See the post on the top of this page, it pretty much covers what I'd reply to this post as well. And, like I said to Rooster Cogburn, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here.
Frankly, no. I will not just agree to disagree. Im quite passionate about this debate and I actually want to have this dance. I want to go through every round and discuss the ideas you bring up that support an easy mode. If you want to withdraw from the discussion, ok Ill respect that but Im not backing down. I expect you and every other pro easy mode individual to back up their ideas and explain where theyre coming from. Then I want to give my input as to why I agree or disagree with them and why
The fact is were not just talking about a kitchen knife or a DVD player here. It doesnt come down to one being better or not. Dark souls, like all games, is art and if our medium is to move forward to a recognized artistic medium we have to have these kinds of discussions
Fine, I'm not angry because you suggested something that might hurt my enjoyment of the game. I'm angry because you felt the need to call people who hold my view "elitist, simple as that", even when you apparently acknowledge there are other reasons (even bad ones) to not want an easy mode in Dark Souls.
I'm going to take back that statement, as there seems to be people who have more sensible reasons than "OMG CASUALZ" to be against a lower difficulty setting in the game. I don't think I'll ever agree with most of them, though.
Still, my apologies for making generalizations based on my experience with idiots on other forums.
FriedRicer said:
Naeras said:
That answer begins with the assumption that Dark Souls is a Hard game.The difficulty is proportionate to the players interest in all of its mechanics.How would scaling damage and status effect being stun locked by the Four Kings?Or the Bed of Chaos?Or being pushed in BlightTown?You keep putting a solution from other games that build their difficulty on stats to a game that builds its difficulty on tactics.And my question on play-style have still not been answered-even though the game was made to be played as such.Reading,Patience,shield up,walk slowly-how can these things (the core of the game) be hard to do?I don't think the game is hard but since you know people who do,what are they doing that makes the game hard?
I'm not quite sure why they find the game hard, no. I can ask them later, if you want me to?
Although, I suspect they're just not methodical enough and thus take unnecessary damage before they understand their enemies. None of them played for very long anyways, to my knowledge, even though they thought the combat and atmosphere were well done.
I occasionally invade, but never try to pull in invaders myself. I mean, it happened a lot on accident, but I mostly invaded others. I mostly use the darkmoon covenant though, because at least it makes me feel less like an arse when I jam an oversized axe into someones spine.
Don't insult me, I am not a child who is incapable of complexity. I understand their points of view, I just disagree. I am allowed to disagree with others who have different opinions than me, right?
I didnt insult you so calm down. You obviously lack the academic experience and knowledge to touch the artistic side of Dark souls. That is clear since you dont know what artistic method is or how it drives the game. Thats not calling you stupid its just stating the facts
You are allowed to disagree with people but your lack of academic experience and knowledge in regards to art makes it nearly impossible to go further with the discussion. How are we going to discuss the basic and intermediate artistic side of games if you dont know what Im talking about?
I would say this topic is thoroughly exhausted. We're repeating ourselves. Since I'm throwing in the towel, it's only fair that I let you have the last word on this. I will only respond if something new gets brought up but I will read it.
My thoughts exactly. I've already conceded a point to you though, so don't give up entirely. I think the issue is that there are two completely separate paths of looking at the subject.
1: Lets do it!
This path is focused on the fact that From can make the game have an easy mode that doesn't break down the core mechanics of the game (IE only making minor changes to add to survivability) without effecting the current players. This path follows a more basic logic route.
2: Kill it with fire!
This path is focused on either keeping the game pure to its core design/feel or providing the sense of accomplishment that you get from beating it (or as you have enlightened me on; keeping the brutality of the game intact by not allowing players another option. Do or die as it may be). This path follows a much more illogical route, but still has very valid points.
So how do we solve this?
Easy answer, we don't. The core of the argument will exist wherever we go, just look at the xcom making easy easier thread. Same exact arguments are being brought up there, despite it having a vastly different system. Just feel safe for now that From has decided it would be a bad idea and doesn't intend to implement it.
You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar, and I agree with these points completely.
Dark Souls isn't about twitch gaming, or manual skill (though that can certainly help in some areas). It's about cleverness, it's about learning. It's about developing effective strategies.
