Jimquisition: Dumbing Down for the Filthy Casuals

[Peithelo]

I want uncompromising tension and genuine challenge that can't be trivialized with a menu, and a crafted experience that doesn't resemble repetitive encounters lining long hallways.

A fair argument. Simple solution, lock the difficulty in (or only let it move up from the initial setting).

Limiting the option to a single instance does little to nothing to alleviate this presented problem. It is precisely the lack of a simple menu option (concerning the difficulty) that doesn't need to be earned in some way or form that enables for the tension to take and have effect.

Rather then bloat the post, I've spoiler tagged my brief summary of Dark Souls below which actually does contain praise.

Spoiler

I actually found the premise interesting, and the lore sort of interesting (albeit rather limited, unless it ups itself at some point after Blightown, where I dropped off the game). On the other side, theres a fair amount of glitches (Attacks going through walls, getting enemies stuck in walls), hideous AI (Luring/Kiting, also the hilarious tendency to be able to trick them into power attacking off a cliff, and one guy I killed by running circles in a stairwell cause my armor was light enough to avoid the fall damage), and stuff that makes the game seem dated or poorly made like getting stopped up on a shin height tree root or piece of rubble or homing arrows that curve in midair). And the main determinator in my dropping the game off was the Gaping Dragon, where it was basically defeated in spirit 3 minutes in when I figured out how to take it on, but the battle was artificially extended to 20some minutes by raw HP inflation.

The lore in Dark Souls is a puzzle and the pieces can be found throughout the game. You can't expect to complete a puzzle with only a couple of its pieces. The AI is at times truly hilarious, especially if there are multiple players (co-op). Hopefully it is improved for the Dark Souls 2. Armor weight has no bearing on how much you take fall damage (right...?) as it is a constant. No matter how much health you have the same fall does to your character the exact same amount of damage in percents as it would with any other set of statistics, I think. Also, for the Gaping Dragon to take you that long of a time to defeat your equipment simply must not have been upgraded at all. Or you made the mistake of summoning NPC phantoms to seemingly help you out. Even hitting the Gaping Dragon in the head (weakest point) with any basic +5 weapon should end the fight in no more than 10 minutes. Then there are also several buffs that you could have used to improve your damage output.

Artists put their paintings in public museums, they don't put it up in a tower you have to scale.

Much like games are quite easily accessible in many stores as either physical or downloadable copies. Getting to see a painting is no harder than managing to buy a game and place your newly bough game disc into a disc drive. This is not what the experience paintings and games can provide you with consists itself of. You can view the painting all you want but without first comprehending it it has no content or meaning to you. As is with games, some paintings may simply require more from you than others or present themselves in a way that is especially difficult for you to comprehend (in a way that gives meaning) or even enjoy at all. The same holds true for any form of art or entertainment; some works demand more than others. Neither is intrinsically better, but individuals can appreciate one over the other.

Ideally an artist creates only out of a desire to create something. In general it shouldn't matter whether your work will be appreaciated by others or not. If the work is genuine it most likely will be appreciated by some, which is of course a positive thing for all parties, but the creation of the work shouldn't be dependent on this.

 

[longboardfan]

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 hey hey Jim, you remember that episode you did a few months ago about Resident Evil 6 and the "we're trying to attract a wider audience" thing that made it not only suck but destroyed its own genre by becoming ALL of them? I'm sure you remember that episode right? You want me to link it to you?

What gamers are afraid of is having a game series that has a dedicated and devout audience that actually has a game dedicated to their wants from a game becoming RE6: Its Everything and Nothing at All. Oh and the new director, doesn't have a very good track record with games either.

 

[bafrali]

Misleading title Jim. I thought you were gonna talk about actually dumbing down gameplay for filthy casuals. Complaining about optional difficulty modes is just silly.

snip

Well spoken sir. Wish more people would see the difference between deliberate game design and design flaw.

