Jimquisition: Dumbing Down for the Filthy Casuals

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 . . . 30 NEXT
 

Rooster Cogburn:

VyceVictus:

What I do to the game doesnt concern you. Its not YOUR unique experience, it's a unique experience open to everyone simply by being on the market. And if I do eventually "get it" what then? I wouldnt have if I didnt get the chance in the first place. Yes, there are tons of easy ganes to play, so why wouldnt I want to try something different? You want people to enjoy and experience the game, but only on terms you deem acceptable? That's ludicrous.

You have been beating up that straw man that I want to boss you around since this whole thing started. I could not possibly care less what you do with the game once you have it and never implied that I do. I do however care WHAT THE GAME ITSELF IS LIKE and your opinion on what THE GAME ITSELF SHOULD BE LIKE bears directly on that to the extent that you are a presence in this discussion. You are once again conflating different things in a misleading way and I hope this makes it clear I DO NOT FALL FOR IT. What the game is actually like cannot be used interchangeably with what you do with it after you get it.

You are obviously very committed so the same straw manning and weasel wording tactics, so this is over. It was a mistake to give you a chance to discuss this reasonably.

I do want the game to be easier for you to get into. But not at ANY cost- there are lines, and the point where I see my experience degrading significantly is where I draw them. As much as I am demanding you agree to my terms, you are also demanding I agree to yours. We seem to be at an impasse but you are the farthest thing from a victim in this.

If you want to try something different, there is no shortage of games that aren't Dark Souls. I'm sorry but I have no desire to see Dark Souls morph into something unrecognizable simply so people can "try something different", which apparently means trying something that isn't different at all. If you truly desired to "try something different" you would try to appreciate the model that makes Dark Souls unique. If you can't, then you tried something different and it wasn't for you. That is OK. It happens. It is no good reason to turn this apple into an orange. There is a lot out there, you will find something that works for you.

I aint trying to con you into some religion by twisting word, this is just about games. It aint that serious. I dont think the game SHOULD be anything, but if it has something else or more, thats not going to harm anything. Its not my intent to talk in circles here. Im no fucking victim, im just another random on the internet who plays games, just like you. You're no victim here either, nobody is going to take anything from you. After all, whatever line you think there is to be drawn doesnt really matter, its up to the developer.
If the next DS is just like the first, im still gonna play it. This isnt an either or. You dont get to say who the game is or isnt for. You mentioned not every movie is for everyone. Yeah, new wave french cinema isnt for everyone, but if it came in a blu ray package that also contianed optional full documentary making of with explanation of all the themes, would that be a problem? back to the game, again, theres many different ways to make accessibility without disrupting the core of the game. If you are saying that the mere existence of those extras defies the intent of the film/game being hard, then so does all the manuals and forums and communities that came up from it. It doesnt have to be "easy mode" or no, there's any number of things the devs could incorporate to produce a positive result.

Sande45:

VyceVictus:

snip

You really still have to make a reply like this? Really? After all the pages of Rooster and many others trying to hammer in the point, THIS is what you got from all that?

Yes, there are tons of easy ganes to play, so why wouldnt I want to try something different?

By all means. Everyone here would welcome new players with open arms. And you do realize that everything in this quote is against an easy mode, right? You want something different than easy. Still, you want an easy mode so you don't have to learn to play this difficult game.

You want people to enjoy and experience the game, but only on terms you deem acceptable?

No, he wants people to enjoy it as it is, not by having the devs twist it into something it's not and was never meant to be.

WWmelb:

2nd Option - Segregated Servers for "Easy Mode" and "Normal". Detrimental in two ways. One it would divide the community, and make it smaller in the long run on both sides of the fence. 2. It is an unnecessary cost and maintenance for the devs to gamble on a 2nd bunch of "easy" servers. Once you start them, even if you only have 100 players wind up using them, you offered the service and now you have to keep providing it. Taking resources away from future development projects.

I'd also add the griefers to this one. Pretty much anyone who's already dicking around in PvP would be getting a perfect venue to shit on beginners. So pretty much whichever way you look at it, PvP is something that will not work with easy mode.

btw. I was 50/50 on this issue at the beginning, but after seeing the anti side's understandable, relatable and (mostly) polite arguing and the pro side either twisting those arguments into easily defeatable strawmen, ignoring them entirely or deciding they're objectively not important/worth taking into consideration (because of their own bias and opinions), I'm really starting to tip on the "easy mode -do not want" side.

Not ever have I once said the game should have an easy mode. Nobody has to "twist" anything. Hell even the most rudimentary thing that someone mentioned, making a more explicit manual for instance, is but one way. Accessibility does not necessarily have to come in the form of easiness.

VyceVictus:

Not ever have I once said the game should have an easy mode. Nobody has to "twist" anything. Hell even the most rudimentary thing that someone mentioned, making a more explicit manual for instance, is but one way. Accessibility does not necessarily have to come in the form of easiness.

Don't bite, this is moving the goal posts. It's just another tactic to set the hook and reel you in.

VyceVictus:
You mentioned not every movie is for everyone. Yeah, new wave french cinema isnt for everyone, but if it came in a blu ray package that also contianed optional full documentary making of with explanation of all the themes, would that be a problem?

Of course not. That's additional content to help you with the untouched main content itself (which Souls games have plenty of already). Easy mode wouldn't be like that for the people playing it. It would be a different experience entirely, especially if From was to go to the lengths it takes to actually make a Souls game easier in any significant way.

back to the game, again, theres many different ways to make accessibility without disrupting the core of the game. If you are saying that the mere existence of those extras defies the intent of the film/game being hard, then so does all the manuals and forums and communities that came up from it. It doesnt have to be "easy mode" or no, there's any number of things the devs could incorporate to produce a positive result.

No one is against those features. Hell, they're already in heavy use like I said earlier. The in-game messages can be seen as a part of this and the manual is actually very informative and I suggest anyone to read it before playing. Even the wikis are strongly recommended to the point that one of them was linked in Demon's Souls box iirc. I also seriously doubt anyone would be against making the game more accessible with a better tutorial, more explanation on mechanics etc.

Rooster Cogburn:
Don't bite, this is moving the goal posts. It's just another tactic to set the hook and reel you in.

Yeah, all this time he's been arguing for the easy mode but now it's suddenly all about easing the new players into the game proper, which I think we can all agree on.

Here is another video by EpicNameBro on how one could go about making the game difficult but also accessible without the need for modes, something that is already in the game that people who have not played the game would not know about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upH5UfKbi0c

Sande45:

VyceVictus:
You mentioned not every movie is for everyone. Yeah, new wave french cinema isnt for everyone, but if it came in a blu ray package that also contianed optional full documentary making of with explanation of all the themes, would that be a problem?

