Jimquisition: Dumbing Down for the Filthy Casuals

[Rooster Cogburn]

Difficulty is not a genre, RPG is.

I am not saying that difficulty is a genre (there is an entire challenge gaming genre/community you may be unaware of, but that is beside the point). I am saying difficulty is a defining characteristic of Dark Souls in the same way that shooting from a first person view is a defining characteristic of First Person Shooters.

Assists or modifications dont stop it from being an RPG. I mentioned earlier about the change of Ghost Recon to Advanced Fighter and from Resident Evil to RE4. In those regards, though core mechanics changed, it didnt stop those games from being the core of what they really were (tactical shooter and survival horror respectively). Even if I were advocating such a drastic change (which I'm not), so long as it's an RPG the core would be the same. But all that aside, there are many other ways beyond a blunt easy mode stat conversion that could increase accessibility without altering the core challenge or fundamental mechanics. Moreover, there are a number of ways the mechanics could be improved and still be as challenging as ever. Even after all my criticisms, I want to make it clear that I still think it's a great game. Even if I dont feel the need to get fully into NG++++ or doesn't mean I dont enjoy it.

I don't know anything about Resident Evil, but you are dead wrong about Ghost Recon. However, that doesn't really matter, because none of that is comparable to Dark Souls. That is more like just a typical example of dumbing things down, like you said. What I'm trying to tell you is that taking the difficulty out of Dark Souls is like taking the guns out of Ghost Recon. What would you even do without the guns? Just run through the levels? Maybe you can still melee guys, I guess? That is exactly the level of cognitive dissonance you present me with when talking about putting easy mode in Dark Souls. It absolutely does not compute, and the more I think about it the less sense it makes.

You are wrong to say the core of Dark Souls is the same as long as it is an RPG. This implies to me that Dark Souls is not significantly different then other RPGs in any meaningful way. If that's what you believe, I think we have found the problem. If that were true, of course I would want an easy mode in it. But I assure you it ain't so. Dark Souls isn't an RPG that happens to be hard. It's a DIFFICULTY game that happens to be an RPG.

As for alternative ways to increase accessibility, we would just have to talk about specific examples. I think the game should make efforts to try to make new players understand what Dark Souls is, and what it expects of them, and how to begin searching for ways to succeed, before they quit out of frustration. I want everyone to play it at the current level of difficulty. Make it so that even impatient gamers, even if they end up walking away, will at least know what they are walking away from. I also feel there are some things that should be fleshed out more and others that should be streamlined.

I like the tone we're getting to now, I'm sorry I was so defensive before.

 

[VyceVictus]

you dont seem to grasp the concept of differents perception, here:

you:
cappra deamon with 2 dogs: holy damn that was an awesome fight so hard, man i feel next boss is going to screw me.

my fried :
cappra deamon with no dogs: holy damn that was an awesome fight so hard, man i feel next boss is going to screw me.

see, both had the same experience, for each of you the challenge was the same, but the challenge itself had to change to adapt to both your skill sets, the feeling of you are screw because they are more powerful remains the same, the difference is at what skill set each challenge is focus to.

and well you dont like the whole you keep your souls, its the same as normal then (if you change what i said before you woudnt need the latter)

No, it's not the same. See, Cappra demon is the only boss that has just small enemies that attack you. What about smough and ornstein? Two bosses that fight you both at the same time and when you kill one of them the other get's more powerful? How do you change that? By making you fight them one on one making them very simple to kill without having to worry about the other?

Cappra demon is one example that only works but other bosses don't work like that because they don't have small enemies that they can simply remove.

Authorial Intent?
Some would say that loses relevance as soon as the work is out to the public. Is Starship Troopers a satire, an action movie, or a comedy? Though the director meant one thing, the movie audience is completely free to interpret it as another. (and even in that case the movie director was free to make his own interpretation from the original author's intent). But this is the way of art, it cannot exist without both author and audience. And art by it's nature is free to be interpreted, along with or in spite of authorial intent. Its one thing to know what the author intends, but that doesnt automatically prevent you from other interpretations. Dark Souls is beauty in ugliness, ugliness in beauty. Even if thats not one of the authors thematic intents, anyone is perfectly fee to derive that from the text (the contents of the game) itself.

