The Dude
Member
Yea, that might of been better title phasing. Because I wasn't trying to imply they can be beaten by a baby, just that they aren't as hard as some make them out to be.
-
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.
Souls fans, does the difficulty misconception frustrate you?
- Thread starter The Dude
- Start date
Yea, that might of been better title phasing. Because I wasn't trying to imply they can be beaten by a baby, just that they aren't as hard as some make them out to be.
Oh god the easy mode debate.
Honestly, I don't get why people get so angry about this. If they wanna put in an easy mode and they did, cool, and right now they don't and it's not like the games do poorly. All easy mode would be would be adjusting damage values, you know, that thing that the game already does for NG+. Think of easy mode as a NG-, relative to NG.
They already compromised on balance with NG+ that just ups health on enemies, how would this be any different? Sure, some people would take it from the start and maybe have a lesser experience because of it, but others would actually be able to play the game thanks to it. An easy mode just wouldn't change very much.
I mean, I'm against it because I don't think an easy mode is worth them putting the time into, but if it existed it wouldn't really affect me at all.
Honestly, I don't get why people get so angry about this. If they wanna put in an easy mode and they did, cool, and right now they don't and it's not like the games do poorly. All easy mode would be would be adjusting damage values, you know, that thing that the game already does for NG+. Think of easy mode as a NG-, relative to NG.
They already compromised on balance with NG+ that just ups health on enemies, how would this be any different? Sure, some people would take it from the start and maybe have a lesser experience because of it, but others would actually be able to play the game thanks to it. An easy mode just wouldn't change very much.
I mean, I'm against it because I don't think an easy mode is worth them putting the time into, but if it existed it wouldn't really affect me at all.
Well, first off, I don't consider it an obligation at all. My reactions have been more about the vehement and disrespectful attitude that many posters show in response to the, in my opinion, reasonable request by the community for an easy mode. We can disagree all we want, and I can respect that, but I see too often people just being abrasive and hostile. And it's weird that people keep defaulting this as though it's something I want. I've said multiple times that I'm perfectly fine with the difficulty as is, but I understand and consider the plea for an easy mode to be a valid one and firmly believe there is a middle ground that can be reached if we were to try. I don't want the difficulty lessened for myself, but I'm a bit proponent of self customization.
As far as me tolerating those stuff I don't like are, if I could somehow eat my way around the parts I didn't like, I totally would. There are plenty of episodes I am not going to see when I do my rewatch of Steven Universe, for example, I just had to figure out which ones they were when I first saw them. I'm a big fan of customization, and I do not hold the creator's vision to be anything sacred. To use a simple example for the sake of clarity, lets suppose that it is the creator's vision that the Greatsword look like it does. But I really want my character to cosplay Guts, so I find a texture mod that turns that greatsword into the Dragonslayer sword, complete with berserk armor. I wouldn't care if Miyazaki personally called me to plead how it is his vision that I use the in-game texture, I hold my desired experience of the game above his desired experience for me, and you can escalate from a simple texture change to something gamebreaking like using a cheat engine to level up before I'm supposed to or get items that would otherwise be tedious to get. When it comes down to a choice between a creator's vision and my desire, my desire wins, always. If it's within my power to change the game to my desire, I will. And I'm lost as to why anyone would do otherwise. Are you playing to make yourself happy, or Miyazaki? If Miyazaki's interpretation is what you want, that's great, you can play that, but only because that's what makes YOU, the player, happy, not Miyazaki. And if it's not, yet you still want to see the other parts of the game, why shouldn't you be searching for a way to eat around the parts of his vision you don't want?
The artist's job is to offer his vision to the audience, but once it's out and in the wild, it's up to us to decide what to do with it, and I'll customize it how I can whether it is or is not within the creator's vision.
Anyway, as far as the easy mode itself, I have stressed that I consider it imperative that Souls keeps it's identity as a difficult game, because that's important to many people. However, I can't wrap my head around how an alternative mode with features to make the game easier could possibly have an affect any kind of affect whatsoever on a normal mode. That's what no one has been able to answer me. How would some random person playing a completely separate mode affect you?
Lets just take bloodborne as an example. If it was patched tomorrow with an option to start a new game on easy mode that lowers enemy health, with no online features, how would the normal game mode we have all played and could still play again be hurt by this? What precisely is lost by the mere existence of an easy mode that you have no obligation to play? What precisely is the cost here? If you can convince me there is some kind of tangible connection that proves some kind of detriment to the main game, I'll concede the argument, but it has to be actually tangible. Otherwise, I just honestly don't see what is lost here other than the ability for some players to lord an achievement over others.
As for money, well, regardless of how well they're doing, I'm sure they'd still like to be doing better. That's kind of how businesses work, they always want to go higher. But unless you have stock in the company, I don't see why you'd care how they do. Having an easy mode would only increase the number of players. more players who see the narly designs of the creatures, the incredible level design, the atmosphere, and the piecemeal storyline. When I say it'd be good for the series to get more players, I'm not talking about the company's bottom line, but rather how many people get to experience pieces of an incredible game series without having to worry about the part of the series they aren't interested in.
hydrophilic attack
Member
I feel like the elitist sentiments expressed by the Souls fanatics in this thread should not be allowed on a liberal, inclusive place like gaf. An easy mode could probably be implemented in a week's amount of work (at the very most) but could open the game up to so many more people. This is exactly the kind of mindset that scares people away from the medium. Souls fans that want to shut bad players out from this intriguing series are no better than gamergaters that want to make sure that women don't feel welcome in games. A certain required skill level is no less an arbitrary criterion to exclude people with than whatever genitals one happens to (wish to) possess.
As a European, I can't help but feel that this is due to there being so many Americans on this forum. From all I have read on gaf off-topic, I would consider myself an expert on American culture, and from my observations wanting to exclude people based on arbitrary criteria is a huge part of it. Requiring a certain amount of skills to enjoy all the assets and lore of a game is no better than devising arbitrary rules to exclude groups of people from voting in elections. Just like no one should be forced to wait hours in line to get to cast their vote, no one should have to waste hours of their life in order to run back to a boss over and over again just to get another shot at it, while trash enemies whittle down their Estus supply and resolve like so many Trump election observers. Just like healthcare and education should be fundamental rights in a modern society, so should access to the content of a game you have paid for.
It's no wonder Trump can get so many votes in a culture where the inherent exclusion of games like Dark Souls can be so celebrated. Disgusting.
As a European, I can't help but feel that this is due to there being so many Americans on this forum. From all I have read on gaf off-topic, I would consider myself an expert on American culture, and from my observations wanting to exclude people based on arbitrary criteria is a huge part of it. Requiring a certain amount of skills to enjoy all the assets and lore of a game is no better than devising arbitrary rules to exclude groups of people from voting in elections. Just like no one should be forced to wait hours in line to get to cast their vote, no one should have to waste hours of their life in order to run back to a boss over and over again just to get another shot at it, while trash enemies whittle down their Estus supply and resolve like so many Trump election observers. Just like healthcare and education should be fundamental rights in a modern society, so should access to the content of a game you have paid for.
It's no wonder Trump can get so many votes in a culture where the inherent exclusion of games like Dark Souls can be so celebrated. Disgusting.
Pff.. the game is just complex for a newcomer. Takes a very diferent approach than the button mashing/follow-the-objective-marker/instant respawning/ games we've become used to so it takes some readjusting.
Also doesn't help that they always pit you against a fairly dificult boss very early on. By the time you're still struggling to figure things out they already expect you to run a marathon. A newbie might get frustrated thinking the enitre game will be like that.
Also doesn't help that they always pit you against a fairly dificult boss very early on. By the time you're still struggling to figure things out they already expect you to run a marathon. A newbie might get frustrated thinking the enitre game will be like that.
