Topic: Game Difficulty discussion

@kyleforrester87 Confused - didn't they put in an easy difficulty? My argument is that it may not be the best implementation of accessibility options (not to blame the dev) but doesn't mean games shouldn't have them.

@themcnoisy I guess where I struggle is that I don't see why it matters if there are difficulty options that make a game more accessible to more players if the original vision of the developer is still available. Play Sekiro as the developer intended or play it easier. It makes no difference to me because I will pick what works for me. Some people will go down the easier route because of laziness, sure, but it means people who genuinely can't play it at the standard the normal mode requires can. All good, more people buy the game, game industry does well etc.

If it is about bragging rights, then brag that you beat the game on normal or hard or whatever. Award those with trophies or whatever as well. I spent ages getting the platinum on Wolfenstein: The Old Blood on the hardest difficulty which punished me but I liked the game and wanted the plat. Other players could whizz through it on easy. Don't care for me, I completed it on hard and I'm quite proud of the achievment.

I do think you are totally right about having intuitive difficulty though and I think that should be a big feature. If someone does well, get more difficult, if someone struggles tweak it a little bit down. That would be good.

I will agree completely that no developer should bow down on their artistic vision. I consider that the normal mode of any game. I just don't see that if they have the resources options arent available to others.

An example I would cite - my boss at work bought my OG PS4 off me, mainly so he could play TLOU. He was a PC gamer at heart and was most into FPS and strategy games. He found the game tough but loved the story so in the end he dropped the difficulty to easy. He completed the game, loved it, went back and played it again on Normal.

@Rudy_Manchego You suggested that the difficulty options in Celeste were badly integrated based on what Noisy was saying, I assume because it makes the game an absolute cakewalk.

Anywhoo, I don't consider myself a great gamer by any stretch, but I know that with enough practise I will be able to complete any game I put my mind to and the fact is I think everybody else could too unless you are unfortunate enough to have a physical or mental impairment. Games like Dark Souls, Hyper Light Drifter and Celeste are not "hard" - you just have to play them differently and build up some muscle memory. If you don't want to do that then the games just aren't for you. And it's okay to hit a wall and stop playing too. Some of my fondest gaming memories are of games I never completed.

@JJ2 That's where the studio make that the 'normal' mode so that gamers know that is the 'normal', the way the game was intended to be played. However I still think they should have added options to be inclusive for all - an 'easy' and/or easier modes.

By 'definition' Normal would indicate that that was the way it was the way the developers thought their games were meant to be experienced - the 'norm'. If that is equivalent to another games 'hard' or even 'brutal', then so be it. They set the 'normal' up at the point a game is meant to be experienced. It doesn't affect those that 'enjoy' the challenge. They can still play the game on Normal, still get the game the way it was meant to be experienced, its not 'detrimental' in anyway to them if a game has 'easy' mode(s).

What difference does it make to you if Sekiro for example had a few easier modes? You can still play the game as normal, on normal as the developers intended the game to be experienced - hence' normal, but now they have made it accessible for a LOT more people, many of whom may well go on to play it on more difficult modes (on Normal for example) and more inclined to buy more games like this in the future instead of being put off at the first hurdle. Having an easy mode doesn't impact on anyone - it can be a great introduction, a great confidence booster, a great way to 'learn' the game, the mechanics etc before taking on the challenge of Normal. The fact that 'Normal' in a game like Sekiro is much harder than 'Normal' in other games, maybe even equivalent to 'brutal' in some, doesn't affect anyone who wants to play the game on normal, the way the game was intended.

Its all about 'scale' and accessibility for all. Just because some games may have 'easy, normal, hard', a game like Sekiro could have easiest, easier and Normal. Normal in BOTH games are the way the game was meant to be played - hence 'Normal'. Both games have the way the game was intended. Normal in the first example is easier than the 'normal' that Sekiro sets but its still the 'normal' that was the way the game is 'meant' to be experienced. Having 'easy' settings doesn't detract from those that want to play the game as intended, doesn't detract from the developers vision of the game - it just makes the game accessible for anyone - regardless of their 'skill' level.

