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

because i fucking paid for the videogame?

So you have the right to demand that chicken egg farmers change to duck eggs because you buy their eggs?

Why would you buy a game you know is difficult if you don’t like difficulty?

How is this cool at all. You call someone an asshole over a simple disagreement, especially when they aren't even saying "Fuck disabled people, they shouldn't be allowed to enjoy normal people things" like you act they are. Really not happy to see this. And I'm someone who will spike up arguments at Janus all the time for very minor shit we disagree with. Regardless, I think @Janus Vesta is very much on the nose with this. It's important that we give them universal tools to play games, but its also important that we don't 'water down' a game to such a degree that it damages the final product of what it intends to be for everyone else The point here for me? When you try and allow access to everyone, you could end up removing access to others. Once that happens, things get really fucked from there. Steams big picture mode as well as functionalities to customize any controller, as well as Microsofts initiatives to create controllers that are accessible are valuable and can be applied to anyone with any disability. These things are tools that will bridge the gap, but they're far from enough. There needs to be a universal standard for customization as well as infinite configurations. Part of this is in-game binding and tools, like QTE styles, colorblind mods, etc. In my opinion you could also do movement assist modes like in Mario cart (You have autopilot but it removes key parts of the map) that do not affect the overall experience of the product. People with "functional" hands will never use movement assist because it is simplistic enough to not be useful to them.

because virtually every single game ever produced gives you the option to change the difficulty on the game that you paid for. games are supposed to be fun, not frustrating. that's why we play games, not play frustration. is this a difficult concept? is it actually a hard thought to consider maybe some people have troubles with hard video games, poor reaction time, vision troubles, coordination issues, and so on? should disabled people just fuck off and not be allowed to play games that are deemed not for them? come on lol

This is somewhat bullshit of an argument that I'll make here: But whenever I'm disinterested in a game and don't care about "fake difficulty" I'll usually just use cheat engine and selectively cheat to fuck around. Sekiro I'm doing legit because its fun and compelling, and drives me to better my gameplay style to an edge. The frustration IS the fun. AC: Ody I'm doing with a cheat to max levels and get all skills, but I still find fun enough because I only give a shit about its exploration and plot garbage. The combat is already retardedly easy compared to sekiro regardless, though my big annoyance is the shit leveling system Either way, mods and cheat engine, as well as infinite controller customization allows for one to massively reduce or eliminate difficulty. God fucking disabled people should stop ruining everything First they come for our stairs and then they ruin our video games For real though, that's not really where people are coming from

How easy does easy have to be for it to be acceptable? Is there a metric you're aiming for?

I didn't say the word "easy" once in any of my posts. I said that virtually all games give you the option to change the difficulty, because you're paying to play their game. You're supposed to enjoy it and have fun. Not get frustrated because the game is created specifically to be extremely difficult. What's with this "real gamer" elitism?

Sekiro is already in easy mode though, by default. Normal mode is ringing the demon bell that makes all enemies call you dirty names and spit on your nice shoes

making enemies easier to fight doesn't change the story of a game though?

I'm less talking about the story itself and more talking about the story of film to compare and contrast the gameplay of video games.

that's more of a stretch than an actual stretch armstrong dude lol. there's no reason to lock a game's difficulty other than to foster a sense of elitism around people who are "good enough" to beat it.

That isn't true at all though. This logic absolutely applies too all games of all difficulties. if Captain Toad had oppressive difficulty because it had an enemy that chased you down the entire time you played it, it would drastically alter how the entire game plays. The point of Captain Toad is to be a down to earth, chill, and simple puzzle game that is compelling and exciting, while still being slow and steady. If it had some complex combat rpg system, that would change the entire thing it went for. What I'm saying is that the creators have a vision of what the game will end up being. Horror games are a great example because without difficulty to some degree, the suspense and thus horror is missing. It doesn't have to be brutally oppressing either, just look at FNaF.

Because I'm actually curious here. What if Sekiro released but the current difficulty was listed as easy, and demon bell mode is normal, and there was a hard mode with no revival ability at all? At what level of difficulty is it finally acceptable?

I think the biggest issue with their argument is that different people like varying levels of difficulty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87UKdfAFM6U Just look at the oppressively difficult Touhou series of games. it's impossible to gauge what would actually be considered "Reasonably too easy" or "too hard" because literally everyone is different. Souls to me is 'easy', but Mario even on middle levels is hard beyond fuck. I say this because an option to change the difficaulty doesn't really mean anything, because setting it to low could still be very high skill. "low" on Touhou is still insanely fucked.

