Dark Souls Softcore mode?

[Darken12]

If it makes you feel better, I have played the game, and continue to play it, and I agree with you completely. However, this is not an argument you are going to win. We had a...god...I want to say 10+ page thread on this, and I think there were several long threads before that even...where this topic was discussed right into the ground. And the "ne'er shall an easy mode touch my Dark Souls" lobby never once deviated from their position. Nor defended it in a way that didn't suggest it was ENTIRELY about ego-gratification. Apparently if the game has an easy mode, or even an easier mode, it will lose a special something-something, and they will no longer be able to enjoy it. You are never going to win a rational argument on the subject, because the people you are arguing against are not being rational. They are being emotional. I seriously doubt that many or even most of them have even stopped to think about WHY they don't want an easy mode in Dark Souls, other than "they just don't", and boy does the question of it ever rustle their jimmies.

I'd love to be able to share the game with my GF, because I think there are some genuinely wonderful elements to it. However, "difficult" is a relative term, and what I find a bracingly challenging undertaking she would find completely frustrating and functionally impossible. So, there's one sale at least From is missing out on, because my girlfriend simply lacks the mad gamer skillz to hack it in Dark Souls. I imagine a certain demographic of Dark Souls fans feel their underwear tightening at the very suggestion that some plebeian has been denied access to their clubhouse.

I completely agree, I am sure people are going to resist the idea with all their might precisely because of what you're saying in your last paragraph: because it would remove the mystique of their clubhouse. If I wanted to get sociological about it, I'd cite the cycle of abuse as a form of bonding, something we see in pretty much all cultures. The idea that in order to belong to a special elite, you must suffer through trials and display some virtue that the elite finds laudable (that goes from cunning to endurance to strength to tenacity and so on) goes back to the beginning of time. Overcoming the trials and enduring the abuse binds the members of the elite together (because they've all been through it and succeeded) while the virtue that they had to display makes them feel superior to those who aren't part of the elite. In this case, the elite is being a "hardcore" or "true" gamer/geek, and the idea that others will be able to share the same experiences without suffering frustration and abuse from the unforgiving games they favour destroys the mystique that makes them feel better about themselves.

I don't intend to change anyone's mind (I completely agree; their position is primarily emotional) but it's important to voice dissenting opinions and resist the brunt of the emotional outpour in order to reassure the people who might read this thread that they aren't alone if their opinion differs from the vocal hostility of the people who oppose the idea. That, to me, is the important thing: to dispel the notion that there is a unanimous, suffocating uniformity on this matter.

 

[chaos order]

Well you have convinced me of one thing, you are hard set in your position, and using pseudo psychology to try and justify it. Even going into 'oppression' and 'douchey' as supposed answers to your argument, which you don't have as I never said I disliked people taking the action, I just like when game designers tell its playerbase "You can do this, don't take the easy route out, its not impossible." You can twist things all you like I suppose, as it seems you won't have a legitimate debate in this topic. Also I am quoting from the game itself, this was a design mechanic in 'Splosion Man giving you the option to skip the level if you keep dying on it and giving you a warning that if you skip your character gets a pink tutu and a laugh track plays.

At this point it would just be wasting more time since you don't want to actually have a debate and prefer to brow beat people into your line of thinking using your supposed psychological knowledge to do so. So I guess you can stroke your own ego to someone else.

Firstly, it's not pseudo psychology, it's actual psychology. Also, sociology and anthropology. Do your research on male bonding and the perpetuation of abuse before dismissing things out of hand. Secondly, telling the player base "don't take the easy route" is policing how people have fun. Not everyone has the same values that you do. I understand that you value overcoming the arbitrary standards set by somebody else. I don't mind that. If that's how you want to have fun, go ahead, I'm not going to tell you that it's wrong or that it's not a valid way to have fun. You, on the other hand, are not doing the same. Thirdly, I will ignore the bit about 'Splosion Man because I don't want this to turn into a rabid flamewar, but just for the record? What that game does is not socially progressive. And I will leave it at that.

I'm not trying to browbeat you to think in any way, I know for a fact that you are not going to change your mind. I'm just getting a dissenting voice in this place because holy crap, people are still going at it.

Thank you, that really needed to be said. I'm quite baffled by people who get's angry at things that in no way affects them.

It's quite absurd to whine over optional difficulty that you'll never even use.

