B-But how all the game journalists can do their job when they can't get past the tutorial?

Short answer is no. Long answer is: every developer should create whatever they want without being forced to cater to everyone. That ruins their creative freedom that they had and many games are going to suffer because of it.

Here's how we make a game _"accessible"_ without compromising challenge and game mechanics: Better tutorials. Tutorials have a negative stigma because good tutorials never happen, tutorials don't absolutely need to mention which button is jump/crouch/walk; tutorials need to teach the basics, then advance towards understanding the nuance of the game. Titanfall 2 is such a great example, specifically, the campaign and its tutorial section are genius. I can't confirm if this helped TTF2's accessibility (because it fucking flopped...) but I'm certain that's how a proper tutorial should be.

as long as includes popsicle stick people I'm ok with it

I do not understand why customised controls are not a default in games by this point. I have lost count of the amount of times that I've said "If (insert move here) was on (insert button here) instead, it would be so much more enjoyable to use". Maybe I've just grown used to games like DMC where you can map literally whatever you want to whatever button is possible. Have you ever tried playing with the jump button on a trigger? It's a strange experience.

The idea of "difficulty" is actually an interesting topic all on its own. Often, it is much less about something being hard to complete, than it is about teaching a player how to approach situations. This doesn't go for all games, mind you, but I've listened to enough Dev commentaries and GDC panels to know that good game design introduces mechanics or ideas to a player, then require the player to use those mechanics to progress. For example: Dark Souls isn't hard in the same way NES classics like LoZ is hard. Dark Souls is punishing when you make mistakes, but offers ample opportunities to learn by doing (and dying). Attack patterns and enemy placement can be learned, and mastering those mechanics is rewarded with progress. In the classic LoZ, you're expected to just try everything until something works, with no guiding force besides new items to point the player in the direction of progress. I think the player is just expected to know that placing bombs on walls can reveal secret passages, but it's been awhile so correct me if I'm wrong. I'm also playing Hollow Knight while listening to this, and while the game is difficult, I know I can just explore in a different direction and come back when I'm stronger, should an enemy prove too hard. The game wouldn't feel like such a journey if beating the strongest boss with the weakest weapon was a meager feat. My stats increase, but so too do my own skills.

I only disagree in the sense of, what does it hurt to have the option? If someone wants to play it that way with dark souls having an easy mode or someone plays with a difficulty slider. It lets the player decide what they want to play. I think a game is made better from having it an an option to choose. When a game dumbs down an experience when it better to be harder, then I would agree with this video. I prefer taking a challenge, but I don't think having an option to choose if someone did not want to do it harms a game.

Here's something to think about. i have a serious vision impairment, but I like playing games on my computer, mostly old DOS games because they're what I grew up with when I was in my early teens. I find many games harder to play because I can't see very well. When I play Jazz Jackrabbit for instance, I find it far easier to play it with slow mo mode turned on, without it, the game is much harder for me at least, even on easy mode. When I personally hear about people making things accessible, I think of people making something useable by people with disabilities, but you're talking about something different? I agree with the points you bring up that I can understand.

Hey Fringy, look up "Bully Hunters". You're welcome :D

Thank god fringy is back

Seems I have a backlog of ya stuff to catch up on. This was real good

I feel that race and sex should feed into the story that is being told and not district the consumer by shoving P. C content when it's not needed such as cod ww2 with black female soldiers E.G

I love how this topic keeps resurfacing, but your points still hold up 👍

Speaking as someone with a disability, no. sure, I'd love to be able to use those fancy controllers. I'd also love to be able to dunk a basketball.

I noticed you were playing Into The Breach. Do you plan on reviewing it? Looks interesting.

FRINGY LIVES And the ideal accessible game would be something akin to Tetris. Simple to play and understand, but starts to ramp up the skill floor the further you get in, holds a theoretically limitless skill ceiling.

11:45 that reminds me. I really need to start watching archer

I had to think of Jim Sterling when you started talking about Dark Souls and Cuphead.