Any human being is capable of this. We are all intelligent animals. Making the Souls games "easy" would be synonymous with making them "brainless". It would destroy the entire game, make it rote hack and slash.
I know people who are terrible manual gamers that beat the Souls games (and loved them). By coming up with clever combinations of spells, or a vantage point from which to limit an opponent's attack, or even just a way to avoid an extremely difficult area altogether. If they can do it, anybody can do it. But they might have to think whilst doing it.
Not the way that I hear from many XCOM fans: the games were supposed to be unforgiving, like you were actually fighting against an alien force, making each loss that much more palatable and damaging. You are supposed to feel like you are fighting a losing battle against a superior force, or something like that. :\
I think youre missing the point I was trying to make. XCOM is known for bing a hard game but it is not DEFINED by being a hard game. Its a subtle but important difference.
Again Persona is known for being a difficult franchise but it is not DEFINED by being a hard franchise. Difficulty is synonomous with the souls series. Persona isnt defined by its difficulty it is defined by roleplaying, being a JRPG, and probably other elements (yeah if you havnt guessed I havnt played that much Persona).
I guess my point is I don't think of the Souls series as defined by it's difficulty anymore than XCOM or Persona are. All are known for difficulty, but that never really struck as the point of any of them. I guess I just have a wildly different perspective on this. :\
Lets switch gears though. I want to talk about the artistic side of Dark souls and what the difficulty means as an artistic method to portray the developers intentions. Lets start with the question I posed earlier. Artistic method is sacrosanct. Do you agree or disagree and why?
Considering that you dont seem to understand the basics of artistry (not uncommon in this day and age as art programs in US public schools have been being cut for decades) I would agree. I dont think you understand the various points of view of people who dont want an easy mode or how it effects the artistic side of the game
I'm going to step in for him here as an american that does understand the artistic method. I feel video games to be a communal art form, at least as it applies to modern video games. Every online aspect, every forum and online community, and every patch that releases for video games shows this. Publishers and devs have been making art for decades, well almost half a century now, in the form of electronic entertainment. As they have progressed they have learned (granted its been mostly a monetary reasoning) to listen to fans. These fans shape the future of the game.
I recently went to a showing where a woman was doing a performance art piece (can't remember the name). She was slowly sculpting over herself with clay while audience members came up and selected a book from the floor to read to her. With each passage read from a book the sculpting began to take on a different form (from the aggression and passion of the strokes). This is very similar to how we as a community crying in the publishers/devs ears works.
How is this thread an "experiment in logic"? I read the OP and a few of the first replies, and there is not even a hint of a methodical series of steps in order to verify or debunk a statement in logic or by using formal or informal logic. Sure, it has a nice ring to it, I got into this thread lured by it, but then I was completly dissapointed because when I read something titled an experiment in logic I hope to see an experiment of some kind and logic present to a minimum degree; the discussion topics suggested in the OP are especially far from what was suggested in the title.
Ontopic - I try to interact online in DS as little as possible, because I find gear based PvP a bit boring. I guess if i cared more about DS as a whole, but TBH though i find it a good game and was happy to play it, I don't find it harder than a dozen other recent PC games.
Not the way that I hear from many XCOM fans: the games were supposed to be unforgiving, like you were actually fighting against an alien force, making each loss that much more palatable and damaging. You are supposed to feel like you are fighting a losing battle against a superior force, or something like that. :\
I think youre missing the point I was trying to make. XCOM is known for bing a hard game but it is not DEFINED by being a hard game. Its a subtle but important difference.
Again Persona is known for being a difficult franchise but it is not DEFINED by being a hard franchise. Difficulty is synonomous with the souls series. Persona isnt defined by its difficulty it is defined by roleplaying, being a JRPG, and probably other elements (yeah if you havnt guessed I havnt played that much Persona).
I guess my point is I don't think of the Souls series as defined by it's difficulty anymore than XCOM or Persona are. All are known for difficulty, but that never really struck as the point of any of them. I guess I just have a wildly different perspective on this. :\
Lets switch gears though. I want to talk about the artistic side of Dark souls and what the difficulty means as an artistic method to portray the developers intentions. Lets start with the question I posed earlier. Artistic method is sacrosanct. Do you agree or disagree and why?
