Jimquisition: Dumbing Down for the Filthy Casuals

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Dumbing Down for the Filthy Casuals

There are valid concerns with the "dumbing down" of our entertainment, but as with so many issues, there are just as many invalid ones. This is especially true when "inclusiveness" and "dumbing down" are seen as the same thing.

Watch Video
 

Orks da best

New member
Oct 12, 2011
689
0
0
I am just as sick of this idea that making a game easier or having a easy mode is the worse most evil thing possible as you are Jim.

Even if its just a vocal minority, still its vocal, and annoying, and makes the biggest scene to others.

Hmmm haven' done this before: FIRST!!! hmmmmmm, yea I see little reason why people do this.
 

gardian06

New member
Jun 18, 2012
403
0
0
eating your creation does not make it live Jim.

yes it is petty, and technically by bring up that point (you said you wouldn't) you still connected the arguments, and prepare for flames.
 

jehk

New member
Mar 5, 2012
384
0
0
Good video. I mostly agree with what you said. However, the default difficulty level is something developers have to pay attention to.

So many gamers have problems with changing the difficulty level. They don't see it as a tool for fine tuning the game's challenge to their skill level. I know some gamers that seriously feel insulted or putout by having to change it to easy mode. They also ***** if the game is too easy on the default mode despite having two higher levels of difficulty to select from.
 

GAunderrated

New member
Jul 9, 2012
998
0
0
Orks da best said:
I am just as sick of this idea that making a game easier or having a easy mode is the worse most evil thing possible as you are Jim
Yeah just look at the kirby games. They are considered to be very easy but I always have a huge smile when playing them because they have this great charm and are a blast.
 

TwiZtah

New member
Sep 22, 2011
301
0
0
Easy modes are not the problem. The problem is that games are now designed for inept players, making the experienced players experience of the game extremely easy.

Far Cry 3 was ridiculously easy at Hard, because it was catered towards the casuals.
 

Falterfire

New member
Jul 9, 2012
810
0
0
The problem with supporting easy modes is that it run directly contrary to my goal to be the only person in the world who has fun with anything. I've worked for YEARS to put EA and Activision in the positions they are now and Jim seems determined to undo years of progress in ruining everybody's day.
 

Penguin_Factory

New member
Sep 13, 2010
197
0
0
The thing that bothers me most about "dumbing down" complaints is when people ***** and moan about *optional features* implemented to ease new players into a game. In these cases the real concern isn't preserving the integrity of games but excluding certain people from playing them.
 

getoffmycloud

New member
Jun 13, 2011
440
0
0
My issue with the dark souls easy mode is what is the point in even playing it. It would be like playing LA noire with all the interrogations taken out.
 

GrimHeaper

New member
Jun 1, 2010
1,012
0
0
TwiZtah said:
Easy modes are not the problem. The problem is that games are now designed for inept players, making the experienced players experience of the game extremely easy.

Far Cry 3 was ridiculously easy at Hard, because it was catered towards the casuals.
DmC is another case of this DmD is terribly easy and you have to beat the game to get that.
You have to beat the even easier version to get to that.
DmD barely compare's to Bayonetta's Normal mode in difficulty and bayonetta has two super easy modes you can start out on before Normal mode that is actually a challenge.
And lets not forget Ninja gaiden 3 as well.
I'm with Jim on this, but I'm most certainly not with the current trend that has arisen because of it.
 

MonkeyPunch

New member
Feb 20, 2008
589
0
0
Looking forward to that 5 day video marathon.
Eating the child of your scientific labour Jim... tsk, tsk
 

jehk

New member
Mar 5, 2012
384
0
0
getoffmycloud said:
My issue with the dark souls easy mode is what is the point in even playing it. It would be like playing LA noire with all the interrogations taken out.
Who are you to say "what's the point" for other people?
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Really now Jim?
This is getting ridiculous even for you.
Most recent videos have been nothing but the same argument about varying things over and over again and its getting REALLY old.
Could you just please put some effort into a future video that isnt filled with your rambling about the same kind of bullshit argument i hear on a daily basis:
*Oh, it doesnt affect you, so why do you care?
*Oh, you already have access to what you want without being interfered by something else, so why do you care?
*Oh, this thing may or may not have a negative impact on the gaming community, but lets for argument sake say it doesnt, then why would you care?

I mean fucking hell Jim, youre a broken record by now.
 

Scyla

New member
Jul 26, 2010
36
0
0
I'm generally not against this kind of "help" but as always in game design it has to be implemented correctly.

The NSMB system seems o.k. but I don't know all the details of the system. The real problem arises when the casual-mode affects the enjoyment of the other people.

A prime example there is WoW where you have to play through all the difficulties and raid sizes (especially during WotLK and also parts of Cata) to achieve optimal results and get all the achievements. Also the casual mode (aka raid/dungeon-finder) hindered the development of raid encounters because developers had do be able to downscale them for the other difficulties. It got better over time but still was super tedious.

So if the system does not affect the non casual-mode they are good tools for the player but I fear that this needs much more development time than the average developer can afford. So we get systems that are flawed and hindering the fun of player groups because these systems are resource consuming/hard to balance on other genres than a simple jump'n run.

That is the reason why players are angry about them. Good tool that is mostly used in the wrong way.
 

MrBrightside919

New member
Oct 2, 2008
1,626
0
0
Kinda of like what they did with the new XCOM game. The original was DEVILISHLY DIFFICULT and just plain unfair at times...where as the new one, I see it as more ACCESSABLE than DUMBED DOWN. I played it in comparison to the old one and found it to be more fun to play...
 

Waaghpowa

Needs more Dakka
Apr 13, 2010
3,073
0
0
I don't think I've touched a difficulty lower than hard on a game in a decade. The only time I'll get upset this over "dumbing down" is if the game as a whole, regardless of difficulty, seems to suffer for it. So far the only games I can think of off the top of my head that do that are Dead Space and certain aspects of World of Warcraft.

Edit: I feel I should also add that I never thought Dark Souls was difficult, just that it's terrible controls and mechanics made it feel hard.
 

MichaelMaverick

New member
Jan 28, 2009
65
0
0
Adding an easy mode to Dark Souls DOES harm it, because the high difficulty is the very core of the experience and everything else is complementary, and it DOES harm everyone, because merely having the option of NOT exposing yourself to that grueling challenge destroys the experience utterly and misses the point entirely. After a while of getting your arse kicked you won't be able to "ignore" the easy mode, you'd be a fool otherwise to make it harder for yourself when you don't HAVE to. Except sometimes being FORCED to do certain stuff, or doing it in a particular way, is what makes it so enriching. Sometimes you find yourself enjoying a situation because you were pushed into it, otherwise you'd never willingly get into it. This is how human psychology works.

When it comes to this issue, I find so many people thinking that having an option is ALWAYS a good thing. It is not so. Sometimes it's not a good thing at all. It's a simple reality of game design, why can't you guys get it through your skulls? MovieBob did this shit as well. The fact that even accomplished and allegedly knowledgeable people in the industry think this way is depressing. There is nothing inherently wrong with easy modes and streamlining and making things more accessible and what-have-you, but there are types of games (fighting and strategic games especially) where the challenge and the competitive aspect holds everything together. Please learn to recognize this fact already. These discussions are too often plagued with people who haven't adequately studied challenge and balancing in video games, and how they affect the quality of the product. It's not an easy thing to grasp in the slightest, and I'm sick of you know-it-alls making light of it.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
Yeah, it's only when the whole game is overhauled to appeal to a wider or more casual audience that I get really annoyed. The inclusion of an easy mode isn't that big a deal. Games have had easy modes since the early days, why is this a big deal now? Although I was skeptical of Nintendo's approach to this, it's like you said Jim, you don't have to use it. Although I have...
 

Hargrimm

New member
Jan 1, 2010
256
0
0
That whole "books and movies don't deny you content" argument is a bit fallacious imo. If you don't understand the contents or themes of a book/movie, it will not explain itself to you past what is already in it. If that's not enough for you, tough luck.
Some games allow you to jump to later levels in order to see all the content, but if you do that, you probably won't enjoy it very much. Same with skipping certain parts of books or movies you don't understand. Yeah, you'll see all the content it has to offer, but you probably won't enjoy it, if you can't understand it.
But most importantly, games are not movies, are not books, are not games. A game is a set of challenges you have to overcome within certain rulesets. If you skip that, you're not playing the game anymore and you are not enjoying it as a game anymore, even if you might still enjoy it.

On Dark Souls:
I think the fear here is based on the "give an inch, take a mile" principle. Right now, adding an easy mode seems like a no brainer, since the game is designed around the normal, challenging mode. It would, like you said, allow less skilled players to enjoy the game too by making enemies weaker/the pc stronger or whatever.
But, come the next game, the designers might design it the other way around to reach a broader audience. By that I mean designing the game around the easy mode and just giving the players looking for more challenge a "normal" mode that bloats up the HP and damage your enemies do, like it is in most games nowadays.

This is not an unfounded fear, since it is pretty much what happened in every other genre. First, some things are "streamlined" away or can be activated/deactivated in the options/through selecting a certain difficulty to broaden the base. But the games are still designed with the core audience in mind. Then, when people see all that money coming in from the new players, they start catering to them more and more, to make more and more money.

Gradually, the focus shifts and the core audience gets the shaft.
 

fuzz

New member
Aug 27, 2012
48
0
0
Whilst I agree there's no need for the elitism of 'hardcore' gamers, I don't think Dark Souls would benefit from an easy mode. Now I say that because as it stands there are things in the game that needed work (the bed of chaos, gwyn). There are also things that were left out of the game entirely such as Oscar being a minor character rather than going with you all the way through the game and Shiva just being a merchant rather than being a traitor seeking the blade of chaos. I'd rather From used their time to improve the core game and flesh it out rather than add an easy mode that the game really wouldn't benefit from.

Edit: If the main game isn't worse off by the time taken to add an easy mode then I really don't mind its inclusion. I just think an easy mode should be the least of their priorities.
 

Andy Shandy

Fucked if I know
Jun 7, 2010
4,797
0
0
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! You should've chosen the British game show host, then you would've had Jasper Carrott! And then you could've made a joke about Golden Balls and everything.

[sub] I am aware that he's more known as his time as a comedian before, but still[/sub]

And I have to agree, it really shouldn't affect people as much as it does. Oh no, more people are buying that thing you love, how terrible!
 

nodlimax

New member
Feb 8, 2012
191
0
0
If someone complains about several difficulty modes he/she is simply an idiot.

But the difficulty modes aren't really the issue on the topic of "dumbed down games". The problem is that the gameplay in general is affected by this kind of design. I have seen so many sequels that had less gameplay features than their previous installments that this has become really really annoying. In addition I've seen features disappearing from game genres as a whole because the devs wanted to approach a greater audience....

Look at Civilization 5 for example. The devs made so many bad choices in terms of gameplay that it's not even funny anymore. The previous installments gave the players so much more choice and freedom but of course many casual players didn't understand these features and to make the approach easier a lot of the annoying choices were removed....

Another great example is the World of Warcraft. If you compare Classic WoW to Mists of Pandaria you can only ask yourself what the devs have been smoking. The talent system has been reworked several times over the years to the point that it's basically non existent anymore. And why did Blizzard do it? Mostly because there have been enough people playing the freaking game without even giving thought to certain aspects (like talents) to the game. In the beginning I understood the desire of the devs to make the talent system viable for different tasks (specialize to do something really really good and some things bad). But many of the players from that "broader audience" didn't understand it or even looked at the talent system. I know of players that level to 60 or higher without even spending one talent point and they complained that they died a lot in the game (what a surprise). Well here we are now with game flashing right into your eye when you have something to do with your character but it doesn't matter all that much anyway what you do, so you could ignore it as well if you like. And it's not the talent system alone. There are more aspects to the game that have been dumbed down to the point that only really stupid people can enjoy these "features".

Oh and there are a lot more games and game series out there that have been infected by this disease. This why games like Dark Souls are pretty popular among the hardcore gamer audience. Because they actually dare to challenge the players and their abilities....
 

dbenoy

New member
Jul 7, 2011
82
0
0
I agree with you Jim, but I can totally sympathize with people who would be bothered by an easy mode in Dark Souls.

In Dark Souls, I'm delighted to retrieve a new weapon or some new technique because it means I can progress through the game faster and easier. If progressing through the game faster and easier was not my goal, then I would try to play through it with starter gear and no level-ups and I would literally never beat it.

So if there's a big, shiney, glowing option on the main menu that's more powerful than all the awesome weapons combined (Called 'Easy Mode') then I'm going to take it. That's not a lack of self control, that's consistency. The rules of the game are that you seek out ways to make the enemies easier to defeat.

Later in your video, though, you talked about the way New Super Mario Bros. does it and it seemed as though you already agree with my sentiment above :D That these benefits should only be handed out when the player has demonstrated that they will simply be unable to progress otherwise, and if you were purposely trying to exploit the helping hand it wouldn't be worth it.

I think perhaps Dark Souls Easy Mode if it was a completely separate disc.. like an easy mode edition, that would make me happy enough. Preferably if it comes out after the main one so it doesn't ruin anyone's sense of accomplishment.
 

WWmelb

New member
Sep 7, 2011
702
0
0
Every single game in the world i agree with Jim on this ... except games with pvp that are somewhat gear reliant.

My main issue with "easy mode" for games like dark souls is mainly if people playing the easy mode can still participate in pvp with people playing the real difficulty mode, with the same items.

would be kind of unbalanced if people playing easy mode could breeze through the game to the high end and get the amazing weapons that others have to work very very hard for.

If they kept a static difficulty mode that only interacted with people on the same difficult mode, then no big deal i guess, or kept easy mode strictly offline play, no big deal i guess again.

But yeah, loot based games with pvp this can cause all sorts of issues.
 

KiloFox

New member
Aug 16, 2011
291
0
0
the punishing difficulty is part of the game of Dark Souls. now i havn't played it myself, but i did play (and beat) Demon's Souls so i can imagine it's similar at least. if there was an easy mode you could choose from to start with, then it would degrade from some of the experience of playing the game. if you were having problems the you could just flip it on rather than try and find out what you're doing wrong and pay attention to what the enemies do. the difficulty is part of the game.

now don't get me wrong, i'm not against easier difficulty. i remember back when i couldn't even beat Halo 3 on Easy i was so bad. now i'm tackling punishingly difficult games before breakfast. but in a game like Dark Souls where the difficulty is a core element of gameplay, having the option to REMOVE that difficulty on a whim with no effort takes something away from the game. you should have to work for it like, as Jim mentioned, the Super Mario Bros for the Wii U where you have to fail an exorbitant number of times before "auto mode" is unlocked as an option.

however, i suspect that Dark Souls shares much with Demon's Souls leveling system, and RPG mechanics. i find the option of a difficulty (straight-up as in you do less damage/take more. not difficulty like Fallout New Vegas' "hardcore" difficulty) to be rather pointless in RPGs. if you're having difficulty with an area or a boss, you just go and level up a bit until the boss is no longer a problem. it becomes less about skill, and more about stats.

however i will mention one little exception to that rule. and that is the newest Fire Emblem game for the DS (Japan-Only unfortunately) classically in Fire Emblem if you lose a unit, it's dead. forever. (Except Shadow Dragon which gives you a single-use staff to revive a dead unit) but in the new one there's a completely optional "Casual" mode where your units aren't perma-dead. and come back the next fight. now i won't ever be USING this mode, it has its major drawbacks such as that unit can't get more experience from that fight, which could result in them being under-leveled. (you cannot effectively level grind in Fire Emblem games that arn't Sacred Stones due to not being able to re-visit areas)
 

irishda

New member
Dec 16, 2010
968
0
0
I agree with Jim, surprisingly, considering he's usually just parroting what everyone else on the internet is already saying. But I'm glad he goes against the mold on this one. Too many gamers still feel their hobby should be exclusionary, and only they are "worthy" of it.
 

jehk

New member
Mar 5, 2012
384
0
0
MichaelMaverick said:
These discussions are too often plagued with people who haven't adequately studied challenge and balancing in video games, and how they affect the quality of the product. It's not an easy thing to grasp in the slightest, and I'm sick of you know-it-alls making light of it.
Clearly you're not this person. Google core aesthetics of video games. People play games for a variety of different reasons. Someone could play a game for the challenge. Someone for the sense of exploration. And so on. It's entirely possible that a game could deliver challenge for one person and exploration or another depending on the setting that are selected.
 

burningdragoon

Warrior without Weapons
Jul 27, 2009
1,935
0
0
It's not that games shouldn't have an easy mode, it's that "there being an easy mode won't effect your experience/normal mode" is not a guarantee. If easy mode is tacked on as an afterthought, maybe it won't. If it's designed for easy mode and scaled up for harder modes, then it will, because increasing difficulty should be more than just changing a few variables to a higher number.

The NSMB system sounds pretty good. Not all games, and the Souls games especially, need an explicit difficulty setting/slider to have an easy mode. Demon's Souls, more than Dark, very much had an easy mode. It's called "play the damn Royalty class" with a side dish of "stay in soul form so you don't blacken world tendency". There are ways to improve upon this without hurting anything.
 

Stabby Joe

New member
Jul 30, 2008
1,545
0
0
Wait, an easy mode in Dark Souls sounds rather... dull. Seriously, take away the challenge and the whole point of the game is gone making it boring. I can see the casual user using easy mode and not enjoying the game.

Simply, some games just aren't for everyone. Grim and difficult to cute and easy, different markets. Are we supposed to release a funny version of The Road or a gritty version of Cars so everyone can join in? Not all games are the same, an easy mode in Mario or Donkey Kong seems to make more sense, also mechanically correct than one in Dark Souls.

Anyone is allowed to get involved and enjoy, it has nothing to do with inclusiveness and this argument seems to be used in the majority of industry related "issues" these days.
 

GamemasterAnthony

New member
Dec 5, 2010
1,009
0
0
I definitely agree. I think the lack of an easy mode on certain games is what brought about the invention of the Game Geine, Game Shark, Action Replay, and other such devices. Heck, there are even some games that practically required the use of such devices due to unplayable difficulty *COUGH*DevilMayCry3*COUGH* or gameplay elements that added unecessary difficulty. *COUGH*Gen1PokémonGames*COUGH*

I think the addition of an easy mode is a good idea as long as the regular difficulty remains. I, personally, find Easy Mode too easy sometimes, but if there are those who just want to play the game without having to die a gabillion times on the FIRST LEVEL, I see no problem with it.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
From the same line of thought that brought you complaints about every kid getting a trophy at little league, there is also the complaint that finishing a game should bring some sense of accomplishment.

I'm actually not completely opposed to that line of thought. Back in the day, finishing games was something that could be difficult to do. Now, you can pretty much finish any game without trouble. That makes sense though. People who pay so much money don't want to be unable to play all the content.

But that might be the difference here. People like me see challenge as part of the game, and getting to the end as something that should be reserved for skilled players. Others see the game as content to be consumed and enjoyed in a different way, like Jim said.

These are different audiences, like people who enjoy romantic comedies and people who like action movies. Sure, I could go pick up a movie in the store and watch the whole thing, but there is no guarantee that I will enjoy it. It's not that the content was closed off, it was that I didn't like it.

Dark Souls is one that is tuned to players who enjoy a challenge. The bosses who smash you to bits and the (mother #[email protected]#ing) archers who shoot you off the small walkways in Anor Lando are the content. Making it to the end is something of an accomplishment, not just because of the boss fights, but because of limited resources, a need to understand mechanics, proper timing, and generally walking through the levels ready for anything. That's why I played it at least. (Of course, some players chose to google the whole game and play it with prior knowledge of how to do everything, but that's a different topic.)

Now, an easy mode wouldn't hurt me or anything, but I have to feel like it wouldn't fit the game. It's just not a game that was ever meant to be played by the type of player who uses easy mode in a game, or enjoys the storyline or whatever. It's meant for a different audience.

Some games get away with just putting in difficulty levels, but some just can't, and would compromise the feel of the game, and part of the experience as well. Yes, part of that experience may be pride over getting to the end, and that's okay. It doesn't make you a bad person to want to keep reaching the end an exclusive thing, which I think is an unfortunate assumption made by too many people.
 

dbenoy

New member
Jul 7, 2011
82
0
0
Perhaps I should say it this way:

My job as a player is to seek out the easiest path to victory.

The developer's job is to make that path difficult enough to challenge me, but not difficult enough to make me stop playing.

Putting in difficulty modes is making the player do the developer's job for them. They could try to forget for a moment that they're a player, and start thinking like a designer about how hard the game should be. And speaking as a game developer myself, achieving difficult things in games is not as satisfying if you chose to make them difficult, and you could have just as easily made them super simple.

Where does it end? They could literally have dozens of sliders for all the different types of damage calculations and drop rates and such.
 

MichaelMaverick

New member
Jan 28, 2009
65
0
0
jehk said:
MichaelMaverick said:
These discussions are too often plagued with people who haven't adequately studied challenge and balancing in video games, and how they affect the quality of the product. It's not an easy thing to grasp in the slightest, and I'm sick of you know-it-alls making light of it.
Clearly you're not this person. Google core aesthetics of video games. People play games for a variety of different reasons. Someone could play a game for the challenge. Someone for the sense of exploration. And so on. It's entirely possible that a game could deliver challenge for one person and exploration or another depending on the setting that are selected.
Game design theory wouldn't need to exist at all then, according to you. Every game could simply be a mash-up of every conceivable genre, from sandbox to puzzle to shooter, and players could just be expected to find their own parts to like. I bet that would work out just swell.

Oh wait no, it fucking wouldn't. There's already been trash games like that released in the last couple of years, and none of them lighted the world on fire.
 

irmasterlol

New member
Apr 11, 2012
178
0
0
You know, based on the title, I thought this episode was going to piss me off. But I couldn't help but nod stoically in agreement throughout the whole episode instead. You win this round, Jim.
 

Kuro Serpentina

New member
Dec 10, 2012
50
0
0
I'm actually mildly happy about an easy mode for dark soul
Its a game that has interested quite a bit, but I'm not that, well, that amazing at games
Which is kinda sad, because its a game that looks amazing, but I feel I shouldn't play it due to my skill level
Potentially, now I can & I'm happy about that

Though I do kinda get the whole backlash against it
Games have always been based around challange, to the point I find the classic "gamer" mind-set has more to do with defiance & generally not giving up and less with actual skill
And there are becoming few and few games that reach this level of diificulty, which is really sad as its a big part of this mediums roots and its always a horrible thing to see something so fundimental to a medium beng mistreated

But opening it up is a good thing. and There'll always be those who would just ignore the easy mode, or start with easy & replay on the harder version
Or maybe thats just me :3
 

Sir Shockwave

New member
Jul 4, 2011
470
0
0
So if I've got the math right, the last award is unveiled on doomsday?