If their skill level isn't up to the challenge of 'normal' yet, they can play through on easy - I really don't see how that affects those that bought the game to experience it on Normal as the developers wanted their game to be experienced. It benefits the developer and the publisher to have more 'inclusive' modes as that makes it more accessible for more gamers. Those that get through the game on [one of the] Easy modes may be encouraged to play through on 'normal' much in the same way that someone who beats a game on Normal may want to replay it on hard or brutal (or whatever higher difficulty modes are offered). Sekiro (or games of this type) could have a 'hard' mode above Normal that maybe equivalent to 'insane' in other games, Normal could be equivalent to that too but the point is that 'Normal' is the way that the developers intended the game to be experienced but there is NO harm, just more benefits, to adding easier difficulty settings.

Like I said, what difference does it make to you if you want to play the game as intended, at the 'normal' (for this game) difficulty setting? What difference does it make if many more people buy the game because its now much more accessible to them? What difference does it make to you (or the developers) if those people beat the game on an easier setting first even if they don't go on to play it on the normal difficulty setting, experience the game as the developer intended? I am sure its better for the developer to have gamers play through their game, enjoy the world they created etc rather than quit and be moaning about it. If its that 'big a deal' for developers to have their game played through on 'Normal' (even if that Normal is really hard for the majority of gamers), then make that a worthwhile 'trophy/achievement' (Gold for example) where as beating it on the 'easier' modes unlocks lesser trophies/achievements (bronze), make a cut scene or even just a 'text' screen that challenges them to beat the game as intended - maybe even mock those who opted for the 'easy' way like Wolfenstein does with its B.J. Blazkowicz icon with the dummy and baby bonnet for example.

Any of these options are available to a developer to implement that will make their game more accessible and sell more copies whilst also not getting all the backlash from not making it accessible. Those who do want to play the game as it was meant to be, still can - nothing at all has changed for them. Beating the game as it was meant to be experienced is still an option, its the 'normal' way the game was meant to be. If others then want to take an easy option, then what difference does it make to you? To the developer/publisher it makes a positive difference because its more sales, more players enjoying their game at the level they want and they may well go on to play it on Normal afterwards. They may go on to buy sequels and/or similar games by the developers. Those that beat the game as it was intended still get the same 'satisfaction', the same sense of achievement for over coming the hurdles - nothing has 'changed' for them.

Its a win-win situation - the gamers who want the challenge etc still get that experience, the developers/publishers sell a lot more games, grow their fanbase so that any 'future' games have a larger pool to sell to, and, as more people are catered for, there is little/no backlash from people who felt excluded or who spent £50's on a game that has angered and frustrated them.

Not everyone has spent years gaming, played every Souls/borne game to completion - there are newcomers to gaming all the time. Not everyone can or will spend 'hours' and 'hours' trying to clear one boss without getting angry, frustrated and quitting the game for good. I think that all games should cater to these too. If its 'too' difficult, drop the difficulty setting. If that means you have to play through on 'baby' B.J. Blazkowicz type difficulty, so what - at least you got some enjoyment, some value from the game and maybe now you can try 10yr old B.J. Blazkowicz before trying 20yr old B.J. Blazkowicz and then the normal B.J. Blazkowicz which may be equivalent to CoD 'Veteran' difficulty because it was meant to be a very challenging game and the point at which regulars to FromSoftware may start their play-through. The Devs could also have an extra hard, brutally insane difficulty for masochistic gamers too which they simply call 'hard' - a level above what the developers intended the game to be experienced.

Difficulty settings are just a 'scale' and the way a game was intended to be experienced is 'normal'. anything below is catering to those that are new, that just want to have fun and/or want to see the world they created, maybe just want to see the story unfold. Those that play on harder difficulties, those that want that challenge, want the satisfaction of overcoming hurdles - even if it takes a 100+ attempts, they will persevere, they are catered for too. Normal in say CoD could be very different from the 'normal' in Battlefield or Halo because the developers intended the game to be experienced differently. Maybe Battlefield is meant to be 'more' realistic' where 1 bullet puts you out of action as it would in real life where as CoD being more arcade lets you take a few bullets and, if you take cover, a second or two later you are back to full health. These both could be 'Normal' although Battlefield would be much more difficult, much more of a challenge. Veteran on CoD could be equivalent to BF on Normal or 'easiest' in BF could be equivalent to CoD on Normal. Maybe BF's hard is equivalent to Sekiro's Normal but the point is, ALL these games can and should have difficulty settings. Normal in Sekiro, the way the devs intended the game to be experienced can still be just as difficult as it is, maybe a lot more Difficult than GoD of War's hard/est difficulty for example. Its still catering to those gamers that want that challenge, still delivering the game as it was intended to be experienced but also catering to those that may not, that want to hone their skill set through easier encounters, build up to tackling the game without smashing it or a controller. They could equally cater to those that want 'more' of a challenge too, that's not how the devs intended it to be experienced but are catering to those that want more of a challenge.