Considering that you dont seem to understand the basics of artistry (not uncommon in this day and age as art programs in US public schools have been being cut for decades) I would agree. I dont think you understand the various points of view of people who dont want an easy mode or how it effects the artistic side of the game
I'm going to step in for him here as an american that does understand the artistic method. I feel video games to be a communal art form, at least as it applies to modern video games. Every online aspect, every forum and online community, and every patch that releases for video games shows this. Publishers and devs have been making art for decades, well almost half a century now, in the form of electronic entertainment. As they have progressed they have learned (granted its been mostly a monetary reasoning) to listen to fans. These fans shape the future of the game.
I recently went to a showing where a woman was doing a performance art piece (can't remember the name). She was slowly sculpting over herself with clay while audience members came up and selected a book from the floor to read to her. With each passage read from a book the sculpting began to take on a different form (from the aggression and passion of the strokes). This is very similar to how we as a community crying in the publishers/devs ears works.
Wow, Im actually a little surprised. Most people wont touch the art side of gaming with a 10 foot pole.
I have to disagree, though not in the way you probably think. I do view games as communal art but the majority of them are not communal for the player, they are communal for the development team. Most exceptions to the rule mostly fall under those that give greater creative control to the player with a system of complex developer made tools (i.e Minecraft).
What you're talking about (not in your example obviously because that is communal art with the viewer not solely artists) is more like critiquing art instead of being a driving force that shapes it. As Ive said I think its fair to critique art and explaining how meanings and intentions could have been better portrayed. However in the case of difficulty, well it just doesnt work that way because Dark souls is defined by it. I dont believe you could change that and retain the same game much how you couldnt change the Mona Lisa's smile and have the same painting.
Honestly how much easier can the game get? It's already a cakewalk? Adjust meant to damage take still arent going to stop the problematic enemies from killing you.
On the artistic side, the difficulty is suppose to help one get immersed in the dark times of the game. Too bad it fails to do that for me. By the time I fought the second boss of the game I learned the best strategy in the game. Hold block and strafe right. If an attack takes to long to come out its probably unblockable so get away from it, if a boss stands still and looks like its choking chances are its doing the full body aura blast thing like Quelaag so move...etc rinse and repeat.
I don't care if they added an easy mode, I believe everyone should be allowed to get immersed in the world of dark souls regardless of patience (i refuse to say skill).
I really believe that people go into the game with a mindset from other games. Inductively,their play-styles from other games have given good results-so it should be the same here.If those players played every game deductively,as if it was their first time playing ,each new game could be tackled in a new way-as a different game should be played.
I think having the correct mindset goes a long way into enjoying this game, many have said that they hated the game until something clicked in their heads and they "got it".
Personally I think much of the reason so many cult classics and niche genres fail to sell and impress on an wider audience is down to ppls narrow mindset and willingness to adjust their way of thinking to suit the game. I'm not trying to be an elitist fart here but it seems to me that many AAA genres have evolved into certain defined standards, ppl pick up a FPS and automatically expect a game to play a certain way and have options to suit their style of play. I personally think this is a large problem with gaming today, too many similar games that all play the same, that only big IPs and reboots have any hope to sell, and new IPs are often clones or are marketed as clones to attract a popular games playerbase. That's why Vanquish failed to sell SEGA marketed it as a Gears clone since it was a cover shooter, but its a completely different game with a different mindset of play.
As many have said DS for the most part isn't a hard game, it's more about been flexible with ones own way of thinking both to play on the games terms and how to think out of the box when it comes to overcoming it's challenges. I think many of the ppl who quit at the undead burg just see the games difficulty and automatically assume it's is some unfairly hard masocore game like I wanna be the guy, somrthing to beat by brute force rather than using the mechanics to make the game easy. I wonder how less popular DS would have been if there weren't ppl online telling others that it's a great game if played a certain way.
I guess those who think a game should adapt to suit their playstyle and those who don't are what divides many of the pro and con easymode ppl in this thread.
