Are Games Crippled By Easy Modes?

[Venks]

When you start up some games for the first time you have a very important decision to make (once you've passed the loading screens and company logos). What difficulty to play on? Take it easy and make your way through the story? Or play it on hard to truly challenge yourself?

A rose by any other difficulty would smell as sweet?

Rayman games are known, by the few people who play them, for their difficult platforming. Many platformers allow you to jump at various heights depending on how long you hold the button down, but Rayman is one of the games that will send you to the game over screen if you use your high jumps too frequently.
For a long time, in games, it has been a common principle that there needs to be obstacles for the player to overcome. By learning the rules of a game and honing their abilities, players can surpass any challenge.
But what if there is no challenge?

The original Final Fantasy XIII, which I wish was the last story of its saga, was the worst game I think I've ever played in my entire life. And I've played Barbie Super Model for the Super Nintendo.
In an attempt to make the game more accessible to new gamers, Square Enix cut out practically everything that makes a RPG a RPG. There are essentially no NPCs to talk to in the game, the bulk of exploration takes place in narrow hall ways, and each character only has three stats. The only thing the game has going for it is that its probably the most aesthetically pleasant game on the PlayStation 3. The lack of challenge and depth left me completely appalled and keeps me hesitant from trying newer titles in the Final Fantasy franchise.

There are games without challenge that I find myself able to enjoy. Harvest Moon and Animal Crossing are both games that I enjoy even though I don't have to dodge bullet fire.
These games do a wonderful job at presenting unique themes, introducing interesting characters, and placing the player in a role that generally can't be found in other games. In Animal Crossing I found myself really enjoying coming across the random villagers that made up my neighbors. These creatures all have their own odd behaviors and choice of words.
I could tell the game had a powerful hold over me when one of my favorite neighbors had moved away to a friend's town. I was so sad to see her go, but as an awesome last gesture she had sent me a letter along with a piece of furniture. That piece of furniture just so happened to complete the set I was going for. I couldn't of asked for a better memento to remember my virtual friend.

Master Of Your Own Destiny​

The white tanooki suit in Super Mario 3D World seems to be generating some distaste amongst 'retro' gamers. For those of you who don't know, the white tanooki suit is an item that appears after dying multiple times in a row within the same level. The item makes you invincible from enemies and spikes that would normally knock you out. The complaint I see the most is that people who beat levels using the white tanooki suit didn't 'earn' their victory. I honestly look at this as a very out dated line of thinking.
Back in the NES days there were a lot of very difficult games. Not everyone wants to spend hours upon hours learning the exact positioning and timing required for intense platforming moments. In today's age of gaming, developers try their best to make their games as accessible as possible so players of any skill level can have fun.
A very young player might get frustrated with a particular difficult challenge and the white tanooki suit is there to assist him. A more patient player who finds themselves failing a few too many times will also see the white tanooki suit appear, but by no means is the item mandatory. If you prefer the challenge and want to learn from your mistakes you can ignore the power-up and focus on the problems ahead. It's simply a choice for you to make.

It's not always apparent to most players, but ignoring certain items is a great way to ramp up the difficulty if it fits your fancy. I've yet to try a 'No Mushroom' run of a Mario game, but I have tried the 'Three Heart Challenge' in Zelda and 'Minimum Level' boss fights in Kingdom Hearts II. By keeping my health low in one game and my experience down in another, I'm able to turn simple hindrances into nightmare inducing spawns of true evil.
Player created challenges like these really require you to learn the ins and outs of the mechanics of the game. A single missed dodge or mistimed attack can be your last. This maybe exactly what you're looking for if you feel you need more challenge from your games.

Pick Your Poison​

Now some developers literally have you choose between modes of difficulty. Far too few games actually change the game in meaningful ways when you choose a difficulty setting. More times then not the game merely alters a few values such as damage and health.
I really enjoyed playing Tomb Raider with my partner in love and crime. When ever she was silly enough to put the controller down I'd steal it for myself and shoot some arrows through some unsuspecting hats. I eventually decided to give the game a go by my lonesome on the hard difficulty. It took me quite some time to figure out what the changes were. I was really hoping for end game enemies and attack patterns to turn up early alongside new threats. Much to my dismay the only differences I could note were my opponents dealt more damage and had more health.
Having already played the game a bit I was more then accustomed to dodging molotov cocktails and enemy projectiles. Increasing the damage of these attacks literally has no effect on me since the attacks are unable to land. I'm no Robin Hood but I was having no problem aiming for instant kills with my bow and arrow. Increased health, or not, a killing blow is a killing blow. Even on hard mode action scenes felt too easy and had become repetitive.

