Jimquisition: Dumbing Down for the Filthy Casuals

[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.

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.

The thing is, changing certain things, like HP, wouldn't do much good, but changing others, like how that whole encounter is laid out (which could lead to a good easy mode), doesn't really fit into the category of reasonably simple tweaks.

 

[Atmos Duality]

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.

Well you could yell at the sweet shop, but you wouldn't get very far.

Point is:
You aren't the only people in the market, and whether you like it or not, just by interacting with that market you are pressuring the chef. By buying Dark Souls, you are pressuring From Software in SOME WAY.

Dark Souls is not some privately commissioned work of art for you and your clique of like-minded fans; it's published for and exposed to the entire gaming market.

This isn't idle speculation or some analogical romantic gesture, it's cold hard FACT.
You don't have to like it, but you can't just ignore it either.

Also here is a tip read the thread or at least all the posts by the person you happen to be talking to.

Whatever. You dragged me into your argument. I just wanted to comment on the video.

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.

Make members of Mode A only interact with other members of Mode A and Mode B with Mode B.
This isn't rocket science.

Second simply changing the numbers won't do much good, often the difficulty comes down to enemy placement and level design.

I call that (unofficially) "Transformative Difficulty", and it's a very good thing.
It's one of the best forms of difficulty.

However, that doesn't preclude it from being changed or adjusted modally. Several other games that had this managed it just fine by changing the scenarios within an environment, and not just the numbers (Megaman X5 and X6, Metroid: Zero Mission, Advance Wars 1&2...I can name more if you'd like).

Altering how a scenario plays out by its initial conditions is one of the best ways to vary gameplay.
I'll get to that later in this post.

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.

So..."playing the game".
Unless this information is implicitly known by the player (or explicitly given to), I don't see how this is "Easy Mode".

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.

So Trial and Error, plus observation.

Of everything you listed, I can think of several ways to make a separate mode that's fundamentally easier without resorting to scaling numbers and other artificial means. Just because that's how most of the (lazy) gaming industry approaches modal difficulty does not make it the ONLY way to approach modal difficulty.

Good grief, a modicum of thought could make the modal concept an amazing concept within the game's own rules.
That sounds great honestly; Leverage that creativity. Introduce new scenarios in old environments based on different modes. Reward the player's powers of observation or trickery, instead of rote memorization and Trial and Error.

The more I think about it, the more of a waste it seems to produce a statically-difficult environment.
And keep in mind, NOTHING I've mentioned deals with stat-jacking.
I've committed no heresy thus far.

The thing is, changing certain things, like HP, wouldn't do much good, but changing others, like how that whole encounter is laid out (which could lead to a good easy mode), doesn't really fit into the category of reasonably simple tweaks.

Refer to the text above.
I suggest that non-numerical (non artificial) methods of adjusting difficulty are not only possible, but desirable.
If needed, I will provide examples of concepts.

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?

You want to argue, argue.
But leave the smug sass out. I'm trying to remain civil, the least you could do is try too.

As for the "numbers in the shape of a tree-sized arrow", I'm not talking strictly processing-presentation.

Those "numbers of a player shaped thing" at the absolute least need a Boolean state, and from what's been described, it isn't strictly boolean. There are stats being obfuscated.

The point is moot though, I've already addressed this.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

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.

Look, please identify what item on that long list I spent so much time writing you had a problem with lol.

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.

Dark Souls is the alternative, until the people lobbying for easy mode and "dumbing it down" get their way. Maybe you should be telling THEM to seek an alternative to Dark Souls. Let's just assume I'm not ready to give this one up yet.

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

You are saying Dark Souls doesn't make me feel the way I say it does? If we were talking about a film, a book, a TV show, live theater, or a song you would not even think twice about it. This is one of the ways Dark Souls is moving games forward (and Jim Sterling is holding it back).

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.

IWannaBetheGuy doesn't look like this:

I don't think the fact that IWannaBeTheGuy wasn't an intense emotional roller coaster should preclude Dark Souls from even trying.

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

Rather than looking for ways not having easy mode could help the experience, you are trying to come up with reasons why it can't. Obviously an easy mode can help a game. But they didn't leave it out of Dark Souls because it just slipped their mind. The assumption behind all this is that all games have to be designed to account for the needs of the casual audience for some reason, EVEN WHEN IT IS ANTITHETICAL TO THE GOALS OF THE GAME'S DESIGNERS. That is a silly, selective, and limiting standard. Why should ALL GAMES be shackled by that and limited in scope and subject matter in that way? It makes no sense.

