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

[Dirty Hipsters]

...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.

So, taking this argument at face value: Dance Dance Revolution, even if you play it on a dance pad, has been harmed and is lesser because somebody else has the option of using a controller?

Because that's the argument.

The argument is that doing something to the game that undermines its design principles harms the game. The identity of Dance Dance Revolution is that it's a rhythm game where you dance. You use your body to control the game, that's what makes the game unique, that's the draw of the game. When that is removed it removes the core identity of the game as well. If you use a controller you are no longer playing Dance Dance Revolution, you are playing a generic rhythm game.

A large part of the identity of Dark Souls is the challenge. The game is thematically built around it. It's built to show you a harsh and unforgiving world, and it's meant to challenge you and meant to frustrate you, and meant to discourage you by punishing you for failure. Being able to lower the difficulty undermines the central theme of the game which is struggle. Having the option to go easy on yourself undermines the core design principles of the game and thus makes the game less than what it is.

Yes, you can make something lesser by adding to it. There's a well known quote about art and it goes something like "a work of art isn't done when there's no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to remove." I'm not going to say that Dark Souls was a perfectly finished work of art (it's rather famously unfinished actually), but the designers chose not to have an easy mode in the game because they felt it would lessen the game's value, and I agree with them.

 

[CritialGaming]

Why do you give a damn if someone else were to enter cheat codes to increase their personal enjoyment of a game, and how does someone doing that have any effect on you?

We've been over this. It's because I don't think it necessarily increases their enjoyment of the game and quite often has the opposite effect. And I care about others and don't want to see people ruin their own game experience.

So to clarify, you know better than other people, who you've never met, what they will personally enjoy even after they've tried both and told you otherwise?

Do you realize how narcissisticly insane that sounds at even the most basic level? It's equivalent to telling someone "You don't actually enjoy peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. You need to only eat peanut butter and banana sandwiches because I believe they taste better to you." It's patently ridiculous.

What makes your personal view on "the right way" to use an entertainment product better than any other individual's view? Who made you the sole arbiter of "the one true way?" There's nothing wrong with having a personal opinion on how to play a game. However, you're stepping well beyond that and trying to force your beliefs onto others.

I think he means more along the line of this tale of two play through?s [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w8wrZ25ewIY] in general. A substantial reason the SoulsBorne games have attained such a dedicated following is simply, because there has been more dedication put forth than average. Easy modes are essentially for casual play, or people who don?t play games very often. Contrast that to whoever plays through any of FROM?s games, and the differentiation is pretty crystal clear in terms of who?s truly getting more out of the games, including a sense of enjoyment and satisfaction which seems to correlate directly with how much they?ve struggled, persevered and ultimately triumphed.

Yeah, they?re ?only? games, but it?s still a big part of what separates games from other forms of entertainment, and makes them more rewarding.

So, to clarify, they know better than other people, who you've never met, what they will personally enjoy even after they've tried both and told them otherwise?

To the point that the mere option, unused on the title screen, would make the game worse?

...I think this is the crux of the issue with this thread?s nonproductive status. The video clearly demonstrated a technically sound case study in how each player?s experiences drastically differed as a result of cheating the game vs playing through it as intended, and it?s met with straw man theory.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

The argument is that doing something to the game that undermines its design principles harms the game. The identity of Dance Dance Revolution is that it's a rhythm game where you dance. You use your body to control the game, that's what makes the game unique, that's the draw of the game. When that is removed it removes the core identity of the game as well. If you use a controller you are no longer playing Dance Dance Revolution, you are playing a generic rhythm game.

A large part of the identity of Dark Souls is the challenge. The game is thematically built around it. It's built to show you a harsh and unforgiving world, and it's meant to challenge you and meant to frustrate you, and meant to discourage you by punishing you for failure. Being able to lower the difficulty undermines the central theme of the game which is struggle. Having the option to go easy on yourself undermines the core design principles of the game and thus makes the game less than what it is.

