Jimquisition: Dumbing Down for the Filthy Casuals

[Andy Shandy]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! You should've chosen the British game show host, then you would've had Jasper Carrott! And then you could've made a joke about Golden Balls and everything.

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

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

 

[nodlimax]

If someone complains about several difficulty modes he/she is simply an idiot.

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

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

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

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

 

[dbenoy]

I agree with you Jim, but I can totally sympathize with people who would be bothered by an easy mode in Dark Souls.

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

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

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

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

 

[WWmelb]

Every single game in the world i agree with Jim on this ... except games with pvp that are somewhat gear reliant.

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

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

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

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

 

[KiloFox]

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

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

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

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

 

[irishda]

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

 

[jehk]

These discussions are too often plagued with people who haven't adequately studied challenge and balancing in video games, and how they affect the quality of the product. It's not an easy thing to grasp in the slightest, and I'm sick of you know-it-alls making light of it.

Clearly you're not this person. Google core aesthetics of video games. People play games for a variety of different reasons. Someone could play a game for the challenge. Someone for the sense of exploration. And so on. It's entirely possible that a game could deliver challenge for one person and exploration or another depending on the setting that are selected.

 

[burningdragoon]

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

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

 

[Stabby Joe]

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

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

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

 

[GamemasterAnthony]

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

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

 

[dbenoy]

Perhaps I should say it this way:

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

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

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

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

 

[MichaelMaverick]

These discussions are too often plagued with people who haven't adequately studied challenge and balancing in video games, and how they affect the quality of the product. It's not an easy thing to grasp in the slightest, and I'm sick of you know-it-alls making light of it.

Clearly you're not this person. Google core aesthetics of video games. People play games for a variety of different reasons. Someone could play a game for the challenge. Someone for the sense of exploration. And so on. It's entirely possible that a game could deliver challenge for one person and exploration or another depending on the setting that are selected.

Game design theory wouldn't need to exist at all then, according to you. Every game could simply be a mash-up of every conceivable genre, from sandbox to puzzle to shooter, and players could just be expected to find their own parts to like. I bet that would work out just swell.

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

 

[irmasterlol]

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

 

[Kuro Serpentina]

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

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

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

 

[Sir Shockwave]

So if I've got the math right, the last award is unveiled on doomsday?

Sure have a great sense of timing Jim X3

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

 

[infinity_turtles]

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

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

 

[dbenoy]

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

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

 

[Mortrialus]

I'm going to link my favorite counter argument towards adding easy mode in every game;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who are you to say "what's the point" for other people?

For Dark Souls specifically; the stated goals the developer had when creating the game.