Namco Denies Dark Souls Difficulty Comment

[Ushiromiya Battler]

Let's put it like this, It'll be as easy as putting in a difficulty slider in World of Warcraft...
The game is based around servers. They'd have to get whole new servers just for the people that can't handle the ''normal'' mode.

What they could do though is put in classes that start with higher stats, making the beginning a lot easier.

And well, being a sorcerer is practically easy mode. You can steamroll through the game without problems with your magic arrows.

So, no easy mode, wouldn't work and would destroy the whole point of the game. Giving you a challenge.
Wouldn't be Dark Souls anymore.
With the higher stat'd characters though it would only make the beginning easier and hopefully giving people a bit more time to get used to enemy patterns.

 

[Trishbot]

WAA WAA WAA! MAN UP YOU FUCKING CRY BABIES its just a video game your not actually in blighttown for fuck sake stop being cry babies over ragin in a video game if you die 9 times out of ten it's your fault so accept it Miyazaki please do not put a lower difficulty in Dark Souls they do not deserve it.

Why do men always tell me to "man up"?

I like a good challenge... but I also am now a busy girl who lacks the time and energy to commit to massive amounts of grinding, steep difficulty curves, and frequent roadblocks and failure. Dark Souls is absolutely a game with an aesthetic, lore, combat, and enemy designs I adore... but I don't have the appropriate accessibility to jump into the game on my own time.

... Especially since there are a thousand other games out there that I could beat in the span of trying to complete Dark Souls. I would LIKE to play Dark Souls and enjoy the combat, dark dungeons, creepy monsters, stunning graphics, and foreboding environments, but that difficulty IS a barrier of entry due to how little time, patience, and skill I have at the moment that could be better spent on other games.

 

[Trishbot]

Because a game loses it's value that way, especially if it was intended to be hard.

How does it "lose its value"? That makes no sense if an OPTIONAL new difficulty mode is added. Did Ninja Gaiden Black "lose its value" when it added in both newer easier AND harder difficulties over the original version? No way! It was a MUCH better value because it actually allowed more people to jump in, get used to the combat and enemy patterns, enjoy the game's visuals, puzzles, combat, and story, and when you were done the game practically was begging you to try it on the next several difficulty modes now that the warm-up was over. It IMPROVED a game designed to be hard by making it accessible for newer players to learn the ropes and THEN threw in additional challenges for them, and returning veterans.

Take Battletoads for example, you probably still remember that game and possibly the frustrations or the amount of times you tried to get through that level, without that or with the easy ability of save-state-scumming or similar it just wouldn't be the same legendary game, but just another lame Jump'n'Run.

Yeah, I remember Battletoads... as a game I HATED. I despise that game and it's absolutely crap-poor difficulty spikes and it's unreasonable roadblocks that threw out the current gameplay for suddenly different modes that controlled in ways you were not prepared for, died, and then having to redo those early sections all over again. Those first three levels I know by heart... they're fun. But I HATE the game for practically telling me "no, you cannot enjoy the rest of the game with that style of gameplay because you can't pass this racing level that behaves in a totally different way with no combat whatsoever and has instant kills everywhere." It wasn't a fun game. It was a terrible game that I wish I had never played. That's Battletoad's legacy for me.

Most "Difficulty Modes" are bogus anyway and oftentimes untested/unbalanced crap, while games like Dark Souls and Super Meat Boy have been fine-combed to be challenging, but not frustrating and probably ran through by dozens of testers hundreds of times to test for that most developers take the easy way out and just offer an "Easy" or "Hard" Mode or similar where the only difference is that enemies do 50-200% of the usual damage or have somewhere between 50-500% of their usual HP (which is often not even really tested for and also might break several other game mechanics).

If you read the book "The Art of Game Design", game developers reveal what they call the "difficulty curve", which is difficult to maintain for almost any game. Even "kiddie" games like Mario have bouts of extreme difficulty, while other games are just preventatively difficult. BUT, the goal of the "difficulty curve" is to find a middle ground that allows as many people to experience as much of the game as they can without compromising the challenge and fun. When the game becomes a "job" the game fails.

For all the praise they get, Ninja Gaiden 2 is NOT an accessible game. According to statistics, only 1% of the people who played the game ever got to the end credits. 99% of players gave up. That is NOT what you should strive for. Yes, challenge can be rewarding, but not at the expense of the majority of your players and the majority of your game world. If only 1% ever battle the major villain, that's a lot of wasted time and effort making stages and enemies that so little people will ever see.

