This easy mode gate keeping idea needs to die. Git gud needs to go with it. I'm glad that there are games that give a challenge to those that want it but there should be a happy medium between "Mash attack until victory" and "memorize every attack pattern and still get stomped." Or at least a setting that most games have that let's you experience the story while playing.
this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2025
37 points (91.1% liked)
Games
21106 readers
278 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If the intense and strategic combat is the gameplay a person dislikes then what's the difference between you playing the game for the story or watching a play through?
Lies of p has a difficulty slider that decreases damage from the enemies and increases the party window. That really doesn't do much. You still need to "memorize" the moves no amount of button mashing saves you even on easy.
The only way to really give an easy mode while not throwing combat out the window would be to heavily slow attacks, lower complexity, and decrease damage while changing enemy placement and consistancy. Sure, a game could do that no problems with that, but that's a lot of dev time to build something against the games ethos. Every map has two or more varients. Every boss two or more movesets. If this is a devs vision fuck yeah but that's a lot to put in when the issue is people don't like the core concept
Do we argue horror games should have options for low horror so we can enjoy it without the horror? puzzle games should have a second set of easier puzzles for those who find them too hard? Story centric games should have low-story varients for those who still want to play? That dating sims should have aromantic varients for those who just like the comedy? Sure, if a dev wants that, good on them. Current games don't need to change though.
The intense strategic combat where numbers change little and skill changes everything is the point. That's what these games are built around it's their fundamental concept. If you don't want to engage with this and still want the story do what I do with the Warcraft series. Watch playthroughs, or story breakdowns. I hate their gameplay but will never argue they need to spend dev hours catering to me by making something antithetical to their core MMORPG concept.
Edit: with lies of p people complained that the difficulty slider didn't do much as they still had considerable difficulty. They were right and this displays my point. To make an easy mode work there needs to be considerable effort put in. Otherwise it doesn't fix the core issue. The entire point of the system is that numbers mean little to difficulty but skill, rhythm, and practice mean a lot. Changing the numbers will thus not have much effect. New movesets, enemy placement, and quantity must be adjusted for each level of difficulty. This is a large task with little benefit
Do we argue horror games should have options for low horror so we can enjoy it without the horror?
Yes! A huge number of games have toggles that allow people with specific phobias to enjoy the rest of the game. The most common example is a spider toggle. Since up to 6% of everyone copes with arachnophobia.
Can you name horror games 2ith this toggle? I see this in factory games all the time. Horror games though? Pure curiosity personally.
Are the devs lazy for not including it? If people didn't want to implement, are they game keeping? No, they're focusing dev time on things that matter for their horror game. The horror of it
I almost added this to my reply to them, but it was already getting kind of long-winded. Yes, actually, accessibility settings in horror games is amazing. If the point is to achieve a certain level of scary, and the game is too scary for me to play, then giving me the option to reduce the scary will make the game the right amount of scary for me. Accessibility settings don't give me an easier experience than yours, they give me an equivalent experience to yours.
Story centric games should have low-story varients for those who still want to play?
This one made me laugh, thanks. That said, we do have entire comedy genres making fun of "Unskippable" cut scenes.
A skip button feels like a basic courtesy, but what I really want is a pause button. Life happens, and I can't count the number of games that I've just stopped playing because the only option when my dog was throwing up was to skip the cutscene.
VCRs were invented a long time ago. I find it wild that game developers haven't figured out how welcome pause, rewind, restart, and skip ahead would be. I'm not dropping quarters into most games to play, anymore.
I agree with pause. Though I wouldn't use it I also don't do a lot of things in the game to increase difficulty.
On the story but, I mean visual novals or games entirely story centric. Games where the story is central to the game
This pause button feature is why I prefer PS5 and Switch/2 over PC.
I just put the PS5 into sleep mode and when I’m back I press the PS button and resume. Same witch the switch power button.
I don't mind strategic combat (I play Civ, BG3 on harder difficulties) but I hate grinding combat and play those games on easy.
What that means is I don't play walking simulators. If I'm railroaded into a story, the combat better be damn good or I'm refunding the game or at best uninstalling it. I'd rather pay $100 for something like the outer worlds with a really interactive and replayable story than $20 for something like greedfall where it's just a tv show with spamming buttons every so often.
Slowing the game down and reducing the damage done by bosses isn't rocket science. It's like ten lines of code, which have been written so many times an AI can probably provide them.
Different people have different capacities to engage with a game. The world is a better place with some simple accessibility concessions.
We don't need to make excuses for game developers who don't even do the minimum, unless it's their first game.
Edit: To me, the "Watch a playthrough" argument misses something fundamental about why people choose games over movies.
Aight I see aim not getting through to you. Let's try though.
