The Backlog Check-in Vol. 247: 9/24/22: FIFA 23/The Legend of Heroes: Trails from Zero/Valkyrie Elysium Edition

[argyle]

Games added: Nothing

Last week: Finished nothing, played mainly Dreamlight Valley & TMNT: Shredder's Revenge

This week: Same.

Here's my .02:

The difficulty is a fundamental part of Elden Ring. The struggle that people have shared is what kept that game in people's minds for months, which is evident by the amount of YouTube videos, etc. that people have made & continue to make about it. Compare that to Horizon: Zero West which came out at about the same time and dropped out of popular conversation very quickly. I'm not saying difficulty is the only deciding factor between those 2 games, but it's a PART of the whole that makes ER what it is. If people could just crank down the difficulty & breeze through it they would have moved on quickly & it would have died out.

That said, I agree with Cane 100% - the game is challenging but not THAT hard. I think From found the perfect way to balance keeping the challenge in tact with giving people more options by making the game open world. It allows you to do something else if you get stuck - go level up some, go try for a different weapon or spell, maybe try another build entirely, or just explore. Until *maybe* very late game you're never really stuck with only one path to choose. The game just gives you so many options that if you're banging your head against one wall, it's most likely your own fault for being stubborn.

I want to get back to Xeno 3, I've really enjoyed what I've played of it - it's a great game. But it's clear to me now that it can't unseat ER as my GOTY, and I don't see anything else for the rest of the year that looks like it has a chance.

[canedaddy]

So your answer for third person action adventure/RPG game fans such as myself is to git gud or play something else? As you know third person action adventure/RPG games are one of my favorite genres, and are about the only types of games that I really like to play these days. So if I don’t have them to play then there isn’t much else on offer that I’m all that interested in playing, and my favorite form of entertainment is basically obsolete.

There will always be alternatives to Souls-style third-person action-adventure RPGs, but the crazy success of Elden Ring means a lot of developers are going to try to copy it. That's what always happens when a game is a surprise smash hit.

I seriously doubt you're any worse at playing that kind of game than I am. Instead of complaining about how hard it is based on what others say, why not just give it a try?

I probably wouldn’t have enjoyed half of the games that I have over the years if I was forced to play them with their default difficulties and wasn’t able to make them either easier or harder, and that would have been a real shame because I would have missed out on playing and enjoying some of my favorite games over the years just because I couldn’t enjoy them strictly based on their default difficulties. And considering that games are rather expensive and not free, I don’t think that it’s unreasonable for them to include options to make them enjoyable for everyone who buys them and want to play them for their content and gameplay. Their challenge should be an option based on personal preference just like any other accessibility option like camera controls. Would you also agree that a game shouldn’t include camera control options strictly because the developer wants you to play the game with one set camera control setting? It’s pretty much the same thing to me, because if I can’t change the camera controls to my personal preference then I’m not going to be able to play and enjoy a game. And if I can’t change the difficulty to my personal preference then I’m not going to be able to play and enjoy a game for that reason as well.

I'd say there's a pretty big difference between an overall design philosophy of tough enemies requiring patience and thought, and something like not being able to invert the Y axis. But if any game wouldn't let me do the latter, I'd just play something else.

[isthatallyougot]

I agree with this when it comes to a game’s story, characters, design and general content, but I don’t think that it’s unreasonable for people to want a game that they pay $60-$70 for to be a quality product from a technical and gameplay standpoint and include accessibility options such as camera controls and difficulty settings to make it playable and enjoyable for them. So if you’re implying that someone wanting difficulty settings in a game is entitlement then I don’t completely agree, because I consider difficulty settings to be a fairly standard accessibility option in games.

With that said, I’ve accepted FromSoftware games not having difficulty settings because that’s kind of their thing and I get that their games are fine-tuned around that concept. I don’t personally really like it because it prevents me from enjoying their games which I would otherwise since that’s pretty much the only thing preventing me from doing so, but I’m also not asking them to change because it’s part of their design formula and philosophy.

What does it matter if you, I or anyone else *agrees* with what someone else is making?!? It's their work, and they can do as they please.

Do you think that game developers are unaware of difficulty options? We know, of course, that they obviously are. So, given that, we must assume that the omission of choice in that regard is an intentional design decision that they believe works towards the expression of their intended vision...right? What gives anyone the right to insist they do it differently? That's a very entitled view imho - no disrespect intended.