Yes, you can make something lesser by adding to it. There's a well known quote about art and it goes something like "a work of art isn't done when there's no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to remove." I'm not going to say that Dark Souls was a perfectly finished work of art (it's rather famously unfinished actually), but the designers chose not to have an easy mode in the game because they felt it would lessen the game's value, and I agree with them.

Lotta words to just say "Yes, Dance Dance Revolution is a lesser game because you don't have to stomp on a piece of plastic if you don't want to, even though it's entirely optional"

Which, incidentally, is a position I'm never gonna understand. Mostly because I've ruined many a pair of shoes playing DDR in my youth and I've played plenty of rhythm games since. They all play basically the same, I've just got arthritis now and don't want to wreck my knees any worse than they are. DDR isn't any worse because I have the option to play it with a controller now.

So, to clarify, they know better than other people, who you've never met, what they will personally enjoy even after they've tried both and told them otherwise?

To the point that the mere option, unused on the title screen, would make the game worse?

...I think this is the crux of the issue with this thread's nonproductive status. The video clearly demonstrated a technically sound case study in how each player's experiences drastically differed as a result of cheating the game vs playing through it as intended, and it's met with straw man theory.

Fucking hell, that's not a case study, that's a dude with preconceived notions confirming their biases. Hell, they didn't even go with "easier", they went to "insta-gib+god mode" then complained about no challenge and a lack of story when they rushed to the end, which, duh! No fucking shit there's no challenge when you can't die and you don't have to set up any attacks! Don't come to me complaining about strawman arguments and try and pull weak shit like that, for fucks sake. What am I supposed to learn from that, "if you rush the main storyline, you miss details?

Really. Couldn't've figured out that one on my own, thanks chief. Now how about when somebody uses that mode to wander instead of rush? To have a look see. Read all the note, listen to all the conversations, find all the doohickeys?

Or, shocking, they don't jump straight to "I don't even have to pretend to learn timings and am literally invincible" but just lower enemy speeds 10%-15%? Give themselves half-again as much poise. Easier but not Literally Superman

Accuse me of strawmaning an argument and bring it that, the nerve. The article that dude pretended to respond to, but didn't actually read, praised the shit out of Sekiro, and the only mod they used was reducing the final bosses speed a bit. Which, if you watched that Jimquisition up-thread, mods used to be the go-to "we shouldn't have an easy mode because" excuse. Except now somebody did it and talked about how much goddamned fun they had, so mods are bad now.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

The argument is that doing something to the game that undermines its design principles harms the game. The identity of Dance Dance Revolution is that it's a rhythm game where you dance. You use your body to control the game, that's what makes the game unique, that's the draw of the game. When that is removed it removes the core identity of the game as well. If you use a controller you are no longer playing Dance Dance Revolution, you are playing a generic rhythm game.

A large part of the identity of Dark Souls is the challenge. The game is thematically built around it. It's built to show you a harsh and unforgiving world, and it's meant to challenge you and meant to frustrate you, and meant to discourage you by punishing you for failure. Being able to lower the difficulty undermines the central theme of the game which is struggle. Having the option to go easy on yourself undermines the core design principles of the game and thus makes the game less than what it is.

Yes, you can make something lesser by adding to it. There's a well known quote about art and it goes something like "a work of art isn't done when there's no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to remove." I'm not going to say that Dark Souls was a perfectly finished work of art (it's rather famously unfinished actually), but the designers chose not to have an easy mode in the game because they felt it would lessen the game's value, and I agree with them.

Lotta words to just say "Yes, Dance Dance Revolution is a lesser game because you don't have to stomp on a piece of plastic if you don't want to, even though it's entirely optional"

Which, incidentally, is a position I'm never gonna understand. Mostly because I've ruined many a pair of shoes playing DDR in my youth and I've played plenty of rhythm games since. They all play basically the same, I've just got arthritis now and don't want to wreck my knees any worse than they are. DDR isn't any worse because I have the option to play it with a controller now.

