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
 

Pallindromemordnillap:
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

Something I've never said or thought. It has always been your invention. Again, I strongly encourage anyone to play Dark Souls. The more the better.

Pallindromemordnillap:
I do in fact allow two views to exist, if those views are presented reasonably. Yours are not. ... 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

Artwork and the passion for it is not something that can be explained by pure logic and mathematics. You can't prove it on a chalk board. It's a right-brained thing. Doctor Spock wouldn't get it.

You don't understand that, to someone who is passionate about Dark Souls, it is an extremely rare and priceless work of art. Among the thousands of other games out there, it stands out as unique. There's nothing else quite like it. A groundbreaking, genre-defining, revolutionary game. You obviously have zero appreciation for any of that, and just see it as no different than any other game.

Saying that it should change its artistic theme, of which the difficulty is a core aspect, is to me like someone walking into the Louvre and saying that rabbit ears should be painted on the Mona Lisa. Don't worry! You can keep the original intact! Just make a copy and hang the rabbit ear version right next to the original. That way both the original fans and the rabbit ear people can get what they want. Everyone wins! I mean, it only adds, but does not subtract, right?

And then when passionate fans of the Mona Lisa say not just no but hell no, altering the Mona Lisa in that way would be disrespectful and insulting to a classic artwork, you respond by saying fuck you, assholes!

You do not understand the passion because you do not give a shit about the game. You have no respect for it and don't think it deserves respect. But that doesn't make you logically correct. It just means that you don't understand.

Pallindromemordnillap:

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.

Ha, you're right. You got me. I was being totally serious. Are you ready to have that light saber duel now? Hold on, it just dawned on me... I don't own a light saber. How embarrassing. Do you have an extra one that I can borrow? I'll give it back when we're done.

Pallindromemordnillap:
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.

And so in your mind, my alleged "elitism" is very similar to racism, and is something that needs to be eradicated. And a step toward accomplishing that noble task would be to destroy the one-difficulty-for-all aspect of Dark Souls. Get over yourself. You are not the white knight in shining armor that you see yourself as, and Dark Souls is not some evil presence that you need to stamp out. You're just some random venom-spewing guy on the internet harassing good people who happen to love Dark Souls and simply don't want to see it changed.

Pallindromemordnillap:
Trying to insist that it is is the poor argument...

In my experience, when two people obviously are never going to agree, because there is too much subjectivity and passion involved, the civil thing to do is to agree to disagree. I've offered to do that. You have refused, obviously because you see yourself as the white knight, and a white knight can offer no quarter to the evil it encounters. He must pursue it and harass it until it is utterly stamped out for good.

What a joke.

Pallindromemordnillap:
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

First racism, and now you compare the people who want an easy mode in Dark Souls to starving people. Ha.

Again, it is your opinion that the integrity of the game would remain, because you don't understand or give a shit about the game or its artistic themes. You accuse me of a lack of empathy while at the same time showing a huge lack of empathy for the many passionate Dark Souls fans who don't want to see the game changed.

I understand that those people want an easy mode and I understand why, but having weighed the potential outcomes, I think it's more important to preserve the game as is. Those "starving people" can go play other games. Tons of easy ones out there for them. Dark Souls fans only have one Dark Souls, and very few games like it.

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.

That's literally the whole point is let games be what they are. The hardcore gamers are whining and crying games are getting "baby" modes whether it's Star Fox, Mario, Prince of Persia (2008), or a possible Souls easy mode (due to a misinterpreted article). If FromSoft decides to patch all the Souls games with an easy mode, that's their decision so let the games be what the dev wants the games to be. If FromSoft decides their next game will have an easy mode, then let the game be what it is. If FromSoft sticks to a single difficulty, then so be it. If FromSoft did say patch all the Souls game with an easy mode tomorrow, would you drop it or would you bitch? If you would bitch about it, then you're an elitist asshole.

I don't even like the Souls games so I don't give a shit about any changes to them anyway besides for them to actually "git gud" at being games. Nor would I care if my favorite game ever got additional options added to it because there would be nothing changed to the experience I find to be the best. Hell, my favorite 2 games of last-gen (Bayonetta and Vanquish) have "baby" modes, it didn't change the game one iota on my end.

It's the hardcore crowd wanting the games changed on their behalf and not the other way around.

Pallindromemordnillap:

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?

It most certainly would change, because a great number of people would likely be picking "easy mode" rather than learning the game's internal difficulty variances as they currently stand. The fact this is seemingly incomprehensible to you and a few others are why this thread has gone on so long.

Here's an analogy since you like them so much; in fact I think it was even mentioned by someone a few pages back (before it's taken down at least...copywriting etc.) -

You would probably consider that child abuse, but movie or not that one pin knocked down probably felt 10x better than a thousand knocked down using gutter rails. That's also how Souls can feel as it is.

hanselthecaretaker:
It most certainly would change, because a great number of people would likely be picking ?easy mode? rather than learning the game?s internal difficulty variances as they currently stand. The fact this is seemingly incomprehensible to you and a few others are why this thread has gone on so long.

Yeah, that's one of the reasons I made my Rockstar auto-aim thread. Far more people play soft lock than free aim, to the detriment of the community as a whole. It does happen.

hanselthecaretaker:
It most certainly would change, because a great number of people would likely be picking ?easy mode? rather than learning the game?s internal difficulty variances as they currently stand. The fact this is seemingly incomprehensible to you and a few others are why this thread has gone on so long.

How don't you get that you literally can't provide the intended difficulty/challenge to everyone because everyone is different? I thought Souls games were supposed to be hard but I found them easy as shit. The whole intended design of the game for players to overcome "challenges" wasn't there when I played the game. Also, why do your quotes always change into question marks?

Ezekiel:
Yeah, that's one of the reasons I made my Rockstar auto-aim thread. Far more people play soft lock than free aim, to the detriment of the community as a whole. It does happen.

To the detriment of how you think the game should be played. I'm pretty sure the majority of the community couldn't give a rat's ass about aiming.

Phoenixmgs:

hanselthecaretaker:
It most certainly would change, because a great number of people would likely be picking ?easy mode? rather than learning the game?s internal difficulty variances as they currently stand. The fact this is seemingly incomprehensible to you and a few others are why this thread has gone on so long.

How don't you get that you literally can't provide the intended difficulty/challenge to everyone because everyone is different? I thought Souls games were supposed to be hard but I found them easy as shit. The whole intended design of the game for players to overcome "challenges" wasn't there when I played the game. Also, why do your quotes always change into question marks?

Would having a slew of difficulty sliders really mattered regarding your distaste of Dark Souls? Would x enemy doing y greater damage or x stat being y more useful have really made you change your mind about it? Don't you ever think that maybe certain games aren't for everyone because everyone is different as well? You obviously like your stylish, over the top action games more than something more grounded and methodical like Souls, so the latter obviously isn't for you.

As for the ?'s that's something I asked about a month or so ago as well. Every apostrophe from a replied to or edited text block automatically gets changed to them. It mostly happens using a phone but it never used to happen at all. Never heard from a mod as to why this might be.

hanselthecaretaker:
Would having a slew of difficulty sliders really mattered regarding your distaste of Dark Souls? Would x enemy doing y greater damage or x stat being y more useful have really made you change your mind about it? Don?t you ever think that maybe certain games aren?t for everyone because everyone is different as well? You obviously like your stylish, over the top action games more than something more grounded and methodical like Souls, so the latter obviously isn?t for you.

I would've liked being able to put the game on easy for the trash mobs and then put it on hard for the boss battles, that would've improved my enjoyment of the game. Would it have fixed the game? Nope. It's not about Bayonetta being stylish that I inherently like, it's the solid mechanics that hooks you in. I was interested in the Souls games because I heard every action is important, you have to manage stamina, there's ingenious traps, etc. None of that I found to be true. When you have a dodge with i-frames (or a shield that blocks everything), positioning ceases being important. Stamina functions as nothing but a DPS-limiter vs a resource to be managed. You have to manage stamina more in Vanquish than a Souls game, and from the demo I played of Nioh, stamina management is an actual thing in Nioh as well from Ki pulsing to actually being in a really vulnerable state if you run out (vs waiting a fraction of a second to get just a bit of stamina to dodge away in a Souls game). A competitive shooter is also very methodical where every slight bit of positioning could be the difference between life and death (when playing in clan matches against legit good players). And a board game like Through the Ages is a super methodical 4+ hour game where any single decision could cost you game. Saying I don't like Souls games because I don't like methodical games isn't true.

Pallindromemordnillap:

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

Your whole point here is a slippery slop which is kind of why people are so quick to defend a game's choice to NOT have a difficulty mode, especially when it comes to a game where the intended experience is to be hard.

You are right, easy mode for some players would still be difficult or challenging? But does that mean that they need an even easier mode beyond that?

I've told you before, I often play games on easy-mode. My game time is very very limited and usually when I'm trying to play a big game, like Assassin's Creed: Origins for example, I'm just trying to experience the story more than trying to deal with annoyingly challenging combat. It's often the only way I'll get through a game in a reasonable amount of time.

I like easy modes.

However I don't feel that they need to be everywhere. And I especially don't think they need to be in a game that is designed around a serious challenge. I speak from experience as to what is taken away from a game when you play on easy. Often times easy mode does not prepare a player for the harder modes because more often than not, the skills the harder modes want from a player are never taught to the player to begin with.

The Witcher 3 has a perfect example of this. Play some of it on easy and then play some of hard. Easy mode can be beaten without using magic, without using potions, or oils, and just failing your sword around and rolling around will get you through. Easy mode does nothing to teach the player to use oils on their weapons for certain enemies, to use potions to improve damage and survivability, and mastering the use of your magic spells in order to give you the edge in combat. It's a very different game on hard and none of that is taught on Easy.

This is the same thing I believe would happen in a Souls-like game. That's assuming the player would even want to step the difficulty up in the first place.

The variance in what players need to make a game easier or harder is so wildly different that you can't possibly adapt a difficulty to suit everyone. You said it yourself, easy-souls would still be hard souls for some, which means the game wouldn't be easy enough would it? Then what has to be done, even easier modes? Outright skips? What about a life system where your health bar automatically comes back a limited number of times per boss, giving you several chances before the encounter completely resets?

No, the only fair way to make an experience like Dark Souls be fair for everybody is the way it already is made. One mode, one difficultly level, every player starts off equally. Some might fine it hard, some might not, but everyone gets the same game regardless.

It was mentioned above that added difficulty modes, often means players will select easier modes by default without even trying the other modes. Which is fine if that's what the developers design in the first place. Souls games aren't designed that way, Nioh, Serve, Lords of the Fallen, these are all games that preset a single experience to all players. They either want that kind of challenge or they don't. Either way if fine because there are lots of other games they could be playing is they are unwilling to deal with a difficult game.

What I don't get is why you can't let a game designed to be difficult, be difficult. Rogue-likes are often hard as fuck, where's the difficulty slider in those games? Would the challenge of a Rogue-like be ruined by added difficulty modes?

CritialGaming:
What I don't get is why you can't let a game designed to be difficult, be difficult.

Because he is intolerant of people with a differing opinion. It's called bigotry.

Kerg3927:
Something I've never said or thought. It has always been your invention. Again, I strongly encourage anyone to play Dark Souls. The more the better.

But only if the play it your way. God forbid they want an easier mode because then they're whiny babies. Not exactly encouraging people there, are you?

Kerg3927:
Artwork and the passion for it is not something that can be explained by pure logic and mathematics. You can't prove it on a chalk board. It's a right-brained thing. Doctor Spock wouldn't get it.