Permanent death is one of the core designs of Fire Emblem and a tradition proudly held by fans for 20 years - longer than the Souls series has ever been. Then Nintendo added Phoenix mode and the series sells better than ever. I persoanlly don't mind easy mode at all. I will never use it. If someone else needs it to enjoy the game, go ahead. I find the "elite" mindset of Souls fanbase really toxicating. Also, no one has the right to tell other people what's the right way to play a singleplayer game. I cheesed my way through most of Bloodborne (including reloading save file via PS+) and I'm having fun, that's all I care.
Wholly agreed. I beat two of them, yet still, simply because they may not be hard for you OP, they were brutal and extremely punishing for me. Often it does feel like the game is hard to be hard, not that there is anything wrong with that. It lets you learn from your mistakes, but there is legitimacy in the opinions of folks who aren't as hardcore or super skilled as you. Hell, i died in a few swipes against Sif countless times and never beat the game, yet killed the Capra Demon pre patch. Folks're different.
eXistor
Member
But every Souls game is like that. We all had to get over that hump and by the looks of it a lot of people did manage it. Not every game needs to cater to the lowest common denominator. There's millions of people out there looking for a game that respects the intelligence of the player and give them a challenge. I hope FROM never caters to the other crowd, they've found an audience for their games and we love them for it. If they would change that it would feel almost like a betrayal.
Yes, I think its actually hurt the game in a couple of ways. One, people get the wrong idea about the game design like you stated. People think its just hard, but honestly it isn't hard. Its punishing but not hard. Worse they think its hard for the sake of being hard and it isn't. Their is usually an idea being what they are doing and then they give you tools to defeat it. That's kind of what the game is all about but people just think its this super hard game because of the marketing.
Two, like I alluded to, people think the game is hard because of the marketing which I think is a mistake. I understand they needed to find a way to sell the game to the public, but I do think that the "Prepare to Die, Git Gud" stuff has really shaped the communities standards for the game in a really negative way. One the many complaints about DS2 was that the bosses were too easy but honestly there has only been a few bosses in the series that were truly hard up to that point. I think the hardest bosses up to that point in the series were Maneater, O and S, 4 kings, Artorias, Kalameet, and Manus. The rest were pretty damn easy all things considered. Then DS2 comes out and everyone is like "These bosses are too easy" and its like huh? They were never really that hard. It was just the punishment for getting was very severe so it made you nervous and tense up a bit which gave the fight a little something extra.
Third, I do think from has put things in the game to make the game hard. A good example is in DS3. The consumed kings garden has 4 cathedral knights, 3 pus of man's (4 if you let that one hollow turn into a pus of man), a healing priest, and the beginning area is covered in toxic. Like, why is it like this? Surely one pus of man and 2 cathedral knights would've been fine so why are there so many enemies in an area that basically has nothing in it expect the boss? Seems like it was done because they needed to make it harder to get to the boss which I think is a bit cheap and they've honestly been doing it more and more in their games which I think is a reaction to the marketing and the fans getting the wrong message about their games.
Not sure what could change it back honestly other than doing a game that isn't souls. I think if they do anything souls like, their will be this expectation that it will be "hard" and I don't think I like that. I like their interesting designs and world layout and I feel like that is getting lost in this need to be "hard".
Edit: Are we having the easy mode debate again? Please no. Hasn't this been talked about enough and why its a bad idea?
Two, like I alluded to, people think the game is hard because of the marketing which I think is a mistake. I understand they needed to find a way to sell the game to the public, but I do think that the "Prepare to Die, Git Gud" stuff has really shaped the communities standards for the game in a really negative way. One the many complaints about DS2 was that the bosses were too easy but honestly there has only been a few bosses in the series that were truly hard up to that point. I think the hardest bosses up to that point in the series were Maneater, O and S, 4 kings, Artorias, Kalameet, and Manus. The rest were pretty damn easy all things considered. Then DS2 comes out and everyone is like "These bosses are too easy" and its like huh? They were never really that hard. It was just the punishment for getting was very severe so it made you nervous and tense up a bit which gave the fight a little something extra.
Third, I do think from has put things in the game to make the game hard. A good example is in DS3. The consumed kings garden has 4 cathedral knights, 3 pus of man's (4 if you let that one hollow turn into a pus of man), a healing priest, and the beginning area is covered in toxic. Like, why is it like this? Surely one pus of man and 2 cathedral knights would've been fine so why are there so many enemies in an area that basically has nothing in it expect the boss? Seems like it was done because they needed to make it harder to get to the boss which I think is a bit cheap and they've honestly been doing it more and more in their games which I think is a reaction to the marketing and the fans getting the wrong message about their games.
Not sure what could change it back honestly other than doing a game that isn't souls. I think if they do anything souls like, their will be this expectation that it will be "hard" and I don't think I like that. I like their interesting designs and world layout and I feel like that is getting lost in this need to be "hard".
Edit: Are we having the easy mode debate again? Please no. Hasn't this been talked about enough and why its a bad idea?
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
I think your sword example is a different ballpark to fundamentally altering the core experience of the game.
Do you use the Cheat Engine before you complete the game? If so, what’s the point...? If stuff available for you to do that already, is there any need for them to alter anything from the designer side?
If I want to play a game, I tend to find one I want to play rather than profoundly alter one to fit my tastes. I’m the same with books and music too; I don’t tend to rewrite sections of them that I don’t like, I just explore other authors or musicians till I find one I do. Call me old fashioned.
For argument's sake, what if the identity of the game is centered around ‘achievement through overcoming adversity,' would an Easy mode undermine that identity? Would it have a larger rippling effect on other design elements?
They’re not experiencing the game series if they’re not playing the game. Gaming is arguably a holistic experience.
MajinSweet4
Member
Almost had me for a second. Well done sir.
No, my computer isn't strong enough for Souls 1 and 2, let alone 3. Once I upgrade, I'll buy DS3 on it. But if this was a new game, I would have done so atleast to start off with a weapon you don't get later, because I'd be roleplaying a character who uses a particular type of weapon the game doesn't allow you to start off with. In my case, some kind of minor greatsword. But, for example, lets say I wanted my character to be some kind of descendant of Artorias, it would make sense that I'd come out of my grave holding his Wolf Greatsword rather than a generic blade. So if I decided I wanted to roleplay that kind of character, I'd mod to get that weapon early on. But other than that, I generally play the game as intended the first time.
That said, I am NOT a fan of losing my progress. I am level 178 or so on my PS4 version, so I'm going to probably level up to that area, and hopefully there is a mod that can alter the game's difficulty so I can start off on NG++.
But the point I stress here is that I play the game as intended because I believe it is the player's right to choose how to play and that's how I want to play it. If, on the other hand, I wanted to play with fully upgraded super weapons from the get go, that's how I should be able to play.
I don't feel the need to call you anything, except someone who chooses to consume his art the way he wants to. I merely believe that should be everyone's privilege.
Yes, of course. Again, the change of identity is the point here.
Again, you have to accept there are people who are not interested in the game's gameplay identity. They just aren't. They don't care about it, and I don't think there's anything that can undermine a game's identity more than apathy while still having to deal with it. But they are interested in playing detective and exploring the areas and finding out about who did what, why, how. They want to explore the mythos, but have little interest in the combat. Or maybe they just like chilling in the atmosphere the game offers.
Would there be an affect, even on just the parts they do care about? Sure, a subtle and subconscious one, the discovery of the information will have an affect on how the player perceives the information, and a player will feel a slightly different atmosphere if the enemies are significantly less deadly. The holistic experience would be changed. But the real question here is this a bad change? Well, that's up to the individual.
Again, my goal is for everyone to have the best experience that suits them. They will not experience the theme of overcoming adversity as strongly as you do, and as a result will experience the game differently...but that's a good thing if that's what they want.
I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. They'd still be playing it. It's easy mode, not tourist mode (though I wouldn't be opposed to a tourist mode either). When I picture easy mode, I see people still being challenged, just not punished as hard and hitting harder than they would, not literally sleepwalking through the game.