How is this thread an "experiment in logic"? I read the OP and a few of the first replies, and there is not even a hint of a methodical series of steps in order to verify or debunk a statement in logic or by using formal or informal logic. Sure, it has a nice ring to it, I got into this thread lured by it, but then I was completly dissapointed because when I read something titled an experiment in logic I hope to see an experiment of some kind and logic present to a minimum degree; the discussion topics suggested in the OP are especially far from what was suggested in the title.
Ontopic - I try to interact online in DS as little as possible, because I find gear based PvP a bit boring. I guess if i cared more about DS as a whole, but TBH though i find it a good game and was happy to play it, I don't find it harder than a dozen other recent PC games.
Actually I did follow the scientific method when experimenting with the claims made against an easy mode. I just didn't write it as a scientific paper. The experiment in logic was referring to experimenting with the logic of the arguments against including an easy mode in the game. As for the discussion value I wanted to have something to discuss as I assumed (my first mistake) that the argument was over at this point. I was only giving my findings on the matter.
Wow, Im actually a little surprised. Most people wont touch the art side of gaming with a 10 foot pole.
I have to disagree, though not in the way you probably think. I do view games as communal art but the majority of them are not communal for the player, they are communal for the development team. Most exceptions to the rule mostly fall under those that give greater creative control to the player with a system of complex developer made tools (i.e Minecraft).
What you're talking about (not in your example obviously because that is communal art with the viewer not solely artists) is more like critiquing art instead of being a driving force that shapes it. As Ive said I think its fair to critique art and explaining how meanings and intentions could have been better portrayed. However in the case of difficulty, well it just doesnt work that way because Dark souls is defined by it. I dont believe you could change that and retain the same game much how you couldnt change the Mona Lisa's smile and have the same painting.
Well I chose to take the question because it was the second valid (from a logic standpoint and not an emotional one, I accept that there are other valid emotional standpoints) point I saw in the entire thread against making an easy mode. Life in general is art to me, so I fail to see how video games should be excluded as an art form.
On to your rebuttal;
It isn't inclusive to the developers alone as you have to consider they seek outside influence throughout the development process. In pre-development stages they seek funding and advice about the subject matter (funding is actually integral to the artistic process when it comes to video games, though I despise that fact). During the actual development stages they seek testers to check not just for bugs, but also for feedback about the game. Many many games have been changed during the alpha and beta tests because of negative feedback, all the way down to the core mechanics. Once the game releases the developers seek the feedback of the fans, that is how the patches are released (with the exception of fixing game breaking bugs), shaping and creating changes to the way the game plays, and in some cases even the story (ME3).
So I believe it to be a communal art project with the fans as well as the developers.
P.S.
Thank you for refuting me based on a logical argument by the way. I can't discussing with people who only say "not uh, my way is the right way. You are just wrong". Also it is refreshing to see art brought up about video games in a sense that isn't a case of "should it be art".
Don't insult me, I am not a child who is incapable of complexity. I understand their points of view, I just disagree. I am allowed to disagree with others who have different opinions than me, right?
I didnt insult you so calm down. You obviously lack the academic experience and knowledge to touch the artistic side of Dark souls. That is clear since you dont know what artistic method is or how it drives the game. Thats not calling you stupid its just stating the facts
You are allowed to disagree with people but your lack of academic experience and knowledge in regards to art makes it nearly impossible to go further with the discussion. How are we going to discuss the basic and intermediate artistic side of games if you dont know what Im talking about?
You know, it could just be that I have a good understanding of art and such, I just didn't take the time to memorize all the terms. Have you thought of that? Please, don't think I know nothing about the topic since I don't know the meaning of one specific (and quite generic sounding) phrase. I might know more than you think...
Fine, I'm not angry because you suggested something that might hurt my enjoyment of the game. I'm angry because you felt the need to call people who hold my view "elitist, simple as that", even when you apparently acknowledge there are other reasons (even bad ones) to not want an easy mode in Dark Souls.
I'm going to take back that statement, as there seems to be people who have more sensible reasons than "OMG CASUALZ" to be against a lower difficulty setting in the game. I don't think I'll ever agree with most of them, though.
Still, my apologies for making generalizations based on my experience with idiots on other forums.