Here is the problem with your example. When you watch Starship Troopers you're on the same foot as everyone else. Your not watching the movie and yourself involved in it. Your a passive viewer and you watch the scenes play out the same as everyone else does and takes in a different experience.

In Dark Souls, people who play it as it is currently make have different experiences but will ultimately come with some very similar conclusions as to the meaning, and such. But if you suddenly change this, no longer is everyone on equal footing than they will come out with a different experience because they weren't the same. It's hard to compare experiences when they happened nothing alike.

When you read a book, you read it the same as everyone else. No one is given an advantage or disadvantage and thus that is what allows them to experience it differently. But changing that, will radically come out with an experience that is not intended. Starship troopers can be interperated in many different ways because everyone experiences it the same way but comes out with different results.

Changing the difficulty you no longer don't just experience it differently but you also interperate it in a way not intended thus you lose any real meaning it may have had.

Not everyone experienced that the same way (some read the book first, some fought in war). You dont know what different meaning the experience has for different people, how could you? Why is your meaning the real one? I doubt everybody who played through it like you did got the same vision of a book glued together with difficulty. Just because you didn't experience something the way someone intended doesn't mean you cant get meaning behind the experience. Sonofblier just described his experience, and neither you, Hidetaka Miyazaki, or anyone else can take away whatever "meaning" he and his friend got out of it.

 

[Korten12]

Not everyone experienced that the same way (some read the book first, some fought in war). You dont know what different meaning the experience has for different people, how could you? Why is your meaning the real one? I doubt everybody who played through it like you did got the same vision of a book glued together with difficulty. Just because you didn't experience something the way someone intended doesn't mean you cant get meaning behind the experience. Sonofblier just described his experience, and neither you, Hidetaka Miyazaki, or anyone else can take away whatever "meaning" he and his friend got out of it.

I love how I state: "Multiple Meanings" somehow equals to "...your meaning the real one?" Implying that there is one meaning to the story.

Also now your bringing external factors (such as reading the book before the movie), in to play and that isn't what this argument has been about at all. Now your just adding more and more factors to try and make a point. You also ignore this huge point:

How can they experience it differently when the gameplay through which the story is told, is changed. No longer is the gameplay the same and the story is changed. Therefore your not only experiencing it differently but not even getting one of the many experiences that your supposed to get.

again my friend, smough and ornstein for example, mm...., a bigger delay between attacks, reduction of stagering time, reduccion of aod damage, you have to analise what are the key strengths of the bosses are, and apply the correct reduction (usually from my perspective, is an increse on the available window reaction time, and a reduction of the penalty if you miss it)

Or you know, summon friends or strangers? I like how that's removed from all the equations for you guys. What's the point in an easy mode when you can summon the many players who are willing to help and even have NPCs that can be summoned without an internet connection. What make it easier when you already have assets built in the game to help you?

That's the whole reason for the multiplayer as it is. To help others. The whole story behind it was that Miyazaki got stuck in a snow storm with his car and random strangers came by and helped him despite them not needing to. Hence the idea for the multiplayer was born. To have those around you help you because they can and will. They made the experience of trying to get a car out of a pinch much easier and you don't need another mode to make this happen because it's already in the game.

 

[sonofliber]

Not everyone experienced that the same way (some read the book first, some fought in war). You dont know what different meaning the experience has for different people, how could you? Why is your meaning the real one? I doubt everybody who played through it like you did got the same vision of a book glued together with difficulty. Just because you didn't experience something the way someone intended doesn't mean you cant get meaning behind the experience. Sonofblier just described his experience, and neither you, Hidetaka Miyazaki, or anyone else can take away whatever "meaning" he and his friend got out of it.

I love how I state: "Multiple Meanings" somehow equals to "...your meaning the real one?" Implying that there is one meaning to the story.

