Can someone explain this weird Jimquisition video about difficult games to me?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT
 

CritialGaming:
snip

Those articles are people's opinions that an easy mode would be a good thing for every game to have, they aren't demanding or crying about games that don't have them, just sayin' why not basically. There's far more buckets of tears on the other side. There was a time when every game had to be beat in one sitting and we let games be games then. We are letting games be games now too and as we see more and more of them are getting more options whether in difficulties, control options, in HUD elements, etc. Games have greatly changed since I started playing them and will continue to change. Maybe games in the future will offer a slew of sliders akin to sports games to where the player can tune the game's difficulty far beyond just selecting 3-5 different difficulties. Gamers asked Guerrilla Games to make Horizon Zero Dawn harder and they added in an Ultra Hard difficulty. Why couldn't we just let Horizon be Horizon?

Souls' horribly imbalanced playstyles that are the games' "difficulty modes" aren't that good of a solution. How is making someone play as something they don't wanna play as helping them enjoy the game? Oh you wanna be a badass knight? Well, your not good enough so play as the boring mage. Or take out your bow and arrow and sit there for 10 minutes doing the same thing over and over again. Sure, not only can they beat the game and not have fun, they can also not get better playing in an actually fun way. Same thing goes for people that like mages and find their playstyle mind-numbingly simplistic and easy. I don't get how that really helps anyone to be honest because the point of playing a game isn't just to beat it, it's to have fun and be entertained.

And yes, an easy mode might not be the perfect solution for everyone but it will definitely help some people. Why would you leave out something that will help people? With that logic of just not releasing something that's not quite perfect, we never will have a single game to play or a movie to watch or a book to read. To think any game that gets released is perfectly tuned as the director/dev envisioned is completely absurd. Dark Souls 1 has a core stat that does nothing, how'd it get released in such a state? They should've fixed the poor RPG mechanics before releasing because no one and I mean no one would enjoy the game in such a state.

Phoenixmgs:
snip

I feel like there is a fundamental difference between saying to a dev, "Hey we loved your game so much, we would love for an extra challenge mode or something to keep us playing" and saying "This game is too hard that I don't wanna keep trying, make it easy for me." Because that's the difference with Dark Souls. The game requires trying, and dying over and over again. Loosing is as much part of the game as winning.

Now I get it, at the end of the day none of this matters. I mean nothing about video games matters. But just like people had to stand up against EA and their microtransaction bullshit and say that isn't right, so do I have to stand up and say that making easy-mode Souls isn't right.

I believe easy mode robs the spirit of this one game type. Just this ONE! As such I have to stand by it.

I don't believe every game needs to have an easy mode. I don't believe every game has to be beatable by everyone and games have a right to stick to their challenges, because game design has already suffered from a bit of a dumbing down of general challenge over the years. And it's that universally "easy-ness" that makes hard games like Souls such stand outs.

CritialGaming:
This one statement proves you are projecting because you have no real dog in this argument and you are just fighting back for the sake of it now. You don't know what the hell you are talking about, and you are putting words in my mouth.

I NEVER once called anyone weak or inferior for unskilled play or being unable to get through ANY game. So stop putting that shit in my mouth, I don't like the taste of bullshit and that's all you've spewed for the last six pages.

Incorrect:

CritialGaming:
You know what it is? It's the fucking "You want what you can't have" syndrome. You know what i mean? For example, Bloodborne is too hard of a game for you, but instead of going off to play something else, you get your mindset on Bloodborne and decide that you don't have to change Bloodborne does. You demand easy modes, or cheat codes, or whatever, not because you actually care if a video game has an easy mode or not, but because you CAN'T have it in Bloodborne so it makes you angry and demanding. The only reason this made-up person makes these demands on Bloodborne is because they can't have it.

Here you are saying that people wanting an easy mode are just angry and demanding. They don't have any valid points, they're just throwing a tantrum apparently

CritialGaming:
Are the players that can handle the difficulty, handle what the game is asking of them entitled? Or are you entitled for demanded that the game be brought down to a comfortable level for you?

I saw someone make the point that games used to be hard to continue to milk people for quarters in the arcades, and now that you buy a game outright you are entitled to experience the full game. Which to me is only half true. You ARE entitled to the full challenge the game presents you, you are entitled to as many tries as you need to overcome that challenge, but you are NOT entitled to the game rolling over for you to mount and have your way with.

If a game wants to offer you an easy-mode, then I say take it. I take the easy route too whenever I can. I am not dogging, nor am I insulting anyone who plays on any casual game mode. But I am calling people out for demanding that EVERY game cater to their needs. That is absolutely insane, and if you truly believe that it doesn't hurt anything for you to have your way...you are wrong.

It hurts you. You hurt yourself by neglecting yourself the joy of overcoming something truly difficult for you.

Here you say you're not insulting anyone playing on easy...but then go on to insult people playing on easy by insisting that their hurting themselves, as if they're stunting their growth or something

CritialGaming:

hanselthecaretaker:
^^^I think it could be because some people have been enabled their whole lives, and have an idealist mentality in a world that is anything but. Not necessarily their fault, but not acknowledging the issue or realizing the world doesn?t revolve around their wants is another story.

I blame Participation trophies and perfect attendance awards.

And here you're writing off anyone wanting an easy mode as some kind of entitled brat expecting everything to simply be given to them.
And then there's your most recent analogy with the cars where the whole point was that anyone not getting to the high-end BMW was not trying hard enough; in other words, lazy. So yes, degrading and patronising people for not playing on hard has been exactly what you've been doing. Don't like the taste? Stop speaking it

CritialGaming:
Yes we all have weakness. We are human and frankly everyone has a breaking point, especially in a difficult game. But that frustration, and that urge to quit is what makes Dark Souls so great, because ultimately you CAN push through it and when you do finally push through that barrier, the rush afterwards is an incredible reward. Which is the ENTIRE point of the game! Putting in an Easy mode circumvents that.

And in what way do you think someone's sense of accomplishment will be diminished? They'll still have beaten the boss, they'll still feel good about getting through it and now maybe they can go back to it later so they have that to look forward to as well.

CritialGaming:
And it's because NOBODY can dip into easy, that EVERYONE plays the same game and has the same exact chances of getting through it. Everyone plays the same mode and can share their stories because we all are on the same playing field, which is ultimately the most fair possible difficulty setting possible right?

No, in fact they do not have the same exact chance of getting through it, because not everyone is you. You said you don't like RTS games, we get you playing one of those with someone who does enjoy them are the two of you going to get the exact same experience and enjoyment both playing on the same difficulty level?

CritialGaming:
The fact that you keep calling this artificial "barrier" a dick move is asinine.

Its less the difficulty mode itself I'm calling a dick move and more the methods by which you and Kerg try to argue against any changes to the difficulty mode

CritialGaming:
What stops anybody from playing and getting through Dark Souls as it is? Answer me that. Who here is stopping people from enjoying and playing the game? It's not me. It's not Kerg. Lets I checked when you take the game to the counter at a game store they don't make you take a games skills test.

The fact of the matter is the only thing stopping a player from playing Dark Souls is the player themselves.

I mean you and Kerg are the ones saying "Should not be an easy mode because reasons" so...yeah, its kind of you two doing that.

CritialGaming:
This doesn't change the fact that I DIDN'T quit. I kept trying and when I finally won, it was a wonderful feeling. The fact that I COULDN'T make life easier, meant that I HAD to deal with it and win the fight as it was present without handicap modifiers. I don't understand why you keep calling that elitist.

