Jimquisition: Dumbing Down for the Filthy Casuals

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 . . . 30 NEXT
 

JustanotherGamer:

anthony87:

JustanotherGamer:
so the online will be no different? People in easy won't get to play with people on normal? The development and level design for easy will take no money time or thought for the developers to do? Do you really expect anyone with a brain to swallow that bullshit? @Anthony87

Those things have been addressed by people already but instead of answering them you've just been talking nonsense. I'm not saying that one way is right and the other is wrong, I just don't think it'd be as detrimental as you're all making it out to be.

No none of these concerns have been addressed in any meaningful way at all. It's optional is not addressing any of my concerns at all.

Don't want normal mode and easy mode players mixing? Separate them. Having to completely redesign the game based on difficulty mode? That's just stupid.

That's basically the summary, if you want the actual detailed posts you'll have to find them. I'd look myself but I'm really not arsed trawling through 24 pages and you're the one with the issue, not me.

grumbel:

JustanotherGamer:
So again why do you want to play a game you don't like?

Because it's a good game and there is no reason to prevent people from playing.

It is a fantastic thing to be able to appreciate something, but it is also quite essential to recognize that a thing can remain objectively good in its own right even without you liking it. I acknowledge that, for the sake of example, many Mario games are objectively very well made and in that way good, even though I will never enjoy playing one in their current form. No one is actively preventing anyone from doing anything here, but there are certain prerequisites that you have to meet before you can fully enjoy Dark Souls. So it is with any other thing.

Dark Souls is a wonderful game, but what makes it also a great experience is the very reason it demands you not to take succeeding as a default value. You have to have the very real possibility of failure, which is essential for the experience Dark Souls is intended to provide you with. I am still absolutely certain that most people would still be able to succeed in the end if they just are bothered enough to really give it a try. And again, just because you see others enjoying something doesn't mean that it is necessarily suitable for you as well.

This consequently also helps the commununity as it will consist of rather likeminded individuals. This essentially is no different from any other unified fandom out there, but it does help the community to remain consistent. Many other fandoms are not so united in their views as their experiences can differ greatly.

How about we stop doing translations, play your Japanese games in Japanese for some extra difficulty? Doesn't sound like a good idea?

That would depend on how much dialogue and text there is. :] Joking aside, are you aware that even the Japanese version of Dark Souls only has english voice acting in it? I'm not quite sure, but I recall it was a conscious decision that was hoped to improve the ambiance of the game world. Still, while well done translations certainly do make different forms of media more accessible, doing so will not usually intrinsically change the way the content is experienced. At least if the translation isn't a direct one and takes culture shifts into account as well.

Is there maybe some value in making games accessible to wider audiences?

If the accessibility doesn't go against the games primary goals and very purpose, then perhaps there is. Even then games shouldn't be designed to be enjoyed by any group of people explicitly. Much like with novels (publishers and their possible part in this aside), you write it out of desire to write and it may be appreciated or not, but whether it is or not shouldn't really matter. If it is in fact enjoyed greatly by many then it might be translated to other languages. Every part of the content would still remain the same and it would still remain every bit as difficult to comprehend and read as before.

A creation that remains true to itself and the goals it was set out to fulfill is infinitely more preferable than a more accessible game that may not succeed in achieving these goals.

EDIT: Let me say this again: Dark Souls was designed to work without having to resort in the use of modal difficulties, and it manages to be better as a result of this.

anthony87:

Don't want normal mode and easy mode players mixing? Separate them. Having to completely redesign the game based on difficulty mode? That's just stupid.

Thank you for finally admitting that having to go back and redesign portions of the game would be stupid, not we can move on and the game doesn't have to change.

anthony87:

JustanotherGamer:

anthony87:

Those things have been addressed by people already but instead of answering them you've just been talking nonsense. I'm not saying that one way is right and the other is wrong, I just don't think it'd be as detrimental as you're all making it out to be.

No none of these concerns have been addressed in any meaningful way at all. It's optional is not addressing any of my concerns at all.

Don't want normal mode and easy mode players mixing? Separate them. Having to completely redesign the game based on difficulty mode? That's just stupid.

That's basically the summary, if you want the actual detailed posts you'll have to find them. I'd look myself but I'm really not arsed trawling through 24 pages and you're the one with the issue, not me.

So separate comunitys is keeping the game as it is? sounds like you are fragmenting it to me is that a good thing? I won't find them because they are not there you prove your own point. How do you recreate the tension dread hopelessness community and sense of achievement? When this game is a cake walk?

JustanotherGamer:

anthony87:

JustanotherGamer:

No none of these concerns have been addressed in any meaningful way at all. It's optional is not addressing any of my concerns at all.

Don't want normal mode and easy mode players mixing? Separate them. Having to completely redesign the game based on difficulty mode? That's just stupid.

That's basically the summary, if you want the actual detailed posts you'll have to find them. I'd look myself but I'm really not arsed trawling through 24 pages and you're the one with the issue, not me.

So separate comunitys is keeping the game as it is? sounds like you are fragmenting it to me is that a good thing? I won't find them because they are not there you prove your own point. How do you recreate the tension dread hopelessness community and sense of achievement? When this game is a cake walk?

I thought the people who'd like an easy game were the ones who didn't want to keep the game as it is? you really gotta make your mind up man.

The cherry picking has reached critical mass, and all logic in my arguments have been ignored. Repeatedly.

It's infuriating. Given the constant appeals to pathos, Appeals to Authority, overwhelming Slippery Slope logic and contradictions I'm being presented ("Dark Souls isn't difficult...it's difficult...it's meant to be difficult."), there's no point invoking logic anymore.

Others are losing their patience with ME, and not my arguments, so that's as good an indicator as any to quit.

I remain unconvinced of how an easy mode would hurt or destroy the game; at worst separate content would be required, and that leads to the slippery slope of "That's time they should be spending on the next game!"

The entire ordeal reeks of self-pandering, and the game is put on a shrine like an idol, not to be touched or blemished, with anyone suggesting even hypothetical changes to be burnt at the stake for their heresy.

I await the usual slew of Parthians Shots, personal insults, and implications of how I'm petty, "don't get it", "condescending" (with the hypocrisy of that accusation being rank as ever) or that I'm somehow metaphorically "the problem that destroys art".

And if you manage to not do any of that, despite being highly tempted, congratulations: You're a stronger person.

Peithelo:

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.

Proportional response to the proportion of the problem.
That's what I mean by "First World Problems".
We put more effort and fervor into defending our entertainment than we do our own jobs.

I honestely don't think the presentation and its intended goals are debatable.

Then don't debate them.

Church185:

anthony87:

Don't want normal mode and easy mode players mixing? Separate them. Having to completely redesign the game based on difficulty mode? That's just stupid.

Thank you for finally admitting that having to go back and redesign portions of the game would be stupid, not we can move on and the game doesn't have to change.

I've been saying that it'd be stupid ever since someone said that it'd have to be redesigned to make the game easier so....you're welcome?

EDIT:

Atmos Duality:
snip

What he said. After being in this thread for so long I'm glad that I mostly play offline if this is an example of the oh so grand Dark Souls community. Suppose that's my cue to leave........although I'll probably be back anyway because I'm stupid like that...

anthony87:

Don't want normal mode and easy mode players mixing? Separate them. Having to completely redesign the game based on difficulty mode? That's just stupid.

