Dark Souls: an experiment in logic

[Windcaler]

*sniped*

I didnt think anyone was actually going to read that post. So yay we get to talk about how games are art!

 

[Tallim]

*sniped*

I didnt think anyone was actually going to read that post. So yay we get to talk about how games are art!

Hehe true. It is interesting to note that in its native Japan that Dark Souls was self published by From Software.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

However, this isn't what my post was about. The outcry against this has often been that "it would ruin the game for me", when that plainly isn't true, because if you enjoyed DS, you wouldn't pick an inferior easy mode to begin with. It wouldn't affect the regular customers in the slightest. Anyone who puts up that argument is an elitist, simple as that.

I don't see how you can respect his creative vision just for the sake of respecting his creative vision but not respect the appeal it has to me.

How can you not see how grossly unfair that is? Part of the attraction to this game is that the world is eerie and indifferent, the bosses are scary and challenging, the encounters are unforgiving, and the sense of achievement is rewarding. Think about the rush you get from a horror movie, or how you felt when you watched a movie with a bleak or unwelcoming setting. How do you not see that knowing I can beat the game before I even start the game changes the way I experience it's content? Gaping Dragon is not so scary if I know I can win. Nito is not so scary if I KNOW the game is designed to GUARANTEE I can win. Dark Souls pulls every trick in the world to foster those feelings of helplessness, and later achievement. EVERY TRICK. If you want to say those things aren't important enough and I should just suck it up for the sake of those who want an easy mode IN LITERALLY EVERY GAME BROOK NO EXCEPTION THERE IS NO INSTANCE WHERE IT MIGHT NOT BE APPROPRIATE, fine. Say that.

But don't call me elitist. I will freak the fuck out every time. I'm glad you respect the designer's creative vision, but the next step is to start respecting those of us who find it compelling. I only care about Miyazaki's creative vision because of the effect it had on me. If that effect wasn't legitimate and compelling and therefore worthy of preservation, I would call him a pretentious twat. I don't see how you can respect his creative vision just for the sake of respecting his creative vision but not respect the appeal it has to me. That makes no sense.

How about I spoil every movie you ever watch for the rest of your life and if you complain I call you elitist. I don't think you would appreciate it.

The other part is that while the first thing most people think of when mentioning DS is "HARDCORE ACTION-RPG FOR MANS", I think of the incredibly solid combat system the game sports. You see, I don't think the difficulty is the biggest strength of the game. It's a factor that adds greatly to the other strong points the game has, but both the combat system, the atmosphere and the world building are all better done than almost any other RPG I can think of, and could stand up on their own even without the level of difficulty. In fact, the fact that DS' combat system is so ridiculously good has turned me off several other big RPG releases recently, because they're just not close to what DS offers. Thus I have no problems with seeing why people would want to enjoy that aspect of the game without having to worry about being killed by everything and everyone.

The optimal option was that someone made a game with a combat system that was on level with DS, really, but I highly doubt that is going to happen anytime soon.

I respect that Dark Souls has a lot of very cool features that people want to try, but it is not proportionate for me to lose the game's core, stated appeal so that people can experience it's melee combat. I lose a lot more then they gain. Surely what people should be asking for is for more games to have combat like Dark Souls, not for Dark Souls to change it's basic formula so they can play with the melee combat. Your option of changing the series to accommodate the people who hate the game but want to play with it's melee combat is not fair to me at all.

 

[Hazy]

Dickwraith +3 here. I invade others constantly. Sometimes to steal their humanity, other time to give them gifts. Depends on my mood.

 

[Naeras]

However, this isn't what my post was about. The outcry against this has often been that "it would ruin the game for me", when that plainly isn't true, because if you enjoyed DS, you wouldn't pick an inferior easy mode to begin with. It wouldn't affect the regular customers in the slightest. Anyone who puts up that argument is an elitist, simple as that.

I don't see how you can respect his creative vision just for the sake of respecting his creative vision but not respect the appeal it has to me.

