Support NeoGAF

[JayWood2010]

This saddens me this is even a topic. Here is your participation medal

 

[DerpHause]

I'm personally arguing for technical inclusiveness. I mean, of course certain genres are going to target different audiences, but there are a lot of people in those targeted audiences that aren't going to be able to experience as much of the product as they'd like due to a possible multitude of reasons. This discussion is how we can alleviate these setbacks for those people without harming the core experience, not make Jack who hates horror games love Dead Space. People are fumbling over themselves in this thread.

That assumes "hard" or "rage inducing" isn't a worthy category for a genre of games. We're seeing a fundamental disconnect between 2 groups of people where one sees games which are designed to test one or more skillsets in the context of a fictional story as being no different and worthy of not compromising that aspect in the same way you view not changing Dead Space for "Jack who hates horror games."

We're also not equating didn't finish to didn't enjoy.

This is the real point right here.

To those worried about developers not investing in designing certain parts because they know people can skip it, they're pretty much at that state now because they know most people don't finish their games. Again, I don't think putting a level select in Call of Duty or Uncharted is gonna cause any fewer people to finish them or play all their levels, than already are. And we've already established that there are myriad other reasons someone may find use out of a level select or free-roam mode or whatever. Even in games with more niche audiences, is that really going to hurt the core fans? I say that based on what some people in development in this discussion have already said about how expensive it might actually be to add level select.

And that's not even talking about games like Horizon, Call of Duty, Witcher 3, or Uncharted, which are meant to sell millions or tens of millions of copies.

The problem isn't that developers would be less invested in design due to skipping, it's that skipping would create the need to design skippable encounters in ways that have no real decisions or consequence and minimal story tie-in, mechanic building or introduction or exposition to actually make games anything but more esoteric for the target audience here.

In other words we'd need more of what the article calls bad boss fights, and for everything else you want to make skippable the same applies. That affects everyone who touches the game regardless of mode choice or options used.

Edit: Typical chapter select implementation has largely either phased out or followed player progress, so in the context of the argument it's a non issue since content is inaccessible without context having been seen, but again something I'd like to see more.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

I don't think there's anything wrong with a game being explicitly inaccessible to people as long as it's clear from the outset that that's the case. But I can agree that if accessibility is a developer goal then having a skip button or some variant such as cheat codes or a super-easy mode is more then ok.

I think there's more then enough room in the industry for different levels of accessibility.

 

[GeordieMark]

As someone aspiring to be a developer, I would fine it utterly insulting to spend hours of my time crafting an intricate boss- fight just to give anyone an option to skip it outright.

I don't like difficulty settings either.
I want everyone to experience my game the same way.

On the flip side, what about all the blood, sweat and tears that went in to designing and building the content after a boss? Does it not bother you that the player is missing out on that too? Someone else mentioned Rockstar’s solution of offering a pass after a number of failed attempts. That way the player experiences the content, and gets to experience everything beyond the boss too. Seems like a good compromise to me.

 

[Vermillion]

Books and movies can have you skip certain parts, but it's obviously not intentional.

That's why you can't skip scenes in theaters, too.

Echoing an earlier sentiment, watch a Let's Play if you don't actually want to play through a game.

Actually, adding to the movie comparison - after you've already watched it once in theaters, then you get the BluRay and you watch it in whatever order you'd like.

Similarly a number of games have a chapter select, so you can skip over sections as needed... After you've experienced it.

 

[JayWood2010]

That's why you can't skip scenes in theaters, too.

It may have something to do with people want to experience the entire thing as skipping stuff is confusing, and less enthralling.

Comparing it to books and movies is just a bad example all around.

 

[SprachBrooks]

Nah, watch a let's play if you don't want to play the game.

Is someone forcing you to skip boss fights?

 

[BanjoLayleeYookaKazooie]

Cheat codes?

It sounds like you're saying "How can we make it so games are equally satisfying for bad players and good players," which isn't possible.



Then instead of calling for boss skips, we should be calling for a return to good gameplay and criticizing games that are poorly executed.

Of course, but I've encountered more than a few games where an annoying but required boss fight or two (the original God of War comes to mind) became an obstacle. Aside from that the games were excellent. Why not allow those fights to be skipable? The game wouldn't be negatively affected and those who want to ignore it can ignore it. No game will be 100% perfect ever, so why not? It's not a shameful thing that such-and-such a boss is boring. Heck even Shadow of the Colossus had a couple that I'd love to be able to skip, why shouldn't the remake include that as an option? I'd be more likely to pick it up for a reply if it did.

 

[Solid Shammy]

That assumes "hard" or "rage inducing" isn't a worthy category for a genre of games. We're seeing a fundamental disconnect between 2 groups of people where one sees games which are designed to test one or more skillsets in the context of a fictional story as being no different and worthy of not compromising that aspect in the same way you view not changing Dead Space for "Jack who hates horror games."

We're also not equating didn't finish to didn't enjoy.



The problem isn't that developers would be less invested in design due to skipping, it's that skipping would create the need to design skippable encounters in ways that have no real decisions or consequence and minimal story tie-in, mechanic building or introduction or exposition to actually make games anything but more esoteric for the target audience here.