 

[Wargamer]

There are aspects of this thinking that seep through to every difficulty. For example, two FPS games I've been playing recently are Doom 3 BFG Edition, and Borderlands 2. Here's how the games guide you from A to B.

DOOM: "You need to get to Operations. Work it out yourself."

BORDERLANDS: "You need to follow the 60ft neon blue arrow in the sky."

Now, neither system is perfect, but it frustrates me that EVERY MODERN GAME seems to have spotted the problem in the Doom method (ie: "I don't know where X is.") and solved it not by a subtle, optional hint, but by a blunt-force mandatory "you are too stupid to do this yourself" method.

I honestly don't mind hints or helping hands for players. I think what a lot of people forget is that games are more readily available now. I found by NES the other day - I had six games for it. Six, for the entire life of the console. Granted, other consoles I had did much better, but the point is that as a child games were something acquired sparingly, via birthdays or Christmas and so on. Now, money permitting, I can walk into a store and buy a game whenever, or download it, or play a free one online. As such, if a game is annoying me I can just ditch it and get a new one. This is coming from someone who has achieved full-Emerald runs on every Sonic game from 1 to S3&K.

But there has to be balance. The help has to be there for people who need it, not forced onto people who don't want it. After New Vegas I can't imagine playing a Fallout game where you need to eat and drink to stay alive, where healing doesn't happen instantly and where injuries don't just go away because you put a plaster on it... but I don't begrudge people who play with "hardcore" mode turned off.

 

[VyceVictus]

There are other ways to build tension beyond contrivance.

Then play another game as this one is not for you?

Just because something was deliberate doesnt make the final execution flawless.

A - What game has no flaws?
B - Does Dark Souls need to be "flawless" to be enjoyed?
C - I don't see your issue with the dying/ soul drop/ retrieval as a play mechanic. It was designed to create tension and was incorporated "flawlessly" as it were.

Again, Dark Souls just might not be the game for you.

[sub]*Egads! Some games are not meant for everyone!? The horror![/sub]

For the record, I don't play FPS games as I find them disorienting. I could waltz in and demand a third person camera, but that would be counter the spirit of the genre. Much the same as asking for easy mode in Dark Souls....

I recall the Ghost Recon series evolving from FPS to third person, raising the bar for tactical shooters while still maintaining the "spirit" of the game. Even Resident Evil 4's overhaul revolutionized the game while keeping the traditional elements of fear, tension, and suspense tact (5 and 6 were kinda lame, but it can be argued 4 is the pinnacle of the series). Overall, I think there's room for modification of design and balancing without "betraying the sanctity of the precious game's spirit". As has been said, there are plenty other aspects of Dark Souls worth playing for beyond just the difficulty. Making those aspects more accessible doesnt have to come at the cost of disregarding the other elements of challenge. Im sure there's room for improvement (we both said, there's no such thing as a flawless game.) Though I found the level design and save/restore mechanics obtuse, I enjoy great art design, imposing atmosphere, intelligent combat, and unique lore just as much as anyone, so who the fuck are you or anyone else to say that a game is "not for certain people".

 

[CapitalistPig]

Jim once again you drag us along kicking and screaming in the beginning only to see the light at the end. Magnificent!

The very nature of the term easy mode is just that. Its easier then the normal mode. And normal mode is just not quite as hard as hard mode. I'm sure you get the idea here. I think the original Halo best exemplifies the correct usage of this method of gameplay, although I'm sure there are older far more apt examples then this, never mind. The point is, you can choose easy mode and experience the storyline and gameplay willy nilly and have fun that way. Then later, you pick insane mode and die 30 times on the first room of the first level. Truly, that's what I did as a little gamer sprout and its probably what took me from casual to an advanced gamer. True, it might take away from the end if you just waltz through the game and don't experience the satisfaction of really accomplishing something but if your not responsible for the difficulty of gameplay you pick then can you even wipe your own nose? I mean, at some point people have to take responsibility for their actions, and I'm pretty sure the bottom line of that is what difficulty you play your videogames at.

