
An Easy Mode Has Never Ruined a Game - ourmandave
https://kotaku.com/an-easy-mode-has-never-ruined-a-game-1833757865
======
babuskov
Easy mode has ruined games for me.

For example, Metal Slug 3. My steam stats show I used to play it for 100+
hours. Before they added easy mode via infinite continues, I was really
enjoying the game. I had to learn how every enemy behaves, where the powerups
would drop and plan strategies to beat bosses. Every day I would get a couple
steps further into the game and I could have played it for years. There's a
great satisfaction and getting better at something and seeing the results.

Then the change came and I completed the game in one afternoon. I didn't care
about all the cool enemy setups on later levels, because I could just bomb
them, die when I ran out of bombs and then bomb them again after I revive.
There was no real challenge.

I never turned that game on after that. Easy mode has ruined it for me.

~~~
jai_
I'm not sure I follow. I'm assuming the easy mode is something you have to
explicitly select or at least have to the option to change to and from. Could
you not have simply ignored the option of the easy mode and continued playing
the way you had done before?

~~~
babuskov
Once the option is there, it's hard to ignore it.

~~~
mrguyorama
That is not a given. Plenty of people ignore easy modes by choice, either
because they prefer harder games, or because they sneer at the "plebs" playing
"their" games

~~~
babuskov
Of course.

The thing is, once the option showed up, I turned it on once to try it. A
couple hours later and I beat the whole game. At that moment, I didn't even
know the game was ruined for me. It felt nice being able to see all the levels
and content.

But a couple days later, when I thought about turning it on, I figured there's
no point because I have seen it all.

It's so easy to fall into the trap of playing easy mode.

~~~
EliRivers
I wonder if part of the problem is the attitude that games are there to be
"beaten". That the aim is to beat it, and then you're done.

If games were seen as something to be played and explored rather than beaten,
perhaps people would approach them differently and get a lot more out of them,
even if they'd already completed a playthrough.

~~~
numo16
I read an opinion piece[0] recently that suggested one of the (many) reasons
that No Man's Sky was so poorly received at launch was due to the fact games
have commonly been boiled down to constant action and "gotta beat the game"
mentality, and that players don't know how to just explore and enjoy games as
an open-ended single player experience.

As someone who plays almost exclusively single player games across a vast
numbers of genres, I enjoyed No Man's Sky's "exploring and discovering the
unknown" game play at launch and have ever since, as they add more and more
content.

0: [http://www.thegeeklygrind.com/opinion-no-mans-sky-doesnt-
mul...](http://www.thegeeklygrind.com/opinion-no-mans-sky-doesnt-multiplayer-
problem-gamers-solitude-problem/)

~~~
setr
I’m pretty sure the bigger issue was that it was a very weak simulation, with
relatively little interaction. Exploring a simulation/procedural generation is
not about getting to view the infinite permutations that randomness gives us —
it’s to explore the _rules_ that create the simulation, and then to
_manipulate_ those rules.

The reason sim city and dwarf fortress are intersting, and NMS and Spore were
not, is because the simulation is sufficiently expanded as to be _worth
manipulating_ (while of course not being so expanded to hinder understanding
your manipulations; this is the craft); whereas NMS and Spore had very trivial
rules: they didn’t really have any. Which is also why when Dwarf Fortress
breaks down, its interesting, while in NMS, it’s pathetic.

Note that I’m only referring to NMS on release; though I doubt the simulation
has been developed since (I’d bet that the game has since gotten _prettier_
worlds, but not more interesting ones)

Tldr; it was poor simulation/generation game, regardless of whether the
current market has ADD

------
setr
If you consider interaction a core component of a game, affecting all other
aspects of the "experience", then _reducing_ that interaction, and level of
awareness, time, practice, etc that builds into the experience clearly alters
the experience.

Consider the extreme -- play through any given game with a mario super star..
it's difficult to imagine the game experience isn't radically changed.

These kinds of defenses for "easy" modes (that is, easier than the game was
designed for) seem to be fundamentally based on the idea that an optimal game
is simply a movie with some (perhaps optional) QTE's to keep you from getting
bored. But they're not. Clearly not all games get any benefit out of
increasing difficulty (most game's difficulty increase amounts to turning
everything into bullet sponges -- this rarely alters the experience in any
notable fashion), but that hardly means difficulty has no purpose or place.

An easy mode might not ruin the game.. but it may be a worthless mode to have,
and one that ruins the player's experience. The souls series would be
generally uninteresting if you weren't pushed towards playing careful and
meticulously. The DMC series would be generally uninteresting if you weren't
pushed towards better and faster (and more stylish) combo'ing. Shadow of the
Colossus, BioShock would have absolutely no impact/weight (incidentally, an
easy mode has been added I guess to latest remasters). Super Meat Boy wouldn't
even be a game anymore.

Imagine never experiencing 100 to 0 pikmin loss! Without that threat, is it
even the same class of game?

If you couldn't play them properly, it would probably be a waste of time.
Their stories aren't that interesting. They ain't books.

Of course, for many games it doesn't matter. Uncharted series really is just a
movie with some QTE events (and QTE events in the fashion of a cover shooter),
and difficulty isn't a factor. CRPGs/JRPGs generally have such uninteresting
encounters that you could rip out most of the non-roleplaying combat mechanics
and still have much the same thing (but you lose that sweet, sweet timesink).

Mass Effect 1 and Star Control 2 barely justify the existence of combat in the
first place (reduce the fuel needs in SC2 and you'll radically change its
early game however, probably much worse). They can be made easy... but it
hardly applies generally. And these are all examples where they can be made
easier, because they failed to make any use of their difficulty in the first
place.

