Easy mode in Souls games - an argument against

@ralphmoustaccio: I've read something similar to your "chest thumping" bit a couple of times now, and I must say, here at Giant bomb I've seen ZERO of that.

@frodobaggins: It totally doesn't seem to happen very often here and I think that's great.

But Froms community is usually miserable about this if you dare to suggest that a fight might be too hard or unfairly designed or any other piece of legit criticism about the games. There can't be a problem you just need to Git Gud.

@frodobaggins: Fair, but I’m not necessarily speaking specifically about Giant Bomb. That is a very real attitude in the larger social discourse about video games, and has been from the start. It is especially prevalent, unfortunately, around the Souls/soulsesque games, directly as a result of the marketing of them. And, in my opinion, does them a disservice. There is so much more to the games than just the difficulty, but it’s the easiest to market because the rest is so obtuse.

@efesell: to be fair, Giant bomb is the only games site I visit and I am part of no social media so I probably don't see it.

If From Software want more people to buy and experience their games they should probably include some sort of easy/assisted mode. I feel the atmosphere and art/lvl design should be experienced by more people alone. Also having the grindy experience and reward of beating their 'normal' or harder difficulty, AND having an easier mode/accessibility options for disabled, newbies, and beginners per se, are not mutually exclusive. Who's to say how people want to access and experience a given game? If this option conflicts with the creator's vision, then by all means don't do it. But suggesting that an easier mode is wrong or somehow diminishes a 'Souls' game wreaks of elitism and selfishness to some degree.

It's not just the community and social media. An editor at Game Informer wrote a piece about how he'd be tempted to use a difficulty slider on these games AND how people who played on an easier difficulty would be robbing themselves of the experience, as if he is the arbiter of how and why people play games.

@bladeofcreation: Fuckin... "I can't control my urges enough to prove my own point so SHUT IT DOWN"..

I've seen a wide variety of good arguments against the inclusion that I respect if disagree with but every time this one shows up.. man.

@ralphmoustaccio: Not sure if that was a reply to me and the other or if you're just commenting more, but I thought I'd be more clear. While I personally think people should try to get through them if capable (I think there might be some out there that say it's too hard and give up, when they could actually love it if they tried more), I am not necessarily against an easy mode or what have you, nor would I get mad if they implemented something that would make it so everyone could enjoy it. It's obvious people, one way or another, enjoy games for multiple different reasons. So, even though I might think because from my personal experience that the challenge holds a lot of it together to heighten the experience, that might not be true for another and they could enjoy it just as much or more regardless of difficulty.

Also, I don't really like mentioning this, but my brother is (high functioning) autistic, and he is legally blind (he has to look very close to things and move his head side to side to see things). I know he's very much for accessibility options and accessories when it comes to gaming, however, I had asked him what his take was on this topic, and his feelings on it is that it's up to the developer. As for the developers disregarding the disabled, I am unsure as to whether what you say is the reason (thinking they are poor), but now I'm curious. I'll ask my brothers (one of which as I just said is disabled, and another who works in that field).

@ntm: I called you and the other guy out on that because I appreciated the effort and thought that went into the post. Well considered discussion is good for everyone with regard to questions like this. A bit of that post was in response to yours, but also more general musings.

I will clarify that I think the lack of marketing toward people with disabilities being related to a perception of being poor is my personal guess. It’s also true that some people who receive services for disabilities (in the United States, at least, which is my drone of reference) have very strict asset limits imposed upon them, lest those services be taken away. I work with individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities who receive community-based services, and those services are paid for by Medicaid. Individuals are not allowed to have more than $2,000 in total assets, or Medicaid can be taken away. That encompasses cash on hand, some types of physical property such as real estate, insurance plans such as life insurance if they have a cash value, etc. That’s not much money to pay for rent, food, utilities, etc, before even getting to expendable income for use on goods such as video games. This limitation is only true for a subset of people with disabilities, but I think people assume that most individuals with disabilities live with such limitations. Hence, I doubt many development teams would be naturally inclined to target a demographic they think may not be able to reasonably afford their product. I may be entirely off base, though. And props here again to Microsoft who did some good advertisements for their adaptive controller, even during the Super Bowl, I believe.