Life is full of choices about where you direct attention. Personally, I'd rather spend my energy and focus on what I find enjoyable rather than bemoaning that which I find unpleasant. But, we're all free...free to complain about the single dead pixel on the big screen of life or to focus on the bigger picture and look to what brings joy.

Gaming is *full* of variety and the medium is drowning in titles relative to any other point in the history of the format. What is the benefit of wishing that some games were different than they are? I don't get it. Play what you enjoy and let the rest go...or write letters of complaint to all the companies that aren't doing it "right" to let your mind rest, knowing you've voiced your view to the creators.

I swear phase, I love all you guys here, but you seem like the most miserable cuss sometimes, and I wonder why you game at all.

[jfissel]

Finished: Nothing

Now Playing: Stray, Professor Layton and the Azran Legacy

Added to Backlog: Nothing

Current Backlog: 43 games

Decided to start playing through some of my 3DS backlog, so a Professor Layton game it is!

[canedaddy]

Let me know how that is. I thought it was the only mainline Professor Layton game I haven't played, but Google tells me I also missed the Last Specter on DS.

[Phaseknox]

The difficulty is a fundamental part of Elden Ring. The struggle that people have shared is what kept that game in people's minds for months, which is evident by the amount of YouTube videos, etc. that people have made & continue to make about it. Compare that to Horizon: Zero West which came out at about the same time and dropped out of popular conversation very quickly. I'm not saying difficulty is the only deciding factor between those 2 games, but it's a PART of the whole that makes ER what it is. If people could just crank down the difficulty & breeze through it they would have moved on quickly & it would have died out.

You’re right, Elden Ring’s challenge is definitely one of the reasons why it garnered so much attention at release and after. But of course that’s not the only reason, because the game itself is apparently a finely crafted piece of dark fantasy entertainment overall. It’s also multiplatform which Horizon Forbidden West isn’t, and that also played a role in it garnering more attention between the two. Not to mention that it also has a broader appeal to it as well. Horizon Forbidden West is a PlayStation only game primarily for fans of the first game in the series which is popular, but not as popular as Dark Souls.

There will always be alternatives to Souls-style third-person action-adventure RPGs, but the crazy success of Elden Ring means a lot of developers are going to try to copy it. That's what always happens when a game is a surprise smash hit

That’s my point, with the popularity of Dark Souls, Bloodborne and now Elden Ring the third person action adventure/RPG genre has basically turned into Soulslike games to the point where they’re really the only types of new games that we get within the genre anymore. I don’t mind that too much from a design perspective since I somewhat like the Soulslike design formula (although I feel like it’s been done a little too much at this point), but I don’t like that other developers feel inclined to also make their copycat/knockoff games overly difficult with no difficulty settings just because FromSoftware does it. The difference is that it’s FromSoftware’s thing, and other developers just don’t do it as well. They kind of miss the point, and just crank the difficulty up lacking the same finesse and fine-tuning that FromSoftware’s games offer. And as someone who doesn’t like hard games without difficulty settings this aggravates me since it basically makes their games unplayable for me. As I said before third person action adventure/RPGs are some of my favorite types of games, but I’ve been enjoying less of them over the years due to the Soulslike hard difficulty trend taking over a lot of them.

I seriously doubt you're any worse at playing that kind of game than I am. Instead of complaining about how hard it is based on what others say, why not just give it a try?

I think that you have a lot more patience than I do when it comes to games, especially these days when I have so much to play that I don’t want to spend the amount of time required to git gud at any one particular game just to progress through it. Younger me was kind of into that, but older me isn’t. With that said, I still plan on checking out Elden Ring when I can get it for $20 or less primarily out of curiosity.

Do you think that game developers are unaware of difficulty options? We know, of course, that they obviously are. So, given that, we must assume that the omission of choice in that regard is an intentional design decision that they believe works towards the expression of their intended vision...right? What gives anyone the right to insist they do it differently? That's a very entitled view imho - no disrespect intended.