Of course not. That's additional content to help you with the untouched main content itself (which Souls games have plenty of already). Easy mode wouldn't be like that for the people playing it, it would be a different experience entirely, especially if From was to go to the lengths it takes to actually make a Souls game easier in any significant way.

back to the game, again, theres many different ways to make accessibility without disrupting the core of the game. If you are saying that the mere existence of those extras defies the intent of the film/game being hard, then so does all the manuals and forums and communities that came up from it. It doesnt have to be "easy mode" or no, there's any number of things the devs could incorporate to produce a positive result.

No one is against those features. Hell, they're already in heavy use like I said earlier. The in-game messages can be seen as a part of this, the manual is actually very informative and I suggest anyone to read it before playing. Even the wikis are strongly recommended to the point that one of them was linked in Demon's Souls box iirc. I also seriously doubt anyone would be against making the game more accessible with a better tutorial, more explanation on mechanics etc.

Rooster Cogburn:
Don't bite, this is moving the goal posts. It's just another tactic to set the hook and reel you in.

Yeah, all this time he's been arguing for the easy mode but now it's suddenly all about easing the new players into the game proper, which I think we can all agree with.

Never have I once said that the game should have a point blank "easy mode", though I do still believe that doing so wont have to necesarily ruin the game. A flat out stat buffed easy mode would be as contrived as the issues that I personally feel are just padding at best or cheap at worst. From software has shown they are capable of more than that.

If theres one thing i want to stress, it's the idea that "accessibility" is not antithetical to "intended challenge".
Since this is all speculative anyway, it would be more constructive to speculate how to do this successfully. For example, indie games like Braid, Limbo, or journey are immersive and challenging games that in the past would have been the sole province of PC gamers or file sharers. The fact that it is on mass media platforms (XBL, PSN) makes it instantly accessible without making it easier. In a more acute example, Bionic Commando has plenty of challenge. Hell, i trudged through the bonus challenge missions like any hardcore gamer. But there it also has an in-game form of accessibility in the form of the option to see the CPU run through the maze and show you it's done. But ultimately you still gotta play through it yourself to defeat it. That was one mechanic that worked perfectly for that game. Would a "spectator mode" be suitable for DS? Maybe, maybe not, but thats just one possible example. There are any number of ways we could imagine doing this successfully without depleting the inherent challenge.

Re FC3: Yeah, FC3 is pretty easy on Hard if you know what you're doing. The biggest issue I have with FC3 (and the new Tomb Raider looks similar) is the CONSTANT button prompts to do things like open a door, get in a vehicle, initiate a takedown, climb a ledge etc. It's bloody incessant. At least give gamers the option of turning this shit off. Same with the mini map. Once I've played a game for an hour or two and understand its conventions and mechanics I don't need to be reminded every 2 minutes.

BioRex:

When did I say I'm telling the chef what they can or cannot do? When did I say that?

Logically your stance in the analogy, is that you don't want the chef to change the spicy dish, and others are pressuring him to change it. You claim you don't want the chef to be pressured to change, so how do you intend to do that without becoming an advocate against change?

Keeping in mind, by arguing against change at all, you are in fact, pressuring the chef with what you want, even if it falls in with what he's already doing.

If there's no argument, there's no pressure. You can't have it both ways.

Also I'm sorry but someone said "It's pretentious to presume that your preference is objective fact, and that everyone else who doesn't conform is "wrong"."

So your saying that the presumption that your preference (easy mode=better) is objective fact, and that everyone else who doesn't conform is "wrong", is not pretentious?

Yes. It works both ways in the most general sense.

If people were arguing that Dark Souls shouldn't include a Hard Mode because it's meant to be Easy, despite already having an Easy mode, then it'd be pretentious because they're advocating that people should play it the way THEY want to play it and ONLY that way. (even when that isn't their right)

By advocating for both modes, you lose the context of prevention, and that prevention is the reason it's pretentious (not the method of advocacy itself). If there were an element of loss for one party at the expense of another, then you might make the argument both were pretentious, but seeing how Hard Mode is UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY PRESERVED IN THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT, that logically cannot happen.

They are MODES, MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE MODES, and one of them is being added to an existing, finished product (Dark Souls).
Unless you magic some method where the two modes can cross (and you CAN'T), there is no logical argument against inclusion of an easier mode. (there was one suggested, but I'm getting to that)

All that supposition about diverting focus, time, etc, is exactly that. Supposition and a Slippery Slope Fallacy, because it can be applied to literally any element of the game you can think of, not just Easy Mode.

I'm sorry if that wasn't clear before, but that is my current and refined argument.
If I made a mistake in transcribing that before, I admit it here.

(I do not argue this for Dark Souls 2; that was just announced and it's fair game for anyone's speculation)

Or would you be ok with me demanding that developer spend time and money to heavily alter a game to put in a hard mode? And they would indeed have to alter a game if it was not intended for a hard mode and was not designed to work with a hard mode.

You say it cannot be adjusted to be easier, but you have yet to prove why this is true.
Burden of Proof is on you.

Rooster Cogburn:

I think there are enough games in the world that we can all have the one that is right for us. No one film is for all audiences, and no audience is for all films. That is OK, and we are all better off for it in the end.

The most sensible argument yet, but I still don't see how adding an Easy Mode to an existing product will hurt it or influence your tastes/experience in any way.

If your fear is that future Dark Souls games will get dumbed down, I can see that. It's happened to a lot of games I used to play, and entire genres. And you know what? I whined. I whined like a broken motor, petitioned, emailed, and in the end I got nothing.

So with no other logical option, I look for alternatives.

On the matter of a lack of choice enhancing response...sorry, but I don't buy that.

I played IWannaBetheGuy on the second highest difficulty, and never once did the existence of other easier modes inhibit my desire to improve or ruin my fun. And that's a game where your choice of difficulty makes a HUGE fucking difference. HUGE.

Also, MegamanX6 was a game I needed modal difficulty to get into, because it was soul-crushingly difficult in a lot of places.

VyceVictus:

Never have I once said that the game should have a point blank "easy mode", though I do still believe that doing so wont have to necesarily ruin the game. A flat out stat buffed easy mode would be as contrived as the issues that I personally feel are just padding at best or cheap at worst. From software has shown they are capable of more than that.

In that case you've been quite off topic this whole time (after all, this discussion is about a separate easy mode, not making the game more approachable). Maybe it would have been good to at least make the distinction earlier and more clearly since if you truly haven't been arguing for easy mode this whole time (although you quite clearly have, at least at times, which makes this sudden change of stance a bit baffling), then you've been pretty much arguing with people who agree with you over things that aren't even related to your opinion on the subject.