I appreciate hearing your brother’s thoughts on the matter. I certainly am not trying to speak for people with disabilities, just presenting my thoughts after hearing angles from both sides the last couple of weeks. Steve Spohn, the COO of Able Gamers has been talking about this on Twitter (which we all know is the bastion of good discourse) the last few days, and some of the responses he’s gotten are fairly repugnant. It’s amazing to me how upset people can get by the thought of something they like being altered in any way that might result in more people being included (this is, unfortunately, true of a lot of people highly invested in various hobbies/interests). Thankfully he’s also gotten a lot of support, even from folks who don’t agree 100%.

@ralphmoustaccio: Yes to everything you're saying. The whole Medicaid thing is an 'issue' for my brother too and finding a job or what have you, although he can get games sometimes because he has other means of getting food if need be, like other family members (that said he does spend money on food, of course, it's not mainly for games [just to be clear, because he's not one of those people that I do believe, unfortunately, gank the system]). The Microsoft ad is exactly what I was thinking about as I was typing that stuff up coincidentally. Honestly, I don't even think developers look a whole lot at the disabled demographic, not even enough to say 'eh, they're poor, why make anything for them?' I'm not saying all do that, nor am I saying that those that don't aren't sympathetic or caring, only that it probably doesn't cross their mind until enough people bring it up. So, I think it's less to do with wealth and more about simply not thinking about it. So you're correct in saying that if enough people talk about it, it'll change (or at least more likely to). I don't personally know a lot about Able Gamers, but I remember my brother posting some stuff on it on Facebook. It's good that people are being mostly supportive of it.

I've never heard of this YouTuber, but it just popped up, and what he says pretty much matches how I feel about the topic (if how I felt wasn't clear enough already).

I saw BenPack's twitter thread about the difficulty in Sekiro this past week, and he seemed to take a lot of heat for suggesting that maybe not every game is for everybody. A lot of people hiding behind the "accessibility" argument when what they're really after is making a difficult game easier so their fully capable selves can finish it. A dev should be able to make a difficult game without having to kowtow to the whims of every entitled gamer out there. I don't think it's asking too much to study a game and meet it on its own terms in order to experience someone else's vision. And if that is asking too much, then just move along.

For me, it's a simple case of numbers. Games like Sekiro, Spelunky, and Darkest Dungeon are so very rare that I will defend their right to exist. Looking at the current landscape, and even future of video games, we are already in a good place in terms of catering to all sorts of people and play styles. I actually agree with a lot arguments for the inclusion of various difficulty settings in games, and so do a lot of developers which is why a vast majority of games already implement them. Going on a crusade against a handful of uniquely difficult games will only limit diversity and choice. I just don't see the point in seeking the extinction of a genre that we almost forgot about before demon's souls because they are so few.

@ralphmoustaccio:I fully agree that my issues are personal in that no one is forcing me to take the easier route, but I appreciate the lack of that option because I know myself enough to know had that option been there my accomplishment would feel less than ideal compared to what it is now.

I do however disagree with your point that "they should have as much an equal opportunity as possible" because games isn't a civil right in which we all deserve a chance to play it according to our own wishes. When it comes to disabilities, I think that's a problem from a hardware perspective first (if we're talking physical ability, vision is more a software problem). How do you translate the controlling of a game so that works for all forms of differently abled people? A developer can certainly cater to a wider audience by offering solutions to that problem, but I don't feel it's their problem to solve first and foremost. And in a simplified discussion of difficulty, I think that idea of everyone having an equal opportunity to enjoy the game is even less valid. Because at that point you're only really arguing for a change in design intent of the final product to the benefit of a crowd that isn't the game's target audience.

Also, don't think the comparison to other mediums quality of resolution is a compelling argument because the core artistic intent is still intact. Looking at a photo of the Mona Lisa is still the same image as if you saw it in real life. The audio book version is still the same story. The fundamental experience isn't altered. But gameplay in a video game is in many ways the actual story or the picture itself. A From Software game that was easy just isn't the same thing at it's core. After I finished Bloodborne I tried that glitch that gave you infinite souls and leveled myself up to absurdity. Playing that game with such high stats was just not the same game anymore. An easier difficulty would probably not imply the exact same experience as that was, but it indicated to me that unlike a lot of other games From Software's titles rely very much on that core gameplay loop. If you break that, you almost break the game's reason for existing. Avatar didn't stop being Avatar in 2D in any meaningful way.