There is no one audience that ALL games need to cater to, and the idea of trying to force this on developers, gamers and the industry makes my head explode. I don't understand what the motivation behind this is. Having one game out there that is not built from the ground up to accommodate the needs of casual players is not an imposition on them.

I don't understand why I even have to justify this. It's not made for them. There should not be one group that everything has to be made for. You wouldn't let me tell them that EVERYTHING has to accommodate ME from now on, so why are they granted this special privilege when I am not? People like me are starving for games to play, easy mode players are drowning in them. Why does having one tiny toe-hold even require an explanation or justification?

 

[BioRex]

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.

Well you could yell at the sweet shop, but you wouldn't get very far.

Point is:
You aren't the only people in the market, and whether you like it or not, just by interacting with that market you are pressuring the chef. By buying Dark Souls, you are pressuring From Software in SOME WAY.

Dark Souls is not some privately commissioned work of art for you and your clique of like-minded fans; it's published for and exposed to the entire gaming market.

This isn't idle speculation or some analogical romantic gesture, it's cold hard FACT.
You don't have to like it, but you can't just ignore it either.

So the people yelling at the spicy shop will get what they want? Also why does every game need to cater to every consumer? The is a reason we have genres and different types of games.

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.

Make members of Mode A only interact with other members of Mode A and Mode B with Mode B.
This isn't rocket science.

ok pay a dlc cost for the time the developers are going to spend on making that change

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.

So..."playing the game".
Unless this information is implicitly known by the player (or explicitly given to), I don't see how this is "Easy Mode".

well seeing how you haven't played the game you really are jabbing into dark waters on this subject aren't you?

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.

So Trial and Error, plus observation.

Of everything you listed, I can think of several ways to make a separate mode that's fundamentally easier without resorting to scaling numbers and other artificial means. Just because that's how most of the (lazy) gaming industry approaches modal difficulty does not make it the ONLY way to approach modal difficulty.

Good grief, a modicum of thought could make the modal concept an amazing concept within the game's own rules.
That sounds great honestly; Leverage that creativity. Introduce new scenarios in old environments based on different modes. Reward the player's powers of observation or trickery, instead of rote memorization and Trial and Error.

The more I think about it, the more of a waste it seems to produce a statically-difficult environment.
And keep in mind, NOTHING I've mentioned deals with stat-jacking.
I've committed no heresy thus far.

pay the dlc cost for the time and effort needed to do that balanced, and considering you were talking about the ease of number changes earlier you'll forgive me for thinking you were only talking about numbers

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?

You want to argue, argue.
But leave the smug sass out. I'm trying to remain civil, the least you could do is try too.

As for the "numbers in the shape of a tree-sized arrow", I'm not talking strictly processing-presentation.

Those "numbers of a player shaped thing" at the absolute least need a Boolean state, and from what's been described, it isn't strictly boolean. There are stats being obfuscated.

The point is moot though, I've already addressed this.

Ok so your fine with them removing the enemies, maybe making it harder to fall off things, because who has time to learn how to walk with falling, making it so the player doesn't flinch, you know why don't we just remove all the puzzles, or give the player all the items for those with so little time they don't want to go explore and collect things.
Also what is wrong with trail and observation? Exactly what type of game do you think this is? And I'll keep the sass in thank you very much, because it seems odd for somebody to argue for an addition to game they have not played thus are making assumptions on the difficulty of the game. If you have not played how do know its difficulty, thats like me saying how a turning in a driving game sucks without playing the game, while I can say I heard the driving sucks that would be second hand and I would be rightly called out for not haveing first hand experience thus my comments lack focus.
I mean why do you even care what goes on in a game you have not played?

 

[Atmos Duality]

IWannaBetheGuy doesn't look like this:
I don't think the fact that IWannaBeTheGuy wasn't an intense emotional roller coaster should preclude Dark Souls from even trying.

What Dark Souls looks like or how you personally feel about its presentation has absolutely no bearing on my point about choice modal difficulty.

Rather than looking for ways not having easy mode could help the experience, you are trying to come up with reasons why it can't.