Rooster Cogburn:

VyceVictus:

Not ever have I once said the game should have an easy mode. Nobody has to "twist" anything. Hell even the most rudimentary thing that someone mentioned, making a more explicit manual for instance, is but one way. Accessibility does not necessarily have to come in the form of easiness.

Don't bite, this is moving the goal posts. It's just another tactic to set the hook and reel you in.

Hah, this aint a religious inquisition where Im trying to bait you into conversion or death(It's a Jimquisition!). I said from my very first comments that I dont think this is a matter of easy vs difficult or that even DS is the proper game to apply this theory. Yes I do, fundamentally believe that optional easy modes or whatever will not ruin the game, and I do see where you've plainly stated that it's mere existence ruins your experience. We've gone through that enough. But what I also submit is that there can be any number of ways to add to the game beyond a rote "easy mode" without depleting it's core. The ones I've already mentioned seem plausible enough, but in the end I am not a developer so my knowledge of mechanics doesnt go beyond brainstorming. But as this is all speculative in the first place, I think there is plenty of room to consider options that I think will not only maintain but improve the overall experience.As I said no game is perfect, DS included, but there is always room to improve.

Sande45:

VyceVictus:

Never have I once said that the game should have a point blank "easy mode", though I do still believe that doing so wont have to necesarily ruin the game. A flat out stat buffed easy mode would be as contrived as the issues that I personally feel are just padding at best or cheap at worst. From software has shown they are capable of more than that.

If theres one thing i want to stress, it's the idea that "accessibility" is not antithetical to "intended challenge".
Since this is all speculative anyway, it would be more constructive to speculate how to do this successfully. For example, indie games like Braid, Limbo, or journey are immersive and challenging games that in the past would have been the sole province of PC gamers or file sharers. The fact that it is on mass media platforms (XBL, PSN) makes it instantly accessible without making it easier. In a more acute example, Bionic Commando has plenty of challenge. Hell, i trudged through the bonus challenge missions like any hardcore gamer. But there it also has an in-game form of accessibility in the form of the option to see the CPU run through the maze and show you it's done. But ultimately you still gotta play through it yourself to defeat it. That was one mechanic that worked perfectly for that game. Would a "spectator mode" be suitable for DS? Maybe, maybe not, but thats just one possible example. There are any number of ways we could imagine doing this successfully without depleting the inherent challenge.

In that case you've been quite off topic this whole time (after all, this discussion is about a separate easy mode, not making the game more approachable). Maybe it would have been good to at least make the distinction earlier and more clearly since if you truly haven't been arguing for easy mode this whole time (although you quite clearly have, at least at times, which makes this sudden change of stance a bit baffling), then you've been pretty much arguing with people who agree with you over things that aren't even related to your opinion on the subject.

Hah, I did so! From my 2nd or third comment onwards in fact:
"After reading this (and someone may have mentioned this before), Dark Souls probably isnt a good example for or against "Easy Mode". In the same way that the level design was meant to be challenging, there are just as many other aspects of the game design and mechanics that one could argue are legitimately flawed."
I actually think its good that we kinda wandered into the hypotheticals/philosophy of what is and is gaming. Rooster and Korten went in depth of their very psyche of how they play and what they get out of it and it was great for them to share that. Of course, arguing the details is part of the fun, but I got where they are coming from and, hopefully, after all this back and forth I am being clear as well.

Atmos Duality:

You say it cannot be adjusted to be easier, but you have yet to prove why this is true.
Burden of Proof is on you.

The game is overall designed in a way that it's not a battle of healthbars (like Skyrim for example) so just adjusting health or attack power wouldn't cut it. If you haven't digested and learned the combat, you probably won't beat Ornstein and Smough even if you had ten times the health, stamina and amount of Estus (health potions). An even better example is the dreaded Anor Londo snipers who don't give a f*** about any of your stats. They will kill you unless YOU figure out a tactic to beat them and there's no simple wholesale adjustment on the dev's part to change that.

Sande45:

Atmos Duality:

You say it cannot be adjusted to be easier, but you have yet to prove why this is true.
Burden of Proof is on you.

The game is overall designed in a way that it's not a battle of healthbars (like Skyrim for example) so just adjusting health or attack power wouldn't cut it. If you haven't digested and learned the combat, you probably won't beat Ornstein and Smough even if you had ten times the health, stamina and amount of Estus (health potions). An even better example is the dreaded Anor Londo snipers who don't give a f*** about any of your stats. They will kill you unless YOU figure out a tactic to beat them and there's no simple wholesale adjustment on the dev's part to change that.

Everything in a game is handled by numbers and patterns, it's just obfuscated to some degree.
Which is why I have a very hard time believing that NO adjustments can be made; artificial difficulty or real.

Atmos Duality:

BioRex:

When did I say I'm telling the chef what they can or cannot do? When did I say that?

Logically your stance in the analogy, is that you don't want the chef to change the spicy dish, and others are pressuring him to change it. You claim you don't want the chef to be pressured to change, so how do you intend to do that without becoming an advocate against change?

They are MODES, MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE MODES, and one of them is being added to an existing, finished product (Dark Souls).
Unless you magic some method where the two modes can cross (and you CAN'T), there is no logical argument against inclusion of an easier mode. (there was one suggested, but I'm getting to that)

You say it cannot be adjusted to be easier, but you have yet to prove why this is true.
Burden of Proof is on you.

By letting the chef do what he bloody pleases and telling the people whining about the spicy food to let the chef do as they please? Or is it fine for me to go to a sweet shop to bitch and moan about the lack of spicy food.

Also here is a tip read the thread or at least all the posts by the person you happen to be talking to. Let me reexplain what has already been said
First there is a multiplayer component that would require balancing for more then one mode, since multiplayer is another core feature you can't just ignore it.
Second simply changing the numbers won't do much good, often the difficulty comes down to enemy placement and level design.
Third you can already access an easy mode, one that is not in the menu, by leveling up, using items that give you a boost, summoning two buddies to help curbstomp the game. an easy mode is redundant.
Fourth unless you underlevel or on ng++...etc, the game is not reactive heavy, honestly the skills that help in dark souls are skills that apply in the real world, observational skills, patience, prediction from past experience, learning from ones mistakes, and the want to learn. All of these will help you more then having split second reaction times.

VyceVictus:

Sande45:

In that case you've been quite off topic this whole time (after all, this discussion is about a separate easy mode, not making the game more approachable). Maybe it would have been good to at least make the distinction earlier and more clearly since if you truly haven't been arguing for easy mode this whole time (although you quite clearly have, at least at times, which makes this sudden change of stance a bit baffling), then you've been pretty much arguing with people who agree with you over things that aren't even related to your opinion on the subject.

