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

[Dirty Hipsters]

So how many difficulty modes should there be? How many "steps down?" What if an easy mode gets implemented and it's still not easy enough for everyone? If you're arguing for inclusivity and making the game as accessible as possible wouldn't that mean that the easy difficulty would have to cater to the lowest possible denominator of skill to be as inclusive as possible?

Nothing would ever get done if you could only implement the perfect solution and nothing in-between. Games themselves would never get out the door because the creators are always in the mindset where they think they can improve it. Dark Souls itself obviously wouldn't have gotten released. Why have countries with governments at all when there is still no perfect government system? Implementing something that makes something better is worth doing even when it's not the perfect solution.

The point is that people are saying that Souls players are gatekeeping the games to keep them out of the hands of people who might enjoy them if they were easier. My point is that no matter how easy and accessible you make the game someone is still going to be excluded. So why is it ok to exclude one group of people that's not good enough to play the game, but not another group of people who is not good enough to play the game?

Obviously no one is asking for games to be so easy that someone who can't properly use a controller can beat them, but that means that certain people are being excluded from playing the game on any difficulty. Some games are still too hard for people on easy difficulty. Why is it ok to exclude those people, but it's not ok for Souls games to exclude people who don't want to learn the mechanics of those games properly?

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

I could be replying to specific people, but I'll just make a blanket statement here: You can shove all this elitist exclusionary bullshit up your asses.

Sekiro does not need an easy mode. The only thing it needs is to scale down the damage. That's it. Then you wouldn't be three-shot by mook enemies in the early game, or one-shot by minibosses all the way through. Healing items would last you longer, you wouldn't spend as much time watching the same loading screens or making the same treks over and over again, you could learn the combat faster because each failure wouldn't be followed by practically instant death, bosses would be more engaging because you wouldn't be one-shot from 80% health by that one special move you hadn't seen yet.

I beat Sekiro once already, and am replaying it now. But I can tell you with 100% honesty that I did not enjoy about 50% of the first playthrough at. fucking. all because of the difficulty. And this is coming from someone whose favorite game of all time is Bloodborne and has beaten every Souls game at least twice. All this wankery of "oh if you can't handle it then it's not for you" as if the challenge is the only thing people enjoy in fromsoft games is such intergalactic horseshit I hope it burns alive. Just let me list some things I did enjoy about Sekiro that have nothing to do with the challenge:

- the art direction
- the atmosphere
- the voicework
- the setting
- the environments
- the feeling of mystery and never knowing what's ahead of you
- the freedom of movement in the environments

How would any of these be lessened if the enemies dealt less damage?

If anything, combat might be the one thing I enjoy least in Sekiro because it's so limited, and therefore repetitive. When you're learning it, it's an endless sea of frustration, and therefore not very enjoyable. When you have learned it, there's little else to discover, and then it turns boring. There's no alternative builds, no special tactics or moves to utilize, no other weapons, no ranged options to speak of etc. It's just parry, parry, parry.

 

[Kerg3927]

You can literally say the same thing about most of the Souls mechanics already. Being able to respawn enemies allows you just farm souls to level stats and items like pyromancy flame to become more powerful than you're supposed to be. How is that stuff different from easy difficulty? What's to stop you from cheating yourself out of the "proper" challenge/experience with built-in Souls mechanics? Someone else already deconstructed how stupid the drug addict analogy was when you first brought it up, not to mention you can use the same argument, like I just did, with staple mechanics of the Souls series.

And I've already pointed out how silly the "there are already ways for people to cheat themselves so why not just add an outright cheat button?" argument is. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Trunkage]

So how many difficulty modes should there be? How many "steps down?" What if an easy mode gets implemented and it's still not easy enough for everyone? If you're arguing for inclusivity and making the game as accessible as possible wouldn't that mean that the easy difficulty would have to cater to the lowest possible denominator of skill to be as inclusive as possible?