I accept this in regards to FromSoftware because like I said before I genuinely think that it’s their design philosophy for their games, and I can respect that. However, like I said to cane above a lot of developers are making their games hard and omitting difficulty settings just because it’s a current gaming trend based on the popularity of FromSoftware’s games. It doesn’t feel like an authentic vision in their games like it does in FromSoftware’s games, they’re simply doing it as a marketing ploy to sell their games to FromSoftware’s audience. In their games it comes across as a nefarious design decision, and not as a genuine one. Of course it’s their right to do it, but I don’t personally like it because it unfortunately ruins their games for me that I would enjoy otherwise. The Surge games are perfect examples of this, they’re hard just for the sake of being hard so that they can be more successful by being labeled Soulslike games. And it’s the same for most non FromSoftware Soulslike games including the upcoming Wo Long: Fallen Dynasty game that sparked this conversation to begin with. They want those Elden Ring dollars plain and simple, it has nothing to do with their creative vision because they’ve included difficulty settings in their games in the past prior to Elden Ring’s huge success.

Gaming is *full* of variety and the medium is drowning in titles relative to any other point in the history of the format. What is the benefit of wishing that some games were different than they are? I don't get it. Play what you enjoy and let the rest go...or write letters of complaint to all the companies that aren't doing it "right" to let your mind rest, knowing you've voiced your view to the creators.

I don’t feel that wanting certain accessibility options in games such as difficulty settings is quite the same thing as wishing that some games were different than what they are. Difficulty settings have been one of the most common accessibility options in games since their existence. I know because I started gaming with Pong which allowed you to make the in-game paddles longer or shorter if you wanted to, and most games since have offered some sort of difficulty settings to make them easier or harder. They’re obviously included in games as an option to people who have an interest in playing them but might find their default difficulties too easy or too hard which would prevent them from enjoying them despite having an interest in them. Of course developers aren’t required to include them in their games and people can play something else if they don’t like it, but it’s considered a kindness to those who want to play and enjoy their games but are unable to if they find their default difficulties too easy or too hard. It just kind of sucks IMO to have to miss out on particular games that I would really like simply because their default difficulties are too hard for me to enjoy them. I can kind of accept it when it’s one developers thing like it is with FromSoftware, but not when it’s the mainstream popular thing for most games which it’s kind of becoming based on the commercial success of FromSoftware’s games.

I swear phase, I love all you guys here, but you seem like the most miserable cuss sometimes, and I wonder why you game at all.

If I seem like the most miserable cuss sometimes then you must not frequent any other gaming forums. I just played and enjoyed the new Saints Row game that EVERYONE else is hating on. If I was the most miserable cuss then I would be joining the hate parade right along side them. The fact of the matter is that I buy and play more games than a lot of other people do, so I share my opinion on more games than a lot of other people do. And yes sometimes those opinions are negative, but they’re oftentimes positive as well. And I game because I really enjoy my time with the games that I’m positive about. They might be less than the ones that I’m negative about especially these days, but there’s still enough of them to satisfy me.

[isthatallyougot]

I accept this in regards to FromSoftware because like I said before I genuinely think that it’s their design philosophy for their games, and I can respect that. However, like I said to cane above a lot of developers are making their games hard and omitting difficulty settings just because it’s a current gaming trend based on the popularity of FromSoftware’s games. It doesn’t feel like an authentic vision in their games like it does in FromSoftware’s games, they’re simply doing it as a marketing ploy to sell their games to FromSoftware’s audience. In their games it comes across as a nefarious design decision, and not as a genuine one. Of course it’s their right to do it, but I don’t personally like it because it unfortunately ruins their games for me that I would enjoy otherwise. The Surge games are perfect examples of this, they’re hard just for the sake of being hard so that they can be more successful by being labeled Soulslike games. And it’s the same for most non FromSoftware Soulslike games including the upcoming Wo Long: Fallen Dynasty game that sparked this conversation to begin with. They want those Elden Ring dollars plain and simple, it has nothing to do with their creative vision because they’ve included difficulty settings in their games in the past prior to Elden Ring’s huge success.

I don’t feel that wanting certain accessibility options in games such as difficulty settings is quite the same thing as wishing that some games were different than what they are. Difficulty settings have been one of the most common accessibility options in games since their existence. I know because I started gaming with Pong which allowed you to make the in-game paddles longer or shorter if you wanted to, and most games since have offered some sort of difficulty settings to make them easier or harder. They’re obviously included in games as an option to people who have an interest in playing them but might find their default difficulties too easy or too hard which would prevent them from enjoying them despite having an interest in them. Of course developers aren’t required to include them in their games and people can play something else if they don’t like it, but it’s considered a kindness to those who want to play and enjoy their games but are unable to if they find their default difficulties too easy or too hard. It just kind of sucks IMO to have to miss out on particular games that I would really like simply because their default difficulties are too hard for me to enjoy them. I can kind of accept it when it’s one developers thing like it is with FromSoftware, but not when it’s the mainstream popular thing for most games which it’s kind of becoming based on the commercial success of FromSoftware’s games.