You should look up the development videos on Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. It was a game created out of pure passion by the people at Infinity Ward (now most of them are Respawn Entertainment, funny how Respawn still make such good games while Infinity Ward aren't nearly as beloved as they once were) that had been built up over many years. They'd been lobbying Activision to allow them to make a Modern Shooter but Activision told them "No, people buy Call of Duty for the World War 2 shooter, so you'll keep it World War 2" and over time through Call of Duty 1 through 3, the games were all good but there was something missing in 3, that being IW's passion. So when they made Modern Warfare, you can tell that every mission and every character, every map and every gun was painstakingly crafted with the passion of the Devs at the forefront. Each of them trying to one up one another with Level Design, even one person (the person who created All Ghillied Up, which is still one of the best First Person Shooter missions to this day) ended up coding the AI for the mission as the AI that they already had for the Engine wasn't sophisticated enough for what he wanted to achieve. It was that mission that created the Bedrock for Call of Duty AI having cones of vision and noise alerts, and 3 levels of Awareness. It is so interesting looking into the development of the game and Reycevick has a great video on it. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eM2ioa91vri0l58.html

I was watching one of your videos, then you uploaded. What a coincidence.

A good game is based on the satisfactory of overcoming a challenge. The harder the challenge the more sanctification there is. That's what has made the Souls games so good. That's why some games are made like this. But playing hard games can be too frustrating that we become too unfocused. Sure easy and fun games are good too just as a relaxation. These games are for calming players to the point that they can go back and think on their mistakes. But if games were too easy, there's no more challenge and we don't feel like we were rewarded. There's a balance to all of this that caters to anyone. And this balance helps the industry.

Personally, i don't think they should be. They don't need to cater to a certain amount of people, because first off, The game will be very safe and no risks are taken, second, it limits the game by it being simple enough for that group of people you cater to with your game and creativity will lack if you limit it. And that is a bad thing. Let's talk about Sonic for example. As much as i like Sonic Mania (There is a phyiscal version called Sonic Mania Plus with more content in it and deluxe packaging btw) it doesn't take many risks because it's meet to cater to the Classic fans. 2/3 of the game uses the original zones, just slightly remastered. And the game is rather easy compared to the original Genesis games and nowhere near as hard as Sonic CD, one of the best 2D Sonic games IMO. Same goes for Sonic Generations. All it is is just remastered levels of previous Sonic games. And also Sonic Forces. It has Classic Sonic in the game, showing that Sega had no real faith in the game, most of the game is on Auto Pilot, like literally i have to push no buttons a lot of the time because it's so automated and the game is trying to cater to as many people as possible, Classic Sonic fans, Dreamcast era fans and modern fans, and it is all done poorly because they focused on 3 things rather then make a continuation of what has been established. That is why i like Sonic Unleashed, one of my favorite Sonic games of all time, if not my favorite. It took loads of risks, it had 2 new gameplay styles, it had a brand new artstyle for the 3D Sonic series, a different direction to the story, the game is long and never holds your hand except for the 2 minute tutorial and the game is hard as balls, especially near the end where there are QTE's you need to react to quickly or you'll lose a life, unlike in the beginning where if you fail, you go on a slower path, rather then a life or death situation. And it paid off. Sure, the Werehog may look dumb, but at least it's gameplay is diverse with different combos and such, it is hard and it has good amount of platforming. Too bad the framerate is sorta sucky. (The 360 version's 30fps drops quickly to the 20's. The PS3 version may run at 60, but it literally almost never stays there except like one level, an ice level. No wonder many people ask for a PC port.) This goes for all games by the way. I just had Sonic as an example because he is the worst offender of this probably, with 2 recent games doing this, Sonic Forces and Mania. So yeah, i play games for their content, challenge and for fun. Like many people out there.

