New hard game comes out. Idiot press wants easy mode.

[TheMysteriousGX]

But there is a reason we control things for people. A child would love ice cream and candy all day every day, but we don't give them those choices because we know that it is harmful to them overall. It doesn't hurt anyone else, nor would it change anyone's experiences so why not let kids eat nothing but fries and chicken nuggets? Because it's not a good way to have a balanced diet.

Even if we ignore the health reasons for denying choices, we can migrate the metaphor to gaming.

The difficulty is like eating your vegetables. It might suck as a kid. But as you eat veggies and mature, you start to like them. Suddenly you WANT broccoli with your chicken, things you thought tasted terrible actually don't taste so bad. If you never try to stick something out, then you never figure it out, you never get to see how good it actually is.

Only Gamers are gonna tell me I gotta stick with something I don't enjoy until Stockholm kicks in to enjoy it properly.

Never mind that we're all grown-ass adults and that some of us have been gaming for 30 years, forcing a kid to eat something in a way they don't like instead of presenting the thing more palatably is bad parenting. There's a reason cheese sauce is associated with broccoli for kids my dude.

You know, to extend the super-condescending parent/child metaphor we're apparently going with. When talking about a readily available entertainment product for adults.

When you go to a really good steakhouse where they're serving kobe wagyu, you don't choose how your steak is cooked, the chef knows the best way to cook it and you trust them with it. Even if you don't like it you at least know that you experience it as it's supposed to be. Same with really good sushi done omakase style. You don't get any wasabi or any soy sauce to dip, the chef will put the right amount on (or in, in the case of wasabi) it right before he hands it to you.

Sekiro is the kobe of action games. Let it handle the small stuff and just sit back and enjoy.

Sure. But are you one of those guys whose gonna get mad at the IGN dude who took his steak home and cooked it with his own sauce? Argue that he's not a real cook and that he shouldn't talk about steak anymore? Because that's where we're at with the discourse.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

And how many steaks does letting people choose their prefered doneness let be ruined by overcooking, hmm? How many steaks that would have been amazing end up getting practically wasted, all their moisture squeezed out, made as though they're trash cuts of low quality meat?

Maybe the chef should "git gud" then because cooking a well-done steak properly is the hardest. Just like From should get better at game design because they really aren't that good at it.

 

[Schadrach]

And how many steaks does letting people choose their prefered doneness let be ruined by overcooking, hmm? How many steaks that would have been amazing end up getting practically wasted, all their moisture squeezed out, made as though they're trash cuts of low quality meat?

I agree, there are far too many chefs who don't know how to cook a steak well properly. "Git gud", as they say.

Hint: The answer is you don't cook it any more than necessary for it to end up well. If it's dry, they overcooked it. It's probably the most difficult degree of doneness to do right, because the margin between "well done" and "overcooked" is fairly narrow while there's a lot more give around rare and medium.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

...Devil May Cry...Halo...

About ten or so pages back I made a similar, but completely opposite, observation upon which I'd like to comment again.

At least in the case starting with Halo 2, this is actually not the case. Quite the opposite, in fact. It's true DMC and Halo has number bloat at higher difficulties, enemy behavior does in fact radically change, as does the number and types of enemies faced.

In DMC, monster groups change up and more often incorporate enemies of varying and complementing move sets that prevent players from using deliberate counter-strategies. They also change behavior to favor moves with less telegraphing, and/or high-mobility moves. They're also more aggressive and less likely to enter fear state, can (and do) devil trigger, and are increasingly likely to DT when they'd otherwise be forced into fear state.

In (later) Halo games, higher-order AI behaviors unlock, and become more commonly used. It's highly noticeable in Halo 2, where enemies don't start using suppressive fire, flanking, and flushing until Heroic and Legendary. I'm pretty sure it's in Halo 3, with the squad- and zoning-based AI, that in the bigger fights in the game Covenant AI starts using rolling and oblique advances to gain position versus allied NPC's and the player.

