Support NeoGAF

[itshutton]

As someone who is generally not that good at most games, I was happy to find a game that suited my thorough, methodical play style. There was a time when i tried to encourage my friends to play Souls titles but I have long since given up.

The difficulty thing is fine with me, I'm proud to have all of the platinums and my less dedicated friends think I'm bad-ass, what's bad about that?

 

[whalleywhat]

I get frustrated when people try to tell me bloodborne is better than Dark Souls 2. They're the same quality.

I get frustrated when people have anything positive to say about DS2 other than the PVP.

 

[rackham]

I get frustrated when people have anything positive to say about DS2 other than the PVP.

qft
ds2 was the worst with the difficulty issues. enemies were plain unfair. more than half of them had tracking on every attack.

 

[Adam_Vania]

I think the main problem many people face is that the game is just upfront very difficult

a bro of mine just gave up after the asylum in DS1 even when trying to go upwards because of getting killed over and over

if he could get as far as getting swarmed by rats he may be hooked by that point, or could have learned more of the game; instead he just faces a high wall at the start that makes the game boring and frustrating for him

i tried Dark Souls and gave up at the asylum too! i didn't even fight the boss the first time. i had played for hours dying over and over to those guys on the stairs, quit in rage, and didn't revisit it for a year. when i went back and finally beat that boss, the feeling of accomplishment was something very rare and special.

now i'm getting close to taking down The Nameless King solo. the journey from that place of absolute terrifying powerlessness to where i am now has been incredible and i would hate to go and take that away from someone who visits the game in the future. this is my main point of contention with an Easy Souls. not that i want to brag about how awesome i am, but because i want to see new people succeed just like i did, not by lowering the bar, but taking the time to learn the game as is.

to people that think this game is too hard for them i say YOU CAN DO IT!!!

 

[More_Badass]

Finally tried co-op in Bloodborne today. As useful as it was in beating a boss, I felt it was probably to my detriment, as I was rushing through the next area following the others and they were leading me to items and whatnot, so I didn't get to create a mental map of the place through careful slow exploration. I'll probably use co-op sparingly

you are not a regular ass gamer like the casual friends Sho_Nuff describes tho

it is ridiculous to pretend these games aren't p hard. yeah you gotta sit down and learn the patterns and yes, that's already p hard for the average gamer

Oh, they're hard for sure. I've had those moments where you fail and just need to turn off the game for a while (although I've hard those moments in SpaceChem and Super Meat Boy and Spelunky, so it's not exclusive to Souls games)

But they're rarely unfair. If you die, 99% of the time, it's your fault. You were too confident and got surrounded or cornered, you ran into an unknown room, you tried to heal instead of running away to get some distance, you keep trying to attack an enemy that clearly your weapons weren't doing much damage against, etc.

 

[Veelk]

Since this has turned into yet another "Should souls games be made easy" discussion, let me add in my two cents as a casual gamer enthusiast (I play a bunch of games and am competent enough to adapt, but anything PvP usually has me on the losing side)

First thing we need to get out of the way is that the "souls has an inbuilt easy mode in it's mechanics" isn't wrong, but is kind of a bs way of avoiding having an actual easy mode. There are several ways to make it easier, from having a magic build that lets you keep your distance to having powerful weapons in certain areas you can find, to just overleveling yourself. The problem with this is that it kind of requires foreknowledge from the internet. I mean, without having played any souls, how are you supposed to know that magic is the easy build? How are you suppose to know there was an easy weapon hidden in that one random area? Only way to do that is to go on the internet and look stuff up, which if you're doing, you're already going to have a much easier time because you are basically playing with a guide. I'm not saying it's bad, but one thing an easy mode would have is the assurance to the player that there is an easy option without them having to rely on chance or look things up.

Second, the addition of an easy mode can be implemented without sacrificing the normal experience of the Souls game. I cannot believe anyone who says otherwise is being intellectually honest. Assuming that the game was designed as normal, and then an alternative easy mode was added as a seperate and offline mode, there is nothing that would bleed into the normal mode. Shit, an easy mode patch can be made into existing games like DS3 or Bloodborne right now and literally nothing would change about the main game. It's basically just a reverse NG+. Anyone who says that it would impact anything about the main game is talking out their ass.

That said, I do agree that an easy mode isn't really necessary. The games are just not that hard if you are determined to find the best equipment, level yourself up where necessary, etc. Even without a guide, all you have to do is be cautious and prepare. That's what I do. People may call it overleveling, but enemies still provide a challenge to me, so it's evenly leveled as far as I'm concerned. Worst case scenerio, you turn it into a co-op experience, which makes it a new kind of fun. That said, there is some talk that 'not all games should be for everyone'. True, but all games should be open to everyone. I believe that's what the Souls games are, because they accommodate many different playstyles and let people progress without really demanding that they have good reflexes or anything like that.

But the sentiment, that not all games should be accessible to everyone, it bugs me. There is definitely an elitist cult mentality formed around these games. I've had many people tell me I'm playing the game wrong because I level up a lot, or that I look up where to find the weapons I want, they tell me that I'm ruining my sense of discovery by looking up hidden passages so I don't miss important areas or quests....

You know, no other game community does this. No one ever told me in Halo "Veelk, what are you doing, you should only ever use the shotgun in this level", no one ever told me that I shouldn't level up in a JRPG to beat this super tough boss fight, no one ever told me not to look up where I can find all the upgrade packs in Last of Us or where I should go to get all the dialogue options. People often shared how they personally play, but never has anyone ever told people how they should play.

And I think it's kind of assholish. I can understand why people would play particular ways they play, but presuming to tell others how to play is rude at the very least. And that's the root of the problems discussing Souls difficulty, because there is a group of people who want to be elitist and hang a "You must be this gud to get in" sign on their exclusive club. And people try to write it off as "WELL NOT ALL GAMES ARE FOR EVERYBODY NOR SHUD THEY B" Except what if souls IS for me, just not all parts of it? That's one thing people miss. With the many features this game offers, some people play for certain reasons, others for other reasons. For example, you could have a player who is completely uninterested in the gameplay challenge of Dark Souls, but is fond of the puzzle piece storytelling or the art direction, and wants to play the game without much interest in engaging the difficulty of the game? An easy mode is something that would be greatly beneficial to this kind of player, because Souls IS for them, just not the combat part of it.