If a game is intended and balanced for "button-awesome", no "Hard" mode will make it really "challenging", but will be a cop-out and if certain games are designed to be challenging and that is a huge part of the experience you might as well be cheating infinite health or whatever, since the result between that and the experience that remains after played on "Easy-mode" will be about the same.

I never had the same "experience" playing Goldeneye with invincibility and double-rocket launchers as I did when I played it legitimately. However, having cheat codes and invincibility was REALLY FUN! I could also test-run difficult stages, memorize enemy, weapon, and mission locations, and strategize for my "Hard Mode" runs, which provided steep challenges, but only when I, the player, wished to do so.

It also in general cheapens the entire experience and awe people have for the game or certain encounters and all the discussion that will develop in the community.

I think that's a BS excuse. The "awe" of the game is ruined? I STILL hear people praise Ninja Gaiden Black as a superior game to Ninja Gaiden, despite having an easier difficulty. The "awe" never vanished because the HARD MODES STILL EXISTED!

You are *supposed* to try to overcome obstacles the game puts in your way, figure out the way to win a fight by changing your tactics or equipment or coming back later, ask for help or perform the feat of ultimate dexterity in finally beating the Meat Boy level with those damn saws and get out of it with a feeling of ultimate glee of having just done that, not turn on "Easy" mode and forego that experience.

Why do you view "easy mode" as an "instant-win"? Believe it or not, you can still maintain a huge degree of challenge, even on "easy" difficulties. Ninja Gaiden Black is still no walk in the park on "easy" and even skilled players can and WILL die on the easiest difficulty. Despite the fact that the game is not as difficult as the UBER-HARDCORE mode, it remains insanely rewarding and satisfying eeking out a victory over Alma. The ONLY difference is the difficulty is now scaled to the skill level of the player. So, what might be easy for you would still remain extremely hard for another player. There is NO reason a difficulty for Dark Souls couldn't exist that would give players a challenge at their skill level that other players could safely ignore if they felt it was too easy. But, you don't know. What you consider easy could remain a rewarding, intense challenge for thousands of other players.

Just accept that some games are possibly not for everyone instead and that not everything is supposed to be "won" by press of a button, no matter how much it might bruise some peoples egos. Especially since as I've said 98% of games out there cater to the easy mode/instant gratification crowd.

And, again, "easier" does NOT mean "instant win". A difficulty that matches the skill level of the player is the IDEAL difficulty for ANY game. There's a reason games like the early Silent Hills were praised for providing variable difficulty for both their combat AND their puzzles, and why Kid Icarus has over 100 difficulty levels, from the pathetically easy to the masochistically brutal. The point is it provides OPTIONS.

Creating a game that way requires an entirely different mentality and creative process behind the development of a game and the game as it is today would just simply not exist.

Nonsense. Besides Ninja Gaiden pulling it off, Devil May Cry 3, another game celebrated for its intense difficulty, was re-released with an easier difficulty for players. Nobody complained and the game remains beloved as the peak of the whole entire franchise, even with that new difficulty mode. Ocarina of Time was re-released on the 3DS with a harder difficulty, which fans appreciated. Hell, even Contra was "made easier" with the option of the infamous Konami cheat code, which millions of gamers used and APPRECIATED.

How would adding a "Konami code" to Dark Souls to help struggling players hurt the game?

It wouldn't. Stop pretending it would. To paraphrase Shigeru Miyamoto, the ideal game is one that "allows players to play the game they way THEY want to, not the way the developers intended." I agree fully with that statement.

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."

I don't understand it either. How would giving players an easy option impact hardcore players AT ALL? It was never an issue when Devil May Cry 3 was re-released with an easier difficulty, or Ninja Gaiden Black had an easier difficulty. Even Metroid Prime 2 was re-released with easier bosses and fans were grateful for it.

 

[Something Amyss]

You remove the difficulty and the Souls games would lose their power.

And basically any appeal to any market.

 

[Trishbot]

You remove the difficulty and the Souls games would lose their power.

And basically any appeal to any market.

But they're NOT removing the difficulty. They'd be ADDING in new difficulty. It's what Devil May Cry 3 and Ninja Gaiden Black BOTH did and they're still regarded as classics whose difficulty remains beautiful by design, despite the addition of newer difficulties created to ease players into the game.