That's basically the summary, if you want the actual detailed posts you'll have to find them. I'd look myself but I'm really not arsed trawling through 24 pages and you're the one with the issue, not me.

One of the things that happen in the game is that skilled players will do low level runs through the game to get the best gear in the game and gank low level players. This is a pretty difficult task in the game so you aren't going to see a lot of people doing this (With the exception of the bottomless box glitch that was around until the DLC / PC version).

If you provide an easy mode, you've just made it that much easier for people to make twinks and steam roll lowbies. Providing an easy mode could actually have the opposite effect for online player; with an over abundance of gankers and griefers making it extremely difficult.

Every action someone takes to make an easy mode is going to have serious ramifications on the game.

Do you just make Easy mode only have CoOp? Is easy mode entirely offline? Again, you're excluding less skilled players from the content. And I can tell you just from playing World of Warcraft, even on PVE servers where the possibility of ganking doesn't exist, most players like to enjoy the battlegrounds every now and then.

Do you make it so that online matching checks both equipment and level? That requires new coding algorithms and development time.

Plus, servers are expensive. "Just add another set of servers for easy mode" costs money that could have gone elsewhere in development. Plus there is the long term cost of maintenance, ect. ect.

And the most common proposed solution for even making an easy mode, tweaking the health and damage for the player and enemies, only goes so far especially in a game where everything is designed to present a serious challenge. There are many, many areas where getting hit isn't dangerous just because of the damage enemies can do, but that the knock backs can easily send you falling off a bottomless pit. Do you remove knock backs? A lot of times, when you get hit a knock back is a good thing because when you get up, you have a bit of breather room between you and the enemy. Do you remove knock backs from only certain enemies? That requires going back and reevaluating all of the level design and enemy placement. Do you just remove the possibility of getting knocked off a ledge? That also requires going back and reevaluating all the level design, and inserted extra assets (railing and walls) to prevent death from falling.

Just for example, Sen's Fortress has these tight walkways over pits that can do serious damage to a player or outright kill them. Over these walkways are swinging pendulums and if they hit you, you're going off that edge. Do you remove the pendulums?

A lot of games that don't have environmental hazards such as these in nearly every level, like Devil May Cry 1&3 make the inclusion of modal difficulty much easier. It is just tweaking health and damage, as well as enemy AI and aggressiveness.

Atmos Duality:

It's infuriating. Given the constant appeals to pathos, Appeals to Authority, overwhelming Slippery Slope logic and contradictions I'm being presented ("Dark Souls isn't difficult...it's difficult...it's meant to be difficult."), there's no point invoking logic anymore.

Dark Souls is difficult, but most of the difficulty isn't a result of the technical skill required to beat the game, which is minimal. It's difficult because of the knowledge base required to beat the game which you gain through trial and error. Everyone here has been explaining this and yet none of the people asking for an easy mode acknowledge this is even the argument.

And things like authorial intent do matter.

Atmos Duality:
The cherry picking has reached critical mass, and all logic in my arguments have been ignored. Repeatedly.

It's infuriating. Given the constant appeals to pathos, Appeals to Authority, overwhelming Slippery Slope logic and contradictions I'm being presented ("Dark Souls isn't difficult...it's difficult...it's meant to be difficult."), there's no point invoking logic anymore.

Others are losing their patience with ME, and not my arguments, so that's as good an indicator as any to quit.

I remain unconvinced of how an easy mode would hurt or destroy the game; at worst separate content would be required, and that leads to the slippery slope of "That's time they should be spending on the next game!"

The entire ordeal reeks of self-pandering, and the game is put on a shrine like an idol, not to be touched or blemished, with anyone suggesting even hypothetical changes to be burnt at the stake for their heresy.

I await the usual slew of Parthians Shots, personal insults, and implications of how I'm petty, "don't get it", "condescending" (with the hypocrisy of that accusation being rank as ever) or that I'm somehow metaphorically "the problem that destroys art".

Peithelo:

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.

Proportional response to the proportion of the problem.
That's what I mean by "First World Problems".
We put more effort and fervor into defending our entertainment than we do our own jobs.

I honestely don't think the presentation and its intended goals are debatable.

Then don't debate them.

Hi, I haven't directly spoken to you yet because I spend most of my time just reading this forum instead of posting in it (due to the fact the arguments on both sides don't seem to have changed all that much).

While you seem to be civil and gentlemanly enough in your later posts, your entrance into the fray was rather condescending. Saying we are all "whining (our) ass(es) off like a pretentious fuckhead(s)" and saying that our fears are invalidated because they are "first world problems" is not a good way to try and get someone to see your point of view.

I am on the opposing side of the fence, I don't believe that the game should be changed or that there should be optional difficulties added for a few reasons.

1. there are already systems in place that make the game more accessible to the new, or inexperienced player

2. the addition of an easy mode could potentially break the existing multiplayer structure by giving easy mode players an advantage over the people who take the optional normal difficulty, and it could potentially be an avenue for griefers to wreak havoc on lower level players. (which would also negatively effect the easy mode players)

3. separating multiplayer by difficulty would cost money that I would rather see spent on developing the sequel and polishing it (though this example may be selfish)

4. excluding easy mode players from multiplayer (like has been mentioned) would gate them from seeing content that they paid for (which is another existing argument) like rewards from the various covenants that require you to play online to get the required materials. it also would keep them from experiencing one of the most fun aspects of the game.

I do have the more casual player in mind, but I don't think that putting in an optional difficulty is the answer. In the future i think there could be more explanation of how the game systems work from the onset, and how the payer uses those features greatly changes how difficult the game can be. I personally am part of the crowd that helps newer players along, just because I think its fun. I have multiple characters in the game that i wont level past a certain point, and I keep them near tough parts of the game so I can be summoned into other player's game worlds and help them overcome a great obstacle. If at all possible I'll communicate with the player that summoned me to see if they may need any further assistance further down the line, and if that's the case then to send me a message on XBL so I can place my summon sign somewhere that they can find it. I know others play the game this way too, because of the whole "sunbro" attitude that I see every now and again. The game rewards those of us who play together and help the community by giving us powerful items and spells that in turn make our game more fun as well.

Will you please engage me in meaningful conversation?

immortalfrieza:

I think I understood perfectly, you are saying whether you realize it or not that you don't care enough to bother to try to get good enough on your own to the get the game's content as those who have already beaten a game so you want an easier mode added to the game, and you are in favor of making future games in the series easier so you don't have to put in the effort again. Also, not having enough time is a poor excuse, it's a video game, just pick it up and play it whenever you can manage to squeeze in an hour or 2, you have the rest of your life to find the time to play a game, just as you have the rest of your life to find a an hour or so each day to train to run in a Triathlon. If you don't have the time or the dedication to play ANY game to it's conclusion not just Dark Souls you shouldn't be playing that game period, and it doesn't matter if a game has an easy mode or not. An easier mode should not be added to the current game or a future one in the series just because you lack the drive necessary to beat the game as is, there isn't a single video game in history that can't be beaten through persistence, and there never will be a true video game that can't be beaten that way.