I'm against exclusionary attitudes on principle, and much of Souls community is unfortunately made up of it, as this thread indicates with various responses basically saying "If they can't git gud, leave them out in the rain". What they should be doing is explaining how accessible souls really is, how truly anyone can play and find ways to conquer it. It's a disservice to the game itself to do otherwise imo.

 

[Budi]

Your character watches the game on youtube or summons another player to kill monsters for you. done. you're not accomplishing anything with the mode you're suggesting anyways so honestly, there's no difference between that and summoning someone to do the work for you or watching a playthrough on youtube.

It's not about if you would enjoy the game more if there was an easier difficulty setting. You are being incredibly condescending to people who would like to enjoy the atmosphere and great gameplay if it woud just be easier. Also some people play offline and the NPC summons have very bad AI so they are mostly useless to my knowledge. And doesn't the bosses actually become harder with a summon?

You make the game seem really bad to play if you think the set difficulty is the only difficulty OTHERS could enjoy playing the game. I don't think people are calling the game bad because there are no difficulty settings, so why are you jumping at their throats? It's your own defensiveness kicking in when someone dares to suggest something that ain't in the game. They simply want to play the game without frustration and enjoy the great work From Software has put in it (which is more than the difficulty). It's quite clear they appreciate the game when they want to play it so much. So calm down. How others play the game shouldn't hurt your enjoyment of it.

There are people who don't play games to "accomplish" something. I think there are better venues for that. Some people just want to play good games, optional lowering of the difficulty wouldn't ruin the games. And hey, you can check their achievements if they really belong to the real Dark Souls club or if they didn't git gud but used easy difficulty instead and still feel superiority.

 

[toddhunter]

Just curious... I always think about how the series is perceived as such a brutally hard experience, when it's truly not and is seriously one of the most unique and rewarding games to date. But its frustrating because so many folks I'm sure pass because of this misconception even if they experienced it and felt it was hard. The thing is, once you adapt its fair as can be and I mean I just wish everyone could see what gems these games are. They have some of the most incredible and rewarding moments, I just want every gamer to experience it and see how good they really can be.

Just a thought, but I would love to help some who can't get into it find a way to finally break the barrier, the series is just that good

You have it back to front.

Far more annoying is the "I have played 7000 hours of dark souls 1 and 2 and finished bloodborne 400 times and made youtube videos about it and I have to say that I found Dark Souls 3 to be too easy" people.

 

[poodaddy]

I agree that the difficulty is a bit overstated, but I also just think the games aren't for everyone. I love how cryptic and atmospheric the games are, but some people prefer their storytelling to be a bit more direct and straightforward; nothing wrong with that really. I feel like the games' marketing is honestly partially to blame for the difficulty misconceptions as Bandai Namco have glorified the difficulty as a focal point many times during their advertisements and events. I think they should of been advertised and sold as horror RPG'S from the outset, that way difficulty wouldn't be as big a deal. People weren't used to being required to learn some very intense gameplay mechanics in order to simply survive in an RPG when Demon's Souls came out and as such the difficulty became a natural distinguishing factor, but I believe people are more willing to accept constant deaths and learning of gameplay systems in a horror oriented IP so the difficulty probably wouldn't of been as much of a focal point in that case.

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

My first experience playing Souls game was When my Friend brought Demon Souls to camp and forced me to play it- all while laughing behind me telling me to get ready to die with little to no hints or tips.

That shit was not fun and thought it was too intentionally punishing. It was years before I saw an idiot on YouTube cleared the game on soul level 1 and figured if he could do it then so can I.

But I bought DS1, and I still never played Demon Souls again.

 

[More_Badass]

But the sentiment, that not all games should be accessible to everyone, it bugs me.

They shouldn't be. And it had nothing to do with the Souls games or fans of them.

Replace games with movies, with books, with tv, with music, and would you feel same? All movies, books, tv, music, etc. should be accessible to everyone? (I think that's what you're saying) Why should games be different?

And I think it's kind of assholish. I can understand why people would play particular ways they play, but presuming to tell others how to play is rude at the very least. And that's the root of the problems discussing Souls difficulty, because there is a group of people who want to be elitist and hang a "You must be this gud to get in" sign on their exclusive club. And people try to write it off as "WELL NOT ALL GAMES ARE FOR EVERYBODY NOR SHUD THEY B" Except what if souls IS for me, just not all parts of it?

Forget that stupid "Get good" nonsense. It's such an easy way to trivialize discussion. Consider if you're playing SpaceChem, would you be annoyed if people were offering tips and trying to help you understand the rules and whatnot of the puzzles? It has nothing with elitism. It's not about protecting some "exclusive club", that's just ridiculous to assume that. The more people enjoying the tense unsettling gorgeously Gothic worlds of Bloodborne and the grotesque monstrosities of Souls games, the better.

Just like you learn the mechanics of a Rocket League or the item synergies of Binding of Isaac or roll with the punches in FTL, Souls games are no different.

 

[The Dude]

Yea I just want more to enjoy it. It's more or less me tryin to say hey don't give up there's a great game to be had there. I think when people get mad at having to repeat some areas they lose sight.

Same with losing souls, it gets to where it's not a major loss when you lose them

 

[Veelk]

They shouldn't be. And it had nothing to do with the Souls games or fans of them.

Replace games with movies, with books, with tv, with music, and would you feel same? All movies, books, tv, music, etc. should be accessible to everyone? (I think that's what you're saying) Why should games be different?

I think you might be mistaking 'accessible' with 'enjoyable'.

The film equivalent of this would be "You are not allowed to progress to the next scene until you understand and interpret this scene the right way".

With games, there is a fail state. I get that. But Souls games not only should be, but they already are accessible by my measurements. What annoys me is people who say they're not, nor should they be. It's just exclusionary.