Sure have a great sense of timing Jim X3

OT - I'd also be quick to point out many games on their Easy mode also make you earn your endgame. The recent X-COM, Emperor: Battle for Dune and of course things like Diablo III where the harder settings are non-existant or locked off until you finish "Easy" first X3
 

infinity_turtles

New member
Apr 17, 2010
800
0
0
Here's the problem with Dark Souls having an easy mode. The challenge of Dark Souls is mainly knowledge and choice based. Knowing I could've made a very clear choice at the beginning of the game to allow me to trounce a boss devalues the choices I can make with my build and equipment because they're the less important ones. The challenge has meaning in Dark Souls because it's a constant, and an easy mode removes that constant and with it much of my enjoyment of the game. I don't care how other people play the game, but knowing that I had to overcome that level of challenge, that there was no easy way out handed to me, is what lets me have any sense of elation over overcoming that challenge.

*edit* There are plenty of games with easy modes, very few without. Can people just let there be some without them, so that the game can cater to the niche it was made for?
 

dbenoy

New member
Jul 7, 2011
82
0
0
I got a lot of 'false positives' in New Super Mario Bros. It would occasionally present me with a special powerup or automatic playthrough if I die too many times while trying to pull off some crazy trick and dying many times in the process :p

I'm trying to do something wicked-awesome so trying to help me beat the level is the opposite of what I need :p
 

Mortrialus

New member
Jan 23, 2010
55
0
0
I'm going to link my favorite counter argument towards adding easy mode in every game;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b91BWzLigs

I'll be recycling a lot of the same arguments.

The issue I have is the idea that every game needs to be the same; have the same goals and offer the same options.

The simple fact is that every game has different goals, based on the views and tastes of the people behind them. The idea that every game needs to be enjoyed by everyone is just silly. Everyone is going to gravitate towards games of their own personal preference and difficulty should be apart of that. Not every game needs to be difficult, and easy modes shouldn't be done away with complete. It just depends on the type of game it is.

Dark Souls and Demon's Souls is obviously at the center of this debate. The game's goal is to create an atmosphere of dread and hopelessness, while offering a sense of satisfaction and achievement for completing. You're dropped into this world where little is spelled out for you directly.

The difficulty comes not from the technical challenge presented in the game, but from the knowledge base players need to acquire to complete the game; understanding enemy move sets, how they attack, understanding the moves sets of the different weapons you can equip, when to block, attack, and dodge, understanding stamina consumption, learning how to create a good weapon, learning where to go to advance through the game, discovering better items through exploration, all learned through trial and error.

An easy mode, where everyone is expected to beat Dark Souls regardless of whether they understand the basic mechanics behind it, runs counter intuitive to the developer's goals when creating the game. Dark Souls is not a game designed, or paced to be easy in any aspect of it's design. If you provide an easy mode where everyone is expected to finish the game, you are going to shoot through a threshold of difficulty and players are going to beat the game in under 10 hours. It's just not that big. And while Dark Souls has a very rich lore, it's also inaccessible just like the rest of the game and if players all just blaze through content, no one is going to even notice it's there. If you take out the difficulty, all you have is a mediocre RPG with almost no story, no major puzzles, and is very short overall. I don't think anyone playing a hypothetical easy mode for Dark Souls is going to actually enjoy it.

At the same time, the fact that is someone is having trouble with the Dark Souls' normal mode, and can just switch to an easier mode and be guaranteed to win the game cheapens the game. All the effort to create a Dark, imposing, hopeless game world vanishes because the game ceases to be either imposing nor hopeless.

Compare this with, say, Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. Skyrim is about putting players in a massive world filled with towns, NPCs, and giving them an epic and lengthy adventure with all sorts of customizable abilities and a huge amount of quests. Combat and difficulty are not really that important to the overall game. Just check out the melee combat as proof. Modal difficulty works in that game because the goals of that game don't require difficulty.

The analogy about books and movies is flawed as well. Books all have their own reading comprehension level. Not to mention the fact that many older works of fiction are often difficult to understand because language changes overtime. The same goes for movies (Though language hasn't evolved enough for the latter to take effect).

Not every game needs to be the same. Just like not every book and movie needs to be the same. It's why people read books from different authors, and play games from different developers. Not every game needs to be easy or accessible. Not every game needs to be difficult either. It depends upon the specific game and the goals the developer have when creating it.

jehk said:
Who are you to say "what's the point" for other people?
For Dark Souls specifically; the stated goals the developer had when creating the game.
 

dbenoy

New member
Jul 7, 2011
82
0
0
If the problem is that there's a part of your game that's not fun or feasible to beat, then the solution is not to put in an easy mode. Putting in an easy mode is a pathetic hack by lazy developers who were unwilling to come up with a REAL solution.

I'm glad you mentioned the way NSB does it, because that's the proper way.
 

GonzoGamer

New member
Apr 9, 2008
7,063
0
0
I didn't know this was an issue... for selfish people.

Definitely getting my son a snail costume. I don't care if Halloween is over.
 

T_ConX

New member
Mar 8, 2010
456
0
0
Jim's right. If someone has to resort to things like easy mode or 'Make CPU-Luigi do it', they should rightfully shamed for doing so. Maybe disable trophies/achievements (sorry kid, but these are for people who are overcoming actual challenges), or change the appearances of enemies and bosses to reflect their adjusted difficulty.
 

Nordicwolf1990

New member
Dec 10, 2012
1
0
0
This is my favorite time of the week, and I always make sure to watch the the newest Jimquisition. Normally, I agree with just about everything you have to say about a particular subject. Today, that isn't the case.

I'm happy that games are being more accessible to a broader audience. It means that I will find more people who share my hobby and I can hang out with. What I'm not happy about, is how my favorite game series have been slowly but surely 'streamlined' for new gamers.

I loved Civilization III, it happened to be one of my favorites. Civilization IV came along, and I was still extremely happy with it. Then, Civilization V came around. This game took the elements that made the previous two titles I had played, like individual happiness for each city, along with sickness, and threw them out. Many people I've spoken with love this, but, I feel like it's taken a large part of planning out of the game.

Maybe I'm a masochist, but, I've always enjoyed a challenge. I think a lot of developers, but, not all, are taking this challenge out of the game entirely. I'm always open to change, though some of these changes feel like they're for the worse if the trend continues.
 

gardian06

New member
Jun 18, 2012
403
0
0
Monxeroth said:
Really now Jim?
This is getting ridiculous even for you.
Most recent videos have been nothing but the same argument about varying things over and over again and its getting REALLY old.
Could you just please put some effort into a future video that isnt filled with your rambling about the same kind of bullshit argument i hear on a daily basis:
*Oh, it doesnt affect you, so why do you care?
*Oh, you already have access to what you want without being interfered by something else, so why do you care?
*Oh, this thing may or may not have a negative impact on the gaming community, but lets for argument sake say it doesnt, then why would you care?

I mean fucking hell Jim, youre a broken record by now.
What?

for the most part these have been very different topics, and just because they can be summed up in the same way because they all have the same baser rational (none) behind them you automatically assume that they are the same argument.

hey here is some info from formal debate: some even vastly different argument/topics can be refuted with similar lines of logic,

and besides he is basically pointing out that the only real problem(s) in the gaming industry either lead back to a lack of innovation, or a feeling of entitlement on the part of the player or developer. would you rather the biggest real problem in gaming be that vast legal repercussions will be levied against anybody who buys a shooter game
 

Yellowfish

New member
Nov 8, 2012
88
0
0
So, they are willing to add an easy mode to Dark Souls in order to broaden the audience and sell more copies, but they aren't willing to make a working PC port that could potentially do the same thing? Well, sure, I can totally understand that, but I'm still a little bit offended.

Anyway, I'm more worried about one particular thing. The gamers have gotten used to streamlining and hand-holding, and the developers force those things on all players. I don't like big flashing objective markers that can't be turned off, I like my levels big and easy to get lost in, and I like to figure out stuff on my own. I'm fine with games having options for casual players as long as they don't force all those things on me.

And one more thing: do you see many RPGs nowadays where you are explained how to get to your objective when you are given a quest? I don't. Instead I see those damn objective markers. That's just laziness, and the game's atmosphere suffers somewhat as a result.
 

Rabidkitten

New member
Sep 23, 2010
143
0
0
Adding an easy mode to Dark Souls is not what Dark Souls 2 needs. I have convinced a vast sum of people to play the game, and it seems that once they get over the "hump" they love it and are in. They progress nicely and the game is no longer the ridiculous challenge everyone makes it out to be. And once you are over this "hump" other Souls games become easy. I think Dark Souls 2 will get some undeserving flak for being "easier then Dark Souls" cause all the Dark Souls players have been trained at the way a Souls Game plays and will have little difficult with it. I know this from Demons Souls in which i powered through my first play through in 20 hours because I had played Dark Souls first.

So what it needs is, a proper tutorial, a thorough manual, and smoother curve into the experience to smooth out getting over the "hump". In Dark Souls you get dumped into a world with 3 paths. And though the first NPC you meet says, "Go up". If you wander into the Graveyard or "go down" you will get killed. Eventually everyone goes up. How will an easy mode solve that? The Ghosts in New Londo can't be killed, and the Skeletons even with a significantly reduced challenge are so much higher level than a starting character might not be impossible in the graveyard, but when you go a tad further into the Catacombs, the endlessly self resurrecting hordes will slaughter you the same. So unless the easy mode is literally "god mode" its still going to be hard, and demand players to adapt to the design of the world.

The next issue is PvP, can you still be invaded and ganked on easy mode? Turning human in the early game in Dark Souls is an invitation to death, but you do so you can the gain the advantage of being able to summon an ally to down a hard boss. But the invaders are people who have beaten the game on lvl 0-10 and will kill you and your buddy with delicate ease.

Issues of this nature pop up across the game. How does easy mode solve the Anor Londo archer scene? How does it solve NPCs/Merchants that don't come back if you accidentally kill them? Not to mention the game is littered with deadly traps that plummet you to your immediate deaths, how is that solved? How is the entire soul loss mechanic from which the game is built around going to work? Are they going to remove permanent soul loss as well?

To make an Easy mode for Dark Souls, you would have to make HUGE design over hauls or else it will not really be an easy mode. This will change the fundamental structure of a game whose inherent mechanics and world design are intentionally cryptic. Because you can lower enemy health and pour souls into players hands, but its not going to stop that Silver Knight Anor Londo from knocking the newb off that ledge 100000 times, or someone from constantly invading and murdering the you.

The issue is that you haven't played it Jim, so you miss that the challenge of the game is more then just "tough monsters".
 

jehk

New member
Mar 5, 2012
384
0
0
MichaelMaverick said:
jehk said:
MichaelMaverick said:
These discussions are too often plagued with people who haven't adequately studied challenge and balancing in video games, and how they affect the quality of the product. It's not an easy thing to grasp in the slightest, and I'm sick of you know-it-alls making light of it.
Clearly you're not this person. Google core aesthetics of video games. People play games for a variety of different reasons. Someone could play a game for the challenge. Someone for the sense of exploration. And so on. It's entirely possible that a game could deliver challenge for one person and exploration or another depending on the setting that are selected.
Game design theory wouldn't need to exist at all then, according to you. Every game could simply be a mash-up of every conceivable genre, from sandbox to puzzle to shooter, and players could just be expected to find their own parts to like. I bet that would work out just swell.

Oh wait no, it fucking wouldn't. There's already been trash games like that released in the last couple of years, and none of them lighted the world on fire.
It does work out swell. Game design revolves around delivering on those core aesthetics.

Take Skyrim for example (that light the gaming world on fire). I play on the hardest difficulty with a build that's tailored to not be overpowered. My girlfriend plays on normal mode with a pretty kick ass build. The two of us are playing for different core aesthetics. She's all about exploration and narrative (ie the lore ie reading in-game books all the time) and doesn't want challenge to get in the way. I'm more about challenge and expression while exploration and narrative take a back seat.
 

Mr. Omega

ANTI-LIFE JUSTIFIES MY HATE!
Jul 1, 2010
3,902
0
0
Good to see someone agrees with me about Nintendo's Super Guide option. It's only an option, and for it to even appear in the first place, you need to have died several times in the same section of the level.
 

DrunkOnEstus

In the name of Harman...
May 11, 2012
1,712
0
0
This is the first Jimquisition that I flat-out didn't enjoy. My stance on this has been said multiple times in this thread, but I'd add that video games are not books or movies for a reason. There's Russian philosophy, and there's Twilight. Should Radishchev have released additional pages in the front of his works with shorter and more concise vocabulary because there's a rule that all books need to accommodate every reader because they cost money and it makes him elitist to only appeal to those versed in Russian philosophy? I'm sick of this "elitist" thing. It's almost like we're supposed to frown upon and shun the thrill of accomplishing something challenging or advanced because it makes you, as I believe I heard you say "a whiny, elitist douchebag". Shouldn't "elitist" apply to the behavior of a person, rubbing superiority in your face, as opposed to simply being happy that they're in a small club that requires skill and sacrifice?

I'm fighting the urge to say this, but...with this, the geek girls, and other videos, this isn't about a personal crusade to knock ignorant/abusive publishers/companies down a notch, but to attack with insults some parties in forum threads that have 1,000+ page views. Just assuming here.
 

saejox

New member
Mar 4, 2009
274
0
0
Dark Souls already has an easy mode.
Go online and summon people.

'Easy Mode' can't be a simple difficulty selection in a title such as Dark Souls.
It is not the damage you receive or deliver that makes the game difficult.
All about pattern recognition and patience.
Go give yourself 9999 hp see if you can defeat the game.

For that reason it is IMPOSSIBLE to add an easy mode without changing the normal gameplay.
Jim is just too ignorant to even try to handle such a heavy subject.
 

Ariseishirou

New member
Aug 24, 2010
443
0
0
No, Demons/Dark Souls are a bad example, Jim. They're two of the few games in which the difficulty isn't just a raw game mechanic - it's an intrinsic part of the game's experience. Part of the story, the atmosphere, as well as the entire point of playing the game. Without the challenge the game presents it would be, quite frankly, a rather bland fantasy action RPG with some interesting visuals. It would never have become the phenomenon it did. No chance.

Of course, the other problem is with the PvP mode. Either players playing on Easy mode would have to fight exclusively against other people playing on Easy mode, or not have access to the PvP element at all. Full stop. Because either "Easy mode" is going to allow them access to items that make the game simpler, in which case it isn't fair to pit them against the people playing on Normal, or they're going to make health/stamina less of an issue, in which case Easy players are never going to master the mechanics the same way those people playing Normal are forced to just to proceed through the game, and they're going to get butchered.

To be honest, if Dark Souls II announces an Easy mode that doesn't severely limit their level of interaction with the rest of the player base, I probably won't buy it.
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
Problem is, having an easy mode would make it so that the game design would HAVE to take easy mode into consideration. Not having it doesn't require that and to be honest, if Dark Souls had an easy mode does indeed ruin the point. The game's atmosphere is dark and depressing, making it easy not only goes against that but ruins any reward feeling and not only that but would make the game boring. I love Dark Souls but an easy mode would make it just a very mediocre action-RPG. It's difficulty is part of the experience as to what makes Dark Souls, well Dark Souls.
 

getoffmycloud

New member
Jun 13, 2011
440
0
0
jehk said:
getoffmycloud said:
My issue with the dark souls easy mode is what is the point in even playing it. It would be like playing LA noire with all the interrogations taken out.
Who are you to say "what's the point" for other people?
What I am saying is every game has its selling point. La noire has it's facial recognition thing that made the interrogations work, the Elder Scrolls has its immersive worlds, Bioshock has its story and dark souls has its difficulty. You take any of those things away and you have a game that isn't really worth playing and would be a complete waste of money.

The best way I can put my point is I am not a big fan of the assassins creed games because I don't like platforming so I wouldn't expect or even want Ubisoft to make a platforming free version just so I can play it because it wouldn't give the full experience that was intended by the designers.
 

orangeapples

New member
Aug 1, 2009
1,836
0
0
People fear Dark Souls getting an Easy Mode because they feel it would remove difficulty from future games as developers feel the need to cater to the casual market who wouldn't want to play a difficult game.

this of course is wrong as developers pretty much start at the hardest difficulty as "how the game should be played" then dial down enemies for lesser difficulties. People who hate the idea of easy mode feel as though easy mode is destroying games.

which is also wrong. I remember easy mode as far back as Doom (and possibly even existed before that). So if Easy Mode was going to destroy video games as a medium, it would have happened a long time ago. You people need to just calm down.
 

Sheetlebug

New member
Jun 20, 2011
3
0
0
So there'll be an easy mode in this super hard video game.

You guys who are fairly skilled at video games struggle through the normal mode of it. You'll probably find the easy mode piss easy, as expected of skilled players. Lucky the normal mode will still be there, eh?

How about, though, that person who has way less skill than you do? Who simply looks at the cover of Dark Souls and gets a big YOU DIED in his face? Easy Mode might actually be a challenge to that guy. People complain that taking the difficulty away will ruin the experience of the game, but just because you personally do not find something challenging doesn't mean that the everyone else won't. So that guy who is bad at video games may find challenge in easy mode, but not the impossibility he previously faced with the normal mode.

So yes, if YOU, Mr Skilled Player, plays through easy mode instead of normal, you will be diminishing your experience, and that'll be your own fault for choosing easy mode. Not the fault of the developer for putting it in their game. They are not forcing you to play it. They are simply making their game more accessible to those who have less skill.
 

Aurora Firestorm

New member
May 1, 2008
692
0
0
A common argument here seems to be that if Easy Mode exists, the obvious right answer is to take it, because duh, frustration sucks.

There is no Higher Calling for gamers, where we are supposed to flagellate ourselves to get through a game, just so we can say we suffered through it. If you want to prove you're Badass and Hardcore and Disciplined, go do something in the real world that shows it. Don't make people turn their Fun Time into Stressful Hardcore Time. Some people don't like doing that, and they should have the option not to do it.

Also, if the obvious right answer is to take it, and you do, despite your convictions that you should be doing it the Hardcore Way, then it's *your* fault you took Easy Mode. No one piloted you into the option. Plenty of people play games on Hard Mode instead of Easy just for the challenge. I know people who play Touhou on Lunatic, and that shit is ridiculous. It is utterly unnecessary, but they do it anyway, because they want to. Do you want to do that hard enough to actually go click that difficulty mode and take the plunge?

Honestly, if you're going to play Easy Mode, own up to it and do it. If you feel like Easy is too much "temptation" for you...well, maybe *you* aren't disciplined enough for your own Hardcore Experience.
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
orangeapples said:
People fear Dark Souls getting an Easy Mode because they feel it would remove difficulty from future games as developers feel the need to cater to the casual market who wouldn't want to play a difficult game.

this of course is wrong as developers pretty much start at the hardest difficulty as "how the game should be played" then dial down enemies for lesser difficulties. People who hate the idea of easy mode feel as though easy mode is destroying games.

which is also wrong. I remember easy mode as far back as Doom (and possibly even existed before that). So if Easy Mode was going to destroy video games as a medium, it would have happened a long time ago. You people need to just calm down.
Thing is though, Dark souls really isn't hard. No really it's not. The enemies usually don't have that much health, the game isn't that long, all it takes is patience.

But here is the thing, Easy mode for Doom is not the same as Easy mode for Dark Souls. If you take difficulty out of Dark souls what do you have? A very mediorce Action-RPG with little to no story (at least not straight to the point), and that's it. You literally suck the soul out of the game.

Doom on easy? It's an FPS which adjusts well to easy mode and still is enjoyable.
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
DrunkOnEstus said:
Shouldn't "elitist" apply to the behavior of a person, rubbing superiority in your face, as opposed to simply being happy that they're in a small club that requires skill and sacrifice?
The issue, however, is that the people who feel "happy that they're in a small club that requires skill and sacrifice" (we're still talking about video games here, right?) often "rub superiority in your face", as if they're better than everyone else because they're in this "small club".

And then tell everyone else that if they can't harden up and just be better at video games, they shouldn't be allowed to "enter" this "club".

That's elitism. And that's the problem. As soon as you start actively excluding people because they're "just not good enough", you're succumbing to elitism.

Tangentially related, I find it hilarious that the people who want gaming to remain a small niche hobby will simultaneously bash "hipsters" for liking things that aren't "mainstream".

OT: I actually had a discussion about this with a fellow Bro a few days ago. If they implement an "Easy" mode and it has no direct impact on the normal difficulty of the game, which means I'll still get the "true" experience if I don't select the Easy mode, then I have absolutely no issues with it.

For Dark Souls specifically, I'm not really sure how they could actually make it much easier outside of reducing the amount of damage enemies do. The game is as much about being aware of your surroundings as it is actually taking down enemies, and there are very, very few enemies that really take more than two or three swings provided you're upgrading your weapons accordingly to the location you're at. Bosses are the only true "damage sponges", and even some of them don't take too long (Pinwheel comes to mind). If they change how perilous the environments are... well, that's not even really an issue of "dumbing down", it's just an issue of the developer being dumb. The environments are a huge part of what make the Souls games what they are.
 

Mortamus

The Talking Dead
May 18, 2012
147
0
0
*Sees that Jim posted a video about why hating casual gamers is dumb*

Initial reaction [http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lfzpkiB3LC1qafrh6.gif]

I must say I'm rather tired of this trend. I just don't understand why it's a problem when an easy mode is added, but not when the game already comes with an easy mode. I don't recall seeing this kind of hate for games like DDR or Guitar Hero because there were play modes that required little to no effort from a hardcore gamer.I don't recall those play experiences being ruined by that either. I use these two games as an example, as like Dark Souls, they have a unique play style. However, even when any of us were trying to get good on playing expert, we didn't get mad when we failed and feel pressured to drop to a lower difficulty. No, what do we do? We beat it. Why? Cause we're gamers, and the games don't beat us.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
I agree it may be silly to spite others for getting an "easy" mode, but especially in the case of something like Dark Souls, I do kind of get it.

Imagine you started work at a crappy fast food restaurant at $6.00 an hour. After four years of smiling at hateful people who want a refund because there's an onion ring in their french fries box, with a raise of a $0.25 a year, your hard work pays off, and you move into a management position at $9.00 an hour.

Three months later, central management announces that now all entry-level positions are going to make $9.00 an hour. And you and everyone is still going to get the lousy $0.25 raise. How do you feel about that four years you put in?

