-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Should there be a "tourist-mode"/totally easy option for all games?
- Thread starter Chairmanchuck
- Start date
always crazy bacon
Banned
Not even the option to remap controls?
GHG
Gold Member
That's an accessibility option. Even if the developers don't include it the console manufacturers now have you covered. The PC has always had you covered.
The people that are chalking this up to entitlement are kind of pissing me off. This is not an issue of whinging to get something you don't deserve simply because you want it. Saying "some things just aren't for you" and shrugging it off is a cop out.
Video games are at a really unique and tricky position in this sort of discussion. They're the only entertainment medium that actively prevent you from experiencing it based on your level of skill. You can't fail at watching a movie. You can't fail at reading a book. But a game has the liberty of being able to say "you bought me and own me but you aren't good enough to fully access everything that I am".
For some people, the process of learning, adapting to, and overcoming the challenge of a game is part of the fun. Kudos! You have successfully enjoyed your game, gotten your money's worth, and accessed everything available. For other people maybe they want to experience the full content but they're just bad and have to give up. They end up not getting their entire money's worth simply because they lack a skill. Would you deny them the chance to experience the game? I think that's pretty fucked up.
To those saying they should just watch a Let's Play, that's not the same. There is a satisfaction to controlling and experiencing a game at your own pace, by your own rules and design, that watching a video doesn't offer. You can't make the movie comparison here. Making a game easier doesn't mean that nobody gets satisfaction at being the agent of the game's completion.
So like I said, games as an entertainment medium are unique. If a dev specifically wants their game to be hard as balls with no easier mode and 90% of the people that buy it will never complete it, well, that's their prerogative. Of course they get the final say in what their game is and should be. But if you ask me, if you can include modes that make it possible for less skilled people to buy and experience your game without hampering the experience of those who want a challenge, well, where's the harm? I enjoyed the challenge of beating a Souls game, but I guarantee you that there are people who would be happy and have fun with a Dark Souls easy mode. It doesn't affect you and it makes someone else happy. Why not?
Video games are at a really unique and tricky position in this sort of discussion. They're the only entertainment medium that actively prevent you from experiencing it based on your level of skill. You can't fail at watching a movie. You can't fail at reading a book. But a game has the liberty of being able to say "you bought me and own me but you aren't good enough to fully access everything that I am".
For some people, the process of learning, adapting to, and overcoming the challenge of a game is part of the fun. Kudos! You have successfully enjoyed your game, gotten your money's worth, and accessed everything available. For other people maybe they want to experience the full content but they're just bad and have to give up. They end up not getting their entire money's worth simply because they lack a skill. Would you deny them the chance to experience the game? I think that's pretty fucked up.
To those saying they should just watch a Let's Play, that's not the same. There is a satisfaction to controlling and experiencing a game at your own pace, by your own rules and design, that watching a video doesn't offer. You can't make the movie comparison here. Making a game easier doesn't mean that nobody gets satisfaction at being the agent of the game's completion.
So like I said, games as an entertainment medium are unique. If a dev specifically wants their game to be hard as balls with no easier mode and 90% of the people that buy it will never complete it, well, that's their prerogative. Of course they get the final say in what their game is and should be. But if you ask me, if you can include modes that make it possible for less skilled people to buy and experience your game without hampering the experience of those who want a challenge, well, where's the harm? I enjoyed the challenge of beating a Souls game, but I guarantee you that there are people who would be happy and have fun with a Dark Souls easy mode. It doesn't affect you and it makes someone else happy. Why not?
Berserking Guts
Member
You know, even if I don't want to play a game like Spelunky because it's too hard and cryptic for me. I at least respect that it exists and that it's secrets have to be worked for.