Because you are asserting that the way you did it is the only way that should count. That any suggestion otherwise is wrong and made by people who are merely entitled whiners complaining because you have something they don't. Thats why I keep calling you elitist.

CritialGaming:
I'm assuming you have a pretty decent life. Internet access, video games, a place to live. Do I have the right to call you elitist because you use free time to play video games instead of helping the homeless? You clearly have no sympathy for the homeless if you are playing video games instead of helping the less fortunate. Before you answer this, the answer is fucking no of course not. Such a request is unreasonable for anyone even the most charitable people aren't charitable 100% of the time. It's a ridiculous notion.

Honestly, I feel that yeah, I'm kind of unjustly unsympathetic towards the homeless at times. I don't have the funds to give money to all that ask, or the time to do much volunteer work, but I do try to give myself a mental slap round the head if ever I feel outright revulsion because who am I to judge? I know nothing about their life. And that would be what you are doing; seeing someone ask for a bit of help and without knowing anything about them instantly going "Ugh"

CritialGaming:
Okay, but this isn't the Witcher or Final Fantasy we are talking about. There is no real story in Dark Souls. There's lore, but not really story. You don't get a new piece of the story, or a cut scene for beating 99% of the bosses in the game. So this argument isn't relevant. For someone who talks about being able to see other people's viewpoints, you sure don't seem to have the ability to see ours.

If there is lore then there will be people wanting to go out and experience that lore so no, still a relevant point. And why exactly do you bring up viewpoints? What exactly would change for you that would make your viewpoint different in this scenario?

CritialGaming:
Let's see. To answer this you would have to make a couple of assumptions based on what an "easy" mode would be for Souls. I suppose we can do the most basic thing and just drastically reduce the damage the player takes right? So if you do that and maybe slightly increase the damage the player deals as well, you put most of the game directly in the player's advantage. This assumes that the enemy AI doesn't change and can still be just as aggressive as it is for everyone else.

So what skills would the player lose here?

Well for starters. The player loses the skill of avoidance. When you can face tank many enemy hits before being put into danger you become reckless and overly aggressive on enemies yourself. Allowing you to tank a bosses, hit while punishing the boss through their own attacks. Seeing as very few boss attacks actively knock the player back, this is a sloppy strategy the easy player would be able to use. Not to mention even enemy combo attacks that stun the player, have little reason to be avoided as the player can take the damage, thus allowing them again to be right in the monster's face for punishing.

The player also loses technique and suffers from a reduced fear of exploration. Dark Souls likes to ambush players that blindly run into a new room, or go directly for some loot on the ground. Because the ambushes wouldn't be dangerously punishing or outright kill a player depending on stats, they loose the fear of going for treasures or dealing with new enemies in a room they are unfamiliar with. The loss of technique comes from the fact that button mashing becomes viable when you don't have to worry about avoid as many hits as possible, you don't have to learn how to parry, or hide behind the safety of your shield, because the easy mode itself becomes your shield.

Being able to take a hit doesn't automatically mean you will want to get hit. You might be a bit more reckless knowing it takes more than one good hit to bring you down, but that health bar is still finite so it'll run out eventually. Hell, even in games with health thats both massive and regenerating you still need to back off if you come under fire because too much of it still brings you down. Its generally known that Being Hit = Bad So Avoid. A player who runs into an ambush is going to wary of an ambush the next time regardless of whether they lived or died in the first one

CritialGaming:
And that's just assuming that the easy mode comes from a mere adjustment of numbers. Nevermind what would happen if enemies stopped using certain attacks, become less aggressive, or anything else that could help reduce the difficultly of the game overall.

See, still like disabling certain enemy attacks would come under "Learning" to me. You play it through on easy, like it, then come back on hard and whoah hey, those wheel skeletons can do something different now. There's something new for you to adapt to but you've got a foundation to build from.
Its just like the switch between easy and hard on any other game, we're both familiar with it. Why is it suddenly so wrong when put into Dark Souls?

CritialGaming:
Of course these skills might not matter to a player, and that's fine. But at the end of the day why are you playing the game to just button mash through it? There is no other payoff from a Souls game. No story, no cutscenes, no unlocks, no icons, no nothing beyond overcoming the challenge.

Again I am not against easy modes, far from it. But only if those modes make sense, and in a game with nothing but challenge to offer, there is no reason for easy mode in the game. At least not directly. Because many people have stated already there is a LOT you can do to make Souls easier for you. Number one is Co-Op play, where you can follow a more powerful friend around while they beat the game for you. Dark Souls does offer easy modes in a way just based on mechanics, and gameplay styles. Part of the challenge is figuring out what works best for you and makes the game the easiest for you, while still remaining challenging.

See, I'm looking at that last sentence and thinking "Okay, so if what works best for you is picking easy mode because you know you want to ease into it? And its still going to be a challenge because thats the level you're at, its still a challenge to you" So yeah, what really would be the problem with that?

CritialGaming:
Yeah what if someone doesn't believe in modern medicine? What if someone doesn't believe in using modern technology? Oh wait those people exist. They are called the Amish. And they don't use any of that stuff. But, they also don't go around telling other people to not use or make the things they don't believe in. They don't demand the rest of the world cater to them. They have what they like and they are satisfied with it.

So your point here is invalid and stupid. Because a rational person who can't beat or play Dark Souls, or simply doesn't have the time to try, goes off and plays something else and doesn't complain that he/she never got to play Dark Souls. That's that normal people do. Nobody bitches and complains that Ferrari's are expensive. They get what they like and can play and move on with their life. The world is under no obligation to satisfy anybody.

You know that the Amish can in fact buy power tools? Its just that when they do they have to get them specially modified to run on gas rather than electricity, since thats what their religion forbids not the actual tool itself. So yes, the Amish do in fact get people to cater to them and the people who sell them the tools clearly don't mind doing it so its kind of a poor comparison you're making there.
Also, a game made for mass public consumption is in fact under kind of an obligation to satisfy people. Thats why we get mad at ones that are glitchy or buggy. This is once again you slipping into the assumption that Dark Souls is somehow "yours" and that other people have no right to it

CritialGaming:
Actually I came back in response to someone else. I never came back for you or to answer your nonsense. You jumped back on me. You restarted this little conversation because you can't let it go and would rather sit there and just call me and Kerg asshole elitists. Which by the way, is against the Terms of Service on this forum and the fact that you haven't been called out on it is mindboggling.

You say I can't let go (true) and yet here you are replying all the same. I am kettle, you are pot.

hanselthecaretaker:
*Channels Christopher Walken* Ohhh woweeewowwowwww!!

You really are a special breed of bully. I really don't think you care half as much about the plight of gamers needing/wanting easy modes as you do being "right" on the internet. My lack of response boils down to the fact that after a dozen pages, you clearly will only give a damn about mine or anyone else's viewpoint if it coincides with your own. It's nauseating, so why should anyone really be compelled to continue? Including my own, most of the viewpoints you've taken issue with have been repeated, rephrased, or reiterated on every page and it has accomplished nothing, because of the above.

Nope, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. Azure23, Ironclash, Silvanus, they've all had points I disagreed with but I had no real comment on them because they didn't also feel the need to use those points as a springboard to insult swathes of people. Its not an opposing viewpoint I object to, its people being assholes about it. And if they continue to be assholes about it, I'm going to continue calling them out. Like your attempts at undermining arguments by deliberately misinterpreting metaphors. If you don't like being called out on it, maybe don't do it in the first place.

hanselthecaretaker:
Have you ever heard the saying an argument lacking logic makes up for it in volume? Well, give yourself a pat on the back in this regard, because you've clearly been proving the notion page after page. I must admit I'm a bit envious though, as I'd love to have as much time as you seem to for verbal volleyball on the interwebs. Carry on if you'd like, but we?re simply best off agreeing to disagree here, since it's become incredibly clear we'd both be foolish not to.

