Sigh this shit again, if it’s the creators decision to have a game with finely tuned hard difficulty, so be it, that’s the creators creative decision and it should be respected
“death of the author” suggests some of the author’s intent is lost when a work is consumed by the audience.
To a degree I guess as the audiences own experiences will determine there own interpretation of the work, but in this situation I don’t think someone’s own experiences is going to impact too much the fact that silksong is hard as nails at points
Then it’s not the developer’s fault anymore that the game is hard.
It exists by itself.
I can accept stupid decisions. I don’t have to respect them.
Respect is a weird word. It seems to have 2 nearly opposite meanings (kind of like literally):
- Deep admiration for someone or something for their abilities, qualities, or achievements
- Due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others
So the first one implies that respect must be earned. The second implies that everyone must be respected by default (their due regard), thus respect is unearned.
I’ve always heard:
Respect is given, not earned.
Trust is earned and easy to lose.
Don’t confuse politeness with respect.
No you don’t, so you can either mod the game or not play the game right?
There are mods and cheats for this game already—and they even run on Linux. I turn 50 next month: though I’m still playing, I don’t have as much time for gaming as I used to and my reflexes aren’t what they were. I haven’t entirely removed the challenge with mods, but I feel no shame in tweaking this game to go easier on me and chew up less of my time as punishment for failure. I wish they had these as accessibility options built-in, but I’m fine with hacking it.
Anybody telling me I should “git gud” can pound sand: I’m already good at a bunch of things that get me a paycheck. I play games so I can relax and be terrible at something for fun. I’m certainly not playing for bragging rights.
I think this game is not for you then.Harfd games are hard so that you can feelproufd of yourself after completing something hardet than you though you could. You may not complete the story but if you “git gud” you may actually enjoy it more.
Some games are not meant to be relaxing. Why would you even play a hard game if you want something easy?
I’m very provoced by this. Sorry.
Runbacks are a lame attempt at artificially increasing difficulty. I’ll happily die on that hill. I love difficult games, but there is a fine line between frustration and difficult.
Elden Ring (at least all the bits I played through) and Sekiro absolutely nailed it. None of the run backs were particularly egregious, and it let me really focus on experimenting and learning to feel out the difficult fights. Celeste is another good example. I have dropped hours on some of the later levels trying to master them, but never once got frustrated.
Hollow Knight I never finished because I got stuck on a boss and the runback was just way too long and annoying. I loved everything else about the game and want to finish it eventually.
Edit: I think they have their place as “mods” that you could enable to increase difficulty, and i’d actually probably enjoy it that way. Just designing the game around them is where i draw the line.
Unpopular opinion but I like boss runbacks.
To me it feels like “if you don’t survive the journey, you’re too weak for the boss itself” it brings me down and makes me calmer until I reach the boss.
I like them because it forces you to try to salvage a fight instead of just conceding after a bad start. The time spent getting to the boss is investment you don’t want to waste.
I think this is really just an issue of the tools and abilities not being inherently linked to the related bosses.
FYI quickhop attacking is faster than ground combos and you can weave in the trio dagger throws when you are dodging away from close attacks. Also your attack will negate enemy attacks weapon hitbox(but you still have to dodge bodily contact). The poison tool upgrade is overbalanced and makes a lot of fights a joke.
This is a really good point.
I’ve also found myself messing up the run back but committing to the fight anyway with a few masks down. You can either heal back up by breaking the cocoon, or practice starting the fight low and keep the silk for later (one of the best changes from the first game IMO is making the cocoon an asset in contrast to the ghost that would harass you).
Another aspect is the run back itself. When you struggle a lot with a boss (as I often do), you will have to do the run back so many times that you passively start getting better at traversing the map. And even if the specific combos you used on the boss itself don’t necessarily translate to other bosses, the movement skills likely will keep being useful.
I like them because I will think what I did wrong, not just going to do that wrong thing again until I get lucky with my wrong strategy.
To be fair, From has like many games to learn from that while Cherry only has HK. I’ll never forget the sheer pain of the Frigid Outskirts from Dark Souls 2.