As far as how this effects the "dumbing down" of games, well that's not the case for hardcore games. The very nature of hardcore games is to exist outside the norm. Its niche. By nature it must exist to be an opposite to what is normal. So even if one franchise sells out and caters to the masses, you can bet someone else is gearing up to take on the chalice of hardcore game makers and bring on the next great series.

 

[SantoUno]

snip

I was just about to reference the same video. Glad to see someone else is in the same boat as me in regards to Dark Souls.

Jim's episode was informative, and did make a good point about misguided views trying to exclude those of different tastes, but NO, just NO, in response to his comments on the Dark Souls Easy Mode reaction. Dark Souls is a different case, and the fact that Jim Sterling is not a devoted fan of the game is obvious when he states how presenting an easier version to newer players won't have an effect.

The core argument of leaving Dark Souls unchanged is that it is not just ANY other game that should present difficulties to cater to every gamer. No, Dark Souls is a new type of dish completely, and it is meant to be enjoyed through the most perilous challenges and severe learning curve.

The food dish analogy by EpicNameBro really does apply to this perfectly. Dark Souls is like an extremely exotic and spicy dish. It's chefs made it with the intent of being extremely spicy and meant to burn you up with extreme spicyness. Do you really think it is no big deal if you instead choose to enjoy a non-spicy version of the dish, completely disregarding the chef's intent to make an extremely spicy dish?

This is almost exactly the same as the people who wanted to force the developers to change the Mass Effect 3 because it did not satisfy THEIR expectations. Instead of accepting an author or artist's product, some people would rather disregard their intentions and just enjoy it at their own leisure without paying respect to what the artist intended with the creation. It's like loathing an esteemed novel for being too morbid, so you instead stop reading half to change the story own your own and make it a generic, happy, ending of some sort.

Bottomline, Dark Souls is not a game that caters to everyone, so everyone who opposed the addition of an easy mode are not being elitist jerks trying to keep an exclusive club, they just don't want to see their beloved game being tarnished for the sake of catering to those who do not choose to take it as the developers intended their product to be taken.

 

[SantoUno]

Stupid failing pages caused me to double post, please disregard.

 

[Snowblindblitz]

Man, I'm not the best at FPS but would really love to play some CoD.

Better make it an RPG or turn based.

Remember when Skyrim came out, and everyone was up in arms over all the streamling and yadda yadda fast travel, yet somehow, they got very little flak, just a "Yep, them casuals".

We complain about changing the core of the games experience, and we're elitist.

 

[Artemis923]

Dark Souls is one of the last bastions of "brutal" or "challenging" games in today's world of dick-holding, arrow pointing romp of easy that is the game industry.

Outside of some indie games, the majority of games that have recently released have been piss-easy, even on maxed difficulties. I would get your argument if the majority of games were too punishing for players, but that's not the case. Dark Souls was made for the challenge, for that old school feeling of "memorize this area, learn how to play yourself."

Can't we just leave that alone? Does everything REALLY need to be made so easy that it takes little to no skill to win?

 

[Entitled]

This whole failure of Jim here kind of reminds me of the Mass Effect 3 fiasco, that game journalists used it as a launching pad to rant about unpleasable fanbases who always whine about series endings, then unfortunatly for them, it became clearer and clear that they picked a wrong target, as ME3 really did have an objectively shitty ending, and fans could repeatedly explain that in detailed, rational arguments that had nothing to do with entitlement or audience arrogance, just the fact that ME3 really had some Phantom Menace-quality writing.

It's the same here. Jim probably heard people complaining about "casuals", and about "games nowadays being too easy", then when he heard that the Dark Souls fandom is particularly loud about it, decided to launch an attack against them from that direction.

For future reference: as long as there is no significant reason why a particular fandom might consist of ESPECIALLY whiny people, you might want to look into the possibility that they might be that loud, only because they do have a different, and more mainstream-identifiable point this time around.

