Jimquisition: Dumbing Down for the Filthy Casuals

[Church185]

I hate to come off as offensive, but this is honestly one of the most immature responses I've received to my argument. I don't want content dumbed down for me, and I'm actually not one of the people who prefer an easy mode. I do, however, believe in that option being available for those that are even more time constrained than me. I work 40 hours a week, and have to spend most of my time taking care of my home. Other times are spent with people I care about. This, however, does not make a "filthy casual". When I do play a game, I prefer to work at it, and I will even invest hours in an FAQ or lose sleep over reviewing strategies to improve. I do, however, also game with others that I would love to share that experience with, but they are unable to invest the time I am willing to sacrifice and I feel like they are missing out.

I'm sorry, but the "I don't deserve it" response is VERY elitist. Why do you deserve it, instead? Did you invest more money in the product? Did you help the developers create it? Did you invest in the studio that released it? Did you invest any time, effort, money, or any variation in ensuring this game was successful? If not, you are no more entitled to the experience than any other player. You invested more time in learning the game? That means you'll be better at the game. That is your reward. Not the game itself.

Please people quit referring to them as "filthy casuals", those are Jim's inflammatory words you are putting in our mouths. To address not having the time to invest in it (whether it's your time or your friends time I didn't quite pick out of that text) why don't you summon players to help you through parts faster? Back before they patched the DWGR you had players waiting to join up that literally cartwheeling through the game in heavy armor taking the fastest route possible to get you gear and point out traps and monsters, if he didn't kill everything already.

Heck most of my sessions here recently have been more like this...

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ly14iv2uuw1qb618ko2_500.jpg

 

[chikusho]

I remain unconvinced of how an easy mode would hurt or destroy the game.

If the difficulty is inherent to the games design and an easy mode would undermine the entire point of the game experience.
Reducing the difficulty and increasing the handholding in Dark Souls would be like removing the dialogue options from The Walking Dead, the RTS element of Natural Selection, the darkness and obfuscated enemies in Amnesia or the resource management of Starcraft. Stripping out fundamental functions is to noones benefit.

The entire ordeal reeks of self-pandering, and the game is put on a shrine like an idol, not to be touched or blemished, with anyone suggesting even hypothetical changes to be burnt at the stake for their heresy.

Naturally both Souls games can be improved, but there is no improvement to be found by going against its core ideals.
As I said in the Dark Souls 2 thread, if you don't want to figure out how to maneuver a characters around offsides and goalies, don't play Fifa.
If you don't want to play with extreme cautiousness or find solutions to unexplained problems by trial and error, don't play Dark Souls.

 

[Peithelo]

The cherry picking has reached critical mass, and all logic in my arguments have been ignored. Repeatedly.

I apologise if it appears I am cherry picking only parts of anyones writings in an attempt to disregard something. This is not my intention. It's just very difficult to have a meaningful discussion when there are at all times so many people having so many different discussions. Admittedly the topic is usually the same but the perspectives differ greatly. Some parts I simply may find more notable to comment than others and at times answering to a some specific part may seem like an especially interesting thing to do.

It's infuriating. Given the constant appeals to pathos, Appeals to Authority, overwhelming Slippery Slope logic and contradictions I'm being presented ("Dark Souls isn't difficult...it's difficult...it's meant to be difficult."), there's no point invoking logic anymore.

The reason there are so many varying views about Dark Souls' difficulty is, I theorize, that everyone experiences it in different ways. Dark Souls, in part, personalizes the level of difficulty by giving the player many ways to affect it directly as a part of the gameplay. The game is designed in this way and it is a major reason why it is so replayable. In the end the player character can be a near indestructible demigod, a naked person with a club or anything in between.

Others are losing their patience with ME, and not my arguments, so that's as good an indicator as any to quit.

That really is an unfortunate situtation. Being passionate about something can often cloud ones judgement. I am no exception to this, but I sincerely have nothing against anyone here and hope that I haven't insulted anyone intentionally or otherwise.