 

[Silvanus]

While it is true that they'll cook your meat however you want. They will also call you crazy and, in some cases, be insulted if you ask for something like a Filet well done. Why? Because they know that overcooking a great cut of meat, ruins it. Regardless of the preferences of the individual person, most people know that over doing a great piece of steak is ruining the experience of that expensive cut of meat.

I guess the point is, the option is there even if it does ruin the experience and it is upon the person to decide to ruin the experience for themselves.

Alright, but so what? Honestly, so what? Who gives a toss if someone else feels that you're not enjoying something in the optimal way? It's nothing to do with them. Nothing.

If somebody feels insulted that you enjoy something in a certain way that they don't, to be frank they just need to get over it. That's absurd and myopic.

But there is a reason we control things for people. A child would love ice cream and candy all day every day, but we don't give them those choices because we know that it is harmful to them overall. It doesn't hurt anyone else, nor would it change anyone's experiences so why not let kids eat nothing but fries and chicken nuggets? Because it's not a good way to have a balanced diet.

Even if we ignore the health reasons for denying choices, we can migrate the metaphor to gaming.

The difficulty is like eating your vegetables. It might suck as a kid. But as you eat veggies and mature, you start to like them. Suddenly you WANT broccoli with your chicken, things you thought tasted terrible actually don't taste so bad. If you never try to stick something out, then you never figure it out, you never get to see how good it actually is.

Health reasons are literally the only reason we do restrict choices in such a way, and even so, we wouldn't dream of doing so to adults with all their faculties. To do so would be universally derided as condescending nanny-state behaviour.

If a friend of mine is unsure about trying a game I love, I just let them borrow my copy. Easy~

Yeah, that works, if you happen to have a friend with a copy of the game and who didn't buy digital, and who isn't also playing it.

And how many steaks does letting people choose their prefered doneness let be ruined by overcooking, hmm? How many steaks that would have been amazing end up getting practically wasted, all their moisture squeezed out, made as though they're trash cuts of low quality meat?

Who the hell cares? You don't have to eat it. It literally only impacts the person eating it, who prefers it that way.

...Well, and the cow, I suppose.

When you go to a really good steakhouse where they're serving kobe wagyu, you don't choose how your steak is cooked, the chef knows the best way to cook it and you trust them with it. Even if you don't like it you at least know that you experience it as it's supposed to be. Same with really good sushi done omakase style. You don't get any wasabi or any soy sauce to dip, the chef will put the right amount on (or in, in the case of wasabi) it right before he hands it to you.

Sekiro is the kobe of action games. Let it handle the small stuff and just sit back and enjoy.

With wagyu, and certain types of sushi, variation will ruin it, sure. Relatively-speaking, foodstuffs like those are exceptionally rare.

Do you genuinely believe that any change to Sekiro's difficulty level would so fundamentally change the experience as to render it destroyed? Genuinely?

Because From Software sure didn't feel that way about Dark Souls or Bloodborne, which is why NG+ exists.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

I suck at Souls-likes, and yet I still love Nioh despite the frustration. Hell, DSP got further in that game than I am currently. So I don't really understand this as being a barrier. A game for every taste, but games should not appeal to every taste.

All that said, the gatekeeping mentality does annoy me. You're good at a hard video game. Fuck a doodle do, man, it doesn't mean anything other than that.

 

[CritialGaming]

With wagyu, and certain types of sushi, variation will ruin it, sure. Relatively-speaking, foodstuffs like those are exceptionally rare.

Do you genuinely believe that any change to Sekiro's difficulty level would so fundamentally change the experience as to render it destroyed? Genuinely?

Because From Software sure didn't feel that way about Dark Souls or Bloodborne, which is why NG+ exists.

So you'll concede the point with CERTAIN types of food, but wont apply it to CERTAIN video games? How is it any different?