I agree that good natured discussions on topics like this is a healthy thing that can lead to improvements across the board and I am happy people are having them. As a color blind person I find myself discussing that issue a lot, as I have seen very little progress in that area. Though I would probably never ask every developer put color blind modes in for my sake, especially not if using colors I have an issue with is at the core of their design. There's enough games out there that I don't need to cling on to games not made for me.

At the heart of the question, I am in agreement with you that inclusivity is in general better approach than exclusivity. I just don't think From Software's games are the right hill to have that battle on. As someone else in this thread said, their games are unique in a sea of "pick your own difficulty" games and on some level taking that away robs us of diverse game types more than enriches the landscape.

I quite appreciate your well thought out respons to me and your thoughts, even if we don't entirely see eye to eye on the matter.

The gameplay of the Souls-alike games is indelibly tied to their atmosphere and tone. The normal enemies are capable of killing an unwary player, and so anybody playing these games has to pay attention to moment-to-moment behavior if they want to progress. This creates a baseline of tension throughout the levels which is used to create a sense of release at the end of difficult encounters and sets the tone of the game. The Dark Souls series is about fighting the world's inevitable descent into darkness. The enemies are placed and designed in such a way as to create a constant grind creating the feeling of slogging through each area. The occasional ambush keeps the player on their toes, and ensures that that feeling never goes away. This is most obvious in the various bogs of the game, which often slow the player's physical progress to a crawl, introduce a drip-feed of weak enemies with the occasional hard case, and reinforce the idea that the world is rotting in a manner both spiritual and physical, only being held up by the desperate efforts of an elite few. Without the deadly ambushes and the occasional death t a chump, the world loses its tension, and with easier enemies, the elite few turn into a joke. They pose no meaningful threat to the player, and thus do not come off as "elite" at all.

These games also use their bosses to tutorialize the combat style that the designers wish for their players to adopt. This is most evident in Bloodeborne, where the game's themes (the hunters becoming the monsters they hunt, unknowingly delving into knowledge best left buried, etc) are coupled with an incentivized combat style that can be best referred to as "controlled aggression". The Cleric Beast (on the bridge) introduces the player to positioning, and weak points. You need to stay near enough to the beast to hit it when it has an opening, which means that you have to stay close enough to be vulnerable to its attacks. Gascoine introduces the idea of being aggressive by default. If you try to run, he starts shooting you. If you get up close, you have to dodge or interrupt his attack strings, but he's vulnerable to your own combos because his moves are punishable. If you use the music box, you get a short window in which to attack, but overuse causes him to switch to his most aggressive form early, and the box stops working, so you can't get through him without learning the lesson he teaches. The Blood-Starved Beast is a good example of a boss that's considered annoyingly difficult, but that boss is an example of one that should have been given a redesign for the regular difficulty, not a case for the easy mode. It's intended to introduce you to the idea that attack openings are also item and healing openings, and the player has to learn that to win, but the thing that makes it difficult is that it lunges across the room in a way that the camera can't handle. It's difficulty stems from something that would be a problem on any difficulty. All of this culminates in the Vicar Amelia fight, where the player has to combine the lessons they learned from the previous bosses. Hammering on her weak point gives you openings for visceral attacks. Staying aggressive keeps her from healing. Learning her attacks gives you the time to use items and healing without having to back up so far that you can't hammer her. Making this easy removes the ability of these bosses to teach the player the skills they need. If you learn the skills they teach, they become pretty easy. If you don't, you have to hammer away at them until you get lucky or learn.

A player who took advantage of an easy mode would not have a "shared experience" with me. They will have gone through these games missing a meaningful component of the atmosphere. They won't know the levels as well as I do because they didn't have to pay close attention when going through them. In the case of Bloodborne, they would lose the need for a playstyle that invites comparisons to the monsters being hunted. In the Souls games, they would lose the desire to be cautious. In Sekiro, they would lose the need to be clever with the environment to bypass or defeat enemies. Such a person might see the narrative through, but the narrative of these games is obscure and rife with wiki delving and guesswork even if you 100% them. They might see the things that I see, but with the threat an menace stripped out. They might beat the bosses I beat, but without the feeling of savage triumph I felt. And they might be able to go through an earlier area and rip through beginning enemies like I can, but without the satisfaction of having outgrown their challenge. The easy mode player could always beat them. I had to work at it.

Honestly, so what?