In other words we'd need more of what the article calls bad boss fights, and for everything else you want to make skippable the same applies.

Can you give me an example (that isn't completely obscure) of a game where the only appeal is that it's rage inducing? Seems even the most difficult games have attractive elements to them besides the difficulty. I got into Demon's Souls not because of the notorious difficulty but because of the multiplayer and dark fantasy world, the difficulty was actually the only thing holding me back. Also, what does it matter if a game let you skip a boss fight that had narrative relevance when the majority of games let you skip million dollar cutscenes anyway? I'd never do either on a first play through, but I know a lot of people don't even bother with cutscenes and skip no matter what. If I were playing a great game that let me skip the boss fights I'd find it peculiar but it wouldn't bother me.

 

[DerpHause]

Can you give me an example (that isn't completely obscure) of a game where the only appeal is that it's rage inducing?

ONLY appeal? No, but that's not even remotely a decent or reasonable metric.

Primary Appeal? Cuphead/Souls series are both well known examples.

Why this needs narrowed to a game no one would create (where the only aspect that's attractive is the challenge and all other aspects are undesirable resulting in a knowingly bad game) is something I can't fathom.

Edit: Using "rage inducing" to mean challenge driven in this context.

Seems even the most difficult games have attractive elements to them besides the difficulty.

True, as stated they need to else they end up as bad games.

I got into Demon's Souls not because of the notorious difficulty but because of the multiplayer and dark fantasy world, the difficulty was actually the only thing holding me back.

Ironically that same difficulty is very likely a multiplayer driver, so which aspect do we change here? From made that choice, and it wasn't the one being advocated in the op.

Also, what does it matter if a game let you skip a boss fight that had narrative relevance when the majority of games let you skip million dollar cutscenes anyway? I'd never do either on a first play through, but I know a lot of people don't even bother with cutscenes and skip no matter what. If I were playing a great game that let me skip the boss fights I'd find it peculiar but it wouldn't bother me.

Because it narrows the potential types of boss fights we can have which further narrows the types of experiences games provide in that aspect, which fundamentally affects all gamers across skill levels and option use whether they like it or not. You can't skip cutscenes in my game, so that becomes a fundamental difference where your choice cannot affect mine.

The same can't be said when design paradigm shifts occur (microtransactions are a prime example here).

Edit: There is an alternative, which is not designing content to be skipped but allowing it to be skipped anyways. However, this does not make the game more accessible but less as in may just become broken in their view instead. We know what happens when people miss core mechanics already.

 

[Solid Shammy]

ONLY appeal? No, but that's not even remotely a decent or reasonable metric.

Primary Appeal? Cuphead/Souls series are both well known examples.

Why this needs narrowed to a game no one would create (where the only aspect that's attractive is the challenge and all other aspects are undesirable resulting in a knowingly bad game) is something I can't fathom.



True, as stated they need to else they end up as bad games.



Ironically that same difficulty is very likely a multiplayer driver, so which aspect do we change here? From made that choice, and it wasn't the one being advocated in the op.



Because it narrows the potential types of boss fights we can have which further narrows the types of experiences games provide in that aspect, which fundamentally affects all gamers across skill levels and option use whether they like it or not. You can't skip cutscenes in my game, so that becomes a fundamental difference where your choice cannot affect mine.

The same can't be said when design paradigm shifts occur (microtransactions are a prime example here).

You're making assumptions that these things would change how the common videogame boss is developed but you don't seem to be specifically telling me how this would actually happen and what changes would occur. Either way, I don't personally think skipping boss fights is an elegant way to make a game more accessible, but I also don't think if some games started doing this that it'd be destructive to the industry as a whole.

I've expressed my thoughts on how Dark Souls could hypothetically have an easy mode that wouldn't effect the core experience earlier in this thread, but I'll quote myself directly from the last page so that you can have a better understanding of my perspective.

There are a lot of 'bad' players of games that have a hell of a lot more fun than the 'good' players of said games, there's no way to make an experience equal for everyone and that's not what I want. There are so many games and genres that there is absolutely no way to set a universal standard for how to make everything more accessible, but I do think that each game individually can do interesting things to make the experience as inclusive as possible whilst keeping the core experience intact.

A lot of games have experimented in different ways to do this within the last couple of years and I'm absolutely cool with it. I don't think anyone is upset that you can skip missions in Red Dead and GTAV, or that Bioware games have a narrative difficulty setting, and Uncharted 4 is especially great considering it has a narrative difficulty and assistance options for the physically disabled. Options that help people get past button mashing sequences that are otherwise easy to most but sadly function as a stonewall for many eager players.

These are examples of how I think videogames can be more technically inclusive without upsetting the people that don't require these additions, and honestly, I'd even be cool with certain games having an outright 'skip encounter' option in the pause screen. It wouldn't be an option for everything of course, but would it really hurt to say, skip LA Noire's combat sequences (which you already can, just gotta die a few times first) so one can move onto the other investigative elements of the game?

