Support NeoGAF

[Screaming Meat]

Ninja Gaiden also added an easy mode, and it lost nothing by it. Before Souls started, NG was notorious for its difficulty. I'm sure it still is.

Wasn't it called Ninja Dog mode and forced you to wear a bright pink ribbon throughout the game?

 

[RionaaM]

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

I don't understand why so many Souls fans need to be condescending. It is clearly harder than most mainstream games, which usually don't require this much dedication and effort. And I don't see how finding them difficult means one doesn't have any sort of attention span. They can be very frustrating.

 

[Veelk]

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

The original point is flawed. There's no reason to have a cake if your not gonna eat it. The more useful meaning is as a metaphor to have everything lined up to work for you.

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.

Well, then I'm glad you see how the existence of an easy mode would not diminish the identity of a normal mode for it existing.

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.

Or we could make it possible to not be miserable to work through.

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?

I haven't used a cheat engine on anything yet, I just said I would if I could. How would I use a cheat engine on bloodborne anyway? It's ps4 exclusive.

Anyway, to answer your question.... Honestly? Not really. Some, but not as much as you think. It actually mostly just made me run back whenever I felt I had enough, level up or buy something, then run back rinse repeat, until I just wasn't getting the souls for losing them to matter.

More effective was just death itself. If I was reckless, I'd just die. Like, I literally wouldn't be able to progress without being careful. So I had to be careful to progress.

So no, it mostly just made me more fearful when I had large amounts of souls. It didn't teach me anything I wouldn't have learned anyway.

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...

More like if you can appeal to a demographic without it really costing you anything, I don't see why you shouldn't, which is what I see the case of the souls games as.

 

[Jimnymebob]

The thing that annoyed me with Souls difficulty was the fact that before I played Demon's Souls, I read a load of things of people saying stuff like "it's all based on skill: if you can't beat a boss at SL30, levelling up to SL100 won't let you beat it".

I understand that this is the case with some bosses (like Artorias will curbstomp you until you get his pattern down and learn how to fight him), but for the most part, hitting a boss with 50 strength makes fights a lot easier than hitting them with 12 for example.

 

[Spukc]

I don't understand why so many Souls fans need to be condescending. It is clearly harder than most mainstream games, which usually don't require this much dedication and effort. And I don't see how finding them difficult means one doesn't have any sort of attention span. They can be very frustrating.

that's the rotten elitist infested souls community for you.
god forbid when you ask for a difficulty setting.

 

[More_Badass]

Honestly? Not really. Some, but not as much as you think. It actually mostly just made me run back whenever I felt I had enough, level up or buy something, then run back rinse repeat, until I just wasn't getting the souls for losing them to matter.

More effective was just death itself. If I was reckless, I'd just die. Like, I literally wouldn't be able to progress without being careful. So I had to be careful to progress.

So no, it mostly just made me more fearful when I had large amounts of souls. It didn't teach me anything I wouldn't have learned anyway.

That's the entire point. You should be fearful when you have a lot of souls, and weigh the risk of continuing on versus going back and using your souls

The game was working as intended. Everything you just described proves the game's design was teaching you to play exactly how it wants you to

 

[rackham]

I don't understand why so many Souls fans need to be condescending. It is clearly harder than most mainstream games, which usually don't require this much dedication and effort. And I don't see how finding them difficult means one doesn't have any sort of attention span. They can be very frustrating.

Maybe because the "non fans" or "wanna be fans" are just as condescending.

It's been explained on every page how an easier difficulty would change the core aspect of the game. It's been explained why it's not feasible for From Soft to make one. It's been explained how they're not hurting for sales and have garnered critical and commercial success from the path they've been on.

It's been explained how the difficulty IS IN FACT a main pillar of the game AND how easy mode IS ALREADY IN THE GAME.

Yet through out this whole thread we're treated to asinine idiocy like "but it's not what IIIII WANT"

 

[Veelk]

That's the entire point. You should be fearful when you have a lot of souls, and weigh the risk of continuing on versus going back and using your souls

The game was working as intended. Everything you just described proves the game's design was teaching you to play exactly how it wants you to

I mean... I know all this.