Nothing would be removed. It would simply be an optional addition. One that any players could freely ignore if they so choose.

 

[TrevHead]

You remove the difficulty and the Souls games would lose their power.

And basically any appeal to any market.

But they're NOT removing the difficulty. They'd be ADDING in new difficulty. It's what Devil May Cry 3 and Ninja Gaiden Black BOTH did and they're still regarded as classics whose difficulty remains beautiful by design, despite the addition of newer difficulties created to ease players into the game.

Nothing would be removed. It would simply be an optional addition. One that any players could freely ignore if they so choose.

Look what happened to Ninja Gaiden 3.

I agree with dexter111 there are alot of games where difficulty sliders don't work, usually its an easy game with badly done unbalanced hard modes, where all the dumbed down / handholding core game mechanics and level design is still there. DS is the same in reverse, easy modes just wouldnt work and From would have to start making fundamental changes to the game to accommodate it.

History has shown that with mainstream broad appeal, whatever is popular has an effect on game design, the FPS genre been an obvious one.

I just wish gamers in general would accept that every game doesn't have to be aimed at them, especially when it comes to easy games which are two a penny compared to AAA quality hard (well it's not THAT hard just unforgiving) games.

 

[Rack]

That's much worse. I mean some intelligent tweaks to make the game more appealing to those without the time or the skillset to deal with Dark Souls punishing regime while maintaining the core experience is one thing. Tricking or forcing people into playing something they won't enjoy is down right sinister.

Oh and.

Look what happened to Ninja Gaiden 3.

Don't you mean Ninja Gaiden Black? That was the one that added an easier difficulty option, and I don't remember the sky falling in. Ninja Gaiden 3 was the one where they lost the creative director.

 

[Havoc Himself]

Dark Souls and Demon Soul's aren't even that difficult. I love those games to death even though I was missing a console and PC for a few years and have not finished either one. I'm at the bed of chaos in dark souls right now and it is awesome! Anyway all you need to win at the Souls games is a good head on your shoulders and patience. And another helpful tip is to read all the item descriptions they tell you a lot about the game and what you are supposed to do.

 

[jollybarracuda]

I think realistically, this would never be much of a threat to the franchise to begin with. The Demon's/Dark Souls franchise has already built a very devoted fanbase because of it's punishing difficulty, and if they were to go and change the way the difficulty worked, be it difficulty levels or just an easier game in general, that fanbase would be gone in no time. It's just too much of a risk to change something that big about the game. And like someone mentioned earlier, it really is like taking the jumping ability out of Mario. It's not a punishing game because it's being elitist, it's a punishing game because that's the foundation for it's very own mechanics.

 

[kyogen]

Snip.

How is arguing against the addition of an easy mode taking away options? You can't take something away if it doesn't exist in the first place.

I would prefer that From not bother investing development resources to adulterate its own work for an audience that isn't seriously interested in that particular product. They would end up with the same sort of backlash they got from the problematic PC port. It would be better for everyone if they developed a completely new game for that part of the market which is curious about From's design style but can't commit to the same level of challenge. If the fear is that there isn't enough of a market for such a game, then there really isn't enough of a market for easy mode Dark Souls either.

 

[Weaver]

The problem with making dark souls easier is that death is an absolute core mechanic of the game. You're supposed to die, and the game's mechanics essentially revolve around this.

 

[Phlakes]

to adulterate its own work for an audience that isn't seriously interested in that particular product.

the market which is curious about From's design style but can't commit to the same level of challenge.

I think I see what's going on here. And that means I'll stop wasting my time.

 

[hazabaza1]

People who say it should have an easy mode just watch:

 

[kyogen]

I think I see what's going on here. And that means I'll stop wasting my time.

What's going on here? Someone disagrees with you, and neither of us is going to change our opinion? In that sense, we're probably both wasting our time. At least both of us have expressed our opinions without flinging mud at each other. That's not bad for a forum thread on a controversial topic.

The tone of your post suggests that you have taken offense, however. That's unfortunate. It certainly wasn't what I intended. Peace.

 

[Phlakes]

I think I see what's going on here. And that means I'll stop wasting my time.

What's going on here? Someone disagrees with you, and neither of us is going to change our opinion? In that sense, we're probably both wasting our time. At least both of us have expressed our opinions without flinging mud at each other. That's not bad for a forum thread on a controversial topic.

The tone of your post suggests that you have taken offense, however. That's unfortunate. It certainly wasn't what I intended. Peace.

