An Accessible Game: Necessary?

Sekiro has been out the last three weeks for PS4, Xbox One, and computers. It is a well regarded game considering its developer is From Software. However, that name alone is something gamers either enjoy or groan at. And this is where today's blog is targeting. Is it necessary to make games accessible?

From Software is known for making games very, very difficult. That goes all the way back to ten years ago with Demon's Souls and then the continuation with Dark Souls and whatever else they have done since. There is a mentality that people can't handle Sekiro and that the ones that do mock them and all that. These kind of games have a cult approach and it's downright scary how the fanbase reacts. All because others want an easy mode and that including it would ruin these kind of games. I don't think an easy mode is going to kill anything.

Options were there to have games easy and hard for home consoles until the NES. For a short period until the Turbografx and Sega Genesis, there wasn't options for most 8-bit games to have difficulty modes. Since 1990, developers have been keen on giving these kind of modes to get all sorts of audiences in on their game or games. I can name at least a few games that could have benefited from being less difficult. Battletoads for sure. Even certain sports games like NHL All-Star Hockey 95 for the Genesis could have had something to tone down the very aggressive opponents. Frogger on PlayStation is one that needed to be toned down tremendously, particularly on later zones.

I do think it's necessary to make games accessible, but not every single game. Everyone has a distinct way of playing and will find something either very easy or very hard. It's all subjective. In regards to very difficult ones, you gotta throw in an easy mode. That does not mean it ruins the game for others. There was a bit of mockery earlier about cheating to beat the game. Unless it's that hard to you or if you just want to mess around, I wouldn't cheat until beating the game. I beat every level of Goldeneye on the N64 on 00 Agent difficulty except Aztec, which I used a cheat because it was way too difficult with the enemies perfect aim. I don't feel bad for cheating on that secret level.

The only thing I wish for is that these Dark Souls type fanboys not criticize how others play compared to them. Other than that, there's not much else left to talk. Accessibility should be common for most games. It doesn't ruin the hardest difficulty by any means. It's not like the 80s.

Why Id Software Had Balanced Hard Difficulty

If you have played a first person shooter that was released between 2004 and today, you will know of the choices in difficulty. Call of Duty is probably the most famous with veteran, the hardest single player difficulty. When some people say it is next to impossible, they don't exaggerate. About two to three shots and you're dead. Some games try to cheapen the experience by adding more damage required to kill an enemy like Duke Nukem Forever. If there is one game that did hard difficulty justice, it was Doom and Wolfenstein 3D.

Id Software knew how to deal with making a game worthy of picking up and playing, as well as making it a challenge without ruining the experience. What helped them with their early efforts was that there was no need to double an enemy's health or require more shots put into them. Taking down an imp with one shot from a shotgun will always be one shot. Or two depending on how far you are. There was always a strategy on how to defeat them and find a way to get through it unscathed. There was no cheap shots to them and you know what you were getting into.

It's a philosophy that has been largely ignored for a long time in favor of going the Call of Duty and Halo route of a couple shots and you're gone. Even Goldeneye, which came out long before those two, had that kind of cheap difficulty combined with a few other cheap factors. The closest to what Doom did was the early Medal of Honor games up until Frontline, Duke Nukem 3D, and maybe Half Life. At least that's what I can think of. Third person games kind of have that same mentality of Halo and Call of Duty, but they are not as bad as those two. And I say that as someone that has beaten a handful of the Call of Duty games on Veteran, and those have a lot of very cheap moments.

If developers want to know how to be pleasing to all audiences, Id's early games are a good indicator. There's a reason Wolfenstein 3D and Doom are considered some of the greatest games ever.