On Difficulty and the State of Gaming.

[someonehairy-ish]

Dark Souls shouldn't have an easy mode for one simple fact.

Without the challenging, methodical combat, you've got a pointless fuckin' game. The entire reward of beating Dark Souls is knowing that you've managed to master the combat system. Sure, that's not all there is to the game, but deep and challenging combat is core to the game in the same way that the open world is core to Skyrim, or character relationships and empathy is core to the Walking Dead. Without challenge in Dark Souls you've got another B-rated RPG.

Plus anyone who knows the game knows that challenge is pretty much built into the combat system. Making the game easier would require butchering it completely. Imagine Mario if all the holes in the floor were filled in. Hell, you don't even have to imagine. Remember that weird one-off Prince of Persia game? The one where every time you fell off something you just magically got lifted back up? How much did that suck?

It isn't about wanting to be part of an exclusive club, it's about not wanting the game to be shite. Plus there's nothing actually holding anyone back from joining the 'club' in the first place, apart from their own lack of patience.

 

[IronMit]

I don't think it has to be though.

Here's the thing though. When I think Easy mode, I just think something like, "Monsters deal 20% less damage and have 20% less health while the player deals 20% more damage and has 20% more health. Just a modifier like that. I would have them make the game how it should be made, all the unforgiving mechanics and brutal killings. Then the player gets to choose if they get the full experience or an easy mode.

I wouldn't want the devs to change fights, make monsters do different things for the sake of easy. If they do that, then they are changing too much. Pitfalls, traps, and cliffs should stay the same too. It's easy enough to understand, "If you move here, you will die!" And if they can't learn from that, well...

Then you can still keep the player base together, the same rules still apply for fights but it's just more forgiving. I agree in the fact the core game play shouldn't change just for the sake of easy mode. Will just have to see how they end up dealing with it then.

I agree. if they do it the way you say it..then I wouldn't have a problem...but maybe they are planning to do it the other way. Maybe if dark souls fans like me and OP shout loud enough they will do it the way you mentioned.

Hence why it's a good thing annoying threads like these are made. It's why I'm curious that they have not released an easy mode patch for Dark souls yet? You think they would and say 'look, it's not affecting your game!'. it's probably because changing health will just make standalone enemies slightly easier so you rush through it and fall off a cliff because the entire sense of caution is gone..heavily skewing the tone and pacing of the game.

Have you played dark souls btw? you do know half the deaths happen because of level design. 20% and you will still die a plenty. If you want the 20% boost..just farm and upgrade level and armour/weapons. It is an j/rpg after all! it seems a silly option to add that may or may not change level design to make something marginally more accessible

 

[rob_simple]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong...yep, I think that's covered all your points, but for the sake of argument:

1. Learn the game. It's as simple as that, harsh maybe, but true. Dark Souls, to me, was a throw back to the classics, a game you had to learn by trial and error, forcing you to adapt and to play the game smartly in order to progress. That was the point of the game. I honestly can't stress this enough. One of the game's core mechanics was it's difficulty, if you remove that, if the option even exists, it's a detriment to the experience. The tag line is "You're going to die". Doesn't that say it all? I know it's an extreme example, but I don't remember anyone asking for an easy mode for Battletoads or Ghouls & Ghosts. Let's be honest with ourselves, those games were awesome /because/ they pushed us to the max.

That's great that you've got the free time to master every intricacy of a game, but some of us are busy people and we don't want to take a three-week course to learn every subtle nuance of a games combat system or else reload checkpoint every five minutes.

And even if I did have the time, I play games to relax and unwind. That doesn't mean I don't ever want to be challenged, but when I do, that's when I pick the hardest difficulty. When I just want to enjoy a games story or dick around, I'll stick Saints Row 3 on, I'll switch it to easy and have a fucking blast.

2. It cheapens the game and gamers. By even giving gamers the option to make the game easier you're not only cheapening the experience within the game itself, but you're also making gamers reliant on these methods. Many people might think that adding the option of difficulty allows people to adapt their skills in order to play the higher difficulties. While this is true for /some/ I disagree almost all the time. It's my opinion that it actually hinders smart thinking and skill progression because nothing's pushing you to improve. If it's too easy there's nothing to think about.
People might also say that "That's not you're problem. Why do you care if some people play it on the easy setting." That leads to my next point.

