Dark Souls II Director Apologizes For Calling Game "Accessible"

[chikusho]

He should not have to apologize. Just because some of your fans don't want to share their precious little game doesn't mean you should give in to them.

You know, alienating the people who keep you in business is not a very smart move.

Yeah but they weren't gonna alienate anybody. There's a mode for hardcore fans and a mode for newcomers. They've said that right from the start.

So, that makes sloppy communication and misinformation to the community suddenly OK?

 

[Kenbo Slice]

He should not have to apologize. Just because some of your fans don't want to share their precious little game doesn't mean you should give in to them.

You know, alienating the people who keep you in business is not a very smart move.

Yeah but they weren't gonna alienate anybody. There's a mode for hardcore fans and a mode for newcomers. They've said that right from the start.

So, that makes sloppy communication and misinformation to the community suddenly OK?

It was quite clear to me what they were doing from the beginning. But maybe that's because I didn't just hear "Easy Mode" and started hulking out.

 

[Cybylt]

I disagree, I think the game gives you enough information to get by. Most people just don't bother looking for it, and then complain that it wasn't handed to them (not necessarily you). Game just feels like a more modern Legend of Zelda to me. Dumped in the game with no clue where to go, so exploration and experimentation are the name of the game. I will admit that the online portion of the game definitely could have been explained better though, but it wasn't necessary to complete the game.

I think the idea of explaining a large portion of the game with item descriptions is bad.
There should be other ways to communicate that info. Like books and notes lying around or extra dialogue with NPCs.
And I think at the end of the game the player should actually have a little bit better understanding of the world than Dark Souls offered.

So you don't want to turn to items for exposition and offer... exposition through items as a suitable replacement? I don't get it.

In many rpgs you'll have a book about a sword, some people to tell you about a sword(and that'll be the entirety of their character interaction at that), and the sword itself. In Souls, the sword has the exposition in its description and usually with little tidbits of other parts of the world around it, sometimes you'll have people who know about it but that's just a piece of what they know and do, and the incredible few who are like that are obsessed madmen. They've simply cut out unnecessary expository middle men.

Souls series does have a thing for "And that was the end of it" endings, not that I mind but I understand why some people would be put off by it. Even knowing everyone's motives and the backstory of what you're getting yourself into, it would be kind of nice to know more.

 

[chikusho]

So, that makes sloppy communication and misinformation to the community suddenly OK?

It was quite clear to me what they were doing from the beginning. But maybe that's because I didn't just hear "Easy Mode" and started hulking out.[/quote]

The responsibility of clear communication is always on the people responsible for the product. If they can't get their message across to their recipients in an evident manner, an apology is absolutely the right way to go.

 

[thehorror2]

I respect Dark Souls' right to exist and From Software's right to make the game they want to make, but DAMN ME does it sound like nothing I ever want anywhere near my hard drive. I can't imagine the appeal of a game that goes out of its way to avoid teaching players how to play.

 

[Dark Knifer]

If by accessible means adding a goddamn pause button then yeah, he should totally be sorry.

But yeah, I get this is mostly just a communication error and people were worried the appeal of difficulty would be lost and that makes sense as that is the point of the game.

 

[hazydawn]

So you don't want to turn to items for exposition and offer... exposition through items as a suitable replacement? I don't get it.

In many rpgs you'll have a book about a sword, some people to tell you about a sword(and that'll be the entirety of their character interaction at that), and the sword itself. In Souls, the sword has the exposition in its description and usually with little tidbits of other parts of the world around it, sometimes you'll have people who know about it but that's just a piece of what they know and do, and the incredible few who are like that are obsessed madmen. They've simply cut out unnecessary expository middle men.

I guess you didn't read my last comment. But you're exactly right, that's the way they've done it, they've "cut out [the] unnecessary expository middle men." Just that to me this "middle man" is not unnecessary. To me the way Dark souls handles it seems lazy in comparison to how other games do it and destroys the immersion. But you know, that's just like, my opinion man

But I also felt that there could have been a bit more info on the lore... in a more straight forward way with a tad less interpreting on my part so you could actually come to some reasonable conclusions.

 

[Ishal]

Because I don't play games to appeal to my masochistic side.

Good for you.

Such functionality would in no way negatively impact your "true" version of the game. And it would help in expanding the audience to make it sell even better, thus guaranteeing the longevity of the series over the years.

FROM doesn't necessarily want that. That's one thing people tend to not understand. Namco Bandai might, but FROM's history is in making games for particular audiences and tailoring the development to that. It's budgets were reasonable and it made profits, succeeding in selling to those fanbases. This area DKSII is in, it's pretty new to FROM as developers. They still aren't after mass appeal. If anything they've made the game MORE difficult by allowing other players to invade at any time.

So there's no reason NOT to make the game have alternative modes of play or to simply add functions that make the game more "accessible". None. There is no rational argument against this sort of thing whatsoever. You can't even argue that it's "dumbing things down", because it's not.