Elden Ring (or FROM games) are not even close to the first to omit difficulty options. Many earlier games were "you get what you get and you don't pitch a fit".

Imagine you were making your own game - your dream game - and you had very specific ideas about what you wanted to create, but a significant segment of the gaming crowd were vocally opposed to a certain element that you found crucial. Do you think you ought to bend the knee or make what you wanted to create?

Why don't you get on the contact page for the developers that are failing to offer you the kindness you deserve and let them know how you feel. Maybe they'll listen.

And fwiw, you're not prohibited from playing any of the games without difficulty options. It's just a matter of whether the juice is worth the squeeze, and for you, you've decided it isn't, but that's not the fault of the developer. If the developer had to listen to all complaints about what ought to be included or omitted in their games, there would never be any games released at all. You *cannot* please everyone, and knowing that, creators ought to be indifferent to anything other than their own inspiration and desire to make what they're moved to make. Otherwise, it's just a hodgepodge of incongruences bound to the whims of an audience that cannot ever possibly sing in unison.

If I seem like the most miserable cuss sometimes then you must not frequent any other gaming forums. I just played and enjoyed the new Saints Row game that EVERYONE else is hating on. If I was the most miserable cuss then I would be joining the hate parade right along side them. The fact of the matter is that I buy and play more games than a lot of other people do, so I share my opinion on more games than a lot of other people do. And yes sometimes those opinions are negative, but they’re oftentimes positive as well. And I game because I really enjoy my time with the games that I’m positive about. They might be less than the ones that I’m negative about especially these days, but there’s still enough of them to satisfy me.

[crimson_tide]

Oh...we're still doing the difficulty talk?

Aw man, Valhalla's not like...dumb? That's a bummer. I wanted it to be just dumb and take itself less seriously than Odyssey even. Oh and for Layla to die an ignominious death because I can't stand her. Oh well, it's on PS...whatever I have. I can check it out if I ever get super curious and have nothing else to play.

I really, REALLY like Ys 9. A lot. It's NOT pretty. It's REALLY old school and ludicrously basic. The kids might even say mid. But it's so much fricking fun, it's just the kind of gaming junk food I can **** with. I just got some bar thing and I hope that's it as far as extra stuff goes. It's just right at the moment, I don't want much more. The tiny ass party gimmick is just nailing the KH style so hard. If they keep this pace, I MIGHT go back and look at Ys 8. I think my problem would be that Ys 8 wouldn't have the traversal angle that 9 does. The combat is sweet though. Braindead but fun and QUICK. It's real snappy. It's ticking all the right boxes fam .

As does DQ Builders 2. I didn't realize how sold I would be on this game. I knew I wanted to play more after the chunk of the demo I played but I wasn't ready. Is this seriously what Minecraft is? Because I have been missing out . Seriously though, unlike izzy, I need to be dragged around on a leash to do things. And all this game does is drop a task on you and asks you to do it. It gets done and then they give you more to do. That's the trick for me. I need a clear objective. I can't make my own fun. I wish I could but again, much like the difficulty, crim ain't got time for that. I respect that people like izzy can appreciate that level of freedom in a game and even envy them a bit. But I'm glad something like this exists to give me a taste of why people like those kind of games are cool.

Also on top of this, I am looking into starting PSO2. Because why not ?

[Phaseknox]

Elden Ring (or FROM games) are not even close to the first to omit difficulty options. Many earlier games were "you get what you get and you don't pitch a fit".

Of course I know that FromSoftware games aren’t the first to omit difficulty settings in them, but they’re some of the ones to have been doing it in more recent years. And while it’s true that there have been many games over the years that haven’t included difficulty settings, most of them also haven’t been as hard as FromSoftware games either.

Imagine you were making your own game - your dream game - and you had very specific ideas about what you wanted to create, but a significant segment of the gaming crowd were vocally opposed to a certain element that you found crucial. Do you think you ought to bend the knee or make what you wanted to create?

