A Dark Souls easy mode would require a fundamental change in level design.

[Signa]

I'm not sure why everyone is hating on the OP. Level design is crucial when building an expereince for a player. I've never played DS, but just limiting the player's movement with cliffs in a battle with an enemy is enough to make the game feel harder.

All that aside, I think the OP makes at least one solid point: why redesign a game around people who don't want to play it? All that will do is piss off the people that liked your game in the first place, because of the way it was designed. Let those people go play another game, and leave this one to the fans that want it to be the way it is. I've lost a good few favorite franchises because of moves like this. Soon, there won't be anything left that is fun to play.

 

[DoPo]

All that aside, I think the OP makes at least one solid point: why redesign a game around people who don't want to play it?

You are correct - that is a good point. You are also incorrect - that is a strawman OP used. Because nobody has ever said the devs would ever do that. And nobody has ever asked them to do it. Arguing against that point does nothing, as it has never been a point. OP makes it up, OP argues against it - a strawman. Finally, while falling off ledges makes a game hard, it is not the entire source of difficulty. You can leave ledges and make the game easier. Both of these at the same time.

 

[Signa]

All that aside, I think the OP makes at least one solid point: why redesign a game around people who don't want to play it?

You are correct - that is a good point. You are also incorrect - that is a strawman OP used. Because nobody has ever said the devs would ever do that. And nobody has ever asked them to do it. Arguing against that point does nothing, as it has never been a point. OP makes it up, OP argues against it - a strawman. Finally, while falling off ledges makes a game hard, it is not the entire source of difficulty. You can leave ledges and make the game easier. Both of these at the same time.

So then, tell me why you think that designing a game to be both hard and easy at the same time is possible without harming the expereince for one of those modes? I don't give a flying fuck what classification the OP's argument falls into, I want to know why you think that making a game that appeals to its original audience while appealing to another diametrically opposed audience is a simple matter to not be concerned about.

Why do we even need to care about appealing to those people at all? DS was a commercial success, so you can't argue that it needs to have more mainstream appeal in order to stay profitable. There's no need for these changes (or options, if you prefer).

You know what, fuck this argument, I'm not in the mood. I've never played Dark Souls, so I don't even have a horse in this race. I'm just sick of games being changed for mainstream appeal, and people blindly defending those changes without regard to those who liked it the way it was. Believe me, there will be changes that the fans of the series won't like. They might be overblown once they hit, but they will be there when there was no need for them in the first place, and they will be there after the fans specifically asked them not to be. It's just another case of a developer/publisher respecting money more than they respect the people who made them and their franchise what they are.

 

[DoPo]

I'm just sick of games being changed for mainstream appeal, and people blindly defending those changes without regard to those who liked it the way it was.

Blindly defending? My, my. I see no blind defence here, I see blind attacks, however. OP is attacking a non-issue, for example, other people are making stuff up, too, and all this over something that is not even sure to be in the game. People are attacking easy mode even though nobody said it would exist. Get that. Not to mention that nobody knows what would this mean, even if it exists. Which side is more blind in that case? Finally, who the fuck cares if it exists if it's not what you're after? Judge the game on what it is, not on what might potentially happen, maybe, but is not even confirmed and is a sort of a nightmare scenario, perhaps. What if it allows smooth flawless "normal" mode (that would be the hard setting) and an easy mode that does not mesh with the other one at all? Or what if there is no easy mode but they throw in a quick tutorial and, like, several more lines of explanations of the world? Or what if there is no change? Why is only one of the ifs the "not blind" while all the rest are?

 

[Eddie the head]

I think if you can't make a game easier and not change the level design then you just made a bad game. Hard games are not fun because they are hard, they are fun in spite of them being hard.

Plus yeah, Straw Man.