Movies, TV, and books are entertainment that you can sit back and enjoy just because you decided to shell out some cash, VIDEO GAMES ARE NOT! Video games are things you have to play and beat on your own ability to experience the content, just like sports are, (if you're participating instead of watching of course) so yes, you ARE there to satisfy it, doesn't matter what game it is. Adding an easier mode to any game series that didn't already have it because SOME people don't care enough to get through it on their own would be like, to continue my Triathlon analogy, a guy was in a race, ran for a couple miniutes and complained that it was too hard, so they gave him a motorcycle, sure, he could still at least get to the finish line if not win just by trying hard enough, but why bother? He could just complain until he gets it easier than everybody else, worse, his complaining would end up causing the Triathlon running event to give everybody motorcycles in the future, so now it's.

What would REALLY happen in such a situation is they'd laugh at that guy and throw him off the track, just like we people that are against putting an easy mode in Dark Souls or any future game in the series are laughing at you people that are for it and want you thrown out. It's not because we are "elitist," but because you don't deserve to get through those games, we do, because WE actually gave enough of a damn to earn our way through. It doesn't matter what game or game series it is, you don't care enough to get through it, you don't deserve to get through it, the fact that you shelled out money for that game doesn't mean you deserve it either. When so many people talk about how so many gamers are having this "entitled" attitude, what you are saying is one the things they are talking about.

Personally, I have yet to beat Demon Souls or even pick up Dark Souls but I will keep trying until I win, I won't demand that the devs make things easier for me so that I can win, I would be a spoiled brat to do that, and I'm 25!

I hate to come off as offensive, but this is honestly one of the most immature responses I've received to my argument. I don't want content dumbed down for me, and I'm actually not one of the people who prefer an easy mode. I do, however, believe in that option being available for those that are even more time constrained than me. I work 40 hours a week, and have to spend most of my time taking care of my home. Other times are spent with people I care about. This, however, does not make a "filthy casual". When I do play a game, I prefer to work at it, and I will even invest hours in an FAQ or lose sleep over reviewing strategies to improve. I do, however, also game with others that I would love to share that experience with, but they are unable to invest the time I am willing to sacrifice and I feel like they are missing out.

I'm sorry, but the "I don't deserve it" response is VERY elitist. Why do you deserve it, instead? Did you invest more money in the product? Did you help the developers create it? Did you invest in the studio that released it? Did you invest any time, effort, money, or any variation in ensuring this game was successful? If not, you are no more entitled to the experience than any other player. You invested more time in learning the game? That means you'll be better at the game. That is your reward. Not the game itself.

Peithelo:

Mortamus:

Entertainment is there for you, you're not there to satisfy it.

VyceVictus:

You know who "earns" the rights to a game? someone who paid money for it. Gaming is a past-time, not a special meter of your worth. You are not their to satisfy the game, the satisfaction comes through the interaction.

Pastime or not merely buying a game doesn't mean that you are promised to get the experience it has the potential to provide you with. In order for you to get to experience whatever it is that you have bought has to offer you first have to be willing to play by the rules it has set out for you. In this sense you are very much there to satisfy its needs as well as it yours, since without doing so you won't be getting anything out of it. This might be as simple as keeping your eyes open to see something, but it might as well not be.

I know the following comparison is a bit simplistic, but would you expect a novel to grant you the ability to read it after doing nothing more than buying it? There are varying prerequisites for every piece entertainment and some match your current skills (or level interest) and some do not. The great thing is that you can often choose to improve your skills to match these prerequisites. In no way do I intend to insult anyone by saying any of this, but I simply think that investigating what exatcly you are considering to buy and what it can require from you is a reasonable thing to do before buying anything. It is also good to consider that some pieces of entertainment are designed to be more demanding than others.

Again there seems to be something in the inherent interactivity of games that makes people think that the experience at least should somehow be easily accessible for everyone without any conceivable exceptions.

SidheKnight:
People should learn than "making something easier =/= adding an easy mode in addition to the already harder one"

There seem to be people discussing both of these eventualities seperately and even in junction. Adding an easy mode to Dark Souls would be counterproductive and there is no need to make Dark Souls easier in any other ways either.

It seems there are still many that do not know of this yet so let me emphasize! There are already numerous thoughtful ways present in Dark Souls that can make it easier for you. And this is achieved without compromising any of its goals. It's just that you first have to put a little effort into finding out exactly how, but that really isn't too difficult at all. Clever utilisation of NPC phantoms, equipment and upgrades gets you a long way. Don't let the the series' reputation dishearten you.

This is an argument I can really get behind. My main concern with having the game given an easier mode is to open it up to those whom do not have the time, or aren't willing to sacrifice the time in some cases, to be able to enjoy the game and experience it as well. In the U.S. especially, there are some of us having to support families or working multiple jobs that just can't make the same investment in a game that we used to.

Mortamus:

I hate to come off as offensive, but this is honestly one of the most immature responses I've received to my argument. I don't want content dumbed down for me, and I'm actually not one of the people who prefer an easy mode. I do, however, believe in that option being available for those that are even more time constrained than me. I work 40 hours a week, and have to spend most of my time taking care of my home. Other times are spent with people I care about. This, however, does not make a "filthy casual". When I do play a game, I prefer to work at it, and I will even invest hours in an FAQ or lose sleep over reviewing strategies to improve. I do, however, also game with others that I would love to share that experience with, but they are unable to invest the time I am willing to sacrifice and I feel like they are missing out.

I'm sorry, but the "I don't deserve it" response is VERY elitist. Why do you deserve it, instead? Did you invest more money in the product? Did you help the developers create it? Did you invest in the studio that released it? Did you invest any time, effort, money, or any variation in ensuring this game was successful? If not, you are no more entitled to the experience than any other player. You invested more time in learning the game? That means you'll be better at the game. That is your reward. Not the game itself.

Please people quit referring to them as "filthy casuals", those are Jim's inflammatory words you are putting in our mouths. To address not having the time to invest in it (whether it's your time or your friends time I didn't quite pick out of that text) why don't you summon players to help you through parts faster? Back before they patched the DWGR you had players waiting to join up that literally cartwheeling through the game in heavy armor taking the fastest route possible to get you gear and point out traps and monsters, if he didn't kill everything already.

Heck most of my sessions here recently have been more like this...

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ly14iv2uuw1qb618ko2_500.jpg

Atmos Duality:

I remain unconvinced of how an easy mode would hurt or destroy the game.

If the difficulty is inherent to the games design and an easy mode would undermine the entire point of the game experience.
Reducing the difficulty and increasing the handholding in Dark Souls would be like removing the dialogue options from The Walking Dead, the RTS element of Natural Selection, the darkness and obfuscated enemies in Amnesia or the resource management of Starcraft. Stripping out fundamental functions is to noones benefit.

Atmos Duality:

The entire ordeal reeks of self-pandering, and the game is put on a shrine like an idol, not to be touched or blemished, with anyone suggesting even hypothetical changes to be burnt at the stake for their heresy.

Naturally both Souls games can be improved, but there is no improvement to be found by going against its core ideals.
As I said in the Dark Souls 2 thread, if you don't want to figure out how to maneuver a characters around offsides and goalies, don't play Fifa.
If you don't want to play with extreme cautiousness or find solutions to unexplained problems by trial and error, don't play Dark Souls.