Hah, I did so! From my 2nd or third comment onwards in fact:
"After reading this (and someone may have mentioned this before), Dark Souls probably isnt a good example for or against "Easy Mode". In the same way that the level design was meant to be challenging, there are just as many other aspects of the game design and mechanics that one could argue are legitimately flawed."
I actually think its good that we kinda wandered into the hypotheticals/philosophy of what is and is gaming. Rooster and Korten went in depth of their very psyche of how they play and what they get out of it and it was great for them to share that. Of course, arguing the details is part of the fun, but I got where they are coming from and, hopefully, after all this back and forth I am being clear as well.

Yeah now that you mention it you have said all those things, but it's pretty easy to forget who said what in a massive thread that grows so fast it's difficult to keep up. And that doesn't change the fact that you have been arguing for the easy mode (not the same thing as thinking there should be an easy mode) and now you've changed from that to this wholly different easing new players into the game thing. I like that things are clear now and we've reached at least a partial agreement on the topic. in my opinion, easy mode is a way to get more players into Dark Souls, but it's not the optimal way. It has huge issues (which have been quite thoroughly discussed) in and of itself, as well as negative aspects considering the old player base (also thoroughly discussed) so I don't really think it's worth it when there is a better way that truly is a win-win for all no matter which way you look at it (that whole easing into it etc. alternative).

Btw. I'm really starting to get tired of these analogs. I swear there has been more discussion on football and cooking here than Dark Souls :D

Atmos Duality:

Sande45:

Atmos Duality:

You say it cannot be adjusted to be easier, but you have yet to prove why this is true.
Burden of Proof is on you.

The game is overall designed in a way that it's not a battle of healthbars (like Skyrim for example) so just adjusting health or attack power wouldn't cut it. If you haven't digested and learned the combat, you probably won't beat Ornstein and Smough even if you had ten times the health, stamina and amount of Estus (health potions). An even better example is the dreaded Anor Londo snipers who don't give a f*** about any of your stats. They will kill you unless YOU figure out a tactic to beat them and there's no simple wholesale adjustment on the dev's part to change that.

Everything in a game is handled by numbers and patterns, it's just obfuscated to some degree.
Which is why I have a very hard time believing that NO adjustments can be made; artificial difficulty or real.

Well those numbers in the shape of a tree sized arrow really don't care what numbers that player shaped thing happens to be made of, and how about you play or look up a lets play of the game before you say whether or not adjusting numbers can make the game easier, mmm?

Sande45:

VyceVictus:

Sande45:

In that case you've been quite off topic this whole time (after all, this discussion is about a separate easy mode, not making the game more approachable). Maybe it would have been good to at least make the distinction earlier and more clearly since if you truly haven't been arguing for easy mode this whole time (although you quite clearly have, at least at times, which makes this sudden change of stance a bit baffling), then you've been pretty much arguing with people who agree with you over things that aren't even related to your opinion on the subject.

Hah, I did so! From my 2nd or third comment onwards in fact:
"After reading this (and someone may have mentioned this before), Dark Souls probably isnt a good example for or against "Easy Mode". In the same way that the level design was meant to be challenging, there are just as many other aspects of the game design and mechanics that one could argue are legitimately flawed."
I actually think its good that we kinda wandered into the hypotheticals/philosophy of what is and is gaming. Rooster and Korten went in depth of their very psyche of how they play and what they get out of it and it was great for them to share that. Of course, arguing the details is part of the fun, but I got where they are coming from and, hopefully, after all this back and forth I am being clear as well.

Yeah now that you mention it you have said all those things, but it's pretty easy to forget who said what in a massive thread that grows so fast it's difficult to keep up. And that doesn't change the fact that you have been arguing for the easy mode (not the same thing as thinking there should be an easy mode) and now you've changed from that to this wholly different easing new players into the game thing. I like that things are clear now and we've reached at least a partial agreement on the topic. in my opinion, easy mode is a way to get more players into Dark Souls, but it's not the optimal way. It has huge, which have been quite thoroughly discussed, in and of itself, as well as negative aspects considering the old player base (also thoroughly discussed) so I don't really think it's worth it when there is a better way that truly is a win-win for all no matter which way you look at it (that whole easing into it etc. alternative).

Btw. I'm really starting to get tired of these analogs. I swear there has been more discussion on football and cooking here than Dark Souls :D

I know right. Chess, Triathaletes, cinema noir, the culinary arts. This shit went all over the place!

Atmos Duality:

Sande45:

Atmos Duality:

You say it cannot be adjusted to be easier, but you have yet to prove why this is true.
Burden of Proof is on you.

The game is overall designed in a way that it's not a battle of healthbars (like Skyrim for example) so just adjusting health or attack power wouldn't cut it. If you haven't digested and learned the combat, you probably won't beat Ornstein and Smough even if you had ten times the health, stamina and amount of Estus (health potions). An even better example is the dreaded Anor Londo snipers who don't give a f*** about any of your stats. They will kill you unless YOU figure out a tactic to beat them and there's no simple wholesale adjustment on the dev's part to change that.

Everything in a game is handled by numbers and patterns, it's just obfuscated to some degree.
Which is why I have a very hard time believing that NO adjustments can be made; artificial difficulty or real.

The thing is, changing certain things, like HP, wouldn't do much good, but changing others, like how that whole encounter is laid out (which could lead to a good easy mode), doesn't really fit into the category of reasonably simple tweaks.

BioRex:

By letting the chef do what he bloody pleases and telling the people whining about the spicy food to let the chef do as they please? Or is it fine for me to go to a sweet shop to bitch and moan about the lack of spicy food.

Well you could yell at the sweet shop, but you wouldn't get very far.

Point is:
You aren't the only people in the market, and whether you like it or not, just by interacting with that market you are pressuring the chef. By buying Dark Souls, you are pressuring From Software in SOME WAY.

Dark Souls is not some privately commissioned work of art for you and your clique of like-minded fans; it's published for and exposed to the entire gaming market.

This isn't idle speculation or some analogical romantic gesture, it's cold hard FACT.
You don't have to like it, but you can't just ignore it either.

Also here is a tip read the thread or at least all the posts by the person you happen to be talking to.

Whatever. You dragged me into your argument. I just wanted to comment on the video.

First there is a multiplayer component that would require balancing for more then one mode, since multiplayer is another core feature you can't just ignore it.

Make members of Mode A only interact with other members of Mode A and Mode B with Mode B.
This isn't rocket science.

Second simply changing the numbers won't do much good, often the difficulty comes down to enemy placement and level design.

I call that (unofficially) "Transformative Difficulty", and it's a very good thing.
It's one of the best forms of difficulty.