At least that’s an optional area. Now, the run back from pre-SotFS No Man’s Wharf? That was a pain.
The run to Blue Smelter nearly gave me a coronary.
Although DS2 gave us a reprieve with despawning enemies eventually, making runbacks feel rather poignant when you’re walking an empty world.
Yeah, I remember a few sad runbacks with populations looking pretty sparse…
I hate that I only completed Frigid Outskirts because all the horses respawned. The bosses were absolute rock there too.
If you’re not able to commit to learning new strategies and using game mechanics to adapt to a game’s difficulty, and experience it as the developers intended, maybe it’s not for you. You can always watch a lore video or let’s play by other gamers to get the story if that’s the goal. This is Dark Souls 2 all over again, and I will personally say as someone who initially hated it, then gave it another chance; When you persist and triumph through grit, the game leaves a lasting impression and sense of accomplishment that you cheat yourself out of with a difficulty slider. That’s my favorite game in the series now, which is a deeply unpopular opinion, unsurprisingly.
This debate pops up every now and then and my opinion remains the same, there are plenty of games that aren’t meant to be a challenge to choose from. Part of games that are built to be a challenge is being able to reflect on how far you grew in the process, and people hate to hear it but ‘git gud’ is a real thing for those who believe things worth doing are hard.
Yeah I think as long as the devs are forward about it no problem. I have plenty of ‘hard things’ in my day to day life and I’m not looking for more of that in a videogame. Give me a Stardew or Factorio everytime - I want to relax and design things. Different games are for different people and that’s a good thing. Any game made to satisfy everyone will almost certainly satisfy no one.
Absolutely, it’s important to know what you like and want. Hell, lots of people work off vibes and go through phases where certain game types stimulate them, then fall off of those. Like MMOs and online FPS used to be my main thing, now I stick to single player story driven games. I’m not about to go loudly pout about how Stellaris doesn’t work for me and should be changed to appeal specifically to my wants, too busy with other games (and life).
Don’t like it, don’t buy it. I’m happy for team cherry and their success. It’s not for me but I don’t resent them that it isn’t. This nothing burger discussion is yet another herring designed to drive clicks and traffic off of the work of people who ACTUALLY create something of worth. Modern parasitism at its best.
Very well said
My biggest complaint is the sheer lack of rewards when I finish a fight. Give me any currency.
I have spent so much of this game broke, unable to buy the things I need to advance any side plots.
I’m currently stuck on the fight for the Music in the top left of the citadel. The double boss at the end is brutal. But because no enemy in that fight drops monster parts, I have to quit to grinding it to go grind more materials to build equipment, despite having slain 20+ enemies each run.
I personally think Outer Wilds should give you the whole lore as an audiobook, not everyone wants to go hunting for clues and reading a bunch of old conversations between dead people in order to figure out what’s going on…
as an outer wilds fanatic, i think that would be a great option!
I’m about 10 hours into silksong and it’s amazing, don’t get me wrong. But the majority of the boss fights seem… cheap?
Like, their difficulty doesn’t come from their various attacks, or their environment. Instead, it usually comes from the fact that they do double damage, or the fact that they spam the same two attacks over and over way too quickly, or the fact that they can do the same add summon three times in a row and make what was a controllable situation practically impossible
Now, I’ve 112% the OG hollow knight and beaten true radiance, so I’m not against difficult boss fights. In fact I relish the feeling of learning their moves and patterns after every single death
But when the moves are “ram into wall. Then ram into wall again” it becomes incredibly annoying
Some of the boss fights felt amazing once you start learning their attack patterns, but then others were just… lacking. The savage fly one comes to mind. It wasn’t particularly a difficult boss itself. But when it summoned ads, it became a fight around rng. It wasn’t a fun fight at all. Felt like the devs realised it was too easy and chucked in ads then left it there.
Separately, why on earth the boss doesn’t receive damage for slamming down on the spiky enemy when its spikes are deployed… Missed opportunity!
The Beastfly in the Chapel isn’t too bad, since you can leverage its slam to take out any ads, however there is another arena where you fight it again and it spawns flying ads who shoot projectiles which deal double damage AND the boss breaks the platforms you’re standing on.
