Poll: Would you mind if Dark Souls had an easy mode

chadachada123

New member
Jan 17, 2011
2,310
0
0
Colt47 said:
Actually, forget easy mode: can we please have the items needed to unlock areas in the over world and not in the pocket of a smith who charges 20,000 souls? I mean Shao Kahn would cringe at that price.
You actually don't need to buy it. There's another way around.
 

anthony87

New member
Aug 13, 2009
3,727
0
0
chadachada123 said:
Hagi said:
Yes, it would have taken development time away from the game itself.

Easy modes don't magically spring into being. Developers have to spend time designing, implementing and balancing them. All of it time that could have been spend instead on further designing, implementing and balancing the normal mode.

The question isn't if you'd prefer Dark Souls as is plus an easy mode over Dark Souls as is.

The question is if you'd prefer Dark Souls minus a single boss or even entire zone but with an easy mode over Dark Souls as is.

For a game that's about challenge and dying it's not worth sacrificing time that could have been spend developing more content on developing an easy mode.
This gave me an idea.

New Game+ is the same as the first playthrough, except with enemy stats increased, correct? The exact same game, just with less room for error.

Why not take the formula used for New Game+ (and ++, etc), and work BACKWARDS to create an easy version, "New Game-"?

People starting on New Game- are playing just a slightly easier mode that *cannot* transfer to New Game(0) upon completion. Once they beat New Game-, that's it, and they can then choose to start on New Game(0) with a new character or continue playing New Game-.

I think this would be acceptable, so long as this New Game- is indicated to be easy and not what the developers designed the game around. It will essentially be a "tutorial game" to introduce them to combat and the like, a "headstart" of sorts.

Another idea, that I feel can be combined with this one, is to make it so "easy mode" can only be played until midway through the game, after which point your game will disallow further progression. Several old "Nintendo Hard" games from the past did this, and I would find it sickly hilarious to include.
I........I like this idea. I mean I wouldn't play it but it's a good idea all the same, in fact depending on how this hypothetical "New Game -" would work it sounds an awful like what a bunch of people have been saying with regards to less stamina usage, softer hitting enemies etc.

And that midway point idea.....man I fucking hated when the games did that to me as a kid.
 

anthony87

New member
Aug 13, 2009
3,727
0
0
chadachada123 said:
Colt47 said:
Actually, forget easy mode: can we please have the items needed to unlock areas in the over world and not in the pocket of a smith who charges 20,000 souls? I mean Shao Kahn would cringe at that price.
You actually don't need to buy it. There's another way around.
There is but still, dem felines. Bloody hate those things.
 

Grey_Focks

New member
Jan 12, 2010
1,969
0
0
For what seems like the hundredth time, Yes, dammit, I would mind. I'm just getting tired of typing the same argument over and over again, so to sum it up, it would cheapen the experience and detract from the game as a whole. I'm also vehemently against including a pause option.
 

ClockworkUniverse

New member
Nov 15, 2012
235
0
0
Grey_Focks said:
For what seems like the hundredth time, Yes, dammit, I would mind. I'm just getting tired of typing the same argument over and over again, so to sum it up, it would cheapen the experience and detract from the game as a whole. I'm also vehemently against including a pause option.
I am against a pause option, since the inability to pause is a huge part of the whole intimidation factor the game uses to make itself seem more difficult than it is.

On the other hand...well, anything I say is going to turn into a repeat of my last post, but short version, difficulty isn't integral to the game so much as an exaggerated impression of difficulty is.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
viranimus said:
Yes that may be the case, however you have to ask how many of those cases came from changing (and effectively eliminating) the predominant reason for the fanbase to have supported the IP in the first place?

Look at it from a different perspective. What if activision wanted to make call of duty more accessible to those who play fighting games? So what do they do? Remove all of the guns from Call of duty. Regrettably it is kinda like that. To add that easy mode results in effectively killing the IPs defining characteristic in the name of making it more accessible to others, specifically at the expense of those who made the IP successful in the first place and in the process completely changing the IP into something completely different than what the original IP was about.

So my question still stands. What reason is there to justify this? Why would any dev spit in the face of those who made the franchise successful to make it more accessible? That is the question that needs to be answered first. Until the question of "Why?" is answered, there really is no point to even look at "if"
That's an absolutely terrible analogy. Removing guns from Call of Duty and adding a separate tier of difficulty to Dark Souls are not remotely comparable. This concept that adding an "easy mode" breaks the "hard mode" is indefensible. There hasn't been a good argument yet to support how or why this would be the case. People just say it, as though it's fait d'accompli that once an easier mode of difficulty is introduced it's the only one anyone will ever play on. I actually don't even have words to express how confusing I find that reasoning.

