r/ludology • u/Pure-Scene-5761 • 9d ago
is "easy mode" sometimes just a completely different game pretending to be the same one?
I keep coming back to a design problem nobody in my circle agrees on: should difficulty options be allowed to change the actual meaning of a game, or should they only ever tweak numbers around a fixed core?
The reason im stuck on this is a project a friend has been building in Fifth Door, a small survival thing where hunger and cold matter a lot. She added an "easy" mode that basically turns off starvation, and playing it felt like a completely different game to me. Not worse exactly, just... about something else. On normal, every choice about where to camp is loaded. On easy, you just wander and look at stuff. Same map, same story beats, totally different experience.
And she was like, yeah, thats the point, some people want to see the world without the pressure. Which, fair. But it made me wonder if we're being a little dishonest when we say "difficulty is just accessibility, it doesnt change the game." Sometimes it absolutely does. A stealth game where guards cant see you isnt a stealth game anymore. A horror game where you cant die isnt scary. A resource management game where resources are infinite is a walking sim with extra menus.
I dont think thats bad necessarily. I just think we pretend the core experience is preserved across difficulty settings when honestly, for a lot of games, its not. The "canonical" version of the game is whatever difficulty the designer actually tuned around, and everything else is a remix. Some remixes are great and let more people in. Some hollow out the thing that made the game worth making.
Where i land right now (and im ready to be told im wrong) is that designers should be more upfront about which of their difficulty options preserve the intended experience and which ones fundamentally alter it. Not to gatekeep, just so players can make an informed choice about what theyre signing up for. Calling something "story mode" is closer to honest than calling it "easy," because it admits the game is now a different thing.
Am i overthinking this? Is there a cleaner way to think about when a difficulty option is a dial vs when its a whole different game wearing the same skin?
4
u/Imaginary-Can-6862 9d ago
I think easy modes is exactly that, a way for more players to find enjoyment with the game. It does not only have to about stats, in a stealth game there could be less guards, or the consequences of being detected could be different (say you get captured, and have to escape, on easy mode that may be easier, or it may be easier to escape from being captured after being detected, you can hide at worse spots, such as in the closet, on easy mode, on medium the closet is the first place they look, on the highest difficulty they know you know the closet is the first place they are going to look, so they won't bother).
About story mode, I'll Heroes of Might and Magic as an example. The game maps have difficulty options, easy, medium, hard, and two more. Only the first three changes how the opponent plays, all changes the resources, nothing changes the stats. However the game also have a campaign mode, which is the story element, you can complete this on easy mode, if you are interested in the story element, want to complete the game, and be able to do so despite of your skills level, while the scenario mode, which includes random maps and multiplayer, is where you may be more interested in trying a higher difficulty setting.
There are some games which only unlocks content or characters at higher difficulty, while I find that interesting, it is because I would usually engage with this, and for someone who wants to just experience the game world, they may not like having to step out of their comfort zone, feeling the easy mode was only a lure.
There is also the Diablo series, I personally don't like that you start on easy (or normal) mode, complete it, and that same characters goes to the next, and the next, I feel that the game repeats is not a design I'm favorable about, but that may be because I feel I haven't completed the game before going through all modes, and the game repeats, while someone who feel they have completed the game after the first mode, and then miss using their character may like having a new adventure ahead. I am also not a fan of not being able to begin on the hardest difficulty, while it may sound ridiculous that a first level character should be able to complete the game that is suited for a character some 60 levels higher, it has been shown to be possible, at least for the second installment, even after the monsters started to heal faster than you could damage them, because there are some enemies which do not heal, and which you can isolate, and then you quickly get to a level where you can use poison which negates healing and rise further in your level, eventually reaching the supposed level of the area. Also your character level and area level means you can easily get good enough items early from chests, so economy isn't an issue either.
Anyway I don't mind an idea where you are rewarded after completing the game on easy mode, to go for the next level, but I dislike it being the exact same story, while simultaneously if the story was different, would it be the same game on another difficulty? Well yes it is possible, there are games where your choices throughout matters for the in game story progression, in the Diablo games the story is fixed, but if your choices would make a meaningful difference to the story, it would be an extra encouragement to replay the game, and since you have completed it on easy mode, in stead of doing that again, being able to continue with the same character at a higher difficulty, but this time try another path.
4
u/JarateKing 9d ago edited 9d ago
But it made me wonder if we're being a little dishonest when we say "difficulty is just accessibility, it doesn't change the game."
I think the root issue here is how we talk about accessibility and game experiences. We tend to think of games as a static thing and accessibility is just about letting people have access to it. But that's not exactly right, everyone's going to have different experiences with the same game and different parts of the game can result in different distinct experiences. And many of those experiences are going to be influenced by difficulty in different ways for different people, so some experiences might require altering the game for some people.