Am I supposed to be impressed? Should I be praising the game?

No, it made my experience worse. If you like being scared, sure, and yeah, I can respect the cleverness of the design.

Doesn't change that it didn't improve my experience. It's pretty much one of the most clear cuts examples of why even a very competently executed creator's vision isn't necessarily a good thing for the experience.

It didn't teach me anything. I'd have been cautious no matter what. It didn't make me enjoy the game more. It didn't do anything positive for me whatsoever. I don't really gain anything from being scared in games.

 

[RionaaM]

that's the rotten elitist infested souls community for you.
god forbid when you ask for a difficulty setting.

I don't even care about difficulty options, I already accepted these games are not for me (while also realizing they are good games). I just want fans to accept that I'm not necessarily lazy for not liking them and have an extremely short attention span. The former is true, by the way, but the latter depends on the game. I did spend 13+ hours on Super Hexagon until I beat the final stage, and this is a game that can be beaten in 6 minutes if you're good at it. I also played the final level of Bit.Trip Beat countless times before being able to defeat the final boss, and getting to that point takes about 15 minutes (if you lose once you have to replay the whole level).

Maybe because the "non fans" or "wanna be fans" are just as condescending.

It's been explained on every page how an easier difficulty would change the core aspect of the game. It's been explained why it's not feasible for From Soft to make one. It's been explained how they're not hurting for sales and have garnered critical and commercial success from the path they've been on.

It's been explained how the difficulty IS IN FACT a main pillar of the game AND how easy mode IS ALREADY IN THE GAME.

Yet through out this whole thread we're treated to asinine idiocy like "but it's not what IIIII WANT"

I think you're replying to a different post than mine, chill out! Not once did I say these games needed an easier difficulty option. I just want to be able to skip them without my personality being questioned due to it.

 

[Menitta]

No.

Spoiler

It's not a misconception.

 

[Rookhelm]

I'm not so sure it's such a misconception.


The games are hard. Maybe not "most hardest game evar" or anything, but there's a difficulty curve that is present that most mainstream games don't have (at least on their "normal" difficulties). That's not to say it can't be conquered, but still.

There's no map, no objectives, no auto saves, some bosses are one or 2 hit kills. You could argue this is simply a reversion from modern day game mechanics, and that might be so, but it's still a hard series.

How hard? Well, that's up for everyone to decide. I, for example, find most of the bosses impossible. Could I beat each boss after trying 50 times? Perhaps, but I simply don't have the patience for it. I haven't played Solo since Dark Souls 1 (played about the first 20% of Demon's on my own, but never finished it).

Ever since (DS2, Bloodborne, DS3), I've played the games co-op almost the whole way through. The levels I can manage just fine, it's the bosses that get me. Every now and then I can beat a boss or 2 on my own, but some of them (Darkbeast Paarl for example), I've tried and tried and tried and just can't do it. So, I co-op.

But I like playing the games co-op. That's where I get my fun, so it's fine with me. If someone came along and honestly gave the game a shot and concluded it was too hard, I'd recommend co-op every time. Because that can be fun too.

 

[Fuz]

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

Yeah, it's not really an hard game. But it's a game extremely good at make you think it's hard.
I just find it dumb and it's a clear indicator of how super casual gaming has become.

 

[Corpekata]

Maybe because the "non fans" or "wanna be fans" are just as condescending.

It's been explained on every page how an easier difficulty would change the core aspect of the game. It's been explained why it's not feasible for From Soft to make one. It's been explained how they're not hurting for sales and have garnered critical and commercial success from the path they've been on.

It's been explained how the difficulty IS IN FACT a main pillar of the game AND how easy mode IS ALREADY IN THE GAME.

Yet through out this whole thread we're treated to asinine idiocy like "but it's not what IIIII WANT"

The person you quoted was responding to someone that wasn't talking about difficulty modes, which is not even the subject of the thread.

The very fact that you jumped right to this rant is basically fulfilling exactly what they said.