Nothing would ever get done if you could only implement the perfect solution and nothing in-between. Games themselves would never get out the door because the creators are always in the mindset where they think they can improve it. Dark Souls itself obviously wouldn't have gotten released. Why have countries with governments at all when there is still no perfect government system? Implementing something that makes something better is worth doing even when it's not the perfect solution.

The point is that people are saying that Souls players are gatekeeping the games to keep them out of the hands of people who might enjoy them if they were easier. My point is that no matter how easy and accessible you make the game someone is still going to be excluded. So why is it ok to exclude one group of people that's not good enough to play the game, but not another group of people who is not good enough to play the game?

Obviously no one is asking for games to be so easy that someone who can't properly use a controller can beat them, but that means that certain people are being excluded from playing the game on any difficulty. Some games are still too hard for people on easy difficulty. Why is it ok to exclude those people, but it's not ok for Souls games to exclude people who don't want to learn the mechanics of those games properly?

Are you suggesting there should be Story Modes for all games so everyone can enjoy games? Best idea you had all day

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

So how many difficulty modes should there be? How many "steps down?" What if an easy mode gets implemented and it's still not easy enough for everyone? If you're arguing for inclusivity and making the game as accessible as possible wouldn't that mean that the easy difficulty would have to cater to the lowest possible denominator of skill to be as inclusive as possible?

Nothing would ever get done if you could only implement the perfect solution and nothing in-between. Games themselves would never get out the door because the creators are always in the mindset where they think they can improve it. Dark Souls itself obviously wouldn't have gotten released. Why have countries with governments at all when there is still no perfect government system? Implementing something that makes something better is worth doing even when it's not the perfect solution.

The point is that people are saying that Souls players are gatekeeping the games to keep them out of the hands of people who might enjoy them if they were easier. My point is that no matter how easy and accessible you make the game someone is still going to be excluded. So why is it ok to exclude one group of people that's not good enough to play the game, but not another group of people who is not good enough to play the game?

Obviously no one is asking for games to be so easy that someone who can't properly use a controller can beat them, but that means that certain people are being excluded from playing the game on any difficulty. Some games are still too hard for people on easy difficulty. Why is it ok to exclude those people, but it's not ok for Souls games to exclude people who don't want to learn the mechanics of those games properly?

Are you suggesting there should be Story Modes for all games so everyone can enjoy games? Best idea you had all day

I was about to ask if you think anyone is willing to pay $60 to play through an interactive movie and then realized how silly a question that is because the Telltale games exist and some of them are even pretty good.

Not sure how that would work with a game like Dark Souls though, which is specifically designed to keep the story and lore obscured. And would it be worthwhile for games that have really straightforward stories that aren't actually all the interesting? Also, lets plays are a thing that already basically covers this.

 

[Trunkage]

So how many difficulty modes should there be? How many "steps down?" What if an easy mode gets implemented and it's still not easy enough for everyone? If you're arguing for inclusivity and making the game as accessible as possible wouldn't that mean that the easy difficulty would have to cater to the lowest possible denominator of skill to be as inclusive as possible?

Nothing would ever get done if you could only implement the perfect solution and nothing in-between. Games themselves would never get out the door because the creators are always in the mindset where they think they can improve it. Dark Souls itself obviously wouldn't have gotten released. Why have countries with governments at all when there is still no perfect government system? Implementing something that makes something better is worth doing even when it's not the perfect solution.

The point is that people are saying that Souls players are gatekeeping the games to keep them out of the hands of people who might enjoy them if they were easier. My point is that no matter how easy and accessible you make the game someone is still going to be excluded. So why is it ok to exclude one group of people that's not good enough to play the game, but not another group of people who is not good enough to play the game?

Obviously no one is asking for games to be so easy that someone who can't properly use a controller can beat them, but that means that certain people are being excluded from playing the game on any difficulty. Some games are still too hard for people on easy difficulty. Why is it ok to exclude those people, but it's not ok for Souls games to exclude people who don't want to learn the mechanics of those games properly?

