Jimquisition: Dumbing Down for the Filthy Casuals

[Sande45]

snip

You really still have to make a reply like this? Really? After all the pages of Rooster and many others trying to hammer in the point, THIS is what you got from all that?

Yes, there are tons of easy ganes to play, so why wouldnt I want to try something different?

By all means. Everyone here would welcome new players with open arms. And you do realize that everything in this quote is against an easy mode, right? You want something different than easy. Still, you want an easy mode so you don't have to learn to play this difficult game.

You want people to enjoy and experience the game, but only on terms you deem acceptable?

No, he wants people to enjoy it as it is, not by having the devs twist it into something it's not and was never meant to be.

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.

I'd also add the griefers to this one. Pretty much anyone who's already dicking around in PvP would be getting a perfect venue to shit on beginners. So pretty much whichever way you look at it, PvP is something that will not work with easy mode.

btw. I was 50/50 on this issue at the beginning, but after seeing the anti side's understandable, relatable and (mostly) polite arguing and the pro side either twisting those arguments into easily defeatable strawmen, ignoring them entirely or deciding they're objectively not important/worth taking into consideration (because of their own bias and opinions), I'm really starting to tip on the "easy mode -do not want" side.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

What I do to the game doesnt concern you. Its not YOUR unique experience, it's a unique experience open to everyone simply by being on the market. And if I do eventually "get it" what then? I wouldnt have if I didnt get the chance in the first place. Yes, there are tons of easy ganes to play, so why wouldnt I want to try something different? You want people to enjoy and experience the game, but only on terms you deem acceptable? That's ludicrous.

You have been beating up that straw man that I want to boss you around since this whole thing started. I could not possibly care less what you do with the game once you have it and never implied that I do. I do however care WHAT THE GAME ITSELF IS LIKE and your opinion on what THE GAME ITSELF SHOULD BE LIKE bears directly on that to the extent that you are a presence in this discussion. You are once again conflating different things in a misleading way and I hope this makes it clear I DO NOT FALL FOR IT. What the game is actually like cannot be used interchangeably with what you do with it after you get it.

You are obviously very committed so the same straw manning and weasel wording tactics, so this is over. It was a mistake to give you a chance to discuss this reasonably.

I do want the game to be easier for you to get into. But not at ANY cost- there are lines, and the point where I see my experience degrading significantly is where I draw them. As much as I am demanding you agree to my terms, you are also demanding I agree to yours. We seem to be at an impasse but you are the farthest thing from a victim in this.

If you want to try something different, there is no shortage of games that aren't Dark Souls. I'm sorry but I have no desire to see Dark Souls morph into something unrecognizable simply so people can "try something different", which apparently means trying something that isn't different at all. If you truly desired to "try something different" you would try to appreciate the model that makes Dark Souls unique. If you can't, then you tried something different and it wasn't for you. That is OK. It happens. It is no good reason to turn this apple into an orange. There is a lot out there, you will find something that works for you.

 

[VyceVictus]

Let me be very clear then. The goal of the game is to be hard, to journey of beating the game is meant to be hard, the path from start to finish is meant to be hard. And it's not hate at the changes, maybe annoyance, it's more like this is a spicy dish, making it less spicy is not something the chef wants to do, making it less spicy but similar is a different dish that the chef has no plans to make, I don't want the chef to feel pressured to change the dish because some people don't like spicy stuff.

Ah, but you're pressuring the chef as well, to not change anything and only cater to your tastes.

"It's spicy because it's meant to be spicy, and it shouldn't change because it's meant to be spicy"
Is circular logic.

Let the chef choose, and if you don't like the new dish, don't eat it.

And in case it was not clear I am taking your point, "people who want game to be hard=pretentious", and flipping it to "people who want game to have easy mode=pretentious".

That would be true if the context was true in the inverse scenario.
Which it isn't.

You have your hard game, and nobody can take that away from you, yet you insist that adding an Easy mode will take that away from you, somehow.

And if that isn't the reasoning IN CONTEXT you're employing, I have no idea what the problem with an Easy Mode is at that point.

