Jimquisition: Dumbing Down for the Filthy Casuals

[GrimHeaper]

Then don't use words wrongly.

Yep here we are everything is still pretty fucked. You are trying to justify difficulty with the story and tone.
Most people just don't care about those things.
Are you telling me DS3 will be sunshine and rainbows? No something will happen in 2 that screws everything again so the game will still be "hard".

You should get a job in jumping over points. You would be really good at it.

What happens afterwards or before has no bearing on the current story. It's a self-contained story that in a time of dark, even the smallest light can grow strong.

Also considering Dark Souls II has been highly hinted to be a prequel or a sequel but taking place in a far off land. It has no bearing either way to Dark Souls story.

The same way harry potter is a self contained story.
Let me guess The hobbit has no bearing at all on The Lord of the Ring's books either right?
It would help if you actually made a point instead of trite reasons.

Never mind I know your a troll now. You don't understand what I am talking about and bringing up random shit to make your point seem valid. Considering that Dark Souls world has been screwed up before the game begins and there was a large war before it. That can easily be used as the setting. Since once again in DS2 your an undead. Now just stop arguing as you make no points. Your examples make no sense in the context of this arguments. Different stories have different rules and how their stories are have no baring on this. Dark Souls is a universe not just one story. Just because they won't have the exact story doesn't mean it takes away from the tone the other games have set.

What's next you are going to tell me DMC 3 had no bearing from DMC1.
Let me guess it doesn't matter which mass effect is played it has no bearing on the story. What color of dark souls would you like Red, green, or blue?

Storys that are intertwined have the same rule they are connected just because an event happens on the other side of the world or a different time doesn't mean they aren't connected that's the talk of first world punks. I mean really just you don't care about something else because it happens further away or slightly before or after your time when you KNOW about it?
If you are saying that at all it means you don't give a damn about the story to begin with.

No, all stories follow the same rule barring those that are in alternate realities and even those follow the same rules for the most part eventually interlinking with the main itself. Earth-1 and earth-2 ring any bells?

Problem is that yur examples are direct sequels. Dark Souls 2 will be either a indirect sequel or prequel. It's not like mass effect with Shepard always there or DMC with Dante or another character who is in contact. All I am saying is that they aren't going to suddenly change the themes, tones, and style for the sake of being a sequel or prequel. Dark Souls 2 is most likely a prequel that takes place during the age of fire or during the war against the dragons. Either way your another undead, not a god. They aren't going to suddenly change the dark and despaired tone of be series. That is what I think you don't get. Dark Souls is Dark Fantasy, it's not going to become high fantasy or just standard fantasy. If Ds2 is a prequel than most likely the next game will be a new world with no connections to dark souls.

Except that it would have connections, you don't know how this kind of thing works do you?

 

[Korten12]

Then don't use words wrongly.

Yep here we are everything is still pretty fucked. You are trying to justify difficulty with the story and tone.
Most people just don't care about those things.
Are you telling me DS3 will be sunshine and rainbows? No something will happen in 2 that screws everything again so the game will still be "hard".

You should get a job in jumping over points. You would be really good at it.

What happens afterwards or before has no bearing on the current story. It's a self-contained story that in a time of dark, even the smallest light can grow strong.

Also considering Dark Souls II has been highly hinted to be a prequel or a sequel but taking place in a far off land. It has no bearing either way to Dark Souls story.

The same way harry potter is a self contained story.
Let me guess The hobbit has no bearing at all on The Lord of the Ring's books either right?
It would help if you actually made a point instead of trite reasons.

Never mind I know your a troll now. You don't understand what I am talking about and bringing up random shit to make your point seem valid. Considering that Dark Souls world has been screwed up before the game begins and there was a large war before it. That can easily be used as the setting. Since once again in DS2 your an undead. Now just stop arguing as you make no points. Your examples make no sense in the context of this arguments. Different stories have different rules and how their stories are have no baring on this. Dark Souls is a universe not just one story. Just because they won't have the exact story doesn't mean it takes away from the tone the other games have set.

What's next you are going to tell me DMC 3 had no bearing from DMC1.
Let me guess it doesn't matter which mass effect is played it has no bearing on the story. What color of dark souls would you like Red, green, or blue?