Probably pretty pissed off. And you might try to justify it, saying that your experience is worth so much more, no matter what central management may imply with the new wage structure. That these entry-level Johnny-come-latelies are somehow inferior, despite their getting exactly the same reward for their work that you get for yours. It's the journey, dammit, not the destination, and your journey was so much more meaningful than theirs.

In fairness, there might even be something to be said for that point of view. Our foolish human nature is such that if we pay twice as much for something, we may enjoy it more through pure expectation. And we certainly appreciate a handful of crackers more after running a marathon than we do a five-course banquet after dragging our butts off of a beanbag chair.

But that, alone, isn't reason enough to get apoplectic about easy modes.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Jim, I feel you're misunderstanding the issue in the case of Dark Souls.

Disclaimer: I am fully in favor of optional difficulty modes for any game that doesn't rely on challenge as a core game mechanic. Any game that allows you to quicksave, has checkpoints, doesn't use death as a learning experience, uses gameplay as a means to tell the story etcetc. would benefit from as many optional dificulty modes as possible.

THAT SAID. Dark Souls isn't any of those. The core function of Dark Souls is engagement: to activate your brain, to make you think of cunning ways to bypass situations, to see all the game has to offer and use it, to experiment and create your own setups for an optimal gameplay style. When engaged, the game is easy: you can summon someone to guide you all the way through the level including the boss. You can be effectively walked through by signs on the ground with a big enough community. You can take your time and get a few extra resources that will allow you to upgrade your items and make your life that much easier. It's only when you want to casually smack the puny monsters with your Giant Sword of Overcompensating without paying attention to what's going on that the game gets punishingly hard even if you're played the game a few times already and know all of its tricks. Engagement is the reason Dark Souls is a good game, and without it it would just be an average game with a crappy storyline and a broad array of useless combat mechanics. Because you're not paying attention to details, you're just using the same combat style you're used to, you're not adapting, you're not thinking. And you're not practicing.
An easy mode takes away the satisfaction of overcoming a difficult challenge and the core function that the game is designed around. Other games, like Devil May Cry 3, can have their selectable difficulty modes. I disagree in Dark Souls' case.
 

Ryan Hughes

New member
Jul 10, 2012
557
0
0
Only playing Demon's Souls, I cannot comment directly on Dark Souls, but I liken the difficulty to this:

Mega Man vs. Ninja Gaiden. In Mega Man, you had a real challenge, but it seems that every time you die, you learn a bit more and push a bit further, and eventually even at the age of seven, I was able to beat the game. Ninja Gaiden was still a great game, but I never felt like I was getting further or pushing ahead at all. Often I would make negative progress between deaths. And that, to me at least, was very frustrating.

So, bringing an Easy Mode to Dark Souls to bring it down to the level of Mega Man is actually very appealing to me. I assure you "harcore" fans that this will in no way make the game more casual, just more accessible to people like myself who love games, but just do not have the time or energy to invest in a game with such punishing difficulty.
 

blackdwarf

New member
Jun 7, 2010
606
0
0
Although I do agree with the episode, I don't think think Dark Souls was the proper example for this, because the difficulty in that game plays a bigger role in the overall design. If we would get a easy mode in that game one thing that certainly will happen is the splitting of the online community. which will lessen the overall experience of the game, because of the smaller presence in the game of your fellow players.

What also is possible is that many of the mechanics in the game become obsolete, because you don't need them anymore to beat the game. MP, weapon upgrades, armor upgrades and more work and are interesting because they help you beat the game. If the game doesn't give you an incentive to get those, because the game is not giving you any difficulty, then you are missing a huge part of the game.

and don't get me wrong, I would love to see more people play this franchise, but an easy mode will not give them the same experience that is scaled for their skill. With the recent announcement of DS II, the developers already said they want to make this game more accessible. I hope they mean with that, that they want to explain their mechanics better. that is the biggest of flaw DS: the lack of explaining the mechanics, which made it Difficult for many people at the start of the game.
 

Eternal_Lament

New member
Sep 23, 2010
559
0
0
My logic is this:

If easy mode is put into Dark Souls 2, I will still play the game, just on the standard hard difficulty. The existence of an easy mode does not bother me, and in fact there are just some certain things that should be fixed difficulty wise, regardless if easy mode is actually available. The tutorials could easily be improved, especially in regards to teaching players what things such as poise or humanity actually do. Dark Souls was one of my favorite games to come out last year, and even I didn't know what these things did until I went online. So I do agree that there are indeed some difficulty issues that are just inexcusable or have no real added challenge. That said, easy mode in the CURRENT VERSION of Dark Souls wouldn't actually work that well

Simply put, many of the level designs, enemy encounters, and item placements and such are designed in such a way that it anticipates the player playing on the current hard difficulty or above. If there was an easy mode put into the game now as it is, players would probably beat the game in 5-6 hours. And that's what worries me about easy mode in a game that wasn't designed to anticipate such a mode. Sure, more people will pick it up and play, but if they beat the game and don't see the big appeal to it then I feel a little disappointed that another player wasn't able to enjoy what it is I enjoy in the game. Now, if the current version of Dark Souls got a major overhaul or if Dark Souls 2 designs itself in such a way where both the traditional hard mode and easy mode can give players a sense of power and enjoyment, then I say bring on easy mode.
 

Airon

New member
Jan 8, 2012
107
0
0
The sound of the show is getting better and better. Well done.

Thumbs up on the conclusions as well. I pick my difficulties based on my experience in the genre, and do not wish (bad amounts of)frustration on any gamer because there isn't a difficulty suited to their level of experience.

We were all once casuals and probably are in some genres.
 

blackrave

New member
Mar 7, 2012
2,020
0
0
MrBrightside919 said:
Kinda of like what they did with the new XCOM game. The original was DEVILISHLY DIFFICULT and just plain unfair at times...where as the new one, I see it as more ACCESSIBLE than DUMBED DOWN. I played it in comparison to the old one and found it to be more fun to play...
Easy difficulty maybe, but anything above easy is not "accessible"
So there still are options for those masochists who can't afford dominatrix
(hardest difficulty+Iron man mode)
Although for all fairness while XCom:EU is like dominatrix with a whip, XCom:UFO defense is more like a torture chamber filled with violent gimps and trained animals
(so yeah, some difficulty drop happened, but it isn't necessary bad thing)

The best way to make sure everybody have a game they want is to allow mods
Take for example TES5:Skyrim
There are mods that increases difficulty so much a skeever coughing in your general direction will make you die instantly
And there are mods that makes your character a unstoppable force (although "very easy" difficulty already does this)
So once again to mod is always better than not to mod :)
 

WhiteTigerShiro

New member
Sep 26, 2008
2,366
0
0
Monxeroth said:
Really now Jim?
This is getting ridiculous even for you.
Most recent videos have been nothing but the same argument about varying things over and over again and its getting REALLY old.
Could you just please put some effort into a future video that isnt filled with your rambling about the same kind of bullshit argument i hear on a daily basis:
*Oh, it doesnt affect you, so why do you care?
*Oh, you already have access to what you want without being interfered by something else, so why do you care?
*Oh, this thing may or may not have a negative impact on the gaming community, but lets for argument sake say it doesnt, then why would you care?

I mean fucking hell Jim, youre a broken record by now.
How is he any less of a broken record than the gaming community as a whole? His shows are topical (aka: They're based on what's going on currently), so if he's getting drawl and repetitive, it's because the gaming community is getting drawl and repetitive with the things they ***** about.
 

Mortamus

The Talking Dead
May 18, 2012
147
0
0
MichaelMaverick said:
jehk said:
MichaelMaverick said:
jehk said:
MichaelMaverick said:
These discussions are too often plagued with people who haven't adequately studied challenge and balancing in video games, and how they affect the quality of the product. It's not an easy thing to grasp in the slightest, and I'm sick of you know-it-alls making light of it.
Clearly you're not this person. Google core aesthetics of video games. People play games for a variety of different reasons. Someone could play a game for the challenge. Someone for the sense of exploration. And so on. It's entirely possible that a game could deliver challenge for one person and exploration or another depending on the setting that are selected.
Game design theory wouldn't need to exist at all then, according to you. Every game could simply be a mash-up of every conceivable genre, from sandbox to puzzle to shooter, and players could just be expected to find their own parts to like. I bet that would work out just swell.

Oh wait no, it fucking wouldn't. There's already been trash games like that released in the last couple of years, and none of them lighted the world on fire.
It does work out swell. Game design revolves around delivering on those core aesthetics.

Take Skyrim for example (that light the gaming world on fire). I play on the hardest difficulty with a build that's tailored to not be overpowered. My girlfriend plays on normal mode with a pretty kick ass build. The two of us are playing for different core aesthetics. She's all about exploration and narrative (ie the lore ie reading in-game books all the time) and doesn't want challenge to get in the way. I'm more about challenge and expression while exploration and narrative take a back seat.

You really don't know what you're talking about.

You completely failed to comprehend the issue that I addressed and instead illogically responded to some imaginary post you made up in your head. Or at least I'm struggling to hope for it. If you honestly believe that SKYRIM of all games is the masterful creation in question where all its different aspects and mechanics are not only as perfect as in games that SPECIALIZE in them, but also somehow work in perfect haromy without interfering with or taking away from one another, you're a total fucking imbecile, my forum warnings regarding civil behavior be damned. You just revealed that it's YOU who has no fucking idea what he's talking about in the slightest, and conceded that YES, game design theory is apprarently totally obsolete. You're a moron who's not worth my time.


On an unrelated note, the Mario example mentioned in the video is a good way to go about things, though obviously Mario games are not hardcore. This is key.
Whoa, ease up there buddy. He isn't saying that games need to have a little bit of everything, he's saying that not every one person plays the same game for the same reason. His point is that someone may want to play Dark Souls on easy to experience it's story without having to suffer the wrath of it's difficulty, while others like us want to beat the insane challenge of it's higher difficulties.

Rather than go on a rant about game design, I would invite you to watch the latest episode of Extra Credits [http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/aesthetics-of-play] related to this exact topic.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
16,864
838
118
I'm sure this post will bite me in the ass, but the last few episodes of Jimquisition have been nothing but "You gamers are upset about something; How dare you, you whiny little bastards." I'm sorry, but it's starting to get a bit condescending.

And you might've wanted to play Dark Souls first before stating that adding an easy mode wouldn't matter. It's easy to generalize everyone in the "no easy mode" camp as bitchy, hardcore elitists.
 

Mortrialus

New member
Jan 23, 2010
55
0
0
Mortamus said:
[
Whoa, ease up there buddy. He isn't saying that games need to have a little bit of everything, he's saying that not every one person plays the same game for the same reason. His point is that someone may want to play Dark Souls on easy to experience it's story without having to suffer the wrath of it's difficulty, while others like us want to beat the insane challenge of it's higher difficulties.

Rather than go on a rant about game design, I would invite you to watch the latest episode of Extra Credits [http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/aesthetics-of-play] related to this exact topic.
While Dark Souls has a very rich lore, it's just as inaccessible as the rest of the game. The story of Dark Souls is pieced together from item descriptions, the scarce dialog from NPCs and just observing your surroundings. A player playing on a mode designed for everyone to complete the game, without the repeat deaths and trial and error, is going to blaze through the game and not even know it's there.
 

scw55

New member
Nov 18, 2009
1,185
0
0
Nothing wrong with adding an easy mode, as long as it's optional.

Diablo 3 had the critical mistake of forcing you through difficulties.
I like games that let you change the difficulty mid-game as well.
 

Mortamus

The Talking Dead
May 18, 2012
147
0
0
Mortrialus said:
The story of Dark Souls is pieced together from item descriptions, the scarce dialog from NPCs and just observing your surroundings. A player playing on a mode designed for everyone to complete the game is going to blaze through the game and not even know it's there.
I don't really see how you would miss all of that on a lower difficulty. The items, NPCs, and surroundings will still be there. :/
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
Mortamus said:
Mortrialus said:
The story of Dark Souls is pieced together from item descriptions, the scarce dialog from NPCs and just observing your surroundings. A player playing on a mode designed for everyone to complete the game is going to blaze through the game and not even know it's there.
I don't really see how you would miss all of that on a lower difficulty. The items, NPCs, and surroundings will still be there. :/
And the game would be very medicore. I think people don't get that. Without the difficulty (which isn't that hard, just need to be patience), the would have nothing to stand out aside from being dark fantasy. The game on easy could be beaten in 5 hours to 7 hours tops. Hell on the current difficulty it can be beaten that fast.
 

deathzero021

New member
Feb 3, 2012
335
0
0
Now i agree with optional modes being OK. they don't annoy me because they don't effect my experience. i also don't mind games trying to widen the audience a little.

however i also believe that it's gone WAY too far. It's come to the point where sequels of a franchise no longer have ANYTHING in common with the initial titles of the series. It's so bad that gameplay mechanics have become simpler and less enjoyable as well, or changed altogether giving a completely different experience than what the experienced players want.

So why is this a problem? because this isn't opening the doors for everyone to play, this is kicking out the current players and bringing in a larger and easier to market demographic in are place. It's replacing us. This is happening because it's easier to appeal to the casual market and it makes more money. Takes less work, it's a big win for them, and a huge loss for old school gamers.

This is why i barely like most games today. They're too simple, too easy and provide no real challenge or excitement at all. They are not engaging in the way that i enjoy, such as actually having to learn a new system and master it to play the game effectively.

Now it isn't all bad, there are SOME games that provide good options for both demographics, however MOST games don't do this well. It's not as simple as adding Hard mode and Easy mode to a game.

The game has to be completely re-designed for each mode. Simply changing the HP of the enemies or their ATK isn't enough. that doesn't provide more challenge for the hardcore gamers. The simple AI and weak level design are still boring to an experienced player like myself. Want an example? Darksiders on Hard mode is still a very easy game. The patterns, AI and level design does not change at all, it still reflects that "wide demographic" style of Easy mode. So basically the game was not made with experienced gamers in mind and the Hard mode was lazily slapped in the at the last second.

To summarize my over-sized post:
i think it's a great idea to try and appeal to a larger audience BUT it should never come at the cost of losing your fanbase.
 

StriderShinryu

New member
Dec 8, 2009
4,987
0
0
It's already been stated numerous times in this thread, so I don't feel any need to go into a lengthy explanation, but anyone who wants an easy mode in Dark Souls doesn't understand Dark Souls (and, quite possibly, hasn't even really played it).

I also find it rather funny that, in a time when we're talking about games that have artistic merit and where we value the work of specific developers/teams, there are still gamers who believe that games should be one size fits all and that the game experience should not be as put forward by the developer but should instead be solely centered around what the player wants. This doesn't happen in any other entertainment medium with an artistic bent.. at all. Books, movies, music, paintings, etc. None of them have easy modes if you don't understand them. None of them really have people saying that their enjoyment of the work should come before artist intention. And yet, with games, they do.
 

Mortrialus

New member
Jan 23, 2010
55
0
0
Mortamus said:
I don't really see how you would miss all of that on a lower difficulty. The items, NPCs, and surroundings will still be there. :/
Because why would anyone playing the game on an easy mode where they're guaranteed to beat the game without understanding the basic mechanics, isn't going to look at / care about other items when they're already set up with a winning strategy. If they're told exactly where to go, they aren't going to talk to NPCs. And if they aren't spending a lot of time in an area, they aren't going to notice the details of the varying levels.

The difficulty from Dark Souls doesn't come from the technical skill required to beat the game. It comes from the knowledge base required to beat the game.
 

Mortamus

The Talking Dead
May 18, 2012
147
0
0
Korten12 said:
And the game would be very medicore. I think people don't get that. Without the difficulty (which isn't that hard, just need to be patience), the would have nothing to stand out aside from being dark fantasy. The game on easy could be beaten in 5 hours to 7 hours tops. Hell on the current difficulty it can be beaten that fast.
This still wouldn't affect your play experience. As for it taking away from someone else's play experience in "not getting the full game", that is their decision and they can interpret how good the experience was on their own.

We're also assuming that this easy mode is going to be a severe reduction.
 

Mortamus

The Talking Dead
May 18, 2012
147
0
0
Mortrialus said:
Mortamus said:
I don't really see how you would miss all of that on a lower difficulty. The items, NPCs, and surroundings will still be there. :/
Because why would anyone playing the game on an easy mode where they're guaranteed to beat the game without understanding the basic mechanics, isn't going to look at / care about other items when they're already set up with a winning strategy. If they're told exactly where to go, they aren't going to talk to NPCs. And if they aren't spending a lot of time in an area, they aren't going to notice the details of the varying levels.

The difficulty from Dark Souls doesn't come from the technical skill required to beat the game. It comes from the knowledge base required to beat the game.
This is assuming that the easy mode would allow them to never need those items.
 

Sheo_Dagana

New member
Aug 12, 2009
966
0
0
I love the elitist argument that Jim levels at critics of 'Easy' mode. Now I have never been one to select Easy mode for any game, not since I was young at least, but I can see the need for one. Especially for Dark Souls - that game is really awesome, but it shuts out those who cannot contend with it's high level of difficulty. Which is a shame, because the monsters the game offers are are a sight to behold, as are the environments. True that those experiences are more rewarding when pushed to work for it, but the kind of player that selects easy mode is just as likely to be challenged by it as you would be by normal. You can't assume a casual will go into a game with your level of skill on a lower difficulty.

I'm all for people experiencing as much of any game as they would like. I mean, if you are the kind of player that wants that super-high difficulty, is it not still there for you? "No! The Easy Mode is too much of a temptation! Just knowing it is there is blasphemy!" If that is your argument, then that kind of sounds like your problem, really.

I remember how Megaman 2 had an easy mode for the western audience, and even though I play it on the higher difficulty now, I was thankful for the easier difficulty when I was younger. Not to mention it was still balls hard. Fuck you, Air Man.
 

BehattedWanderer

Fell off the Alligator.
Jun 24, 2009
5,237
0
0
Man that carrot looks tasty. More on topic, I have no problem with this concept. Of course, I'm one of the vocal few who want cheat codes to come back into style, because sometimes I just seriously fucking hate playing a game, but am extremely interested in the narrative, characters, arcs, or events that transpire. I had this problem with Bayonetta and Devil May Cry. I really disliked the combat, was not fond of the mechanics, and didn't give a single flippant care for most of the actual gameplay. I did, however, still want to know what happened to the characters and how things played out. At a point where I got so bored with the gameplay I turned it off, and watched in online. And while that's fine in one sense, I would have much preferred it if I could have just flicked on a cheat of god mode and been done with the tedious parts I didn't want to slog through just to get to the good bits.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Monxeroth said:
Really now Jim?
This is getting ridiculous even for you.
Most recent videos have been nothing but the same argument about varying things over and over again and its getting REALLY old.
Could you just please put some effort into a future video that isnt filled with your rambling about the same kind of bullshit argument i hear on a daily basis:
*Oh, it doesnt affect you, so why do you care?
*Oh, you already have access to what you want without being interfered by something else, so why do you care?
*Oh, this thing may or may not have a negative impact on the gaming community, but lets for argument sake say it doesnt, then why would you care?

I mean fucking hell Jim, youre a broken record by now.
I'd agree, were it not for the fact that I generally think a lot of what he said needs to be heard. I mean, there was that episode on tech demos where he said "make games fun, not extended tech demos". Blindingly obvious, but apparently, it needed to be said.

OT: Blimey, there's a lot more backlash on this than I'd expect. But then again, hard games that force you to spend hours playing them to be enjoyed have always been controversial. I mean, look at the comments in Yahtzee's reviews of Dark/Demon's Souls.
 

Ham Blitz

New member
May 28, 2009
576
0
0
I do agree with this video for the most part, though I do sort of feel that on Dark Souls the difficultly was half the point. Though from a financial point of view, the easy mode may have been smart, but I feel the game has been out too long for it to really help them that much. I think most people interested in the game either got it or moved on, but if it actually gets From more sales, good for them.
On a side note, this video most importantly reminded me that the DLC for Dark Souls came out for the Xbox about 2 months ago and I still haven't got that. I might have to get on that soon.
 

Entitled

New member
Aug 27, 2012
1,254
0
0
3 out of the past 4 Jimquisition episodes all followed this same formula, of Jim taking on a complex, multifaceted debate, and mixing it's most hateful, irrational, exaggerated, obviously moronic "arguements" that one could imagine into a single strawman, then and ranting against that, just to lure in anyone to the comment section who might feel defensive about the larger debates.

Yes, people who actually do use the word "filthy casual" unironically are assholes, and anyone who is literally *MAD* about a game having an optional easy mode, is irrational. WE KNOW THAT. Anyone who is that delusional either isn't watching your show, or wouldn't recognize themselves anyways.

Yes, HATING all review scores is silly, you have better things to do with your free time, you don't have to look at them.

Yes, being mysogynistic is evil, and automatically assuming that a female gamer is just trying to lure you with her power of boobs, *is* being mysogynistic.

No, really? Not so long ago, the part of the episode where you uttered such wonderfully rightous statements as "Don't be a Nazi", was the ending gag part, not the serious ranting part. It seems this has changed.
 

Darken12

New member
Apr 16, 2011
1,061
0
0
Since Jim brought up gay marriage (awesome one, Jim), this reminds me of the controversy a couple of years back on Bioware's same-sex romance inclusion (i.e., straight dudes bitchin' about how it was gross that same-sex existed somewhere in the game, even if they'd never see it).

People need to be hammered, over and over, with the knowledge that "more options are never a bad thing."

Until they get it.
 

IamLEAM1983

Neloth's got swag.
Aug 22, 2011
2,581
0
0
TwiZtah said:
Easy modes are not the problem. The problem is that games are now designed for inept players, making the experienced players experience of the game extremely easy.

Far Cry 3 was ridiculously easy at Hard, because it was catered towards the casuals.
I'm sorry, give me a moment to recover from my spitting coffee all over my desk.

Ahem.

I played through FarCry 3 on Adventurer. It was *not* easy. The AI is nearly prescient, and the only way to survive is to play a constant game of duck-and-cover. After covering the north islands, LMGs become absolutely necessary as Heavies start to show up. Bringing anything else to a gunfight guarantees your death.

I've been playing games for about 25 years. I don't think I count as a "casual". I'm not particularly skilled, but assuming Hard is catered towards "casuals" is only proving the existence of the problem Sterling mentions in the video.
 

Mortrialus

New member
Jan 23, 2010
55
0
0
Mortamus said:
This is assuming that the easy mode would allow them to never need those items.
That is the point of making easy modes that allows everyone to play the game to complete it, as the video suggested.