Okay but if you're going to insist that its all just feeling, then what makes someone else's feeling that Dark Souls should be easier different to your opinion that it shouldn't? Why do you call them entitled and weak? Once again you're declaring that things should work one way for you and another for everyone else. Thats the real entitlement around here.

Kerg3927:
You don't understand that, to someone who is passionate about Dark Souls, it is an extremely rare and priceless work of art. Among the thousands of other games out there, it stands out as unique. There's nothing else quite like it. A groundbreaking, genre-defining, revolutionary game. You obviously have zero appreciation for any of that, and just see it as no different than any other game.

...because it is. It's a video game. Don't think its even that revolutionary, it doesn't really do anything particularly new. Only difference is that you like it, which means this is just you promoting your opinion as fact and trying to dismiss any criticism. Get over yourself.

Kerg3927:
Saying that it should change its artistic theme, of which the difficulty is a core aspect, is to me like someone walking into the Louvre and saying that rabbit ears should be painted on the Mona Lisa. Don't worry! You can keep the original intact! Just make a copy and hang the rabbit ear version right next to the original. That way both the original fans and the rabbit ear people can get what they want. Everyone wins! I mean, it only adds, but does not subtract, right?

And then when passionate fans of the Mona Lisa say not just no but hell no, altering the Mona Lisa in that way would be disrespectful and insulting to a classic artwork, you respond by saying fuck you, assholes!

You're presenting this as though its an unreasonable request, but replications and parodies of the Mona Lisa have been around for over a century and many are highly regarded enough to be held in private collections or on display in museums as works of art in their own right. So yes, the people insisting that you can't have Mona Lisa and Bunny Mona Lisa would be talking utter tripe, without question. Talk about altering the original Mona Lisa to have bunny ears, then maybe you have a discussion on your hands...but one that is completely irrelevant to the topic. Because that would be taking one thing away in place of another, which wouldn't be what happens if you add an easy mode. Because the hard mode would still be there. Still can't quite seem to wrap your head around that one, huh?

Kerg3927:
You do not understand the passion because you do not give a shit about the game. You have no respect for it and don't think it deserves respect. But that doesn't make you logically correct. It just means that you don't understand.

Why would you be less passionate about the game if an easy mode were added? What would it change for you, playing on hard, that would make you see the game as less enjoyable?

Kerg3927:
Ha, you're right. You got me. I was being totally serious. Are you ready to have that light saber duel now? Hold on, it just dawned on me... I don't own a light saber. How embarrassing. Do you have an extra one that I can borrow? I'll give it back when we're done.

Sorry, am I ruining your fun by not taking seriously your ludicrous suggestions about who could take who in a fight and implying that that means anything? Try logic, it works better.

Kerg3927:
And so in your mind, my alleged "elitism" is very similar to racism, and is something that needs to be eradicated. And a step toward accomplishing that noble task would be to destroy the one-difficulty-for-all aspect of Dark Souls. Get over yourself. You are not the white knight in shining armor that you see yourself as, and Dark Souls is not some evil presence that you need to stamp out. You're just some random venom-spewing guy on the internet harassing good people who happen to love Dark Souls and simply don't want to see it changed.

"You are not a white knight!" says the guy who said this:

Kerg3927:
The casuals drew first blood, and they are the ones making demands. Those on my side just want difficult games to have their current form preserved. We're the victims. We're the ones defending against the mean attackers.

Only one who thinks they're some kind of paladin defending the oppressed here is you. Quite the complex you've got really.

Kerg3927:
In my experience, when two people obviously are never going to agree, because there is too much subjectivity and passion involved, the civil thing to do is to agree to disagree. I've offered to do that. You have refused, obviously because you see yourself as the white knight, and a white knight can offer no quarter to the evil it encounters. He must pursue it and harass it until it is utterly stamped out for good.

What a joke.

As I've mentioned many a time now, my problem is your attitude. You can try to agree to disagree all you want but when you just keep insisting the same old line that people who want easy are weak and entitled then I'm going to keep stepping in and telling you to hang on a second and actually think about what you're saying.

Kerg3927:
First racism, and now you compare the people who want an easy mode in Dark Souls to starving people. Ha.

Again, it is your opinion that the integrity of the game would remain, because you don't understand or give a shit about the game or its artistic themes. You accuse me of a lack of empathy while at the same time showing a huge lack of empathy for the many passionate Dark Souls fans who don't want to see the game changed.

I understand that those people want an easy mode and I understand why, but having weighed the potential outcomes, I think it's more important to preserve the game as is. Those "starving people" can go play other games. Tons of easy ones out there for them. Dark Souls fans only have one Dark Souls, and very few games like it.

You can't criticise my metaphors if you aren't bothering to understand them. And you clearly aren't because once again its the insistence that the Dark Souls you like playing will be gone. It won't be. It will still be there, just pick the hard mode and don't give in to that temptation you apparently feel to play on easy.

hanselthecaretaker:
It most certainly would change, because a great number of people would likely be picking "easy mode" rather than learning the game's internal difficulty variances as they currently stand. The fact this is seemingly incomprehensible to you and a few others are why this thread has gone on so long.

And? Why does that matter? Why does the way someone else plays the game, even assuming they do in fact do what you suggest, alter your experience of it? I comprehend your argument just fine, its just your argument is stupid. Gatekeeping at its finest.
Video has been taken down, so cannot comment. There another version out there?

CritialGaming:
Your whole point here is a slippery slop which is kind of why people are so quick to defend a game's choice to NOT have a difficulty mode, especially when it comes to a game where the intended experience is to be hard.

What about my argument is a slippery slope? If anything the slippery slope is your argument; "If we introduce an easier mode to help people, then other people might use it just to coast and then I might use it just to coast!" You're insisting that one change will suddenly lead to all these negative consequences based on very poor reasoning, that textbook slippery slope

CritialGaming:
You are right, easy mode for some players would still be difficult or challenging? But does that mean that they need an even easier mode beyond that?

Sure, why not? I've mentioned before I'll sometimes play a game I can play on hard on easy just to enjoy the cathartic thrill of breezing through everything, so why not have an easy easy mode?

CritialGaming:
I've told you before, I often play games on easy-mode. My game time is very very limited and usually when I'm trying to play a big game, like Assassin's Creed: Origins for example, I'm just trying to experience the story more than trying to deal with annoyingly challenging combat. It's often the only way I'll get through a game in a reasonable amount of time.

I like easy modes.

However I don't feel that they need to be everywhere. And I especially don't think they need to be in a game that is designed around a serious challenge. I speak from experience as to what is taken away from a game when you play on easy. Often times easy mode does not prepare a player for the harder modes because more often than not, the skills the harder modes want from a player are never taught to the player to begin with.

The Witcher 3 has a perfect example of this. Play some of it on easy and then play some of hard. Easy mode can be beaten without using magic, without using potions, or oils, and just failing your sword around and rolling around will get you through. Easy mode does nothing to teach the player to use oils on their weapons for certain enemies, to use potions to improve damage and survivability, and mastering the use of your magic spells in order to give you the edge in combat. It's a very different game on hard and none of that is taught on Easy.

Uh, you say the player won't be taught various skills on easy...but your previous paragraph ends by stating that they're not taught those skills on any mode. Its something you pick up just from playing the game. And if its just playing the game that gets you to learn then there's going to be no real difference if the difficulty changes

CritialGaming:
This is the same thing I believe would happen in a Souls-like game. That's assuming the player would even want to step the difficulty up in the first place.

You've said that starting on easy to learn then ratcheting up the difficulty is something you do, so why are we not automatically assuming its what other people do? Why do you question that? You're not as overt as Kerg is when insulting other people, I'll give you that, but its stuff like this that highlights how patronising your attitude really is. What sets you apart that wanting to go up a difficulty is something special and unique to you?

CritialGaming:
The variance in what players need to make a game easier or harder is so wildly different that you can't possibly adapt a difficulty to suit everyone. You said it yourself, easy-souls would still be hard souls for some, which means the game wouldn't be easy enough would it? Then what has to be done, even easier modes? Outright skips? What about a life system where your health bar automatically comes back a limited number of times per boss, giving you several chances before the encounter completely resets?

None of those sound particularly unreasonable. After all, if you're not going to use them what difference does it make?

CritialGaming:
No, the only fair way to make an experience like Dark Souls be fair for everybody is the way it already is made. One mode, one difficultly level, every player starts off equally. Some might fine it hard, some might not, but everyone gets the same game regardless.

It was mentioned above that added difficulty modes, often means players will select easier modes by default without even trying the other modes. Which is fine if that's what the developers design in the first place. Souls games aren't designed that way, Nioh, Serve, Lords of the Fallen, these are all games that preset a single experience to all players. They either want that kind of challenge or they don't. Either way if fine because there are lots of other games they could be playing is they are unwilling to deal with a difficult game.

What I don't get is why you can't let a game designed to be difficult, be difficult. Rogue-likes are often hard as fuck, where's the difficulty slider in those games? Would the challenge of a Rogue-like be ruined by added difficulty modes?

I am letting the difficult game be difficult. The difficulty will still be there, just go ahead and pick it. Enjoy your game at exactly the level of challenging you want with none of the frills that someone having more trouble then you would like. Not just Kerg I see, you're also still having trouble getting that

Pallindromemordnillap:
snip

You kidding? Easy easy mode? There is no satisifaction there then is there? Where is the easy limit? At some point nothing more can be done except taking the game out of the game and making it a walking sim. You can't honestly be tossing that out as a suggestion for any game.

As far as ratcheting up difficulties. I never said I did that. I never said I start a game on easy and then bump it up. That was the whole point I made. I DONT ramp things up. If a game has an easy mode, I play on easy and ONLY on easy. But when a game only has the normal mode which happens to be hard, like Souls or Nioh, then I'm fine to play on those modes because I know ahead of time what I'm getting into.

Most of my game time is spent in easy modes because I usually just want to get through the game after a long shitty day at work, and the last thing I want is to be annoying by a video game.

That is a big part of what makes Dark Souls so special to me. I can't just turn it down. I have to know that this game needs me to pay attention and put forth some effort in order to beat some sections. Otherwise I'd put it on easy and coast through the game.

Now I'm not saying that easy modes are bad. Because I'm not. But I am saying that your suggestion that players would step up the difficulty after completing the game (or portions of it) on easy, is a very small portion if it is any portion at all. I'd bet more players would play on easy and just get through the game so they can move on.

Very rarely a game will capture someone's heart and make them want to do it all, and in those cases im sure they'll probably change difficulties. These cases usually just mean beating normal mode, and then hard mode for the extra achievements or whatever.

But that being said, you seem to be unable to grasp the concept that no game, regardless of being souls or not, can have a difficulty that suits everyone. All it does is shift focus away from making the intended experience as solid and as balance as the developers want it to be.

You keep saying that it shouldn't bother me, because if I don't use it, then why does it matter?

You see it does matter though. When developers start thinking that the only thing that matters is getting through the game, then they stop putting effort into the challenges of their game. Things have already started to get bland in a lot of places as AAA developers try to hit as big of an audience as possible. Did you know you can beat Call of Duty without ever firing a bullet? The campaign is build around triggers in the level. So long as you run through the level and hit the triggers, the game with never make you actually shoot anybody. That's because they want Call of Duty to be played by as many people as possible, they don't want the game to have any challenge that might prevent people from getting invested.

On paper that might be fine for you. But frankly it hurts everyone because the result will be bigger games with less effort put into them. Easier games means less rewarding games, even for the very very very FEW people with disabilities that require easier settings. Easy modes are not designed around those that truly need them, and most of the time they aren't even designed properly in the first damn place.

