this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2025
880 points (98.5% liked)

Gaming

6252 readers
8 users here now

!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.

Our Rules:

1. Keep it civil.


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.


2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.


I should not need to explain this one.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.


Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.



Logo uses joystick by liftarn

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] foodandart@lemmy.zip 191 points 1 week ago (27 children)

I think Kojima gets it. For a lot of players, esp. on the more cinematic games, the story is the main driver and the action is how it progresses. The games I’ve played that were ordeals are often the ones I’ve given up on. It’s the ones you can start on story mode with, enjoy the narrative and then re-play at the harder levels that I’ve stuck with.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 156 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (27 children)

I'll keep saying it: I already have a job. I want to play a game to unwind.

Implementing a wide gamut of difficulty settings is also an accessibility feature, and allows people with certain physical or mental challenges the opportunity to enjoy your game firsthand. Why would you want to deny your audience this opportunity?

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 36 points 1 week ago (9 children)

I mean, presumably because it'd compromise their vision for the game or some such? Some games use gameplay as part of the storytelling, so nontrivial difficulty swttings would compromise the story being told (for example if the game wants you to experience a gruelling trek through a hostile area). Now that doesn't mean a story mode or similar is bad, but there are reasons to consider for a game dev to consider such settings incompatible with their game. Also in a game with more complex mechanics difficulty would be more complicated than player and enemy stats, and a dev might simply consider implementing satisfactory difficulty settings not a good use of their time.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Melonpoly@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (20 children)

You don't have to play difficult games. Not everything has to cater to a wide audience. Most of today's re-boots and sequals were from stories that catered to a niche audience only to lose its appeal by going too mainstream..

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 19 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I’ll keep saying it: I already have a job. I want to play a game to unwind.

This is not a universal response. Some people like difficult games for many reasons. Overcoming a challenge can give me a taste of triumph absent from my day job.

Implementing a wide gamut of difficulty settings is also an accessibility feature, and allows people with certain physical or mental challenges the opportunity to enjoy your game firsthand. Why would you want to deny your audience this opportunity?

Sure, maybe, but the devil is in the details.

I suppose it's not the game maker's responsibility to stop people from ruining their own experiences. I'm pretty confident that some people would just easy-mode through dark souls and have a vastly diminished experience. "I don't see the big deal. It's just an action game", they might say, because easy mode gave unlimited healing and no monster respawn. The difficulty (which is vastly overstated) is part of what makes it work. People remember Blight Town and Sen's Fortress because of the ordeal. I can't remember a single dungeon from Skyrim.

Furthermore, meta game options found in menus is not the only way to do difficulty options. Elden Ring, for example, is very generous with spirit summons.

[–] oxideseven@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

No one is asking devs to remove hard mode. They are asking them to include an easy mode for people who can't deal with hard mode. People with physical or mental barriers, people who don't have time, or really any reason.

This is no different than inclusivity.

YOU might not remember anything that wasn't challenging but that doesn't mean it's like that for others. I remember everything from Skyrim. I love Skyrim. I had fun with it so I remember it.

I don't remember much from Elden ring cus I never made it. I struggled at it and couldn't her anywhere.

I can back years later and cheated on a bit more health and more health potions. It was challenging still but I could at least experience the rest of the game.

Gate keeping sucks. Let everyone in.

[–] StinkyRedMan@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Elden ring opened the gate so wide that we got newcomers trashing on some gameplay features which have been a staples of those games since from software started making them. At some point gatekeeping ensure that you don't alienate the players who played all your games and played a big part on your success. Cause the wider you want to open the gate and the more you have to move away from your vision. Imo not all games are meant for everyone and that's fine.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] paultimate14@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I enjoyed difficult games a lot more back before I got a job.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Exactly. I'll play Dark Souls if they pay me.

[–] audaxdreik@pawb.social 13 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Difficulty is not simply one aspect of a game that can be adjusted with a slider. Difficulty is the confluence of many different gameplay aspects coming together. Sometimes, those systems allow for easy and discrete adjustment like with the old Doom games where settings can simply vary the enemies that spawn, the damage dealt, or the health and ammo from pickups.