Why is it every game needs to be the same and offer all the same options, even when they run counter to the developer's intended goal of the game? Hidetaka Miyazaki, the director of Dark Souls, has outright said that the point of the game, the reason he created it and the goal they wanted to achieve when making it, is to create a challenging game that gives players a sense of accomplishment when the complete it. Adding modal difficulty literally defeats the purpose of the game.

Go play Dark Souls or watch a playthrough of it. It is not paced or designed to really make modal difficulty even possible without completely changing the design of the game.

And as I said before, people do not think Dark Souls is hard because of the technical skill needed to beat it. The technical skill required to beat Dark Souls is quite frankly minimal. They find it challenging because of the knowledge base needed to beat it. And creating a mode where everyone can complete it without acquiring that knowledge base by definition would mean they never need those items.

Not every game needs to be the same. Not every game needs to offer the same difficulty. Not every game needs to offer the same options. It depends entirely on the individual game and the developer intentions when making it.
 

cynicalsaint1

Salvation a la Mode
Apr 1, 2010
545
0
0
I'm going to have to disagree with you Jim.

The problem being that your position denies that challenge or difficulty can be a core part of a game's experience. Comparing Dark Souls to Mario is apples and oranges. The fact that you have no choice but to deal with its challenge or give up is part of the experience. Imagine a horror game where you never actually felt threatened - what would the point of calling it a horror game at that point?

Furthermore I find the argument that "being for everyone" necessarily makes a game better to be a lot of BS. With all the various tastes in videogames out there I think that there's room for something like Dark Souls to play buy its own rules.

Your argument that not wanting Dark Souls to have an Easy Mode makes you some kind of elitist snob is also utterly ridiculous. Let me digress for a moment and talk about beer. I like beer. In particular I find that I like good hoppy beers - now I have friends who can't stand really hoppy beers. Does that mean that I believe them to be lesser beer drinkers than me? Of course not - that would be absolutely silly.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that Dark Souls might not be for everyone, and if it isn't for you that's fine - I can't stand Elder Scrolls games despite my best attempts to get into them - I get it, not everyone has to like every game. I'm perfectly content knowing that a lot of people love Skyrim, and that there are people who have no interest in Dark Souls.

But - going back to the beer analogy - if you ask me if I'm okay with someone watering down my favorite beer so that its less hoppy so more people might like it - well then I'm going to tell you to kindly fuck off.
 

Your Gaffer

New member
Oct 10, 2012
179
0
0
While I agree that the inclusion of an "easy mode" does not diminish a game too many game's default setting is basically an "easy mode" today.

I do hate that games in general seem to be dumbed down and "streamlined" to the point where you feel like you are in special ed with a special ed teacher sitting next to you as you play the game saying "now go to that wall, press B to take cover, good boy". There are still some great, challenging, and complex games being put out, mostly by indie developers, but I hope we get past this stage in games development.

Everyone in this thread should check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FpigqfcvlM
 

Hindkjar

New member
May 1, 2012
12
0
0
When you choose the dificulty in Deus Ex: Human Revolution, they ask weather you want a story, or a challange.. That pretty much shows how it should be done.. You want a interactive movie, or a game.

Other games ask if you want to change the difficulty if/when you have died enough times..
It all comes back to a quote "Yatzee" made in a ZP episode some time ago:

"Fuck you game, You will not beat me!"
 

RandV80

New member
Oct 1, 2009
1,507
0
0
This is only loosely relevant but I've always found it ironic that the fears the PS3/360 crowd have towards the Wii/casual gaming infecting their platform is pretty much a reality in the logical equivalence of how the PS3/360 effect the Glorious PC Master Race.
 

Elois

New member
Dec 10, 2012
32
0
0
An easy mode does affect me, it does alter the experience and it does matter. That is because Dark Souls isn't just a single player game, its multiplier is at the very core of the experience and its status as a niche game keeps the online community what it is. A community of like minded players who most of the time will stop when they see you, bow to you, you bow back then you fight to the death. When most video game online communities involve a bunch of swearing hyperactive 12 year olds the respect the average souls player has for the game and his opponents is an amazing and beautiful thing.

It used to be, if you got invaded in the kilin of the final flame it meant an opponent who had bested the hardest bosses, faced every challenge and was here to fight a good fight against a skilled opponent. Bowing was done, unwritten rules used to be followed, most importantly respectful skilled gameplay took place. Online over a video game, with strangers.

What does this have to do with an easy mode you ask? Well if you allow people to bypass a boss before learning how to play better they won't learn anything about how to control their characters. Dark Souls kinda has an easy mode, they are called Sunbros. Just summon one and they practically do the boss for you. Now what happens when you touch a summon sign and this warrior of sunlight throws 3 or 4 lightning bolts at the boss and takes out 90% of its health? The player learns NOTHING.

What happens when a player scoots by the harder bosses by summoning a much better player to do it for them? They end up in the kilin of the final flame with VASTLY better players and get killed in pvp because they can't play. A lot of players, instead of getting better at the game (because not getting better at it didn't stop them up till now) will resort to dirty fighting just to get a kill and feel better about themselves. We get people who try to gets hits in during the pre fight bow, we get people who resort to abusing lag to land back-stabs, people who spam fast casting aoe spells, people abusing broken combinations of equipment, but worst of all you get people with no respect for the game or the people who play it. People looking to get kills, not have fights.

Now I have no issue with as many people playing Dark souls as possible, but not at the expense of a unique community that is already on the down-slope. If a player is having trouble on a specific boss, I try my hardest to educate them. I show them the fight strategies on the wiki, I suggest optimal equipment setups, I inform them how all the stats work and why they are important, I try my damnedest to teach weaker players to fish instead of doing the fishing for them, or making the fishing easier. You know what I'm saying?
 

Mortamus

The Talking Dead
May 18, 2012
147
0
0
Mortrialus said:
Mortamus said:
This is assuming that the easy mode would allow them to never need those items.
That is the point of making easy modes that allows everyone to play the game to complete it, as the video suggested.

Why is it every game needs to be the same and offer all the same options, even when they run counter to the developer's intended goal of the game? Hidetaka Miyazaki, the director of Dark Souls, has outright said that the point of the game, the reason he created it and the goal they wanted to achieve when making it, is to create a challenging game that gives players a sense of accomplishment when the complete it. Adding modal difficulty literally defeats the purpose of the game.

Go play Dark Souls or watch a playthrough of it. It is not paced or designed to really make modal difficulty even possible without completely changing the design of the game.

And as I said before, people do not think Dark Souls is hard because of the technical skill needed to beat it. The technical skill required to beat Dark Souls is quite frankly minimal. They find it challenging because of the knowledge base needed to beat it. And creating a mode where everyone can complete it without acquiring that knowledge base by definition would mean they never need those items.

Not every game needs to be the same. Not every game needs to offer the same difficulty. Not every game needs to offer the same options. It depends entirely on the individual game and the developer intentions when making it.
So if I pay for the game at the same price you did, but I'm not able to make the same investment that you did in the content in terms of knowledge, then I shouldn't have access to all the content that I paid for?
 

CalUKGR

New member
Dec 9, 2012
7
0
0
Great video, Jim - couldn't agree with your sentiments more. I've long felt that developers actually have a duty to ensure there is always a way for any player of any ability level to 'see the content they've paid for'. Being booted back to the menu screen for repeatedly failing to complete a boss battle or a particularly difficult challenge is simply bad design. The developers forgot a basic rule: always find a way to keep the player in the game.

Good to see you speaking up for gamers who simply don't wish to be beaten around the head by a game's spiteful insistence on absolute perfection from all of its players. We are all entitled to enjoy our games at whatever level of participation we choose - and we should not be punished for wanting to enjoy whatever a game might have to offer, even if we might prefer to take the 'easy' option.

Looking forward to your award videos!
 

Shiro No Uma

New member
Nov 10, 2009
57
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
Dumbing Down for the Filthy Casuals

There are valid concerns with the "dumbing down" of our entertainment, but as with so many issues, there are just as many invalid ones. This is especially true when "inclusiveness" and "dumbing down" are seen as the same thing.

Watch Video
Hey Jim. I'm a bit curious, do you think that this fear of dumbing down games is slightly akin to the "Fake Nerd Girl" issue that you brought up a few weeks back? The idea that groups of people are angry because they don't feel they should share a part their culture and don't have the maturity to see that having more people included in these games doesn't lessen them in any way?

I really like your argument here because it sounds like the issue is more "dumbing down the gamer" and not dumbing down the entertainment in making it easier to finish a game. Although, I personally haven't though any better of someone who brags about beating a game on insane.
 

Rad Party God

Party like it's 2010!
Feb 23, 2010
3,560
0
0
Well, I might be a "filthy casual", because in my 24 years of gaming, I still can't live without the "normal" difficulty, I rarely venture through "hard", as I'm reading in some posts that some people claim to plough through games like a cakewalk on hard.

I generally don't give a shit about difficulty, I looooooooooooove Dark Souls to bits thanks to it's difficulty (wich isn't that difficult if you're careful, but still very challenging), but still, I definitely appreciate lower difficulties, we tend to forget that most people don't know how to play a videogame, my nephew for example, I like to play difficult games, but he'd like to play what I play and the only thing preventing him from doing so, is the difficulty.

I don't like to think that games are getting easier, we are getting better and better at them and I'm 100% agreed with Jim on this one, people bitching about difficulty doesn't come up as more than assholes.
 

Rooster Cogburn

New member
May 24, 2008
1,637
0
0
You're an absolutist. You think you know how every game should be and you're unwilling to consider alternatives, forever-and-ever AMEN. You are appealing to people's prejudices and their emotional sense of victimization. All that you have neglected is reason and fairness.

Your dismissal of people who don't want the game to have Easy Mode because you think they are elitist is CLOSE-MINDED because it is obviously preventing you from considering other possibilities. You are like the religious zealot who doesn't explore alternative explanations to natural phenomena because you think you have ALL the answers. First, why are you even speaking your mind on this topic only to immediately admit you have no knowledge of the subject matter? Your assumption that not wanting an easy mode in Dark Souls is rooted in elitism betrays your ignorance of that series and it's intentions and goals. It reflects a closed-minded attitude because you think you know how all games should be and are unwilling to learn what Dark Souls has to teach. You should have shown both sides about this topic. That you didn't suggests to me you don't know what you're talking about.

"Many gamers aren't into games that set out to flagellate and..."

Why does EVERY game need to cater to this audience, or indeed to ANY particular audience? NO game that costs money is allowed to be hard? Never? None? No matter what? And if I disagree, it can only be because I'm trying to exclude people? What the actual fuck? I never DEMANDED that EVERY game be changed to suit my tastes and condemned every single one that didn't. What gives anyone the right to corner the market like that? It's not fair.

"Did an Easy Mode matter to you?"

YES. Dark Soul's difficulty is not incidental. Dark Souls is not a game that just happens to be hard. What you are asking, whether you realize it or not, is comparable to demanding Infinity Ward put a fully featured Turn Based Strategy game in the next Call of Duty, and then acting scandalized when Call of Duty vets think it's a bad idea. Why can't we just leave the developers of this series to pursue the model they established in the first two titles?

Second, this game relies heavily on innovative community features. The fact that everyone is given the same content to explore is INTEGRAL to keeping those feature relevant.

Third, Dark Souls is designed from the ground up to instill a SENSE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT. Putting an easy version of Capra Demon into the game turns Capra Demon from a MEANINGFUL obstacle into a TRIVIAL one and an artificial one of the player's own creation. That breaks the tension of the experience and the sense of accomplishment of it. In any other game, that would be a good trade off. DARK SOULS IS NOT THOSE GAMES. Everything is specifically designed around it's core design focus. What the fuck is wrong with that?

"Mad at the idea a game they liked could be enjoyed by more people".

How about you stop making up bullshit and do a little research next time? This is ridiculous. You should be informing the ignorant, not expanding the population. Why is it so offensive for a game to exist that does not cater to any one particular audience? This is not that complicated. People are just too stuck in their ways and unwilling to consider an alternative way of doing things. This is EXACTLY why we never get anything truly outside-the-box. Let's be perfectly honest. You perceived elitism and reacted without giving the topic a moment's thought.

The Mario comparison is spurious and ridiculous. And unnecessary. Lots of games have easy mode, because the difficulty isn't a core design technique those developers are utilizing to craft an experience. The difficulty of Mario, or say, Skyrim, is essential to the experience but it does not DEFINE the experience.

Thinking that making something optional means it doesn't matter to people who choose not to take advantage of it is an obvious mistake and a misunderstanding of how games work. There is such a thing as tension, you know. There is a good reason the Xbox controller doesn't come with a button dedicated to automatically beating whatever level you are on in whatever game you may be playing, even though using the button would surely be an OPTIONAL OPTIONAL OPTIONAL OPTIONAL OPTIONAL OPTIONAL OPTIONAL OPTION. Ironically it is Mr. Jim Sterling who is being absolutist and black-and-white about this, though I have no doubt he doesn't realize it. He's effectively saying he knows the way that all games should be and isn't interested in alternatives. He doesn't even want to hear your argument. He just says fuck you, you're a childish D-bag, you're an asshole, you're an elitist, I don't want to hear it LA LA LA LA LA.

THERE ARE NO WORDS TO DESCRIBE THE IRONY.

This is absolutely the last straw for Jimquisition. It's regularly uninformed but this is just too much. This hateful, ignorant, insulting diatribe is the absolute worst forum troll nonsense I have ever seen as official escapist content save MovieBob.

For anyone who is willing to put aside their prejudices long enough to be informed about this topic:

And a thread from the escapist: [link]http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.392886-Dark-Souls-an-experiment-in-logic[/link]
 

scorptatious

The Resident Team ICO Fanboy
May 14, 2009
7,405
0
0
To be honest, if it weren't for the inclusion of an easy mode in certain games, (like Metal Gear Solid 3) I probably wouldn't be into the games I am today. So I guess by today's standards, I would have been considered a "filthy casual" by the people you described Jim.

Seriously, I find people who think that their hobby should be exclusive to them and look down on others who aren't as skilled as they are or who like to play "casual" games incredibly annoying. It's almost like they've forgotten that they were once as unskilled as people who are new to gaming are now. Hell, when I first started gaming, I could NEVER get past the fifth level in Crash Bandicoot 2 without help. Many years later, I practically aced that level.
 

Mortrialus

New member
Jan 23, 2010
55
0
0
Mortamus said:
So if I pay for the game at the same price you did, but I'm not able to make the same investment that you did in the content in terms of knowledge, then I shouldn't have access to all the content that I paid for?
In the case of Dark Souls specifically, yes. Gaining that knowledge base bit by bit quite literally IS the game in Dark Souls. Not everyone is going to enjoy every game. That is just a simple fact. The idea that every developer should make their games with the intention that everyone should enjoy the finished product is wrong, and isn't even if it was universally adopted isn't going to change that.

How is that any different than paying for a difficult, challenging book on philosophy? Not everyone is going to have the previous knowledge base required to understand the book and the ideas presented. Not everyone is going to be able to understand the concepts presented in the book. They will be missing out on the content of the books, the ideas presented in it, just like gamers who don't want to obtain the knowledge base required to complete Dark Souls will be.

I am not against modal difficulty in games. I am not against easy games in general. I am not saying every game needs to be crazy hard. I'm saying it depends on a case by case basis. What I am against is the absolutism presented in the video. To me it's like akin to demanding that every game include both first and third person modes, regardless of how the rest of the game is designed. Some games should only have 1st person modes. Some games should only have 3rd person modes. Some games should offer both. It depends entirely on how the game is designed.
 

Darmani

New member
Apr 26, 2010
231
0
0
I disagree only on the idea those arguing against easy mode or casualizing effects not having a reasonable or sane argument and as such always against stupid people.

Here is my counter that frequenters of the Game Overthinker may consider
"Thing about "easy modes" is that it's in many ways not really...

How do I word this.

It's disingenuous to call ANY game released in the last ten years "hard", so adding an "easy" mode to them is almost asinine. If you can't win a game made in the last decade then you're just not coordinated enough to play video games. Or drive. Or have children for that matter.

See those old, hard games we used to play as kids were not just hard, they were patently and demonstrably UNFAIR to the point that the only real way to win most of them was to become obsessive compulsive (when I was a kid, I sat down for six hours one weekend and played Battletoads until I memorized every pixel on the screen...the jetbike level is not as hard as people claim but the "rolling disco ball of death" thing almost killed me).

Because most of them were designed to artificially lengthen the game by making it virtually impossible to win without OCD focusing on doing so. That was "replay" value back in the day. To say nothing of the monstrously bad controls, hit detection and jumping physics most of those games (especially platformers) had...some of them BY DESIGN it would appear. And then you add to that the "tutorial mode" was just your mom reading a poorly translated or even PARODY-TRANSLATED instruction booklet and, wow, how in Christ's name did we win those games?

Today you have games with perfect controls, stunningly fine tuned game worlds, saves anywhere, and basically tutorials holding your hand every step of the way...if you can't complete a game made between 1998 and now, that's YOU not the game.

Modern games do everything but tuck you in at night anyway, and even ones like Dark/Demon's Souls are not nearly as mind-numbingly difficult as some games that came out just back in the 1990s.

What people MISTAKE for difficulty now is just a game offering a genuine, fair challenge. One which does not, or only rarely, or if poorly made, requires rote memorization and laser-guided effort the way that Battletoads or something INSANE like some "adventure" games (which were anything but adventurous) would put forth. You couldn't release something with those asinine, old-style controls and shitty hit detection and luck-based dificulty curves now.

Well...you COULD but people would think it was a glitch not an intentional design. Or a parody, like I Want To Be The Guy.

Part of this is because a LOT of those old games were arcade ports, and by definition were basically rigged carnival games whose difficulty curve looked like a vertical ascent. There is no reason to make "easy modes" now because games now, by the definition of anyone who knows what that term means, already ARE much, much less self-destructive and nuanced than any generation of games before.

I'm sorry but if someone out there needs an "easy mode" to win, for example, Assassin's Creed then you really don't need to put it in because they're not going to be playing the game without their live-in nurse holding the controller and pushing all the buttons for them. Because that person a quadruple amputee in an irreversible coma. "
An Easy Mode that conveys the same experience as if difficulty is this extraneous factor runs counter to ALL the integrated experiences people keep saying they want in gaming. And remember it was the constant streamlining to the casual market that lead to some of the issues of ME 3
 

cynicalsaint1

Salvation a la Mode
Apr 1, 2010
545
0
0
Regarding the argument everyone is entitled to play through all of the content of their game that they payed for:

I bought Skyrim and I really wanted to like it, everyone I knew was playing and enjoying it and talking about it - I wanted in on that action. But no matter how hard I tried I simply couldn't get into it - no matter what I just found myself bored while playing it. By your argument Betheseda should be expected to modify Skyrim to better suit my tastes so that the game doesn't drive me away and that I can enjoy all of the content that I paid for.

Of course many of the things I found that turned me off to Skyrim are probably a lot of the things other people like about it.

But hey fuck those guys, they are obviously all elitists who want to keep Skyrim for themselves and if they can't see how having a smaller world with fewer side quests and a more focused story could help the game appeal to a new audience then they probably hate gays and beat women too.
 

RTR

New member
Mar 22, 2008
1,351
0
0
5 straight days of Jimquisition? YAAAAAAAY (Kermit arms)!

Also, I love Willem Dafoe's gloves.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,846
1
3
Country
United States
jehk said:
getoffmycloud said:
My issue with the dark souls easy mode is what is the point in even playing it. It would be like playing LA noire with all the interrogations taken out.
Who are you to say "what's the point" for other people?
I think it's safe to say that the point of a game with the tagline "prepare to die" is to be hard. Just my two cents.
 

Peithelo

New member
Mar 28, 2011
33
0
0
If you abolish a things defining aspects it loses its individuality, meaning and very purpose.

I have nothing against people who prefer for any reasons to play games that are easily embraced. The thing is, though, that not every game can or should be so easily accessible to every single person imaginable. Our personal tastes and preferences are unique to us and that is why there at least should be a broad selection of different kinds of games to choose from. It is important to remember that not everything is meant for everyone, and seeing others enjoy something doesn't mean it's necessarily suitable for you as well. Or should every game perhaps also have an exceptionally difficult mode, even if it goes against the games nature? Of course not, it would be nonsensical.

Dark Souls is often said to be a punishing game. That may be so, but in general it only punishes those who are hasty or otherwise remain indifferent to the many visual clues the developers have intentionally placed all around and often in reasonable locations.

Dark Souls is often also mistaken to be an action RPG. While Dark Souls certainly has many aspects that are usually affiliated with such a genre of games, the description in this case would be lacking. Perhaps the most prominent theme in Dark Souls is exploration, coupled with quite a heavy focus on strategic, knowledge based gameplay.
 

orangeapples

New member
Aug 1, 2009
1,836
0
0
Korten12 said:
orangeapples said:
People fear Dark Souls getting an Easy Mode because they feel it would remove difficulty from future games as developers feel the need to cater to the casual market who wouldn't want to play a difficult game.

this of course is wrong as developers pretty much start at the hardest difficulty as "how the game should be played" then dial down enemies for lesser difficulties. People who hate the idea of easy mode feel as though easy mode is destroying games.

which is also wrong. I remember easy mode as far back as Doom (and possibly even existed before that). So if Easy Mode was going to destroy video games as a medium, it would have happened a long time ago. You people need to just calm down.
Thing is though, Dark souls really isn't hard. No really it's not. The enemies usually don't have that much health, the game isn't that long, all it takes is patience.

But here is the thing, Easy mode for Doom is not the same as Easy mode for Dark Souls. If you take difficulty out of Dark souls what do you have? A very mediorce Action-RPG with little to no story (at least not straight to the point), and that's it. You literally suck the soul out of the game.