When did I say I'm telling the chef what they can or cannot do? When did I say that? Also you are so right the poor chef being forced to make what he wants and not being to make fastfood that can be found at any corner. Oh truly it is a tragedy.
Also I'm sorry but someone said "It's pretentious to presume that your preference is objective fact, and that everyone else who doesn't conform is "wrong"."
So your saying that the presumption that your preference (easy mode=better) is objective fact, and that everyone else who doesn't conform is "wrong", is not pretentious?
Have you ever heard of a double-standard?
Or would you be ok with me demanding that developer spend time and money to heavily alter a game to put in a hard mode? And they would indeed have to alter a game if it was not intended for a hard mode and was not designed to work with a hard mode. That the plan of the game was not to have a hard mode and to make a hard mode that was even worth playing they would have to do deep design change.

What happens if the chef does decide to change the recipe, because of customer input, but also because he also enjoys the new flavor. We've already heard talk of the sequel director making a more "direct" approach. What then? Does his authorial intent no longer matter because its not what you originally enjoyed. Is his intent suddenly less valid because he's taken players into consideration? Its still his intent. And after all, the original recipe will still exist. Moreover, he may make "both flavors" available in the new game. All of which is to say the conceit of this entire debate is all based on nothing but speculation. For all the examples given of games being ruined by being easier, there's just as many about a game having more accessibility ultimately raising the bar. In other words, we are all getting bent out of shape of an idea that doesnt even exist, meanwhile the core aspect being lauded and fought over is alive and well and will always be around (both Demon Souls and Dark Souls.) What Rooster passionately explained seems more like a battle of principle or philosophy, but I sincerely do not believe that this principle is going to die anytime soon. I mean these games have sold millions of copies on their own. If some type of additional customization makes it sell more, great, if nothing like that develops, it's still gonna survive, thrive even. Dark Souls 2 will likely make serious bank, regardless of whether or not is has a so called optional "easy mode"

 

[VyceVictus]

What I do to the game doesnt concern you. Its not YOUR unique experience, it's a unique experience open to everyone simply by being on the market. And if I do eventually "get it" what then? I wouldnt have if I didnt get the chance in the first place. Yes, there are tons of easy ganes to play, so why wouldnt I want to try something different? You want people to enjoy and experience the game, but only on terms you deem acceptable? That's ludicrous.

You have been beating up that straw man that I want to boss you around since this whole thing started. I could not possibly care less what you do with the game once you have it and never implied that I do. I do however care WHAT THE GAME ITSELF IS LIKE and your opinion on what THE GAME ITSELF SHOULD BE LIKE bears directly on that to the extent that you are a presence in this discussion. You are once again conflating different things in a misleading way and I hope this makes it clear I DO NOT FALL FOR IT. What the game is actually like cannot be used interchangeably with what you do with it after you get it.

You are obviously very committed so the same straw manning and weasel wording tactics, so this is over. It was a mistake to give you a chance to discuss this reasonably.

I do want the game to be easier for you to get into. But not at ANY cost- there are lines, and the point where I see my experience degrading significantly is where I draw them. As much as I am demanding you agree to my terms, you are also demanding I agree to yours. We seem to be at an impasse but you are the farthest thing from a victim in this.

If you want to try something different, there is no shortage of games that aren't Dark Souls. I'm sorry but I have no desire to see Dark Souls morph into something unrecognizable simply so people can "try something different", which apparently means trying something that isn't different at all. If you truly desired to "try something different" you would try to appreciate the model that makes Dark Souls unique. If you can't, then you tried something different and it wasn't for you. That is OK. It happens. It is no good reason to turn this apple into an orange. There is a lot out there, you will find something that works for you.

I aint trying to con you into some religion by twisting word, this is just about games. It aint that serious. I dont think the game SHOULD be anything, but if it has something else or more, thats not going to harm anything. Its not my intent to talk in circles here. Im no fucking victim, im just another random on the internet who plays games, just like you. You're no victim here either, nobody is going to take anything from you. After all, whatever line you think there is to be drawn doesnt really matter, its up to the developer.
If the next DS is just like the first, im still gonna play it. This isnt an either or. You dont get to say who the game is or isnt for. You mentioned not every movie is for everyone. Yeah, new wave french cinema isnt for everyone, but if it came in a blu ray package that also contianed optional full documentary making of with explanation of all the themes, would that be a problem? back to the game, again, theres many different ways to make accessibility without disrupting the core of the game. If you are saying that the mere existence of those extras defies the intent of the film/game being hard, then so does all the manuals and forums and communities that came up from it. It doesnt have to be "easy mode" or no, there's any number of things the devs could incorporate to produce a positive result.