Then we have the beautiful game Catherine. This game has you climbing up a tower of blocks as it slowly collapses. You have to utilize several block pushing/pulling techniques in order to ascend. Trick blocks and annoying fellow climbers will slow you down as the tower seems to collapse that much faster.
If puzzles aren't your strong suit I heavily suggest playing it on easy. This game is definitely one of the more challenging ones made now a days. Rather then just changing the amount of time you have to climb the block towers, the difficulty settings actually have their own puzzles. The techniques you have to employ in order to rise from one level to the next change with each difficulty setting.
I really wish more games had differing content between modes. Not that I'd cheat on Catherine to be with them. That would be wrong.

_____________________________________

I write gaming articles! Check them out here!

 

[Hisako]

Honestly I set my own pace with games all the time so preset difficulties are only part of what makes a game easy or hard. I died plenty of times playing Tomb Raider on the highest difficulty and every now and then I'd find myself swamped by enemies, so I personally found the difficulty appropriate.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is no one level of difficulty that constitutes a "challenge" and "no challenge". I think game makers should simply accommodate for a fair range of difficulty for their target audience. Easy modes aren't there for the 'hardcore' player, so if they have a way of not encountering those options I honestly don't see why people find a need need to complain about them. And as you mentioned, if you really find no challenge in a game, you can always try the age-old method of imposing difficulties on yourself.

Re: the point of scaling difficulty - it's probably just simply easier to beef up an enemy's health or make their attacks stronger, and yeah, perhaps it is lazy (I don't think it's necessarily an invalid way of increasing difficulty, though). Writing different levels of "intelligence" is probably more work than people put effort into, though perhaps with the next generation of gaming developers might be emboldened to put more into their numbers besides arbitrary changes in statistics.

 

[Ghost X]

I've no issue with easy difficulty levels. I have issues with games that only provide that one option, ie: The game is easy .

I'll often play a game on easy or normal, and then give the hard difficulties a try. For one, it is an easy way to add replay value.

 

[Venks]

Re: the point of scaling difficulty - it's probably just simply easier to beef up an enemy's health or make their attacks stronger, and yeah, perhaps it is lazy (I don't think it's necessarily an invalid way of increasing difficulty, though). Writing different levels of "intelligence" is probably more work than people put effort into, though perhaps with the next generation of gaming developers might be emboldened to put more into their numbers besides arbitrary changes in statistics.

Haha fair enough. What may be a walk through the park for one player, might feel like hell incarnate for another player. I really enjoy giving myself my own challenges in games. In most RPGs I play I'm usually overwhelmingly under leveled. It makes boss fights so much more interesting.

And yeah I really hope the new generation of consoles incite developers to try out new things. I'd really like to see more variation in enemy encounters. For example in the Megaman Zero games you can't choose a difficulty setting. Doing well gives you a higher score then performing poorly. And well if you have a high score then the boss's you come up against will have different attacking patterns and use a couple other attacks they don't use on players with smaller scores. But yeah more enemy intelligence would be very awesome.

I've no issue with easy difficulty levels. I have issues with games that only provide that one option, ie: The game is easy .

I'll often play a game on easy or normal, and then give the hard difficulties a try. For one, it is an easy way to add replay value.

Same here. I play a lot of games on easy or normal for my first play through to see if I like the game or not. But some games are too easy and I'll switch it to hard to make it more enjoyable. I've tried out the demo for Knack for the PS4 and I can't really enjoy the game unless its on hard. It makes every move you make an important decision and you can't afford to make mistakes.

I'm currently playing through Wind Waker on Hero's Mode with the Three Heart challenge and I'm having a great time. Once I 100% Super Mario 3D World I'm gonna try a 'no-mistakes' run through. It's gonna be so hard. xD

 

[Lex]

No, I don't think easy modes cripple games.