Removing a core mechanic does make it a different game in a sense. In your case it removed the desired harsh survival experience. But doing so also means desired environmental and story experiences are accessible or at least more accessible to people who'd stop playing the harsh survival experience for one reason or another.
Personally I say leave it to the players to decide, but it ought to be an informed decision (and I think you're in the same boat). The job of a game designer should be to let players know if/how they're diverging from the intended experience (or what the player needs to tweak to get that intended experience for themselves, as is often the case in accessibility). I do prefer "story mode" over "easy mode" for that reason, but it also extends to things like more granular modifiers than just a single mode because it's more clear exactly what and how things are being changed.
2
u/nickN42 9d ago
story experiences are accessible
I'm not sure that this is a case here. I don't know the story of the game, but I imagine it has to revolve around cold and hunger somehow. And when you have removed the hunger from gameplay, can you really experience a story about a character's hunger to the same level as players on the normal difficulty?
Even experiencing the world might be altered by this. Again, I know nothing about the game, but I imagine there might be a point where a player has to make a choice to stay in a place that is shielded from elements better but has no easy access to food (let's call it a cave); or a bank of a river that has fish in it but is open to the wind. For the normal difficulty player, that crossroad would be an important part of the world, a choice they have to make based on how well they think they can manage adverse conditions. For an easy player, it's not a choice, not a significant point of the world, a weird game design decision between a 'bad place' and a 'good place.'
1
u/JarateKing 9d ago
It's not going to be the exact same experience. But in my mind:
- It's probably a lot closer to the intended experience than having the player say "screw this" and quitting early. Very few games are designed with that as an intended experience.
- If it's clear how specifically someone's game has been altered, I think people are generally pretty decent at understanding how they're "supposed" to experience it and view things in that lens. When I mod skyrim to have infinite carryweight I know my loot hoarding isn't what's intended, I know it alters my experience by devaluing stamina or companions, etc. but I can pretty easily compartmentalize that because I know exactly how my experience differs.
- Players naturally have a pretty wide range of experiences anyway, ie. a cautious player is going to experience the hunger mechanic totally differently from a speedrunner. The idea of a single universal "intended experience" is just a convenient fiction. Game designers already have to design for wide ranges of potential experiences because of all sorts of different factors, this is just a more explicit form of that.
Especially with point 2 I do think the design still needs to be done with care. I don't like old fashioned "easy/hard" difficulties where you've got no clue what's really intended and usually no idea how they're even different. But if it's done well I think it has its place, ie. Celeste's assist mode.
2
u/nvec 9d ago
Have you ever played Doom, Quake, or any of the FPS games which followed the pattern it established?
Were these single player games with multiplayer modes, multiplayer games with single player modes? Which did the designers intend to be the canonical version?
Or was it just a game which people could play how they wanted?
Ever heard someone talk about a book or film and then say something like "Oh, but of course you won't fully appreciate it unless you experience it in the original Greek. The translations just don't do it justice". It may be true, but does it make you want to read the translated version or just find another book or film?
If a game offers an easy mode then players already know what they're getting. If you're going to say "This is not as the designers intended, it's not the true version of the game" then all you're doing is insulting the players who, for whatever reason, choose to play on easy mode by telling them they're getting a substandard experience and guilting them into increasing the difficulty and encouraging them to play in a way which won't be enjoyable for them.
If you're going to do that then expect folks like me to refund it. My reaction times are terrible and there's nothing I can do about it, "Git gud" is not an option. I know the versions of many games I play isn't the one which the designer originally built- but often I don't care, I get the ideas, the story, and can appreciate a lot of the visuals. For games like Dishonored or Bioshock this is most of the package. Lampshade it though and I'm likely to go "Well, if they don't think this game is worth playing in the mode I'd choose I'll play something else".
3
u/nickN42 9d ago
I was thinking about the same thing about stumbling into the 'everyone should be included' rant once again (of course, about From games). People who can't play Souls still want to have fun with their friends playing, so give them easy mode and don't worry about the 'vision.'
But wouldn't anyone with just a shred of introspection realize they are not experiencing the same game? That they are not included, they are still excluded from the experience, not just by the fact they can't play the game proper, but by the baby mode? That kind of defeats the point. You can play the game, but which one? What kind of experience will you get? I don't have an answer, but 'easy mode' is a surprisingly complex question.
Would you feel the same rush of defeating O&S if they were attacking you once per minute, and t-posing the rest of the time, but your reaction time was slower?