Again, not everyone plays video games to test their skills or gain bragging rights, a lot of us just want to enjoy ourselves and there is very little that I would considerable enjoyable about dying for the twentieth time on a boss because I was careless enough to not dodge one attack that sliced off half my health.

Gaming improves reaction time and pattern recognition and that's about it. So if that's all you care about, sell your games and buy Bop It.

3. It does affect me. One of the main points of Jim's video and perhaps many other people is "It doesn't affect you." Well I think it does. I like these games. I like innovation. I like new, unique, varied gameplay. If the concern of the developer (or publisher) is "Well, we need to make it easier for gamers, because last time it was too hard for them." how long is it gonna be before they say something like "Hey do you want to make Dark Souls 3?" "Nah, those games were too hard, remember? We should just make a generic game that everyone can play, it'll be less hassle for us in the long run and we'll make more money." You might be thinking that it'll never happen, but it /is/ happening. I can't help but think that this "pandering to the casuals" is going to break what little innovation the industry has left.

The very fact that there was a sequel to Demon's Souls, Ninja Gaiden etc. should tell you that this is nonsense. But more to the point: since when does difficulty=innovation? I must have missed that meeting. Katamari Damacy is one of the most original games I've ever played, but with the exception of the last few levels the game will barely challenge you. Shadow of the Colossus is an undisputed masterpiece, but the only boss that will give you any real trouble is the last one. Opinions like this really fuck me off, because what you are complaining about is the mainstream video game industry, when the indie market and other cult titles display more innovation, intelligence and beauty than any of these games you hold on a pedestal for being difficult.

4. Older gamers could do it, why can't you? Most games in the classic Megadrive/Snes era were difficult and still are even today. But, we persevered and kept playing them. We completed them (eventually). Imagine if Sega re-released Sonic the Hedgehog and added an easy mode. Yeah, less enemies, less obstacles, less danger, less gameplay action, yeah! That's awesome right? Wouldn't you be horrified to your f****** core? When is it going to stop? When Sonic just runs across a completely flat screen with no enemies? Is that what you want? Huh? Huh?!

I wonder if you realise how ironic it is to call difficult games new and innovative and then go on to talk about how difficult games were, back in the day. Old games were designed to be difficult and frustrating because of their brevity; forcing you to reply the same sections over and over disguised the fact that, played well, the games were about an hour long.

Yes, they were more difficult to complete and it did take more practice but, at the end of the day, what did you achieve by doing so? You proved you were more willing to tolerate defeat than others. Yey, good for you, the rest of us turned the console off and went outside. Even then I disagree with myself because, out of the twenty or thirty Mega Drive games I owned I could complete maybe two of them. Hell to this day I don't think I've ever properly completed Sonic the Hedgehog. But I still love all of those games because I was having fun playing them; it had nothing to do with the difficulty, they were just fun games.

In Max Payne 3, I was playing through the game on normal and having a fucking miserable time because, for whatever reason, I just couldn't get to grips with it and kept dying. Now, you could argue that I could have put the graft in and I probably would have got better as a player. On the other hand, gaming isn't my job, so I don't need to work at it if I don't want to. I switched the difficulty to easy and suddenly I was having a ball.

I could probably go on, but what I'm trying to say is that, to me, this is a complete non-issue. It should never have been brought up in the first place and it should never have even /existed/ as a problem. I'm not saying I'm some kind of super, elite, gaming genius because I can play Dark Souls and you can't, you can too. I died a lot in that damn game (and Demon's Souls), but I learned how to play it and I enjoyed that experience. I felt like I'd accomplished something and honestly, I want more gamers to feel like that. I don't think I'm alone in saying that games have become really stale and almost insultingly easy lately. Experiences like this don't come around very often and attitudes like this hurt the chances of there ever being any more.

Here's a valuable piece of advice: Not everyone is you. Not every one wants games to be the way you do. Now, you could level those same statements at me, but the difference is, despite your idle braying, adding an easy mode to a game does not affect you; not adding it to a game does affect me, because I won't be able to play it.

 

[Judgement101]

Okay, I really don't understand this Dark Souls argument, the game is 100% pattern memorization, in all intesive purposes Dark Souls is Simon with graphics. Like, does anyone honestly need an easy mode? I really do not understand it.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I'm okay with games like Heavy Rain and Uncharted existing for those who want them. Not everything has to be made for me. So why does everything have to be made for everyone else?