 

[VyceVictus]

snip

You really still have to make a reply like this? Really? After all the pages of Rooster and many others trying to hammer in the point, THIS is what you got from all that?

Yes, there are tons of easy ganes to play, so why wouldnt I want to try something different?

By all means. Everyone here would welcome new players with open arms. And you do realize that everything in this quote is against an easy mode, right? You want something different than easy. Still, you want an easy mode so you don't have to learn to play this difficult game.

You want people to enjoy and experience the game, but only on terms you deem acceptable?

No, he wants people to enjoy it as it is, not by having the devs twist it into something it's not and was never meant to be.

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.

I'd also add the griefers to this one. Pretty much anyone who's already dicking around in PvP would be getting a perfect venue to shit on beginners. So pretty much whichever way you look at it, PvP is something that will not work with easy mode.

btw. I was 50/50 on this issue at the beginning, but after seeing the anti side's understandable, relatable and (mostly) polite arguing and the pro side either twisting those arguments into easily defeatable strawmen, ignoring them entirely or deciding they're objectively not important/worth taking into consideration (because of their own bias and opinions), I'm really starting to tip on the "easy mode -do not want" side.

Not ever have I once said the game should have an easy mode. Nobody has to "twist" anything. Hell even the most rudimentary thing that someone mentioned, making a more explicit manual for instance, is but one way. Accessibility does not necessarily have to come in the form of easiness.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Not ever have I once said the game should have an easy mode. Nobody has to "twist" anything. Hell even the most rudimentary thing that someone mentioned, making a more explicit manual for instance, is but one way. Accessibility does not necessarily have to come in the form of easiness.

Don't bite, this is moving the goal posts. It's just another tactic to set the hook and reel you in.

 

[Sande45]

You mentioned not every movie is for everyone. Yeah, new wave french cinema isnt for everyone, but if it came in a blu ray package that also contianed optional full documentary making of with explanation of all the themes, would that be a problem?

Of course not. That's additional content to help you with the untouched main content itself (which Souls games have plenty of already). Easy mode wouldn't be like that for the people playing it. It would be a different experience entirely, especially if From was to go to the lengths it takes to actually make a Souls game easier in any significant way.

back to the game, again, theres many different ways to make accessibility without disrupting the core of the game. If you are saying that the mere existence of those extras defies the intent of the film/game being hard, then so does all the manuals and forums and communities that came up from it. It doesnt have to be "easy mode" or no, there's any number of things the devs could incorporate to produce a positive result.

No one is against those features. Hell, they're already in heavy use like I said earlier. The in-game messages can be seen as a part of this and the manual is actually very informative and I suggest anyone to read it before playing. Even the wikis are strongly recommended to the point that one of them was linked in Demon's Souls box iirc. I also seriously doubt anyone would be against making the game more accessible with a better tutorial, more explanation on mechanics etc.

Don't bite, this is moving the goal posts. It's just another tactic to set the hook and reel you in.

Yeah, all this time he's been arguing for the easy mode but now it's suddenly all about easing the new players into the game proper, which I think we can all agree on.

 

[BioRex]

Here is another video by EpicNameBro on how one could go about making the game difficult but also accessible without the need for modes, something that is already in the game that people who have not played the game would not know about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upH5UfKbi0c

 

[VyceVictus]

You mentioned not every movie is for everyone. Yeah, new wave french cinema isnt for everyone, but if it came in a blu ray package that also contianed optional full documentary making of with explanation of all the themes, would that be a problem?

Of course not. That's additional content to help you with the untouched main content itself (which Souls games have plenty of already). Easy mode wouldn't be like that for the people playing it, it would be a different experience entirely, especially if From was to go to the lengths it takes to actually make a Souls game easier in any significant way.

back to the game, again, theres many different ways to make accessibility without disrupting the core of the game. If you are saying that the mere existence of those extras defies the intent of the film/game being hard, then so does all the manuals and forums and communities that came up from it. It doesnt have to be "easy mode" or no, there's any number of things the devs could incorporate to produce a positive result.