Feels like bullshit fighting against it.
I disagree about the fly that they just wanted to make you die more.
The boss itself is super easy, it has two attacks which are not only easily dodged but also leave a lot of opportunities to attack and move around.
So in essence the boss is a bag with silk to heal or use magic attacks while the real problem you face is using those resources to control the minions it summons.
So yeah if you go with the strategy to kill the boss fast you will suffer but if you act as a hunter to control the fight you will win.
Just my take on this boss after 100+ tries, and do consider it a good and interesting boss fight.
Or you can just rely on luck and brute force.
I mean personally I don’t have any issues with an easy mode in games, casual play is nice when you come back home from work half dead. Silksong is advertised as a soulslike though. Feels a little counterintuitive to take away the aspects that define a soulslike, even if it makes the game accessible to a wider audience.
For me though, a lot of Souls games are about opening shortcuts and then running past anything left to get another go at the bosses.
You can’t reliably do that in 2 though with the sheer amount of ganking enemies.
Yeah, I wasn’t fond of 2. Although you could just kill them 12 times and never have them respawn. Quite tedious, especially in the DLC.
In my opinion, the game is not particularly difficult. That is, if you’ve played through the original Hollow Knight. Which most people haven’t. In fact, it looks to me like a lot of people jumping on the hype don’t have too much experience with metroidvanias and soulslikes.
It’s a sequel, so intended to be played after the original. Why do we care what people who haven’t played the first game think?
It’s difficult for me and I like it. I played Hollow Knight but didn’t finish it because it was too frustrating late game. Silksong to me is not frustrating because difficulty is mainly in figuring out how to pass the challenge, not doing reflexes which I don’t have. Most of the things I heard people complain about are solved by not rushing around with failing strategy but by thinking what the game recently suggested you to do for this particular encounter.
I actually think bringing in Hollow Knight experience aka “I already know everything” might be the reason why some people are frustrated. Like I heard a person who claimed to get all the achievements in HK complain that the second phase of one boss is terrible because they spent a hundred tries to dodge all the projectiles while you can just stand at the corner of the arena where non of them will hit you and use the tools this game gives you to win the fight.
I think this discussion has more merit when framing this from an ableism viewpoint. Games having accessibility sliders to either slow down puzzles or enemies helps players who have a disability.
A game that comes to mind is Crosscode! You had options that could change the speed and damage for various things in the game. Was nice because sometimes I’d change the settings when I had been stuck and frustrated on a puzzle which made the game far more enjoyable.
skill issue
The main goal of a game is to be fun, not to be a bragging right; even more in a single player game.
If someone, for any reason, prefers a more casual experience, let them have it. On the other hand, if you prefer to brag, go for it and cramp up the difficulty.
There us no point of gating a single player game. Single player games should be accessible for all.
Fun is not the same for everyone.
Some people like visual novels. Others prefer games with frame perfect precision that push the player’s reaction, attention and concentration.
Nothing could be for everyone and that’s fine. Something not being for you does not make it a bad design.
A single player game shouldn’t be accessible to all. It should be accessible to everyone the creator intends it to be accessible to.
Devaluing and demanding an artist or team of artists compromise their vision and intent is flat out a shit take. You have to be a massive self centered asshole to think it’s even remotely acceptable.
Nintendo expects Mario games to be played by everyone, thus it’s reasonable to expect accessibility features and difficulty controls. To allow for the widest range of players.
A Mario game with out either implicit or explicit difficulty controls would be a fair thing to criticize when Nintendo’s clearly stated goal is to reach the boardest audiences and be a game for the whole family.
But a game made by say kojima IS NOT trying to reach the boardest audience. Thus, expecting any amount of control over the experience is just being an asshole on the part of the player. The game is designed for himself first and foremost. He’s making something he wants to make. Tell a story he wants to tell. If the player enjoys it then all the better.
Games are after all first and foremost art. Art can be a product or can be a passion. A product even if art is reasonable to expect it to be made for the consumer first and cater to them But never should any reasonable person. Assume a passion should bend the knee.