If you don't want to stomp on the piece of plastic then why do you want to play Dance Dance revolution over any other rhythm game? There's plenty of rhythm games out there were you don't have to move your body, which are meant specifically to be played with a controller and don't require you to "stomp on the piece of plastic." Why remove the unique element that makes DDR what it is rather than just playing a different game?

 

[Abomination]

... having entirely voluntary options can only be a good thing.

And that's one opinion. I have a different one.

But you're approaching this from almost a zero sum game perspective. People taking an option that you would not, is somehow a bad thing?

It's entertainment, not a macro-economic model.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

The argument is that doing something to the game that undermines its design principles harms the game. The identity of Dance Dance Revolution is that it's a rhythm game where you dance. You use your body to control the game, that's what makes the game unique, that's the draw of the game. When that is removed it removes the core identity of the game as well. If you use a controller you are no longer playing Dance Dance Revolution, you are playing a generic rhythm game.

A large part of the identity of Dark Souls is the challenge. The game is thematically built around it. It's built to show you a harsh and unforgiving world, and it's meant to challenge you and meant to frustrate you, and meant to discourage you by punishing you for failure. Being able to lower the difficulty undermines the central theme of the game which is struggle. Having the option to go easy on yourself undermines the core design principles of the game and thus makes the game less than what it is.

Yes, you can make something lesser by adding to it. There's a well known quote about art and it goes something like "a work of art isn't done when there's no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to remove." I'm not going to say that Dark Souls was a perfectly finished work of art (it's rather famously unfinished actually), but the designers chose not to have an easy mode in the game because they felt it would lessen the game's value, and I agree with them.

Lotta words to just say "Yes, Dance Dance Revolution is a lesser game because you don't have to stomp on a piece of plastic if you don't want to, even though it's entirely optional"

Which, incidentally, is a position I'm never gonna understand. Mostly because I've ruined many a pair of shoes playing DDR in my youth and I've played plenty of rhythm games since. They all play basically the same, I've just got arthritis now and don't want to wreck my knees any worse than they are. DDR isn't any worse because I have the option to play it with a controller now.

If you don't want to stomp on the piece of plastic then why do you want to play Dance Dance revolution over any other rhythm game? There's plenty of rhythm games out there were you don't have to move your body, which are meant specifically to be played with a controller and don't require you to "stomp on the piece of plastic." Why remove the unique element that makes DDR what it is rather than just playing a different game?

Like the songs, like the brand, pad broke, knees broke, etc.

Why is DDR a worse game to play by stomping your feet just because other people who are not you have to option not to?

 

[CritialGaming]

So, to clarify, they know better than other people, who you've never met, what they will personally enjoy even after they've tried both and told them otherwise?

To the point that the mere option, unused on the title screen, would make the game worse?

...I think this is the crux of the issue with this thread's nonproductive status. The video clearly demonstrated a technically sound case study in how each player's experiences drastically differed as a result of cheating the game vs playing through it as intended, and it's met with straw man theory.

Fucking hell, that's not a case study, that's a dude with preconceived notions confirming their biases. Hell, they didn't even go with "easier", they went to "insta-gib+god mode" then complained about no challenge and a lack of story when they rushed to the end, which, duh! No fucking shit there's no challenge when you can't die and you don't have to set up any attacks! Don't come to me complaining about strawman arguments and try and pull weak shit like that, for fucks sake. What am I supposed to learn from that, "if you rush the main storyline, you miss details?

Really. Couldn't've figured out that one on my own, thanks chief. Now how about when somebody uses that mode to wander instead of rush? To have a look see. Read all the note, listen to all the conversations, find all the doohickeys?

Or, shocking, they don't jump straight to "I don't even have to pretend to learn timings and am literally invincible" but just lower enemy speeds 10%-15%? Give themselves half-again as much poise. Easier but not Literally Superman

Accuse me of strawmaning an argument and bring it that, the nerve. The article that dude pretended to respond to, but didn't actually read, praised the shit out of Sekiro, and the only mod they used was reducing the final bosses speed a bit. Which, if you watched that Jimquisition up-thread, mods used to be the go-to "we shouldn't have an easy mode because" excuse. Except now somebody did it and talked about how much goddamned fun they had, so mods are bad now.