The deliberate decisions and balance that make Dark Souls good also make it difficult, it's not good simply because it is difficult. Take Blighttown for example, one of the most notoriously difficult areas of the game. It's difficult because the architecture is hostile and confusing, and encounters place immense pressure on the player through application of Toxic and confined or deliberately open spaces that allow you to dodge yourself off a cliff. How do you make that "easier"? There really isn't an abundance of enemy placement throughout most of the game, it's very deliberate. Equipment attribute numbers are all low to maintain a tight balance and even things like parry windows are affected by the specific shield you have equipped. Adding in additional difficulty options is a retuning of the entire game, which also retunes the formula. Look, I'm sorry if it sounds snobby but there's just no other way to say that if you start making substitutions to a dish at a restaurant it's not the same dish!

This insistence that all games MUST be for all people is what leads to the bland homogeneity of modern game design. Dark Souls comes from the rich legacy of dungeon crawlers like King's Field before it and those games are notoriously oppressive and difficult, it's why people like myself love them. Everyone attributes poison swamps to Miyazaki but go back to Eternal Ring or Shadow Tower: Abyss in the early 00's before his involvement and you'll find mandatory poison damage areas there as well. It's a staple of the genre. Heck, play Megami Tensei (no, not Shin Megami Tensei, MEGAMI TENSEI from the NES) and there's a whole section of mandatory fire damage that you can't negate until you're already 4/5 of the way through it.

I also find the accessibility angle disingenuous and a little insulting even. All props to devs that add difficulty to their game as a means of accessibility when they are able to or want to, but it should not be necessary. This also diminishes real accessibility options like colorblind modes, reading assistance modes, keybinding modes, etc. I do not appreciate that.

Everyone thinks they're a critic because they don't like a game or certain things about a game and that it would be better if it catered to them, but difficulty is already highly subjective to begin with and insisting that devs find ways to foresee and cater to all possible permutations is untenable.

If you don't like the game: fine. If you want to levy valid criticisms about the game in your opinion: fine. But this insistence that the developers are being foolish for creating a game to their vision and not yours is the actual thing cheapening it as art.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Datz@szmer.info 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

A lot of hobbies like gardening, sports, chess require effort, why is it necessary for video games to be easy?

Forcing some challenge gets you to engage with more things rather than taking the easy way out. It's like bungee jumping (I'd assume), sometimes a push is necessary to experience something new.

Some of my favourite moments were trying Fire Emblem Ironmans, which initially made me go "this is stupid, I'll regret this, I should reload", only to change to "this is peak"

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (14 children)

The problem is with artificially enforced barriers.

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cold_Brew_Enema@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Because it's their philosophy and they can do what they want. If the game is too difficult, then don't play. Some of us enjoy difficult games.

[–] yakko@feddit.uk 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Exactly, games are art. I don't go around telling artists not to make things I don't enjoy. I just buy other art.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Then it should be perfectly valid to criticize poor art.

[–] kinsnik@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

it is. but if the reason that you think something is poor is because you were not the target audience, you can come across as entitled and clueless. it is not like their games pretend to be easy games, it is clear from the start that that the challenge is part of the design

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] yakko@feddit.uk 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Is poor the word you'd use for art that fails to be amusing and charming? Because a lot of art is not trying to be amusing and charming.

Edit: I don't care if people disagree, but at least have an answer. Not liking art because it wasn't intended to be delightful and pleasing is not how to do art criticism.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] foodandart@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I wouldn't say a difficult game is poor art, it just challenging and may be more than the user wanted.

This is part of why reviewing a game's difficulty and it's play options are critical.

I mostly play sandbox games because the online ones come with the constant strife and challenge which is the antithesis of what I want.

Will really enjoy a well thought out puzzle game however..

My introduction to that was Myst, way back in the early 90's and my main love are games of that nature.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Honytawk@feddit.nl 4 points 1 week ago (12 children)

Art can't be art without an observer.

If someone is unable to get to the art, then that "art" is useless to them and might as well not exist.