The problem is that most players are going to keep clinging to the idea (and I'm pretty sure that if an easy mode gets implemented, there will be a massive backlash against those who use it) because the ego component is too important.

see the thing is you haven't played the game and soo you havent even tried to look at it from the persepective you are arguing against or knowing what choices (also known as options) that are available to players. In addition there is an easy mode of sorts. Not one that is explicitly in a menu screen but choices you can make as you play the game. for one dont go human and stay as a hallow. really as far as i have seen in the game being human just gives you the opportunity to invade other people or be invaded, thus making the game easier so that one does not have to deal with random invasions. in addition join convenants (sorta like guilds) that affect in game and online play. for example the very first coveneant that you join puts your character on the bottom of the list of people that can be invaded,thus lowering the risk of invasion thus making it somewhat easier. there is also a way to help people out by placing marks in the ground that allow other players to summon them in areas that they are having trouble with, thus giving players the option to invite another player to fight with them thus making the game easier; in addition you can summon NPCs.

Also the game tries to teach (atleast attempts) through gameplay, which is something rare nowadays and i like that. the first enemies you fight telegraph their attacks and are really really slow, and in the tutorial there are enemies that jump from corners which teaches you that that will happen alot. the game doesnt provide text telling you what to do, it tries to teach you what to do.

Finally i personally cant see how the game thats sorta supposed to be played online can have an easy mode if everyone can invade anyone.

Firstly, just because I haven't played doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion because the very reason I refuse to touch that game is due to its masochistic difficulty. Secondly, adding an option to make the game easier is not going to remove anything you enjoy about the game. All the things you like? Are still going to be there, untouched. If people want to have that kind of experiences, they will. If they don't, then they get to play the game all the same while enjoying a different kind of experience.

But you can't just ignore it though. The game feels different when you have to basically make your own difficulty. It's the feeling of doing something great inside a video game world vs accomplishing a self imposed challenge. Games aren't just a business, they're an art too. They don't have to reach the widest base and having some integrity is good. Making a game revolve around a single theme and then adding a massive break from that theme in the middle isn't good. Yes no one should try to impose their idea of fun onto you, and no one is. No one is forcing you to buy this game and not all games have to appeal to you.

Yes, the game feels different. And? The game also feels different when I use it to spread butter on toast, or as a paperweight. What people do with their videogames is none of your concern.

I completely agree, games are art, and you are never going to hear any person well versed in the arts telling someone that they are enjoying art wrong. If they do, they are pretentious douchebags who need to get back to their art classes and books and read the multitude of dissenting opinions on works of art before opening their ignorant mouths. Also, you seem to assume that the theoretical incorporation of easy mode will overwrite the present difficulty or somehow rob you of the experience you cherish. It won't. Because it's an option, it's not mandatory, and you can still have standard mode to play. Finally, nobody's saying this is being done for business reasons. I have no stake in the company, and I am not arguing on monetary grounds. I am arguing on a broader intellectual level. Adding more options to games, particularly options that broaden accessibility, is always an invariably good thing. The last thing we need in the gamer community is to continuing perpetuating the kind of haughty elitism and hostile isolationism that cause gamers to lash out at anyone who has a differing opinion or isn't like them. Opening our doors to differing viewpoints and welcoming people who are not like us will do wonders to foster tolerance (which is something the gamer community sorely needs).

Dude, peace pipes. Smoke the hell out of them. You're bitching about policing fun when you didn't need to even ***** in the first place, and yet you're policing the damn thread.

How am I policing the thread? By offering a dissenting opinion? By replying only to the people who are addressing me directly? And if we're talking about "need", then none of us need to post here. We do it because we want to offer our opinions.

well... again i would like to state that the game does have actions or options in it that allow you to make the game easier,ie summoning other players/Npcs to beat bosses, not becoming human. Actually just today i helped someone beat the gaping dragon boss. and again i still dont see how they can balance the easy mode and the online aspects of the game that is persistent as they play. also you are entitled to an opinion, nothing wrong with that, but not having any real understanding or "feel" of the game other than "its hard" makes it an ill informed one

 

[Burst6]

But you can't just ignore it though. The game feels different when you have to basically make your own difficulty. It's the feeling of doing something great inside a video game world vs accomplishing a self imposed challenge. Games aren't just a business, they're an art too. They don't have to reach the widest base and having some integrity is good. Making a game revolve around a single theme and then adding a massive break from that theme in the middle isn't good. Yes no one should try to impose their idea of fun onto you, and no one is. No one is forcing you to buy this game and not all games have to appeal to you.

Yes, the game feels different. And? The game also feels different when I use it to spread butter on toast, or as a paperweight. What people do with their videogames is none of your concern.