Just like there are certain types of food that are outliers in regards to cooking choices, why can't there be a game that also limits certain choices?

And really Souls games HAVE easy modes already. Just because there isn't a giant sign on the main menu that says "easy" doesn't mean there isn't a way to play those games with easier styles.

I really don't understand this insistence that FromSoft game's MUST appeal to more people, they must include other modes for more people for arbitrary reasons. I just don't get why people can't leave a game alone because it isn't compatible with their capability.

Nobody has yet to tell me what is wrong with this simple statement: "NOT EVERY GAME CAN APPEAL TO EVERY BODY! AND THAT'S OKAY."

People have only said, "Well if the person is interested in Dark Souls then it IS for them." But that's also not true. I love Vampires, but that doesn't make Twilight or the Vampire Diaries FOR me. Just because you like something's subject matter doesn't mean that it will present itself in a way that suits your tastes.

Either you like FromSoft games or you don't, but the game does NOT need to change because you say so.

 

[Abomination]

Either you like FromSoft games or you don't, but the game does NOT need to change because you say so.

I do not think anyone is using the words "need" or "must" when referring to the idea of introducing a difficulty slider. Rather the argument being presented by some critics is "It would be better with a difficulty slider, granting more people access to the game." and the backlash to that concept is "It would ruin the franchise! Artistic integrity! It would not be an earned victory! You don't deserve to play the game if you're not willing to suffer through it! git gud" and such.

Nobody has disagreed with the idea that every game need not appeal to everyone, but when you accept that then one needs to accept that there will be people it does not appeal. They will then express the reason why it does not appeal to them, because it behooves them to do so.

If the game is not supposed to appeal to everyone, that's fine, accept that people will have a negative opinion about the game when they review it. Understand that there will be suggestions these people make in order to make it more appealing to a greater number of people.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Either you like FromSoft games or you don't, but the game does NOT need to change because you say so.

I do not think anyone is using the words "need" or "must" when referring to the idea of introducing a difficulty slider. Rather the argument being presented by some critics is "It would be better with a difficulty slider, granting more people access to the game." and the backlash to that concept is "It would ruin the franchise! Artistic integrity! It would not be an earned victory! You don't deserve to play the game if you're not willing to suffer through it! git gud" and such.

Nobody has disagreed with the idea that every game need not appeal to everyone, but when you accept that then one needs to accept that there will be people it does not appeal. They will then express the reason why it does not appeal to them, because it behooves them to do so.

If the game is not supposed to appeal to everyone, that's fine, accept that people will have a negative opinion about the game when they review it. Understand that there will be suggestions these people make in order to make it more appealing to a greater number of people.

I genuinely don't understand the logic behind such a remark, then.

I don't like sports games, I don't like racing games (outside of crash team racing I guess).


You know what I don't do? I don't go to boards where these games are discussed and complain about them, asking they be altered to be more to my liking.

I just play the games I DO like and completely ignore sports and racing games. I figure that there's people who like them for the exact reasons I dislike them, and that I would be inconsiderate to suggest changes when that'd rob those people of the things they enjoy, just so that I can be satisfied.


That anyone would see a game that's clearly not their cup of tea and instead of just going away and playing something else decides to try and complain about it just makes absolutely no sense to me. Is it entitlement? Is there some perception that people have that they "should" be able to enjoy the game and if only it was easier that they would, whereas if it's a sports game they just see it as a fundamental dislike that they are more accepting of or what? Cause there is no such distinction in actuality and treating the two differently is arbitrary.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

And really Souls games HAVE easy modes already. Just because there isn't a giant sign on the main menu that says "easy" doesn't mean there isn't a way to play those games with easier styles.

I really don't understand this insistence that FromSoft game's MUST appeal to more people, they must include other modes for more people for arbitrary reasons. I just don't get why people can't leave a game alone because it isn't compatible with their capability.

