Dark Souls: an experiment in logic

[Blazingdragoon04]

I like the danger of being able to be invaded at any time . It ups the stakes , which are already pretty fucking high . It was fun back then ( i bought it day 1 ), because people didn't cheat ( mostly they didn't know how ). I also never used a guide so i had no idea ( at least on my first play through ) how big the areas were , where i would be safe , where to go . So so much things to worry about . It was exciting and fresh and new and awsome .

Also , if you want an easy mode DS is not the game for you. It says so on the box , anyone who bought the game should have known what they were getting into . And i seriously doubt the game would have sold so well if it wasn't hard . We got enough easy games to last a lifetime . People that want that can go play the wide array of games for them . This is a game for the challenge seekers. Niche , if you will.

Haha, I had this attitude at first. However, 2nd day of playing I ran into someone that I'm, to this day, 99% sure he was cheating.

Was in human form for like, the second time near the entrance to the Church in the Undead Parish when I was invaded. Being a magic user I was already at a disadvantage, and he eventually kept poisoning me to death. Only later did I find out why he kept trying to get into melee range; he was a darkwraith. Second day of the game and I run into a darkwraith, one with a ton of health too since I backstabbed him at least 3 times in a row and hit him with magic when he tried to drain me.

Honestly, that ruined the experience of online for me until I started someone who wasn't a mage.

He didn't cheat.You can be a Darkwraith at Lv1.

Second day of playing, and I run into someone on the American server who has found a way to get into the covenant with an extremely unorthodox method of entering, and somehow did it by beating one of the hardest bosses in the game at an extremely low level, all while doing this the second day the game came out.

The guy was either a troll or a cheater, and either way it ruined the online experience for me for a long time.

 

[SpaceBat]

My issue with Dark Souls wasn't so much in the difficulty, as it was in the half-second delay between player movement and player-input. And the fact that every enemy can break your guard and hack you to pieces before you can say "What the..."

Cheap, not hard, is the word most people are looking for.

The 'flaws' you just mentioned are less related to the game being cheap and more to your inability to improvise and adapt. Every enemy and enemy attack has weaknesses and they're yours to analyze and exploit.

The game admittedly does have its share of actual cheap moments, but the game overall is more a test of your ability to for strategic play, rather than a random mash-up of frustrating deaths that were out of your control. For me, while the first 1/3rd of the game was fairly challenging, the other 2/3 of the game was disappointingly easy, mostly because I analyzed and practiced the gameplay mechanics, thought my build through and played smart. It is actually not hard at all and this isn't meant to be a form of bragging, as I am in general an average gamer.

I'd say the biggest mistake Dark Souls has made, aside from the hackers who have absolutely ruined online play, is that it allows people to visit the graveyard early.

It's not the scale of the challenge so much as learning to take advantage of the game's mechanics.

If you ever tried Dark Souls and gave up, it may surprise or even enrage you to see people say that it's actually easy. It may seem like they're just bragging. But they figured out how to make it easy. That is to say, they experienced the game's content.

Exactly!

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

A: Some people really, REALLY don't like trial and error gameplay

Dark Souls is not for them. I truly believe that a lot of those people will change their minds if they really give Dark Souls an honest try. But not every game is for every individual. I think it's OK for there to be a game in this world that incorporates trial-and-error in it's design.

and B: people would still learn by exploring the game.

Learn what? There is nothing to overcome so there is nothing to learn.

I found Dishonored fairly easy, for instance, and I still took every opportunity to explore every nook and cranny and explore all the options and mechanics. It may come as a shock, but some people don't need difficulty as an incentive to explore a games mechanics: the simple joy of figuring out all the stuff that you can do is enough for them.

Dark Souls is about creating a sense of accomplishment. That's the stated goal of the game from the creative developer. Typically, that is accomplished by confronting the player with an obstacle in the form of one or more enemies. He/she overcomes the obstacle by learning the mechanics that characterize the enemies' attacks and defenses, as well as exploring the various possibilities available to them. Any game allows you to go dick around and experiment with the game's mechanics, but I wouldn't describe that as the game's primary content. That's where the sense of accomplishment comes from, and that's what you actually do in Dark Souls. That's what makes Dark Souls different. It's not that other game's lack this element completely, it's that other games don't design the entire experience around it.