Normal is the way a dev intends the game to be played, intended the way challenges were meant to be overcome etc. Brutally hard games comparatively, like the Souls games for example would set that difficulty to be normal because that is the 'normal' for that game, the way the devs wanted it to be experienced. I do think though that they should cater to both the players that want an easier play through as well as those that may want even more of a challenge than the devs intended. I see no-harm at all in making games much more inclusive. It doesn't harm the devs or those who want to play it exactly as the devs intended if many more players buy the game and play on easier (or harder) difficulty settings.

I have beaten a lot of games on the hardest difficulty - tougher than the way the devs had intended the game to be experienced. It has never bothered me that others may have beaten the game on 'normal' or even on the easiest level. I have never heard any devs be criticised for putting in easy difficulties and/or harder modes too. I think all games should have multiple difficulty settings to be much more inclusive - that way many more gamers get to play these games and, if they choose, play it the way the devs intended (ie Normal) or with either more or less of a challenge.

I grew up on games that had no difficulty settings - some of which were quite punishing. There were arcade games that were really quite difficult that your '10p' (that was a lot back then - before the 20p came out too) would last less than minute before it was game over and you needed another 10p to play. When you had to spend 20mins loading a game, the really hard games may well be tried once, over and over again because it was 'easier' than turning the game off and waiting another 20mins for a different game to load - whether you ever loaded that 'hard' game up again or not was a different matter - but some games only costed £2-3 for a cassette game. Nowadays, if I can, I generally pick 'hard' modes as they offer more rewards, more XP for example but I am still a firm believer that all games should have a range of difficulty settings to be more inclusive. If devs, like FromSoftware, want players to beat their game as it was intended to be experience, then I see no problem with putting some thing at the end of the game to encourage/challenge them to play on the 'Normal' mode. If the game ends on killing a boss for example, then maybe change that for a lesser boss, end the game just before that encounter. They could say the boss has escaped this time so try again, or say you are not strong/experienced enough to face this boss so gain that by playing through on Normal - there are options to reward those that play on Normal whilst allowing those who opted for easier mode(s) to still play through the bulk/all of the game to gain more experience, to get something out of spending ~£50 on a game.

Its still the studio making the game as they wanted gamers to experience as it's intended but also making it accessible for all. Normal is still there, the studio has still made the game the way they wanted it be experienced but also offering options for other players to experience the game they want - whether that's an easier or even a harder route through. Nothing has changed for the gamers who want to experience it as intended - they can still select the 'normal' difficulty, but, if others are struggling, getting angry and frustrated, they can select one of the lower difficulty settings whilst those who want to persevere, want to play as it was meant to be experienced still can play it that way. Those that were getting angry and frustrated will not turn on the Developers because they can now keep playing at a level they find more suitable to their skill set. At the end, if the devs really want people to play on Normal, can make a different ending that challenges those players to beat it on Normal - its then up to player to decide whether they feel they have a better understand, acquired the experience etc to play the game again on Normal but at least they have had some value from the game instead of getting angry and frustrated at the first (or second) hurdle and taking it out on the developers.

@BAMozzy You're talking about games being more accessible for others, and giving more options, whether that be easier or harder options, but you were dead against raids in Destiny having matchmaking as it, in your opinion, did not work with the design of those challenges. Why did player choice and inclusiveness not factor into your opinion on that topic?

@BAMozzy
Man im really sorry but I dont have time to read your text walls.. Respectfully I hope you understand.
All my point is saying its completely fair for a Studio to want players to experience their game in the way its intended AND given the intent here is precisely they are games designed especially for this purpose (being chalenging). They should not get crap because of it.
Besides all points of views are FAIR, its perfectly normal for customers to give feedback. Unlike some gamers dissing people for saying they d like a third person perspective in CP77 for instance, I find it fair for gamers to let them know what they would like.
However, when its coming from pressure groups pulling the strings, theres something fishy.