I remain unconvinced of how an easy mode would hurt or destroy the game; at worst separate content would be required, and that leads to the slippery slope of "That's time they should be spending on the next game!"

We can only theorize about the possible consequences of adding an easy mode. I simply see Dark Souls as accessible enough already. I personally know several people that don't want to give Dark Souls even a try because it has been advertised as incredibly difficult. These same people often play games on a hard difficulty mode, but the mental image of Dark Souls being somehow insanely difficult scares them away from ever experiencing the game. I find this very sad, but it is not the fault of the game per se.

Dark Souls certainly is difficult but not in the way that many people seem to think. If you can apply some thought and basic logic into your playstyle while still being minfdul of your surroundings then you should be, for the most part, just fine. Most deaths in Dark Souls are due to you simply being too hasty in your approach.

The entire ordeal reeks of self-pandering, and the game is put on a shrine like an idol, not to be touched or blemished, with anyone suggesting even hypothetical changes to be burnt at the stake for their heresy.

Very much so. I don't like the idea that something so potentially damaging and controversial is added a year after the game was published. There have been many patches and most of them have actually made the game easier than it originally was (for example, more souls from killed enemies, better scaling in weapons and improved availability for certain items). The thing is, there were good reasons for these alterations to be made and they were largely known to improve the game by fans and developers alike.

Proportional response to the proportion of the problem.
That's what I mean by "First World Problems".

I do realize that this concept can effectively be used to put some problems into perspective. Precisely its wrongful use is what I do not like. I still feel like modal difficulty in games, increasing pandering of people, and the theoretical addition of easy mode in Dark Souls are worthy subjects of discussion.

We put more effort and fervor into defending our entertainment than we do our own jobs.

This is another matter completely and should be discussed elsewhere.

I honestely don't think the presentation and its intended goals are debatable.

Then don't debate them.

I didn't. I simply explained why I don't consider it to be debatable so that others could know as well and the issue could be decided. I think that explaining the reasons behind a claim is more than a reasonable thing to do.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

The modern gamer needs the difficulty for Dark Souls watered down exactly the same way a morbidly obese child would require that the last piece of cake that they've left at an all you can eat cake buffet be rubbed against their corpulent flesh so that they can "enjoy" that piece too.

 

[NemotheElvenPanda]

I'm probably going to get smacked around for this; but I don't play games because of the challenge. For better or worse, I'm not a fan of difficulty. I am however a fan of characters, plot, story, themes, and so on. I play games for how they make me feel, not how they make me think. The fact that in Dragon Origins I'm bringing all these hostile races together for a greater good, rather than planning and executing battle plans against the various bosses, is why I still play the game. It's also why I'd play GW2 over WoW because there's a stronger emphasis on plot and character development; I like to grow in my games and the see the world react around me, rather than be part of a guild to storm a raid to get a pair of magical pants. In short, not every gamer plays games for the same reason.

Now in that light, if I had Dark Souls, would I try to play it as "intended"? Yes, however after losing time and time again, I'd switch an easy mode out sheer frustration. That's just how I am, and I can't play game because of that, because I'm not really up for a head-splitting harrowing when I could be enjoying the game's lore or appearance? Sorry, but that comes off as a bit selfish to me.

Now I can understand the fear of dumbing down; I lost too many of my favorite channels to reality TV like mentioned. However, giving the *option* to make a game easier to deal with is not harming anyone, neither the game, for reasons mentioned already. I recall that in one of my games, I think it was Bioshock 2 or ME2, that it referred to the "easy mode" as "story mode" where the emphasis was placed on plot, while the "hard mode" cared more about challenging combat. Personally, I don't see why this isn't in more games. Like I said, not everyone plays games for the same reasons.