I'm responding to three people, of course my reply is going to be long. "Too Long, Didn't Read" isn't quite the witty counterpoint you seem to think it is

Pallindromemordnillap:
Here you are saying that people wanting an easy mode are just angry and demanding. They don't have any valid points, they're just throwing a tantrum apparently

Actually I didn't say it was a tempter tantrum. I said they are asking for something because they can't have it in the first place. They are asking for a game that they can't or wont play normally to be toned down to cater to them. Not because of any real need for it to be toned down (because nobody NEEDS a video game), but because they want it but don't want the challenge. Many folks who've cried out for a Souls difficulty nerf, haven't spend more than an twenty or so minutes on the game. They ask for changes without merit.

Here you say you're not insulting anyone playing on easy...but then go on to insult people playing on easy by insisting that their hurting themselves, as if they're stunting their growth or something

That isn't insulting anyone. That's me basically saying, "You can eat McDonald's if you really want too, but you really shouldn't because it will literally kill you".

Honestly, I feel that yeah, I'm kind of unjustly unsympathetic towards the homeless at times. I don't have the funds to give money to all that ask, or the time to do much volunteer work, but I do try to give myself a mental slap round the head if ever I feel outright revulsion because who am I to judge? I know nothing about their life. And that would be what you are doing; seeing someone ask for a bit of help and without knowing anything about them instantly going "Ugh"

Asking for help is not the same as saying that the game needs to change for them. You seem to have this notion that games are supposed to appeal to everybody, but haven't you ever heard the phrase "Target Audience"? You understand the meaning of this right? Justice League isn't trying to appeal to people who really like High School Romance movies. Starcraft isn't trying to appeal to RPG fans. Dark Souls has built a reputation for appealing to player who like a challenging game. If you do not like or can not handle challenging experiences then Dark Souls is not the game for you. If you insist on playing Dark Souls, then you will have to deal with the challenges the game presents to you. Plain and simple. That is not an elitist viewpoint, it's common sense.

You know that the Amish can in fact buy power tools? Its just that when they do they have to get them specially modified to run on gas rather than electricity, since thats what their religion forbids not the actual tool itself. So yes, the Amish do in fact get people to cater to them and the people who sell them the tools clearly don't mind doing it so its kind of a poor comparison you're making there.
Also, a game made for mass public consumption is in fact under kind of an obligation to satisfy people. Thats why we get mad at ones that are glitchy or buggy. This is once again you slipping into the assumption that Dark Souls is somehow "yours" and that other people have no right to it

Again to miss the point just to spew some random trivia. This isn't a literal comparison, and you shouldn't treat it like such just so you can sound like a condescending tallywanker. The point is that the Amish don't condemn the rest of the world for using things against their religion. They merely live their own lives, and don't try to force their needs into things that don't concern them.

That translated into the actual topic here is this. A normal person doesn't say that a game needs to change because it's too hard, or it's too easy, or their isn't enough combat. That person merely goes and plays something else. That's a proper reaction. People can play whatever they want. But nobody can play ANY game HOWEVER they want, there are always rules and settings that the player must adhire too. Dark Souls doesn't have an easy mode, and doesn't need one. Don't like it? Play something else.

That is not elitism and frankly I think you are just using it to bait people at this point. Wondering how long you can bash on people before someone finally reports you for it.

CritialGaming:
I feel like there is a fundamental difference between saying to a dev, "Hey we loved your game so much, we would love for an extra challenge mode or something to keep us playing" and saying "This game is too hard that I don't wanna keep trying, make it easy for me." Because that's the difference with Dark Souls. The game requires trying, and dying over and over again. Loosing is as much part of the game as winning.

Now I get it, at the end of the day none of this matters. I mean nothing about video games matters. But just like people had to stand up against EA and their microtransaction bullshit and say that isn't right, so do I have to stand up and say that making easy-mode Souls isn't right.

I believe easy mode robs the spirit of this one game type. Just this ONE! As such I have to stand by it.

I don't believe every game needs to have an easy mode. I don't believe every game has to be beatable by everyone and games have a right to stick to their challenges, because game design has already suffered from a bit of a dumbing down of general challenge over the years. And it's that universally "easy-ness" that makes hard games like Souls such stand outs.

How is asking for a harder challenge any different than the following? "Hey, I really liked your game so much I wanna have my young son/daughter/niece/nephew/etc play as well because they love robot dinosaurs?" Same thing with disabled friends/family. Why is going towards one end of the spectrum fine but not the other?

Why do people keep putting Souls on some pedestal when it's just a dungeon crawler with average combat that has a new twist on the basic checkpoint system? It's lore/story might be the most unique element it actually has and that has nothing to do with difficulty settings. How is lowering the player's margin for error a bit like taking an extra hit to die or doing a bit more damage on each hit going to cease players from needing to "try"? Or maybe easy mode just entails starting them out with 5 more estus flasks than normal.

Rogue-likes have more arguments than Souls-like for being the ONE game type to not have an easy mode. Even then, what's the problem there either? I would've liked an easy mode back as a kid with NES/SNES games that were all basically "rogue-likes" but with a life-system because there were tons of games I could never quite finish like The Lion King, Daffy Duck, Chip n Dale Resue Rangers, and many more. A bit more margin for error would have been pretty nice. I would've loved a story mode for FFVI because "classic" JRPG combat was ass along with the amount of forced combat, I quit that game because I was sick of combat every 3 steps (which had nothing to do with being hard), I just wanted to fucking finish the adventure.

This whole thread could be distilled down to two viewpoints:

A. Those who care about a particular game's design philosophy (I accept the game for what it is and will welcome - or refuse - the experience it gives me) and

B. Those who don't (why can't the game be this or that?)

Of the two, it should be obvious which would spur a greater sense of entitlement, and any number of other detrimental qualities that go with it.

Why this has taken a baker's dozen pages of discussion to understand and acknowledge means it probably never will be, and that the flaws of human nature (or perhaps more pertinently modern social norms?) have more than adequately revealed themselves.

Phoenixmgs:

How is asking for a harder challenge any different than the following? "Hey, I really liked your game so much I wanna have my young son/daughter/niece/nephew/etc play as well because they love robot dinosaurs?" Same thing with disabled friends/family. Why is going towards one end of the spectrum fine but not the other?

Why do people keep putting Souls on some pedestal when it's just a dungeon crawler with average combat that has a new twist on the basic checkpoint system? It's lore/story might be the most unique element it actually has and that has nothing to do with difficulty settings. How is lowering the player's margin for error a bit like taking an extra hit to die or doing a bit more damage on each hit going to cease players from needing to "try"? Or maybe easy mode just entails starting them out with 5 more estus flasks than normal.

Rogue-likes have more arguments than Souls-like for being the ONE game type to not have an easy mode. Even then, what's the problem there either? I would've liked an easy mode back as a kid with NES/SNES games that were all basically "rogue-likes" but with a life-system because there were tons of games I could never quite finish like The Lion King, Daffy Duck, Chip n Dale Resue Rangers, and many more. A bit more margin for error would have been pretty nice. I would've loved a story mode for FFVI because "classic" JRPG combat was ass along with the amount of forced combat, I quit that game because I was sick of combat every 3 steps (which had nothing to do with being hard), I just wanted to fucking finish the adventure.