Take my Witcher Example above. Remember how I explained that you needed to do nothing but wildly swing your sword to win? Well why is that? They could have made the easy mode of the game still require you to use oils, bombs, magics, etc for certain enemies. Make them easily available to the player instead of having to farm up materials, just give the easy player a sub menu where they can use these things with a quick button press. This would teach the player that the tools given to them are NEEDED, regardless, and the difficulty would mean finding these materials themselves, as well as tougher enemies.

Easy modes should teach mechanics, not ignore them. But that is never what happens.

Dark Souls and rogue-like games are a breath of fresh air because they have intrinsic difficulty modes. There isn't a slider, or a change in numbers in the game. The difficulty comes with how the player approaches encounters. Hiding behind a big shield is a lot easier than trying to ninja evade everything. Mages are also easier than melee characters because it's a lot harder for enemies to hurt you from a distance. The game DOES have difficulty modes, they just don't come with obvious menu selections.

Pallindromemordnillap:
But only if the play it your way. God forbid they want an easier mode because then they're whiny babies. Not exactly encouraging people there, are you?

FromSoftware's way, which I happen to like. For the umpteenth time.

Pallindromemordnillap:
Okay but if you're going to insist that its all just feeling, then what makes someone else's feeling that Dark Souls should be easier different to your opinion that it shouldn't?

It's different, IMO, because the former is trying to change a classic. While the latter is trying to protect a classic from people who want to change it.

But you are correct in that they are both subjective opinions. I'm not asking you to agree with mine. Just agree to disagree. Is that too much to ask?

Pallindromemordnillap:
Why do you call them entitled and weak? Once again you're declaring that things should work one way for you and another for everyone else. Thats the real entitlement around here.

Because they are the ones complaining. Not me. There are tons of games that I don't like. I don't whine about them asking that they be changed to suit me. I just don't play them. I'm asking the people complaining about Dark Souls to do the same thing. Again, is that too much to ask? That someone leave a handful of games among thousands alone and let them be what they are?

Pallindromemordnillap:
...because it is. It's a video game. Don't think its even that revolutionary, it doesn't really do anything particularly new. Only difference is that you like it, which means this is just you promoting your opinion as fact and trying to dismiss any criticism. Get over yourself.

100% your subjective opinion. In my opinion, the Mona Lisa is just another portrait of a woman. I don't see the big deal. But I would never insult its millions of fans by demanding that it be changed. I respect that they view it as a fantastic work of art.

Pallindromemordnillap:
You're presenting this as though its an unreasonable request, but replications and parodies of the Mona Lisa have been around for over a century and many are highly regarded enough to be held in private collections or on display in museums as works of art in their own right. So yes, the people insisting that you can't have Mona Lisa and Bunny Mona Lisa would be talking utter tripe, without question. Talk about altering the original Mona Lisa to have bunny ears, then maybe you have a discussion on your hands...but one that is completely irrelevant to the topic. Because that would be taking one thing away in place of another, which wouldn't be what happens if you add an easy mode. Because the hard mode would still be there. Still can't quite seem to wrap your head around that one, huh?

I said hang it next to the original, where everyone who visits the Louvre sees both. That would piss some people off, because it would be disrespectful. And IMO they would have a right to be pissed.

That's different than someone somewhere else doing a parody. Just like if some individual out there somewhere wants to hack their Dark Souls game and make it easy or put bunny rabbit ears on the Chosen Undead... that's different than demanding that FromSoftware change the official classic game that everyone plays.

Pallindromemordnillap:
Why would you be less passionate about the game if an easy mode were added? What would it change for you, playing on hard, that would make you see the game as less enjoyable?

Remember when I said that Dark Souls was revolutionary. Well, that's what I think was revolutionary about it. In an era where games seem to be getting easier and easier, and yes, dumbed down, the Souls series went in the opposite direction. It doesn't have an easy mode. It doesn't tell you the story outright, it makes you dig for it and piece it together. It's not worried about hurting anyone's feelings. It will outright troll you with surprises that you could not predict and test your will start over, fight your way back, and keep going. It's the theme of Dark Souls that is the revolution. You would like to see that revolution destroyed. I would like to see that revolution preserved. We disagree, and that's fine. But don't tell me what I can or cannot like. That's all I'm asking.

Pallindromemordnillap:
Sorry, am I ruining your fun...

Yes.

Pallindromemordnillap:
Only one who thinks they're some kind of paladin defending the oppressed here is you. Quite the complex you've got really.

Point is you compared me wanting to preserve Dark Souls to racism. It's a ridiculous notion.

Pallindromemordnillap:
As I've mentioned many a time now, my problem is your attitude. You can try to agree to disagree all you want but when you just keep insisting the same old line that people who want easy are weak and entitled then I'm going to keep stepping in and telling you to hang on a second and actually think about what you're saying.

And my problem is your attitude. I have thought about it, many a time now, and as I said above, people who would complain about a rare game like Dark Souls and want it changed just to suit them, are weak and entitled, because there are thousands of easy games out there that they can play, but very few games like Dark Souls. It's about scarcity. To flip your "starving" analogy, in my opinion, demanding that Dark Souls' be changed, destroying its revolutionary theme in the process, is akin to a gluttonous fat man stealing food from a starving man. It's all we've got.

Again, even though our opinions about this matter are drastically different, I am fine with you having your opinion. Just let me have mine.

Pallindromemordnillap:
You can't criticise my metaphors if you aren't bothering to understand them. And you clearly aren't because once again its the insistence that the Dark Souls you like playing will be gone. It won't be. It will still be there, just pick the hard mode and don't give in to that temptation you apparently feel to play on easy.

Again, you don't understand what makes Dark Souls what it is. And that's fine. I don't care that you don't understand. There are a ton of games that I don't understand. I just don't play them. Why can't you do the same?

Pallindromemordnillap:
snip

To expand on my last reponse, I thought of another analogy. I know you love my analogies.

To me the people who want Dark Souls changed are like a massive imperialist empire that has already conquered the entire world. There's only one independent country left, say New Zealand, a small island country off by itself, minding its own business. New Zealand wants to remain independent. They want to do their own thing. But no, the imperialists can't leave them alone. They have to conquer it, too. So they have it surrounded with their warships and bombers, demanding that they surrender.

That's how it feels to me. Why can't you just leave poor New Zealand alone and let them do their own thing?

Kerg3927:

Pallindromemordnillap:
snip

To expand on my last reponse, I thought of another analogy. I know you love my analogies.

To me the people who want Dark Souls changed are like a massive imperialist empire that has already conquered the entire world. There's only one independent country left, say New Zealand, a small island country off by itself, minding its own business. New Zealand wants to remain independent. They want to do their own thing. But no, the imperialists can't leave them alone. They have to conquer it, too. So they have it surrounded with their warships and bombers, demanding that they surrender.

That's how it feels to me. Why can't you just leave poor New Zealand alone and let them do their own thing?

Uh, as a Dark Souls fan who doesn't feel like a victim who escaped the oppression of teh evil casual empire, am I allowed to have an opinion here? Because my opinion is that this is an overreaction and hyperbole to the nth degree. Surrounded and demanding surrender, Jesus fucking Christ, I love Dark Souls and I feel this is a major overreaction.

Also, are we seriously going to act like Dark Souls is the last bastion of difficulty? Can we please lose the tunnel vision? I mean, Shin Megami Tensei Strange Journey is getting a remake, that should tell you all you need to know about whether or not Dark Souls is the last bastion of difficulty in gaming.

CritialGaming:
You see it does matter though. When developers start thinking that the only thing that matters is getting through the game, then they stop putting effort into the challenges of their game. Things have already started to get bland in a lot of places as AAA developers try to hit as big of an audience as possible. Did you know you can beat Call of Duty without ever firing a bullet? The campaign is build around triggers in the level. So long as you run through the level and hit the triggers, the game with never make you actually shoot anybody. That's because they want Call of Duty to be played by as many people as possible, they don't want the game to have any challenge that might prevent people from getting invested.

On paper that might be fine for you. But frankly it hurts everyone because the result will be bigger games with less effort put into them. Easier games means less rewarding games, even for the very very very FEW people with disabilities that require easier settings. Easy modes are not designed around those that truly need them, and most of the time they aren't even designed properly in the first damn place.

Some the most notoriously difficult parts of Dark Souls would not be made much easier with a hp/damage slider because they involve gravity. I think one of the biggest causes of death in places like Blighttown, Sen's Fortress, and Anor Londo is falling.

So if FromSoftware were to change the Souls theme and create easy and hard modes, they'd most likely have to remove that content. And then you've got a different game. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

erttheking:

Kerg3927:

Pallindromemordnillap:
snip

To expand on my last reponse, I thought of another analogy. I know you love my analogies.

To me the people who want Dark Souls changed are like a massive imperialist empire that has already conquered the entire world. There's only one independent country left, say New Zealand, a small island country off by itself, minding its own business. New Zealand wants to remain independent. They want to do their own thing. But no, the imperialists can't leave them alone. They have to conquer it, too. So they have it surrounded with their warships and bombers, demanding that they surrender.

That's how it feels to me. Why can't you just leave poor New Zealand alone and let them do their own thing?

Uh, as a Dark Souls fan who doesn't feel like a victim who escaped the oppression of teh evil casual empire, am I allowed to have an opinion here? Because my opinion is that this is an overreaction and hyperbole to the nth degree. Surrounded and demanding surrender, Jesus fucking Christ, I love Dark Souls and I feel this is a major overreaction.

Also, are we seriously going to act like Dark Souls is the last bastion of difficulty? Can we please lose the tunnel vision? I mean, Shin Megami Tensei Strange Journey is getting a remake, that should tell you all you need to know about whether or not Dark Souls is the last bastion of difficulty in gaming.

Sure you're allowed to have your opinion.

It's an analogy. It's not intended to be taken literally. I thought about making it multiple countries, but it was easier and simpler to convey the analogy with one. How about New Zealand, Australia, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Better?

The point is that games like Dark Souls are a very small minority of games. Why can't people leave those games alone? Palindrome acts like people like me are being greedy for not wanting Dark Souls to change. I think it's the other way around because of the above point. It's about scarcity. Sure, Dark Souls is not the last bastion of difficulty in gaming, but there are very few games like it.

Kerg3927:
Snip

The entire analogy is overblown, because it's comparing video game difficulty to being a sovereign nation. Also like you have to look hard to find difficult games, and you really don't.

An optional difficulty mode that was utterly separate from the main experience wouldn't hurt your experience. At all. You know how Radiance Mode reduced my enjoyment of Darkest Dungeon? It didn't. And as I've said, you really don't need to look far to find a difficult game in today's massive sprawling landscape.

Kerg3927:

Some the most notoriously difficult parts of Dark Souls would not be made much easier with a hp/damage slider because they involve gravity. I think one of the biggest causes of death in places like Blighttown, Sen's Fortress, and Anor Londo is falling.

So if FromSoftware were to change the Souls theme and create easy and hard modes, they'd most likely have to remove that content. And then you've got a different game. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

Well adding to that, difficulties do change the way a game is played 99% of the time. The ability to be reckless because enemies aren't as dangerous, being able to ignore mechanics, or abuse things. Difficulties sound like a small thing, but they are not. Every Diffculty dramatically changes the way a game can be played, at least on the extreme sides of the difficulty curve. Normal modes usually aren't that effected and tend to be the most balanced, but easy and hard modes change things pretty severely from the middle line.

erttheking:

Also, are we seriously going to act like Dark Souls is the last bastion of difficulty? Can we please lose the tunnel vision? I mean, Shin Megami Tensei Strange Journey is getting a remake, that should tell you all you need to know about whether or not Dark Souls is the last bastion of difficulty in gaming.