 

[infinity_turtles]

1, You are not the only person to make that argument by a long shot. I haven't read through this thread completely, but I am referring to all of the threads I have read through on this subject, all of the arguments against it fall into those categories. I used the tactical reasoning as an example, and it is but one example of people making that argument. The fact that you took it so personally tells me you understand my reasoning. As for it being a dick move, how? It is a statement made on an evaluation. The fact that it is truth, does not make it a dick move. As for it being a willpower issue, how is it not a willpower issue. You argue that you don't want an easy mode because you would choose it instead of the superior normal mode. You are telling me that you would choose an inferior product just because it is easier, and not because it is better. What other explanation is there besides it being you lack the will to stay your course on a difficult product? I'm not trying to insult you, I am being quite genuine.

I've read through pretty much all the recent Dark Souls threads, and I've been the only one making the specific tactical choice argument. If you saw it on this site, it was assuredly from me. That's why I took it personally. And again, playing on Easy or Normal, either or, ruins my enjoyment of a games challenge unless easy happens to be challenging. It goes both ways for me. On easy I breeze through while on normal I feel like I'm handicapping myself and so don't give a shit. That has nothing to do with willpower. I don't enjoy handicapping myself and I want to be challenged. When you make the two mutually exclusive, I have no recourse. At this point I default to easy in case the mode actually ends up being challenging and because normal mode means I spend longer not caring.

2, It is your problem because the only people with any reason to decide to add or not add another difficulty is the developers. Where I have a problem with the argument is the biggest people crying this are the ones against the easy mode (mainly because those for the easy mode are asking for a change), yet those are the same people that threw their mouths(fingers) at From Software when the mistranslated article came out about the potential of them adding an easy mode. The same ones saying let the developers make the decisions were the same ones yelling at the developers threatening to never buy their products again (once again I'm not directing this at you, as I have no idea if you were one of those people).

You're generalizing more then I think is reasonable. Most people didn't come out of the woodwork until people started saying all games should have an easy mode and anyone who didn't think so was an elitist prick. There was, what, one thread with a couple of pages of posts here until Jim did an episode on it? There was a bit more in places dedicated to Dark Souls, but most of the current stuff is more defensive then anything else. Most of the arguments read more as "there isn't much that fills this niche anymore so please, please don't try and take it away."

In short, it really doesn't matter anymore. The devs are making a new game, they have stated they are not making an easy mode. Why is it so important to you guys that you keep fighting against it. Let the easy mode supporters have their moment and move on. It isn't as though it is going to make any difference to your game what-so-ever as From has said no way no how.

I like to argue and people in their generalizations have been calling me an elitist prick with no willpower. Seems simple enough.

 

[barbzilla]

Sniped for verbosity

You maybe the only one who made the tactics argument (I would have to go back and look, but I'll take your word on it), but you are by no means the only one who makes the argument that if there was an easy mode I would pick that instead of normal/hard. Rooster was one of them and he is the only Anti-easy mode advocate I've conceded a point to. I am really not above doing so, and when both sides look at something logically I think we gain a greater understanding. If you say it isn't due to willpower, I have no choice but to take your word on it, as I am not you, nor am I able to fully understand any person who isn't myself. But, it still seems to be an issue of being unable to make a choice to further your enjoyment. If you are arguing that the normal mode is superior to any planned easy mode then why would you choose it, unless it is because it is easier? On the other side of the coin, if you are arguing that an easy mode is superior to the default mode of play, why are we having this argument? Do you see my confusion?

I am not generalizing, on point two at all. It is ultimately up to the developer. That is a very direct point. And as far as the other people I am speaking of, I have seen people being hypocrites on said point, that is why I made the statement, also not a generalization. I even go so far as to say I have no idea if you were one of those people or not (I would assume you are not, because you are not taking that side of the argument).

As for the number of topics created, The escapist was and still is awash with said topics. It has been going on since the developer was mis-translated in that article. Then it started dying down again, then Jim did his video. That is when it picked back up again. This isn't a recent thing.

As for the Niche title thing. I have no real issue with that. Once again I think it is on the developers to make that decision. All I think is that I would support the developers if they decided to go that route. Instead we have elected to have a discussion about the pros and cons of said implementation of an easy mode. I happen to think the pros out weight the cons. it is as simple as that.