See you are trying to add every possible contingency to the difficulty spectrum. Young children (who probably should be playing a morbidly dark and violent game to begin with), people with disabilities, etc, these are all oddballs in terms of game difficulty design. The child thing is easily avoided with the game having a target audience of adults. If young kid want to try the game, then fine, but its designed around adult skill sets in mind so a child would have to get around that somehow (which is possible, kids are smarter than you think).

As for disabled folks, there are so many disabilities out there that can interfere with normal gameplay, how can you prepare for that. Would someone missing fingers have the same difficulty needs in a game that someone with Down Syndrone would have? Autism? How about Arthritis? Again the answer here is you can't. These people often experiment with gaming and fine games that fit their abilities.

Disabilities aren't even the end all be all. There is a blind guy who plays fighting games online and beats people. There is a paralyzed guy who plays WoW PvP with his tongue and his breath. I mean who's to say that any disability that would prevent people from playing any game. People can do amazing things. But the big stipulation to all of it boils down to one thing.

THEY TRY! They put in the effort to enjoy a hobby that they otherwise wouldn't be able to.

It's funny that you would let Rogue-likes remain hard, but for souls it isn't okay? Why can't a game that wants to be hard, simply be hard?

That's what this all boils down to right? Why can't the hard games be hard and the easy games be easy?

I said it before and I'll say it again. Every game CAN NOT be for every body. Period.

Pallindromemordnillap:

Kerg3927:
To the both of you, it's never too late to change your attitude for the better. And it's never too late to learn to stop being a troll. Nobody likes a troll.

Nah, I?m pretty sure ?don?t let assholes be assholes? is a pretty good attitude to have. Perhaps you consider taking your own advice sometime?

I am an extremely nice guy.

Pallindromemordnillap:
I generally consider that to be poor design.

That would be one opinion. Just like everything else you've typed in this thread, muddled with all the trolling and baiting and word-twisting and fuckery, has merely been your opinion.

I'll say it again. This pissing match has been nothing but me posting my opinion, you disagreeing with it and attacking me viciously, me trying to explain my opinion to you, and you refusing to agree to disagree and acting like a spoiled child.

Phoenixmgs:
IGN's own video makes the fight look rather standard for a Souls boss fight to me. Dodge through the enemy's attacks taking advantage of the i-frames, get in a few hits, back away, and repeat. You should die at least 3-5 times on Souls-type bosses honestly, it's disappointing when you can beat them on your 1st or 2nd try really.

The fight looks very simple. Except it's not. What makes it hard is he has a bunch of different attacks that are subtly different and easily confused, and some of the attacks are at different swing speeds and come from different directions (clockwise, counterclockwise). He also has a long attack range and hits extremely hard, to where one mistimed roll and you're dead or almost dead. And he has a lot of hp, so the fight is really long, which means more chances to make a mistake.

Summoning NPC's just increases his hp, and makes the fight much longer, and they get rekt by mid-fight and are little help. Even summoning a player can hurt more than help if it's not a player who knows the fight and can stay alive. I think he's the most difficult boss in the trilogy. A masterpiece in boss design.

hanselthecaretaker:
This whole thread could be distilled down to two viewpoints:

A. Those who care about a particular game?s design philosophy (I accept the game for what it is and will welcome - or refuse - the experience it gives me) and

B. Those who don?t (why can?t the game be this or that?)

Of the two, it should be obvious which would spur a greater sense of entitlement, and any number of other detrimental qualities that go with it.

Why this has taken a baker?s dozen pages of discussion to understand and acknowledge means it probably never will be, and that the flaws of human nature (or perhaps more pertinently modern social norms?) have more than adequately revealed themselves.

LMAO, apparently we need more pages because you don't even understand the discussion. An OPTION doesn't have much to do with design philosophy.

CritialGaming:
See you are trying to add every possible contingency to the difficulty spectrum. Young children (who probably should be playing a morbidly dark and violent game to begin with), people with disabilities, etc, these are all oddballs in terms of game difficulty design. The child thing is easily avoided with the game having a target audience of adults. If young kid want to try the game, then fine, but its designed around adult skill sets in mind so a child would have to get around that somehow (which is possible, kids are smarter than you think).

As for disabled folks, there are so many disabilities out there that can interfere with normal gameplay, how can you prepare for that. Would someone missing fingers have the same difficulty needs in a game that someone with Down Syndrone would have? Autism? How about Arthritis? Again the answer here is you can't. These people often experiment with gaming and fine games that fit their abilities.

Disabilities aren't even the end all be all. There is a blind guy who plays fighting games online and beats people. There is a paralyzed guy who plays WoW PvP with his tongue and his breath. I mean who's to say that any disability that would prevent people from playing any game. People can do amazing things. But the big stipulation to all of it boils down to one thing.

THEY TRY! They put in the effort to enjoy a hobby that they otherwise wouldn't be able to.

It's funny that you would let Rogue-likes remain hard, but for souls it isn't okay? Why can't a game that wants to be hard, simply be hard?

That's what this all boils down to right? Why can't the hard games be hard and the easy games be easy?

I said it before and I'll say it again. Every game CAN NOT be for every body. Period.

The young children had to do with Horizon and not a Souls game. Asking for an easier mode or a harder mode is literally the same thing yet you found it fine for a dev to add a harder mode but not an easier mode for some reason. Your whole "let a game be a game" argument means no added hard mode either.

Since how is allowing a player to a take an extra in hit in a Souls game mean they don't need to TRY anymore?

Did you not read my post? I said rogue-likes have a better argument but even then having an easier mode isn't going to break them either.

No one is saying every game should be for everyone but everyone interested in a game (meaning it is for them) should be able to play the game. And it's not like that will ever probably be able to be perfectly accomplished, but don't you think we should at least TRY?

Kerg3927:
The fight looks very simple. Except it's not. What makes it hard is he has a bunch of different attacks that are subtly different and easily confused, and some of the attacks are at different swing speeds and come from different directions (clockwise, counterclockwise). He also has a long attack range and hits extremely hard, to where one mistimed roll and you're dead or almost dead. And he has a lot of hp, so the fight is really long, which means more chances to make a mistake.

Summoning NPC's just increases his hp, and makes the fight much longer, and they get rekt by mid-fight and are little help. Even summoning a player can hurt more than help if it's not a player who knows the fight and can stay alive. I think he's the most difficult boss in the trilogy. A masterpiece in boss design.

I saw the fight, I know seeing and doing are 2 different things but the fight is your standard Souls boss fight, sure he probably has a few extra moves than normal and hits harder, but it's nothing too hard. The IGN guy didn't even look like a good Souls player and he powered through pretty easy after the 1st form. I don't really get the point of you even saying this boss is super hard and such, what's the point? Dark Souls are still far from the hardest games and even boss fights. Cuphead's bosses look far harder than that Fume Knight fight that I'm sure still has some cheap ways to win if all you care about is winning.

Pallindromemordnillap:

Nope, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. Azure23, Ironclash, Silvanus, they've all had points I disagreed with but I had no real comment on them because they didn't also feel the need to use those points as a springboard to insult swathes of people. Its not an opposing viewpoint I object to, its people being assholes about it. And if they continue to be assholes about it, I'm going to continue calling them out. Like your attempts at undermining arguments by deliberately misinterpreting metaphors. If you don't like being called out on it, maybe don't do it in the first place.

hanselthecaretaker:
Have you ever heard the saying an argument lacking logic makes up for it in volume? Well, give yourself a pat on the back in this regard, because you've clearly been proving the notion page after page. I must admit I'm a bit envious though, as I'd love to have as much time as you seem to for verbal volleyball on the interwebs. Carry on if you'd like, but we?re simply best off agreeing to disagree here, since it's become incredibly clear we'd both be foolish not to.

