If...

I would say "Change the name so that it doesn't sound like a peripheral for the Wii". Anyway, new question time!

IF you could swap two Nintendo characters around so that they would appear in each other's games, which ones would you choose?

I would swap Samus and Captain Olimar. Both characters that belong in space in some way but their genres are so different it would be funny. Imagine hordes of Pikmin trying to take down Ridley, whilst Samus picked up Earth trinkets in a very confused way.

I'll think of a Nintendo-first-party-only answer in the future, no doubt, but for now, cheating slightly...

Samus Aran / Simon Belmont

Now to decide what to call the games...

Link and Samus. Just because I'd love to see how each competes with the worlds of the other with their own abilities. The Master Sword vs. Kraid, and the Super Missiles vs. Gohma. It'd be grand.

Failing that, Mario and anyone. Because Mario Odyssey has spoiled me, and now any game where I can't control enemies, NPCs, and level furniture will be a game where I wish I could control those things.

Next!

IF you could make one thing law in game design, so every game had to have it, what would it be?

An easy mode. Gaming should be inclusive, facilitative, and a quality way to relax. I simply cannot be arsed with games that are hard just for the sake of being hard, and games that are made just to make folk go mental at how challenging they are. That's shite design, for absolute wallopers. There's some good-looking stuff on the Switch eShop just now that suits my tastes, but it's gone and completely ruined by being sold as 'tough as nails' and 'hard as hell'. Bollocks to that. I've got no time for that. They've just talked themselves out of a sale.

Brilliant answer.

That is a top answer. What they absolutely shouldn't do is what Cuphead's done, which is gate off the final battle to those playing easy mode. (Cappa: never ever ever ever ever ever ever play Thumper. I mean I'd advise that to most people to be honest.)

Let me think of some things:

• Orchestral soundtrack. This is probably my most serious one. But then you'd get indie games that can't afford the orchestra, and I wouldn't want to price them out of the market... dilemma.
  
• A minigame for you to play if the loading screen displays for longer than ten seconds. Preferably allowing you to collect collectables that are relevant in-game. Wait, this is my most serious one.
  
• Non-realistic graphics. CoD would be better if you played as a cartoon pig. Is fact.
  
• Soft toys of the cutest animal in the game. The kids would love them. Then I'd swipe the last one from under their noses and make them cry. Balladeer, Master of Children.
  
• An ending lifted straight from an anime. I don't want to talk about a couple of Nintendo games that have done this, but one lifted itself from 'good' to 'great' on that alone. Bonus marks if there's a daft and tonally inappropriate ending song.
  
• Rideable dragons. Zelda? Dragon. Mario? Dragon. Mario Tennis? Court on the back of a dragon. Historically accurate shootybang game? Set historically accurate Nazis ablaze with a dragon. DRAGONS FOR EVERYONE.

Cappa's one I can understand, though for my money the best games are the ones that avoid the need for difficulty settings through good game design. In Breath of the Wild, Monster Hunter and Dark Souls, treating the game with respect, taking your time and equipping effectively can make it manageable and people can add as much or as little challenge as they want. In Mario, playing through the levels and rescuing Peach is normally pretty simple, but proper 100% can be some of the hardest gaming around.

That said, for games where a basic difficulty slider makes sense, there's no reason not to have it. Other people being able to play an easier game doesn't diminish your harder one, and if you're worried about it cheapening the value of finishing a tough game: it never had any. Beating game is not an achievement.

Balladeer wrote:

A minigame for you to play if the loading screen displays for longer than ten seconds.  Preferably allowing you to collect collectables that are relevant in-game.  Wait, this is my most serious one.

There's actually a reason this isn't the case: it was a patented idea for ages, so only one company (Namco, I think) could do it. I'm sure I remember hearing that it expired recently though, so it could spread. Fingers crossed!

Lukey Boi has summed up how I feel, I wouldn't want someone to take the easy way out and miss out on a fantastic experience because of it. Some games need to be learned.

What if they wouldn't experience it all without a difficulty setting though? That's Cappa's position, so far as I understand it: I don't imagine he has the patience to play DS the way 'it's intended'.

I do remember hearing about the patent, Drunka, now that you mention it. Fingers crossed indeed, it's a stupid one.

I'd say you were wasting your time playing something like Dark Souls or Monster Hunter without the challenge. The game is the challenge, the journey, the stories you generate. Simply walking through every location once would leave it feeling like a sub par Zelda rip off.

Aye, but that's your opinion.  It may not be everyone's.  They can always say that there's a recommended difficulty setting for the 'true experience', but if everyone gets to play through the game, surely that's a good thing?  

Example: I think Fire Emblem's permadeath is bobbins, and I'm glad the recent ones have made it optional.  I don't need that kind of stress in my life.  You, and those who want the 'pure Fire Emblem' experience, can still play it like that, and hopefully the game's still designed around that.  But I'm much more likely to pick up the series down the line if I can do so without that stress.

