you purchased the full game. It’s really a matter of perspective — is your payment an entry fee, or ownership of all content? I can buy a gym membership, but that doesn’t guarantee me the results. Why think a copy of Tekken 7 or EVE Online is any different?

Dark Souls and the like are more particular because the challenge is so fundamental to the experience, and to strip it out is creating something entirely different. I don’t think that tracks to every game, but in general, difficulty should be a black box that developers tune to feedback into every system of their game and users should only be able to affect it with in-game “meta” tools, i.e. Dark Souls magic, Super Mario Sunshine’s FLUDD, grinding in RPGs, etc.

I hate that this position sounds so confrontational — I would like to understand where you would take issue with these points.

Nope I don't want an easy mode on games that are meant to be challenging by design.....either learn to get better with practice like you do anything in life or don't play the game

For a mega corp, they sure seem to care about their consumers. Now just finish taking the training wheels off the Xbox infrastructure and we can really enjoy ourselves.
-Gold
-lack of Gen 9
-Dumb things like not allowing movies to be downloaded onto the system.

More customer friendly. Less dumb walls.

@GrimR1vaL What’s the problem with being left behind here?
Everything you’re saying makes perfect sense to me until the part where the game has to adjust to your lifestyle. I love JRPGs but they’re too long and don’t always pace themselves well for shorter play sessions, and I get lost if I can’t play for extended periods of time, which happens more often the older I get.

So I don’t play them anymore.

Now I enjoy roguelite games that can have a full-run in 30-90 minutes so each session feels like I accomplished (or at least concluded) something.

There is something for everyone in this hobby because not everything in this hobby is for everyone.

If the game developer etc wants the game to be challenging why should they compromise on their vision to appease people who can't be arsed to put in the effort to play the game the way the developer intended

@Spiders but what does adding an easy difficulty option take away from those who still want to play it on its original difficulty?

I've even seen people online say they wouldn't buy any souls games again if they added difficulty options.

What about the people who just aren't good at games and play on easy to enjoy them, or those with motor disorders who can't press buttons quick enough or press the wrong buttons, easy mode would be less punishing for them but in a souls game that wrong button press or being to slow to dodge would mean game over.

@SplooshDmg I agree, some people take it to a next level like its a badge of honour, I've seen people say they would refuse to play further souls games if they added difficulty options.

Obviously game developers can make the game they want to but without those options and accessibility then they are just losing out on more money

@LtSarge I don’t think that’s true. Options can ruin a lot of things. Have you ever eaten at a Subway?

Not to get all Jordan Peterson on it, but I think there are experiences where the joy and elation are intrinsically tied to the suffering and frustration. To break that link spoils it.

Challenge is at the absolute core of gaming, and really is the brush with which all systems and rules in a game are painted. Some games can use a light, watery touch that is very accessible to everyone, and some games go Jackson Pollock and make for a more challenging experience. ‘Options’ are like handing the audience the brush. These kind of experiences exist in other media, but nowhere does anyone advocate, for example, for all theater to be participatory theater. What makes games any different?

There are so many ways to have multiple difficulty levels without having options. Look at the entirety of the Mario series, for example.
‘Options‘, in the sense we are using the word, is bad design.

@CrazyJF It’s not about me losing anything. It’s about you losing the point of the whole enterprise.

Edit: I lose the ability to share the experience with others without qualification. I lose the exclusiveness of the experience, which is valuable.

@Spiders you mention mario, mario game lets you be invincible after dying 4-5 times in the same level, are you saying your ok with that being implemented into souls games?

@UltimateOtaku91 That’s certain Mario (and other “Super Guide” games like DKCR) titles, and we can argue how clunky or elegant the Super Guide is. They do punish using them as well by not giving unlocks or whatever. It’s not a free Easy Mode.

No, I don’t think Dark Souls should have a Super Guide. In fact, many From games have an anti-Super Guide mechanic where dying makes the game harder... it’s pretty brutal but it just shows their intentionality clear as day.

@StylesT
It's not just a question of putting in time to get good enough.
There are other factors that can affect a person's capabilities.
For example...
As I've got old(er)... nearly 50... I am much less capable at certain games, due to slowing reflexes, poorer eyesight (even with glasses, I can't seem to pick out enemies as quickly as I used to) and so on...

So, what you see as a easy/medium setting, might still feel like a medium/hard setting for me... and no amount of practice will make me perform like a teenage or 20-something again.

In short... It's great to have a choice.
Gives options and accessibility to everyone.
As long as you are not losing your more challenging settings that you prefer, it's all good.

@oconnoclast yeah i agree I have a slight problem when it comes to buying games I like the look of 😂 I recently bought dragon quest 11s, fairy tail, monster hunter stories 2 and neo the world ends with you and pre ordered tales of Arise, I have no idea how I'm fitting all that in lol

I'm not asking for souls games to be mega easy and for bosses to be killed in a couple of hits, I wouldn't mind the bosses keeping the same health but maybe instead of me dying in one hit maybe Change it to three hits. Nearly killing the boss and then just getting one shotted at the end is just infuriating for me and after a few tries I just give up.

Or try the hellblade approach, the games starts off hard and then the more your die the easier it gets

@UltimateOtaku91 Totally understandable, everyone is different and people should have the option to choose how they want to play a game. I still believe that certain games like the Souls titles will have to be experienced a certain way in order to get the full intended experience but it doesn't mean that you still can't get a decent experience from playing them on an easier difficulty setting. Even if I grinded a lot in Dark Souls and Bloodborne, I still liked the games a lot. But I still would've liked to have played them differently. It doesn't mean though that everyone will feel like me and I don't want that either. Video games are meant to be fun and when we all have fun, we all win. Everyone should be able to play whichever games they want however they want without feeling demoralised by the community. People who do that take gaming a bit too seriously if you ask me.

@Widey85 Accessibility options should get everyone to the same starting line, and I don’t think every game should absolutely be doing this, if not every platform at an OS level. We’re talking about controller options, color blind options, etc.
Every game will have a different context for what difficulty means, but generally no, I don’t think anyone should get an easier ride once we have gotten to the same starting point.

Matchmaking is gatekeeping, so I don’t see where we disagree besides on terms. You don’t want no gatekeeping, you want better gatekeeping.

I’d even advocate for high level cheating and mods that exist above the game layer because that’s where you can actually make your “easy for you is normal for me” equivalence possible. That, plus accessibility at the lowest layer and there’s no reason to change the game at all.

I don’t think you know what a straw man is. I am accusing people of conflating terms and ideas to try and make their point by emotional appeal. I’m not strawmanning anybody’s argument.

@SplooshDmg You run form the bonfire to the boss! I don’t think any of those checkpoints every have a mandatory trash mob to kill.

I do think those checkpoint placements are key... really it’s the only punishment for losing if you think about it. It will be interesting how they’re placed in games once SSD is the standard and loading screens don’t act as that frustrating moment for you to either stew in and fall apart, or steel your self in resolve and renewed patience.

@UltimateOtaku91 I grind levels or save for equipment to get to take that extra hit from a boss. That’s the easy mode!

The death when the boss has one pixel is like a rite of passage — somehow I don’t think anybody has beaten one of those games without that happening. It’s brutally frustrating!

I think it’s a really a fundamental difference in how we see these games. I really think you look at it like a ride, and buying your game is your ticket, if not overtly, than just by how all the velvet rope AAA games have been made from Playstation 1 era up until Dark Souls sparked it’s design revolution.

@SplooshDmg I think it’s super intentional. That’s why I respect it.

@Deadcow called out Control as an example... that’s my counter-example. I had so many BS frustrating encounters in or whatever that I would drop the difficulty down just to get through a bad one. The game was so much more difficult than any From Software game I played and for all the wrong reasons.

Because there was a slider, I don’t even know if I could have it should have gotten better at the game. Because of the easy checkpoints and the slider, combat, when it was hard, just felt like an annoying obstacle. The stakes felt so low, and I just felt dumb, inadequate, and annoyed.

It’s not just about “getting good”. It’s also, “is there something here that’s worth getting good at?”, and games with difficulty sliders have a very hard, if not impossible time conveying that.

I think there are good examples like Bayonetta and Doom Eternal, but now you’re talking about games that take 5 play through a to master. How is that respecting player time!?