 

[immortalfrieza]

I hate to come off as offensive, but this is honestly one of the most immature responses I've received to my argument. I don't want content dumbed down for me, and I'm actually not one of the people who prefer an easy mode. I do, however, believe in that option being available for those that are even more time constrained than me. I work 40 hours a week, and have to spend most of my time taking care of my home. Other times are spent with people I care about. This, however, does not make a "filthy casual". When I do play a game, I prefer to work at it, and I will even invest hours in an FAQ or lose sleep over reviewing strategies to improve. I do, however, also game with others that I would love to share that experience with, but they are unable to invest the time I am willing to sacrifice and I feel like they are missing out.

I'm sorry, but the "I don't deserve it" response is VERY elitist. Why do you deserve it, instead? Did you invest more money in the product? Did you help the developers create it? Did you invest in the studio that released it? Did you invest any time, effort, money, or any variation in ensuring this game was successful? If not, you are no more entitled to the experience than any other player. You invested more time in learning the game? That means you'll be better at the game. That is your reward. Not the game itself.

Why do we deserve to beat a game and you don't? I'll tell you. It's because we worked for it! We put in the time and effort to beat the game, you didn't, so you don't deserve to beat the game, you also don't deserve to have it made easier for you either. I don't know about everyone else here, but all I want from you is to find the time required and make the same effort that everyone else has to. You shouldn't have a game's content handed to you on a silver platter or even just made easier for ANY reason, least of all because you aren't willing to put in the time and effort needed. That applies to you and everyone else, including your friends, and if you expect it or want it to be made easier, that's called being entitled.

I wouldn't expect to beat everybody in a Triathlon or have it any easier than everybody else just because I showed up, I would expect to win through my own merits and the time and effort I was willing to put into training, and if I wasn't willing to put in that time and effort, I wouldn't show up, and you should expect the same thing from video games, Soul series or not. Everyone on the planet with the exception of people with disabilities CAN find the time to work through a game, doesn't matter who you are or what your situation is. You can find an hour each day, or every other day, or whatever, the time is there, it's just that you don't care to find the time. You are just using that as an really poor excuse to justify the fact that you want things made easier for you, and you and every other pro easy mode on this thread are coming up with any excuse you possibly can to get people to agree that it should be to feed your sense of entitlement. You want the game mechanics to be smoother? Less clunky? That can happen, but the difficulty and length of the game shouldn't be made less because you or anyone don't give enough of a damn, period.

 

[BytByte]

I'm probably going to get smacked around for this; but I don't play games because of the challenge. For better or worse, I'm not a fan of difficulty. I am however a fan of characters, plot, story, themes, and so on. I play games for how they make me feel, not how they make me think. The fact that in Dragon Origins I'm bringing all these hostile races together for a greater good, rather than planning and executing battle plans against the various bosses, is why I still play the game. It's also why I'd play GW2 over WoW because there's a stronger emphasis on plot and character development; I like to grow in my games and the see the world react around me, rather than be part of a guild to storm a raid to get a pair of magical pants. In short, not every gamer plays games for the same reason.

Now in that light, if I had Dark Souls, would I try to play it as "intended"? Yes, however after losing time and time again, I'd switch an easy mode out sheer frustration. That's just how I am, and I can't play game because of that, because I'm not really up for a head-splitting harrowing when I could be enjoying the game's lore or appearance? Sorry, but that comes off as a bit selfish to me.

Now I can understand the fear of dumbing down; I lost too many of my favorite channels to reality TV like mentioned. However, giving the *option* to make a game easier to deal with is not harming anyone, neither the game, for reasons mentioned already. I recall that in one of my games, I think it was Bioshock 2 or ME2, that it referred to the "easy mode" as "story mode" where the emphasis was placed on plot, while the "hard mode" cared more about challenging combat. Personally, I don't see why this isn't in more games. Like I said, not everyone plays games for the same reasons.

Oh geez yes please. Enjoying something in different ways you would think would be obvious to people, but evidently not. How can you argue with someone else's tastes, and what would be wrong to provide an optional method for those people? Thank you smart Nemo.