And he’s back

I've been against "hard" games since I once spent $60 on a game I could only play 30 minutes of before I simply could not progress further. Granted this was during the PS2 era of "make all things hard people like that" that lasted all of about 2 years, but the lesson stuck with me. If a game is going to be punishingly hard I just don't buy it. I play games to unwind and just relax. I don't play on hard difficulties (except DA:O cause Nightmare mode is Shale's playground), and I don't feel the need to frustrate myself with skill walls. Now you may play them to be challenged and storm the beach of Normandy naked with a bic pen as your only weapon (good on you, man) but not me. In this debate I see all the unapologetically hard games and simply shrug. I wont buy them, I won't play them, they're a non-entity for me. But I won't say it has to be stupidly simple to cater to me, either. I just simply wont purchase them. The same as I dislike some game mechanics. For the most part I hate most FPS games. Kingdom Come was right up my alley... until I found out it was first person. 0 interest. But that doesn't mean other people can't enjoy it. Like what you want to like. But don't tell others what they MUST do with their hobby. It's why GG was so huge. Most of us agreed on that at some point.

Starting CoD for the first time is rewarding and you can do well but "doesn't compare to a novice jumping into StarCraft 2" DAMN STRAIGHT, StarCraft 2 is a bitch to play even decently and its for this reason I love it.

@Fringy What game are you playing in the video? The very first one.

Good video, bud.

What about things like the assist mode in Celeste wich aparantly lets the player modify things like the speed of the game?

what's your opinion on those who prefer to use mouse and keyboard support on consoles? I assume it would just make you either laugh, or say "or course, why wouldn't you want too?" but that's just a guess

Tell me what game is being played in the video right now

Fringy, what happened to your buzzfeed video? I can’t find it anywhere on KZfaq. It’s the 36 questions women have for men response.

answer: no solution: make it "easy to learn, hard to master"

Whatever experience the developer wants to craft is what they should craft. Dark Souls has no difficulty settings, but does have items and weapons that make the game easier, and the ability grind levels for an edge. Minishoot' Adventures is meant to be fun for both hardcore bullet hell players and for people who want a relaxed exploration and story experience. Both are very fun games that I've played through multiple times.

I'm currently working on my own video game, and I can tell you now that while I do accept input from people who have tested my game, I know that I cannot accommodate every gamer and know it is not my charge to do so unless I CHOOSE to do so. There will always be a challenge and level of difficulty in any game, and catering to every single gamer will defeat the purpose of playing the game in the first place. I thank you for this video. It affirms to me that I'm on the right track with my game development, and serves as excellent insight for those getting into the business of making video games.

I could make a point both in favor and against inclusivity. Favor: There are so many games out there these days that the bar for entry cannot be set too high. If a game does not captivate your imagination early on and keeps breaking your enjoyment with a "you lose" screen, you will likely drop it and move on to the next. Time is not infinite for most people... the folks who did the gaming in the early years (1990-2000ish) and had the time for hard, skillbased games then, now have fulltime jobs. More cash to spend, less time to spend. The market caters to that. Against: With all games being so inclusive, games no longer set themselves aside as problemsolvers. Everything becomes more or less the same, which makes things bland. Personally I think there's a market for both. Challenge (or lack thereof) is a part of game design. If you design your game to be easy, like a light cotton candy instead of a tough meaty steak, that's fine. Some people like cotton candy, some people like tough steaks. Neither one is "better". I do believe that easy games are overrepresented by the bigger companies (who target the largest audience, go figure). We don't need to look to the big companies for newer, riskier stuff. Look to the indie market for that. Hunt around a bit on reviews and you can find some true gems.