And the sad thing is, I'm used to it. I've played MMOs for a long time...and MMOs are by their nature games with a single, fixed difficulty level. So if something changes in an MMO, it changes for everyone. And every time something is changed away from an individual's preference, all fucking hell breaks loose, and there's a long line of people who insist that the Game Is Now Ruined Forever. If it's made harder, or if raids are added, more casual gamers can't say enough about elitism and how their game is spoiled (witness the outcry over ascended items in GW2). If loot is made easier to get, or casual players are given options so they don't HAVE to poopsock with 25 other shut-ins, the 'hardcore' lobby whines and screams about "welfare epics" and predicts the imminent doom of the franchise. It's fucking exhausting. I guess Dark Souls is, in some ways, sort of an MMO lite, so I'm not surprised to see the same moronic attitude crop up here, but I can't say it doesn't tire me out.

Let me guess...the presumption here is that if the game is made easier on ANY level, everyone will just gravitate towards the easy setting, and not "work for their fun". Which naturally begs the question "if everyone would ditch 'hard' mode at first opportunity, that doesn't say much good about 'hard' mode, now does it?". Except that's not what would happen. People who like a hard game would play it on the hard setting, and people who like an easy game would play it on the easy setting, and everyone would win...most particularly FROM, because more people would be buying their fucking game. Except maybe a few dipshits who felt "betrayed" at the existence of options, and those people should probably be saving their money for psychiatric counseling.

The original XCOM was a really hard game. A notoriously hard game. A real ball breaker. The new XCOM has an easy mode. I preferred to start on Classic, and move into Impossible. Playing on Normal or Easy never occurred to me. For me, that's not what XCOM is. Too much tension is lost. You know what I didn't do? I didn't insist those difficulty levels were removed to preserve my idea of "what the game is about". I just played on the difficulty level that suited me and had the experience I preferred. Imagine that.

This entire debate is fucking ridiculous. I don't know if you guys actually believe some of the things coming out of your mouths, or if you're just hard-wired to argue because this is the internet. I don't even CARE if Dark Souls 2 has an easy mode, it makes no difference to me whatsoever. I like hard games. But I swear to god, listening to some of this horseshit is literally making my head ache.

I'm sorry if I'm going off on you in particular, but...good fucking god. This is just stupefying to me. It's like arguing with people who keep insisting up is down and black is white. It's one thing to argue from a place of emotion but I seldom see rationality go straight out the window like this.

Grey_Focks said:
For what seems like the hundredth time, Yes, dammit, I would mind. I'm just getting tired of typing the same argument over and over again, so to sum it up, it would cheapen the experience and detract from the game as a whole. I'm also vehemently against including a pause option.
Cheapen the experience. That you wouldn't be having. Because you didn't select the easy mode.

That's incredible.
 

Exius Xavarus

Casually hardcore. :}
May 19, 2010
2,064
0
0
Grey_Focks said:
For what seems like the hundredth time, Yes, dammit, I would mind. I'm just getting tired of typing the same argument over and over again, so to sum it up, it would cheapen the experience and detract from the game as a whole. I'm also vehemently against including a pause option.
I fail to see why it would "cheapen the experience and detract from the game as a whole" when you don't have to choose Easy Mode.

Also, adding a pause button would be simple. When you pause, simply stop the game. No menus, no changing gear, none of that nonsense. Old games did it. They dimmed the screen and put PAUSE in the center of the screen, or just dimmed it. I cannot for the life of me understand why newer games can't do this. And when the game's paused simply flag that player as offline or unable to be invaded for the duration of the pause, and unflag them when they unpause. They can even disable the pause function entirely while you're being invaded.
 

deathzero021

New member
Feb 3, 2012
335
0
0
i don't care. i would never use it so it doesn't effect me at all. i'm not sure who plays games on easy but i have never played a game on easy and never will. i find easy games to be boring but maybe that's just my oldschool habits.
 

viranimus

Thread killer
Nov 20, 2009
4,952
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
I'm sorry if I'm going off on you in particular, but...good fucking god. This is just stupefying to me. It's like arguing with people who keep insisting up is down and black is white. It's one thing to argue from a place of emotion but I seldom see rationality go straight out the window like this.
First off.... Dont feel bad for going off on me. I am not looking at it as such. Im a big boy, I can certainly take it. You wont hurt my feelings, and I see nothing wrong with being passionately firm in your position. more power to you.

That's an absolutely terrible analogy. Removing guns from Call of Duty and adding a separate tier of difficulty to Dark Souls are not remotely comparable. This concept that adding an "easy mode" breaks the "hard mode" is indefensible. There hasn't been a good argument yet to support how or why this would be the case. People just say it, as though it's fait d'accompli that once an easier mode of difficulty is introduced it's the only one anyone will ever play on. I actually don't even have words to express how confusing I find that reasoning.
I fully disagree. It is the PERFECT analogy. It is fundamentally changing a defining characteristics of the game. I fail to see how that is not comparable.