Also, Rooster, way back in page 23, your analogy is flawed. Guns in Call of Duty are analogous to Swords/Pikes/Miracles etc. in Dark Souls, not difficulty settings. The game's mechanics can stand on its own without the difficulty is what I am saying

 

[anthony87]

Considering how long this thread has been going on for, would anyone else be interested to see if Jim does some sort of follow up? I know I would but I'm not expecting it and I'm not trying to imply that he should do it what with his reviewing duties and five Jimquisition episodes next week but it'd be interesting all the same if he did.

 

[BioRex]

Considering how long this thread has been going on for, would anyone else be interested to see if Jim does some sort of follow up? I know I would but I'm not expecting it and I'm not trying to imply that he should do it what with his reviewing duties and five Jimquisition episodes next week but it'd be interesting all the same if he did.

Honestly while it may be interesting, more likely it would just had fuel to arguments which are not likely to go anywhere since some think this others think that, some are debating x while the other is debating y and yet another is talking about z.

 

[BilltheEmu]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for providing a thoughtful response. I'm glad that you seem to appreciate these games as art, as I do.

I watched the video you linked, and I must say that I agree with the ideas presented in it, as well. The games should be the artist's creation, and their content should not be dictated by demographics and marketing. From Software HAS created an audience with its two games. Demon's Souls was absolutely a niche title, and it was released to a world of gamers who had long been lacking such a title. The result seems to reflect Mr. Carpenter's ideas quite well, in that Demon's Souls created its own sizable audience, which From themselves may not have expected. Here's a snippet from Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon%27s_Souls#Reception] about Demon's Souls, suggesting that that's exactly what happened:

Demon's Souls favorable review scores made the fiscal performance of the game unique because of the lack of a supporting marketing campaign. Gaming analyst Jesse Divnich commented "Demon's Souls is probably one of the most statistically relevant games released in the gaming world as it helps answer an often asked question: how much would a high quality game sell if it was supported by no mass marketing, released by a little known publisher (no offense to Atlus), and was a new intellectual property."[72] With the critical and commercial success of the game, Sony Computer Entertainment VP of international software Yeonkyung Kim later admitted that it was a "mistake" to pass on the game, instead allowing Atlus to publish it, initially due to concerns over its difficulty and unusual design decisions.[73]

Dark Souls came along later, and built on that audience. As I said in my prior post, it DID make some rather substantial changes to the mechanics, many of which could be seen as making it more accessible, but without compromising the difficulty. I think From should be commended for pulling this off well. But at the same time, I don't believe that they were doing it to cater to a new audience. I believe that they made those refinements to make a better game, which it was. Dark Souls was still very much true to itself, and the audience created by Demon's Souls.

All is well for Souls fans. And then the quote [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-09-07-dark-souls-easy-mode-quote-a-mistranslation-apparently] that launched a thousand ships (I don't even think this has been posted anywhere in the thread yet):

Post-release, the game's director, Hidetaka Miyazaki, contemplated adding an easier difficulty level, saying: "Dark Souls is rather difficult and a number of people may hesitate to play. This fact is really sad to me and I am thinking about whether I should prepare another difficulty that everyone can complete or carefully send all gamers the messages behind our difficult games."[32] Namco Bandai claimed Miyazaki's statement was mistranslated, and should have read "This fact is really sad to me and I am thinking about how to make everyone complete the game while maintaining the current difficulty and carefully send all gamers the messages behind it."[33]

Reaching this point, I fully agree with you that this raises fears regarding Mr. Carpenter's ideas, as they apply to the Souls series. None of us can know exactly what Miyazaki has in mind, specifically, regarding making a game that "everyone can complete." As a fan of the difficulty, this sounds just as scary to me, as it does to you. But here I would like to address two very different situations with two very different arguments: Dark Souls, and Dark Souls II. I believe that Dark Souls, being a completed game, would not suffer from the inclusion of an alternative modal difficulty. I believe that Dark Souls II, a work in progress, could potentially suffer greatly, because of the reasons that you suggested, that artistic content should not be designed to appeal to the widest audience possible.