Are the Shin Megami Tensei games difficult? Do they have difficulty modes, or are they just hard games?

CritialGaming:

Are the Shin Megami Tensei games difficult? Do they have difficulty modes, or are they just hard games?

Yes. They have difficulty modes and are hard games. Though there are massive lifelines in games like Persona 4, where you get 10 unreplenashable items that let you continue after you die on easy mode. I played Persona 4 on easy the first time and TRUST ME, I needed them.

Easy is manageable for new players, but even then it's a nightmare if you don't prepare properly. Everything above that...fuck. Well. Let me put it this way. SMT is published by Atlus. Atlus has its own That One Boss page on TV Tropes. SMT takes up half the page.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/ThatOneBoss/Atlus

erttheking:
snip

Ahh I didn't know Persona was part of that. Persona 5 had some shitty instant game over battles, but it wasn't a difficult game. I don't find monsters that can just kill you for "reasons" outright difficulty, it's just the game being shitty and cheap.

Certainly not in the way Dark Souls or Nioh is hard. Those games are all hard because of skill, and any and all death moves are "easily" avoid in theory.

RPG's however have no warning. Persona 5 taught me that monsters have "fuck you, you're dead" moves only by hitting me with them and setting me back 30 minutes. There was no telegraph, no warning, just "surprise motherfucker, you dead now." Which I hate.

erttheking:
... you really don't need to look far to find a difficult game in today's massive sprawling landscape.

I only play PC games, and I don't like games with anime or silly kiddy cartoonish art styles, so that severely limits my options. So as far as difficulty-themed action RPG's go, there's...

Dark Souls
Dark Souls 2
Dark Souls 3
Lords of the Fallen
The Surge
Nioh

If you have any other suggestions, let me know. Because I've been scratching my head lately looking for new games to play. I plan to play Nioh soon. It was just recently ported to PC.

Kerg3927:

erttheking:
... you really don't need to look far to find a difficult game in today's massive sprawling landscape.

I only play PC games, and I don't like games with anime or silly kiddy cartoonish art styles, so that severely limits my options. So as far as difficulty-themed action RPG's go, there's...

Dark Souls
Dark Souls 2
Dark Souls 3
Lords of the Fallen
The Surge
Nioh

If you have any other suggestions, let me know. Because I've been scratching my head lately looking for new games to play. I plan to play Nioh soon. It was just recently ported to PC.

You seem to be looking only at Dark Souls esque games. Also you kind of limit yourself with those restrictions. Cuphead just came out recently and is balls to the walls hard, but I'm gonna take a wild stab and say it falls under "kiddy cartoonish art styles" since I seriously doubt you haven't heard of how hard Cuphead is. And you limit yourself even further if you only play RPGs. If you want hard games, let me check my Steam account.

Devil Daggers
Darkest Dungeon
Titan Souls
Super Meat Boy
XCOM Enemy Unknown
XCOM 2
Xenonauts
Rogue Legacy
Salt and Sanctuary
Risk of Rain
Nuclear Throne
Crypt of the Necrodancer
Ironcast
Hotline Miami
Hotline Miami 2 (Granted to a somewhat bullshit degree)
FTL: Faster Than Light
Dead Cells
The Binding of Issac
The Binding of Issac Rebirth
A.I. War Fleet Command

Sadly quite a few of these games might fall under your restrictions, quite a few of them aren't RPGs and quite a few of them have art styles that you don't like. Though I think the problem is less that hard games are few and far between and more that there just aren't very many that you like. Because, like I said, I got all of this just by looking through the games I already have.

CritialGaming:

erttheking:
snip

Ahh I didn't know Persona was part of that. Persona 5 had some shitty instant game over battles, but it wasn't a difficult game. I don't find monsters that can just kill you for "reasons" outright difficulty, it's just the game being shitty and cheap.

Certainly not in the way Dark Souls or Nioh is hard. Those games are all hard because of skill, and any and all death moves are "easily" avoid in theory.

RPG's however have no warning. Persona 5 taught me that monsters have "fuck you, you're dead" moves only by hitting me with them and setting me back 30 minutes. There was no telegraph, no warning, just "surprise motherfucker, you dead now." Which I hate.

Yeah, Persona is technically a spin off of Shin Megami Tensei. They just stopped calling it Shin Megami Tensei Persona when it turned out that Persona was more popular than the main series. It's actually a fairly recently development, Persona 4 still carried the SMT name

And honestly I'd argue SMT is a lot like Dark Souls in that you throw yourself at a boss, get pounded into mulch, and then ask yourself "ok, now how can I approach this differently?" Preparation is king, and once you get into the swing of that, making sure you have a party that properly buffs and debuffs, you're a lot better off. Matador, the guy I posted, is iconic of SMT hard bosses. But I beat him in two goes because I was so paranoid and overprepared for him. It's a different kind of difficulty sure, and not for everyone, but it's still difficult.

Though, I have to say, Persona 5 was easy compared to mainstream Shin Megami Tensei games. Strange Journey alone blows it out of the water.

Pallindromemordnillap:

hanselthecaretaker:
It most certainly would change, because a great number of people would likely be picking "easy mode" rather than learning the game's internal difficulty variances as they currently stand. The fact this is seemingly incomprehensible to you and a few others are why this thread has gone on so long.

And? Why does that matter? Why does the way someone else plays the game, even assuming they do in fact do what you suggest, alter your experience of it? I comprehend your argument just fine, its just your argument is stupid. Gatekeeping at its finest.
Video has been taken down, so cannot comment. There another version out there?

image

Back and forth again and again, between proving that adding difficulties indeed changes the game, to having to prove why it matters. To put it in the simplest of terms, it ultimately boils down to symbolism. As it stands according to FROM's chosen design format (not an entitled body of players), when people generally look at an IP like Dark Souls, they know it's different. They know it's a game series that requires something more from the player to complete than most games. They know they can either relish the challenge, acquiesce to it or move on. They know they won't be able to just tick it down to their respectively manageable level.

What they may not know is that it's really not that bad or intimidating anyways, and that they might be surprised by how rewarding and refreshing its design can feel; to persevere through the tough parts without that option of making things easier, or finding some other way if one tactic proves too difficult. It's more like everyone has the same obtuse puzzle with no right or wrong path to the solution, and whoever gets through it may do something a bit differently. They can tailor the game's difficulty through how they choose to play.

The constant is that no one resorted to toggling some arbitrary value on a menu screen. Saying "I beat Dark Souls" then inherently carries more weight and camaraderie than that of most other games where the player is free to change whatever they want to get through. No one has to ask what difficulty or why they didn't/couldn't beat it on
"Insane" mode or whatever. It just is, regardless of how difficult it might actually have even been from one person to the next. It's not for everyone, as Phoenixmgs has made abundantly clear, but what is also clear is that it kindled a pretty respectable following based on what it is and what it represents.

The clip was from a movie currently in theaters, so not surprised it was already taken down. The point was that a little kid goes bowling with his family and wanted to use gutter rails, but the grandpa said he didn't need them. The kid was reluctant to try of course, but the mom cheered him on. Frame after frame he threw gutter balls and no matter how much encouragement, he was practically left crying on the floor by the tenth frame. Everyone including bystanders looked dismayed, and the kid wanted to give up or at least put the rails up.

Then grandpa gave him a pep talk, and ultimately made the point of finishing what you start. So the kid gets up, his family and onlookers start clapping and encouraging him, and he throws his last ball. The tension is high of course as the ball heads down the lane, looking pretty steady until the end when it appears it'll be another gutterball...

But then, at the last possible moment, it clips the corner pin and everyone cheers. The kid is elated, and goes on to kiss several girls under a mistletoe near the end of the movie. Yeah, it's just a movie, but it reinforces what several people in this thread have been trying to say about the value and symbolism of Dark Souls' design.

Whoa! Is still going on? I thought at this time everyone would had made their own positions perfectly clear.

CritialGaming:
-The Witcher 3 has a perfect example of this. Play some of it on easy and then play some of hard. Easy mode can be beaten without using magic, without using potions, or oils, and just failing your sword around and rolling around will get you through. Easy mode does nothing to teach the player to use oils on their weapons for certain enemies, to use potions to improve damage and survivability, and mastering the use of your magic spells in order to give you the edge in combat. It's a very different game on hard and none of that is taught on Easy.

-Dark Souls and rogue-like games are a breath of fresh air because they have intrinsic difficulty modes. There isn't a slider, or a change in numbers in the game. The difficulty comes with how the player approaches encounters. Hiding behind a big shield is a lot easier than trying to ninja evade everything. Mages are also easier than melee characters because it's a lot harder for enemies to hurt you from a distance. The game DOES have difficulty modes, they just don't come with obvious menu selections.

-Certainly not in the way Dark Souls or Nioh is hard. Those games are all hard because of skill, and any and all death moves are "easily" avoid in theory.

-The Witcher 3 is joke easy on any difficulty because CDPR has little understanding of balance and RPG mechanics. Quen and Axii both break any semblance of difficulty or challenge on any mode. In fact, easy is the best difficulty because it keeps you out of the shitty combat system the most. You could literally beat the highest level enemies at level 1 if you wanted to and had the time to do so sorta like how you can beat Yiazmat in FFXII at level 1 if you wanted to.

-You never answered my question about what if someone wants to play Souls in the "fun" way but finds it too hard? How is Souls teaching you to play the game by using the "easy" playstyles that just exploits the AI or mechanics?

-Souls is not hard because of a skill. From the little I played of Nioh (the demo), it's definitely more skill-based than Souls. Nioh is even more skill-based than the Souls game, Bloodborne, that doesn't have "easy" playstyles.

Kerg3927:
-It's different, IMO, because the former is trying to change a classic. While the latter is trying to protect a classic from people who want to change it.

Because they are the ones complaining. Not me. There are tons of games that I don't like. I don't whine about them asking that they be changed to suit me. I just don't play them. I'm asking the people complaining about Dark Souls to do the same thing. Again, is that too much to ask? That someone leave a handful of games among thousands alone and let them be what they are?

-Some the most notoriously difficult parts of Dark Souls would not be made much easier with a hp/damage slider because they involve gravity. I think one of the biggest causes of death in places like Blighttown, Sen's Fortress, and Anor Londo is falling.

So if FromSoftware were to change the Souls theme and create easy and hard modes, they'd most likely have to remove that content. And then you've got a different game. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

-Remember when I said that Dark Souls was revolutionary. Well, that's what I think was revolutionary about it. In an era where games seem to be getting easier and easier, and yes, dumbed down, the Souls series went in the opposite direction. It doesn't have an easy mode. It doesn't tell you the story outright, it makes you dig for it and piece it together. It's not worried about hurting anyone's feelings. It will outright troll you with surprises that you could not predict and test your will start over, fight your way back, and keep going. It's the theme of Dark Souls that is the revolution. You would like to see that revolution destroyed. I would like to see that revolution preserved. We disagree, and that's fine. But don't tell me what I can or cannot like. That's all I'm asking.

-In my opinion, the Mona Lisa is just another portrait of a woman. I don't see the big deal. But I would never insult its millions of fans by demanding that it be changed. I respect that they view it as a fantastic work of art.

Please point me to the crowd of people that are trying to ruin your "precious" Souls games. Because the mere mention of "easy mode" with regards to a Souls game brought out people like you acting like a victim being attacked when that didn't at all happen. This whole "attack" of Souls games never happened. There's not even one of those stupid Internet petitions that don't do anything for a Souls easy mode. Well, there is one that's just an obvious joke with 0 signatures. Starting a conversation about whether a game should have an easy mode or a game journalist having the opinion of that all games should have an easy mode is not an attack on anything. Even if there was some "attack" against Souls, the "attack" succeeded and a Souls game got an easy mode, you still have your exact game you like. How are you being "attacked" in any definition of the word?