I'm responding to three people, of course my reply is going to be long. "Too Long, Didn't Read" isn't quite the witty counterpoint you seem to think it is

Your posts, at least in this thread, are typically gargantuan in content regardless of how many people you're responding to. Anyways, I haven't insulted anyone who is being reasonable; ie not resorting to outlandish finger burning toaster "metaphors" attempting to prove a point about video game difficulty levels. My personal opinion is you've been grasping at straws since the first page, but I'm sure you'll beg to differ. That's what makes it fun!

Phoenixmgs:

hanselthecaretaker:
This whole thread could be distilled down to two viewpoints:

A. Those who care about a particular game?s design philosophy (I accept the game for what it is and will welcome - or refuse - the experience it gives me) and

B. Those who don?t (why can?t the game be this or that?)

Of the two, it should be obvious which would spur a greater sense of entitlement, and any number of other detrimental qualities that go with it.

Why this has taken a baker?s dozen pages of discussion to understand and acknowledge means it probably never will be, and that the flaws of human nature (or perhaps more pertinently modern social norms?) have more than adequately revealed themselves.

LMAO, apparently we need more pages because you don't even understand the discussion. An OPTION doesn't have much to do with design philosophy.

.

Dark Souls clearly has a unique design philosophy to most games in choosing to forego blatant difficulty options in favor of letting players figure things out for themselves. You and others have been essentially asking what's the big deal? if that changes. Therefore, design philosophy is certainly paramount to the topic at hand.

Kerg3927:

Phoenixmgs:
IGN's own video makes the fight look rather standard for a Souls boss fight to me. Dodge through the enemy's attacks taking advantage of the i-frames, get in a few hits, back away, and repeat. You should die at least 3-5 times on Souls-type bosses honestly, it's disappointing when you can beat them on your 1st or 2nd try really.

The fight looks very simple. Except it's not. What makes it hard is he has a bunch of different attacks that are subtly different and easily confused, and some of the attacks are at different swing speeds and come from different directions (clockwise, counterclockwise). He also has a long attack range and hits extremely hard, to where one mistimed roll and you're dead or almost dead. And he has a lot of hp, so the fight is really long, which means more chances to make a mistake.

Summoning NPC's just increases his hp, and makes the fight much longer, and they get rekt by mid-fight and are little help. Even summoning a player can hurt more than help if it's not a player who knows the fight and can stay alive. I think he's the most difficult boss in the trilogy. A masterpiece in boss design.

Thanks, this really gives me a slight feeling of relief for DS3.

I wish the threads I made got this much discussion. I have to pretty much beg people to comment in them.

Drathnoxis:
I wish the threads I made got this much discussion. I have to pretty much beg people to comment in them.

Same. Well, I'm not sure how much of this is constructive discussion and how much is people talking in circles and PhoenixMGS bragging about how easy Dark Souls is and saying PG has so much more to offer, telling the kids their awesome new bikes suck, as Kerg's analogy put it. Where is the discussion now? I stopped following many pages back, since it was mostly the same few people's gigantic posts.

Ezekiel:
Where is the discussion now? I stopped following many pages back, since it was mostly the same few people's gigantic posts.

No idea, I stopped reading a couple of weeks ago too. I was just surprised it was still going and people were still arguing about this. I don't know how people can type so much. When I type up a 1000 word post it takes me around an hour.

CritialGaming:
Actually I didn't say it was a tempter tantrum. I said they are asking for something because they can't have it in the first place. They are asking for a game that they can't or wont play normally to be toned down to cater to them. Not because of any real need for it to be toned down (because nobody NEEDS a video game), but because they want it but don't want the challenge. Many folks who've cried out for a Souls difficulty nerf, haven't spend more than an twenty or so minutes on the game. They ask for changes without merit.

And you know this how? Your knowledge that people asking for an easy mode just haven't spent time on the game comes from what evidence exactly?

CritialGaming:
That isn't insulting anyone. That's me basically saying, "You can eat McDonald's if you really want too, but you really shouldn't because it will literally kill you".

Then it is a poor comparison, because playing on easy mode will not damage anyone's health in any way. This is just you being patronising.

CritialGaming:
Asking for help is not the same as saying that the game needs to change for them. You seem to have this notion that games are supposed to appeal to everybody, but haven't you ever heard the phrase "Target Audience"? You understand the meaning of this right? Justice League isn't trying to appeal to people who really like High School Romance movies. Starcraft isn't trying to appeal to RPG fans. Dark Souls has built a reputation for appealing to player who like a challenging game. If you do not like or can not handle challenging experiences then Dark Souls is not the game for you. If you insist on playing Dark Souls, then you will have to deal with the challenges the game presents to you. Plain and simple. That is not an elitist viewpoint, it's common sense.

If someone wants to play Dark Souls then they are part of the target audience. It has appealed to them and they want to play it. So why is it so bad that the challenges be scaled down a little bit if they're having trouble with it as it stands? Its still going to be challenging for them, they're now going to learn from the experience better than when the game was too tricky, Dark Souls gets to keep a fan...everybody wins.

CritialGaming:
Again to miss the point just to spew some random trivia. This isn't a literal comparison, and you shouldn't treat it like such just so you can sound like a condescending tallywanker. The point is that the Amish don't condemn the rest of the world for using things against their religion. They merely live their own lives, and don't try to force their needs into things that don't concern them.

It wasn't random trivia, it was highlighting the point that no-one really exists in their own little bubble. You can't separate a whole chunk of people, be it the people who want easy or hard, and say that they can go do their thing totally without interference

CritialGaming:
That translated into the actual topic here is this. A normal person doesn't say that a game needs to change because it's too hard, or it's too easy, or their isn't enough combat. That person merely goes and plays something else. That's a proper reaction. People can play whatever they want. But nobody can play ANY game HOWEVER they want, there are always rules and settings that the player must adhire too. Dark Souls doesn't have an easy mode, and doesn't need one. Don't like it? Play something else.

Gonna point out that you're calling people who want an easy mode abnormal here. Remember when you were saying you weren't insulting anyone? And we're not talking about someone playing Dark Souls however they want. They're not insisting that they be allowed to play as Kratos, or get Cappy to come possess enemies for them. This is just hyperbole on your part. They just want the game to be a bit easier

CritialGaming:
That is not elitism and frankly I think you are just using it to bait people at this point. Wondering how long you can bash on people before someone finally reports you for it.

I refer you to where you just called people abnormal. To where you said playing on easy was unhealthy. You are absolutely being elitist.

Kerg3927:
I'll say it again. This pissing match has been nothing but me posting my opinion, you disagreeing with it and attacking me viciously, me trying to explain my opinion to you, and you refusing to agree to disagree and acting like a spoiled child.

Its been you posting an opinion based on some shoddy logic and using that opinion to attack others, and me calling you on it. If you had really only been stating your opinion then this would never have started

hanselthecaretaker:
Your posts, at least in this thread, are typically gargantuan in content regardless of how many people you're responding to. Anyways, I haven't insulted anyone who is being reasonable; ie not resorting to outlandish finger burning toaster "metaphors" attempting to prove a point about video game difficulty levels. My personal opinion is you've been grasping at straws since the first page, but I'm sure you?ll beg to differ. That's what makes it fun!