But I was responding to why you are entitled to an easy mode. If you know a game doesn’t have difficulty settings, and you don’t like that, then just don’t buy it. Games aren’t supposed to be anything, they’re whatever the creators want it to be. If I make a painting do I have to implement ways for blind people to experience it. I’m sure there are some conceptual paintings with that implemented, but you would never expect somebody to have that option. I don’t understand why games are being held to this standard over anything else. If you don’t like, or can’t enjoy a game, then don’t play it. If you like the lore than watch a lets play, and some lore videos. Clearly the souls series is doing fine without catering to all audiences.

Adding another difficulty will directly hinder the experience of the person using the different difficulty, if the game relies on the difficulty (or lack of) to communicate a setting, a mood, an emotion, which I assure you most games do. Curls' posts about Captain Toad and horror games are good examples. I agree that explaining which mode is the "director's cut" aka the intended way of playing helps a lot. That requires each mode to be redesigned, rebalanced, and tested to make sure it still communicates the same feelings, depending on the target audience. It definitely can be done, but it can be a huge undertaking, and there's still no guarantee that easy will be easy enough for everyone (see Touhou example above). Producers can decide to invest more money in developing an extra difficulty setting, but it can be a double-edged sword where you ship an half-assed experience that just doesn't work for the less experimented audience. "Who are you to say someone didn't get the full experience" Who are you to say you know how to make the game easier more than the devs? I trust the devs to know what they're doing. If they didn't include another way of doing something, it's not an accident, they did it deliberately. If you disagree with the creators, sure, go ahead and mod the game. Make your voice heard if you want, maybe the creators will choose to develop something for you like Furi did. What I hate is how some people become backseat-devs and tell the devs how to make their game because they know how to balance it better than them. If grinding for days trying to get past something is boring for you, then maybe the game isn't for you. There's people in this thread who think it's satisfying. The game was made for them. I won't quote them all but you bring up Sekiro as counterpoints to my post a few times, but I never mentioned Sekiro. My post was more broad than just Sekiro, I even talked about easy games. In fact I still haven't played any FROM game, here I'm just defending the devs for not including an easy mode. What you're saying here is that Sekiro has bugs and sometimes has badly designed bosses, this has nothing to do with difficulty or accessibility. Maybe it's badly designed, maybe it's hard for the wrong reasons, I wouldn't know, but it's not what the debate is about. Sure, go ahead, you can say Sekiro is buggy, you can say the way they force you to grind is boring. You can also acknowledge when a game simply isn't made for you. I've seen reviews of other games where they give a game a 6/10 and explain why they disliked it, but conclude by saying that if you like, say, lots of grinding or slow pacing, it might be more to your liking. That's the attitude I'd like to see more. Not "6/10, there should've been an easy mode" or "trim down the fat and let me experience just the story".

Then why aren't people "almost always" playing on easy mode through every game, or using cheats or hacks? It's because most players care about experiencing the game the way it's intended. Communication matters. If your teleport button is right there next to normal gameplay elements, players will assume it's a part of the designed challenge. But if you put it in 'cheats' section of the main menu along with warnings, people will understand that it's a last resort and will ruin the challenge.

He compared asking for accessibility options for disabled people to him asking the developers of Yoshi's Woolie World for a hard mode. I will call out assholes if they are being assholes to people. That is such a ridiculously offensive thing to even suggest that they are remotely comparable, and if someones keeps equating accessibility with an "easy mode" then they are probably an asshole too with little to no understanding of the topic. I apologised for being too aggressive to Janus, but he deserves to be called out. He also literally said that disabled people shouldn't be allowed to play dark souls because he enjoyed it being a hard game, again using the wrong assumption that accessibility modes are difficulty modes. I have provided sources of the COO of Ablegamers which everyone seems to be ignoring that people aren't asking for an easy mode, they're asking for accessibility options. If you think adding accessibility options to Dark Souls removes from the normal difficulty mode which would remain untouched, then I don't know what to say. You're misunderstanding everything, and maybe we should just let the developers respond to the queries instead of acting like we know what they want. I'm only representing the side which has their opinion publicly available, you are all representing yourselves???

Imo my suggestion would be for more options for certain disabilities (colour blind modes,sound cues for visually impaired people if that's possible) or more periphels like the Xbox adaptive controller. Not every game has to be forced in these options but in games where such a thing is possible then why not add it in? After all video games are the only media where the consumer can interact with and tailor with to their needs.