 

[WWmelb]

I think this is the first time i've carefully read every post in a 10page thread.

Overall, i counted very few posts defending Dark Souls in it's pure form coming off sounding elitist and and trying to put people off the game. A couple, yes but very few. Nearly all posts saying an easy mode would be a bad idea were well thought out and very clearly explained.

Yet.. basically none of those comments were ever quoted, and the small minority of the elitist sounding posts were quoted over and over.

The dark souls community, as a whole, want more people there to play with. we welcome newcomers with open arms and are ready to help. But, no an easy mode is not necessary.

Even dark souls as it is now, playing by yourself, a quick google will show you how to play easy mode through 80% of the game. A certain sword from a certain dragon's tail... Not to mention Solaire and Maneater Mildred can make the training bosses a little easier to comprehend, even if it's just to tank for a bit and let you get a feel for them.

I know DS is not perfect, there are some pretty big flaws which can be worked out in the tutorial and what not, but it just isn't necessary, and to be honest, would make all forms of multiplayer unbalanced, unless they had to put more money into more servers to keep "easy" and "prepare to die" servers segregated.

Out of curiosity, do the people who haven't played much or any of dark souls realise just how big the multiplayer component of the game is? And if they do, do they see how it would be negatively effected by multiple difficulties?

In a way, with this concept, WoW had the right kind of idea. Easier versions of raids with lower quality versions of the loot, so the more casual players could experience the story. A major difference though is, WoW has 9million players who pay a monthly fee to play. They are paid to continually cater to all players. Blizzard are in essence the employee of their subscriber base.

Dark souls does not have a monthly income of $100,000,000. Those extra services are COSTLY, and not able to be supported by most.

Wow also at one point required a full time job commitment to it to progress, which was absurd.

Blah, 5am and blathering on half asleep.

No to easy mode. Yes to more accessiblity. Yes to more community. Come play with us, we will welcome you into our world and help you through the Capra demon.

Then probably invade you and cut you to pieces, but with a bow at least

 

[WWmelb]

Oh and also

This is the first time i've seen Jim called out so many times on his own attitude. And the first time i've seen him called out that he hasn't bothered to come and defend himself.

I kind of neglected that side of this video too...

Jim; your condescending attitude and your own elitism towards a group of gamers is disgusting. You obviously had no clue as to why the DS community want it kept the way it is and it has nothing to do with wanting to keep people out of it.

Please come and explain yourself or defend your hate filled and ill-informed remarks.

This comes from someone who has supported you from day one at the escapist.

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

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 hey hey Jim, you remember that episode you did a few months ago about Resident Evil 6 and the "we're trying to attract a wider audience" thing that made it not only suck but destroyed its own genre by becoming ALL of them? I'm sure you remember that episode right? You want me to link it to you?

What gamers are afraid of is having a game series that has a dedicated and devout audience that actually has a game dedicated to their wants from a game becoming RE6: Its Everything and Nothing at All. Oh and the new director, doesn't have a very good track record with games either.

I remember it. And I see what you're trying to do. But you didn't pay a damn lick of attention to the video if you think that what you're trying to do works.

 

[girzwald]

I have always been confused by people who get all bent out of shape when there are optional features in a game to make it easier or harder. In my eyes, more options is always better. That way everyone is happy. You want an easy experience, you have it, you want a punishing one, there ya go.

I like your assumption that as a matter of fact you can make everyone happy with a game if you just put enough options in it. You can't. It's why things like genres exist in the first place.

I like my assumption also. That is why I made it. Thank you for noticing!

It's a false assumption. You can stick as many customization options, modes, in a Madden game as you want. I'm not going to be interested in it. The same thing applies to other people regarding Dark Souls.

Thats a terrible example. A football game is not the same as a fantasy 3rd person action game. You aren't not interested because madden doesn't have enough options......you aren't interested in it because its a football game (I'm guessing this).