Using Rayman as an example, that game doesn't have such settings or options. For any platformer, including the likes of the classic Sonic games right up to Sonic Generations, as well as Rayman, it's always been about learning by repitition. You are going to die and then you're going to do it right or die again . What makes the more modern Rayman games easier is, like many games now, checkpoints. Not having to start all over again at the beginning of a level makes the player want to keep trying again, because it's just less annoying. And like Sonic (and any game really), the more you play it, the better you get. The new Rayman games (Origins and Legends) are two of my favourite games of this generation, and that's in part because they don't baby you but by the time you're done most of it you feel like an expert, which is an awesome feeling.

You have the likes of the Uncharted games too. Good checkpoint system, scalable difficulty (Easy, Normal, Hard, Crushing). It comes down not just to memory, but how good your aim is and how effectively you can throw grenades and melee at the appropriate time, which is all stuff that gets better with practice. But it's only going to get better if you try it on the harder modes, because they force you to be faster and get better. Only then when you return to the easier modes does it actually feel "easy".

The same can be said for the likes of the Mass Effect series, which has 5 modes of difficulty: Casual, Normal, Veteran, Hardcore and Insanity. Insanity is as its name suggests, and the option is there for players like Satsu who don't find the combat too challenging otherwise, or like me who are insane enough to want the platinum trophy that badly.

Your point about FFXIII is valid until the 20 hour mark of the game, which is the huge problem with it that everyone recognises. It lacks variety etc. But try to kill those tortoises and there's your challenge. Or get the Growth Egg from Ochu before you leave Gran Pulse. There are actually a tonne of difficult battles that require you to prepare and adapt and develop a level of skill for in that game, they're just completely eclipsed by the linear nature of the first quarter. The system very quickly becomes tiring and by the time it opens up and gets interesting, players have already lost interest. Which is a shame, because killing the challenging enemies is incredibly satisfying.

I consider myself fairly skilled at quite a few games. Most of the FF's, almost every Sonic game, the Rayman games, Uncharted, Mass Effect etc. But the minute I try something else it's like starting all over again on a new learning curve. I've recently started playing Dragon Age for example (on normal difficulty) and there was a small skirmish in a room that took me 14 attempts to clear. And that game has a shitty checkpoint system.

 

[Cthulhu]

IDK, I don't think so myself. When I was younger I'd always play on easy. IDK, I'm not really that hardcore and am easily frustrated by getting stuck somewhere, . Play on normal nowadays for games that offer the option, and usually play only once. I also quite like games that have no intrinsic difficulty setting; recently played Papers, Please, whose difficulty is fixed and is entirely based on how meticulous and fast you are / dare to be - if you're too sloppy, you get warnings / lose income, if you're too slow you don't make enough money at the end of the day. But yeah, I mostly play games for their story and whatnot.

I mostly play eve online, where the difficulty level is entirely up to you - as is the 'excitement level'. Mining is a very low-difficult, decent-reward, low-excitement activity, while pvp can be anything you like. Although that excitement is a bit too high for me personally. Or I should just do it more. tl;dr, game has various difficulty levels (if you can call it that) depending on what you seek out yourself.

 

[Obsidian Fire]

I really don't think so. Game makers are always going to have to find a balance between players who play for the mechanics and players who play because they like the story. So far, difficulty setting is the best way to go. There's also the problem of how some players are better at certain types of games then others. I'm great at puzzle and Turn-Based systems, but am horrible at FPS games. What's hard though is that there's only so many ways to make a game more difficult without completely re-coding the game, which not everyone likes, but that has more to do with the way computer systems work then with game difficulties.

 

[Gym Leader Devil]

I'll say that otherwise really good games can be spoiled (or at least be made less enjoyable for some) for a certain type of player if Easy mode is the only option (or if there is Normal as well but no Hard). Give ya an example, Pokemon Generation 5.5, Black and White 2, had access keys you could get in the post-game. One unlocked a hard mode, where everyone had higher level monsters that were more fully trained and evolved, with more competitive movesets and so on. The other... was easy mode, which did the exact opposite. But you couldn't get both. If you wanted to play hard mode and you got the wrong game, you were stuck trying to find someone to trade keys with (also the idiocy of requiring you to restart the game to play on hard rather than just letting you select it from the start).