I?d be inclined to think someone who makes a blatantly simple observation about one ?player? who trashes a game on YouTube after using cheats vs another who took the time and effort to learn its design, knows better by default. FROM?s reputation and the fact they attracted Activision of all places shows their business model has been exceptional, and their game design is a primary reason for this. There are no ?preconceived notions? about it; in fact the writing has been on the wall, and even Miyazaki himself said their focus is to allow many players to experience the thrill of overcoming difficult challenges. Less challenge = less to overcome = less thrill. Sure, it won?t be the case for everyone, but judging by their continued success I?d say he?s onto something.

Mods are great for tailoring experiences with games, but they?re simply personalized outliers one way or another, and not meant to represent a game?s official design focus.

 

[Siyano_v1legacy]

simple, why is it always easier to make a game harder (by trivializing yourself for example) but its always harder to make a game easier (by using third party program such as cheat engine and trainer) just give option, it is not hard!
Be a game with cheats so I can either play the game as intended or not, by making the game easier or harder as I wish. IT SIMPLE give me the option, I'm the player why can.t I play likeI want in your single player game.
As myself I could never be entertained by playing "normally" on the first dark souls, I wanted to play but not have the "stupid" difficulty, so I cheated and had fun rather than miss it and not play it. So I bought I game I would have not in the first place if it was not for that

 

[Kerg3927]

... having entirely voluntary options can only be a good thing.

And that's one opinion. I have a different one.

But you're approaching this from almost a zero sum game perspective. People taking an option that you would not, is somehow a bad thing?

It's entertainment, not a macro-economic model.

I've already explained what I believe to be the potential costs of changing the design formula.

You look at it as merely entertainment. But From Software definitely looks at it economically. And I do, too, because I want From to be financially successful so they keep creating awesome games.

You see no downside. I do. We simply differ in our opinion on this matter, and that's okay.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

You look at it as merely entertainment. But From Software definitely looks at it economically. And I do, too, because I want From to be financially successful so they keep creating awesome games.

From's economic strategy doesn't really have much to do with making challenging games but how they develop games. They don't put millions into a game with top-notch graphics and voice-acting hoping it'll be the next GTA or COD. They merely budget their games for their expected audience, which is what like every developer should do. Also, From has yet to make an awesome game (still waiting), Sekiro is a step up over Souls but still has some poor and archaic game design in it (which Yahtzee pointed out). When exiting the game and transferring over an previous save is saves the player time than doing it in-game, then there's something wrong.

 

[votemarvel]

The problem with making games for a set audience is what happens when they don't like it, the company has then for want of a better term 'done their money'. Your target audience doesn't like it and there is nothing to appeal to people who aren't a fan of that type of game.

An easy mode would instantly broaden the appeal without taking away from the core experience. If people can't resist dropping the difficulty in a troublesome section then perhaps they weren't having as much fun at the higher setting as they thought they were.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I'd be inclined to think someone who makes a blatantly simple observation about one "player" who trashes a game on YouTube after using cheats vs another who took the time and effort to learn its design, knows better by default.

Nah. That dude who missed the entirety of the story would've missed the entirety of the story even if he got pounded into the dirt by Lady Butterfly a dozen time.

Because the problem was "rushing the story", not "god mode makes game boring". If the later were true, than IGN guy who nodded the game to slow down the final boss wouldn't have lavished praise of Sekiro. Of course, the IGN guy went "slow down the final boss somewhat" and not LITERAL GOD MODE.

I swear to god, playing Sekiro at 80%-90% speed isn't god mode, and I wish you'd stop strawmaning "Easy mode" as literal god-mode

 

[Trunkage]

The problem with making games for a set audience is what happens when they don't like it, the company has then for want of a better term 'done their money'. Your target audience doesn't like it and there is nothing to appeal to people who aren't a fan of that type of game.