Okay, my posts are long...and? If longness meant wrongness then I wouldn't have had to write thousands of words for every essay I've ever done, I could have just typed up three sentences and be done.
And my personal opinion is that maybe the guy who can apparently only refute arguments by pretending he doesn't know what metaphors are or by by calling the other posts long shouldn't be accusing others of grasping at straws

Phoenixmgs:

Where is your proof? The Wiki literally says the dodge has i-frames. It either does or it doesn't. I played the game, I know the dodge has i-frames. I showed a video of a player dodging "through" the Cleric Beast's attack, you can't do that without i-frames. The entire dodge animation isn't completely full of i-frames but you can time the dodge properly to literally go through any attack in the game.

The dodge does have i-frames; I've actually already said that. What I said is that you're not invulnerable for the duration of the dodge-- i-frames are active for a relatively low portion of the dodge, and you can very easily be hit mid-dodge. It'll happen a lot on a regular playthrough.

Because of that, direction is essential when dodging. If you relied on i-frames alone you wouldn't get very far.

As for proof, pretty much any gameplay video or stream will show people getting hit during their dodges.

hanselthecaretaker:

Kerg3927:

Phoenixmgs:
IGN's own video makes the fight look rather standard for a Souls boss fight to me. Dodge through the enemy's attacks taking advantage of the i-frames, get in a few hits, back away, and repeat. You should die at least 3-5 times on Souls-type bosses honestly, it's disappointing when you can beat them on your 1st or 2nd try really.

The fight looks very simple. Except it's not. What makes it hard is he has a bunch of different attacks that are subtly different and easily confused, and some of the attacks are at different swing speeds and come from different directions (clockwise, counterclockwise). He also has a long attack range and hits extremely hard, to where one mistimed roll and you're dead or almost dead. And he has a lot of hp, so the fight is really long, which means more chances to make a mistake.

Summoning NPC's just increases his hp, and makes the fight much longer, and they get rekt by mid-fight and are little help. Even summoning a player can hurt more than help if it's not a player who knows the fight and can stay alive. I think he's the most difficult boss in the trilogy. A masterpiece in boss design.

Thanks, this really gives me a slight feeling of relief for DS3.

There are a few bosses in DS3 that are of comparable difficulty. Don't feel TOO relieved. :)

Pallindromemordnillap:

If someone wants to play Dark Souls then they are part of the target audience. It has appealed to them and they want to play it. So why is it so bad that the challenges be scaled down a little bit if they're having trouble with it as it stands? Its still going to be challenging for them, they're now going to learn from the experience better than when the game was too tricky, Dark Souls gets to keep a fan...everybody wins.

Appealing to someone doesn't automatically make them the target audience. I like Medieval Fantasy settings, yet I hate Lord of the Rings. Or to put it in a more general context. People have preferences inside of their interests. Cuphead is a game that appeals to kids but it's difficulty would probably limit it's playability by children. People might like sci-fi but want Star Trek over Star Wars.

This same thing applies to Dark Souls. Sure the setting and the look of the game might appeal to someone who like those things, but the gameplay might not. And that's okay. Maybe this person loves dark fantasy but would rather play a game like Divinity, or Warhammer, or something along those lines.

Have you ever gone to a movie that you thought you would like because of the previews? Or because of the source material? Then you see the movie and the whole time you're thinking it sucks? Do you go back out to the concession stand and tell them the movie needs to be changed? Obviously you don't. You mind critique the film with friends afterwards, but that's the extent of it.

If you are going to say, "Man I would like Dark Souls better if it had an easy mode." Then fine, that's a critique and that's okay. But to say that it NEEDS and easy mode or SHOULD have an easy mode, then you are no longer voicing an opinion but instead making a demand, and that's not the same thing.

Pallindromemordnillap:

Kerg3927:
I'll say it again. This pissing match has been nothing but me posting my opinion, you disagreeing with it and attacking me viciously, me trying to explain my opinion to you, and you refusing to agree to disagree and acting like a spoiled child.

Its been you posting an opinion based on some shoddy logic and using that opinion to attack others, and me calling you on it. If you had really only been stating your opinion then this would never have started

It is your opinion that my logic is shoddy, and your opinion that I even need objective logic to form a subjective opinion about a video game's design. It is also your opinion that calling someone weak and lazy is an attack, rather than simply well-intended motivational speech.

You are a child in an adult's world, where everyone doesn't always get what they want handed to them. Hopefully one day you will grow up and learn this lesson, develop some tougher skin, and quit looking for a reason to be offended.

hanselthecaretaker:
Dark Souls clearly has a unique design philosophy to most games in choosing to forego blatant difficulty options in favor of letting players figure things out for themselves. You and others have been essentially asking what?s the big deal? if that changes. Therefore, design philosophy is certainly paramount to the topic at hand.

What's the big deal if there's a mode that buffs player health a bit and say starts the player with more estus than normal. It's not going to break the game and ruin its design nor will it even have an effect on you.

Silvanus:
The dodge does have i-frames; I've actually already said that. What I said is that you're not invulnerable for the duration of the dodge-- i-frames are active for a relatively low portion of the dodge, and you can very easily be hit mid-dodge. It'll happen a lot on a regular playthrough.

Because of that, direction is essential when dodging. If you relied on i-frames alone you wouldn't get very far.

As for proof, pretty much any gameplay video or stream will show people getting hit during their dodges.

You have approximately a 1/3 of a second of i-frames on the dodge, it's not that hard to time your dodge to take advantage of the i-frames. That's basically what you do in every other action game, you dodge and avoid damage because of i-frames whether we are talking Souls, Bayonetta, Horizon Zero Dawn, etc. This Fume Knight IGN guide shows the commentator repeatedly going through attacks and taking advantage of the i-frames (especially in the boss' 2nd form), and he's not even that great of a player.

Phoenixmgs:

hanselthecaretaker:
Dark Souls clearly has a unique design philosophy to most games in choosing to forego blatant difficulty options in favor of letting players figure things out for themselves. You and others have been essentially asking what?s the big deal? if that changes. Therefore, design philosophy is certainly paramount to the topic at hand.

What's the big deal if there's a mode that buffs player health a bit and say starts the player with more estus than normal. It's not going to break the game and ruin its design nor will it even have an effect on you.

Haha, just like I said. One significant thing about Souls is everyone starts out the same way, less the starting class which is trivial. Why can't people just accept that? There are so few games like it as it is, and here you and a few others are wondering why they can't be like nearly all the others. Some people like and appreciate different.

CritialGaming:
Appealing to someone doesn't automatically make them the target audience. I like Medieval Fantasy settings, yet I hate Lord of the Rings. Or to put it in a more general context. People have preferences inside of their interests. Cuphead is a game that appeals to kids but it's difficulty would probably limit it's playability by children. People might like sci-fi but want Star Trek over Star Wars.

This same thing applies to Dark Souls. Sure the setting and the look of the game might appeal to someone who like those things, but the gameplay might not. And that's okay. Maybe this person loves dark fantasy but would rather play a game like Divinity, or Warhammer, or something along those lines.

Have you ever gone to a movie that you thought you would like because of the previews? Or because of the source material? Then you see the movie and the whole time you're thinking it sucks? Do you go back out to the concession stand and tell them the movie needs to be changed? Obviously you don't. You mind critique the film with friends afterwards, but that's the extent of it.

If you are going to say, "Man I would like Dark Souls better if it had an easy mode." Then fine, that's a critique and that's okay. But to say that it NEEDS and easy mode or SHOULD have an easy mode, then you are no longer voicing an opinion but instead making a demand, and that's not the same thing.