I like this authoritative attitude. It's charming. Correct, it's not dumbing things down. The world tendency in Demon's Souls, the Covenants in Dark Souls, the horrible inventory system in both games. These are the things that they wish to change, and that's good. The only way these things would negatively impact the game is if they intruded on the aspect od discovery. That's the true essence of the Souls Series. Exploration and learning. When it's done correctly, it's rewarded.

The fact that a dev feels the need to apologize for calling the game "accessible" merely because some paranoid nerds think "accessible" means "easy"? That's appalling.

Ah, sweeping generalization. Well, as a paranoid nerd and fan of the Souls series. I remember seeing a few disturbing things around the beginning of the year when the buzz for this game was starting. They used the term "accessible," some freaked out about this, but I didn't. I read the article and didn't think their intent was what everyone was thinking. Their track record along with everything else they'd said didn't jive with "dumbing down." Still, that word has proven to be something of a concern in the west. We've seen what happened to Dragon Age with EA, Mass Effect, Dead Space, and a whole host of others. No, what worried me was Namco Bandai coming forward and saying they were going at this "all guns blazing" and throwing piles of money at FROM. Then they dropped the title SKYRIM indicating that as frame of reference somewhere in the development mindset. That was distressing. But these are things that are sometimes lost in translation and not understood. I don't know if the Japanese folks at Bamco know that there is a degree of recklessness and foolishness associated with the phrase "all guns blazing." All in all, these were a series of PR missteps. And that's not a good thing. Why? FROM's profits have been steeped in the small fanbases and communities they've cultured with their niche games. That new audience they're after doesn't exist yet. Not wise to alienate your consumer base that has sustained you up until this point. I don't think it was so much appalling as wise.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

I will pass on Dark Souls 2, I almost passed on Dark Souls, still love Demon's Souls.

I have made this analogy before, but the "Souls" series has become like hot sauce. Hot sauce people became obsessed with the "heat" and things spiraled out of control until you have a sauce that is so blazing hot you cant even taste it, ruing the whole point of a "sauce". The "Souls" series is making the same mistake with difficulty.

The tagline "prepare to die edition" on the PC version of Dark Souls was my cue to leave the series. Obviously we want challenging games, and we will die more often in challenging games, but judging the quality of your game based on how many times I die is like judging a crappy hot sauce based entirely on how high you get get on the Scoville Scale.

I'll just differ to what Yahtzee said about Demons Souls and the task of breaking down a brick wall with your forehead.

 

[Cybylt]

Ah, sweeping generalization. Well, as a paranoid nerd and fan of the Souls series. I remember seeing a few disturbing things around the beginning of the year when the buzz for this game was starting. They used the term "accessible," some freaked out about this, but I didn't. I read the article and didn't think their intent was what everyone was thinking. Their track record along with everything else they'd said didn't jive with "dumbing down." Still, that word has proven to be something of a concern in the west. We've seen what happened to Dragon Age with EA, Mass Effect, Dead Space, and a whole host of others. No, what worried me was Namco Bandai coming forward and saying they were going at this "all guns blazing" and throwing piles of money at FROM. Then they dropped the title SKYRIM indicating that as frame of reference somewhere in the development mindset. That was distressing. But these are things that are sometimes lost in translation and not understood. I don't know if the Japanese folks at Bamco know that there is a degree of recklessness and foolishness associated with the phrase "all guns blazing." All in all, these were a series of PR missteps. And that's not a good thing. Why? FROM's profits have been steeped in the small fanbases and communities they've cultured with their niche games. That new audience they're after doesn't exist yet. Not wise to alienate your consumer base that has sustained you up until this point. I don't think it was so much appalling as wise.

Pretty sure that initial EDGE article was later discovered to have a bunch of clickbait bullcrap on the part of EDGE writers thrown in for hits. Namely the references to Skyrim and going in guns blazing to the AAA market.

I guess you didn't read my last comment. But you're exactly right, that's the way they've done it, they've "cut out [the] unnecessary expository middle men." Just that to me this "middle man" is not unnecessary. To me the way Dark souls handles it seems lazy in comparison to how other games do it and destroys the immersion. But you know, that's just like, my opinion man

But I also felt that there could have been a bit more info on the lore... in a more straight forward way with a tad less interpreting on my part so you could actually come to some reasonable conclusions.

I know, to each his own and all that. I just like the silliness in the book and notes thing because the sentiment is basically, "I don't want items to tell me things, I want items to tell me things."

And for me, having characters there just to just go off for a few paragraphs on a certain topic for absolutely no reason, to a person they just met no less, is the more shallow or lazy idea and it's only around "because it's how it was done back when."