I completely agree, games are art, and you are never going to hear any person well versed in the arts telling someone that they are enjoying art wrong. If they do, they are pretentious douchebags who need to get back to their art classes and books and read the multitude of dissenting opinions on works of art before opening their ignorant mouths. Also, you seem to assume that the theoretical incorporation of easy mode will overwrite the present difficulty or somehow rob you of the experience you cherish. It won't. Because it's an option, it's not mandatory, and you can still have standard mode to play. Finally, nobody's saying this is being done for business reasons. I have no stake in the company, and I am not arguing on monetary grounds. I am arguing on a broader intellectual level. Adding more options to games, particularly options that broaden accessibility, is always an invariably good thing. The last thing we need in the gamer community is to continuing perpetuating the kind of haughty elitism and hostile isolationism that cause gamers to lash out at anyone who has a differing opinion or isn't like them. Opening our doors to differing viewpoints and welcoming people who are not like us will do wonders to foster tolerance (which is something the gamer community sorely needs).

I don't care what you do with your video game disc. You can put your disc inside a sega CD and use it as a medieval flail if you wish. That doesn't have anything to do with this argument. What you're asking isn't that people let you enjoy your game the way you want it, what you're asking is that the devs change the game for you because you don't feel like playing it. The first one involves you changing the game by yourself as you see fit. If you want to buy the PC version and mod it to give yourself god mode, go ahead. No one will care. That's your time and you're modding your own game. Asking the devs to change EVERYONE's game isn't doing whatever you want with your game. It's trying to force what you want in the game to everyone else.

Also where is this elitism you're talking about? I often see more people whining about how people are elitist more than i see actual elitism. No one is screaming from a high horse about how much better they are than other people because they beat Dark Souls. I've already talked about how it makes the game feel different, but there's another factor. Developer time and money isn't infinite. You said you haven't played dark souls so you probably have no idea how the online feature works, but it will probably be a nightmare to build an easy mode for it. The only way to make a cheap easy mode would be to disable online and just fudge the numbers towards the easy side, but that still costs developers money to code everything and get the patches up and running. In the end you have a bad version of the game that wasted development time and possibly alienated a good number of core fans.

And finally, no adding more options to a game to broaden accessibility is not always a good thing. Like i said, developer time and money is not infinite. The more you devote to one part of the game, the weaker other parts will be. Accessibility also means that things will have to be easier which often means they're shallower too. I have no idea what any of this has to do with the gamer community opening up to others, but i highly disagree with the idea that every game needs to try and appeal to everyone. Those games tend to have very little focus and often turn out very bland.

 

[Project_Xii]

So what you are implying is that I shouldn't be backing up my saves and instead should disconnect from the network every time I play until I unlock the arena, then reconnect. That doesn't sound much better than what I'm already doing. And arguably playing offline is also not playing dark souls as intended.

Neither is backing up your save files, thereby negating any or all risk. That's like playing Hardcore Diablo 2, except making a character back up so when you perma-die, you just reload from the last save and try again ie: completely negating what Hardcore mode is all about.

If you're going to wuss out and back up your saves every time something doesn't go your way, you're not playing the game "as intended" anyway, so why not just go the whole hog and turn off the internet connection? Your OP and subsequent replies pretty much just screams "I want Minecrafts 'Peaceful' mode in Dark Souls so that I can sit and grind for the ultimate gear, completely free of risk and challenge".

Yeah. No. There are other games for that style of play.

All that argument aside, I couldn't care less if they added a "softcore" mode... but there should be penalties for it. Perhaps only half the gear, half the bosses, and a joke end boss that's like a kitten with a mallet. That would drive people to try and play the game proper pretty quick, I'm sure.

 

[Darken12]

well... again i would like to state that the game does have actions or options in it that allow you to make the game easier,ie summoning other players/Npcs to beat bosses, not becoming human. Actually just today i helped someone beat the gaping dragon boss. and again i still dont see how they can balance the easy mode and the online aspects of the game that is persistent as they play. also you are entitled to an opinion, nothing wrong with that, but not having any real understanding or "feel" of the game other than "its hard" makes it an ill informed one

I am not saying that the game, as it is right now, cannot be made easier or harder by the choices you make. That is a truism that applies to practically every videogame there is. The point is that "a different way of playing the game" as an option has no downsides, and I would equally support a "Nightmare mode" that made Dark Souls even harder (which I'm sure pretty much nobody would have a problem with, since it would let the elite rise above their current station to belong to an even smaller elite). Saying "just play it like the rest of us do" strikes me as an appeal to conformism by way of "don't rock the boat."