The main goal of a game is to be whatever the creators and/or you want it to be. Frustrating difficulty can still be fun, just like feeling scared in a horror game is fun. It simply has to be done right.
Keep in mind it’s already very hard to make a good, balanced game. Adding difficulty sliders increases that exponentially. Even if you add a few presets - that’s still a lot more work, which indie studios may not have resources for.
There doesn’t need to be sliders or options menu settings. Elden Ring handles difficulty settings beautifully: upgrading your flask is optional and increases both the frequency and amount of healing that can be received. Using summons is optional and can make some fights an absolute cakewalk. Same with all the different crafting items. If you want, almost every dungeon in the game can be skipped or revisited if it’s too hard.
All Team Cherry had to do was change the timing or location for access to certain tools in the game.
To be fair while Elden Ring is the most popular From game it’s also by many accounts a downgrade from their previous titles. It’s fun but not nearly Bloodborne, not Dark Souls with it’s ups and downs but establishing the genre, not even Sekiro which is weird for the series but still doesn’t have any game to compare where it shines. Personally if I had to choose between three Elden like games and one Bloodborne, I wouldn’t even think.
I used Elden Ring as an example, but all of Fromsoft’s Souls games have had similar ways of adjusting difficulty. Bloodborne still had summons, still had tons of optional areas and alternate paths, and even had the cum dungeon if you want to cheese it on levels and skip the grind.
And it’s not like From is the only company doing difficulty this way. Most Mario games are pretty straightforward for casual players, but advanced players who master the controls can often find secret levels or alternate collectibles. It’s an added, optional challenge a player self-imposes to make the game harder. Or Celeste and the optional strawberries and post-game levels.
Many FromSoft games don’t strike that balance right. The ones I’ve tried, even the ones I successfully beat, gave me a groan of “Fucking FINALLY, now what mediocre reward and fresh hell do I get for that!? In fact, why am I playing this…?”
Another example, Stellar Blade. I enjoyed the difficulty, and got pretty good at the parries against bosses; but usually only hit about 60% of them. That wasn’t good enough for the very final boss, which takes off about half your health for each one you miss. Only for that fight, I ended up turning down the difficulty - and it was still tough! And, I still felt rewarded at the end.
One final example, Another Crab’s Treasure. It has some hard fights, and many difficulty options. I’m glad those were there…but I also just never used them. Also, it now has a NG+ that gets even harder.
For myself? Definitely! But someone shouldn’t be prevented from playing a game because of a disability. Just like how Frostbite engine games have great accessibility options for colour blindness.
Disability, accessibility and gameplay accessibility are two different things and should be treated as such. There is also a very hard line between what is possible to help someone with a disability. Enjoy a medium that requires certain minimal physical traits.
The color blindness deafness rebindable controls as many things that can help the disabled and these should be expected whenever possible. Hell a lot of these are built directly into your operating system and don’t require any effort from a game developer. They just need to make sure not to get in the way of already existing tools.
But gameplay accessibility is an entirely different beast and even very minimal. Gameplay accessibility can create an entirely new gameplay experience to the point where it’s not the same game. If the developer wants to add those, it should be up to the developer and what they’re targeting, both as an audience and as an artist.
We should always demand disability accessibility. We should never demand gameplay accessibility.
Colorblind accessibility is easy to implement and pretty much everybody can do it after reading a wikipedia article on colorblindness.
On the other hand, balancing a game for several difficulties is not easy and takes a lot of time. Plus, it doesn’t always make sense. Part of the game is the struggle. If you’re skipping the struggle, then you’re missing a part of the game.
Tbh it’s a reflex and dexterity game, among other things, so it is not for everyone. In the same way a game that requires memorising melodies is not for me, since I suck hard at it.
I suppose there could be a mod that simply doesn’t let you die and you can explore the whole world. There is no other way to make a platforming section easier, unless you add more anchor points etc., which requires actually changing the world (essentially, you remove the platforming section), so those could still be a problem.
