I always find Inner Spiral’s essay really thought-provoking and insightful and “Difficulty Isn’t Everything” is no exception. In it, they explore the relationship between game difficulty, accessibility, and artistry and why difficulty shouldn’t take centre stage. Here’s the prelude to get you started:
In the past decade, few conversations in games have become as heated or as predictable as the one about difficulty. Soulslike culture has turned “git gud” from a tongue-in-cheek slogan into a kind of belief, and a shorthand for purity in design and authenticity in play. Hard has become synonymous with good, and the idea that a game might offer multiple thresholds of entry was dismissed as indulgence. The issue has moved people into two camps, those who treat friction as the essence of artistry, and those who argue for accessibility as a basic condition of play.
I am not calling to abolish friction or dilute art. This is an argument for plurality. Difficulty options, sliders, and accessibility features do not erase what hard games teach, they preserve the possibility of learning those lessons across a wider range of bodies and minds. What is at stake here is not just convenience, but continuity. The ability for games to remain open, to remain playable, to remain art for more than one imagined audience.
For me, there are so many different factors in making a good game. Difficulty is just one cog amongst other cogs and I think it’s really reductive to put video games on a scale based on that single component. Pokémon is a popular example where a lot of “fans” find the games “too easy” and honestly, go play something else. Or the myriad of difficult hacks and mods that are available specifically for people who believe that. It’s a boring argument that undermines years of work and creativity and as fans and consumers, we ought to broaden our viewpoints.