@kyleforrester87 Raids require communication and some dedication to completing it as a 'TEAM'. Matchmaking would be fine if it matched players of 'equal' skill, spoke the same language and had a microphone for communication. Random Matchmaking doesn't work for this. Its still all inclusive but players have to make 'some' effort to find a group of people all wanting to participate, work together and communicate. Its not 'stopping' anyone from playing in a raid but, as its an 'end-game' and a co-operative part, then the player needs to get to a certain skill level and be wanting to participate, communicate etc. Unlike Sekiro, this is a co-operative experience and requires teamwork. If players cannot communicate etc, then it ruins the experience for others - it has a direct impact on players.

@JJ2 If you can't be bothered to read a few paragraphs then that is down to you. My point still stands that the devs can add lower difficulty modes and, at the end, encourage gamers to take on the game as they intended it to be experienced. That is very different to fundamentally changing the whole game by adding in a '3rd' person perspective. Tweaking few different health values of the main character and enemies (making you more resilient and enemies a bit easier to kill) doesn't fundamentally change the game - it just makes it a little easier, a little less challenging. As its also a Single Player, it has NO impact on anyone else whether they can or cannot complete the game. It makes it less annoying, less frustrating and more inclusive. The game is still playable in exactly the way devs want you to experience it essentially.

Its like 'football' where some people may only be a 'Sunday League' player but they can still play, still have the same rules and regulations, still fundamentally the same game and up against opponents at a similar level to you. All a difficulty setting needs to do is make the opponents more to your 'skill' level and maybe give you a bit more health to survive a few more hits. Another analogy could be 'boxing' where the player is a 'flyweight' and having to fight light heavy and cruiser weight fighters let alone the heavyweight bosses. A difficulty setting could bulk out the flyweight player to a welter/light weight boxer and bring the enemies down to middle weight with bosses now only Light Heavy weight. The 'easiest' difficulty setting could bulk out the player to Welterweight with the easiest enemy types being at Welter weight too, with the more tougher ones being Super welterweight or light middleweight. The bosses are now Middleweight instead of the 'normal' heavyweight. The rules are still the same, the rings are all still the same - the only difference is that the player is no longer coming up against opponents that knock them straight out whenever they get close. They can take a few more hits, survive a bit longer, use their size to duck and dodge to get a victory but its still a 'tough' game.

As an experienced player, you are going into games like Sekiro as a Light Middleweight, using your acquired skills and experience so the challenge is much less than someone else who has little/no experience. The difficulty settings can be used to bring just as much of a challenge to you as it would to a complete noob. Of course that makes a skilled gamer playing Sekiro on 'easy' less challenging but for a noob, that easy setting can be just as challenging to them as 'normal' is for the skilled player and for the very skilled, masochistic types, a higher difficulty could be like a Flyweight taking on Tony Bellew, Andre Ward etc and if they 'win' against those, the bosses are Anthony Joshua, Tyson Fury, Deontay Wilder etc.

What's challenging to one, may not be as challenging, even easy for another so why not have difficulty settings to adjust for players skill level, to make the game as challenging for everyone. Its not fundamentally changing anything and its not affecting the way the game is designed to be seen, to be played etc. The same rules apply - you are just tweaking the difficulty to match a wider range of players instead of making it for just a 'niche' group...

@BAMozzy but if players want to play with matchmaking why can’t they have the option to do so? You speak about them having to put the effort into finding a raid party themselves, why can’t people put the effort into learning Dark Souls gameplay systems instead of expecting the developers to change their vision to accommodate what is, essentially, a form of laziness?

I agree Destiny should not have matchmaking. The fact is, some experiences are not for all, and it’s better that way.

@kyleforrester87 I see it more as balancing the game to the skill set of the player rather than just making a 'game' that only a handful of players have the skill set to play without offering any way to put the 'effort' in, to learn how to play at a level that's still challenging to them.

