We've made a (probably bad, but that's not the point) first person shooter game last year and difficulty curve conception was a pain.
Initialy the game was aiming for the not-so-niche of hardcore fps player base and thus, clearly hard. As a VR game we attracted a lot of childrens and first time player players, who were overwhelmed.
We then added really easier game modes (and when i mean easier, i really mean 'you could litteraly walk thought the game for one or two minutes ignorings ennemis until you die'.
One of the recurring bad review (not the only one, the game have others problems) we had was the game was too easy, and looking for player stats, we could see video reviews of clearly seasonned fps player, rolling thought the easy mode for obvious reason and quitting after some time finding the game too easy without even trying the second diffulty setting on the 5 availables.
I'm sincerely curious as a developper to how we could improve things for our next try. We could have started the game on an harder difficulty by default, but we did not want to force a non veteran player to check 'mega-beginner-dumbed mode' on startup.
Another point we had and could explain hollow knight difficulty : it's impossible for a gamedevelopper to estimate difficulty on your own game when you work on it for over 2 years. Even if you are normally not very good on the genre You get insanely good at it pretty quickly.
You could make two buttons to start the game, the difficult one first. And call them maybe "Hard" and "Easy", with explanation that Hard is for people who regularly play games of this type, and Easy is for casual players; to make it obvious that a non-casual player is supposed to go with the Hard option even if they play the game for the first time.
And maybe instead of dumbing down some parts of the game, you could remove or replace them. Like, if the end boss is supposed to be a horrible monster, then instead of turning him into a funny punching bag in the Easy mode, you could just replace him with some regular enemy (or a group of them).
I think it should also be obvious when you see someone playing the game, which mode they use. Don't write "Easy mode" on the screen literally, but maybe use an alternative texture for something; or perhaps there is something that makes the mode obvious, for example in Easy mode you get more life. Then everyone who played the game will see which version was used by the reviewer, if there is a video or screenshot.
> it's impossible for a gamedevelopper to estimate difficulty on your own game when you work on it for over 2 years.
Heh, I know that. I knew an open-source game which at one moment had a tutorial so difficult outsiders couldn't make it. It's because when you played the game hundred times, you already know the optimal moves (at least, what is an optimal move in the tutorial), so it is hard to imagine someone who doesn't. And another problem is that if you find a tester, a few months later, the tester has the same problem. So perhaps every new version should be tested by someone who never saw the game before.
But when a game has so much more to offer - atmosphere, story, adventure - (like Hollow Knight) it is certainly a bit unfair to restrict those things to only the hardcore players.
You can even self impose rules like the speed running community do.
It was at the time where I still played games, but already had a kid. Having to pass through difficult boss level would mean literally over a week of my free time. That time would be spent by trying again and again the same thing, because it was simply difficult. But the suggestion that it should be easier was literally mocked and treated as illegimate by far too many people. Then I realized that jounalists that wrote something similar were treated in ridiculously aggressive ways, they are not gamers, they are lazy loosers.
I think that is when I first realized how twisted logic of that community is. In order to not be "lazy" etc, you are expected to spend as much possible on gaming. And people who, like, prioritize schoolwork, work, family, create something whatever else are somehow the mocked weak lazy ones.
I had multiple realizations like that about aspects of gaming culture (I moved from sort of pro-gamer to disliking it all), but that was the first one.
2.) I am not talking about some game being "not for me". I am about gaming community hostility toward people "like me" and towards games made for "people like me".
That hostility manifest when we start to talk about what we want in games in general, what we want games to be like. Or when we hit the wall in game that pretends to be for general public, but halfway cease to be. And I am not even complaining about game designer even, I am literally complaining about how gaming community responds to those who have different taste then them.
All that said, I don't see why accessibility has to be a dirty word. Purposefully difficult game design does exclude players. For every inspiring story of someone completing a challenge while suffering from a disability, there are 10 more who completely miss out on what are - difficulty aside - genuinely interesting games. I personally know soulsborne fans who mainly like exploring the world, and for whom boss encounters are just a necessary evil.
That's honestly fair - these are rich worlds with interesting lore and a unique form for storytelling, so I totally get just enjoying the game(s) on those merits alone. It then follows that I think others who are similarly inclined but perhaps not quite as able should be able to enjoy the same experience.
I hope we continue to see further normalization of sliders for settings for players to tone down (or up) experiences to have the game meet them where they are.