Atmos Duality:
The cherry picking has reached critical mass, and all logic in my arguments have been ignored. Repeatedly.

I apologise if it appears I am cherry picking only parts of anyones writings in an attempt to disregard something. This is not my intention. It's just very difficult to have a meaningful discussion when there are at all times so many people having so many different discussions. Admittedly the topic is usually the same but the perspectives differ greatly. Some parts I simply may find more notable to comment than others and at times answering to a some specific part may seem like an especially interesting thing to do.

It's infuriating. Given the constant appeals to pathos, Appeals to Authority, overwhelming Slippery Slope logic and contradictions I'm being presented ("Dark Souls isn't difficult...it's difficult...it's meant to be difficult."), there's no point invoking logic anymore.

The reason there are so many varying views about Dark Souls' difficulty is, I theorize, that everyone experiences it in different ways. Dark Souls, in part, personalizes the level of difficulty by giving the player many ways to affect it directly as a part of the gameplay. The game is designed in this way and it is a major reason why it is so replayable. In the end the player character can be a near indestructible demigod, a naked person with a club or anything in between.

Others are losing their patience with ME, and not my arguments, so that's as good an indicator as any to quit.

That really is an unfortunate situtation. Being passionate about something can often cloud ones judgement. I am no exception to this, but I sincerely have nothing against anyone here and hope that I haven't insulted anyone intentionally or otherwise.

I remain unconvinced of how an easy mode would hurt or destroy the game; at worst separate content would be required, and that leads to the slippery slope of "That's time they should be spending on the next game!"

We can only theorize about the possible consequences of adding an easy mode. I simply see Dark Souls as accessible enough already. I personally know several people that don't want to give Dark Souls even a try because it has been advertised as incredibly difficult. These same people often play games on a hard difficulty mode, but the mental image of Dark Souls being somehow insanely difficult scares them away from ever experiencing the game. I find this very sad, but it is not the fault of the game per se.

Dark Souls certainly is difficult but not in the way that many people seem to think. If you can apply some thought and basic logic into your playstyle while still being minfdul of your surroundings then you should be, for the most part, just fine. Most deaths in Dark Souls are due to you simply being too hasty in your approach.

The entire ordeal reeks of self-pandering, and the game is put on a shrine like an idol, not to be touched or blemished, with anyone suggesting even hypothetical changes to be burnt at the stake for their heresy.

Very much so. I don't like the idea that something so potentially damaging and controversial is added a year after the game was published. There have been many patches and most of them have actually made the game easier than it originally was (for example, more souls from killed enemies, better scaling in weapons and improved availability for certain items). The thing is, there were good reasons for these alterations to be made and they were largely known to improve the game by fans and developers alike.

Proportional response to the proportion of the problem.
That's what I mean by "First World Problems".

I do realize that this concept can effectively be used to put some problems into perspective. Precisely its wrongful use is what I do not like. I still feel like modal difficulty in games, increasing pandering of people, and the theoretical addition of easy mode in Dark Souls are worthy subjects of discussion.

We put more effort and fervor into defending our entertainment than we do our own jobs.

This is another matter completely and should be discussed elsewhere.

Atmos Duality:

Peithelo:

I honestely don't think the presentation and its intended goals are debatable.

Then don't debate them.

I didn't. I simply explained why I don't consider it to be debatable so that others could know as well and the issue could be decided. I think that explaining the reasons behind a claim is more than a reasonable thing to do.

The modern gamer needs the difficulty for Dark Souls watered down exactly the same way a morbidly obese child would require that the last piece of cake that they've left at an all you can eat cake buffet be rubbed against their corpulent flesh so that they can "enjoy" that piece too.

I'm probably going to get smacked around for this; but I don't play games because of the challenge. For better or worse, I'm not a fan of difficulty. I am however a fan of characters, plot, story, themes, and so on. I play games for how they make me feel, not how they make me think. The fact that in Dragon Origins I'm bringing all these hostile races together for a greater good, rather than planning and executing battle plans against the various bosses, is why I still play the game. It's also why I'd play GW2 over WoW because there's a stronger emphasis on plot and character development; I like to grow in my games and the see the world react around me, rather than be part of a guild to storm a raid to get a pair of magical pants. In short, not every gamer plays games for the same reason.

Now in that light, if I had Dark Souls, would I try to play it as "intended"? Yes, however after losing time and time again, I'd switch an easy mode out sheer frustration. That's just how I am, and I can't play game because of that, because I'm not really up for a head-splitting harrowing when I could be enjoying the game's lore or appearance? Sorry, but that comes off as a bit selfish to me.

Now I can understand the fear of dumbing down; I lost too many of my favorite channels to reality TV like mentioned. However, giving the *option* to make a game easier to deal with is not harming anyone, neither the game, for reasons mentioned already. I recall that in one of my games, I think it was Bioshock 2 or ME2, that it referred to the "easy mode" as "story mode" where the emphasis was placed on plot, while the "hard mode" cared more about challenging combat. Personally, I don't see why this isn't in more games. Like I said, not everyone plays games for the same reasons.

Mortamus:

I hate to come off as offensive, but this is honestly one of the most immature responses I've received to my argument. I don't want content dumbed down for me, and I'm actually not one of the people who prefer an easy mode. I do, however, believe in that option being available for those that are even more time constrained than me. I work 40 hours a week, and have to spend most of my time taking care of my home. Other times are spent with people I care about. This, however, does not make a "filthy casual". When I do play a game, I prefer to work at it, and I will even invest hours in an FAQ or lose sleep over reviewing strategies to improve. I do, however, also game with others that I would love to share that experience with, but they are unable to invest the time I am willing to sacrifice and I feel like they are missing out.

I'm sorry, but the "I don't deserve it" response is VERY elitist. Why do you deserve it, instead? Did you invest more money in the product? Did you help the developers create it? Did you invest in the studio that released it? Did you invest any time, effort, money, or any variation in ensuring this game was successful? If not, you are no more entitled to the experience than any other player. You invested more time in learning the game? That means you'll be better at the game. That is your reward. Not the game itself.

Why do we deserve to beat a game and you don't? I'll tell you. It's because we worked for it! We put in the time and effort to beat the game, you didn't, so you don't deserve to beat the game, you also don't deserve to have it made easier for you either. I don't know about everyone else here, but all I want from you is to find the time required and make the same effort that everyone else has to. You shouldn't have a game's content handed to you on a silver platter or even just made easier for ANY reason, least of all because you aren't willing to put in the time and effort needed. That applies to you and everyone else, including your friends, and if you expect it or want it to be made easier, that's called being entitled.

I wouldn't expect to beat everybody in a Triathlon or have it any easier than everybody else just because I showed up, I would expect to win through my own merits and the time and effort I was willing to put into training, and if I wasn't willing to put in that time and effort, I wouldn't show up, and you should expect the same thing from video games, Soul series or not. Everyone on the planet with the exception of people with disabilities CAN find the time to work through a game, doesn't matter who you are or what your situation is. You can find an hour each day, or every other day, or whatever, the time is there, it's just that you don't care to find the time. You are just using that as an really poor excuse to justify the fact that you want things made easier for you, and you and every other pro easy mode on this thread are coming up with any excuse you possibly can to get people to agree that it should be to feed your sense of entitlement. You want the game mechanics to be smoother? Less clunky? That can happen, but the difficulty and length of the game shouldn't be made less because you or anyone don't give enough of a damn, period.