 

[Orochinagis]

What is Summoning and Magic builds?

Hah, DLC completely negates them....*sobs*

 

[Chaos17]

Because the lesson we want games to teach people is that you should just skip past any challenge you don't feel like overcoming.

Sounds like a great idea. What could go wrong?

We're already going into the wrong way people are ready to buy achievement when an acheivement should be something your worked for... That's what I fear, people want to dumdown games because of their own selfhiness.

The author of the article even said that even if Zelda breath of wild bosses were easier compared to other game he still hated them. Then why don't he just play visual novel games where ther eis 0 bosses fight ? something is just not right.

I'm okay with an easy mode for newcomers at a videogame but not the skip button for boss fight, if the person doesn't want to bother himself to "learn" then he would begin to ask a skip button in Mario games too if we begin to go down that road, which is stupid and will just plain out kill gaming.

 

[DerpHause]

You're making assumptions that these things would change how the common videogame boss is developed but you don't seem to be specifically telling me how this would actually happen and what changes would occur.

I was pretty specific and enumerated the aspects you couldn't put in skippable sequences while maintaining the target user experiences and why. It's a much higher barrier of effort than countering with "you're making assumptions"

Either way, I don't personally think skipping boss fights is an elegant way to make a game more accessible, but I also don't think if some games started doing this that it'd be destructive to the industry as a whole.

Destructive? Highly unlikely. Transformative in a way that some might find detrimental with few alternatives? Very likely (again see the pervasiveness of MTs) especially since we're talking about a less than overflowing genre.

I've expressed my thoughts on how Dark Souls could hypothetically have an easy mode that wouldn't effect the core experience earlier in this thread, but I'll quote myself directly from the last page so that you can have a better understanding of my perspective.

I understand the argument, I just disagree for a subset of games. And I gave a specific example on the souls series in particular.

 

[The Living Tribunal]

Every one of these threads where someone suggests something quite timid that would make the experience more user friendly for a lot of people without compromising on the core gameplay for others is immediately descended upon by nerds looking to polish their credentials.

"hur durr the intended experience blah blah not how the developers want you to play "

And I swear to god, 75% of them are inevitably Souls fans. Gaming's absolute worst fanbase.

Feels like browsing https://www.reddit.com/r/gatekeeping/ in these threads.

I'm still reading through this thread, but I just wanted to say this is one the stupidest comments i've read this week. It's up there with "I need automatic weapons to hunt deers"

 

[The Thnikkaman]

We're already going into the wrong way people are ready to buy achievement when an acheivement should be something your worked for... That's what I fear, people want to dumdown games because of their own selfhiness.

The author of the article even said that even if Zelda breath of wild bosses were easier compared to other game he still hated them. Then why don't he just play visual novel games where ther eis 0 bosses fight ? something is just not right.

I'm okay with an easy mode for newcomers at a videogame but not the skip button for boss fight, if the person doesn't want to bother himself to "learn" then he would begin to ask a skip button in Mario games too if we begin to go down that road, which is stupid and will just plain out kill gaming.

I think "Kill Gaming" is a stretch but no dev team should be required to adjust their desired skill floor if they have a specific amount of challenge in mind. It's a totally valid thing to do. Just as having a "cinematic" mode like Persona 5 has is completely valid. Not every single game needs to be for everyone just like not every work of fiction in any medium needs to be for everyone.

(EDIT)
Also Mario games now do have a feature where when you die a number of times you can just have the CPU do the section for you. This is also completely fine.

 

[firehawk12]

The one good decision I can attribute to Rockstar is the fact that they let you skip any missions you fail several times. Because yes, if I think a mission is bullshit, I'm going to quit and play another game.

 

[Solid Shammy]

I understand the argument, I just disagree for a subset of games. And I gave a specific example on the souls series in particular.

I think From Software do an excellent job balancing their games with all the multiplayer elements in mind and I would never want them to compromise that experience to make their games easier. But if there were a separate easy mode, singe player only that disabled the trophies and merely activated god mode or something, I don't really see how that would effect anything and I'd have no problem with it. I don't think it's necessary, I won't mind if From Software doesn't do this for any future games, but if they did and had done, I really would not have minded. Hell, I'd probably use the mode to quickly run through the games just to experience the world and characters again without all the stresses of the actual game.

I've already said due to the varied and large number of videogames that there'd never be a universal standard of accessibility, but that doesn't mean that even your specific subset of difficult games couldn't have modes like my Dark Souls example, which wouldn't in any way be resource intensive or harmful to the core experience. As I've said many times now, my argument is simple, I support developers that try to make their games as technically inclusive as possible and I don't think doing so has to always harm or 'dumb down' the core experience.

 

[The Thnikkaman]

I think From Software do an excellent job balancing their games with all the multiplayer elements in mind and I would never want them to compromise that experience to make their games easier. But if there were a separate easy mode, singe player only that disabled the trophies and merely activated god mode or something, I don't really see how that would effect anything and I'd have no problem with it. I don't think it's necessary, I won't mind if From Software doesn't do this for any future games, but if they did and had done, I really would not have minded. Hell, I'd probably use the mode to quickly run through the games just to experience the world and characters again without all the stresses of the actual game.