How can you not see how grossly unfair that is? Part of the attraction to this game is that the world is eerie and indifferent, the bosses are scary and challenging, the encounters are unforgiving, and the sense of achievement is rewarding. Think about the rush you get from a horror movie, or how you felt when you watched a movie with a bleak or unwelcoming setting. How do you not see that knowing I can beat the game before I even start the game changes the way I experience it's content? Gaping Dragon is not so scary if I know I can win. Nito is not so scary if I KNOW the game is designed to GUARANTEE I can win. Dark Souls pulls every trick in the world to foster those feelings of helplessness, and later achievement. EVERY TRICK. If you want to say those things aren't important enough and I should just suck it up for the sake of those who want an easy mode IN LITERALLY EVERY GAME BROOK NO EXCEPTION THERE IS NO INSTANCE WHERE IT MIGHT NOT BE APPROPRIATE, fine. Say that.

But don't call me elitist. I will freak the fuck out every time. I'm glad you respect the designer's creative vision, but the next step is to start respecting those of us who find it compelling. I only care about Miyazaki's creative vision because of the effect it had on me. If that effect wasn't legitimate and compelling and therefore worthy of preservation, I would call him a pretentious twat. I don't see how you can respect his creative vision just for the sake of respecting his creative vision but not respect the appeal it has to me. That makes no sense.

How about I spoil every movie you ever watch for the rest of your life and if you complain I call you elitist. I don't think you would appreciate it.

The other part is that while the first thing most people think of when mentioning DS is "HARDCORE ACTION-RPG FOR MANS", I think of the incredibly solid combat system the game sports. You see, I don't think the difficulty is the biggest strength of the game. It's a factor that adds greatly to the other strong points the game has, but both the combat system, the atmosphere and the world building are all better done than almost any other RPG I can think of, and could stand up on their own even without the level of difficulty. In fact, the fact that DS' combat system is so ridiculously good has turned me off several other big RPG releases recently, because they're just not close to what DS offers. Thus I have no problems with seeing why people would want to enjoy that aspect of the game without having to worry about being killed by everything and everyone.

The optimal option was that someone made a game with a combat system that was on level with DS, really, but I highly doubt that is going to happen anytime soon.

I respect that Dark Souls has a lot of very cool features that people want to try, but it is not proportionate for me to lose the game's core, stated appeal so that people can experience it's melee combat. I lose a lot more then they gain. Surely what people should be asking for is for more games to have combat like Dark Souls, not for Dark Souls to change it's basic formula so they can play with the melee combat. Your option of changing the series to accommodate the people who hate the game but want to play with it's melee combat is not fair to me at all.

Seriously?
Does even having the option of playing the game on an easier mode, even when you're not touching it with a ten foot pole, ruin the game for you?

How the hell does that work? I can't even begin to fathom how something that's not relevant to you in the slightest would even affect your gameplay experience, far less how it would ruin it for you.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Seriously?
Does even having the option of playing the game on an easier mode, even when you're not touching it with a ten foot pole, ruin the game for you?

Depends what you mean by 'ruin'. It would likely lose a lot of the qualities that distinguish it from other titles. Atmosphere, tension, sense of achievement, community struggle, etc. are all impacted. If you disagree that these things are even a factor that could be affected by an easy mode, then I think it's likely you and I just fundamentally disagree on what games are and how games work. Or, we disagree about what difficulty means in Dark Souls. I don't know if the game would be 'ruined' but it may mean the difference between picking up Dark Souls II and picking up Call of Duty XLVIII.

How the hell does that work? I can't even begin to fathom how something that's not relevant to you in the slightest would even affect your gameplay experience, far less how it would ruin it for you.

I find it very hard to believe that you don't know what I'm talking about. Don't agree with? Fine, opinions and all. But don't know?

Suppose I spoiled Fight Club for you. I won't, because I'm not a dick. But suppose I did. Have I changed the way you experience the film? How do you account for that? It is, after all the exact same film, and therefore the way you experience it is irrelevant.

That's what you are trying to do to me with Dark Souls. And if you don't see it that way I ask you to at least respect that I do and not call me a gorramn elitist. If you think I freaked out the last time, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Dark Souls is not a difficult game. Dark Souls is a difficulty game. Please respect the difference.

 

[FriedRicer]

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?

That's a better post, and one I agree far more with.

Unlike what a lot of people say, Dark Souls isn't that hard of a game. It's hard, but it's still incredibly fair. It's a game that punishes mistakes heavily, and therefore relies a great deal on players being methodical and learning the ins and outs of the game. Now, I thoroughly enjoy that sort of game(as opposed to, say, Skyrim <.<), and I think it fits the oppressive middle-age atmosphere of the game very well.