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

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

Allow me to start here for Dark Souls. Trust me when I tell you that I have not forgotten that games can be revisited. I frequently go back to play old favorites. I've got my NES and SNES hooked up to my TV right next to my PS3 and PC. I have played through Dark Souls a ridiculous number of times. I've beaten the game at level 1, I've beaten it with a Belmont character (Whip only, no shield, light armor), I've gone from the start of the game, killed the hydra, Sif, and then Four Kings right away, and I've beaten the game on a character without dying once (Aside from the first Seath fight). I've made Sunbro characters to just chill out and help newbies. I love replaying this game, and finding new challenges, or different ways to play.

Having said that, I fully stand by my opinion that the sudden appearance of "Easy Mode" on the game menu would have literally zero impact on my enjoyment of the game. This is assuming that multiplayer is segregated in some way, and that difficulty CANNOT be changed during the game (Otherwise multiplayer segregation would be pointless). I would never touch it, except out of curiosity. All of us who are fans of Dark Souls have, presumably, completed the game at least once. It's been over a year since the original release, and months since PTDE, so if you're a fan, and you haven't by now, well... Anyway, those of us complaining about the theoretical easy mode, we've already experienced the game as intended. The easy mode, therefore, cannot ruin our experience of the game, because we've already had it.

An argument about subsequent playthroughs doesn't make sense, because I think almost all of us will agree that after your first playthrough, the game becomes significantly less challenging. The further challenge you get from this game is something you create yourself, by creating limitations and rules (like a SL1 run). If you're placing these limitations on yourself, then I think it would go without saying that you wouldn't use easy mode.

As for the argument about new players not getting the "correct" experience playing on easy? Who cares? I mean, seriously, why does that matter? You cannot apply your argument about games creating an audience to this. Dark Souls was already created, and is a wonderful game that many, many people have experienced for the art that it is. That's done, and it cannot be retroactively taken away. If someone can't beat the game, and From provides an easy mode so that they can, so what? It would be nice if those players could experience it in the same way that I did, but if they can't or won't overcome the difficulty, then they're not going to, anyway. People who would choose easy would be experiencing a sub-par version of the game, rather than not experiencing it at all. If they have the option, that's there choice. It won't stop my enjoyment.

This is, in a sense, the argument that Jim was making originally, and from this perspective, I agree with it. But to me, the vastly more important argument is to be made about Dark Souls II. I can't speak for everyone, but reading this thread, it really feels like people are arguing about one thing with people who are arguing about another. This is why I would like to clearly define a difference in my posts.

Everything that you said about artists and audiences ABSOLUTELY applies to the sequel. Many supporters of easy mode asked how it could possibly affect the game for everyone else who doesn't want it. With regards to Dark Souls II, I feel like I addressed that in my previous post. When designing the game, from the ground up, and considering having to balance for two different audiences, I believe that the end result will suffer. This has been shown time and time again in the video game industry. Diablo III and Deus Ex: Invisible War are a couple of examples that come to mind. How about games with tacked on multiplayer? These examples don't perfectly match up with Dark Souls, and I don't want to start getting into absurdly extended analogies, but it is a problem that can happen in any medium.

Thus I believe that all of our concern for the Souls series should be directed toward the future, not the past. It's a matter of speculation and hope about whether or not the next game we get will live up to the first two. I am conflicted about being wary based on the comments of the developers, and being hopeful because of the excellent transition they made between Demon's and Dark Souls.

Someone, a while back, posted a video by EpicNameBro [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upH5UfKbi0c], discussing organic vs. modal difficulty, and I thought that was brilliant. This is essentially a function of the current summoning and hint system. If they can find ways to improve on these existing systems, or add new ones, so that the game can be experienced at a challenge level of the player's choosing within a single balanced setting (ie not easy/hard mode), then it could be great. We might not have anything to worry about.