No, I am not. The COD market do not play COD because of how easy it is. They play it because it is fast-paced and has lots of explosions. Not the same thing.

You're absolutely wrong. Games regularly become easier in an attempt to appeal to a broader audience. Making it fast-paced and adding explosions is another way to do the same thing. That's the whole point of making Dark Souls easier, to expand it's appeal to a new audience, specifically the people who find it inaccessible in it's current form. Otherwise why make it?

The FPS side of it, maybe. This isn't the FPS side. This is possibly the complete opposite side.

It's not genre specific. They don't make RPGs like they used to, that's for sure. The AAA game developers have consistently followed certain trends to expand their game's appeal to a new audience. Pretty near the top of that list is making the game easier.

To you it is. To others, it is not.
Again, to you it is. To me, it is not. And giving the people the option to have a bit easier time with it will not take away from you enjoying your knifes-only NG++ run.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying about the way difficulty shapes this game's content. I'm saying they won't like it and why. You're saying they will like it but you aren't explaining why I should believe you. You're not offering any reason to change my mind about how the expanded audience will react to the easy version of Dark Souls.

It will make the world not seem so threatening and it will make overcoming it's challenges not feel like such an accomplishment which, I remind you, is the stated goal of the game.

 

[FriedRicer]

It is not always about the money(cheesy I know).Some products are made to be an exclusive experience rather than hit demographics for more money. If FROM made a game with more access to it's content for easy mode-fine.But the Souls series is built for learning and patience. Again,the game is not hard if you do these things. If you looked at the layout they gave you and still said that this game is hard or cheap or relies too heavily on reflexes-you have been playing the game with a mindset from another game and expecting it to work even though it fails.
Repeatedly. If you search every room before advancing to the next SLOWLY this game is on easy mode.The Difficulty is reflected on the way you play.Ironically the game has presented players with an easy mode-when they decided to play it at its base difficulty.

TLDR:I don't think you beat Asylum Demon.

Waitwaitwait... did you just make the assumption that, because I'm fairly certain there wouldn't be any downsides worth mentioning about implementing an easy mode, I personally think Dark Souls is too hard?
Well, that's cute. This is internet arguing at its best.

No I did not. I thought it was fairly obvious I was speaking in general of the games "difficulty". In fact, from my comment (if you've carefully read it) you would have known that. I said "you" before in the same post in an entirely general tone-where did it get to mean you personally?. Also-"more manly","thats cute" and the like are really unneeded and kind of show what you believe those who oppose easy mode actually think.I can't guess the level of your skill (or the mode you chose)because I cannot know if/how you approached the game.

What is hard about the game that patience cannot solve?Or reading? Give me a line on that and then I can gauge if you thought it was difficult...or not;p!Jolly Co-Op?

 

[FriedRicer]

I like the danger of being able to be invaded at any time . It ups the stakes , which are already pretty fucking high . It was fun back then ( i bought it day 1 ), because people didn't cheat ( mostly they didn't know how ). I also never used a guide so i had no idea ( at least on my first play through ) how big the areas were , where i would be safe , where to go . So so much things to worry about . It was exciting and fresh and new and awsome .

Also , if you want an easy mode DS is not the game for you. It says so on the box , anyone who bought the game should have known what they were getting into . And i seriously doubt the game would have sold so well if it wasn't hard . We got enough easy games to last a lifetime . People that want that can go play the wide array of games for them . This is a game for the challenge seekers. Niche , if you will.

Haha, I had this attitude at first. However, 2nd day of playing I ran into someone that I'm, to this day, 99% sure he was cheating.

Was in human form for like, the second time near the entrance to the Church in the Undead Parish when I was invaded. Being a magic user I was already at a disadvantage, and he eventually kept poisoning me to death. Only later did I find out why he kept trying to get into melee range; he was a darkwraith. Second day of the game and I run into a darkwraith, one with a ton of health too since I backstabbed him at least 3 times in a row and hit him with magic when he tried to drain me.

Honestly, that ruined the experience of online for me until I started someone who wasn't a mage.

He didn't cheat.You can be a Darkwraith at Lv1.

Second day of playing, and I run into someone on the American server who has found a way to get into the covenant with an extremely unorthodox method of entering, and somehow did it by beating one of the hardest bosses in the game at an extremely low level, all while doing this the second day the game came out.