However, that doesn't preclude it from being changed or adjusted modally. Several other games that had this managed it just fine by changing the scenarios within an environment, and not just the numbers (Megaman X5 and X6, Metroid: Zero Mission, Advance Wars 1&2...I can name more if you'd like).

Altering how a scenario plays out by its initial conditions is one of the best ways to vary gameplay.
I'll get to that later in this post.

Third you can already access an easy mode, one that is not in the menu, by leveling up, using items that give you a boost, summoning two buddies to help curbstomp the game. an easy mode is redundant.

So..."playing the game".
Unless this information is implicitly known by the player (or explicitly given to), I don't see how this is "Easy Mode".

Fourth unless you underlevel or on ng++...etc, the game is not reactive heavy, honestly the skills that help in dark souls are skills that apply in the real world, observational skills, patience, prediction from past experience, learning from ones mistakes, and the want to learn. All of these will help you more then having split second reaction times.

So Trial and Error, plus observation.

Of everything you listed, I can think of several ways to make a separate mode that's fundamentally easier without resorting to scaling numbers and other artificial means. Just because that's how most of the (lazy) gaming industry approaches modal difficulty does not make it the ONLY way to approach modal difficulty.

Good grief, a modicum of thought could make the modal concept an amazing concept within the game's own rules.
That sounds great honestly; Leverage that creativity. Introduce new scenarios in old environments based on different modes. Reward the player's powers of observation or trickery, instead of rote memorization and Trial and Error.

The more I think about it, the more of a waste it seems to produce a statically-difficult environment.
And keep in mind, NOTHING I've mentioned deals with stat-jacking.
I've committed no heresy thus far.

Sande45:

The thing is, changing certain things, like HP, wouldn't do much good, but changing others, like how that whole encounter is laid out (which could lead to a good easy mode), doesn't really fit into the category of reasonably simple tweaks.

Refer to the text above.
I suggest that non-numerical (non artificial) methods of adjusting difficulty are not only possible, but desirable.
If needed, I will provide examples of concepts.

BioRex:

Well those numbers in the shape of a tree sized arrow really don't care what numbers that player shaped thing happens to be made of, and how about you play or look up a lets play of the game before you say whether or not adjusting numbers can make the game easier, mmm?

You want to argue, argue.
But leave the smug sass out. I'm trying to remain civil, the least you could do is try too.

As for the "numbers in the shape of a tree-sized arrow", I'm not talking strictly processing-presentation.

Those "numbers of a player shaped thing" at the absolute least need a Boolean state, and from what's been described, it isn't strictly boolean. There are stats being obfuscated.

The point is moot though, I've already addressed this.

Some games are simply designed to be hard and be played that way, it's the challenge that makes them fun, here's another game that builds on the same principle:

If you don't like that, the game(s) might just not be for you, it's as simple as that.
People who like hard games aren't exactly spoilt for choice, trying to change even the last few bastions people are looking up to in what is mostly a sea of shit because you might want to play a game but aren't willing to put up with learning it is selfish and (I don't ever really want to use this word and might have to punch myself afterwards) but dare I say entitled.

Some people here sound like they'd rather argue for rule changes to sports like basketball or football(soccer) to have the baskets hanging lower because they found they can't jump that high or disallow players from taking the ball from them because it's not nice and make the goals a lot larger while ruining the experience for everyone else instead of trying to get better at them themselves or finding out that they aren't for them and moving on to something that they can actually have fun with.

Atmos Duality:
The most sensible argument yet, but I still don't see how adding an Easy Mode to an existing product will hurt it or influence your tastes/experience in any way.

Look, please identify what item on that long list I spent so much time writing you had a problem with lol.

If your fear is that future Dark Souls games will get dumbed down, I can see that. It's happened to a lot of games I used to play, and entire genres. And you know what? I whined. I whined like a broken motor, petitioned, emailed, and in the end I got nothing.

So with no other logical option, I look for alternatives.

Dark Souls is the alternative, until the people lobbying for easy mode and "dumbing it down" get their way. Maybe you should be telling THEM to seek an alternative to Dark Souls. Let's just assume I'm not ready to give this one up yet.

On the matter of a lack of choice enhancing response...sorry, but I don't buy that.

You are saying Dark Souls doesn't make me feel the way I say it does? If we were talking about a film, a book, a TV show, live theater, or a song you would not even think twice about it. This is one of the ways Dark Souls is moving games forward (and Jim Sterling is holding it back).

I played IWannaBetheGuy on the second highest difficulty, and never once did the existence of other easier modes inhibit my desire to improve or ruin my fun. And that's a game where your choice of difficulty makes a HUGE fucking difference. HUGE.

IWannaBetheGuy doesn't look like this:

image

image

image

I don't think the fact that IWannaBeTheGuy wasn't an intense emotional roller coaster should preclude Dark Souls from even trying.

Also, MegamanX6 was a game I needed modal difficulty to get into, because it was soul-crushingly difficult in a lot of places.

Rather than looking for ways not having easy mode could help the experience, you are trying to come up with reasons why it can't. Obviously an easy mode can help a game. But they didn't leave it out of Dark Souls because it just slipped their mind. The assumption behind all this is that all games have to be designed to account for the needs of the casual audience for some reason, EVEN WHEN IT IS ANTITHETICAL TO THE GOALS OF THE GAME'S DESIGNERS. That is a silly, selective, and limiting standard. Why should ALL GAMES be shackled by that and limited in scope and subject matter in that way? It makes no sense.

There is no one audience that ALL games need to cater to, and the idea of trying to force this on developers, gamers and the industry makes my head explode. I don't understand what the motivation behind this is. Having one game out there that is not built from the ground up to accommodate the needs of casual players is not an imposition on them.

I don't understand why I even have to justify this. It's not made for them. There should not be one group that everything has to be made for. You wouldn't let me tell them that EVERYTHING has to accommodate ME from now on, so why are they granted this special privilege when I am not? People like me are starving for games to play, easy mode players are drowning in them. Why does having one tiny toe-hold even require an explanation or justification?

Atmos Duality:

BioRex:

By letting the chef do what he bloody pleases and telling the people whining about the spicy food to let the chef do as they please? Or is it fine for me to go to a sweet shop to bitch and moan about the lack of spicy food.

Well you could yell at the sweet shop, but you wouldn't get very far.

Point is:
You aren't the only people in the market, and whether you like it or not, just by interacting with that market you are pressuring the chef. By buying Dark Souls, you are pressuring From Software in SOME WAY.

Dark Souls is not some privately commissioned work of art for you and your clique of like-minded fans; it's published for and exposed to the entire gaming market.

This isn't idle speculation or some analogical romantic gesture, it's cold hard FACT.
You don't have to like it, but you can't just ignore it either.