NoctisVsStar
Member
Same for binding of Issac
GHG
Gold Member
In response to the bolded, actually, yes you can. Sure, you can "get through" all books and movies without any of it making sense but is that really experiencing it? I can "read" every page of a book in a language that I don't understand and then say I've "read" that book. The same goes for a book based on concepts I don't understand. I can watch a film that makes zero sense to me and then not make any effort after to do any research in order to understand what I watched, but I can say I "watched" the movie.
Just like games, there are certain movies and books where you need to "git gud" in order to truly experience them.
Sure. If the developers see fit to put it in, but (and Dark Souls is the easiest example because of course it has to be brought up here) you're not allowed to complain if you didn't get a good experience after playing on the tourist mode. It should be accepted as a pittance and not the way the game was intended to be played (like cheats of old - you could just bring back cheats, hint, hint).
I'll never understand the idea that every game should cater to you (disability issues aside, but that's a complicated issue that goes beyond simply dropping the difficulty). It's like asking for the easy version of Ulysses or Primer. Sure, you can power through those by simple willpower, but getting to the end will give you nothing unless you take the time to contextualise them (I've never gotten far in Ulysses. Someday, someday).
I'll never understand the idea that every game should cater to you (disability issues aside, but that's a complicated issue that goes beyond simply dropping the difficulty). It's like asking for the easy version of Ulysses or Primer. Sure, you can power through those by simple willpower, but getting to the end will give you nothing unless you take the time to contextualise them (I've never gotten far in Ulysses. Someday, someday).
If certain games have it, cool, but certain games shouldn't have it like the Souls series. The point of that series is that they are SUPPOSED to be difficult. You're rewarded for actually developing some kind of skill. It makes the world feel dangerous and mysterious.
I don't understand the rhetoric of we need to make it accessible for the kiddies. When growing up, a lot of NES games were mindbogglingly difficult, and if you couldn't beat them, you had to start from the beginning. Kids got along just fine then. Games don't need to go back to being that difficult, but most games are already easy enough on normal mode to where you can beat them without breaking a sweat. What's sad about most modern day gamers is they will never experience the sweaty palms that comes from a challenging game like trying to beat Megaman 3.
I don't understand the rhetoric of we need to make it accessible for the kiddies. When growing up, a lot of NES games were mindbogglingly difficult, and if you couldn't beat them, you had to start from the beginning. Kids got along just fine then. Games don't need to go back to being that difficult, but most games are already easy enough on normal mode to where you can beat them without breaking a sweat. What's sad about most modern day gamers is they will never experience the sweaty palms that comes from a challenging game like trying to beat Megaman 3.
Why are you equating media consumption with life?
I'm not arguing against difficulty in games. If anything, including more accessibility options in games is going to increase overall difficulty. It certainly did in Nintendo games.
And if a person wants to skip to the end, why does that impact you?
Orochinagis
Member
I better watch "The movie" version on youtube.
And most games are pretty easy on normal
And most games are pretty easy on normal
Mr_Appleby
Member
The equivalent is not being at a reading level commensurate with the material at hand, or have any prerequisite knowledge if it is a textbook or part of a long-running series and so on. Simply buying a book doesn't guarantee you will understand it to a point sufficient to enjoy it. So yes, in that sense you can 'fail' at reading a book.
This is basically what I'm saying.
And to chalk it up as entitlement is ridiculous. I paid for the game. I'm entitled to experience the content I paid for.
iRAWRasaurus
Banned
Games are already pretty easy.
GHG
Gold Member
Do you own a car? If you don't, never own a car, it won't be worth it if that's your attitude.
NoctisVsStar
Member
You knew what you was getting into beforehand. You are getting the content, now what you do with such..is well up to you.
J_ToSaveTheDay
Member
NoctisVsStar
Member
Altered beast, double dragon, OG mgs, ninja gaiden and Friday the 13th..now those games you wanted to smash your console.