That's perfect. Exactly what I think. It's great you understand this. Because...

An easy mode would instantly broaden the appeal without taking away from the core experience. If people can't resist dropping the difficulty in a troublesome section then perhaps they weren't having as much fun at the higher setting as they thought they were.

You've utterly failed at understanding that a different person could have a different reason to play Dark Souls/ From games than you. You personally, sound like you like difficulty. I like the lore, world building, story telling and interconnectedness. The difficulty is what gets in the way of me getting to what I want. Because, and I know this might sound strange, I'm not you. I can have different like and dislikes.

If you haven't got it yet, many FANS are asking for difficulty settings. Because they weren't drawn to difficulty, they were drawn to a great game. From, for some reason, has decided that they want to focus on difficulty and stop bothering making good games. You can see the difference between Dark Souls 1 to 3. The first had incredible lore, world building, characters etc. Dark Souls 3 was a hollow imitation. Because From has been focusing on the wrong thing.

Sure. Make things hard for those people that want it. How about you cater for all your fans From? And please remember, make a good game first. Because, you've lost your way

 

[Dalisclock]

The problem with making games for a set audience is what happens when they don't like it, the company has then for want of a better term 'done their money'. Your target audience doesn't like it and there is nothing to appeal to people who aren't a fan of that type of game.

That's perfect. Exactly what I think. It's great you understand this. Because...

An easy mode would instantly broaden the appeal without taking away from the core experience. If people can't resist dropping the difficulty in a troublesome section then perhaps they weren't having as much fun at the higher setting as they thought they were.

You've utterly failed at understanding that a different person could have a different reason to play Dark Souls/ From games than you. You personally, sound like you like difficulty. I like the lore, world building, story telling and interconnectedness. The difficulty is what gets in the way of me getting to what I want. Because, and I know this might sound strange, I'm not you. I can have different like and dislikes.

If you haven't got it yet, many FANS are asking for difficulty settings. Because they weren't drawn to difficulty, they were drawn to a great game. From, for some reason, has decided that they want to focus on difficulty and stop bothering making good games. You can see the difference between Dark Souls 1 to 3. The first had incredible lore, world building, characters etc. Dark Souls 3 was a hollow imitation. Because From has been focusing on the wrong thing.

Sure. Make things hard for those people that want it. How about you cater for all your fans From? And please remember, make a good game first. Because, you've lost your way

I'm glad to someone point else point this out. Not all of consider the best or more interesting thing about Soulsborne to be the Difficulty. A lot of us came for the worldbuilding, level design, atmosphere, etc and either accepted it or pushed through. Hell, I love some of the boss fights, but there are a number that can go straight to hell. I found a way to get past those to get back to enjoying the game rather then bashing my head against a brick wall.

One could easily ask If From stripped out all the world-building, level design, artwork, atmosphere and made it a series of trash mobs, traps and bosses in an uninspired hallway, how many people do you think would stick around? Because I imagine it's not nearly as many as the purists like to imagine.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

An easy mode would instantly broaden the appeal without taking away from the core experience. If people can't resist dropping the difficulty in a troublesome section then perhaps they weren't having as much fun at the higher setting as they thought they were.

Pretty much, this Rurikhan video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67xtj8LY1nY&feature=youtu.be&t=348] about God of War's highest difficulty says encapsulates the pretentiousness the Souls "hardcore" fanbase. Basically, he watched a few videos of people playing on God of War's max difficulty just because 'Dark Souls is the hard stuff' and noticed how unhappy they were playing the game. If they would've just played on Normal, they would've had more fun.

An easy mode would instantly broaden the appeal without taking away from the core experience. If people can't resist dropping the difficulty in a troublesome section then perhaps they weren't having as much fun at the higher setting as they thought they were.

You've utterly failed at understanding that a different person could have a different reason to play Dark Souls/ From games than you. You personally, sound like you like difficulty. I like the lore, world building, story telling and interconnectedness. The difficulty is what gets in the way of me getting to what I want. Because, and I know this might sound strange, I'm not you. I can have different like and dislikes.