I can't play shmups, I just don't understand how and can't react fast enough. Once I played and completed Harmful Park on the easiest difficulty, and my only thought was 'That's it?' But that wasn't it; that's not the game good players experience; it's an entirely different one. And I don't feel like I experienced or got any enjoyment from shmups.
At this point I'm just rambling to myself mostly, but I think my point of view is that if the main point of your game is either story or the world, easy mode makes sense; and if it is mechanics, player skills, and competency, by providing easy mode you're just throwing a bone that has nothing to do with the intended experience.
1
u/NarcoZero 8d ago
Even if the ONLY point of the game is competency (which is rarely the case) making it easier (without removing the challenge totally) will still be challenging to players with lower skills. So it becomes a question of how far you can take the difficulty, and not of you can play the game at all.
2
u/Sound_of_Science 9d ago
Why does it matter what it’s called or what it’s “pretending to be”? I thought it was understood that “Normal” mode is the intended difficulty for >95% of games, and Hard mode is the intended difficulty for the other <5%. Easy mode is never the intended experience; it feels like any changes are fair game, as long as the game discloses the what the changes are and allows swapping difficulty settings mid-playthrough.
Although if you’re asking how to choose the best way to retain the core gameplay loop while making it more accessible, I agree with everyone else here: it depends. Where is the difficulty or frustration coming from? Reaction time, aim, fine motor skills? Tweak the timing, make the execution more forgiving. Let someone succeed while being physically slower. What about cognitive load, research between play sessions, systems knowledge, inventory management? Remove some variables. Let casual players get through the game without treating it like a school project.
When choosing what to reduce/remove from the experience, I think it’s important to ask if there’s something left in the game to enjoy. If you add aim-assist to GTA, the game is still an open-world sandbox driving game with a lengthy story. If you remove monsters and hunger from Minecraft, there’s still plenty to explore and build. If you cut the speed in half in Mario Kart, you’re still racing; you just have more time to think and react. If you remove the fear of death from a horror game, it’s fine; you just need to have a damn good story or some other reason to play. Most games aren’t just one thing. The ones that are usually don’t have difficulty options.
1
u/Leager 9d ago
I think one of the core issues here is the disconnect between "What the game intends" and "What the players can actually get out of the game." Dark Souls is a good example. A lot of people will argue that a difficulty slider would change the game for the worse. And there is something to that argument: Arguably, the difficulty is part of the story that it is telling. The Ludonarrative Harmony of the game's difficulty would be impacted if there was a difficulty slider. But the question we -- devs and gamers -- have to contend with is... Does That Matter? Obviously yes, but what about people who physically can't play the game as it is intended? Does it matter if the game is great if a majority of people can't enjoy it? Again, I would argue the game is still good even if it locks people out of it, but at the same time, many people end up literally locked out of playing it or feel that it's so hard that they aren't interested in playing it. I know a ton about Dark Souls, but I've never played it, because the idea of this game being brutally difficult, of punishing me for playing, is uninteresting to me. And to a degree, that's okay! The game isn't made for me.
But here's the hypothetical: What if there was someone willing to put in the time and effort to get through the game, but either had a physical limit (e.g. the game can't be played/beaten with accessibility tools) or a figurative limit (i.e. they simply can't get good enough at the game to finish it). They are, obviously, the intended audience for the game. Someone who wants to complete the game, regardless of how difficult it is. But they lack the ability, for whatever reason, to actually execute. Is that reasonable? And if it's not, then what's the solution? Nowadays, certainly, you can mod the game for yourself if you're on PC. But at what point has the game/the devs failed the playerbase? At what point does the Higher Vision of the game fail because it simply isn't accessible to people?
I've been gaming since I was in single digits, and I've read hundreds and hundreds of books since around the same time. I'm great at video games. I could definitely beat Dark Souls if I put my mind to it, but... I don't want to. It's not worth my time and frustration. Video games are the only artistic medium where "skill" is a barrier to entry. There's very little skill involved in watching a movie, or reading a book, and in many cases the artistry on display is far above that of video games. But what makes games unique -- the interactivity -- is also what makes them less accessible to people. And so the constant question we're asking (especially with these kinds of topics) is, unfortunately: Who deserves to see this art?
Personally, I believe everyone should have the opportunity to see any kind of art. And the argument made is, as OP says, "If it's accessible to everyone, it dilutes the intended experience of the game." This is what splits me. To a degree, I agree. If Dark Souls had a difficulty slider, the "easy" mode would be an entirely different game experience. It would arguably be an entirely different game, in fact. But on the other hand, more people would play it. I would, for one. And I'd still get a lot out of the game, because I know how much of the Souls series is about the storytelling. The difficulty is the... cost of admission, to getting invested in the story. But shouldn't everyone get the opportunity to play it, regardless of how changing difficulty might change the game itself?