Celeste is a game about reflexes and dexterity. They implemented tons of accessibility features, including ways to make platforming easier.
And the game is fundamentally not the same with some of those accessibility features enabled. Good on the devs for targeting a wider audience but fundamentally they have different game play experiences.
Not every designer wants to have multiple experiences in their game. That should be entirely up to the designer and demanding them add entirely new experiences is unreasonable.
Color blindness support, rebindable controls, subtitles, on screen audio visual cues. There’s plenty of things that can help the disabled that don’t change fundamental aspects of the game. If a developer adds these but doesn’t want to compromise the intended gameplay as they see it then they shouldn’t have to.
End of the day. It’s art that is being sold to be consumed. If you don’t like the art, then it’s not for you.
I have never heard of the game, i guess you are referring to https://celeste.ink/wiki/Assist_Mode?
I can see they have lots of options! However the platforming seems to be slightly different? In case of HK I suppose that invincibility-like mode is what I suggested brought to the extreme (I.e. you can just walk over spikes etc). Maybe the other thing that could work is slowing the game down so that timing is easier to get.
I think it’s an interesting discussion accessibility from this point of view. I think everyone draws the line at some point, between accessibility and simply making a game with some principles that represent the soul of the game.
A high difficulty is not inherently good game design. Making a game more approachable through lower difficulty settings with additional checkpoints doesn’t make it worse for people who like a challenge. It just makes it enjoyable to more people.
Claiming it’s down to “artistic vision” just feels dishonest. You could claim Studio Ghibli movies should never be dubbed or subbed. You just have to learn Japanese to enjoy them, just don’t watch them if that’s not for you… but why? How is it a bad thing if more people can enjoy something?
Cup Head is a great example. It’s a fantastic game with an art style that younger kids love. But it’s too difficult for most kids, which doesn’t make the game better, it just locks them out from a game they’d otherwise love.
Is it not fair for the game developers’ artistic vision to not be accessible to all? Accessibility is nice, expands the potential audience, but if it compromises my artistic vision and I’m ok with giving up reach and money to preserve it, that doesn’t make my game bad or my vision invalid.
It would be ridiculous to call up the bar or the ama and complain to them that becoming a lawyer or a doctor is not accessible to all.
One last addition, adding control remapping, color options, and text to speech are true accessibility. Easy mode is fake accessibility
Easy mode is not fake accessibility. Celeste has the correct idea in allowing players adjust the difficulty for accessibility purposes. Not everyone has the same reaction speed, same cognitive abilities, same eyesight. There are people who can only use one hand and that automatically makes reacting to attacks many times harder, should they be excluded from being able to enjoy the game because they are not physically capable enough for the boss fights? And boss fights are probably 5% of the game anyway!
That’s an interesting take. You think game developers should not make games that require hands, vision, hearing, etc to enjoy them?
No, I think if something can be done to allow more people to enjoy the game, then it should not be considered a bad thing to do it. You can not make it accessible to everyone in the world, but if there are time and resources to add accessibility, it should not be neglected.
And I don’t agree with the use of artistic intent as an excuse to not include specific accessibility options: take closed captions for example, they are made to allow deaf and hard of hearing people enjoy the content even when they can’t hear the sound. A lot of media is built on sound being a cornerstone of the experience, and people who will use closed captions will have no notion of it, but does it mean that they should be excluded completely?
Just because people who use the accessibility options will not experience everything in a way the author intended does not mean they should not be experience it at all, and in this day no one really complains about game including captions or colourblind options, but anything that might affect difficulty is, for some reason, out of the question and is only subject to the artist’s vision of it.
Oh I totally agree with you.
I agree with making accessible controllers with special layouts and allowing custom control bindings to accommodate those who are differently abled.
Those can be accommodated without meaningfully altering the game. Changing the gameplay is different however. Not that adding more difficulty options is a bad thing, I don’t mean to disparage anyone by calling it fake accessibility, just that I don’t think it’s the same as other options because it fundamentally changes the experience compared to other options that I considered “real”
Why everything should be for everybody? And why artists should care about your opikion when they are creating what they want to create.