Also now your bringing external factors (such as reading the book before the movie), in to play and that isn't what this argument has been about at all. Now your just adding more and more factors to try and make a point. You also ignore this huge point:

How can they experience it differently when the gameplay through which the story is told, is changed. No longer is the gameplay the same and the story is changed. Therefore your not only experiencing it differently but not even getting one of the many experiences that your supposed to get.

again my friend, smough and ornstein for example, mm...., a bigger delay between attacks, reduction of stagering time, reduccion of aod damage, you have to analise what are the key strengths of the bosses are, and apply the correct reduction (usually from my perspective, is an increse on the available window reaction time, and a reduction of the penalty if you miss it)

Or you know, summon friends or strangers? I like how that's removed from all the equations for you guys. What's the point in an easy mode when you can summon the many players who are willing to help and even have NPCs that can be summoned without an internet connection. What make it easier when you already have assets built in the game to help you?

That's the whole reason for the multiplayer as it is. To help others. The whole story behind it was that Miyazki got stuck in a snow storm with his car and random strangers came by and helped him despite them not needing to. Hence the idea for the multiplayer was born. To have those around you help you because they can and will. They made the experincing of trying to get a car out of a pinch much easier and you don't need another mode to make this happen because it's already in the game.

well i kind of was expecting to remove the whole online aspect of the game from easy mode, so people woudnt complain, WAAAAA HE HAS AN ADVANTAGE, WAAAA HE IS SMURFING, and that stuff, but if you want you can add random summonings and invasions from a random generated base of characters, to help you on bosses or invade you at random

 

[BilltheEmu]

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

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

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

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

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.

 

[Korten12]

well i kind of was expecting to remove the whole online aspect of the game from easy mode, so people woudnt complain, WAAAAA HE HAS AN ADVANTAGE, WAAAA HE IS SMURFING, and that stuff, but if you want you can add random summonings and invasions from a random generated base of characters, to help you on bosses or invade you at random

My point is that, why have an easy mode, when you have those around you who are willing to help. Random strangers and NPCs whom are just sitting there wanting to be summoned to help you along your journey.

 

[BioRex]

hi my friend who play this game with a trainer (he didnt have the skills to finish the game), say you are spewing lies, about the whole "difficulty is what makes this game work" he loves the setting, the atmosphere, the sound and the asthetics of the game.

Your friend may be enjoying himself, but if he is playing the game with a trainer, he doesn't know what the game is, never mind if it "works". No one is saying you can't appreciate the game's aesthetics, but that's like looking at screen shots from a film. You wouldn't be truly engaging it's content.

and well the whole easy mode is so that he will be able to experience the same things as you and the same challenge as you, but adjusted accordingly to his skill level

But what skill of his is the easy mode compensating for? Planning? Spacial awareness? Observational skills? If the easy mode you would like is not aimed at these then one would not do well in the game either way. Your friend may be selling himself short on what are or are not his capabilities.

reflexes speed or pattern recognition speed (basically you improve the reaction time window, and dont make it so unforgiving if he fails)

You keep mentioning speed, exactly how fast do you think this game is? Asides from traps, which by definition need to be fast, the game is not all that fast. While some parts are fast to be sure either those are later into the game or have a trick to them that make the speed meaningless. I mean the hydra part was pretty fast if one is trying to dodge the blasts, but when you figure out that you can block the water blasts and the attacks of the thing the speed difference is not that important. While I can sympathize making a dumb mistake and losing stuff it's something of a game mechanic, it's meant to be unforgiving but fair. Rarely does the game cheat, a bit of experimentation can turn a situation where one is losing all the time into a cakewalk. Like when i fought Pikachu and Snorlax I lost a ton of times, when I finally one everything just clicked. I was dodging all their attacks, not by some act of insane reflexes, more like an understanding of what was coming. I dodged attacks not because I saw them, often I didn't see them preparing an attack because I was focused on the other, but from my experience I knew that an attack was probably going to come. What I'm saying is, its not by some great speed that I won, it was from experience, thats something you can't simple replicate expect by experiencing it for yourself.

 

[VyceVictus]

Difficulty is not a genre, RPG is.

I am not saying that difficulty is a genre (there is an entire challenge gaming genre/community you may be unaware of, but that is beside the point). I am saying difficulty is a defining characteristic of Dark Souls in the same way that shooting from a first person view is a defining characteristic of First Person Shooters.