GHG
Gold Member
A car isn't always a utility dependant on who you speak to, to some a car is an entertainment product. And my point is you can't always experience everything "you paid for" in life in a lot of cases, that's just how it is. Cars are complex machines these days, even your everyday Prius has capability that the average driver isn't capable of extracting from the car even if they are put on an empty race track, there's a certain skill level required to get everything available out of the car. That skill level actually increases as you move up to more exotic cars.
There are plenty of things that we buy that we can't use to the fullest due to skill level limitations, it's not just videogames. It's a fact of life.
The car analogy as you present it isn't really applicable. Yeah, there are fine nuances and stuff you can get out of a car if you're a super skilled pro driver, the same way that you can pull of crazy combos in games if you're really good, but that's not the same as preventing a person from accessing the bulk of the content. A more accurate comparison here would be something like, oh, you're bad at driving a stick shift, well, automatics are just easy mode and that ruins driving. Imagine saying that there shouldn't be automatics because cars are meant to be manual by design, and that's cutting certain people out of being able to drive.
Yeah, it's almost like it's a game. This is funny. It's like someone coming off out of a coma for 50 years discovering games for the first time. "Hey, it's not like a movie or a book. You have to see if you can make it to the end in this." Yes, that's what a game is. You don't have to win every game you get your hands on.
I thought you said this wasn't entitlement. Clearly this is entitlement. You feel entitied to see a whole game like you're on a tour bus. This is so backwards. You're not sight seeing. People should not be able to beat every single game. You've experienced the game if you don't make it out of stage 1. Believing you don't get your money's worth if you don't see every single square inch of a game is the most spoiled thing I've ever heard.
GHG
Gold Member
The argument is that you should be "entitled to experience all the content you paid for". In the case of a car, simply driving it on public roads does not get you this. You paid for years of R&D and testing for scenarios that you will never experience on public roads. Then even if you took the car to a track, you still wouldn't be able to experience everything the car has to offer unless your driving skill is at the correct level.
It's like me buying a new Honda Civic Type R, and then when I take it to a race track expecting to be able to drive it like this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D_-CncXZXI8
And then when I can't should I blame Honda? Should I ask them to include a trained driver in the asking price next time? Or autopilot even? Because you know, I'm not able to get what I paid for out of the car and that's not fair.
People say this and I'm inclined to agree with them.
/jk.
Kind of... If there is no physical reason why you can't drive manual when it comes to performance vehicles then you should try driving the manual version.
J_ToSaveTheDay
Member
I actually don't disagree with you, but I think in the context of the grander conversation we're talking about with accessibilities and videogames -- a mere instrument of entertainment -- it's a bit of a mental stretch. I'd suggest developing a different angle, as I'm sure one exists that more eloquently and accurately captures the notion you're trying to get at.
I'd argue that games have become complex and multifaceted enough at this point that the vast majority of them would seriously not harm the more dedicated players by introducing a so-called tourist mode that allows less skilled or less dedicated players to enjoy facets of the experience that exist outside of the skill-achieved parts.
As I said in a previous post, it would not at all bother me to have folks showing up in Dark Souls OTs gushing about how they loved entering Anor Londo for the first time, and how tense the view from the church rafters looked as they inched along. Or how they laughed at the "Chest ahead" message on the ground at the end, etc... They wouldn't even need to mention anything about difficulty or anything at all. I'd personally be playing on a Normal or Hard setting, as I'm familiar with Dark Souls and do appreciate it for the challenge it presents. I don't have to force that angle of appreciation on anyone, and there's truly a lot more to the game that I appreciate just outside of that as well. This is just theoretical of course -- I don't expect ANYONE to take the time to add that easy mode into the original Dark Souls at this point, save for a potential remaster later.
Same with the Prius you use as an example. If there was a Prius OT that was super active in off topic discussion, it'd be just as valid exchange in conversation for someone to gush "OMG I got 80MPG average on this tank of gas!!! Coming from my beat-up old 1988 Datsun, this is life-changing!," and a user quoting it along the lines of "yeah I took my Prius to the track for shits and giggles, and putting out max RPMs for hours on end still netted an average 50MPG -- better than my collectors 1994 RX-7 that I also have; Prius is kinda dope, man. What a feat of engineering!"