I never called you an elitist prick, I did accuse people making that style of argument of having little willpower, but I never intended to point it at you directly. If you like to argue, that is all well and good. I enjoy having an intelligent discourse and that is why I continue to bother with responding to threads like this. I am hoping to meet another person like Rooster Cogburn who will illicit a response in me counter to my point so that I may concede another point.

 

[WoW Killer]

playing on Easy or Normal, either or, ruins my enjoyment of a games challenge unless easy happens to be challenging. It goes both ways for me. On easy I breeze through while on normal I feel like I'm handicapping myself and so don't give a shit. That has nothing to do with willpower. I don't enjoy handicapping myself and I want to be challenged. When you make the two mutually exclusive, I have no recourse. At this point I default to easy in case the mode actually ends up being challenging and because normal mode means I spend longer not caring.

What if there were some kind of unique rewards on the normal/hard modes? Say there was an endgame weapon/spell/ability that could only be unlocked on the hardest setting. To my mind, that would then feel like the easy mode was the one in which I was handicapped. Would that be better for you?

 

[infinity_turtles]

You maybe the only one who made the tactics argument (I would have to go back and look, but I'll take your word on it), but you are by no means the only one who makes the argument that if there was an easy mode I would pick that instead of normal/hard. Rooster was one of them and he is the only Anti-easy mode advocate I've conceded a point to. I am really not above doing so, and when both sides look at something logically I think we gain a greater understanding. If you say it isn't due to willpower, I have no choice but to take your word on it, as I am not you, nor am I able to fully understand any person who isn't myself. But, it still seems to be an issue of being unable to make a choice to further your enjoyment. If you are arguing that the normal mode is superior to any planned easy mode then why would you choose it, unless it is because it is easier? On the other side of the coin, if you are arguing that an easy mode is superior to the default mode of play, why are we having this argument? Do you see my confusion?

Again, it's a mindset thing. Mode selection is not and will never be a special choice to me. It's the same as any other tactical choice I make during the game, aside perhaps from it being very clearly spelled out which one is more effective. Now to build on that, I also can't enjoy a challenge unless I'm doing my damndest to win. To make a poor tactical choice I know is a poor tactical choice is under no circumstances doing my damndest to win. Maybe I'm off-base on what others view as reasonable, though I hope others wouldn't suggest this as a way to enjoy the challenge of an easy game, but it's the exact same to me as playing with control settings flipped around in a way I don't like and that I find difficult to use. It's an option sure, but to say if I want a challenge I should just do that for every game is... Well, I just can't really wrap my head around why people would think that's a good suggestion. Either way the game isn't challenging, I've just chosen to screw myself over. If I've screwed myself over on purpose, why would I care if I fail? And if I don't care if I fail, why would I care that I've succeeded?

I am not generalizing, on point two at all. It is ultimately up to the developer. That is a very direct point. And as far as the other people I am speaking of, I have seen people being hypocrites on said point, that is why I made the statement, also not a generalization. I even go so far as to say I have no idea if you were one of those people or not (I would assume you are not, because you are not taking that side of the argument).

Perhaps I misread you, but while you excluded me once we started specifically addressing one another, the way your original statement reads sounds like you're throwing most of the people defending no easy mode and pointing to it being the developer's choice in with everyone who threatened boycott. If that's not what you meant then I'll take your word for it, but your word choice was vague enough that, to me at least, it read that way.

As for the number of topics created, The escapist was and still is awash with said topics. It has been going on since the developer was mis-translated in that article. Then it started dying down again, then Jim did his video. That is when it picked back up again. This isn't a recent thing.

Entirely possible I'm misremembering, but I don't remember there being too many before Jim's episode.

As for the Niche title thing. I have no real issue with that. Once again I think it is on the developers to make that decision. All I think is that I would support the developers if they decided to go that route. Instead we have elected to have a discussion about the pros and cons of said implementation of an easy mode. I happen to think the pros out weight the cons. it is as simple as that.

I'm not particularly fond of looking at these sorts of things as pros and cons like that. Niche titles and media tends to get shafted there because so much of "pros" tend to center around what more people enjoy. By it's nature, unless the discussion switches to one of the advantages of niche media existing in the first place versus everything being mainstream, well niche will always lose.