Well yeah. That was my initial argument. That the inclusion of Easy Mode isn't a detriment to an existing work.
Sorry for trying to stick to my guns. :\

Obviously an easy mode can help a game. But they didn't leave it out of Dark Souls because it just slipped their mind. The assumption behind all this is that all games have to be designed to account for the needs of the casual audience for some reason, EVEN WHEN IT IS ANTITHETICAL TO THE GOALS OF THE GAME'S DESIGNERS.

If you insist that is the antithesis of the developers intentions, why worry about external pressures at all?
None of us here have any direct connections with From Software (though I wish I did...I'd head the team for Armored Core if I could in a heartbeat. If not that, I'd hijack the team and release Metal Wolf Chaos 2 because that game badly needs to exist).

My point is, and always has been that the inclusion of modal difficulty cannot retroactively degrade the game experience for its core audience. Further, that modal difficulty is not relegated solely to stats or other means of "Artificial Difficulty".

Finally, I never made the assumption that all games REQUIRE casual pandering. Merely that in this instance, it was harmless, and the "controversy" behind such additions were pretentious nonsense.

There is no one audience that ALL games need to cater to, and the idea of trying to force this on developers, gamers and the industry makes my head explode. I don't understand what the motivation behind this is. Having one game out there that is not built from the ground up to accommodate the needs of casual players is not an imposition on them.

I agree. Even economics dictates that niche markets are part of the demand curve too.

I don't understand why I even have to justify this.

You don't have to justify niche appeal. I get that, really. Better than you think I do.

The only parts I took issue with, were the assumptions that retroactive additions of modes for those casual players were going to ruin the experience.
It's an assumption that is both foolish and paradoxical.

As someone who enjoys difficult games, I have absolutely no problem with wanting a game that is exceptionally difficult in a market that relegates such things to niche or hand-waves them away with artificial difficulty.

As much as I hate agglomeration of games into generic One-Size-Fits-All slop, I must also logically recognize that it happens and WHY it happens.

So really, apart from the retrofit, I have no other issues here.
Hope Dark Souls 2 is good.

Incidentally, I finally finished all schoolwork for the semester (literally 30 minutes ago) so I might actually get around to playing Dark Souls for the first time this weekend.

Ok so your fine with them removing the enemies, maybe making it harder to fall off things, because who has time to learn how to walk with falling, making it so the player doesn't flinch, you know why don't we just remove all the puzzles, or give the player all the items for those with so little time they don't want to go explore and collect things.

And why not take that Slippery Slope down entirely to crash into one big stonking mess of hyperbole.

Also what is wrong with trail and observation? Exactly what type of game do you think this is? And I'll keep the sass in thank you very much, because...

Because nothing. We're done here.

 

[BytByte]

Whoa, we're still talking about the same game right? Don't insult the developers ability to craft a world and say the difficulty is the only thing that makes the game. That's not fair.

 

[BioRex]

Because nothing. We're done here.

Really excellent, who knew being a bit sassy could get people to drop an argument?

Edit: My lack of sleep may be making me be "sassy" then usual, I would still like an answer to my question: besides defending the hypothesis that an easy mode would not take from the current experience why do you care?

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

What Dark Souls looks like or how you personally feel about its presentation has absolutely no bearing on my point about choice modal difficulty.

You were talking about how the difficulty made you feel. I'm talking about how it makes me feel. You want to dismiss and overlook the artistic statement that can be made by paring the game's mechanics to it's subject matter because it's one of the most obvious rebuttals to your point.

Well yeah. That was my initial argument. That the inclusion of Easy Mode isn't a detriment to an existing work.
Sorry for trying to stick to my guns. :\

Fair enough.

If you insist

The developer, not me. But more importantly, the consequence of their intentions was an experience that I enjoy. That's what I care about more than their intentions.

that is the antithesis of the developers intentions, why worry about external pressures at all?
None of us here have any direct connections with From Software (though I wish I did...I'd head the team for Armored Core if I could in a heartbeat. If not that, I'd hijack the team and release Metal Wolf Chaos 2 because that game badly needs to exist).

Companies respond to external pressures to varying degrees. It happens. They do things like, say, remove the creative director of the sequel and replace him with one that promises a more strait-forward experience.

My point is, and always has been that the inclusion of modal difficulty cannot retroactively degrade the game experience for its core audience.