NemotheElvenPanda:
I'm probably going to get smacked around for this; but I don't play games because of the challenge. For better or worse, I'm not a fan of difficulty. I am however a fan of characters, plot, story, themes, and so on. I play games for how they make me feel, not how they make me think. The fact that in Dragon Origins I'm bringing all these hostile races together for a greater good, rather than planning and executing battle plans against the various bosses, is why I still play the game. It's also why I'd play GW2 over WoW because there's a stronger emphasis on plot and character development; I like to grow in my games and the see the world react around me, rather than be part of a guild to storm a raid to get a pair of magical pants. In short, not every gamer plays games for the same reason.

Now in that light, if I had Dark Souls, would I try to play it as "intended"? Yes, however after losing time and time again, I'd switch an easy mode out sheer frustration. That's just how I am, and I can't play game because of that, because I'm not really up for a head-splitting harrowing when I could be enjoying the game's lore or appearance? Sorry, but that comes off as a bit selfish to me.

Now I can understand the fear of dumbing down; I lost too many of my favorite channels to reality TV like mentioned. However, giving the *option* to make a game easier to deal with is not harming anyone, neither the game, for reasons mentioned already. I recall that in one of my games, I think it was Bioshock 2 or ME2, that it referred to the "easy mode" as "story mode" where the emphasis was placed on plot, while the "hard mode" cared more about challenging combat. Personally, I don't see why this isn't in more games. Like I said, not everyone plays games for the same reasons.

Oh geez yes please. Enjoying something in different ways you would think would be obvious to people, but evidently not. How can you argue with someone else's tastes, and what would be wrong to provide an optional method for those people? Thank you smart Nemo.

Also, Rooster, way back in page 23, your analogy is flawed. Guns in Call of Duty are analogous to Swords/Pikes/Miracles etc. in Dark Souls, not difficulty settings. The game's mechanics can stand on its own without the difficulty is what I am saying

Mortrialus:
I'm being respectful here. I've done nothing but respond to everyone calmly and without insult, but I'm getting pretty annoyed by all your content. You all are rehashing the same questions and when I address them, like how Dark Souls is not going to be easily converted to an easy mode, and despite my addressing your questions and arguments you ignore them and keep strawmanning people in this thread. It's getting old.

Oh no, I read what you wrote. I still can't get my head around it though.
Just like I wouldn't be able to get my head around it if someone said Fallout: New Vegas's Hardcore Mode is a waste of time because it can be turned off at any time.

And it's not me using strawmen, it's...

JustanotherGamer:
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.

^This guy, whose posts are 90% strawmen, and not much more than spam.

Considering how long this thread has been going on for, would anyone else be interested to see if Jim does some sort of follow up? I know I would but I'm not expecting it and I'm not trying to imply that he should do it what with his reviewing duties and five Jimquisition episodes next week but it'd be interesting all the same if he did.

anthony87:
Considering how long this thread has been going on for, would anyone else be interested to see if Jim does some sort of follow up? I know I would but I'm not expecting it and I'm not trying to imply that he should do it what with his reviewing duties and five Jimquisition episodes next week but it'd be interesting all the same if he did.

Honestly while it may be interesting, more likely it would just had fuel to arguments which are not likely to go anywhere since some think this others think that, some are debating x while the other is debating y and yet another is talking about z.

Peithelo:

BilltheEmu:
I would love for more people to play these games and enjoy them as much as I do.

Quite so, I feel much the same. Still I feel it necessary to add that these games, like any other creative work, should be learned to be appreciated in their original, intended form (unless there was something blatantly disturbing or distasteful). Game developers have to stop pandering to any specific demographics in order for their work to be considered a work of art. This is what any creative mind should like to aspire towards, I think.

Meaning of Karma said something very similar some ten pages ago:

Meaning of Karma:
You know, this thread has made me come to the realization that, if video games truly want to be on par with movies and novels as an artistic medium, then they need to stop being so consumer centric, and they need to stop pandering to the people who perpetuate that culture.

If you do not have the knowledge required to truly appreciate, say, War and Peace, would you demand that Tolstoy release a version that is easier to understand?

Let me also make a reference to Edmund Snow Carpenter's They "Became What They Beheld" and its foreword (I first encountered this work here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm-Jjvqu3U4&list=LLZfVa5LeJDCBa62O_HUSTlA Let it act as a source.). There it is stated that artists do not address themselves to audiencies, but instead create them. It continues to say that an artist merely talks out loud and if what they have said is significant, others hear and are affected.

I sincerely agree with this myself, and if it can be agreed upon in general the only thing that remains to be debatable is this; do we want games to be viewed as a form of art or should they be purposefully created pieces of consumable entertainment? Note that art can be entertaining but it usually is not specifically designed to be consumed as entertainment by anyone specific. I think there can be a place for both, but on avarage a piece of art is inherently more precious than a piece of purposeful entertainment.

Thank you for providing a thoughtful response. I'm glad that you seem to appreciate these games as art, as I do.

I watched the video you linked, and I must say that I agree with the ideas presented in it, as well. The games should be the artist's creation, and their content should not be dictated by demographics and marketing. From Software HAS created an audience with its two games. Demon's Souls was absolutely a niche title, and it was released to a world of gamers who had long been lacking such a title. The result seems to reflect Mr. Carpenter's ideas quite well, in that Demon's Souls created its own sizable audience, which From themselves may not have expected. Here's a snippet from Wikipedia about Demon's Souls, suggesting that that's exactly what happened:

Wikipedia:
Demon's Souls favorable review scores made the fiscal performance of the game unique because of the lack of a supporting marketing campaign. Gaming analyst Jesse Divnich commented "Demon's Souls is probably one of the most statistically relevant games released in the gaming world as it helps answer an often asked question: how much would a high quality game sell if it was supported by no mass marketing, released by a little known publisher (no offense to Atlus), and was a new intellectual property."[72] With the critical and commercial success of the game, Sony Computer Entertainment VP of international software Yeonkyung Kim later admitted that it was a "mistake" to pass on the game, instead allowing Atlus to publish it, initially due to concerns over its difficulty and unusual design decisions.[73]

Dark Souls came along later, and built on that audience. As I said in my prior post, it DID make some rather substantial changes to the mechanics, many of which could be seen as making it more accessible, but without compromising the difficulty. I think From should be commended for pulling this off well. But at the same time, I don't believe that they were doing it to cater to a new audience. I believe that they made those refinements to make a better game, which it was. Dark Souls was still very much true to itself, and the audience created by Demon's Souls.