Doom on easy? It's an FPS which adjusts well to easy mode and still is enjoyable.
Are you saying that playing the game on Easy makes it less enjoyable? Is there anything inherently wrong with a mediocre action RPG with little to no story?

would I somehow enjoy games less because I play on a lower difficulty? Because not everyone plays a game for challenge. some people just want to sit back, relax and enjoy the atmosphere of a game. They don't want a long tedious puzzle to help them unwind. Some people on the other hand would be able to relax with a long tedious puzzle and that helps them unwind. Is it somehow wrong for a game to be open to both of these avenues of relaxation and enjoyment?
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,846
1
3
Country
United States
sindremaster said:
Casual Shinji said:
I'm sure this post will bite me in the ass, but the last few episodes of Jimquisition have been nothing but "You gamers are upset about something; How dare you, you whiny little bastards." I'm sorry, but it's starting to get a bit condescending.
To be fair, judging by what gamers get upset by, most of us are whiny little bastards.
And you might've wanted to play Dark Souls first before stating that adding an easy mode wouldn't matter. It's easy to generalize everyone in the "no easy mode" camp as bitchy, hardcore elitists.
I'm pretty sure he has played it.
And everyone in the no easy mode camp are bitchy hardcore elitists. It's optional there is no reason to not want it, other than hating the idea that someone can play through it without being awesome at games. Which is pretty much the definition of bitchy hardcore elitists.
With all due respect, I personally do not approve of an easy mode in Dark Souls. It's just kinda contradictory to the whole point of the game. I really don't care about what difficulty you play on when it comes to most games, but Dark Souls is an exception, because the difficulty is the whole point of the matter. Please do not insult me for having a different opinion than you.
 

Smolderin

New member
Feb 5, 2012
448
0
0
I would like to think that it isn't the fact there might be an easy mode in Dark Souls, it is more of what it represents to the gaming industry. Let's be honest here guys, Dark Souls is a hard core game for the hard core gamer. That is the target demographic for the game. A game like Demon Souls and Dark Souls are beloved by this community because as it stands, these games are practically a dying breed. A shining example of what many of us would like to play in a increasingly casual pandering industry. As such, when one of these games come along, and it is good, it is bound to garner a passionate player base.

I don't think people complaining about Dark Souls potentially having an easy mode are being elitist, I think they are generally concerned about what such implications could mean for games like Dark Souls down the line. Dark Souls at it's core is not meant to be easy, and as such, Dark Souls attracts a certain crowd of usually like minded individuals who are craving a challenge that is quite honestly missing in today's gaming market. These people play through the game, and these people beat the game...and usually will replay it trying different methods and strategies. It is a game that will not pander you, it will test your mettle as a gamer. People want that challenge. Dark Souls is strictly skill based. If you die over and over and over again, it's probably because you suck....but you can learn from your mistakes. The game rewards persistence and patience, it rewards learning from your mistakes. In a way, it sort of untrains you to a degree from all the easier games you have played.

People are afraid of a game like Dark Souls losing its identity. They are afraid that the people who are so used to being pandered will pick up the game, see how hard it is, and automatically complain about it...usually quitting in the process. They are afraid that From Software will hear these complaints and tailor it to meet their needs. They are afraid that corporate greed will take over, and have games like Dark Souls developed so that it would appeal to a wider audience, to make it more "accessible".

So yes, adding an easy mode to Dark Souls is a big deal. It's one step closer to a game like that losing it's identity. It's one step closer to becoming like the others. And if a game like Dark Souls is not immune from being a victim of corporate pandering, what game is? And what does that mean for the gamers like us who enjoy those types of games? Yes, it is possible for a game like Dark Souls to maintain it's difficulty while having an optional easy mode...but as soon as that happens, we cannot kid ourselves. The second that a easy mode is implemented means a decrease in overall difficulty in the games that follow, it has happened in many game series. Plus there is still the fact that a game in which it's community had all gone through the trial by fire known as Dark Souls, would be no more different than the rest of the online communities.

One of the posters above was very much correct. Dark Souls has a niche online community, and many of us want it to stay niche. The include of an easy mode would threaten that community. It all goes back to how unique Dark Souls is, and how it attracts a certain group of people. Dark Souls is for us, and people willing to take on the game's challenge and learn from their own mistakes. The game is a refuge for a playerbase that games are no longer made for, as such we are a passionate bunch which is why we are the ones loudest when we hear something that threatens the experience of future games in the franchise.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Hey, Hey Jim!

You DO know that games aren't made by magic right?

You DO know that creating easy modes takes time, right? Not every game can be made easier simply by adding more player health and making the enemies less durable, if the difficulty is execution based then it WILL take time out of development to put in a easy mode and as such provide less of the actual good game content that people want. A game that would provide a good example of this would be, oh I dunno, DARK SOULS.

Not a SINGLE person is complaining about just adding a mode where the player health is simply increased. Not. A. One.
 

DRTJR

New member
Aug 7, 2009
651
0
0
I would like to say I found the Brave new world reference funny, good show there Jim.

Also an while I am for inclusiveness in in Easy, Normal, Hard, and Sadistic modes to gameplay. I thought Darksouls modus operandi was being as sadistic as possible.
 

wyldefire

New member
Feb 27, 2008
49
0
0
I disagree with Jim's assessment of this issue and of his broader assertion that hardcore gamers hate the things they hate because of egocentrism Certainly that exists, but he's over emphasizing it.

The Dark Souls backlash is a perfect example of this. With that game, complaints about the difficulty have nothing to do with shutting people out. Most hardcore fans, myself included, pray that more people pick the game up and plug at it until they understand it better. That's the thing about cult series, you're not always sure you'll see another game in the franchise so you want to see it do well.

But Dark Souls is to video games what The Wire is to television in terms of approachability. Difficulty in the 'Souls' series is a crucial part of the franchise's DNA. Death and rebirth, determination and fear, triumph and loss, these elements are the essence of the games' souls.

Putting in an easy mode, that tempers the consequences, is to miss the entire point of a game that is built from the ground up with death as the central mechanic. It would fundamentally break the game by negating all of the work put into weapon balance, enemy design and animations, and level structure.

And that, would ruin the series.
 

MB202

New member
Sep 14, 2008
1,157
0
0
See, this is why I WASN'T one of the guys who got up in arms about an easy mode in Mega Man 10. Mega Man is fucking hard, and I don't want to risk strangling myself in frustration when there's an easier option. I mean, there are many different levels a game can be played. Like some people try playing the original Zelda without using the sword. Who's to say we can't do something similar with modern games; having the option of both easier to play games for everyone and harder to play games for experts wanting to test their mettle.
 

Chimpzy_v1legacy

Warning! Contains bananas!
Jun 21, 2009
4,791
0
0
What I want to know is what will happen to Jim now that he has eaten his experiment?

Will he develop the powers of a carrot gifted with gab? Will he breed an army of vegetable/Willem Dafoe hybrids? Are there no limits to the dark designs this sinister mastermind conjures?
 

Elois

New member
Dec 10, 2012
32
0
0
Mortamus said:
So if I pay for the game at the same price you did, but I'm not able to make the same investment that you did in the content in terms of knowledge, then I shouldn't have access to all the content that I paid for?
Yes you are. You paid for the challenge, so get better. The game doesn't put up a magical door that stops you from progressing if you are a casual or some such nonsense. It puts appropriate challenges in front of you, learning the skills to beat the challenges is the entire point of the game.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Little known fact about this video:

He actually shot this several years ago and his carrots injected with the DNA of American game show hosts turned into the cast of the Jersey Shore.
 

theultimateend

New member
Nov 1, 2007
3,621
0
0
getoffmycloud said:
My issue with the dark souls easy mode is what is the point in even playing it. It would be like playing LA noire with all the interrogations taken out.
Well your issue is silly.

You don't have to play it that way.

Now if you wanted a legitimate issue that isn't silly, being concerned that they get tons of sales from the easy mode and realize that they could save time and effort by making Dark Souls 3 just an easy game with the same atmosphere would be a concern.

One might think that's a silly fear, but look at the rising price of PC games in response to that FPS getting raised 10 bucks (though it looks like this is going back to 49.99?)

Or what happened to most franchises that EA got a hold of.

Dragon Age 2?

Stuff like that.

Basically people, I hope, are not worried that the CURRENT game will get or be ruined. They are worried that the profits will be so disproportionate that there will be no fiscal incentive to continue catering to the "hardcore" folks.

It's a genuine problem and the one that gets lost when folks just complain that they can't get how other people would 'like that sort of thing'.

I don't get Hostel films, but lots of folks like them, I just make the choice to not. Same for folks playing DS on easy. (Albeit I probably would, I don't have the time or desire to play a game that punches me in the asshole all day, but I do respect that the option is there).

wyldefire said:
And that, would ruin the series.
To you.

It wouldn't actually change anything to ADD optional features to any game.

When I was a kid folks had "easy" mode through devices like gameshark and game genie. These days those are nearly impossible to find or use, so now folks turn to developers actually catering to everyone if possible.

Just because you don't get it, or don't like it, doesn't mean its wrong. Also your opinions on art aren't objectively correct. What you feel is the DNA of this thing is not necessarily the case.

This isn't ACTUAL biology, you don't have a literal concrete string of data to pull from. This is an intepretation of an art.

A good example was Smash Brothers. Everyone I ever knew thought the game was about intense competition. The game dev thought it was about being retarded and tripping all over the place.

I disagree with his view, but that's just how it works. I feel one way, they feel another, and other people feel different further still.

That's the beauty of gaming, letting everyone interpret things as they wish. Especially when the modularity of those interpretations literally never impact you in any way whatsoever.

bringer of illumination said:
Hey, Hey Jim!

You DO know that games aren't made by magic right?

You DO know that creating easy modes takes time, right? Not every game can be made easier simply by adding more player health and making the enemies less durable, if the difficulty is execution based then it WILL take time out of development to put in a easy mode and as such provide less of the actual good game content that people want. A game that would provide a good example of this would be, oh I dunno, DARK SOULS.

Not a SINGLE person is complaining about just adding a mode where the player health is simply increased. Not. A. One.
Wouldn't what you said at the end be exactly what Easy Mode in Dark Souls would be >.>

Higher DPS and Higher Health...

I'm not aware of anything else you'd add that would be necessary. That's exactly what most games I've played do for easy modes, you become a walking tank and your enemies are paper dolls.
 

Elois

New member
Dec 10, 2012
32
0
0
Mortamus said:
Korten12 said:
And the game would be very medicore. I think people don't get that. Without the difficulty (which isn't that hard, just need to be patience), the would have nothing to stand out aside from being dark fantasy. The game on easy could be beaten in 5 hours to 7 hours tops. Hell on the current difficulty it can be beaten that fast.
This still wouldn't affect your play experience. As for it taking away from someone else's play experience in "not getting the full game", that is their decision and they can interpret how good the experience was on their own.

We're also assuming that this easy mode is going to be a severe reduction.
It would effect my play experiance, I posted why nearly right above your post.

An easy mode does affect me, it does alter the experience and it does matter. That is because Dark Souls isn't just a single player game, its multiplier is at the very core of the experience and its status as a niche game keeps the online community what it is. A community of like minded players who most of the time will stop when they see you, bow to you, you bow back then you fight to the death. When most video game online communities involve a bunch of swearing hyperactive 12 year olds the respect the average souls player has for the game and his opponents is an amazing and beautiful thing.

It used to be, if you got invaded in the kilin of the final flame it meant an opponent who had bested the hardest bosses, faced every challenge and was here to fight a good fight against a skilled opponent. Bowing was done, unwritten rules used to be followed, most importantly respectful skilled gameplay took place. Online over a video game, with strangers.

What does this have to do with an easy mode you ask? Well if you allow people to bypass a boss before learning how to play better they won't learn anything about how to control their characters. Dark Souls kinda has an easy mode, they are called Sunbros. Just summon one and they practically do the boss for you. Now what happens when you touch a summon sign and this warrior of sunlight throws 3 or 4 lightning bolts at the boss and takes out 90% of its health? The player learns NOTHING.

What happens when a player scoots by the harder bosses by summoning a much better player to do it for them? They end up in the kilin of the final flame with VASTLY better players and get killed in pvp because they can't play. A lot of players, instead of getting better at the game (because not getting better at it didn't stop them up till now) will resort to dirty fighting just to get a kill and feel better about themselves. We get people who try to gets hits in during the pre fight bow, we get people who resort to abusing lag to land back-stabs, people who spam fast casting aoe spells, people abusing broken combinations of equipment, but worst of all you get people with no respect for the game or the people who play it. People looking to get kills, not have fights.

Now I have no issue with as many people playing Dark souls as possible, but not at the expense of a unique community that is already on the down-slope. If a player is having trouble on a specific boss, I try my hardest to educate them. I show them the fight strategies on the wiki, I suggest optimal equipment setups, I inform them how all the stats work and why they are important, I try my damnedest to teach weaker players to fish instead of doing the fishing for them, or making the fishing easier. You know what I'm saying?

I would really hate to see the online community stagnate any more than it has.

Among other worries. Why can't a niche title stay a niche title? If people want a game for the story not the gameplay, why not play something that caters to that instead of trying to make niche games appeal to you?
 

theultimateend

New member
Nov 1, 2007
3,621
0
0
Elois said:
I would really hate to see the online community stagnate any more than it has.

Among other worries. Why can't a niche title stay a niche title? If people want a game for the story not the gameplay, why not play something that caters to that instead of trying to make niche games appeal to you?
...or you could disable the online for easy characters.

Just like achievements are disabled in games when you use cheats.

This isn't rocket science, and the precious "gem" that is this game wouldn't be "tainted".

PS. I've played both games a bit, I cared none at all for the online aspect. So losing that for "easy" wouldn't have bothered me, I imagine most folks like myself that just found it passingly interesting would not mind losing that either.
 

MisterShine

Him Diamond
Mar 9, 2010
1,133
0
0
erttheking said:
.. I really don't care about what difficulty you play on when it comes to most games, but Dark Souls is an exception, because the difficulty is the whole point of the matter..
I disagree. I've beaten Dark Souls several times now, and I think its a beautiful game with great art and atmosphere, and I think everyone who wants to experience it themselves should get the chance. Don't sell the game short my friend.

Rooster Cogburn said:
Why does EVERY game need to cater to this audience, or indeed to ANY particular audience?
And why shouldn't it include an easy mode? Because you don't think anyone could possibly appreciate the game in a different way than you do? Yeah, lets not throw around the 'absolutist' title.

For anyone who is willing to put aside their prejudices long enough to be informed about this topic:

I've watch that video, and in fact I've been a fan of ENB's work since before the game even came to America (he's what got me to buy the game in the first place)... and I have to say, both of you are completely wrong. Yeah, You, Me and ENB (and many other Dark Souls players) derive our enjoyment of the game from its difficulty and harshness. But that doesn't mean other people can't enjoy it in different ways, and that has no effect on how we play the game.

When I purchased the Prepare to Die edition several months back, I had already beaten the crap out of the PS3 version last year, but I also purchased a copy for a friend since he had seen me play it. However, try as he might, he just could not kill one of the earlier bosses. He tried and tried, but couldn't do it. He stopped playing for a week but then asked me if I knew any cheats, so I found him a trainer for the game and he played through like that. After a few nights with an invincibility hack he'd beaten the game, and he absolutely loved it. He gushed about the art direction and sound, and all the incredibly design boss fights and locales. It's a great game without the difficulty too. Now, would you and I and ENB (and others..) say he was missing a critical part of the game? Maybe so. But that doesn't matter, he enjoyed the game immensely in a different way.

Now, the only argument I have ever heard on this issue that holds even a drop of water with me is the "This is what the designers intended". For me, that's the trump card. If the designers feel the only way to experience their work is the one difficulty setting, well, that's their decision and I would stand by that. However, if for Dark Souls 2, they make an "easy" mode they feel is an acceptable addition new players or those who want a different kind of experience, I'm totally fine with that too. I don't think it would ruin my souls experience at all, or anyone else's for that matter. And if that just doesn't make any sense to you... well, I don't know what the hell is going on in your head.
 
Apr 24, 2008
3,912
0
0
I apparently missed this story entirely.

I have a little trouble believing that there will definitely be no possible knock-on effect of the series now being designed with casual or easy modes now a part of the consideration. The best stuff that gets made in creative mediums is developed with focus. You try to be all things to all people, and you're going to make compromises.

Dark Souls was awesome because it was so focused and uncompromising. I'm not saying this will end up being a problem, but I'm not convinced that it won't bite us on the ass a little further down the line.

The incinuation that it's only a problem because people don't want the series to gain popularity strikes me as childish, though I do appreciate that it's really convenient and easy to be able to assign people their motivations and beliefs before telling them why they're wrong.
 

Mortamus

The Talking Dead
May 18, 2012
147
0
0
Elois said:
It would effect my play experiance, I posted why nearly right above your post.

An easy mode does affect me, it does alter the experience and it does matter. That is because Dark Souls isn't just a single player game, its multiplier is at the very core of the experience and its status as a niche game keeps the online community what it is. A community of like minded players who most of the time will stop when they see you, bow to you, you bow back then you fight to the death. When most video game online communities involve a bunch of swearing hyperactive 12 year olds the respect the average souls player has for the game and his opponents is an amazing and beautiful thing.

It used to be, if you got invaded in the kilin of the final flame it meant an opponent who had bested the hardest bosses, faced every challenge and was here to fight a good fight against a skilled opponent. Bowing was done, unwritten rules used to be followed, most importantly respectful skilled gameplay took place. Online over a video game, with strangers.

What does this have to do with an easy mode you ask? Well if you allow people to bypass a boss before learning how to play better they won't learn anything about how to control their characters. Dark Souls kinda has an easy mode, they are called Sunbros. Just summon one and they practically do the boss for you. Now what happens when you touch a summon sign and this warrior of sunlight throws 3 or 4 lightning bolts at the boss and takes out 90% of its health? The player learns NOTHING.

What happens when a player scoots by the harder bosses by summoning a much better player to do it for them? They end up in the kilin of the final flame with VASTLY better players and get killed in pvp because they can't play. A lot of players, instead of getting better at the game (because not getting better at it didn't stop them up till now) will resort to dirty fighting just to get a kill and feel better about themselves. We get people who try to gets hits in during the pre fight bow, we get people who resort to abusing lag to land back-stabs, people who spam fast casting aoe spells, people abusing broken combinations of equipment, but worst of all you get people with no respect for the game or the people who play it. People looking to get kills, not have fights.

Now I have no issue with as many people playing Dark souls as possible, but not at the expense of a unique community that is already on the down-slope. If a player is having trouble on a specific boss, I try my hardest to educate them. I show them the fight strategies on the wiki, I suggest optimal equipment setups, I inform them how all the stats work and why they are important, I try my damnedest to teach weaker players to fish instead of doing the fishing for them, or making the fishing easier. You know what I'm saying?

I would really hate to see the online community stagnate any more than it has.

Among other worries. Why can't a niche title stay a niche title? If people want a game for the story not the gameplay, why not play something that caters to that instead of trying to make niche games appeal to you?
So you're worried that a broader audience will harm the community, and bring in the kind of player that depends on others to do the work for them?
 

Elois

New member
Dec 10, 2012
32
0
0
Mortamus said:
So you're worried that a broader audience will harm the community, and bring in the kind of player that depends on others to do the work for them?
Yes, basically. The difference in the community from Demons Souls to dark souls is basically because Dark Souls got way more advertising and brought in a broader playerbase. Along with the aforementioned fat that you can summon people to help you much more easily.

I want more people playing, don't get me wrong. I just want more people to develop the skills they need to play against people in the later parts of the game. Its no fun for anyone involved if you get people who (by no fault of their own) never learned to play in endgame pvp.

It breeds bad habits into players who should have learned essential skills.

theultimateend said:
Elois said:
I would really hate to see the online community stagnate any more than it has.

Among other worries. Why can't a niche title stay a niche title? If people want a game for the story not the gameplay, why not play something that caters to that instead of trying to make niche games appeal to you?
...or you could disable the online for easy characters.

Just like achievements are disabled in games when you use cheats.

This isn't rocket science, and the precious "gem" that is this game wouldn't be "tainted".

PS. I've played both games a bit, I cared none at all for the online aspect. So losing that for "easy" wouldn't have bothered me, I imagine most folks like myself that just found it passingly interesting would not mind losing that either.
If online mode was turned off I could see that working. People who enjoy the harsh game and the online aspects keep their game and people who don't can play for other reasons.

I really don't have an issue if they decided to do it like that.

Being able to invite people from your friends list into your world directly in the next game could solve most if not all of the multiplayer community issues as well, time will tell I guess.
 

Lunar Templar

New member
Sep 20, 2009
8,225
0
0
Jimothy Sterling said:
PREACH IT!!

I mean I don't get why adding an 'easy' mode, to a game is an issue, if there's an easy, there's a hard right? And if there's a hard mode, you and your "1337" skillz are free to frolic and play with the big nasty things.

But the 'elitism' has always been, and very likely will always be a problem in the gaming community which is sad really.
 

Aardvaarkman

I am the one who eats ants!
Jul 14, 2011
1,262
0
0
Next week in "Problems that are only Problems to a Very Small Minority of Privileged People", Jim addresses problems that are only problems to a very small minority of privileged people.
 

Mortamus

The Talking Dead
May 18, 2012
147
0
0
Mortrialus said:
Mortamus said:
So if I pay for the game at the same price you did, but I'm not able to make the same investment that you did in the content in terms of knowledge, then I shouldn't have access to all the content that I paid for?
In the case of Dark Souls specifically, yes. Gaining that knowledge base bit by bit quite literally IS the game in Dark Souls. Not everyone is going to enjoy every game. That is just a simple fact. The idea that every developer should make their games with the intention that everyone should enjoy the finished product is wrong, and isn't even if it was universally adopted isn't going to change that.

How is that any different than paying for a difficult, challenging book on philosophy? Not everyone is going to have the previous knowledge base required to understand the book and the ideas presented. Not everyone is going to be able to understand the concepts presented in the book. They will be missing out on the content of the books, the ideas presented in it, just like gamers who don't want to obtain the knowledge base required to complete Dark Souls will be.

I am not against modal difficulty in games. I am not against easy games in general. I am not saying every game needs to be crazy hard. I'm saying it depends on a case by case basis. What I am against is the absolutism presented in the video. To me it's like akin to demanding that every game include both first and third person modes, regardless of how the rest of the game is designed. Some games should only have 1st person modes. Some games should only have 3rd person modes. Some games should offer both. It depends entirely on how the game is designed.
I would agree with you...except for three things that really poke holes in your argument.

You say that gaining the knowledge is quite literally the game. From what I understand, that knowledge is gained through trial and error if you don't already have it, which still does not take away from the play experience.

You compared this by saying it's similar to a challenging philosophy book...except that one is designed to educate or enlighten, and the other is designed to be entertainment, and I don't feel that it's fair to say that one should be wholly invested in a product to get the full entertainment value it can provide. Some people do not have that much time to a commit to a game and should not be punished in order to experience it all. Especially with the number of new titles that are released these days. Yes, Dark Souls is meant to be a time invested and challenging game, and that's fine. However, that doesn't make a simpler version of it for those whom are unable to invest a bad thing for it. This comparison is rather weak in my honest opinion.