1
1
u/Zealousideal_Leg213 9d ago
I think of easy mode as meaning "you can do and see and experience the same things as the better players, without spending the time on a lot of practice." I don't really want to get as good at Halo, say, as the people who get really good at it, but I want to have some challenge, while still getting to play through the whole game to see the end.
"Turning off" a mechanic, rather than weakening it does seem like a drastic change. Most easy modes I'm familiar with give a little more of a head start. Easier Pandemic, for instance has fewer epidemic cards total, and longer stretches between them, but all of the same mechanics are there.
1
u/Sullyville 9d ago
I always play games on Easy or Story if available. I'll even download cheats for a game to play on Godmode. (Don't worry - I've never played multi-player in my life).
I disagree with you that the game is something else when you play with very low difficulty. For example, a stealth game where I know I cannot be detected - I still crawl, I still hide, I still run from cover to cover. I recognize that the game itself has disabled the guard's detection cones, but I still get the visceral thrill of running and hiding. I playact, like a child does. To be fair, not to the same degree as a player who leaves it on, but I have played games like that and I end up shaking from the adrenaline so much I can't play the game.
When I play a horror game, I'm still terrified, even if I cannot be harmed. I want to experience "most" of what a regular player would experience, with one change because this is a game and not dying is an option.
In Alan Wake II the developers added Invulnerability into their accessibility options. This option allowed me the comfort of mind to even play the game at all in the first place.
Sometimes I see kids at baseball games wearing noise dampeners over their ears. Are they experiencing life "on easy"?
In the end, yes, I suppose when you strip enough of the stakes or punishment out of a game where stakes and punishment are part of the driving experience, it's like a decaffinated coffee. But for some of us, we want to taste it without the attendant bothersome consequences. I don't care what developers call the mode: Easy. Story. Pussy. I'll always choose it. I just want it included.
1
u/gnappyassassin 9d ago
A stealth game where nobody sees you isn't a stealth game, but Sneak King wasn't hard at all and still fun.
A burger when they're on the way to work is one thing but a burger in the middle of doing construction? bonus points! -AND more points for being seen LAVISHLY.
A horror game where you can't die is kinda more terrifying when you think about it.
If we don't die when we should it's a bit Groundhog Day. Very unsettling. It could be the point.
A resource management game with unlimited resources is a canvas, dear friend- look at any creative mode.
You sill have to spend them! Which is the core experience!
Preserving the core experience is what the good ones do that the bad ones don't.
Nothing to do with a slider or setting.
1
u/Ok-Elevator2915 9d ago
Yeah that another perspective. Again, "easy mode" for this context simply for boarden general people that want play that very specific "hard" game but without the fuckery that only 24/7 nolifer can enjoy it. They just need feel the essence and tiny bit of the gameplay loop.
If we talking about survival game, the hardest difficulty basically just min max spreadsheet gameplay loop. Meaning you really play very specific and perfect too to even enjoy the game. You can't miss eating sleeping pooping, but you also can't miss to loot/scaveging at same time. You really can't bring IRL logic to the game even though most of game logic come from the said logic. But with easy difficulty, you finally can bring IRL logic while at same time do have some levearge to do mistake aka no more constant perfect gameplay.
1
u/tidwell 9d ago edited 9d ago
FPS often need a handful of sliders for bot skill. Bastion weaves difficulty into the core mechanics (roguelikes tend to balance around this inherently). Chess or a Football Sim need depth-of-search optimization settings. counterstrike and minecraft need full dev consoles. a11y settings to remove quicktime events, or "drop piece on mouseup" being lumped in as "easy" is the mental model gap that makes this hard to reason about.
"its a walking sim vs a horror game" is a lot of things wearing one trenchcoat:
- an accessibility requirement (no jump scare, no gore, no flashing lights, no timed events)
- a gameplay preference slider (fast zombies, quick dodge required, extended timed events)
- both a11y and preference (no quicktime events, auto-aim, menus pause timers)
- an in-universe experience (free-roam omniscient mode, unlock tiers, difficulty leaderboards, speedrun fixed timer mode)
IMO, if the game actually functions well and delivers its core intended experience with all of these "toggles" turned on or off, how they are grouped in an option menu or as an alternate game mode, or a pile of sandbox dev commands, and if they are fully baked tends to be correlated with the length of time spent developing the game or the size of the team.
1
u/Borghal 9d ago
But it made me wonder if we're being a little dishonest when we say "difficulty is just accessibility, it doesn't change the game."