If you haven't got it yet, many FANS are asking for difficulty settings. Because they weren't drawn to difficulty, they were drawn to a great game. From, for some reason, has decided that they want to focus on difficulty and stop bothering making good games. You can see the difference between Dark Souls 1 to 3. The first had incredible lore, world building, characters etc. Dark Souls 3 was a hollow imitation. Because From has been focusing on the wrong thing.

Sure. Make things hard for those people that want it. How about you cater for all your fans From? And please remember, make a good game first. Because, you've lost your way

Uhh... I think that's what votemarvel is saying, at least that's how I read it.

 

[CritialGaming]

Pretty much, this Rurikhan video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67xtj8LY1nY&feature=youtu.be&t=348] about God of War's highest difficulty says encapsulates the pretentiousness the Souls "hardcore" fanbase. Basically, he watched a few videos of people playing on God of War's max difficulty just because 'Dark Souls is the hard stuff' and noticed how unhappy they were playing the game. If they would've just played on Normal, they would've had more fun.

I think what misses the mark a bit here is that people who tend to lend on those harder modes when given the option, enjoy the challenge. Even if it results in rage quits from time to time, outbursts, etc, they put up with that because: 1, They actually enjoy that frustrated feeling as it drives them forward and pushes them to be better and 2, The rush they get after succeeding is an incredible high that you just don't get from playing on lower modes.

It amazes me that people can simultaniously say that Dark Souls isn't even hard AND also say it needs an easy mode at the same time. Like how the fuck does that work. If it isn't hard, then why does it need to be easy...er?

At the same token, Dark Souls is challenging and very hard for different people. And people who say, "Dark Souls is EZ" are frankly just a bit disrespectful of others imo. It's almost a troll thing to say, even if you don't personally find the DS series difficult the general consensus and gamer population agrees that they are though games so mocking the game as easy is just being a dingus.

In reality the difficulty modes in games like Devil May Cry, God of War, Halo, etc. Games use difficulty modes, don't actually change anything but the numbers. Either the players or enemies have more or less health, and that's really it. Hard modes often equate to you die if you get hit once or twice. Which is why the Dark Souls have that illusion of difficulty, because the player dies far quicker than the bosses do (though most basic enemies die at a similar rate the player does). Dark Souls becomes a game about pattern memorization, a bit of timing, and holding off your greed. The player panic comes in due to the size and weight the bosses have, shaking the screen with attacks, filling the screen with their sheer size, it overwhelms the player's selfcontrol and deliberately causes them to panic which leads to mistakes which quickly leads to dying. Once the player learns to control that, the game smooths out difficulty wise and this is the point where most first time Souls players get the "click". The point in which suddenly the game falls into place and the game's difficulty plateaus for the most part. How long someone must play until they get the "click" will depend on the player and not everyone will have the patience to play until it happens, but how is that the game's fault?

Why should From implement a mode for players not willing to spend enough time with the game. Because let's look at things objectively in regards to difficulty adjustments.

1. Health changes: Either lower the damage the player takes, or give them a much bigger starting health pool, or lowering the enemy's damage. The problem this has it that it wont stop enemies from Sparta kicking your ass off a cliff, nor does it help with learning how to avoid attacks. If anything it makes it harder to train yourself into avoiding shit because you become comfortable with getting hit because your character can take it. While you would be able to tank hits with normal enemies, bosses tend to knock you back or down when they hit you which mean the player will need to "get gud" at avoiding the hits anyway, making it meanless how much health you have.

2. Changing enemy behavior: What would really need to change is how the enemies fight. DS1 and 2, would be hard to adjust because most everything in that game is already slow as fuck. Bloodborne and DS3 are were the games actually speed up and enemies have 10+ hit combos they'll charge you with. So you might be able to slow down those two games, but the first two Souls games are harder to adjust. How would you do it? DS2 literally has a boss that punches the ground and then gets winded for ten seconds while you beat his knuckles into pulp, in fact a lot of the bosses in that game are big things that do one incredibly slow attack every sometimes.