Now the problem is not that a good reason has not been provided, its that those who are defending easy mode are dismissing the reasons. Now, much as I had said in my first post in this thread, I do not feel compelled to get dragged down into expressing those reasoning. I have done it before, others have done it. To do so is redundant. We know the reasons. Those who dismiss those reasons are going to do so, but it still does not change the fact that I and others like me who paid money for souls, Pre ordered Dark Souls, bought multiple copies of DS, and helped make the souls franchise what it is will feel diminished enjoyment out of a souls installment with easy mode. If it is beyond your words to understand, then why not accept that there are those who DO feel that way and tolerate their position.

Look at it this way, If there is an easy mode added, it WILL upset people. This is not in question because look at what even the mere mention of it has already wrought. Whereas if there is none added, it really hurts no one. There are still dozens of great Action RPG choices for people to chose from.

For a forum that is supposed to be exceedingly tolerant of peoples points of view, it seems irrational to dismiss peoples reasoning as so invalid that they are considered to not even exist. We as a community would not rail on homosexuals for "liking what they like" or demand they provide evidence that proves their opinion correct. So why is it that this one niche group catches so much flack and is considered unreasonable, childish, elitist, incomprehensible, defying reason, etc?

Now... I would try to correct your thinking on this. It is NOT that everyone will by default gravitate to easy mode. That has nothing to do with it.(Personally I would point to the fact that there is nothing to stop someone from blasting through Easy mode to "learn" the trial and error in prep for a "normal" run, but thats mere speculation and just a personal point, not a part of the argument) The reason WHY Souls has sold as many copies as it has, is specifically BECAUSE of the difficulty. That manifests in both the actual gameplay itself, as well as the immersion of the game. There is no getting around that fact. That foreboding and intimidating world that warns the player to "abandon all hope, ye who enter here".

If it were not for the initial barrier of entry, Souls would be just another mediocre Action RPG. We as gamers specifically rewarded From Software, Altus, Namco Bandi specifically BECAUSE of the challenge of the game, and its barrier to entry. To create that dangerous and ominous world. There is no way for an easy mode to be added that does not come at the expense of those who helped to build this franchise. By removing that barrier of entry, you have in effect removed a fundamental characteristic of the IP. It does not matter of the hard core would ever use it or not. Simply by removing that barrier, one of the foremost reasons people plunked down the money as a show of support to this developer has been taken away and in the process eliminated any sense of intimidation it might have once held.

It is a fundamental change away from what supporters supported. To have that IP be so fundamentally altered in a negative way toward the original supporters cannot and should not be tolerated.

Again, you personally might not see it as being that grievous of a slight, but to those of us who have invested not only money, but extensive amounts of time (For example my Demons file was ((before being forcibly deleted by my PS3 in order to even play dark no less)) 300+ hours logged and Dark is over 500) we DO.

Which is specifically why I keep asking the question of "Why" For every fable, Gothic, Dragon Age, Dragons dogma, Amalur, Risen, Nier, Diablo, Torchlight,Ego Dragonis, Dungeon Siege, TES, Fallout, etc etc ect ad nauseum...Why when there are so many great options for players to choose from that fully accommodate that need for an easy mode, why must this one franchise, the only one fully serving this long neglected niche, be diminished for accessibility? Why is it so distressing the idea that some games are simply not for everyone? Why is it we cannot allow gaming to try to fit niche markets in this manner and MUST have everything be accessible and simplified for everyone?

Honestly that rationale reminds me of why I stayed in so much trouble in school, skipping class, mouthing off to teachers, doing my homework but not turning it in, Purposely writing my assignments in print so tiny it was almost un readable, failing grades and why it wasnt until a teacher decided to vouch for me to be put into advance placement classes that I actually showed up for class and did a little work. I was bored and unchallenged and found ways of entertaining myself. Once challenged (even though it still wasnt) It was almost a 180. When there is a group that is getting bored and angsty, why must they continually be slowed down in order for the rest of the class to keep up?

For the notion that those against easy mode have not provided "sufficient" answer as to "how it hurts them", those in favor of it have yet to even offer an answer to the far more important question of "Why" That question needs to be answered first because if you refuse to accept why, you wont care how.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
viranimus said:
For the notion that those against easy mode have not provided "sufficient" answer as to "how it hurts them", those in favor of it have yet to even offer an answer to the far more important question of "Why" That question needs to be answered first because if you refuse to accept why, you wont care how.
The reasons "why" have been provided.

1. It opens the IP to a wider audience.
2. It gives From an opportunity to see more profit as a result of that wider audience.
3. "Difficulty" is subjective.

The reasons "why not" that have been given boils down to:

1. Even though I would never play an easy mode, the mere fact that unwashed hordes of sub-leet plebs are enjoying my game on their own terms destroys whatever pleasure I took in it.

I can ALMOST understand an argument that the franchise would lose it's "hardcore" reputation by allowing disgusting casuals to put their dirty little mitts all over it, but I honestly don't see a precedent for that. At all. And honestly, the reputation of the game means absolutely nothing to me. All I care about is the enjoyment I get out of it, which is not damaged in the slightest by others playing it at an easier difficulty.