Accessible means there are many ways of getting it. It doesn't guarantee enjoyability or even success, but Souls games are accessible.

 

[More_Badass]

I think you might be mistaking 'accessible' with 'enjoyable'.

The film equivalent of this would be "You are not allowed to progress to the next scene until you understand and interpret this scene the right way".

With games, there is a fail state. I get that. But Souls games not only should be, but they already are accessible by my measurements. What annoys me is people who say they're not, nor should they be. It's just exclusionary.

Accessible means there are many ways of getting it. It doesn't guarantee enjoyability or even success, but Souls games are accessible.

I still think I'm not fully grasping your point. They don't have to be accessible, although I think if I could get into Souls games after absolutely hating hard games, anyone can.

And I disagree on the film equivalent, IMO it would be asking for a annotated edited version of Memento or 2001. Or a special version of Blood Meridian that explains what the metaphors mean and themes are as you're reading it.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

I think Souls fans need to realize that the average gamer will be completely intimidated by the experience. It might not be as hard as it's made out to be, but it's still incredibly hard by most people's standards.

Came to post something along these lines. These games aren't impossible, but they're still difficult.

 

[Veelk]

If it was enjoyable rather than accessible - "But the sentiment, that not all games should be enjoyable to everyone" - you think so? All games should be enjoyable for everyone?

And I disagree on the film equivalent, IMO it would be asking for a annotated edited version of Memento or 2001. Or a special version of Blood Meridian that explains what the metaphors mean and themes are as you're reading it.

I feel you're misreading.

I am stating that all games should be accessible to people, not that they should all be enjoyable. Accessible means that all people should have a way to get into them. And Souls games are already that, people just prefer to market it otherwise and get upset at others who don't play their way. So I feel my film equivelent description is proper. The exclusive attitude people display is that they want you to play their way, because you're 'ruining it' if you do otherwise. So an interpretation differing from the consensus is possible, just not accepted.

I still think I'm not fully grasping your point. They don't have to be accessible, although I think if I could get into Souls games after absolutely hating hard games, anyone can.

Yes, my point is that anybody can get into the souls games. My criticism is not of the games, because they're very accessible, but of certain portions the community, who like to emphasize that only those that 'git gud' may enter and look down on others who make their way differently.

 

[IvorB]

I wouldn't say he's playing wrong, but he's definitely missing out on the feeling of beating a hard fight, which is one of the best aspects of the series. Overcoming something that felt impossible at fist feels like an achievement. Just leveling up for a whole afternoon and then come back overpowered to the boss kinda takes the fun out of it, imo.

He obviously still loves the games (plat'd them all after all) so there's that.

Well, I guess he doesn't want kind of struggle ha ha. He faced his own struggle grinding up levels and coming back for vengeance much stronger is its own pleasure. It probably doesn't grow his skill in the same way but each to their own. I'm not shy to level up a bit if things are looking untenable.

 

[Wild Card]

I think you might be mistaking 'accessible' with 'enjoyable'.

The film equivalent of this would be "You are not allowed to progress to the next scene until you understand and interpret this scene the right way".

With games, there is a fail state. I get that. But Souls games not only should be, but they already are accessible by my measurements. What annoys me is people who say they're not, nor should they be. It's just exclusionary.

Accessible means there are many ways of getting it. It doesn't guarantee enjoyability or even success, but Souls games are accessible.

What are you arguing for here then? If these games are already accessible according to you, then why change anything? If the game has all tools then everyone should be set. Failure to pass whatever challenge the game presents to you is just that, failure. When you can pass that litmus test, you can then procced and progress, seems relatively simple to me.

 

[More_Badass]

I feel you're misreading.

I am stating that all games should be accessible to people, not that they should all be enjoyable. Accessible means that all people should have a way to get into them. And Souls games are already that, people just prefer to market it otherwise and get upset at others who don't play their way. So I feel my film equivelent description is proper. The exclusive attitude people display is that they want you to play their way, because you're 'ruining it' if you do otherwise. So an interpretation differing from the consensus is possible, just not accepted.

I see

I don't think it's that they want you to play their way, but rather - in the case of these games - an easier game isn't the same game. Sure, the graphics and aesthetic and creature design is the same, the controls are the same, but the game underneath wouldn't be.

Touched on that here

But those intricacies are lost if the game was easier.
Why do I have to learn the depth and intricacies of combat, learn to attack with precise conviction, if I can just bulldoze my way through an encounter since enemies won't do as much damage?
Why should I feel tense and nervous exploring some unknown area if the enemies aren't as much of a danger?
If I can do all that with less care and concern, then how can the world maintain its oppressive atmosphere where even the early enemies can destroy an unfocused player?
Why should I get in the mindset of desperately searching for safety and clearing an area in this insane world when I need to go through my inventory if I could just pause and be safe in the midst of a life-and-death battle?
Why would the bonfires and lamps feel like a shining oasis in a gore-drenched tempest if getting to those checkpoints weren't that much of a struggle?
And so on

 

[Gilby]

The thing that bugs me most about media referencing an aspect of the Souls series isn't the difficulty (although that was annoying) it's the combat!

Anything that has high animation-priority combat now has "souls-like combat", but if anything Monster Hunter was the series that popularized that combat style in 3D action games (obviously attacks that take awhile have been around since just about forever).

It really irritates me, and I know I should just let it go...

 

[Veelk]

What are you arguing for here then? If these games are already accessible according to you, then why change anything? If the game has all tools then everyone should be set. Failure to pass whatever challenge the game presents to you is just that, failure. When you can pass that litmus test, you can then procced and progress, seems relatively simple to me.

It's the attitude of the souls community being hardasses about it that I find objectionable.

For example, easy mode. I totally agree that it's not necessary to add it. But more often than not, the community response is "No, I like it hard, and #NotAllGames have to cater to everyone, so if you want an easy mode, too bad".

Then they bring out all these arguments about how it will hurt the design of the game, when it's blatantly obvious that it won't. The only actual argument here is that it'd be redundant.