Bingo. Simple and to the point. (and totally missing the fact that multiple organic methods of both decreasing and increasing difficulty already exist in Dark Souls as is)

The part I enjoy most is when you compare the Dark Souls difficulty discussion to the tacked on multiplayer discussion.

A developer spending focus, time and money on adding optional easy modes to Dark Souls to broaden it's appeal? Supposedly good, unless you're an elitist masochistic scumbag who's an elitist (so good, you have to say it twice).
A developer spending focus, time and money on addin optional multiplayer modes in beloved game Y to broaden it's appeal? Absolutely terribly awful and repugnant, and if you don't agree you're not a true gamer.

By and large, when speaking of forms of artistic media, it's considered a great thing when specific pieces are focused by the creator on a specific target audience and don't exist to serve everyone. In videogames, however, this for some reason is not the case.. sometimes.

 

[archvile93]

I guess that just means games should try to forge an identity for themselves beyond "it's hard". To be honest, looking back on some of those old games, they weren't really hard, just cheap. Battletoads only got really hard at the biking part, which no human being could ever react to fast enough to do unless you either had clarvoiyance or had played it so much as to perfectly memorize the layout. GaG, made you play through the game twice (seriously) and some of it just came down to blind luck, not player skill. Hope you didn't accidentally pick up the wrong weapons from a dead enemy. You did? Well the game is impossible now. Ha. That has never been good game design, just a throwback to the arcades where they tried to kill you over and over to leech as much money out of you as possible, the same reason extra lives still exist.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Dark Souls shouldn't have an easy mode for one simple fact.

Without the challenging, methodical combat, you've got a pointless fuckin' game. The entire reward of beating Dark Souls is knowing that you've managed to master the combat system. Sure, that's not all there is to the game, but deep and challenging combat is core to the game in the same way that the open world is core to Skyrim, or character relationships and empathy is core to the Walking Dead. Without challenge in Dark Souls you've got another B-rated RPG.

Plus anyone who knows the game knows that challenge is pretty much built into the combat system. Making the game easier would require butchering it completely. Imagine Mario if all the holes in the floor were filled in. Hell, you don't even have to imagine. Remember that weird one-off Prince of Persia game? The one where every time you fell off something you just magically got lifted back up? How much did that suck?

It isn't about wanting to be part of an exclusive club, it's about not wanting the game to be shite. Plus there's nothing actually holding anyone back from joining the 'club' in the first place, apart from their own lack of patience.

I guess Dark Souls is already a pointless fuckin' game then because the game is damn easy. I spent the first areas of Dark Souls learning the riposte as I felt learning that early would have benefits when I got to the harder areas. However, that was not the case as just strafing around enemies for a backstab was an easier and safer way of attacking enemies. I gave up on the riposte because it was just too risky and NEVER did the game force me to use the move against later enemies. All you have to do all game is pull enemies to you one-by-one, then take them out by blocking and using your normal attack, no mastery required at all. The game doesn't even force you to use the power attacks (R2 attacks) either. Bayonetta, on the other hand, made you learn the dodge offset mechanic through the Jeane boss fights and enemies immune to Witch Time. And, Bayonetta had a super easy casual mode too, which didn't ruin the game experience whatsoever.

The problem with the Prince of Persia (2008) wasn't the not dying aspect, it was because the platforming wasn't nearly as good or well designed as the previous games, the traps were weak as shit (they were so slow, it was almost impossible to even get hit by them), and the combat was really bad. Oh, and the puzzles were lame too. I liked everything else about the game though.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

I guess Dark Souls is already a pointless fuckin' game then because the game is damn easy.

Well yeah, once you figure the combat out. But I seriously doubt all you actually did was block and use the weak attack, by virtue of the sheer amount of attacks that can't be blocked, and the situations where you have to fight multiple enemies, and the simple fact that without learning to judge your timing properly you would never have gotten a hit in against some enemies... and then there's the fact that simply strafing to hit things in the back would never work against a half decent invader...

Either you're a weirdly gifted player or you're seriously downplaying the actual learning process involved. Either way, it doesn't really undermine what I was saying.