However, there are people I know who liked the razor-sharp combat system, the atmosphere and the subtle world-building, but just didn't have the patience to play for very long due to them dying way too much. Thus I don't see why there should be a problem with implementing an easy mode. It's not, ever, going to affect you, or anyone else in the "regular" playerbase, in any negative way, so what's the harm?

My question is still unanswered.How can a game that has difficulty based on the players input be made easier?If you have played the game you have probably seen how much of an advantage the games layout gives you.How does someone like the razor combat but "die way too much"?I keep asking posters-what enemy cannot be beaten with a sturdy shield,patience and reading everything?What will scaling stats do to enemies whose attack patterns are inherent to their design and are fatal? 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.

How would you make BlightTown easier?And so on?

 

[Windcaler]

However, this isn't what my post was about. The outcry against this has often been that "it would ruin the game for me", when that plainly isn't true, because if you enjoyed DS, you wouldn't pick an inferior easy mode to begin with. It wouldn't affect the regular customers in the slightest. Anyone who puts up that argument is an elitist, simple as that.

I wish I would have seen this earlier because this is really the kind of comment that shows how some pro easy mode individuals are not trying to understand the point of view of the purist. It clings to ideas that have already been proven to be false.

These kinds of personal attacks have no place in an intelligent discussion and I think its time people started spamming that report button when they come up.

That said, the idea that an easy mode will not effect our game is false and it always has been false. I'll repeat an argument I made earlier, human achievement is relative to what everyone else in the species can and can not do. Its not really my thing (I like to be more inclusionary) but some people like dark souls because other people cant hack it. Whether thats right, wrong, or indifferent I dont know but I do know its not likely to change. By our nature human beings are competitive and often times even adversarial (just like you were being with that elitist comment Naeras). At the end of the day, some elitists and purists have valid reasons for not wanting an easy mode in the game. You may call that selfish and Im inclined to agree. However we came to dark souls on our own and now people like you are trying to come in and change our experience. Thats even more selfish then anything an elitest or purist has said in this thread, so get off your high horse. Like it or not but that is a valid reason to leave out an easy mode

You can also see the third fallacy I listed on the previous page which is one of my major concerns with implementation of an easy mode.

Then there is a fact that there already is an easy mode that a player can come across using the sense of discovery the game is trying to give each player (its just not a menu option). A third valid reason why an easy mode shouldnt be implemented.

 

[The White Hunter]

The debate over this is long dead, and I realise it. So lets not rehash the same issues we discussed before.

Too late lol. It's not very fair to write an opinion piece and then ask us not to respond. Not fair I say! *grumble* I'll post a video I agree with on this subject. It's quite long, so I will list some key points:

1. The mechanics and content of Dark Souls are designed around it's difficulty. You can't change the difficulty and expect unskilled players to have a similar experience. It's not a matter of just halving the enemies' HP and calling it a day. It's not that simple. For example, Darkwraiths are trivial to me. You can multiply their health by ten times or a hundred, and they would still be trivial. It's not the scale of the challenge so much as learning to take advantage of the game's mechanics.

Update: what this means is, an easy mode would have a huge impact on the design of the normal mode almost as a necessity. Either they literally make two different games, which is obviously unrealistic, or they take both easy mode and normal mode into account in the design of every enemy, every area, every encounter, every puzzle, every boss, the leveling system, the weapon system, parry/riposte/backstab mechanics, poise/stability/defense mechanics, invicibility frames... you get the idea. So don't act so sure this won't effect my gameplay experience. It will most likely effect it in every aspect.

2. Learning to make the seemingly unbeatable content of Dark Souls trivial is the content of the game. Take that away and you're left with a short, shitty action-RPG. That's not because Dark Souls is shitty or because it just relies on difficulty as a crutch. It's because making Dark Souls easy makes it's content and mechanics irrelevant. Figuring out what you're supposed to do is the content of the game. Taking that away is like taking the strategy out of an RTS game. It would be pointless to play a game like that, you'd just get bored of it and find something else to play.

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.

