Namco Denies Dark Souls Difficulty Comment

[Phlakes]

You obviously didn't play the game. It is entirely designed around its difficulty. What you're saying is the equivalent of "we should add the option to remove jumping from Mario because that would make it more accessible."

There was a very legitimate concern that adding an easy difficulty would lure most players over to it and give them a crappy experience that damaged the franchise. There's no fun to be had in an "easy" version of these games, just disappointment. Without the difficulty you'd be left with a middling 3rd person combat game with a decent story and atmosphere.

No.

Just no.

Dark Souls doesn't need to be difficult. It's a huge part of the experience, yeah, but it would still be a functional game if it was easier.

Options don't damage franchises. That's ridiculous. Really. If someone wants to play Dark Souls but doesn't want soul crushing difficulty, then let them play Dark Souls without soul crushing difficulty, and you can keep playing it the way you want to.

Read what I just posted.

Functional? Yeah, obviously. Fun? Good? Relevant? No.

Usually difficulty options are a good thing. In this rare and specific case, they are not.

It would give more people a chance to play the game without affecting anyone who doesn't want to use it, including you. Unless you're one of those people who doesn't want dirty "casual" gamers having the same things you have.

 

[rbstewart7263]

hardcore and casual segregation. lol

 

[ResonanceGames]

You obviously didn't play the game. It is entirely designed around its difficulty. What you're saying is the equivalent of "we should add the option to remove jumping from Mario because that would make it more accessible."

There was a very legitimate concern that adding an easy difficulty would lure most players over to it and give them a crappy experience that damaged the franchise. There's no fun to be had in an "easy" version of these games, just disappointment. Without the difficulty you'd be left with a middling 3rd person combat game with a decent story and atmosphere.

No.

Just no.

Dark Souls doesn't need to be difficult. It's a huge part of the experience, yeah, but it would still be a functional game if it was easier.

Options don't damage franchises. That's ridiculous. Really. If someone wants to play Dark Souls but doesn't want soul crushing difficulty, then let them play Dark Souls without soul crushing difficulty, and you can keep playing it the way you want to.

Read what I just posted.

Functional? Yeah, obviously. Fun? Good? Relevant? No.

Usually difficulty options are a good thing. In this rare and specific case, they are not.

It would give more people a chance to play the game without affecting anyone who doesn't want to use it, including you. Unless you're one of those people who doesn't want dirty "casual" gamers having the same things you have.

For the same reason, as I already said, that I wouldn't want Mario to have the option to remove jumping.

There are many, many options you can give players regarding difficulty that you wouldn't want to because it would fundamentally cheapen and change the experience.

That said, now that I think about it, I suppose that if it were handled by giving the player more experience points rather than making enemies and encounters easier, that would probably be acceptable. Something like that wouldn't change the fundamentals of the game.

 

[kyogen]

Dark Souls doesn't need to be difficult. It's a huge part of the experience, yeah, but it would still be a functional game if it was easier.

I understand where you're coming from, but I can't agree. Raw functionality isn't enough of a standard for judging whether a game is still itself. Take jumping out of Super Mario Brothers, to steal another post's example, and you just hold right for a few minutes before winning.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, it was extremely popular to change the ending of Romeo and Juliet so that the lovers survive. That didn't make the play any better...well, I'm not sure anything could make that particular play any better, but in any case, it was a change that encouraged people to ignore several points Shakespeare was making in the original text. It substantially changed both the work and its reception. Something similar happens if you add a difficulty slider to Dark Souls.

I have to agree with ResonanceGames. The "difficulty" of Dark Souls is an integral part of its design--tense, methodical action that requires patience and attentiveness. Uncovering the lore also requires effort and attention. Adding a mode that circumvents these aspects substantially changes both the work and the way gamers interact with it. The same would be true for nearly all roguelikes. System mastery, not basic story progression, is the point of the game. Games that work well with multiple difficulty levels are generally designed that way from the start and do not integrate combat and narrative progression to the same extent.