 

[Ultimadrago]

I don't understand why so many Souls fans need to be condescending. It is clearly harder than most mainstream games, which usually don't require this much dedication and effort. And I don't see how finding them difficult means one doesn't have any sort of attention span. They can be very frustrating.

It's the worst community (on GAF) filled with some of the most deliberately petty and poisonous users heading discourse regularly. However, I feel like I can sympathize with their "No Easy Mode" argument a bit.

Doesn't the level structure make for a basis from which to learn about future games? It seems like what you learn from the first couple of hours sets a standard for exploration in the 9th hour or even for future titles. One way to direct these instructions (or "harsh recommendations") on exploring the world to the player is through death. Is that a bad thing or even something broken and worth fixing?

Now, I dropped Demons' Souls because it was one of the most sluggish and dull games I played in that generation. Yet, I never faulted it for being too hard nor did I want it to be easier. A world was created and had an abrupt style to teaching you some of the rules through patience and error. I'm not necessarily praising the game, but I also am not condemning it for knowing what it wants from the player's free approach.

 

[More_Badass]

I mean... I know all this.

Am I supposed to be impressed? Should I be praising the game?

No, it made my experience worse. If you like being scared, sure, and yeah, I can respect the cleverness of the design.

Doesn't change that it didn't improve my experience. It's pretty much one of the most clear cuts examples of why even a very competently executed creator's vision isn't necessarily a good thing for the experience.

It didn't teach me anything. I'd have been cautious no matter what. It didn't make me enjoy the game more. It didn't do anything positive for me whatsoever. I don't really gain anything from being scared in games.

You being scared gives the atmosphere, world design, the gameplay etc. weight. It makes the world and enemies feel as dangerous and threatening as the lore and aesthetic tells you they are. Would it be the same experience if you could just stroll through without a care and feel powerful?

 

[Mik317]

I mean... I know all this.

Am I supposed to be impressed? Should I be praising the game?

No, it made my experience worse. If you like being scared, sure, and yeah, I can respect the cleverness of the design.

Doesn't change that it didn't improve my experience. It's pretty much one of the most clear cuts examples of why even a very competently executed creator's vision isn't necessarily a good thing for the experience.

It didn't teach me anything. I'd have been cautious no matter what. It didn't make me enjoy the game more. It didn't do anything positive for me whatsoever. I don't really gain anything from being scared in games.

And here's the thing, this makes the games better for others.

It's not your cup of tea. That's cool. But that's life.... move onto things that are more your pace.

Why does everything has to go out of its way to make sure everyone can enjoy it. That's not how things work nor should it.

The games also generally have various ways to brute force things (be it slight grinding, summoning, and generally taking your time). They aren't easy but they are there.

Gamers don't want to put in time for anything anymore and that mentality hurts a lot of games. Sometimes the struggle is the appeal and this mentality of everyone getting theirs kills that. Again I generally hate hard games and bounced off of most of the franchise because of it but never once did I wish for it to appeal to me... that's kinda selfish, no. There are too many games out there for that. Play things that DO appeal to your tastes

 

[Dekuboy]

I don't understand why so many Souls fans need to be condescending. It is clearly harder than most mainstream games, which usually don't require this much dedication and effort. And I don't see how finding them difficult means one doesn't have any sort of attention span. They can be very frustrating.

The attention span part was for people, who rush into fights and can´t simply just observe patterns. But I also said, that souls are difficult than most mainstream games? It´s the point above

"It is hard, if you never played a souls game or a hard game before" it just isn´t as hard as people tell it is.

 

[what-ok]

These FROM games can be difficult no question but peoples opinions wether they are hard or not don't effect my feelings on the subject. Free advice, easier written than performed...Learn to time your ROLLS and PARRY. Try to hug the boss fights rolling towards them as they attack. Watch out for the AE animation cues cause they give you at heads up when to roll away and avoid major damage/death. Repeat, repeat, repeat.

 

[Ragnite]

I always feel like people are bragging when they say they find Souls games to be easy. They are more difficult than the vast majority of modern games. Who hasn't gotten stuck for days on the same boss during their first playthrough? That's not something that happens in most games nowadays.