It can split the community and no, a hand-wave will not do. Being confronted with an impassable obstacle and then learning your way around it to Dark Souls as shooting things is to Call of Duty. You are judging the effects of difficulty on this THIS game the way you would most other games, as a more-or-less extraneous factor that can be reproduced by scaling it down for similar results. You are not appreciating the mechanical side of what makes Dark Souls, well, Dark Souls. Separating the new players from the veterans breaks the entire intention behind the community features. And what do you do about the player pool problem? Do you even know what I am talking about? Because you will be exacerbating it heavily by separating people further than they are already separated by location and level. It's sparse enough as it is.

Further, that modal difficulty is not relegated solely to stats or other means of "Artificial Difficulty".

Finally, I never made the assumption that all games REQUIRE casual pandering. Merely that in this instance, it was harmless, and the "controversy" behind such additions were pretentious nonsense.

Based on your obvious mastery of the subject matter no doubt. On what basis are you resting this argument? If your understanding of Dark Souls core gameplay is advanced enough to empower you to make this assessment, I am sure you can walk me through it in specific terms. So far it's just the same cry of "it's optional" like optional things ever didn't affect games in the first place vaguely fancified.

There is no one audience that ALL games need to cater to, and the idea of trying to force this on developers, gamers and the industry makes my head explode. I don't understand what the motivation behind this is. Having one game out there that is not built from the ground up to accommodate the needs of casual players is not an imposition on them.

I agree. Even economics dictates that niche markets are part of the demand curve too.

I don't understand why I even have to justify this.

You don't have to justify niche appeal. I get that, really. Better than you think I do.

The only parts I took issue with, were the assumptions that retroactive additions of modes for those casual players were going to ruin the experience.
It's an assumption that is both foolish and paradoxical.

It is not an assumption. It is a simple statement of fact. It makes the game atmospheric and emotional for me. It supports the sense of achievement that is literally the stated goal of the game's designers. That is neither foolish nor paradoxical. If you think so, you may wish to stick to your brilliant and coherent games, because the designers of this one intended it for those who can appreciate the foolish and paradoxical.

If this was any other medium of entertainment I would not even have to explain concepts like tension. I would not have to constantly have my emotional attachment to a work of art and entertainment belittled and scoffed at. A game that is specifically crafted to illicit an emotional response should not be regarded as foolish and paradoxical. Attitudes like yours are holding gaming back.

It is ridiculous to call this "pretentious" when you have not even sampled the subject matter to see if it lives up to it's promises. How do you KNOW it is pretentious without experiencing it?

As someone who enjoys difficult games,

Dark Souls is not a game that is hard. It is a game that is designed around the concept of difficulty in a unique way. You will most likely find that, while it is very difficult, it is not difficult in quite the way you are expecting.

I have absolutely no problem with wanting a game that is exceptionally difficult in a market that relegates such things to niche or hand-waves them away with artificial difficulty.

A scary dragon that I know for a fact cannot, or could not at any time, be reduced to a bunny rabbit just by flipping a switch is part of what comprises the Dark Souls "niche". The very fact that Lordran CAN'T be made easy contributes to its foreboding atmosphere and SENSE OF ACHIEVEMENT for overcoming it's obstacles that whole game was designed to instill. There is no reason we cannot have games that support that. It's not just that, the whole world, the atmosphere, the story, it all flows from having obstacles and a world that are MEANINGFUL obstacles with risks that have to be taken to experience it, as opposed to trivial ones that can be switched.

How about you have whatever you like, I'll have whatever I like. Belittle me all you want, foolish, paradox, whatever. Just don't take it away. I'd be willing to bet that if you paid attention, you'd find you have these little "paradoxes" all the time. It just never occurred to you or appealed to you pursue them.

Not one good reason why we all can't have the games we enjoy without taking them away from each other is contained herein. I know that is not your intention; I'm just saying.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Whoa, we're still talking about the same game right? Don't insult the developers ability to craft a world and say the difficulty is the only thing that makes the game. That's not fair.

Bad argument. I have no doubt Call of Duty has many wonderful features and vistas, but I still bet it would suck without guns.

 

[jmarquiso]

Now I mostly agree with Jim here, but I found an interesting counterpoint to this video:

Spoiler

Elder Scrolls: The Dumbing Down [http://www.youtube.com/embed/JweTAhyR4o0]

And no, I don't necessarily agree with that video. Just adding to the discussion (I hope).