The guy was either a troll or a cheater, and either way it ruined the online experience for me for a long time.

I've done it...It is a troll move.

 

[BreakfastMan]

and B: people would still learn by exploring the game.

Learn what? There is nothing to overcome so there is nothing to learn.

This may sound weird to you, but some people, like myself, enjoy exploring and experimenting simply for it's own sake. Just because you don't doesn't mean others don't.

I found Dishonored fairly easy, for instance, and I still took every opportunity to explore every nook and cranny and explore all the options and mechanics. It may come as a shock, but some people don't need difficulty as an incentive to explore a games mechanics: the simple joy of figuring out all the stuff that you can do is enough for them.

Dark Souls is about creating a sense of accomplishment. That's the stated goal of the game from the creative developer. Typically, that is accomplished by confronting the player with an obstacle in the form of one or more enemies. He/she overcomes the obstacle by learning the mechanics that characterize the enemies' attacks and defenses, as well as exploring the various possibilities available to them. Any game allows you to go dick around and experiment with the game's mechanics, but I wouldn't describe that as the game's primary content. That's where the sense of accomplishment comes from, and that's what you actually do in Dark Souls. That's what makes Dark Souls different. It's not that other game's lack this element completely, it's that other games don't design the entire experience around it.

Not everyone gets a feeling of accomplishment the same way you do. Some get it by 100%-ing a game. Some get it by exploring the world until they know it like the back of their hand. Some get it by reading lore and discovering the intricacies of a universe. Some get it by getting to know characters and their motivations. Some get it by mastering game mechanics. Some get it by hunting down secrets. Some simply get it by entering a fantastic virtual landscape. And some get it by overcoming challenges.

To you it is. To others, it is not.
Again, to you it is. To me, it is not. And giving the people the option to have a bit easier time with it will not take away from you enjoying your knifes-only NG++ run.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying about the way difficulty shapes this game's content. I'm saying they won't like it and why. You're saying they will like it but you aren't explaining why I should believe you. You're not offering any reason to change my mind about how the expanded audience will react to the easy version of Dark Souls.

It will make the world not seem so threatening and it will make overcoming it's challenges not feel like such an accomplishment which, I remind you, is the stated goal of the game.

The game has so much compelling content outside of just "completing challenges". It has an interesting world coupled with interesting lore, it has a fascinating online mechanic, it has a great art style, it has a great atmosphere, it has interesting enemy and boss encounters, and it has some of the best level design in the industry. You don't need a game to be ball-bustingly hard in order to enjoy those aspects, but being ball-bustingly hard can stop people from picking up the game, even if they might love the other aspects. That is the audience I think the game could reach, but isn't.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

This may sound weird to you, but some people, like myself, enjoy exploring and experimenting simply for it's own sake. Just because you don't doesn't mean others don't.

Not everyone gets a feeling of accomplishment the same way you do. Some get it by 100%-ing a game. Some get it by exploring the world until they know it like the back of their hand. Some get it by reading lore and discovering the intricacies of a universe. Some get it by getting to know characters and their motivations. Some get it by mastering game mechanics. Some get it by hunting down secrets. Some simply get it by entering a fantastic virtual landscape. And some get it by overcoming challenges.

What does this mean? Does this have anything to do with Dark Souls? Look, a game has to have gameplay, and I like Dark Souls' gameplay the way it is. OK, not everyone does, but I do. I think my say in this is as valuable as anyone else's.

The game has so much compelling content outside of just "completing challenges". It has an interesting world coupled with interesting lore, it has a fascinating online mechanic, it has a great art style, it has a great atmosphere, it has interesting enemy and boss encounters, and it has some of the best level design in the industry. You don't need a game to be ball-bustingly hard in order to enjoy those aspects, but being ball-bustingly hard can stop people from picking up the game, even if they might love the other aspects. That is the audience I think the game could reach, but isn't.

I understand the game has cool aspects that people want to experience, but that simply isn't a good enough reason to change the core, primary content in a way that favors a new audience over the existing one. There are so many games you can play if you want whatever it is you want. I only have Dark Souls. Please, please, please, just let me have the Souls series. You can have literally everything else.