"This isn't for everybody" is something that always gets banded about when a new souls game releases. Games aren't for everybody. It's a medium that makes more money than film but that does not translate to seats being filled videos being streamed or Blu-Rays being watched. The only genre closest becomes sports games and that's just due to the sheer numbers of people interested in sports. That's why you get the sliders, the difficulty options, the control schemes, etc in sports titles. A single-player action game has a much smaller crowd to appease.

I have no problem with the *idea* of these games getting an easy mode (though IMHO other accessibility options would be a better investment). Like if From put out a survey asking "would adding an easy mode be a problem for you" I would answer no; if they released a patch that added one I wouldn't be blocking the update or anything.

But, I do find the seemingly endless (and predictable) debate about it tiresome. The game does not have an easy mode. Get over it (which might mean, don't buy it?). Just like if the game did have an easy mode, the folks who would actually answer "yes" to the question above would also just have to get over it. Riling up internet debates is not actually any kind of "movement" that a developer should or would take seriously.

Reminds me of the talk around Cuphead.

@quantris: I agree with you. I sit on the side of not wanting any difficulty options (this includes hard mode) in "souls" games so you could argue I'm biased (which I'm not because I'm perfectly happy there are games out there that are too hard for me), but these games don't have options and shouldn't. If they should then From Software would have included them. They didn't.

I'm bad at video games and I'm unwilling to challenge myself, better get on Twitter and hide behind the mask of a champion for the physically or mentally disabled!

@relic: The concept of shared experiences is incredibly flawed. I could literally sit next to someone at a movie and have a completely different experience they they did. Same with any book, music, visual art, etc. Interpretation of experiences is absolutely subjective.

I beat Bloodborne, and it doesn't sound like I had anything like the experience you had. Blood Starved Beast is considered “annoyingly difficult?” I beat it on the second try. Am I amazing at Souls-likes? Nope. That boss just made sense after I saw it the first time. Pounded my head against Gascoigne more than anything else in that game. I would describe the feeling of beating him less as “savage triumph,” and more as “finally done with that horseshit!”

There are cascades of videos people beating Souls games in absurd ways, meaning they are experiencing the game on a level that doesn’t even approach where you’re at. Base game for them probably is “easy mode.” Just because you struggle with it doesn’t mean someone else does, and just because you find something too easy doesn’t mean someone else would. If From added difficulty adjustment to their games, I’d leave it at default, because that’s basically how I play all games. I just don’t care how anyone else chooses to experience something, because it wouldn't change my experience in any way.

@frodobaggins: That sort of attitude that decisions of a developer are somehow infallible (in the sense of what should or shouldn’t benefit the game) are kinda shaky. Out of all the games From has made Sekiro most of all is the one SHOULD run at 60 FPS but it doesn’t - because From didn’t make it run that way so it shouldn’t? Of course not, they’re just really bad at the technical side of their games, but you can follow the same sort of logic for difficulty. Just because it’s not in the game doesn’t mean it’s a rock solid condemnation on the side of the developer. Easy mode for these games would basically be giving you a NG+ character to play on your first run through it. That’s it. It’s not checkpoints at fog gates or infinite resurrections. Just making it so people have a challenge but are able to get away with getting hit more often than they would otherwise.

These games have had a lot of really weird conversation about them throughout the years concerning difficukty. The cult that has grown around them has done the franchise a disservice really. To this day it is generally considered “cheap” to summon for bosses, despite the option being a key element of the games. Adding this slightly easier mode to experience later bosses and the creativity of the development team wouldn’t hurt anyone. I know if I was one of the people that worked for 2 years of my life on Sekiro and found out only 10% of all players get past the second boss I’d be seriously bummed out.

@hankrazorbeard : Bad take.

I wonder how people feel about difficulty options in games like Devil May Cry, Bayonetta, or even Metal Gear Solid? These games can be nail bitingly difficult, you can brag about beating European Extreme in MGS3 but other folks can coast by on easy if they don't have the time or ability to grind through.

Or, in Devil May Cry 5 you can play through on the Hell and Hell difficulty, where you die in a single hit. You can have all the rewards of beating that difficult challenge while other players enjoy the easy Human difficulty or maybe Dante Must Die, or anything else without undertaking that challenge.

These are games that are hugely popular, they offer intense challenges, and they also offer modes for less skilled players to enjoy, and if someone needs to play MGS3 on easy it doesn't rob you of your personal achievement of clearing European Extreme. The fidelity of the game and the challenge are totally unaffected by allowing another person to play, whether it's due to disability or not. If someone wants to coast through, who cares? And besides that, wouldn't it be better for FromSoft to sell more copies?

