Maybe you haven’t been convinced by a good enough argument. Maybe you just don’t want to admit you are wrong. Or maybe the chaos is the objective, but what are you knowingly on the wrong side of?

In my case: I don’t think any games are obliged to offer an easy mode. If developers want to tailor a specific experience, they don’t have to dilute it with easier or harder modes that aren’t actually interesting and/or anything more than poorly done numbers adjustments. BUT I also know that for the people that need and want them, it helps a LOT. But I can’t really accept making the game worse so that some people get to play it. They wouldn’t actually be playing the same game after all…

  • atomicorange@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I’ll answer your question!

    Pretty sure I’m on the wrong side of vegetarianism. I love animals, I think they’re worthy of love and consideration from us. I know becoming a vegetarian or vegan would reduce harm to animals, and I’m pretty sure it’s the morally correct thing to do. It’s also hard, it’s alienating, and I know every time I’ve attempted it in the past it’s triggered disordered eating.

    My current stance is that society should embrace vegetarianism. If the government were to make a law granting animals status that protected them from being killed for food, I’d support that as a moral good. However, I’m not willing to be fully vegetarian in a carnivorous society, there are too many drawbacks. I know this is hypocritical and kinda intellectually pathetic of me but there it is :(

  • wuphysics87@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Imo, games shouldn’t have an easy or a hard mode. They should progress from easy to hard. Think super mario world.

    • averyminya@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      I generally agree, but I will say, it’s damn hard to get back into games like this after time passes.

      The most extreme example would be Super Mario Maker, where some custom levels need game knowledge from a wide array of the various games, so if you don’t know that in SM2 you can pickup snowballs, you might get stuck for a while.

      A normal example would be like Vanquish, where if you take a break near the end of the game the sheer level of technical necessity the game requires can make it very difficult to get back into it.

      But those are extreme examples. Another example would be something like Mario Kart or Super Smash Bros., where everyone has their sort of muscle memory with these games. I played Melee competitively and I came back to the game and it was like riding a bike, or a Souls game, while hard, is just one boss at a time and the game itself doesn’t have too much technical growth.

  • comfy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I don’t think any games are obliged to offer an easy mode.

    That’s a valid stance. It’s ok to make art which is not intended for everyone, or even the majority.

    However, if you’re charging people money for it and they are surprised by the difficulty and can’t enjoy it as a result, I think that could be a potential ethical issue. But if you make it clear it’s a difficult, challenging game, then I see no problem.

  • wuphysics87@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    The right way to comment on this post is not to answer OPs question, but rather offer your take on their take.

    I did all the things at once!

    • comfy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      Yep. I don’t argue for things I don’t believe are the side I should be on. Sometimes I make tongue-in-cheek arguments (think A Modest Proposal) but that’s not in a discussion. I don’t get into arguments as a sport or to make people angry, so why ever be on a side I think is ‘wrong’?

  • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    Adding an easy or “story” mode to a game doesn’t inherently make it worse. You can still play it with difficulty cranked up to “Dark Souls” or whatever. The fact that there is a separate mode that others can use does not affect you; you need not use it yourself.

    “Story mode” is actually an accessibility option in disguise: it can let people who have difficulty with fine motor control, reaction times, or understanding visual and auditory prompts to enjoy the art alongside everyone else. Instead of cheapening the game, it actually expands its influence on the world.

    All that being said, no, no game is strictly obligated to be accessible, but why cheapen your art by not making it so?

    • Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I mean, if you want your story to reach broad audiences, story mode is good. If you have an artistic vision and can only see your story learned as such, do that. Not supplying story mode is like not supplying condiments at a restaurant. Limiting your client base.

    • lorty@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I don’t particularly find the acessibility argument that compelling. Sure, we must make experiences as acessible as possible, but at a certain point the experience gets degraded by it. You can’t make a blind person see a painting, and if you did, it wouldn’t be a painting.

      • candybrie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        It would be pretty crappy to never give a description of a painting to a blind person though. Like could you imagine if we never described the Mona Lisa to a blind person and they just to guess what it was a picture of.

      • Sonotsugipaa@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        You can also offer an audible description of the painting, and, just so the analogy makes sense, you can warn the audience that hearing the explaination isn’t the experience the author intended to craft.