Storys that are intertwined have the same rule they are connected just because an event happens on the other side of the world or a different time doesn't mean they aren't connected that's the talk of first world punks. I mean really just you don't care about something else because it happens further away or slightly before or after your time when you KNOW about it?
If you are saying that at all it means you don't give a damn about the story to begin with.

No, all stories follow the same rule barring those that are in alternate realities and even those follow the same rules for the most part eventually interlinking with the main itself. Earth-1 and earth-2 ring any bells?

Problem is that yur examples are direct sequels. Dark Souls 2 will be either a indirect sequel or prequel. It's not like mass effect with Shepard always there or DMC with Dante or another character who is in contact. All I am saying is that they aren't going to suddenly change the themes, tones, and style for the sake of being a sequel or prequel. Dark Souls 2 is most likely a prequel that takes place during the age of fire or during the war against the dragons. Either way your another undead, not a god. They aren't going to suddenly change the dark and despaired tone of be series. That is what I think you don't get. Dark Souls is Dark Fantasy, it's not going to become high fantasy or just standard fantasy. If Ds2 is a prequel than most likely the next game will be a new world with no connections to dark souls.

Except that it would have connections, you don't know how this kind of thing works do you?

Dark souls and Demons souls. Both are similar style and tone but take place in different universes. The dark and depressing is the shtick of the soul series. So if one universe becomes unusable and there is no more dark stories to be told. They will move on to another world.

 

[Blackpapa]

Jim, like in roughly 1/3 of his videos is flat out wrong. Then again I do disagree with 2/3 of his videos so there you go.

No, a difficulty level doesn't cut it. Numeric variables can be adjusted to make a system easier or more difficult and certain mechanics may be introduced - like the Mario mode. That's an exception, not the rule.

Difficulty and learning curve is defined not only by numeric parameters but also the underlying systems and their complexity. Game difficulty is about how well you perform an action, which can be adjusted by a sliding difficulty scale, and underlying mechanics.

You cannot make a simplified version of the mechanics to cater to the easy-mode players as you're effectively developing a second, parallel game, just with the same assets. Sure, it worked for Mario, a platformer game. The simplest type of game mechanic there is.

What happens when you want your game to range from easy to hard? Alpha Protocol is a good example, ripe with examples where the design team had a specific parameter set in range - not enough work was put into actually tweaking the difficulty and adjusting the core game, instead all it did was change the values a bit. The result is a game that is easy for the most part but with extremely difficult boss fights for example - like a guy in a tracksuit you could empty all of your ammo in and he'd still keep on shooting.

And then there are multiplayer games, where difficulty isn't really selectable. You define the difficulty of the game by mechanics - how much is based on skill and how much on luck also what mechanics are available. You can't influence the players really, you can make the game easy to learn however. At the cost of it being simple and shallow.

 

[Church185]

Jimothy, you magnificent bastard. I've enjoyed your show for some time, but only now do I feel compelled to register here to make a comment. I know that you are not likely to read it yourself, but I'd like to respond to this post and toss my two cents into this absurd argument. (After writing what was on my mind, it seems that it came out closer to $37 than two cents HOPE YOU GUYS LIKE WALLS OF TEXT)

I will preface this by saying that Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are my two favorite games this generation. I absolutely adore these games, and despite their flaws, they offer something unique and wonderful to the gaming community. I would love for more people to play these games and enjoy them as much as I do. And if people would be more likely to play the games, should an "Easy Mode" suddenly exist for them, it would be fine with me. It would detract nothing, in my opinion, to have that option, given that it would have no effect on the existing game as it has already been played by myself and others.

Having said that, allow me to explain why I become concerned upon hearing the words "more accessible," in relation to Dark Souls. It has nothing to do with Dark Souls, as many people in this thread seem to be arguing over, and absolutely everything to do with the recently announced Dark Souls II. The first game already exists, and nothing can change how much enjoyment I have derived from being pummeled to death by its assortment of monstrosities. If the developers, for some reason, were to patch in an easy mode into the game, to draw in more players, that would be fantastic (although it will never happen). But the second Dark Souls is currently in production, and none of us have any clue what may or may not be done to increase "accessibility," and this is the source of my concern. I want Dark Souls II to improve on Dark Souls I in the same ways that Dark Souls improved upon Demon's Souls. I do not want it to go the way of Ninja Gaiden 3. This isn't the cause for a massive dramastorm, but it IS something that I am quite passionate about.