I think you can make the case both ways, and we should be looking at it form both perspectives, i.e. “Easy Mode Souls” people don’t have the monopoly on respect for players, or even game difficulty as accessibility.

Just here to say that FromSoft's Souls games are no yardstick for skill. Their difficulty is so overrated it's borderline comedic.

There's absolutely no reason whatsoever that those games don't have a difficulty option. They are ridiculously easy with the right character build. If I can build a Pyro or Hex that totally negates any difficulty then why not just give the games selected difficulty?

@Widey85 So you DO what a straw man is! Nobody is saying we should put staircases between art and the disabled. That’s about accessibility and not difficulty.

In the painting metaphor, I think “challenge” is the brush the developer uses, and I think asking for difficulty options is like asking for every painting to have a cartoon version.

In the restaurant metaphor, I can explain how you are conflating accessibility with difficulty and express my point better. Again, I absolutely think that you should physically be able to get into any restaurant you want, I don’t think you should be allowed to ask for french fries and fish sticks if they’re not on the menu.
The conversation we should be having —in metaphor — is about food allergies. That’s really what the version of exclusion you’re talking about would look like, and what I would argue is that yes, we should be making sure everyone knows what ingredients are in the dishes, but as to wether substitutions can be made to dish or not should be completely up to the restaurant. You have a bad experience with a meal because you had them substitute ingredients may not be something they want to have any of part of, and rightfully so. Get something else you can have.

@Spiders I didn't say games should adapt to my lifestyle. I only indicated that sometimes an easy mode can offer a solution for some. If a game doesn't have that then I consider for myself whether I think the time is worth it (sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't). Long live the freedom of choice

@UltimateOtaku91 That’s a bit dramatic, but like a said, there’s a value to exclusiveness that we’re not giving it’s due.

It also takes away from the trust in the developer, that the challenge is intentional and meaning. Control is my example here that I mentioned in another post. The difficulty in that game could be frustratingly terrible for technical reasons, and using the slider and getting through an encounter did not feel good at all.

@GrimR1vaL For some, for sure, but I don’t think difficulty is always (if ever) the correct lever to try and move. For me, just playing Dragon Quest XI on Switch with a great suspend feature and handheld mode solved all my issues without touching the difficulty. I think there’s way more places that can be done to solve problems, and Easy Mode is the laziest, brute forced, and ultimately least rewarding solution to any of those problems.

Be proud of your achievements and celebrate success, but not as a means to tear other people down

That shouldn't just apply to gaming 'achievements' but in whatever you do. It should apply equally to MS - The Series S/X, Game Pass, impressive portfolio of Studio's etc - not to gloat and use those as a means to tear down the competition - Sony (and their user base) too of course - Critically and Financially successful game releases, hardware sales etc...

In other words, celebrate your successes and achievements but don't 'Gloat' or use that to put others down.

I feel that MS don't really Gloat on their successes and are usually quick to congratulate their 'rivals' on their Successes too. We often see Phil congratulating Sony's developers on their games...

@uptownsoul The difficulty pushed me personally nowhere, I don't find Souls games difficult no matter how I play and I don't build OP decimate everything characters. My point is if you want to make a win build the option is there. Why not just give an actual selected difficulty? It hurts nobody.

@FriendlyOctopus exactly why I now avoid all FromSoftware games! I usually play on normal/default, but if I’m struggling on a particular section of a game I have no problem knocking the difficulty down temporarily. At the end of the day I’d rather lower a game’s difficulty and finish it, than struggle and not finish it at all.

@Nightcrawler71 =) I love the look of Demon Souls, but I refuse to increase my blood pressure playing it hahah

@Widey85 Accessibility and Difficulty settings are definitely discrete categories. I think there are some exceptional options, like the Ghost of Tsushima one you mentioned, which cover both. That sounds awesome, and is a great way to not touch the difficulty of the game itself but on that higher abstraction level — really the technical side, which for argument’s sake we can consider the human body part of the hardware. I’m all about that. I’d put that in the category of a lag timer in rhythm and fighting games.

I think you have me wrong — I don’t want to play the game on Very Hard. I want to play it on the default setting — better yet, I don’t want the option at all. I am not a masochist and I think the only game I ever played on a high difficulty was Bayonetta and technically Souls games on New Game+, which I usually bail on and start New Game again if anything.

I think there are going to be places that I’m wrong, and places you’re wrong. I don’t want to get hung up on Souls because I think I am right beyond reproach here for that particular series and there’s probably places we can find more interesting disagreements if not common ground.

I really don’t care about bragging rights — and artistic vision, well, I absolutely do. I think “have it your way” works because for every Burger King there’s a place that has a higher standard that is core to what makes it special. It’s because not every game is made for everyone that we get to find those titles that feel like there were made just for us.

As far as why the compromise is bad, I think it erodes player trust to have difficulty options, I think there is a value to exclusivity we are not acknowledging or addressing correctly, I think difficulty and challenge are fundamental to what make a game a ‘game’.

Maybe we can look at it different if I ask it this way? If every possible obstacle that could keep you from playing a game at whatever you would comfortably call the equivalent of “normal” or “intended” scenario, would you still change the difficulty level?

@Shigurui “It hurts nobody”.

This meme needs to stop!

If this is your argument ‘for’, get a better reason. It hurts everybody.

@electrolite77 That’s not what’s happening. I don’t think anybody doesn’t want everyone to be able to enjoy what they are enjoying.

The argument against “Easy Mode” is that the game itself is now no longer what people are enjoying. You’re not beating Dark Souls on Easy Mode and having shared my journey.

Dark Souls is the gold standard example of this. We both climbed that mountain and now we are brothers. That’s how it goes. We want EVERYONE to climb that mountain and join us. ‘Easy Mode’ is you wanting to take a lift, and that’s how you get there, you’re not welcome!

That’s the value of exclusiveness in a nutshell. It’s not elitism, it’s not “gatekeeping”, it’s about preserving the integrity of the shared experience.

Ask yourself, why can’t you just enjoy it by watching someone else play a game on YouTube (The Dark Souls of Easy Mode)? What is it really about, to have pressed the buttons yourself? THAT precise feeling is what is sacred about gaming and ought be given more respect in this conversation.

There is a game for everyone because not every game is for everyone.

@electrolite77 It’s not nonsense. Put it different terms than “difficulty”. From Software does not want to create casual experiences. It leveraged difficulty to force players to be fully engaged or lose.

I don’t think we should be advocating developers to make casual experiences of their games if they don’t want to, and especially with this politically charged language where “inclusivity” is some sort of moral good by definition and “exclusivity” is morally wrong — that’s nonsense.

There’s a blind dude who players Killer Instinct (at a high level) by sound cues. You can solve for real inclusiveness with better accessibility. No difficulty lever required.

@electrolite77 I used to talk with a guy who was really into Fire Emblem and at the time, I was new to the series so I preferred to play the games on Casual difficulty with no permadeath on. He would constantly nag at me to play the games "the way they were intended" and while I get what he was saying, all his talk made me enjoy the series a lot less because he wouldn't let me play the games the way I wanted to play them.

Ever since then, I never appreciate the people who take away enjoyment from others this way. Gaming is fun, let people have fun for crying out loud.

I’ve always believed if I find something I love doing I want to share that with others. I’ve introduced my daughter and my nieces and nephews to gaming the way my father introduced me. We all enjoy this hobby together now which is way better than alone.

@SplooshDmg Lol, well at least you realised that and changed. I don't think the guy I talked to will ever change. Not that I care, I stopped talking to him years ago, lol.

@Spiders Please tell me who it hurts. I'm genuinely intrigued.

Not wanting an easy mode in games is like not wanting handicap kids to be able to ride rollercoasters.

They are confined to wheelchairs, so rollercoasters just aren't made for them. They should just deal with it and stick to the kiddie rides, amirite?

i always prefer playing most games on normal difficulty.
I don't like playing the same boss for 5 days in a row, I don't find it entertaining or challenging just boring and a waste of time.