As for "ill informed", I think we all established already that the game's selling point isn't its story, worldbuilding or design choices, but the difficulty and lack of hand-holding.

I don't care what you do with your video game disc. You can put your disc inside a sega CD and use it as a medieval flail if you wish. That doesn't have anything to do with this argument. What you're asking isn't that people let you enjoy your game the way you want it, what you're asking is that the devs change the game for you because you don't feel like playing it. The first one involves you changing the game by yourself as you see fit. If you want to buy the PC version and mod it to give yourself god mode, go ahead. No one will care. That's your time and you're modding your own game. Asking the devs to change EVERYONE's game isn't doing whatever you want with your game. It's trying to force what you want in the game to everyone else.

See, that's the problem. I keep repeating myself over and over and it's like people are wilfully misunderstanding the argument. The game is not being changed. An option, by definition, cannot change a game because it's not mandatory. If you choose to implement it, then sure, it changes the game, but if you don't, then it cannot change your game. Having an option in the same disc doesn't change the game. Otherwise developers should never release things like optional costumes, extra levels, additional characters, bonus missions and so on, because the addition of something optional is somehow a sacrilege that irrevocably changes the original game you purchased. That idea, to me, is ludicrous.

Nobody's asking the devs to do anything for free. They are going to get money in exchange. That's how the entertainment industry works, I want something, someone makes it for me, and then I give them money for it. Nobody is asking you to buy for it if it comes out as DLC, and nobody's asking you to play it if it comes bundled with the game upon purchase.

And lastly, nobody's forcing you to do anything. This. Is. Optional. On the contrary, by trying to prevent this from happening, you are forcing everyone to play the game your way or not play at all. Adding more options means that if you don't like an option, you can still play the game by choosing something else.

Also where is this elitism you're talking about? I often see more people whining about how people are elitist more than i see actual elitism. No one is screaming from a high horse about how much better they are than other people because they beat Dark Souls. I've already talked about how it makes the game feel different, but there's another factor. Developer time and money isn't infinite. You said you haven't played dark souls so you probably have no idea how the online feature works, but it will probably be a nightmare to build an easy mode for it. The only way to make a cheap easy mode would be to disable online and just fudge the numbers towards the easy side, but that still costs developers money to code everything and get the patches up and running. In the end you have a bad version of the game that wasted development time and possibly alienated a good number of core fans.

Elitism isn't overtly telling someone you are better than them. Elitism manifests pretty much in this exact way, by aggressively resisting something that affects you in no way whatsoever, and in some of the posts I've seen here who encouraged humiliation on people who chose easy mode, or by disparaging the people who want the idea as unskilled, impatient, not-a-true-gamer, and any other negative adjective.

As I also said before, Dark Souls isn't the first online multiplayer game who had to find a way to balance easy and hard experiences. I'm not going to debate how it could be done because none of us here are programmers (or, at least, none of us here are programmers in charge of Dark Souls) and armchair programming will be nothing but useless speculation that will have no bearing on the actual point.

And finally, no adding more options to a game to broaden accessibility is not always a good thing. Like i said, developer time and money is not infinite. The more you devote to one part of the game, the weaker other parts will be. Accessibility also means that things will have to be easier which often means they're shallower too. I have no idea what any of this has to do with the gamer community opening up to others, but i highly disagree with the idea that every game needs to try and appeal to everyone. Those games tend to have very little focus and often turn out very bland.

If the options you are adding result in an increase in sales, the options are paying for themselves. No part of the budget is being wasted on the options if the options end up generating a sufficiently large amount of revenue by increasing sales. Furthermore, options are generally sold separately from the game, as DLC, and that implies a game that has already been finished and whose budget has already been spent completely on the game the creators had originally in mind. The DLC is either born from leftovers that got cut from the game or as new projects with their own budget if sufficient demand has been deemed to exist.

For your reading pleasure:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.396883.16191895
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.397443.16223812

Now I suggest letting this topic die before it devolves into another flame war.

For someone who is so quick to dismiss the elitism argument, those are some hilariously elitist posts. I particularly like the "Not all games are meant for all people" bit and the appeal to "oldschool" mentality (when oldschool mentality is basically right-wing conservative traditionalism for gamers). I don't see anything in those posts I haven't already addressed. I'm not going to distract from the subject by engaging in armchair programming, and I've already reiterated myself over and over on the topics of elitism and how options don't detract from the original product at all.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

For your reading pleasure:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.396883.16191895
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.397443.16223812

Now I suggest letting this topic die before it devolves into another flame war.