The adaptations made when transitioning from Demon's Souls to Dark Souls were numerous, but ultimately led to a better game. The estus flasks vs. healing grass was a huge improvement, since you never had to farm healing again, and it prevented you from building up a stock of hundreds of healing items to trivialize the game (In Demon's Souls, you were likely to end up with more healing grass than you could carry by the end of the game, in Dark Souls, you can farm humanity, but you definitely have to go out of your way, and it's entirely unnecessary). Having bonfires instead of archstones was another great improvement, because it worked as a replacement for having to teleport to the Nexus (loading screen), then talk to the Maiden in Black to level up, talk to Stockpile Thomas to move your inventory around, talk to Blacksmith Ed to repair your stuff, and teleport back again (loading screen). In Dark Souls you could do all of that from one menu, with no loading screens, and heal, and refill your flasks. Also, the carry weight restriction was removed, meaning you would no longer permanently lose that massive tower shield, because you were carrying around three extra arrows.

These changes simplified the game, and streamlined its mechanics. They were good changes. Nobody, to the best of my knowledge, has complained that there was no more carry burden. Or world tendency. I love Demon's Souls, but world tendency was an awful mechanic. What will the changes from Dark Souls I to Dark Souls II look like?

There are several aspects that people have mentioned that affect difficulty, such as the lack of checkpoints, loss of souls on death, and a lack of direction given by the game as a whole. These mechanics are very important to the game, and creating tension, and a feeling of risk that isn't present in other games. If players want an easy mode to change these things, that's fine. However, I feel like such large changes to gameplay like that would not simply be contained within easy mode. I feel like the more likely scenario is that such changes would be made to the core game, not reliant on any difficulty setting. And the thought of this is extremely disheartening to me, because that would most certainly be the homogenizing of the one series that I appreciate the most for being different than other games that don't hold my interest so much anymore.

From managed to make these changes between Demon's and Dark without making the game significantly easier. Dark Souls was not a great deal more accessible than Demon's Souls. Many aspects of the game remain obfuscated, nothing is particularly more forgiving, and the player is still expected to die repeatedly. This is due to its excellent level and boss design (Lost Izalith and Bed of Chaos excluded). The game is crafted with only one difficulty in mind: Punishing. Punishing is different from hard, and whether or not the game is hard has been argued extensively, but it will certainly punish a player's mistakes, and punish them hard. This, for me and many others, is one of the major draws of this game, making it fun to play, and combining with the world, lore, and art to make a cohesive experience.

But, this is where some people get left behind. Some players are unable to overcome the difficulty for any reason. I've been playing games my entire life, not everyone else has, I acknowledge that, and I don't begrudge anyone for it. Including the option to reduce the difficulty should allow these players to complete this game that they wouldn't otherwise be able to complete. I support the idea that people should be able to play the game how they want to. But in the case of Dark Souls, what would it take to implement the variable difficulty, and what effect could an easy mode possibly have on the game as I play it?

If From were to patch Dark Souls, and add in this easy mode, would it simply be a reduction in HP/damage for all of the baddies? Many ardent fans of the game have argued that this would not work, for many reasons, and I agree. It would take much more work than just adjusting those values, to properly scale down the difficulty of the entire game. Take, for example, the archers in Anor Londo (http://youtu.be/x8FQ1DUp35Y?t=10m). For just about everyone, the first time, these guys are a huge obstacle. If you reduce their hp and their damage, they will still murder you again and again until you figure out what to do. What do you do for these guys? You could, I suppose, greatly reduce their knockback, or you could change their AI to make them fire slower, take their sword out sooner, or not use a shield at all. Or you could just remove the archer on the right entirely. All of these could, in theory, be done. But this is rebalancing a very specific part of that level, after it's already been balanced for normal, and modifications of that sort would certainly take more time and effort than a simple HP tweak. And there are many more adjustments of the same sort they would have to make in many other areas, as well. This could be a lot of effort to rebalance the game for an easier difficulty, and applying this to creating a new game, this leads to the argument of taking resources away from other aspects of the game to make an easy mode.