-First of all, LMAO at Sen's Fortress being considered difficult; the traps so fucking obvious and the dungeon boss is so easy. Blighttown just comes down to put on poison resistant clothes (like how Seath comes down just putting on curse resistant garb, mashing R1 and you win). Anor Londo just has the archers. Secondly, why would levels have to be changed to make it easy? Where is this precedent for games removing/changing content because an easy mode was added? There's lots of games with "baby" modes that haven't sacrificed anything with regards to challenging content or skill-based mechanics.

-Will you please just drop the pretentiousness with regards to the difficulty of the Souls games? "Git gud" at literally any competitive multiplayer game, which is at least 100x more difficult and skillful than any Souls game (PvE). Pop in Top Gun for NES and land the plane, nothing in a Souls game even comes close to touching that. Erttheking put it perfectly:

erttheking:
Uh, as a Dark Souls fan who doesn't feel like a victim who escaped the oppression of teh evil casual empire, am I allowed to have an opinion here? Because my opinion is that this is an overreaction and hyperbole to the nth degree. Surrounded and demanding surrender, Jesus fucking Christ, I love Dark Souls and I feel this is a major overreaction.

Also, are we seriously going to act like Dark Souls is the last bastion of difficulty? Can we please lose the tunnel vision?

-Lastly, the Mona Lisa is just a portrait of a woman.

Phoenixmgs:

-The Witcher 3 is joke easy on any difficulty because CDPR has little understanding of balance and RPG mechanics. Quen and Axii both break any semblance of difficulty or challenge on any mode. In fact, easy is the best difficulty because it keeps you out of the shitty combat system the most. You could literally beat the highest level enemies at level 1 if you wanted to and had the time to do so sorta like how you can beat Yiazmat in FFXII at level 1 if you wanted to.

-You never answered my question about what if someone wants to play Souls in the "fun" way but finds it too hard? How is Souls teaching you to play the game by using the "easy" playstyles that just exploits the AI or mechanics?

-Souls is not hard because of a skill. From the little I played of Nioh (the demo), it's definitely more skill-based than Souls. Nioh is even more skill-based than the Souls game, Bloodborne, that doesn't have "easy" playstyles.

1. So you would agree that playing on Easy is nothing like the experience of playing on higher difficulties? Which is the whole point of why I brought it up. The actual game balance is irrelevant when the point was how much of the game can be outright ignored on easy.

2. What is a "fun" way? I don't understand what you are referring too. You mean if someone just wants to play Dark Souls for fun, but finds it too hard? Because to that I would say that we ALL play Dark Souls for fun, so if it is too hard for you get help. As with most other games that people find challenging, there are loads of guides online, as well as co-op to help you over the tougher moments in the game. If you are telling me that someone needs easy mode because they are outright willing to even try to learn what they can do better, or try to co-op for help, or anything like that. Then I don't feel bad that the game is too hard for them, because they are clearly not willing to deal with a game like Souls. Go play something else.

3. The things a player needs to beat Dark Souls are called skills. Whether you think those skills difficult or useful isn't relevant. Pattern recongnition is a skill, dodge reflexes, parrying reflexing, are both skills. Skill that would not be required if the easy mode was scaled back far enough to be called "easy".

You are right though, Nioh is a much harder game than anything the Souls games have done so far. Mostly due to the complexity of combat. There are a number of things that make Nioh more complex. The first being that there are three stances (high, med, low) that you can swap on the fly to string moves and combos. You also have a set of four weapons (2 ranged, 2 melee) equipped at once that can also be swapped on the fly. Then you have a Diablo-style loot system that makes EVERY stat matter. So you have to pay attention to what you equip otherwise you drastically handicap yourself.

It's wonderful. The only down side is the enemies are far more punishing than Dark Souls. Additionally there aren't very many different enemy types so you'll ultimately memorize 90% of the enemies in the game and only sloppyness will render them challenging.

HOWEVER. Nioh does something a lot more interesting in NG+ modes. They change the placement of the enemies, and almost every enemy gains new attacks for every NG+ level you reach. Which is wonderful because it makes all the NG+ modes feel new again.

erttheking:
You seem to be looking only at Dark Souls esque games.

Yeah, I was talking about "difficulty-themed" action RPG's.

That's a point that I just can't seem to get across to people. Unlike other games, the difficulty is core to Dark Souls. Not that it is the most difficult game ever. But it is more difficult than most. And more than that, the difficulty is a key theme, and even a key part of the plot of the games. The theme is despair, dread, hopelessness, and even pointlessness... you're stuck in a hopeless, shitty situation, but you keep going anyway, because the alternative is even worse.

The first game is called Prepare to Die. That tells you right there, before you even buy the game, this is going to be challenging and frustrating, and if you don't like that sort of thing, then don't friggin' buy it. But on the other hand, if you're up for a challenge.... I dare you... I bet you can't do it.

Other examples...


Anyway, if you take away the difficulty, it's not the same game anymore. The theme has changed, and even the story and plot has changed. And this is where Palindrome will tell me that really inept players will still be challenged by an easy mode. That's another theme of the game. It's not up to you. There is no easy way out. You don't have a choice. Just like your character didn't have a choice when he was afflicted with the Dark Sign. And you don't have a choice now except to give up or go through the difficult obstacles the game presents for you. Sometimes things don't go your way and life sucks, but you deal with it. Toughen up or gtfo. It's what the game is all about.

Phoenixmgs:
Please point me to the crowd of people that are trying to ruin your "precious" Souls games. Because the mere mention of "easy mode" with regards to a Souls game brought out people like you acting like a victim being attacked when that didn't at all happen. This whole "attack" of Souls games never happened.

Then why won't y'all shut up about it, leave the game alone, leave its fans alone, and let them have their opinions about the game?

Sure, it's not really an attack, if you go by the literal, physical meaning of the word, as much as it's verbal harassment. How hard is it to agree to disagree? That's all I'm asking.

CritialGaming:
You kidding? Easy easy mode? There is no satisifaction there then is there? Where is the easy limit? At some point nothing more can be done except taking the game out of the game and making it a walking sim. You can't honestly be tossing that out as a suggestion for any game.

You asked me a question, I gave you the answer. Why so surprised? As for satisfaction, I've already mentioned a couple times that I enjoy playing things on easy that I could play on hard just because blowing through everything is cathartic fun. Different scenarios and different moods create different needs. Not everything needs to be hard all the time.

CritialGaming:
As far as ratcheting up difficulties. I never said I did that. I never said I start a game on easy and then bump it up. That was the whole point I made. I DONT ramp things up. If a game has an easy mode, I play on easy and ONLY on easy. But when a game only has the normal mode which happens to be hard, like Souls or Nioh, then I'm fine to play on those modes because I know ahead of time what I'm getting into.

Most of my game time is spent in easy modes because I usually just want to get through the game after a long shitty day at work, and the last thing I want is to be annoying by a video game.

That is a big part of what makes Dark Souls so special to me. I can't just turn it down. I have to know that this game needs me to pay attention and put forth some effort in order to beat some sections. Otherwise I'd put it on easy and coast through the game.

Then this is basically just you being a hypocrite again. You've tried making points about the benefits of using hard mode to learn, but here you say you're unwilling to do so. You're accusing other people of what you see as your faults then holding them to standards you aren't applying to yourself. Seriously not cool dude

CritialGaming:
Now I'm not saying that easy modes are bad. Because I'm not. But I am saying that your suggestion that players would step up the difficulty after completing the game (or portions of it) on easy, is a very small portion if it is any portion at all. I'd bet more players would play on easy and just get through the game so they can move on.

Very rarely a game will capture someone's heart and make them want to do it all, and in those cases im sure they'll probably change difficulties. These cases usually just mean beating normal mode, and then hard mode for the extra achievements or whatever.

Alright, lets assume you're right about that. And? So what? So they just play the game on easy, does the world then end? Does anything negative actually happen at all? Why is this somehow worthy of your derision?

CritialGaming:
But that being said, you seem to be unable to grasp the concept that no game, regardless of being souls or not, can have a difficulty that suits everyone. All it does is shift focus away from making the intended experience as solid and as balance as the developers want it to be.

Asking if the game could have an easier mode is not making some impossible demand to suit any possible outcome. Using hyperbole like this only undermines your case because it makes it more obvious how much you're letting your own biases sway you.

CritialGaming:
You keep saying that it shouldn't bother me, because if I don't use it, then why does it matter?

You see it does matter though. When developers start thinking that the only thing that matters is getting through the game, then they stop putting effort into the challenges of their game. Things have already started to get bland in a lot of places as AAA developers try to hit as big of an audience as possible. Did you know you can beat Call of Duty without ever firing a bullet? The campaign is build around triggers in the level. So long as you run through the level and hit the triggers, the game with never make you actually shoot anybody. That's because they want Call of Duty to be played by as many people as possible, they don't want the game to have any challenge that might prevent people from getting invested.

On paper that might be fine for you. But frankly it hurts everyone because the result will be bigger games with less effort put into them. Easier games means less rewarding games, even for the very very very FEW people with disabilities that require easier settings. Easy modes are not designed around those that truly need them, and most of the time they aren't even designed properly in the first damn place.

And yet there still remain many many games in which you do in fact do things. Sorry, but like your last paragraph this is just hyperbole. You're making extreme exaggerations and trying to use them in place of actual arguments

CritialGaming:
Take my Witcher Example above. Remember how I explained that you needed to do nothing but wildly swing your sword to win? Well why is that? They could have made the easy mode of the game still require you to use oils, bombs, magics, etc for certain enemies. Make them easily available to the player instead of having to farm up materials, just give the easy player a sub menu where they can use these things with a quick button press. This would teach the player that the tools given to them are NEEDED, regardless, and the difficulty would mean finding these materials themselves, as well as tougher enemies.

Easy modes should teach mechanics, not ignore them. But that is never what happens.

It has taught them a mechanic. "This is how you use the sword" is in fact a mechanic. Its just not going to teach them every mechanic at once. Same as with literally any learning experience that has ever existed. Did you learn what the alphabet was and then go right to reading Dickens the next day?

CritialGaming:
Dark Souls and rogue-like games are a breath of fresh air because they have intrinsic difficulty modes. There isn't a slider, or a change in numbers in the game. The difficulty comes with how the player approaches encounters. Hiding behind a big shield is a lot easier than trying to ninja evade everything. Mages are also easier than melee characters because it's a lot harder for enemies to hurt you from a distance. The game DOES have difficulty modes, they just don't come with obvious menu selections.

And the difference between them is? I've asked both you and hansel this before and both of you avoided actually answering it. Why is selecting something to make things easier done one way fine but selecting things to make things easier another way not? Oh right, its because the first way is the one you guys pick and you need to justify it to yourselves somehow

Kerg3927:
FromSoftware's way, which I happen to like. For the umpteenth time.

And again, its the way you champion and if people deviate from you insult them. It is in fact your way. "I don't make the rules I just enforce them" has never really worked well as a defence you know

Kerg3927:
It's different, IMO, because the former is trying to change a classic. While the latter is trying to protect a classic from people who want to change it.

But you are correct in that they are both subjective opinions. I'm not asking you to agree with mine. Just agree to disagree. Is that too much to ask?

What does it need protecting from? So it has an easy mode, so what? Your hard mode is still there, you can still enjoy it exactly the way you like it. Nothing has been taken away from you. You still can't get that, can you?