Assists or modifications dont stop it from being an RPG. I mentioned earlier about the change of Ghost Recon to Advanced Fighter and from Resident Evil to RE4. In those regards, though core mechanics changed, it didnt stop those games from being the core of what they really were (tactical shooter and survival horror respectively). Even if I were advocating such a drastic change (which I'm not), so long as it's an RPG the core would be the same. But all that aside, there are many other ways beyond a blunt easy mode stat conversion that could increase accessibility without altering the core challenge or fundamental mechanics. Moreover, there are a number of ways the mechanics could be improved and still be as challenging as ever. Even after all my criticisms, I want to make it clear that I still think it's a great game. Even if I dont feel the need to get fully into NG++++ or doesn't mean I dont enjoy it.

I don't know anything about Resident Evil, but you are dead wrong about Ghost Recon. However, that doesn't really matter, because none of that is comparable to Dark Souls. That is more like just a typical example of dumbing things down, like you said. What I'm trying to tell you is that taking the difficulty out of Dark Souls is like taking the guns out of Ghost Recon. What would you even do without the guns? Just run through the levels? Maybe you can still melee guys, I guess? That is exactly the level of cognitive dissonance you present me with when talking about putting easy mode in Dark Souls. It absolutely does not compute, and the more I think about it the less sense it makes.

You are wrong to say the core of Dark Souls is the same as long as it is an RPG. This implies to me that Dark Souls is not significantly different then other RPGs in any meaningful way. If that's what you believe, I think we have found the problem. If that were true, of course I would want an easy mode in it. But I assure you it ain't so. Dark Souls isn't an RPG that happens to be hard. It's a DIFFICULTY game that happens to be an RPG.

As for alternative ways to increase accessibility, we would just have to talk about specific examples. I think the game should make efforts to try to make new players understand what Dark Souls is, and what it expects of them, and how to begin searching for ways to succeed, before they quit out of frustration. I want everyone to play it at the current level of difficulty. Make it so that even impatient gamers, even if they end up walking away, will at least know what they are walking away from. I also feel there are some things that should be fleshed out more and others that should be streamlined.

I like the tone we're getting to now, I'm sorry I was so defensive before.

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.

 

[sonofliber]

hi my friend who play this game with a trainer (he didnt have the skills to finish the game), say you are spewing lies, about the whole "difficulty is what makes this game work" he loves the setting, the atmosphere, the sound and the asthetics of the game.

Your friend may be enjoying himself, but if he is playing the game with a trainer, he doesn't know what the game is, never mind if it "works". No one is saying you can't appreciate the game's aesthetics, but that's like looking at screen shots from a film. You wouldn't be truly engaging it's content.

and well the whole easy mode is so that he will be able to experience the same things as you and the same challenge as you, but adjusted accordingly to his skill level

But what skill of his is the easy mode compensating for? Planning? Spacial awareness? Observational skills? If the easy mode you would like is not aimed at these then one would not do well in the game either way. Your friend may be selling himself short on what are or are not his capabilities.

reflexes speed or pattern recognition speed (basically you improve the reaction time window, and dont make it so unforgiving if he fails)

You keep mentioning speed, exactly how fast do you think this game is? Asides from traps, which by definition need to be fast, the game is not all that fast. While some parts are fast to be sure either those are later into the game or have a trick to them that make the speed meaningless. I mean the hydra part was pretty fast if one is trying to dodge the blasts, but when you figure out that you can block the water blasts and the attacks of the thing the speed difference is not that important. While I can sympathize making a dumb mistake and losing stuff it's something of a game mechanic, it's meant to be unforgiving but fair. Rarely does the game cheat, a bit of experimentation can turn a situation where one is losing all the time into a cakewalk. Like when i fought Pikachu and Snorlax I lost a ton of times, when I finally one everything just clicked. I was dodging all their attacks, not by some act of insane reflexes, more like an understanding of what was coming. I dodged attacks not because I saw them, often I didn't see them preparing an attack because I was focused on the other, but from my experience I knew that an attack was probably going to come. What I'm saying is, its not by some great speed that I won, it was from experience, thats something you can't simple replicate expect by experiencing it for yourself.

make the enemy start its attack and an x amount of time until he unleashes it, or hell make it so that they glow for a second when they start they attack (so if you have trouble finding a pattern you have a visual aid), there are a lot of ways, you just need to think of one that suits the ocation.

again this mode is not for you, is for people with less skill than you

well i kind of was expecting to remove the whole online aspect of the game from easy mode, so people woudnt complain, WAAAAA HE HAS AN ADVANTAGE, WAAAA HE IS SMURFING, and that stuff, but if you want you can add random summonings and invasions from a random generated base of characters, to help you on bosses or invade you at random

My point is that, why have an easy mode, when you have those around you who are willing to help. Random strangers and NPCs whom are just sitting there wanting to be summoned to help you along your journey.

and what if in 3 years when someone boughts the game and is stuck with the 2 knights in anon lando, and he cant get help because very few people still play the game?