I've already said due to the varied and large number of videogames that there'd never be a universal standard of accessibility, but that doesn't mean that even your specific subset of difficult games couldn't have modes like my Dark Souls example, which wouldn't in any way be resource intensive or harmful to the core experience. As I've said many times now, my argument is simple, I support developers that try to make their games as technically inclusive as possible and I don't think doing so has to always harm or 'dumb down' the core experience.

I think it's more that the identities of souls games are based around being deliberately uncompromising.

 

[Bluehound]

On the flip side, what about all the blood, sweat and tears that went in to designing and building the content after a boss? Does it not bother you that the player is missing out on that too? Someone else mentioned Rockstar’s solution of offering a pass after a number of failed attempts. That way the player experiences the content, and gets to experience everything beyond the boss too. Seems like a good compromise to me.

But what guarantee there is that the section/area after skipped boss fight is not actually overwhelming for player's skill level? Does that section/area need to be skipped as well or does the player drop the game and write negative review? You can use that argument through the whole game until you skip the final boss and see the credits. "If it is too hard why not skip it" just cannot apply to bosses only. In games where gameplay is heavily emphasized there are most likely going to be non-boss areas later on which are more brutal than those boss fights "that were too hard".

 

[Solid Shammy]

I think it's more that the identities of souls games are based around being deliberately uncompromising.

My hypothetical mode wouldn't really change that identity, people would know that my mode is not the intended way of play but merely an option for the few. Much like Bayonetta and DMC are regarded as tough games, but both series have really easy modes that people can choose to take advantage of if they so please.

 

[DerpHause]

I think From Software do an excellent job balancing their games with all the multiplayer elements in mind and I would never want them to compromise that experience to make their games easier. But if there were a separate easy mode, singe player only that disabled the trophies and merely activated god mode or something, I don't really see how that would effect anything and I'd have no problem with it.

Without comment on having an issue with it, it's a very real argument that fragmenting the playerbase would have a detrimental affect on the multiplayer aspects. Making it easier reduces participation in the coop aspects specifically (and to a possibly lesser extent the predatory PvE aspects).

That's a real affect on those offering help and not just those no longer seeking.

No thinking it's a big deal is fine. Not caring is fine. Saying no such affects exist is something I disagree with though...

I don't think it's necessary, I won't mind if From Software doesn't do this for any future games, but if they did and had done, I really would not have minded. Hell, I'd probably use the mode to quickly run through the games just to experience the world and characters again without all the stresses of the actual game.

...And you're not even trying to prove me wrong here.

I've already said due to the varied and large number of videogames that there'd never be a universal standard of accessibility, but that doesn't mean that even your specific subset of difficult games couldn't have modes like my Dark Souls example, which wouldn't in any way be resource intensive or harmful to the core experience. As I've said many times now, my argument is simple, I support developers that try to make their games as technically inclusive as possible and I don't think doing so has to always harm or 'dumb down' the core experience.

We'd discussed the dark souls example from the standpoint of simple multiplayer mechanics, we've yet to even discuss the actual feelings the developer intended you to feel. If you quit due to a feeling of hopelessness and stalled progress and the eventual triumph isn't a draw, that might not be a failing, you got the feeling the dev intended and decided you didn't like it. That should be no more valid a reason to demand a change than simply not liking the art or characters.

My hypothetical mode wouldn't really change that identity, people would know that my mode is not the intended way of play but merely an option for the few. Much like Bayonetta and DMC are regarded as tough games, but both series have really easy modes that people can choose to take advantage of if they so please.

Can't agree here. The mandated difficulty, despite means to lessen that burden, is a defining trait. Removing that trait of singular difficulty obviously removes the reputation surrounding that trait. There are plenty of games where hard mode is hard but they don't bear the same reputation. We know from that people are judging the whole of the product and not just that part. No one calls Nier:A "That really hard Yoko Taro game" because it has a OHK very hard mode.

 

[The Thnikkaman]

My hypothetical mode wouldn't really change that identity, people would know that my mode is not the intended way of play but merely an option for the few. Much like Bayonetta and DMC are regarded as tough games, but both series have really easy modes that people can choose to take advantage of if they so please.

Most other games don't have the idea of being an uncompromising experience as closely tied in as Souls games do.

Having an easier mode is a compromise, which makes it no longer uncompromising. It's against at least a part of what those games are about.

 

[Airola]

Is someone forcing you to skip boss fights?

No but it takes the mystery away from the bosses if the game itself has built in a feature that makes the boss to not be an obstacle.

Let's say you go to a mountain climbing course where the end goal is to climb on top of an unclimbable mountain. The mountain has this sense of mystery to it. It feels dangerous. It is a legend among the people who know about it.

You are ready to begin the climb. Then the person who has organized the climbing course comes and says "hey, if you don't want to climb the mountain but still want to go to the top, you can take this helicopter here and we'll fly you on top."