That situation, however, would only apply if they created the entire game, from the ground up, for a single difficulty, and then went back at the end and adjusted it down. Obviously, this would be the "Easy mode patch for Dark Souls" idea. But my concern is Dark Souls II, for which they have possibly been considering accessibility from the outset. They might approach such a scenario differently. For example, worried about alienating players, they might reduce the difficulty by making the ledges larger, or perhaps giving the player a safety net to fall onto, a ledge below to land on if they get knocked off by the arrow. They might alter the level design so that the archers can't get as good of an angle on you, or maybe place them higher up, so that you don't need to fight one to progress. They're REALLY not likely to make those changes in a patch, but while building a level from scratch, nothing is set in stone. And if they're concerned about the difficulty pushing players away, they might make decisions based on level design to make it more forgiving. Such decisions would carry over to all difficulties, and reduce the impact of level design on the overall challenge of the game.

And this is my primary concern. Level design. It cannot be simply adjusted by dividing it in two. They are not going to make two different levels for two different difficulties, so any reduction in outright difficulty with regards to level design will affect those who play it on easy, and those who play it on hard.

Now of course, this is all just a huge pile of speculation, based on rumors of interviews that have likely been mistranslated. This is not me saying "I know this is going to happen, my favorite series is ruined forever!" I'm saying that I hope it doesn't play out that way. For all I know, From Software is creating the most challenging and rewarding game ever, and that once they're done, they'll go back and redo the entire thing for an easier difficulty level, and it will be amazing and all gamers everywhere will enjoy it. But this is not the image in my mind after I hear the words "more accessible" being tossed around in articles about Dark Souls II. The image I'm seeing is Ninja Gaiden 3. They had the first game, and it was hard. They added a lower difficulty in the re-release, and all was well. The second game was similar. Then, from what I can tell from the reviews, they tried to change small aspects of the core gameplay to make it "more accessible," and all of the reviews seem to suggest that the charm of the original was lost.

This is the analogy that you used Jim, and it is exactly what I don't want to happen to Dark Souls. So in response to why would it bother me if they included an optional feature that wouldn't affect my gameplay at all, I say that it wouldn't bother me, so long as it ACTUALLY doesn't affect my gameplay at all. With regards to the already released Dark Souls, it should not matter one bit to anyone if they patched in an easy mode. For Dark Souls II, I hope that From Software finds some magical solution to make everyone happy, I really do. But you will forgive those of us who acknowledge that there is a precedent in the gaming industry, as we have all come to know it over the years, of trying to broaden the appeal of a game series, only to have the final product suffer for it. Hearing those magic marketing words sends up huge red flags for people getting their hopes up for a sequel.

In the end, I'm still hopeful about Dark Souls II. If it doesn't live up to my expectations, I suppose I'll be a bit disappointed, won't I? It won't be the end of the world, though, I'll still buy it and enjoy it. But games as a whole are magnificent, and I'd like to see them living up to their full potential.

If only Dark Souls II could be so grossly incandescent.




SO! How can we make Dark Souls II more accessible to newer players without reducing the experience for experienced players? I suggest that we keep the difficulty as it is entirely, but if the player dies too many times in one area, a summon sign will appear for Soluigi, who will then murder everything for you and accompany you to the boss battle, and then praise the sun a whole lot.

This guy wins the internet.

I would claim you a gentleman and a scholar, but I'm afraid that this game needs more solaire, not soluigi

 

[Church185]

I assume that all resistances can also be edited with a few numbers. Increase the curse resistances of every armor.

Also, you seem to assume that "Easy mode" should remove all the challenges and insta-kills. I don't see a problem with Seethe the Scaleless or with fighting multiple enemies. As long as enemies are weaker, deal less damage and have less health, people will learn. The majority of people that want an Easy mode isn't because they don't want any challenge. It's because the normal challenge is too much for them. Poison in Blighttown, curses, traps... all of them are dangerous things, but they can be avoided easily. Even the worst player would realize that standing in the swamp in Blighttown will poison you. Everyone will know that falling of a ledge will kill you if the fall is long.
However, not matter how much you know that the Capra Demon will kill you 2 hits, if you're not skilled enough, you won't be able to avoid it.