The tagline "prepare to die edition" on the PC version of Dark Souls was my cue to leave the series. Obviously we want challenging games, and we will die more often in challenging games, but judging the quality of your game based on how many times I die is like judging a crappy hot sauce based entirely on how high you get get on the Scoville Scale.

Then you misunderstood the phrase "prepare to die." At least, you have in how most people have. People take it as a threat or a promise, stating this game's sole feature is the difficulty. But it wasn't, and it isn't, because Souls aren't the typical game where death is a failure state, in these games dying is just a piece of it, a mechanic, and it'll happen to everyone and they want you to be aware of that.

 

[Amir Kondori]

Accessible is great when it means cleaning up the UI and tightening controls. Accessible is terrible when it means making games easier and less complex.

 

[Church185]

Yeah but they weren't gonna alienate anybody. There's a mode for hardcore fans and a mode for newcomers. They've said that right from the start.

There actually aren't going to be two different difficulties. If you buy this game with that in mind you are going to be sorely disappointed.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/04/11/no-easy-mode-allowed-an-interview-with-dark-souls-2-director-yui-tanimura-plus-new-screenshots/

 

[irok]

Yeah those are two completely different words, given how they have already made comments about 2 being harder I'm not really worried, the accessibility that everyone should be clapping over is that its going to work properly on a pc, never had a problem personally because of a controller but it was a issue many people had.

Also the it was pretty easy after playing it for awhile, being a sunbro and solving other peoples issues with bosses may have colored my perspective on that though, scary bosses aren't as scary on fight number 10.

 

[TrevHead]

I have to laugh at posts like this who hate oldschool game design and believe it's a crime for any new game that dares to read from a different script most AAA's do.

There's just one tad point that they forget in their hate filled rants. The very point of the Souls series is that's basically a 8/16bit era game put inside a modern games skin that's the reason so many "hardcore" gamers enjoyed it and it the very reason the series is so popular and highly thought of. Sure modern game design dogma has rules that most new games adhere to, but Souls doesn't because it would be the very opposite of what it's about.

Now you could argue that Dark Souls is wrong for doing what it does (pause,difficulty, lack of modes etc), and you might actually be correct IF it wasn't Dark Souls but Fifa or Skyrim.

The fact that he seriously needed to apologize for calling the game *GASP* accessible kinda reinforces my negative opinion of hardcore Souls fans. I understand the desire for challenge (64 hours in dark souls) but the obsession with having the game be as obtuse and unhelpful as possible doesn't make sense to me. Nor does the instance that failure be "punished". I'm OK with the game killing you for making mistakes, but I have seen people argue that the path between a boss and a bondfire needs to be as long and arduous as possible to "punish" or "penalize" you for failing to win the first time, and that just strikes me as a bizarre level of self-flagellation.

IT's called having a big penalty of death, I'll guess that you haven't played Eve Online since if you had, you wouldn't think DS fans are pulling everything out of their arses. It's there to make play more rewarding, like gambling is more rewarding when play for money.

 

[major_chaos]

I have to laugh at posts like this

Begin with an insult, that's promising.

who hate oldschool game design and believe it's a crime for any new game that dares to read from a different script most AAA's do.

Look at that strawman burn...

There's just one tad point that they forget in their hate filled rants. The very point of the Souls series is that's basically a 8/16bit era game put inside a modern games skin

First off, I reject the 16bit comparison, because that era in general wasn't half as absurdly difficult as the NES era. Second are your really trying to say resembling a 8 bit game is a good thing? Games if that era were difficult partly just to cover their own simplicity and short length, not to mention being loaded with cheap artificial difficulty to a far greater extent than the Souls games.

(pause,difficulty, lack of modes etc)

I said none of those things

It's called having a big penalty for death,

No, losing all your souls and humanity, potentially forever is a good death penalty, being forced to kill the same 5-10 largely non-threatening fodder monsters every time you need to get back to the boss is wasting my time and passing it off as challenge.

I'll guess that you haven't played Eve Online

Nope. 0 interest. I have even less nice things to say about that game, and by extension a portion of its playerbase.

 

[TrevHead]

snip

My first 3 paragraphs wasn't meant to be part of the discussion with you, rather as a general statement, sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough.

First off, I reject the 16bit comparison, because that era in general wasn't half as absurdly difficult as the NES era. Second are your really trying to say resembling a 8 bit game is a good thing? Games if that era were difficult partly just to cover their own simplicity and short length, not to mention being loaded with cheap artificial difficulty to a far greater extent than the Souls games.

While alot of 16bit games generally weren't as difficult as many 8bit games, many were since both 8/16bit copied from the arcade, either though design or as arcade ports. My point about Dark Souls is that it's hearkening back to those times which imo makes any demands that Souls should have the same features of modern games as pointless.

I disagree with your statement that 8bit games were in some way bad. Sure there were badly made games but "nintendo hard" shouldn't be thought of as bad game design in itself when there are ppl who enjoy such games.