Cup head is great example. Everything in the game is meticiusly hand crafted. The big part why its so popular is the difficulty that forces you to focus on the aninations and sprites. The difficulty also is economical in game as labor intensive as cup head. Because every sprite was hand drawn devs could not just churn unlimited levels and the games lenght came from the difficulty. Making the game easy would ruin the pacing of the game.
Games are art form like any other. There are mainstream movies, plays, songs, paintings and games etc etc etc. that try to reach as large audience as they can. But there is also obscure art pieces that only small group of people can enjoy. And both ways are fine
I find it obnoxious when people bitch about desing choices that devs have consciously made. Its not like they have any obligations to make a game in one way or another.
Studio Ghibli movies should never be dubbed or subbed. You just have to learn Japanese to enjoy them, just don’t watch them if that’s not for you…
I feel this is a false equivalence.
If you wanted to make a movie analogy, I’d say it’s more like a movie having subtle subtext or context which would make it’s message or intent more difficult to comprehend.
Imagine if someone watched The Cabin in the Woods (satire movie about horror movies) and said it was a bad movie because it wasn’t scary.
I think its fair to say that person would have low film literacy at least.
How do we compensate for that? Should movies start offering accessibility features so every viewer can have the ability to know foreshadowing, film cliches, or meta-narrative devices?
I feel like giving viewers an option before a movie to say “i have low media literacy”, which would result in popups during the movie to say “hey, this is a callback to the Hellraiser franchise” would be insulting to the creators.
The film wasn’t made for casual movie viewers, it was made for a specific audience. The creators aren’t obliged to make it more easily digestible.
Edit:
Satire falls apart when it’s spoon fed.
If difficulty is part of the games design, then reducing it is functionally similar to explicitly stating irony to a viewer.
Cabin in the woods was a satire movie??? I like the movie…
I can’t tell if you’re being ironic or not lol.
I’ll write my response as if you’re being sincere;
Cabin in the Woods is one of my all time favourite movies, but the entire premise is built around horror movie tropes.
The “gods” mentioned at the end of the movie are the movie viewers themselves. They “demand blood” (watching a splatter movie for the sake of watching people get killed).
It’s a requirement that “the virgin” be the last one killed, but the death is optional (this is a staple of horror movies; the ‘Final Girl’)
One of the literary devices the movie toys with is the idea that ALL the horror movies we’ve seen are part of the same universe, and the guys in the offices are the ones pulling the strings to entertain us.
The entire movie is one giant nudge-nudge, wink-wink for people who love to get meta with horror movies.
If you enjoyed it regardless, that’s fine, but my point was that it would be a bad product if it tried to accommodate for viewers such as yourself.
No I really did like the movie and yes it was full of stereo types like the chad, the stoner, the girl etc but I never came to think of it as satire or that we are the gods demanding the blood. But it was a good movie, I liked it.
Glad you liked it anyway lol.
Small aside: the characters aren’t stereotypes, they’re archetypes. This is another example of the satire, as well as the gas station attendant from the start (I think he was called the Harbinger?)
Oh yeah arch types it is. Did you know you can buy the cup-bong on the internet lol
But The Cabin In The Woods is exactly what I’m talking about. A product with mass appeal that still caters to a small group of people. Much like Paul Verhovens old movies. You can watch them as dumb action or social criticism.
And movies have several accessibility features. Things like subtitles, which often translate cultural references or jokes that don’t directly translate to viewers from foreign countries. Descriptive audio tracks for visually impaired, directors commentary to learn things behind the scenes. Many services and devices also allow you to even out dynamics and enhance speech.
The problem with games that have a too high difficulty threshold isn’t that you’re missing out on some hidden subtext. It’s that you will never get to see 70% of the game, for absolutely no good reason.
Cuphead is such a good example of this, according to xbox achievement stats 31% never made it past the first part of the game, 72% never got to the end of the game.
Accessibility in film delivers the same work to more people. Accessibility in games can cross the line into creating a different work entirely, because the interaction itself is the art, not just the visuals or sound.