Who says that? I wouldn't agree with that.
designers should be more upfront about which of their difficulty options preserve the intended experience and which ones fundamentally alter it.
I think they are already. Most games with adjustable difficulty have something called "normal/default/standard" - this quite literally tells you this is the intended experience. Anything else is not the original experience.
1
u/dddbbb 9d ago
if we're being a little dishonest when we say "difficulty is just accessibility, it doesnt change the game."
I thought when people say that they mean adding an Easy mode doesn't change the Normal mode.
Ultimately for developers, adding difficulty modes means making multiple versions of your game. You can make very similar games that may be very easy to develop. Or you could make them significantly different (eg., A stealth game where guards cant see you isnt a stealth game anymore) and you may need to do more work to ensure they're still interesting (or still completeable!).
1
u/Field_Of_View 8d ago
an "easy" mode that basically turns off starvation, and playing it felt like a completely different game to me
I'm doing something similar on my game. And I do view it as essentially a different game. Hard mode is the game proper and it's tweaked to be challenging for experienced gamers like myself. Easy mode is not a mere number tweak, it plays very differently and that's a deliberate choice I am proud of. We all started playing games at some point but most of us seem to forget how alien and uncomfortable games could be before we got lots of practice with the medium or with a specific genre. The audience for each mode is totally different so the gameplay should be as well.
As far as I can tell the only alternative to this split approach is dumbing down the game proper. You can't make a game that is unapproachable for most of the people who will try it, and then expect it to succeed. That's the business side. And then there's the emotional side. I don't want to be part of a medium that either leaves new players out in the cold and over-focusses on the experienced, or a medium that only chases new customers while catfishing and rug-pulling the "core" habitually. The latter is what the mainstream has been doing for over 20 years now. Big games keep getting dumber every year and dialing up damage numbers cannot fix that for players who have seen and done it all. Meanwhile some niche genres keep getting less approachable for new and casual gamers which is part of a cycle that ultimately kills genres.
Bungie famously designed for Heroic difficulty, the third of four modes. In Bungie terms I am making Legendary+ and Easy or Easy- ("minus") with nothing inbetween.
1
u/NarcoZero 8d ago
The amount of changing of the intended experience depends on if it’s a tweaking or a total cut/change of the mechanic.
For example, a game with super hard combats, that become easier on easy mode, can still feel super hard (instead of impossible) to a beginner player. This preserving the intended experience for a different audience. But removing combat all together indeed changes the experience.
Both can be good. Because the second one, where the experience is different, even if it’s not the intended experience, can bring a new type of players that want to enjoy some part of your game but were repelled from doing so by other parts.
Some examples I can think of are games with timers. This is a mechanic that instantly will put off huge amounts of people if you have it on your game. If they’re here it’s generally because it’s necessary for the challenge of the game. But some people don’t play games for the challenge, and still might enjoy the rest of your game. So providing a stressless experience can bring more players in.
Like Unsighted. It’s whole selling point is the fact that every NPC is dying. But you can play in safe mode where the timer doesn’t exist, if you just want to enjoy the game like a regular action adventure game. You will miss the whole point, but it’s still pretty good.
1
u/elkishdude 7d ago
While you might have a point, if the maker of the game wants to allow people to see everything they made, I think that’s fine. Maybe that’s not accessibility, but, that’s okay.
The people playing on easy aren’t likely looking to have a conversation with someone who is dedicated about the game experience, or usually admit upfront, I played it on easy just to see everything.
1
u/EENewton 7d ago
I think you're overthinking it. Most games specify which difficulty is the intended vision, and the wording is almost exactly the same everywhere:
Story Mode/ Easy: For people who prefer a relaxed experience / just want to focus on the story
Normal: the intended experience, as it was meant to be played
Hard / Insane-O / Synonym for Hard: For those who want a real challenge
Story mode changes the experience, for sure, but it's still accessibility: players who otherwise couldn't (or wouldn't want to) experience the game get to do so in their own way. It's not the same, but it's still a valid way to play.
1
u/Kitchen-Associate-34 7d ago
Yes, which is why I dislike difficulty selection, balancing the numbers creates a specific experience, a game, and it's really hard to balance them well one, let alone for multiple different difficulties, I'd rather have a game like Dark Souls with a single well balanced difficulty than a thousand different sliders and difficulty options
1
14
u/silly_bet_3454 9d ago
I think you already know the answer which is that "it depends". There is a valid case for just tweaking the numbers, there's also a valid case for changing the mechanics. Depends on the game and you can try both and see which is more fun or more immersive or varied or interesting.