If, on the other hand, they tack on an easy mode, after creating an entire game balanced for the original difficulty, the easy mode experience would suffer for it, but it would theoretically not affect the normal game. I don't believe that this is likely to happen, as they have probably been considering easier difficulty, whether modal or organic, from the start.

From Software is going to do whatever they want to do. If that involves attempting to broaden the player base, then I hope they can pull it off. If that involves making the game consistently difficult to remain true to the series, that would be better.

I'm sorry to anyone who is bothered by that, but it is my opinion that Dark Souls II would be better off if it was being created with no consideration for an easy mode. I feel like I've expressed enough reasons why such a design philosophy could weaken the overall game, even though they are speculative. At the same time, suggesting that it wouldn't weaken the game is also speculative. If they were to decide a year after the release of Dark Souls II that they should add an easy mode in a new patch, I could not care less. But the original design of this new chapter in the series should be based on difficulty.

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

Hello there, fellow sunbro! I applaud your efforts, and others', in this thread to employ civil discourse in an argument full of namecalling. Let us all engage in jolly conversation \o/

I know that this is my second wall of text, and I apologize, but I like to explain myself as thoroughly as possible, so that everyone, whether agreeing with me or not, can fully understand where I'm coming from (It is also helpful for myself in working through the arguments). Perhaps I should make shorter versions of my posts that are quicker to read, for those who dislike the length...

 

[Peithelo]

For better or worse, I'm not a fan of difficulty. I am however a fan of characters, plot, story, themes, and so on. I play games for how they make me feel, not how they make me think.

Then you might be very pleased to know that these are exactly the kinds of things that the difficulty in Dark Souls is designed to emphasize. It is what gives them a greater sense of meaning and purpose. The world of Dark Souls is a dangerous and dark place, and this is reflected in the challenges the player has to endure when exploring its many areas, unraveling the intricate lore, and conversing with the many characters, that may or may not be against you, the player can meet.

There would be a severe disconnect between the world, its themes, atmosphere, and characters, and your perceived experience if there was no sense of real danger and a prominent possibility of failure present as a form of challenging gameplay. These aspects are designed to have a type of synergy together that gives the experience its very form.

Now in that light, if I had Dark Souls, would I try to play it as "intended"? Yes, however after losing time and time again, I'd switch an easy mode out sheer frustration. That's just how I am, and I can't play game because of that, because I'm not really up for a head-splitting harrowing when I could be enjoying the game's lore or appearance? Sorry, but that comes off as a bit selfish to me.

I personally object to the idea that the gameplay in video games is in some way a mere distraction that keeps you from experiencing the story or any other points of interest. Gameplay is precisely the thing that seperates video games from other mediums, such as movies and books, and it should be used to the greatest possible extent when trying to achieve whatever it is that the game is supposed to achieve. Otherwise there hardly is a point to any of it. Dark Souls cleverly uses the challenging gameplay to improve every other aspect of the game. This, to me, is a sign of great use of video games as a medium.

I consider Dark Souls and Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty to be one of the most prominent examples of how storytelling in video games has been done incredibly well. In these examples the gameplay helps to define various elements in the game, such as the story or the message it is trying to convey, and at the same time be a part of them as well.

 

[Mortamus]

Why do we deserve to beat a game and you don't? I'll tell you. It's because we worked for it! We put in the time and effort to beat the game, you didn't, so you don't deserve to beat the game, you also don't deserve to have it made easier for you either. I don't know about everyone else here, but all I want from you is to find the time required and make the same effort that everyone else has to. You shouldn't have a game's content handed to you on a silver platter or even just made easier for ANY reason, least of all because you aren't willing to put in the time and effort needed. That applies to you and everyone else, including your friends, and if you expect it or want it to be made easier, that's called being entitled.