Are you suggesting there should be Story Modes for all games so everyone can enjoy games? Best idea you had all day

I was about to ask if you think anyone is willing to pay $60 to play through an interactive movie and then realized how silly a question that is because the Telltale games exist and some of them are even pretty good.

Not sure how that would work with a game like Dark Souls though, which is specifically designed to keep the story and lore obscured. And would it be worthwhile for games that have really straightforward stories that aren't actually all the interesting? Also, lets plays are a thing that already basically covers this.

I'd also point out that LPers and lore peeps wouls enjoy doing this too. It took a while before Vaati figured out how to do the sweep throughs of areas which I think helped with his work. Even if the models of bosses were there and we could get a better look at them.

But, taking the Dancer as an example, its movements makes up most of it's 'personality'.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I'm 100% down with a "wander around with minimal challenge" mode. Gets to wander around at my own pace

You can literally say the same thing about most of the Souls mechanics already. Being able to respawn enemies allows you just farm souls to level stats and items like pyromancy flame to become more powerful than you're supposed to be. How is that stuff different from easy difficulty? What's to stop you from cheating yourself out of the "proper" challenge/experience with built-in Souls mechanics? Someone else already deconstructed how stupid the drug addict analogy was when you first brought it up, not to mention you can use the same argument, like I just did, with staple mechanics of the Souls series.

And I've already pointed out how silly the "there are already ways for people to cheat themselves so why not just add an outright cheat button?" argument is. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Both wrongs are already "wrong" in your estimation. What makes one wrong less wrong than the other? Tedium?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

So because I've worked at a career that has left my hands, among many of other body parts, damaged, I'm suddenly excluded from my favourite hobby, one I've been involved in for longer than most of you have likely been alive? Companies aren't allowed to add options that would make gaming less painful and more accessible for me? Why, because some of you are pretentious, elitist snowflakes that think having the reflexes of a teenager/20-something is an achievement? Grow up and get over yourselves. The amount of undeserved entitlement in this thread is preposterous.

There are plenty of games that you can play that don't require the reflexes of a teenager.

You're not being excluded from your hobby, no one is taking anything away from you. You're being excluded from a single game that wasn't built for you.

There are plenty of things that people are "excluded" from for various perfectly legitimate reasons. You aren't entitled to get to participate in everything. Get over yourself.

*Man accuses gamers of being exclusionary.*

*You act exclusionary*

Well you sure showed him. Also I love how people in this thread were heaping praise onto the one handicapped guy who beat Sekiro, but another guy with physical handicaps comes in and says that his handicap gets in the way and the reaction is that he needs to get over himself.

This is why I don't feel a speck of guilt for all the crap I've talked about Dark Souls fans in this thread.

Darth said that by not being able to play Sekiro he is excluded from his favorite hobby. Unless his favorite hobby is specifically playing Sekiro and nothing else then that's not true. No one is stopping him from playing video games, but some video games are not made for everyone and that's ok.

If Darth was a paraplegic would he be saying that the existence of Dance Dance Revolution excludes him from playing video games because he can't use his legs? Would he be asking for Dance Dance Revolution to be playable by someone without using their legs, and if it was wouldn't that fundamentally change the game into no longer being Dance Dance Revolution?

...Dance Dance Revolution doesn't need a dance pad. You can use a controller.

 

[Avnger]

You can literally say the same thing about most of the Souls mechanics already. Being able to respawn enemies allows you just farm souls to level stats and items like pyromancy flame to become more powerful than you're supposed to be. How is that stuff different from easy difficulty? What's to stop you from cheating yourself out of the "proper" challenge/experience with built-in Souls mechanics? Someone else already deconstructed how stupid the drug addict analogy was when you first brought it up, not to mention you can use the same argument, like I just did, with staple mechanics of the Souls series.

And I've already pointed out how silly the "there are already ways for people to cheat themselves so why not just add an outright cheat button?" argument is. Two wrongs don't make a right.