3. It is massively unrealistic to expect the "hardcore" Dark Souls experience to retain it's quality and emphasis if FROM Software decides to seek a broader audience by implementing an easy mode. It defies logic and video game history. Especially in light of the points above. It just wouldn't make sense. I think it's realistic to expect the normal Dark Souls to be damaged and not unlikely it will just fade into the same cookie-cutter 'bleh' that characterizes so much stuff out there. And consider how atmospheric and inaccessible the story telling is, or how the game doesn't always tell you where to go next. Do you expect those elements to be preserved if From Soft decides to broaden their appeal? Not a chance.

It defies logic and especially video game history. We know what happens when a series tries to broaden it's appeal and seek out a new audience. So don't play dumb with me, please. It's tedious.

4. If Dark Souls had an easy mode, the tension would evaporate for all players, even the ones who play the normal difficulty. If there is an easy version of the Capra Demon, then I know I can beat the Capra Demon. I know I can win. Not only that, but I know the game is designed to ensure I can win. The tension is lost, or at least it is not the same. I wouldn't have felt the same way the first time I got obliterated by the Capra Demon in five seconds. And I wouldn't have felt the same way the first time I beat his ass and took his souls.

5. This one is from me, not the video: Having ONE difficult AAA title is not a freaking crime. There are so many accessible games you can play. Please leave me with the ONE title like this. Try to understand how this looks from my perspective. I have ONE game like this and it's apparently too much to ask.

...

I suspect some players think I don't want Dark Souls to have an easy mode for the following reasons:

1. Dark Souls is prohibitively difficult.
2. Beating Dark Souls makes you 1337.
3. I don't want to share my game with those who don't make the cut.

But it just ain't so. Many find Dark Souls prohibitively frustrating but it isn't that demanding in terms of "skill" required. If it was, I probably couldn't beat it. It just seems like it is, especially at first. I love Dark Souls and I want everyone to experience it. But people can't share in the Dark Souls experience if that experience is lost. Just listen to Hidetaka Miyazaki on people finding his games too hard:

This fact is really sad to me and I am thinking about how to make everyone complete the game while maintaining the current difficulty and carefully send all gamers the messages behind it.

Instead I ask you, how do you interface with the online aspect of the game. Are you someone who avoids it at all costs only going human to kindle and summon, or do you run about human at all times to allow for invasions? Do you, perhaps, invade everyone yourself? Maybe you are one of the Cat Fellowship PvPers. Whatever the case maybe, what do you do online and why do you enjoy it?

I mostly played hollow on my first playthrough (which means I received neither attacks nor cooperative aid from other players). This wasn't because I was chicken, but because of an early coop experience I had. I summoned a player in the Undead Burg, and he ended up more-or-less beating the Taurus Demon for me. I decided that was not the experience I was looking for, and determined to attack the PvE content uninterrupted for the remainder of the play-through. I did take time off to experiment with PvP and help people with bosses, but typically not when I was occupied with clearing the game.

After that first play-through, I always play in human form (subject to the benefits and dangers of online play). Now that I've beaten the game, it's not such a point of pride to do it by myself, and the threat of invasion keeps me on my toes.

I don't do Forest PvP much. There is nothing there but gank squads. Sometimes I think about going there to lame the lamers but, eh, what's the point. I much prefer Anor Londo. I understand Kiln of the First Flame is popular but I haven't spent time PvPing there. Now that Xbox has the DLC I will probably make a Soul Level 100 Arena build before too long. I've experimented with the Darkmoon Blades, and more recently the Darkwraiths. I LOVE the idea of the Darkmoon Blades, but I kind of hate Dark Londo lol. And I want to

Spoiler: Minor Spoiler

punch Gwyndolin in his stupid face

.

Playing the Dragon Covenant was really cool. I didn't mind fighting in Anor Londo while I waited to be summoned. It was pretty cool to 'hang' there, actually. Lay down one type of sign or another, kill stuff, wait to be summoned, and chill. Co-oping Ornstein and Smough is just fun. And I used the Dragon Scales I won to upgrade my Moonlight Greatsword. Int build FTW lol.

Besides, full Catarina armor + dragon head stone = lulz.

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.

What is it weak to? What does it resist? Should I pierce it? Slash it? Bludgeon it? Set it on fire like from afar like a wuss? You have to experiment and play around with the games mechanics to succeed, the souls games are not hard, they just require patience and tolerance for set backs. They also require the ability to say right, fuck it, I'm going elsewhere and coming back in a little while when I'm stronger and wiser, both as my in game character and as a person.