I guess that it would depend on the certain element in question. I wouldn’t really want to alter or change any of the game’s core content such as story, characters, level design and/or gameplay mechanics, but if it had to do with including an accessibility option to players such as the choice to choose a different difficulty other than the default one that simply meant that more people who wanted to play and enjoy the core content of my game could play and enjoy it then I would want to include that option because I would want as many people as possible to play and enjoy what I created without alienating anyone based solely on the fact that it’s too difficult for them to play or enjoy based on their own personal skill level. How someone feels about the story, characters and/or gameplay in a game is subjective for the most part, and I wouldn’t bend the knee to change the actual content of my game just because some people didn’t personally care for it. But that’s different from acknowledging the fact that everyone possesses different skills and patience when it comes to playing games, and including different difficulty settings for them to choose from to best suit their personal preference to be able to enjoy what I’ve created from a content perspective would be something that I would want to do.

This discussion is about including easier and harder difficulty settings as alternative options to a game’s default difficulty setting, not altering or changing any of a game’s core content. And I get that your point is that by altering or changing a game’s difficulty from the one that the developer envisioned it to have can somewhat alter or change the experience that they intended it to be as a whole, but as long as their distinct vision of how challenging that they feel that it should be to experience it exactly as they intended is the default game then I don’t really see how them also offering options to slightly adjust the overall challenge to a player’s more preferred personal preference is taking that away if it’s still the default game so that everyone who wants to play it exactly as it was intended by the developer can.

Why don't you get on the contact page for the developers that are failing to offer you the kindness you deserve and let them know how you feel. Maybe they'll listen.

I never said that I deserve the kindness of difficulty settings in games, but I do feel that they’re a nice thing for developers to include in their games so that everyone who wants to play and enjoy them can even if they’re not the most skilled and patient gamers out there. It’s a simple courtesy to those spending $60-$70 on their games, because at the end of the day when all is said and done video games are an entertainment product that you have to purchase if you want to play them. So unless developers want to give their games away for free from the kindness of their hearts then including accessibility options such as difficulty settings in them is a courtesy, kindness and nicety for them to do for the people supporting them with their wallets and keeping them in business so that they can make a nice living from doing what they do.

And fwiw, you're not prohibited from playing any of the games without difficulty options. It's just a matter of whether the juice is worth the squeeze, and for you, you've decided it isn't, but that's not the fault of the developer.

I’ve played a lot of Soulslike games because I like their design structure and style, but there hasn’t been one that I haven’t got stuck in and couldn’t proceed any further due to them being too difficult for me. I can only bang my head against a brick wall for so long before I eventually have to realize that I’m not going to be able to pass it no matter what I do. There comes a time when you just have to call it quits whether you really want to or not. The juice has been worth the squeeze in a lot of the Soulslike games that I’ve played, but eventually I just don’t have it in me to squeeze anymore and I have to stop. If I could lower the difficulty a little to make things a bit more reasonable in terms of challenge then I could keep playing and enjoying them, but without the option to do so I’m out of luck.

If the developer had to listen to all complaints about what ought to be included or omitted in their games, there would never be any games released at all. You *cannot* please everyone, and knowing that, creators ought to be indifferent to anything other than their own inspiration and desire to make what they're moved to make. Otherwise, it's just a hodgepodge of incongruences bound to the whims of an audience that cannot ever possibly sing in unison.

I somewhat agree with this, but I still don’t think that it’s too much to ask for difficulty settings in games so that a developer can at the very least please everyone playing their games when it comes to their challenge if nothing else. I just don’t see how options in games are ever really a bad thing. You’ve made your point about how a developer should be free to do whatever they want to do with their games, and I’ve never disputed that. But they also have to realize that people vote with their wallets when it comes to any product that they purchase. If a company is interested in staying in business then they can’t be anti-consumer, because it will end up biting them in the ass. Volition is learning this now based on how they handled the new Saints Row game from the start. The majority voiced how they didn’t like the direction that Volition was taking the game in, and Volition basically gave them the middle finger and look at how that turned out for them. They could end up going out of business based on the new Saints Row fiasco, and they only have themselves to blame.

[isthatallyougot]

I guess that it would depend on the certain element in question. I wouldn’t really want to alter or change any of the game’s core content such as story, characters, level design and/or gameplay mechanics, but if it had to do with including an accessibility option to players such as the choice to choose a different difficulty other than the default one that simply meant that more people who wanted to play and enjoy the core content of my game could play and enjoy it then I would want to include that option because I would want as many people as possible to play and enjoy what I created without alienating anyone based solely on the fact that it’s too difficult for them to play or enjoy based on their own personal skill level. How someone feels about the story, characters and gameplay in a game is subjective for the most part, and I wouldn’t bend the knee to change the actual content of my game just because some people didn’t personally care for it. But that’s different from acknowledging the fact that everyone possesses different skills and patience when it comes to playing games, and including different difficulty settings for them to choose from to best suit their personal preference to be able to enjoy what I’ve created from a content perspective would be something that I would want to do.