For me it depends on the type of game and how you are making it easier. Games like Portal are completely reliant on thinking and reflex. There's no combat to speak of (for the most part) so there is really nothing to make easy, reflex and thinking is the name of the game. First person shooters like CoD, Boarderlands and Battlefield, have difficulty modes for their campaigns, which makes sense. They change around the enemy AI's; reaction time, damage output/input, accuracy and movement. The lower the difficulty the easier to overcome, the Higher the difficulty the harder the AI is to outmatch. This is fine. for those that want a challenge or just want to have fun the options are there. However in the Online portion of the games, difficulty is not an option. which is how it should be. You aren't going against the games AI but the skill of another human player. forcing penalties onto other players because one person isn't up to their skill level completely destroys the experience for those players and undermines the entire point of skill. Rpg's like DA:O, the Tales series and Final Fantasy series, and Strategy and RTS games like Fire Emblem and Total War do something similar with there difficulties without ruining their core game play. You want a challenge? the option is there. You want to sit back and just relax for an afternoon? The option is there. Pokemon however wouldn't be able to do this. There is so little to the game mechanics in that series to change/make easier without undermining the games balance. In Pokemon every move has it's ups and downs, every pokemon's type is carefully selected as is their move set. lower the benefit of type advantage or change around the accuracy or damage of a move and you destroy the core game play and throw that simple but carefully tuned balance out the window. I'm one of those people that thinks Dark Souls should have an OPTIONAL easy mode. But how would you do it without ruining the core game? the most common counter I hear is. "If DS had an easy mode it would ruin the game for the hard players" or "an easy mode in DS ruins the point of DS" The last point comes off (to me) as both wrong and selfish. like i said, RTS games have an easy mode. does that "ruin" the point? yes rts games have reflex and thinking as a core mechanic but that's not all. There's also the games AI to take into account, unlike Portal and other puzzle games where it is all on the player. As for selfish. How does someone not playing the game the same way as you ruin your enjoyment of the game? What, is the thought of other people not facing the same challenge as you really that unbearable? They can only play a game if they play it your way? As for an easy mode ruining the game for hard players I think this is very easy to avoid. Like the said in the beginning it depends on how you make a game easy. First off have the developer make the "normal/vanilla" DS first. Don't even think about difficulty options. Boom, your perfect DS is now there for you to play and enjoy. easy mode is only thought about after the game is finished. Now for the easy mode I would have the developer: 1. lock easy mode players out of any form of online interaction. No messages or pvp at all. npc summons are still fine. 2. Do not implement any "skip level/boss option". You play the whole game 3. Do not change anything about enemy stats: Move-sets, aggro, weakness/resist, drops, placement. Nothing. 4. Do not raise the attack damage of the player but lower the damage they receive. 5. slow down how fast meters fill on the players by a few seconds (poison, bleed, frostbite etc) and speed up of fast they go away, and slightly lower their penalties. 6. do not raise the amount of souls in anything. buy/sell, kill drop, received from items. 7. change the timing of boss attacks. I have heard DS boss fights described as a dance, with every move coming on a beat. so if that dance is moving at a beat of 2 (warning animation, attack) have it move at a beat of 3 (warning animation, very slight pause, attack). all of these changes would make games like darksouls more accessible to players that just want to enjoy themselves without "ruining" the game for others. It's a completely optional mode that you don't have to play. TL;DR most games can and in my opinion should have optional difficulties but it's it depends on the type of game and how it's done.

I mean it depends. My honest take. Difficulty sliders are underated. People decry flat ai buffs/debuffs for difficulty but I think think that for most game types getting an ai 1/3 the way to a competent experienced human is a challenge. Therefore fiat difficulty is the only reasonable way to increase it past there. As for the other end. Designing a "dumb" version of ai is honestly as difficult as building a whole additional ai and I'd rather any such effort be spent on improving the main ai to get it as close to human level as possible. That said adding difficulty sliders coding wise is not more than an hour of work for one coder on a large project. 1 hour out of mainline ai so that all people can have difficulty levels they want rather than small bandwidths or almost none is something underrated that more companies should consider! doing. There are reasons other than effort to have one or a set few difficulties and I think most of those are valid and the people designing the games shouldn't be arbitrarily forced to comply with any set of standards, lax or harsh

It really grinds your gears? Easy there Peter Griffin.

Here from EFAP, yay analytical thinking!

Online subscription on console excludes millions from online multiplayer, all because sony and microsuck want to fleece their customers.

11:43 15:21 perfection

Making accessible games means watering down various genres to attract a wider audiences, just look at how RPGs have been treated in the past. Elements get removed, such as stat building, in order to make it more accessible to those who don’t enjoy the prospect of building a character wrong and having to start over/be at a disadvantage. Difficulty is as much as matter of taste as genre; I find Dark Souls less of an arse-whipping than something like Rainbow Six Siege or Cuphead, but games like Wasteland 2 relatively easy.