You have to dive headfirst into it and spend some time sinking before you can swim but by gods it's rewarding once you get into it.

That's what's special about Souls.

You want cheap difficulty? CoD: W@W on Veteran (or hell, black ops on veteran showed it's level design to be complete horseshit if you ask me).

You want a highly rewarding challenge that encourages pummels you into a skilled and efficicent player? Demon's/Dark Souls.

 

[FriedRicer]

Dickwraith +3 here. I invade others constantly. Sometimes to steal their humanity, other time to give them gifts. Depends on my mood.

PSN-ArtoriasTheWolf
PlatiniumPSN-Bokurenkai

How can I get on your bad side?;p

 

[Naeras]

Seriously?
Does even having the option of playing the game on an easier mode, even when you're not touching it with a ten foot pole, ruin the game for you?

Depends what you mean by 'ruin'. It would likely lose a lot of the qualities that distinguish it from other titles. Atmosphere, tension, sense of achievement, community struggle, etc. are all impacted. If you disagree that these things are even a factor that could be affected by an easy mode, then I think it's likely you and I just fundamentally disagree on what games are and how games work. Or, we disagree about what difficulty means in Dark Souls. I don't know if the game would be 'ruined' but it may mean the difference between picking up Dark Souls II and picking up Call of Duty XLVIII.

How the hell does that work? I can't even begin to fathom how something that's not relevant to you in the slightest would even affect your gameplay experience, far less how it would ruin it for you.

I find it very hard to believe that you don't know what I'm talking about. Don't agree with? Fine, opinions and all. But don't know?

Suppose I spoiled Fight Club for you. I won't, because I'm not a dick. But suppose I did. Have I changed the way you experience the film? How do you account for that? It is, after all the exact same film, and therefore the way you experience it is irrelevant.

That's what you are trying to do to me with Dark Souls, and if you don't see it that way I ask you to at least respect that I do and not call me a gorramn elitist. If you think I freaked out the last time, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Dark Souls is not a difficult game. Dark Souls is a difficulty game. Please respect the difference.

I don't see the similarity between spoiling the plot of a movie and giving the option of a game mode that you're never going to use. One directly affects your experience because you know what's going to happen, the other one has nothing to do with you whatsoever if you don't use the setting.

There are other games throughout history that have had difficulty affect the narrative(the opening of Deus Ex: Human Revolution comes to mind), and playing on a lower difficulty setting would probably minimize the contrast between the opening and the following mission. The fact that you felt far more vulnerable as a regular human compared to when you were augmented was one of several ways the game effectively asked you questions around the whole augmentation-problematique, and if I'd play on easy mode, I'd probably lose that narrative point. Now, did that affect me when I'm not using that setting? No. Of course it didn't.

Still, I think you're right that we're not going anywhere with this, so let's just agree to disagree. However, just to be clear, I do agree that the difficulty affects those factors, as I've stated more than once in this thread. I just don't think it's a so integral part of the game that having the option of making it easier(an option I wouldn't use, by the way) would make the other levels of difficulty suffer.

My question is still unanswered.How can a game that has difficulty based on the players input be made easier?If you have played the game you have probably seen how much of an advantage the games layout gives you.How does someone like the razor combat but "die way too much"?I keep asking posters-what enemy cannot be beaten with a sturdy shield,patience and reading everything?What will scaling stats do to enemies whose attack patterns are inherent to their design and are fatal? 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.

How would you make BlightTown easier?And so on?

Making it easier wouldn't be harder than to scale damage and status thresholds down. It's actually not more complicated than that. What causes difficulties to many is the degree the game punishes mistakes, and toning that down would make an impact. Probably enough that a couple of friends of mine would have picked it up, in fact.
Though, I don't think you could ever make Dark Souls an easy game without redesigning the entire thing(which would be a bad idea, considering how good the game is), but making it easier doesn't require more than some scaling.

 

[BreakfastMan]

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 me as the point of any of them (honestly, I think of the Souls games more as fantasy-based survival horror games). 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?

I don't even know what you mean by Artistic method, so I am not sure how to answer.

 

[Hazy]

Dickwraith +3 here. I invade others constantly. Sometimes to steal their humanity, other time to give them gifts. Depends on my mood.

PSN-ArtoriasTheWolf
PlatiniumPSN-Bokurenkai

How can I get on your bad side?;p

Infect my world. That usually does it.