 

[Happiness Assassin]

Why do people keep saying that games being harder was somehow better? Do you know why games back then were so hard? There are two reasons: the first is that games weren't designed with the player in mind and often had infuriating logic or reasoning to them. The games were often unfair and sometimes unbeatable because the designer didn't think about how the mechanics might affect enjoyment. The second reason was the fact that arcades actively tried to make you fail, so as to spend more cash on them. The reason games like Ghouls'n Ghosts existed was solely to deprive you of your allowance.

As to the OP:

1. If you can't learn the game because you are frustrated, then why even play? Are these kinds of games not meant to be fun or are they meant exclusively for those who have already mastered it?

2. But the thing is, whether or not I beat the game on a lower difficulty has zero impact on you. None. Nada. Zilch. How does me having an easier time than you lower your sense of self worth. Unless you see beating the game as some sort of exclusive club, where you want as few people as possible to attend.

3. A slippery slope argument and barely even worth acknowledgement. Taking an argument to logical (or rather illogical) extremes like that has little to do with your main point and doesn't help your argument in the slightest.

4. The reason gamers played the earlier harder games was because they had no choice, not because they reveled in the challenge. There weren't nearly as many choices for games and kids often had to play whatever game they had or what was at the arcade. Also sometimes they never even put up with it entirely. When I "beat" Ghost and Goblins for the first time and saw that the game just arbitrarily moved the goal posts and essentially discredited everything I did with that shit, I never played it again.

 

[Thereisbearcum]

Alright this will probably sound stupid, and i don't mean to offend anyone, but why do you want to play dark souls if you know you won't succeed at it and have to have an easy difficulty setting added to complete it? The main part of it is the sense of reward you get for learning the moves and counters and finally overcoming a demon that has been killing you for an hour, or working out where the next trap will be in a dungeon. I didn't play it so i could boast about beating it, and i don't think many people did. The difficulty in dark souls is an integral part of the experience, and without the difficulty the game is surprisingly short and the plot lacking. I will admit i was and still am a casual gamer before Dark Souls, but it has broadened my horizons when it comes to difficulty, causing me to start playing more games on harder difficulties where as before i would simply play the easiest setting and not touch anything higher. So in summary if you want a casual experience there are much better rpgs than dark souls, but if you want a difficult yet rewarding experience then Dark souls is a good game. I wouldn't have a problem with an easy mode being implemented, but it is a slippery slope with a company that said they wanted the game to be more like skyrim and more 'accessible'.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

I think Saints Row the third handled the difficulty quite well, because there were cheats for people who wanted shortcuts, but the compromise was that you didn't get achievements/trophies. But then I don't really know how much of a deterent that is for non achievement/trophy whores like myself.

 

[Vault101]

The whole Uncharted series was the same way. I certainly didn't play it for its terrible shooter mechanics or its one-button hallway platforming. I played it for characterization and story; the others seemed to exist solely to sell it as a game, and took away from my enjoyment of the story because they padded the damn thing with the essence of bad itself. It was padded with pure, unadulterated, distilled bad. But at least everyone gets to see just how bad it was!

I think you got ripped off there...

it has less charachterisation/story than a popcorn flick

 

[PeterMerkin69]

I think you got ripped off there...

it has less charachterisation/story than a popcorn flick

I was trying to be charitable, although I do like Nate just a teensy bit. Nate's an affable dudebro.

I still don't know why that soulless Russian cardboard cut-out didn't just use his attack helicopters to fly over the area he knew Shangri-La was hidden. Derpaderp, better waste them on this one guy instead of just flying away and looking down for like ten minutes.

UC2 seriously made me not want to play The Last of Us, and that was going to be my first new console game purchase since... Mass Effect 3, I think.

 

[Vault101]

I think you got ripped off there...

it has less charachterisation/story than a popcorn flick

I was trying to be charitable, although I do like Nate just a teensy bit. Nate's an affable dudebro.

I still don't know why that soulless Russian cardboard cut-out didn't just use his attack helicopters to fly over the area he knew Shangri-La was hidden. Derpaderp, better waste them on this one guy instead of just flying away and looking down for like ten minutes.

UC2 seriously made me not want to play The Last of Us, and that was going to be my first new console game purchase since... Mass Effect 3, I think.