Of course, all that is somewhat justified. Despite the sizable periphery demographic of which I am part, this is a series of kids games made for kids. Easy mode... probably the priority for them. And anyone who wants a challenge can just do a Nuzlocke run or one of its lethal variants like Solo-locke or Type-locke. But yeah, I can see how the inclusion of difficulty levels that you cannot normally pick between could spoil the game for anyone who wanted a challenge and got stuck with the easy key.

 

[Kermitu Kleric Katie]

I don't mind easy modes. I used to always pick the easiest mode, and I still do unless I can still easily beat the normal mode or the normal mode has rewards that can't be accessed/are harder to access. The KH games are a good example. But I'm the kind of person who likes to exploit game-breaking strategies and such, so I really don't mind easiness.

 

[HylianMogget]

I don't think having an easy mode hurts, as long as the game gives you a choice. It's a lack of difficulty options that can potentially ruin a game, IMO, because if something's too easy then all the player can do is make up self-imposed challenges, and if it's too difficult then the game becomes frustrating. There shouldn't really be too many drawbacks from getting to choose a difficulty mode, unless the different modes are really unbalanced, like if normal is still too easy. It's especially nice if all/a decent range of the difficulty modes are available from the start and if you can switch between modes as you progress through the game. I can see why games tend to include a hard mode as bonus for beating the game, because it adds some replay value, but nowadays I'd kind of rather have a choice from the start.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

Castlevania: Lords of Shadow has Easy, Normal, Hard, & Paladin difficulties and I can completely and unabashedly say that I'm thankful for the Easy modes on games like this, because I love their stories, but I'm not amazing at the combat in them, but it still has options for other people to go through the tough as hell modes.

So no.


X

 

[JBedford]

I played Rayman fairly recently. I remember it from when I was very young. We used to play it as kids, it couldn't have been that hard.

How wrong was I. Now I realise why I have memories only of the first few levels. Because getting past them with the credits and lives given is almost impossible. This is the only game I have cheated to win and will never play without cheating. And I think only people who have spent time learning each level could. Hardest game I've played.

So I used the cheat to give more credits every time I needed. It made the game quite more enjoyable, even if the game is still purposely punishing. Some bosses took me many credits. This was less enjoyable, though I guess the joy of finally doing it is that much greater. But I could not stand to have to restart the game again because I lose too many lives. Being able to save is great, but having a save with insufficient lives to get through the next level is not, and I don't know of a decent place on that game to level grind.

Anyway, rant short: I can no longer stand lives systems. Infinite respawns when failing is preferred. Rayman Origins was more fun because of this (also local multiplayer). Though I generally play a lot more PS1 games, so I rarely get the luxury.

Which made me realise that I really do suck at games. For long story games, if given the choice I will probably always pick easy. And on RPGs I overlevel so I basically experience the game on an easy difficulty. Unless I find the game really interesting to play and not overly long then I would probably play the harder difficulties too. Especially if the game features a New Game+ where there are additional differences in a second playthrough.

Though I guess I'm not annoyed if difficulty options aren't present. As long as the easiest difficulty isn't gruellingly hard then I won't complain.

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

I like having options. The presence of an easier mode doesn't affect the harder modes.

On a related-but-unrelated note, I thought "Scott Pilgrim Versus the World" had the most insane jump in difficulty of any game I've ever played. I'm convinced that last level can't be done without "cheating" (i.e. purchasing tons of power-ups).

 

[Ⓐaron]

If you don't like easy modes, don't play them. Seems simple enough. It's arguably a much bigger problem with a game if all the options are too easy or too difficult than if it gives a player options for difficulty setting.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

I like having options. The presence of an easier mode doesn't affect the harder modes.

On a related-but-unrelated note, I thought "Scott Pilgrim Versus the World" had the most insane jump in difficulty of any game I've ever played. I'm convinced that last level can't be done without "cheating" (i.e. purchasing tons of power-ups).

Honestly level 2 sucked nuts with those goddamn paparazzi stunning you. I don't remember the last level. Which one was that? Also, that game is a bajillion times more fun with other people.


X

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

Yeah, it is way more fun with other people.

Now, how did you forget the last stage? You need to teach me that trick. It's a fucking nightmare.