All is well for Souls fans. And then the quote that launched a thousand ships (I don't even think this has been posted anywhere in the thread yet):

Wikipedia:
Post-release, the game's director, Hidetaka Miyazaki, contemplated adding an easier difficulty level, saying: "Dark Souls is rather difficult and a number of people may hesitate to play. This fact is really sad to me and I am thinking about whether I should prepare another difficulty that everyone can complete or carefully send all gamers the messages behind our difficult games."[32] Namco Bandai claimed Miyazaki's statement was mistranslated, and should have read "This fact is really sad to me and I am thinking about how to make everyone complete the game while maintaining the current difficulty and carefully send all gamers the messages behind it."[33]

Reaching this point, I fully agree with you that this raises fears regarding Mr. Carpenter's ideas, as they apply to the Souls series. None of us can know exactly what Miyazaki has in mind, specifically, regarding making a game that "everyone can complete." As a fan of the difficulty, this sounds just as scary to me, as it does to you. But here I would like to address two very different situations with two very different arguments: Dark Souls, and Dark Souls II. I believe that Dark Souls, being a completed game, would not suffer from the inclusion of an alternative modal difficulty. I believe that Dark Souls II, a work in progress, could potentially suffer greatly, because of the reasons that you suggested, that artistic content should not be designed to appeal to the widest audience possible.

And if people would be more likely to play the games, should an "Easy Mode" suddenly exist for them, it would be fine with me. It would detract nothing, in my opinion, to have that option, given that it would have no effect on the existing game as it has already been played by myself and others.

You seem to forget that games can also be revisited. I know I have done so with almost all of my favorite games, music, books and movies, because every single one of them offers some unique experience that I like to relive from time to time.

Allow me to start here for Dark Souls. Trust me when I tell you that I have not forgotten that games can be revisited. I frequently go back to play old favorites. I've got my NES and SNES hooked up to my TV right next to my PS3 and PC. I have played through Dark Souls a ridiculous number of times. I've beaten the game at level 1, I've beaten it with a Belmont character (Whip only, no shield, light armor), I've gone from the start of the game, killed the hydra, Sif, and then Four Kings right away, and I've beaten the game on a character without dying once (Aside from the first Seath fight). I've made Sunbro characters to just chill out and help newbies. I love replaying this game, and finding new challenges, or different ways to play.

Having said that, I fully stand by my opinion that the sudden appearance of "Easy Mode" on the game menu would have literally zero impact on my enjoyment of the game. This is assuming that multiplayer is segregated in some way, and that difficulty CANNOT be changed during the game (Otherwise multiplayer segregation would be pointless). I would never touch it, except out of curiosity. All of us who are fans of Dark Souls have, presumably, completed the game at least once. It's been over a year since the original release, and months since PTDE, so if you're a fan, and you haven't by now, well... Anyway, those of us complaining about the theoretical easy mode, we've already experienced the game as intended. The easy mode, therefore, cannot ruin our experience of the game, because we've already had it.

An argument about subsequent playthroughs doesn't make sense, because I think almost all of us will agree that after your first playthrough, the game becomes significantly less challenging. The further challenge you get from this game is something you create yourself, by creating limitations and rules (like a SL1 run). If you're placing these limitations on yourself, then I think it would go without saying that you wouldn't use easy mode.

As for the argument about new players not getting the "correct" experience playing on easy? Who cares? I mean, seriously, why does that matter? You cannot apply your argument about games creating an audience to this. Dark Souls was already created, and is a wonderful game that many, many people have experienced for the art that it is. That's done, and it cannot be retroactively taken away. If someone can't beat the game, and From provides an easy mode so that they can, so what? It would be nice if those players could experience it in the same way that I did, but if they can't or won't overcome the difficulty, then they're not going to, anyway. People who would choose easy would be experiencing a sub-par version of the game, rather than not experiencing it at all. If they have the option, that's there choice. It won't stop my enjoyment.

This is, in a sense, the argument that Jim was making originally, and from this perspective, I agree with it. But to me, the vastly more important argument is to be made about Dark Souls II. I can't speak for everyone, but reading this thread, it really feels like people are arguing about one thing with people who are arguing about another. This is why I would like to clearly define a difference in my posts.

Everything that you said about artists and audiences ABSOLUTELY applies to the sequel. Many supporters of easy mode asked how it could possibly affect the game for everyone else who doesn't want it. With regards to Dark Souls II, I feel like I addressed that in my previous post. When designing the game, from the ground up, and considering having to balance for two different audiences, I believe that the end result will suffer. This has been shown time and time again in the video game industry. Diablo III and Deus Ex: Invisible War are a couple of examples that come to mind. How about games with tacked on multiplayer? These examples don't perfectly match up with Dark Souls, and I don't want to start getting into absurdly extended analogies, but it is a problem that can happen in any medium.

Thus I believe that all of our concern for the Souls series should be directed toward the future, not the past. It's a matter of speculation and hope about whether or not the next game we get will live up to the first two. I am conflicted about being wary based on the comments of the developers, and being hopeful because of the excellent transition they made between Demon's and Dark Souls.

Someone, a while back, posted a video by EpicNameBro, discussing organic vs. modal difficulty, and I thought that was brilliant. This is essentially a function of the current summoning and hint system. If they can find ways to improve on these existing systems, or add new ones, so that the game can be experienced at a challenge level of the player's choosing within a single balanced setting (ie not easy/hard mode), then it could be great. We might not have anything to worry about.

If, on the other hand, they tack on an easy mode, after creating an entire game balanced for the original difficulty, the easy mode experience would suffer for it, but it would theoretically not affect the normal game. I don't believe that this is likely to happen, as they have probably been considering easier difficulty, whether modal or organic, from the start.

From Software is going to do whatever they want to do. If that involves attempting to broaden the player base, then I hope they can pull it off. If that involves making the game consistently difficult to remain true to the series, that would be better.

I'm sorry to anyone who is bothered by that, but it is my opinion that Dark Souls II would be better off if it was being created with no consideration for an easy mode. I feel like I've expressed enough reasons why such a design philosophy could weaken the overall game, even though they are speculative. At the same time, suggesting that it wouldn't weaken the game is also speculative. If they were to decide a year after the release of Dark Souls II that they should add an easy mode in a new patch, I could not care less. But the original design of this new chapter in the series should be based on difficulty.

Church185:
I would claim you a gentleman and a scholar, but I'm afraid that this game needs more solaire, not soluigi :D

Hello there, fellow sunbro! I applaud your efforts, and others', in this thread to employ civil discourse in an argument full of namecalling. Let us all engage in jolly conversation \o/

I know that this is my second wall of text, and I apologize, but I like to explain myself as thoroughly as possible, so that everyone, whether agreeing with me or not, can fully understand where I'm coming from (It is also helpful for myself in working through the arguments). Perhaps I should make shorter versions of my posts that are quicker to read, for those who dislike the length...

NemotheElvenPanda:
For better or worse, I'm not a fan of difficulty. I am however a fan of characters, plot, story, themes, and so on. I play games for how they make me feel, not how they make me think.

Then you might be very pleased to know that these are exactly the kinds of things that the difficulty in Dark Souls is designed to emphasize. It is what gives them a greater sense of meaning and purpose. The world of Dark Souls is a dangerous and dark place, and this is reflected in the challenges the player has to endure when exploring its many areas, unraveling the intricate lore, and conversing with the many characters, that may or may not be against you, the player can meet.

There would be a severe disconnect between the world, its themes, atmosphere, and characters, and your perceived experience if there was no sense of real danger and a prominent possibility of failure present as a form of challenging gameplay. These aspects are designed to have a type of synergy together that gives the experience its very form.

