Are Games Crippled By Easy Modes?

[Varrok]

You're just a pussy.

[Slog Bait]

Yeah, he can take it pretty damn hard.

[MA]

Varrok just wants my pussy. for the reasons SB stated.

[Ridg3]

From first hand experience, I can tell you that MA's pussy has no easy mode.

[Bullet Magnet]

I do not think games are crippled by easy modes. Easy modes make the game more accessible to more people, such as casual gamers who want a way into the deeper aspects of the hobby, players with certain disabilities, parents who want to play with their gamer kids, kids who want to play with their gamer grandparents (this is our future, you guys), gamers who are too drunk to manage anything harder (this is our past, present and future, you guys) and so on. It allows gamers, many of which paid money for the game, to tailor their experience, and also to access more of the game that they paid for. It's no good if you shelled out £60 for a new release and can't get past the third level. Furthermore, if games are to be taken seriously as an art form, people need to be able to experience the whole thing. Especially those with stories. No other art form supplies the story as a reward for demonstrating esoteric skills, nor do they withhold their endings if they find you unworthy.

Games are not crippled by easy modes. They are crippled by lazy design.

[MeechMunchie]

That's a good point, actually. If you disapprove of a game's easy mode, you should complain about the mode's poor implementation, not the mode itself.

[Venks]

I do not think games are crippled by easy modes. Easy modes make the game more accessible to more people, such as casual gamers who want a way into the deeper aspects of the hobby, players with certain disabilities, parents who want to play with their gamer kids, kids who want to play with their gamer grandparents (this is our future, you guys), gamers who are too drunk to manage anything harder (this is our past, present and future, you guys) and so on. It allows gamers, many of which paid money for the game, to tailor their experience, and also to access more of the game that they paid for. It's no good if you shelled out £60 for a new release and can't get past the third level. Furthermore, if games are to be taken seriously as an art form, people need to be able to experience the whole thing. Especially those with stories. No other art form supplies the story as a reward for demonstrating esoteric skills, nor do they withhold their endings if they find you unworthy.

Games are not crippled by easy modes. They are crippled by lazy design.

Definitely. My little brother vastly enjoys playing platformers, but some of the trickier jumps are far past his current playing level. Now with the white tanooki suit he can stand on spikes and not worry about goombas or koopa troopas. This way he can actually access more of christmas present when ever he's playing with himself.

Luckily though our parents are avid gamers. His dad is a professional Street Fighter player and his mom was a professional Killer Instinct player so if there's anything he still can't manage to do they can carry him through it. I really like Mario games for how accessible they are.

[Bullet Magnet]

That's a good point, actually. If you disapprove of a game's easy mode, you should complain about the mode's poor implementation, not the mode itself.

My inclination would be to not play the easy mode.

[Varrok]

Best inclination.

[MeechMunchie]

Complacency?

[AlexFili]

I think Difficulty is an important subject in gaming, so here's my take;

Gamers should always have a choice, because we all have different skill levels. The worst case for a developer is when they make a game and everyone gets stuck on a specific section of the game. In games like Candy Crush Saga the difficulty spikes can come as a surprise (probably to get you to buy the powerups but thats another story), whereas other games gradually ramp up like Plants vs Zombies and Pokemon.

There are some games which require time like Animal Crossing and ones that require you to go outside (3DS's Streetpass and other games that require WiFi connection scanning). While these aren't 'difficult' you could argue that they are challenges to overcome.

While I love Assassin's Creed I must admit that it's quite a forgiving game. There are many checkpoints, ample opportunities to gather supplies and autosaves. When you collect an item such as a feather or sea shanty it's in your inventory forever. In older games you would have to manually save or reach a checkpoint before all your progress is stored. If you die, you basically just get put back into the game and often there is very little penalty. Contrast that with the highly challenging multiplayer mode where dying can get your teammates killed or give the other team points.

Online games like CoD and DOTA2 I consider very challenging. RTS games are tricky too, particularly with powerful AI opponents. Certain games like FTL require strategy and tactics, but if you follow the rules and guidelines you can try to minimise the risk of getting killed. Of course random events can often cause difficulty spikes but they're also what makes roguelike games so compelling.

One thing I dislike is when games do not have enough difficulty settings. FIFA games often have three difficulty settings... THREE! That's idiotic in my opinion. Most games have 5 and Smash Bros has 9 so why do they think that just three is fine? That's just laziness in my opinion but there you go.

[Phylum]

RTS games are tricky too, particularly with powerful AI opponents.

Isn't the real challenge was supposed to be when you start playing Koreans online?

[MA]

bomb those Koreans.


sorry.

[Phylum]

zerg those mothers

[Job McYossie]

zerg those mothers

NO NOT THE ZERG RUSH HORRORS!

Should the next topic be "Are Games Crippled By Cheap Moves?" XD