While there is still the option to climb, the whole mysterious feeling of the mountain climbing course is partly dimished the moment they even bring in the option to use the helicopter. The mountain itself just doesn't feel the same anymore.

How can an end boss and the path to it retain the mysterious feeling if you are given the option to not go through that path?

So yes, even giving the option can be a bad thing even for those who will never use the option.

Why not go even so far that you would be given the possibility to see what happens when you beat the already optional bosses in, say, FF7 and FF9 without you having to beat them at all? I mean, if the players should be entitled to see everything in the game then they should be able to get to see what happens after you beat the optional bosses too. The Weapons in FF7 and Ozma in FF9 would greatly lose the sense of mystery and dread if the option to get to see what happens after you beat them without having to win them at all.

 

[drotahorror]

Yeah...

 

[DerpHause]

Yeah...

That person's comment is bad and they should feel bad.

Trying to quantify the elements that make a game fun in the process of playing it isn't something you should view as a negative much less feel the need to sort your life over.

 

[Azzanadra]

Yeah...

So many WATs

 

[Solid Shammy]

Without comment on having an issue with it, it's a very real argument that fragmenting the playerbase would have a detrimental affect on the multiplayer aspects. Making it easier reduces participation in the coop aspects specifically (and to a possibly lesser extent the predatory PvE aspects).

That's a real affect on those offering help and not just those no longer seeking.

No thinking it's a big deal is fine. Not caring is fine. Saying no such affects exist is something I disagree with though...



...And you're not even trying to prove me wrong here.



We'd discussed the dark souls example from the standpoint of simple multiplayer mechanics, we've yet to even discuss the actual feelings the developer intended you to feel. If you quit due to a feeling of hopelessness and stalled progress and the eventual triumph isn't a draw, that might not be a failing, you got the feeling the dev intended and decided you didn't like it. That should be no more valid a reason to demand a change than simply not liking the art or characters.

The only people that'd take advantage of my hypothetical mode are people that were never gonna play enough to be part of the multiplayer community in the first place. I really don't think it would hurt the multiplayer population in any meaningful way at all. Also, I'm not trying to actively prove you wrong, I just don't agree with you that an easy mode in Dark Souls is an impossible addition.

Most other games don't have the idea of being an uncompromising experience as closely tied in as Souls games do.

Having an easier mode is a compromise, which makes it no longer uncompromising. It's against what those games are about.

That's really only part of the marketing if anything, and I honestly hate the marketing for Dark Souls, it's embraced the cesspool that is the 'git gud' community. I think most with a little bit of experience with Dark Souls know that it's not really uncompromising at all, each Souls game has many additions that function to help most player eager enough through. My mode would really only be used by a select minority for touristic purposes and those with limited time but an interest in the aesthetics and such.

 

[Phu]

Yeah...

Hmmm...

 

[Gravy Boat]

Guess what. Games used to give you codes for levels after you cleared the level including the boss. Now they give you checkpoints/autosave or even save anywhere options

If I come back to a game I haven’t played for a while looking to replay a specific boss or level, having an auto save from the end of the game doesn’t help me. They should just let people play whatever levels they want to play.

 

[The Thnikkaman]

The only people that'd take advantage of my hypothetical mode are people that were never gonna play enough to be part of the multiplayer community in the first place. I really don't think it would hurt the multiplayer population in any meaningful way at all. Also, I'm not trying to actively prove you wrong, I just don't agree with you that an easy mode in Dark Souls is an impossible addition.



That's really only part of the marketing if anything, and I honestly hate the marketing for Dark Souls, it's embraced the cesspool that is the 'git gud' community. I think most with a little bit of experience with Dark Souls know that it's not really uncompromising at all, each Souls game has many additions that function to help most player eager enough through. My mode would really only be used by a select minority for touristic purposes and those with limited time but an interest in the aesthetics and such.

It isn't just marketing though. It's talked about by the director in interviews:

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/dark-souls-3-hidetaka-miyazaki-interview

WIRED: As far back as 2009's Demon's Souls, your games have been renowned for their difficulty. What compels you to make such challenging experiences?
Hidetaka Miyazaki: I have no intention to make the game more difficult than other titles on purpose! It's just something required to make this style of game. Ever since Demon's Souls, I've really been pursuing making games that give players a sense of accomplishment by overcoming tremendous odds. We've added new items and weapons over the course of the series, and having a certain level of difficulty adds value to those because they incentivise players to experiment more with character builds and weapon load-outs.

FWIW I'd love to see a mod or something with your idea if only to see if/how it could work within this scope

 

[Berserking Guts]

I have no problem with skipping boss fights and letting people play/experience the thing they bought however they want. But you have to keep the people who buy video games for challenge incentivized to keep playing, thankfully we have trophies/achievements as the modern equivalent of a high score. So yeah, I don't see a problem in pleasing both sides.

There are exceptions, games like roguelikes and souls are community driven games that benefit from challenge and mystery, if those games allowed you to do what you want then it's experience is lessened for the sake of trying to please everybody.