We're talking about games here mate. Literal toys. Entertainment products no different than a furby, DVD of Jurassic Park, or game of Monopoly.

You're acting like games are a pathway to spiritual salvation. "cheat themselves", Jesus Christ. "Two wrongs don't make a right." I couldn't make this stuff up. Your inability to see that not everyone treats video games as the cornerstone of their self-worth is what is holding you back in these conversations.

 

[Silvanus]

Nothing would ever get done if you could only implement the perfect solution and nothing in-between. Games themselves would never get out the door because the creators are always in the mindset where they think they can improve it. Dark Souls itself obviously wouldn't have gotten released. Why have countries with governments at all when there is still no perfect government system? Implementing something that makes something better is worth doing even when it's not the perfect solution.

The issue here is that you've conflated a counter-argument with a stance in itself.

The charge of gatekeeping applies specifically to an argument (the argument that if it's too hard for you, it's just not the game for you, git gud). The purpose of the counter-argument is to indicate that the underlying rationale of that argument is not admirable. The counter-argument does not require that the user wants to make it easy enough for absolutely anyone.

In short: it's a criticism for a particular rationale, not a criticism of the fundamental idea that a certain mode should not be present.

 

[Dalisclock]

Shamus made an interesting point in his article.

There are the Dark Souls Evangelists who insist Dark Souls is one of the best games ever and everyone should play it. If you listen, play it and find it too difficult and suggest maybe certain parts of the game could be easier(or there could be an "easy mode"), the Dark Souls Purists will insist you should go play something else and there are other games for you.

Notice how these two opinions contradict each other and it makes me wonder how much overlap there is between the Purists and the Evangelists(Everyone should play the game but if you think it's too hard you can fuck right off and play something else).

I don't see a contradiction at all. The Evangelists want people to play it, but only in its original form, as they and everyone else played it.

I bought a copy of Dark Souls Remastered for my brother and his son. They haven't played it yet. My brother hasn't because he just doesn't have time to play games much anymore. My nephew hasn't because he just turned 11, and is not mature enough yet. He is currently more interested in Lego games and the like. And so the game is just sitting there. And that's fine. I hope one day my brother finds time and my nephew gets mature enough, and he probably will in the next 2-3 years, but I'd rather them not play it at all than play a dumbed down version. I want them to experience it as intended or not at all.

Sure it is.
"Come love this awesome thing! You'll love it"
"Well, it's hard, not well explained and in some places, just fucking broken. Is there a way to mitigate this?"
"Git Gud!"

It's akin to a street preacher wanting to talk you about their particular religion, then getting angry when you decide to listen but also to disagree with what's being sold.

Unless you're seriously trying to argue from made the games perfectly tough but fair with well explained mechanics that only requires a proper application of skill learning, and that any assertion to the contrary is simply people refusing to try.

I've already admitted above. I like the series, but I'm fine with admitting I cheesed where I felt I needed to because certain parts came across as BS and unbalanced as fuck. It's one thing to say "The series is perfectly balanced and it's all fair so how dare anyone want things to be less BS/Easier" and another to say "The series has plenty of jankey bits that really should have been smoothed out and/or fixed which encourages people to find workarounds to save themselves the frustration of banging their heads against the same goddamn wall forever". Because some of us have shit to do.

Some of us like the series despite the difficultly. Sure, there are some great bosses, but there are certainly a couple bosses who can go straight to hell and I don't feel at all terrible for finding a way to deal with them "dishonorably". My self esteem or sense of accomplishment isn't dependent on playing a game exactly as "intended".

When/if your brother and nephew end up playing DS, keep in mind they might not play "as intended" either.

 

[Kerg3927]

Sure it is.
"Come love this awesome thing! You'll love it"
"Well, it's hard, not well explained and in some places, just fucking broken. Is there a way to mitigate this?"
"Git Gud!"

It's akin to a street preacher wanting to talk you about their particular religion, then getting angry when you decide to listen but also to disagree with what's being sold.