I never called you an elitist prick, I did accuse people making that style of argument of having little willpower, but I never intended to point it at you directly. If you like to argue, that is all well and good. I enjoy having an intelligent discourse and that is why I continue to bother with responding to threads like this. I am hoping to meet another person like Rooster Cogburn who will illicit a response in me counter to my point so that I may concede another point.

I was talking more generally about why I post in these sorts of threads, as I thought your point about letting them "have their moment" was a bit more general as well. Didn't mean to suggest you called me an Elitist Prick.

 

[infinity_turtles]

playing on Easy or Normal, either or, ruins my enjoyment of a games challenge unless easy happens to be challenging. It goes both ways for me. On easy I breeze through while on normal I feel like I'm handicapping myself and so don't give a shit. That has nothing to do with willpower. I don't enjoy handicapping myself and I want to be challenged. When you make the two mutually exclusive, I have no recourse. At this point I default to easy in case the mode actually ends up being challenging and because normal mode means I spend longer not caring.

What if there were some kind of unique rewards on the normal/hard modes? Say there was an endgame weapon/spell/ability that could only be unlocked on the hardest setting. To my mind, that would then feel like the easy mode was the one in which I was handicapped. Would that be better for you?

The answer to that is, it depends. Theoretically possible that it could be done in a way that I'd enjoy it, but as the loss of enjoyment stems from feeling like I'm playing stupid or not being challenged, I'd have to believe the reward to be competitive with the advantage of Easy Mode. Easy Mode in a normally challenging game by it's nature is such a massive advantage that having it from the start almost certainly outweighs any possible advantage you could get that only arrived at the end. So possible, but so unlikely that if I'm playing smart I'd never take the chance.

 

[Nero18]

playing on Easy or Normal, either or, ruins my enjoyment of a games challenge unless easy happens to be challenging. It goes both ways for me. On easy I breeze through while on normal I feel like I'm handicapping myself and so don't give a shit. That has nothing to do with willpower. I don't enjoy handicapping myself and I want to be challenged. When you make the two mutually exclusive, I have no recourse. At this point I default to easy in case the mode actually ends up being challenging and because normal mode means I spend longer not caring.

What if there were some kind of unique rewards on the normal/hard modes? Say there was an endgame weapon/spell/ability that could only be unlocked on the hardest setting. To my mind, that would then feel like the easy mode was the one in which I was handicapped. Would that be better for you?

That often only works in theory, in reality that end game reward has to be something really amazing or the player will at some point just go "fuck it, its not worth it" unless they have amazing will-power. It has happened to me quite some times when I for example dont even feel like the reward is worth me "torturing" myself. To really pull it of i think the game needs to constantly reward the gamer for playing on a higher difficulty, an at that point you start to get into some very tough game design where the game has to adapt to every difficulty.

 

[barbzilla]

snip, how much of this topic have we eaten now?

I'm sorry I'm still confused as to the tactical choice thing. I tend to choose my difficulty by picking the hardest difficulty I think I will be able to complete. This doesn't always mean the absolute hardest difficulty on every game I play, but the difficulty that will enable me to use my brain and my reflexes to their fullest extent. So that I can enjoy a minor sense of accomplishment. Putting in an easy mode to me, wouldn't effect me (a hard mode might, as I think i can safely move forward onto one), so I don't see the personal issue with it. I know I can complete the difficulty as it stands, I won't move down a notch. If I pick up a game and decide its too easy I will start over again on a harder difficulty, that is just how I am. I like to make sure I have pushed myself to my personal limit in a game. I will eventually either beat the game or hit a brick wall I can't pass. If I can't pass it I will put the game away and try again when my skills advance. Or I might look something up to help me, if I am desperate. I guess we just have two completely different ways of choosing our modes.

Yeah, I think I may have been too vague, I know that it isn't all of the people against an easy mode that are hypocrites. I just get irritated at the few who are. So, nothing against you or any of your ilk (the anti-easy mode advocates), just the hypocrites among you, and the ones among my side as well.