Nothing lost, I feel.
But I also don't necessarily feel like developers HAVE TO do it, I just don't think they have anything to lose by doing so, and I think the community also only has anything to gain from it.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
You can fail at both of these things; many films are structurally complex or challenging, many books are dense and difficult to read. Few make it through In Search of Lost Time or Finnegan's Wake or Ulysses or Gravity's Rainbow. Few comprehend Film Socialisme or Schizopolis or even Mulholland Drive.
That the skill required to process the work might involve dexterity rather than brainpower seems to be an unimportant part of the comparison.
I love how every negative response to the OP's question inevitably boils down to one of a few chestnuts and I especially love how nicely you've packaged them all up here. Shall we explore them together? Let's!
1. There's no evidence (that I know of) to suggest that an easy mode results in any kind of "dumbing down" for the intended experience.
2. It's true that an easy mode requires more resources but the preponderance of games with multiple difficulties suggests the overhead isn't terribly great. This argument also doesn't consider the extra sales that can result from increased accessibility. Anecdotal responses on the Internet to MK8, for example, have been very positive to say the least. Who's to say a Souls sequel with easy mode wouldn't also benefit and sell more copies?
3. You don't get decide how someone else is supposed to interact with a game or how to derive enjoyment from it. From an earlier response to another poster:
4. Your experiences with games that demand exacting play are not somehow diminished if other people get to see the same content without spending a hundred hours mastering the mechanics.
A game is not defined as something you win or lose. And sure, you don't have to win/beat every game you get your hands on, but what's wrong with having the option? Why is it bad to cater to both the lowest and highest denominators so long as neither is impacted by the other?
For the latter half, no, it's not entitlement, at least not in the sense that you (and most people, generally) use it here. Entitlement in the spoiled sense is, for example, someone gave me a free dinner and I complain that I don't get dessert. But in these cases, if you purchased a product, why should you not have the right to access it in its entirety? Why do you say people should not be able to beat every single game, as if that's some dogma? Have you really experienced a game even if you don't make it out of stage 1? Even with games that have dramatic shifts or evolving gameplay? If I never beat the Deku Tree in Ocarina of Time, have I experienced what it's like to use a hookshot? Why is it spoiled to want to experience what I paid for?
Not understanding something is not the same as literally blocking your access to it. Sure you can watch a movie then be like "wtf did I just watch, I don't understand it at all", but this is more like stopping the movie every ten minutes, quizzing you on it, and turning it off if your answers aren't satisfactory.
I don't agree with your comparison. I'm not saying all gamers should be able to get 'everything available' in the sense of a full enjoyment (or, in the book analogy, understanding). I'm saying that everyone should have access to the same content.
If I got in my car and it didn't let me go above 60kmph unless I could prove I knew how to take the right line through a corner, that'd be somewhat comparable (even though I think the whole car comparison thing is off).
To use an actual video game example: I suck at slide puzzles. Just can't do 'em. My brain collapses any time I see a slide puzzle. Of course, smack bang in the middle of RE4 is a slide puzzle for reasons. I spent like 2 hours trying to do it and then just got a walkthrough. Now in this case, thankfully it's not really a skill, it's just knowledge. I can follow instructions provided by someone else and move on.
But in a lot of games it's a non-transferable skill. So someone hits a wall that they simply can't get over unless they spend hours & hours investing in getting better at the game. The majority of people give up.
Developers are creating content that ends up only been seen by a small subset of their customers. There has to be a way to get around that.
