Please do write more of these thoughts articles they're really good! I really think you have done a good job of highlighting the conflict I feel about difficulty settings in games. I always play games on the harder difficulties even for a first play through, but that's because of what I enjoy put of games. I like the challenge. But that's just me, and having adjustable settings wouldn't affect me at all I would just ignore them and battle on. Ultimately I think it's good they exist for others who want different things from games and still want to experience the same game as others and not be locked out of the conversation.
It was interesting to read your thoughts on this. When I was a younger gamer I would spend many, many hours playing games through on all conceivable difficulties. I played American McGee's Alice all the way through on every difficulty and then again, made it harder for myself by doing it with just the vorpal blade. Now though, I don't seem to have the patience, and massively appreciate the choice to change settings that will mean I can wander in a sandbox looking into nooks and crannies without worrying that I'll break my avatar's legs on a long drop, or make it from end to end of the driest of salt flats on one bottle of water and some juicy fruits so I can look at a beautiful tree.
I no longer have that 'guilt' for enjoying a game at a slow pace on the easiest of difficulties, because I've played so many games through on hard that I know I could, if I really wanted to.
Mechanics such as Wildmender's really appeal to me, with a myriad of sliders meaning the player can set the game up to be hard in some aspects, medium elsewhere and easy in others, as and when they wish. It gives the game masses of replayability for the completionist, as well as allowing casual play and serious difficulty should you want it.
Then there is The Forest, a game I am so familiar with now that if I play on easy I actually miss the mutants..
Honestly I think it's about time we start to split up the descriptor of 'videogames' a bit.
Some games are all about the story; pick the difficulty you want to get the full experience.
Some games are about the gameplay; there's usually an 'expected difficulty' that the game is based around, and higher or lower difficulty settings are usually just messing with numbers after the fact.
And some games are meant to be replayed in a cycle of increasing difficulty. For these, the point kind of changes depending how many times you've looped it. Skipping beautifully rendered cutscenes to get back to the part I keep getting murdered on becomes the norm quite quickly.
I really enjoyed this ‘general musings’ post, I’d happily read more. Though points deducted for it not being a 4 hour video essay.
In answer to your point I’d say that a sliding scale of difficulty which you can adjust in-game could be the perfect tool for gamers who want the story of a game more than anything. However if you’re playing a game to be challenged by it this kind of thing would be soundly ignored.
To me I think there could be room for integrating both systems. An ‘easy-medium-hard’ choice with the option to turn things like auto targeting on or platforming assist. I know people who absolutely love games like Horizon but find the platforming parts extremely frustrating, but don’t want to play on ‘easy mode’ or struggle with combat but still want the puzzles to be tricky. Obviously there’s a crowd that would say you should play games that match your ability level but as you rightly say, video games are art and should be available for anyone who wants to experience them.
It’s not a simple answer but it’s not a simple question. Keeping this kind of civil discourse going can only be good for gamers and gaming as an industry. Everyone who wants to game should have a voice.
There's an interesting thing in there about how you didn't finish The Witness and had to put it down "sadly", and if you're looking for another rambling blog post then the worth of finishing games is another hot button topic ;)
I think it intersects interestingly with the difficulty discussion, too. Especially games where the difficulty is the point (and I think , The Witness is a really interesting example. Because, like DS, puzzle games are supposed to be challenging, but no one gets upset about that as much?) When difficulty is the point, and you felt unable to progress, yes that is sad, but did you not still experience the game, and meet it where it was trying to come from? There's definitely worth in experiencing a game without finishing it, and perhaps there's even a difference between finishing a game and "beating" it, when difficulty is the point.
And of course, at the end of the day, games are a subjective experience. It's also ok to simply not like a game, and if the reason that you don't like it it's because it's too hard... that ought to be fine? Not every game is for everyone, and not every game should be for everyone.