"Super hard unforgiving action adventure fantasy game" is not a genre. If someone simply does not like a genre, there is probably no overcoming that no matter how many options there are. In a football game, making a mode where the opposing team does nothing but a 10 yard punt when its their ball or make the opposing quarterback run around like a retard won't make a game attractive to you if you don't even like football, let alone football games. But if someone likes something like lets say, darksiders, then dark souls is pretty close, if not the same genre. And something like an easy mode that allows you to take a mega beating from enemies before dying or losing less souls upon death is what would make the game more attractive to more people.

And I'm going to put this out there. An easy mode would benefit you in the long run. More people buying the game = more money for the company that makes it = better/more future games.

So, everyone can win with an easy mode. People who don't have lightning reflexes can play a good game. People who like soul crushing challenge can have their "true" modes to look down upon the little peoples with smug senses of superiority and disdain. A game company makes more money, so they can make even more games with soul crushing "true" difficulty with easy modes.

 

[girzwald]

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 hey hey Jim, you remember that episode you did a few months ago about Resident Evil 6 and the "we're trying to attract a wider audience" thing that made it not only suck but destroyed its own genre by becoming ALL of them? I'm sure you remember that episode right? You want me to link it to you?

What gamers are afraid of is having a game series that has a dedicated and devout audience that actually has a game dedicated to their wants from a game becoming RE6: Its Everything and Nothing at All. Oh and the new director, doesn't have a very good track record with games either.

Making a specific game within a specific genre with an easier and more forgiving mode to make it more attractive =/= trying to be the jack of all trades and have several genres within a genre to attract more people and doing them all terrible.

RE6 did the latter.

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

I don't have time for arguments this week, unfortunately, but let me just address some things briefly before flying off into the night. Once I've said this, I'm done on the topic for now, though I may need to do a new video after the holidays for those who spectacularly missed the point of the video:

The difference between an optional easy mode and the homogenization of videogames is as simple as the difference between Ninja Gaiden Black's "Ninja Dog" mode and Ninja Gaiden 3. One game had an optional extra mode for people who didn't want brutal challenge, and one tore the default experience apart.

Easy modes aren't a new concept, people. Capcom had some of the most hardcore action games around, and they actually offered you an easier mode if you had your ass kicked one too many times. Nobody complained about that. Nobody believes the core Devil May Cry 3 experience was ravaged by multiple difficulties. And frankly, it's pretty insulting to Dark Souls if you think ALL it has to offer the world is difficulty.

As for my attitude in this video ... uh ... welcome to the Jimquisition? Apparently it's okay for me to have this attitude when it's people you don't agree with -- not so now. Should I reshoot the video in a non-condescending "easy mode" format for you?

 

[anthony87]

snip

But didn't you read the posts from Korten? If they were to add an easy mode then they'd have to completely rebuild the game from the ground up! He said it over and over again so it must be true!

EDIT: Awh...quote snip fail

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

I just love how far this thread has gotten since we all should know bickering about it here isn't going to change the game getting another mode and hey if you don't like it like many seem to parrot here a lot (without thinking it insults most people) Maybe it's not your cup of tea? (anymore)

Seriously this whole thread is in a right state with people pulling out anything in order to crush the people who don't mind or would like an easy mode and again whether you like it or not that does come off as an elite type of action where as you could just accept the game is going to have that mode or just move onto something else because quite frankly I can't see the majority of you here just playing the one series and completely nothing else while claiming it's the only hardest game in the history of video games because that would be quite subjective.

Please for those that want to bash others because they "don't get how the game works or how it was designed" think for just a moment because some people won't understand and some will and still not agree with what you say so let it slide and move on or just find something else to keep you pre occupied from raging at someone else's understanding.