FriedRicer said:
Naeras said:
That answer begins with the assumption that Dark Souls is a Hard game.The difficulty is proportionate to the players interest in all of its mechanics.How would scaling damage and status effect being stun locked by the Four Kings?Or the Bed of Chaos?Or being pushed in BlightTown?You keep putting a solution from other games that build their difficulty on stats to a game that builds its difficulty on tactics.And my question on play-style have still not been answered-even though the game was made to be played as such.Reading,Patience,shield up,walk slowly-how can these things (the core of the game) be hard to do?I don't think the game is hard but since you know people who do,what are they doing that makes the game hard?
I'm not quite sure why they find the game hard, no. I can ask them later, if you want me to?
Although, I suspect they're just not methodical enough and thus take unnecessary damage before they understand their enemies. None of them played for very long anyways, to my knowledge, even though they thought the combat and atmosphere were well done.
Fine, I'm not angry because you suggested something that might hurt my enjoyment of the game. I'm angry because you felt the need to call people who hold my view "elitist, simple as that", even when you apparently acknowledge there are other reasons (even bad ones) to not want an easy mode in Dark Souls.
I'm going to take back that statement, as there seems to be people who have more sensible reasons than "OMG CASUALZ" to be against a lower difficulty setting in the game. I don't think I'll ever agree with most of them, though.
Still, my apologies for making generalizations based on my experience with idiots on other forums.
FriedRicer said:
Naeras said:
That answer begins with the assumption that Dark Souls is a Hard game.The difficulty is proportionate to the players interest in all of its mechanics.How would scaling damage and status effect being stun locked by the Four Kings?Or the Bed of Chaos?Or being pushed in BlightTown?You keep putting a solution from other games that build their difficulty on stats to a game that builds its difficulty on tactics.And my question on play-style have still not been answered-even though the game was made to be played as such.Reading,Patience,shield up,walk slowly-how can these things (the core of the game) be hard to do?I don't think the game is hard but since you know people who do,what are they doing that makes the game hard?
I'm not quite sure why they find the game hard, no. I can ask them later, if you want me to?
Although, I suspect they're just not methodical enough and thus take unnecessary damage before they understand their enemies. None of them played for very long anyways, to my knowledge, even though they thought the combat and atmosphere were well done.
Yeah ask them,that would be cool.Elitist(?)by the way,though I have helped a number of people play the game(Co-op,posts,wiki).I would like to point out that if they are not methodical enough they have set the game on hard mode.If someone plays the game as if the should "prepare to die" the game is easy.Most other posters explained why an easy mode would ruin the challenge of the game.Simply knowing that at any point the challenge can be customized would compromise the experience of tension that I,and every other player MUST ENDURE TOGETHER.In fact subtleties like hearing another players bell ring,seeing their ghosts at bonfires,and receiving/giving estus for lighting a bonfire where created to put an emphasis on the world that hates everyone in it-except the players that continue.
Woah...bit cheesy there.K, not as tense if I choose to make the game difficult arbitrarily.
The way it is now I know beat it the way it was intended.Makes it easier to bake cakes?
I'm going to take back that statement, as there seems to be people who have more sensible reasons than "OMG CASUALZ" to be against a lower difficulty setting in the game. I don't think I'll ever agree with most of them, though.
Still, my apologies for making generalizations based on my experience with idiots on other forums.
I think that's awesome, I really appreciate your willingness to acknowledge another perspective even when you don't agree. Thumbs up to that. Forgive me, please, for freaking out lol.
barbzilla said:
My thoughts exactly. I've already conceded a point to you though, so don't give up entirely. I think the issue is that there are two completely separate paths of looking at the subject.
I don't think 'logical vs. illogical' is the most precise way to characterize the difference between those views. However, I do recognize that those views represent different value choices about the type of experience video games can convey or should strive to convey, or at least about what this game should strive to accomplish. I also don't completely agree with the premise of your first point but I'm sure I've said plenty on that. If it's still not clear I can try it another way. Basically I don't agree that From or anyone else is likely to do that, even if technically, they could. I think adding an easy mode to the game puts enormous strains on From Soft by pulling their core design focus in two different directions.
I think both sides of this issue will benefit from trying to empathize with the perspective of the other side. I admit, that isn't always easy for me to do. I frequently feel like some people don't want my perspective to be represented at all, and that defensiveness bleeds into my writing. Or you know, grabs it by the throat and runs with it.