 

[MidnightSt]

There was a controversy over this? Gamers, getting upset because the developers might be adding a difficulty slider! Oh noes, people who have less 'skillz' then you can complete the game too and your cherished pathetic achievement of beating the game becomes less exclusive. Oh noes!

I think he should stick by his statement if it wasn't a mistranslation and not let the PR department appease the pettiest of fans but I can understand their actions and their desire to please their fans by keeping to their... urm... ideals.

to me, Dark Souls difficulty is an integral part of the story. Basically the second NPC you meet says something like "Oh, another undead sent on the mission? Yes, you're not the only one, there are many being sent on the same mission as you, constantly. None of them is ever heard of again. Do you really think you can succeed?" and it's meant seriously, the game is telling that to you, not to the character. Dark Souls is meant to be that way so the story is not just a cheap bullshit designed to make you feel like hero just because you invested some time into it to get to the end. I suspect there are many people who wouldn't be able to finish the game even if they spent half of their life playing it (and as I see it, I might be one of them), because there are many characters (implied, at least) in the game(world) with the same fate. It gives the story much more weight, makes it real. You can be sure it's not just a setup for a grandiose victory, it's a pure challenge. The outcome of the (meta)story DEPENDS on your abilities. It's similar to the difference between an airsoft battle and a real war. Play airsoft long enough, and you're guaranteed to win at least once. Fail once in real war, and you're guaranteed it's over for you. As I said, if the game doesn't try to make you win just to provide you the "experience" of its story, you know it's really you who won, and the experience of the story is so much more real and impactful thanks to that.

I've been thinking about similar concepts for a long time, as I myself am creating a puzzle/RPG game that is MEANT to be as difficult and incomprehensible as possible, providing no help, no hints, and it is integral to its design, experience and meaning. If this game had an easier difficulty, or any difficulty setting at all, it might as well not exist. Dark Souls, I feel, is similar, though not as extreme case.

 

[kyoodle]

It would give more people a chance to play the game without affecting anyone who doesn't want to use it, including you. Unless you're one of those people who doesn't want dirty "casual" gamers having the same things you have.

For most games I'd completely agree with that, almost all games should have a difficulty option. In general I think the the easiest mode is too difficult, as anyone who hasn't played a game (particularly a 3-d one) before would still struggle considerably.

But with Dark souls? The art style, the minimal story, the atmosphere all build around how desperate the situation of Lordran is. Remove the difficulty and the rest is pretty meaningless. Not all games need to be all things to all people.

 

[Phlakes]

snip

For the same reason, as I already said, that I wouldn't want Mario to have the option to remove jumping.

There are many, many options you can give players regarding difficulty that you wouldn't want to because it would fundamentally cheapen and change the experience.

That said, now that I think about it, I suppose that if it were handled by giving the player more experience points rather than making enemies and encounters easier, that would probably be acceptable. Something like that wouldn't change the fundamentals of the game.

But with Dark souls? The art style, the minimal story, the atmosphere all build around how desperate the situation of Lordran is. Remove the difficulty and the rest is pretty meaningless. Not all games need to be all things to all people.

See, I get where you all are coming from, but options are optional. That's why they're called options. Because they're optional. As in the only effect it has is on the people that choose to use that option. You're saying that people shouldn't even have that choice.

You have-

[The Dark Souls that exists now] + [the easier mode]

The easier mode does change the fundamentals of the game, and does remove a major part of why the game exists and why a lot of people enjoy it, but those changes only exist in the easier mode. Again, the game that you've played won't be touched. But if Steve wants to play that mode because he doesn't enjoy Dark Souls as it is, there's no reason not to give him that choice. It might be fun to him. It might not, but there's someone out there who would enjoy an easier Dark Souls, and the idea that they shouldn't even have the chance to play an easier Dark Souls because what they play wouldn't be fundamentally "right" is just ridiculous.