If it wouldn't be possible to summon help on bosses i think maybe only 3-4% of all souls players would be able to complete the games.
And yes, for some reason that 3-4% really would want to tell everyone how easy the Souls-games are.
They should have some kind of hardcore-mode that forces you to play alone since its such a big difference in the games difficulty.
And yes, for some reason that 3-4% really would want to tell everyone how easy the Souls-games are.
They should have some kind of hardcore-mode that forces you to play alone since its such a big difference in the games difficulty.
SiegfriedFM
Member
I bought a guitar. Why is this thing so complicated? There's at least 8 strings and don't get me started on all those little fields on the neck. Do those do anything? It doesn't even come with a tutorial! I know it's supposed to be hard, but why? I saw Yngwie Malmsteen do a cool solo, this should be accessible to everyone. I think I'm going to mod this thing so it can do the things I want it to (it totally lacks trumpet sounds too). And why shouldn't I be allowed to do that when I bought it? It's not up to Fender to decide how I play the guitar.
Wait, what are you saying? I shouldn't be allowed to say I disagree with an easy mode in souls games because I post on gaf? That's a ridiculous argument and makes no sense. And I'm also a gamergater because I want the game I love to keep the things that made me fall in love with it? What in hell are you talking about? Seriously explain what you are saying because I'm failing to see how any of these things are connected or how this is even an argument. You basically said all souls fans are elitist asshole gamergaters because they don't want the game to change and they should all be banned from gaf because of it. That isn't an argument, that is a bunch of childish insults thrown at people you disagree with. This is a video game, not an election. Not playing or finishing a souls game in a certain amount of time isn't going to fundamentally change your life like voting will so your argument there is just silly. And no, you don't have a right to finish a game.
I don't know how old you are, but back in my day, I used to rent games from blockbuster when my mom would go there to rent movies. I basically had a weekend to beat it and if I didn't, well too bad because that shit was going back Sunday night. There were plenty of games I never finished because of it but I never felt entitled or resentful for not finishing them. That was just the way it was. Even today, there are plenty of games (thanks to steam sales and ps+) that I haven't even touched and may never touch because my backlog is so massive. Am I upset? No because I bought these games knowing that I may not finish them and I always don't have a constitutional fucking right to finish it. Anyone could finish a souls game. You don't have to be good, you just have to be willing to commit some time to finishing it. I get people are busy and have jobs, wife, kids, etc. but that isn't the games fault and I still know people who have all those things and still found a way to beat all of those games no issue so that complaint is baseless. All you have to do is commit yourself to beating it and you will so you aren't being withheld content you paid for, your essentially choosing not to access that content because you are not willing to engage with the content.
If I could mod life to allow instant expertise for the ability to play guitar, tell me that 95% of people wouldn't take that option.
I sure as fuck would. And don't get me wrong, I know the value of authentic practice and mastery. But there are things I want to put that kind of effort into and things I would rather just have the results of.
I mean, I don't know if you were going for some kind of parody mic drop, but yeah I would totally mod my life to play the guitar and I think it's really weird to suggest this wouldn't be something everyone would like to do.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
You got trolled mate, sorry
Saw this and my urge to kill rose. Then luckily my eyes skimmed down over "I'm an expert" and "Trump" and...I couldn't stay mad.
Imp the Dimp
Member
Citation needed honestly. "it is not hard" compared to what? Name any AAA game and Souls is certainly gonna be harder. It is not an easy (or not hard) series by any means. It is hard. Hard, hard, hard, hard, hard. Not the hardest, probably not even close but I'd argue the Nameless King or Pontiff pose about 10x the challenge any mission in Assassin's Creed does.
If the game isn't hard relative to how capable you are, good for you and good for me, because I don't find them particularly hard either. But then, I've been playing for 20+ years.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
How does this philosophy apply to online games and cheating?
I do accept that; however, if a player isn’t interested in a game’s core tenants, it’s gameplay, or even simply meeting it halfway, I cannot fathom why they would play it in the first place, let alone expect it to cater to them. Can they accept that this likely isn’t the game for them? That if the bad outweighs the good and they aren't willing to meet it halfway, that they should probably look elsewhere...? That isn't elitism, that's the sensible solution, surely?
If they mod their own game, that’s one thing. All power to them. However, expecting the developers to cater to their every whim? Quite another.
No, I think that line of thinking would lead to far more fundamental issues than that. It is, after all, the central creative driving force for the game’s development; the founding stone. I think it would likely have much further reaching effects on the art direction, how the story is presented, balancing - all sorts. It'd be a different game altogether.
Can we talk about the skeletons in the graveyard by Firelink Shrine (DS1) for a moment? I love them. They’re a beautiful example of subtle game design. I recall a lot of people at the time who were confused by the graveyard. They assumed the game was a lot more punishing than it really was and completely misread the situation.
The skeletons are pretty tough. They dodge, they counter, they don’t die unless you whack their necromancer. They’re mid-level enemies right at the start of the game. They act as a learning tool, as well as a measure of your character’s progress. They also act as a barrier to entry and a guiding hand, leading you through force towards the viaduct, an area that will offer much less resistance and teach you further skills. If someone really wants to explore the graveyard early, they can, though they have to earn that privilege. What they learn fighting them and what they discover in the graveyard and beyond is their reward. It’s quite an achievement for a first-time player too.
If the founding stone of the game wasn’t ‘acheivement through overcoming adversity,' would this beautiful bit of game design exist at all…? Would they just put an invisible wall there instead or maybe a waypoint so people knew where to go? Would any of the other teaching tools and barriers exist?
As I said before, I think gaming is a holistic experience and fundamentally changing the game design philosophy will necessarily alter the game itself and its identity.
More often than not, I’d argue that another the game is the answer to this. There are quite a few available.
I honestly don't think your utilitarian goal is necessarily an overall good one. I can't play EVE Online for a myriad of reasons, but I'd love to. However, to do so they would fundamentally have to change the game to accomodate me. Would I still be playing the same game if they did...?
That if you don’t engage in the gameplay, you aren’t playing the game.
Oh, and a tourism mode…? They’re called LPs.
Wouldn't that completely demean those 'skills' in the process? If you can't or won't put the effort in, you clearly don't want it enough. Life is nothing without some struggle.
MajinSweet4
Member
Okay, first, plenty of people have already given long detailed posts why they personally don't want an easy mode, why it wouldn't be a good business move for FromSoft and why it would be bad for the game. Please move past the elitism strawman. Yes, their are always going to be a certain amount of people that lash out. That is true for any community on almost any subject. But that's besides the point, and you bringing it up only serves to try and dismiss the other side of the argument. This is not a matter of "gatekeeping" as a poster previously said in this thread. That couldn't be more false, as Souls fans love getting more people into the franchise. It's insulting to me when you suggest that.
I vehemently disagree. I really want to stress just how much I do not align with this kind of thinking, this is the most important part of this debate I would say. We don't always know what we want. That is why I seek out the work of artists I respect. Really think about this for a second, how are you going to truly broaden your horizons if you are never going to truly embrace something new? For example, if someone asked me what I wanted out of David Bowie's last album, it definitely wouldn't have been anything like BlackStar. And that would have sucked. This also goes back to the faulty notion that "options are always good". If Demon's Souls provided a large list of options in the name of accessibility, I'm positive Dark Souls wouldn't even exist. If that game was easier, had difficulty modes, had options to turn off invasions, party based co-op, it would have just been another game. It wouldn't have created the strong identity it eventually did, it wouldn't have made a community for itself. We treat games like they are junk food and I hate that. I want more games that have a vision, that really have something to say. Not less. We have so many games that don't do things the way I like, so imagine my frustration when someone says "No, what you like is wrong, I need 100% of things to align to my tastes, not 99%." The industry is filled with games that are essentially a sandbox. We're the player basically gets to play designer. When I'm playing a game, I don't want that. I want to engross myself in the experience. I want to understand what the artist was going for. Why can't we have 1% of games that stand firm and say "This is the vision for our game."