Nobody has yet to tell me what is wrong with this simple statement: "NOT EVERY GAME CAN APPEAL TO EVERY BODY! AND THAT'S OKAY."

And nobody has yet to answer the following question either; what if someone likes Souls, finds it too hard, but dislikes the the easier but shitty playstyles (that Bloodborne ditched because they suck)?

No one is saying any game MUST have such and such options. I don't understand why difficulty is something of appeal, I never buy a game because I want to play something difficulty (or easy), I buy a game because it looks fun. If the gameplay has depth, there's always plenty of ways to challenge yourself anyway regardless of difficulty settings. Games should appeal or not appeal due to subject matter and gameplay. Difficulty isn't something that stops people from playing any other games in other mediums. Why is video gaming any more special?

Rather the argument being presented by some critics is "It would be better with a difficulty slider, granting more people access to the game." and the backlash to that concept is "It would ruin the franchise! Artistic integrity! It would not be an earned victory! You don't deserve to play the game if you're not willing to suffer through it! git gud" and such.

I genuinely don't understand the logic behind such a remark, then.

I don't like sports games, I don't like racing games (outside of crash team racing I guess).

You know what I don't do? I don't go to boards where these games are discussed and complain about them, asking they be altered to be more to my liking.

I just play the games I DO like and completely ignore sports and racing games. I figure that there's people who like them for the exact reasons I dislike them, and that I would be inconsiderate to suggest changes when that'd rob those people of the things they enjoy, just so that I can be satisfied.

That anyone would see a game that's clearly not their cup of tea and instead of just going away and playing something else decides to try and complain about it just makes absolutely no sense to me. Is it entitlement? Is there some perception that people have that they "should" be able to enjoy the game and if only it was easier that they would, whereas if it's a sports game they just see it as a fundamental dislike that they are more accepting of or what? Cause there is no such distinction in actuality and treating the two differently is arbitrary.

I genuinely don't understand how an option can ruin a game. Adding options is not altering the game; whatever the game was prior to whatever option was added is still there. Should people demand a refund when a patch adds some option like an ultra hard difficulty or new game+ because the game is altered? Hell, multiplayer games are far far worse with "altering" the game, one day your favorite character could get nerfed and be no longer viable or competitive, that's so much worse than ignoring an added difficulty setting you don't have to play on.

Games in every other medium, that have existed for longer than video games, never keep people out due to challenge or difficulty. There's kids versions of pretty much every sport. There's kids versions of board games like My First Stone Age (for Stone Age) and Ticket to Ride: First Journey (for Ticket to Ride). Guess what, if you don't like train games, you won't like any version of Ticket to Ride and there's nothing wrong with that. How is that any different from not liking sports or racing video games?

What makes video games any more special than any other medium of gaming that challenge/difficulty is part of the appeal?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Either you like FromSoft games or you don't, but the game does NOT need to change because you say so.

I do not think anyone is using the words "need" or "must" when referring to the idea of introducing a difficulty slider. Rather the argument being presented by some critics is "It would be better with a difficulty slider, granting more people access to the game." and the backlash to that concept is "It would ruin the franchise! Artistic integrity! It would not be an earned victory! You don't deserve to play the game if you're not willing to suffer through it! git gud" and such.

Nobody has disagreed with the idea that every game need not appeal to everyone, but when you accept that then one needs to accept that there will be people it does not appeal. They will then express the reason why it does not appeal to them, because it behooves them to do so.

If the game is not supposed to appeal to everyone, that's fine, accept that people will have a negative opinion about the game when they review it. Understand that there will be suggestions these people make in order to make it more appealing to a greater number of people.

I genuinely don't understand the logic behind such a remark, then.

I don't like sports games, I don't like racing games (outside of crash team racing I guess).


You know what I don't do? I don't go to boards where these games are discussed and complain about them, asking they be altered to be more to my liking.