But honestly? I'm okay with some redundancy. So they have another easy mode in addition to the other easy modes. So? Who cares?

Having that redundancy would have precisely 0 affect on my game, but it would help everyone else get introduced into the souls world, so I would consider an easy mode to be a good addition, even if it's not necessary.

I see

I don't think it's that they want you to play their way, but rather - in the case of these games - an easier game isn't the same game. Sure, the graphics and aesthetic and creature design is the same, the controls are the same, but the game underneath wouldn't be.

Touched on that here

The game not being the same is kind of the point here.

Not everyone is looking for the same experience. To the people who want to just explore the world, the aesthetic and creature design, figure out the story, etc, yeah, it would be a different game.

For them, a better game. Because they're not interested in those things.

And I just can't see why people shouldn't be offered that course. Certainly, we shouldn't lose the things you describe on there. There is a large part of the souls community that cares more about the part you describe than any other. But I'm not suggesting we lose that for everyone, just the players who want it lost.

When you go to a resturant and see a dish you like, but it has mayo, and you hate mayo, you ask them to hold the mayo. Would it be reasonable for the server to go "No, this is how the dish is meant to eaten, with mayo" and refuse to change the order? I don't think so.

 

[breakfuss]

Not a "fan" so perhaps I shouldn't be answering, but these games are hard IMO. We all define difficulty differently. To each their own.

 

[Gilby]

It's the attitude of the souls community being hardasses about it that I find objectionable.

For example, easy mode. I totally agree that it's not necessary to add it. But more often than not, the community response is "No, I like it hard, and #NotAllGames have to cater to everyone, so if you want an easy mode, too bad".

Then they bring out all these arguments about how it will hurt the design of the game, when it's blatantly obvious that it won't. The only actual argument here is that it'd be redundant.

But honestly? I'm okay with some redundancy. So they have another easy mode in addition to the other easy modes. So? Who cares?

Having that redundancy would have precisely 0 affect on my game, but it would help everyone else get introduced into the souls world, so I would consider an easy mode to be a good addition, even if it's not necessary.



The game not being the same is kind of the point here.

Not everyone is looking for the same experience. To the people who want to just explore the world, the aesthetic and creature design, figure out the story, etc, yeah, it would be a different game.

For them, a better game. Because they're not interested in those things.

And I just can't see why people shouldn't be offered that course.

Funnily enough, there's a good youtube video on just this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tPJDZv_VE

Spoiler

Basically, Souls has things built into the game that can make it easier, it's just not a menu option.

 

[More_Badass]

It's the attitude of the souls community being hardasses about it that I find objectionable.

For example, easy mode. I totally agree that it's not necessary to add it. But more often than not, the community response is "No, I like it hard, and #NotAllGames have to cater to everyone, so if you want an easy mode, too bad".

Then they bring out all these arguments about how it will hurt the design of the game, when it's blatantly obvious that it won't. The only actual argument here is that it'd be redundant.

But it would. Difficulty enemies and areas in these games' open worlds essentially act as skill gates in a metroidvania. Running into enemies that are too hard for you is a sign to turn the other way, and try a different place. If that wasn't as much as of an issue, the structure of the world, enemy placement, and curve of player's progression would be out of whack. Through these natural barriers, the games train and prepare you so by the time you come back around to face those previously impossible enemies, you're ready for them and have the skills and gear to survive effectively.

For example, the first actual area in Dark Souls has three distinct paths, but by trying to fight, you realize two of them are way too advanced for you, and the game subtly encourages you to head up to Undead Burg, where there are easier enemies that you can handle

 

[Veelk]

But it would. Difficulty enemies and areas in these games' open worlds essentially act as skill gates in a metroidvania. Running into enemies that are too hard for you is a sign to turn the other way, and try a different place. If that wasn't as much as of an issue, the structure of the world, enemy placement, and curve of player's progression would be out of whack. Through these natural barriers, the games train and prepare you so by the time you come back around to face those previously impossible enemies, you're ready for them and have the skills and gear to survive effectively

With something more linear than DS1 like Bloodborne or DS3, what you describe wouldn't be a problem. For DS1, there would still be enemy difficulty variation. "Easy mode" doesn't mean enemies are dead fish, just that they are relatively easier than the normal mode. Worst case scenerio, the developers would have to put in some more effort in rebalancing the easy mode (which, since developing games is their jobs, is fine by me), but there's no reason to redesign the existing normal mode.

Funnily enough, there's a good youtube video on just this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tPJDZv_VE

Spoiler

Basically, Souls has things built into the game that can make it easier, it's just not a menu option.

This is something I stated in my original post and something I agree with. Yes, there is an easy mode. But the fact that you need a youtube video explaining that to people, even fans who played the game, kind of works against the game since you need to already be knowledgeable on it before you even start out. The advantage of a menu option is that everyone knows where it is, what it does, and how it affects the game.

 

[Zocano]

For them, a better game. Because they're not interested in those things.

And I just can't see why people shouldn't be offered that course. Certainly, we shouldn't lose the things you describe on there. There is a large part of the souls community that cares more about the part you describe than any other. But I'm not suggesting we lose that for everyone, just the players who want it lost.

Sure they can get it.

In a different game.

The devs will make the game they want to make. If they want to cater to certain audiences versus others, they will. I'm not going to be miffed if a player that wants a different game than Souls complains that the Souls games are still what makes Souls games Souls games.

 

[Veelk]

Sure they can get it.

In a different game.

The devs will make the game they want to make. If they want to cater to certain audiences versus others, they will. I'm not going to be miffed if a player that wants a different game than Souls complains that the Souls games are still what makes Souls games Souls games.

Every game makes every game every game.

Souls games are not unique in this, nor are the choices developers make any more protected by their intentions than any other developers, or any other creator. That Miyazaki's choice to exclude an easy mode is his choice is not a better or worse choice for the fact that it is his. So I can only judge that choice based on how it benefits the experience for players. Plenty of people would be happy with a way to play Souls without the combat dragging the experience down for them if that's what they don't like.