Of course, you are free to mess with whatever on your private time. No one has a problem with that. Like, if someone goes through the trouble of giving themselves God mode to play through Dark Souls, whatever. (Just stay offline please) But this is a totally different issue than if FromSoftware put in a God mode. The creator of a game basically decides on the rules. A God mode being cheating or not is a big factor on how the game will be viewed by its players. Or in the case of this debate, an easy mode.
You can't see how a mode specifically intended to make the game not difficult would effect the games identity as a difficult game? You've got to be kidding me. Hell, even if the easy mode was like, a super slight nerf to certain things, and wasn't even easy, just it's existence would be a big deal. It would certainly turn people off to the franchise. The presentation of a game is also very important, just as much as the mechanics in many ways. You can't say "This is our hardcore arpg franchise, Prepare To Die!...Unless you don't really want to, I mean, we have this other mode that lets you just kinda do whatever." You can't have your cake and eat it too. But the most important part of this passage, how it effects me. I've already mentioned this earlier in the thread (Among many other point in this post) but it's less about how it effects me and more about how it effects them. If people want to try a Souls game, I want them to enjoy it. I want them to "get it". To get the same types of feelings so many of us have already had. Moments like this:
https://twitter.com/Quillcannon/status/795292935017365504
It's about appreciating something new, enjoying something unique. I don't want an easy mode because I care. I've sold and gifted tons of copies of Souls games to friends and practically strangers over the years. I've gotten many people into this franchise. It's not about me. It's not a matter of accessibility. An easy mode wouldn't be the same experience, so it defeats the whole point of all this.
Again, it has nothing to do with elitism, stop it. It's because that version of Bloodborne would suck. It would be a short, hollow experience. Hell, some people already complain that the game is short, now that you take away the challenge people are just going to smash through it. Not caring about the world or characters. They won't need to learn how the combat really works, making it just another hack and slash. Just shorter and "with no story". The game isn't designed to be easy. So you might say, so what? At least they tried it! The problem with that is, their first experience is always going to be this lame, watered down version. And chances are they will walk away from the franchise thinking "Why do people talk so much about this? Probably just to brag about being hardcore." Plenty of people who didn't like hard games have gotten into Souls, plenty of people who found the game too hard on a first play have come back and fell in love. An easy mode would make it so those people never have that realization. That's why a creator doesn't always give people what they demand, this is what I mean by respecting and trusting creator intent.
This argument has never made sense. If they stopped focusing on X, and focused on Y, they'd make more money! For way too long the video game industry has always fallen for this trap. You have to increase your playerbase, you need to be more "inclusive". This line of thinking has actually killed franchises before. And I'm sure it would be the beginning of the end for Souls as well. It would turn off a lot of the Souls playerbase. A passionate dedicated group of customers. And for what? For a group of customers that don't like what you create? What sense does that make? And the fallacy that people would see the "incredible level design" and "atmosphere" just shows a naivety of game design. Those things stand out because of the challenge. The level design is all based around the difficulty, a ruthless trap becomes a slight annoyance in an easy game. The trap is better off not being their in an easy game. The "incredible level design" becomes weird and bad. The atmosphere resonates with people because the challenge. People become a part of the world because it feels alive. When an NPC tells you about the horrible plight they are in, you believe them, because you too are in that plight. In an easy game, that character becomes a joke, not someone you respect. Players stop caring about the atmosphere as they blow through the game. The difficulty is an important part of the games design. It's one of many gears that makes the whole thing tick. Taking it out makes the game worse. That's the important thing. I don't want people playing a worse game. I want them to play a good game. If someone just can't enjoy the game for what it is, then the game wasn't for them. That's not a matter of "exclusion" or "elitism". I don't say that Skyrim sucks and needs to be changed to match my tastes. I just don't play it. That is accessibility. An industry that provides something for everyone, not this bizarre demand that every individual game cater to every possible person. That's impossible and impractical.
They are hard, though. Probably not impossible (although I gave up at the gargoyles in Dark Souls), but they require a lot of patience, skill (or knowledge) and time (why do I have to replay an entire section when I only want another try at the boss?). The players need to pay attention all the time, as the smallest mistake can be fatal. Every enemy can drain your HP in a few hits; there are traps in the environment and places you shouldn't go until you become stronger or better at the game. Some mechanics and systems are obscure and not explained in-game. All of this makes the series a pretty challenging one. Again, not impossible, but certainly not the walk in the park that several of its fans claim it is, and it is definitely not for everyone.
Some posters have said that there are ways of making the game easier, like using certain builds and summoning, but that doesn't mean the game isn't hard; on the contrary, those options are there because the alternative can be pretty frustrating, so it's the game throwing a bone.
Some posters have said that there are ways of making the game easier, like using certain builds and summoning, but that doesn't mean the game isn't hard; on the contrary, those options are there because the alternative can be pretty frustrating, so it's the game throwing a bone.
While I love DS or Bloodborne for atmosphere, enemies design, lore, castles, weapons & armors I hate playing it because of artificialy raised difficulty level. You need learn how to play and how to deal with specific enemies but being 2 shooted or one shooted is not difficult and not fun at all. Kiting monsters, using bow to start the fight so You will not aggro every enemie it is just because of pure/bad design choices. Of course you get the satisfaction after killing difficult enemy but DMC or Ninja Gaiden were both hard but they were also fair when it comes to difficulty level.
People try to justify the difficulty level in souls games but they are not difficult, they are just not fair. You can master those games and some of souls are easier (DS 3, bloodborne) but there are moments where you will start crying and honestly, I miss them sometime.
People try to justify the difficulty level in souls games but they are not difficult, they are just not fair. You can master those games and some of souls are easier (DS 3, bloodborne) but there are moments where you will start crying and honestly, I miss them sometime
.I am not opposed to Easy mode but I think it is pretty hard to implement in these games. These games aren't hard just because enemies hit like a truck or because enemies have 'high' health. Lot of it has to do with encounter design, level design and just the general obscurity of the game.
Like for example Anor Londo archers. No matter how much more damage you do or how much less damage they do it won't be any easier than it is now.
This is very interesting way to look at art.
Do you also edit/customize songs for your tastes? How about movies?
Like for example Anor Londo archers. No matter how much more damage you do or how much less damage they do it won't be any easier than it is now.
This is very interesting way to look at art.
Do you also edit/customize songs for your tastes? How about movies?
Most of the time in these games if you die, it is entirely your fault. Maybe you used a weapon that the enemy is strong against so you do poor damage. Maybe you didn't pay enough attention and got circled by a mob. Maybe you didn't time your dodge perfectly and got flattened.
How often that happens can be hugely frustrating. I have clocked about 150 hours in Bloodborne and nearly 200 in DS3 now and about 40 hours of DS1. So I would say I am a Souls veteran but I still get frustrated and pissed off at times with these games. Yet they still have me coming back. I feel no other game series gives you as much satisfaction for reaching the next checkpoint (bonfire) or defeating a boss. The Souls games are difficult, but they are not unfair.
The difficulty is an important part of that experience. The difficulty is not in having perfect reaction time but being able to read the enemies and react accordingly. Almost every attack of every enemy is telegraphed by a windup. What happens after that depends on what you choose to do. If you attack can you do it faster than they can? If you dodge, did you dodge in the right direction? If you block, did you block something that actually can be blocked or did they just stun you ready for a riposte or second attack?
If you take away that difficulty, you would not have memorable experiences of fights against bosses for example. Does anyone really remember the easy bosses in DS3 like
or
? Nobody talks about them but everyone remembers what it's like to fight
. Where else can you experience boss fights that leave your heart pumping after defeating them?
How often that happens can be hugely frustrating. I have clocked about 150 hours in Bloodborne and nearly 200 in DS3 now and about 40 hours of DS1. So I would say I am a Souls veteran but I still get frustrated and pissed off at times with these games. Yet they still have me coming back. I feel no other game series gives you as much satisfaction for reaching the next checkpoint (bonfire) or defeating a boss. The Souls games are difficult, but they are not unfair.