I guess at the end of the day, you and I are on opposite sides of an enormous gulf. What other people are doing with copies of a game appears to matter to you, and it does not matter to me at all. I'd LIKE to understand your position, just so it wouldn't confuse me so much, but I'm having a hard time getting there.

PS - The analogy is still a failure, as is the homosexual analogy (and we're wandering REALLY far afield with that one). You keep wanting to draw this analogue between tangibly taking something away (guns from COD, freedom from homosexuals), and intangibly taking something away (some...je ne sais quoi that Dark Souls can only possess if it has one fixed difficulty level). If you can make a cogent, rational argument why the existence of an easy difficulty level makes the hard difficulty level somehow less enjoyable beyond "because me and other people think it does", then you can have those analogies. But you know that you can't. This is not a rational defense. This is an emotional defense. Dark Souls gives you a certain FEELING, and you're scared that an easy mode would diminish that FEELING, and there isn't really any rational reason why it should, you just feel that it does. And that's fine! I don't really hold that against you. But that FEELING comes up from time to time in other discussions, and it's almost always born of a desire to feel like you belong to a special little club that others aren't allowed into. Which is where the accusations of elitism are coming from. And I realize that's a dirty word, and you're clearly defensive about it, but it's difficult to find a different way to characterize "Pish...this game isn't FOR you. It's for us special folks, and should remain forever thus".

PPS - Advanced placement classes in school? You're still flying that flag? Weren't we all in advanced placement classes in school? Mine were a joke. Maybe it's different now, I don't know. Every "gifted" individual I know has grown up to be just as fucked up, neurotic, and hopeless as their fellows. Including me. You don't enjoy hard games because you're super intelligent and gifted, dude. You enjoy hard games because you enjoy hard games. It's a personal preference, not a sign of genetic superiority.
 

Hiroshi Mishima

New member
Sep 25, 2008
407
0
0
Challenge is not everything. You can have a game still be an experience without trying to curb stomp the player throughout the entire game. Why purposefully shut out anyone who may be interested by having such an elitist way of thinking? "If you don't play it on Ultra Hard, you don't deserve to play it!"

I think a lot of games are great, but you know when I enjoy them most? When I'm not fucking dying all the time. If a game doesn't have an easy mode - or if it does and is a jerk about it by hiding content behind Normal/Hard Mode - I'll just fire up a cheat device and make my OWN easy mode.

When I come across a game that tries so hard to say, "if you're not perfect, go home", that's exactly what I feel like doing. Not buying it, not supporting it, and never giving it a second thought. That's a great way to make a series iconic and memorable, eh? Let's block out a massive chunk of the potential player base?

Saying Easy Mode will destroy the experience or wreck the challenge is pure arrogance.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Stop.

Making.

This.

Thread.

If this thread and gun-control threads were in a whirlpool, and you could only save one...

OT: Why bother? The entire point and draw of the game is its insane difficulty (and the various asshats who then trumpet how "it's not that hard"). If you add easy mode, you then have Dark Souls and... something else. It's like adding Big Head Mode to "The Path", or adding optional sewer and skydiving missions to XCOM, or adding unlockable shoes to Team Fortress 2... it's just not how its supposed to be.
 

ClockworkUniverse

New member
Nov 15, 2012
235
0
0
lacktheknack said:
(and the various asshats who then trumpet how "it's not that hard")
Okay, as someone who says that the game's difficulty is exaggerated, I do feel the need to defend myself. While I do think the game can be very difficult for a first-timer, I feel that that's more because of the terrible tutorial than because of anything inherent to the overall design.
 

Exius Xavarus

Casually hardcore. :}
May 19, 2010
2,064
0
0
lacktheknack said:
(and the various asshats who then trumpet how "it's not that hard")
It's really not that hard. While Dark Souls isn't exactly easy, per se, the difficulty of this game is greatly exaggerated. What people mistake for difficulty is a lack of explanation on every mechanic in the game, as if they're incapable of figuring things out themselves.

Sure there are some asshat doucheknob bosses such as the Crapra Demon, but I fail to see how our stance on how the game's difficulty is disproportionately blown way the hell up, makes us into asshats about it.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Exius Xavarus said:
lacktheknack said:
(and the various asshats who then trumpet how "it's not that hard")
It's really not that hard. While Dark Souls isn't exactly easy, per se, the difficulty of this game is greatly exaggerated. What people mistake for difficulty is a lack of explanation on every mechanic in the game, as if they're incapable of figuring things out themselves.

Sure there are some asshat doucheknob bosses such as the Crapra Demon, but I fail to see how our stance on how the game's difficulty is disproportionately blown way the hell up, makes us into asshats about it.
Well, your tone isn't helping. But the main thing that asshats do is brush off other players' comments because "they're incapable", and refuse to entertain the notion that maybe "knowing how" isn't quite the same thing as "easy to pull off".

