Peithelo said:
BilltheEmu said:
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:
Meaning of Karma said:
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:
Wikipedia said:
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):
Wikipedia said:
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.
Church185 said:
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...