The difficulty is an important part of that experience. The difficulty is not in having perfect reaction time but being able to read the enemies and react accordingly. Almost every attack of every enemy is telegraphed by a windup. What happens after that depends on what you choose to do. If you attack can you do it faster than they can? If you dodge, did you dodge in the right direction? If you block, did you block something that actually can be blocked or did they just stun you ready for a riposte or second attack?
If you take away that difficulty, you would not have memorable experiences of fights against bosses for example. Does anyone really remember the easy bosses in DS3 like
Curse-rotted Greatwood
Stray Demons
Pontiff Sulyvahn
It doesn't. At that point, you're infringing upon other's rights to a fair game. Granted, it depends on the mod. A texture change isn't really going to make a difference to the PvP. Nor do I see why it matters if I get my material via cheats rather than hours of tedious play, so that might be okay. But if you just have a super overpowered weapon that's impossible to get in the game no matter what, then that's inconsiderate to others.
Doesn't matter for me though. I play offline.
I combined these because they have a similar answer.
Well, let me ask you this: If I wanted to explore yharnam....not a game environment similar to yharnam, but yharnam itself... what is the game that is not bloodborne that I can play to do so? I can scarcely think of a game that's got a town even remotely like yharnam, but assuming I wanted to explore it, but was uninterested in combat, what is my alternative?
I don't see whats not sensible about requesting a mode that would allow me to get what I want and not deal with the stuff I don't like. Now, in most cases, you're either going to have to take the hit and deal with the combat, or else give up on the venture entirely. That's up to the individual, but how does that make a request to have your particular needs met unsound?
If I want to explore yharnam, and yharnam especifically, I do not have another game I can play to do so. Now, if I wanted to explore DS1, 2, or 3, I see a few youtubers that have a camera mod that lets them move through an area. And just like that, you'd have a rough tourist mode for the people who just want to go sight seeing in the game's environments.
Well, I haven't played DS1, so I can't comment on this experience personally. But to respond, I don't think you are putting yourself in the shoes of someone who is truly indifferent to design philosophy of Dark Souls.
To someone who doesn't care about the combat design, this wouldn't register the same way to the same way it does to you. They wouldn't feel satisfaction from the achievement through adversity, they'd just feel they passed a particularly annoying obstacle to do the non-combat related thing wanted to do. They wouldn't see it as a reward, wouldn't feel good about having earned it.
Let me give you another example of how players interpret things differently. When Jim Sterling talked about Bloodborne, he talked about how the blood echoes system it kept horror alive by making a system where the farther you go, the more intense and scary things became, because you had more to lose and you had no idea how far away the next bonfire was, and he painted this as a positive. And I'm sure for him, it added a lot to the game. For me, I hate the way the blood echoes system works. As I said, I loathe loss of progress and I hated having my souls lost. It was a system that never made me feel any more of a sense of accomplishment for making it all the way through in 1 go than if I had gone through in 4, but it made losses feel far sharper. As far as I was concerned, the game was taking away my earned progress, even though by the game's rules, I hadn't earned that progress until I traded the echoes for a level gain. Bloodborne was my first game, and I was VERY keen on keeping all the blood echoes I could, and I often just stopped playing out of frustration if I lost a large amount of echoes permanently, because I felt the game was just kicking me in the dick. At some point, I realized that your stats aren't NEARLY as important as your choice of weapon and it's upgrade is, and at some point I passed the point where stats even mattered. The next game I played, Dark Soul 3, I was far more relaxed about losing Souls. Yet even as I sit on a 178, if I'm carrying 300,000 souls or something, and I lose that, I still feel annoyed at it, even though I have basically nothing left to buy. It's just my perception of the game.
I loathe this system. It doesn't add any sense of accomplishment for me, but makes my losses sting much worse than they would. I feel that losing your life and having to start over is enough. People have explained the benefits of it in terms of game design, and I can even admit their right, it does make the souls games work in a way no other game does. But it doesn't matter, just deep in my gut, this currency system and I are just never going to get along, and every lost pile of souls just has me staring resentfully at the game. That's another thing I'd happily mod out. Hell, if such a mod exists, I might use it to get my PC character caught up to my PS4 character. Hell, I'd happily mod it out permanently if I could lower the souls gained to 3% if it means I can't ever lose them. Failing that, I'd tolerate it for a first playthrough, if only because it would lead to laughable overleveling, but I just don't want to lose my souls, ever. For me, this system does nothing good in terms of how it makes the game feel.
That's what it'd be like to be someone who isn't into a system that a game offers. I still love the series, especially bloodborne, but some things just don't gel with other players. Yes, it would change the entire feel of the game if it was removed, and mess with one of the core identities of the system, and I can admit that it's a system that is technically well designed, very clever in it's implementation, and utterly unique. I still hate it and want it gone. So, to respond to your example, if I were someone whose goal is to just explore the levels, yes, it would change the core identity of the game and yes, I can admit you make a very good argument why that bit is very clever design. But it doesn't change the fact that we are not wired the same way, and losing the identity and founding stone would impact you negatively while me positively. Contrary to belief, removing the founding stone of an otherwise established structure doesn't mean it comes crashing down, it just means that it's fundamental feel changes. But if you don't care for that feel, this isn't a real loss.
That if you don’t engage in the gameplay, you aren’t playing the game.
Oh, and a tourism mode…? They’re called LPs.
It'd still be gameplay. You'd be controlling the character, where they go, what they choose to look at, the order in which they choose to read something, what they find and collect, etc. It's the difference between exploring a cave and watching your friend's go-pro as he explores the cave.
Songs? Yes, actually, sometimes, though not that often anymore. But I like hearing remixes. And the basic idea of covers can result in a song being reborn into a greater form. No one cares about Hurt by Nine Inch Nails, but Johnny Cash? And yes, it's the basic same concept. Johnny Cash saw the NIN's creative vision of Hurt, and said to himself "Their vision sucks, I could do it better" and did so.
Movies? Sorta. I collect some internet comedian videoes, like Spoony, though he's pretty much no longer putting out videoes. But some of them were in 2 parts, I edited them to make them 1.
But others do actual editing jobs that I respect. For example, I appreciate someone trying to make a cut of the Hobbit that is true to the book and maybe even watchable.
I also remember one hilarious prank that someone pulled. When edited out the ending to Toy story 3, so that the screen darkens and credits roll as the toys were approaching the giant incinerator, and then they watched that movie with their mom and she thought it ended like that.
So yeah, while I don't do it just because I can't be assed to do so because editing is way, way harder than modding a game is, I do think it's a completely fair practice.
The games are difficult, there's no denying that. They require you to be good at watching animations, timing attacks and planning for the unexpected (which then becomes expected when you die to it).
That said, they also lean into the difficulty aspect so much which irritates me. They're marketed as super difficult RPGs. They have trophies like "Welcome to Dark Souls" when you die. The marketing team knows people love the idea that they're super difficult and pushes it like that.
There's also the misconception that being "able" to complete Dark Souls is some sort of pathetic "gamer cred" that you see in the Gamergate posts. So many of the fans love the idea that they're incredibly difficult.
To someone who plays many games, they're not exceptionally hard. Maybe the first ever time you play one, but that's just learning its language. There are tons of games that are much more difficult, much more cheap and much less forgiving. There are also tons that are the opposite, which is why it's considered so hard. It's mainstream and difficult, therefore it's "the hardest games ever."
It doesn't bother me when people say it hard. It is. What bothers me is when people act like they're the most difficult games in the world and you're some god-tier game geek if you can beat them.
That said, they also lean into the difficulty aspect so much which irritates me. They're marketed as super difficult RPGs. They have trophies like "Welcome to Dark Souls" when you die. The marketing team knows people love the idea that they're super difficult and pushes it like that.
