Sekiro, Difficulty & the Importance of Perspective (Noclip) - Videos for the 97.4%

https://youtu.be/6svs5J1NWc8

I hate this whole debate. Not every game has to appeal to every player and there's nothing wrong with that.

I believe that if a lesser abled person wants to play a game and can't because of circumstances out of their control, then that sucks. I don't see a problem with working to try and make life suck less for disabled people in general, and making games as accessible as possible seems to me like a moral good overall. I don't really see how there could be much of a negative effect, but I could be wrong.

For those that didn't watch the whole 15 min video, his point is kinda this: They know that their games are hard, and they've been trying to change it for years, Miyazaki has said as much in the past. Sekiro is far easier to understand than Bloodborne and Dark Souls. There's no fucking Bone Marrow Ash, there's no Blood Vials, there's none of that obfuscation anymore, all the inventory and uses of items, it's all pretty obvious, and if it's not it's written in plain English right there. The player onboarding has been designed to make it easier than ever to get into the game, they even have a dummy that you can go and fight and practice in the corner of your hub area. So they're aware of these things too. I know firsthand that this helped a bunch of people who had stumbled playing From Software games in the pastactually learn how to play this one. But did this handholding make the world of Sekiro less mysterious than those of say Dark Souls and Bloodborne? I imagine yeah, it probably did. Perhaps that matters to you a lot, but to others being able to play the game matters so much more. We all experience games differently and value things differently, and understanding that is key to understanding why we love games. But more than anything else, I think this is a really fantastic opportunity for most of us to look at the different ways in which people play games, and not to dismiss them right away as people just being bad at games, or being elitist about difficulty, or talking about accessibility "but that doesn't really effect me", this is a really good example where loads of different types of people are enjoying this game, or want to enjoy this game, and they're advocating for something that is important to them about this game, that it is hard, that it is accessible, whatever it is, it's a really good opportunity to just sit back for a second, chill the fuck out, don't react right away, and listen to other people about the ways in which they play games. Because that's what game design is, it's creating games that different people are able to play and are able to experience the game, and enjoy the game, on their own terms.

I'd give this a listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5rPrdUZJR8 You get to say "there's nothing wrong with that" from what I assume is a place of priviledge of not having to live the same life as someone with disabilities. You can add accessibility options to games which have zero impact on the games vision or how you would play the game, but add everything for a disabled gamer (e.g. mouse sensitivity, keybindings, slow mode, colour blindness options, an option to turn damage down/health up, invincibility). There is no reason why games can't be for everyone, it just needs a little bit of consideration.

invincibility Honestly, at that point you may as well just go watch a movie instead.

Games should be for everyone. Not every game should be for everyone.

Maybe thats a setting someone needs to be able to experience the game at all. Who are you to gatekeep your hobby from disabled people. It doesn't affect how you play the game, or how you experience the game in anyway shape or form. But you'll have an opinion and would tell a disabled person to "go watch a movie instead" because they needed to play with invincibility on? For someone gaming might not be about the challenge or difficulty, maybe some people would like to just experience what you can at all. A good read on what a world like WoW can do for someone: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/disability-47064773

Have to be honest. I'm real fucking sick of seeing people using this 'gatekeeping' shit as a trump card for every fucking discussion.

So you would be advocating for not having some toggles on gameplay options, which you can ignore and not use? Why, and how does affect you at all if disabled people ask for this and got exposure from social media platforms for asking for it? How does it in any way change your experience as a person, that you would tell someone "no" for not being able to enjoy the same things as you, even though with some changes they could.

I mean, Celeste showed that putting in an Assist Mode is generally well received with no negative effects, even when using it can completely trivialize the challenge. Some people for some reason or another don't want the (full) challenge of the game and might just want to experience other parts of it. I don't think FromSoft should feel obligated to put in such a mode for their games, but I think it would be a good idea. I think a lot of people who otherwise feel intimidated by the alleged extreme difficulty of these games would want to try it if the game allowed you to turn on invincibility, slow down time, etc., and I think that would be great. Hell, they might even decide they want to try playing without the help and find out that it isn't even as bad as it's been made out to be.

Fun part is that there's videos of a quadriplegic person beating the game, so it's not even that solid of an argument for Sekiro.

Not every disability is equal, there are plenty of people who may not be able to play to that level of gameplay. Is it SO HARD to ask for an assist mode? Even just a time-scale? So people can play the game at 75% speed?