Old, easily debunked arguments do not result in "reading pleasure".

Want to add easy mode to Dark Souls?

You don't need to lower enemy HP. As you say, they already die fast. You can, however, multiply player character HP, armor, and resistances. As you're aware, being a Souls player, a goodly amount of the difficulty comes from more than just pattern recognition, it comes from low margin for error. Just as 2-3 blows will dispatch an enemy, 2-3 blows will dispatch you as well. Change that to 20-30 blows, and you're walking down the path to Easy Town.

Want to make easy mode easier? Allow for more Estus flasks, that heal for more.

Want to make easy mode even EASIER? Take care of all those nasty environmental perils? Add F5 for quick save and F9 for quick load.

All of this would require next to zero developer resources, would not require changing the core mechanics of the game at all, and could easily be removed from "normal" difficulty.

Do PLEASE explain to me how any of these things would "take away" Dark Souls as you have come to enjoy it, as it so often the keening whine of the "we swear we're not elitist, we just keep saying ridiculously elitist things" crowd. I mean, for fucks sake. I don't even MIND when people are elitist. If you're some crack esports player and you want to pump your tires in front of a wearied captive audience, I guess you earned it. It doesn't necessarily make you a good sport or paragon of humility, but it's a hell of a lot more palatable than this coy bullshit where a bunch of CLEARLY elitist people will talk you into the ground to try and convince you they're not, all the while pitching a fit about how the existence of an easy mode they'd never play would "take away" the game they love so dearly.

I like Dark Souls. A lot. I don't think I would make use of an easy mode if it were offered to me, because the difficulty is part of the charm. I'm not, however, so arrogant as to assume a difficulty that hits my "sweet spot" must necessarily hit everyone else's sweet spot as well. I understand why different tiers of difficulty exist.

Just own up to it, man. Just wear your elitist blazer with pride. You played a hard game, and you want some velvet ropes put up to keep out the rabble. It's not even INTENDED for them, right? It's for YOU.

e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism (-ltzm, -l-)
n.
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment (Dark Souls) by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status (gaming skill), or financial resources (perseverance).

 

[chaos order]

well... again i would like to state that the game does have actions or options in it that allow you to make the game easier,ie summoning other players/Npcs to beat bosses, not becoming human. Actually just today i helped someone beat the gaping dragon boss. and again i still dont see how they can balance the easy mode and the online aspects of the game that is persistent as they play. also you are entitled to an opinion, nothing wrong with that, but not having any real understanding or "feel" of the game other than "its hard" makes it an ill informed one

I am not saying that the game, as it is right now, cannot be made easier or harder by the choices you make. That is a truism that applies to practically every videogame there is. The point is that "a different way of playing the game" as an option has no downsides, and I would equally support a "Nightmare mode" that made Dark Souls even harder (which I'm sure pretty much nobody would have a problem with, since it would let the elite rise above their current station to belong to an even smaller elite). Saying "just play it like the rest of us do" strikes me as an appeal to conformism by way of "don't rock the boat."

As for "ill informed", I think we all established already that the game's selling point isn't its story, worldbuilding or design choices, but the difficulty and lack of hand-holding.

by using that same logic that the games difficulty is what it sells it self on, adding an easy mode takes away from that. because now its no longer a hard game but a game that "could" be hard. In addition, if you watch a video of some the earlier areas like the undead burgh youd see that most of the "difficulty" of the game derives from punishing mistakes rather than having actually difficult enemies( excluding the mini bosses and bosses of course), and the flasks are there to give the player some wiggle room for small accidents that happen. Having an "easy" mode where someone can take more hits or have enemies take less to beat (most enemies btw only take 1-2) would dumb the game down to just hacking and slashing the game would lose all substance. The game as it is now forces you to play more thoughtfully and avoid any mistakes because of the nature of the games punishment system

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Really, why not just make the player invincible at that rate. Or maybe just remove all enemies.

Honestly, that only leads to the problem of more environmental deaths...

What you are playing is no longer Dark Souls.

You're way off the reservation now, trying to debate whether or not stripping too much difficulty away will damage the spirit of the game, when your previous argument was a lower difficulty would be impossible to implement without completely rebuilding it mechanically. Putting aside the fact that DIFFICULTY IS RELATIVE, I don't really think it's your place to tell anyone how to play or enjoy a game. I think save scumming ruins XCOM, but it's not my place to tell people 'they're no longer playing XCOM' when they do it. Because I would sound like a huge jackass if I tried.