There's also the misconception that being "able" to complete Dark Souls is some sort of pathetic "gamer cred" that you see in the Gamergate posts. So many of the fans love the idea that they're incredibly difficult.
To someone who plays many games, they're not exceptionally hard. Maybe the first ever time you play one, but that's just learning its language. There are tons of games that are much more difficult, much more cheap and much less forgiving. There are also tons that are the opposite, which is why it's considered so hard. It's mainstream and difficult, therefore it's "the hardest games ever."
It doesn't bother me when people say it hard. It is. What bothers me is when people act like they're the most difficult games in the world and you're some god-tier game geek if you can beat them.
Chronospherics
Member
That's how From choose to market it though. Prepare to die edition and all that nonsense. Part of the reason that Souls is popular is that many of its fans believe it's an incredibly difficult 'hardcore' game.
With that said, it is more difficult than the normal difficulties on most modern games, so for some it can be quite a staggering change of pace. I remember helping some of my friends beat some of the early bosses on remote play and thinking 'if you can't beat this, there's no way you're beating this game'.
I ended up helping them because they said they were going to trade it in otherwise but of course they did not end up completing the game, claiming it was too difficult. It's odd really, because many of these people play with me on other video games, like Destiny, like Uncharted 4 MP, and they can compete at the highest level, they can stomp their way through trials of Osiris, complete the raids or play at master rank on Uncharted 4, but they can't beat the second boss in Bloodborn?
I think for me, games like Destiny are much more challenging, but I suppose it's a different type of difficulty. Souls is pretty easy for me, and most bosses only take a couple of tries even on my first run, but I think others aren't used to third person character action games and concepts like invulnerability frames. Rolling through a characters sweeping attack doesn't seem like a good option unless you're aware that your roll makes you immune to all damage for a brief period, for instance, but in many instance rolling towards the boss, through their attack is the best approach.
I think that somewhat unexplained component of the games design probably makes it seem a lot more difficult than it is. I feel that a lot of Souls players go into the game with the idea that they're some sort of knight or warrior, protecting himself with his shield, and dealing damage with his sword. That kind of playstyle, the typical playstyle you'd see in something like Skyrim, or other generic Western role play games, is a really quick way to get wrecked on the Souls titles.
Bloodborne is better in that regard as it offers less room to go wrong. It takes your block button away so all players are forced to orientate towards just one playstyle. I think that's part of why a lot of people feel that it's an easier game, because many of the issues they face in the Souls game are a result of their playstyle decisions, and also, the greater build variety in the Souls games offers more opportunity to go wrong, and make the game much more difficult for yourself. If you're fat rolling you're way through your first playthrough then you're probably going to have a bad time.
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
That depends: does their drive to see Yharnam outweigh their disinterest with the combat?
If not, there isnt any way they can do that, so they either play Bloodborne on its own terms or they dont. There is nothing wrong with a game asking something from the player.
Whats not sensible about playing something else thats more to your liking rather than asking the niche title to accommodate you (and thus millions of others) individually?
To be honest, I dont think I need to. You stressed that you consider it imperative that Souls keeps its identity.' The design philosophy is part of that identity, whether you know it beforehand or not (which I didnt when playing DS1), and it leads to a lot of the neat design quirks (like the skeletons) that give the game its unique flavour that people love.
If thats how it makes you feel, Id argue that the system is working exactly as intended.
I think youre underplaying this somewhat. If you remove a founding stone when it is an approach to design from the top-down, I believe that itd change more than just the feel of the game, as I exampled in my previous post.
Id argue that isnt gameplay, but thats a debate for another thread.
KarneeKarnay
Member
It does annoy me, because the difficulty is just a choice the devs made for gameplay experience. For me the difficulty doesn't factor in, because the gameplay is just so tight. If anything enemy placements, their attacks, their design adds to the story and experience. I don't get annoyed at having to go through Blight Town and having to deal with poison and toxic dealing enemies. To me it makes perfect sense for the area its in.
Too many demons in the Demon city. Where do you think you're going? It's not tough for the sake of being difficult, it's tough for the sake of the level design.
Too many demons in the Demon city. Where do you think you're going? It's not tough for the sake of being difficult, it's tough for the sake of the level design.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Yeah. DeS was the second game in the series I played (I started out with DkS), and having now beaten all of them I still find it to be the easiest.
They all have their roadblocks. 1-2 was a real pain in the ass and the Tower Knight is just the icing on the cake. A person of lesser patience would eject the disc after 2 deaths.
My first Souls game was Bloodborne and I'd say for a beginner it is probably more difficult precisely because you can't block. It also has probably the most difficult starting area,
including a somewhat well hidden shortcut
I vehemontly disagree with your disagreement, and I'll explain why these things are not problems:
"We don't always know what we want." - this is both perfectly true and completely irrelevant to options. All it takes is a willingness to explore new material, something you are already doing with any new product no matter what. I explore plenty of new things, even with infinite options to customize things to my particular tastes at any time I choose. The trick is not to pre-emptively choose what you want. Experience, then adjust to what you will. That's how I do it.
"If that game was easier, had difficulty modes, had options to turn off invasions, party based co-op, it would have just been another game." - Well, I can't speak for others, but I'm currently playing it with a kind of OP build that has made several parts of the game pretty trivial with invasions turned off, and I'm still finding the experience to be special because the game has what I enjoy most out of a souls game - atmosphere, fantastic design, and unique room to write your own narrative. I don't know if it will replace Bloodborne for me, which I also played in offline mode so I didn't have to deal with people barging into my game, but it's still one of the most special games to me. I don't know if my build was OP, but I did everything I could to ensure it was, and still got my ass kicked plenty of times. So, personally, this is patently wrong.
"When I'm playing a game, I don't want that. I want to engross myself in the experience. I want to understand what the artist was going for. Why can't we have 1% of games that stand firm and say "This is the vision for our game."" - To this, again, I bring up the case of Dyack's Too Human. There's an auteur for you. There's a man who wanted to make something unique, and actually did! There is a man who had something to say. How do quantify that game? Like I said before, you can't sanctify the artistic vision, and then say it doesn't apply if you don't like what it envisions because that's just subjectivity. By this logic, there is no reason that anything about Dyack's game ought to be changed, however obvious the flaws of that design are. The truth of the matter is that creators are just human, and all humans are creators, including you, including me. The disparity is just a matter of taste and a matter of skill. Miyazaki is a developer, he's much more skilled at creating games than I am, but difference in tastes always exists, and people should have the freedom to follow their tastes. Keep in mind, this doesn't close the door to the option of exploration. Having an easy mode didn't stop people from getting good and tackling higher difficulties of DMC and Ninja Gaiden and Bayonetta. Why would it here?
Don't worry, I stay offline by default.
I think this part of the crux of the problem. People hear 'easy mode' and seem to think this is turning on god mode, which is absurd. I would think people would still get a challenge, it'd just be relatively easier to normal. But for the sake of argument, lets say that there did a god mode. A god mode breaks any game with combat. Literally, ANY game. Yet the implementation of such a mode mean that even a small but significant portion used it to play the whole game that way? Name me one time the existence of an easier difficulty stopped people who wanted to play harder difficulties from doing so?
I mean, it's just such a non-issue, slippery slope argument. Consider this: Plenty of people do SL1 runs, including on this forum. There is nothing whatsoever stopping them from upgrading and making the game easier. But they CHOOSE to apply that level of difficulty to themselves. That's how it's always worked. People choose the difficulty they make for themselves, and never once, until dark souls, has there been an argument that an easier difficulty would somehow break any game.
I've addressed this like a thousand times at this point. The change of identity is the point. But only for the people who want that change made.
Unless you're talking about the game's reputation, so players can't market it anymore as the game that's known for it's difficulty. In which case, yeah, I don't give a fuck about that. I will defend your ability to play dark souls on hard difficulty as much as I can, I will not defend your ability to call dark souls for the exclusively hardcore.