Yes, if you disregard what the entire rest of that post was about. I was saying, repeatedly, that games are designed experiences and it's up to the developers to choose what to include in order to best deliver their intended experience. Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they don't understand. People have been asking for easier modes and features from FromSoft since Demon's Souls and they have added the ability to summon help, more ways to increase your strength, and optional areas to explore if you can't immediately progress. When they took most of that out in Sekiro they instead reduced the penalty for dying, made skill points permanent, and added the ability to rebind the controls on every platform. You say "let the developers respond" but they have responded and you piss and moan anyway. Also good job saying you represent all disabled people. Real fucking classy. Doesn't make you look like a self righteous dickhead at all

Sorry I accidentally clicked on this post reply and I can't remove it on mobile. I literally keep saying I'm echoing only the COO of Ablegamers, I have provided tweets from them to highlight this. Why are you ignoring them? I even said it in that same paragraph. Accessibility modes aren't easy modes. This is why I keep saying you're not understanding, because you aren't. I have posted Cory Balrog saying accessibility doesn't compromise his vision of God of War. But I may have missed From responding to this current line of inquiry. Can I be linked to their response? I agree with that, developers can choose what to do. My issue is how fucking tone deaf it is to even bring that up. Like how condescending and horrible, to even suggest that a hard mode is equivalent to someone being physically and literally unable to progress through a game. Not because it's difficult, but because they may lack the options necessary to do so.

Is it weird I find the talk about assist mode a lot more reasonable than difficulty sliders? Like I always found game difficulty settings as haphazard and damaging to the experience and design of the game in a way I can't quite pinpoint. But a straight up assist mode and disability options, I don't see how that would have the same effect.

Traditional difficulty modes communicate nothing to the player who haven't even started the game. Additionally, it is common practice that 'Normal' is 'Easy' in disguise because euphemism, as it is the option majority will pick, people are generally more likely to tolerate steamroll than having to struggle. An average player will stop playing after the game is considered "finished", and thus do not consider replaying the game again at optimal challenge (still, repeat plays do not garner the same experience). There has been more and more attempts at integrating difficulty adjustments into game mechanics, and I am more than happy to see the archaic system go.

You're not understanding my point, people who aren't good at games will get the same experience because they are still facing the same challenge to them proportionally. To me DMC is easy up to the last difficulty, but there's people who feel its difficult at easy. We both experience the same amount of challenge mentally, and both can see the setting/mood/emotion. Which developers to this day have been doing for years. Using Touhou, which is an extremely niche title in a niche hardcore market is absurd when we are talking about AAA games or some indie games. I've never seen a game suffer because they added difficulty sliders when its been the standard for years. Way to connect two points that have 0 connection. I was saying gate keeping and saying for others that the easy way out in your eyes gives less of an experience is your opinion. If devs want to develop a game only catered for themselves or their extremely niche market, then thats fine, but don't go around bitching when the majority of players cant handle the insane difficulty. Personally I didn't have an issue with sekiro bar a few badly designed areas, but I could see how people miss things like phantom spawning as a small crutch to get through the game (which, surprise, from soft had as a difficulty slider for the soulsborne games). Sekiro is a prime spotlight of this issue because of the game being balls to the wall hard and driving a lot of people away. People are asking for an easier mode to experience the game, but people like you are sitting on your thrones calling them plebs for complaining while hiding behind ~artistic vision~ as an excuse for shit game design in 2019 where great devs have found a balance for both. Plus Sekiro is the main topic of this thread's OP and a great example of the elitist nature coming from people counter arguing. What are opinions? If a person feels the game is too hard and has a lot less accessibility for most people, they are free to voice that concern. Reviews often do go that deep, you just have to look at the entire article to get the full picture.

It's impressive how hard you're missing my point while I'm trying to jam it down your throat. It's not about difficulty, it's about intended experience. Having a hard mode in Yoshi wouldn't work because that's not the intended experience. As I've repeatedly said, and you have repeatedly ignored, accessibility options are great until they affect the intended experience. At that point you're not giving disabled gamers access to your game, you're giving them a stripped down facsimile. If you're okay with that that's fine, if a developer wants to provide that it's great, but it's also fine for developers to decide to not deliver that. As I said before I can't play The Witness because I'm too fucking dumb to understand the simplest puzzles in it. The entire game is puzzles, they can't let me 'see' the game by skipping the puzzles because the puzzles are the game. Developers decided the intended experience their game is meant to provide and by necessity decided the minimum ability level needed to access that experience. You know how I linked to the Able gamers page on making accessible games? The reason I even had that link is that I'm planning on making a simple strategy game over the summer for fun and I wanted to include as many appropriate features as I can. Partially so anyone could play the game (not that it'll ever be finished) but also because I wanted to see how difficult it would be to do.