Saying “most players never saw the end of Cuphead” isn’t proof of failure; it’s proof of selectivity. Just like not everyone finishes Infinite Jest, but it doesn’t mean Wallace failed as a writer.
Cuphead was made to invoke arcade game feelings. The gameplay is brutal by design. That’s the point.
It’s like watching Terrifier and throwing up half way through, storming out of the cinema and saying “the acting was good but it was too violent, I wish I could watch a version of the movie without the gore”
But it doesn’t, accessibility in film does not deliver the same work to more people. Films are translated, dubbed and subbed to be approachable. Adding voice acting from talent that were never involved in the original film. It’s all about adapting the film to fit a wider audience.
The fact that gamers think games are somehow different and the “git gud” approach is just pointless elitism. How would Cuphead, Super Meatboy or Silk Song be a worse game if they had an easy game mode where you had more life and/or checkpoints? How does that setting change the experience of someone playing in normal, veteran or hardcore mode?
“How would the game be worse if it had an easy mode?”
Adding an easy mode changes the experience even for hardcore players because:
-
Design intent shifts. Once multiple difficulties exist, developers design around them. Balancing, encounter pacing, even story beats get shaped by the lowest common denominator.
-
Cultural meaning shifts. If a work is known as “brutal but fair,” its identity collapses when an easy bypass exists. (Dark Souls without consequence isn’t Dark Souls; Cuphead without punishment isn’t Cuphead.)
Easy mode doesn’t just let more people in; it makes it a different game. Saying “just don’t play easy” is like saying “why not release a PG-rated Terrifier with no gore? Horror fans can still watch the R version, so what’s the harm?”
The harm is you no longer made Terrifier.
Terrifier is available in several cut versions for specific regions / services. Which is incredibly common for movies in general and have been since the 70s. Which you do to reach a wider audience.
Both Silk Song and Cuphead already have additional difficulties. They’re already balancing difficulties, they’ve just decided to gate keep gamers who are not able to play difficult games.
If Gears Of War and Call Of Duty had hardcore and veteran as the only difficulty setting, it wouldn’t make them more interesting games or make a statement about the horrors of war and the fragility of man. It would just make less people enjoy them, for no good reason.
A high difficulty threshold is bad game design. And it’s exclusive to people who have physical disabilities or limitations, or other reasons to why they can’t play overly difficult games.
And I say that as someone who loves to beat games in the higher difficulty tiers. But as someone who also wants more people to be able to enjoy the games I enjoy and who’s happy game design has improved since the 80s.
“But as someone who also wants more people to be able to enjoy the games I enjoy”
Its really not about you is it? I get where you are coming from but in the end its people who make the games who decite what kind of experience they want to make. Sometimes their visio does not click with everyone and that is allright.
-
(Ill reply to both parts in separate replies)
Subtitles/dubs are translations. They adapt language, not pacing, cinematography, editing, or structure. That’s fundamentally different from altering a game’s difficulty, which changes the mechanics, the thing the art is built from and differentiates it from other mediums.
A better analogy:
-
Subtitles are like adding glasses so more people can see the same painting.
-
Easy mode is like repainting sections of the canvas so it’s “clearer.” You can call both “accessibility,” but one preserves the work, the other mutates it.
Furthermore, language isn’t a good metric by which to compare analogies because games are also translated.
-
Following up on this, I think the studio ghibli is a good example of where community adding accessibility in the form of mods or cheats (or fan subs or dubs in the case of ghibli)
Yes, community mods that add accessibility options are great. But unfortunately they’re generally limited to certain platforms.
Cuphead is a throwback in every sense. Making it easy would just make it a throwaway game that is seen once and never again.
A tale as old as time, the more things change the more they stay the same.
In this thread: people complaining who are apparently bad at game mechanics and can’t or won’t learn to improve.
Just beat Widow second attempt.
The run back has you start on one screen, traverse two screens, and done. I got as high as 12 Mississippi counting during it.
The game screams passion and devs spend seven years making it the way they like it. It is also a dirt cheap.
Critisism is fair and everybody has right for opininion. My opinion is that people who are bitching about the boss runs can shove it up to theirs.