And if you really wanted to agree to disagree, you'd just stop. You'd just let me think what I wanted. Or at the very least do what I've been asking and just stop insulting people for not wanting to play a game the exact way you do. But no, you keep replying. So you don't actually want me to agree to disagree, you just want me to stop. Nope, not going to do that. You still feel the need to call people entitled for wanting an easy mode so I still feel the need to call you an egomaniac elitist arsehole for thinking that way.

Kerg3927:
Because they are the ones complaining. Not me. There are tons of games that I don't like. I don't whine about them asking that they be changed to suit me. I just don't play them. I'm asking the people complaining about Dark Souls to do the same thing. Again, is that too much to ask? That someone leave a handful of games among thousands alone and let them be what they are?

Actually yes, simply in this paragraph you are the one complaining. "There aren't that many games made for me the way I like! There should be more games made for me the way I like but there aren't so this one is mine!"
Hell, this entire topic is spawned from a video of Sterling making fun of people like you complaining. Little bit of self-awareness would work wonders for you Kerg, ust saying

Kerg3927:
100% your subjective opinion. In my opinion, the Mona Lisa is just another portrait of a woman. I don't see the big deal. But I would never insult its millions of fans by demanding that it be changed. I respect that they view it as a fantastic work of art.

Alright, so what does Dark Souls actually do that is new and revolutionary? Back your argument up there. Because otherwise you're trying to assert your opinion that Dark Souls is revolutionary as fact, but mine that it isn't as subjective opinion that can't be proved, and that wold be a double standard you've got going there.

Kerg3927:
I said hang it next to the original, where everyone who visits the Louvre sees both. That would piss some people off, because it would be disrespectful. And IMO they would have a right to be pissed.

Given that one of said copies hangs in the Paris' National Museum of Modern Art alongside works by Matisse and Picasso, I seriously doubt anyone would kick up a stink if it were put in the Louvre with the original. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd done an exhibition like that already

Kerg3927:
That's different than someone somewhere else doing a parody. Just like if some individual out there somewhere wants to hack their Dark Souls game and make it easy or put bunny rabbit ears on the Chosen Undead... that's different than demanding that FromSoftware change the official classic game that everyone plays.

Ah ah ah, Kerg, you're moving the goalposts again. You made a comparison, I point out the flaws in it and then you insist "Well no I didn't mean it that way I actually meant it like this, didn't I say so?" Like when I mentioned my coach cousins and you immediately tried to tell me you hadn't been talking about the kind of sports they coached. Its just dishonest of you, you're really going to have to stop doing that.

Kerg3927:
Remember when I said that Dark Souls was revolutionary. Well, that's what I think was revolutionary about it. In an era where games seem to be getting easier and easier, and yes, dumbed down, the Souls series went in the opposite direction. It doesn't have an easy mode. It doesn't tell you the story outright, it makes you dig for it and piece it together. It's not worried about hurting anyone's feelings. It will outright troll you with surprises that you could not predict and test your will start over, fight your way back, and keep going. It's the theme of Dark Souls that is the revolution. You would like to see that revolution destroyed. I would like to see that revolution preserved. We disagree, and that's fine. But don't tell me what I can or cannot like. That's all I'm asking.

Being hard is neither new nor revolutionary. Arcade games were doing for years specifically to make you pay out as much money as possible. Try again, with something actually revolutionary this time.

Kerg3927:
Point is you compared me wanting to preserve Dark Souls to racism. It's a ridiculous notion.

No, in fact, I did not. I merely pointed out that both were opinions, never actually said the two were alike. I think you're an elitist and a snob, I have no evidence to suggest you're a racist as well

Kerg3927:
And my problem is your attitude. I have thought about it, many a time now, and as I said above, people who would complain about a rare game like Dark Souls and want it changed just to suit them, are weak and entitled, because there are thousands of easy games out there that they can play, but very few games like Dark Souls. It's about scarcity. To flip your "starving" analogy, in my opinion, demanding that Dark Souls' be changed, destroying its revolutionary theme in the process, is akin to a gluttonous fat man stealing food from a starving man. It's all we've got.

Again, even though our opinions about this matter are drastically different, I am fine with you having your opinion. Just let me have mine.

If your opinion is what you think entitles you to insult and denigrate other people based on something as ridiculous as a video game then no, I'm not going to let you keep it. And you clearly aren't fine with me having mine because you keep replying trying to disprove me.
Its nothing like a gluttonous man stealing food from a starving man, because the starving man then loses the food. You do not. Its like gluttonous man and a starving man both having a loaf of bread from the same bakery, and then the gluttonous man asking for a little salt. The starving man still gets his bread, and the gluttonous man gets his salted bread, and the bakery gets two sales. Everybody wins.

Kerg3927:
Again, you don't understand what makes Dark Souls what it is. And that's fine. I don't care that you don't understand. There are a ton of games that I don't understand. I just don't play them. Why can't you do the same?

Because you have failed to explain, and indeed seem unwilling to explain, what this bizarre ephemeral feeling is that goes away if other people are enjoying a thing you enjoy slightly differently to the way you enjoy it. But I think I know; its snobbishness. You feel your achievements aren't so great if other people are doing them on a slightly easier level. And thats just dumb on so many levels

Kerg3927:
To expand on my last reponse, I thought of another analogy. I know you love my analogies.

To me the people who want Dark Souls changed are like a massive imperialist empire that has already conquered the entire world. There's only one independent country left, say New Zealand, a small island country off by itself, minding its own business. New Zealand wants to remain independent. They want to do their own thing. But no, the imperialists can't leave them alone. They have to conquer it, too. So they have it surrounded with their warships and bombers, demanding that they surrender.

That's how it feels to me. Why can't you just leave poor New Zealand alone and let them do their own thing?

I do believe this is the most overblown thing I've seen you write yet. No-one is attacking you, no-one is taking things away from you, no-one is demanding you play on easy modes, this isn't a war and there aren't sides. Going mental with stuff like this really doesn't help your case that it isn't about ego.

hanselthecaretaker:
Back and forth again and again, between proving that adding difficulties indeed changes the game, to having to prove why it matters. To put it in the simplest of terms, it ultimately boils down to symbolism. As it stands according to FROM's chosen design format (not an entitled body of players), when people generally look at an IP like Dark Souls, they know it's different. They know it's a game series that requires something more from the player to complete than most games. They know they can either relish the challenge, acquiesce to it or move on. They know they won't be able to just tick it down to their respectively manageable level.

What they may not know is that it's really not that bad or intimidating anyways, and that they might be surprised by how rewarding and refreshing its design can feel; to persevere through the tough parts without that option of making things easier, or finding some other way if one tactic proves too difficult. It's more like everyone has the same obtuse puzzle with no right or wrong path to the solution, and whoever gets through it may do something a bit differently. They can tailor the game's difficulty through how they choose to play.

And here's that contradiction again. If you think its alright to let people tailor things into being easier by how they play, what is your problem with letting them tailor things into being easier by how they choose to play? Why is picking a certain class to make things easier okay in a way that picking a different difficulty is not?

hanselthecaretaker:
The constant is that no one resorted to toggling some arbitrary value on a menu screen. Saying "I beat Dark Souls" then inherently carries more weight and camaraderie than that of most other games where the player is free to change whatever they want to get through. No one has to ask what difficulty or why they didn't/couldn't beat it on
"Insane" mode or whatever. It just is, regardless of how difficult it might actually have even been from one person to the next. It's not for everyone, as Phoenixmgs has made abundantly clear, but what is also clear is that it kindled a pretty respectable following based on what it is and what it represents.

Your argument here is telling me that beating Dark Souls makes you feel like you're in a special little club that makes you seem important. Not exactly disproving my accusations of elitism there are you?

hanselthecaretaker:
The clip was from a movie currently in theaters, so not surprised it was already taken down. The point was that a little kid goes bowling with his family and wanted to use gutter rails, but the grandpa said he didn't need them. The kid was reluctant to try of course, but the mom cheered him on. Frame after frame he threw gutter balls and no matter how much encouragement, he was practically left crying on the floor by the tenth frame. Everyone including bystanders looked dismayed, and the kid wanted to give up or at least put the rails up.

Then grandpa gave him a pep talk, and ultimately made the point of finishing what you start. So the kid gets up, his family and onlookers start clapping and encouraging him, and he throws his last ball. The tension is high of course as the ball heads down the lane, looking pretty steady until the end when it appears it'll be another gutterball...

But then, at the last possible moment, it clips the corner pin and everyone cheers. The kid is elated, and goes on to kiss several girls under a mistletoe near the end of the movie. Yeah, it's just a movie, but it reinforces what several people in this thread have been trying to say about the value and symbolism of Dark Souls' design.

So he just keeps going at something, learning nothing and changing nothing until he happens to get lucky by some quirk of fate? That doesn't sound like it has anything to do with difficulty levels, he could have achieved the same with or without the rails. He gets to feel great, sure, despite that being exactly he sort of "getting rewarded for doing nothing" that you've derided in the past, but would he not have felt more great getting more hits after he used the rails? This seems like a pretty shoddy support for your argument dude

Pallindromemordnillap:

You asked me a question, I gave you the answer. Why so surprised? As for satisfaction, I've already mentioned a couple times that I enjoy playing things on easy that I could play on hard just because blowing through everything is cathartic fun. Different scenarios and different moods create different needs. Not everything needs to be hard all the time.

You're right it doesn't. But Dark Souls is hard, so if you aren't in the mood for that kind of challenge, go play something else. Why is that so fucking hard for you to grasp? This isn't even a discussion anymore, it's just you with cotton balls in your ears ignoring everyone else's points because they don't fit some insane grasp of how things should be. And instead of providing counter points you just go, "see that's just you twisting it to fit your vision, you elitist." That's not a counter point, that isn't even a discussion, that's people trying to explain shit to you and you refusing to accept it for some arbiturary reason. You're like a flat Earther.

Pallindromemordnillap:

Then this is basically just you being a hypocrite again. You've tried making points about the benefits of using hard mode to learn, but here you say you're unwilling to do so. You're accusing other people of what you see as your faults then holding them to standards you aren't applying to yourself. Seriously not cool dude

I'm not being a hypocrite. I'm bringing this up because you made the argument that people would be able to play on easy and then bump the difficulty up when they felt ready, which I pointed out to you does not happen because I don't do it. It's called learning from personal experiences. I'd be curious to see how many players of any given game start on easy, and finish on a higher difficulty. Or do multiple playthroughs on every difficulty. I'm willing to bet it is under 15% of the playerbase that starts on easy, which alone is a small percentage of a game's playerbase to begin with.

Pallindromemordnillap:

Alright, lets assume you're right about that. And? So what? So they just play the game on easy, does the world then end? Does anything negative actually happen at all? Why is this somehow worthy of your derision?

No, the world doesn't end. It just counters your point of people moving up in difficulty. It doesn't happen all that much.

Pallindromemordnillap:

Asking if the game could have an easier mode is not making some impossible demand to suit any possible outcome. Using hyperbole like this only undermines your case because it makes it more obvious how much you're letting your own biases sway you.

To quote Jeff Goldblum, "You people are so preoccupied as to whether or not you could, you didn't stop to think on whether or not you SHOULD". Sure it's easy for you to say, "just add an easy mode, it doesn't hurt anybody, and doesn't ruin the experience for players that still want to play on hard." But it does hurt the players that want to play on easy. Because they don't learn anything from their experience, they aren't playing Dark Souls they are playing some watered down version of the game. And if you don't want to play Dark Souls, go fucking play something else. There is nothing wrong with that.