 

[sinterklaas]

The argument "They bought it so they have a right to the content." is exactly as it sounds. You, however, used it incorrectly. You bought the game. All the content is there within your grasp. You have the right to the content. But if you are too inept to make it over the challenges presented in the videogame (NOT a movie!) you bought, then it's your fault. The content is there, nothing is stopping you from consuming it but your own ineptitude.

If you could actually use the above argument in the way you used it, then where would we stop? I bought the game but I'm too stupid to press left and right. The game should just have an IWIN button. No scrap that, pressing that button is too much effort, but since I bought the game and apparently have a right to see the content, the game should just display "The End" the moment I put the disk in.

 

[Sande45]

The thing is, changing certain things, like HP, wouldn't do much good, but changing others, like how that whole encounter is laid out (which could lead to a good easy mode), doesn't really fit into the category of reasonably simple tweaks.

Refer to the text above.
I suggest that non-numerical (non artificial) methods of adjusting difficulty are not only possible, but desirable.
If needed, I will provide examples of concepts.

I'd rather hear you give detailed examples of how it could be done in Dark Souls or Demon's Souls without basically ending up designing every encounter separately for both modes or notably changing the experience easy mode gives to new players compared to what normal mode gives to more skilled players. I don't find those two options desirable at all.

And even though we're arguing about easy mode in Dark Souls 1 (mainly because it would be pretty hard to be arguing about it in great detail regarding DS2), don't use that retroactive patch as an argument because we all know that's very unlikely to happen. If it's going to be done it's going to be in Dark Souls 2 and they're going to have to accommodate to it from the get go which can lead to them making compromises in the overall design. That is one of the reasons many people are against it.

 

[Vault101]

Now I mostly agree with Jim here, but I found an interesting counterpoint to this video:

Spoiler

Elder Scrolls: The Dumbing Down [http://www.youtube.com/embed/JweTAhyR4o0]

And no, I don't necessarily agree with that video. Just adding to the discussion (I hope).

he kind of lost me at "catering to casuals"

uggghhh even if the whole "dumbing down" thing is absolutly 100% objectivley true..I've heard it so many fucking times I just don;t want to think about it anymore...I wish people found something else to complain about

EDIT: though upon further watching I'm actually surprised most of his gripes seem to come from the general role playing issues (like important characters being unkillable) rather than stats and numbers...areas I'd be inclined to agree

 

[Peithelo]

What happens if the chef does decide to change the recipe, because of customer input, but also because he also enjoys the new flavor.

This whole analogy about a chef is itself flawed. Food is, I should hope, intentionally prepared in accordance with the customers wishes. Such is usually not the case with games. These people can then also choose where they go to eat and what they eat from what is made available to them. I certainly would object if the chef wanted to change something in the dish after I had begun eating it, especially if it was in such a way that would go against the description of the dish I was provided with before ordering (unles there was a mistake, which in a games case could be a bug or a glitch).

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

The concept of First World Problems is one of the lousiest things I've seen in recent times. Mostly because of its common use in situtations that deserve no such belittling. No matter how insignificant some problems may seem to be in comparison to other problems, they still remain problems all the same. If you truly must, use that concept when someone is telling, for example, how having to brush their teeth is a problem, which is practically speaking a solution to a problem.

1. A person is crossing a street and a car drives over their foot, injuring it.
2. The driver of the car takes notice, stops, and tells the person of other, more serious problems elsewhere.
- The injured foot the person has simply stops being a problem.

1. A serious storm wreaks havoc all across a continent and causes severe damage.
2. People affected are told not to worry, there is a storm three times the size of Earth on Jupiter.
- The resulting damage of the storm stops being a problem to people.

1. A piece of art is suggested to be mutilated for it to become more pleasing.
2. People discussing the subject are told their concerns are invalid because of more important problems.
- The initial problem and its possible consequences lose all their meaning.

You see how there might be something wrong in these conclusions?

IWannaBetheGuy doesn't look like this:
I don't think the fact that IWannaBeTheGuy wasn't an intense emotional roller coaster should preclude Dark Souls from even trying.

What Dark Souls looks like or how you personally feel about its presentation has absolutely no bearing on my point about choice modal difficulty.

I honestely don't think the presentation and its intended goals are debatable. The world of Dark Souls is designed to be a very dark place where there is little to no hope to be found anywhere at all. The player character, one of the rare sane persons left in the land, is told to embark on a quest. They have no idea why but they still have to proceed because anything else would be a failure. There are constant real dangers along the path, many of which only strenghten the feel of hopelesness. The player character can meet various other people along the way, each of whom has their own hidden motives. Most of these people try to manipulate the player in their quest through the use of lies and deceit.