Gotta love the type of people who perform outstanding mental gymnastics when trying to defend the "how it should be played" ethos. It's those type of gamers who couldn't master another hobby or learn a particular skill in real life and so get vigorously defensive over how a game that they're good at should be played, just so they can fill that illusory superiority need to feel special. It's like, I knew this guy, he was rubbish at most things but amazing at Mortal Kombat, played it on very hard, Every time he thrashed me and others online he would berate how they need to get good, stop relying on easy. That guy is single, still, and does nothing but play video games. Heh, nothing wrong with that, it's his life, but I got married, started to try and write a book, and learn new skills like the harmonica and ukulele and piano all the whole enjoying video games on the way I WANT TO PLAY THEM, not HOW THEY SHOULD BE PLAYED. It's a loser attitude by loser people who think gaming is anything but just a game. This whole discussion on itself is cringe. Play easy, have fun, screw the "specially talented gamer god" and do it your way.

@Spiders "The argument against “Easy Mode” is that the game itself is now no longer what people are enjoying. You’re not beating Dark Souls on Easy Mode and having shared my journey.

Dark Souls is the gold standard example of this. We both climbed that mountain and now we are brothers. That’s how it goes. We want EVERYONE to climb that mountain and join us. ‘Easy Mode’ is you wanting to take a lift, and that’s how you get there, you’re not welcome!"

Not everyone can climb a mountain. Not everyone finds physically climbing a mountain enjoyable. But they may still find that journey, or that destination enjoyable.

And you my friend, do not have ownership of that mountain top.

I regularly walk to work. I don't jog, because that's too much for me, and I don't complain that others drive there. I've regularly taken stairs when others take the lift. My journeys, my hard work, has never been undermined by someone doing it an easier way.

I have never played Dark Souls in my life, but the way I see it is if it had a difficulty option, the franchise would not be as popular as it is today. People say that adding difficulty options would open the game up to more people amd more people would buy the game, but it defeats the purpose of buying the game in the first place.

If you play Dark Souls on easy mode, what is the purpose of playing the game? The story? No one ever really talks about the story in the Souls games too often, so I assume that it is not that impressive/interesting in terms of video game storytelling but I could be wrong. The gameplay? The game is seemingly designed around its difficulty with the goal being overcoming a great challenge and the satisfaction that comes with it. The beautiful graphics and environments? From what I have seen, the game is very visually boring.

The reason why people seem to be attracted to the game in the first place was because of how exclusive and elite it was. People wanted to buy the game to test themselves and see if they could become one of the elites that beat the game. If everyone beat the game, no one is elite. If everyone’s super, no one will be.

Gatekeeping has no place?

How about the entitlement and the gall of trying to tell artists that "Your game that you want made a specific way, you don't deserve to make it the way you want, I want to play."

Could you imagine if someone told DaVinci the Mona Lisa needed more color, or that they eyes needed to be changed to not have the illusion of following people?

Or how about telling horror movie makers that their movies are too scary and need to be toned down so you can enjoy it.

If the game doesn't cater to you, it isn't meant for you, simple as that. You're not entitled to play them.

i personally think the statement has been badly interpreted in this comments section with all the talk of easy modes. it’s quite simple to me that they’re just saying you should support and encourage and maybe not be a douche bag when playing games. doesn’t mention anything about easy mode in all games,or diminishing experiences if you play on easy and someone else gets butt hurt by it. They’re just saying be kind to each other and let people play . The fact that the comments section shows people getting irritated only further highlights their point.

"I don’t want to share your journey. I want to play the game."

"o, you don't. You want to play an easier game.

"I don’t want to join you. You can still have a mountain for games called ‘completed it on Hard mode’ if you want."

I can tell.

"You just told others they aren’t welcome if they choose a different experience. That is elitism and gate keeping."

The full sentence, for context: That’s the value of exclusiveness in a nutshell. It’s not elitism, it’s not “gatekeeping”, it’s about preserving the integrity of the shared experience.

You made my point — it's a different experience. No, you are not welcome if you don't come through the front door.

"Because watching a video isn’t the same. I shouldn’t have to say that but here we are."

You're not engaging with the question, you're repeating it at me. What is the difference between watching and playing?

@InterceptorAlpha

https://rating-system.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_films_censored_for_a_lower_age_rating

Changing the art to include a wider audience is a thing.

And I think comparing films, especially something like a horror film to a game is a bad comparison. Films have an inherently lower bar of entry. A film will not stop progressing if the audience has a certain disability or particular issue with that piece of content. Someone afraid of horror can mute the volume, and literally skip the section if they want to. It's cheating, but they can do it.

@Widey85 The issue here is assuming they want to reach those people. If they had, easy mode would have been included from the outlet.

However that is not the audience they want. And thus any complaining is sheer entitlement from people that thing their owed something.

Your comparison is not remotely the same. The equivalent to yours would have been when video games were in arcades and finally started tricking in home.

You're asking developers to go out of their way to re balance games, redesigning the AI, damage tables, etc, because you feel entitled to something.

What people are falling to grasp is there is no such thing as "easy mode" when making a game. Each difficulty mode has a different programed AI with entire encounters being redesigned which in turn also runs up expense in development.

@Richnj Such as removing Finn from the Star Wars posters for China as they don't like people of color. Surely you're not encouraging this practice.

This is all very amusing. When it comes to charging people for things, everyone is like "Don't want it, don't buy it." But when it comes to playing a specific game you feel like you're entitled to play. Some games aren't made for you just like a air planes aren't. You either learn it or don't.

At the end of the day, work on your entitlement as that is the root of every argument for forcing developers to accommodate audiences they have no intention on courting.

@Widey85 That's such a great option I didn't know about. I think that's great. I have really poor reflexes and reactions too.

"There was still stand-offs where I'd mistime it again and again, despite I thought having got the hang of it - but given the game has quick save and the window is made forgiving enough, I'm more angry at my reflexes / coordination than the game."

That's exactly where you want to be with a challenging game, and for me speaks to my point: if there's multiple difficulty options, I am always wondering when to blames the game or myself.

"Those kinds of options would still be too much for these "git gud" types though - and that kind of gatekeeping is just plain elitism (and no, "elite" players mostly don't care - they're self-assured enough of their own skill they don't need to gatekeep)"

I don't think that's fair to assume, and that's kind of my problems with this whole "gatekeeping" and "elitism" terminology being thrown around. I never "got good" (except maybe in Sekiro), I just persevered. Particularly with Souls games again, there's so many paths through that game that you can roll your own. Many people never learn to parry, or don't bother.

@FriendlyOctopus same here. I only recently got hold of a PS5, and graphically Demon’s Souls looks amazing. But I’m not spending £70 on a game that’s gonna frustrate me, and I’ll likely never finish.

@InterceptorAlpha "Such as removing Finn from the Star Wars posters for China as they don't like people of color. Surely you're not encouraging this practice."

This is such a poor strawman. This goes far beyond disingenuous.

1) Finn was still in the movie right?, he wasn't taken out.

2) Advocating for inclusion of minorities and just general easier consumption of content is in no way comparable to defending hate.

"work on your entitlement as that is the root of every argument for forcing developers to accommodate audiences they have no intention on courting."

Is it entitlement to argue that dropped curbs are good?

@Widey85 I think the mountain metaphor can apply to certain single-player games like the souls games and others that have a community like Dark Souls.
We're talking about in terms of achievements and trophies which I really don't care about, but more having the same — or similar enough — experience to be able to relate to each other. What you described as your experience with GoT and the parry window is EXACTLY what I would say qualifies as a shared experience.

@Widey85 I do think we're getting somewhere! I also think that there is a big difference between Easy / Normal / Hard vs. Beginner / Intermediate / Advanced. The second implies a path through the game by "gitting gudder". I could make the case that Dark Souls has the latter with NG, NG+, NG++, but that would be stretching it. Bayonetta should be structured Beginner / Intermediate / Advanced because that is the loop and path to mastery.

Games like TLOU are not really about mastery, so Easy / Normal / Hard is appropriate, but even here there is a problem. I could never get into the game and almost everyone insisted that you had to play on the hardest mode for proper immersion. That gets it around the 'git gud' meme easily enough, but to my mind it embodies precisely problem difficulty modes create. I'm playing a lesser game and failing to engage with because of how the difficulty is presented, and to answer @Shigurui , this is but one of the many ways difficulty options hurt games.

@SplooshDmg I love your points here, and I do think that "cheat mode" style options work a lot better than difficulty toggles and get around the issues of having multiple difficulty modes. Sekiro does this; a training mode which really helps come to grips with the central mechanic which would be painful to do in just the game proper.