Technically it isn't an impossible demand, you are right about that. But it is a stupid demand because it undermines the intention of the game in the first place. It's like going to a restaurant and having your food (however delicious it might be) served to you prechewed. It might be a lot easier to eat, but fuck it would be disgusting.

Pallindromemordnillap:

And yet there still remain many many games in which you do in fact do things. Sorry, but like your last paragraph this is just hyperbole. You're making extreme exaggerations and trying to use them in place of actual arguments

At least I'm provide arguments. Something you have yet to deliver on in any other way other than slinging insults at people.

Pallindromemordnillap:

It has taught them a mechanic. "This is how you use the sword" is in fact a mechanic. Its just not going to teach them every mechanic at once. Same as with literally any learning experience that has ever existed. Did you learn what the alphabet was and then go right to reading Dickens the next day?

No I didn't jump right into Dickens, but I did have to learn ALL the alphabet at once, not just a single letter. The game teaches you how to swing a sword, that's your argument? That's like saying they taught you how to move forward. Basic controls aren't mechanics. Mechanics are how the controls are utilized in gameplay, it's a totally different thing. Try again.

Pallindromemordnillap:

And the difference between them is? I've asked both you and hansel this before and both of you avoided actually answering it. Why is selecting something to make things easier done one way fine but selecting things to make things easier another way not? Oh right, its because the first way is the one you guys pick and you need to justify it to yourselves somehow

It's different because you aren't gimping your experience. Regardless of how you approach everything in Souls, you are approaching all the same things that everyone else is approaching. And it is how you chose to approach them that decides how difficult the task at hand is. A menu select isn't anything other than a handicap chosen by the player before the player ever steps foot into the game. By putting difficulty modes you are asking the player to make a choice on game challenge before than player can possible know what the challenges would be in the first place. They would be picking this choice on nothing but hearsay, or flat out not wanting to deal with it.

Like I said difficulty modes aren't a problem, in game designed for them. Dark Souls is designed to have a baseline difficulty modified through in-game playstyles. Part of the greatest of the game is how everyone has to start on the same footing. Everything and everyone is equal.

Phoenixmgs:
[-Lastly, the Mona Lisa is just a portrait of a woman.

Now that's an interesting trivia!

I don't how the Soulsborne fans can get so scared everytime someone says "this needs an easy mode". It's like they think the From Software developers don't know easy modes exist, and the fans are terrified that the later would react at the discovery like a teenager boy discovering that porn exists.

Kerg3927:

erttheking:
You seem to be looking only at Dark Souls esque games.

Yeah, I was talking about "difficulty-themed" action RPG's.

That's a point that I just can't seem to get across to people. Unlike other games, the difficulty is core to Dark Souls. Not that it is the most difficult game ever. But it is more difficult than most. And more than that, the difficulty is a key theme, and even a key part of the plot of the games. The theme is despair, dread, hopelessness, and even pointlessness... you're stuck in a hopeless, shitty situation, but you keep going anyway, because the alternative is even worse.

The first game is called Prepare to Die. That tells you right there, before you even buy the game, this is going to be challenging and frustrating, and if you don't like that sort of thing, then don't friggin' buy it. But on the other hand, if you're up for a challenge.... I dare you... I bet you can't do it.

Other examples...


Anyway, if you take away the difficulty, it's not the same game anymore. The theme has changed, and even the story and plot has changed. And this is where Palindrome will tell me that really inept players will still be challenged by an easy mode. That's another theme of the game. It's not up to you. There is no easy way out. You don't have a choice. Just like your character didn't have a choice when he was afflicted with the Dark Sign. And you don't have a choice now except to give up or go through the difficult obstacles the game presents for you. Sometimes things don't go your way and life sucks, but you deal with it. Toughen up or gtfo. It's what the game is all about.

Phoenixmgs:
Please point me to the crowd of people that are trying to ruin your "precious" Souls games. Because the mere mention of "easy mode" with regards to a Souls game brought out people like you acting like a victim being attacked when that didn't at all happen. This whole "attack" of Souls games never happened.

Then why won't y'all shut up about it, leave the game alone, leave its fans alone, and let them have their opinions about the game?

Sure, it's not really an attack, if you go by the literal, physical meaning of the word, as much as it's verbal harassment. How hard is it to agree to disagree? That's all I'm asking.

When I said you seem to only be looking at Dark Souls esque games, I mean you only seem to be looking at games that are hack and slash RPGs with stamina meters, currency you lose when you die, checkpoints that respawn the enemies, and more or less copying Dark Souls to a T.

I mean if you really want games that are hard and have that work into the story A. that's a very specific type of game you're looking for and B. Darkest Dungeon is about mercenaries losing their minds while fighting against impossible odds, the Binding of Issac is about a small child trying to escape his insane mother who's trying to kill him through a nightmarish world, Salt and Sanctuary is more or less 2D Dark Souls, Rogue Legacy is about dozens of generations of a family throwing their lives away in a desperate attempt to redeem themselves. You seriously may want to expand your horizons beyond games that are literally Dark Souls or consider that your tastes are highly specific and niche. Because I've never talked to anyone else who had tastes as specific as you.

And...oh me oh may oh my. Are you trying to shit talk my gaming skills by implying I didn't beat Dark Souls? I beat Dark Souls fucking years ago. Five fucking years to be exact.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.396302-The-most-satisfying-gaming-accomplishment-ever#16130306

Buddy? Don't talk shit about my gaming skills. You have done nothing to earn the right. (Oh and before you talk about my specific mindset back then, that was the very immature 19 year old me, I look back on that mindset poorly)

As a Dark Souls fan, I find the idea that Dark Souls isn't Dark Souls if you take away the difficulty to be rather insulting. All the work and care, the interesting monster designs and characters, but you make it not as hard and all of a sudden it isn't true Dark Souls? I found Dark Souls III to be much easier, possibly because it itself was easier, possibly because of my accumulated experience, but it was still Dark Souls to me. That line about not being fit to lick boots wasn't lessened by the fact that I barely struggled with half the boses in the game. Dark Souls is more than you give it credit for. Maybe think about that instead of saying "toughen up or gtfo" like it means anything.

The game's a big boy, it can handle criticism.

CritialGaming:

Phoenixmgs:

-The Witcher 3 is joke easy on any difficulty because CDPR has little understanding of balance and RPG mechanics. Quen and Axii both break any semblance of difficulty or challenge on any mode. In fact, easy is the best difficulty because it keeps you out of the shitty combat system the most. You could literally beat the highest level enemies at level 1 if you wanted to and had the time to do so sorta like how you can beat Yiazmat in FFXII at level 1 if you wanted to.

-You never answered my question about what if someone wants to play Souls in the "fun" way but finds it too hard? How is Souls teaching you to play the game by using the "easy" playstyles that just exploits the AI or mechanics?

-Souls is not hard because of a skill. From the little I played of Nioh (the demo), it's definitely more skill-based than Souls. Nioh is even more skill-based than the Souls game, Bloodborne, that doesn't have "easy" playstyles.

1. So you would agree that playing on Easy is nothing like the experience of playing on higher difficulties? Which is the whole point of why I brought it up. The actual game balance is irrelevant when the point was how much of the game can be outright ignored on easy.

2. What is a "fun" way? I don't understand what you are referring too. You mean if someone just wants to play Dark Souls for fun, but finds it too hard? Because to that I would say that we ALL play Dark Souls for fun, so if it is too hard for you get help. As with most other games that people find challenging, there are loads of guides online, as well as co-op to help you over the tougher moments in the game. If you are telling me that someone needs easy mode because they are outright willing to even try to learn what they can do better, or try to co-op for help, or anything like that. Then I don't feel bad that the game is too hard for them, because they are clearly not willing to deal with a game like Souls. Go play something else.

3. The things a player needs to beat Dark Souls are called skills. Whether you think those skills difficult or useful isn't relevant. Pattern recongnition is a skill, dodge reflexes, parrying reflexing, are both skills. Skill that would not be required if the easy mode was scaled back far enough to be called "easy".

You are right though, Nioh is a much harder game than anything the Souls games have done so far. Mostly due to the complexity of combat. There are a number of things that make Nioh more complex. The first being that there are three stances (high, med, low) that you can swap on the fly to string moves and combos. You also have a set of four weapons (2 ranged, 2 melee) equipped at once that can also be swapped on the fly. Then you have a Diablo-style loot system that makes EVERY stat matter. So you have to pay attention to what you equip otherwise you drastically handicap yourself.

It's wonderful. The only down side is the enemies are far more punishing than Dark Souls. Additionally there aren't very many different enemy types so you'll ultimately memorize 90% of the enemies in the game and only sloppyness will render them challenging.

HOWEVER. Nioh does something a lot more interesting in NG+ modes. They change the placement of the enemies, and almost every enemy gains new attacks for every NG+ level you reach. Which is wonderful because it makes all the NG+ modes feel new again.

1) Huh? How does saying A and B break the difficulty on every level = to the game being drastically different on different modes? You can ignore the same shit on Witcher 3's Death March as you can on Easy. All utilizing stuff like witcher potions and oils and shit does is make combat end faster, not using that stuff doesn't make it harder. All you need to do is put on Quen, attack until you're hit (which does no damage to you because CDPR are just amazing with broken mechanics!!!), back away and reapply Quen, rinse and repeat. Or replace Quen with Axii (aka stun), get in free hits, back away and stun again, rinse and repeat. That's all the game ever requires of the player on any mode. The only difference between the difficulty modes is that enemies obviously die faster on easy thereby allowing the player to waste less time with the game's crappy combat system.

2) Here's the "fun" to play Souls, like Bloodborne, you know, without exploiting AI and mechanics. The shield is the real villain of the Souls series. Telling someone to play in the unfun way is not how you make someone enjoy something.

3) "Pattern recongnition is a skill, dodge reflexes, parrying reflexing, are both skills." How is playing with a shield and holding block until an attack is finished (or using a spear and attacking while blocking) require pattern recognition? Same with using magic or a bow and arrow, how do you need pattern recognition? How do you need dodge reflexes when you're not dodging? Why would you parry when it's literally the inferior option? Where are all these "skills" required when you play with the "easy" playstyles? The game doesn't teach how to play or how to get better by taking the "easy" way out.

FINALLY!!! See I don't dislike the Souls games because of them being slower or more methodical or whatnot. I don't like the Souls games because mechanically they are too simplistic. Nioh has what seems to be a "proper" combat system (as I haven't played the game) where you actually have to master mechanics such as the stances and Ki system. Souls doesn't have that. That's why I compare Souls or any game's combat system to Bayonetta in the sense that Bayonetta has mechanics to master and enemies that force you to use the game's mechanics to the fullest. Much like I know that Nioh has enemies that put up those Yokai realms (grey circle things) and you have to Ki pulse to get rid of them, the game is trying to teach you that learning the Ki pulse mechanic is important. Any game's combat system regardless of how stylish and fast or slow and methodical should have complexity to it while having enemies that purposefully challenge the player's understanding and execution of said mechanics.

Kerg3927:

Phoenixmgs:
Please point me to the crowd of people that are trying to ruin your "precious" Souls games. Because the mere mention of "easy mode" with regards to a Souls game brought out people like you acting like a victim being attacked when that didn't at all happen. This whole "attack" of Souls games never happened.

Then why won't y'all shut up about it, leave the game alone, leave its fans alone, and let them have their opinions about the game?

Sure, it's not really an attack, if you go by the literal, physical meaning of the word, as much as it's verbal harassment. How hard is it to agree to disagree? That's all I'm asking.

