This easy mode gate keeping idea needs to die. Git gud needs to go with it. I'm glad that there are games that give a challenge to those that want it but there should be a happy medium between "Mash attack until victory" and "memorize every attack pattern and still get stomped." Or at least a setting that most games have that let's you experience the story while playing.

If the intense and strategic combat is the gameplay a person dislikes then what's the difference between you playing the game for the story or watching a play through? Lies of p has a difficulty slider that decreases damage from the enemies and increases the party window. That really doesn't do much. You still need to "memorize" the moves no amount of button mashing saves you even on easy. The only way to really give an easy mode while not throwing combat out the window would be to heavily slow attacks, lower complexity, and decrease damage while changing enemy placement and consistancy. Sure, a game could do that no problems with that, but that's a lot of dev time to build something against the games ethos. Every map has two or more varients. Every boss two or more movesets. If this is a devs vision fuck yeah but that's a lot to put in when the issue is people don't like the core concept Do we argue horror games should have options for low horror so we can enjoy it without the horror? puzzle games should have a second set of easier puzzles for those who find them too hard? Story centric games should have low-story varients for those who still want to play? That dating sims should have aromantic varients for those who just like the comedy? Sure, if a dev wants that, good on them. Current games don't need to change though. The intense strategic combat where numbers change little and skill changes everything is the point. That's what these games are built around it's their fundamental concept. If you don't want to engage with this and still want the story do what I do with the Warcraft series. Watch playthroughs, or story breakdowns. I hate their gameplay but will never argue they need to spend dev hours catering to me by making something antithetical to their core MMORPG concept.

Slowing the game down and reducing the damage done by bosses isn't rocket science. It's like ten lines of code, which have been written so many times an AI can probably provide them. Different people have different capacities to engage with a game. The world is a better place with some simple accessibility concessions. We don't need to make excuses for game developers who don't even do the minimum, unless it's their first game.

> Do we argue horror games should have options for low horror so we can enjoy it without the horror? Yes! A huge number of games have toggles that allow people with specific phobias to enjoy the rest of the game. The most common example is a spider toggle. Since up to 6% of everyone copes with [arachnophobia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arachnophobia).

> Story centric games should have low-story varients for those who still want to play? This one made me laugh, thanks. That said, we do have entire comedy genres making fun of "Unskippable" cut scenes. A skip button feels like a basic courtesy, but what I really want is a pause button. Life happens, and I can't count the number of games that I've just stopped playing because the only option when my dog was throwing up was to skip the cutscene. VCRs were invented a long time ago. I find it wild that game developers haven't figured out how welcome pause, rewind, restart, and skip ahead would be. I'm not dropping quarters into most games to play, anymore.

Aight I see aim not getting through to you. Let's try though. No, lowering damage and slowing attacks is not all I proposed nor would that fix the issue. Complexity in move-set must also be decreases. Also in the game world enemy placement and quantity must be adjusted to lower dificulty. No, properly slowing attacks is not easy to do. You are not programmer or an animator. No, AI can't magic this up for you either a month ago I saw an app hobbled together with AI that had three whole stacks in it with three seperate apps because somebody tried to add a new view with statistics on it with AI tooling. Once more, for accessibility, should have low to no horror settings in horror games? Low to no puzzle options in puzzle games? Etc. You call these people lazy but don't have any clue what they actually do. No. It's not lazyness. They could make shitty difficulty settings that don't fix peoples problems or they could spend many hours doing it right.

I agree with pause. Though I wouldn't use it I also don't do a lot of things in the game to increase difficulty. On the story but, I mean visual novals or games entirely story centric. Games where the story is central to the game

Can you name horror games 2ith this toggle? I see this in factory games all the time. Horror games though? Are the devs lazy for not including it? If people didn't want to implement, are they game keeping? No, they're focusing dev time on things that matter for their horror game. The horror of it

Yes, horror games should have settings to lower the horror because everyone has different preferences and tolerances.

Horror devs are lazy and gatekeeping for not implementing this? That is the original statement from the thread. It is a horror game. The point is horror. Sure, if a Dev wants to add the slider, full send. Thats a positive. Devs who want to focus on the fundamental concept are not lazy. They have different priorities. Not all games must cater to all gamers. Sometimes a game isn't for you. You have different prefferences, that's ok. Different games cater to your preferences. Some games don't cater to mine and that's fine too

Yes, they are lazy and gatekeeping. Difficulty options are accessibility options and development who don't include those are worthless.

Um, Actually, I am a developer. I agree with you that it's not always enough. But you're making an all or nothing argument. I find it disingenuous. Developers with more experience throw in some accessibility features. It is a hard problem, but that's no reason not to make an effort. I find the whole "purity of artistic vision" argument privileged and ableist. Software can do better than other art mediums. Accessibility is worth striving for. Developers who don't add accessibility aren't some high minded artists, they just haven't fully mastered their craft, yet.

> Once more, for accessibility, should we have low to no horror settings in horror games? Low to no puzzle options in puzzle games? Etc. The way you have phrased the question indicates there's much you can still learn about modern accessibility approaches. Horror games can provide toggles for particular kinds of elements. Puzzle games can have more hints. Great developers know this, and use these approaches. I am not staying every developer must implement accessibility options. I *am* saying won't listen to them brag about their skills, if they do not.

Disingenuous? I think that's projection. Not once have I stated it was high art to not add this in. That's a wild statement. I'm simply stating not doing so isn't lazy, or gate keeping. As a dev you keep throwing around the word accessibility very loosely. This is very weird. Are we talking about accessibility for disabled people or for people who simply find the game difficult? The latter is the main conversation here. The prior is ableism through low expectations. Also, as a dev, you should know seemingly simple features are not commonly simple. Any dev past junior should know this. No Dev past junior should make these claims unless speaking directly about tech. Please, under any engine of choice, give me a top level on how you're implement variable speed. You throw a lot of hatred towards devs (calling them lazy gatekeepers who are poor in craft who can't implement something AI can) what are your creds? I'm a fullstack software dev with 7 years experience and a specialization in accessible (disability, not dislike for the combat system) multiplatform codebases. You?

Worthless, wow, hateful words friend. I can see we're not going to get anywhere you ignore my points and throw around vitriol. Wish you the best though.

I read everything you wrote and disagree with every point.

I don't mind strategic combat (I play Civ, BG3 on harder difficulties) but I hate grinding combat and play those games on easy. What that means is I don't play walking simulators. If I'm railroaded into a story, the combat better be damn good or I'm refunding the game or at best uninstalling it. I'd rather pay $100 for something like the outer worlds than $20 for something like greedfall where it's just a tv show with spamming buttons every so often.

Kirby does this in a lot of games. The main game is beatable by a child, but the more extra stuff you do, the harder it gets. And the secret bosses like Morpho Knight and Chaos Elfilis feel like straight out of DarkSouls or the Sans fight in Undertale. Oh, and in order to fight them, you need to have finished everything else that the game offers and defeat all the games bosses beforehand - with limited healing options.

Only souls game I beat is Elden Ring. Only by modding an easy mode into the game. I loved exploring in the game, especially the lore without worrying about dying because of my lack of skills. If anyone says that a souls-like is only fun because of it's difficulty is wrong, at least in my experience.