ShironRedshift
Member
Sure. As long as the developers have the resources to do so, I have no problem with such a thing. If they truly don't have enough resources to go around and have to focus on their core goals to deliver a finished product, I completely understand, but otherwise having different options for players of different skill levels could only be a good thing. After all, allowing a larger userbase to play and enjoy the game leads to more people being curious about the game and ultimately giving it a try and enjoying it, leading to more sales, leading to more money for the next game, leading to the next game being even better, and it's a win for everyone involved. And on top of that, by having a lower barrier of entry, players who otherwise likely would have never played a game due to it being too hard to them, decide to buy it due to it having those options and then using that as a launchpad into the higher difficulties and potentially becoming a top-tier player in the end, who the game would have never had otherwise.
The problem, as I see it, is too many people have come to view simply playing a game, regardless of mode, as some type of competitive event, and hence the comparisons to being held out "participation trophies" (of course, with many games having Trophies/Achievements for simply beating the first chapter or whatever, these ironically already exist regardless in quite a literal sense, but I digress). However, simply playing a game is not equivalent to competing in the World Cup. Simply playing a game is not equivalent to playing in the Super Bowl, nor is it equivalent to competing in the Stanley Cup, etc. The act of playing a game in of itself is not equivalent to some competitive sporting event, and you're not letting your team down if you don't give it your all and shoot for that number one shot.
All you're doing... is playing a game for your own enjoyments. There is no competition (yes, of course, many games have competitive modes, but those aren't what are being referred to or would be in any way impacted by the discussion this thread is about). There are no teams. There is no "trophy" to win to begin with, team to let down or disappoint, or anything but just you in your own home playing the game for your own reasons, whatever they may be. If you want to play the game in a competitive fashion, that's great! That's amazing! But it's certainly not the only way the games can be played, and looking down on people finding any other reason to enjoy the game, and just minding their own business doing their own thing is no lesser or greater a way of playing the game than any other.
After all (unless you choose to do so in a specific mode, which is not the topic of discussion), you're not competing against any other players in engaged in any type of contest in any way, nor so much as interacting with one another unless you so desire. That being the case, how does one another's actions or objectives or raison d'être, so to speak, impact one another in any sense? They don't. So it should make no difference what reason another person has for playing a game, since that in no way impacts or changes your own objective, or stops your from fulfilling it in any way. You can both do your own thing, for your own reasons, and have full enjoyment, so this type of thing existing should cause no problem to either group of players.
But yet somehow, this idea that games are inherently competitive by their very nature has creeped into the discourse, as if there's no other reason to play games than simply reaching their endings. But from the OTs of any game, that's quickly proven false. Whether it's the story or characters, or the world design and character design, or character customization or world customization options, or clever or humorous or intense or thought provoking dialogue choices that both give you some way to define yourself or challenge your way of thinking about the game's world and events thus far, etc, there are any number of reasons play games far outside of that. There are extremely few games that have their selling point being the difficulty of the game and the difficulty and lone, and even fewer such games that actually had any degree of success.
Point being, there are a myriad of reasons to play and enjoy the vast majority of games on the market, and if more accessibility options allows a greater audience to have that same sense of enjoyment, that could only be a good thing, especially if it means more sales which means more money to finance the sequel. It could only be a bad thing if you purely view a game as some type of competitive event or triumph to overcome and nothing more, but that's a false view that mysteriously own appears in threads such as these and never materializes outside of them and are betrayed by the arguer's own words, and so I'm naturally highly befuddled by such a perspective and don't hold it in particularly high regard. That being the case, as long as the developer has the resources to spare, I say for sure, as I can't really see the downsides in doing so.
The problem, as I see it, is too many people have come to view simply playing a game, regardless of mode, as some type of competitive event, and hence the comparisons to being held out "participation trophies" (of course, with many games having Trophies/Achievements for simply beating the first chapter or whatever, these ironically already exist regardless in quite a literal sense, but I digress). However, simply playing a game is not equivalent to competing in the World Cup. Simply playing a game is not equivalent to playing in the Super Bowl, nor is it equivalent to competing in the Stanley Cup, etc. The act of playing a game in of itself is not equivalent to some competitive sporting event, and you're not letting your team down if you don't give it your all and shoot for that number one shot.