Besides, no one here is talking about playing a literally different game. Again, I ask you, what if I'm a player who doesn't care at all about the combat, but is deeply in love with the aesthetic and storytelling and wants to be involved in the game, but is having difficulty because of the combat, and gains no satisfaction from it even as he gets better in it and just tries to clear out an area asap so they can explore the ruins and find stuff? Should that player just fuck off then? Because that's what I get from responses like "WELL SOULZ IZ SOULZ, GO PLAY SOMETHING ELSE"

 

[Zocano]

There are dozens of LPs that could serve that player just fine. The difficulty is as much a part of Souls ethos as everything else in it.

I'm the last person that would fall in the annoying Miyazaki cult of personality but, as a whole, if the devs don't care to make their game "accessible" then they don't have to.

 

[Manu]

Besides, no one here is talking about playing a literally different game. Again, I ask you, what if I'm a player who doesn't care at all about the combat, but is deeply in love with the aesthetic and storytelling and wants to be involved in the game, but is having difficulty because of the combat, and gains no satisfaction from it even as he gets better in it and just tries to clear out an area asap so they can explore the ruins and find stuff? Should that player just fuck off then? Because that's what I get from responses like "WELL SOULZ IZ SOULZ, GO PLAY SOMETHING ELSE"

Someone earlier put EVE Online as an example. EVE looks really interesting, but requires a skill level and time investment few other games have. Should there be a "EVE Lite" for people who don't want to put in the effort? Why?

 

[Demoskinos]

Yes because you can't say souls isn't hard without someone getting severely tilted about them having issues with it.

If you go in with the right mindset or play patiently, the series isn't really that hard at all. It teaches you how to play with this mindset, learn it and the entire series is easier than most action games are.

Basically. The game just demands a little attention.

 

[Veelk]

There are dozens of LPs that could serve that player just fine. The difficulty is as much a part of Souls ethos as everything else in it.

I'm the last person that would fall in the annoying Miyazaki cult of personality but, as a whole, if the devs don't care to make their game "accessible" then they don't have to.

Of course they don't have to. No one here is demanding we pass legislation that prevents Miyazaki from making the game he wants.

All the same, we can question the wisdom of such, and any other, decision. For example, lets say that in the next game, a developer decided to make a mechanic that the player just dies every hour. No warning, no way to avoid it, no explanation even. They just die every hour and have to restart from whatever checkpoint they last saved at.

No one would hesitate, I think, to call this out as a bad decision in just about any kind of game and anyone who tried to defend this as "But this is how the game is meant to be played! It's the developer's vision" would be laughed at. Any defense that involves "Well, that's how the developer intended things to be" as the main thrust of their argument is a bad argument. It's, as you described it, cultish thinking, where respect for a developer substitutes critical thinking. Don't tell me if it was intended, tell me why it's worthwhile.

Anyway, Miyazaki doesn't have to do anything at all, but I've laid out my argument for why an easy mode wouldn't be the end of the world. But personally, I'd rather Souls just stopped trying to sell itself as this hardcore, super difficult game that only the elite can play and you can't unless you git gud. It's a very accessible game, and the only reason people ask for an easy mode is because the community doesn't shut up about how hard it is.

Someone earlier put EVE Online as an example. EVE looks really interesting, but requires a skill level and time investment few other games have. Should there be a "EVE Lite" for people who don't want to put in the effort? Why?

So...they can...play? As long as EVE Online continues to exist for people who like it how it is, I don't see a real reason for why there shouldn't be an EVE lite for people who want to explore stuff without the time investment/skill or whatever. Honestly, I have no idea what EVE is outside a few screenshots I've seen, but this applies to literally any game. If people like parts of Game version A, but there is a significant segment of people who don't like one significant part of it, but really like the other parts, and you can easily make a version B at little to no cost that accomodates those people without losing version A that people already like....why not?

 

[gblues]

A game doesn't sell 2 million copies because only mascohists enjoy it. Have you wondered perhaps that that perpsective is off rather than those of the "defenders" and "vociferous fans"?

I love this kind of idiotic hyperbole. Dark Souls games are the best-selling Japanese games on Steam, by far. They sold millions of copies. They aren't even that niche anymore. "Only masochists can enjoy" is like saying "only stupid, deviant people enjoy this game", which is really insulting when you think about it.

Right, because games that sell don't have room for improvement? I don't see what sales have to do with anything. Hell, 3 of those sales are to me (4 if you include Demons' Souls on PS+).

Yes, I was being hyperbolic. My point is less about the flaws and more about how complaints are responded to. People who want a real pause feature or difficulty modifiers that don't require an Internet connection get routinely told to piss off, and there's multiple examples of that behavior in this thread.

While I think this particular point of discussion has been covered by More_Badass and others, and part of my point may intersect and overlap with theirs, the diffuculty of the game not only determines how the player interacts with the moment-to-moment gameplay, but the world itself. It contributes quite heavily to the theming of the game, the air of hoplessness that is much better appreciated, much more relateable because you yourself have experienced the same hardship the denizens of this dying world have. You must tread carefully throughout each area, even those you have previously explored. I'll put it like this. the way you behave thoughout this world seems like to could mirror a character written trying to live thoughout the world of Dark Souls.

I don't dispute the overall point Wild Card is making, but the bolded is the justification given against doing anything that might actually benefit the player.

And it's not for lack of effort, either. I own almost every entry in the series, hoping for refinements that might make it finally click, and it never does. My history with Souls:

- DeS: cleared quite a few areas, got stuck on I wanna say 3-1? The mine with the fire-breathing whatsit at the end. Got tired of carefully fighting my way to the boss only to die almost immediately against the boss.

- DkS: Multiple attempts. Most recently managed to ring the first bell. Got to Blighttown, got toxic'd, then ended up getting cursed by a goddamn basilisk.

- DkS 2: Made a fair bit of headway on this one too. Got to a boss with two giant guys in a tower. Forgetting the name.

- Bloodborne: Haven't put a lot of time into this one. Haven't even made it to the first boss.

I can handle an oppressive atmosphere, but there's no relief from the tension.

