Games Can be Easier

(Dark Souls 3 Official Steam Store Art. Property of From Software.)

I get that boasting about your achievements feels great, especially if you finally beat that one tough boss no one ever managed to. It is certainly a special experience for me to triumph over challenges too. Yet, not everyone has time to invest in games like me or those so-called hardcore gamers. Should some be excluded from playing a game because they don’t want to suffer headaches from getting killed by the same boss over and over for hours? My stance on this is no. Games, as a medium, should be enjoyed by everyone.

Since the Dark Souls series is most famous for its punishingly difficult gameplay, I will use it as the main example of this article. Dark Souls is a dark fantasy RPG that is famous for how hard it is. One wrong move can cost an entire hour because there is no traditional auto-save checkpoint. Bosses require some insane reflex to defeat. The core philosophy of Dark Souls is you get beaten until you get better. That point alone might already turn some people away from the game, leaving it without experiencing other aspects. That is a shame. A game isn’t made with one function, but many such as the graphic, sound design, environmental design, etc. No, I don’t say games “need” an easy mode, but that doesn’t mean games can’t have an easier mode. Another example is Xcom 2. A true Xcom experience is to have your soldiers killed by a tiny percentage hit chance, to see your favorite soldier sacrifice himself in an effort to rescue his friends or complete the mission. Yet, you don’t have to play Xcom that way. Save-scumming (reloading save) is a fun thing. Casual players don’t need to pull their hair out every time something goes wrong. Does having reloading saves (easy mode) ruin the true Xcom experience? Yes, but who cares? Some people don’t care about the true experience, they just want to have fun. Some just want to create their friends as soldiers to play for laughs. Likewise to Dark Souls, if players don’t enjoy hard combat, then let them enjoy other things.

(Xcom 2 Screenshot from Steam Store. Property of Firaxis)

What games need is an accessibility option. I don’t subscribe to that idea of a fixed difficulty, that there is absolutely no other way the game can be tuned differently. Picture a bike. Supporting wheels are made for kids so that they can ride a bike without crashing. Gradually increasing difficulty is what I am getting at. Games don’t have to artificially make the enemies hit softer or the player stronger. Instead, games can continue to be as “hard” as they intended while giving options for the player to finetune key concepts. In Dark Souls’ case, If enemies are too fast, then make them slower so the player reacts better. If the player can’t figure out how to defeat the boss, then give clues or point out a concept. The important thing is games shouldn’t compromise themselves too much to pose no challenge. An “easy mode” should still contain the slightly more forgiving core experience, likewise to why a horror game can’t just remove the scary bits.

Yet, accessibility is tough to implement. To tweak every aspect to be different on each level is surely more complicated than moving the enemy’s health up or down. So the better method is to put these values in the option to be freely tweaked by the player instead of a fixed difficulty mode. The matter becomes more complicated once accessibility isn’t just about enabling ordinary players, but also for those who are physically impaired with color-blindness or deafness. Ubisoft and Naughty Dog are rare companies that implemented accessibility options for those cases, but I have yet to see a wider usage out of the necessity for disabled gamers.

Having options never hurt anyone. The hardcore gamers can play the intended difficulty mode and be proud of their achievements. The casual ones can enjoy the story, the setting, the atmosphere without having to endure too much punishment. If one enjoys Dark Souls’ aesthetic and story, but not the gameplay, should they be excluded completely? It’s a highly limited perspective to think only from one side. A game is unlike a movie. A movie can be enjoyed one way, by watching. Because games are interactive media, there are unique reasons why people play them. A movie is easy to judge because it requires only time and eyes on the screen for 1-2 hours, or 3 if it is one of those high-art films. While a game has to be played for at least 10 or 40-50 hours to get the whole picture. If media has to be consumed whole before judging, then games are at a disadvantage due to how hard it is to penetrate. I’m speaking on behalf of the general consumers though, not game journalists who clearly aren’t qualified for their jobs.

What I want to emphasize is gaming doesn’t have to be taken too seriously if it isn’t a competitive event. Down to the core, gaming is mostly about fast reflexes and the ability to push buttons. Why should it be gatekept from those who can’t spare time, have stressful jobs, or are born with disabilities? I suspect it’s actually a problem of implementation rather than an absolute no-easy-mode tenet. To reflect on this matter, I find it extremely rare to find an actual adaptative difficulty, even in games by the mentioned companies.

So, as a conclusion. I want you to see how this difficulty debate doesn’t have to end with a clear “no, keep hard games hard” answer. Dark Souls or any hard games shouldn’t sacrifice the core gameplay for a wider appeal. What they need is a way to train casual players to be better. Once they are better, then they can play how they are intended to be played. There is a quote by Reggie, the former president of Nintendo of America, that says “the game is fun…if it’s not a battle, where’s the fun? … but a game is also something else, it’s a journey.” I just hope the journey doesn’t have to be so rocky that it scares off potential new fans.