Maybe you haven’t been convinced by a good enough argument. Maybe you just don’t want to admit you are wrong. Or maybe the chaos is the objective, but what are you knowingly on the wrong side of?

In my case: I don’t think any games are obliged to offer an easy mode. If developers want to tailor a specific experience, they don’t have to dilute it with easier or harder modes that aren’t actually interesting and/or anything more than poorly done numbers adjustments. BUT I also know that for the people that need and want them, it helps a LOT. But I can’t really accept making the game worse so that some people get to play it. They wouldn’t actually be playing the same game after all…

  • Semperverus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    28 days ago

    Games used to be art and done for passion.

    Having to include an “easy mode” in your game has powerful knock-on effects that change how normal and hard difficulties play too. Timings and quantities that would normally be finely tuned and hand-crafted suddenly need to be highly-variable and detract from the freedom of developing for just one difficulty.

    • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      28 days ago

      That sounds like an entirely surmountable engineering problem.

      It’s not like games are being written in assembly any more.

      • Semperverus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        28 days ago

        It goes deeper than just simple engineering though. It affects tone and overarching game design. It is multiple extra dimensions that have to be considered across every aspect of the entire game. If it is done poorly, you get paper dolls on easy mode and damage sponges on hard and nothing of merit to compensate for these facts. The difficulty of the game goes from being genuine to artificial.

        • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          28 days ago

          That’s why you design for accessibility, and don’t try to cram it in at the last moment. It’s not actually difficult, it just requires engineering discipline.

          There are also plenty of Dark Souls clones for people like you who demand nothing but punishment.

          • Semperverus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            27 days ago

            I don’t need a game to be hard, I need it to be consistent and well thought-out. Animal Well for example is a rather easy game, but because it only has one difficulty, the developer was able to keep a very tight focus on the world and puzzle design. Everything is layered there, because they don’t have to be containerized and sliced into pieces to account for adjustable difficulty settings.

            • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              27 days ago

              Or they could have thought it out even better and included difficulty settings.

              They have every right to ignore accessibility, but it will always limit their audience.

        • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          27 days ago

          “artificial difficulty” is poorly defined. Most parts of a video game are artificial. You get 100 health and 5 healing potions? Well those numbers were just made up, and could easily have been 50 and 1, or 200 and 10. The boss takes 5 hits to defeat, or 10, or 3?

          I think people say “artificial difficulty” when they mean “I don’t like this”, but that’s not very useful for a discussion without digging deeper.