And that Celeste message, hard agree! Everyone always says how great the accessibility options are for difficulty in Celeste, but seeing that message when trying to turn them on really soured me on it. I ended up completing the game without them, and felt bitter about it tbh, not accomplished. But my feelings on Celeste could probably fill a whole other rambly comment
Those are some really interesting points. This subject has so much to it.
I think part of it is the incongruity of video games Vs other media, which I touched on but could be explored much more deeply for sure. Even though it's true that not every film is made for every person and there will be movies out there you don't like, you could still feasibly watch them. When people say not every game is for everyone I get a visceral reaction where I'm like, well they should be able to decide that for themselves and still play if they decide to? I don't know, it's so complicated.
I think I'm even more mad about puzzle games but it's personal. I think of myself as "intelligent" at least to some degree. I don't consider myself "good at games". So when I can't beat a boss it's whatever but when I can't figure out a puzzle it feels like a whole facet of my identity is being challenged. Not sure if that really makes sense??
It feels like all I've got to say about this is equivocation but I expect the answer is different for each person.
Also, It's nice to know I'm not alone with my feelings about Celeste.
You do get to decide for yourself - you play the game, and if you don't like the struggle, you've decided you didn't like the game (if the struggle is the point of the game, which is the argument I'm proposing here). Playing the game is something you can still do, and if you don't like it, you can even still continue playing if you decide to, and continue not liking it. Again, see me and Celeste. You may not get 100% completion, but you still played it.
I'm a little bit Devil's Advocate here, because maybe in a perfect world difficulty would be an adjustable, per-person thing, where the game can challenge you the "right" amount (but again that's arguably also a different thing to a static difficulty).
I see what you mean about puzzle games, I'm kinda like that with the Cryptic Crossword sometimes. At the risk of sounding mean though, I don't think that's always entirely fair to put on the puzzles as much as it is on us to handle those feelings :D
All of this isn't to say that FromSoft have got it perfect, naturally. I bounced off the Capra Demon hard in a way that I'm not sure is intended by DS1, when I was really willing to try for other bosses I fought. I also think it's valid to want those difficulty-adjusting options. But I also think it's valid to not want them, so... big ol' shrug
Yeah, I absolutely want to acknowledge that my thoughts and feelings aren't the only ones and I don't even think I agree with myself 100% of the time. I definitely know my emotions are my own to manage, and I don't really even want anything to change. It's a big confusing subject and I'm really only working through my complex thoughts here.
Minor winkle from me: Noah Gervais makes the point in his Dark Souls video that the games do have a difficulty slider, and that's 'how many points do I put into my stats' - dark souls enemies don't scale within a run, so increasing your stats makes you more powerful in comparison.
Now, I think this is more interesting conceptually than it is practically (and honestly there is a limit to how much stats will help you) but it IS fun to ask people who say using summons is cheating whether they levelled their character up because they found the REAL version of dark souls too challenging.
Thank you for your thoughtful and balanced insights on this often contentious discussion! I have a few thoughts of my own too.
1. I think part of the conflict you feel comes from your motivations to play a game (this is top of mind for me because I wrote about research into motivations for playing games a couple of weeks ago). Players who are hunting for achievements will likely appreciate the choice that a game like Elden Ring gives them in adjusting the difficulty on their own terms. On the flip side, making these players adjust a difficulty slider might “tarnish” their hunt for achievements. Players who want something else out of games (like just experiencing the story) will likely have no problems adjusting sliders to experience the story. I think individual player motivations often get overlooked or forgotten in this heated discussion.
2. Part of why I think this discussion gets heated is because sometimes people forget that accessibility isn’t one dimensional. Difficulty is one aspect of accessibility, but not the whole story. For example, if sound prompts are a big part of how you get through an encounter, no amount of difficulty slider adjustments (to reduce incoming damage etc.) will help someone who cannot hear. Instead, they’ll need a visual cue replacement. I am (fortunately) not disabled, so I don’t have a full understanding of what all the accessibility options could/should be, but if you are curious, I would highly recommend following Steven Spohn on Twitter/X as he is a big advocate for accessible gaming!