 

[Windcaler]

The game has so much compelling content outside of just "completing challenges". It has an interesting world coupled with interesting lore, it has a fascinating online mechanic, it has a great art style, it has a great atmosphere, it has interesting enemy and boss encounters, and it has some of the best level design in the industry. You don't need a game to be ball-bustingly hard in order to enjoy those aspects, but being ball-bustingly hard can stop people from picking up the game, even if they might love the other aspects. That is the audience I think the game could reach, but isn't.

Im afraid I have to disagree with you. The compelling content you talk about is some of the rewards of dark souls. Rewards for overcoming the unforgiving difficulty. The goal of the game is to provide a sense of accomplishment and discovery and the difficulty is an important tool to meet those ends. Those are the stated goals of the game said by the development team.

Without the unforgiving difficulty the accomplishments and sense of discovery (along with the rewards) are lessened if not lost. My earlier post touched on this with the yin/yang idea where one must have the chance of failure to have a sense of accomplishment.

The fallacy with this whole argument is that you retain all your previous players and attract new ones. However as history has shown us, that never happens and the games suffer for it. Hows that quote go? Those that dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it?

 

[BreakfastMan]

This may sound weird to you, but some people, like myself, enjoy exploring and experimenting simply for it's own sake. Just because you don't doesn't mean others don't.

Not everyone gets a feeling of accomplishment the same way you do. Some get it by 100%-ing a game. Some get it by exploring the world until they know it like the back of their hand. Some get it by reading lore and discovering the intricacies of a universe. Some get it by getting to know characters and their motivations. Some get it by mastering game mechanics. Some get it by hunting down secrets. Some simply get it by entering a fantastic virtual landscape. And some get it by overcoming challenges.

What does this mean? Does this have anything to do with Dark Souls? Look, a game has to have gameplay, and I like Dark Souls' gameplay the way it is. OK, not everyone does, but I do. I think my say in this is as valuable as anyone else's.

We aren't talking about changing the gameplay though. We are talking about adding an easy difficulty level.

The game has so much compelling content outside of just "completing challenges". It has an interesting world coupled with interesting lore, it has a fascinating online mechanic, it has a great art style, it has a great atmosphere, it has interesting enemy and boss encounters, and it has some of the best level design in the industry. You don't need a game to be ball-bustingly hard in order to enjoy those aspects, but being ball-bustingly hard can stop people from picking up the game, even if they might love the other aspects. That is the audience I think the game could reach, but isn't.

I understand the game has cool aspects that people want to experience, but that simply isn't a good enough reason to change the core, primary content in a way that favors a new audience over the existing one.

I am not arguing for that, though. Adding an easy mode would not favor a new audience any more than adding an easy mode to XCOM means that XCOM favors a new audience. It just expands the audience. Adding an easy mode does not mean that anything else has to be changed. All the compelling stuff is still there and does not need to be removed, because that is all still compelling.

Without the unforgiving difficulty the accomplishments and sense of discovery (along with the rewards) are lessened if not lost.

For you, it might, but it is not the same for everyone.

The fallacy with this whole argument is that you retain all your previous players and attract new ones. However as history has shown us, that never happens and the games suffer for it. Hows that quote go? Those that dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it?

So, by adding an easy mode, you lose all of your target audience? How does that work?

 

[FriedRicer]

This may sound weird to you, but some people, like myself, enjoy exploring and experimenting simply for it's own sake. Just because you don't doesn't mean others don't.

Not everyone gets a feeling of accomplishment the same way you do. Some get it by 100%-ing a game. Some get it by exploring the world until they know it like the back of their hand. Some get it by reading lore and discovering the intricacies of a universe. Some get it by getting to know characters and their motivations. Some get it by mastering game mechanics. Some get it by hunting down secrets. Some simply get it by entering a fantastic virtual landscape. And some get it by overcoming challenges.

What does this mean? Does this have anything to do with Dark Souls? Look, a game has to have gameplay, and I like Dark Souls' gameplay the way it is. OK, not everyone does, but I do. I think my say in this is as valuable as anyone else's.

We aren't talking about changing the gameplay though. We are talking about adding an easy difficulty level.

The game has so much compelling content outside of just "completing challenges". It has an interesting world coupled with interesting lore, it has a fascinating online mechanic, it has a great art style, it has a great atmosphere, it has interesting enemy and boss encounters, and it has some of the best level design in the industry. You don't need a game to be ball-bustingly hard in order to enjoy those aspects, but being ball-bustingly hard can stop people from picking up the game, even if they might love the other aspects. That is the audience I think the game could reach, but isn't.