You're the one quacking more than anyone else along with many of the series' fanatics. You are on the side that's displayed more "attacks" and verbal harassment than the nonexistent enemy you're fighting against. I couldn't care less if Souls games get patched easy modes or the next one gets an easy mode or they don't. However, I'm not going to ever say a game shouldn't get an option whether it be something as basic as inverting the y-axis to difficulty modes themselves. Options only allow me to tailor the game to my liking whether I choose to use them or not use them. Again, where is this "movement" of people trying to change the Souls games even at? There isn't even a stupid Internet petition meaning the people actually demanding an easy mode to a Souls games are at best the occasional person posting here and there on forums about it basically equating to "nobody cares".

CaitSeith:

Phoenixmgs:
-Lastly, the Mona Lisa is just a portrait of a woman.

Now that's an interesting trivia!

I don't how the Soulsborne fans can get so scared everytime someone says "this needs an easy mode". It's like they think the From Software developers don't know easy modes exist, and the fans are terrified that the later would react at the discovery like a teenager boy discovering that porn exists.

Adam Ruins Everything is a pretty awesome show. Also, that's the situation in a nutshell. The Souls games are done for now at least and the fandom is acting like these already released games are going to be ruined somehow. God forbid a potential next-gen remaster adds an easy mode and "ruins" everything even though the core game is still completely intact on said remaster along with you still having the original game.

Phoenixmgs:
"Pattern recongnition is a skill, dodge reflexes, parrying reflexing, are both skills." How is playing with a shield and holding block until an attack is finished (or using a spear and attacking while blocking) require pattern recognition? Same with using magic or a bow and arrow, how do you need pattern recognition? How do you need dodge reflexes when you're not dodging? Why would you parry when it's literally the inferior option? Where are all these "skills" required when you play with the "easy" playstyles? The game doesn't teach how to play or how to get better by taking the "easy" way out.

Stamina management is still a thing. Many bosses have elemental damages on their weapons and can break through your shield with some attacks. So hiding behind a shield isn't always going to save you. Sure it does make the overall game easier, but there will be situations where the player will have to leave the safety of a shield behind and rely more on dodging to win.

Based on what you've been saying about the Souls series, it is clear that you don't find the games challenging, nor interesting. Which is exactly the point of my posts for the last few pages. You don't think that Dark Souls games are all that interesting, and you go play other games that fit you better. You are doing nothing to contribute to the argument of putting easy modes into Souls games or other modes in general to make the game more fitting to you. You simple play other games and that is perfect.

Souls is the example being thrown around here, but that's because it's only the most obvious example. You could proxy literally any other game with a focus on difficult gameplay that either is present today, or will be in the future.

You link the "bloodborne is genius" video here and I'd offer up a situation. What if Bloodborne 2 allowed you to pick an "easy" mode on the start menu. These games have such a reputation for being challenging (regardless on whether or not you personally find them a challenge) how many players do you think would jump right into Easy mode without trying the normal mode first? How many of those easy players would step up to normal after beating the game on easy? And furthermore, how do you think the design of the game would change with development focusing on separate difficulty modes?

Game's usually don't turn out better when there is more work to do on them. Something is always sacrificed in the split. Because again, a difficulty mode is more than a number adjustment. While some games can get away with very simple coding modifications to make easier or harder modes, others do not have this luxury.

I've long since decided neither side is going to "get" the other, even enough to agree to disagree; lots of tangential and austere "worsts case if [the other side] gets their way" arguments that really further nothing. Can adding an Easy mode to Dark Souls tack on 9 months of development time, require an additional team of 40 people to work 6 14 hour days a week, ruin family lives and drive the Difficulty Balancing Technician (DBT, it's an industry term) into a downward spiral of alcoholism and drug abuse? Worst case, maybe. Best case, maybe not. We're dealing in hypotheticals, not absolutes as the thing being discussed doesn't exist. So without taking my side again, I do want to address a couple of your points:

CritialGaming:
These games have such a reputation for being challenging (regardless on whether or not you personally find them a challenge) how many players do you think would jump right into Easy mode without trying the normal mode first?

I'd offer not many; I'd say regardless of a game's difficulty, be it renown for it or not, the average gamer starts out at the default, "Normal" difficulty. With no prior experience with a game, those terms (Easy, Normal or Hard) have no specific frame of reference as they are subjective. Maybe a reviewer or someone backlogged and obligated to get through a bunch of games in a short window might drop it on Easy just to get a general feel, or maybe an ultra-casual gamer who just doesn't give two shits might play on Easy, but I'd wager most gamers are playing on Normal even before they check to see if there IS a difficulty option.

How many of those easy players would step up to normal after beating the game on easy?

I'll speak for myself and several of my gaming friends and admit that I'm extrapolating this ideal outward broadly: if a game is fun and interesting enough and merits continued play time and/or subsequent replays, we often go for the added challenge, be that Easy to Normal, Normal to Hard or Hard to [Insert developer's unique title for crippling punishment], we invest in the games we love. And since the inception of Achievements and Trophies, gamers are often incentivized to "test their might" and challenge themselves on higher difficulties if only for bragging rights. So no, I don't think the existence of an Easy mode, even in a traditionally "hard" game, would be a game-breaking disincentive for gamers to tackle the challenges of a game that offers a unique sense of accomplishment for doing so, even if they choose to cut their teeth on Easy first.

And furthermore, how do you think the design of the game would change with development focusing on separate difficulty modes?

Read my first paragraph. We don't know, but we DO know it's been done thousands of times and never have I heard of a game being delayed or significantly (let alone negatively) impacted by the implementation of difficulty options. Neither do I think "development [ever] focuses on separate difficulty modes." Would it require SOME focus? Of course. Would it require ALL the focus? Not if the developer and their game are worth at least their weight in dog shit.

Game's usually don't turn out better when there is more work to do on them. Something is always sacrificed in the split. Because again, a difficulty mode is more than a number adjustment. While some games can get away with very simple coding modifications to make easier or harder modes, others do not have this luxury

That first sentence is a BROAD and negative assumption. And a lot of games DO have additional work done on them because they need improvements and tweaks, hence "more work."

You keep returning to the idea that Dark Souls is all about its difficulty. Perhaps you didn't read one of my earlier posts, but I countered that specifically. DS boss fights are bigger than life. Something about being trapped in a room with The Gaping Dragon and the run-for-your-life orchestral score heightening the tension or the controller shaking in your hands every time Smough's hammer slams on the ground next to you right before Ornstein shoots in from off-screen with a cheap shot, these are moments that can be appreciated at ANY difficulty because Dark Souls is such a well-produced game; it's a unique experience of staring up a 9-foot tall fallen knight with a 6-foot long sword and a rich backstory that can be appreciated beyond the inevitable fact he's going to kill you a dozen times. It's easy to say "Too hard? Play something else," but what about people for whom difficulty isn't their reason for entry? What if they just like a good RPG? Or games with dragons or medieval-esque themes or melee combat or magic, etc. I'd offer Dark Souls has all that in beautiful spades; why should it not be for someone who can appreciate it irrespective of it being hard? I like a good laugh, but I'd hate to think one of the best comedies on offer can only been seen in theaters that put hot coals in all their seats. "Too bad; go watch another comedy." No, I want to see THAT comedy and NOT because the seats will char my ass; why can there not be normal seats for people like me, hot coal seats for the sadists AND neither need affect the other?

Pallindromemordnillap:

hanselthecaretaker:
Back and forth again and again, between proving that adding difficulties indeed changes the game, to having to prove why it matters. To put it in the simplest of terms, it ultimately boils down to symbolism. As it stands according to FROM's chosen design format (not an entitled body of players), when people generally look at an IP like Dark Souls, they know it's different. They know it's a game series that requires something more from the player to complete than most games. They know they can either relish the challenge, acquiesce to it or move on. They know they won't be able to just tick it down to their respectively manageable level.

What they may not know is that it's really not that bad or intimidating anyways, and that they might be surprised by how rewarding and refreshing its design can feel; to persevere through the tough parts without that option of making things easier, or finding some other way if one tactic proves too difficult. It's more like everyone has the same obtuse puzzle with no right or wrong path to the solution, and whoever gets through it may do something a bit differently. They can tailor the game's difficulty through how they choose to play.

And here's that contradiction again. If you think its alright to let people tailor things into being easier by how they play, what is your problem with letting them tailor things into being easier by how they choose to play? Why is picking a certain class to make things easier okay in a way that picking a different difficulty is not?

hanselthecaretaker:
The constant is that no one resorted to toggling some arbitrary value on a menu screen. Saying "I beat Dark Souls" then inherently carries more weight and camaraderie than that of most other games where the player is free to change whatever they want to get through. No one has to ask what difficulty or why they didn't/couldn't beat it on
"Insane" mode or whatever. It just is, regardless of how difficult it might actually have even been from one person to the next. It's not for everyone, as Phoenixmgs has made abundantly clear, but what is also clear is that it kindled a pretty respectable following based on what it is and what it represents.

Your argument here is telling me that beating Dark Souls makes you feel like you're in a special little club that makes you seem important. Not exactly disproving my accusations of elitism there are you?

hanselthecaretaker:
The clip was from a movie currently in theaters, so not surprised it was already taken down. The point was that a little kid goes bowling with his family and wanted to use gutter rails, but the grandpa said he didn't need them. The kid was reluctant to try of course, but the mom cheered him on. Frame after frame he threw gutter balls and no matter how much encouragement, he was practically left crying on the floor by the tenth frame. Everyone including bystanders looked dismayed, and the kid wanted to give up or at least put the rails up.

Then grandpa gave him a pep talk, and ultimately made the point of finishing what you start. So the kid gets up, his family and onlookers start clapping and encouraging him, and he throws his last ball. The tension is high of course as the ball heads down the lane, looking pretty steady until the end when it appears it'll be another gutterball...

But then, at the last possible moment, it clips the corner pin and everyone cheers. The kid is elated, and goes on to kiss several girls under a mistletoe near the end of the movie. Yeah, it's just a movie, but it reinforces what several people in this thread have been trying to say about the value and symbolism of Dark Souls' design.

So he just keeps going at something, learning nothing and changing nothing until he happens to get lucky by some quirk of fate? That doesn't sound like it has anything to do with difficulty levels, he could have achieved the same with or without the rails. He gets to feel great, sure, despite that being exactly he sort of "getting rewarded for doing nothing" that you've derided in the past, but would he not have felt more great getting more hits after he used the rails? This seems like a pretty shoddy support for your argument dude

-Because that would be changing the rules of the game as it was designed. Figuring "easy" out for yourself via Souls' structure vs just letting the game do it for you like nearly any other game out there. Why does every game need to have the same structure? Why can't there be a few outliers that offer something different for a change? I'm not the one on the attack for simply championing the "let it be" stance. Why hasn't this point sunk in yet? "What's it matter?" is a rickety platform to stand on attempting to refute what's clearly been answered at least a couple times on every page already. Hence the dog chasing its tail, as you seem intent on either not comprehending the point, or simply not caring about any stance besides your own indifference to it all.

-You realize a big part of the game is built around camaraderie no? All those little hints people leave for others along the way? Yeah, it means something as far as a videogame is concerned. It means whoever plays is in the same boat, following the same rules with all the same obstacles and challenges to overcome. It's a theme of the game, so naturally there's a greater mutual sense of pride than if the rules were skewed across various difficulty modes right off the bat.

-Someone who always rides their bike with training wheels will never gain the same sense of required balance as someone who learned to ride with them off. I guess you could argue not knowing any better, but that's not much better than what's it matter?. You seem to have a very negative, embittered attitude towards the very idea of self improvement, let alone whatever facet it pertains to.

 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