I'm not saying you're an asshat, unless you're an asshat about it. Are you an asshat about the subject? If not, then don't worry about what I say.
 

viranimus

Thread killer
Nov 20, 2009
4,952
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Choppa Chop
OK. Segmenting for easier digestion. Apologies in advance for the incoming thesis. I totally blame math, micro biology and anatomy and not having an "essay" class this semester. Sorry.

1: Wider assumes that the existing fanbase will remain. Given the outcry over it, it seems fairly safe to say that wont occur. To appeal to the larger mainstream audience will only come AT THE EXPENSE of the original fanbase.

2: If a company willingly rejects their fanbase to "trade up" trying to reach a "larger audience" SHOULD they be rewarded for that type of loyalty to their customers? Simple fact is that if From wanted to "reach" that audience, there is absolutely nothing that states they cannot create a new IP with the same base mechanics to appeal to that audience. As one and two are directly linked neither of those are reasonable or rational reasons why this specific IP needs an easy mode as that can be obtained by other games, from other companies, and even give From an opportunity to widen their base with a completely new IP that they can run concurrent with Souls.

3: While you are correct in this, as is life itself, everything is subjective. However, Just because someone finds it too difficult is not a reason to make it easier. Imagine all the things in this world we are all thankful that degree of difficulty is NOT reduced to accommodate on. Drivers licensing tests, Medical training, Scientific inquiry, etc This is in fact the root of the question "Why"? If there are people who find it TOO difficult, WHY should the franchise bend to THEIR whims?

I do take blame for this being left unanswered because I failed make it concise in attempt to be more eloquent. I guess I just made it more confusing, but I will try to correct that.

The question is still Why, but the context is required. Why should this IP be modified when there are ample choices to fill the desire for EM, Yet there is no effective alternative otherwise? Why should From be willing to stomp on their fanbase to try to "trade up" when if they really wanted to cash in, they could simply make a completely new IP from the Souls frame work to accommodate the EM crowd? Why do people get this upset that a game exists that is purposely beyond the abilities of some? Why must this neglected niche of old school gamers who had been dying for this type of experience (quite literally for well over a decade in some cases) be forced to have this glimmer of hope taken away and watered down to be a carbon copy of everything else?

Why should this game have to change what it is, who it is for at the expense of those who made it successful to accommodate those who the game is not designed for when the resulting accommodation would not give them what they want and the rest of the industry is ready willing and able to meet that need? Those are the whys that need to be addressed and are being ignored.

Now I do commend you for putting forth the effort to try and answer why, where others have not. I would like to think you are keeping an open mind in regards to this, but the way you turn the rest of that post around is really painting a different picture making it really hard to believe that.

First, there are multiple reasons for NO EM, yet your going to not only try to reduce it down to one single reason, but you are going to misconstrue that reason in an insulting fashion? (as I said, you arent hurting my feelings, but it bears pointing out)Just in the first sentence alone, there are 5 different points of insulting context. This is exactly what I pointed to earlier. Purposely dismissing and ignoring reasons because you personally do not agree or feel the same. If you want to alleviate the confusion it exists in only one place, your placing your own values and opinions ahead of others. You personally do not care if a developer adds an extra feature to the game, so you think others who would are being unreasonable for doing so. So it does not matter WHAT justification they give, you dont see it as valid, because YOU dont care personally. If I am mistaken my apologies however, There is the confusion because that is what has been conveyed thus far. And actually It is a fairly normal thing for humans to do. We all have done it at some point or another, but that is what this is.

You might think to try and turn it around, but the simple fact is, I would not have the first problem with an Easy mode being added, IF there was an abundance of games in the market that filled the niche Souls fills, or if the development of the game was not specifically built around catering to that niche demographic.

(Or even if EM only consisted of say 1/4th the games total content and did like old school games did and requires you to play through at least normal difficulty to "complete" the game and see the ending, complete with the "youve done well, now try it for real" type message for completing easy mode.)

But please understand that this argument your presenting is riddled with misconception and incorrect assumption. I, and from what I have seen in these threads the others who are adamantly against EM have not once said the reason for not wanting an EM has ANYTHING in the world to do with any other player, or even groups of other players. To try to portray the NO EM argument as it being nothing more that elites waving their epeen over the "unwashed hordes of Sub-leet plebs" and "disgusting casuals" as a sign of their glorious "genetic superiority". That is so wrong that if it werent so comical it would be pretty insulting.(as I said, you wont hurt my feelings, and no one can move my demeanor, least not online, Just pointing it out and calling it what it is.) The fact that you would suggest such a thing illustrates despite having access to this and other threads that have given the NO EM position, you have failed to understand it entirely almost as if translating a foreign language. What you stated has nothing to do with and is not even equipped as response to the NO EM position. It is almost like expressing the position on the issue of sexism is Sanka.