No one is against those features. Hell, they're already in heavy use like I said earlier. The in-game messages can be seen as a part of this, the manual is actually very informative and I suggest anyone to read it before playing. Even the wikis are strongly recommended to the point that one of them was linked in Demon's Souls box iirc. I also seriously doubt anyone would be against making the game more accessible with a better tutorial, more explanation on mechanics etc.

Don't bite, this is moving the goal posts. It's just another tactic to set the hook and reel you in.

Yeah, all this time he's been arguing for the easy mode but now it's suddenly all about easing the new players into the game proper, which I think we can all agree with.

Never have I once said that the game should have a point blank "easy mode", though I do still believe that doing so wont have to necesarily ruin the game. A flat out stat buffed easy mode would be as contrived as the issues that I personally feel are just padding at best or cheap at worst. From software has shown they are capable of more than that.

If theres one thing i want to stress, it's the idea that "accessibility" is not antithetical to "intended challenge".
Since this is all speculative anyway, it would be more constructive to speculate how to do this successfully. For example, indie games like Braid, Limbo, or journey are immersive and challenging games that in the past would have been the sole province of PC gamers or file sharers. The fact that it is on mass media platforms (XBL, PSN) makes it instantly accessible without making it easier. In a more acute example, Bionic Commando has plenty of challenge. Hell, i trudged through the bonus challenge missions like any hardcore gamer. But there it also has an in-game form of accessibility in the form of the option to see the CPU run through the maze and show you it's done. But ultimately you still gotta play through it yourself to defeat it. That was one mechanic that worked perfectly for that game. Would a "spectator mode" be suitable for DS? Maybe, maybe not, but thats just one possible example. There are any number of ways we could imagine doing this successfully without depleting the inherent challenge.

 

[svenjl]

Re FC3: Yeah, FC3 is pretty easy on Hard if you know what you're doing. The biggest issue I have with FC3 (and the new Tomb Raider looks similar) is the CONSTANT button prompts to do things like open a door, get in a vehicle, initiate a takedown, climb a ledge etc. It's bloody incessant. At least give gamers the option of turning this shit off. Same with the mini map. Once I've played a game for an hour or two and understand its conventions and mechanics I don't need to be reminded every 2 minutes.

 

[Atmos Duality]

When did I say I'm telling the chef what they can or cannot do? When did I say that?

Logically your stance in the analogy, is that you don't want the chef to change the spicy dish, and others are pressuring him to change it. You claim you don't want the chef to be pressured to change, so how do you intend to do that without becoming an advocate against change?

Keeping in mind, by arguing against change at all, you are in fact, pressuring the chef with what you want, even if it falls in with what he's already doing.

If there's no argument, there's no pressure. You can't have it both ways.

Also I'm sorry but someone said "It's pretentious to presume that your preference is objective fact, and that everyone else who doesn't conform is "wrong"."

So your saying that the presumption that your preference (easy mode=better) is objective fact, and that everyone else who doesn't conform is "wrong", is not pretentious?

Yes. It works both ways in the most general sense.

If people were arguing that Dark Souls shouldn't include a Hard Mode because it's meant to be Easy, despite already having an Easy mode, then it'd be pretentious because they're advocating that people should play it the way THEY want to play it and ONLY that way. (even when that isn't their right)

By advocating for both modes, you lose the context of prevention, and that prevention is the reason it's pretentious (not the method of advocacy itself). If there were an element of loss for one party at the expense of another, then you might make the argument both were pretentious, but seeing how Hard Mode is UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY PRESERVED IN THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT, that logically cannot happen.

They are MODES, MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE MODES, and one of them is being added to an existing, finished product (Dark Souls).
Unless you magic some method where the two modes can cross (and you CAN'T), there is no logical argument against inclusion of an easier mode. (there was one suggested, but I'm getting to that)

All that supposition about diverting focus, time, etc, is exactly that. Supposition and a Slippery Slope Fallacy, because it can be applied to literally any element of the game you can think of, not just Easy Mode.

I'm sorry if that wasn't clear before, but that is my current and refined argument.
If I made a mistake in transcribing that before, I admit it here.

(I do not argue this for Dark Souls 2; that was just announced and it's fair game for anyone's speculation)

Or would you be ok with me demanding that developer spend time and money to heavily alter a game to put in a hard mode? And they would indeed have to alter a game if it was not intended for a hard mode and was not designed to work with a hard mode.