Just because easy mode might be "tempting", that is a failing on your own part. Personally, I ground the hell out of MGS4 when it came out, I cleared The Boss Extreme, but I did runs through Easy and Normal difficulties to unlock badges and find secrets as well. I spent more time playing that game because of difficulty options, if Boss Extreme was the only option I likely would have played less and got fewer special items and challenges completed.

The "Not every game is for everyone" argument is pretty dumb because I feel it is stretched out in the wrong direction. Metal Gear Solid isn't for everyone because of the content of the game, the long cut scenes, the stealth, the silly anime bullshit. Not because it is inaccessible. Anyone can play the game, not everyone wants to.

Using this as some excuse to neglect people who want to play something but can't with a platitude is a really bad stance in my opinion. There are plenty of people who have no interest in Souls games that have nothing to do with difficulty. If you don't enjoy the ethereal plots, the aesthetic, the music, those are reasons it's "not for you", not because it's designed to shut you out.

But that's just my opinion, I think people should be able to play what they like at their own pace.

@girafro: It wouldn't affect my experience of playing through the game on it's standard difficulty if there were options for other players to adjust the difficulty to their liking, but considering people have been having a conversation similar to this since the first Souls game (and probably before), I doubt that From will be compromising their vision to placate people who don't like their games (or are unable to play them due to a genuine disability).

Someone at the start of this thread said that they used Cheat Engine to help them past an annoying section in the game, that is their right and probably the best solution for people who want to play the game without the frustration that has been a part of From Software's games.

@hankrazorbeard: Cheat engine might help out people on PC, but console players don't have that luxury.

When I imagine a souls game being easier I just imagine less punishment for failure. Something where sure, if you were good, you could coast by, but where a person who isn't skilled or doesn't have time will likely still fail. Simply lower down incoming damage, maybe remove a mob or two, but leave the combat systems and timing more or less the same, maybe open up iframes just a tiny bit wider for more generous reaction windows. Maybe don't lose all souls on death, only make it a partial penalty.

Otherwise, bosses would still read and fight the same, you'd just be able to take a few more hits and get a bit more practice on them before having a death. Mobs could likely still take out an unskilled player and anyone who couldn't resist the "temptation" to make it easier would maybe ruin their own experience but that's their own fault for not choosing the correct difficulty when what they value is the challenge and not the world of the game.

I fundamentally agree that FromSoft ought to be able to design their games as they please, that if they don't want to include difficulty options they are under no obligation, but I'll still bemoan that choice and honestly I have yet to see any reason that I'd agree with not including options.

Do I think FromSoft should include difficulty options? Absolutely.

If I had the ability to impose difficulty options into the game, would I force them to include them? No.

I would want them to include the options of their own will and design them in a way they believed is suitable. My idea above is only based on my limited knowledge of games, I have no design experience, and it would certainly require work to balance, but I think they are a talented team and they are more than capable.

@humanity: the comparison you make is a bad one.

If you don't "get" a movie, you move on and realise it isn't for you.

If you don't like a book, you move on and realise it isn't for you.

But games should now cater EVERY SINGLE GAME to EVERY SINGLE PERSON?

This entire farce is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever seen in gaming

All Soulsborne games had an "easy mode", in form of summons.

I feel like I need to point this out each time. "These games this, these games that" keeps coming up, as if none of the FromSoftware games provided in-game aids. Even if you did not summon, there were many other ways to mitigate difficulty (DS1/DS2 had character builds that catered to completely different playstyles that are non-dexterity focused, even if the hardcore community derided them by calling em "casual/baby souls").

It's fine that Sekiro is a difficult game and that it has no "easy mode". However, justifying it by saying "these games are supposed to be this way" is nonsense - Sekiro is unique from other Soulsborne titles in this regard.

@frodobaggins: it is an example made specifically to illustrate that not everything that’s in a game is there because the developers thought that’s the best choice. Sometimes things are just there as by byproducts of development. It’s intentionally exaggerated.

@humanity: then I agree with you 100%. However, in this specific case we are talking about any kind of difficulty options, which obviously isn't a by product of not having enough time/money/resources to implement. It's a design descision, which is why I said it's a bad comparison.