Ariseishirou said:
You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar, and I agree with these points completely.
Dark Souls isn't about twitch gaming, or manual skill (though that can certainly help in some areas). It's about cleverness, it's about learning. It's about developing effective strategies.
I wouldn't have said "brainless". I just think that word says more than you probably meant to. But yea, I agree with you, and thanks =). I really think the people who are calling for scaling down the stats don't understand what they are asking for. What making the game more lenient in terms of stats actually accomplishes is to allow players to progress through Dark Souls without exploring the possibilities in the mechanics. That is not analogous to playing Halo on easy mode. That is more akin to playing Halo without guns.
SkarKrow said:
I must say I agree wholeheartedly, Dark Souls isn't a hard game at all, it's just a game with little tolerance for the impatient and hasty. It's predecessor Demon's Souls was exactly the same, the challenge wasn't the crushing difficulty at all, the challenge was figuring out just how the hell you beat whatever it was that you couldn't beat.
On my first playthrough, I went to the graveyard at a relatively early level. It was hard, too hard maybe, but I just... had to know. Then I got to the scary as fuck Catacombs. And the bastards wouldn't die! They just kept getting back up! I knew I should turn back, but I just... had to know. So I spent all my souls, fought my way to the entrance, and then... BANZAI! I charged past the undying skeletons who chased the whole way down. Finally I met a necromancer in the blackness throwing fireballs at me! After a few quick dodges, I managed to get some hits in on the beast. He went down... and stayed down! I couldn't hold off the skeletons. I quickly lost stamina and died. But I knew. I knew I could kill the skeletons now. I knew I had broken the link with their evil master.
As I reappeared at Firelink Shrine, I was practically shouting this:
Short story long, I cleared the entire Catacombs that way and eventually killed Pinwheel. For my efforts, I was rewarded with the Rite of Kindling very early on, and enjoyed that tasty Estus for the rest of the play-through. Reflecting on that experience, I can't imagine how different that whole section of the game would have been for me if Dark Souls had an easy mode, what the people who actually play the easy mode are missing out on, and how that encounter would have to be tweaked to account for the needs of the easy mode players.
I am very encouraged to see people interested in discussing a video game as if it were art. It has been my experience that despite all the blather about games-as-art, most people are still very committed to analyzing and critiquing games strictly in terms of their value as products, like the game was a friggin' dishwasher. Jim Sterling, Yahtzee, MovieBob, I'm looking at you.
Wow, Im actually a little surprised. Most people wont touch the art side of gaming with a 10 foot pole.
I have to disagree, though not in the way you probably think. I do view games as communal art but the majority of them are not communal for the player, they are communal for the development team. Most exceptions to the rule mostly fall under those that give greater creative control to the player with a system of complex developer made tools (i.e Minecraft).
What you're talking about (not in your example obviously because that is communal art with the viewer not solely artists) is more like critiquing art instead of being a driving force that shapes it. As Ive said I think its fair to critique art and explaining how meanings and intentions could have been better portrayed. However in the case of difficulty, well it just doesnt work that way because Dark souls is defined by it. I dont believe you could change that and retain the same game much how you couldnt change the Mona Lisa's smile and have the same painting.
Well I chose to take the question because it was the second valid (from a logic standpoint and not an emotional one, I accept that there are other valid emotional standpoints) point I saw in the entire thread against making an easy mode. Life in general is art to me, so I fail to see how video games should be excluded as an art form.
On to your rebuttal;
It isn't inclusive to the developers alone as you have to consider they seek outside influence throughout the development process. In pre-development stages they seek funding and advice about the subject matter (funding is actually integral to the artistic process when it comes to video games, though I despise that fact). During the actual development stages they seek testers to check not just for bugs, but also for feedback about the game. Many many games have been changed during the alpha and beta tests because of negative feedback, all the way down to the core mechanics. Once the game releases the developers seek the feedback of the fans, that is how the patches are released (with the exception of fixing game breaking bugs), shaping and creating changes to the way the game plays, and in some cases even the story (ME3).
So I believe it to be a communal art project with the fans as well as the developers.
P.S.