So the people yelling at the spicy shop will get what they want? Also why does every game need to cater to every consumer? The is a reason we have genres and different types of games.

Make members of Mode A only interact with other members of Mode A and Mode B with Mode B.
This isn't rocket science.

So..."playing the game".
Unless this information is implicitly known by the player (or explicitly given to), I don't see how this is "Easy Mode".
[quote] well seeing how you haven't played the game you really are jabbing into dark waters on this subject aren't you?[quote]

[quote]Fourth unless you underlevel or on ng++...etc, the game is not reactive heavy, honestly the skills that help in dark souls are skills that apply in the real world, observational skills, patience, prediction from past experience, learning from ones mistakes, and the want to learn. All of these will help you more then having split second reaction times.

So Trial and Error, plus observation.

Of everything you listed, I can think of several ways to make a separate mode that's fundamentally easier without resorting to scaling numbers and other artificial means. Just because that's how most of the (lazy) gaming industry approaches modal difficulty does not make it the ONLY way to approach modal difficulty.

Good grief, a modicum of thought could make the modal concept an amazing concept within the game's own rules.
That sounds great honestly; Leverage that creativity. Introduce new scenarios in old environments based on different modes. Reward the player's powers of observation or trickery, instead of rote memorization and Trial and Error.

The more I think about it, the more of a waste it seems to produce a statically-difficult environment.
And keep in mind, NOTHING I've mentioned deals with stat-jacking.
I've committed no heresy thus far.
[quote] pay the dlc cost for the time and effort needed to do that balanced, and considering you were talking about the ease of number changes earlier you'll forgive me for thinking you were only talking about numbers[quote]

[quote="BioRex" post="6.395777.16106371"]

Well those numbers in the shape of a tree sized arrow really don't care what numbers that player shaped thing happens to be made of, and how about you play or look up a lets play of the game before you say whether or not adjusting numbers can make the game easier, mmm?

You want to argue, argue.
But leave the smug sass out. I'm trying to remain civil, the least you could do is try too.

As for the "numbers in the shape of a tree-sized arrow", I'm not talking strictly processing-presentation.

Those "numbers of a player shaped thing" at the absolute least need a Boolean state, and from what's been described, it isn't strictly boolean. There are stats being obfuscated.

The point is moot though, I've already addressed this.

Ok so your fine with them removing the enemies, maybe making it harder to fall off things, because who has time to learn how to walk with falling, making it so the player doesn't flinch, you know why don't we just remove all the puzzles, or give the player all the items for those with so little time they don't want to go explore and collect things.
Also what is wrong with trail and observation? Exactly what type of game do you think this is? And I'll keep the sass in thank you very much, because it seems odd for somebody to argue for an addition to game they have not played thus are making assumptions on the difficulty of the game. If you have not played how do know its difficulty, thats like me saying how a turning in a driving game sucks without playing the game, while I can say I heard the driving sucks that would be second hand and I would be rightly called out for not haveing first hand experience thus my comments lack focus.
I mean why do you even care what goes on in a game you have not played?

Rooster Cogburn:

IWannaBetheGuy doesn't look like this:
I don't think the fact that IWannaBeTheGuy wasn't an intense emotional roller coaster should preclude Dark Souls from even trying.

What Dark Souls looks like or how you personally feel about its presentation has absolutely no bearing on my point about choice modal difficulty.

Rather than looking for ways not having easy mode could help the experience, you are trying to come up with reasons why it can't.

Well yeah. That was my initial argument. That the inclusion of Easy Mode isn't a detriment to an existing work.
Sorry for trying to stick to my guns. :\

Obviously an easy mode can help a game. But they didn't leave it out of Dark Souls because it just slipped their mind. The assumption behind all this is that all games have to be designed to account for the needs of the casual audience for some reason, EVEN WHEN IT IS ANTITHETICAL TO THE GOALS OF THE GAME'S DESIGNERS.

If you insist that is the antithesis of the developers intentions, why worry about external pressures at all?
None of us here have any direct connections with From Software (though I wish I did...I'd head the team for Armored Core if I could in a heartbeat. If not that, I'd hijack the team and release Metal Wolf Chaos 2 because that game badly needs to exist).

My point is, and always has been that the inclusion of modal difficulty cannot retroactively degrade the game experience for its core audience. Further, that modal difficulty is not relegated solely to stats or other means of "Artificial Difficulty".

Finally, I never made the assumption that all games REQUIRE casual pandering. Merely that in this instance, it was harmless, and the "controversy" behind such additions were pretentious nonsense.

There is no one audience that ALL games need to cater to, and the idea of trying to force this on developers, gamers and the industry makes my head explode. I don't understand what the motivation behind this is. Having one game out there that is not built from the ground up to accommodate the needs of casual players is not an imposition on them.

I agree. Even economics dictates that niche markets are part of the demand curve too.

I don't understand why I even have to justify this.

You don't have to justify niche appeal. I get that, really. Better than you think I do.

The only parts I took issue with, were the assumptions that retroactive additions of modes for those casual players were going to ruin the experience.
It's an assumption that is both foolish and paradoxical.

As someone who enjoys difficult games, I have absolutely no problem with wanting a game that is exceptionally difficult in a market that relegates such things to niche or hand-waves them away with artificial difficulty.

As much as I hate agglomeration of games into generic One-Size-Fits-All slop, I must also logically recognize that it happens and WHY it happens.

So really, apart from the retrofit, I have no other issues here.
Hope Dark Souls 2 is good.

Incidentally, I finally finished all schoolwork for the semester (literally 30 minutes ago) so I might actually get around to playing Dark Souls for the first time this weekend.

BioRex:

Ok so your fine with them removing the enemies, maybe making it harder to fall off things, because who has time to learn how to walk with falling, making it so the player doesn't flinch, you know why don't we just remove all the puzzles, or give the player all the items for those with so little time they don't want to go explore and collect things.

And why not take that Slippery Slope down entirely to crash into one big stonking mess of hyperbole.

Also what is wrong with trail and observation? Exactly what type of game do you think this is? And I'll keep the sass in thank you very much, because...

Because nothing. We're done here.

Whoa, we're still talking about the same game right? Don't insult the developers ability to craft a world and say the difficulty is the only thing that makes the game. That's not fair.

Atmos Duality:

Because nothing. We're done here.

Really excellent, who knew being a bit sassy could get people to drop an argument?

Edit: My lack of sleep may be making me be "sassy" then usual, I would still like an answer to my question: besides defending the hypothesis that an easy mode would not take from the current experience why do you care?

Atmos Duality:
What Dark Souls looks like or how you personally feel about its presentation has absolutely no bearing on my point about choice modal difficulty.