 

[Venks]

Within the past two hours I have finished the final 9 boss segment in Megaman Zero and finished the Savage Labyrinth in LoZ: Wind Waker for my Three Heart Challenge on Hero's Mode. Even though Megaman Zero was much harder and took longer to do I found Wind Waker to be much more frustrating.

In Megaman Zero it took me awhile, but I learned every boss's attacks and how to dodge them. I had occasional hiccups, but I could defeat 5 of 9 bosses without being hit a single time. It was a very rewarding experience. Then with Wind Waker... The Savage Labyrinth puts you in small rooms full of different enemies. Most of these rooms are really easy as the enemies are all opponents with one or two attacking options. But every now and then I'd lose a heart to having trouble using the 'lock on system' due to certain camera angles. When I finished that mini-dungeon it was more a feeling of relief then exhilaration.

I really enjoy challenge, but now and then it can get to be a bit too much. That's when I grab something out like Recettear An Item Shop's Tale. The game can be hard as well, but it's more a thinking game than a quick reflex test.

 

[Novus]

I always use normal mode. It seems like the canon version of the game if that makes sense.

Btw easy mode is helpful for someone who has a disability but might want to experience the entirety of the game.

 

[looneymoon]

The sentiment of games being crippled by being too easy strikes me as gaming elitism to be honest.

There are always meta-games for competition. That r fan-challenges a whatnot if you're really hurting for difficulty. Otherwise I'm not sure how much it really matters if someone is playing games just for manageable fun.

As expressed before, I am very much pro options when it comes to these things.

 

[Jason Tandro]

For my two cents, sometimes Easy Modes work, especially in skill games like ahooters, puzzle games ad action rpgs. Everbody who has bested Halo on Legendary started out on Easy or Normal even though Heroic is the recommended setting.

 

[Octo]

On SH2 there were two separate settings, one for puzzles and one for combat. I used to have the puzzles on hard and the combat in easy because thats what I'm interested in.

ofc if a game is too easy you might finish it too quickly and feel a bit ripped off, but this can be mitigated if there are additional challenges eg getting 100%, hidden extra etc etc.

For me it would bring me no joy to complete a game again just on harder setting, unless there was a worthwhile reward for doing so - and I dont consider PSN trophies worthwhile. Id want ahidden level or new character/story.

But yeah I dont see why it's so hard not to play on easy mode if you don't want to , easy modes are for little kids and people like me

 

[Gym Leader Devil]

On SH2 there were two separate settings, one for puzzles and one for combat. I used to have the puzzles on hard and the combat in easy because thats what I'm interested in.

I remember doing this almost opposite your settings, did the combat on hard (and died a lot) with the puzzles on normal

 

[Splintered]

Easy mode is bad?

Hahaha!

When I was a kid, I used a cheat whenever I could. All weapons for Turok! Godmode in Starcraft!

It was glorious and I don't regret a thing. Games are fun, and unless you are playing online, play how you want.

"Power Overwhelming" for everyone!

 

[Novus]

For me it would bring me no joy to complete a game again just on harder setting, unless there was a worthwhile reward for doing so - and I dont consider PSN trophies worthwhile. Id want ahidden level or new character/story.

But yeah I dont see why it's so hard not to play on easy mode if you don't want to , easy modes are for little kids and people like me

Yeah that's how I feel about a lot of games, sidequests and completion-ism (is this a word?) besides, difficulty settings that are unlocked later is just laziness on the part of the creators. Why not just set the impossibly hard mode entities into optional corridors in levels and have completion of them be awarded with a medal or something.

Everyone was fascinated with Emerald Weapon because it was a creative feature even though it was only added to increase the longevity of the game through stat building ect. Playing the entirety of the game again on a harder setting isn't very interesting.

 

[Lex]

^To my own surprise, I disagree. There's a "hardcore" mod for FFVII that makes the enemies tougher everywhere, the bosses actually a challenge, the stat growth a bit less generous and adds a miniboss at each summon materia you pick up, so interacting with a summon materia starts a semi-difficult fight before you can pick it up.

Difficulty can be done badly (in shooters for example, making every enemy a Supreme Bullet Sponge is just stupid) but when it's done right as above, and you know the game inside out, a bit of added difficulty can be really rewarding.

That's why people created the challenges for FF - No materia, no sphere grid, no junctions, items only, solo character etc. It feels pretty rewarding when you manage to get through the game like that.