I agree Balla. Like, if there were multiple endings, it shouldn't matter if I got a different one from you as long as everyone enjoyed their playthrough of the game, right?

To be serious for a moment, I disagree with you because games are art. If a developer has a vision of an experience they want to create, they should go for it. If its not for everyone, that's fine. It doesn't need to be.

That's why my answer to Zero's question is that I wouldn't. I'd never say any mechanic should be in every single game. Diversity is key, and truly great art can never please everyone.

Picking Fire Emblem is probably the worst choice though, that series has been seriously harmed by the inclusion of no permadeath I believe. The fact that there is no requirement to keep so many characters alive means that they're not as well balanced for doing so. There's a mission in Fates where they give you 3 character and one of them had already died for me, it became impossible.

I actually find difficulty settings to be a pain in the arse to navigate. You can have recommended ones all you like, but there's so much contrast that you've no idea what skill level they're aiming at and the descriptions rarely make any sense. Knack 2 I'm currently playing on Hard, Normal is recommended, but that would just be too easy, I'd be bored. Prey I've had to stop playing, I turned it down to easy and it was still crazy hard.

Games like Skyrim are perfect, you can adjust your difficulty on the fly, there's no benefit to having a higher difficulty, just tougher combat. Other games just don't work that way. If you added difficulty to Dark Souls you'd miss out on the appreciation for that world, the mechanics, the experience. There's no 2 ways about that, you're better off looking elsewhere for something more tailored to your tastes.

To me the issue is that not all games are for everyone, Gamers do tend to have this attitude that everything should be aimed at them, but it just isn't, some games just need to be passed on. That's why I've gotten much better at just giving up when a game doesn't work for me. No point hitting your head against something you're not a good fit for.

Maybe so, that feels more like poor balancing than a poor concept though! Still more likely to play the later games.

And I am the master of not picking up games I'm not a good fit for. I left entire genres pass me by, despite the games within being talked up. It's still sad when I can't enjoy the experience a game that's in a genre and style I do like because the developer has decided that



At the end of the day it's up to the developer, because this topic is massively hypothetical. I'd never force an easy mode into the development process, had I genuinely the power. Despite good arguments from the two of you, I'd still be happier with an easy mode on most games, in some form or another, out of the way somewhere where it doesn't impinge on those who want to play the game as the developer intended. I feel that in the vast majority of cases, it could be done without sacrificing anything, just so long as the 'intended' mode comes first.

The thing here which I think you're missing: the three games I listed aren't all that hard. They're tough in their way, but for the most part there's no mad finger gymnastics or anything required. They're just designed in such a way as the player needs to approach them sensibly, pay attention to things, learn from mistakes. Changing that would make them entirely different games.

For something like Cuphead or F-Zero GX, where its just daft, I don't think there's a good argument against just putting in an easier difficulty mode.

A hard mode and only a hard mode. If you can't play it then you should quit videogames for life...............sorry I'll stop this joke.

Real answer: Loot boxes, EA has got it right and everyone who says otherwise is a fanny.

Balladeer wrote:

Let me think of some things:

• Orchestral soundtrack.  This is probably my most serious one.  But then you'd get indie games that can't afford the orchestra, and I wouldn't want to price them out of the market... dilemma.
  

Hard disagree on this one. A lot of games would lose something by going from a chiptune soundtrack to something orchestral.

As for the chat around difficulty, I think the best way to do it is to design a game without any requirement for a difficulty setting, but include items to make the experience easier. Odyssey's extra health mushroom power-ups are a good example here as if you're truly struggling you can buy one of those from the shop and give yourself an extra buffer for the trickier boss battles. Granted, asking devs to design their games in such a way is a more difficult undertaking, so I can understand why most choose the lazier option of having enemies do less damage and things like that.

That's another one: all games with chiptune soundtracks and pixel art to be forced to change them to orchestral music and cel-shading.

I think I'm going to side with Cappa. I'd rather feel that gaming catered for all skill levels and all players.

My personal law would be customisable controls. There is no excuse for not allowing gamers to feel as comfortable as possible when playing your game.

I stand by my categorical opposition to the premise.

I would expect nothing less from a man of strong convictions such as yourself, Archduke

DIGRESSION ALERT: Originally typed that as 'Archdunk'. That's a totally different title.

Drunka. Anyway, let's get this show off the road so we can get another show on the road.

IF you had to stick to one vehicle in games for all of your future video game driving needs - in Mario Kart, F-Zero, Rocket League, L.A. Noire, etc. - which one would it be?

Does this vehicle have to be land-based? If so,



MR. SCOOTY MUTHAFLIPPAAAAAAAAAS

Otherwise Sky Pop or something.

I didn't even consider aerial vehicles and that! If I don't have to stay on the ground, then:

No hard and fast rule this time, team. Go for whatever suits your mood.