Makes perfect sense to me. I'm not religious. But as I understand it, if I wanted to become Jewish, I'd have to stop eating pork. I don't get to join otherwise. No bacon, ever again. I can complain all I want, but the final answer is always going to be... this is how the religion was designed, and you either follow the rules we have in place, or you can go find another religion, plenty of them out there.

Unless you're seriously trying to argue from made the games perfectly tough but fair with well explained mechanics that only requires a proper application of skill learning, and that any assertion to the contrary is simply people refusing to try.

I've already admitted above. I like the series, but I'm fine with admitting I cheesed where I felt I needed to because certain parts came across as BS and unbalanced as fuck. It's one thing to say "The series is perfectly balanced and it's all fair so how dare anyone want things to be less BS/Easier" and another to say "The series has plenty of jankey bits that really should have been smoothed out and/or fixed which encourages people to find workarounds to save themselves the frustration of banging their heads against the same goddamn wall forever". Because some of us have shit to do.

Some of us like the series despite the difficultly. Sure, there are some great bosses, but there are certainly a couple bosses who can go straight to hell and I don't feel at all terrible for finding a way to deal with them "dishonorably". My self esteem or sense of accomplishment isn't dependent on playing a game exactly as "intended".

When/if your brother and nephew end up playing DS, keep in mind they might not play "as intended" either.

To me there is a big difference between using a bow and arrows to kill the dragon on the bridge safely from the ledge below vs. flipping a switch that nerfs the damage and hp of the dragon to a level that makes it easy to just walk up to it and kill it. The former may be a little cheesy, but it still falls within the parameters of the original game design, and may even be considered a clever solution. The latter rewrites the parameters of the game entirely, and pretty much makes it into a different game, IMO.

Same thing if someone wants to spend hours farming mobs for souls and mats to raise their level and improve their armor and weapons. I don't think any "purists" have a problem with that. It's within the original game parameters. It's just someone putting in extra work to give themselves an edge, and it probably won't save you if you don't learn the boss fights anyway. Plus, From put measures in place to make sure that there are limits to the benefits of this tactic. Leveling up stats has diminishing returns. Weapons/armor can only be improved up to a certain point before you need items from later zones to improve them further.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

So because I've worked at a career that has left my hands, among many of other body parts, damaged, I'm suddenly excluded from my favourite hobby, one I've been involved in for longer than most of you have likely been alive? Companies aren't allowed to add options that would make gaming less painful and more accessible for me? Why, because some of you are pretentious, elitist snowflakes that think having the reflexes of a teenager/20-something is an achievement? Grow up and get over yourselves. The amount of undeserved entitlement in this thread is preposterous.

There are plenty of games that you can play that don't require the reflexes of a teenager.

You're not being excluded from your hobby, no one is taking anything away from you. You're being excluded from a single game that wasn't built for you.

There are plenty of things that people are "excluded" from for various perfectly legitimate reasons. You aren't entitled to get to participate in everything. Get over yourself.

*Man accuses gamers of being exclusionary.*

*You act exclusionary*

Well you sure showed him. Also I love how people in this thread were heaping praise onto the one handicapped guy who beat Sekiro, but another guy with physical handicaps comes in and says that his handicap gets in the way and the reaction is that he needs to get over himself.

This is why I don't feel a speck of guilt for all the crap I've talked about Dark Souls fans in this thread.

Darth said that by not being able to play Sekiro he is excluded from his favorite hobby. Unless his favorite hobby is specifically playing Sekiro and nothing else then that's not true. No one is stopping him from playing video games, but some video games are not made for everyone and that's ok.

If Darth was a paraplegic would he be saying that the existence of Dance Dance Revolution excludes him from playing video games because he can't use his legs? Would he be asking for Dance Dance Revolution to be playable by someone without using their legs, and if it was wouldn't that fundamentally change the game into no longer being Dance Dance Revolution?