Because having different difficulty options DOES affect things. It's like having fast travel in an open world game. You can say you won't use it but it's always there, it's always an option. That's fine for some games but for others it's detrimental. The same goes for difficulty. It's fine for games to have different options but it's also fine for games to not have them. I can't play easy games like Yoshi's Woolie World or and Kirby game because they bore me to pieces. They're not bad games by any measure but they're completely inaccessible to me. If I started demanding they add hardcore modes to those games people would think I'm nuts. Those games are meant to be casual, care free games and that's exactly what they should be. I can't play The Witness because I straight up don't understand the puzzles in it. It is impenetrable to me and I've tried to play it a few times. That's fine, that's the kind of game Jonathan Blow was trying to make. I can't play Ikaruga because it's too fucking hard and I can't dodge all that shit. But Ikaruga is a great game which won't let you see the real ending if you play on easy, and that's fine. Why then is it not okay to have games which demand the player be good or put in the time learning? Playing for a challenge is just as valid as playing for a relaxing romp, but no game can provide both of those experiences. There should be games where the player can't die and they get to explore a world. There should be games where mistakes are easily rectified and death is a slap on the wrist. Equally there should be games that say "Fuck you, get good." Games should be for everyone. But individual games can't be for everyone, it's not possible. A game can't be Stalker and Kirby at the same time.

As someone with a physical disability I've got to say that without the heavy difficulty I probably wouldn't enjoy these Fromsoft games anywhere near enough, for me it's about facing a daunting challenge and overcoming it that makes the game enjoyable as it is. Sure I probably have a harder time than most completing an already hard game, but that doesn't stop me from trying again and again until I get all the patterns right and can finally overcome whatever the game sends at me. That being said there are bosses/minibosses in this game that are pooly balanced or designed and are ridiculously hard as a result, but the solution to that is tweaking health, damage or AI, not anything as drastic as adding invincibility or slowdown because Fromsoft made some bad design choices.

I can't believe you just compared a disabled person wanting accessibility options, to you asking for "hardcore modes" in Yoshi's Woolie World/Kirby. Once you realise that it's not a difficulty option, but a literal barrier to play for some people, then you'll probably realise what a fucking tone death moronic statement that is. If you lack the self control to not select a half speed option in the game, which exists so everyone can play, that sounds your problem. Holy shit.

Sure, but nobody is entitled to such a mode, as harsh as it may sound. It does cost devtime and extra QA to test these things, after all. Secondly, the game is still going to fundamentally rely on things like dexterity and reaction times, even if you tone it down. I'm all for more accessibility and I love what companies like Microsoft have been doing with the modular controller that has support for tons of addons depending on people's specific needs, but this doesn't change the fact that some games fundamentally work in a certain way that defines the game as a whole. I understand that things like assist modes would alleviate this problem, but that doesn't change the fact that developers have to work around it too. For some developers it seems hard enough to make a barely functioning product as is. The thing that really irks me is the timing of this whole thing though. Why is it only Sekiro that people somehow all decide en masse that needs to be easier? There have been harder games or games with different aspects that aren't feasible for a large audience, but all of a sudden when journalists are posting dozens of articles about not being able to beat a game do I see people making the "but disabled people though!" argument. To me, this often feels disingenuous because it feels more like something they're throwing up as a shield for their standpoint because, honestly, who can disagree with this? Of course you want people who are lesser abled to be able to play games, it's kind of a dick move to disagree with it. It just feels like extremely convenient timing that people are suddenly using disabled people as an argument after seemingly not caring about this issue until the difficulty started showing up for others too.

I never felt that about Assist Mode in Celeste, probably because it wasn't something you could just pop on and off at will, and because it presented itself clearly as the unintended way to play. https://twitter.com/MattThorson/status/1113564439804932096 I don't think FromSoft games should have 'Easy' modes, what would that even entail? All enemies have 50% health? I honestly think that wouldn't really change much, since you still need to be able to dodge and deflect attacks anyway, so some people would complain that it needs a 'Very easy' mode. But a Celeste-style Assist Mode would be perfect. And also, something like being able to slow down time could be enjoyable for others as well, both for practice purposes and for pulling off tricks and combat that would be nearly impossible at normal speed. I don't see any downsides to an Assist Mode.