As this is a 'single' player game, I see no reason that a range of difficulty levels cannot be incorporated into it. Players can 'git gud' by playing through on 'easier' difficulties and build up the required skill set, the knowledge of the game and its mechanics until they have the 'experience' to tackle it on 'normal'. Its literally like dropping a kid in the ocean and seeing if they sink or can swim to the shore. Some kids may well of been taught to swim years ago and over time built up their strength so that swimming to the shore is still tough, still a challenge. To balance it though, the non-swimmer may be given a float or two to stop them from drowning but its still tough, still a challenge. I used 'boxing' too as an analogy where a noob without any experience or knowledge of a game is like a Flyweight being dropped into a ring against Cruiserweights and Heavy weights. A skilled gamer is like a light heavy weight being dropped in the ring. difficulty settings can be used to balance the game to having a 'similar' effect by dropping the enemies down a few divisions and boosting the player up a few divisions so the challenge is around the same difficulty.

You must agree that not everyone is the same, not everyone has the same skill set, the same experience etc so playing a game like Sekiro is going to a lot less of a challenge to a few whilst extremely challenging for a lot of people. I see no reason why a 'single player' game, that has no impact on anyone else what difficulty setting they play on cannot have easier and even harder difficulty settings to enable more people to get enjoyment, satisfaction etc or more importantly, not get so angry and frustrated over it. If the devs decide that the game at the level it is at, is the difficulty it was intended to be - then call that the 'normal' difficulty. Those that can't handle 'normal' can drop down a level or 2 to build up the skill set, to learn the game instead of getting angry and frustrated. The Devs can use ways to encourage the player to play and beat it on Normal, mock them for taking the easier path(s) - as Wolfenstein does - even change or tweak the ending so the players haven't completed the game as it was meant to be finished but have now seen 90+% of the game and encourage the player to play through on Normal now they have had 'practice', tutorial etc (however they decide to phrase it but essentially its learning the game and building up the experience and skill set required). Its putting in the effort to be good enough to play the game at the 'normal' difficulty by playing the game at a lower level first. Its not laziness on either party because the player is playing and learning, building up the experience etc so that they can get 'good enough' to beat the game on Normal.

Its similar to all those games that expect you to beat the game on a lower difficulty setting to unlock the 'hard/brutal/insane' difficulty setting(s) except in this case, the 'Normal' setting is available at the start and there are settings below that for gaining the experience etc if people need it to be in a position to tackle the 'normal' difficulty. The devs could also put an harder difficulty setting too for those who find Normal to be too easy for them, Normal is nothing more than a warm-up.

There are ways to get people to play the game at a certain difficulty setting - whether that's by trophies/achievements, whether that's by mocking them for taking the 'easy' route, whether that's putting the actual ending behind a locked door (literal or metaphoric) that unlocks when you reach that point on 'Normal' (or above). None of that is 'excluding' players below a certain skill level and its offering every one the chance to play the game, to build up that experience and skill set to take on the challenge of beating the game on 'Normal'.

Like I said, I normally pick 'Hard' or above when given the choice - especially in FPS games as that is something I am more experienced in. I still wouldn't want an FPS game that only has 'hard' or 'very hard' difficulty even though, given the choice, that's the difficulty setting I tend to pick. I would much prefer to see the game more inclusive, a game that can be enjoyed by the majority - even if the majority can only beat the game on 'easy'. It doesn't affect me or my enjoyment as I still get to play at the harder difficulty settings but it is enjoyed by many more, bought by many more and less likely to annoy/frustrate a large group of gamers who perhaps feel they are excluded.

For many, the 'hard' (or normal in the case of games like Sekiro or Dark Souls) is like their 'end-game' activities. They need the lower difficulty settings to build up that experience and familiarity of the game and its mechanics before they can undertake the 'end-game' where as the 'skilled' players can jump straight into that 'end-game'

"I see it more as balancing the game to the skill set of the player rather than just making a 'game' that only a handful of players have the skill set to play without offering any way to put the 'effort' in, to learn how to play at a level that's still challenging to them."

But it's not a handful of players, loads of people are capable of playing Dark Souls and other equally challenging games. Even veterans of the Souls games struggle with Sekiro initially. In fact having muscle memory from those games can be counter-productive in Sekiro, putting them at a disadvantage. The games give you plenty of ways to succeed - in Dark Souls/Bloodborne you can power up your character by fighting lower level enemies to get a stat advantage against a boss. In Sekiro you can train against a specific NPC. In both games you can study enemy animations and tells. I literally get creamed against every boss during my first attempt, regardless of experience. Once you understand the enemies you're up against it's not "hard" anymore, it's just a different approach to victory over something like Uncharted. That's why being defeated is part of the core experience of the game. It's not something you should look at and consider a problem with the game design that needs to be solved.