 

[Zarathos no Daimaoh]

I do get a bit annoyed when people talk about difficulty like it's all there is to DS, found it even a bit overblown, because it's not that hard.
The game only asks two things from you:
- figure out what to do
- actually do it

The biggest difference between DS and other titles on the market is that the right thing to do is not immediately obvious and mistakes (in the "actually do it" part) are punished hard rather than treated like a bump in the road, being impatient and greedy is a mistake 99% of the time.

I wholeheartely agree . Essentially there are two things that are harmless but still annoying to me , when it comes to those tedious discussions about the soul games and the reviews/articles/columns :

- People that overhyped and built a legend about those games being insanely difficult . It helped its notoriety , but it also made it a pariah to people , that could actually handle it . Said people that are fine in hardest modes of a few mainstream console shooters over the years , which are actually something worse in difficulty and quite cheap with their spawns and AI .

- Folks that acts as if finishing those games (and/or get platinum for those) make them some elite or "truer gamers" . Sure the game is not easy either , and you gotta have patience . It's a steep prerequisite , when not everyone does , but that's pretty much all those games requires . Most of us will lack the very same patience for another game or genre of games eventually

 

[old manatee]

I always feel like people are bragging when they say they find Souls games to be easy. They are more difficult than the vast majority of modern game. Who hasn't gotten stuck for days on the same boss during their first playthrough? That's not something that happens in most games nowadays.

Whenever someone brags about Souls games being easy I just interpret it as the shameful confessions of a summoner, and probably a walkthrough user, to boot.

 

[Doc_Drop]

And here's the thing, this makes the games better for others.

It's not your cup of tea. That's cool. But that's life.... move onto things that are more your pace.

Why does everything has to go out of its way to make sure everyone can enjoy it. That's not how things work nor should it.

The games also generally have various ways to brute force things (be it slight grinding, summoning, and generally taking your time). They aren't easy but they are there.

Gamers don't want to put in time for anything anymore and that mentality hurts a lot of games. Sometimes the struggle is the appeal and this mentality of everyone getting theirs kills that. Again I generally hate hard games and bounced off of most of the franchise because of it but never once did I wish for it to appeal to me... that's kinda selfish, no. There are too many games out there for that. Play things that DO appeal to your tastes

Thing is From games do appeal to my tastes and others like me,just not the difficulty. It's hard to explain, imagine your ideal film,in setting,actors,everything, just that it's in a foreign language and has no subtitles. Sure you could learn the language,but in all likelihood you won't,therefore that experience has been lost you. In From's case, I feel like I'm just asking for subtitles.

 

[rackham]

The person you quoted was responding to someone that wasn't talking about difficulty modes, which is not even the subject of the thread.

The very fact that you jumped right to this rant is basically fulfilling exactly what they said.

They said they don't know why so many souls fans feel the need to be condescending. I explained that it's because even when they explain why the game is the way it is and how it's really not that difficult- you just need to devote time- we're met with the same stupid responses. You can say I jumped on this to rant or whatever you want but I was literally answering why.

I don't agree that frustrating is difficult. Dying a couple of times doesn't make (nor should it have you consider that) the game hard or frustrating. Something like Castlevania 2 which is so very obtuse would be frustrating.

 

[MajinSweet4]

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.

You just proved my main point here. This perfectly encapsulated why an easy mode for Souls would be a bad thing. This is it right here. You are not truly trying something new if all the while you are altering that thing to conform to your already determined tastes. You are fooling yourself. This is exactly what I mean by people unknowingly ruining an experience for themselves. So many people that don't need an easy mode would select it, then not get the point of the game. You are giving them an option that allows them to avoid truly enjoying the game. Actually trying something new. Options are not always good. And this is a perfect example. The very lack of an easy mode option is important to Souls design.

"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.