Dear lord, I didn't want to respond anymore but this whole post couldn't have been more of what I expected. I don't know if you really can't see it or you're just playing coy, but either way, I'm actually done now.

 

[Trishbot]

I said in my quote its a video game not real life WW2 one shot. I can't believe im hearing this over a video game. Get you to put yourself on the front line you would be crying for your mama.

I'm not trying to be a dic but you honestly are with your reasons to be not playing it.

ITS A VIDEO GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, I play a variety of games because I'm a GAME DESIGNER. It's my JOB to play both good and bad games, easy and hard, and to identify where the games succeed and fail in their respective categories. I then analyze, break down, and study every facet of the game in preparation for my own ventures and collaborations. I have a pile of nearly 30 games I'm working through, from short survival horror games to epic and long JRPGs, and I wager I'd get through that pile long before I get through Dark Souls.

Look what happened to Ninja Gaiden 3.

Don't you mean Ninja Gaiden Black? That was the one that added an easier difficulty option, and I don't remember the sky falling in. Ninja Gaiden 3 was the one where they lost the creative director.

Precisely. Ninja Gaiden Black STILL makes the list of "hardest modern games ever" even WITH the OPTIONAL easier difficulty (which is still far from "easy"). The sky did not fall in, the fans did not cry and complain, and, in the end, the game appealed to the original audience AND a newer audience without sacrificing an iota of its identity, difficulty, and gameplay. These Dark Soul fans are being ridiculous... such as the following...

It loses value and appeal by simply being there, exactly the same way a game loses a lot of its appeal once you start cheating (there's the popular saying "cheating ruins the game" for a reason).

The sheer EXISTENCE of an optional difficulty ruins YOUR experience? How? In what way? The original difficulty would remain unchanged. Also, I keep using examples of notoriously hard and beloved games such as Ninja Gaiden Black and Devil May Cry 3, which added in easier difficulty modes, and NOBODY complained and the games REMAIN highly praised and loved by the fans. The sheer existence of the easier difficulties did not make these classics "lose their value" in any way, shape, or form, and, actually, their re-releases are widely considered superior to the original releases. So why would Dark Souls lose ITS value when both Devil May Cry 3 and Ninja Gaiden Black (a game the director himself declared existed to "kill the player") both had them added with no loss of value whatsoever?

If you know that by the press of a button you can turn yourself invulnerable and pass anything that might be slightly challenging there isn't any challenge anymore, same with being able to turn the game to "Easy-Mode" at any point.

Let me show you a quick image which will make your argument at the bottom seem silly:

Super Mario 3D Land has an INVINCIBLE Tanooki suit available if you die several times in one level. If you choose to wear it, you will be invincible for the rest of the level. Die even more, and you even get the option to warp straight to the end of the level. It's an "instant-win" power-up and "cheat" to the end of a level.

And Super Mario 3D Land is STILL one of the most challenging and enjoyable Mario games in years. Why? Because that INVINCIBLE Tanooki suit? You can choose to ignore it. You can choose to not wear it. And I did NOT wear it. I'm playing the game and I wanted to beat the level fair and square and I ignored the power-up to overcome those difficult levels on my own merits.

However, the sheer EXISTENCE of it to help younger or less skilled players did nothing to take away the value or enjoyment of my experience. Quite the opposite, whenever I failed and the game offered me the power-up, I felt angry and mustered up my resolve NOT to need it. The game continued being a perfectly balanced, highly difficult adventure.

And Donkey Kong Country Returns, a game many players hail as one of the hardest games on the Wii, ALSO has its "invincible power-up" that you can choose to ignore. Just because the option for it exists did nothing to take away the intense challenge and rewarding satisfaction gamers experienced when they ignored it and beat the game on their own merits. And, see, the games are still designed in a way that encourages you and inspires you to do that, no matter how many "instant win" power-ups they give you the OPTION of using. The games are great, even with that easier option around.

If you read the book "The Art of Game Design", game developers reveal what they call the "difficulty curve", which is difficult to maintain for almost any game.

Well if some *game designers* are saying that, especially the ones we have to thank for this generation of gaming and largely led by publishers and their desire to make the most money possible by making something that appeals to the masses (and the designers that are lately all tending to "social gaming" because it's the new thing), replicating the process from the TV and movie industry who have American Idol, Big Brother and Transformers they're obviously right!