Now in that light, if I had Dark Souls, would I try to play it as "intended"? Yes, however after losing time and time again, I'd switch an easy mode out sheer frustration. That's just how I am, and I can't play game because of that, because I'm not really up for a head-splitting harrowing when I could be enjoying the game's lore or appearance? Sorry, but that comes off as a bit selfish to me.

I personally object to the idea that the gameplay in video games is in some way a mere distraction that keeps you from experiencing the story or any other points of interest. Gameplay is precisely the thing that seperates video games from other mediums, such as movies and books, and it should be used to the greatest possible extent when trying to achieve whatever it is that the game is supposed to achieve. Otherwise there hardly is a point to any of it. Dark Souls cleverly uses the challenging gameplay to improve every other aspect of the game. This, to me, is a sign of great use of video games as a medium.

I consider Dark Souls and Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty to be one of the most prominent examples of how storytelling in video games has been done incredibly well. In these examples the gameplay helps to define various elements in the game, such as the story or the message it is trying to convey, and at the same time be a part of them as well.

immortalfrieza:

Why do we deserve to beat a game and you don't? I'll tell you. It's because we worked for it! We put in the time and effort to beat the game, you didn't, so you don't deserve to beat the game, you also don't deserve to have it made easier for you either. I don't know about everyone else here, but all I want from you is to find the time required and make the same effort that everyone else has to. You shouldn't have a game's content handed to you on a silver platter or even just made easier for ANY reason, least of all because you aren't willing to put in the time and effort needed. That applies to you and everyone else, including your friends, and if you expect it or want it to be made easier, that's called being entitled.

I wouldn't expect to beat everybody in a Triathlon or have it any easier than everybody else just because I showed up, I would expect to win through my own merits and the time and effort I was willing to put into training, and if I wasn't willing to put in that time and effort, I wouldn't show up, and you should expect the same thing from video games, Soul series or not. Everyone on the planet with the exception of people with disabilities CAN find the time to work through a game, doesn't matter who you are or what your situation is. You can find an hour each day, or every other day, or whatever, the time is there, it's just that you don't care to find the time. You are just using that as an really poor excuse to justify the fact that you want things made easier for you, and you and every other pro easy mode on this thread are coming up with any excuse you possibly can to get people to agree that it should be to feed your sense of entitlement. You want the game mechanics to be smoother? Less clunky? That can happen, but the difficulty and length of the game shouldn't be made less because you or anyone don't give enough of a damn, period.

Except some people can't. I'm not talking about being unwilling to make time, I'm talking about being unable. As well, you're comparing a form of entertainment with competitive sports. They're really not the same thing.

NemotheElvenPanda:

Now in that light, if I had Dark Souls, would I try to play it as "intended"? Yes, however after losing time and time again, I'd switch an easy mode out sheer frustration. That's just how I am, and I can't play game because of that, because I'm not really up for a head-splitting harrowing when I could be enjoying the game's lore or appearance? Sorry, but that comes off as a bit selfish to me.

If you want the lore and appearance, I'm pretty sure there's plenty of concept art, story summations and youtube videos of the game you can indulge yourself in.

NemotheElvenPanda:

However, giving the *option* to make a game easier to deal with is not harming anyone, neither the game, for reasons mentioned already.

But it would harm the game since it would ruin its fundamental point. Not to mention resources that would go into rebalancing, retweaking, reimagining ideas, only to pander to people outside of the audience the game has created.
Do you think there should be abridged movies with extra narration so that everyone can follow the plot as well? Should classical books be rewritten in simple english? Should statues, art and poetry come with a de facto explanation and reasoning behind every brushstroke? Should the rules for each sport, and team and player biographies be told to you every time you watch a football game?
Sometimes the consumer needs to make an effort in order to partake in a medium. And it's most often that very effort that makes the reward that much sweeter.

Atmos Duality:
The cherry picking has reached critical mass, and all logic in my arguments have been ignored. Repeatedly.

It's infuriating. Given the constant appeals to pathos, Appeals to Authority, overwhelming Slippery Slope logic and contradictions I'm being presented ("Dark Souls isn't difficult...it's difficult...it's meant to be difficult."), there's no point invoking logic anymore.

Others are losing their patience with ME, and not my arguments, so that's as good an indicator as any to quit.

I remain unconvinced of how an easy mode would hurt or destroy the game; at worst separate content would be required, and that leads to the slippery slope of "That's time they should be spending on the next game!"

The entire ordeal reeks of self-pandering, and the game is put on a shrine like an idol, not to be touched or blemished, with anyone suggesting even hypothetical changes to be burnt at the stake for their heresy.

I await the usual slew of Parthians Shots, personal insults, and implications of how I'm petty, "don't get it", "condescending" (with the hypocrisy of that accusation being rank as ever) or that I'm somehow metaphorically "the problem that destroys art".

And if you manage to not do any of that, despite being highly tempted, congratulations: You're a stronger person.

I'm sorry. I thought it was you but maybe it's me. I might jump in again later after I meditate a while.

Mortamus:

Except some people can't. I'm not talking about being unwilling to make time, I'm talking about being unable. As well, you're comparing a form of entertainment with competitive sports. They're really not the same thing.

I already took allowance for people that are unable to beat a game, you notice I mentioned disabled people, everyone else without except can, they just don't care enough to. In other words there's no such thing as unable, there is only unwilling. I'm comparing beating video games to winning competitive sports because it is the closest analog to what beating a video game is, there's no exact one. Competitive sports require time and effort on the part of the participant if the participant wants to succeed, no sport is going to just hand them their victories, regardless of the circumstances of the participant, and neither should video games.

chikusho:
Do you think there should be abridged movies with extra narration so that everyone can follow the plot as well?

Movies have those things called fast-forward buttons, you can press them and abridge them how much or how little you want. You can even pause them or reverse them, at any time completely without cheatcode. Or switch on the audio-commentary and you don't even have to finish the movie first to unlock them. And if that isn't enough, I am sure Wikipedia will have a plot summary explaining the rest of it.

Should classical books be rewritten in simple english?

That stuff exist plentiful there are even books that summarize and help you interpret books.

Should statues, art and poetry come with a de facto explanation and reasoning behind every brushstroke?

There is no shortage of that either.

Should the rules for each sport, and team and player biographies be told to you every time you watch a football game?[/qutoe]
What has that to do with anything? Nobody is requesting to force easy mode on everyone. Options are optional.

[quote]Sometimes the consumer needs to make an effort in order to partake in a medium.

No other medium requires an effort to consume it. You can read through a book without getting it or what a movie while asleep. Only games lock content.

Whilst I dip my toes back in this quagmire a moment.

PvP = The same damage tweaking that would assumably make the Easy mode could apply a similar damper on their damage if they're an easy mode character.

Or simplified.
Easy Mode = +20% damage vs monsters, -20% damage from Monsters. -40% damage vs players.

grumbel:

No other medium requires an effort to consume it. You can read through a book without getting it or what a movie while asleep. Only games lock content.

Video games are NOT movies, TV or books, they are an interactive medium, they require you to earn their content.

immortalfrieza:
Video games are NOT movies, TV or books, they are an interactive medium, they require you to earn their content.