To them, even a derivative of this art is more worth more than no art at all.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

Then crank up the difficulty setting. Why feel the need to exclude others?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Mastering a game and falling into a good flow is unwinding for me. Something easy doesn't release any tension nor give me accomplishment-dopamine.

And not everything needs to be made for the widest possible audience.

[–] MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

With difficulty options you will still get that, in fact you may get it better. Maybe for a specific game the difficulty needs to be lower or even higher for you to find that sweet spot.

[–] kunaltyagi@programming.dev 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If difficulty is just hit points, higher difficulties are not really enjoyable. Adjusting hit points, items, weapon damage, etc. together to achieve good flow on every difficulty is not an easy task.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JargonWagon@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

I don't have the time to get into any sort of flow these days.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I think it's an age gap 9f when you started gaming. If you were a gamer back in the 80's and early 90's, you played because it was a challenge to overcome and that's what you enjoyed.

You didn't want to "play" a game. You wanted to "beat" a game. No one played Mike Tysons Punch Out for the story. It was a challenge that took many hours worth of attempts, trial and error, and skill to beat. You liked it and remembered it because it was hard.

Part of the reason they were hard back then was due to file size and lack of saving and such, so hard games took longer to be bored of and sold better, but those were the games that we got hooked on. The challenge. New gamers are hooked on the stories and the entertainment, which is all well and good. Just a different type of crack.

[–] moakley@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago

It's also a holdover from arcades. Arcade games were difficult because they wanted people to spend another quarter.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I started gaming in 1983. (with Pac-Man!) I played games then because I enjoyed the gameplay and only suffered through the difficulty of the NES era because was either that or you didn't play at all. I prefer easier games now.

That said, I think the hardest thing I've done in the modern era is this level in Rayman Legends. I still can't believe I actually had the patience to do it over and over until I beat it.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] Venator@lemmy.nz 27 points 1 week ago

Also Kojima:

"I want people to end up liking things they didn’t like when they first encountered it, because that’s where you really end up loving something."

https://www.ign.com/articles/hideo-kojima-made-significant-changes-to-death-stranding-2-because-playtesters-thought-it-was-too-good

[–] LwL@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

I think he's entirely right for the kind of game he usually makes.

I also think not having difficulty settings is the right approach for souls games, it would destroy the vision.

Different people are looking for different things. Sometimes, the same person is looking for different things. I play story games on difficulties I don't struggle on, more gameplay-focused games I like making hard and struggling with them.

[–] Glifted@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Easy games are fine. It can be a nice way to just plow through a good story. However, I'm absolute trash at games and beating Dark Souls was one of the best and most memorable gaming experiences I've ever had. (it took me well over 200 hrs because I am a garbage-person) Had the game been easier I don't think it would have hit the same way.

That's not to say every game has to be like that but it's great when it works

[–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Celeste is the perfect embodiment of that philosophy IMO. The whole story is an explicit metaphor for overcoming a great personal challenge. And the gameplay's difficulty is what drives that point home and makes the game an all-time great.

I've seen a couple streamers with G4m3r Skillz breeze through Celeste, and the game didn't leave them much of an impression. But it touches very deeply those who struggled through it because the struggle is the bond that ties the player to Madeline.

Other games it doesn't really matter. Portal 2 is a great game even if the puzzles are quite easy, because the greatness lies in its writing, atmosphere and worldbuilding. There's an Aperture miniseries just begging to be made - but a Dark Souls or Celeste cinematographic adaptation would miss the entire point.

[–] Glifted@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Apparently I need to check Celeste out. Thanks

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don’t think it would have hit the same way.

You don't know, because there was no option. That is the point we are trying to make.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Datz@szmer.info 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Doing Fire Emblem soft Ironmans (not reloading when a unit permadies) made me love the series even more, it went from "ughhhh do I really have to move on without this guy? This sucks, what if I'm underpowered later" to "I lost 40 people and died for the first time at the penultimate map, this is a beautiful, sorrowful story".

I now let a unit or two die even when playing for the first time, because it basically adds your own personal death scenes to the story. I will always pay respects to wolf boy who died to make that one final push happen, or respect the axe bro who went through his Kratos arc with a dead wife, kid and second dead wife.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (23 replies)