Jimquisition: Dumbing Down for the Filthy Casuals

[dbenoy]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Domogo]

Only Jim Sterling can make eating a carrot funny how do you do it?

 

[Nordicwolf1990]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[jdogtwodolla]

It's about time Jim started using his powers to play God himself.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[daxterx2005]

I love the phrase "filthy casual" it always makes me laugh

 

[getoffmycloud]

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]

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]

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]

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.