No, lowering damage and slowing attacks is not all I proposed nor would that fix the issue. Complexity in move-set must also be decreased. Also in the game world enemy placement and quantity must be adjusted to lower dificulty. Otherwise it'll be, mostly, just as hard
No, properly slowing attacks is not easy to do. You are not programmer or an animator. No, AI can't magic this up for you either a month ago I saw an app hobbled together with AI that had three whole stacks in it with three seperate apps because somebody tried to add a new view with statistics on it with AI tooling.
Once more, for accessibility, should we have low to no horror settings in horror games? Low to no puzzle options in puzzle games? Etc.
You call these people lazy but don't have any clue what they actually do. No. It's not lazyness. They could make shitty difficulty settings that don't fix peoples problems or they could spend many hours doing it right.
Edit: To respond to their edit, I think the just add a difficulty slider argument fundamentally doesn't understand why people play these types of games
Um, Actually, I am a developer.
I agree with you that it's not always enough. But you're making an all or nothing argument. I find it disingenuous.
Developers with more experience throw in some accessibility features.
It is a hard problem, but that's no reason not to make an effort.
I find the whole "purity of artistic vision" argument privileged and ableist.
Software can do better than other art mediums. Accessibility is worth striving for.
Developers who don't add accessibility aren't some high minded artists, they just haven't fully mastered their craft, yet.
Disingenuous? I think that's projection.
Not once have I stated it was high art to not add this in. That's a wild statement.
I'm simply stating not doing so isn't lazy, or gate keeping. The devs ar e focusing elsewhere. To focus here, they spend more money or take something else out. As a dev you should know this.
This is a feature. You can focus on a subset of all possible features. Not implementing one does not make you a worse dev your code is what matters. A dev should know this. You have x amount of time (money) a dev thus can implement y features.
A house should have a garage. Not building one doesn't make you a lesser builder you just didn't have the finds and chose to build a nursery instead with the money. Focus was elsewhere.
Edit: It's clear to me this persons not going to engage. They ignore my arguments, make up new ones, and don't seem to care for the discussion. I'm going to disengage
As a dev you keep throwing around the word accessibility very loosely. This is very weird. Are we talking about accessibility for disabled people or for people who simply find the game difficult? The latter is the main conversation here. The prior is ableism through low expectations. You're nolonger talking about an "easy mode" either. Accessibility settings aren't "easy modes" disabled people don't need to be coddled.
Also, as a dev, you should know seemingly simple features are not commonly simple. Any dev past junior should know this. No Dev past junior should make these claims unless speaking directly about tech.
Edit: On top of this, I've made no all or nothing argument. Lowering damage and speed does very little to help. Essentially nothing.
Please, under any engine of choice, give me a top level on how you're implement variable speed.
You throw a lot of hatred towards devs (calling them lazy gatekeepers who are poor in craft who can't implement something AI can) what are your creds?
I'm a fullstack software dev with 7 years experience and a specialization in accessible ui (disability, not dislike for the combat system) and multiplatform codebases. You?
Once more, for accessibility, should we have low to no horror settings in horror games? Low to no puzzle options in puzzle games? Etc.
The way you have phrased the question indicates there's much you can still learn about modern accessibility approaches.
Horror games can provide toggles for particular kinds of elements.
Puzzle games can have more hints.
Great developers know this, and use these approaches.
I am not saying every developer must implement accessibility options.
I am saying I won't listen to them brag about their skills, if they do not.
Yes, horror games should have settings to lower the horror because everyone has different preferences and tolerances.
Horror devs are lazy and gatekeeping for not implementing this? That is the original statement from the thread.
It is a horror game. The point is horror. Sure, if a Dev wants to add the slider, full send. Thats a positive. Devs who want to focus on the fundamental concept are not lazy. They have different priorities.
Not all games must cater to all gamers. Sometimes a game isn't for you. You have different prefferences, that's ok. Different games cater to your preferences.
Some games don't cater to mine and that's fine too
Yes, they are lazy and gatekeeping. Difficulty options are accessibility options and development who don't include those are worthless.
Worthless, wow, hateful words friend. I can see we're not going to get anywhere you ignore my points and throw around vitriol. Wish you the best though.
I will state two last things. One, you ignored the horror game aspect and thus my argument. Two, Difficulty options and low horror settings are not an accessibility feature. That's abalism through low expectations. Support for accessible tools, contrast colouring, larger text, etc. Are though. Still, though something to strive for, the devs who don't add these are over worked individuals with too much on their plate already.
Know you are valued friend these devs are just trying to make something good out here
I read everything you wrote and disagree with every point.
Complexity in move-set must also be decreased.
No? Increase time between moves that are difficult to dodge or parry, reduce damage that those moves deal. Difficulty is reduced while complexity remains the same.
Also in the game world enemy placement and quantity must be adjusted to lower dificulty. Otherwise it'll be, mostly, just as hard
I've never met anyone who actually has trouble with normal enemies in these games, it's always bosses that give us trouble. But also, see my first point.
Lies of p has a difficulty slider that decreases damage from the enemies and increases the party window. That really doesn't do much. You still need to "memorize" the moves no amount of button mashing saves you even on easy.
