Dark Souls Director Considers an Easier Option

[Andy Chalk]

Dark Souls Director Considers an Easier Option

Hidetaka Miyazaki is "sad" that the notorious difficulty of Dark Souls is keeping some gamers from taking it on.

Dark Souls [http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Souls-Playstation-3/dp/B004NRN5EO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346692029&sr=8-1&keywords=Dark+Souls], as I understand it, is a pretty tough game. The fact that the PC version that came out a couple weeks ago is called the "Prepare to Die Edition" speaks volumes. But not everyone is a fan of its repetitive, try-and-die gameplay, and Miyazaki, who admitted that the success of the game caught him completely by surprise, said he's worried that some potential players are staying away from it because of its fearsome reputation.

"I personally want my games to be described as satisfying rather than difficult. As a matter of fact, I am aiming at giving players sense of accomplishment in the use of difficulty," he said in a recent interview with Metro. "Having said that, however, it is true that Dark Souls is rather difficult and a number of people may hesitate to play. This fact is really sad to me and I am thinking about whether I should prepare another difficulty that everyone can complete or carefully send all gamers the messages behind our difficult games."

But it's not ease that players are looking for so much as games that are "interesting and worthwhile," he explained, so the trick is to find the balance between accessibility and challenge. "I think it is natural that hindrance or stress that does not attribute to such interesting and worthwhile elements will be removed in the end," he continued. "If the number of easy games is increasing nowadays, I guess it is because difficulty is not related to interesting and worthwhile game elements in many games among players."

It's interesting that Miyazaki's comments would follow so closely on the heels of the PC release of Dark Souls, because it begs the question of whether PC gamers, very generally speaking, have less tolerance for this sort of gameplay than their console cousins. It also dredges up the possibility of arguments and fistfights over whether Dark Souls is more "difficult" than, say, Legend of Grimrock [http://www.amazon.com/Uru-Ages-Beyond-Myst-Pc/dp/B00008Z0IA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1346692099&sr=8-2&keywords=uru]. Are PC gamers soft, or are they just different - or is it all simply a matter of completely coincidental timing?

Source: Metro [http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/games/910110-dark-souls-interview-hard-master]


Permalink

 

[Something Amyss]

Isn't that pretty much the whole point of DS? "It's hard?"

 

[blackdwarf]

you know that the difficulty is the selling point of the game?

and your game i mainly described as satisfying because it is difficult.

 

[Mr.Pandah]

I doubt PC gamers are afraid of the difficulty. It was more like the shape the game was given to them in. Also, alot of us are just gluttons for punishment I think with video games.

 

[jollybarracuda]

I really don't think the type of gamer (PC to consoles) really factors in to this. Consoles have, in many times past, been home to more hardcore action games like Ninja Gaiden and hell, even old platformers like Mario can get insanely difficult at times. But the PC has it's own history of hardcore games like DOOM and some older RPGs like Ultima and such. And considering Dark Souls is pretty much both an action game and an RPG, i think its unfair to try and bring up the system divide.

On the topic at hand though, i think adding in a difficulty option to Dark Souls would be a bad move. What makes it so satisfying is that no one is able to get through the game any easier or harder than anyone else. It's like adding in difficulty levels into Mario, it kind of murks up the playing field.

 

[DustyDrB]

Did you have to go for the pansy PC gamer subtext that may or may not actually be intended? I see this thread going very well now.

I admit, I have to be in the perfect kind of mood to play Demon's/Dark Souls. I've had Dark Souls for months and haven't touched it. It's not due to the difficulty, though. It's due to the atmosphere. Demon's Souls was very dreary, to the point that I actually found it emotionally draining to play. That constant aura of despair just requires a certain kind of mood for me. The same was true for Demon's Souls. I had it for over a year before I actually played it.

 

[ShirowShirow]

The difficulty is attracting way more people then it is pushing away. Something that doesn't hold your hand is a breath of fresh air in today's market.

For my part, I found the game really hard but for the most part fair. It punishes you for screwing up, but if you screw up it is probably your fault. That's what every game should shoot for.

Although if they do want to make the game more user-friendly they could start by actually explaining some things. Maybe even including an instruction manual. Remember those?

 

[Eternal_Lament]

I think an easy mode would be interesting, but ultimately it seems impossible to do. Tweaks can obviously be made here and there (such as the increased chance of finding Humanity in PTD), but overall there are so many elements of the game that, because they were designed around the original difficulty, would require a complete overhaul of the game. Perhaps it is something that can be done in the next game, but I don't see that happening to Dark Souls anytime soon bar maybe some major tweaks and additions.

 

[13CBS]

I feel that, while Dark Souls certainly can be quite difficult at times, and demands a good deal of timing, patience, and learning from your mistakes (particularly from the DLC bosses I've fought so far)...