~~~
fellellor
Also adding easy mode retroactively cheapens the experience for those who have
invested genuine effort into playing the game so far.

Also there is satisfaction in knowing you beat something that not everyone who
bought the game has.

~~~
setr
I’m of the opinion that these are somewhat pathetic reasons to maintain any
kind of design; let them be there, but they’re pretty minor. It’s not even
clear they’re emotions worth keeping around.

Anyways, take it away from them, and they’ll just find something else to latch
their identity to (eg speedrun). Or find it elsewhere. Not a big loss. A small
group (actually by definition), a shallow reason, a weak design motivator.

Games are _designed_ , with a particular experience, setting, balance, pacing
in mind; if difficulty is part of that design.. then its a part of the design.
That’s it.

Caveat:

Not all game features are actually part of a design.

Not all games have an intelligible design in the first place.

------
waste_monk
I really don't understand the drive to make everything easier. I've never
beaten a *souls game because I don't have the skill or patience to do so, and
I'm fine with accepting that. Why can't everyone else?

I do wonder if the trend towards casual and mobile gaming has stunted a
generation of gamers into being unable to cope when a real challenge of skill
or wit appears.

~~~
thatoneuser
Why lock away content that someone purchased just because they aren't talented
enough to beat your arbitrary tests? If you wanna play normal mode just do
that, I don't see why options are ever a bad thing.

~~~
rgoulter
Completing a sudoku on software which gives instant correct/incorrect feedback
on digits isn't as fun as puzzling it out together. Part of the fun of sudoku
is going through the mechanics, fairly.

I've heard the Souls/Bourne games described as "tough but fair". For some
games, the idea is that the fun comes from beating challenges from the design
of the game mechanics.

Similarly, there's fun to be had from Role Playing Games by not having magical
foreknowledge about consequences. Saving, and loading to see how each choice
plays out means the dynamic is "how can I get the best?" rather than "what
would this person do?".

~~~
thatoneuser
OK you've given me some opinions about why you personally wouldn't use easy
mode. What if someone else wants to? Why can't you just push the down arrow
and go to normal mode and let the people who want easy mode have an option?
Why the gatekeeping?

~~~
waste_monk
1) As mentioned in other comments, it would result in significant work to add
an easy mode, and the testing required to ensure the game is still balanced on
easy would cost (hourly wage of a tester * 40 hours or however long it takes
to beat the game * however many test playthroughs to get reasonable coverage)
- you could easily get to six figures in cost to add the easy mode.

2) The artistic vision of the games is to be difficult. Why should the
developers compromise that for people who are explicitly not in their target
audience anyway?

3) As the article says, beating one of these games is somewhat of an exclusive
club - difficulty gatekeeping is necessary to preserve that.

I haven't yet seen a valid argument for adding easy mode - they all are based
around the assumption that easy should be there, and has been taken away.

I don't buy disability as a reason to add it, considering a quadriplegic man
has beaten Sekiro, and the other arguments I've seen are things like "I don't
have the time anymore to beat games on full difficulty" which I don't find
compelling - the market is full of titles which cater for that.