 

[Korten12]

and what if in 3 years when someone boughts the game and is stuck with the 2 knights in anon lando, and he cant get help because very few people still play the game?

Demon's Souls is over 3 years old now and you can still play with people. It has that type of community, of people who continue to play years after it's old and the sequel has come out.

Also like I mentioned, NPC summons never go away. They will be with the game even after the servers have been turned off many years from now.

 

[sonofliber]

and what if in 3 years when someone boughts the game and is stuck with the 2 knights in anon lando, and he cant get help because very few people still play the game?

Demon's Souls is over 3 years old now and you can still play with people. It has that type of community, of people who continue to play years after it's old and the sequel has come out.

Also like I mentioned, NPC summons never go away. They will be with the game even after the servers have been turned off many years from now.

well its kind of there because DS2 hasnt come out yet, and also remember that npc arent available for every fight

 

[girzwald]

Seems like an easy mode would defeat the whole point of Dark Souls. The difficulty is the atmosphere, it makes you afraid of what's around the corner, it makes you cautious and thoughtful of your next move, and it makes it satisfying when you finally succeed. If you can herp derp button mash your way through the entire game it loses what makes it unique in the first place.

I'm not necessarily against an easy mode, but I hope it's properly balanced in a way that doesn't destroy the heart of the game for those that choose to use it.

Deadspace manages that exact same atmosphere without being soul crushingly difficult.

Hardly, in Dark Souls you're given powerful weaponry, plus considering it's not hard and it's also a different atmopshere. In Dead Space its about being alone in a horrorific setting. Whereas Dark Souls is about being alone BUT also about being an ant among giants, looking down upon you as you must stand up despite the difference.

In Dead Space that doesn't exist, because your character isn't an ant fighting, he has an arsenal of weapons and considering in the second game he is no longer afraid takes away any tension of whats around the other corner. Even in the first game though since it's linear doesn't give that effect because you can expect whats going to happen and if you die. No sweat you spawn a bit back with all of your stuff, and you know what to expect the second time.

Your statements are contradictory.

So, in dark souls you are given powerful weaponry, but that doesn't take away from the sense of vulnerability or tension.
But in deadspace, you have an arsenal of weapons, and that takes away the sense of vulnerability and tension.

And in darksouls, you are an "ant" amongst giants. When a lot of things aren't really that much bigger than you. But some things are.
But in deadspace, enemies who feel no fear, barely react to pain and many are much bigger and stronger than you, you are not an ant amongst giants.

Got it.

So, dark souls draw, is that its "scary" because if you die, you get royally screwed from all your time investment you had. Wow, thats kinda pathetic. I'm starting to be against an easy mode for dark souls now. No, not because I'm against more options or that people should be able to enjoy more games. But sounds more and more like dark souls is a craptastic game that would be boring, unengaging, and short if it wasn't so hard and unforgiving. And that people should be as encouraged to NOT play it as much as possible. So that a game with nothing to offer but extreme difficulty could hopefully die off.

 

[BioRex]

hi my friend who play this game with a trainer (he didnt have the skills to finish the game), say you are spewing lies, about the whole "difficulty is what makes this game work" he loves the setting, the atmosphere, the sound and the asthetics of the game.

Your friend may be enjoying himself, but if he is playing the game with a trainer, he doesn't know what the game is, never mind if it "works". No one is saying you can't appreciate the game's aesthetics, but that's like looking at screen shots from a film. You wouldn't be truly engaging it's content.

and well the whole easy mode is so that he will be able to experience the same things as you and the same challenge as you, but adjusted accordingly to his skill level

hi my friend who play this game with a trainer (he didnt have the skills to finish the game), say you are spewing lies, about the whole "difficulty is what makes this game work" he loves the setting, the atmosphere, the sound and the asthetics of the game.