You say it cannot be adjusted to be easier, but you have yet to prove why this is true.
Burden of Proof is on you.

I think there are enough games in the world that we can all have the one that is right for us. No one film is for all audiences, and no audience is for all films. That is OK, and we are all better off for it in the end.

The most sensible argument yet, but I still don't see how adding an Easy Mode to an existing product will hurt it or influence your tastes/experience in any way.

If your fear is that future Dark Souls games will get dumbed down, I can see that. It's happened to a lot of games I used to play, and entire genres. And you know what? I whined. I whined like a broken motor, petitioned, emailed, and in the end I got nothing.

So with no other logical option, I look for alternatives.

On the matter of a lack of choice enhancing response...sorry, but I don't buy that.

I played IWannaBetheGuy on the second highest difficulty, and never once did the existence of other easier modes inhibit my desire to improve or ruin my fun. And that's a game where your choice of difficulty makes a HUGE fucking difference. HUGE.

Also, MegamanX6 was a game I needed modal difficulty to get into, because it was soul-crushingly difficult in a lot of places.

 

[Sande45]

Never have I once said that the game should have a point blank "easy mode", though I do still believe that doing so wont have to necesarily ruin the game. A flat out stat buffed easy mode would be as contrived as the issues that I personally feel are just padding at best or cheap at worst. From software has shown they are capable of more than that.

In that case you've been quite off topic this whole time (after all, this discussion is about a separate easy mode, not making the game more approachable). Maybe it would have been good to at least make the distinction earlier and more clearly since if you truly haven't been arguing for easy mode this whole time (although you quite clearly have, at least at times, which makes this sudden change of stance a bit baffling), then you've been pretty much arguing with people who agree with you over things that aren't even related to your opinion on the subject.

 

[VyceVictus]

Not ever have I once said the game should have an easy mode. Nobody has to "twist" anything. Hell even the most rudimentary thing that someone mentioned, making a more explicit manual for instance, is but one way. Accessibility does not necessarily have to come in the form of easiness.

Don't bite, this is moving the goal posts. It's just another tactic to set the hook and reel you in.

Hah, this aint a religious inquisition where Im trying to bait you into conversion or death(It's a Jimquisition!). I said from my very first comments that I dont think this is a matter of easy vs difficult or that even DS is the proper game to apply this theory. Yes I do, fundamentally believe that optional easy modes or whatever will not ruin the game, and I do see where you've plainly stated that it's mere existence ruins your experience. We've gone through that enough. But what I also submit is that there can be any number of ways to add to the game beyond a rote "easy mode" without depleting it's core. The ones I've already mentioned seem plausible enough, but in the end I am not a developer so my knowledge of mechanics doesnt go beyond brainstorming. But as this is all speculative in the first place, I think there is plenty of room to consider options that I think will not only maintain but improve the overall experience.As I said no game is perfect, DS included, but there is always room to improve.

 

[VyceVictus]

Never have I once said that the game should have a point blank "easy mode", though I do still believe that doing so wont have to necesarily ruin the game. A flat out stat buffed easy mode would be as contrived as the issues that I personally feel are just padding at best or cheap at worst. From software has shown they are capable of more than that.

If theres one thing i want to stress, it's the idea that "accessibility" is not antithetical to "intended challenge".
Since this is all speculative anyway, it would be more constructive to speculate how to do this successfully. For example, indie games like Braid, Limbo, or journey are immersive and challenging games that in the past would have been the sole province of PC gamers or file sharers. The fact that it is on mass media platforms (XBL, PSN) makes it instantly accessible without making it easier. In a more acute example, Bionic Commando has plenty of challenge. Hell, i trudged through the bonus challenge missions like any hardcore gamer. But there it also has an in-game form of accessibility in the form of the option to see the CPU run through the maze and show you it's done. But ultimately you still gotta play through it yourself to defeat it. That was one mechanic that worked perfectly for that game. Would a "spectator mode" be suitable for DS? Maybe, maybe not, but thats just one possible example. There are any number of ways we could imagine doing this successfully without depleting the inherent challenge.