My personal wishlist for improvements:

1. Pause. There's no reason to disable pause when I'm playing offline. None. Quitting to the menu is not the same thing and not a reasonable expectation.

2. When killed by a boss, make it so your souls are outside the boss room. If I'm going up against a boss, I don't want to be both trying to learn the boss' patterns *and* dashing towards my souls to recover them.

3. Some kind of soul storage. There's ways to do this without sacrificing the overall tone of the game, like make it cost a level per transaction and limit to units of 1000. Or spend a level to convert carried souls to an item.

4. A checkpoint near the boss, or at least a short-cut that makes it take less time to get back to the boss after dying.

On the topic of an easy mode, it's definitely not as simple as a damage modifier, since there's plenty of hard spots that have nothing to do with damage dealing. But, a few things that could be done in a theoretical easy mode, such as:

- Reduced duration of DoT effects like poison/toxic
- No persistent status effects
- More iframes in general
- Rolling is always full speed and lowest recovery time regardless of stats
- Reduced knockback from hard hits/projectiles
- Souls dropped when you die stay there until you come back and pick them up (are not lost if you die before reclaiming them).

With tradeoffs, like enemies give fewer souls or levels cost more souls.

 

[Skii]

With something more linear than DS1 like Bloodborne or DS3, what you describe wouldn't be a problem. For DS1, there would still be enemy difficulty variation. "Easy mode" doesn't mean enemies are dead fish, just that they are relatively easier than the normal mode. Worst case scenerio, the developers would have to put in some more effort in rebalancing the easy mode (which, since developing games is their jobs, is fine by me), but there's no reason to redesign the existing normal mode.

How easy would you make the easy mode? What if it's still too hard for a lot of the potential newcomers? What if it becomes too easy for a lot of the newcomers robbing them of the experience this game is supposed to provide.

And the opportunity cost of spending time making an easy mode?

It's genuinely hilarious that so many people think that Miyazaki and co haven't considered all these options and clearly don't feel it's feasible after 5 games. But what do they know? They're only one of the most popular Japanese developers of this generation.

 

[Veelk]

How easy would you make the easy mode? What if it's still too hard for a lot of the potential newcomers? What if it becomes too easy for a lot of the newcomers robbing them of the experience this game is supposed to provide.

And the opportunity cost of spending time making an easy mode?

It's genuinely hilarious that so many people think that Miyazaki and co haven't considered all these options and clearly don't feel it's feasible after 5 games. But what do they know? They're only one of the most popular Japanese developers of this generation.

So your argument that an easy mode shouldn't be made is that....it'd require effort?

That is indeed hilarious and ironic.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Right, because games that sell don't have room for improvement?

I didn't say that at all? What?

I don't see what sales have to do with anything. Hell, 3 of those sales are to me (4 if you include Demons' Souls on PS+).

You said the only people who enjoy these games are "masochists". That would suggest they are very niche games, high sales prove that they are not.

Yes, I was being hyperbolic. My point is less about the flaws and more about how complaints are responded to. People who want a real pause feature or difficulty modifiers that don't require an Internet connection get routinely told to piss off, and there's multiple examples of that behavior in this thread.

Yes, because they are bad ideas that would go against the design philosophy of these games that many, myself include, appreciate about it.

I can handle an oppressive atmosphere, but there's no relief from the tension.

And that's great, and that's why we love these games.

(But technically it's not strictly true, there are some reliefs, like Firelink Shrine. But they are rare and that's what many of us love about these games.)

1. Pause. There's no reason to disable pause when I'm playing offline. None. Quitting to the menu is not the same thing and not a reasonable expectation.

2. When killed by a boss, make it so your souls are outside the boss room. If I'm going up against a boss, I don't want to be both trying to learn the boss' patterns *and* dashing towards my souls to recover them.

3. Some kind of soul storage. There's ways to do this without sacrificing the overall tone of the game, like make it cost a level per transaction and limit to units of 1000. Or spend a level to convert carried souls to an item.

4. A checkpoint near the boss, or at least a short-cut that makes it take less time to get back to the boss after dying.

On the topic of an easy mode, it's definitely not as simple as a damage modifier, since there's plenty of hard spots that have nothing to do with damage dealing. But, a few things that could be done in a theoretical easy mode, such as:

- Reduced duration of DoT effects like poison/toxic
- No persistent status effects
- More iframes in general
- Rolling is always full speed and lowest recovery time regardless of stats
- Reduced knockback from hard hits/projectiles
- Souls dropped when you die stay there until you come back and pick them up (are not lost if you die before reclaiming them).

With tradeoffs, like enemies give fewer souls or levels cost more souls.

Every single one of those things sound awful and would effectively ruin the games for me. I'm very glad you are not in charge of making these games.

These games are not for you.

So your argument that an easy mode shouldn't be made is that....it'd require effort?

That is indeed hilarious and ironic.

Huh? That's your take on this post?

Effort as in, dev resources, maybe. Nothing hilarious about that, such resources are definitely finite.
But the point being expressed is, why waste dev resources on something that would probably not improve the overall package, just to please a few whiners?

 

[Veelk]

Huh? That's your take on this post?

Effort as in, dev resources, maybe. Nothing hilarious about that, such resources are definitely finite.
But the point being expressed is, why waste dev resources on something that would probably not improve the overall package, just to please a few whiners?

If you're writing off people who hold different tastes, but still value and wish to explore other aspects of Souls as 'whiners', then we're not going to find any common ground, because you pre-emptively have decided that such people are not worth any effort.

And frankly, it's why we have this problem in the first place. I don't think the Souls need an easy mode, but I can't blame people for wanting one when people preach the virtues of the game with sentiments like that.

 

[Skii]

Right, because games that sell don't have room for improvement? I don't see what sales have to do with anything. Hell, 3 of those sales are to me (4 if you include Demons' Souls on PS+).

Yes, I was being hyperbolic. My point is less about the flaws and more about how complaints are responded to. People who want a real pause feature or difficulty modifiers that don't require an Internet connection get routinely told to piss off, and there's multiple examples of that behavior in this thread.