All you're doing... is playing a game for your own enjoyments. There is no competition (yes, of course, many games have competitive modes, but those aren't what are being referred to or would be in any way impacted by the discussion this thread is about). There are no teams. There is no "trophy" to win to begin with, team to let down or disappoint, or anything but just you in your own home playing the game for your own reasons, whatever they may be. If you want to play the game in a competitive fashion, that's great! That's amazing! But it's certainly not the only way the games can be played, and looking down on people finding any other reason to enjoy the game, and just minding their own business doing their own thing is no lesser or greater a way of playing the game than any other.
After all (unless you choose to do so in a specific mode, which is not the topic of discussion), you're not competing against any other players in engaged in any type of contest in any way, nor so much as interacting with one another unless you so desire. That being the case, how does one another's actions or objectives or raison d'être, so to speak, impact one another in any sense? They don't. So it should make no difference what reason another person has for playing a game, since that in no way impacts or changes your own objective, or stops your from fulfilling it in any way. You can both do your own thing, for your own reasons, and have full enjoyment, so this type of thing existing should cause no problem to either group of players.
But yet somehow, this idea that games are inherently competitive by their very nature has creeped into the discourse, as if there's no other reason to play games than simply reaching their endings. But from the OTs of any game, that's quickly proven false. Whether it's the story or characters, or the world design and character design, or character customization or world customization options, or clever or humorous or intense or thought provoking dialogue choices that both give you some way to define yourself or challenge your way of thinking about the game's world and events thus far, etc, there are any number of reasons play games far outside of that. There are extremely few games that have their selling point being the difficulty of the game and the difficulty and lone, and even fewer such games that actually had any degree of success.
Point being, there are a myriad of reasons to play and enjoy the vast majority of games on the market, and if more accessibility options allows a greater audience to have that same sense of enjoyment, that could only be a good thing, especially if it means more sales which means more money to finance the sequel. It could only be a bad thing if you purely view a game as some type of competitive event or triumph to overcome and nothing more, but that's a false view that mysteriously own appears in threads such as these and never materializes outside of them and are betrayed by the arguer's own words, and so I'm naturally highly befuddled by such a perspective and don't hold it in particularly high regard. That being the case, as long as the developer has the resources to spare, I say for sure, as I can't really see the downsides in doing so.
It's the same effect in the end though, people lose interest and turn away. Games are just more literal with their barriers.
How many times does it take the average person to read that (opening to Finnegan's Wake - extreme example) and comprehend it. Is it better to just continue on and get even more confused?
I'm not against easy modes if people really want it, but I'd rather be stuck on a boss and grasp the concept instead of just trudging through and ending up with no understanding of anything. That seems like an even more reckless waste of time.
royox
Member
You can choose between thousands of games with difficulty modes. Just play them. I hate horror films and you won't see me saying things like "do them so fearfull fucks as me can watch them! I paid for it so I shouldn't overcome a fear-wall to enjoy them" I just DON'T WATCH HORROR MOVIES. because not everything should be for everyone.
I know, but I think the fundamental difference is between experiencing something and mastering something.
You can experience a vehicle and feel differences without mastering it.
I get your point you won't experience 100% of it, but hardly anyone does with anything and I don't think that's feasible for anything.
That said you can experience a vehicle at all times but a game might suddenly take your keys away without being able to get back in. To which I assume the person wants the ability to experience the story fully without having the ability to do 720 doughnuts at 90mph.
If you get where I'm going at.
NoctisVsStar
Member
I can't drive to save my life in GT compared to an arcade racing game like NFS or Forza..I'm also not consistently good at cod. Those games aren't for me and that's fine. Just like I can pull off combos with ease in a FG others might not.