And that's a problem that should be fixed. The days of arcades are long gone, there is no need to lock content to extract more coins from customers these days as you already paid for it when you bought the game. Are movies any less interesting because you have a fast forward button? No, of course not. Because you simply don't use it and watch the movie as intended most of the time. But it's nice that it's there in case you need it.

The only argument against this seem to come from weak minded people who apparently aren't man enough to ignore an easy option when it's available. Man up, just see that easy option you have to resist as another challenge and as a badge of honor developers can even install an achievement for it if they like. Problem solved.

grumbel:

immortalfrieza:
Video games are NOT movies, TV or books, they are an interactive medium, they require you to earn their content.

And that's a problem that should be fixed. The days of arcades are long gone, there is no need to lock content to extract more coins from customers these days as you already paid for it when you bought the game. Are movies any less interesting because you have a fast forward button? No, of course not. Because you simply don't use it and watch the movie as intended most of the time. But it's nice that it's there in case you need it.

The fact that the player has to work for it to get a video game's content is not a problem, that is the ENTIRE POINT of video games. Why make video games interactive if the player doesn't have to do much of anything to access the game's content? Why not just make them movies? Movies have a fast forward button because they are MOVIES, you are supposed to sit there and enjoy them with no further effort on your part, video games are an interactive medium that requires the user to play it and earn the game's content through their efforts, at least somewhat, regardless of the video game.

grumbel:

The only argument against this seem to come from weak minded people who apparently aren't man enough to ignore an easy option when it's available.

And the only argument FOR an easy mode seems to come from weak minded people that aren't man enough to play through the game at it's current difficulty. See? Easy to turn that argument around.

grumbel:

Man up, just see that easy option you have to resist as another challenge and as a badge of honor developers can even install an achievement for it if they like. Problem solved.

No, NOT problem solved. The fact that a developer is willing to make a game easier in ANY way to make it more accessable means that they will make all future games in the series easier to make it more accessable as time goes on. That's the same reason why the original Super Mario Bros is so difficult that it has been ranked many times among the hardest games of all time, while the more recent Mario games are so easy that they can be beaten by a random monkey picked out of some forest somewhere.

That, and the fact that someone can accomplish what other people do with a fraction of the effort required lessens the impact of what those people did. If Dark Souls 2 is easier than Dark Souls, it makes the efforts of the people that beat Dark Souls less meaningful. Just the fact that an easy mode EXISTS is enough to degrade a game. Making the gameplay better? THAT doesn't affect it as long as the difficulty remains intact, that is not a problem, lowering the difficulty for ANY reason is.

Hilariously, Justanothergamer's "Buying a product is optional" is the best retort I've seen in the whole thread outside of Cogburn kicking asses all over the damn place.

You bought a game marketed for its difficulty, labelled with "Prepare to Die!" on the back and you feel entitled to the content? Go buy a cello from the store and go back with "I paid 3000 dollars for this cello and I deserve to be able to play all of the content a cello is capable of" and you will be shown the door. Pick up a few of the more niche genres and it's a lot easier to understand that games aren't simply analogous to film and literature. My relationships with shmups, fighters, and RPGs are vastly different despite the fact that they are all video games.

Games are many things. As art, they have no purpose in sacrificing identity in pursuit of mass-market appeal. As consumer products they have justification in maintaining the loyalty of their niche and pedigree of their brand rather than chasing many markets and appealing to none. As a series of challenges they don't owe you success.

immortalfrieza:
Why make video games interactive if the player doesn't have to do much of anything to access the game's content?

Because those two are completely unrelated concepts? Interaction just means a game has to be interactive, it does not imply that the player has to be forced to die dozens of times on the same stupid enemy or that you aren't allowed to skip chapters.

And the only argument FOR an easy mode seems to come from weak minded people that aren't man enough to play through the game at it's current difficulty. See? Easy to turn that argument around.

That's not much of an argument. There is nothing wrong with adding something for the weak minded. Maybe they aren't even weak minded, maybe they are to old, to young or broke their arm or otherwise not at 100% capacity to beat the game the regular way. Let them play the way they want to. I would like to hear an argument for the excluding of an easy mode that doesn't really on idiotic elitism.

No, NOT problem solved. The fact that a developer is willing to make a game easier in ANY way to make it more accessable means that they will make all future games in the series easier to make it more accessable as time goes on.

You know which games can get away with being super hardcore? Racing games. Why can they do that? Because they plastered with assist and options to make them easier, heck you could finish Gran Turismo 4 by letting it play itself on auto-pilot most of the time. Options simply mean you get to play the game how you want. Not having options means the game has to be build to appeal to the least common denominator.

That's the same reason why the original Super Mario Bros is so difficult that it has been ranked many times among the hardest games of all time, while the more recent Mario games are so easy that they can be beaten by a random monkey picked out of some forest somewhere.

That's the result of not having an easy mode. Nintendo games almost always only have one difficulty and as a result the games got simpler the bigger and more casual the audience got.

If Dark Souls 2 is easier than Dark Souls, it makes the efforts of the people that beat Dark Souls less meaningful.

How does it make the effort any less meaningful? They still only have beat it on easy mode and they don't get the achievement for hard mode. I can go and watch the ending or even a complete Lets Play of Dark Souls on Youtube without even picking up the controller? Do you feel less like a man because of that?

Or hey, how about they release two games? Dark Souls Casual Edition with an optional easy mode and Dark Souls regular, which is the exact same game, except with the easy mode removed. Happy now?

s69-5:

jmarquiso:

JustanotherGamer:

Just replace "casuals" with "cash".

But who's providing the cash?

(I hate to say it might be console gamers...but that's a whole other elitism I'd rather not get into right now...

I skipped the first 5 minutes of the video just because I don't agree with the elitist *cough*fanboy*cough* view that "console gamers" dumb down the market. Consoles have been around for almost as long as video games, so why all of a sudden would that be the key factor in "dumbing down" games. It's a ludicrous conclusion.

Besides, none of the points he raised in the video have anything to do with the game appearing on consoles. Even the points he alluded to near the beginning weren't console dependant. So why make the argument at all?

Something I'd like to mention:

Value of items:
It seemed like a minor non-issue gripe to me, but I get his reasoning behind the value of items being reduced. The problem is not that the item's value has been reduced, but that it hasn't been reduced enough! He argues that Morrowing had the Savior Hide at 150,000 gold. By Skyrim is barely breaks 2000 gold. My argument is that it should be neither 150k or 2k. It is a rare and priceless artifact. In Final Fantasy, such an item would have a value of 1 gil. Why? It is priceless and should really not be sold - just like his argument about rare items in TES.

The rest of his arguments (especially quest/ journals) are dead on.

To be fair to the video - he never says "console gamers" he says "casual gamers" which he characterizes as a couple of kids. I said console gamers, which is also a position I don't necessarily agree with. I think it's been "streamlined" for consoles, but that does NOT mean "dumbed down". Simply means less keys are necessary.

I'd like the ability to negate your own main quest. A large part of the audience doesn't.

Keep in mind I purposefully put forth a video I disagreed with mainly because I thought it'd add to the discussion. I should have checked that there've already been nearly 800 responses first:)

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 . . . 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
Registered for a free account here