~~~
thatoneuser
You're saying this like someone's holding the game company at gunpoint and
demanding an easy mode. This has always only been about it being ok for a dev
to add it if they want. Why are you fighting their choice to do that?

And... You don't think disability is a valid reason to add an easy mode? I
hope you see some of the raw shit life has to offer then because that's a
message that can only come from a place of very privileged contempt.

~~~
fellellor
You can't climb Everest if you are disabled also. So what? Should that
mountain be flattened to accommodate everyone.

From software games are hard and it's not like they cheated someone into
buying the game, who is not in the target audience.

Disability options that don't affect the design vision are not a problem. But
the developer should have the option to choose their market and audience.

------
mcv
To me, it really depends on the kind of game, and why I'm playing it. Some
games really are about the challenge. They're meant to be hard, because the
game _is_ the challenge. Remove the challenge, and there's no game.

Other games are about the content, the story, and the challenge is preventing
you from accessing it.

For example, I play The Witcher on easy mode, but strategy games on hard. I've
used save-scumming with some roguelikes, and that tends to ruin them a bit.
It's a core feature of roguelikes that you're not supposed to play like that.
I'm currently playing CK2 on Iron Man mode (no reloading old saves), which
means I'm forced to stick with bad decisions and bad luck, and that makes the
game different than I planned, but a lot more interesting; I'm no longer
automatically the most successful ruler in the world.

Although in the case of CK2, it does add value that I can also play without
Iron Man mode; it allows me to explore alternative histories where I'm more
successful than I deserve. But should a game like Pac-Man have an easy mode to
allow everybody to finish all levels? I don't think so.

------
Torgo
The entire movie/captioning analogy is off. Language spoken in movies isn't
meant to be adversarial but gameplay is. It's just not an accessibility issue.
I hate this argument because it feels manipulative. If it's about
accessibility and if you still say no, you're a monster.

~~~
dankusmcmeme
This is a typical strategy of far left media.

------
ManlyBread
Cheat Engine exists and it's a valid way of "correcting" the difficulty in
games. I enjoyed Resident Evil 2 hardcore difficulty but I found the saving
limitations weren't up to my tastes so I removed them.

------
Smithalicious
Oh come on. I have only played Dark Souls 1 but it's not even a particularly
difficult game. Just look up guides and summon and you can breeze through it.

There's a certain amount of "artistic vision" to a game like Dark Souls and I
see no need to compromise that to pander to people not willing to put the
effort in (and make no mistake, effort is the only factor at play here). The
difficulty is part of the game; if you don't like it, you just don't like the
game. Don't play it, don't demand it to pander to you.

------
danlugo92
Just please make clear what mode/difficulty level the creators intended me to
play.

------
apricot13
I find that every few weeks a new game that is going to require an entire year
of my life comes out. I have carved out about 1 hour 2-3 days a weeknight in
which to play and every few weeks I get a Saturday or Sunday. I like to have
the option of easy mode during the week and normal mode at the weekends - easy
mode gives me the advantage of not spending 50% of my playing time remembering
how to play!

Games should be accessible to all and you should never be made to feel less of
a gamer because you changed the difficulty setting.

------
throwawaystale
Game authors are welcome to do as they please, of course. But as someone who
both likes video games and is quite bad at them, I've pretty much stopped
buying them. Oh well...

------
provolone
They say the customer is always right. In game dev users will ask for extra
lives and powerful starting items in a multiplayer rougelikelike.

I don't think it can always be as simple as giving them everything. Users
should be catered to and given the best support, but at a certain point the
developer knows best.

The biggest players aren't always the most vocal. It is better to observe how
the fanatics are playing and help the newbies grow into that level of game
play.

------
Shorel
Batman Arkham City was, in my second playthrough, becoming rather boring.

Then I changed the difficulty to the highest setting and it was much more
interesting. I had to plan everything and take a lot of care to not to die.

In contrast, Alien Isolation is an unforgiving frustrating game in most
difficulties. I hope it gets better on a second playthrough.

------
Grue3
Yes, it does. If you have to play a long time before any meaningful challenge
appears, this makes the game not fun to play. People loved Flappy Bird because
it was so hard to avoid dying. Imagine Flappy Bird Easy Mode. Nobody would
play that.

------
lousken
Easy mode doesnt ruin a game. Lack of options does. E.g. GTA is easy mode and
you can't even change it. And e.g. Max payne 3 has difficulty settings but
even on hard it's still easy.