That's a genre thing, though. In the end movie comparisons simply don't work because there isn't an element of difficulty involved. What if I really like horror games, but I can't play them because of difficulty? You gonna just tell me that horror games aren't for me, after all?
In the end, most of what I'm seeing that's against the idea of making content more easily accessible for those who want it is simply "No, games aren't that way!" when there's no inherent reason for it.
Changing a horror game so it's less scary changes it for the people who like scary games so there is a reason not to cater to some one who does not like scary for a game aimed at those who do. Offering an easy mode that is different and does not affect how normal or hard works does not change he game for people who do not choose the easy mode.
that is the very definition of being entitled tho.
You aren't entitled for a game to be for you. You aren't entitled for a movie to be to your liking. You aren't entitled to many things on this planet. Just because you paid the price for something doesn't automatically mean it will meet all of your needs. That is not how this world works. And it never will.
A lot of you guys and gals are in for a rude awakening in the future based off of how you approach things around here. Sometimes you buy something and it doesn't turn out how you expected it to. Thats life.
Luckily when it comes to media, we live in a world in which with not even that much research we can make educated purchases to avoid this let down. But to expect everything to meet your specific needs...is being entitled as fuck. Sorry
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
My point was that in some media, the barrier to the content is conceptual; in others, it's physical. I would argue someone who looks at a painting but can't understand art because they're dumb as bricks "sees" less of the content than someone who is playing a game and gets stuck on a boss.
Bananajama
Banned
I'd love this on some games.
I get stressed enough at work. I don't need to come home and play a game that adds to it.
I get stressed enough at work. I don't need to come home and play a game that adds to it.
J_ToSaveTheDay
Member
I think the notion that they purchased the game at all means that there was enough elements of that game that they want to experience that they learned about ahead of their purchase decision to pursue the game in the first place.
In the case of "Dark Souls," it could've very well been that they watched a bunch of VaatiVidya lore videos and went "omg this seems amazing," consulted GAF threads where a bunch of us long-time Souls players always say "well Dark Souls isn't that hard once you get over the learning curve -- it's more a matter of being unforgiving" and then they're put the two and two together and they're like "hey, I'm going to give this a shot after all because I want to see that lore stuff first hand!!"
And boom, turns out they're not able to enjoy it after all because that initial learning curve, which I admit even took me 20-25 hours of experimentation (and I knew what I was getting into because of Demon's Souls), is just a bit more demanding than what their research seemed to indicate.
And I mean, we have perfectly set up a culture in which that exact scenario can reasonably exist, and exist on a large scale, because that's almost exactly the tone of conversation we have when we talk about Dark Souls in particular.
An Easy Mode, whether we like it or not, would allow that player to get exactly what they came to the game out of it. And if they continue to enjoy those particular aspects they pursued, they can show up in the OT and be all gleeful and happy with their experience like the rest of us, even if they're not tackling challenges at the same degree the rest of us are, and we'd never even have to know.
I've said a lot in this thread already, too, so I can safely say that if you want to take time to scan through my previous posts, I think a lot of them reinforce this point as well.
and it has been explained why the Souls series getting an easy mode isn't this easy fix. For one, it would fuck up the summoning system, fuck up the PvP, and fuck up the balancing as now they have to take into account at the very least two different experiences. Its not this cut and dry thing people constantly make it out to be. That is time and effort taken away to appeal to what may not be that much more with the danger of alienating damn near the same amount. This ideal that every game needs to be all encompassing is flawed. For some games...its fine, it works and its easy...but not for all.
basically if you try to appeal or please everyone, you will end up pleasing no one. And whose to say easy mode is enough? What about changing core gameplay things in an attempt to pleas even more people? Or what about things like artstyle? That also prevents alot of people from getting into some games. I mean if the goal is for more people to be pleased with the game why stop at the difficulty? I may be a curmudgeon about this and I am sorry but this mentality that things HAVE to change in order to be for more people is misguided to me. The easier solution is for people to find things that are for them instead of demanding things change for them. I don't see how people don't see that as being entitled. Its not even that bad of a thing to be. We all want what we want but goddam.
