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 That is sufficient to undermine genre definition and simultaneously allow for a cogent argument to be made that it no longer represents a "video game" as it has lost most of it's interactivity.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.