Every example you give us about difficulty. That is what I think you're misunderstanding, is it isn't about difficulty and you keep bringing it up. You seem to think these accessibility options go against intended experience, but for a lot of cases they don't need to and they won't, and they do nothing to affect your experience. You act like you not understanding how to solve puzzles in the Witness is the same as not being able to experience Rocket League because you can't physically interface with the game on a human level. Imagine you could solve the puzzles in the Witness, but you lacked the motor skill to solve the time based puzzles. That is what accessibility options could solve and help with. I also keep saying devs don't need to do it, it truly is their choice entirely. And many don't even include things like rebindable keys, this is a real issues which change real people's lives and experiences with games. The beauty of Twitter and connected online experience, is people can actually talk to the developers and it makes a difference. Several indie games have added rebindable keys after being asked by disabled gamers. That might not happen if you shut people down, and don't give them at least a chance to open a dialog with developers and let the developer themselves say yes or no. I hope your game goes well, and I'd love to play it. If you wanna carry on talking please add me on Discord or something. Turns out FP on mobile really fucking sucks for long form discussion.

I'm all for accessibility in games and I think everyone of varying cognitive and motor abilities deserve to be able to comfortably play video games. However, some of the accessibility features here being suggested really does contradict a developer/designer's intentions and may go against the overall spirit of the game they're developing for, to the point it really is hard to say it'd be even the same game at a certain point. Great accessibility I think comes with a good designer having elements in their games work the way they intend to, and then allowing as much as they can, people to be able to learn the ropes and get used to the mechanics they built. Rather than accommodate and compromise for every single design choice. Like for example this blind gamer relies mostly on good sound design to be able to play fighting games and shooters effectively. With accessibility options not changing any specific game values, but rather tweak the controls and looks enough for it to be comfortable for specific conditions. Thus allowing disabled gamers have an equal footing with others despite their disability. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q5iiK5ebu8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THbVXGulDUE Others here already recited some good examples on how adding different modes to games would break the core design intended by the devs, but an extreme examples where difficulty sliders/easier modes would completely affect and destroy the core experiences are with complex MMOs like EVE. I personally haven't had the time and experience to fully grasp that game, however I wouldn't want the developers to compromise for me and allowing simplification or shortcuts. Most veterans players there attest to the time they poured onto the game and made it practically their second life. If the developers are happy with catering to that audience, and that niche audience is happy with that as well, I wouldn't want anything to ruin that just for it to be more arbitrarily accessible for more people and get to the same level as the veterans through shortcuts and modifications.

And that warranted him being called an asshole? Nice. What the fuck is this smug nonpology garbage you're pulling here dude "Haha, sorry but not sorry, I was in the right" Anyone else would have been banned for calling them an asshole like that. No they literally didn't say this, you're missing their point entirely. Take a break and just walk away if that's too hard for you to see. Why should I care about COO of ablegamers? I've not personally argued against accessibility options, the point I'm taking away from this is that it shouldn't detract from the game as a whole. I've argued towards allowing accessibility options. The point is that you can't make an option for everyone in every game, every time. You can only add so many modes that will apply to so many people. You are FAR better off funding better controllers and options for them. The thread OP video is also about difficulty, don't you think that makes it easy for one to assume this overall, is about that too? Just look at the really examples this tweet shows Resident Evil has mods to change the monsters into Thomas the Tank Engine. So dumb joke mods that ruin the game count as accessibility modes. Uhhh, great example lol. GTA has passive mode where you cannot be shot. This is less an accessibility mode and more a means of stopping griefing. In fact that's entirely the reason it was made. Tomb Raider, Spiderman, etc. have accessibility options to make puzzles easier Shadow Of The Tomb Raider Adds Accessibility Options, Lets Playe.. audio accessibility options like environmental subtitles and closed captions. Good shit to see, I never see this tbh. HL2 had it. On top of championing accessibility, Eidos Montreal is making Shadow of the Tomb Raider even more customizable for players, allowing you to change the difficulty of the combat, exploration, and puzzles separately. This means that if you find the combat too tough and want to focus on exploring and solving puzzles (or vice versa) you are welcome to do so. Good shit to see as well, works for TR in particular, but this is a difficulty setting, not an accessibility mode Mario Kart can be played with only two buttons. A good example of good accessibility options is this. Disables shortcuts outright, which means it can't be used as a crutch for normal players.

You're right, sorry @Janus Vesta . I think so, and I think that's part of the issue. Accessibility isn't about "hard" or "easy" modes as we talk about them in games. Assist modes would probably be a better way of talking about it, and I blame journalists/the social media people for repeatedly calling them difficulty modes.