I understand the game has cool aspects that people want to experience, but that simply isn't a good enough reason to change the core, primary content in a way that favors a new audience over the existing one.

I am not arguing for that, though. Adding an easy mode would not favor a new audience any more than adding an easy mode to XCOM means that XCOM favors a new audience. It just expands the audience. Adding an easy mode does not mean that anything else has to be changed. All the compelling stuff is still there and does not need to be removed, because that is all still compelling.

Without the unforgiving difficulty the accomplishments and sense of discovery (along with the rewards) are lessened if not lost.

For you, it might, but it is not the same for everyone.

The fallacy with this whole argument is that you retain all your previous players and attract new ones. However as history has shown us, that never happens and the games suffer for it. Hows that quote go? Those that dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it?

So, by adding an easy mode, you lose all of your target audience? How does that work?

Pretty much agree with most of what you said.But, how would Dark Souls be made easier than it already is?Lowering the damage of enemies is not going to prevent certain bosses from killing players who fail to learn the games mechanics.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Pretty much agree with most of what you said.But, how would Dark Souls be made easier than it already is?Lowering the damage of enemies is not going to prevent certain bosses from killing players who fail to learn the games mechanics.

Well then, those people are just dumb-asses. I mean, if someone wants to play a game, they should at least, you know, be able to play a game. XD

 

[FriedRicer]

Pretty much agree with most of what you said.But, how would Dark Souls be made easier than it already is?Lowering the damage of enemies is not going to prevent certain bosses from killing players who fail to learn the games mechanics.

Well then, those people are just dumb-asses. I mean, if someone wants to play a game, they should at least, you know, be able to play a game. XD

I get what easy mode would accomplish but not what could be made easy.Bed of Chaos and Snorlax/Pikachu...how do they get easier?

 

[Windcaler]

Without the unforgiving difficulty the accomplishments and sense of discovery (along with the rewards) are lessened if not lost.

For you, it might, but it is not the same for everyone.

Again I disagree. Nothing worth having is easily obtained. Its a universal philosophical ideal that has dwelled in the human psyche long before we began examining the human psyche. In the sense of Dark souls while I might just shrug at a greatsword drop from one of the Berenike knights a new player will go nuts about the new weapon. Likewise Ive seen Ash lake several dozen times by now so going there is no big deal, while a new player is going to be spellbound by the music, setting, and curiousity of whats in this hidden place.

The difference here is how easily obtained these things are. Ill kill a berenike knight without getting hit, a new player might die 3 or 4 times before they get the tells down. Going to ash lake means a trip through the great hallow which is an area you'll only find through an illusionary wall. I know its there and what lies down there, a new player wont so they'll have to overcome the myconids, curse frogs, and deadly falls to find it.

The fallacy with this whole argument is that you retain all your previous players and attract new ones. However as history has shown us, that never happens and the games suffer for it. Hows that quote go? Those that dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it?

So, by adding an easy mode, you lose all of your target audience? How does that work?

Not all but a large portion of it. History has shown that games that reinvent themselves always have the same three major problems. 1. The core audience it was targeting becomes disatisfied and leaves. 2. The reinvention never really targets new people, giving a mediocre experience to them and translates into less sales. 3. The franchises are quickly forgotten or slowly die out.

Now you're specfically asking about the 1st problem. When the core fanbase becomes disatisfied with the games. Many veteran dark souls players will tell you that they think an easy mode cheapens the game but most wont be able to articulate why. For a time I was one of those players but after a great deal of self examination I was able to come up with an explanation. That said from my point of view an easy mode removes the risk of failure that is an important tool that the developer has put in to give a genuine sense of accomplishment.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

We aren't talking about changing the gameplay though. We are talking about adding an easy difficulty level.

There is a MASSIVE assumption built into that statement, one that contradicts both logic and video game history.

I am not arguing for that, though. Adding an easy mode would not favor a new audience any more than adding an easy mode to XCOM means that XCOM favors a new audience. It just expands the audience. Adding an easy mode does not mean that anything else has to be changed. All the compelling stuff is still there and does not need to be removed, because that is all still compelling.