3. Make the player stronger: Perhaps giving the player more damage so that the fights become shorter, but again this doesn't do anything unless the player can avoid the monster attacks.

It boils down to forcing the player to learn the rules of the game. The damage dealt and taken becomes irrelevant when the player learns to dodge. Skewing numbers one way or another to try and give the player more "chances" might help with some of the game, but in the end you have to learn to play.

But hey, perhaps being able to muscle through more of the game might encourage people to keep going. Maybe it would help. I just don't think it's necessary. A player is going to decide to learn the game, or not, and I really don't think adding "easy" would increase the player base in the end.

I wonder if From put an "easy" mode selection on the title, but didn't actually change anything in the game, if people would suddenly be able to beat the game.

 

[Xprimentyl]

But hey, perhaps being able to muscle through more of the game might encourage people to keep going. Maybe it would help. I just don't think it's necessary. A player is going to decide to learn the game, or not, and I really don't think adding "easy" would increase the player base in the end.

At least you?re making that small concession. I?d argue, anecdotally, that yes, an easier mode would increase the player base. My gaming buddy and I have similar tastes, but he is put off by Dark Souls? legendary difficulty, citing that he doesn?t think it?s ?fun? to spend his gaming time in constant frustration. As he?s got a HUGE temper (I?ve seen him quit games in a rage, at times comedically so,) I can?t in good faith recommend DS to him despite it checking in spades every other box of things I know he?d enjoy.

An easy mode would be a proverbial foot in the door. Besting Dark Souls ?as it?s meant to be played? is a badge of honor; easy would show a lesser skilled player it?s possible, and encourage them to try it ?for realsies? when they?re confident enough. In its favor, DS is a game meant to played multiple times; upping the ante on harder modes could even be a natural progression of interest and immersion.

I wonder if From put an "easy" mode selection on the title, but didn't actually change anything in the game, if people would suddenly be able to beat the game.

No, a placebic ?easy? mode wouldn?t magically make the game more accessible. Dark Souls? difficulty isn?t mental; it?s an objective fact that beginning enemies can two-shot a new player; if anything, it?d cause additional frustration when people discover the carrot dangling at the end of the rope is actually a lead rod painted orange.

 

[CritialGaming]

No, a placebic ?easy? mode wouldn?t magically make the game more accessible. Dark Souls? difficulty isn?t mental; it?s an objective fact that beginning enemies can two-shot a new player; if anything, it?d cause additional frustration when people discover the carrot dangling at the end of the rope is actually a lead rod painted orange.

But even if they 4 shot the player, it doesn't change how hard the game is unless the player learns the mechanics. So I actually think it would. Not that we would ever know because it'll never happen.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I think what misses the mark a bit here is that people who tend to lend on those harder modes when given the option, enjoy the challenge. Even if it results in rage quits from time to time, outbursts, etc, they put up with that because: 1, They actually enjoy that frustrated feeling as it drives them forward and pushes them to be better and 2, The rush they get after succeeding is an incredible high that you just don't get from playing on lower modes.

Maybe for some but not for others [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC3OuLU5XCw&feature=youtu.be&t=975].

It amazes me that people can simultaniously say that Dark Souls isn't even hard AND also say it needs an easy mode at the same time. Like how the fuck does that work. If it isn't hard, then why does it need to be easy...er?

At the same token, Dark Souls is challenging and very hard for different people. And people who say, "Dark Souls is EZ" are frankly just a bit disrespectful of others imo. It's almost a troll thing to say, even if you don't personally find the DS series difficult the general consensus and gamer population agrees that they are though games so mocking the game as easy is just being a dingus.

Souls is easy to beat if that's literally your only goal, there's so many cheap ways to play that don't require looking up videos, posts, or FAQs. If you just play with the mindset that this game will do anything to kill me (which it does) and then turn it around and basically play to do everything to not die, then it's easy as shit. I did that for my initial 3rd or so of DS1 because I heard the game was hard to beat (along with the game doing cheap shit to me). I did Sen's Fortress completely blind and didn't die once, just play careful and pay attention. But to play in a fun way, Souls gets harder...

