Jimquisition: Dumbing Down for the Filthy Casuals

[BioRex]

snip

I didn't ignore your post, I just disregarded it because I think it's really really wrong. I'm not trying to mean that in an asshole-ish way or anything but if you think that making the game easier would involve completely redesigning and rebuilding it then you're wrong. Just because you're saying that such and such would need to change doesn't actually mean that such and such would need to change.

Ok so how would taking less damage help against swinging blades that knock you off ledges? Giant arrows that do the same? What about if you went to an area with poison, swamp lets say, and you had no antidote type items? would taking less or giving more damage help?

Easy mode doesn't just mean less damage. And nobody said something like "omg just half the damage and bam, its an easy mode". So really, your argument is nothing but a strawman.

But let me tackle your omg can't be fixed in easy mode mechanics.............ummm.......... oh ghosh. How would one deal with knokbacks that knock you off ledges oh, I dunno, remove/nerf the knockback? And a swamp... hmmmmmm, remove the poison? Make it do less damage? Make it wear off fast?

My god, I'm a genius game designer.

Ok so you advocating a deep re-design of the entire game as opposed to what as been suggested in the past. And do really need to quote people that have stated that the way to make an easy mode was by lowering the damage? Look a page back or two and you can find being making that argument. Also you idea of how to make an easy mode is that you can't fall of ledges? Well that sure is a great idea, I know lets apply that to all games where you can fall to death, it's truly unfair that you can die in Mario by missing you jump. Pits should be done away with all together!

 

[OldNewNewOld]

snip

I didn't ignore your post, I just disregarded it because I think it's really really wrong. I'm not trying to mean that in an asshole-ish way or anything but if you think that making the game easier would involve completely redesigning and rebuilding it then you're wrong. Just because you're saying that such and such would need to change doesn't actually mean that such and such would need to change.

How is it wrong? You don't give examples all you say is: "IT's WRONG BECAUSE... WELL IT'S WRONG."

We have explained nearly essays of work that cover any corner of why it doesn't work and then we get responses like yours that don't even try to argue but just ignore it and say that it's wrong without reason. You say we're smug but don't even both to actually debate.

Double the player damage, half the enemy damage, increase the player health and stamina by 33% lower the enemy health by 33%.

Is that reworking the whole game? All those are stats that are saved in few files outside the source code for easy patching.

 

[BioRex]

Ok here is my question, would you be willing to pay 10-20 bucks more for the easy version to offset the cost it takes to make the easy version?

False premise. Who would say it would cost 10-20 bucks in addition to the person BUYING THE GAME in order to make it cost effective to make an easy mode?

So no, I would NOT pay 10-20 bucks for an easy version of the game because it would not cost that much to produce an easy mode for a already made game.

Ok let me phrase this better, would you buy the easy mode dlc for some amount of money?

snip

I didn't ignore your post, I just disregarded it because I think it's really really wrong. I'm not trying to mean that in an asshole-ish way or anything but if you think that making the game easier would involve completely redesigning and rebuilding it then you're wrong. Just because you're saying that such and such would need to change doesn't actually mean that such and such would need to change.

Ok so how would taking less damage help against swinging blades that knock you off ledges? Giant arrows that do the same? What about if you went to an area with poison, swamp lets say, and you had no antidote type items? would taking less or giving more damage help?

Easy mode doesn't just mean less damage. And nobody said something like "omg just half the damage and bam, its an easy mode". So really, your argument is nothing but a strawman.

But let me tackle your omg can't be fixed in easy mode mechanics.............ummm.......... oh ghosh. How would one deal with knokbacks that knock you off ledges oh, I dunno, remove/nerf the knockback? And a swamp... hmmmmmm, remove the poison? Make it do less damage? Make it wear off fast?

My god, I'm a genius game designer.

As you have mentioned the game would need lots of redesigns to make it easy, would you be willing to pay for that? Pay for the time and money you are taking away from the development of the next game?

 

[Church185]

snip

I didn't ignore your post, I just disregarded it because I think it's really really wrong. I'm not trying to mean that in an asshole-ish way or anything but if you think that making the game easier would involve completely redesigning and rebuilding it then you're wrong. Just because you're saying that such and such would need to change doesn't actually mean that such and such would need to change.

How is it wrong? You don't give examples all you say is: "IT's WRONG BECAUSE... WELL IT'S WRONG."

We have explained nearly essays of work that cover any corner of why it doesn't work and then we get responses like yours that don't even try to argue but just ignore it and say that it's wrong without reason. You say we're smug but don't even both to actually debate.

Double the player damage, half the enemy damage, increase the player health and stamina by 33% lower the enemy health by 33%.

Is that reworking the whole game? All those are stats that are saved in few files outside the source code for easy patching.