        CrossCode did that…

      • Gorillazrule@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I think it’s sort of a matter of perspective. You may feel like having an easier mode degrades the experience, but for others it makes the game enjoyable/playable to them.

        Do you have the same perspective on people that like the sandbox style of the sims games and so would use cheat codes for infinite money? It certainly alters the experience in a way that is different from the intentions of the devs, and to you may degrade the experience of the game, but for other people it elevates the game, and makes it more interesting or fun for them.

        A similar argument could be made about the modding scene. Although it’s community driven rather than done by the actual devs of the games, allowing people to mod the game to customize their experience with quality of life mods, or mods that make the game easier/harder allows people to tweak the game more to their tastes and what they’re looking for in a game.

        You might say that if a game isn’t appealing to someone they should just play another game. But if the game is very close to the experience they are looking for, but there are a few hangups that are a deal breaker for them, why force them to look for the perfect unicorn game instead of acknowledging that allowing players to cater the game to their own tastes is better. Having an easy mode does nothing to harm you, or your experience of the game, you can still play at your desired difficulty. And it only opens the game up for other people to enjoy.

        You can’t make a blind person see a painting. But you can put a braille placard in front of it with a description of the painting. Or have audio tours that describe the paintings. And to you, that may degrade the art, but for someone who otherwise wouldn’t be able to experience it at all, it allows them to at least share somewhat in the experience that everyone else in the exhibit is having.

        • Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Good old klapaucius:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:!:! I wish there was some use to me still remembering that word today.

      • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        The point I’m making is that you need not alter the painting. Adding an option to a game does not alter it for those that do not select it.

        You’re arguing for letting perfect be the enemy of good. The fact that a blind person can’t perceive the visual aspect of an experience doesn’t mean that they should be excluded entirely.

  • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Asking (paraphrasing) “hey what are you wrong about but unwilling to admit?” and then sticking a (metaphorical) “I think Nickleback is a pretty good band” opinion in the middle of it feels like a harder challenge than the designers of AskLemmy were intending

    • lorty@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I thought about it a bit when making this post and I felt like not giving an example would make people come with crazy political opinions which would probably be a bad time. Maybe it still wasn’t the best approach, admittedly.

  • WhatsHerBucket@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    As a Gen Xer, I would agree. When we had games, you had to figure it out. From there, it just got harder and harder until you died. No pretty graphics, no saves, no easy mode.

    Now get offa muh lawn!

    E: words are hard

  • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    There isn’t really a “right” side to that one. If developers want to disappoint some potential customers and leave money on the table by not creating an easy mode, that’s their prerogative.

    • lorty@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Maybe? I feel like the developers have the prerogative to decide to include it or not, but with the way the discourse has gone it certainly feels like I’m in the wrong here.

      • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Point 1: If adding an easy mode legitimately degrades the “hard core” game, that’s one thing. But unless you were on the development team, how would you know if it had?


        Point 2: I don’t think it’s wrong, but I do think it’s… let’s say unskillful in the Buddhist sense. Not immoral so much as clumsy.

        People who self-identify as gamers and tie their sense of pride/self-worth to their gaming prowess are cringe. It’s cringey to not want there to be easy modes when nobody’s forcing you to play them.

  • j4k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    9 hours ago

    That human rights really matter in the coming upheaval. The doomsday glacier is probably insurmountable for civ to overcome and that level of change in sea level within a decade to century and a half is going to change everything. Most of the worlds cities are not viable. From what I have seen, the long estimates are all biased and unreliable.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yEj9JVRhjA

    On the bright side, speculative long term land investments might yield a large sum of money. Shallow keel ferry and airboat operators stand to make a fortune.

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Well, this thread was entertaining until I read this comment

      Not mad though, this is what people should be talking about

      • j4k3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Sorry depression is rather strong ATM. Basic needs not getting met hurts.

    • lorty@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I’m not sure how the impending climatic doomsday is going to make human rights unimportant?

      • Lauchs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I think the logic is essentially right wingers keep winning elections. Their supporters tend to argue first and foremost it’s a win against “woke” while the money/interests behind it tend to be “let’s burn this planet down and get ALL the oil.” If the Left conceded on say trans issues or whatever, maybe we’d win, whixh would undoubtedly benefit the billions who may die because of climate change issues.