Your friend may be enjoying himself, but if he is playing the game with a trainer, he doesn't know what the game is, never mind if it "works". No one is saying you can't appreciate the game's aesthetics, but that's like looking at screen shots from a film. You wouldn't be truly engaging it's content.

and well the whole easy mode is so that he will be able to experience the same things as you and the same challenge as you, but adjusted accordingly to his skill level

But what skill of his is the easy mode compensating for? Planning? Spacial awareness? Observational skills? If the easy mode you would like is not aimed at these then one would not do well in the game either way. Your friend may be selling himself short on what are or are not his capabilities.

reflexes speed or pattern recognition speed (basically you improve the reaction time window, and dont make it so unforgiving if he fails)

You keep mentioning speed, exactly how fast do you think this game is? Asides from traps, which by definition need to be fast, the game is not all that fast. While some parts are fast to be sure either those are later into the game or have a trick to them that make the speed meaningless. I mean the hydra part was pretty fast if one is trying to dodge the blasts, but when you figure out that you can block the water blasts and the attacks of the thing the speed difference is not that important. While I can sympathize making a dumb mistake and losing stuff it's something of a game mechanic, it's meant to be unforgiving but fair. Rarely does the game cheat, a bit of experimentation can turn a situation where one is losing all the time into a cakewalk. Like when i fought Pikachu and Snorlax I lost a ton of times, when I finally one everything just clicked. I was dodging all their attacks, not by some act of insane reflexes, more like an understanding of what was coming. I dodged attacks not because I saw them, often I didn't see them preparing an attack because I was focused on the other, but from my experience I knew that an attack was probably going to come. What I'm saying is, its not by some great speed that I won, it was from experience, thats something you can't simple replicate expect by experiencing it for yourself.

make the enemy start its attack and an x amount of time until he unleashes it, or hell make it so that they glow for a second when they start they attack (so if you have trouble finding a pattern you have a visual aid), there are a lot of ways, you just need to think of one that suits the ocation.

again this mode is not for you, is for people with less skill than you

Again the point I was making was that the game is not all that fast, slowing down more is almost redundant, also the enemies have plenty of tells. Honestly exactly how far would you be willing to go and accodate people who are putting forth the effort to learn the tells, and I say that because I really think too many people think themselves incapable of beating this game when it is within their power. Where is the line that we say, no you have to better yourself, because honestly that line to have disappeared in many games these days.

 

[Korten12]

and what if in 3 years when someone boughts the game and is stuck with the 2 knights in anon lando, and he cant get help because very few people still play the game?

Demon's Souls is over 3 years old now and you can still play with people. It has that type of community, of people who continue to play years after it's old and the sequel has come out.

Also like I mentioned, NPC summons never go away. They will be with the game even after the servers have been turned off many years from now.

well its kind of there because DS2 hasnt come out yet, and also remember that npc arent available for every fight

Not every, but most, but even still after DS2 comes out people will still play it because they won't be exactly the same. Demon's Souls had a more punishing death, different levels than DS1, and the unique and challenging world tendency. So there is still reason to go back and try it out.

Similar with DS1. DS2 will most likely have it's own unique mechanic to the game as Dark Souls has wit humanity and the covenant system. Dark Souls 2 will have mechanic's that make sense for the story. Yes, each of the games have similar combat, tone, and similar systems. But there are subtle changes that will keep the Soul's community thriving.

Yes, if someone buys the game ten years from now, maybe it will be dead unless we have emulators or the newest systems allow to play all of the previous games. I do think that maybe, yes now there is a dillema because most likely there will be no one and not all npcs can be summoned.

http://www.gamefront.com/dark-souls-npc-ally-locations/

Although based on this there is only some fights with no NPCs are Capra, Seath, Nito, Bed of Chaos, and lastly Sif.

Of which Bed of Chaos you actually kind of have to die. No literally since when you actually get to his body you 1 hit him. The others all have little tricks to making the fight a whole lot easier.

 

[Korten12]

Your statements are contradictory.