I went into the uncharted series activly trying not to hate Nathan Drake....I now hate nathan drake

and the "drama" is laughable

drake: "everything I do turns to SHIT WAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!"

in UC2 "you have to BELLLLIIIIVVE! DRAKE! BELEEEEEEEEEIIIIIIIIIVE!!" <-belive what? what arre we talking about? the Idea of supernatural forces? don;t tel me drake doesnt belive in that after the events of UC1

russian guy: you and I drake..[b/]*dun dun dun*[/b] are not so different [b/]*dramatic music*[/b] really? could that get anymore cliche? it doesnt even make sense its just a wishy washy load of nothing

don't get me wrong uncharted series had its moments but really it could have been better

 

[Toxic Sniper]

I don't think Dark Souls is impossibly difficult. My 12 year old brother beat it, both the full game and the DLC. He's right now on NG+. There is no password or trick to entering the Dark Souls cool kids' club. You just play the game and enjoy it, and if you're stuck you can try asking for help; the resident "elitists" are only too happy to explain the game systems to those who are new.

Why does Dark Souls need a difficulty option? If you think it's too hard for you, it probably isn't, especially if you summon other players to give you a hand. If you don't like hard games, you can just play one of the many games where one of the core features isn't an uncompromising and unyielding difficulty. Seems like people are asking for something the developers really don't need to waste programming on.

 

[Atmos Duality]

A Dark Souls Rant...of course it is. *sigh*
Using the same fallacious logic others have employed, no less.
Screw it. I've done my arguments on this subject before and had them all ignored out of convenience or misinterpreted.

I'm grabbing my popcorn and just enjoying the show until this boils over, or the moderators lock it.

 

[piinyouri]

Why don't the people whining about wanting an easy game go play something else?

I mean aside from the difficulty and the online features, Dark Souls was just a fairly generic fantasy game. There are tons of games out there filling that 'niche', why not play them instead?

Not quite true.
I'd love to give Dark Souls a go because it has a couple things I like.
A dark, eerie aethetic, action mixed with RPG elements, character customization and great level design.

 

[Mr C]

I love both Souls games. I enjoy the challenge, but would have no issue with an easy mode. I would however, be strongly against a new Souls game pulling a Ninja Gaiden 3 on us.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I guess Dark Souls is already a pointless fuckin' game then because the game is damn easy.

Well yeah, once you figure the combat out. But I seriously doubt all you actually did was block and use the weak attack, by virtue of the sheer amount of attacks that can't be blocked, and the situations where you have to fight multiple enemies, and the simple fact that without learning to judge your timing properly you would never have gotten a hit in against some enemies... and then there's the fact that simply strafing to hit things in the back would never work against a half decent invader...

Either you're a weirdly gifted player or you're seriously downplaying the actual learning process involved. Either way, it doesn't really undermine what I was saying.

I played the thief with just clothes and a light shield, and you could block most boss's attacks just fine, and pretty much all normal enemies.

 

[elvor0]

-snip-

Right. So there's an easy difficulty and a hard difficulty. Easy was added in later, Hard was not touched. People who want to play easy can do so. People who play on hard, can continue to do so, with nothing changed.

Also, most games have achievements for beating the game on a certain difficulty. If someone doesn't complete it on hard, they don't get that achievement.

Now care to tell me what's wrong with that set up? To me this just sounds like it's pointless...no sorry I can't do this politely any more. Stop bitching, you whiny self entitled mong. If there are difficulty settings, then it WILL NOT EFFECT YOU. If the game was nerfed as a whole, yes you'd have an argument, but they didn't, hard mode is still there, easy mode has no effect on it, grow a spine and stop fucking moaning. EASY IS AN OPTION. You do not have to play on it. Your achievement for completing it on hard will still be there to make you feel better, and you can join the rest of the folks in the Dark Souls(or whatever) precious Hard Mode club. Yeah I love sonic, I /love/ me some sonic, and if they bought it out with a easy SETTING, I couldn't care less. Y'know why? Because I'd still have the OPTION to play it on the original fucking difficulty.

And just so this goes in: If lots of difficulty settings are there, people who want the appropriate difficulty will pick them. If someone is playing the game on easy, it will not effect your game that is set to hard. Lots of sales for the game, everyone is happy. If you want to play it on hard, fucking play it on hard. Option. Choice. Setting. Mode. Modifier. You Choose. Pick. Determine. Decide. Assign. Elect. Opt for. See Fit.

Yes I realise I'm repeating myself, but maybe if I say it enough times it'll get through.