The problem with Souls is that its progression curve is opposite of what a game is supposed to be. You're not only the most gimped in the beginning but you also just don't know the game. The amount of DPS your character and enemies do basically stays the same throughout the whole game so you die in the same amount of hits you did at the start that you do at the end. With getting more estus flasks as you play means the game gives you more margin for error as you get better, which makes no sense. Sekiro is much much worse in that regard than Souls is. Also, the controls and enemy placement only serve to punish the player for trying to play at a faster pace. The controls and lock-on system are archaic and don't work well outside of 1v1 fights and then From likes to hide enemies in corners and shit to "trap" players into a BS death because the game's controls don't function well enough. An easy difficulty can help players have a better progression curve along with not punishing people for not checking their corners (these games ain't online shooters after all), especially Sekiro at least, which should play a lot faster than it does but it's full of cheap enemy placement as well.

In reality the difficulty modes in games like Devil May Cry, God of War, Halo, etc. Games use difficulty modes, don't actually change anything but the numbers. Either the players or enemies have more or less health, and that's really it.

How long someone must play until they get the "click" will depend on the player and not everyone will have the patience to play until it happens, but how is that the game's fault?

I know most games just alter numbers but you can do more. Even just changing numbers can make a game so much better as there's always that sweet spot of how damage spongy enemies should be and the player has 2+ options to find the sweet spot if the dev fails with normal difficulty (which they usually do). Hell, part of why Uncharted 2 was so much better than the original was due to making the enemies less spongy, which fixed quite of bit of what was wrong like making automatic guns actually better than pistols like it should be. If the player just doesn't like the combat and finds it basically pointless (like I did with Witcher 3), they can lower down as far as possible to make combat basically waste less time to enjoy the actual good parts of the game. Getting back to doing more than just changing numbers. I know the new God of War's highest difficulty changes the way you fight for example. Bayonetta, for example, didn't make enemies spongier (at least not too noticeably), witch time was made less and less of a crutch while enemy aggressiveness was increased. I'm guessing at least some DMCs do stuff like that too as the same guys made them.

Why should From implement a mode for players not willing to spend enough time with the game. Because let's look at things objectively in regards to difficulty adjustments.

1. Health changes

2. Changing enemy behavior

3. Make the player stronger

So players can alleviate some of From's poor game design and controls. Yahtzee literally pointed out the same thing I did about Sekiro, which is how time-wasting it is for you to have to kill all the mooks every time you try to fight quite a few of the mini-bosses (boss are usually completely by themselves). I can kill normal enemies like it's nothing because 1) they ain't tough and 2) you can stealth them so why make me do that over and over again when I just want to fight the actual challenging fight? That's why I literally would quit out the game, redownload my save (after clearing the mooks), and load the game up again because it wasted less time. That's just bad game design to put something in that only serves to waste a player's time. And why even have the player lose money and XP as punishment when it can be farmed (again, we're talking just a time issue). And the game's purses are only there because of the money punishment, thus their only point is to remove the money punishment so why even have it then?

I kinda explained health changes already. For Souls, maybe you should start with a lot of estus flasks and lose them as the game goes on, that would make more sense honestly. Difficulty is really all just increasing/decreasing margin for error and health does that inherently. It's not really hard to change enemy behavior, most spectacle fighters have a taunt move specifically to increase enemy aggressiveness, it's really not hard to do. Also altering the frequency of certain attacks is easy as well or adding some attacks on harder difficulties. Making the player stronger is basically health altering. If you can kill an enemy in 3 hits instead of 4 hits, your margin for error just increased 25%.

 

[CritialGaming]

Amazing, this thread is; fourteen pages of back and forth and nothing really changed.

Point still remains that this all started because some people refuse to accept that a handful of games in this industry could be geared towards a certain kind of experience, and by extension a certain kind of player. Maybe that?s asking for too much.