 

[DerpHause]

The only people that'd take advantage of my hypothetical mode are people that were never gonna play enough to be part of the multiplayer community in the first place. I really don't think it would hurt the multiplayer population in any meaningful way at all.

What makes you think that? Multiplayer coop exists for the purpose of providing assistance and altering the skill barrier, so part of it's use is obviously driven by that. Removing that barrier can't not have an affect unless some invisible force prevents the lower end of the skill curve from using it.

Also, I'm not trying to actively prove you wrong, I just don't agree with you that an easy mode in Dark Souls is an impossible addition.

Impossible? No. Beneficial? Not according to the design language we've seen from the series thus far.

That's really only part of the marketing if anything, and I honestly hate the marketing for Dark Souls, it's embraced the cesspool that is the 'git gud' community. I think most with a little bit of experience with Dark Souls know that it's not really uncompromising at all, each Souls game has many additions that function to help most player eager enough through. My mode would really only be used by a select minority for touristic purposes and those with limited time but an interest in the aesthetics and such.

Marketing is nothing but the design goals from Hidetaka Miyazaki himself amplified by a fun house mirror to comedic effect. You are intended to die, learn, change tactics, seek help and triumph in the face of the challenges presented.

And to be fair since DS2 we've been playing the easy mode. Hard is covenant of champions.

 

[Solid Shammy]

It isn't just marketing though. It's talked about by the director in interviews:

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/dark-souls-3-hidetaka-miyazaki-interview

WIRED: As far back as 2009's Demon's Souls, your games have been renowned for their difficulty. What compels you to make such challenging experiences?
Hidetaka Miyazaki: I have no intention to make the game more difficult than other titles on purpose! It's just something required to make this style of game. Ever since Demon's Souls, I've really been pursuing making games that give players a sense of accomplishment by overcoming tremendous odds. We've added new items and weapons over the course of the series, and having a certain level of difficulty adds value to those because they incentivise players to experiment more with character builds and weapon load-outs.

FWIW I'd love to see a mod or something with your idea if only to see how it could work within this scope

God mode already exists in Dark Souls and is rather easy to implement, as it is with most games on PC. My mode would be for those not wanting to mod and of course console users. Anyway, about that Miyazaki quote, he isn't saying that he actively tries to make make his games difficult or unrelenting, they just turn out that way by design. The marketing I'm referring to is the literal 'PREPARE TO DIE... AGAIN!' plastered on my games back cover.

 

[Lemstar]

leaving a couple of quotes here from Third Edition's book on Dark Souls

We live in an age when most games are consumed like airport novels, read in passing and quickly forgotten. The Souls games change our mode of consumption, or rather return us to a time when video games were a rare thing, and a new game was an event or a celebration. If the Souls games were novels, we would be glued to them–each word could be a trap or a revelation–and closing the book before its end would represent a veritable defeat.

The greatest quality of Dark Souls in my opinion is its relationship with learning. The game is a series of pain-based tutorials punctuated by bosses who serve as our examiners. A bit like disciples of Mr. Miyagi, we learn in spite of ourselves, and surprise ourselves as we grow stronger. In Souls, it’s the player who levels up, not the character.

Through marketing hype and biased word of mouth, the arduous challenge posed by the Souls games eventually superseded all of the games’ other qualities. Worse still, the difficulty was seen as an end in itself, rather than an opportunity to have a certain type of experience, associated with particular emotions or sensations. The series’ creator, Hidetaka Miyazaki, has addressed this on many occasions. From the beginning, he has maintained that the game’s difficulty is only a means by which players can experience intense exaltation after overcoming seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Above all, he has always taken pride in the fact that almost anyone can conquer his games: the key to success does not lie in the player’s agility or virtuosity with the controls, but rather in their sense of observation, strategy and self-control.

As long as they play their part and fully immerse themselves, any player can embark on the Souls adventure. The difficulty should not be seen as discouraging, but rather as one part of the game’s experience, conducive to strong sensations. Deaths are frequent, yes, but never prohibitive. Here, death is not a “game over”: it is integral to progression. To die means to learn: it represents a cycle of renewed attempts until players fully assimilate the game’s mechanics, environment, enemy placement and boss approaches. Death in the Souls series should not frighten or discourage. This is why the series’ reputation did as much harm as it did good. When you focus too much on one specific element, and a potentially frustrating one at that, the overall experience is lost from view.

 

[RedSwirl]

The thing that's cool about Souls is, it tries to do most of what other games do, but more organically. Death and respawn are written into the story, what would in other games be selections in a menu are represented by items in Souls like the Soap Stone or co-op gems. Almost none of the text or exposition after the title screen actually acknowledges that you're playing a game. An actual "easy mode" would have to fit within that. Currently, the closest things to that are multiplayer and the various strategies players can employ.

I still like my idea of just doing a "New Game -1" that eventually just smoothly ramps people onto the regular NG after they'e spent more time with the game. Multiplayer is already segregated between NG and NG+ if I'm not mistaken. I think from there it's just a matter of balancing things out between players to start on NG and players tho made it to NG from NG-. Maybe give NG- a soul level cap of 10? I don't have all the answers. My point is, I agree that part of Dark Souls is about having a sense of accomplishment, and the difficulty serves to teach a lesson, but everyone does not learn the same way. Some people need more time to learn how to immerse themselves into how Dark Souls works. I think an NG- would offer them that additional time. Think of it as an extended tutorial.