The fact remains that game is about risk Vs reward, patience and memorization. If you do not enjoy those things, no amount of "easy" is going to change that.

The game is "about" whatever the player chooses to take from the experience. And difficulty is relative.

If these aspects do not appeal to you, then this game is by proxy, not meant for you.

"If you do not enjoy this game in the way that *I* enjoy this game, then it's not FOR you, peasants!"

It's not about trying to exclude people as I could care less who can or cannot play this game.

Yes, it is.

This, my friend, is why we are trying to hold your head in our hands and point it at the realization that you are a being elitist, like trying to get the dog to notice the treat you dropped 2 feet from his nose. I'll say it again. You are operating under the delusion that this game was built ESPECIALLY for you, to tickle YOUR sweet spot, and anyone who does not share your tastes can...I dunno...fuck off and die or something, I suppose. Go wherever inferior gamers go. You build false dilemmas about how an easy mode would be "impossible" to implement, then when I outline an incredibly simple way to do so you moan that the spirit of the game is now compromised. You state that adding an OPTIONAL level of difficulty would alienate the fans, possibly because they're all teenage girls and drama pumps through their veins like blood. You repeatedly state that the game is just not FOR people who can't appreciate a specific level of difficulty...not a difficult experience...just ONE fixed level of difficulty...then cry foul when the things you are saying are rightly characterized as unchained elitism.

Again, guy. Just OWN UP. This is ridiculous. It's like trying to get the ocean to admit that it's wet. You keep trying to rebut accusations of elitism with hilariously elitist arguments, and I cannot for the life of me comprehend how you can't see it.

You mean like the favoured treatment that is being demanded by those that want a game to be be bent to their will because it currently does not fit with their sensibilities?

Get over yourself.

"Bent to their will".

You couldn't pay a team of writers to come up with this stuff.

 

[Trollhoffer]

To my mind, the major reason Dark Souls doesn't need an easy mode is that it's not actually as difficult as people make it out to be. The game is less based on twitch skill as it is based on having the right knowledge with which to overcome certain obstacles. Hedging your bets via your character's statistics also helps. That said, the game could use a better tutorial to help guide players in terms of building their characters.

For as bad as the PvP is, though, I find Dark Souls actually has a really good community and I think a part of that is that we've all faced and overcome the same trials. It's a great process of discovery and part of the reason Dark Souls is one of the best games of any generation -- at least for "discovery" gamers. The appeal of discovery isn't just based on finding locations and objects, but on discovering the machinations behind gameplay systems, and Dark Souls does that last part in particular really well. It's important because it ties into the tactical considerations of any engagement. Before last year's last patch, I was very fond of greatsword-class weapons because they dealt a lot of poise damage without giving up too much speed, which made them ideal for stunlocking enemies of all kinds.

Stunlocking isn't just good because it opens an enemy up for a new attack, but because it prevents them from attacking. Therefore, a lengthy weapon that staggers enemies easily is a form of defense as well as attack.

When I came to realise the above principle, the game became a lot easier because now I could both take initiative in combat and prevent myself from coming to harm. All I had to do was manipulate the distance and timing of the fight so I got the initial attack, after which I could gain complete control. Of course, defensive measures are still useful throughout the game (particularly against enemies that have overwhelming offensive abilities), but by and large my style of play changed to accommodate my new knowledge.

That process of discovery could never have happened with an easier difficulty because there would be no need for it. Of course, not everyone is a "discovery" gamer and not everyone is interest in the minutia of combat. But that begs the question: why play Dark Souls? It's a fantastic game constructed for a particular audience. I get that some people want to play it for the lore or the atmosphere or other things, but other games don't have these kinds of demands thrown upon them. The essential problem, from where I'm standing, is that there's a base of gamers out there who want a game -- that was never made for them as an audience -- to now be geared more towards their preferences. One element of Dark Souls is the consistency of experience between gamers in many respects, and I suspect that was intentional to build a certain kind of social experience outside the game.

Or, in short:

If the lack of an easy mode prevents you from playing Dark Souls, in spite of its other qualities, then it's likely that you're not a part of the game's target audience in the first place.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

If the lack of an easy mode prevents you from playing Dark Souls, in spite of its other qualities, then it's likely that you're not a part of the game's target audience in the first place.