...Dance Dance Revolution doesn't need a dance pad. You can use a controller.

And when you do that is it still Dance Dance Revolution or does that just turn it into a generic and kind of mediocre rythme game?

That's the argument against making From Software games have easy modes. Doing so would make them generic and kind of mediocre action games and take away a part of their core identity.

 

[Silvanus]

Makes perfect sense to me. I'm not religious. But as I understand it, if I wanted to become Jewish, I'd have to stop eating pork. I don't get to join otherwise. No bacon, ever again. I can complain all I want, but the final answer is always going to be... this is how the religion was designed, and you either follow the rules we have in place, or you can go find another religion, plenty of them out there.

I'm pretty sure Catholicism is hard mode, Protestantism is medium, and Church of England is easy mode. You don't even need to turn up to Church in C of E mode.

Mormonism is the sequel made by a different dev team, and it shows. Mormonism is DS2.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Some games are still too hard for people on easy difficulty. Why is it ok to exclude those people, but it's not ok for Souls games to exclude people who don't want to learn the mechanics of those games properly?

That's not the debate though. Nobody is saying adding an easy difficulty is as far as you should go, it's one of the many steps that can be taken (and a simple step at that). Adding an option is inclusive, denying an option is exclusive.

And I've already pointed out how silly the "there are already ways for people to cheat themselves so why not just add an outright cheat button?" argument is. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Why do you keep equating an easier difficulty to a cheat button? Why don't you read bartholen's post [https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.1056857-New-hard-game-comes-out-Idiot-press-wants-easy-mode?page=13#24300078] right above yours?

Makes perfect sense to me. I'm not religious. But as I understand it, if I wanted to become Jewish, I'd have to stop eating pork. I don't get to join otherwise. No bacon, ever again. I can complain all I want, but the final answer is always going to be... this is how the religion was designed, and you either follow the rules we have in place, or you can go find another religion, plenty of them out there.

Same thing if someone wants to spend hours farming mobs for souls and mats to raise their level and improve their armor and weapons. I don't think any "purists" have a problem with that. It's within the original game parameters. It's just someone putting in extra work to give themselves an edge

Just wow... equating a piece of entertainment to a religion. You don't pick a religion based on your preferences and "tastes", you pick it because you think that is the true way of the universe.

Don't you realize an easy difficulty can do exactly that but without the wasting your goddamn time? Farming and grinding in a game is not "work", it's wasting time.

 

[Pseudonym]

Makes perfect sense to me. I'm not religious. But as I understand it, if I wanted to become Jewish, I'd have to stop eating pork. I don't get to join otherwise. No bacon, ever again. I can complain all I want, but the final answer is always going to be... this is how the religion was designed, and you either follow the rules we have in place, or you can go find another religion, plenty of them out there.

Not that this matters at all, but this is not how Judaism works. The Jews regard themselves as a people descended from Abraham, not just a religion. It's fairly difficult to become Jewish and even harder to stop being (seen as) Jewish. The most normal way to be a Jew is to be born to a Jewish mother. Then you remain Jewish even if you stop believing (I know atheistic Jews), start eating pork, or do whatever else. Becoming a jew through other means is possible, but fairly hard. You can't just convert and start practicing.

 

[Trunkage]

God this thread is giving me flashbacks to 2014

 

[Avnger]

God this thread is giving me flashbacks to 2014

Next up: "Those damn fake gamer girlzfemales!!1!"

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

God this thread is giving me flashbacks to 2014

Only if Moviebob is fired involuntarily quits.
Though I do admit this thread is way longer than this issue has any right to be.

 

[CritialGaming]

God this thread is giving me flashbacks to 2014

Only if Moviebob is fired involuntarily quits.
Though I do admit this thread is way longer than this issue has any right to be.

Even I am surprised that it's still going. I mean once you've shared what you have to say it dissolves into arguments doesn't it? It's clear what side everyone is on at this point. No one has changed their minds, people on forums rarely do.