I don't think developers should be forced to create easier modes. In single player games I don't see a problem with there being more options. People seem to forget older games there used to be cheat codes/cartridges to help people struggling. Sometimes them cheats made the games better, easy made got you into a game to play harder modes or got you through games you didn't enjoy the gameplay but enjoyed the story.

for some reason it says you only have 3 views on this video why is that

A lot of problems that come up are human nature, a certain % can be dismissed as people are stupid and a different % are people who are looking for something specific that they want in games, but it aint there. Not every problem needs to be solved, but if tools and resources were created then the option would down to the individual. I cant be specific as to what tools n resources means, but one example would be some games UIs seem designed to confuse. Another one is some games dont have enough mechanics or the ones that exist arent developed to some peoples liking.

Sup long lost papa

I feel I should mention something about difficulty. Darksouls 1 is not the hardest game, I've played harder and by no means is this bragging. Now, while it is objective difficulty and such I'll say I feel as though games like Super Metroid and Devil May cry are harder. Two different games from Darksouls 1 but they share some similarities, at least metroid does. It involves exploration, learning the patters of enemies, and to a lesser degree managing items, in the case of metroid it's missles and bombs, in the case of darksouls 1 it's estus and... yeah estus. Now here comes Darksouls 3, how does it handle difficulty? I can not stress enough that difficulty is subjected, and while I am trying to look at this objectively I am but human. Darksouls 3 I believe handles difficulty worse then one. One will always be difficult the first time you play through, that's understandable. Alot of people will say, " Oh the bosses are so hard." or whatever but I feel there's more to it than just that. First you have to get to the boss, simple enough you explore some, fight enemies but now you're down to one estus... This is bad, if you die you have to traverse this whole area again, so you turn around explore some more and oh...you found a shortcut back to the bonfire. Perfect now you'll only have to fight half the enemies. So you go back, kill some enemies and reach the fog door with 3 out of 5 estus. Congrats, so you step through that fog door, and before you know it 2 dogs bum rush you then a goat demon comes introducing your face to the ground with two machete. Hmm... Now is this fair per se?.. well sure if you had good reaction time you could have lived your first time ever fighting the boss but odds are not, you had no idea what was behind that fog door and you couldn't retreat to ponder what happened or come up with a strategy, but it doesn't really matter. After all a boss in Darksouls has low health high attack, same as you so a fight won't drag on too long. You go back to fight the boss, again with three estus. You dodge the two dogs, barely avoid getting clipped by the machete aaaand you get in a corner... then the dogs maul you. Hmm, well let's try again (sorry if I sound suuper condescending btw I don't mean to) You noticed a stair case last time, so after, maybe 2 tries you rush up the staircase, go onto a ledge where the Goat demon can barely hit you and you take out his two dogs leaving just you and him... Good job, you formed stratagem and it worked. This is where Darksouls 1 combat shines. Darksouls 3, what did they add to the table? Well they did what I feel is the laziest form of adding challenge. Make everything fast as slick lightning, and double their attack and their health. It's a harder game, but it's also I feel a more stressful and annoying game, at times just unfair or unevenly challenged. Where Darksouls one's difficulty was from learning the level and learning strategies(most the time), darksouls 3's difficulty was from not pressing o or b at the right time. You see after Darksouls 1 people realized, " If we just roll we're invincible" Because in all fairness rolling in ds1 is very rewarding, overly so. Then you had people going, " I want it hard. Darksouls 1 is so hard, it's the hardest game of all time. I want three to just pound me. I wanna say I died to a boss 72 times." Even though DS1 wasn't that hard to begin with, it was hard compared to the games that were released around that time sure, but compared to older games no, it was average difficulty, difficulty wasn't even that big a thing when they were making it, it was just difficult because of how it was designed, not because it was designed to be difficult if that makes sense. But you have to make 3 difficult, it has to be the hardest after all. So lets have enemies attack freakishly fast, lets give them 2, sometimes even 3!!! health bars, and have them take half the player character's health with each attack. If the player character tries to make a tanky, shield user punish them, make them get stunlocked, have their guard broken and if they try fat rolling out of the way they'll get caught by one of the lightning fast attacks enemies have, especially now poise doesn't work like it used to. Yes poise was a broken system, but it was integrated into the game, with their new system, it was still built on the old that relied on poise and being able to tank a hit, now if I tried to tank a hit I'd lose a chunk of my health back to back because enemies attack so fast, and I have to be swinging my sword to activate my poise and even then odds are they'll still break my poise, so the only way to play is pressing o again and again so you can knick them in the heels 2 times, 3 if you're daring, and then wait another 5 seconds to continue the rhythm game of pressing circle, praying to Gwyn you don't make a mistake that costs you half your health all the while chipping away at them for what feels like hours just to die, and have to start the annoying fight all over again. Yes DS3 is the harder game but cat Mario is also a hard game, doesn't make it fun. Point I'm trying to make is, difficulty for the sake of difficulty doesn't make it good in most cases. Difficulty as a consequence I feel is the better choice to make.