Ill put it like this, because I have said this before. I do not give a flying fuck who plays a Souls game. In fact I DO want more people to play Souls. I recommend it all the time to anyone who would listen. But I do not want the IP crippled and bent to their respective ability, I want them to rise to its challenges and find their ways to overcome them. Hell thats almost always the reason I recommend it in the first place. I see someone who NEEDS the challenges and experiences souls games provide. Hell its more than just the game, its more than the experience, even the lessons it can teach you that are applicable in game and out. Patience, persistence, picking your battles, adaptive situational awareness, etc etc etc.

These are the points of the game. These are some of the reasons why the game exists, why the old school crowd gravitated and helped perpetuate the franchise. Its about personal pride, not sense of superiority. I know that it might be lost on the younger generation with the way the modern education system and parents are raising them with the conflicted notion that they are special and unique, but everyone must be perfectly equal, but there is nothing wrong with feeling pride in what you are able to do. When you really had to work to do it, it makes it all the sweeter and will likely push you to see what else you can do.

To add EM to a souls game would only deprive those who would play EM in a souls game from feeling that feeling. They would not get the lesson that with persistence you can prevail, and would not be challenged to see how far they can push themselves. Make no mistake, If EM is added, those who would play EM, arent playing a souls game. If those players are not getting the souls experience, then what was the point of watering down the game to make it more accessible? In a game built around being challenging, making it accessible is counter productive.

Now, Im sorry, both analogies are dead on. You point to "tangibly" taking something away, yet you point to freedom, when that is far from tangible. However, with the COD analogy, tangibility is moot, because the point of the analogy was to illustrate removing a fundamental element of the game. It would not matter if that element was sound effects, brown/gray textures or a functional menu system. The sense and immersion of the world of Souls games is every bit as fundamental as a gun is to a first person shooter. Just look at the rabid fanbase The Elder Scrolls has, who will without hesitation tell you "Its the world" when questioned about the bugs, or weak combat, or any of the other criticisms about TES that ritually come up.

The homosexual analogy is dead on as well. Look at this thread and some of the handful of others this has came up in. Look at how quick the Pro EM side is to dismiss, ignore opposing viewpoints and retort with insult and ridicule. Words like epeen, elitist, whining, and everything else that has been said. If anyone were to respond in such a manner about a homosexual on this forum expressing their opinions about their sexuality, the ban hammers would be flying six ways from Sunday. While there is a world of difference between someones taste in sex and their taste in games, the point of stating that isnt to draw comparisons to sexuality and souls, but to illustrate similar behavior in expressing opposition to them. Pointing specifically to the manner in which people tolerate and in this case being intolerant to opposing viewpoints.

Alright, you want that cogent rational argument why the existence of an easy mode makes it less enjoyable? It destroys any possibility for immersion. The mere existence of an optional, easier means to accomplish any difficulty eliminates any threat it can impose. I cannot help but be reminded of the episode of StarTrek TNG: "The quality of life"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocomp
(Bloody hell Youtube, why couldnt you have the clip I wanted for this?)

In which Data defends the life of mini robotic tools called Exocomps that he feel exhibit some form of sentience. He comes to this conclusion because when faced with an artificial "threat" the robots proceeded with their work, but when presented with a clear and present threat, they exhibited self preservation. The comparison is very close to this situation. Knowing a threat, is not a threat prevents it from being scary. Simply knowing of the existence of easy mode acts as an ever present reminder that no matter how hard normal mode might get, what may block your progression may likely be achievable with easy mode.

Knowing that makes it impossible to become fully immersed in the world because the threats the world present, even to those playing normal, no matter how hard it becomes you know that if the going gets rough you can make it easier on yourself with a simple reroll. Knowing that not only eliminates the immersion of being in that perilous world, it will actively alter not only your play style, but your experience in interacting with various NPCs. The ever present tension is gone. The ache when it feels like you are going to break your shield trigger button you are jamming it down so hard so as to not let it slip for a fraction of a second, Simply knowing that if you want all you have to do is speed run through easy mode to "learn" everything normal mode is going to throw at you so you can prepare accordingly instead of learning through trial and error. If people cannot accept that the difficulty IS a reason people choose to play this specific game and thus a rational argument against EM, there is no way that people playing for immersion in a world that IS broken specifically by the existence of an easy way out cannot be argued.

While immersion, challenge, and sense of accomplishment might well all be "feelings" as you put it, the simple fact is these are tangible reasons FOR putting forth physical cash, and making the specific choice for this IP and playing the game in the first place. They make physical real world actions to express a choice through a desire to gain these sensations from that experience. It might be rooted in feeling, but the reasoning is every bit as tangible as why some people play Halo, while others play the Sims. What other franchise sees a player generated call to fundamentally change what a game is at its foundation like this, and actually be taken seriously?