Oh....okay, so it is the game's reputation, rather than it's content, that you're seeking to defend. Um....welll....yeah, I'm sorry, I have no sympathy for you here, friend. You want to defend your ability to play a hard game, sure, I can get behind that 100%. But this is you trying trying to defend the marketing pitch and reputation surrounding the game, and....well, I can give you this, an easy mode would definitely change the air around it, sure, people wouldn't whisper it in hushed tones now. But yeah, no, I place no value on that whatsoever, and even if you do, I don't feel it's worth it for the people it keeps out. So, yeah, sorry that you like the game's rep, but that would have to change. I mean, the entire point IS to make people go "Oh, I can play it now, cool". I don't think there's even anything to debate here, we just have a different value on the games reputation here.
Here's the thing...you said earlier that people don't know what they want. And that's true. But you don't know what they want either. I imagine there are a bunch of people that actually, truly do not want all that souls offers, while still desiring others.
If you can sell Souls as it is, you should still be able to sell souls playing it normal, and they would have the same game experience. And that's all I'm seeking to defend here. If you need the culture surrounding souls to enjoy it, then maybe you don't like souls as much as you think you do.
Well, again, you don't know what other people would like. You can use that as evidence for why Souls works the way it does, but it goes both ways, and there are potentially plenty of people who would not have an appreciation for what souls does and would actually enjoy the watered down version of it. And hte idea that those people exist and might be just as satisfied with a watered down version being something that seems to anger you, it does feel like elitism.
Elitism isn't any less exclusive when you offer one and only one path into a club. You're basically saying here "It's our way or the high way" in regards to difficulty setting. "This is the right way to play it, and any other is meaningless." No, if it wasn't elitist, you wouldn't be trying to adhere to some kind of 'proper way' to find meaning. You'd let people find their own meaning and hold their experiences to be just as valid. And that's definitely not what your doing if you're suggesting that the prestige of the games is just as important as the games themselves.
Well, if you read my post, you'd see that I specifically pointed out that I have no stock invested in from, so I don't actually care how they do as a company in terms of finance. I mean, I want them to do well enough to keep making games, but that's pretty much it.
When I say expand their player base, I am just saying so more people can enjoy it. Also, true, I can perfectly agree with you that moving toward an attempt at inclusivity has harmed games when it's done at the cost of the game's identity. However, I've stressed time and time again that this would not happen with an easy mode merely existing. As long as the normal mode continues to exist, the identity of Souls would be left intact...unless, again you just want to preserve it's reputation rather than its' actual content, in which case, I can't help you out there. Keep in mind that for as many failed attempts at inclusion, there have been plenty of successful ones, whose fanbases have nourished and thrived for it, games that have been made better. You can't just use the worst case scenario and act like it's the default and inevitable result. People got sold on the identity of franchises they might not otherwise try because marketing said they include an easy mode now, but that didn't stop DMC3 from recapturing and popularizing the franchise when it appealed to more people with Dante's cheesy attitude turned up to 11 and the crazy combo's he's now able to perform. It took the identity that began with DMC1, and forged it into the series new face, making it's popularity soar. There are several examples of it. Halo 4's MP lost it's way according to many, but without doing much different in terms of design philosophy, 343i managed to reinvigorate the population by creating the best multiplayer the series has ever seen. And so on. So I feel the trick is to not forget who you are, while still moving for broader appeal.
It's possible to do.
Also, what your talking about is actually diversity, not accessibility.
That said, I respect your opinion on it. If it makes you feel better, I am confident that an easy mode is unlikely to come to pass and I respect that you took the time to write out such a detailed response. But these posts are getting extremely long, so I think I'll have to bow out here.
No, but similarly there is nothing wrong with the player looking to have their cake and eat it too, and I see no reason not to root for the player to make it happen.
Because then they have to leave what they wanted to get out of bloodborne. I agree with your general point, there's nothing wrong with demanding something from the player, but I usually don't feel good about leaving things unfinished. For a quick example, I usually read all the books I start, even if I grow to hate them. I didn't like Wheel of Time from book 1. I made it more than halfway through book 4 before giving up. It was SO bad. But I still have to force myself not to go back, for no other reason than to sate my curiousity of how the rest of the story goes. For the record, there are 14 very large books in the series. I have to force myself to do the 'sensible' option and just read a better book, which I am doing now.
My point is, I totally understand what it means to go through a lot of crap to get at one small diamond in the rough, and anywhere there can be made an argument to improve the crap/diamond ratio, I'd support, for myself, and for others.
If a player plays through Bloodborne without ever discovering Cainhurst Castle, does Bloodborne have Cainhurst Castle, or has it lost that part of it's identity?
I consider imperative that Souls keeps it's identity in the sense that it exists within the game, even that the default way of approaching the game. But the point of an easy mode is to give the player the option to ignore that identity when they choose to do so. So yes, they will not see it experientially, but the game will still have it.
So do Iron Maidens. Explain to me why it should work as it's supposed to when I gain nothing from it. In such cases, I'd rather the system didn't work as intended and taking measures to break it seems like the more sensible option.
Regardless, the point of a different mode is infact to change the game, in feel or however else you want to describe it. Parse it how you want, the point is what you may consider the whole thesis or purpose of the design, it's loss isn't that significant to someone whose not engaged in it the way you are. Think of it like this, the final and most significant piece to the set up of the design is the player themselves. If they don't fit in right, it doesn't matter how snug the rest of the structure is.
As far as the most difficult in the series discussion, I'm replaying 2 right now (I played it when it first came out and didn't revisit it, so I missed out on the DLC and there SotFS changes) and I'm having a harder time with it than I remember having with any of the other games.
The combat feels a lot...slippier or something. The way enemies animate (or don't) when they're spinning around to attack you, the way you move when you dodge and attack, the way hit detection and hit reaction works (or sometimes doesn't). It feels a lot more inconsistent than the other games are (in the general sense, there are certainly individual questionable moments of hitbox detection and such you can point to in any particular game, but it 2 those problems feel a lot more pervasive).
Even 3, which made a lot of enemies very fast and very aggressive, with even the most common enemies being able to launch a chain of several attacks in a row at you, didn't seem as difficult to grapple with.
The combat feels a lot...slippier or something. The way enemies animate (or don't) when they're spinning around to attack you, the way you move when you dodge and attack, the way hit detection and hit reaction works (or sometimes doesn't). It feels a lot more inconsistent than the other games are (in the general sense, there are certainly individual questionable moments of hitbox detection and such you can point to in any particular game, but it 2 those problems feel a lot more pervasive).
Even 3, which made a lot of enemies very fast and very aggressive, with even the most common enemies being able to launch a chain of several attacks in a row at you, didn't seem as difficult to grapple with.
I think they are difficult (or at least DS1 and BB). Sure, after gerting decent/good at it, you can consistently overcome the challenges the games throw at you, but that also applied, for example, when I spent dozens of hours on the Megaman series, Ninja Gaiden Black, the DMC series etc.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
This thread (and I'd say most like it) was made by a Souls fan complaining about why the rest of the world won't buy the game. I'm not one of the people who is going to go on a crusade about how the game design needs to change to accommodate more people. At the same time, I'm not unrealistic enough to charge fellow gamers that they need to change their perception of fun in order to enjoy an experience that's so far outside of the norm for most action games and RPGs.
If you want the series to stay as is, accept that it appeals to a smaller demographic than the likes of FF, Skyrim, Witcher, Mass Effect, and no amount of admonishings will make people ashamed of choosing the latter experiences.
But at what point is that experience turned into something else? I do understand your point that when you purchase something you are free to do anything you want with it. But can you say you like the Hobbit for example if someone edits it to your tastes? Same goes with Dark Souls. At what point do you stop experiencing Dark Souls and start experiencing some sort of imitation of it?