"Isn't for you" isn't the same as "literally can't watch the movie". In my mind it is not -only- an accessibility thing, but no one is asking for games to CATER, they're asking for the equivalent of subtitles in a movie because some are a little hard of hearing or might be watching it while kids are sleeping.

Asking for difficulty options is the stupidest thing in gaming? Not lay offs, or death threats, or gamer gate or swatting? Difficulty options? Really? Settle down.

Because it isn't remotely the same thing. You are taking two examples of moving on from something for lack of personal interest and then roping in something you might have a great deal of interest in but you are being prevented from enjoying it.

The conversation isn't about like.. starting up a Horror game and me saying "mm, yeah I don't really like horror can we patch this game to be about something else?"

@ralphmoustaccio: I didn't "struggle" with anything in those games. The only time I took more than 10 tries to beat a boss is on Amygdala. Beat Gascoine in 3. The point is that the experience of the game is tied to its gameplay. If somebody wants to "experience" these games and can't beat them, they can watch a walkthrough like everybody else, saving themselves time and money, instead of demanding that a developer devote time and resources to accommodate them. Being unable to experience something does not give a person a right to other people's time and money. And that's assuming that the "accessibility" argument was honest, instead of a thoroughly disgusting attempt to use the disadvantaged as cover for whining. The two people who asked for easy modes on these games are the perfectly-abled Rorie and Jeff B, with healthy Jeff G defending them. The two people I know of with physical disabilities on the site, Ben and Jason, love these games, and Ben has defended their difficulty.

Some of the responses in this thread are exactly the reason I say, "I like games," but no longer refer to myself as a "gamer."

Gamer culture is garbage. I'd say some of you should be ashamed of your responses, but hey, that would require one to feel shame or--at the very least--empathy for others.

@relic: Fuck that if they are asking for someone's time and money a person has the right to ask that they put in more effort to get it.

I'm glad that we agree that the people asking for easy modes should not buy or play this game.

@frodobaggins: Which is why I said developer decisions aren't automatically infallible. Earlier you said that should these games have a difficulty option then From would have included them, but they didn't include them so they shouldn't. My entire point was that just because they thought that they shouldn't doesn't mean it's overall the best option for the game. As a graphic designer I absolutely understand the weight behind artistic vision - it is your thing and you should be able to do what you want with it. Which is why I agree that if From doesn't want to put in an easier option for their games that is absolutely their right and no one should force them to. Whether that is the best choice? Ehhh. I would argue that from both a business and gameplay perspective it's shooting yourself in the foot a little. At the same time they have made so many of these without compromising on this recurring issue that they are sort of locked into this "hardcore" path. The overwhelming sentiment that their games need to be hard is so strong that I initially thought it would make them seem "weak" if they "caved in" and provided that feature - and thats ridiculous. There is nothing "weak" about a studio providing more avenues for more players to enjoy their product, which in turn means wider exposure and more revenue for them as a studio that needs money to continue making games. Plenty of people do it. Forza lets you play with all assists turned up and it lets the hardcore community adjust every single shock absorber in a car and one does not exclude the other. Fighting games have handicaps and autocombos. As mentioned above even hardcore character action games like Bayonetta still offer "1 button modes" so you can experience the story and spectacle. If anything adding an easier option would strengthen From Software and help them get a lot more fans instead of catering to a niche crowd of players, many of which self impose strict rules above what the games have offered. Options are always a good thing.

@relic: My point about things you struggle with was not specific to Bloodborne or Souls games in general. I didn’t articulate that well. It is rather that your definition of difficult vs. easy is yours. As is mine. As is anyone’s. It’s subjective.

And there is plenty of discourse outside of this website from people with disabilities that make compelling arguments that difficulty adjustment is a factor in accessibility for some people. And people with disabilities saying they like the default difficulty, but would appreciate more options like better button re-mapping. And some people who don’t have disabilities that just want to experience something to a greater degree than they are capable. I will simultaneously defend the Souls’ difficulty as something I have enjoyed while also defending the perspective that adjustments could make them more approachable for others. Because, again, I don’t believe that the shared experience of difficulty is even currently real. You cannot find a comments section in a story about them without someone chiming in that “they’re not even hard, bro!” (to paraphrase). Glad there hasn’t been that here, though. It’s not helpful.

If that's how you would like to twist it, sure. I can't stop you.