It sounds like that's a happy medium between "Mash attack until victory" and "memorize every attack pattern and still get stomped."
Do we argue horror games should have options for low horror so we can enjoy it without the horror? puzzle games should have a second set of easier puzzles for those who find them too hard? Story centric games should have low-story varients for those who still want to play? That dating sims should have aromantic varients for those who just like the comedy?
None of these are analagous to the accessibility options people want in soulslikes. None of these are literally unplayable for people who simply don't like the genre. If you don't like the horror aspects of a horror game, you can look up when jump scares will happen. If you can't figure out a puzzle, you can look up hints. There's nothing preventing you from sitting through a story you aren't interested in. Contrast all of these with Remnant: From the Ashes, which I desperately wish I could play because I like the story and the gameplay, but I can't because there isn't a single boss I can beat. I can't just look up the answers to a puzzle online, I can't just sit through a story that I don't find interesting, there is literally nothing I am able to do to progress. Giving me the option to reduce the insane health pools on bosses would take nothing away from the people who like chipping away at a brick wall for half an hour.
The intense strategic combat where numbers change little and skill changes everything is the point. That's what these games are built around it's their fundamental concept.
What an insult to the writing teams. The only game I can think of that this actually applies to is IWBTG. Numbers change little? The game you're describing is Sekiro. Every single other soulslike in existence relies heavily on boss enemies having really big numbers and the player having really small numbers. What "strategic combat" is involved with killing the Orphan of Kos? Hit enemy, don't get hit, repeat.
Kirby does this in a lot of games. The main game is beatable by a child, but the more extra stuff you do, the harder it gets. And the secret bosses like Morpho Knight and Chaos Elfilis feel like straight out of DarkSouls or the Sans fight in Undertale.
Oh, and in order to fight them, you need to have finished everything else that the game offers and defeat all the games bosses beforehand - with limited healing options.
Yeah, exactly. People should have fun. In fact, I wish all games would include cheats. Sometimes I want to go crazy.
It was great back when they did. The ability to press a bunch of buttons and get a jetpack and an uzi and an airplane only improved GTA
I enjoy Lords of the Fallen because when you die you are not immediately dead but in the Umbral World where you can continue to fight mobs/bosses and only if you die there you are really dead. So kind of having 2 lives in Mario :) the first hours or so it feels like a solstice that has a balance between button mashing and hard-core boss training.
Can't read the article without accepting sending cookies to thousands of companies. The only time I can remember having to restart was god of war 2, I was playing on hard and there was a boss I couldn't beat after about a week of multiple gaming sessions. It wouldn't let you charge difficulty on the fly so I had to restart the game on medium.
I've beaten dark souls 3, most of elden ring and the first dlc, Bloodborne, play fighting games, etc. I also like point and click adventure games with little or no control challenges that focus mostly on plot and character development through story events.
I'm okay with some games not catering to everyone as long as they are transparent about it, just like I wouldn't expect white knuckle challenges that take practice and fast reactions from a cozy comfort game like animal crossing.
Can't read the article without accepting sending cookies to thousands of companies.
In the EU you can’t be legally opted into tracking without explicit consent ~~so it’s usually as simple as pressing „confirm choices” or similar option~~. I can’t believe people don’t use adblock and deal with this everywhere though.
I use dns ad blocking so some of the cookies popups from the same host show up. This site either wants you to subscribe or accept ads and sending cookie trackers to advertisers, sure I could accept and assume my browser will successful block the third party cookies, but I don't consent so I won't accept.
Oh wow, haven’t seen that because of the adblocker. Fuck Eurogamer, that’s just illegal here. Meta has been trying to pull that repeatedly as well, they got in trouble with EU for that but I guess they feel more confident with Trump getting bribes from them now.
Only souls game I beat is Elden Ring. Only by modding an easy mode into the game. I loved exploring in the game, especially the lore without worrying about dying because of my lack of skills.
If anyone says that a souls-like is only fun because of it's difficulty is wrong, at least in my experience.
I don’t mean to gatekeep because boss fights in From Software games are getting ridiculous but I think wandering into dangerous areas and overcoming challenges by cheesing things and even grinding level and gear is part of the charm.
I understand that it is for many. Just not for me. I prefer exploring lands and it's many wonders.
I would also rather not play a game than pay money for something infected with Denuvo. I wish the Kazan developers would reckon that.
Looks like I'm not playing The First Berzerker: Khazan then. If the only draw to your game is how hard the combat is, then everything else probably sucks. Maybe make a good game instead of a hard game. I had no problem dropping the difficulty on Clair Obscur or Horizon or Mass Effect.
Mortal Kombat's approach is flawless and every game needs to copy it. Keep the game at full difficulty until a particular enemy kills you a few times, then gradually make that enemy slower or reduce its damage output or make it use easier attacks. Give the sweatlords an option to disable that difficulty adjustment so they can die to the same boss a thousand times, as is their wont