The presence of the easy mode, the mere existence of it, makes the game less enticing for me. You can ignore that but I can't. Beside that, it is extremely unrealistic to expect the normal gameplay to remain totally unchanged. If you want to tell me why those changes don't have to be bad, that's one thing, but pretending that's not only plausible but even likely just seems to me like burying your head in the sand.

I don't know anything about XCOM but I'm guessing it doesn't build it's game-play and setting around the learning process in the way that Dark Souls does. This is not an issue that is relevant to all games, or at least not as relevant. It is specific to Dark Souls.

We are going in circles now and all I'm taking from this is that you don't see the obvious implications of yet another niche series pursuing an expanded audience, you don't understand how making the game easy guts the core design thus necessitating changes to accommodate the new audience, and you don't care that I would get shafted by this change.

For you, it might, but it is not the same for everyone.

Of course for him, who else would he be talking about? That is not an argument for anything.

So, by adding an easy mode, you lose all of your target audience? How does that work?

Please stop pretending you don't know exactly what we're talking about. Either you just warped in from 1987 or you know damned well how it works.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Not all but a large portion of it. History has shown that games that reinvent themselves always have the same three major problems. 1. The core audience it was targeting becomes disatisfied and leaves. 2. The reinvention never really targets new people, giving a mediocre experience to them and translates into less sales. 3. The franchises are quickly forgotten or slowly die out.

Now you're specfically asking about the 1st problem. When the core fanbase becomes disatisfied with the games. Many veteran dark souls players will tell you that they think an easy mode cheapens the game but most wont be able to articulate why. For a time I was one of those players but after a great deal of self examination I was able to come up with an explanation. That said from my point of view an easy mode removes the risk of failure that is an important tool that the developer has put in to give a genuine sense of accomplishment.

A: Okay? That's nice and all, but I don't see what it has to do with adding an easy mode. We are not reinventing the game, just changing it slightly. Also, B: adding an easy mode does not remove risk of failure. We are not talking about making the player invincible, we are just talking about making them less easily killable.

I am not arguing for that, though. Adding an easy mode would not favor a new audience any more than adding an easy mode to XCOM means that XCOM favors a new audience. It just expands the audience. Adding an easy mode does not mean that anything else has to be changed. All the compelling stuff is still there and does not need to be removed, because that is all still compelling.

The presence of the easy mode, the mere existence of it, makes the game less enticing for me. You can ignore that but I can't.

I honestly have no idea why (and it seems ridiculous to me to think that way), but whatever.

Beside that, it is extremely unrealistic to expect the normal gameplay to remain totally unchanged. If you want to tell me why those changes don't have to be bad, that's one thing, but pretending that's not only plausible but even likely just seems to me like burying your head in the sand.

Here is the problem: likely does not mean it will (and I don't even think it is likely). Adding an easy mode does not directly lead to dumbing down the the game, but you are acting like it is. And, it is especially unlikely it would happen in this case. Those who want to play the game don't want it dumbed down, they just want the enemies to hit for less damage. That. Is. It. That does NOT necessitate a dumbing down of the core experience. If From can design the game so that the difficulty scales up (via NG+), they can design it so that it can go down too.

 

[Windcaler]

Not all but a large portion of it. History has shown that games that reinvent themselves always have the same three major problems. 1. The core audience it was targeting becomes disatisfied and leaves. 2. The reinvention never really targets new people, giving a mediocre experience to them and translates into less sales. 3. The franchises are quickly forgotten or slowly die out.

Now you're specfically asking about the 1st problem. When the core fanbase becomes disatisfied with the games. Many veteran dark souls players will tell you that they think an easy mode cheapens the game but most wont be able to articulate why. For a time I was one of those players but after a great deal of self examination I was able to come up with an explanation. That said from my point of view an easy mode removes the risk of failure that is an important tool that the developer has put in to give a genuine sense of accomplishment.

A: Okay? That's nice and all, but I don't see what it has to do with adding an easy mode. We are not reinventing the game, just changing it slightly. Also, B: adding an easy mode does not remove risk of failure. We are not talking about making the player invincible, we are just talking about making them less easily killable.