@humanity: wether on not it is the best option for the game is completely irrelevant here. When I said that sentence you quoted in your above post I did so specifically because of what the discussion is about. It is perfectly fine to say "I think more options for easier/harder modes in these games would be good and make a better game experiance for me/others." This is more than fair. What I think is unfair is to say "these games SHOULD have more options for easier/harder modes."

No, they shouldn't. If they should have had, the developer would have included them. But they didn't. They made the game they wanted to. You can then critise thier game, but you shouldn't tell them they should have made their game differently.

I think we are actually agreeing here lol. I certainly am not saying that because they didn't do something that means it's best for the game.

@frodobaggins: I definitely don't know how to feel about the assumption that if something should have been there a developer would have added it.

As though we aren't posting this on website about...video games? That can't be right..

Anyway a website frequently deeply confused about insane things developers have done.

@frodobaggins: I guess I just don't agree with the hard assumption that they shouldn't have an option because the developer didn't put it in there. I think the option should be there because it honestly benefits everyone. I will defend their right to make games as they please but I won't necessarily agree with their choices. At some point though the conversation becomes quite pointless if it's just a case of "they didn't want it so all other options are null."

@humanity: I just don't think it's fair to tell somebody they are wrong for creating their art a certain way.

@ralphmoustaccio: Button remapping, color blind modes, and subtitles are things I have no problem supporting and no problem holding developer's feet over the fire for not including them. The pause button feature is an often overlooked accessibility issue that Sekiro has, and I'm glad for it.

@relic: Totally agree on the pause thing. I have a young daughter, and I have to wait to play the Souls games until she is super asleep because I can’t pause to attend to what she might need at any given moment. As it happens, kids suddenly seem to think they need a lot more right at bedtime! To a lesser extent, the same is true for dealing with my dogs. It made some sense in those games with respect to the invasion system, but if you were hollowed and couldn’t be invaded, pausing does not seem like it would break the game.

@ralphmoustaccio: My guess is that the server connection is the culprit in those games. There's still some need to sync world state even if you're currently in the "offline" portion of the online mode. The actual offline mode should have had a pause option, as there's no reason to talk to the servers there, but I'm starting to think that actual engineers are in short supply in the game industry, and that's the kind of thing that takes an engineer.

@relic: The only disgusting take here is the idea that people advocating for accessibility are doing so simply because they're "whining" that they can't beat the game.

@bladeofcreation: I'm familiar with a broad spectrum of physical and mental disabilities. When I said "the pause button is a huge accessibility feature" I meant that it allowed people time for tremors and pain to subside, in addition to allowing people to deal with day to day life. Try as I might, I cannot think of how sliding the diffculty down would create an accessible game for somebody with severe intermittent pain, muscle spasms, or paralysis. Such people typically have functioning brains, which allow them to tackle and respond to normal challenges. They're PHYSICALLY disabled, which means that they have difficulty placing inputs in the manner or speed that a normal person would. You could make something which spaces attacks out in such a way that they could respond without pausing, but the result would be an easy mode of "dead air", rather than what the Rories and Jeff Bs of the world were actually looking for. A better solution for those people is the cheat engine method that Jeff G mentioned. You'd think that the people calling this an accessibility issue would be able to articulate HOW an easy mode would make these games accessible to the impaired, but I haven't seen that. I've seen a lot of able-bodied people saying that somebody somewhere might be helped by this, but nothing to indicate that any of the journalists opining on this topic have done even basic research on this subject.

@relic: If you're interested in learning about accessibility options that someone with physical disabilities might look for, you should look at Steven Spohn's (of AbleGamers) Twitter account. He's a person who is personally familiar with accessibility in games, and professionally consults with developers about this sort of thing. Throughout the various threads about this on Twitter, you can find a number of people with disabilities expressing their thoughts on how a particular mode or particular option might help them. One example I've seen is that an option that slows combat down would make the game more accessible (NOT easier) for some folks who have trouble rapidly entering commands into a controller. For someone with a slower response time due to some type of disability, this wouldn't make the game "easy mode." It would make it playable. It would also have absolutely no impact on anyone else's enjoyment of the game, because it would be an option.

If you want to see what people who are affected by this and who are doing the work to make games more accessible have to say, go to the source.

@bladeofcreation: Thank you for the recommendation. I'll look into that. This is kind of reinforcing my point about what an accessibility mode would look like vs an easy mode though.