Actually, they ones who wrote the book were collaborators on beloved games such as Deus Ex, Half-Life, Monkey Island, and others; old-school games with old-school difficulty that almost universally encouraged skill, resourcefulness, and innovative thinking.

Now if you want to actually design a great, unique and memorable game throw that crap away as far as you can throw it.

Again, Shigury Miyamoto, creator of Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, and involved in the creation of practically half of the Smash Bros. roster, ranging from Star Fox to F-Zero to Metroid Prime, argues against that. His advice was "let players play the game the way THEY want to play it, not the way YOU intend them to play it." It was his ideas to have the "invincible" power-ups in the new Mario and Donkey Kong games. And I would dare say his resume is filled with some of the greatest, most unique and memorable games on the planet, including many labelled as the GREATEST GAMES OF ALL TIME. I think he knows what he's talking about.

You also keep bringing up these games that have *added* difficulty options after the fact, and while I can't judge them since I didn't play any of them being mainly console franchises (I do expect the "added" difficulties were likely the same old stat buffs to HP/damage and the likes that more often than not turn awry and not an actual redesign of the games...)

You may not have played them, but I HAVE. I studied the games and their difficult options. No, they are not just "stat buffs" like Dragon Age 2. The enemy AI was rebalanced, difficult combat moves were either added or taken away, health and item drops were altered between difficulties, and enemies were either more or less aggressive, including the use of their more deadly attacks and counters. The games, even on easy, were brilliantly remastered to provide a satisfying challenge to those with less-than-perfect skills, timing, or reactions. Just because another studio screws up doesn't mean it can't be done and done WELL. The proof EXISTS, so don't tell me it CAN'T be done.

Super Meat Boy and the Souls games only became the way they are because of the uncompromising design and the attempt to achieve challenge and exactly because they didn't have the mindset to develop a walk-in-the-park for casuals to wade through from start to finish like they're in a sightseeing bus.

Why do you STILL not understand that OTHER people have varying degrees of skill, and what would be "easy" for you would be an "uncompromising design that achieves challenge" in the experience of other players. Again, Ninja Gaiden Black's "easy mode" is practically a Normal or even Hard mode for most other games; skilled players still have to jump, dodge, counter, attack, balance powers and health, use tactics, and they still will die. And die. And die. Just because it was "easier" did not make it a "walk in the park". It was a stiff challenge, even on easy, but it was still more accessible than the default difficulties and it provided the same satisfaction and challenge that a more skilled player would experience on the harder modes.

Why do you refuse to accept that Dark Souls could ALSO do this? Why does the "sheer existence" tarnish the "value" of your experience? That excuse did not work for Ninja Gaiden Black, or Devil May Cry 3, or Kid Icarus: Uprising, or Super Mario 3D Land, or Donkey Kong Country Returns, or Silent Hill 2, or Darksiders... even the cult classic Catherine altered the difficulty to be more forgiving, and fans of the original were more than okay with this.

"Accessibility" isn't something you should strive for if you want to design a great and memorable experience but rather stay the hell away from: http://www.hiwiller.com/2010/04/29/if-mario-was-designed-in-2010/

Again, funny you used that Mario spoof... considering the latest Mario games give you the option to be invincible when you die enough times. So, Mario in 2012 IS "accessible"... and it's also one of the greatest platformers of the past decade, filled with great challenges, incredible bosses, and loads of skilled gameplay and tense difficulty moments. Nothing was diminished. Nothing was lost. It's both as hard and easy as you, the player, WANT it to be, and it became a great and memorable experience that can stand alongside Dark Soul proudly as a pinnacle of great game design.

It's a great game, as are Ninja Gaiden Black and Devil May Cry 3, and NOTHING was lost with the addition of optional easier modes. NOTHING.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

What there could be is some easier starting dungeons that then curve up to the normal difficulty that let them loose in the preexisting locations. There, problem solved, game is still as difficult, and now more accessible.

That would give you the opportunity to level up much more before the difficult content, making the difficult areas easier. Changing the difficulty curve in a game like this isn't that easy. Making anything easier in Dark Souls has the chance of undermining the delicate balance of difficulty/reward that it does so well, which is practically the point of this game.

 

[Rack]

People who say it should have an easy mode just watch:

I watched ten minutes of that moron completely fail to grasp the issue at all. I mean he didn't even understand the basic principle of why Dark Souls is difficult let alone how people can want a divergent experience. It was just "me like hard game, not me should like hard game too"