Also, "dumbing down" happens when the normal mode is actually easy and then they make a "hard mode". That way the core game is balanced around unskilled people and even the hard mode is easy and/or bad because it's just number changes.
However, if you do it the other way around, if you make a game hard on normal and after that add an easy mode, number changes are OK, because it's the core game made a bit easier. Sure, it would be nice to have different AI's for different difficulty levels, but that's not needed if you go from hard to easy.

Again, I don't think everything needs to change. Traps and co aren't the main danger in DS. It's the enemies. Enemies require skill to be beaten, traps require just a bit of thinking. Nerf the things that require skill so that they require less, let the rest be the same.

Ok, so maybe I give gamers crying out for an easy mode too little credit, but my greatest fear still remains. I'm afraid that with the upsurge in the gaming community saying that the game needs to be more accessible or easy to beat for some people, that they will change their design philosophy for the next game in the series so that the game is initially tuned for lower-skilled players, and then "hard" is tacked on for those of us that like it rough.

 

[Xisin]

Let me explain this... Again... A game like Dues Ex is built with multiple difficulties in mind. How it's created allows for the developers to add more enemies, do higher damage, and such. Dark Souls is not. The level design, how each level is played is centered around being hard. Just adding more enemies and increasing health and damage for a hard mode, or lessening them is missing the point as to why Dark Souls is hard.

It's hard because the levels are made to be. In most games like I mentioned (with Dues Ex) are built with multiple difficulties, where as Dark Souls isn't. Hence if they wanted to add Easy mode, they would have to change the whole way difficulties work because at the current moment it wouldn't work just changing the stats on enemies.

Thus this is why Easy mode would hamper the game as they would be forced to change how Dark Souls is played unless they want to design the game twice which is just stupid and asking for a lot.

I disagree with you here. I'm terrible at FPSs, so my husband put Dues Ex: Human Revolution on the hardest difficulty. You can change the difficulty mode at any point in time in that game, yet I played it all the way through on the hardest setting. I died 3 times right after he asks if you want to go lethal or non-lethal... If you feel the need to go down a setting perhaps you are not having as good a time as you thought you were? Having the option doesn't force you to take it. Just because human's like to take the easiest path, doesn't mean you have to.

Besides challenge is relative. What is hard for me, is different than what is hard for you. So why not have options to challenge us both?

Let me explain this... Again... A game like Dues Ex is built with multiple difficulties in mind. How it's created allows for the developers to add more enemies, do higher damage, and such. Dark Souls is not. The level design, how each level is played is centered around being hard. Just adding more enemies and increasing health and damage for a hard mode, or lessening them is missing the point as to why Dark Souls is hard.

It's hard because the levels are made to be. In most games like I mentioned (with Dues Ex) are built with multiple difficulties, where as Dark Souls isn't. Hence if they wanted to add Easy mode, they would have to change the whole way difficulties work because at the current moment it wouldn't work just changing the stats on enemies.

Thus this is why Easy mode would hamper the game as they would be forced to change how Dark Souls is played unless they want to design the game twice which is just stupid and asking for a lot.

If the dev team is willing to change the game to give an easy mode, why should we protest? Saying it would be hard to implement an Easy Mode is not much of a reason to not implement an Easy Mode. Fundamentally changing something to fit a different audience happens all the time.

What I don't get is why you are so against it. An easy mode will not effect you or me for that matter. You still have your game and I still have mine, but with the new mode perhaps my mom will give it a go again.

 

[Church185]

If the dev team is willing to change the game to give an easy mode, why should we protest? Saying it would be hard to implement an Easy Mode is not much of a reason to not implement an Easy Mode. Fundamentally changing something to fit a different audience happens all the time.

What I don't get is why you are so against it. An easy mode will not effect you or me for that matter. You still have your game and I still have mine, but with the new mode perhaps my mom will give it a go again.

From Software never said they were willing to make an easy mode.

 

[WWmelb]

For the first time in this thread i'm going to skip over a few pages because it's nearly 4am and i'm tired and i want to put a couple of things out there i was thinking about today. Forgive me if some of this has been said by someone else between page 16 and 22.