Yes, phase, I know you're pro accessibility. You've made that repeatedly clear. But my question was. would you omit an element that you saw as integral or cater to the crowd's voice? You're just talking about difficulty options again. I'm asking if you would stick to your own vision for your game or bend against audience pressures.

This discussion that we’re having is about including easier or harder difficulty settings as alternative options to a game’s default difficulty setting, not altering or changing any of a game’s core content. And I get that your point is that altering and changing a game’s difficulty from the one that the developer envisioned can somewhat alter and change the experience that they intended it to be as a whole, but as long as their distinct vision is the default game then I don’t really see how them also offering options to slightly adjust the overall challenge to a player’s more preferred personal preference is taking that away if it’s still the default game so that everyone who wants to play it exactly as it was intended by the developer can.

I never said that I deserve the kindness of difficulty settings in games, but I do feel that they’re a nice thing for developers to include in their games so that everyone who wants to play and enjoy them can even if they’re not the most skilled and patient gamers out there. It’s a simple courtesy to those spending $60-$70 on their games, because at the end of the day when all is said and done video games are an entertainment product that you have to purchase if you want to play them. So unless developers want to give their games away for free from the kindness of their hearts then including accessibility options such as difficulty settings in them is a courtesy, kindness and nicety for them to do for the people supporting them with their wallets and keeping them in business so that they can make a nice living from doing what they do.

I’ve played a lot of Soulslike games because I like their design structure and style, but there hasn’t been one that I haven’t got stuck in and couldn’t proceed any further due to them being too difficult for me. I can only bang my head against a brick wall for so long before I eventually have to realize that I’m not going to be able to pass it no matter what I do. There comes a time when you just have to call it quits whether you really want to or not. The juice has been worth the squeeze in most of the Soulslike games that I’ve played, but eventually I just don’t have it in me to squeeze anymore and I have to stop. If I could lower the difficulty a little to make things a bit more reasonable in terms of challenge then I could keep playing and enjoying them, but without the option to do so I’m out of luck.

I somewhat agree with this, but I still don’t think that it’s too much to ask for difficulty settings in games so that a developer can at the very least please everyone playing their games when it comes to their challenge if nothing else. I just don’t see how options in games are ever really a bad thing. You’ve made your point about how a developer should be free to do whatever they want to do with their games, and I’ve never disputed that. But they have to realize that people vote with their wallets when it comes to any product that they purchase. If a company is interested in staying in business then they can’t be anti-consumer, because it will end up biting them in the ass. Volition is learning this now based on how they handled the new Saints Row game from the start. The majority voiced how they didn’t like the direction that Volition was taking the game in, and Volition basically gave them the middle finger and look at how that turned out for them. They could end up going out of business based on the new Saints Row fiasco, and they only have themselves to blame.

I realize that your views about difficulty are your own and you're probably not going to ever feel differently. So let me come at this issue from another angle. It's been discussed many times, here and elsewhere, but FROM's games *DO* have difficulty options, fwiw. Yes, it's not an overtly selectable menu option, but it's in there. You've got a virtually endless selection of build/weaponry/magic/armor combinations. If you're not good up close, you can spam from a distance as well. Yes, sometimes it's still tough, but even if you don't have the hand-eye capacity and you can't be arsed to dig into all the intricacies of build-options, you can *still* brute force the games into submission via over-leveling. I'd call it boring to take that approach, but you can farm experience from enemies you *can* handle until they're no longer problematic and keep gradually building. My point is that the games are accessible to most anyone, it's just a matter of approach. If feels like you, as acknowledged, just simply don't have the patience for games that require the type of investment that FROM's main series asks of its players, and that's fine.

My only issue with your position is the idea that *any* game developer *OUGHT* to include variable difficulties be default - that it should be some sort of industry standard, more or less. I mean, what do you do when you read a book and don't understand the themes and concepts that are presented. Should the writer/publisher include a synopsis as an addendum explaining everything to the reader just to make sure that the message was accessible to all? I mean, the idea that everything needs to be - or even *CAN* be appreciated by all disregards the reality that we're all different and we'll all find resonance with different harmonies and vibrations in this experience called life. You say you can't enjoy Souls or many other games of that ilk, so what?