I don't dispute the overall point Wild Card is making, but the bolded is the justification given against doing anything that might actually benefit the player.

And it's not for lack of effort, either. I own almost every entry in the series, hoping for refinements that might make it finally click, and it never does. My history with Souls:

- DeS: cleared quite a few areas, got stuck on I wanna say 3-1? The mine with the fire-breathing whatsit at the end. Got tired of carefully fighting my way to the boss only to die almost immediately against the boss.

- DkS: Multiple attempts. Most recently managed to ring the first bell. Got to Blighttown, got toxic'd, then ended up getting cursed by a goddamn basilisk.

- DkS 2: Made a fair bit of headway on this one too. Got to a boss with two giant guys in a tower. Forgetting the name.

- Bloodborne: Haven't put a lot of time into this one. Haven't even made it to the first boss.

I can handle an oppressive atmosphere, but there's no relief from the tension.

My personal wishlist for improvements:

1. Pause. There's no reason to disable pause when I'm playing offline. None. Quitting to the menu is not the same thing and not a reasonable expectation.

2. When killed by a boss, make it so your souls are outside the boss room. If I'm going up against a boss, I don't want to be both trying to learn the boss' patterns *and* dashing towards my souls to recover them.

3. Some kind of soul storage. There's ways to do this without sacrificing the overall tone of the game, like make it cost a level per transaction and limit to units of 1000. Or spend a level to convert carried souls to an item.

4. A checkpoint near the boss, or at least a short-cut that makes it take less time to get back to the boss after dying.

On the topic of an easy mode, it's definitely not as simple as a damage modifier, since there's plenty of hard spots that have nothing to do with damage dealing. But, a few things that could be done in a theoretical easy mode, such as:

- Reduced duration of DoT effects like poison/toxic
- No persistent status effects
- More iframes in general
- Rolling is always full speed and lowest recovery time regardless of stats
- Reduced knockback from hard hits/projectiles
- Souls dropped when you die stay there until you come back and pick them up (are not lost if you die before reclaiming them).

With tradeoffs, like enemies give fewer souls or levels cost more souls.

This has to be a joke post right?

So your argument that an easy mode shouldn't be made is that....it'd require effort?

That is indeed hilarious and ironic.

My argument is that an easy mode is completely at odds with the game's vision and philosophy. It's impossible to create one that still upholds the experience Miyazaki wants the player to take away from the Souls series. So why waste time trying to create the impossible when you can spend that time on level design or a new boss or game performance?

 

[Veelk]

My argument is that an easy mode is completely at odds with the game's vision and philosophy. It's impossible to create one that still upholds the experience Miyazaki wants the player to take away from the Souls series. So why waste time trying to create the impossible when you can spend that time on level design or a new boss or game performance?

1. that is not what your post said. Just taht it would take resources and effort. Boo hoo. They're developers, this is literally waht they are paid to do.

2. As stated above, I don't put artists on any kind of pedestal. I don't want Miyazaki's vision, I want a good game. If that happens to be the developer's vision, great. If not, then I want it changed. Being able to customize your experience with things like difficulty settings would enable that. If I feel I am getting a better game by deviating from the developer's vision, why shouldn't I want that?

Too Human is Dyack's vision and the game he wanted people to play. Are you going to argue no changes should have been made to that game's design because it was the creator's vision?

 

[Manu]

Too Human is Dyack's vision and the game he wanted people to play. Are you going to argue no changes should have been made to that game's design because it was the creator's vision?

Was Too Human a critically acclaimed game and widely considered a masterpiece and a modern classic?

 

[Morrigan Stark]

1. that is not what your post said. Just taht it would take resources and effort. Boo hoo. They're developers, this is literally waht they are paid to do.

What a shitty attitude. Dev resources are not free and are not a trivial thing.

Plus it was clear to me that Skii was talking about prioritizing the effort to things that matter more for the game, so yes, that is "what their post said".

2. As stated above, I don't put artists on any kind of pedestal. I don't want Miyazaki's vision, I want a good game.

People want Miyazaki's vision because they think he makes good games.... >_<

 

[Veelk]

Was Too Human a critically acclaimed game and widely considered a masterpiece and a modern classic?

So what, the only time a creator's vision is sacred is when people like it?

No, you can't have it both ways. Either creator's visions have some kind of sanctity that shouldn't be changed regardless of how bad it works within a game or whose vision it is is irrelevant and the only thing that matters is how it works within a game.


I fall heavily on the latter intepretation, because if you can't question the vision of a creator you like, you shouldn't be able to question the vision of a creator you don't. If Miyazaki's vision is sacred, so is Dyack's. So either cough up reasons for why multiple difficulties would impact people that don't use them, or else start thinking of Too Human in the same reverence as Souls games, not because it's good, but because it was some guy's vision.

What a shitty attitude. Dev resources are not free and are not a trivial thing.

Plus it was clear to me that Skii was talking about prioritizing the effort to things that matter more for the game, so yes, that is "what their post said".

Right, and clearly, there is a significant amount of people who want an easy mode, since it keeps coming up as a topic. Clearly, this is worth looking into, at the very least. And while development will always take resources, if they decide to take the laziest possible route with this and just scale down enemy damage/health, I just can't see how this would be an expensive procedure.

So...yeah. I'm asking developers to develop. So shitty.

People want Miyazaki's vision because they think he makes good games.... >_<

Which is where it gets complicated, because there is a group of people who like MOST of Miyazaki's vision, but not ALL of it. And if there was a way to cut out the part they don't like, that'd be the best game for them, meaning that's the game they want, the one that's 90% of Miyazaki's vision, but not entirely.

 

[IvorB]

So your argument that an easy mode shouldn't be made is that....it'd require effort?

That is indeed hilarious and ironic.

Well it's a valid point. These are games that are catering to a specific niche by a small studio so it's valid to be resistant to people wanting the devs to spend time and effort making it accessible to others at the cost of channeling all of that into making the best experience possible for them.