Incorrect on both counts. Im going to reply to the second point first since its the easier one and leads into a nice segway for the other pont. Easy modes, since the days of the NES (maybe before but thats before my time), have always been designed in such a way that players know they can succeed. An easy mode creates a chain reaction of events. A player that knows they can succeed will never experience failure or the pressure that coming close to failure brings. Without the chance to fail a player will not feel they accomplished something. From a philosophical and artistic standpoint this goes against Dark souls goals

The easy mode addition you mention also neglects the fact that there already is an easy mode in the game, its just not a menu choice. Any player can use the upgrading and leveling system to overpower bosses but it still requires them to have some aptitude with the games mechanics such as blocking, dodging, and hitting things

In my extremely long post I talked about the artistic side of dark souls and how the difficulty is used as an artistic method. An easy mode goes directly against the artistic method used to give that sense of accomplishment and discovery. Thats just the artistic side, not the business side which Ill explain next.

Dark souls is known for its unforgiving difficulty. The game tells you to prepare to die, giving good advice in a seemingly threatening manner. Ask anyone what they think of dark souls and Im pretty sure the majority of what you'll hear is "its really hard". That said it was designed to be a niche game but when you change a game to target people outside your core audience you are reinventing it. In Dark souls case adding an easy mode to bring in new players is a reinvention of the franchise and history has shown that it will hurt sales, cause the core fanbase to leave, leave new players with a mediocre experience, and ultimately kill the franchise.

 

[TrevHead]

Okay, so everybody needs to be forced by the game to learn all the mechanics? They can't learn it by exploring what different weapons can do, what they get from talking to different merchants, and what they get from exploring the environment? They have to be forced to learn by the difficulty of the game, they cannot learn by exploring. That is basically what this is coming across as: that people don't learn mechanics as they explore the game, they have to be forced to use them because of the difficulty. And that is absurd.

You make it sound like From are Nazi's for forcing players to learn and think for themselves. While I do sometimes want to switch off my brain and relax to a button masher, for me gaming is at its most rewarding when it won't allow me to progress without learning 2 play. Ppl can't stop singing the praises of FTL and that does much the same thing. IE it throws you in the deep end and you have to discover for yourself the best strategies that work. The trailing enemy fleet forces players forward at the games pace so if they aren't good at the game they get killed by the ever harder enemies, and since the game is a rogue-like with no save scumming player who don't learn the ropes don't get to beat the game.

I played Devil May Cry 1 and 2 recently. DMC 1 is the harder and better thought out game compared to DMC 2 that has easier enemies that can be killed by just button mashing. In the former I found it rewarding to try out new combos and to mix up my playstyle, in DMC 2 I just button mashed away putting very little effort into exploring any depth its combat system had to offer.

I'm not saying that every game shouldn't hold the players hand and help them learn the game, I'm currently learning how to properly play 2D VS fighters and the tutorial section in Skullgirls has been invaluable in teach me how to mix up and what cancelling and supers are. However some games like DS and FTL most of the fun is in trial and error and discovering how to play myself.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Not all but a large portion of it. History has shown that games that reinvent themselves always have the same three major problems. 1. The core audience it was targeting becomes disatisfied and leaves. 2. The reinvention never really targets new people, giving a mediocre experience to them and translates into less sales. 3. The franchises are quickly forgotten or slowly die out.

Now you're specfically asking about the 1st problem. When the core fanbase becomes disatisfied with the games. Many veteran dark souls players will tell you that they think an easy mode cheapens the game but most wont be able to articulate why. For a time I was one of those players but after a great deal of self examination I was able to come up with an explanation. That said from my point of view an easy mode removes the risk of failure that is an important tool that the developer has put in to give a genuine sense of accomplishment.

A: Okay? That's nice and all, but I don't see what it has to do with adding an easy mode. We are not reinventing the game, just changing it slightly. Also, B: adding an easy mode does not remove risk of failure. We are not talking about making the player invincible, we are just talking about making them less easily killable.

Incorrect on both counts. Im going to reply to the second point first since its the easier one and leads into a nice segway for the other pont. Easy modes, since the days of the NES (maybe before but thats before my time), have always been designed in such a way that players know they can succeed. An easy mode creates a chain reaction of events. A player that knows they can succeed will never experience failure or the pressure that coming close to failure brings.

Really? Damn. All devs must be doing easy mode wrong then. I think in a couple games I played, I died once or twice on easy! Can devs do nothing right?

Without the chance to fail a player will not feel they accomplished something.

Because everyone feels accomplishment the same way you do, obviously.