Honestly I've played Dark souls after my room mate was done playing it and while it was ok I didn't exactly feel that overall sense of accomplishment because I'm that type of player that can want a challenge sometimes and sometimes I just want to admire what else a game has to offer and not everyone likes getting ***** slapped in a game hundreds of times over and be expected to enjoy the thrashing.

 

[keosegg]

I personally think that every game should have an easy mode. Video games are the only medium that REQUIRES you to be skilled at the medium in order for you to enjoy it. Unlike music and movies, where all you need is the ability to hear and see, video games require you to be skilled at them.

You forget sports, football, basketball, games like chess, etc. at least if you are participating instead of just watching.

I probably should have said "Artistic Mediums". I didn't include those because in my opinion, those aren't artistic mediums.

In order to make a proper judgement on a work you should preferably experience it in its entirety; listen to the whole song/watch the whole movie. As I said before, none of this requires much skill which means everyone can experience the work. Why should video games be any different?

The same reason either of us wouldn't watch football all day long and expect to have John Madden or whoever waltz into our houses and be offer an NFL contract without either of us having played a single game of football in our lives, or spontaneously gain achievements for Skyrim on our 360s for watching a let's play video on Youtube. Just like sports video games are something you have to EARN your way through, and there would be no point in doing either otherwise.

In my opinion, the message/story/themes behind the work is the most important thing, and that should always be experienced in its entirety. It also shouldn't be something that has to be earned or worked for in non-conceptual sense.

What I mean by that is that it's all well and good when you're reading a manuscript and you say: "The author's word choice is doing my head in, he's using words that usually mean one thing one thing but he's using them in a sentence to say the complete opposite. I don't get it."

It's not well and good when you're reading a manuscript and you say: "God dammit, I can barely read a word of this, the author's handwriting is terrible."

Anyway, the message/story/themes should be given to the viewer freely without fuss. I don't want to have to tear four fifths of my hair out in frustration because I died for the umpteenth time while fighting the same boss in order to experience the message/story/themes. I want it given to me ASAP so I can mull it over afterwards, pull it apart in my head, read the text and subtext and try to figure out which side I should be joining in the shipping wars.

Snip

What if difficulty, or the reason for difficulty, was essential to the experience of a video game though?

You make a good point, however, I would still argue for the inclusion of easy mode simply for acclimatisation. Get people to learn how to swim in the shallow end before they go into the deep end. That way they can experience the game without the hair rending frustration.

Snip

I see this as a false analogy. Viewing a painting only requires me to look at it, but that doesn't mean I understand it's meaning. Reading a book may only require me to open it up and look at the words, but that doesn't mean I automatically understand what's been written. Sure if it's Twilight, I might get it, but if it's a book on theories of thermodynamics or a book of Shakespeares plays written in their original English it's not a given that I'm going to understand it without further study, time and patience. Same with movies. I can watch any movie, but if it's an experimental piece or even something with a really complex plot I may not really understand it at all. The same goes with music. Put on some free form jazz. Everyone with the ability to hear will be able to hear the music, but some will experience it as noise they won't be able to sit through, some will hear amazing music.

The thing is, everything you mentioned all happens in the mind, you're tying to figure out the meaning of the painting/movie/song/book in your head. I should have also mentioned that I was only talking about artistic mediums, so your point about books about the theories of thermodynamics or a book of Shakespeare's plays written in their original English doesn't apply, since they're usually read for academic purposes.

The fact is, any entertainment medium is created by a person/team with a set vision and a set audience, and every medium contains numerous examples that are, quite frankly, not designed to be enjoyed by everyone. There's no reason that videogames should be any different.

You're completely right, but I still think that the thing that decides whether or not a person enjoys a work should be decided entirely in one's head. It should be because you don't agree with the message, or you didn't like the story, or that you believed that Richard and Door should have gotten together because they're perfect for each other AND WHY CAN'T ANYONE ELSE SEE IT?!

*Ahem*

So, in conclusion. The thing that decides what work people enjoy should be conceptual, rather than physical.