I have said it before : It is the multiplayer component of this game that is the main cause of concern for having optional difficulties. It seems that a lot of the "easy mode please" side of the debate view this game as a "single player RPG". That is just not entirely true. The RPG can be played as single player only, but it was never intended by the creators to be the optimal experience of the game. The entire game was built with the online experience at it's core with the difficulty.

Now, as i can see it, if there were easy and normal difficulty levels, the multiplayer would have to be pretty much 1 of 3 options. If there are any other obvious ones i haven't thought of, please feel free to point them out, but i can only find 3.

1st option - Easy and Normal mode players are in the same multiplayer groups on the same servers.

The problem here would be balance and problems arising in the community. Easy mode players could blast through to the high end content and equip the best gear with more ease than normal mode players. Not all could, but a LOT could This would impact the player base in the following ways:

- Easy mode player this would have a positive effect on as they could gear and level easily, and have an advantage against newer players playing on normal. This would also encourage the griefing crowd, as they could burn through the game and then just gank the hell out of people over and over again, and basically drag the level of community down.


- "Pro" normal mode player probably wouldn't be affected in multiplayer as their skill would probably outweigh the easy mode players gear easy enough.

- Beginner player, playing on normal mode. Would get frustrated that players choosing the easy option could gear the hell out of themselves while they are working hard trying to get to the same gear level.

2nd Option - Segregated Servers for "Easy Mode" and "Normal". Detrimental in two ways. One it would divide the community, and make it smaller in the long run on both sides of the fence. 2. It is an unnecessary cost and maintenance for the devs to gamble on a 2nd bunch of "easy" servers. Once you start them, even if you only have 100 players wind up using them, you offered the service and now you have to keep providing it. Taking resources away from future development projects.

3rd Option - Offline only easy mode. Probably the safest bet of the three, but , it cuts out a lot of the game for the easy mode players. So still slightly detrimental, and would still overall probably make the online community smaller.


My other point is, i guess the integrity of the game argument can kind of be summed up by the fact it seems that the easy mode side and the no easy mode side just view the game differently.

To me, it seems that the people who want easy mode solely view Dark Souls as a commodity that they purchase, which isn't necessarily wrong i guess.

The people who are anti easy mode seem , like myself, to view dark souls as a work of art, not just a commodity.

Here is the best analogy i can come up with for how it appears to me, as i view the game as a piece of art: (with both adding an after the fact easy mode, and catering to the easy mode group with the new game)

A person sees a painting for sale at an exhibit and thinks, ooooh that looks nice, i'll buy it. The person takes the painting home, and hangs it up. The colours don't match their decor and they don't particularly like it anymore. The person then takes the painting back to the artist and says "This isn't to my personal taste, please alter the colours so they work for me, or better yet, next time, paint multiple versions of the same painting in different colours so you aren't excluding one particular person's decor."

Would anyone really expect that of a painter? It really is the same thing if you view dark souls as an artwork, which to me it really truly is.

Honestly, i would like the beginning of the game to be a little more accessible for beginners. I would love an expanded community, but i don't think the artists should have to compromise their work because some don't appreciate what they have done as it is. I don't know what the right answer is to make it more accessible, maybe better tutorial and better in game descriptions of stats for the character and items.

Maybe it's just fine how it is. In the end, it is up to From Software what they want to do with their artwork. I trust them to do the right thing, and if they find a way to implement an easier option for some that DOESNT take away from my game AT ALL, then fantastic I just can't see a way with this game, without there being SOME detriment elsewhere.

 

[WWmelb]

As long as there's the option of not being hand-held it's all fine stop complaining. Many people complained about casual features on Hitman absolution but the hardest difficulty is harder than the older games, that was completely overlooked by everyone who complained however. It's the same with a Dark Soul's easy mode, don't see the point as long as it's just another option. Now making core mechanics "more accessible" is generally sucky. Reminds me of how Dawn of War 2 was initially meant to be a casual 3v3 game, that was not cool, didn't appeal to the broader audience Johnny Ehbert(this guy should retire from gaming.) wanted to grab and it ended up being halfassedly mended into a 1v1 game through various expansions and patches.