No worries, I have that issue myself. If I don't notice something or I don't pay enough attention to it, I tend to forget it all together.

Anyway, I like you. You have engaged in intelligent discourse and tried to influence me without reverting to accusations or name calling so I'm going to add you. The who reason for these threads is to figure out the why and how of things, not so much the IF. I know that many people here defend or attack based on a perceived chance or weakness, but it just isn't there. This is merely a glimpse into the reasoning behind the concepts.

 

[infinity_turtles]

I'm sorry I'm still confused as to the tactical choice thing. I tend to choose my difficulty by picking the hardest difficulty I think I will be able to complete. This doesn't always mean the absolute hardest difficulty on every game I play, but the difficulty that will enable me to use my brain and my reflexes to their fullest extent. So that I can enjoy a minor sense of accomplishment. Putting in an easy mode to me, wouldn't effect me (a hard mode might, as I think i can safely move forward onto one), so I don't see the personal issue with it. I know I can complete the difficulty as it stands, I won't move down a notch. If I pick up a game and decide its too easy I will start over again on a harder difficulty, that is just how I am. I like to make sure I have pushed myself to my personal limit in a game. I will eventually either beat the game or hit a brick wall I can't pass. If I can't pass it I will put the game away and try again when my skills advance. Or I might look something up to help me, if I am desperate. I guess we just have two completely different ways of choosing our modes.

Yeah, I've had difficulty getting others to understand my mindset. But "using my brain to the fullest extent" requires me to try and make choices that give me the biggest tactical advantage. In some games that's what enemy to prioritize, what equipment to use, which party members to bring into a fight, or what units to build. In games with multiple difficulty options, the biggest advantage is always the easiest setting. I start looking at my tactical options the moment the game turns on because, well, that's when the game starts. Everything from then on is part of the game and part of the choices the game gives me to beat it with. I can't really wrap my head around how people don't think the mode isn't one of those choices and just acts like it's not there.

 

[barbzilla]

I'm sorry I'm still confused as to the tactical choice thing. I tend to choose my difficulty by picking the hardest difficulty I think I will be able to complete. This doesn't always mean the absolute hardest difficulty on every game I play, but the difficulty that will enable me to use my brain and my reflexes to their fullest extent. So that I can enjoy a minor sense of accomplishment. Putting in an easy mode to me, wouldn't effect me (a hard mode might, as I think i can safely move forward onto one), so I don't see the personal issue with it. I know I can complete the difficulty as it stands, I won't move down a notch. If I pick up a game and decide its too easy I will start over again on a harder difficulty, that is just how I am. I like to make sure I have pushed myself to my personal limit in a game. I will eventually either beat the game or hit a brick wall I can't pass. If I can't pass it I will put the game away and try again when my skills advance. Or I might look something up to help me, if I am desperate. I guess we just have two completely different ways of choosing our modes.

Yeah, I've had difficulty getting others to understand my mindset. But "using my brain to the fullest extent" requires me to try and make choices that give me the biggest tactical advantage. In some games that's what enemy to prioritize, what equipment to use, which party members to bring into a fight, or what units to build. In games with multiple difficulty options, the biggest advantage is always the easiest setting. I start looking at my tactical options the moment the game turns on because, well, that's when the game starts. Everything from then on is part of the game and part of the choices the game gives me to beat it with. I can't really wrap my head around how people don't think the mode isn't one of those choices and just acts like it's not there.

For me the mode choice comes down to how I want to experience my game. If it is a game that I like the mechanics of I play on harder difficulties to test myself. If it is a game I don't care for the mechanics behind, but I want to see the story, i'll play it on easy. Most of the games I buy I play on hard though.

 

[Therumancer]

It occurs to me that if you walk off a ledge, it's not a failing in difficulty level. And I don't see a problem in putting an easy mode IN, because it doesn't mean you'd actually have to do it. And if you have to use ME2 style ledges for easy, fine, I say just have hard be open at the beginning so that people get a good choice.