If you do not get to struggle and to feel that the world around you is truly a dangerous and terrifying place, the intended experiended will never take place. Difficulty is an essential tool in trying to achieve this affect. The most wonderful thing is that From Software has managed to create an experience that the player can mold to great extent as a part of the gameplay. This includes the level of experienced difficulty, which can be altered as a part of the gameplay. In this Dark Souls is one of the most honest and genuine video games that I have ever played, because almost everything essential about the experience has been managed to be crafted into the gameplay. The control is almost never taken away from the player.

There is, however, absolutely nothing wrong with modal difficulties as a concept. They can have a place in games that where designed from the beginning to have them, provided that they actually work well and that the game benefits from having them.

 

[VyceVictus]

Whoa, we're still talking about the same game right? Don't insult the developers ability to craft a world and say the difficulty is the only thing that makes the game. That's not fair.

Bad argument. I have no doubt Call of Duty has many wonderful features and vistas, but I still bet it would suck without guns.

You mentioned cognitive dissonance earlier, and i think its coming into play here. Call of Duty without shooting is a bad argument of drawing a comparison to Dark Souls. Darks Souls without less difficulty is not an FPS without shooting. DS without difficulty is the difference between Arma or Operation Flashpoint and COD or even Ghost Recon. They are fundamentally the same game in terms of core mechanic, an FPS where you shoot things, but are also fundamentally different in terms of challenge and other mechanics that make each unique. And yet, Flashpoint itself, while not having an outright "easy mode" has several options to be selected from in the in game difficulty to make it "easier" (Hud, respawns), but even with those options to make it easier, you still cannot play it like any other FPS; if you charge in shooting you will die, and one bullet can kill you. If they were to make a hypothetical "easy mode" patch that would,say, add you an extra team member, that would make the game all at once easier without in anyway morphing the core challenge.
My point here wasn't about niggling between genre classifications and mechanics though. My point was trying to understand why you cant get over the mental hurdle of a game who's integral core is difficulty cannot have some type of adjustment to aide players without horribly corrupting the fundamental challenge. The paradigm exists, there's no reason why it cant for a game like DS. Im not saying it has to, but if it would still be possible to do so successfully.

 

[VyceVictus]

Whoa, we're still talking about the same game right? Don't insult the developers ability to craft a world and say the difficulty is the only thing that makes the game. That's not fair.

Bad argument. I have no doubt Call of Duty has many wonderful features and vistas, but I still bet it would suck without guns.

You mentioned cognitive dissonance earlier, and i think its coming into play here. Call of Duty without shooting is a bad argument of drawing a comparison to Dark Souls. Darks Souls without less difficulty is not an FPS without shooting. DS without difficulty is the difference between Arma or Operation Flashpoint and COD or even Ghost Recon. They are fundamentally the same game in terms of core mechanic, an FPS where you shoot things, but are also fundamentally different in terms of challenge and other mechanics that make each unique. And yet, Flashpoint itself, while not having an outright "easy mode" has several options to be selected from in the in game difficulty to make it "easier" (Hud, respawns), but even with those options to make it easier, you still cannot play it like any other FPS; if you charge in shooting you will die, and one bullet can kill you. If they were to make a hypothetical "easy mode" patch that would,say, add you an extra team member, that would make the game all at once easier without in anyway morphing the core challenge.
My point here wasn't about niggling between genre classifications and mechanics though. My point was trying to understand why you cant get over the mental hurdle of a game who's integral core is difficulty cannot have some type of adjustment to aide players without horribly corrupting the fundamental challenge. The paradigm exists, there's no reason why it cant for a game like DS. Im not saying it has to, but if it would still be possible to do so successfully.

Please explain how?

I mentioned a couple things trying to brainstorm a while back: In game fully summonable avatar, expanded manual, "spectator clips" a la Bionic Commando, or even an optional in game Walkthrough (basically a DLC like a downloadable codex which would be something like an ingame copy of the DS wikipedia that already exists.) These are just a few examples, all of which totally optional, and some of those help without changing in an way the main code of the game. And that's not even getting into things like stat manipulation because im not familiar with that kind of material. Just speculating about any number of ways this could be accomplished successfully, I have no reason to doubt why that couldn't be possible.