Difficulty is relative. One person might do well on "impossible", another might struggle on "normal". Both would be experiencing Dark Souls "the way it was meant to be experienced"...as a difficult, threatening world. Instead of just one being able to play it, and the other being functionally locked out of the experience.

That, to my understanding, is the purpose of difficulty levels. Not so we can all play on the easiest possible level and faceroll everything. So that everyone can have a crack. Those who like a more casual experience are made happy, those who like a more challenging experience are made happy.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

When I say I could give a crap whether somebody can or cannot play a game, I mean I could give a crap whether somebody can or cannot play a game.

Therefore, in order to accomodate a group of individuals, for who, let's be fair, the game may never have been intended in the first place, we are to cheapen the experience for those who are already (passionate) fans of the series, alienating them in the process.

Not all games are meant for all people. Sometimes we just have to live with that.

Of course, some green eyed monsters can't handle the fact that they just can't grasp the game so they want to bend it to their will and make it part of the homogenous sludge.

Clearly.

You feel that they would "cheapen" your experience.
You feel that they would "alienate" core fans of the series.
You characterize them as "green eyed monsters" and suggest they want to "bend the game to their will".
You suggest they "just can't grasp" the game.
You appear with regularity in every thread about an easy mode in DS and argue venomously against it.

But clearly you do not care about who does or doesn't play Dark Souls, or whether an optional easy mode you'd never use is added to the game. This obviously has NOTHING to do with wanting to keep the riff-raff out of the club house.

Clearly.

So why do people seem to think it's okay to do this to Souls fans?

Not all Souls fans. Just the ones who keep making elitist arguments.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Snip.

That would be all fine and well but the people who are asking for an easy mode haven't given much thought to why the developers made it the way it is. They've missed the point of the game and while they're totally allowed to do that they can't just demand devs to put an easy mode in for them because they can't play it properly. You can do whatever you want to your copy but it isn't your game, it's the developers. If they saw fit to add an easy mode then they would have, the game is clearly supposed to be unforgiving, it's a mechanic, by adding an easy mode you'd be removing the core mechanic.

Even though I haven't played it this is all incredibly clear.

 

[Trollhoffer]

Difficulty is relative. One person might do well on "impossible", another might struggle on "normal". Both would be experiencing Dark Souls "the way it was meant to be experienced"...as a difficult, threatening world. Instead of just one being able to play it, and the other being functionally locked out of the experience.

That, to my understanding, is the purpose of difficulty levels. Not so we can all play on the easiest possible level and faceroll everything. So that everyone can have a crack. Those who like a more casual experience are made happy, those who like a more challenging experience are made happy.

The most difficulty I've seen someone have with Dark Souls is my brother's girlfriend, who had seldom (if ever) played video games before then. She was struggling with the tutorial boss and my brother was doing an awful job of coaching her. He had the right idea -- to suggest that she circle the boss to find a safe spot and opening. But he was missing the important geometric aspect of distance. Obviously, if you circle something at a closer distance, the resultant circle is smaller and so you can move around it more quickly.

As soon as I suggested to my brother's girlfriend that she move closer and circle from there, she dealt with the boss much, much better and ended up beating it.

Alright, so the tutorial boss isn't exactly the heaviest thing that the game can throw at you, but it was pretty impressive for someone who had never really played this kind of game to end up beating it. I'm not entirely sure she had even held a PS3 controller before then. The point is, though, that she won more through knowledge than twitch skill. Reducing the HP and damage of the boss wouldn't have altered the strategy of the fight one iota, because the boss punishes the player heavily for remaining at medium range. One has to be entirely out of distance or at very close distance for that fight, and circling is a major part of any fight where you're offensively outmatched.

Besides, your comment implies that those who play and like Dark Souls begin with skills that allow them to beat Dark Souls. Not true. Beating Dark Souls is a process of development and thought for just about everyone. Demon's Souls was even more hellish, if you'd believe it. So for what it's worth, Dark Souls is already reduced in difficulty from its previous game and I don't think it needs any more reductions. It could use some improvements in some design factors and some telegraphing of particular things, but those things are based on fairly informing the player rather than reducing the challenge of obstacles.

 

[Darken12]

Wow, you really misunderstood that - or you just glanced and tried to cherry pick without understandng the meaning.

Exactly how is the very correct assertion that "not all games are meant for all people" elitist?
Also, where in the old school assertion that I could give a flying fuck who can or cannot play a game, do you find elitism.