I just play the games I DO like and completely ignore sports and racing games. I figure that there's people who like them for the exact reasons I dislike them, and that I would be inconsiderate to suggest changes when that'd rob those people of the things they enjoy, just so that I can be satisfied.


That anyone would see a game that's clearly not their cup of tea and instead of just going away and playing something else decides to try and complain about it just makes absolutely no sense to me. Is it entitlement? Is there some perception that people have that they "should" be able to enjoy the game and if only it was easier that they would, whereas if it's a sports game they just see it as a fundamental dislike that they are more accepting of or what? Cause there is no such distinction in actuality and treating the two differently is arbitrary.

There's a vast gulf of space between "nothing about this genre of game appeals to me so I don't try and get it to conform to my taste" and "man, that looks really cool, too bad it's basically unplayable for me"

Like, everything about Bloodborne or Dark Souls appeals to my existential soul...except for potentially getting two shot by random trash mobs during the lengthy walk back to a boss fight for the 9th time in a row. And, for some reason, I'm apparently not allowed to mention that ever, not wish it wasn't so. Because "it's not for me". Regardless about how much I like the setting. Regardless of how much I like the atmosphere. Regardless of how much I like the disconnected storytelling, or themes, or music.

I'm not allowed to talk about it. Because it's not for me, and so my opinions are Bad and Wrong.

 

[Trunkage]

Either you like FromSoft games or you don't, but the game does NOT need to change because you say so.

I do not think anyone is using the words "need" or "must" when referring to the idea of introducing a difficulty slider. Rather the argument being presented by some critics is "It would be better with a difficulty slider, granting more people access to the game." and the backlash to that concept is "It would ruin the franchise! Artistic integrity! It would not be an earned victory! You don't deserve to play the game if you're not willing to suffer through it! git gud" and such.

Nobody has disagreed with the idea that every game need not appeal to everyone, but when you accept that then one needs to accept that there will be people it does not appeal. They will then express the reason why it does not appeal to them, because it behooves them to do so.

If the game is not supposed to appeal to everyone, that's fine, accept that people will have a negative opinion about the game when they review it. Understand that there will be suggestions these people make in order to make it more appealing to a greater number of people.

I genuinely don't understand the logic behind such a remark, then.

I don't like sports games, I don't like racing games (outside of crash team racing I guess).


You know what I don't do? I don't go to boards where these games are discussed and complain about them, asking they be altered to be more to my liking.

I just play the games I DO like and completely ignore sports and racing games. I figure that there's people who like them for the exact reasons I dislike them, and that I would be inconsiderate to suggest changes when that'd rob those people of the things they enjoy, just so that I can be satisfied.


That anyone would see a game that's clearly not their cup of tea and instead of just going away and playing something else decides to try and complain about it just makes absolutely no sense to me. Is it entitlement? Is there some perception that people have that they "should" be able to enjoy the game and if only it was easier that they would, whereas if it's a sports game they just see it as a fundamental dislike that they are more accepting of or what? Cause there is no such distinction in actuality and treating the two differently is arbitrary.

There's a vast gulf of space between "nothing about this genre of game appeals to me so I don't try and get it to conform to my taste" and "man, that looks really cool, too bad it's basically unplayable for me"

Like, everything about Bloodborne or Dark Souls appeals to my existential soul...except for potentially getting two shot by random trash mobs during the lengthy walk back to a boss fight for the 9th time in a row. And, for some reason, I'm apparently not allowed to mention that ever, not wish it wasn't so. Because "it's not for me". Regardless about how much I like the setting. Regardless of how much I like the atmosphere. Regardless of how much I like the disconnected storytelling, or themes, or music.

I'm not allowed to talk about it. Because it's not for me, and so my opinions are Bad and Wrong.

If you don't git gud, are you even a gamer?

 

[Abomination]

I don't like sports games, I don't like racing games (outside of crash team racing I guess).