Nope, that would be a simple fix if the games difficulty were based entirely on combat. I'll make those concessions for you and gladly set you loose in blightown, tomb of the giants, crystal cave, sen's fortress, or anor londo. You can wave to those silver knights with their big bows

 

[anthony87]

snip

I didn't ignore your post, I just disregarded it because I think it's really really wrong. I'm not trying to mean that in an asshole-ish way or anything but if you think that making the game easier would involve completely redesigning and rebuilding it then you're wrong. Just because you're saying that such and such would need to change doesn't actually mean that such and such would need to change.

How is it wrong? You don't give examples all you say is: "IT's WRONG BECAUSE... WELL IT'S WRONG."

We have explained nearly essays of work that cover any corner of why it doesn't work and then we get responses like yours that don't even try to argue but just ignore it and say that it's wrong without reason. You say we're smug but don't even both to actually debate.

That's because it is wrong. How can I make it clearer? If you think that an easy difficulty option would involve an entirely different build of the game then you're wrong. That's like saying that the easier difficulty options in Ratchet: Deadlocked removed the platforming elements from the game whereas all it did was make enemies easier to kill and hit for less damage compared to the higher difficulties. The easy mode of Dark Souls that I'm picturing is one where the enemies hit for less and are easier to kill, perhaps give the player more health and something like not losing souls when you die, I'm not talking about removing hazards and whatnot. I sure as hell wouldn't play that mode though because I like my Dark Souls the way it is.

snip

Your first two examples don't really work. A pitfall is a pitfall in any game regardless of difficulty setting. As for the poison thing? An easier option would reduce the damage the poison does to you over time, allowing you to stay alive longer without items.

 

[Korten12]

snip

I didn't ignore your post, I just disregarded it because I think it's really really wrong. I'm not trying to mean that in an asshole-ish way or anything but if you think that making the game easier would involve completely redesigning and rebuilding it then you're wrong. Just because you're saying that such and such would need to change doesn't actually mean that such and such would need to change.

How is it wrong? You don't give examples all you say is: "IT's WRONG BECAUSE... WELL IT'S WRONG."

We have explained nearly essays of work that cover any corner of why it doesn't work and then we get responses like yours that don't even try to argue but just ignore it and say that it's wrong without reason. You say we're smug but don't even both to actually debate.

Double the player damage, half the enemy damage, increase the player health and stamina by 33% lower the enemy health by 33%.

Is that reworking the whole game? All those are stats that are saved in few files outside the source code for easy patching.

Omg... People don't read to they? That would make it X to Win.

Why? Well let's go over it again shall we?

Enemies in general don't have that much health, in most cases aside from maybe 2 or 3 encounters, you're fighting either one on one or two on one. Enemies usually die in 3 to 5 hits, or 4 to 6 if your a faster build but with less damage. If a mage build? It can be 1 to 2 or 3 hits.

It doesn't stop from the traps and small ledges and steep cliffs any easier just because you have more health. Enemies usually don't do too much damage on you. Unless you ware low armor or no armor, rarely ever should any enemy one hit you. It's also the reason why the game has you have a shield no matter what weapon because it expects you to block like any sane person would. Most enemies whom have lots of health are Bosses, and optional enemies. Even ones that do lots of damage such as some of the enemies in the library usually have low health so getting up to them usually results in their death unless you don't dodge or block.

So if you increase the players health and stamina, you're making them a walking tank. No challenge, just X to win. Because battles don't last long already, you mind as well take combat out of the game if you want to make it easier than it already is.

Like Church said, that would be great fixes... If the game's difficulty only came from battle. But that's what people keep ignoring. It comes also from the level design, the careful placement of enemies, traps, ledges and so on. Those are what cause many deaths and why it rewards careful play. Those wouldn't be any easier and people would still complain.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

snip

Once again, you saying OMG IT WONT WORK. Does not make it true. Look, I'm sorry you think that because we were not all swayed by your long, drawn out and "well thought out" post. Just because we don't agree with it, doesn't mean we didn't read it.

No duh a bunch of the game would have to be reworked. But not really all that much work since the core game play is all there. Some things would simple, some things would be a bit complex. But no, sorry, the entire game would not be broken if it were easier or more forgiving.

I'm very interested to know what you think "the core game play" of Dark Souls is.

I am starting to think there is no point. :/ I know you are also on the side of "No Easy Mode," and how do you feel about my posts? Are they helping or am I just as they're saying. Just saying: "OMG IT WONT WORK."

There is no way to prove in a STRICTLY OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC SENSE that adding easy mode to Dark Souls will affect the main game, or that it won't, no matter how obvious former may be. The honest and intellectual person will realize that the absence of evidence in not the evidence of absence. They will see this as an obstacle to overcome and put more effort into demonstrating their case. Meanwhile, the people who don't have any real investment in this because they don't even like Dark Souls as it is anyway, don't bother. They use a lack of knowledge as an excuse to assume what they want to be true, rather than working double-time to actually demonstrate the strength of their argument.