As well, it's not our place to deside whether or not a game should not have the option to play it in a different mode. If someone else gets a different experience than you, it does not make it a bad one. I personally always played Elder Scrolls in 1st person, but thoroughly enjoyed playing in 3rd person in Skyrim. The option had always been there, but it didn't work as well until this instalment, and I loved it for it. Did this harm the gameplay in the first person perspective? Not at all. Just like an easy mode of Dark Souls will not affect someone not looking to invest as much in it, but still would like a good experience. Nor will it affect those like us who want to play it as it was meant to be played.
 

TwiZtah

New member
Sep 22, 2011
301
0
0
IamLEAM1983 said:
TwiZtah said:
Easy modes are not the problem. The problem is that games are now designed for inept players, making the experienced players experience of the game extremely easy.

Far Cry 3 was ridiculously easy at Hard, because it was catered towards the casuals.
I'm sorry, give me a moment to recover from my spitting coffee all over my desk.

Ahem.

I played through FarCry 3 on Adventurer. It was *not* easy. The AI is nearly prescient, and the only way to survive is to play a constant game of duck-and-cover. After covering the north islands, LMGs become absolutely necessary as Heavies start to show up. Bringing anything else to a gunfight guarantees your death.

I've been playing games for about 25 years. I don't think I count as a "casual". I'm not particularly skilled, but assuming Hard is catered towards "casuals" is only proving the existence of the problem Sterling mentions in the video.
The AI is to say the least, stupid as a pile of rocks. They are easily exploited.

But my point still stands with many contemporary games, they design the games to be somewhat challenging for casuals/controllers, which makes them stupidly easy for veteran players.
 

Hyperone

New member
Nov 30, 2009
83
0
0
Here is my problem, games as a whole are getting easier. I am going back and playing old NES and SNES games and finding them brutal to all but the most damning of current gen games. To liken it to your book analogy, if you buy a book you can't understand, does that mean the writer needs to include footnotes explaining everything at kindergarten level for you? No, it's your fault for buying a book you couldn't read. Don't get me wrong, there have been a few games and a few modes I myself can't beat. Many J-RPG's on the hardest setting are nothing short of absolutely unfair and ridiculous (I am looking at you Resonance of Fate and Infinite Undiscovery), but that doesn't mean I sit and ask for an easy version or for the whole game to come down because I simply am not as skilled as those elite players who can beat those modes.
 

Random Argument Man

New member
May 21, 2008
6,011
0
0
Monxeroth said:
Really now Jim?
This is getting ridiculous even for you.
Most recent videos have been nothing but the same argument about varying things over and over again and its getting REALLY old.
Could you just please put some effort into a future video that isnt filled with your rambling about the same kind of bullshit argument i hear on a daily basis:
*Oh, it doesnt affect you, so why do you care?
*Oh, you already have access to what you want without being interfered by something else, so why do you care?
*Oh, this thing may or may not have a negative impact on the gaming community, but lets for argument sake say it doesnt, then why would you care?

I mean fucking hell Jim, youre a broken record by now.
Have you ever considered the other side of the matter that the controversies are broken records?

-WAH I'M PISSED FOR SOMETHING UNRELATED.
-WAH I'M PISSED BECAUSE OF THIS
-WAH IT WILL RUIN EVERYTHING!!!

But seriously, the Internet gaming controversies are pretty much some of the biggest whinefest for small reasons that exists... Jim responds to controversies or stupid decisions. If you've been on the Internet for a long while, you'll know that the former comes often.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
i prefer the halo method

"psst, psst

hey.... want the COOOL amror and ALL the points

...play a harder mode, it can be fun."


basically as long as i get a better stuff out if , i don't care if there is an easy mode, some cases i don't but in many cases i do, so i don't mind easy mode, as long as the game isn't hard because of bad game design

ninja guiden..

speaking of hard modes, i think gta needs one well a harder one, though i love them there gets to be a point in gta where the only reason the mission is hard for me is because i have to chase someone in a vehicle or there a bunch of dudes with guns
i canNOT see, other wise i can get though the game with a medium amount of skill

i propose a gta hard mode where you have more health and police act more like police, forcing you to be smart and if you wanna be dumb your gonna have to work for it.
 

Canadish

New member
Jul 15, 2010
675
0
0
theultimateend said:
Maybe if I include enough "buzzwords" and use enough "quotation marks" people will "listen" to what I have to say...
Come on man, this ain't Reddit/Tumblr.

Anyway, in relation to the original video;

I can see what Jim is saying and where he's coming from, but he's over-simplifying the issue and ignoring (or not understanding) the other factors that play into something like this. Difficulty is a massive job for a dev team to measure correctly and takes time and resources away from other areas. Some games can just change the numbers under the hood, but the Souls series difficultly often comes from the environment or the attack patterns of the enemy. Many of the fights in the game rely on the devastating power of the enemies for them to work as intended.
If the developers go in with easy mode in mind, it's going to encourage them to try make their lives easier later my making everything adjustable by the numbers like every other RPG, and then it's not Souls anymore.
And aside from that, it's at the very...er...soul....of the game. It's part of the experience. A casual player might get the content, sure, but it won't be much fun for them.

It's really not a matter of elitism for most Souls fans, those guys just seem the loudest because people focus on negative. The truth is, there isn't anything to be elitist about with Dark Souls, other then the fact it's a very well designed action-RPG.
The truth is, Dark Souls really just isn't that hard, it just requires the right mindset going into it.
Image related, slightly large.

It's not game to relax to, it's a game to sit up and get focused and tense at. Not all games need to be brain-candy, if you want that you've already got a HUGE selection out there.
I admit, I find Skyrim more difficult then bloody Dark Souls. I just like how the Souls titles make take all my actions into serious consideration, and I think most "casuals" could/would as well. In my experience, once someone gets the feel of it, they carry right on and end up loving it.

The game's big flaw is the utterly shite tutorial and the fact it doesn't explain what any of the stats do in any detail. It seems to me this is where all the difficultly comes from.
That, or because people keep going to the cemetery and trying to fight the skeletons until the give up, rather then step back and think about trying another direction. But even that isn't their fault, they've just been trained by modern games to follow the most obvious route and follow the corridors.

So, in my books, 0 votes for an easy mode, 1 point to a better tutorial. That is how you make something accessible, you don't assume the worst in your customers and dumb it down.
 

mjc0961

YOU'RE a pie chart.
Nov 30, 2009
3,847
0
0
Another one was Mass Effect 3. OMGZ HOW DARE IT HAVE A NARRATIVE MODE!!! Yet nobody could explained to me why I should be as butthurt as they were. I was content to just ignore it and play on Hard/Insanity/whatever. Just because it's in the game doesn't mean you have to use it guys. And what's with nonsense like this:

getoffmycloud said:
My issue with the dark souls easy mode is what is the point in even playing it. It would be like playing LA noire with all the interrogations taken out.
Excuse me, but who the hell are you to dictate how other people enjoy their entertainment? Who the hell are ANY of you people to dictate how other people enjoy their entertainment? I'm seeing a lot of snobby, stuck-up comments like the one I quoted all over this thread, and my message to these people... would get me modded, so I won't actually say it, but the polite version is stop it. Other people enjoying a game in a different way than you did doesn't change how much you enjoy the game with your "hardcorez" settings. For fuck's sake, get over yourselves. You all thoroughly disgust me.

TwiZtah said:
Easy modes are not the problem. The problem is that games are now designed for inept players, making the experienced players experience of the game extremely easy.

Far Cry 3 was ridiculously easy at Hard, because it was catered towards the casuals.
No, Far Cry 3 was ridiculously easy at Hard because the developers fucked up. Easy mode is there to cater to the casuals, Hard mode is supposed to be hard. If Hard mode isn't hard, that's not the fault of Easy mode or casuals, it's the fault of developers who did a shitty job of making their Hard mode actually hard.

burningdragoon said:
It's not that games shouldn't have an easy mode, it's that "there being an easy mode won't effect your experience/normal mode" is not a guarantee. If easy mode is tacked on as an afterthought, maybe it won't. If it's designed for easy mode and scaled up for harder modes, then it will, because increasing difficulty should be more than just changing a few variables to a higher number.
And once again, those instances are the fault of the developer, not the casuals. They made the game incorrectly and THEY should be the ones getting bashed by teh hardcorez gamerz, not the casuals.

[hr]

Anyway, 5 episodes next week? Thank god for you indeed, Jim! I look forward to seeing what 4 games are covered on Monday through Thursday before The Walking Dead's Friday episode.
 

Elois

New member
Dec 10, 2012
32
0
0
Quite a few people may not care much for the online aspect and just want an easy trip to the lore and story and I can sorta get behind that.

It must be kept in mind that the souls series is not just a hardcore action rpg for hardcore fans, its a hardcore action rpg that hardcore fans can play together against other hardcore fans. Its a niche game that lets niche fans play together and that nearly never happens anymore.

The games difficulty is integral to the social aspect of it. A hugely important factor that has bonded its players together. I've meet so many people in this game and had so many experiences because of it.

I've invaded and been invaded by a lot of players who sent me a message congratulating me for the victory, telling me it was a good fight when I lost, asking me where one of my weapons or hard to get spells they saw me use could be found. I was once invaded and killed feet away from a boss gate, asked that same player for assistance on said boss and received it. I've made friends this way. I've made friends on an online game after brutally getting killed by these people or killing them in their worlds.

This is totally unlike the random people you meet on Xbox live's other multiplayer games. Good people play souls games, I don't want to see that become like call of duty's multiplayer. Filled with hyperactive swearing kids.

If easy mode turned off the multiplayer this would sort of make the above a moot point, but I still would rather people just got better so more people could hang out at the top.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Mortrialus said:
snip

jehk said:
Who are you to say "what's the point" for other people?
For Dark Souls specifically; the stated goals the developer had when creating the game.
>implying that people care that you place that much value you in the game

>implying that some guy on the internet should dictate who values what in the game

>implying that people will give a damn


and i believe i have won
 

BreakfastMan

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
4,368
0
0
erttheking said:
jehk said:
getoffmycloud said:
My issue with the dark souls easy mode is what is the point in even playing it. It would be like playing LA noire with all the interrogations taken out.
Who are you to say "what's the point" for other people?
I think it's safe to say that the point of a game with the tagline "prepare to die" is to be hard. Just my two cents.
So, people can't enjoy the game for reasons other than it's difficulty?

OT:
I agree with jim, and have argued as such on these forums before. About all I have to say about that...
 

mjc0961

YOU'RE a pie chart.
Nov 30, 2009
3,847
0
0
MB202 said:
See, this is why I WASN'T one of the guys who got up in arms about an easy mode in Mega Man 10. Mega Man is fucking hard, and I don't want to risk strangling myself in frustration when there's an easier option. I mean, there are many different levels a game can be played. Like some people try playing the original Zelda without using the sword. Who's to say we can't do something similar with modern games; having the option of both easier to play games for everyone and harder to play games for experts wanting to test their mettle.
Fucking casuals grabbing the sword! There shouldn't even BE a sword in Zelda, god damn casuals dumbed the game down!

More like god damn "hardcorez" gamers forgetting that they CAN do things like this. Another example, OH NOEZ LITTLEBIGPLANET ADDED INFINITE RESPAWN CHECKPOINTS, DUMBED DOWN DUMBED DOWN!!!! Hey idiots, you do know you can always quit back to the pod and restart the entire level from the start if you still WANT that challenge in your game, right? Nobody is forcing you to respawn infinitely, you're choosing to and then bitching about something YOU chose to do.

As much as I hated hearing about Nuzlocke runs in Pokemon for a while when it became popular, at least the Pokemon community was intelligent enough to find more challenge in their game since that's what they wanted. And that's supposed to be a "kiddie" game according to teh hardcorez. I guess the kiddies are smarter than you, hardcorez gamers! What are you going to do about it? ... ***** some more? K.
 

Havoc Himself

New member
Dec 21, 2010
35
0
0
This video honestly made me frustrated. Not because I'm against an easy mode in video games or I'm against casual players but because I am subscribed to a guy on Youtube named Epic Name Bro who already talked about this and he did it a lot better than you as far as the idea of an easy mode in Dark Souls. I'll paraphrase a little bit from him, the idea worried him because of a few problems it might cause for the overall game. First off would be the issue with multiplayer and balancing. Would someone who played the game on the new easy mode and someone who played on the harder difficulty get the same type of gear? If they did then it would be somewhat unfair to the player on the harder difficulty as they are higher skilled and completed a more impressive feat but at the same time the casual player paid the same amount of money so would they not be entitled to balanced multiplayer? From Software could always just take the multiplayer out but that would be a shame as the multiplayer in the souls series is really unique and pretty damn fun.
As for the super mario bit I was kind of confused, why are you comparing Dark Souls to Mario? One is a platformer and the other an ARPG. The people who play them are completely different and the reasons you play them are completely different. Last thing I guess is just trust the developers, if they decide to add in an easier difficulty then it's their decision and it shouldn't be that bad. It's if they don't implement the difficulty in a way that works that you should start to get pissed off.
Anyway that is my (sort of)rant, keep doing what you do Jim Sterling. You are usually pretty awesome.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
poiumty said:
Jim, I feel you're misunderstanding the issue in the case of Dark Souls.

Disclaimer: I am fully in favor of optional difficulty modes for any game that doesn't rely on challenge as a core game mechanic. Any game that allows you to quicksave, has checkpoints, doesn't use death as a learning experience, uses gameplay as a means to tell the story etcetc. would benefit from as many optional dificulty modes as possible.

THAT SAID. Dark Souls isn't any of those. The core function of Dark Souls is engagement: to activate your brain, to make you think of cunning ways to bypass situations, to see all the game has to offer and use it, to experiment and create your own setups for an optimal gameplay style. When engaged, the game is easy: you can summon someone to guide you all the way through the level including the boss. You can be effectively walked through by signs on the ground with a big enough community. You can take your time and get a few extra resources that will allow you to upgrade your items and make your life that much easier. It's only when you want to casually smack the puny monsters with your Giant Sword of Overcompensating without paying attention to what's going on that the game gets punishingly hard even if you're played the game a few times already and know all of its tricks. Engagement is the reason Dark Souls is a good game, and without it it would just be an average game with a crappy storyline and a broad array of useless combat mechanics. Because you're not paying attention to details, you're just using the same combat style you're used to, you're not adapting, you're not thinking. And you're not practicing.
An easy mode takes away the satisfaction of overcoming a difficult challenge and the core function that the game is designed around. Other games, like Devil May Cry 3, can have their selectable difficulty modes. I disagree in Dark Souls' case.

your implying that other people will care about whatyou think about how dark souls works


and this is why jim is right

no one gives a damn about you playing through the game the way you played, NO ONE
and no one will give a damn when there is an easy mode

no one cares
 

Elois

New member
Dec 10, 2012
32
0
0
The Tall Nerd said:
>implying that people care that you place that much value you in the game

>implying that some guy on the internet should dictate who values what in the game

>implying that people will give a damn


and i believe i have won
See what I mean? Right here^

"People just shouldn't care that much about games" Is a terrible argument.

Saying "people don't give a crap" and declaring victory is an amazing display of childishness.

This immaturity is nothing the community needs if its what we are gonna get if easy mode goes in.
 

getoffmycloud

New member
Jun 13, 2011
440
0
0
getoffmycloud said:
My issue with the dark souls easy mode is what is the point in even playing it. It would be like playing LA noire with all the interrogations taken out.
mjc0961 said:
Excuse me, but who the hell are you to dictate how other people enjoy their entertainment? Who the hell are ANY of you people to dictate how other people enjoy their entertainment? I'm seeing a lot of snobby, stuck-up comments like the one I quoted all over this thread, and my message to these people... would get me modded, so I won't actually say it, but the polite version is stop it. Other people enjoying a game in a different way than you did doesn't change how much you enjoy the game with your "hardcorez" settings. For fuck's sake, get over yourselves. You all thoroughly disgust me.
Ok I am not saying that I should dictate how people play or that new people shouldn't start gaming cause I am all for that I am saying they are not going to get a good impression of games we all think are awesome if you start ripping out what made us all love the games in the first place like the difficulty in Dark souls. If you start doing that then you are going to put people off gaming.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
deathzero021 said:
Now i agree with optional modes being OK. they don't annoy me because they don't effect my experience. i also don't mind games trying to widen the audience a little.

however i also believe that it's gone WAY too far. It's come to the point where sequels of a franchise no longer have ANYTHING in common with the initial titles of the series. It's so bad that gameplay mechanics have become simpler and less enjoyable as well, or changed altogether giving a completely different experience than what the experienced players want.

So why is this a problem? because this isn't opening the doors for everyone to play, this is kicking out the current players and bringing in a larger and easier to market demographic in are place. It's replacing us. This is happening because it's easier to appeal to the casual market and it makes more money. Takes less work, it's a big win for them, and a huge loss for old school gamers.

This is why i barely like most games today. They're too simple, too easy and provide no real challenge or excitement at all. They are not engaging in the way that i enjoy, such as actually having to learn a new system and master it to play the game effectively.

Now it isn't all bad, there are SOME games that provide good options for both demographics, however MOST games don't do this well. It's not as simple as adding Hard mode and Easy mode to a game.

The game has to be completely re-designed for each mode. Simply changing the HP of the enemies or their ATK isn't enough. that doesn't provide more challenge for the hardcore gamers. The simple AI and weak level design are still boring to an experienced player like myself. Want an example? Darksiders on Hard mode is still a very easy game. The patterns, AI and level design does not change at all, it still reflects that "wide demographic" style of Easy mode. So basically the game was not made with experienced gamers in mind and the Hard mode was lazily slapped in the at the last second.

To summarize my over-sized post:
i think it's a great idea to try and appeal to a larger audience BUT it should never come at the cost of losing your fanbase.
to do what you said, a video game would have to take the hard mode out
or make everything easy.

so i think your going need
ALOT of citations

because if you leave a franchise because other people can play it now
you were never a fan to begin with, unless they are literally ruining(changing in a way that you dont enjoy , or a large number of people) it, for example if DmC becomes a franchise, im out like a trout
 

skywolfblue

New member
Jul 17, 2011
1,514
0
0
Well said Jim, well said.

Penguin_Factory said:
The thing that bothers me most about "dumbing down" complaints is when people ***** and moan about *optional features* implemented to ease new players into a game. In these cases the real concern isn't preserving the integrity of games but excluding certain people from playing them.
This in particular. "There is the "Option" to do it easy? WAAAAA RUINING MY HARDCORE EXPERIENCE!"

You know I never see Bayonetta mentioned in any of these difficulty discussions, it really does deserve bringing up. Bayonetta on the harder modes is a challenge enthusiasts dream come true. Bayonetta on super easy mode is easy enough for "filthy casuals" like me. The latter doesn't "destroy" or lessen the former.
 

barinelg

New member
Apr 9, 2010
24
0
0
Well made video Jim, and very good points.

One of the things I find interesting is that gamers mostly do not want to be patronized about their hobby, but tend to alienate those who don't fit into the elitist status of the hardcore. Take this comic on Dorkly for example (http://www.dorkly.com/comic/46874/female-fantasy-iii). It's along the same mentality. "I want someone to indulge and accept my hobby, but you /obviously/ don't know your stuff, so why are you wasting my time?" (Yes, a bit of a gross generalization, but if you strip it to the core concept, they relate). If the casual gamer wants to ease into these more hardcore games, why not give them stepping stools? They could ease up to where they could be on the same level as other gamers, but they aren't going to start there.

Along with that, many of us who frequent gaming sites and play such games have been playing video games since we were young, or more frequently than others. To say that a brand new gamer should "play at our level" is not only off-putting for a new person, but simply a negative thing for the view of gamers themselves. It helps keep the potential for acceptance at a distance.

Now should every single game out there have difficulty settings? No, but if they include the option, or options to help the player out (such as the features Jim pointed out for the NSMB games), then it's fine as they are just that: options. The Easy Mode outcry would have been 100% justifiable if it was the only difficulty that they were patching in, but instead they were giving new, curious players something that they could step into the Dark Souls world and experience it. Also, if that player played on easy and became better, they could amp it up to hard. This could provide the player a great comparison of how they've grown in skill as a video game player, and further encourage them to play harder games.

I've seen where the concern is that, nowadays, Hard and Very Hard are now too easy. A valid concern to have. But maybe it's that system that needs to be tweaked. I know early games had 3 settings (sometimes only 2!):
Easy, Normal, Hard
We then later saw things along the lines of:
Very Easy, Easy, Normal, Hard, Very Hard
This evolution of options allowed for better tweaking of difficulty so the player could choose how hard they wanted the game. We even saw another evolution of this in Kid Icarus: Uprising, where the intensity was on a slider from 0.1 to 9.0. Maybe such an option should be incorporated into more games, where the dead center is exactly what you think it is: not too hard, but not too easy. It can be hard for a developer to really know where the starting point should be, but giving the option to the player to fine-tune the difficulty is the best choice if you're opening it up to a bigger audience.

This could also be a bad thing where a person on easy gains some form of competitive edge in multiplayer than a person on hard. There are ways around it, but developers should be mindful of this should such a situation like this could exist in their game.

These days I like having the option for the fact that I have so many games I want to play that I don't have the time to play them on a harder difficulty (like I used to do). The easier difficulties allow me to experience the content without spending too much time stuck in certain areas. So many games, so little time.

Lastly, more players means more sales, which can mean sequels to your favorite games. Video games are a business, after all.

So in short, we shouldn't have every single game with this option and finding a good balance when having the options will be difficult, but by giving more players the ability to work up to the "elite" level, we gain more people that we can share our passion with. Outside of the few bad seeds we'll get with it, I'm ok with that. :)

Thanks for reading my rant on this!
 

Zeckt

New member
Nov 10, 2010
1,085
0
0
You make some sense but there is the trend in games that hurt themselves by dumbing down WAY too much case in point ff 13. The first 3 hours you can win all the fights simply by pressing one button and have no exploration or danger of getting lost. Oh trust me, the challenge and exploration is eventually there for those who want it in alot of the later marks that will have you swearing at the screen but you have to slog through SO much handholding before you get to the challenging bits.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
16,864
838
118
sindremaster said:
Casual Shinji said:
I'm sure this post will bite me in the ass, but the last few episodes of Jimquisition have been nothing but "You gamers are upset about something; How dare you, you whiny little bastards." I'm sorry, but it's starting to get a bit condescending.
To be fair, judging by what gamers get upset by, most of us are whiny little bastards.
And you might've wanted to play Dark Souls first before stating that adding an easy mode wouldn't matter. It's easy to generalize everyone in the "no easy mode" camp as bitchy, hardcore elitists.
I'm pretty sure he has played it.
And everyone in the no easy mode camp are bitchy hardcore elitists. It's optional there is no reason to not want it, other than hating the idea that someone can play through it without being awesome at games. Which is pretty much the definition of bitchy hardcore elitists.
I clearly heard him say in the video that he didn't play it. And way to generalize yourself there, pal.