...I also feel that many players, and in particular advertisements and gaming articles, often play up the difficulty a little too far. It's usually done in jest ("I died 3 times just trying to post this!"), but Dark Souls' difficulty has become memetic to the point where I feel that someone looking into the game expects a never-ending face-pounding from the moment you start the game to the moment you stop playing. Which is simply not true; the first time around an area will likely be challenging, and the new attack patterns from the enemies will likely slap you around a bit. But, especially at the beginning of the game, you typically have enough armor and healing to tank through a large portion of the level if you don't recklessly rush in all the time (and the game teaches you very quickly to not do that). By the time you get to the truly difficult areas of the game, you've developed enough experience, equipment, and knowledge to take on just about anything. (And if all else fails, just go Human and summon a helper. Praise the Sun!) Finally, I feel that death in this game is overplayed in terms of how devastating it is. Unless you die twice in a row and lose all your souls/humanity, all you usually lose is time and a bit of your patience. And if you run around with too many souls/humanity, then...well, that's kind of a bad idea and you probably shouldn't be doing it unless you're farming or something.

To reiterate: Dark Souls is challenging, yes. Difficult at times, even. But it's not the "Prepare to die ALL THE TIME" fest that many people would like for others to believe. It's a shame that it happens regardless, since I think more people ought to play this excellent, addictive game.

And to liven up the post after this bout of seriousness: AMAZING CHEST AHEAD, TRY HOLDING IT IN TWO HANDS

 

[lacktheknack]

It also dredges up the possibility of arguments and fistfights over whether Dark Souls is more "difficult" than, say, Uru: Ages Beyond Myst [http://www.amazon.com/Uru-Ages-Beyond-Myst-Pc/dp/B00008Z0IA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1346692099&sr=8-2&keywords=uru],

That is a... very bizarre comparison. Someone wanna explain it to me? I mean, Uru was hard, VERY hard, but not in the same way as Dark Souls... at all.

From what I understand, Dark Souls punishes you for screwing up, but it's nearly impossible to really "screw up" in Uru. Dark Souls focuses on player skill, Uru focuses on player thought. Dark Souls thrives on risk vs. reward (if I understand the Humanity mechanic correcetly), Uru has none whatsoever.

Just saying, it seems like comparing an apple to a small baby monkey.

 

[AJax_21]

Christ, that last paragraph was awful and unnecessary.

On to the subject matter, adding an "easy" option would change so many of the design aspects from the encounters, the level design, New game plus...etc. I don't see how FromSoft would go forward with this without sacrificing some of it's unique aspects.

The difficulty is fine as it is, but Dark Souls bigger problem is actually communicating it's more unique mechanics without resorting to heavy handed tutorials. Now that would take some rigorous playtesting and design.

 

[Andy Chalk]

That is a... very bizarre comparison. Someone wanna explain it to me? I mean, Uru was hard, VERY hard, but not in the same way as Dark Souls... at all.

That's the point. What is "difficult?" I think Miyazaki's concerns are misplaced, not because of the difficulty (which is both irrelevant and the game's biggest selling point) but because not all games appeal to all gamers, difficulty be damned. Making Dark Souls easier may broaden its audience a little bit, but on the opposite end of the scale, it'll also dilute what makes it most interesting.

 

[skywolfblue]

As one of those players who'd probably be interested in Dark Souls but hate the idea of "Redo the whole area if you fail" difficulty:

An easy mode would probably make me buy it.

 

[omicron1]

Uru and Grimrock - hard? Did I miss something?

Dark Souls is challenging on the level of NetHack. It's a game where the difficulty is substantial - but the rewards are equally so. Your comparison examples just don't cut it.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

go for it; he say it'd be an OPTION. Sometimes Dark Souls is legitimately challenging, but it can also plummet into just unfair and annoying (like the Capra Demon fight, Blighttown, Quelaag, Sen's Fortress, the entry into Anor Londo's castle, Ornstein and Smough, etc) so it actually BORES players instead of enticing them.

 

[Mr. Omega]

I don't mind an option for an easier mode. As long as it's just that: an option.

It's certainly better than the current trend of just making games easier overall.

The thing with games that use difficulty as their selling point typically have at least two or three instances where the game goes from hard to just plain unfair, and fans defend those stupid moments saying "well, the game is supposed to be hard!"

As for the "are PC gamers softer?" thing, I know it's likely flame bait, but I'll bite: The group of gamers that have had the option of "save-scumming" for as long as people can remember really loses any sort of argument of who is more used to harder games by default.

 

[Andy Chalk]

Uru and Grimrock - hard? Did I miss something?

Dark Souls is challenging on the level of NetHack. It's a game where the difficulty is substantial - but the rewards are equally so. Your comparison examples just don't cut it.

Of course they do. They're wickedly difficult games of different sorts. The comparison is spot-on.

And how exactly are the rewards of either Dark Souls or Nethack "substantial?" I think you'll find that it's the same sort of "yay good job" business that every game dishes out. Some gamers might get a big rush out of beating a particular boss fight after failing 50 times, but how is that any different than the one that others get when they work through a viciously obtuse adventure puzzle without the aid of a walkthrough?