In politics if you're explaining you're losing, and Korten12, you're explaining. You're being beaten up by campaign tactics that have no place in a discussion. This is earnest argumentation by someone who truly cares about the subject vs. chanting empty rhetoric.

I wouldn't have been so harsh, but I was asked. You're doing a fine job explaining why adding easy mode to Dark Souls or Space Sim mode to Call of Duty has implications for existing fans, Korten12. Just remember, politicians don't answer the question, they dismiss it and loop their answer back around to their established rhetoric.

 

[Professor Uzzy]

The extent to which this topic has been distorted, inverted, and turned on it's head is just crazy. The people who have pretty much taken over gaming and kicked us out of the club are acting like they're the victims of our aggression at the very moment they are storming our last bastion.

Everything must be sacrificed on the alter of dumbing down. Everything.

We aren't even allowed one game.

 

[anthony87]

snip

Once again, you saying OMG IT WONT WORK. Does not make it true. Look, I'm sorry you think that because we were not all swayed by your long, drawn out and "well thought out" post. Just because we don't agree with it, doesn't mean we didn't read it.

No duh a bunch of the game would have to be reworked. But not really all that much work since the core game play is all there. Some things would simple, some things would be a bit complex. But no, sorry, the entire game would not be broken if it were easier or more forgiving.

Ok here is my question, would you be willing to pay 10-20 bucks more for the easy version to offset the cost it takes to make the easy version?

That was actually done with Devil May Cry 3. Basically our "Normal" difficulty mode was the Japanese "Hard" mode, our "Hard" was their "Dante Must Die" mode etc. The release of Devil May Cry 3: Special Edition fixed all that and even made it so that if you die you had the option of ressurecting and not starting the level over again provided you had the right item.

Surprisingly the world didn't burn with the existence of this easier version of a balls hard game.

 

[Church185]

Hey i don't like chocolate they should make all chocolate taste of something i like so i can be cool and say i like chocolate too.

/clap

OT: Why does no one talk about how the online system makes almost all of the hard enemies and boss fights trivial?

Down right easy in fact.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

snip

I didn't ignore your post, I just disregarded it because I think it's really really wrong. I'm not trying to mean that in an asshole-ish way or anything but if you think that making the game easier would involve completely redesigning and rebuilding it then you're wrong. Just because you're saying that such and such would need to change doesn't actually mean that such and such would need to change.

How is it wrong? You don't give examples all you say is: "IT's WRONG BECAUSE... WELL IT'S WRONG."

We have explained nearly essays of work that cover any corner of why it doesn't work and then we get responses like yours that don't even try to argue but just ignore it and say that it's wrong without reason. You say we're smug but don't even both to actually debate.

Double the player damage, half the enemy damage, increase the player health and stamina by 33% lower the enemy health by 33%.

Is that reworking the whole game? All those are stats that are saved in few files outside the source code for easy patching.

Nope, that would be a simple fix if the games difficulty were based entirely on combat. I'll make those concessions for you and gladly set you loose in blightown, tomb of the giants, crystal cave, sen's fortress, or anor londo. You can wave to those silver knights with their big bows

But the games difficulty is based entirely on combat.
Trap aren't difficult. The hidden one don't deal some serious damage and the obvious one are... obvious? Does anyone want to tell me that he didn't notice the "traps" in Sen's Fortress the very first time he stepped in it? Except the arrow traps?

You don't need to change anything else except the enemy damage/health. They are the main difficulty. You and some other people are implying that "easy mode" means "for complete idiots who aren't capable of the most basic body control and thinking". Easy mode doesn't imply removing all challenges that are in the game. It means just lowering those challenges to fit less skilled player.

Insta death exist in many casual games. Talk all you want, but Skyrim is THE casual game of the the last 5 years, yet you can die from falling of a cliff or if you fight a Winter Troll even on easy.

EDIT: Making an easy mode would take 2-3 days at most while could be done in even less by simply making an armor/resistance multiplier for easy/normal where easy would be 2 and normal 1.
So on easy every armor/resistance stat you get would be doubled which would make the game easier. If the game is coded well, this would take less than 1 day of work and it would delay anything because there is always a part of the dev. team that isn't currently working on anything.

 

[EvilRoy]

I am starting to think there is no point. :/ I know you are also on the side of "No Easy Mode," and how do you feel about my posts? Are they helping or am I just as they're saying. Just saying: "OMG IT WONT WORK."

As a guy who's never played the game and read over the thread with only casual interest I can say that, yeah, to an outsider it really does seem like you're saying it won't work because it won't work.

In an earlier post, where you spoiled out an explanation where you explain why it won't work, what you said didn't seem to make much sense.