In that case you've been quite off topic this whole time (after all, this discussion is about a separate easy mode, not making the game more approachable). Maybe it would have been good to at least make the distinction earlier and more clearly since if you truly haven't been arguing for easy mode this whole time (although you quite clearly have, at least at times, which makes this sudden change of stance a bit baffling), then you've been pretty much arguing with people who agree with you over things that aren't even related to your opinion on the subject.

Hah, I did so! From my 2nd or third comment onwards in fact:
"After reading this (and someone may have mentioned this before), Dark Souls probably isnt a good example for or against "Easy Mode". In the same way that the level design was meant to be challenging, there are just as many other aspects of the game design and mechanics that one could argue are legitimately flawed."
I actually think its good that we kinda wandered into the hypotheticals/philosophy of what is and is gaming. Rooster and Korten went in depth of their very psyche of how they play and what they get out of it and it was great for them to share that. Of course, arguing the details is part of the fun, but I got where they are coming from and, hopefully, after all this back and forth I am being clear as well.

 

[Sande45]

You say it cannot be adjusted to be easier, but you have yet to prove why this is true.
Burden of Proof is on you.

The game is overall designed in a way that it's not a battle of healthbars (like Skyrim for example) so just adjusting health or attack power wouldn't cut it. If you haven't digested and learned the combat, you probably won't beat Ornstein and Smough even if you had ten times the health, stamina and amount of Estus (health potions). An even better example is the dreaded Anor Londo snipers who don't give a f*** about any of your stats. They will kill you unless YOU figure out a tactic to beat them and there's no simple wholesale adjustment on the dev's part to change that.

 

[Atmos Duality]

You say it cannot be adjusted to be easier, but you have yet to prove why this is true.
Burden of Proof is on you.

The game is overall designed in a way that it's not a battle of healthbars (like Skyrim for example) so just adjusting health or attack power wouldn't cut it. If you haven't digested and learned the combat, you probably won't beat Ornstein and Smough even if you had ten times the health, stamina and amount of Estus (health potions). An even better example is the dreaded Anor Londo snipers who don't give a f*** about any of your stats. They will kill you unless YOU figure out a tactic to beat them and there's no simple wholesale adjustment on the dev's part to change that.

Everything in a game is handled by numbers and patterns, it's just obfuscated to some degree.
Which is why I have a very hard time believing that NO adjustments can be made; artificial difficulty or real.

 

[BioRex]

When did I say I'm telling the chef what they can or cannot do? When did I say that?

Logically your stance in the analogy, is that you don't want the chef to change the spicy dish, and others are pressuring him to change it. You claim you don't want the chef to be pressured to change, so how do you intend to do that without becoming an advocate against change?

They are MODES, MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE MODES, and one of them is being added to an existing, finished product (Dark Souls).
Unless you magic some method where the two modes can cross (and you CAN'T), there is no logical argument against inclusion of an easier mode. (there was one suggested, but I'm getting to that)

You say it cannot be adjusted to be easier, but you have yet to prove why this is true.
Burden of Proof is on you.

By letting the chef do what he bloody pleases and telling the people whining about the spicy food to let the chef do as they please? Or is it fine for me to go to a sweet shop to ***** and moan about the lack of spicy food.

Also here is a tip read the thread or at least all the posts by the person you happen to be talking to. Let me reexplain what has already been said
First there is a multiplayer component that would require balancing for more then one mode, since multiplayer is another core feature you can't just ignore it.
Second simply changing the numbers won't do much good, often the difficulty comes down to enemy placement and level design.
Third you can already access an easy mode, one that is not in the menu, by leveling up, using items that give you a boost, summoning two buddies to help curbstomp the game. an easy mode is redundant.
Fourth unless you underlevel or on ng++...etc, the game is not reactive heavy, honestly the skills that help in dark souls are skills that apply in the real world, observational skills, patience, prediction from past experience, learning from ones mistakes, and the want to learn. All of these will help you more then having split second reaction times.

 

[Sande45]

In that case you've been quite off topic this whole time (after all, this discussion is about a separate easy mode, not making the game more approachable). Maybe it would have been good to at least make the distinction earlier and more clearly since if you truly haven't been arguing for easy mode this whole time (although you quite clearly have, at least at times, which makes this sudden change of stance a bit baffling), then you've been pretty much arguing with people who agree with you over things that aren't even related to your opinion on the subject.