Thank you for refuting me based on a logical argument by the way. I can't discussing with people who only say "not uh, my way is the right way. You are just wrong". Also it is refreshing to see art brought up about video games in a sense that isn't a case of "should it be art".
Considering that dark souls is the third game of its type (the previous two I know of being Demon's souls and kings field) I personally dont think that feedback played as large part in its development as you're implying. However to be fair, if it did were still talking about the difficulty being the core artistic method to help the player experience the goals of the game (a sense of accomplishment and discovery) that was designed by people within the games design instead of with the developers themselves.
It also seems to me that patches are normally used to fix bugs and bring in new content not to effect the art thats already there. ME3 is a case where that happened but I consider that more of an exception. However, this still goes back to the question of whether artistic methods like dark souls difficulty is sacrosanct or not. I personally believe it is and that gamers, even though they are consumers, need to respect the methods used in the game. Its not like the whole ME3 ending where millions of people were promised an ending that was tailor made to their game and made use of their choices only to get the pick and ending room. The only promise dark souls makes is that its a hard game. Its not trying to be the extremely roleplaying and story driven games that Biowares known for and its not trying to be the massive expansive world that Bethesda makes. Its just trying to be itself, a game with unforgiving difficulty thats trying to build players up with its challenges. A sub genre that has been neglected for a long time
I would say this topic is thoroughly exhausted. We're repeating ourselves. Since I'm throwing in the towel, it's only fair that I let you have the last word on this. I will only respond if something new gets brought up but I will read it.
My thoughts exactly. I've already conceded a point to you though, so don't give up entirely. I think the issue is that there are two completely separate paths of looking at the subject.
1: Lets do it!
This path is focused on the fact that From can make the game have an easy mode that doesn't break down the core mechanics of the game (IE only making minor changes to add to survivability) without effecting the current players. This path follows a more basic logic route.
2: Kill it with fire!
This path is focused on either keeping the game pure to its core design/feel or providing the sense of accomplishment that you get from beating it (or as you have enlightened me on; keeping the brutality of the game intact by not allowing players another option. Do or die as it may be). This path follows a much more illogical route, but still has very valid points.
So how do we solve this?
Easy answer, we don't. The core of the argument will exist wherever we go, just look at the xcom making easy easier thread. Same exact arguments are being brought up there, despite it having a vastly different system. Just feel safe for now that From has decided it would be a bad idea and doesn't intend to implement it.
How is the second path illogical if it has valid points?As someone who has taken Logic, Philosophy and came here to talk about Dark Souls logically, there isn't a whole lot of it-no offense to you. I kept asking my questions over and over and haven't gotten an answer.TC maybe you can help me.This time with logic.I'll ask after showing what Argument (I think)you are making.
Argument 1
Stats deal with numbers/values(like the ones the player is given).
Tactics can manipulate or ignore numbers(enemies habits and weaknesses/players approach).
A Game can be hard due to stats.
Stats can be altered to make the game easier.
Dark Souls is hard due to tactics.
Stats can be altered to make the game easier?
My Question
All your stats could be at max-if you have not figured out how to get around the Bed of Chaos
"You are Dead".Certain enemies were made and positioned just to force you to rely on a certain game mechanic rather than a stat.
Argument 2
Games that have an easy mode have a harder/hard mode.
This game has no easy mode/modes of difficulty.
This game is hard?
My Question
Couldn't I use that same logic and say the game is easy?
I have picked up almost every item in the game and have looked at all of their locations in comparison to bosses,enemies and etc.The game constantly gives you items to beat the next area.Constantly.If the game is as hard as the player makes it(this is a fact) and people find it hard...then they need to change the way they play.
Argument 3
Artist make art.(Money is not a goal)
Salespersons sell products.(Money is a goal)
Developers make games.(A hybrid of the first to groups I guess)
A game can be both art and/or a product (freeware/indie/AAA title).
It is illogical not to make the game easy so more sales will be generated?
My Question
Why is it illogical to expect a developer/publisher might not be 100 percent inclined to treat their art as a complete product and please multiple demographics-when a game is a thing that is not completely a product?That making more money will out-way art all the time?It doesn't.
If those are not the arguments you seem to be making-What are they?Is an easy mode worth risking the good game we have already? Just so people can play a stat-based game in a tactics created environment?