You were talking about how the difficulty made you feel. I'm talking about how it makes me feel. You want to dismiss and overlook the artistic statement that can be made by paring the game's mechanics to it's subject matter because it's one of the most obvious rebuttals to your point.

Well yeah. That was my initial argument. That the inclusion of Easy Mode isn't a detriment to an existing work.
Sorry for trying to stick to my guns. :\

Fair enough.

If you insist

The developer, not me. But more importantly, the consequence of their intentions was an experience that I enjoy. That's what I care about more than their intentions.

that is the antithesis of the developers intentions, why worry about external pressures at all?
None of us here have any direct connections with From Software (though I wish I did...I'd head the team for Armored Core if I could in a heartbeat. If not that, I'd hijack the team and release Metal Wolf Chaos 2 because that game badly needs to exist).

Companies respond to external pressures to varying degrees. It happens. They do things like, say, remove the creative director of the sequel and replace him with one that promises a more strait-forward experience.

My point is, and always has been that the inclusion of modal difficulty cannot retroactively degrade the game experience for its core audience.

It can split the community and no, a hand-wave will not do. Being confronted with an impassable obstacle and then learning your way around it to Dark Souls as shooting things is to Call of Duty. You are judging the effects of difficulty on this THIS game the way you would most other games, as a more-or-less extraneous factor that can be reproduced by scaling it down for similar results. You are not appreciating the mechanical side of what makes Dark Souls, well, Dark Souls. Separating the new players from the veterans breaks the entire intention behind the community features. And what do you do about the player pool problem? Do you even know what I am talking about? Because you will be exacerbating it heavily by separating people further than they are already separated by location and level. It's sparse enough as it is.

Further, that modal difficulty is not relegated solely to stats or other means of "Artificial Difficulty".

Finally, I never made the assumption that all games REQUIRE casual pandering. Merely that in this instance, it was harmless, and the "controversy" behind such additions were pretentious nonsense.

Based on your obvious mastery of the subject matter no doubt. On what basis are you resting this argument? If your understanding of Dark Souls core gameplay is advanced enough to empower you to make this assessment, I am sure you can walk me through it in specific terms. So far it's just the same cry of "it's optional" like optional things ever didn't affect games in the first place vaguely fancified.

There is no one audience that ALL games need to cater to, and the idea of trying to force this on developers, gamers and the industry makes my head explode. I don't understand what the motivation behind this is. Having one game out there that is not built from the ground up to accommodate the needs of casual players is not an imposition on them.

I agree. Even economics dictates that niche markets are part of the demand curve too.

I don't understand why I even have to justify this.

You don't have to justify niche appeal. I get that, really. Better than you think I do.

The only parts I took issue with, were the assumptions that retroactive additions of modes for those casual players were going to ruin the experience.
It's an assumption that is both foolish and paradoxical.

It is not an assumption. It is a simple statement of fact. It makes the game atmospheric and emotional for me. It supports the sense of achievement that is literally the stated goal of the game's designers. That is neither foolish nor paradoxical. If you think so, you may wish to stick to your brilliant and coherent games, because the designers of this one intended it for those who can appreciate the foolish and paradoxical.

If this was any other medium of entertainment I would not even have to explain concepts like tension. I would not have to constantly have my emotional attachment to a work of art and entertainment belittled and scoffed at. A game that is specifically crafted to illicit an emotional response should not be regarded as foolish and paradoxical. Attitudes like yours are holding gaming back.

It is ridiculous to call this "pretentious" when you have not even sampled the subject matter to see if it lives up to it's promises. How do you KNOW it is pretentious without experiencing it?

As someone who enjoys difficult games,

Dark Souls is not a game that is hard. It is a game that is designed around the concept of difficulty in a unique way. You will most likely find that, while it is very difficult, it is not difficult in quite the way you are expecting.

I have absolutely no problem with wanting a game that is exceptionally difficult in a market that relegates such things to niche or hand-waves them away with artificial difficulty.

A scary dragon that I know for a fact cannot, or could not at any time, be reduced to a bunny rabbit just by flipping a switch is part of what comprises the Dark Souls "niche". The very fact that Lordran CAN'T be made easy contributes to its foreboding atmosphere and SENSE OF ACHIEVEMENT for overcoming it's obstacles that whole game was designed to instill. There is no reason we cannot have games that support that. It's not just that, the whole world, the atmosphere, the story, it all flows from having obstacles and a world that are MEANINGFUL obstacles with risks that have to be taken to experience it, as opposed to trivial ones that can be switched.

How about you have whatever you like, I'll have whatever I like. Belittle me all you want, foolish, paradox, whatever. Just don't take it away. I'd be willing to bet that if you paid attention, you'd find you have these little "paradoxes" all the time. It just never occurred to you or appealed to you pursue them.

Not one good reason why we all can't have the games we enjoy without taking them away from each other is contained herein. I know that is not your intention; I'm just saying.

CandideWolf:
Whoa, we're still talking about the same game right? Don't insult the developers ability to craft a world and say the difficulty is the only thing that makes the game. That's not fair.

Bad argument. I have no doubt Call of Duty has many wonderful features and vistas, but I still bet it would suck without guns.

Now I mostly agree with Jim here, but I found an interesting counterpoint to this video:

And no, I don't necessarily agree with that video. Just adding to the discussion (I hope).

The argument "They bought it so they have a right to the content." is exactly as it sounds. You, however, used it incorrectly. You bought the game. All the content is there within your grasp. You have the right to the content. But if you are too inept to make it over the challenges presented in the videogame (NOT a movie!) you bought, then it's your fault. The content is there, nothing is stopping you from consuming it but your own ineptitude.

If you could actually use the above argument in the way you used it, then where would we stop? I bought the game but I'm too stupid to press left and right. The game should just have an IWIN button. No scrap that, pressing that button is too much effort, but since I bought the game and apparently have a right to see the content, the game should just display "The End" the moment I put the disk in.

they should make all games playable by 1year old kids then nearly every one in the world could play them. Then they should make every game playable for blind deaf and armless people so they aren't excluded. Notice how i said playable not enjoyable. Why don't you call for the times cross word to be easy enough for a 5 year old to finish? why not make marathons 20M walks so more can enjoy taking part? why the fuck should any artist change their work to make it more accessible? you are asking a director to turn his psychological thriller into an action comedy because you don't understand the plot.

Seems like you may of got what you wanted Mayazaki isn't making this game. Enjoy the brain dead tedium of modern day consuming of spoon fed content you have bought into because you like it now means it must be better for every one right??? fu

Atmos Duality:

Sande45:

The thing is, changing certain things, like HP, wouldn't do much good, but changing others, like how that whole encounter is laid out (which could lead to a good easy mode), doesn't really fit into the category of reasonably simple tweaks.