@Widey85 I think we've come to a better understand since this ws posted, but I'll address them anyway:

• Those with not enough time on their hands (but still want to enjoy the game everyone's raving about)
• Those with motor function issues (autism, some disabilities, or other causes including getting older)
• Those with less access to games growing up - I've noticed my brother who grew up with a games console has much better reactions than many of my friends my age that didn't (but are still better than me)
• Those who play games to relax, not get frustrated

I think the ideas like GoT's parry timing window or the Psychonauts 2 "cheat codes" @SplooshDmg mentioned ... I think Celeste has a similar "assist mode", are both elegant solutions that do not require a user selected difficulty mode toggle.

I hate to think picking up the 'git gud' banner means I don't think all those groups of people shouldn't have games for them, or be left behind for those reasons. I was a HUGE fan of the Nintendo Wii philosophy, and chided those who thought it was "casual" and not "hardcore". Less buttons and putting certain functions to motion opened up hardcore experiences to so many people... while of course closing the door for others. Again, I think we can find options and inclusion in the broad banner of the hobby, just not always in individual games.

"I loved Game of Thrones and George RR Martin's stuff (that ending aside) so I'd love to play Elden Ring - but if as expected there's no difficulty options that's potentially a great story I'm not going to be able to enjoy apart from watching others play it"

Honestly — and this is coming from a place of tough love — I think if you think it's going to be worthwhile, you bang your head against that wall until you break through. I've seen people with severe handicaps play difficult games at an incredibly high level — BrolyLegs is just a human marvel — so think it's possible to overcome IF you think it's worth it. I don't think it's fair or reasonable to expect that for every game, but for say, something like Elden Ring, that is exactly the kind of shared experience I would love for you t be a part of. I think that's what I mean by "the mountain" analogy and the community. People will help you figure it out. There will be techniques and build and glitches and co-op and so many tools to get you through that game, and people more than happy to participate. And it's in that context that when people say no to that --they want "easy mode" — that I think they're really missing the point.

@Richnj ...but you're going to work. Nothing about being there is dependent on how you get there. Read my post above please — I think it clarifies my mountain analogy and maybe that will make more sense.

@Spiders You wrote a lot so I'm not sure which particular bit you are referring to. Though I did pick out some points worth mentioning.

You said "you're just getting to work. Nothing about you being there is dependent on how you got there"

You also said "I didn't get good.I just persevered" and "We're talking about having a shared experience".

Which is contradictory. Me choosing to walk to work just made that journey harder. I didn't get good at walking to work, I just persevered. Also, anyone who also walks to work also has that shared experience with me. Whether I climb a mountain or walk to work, I'm choosing a certain experience, and anyone who chooses to do the same shares my experience. We aren't losing that.

And why does your experience need to be shared? Why can't you have it just for yourself?

@Widey85 Maybe this analogy will capture all if it:

Let's say I'm a professional hockey player, and you're playing street hockey with your friends on the weekends, ostensibly we are participating in the same activity, but we're not playing the same game. If you were a professional ice sledge hockey player (parapalegic hockey), you are using accessibility tools to play something that is fundamentally the same game that I am playing.
The shared experience is everything around the game that is the foundation of that community. I am NOT saying that every game has this quality dependent on difficulty, but I believe Dark Souls (for example) does, and that is where I think having the "other door of entry" does dilute a very important part of the experience, which is the community. Like I mentioned in a post above — the community is there to help you up the mountain. It's almost why it's so reflexively dismissive of "Easy Mode". It's like you are refusing to engage with the many, many "easy modes" available through reading wikis or watching videos or requesting co-op sessions. It's actually really insulting when you think about it that way — "Easy Mode" is dismissive of the community.

EDIT Meant for @Richnj

As long as they don't intentionally make games easy, then I don't care what options they stick in there.

@SplooshDmg "I think there's something to be said that it's easy to become a poor student when you have a poor teacher"

Quote of the thread. And that's a big part of my issue with multiple difficulty options as a brute force solution. It's a terrible teacher, and unless you have a game where Beginner / Intermediate / Advanced is appropriate like a rhythm game or a Platinum style game, it's too obtuse.

Sekiro might be an interesting one because a lot of people felt it was the most difficult, but I think that's because it has the least paths through compared to other From games. There are no builds and fewer gimmicks, but I did find it was a very good teacher. It has skill-check bosses like Bloodborne and then, unlike BB which actually gets easier as you progress, Sekiro continues to check in some really cool ways. I don't think it's for everyone, but it's my favorite as I'm not a huge fan of the builds and esoteric stats in the Souls games.

I agree we should all be critical — it's great! Unfortunately some of these discussions already think they're solved and it's painful to try and cut through the nonsense slogans like 'git gud' and "games should be for everyone".

@SplooshDmg Doom Eternal is a really interesting example because I do think that the people who couldn't gel with it (myself included) didn't want to play the game they made, but play Doom 2016, and no amount of guidance was going to change that.
I do feel that I am missing out an a great experience because I don't have the mechanical chops to play and FPS at a level to then layer on all these systems (being a lefty I think is a handicap for console shooters without gyro), but at the same time I'm also really glad that there is this really high-level skill-based, ammo management "speed puzzle" game that couldn't have existed if it was afraid to leave people behind.

@Widey85 I would agree to that! I might have to draw the line at the "new dads" though;)

I think you've convinced me that difficulty in games should be being addressed as an accessibility issue, but I am also more resolute that a multiple difficulty toggle is the worst solution, unless it is a Beginner > Intermediate > Advanced presentation for games that it would suit.

@Richnj I think the analogy falls apart because what I'm trying to say is that the destination itself has to have value intrinsically tied to the journey. It's an argument for "exclusivity", and against "what do you lose by me having an easy mode you don't have to use". That "shared experience" is not a global thing for all games — I'm particularly using Souls as the example here because it has a massive community that is essentially it's Easy Mode if you engage with it.

The inverse of this would be The Last Of Us, where, if you go on any forum and say you thought the gameplay was bad so you stopped playing, they will 9 times out of ten say you MUST play on the hardest mode without the seeing through walls and whatever else changes, or you don't get the intended experience.
This is like there's a party where everyone celebrates how great the game is (and how much they hate the sequel — the "shared experience", but with a game like TLOU, you can honestly get there through a let's play because it is a sub-community that is running this game on ultra hardcore and playing the multiplayer. I think it's myriad difficulty options actually does leave people behind, but it is a game where the "journey" is really about the story, and not about actually having played it.

I'm not saying all of gaming should be a country club — far from it — but there are going to be those places where who gets to go there determines the worth of it, and I don't think we have to cancel those places because "exclusivity is bad". It's not when and where it's appropriate, and it's awful and even wrong where it isn't. I think "inclusivity" works the exact same way. We should be doing that on a case by case basis, which is really all I'm arguing for — with Dark Souls as the battleground — and arguing against using the platitudes as a cudgel to break down these so-called barriers when many of them are just time, patience, and a willingness to engage.

@Widey85 Listen... I want whatever it takes for you to play and enjoy Elden Ring. I will Samwise Gamgee your Frodo-ass to the end of that game if I have to hahaha!!!

What do you use for a TV/Monitor? I have really, really bad reaction time and reflexes and trouble following fast moving objects — and certain games like fighting games are almost painful for me to play, so I got a 25" low-latency monitor and wired controllers and that little bit made a big difference for me. I'm still limited to certain characters and playstyles, but I'm wondering if a few milliseconds here and there in your setup could make certain games more accessible for you.

Me: Elitism? Ha! As if anyone would have the gall
Also me: lowly tarnished, playing as a lord?!..
..I command thee KNEEL!!

Gaming is about having fun. Full stop. As anyone can have fun, gaming is for everybody.

@Ryu_Niiyama That's not true, not as the medium grows. There's games like 'Spiritfarer', 'The Last Of Us Part II', and 'Valiant Hearts' that are emotional wringers. 'The Longing' is practically a mediation on anti-fun, subverting expectations of reward systems in games.
I think gaming is a medium — it can be about anything, just like music, movies, books, art, podcasts, etc.

@FriendlyOctopus Ad hominem attack means I win, right? If you found out I was crushing it a life, learning new skills every day, would it make my argument better?