Even there though, I think a lot of people would actually disagree with Miyazaki about the sense of accomplishment being the main reason to play Souls. I know it may same crazy to disagree with the director of the game, but that's been one of the main points of this discussion -- people playing the games they bought however they want, for whatever reason they want.

And aside from that I still think an entirely separate "free-roam 3D explorer" mode would be cool, for people who just want to explore and appreciate the art assets.

 

[Solid Shammy]

What makes you think that? Multiplayer coop exists for the purpose of providing assistance and altering the skill barrier, so part of it's use is obviously driven by that. Removing that barrier can't not have an affect unless some invisible force prevents the lower end of the skill curve from using it.



Impossible? No. Beneficial? Not according to the design language we've seen from the series thus far.



Marketing is nothing but the design goals from Hidetaka Miyazaki himself amplified by a fun house mirror to comedic effect. You are intended to die, learn, change tactics, seek help and triumph in the face of the challenges presented.

And to be fair since DS2 we've been playing the easy mode. Hard is covenant of champions.

People can easily destroy the Dark Souls experience with easy to install mods, yet all the Dark Souls games even now on PC have pretty active communities. I don't think an additional mode titled 'Demo Mode' that could only be selected in the menu separately and came with a warning saying that trophies would be disabled, multiplayer deactivated, and explaining that this mode is only for inexperienced players new to videogames would really change anything. I feel the PC already has enough exploits to prove this, these games are still active with a dedicated community, and Dark Souls is still renowned for its unrelenting difficulty. Identity intact.

 

[The Thnikkaman]

God mode already exists in Dark Souls and is rather easy to implement, as it is with most games on PC. My mode would be for those not wanting to mod and of course console users. Anyway, about that Miyazaki quote, he isn't saying that he actively tries to make make his games difficult or unrelenting, they just turn out that way by design. The marketing I'm referring to is the literal 'PREPARE TO DIE... AGAIN!' plastered on my games back cover.

Marketing wank is marketing wank, but the quote I posted demonstrates to me at least that the difficulty curve is very targeted for the experience they're aiming for. It's a challenging game that has a set challenge level and I don't see anything wrong with wanting to do that and not compromise on it because it's in service to what they're going for.

 

[HunterXZelos]

Yeah...

...I don't even know

 

[The Thnikkaman]

...I don't even know

Me either man that tweet just kind of baffles me lol

 

[DerpHause]

Even there though, I think a lot of people would actually disagree with Miyazaki about the sense of accomplishment being the main reason to play Souls. I know it may same crazy to disagree with the director of the game, but that's been one of the main points of this discussion -- people playing the games they bought however they want, for whatever reason they want.

Fostering those feelings is why the game was made as it was. People can look for and find other things in it, but they certainly cannot supplant their will on the creators of those works. That's been another counter point here.

Basically it feels like the idea here is for artistic freedom in relation to function to die in a fire for the medium to evolve into it's final form of mass market consumption measured success.

Regarding the point of items working as the user wishes regardless of or contrary to how it was intended to be used, no other product in existence carries that expectation notwithstanding heavy user modification.

 

[Solid Shammy]

Marketing wank is marketing wank, but the quote I posted demonstrates to me at least that the difficulty curve is very targeted for the experience they're aiming for. It's a challenging game that has a set challenge level and I don't see anything wrong with wanting to do that and not compromise on it because it's in service to what they're going for.

I completely agree with you. I don't think From Software has to make an easy mode either, but if they did, and it was implemented like my hypothetical example, I honestly think it'd be harmless and would be fine with users taking advantage of said mode.

 

[DerpHause]

People can easily destroy the Dark Souls experience with easy to install mods, yet all the Dark Souls games even now on PC have pretty active communities.

We already agreed they wouldn't die off, but that same mod community has created issues with multiplayer and hassles that do diminish the experience. No one is arguing the death of gaming, so arguing game haven't died with mods misses the point. But when people talk about the reputation of the games, they speak of the unmodified mechanics, meaning the game is still judged in it's developer provided state. That's what you're altering.

I don't think an additional mode titled 'Demo Mode' that could only be selected in the menu separately and came with a warning saying that trophies would be disabled, multiplayer deactivated, and explaining that this mode is only for inexperienced players new to videogames would really change anything.

No one reads EULAs either but people violate them all the time. no one cares about intent. And that's kind of why we're having this conversation.

I feel the PC already has enough exploits to prove this, these games are still active with a dedicated community, and Dark Souls is still renowned for its unrelenting difficulty. Identity intact.

Again, the games isn't judged on the content created by those who break it. Nor witll they cause it to fail mainly because there are always communities around the breaking of games. And yes, the identity is in tact, because dark souls still doesn't compromise it's identity regardless of what others may do to their instances of the software.