Hah, I did so! From my 2nd or third comment onwards in fact:
"After reading this (and someone may have mentioned this before), Dark Souls probably isnt a good example for or against "Easy Mode". In the same way that the level design was meant to be challenging, there are just as many other aspects of the game design and mechanics that one could argue are legitimately flawed."
I actually think its good that we kinda wandered into the hypotheticals/philosophy of what is and is gaming. Rooster and Korten went in depth of their very psyche of how they play and what they get out of it and it was great for them to share that. Of course, arguing the details is part of the fun, but I got where they are coming from and, hopefully, after all this back and forth I am being clear as well.

Yeah now that you mention it you have said all those things, but it's pretty easy to forget who said what in a massive thread that grows so fast it's difficult to keep up. And that doesn't change the fact that you have been arguing for the easy mode (not the same thing as thinking there should be an easy mode) and now you've changed from that to this wholly different easing new players into the game thing. I like that things are clear now and we've reached at least a partial agreement on the topic. in my opinion, easy mode is a way to get more players into Dark Souls, but it's not the optimal way. It has huge issues (which have been quite thoroughly discussed) in and of itself, as well as negative aspects considering the old player base (also thoroughly discussed) so I don't really think it's worth it when there is a better way that truly is a win-win for all no matter which way you look at it (that whole easing into it etc. alternative).

Btw. I'm really starting to get tired of these analogs. I swear there has been more discussion on football and cooking here than Dark Souls

 

[BioRex]

You say it cannot be adjusted to be easier, but you have yet to prove why this is true.
Burden of Proof is on you.

The game is overall designed in a way that it's not a battle of healthbars (like Skyrim for example) so just adjusting health or attack power wouldn't cut it. If you haven't digested and learned the combat, you probably won't beat Ornstein and Smough even if you had ten times the health, stamina and amount of Estus (health potions). An even better example is the dreaded Anor Londo snipers who don't give a f*** about any of your stats. They will kill you unless YOU figure out a tactic to beat them and there's no simple wholesale adjustment on the dev's part to change that.

Everything in a game is handled by numbers and patterns, it's just obfuscated to some degree.
Which is why I have a very hard time believing that NO adjustments can be made; artificial difficulty or real.

Well those numbers in the shape of a tree sized arrow really don't care what numbers that player shaped thing happens to be made of, and how about you play or look up a lets play of the game before you say whether or not adjusting numbers can make the game easier, mmm?

 

[VyceVictus]

In that case you've been quite off topic this whole time (after all, this discussion is about a separate easy mode, not making the game more approachable). Maybe it would have been good to at least make the distinction earlier and more clearly since if you truly haven't been arguing for easy mode this whole time (although you quite clearly have, at least at times, which makes this sudden change of stance a bit baffling), then you've been pretty much arguing with people who agree with you over things that aren't even related to your opinion on the subject.

Hah, I did so! From my 2nd or third comment onwards in fact:
"After reading this (and someone may have mentioned this before), Dark Souls probably isnt a good example for or against "Easy Mode". In the same way that the level design was meant to be challenging, there are just as many other aspects of the game design and mechanics that one could argue are legitimately flawed."
I actually think its good that we kinda wandered into the hypotheticals/philosophy of what is and is gaming. Rooster and Korten went in depth of their very psyche of how they play and what they get out of it and it was great for them to share that. Of course, arguing the details is part of the fun, but I got where they are coming from and, hopefully, after all this back and forth I am being clear as well.

Yeah now that you mention it you have said all those things, but it's pretty easy to forget who said what in a massive thread that grows so fast it's difficult to keep up. And that doesn't change the fact that you have been arguing for the easy mode (not the same thing as thinking there should be an easy mode) and now you've changed from that to this wholly different easing new players into the game thing. I like that things are clear now and we've reached at least a partial agreement on the topic. in my opinion, easy mode is a way to get more players into Dark Souls, but it's not the optimal way. It has huge, which have been quite thoroughly discussed, in and of itself, as well as negative aspects considering the old player base (also thoroughly discussed) so I don't really think it's worth it when there is a better way that truly is a win-win for all no matter which way you look at it (that whole easing into it etc. alternative).

Btw. I'm really starting to get tired of these analogs. I swear there has been more discussion on football and cooking here than Dark Souls

I know right. Chess, Triathaletes, cinema noir, the culinary arts. This shit went all over the place!