It's not about not wanting "filthy casuals" to play the game, it's about taking away the uncompromizing nature of the game.
 

bunji

New member
Nov 14, 2010
70
0
0
No a easy mode would ruin Dark Soul's, what's the point in trying your hardest when you can just skip it down to easy and roll through it? And it doesn't encourage gamers to become better players by constantly handing them an easy out, for scrubs.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
The Tall Nerd said:
your implying that other people will care about whatyou think about how dark souls works


and this is why jim is right

no one gives a damn about you playing through the game the way you played, NO ONE
and no one will give a damn when there is an easy mode

no one cares
Oh I do think the developers care about their intended experience. And this is why they didn't add an easy mode to dark souls.

AND THIS IS WHY JIM IS WROOOOOOOOOONG! Do I win the internet argument now, or what? EPIC BURN, SEE YA!
 

Starik20X6

New member
Oct 28, 2009
1,685
0
0
The way I see it, games have gotten easier over time for two main reasons:

1) You've gotten better at them. Having played almost every Zelda game, being able to read the environments and enemy patterns has become virtually second nature to me. But hand the controller to somebody who hasn't played them and they'll have a tricky time. It's like Usain Bolt complaining that the race he was in was too easy; well of course it was because he's the best at running.

2) Games were harder back in the day because it was the only way to keep you playing. The limited memory available on old consoles meant the games couldn't be too massive, so in order to pad out the gameplay the games were made nigh on impossible to beat. Now we have infinitely more space to work with than we did, so games can provide more actual content instead of just beating us to death with their difficulty.
 

Karma168

New member
Nov 7, 2010
541
0
0
I can relate to this from both sides:

My favourite game series is the Jak and Daxter series. There is a mission in Jak 2 where you have to run a constant gauntlet of enemies on narrow walkways with insta-death if you fell off. No healthkits no checkpoints, hundreds of troops and dozens of gunships that can shoot you from miles away. It took me ages to get past that bit and it drove me nuts, though once I got there I *may* have done a little victory dance. If a games too easy people never get that feeling.

However if a games too hard before you get invested (for example the above mission was roughly half way through) you'll just rage-quit and return the game. Bought a jrpg (forget the name) and the very first fucking enemy after leaving the starting city had me beat, I could not beat this mission no matter what I tried, I was dead inside a turn. Gave up and returned it (was a preowned copy so didn't lose much money)
 

Shuguard

New member
Apr 19, 2012
244
0
0
I will disagree Jim, I don't think just because you payed for something there should be an easy-mode. I have two examples. In the past lets say star fox 64, there are two difficulties: Normal and Expert. I have never seen anyone ever complain about how star fox 64 or old n64 console games needed an easy mode. Now i know both difficulties are different from dark souls and star fox 64, but are they? Both are about recognizing patterns and understanding how to get from point A to point B(safely) and beating a boss(who may or may not kill you multiple times and you have to go back to the checkpoint).
In other words the same exact concept.

Now you made a point about literature(exploding words) or movies(pausing till a quiz is finished). Now here is my counter argument to this. Now if i bought a book written by Steven Hawkings or from someone who is difficult to understand, can i beg the author to write it in an easier way for me to read? The answer is no and never. Just because someone purchases something does not entitle someone to easy-mode. Consumers need to be educated on what they are buying. They are entitled to the product and it's content, but if they didn't know what they were buying in the first place then they deserve to feel bad.

Taking the difficulty out of dark souls would cause the game to lose it's appeal. The game wasn't catered to casuals or easy-moders. Let the hardcore crowd have their game.
 

ARKSgtAlpha

New member
Jul 16, 2009
52
0
0
Wow.. you went there, and not only made "hardcore" gamers complaining seem silly, you made opposition to gay marriage seem just as trivial... Nice.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,846
1
3
Country
United States
BreakfastMan said:
erttheking said:
jehk said:
getoffmycloud said:
My issue with the dark souls easy mode is what is the point in even playing it. It would be like playing LA noire with all the interrogations taken out.
Who are you to say "what's the point" for other people?
I think it's safe to say that the point of a game with the tagline "prepare to die" is to be hard. Just my two cents.
So, people can't enjoy the game for reasons other than it's difficulty?

OT:
I agree with jim, and have argued as such on these forums before. About all I have to say about that...
I'm just saying that it's tearing out a key component of the game.
 

Mythmaker

New member
Nov 28, 2012
20
0
0
It isn't "easy modes" that should be getting people up-in-arms. It's what they've done in NSMBU that should be getting this attention.

If they want to give you the option to make the game insultingly easy, that's one thing. But letting the game play itself while you watch completely defeats the purpose. Someone who partakes of that option isn't allowing them access to content they might otherwise have been denied, they are simply denying themselves content to give themselves the illusion of progress. It's the completely wrong way to go about it, and this is a blatant example of what happens when you dumb down content to make it "accessible." It'd be like watching a scary movie, and having a warning appear in the corner before every scare, or a mystery novel telling you to skip to the end.

This is the real threat, because it doesn't make games accessible, it destroys what makes them games in the first place.
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
skywolfblue said:
sindremaster said:
mjc0961 said:
Lunar Templar said:
MisterShine said:
theultimateend said:
orangeapples said:
Mortamus said:
OMG! I am literally about to rip out my hair, the ignorance in this thread is just amazing. Dark Souls isn't hard because the enemies have too high health or do too much damage, it's not because you do too little damage nor is it difficult because of too low health.

It's difficult because of LEVEL FUCKING DESIGN. In Dark Souls the levels are crafted to be difficult, but possible, in easy mode they would have to change this to be, not difficult and possible. In Dark Souls there are parts where even with more health and damage, it would still be brutually difficult because it has careful placing of enemies spots, traps, and overall just where things are placed.

They would have to redesign all enemies and levels to be easy enough for a casual player to do it. Trying to then apply that to the normal mode it would be way to easy. What allows the quality of the levels to be as good as they're is that they don't have to worry about designing it for multiple difficulties. Games with multiple difficulties usually don't have levels that are built for any specific difficulty but built for ALL difficulties.

That's what makes Dark Soul's unique, it's built from the ground up to be hard, so it's all possible, and difficult at the same time. Enemies don't have a lot of health (some do, but mostly optional enemies), but are placed in the right spots to make it difficult.

The Souls series rewards CAREFUL PLAY and not Reckless play. Apparently people don't understand this and think it's all about Health and Damage when it's not. Bosses usually don't even have that much health, but they all have staredgy's on how to easily beat them.

So yes, Easy Mode would dumb it down by making the levels having to account for both difficulties. Same for bosses and enemies.

This is why fans of the Dark Souls series don't want multiple difficulties because it WOULD suffer.
 

empirialtank

New member
Jan 22, 2010
72
0
0
I have seen the future of reality television and it is hosted by mutant carrot men!

OT: Personally when i play games i usually play them on easy, because i like to play games to hear the story and have some fun interaction along the way, but i must say that my favorite games are the ones which don't give you a choice of difficulty like TF2 or KOTOR. I think the goal of a developers shouldn't be to make a game that only the best can beat or so easy that any lobotomized howler monkey can beat, but a game that has been made so well that the developers know by the time you reach a certain part in the story you're ready for whatever they throw at you, or a game that can scale itself to the level that the player seems to be at. A game that can scale back for a newb or ramp up for the 1337.
 

BreakfastMan

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
4,368
0
0
erttheking said:
BreakfastMan said:
erttheking said:
jehk said:
getoffmycloud said:
My issue with the dark souls easy mode is what is the point in even playing it. It would be like playing LA noire with all the interrogations taken out.
Who are you to say "what's the point" for other people?
I think it's safe to say that the point of a game with the tagline "prepare to die" is to be hard. Just my two cents.
So, people can't enjoy the game for reasons other than it's difficulty?

OT:
I agree with jim, and have argued as such on these forums before. About all I have to say about that...
I'm just saying that it's tearing out a key component of the game.
I honestly don't really consider it as such. The difficulty seems complimentary more than anything, like bad controls in Silent Hill. It serves it's purpose, but I don't think the game would be directionless if it was less hard. But then again, I think of the game much differently than others, it seems...
 

BreakfastMan

Scandinavian Jawbreaker
Jul 22, 2010
4,368
0
0
empirialtank said:
I have seen the future of reality television and it is hosted by mutant carrot men!

OT: Personally when i play games i usually play them on easy, because i like to play games to hear the story and have some fun interaction along the way, but i must say that my favorite games are the ones which don't give you a choice of difficulty like TF2 or KOTOR.
KOTOR actually does. If you go into the options menu, you can adjust combat difficulty. By default it is set to medium, but it also has easy and hard modes as well. :p
 

Mortrialus

New member
Jan 23, 2010
55
0
0
The Tall Nerd said:
Mortrialus said:
snip

jehk said:
Who are you to say "what's the point" for other people?
For Dark Souls specifically; the stated goals the developer had when creating the game.
>implying that people care that you place that much value you in the game

>implying that some guy on the internet should dictate who values what in the game

>implying that people will give a damn


and i believe i have won
I'm pretty sure Hideki Miyazaki and the rest of the team behind Dark Souls aren't "some random guy on the internet."

HM:I personally want my games to be described as satisfying rather than difficult. As a matter of fact, I am aiming at giving players sense of accomplishment in the use of difficulty.
http://metro.co.uk/2012/08/29/dark-souls-interview-hard-master-556118/

Miyazaki: Advice, huh? *laughs* Well, it is a difficult game. We aren?t apologizing for that. You?re going to die often. But keep at it! The level of accomplishment and the level of satisfaction that you?ll get from completing a particularly daunting challenge is going to be that much greater. It?s something the PS3 crowd has already been through, so hopefully the 360 players will find similar enjoyment in the challenge. Just don?t throw your controller too much! Those things get expensive. *laughs* Don?t give up and aim for that satisfaction in your victory!
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/716777/dark-souls-an-interview-with-hidetaka-miyazaki/

We're talking authorial intent here. This isn't just my opinion.
 

Rooster Cogburn

New member
May 24, 2008
1,637
0
0
MisterShine said:
Rooster Cogburn said:
Why does EVERY game need to cater to this audience, or indeed to ANY particular audience?
And why shouldn't it include an easy mode?
If you're not going to read my posts then don't quote me.
Because you don't think anyone could possibly appreciate the game in a different way than you do?
That does not follow logically from anything that I said. It's also a silly argument. You might as well say "I like elephants so Dark Souls should have a trunk".
Yeah, lets not throw around the 'absolutist' title.
Mr. Sterling's attitude on this topic is the very definition of absolutist. "I know everything about how every game should be, I have nothing new to learn, I am not willing to consider an alternative view. There is an incredibly specific mindset and feature set that EVERY game should have, and if you disagree you're a ****. Meah." You seem to be trying to cram having any opinion about how a particular game should be into the definition of "absolutist" so you can throw it back at me, but it's not working.

MisterShine said:
I've watch that video, and in fact I've been a fan of ENB's work since before the game even came to America (he's what got me to buy the game in the first place)... and I have to say, both of you are completely wrong. Yeah, You, Me and ENB (and many other Dark Souls players) derive our enjoyment of the game from its difficulty and harshness. But that doesn't mean other people can't enjoy it in different ways,
People like ponies, let's turn Dark Souls into a pony
and that has no effect on how we play the game.
That is factually incorrect. I'm sure what you mean is it shouldn't effect how we play, and I would probably agree with you in any other case.

When I purchased the Prepare to Die edition several months back, I had already beaten the crap out of the PS3 version last year, but I also purchased a copy for a friend since he had seen me play it. However, try as he might, he just could not kill one of the earlier bosses. He tried and tried, but couldn't do it. He stopped playing for a week but then asked me if I knew any cheats, so I found him a trainer for the game and he played through like that. After a few nights with an invincibility hack he'd beaten the game, and he absolutely loved it. He gushed about the art direction and sound, and all the incredibly design boss fights and locales. It's a great game without the difficulty too. Now, would you and I and ENB (and others..) say he was missing a critical part of the game? Maybe so. But that doesn't matter, he enjoyed the game immensely in a different way.
Good for him, I don't begrudge him that. But he didn't play a game so much as listen to the soundtrack and look at the art book. He doesn't need an easy mode to accomplish that, as you have demonstrated.

Now, the only argument I have ever heard on this issue that holds even a drop of water with me is the "This is what the designers intended". For me, that's the trump card. If the designers feel the only way to experience their work is the one difficulty setting, well, that's their decision and I would stand by that.
I don't understand this viewpoint at all. Surely its merit as a work of art is one million times more important then the developer's intentions for its merit as a work of art?! Maybe I'm taking you too literally, here. But it's merit that counts, and that is what Dark Souls has in spades. It's a work of art with a message and themes and goals. People who see it as a mere product will never understand why those who are passionate about it hold certain opinions. I don't really care about it being "their decision" except to the extent it brings me a greater work of art. I think Dark Souls should not have easy mode because it undermines the game's artistic messages and themes, among other things.

What you're doing is like saying Young Frankenstein should be colorized because people like color, and color is an obvious added value and utility. What you are ignoring is the artistic statement you can make by not having color, and the themes and goals that are supported and reaffirmed by that choice. The very fact of NOT having color is an artistic statement. The very fact of NOT having an easy mode is an artistic statement, in addition to the more practical reasons for excluding it.

Jim Sterling, on the other hand, has been nothing short of AGGRESSIVE in demolishing the concept of games as art and judging them as products with a task to perform only. This is another perfect example. I don't think he realizes he is having that effect, however. He thinks he wants to view games as art but, like Yahtzee, he shrinks when actually given the chance to examine a game as if it were art. He just hasn't thought it completely through. Fill a game full of obnoxious, pretensions bullshit that resembles artsy things on a superficial level and they defend it to the death. Give them the real McCoy and they don't know what they're even looking at.
However, if for Dark Souls 2, they make an "easy" mode they feel is an acceptable addition new players or those who want a different kind of experience, I'm totally fine with that too. I don't think it would ruin my souls experience at all, or anyone else's for that matter. And if that just doesn't make any sense to you... well, I don't know what the hell is going on in your head.
You are persistent in this straw man that I don't want easy mode because of how it effects OTHER people. You have ignored everything I have said about how it effects ME. We cannot have a meaningful discussion about this if you are unwilling to even hear my side. Obviously having another game that is just like all their other games would be wonderful for people who want an easy mode, but in this case I think it is only reasonable to keep the Dark Souls experience intact for the people who enjoy it as it is and can't get the same experience anywhere else.

But I don't think this kind of game can survive in the long run. I will constantly be anticipating its ruin. Anything that is even slightly off the beaten path is hunted down and executed, as you can plainly see happening right here.

How the fuck am I the bad guy in this? Easy mode lovers can play anything in the world. I wish they would play Dark Souls too, but if they can't, won't they at least leave it alone for my enjoyment? How come they get everything and I get nothing? That is not fair.

Dark Souls fans: hated, feared, maligned, misunderstood.
 

burningdragoon

Warrior without Weapons
Jul 27, 2009
1,935
0
0
Guys guys guys, can we please move the easy mode discussion away from "yes or no" and onto "how to implement it in ways other than the distinct, modal settings"? The worst thing to do for this subject is to give the impression that having Easy/Normal/Hard settings is the only way to do it. Because it's not.
 

stef1987

New member
Jan 11, 2011
43
0
0
burningdragoon said:
It's not that games shouldn't have an easy mode, it's that "there being an easy mode won't effect your experience/normal mode" is not a guarantee. If easy mode is tacked on as an afterthought, maybe it won't. If it's designed for easy mode and scaled up for harder modes, then it will, because increasing difficulty should be more than just changing a few variables to a higher number.
Exactly.

Look, I don't mind that any game has an easy mode, or a super easy mode,
as long as the mode I choose is a proper developed mode.
So not like Ratchet&Clank Deadlocked, which was the only game of the franchise that had a hard mode that was actually hard. But, unfortunately, it was a badly designed hard mode, which meant that it wasn't so much hard, but rather boring, since the AI was so bad, and you never really had to aim your weapons, so it just meant you had to be slow and go back to get ammo, but it didn't took any more skill, it just took more time.

Also, another example of bad difficulty tweaking (or whatever it's called):
Jak2 was a hell of a good game, it had a nice difficulty, definately not that hard, but not easy either.
But people complained that it was too hard.
So they designed something special for Jak3; the missions would get easier every time you failed one.
The problem with this is they (and everyone else it seems) mistakenly think that everyone likes a game to be the same kind of challenging.
So ideally; pro gamers play a difficult mode, and noobs play easy, and they are both equally good at what they're playing.
But that's not true, some people like a game to be very challenging, others not at all.
(notice I obviously mean something different with challenging than difficult)
A good difficulty for me is when I fail almost each mission at least once, and once in a while (a boss fight or so) I have to try dozens of times before I can complete the mission, and that's how I like it.
But I know others that consider a game to be too difficult one they fail a single mission once.

That's why I find it terrible when games scale the challenge (or the difficulty mode) based on how you're dooing, they assume you want to succeed on the first try. (but I don't, I LIKE TO FAIL FIRST)

Unfortunately for me, the games I play rarely offer a difficulty that I like.
I'm talking about Final Fantasy, Ratchet&Clank, Jak&Daxter, Okami, Kingdom Hearts, ...
take Kingdom Hearts for example, they have an easy, normal and hard mode,
great! unfortunately the hard mode is still a cake walk.

anyway, this has turned into a rant instead of a real comment.
so I'm gonna stop here.
 

Undeadpool

New member
Aug 17, 2009
209
0
0
I'm a big fan of this concept when it comes to RPGs because then people seem to equate "challenge" with "clunkiness." Never was this more apparent than with Dragon Age: Origins or Mass Effect 2. Yes, I remember the heady days when DA: O was being called "dumbed down Baldur's Gate" by people who obviously hadn't played Baldur's Gate in a decade...

Stabby Joe said:
Wait, an easy mode in Dark Souls sounds rather... dull. Seriously, take away the challenge and the whole point of the game is gone making it boring. I can see the casual user using easy mode and not enjoying the game.

Simply, some games just aren't for everyone. Grim and difficult to cute and easy, different markets. Are we supposed to release a funny version of The Road or a gritty version of Cars so everyone can join in? Not all games are the same, an easy mode in Mario or Donkey Kong seems to make more sense, also mechanically correct than one in Dark Souls.

Anyone is allowed to get involved and enjoy, it has nothing to do with inclusiveness and this argument seems to be used in the majority of industry related "issues" these days.
They do release those. They're called "edited for TV versions." And much like with that, I fail to see how the existence of a completely optional setting hinders your enjoyment in the slightest. It's like complaining that PC games still include 640x480 settings despite you owning a bleeding-edge graphics machine.
 

punipunipyo

New member
Jan 20, 2011
486
0
0
I DO like the Easy mode in games... because I have friends who just can't finish the damn games I intro to them (SUX at Skill), with Easy mode... they can actually finish them and we can talk about them( and I can tell how the hard mode is) Take DmC3 as example, all we had to do is show our Super Dante around to prove that we finished "Dante must Die" mode, and we have the privilege to play using UNLIMITED POWER!~ it's a good balance, where all can finish the game, but there are extra contend (that one CAN LIVE WITH OUT) for the completionists, to OP the already mastered game!~ games SHOULD have that options good EP man~
 

FriedRicer

New member
Sep 19, 2010
165
0
0
Korten12 said:
skywolfblue said:
sindremaster said:
mjc0961 said:
Lunar Templar said:
MisterShine said:
theultimateend said:
orangeapples said:
Mortamus said:
OMG! I am literally about to rip out my hair, the ignorance in this thread is just amazing. Dark Souls isn't hard because the enemies have too high health or do too much damage, it's not because you do too little damage nor is it difficult because of too low health.

It's difficult because of LEVEL FUCKING DESIGN. In Dark Souls the levels are crafted to be difficult, but possible, in easy mode they would have to change this to be, not difficult and possible. In Dark Souls there are parts where even with more health and damage, it would still be brutually difficult because it has careful placing of enemies spots, traps, and overall just where things are placed.

They would have to redesign all enemies and levels to be easy enough for a casual player to do it. Trying to then apply that to the normal mode it would be way to easy. What allows the quality of the levels to be as good as they're is that they don't have to worry about designing it for multiple difficulties. Games with multiple difficulties usually don't have levels that are built for any specific difficulty but built for ALL difficulties.

That's what makes Dark Soul's unique, it's built from the ground up to be hard, so it's all possible, and difficult at the same time. Enemies don't have a lot of health (some do, but mostly optional enemies), but are placed in the right spots to make it difficult.

The Souls series rewards CAREFUL PLAY and not Reckless play. Apparently people don't understand this and think it's all about Health and Damage when it's not. Bosses usually don't even have that much health, but they all have staredgy's on how to easily beat them.

So yes, Easy Mode would dumb it down by making the levels having to account for both difficulties. Same for bosses and enemies.

This is why fans of the Dark Souls series don't want multiple difficulties because it WOULD suffer.
Thanks for beating me to the punch.
Some people seem to mix games that are difficult owing to statistics and games that are hard owing to tactics.
No amount of health will help you beat the bed of chaos.
The game practically begs to be beaten if one looks at the item placement in the boss areas.
To anyone who thinks the game tells you nothing about its mechanics...It does."select" tells you what each stat means.That's what I did when I "prepared to die".
If people played the game the way the developer developed it,no one would ask for an "easy" mode.
They would see that the game is so flexible that nearly every form of difficulty can be made.
HOW DO PEOPLE THINK THE FANS CREATE BUILDS/"RUNS"?

If you wanna play a different way then intended(and be a beginner)....you get the motto.
 

Smeggs

New member
Oct 21, 2008
1,253
0
0
Dark Souls main selling point was its difficulty. Its tagline was "PREPARE TO DIE" for chrissake. Putting in an Easy mode is the exact opposite of all of the marketing done for the game and undermines the series. I understand where Jim is coming from, and I agree it is silly to complain about, but when the game is marketed as being crotch-kickingly difficult, it becomes a nagging little reminder when oldfag gamers hear about companies pandering to newfag gamers that people want things handed to them, things which beforehand had to be worked toward and earned.

Things which the oldfags worked for and earned, and the newfags just expect to be spoon-fed to them.