Honest question: do you think 'git gud' is appropriate advice for "real life"? There are people who think there should be an 'Easy Mode' for that too — that our societies should be structured to leave nobody behind, and those who think people should take more personal responsibility for their circumstances. It's the equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome argument. I think there's a parallel here in this discussion about game difficulty, and just like "in real life" people are banging each other over the head with canned, rigid opinions without having thought through the consequences, and attributing motives and ad hominems to the other side to bolster their weak, myopic arguments. There's valid points on both sides if we can hear them, and I think the solution is a blend of the two. I had a great back and forth with @Widey85 that changed my perspective on some things and fortified my position on others — there is a value to discussing things and having different opinions. Why not join the discussion with something of substance rather than throw stones from outside of it?

Seeing as Dark Souls is one of the most influential games of the last decade, and rogue-likes/lites are the current hot genre, losers like me are being catered to just fine — so much so that it seems plenty of people want to lower the bar of entry to join in. I don't blame them! I just think that 'Easy Mode' is the absolute wrong way to do it.
If it was "just a video game" why would we even bother? It's an incredible and powerful medium that has enraptured, enriched, and entertained millions upon millions of people. To say it's "just a video game", then to call strangers on the internet names doesn't track. You're obviously passionate about games too.

@Widey85 I have my "new dad" moments too haha. It makes me think of JPRGs, which is historically my favorite genre, but over the last few generations and as I get older and have more responsibilities can never settle into to play.
Some games like Octopath Traveler, Bravely Default, and the Final Fantasy remasters have all these Quality Of Life tools (like speeding up battles and reducing the encounter rate) that change the experience enough to make those games more "new dad" friendly. Octopath uses items to actually "gameify" things like enemy encounter rate, and chunks it's story into discrete chapters that about 30-45 to get through. Octopath and Dragon Quest XI also have great "story so far..." recaps that help ease players back in who may have gone days or weeks between sessions — which helps solve the main reason I usually stop playing.

The more I think about our conversation, the more I see your POV. I really do think though that the difficulty slider is the laziest solution and if we really press the issue from an accessibility perspective while maintaining a respect for the integrity of artistic vision, that there are so many creative solutions to the difficulty problem if developers try.

@SplooshDmg My pleasure! It's a really important concept I think when talking about difficulty in games. How many titles just do a terrible job teaching players how to play, with tutorial dumps in the beginning — like an afterthought — and never bother with the lessons from Super Mario Bros 1-1 to organically teach with in-game scenarios? From Software is guilty of being too obtuse (though they're getting better), and Doom Eternal is arguably over-tutorialized, pausing gameplay every few minutes for multiple reasons.

Platinum Games have good examples too. I think they do a great job of making games that have a high-skill and low-skill path through them that are both enjoyable, but if you watch a high-level playthrough of say, Vanquish, you could wonder how you were ever expected to learn how to play that way with the tools you were given in the game. How many people played it like a Gears of War clone, and not the subversion of the cover-shooter it was designed to be? I think difficulty issues are not just about the barrier of entry, but also about the barrier of enjoyment.

Xbox is advocating helping people learn games and being positive about successes. It's like when playing multiplayer PvP, encourage new players and teach them instead of screaming that they suck. If you're having a bad game, don't blame your team, cheer the ones doing better than you on.

As for Dark Souls, imo, it's better to tell others it's a very beatable game if you learn animation and sound queues, memorize patterns,etc and point them to good tutorials. They aren't that difficult of games and you can make them easier for people to complete and enjoy instead of making them easier games. Just share the knowledge instead of gate-keeping just so you feel better about yourself.

Being honest, Xbox achievements and "git gud" is pretty lame. Gaming is not an achievement - it's a fun thing to do with spare time and it was always supposed to be fun. If you want to compete and trash talk then at least do something physical.

@John117 You're right. This is a gaming site. I use to like.it. Massively toxic people in here, moaning and whining and declaring what gaming should be. It's tragic, really. Maybe it's turned me a bit toxic. Probably has. Then again, the whole comment section of any platform will likely be super negative. I've come to the realisation today that humans are just terrible. I cringe at myself for trying to communicate with others. Even in this corner of society where gaming should be fun, there are arguments just as vile and shallow as political ones. How does a person maintain any state of positivity when the majority of humans around them are prone to negativity? This whole page is about making games more accessible and it's turned into a massive debate about what and how a game should be played. I'm not going to be one of those people who comment here and reply to replies and blah blah blah. Think the best thing to do is stop visiting this website altogether. I just wish there was a more analog way of getting my gaming news without someone's else opinion or backward remarks contaminating my zen. This world is getting more and more noisy with complaints and rife with disputatious personalities. Well, it's been a good attempt at talking to humans for a while, but I'll call it a day.

I do think that the difficulty of Soulsbourne series games is a little...overstated. I mean, they aren't easy, but they aren't impossible either.

I have played and finished every single game of the "genre" and I can say with certainty that only one boss out of all the games had me wanting to throw my controller through a wall and give up: Ornstein and Smough. For some reason that pair of bosses were the bane of my existence.

How did I finally end up beating them? I took advantage of the PvE mechanic and summoned a couple of players to assist.

Generally, you might fight a boss only a few times before you start committing their mostly telegraphed moves to memory and you know how to avoid it. If you are still having problems, consult a Wiki (there is no shame in getting help). And if things just aren't working out, most of the games have an NPC/Helpful other players summon nearby to assist you in your quest.

As far as having to retread old ground to get to a boss if you do die, pretty much all of the games have a nearby boss bonfire with access to a shortcut. Sure you might have to fight a couple cannon-fodder enemies along the way.

Heck, I daresay that some of levels themselves are harder than some of the bosses. But the accomplishment of reaching that next bonfire is great.

That being said, I wouldn't get all bent out of shape if FromSoftware found someway to give a similar sense of accomplishment for lesser skilled players. Maybe do like a max poise to help with attacks and blocks and a significant armor boost so that bosses don't hurt as much as normally. I wouldn't change boss health or anything like that...keep it challenging on the battle front, only give you better survivability.

@UltimateOtaku91 You think they would sell more? Guess what no they wouldn't or to be more exact they wouldn't sell enough more to actually make the whole thing worthwhile. End of the day why should From change how they make games for people who were never going to buy it anyway, the Soulsborne series as well as Sekiro sell tons and even Elden Ring a brand new IP is getting a ton of hype because its a From game.

I feel the easy mode beggars suffer from entitlement issues in that they want everything available to them while failing to understand that not game is made for them. Wanna know something? I can't finish Sekiro, the last boss is basically impossible for me as it requires you to be perfect at parrying something the whole game is based around, thing is parrying in games is a weak spot of mine so this final challenge i just can't do but that's ok though i got the game knowing what it would contain and i accept the game wasn't made around my skill level.

End of the day gaming like most hobbies usually involves skill, someone who wants to learn martial arts is not going to face off against a black belt on there first day and they aren't going to demand an "easy mode" for it, it takes practice and patience to get there. Not every game is going to be tailored made for everyone and like most hobbies some are harder then others but can be overcome if you practice enough. You have 100+ games to play? and that's your problem not From's , you put yourself in that position not them. End of the day Bloodborne isn't for you just like Sekiro really wasn't for me even if i did get far in it (due to guess what? learning and improving).

@GamingFan4Lyf I agree with a lot of this. The punishment in Souls games is really more psychological than anything. Needless deaths in other games feel like you wasted a lot more time because they literally discard all game data since your last save point. Because the clock never stops in From games — you never go load an old save — you don’t erase time spent the way other games do, so I can actually be seen as more generous.

Look I had a major emotional issue yesterday so I’m late to the party.

Look nobody tells you how to enjoy your bedroom games right? That’s personal. Why are video games different?

Playing video games is an incredible personal experience no matter how much people want to act like it’s not. How I opt to enjoy my game is my choice. No one has the right to tell anyone else how they should or shouldn’t play a video game. And if the devs choose to add a mode that clearly isn’t mean for hard core players. Take your own words “not everything is meant for everyone” to heart instead is spitting that out only when it suits your needs.

No one is entitled to enforce their rules on someone else. No matter how you want to justify it.

The only caveat I make is no one should tell a dev how to make a game or what modes to add.