My point is that yes, they could patch in other difficulty modes that dumb enemies down but if you consider that a core part of the experience is its unconventional approach to victory and defeat it becomes obvious to me that doing so is unnecessary at best. You would almost be playing completely different games.

@BAMozzy
Yea your not getting my point.
It's up to the studio to decide in the end and people are merely requesting (even though not taking into account journalists agenda)
Its probably way more complicated than you think.
It's the same and equally respectable request from people saying they would prefer a third pers view.
People expressing a preference. That's all what it is and up to the dev to do as they wish (knowing most fans don't want them to compromise)

Edit.
I agree with Kyle above. Adding an easy mode to BB would make it a very different game that is not meant to be, therefore probably not a very good experience that may backfire to the devs.
BB already as ways to allow you to find easier progression.

Badam

I think to wrap this up what I am saying is and contrary to popular opinion is thus;

Dynasty Warriors has always bombed with reviewers citing it is too easy. Because they play on Easy.

Ninja Blade bombed with reviewers as they said it was too Easy. As they played on Easy.

One of my favourite games this gen in Yakuza has been accused of being too Easy. Because the reviewers played on Easy.

These Japanese games amongst others should all ditch Easy mode completely as it's unfair on the developers. They are getting scored down at release for games being too Easy when the reviewers are not playing on the default mode of play (this isn't Pushsquare BTW) That then affects overall sales of the games in question.

So to answer everyone who keeps saying that adding an easy mode to future From Games won't affect people's enjoyment - yes it would and already does in other franchises.

With Celeste I am playing until the end on the normal difficulty starting tonight after the footy. What's the point of trying to collect all the strawberries now when I can just easy mode the mopping up after finishing properly which I will have a run at once I am done.

I'm disappointed and strangely has affected my enjoyment. Getting a strawberry on the normal difficulty is rewarding in itself. But I have admitted already with loads of other games vying for my attention super easy mode is too much of a pull. Especially as you are not penalised in any way wherever trophy locks, levels being locked etc etc.

@themcnoisy don’t you dare try and weasel your way out of the silly thread you created

@kyleforrester87 OK I will stay. Only because you have put an obstacle in my way and I have no super easy mode to turn too.

Oh wait there's an ignore button somewhere here right?

What about if developers patched in an easy mode six months or so down the line? This would still be off-putting for some people, but at least they would eventually get to experience the game, rather than never bothering.

To be honest I'm in the camp which believes that From Software games are not all that hard, they just take patience rather than skill, although skill does help. It's very hard to express that opinion without coming across elitist or smarmy. But it's true. There was a point when I thought Demon's Souls wasn't do-able, and wasn't for me at all. I bought it in 2009 and I didn't finish it until 2011. It wasn't until Dark Souls 3 that I was really confident taking on From Software's games.

@themcnoisy yeah but that’d ruin the game

@Gremio108 FS games are basically a long game of Simon.

@kyleforrester87 And I've been struggling with Simon since the late eighties so there you go.

@Gremio108 'What about if developers patched in an easy mode six months or so down the line? This would still be off-putting for some people, but at least they would eventually get to experience the game, rather than never bothering.'

But this is just it. Froms games were never popular when they did have an easy mode no matter how good the game was.

It's only now that the people who don't want to practice feel obliged to play the thing they want an easy mode.

I played far too much Ninja Gaiden on the Xbox. In fact I still have a copy of the game. Tecmo dumbed it down in Ninja Gaiden 2 and further still in 3 and the franchise is dead. What people are asking for is a load of codswallop. We have thousands of easy to play games - try one of them instead.

@themcnoisy
Exactly.
Let's be honest. It's a legitimate request from people somehow interested in DS games. It's not a request from people who love these games. It's fair for people to ask but the way this was blown out of proportion by the press, (or more specifically a certain press making up a sort of outrage) is astonishing.
There are so many games, more than you can possibly go through, which are not meant to be too challenging and people say they don't have time. There s contradiction there.