Refer to the text above.
I suggest that non-numerical (non artificial) methods of adjusting difficulty are not only possible, but desirable.
If needed, I will provide examples of concepts.

I'd rather hear you give detailed examples of how it could be done in Dark Souls or Demon's Souls without basically ending up designing every encounter separately for both modes or notably changing the experience easy mode gives to new players compared to what normal mode gives to more skilled players. I don't find those two options desirable at all.

And even though we're arguing about easy mode in Dark Souls 1 (mainly because it would be pretty hard to be arguing about it in great detail regarding DS2), don't use that retroactive patch as an argument because we all know that's very unlikely to happen. If it's going to be done it's going to be in Dark Souls 2 and they're going to have to accommodate to it from the get go which can lead to them making compromises in the overall design. That is one of the reasons many people are against it.

jmarquiso:
Now I mostly agree with Jim here, but I found an interesting counterpoint to this video:

And no, I don't necessarily agree with that video. Just adding to the discussion (I hope).

he kind of lost me at "catering to casuals"

uggghhh even if the whole "dumbing down" thing is absolutly 100% objectivley true..I've heard it so many fucking times I just don;t want to think about it anymore...I wish people found something else to complain about

EDIT: though upon further watching I'm actually surprised most of his gripes seem to come from the general role playing issues (like important characters being unkillable) rather than stats and numbers...areas I'd be inclined to agree

Vault101:

jmarquiso:
Now I mostly agree with Jim here, but I found an interesting counterpoint to this video:

And no, I don't necessarily agree with that video. Just adding to the discussion (I hope).

he kind of lost me at "catering to casuals"

uggghhh even if the whole "dumbing down" thing is absolutly 100% objectivley true..I've heard it so many fucking times I just don;t want to think about it anymore...I wish people found something else to complain about

I'm fed up of people asking for games they don't like to be made different just because they feel as a gamer they are entitled to enjoy every game out there. This is so selfish and dumb try applying that logic to music, films, any form of art/entertainment.

VyceVictus:

What happens if the chef does decide to change the recipe, because of customer input, but also because he also enjoys the new flavor.

This whole analogy about a chef is itself flawed. Food is, I should hope, intentionally prepared in accordance with the customers wishes. Such is usually not the case with games. These people can then also choose where they go to eat and what they eat from what is made available to them. I certainly would object if the chef wanted to change something in the dish after I had begun eating it, especially if it was in such a way that would go against the description of the dish I was provided with before ordering (unles there was a mistake, which in a games case could be a bug or a glitch).

Atmos Duality:

Exploitation of anger over First World Problems is by no means limited to the Escapist.

The concept of First World Problems is one of the lousiest things I've seen in recent times. Mostly because of its common use in situtations that deserve no such belittling. No matter how insignificant some problems may seem to be in comparison to other problems, they still remain problems all the same. If you truly must, use that concept when someone is telling, for example, how having to brush their teeth is a problem, which is practically speaking a solution to a problem.

1. A person is crossing a street and a car drives over their foot, injuring it.
2. The driver of the car takes notice, stops, and tells the person of other, more serious problems elsewhere.
- The injured foot the person has simply stops being a problem.

1. A serious storm wreaks havoc all across a continent and causes severe damage.
2. People affected are told not to worry, there is a storm three times the size of Earth on Jupiter.
- The resulting damage of the storm stops being a problem to people.

1. A piece of art is suggested to be mutilated for it to become more pleasing.
2. People discussing the subject are told their concerns are invalid because of more important problems.
- The initial problem and its possible consequences lose all their meaning.

You see how there might be something wrong in these conclusions?

Atmos Duality:

Rooster Cogburn:

IWannaBetheGuy doesn't look like this:
I don't think the fact that IWannaBeTheGuy wasn't an intense emotional roller coaster should preclude Dark Souls from even trying.

What Dark Souls looks like or how you personally feel about its presentation has absolutely no bearing on my point about choice modal difficulty.

I honestely don't think the presentation and its intended goals are debatable. The world of Dark Souls is designed to be a very dark place where there is little to no hope to be found anywhere at all. The player character, one of the rare sane persons left in the land, is told to embark on a quest. They have no idea why but they still have to proceed because anything else would be a failure. There are constant real dangers along the path, many of which only strenghten the feel of hopelesness. The player character can meet various other people along the way, each of whom has their own hidden motives. Most of these people try to manipulate the player in their quest through the use of lies and deceit.

If you do not get to struggle and to feel that the world around you is truly a dangerous and terrifying place, the intended experiended will never take place. Difficulty is an essential tool in trying to achieve this affect. The most wonderful thing is that From Software has managed to create an experience that the player can mold to great extent as a part of the gameplay. This includes the level of experienced difficulty, which can be altered as a part of the gameplay. In this Dark Souls is one of the most honest and genuine video games that I have ever played, because almost everything essential about the experience has been managed to be crafted into the gameplay. The control is almost never taken away from the player.

There is, however, absolutely nothing wrong with modal difficulties as a concept. They can have a place in games that where designed from the beginning to have them, provided that they actually work well and that the game benefits from having them.

Rooster Cogburn:

CandideWolf:
Whoa, we're still talking about the same game right? Don't insult the developers ability to craft a world and say the difficulty is the only thing that makes the game. That's not fair.

Bad argument. I have no doubt Call of Duty has many wonderful features and vistas, but I still bet it would suck without guns.

You mentioned cognitive dissonance earlier, and i think its coming into play here. Call of Duty without shooting is a bad argument of drawing a comparison to Dark Souls. Darks Souls without less difficulty is not an FPS without shooting. DS without difficulty is the difference between Arma or Operation Flashpoint and COD or even Ghost Recon. They are fundamentally the same game in terms of core mechanic, an FPS where you shoot things, but are also fundamentally different in terms of challenge and other mechanics that make each unique. And yet, Flashpoint itself, while not having an outright "easy mode" has several options to be selected from in the in game difficulty to make it "easier" (Hud, respawns), but even with those options to make it easier, you still cannot play it like any other FPS; if you charge in shooting you will die, and one bullet can kill you. If they were to make a hypothetical "easy mode" patch that would,say, add you an extra team member, that would make the game all at once easier without in anyway morphing the core challenge.
My point here wasn't about niggling between genre classifications and mechanics though. My point was trying to understand why you cant get over the mental hurdle of a game who's integral core is difficulty cannot have some type of adjustment to aide players without horribly corrupting the fundamental challenge. The paradigm exists, there's no reason why it cant for a game like DS. Im not saying it has to, but if it would still be possible to do so successfully.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 . . . 30 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here