J_ToSaveTheDay
Member
My suggestion:
Create a Souls game just like any other, stock-standard with challenge in mind. Keep summoning and invasion system exactly as it's been in Dark Souls III, with some of the highly requested tweaks to appease existing fanbase.
Create an Easy Mode where all characters generated within it are playable offline in Easy Mode only, and summoning is limited to only NPCs using their AI. Major balance change is just adjustment to how quickly the player is affected by debuffs such as poison and curse (basically, up player base resistances to these), and generally how much damage is taken during combat. Summoned NPCs do more damage than usual during boss fights, but generally tend to do their same base damage while wandering. Disable all trophies in this mode, save perhaps for an Easy-exclusive completion trophy (which also unlocks with higher difficulty trophies so experienced players aren't forced to do a run of Easy Mode).
I know you don't like the idea of "splitting the community" too much, but given the trophy data we're hearing about in OP, I don't think too many Dark Souls dedicated players jump ship to Easy Mode. We seem to be a pretty dedicated lot.
ShironRedshift
Member
Of course, that is very much a knife that cuts both ways. If this is so, and it indeed is, this also means that you're not entitled to have a game designed for you and you alone, and not having the interests of any other groups of players taken into account. You're not entitled to the developers' sole attention and efforts. If they want to give someone such as yourself their sole attention and not court anyone else, that's fine! Ain't nothing wrong with that. But if they decide not to, there's nothing wrong with that either. Insisting otherwise, that you indeed deserve their attention and finding your interests worthy... Well, something like that would just make you entitled, wouldn't it? But yet this is almost always invoked in one context but not the other. Strange...
Of course in all seriousness now, TO BE CLEAR, I'm in no way insinuating or meaning to imply that you meant it like that or actually would contest that whatsoever. In fact, it's precisely because I assume you already perfectly understand this and knew that from the begining that I'm befuddled by such an approach because, regardless of what you meant to imply or say, that remains the logical endpoint to that particular train of thought: the simple fact that both sides of the fence can rely on invoking the "e-word" to suit their own ends. And that results in a standstill, because neither invocation of it is more or less valid than the other. And, on a bit of a side note, it's really a shitty approach because, regardless of how it's meant, it makes the other side feel terrible and attacked for their feelings on the matter, which leads to them getting defensive, which leads to tensions and tempers getting higher, which leads to arguments getting more and more personal, which benefits no one, especially if it's not truly your intent to do so (which I would most certainly hope not).
That being the case, since this approach leads to nothing more than a standstill since both sides can use it, and if anything it just leads to tempers getting higher and the discussion getting more and more of course, can we both agree to not use it, since it really does no one at all any favors here and in no way actually advances or enhances the discussion? That would be greatly appreciated.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
No. Because in some games the challenge/reward system is a very key point. That's the game the designer wanted to create, which some people seem to have trouble accepting in cases like the Souls games. Some people will say "the game doesn't respect my time" or some BS like that, when what's really going on is that you're not respecting the designer's vision. Who are you to tell Miyazaki that his games should have easy modes?
-Mutsukki-
Member
No. Not every game has to be that accessible. Stuff like Mario Kart's Smart Steering are wonderful because they're games that everyone plays together to have fun, it's not that kind of competitive game. Now Dark Souls with an easy mode wouldn't be really cool, it would kinda diminish the game overall.
sure I guess.
but the difference being, if something I liked changed in what I think is a negative way in order to please others, while i'd be pissed...id either adapt or move on to other things that still are appealing to me.
However since this thing is currently the way I like it, I'd rather not have it change. SO yeah we are at a deadlock and nothing either of us say will probably change that so all we can do it give reasoning as to why.
Similar threads
- Poll