The problem with Hitman Absolution on Purist Mode is that it wasn't how the game was designed. The game was built around using the new features in the easier modes, and the only way they made it hard was by taking a core mechanic that is somewhat needed in the game, away from the player, and therefore forcing them to play purist in one way only : Don't be seen.

Although i enjoyed the game, and played it through on normal (The second easiest difficulty) the Instinct mechanic was so imbedded in the design of the game, taking it away for purist makes it a false difficulty, and is a completely backwards and unsatisfactory way of making successful easy/hard modes in my opinion.

 

[Peithelo]

I would love for more people to play these games and enjoy them as much as I do.

Quite so, I feel much the same. Still I feel it necessary to add that these games, like any other creative work, should be learned to be appreciated in their original, intended form (unless there was something blatantly disturbing or distasteful). Game developers have to stop pandering to any specific demographics in order for their work to be considered a work of art. This is what any creative mind should like to aspire towards, I think.


Meaning of Karma said something very similar some ten pages ago:

You know, this thread has made me come to the realization that, if video games truly want to be on par with movies and novels as an artistic medium, then they need to stop being so consumer centric, and they need to stop pandering to the people who perpetuate that culture.

If you do not have the knowledge required to truly appreciate, say, War and Peace, would you demand that Tolstoy release a version that is easier to understand?

Let me also make a reference to Edmund Snow Carpenter's They "Became What They Beheld" and its foreword (I first encountered this work here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm-Jjvqu3U4&list=LLZfVa5LeJDCBa62O_HUSTlA Let it act as a source.). There it is stated that artists do not address themselves to audiencies, but instead create them. It continues to say that an artist merely talks out loud and if what they have said is significant, others hear and are affected.

I sincerely agree with this myself, and if it can be agreed upon in general the only thing that remains to be debatable is this; do we want games to be viewed as a form of art or should they be purposefully created pieces of consumable entertainment? Note that art can be entertaining but it usually is not specifically designed to be consumed as entertainment by anyone specific. I think there can be a place for both, but on avarage a piece of art is inherently more precious than a piece of purposeful entertainment.

And if people would be more likely to play the games, should an "Easy Mode" suddenly exist for them, it would be fine with me. It would detract nothing, in my opinion, to have that option, given that it would have no effect on the existing game as it has already been played by myself and others.

You seem to forget that games can also be revisited. I know I have done so with almost all of my favorite games, music, books and movies, because every single one of them offers some unique experience that I like to relive from time to time.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

This seems like saying Bionic commando is a difficulty game that happens to be a platformer or Ikaruga is a difficulty game that happens to be a shooter. Which one could certainly argue. But then there are core mechanics that definitively classify them; DS with its stats, items, weapons, and experience is no different. It still is an RPG at the end of the day. taking the difficulty out of Darks souls (again not what Im advocating, Im advocating the right to optional accessibility) is not the same thing as taking out the bullets in a bullet hell game. If you took out the Difficulty, it would still be an rpg. If you took out the bullets, it would be....the flash game "Loneliness"
But in general, there could be any multitude of ways, fixing the manual, streamlining some mechanics, anything, that could be done to up the experience accessibility without ruining the core challenge or just plopping in a watered down "easy mode". Iam very curious to see what they have in store for the sequel.

You view Dark Souls as just another game where the difficulty doesn't really drive the experience or define it in any meaningful way, just like your examples. And that is what you want Dark Souls to turn into. That is the very thing Souls fans fear most. It's just another RPG to you, so of course YOU don't care if it is difficult. All that's at stake for YOU in this is just another shitty RPG to toss on your heap. This is like taking my hundred dollar bill and burning it in front of me. Please just leave us alone with our unique experience and play whatever it is that you like. You cannot possibly be starved for easy games to play.

 

[Atmos Duality]

EDIT: Foolishly, I actually engaged them in logical discourse, and you can read for yourself the numerous, and endless fallacies therein in the following pages.

Anyone who actually wants to try and make an argument: you already know where you stand, and we both know that isn't going to change.

I apologize for being overly condescending and inflammatory in my opening comment.
Apart from that, I make no apologies since they dragged ME into the fray.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

instead of whining my ass off like a pretentious fuckhead

Exploiting people's hatred and prejudice is the secret to getting a spot at the escapist, apparently. First MovieBob, and now Mr. Sterling. MovieBob tried to mask it, Mr. Sterling doesn't bother. I know this is just video games and not real life, but all the same I really wouldn't want to think of myself as the Bill O'Reilly of video games.