But also I think Souls games are a poster child for a group of gamers that see the watering down of gaming difficulty becoming endemic today and have a distaste for many of the associated gaming trends. So it's natural that people should feel defensive about people wanted that mentality applied to this game also. Whether this view point is right or wrong it does beg the question that with pretty much every major game coming out aiming for accessibility can't people be satisfied to leave this as is for those that appreciate it?

I mean if I like certain aspects of a heavy metal groups output but not the sum of its parts do I pester them to make a pop mix album of their work for the sake of accessibility?

 

[Kerotan Frog]

Yea, I think people feel it's a game to just put your balls in a vice and crush them and it's not. It's not about being difficult to be difficult

To be fair, Dark Souls 2 was like that a little in the beginning. Holy ganksquads Batman... But you learn to divide and conquer so it's not that bad when you get into the flow of it.

They're not hard games, just unforgiving. But as many have said, just summon if you don't want to struggle. But it's fun to finish all the bosses solo. It's how it was meant to be played. Summoning kind of breaks the fights lol.

 

[Skii]

1. that is not what your post said. Just taht it would take resources and effort. Boo hoo. They're developers, this is literally waht they are paid to do.

2. As stated above, I don't put artists on any kind of pedestal. I don't want Miyazaki's vision, I want a good game. If that happens to be the developer's vision, great. If not, then I want it changed. Being able to customize your experience with things like difficulty settings would enable that. If I feel I am getting a better game by deviating from the developer's vision, why shouldn't I want that?

Too Human is Dyack's vision and the game he wanted people to play. Are you going to argue no changes should have been made to that game's design because it was the creator's vision?

Oh I'm sorry. I forgot From have an infinite supply of money and time. How dare I suggest they may be constrained by resources.

Miyazaki's vision of the Souls series is a critical success. Every game in the Soulsbourne series is a critical success and each iteration brings in more money and a larger audience because surprise surprise, a lot of people want to play a game like Dark Souls. So the developers vision has been realised as an absolutely superb series that will go down in history. So again, tell me why they should change it? Why should they sacrifice their vision and principles for the lowest common denominator. Please tell me.

So I will put Miyazaki on a pedestal as he's proven to be one of the top gaming directors of this generation. He has created masterpiece after masterpiece and has rightfully become adored by millions for it. Do not compare him to directors/developers who failed. They clearly aren't remotely as talented as From are.

 

[whalleywhat]

1. that is not what your post said. Just taht it would take resources and effort. Boo hoo. They're developers, this is literally waht they are paid to do.

2. As stated above, I don't put artists on any kind of pedestal. I don't want Miyazaki's vision, I want a good game. If that happens to be the developer's vision, great. If not, then I want it changed. Being able to customize your experience with things like difficulty settings would enable that. If I feel I am getting a better game by deviating from the developer's vision, why shouldn't I want that?

Too Human is Dyack's vision and the game he wanted people to play. Are you going to argue no changes should have been made to that game's design because it was the creator's vision?

Ugh.

 

[Veelk]

Oh I'm sorry. I forgot From have an infinite supply of money and time. How dare I suggest they may be constrained by resources.

I'm not a game developer, but I fail to see how offering a mode that changes some damage values would be some kind of bankrupcy inducing move. Of all possible development challenges, it seems like this would be easiest of anything.

Regardless, it's not what you said in your original post. Don't get mad at me that you can't keep what you wrote consistent in your head.

*Basically, developers I (or other people) like are sacred cows that can't be touched while those aren't need to listen to me*

Yeah, see above, you can't go both ways on this. Either creator's vision, regardless of quality, is sacred or it's not. Whenever you make the argument "Well, they're good at what they do!", you're indirectly saying who it comes from isn't the relevant variable, it's the quality of the decision.

If you want to have a debate over the quality of such a decision, awesome, I'd be happy to. But don't come to me with "But Miyazaki's vision!" if you're just going to turn around and say other creator's visions are shit. Either have a debate on the quality of the design rather than the source of it, or just tolerate the religions of others like we tolerate Miyazakism.

 

[whalleywhat]

Don't feed the troll.

 

[More_Badass]

Ugh.

Don't feed the troll.

Yes, don't feed the troll. Or you could actually try to contribute to the discussion?

 

[Screaming Meat]

2. As stated above, I don't put artists on any kind of pedestal. I don't want Miyazaki's vision, I want a good game. If that happens to be the developer's vision, great. If not, then I want it changed. Being able to customize your experience with things like difficulty settings would enable that. If I feel I am getting a better game by deviating from the developer's vision, why shouldn't I want that?

You don't have to hold an artist on a pedestal to respect what they're trying to achieve, nor to understand that maybe what you want from their work could be the antithesis of it.

Should all games be designed specifically for you? What makes a game 'good' is entirely subjective, so maybe your ideas make it shitter for everyone else? There's a shit ton of games out there that go out of their way to please everyone (sometimes to their detriment), so I think there is plenty of room for niche titles like Souls that want to do their own thing and expect something of the player in return. In fact, I welcome games that do that, even if I don't have the ability to play them myself. It adds variety to the landscape.

It's not exclusionary or elitist either, everyone has access to the game and can learn how to play it should they wish to put the time and effort in. If they're not willing to even muster that, why not play a game that they are willing to do that? Add an Easy Mode for those less able when the principle design tenant of the game is to overcome adversity? Why play it at all?

I mean, I can't do quarter-roll or back-forward moves in Streetfighter 2, but I don't demand they change that just for lil ol' me. I don't have the time required to get in to EVE Online, but I don't expect them to make it quicker and simpler just to accommodate me.

 

[whalleywhat]

Yes, don't feed the troll. Or you could actually try to contribute to the discussion?

What discussion? He's actively trying to aggravate people. Maybe we'll come to terms about how this widely enjoyed game series needs to be tailored to his requirements so that people can amble around and appreciate the assets.

And yes, I'd much rather have Dennis Dyack make the bad game he wants to make than some focus grouped pablum. I don't have to play every game that gets released, and the former has far more chance of being at the very least interesting.

There.