3. Finally, for “difficulty is the point” games, I think again, there’s a bit of a one-dimensional take on it. What is difficult can be different for people of different abilities. But that difficulty is usually programmed into games one dimensionally (for example, a series of well-timed controller inputs) and rightly so, since it would be almost impossible to think of all the different ways a player might experience difficulty, and then incorporate that into a game. What I feel like is missing is some thought to how someone could remap controller input difficulty into a different type of difficulty. That’s the limit of my understanding and knowledge though, so I’d love to hear some of your thoughts!
Hey thanks for sharing your thoughts. You've made some really interesting points here for sure. What you said about accessibility is a great point and something I really care about - I didn't get too much into it in my article because I didn't want to drift from my focus (I already struggle to be concise!) but I agree about it being a nuanced, three-dimensional thing. I do follow Steven already plus several other incredible advocates. Your example has reminded me of an annoying experience I had recently - I am used to playing Minecraft on the Java version, which has excellent accessibility with directional sound cues on screen, but some friends recently started a Bedrock Realm so I've been playing there and really miss those on-screen cues and I'm not hard of hearing, I just have auditory processing issues due to my autism! It would be so much harder for someone who couldn't hear for any reason. And IMO accessibility like that includes so many people that traditionally get overlooked, like new parents playing games with no sound on while their baby sleeps.
I am actually a big achievement hunter and I agree up to a point - some games do just have stupid achievements deliberately intended to frustrate, and I have no qualms about making a game easier to get those - I value my in-game achievements, but I must necessarily value my time higher, because it is very limited.
Your point about controllers is an interesting one indeed. I've only ever used a keyboard/mouse or Xbox/PS controller and never an "accessibility" controller, so I truly don't know how that comes into play but it's something worth thinking about for sure. I actually remapped the controls on Hollow Knight to make it easier for myself!
Thanks again for your thoughtful comment, I appreciate it.
Please do write more of these thoughts articles they're really good! I really think you have done a good job of highlighting the conflict I feel about difficulty settings in games. I always play games on the harder difficulties even for a first play through, but that's because of what I enjoy put of games. I like the challenge. But that's just me, and having adjustable settings wouldn't affect me at all I would just ignore them and battle on. Ultimately I think it's good they exist for others who want different things from games and still want to experience the same game as others and not be locked out of the conversation.
It was interesting to read your thoughts on this. When I was a younger gamer I would spend many, many hours playing games through on all conceivable difficulties. I played American McGee's Alice all the way through on every difficulty and then again, made it harder for myself by doing it with just the vorpal blade. Now though, I don't seem to have the patience, and massively appreciate the choice to change settings that will mean I can wander in a sandbox looking into nooks and crannies without worrying that I'll break my avatar's legs on a long drop, or make it from end to end of the driest of salt flats on one bottle of water and some juicy fruits so I can look at a beautiful tree.
I no longer have that 'guilt' for enjoying a game at a slow pace on the easiest of difficulties, because I've played so many games through on hard that I know I could, if I really wanted to.
Mechanics such as Wildmender's really appeal to me, with a myriad of sliders meaning the player can set the game up to be hard in some aspects, medium elsewhere and easy in others, as and when they wish. It gives the game masses of replayability for the completionist, as well as allowing casual play and serious difficulty should you want it.
Then there is The Forest, a game I am so familiar with now that if I play on easy I actually miss the mutants..
Great article
Honestly I think it's about time we start to split up the descriptor of 'videogames' a bit.
Some games are all about the story; pick the difficulty you want to get the full experience.
Some games are about the gameplay; there's usually an 'expected difficulty' that the game is based around, and higher or lower difficulty settings are usually just messing with numbers after the fact.
And some games are meant to be replayed in a cycle of increasing difficulty. For these, the point kind of changes depending how many times you've looped it. Skipping beautifully rendered cutscenes to get back to the part I keep getting murdered on becomes the norm quite quickly.