You explain why changing enemy number and health wouldn't work, but then go on to explain that problems with checkpoints can be solved by looking harder, and that enemies can be defeated more effectively by getting a human player aid or hiring mercanaries and chunks of the game can be skipped (yay?), so on and so forth.

It really sounds to me, an outsider, like you're saying "by searching in-game constantly, reading forums and buying a guidebook, this game isn't that hard so an easy mode isn't necessary".

But even if I was willing to accept that as a reasonable statement, it doesn't explain why an easy mode wouldn't work. Just put all that in game. Have tooltips, have hints, make checkpoints stand out more prominently against the background, all fairly easy to do.

I guess I can understand the argument that the game should be hard because that's what the game is about, kind of like the old "nintendo-hard" games, but realistically an easy mode would be as hard for a person that plays few games as normal mode would be for a person who plays a lot of them.

 

[Church185]

But the games difficulty is based entirely on combat.
Trap aren't difficult. The hidden one don't real some serious damage and the obvious one are... obvious? Does anyone want to tell me that he didn't notice the "traps" in Sen's Fortress the very first time he stepped in it? Except the arrow traps?

You don't need to change anything else except the enemy damage/health. They are the main difficulty. You and some other people are implying that "easy mode" means "for complete idiots who aren't capable of the most basic body control and thinking". Easy mode doesn't imply removing all challenges that are in the game. It means just lowering those challenges to fit less skilled player.

Insta death exist in many casual games. Talk all you want, but Skyrim is THE casual game of the the last 5 years, yet you can die from falling of a cliff or if you fight a Winter Troll even on easy.

You failed to address the other points and areas in the game, like "why aren't all of these skeleton's staying dead wahhh" or "i just flipped the switch up there by that patches gentleman, why did i just fall to my death on that bridge?". yes there are obvious traps in sen's fortress, but how do you make timing the blades towards the top of the tower any easier for someone who hasn't played the game before?

Seriously, summon a sunbro, smooth sailing.

 

[girzwald]

But what of the newer games in the series? Wasting the time and money on an easier mode in that game that could have gone to making the existing formula better for the established audience. You know, those people that helped make the game infamous and successful in the first place?

First, you completely ignored my reply. So I guess that means it was successful and defeated your post.

Second, yet another false premise. I really wonder how much time and effort you really think it would take in order to take an already finished game, and make a toned down mode. And its not wasted time and effort if more people buy the game. Also, you speak as if they would be building the game going from easy------->hard rather than hard------->easy like they would be now if they did ever make an easy mode.

But ok. Lets just pretend that right now, dark souls had an easier mode, heck, lets call it "story mode". The developers had been developing it the entire time in secret and they just patched the game. And now, at the menu there is a difficulty setting with two difficulties "Story mode" "Normal mode". Where normal mode is everything that dark souls is now.

Please tell how that would hurt the people who were looking for the "true dark souls" experience. I'll save you some time, it wont. The only reason I can fathom people not wanting an easy mode is because they want to look down at others with a smug sense of superiority and be a member of some sort of club where they point and laugh at all the baddies.

Because you know, there are some people who can beat every video game on the hardest setting no matter what it is. And you know what, I don't care. It doesn't take away from my experience that you can beat the game on a harder setting. So why does someone beating a game on an easier setting (at least in theory) take away from yours?

 

[Church185]

It really sounds to me, an outsider, like you're saying "by searching in-game constantly, reading forums and buying a guidebook, this game isn't that hard so an easy mode isn't necessary".

But even if I was willing to accept that as a reasonable statement, it doesn't explain why an easy mode wouldn't work. Just put all that in game. Have tooltips, have hints, make checkpoints stand out more prominently against the background, all fairly easy to do.

Actually my friend, you can skip all of that if you would just summon a sunbro.

 

[BioRex]

snip

Your first two examples don't really work. A pitfall is a pitfall in any game regardless of difficulty setting. As for the poison thing? An easier option would reduce the damage the poison does to you over time, allowing you to stay alive longer without items.

Except things like that are what make dark souls hard, very rarely is it down to player reaction or skill, more often then not it is observation and awareness, if one gets poisoned and even if it does little damage, which it already does, if you don't react accordingly the damage will add up as you fight swarms of weak but annoying foes. The observational slow and steady skills are what win the day in dark souls, I mean hell I went through the game in an easy by using a bow and being very patient. While this would often mean I would spend more time on enemies I was a bit safer. Just because I played like that does not mean I should demand the game designers make bows stronger so I kill just as fast with the bow as a great sword. I chose the safe path and I must take the consequences of spending more time and resources since i need to buy arrows. But those are dirt cheap

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

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.

You didn't pay a damn lick of attention to Dark Souls if you think that what you're trying to do works.