It's amazing how far we've come. https://youtu.be/3qdRzxmgYWo?t=267

discussions around accessibility have just become more important over the years. it's not some secret trick that game journos discovered to hide that they're bad at sekiro or something

Okay, read the other thread. I've stated that accessibility options are a good thing, I've even linked to the AbleGamers page for how developers can make their games more accessible. One thing they highlight is that they don't want a game to compromise it's intended design, something you're explicitly saying all games should do. Get off your high horse and actually look at what the disabled gamers want. They want to be able to play the same games as everyone else, they don't want all games to be neutered into a grey paste where no one has any challenge and no one has to put effort in. You want to know how you make games accessible to disabled people? Fucking read this. Notice how they talk about making it possible for disabled players to take on the challenges a game offers and not stripping challenge out of games? In some cases, you may not be able to make every experience accessible to everyone. But then again, not every player wants to have the experience you are offering. I'm not the one belittling disabled gamers and saying games need to be fucking dumbed down for them. You think you're being progressive and helpful when all you're doing is treating disabled gamers like they're incompetent children. I'm the gate keeper because I want people to be able to play the types of games they want. Fuck off with your shit. Not every game can be made for every person, nor should they be. AbleGamers understands this, why is it so hard for you to grasp?

Oh I know that and I don't want to imply that this is always the case, but I can't stand the idea of people using lesser abled people's situations as leverage while this was obviously not a consideration for them with some other games that were undoubtably just as inaccessible in the past few years.

As a side note: Can we stop treating all disabled gamers as a single unit, having the same opinions and wants, I'm entirely aware that there are other disabled gamers who have different opinions on this subject than me.

i think they've got something good going there. not stripping away challenge, but offering methods of lessening it a bit. perhaps slowing the game down a bit, or giving you extra revives. they could call it something like Assistance Mode.

Okay here's some tweets by Ablegamers COO https://twitter.com/stevenspohn/status/1115623550365380608?s=19 https://twitter.com/stevenspohn/status/1115371471029899265?s=19 https://twitter.com/stevenspohn/status/1114946711590404097?s=19 https://twitter.com/stevenspohn/status/1114943225431764993?s=19 I am listening to the right sources here. Stop generalising what people want, stop assuming that all disabilities are the same and allow disabled and less abled people to question why accessibility is such a fucking hot topic, when all anyone wants is to be able to play any video games. Not everyone is the same, Janus, and the sooner you realise that the sooner you'll stop looking like a collosal tosspot trying to stop people from enjoying games the way they actual can, not the way they want. https://twitter.com/stevenspohn/status/1114466115642634241?s=19

Yes they can, and it's fine if a game does that. It's also fine if a game doesn't.

I'm like, a nosehair's width away from agreeing with you. I think that the vast majority of games could be for everyone. I just don't think that's true for everything. If a designer feels there shouldn't be a way around a challenge in their game, then that's an entirely valid design choice. That doesn't mean it would be wrong for there to be difficulty modes, it would just be reflective of a different design philosophy. One that's equally valid, but not one that's explicitly better or worse. If a designer feels that players should be able to rebind their controls, then there's no reason their game shouldn't support every available input method. If a designer feels that players should be able to select multiple difficulties, then there's no reason they shouldn't allow players to customize the difficulty of the game to fit their personal circumstances. But if they feel there should be certain restrictions on the player experience which options for accessibility would subvert, I don't think they're obligated to include them. As long as design philosophy is internally consistent, then it's valid, even if it ends up excluding certain people in the process. What's bad is excluding people for no reason.

I never said they were all the same, jackass. Good job putting words in my mouth. I'm saying you can't apply the same options to every game. You can't take Stalker and remove the scary parts for people with heart conditions, you can't take Beat Saber and make it work for people who can't move their arms. Games should do what they can to make it accessible for disabled gamers but you have to accept that they can't make every game accessible to everyone. There are perfectly health gamers who can't play every game so expecting every game to change fundamentally to allow everyone to play isn't going to happen.

I understand that there are some explicit limitations to things. I was listening to a podcast of a guy with MS (The Mikey Nuemann Noclip podcast), and he can't wear a VR headset. There's nothing we can do right now, with our current technologies which would allow a same-as experience as an able bodied person. It sucks, but that's no one's fault. I think some technical aspects should come as standard. Rebinding controls is hardly a huge ask, not game design breaking, but as a bare minimum it allows so many more people to play. I don't think it's about obligation, but people are getting angry that disabled people dare ask From to add some accessibility options, acting like it would change the design of the game. I don't understand why it's a huge controversy, and why we aren't letting From Software, the people who make the game and would be the people implementing changes, to respond first. It's controversy for controversies sake, which is at least bringing the arseholes out of the woodwork who think accessibility == easy mode

Can't comment on Sekiro as I haven't played it or really seen anything about it but goddamn this article is good. Really puts into perspective the kinds of people you meet just playing online video games.