So, in dark souls you are given powerful weaponry, but that doesn't take away from the sense of vulnerability or tension.
But in deadspace, you have an arsenal of weapons, and that takes away the sense of vulnerability and tension.

And in darksouls, you are an "ant" amongst giants. When a lot of things aren't really that much bigger than you. But some things are.
But in deadspace, enemies who feel no fear, barely react to pain and many are much bigger and stronger than you, you are not an ant amongst giants.

Got it.

So, dark souls draw, is that its "scary" because if you die, you get royally screwed from all your time investment you had. Wow, thats kinda pathetic. I'm starting to be against an easy mode for dark souls now. No, not because I'm against more options or that people should be able to enjoy more games. But sounds more and more like dark souls is a craptastic game that would be boring, unengaging, and short if it wasn't so hard and unforgiving. And that people should be as encouraged to NOT play it as much as possible. So that a game with nothing to offer but extreme difficulty could hopefully die off.

It's only contradictory if the weapons worked the same way. In Dark Souls you can level and craft weapons, but none of them suddenly will make the game any easier. In Dead Space there is weapons that usually let you just blast through and if you upgrade them even more so.

In Dark Souls the weapons are for your play style. There is no ultimate weapons, nor is there "power weapons" since most of the unique weapons aren't as good as the standard upgraded weapons.

Also you made the mistake of thinking that "Ant" among "Giants" implies size. It's not. It's power. It's like the saying, a man among gods. Like Batman, he is a normal human who has to strive to be on the same level as those around him who are nearly gods because of their power. Not because suddenly Superman is a giant and Batman is an ant.

In Dead Space, enemies aren't usually bigger than you outside bosses, or they're slightly bigger. But like I stated, size isn't the point. It's power. All enemies in Dead Space can be killed the same and some weapons do the trick in one or two hits even on the harder difficulties. More so like I mentioned if you upgrade.

Also good to know you have never played it. Good arguing with someone who has never played the game on the game. I have played both Dark Souls and Dead Space. If you haven't played both but are comparing them in the first place, then you have no right to compare them unless you have.

 

[m0ng00se]

"This game is so hard, it's basically impossible to beat"
"Oh no way I'm gonna try it. Waah it's too hard put in easy mode"

What the hell were you expecting?

The core of the game is the difficulty. If you share your experiences with other people, they're based on getting your ass kicked. If I play the game on "regular" and go "I'm stuck on the fire spider lady" and some other guy is like "Oh I kicked the crap out of her on easy" I'll mostly just want them to shut their stupid mouth because what's even the point of that. We have nothing to talk about.

Plus the story isn't that great. It's only fun because you fight tooth and nail to figure anything out.

"Cave shooters are too hard they should make them easier!" No they shouldn't, play something else. "I don't like all the bass at clubs they should play something twangier." No they shouldn't, go somewhere else.

Nothing needs to be everything at once. Let's let things be what they are so they can be good and then if you want a different thing don't get that first thing that isn't what you want.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I got a warning. Not the people who called us elitist asshats and all that shit. I think it's Mr. Sterling trolling lol.

 

[TaintedSaint]

Adding an easy mode to Dark Souls DOES harm it, because the high difficulty is the very core of the experience and everything else is complementary, and it DOES harm everyone, because merely having the option of NOT exposing yourself to that grueling challenge destroys the experience utterly and misses the point entirely. After a while of getting your arse kicked you won't be able to "ignore" the easy mode, you'd be a fool otherwise to make it harder for yourself when you don't HAVE to. Except sometimes being FORCED to do certain stuff, or doing it in a particular way, is what makes it so enriching. Sometimes you find yourself enjoying a situation because you were pushed into it, otherwise you'd never willingly get into it. This is how human psychology works.

When it comes to this issue, I find so many people thinking that having an option is ALWAYS a good thing. It is not so. Sometimes it's not a good thing at all. It's a simple reality of game design, why can't you guys get it through your skulls? MovieBob did this shit as well. The fact that even accomplished and allegedly knowledgeable people in the industry think this way is depressing. There is nothing inherently wrong with easy modes and streamlining and making things more accessible and what-have-you, but there are types of games (fighting and strategic games especially) where the challenge and the competitive aspect holds everything together. Please learn to recognize this fact already. 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.