I really enjoyed this ‘general musings’ post, I’d happily read more. Though points deducted for it not being a 4 hour video essay.
In answer to your point I’d say that a sliding scale of difficulty which you can adjust in-game could be the perfect tool for gamers who want the story of a game more than anything. However if you’re playing a game to be challenged by it this kind of thing would be soundly ignored.
To me I think there could be room for integrating both systems. An ‘easy-medium-hard’ choice with the option to turn things like auto targeting on or platforming assist. I know people who absolutely love games like Horizon but find the platforming parts extremely frustrating, but don’t want to play on ‘easy mode’ or struggle with combat but still want the puzzles to be tricky. Obviously there’s a crowd that would say you should play games that match your ability level but as you rightly say, video games are art and should be available for anyone who wants to experience them.
It’s not a simple answer but it’s not a simple question. Keeping this kind of civil discourse going can only be good for gamers and gaming as an industry. Everyone who wants to game should have a voice.
There's an interesting thing in there about how you didn't finish The Witness and had to put it down "sadly", and if you're looking for another rambling blog post then the worth of finishing games is another hot button topic ;)
I think it intersects interestingly with the difficulty discussion, too. Especially games where the difficulty is the point (and I think , The Witness is a really interesting example. Because, like DS, puzzle games are supposed to be challenging, but no one gets upset about that as much?) When difficulty is the point, and you felt unable to progress, yes that is sad, but did you not still experience the game, and meet it where it was trying to come from? There's definitely worth in experiencing a game without finishing it, and perhaps there's even a difference between finishing a game and "beating" it, when difficulty is the point.
And of course, at the end of the day, games are a subjective experience. It's also ok to simply not like a game, and if the reason that you don't like it it's because it's too hard... that ought to be fine? Not every game is for everyone, and not every game should be for everyone.
And that Celeste message, hard agree! Everyone always says how great the accessibility options are for difficulty in Celeste, but seeing that message when trying to turn them on really soured me on it. I ended up completing the game without them, and felt bitter about it tbh, not accomplished. But my feelings on Celeste could probably fill a whole other rambly comment
Those are some really interesting points. This subject has so much to it.
I think part of it is the incongruity of video games Vs other media, which I touched on but could be explored much more deeply for sure. Even though it's true that not every film is made for every person and there will be movies out there you don't like, you could still feasibly watch them. When people say not every game is for everyone I get a visceral reaction where I'm like, well they should be able to decide that for themselves and still play if they decide to? I don't know, it's so complicated.
I think I'm even more mad about puzzle games but it's personal. I think of myself as "intelligent" at least to some degree. I don't consider myself "good at games". So when I can't beat a boss it's whatever but when I can't figure out a puzzle it feels like a whole facet of my identity is being challenged. Not sure if that really makes sense??
It feels like all I've got to say about this is equivocation but I expect the answer is different for each person.
Also, It's nice to know I'm not alone with my feelings about Celeste.
You do get to decide for yourself - you play the game, and if you don't like the struggle, you've decided you didn't like the game (if the struggle is the point of the game, which is the argument I'm proposing here). Playing the game is something you can still do, and if you don't like it, you can even still continue playing if you decide to, and continue not liking it. Again, see me and Celeste. You may not get 100% completion, but you still played it.
I'm a little bit Devil's Advocate here, because maybe in a perfect world difficulty would be an adjustable, per-person thing, where the game can challenge you the "right" amount (but again that's arguably also a different thing to a static difficulty).
I see what you mean about puzzle games, I'm kinda like that with the Cryptic Crossword sometimes. At the risk of sounding mean though, I don't think that's always entirely fair to put on the puzzles as much as it is on us to handle those feelings :D
All of this isn't to say that FromSoft have got it perfect, naturally. I bounced off the Capra Demon hard in a way that I'm not sure is intended by DS1, when I was really willing to try for other bosses I fought. I also think it's valid to want those difficulty-adjusting options. But I also think it's valid to not want them, so... big ol' shrug
Yeah, I absolutely want to acknowledge that my thoughts and feelings aren't the only ones and I don't even think I agree with myself 100% of the time. I definitely know my emotions are my own to manage, and I don't really even want anything to change. It's a big confusing subject and I'm really only working through my complex thoughts here.