@mousieone Everything you’re saying makes sense on the level of the narrative, but if you dig in (after a hundred plus comments), it’s not that simple. There’s trade-offs here that are not obvious, and dealing in narratives only obfuscates they issues.

It’s ridiculous to think that people who don’t want ‘Easy Mode’ in games also don’t want accessibility issues addressed (which could be difficulty), just like it’s ridiculous (and insulting) to think that people with accessibility issues don’t want a challenging game.

I think we’ve done a pretty good job for a comment section for getting past the placard slogans and canned defenses into some of the nuances of the issue of difficulty and coming up with some interesting takes and suggestions.

Couldn't agree more, the gatekeeping and elitism has always been really lame.

I drop a "git gud" when advice falls on deaf ears. When buttons get mashed, when patterns are ignored, and when people blame controllers, glitches, and game quality for any and all failure. It's the proper response when people want to *be good but refuse to put in the time to "git" there.

Sure, not all games are perfectly balanced for your time/enjoyment...play something else.

@SplooshDmg Thanks I really appreciate it!

It's really interesting to think about it from the other end like that... beating DOOM Eternal is definitely an accomplishment, and even moreso for the all the personal reasons you mentioned. That game chewed me up and spit me out, and you're right that I just didn't have the mental attitude to hang with it. I got incredibly frustrated trying to remember all the buttons, all the weaknesses, cycling the weapons, and managing the ammo. It's was like juggling chainsaws and I couldn't hack it. And yet, I get through these From games like a cold knife through butter because it just jives with my mentality — not because I'm skilled. If you saw me play, at least when the series was new, you'd never understand why I liked it. I demoed Demon's Souls when I used to work at a video game store and could take used stuff home... I honestly spent 30 hours in Boletaria 1-1, not even reaching the Phalanx. I couldn't get enough. I brought everything back and bought a PS3 slim and that copy my next paycheck. I think it was because however hard it was, it always felt fair.

I've also had beating certain games as a kind of confidence builder, in the sense that no matter how frustrated I may get with a task, there is something at the other side of it I can get through to — somehow.

I have a friend, a young lady who got a Switch a few months ago and swears she terrible at games — having grown up with a brother who's pretty hardcore with the hobby. She blasted through Ori, and some other eShop Metroidvania and I'm scratching my head... Ori is not an easy game for me! There's tons of games that I feel stranded on an island of difficulty where nobody else seems to be. I breezed through Hollow Knight because for whatever reason everything just felt like it was exactly where I thought it should it be, like the developer and I were of the same mind. I never got lost, I never got too stuck on a boss battle, and that experience felt unique among fans. On the other hand, I couldn't 100% Yoshi's Wooly World. The logic didn't click and it was a frustrating exercise trying to find everything in the levels.

I guess all this is to say that when we talk about difficulty, it's not a universal concept — and more to my point, it's definitely not something that can just have a slider slapped on it to be adjusted. Sometimes it's something much deeper that we don't understand exactly why something feels challenging in a good way, or easy in a bad way, or fair or unfair or anything like that.

You say you don't have confidence, but I wouldn't be able to tell people BPD... that takes courage. I really like you're approach and attitude about gaming as well. @John117 had a really interesting idea about curating games based on how their difficulty is suited to different kinds of players. I know that color-blind people have great resources, but I think it would be really cool to have a site or resource that tracks difficulty and accessibility across all of the different issues we have, named or not, or at least to start thinking about things in less generic terms so we're not putting ourselves on the 1-10 slider scale along with difficulty options when there's a lot more uniqueness and nuance in both.

@Spiders Or put another way, the challenge is fundamental to Soulsborne because there's actually no real content or reward to playing the game other than to be able to say "I did it" It's like having the high score on the Galaga machine. All you did was waste a lot of rolls of quarters doing the same thing over and over, but in the end, you got your name in lights for a few days until the next power outage in the mall.

@UltimateOtaku91 But getting a platinum on Soulsborne affirms your value as a human being!

Or having no responsibilities and commitments. It's one of those, can't remember which.

@NEStalgia I totally disagree about your Souls take but I might be in the minority. There's plenty of games that are difficult for difficulty's sake, but for me From games are just so absolutely demanding of your attention that it steeps every moment in consequence, which feeds into every other part of the game. You're always making interesting and consequential decisions — more than most games. What I love the most is the exploration — exemplified by the fact that I can to this day tell you how to get to any point in Lordran in vivid detail, and even where many enemies are. It's as real of a place as I've been to. Without the stakes grounding you there, making you pay attention to every step and piece of terrain, it would just be a Zelda map.
Sekiro is my favorite From game and I didn't beat the final boss either time I played through it — if there's nothing left to see or explore, I lose a lot of motivation to finish the game.

I disagree with your take on the arcade too. There's something very special about the arcade gameplay loop that a high score is only a part of. They're traditionally skill-based games, so you're not wasting your time playing them — you're literally getting a better value for your money the better you get.

Every game boils down to doing the same thing over and over. The difference is that in the arcade idiom, the progress is internalized in the player.

@SplooshDmg preach!

@Spiders I actually didn’t mention anything about accessibility.

I simply don’t believe anyone has the right to tell anyone else how they should or should not play a video game. But I can see where this is something that we will have a difference of opinion.

It’s best to leave it there.

Have various accessibility options in your games (easy mode, invincibility, etc...), and let people play it how they want. Gaming is for everyone.

@uptownsoul My point was that the Souls games are easy if you want them to be so why not give them difficulty options, that way anyone can see the credits roll without having to spend an age on a Souls wiki. They can just press play on easy, smash enemies to bits and have fun doing it. I don't see any harm in that.

Games like Ninja Gaiden and DMC are far more difficult than any Souls game (imo) yet Team Ninja and Capcom don't have issue with adding easy modes so players of all skill levels can enjoy their games.

Never understood people who say a game shouldn't have an easy mode. If you don't want to play the game on easy, don't play the game on easy ...

What's the reason for denying people to have fun in a game, the way they want to? You are literally not affected by the experience another player has. You would find it absurd if someone would try to deny you a hard and very hard mode.

Leaves only one explanation: "I don't want others to finish the game under different (easier) rules than I had, because it makes me feel less elitist.", which would be petty, to be perfectly frank.

@Spiders It's interesting that you mention Bayonetta as that game has an automatic setting that basically plays the game for you. It also has items that make you 100% invincible regardless of the difficulty you play on. Do those things lessen the game for you?

To my mind, Team Little Angels/Platinum Games made a game that completely realised their vision while not excluding anyone from playing their game and seeing the credits run. More games should be like this.

@Shigurui I think Bayonetta does a very good job for the most part with it's difficulty, particularly because it is designed to be played multiple times and it grades you per encounter and Easy Mode, items, etc. are not "free".

It not only manages to have those accessible modes, but is completely transparent about how it wants to be played... "git gud", or get Enzo trophies.

It doesn't lessen the game for me at all.... I'm pretty sure I used Bayonetta as an example of a difficulty mode toggle done right. I agree with you about Bayonetta but to say "more games should be like this"... like it how? I think it works for Bayo, and most Platinum games because they are so highly replayable and have that arcade/skill-based DNA in their design. A good counter-example is Nier: Automata which is long and has multiple endings (not very replayable) plus a clever (and easily breakable) system to mitigate difficulty with the chips... what the point of a multiple difficulty toggle here? It's hard to say what is Platinum legacy design and what is Taro trolling players, but I think it's a good counter-example for why difficulty and challenge should be addressed per game thoughtfully, not as a standardized presentation games need to force themselves to follow.

My only issue with the difficultly presentation overall are the items you mentioned... if you're playing to improve and get the best scores, they're beyond useless and the whole item system just seems poorly implemented and at odds with game besides having "shinys" to pick up.

Bayonetta is one of many games where a significant portion the "cash value" punishment for failure is the long loading screen. It's going to be interesting (as Demon's Souls PS5 players can probably attest to) if and how developers account for this going forward, and how we look at "punishing" games from the past when we can play them on devices where the loading screen is essentially disappeared from the loop.
Without the loading screens, Bayonetta is practically Celeste and items seem even more pointless.

@mousieone "I simply don’t believe anyone has the right to tell anyone else how they should or should not play a video game."