You know what I don't do? I don't go to boards where these games are discussed and complain about them, asking they be altered to be more to my liking.

I just play the games I DO like and completely ignore sports and racing games. I figure that there's people who like them for the exact reasons I dislike them, and that I would be inconsiderate to suggest changes when that'd rob those people of the things they enjoy, just so that I can be satisfied.


That anyone would see a game that's clearly not their cup of tea and instead of just going away and playing something else decides to try and complain about it just makes absolutely no sense to me. Is it entitlement? Is there some perception that people have that they "should" be able to enjoy the game and if only it was easier that they would, whereas if it's a sports game they just see it as a fundamental dislike that they are more accepting of or what? Cause there is no such distinction in actuality and treating the two differently is arbitrary.

Souls games are not their own "special" genre. They're action RPGs with a weighty combat system and a bleak atmosphere.

They come so close for some people, small adjustments would make it a wonder to play for others without giving up the... a-hah "soul" of its narrative.

It is not entitlement to say "I would like this game more if XXXXXX". It's constructive criticism.

 

[CaitSeith]

Basically, this game markets itself based on ridiculing people who can't have fun the way it wants them to.

Marketing is different to the game itself. That aside, that sounds as something interesting to analyze, because so far the marketing I have seen doesn't ridicule others and are just humorous self-indulgent jokes on its own difficulty (ex. Dark Souls "Prepare to Die" edition). So, post the marketing and let's discuss how they don't ridicule people.

 

[CritialGaming]

And nobody has yet to answer the following question either; what if someone likes Souls, finds it too hard, but dislikes the the easier but shitty playstyles (that Bloodborne ditched because they suck)?

Why did you just say two things that contradict each other?

What if someones likes Souls, but hates the thing that makes the Souls game a Souls game?

"You know I really like this game except for the part where I have to play it." says nobody.

The whole point of what makes a game good, is the game part of it. I got news for you, if you don't like the gameplay part of a game then you cannot possibly like the game.

It's like I said before, just because something's subject matter interests you does NOT mean you will automatically enjoy it. See people who think vampires are cool versus the Twilight films.

The crux of this entire thread is put thusly: Dark Souls is the game it is because of the oppressing difficulty. It doesn't hold your hand, it doesn't care about you or how you feel, it doesn't take it easy on you. By offering a completely different mode to the game, changes the experience the developers have crafted and shared with the world."

Part of the reason the Souls games have such a firm community on this is because they all know that they have all experienced the same struggles as everyone else. Everyone who loves a Souls game was once a screaming ball of rage at a boss they couldn't defeat. It's this shared frustration followed by the rush of triumph that has created this community in the first place. It unites people.

I know people like to say it's gatekeeping, but really it isn't. Ask for advice on any subreddit and you'll be given tons of advice on how to approach any given challenge or solve any given quest. Nobody is trying to keep people from anything, they want to help and they want you to succeed. They just want the core to remain the same of everyone, so everyone can share in that ultimate feeling of victory.

It's like a group of people on the other side of a obstacle course. All of them watch other people struggle to get across, and yet they scream tips and tricks, urging the people on and encouraging to get through the course. But people just cry and demand to be able to walk around the obstacles instead, and it just feels like those that want the easy way out are missing the point of overcoming the challenge in the first place.

Some have said, "Well easy mode will still be challenging for some people, you can't possibly know their skill level." Which to me is a slippery slope of bullshit. This argument fails to mean anything to me for two reasons.

1. You don't know that the person actually struggled to defeat the default setting and isn't just prone to giving up on anything easily. In which case there is no legitimate reason to give them an easy way out. They don't really need it, they just want it because how dare a bump in the road keep them from speeding through a parking lot.

2. What if the developer provided easy is still too hard? How easy should it be? Is there anyway to know? Wouldn't it be best to just make one setting the best you can and keep the experience clean. Sure some won't be able to do it, but at least the ones who can will have a better overall experience with it. And regardless of the difficulty there will always be people who can't do it.