You say everyone should be experiencing games and enjoying them as they want but are they really experiencing and enjoying said game? Aren't they actually enjoying something entirely different? That point about covers you made. You aren't really enjoying NIN - Hurts but Johnny Cash - Hurts which is pretty much completely different song. I think this applies to modding games as well. Of course minor modding won't really affect that much and is pretty much the same as you messing up with equalizer on your computer but when you start removing enemies or certain interactions you are making it something new.
Also I do find this all games should be accessible/enjoyable by everybody pretty ridiculous since there is always people who won't like it no matter what. Developers also have deadlines and budgets so that they just can't please everyone even if they wanted.
I am not saying that you can't mod or even saying that you shouldn't mod games if you want. Just wondering why you want to experience something so much even if you don't like the experience. Why not just play something you like?
I am sorry if this has already been talked about but there are all these walls of text that I don't have the time to read with thought.
The games are not for everybody. I've seen people quit because they could not get passed Boletarian palace and just get so frustrated.
While i understand your point of contention OP, i don't like the viewpoint that those people should just understand the experience and 'git gud'. I'm not saying the games should change, i'm saying you should be more respectful of the fact that these games DO take a decently steep learning curve, and patience that definitely isn't for a lot of players.
While i understand your point of contention OP, i don't like the viewpoint that those people should just understand the experience and 'git gud'. I'm not saying the games should change, i'm saying you should be more respectful of the fact that these games DO take a decently steep learning curve, and patience that definitely isn't for a lot of players.
Demons souls created the Reputation. Rightfully. It was clunky, you can't pause, going to the menu would get you killed, but the biggest frustration point with it was the load times were punitive. The games can be quite unforgiving, cheap, and feel unresponsive in was that cause your death to the point if saying "fuck this"
Personally, I get it, the design isn't for everyone. We are a generation of "checkpoint gamers" and this forces us to do things in repetition until we get it right in larger chunks (whoo let's clear trash again)
Personally, I get it, the design isn't for everyone. We are a generation of "checkpoint gamers" and this forces us to do things in repetition until we get it right in larger chunks (whoo let's clear trash again)
Screaming Meat
Unconfirmed Member
Well, I have given a few. Also, isn’t the point of the saying ‘To have one’s cake and eat it too’ to illustrate when someone cannot have or want more than is reasonable…? Seems fitting
As I said, if the diamond is worth it…
If a player misses a secret optional area in a game, does the game lose its identity? No, infact, I'd say it contributes towards it.
As I’ve suggested elsewhere, if the player wants to ignore the game’s identity, it's core tenants, then it’s probably the wrong game for them to play and it would be sensible to look elsewhere rather than miserably work their way through it.
But you did, whether you realised it or not. It's a teaching tool and a way to make encounters more meaningful. You said it yourself, you felt the pang of loss. Prior to using the Cheat Engine, I bet you took every encounter a bit more carefully, right? To walk rather than run. I would even guess that you began observing enemy patterns more closely before engaging, and thus learned how to deal with them. The mechanic taught you to do that.
Whether you liked that experience, well, that’s a different story.
That’s why those people tend not to play Souls games. Everybody’s happy!
Do you think that aspect of design has to cover everybody in the world, or just the demographic they’re aiming at? Maybe it depends on the game...
Dark Souls is and was never that hard, it is difficult to clear bosses yes. The Series (especially the first one) are only hard when:
- this is your first time trying to play the series (or generally harder games)
- you have the attention span of a fly
But I still must admit the first game is harder than the others because:
- description of 1 up 1 down could imply you need to go to new londo or catacombs, which are way too hard.
- if you go to the catacombs and rush to the first bonfire, getting back again can really really really be tiresome (if you don´t have the lord vessel)
- no one really explains the "you need holy weapons to kill skelletons forever, you need special item to hit ghosts"
- blighttown (getting down, then searching a bonfire is tiresome)
But the Lore thing (which I didn´t appreciated until the 3rd one, also I didn´t even knew it the first time I played it), exploration, eastereggs, secrets, weapon and amour variation for fashion build (1+2, souls 3 is shit on this thing) and the magic/faith thing + elemental weapons (also fuck you 3 for having no ice buff or other nice elemental weapons but at least thanks for holy-weapons)
- this is your first time trying to play the series (or generally harder games)
- you have the attention span of a fly
But I still must admit the first game is harder than the others because:
- description of 1 up 1 down could imply you need to go to new londo or catacombs, which are way too hard.
- if you go to the catacombs and rush to the first bonfire, getting back again can really really really be tiresome (if you don´t have the lord vessel)
- no one really explains the "you need holy weapons to kill skelletons forever, you need special item to hit ghosts"
- blighttown (getting down, then searching a bonfire is tiresome)
But the Lore thing (which I didn´t appreciated until the 3rd one, also I didn´t even knew it the first time I played it), exploration, eastereggs, secrets, weapon and amour variation for fashion build (1+2, souls 3 is shit on this thing) and the magic/faith thing + elemental weapons (also fuck you 3 for having no ice buff or other nice elemental weapons but at least thanks for holy-weapons)
I think for me and many others like me everything about the game barring the difficulty/complexity/skill requirements would be the dream game. I have played roughly 5-6 hours of DS but was ultimately turned off by the difficulty. I will be the first to admit my scrub status in gaming,but I will not likely play any of the series due to this and that is a shame as I like everything else about their games.
I am selfishly on the easy mode side as I see the inclusion as only an affront to the reputation of the series rather than the quality or philosophy. But I appreciate that's my opinion,one not shared by the developers and that's ok. I just won't be buying any more of their games unless heavily discounted so I can at least see how I feel next time (Bloodbourne particularly as I recently picked up a ps4 - but I can likely borrow a friends copy)
OP builds are part of the game, inadvertently OP or not. Having the power to make something like this with a little experience you got from the game is oh so sweeter the harder it was without it.
It's like abusing game mechanics or glitches. It's a different feeling than to just be given a switch to make it easier. One was unintended, the other was not. You feel like you just tricked the developers.
In the case of the Souls games they've done it like half a dozen times now, unchanged, still no difficulty settings. If the lack of difficulty options was actually a design flaw, they ought to have figured this out by themselves by now I feel like.
And of course easier difficulties wouldn't stop people from playing the harder ones, but they might stop people from bothering beyond the easy mode they had to fall back to. That's would be an entirely different experience if that mode was too easy, but it's the only one they ever got.
I think it just never came up. That doesn't mean there haven't been any games that would have 'required' an easy mode based on the same arguments.
Doesn't SL1 prove to a certain degree that an easy mode isn't even required? Every level you take makes the game easier. Why even decrease damage of enemies or increase your health via a difficulty setting, when you can just do that yourself by levelling. The fact that you don't even have to do any quests, but simply kill enemies for XP is what makes this possible.
And why would Fromsoft have to cater to this desire? They've been making these kinds games for a while now and I believe for much longer than Demon's Souls.
If the identity changes for a subset of people, it changes for all of them, unless they decide to never mingle and talk about the game and their experiences across those difficulty settings.
I mean I'm not totally against easier settings in general, but I simply don't consider them necessary.
What is more important is that it would change the way the online component works. It would create this weird split between players playing on easy and on normal. You simply wouldn't know what you're getting into when you do coop.
Davey Cakes
Member
Yeah, as someone who only started recently, I noticed this right away and understood what the game was communicating. It has that vibe of showing you something unattainable but offering options so you try what works and proceed from there.
I actually went for the cemetery first. At best I was able to get in and grab items and get out. I could take down those skeletons with the mace but just fighting two at once was overwhelming.
Obviously New Londo was a no-go as well. Going to Undead Burg after that, it was damn clear how the world design worked to allow natural player progression.
I was blown away when I finally went back to New Londo and found that I could one shot the ghosts with a jump attack. That's just one of the basic and rewarding ways the game shows player growth.
The Dude
Member
There was no core design to do Co op summons, that plays a huge part in difficulty needing to be the same throughout