It's like saying that diet soda shouldn't exist because artificial sweeteners cheapen its fundamentals.

 

[Carnagath]

No.

Just no.

Dark Souls doesn't need to be difficult. It's a huge part of the experience, yeah, but it would still be a functional game if it was easier.

Options don't damage franchises. That's ridiculous. Really. If someone wants to play Dark Souls but doesn't want soul crushing difficulty, then let them play Dark Souls without soul crushing difficulty, and you can keep playing it the way you want to.

While that may be true with most games, it doesn't apply to the Souls games. They don't offer good dialogue, story or characters. They offer a diverse combat system that allows for different approaches and a beautiful world that immerses the player by feeling lonely, oppressive and murderous. If you add a faceroll slider to that, you get nothing. It would be like playing Minesweeper without mines. Not all games need to be beatable by everyone, some have a more niche target audience and are built from the ground up to accomodate them, people need to deal with it. I suck dick at platformers, but I didn't ***** because I can't beat Super Meatboy.

 

[Baresark]

This game is almost completely misrepresented in the media, even by the company itself. It is not hard, it requires skill, meaning that you will get better with practice. Hard games are ones where everything has to be done completely right or you die and have to start again. Hard is know the exact frame in which a player is vulnerable in street fighter. Hard is rote memorization of specific move patters that are almost impossible to avoid with the exception of a few pixels.

This game is skill based, meaning you learn to play your character better as you go against enemies of ever increasing difficulty. In a NG+, a beginning enemy may be able to one hit you, but you probably won't get touched by the beginning enemies because you have moved far beyond their ability to be dangerous. You have learned their attacks, their attacks effective range, and your own effective range of combat.

In this situation, an easy mode would only be accomplished by making enemies stand there and attack less. In this game you are not measuring pixels or precise timing. It's fluid, you make the experience what you want to make it. Ergo (latin), that Calamity ring exists. That doubles your damage taken. The game is not beyond anyone, but it requires time, just like becoming good at Basketball.

 

[Phlakes]

No.

Just no.

Dark Souls doesn't need to be difficult. It's a huge part of the experience, yeah, but it would still be a functional game if it was easier.

Options don't damage franchises. That's ridiculous. Really. If someone wants to play Dark Souls but doesn't want soul crushing difficulty, then let them play Dark Souls without soul crushing difficulty, and you can keep playing it the way you want to.

While that may be true with most games, it doesn't apply to the Souls games. They don't offer good dialogue, story or characters. They offer a diverse combat system that allows for different approaches and a beautiful world that immerses the player by feeling lonely, oppressive and murderous. If you add a faceroll slider to that, you get nothing. It would be like playing Minesweeper without mines.

That's a little extreme. What a person would play in an easier Dark Souls would be the same, just in a different way.

Not all games need to be beatable by everyone, some have a more niche target audience and are built from the ground up to accomodate them, people need to deal with it.

That's entirely true, but it doesn't mean it should never happen. Expanding an audience is never a bad thing if it leaves everyone else (the people the game was built to accommodate) alone. The game won't stop appealing to that niche, it'll just start appealing to more.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

if the game is too hard you know who to call for

Sunbros for life, man! We'll be there for ya if that boss just gives you HELL.

A note to those discussing difficulty sliders for a souls game...it wouldn't work. If there was an "easy mode" where swinging used 1/50th of your stamina and you could one-shot pesky foes without having to "worry" about upgrading or enchanting your weapons and armor, the game would be broken. There is an easy mode, but you have to explore for it, watch the hints from others, and piece it together. That Is The Magic, Folks. For example,

Spoiler

When you see "Weakness: Tail" under the bridge and shoot the hell out of it, you are awarded the Drake Sword, which many consider "easy mode" and offers power that enchanting many weapons to +10 won't offer at the start.

If you go into King's field or Souls expecting traditional continues, autosaving checkpoints every 5 seconds, and the ability to nerf everything, I guarantee that you won't have fun and the pure JOY involved in leaping out of your chair and jumping in the air when that boss finally falls, and that folks is the rush that keeps us coming back.