I wouldn't expect to beat everybody in a Triathlon or have it any easier than everybody else just because I showed up, I would expect to win through my own merits and the time and effort I was willing to put into training, and if I wasn't willing to put in that time and effort, I wouldn't show up, and you should expect the same thing from video games, Soul series or not. Everyone on the planet with the exception of people with disabilities CAN find the time to work through a game, doesn't matter who you are or what your situation is. You can find an hour each day, or every other day, or whatever, the time is there, it's just that you don't care to find the time. You are just using that as an really poor excuse to justify the fact that you want things made easier for you, and you and every other pro easy mode on this thread are coming up with any excuse you possibly can to get people to agree that it should be to feed your sense of entitlement. You want the game mechanics to be smoother? Less clunky? That can happen, but the difficulty and length of the game shouldn't be made less because you or anyone don't give enough of a damn, period.

Except some people can't. I'm not talking about being unwilling to make time, I'm talking about being unable. As well, you're comparing a form of entertainment with competitive sports. They're really not the same thing.

 

[chikusho]

Now in that light, if I had Dark Souls, would I try to play it as "intended"? Yes, however after losing time and time again, I'd switch an easy mode out sheer frustration. That's just how I am, and I can't play game because of that, because I'm not really up for a head-splitting harrowing when I could be enjoying the game's lore or appearance? Sorry, but that comes off as a bit selfish to me.

If you want the lore and appearance, I'm pretty sure there's plenty of concept art, story summations and youtube videos of the game you can indulge yourself in.

However, giving the *option* to make a game easier to deal with is not harming anyone, neither the game, for reasons mentioned already.

But it would harm the game since it would ruin its fundamental point. Not to mention resources that would go into rebalancing, retweaking, reimagining ideas, only to pander to people outside of the audience the game has created.
Do you think there should be abridged movies with extra narration so that everyone can follow the plot as well? Should classical books be rewritten in simple english? Should statues, art and poetry come with a de facto explanation and reasoning behind every brushstroke? Should the rules for each sport, and team and player biographies be told to you every time you watch a football game?
Sometimes the consumer needs to make an effort in order to partake in a medium. And it's most often that very effort that makes the reward that much sweeter.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

The cherry picking has reached critical mass, and all logic in my arguments have been ignored. Repeatedly.

It's infuriating. Given the constant appeals to pathos, Appeals to Authority, overwhelming Slippery Slope logic and contradictions I'm being presented ("Dark Souls isn't difficult...it's difficult...it's meant to be difficult."), there's no point invoking logic anymore.

Others are losing their patience with ME, and not my arguments, so that's as good an indicator as any to quit.

I remain unconvinced of how an easy mode would hurt or destroy the game; at worst separate content would be required, and that leads to the slippery slope of "That's time they should be spending on the next game!"

The entire ordeal reeks of self-pandering, and the game is put on a shrine like an idol, not to be touched or blemished, with anyone suggesting even hypothetical changes to be burnt at the stake for their heresy.

I await the usual slew of Parthians Shots, personal insults, and implications of how I'm petty, "don't get it", "condescending" (with the hypocrisy of that accusation being rank as ever) or that I'm somehow metaphorically "the problem that destroys art".

And if you manage to not do any of that, despite being highly tempted, congratulations: You're a stronger person.

I'm sorry. I thought it was you but maybe it's me. I might jump in again later after I meditate a while.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Except some people can't. I'm not talking about being unwilling to make time, I'm talking about being unable. As well, you're comparing a form of entertainment with competitive sports. They're really not the same thing.

I already took allowance for people that are unable to beat a game, you notice I mentioned disabled people, everyone else without except can, they just don't care enough to. In other words there's no such thing as unable, there is only unwilling. I'm comparing beating video games to winning competitive sports because it is the closest analog to what beating a video game is, there's no exact one. Competitive sports require time and effort on the part of the participant if the participant wants to succeed, no sport is going to just hand them their victories, regardless of the circumstances of the participant, and neither should video games.

 

[grumbel]

Do you think there should be abridged movies with extra narration so that everyone can follow the plot as well?