Well the problem with an easy mode in my mind is that half the point of a tough game is the accomplishment of being able to do something not many people are able to do (comparitively speaking). The cinematics, story progression, achievements, etc... are your reward for success and preserverance. An easy mode simply gives all of those things to players without having to earn them, an easy mode means all of this stuff is taken for granted, choosing to play on a harder mode is simply you choosing to challenge yourself, not a matter of the game being difficult, or there being any intristic value in earning progression.

That said, an easy mode in Dark Souls or whatever is fairly easy to do. "Easy" does not mean "cannot fail under any circumstances". They could probably add better jump guidance, lower enemy health and damage, and have the bosses simply not use certain moves or stay in their relatively vulnerable states longer.

They could also remove some of the more arbitrary limits from the game. One of the reasons why I never really got "into" the series is less a matter of difficulty and more a matter of not being able to play a character I really like. The entire thing is too melee centric for me, when it comes to sword and sorcery I like to use magic (my handle is Therumancer), Dark Souls in paticular has made magic a finite resource as part of the difficulty curve, and it's impossible to play through as a dedicated mage without resorting heavily to melee combat. What's more the spellcasting system, aim, spellpower (mostly) and other things is fairly bad. It's so much of a pain that I inevitably wind up hacking through things even with spells because it's so much of a headache to use their magic system and typically most things I could kill would magic would be easier to beat using melee just because of the way the game is designed. Of course at the same time if they let you have an easily usable set of ranged magical attacks it would ruin the game since you could then pretty much burn down every enemy your facing fairly easily.... a fundementally bad design choice, I suppose with the current design if they made their magic system more usable it would count as an EZ mode as well. I personally look forward to a sequel that manages to maintain the essential difficulty, while allowing me to use magic as my only tool through the entire game as a viable option.

I'll also add that part of the issue with Dark Souls to an extent is that the stats don't matter much unless you have a whole lot of them. I consider ti barely an RPG because you don't really see much effect other than what gear you can wear/carry and how fast you can roll, until you've gained literally scores of levels. By the time a build/strategy starts to have a truely signifigant effect against computer opponents is about the time you have to worry about people invading your world and trying to murder you in PVP regularly. PVP having some very differant considerations than what works on the computer controlled enemies, which is again part of the whole "killer vibe" of the game. Another way to make an easy mode would simply be to increase the power of the stats, so you need less investment of points/souls to see signifigant effect, and ultimatly leading to characters who are polymaths by the usual point it does become a factor, giving the player a far greater range of options/gear and effective moves than they would normally have.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I think just reworking the checkpoint system to be less of an obvious way to pad game length would do wonders to making the game less tedious. I know people will say it is all about the difficulty and making you try hard not to die, but come on. The real reason the developers did it was to pad game length, the same reason old brutally hard NES games are the same way.

 

[BilltheEmu]

Except I was told that it made it easier, hence I shouldn't be picking it. Also, I chose an assassin, those don't have the key, AFAIK. Finally, I was making a throw away character, not the one I'd be playing seriously. I actually ended up playing through the whole of the beginning level (until you're taken by the giant raven) which is more than what I planned for. I was only testing how it's running.

There is no assassin class, so I assumed you were talking about the thief, which starts with the bandit's knife and target shield, giving parrying and backstabbing bonuses. And it's the one with the black leather starting gear and the mask. And again, I respectfully disagree with whoever told you that it would be easier. Not for a first playthrough, in any case. It provides more opportunity for getting lost in the beginning, which is exactly what I did the first time. Ended up going very much in the wrong direction, and ended up fighting my way, backwards, through an entire area that I wasn't supposed to get to until later. It's easier on subsequent playthroughs, however, when you know your way around, and know how to use the key to your advantage.

But hey, I enjoyed letting myself get lost, and going against the natural direction of the game, and finding my own way. I appreciate that Dark Souls allowed me the freedom to do that in the first place.

 

[Eternal_Lament]

Look, the ledge argument isn't a very valid point, but there are points to the level design argument.