The easy mode addition you mention also neglects the fact that there already is an easy mode in the game, its just not a menu choice. Any player can use the upgrading and leveling system to overpower bosses but it still requires them to have some aptitude with the games mechanics such as blocking, dodging, and hitting things.

So, it shouldn't matter if it is made formal then, should it? I mean, if it is already in the game, what does it matter if it is turned into a menu choice?

Dark souls is known for its unforgiving difficulty. The game tells you to prepare to die, giving good advice in a seemingly threatening manner. Ask anyone what they think of dark souls and Im pretty sure the majority of what you'll hear is "its really hard". That said it was designed to be a niche game but when you change a game to target people outside your core audience you are reinventing it.

So, any change to increase playability results in reinventing the game? Gotcha.

In Dark souls case adding an easy mode to bring in new players is a reinvention of the franchise and history has shown that it will hurt sales, cause the core fanbase to leave, leave new players with a mediocre experience, and ultimately kill the franchise.

Hyperbole, much?

 

[BreakfastMan]

I played Devil May Cry 1 and 2 recently. DMC 1 is the harder and better thought out game compared to DMC 2 that has easier enemies that can be killed by just button mashing. In the former I found it rewarding to try out new combos and to mix up my playstyle, in DMC 2 I just button mashed away putting very little effort into exploring any depth its combat system had to offer.

You know what DMC 1 also had? An easy mode. Same with DMC 3, a game many love and revere as the hardest, most satisfying games of all time. Funny, that...

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I honestly have no idea why (and it seems ridiculous to me to think that way), but whatever.

I find that very hard to believe. It affects tension, atmosphere, sense of accomplishment, sense of community, and things like that. The impact of an easy mode on those things is noticeable in other titles, but pretty negligible. But in Dark Souls? Definitely not negligible. You may be just as scared of Nito even if you know the game was designed to gaurantee that you will beat him. But I wouldn't be. I really wouldn't be.

You can just say "Sense of accomplishment? Pfff, who cares" but that is the whole point of this game.

Here is the problem: likely does not mean it will (and I don't even think it is likely). Adding an easy mode does not directly lead to dumbing down the the game, but you are acting like it is. And, it is especially unlikely it would happen in this case. Those who want to play the game don't want it dumbed down, they just want the enemies to hit for less damage. That. Is. It. That does NOT necessitate a dumbing down of the core experience. If From can design the game so that the difficulty scales up (via NG+), they can design it so that it can go down too.

It will not directly lead to dumbing down the game, but dumbing down the game is the obvious thing to do when you have already decided to pursue an audience outside your niche. It will also be necessary to make the easy version of Dark Souls into something somebody would want to play. It is extremely difficult to walk that line between satisfying your original niche client base and your expanded broader audience at the same time.

You're telling me I should just accept that it won't happen because it doesn't have to in the most technical sense of the word. But it's obvious to anyone who is paying attention that it most likely will because that's what happens in almost all cases for reasons that are very easy to understand and empathize with. You seem to want to keep that discussion focused on the ideal and not what is likely to happen in reality.

I already explained why scaling HP or damage UP and scaling them DOWN do not have the same effect on the game. You are not taking into account what those numbers mean in the context of the mechanics they effect (or don't). You are reducing the difficulty to a linear equation where reducing the enemy damage to 75% reduces the difficulty to 75%. Dark Souls does not work that way. By adding easy mode, you are creating a tier that plays fundamentally different from the normal game and NG+ for most players. Breaking that threshold of difficulty means the player can beat an enemy without knowing how to beat it the 'proper' way or coming up with a creative way of their own. That's the primary thing you change by lowering enemy damage or HP- now a player can beat an opponent without really knowing how. But the whole game is designed around learning how to win. What you just effectively cut out of the game is the part the whole game was designed around.

They did not make the game hard just to be dicks to people who don't want to play hard games. The difficulty in Dark Souls is utilized in an unusual way and you don't seem to want to acknowledge that. The way Dark Souls takes advantage of it's difficult content distinguishes it from other games, and what works for other games may not work for Dark Souls. Not every game needs to be the same.

Not every game needs to be the same. Not every game needs the same options. Let us have the one friggin' game for chrissake. Let the people who don't care about the things I care about play EVERY SINGLE OTHER AAA TITLE and just leave me with Souls.