3 ms·

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 t

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 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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.
  - waste_monk 8y ago
    >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? The software companies can do whatever they want. I'm defending From Software's choice not to add an easy mode, despite pressure from individuals and gaming media to do so. >You don't think disability is a valid reason to add an easy mode? In this specific case (Sekiro, as per the article), if the game is able to be completed on standard difficulty by someone who is quadriplegic then clearly the difficulty is fine. I have no problem with disability related changes such as colour-blindness accommodations that do not change the difficulty of the game.
  - fellellor 8y ago
    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.

waste_monk 8y ago

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 8y ago
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.
- waste_monk 8y ago
  >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? The software companies can do whatever they want. I'm defending From Software's choice not to add an easy mode, despite pressure from individuals and gaming media to do so. >You don't think disability is a valid reason to add an easy mode? In this specific case (Sekiro, as per the article), if the game is able to be completed on standard difficulty by someone who is quadriplegic then clearly the difficulty is fine. I have no problem with disability related changes such as colour-blindness accommodations that do not change the difficulty of the game.
- fellellor 8y ago
  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.