Easy Modes and Author Intention
I decided to write this after reading a recent article at Kotaku, "An Easy Mode Has Never Ruined a Game." The author makes several great points but does overlook one aspect of game development I'd like to highlight: author intention.
There are a couple of things that are important to state at the outset.
- Inclusion is something we should strive for. Color-blind modes, hotkey remapping, FOV sliders and the like are simple features that don't compromise the experience but are required for many people. We should push for these types of features.
- Total inclusion is unreasonable for most games. Despite our best efforts, some portion of the population will be unable to experience the game at a meaningful level. We as developers should aim for allowing the maximum number of people to play without compromising the key reasons we're making the game.
- It is in most developer's business interest to increase inclusivity. Choosing not to do so fundamentally decreases the size of your potential audience.
Since the Kotaku article described their opinion on difficulty in the frame of inclusivity, I wanted to make these points clear before diving in.
Author Intention
Let's look at a game that used difficulty as a core design element: Getting Over It. Bennett Fody, the game's creator, makes it clear he wants to use difficulty and frustration to make a point. He uses the following to describe the game:
He is effectively using exclusion as a design choice. It is his intent for the game to be difficult or impossible to complete for most people. He is trying to force you into a certain mindset. The controls are unwieldy, the level unforgiving. He wants you to despair, just to try again.
In this case, the difficulty is part of the art itself. An easy mode in Getting Over It would fundamentally change the game. But wait, couldn't most people just play on the normal difficulty?
It Doesn't Change Your Experience
The most common argument for easy modes is that they won't change the experience for the players that relish in the difficulty -- or more accurately, the feeling of overcoming it. This is essentially Joshua Rivera's main point in the Kotaku article. It's a pure win: game devs spend a little more time implementing difficulty modes, hardcore gamers get their difficulty, less-abled gamers get to enjoy a game they otherwise couldn't.But: how many of us have ever lowered the difficulty setting of a game when we reached a wall? Or simply started on a lower-than-hardest difficulty because that's either what we prefer, or we want to get a feel for the game first? How many of us would reach for the "easy" lever after getting killed repeatedly by the notoriously difficult Ornstein and Smough in Dark Souls, or Lady Butterfly in Sekiro? I certainly would, because I've done it in other games. I want to see the game through, but having limited time isn't conducive to spending hours being frustrated by one boss. Maybe I'll even lie and tell myself I'll put the difficulty back up after the boss if that's an option.
They seem friendly.
But From Software, the maker of those two games, doesn't want to give you an out. You reach a wall, and instead of altering the game to overcome it, you have to overcome it through your own ability. There's no other option. Does this mean some of the audience will be left behind? Unfortunately yes, but if From decides that's what they want to instill in their games, that's their right as artisans.
An easy mode would not ruin the experience, but it would certainly alter it. It's up to the game's authors to determine whether it would be altered in a fundamental way that reneges on their vision for the game. In most games it shouldn't, or at the very least there's a way to alter the difficulty in a way that doesn't compromise their vision.
A Different Way
Let's examine some alternative ways inclusive difficulty could be implemented. One could be by using old-school-style cheat codes. Just lower enemy damage, turn on god mode, or level skip to the next area. Problem solved, right? Cheat codes indicate that they are an unintended way to play and discourage regular players more than a difficulty menu.For me, it feels a bit problematic to say those with disabilities have to "cheat" just to play, however. It's also too easy for the developers to go overboard and fundamentally break the experience for players that need them to progress, cheapening their accomplishments. Cheat codes are also historically hidden from the player.
Celeste
In light of that, let's talk about one of the best implementations of an "easy mode" in recent memory. A fast, difficult platformer, Celeste allows players to turn on what they call "Assist Mode." You can slow the game down, get infinite jumps, or become invincible. Why is this different than the other methods I've talked about? As Mark Brown mentions in his Celeste video, it is made extremely clear to the player that playing without assist mode is the intended way to experience Celeste.
They then go on to say that everyone's different, and to feel free to use Assist Mode if it's necessary to enjoy or play the game. This also fits wonderfully into Celeste's themes of both overcoming challenge and finding space and acceptance in the world. They found a way to offer an easier way to play that doesn't change their vision of the game and even, in a way, enhances it.
Comments
Post a Comment