I have it on the PS3, but I'm mainly on the PC, since my PS3 builds aren't Min/Maxed like my PTDE builds are.

 

[Naeras]

However, this isn't what my post was about. The outcry against this has often been that "it would ruin the game for me", when that plainly isn't true, because if you enjoyed DS, you wouldn't pick an inferior easy mode to begin with. It wouldn't affect the regular customers in the slightest. Anyone who puts up that argument is an elitist, simple as that.

I wish I would have seen this earlier because this is really the kind of comment that shows how some pro easy mode individuals are not trying to understand the point of view of the purist. It clings to ideas that have already been proven to be false.

These kinds of personal attacks have no place in an intelligent discussion and I think its time people started spamming that report button when they come up.

That said, the idea that an easy mode will not effect our game is false and it always has been false. I'll repeat an argument I made earlier, human achievement is relative to what everyone else in the species can and can not do. Its not really my thing (I like to be more inclusionary) but some people like dark souls because other people cant hack it. Whether thats right, wrong, or indifferent I dont know but I do know its not likely to change. By our nature human beings are competitive and often times even adversarial (just like you were being with that elitist comment Naeras). At the end of the day, some elitists and purists have valid reasons for not wanting an easy mode in the game. You may call that selfish and Im inclined to agree. However we came to dark souls on our own and now people like you are trying to come in and change our experience. Thats even more selfish then anything an elitest or purist has said in this thread, so get off your high horse. Like it or not but that is a valid reason to leave out an easy mode

You can also see the third fallacy I listed on the previous page which is one of my major concerns with implementation of an easy mode.

Then there is a fact that there already is an easy mode that a player can come across using the sense of discovery the game is trying to give each player (its just not a menu option). A third valid reason why an easy mode shouldnt be implemented.

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.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I don't see the similarity between spoiling the plot of a movie and giving the option of a game mode that you're never going to use. One directly affects your experience because you know what's going to happen, the other one has nothing to do with you whatsoever if you don't use the setting.

Apparently it does, and I already explained why. I am not going to debate you over how Dark Souls makes me feel. If you want to talk pros and cons or have some kind of worthwhile discussion, I'm game. If you won't accept that I experience Dark Souls the way I say we do then we have no basis for a discussion.

There are other games throughout history that have had difficulty affect the narrative(the opening of Deus Ex: Human Revolution comes to mind), and playing on a lower difficulty setting would probably minimize the contrast between the opening and the following mission. The fact that you felt far more vulnerable as a regular human compared to when you were augmented was one of several ways the game effectively asked you questions around the whole augmentation-problematique, and if I'd play on easy mode, I'd probably lose that narrative point. Now, did that affect me when I'm not using that setting? No. Of course it didn't.

Well I'm not the one who thinks every game needs to be the same. What works for Deus Ex may or may not be the most appropriate choice for Dark Souls, and there may be pros and cons to either approach. I don't complain about easy mode in every game ever. Just Dark Souls. It's a very unusual title that shipped without easy mode for very good reasons.

Still, I think you're right that we're not going anywhere with this, so let's just agree to disagree. However, just to be clear, I do agree that the difficulty affects those factors, as I've stated more than once in this thread. I just don't think it's a completely integral part of the game, to the point that having the option of making it easier would make the other levels of difficulty suffer.

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.

 

[Windcaler]

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?

I don't even know what you mean by Artistic method, so I am not sure how to answer.

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

 

[FriedRicer]

Seriously?
Does even having the option of playing the game on an easier mode, even when you're not touching it with a ten foot pole, ruin the game for you?

Depends what you mean by 'ruin'. It would likely lose a lot of the qualities that distinguish it from other titles. Atmosphere, tension, sense of achievement, community struggle, etc. are all impacted. If you disagree that these things are even a factor that could be affected by an easy mode, then I think it's likely you and I just fundamentally disagree on what games are and how games work. Or, we disagree about what difficulty means in Dark Souls. I don't know if the game would be 'ruined' but it may mean the difference between picking up Dark Souls II and picking up Call of Duty XLVIII.

How the hell does that work? I can't even begin to fathom how something that's not relevant to you in the slightest would even affect your gameplay experience, far less how it would ruin it for you.

