Remember, it's possible to like something while also accepting criticism of it. I know disabled comrades that have had similar experiences to this article as well. Asking for better access to the treats doesn't threaten the existence of the treats. :only-good-gamer:
Those are all valid criticisms.
If I were to apply theory brain, I'd guess a lot of the challenge and masochism for some players is rooted in the same energy of those people that brag about working twelve hours a day every day without taking a break. Or those who went without basic comfort and enjoyment in a workplace setting because they could handle that.
I think some people can enjoy souls games for other reasons, but I think the folks who are against difficult scales etc. are the ones I described above.
I think a difficult game that approached difficulty well was Bayonetta. The first few stages don't give the full catalog of her powers are you're introduced to new mechanics.
The real difficulty is totally optional - choosing the mode and trying to increase your score.
I still get satisfied dodging just in time to slow the enemies. I think that's the satisfaction people describe with souls games, but I think giving a couple of early/easy wins can just be fun. Especially if you revisit it and realize how much you've accomplished.
One thing I like about the souls games is their lack of interface/clutter. I wish games like elder scrolls or fallout could have that without making it difficult to interact with certain things. Like how the quest radar is tied to the target reticle. I can't pick things up and know if I'm stealing unless I have a perfect sense of where I am.
It all just boils down to options. Give people the options that work for them and don't give people shit for not playing it your way. If somebody wants to run around a map exploring the areas in very easy mode, let them.
The take I will stand for and fight for about such games is that accessiblity/difficulty options should not in any way negatively affect people that crave the challenge of higher difficulty, unless the purpose of that difficulty wasn't really the enjoyment of such difficulty but was instead some weird gatekeeping elitist chud Epic G*mer bullshit where anyone playing the game differently by having that choice is bad and wrong and destroying the experience somehow.
Do you have examples? I think I understand what you mean - like how later Mass Effect games have 'cinematic' mode? Or hand holding tutorial/levels that ruin potential exploration like many Pokemon games?
Celeste's assist mode lets you slow down the game by up to half, pause and let you select a direction whenever you dash, skip entire chapters, have infinite climbing stamina, have infinite dashes, and can make you invulnerable.
That sounds like the best option, like the slow mode on guitar hero or the walking exercises you would do while learning an instrument.
The base game is genuinely too fast for people to learn.
Improvement happens at the edge of someone's abilities. It's genuine ableism to set a single difficulty.
I invite every gamer that says otherwise to spend 5,000 hours to learn Hammerklavier by brute force, only playing Hammerklavier, no training regimen, no sheets or other music to practice.
Some recent Nintendo games, including at least one Mario Kart, had a (very) easy mode for people that just wanted to sort of enjoy zooming around on the map. That was upsetting enough for Epic G*mers.
Even the suggestion of lower difficulty or introductory difficulty settings for Cuphead caused a notoriously toxic fanboy reaction to anyone and everyone that so much as brought it up.
Oh I see. I thought you disagreed with me. Yeah, Mario kart is a game I play with friends and I quietly take off the steering assist when we play.
This might be an interesting watch on the subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIWivb-8C1w