We want this world to be hell. A festering, horrible, wretched place where anything at any time can and will kill you if you let your guard down or get greedy. The suspense, tension, and pure sense of reward is what defines the entire experience. If this bothers you, then the game wasn't made for you. It's perfectly okay, no sane person thinks they're better than you, and there's thousands of games that are more up your alley.

Many of us were raised on gaming experiences that others would consider masochistic to actually complete, and the Souls games were a glimmer of hope to tell us that we haven't been forgotten, and that it can be done with our modern architecture. Many of us growing tedious of hour long tutorials, or 12 tutorials dressed as quests, and incessant hand holding were given a gift by From Software, twice. If that gift looks to you like that ugly Christmas sweater your aunt knitted you, nobody's making you wear it, and you don't even have to lie and say you like it, because nobody is judging you outside of the trolls. And if all else fails, return to line one, call on the Sunbros and PRAISE THE SUN!

 

[Sean Gudgeon]

Dark souls doesnt have different difficulty levels, it is an open game and people PVP within the game boundaries... an easier mode would not fit or it would create an entire other game mode. Creating an EZ mode slider wouldn't be easy, it would create an entire slew of balance problems.

 

[ResonanceSD]

if the game is too hard you know who to call for

Turns out that EA put that stuff into every single game now. Even the easy ones.

 

[Trishbot]

I still have no idea why some fans are so upset at the very OPTION of an OPTIONAL easier difficulty for the people who want it. How does that "take away" anything if you can simply ignore it altogether?

Approximately 98% of the games out there nowadays play themselves or could be played by lobsters bashing away at a controller, if you leave Indies like Super Meat Boy or IWTBTG out of that you get like only Dark Souls and maybe some other obscure Japanese or Russian games priding themselves on offering a challenge, and you are SERIOUSLY asking why people don't want "easy-mode" in those last few bastions of hope too?

I heard there's a whole number of Facebook and iPad games out there that cater to non-gamers, I haven't ever played any of them (except maybe some Ports to PC I might not have realized) and I frankly don't give a fuck if they design those with lobsters in mind since they don't itnerest me. I will just continue to ignore them, not go out of my way and throw a tantrum how they should be more like the games *I* like and they should solely cater to *me*.
Not everything has to be a homogenized sludge appealing to everyone despite what all the publishers are always saying, and more often than not it just turns the thing (whatever it is) into shit.

You shouldn't expect to be able to "win" at everything and be able to just skip any obstacle, that's one of the reasons why I deeply appreciate and like Super Meat Boy (despite not having seen the ending so far) for instance as it harkens back to the times of Battletoads when finishing a game actually meant something.

Except I owned Battletoads and never managed in the entire time I owned and played it to make it past the speeder biker level. And that SUCKED. I wasn't even bad at games (I managed to get through Castlevania, Contra, and MOST of Ninja Gaiden), but I never saw over 80% of Battletoads.

... And I WANTED to. I hated that stupid speeder bike level. I wanted to get past it to fight new enemies in new levels with new mechanics and new backgrounds and music and experiences. But the difficulty on a few early levels was so extreme that it was impossible for me to experience the rest of the game.

The same goes for Dark Souls. You never answered my question about how an OPTIONAL easier difficulty could impact the experiences of hardcore players who could STILL PLAY THE ORIGINAL EXPERIENCE when they wanted to. Is it such a terrible thing that some players have an option to sustain and deal more damage? To have an option like "save anywhere outside of combat"? To have things such as higher drop rates, more souls, and less upgrade costs? Little things that would allow those with less time, skill, or patience to still enjoy a dark, foreboding world with imaginative and epic bosses, deep combat and customization, and rich RPG mechanics and lore?

I see no reason why something like that couldn't exist. And if you don't like it, you don't have to play it whatsoever.