So whats the difference between critiquing something with a friend, saying a film should have been like this or needed to have done something other than what it did, and looking at Dark Souls and saying actually it should be doing this or needs to be like this? Why is one way an opinion and the other an entitled demand? Why are you applying rules differently purely because one of the examples is Dark Souls?

Kerg3927:

Pallindromemordnillap:

Kerg3927:
I'll say it again. This pissing match has been nothing but me posting my opinion, you disagreeing with it and attacking me viciously, me trying to explain my opinion to you, and you refusing to agree to disagree and acting like a spoiled child.

Its been you posting an opinion based on some shoddy logic and using that opinion to attack others, and me calling you on it. If you had really only been stating your opinion then this would never have started

It is your opinion that my logic is shoddy, and your opinion that I even need objective logic to form a subjective opinion about a video game's design. It is also your opinion that calling someone weak and lazy is an attack, rather than simply well-intended motivational speech.

You are a child in an adult's world, where everyone doesn't always get what they want handed to them. Hopefully one day you will grow up and learn this lesson, develop some tougher skin, and quit looking for a reason to be offended.

Its not an opinion that your logic is shoddy, its not subjective, its just fact. This post for example; me calling you out on your behaviour is a vicious attack. You calling other people out is apparently just motivational speaking. Sorry, but they can't both be true. If me insulting you is an attack then so is you insulting others. If you are just motivating people to be better using harsh language then so am I. You want it one way when it favours you but another if you think it counts against me, and thats just hypocrisy and poor logic. And lets face it, isn't the idea that the rules should be twisted to favour you like that exactly the kind if thing you're complaining about others trying to do? So you're a hypocrite twice over and continuing to prove that the only one who's really feeling entitled round here is you

I'd love to see what the Dark Souls fans would say if the difficult combat was replaced by difficult Myst style puzzles. I'm guessing something along the lines of "why is this so hard, there should be an easy mode"

Pallindromemordnillap:
Its not an opinion that your logic is shoddy, its not subjective, its just fact. This post for example; me calling you out on your behaviour is a vicious attack. You calling other people out is apparently just motivational speaking. Sorry, but they can't both be true. If me insulting you is an attack then so is you insulting others. If you are just motivating people to be better using harsh language then so am I.

But I'm already better than you. Because unlike you, I am grown up enough to agree to disagree on a topic when it's clear that it's a matter of differing opinions. You, on the other hand, still can't admit that my opinion that games designed like Dark Souls are good and have a right to exist is a valid opinion. You insist that the Dark Souls game design is factually bad and anyone who likes it is factually an elitist asshole. And that attitude is so goddamn stupid that I don't even know where to begin, in my opinion, of course.

Pallindromemordnillap:
You want it one way when it favours you but another if you think it counts against me, and thats just hypocrisy and poor logic. And lets face it, isn't the idea that the rules should be twisted to favour you like that exactly the kind if thing you're complaining about others trying to do? So you're a hypocrite twice over and continuing to prove that the only one who's really feeling entitled round here is you

The difference is that, in my opinion, goading people into trying harder by appealing to their self-pride is not an insult in the same sense that calling someone an asshole is an insult. The former comes with good intentions. The latter is only intended to injure. You obviously disagree, as we do on pretty much everything in existence.

This is you. You think this is me. If we were having this argument in the Star Wars universe, we'd probably have to settle it with a light saber. And I would probably kick your ass, in my opinion, of course.

image

hanselthecaretaker:
Haha, just like I said. One significant thing about Souls is everyone starts out the same way, less the starting class which is trivial. Why can?t people just accept that? There are so few games like it as it is, and here you and a few others are wondering why they can?t be like nearly all the others. Some people like and appreciate different.

I'm always for options because you have the option to not use whatever option you don't like. There's a Boss Rush Mod for DS3, and I realize it's not an official mode/option but it can't do anything but improve the game (as some people obviously want that). It goes completely against the game's design yet gives lots of people who like the game more enjoyment so how is that a bad thing? This whole debate stems from the following Jimquisition where hardcore gamers were getting mad over games getting "baby" modes like that somehow ruined a single game. There's very few, if any, people demanding that every game have an easy mode; sure there's people saying an easy mode in every game would be a good thing (which I agree as I'm pro options regardless of what the options are) but that's far from insisting or demanding that games all have easy modes. There's more DEMANDING and CRYING from the hardcore community that games don't get said options because they don't like said options than the other way around. And that's just being an asshole IMO.

Kerg3927:
But I'm already better than you. Because unlike you, I am grown up enough to agree to disagree on a topic when it's clear that it's a matter of differing opinions. You, on the other hand, still can't admit that my opinion that games designed like Dark Souls are good and have a right to exist is a valid opinion. You insist that the Dark Souls game design is factually bad and anyone who likes it is factually an elitist asshole. And that attitude is so goddamn stupid that I don't even know where to begin, in my opinion, of course.

Wrong on several counts.
A.) You are the one who keeps commenting on every perceived victory as "Hah, look, see, you made a concession here!" so you're hardly grown up and hardly agreeing to disagree. Its just you realising you can't be right but not wanting to admit you're wrong.
B.) I've never said that the design of Dark Souls is bad, I'm saying "hey why not an easy mode as well?" You still can't seem to wrap your head around the idea that this is a simple addition with no subtraction, can you?
C.) Nor have I ever insulted the Dark Souls fanbase as a whole. As I've clarified at least twice now, its why I never responded to Azure23 or to Ironclash (as the two examples off the top of my head) because they like the game without feeling the need to denigrate other people. My problem isn't the fanbase as a whole, my problem is you. I'm calling you an asshole. For a guy who was so zealously insisting I was twisting your words you seem awfully keen to have a go at it yourself.

Kerg3927:
The difference is that, in my opinion, goading people into trying harder by appealing to their self-pride is not an insult in the same sense that calling someone an asshole is an insult. The former comes with good intentions. The latter is only intended to injure. You obviously disagree, as we do on pretty much everything in existence.

Except you know nothing about the people you are goading. You can't know their limits, you can't know their strengths. And without that context anything you do is rendered into simply an insult. You aren't doing it to make them feel better, its all for you, so you can feel better, so you can feel like the teacher. I told you before this was a terrible coaching style Kerg, do try to listen.

Kerg3927:
This is you. You think this is me. If we were having this argument in the Star Wars universe, we'd probably have to settle it with a light saber. And I would probably kick your ass, in my opinion, of course.

Hahahaha! Are you really trying to make "I could totally beat you up!" a legitimate argument? What next, going to insist that your dad could totally beat up my dad? This is bullshit I'd expect to see on a playground, Kerg, the impotent frustration of a child looking to revalidate their ego anyway they can. Remember how you were insisting you were the more grown up? Yeah, think we can safely put that claim in the trash

Pallindromemordnillap:
You still can't seem to wrap your head around the idea that this is a simple addition with no subtraction, can you?

I've wrapped my head around it, and I disagree. You refuse to allow me to disagree.

Except you know nothing about the people you are goading. You can't know their limits, you can't know their strengths. And without that context anything you do is rendered into simply an insult. You aren't doing it to make them feel better, its all for you, so you can feel better, so you can feel like the teacher. I told you before this was a terrible coaching style Kerg, do try to listen.

Rendered by YOU as an insult. Not everyone is as thin-skinned as you are. You are accusing me of making assumptions, but you are doing the same thing. You have your view of the world. I have mine. The two views are obviously radically different. A point I was trying to make with the Anakin gif. I think it's possible for the two views to coexist. You obviously don't. Because you refuse to allow me to disagree with you, on anything.