Now in this argument between these various threads I have seen a LOT of commonalities. As I mentioned before the way that the Pro EM side tries to portray the NO EM side as elitist,( I keep bringing it up because the pro side has almost utilized it like its go to argument) whining crybabies afraid of others being able to do what they can do because it reduces their ability to "feel like they belong to a special little club" Yet this also represents the off kilter dichotomy of this argument. Those who are trying to defend saving Souls from EM, have to try to explain their position whilst enduring Ad hominem left and right while trying avoiding making the equally easy Ad hominem assertion that those defending EM come off as jilted gamers whining and crying not out of concern for "widening the base" but simply out of either spiteful jealousy they find themselves unable to do it without EM, or out of resentful sense of inferiority that the games difficulty shines on their hobby. Yet we really only see one side go this route and its specifically because the pro EM side has had no qualms to jump on that horse out the gate. Specifically because of these Ad hominem assertions, it falls on the NO EM side to have to take the high road and avoid making such ridiculous attacks simply so as to not justify the Pros claims.

Look, pointing to advance placement in school is not a "flag" I have ever flown. I pointed to this because its actually a fairly common reoccurring trope that many people would be able to easily identify with. How on earth you tried to craft it into some declaration of superiority is beyond me. None the less it is still you imposing your personal perception on my point, and in the process missing the point all together.

Now I spoke earlier of commonalities in this argument. One that I personally have noticed from the pro EM side is "I dont understand". That is OK. You might not agree with it, You might not get how or why anyone would rationalize not having more options. It might seem counter intuitive to you to allow something to be exclusionary for whatever reason it is. You are not alone in that feeling, and it seems that notion IS in fact a common perspective to have. However, much like I tried (and admittedly didnt do so well) drawing a comparison to homosexuals on this forum, You do not have to understand it. You may even think its wrong. But just because its not logical for you personally does not mean it is not something that is perfectly logical for others. If it was just one or two people saying it, you might be right to dismiss them as self centered whining elitist crybabies who cant stand the idea of others having fun with the same toys. However we all know this isn't just one or two people. We see that this is a consistently reoccurring position. In all honesty the numbers have to be fairly close between pro and con for this topic to keep coming up like this to annoy the ever loving shit out of the community. So if you do not see the reasoning in it, accept that it does not seem logical for you, but understand that with this many people in direct opposition that it does seem more than logical for them. It is something they feel strongly about and wish to defend. Accept that they have came to their position through their own process of reasoning no differently than those of the Pro side came to theirs. It might not be a big deal to you, but to others, it clearly is and simply respect that difference of opinion and tolerate the notion that some people in fact reasonably do not want EM, even if their logic for such eludes you as to why.


Now I do sense you are at least trying to see the opposing position at times, but reducing opposition down to what you see as one irrelevant point is not going to give you any clarity to this side of the argument. Narrowing vision wont help to see the bigger picture. I am open to continuing discussing this rationally and logically, but not if it continues to degrade. Id rather agree to disagree and quit annoying the community with continuing this discussion if it is only going to result in spinning wheels. I mean I could easily go on, but would I really need to say anything more? I think ive already inadvertently killed a few hours here as is.

Anyway, respond if you wish, but I am done for the night/morning. Cheers!
 

Clive Howlitzer

New member
Jan 27, 2011
2,783
0
0
Seeing as how Dark Souls isn't hard to begin with, I am not sure how adding an easier mode would be a big deal. More options is usually a good thing. It wouldn't even take much, just add a mode where enemies deal less damage and you do more, problem solved.
Of course, it would splinter online interaction since you couldn't have them interacting with the other ones, unless you specifically informed them that PvP numbers were the same. So you'd still get ass raped in PvP.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
I have two thoughts. First, I don't particularly like the game so my opinion is simply that they can do what they want. The second is the only thing the game has to pad it out is the difficulty. Were it not for the dozens if not hundreds of deaths as you try to figure things out via trial and error, all you have left is a shallow set of combat mechanics, a dull aesthetic, and a dull as dishwater world to explore.

So, I suppose my answer is that the game probably shouldn't have an easy mode - in order to make the easy version entertaining, you'd more or less have to make a completely different kind of game. Regardless of my own tastes, I can recognize at least some portion of the people who evangelize the game actually enjoy it and I don't begrudge them that.

Still, ignoring everything else, there is no particular reason to not include the easy mode without any changes to core game play. Adding a few multipliers to certain things would be more than sufficient to reduce the game's challenge curve to a trivial level. Yes, that mode would be objective terrible but given such a thing could be implemented via a trivial effort why not?
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
viranimus said:
I fully disagree. It is the PERFECT analogy. It is fundamentally changing a defining characteristics of the game. I fail to see how that is not comparable.
It really isn't a clear cut analogy like that. If you remove the guns from CoD, you remove the player's basic capacity to interact with the world leaving them with nothing more than the ability to navigate a space. That is sufficient to undermine genre definition and simultaneously allow for a cogent argument to be made that it no longer represents a "video game" as it has lost most of it's interactivity.