        (Unsure if this would work or if it’d just split the left etc myself but I think that’s the logic.)

        An analogy a friend made while making this argument was that the Civil War was essential for Black emancipation etc and we can all agree it was a good thing. BUT, especially in those days, if abolitionists had also demanded trans recognition or whatever, maybe fewer states would’ve joined the Union or maybe the movement would’ve never gotten off the ground and there’s a possible future wherein Black people might still be slaves because, even with the best intentions, we didn’t pick our battles.

        It’s a utilitarian answer to a Sophie’s choice.

      • j4k3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 hours ago

        It is an abstraction, an anecdote really. When ordinary people are collectively in dire straights, there is little time or voice for those on the edges that become collateral damage. It is like the military when an army is being pursued in the field by another superior force–the wounded and baggage train support that are unable to fight are left behind. The ethics of the primary force are only circumstantially applicable. No one cares about the disabled or outliers when the attorneys judge and jurists are in crisis mode. While those examples are poor in their applicable timelines and the medium scale big picture. If one abstracts another few layers higher, at the decades to more centuries and even lifespans of civilizations perspective views, the overall stresses and strain on a civilization alter the landscape of the philosophical and morality. Civil rights struggles had little meaning or traction during a world war. Martial law is a mechanism that extinguishes all civil rights in a single mechanism.

        I’m not taking sides to making excuses for the behavior of others. It is just my intuition and curiosity allowed to roam freely in the good and the bad without distinction in an attempt to think without bias.

        When someone tells me of an unprecedented population displacing event, I see the refugee crisis and disproportionate effects on the poor and disadvantaged. The larger the scope of the poor people problem the larger will be the numbers of people on the edges that fall through the cracks. The experience is empirical from someone that has fallen through the cracks.

  • MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    You know you don’t have to play the easy mode right? You can just change the mode in the settings. Most games default to the standard version anyway.

    • lorty@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Yes, but by that same argument if the experience doesn’t work for you as it was intended, perhaps the game isnt for you.

      Not that arguing this point is the question here anyway.

      • deo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        But the developers put a story/easy mode in the game. That seems intentional to me. Maybe those games just aren’t for you if the mere option of difficulty settings bothers you so much.

        • comfy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Why wouldn’t the developer want as many people as possible to buy the game though?

          I’ve never made art (incl. games) with the intention of having as many people view it as possible. Many developers make games as a hobby rather than for mere profit, and some try to draw a compromise in the middle.

          I know this doesn’t apply as much to major well-known games created by professional game development companies, but there are other incentives guiding development beyond maximizing purchases.

          • MrJameGumb@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            And how many boutique niche Indy games made solely for their artistic merit have you played that actually had an easy mode?

        • lorty@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          From a purely financial view, they don’t. There’s a reason why games have become as handholdy as possible. And one of the reasons why the Souls series stood out was because it went in a different direction.

        • Semperverus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          Games used to be art and done for passion.

          Having to include an “easy mode” in your game has powerful knock-on effects that change how normal and hard difficulties play too. Timings and quantities that would normally be finely tuned and hand-crafted suddenly need to be highly-variable and detract from the freedom of developing for just one difficulty.

          • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            That sounds like an entirely surmountable engineering problem.

            It’s not like games are being written in assembly any more.

            • Semperverus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 hours ago

              It goes deeper than just simple engineering though. It affects tone and overarching game design. It is multiple extra dimensions that have to be considered across every aspect of the entire game. If it is done poorly, you get paper dolls on easy mode and damage sponges on hard and nothing of merit to compensate for these facts. The difficulty of the game goes from being genuine to artificial.

              • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 hours ago

                That’s why you design for accessibility, and don’t try to cram it in at the last moment. It’s not actually difficult, it just requires engineering discipline.

                There are also plenty of Dark Souls clones for people like you who demand nothing but punishment.

                • Semperverus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  46 minutes ago

                  I don’t need a game to be hard, I need it to be consistent and well thought-out. Animal Well for example is a rather easy game, but because it only has one difficulty, the developer was able to keep a very tight focus on the world and puzzle design. Everything is layered there, because they don’t have to be containerized and sliced into pieces to account for adjustable difficulty settings.