I do see it as a valid point when discussing areas such as the Crystal Cave, Sen's Fortress, Tomb of the Giants, and the Chasm of the Abyss, in so much as this point: let's say a player chose easy mode with reduced enemy damage, stronger weapons, and reduced stamina consumption. At those points in the game, with things such as invisible bridges, traps that push you down, or just plain pitch black drops, they seem like sudden spikes of difficulty in a game that up till that point just seemed like a bleak hack-and-slash. This makes the game seem unbalanced or uneven. However, while the harder difficulty makes the whole game an ordeal of sorts, these sudden changes in level design just seem to be going with the flow rather than arbitrary inserts that make things uneven.

To use another example, how about enemy placement? Let's say that the Anor Londo archers didn't have the power or knockback that they do now. Would their placement seem like a fort that is indeed fortified with the best talent and power that souls can buy, or would it just seem like random enemies that have no real relation to the environment, except maybe to question why no one has chosen to storm the fort before if it's that easy to infiltrate.



I've said this before, and I'll say it again. An easy mode in the current iteration and version of Dark Souls, with all it's location design, enemy placement, and acquisition of abilities, a version without any major changes to these elements or complete reworking of the game, would not work and would instead make the game seem uneven or heavily unbalanced. The most that could be done would be a few changes to stats so damage is still a concern but not life-threatening, and perhaps turning Seek Guidance from a miracle to a special ring or infinite use consumable like the Silver Pendant so that those who could benefit from it's use can do so right off the bat. Now, if Dark Souls 2 is designed in such a way that both regular and easy mode can co-exist without making the other look uneven or unbalanced, then I have no problem with From doing so. I still think that at this point that that's not what From is doing when they said they'll make DS2 more accessible, nor do I think it's even necessary for them to do so.

 

[Calcium]

I get the feeling that if the developer claimed they were making a hard(er) mode, people wouldn't be running around to tell each other how the game would have to be redesigned, and how that such a mode would detract resources from the core experience.

 

[WoW Killer]

The answer to that is, it depends. Theoretically possible that it could be done in a way that I'd enjoy it, but as the loss of enjoyment stems from feeling like I'm playing stupid or not being challenged, I'd have to believe the reward to be competitive with the advantage of Easy Mode. Easy Mode in a normally challenging game by it's nature is such a massive advantage that having it from the start almost certainly outweighs any possible advantage you could get that only arrived at the end. So possible, but so unlikely that if I'm playing smart I'd never take the chance.

That often only works in theory, in reality that end game reward has to be something really amazing or the player will at some point just go "fuck it, its not worth it" unless they have amazing will-power. It has happened to me quite some times when I for example dont even feel like the reward is worth me "torturing" myself. To really pull it of i think the game needs to constantly reward the gamer for playing on a higher difficulty, an at that point you start to get into some very tough game design where the game has to adapt to every difficulty.

I think for me I wouldn't care so much how powerful the little extra is, per say, I'd only want it to be unique. The kind of thing where if you described to me what it did I'd still have to try it for myself to work out if I'd use it or not. That's a worthy enough reward for me, even if I ended up not liking it. I'd just want to try it; that's the reward. Even better, if the list of weapons/spells/abilities on easy mode was one bigger than everything I could get (on that mode) and I had a big empty space glaring at me; I'd have to do a hard run in that case. The thought of not having that last item would irritate the hell out of me. That's the completionist in me.

I guess that's an example of how gamers can differ. People have different tastes, and it's not always such a simple thing as casual and hardcore. Whether you're talking about a deep indie revolutionary title or a lowest-common-denominator film-adaptation you'll still find people who enjoy it for different reasons. What bugs me about this particular debate is that I thought the "ideal" solution to different tastes was to include more options. I mean surely giving players the freedom to choose their own game is better than tailoring to one niche or another.

I do kind of understand the willpower thing though, even if you don't like to call it that, because I've used that argument myself. In Skyrim, I've often advocated a mod that removes the fast travel feature. The obvious question is "why not play normally and just not use the fast travel?". But for me there's definitely something different there. What would satisfy me is something at the start which says "do you want fast travel: yes/no?", because that locks you in. You can make that conscious decision at the start what your challenge is going to be, and then stick to it. What stops me from being fed up and rerolling on a new character is that I'm already invested in that toon and I want to see it to completion.