I wander what Accessible even means in that context (not talking about features for disables, just easy-hard stuff) - because what it actually means is just that you're lazy. Even grandma, if she's reletevely healthy - can beat Dark Souls with enough time. So it's really not about ability to accsess, but about people who don't want to play like that - and that's fair, you do you, but knowing that - we can actually say that easy can is unaccessible for people like me who wants a challenge - because i get bored with easy games and quit them without finishing - just like a person who don't want to "git gud" at a hard game gets frustrated and quits. So having said that - i'm pro difficulty modes - both easy and hard, because if Dark Souls's easy mode will not take anything from my expirience, but hard mode in otherwise easy game will make it interesting for me. Win win. Ofc as you have said there's games where difficulty comes from level-design and other stuff that you can't just easily scale, but i got really bumed when otherwise good game is boring for me just because it's too easy - and basic upping the stats of enemies could do wonders with it.

I still regret cheating in Warcraft 3 when I was a kid. It would've been a far greater experience if I earned it all with skill.

isnt this why we have difficulty settings

Absolutely not. Feel this way about Monster Hunter World. Game is way too easy just to cater to a new audience. Monster Hunter was better as a niche title.

Good video fringy. I agree with everything you said. Developers should not be forced to harm their creative vision for their game just to benefit others. They should be able to make the game they want to make.

It depends, games shouldnt be Nintendo-levels of casual, but at the same time, it should be Dark Souls-levels of unfair bullshit(seriously, DS is not, nor was ever legitimately challenging. Its cheap and unfair like games from the 80s, and it has no excuse for being as such, because the better hardware is available now, unlike back in the 80s and games like CastleVania, had a good reason to be bullshit, hardware limitations). So, DS throwing enemies at the player all the time, having insanely powerful enemies and bosses in the first damn area, having Invaders, even NPC ones, having xp be lost after death, having DLC becoming bullshit more & more each time a DS title gets them, Mimics, players' stats being halved in co-op, DS' own well-established rules like boss phases changing, the story being so damn vague, and many other cheap and unfair things the DS series has, are lazy af. They're not legitimately challenging. They're nothing but artifical challenge. And yes, being able to select difficulties in that series, would be nice. An easy mode wouldnt be casual, it just wouldnt be bullshit, while the masochists can stick with their bs difficulty. And before anyone mentions co-op, again, stats are halved, which makes boss fights like DS3's Nameless King, *still* a pain, and makes co-op itself less fun than it should be. And I dont want to start on Cuphead. That fake challenge shit is lazy these days. At least have that bs be a selectable difficulty, and masochistic players can pick it if they want. Instead of having said difficulty forced on everyone. Bloodborne is the *one* Souls game thats more fun and close to being legitimately challenging. But the DS aspects got in the way, even though Bloodborne is supposed to be its own thing. I hope Bloodborne 2 scraps all the DS bullshit. Oh, and Lords Of The Fallen and The Surge, Souls clones made by the same dev team, are more fun and fair as well, solely because of the banking xp mechanic, a damn good risk and reward system, keep your xp on you and get more xp & better item drops, or bank xp when you can and reset that multiplier. I love that mechanic. It sucks that every other Souls clone just rips off Dark Souls completely, and in some cases, add *worse* cheap and unfair bs, like Nioh.

Hehe, solipsism. Someone's been reading Nineteen-Eighty-Four recently.

There's a point where making a game more accessible and inclusive actually makes it deplorable and reclusive. That's not a good business model.