Actually I did follow the scientific method when experimenting with the claims made against an easy mode. I just didn't write it as a scientific paper. The experiment in logic was referring to experimenting with the logic of the arguments against including an easy mode in the game. As for the discussion value I wanted to have something to discuss as I assumed (my first mistake) that the argument was over at this point. I was only giving my findings on the matter.
Anything called scientific must be at the very least mesurable. You had one subjective play of DS, which is a good way to spend time, but there was no hypothesis, no messures during the activity, the activites can't be repeated nor it had a control group; what definition of scientific method are you using?
Also, logic and arguments over preferences have seldom a close connection. But it might be commendable to try base your arguments on logical deductions
Wow, Im actually a little surprised. Most people wont touch the art side of gaming with a 10 foot pole.
I have to disagree, though not in the way you probably think. I do view games as communal art but the majority of them are not communal for the player, they are communal for the development team. Most exceptions to the rule mostly fall under those that give greater creative control to the player with a system of complex developer made tools (i.e Minecraft).
What you're talking about (not in your example obviously because that is communal art with the viewer not solely artists) is more like critiquing art instead of being a driving force that shapes it. As Ive said I think its fair to critique art and explaining how meanings and intentions could have been better portrayed. However in the case of difficulty, well it just doesnt work that way because Dark souls is defined by it. I dont believe you could change that and retain the same game much how you couldnt change the Mona Lisa's smile and have the same painting.
Well I chose to take the question because it was the second valid (from a logic standpoint and not an emotional one, I accept that there are other valid emotional standpoints) point I saw in the entire thread against making an easy mode. Life in general is art to me, so I fail to see how video games should be excluded as an art form.
On to your rebuttal;
It isn't inclusive to the developers alone as you have to consider they seek outside influence throughout the development process. In pre-development stages they seek funding and advice about the subject matter (funding is actually integral to the artistic process when it comes to video games, though I despise that fact). During the actual development stages they seek testers to check not just for bugs, but also for feedback about the game. Many many games have been changed during the alpha and beta tests because of negative feedback, all the way down to the core mechanics. Once the game releases the developers seek the feedback of the fans, that is how the patches are released (with the exception of fixing game breaking bugs), shaping and creating changes to the way the game plays, and in some cases even the story (ME3).
So I believe it to be a communal art project with the fans as well as the developers.
P.S.
Thank you for refuting me based on a logical argument by the way. I can't discussing with people who only say "not uh, my way is the right way. You are just wrong". Also it is refreshing to see art brought up about video games in a sense that isn't a case of "should it be art".
Considering that dark souls is the third game of its type (the previous two I know of being Demon's souls and kings field) I personally dont think that feedback played as large part in its development as you're implying. However to be fair, if it did were still talking about the difficulty being the core artistic method to help the player experience the goals of the game (a sense of accomplishment and discovery) that was designed by people within the games design instead of with the developers themselves.
It also seems to me that patches are normally used to fix bugs and bring in new content not to effect the art thats already there. ME3 is a case where that happened but I consider that more of an exception. However, this still goes back to the question of whether artistic methods like dark souls difficulty is sacrosanct or not. I personally believe it is and that gamers, even though they are consumers, need to respect the methods used in the game. Its not like the whole ME3 ending where millions of people were promised an ending that was tailor made to their game and made use of their choices only to get the pick and ending room. The only promise dark souls makes is that its a hard game. Its not trying to be the extremely roleplaying and story driven games that Biowares known for and its not trying to be the massive expansive world that Bethesda makes. Its just trying to be itself, a game with unforgiving difficulty thats trying to build players up with its challenges. A sub genre that has been neglected for a long time
I find it very hard to vote one side or the other on the art side. It is impossible to see the effects it would have unless it is done, and as such impossible to give a valid argument on (at least from my side). As for the patches, if dark souls added an easy mode it would be done through a patch, so perfect example of patches effecting the artistic medium of the game without having to look very hard. Anytime an outside personality has an chance to influence the art, there will be ripples. This is where I was going with my original example of performance art. It acts in the same way that chaos theory works, the smallest influence can bring the largest changes given the right circumstances, and this is why I find games as an artistic medium so fascinating.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