Hahahaha! Are you really trying to make "I could totally beat you up!" a legitimate argument? What next, going to insist that your dad could totally beat up my dad? This is bullshit I'd expect to see on a playground, Kerg, the impotent frustration of a child looking to revalidate their ego anyway they can. Remember how you were insisting you were the more grown up? Yeah, think we can safely put that claim in the trash

A joke that obviously went right over your head. I shouldn't be surprised.

Difficulty is an artistic choice. Playing a game on on the wrong difficulty usually leads to a worse experience. (depending on how much thought went into each setting)

There are many reasons artistic choices are changed (practicality, profit and time being the most common.) These can lead to a better or worse experience depending, but they always change the intended experience, how important that intended experience is to people, is what I think the real crux of this argument is.

I prefer to play on the on the intended difficulty when known, but that's because I'm an artist myself and prefer to see the artists purest work. To other people this isn't as important, they may just want to kill some time, have fun with some friends, or experience where the story ends up going.

Phoenixmgs:

hanselthecaretaker:
Haha, just like I said. One significant thing about Souls is everyone starts out the same way, less the starting class which is trivial. Why can?t people just accept that? There are so few games like it as it is, and here you and a few others are wondering why they can?t be like nearly all the others. Some people like and appreciate different.

I'm always for options because you have the option to not use whatever option you don't like. There's a Boss Rush Mod for DS3, and I realize it's not an official mode/option but it can't do anything but improve the game (as some people obviously want that). It goes completely against the game's design yet gives lots of people who like the game more enjoyment so how is that a bad thing? This whole debate stems from the following Jimquisition where hardcore gamers were getting mad over games getting "baby" modes like that somehow ruined a single game. There's very few, if any, people demanding that every game have an easy mode; sure there's people saying an easy mode in every game would be a good thing (which I agree as I'm pro options regardless of what the options are) but that's far from insisting or demanding that games all have easy modes. There's more DEMANDING and CRYING from the hardcore community that games don't get said options because they don't like said options than the other way around. And that's just being an asshole IMO.

This thread wouldn't be nearly as long if people could just let sleeping dogs lie; ie let a game like Dark Souls exist the way it is. Even merely suggesting differently may as well be demanding after thirteen pages of arguing against it. The problem is some people simply don't know when or how to drop it, and accept something the way it is. Even if they don't agree with it.

That last part is important, lest one be considered an elitist asshole themselves.

Pallindromemordnillap:
You still can't seem to wrap your head around the idea that this is a simple addition with no subtraction, can you?

I'll try once again to explain my opinion to you, even though I shouldn't have to explain it in order to have a right to it.

I assume you are familiar with the term "integrity." Here is the definition...

integrity : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values

There's also a sports term called "integrity of the game." If something conflicts with the values of a sport, it is said to "violate the integrity of the game."

In my opinion, and this is open to interpretation, one of the core values of Dark Souls is one challenge for all, git gud through repetition and overcome the obstacles as presented. In other words, it's what the game is all about.

In my opinion, adding an easy mode to Dark Souls would violate the integrity of the game, because it would drastically alter the artistic values of the game. And that in turn would "subtract" from the game.

Anyone is free to disagree with that opinion. But it is my opinion, and it is certainly valid. Just because you don't like my opinion or think it's elitist doesn't give you the right to dismiss it.

Kerg3927:

Anyone is free to disagree with that opinion. But it is my opinion, and it is certainly valid. Just because you don't like my opinion or think it's elitist doesn't give you the right to dismiss it.

...sure we can, mate.

I mean, you're certainly allowed your opinion, and as much as I find your opinion silly, I can't stop you from having it.

But just like Tee-ball doesn't destroy the integrity of baseball, and someone using as many mulligans as they like doesn't destroy the integrity of golf, I'm also free to dismiss your opinion for any reason I like. They may not be playing the "same" game as you, but it's a singe player/league experience. Slow pitch softball doesn't destroy the integrity of the MLB.

Kerg3927:
I've wrapped my head around it, and I disagree. You refuse to allow me to disagree.

Said it yourself, I refuse to allow you to disagree. Because despite your insistences you don't actually provide logical reasons for your opinion. They all boil down to "I do not want these people playing my video game" which is just pure selfish entitlement on your part

Kerg3927:
Rendered by YOU as an insult. Not everyone is as thin-skinned as you are. You are accusing me of making assumptions, but you are doing the same thing. You have your view of the world. I have mine. The two views are obviously radically different. A point I was trying to make with the Anakin gif. I think it's possible for the two views to coexist. You obviously don't. Because you refuse to allow me to disagree with you, on anything.

I do in fact allow two views to exist, if those views are presented reasonably. Yours are not. You call people weak and entitled, you say using easy mode is an infection and dumbing down...You keep trying to use "Just an opinion!" as a shield for your shitty behaviour but opinions can still be wrong and opinions can still be called out. You should know, because you're doing it to me. Funny how you think it should only work in your favour like that, but its not like thats out of character for you

Kerg3927:
A joke that obviously went right over your head. I shouldn't be surprised.

You've been making comments about how you think you're better throughout this topic. I'm afraid you really can't play the "just a joke" card when its really obvious you do in fact mean it seriously. Try growing up a bit Kerg, it'll do you wonders.

hanselthecaretaker:

This thread wouldn?t be nearly as long if people could just let sleeping dogs lie; ie let a game like Dark Souls exist the way it is. Even merely suggesting differently may as well be demanding after thirteen pages of arguing against it. The problem is some people simply don?t know when or how to drop it, and accept something the way it is. Even if they don?t agree with it.

That last part is important, lest one be considered an elitist asshole themselves.

Yeah but here's the thing hansel...it would keep existing the way it is. The hard mode doesn't go anywhere just because the easy mode exists. For a guy who has taken to complaining about how long this topic has been going on for you seem really unwilling to actually learn from the stuff thats being said, ever considered that might be part of the problem?

Kerg3927:

I'll try once again to explain my opinion to you, even though I shouldn't have to explain it in order to have a right to it.

Saying "just an opinion" is not a set of magic words that means people have to leave you alone. Racism would be an opinion, yet we still call it out when we see it. You can have an opinion but there is no "right" to not have that opinion be questioned. Trying to insist that it is is the poor argument of someone who suspects they're wrong but can't admit it

Kerg3927:
I assume you are familiar with the term "integrity." Here is the definition...

integrity : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values

There's also a sports term called "integrity of the game." If something conflicts with the values of a sport, it is said to "violate the integrity of the game."

In my opinion, and this is open to interpretation, one of the core values of Dark Souls is one challenge for all, git gud through repetition and overcome the obstacles as presented. In other words, it's what the game is all about.

In my opinion, adding an easy mode to Dark Souls would violate the integrity of the game, because it would drastically alter the artistic values of the game. And that in turn would "subtract" from the game.

Anyone is free to disagree with that opinion. But it is my opinion, and it is certainly valid. Just because you don't like my opinion or think it's elitist doesn't give you the right to dismiss it.

And once again proving that you can't actually conceive of any experience outside your own. An easy mode would remove the challenge...for you. Not for someone who needs an easy mode. They still face challenges, they still face obstacles, they still need to learn, the integrity of the game remains. Its like how there are still people who are starving in the world despite the fact that you aren't hungry right now. Funnily enough the way you perceive things is not the be all and end all of every experience

"Integrity". Jesus Christ.

It's fucking video games.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 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