If you mean "meant" as "aimed", then that assertion is irrelevant by way of obviousness. No piece of entertainment is purposefully aimed at absolutely everyone. If you mean "are meant for" as "should be played by" then that is elitism, because it means that you don't want any person to play any game, you want specific people to play specific games, according to your views on what each person should enjoy, depending on how you think each game should be played. When it comes to the games you play, it becomes elitism as you are denying others the right to play games unless they do it under your terms, so that they are forced to belong to the same group as you after suffering through the same trials and exhibiting the same desirable qualities.

You seem to be grasping at straws to try to keep your argument viable.

Did you not read my own experience with the FPS genre on that matter, or were you too busy trying to find a way to dismiss these very pertinent arguments that were in NO WAY yet addressed by you beyond "hurr durr - DS fans are elitist - derp".

Your FPS argument boils down to "because I suffer, so shall everyone else." I would fully support your petition for new camera angles on FPSs. I am with Extra Credits on this one: the concept of the FPS genre is absolutely ridiculous. Instead of defining a genre by the emotion it intends to evoke or the type of narrative it evokes, we are defining it by a highly specific and arbitrary mechanic (which has no bearing on the actual narrative, and very little bearing on the setting and mechanics). I fully support the idea of adding optional third person view (like in the TES games, where you can freely switch between either) as a way for more people to be able to enjoy games.

Being resigned to one's disadvantages is not a progressive or positive ideology.

Also, you made some pretty broad assertions about how apparently sales would increase with an easy mode. Can you be sure of this? Or is it possible that the crowd who didn't like the game before, would still dislike it and the original fans, now alienated, would refuse to purchase it?

Can you be sure that it won't? Armchair marketing, just like armchair programming, is a distraction tactic that has no relevance with the topic at hand. The company has its marketers and businesspeople, and I will let them be the judges of whether an easy mode would be a good business decision or not.

by using that same logic that the games difficulty is what it sells it self on, adding an easy mode takes away from that. because now its no longer a hard game but a game that "could" be hard. In addition, if you watch a video of some the earlier areas like the undead burgh youd see that most of the "difficulty" of the game derives from punishing mistakes rather than having actually difficult enemies( excluding the mini bosses and bosses of course), and the flasks are there to give the player some wiggle room for small accidents that happen. Having an "easy" mode where someone can take more hits or have enemies take less to beat (most enemies btw only take 1-2) would dumb the game down to just hacking and slashing the game would lose all substance. The game as it is now forces you to play more thoughtfully and avoid any mistakes because of the nature of the games punishment system

Yes, and? If I want to play a mindless, easy hack and slash, what's the problem? If I'm willing to pay money for it, why shouldn't I get to play something like that? A game that punishes you for your mistakes, forces you to be patient, smart and thoughtful, isn't superior to any other game. No game is objectively better than any other, much less on grounds as irrelevant as gameplay, and you consider those things to be good because you like them. That's not a bad thing. You are allowed to like whatever you want. However, those things aren't an ideal that we should all aspire to, and if I don't like them, there isn't something wrong with me. It's okay for me not to like those things. All those things aren't going to go away because someone else prefers to play the game without them. Me not being punished (because I don't enjoy punishment) isn't going to stop the game from punishing you as much as you like.

Snip.

That would be all fine and well but the people who are asking for an easy mode haven't given much thought to why the developers made it the way it is. They've missed the point of the game and while they're totally allowed to do that they can't just demand devs to put an easy mode in for them because they can't play it properly. You can do whatever you want to your copy but it isn't your game, it's the developers. If they saw fit to add an easy mode then they would have, the game is clearly supposed to be unforgiving, it's a mechanic, by adding an easy mode you'd be removing the core mechanic.

Even though I haven't played it this is all incredibly clear.

Demanding is not the same as expressing interest. I don't think anybody's demanding anything. I think a lot of people started saying "Dark Souls would be great if it had an easy mode" or "I would play Dark Souls if it had an easy mode" and then all the hardcore Dark Souls players jumped on everyone's throats for having the gall not to enjoy being repeatedly kicked in the gonads.

Also, your reasoning is disingenuous. The devs aren't all-knowing. They might have thought that the game would only sell with masochists, but discovered that a significant demographic would be willing to buy it if it had easy mode. That might have come as surprising news to them.

Though I agree: ultimately the decision rests on the developers' shoulders and I personally would respect whatever they decide to do. That doesn't mean I appreciate being told that the very idea of wanting an easy mode is somehow obscene and sacrilegious.