As gaming gets bigger, more and more games seek to be accesible. To that end, design accomodates a wider array of players by providing modes that may be easier to get into. Nintendo in particular is infamous for providing such modes in core titles, like Mario and Donkey Kong. In an interview with Edge, lead developer on ACIII remarked that he was not a fan of "easy mode" in games.
"A lot of games have been ruined by easy modes. If you have a cover shooter and you switch it to easy and you don’t have to use cover, you kind of broke your game. You made a game that is essentially the worst possible version of your game."
While he is right, that strikes me as a stupid example of what games have provided for new players. No game has done something that compromises the point of the game so blatantly, as far as I know…but, for the sake of argument, if a game has–shouldn't it be on the consumer to determine how they consume their media? I can skip ahead on a movie or a book if I don't like, understand or want to experience a segment. Maybe I'm not getting the full experience, but not only am I still engaging with something I might not otherwise do, I'm get to experience it on my own terms. Just like anything else.
Granted developers have the opportunity to determine what my experience will be like should I take the 'easy' route, but it falls on the designer to create something appropriate that still captures some semblance of the game proper for someone who is having a difficult time.
In order to ensure a better experience for everyone, it sounds like ACIII is conducting ample playtesting. The information that playtesting provides them allows them to fine-tune and adjust the difficulty as needed. "We’re not trying to make a brutally difficult game, so we go through all the playtest data and make sure it works," Hutchinson explained.
We'll know soon how well ACIII provides a challenge for veterans and whether or not it is accesible for new players soon.