I find it very hard to believe that you don't know what I'm talking about. Don't agree with? Fine, opinions and all. But don't know?

Suppose I spoiled Fight Club for you. I won't, because I'm not a dick. But suppose I did. Have I changed the way you experience the film? How do you account for that? It is, after all the exact same film, and therefore the way you experience it is irrelevant.

That's what you are trying to do to me with Dark Souls, and if you don't see it that way I ask you to at least respect that I do and not call me a gorramn elitist. If you think I freaked out the last time, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Dark Souls is not a difficult game. Dark Souls is a difficulty game. Please respect the difference.

I don't see the similarity between spoiling the plot of a movie and giving the option of a game mode that you're never going to use. One directly affects your experience because you know what's going to happen, the other one has nothing to do with you whatsoever if you don't use the setting.

There are other games throughout history that have had difficulty affect the narrative(the opening of Deus Ex: Human Revolution comes to mind), and playing on a lower difficulty setting would probably minimize the contrast between the opening and the following mission. The fact that you felt far more vulnerable as a regular human compared to when you were augmented was one of several ways the game effectively asked you questions around the whole augmentation-problematique, and if I'd play on easy mode, I'd probably lose that narrative point. Now, did that affect me when I'm not using that setting? No. Of course it didn't.

Still, I think you're right that we're not going anywhere with this, so let's just agree to disagree. However, just to be clear, I do agree that the difficulty affects those factors, as I've stated more than once in this thread. I just don't think it's a completely integral part of the game, to the point that having the option of making it easier would make the other levels of difficulty suffer.

My question is still unanswered.How can a game that has difficulty based on the players input be made easier?If you have played the game you have probably seen how much of an advantage the games layout gives you.How does someone like the razor combat but "die way too much"?I keep asking posters-what enemy cannot be beaten with a sturdy shield,patience and reading everything?What will scaling stats do to enemies whose attack patterns are inherent to their design and are fatal? 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.

How would you make BlightTown easier?And so on?

Making it easier wouldn't be harder than to scale damage and status thresholds down. It's actually not more complicated than that. What causes difficulties to many is the degree the game punishes mistakes, and toning that down would make an impact. Probably enough that a couple of friends of mine would have picked it up, in fact.
Though, I don't think you could ever make Dark Souls an easy game without redesigning the entire thing(which would be a bad idea, considering how good the game is), but making it easier doesn't require more than some scaling.

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?

 

[FriedRicer]

Dickwraith +3 here. I invade others constantly. Sometimes to steal their humanity, other time to give them gifts. Depends on my mood.

PSN-ArtoriasTheWolf
PlatiniumPSN-Bokurenkai

How can I get on your bad side?;p

Infect my world. That usually does it.

I have it on the PS3, but I'm mainly on the PC, since my PS3 builds aren't Min/Maxed like my PTDE builds are.

...Well,I am making a bunch of SLl00 builds for pvp.If you come back,expect the arena!

 

[BreakfastMan]

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?

I don't even know what you mean by Artistic method, so I am not sure how to answer.

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

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?

 

[Icehearted]

Poor balancing doesn't equal higher difficulty. I remember seeing similar comments about Ninja Gaiden (and it's many iterations), and the development team ultimately admitted they hadn't optimized the game properly.

I mention this mostly because the debate about this game and the series' difficulty had repelled me from playing them for a long time. Never gave it a thought until a recent sale put a copy on my shelf. Now I find myself compelled to reason that it is possible for a game to be difficult without being cheap or poorly balanced (and ergo poorly programmed).

This is ultimately the thing. Games aren't meant to be challenging, or hard, they're meant to be fun. If for some the fun in is in a harder challenge, then that's great, but to be critical of others for not playing the game the same way comes off as churlish and misguided. Some people eat pizza with utensils, some with their hands, either way each can enjoy their pizza.

Which returns me to my initial misgivings about the game. The so-called hardcore player (if you will excuse the label) will unjustly extol the unfairness of a game and those that complete it. In doing so people can get the impression that this is merely just another unfair game just like others that were hailed for their (later) admitted imbalanced and unpolished difficulty.

I'm not afraid of challenging games, I welcome them (many of the achievements on my gamertag should confirm this). I am put off by games that lack polish, that punish the player for anything other than a lack of skill or that are nonsensically difficult (arguable, but Guitar Hero tread this line a lot).