I completely agree with you. I don't think From Software has to make an easy mode either, but if they did, and it was implemented like my hypothetical example, I honestly think it'd be harmless and would be fine with users taking advantage of said mode.

So what is this hypothetical exploring at it's core? That from is wrong? That they are being consciously exclusive? We know the decisions regarding difficulty are conscious, so either the assumptions is being made that we know better how to construct the experience or we believe their being mean for the sake of being mean so far as I can tell.

Is it something else?

 

[Solid Shammy]

We already agreed they wouldn't die off, but that same mod community has created issues with multiplayer and hassles that do diminish the experience. No one is arguing the death of gaming, so arguing game haven't died with mods misses the point. But when people talk about the reputation of the games, they speak of the unmodified mechanics, meaning the game is still judged in it's developer provided state. That's what you're altering.



No one reads EULAs either but people violate them all the time. no one cares about intent. And that's kind of why we're having this conversation.



Again, the games isn't judged on the content created by those who break it. Nor witll they cause it to fail mainly because there are always communities around the breaking of games. And yes, the identity is in tact, because dark souls still doesn't compromise it's identity regardless of what others may do to their instances of the software.



So what is this hypothetical exploring at it's core? That from is wrong? That they are being consciously exclusive? We know the decisions regarding difficulty are conscious, so either the assumptions is being made that we know better how to construct the experience or we believe their being mean for the sake of being mean so far as I can tell.

Is it something else?

We're arguing the results of something that doesn't exist. Unless From Software actually implement something like this we'll never know the outcome. At worst it might weaken Dark Souls difficult reputation, but I doubt it'd have any effects on the games multiplayer community. Either way we're just arguing hypotheticals, do you not think there'd be anyway to implement an easy mode into Dark Souls without the outcome to you being negative?

 

[DerpHause]

We're arguing the results of something that doesn't exist. Unless From Software actually implement something like this we'll never know the outcome. At worst it might weaken Dark Souls difficult reputation, but I doubt it'd have any effects on the games multiplayer community. Either way we're just arguing hypotheticals, do you not think there'd be anyway to implement an easy mode into Dark Souls without the outcome to you being negative?

You're arguing it should exist against the reality of why it wasn't implemented, and while you yourself have gone with the reasoning of saying it probably wouldn't be detrimental if it was, we have the creator of the series stating it was made as it is to serve a purpose.

Those 2 views are in direct disagreement. So I guess what I'm asking is, why specifically do you think the outcome here is better or at least inconsequential to what the product is and what makes you reasonably certain over the creator asserting otherwise?

Also, yes, this is something that doesn't exists, but I don't see why it should if those who have the ability to make it a part of the package don't desire it to be.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

stuff

OK, time out. What am I arguing for?

 

[Solid Shammy]

You're arguing it should exist against the reality of why it wasn't implemented, and while you yourself have gone with the reasoning of saying it probably wouldn't be detrimental if it was, we have the creator of the series stating it was made as it is to serve a purpose.

Those 2 views are in direct disagreement. So I guess what I'm asking is, why specifically do you think the outcome here is better or at least inconsequential to what the product is and what makes you certain over the creator asserting otherwise?

Also, yes, this is something that doesn't exists, but I don't see why it should if those who have the ability to make it a part of the package don't desire it to be.

Because it'd be optional and help people who aren't up for the challenge. That would be its purpose separate to the core experience. Also I've said multiple times that this is the developers choice dude, if they don't want to implement then they don't have to. But if they did want to implement something like this I'd be totally cool as long as it didn't change the core experience. That's my point, kinda repeating myself here.

 

[Polioliolio]

The point of a game is often to be challenged, or experience a plot line which goes from A to B right? Why would skipping through be so integral that someone would need to complain that generally all games should let you jump around like you're some kind of attention deficit affected 5 year old?

Who skips through books or movies or tv shows, by the way? (And also, you can't skip through movies in a theater or television being broadcast for the first time). Why would you do that? If this is a second or third play through, okay, it would make sense to unlock a chapter select after you beat a game. Or you know, we used to have cheat codes and those might sometimes open up stage selects. I don't feel the need for this to be a normal feature available from the get go.

Of course, the context of the game matters, but this wreaks of young man shouts at cloud, to me.

 

[DerpHause]

Because it'd be optional and help people who aren't up for the challenge.

Why not just acknowledge those individuals aren't looking for the experience you're trying to provide and move on? I guess what I'm missing is the impetus to act on this proposed change here. At least when looking at the games intent.

OK, time out. What am I arguing for?

v0v

TL;DR of my last post responding to you was basically: A subset of people do like to be challenged in games. That subset is profitable. Therefore it's completely logical to make games for them.

 

[Solid Shammy]

Why not just acknowledge those individuals aren't looking for the experience you're trying to provide and move on? I guess what I'm missing is the impetus to act on this proposed change here. At least when looking at the intent.

Because those people might be interested in other elements that the game offers and just because they don't have the time or skill doesn't mean they should be locked out of a potential fun experience. That's what a hypothetical easy mode would be good for.