Fact is, you cannot always plan a game for the lowest possible bar. Concessions have to be made, levels of challenges set, and some games just set their standard higher than others. If someone can't do it, that's fine. There are loads of other games to play, and challenges suitable to you. Go play those and don't complain that every game isn't catering to your level.

 

[CaitSeith]

And nobody has yet to answer the following question either; what if someone likes Souls, finds it too hard, but dislikes the the easier but shitty playstyles (that Bloodborne ditched because they suck)?

The crux of this entire thread is put thusly: Dark Souls is the game it is because of the oppressing difficulty. It doesn't hold your hand, it doesn't care about you or how you feel, it doesn't take it easy on you. By offering a completely different mode to the game, changes the experience the developers have crafted and shared with the world."

True, they change the experience by adding something extra that isn't for you and that you'll never play, without changing anything else.

Some have said, "Well easy mode will still be challenging for some people, you can't possibly know their skill level." Which to me is a slippery slope of bullshit. This argument fails to mean anything to me for two reasons.

1. You don't know that the person actually struggled to defeat the default setting and isn't just prone to giving up on anything easily. In which case there is no legitimate reason to give them an easy way out. They don't really need it, they just want it because how dare a bump in the road keep them from speeding through a parking lot.

2. What if the developer provided easy is still too hard? How easy should it be? Is there anyway to know? Wouldn't it be best to just make one setting the best you can and keep the experience clean. Sure some won't be able to do it, but at least the ones who can will have a better overall experience with it. And regardless of the difficulty there will always be people who can't do it.

You can know that the same way that you know when a person enjoys the challenge and they aren't just trying again and again just because they are too proud to quit. After all the second case doesn't need a fair challenge that can be beaten with skill; they are equally fine with one that requires purely dumb luck.

You sound like you want easy mode to be far better tuned than normal mode, like if they couldn't just patch any balance issues discovered afterwards like they just did for Sekiro.

PS: I find hilarious that you say "there is no gatekeeping" and then you end your post with "if you don't see things my way, shut up and go somewhere else".

 

[CritialGaming]

PS: I find hilarious that you say "there is no gatekeeping" and then you end your post with "if you don't see things my way, shut up and go somewhere else".

I don't think Gatekeeping means what you think it means.

Nobody is stopping anybody from picking up Dark Souls and playing it. Nobody stops you from being part of the community. The only thing that stops that is YOU. You are the one who decides to not push on. You are the one who decides that you don't want to play it. Nobody is preventing you from beating the game.

Is it Gatekeeping to keep someone who can't cook from being a chef? Or is it just reality of needing to learn how to do a thing before you are allowed to do a thing? Imagine a guy saying he want's to be a doctor, but doesn't feel like he should have to go to school for it.

By that logic everything is GateKept. It is reasonable to need to learn to do something, before you can finish doing a thing. Nobody goes to see a rock band in which nobody knows how to play their instruments.

Gatekeeping is just a terrible cop out label.

 

[CaitSeith]

PS: I find hilarious that you say "there is no gatekeeping" and then you end your post with "if you don't see things my way, shut up and go somewhere else".

I don't think Gatekeeping means what you think it means.

Certainly not. By your interpretation it wouldn't be gatekeeping unless someone came to my house and unplugged my console or PC the moment I started the game; or appeared behind me and took away my smartphone whenever I tried to see a Dark Souls meme on it.

Seeing how we'll probably never agree in that, I won't mention the gatekeeping if you don't do either.

 

[CritialGaming]

PS: I find hilarious that you say "there is no gatekeeping" and then you end your post with "if you don't see things my way, shut up and go somewhere else".

I don't think Gatekeeping means what you think it means.

Certainly not. By your interpretation it wouldn't be gatekeeping unless someone came to my house and unplugged my console or PC the moment I started the game; or appeared behind me and took away my smartphone whenever I tried to see a Dark Souls meme on it.