Movies have those things called fast-forward buttons, you can press them and abridge them how much or how little you want. You can even pause them or reverse them, at any time completely without cheatcode. Or switch on the audio-commentary and you don't even have to finish the movie first to unlock them. And if that isn't enough, I am sure Wikipedia will have a plot summary explaining the rest of it.

Should classical books be rewritten in simple english?

That stuff exist plentiful there are even books that summarize and help you interpret books.

Should statues, art and poetry come with a de facto explanation and reasoning behind every brushstroke?

There is no shortage of that either.

Should the rules for each sport, and team and player biographies be told to you every time you watch a football game?[/qutoe]
What has that to do with anything? Nobody is requesting to force easy mode on everyone. Options are optional.

Sometimes the consumer needs to make an effort in order to partake in a medium.

No other medium requires an effort to consume it. You can read through a book without getting it or what a movie while asleep. Only games lock content.

 

[sXeth]

Whilst I dip my toes back in this quagmire a moment.

PvP = The same damage tweaking that would assumably make the Easy mode could apply a similar damper on their damage if they're an easy mode character.

Or simplified.
Easy Mode = +20% damage vs monsters, -20% damage from Monsters. -40% damage vs players.

 

[immortalfrieza]

No other medium requires an effort to consume it. You can read through a book without getting it or what a movie while asleep. Only games lock content.

Video games are NOT movies, TV or books, they are an interactive medium, they require you to earn their content.

 

[grumbel]

Video games are NOT movies, TV or books, they are an interactive medium, they require you to earn their content.

And that's a problem that should be fixed. The days of arcades are long gone, there is no need to lock content to extract more coins from customers these days as you already paid for it when you bought the game. Are movies any less interesting because you have a fast forward button? No, of course not. Because you simply don't use it and watch the movie as intended most of the time. But it's nice that it's there in case you need it.

The only argument against this seem to come from weak minded people who apparently aren't man enough to ignore an easy option when it's available. Man up, just see that easy option you have to resist as another challenge and as a badge of honor developers can even install an achievement for it if they like. Problem solved.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Video games are NOT movies, TV or books, they are an interactive medium, they require you to earn their content.

And that's a problem that should be fixed. The days of arcades are long gone, there is no need to lock content to extract more coins from customers these days as you already paid for it when you bought the game. Are movies any less interesting because you have a fast forward button? No, of course not. Because you simply don't use it and watch the movie as intended most of the time. But it's nice that it's there in case you need it.

The fact that the player has to work for it to get a video game's content is not a problem, that is the ENTIRE POINT of video games. Why make video games interactive if the player doesn't have to do much of anything to access the game's content? Why not just make them movies? Movies have a fast forward button because they are MOVIES, you are supposed to sit there and enjoy them with no further effort on your part, video games are an interactive medium that requires the user to play it and earn the game's content through their efforts, at least somewhat, regardless of the video game.

The only argument against this seem to come from weak minded people who apparently aren't man enough to ignore an easy option when it's available.

And the only argument FOR an easy mode seems to come from weak minded people that aren't man enough to play through the game at it's current difficulty. See? Easy to turn that argument around.

Man up, just see that easy option you have to resist as another challenge and as a badge of honor developers can even install an achievement for it if they like. Problem solved.

No, NOT problem solved. The fact that a developer is willing to make a game easier in ANY way to make it more accessable means that they will make all future games in the series easier to make it more accessable as time goes on. That's the same reason why the original Super Mario Bros is so difficult that it has been ranked many times among the hardest games of all time, while the more recent Mario games are so easy that they can be beaten by a random monkey picked out of some forest somewhere.

That, and the fact that someone can accomplish what other people do with a fraction of the effort required lessens the impact of what those people did. If Dark Souls 2 is easier than Dark Souls, it makes the efforts of the people that beat Dark Souls less meaningful. Just the fact that an easy mode EXISTS is enough to degrade a game. Making the gameplay better? THAT doesn't affect it as long as the difficulty remains intact, that is not a problem, lowering the difficulty for ANY reason is.