Nough

I say there needs to be a option for both. In today's gaming space what truly are the popular games? The more casual friendly games. Examples: Minecraft Call of Duty Grand Theft Auto Heck let's look at PubG vs Fortnite. One is much more hardcore experience while the other is more of a casual one. Its no surprise Fortnite is winning between the two.

Difficulty levels? Like hard, normal and easy? No? ok...

If by some chance all games were locked to hard mode tomorrow, the only thing that would happen is a small percentage of gamers would complain while everyone else would just get better at the game

5 views 👌

No. That is all.

no

You cant die in fable

You could just use cheats if there isn't an easy mode. Ever heard of trainers?

No

is it stuck on 3 views for anyone else?

I wonder if fringy even knows how skilled he is in games. He talks like beating cuphead is nothing to him,and even plays it in the tougher difficulty. I mean,I know there are many people like him also but,he is still much more skilled compared to 80% of the entire gaming population. Plus,his English and speaking skills are impeccable. I wonder why no gaming company hasn't called him to be a community or PR manager so far.

I'm for games having an easy mode, but I feel it should be balanced by limiting the content you can experience with said easy mode. Like maybe 90% of total content is inaccessible if you play on Easy for the next Dark Souls. It'd be a good way to master some of the basic controls without having to get KO'd so often without the game feeding you: It gives you a sample of the platter, but you gotta work for the rest of the meal. Y'know, kinda like a GAME DEMONSTRATION, remember those?

My opinion? Yes, games should ALL offer a challenge. Some games, like Dark Souls, already know their audience and are notorious for their difficulties, which is why a lot of people leave Dark Souls alone. The vast majority of other games, however, come with difficulty options, up to and including a literal invincible mode. Stop crying and learn the glory of overcoming a challenge

That's my problem with uncharted it's basically a movie

nope they should not >.> simple and short

I think the answer is "Yes, you should make it possible for as many people as possible to enjoy the experience you're trying to create, without compromising the experience." So, for example, PC ports that let people who don't own a console join in the fun? Good. Even better when they control layouts are sensible. Level design that organically introduces new concepts one at a time, giving players plenty of time to understand each concept? Good. Lack of an explanation of basic controls, meaning you have to figure out what the rules of the game are? Bad. At the core, the game should not get in its own way. The game should be clear about its rules in a way that makes it clear and unambiguous what experience you are signing up for by playing the game.

Game too hard? Cheat Engine to the rescue!

Nein

So Calll of Duty is not a game? :S

The inclusivity is why Fortnite is bad.

I mean... Dark Souls III is hardly that hard, arrrg'ably!

I have to disagree with it's not a video game if there's no fail state (4:00) Cause animal crossing. I'd change it to a video game with an opposition but no fail state aren't well designed. But even this has some loop holes unless you want to take up every rule has an exception.

No!!! This kind of philosophy is what killed the smash Bros franchise for me.

forcing all games to be inclusive and easy makes many players excluded as u said. never force any creative ppl to change the product by being more inclusive or censoring content. that goes for any and all games, movies, music, books and whatever else.

Funny how devs will take all you're money for a hard game they never said was hard and not think twice about it but moan if you pirate it to get a feel for it first. My solutions would be make 3 copies of the same game but have easy version medium version and hard version clearly defined to the player before purchase OR make the game free until the player beats a boss then charge so much and then again at the second boss and so on. The thing is you're whole argument is coming from a place of waaa i cant beat a hard game if it has an easier option available and that is just utter elitist garbage, sorry dude love you're content and such but i just disagree on this one topic.

adding a easy mode to dark souls would split the online community between the easy players and the hard players.

Games should have easy options, I recently got DS3 from a giveaway and I just got destroyed, it wasnt fun. If there was an easier difficulty I could play through at a slower pace, I'd be much happier with the game. However, there should be exclusive rewards and the like for players who play on the intended, harder difficulty, including bonus skins, achievements, and whatnot. Easy should not be the default either, it should just be an options for scrubs like me.

Being more inclusive will usually come to the cost of the others who already like it

Dark Souls is trash regardless. Repetitive button smashing and nonsensical story. Painfully tedious and time consuming.

git gud.

No