Stay classy Jim Sterling.

I've decided to try the alternative approach, and just find other games that possess the qualities I enjoy.

The irony in that statement is so excruciatingly over-the-top I can barely take my pinky off the 'period' key..............................................

 

[BioRex]

22 pages. I sense toxic levels of nonsense and bullshit, so I'm just going to skip the conversation and comment based on the video.

I agree, Mr. Sterling.
-Option means "optional", and not "mandatory".
-The presence of an Easy mode somehow infringing on Normal/Hard has zero logical, objective basis.

If the changes to the premise between games in a series were mandatory, I could see something of a problem there akin to "Bait-and-Switch" marketing (assuming the changes were for the worse).

For a while, I worried about trends like that in gaming; those that dumb down the experience, rip out nuance and exclude other mechanics by the market's popular vote, but instead of whining my ass off like a pretentious fuckhead, I've decided to try the alternative approach, and just find other games that possess the qualities I enjoy.

It's much less stressful, and far more logical.

So what games have you found that are hard or provide challenge?
Also every hour put into making an easy mode is taking from the next game yada yada, though I am more interested in my first question.

 

[Windcaler]

I dont normally care for Jimquistition but reading the title made it clear that this was going to be, in part, about dark souls. So I have to come in and talk about my point of view which Ive talked about in multiple threads across the gaming discussion forum.

While for many games I would agree that making them appeal to wider audiences through difficulty modes would be alright as long as it didnt make the game worse there is another problem. However, games like Dark souls are THE exception.

The argument Jim puts out there that Souls fans were mad about the fact that Dark souls could be enjoyed by more people but thats a red herring. The argument of the souls community has never been that more people will be able to enjoy dark souls, in fact the community by large has always tried to include as many people as possible by offering assistance in the form of knowledge and advice. The argument from the majority of the community is and has always been that an easy mode cheapens the game.

I probably could, and maybe even have, written enough about this subject that it could fill a book but the problem is I dont think that argument is going to reach Jim. So it isnt one worth having here. I hope in the future he stays away from these red herrings and listens to the actual argument that communities make

 

[Atmos Duality]

Exploiting people's hatred and prejudice is the secret to getting a spot at the escapist, apparently.

Exploitation of anger over First World Problems is by no means limited to the Escapist.

So what games have you found that are hard or provide challenge?

Recently, FTL: Faster Than Light
Highly replayable, pretty brutal in places, though sometimes the luck factor pushes a bit too far.
Still, I love the game.

Less recently, The Binding of Isaac
It's legitimately difficult without resorting entirely to abusive spam (it's quite possible to win without any upgrades, though it's hard as balls to do so).

Also every hour put into making an easy mode is taking from the next game yada yada, though I am more interested in my first question.

Wha?
Barring the powers of time travel, every hour put into ANY aspect of a game is "taking from the next game".

 

[BioRex]

Exploiting people's hatred and prejudice is the secret to getting a spot at the escapist, apparently.

Exploitation of anger over First World Problems is by no means limited to the Escapist.

So what games have you found that are hard or provide challenge?

Recently, FTL: Faster Than Light
Highly replayable, pretty brutal in places, though sometimes the luck factor pushes a bit too far.
Still, I love the game.

Less recently, The Binding of Isaac
It's legitimately difficult without resorting entirely to abusive spam (it's quite possible to win without any upgrades, though it's hard as balls to do so).

Also every hour put into making an easy mode is taking from the next game yada yada, though I am more interested in my first question.

Wha?
Barring the powers of time travel, every hour put into ANY aspect of a game is "taking from the next game".

Well the statement that putting in an easy mode effects nothing is false unless they do have a time machine.
Also good games, I've faster then light seems very cool strategy. And I've played Binding of Isaac a lot, which while hard is not insanely hard. Its a rougelike so its to be expected that the difficulty can be a bit random at times. Now that I think on it wouldn't putting an easy mode in binding be redundant as well? Given that the challenge varies based on what you are given?