Seeing how we'll probably never agree in that, I won't mention the gatekeeping if you don't do either.

You got a deal! .

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

And nobody has yet to answer the following question either; what if someone likes Souls, finds it too hard, but dislikes the the easier but shitty playstyles (that Bloodborne ditched because they suck)?

Why did you just say two things that contradict each other?

What if someones likes Souls, but hates the thing that makes the Souls game a Souls game?

"You know I really like this game except for the part where I have to play it." says nobody.

The whole point of what makes a game good, is the game part of it. I got news for you, if you don't like the gameplay part of a game then you cannot possibly like the game.

It's like I said before, just because something's subject matter interests you does NOT mean you will automatically enjoy it. See people who think vampires are cool versus the Twilight films.

The crux of this entire thread is put thusly: Dark Souls is the game it is because of the oppressing difficulty. It doesn't hold your hand, it doesn't care about you or how you feel, it doesn't take it easy on you. By offering a completely different mode to the game, changes the experience the developers have crafted and shared with the world."

Part of the reason the Souls games have such a firm community on this is because they all know that they have all experienced the same struggles as everyone else. Everyone who loves a Souls game was once a screaming ball of rage at a boss they couldn't defeat. It's this shared frustration followed by the rush of triumph that has created this community in the first place. It unites people.

I know people like to say it's gatekeeping, but really it isn't. Ask for advice on any subreddit and you'll be given tons of advice on how to approach any given challenge or solve any given quest. Nobody is trying to keep people from anything, they want to help and they want you to succeed. They just want the core to remain the same of everyone, so everyone can share in that ultimate feeling of victory.

It's like a group of people on the other side of a obstacle course. All of them watch other people struggle to get across, and yet they scream tips and tricks, urging the people on and encouraging to get through the course. But people just cry and demand to be able to walk around the obstacles instead, and it just feels like those that want the easy way out are missing the point of overcoming the challenge in the first place.

Some have said, "Well easy mode will still be challenging for some people, you can't possibly know their skill level." Which to me is a slippery slope of bullshit. This argument fails to mean anything to me for two reasons.

1. You don't know that the person actually struggled to defeat the default setting and isn't just prone to giving up on anything easily. In which case there is no legitimate reason to give them an easy way out. They don't really need it, they just want it because how dare a bump in the road keep them from speeding through a parking lot.

2. What if the developer provided easy is still too hard? How easy should it be? Is there anyway to know? Wouldn't it be best to just make one setting the best you can and keep the experience clean. Sure some won't be able to do it, but at least the ones who can will have a better overall experience with it. And regardless of the difficulty there will always be people who can't do it.

Fact is, you cannot always plan a game for the lowest possible bar. Concessions have to be made, levels of challenges set, and some games just set their standard higher than others. If someone can't do it, that's fine. There are loads of other games to play, and challenges suitable to you. Go play those and don't complain that every game isn't catering to your level.

If Souls is about difficulty, why does it have built-in easy modes and cheese? I've played 2 Souls games and never once was a screaming ball of rage because, guess what, the games are not hard. The base game didn't provide the intended experience for me, I didn't experience the same struggles as others. The point is no 2 people will have the same experience and anything attempting to force the same experience to everyone will inherently fail because it's impossible. To answer #1, the Souls games already provide an easy way out, I guess that makes Dark Souls a contradiction/paradox itself. To answer #2, I already showed that the base difficulty already doesn't provide a challenge to some people. There is no way to perfectly make a game similarly challenging to everyone. Hell, Resident Evil 4's way of doing difficulty is easily superior to Souls and makes for a better baseline experience among players. Just like you say that there's no way to know how easy to make a game, there's also no way to know how easy/hard to make a base difficulty either.

I've said that about Witcher 3 because the gameplay was ass, then I rate it below a 5/10 and everyone bitches at me.