I think the developer does.

@Zochmenos That's an interesting part of the meme that's not be addressed well by these "think pieces" ( though I think we cut through on here alright considering it's a comment section ).

The meme exists in other places: "play better tennis", "don't get hit" in Smash Bros., etc. It really is a cheeky reaction to the request for a shortcut that also contains this kind of Socratic wisdom of being purposely frustrated into asking better questions.

@lokozar There’s plenty of reasons to be against an easy mode without it being "...because it makes me feel less [elite]”.

1) “Easy mode“ is one of many solutions to difficulty problems, and in many cases the worst choice.

2) “Easy mode” is no guarantee of fun. If it’s fun to win, but not fun to play, we should ask ourselves why that is on a case by case basis. I think there’s something to be said for “bad game, good entertainment” (Witcher 3) and ”good game, bad entertainment” (Dark Souls) categories in video games.

3) Integrity of developer vision. Certain games have difficulty that is integral to other elements of it’s design. Zelda BOTW’s weapon degradation is a good example of a frustrating system on it’s surface that holds so many other reward systems up on examination. From Software games are entirely underpinned by their difficulty. Every system and mechanic falls apart without it.

4) “Easy mode” is patronizing, especially for those with outside-of-game challenges that should be addressed by accessibility issues (which can be difficulty-related, but also can be possibly solved by less brute force methods).

5) Is the price of a game for a ticket or a tour? I don’t think video games are like other entertainment media in the sense that you are entitled to all the “content” just by having paid the price for it. That’s literally the “game” part. I think it’s up to the developer to decide that and balance their game a round it.

6). It’s ok to leave people behind. Not everything is for everyone. I believe that it is because not every game is made for everyone that the hobby can be so broad. Gaming is for everyone, games don’t have to be.

Consider television. When there were 3 networks over antenna with no “gatekeeping”, content was pretty poor. It made people more similar rather than appealed to more people broadly. No that there are multiple distributions such as cable, streaming, etc. we’ve had multiple “Golden Ages” of content. Nobody would argue that The Sopranos should be made accessible to everyone, yet that show paved the way for better storytelling for everyone across all demographics and entry points in the medium — every “watcher” of television reaped a benefit.

@Spiders I think we give too much respect to these premises in general. Humans hate failure, and when we fail, we tend to look outward first. It isn't "me" or course, it's anonymous "elitists" making me miss out because they're keeping their secrets to themselves, or the fault of developers who have been compelled by success to produce additional challenging content.

You guys have touched on a bunch of the other relevant points. I don't think I have much to add to them but, even if taken at face value, I don't feel there is much beyond typical human FOMO fueling the argument for universal difficulty settings. Let the creators create. Play what you enjoy and stop playing what doesn't compel you.

@Spiders Like I said you and I are not going to see eye to eye this. I fundamentally disagree with almost all of your points. You can try and twist what I said as much as you want, but I am 100% firm on my stance that if there is an easy mode people should be allowed to use it and it doesn’t effect me and how I play.

Also, I have perfect good. valid, reasons for this; however, I don’t think anything I say will change your opinion either. Which is why I didn’t try to engage you; what’s the point. I was content to let you live in your sphere. Apparently, you feel different. Cool but I’m not in the mood to let tigress out. She’s enjoying her day off.

But just know if some cosmic entity threw us together on an island I would take personal pleasure telling you what to do at all times including how to properly eat, watch movies, read etc.

Have a good day.

@mousieone "Which is why I didn’t try to engage you; what’s the point."

Well, why not? I've disagreed with both @SplooshDmg and @Widey85, and through conversation I saw their point of view and they changed my mind about some things, and I hope I might have shown them a different perspective too. If you have "good, valid reasons", I'd love to hear them! I am very confident in my positions, but I'm not 100% firm on my stance about anything.

I love the sphere analogy, and my feeling is the best thing we can do is let our tigers and tigresses out, if only to pop those bubbles! I think you're selecting the 'Easy Mode' of conversation, where we let the internet-at-large pre-digest all the arguments for us, and all the assumptions about the people who have the ideas we don't agree with, and we dismiss them.

I'd love to hear your points, and why you think I'm fundamentally wrong... I think the fundamentals are the best part of my argument;) Worst case scenario, we agree to disagree (which I currently do not agree to) and maybe sharpen our own points, and best case, we kick some ideas around, hopefully learn about about a different perspective, and abate any cosmic entities tempted to throw us on an island.

@Zochmenos Absolutely, and well said. After talking with some cool people on here, I do think there is a case to be made for busting open some part of the "gate" in terms of accessibility — I think we should all be able to get to some kind of similar starting line — but I totally agree with your perspective that there are some that are trying to sneak through that opening for reasons that should not be given too much water by the industry.

@Spiders

1 - Please elaborate.
2 - Why do you think you could decide that for other people?
3 - If developers add several difficulty levels, that is part of their vision for the game. Otherwise they wouldn’t. There is also no real reason to not make that a part of your vision.
4 - Demanding to play a game at a certain difficulty level is paternizing.
5 - That’s for the individual player to decide. The alternative could be a game, that isn’t being played. Which somehow defeats the purpose.
6 - Difficulty levels do not equal genres, art styles and the like.

Again: If you don’t want to play easy mode, you don’t have to. You’re not affected by the choice of others.

@lokozar
"1 - Please elaborate."

If we’re looking at difficulty as a problem — which could be from a design perspective or an accessibility perspective —A user selected difficulty mode is only one option. Why is it the poorest solution? It’s opaque — it’s not always clear what is different, and more often than not is is something lazy like changing the damage taken and received. As @SplooshDmg pointed out, often the problem with difficulty is the game doing a poor job of teaching the player, and this kind of ‘Easy Mode’ does nothing to teach the player the rules or ways to engage the game properly.
A great counter-example is Mario… really all Nintendo games. I don’t think anyone is going to argue that Nintendo had made some of — if not the most — accessible games for decades. I don’t think any of them have ever had an option to select difficulty, but rather through organic design and accessibility options provide multiple paths through their games, save Mario Kart 8 which has genre appropriate “courses”.

"2 - Why do you think you could decide that for other people?"

I don’t. I think developers can decide their audience, thus decide for their audience.

"3 - If developers add several difficulty levels, that is part of their vision for the game. Otherwise they wouldn’t. There is also no real reason to not make that a part of your vision."

There’s no reason to think that’s true. For some games, sure. But plenty of others, too many, are made by committee — there’s little “vision” that can trump profitability.

"4 - Demanding to play a game at a certain difficulty level is paternizing."

It’s literally the opposite of patronizing.

"5 - That’s for the individual player to decide. The alternative could be a game, that isn’t being played. Which somehow defeats the purpose."

Why? Why should the player be able to decide here? You don’t get to choose your level of participation and entitlement to content with any other media. You're attitude goes beyond media or even entertainment — you're treating gaming like it's dining.

"6 - Difficulty levels do not equal genres, art styles and the like."

I don’t know what you mean by this. If you're saying you can't define your genre or style by difficulty, don't tell From Software or the plethora of rogue-likes.

"Again: If you don’t want to play easy mode, you don’t have to. You’re not affected by the choice of others."

This simply isn’t true. Even just having to ignore something isn’t cost-free — ask someone on a diet to just ignore the dessert that doesn't affect them if they don't eat it — but to say that having designers forced to do anything to please any group of gamers doesn't affect everyone is myopic and naïve. This is an empty, false statement designed to guilt people who disagree.

@Spiders
1) I believe, that you are trying to distract with this point. The question whether an easy mode is done well or not, does not affect the question whether an easy mode should be there. One could as well say, "It should be there AND should be done well." Furthermore, accessibility does not say anything about difficulty. These are completely different topics. Mario is still difficult (at least in later stages) despite being very accessible.

2) Why would developers, who generate income with what they create, deliberatelly exclude a big portion of potential customers? You don't really have to answer that, because I already know a variety of abitrary arguments you could come up with. The truth however is, that some developers and publishers just have the same elitist mind-set as some gamers. After all, most of them very likely are gamers themselves.

3) So everyone benefits? Sounds nice to me.

4) By saying, "You have to do it this exact way. If you don't want to, there is the door.", you take away options, choices for players and exclude some of them. If that is not patronizing, what is? Saying: "Here, you have several options. Which would you like?" That is patronizing? ... C'mon ...