Hell, make it a two-fer. Add an easier mode AND a HARDER mode for those complaining. Give them a mode that has even more powerful enemies, even tighter death penalties, even less damaging weapons, higher upgrade costs, and weaker gear. Would fans complain about THAT?

 

[Arkley]

I'm not sure why he'd bother to lie about it even if he wasn't mistranslated. Just about anyone who released a moderately successful game known for punishing difficulty would probably ponder whether or not they ought to have included a lower difficulty setting. Gamers sure do overreact.

 

[joshuaayt]

God knows you couldn't just, like, not let easy difficulty players do any of the online-invasion crap. It's like, people might find the core gameplay or story fun, but not be that good at the game, or something. There is no reason NOT to have an easy difficulty mode, at all.

No idea why this bothers people- "Oh, fuck no, no fucking peasants gonna have fun with MY video games, piss off to farmville you wankers."

 

[Twilight_guy]

There was a controversy over this? Gamers, getting upset because the developers might be adding a difficulty slider! Oh noes, people who have less 'skillz' then you can complete the game too and your cherished pathetic achievement of beating the game becomes less exclusive. Oh noes!

Image removed for space.

I think he should stick by his statement if it wasn't a mistranslation and not let the PR department appease the pettiest of fans but I can understand their actions and their desire to please their fans by keeping to their... urm... ideals.

Whoa there, big straw man guy.

You obviously didn't play the game. It is entirely designed around its difficulty. What you're saying is the equivalent of "we should add the option to remove jumping from Mario because that would make it more accessible."

There was a very legitimate concern that adding an easy difficulty would lure most players over to it and give them a crappy experience that damaged the franchise. There's no fun to be had in an "easy" version of these games, just disappointment. Without the difficulty you'd be left with a middling 3rd person combat game with a decent story and atmosphere.

I know your not implying this but you're acting as if other games don't take difficulty into consideration. Difficulty is as important as 'does the player know where to go' in terms of design since it is integral to the process of even playing at all. No game is made without considering what how hard to make the game. That said, many other games have included various difficult and nobody, but nobody ever complained about them. Nobody ever said that playing Doom on the easier difficult was detrimental to the experience and that only the hardest difficulty was the real thing. Nobody ever said Mass Effect lost something if you play on Easy as opposed to Insane. Yet here, its treated as if changing the difficulty would suddenly ruin everything, as if the game was suddenly so alien and foreign that changing its difficulty makes it lesser. An argument that holds true for all instance across time, except this one special case that is unique often doesn't hold water. There is nothing in a Souls game that makes it so unique and so different from everything else that it can just justified as being injured by a feature that many many other games have had.

The only thing that a Souls game has is the fetishised notion created by games and supported by the developers that this is a 'hard' game. That t is part of this super elite group of games that are legitimately hard and that only people with 'skills' play and are more rewarding because they're 'hard'. That's what the games sells itself on, this built up notion of difficulty that really doesn't hold any sort of water since difficulty is completely subjective. It strikes me as stupid and I'd like nothing more then to poke a hole in it and leave the Souls franchise without its one distinguishing trait which is built on false notions and often used by asshole as a way of legitimizing themselves.

Difficulty is not something that one can build into a game, only do their best to try and create, and it's not something you market your game on. Difficulty means nothing. I can make a Flash game in two seconds that is very difficult (for example, click an exact pint on the screen), that doesn't make it good. the Souls games and its fan are building themselves up entirely around this notion of how difficult it is. I know for a fact that not what people enjoy, they may enjoy what results come from difficulty or how its implemented but difficulty itself means nothing. This whole controversy results from this misconception, that the game isn't fun because of mechanics, or visuals, or style, or experience, or anything else, that its fun because its hard, and changing it changes the game, that everyone has the exact same skillset and interprets difficulty in the same way, that you have to do the same thing I did to have fun. It just cheapens the game so much and reduces it. I've seen this argument before and it's so against what I know about game design that it makes me want to punch baby seals.