This guy gets it. Dark souls being hard is part of the experience. It is so much part of what the game is. If they made an easy mode it would just be hollow. And why can't the hardcore have one series that is untouched, You don't see me playing Dance central. Let us have one game untouched buy casuals you already hurt gaming enough as is. "Dead space 3 co op RE being turned into a shooter" Leave Dark Souls alone to the people who can handle it.

 

[scrape]

Gaming is a past-time, not a special meter of your worth.

This statement refutes 65% of what has been written in this thread. So much of the butthurt would just evaporate if this one simple truth were acknowledged. Really, if a game is truly well-designed, easy mode CANNOT POSSIBLY harm it. Chess is hard for me and Gary Kasparov in two completely different ways. In the real world, the skill of the opponent is the difficulty setting. In single player videogames, the only opponent is the AI created by the developer. Therefore, not including an easier AI is like not allowing anyone under the rank of Master to play chess against anyone under the rank of Master. The only reason this ridiculous mismatch is even allowed in games is because the AI can't complain that it's bored. We wouldn't tolerate this in any real-world game. We would harshly scold the mean, nasty, older kids who insisted that the little kids play on their level instead of against each other. No one wants "big hits" in pee-wee football. If you do, you are a bad person. You graduate them up. Beating Easy should prepare you for Normal, because Easy should get progressively more like Normal as it progresses, and so on up the difficulty ladder. It is simply lazy not to include an easy mode. Good Easy is at least as difficult to pull off as good Hard. Making a hard game is just Easy Mode for developers. You don't have to fix the problems - most people will never see them, and the ones who do will be so busy patting themselves on the back for making it that far they will shout down anyone who says, "Hey, this is a problem, not a feature!" Anyone, and I say this without qualification or reserve, ANYONE who is anti-Easy-Mode, suffers from a profound and frightening lack of empathy. "No one made it easier for ME!" Dude, that's EXACTLY why you make it easier for the kid coming after you. Raise a child (well) and you'll figure it out.

Humans differ; deal with it.

Some humans have difficulty doing what some other humans can do easily. People complaining about easy mode are like Olympians complaining about Paralympians. Or Paralympians complaining about Special Olympians. I just wanna scream, "We're not making the cripples race YOU!! Them kids just wanna RUN! They wanna get a MEDAL for something! Why is that YOUR problem? 'Cause you run so good? OTHER people getting medals for running detracts for YOURS in some way? What is wrong with you? You own running now? Shouldn't anyone who can lift a leg get to run? You'll still be the fastest - hell, you'll look even faster beating that kid on the crutches - but kicking the crutches out and making him CRAWL just diminishes YOU. You got someone who was zero threat to you QUIT instead of allowing them PRETEND, even for a moment, that they were even LITTLE BIT like YOU. That is more terrible than stealing 40 cakes. And don't hide behind the rationale that you were 'bettering' them somehow. You weren't bettering them, you were just trying to make them like YOU That's not better. They were already THEM and that was FINE."

Dropping the metaphor, some people suck at videogames, and some are just okay. To deny them easy mode just because you don't want to be "tempted" to use it yourself is the most pathetically false argument I have ever seen. Is LeBron "tempted" to flatten a bunch of portly Floridian grade-schoolers just because their school's basketball gym is a short walk from his house? If you are really that good, you will NEVER play easy, or at least not for long. It will bore you. You know that. But if it interests someone else, why deny them? IF the game was made right to begin with, Easy Mode doesn't really cost the developers anything. Change ONE LINE of code and FTL's rebel fleet disappears, yet that change creates a wholly different experience that I enjoy just as much as the "real" game. Authors don't know everything, and let's face it you only really care about Author Intent when the author's intent is similar to your interpretation, otherwise you just enjoy the art, don't you?



TL;DR

Gaming is a past-time, not a special meter of your worth.

Can't say it better than this. Longer, though. I can say it much, much longer.



And I admit it: I had to look up the number of cakes.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Really, if a game is truly well-designed, easy mode CANNOT POSSIBLY harm it.

What would it take for me to convince you the game I just made would be harmed by an easy mode, assuming it is truly well-designed?