No doubt, and ditto
Minor winkle from me: Noah Gervais makes the point in his Dark Souls video that the games do have a difficulty slider, and that's 'how many points do I put into my stats' - dark souls enemies don't scale within a run, so increasing your stats makes you more powerful in comparison.
Now, I think this is more interesting conceptually than it is practically (and honestly there is a limit to how much stats will help you) but it IS fun to ask people who say using summons is cheating whether they levelled their character up because they found the REAL version of dark souls too challenging.
Thank you for your thoughtful and balanced insights on this often contentious discussion! I have a few thoughts of my own too.
1. I think part of the conflict you feel comes from your motivations to play a game (this is top of mind for me because I wrote about research into motivations for playing games a couple of weeks ago). Players who are hunting for achievements will likely appreciate the choice that a game like Elden Ring gives them in adjusting the difficulty on their own terms. On the flip side, making these players adjust a difficulty slider might “tarnish” their hunt for achievements. Players who want something else out of games (like just experiencing the story) will likely have no problems adjusting sliders to experience the story. I think individual player motivations often get overlooked or forgotten in this heated discussion.
2. Part of why I think this discussion gets heated is because sometimes people forget that accessibility isn’t one dimensional. Difficulty is one aspect of accessibility, but not the whole story. For example, if sound prompts are a big part of how you get through an encounter, no amount of difficulty slider adjustments (to reduce incoming damage etc.) will help someone who cannot hear. Instead, they’ll need a visual cue replacement. I am (fortunately) not disabled, so I don’t have a full understanding of what all the accessibility options could/should be, but if you are curious, I would highly recommend following Steven Spohn on Twitter/X as he is a big advocate for accessible gaming!
3. Finally, for “difficulty is the point” games, I think again, there’s a bit of a one-dimensional take on it. What is difficult can be different for people of different abilities. But that difficulty is usually programmed into games one dimensionally (for example, a series of well-timed controller inputs) and rightly so, since it would be almost impossible to think of all the different ways a player might experience difficulty, and then incorporate that into a game. What I feel like is missing is some thought to how someone could remap controller input difficulty into a different type of difficulty. That’s the limit of my understanding and knowledge though, so I’d love to hear some of your thoughts!
Hey thanks for sharing your thoughts. You've made some really interesting points here for sure. What you said about accessibility is a great point and something I really care about - I didn't get too much into it in my article because I didn't want to drift from my focus (I already struggle to be concise!) but I agree about it being a nuanced, three-dimensional thing. I do follow Steven already plus several other incredible advocates. Your example has reminded me of an annoying experience I had recently - I am used to playing Minecraft on the Java version, which has excellent accessibility with directional sound cues on screen, but some friends recently started a Bedrock Realm so I've been playing there and really miss those on-screen cues and I'm not hard of hearing, I just have auditory processing issues due to my autism! It would be so much harder for someone who couldn't hear for any reason. And IMO accessibility like that includes so many people that traditionally get overlooked, like new parents playing games with no sound on while their baby sleeps.
I am actually a big achievement hunter and I agree up to a point - some games do just have stupid achievements deliberately intended to frustrate, and I have no qualms about making a game easier to get those - I value my in-game achievements, but I must necessarily value my time higher, because it is very limited.
Your point about controllers is an interesting one indeed. I've only ever used a keyboard/mouse or Xbox/PS controller and never an "accessibility" controller, so I truly don't know how that comes into play but it's something worth thinking about for sure. I actually remapped the controls on Hollow Knight to make it easier for myself!
Thanks again for your thoughtful comment, I appreciate it.