Really, it's the fact that beating a Souls game actually meant something. You went through all of the cheap shit, all of the tough battles, all of the respawns and losing all of those Souls and Humanity and came out over Gwyn in the end, only to then have a bunch of people come in and blast right past you on Hand-Holding difficulty. It'd be like if you worked for years to afford a mildly acceptable car while the spoiled rich kid down the street is bitching that his new corvette that Daddy bought him isn't the right color.

So of course they'd be a bit mad. A few with some rage issues. But it's not hard to understand.
"Yeah, so I finally managed to kill Manus, he was-"
"DARK SOULS, BREH? Like totes, I totally beat it in, like, a day, chyah, too easy, I'mma go back to CoD."

Has anyone added an easy mode to Ninja Gaidden yet? Because if I remember right, just Acolyte difficulty was practically every other Hack N' Slash's Hard Mode. Would people like all commands to be mapped to one button that just causes all enemies to spontaneously explode? No, because NG is supposed to be difficult. I haven't played the third one, someone told me that one was easy as hell.
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
FriedRicer said:
Thanks for beating me to the punch.
Some people seem to mix games that are difficult owing to statistics and games that are hard owing to tactics.
No amount of health will help you beat the bed of chaos.
The game practically begs to be beaten if one looks at the item placement in the boss areas.
To anyone who thinks the game tells you nothing about its mechanics...It does."select" tells you what each stat means.That's what I did when I "prepared to die".
If people played the game the way the developer developed it,no one would ask for an "easy" mode.
They would see that the game is so flexible that nearly every form of difficulty can be made.
HOW DO PEOPLE THINK THE FANS CREATE BUILDS/"RUNS"?

If you wanna play a different way then intended(and be a beginner)....you get the motto.
And thank you for also understanding. God, I feel like aside from a few others I was one of the few sane people who actually get why no easy mode is a good thing.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Games are the only forms of entertainment that make you work for the content? Jim, you need to read more.

Adding easy-modes to a game does diminish the entire product because it has a budget. People used the same argument in about the multiplayer in Mass Effect 3. "It doesn't hurt you." It does hurt me, because that money could've been spent elsewhere.
 

Edl01

New member
Apr 11, 2012
255
0
0
I'm glad you made this, also I must mention I hate it when they make something that was overcomplicated in a game more simple and practicle to improve gameplay in the sequel and people called it dumbing down, it isn't, it is making the game more fun and less of a chore to play through.
 

Arakasi

New member
Jun 14, 2011
1,252
0
0
I just want to be able to get somewhere in the fucking game I payed good money for.
I currently find it as inaccessable and boring as those old arcade games where you simply encounter more and more difficult foes.
I want to see the landscapes, the aesthetics, the amazing bosses, I could not give a damn about challenge in this type of game, it is not my forte.

In short, shut the fuck up you whining bitches, I own the game, I want to see what it has, and if I can do that with an easy mode, I'll all for it.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
16,864
838
118
Korten12 said:
FriedRicer said:
Thanks for beating me to the punch.
Some people seem to mix games that are difficult owing to statistics and games that are hard owing to tactics.
No amount of health will help you beat the bed of chaos.
The game practically begs to be beaten if one looks at the item placement in the boss areas.
To anyone who thinks the game tells you nothing about its mechanics...It does."select" tells you what each stat means.That's what I did when I "prepared to die".
If people played the game the way the developer developed it,no one would ask for an "easy" mode.
They would see that the game is so flexible that nearly every form of difficulty can be made.
HOW DO PEOPLE THINK THE FANS CREATE BUILDS/"RUNS"?

If you wanna play a different way then intended(and be a beginner)....you get the motto.
And thank you for also understanding. God, I feel like aside from a few others I was one of the few sane people who actually get why no easy mode is a good thing.
It's like having button or prompt in Silent Hill 2 that makes a cute puppy appear infront of the screen.

It doesn't matter if it's optional, you're going to use it if it's an option, because you don't want to scared. But the whole point of the game is having no other option but to fight through that fear, and giving you the option to not be scared completely negates that.
 

Elois

New member
Dec 10, 2012
32
0
0
Arakasi said:
I just want to be able to get somewhere in the fucking game I payed good money for.
I currently find it as inaccessable and boring as those old arcade games where you simply encounter more and more difficult foes.
I want to see the landscapes, the aesthetics, the amazing bosses, I could not give a damn about challenge in this type of game, it is not my forte.

In short, shut the fuck up you whining bitches, I own the game, I want to see what it has, and if I can do that with an easy mode, I'll all for it.
Why should a game open up just because you bought it? That would be like if I wanted portal to just auto complete the puzzles for me because I don't like puzzles. But the entire point of the game is the fun puzzles so that would be silly.

If you don't like a challenging game why did you buy a game that was marketed as a challenging game? Same thing. If you don't like challenging games, buy something else.

Besides, the game isn't locking content to you if you can't beat one boss or something. Just pay attention and get better at it and you to can see the rest of it. Or heck, just go online and find a sunbro summoning sign, they are generally overpowered enough to not need the host anyway.
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
Arakasi said:
I just want to be able to get somewhere in the fucking game I payed good money for.
I currently find it as inaccessable and boring as those old arcade games where you simply encounter more and more difficult foes.
I want to see the landscapes, the aesthetics, the amazing bosses, I could not give a damn about challenge in this type of game, it is not my forte.

In short, shut the fuck up you whining bitches, I own the game, I want to see what it has, and if I can do that with an easy mode, I'll all for it.
How about you realize the game is not for you? Like another poster pointed out the games marketing is "PREPARE TO DIE."

That means your going in for a beating. If they were to make an easy mode, they would have to change all of the levels (not just stats), and remove what makes Dark Souls unique. Just raising stats wouldn't make some of the traps, and levels any easier because they aren't designed to be played easy.

So don't ***** at the game for not having an easy mode, when it was MARKETED to not have one and already announced not to have one. It's like going to an art movie and complaining it doesn't have enough action and that it should change so that it has explosions so you don't get bored and can see the whole movie.

Dark Soul's is a niche, it shouldn't have to accomadate others because they aren't patience enough to beat the game and play it as intended.
 

babinro

New member
Sep 24, 2010
2,518
0
0
I agree 100% that games should offer easy/very easy/casual modes so any level of player should be able to experience nearly all content.

But this video seemed to miss the mark in terms of what I was expecting. I had really hoped Jim was going to address the concern of simplified mechanics. Several 'elitist' gamers scorned Dragon Age 2 for this.

Do you feel streamlining mechanics to make a game more accessible is a good thing or bad?
I'm 100% in favor of getting rid of tedious systems that aren't necessary for a good game play experience.
DA2 is fine by me. Diablo 3 dropping skill tree's is also fine by me.

Others...and not a minority either, feel these 'simplifications' can ruin the games entirely.

Curious what Jim's take would be on that issue.
 

Dethenger

New member
Jul 27, 2011
775
0
0
While I generally agree with the episode, I feel like Dark Souls Easy Mode was a poor example.
There's a pretty good video about it here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b91BWzLigs] by EpicNameBro, who I think is a pretty big guy in the Dark Souls community. I'd really recommend watching it, it's really insightful into game design, and he's just a cool guy in general.
 

deathzero021

New member
Feb 3, 2012
335
0
0
The Tall Nerd said:
deathzero021 said:
Now i agree with optional modes being OK. they don't annoy me because they don't effect my experience. i also don't mind games trying to widen the audience a little.

*snip*

To summarize my over-sized post:
i think it's a great idea to try and appeal to a larger audience BUT it should never come at the cost of losing your fanbase.
to do what you said, a video game would have to take the hard mode out
or make everything easy.

so i think your going need
ALOT of citations

because if you leave a franchise because other people can play it now
you were never a fan to begin with, unless they are literally ruining(changing in a way that you dont enjoy , or a large number of people) it, for example if DmC becomes a franchise, im out like a trout
Series or franchises, lose their fan base all the time. This happens because they aren't adding support for casual gamers, they are CHANGING support. they replace the old style of gameplay with the casual style and effectively piss off every fan.

Long running series often change gameplay, not add to it to support everyone. Take a look at Resident Evil 1, compare it to Resident Evil 6. The gameplay didn't add more to it, it was changed to fit a different demographic entirely. (in the hope to make more money, which it did.) despite sales, critics hated the game simply because of the change. Even though it may not be a worse game, it's not a game that older Resident Evil fans would enjoy.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Nothing much to say here except thank god for someone with some [REDACTED] common sense! If you pay $60+ for a game you SHOULD be able to get your money's worth by being able to complete the game!
 

YCRanger

New member
Jul 31, 2011
120
0
0
MichaelMaverick said:
Adding an easy mode to Dark Souls DOES harm it, because the high difficulty is the very core of the experience and everything else is complementary, and it DOES harm everyone, because merely having the option of NOT exposing yourself to that grueling challenge destroys the experience utterly and misses the point entirely. After a while of getting your arse kicked you won't be able to "ignore" the easy mode, you'd be a fool otherwise to make it harder for yourself when you don't HAVE to. Except sometimes being FORCED to do certain stuff, or doing it in a particular way, is what makes it so enriching. Sometimes you find yourself enjoying a situation because you were pushed into it, otherwise you'd never willingly get into it. This is how human psychology works.
And so forth . . .
You nailed the point there good sir. Once again Jim misses the point and simply calls everyone else who doesn't agree elitist and attacks their character. It's starting to get old
 

Mortrialus

New member
Jan 23, 2010
55
0
0
babinro said:
I agree 100% that games should offer easy/very easy/casual modes so any level of player should be able to experience nearly all content.

But this video seemed to miss the mark in terms of what I was expecting. I had really hoped Jim was going to address the concern of simplified mechanics. Several 'elitist' gamers scorned Dragon Age 2 for this.

Do you feel streamlining mechanics to make a game more accessible is a good thing or bad?
I'm 100% in favor of getting rid of tedious systems that aren't necessary for a good game play experience.
DA2 is fine by me. Diablo 3 dropping skill tree's is also fine by me.

Others...and not a minority either, feel these 'simplifications' can ruin the games entirely.

Curious what Jim's take would be on that issue.
I disagree with the idea that EVERY game should offer modal difficulty.

As far as simplifying mechanics, again it's a case by case basis. In Demon's Souls, there were stats called item burden and equip burden. Your max item burden was determined by the same stat that governed your players HP. Equip burden is governed by the same stat that governs your stamina. Item burden governs how much stuff you can carry in total and you cannot go over your item limit. This means that you had to make frequent visits back to the hubworld to bank your stuff. Equip burden determines how much weight your character's equipped items can be. The less equip burden you use, the faster you moves and dodges.

Dark Souls did away with item burden entirely. It also combined this with a world very reminiscent of the Metroid series; a huge nonlinear world filled with branching paths and hidden passages. The lack of item burden combined with the much heavier focus on exploration was a huge improvement in my opinion.
 

Itchi_da_killa

New member
Jun 5, 2012
252
0
0
Sorry I couldn't make a short response. I tried.

Chess is a challenging game to master and a lot of fun for the people who want to put in the work. There are clicks and clubs that enjoy being exclusive to the game as well. Checkers is an easier game loosely based on Chess. It's casual form of the game being easier to set up and play, and a winner can be assured pretty quick.

That is kind of how video games can be divided. Dark Souls and Ninja Gaiden is a lot like Chess (in class) and something like The Reckoning or the Assassin's Creed games would be like Checkers to a gamer.

In the case of Dark Souls, it's a one of a kind experience that sets players apart. The game play and the unwrapping of it's story draws a line in the sand for many gamers. It becomes a club of sorts. If anyone can do it, then "no" it's not as special and "yes" it would take away from the superficial spirit of the community. The ego and competitiveness amongst peers is okay and very natural. I do love the fact that I am one of two in my circle of friends that have mastered this game while the others have given up to go play Dishonored.

It does no good for either side of the argument to insult each other. There are Chess games and there are Checker games both are fun but can't mix. If you removed some of the rules from Chess than it may not be enjoyed by the people who play it and the same goes for Checkers in regard to adding rules. You don't want to add a hard mode to games like Assassins Creed even though so many of us complain about it being too easy. I stopped playing the series after I completed the second one... because it was so easy. Dark Souls is a Chess type of game, enjoyed by people like me. So, in that regard that's why other DKS players were so upset about that news.
 

VyceVictus

New member
Dec 10, 2012
61
0
0
Arakasi said:
I just want to be able to get somewhere in the fucking game I payed good money for.
I currently find it as inaccessable and boring as those old arcade games where you simply encounter more and more difficult foes.
I want to see the landscapes, the aesthetics, the amazing bosses, I could not give a damn about challenge in this type of game, it is not my forte.

In short, shut the fuck up you whining bitches, I own the game, I want to see what it has, and if I can do that with an easy mode, I'll all for it.
Sounds like you would be better off playing Darksiders II. Which is an excellent game, thats not an insult.
I own both Dark Souls and Darksiders, and although I was able to complete the very first special challenge (getting the asylum demon's hammer) it ultimately wasn't for me. I dont regret not enjoying the difficult level design, but that combined with the nebulous mechanics of the soul system turned me off. I agree that the game shouldn't have to change its fundamental mechanics, but I wouldn't see anything wrong with like an add on assist (like familiars that point things out Castlevania style or what have you.) As someone just mentioned, you shouldn't go to an art film expecting fast paced explosions. On the other hand, if I'm watching something like a foreign film or anime, subtitles or sub-notes that explain certain idioms or background information certainly wouldn't hurt (provided they are optional of course).
 

Fluffythepoo

New member
Sep 29, 2011
445
0
0
Just a minor point: casuals are far cleaner people than regular gamers, they also smell nicer (most likely as a result of their more regular shower schedules)
 

Elois

New member
Dec 10, 2012
32
0
0
VyceVictus said:
Arakasi said:
I just want to be able to get somewhere in the fucking game I payed good money for.
I currently find it as inaccessable and boring as those old arcade games where you simply encounter more and more difficult foes.
I want to see the landscapes, the aesthetics, the amazing bosses, I could not give a damn about challenge in this type of game, it is not my forte.

In short, shut the fuck up you whining bitches, I own the game, I want to see what it has, and if I can do that with an easy mode, I'll all for it.
Sounds like you would be better off playing Darksiders II. Which is an excellent game, thats not an insult.
I own both Dark Souls and Darksiders, and although I was able to complete the very first special challenge (getting the asylum demon's hammer) it ultimately wasn't for me. I dont regret not enjoying the difficult level design, but that combined with the nebulous mechanics of the soul system turned me off. I agree that the game shouldn't have to change its fundamental mechanics, but I wouldn't see anything wrong with like an add on assist (like familiars that point things out Castlevania style or what have you.) As someone just mentioned, you shouldn't go to an art film expecting fast paced explosions. On the other hand, if I'm watching something like a foreign film or anime, subtitles or sub-notes that explain certain idioms or background information certainly wouldn't hurt (provided they are optional of course).
The ting is that there is something nearly exactly as you described in the game already. you can summon players to help you past difficult levels or assist with bosses. If you are having a lot of trouble making it past the sewers or blighttown or something just look for a sign and get help. People who bother to put a sign down for the hardest levels generally know exactly how to help you.

I used to show people exactly where the invisible platforms are in the crystal caves, for instance.
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
doggie015 said:
Nothing much to say here except thank god for someone with some [REDACTED] common sense! If you pay $60+ for a game you SHOULD be able to get your money's worth by being able to complete the game!
Not when a game is advertised as brutally hard, even so far as it's slogan is literally "PREPARE TO DIE."

Then there is NO excuse to go into the game expecting an easy mode. They warned you, and you didn't listen.
 

IronMit

New member
Jul 24, 2012
533
0
0
The theory that easier modes for games don't have to effect hardcore gamers is one i used to hold but no longer do.

Nintendo's approach look brilliant for that particular game.

Dark souls;

There is online play; do easy mode and dark souls mode fight each other? Won't easy mode have an advantage if they can get access to better weapons by killing side quest bosses earlier?

Mass effect 3;

I initially said look 3 modes ;action, rpg and story. This is brilliant they won't streamline the game then for rpg mode.
But I was wrong, and they did.

Hitman absolution;

radar i can't turn off unless it's on purist which was shoved on last minute so the game isn't balanced on it anyway



Easier modes for games don't have to mess it up for hardcore players. But the alarm bells start ringing because the approach a lot of developers take messes it up in most cases.

The streamlined systems for most games can't be turned off because it's part of the game so that is also an automatic fail.

Deus ex: HR wasn't too bad. 'Turn off highlight objects' on any difficulty. All of a sudden I have to explore a bit more rather then see what highlights from afar
 

Sidmen

New member
Jul 3, 2012
180
0
0
Korten12 said:
How about you realize the game is not for you? Like another poster pointed out the games marketing is "PREPARE TO DIE."

That means your going in for a beating. If they were to make an easy mode, they would have to change all of the levels (not just stats), and remove what makes Dark Souls unique. Just raising stats wouldn't make some of the traps, and levels any easier because they aren't designed to be played easy.

So don't ***** at the game for not having an easy mode, when it was MARKETED to not have one and already announced not to have one. It's like going to an art movie and complaining it doesn't have enough action and that it should change so that it has explosions so you don't get bored and can see the whole movie.

Dark Soul's is a niche, it shouldn't have to accomadate others because they aren't patience enough to beat the game and play it as intended.
Game isn't for me? That's cool, so how exactly do I get my money back then?

Oh, I see - I can't.

When I buy something for as much money as a Video Game, I expect to be able to get something out of it. When I don't get anything out of it, like Dark Souls, I start thinking that the designer needs to fix this problem. I am not wrong in wanting to get enjoyment out of a game that I paid money for, and which I can't send back.

I rented Dark Souls from a Red Box for a day, the opening areas were difficult but fun so I decided on buying it. As I continued onward, everything fun about the game dribbled away to be replaced by aggravation and tedium. I eventually had to quit because it became too boring to bother with.

Of course, almost all of my problems could've been solved if the game got rid of those dumb-ass white magical airlocks so that I could use the terrain to my advantage instead of going "whelp, here's an area you've never been to before - now fight this stupidly hard creature for my amusement."
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
Sidney Buit said:
Korten12 said:
How about you realize the game is not for you? Like another poster pointed out the games marketing is "PREPARE TO DIE."

That means your going in for a beating. If they were to make an easy mode, they would have to change all of the levels (not just stats), and remove what makes Dark Souls unique. Just raising stats wouldn't make some of the traps, and levels any easier because they aren't designed to be played easy.

So don't ***** at the game for not having an easy mode, when it was MARKETED to not have one and already announced not to have one. It's like going to an art movie and complaining it doesn't have enough action and that it should change so that it has explosions so you don't get bored and can see the whole movie.

Dark Soul's is a niche, it shouldn't have to accomadate others because they aren't patience enough to beat the game and play it as intended.
Game isn't for me? That's cool, so how exactly do I get my money back then?

Oh, I see - I can't.

When I buy something for as much money as a Video Game, I expect to be able to get something out of it. When I don't get anything out of it, like Dark Souls, I start thinking that the designer needs to fix this problem. I am not wrong in wanting to get enjoyment out of a game that I paid money for, and which I can't send back.

I rented Dark Souls from a Red Box for a day, the opening areas were difficult but fun so I decided on buying it. As I continued onward, everything fun about the game dribbled away to be replaced by aggravation and tedium. I eventually had to quit because it became too boring to bother with.

Of course, almost all of my problems could've been solved if the game got rid of those dumb-ass white magical airlocks so that I could use the terrain to my advantage instead of going "whelp, here's an area you've never been to before - now fight this stupidly hard creature for my amusement."
Then it's your own fault. They didn't make the game wrong, YOU aren't it's target audiance. Same with books and movies, they have genre's and subgenre's for a reason. Not everything appeals to everyone and Dark Soul's isn't for you. It's not the developers fault, it's your own fault. We have the internet you can google these things, you can see whether or not it's for you. If you did, still bought it and then blamed the developers. You have only yourself to blame.

Also how does "PREPARE TO DIE," hell the PC version is literally called: DARK SOULS: PREPARE TO DIE EDITION, = Must have an easy mode? If it did, they wouldn't have advertised it as such.
 

Elois

New member
Dec 10, 2012
32
0
0
Sidney Buit said:
Game isn't for me? That's cool, so how exactly do I get my money back then?

Oh, I see - I can't.

When I buy something for as much money as a Video Game, I expect to be able to get something out of it. When I don't get anything out of it, like Dark Souls, I start thinking that the designer needs to fix this problem. I am not wrong in wanting to get enjoyment out of a game that I paid money for, and which I can't send back.

I rented Dark Souls from a Red Box for a day, the opening areas were difficult but fun so I decided on buying it. As I continued onward, everything fun about the game dribbled away to be replaced by aggravation and tedium. I eventually had to quit because it became too boring to bother with.

Of course, almost all of my problems could've been solved if the game got rid of those dumb-ass white magical airlocks so that I could use the terrain to my advantage instead of going "whelp, here's an area you've never been to before - now fight this stupidly hard creature for my amusement."
Your poor impulse control and apparent disregard for your expendable income is no reason for a niche game to appeal to you just because you couldn't play it. Its a silly self entitled argument that makes no sense.

Everything about the marketing that went into this game explained that it would be very challenging and not for everyone, its your own fault you didn't listen.
 

Elois

New member
Dec 10, 2012
32
0
0
anthony87 said:
Don't like Easy Mode? Don't play Easy Mode.

Why exactly isn't that obvious?
This would be apparent if you read the thread.
 

Stabby Joe

New member
Jul 30, 2008
1,545
0
0
Undeadpool said:
They do release those. They're called "edited for TV versions." And much like with that, I fail to see how the existence of a completely optional setting hinders your enjoyment in the slightest. It's like complaining that PC games still include 640x480 settings despite you owning a bleeding-edge graphics machine.
I'm using a more extreme example with film, but fair cop nonetheless.

Plus you're right, it doesn't hinder my experience, it just hinders theirs, which is a shame.
 

anthony87

New member
Aug 13, 2009
3,727
0
0
Elois said:
anthony87 said:
Don't like Easy Mode? Don't play Easy Mode.

Why exactly isn't that obvious?
This would be apparent if you read the thread.
I read the thread. In doing so I saw someone mention an excellent point about Bayonetta. That game is pretty damn difficult while the easiest mode actually performs the combos for you allowing you to progress with little to no effort. This ridiculously easy mode doesn't take away from the game or the challenge of the harder modes at all. I prefer the harder modes, therefore I play the harder modes.

Same with Dark Souls. If there was an easier mode, I'd ignore it.