5) Well, we're talking about games, right? Not about movies, series, books, music ... We're talking about games. One of the very core principles of games is interaction, in contrast to just consumption. I don't see how having options is a bad thing in games.

6) You cannot. You define a genre by its gameplay mechanics. Otherwise you could just as well call Super Mario a rogue-like. Both, it and Hades are hard (at least later on) and have no difficulty setting. But there is something more that seperates those two games, right?

Last point: So, what you're trying to tell me, is that, as soon as there is an easy mode, players like you would be tempted to use it? And that is a bad thing?

Okay, first off, that is actually your psychological problem. It's not valid when it comes to answering the question whether there should be difficulty settings in games or not. Why? Because you cannot just take away something from other people, just because you lack willpower. Bear in mind, that these settings do not hold any substantial dangers for you - like losing money and being unable to pay the rent.

Secondly, if you want to use the easy mode, use it. If you don't want to use it, don't use it. What exactly is it, that worries you so much, when presented with the choice? I still believe it's the notion that you cannot show your face to elitists when saying you beat a game on easy settings. Fine, but again, that would be your personal problem. Why should others have to forgo a game because of this? And what keeps you from going up in the difficulty settings, as soon as you beat the easy mode and feel more comfortable?

@lokozar
"1) I believe, that you are trying to distract with this point. The question whether an easy mode is done well or not, does not affect the question whether an easy mode should be there. One could as well say, "It should be there AND should be done well." Furthermore, accessibility does not say anything about difficulty..."

I think it absolutely does! If it’s not done well, why do it? Especially when there are better options. I thought accessibility and difficulty were different topics going into this, but after talking to @Widey85, I think they overlap in significant ways.

"2) Why would developers, that generate income with what they create, deliberatelly exclude a big portion of potential customers? You don't really have to answer that, because I already know a variety of abitrary arguments you could come up with. ..."

There’s a GDC talk called 'Why Dark Souls Is The 'Ikea' Of Games' https://youtu.be/vid5yZRKzs0 that details the business strategy of focusing down on a niche product versus trying to be all things to all people (Dark Souls vs. Resident Evil 6 is the case study, as well as Southwest Airlines vs. American Airlines).

So no, no “arbitrary” arguments here haha.

"3) So everyone benefits? Sounds nice to me. "
The product suffers. I think you’ve got your head in the sand on this point.

@lokozar
"4) By saying, "You have to do it this exact way. If you don't want to, there is the door.", you take away options, choices for players and exclude some of them... "

We have very different ideas of how we want to be treated, so we’re just not going to agree here.

"5) Well, we're talking about games, right? Not about movies, series, books, music ... I don't see how having options is a bad thing in games. "

I think you have an options=good truism stuck in your brain, and I don’t how to un-lodge it without analogies and comparisons to other media.
There was a brilliant article about Japan and the mindset of curation versus options years ago, but I can’t find it for the life of me — it does make me suspect this is really an ingrained cultural idea more than anything objectively true, and if we dig into games, I’m willing to bet this ‘Easy Mode’ discussion is really an imposition of Western philosophy on Eastern design.

If you can’t understand why options like at Subway or Burger King are not better than a curated dining experience and then using your imagination to apply that concept to games, I don’t have the reference or the patience to do it.

"6) You cannot. You define a genre by its gameplay mechanics. Otherwise you could just as well call Super Mario a rogue-like. Both, it and Hades are hard (at least later on) and have no difficulty setting... "

If you’re talking about a top-level Steam category, maybe not, but have you even heard an easy rogue-like? The difficulty is the foundation of the entire game loop. It’s essential. Also, Mario has no features of a rogue-like. If that’s your argument here, I can’t take it seriously.

@lokozar
"Last point: So, what you're trying to tell me, is that, as soon as there is an easy mode, players like you would be tempted to use it? And that is a bad thing? Okay, first off, that is actually your psychological problem... Secondly, if you want to use the easy mode, use it. If you don't want to use it, don't use it. What exactly is it, that worries you so much, when presented with the choice? ... And what keeps you from going up in the difficulty settings, as soon as you beat the easy mode and feel more comfortable? "

I’m trying to tell you — which you’ve acknowledged — that adding an Easy Mode that players don’t have to use does affect them. The temptation, pressure, anxiety or whatever you want to call it is just one example of how your “it doesn’t affect you” statement is false. And after this rant, you still want to invalidate the psychology of some players, then take a righteous position against ‘git gud’? You're not "for everyone", your preferring one psychology over another.

I’ve said in the comments previously that I think user-selected multiple difficulties are really good options for certain games that have a beginner/intermediate/expert loop, like rhythm games, character-action games like Bayonetta, and more. What keeps you from doing that in every game? It’s not appropriate in every game, like an 80 hour RPG or 20-30 hour cinematic adventure. Better to tune a proper difficulty curve and teach players how to play— these kind of games certainly have the time to do it!

I don’t think I’m going to change your mind, but I’m pretty satisfied we’ve laid your argument bare. It’s a lot of weak attempts to say I’m wrong, but nothing substantial to explain why you’re right. "Options are good" and "it doesn't affect you" just isn't going to fly with me, and I don't think it will with anyone who reads us.

@Spiders

1)I think you're still distracting. If there is an easy mode that is not done well, that is a reason to critize the way this easy mode was done. It's not a reason, however, to leave out an easy mode in the first place. After all, if it was left out, you wouldn't know if it would have been done well or not.

2) I knew you would come up with this argument. It's actually part of the abitrary answers I mentioned. Of course you can sell niche-products and form a cult around it (e.g. elitists), if you market it correctly, but you would sell more, by opening the game up to a wider audience - as long as the game is well made. I'm not talking about changing the story or art or controlls or whatever, but about making the game playable for a lot more people. Only a small percentage of elitists would stay away, because they couldn't be bothered to mingle with the "plebs" and hit the "very hard" button.

3) How does the product suffer. You repeat this claim, but don't deliver the "why". Take a game like Dark Souls for example. Give it three difficulty settings - easy, normal, hard. With "normal" being the EXACT experience you have right now, without the options. How does the product suffer? The experience people have now, would still be there - plus two different experiences for people who like it easier and people who like it even more difficult. I would say, the product did not suffer, but became even better.

4) That is a strange and somewhat concerning assessment. But yes, ... I won't shame your kink!

5) That's correct. I really do believe, that options are a very good thing. And I think any culturally induced deviation from that wouldn't hold up against a real side by side or blind test.

6) Yes, there are in fact rogue-likes that are considered to be easy. I thought about listing some here, but that would very likely just lead to a side discussion about whether this and that game can really be considered a rogue-like. I don't want that discussion. Apart from that, you wrote it yourself. "Also, Mario has no features of a rogue-like." Exactly. That's the point. You determine Mario's genre by different things than its difficulty level.

Last: I think, this is a bit far-fetched, not to say constructed. While it might be true that some people feel that way, I think it's not as severe as you make it sound, and I daresay it only relates to a very small percentage of players. I cannot see why this small percentage should have so much weight on game development. It's not an issue they cannot overcome, I'm sure.

You seem to make the erroneous assumption that every gamer is the same, and thus can "git gud". But that is actually not true. There are differences in available play time, in age, in dexterity, in ability, in perception, in comprehension, to name just a few. Not every person is able to grow beyond a certain point. Why would you think, excluding such people from a game is a good thing?

Does the game sell better when you exclude them? Does it get more word-of-mouth? Do you get anything out of it (other than elitism, I mean)? What compelling reason would there be?

"Does the game sell better when you exclude them? Does it get more word-of-mouth? Do you get anything out of it (other than elitism, I mean)? What compelling reason would there be?"

Make some points, or make some arguments with substance. Watch the video I linked or don’t. You’re simply wrong on all of those points.

"Last: I think, this is a bit far-fetched, not to say constructed. While it might be true that some people feel that way, I think it's not as severe as you make it sound, and I daresay it only relates to a very small percentage of players. I cannot see why this small percentage should have so much weight on game development. It's not an issue they cannot overcome, I'm sure."

Do you not hear how this is the worst version of the ‘git gud’ argument pointed at a different psychology? "It's not an issue they cannot overcome, I'm sure." We're done.