Why Easy Games Fail Yahtzee's Game Theory

[gadjo]

See, now my problem is that Dark Souls isn't important- and it certainly doesn't represent anything new. In order to provide the lofty challenge adult gamers got used to when they were kids, it was purposely designed like an old, archaic NES game. Think about it, lack of instruction, or purposeful orientation (oh, you wanna go into the graveyard first because you figure that skeletons have got to be the most piss-weak enemies in the game? Have fun with that.), useful items (such as the drake sword) that would be almost impossible to find accidentally, and game lengthening tactics such as forcing you to start from the bonfire after losing to a boss, rather than getting to attempt it again immediately- these are all hallmarks of older games. I see these traits as quite a bit like old movie techniques. Is it understandable why these traits might be somewhat endearing? yes, but that does not make them superior to newer techniques, snappier direction, and more well explained mechanics.
While I would be the last person to defend games like modern warfare, notice that another developer, namely valve, has created some of the most critically acclaimed games of all time, and almost all of them make sure to never kill the player unfairly. The player should fail due to their own mistakes, not because this is their first run through this area and there is practically no indication that crossing that bridge will cause puff the magic jackass to light them on fire. Is it possible to survive a half-life 2 without dying? Absolutely. If you pay attention, the situation always has some sort of foreseeable solution. Is it possible to survive Dark Souls without dying? Unless you have perfect reflexes and your name is Professor X, then hell no. It feels more like I was a clever person when I was able to read the clues laid out in front of me and survive than when I fight the same machete-wielding asshole for the fifth time and win simply because of trial and error. There, that was my rant for the day. Thanks for letting me blow off some steam

 

[teknoarcanist]

^ Gadjo: But you're operating under the assumption that dying is "failing." And it's not. Dying does not equal failure in Dark Souls. It's why it's integrated into the core gameplay loop. It's why it's bound up in the entire plot and theme of the game. This is a land where dying is as everyday an experience as going to sleep, or breathing.

And as I said above: Valve and some other companies have made it their core philosophy to make games as hypothetically close to this sort of Platonic Ideal Game: a game that anyone on earth could pick up, without ever having played a videogame in their life, and enjoy, and complete, and have a fulfilling experience. Portal 2, Angry Birds, etc, these are all games developed with this philosophy in mind. And it's commendable, and they've been commended for achieving it -- but THAT'S NOT THE ONLY WAY!

It would be easy to mistake the design decisions in Dark Souls for incompetence. But they're not. They're really, really not. You know why the NPC's don't tell you where to go and/or barely acknowledge you for the first twenty hours of the game, except to mutter something about bells? So that, when you've gone to ring those bells and come back, you can be lauded and praised by a big ol' Sean Connery -sounding snake monster, who is overjoyed that you completed a trial no one has overcome in 1000 years, that you didn't even realize you were taking -- despite no one helping you, and despite the world itself resisting you every step of the way. So that it feels good, and completely organic, that YOU unraveled that puzzle yourself. You didn't just play a character passing a cryptic test and fulfilling an ancient prophecy -- YOU DID IT.

And then he very explicitly tells you where to go, and what to do, because now, rather than a random nobody, you're The Chosen Undead, and you have A Holy Mission That Must Be Fulfilled.

Dark Souls is not for everybody. There are some people who won't like it. There are some people who will never be able to complete it -- like there are people who will never read Lord of the Rings, or War and Peace. And that's okay. The game is what it is, purposefully and intentionally, and almost never waivers from that vision.

And then you beat the game, and the whole dang story gets flipped on its head, and every single line of dialogue in the entire game starts taking on double meanings.

Now I'm not saying it's perfect. There are "puzzles" whose answers are a little obtuse, or, even more egregiously, doors and ladders and staircases to very important places that you can actually just fail to see, because they've been designed poorly, or hidden behind a wall. There are certain rare enemy attacks that feel "cheap" -- mostly vertical swings that re-orient to track you around, or enemies stabbing you through one another, or through scenery.

The game is far from perfect. But it's absolutely important. And it absolutely has some new things to say. You're right to compare it to an NES game. It's like an NES game writ large. Dark Souls is like someone wrote a thesis on old-school games in the form of a game. It's the apotheosis of trial-and-error games, action-adventure games, openworld RPG's, dungeon-crawlers, you name it. It's like a neat and tidy and well-polished package of everything we've done so far in games. And it makes me excited for the future.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

See, now my problem is that Dark Souls isn't important- and it certainly doesn't represent anything new. In order to provide the lofty challenge adult gamers got used to when they were kids, it was purposely designed like an old, archaic NES game. Think about it, lack of instruction, or purposeful orientation (oh, you wanna go into the graveyard first because you figure that skeletons have got to be the most piss-weak enemies in the game? Have fun with that.), useful items (such as the drake sword) that would be almost impossible to find accidentally, and game lengthening tactics such as forcing you to start from the bonfire after losing to a boss, rather than getting to attempt it again immediately- these are all hallmarks of older games. I see these traits as quite a bit like old movie techniques. Is it understandable why these traits might be somewhat endearing? yes, but that does not make them superior to newer techniques, snappier direction, and more well explained mechanics.

A more apt comparison would be a real vocalist vs auto-tune, or food from scratch vs TV dinner.

Dark Souls makes you actually be an awesome gamer. You're going to fail and fail and fail and hopefully quit and save yourself a lot of time and heartache unless you are truly creative, curious, persistent, etc enough to see yourself through all the traps and monsters.

Call of Duty takes you by the hand and has you follow and watch a bunch of squadmates who do all the strategy and tactics and tricks and hit the rough parts an awesome gamer would. All you have to do is not get shot in the face twice in a row while spectating.

Real vs fake. It's as simple as that.

 

[Aitamen]

This is why I'm a speedrunner: I can seek my own challenge in games that are on the border of easy, or further a challenge by learning the insides of the game.

I didn't like darksouls/demonsouls mostly because I couldn't really find something in it that appealed to me, and control of it felt slow or laggy... but I beat them both, and it was somewhat rewarding.

Not nearly as rewarding as running a sub-hour Super Metroid or Symphony of the Night run, though.

 

[Drakey]

You used to drop queer jokes in large abundance. I offer you thanks for thinning it out. Perhaps its something that will never truly catch hold on you, but 'Gay Jokes' just aren't that funny. Sure it is to the viewer base that still considers racist jokes funny, and other flat out ignorances. You often cleverly place these 'touchy' subjects as the focus of the joke rather than making the joke out of raw ignorant materials. Resident evils african safari for example. But when is it that we will no longer see you hurt your own funny by saying stupid like 'Ninja Gay Den'?

Catch up. I love your work. Ive braved the ignorance littered throughout your humor so that I can enjoy the genius that lies within.

Just be aware man. Your awesome.

 

[gadjo]

Teknoarcanist,

I simply must thank you for your courteous and logical reply, I was honestly expecting a super-flame. To respond to one of the points you made, I agree on the impressiveness of the setting of the game, I liked the notion of a band of undead survivors, trapped in an endless cycle of strife and rebirth, all of them slowly succumbing to madness and fighting to end this tortured cycle. My complaint comes from the fact that, much like an NES game, it was mostly setting with a few paltry sprinkles of story in between. I wanted the hero to have a personality of some sort, to make friends and fight the depths of the cursed land and his madness. Instead, the game took an interesting story and squandered it on the rather weak storytelling tropes of the NES.