By contrast, making Dark Souls dramatically easier is a trivial affair that can be achieved by inclusion of multipliers of greater than 1.0 on any attack the player makes and a multiplier of less than 1.0 on any attack made against them. Doing so would not violate genre definition and the status of Dark Souls as a video game remains firm. While that exact process would result in a game that is terrible is likely true, the difference becomes that difficulty is not a fundamental requirement of the game; merely the only part of the game that makes it worth playing.


viranimus said:
Look at it this way, If there is an easy mode added, it WILL upset people.
People being upset is of little concern when there remains that all important question. If dark souls were released with an easy mode that one need not ever play or consider with every other aspect of the game remaining intact if you chose to play on normal, why does the existence of that mode diminish your joy?

The answer, it would seem, is hard to come by likely because it forces people to admit an uncomfortable truth. If the mode is option, if that mode does nothing to undermine the core game you love, if something that trivial actually upsets you, the most probable reason is that you've used your mastery of this difficult thing as some sort of yard stick of self worth.


viranimus said:
This is not in question because look at what even the mere mention of it has already wrought. Whereas if there is none added, it really hurts no one. There are still dozens of great Action RPG choices for people to chose from.
Why is it you raise a point wherein we consider the anguish of a current fan and then, in the next breath you dismiss a similar reaction from the other side?

There are people who will, for whatever, reason, be upset if the game has an easy mode. Simultaneously, there are people who will, for whatever reason, be upset if the game does not have an easy mode. With nothing at stake for the anti-easy mode team, it seems strange you should ask me to side with them. Especially given that the requested inclusion is likely to result in a game they want to play anyhow.

viranimus said:
If it were not for the initial barrier of entry, Souls would be just another mediocre Action RPG. We as gamers specifically rewarded From Software, Altus, Namco Bandi specifically BECAUSE of the challenge of the game, and its barrier to entry.
But, again, the argument simply does not hold. I'd even go so far as to agree that the difficulty is more or less what that game has going for it - it isn't the mechanics, art, plot or pacing. While I'm not privy to the workings of what's under the hood, it seems fairly clear to me that the game's difficulty is easily trivialized through what ought to be the addition of a few dozen lines of code and a few if statements. Thus the resources necessary to make this change a trivial, and the mode people love remains intact.

When just short of nothing is required to make this change from a technical standpoint (and I'm going to ignore considerations of cost involved in submitting such a patch through required QA and the like because, while important, they have nothing to do with player reaction for or against such a change), when the things you like about the game remain intact, why throw a fit? You lose nothing in the exchange.

viranimus said:
There is no way for an easy mode to be added that does not come at the expense of those who helped to build this franchise. By removing that barrier of entry, you have in effect removed a fundamental characteristic of the IP.
I will fully agree that without the difficulty, if no mechanics were altered and the simplest attempt at lowering the difficulty curve were made, the game delivered would not be good. To make a Dark Souls that is both significantly easier while simultaneously having some sort of appeal would require making a completely different game.

But, then, the people asking for an easy mode aren't asking for that latter object. They want dark souls - just an easier version, something I've provided a road map that asks as little as possible from everyone involved. They didn't ask for a game that is easier while still having some measure of fun - that game exists already (Kingdoms of Amalur for example).

viranimus said:
It is a fundamental change away from what supporters supported. To have that IP be so fundamentally altered in a negative way toward the original supporters cannot and should not be tolerated.
The original supporters managed to sell about 3 million copies of the game. The idea that they can get more people the next time around is a perfectly good reason to make a completely different sort of game. The developer doesn't inherently owe the fanbase anything based on past products just as the fanbase doesn't inherently owe the developer any sort of loyalty based on a past work.

viranimus said:
Which is specifically why I keep asking the question of "Why" For every fable, Gothic, Dragon Age, Dragons dogma, Amalur, Risen, Nier, Diablo, Torchlight,Ego Dragonis, Dungeon Siege, TES, Fallout, etc etc ect ad nauseum...Why when there are so many great options for players to choose from that fully accommodate that need for an easy mode, why must this one franchise, the only one fully serving this long neglected niche, be diminished for accessibility?
Because the asked for change does nothing to diminish the game unless your enjoyment is predicated upon using your success at the game as a yardstick for greater success in life. They didn't ask for an Easy Dark Souls - they asked for an easy mode.

The real question is this: if the made a game that is functionally Dark Souls in all respects save difficulty and then sold it under a different name, is that an improvement? The legacy of Dark Souls remains unblemished with such a scheme and it offers a way to charge a whole new audience.


viranimus said:
Why is it so distressing the idea that some games are simply not for everyone?
Why is it distressing that people want to be included?

viranimus said:
For the notion that those against easy mode have not provided "sufficient" answer as to "how it hurts them", those in favor of it have yet to even offer an answer to the far more important question of "Why" That question needs to be answered first because if you refuse to accept why, you wont care how.
I wouldn't want an easy mode for Dark Souls - as I've said, if you take that step without taking a thousand others you still wouldn't end up with a game I want to play. I never thought of Dark Souls as hard - it was just a time sink.

As for why someone might want the easy mode, well it is simple enough - the game in it's current state is a time sink and they feel they'd be more inclined to play the game if that aspect were to diminish.