@angry1212: 'That sends out the message that people don't want star wars which I doubt is true.'
A publisher would have to be monumentally stupid to attribute the poor sales/reception of their game to mean that people don't want a license as massive as Star Wars. They KNOW people do. That's precisely why they acquired the license in the first place.
@urubrodi9: One new idea I want to put out there: open-world, player-driven design may allow for huge variability in difficulty.
Breath of the Wild was remarked on for having a very high difficulty level in parts, but at the same time it didn't attract ire from mass market consumers, and I think that's simply because the game so big (and basically everything optional) that if you can't or don't want to do something hard you can just do a billion other easier things.
This style of design is quite inclusive of all skill levels and seems to be the style of game I'd imagine the industry is going to bandwagon the hell out of.
@eatken3: TBH I think 'git gud' is all at the most apt and most terrible advice there is. It doesn't really communicate anything helpful, but at the same time it's so true.
Maybe it would help if those who say 'git gud' actually explained what it is that players need to get good at (i.e. 'git gud' at explaining things) :P
@Bahamut50: 'Here is the simple, dumb as bricks yet appropriate answer; Games don't have to be finished to be fun.'
I think for people who didn't grow up in the 80s/90s this concept will probably seem entirely alien. But I distinctly recall completing a game to be an exceptional feat (even when the games were actually quite easy by contemporary standards), rather than something I just expected to happen eventually.
As a child the longer it took me to beat the game was a greater value for my money, whereas for many adults with expendable income the longer a game gates off progress to the end the less value it has.
@skunknuts: To follow on from what you said, it's often said that in other art forms that they should be increasingly complex to more greatly stimulate and challenge people (thinking of film and literature here). There's no backlash against this despite the fact that such books or films would be gibberish to many.
Yes, you might be able to read a book or watch a deep film without understanding the half of its themes or nuances, but you wouldn't really be 'accessing' its contents. To me, that is like having an easy mode to a game where the difficulty is the glue that holds it together; sure you could 'play it', but what you're actually playing is simply the facade of the intended experience.
It's ultimately a shallow type of engagement that's a waste of one's time (and time that could be far better spent engaging in materials that are more immediately rewarding despite being shallow).
@dlM0kn: Yeah. I don't know why some people take a game being difficult as almost a personal slight against them specifically. There's room for a niche of hard games, as well as walking simulators, and absolutely everything in between. As such, there's no reason for any single game to be all things to all people anymore.
@olddadgamer: 'Games even have less of a problem with this, as, say, giving players the option to play Dark Souls on easy or hard makes everyone happy.'
Really? Because I'd imagine most of the people who complete Dark Souls on an easy mode would lose something in the experience for the way they played it, and then conclude the game was simply not that great (though I'd imagine they'd have a hard time putting their finger on why). Ultimately they are the ones who lose out and will leave confused as to what anyone ever saw in the games.
@livedreamplay: How is the game designed around that difficulty? What mechanics come into their own when the difficulty is amped up?
You can tell when a difficulty level in a game is artificially difficult because the design of the game simply doesn't support it. i.e. the game becomes narrower rather than deeper.
Sometimes a narrow range of options and depth go hand in hand (MGSV's procure-on-site missions are a good example of this), but often if your options are narrowing because most of the mechanics in the game simply aren't viable at a certain difficulty level then the chances are the game wasn't designed around that difficulty level (or conversely, that the game has a load of extraneous mechanics).
@livedreamplay: TBF MGSV is a game about breadth rather than depth. You get a shit tonne of tools and mechanics and it comes down to player ingenuity. i.e. any mode in that game can be easy if you are creative enough. Conversely any difficulty can be really difficult if you lack mental plasticity in your approach (my brother had this problem as started the game by grenading/sniping from a distance, and simply didn't have it in him to mix up his approach as the enemies began wearing helmets/armour).
Articuno76's comments