No, it is not wrong. You're still not getting it. It's all by design that you can make "op" builds. And when I said 'turn off invasion" I mean that literally. As in, you could still get all the advantages of online without the threat of invasions. The act of making a strong character to make the game easier is still part of the game. You earn it. That is a huge aspect of the game maintaining its integrity. That is nothing like a simple option toggle in a menu. This is why I can still have fun on a casual playthrough even after doing Soul Level 1 NG+ challenges. Because I earned my mastery, my skill. This goes back to presentation and mindset. People have already talked about how Souls has a variable difficulty, and why it's really good. And in a ton of ways superior to an "easy mode". You still seem to be stuck on the idea of "gatekeeping". In that we want the game to be super hard or something. That's not the main issue.

"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?

Okay, straight up, you're waaay off base here. This is a lot of nirvana fallacy in here. The point was never about "the game is perfect and any change is bad." That's obvious nonsense. I could write a novel on all the various design flaws of the Souls games.You still seem to be stuck on the supposed Souls elitism. Seriously, stop. It's not a good look and just sidetracks us away from real points. So to the real point about all this, is that when you're playing a game you will have many reactions and thought about the design. Often times you will be wrong, sometimes you might be right. The point is, you might have to play a game several times to truly understand how it could be improved. For example, when first going through The Valley of Defilement in Demon's Souls, a lot of players will complain. It's too hard, it's tedious, this doesn't align to my tastes. So hey, I'll just switch on easy mode. Or I'll find a way to cheat and get around this. Where as if you just played the game for what it is you discover and reach the emotional impact that area leads you too. Something you would have ruined for yourself otherwise. You later learn that these levels are not even that hard. You feel good about your mastery of these levels. Another thing ruined by your "tastes".

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've already gone over in this thread how a list of difficulty modes can be bad. So I'll copy paste that here.

"Many modern games now a days have several difficulty modes. Something like Easy, Normal, Hard and Very Hard. I can not stand this, it's terrible. Because now, before I even play the game, I have to try and figure out what difficulty mode is "right" for me, with nothing to go on. Maybe I assume that the game is super easy, so I should just jack it up to Very Hard. The only problem with that is most games with these options are not intended to be hard. So the Very Hard mode is an unbalanced mess of design. It might be "challenging" but it's not fun at all. So I end up playing the first hour of the game with that setting and hate it. The game could have had one difficulty mode, been easier, and still way more fun. Because the designers could have put all their energy into that one setting. This isn't to say no games should ever have difficulty modes, but it depends on the game. And in my case, games with tons of different options are a huge turn off to me. It tells me that the game doesn't have a focus on tight, balanced and intricate design. Which is what I more than anything really. This also ignores the fact that players can easily ruin a game for themselves. For example, save scumming the hell out of a game with quick load/quick save. Certain game mechanics simply do not work with that feature. That option limits your design space. It's easy to say "oh, players that don't want to ruin those mechanics will just not use it." But that simply isn't how the human mind works. We are competitive by nature and try to beat games, this is true for the majority of people. It's up to a designer to determine how a game works. As a player I don't want to do that work while playing. I want to engross myself in the experience. I don't want to ask myself "Oh, did the designer just not care? Will I break the game by doing this?"

Again, this goes back to the idea how very few games in recent times have the design style of Souls. Most games are this sandboxy style that don't have a strong focus on game play systems. It's not so much that an easier mode makes me not want to try the hard mode, it's more about the fact that difficulty modes make hard modes of lesser quality.

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.

Speaking to the choir on this one. My first playthrough of Dark Souls 3 was a blind SL1 run. I've done SL1 NG+7 of Demon's Souls on Pure Black World Tendency. SL NG+ of Dark Souls. SL1 on Dark Souls 2. Blood Level 4 on Bloodborne. The thing is though, when I play casually, the game is still fun. Because I've earned my skills and abilities. This is nothing like playing on a gimmie mode that was just handed to you. How the game is presented and experienced is huge. Also, the fact that these challenges work is because the game is designed in such a nuanced way. That's a big part of the fun, and enforces the "hard but fair" aspect of these games. Difficulty modes won't achieve that. This goes right back to why a lot of times I hate the hardest modes in many modern games. But I'll have lots of fun doing these crazy challenges in Souls.

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.

It doesn't work that way. The easy mode goes into everyone's game. It changes the game for everyone. The design would need to be changed. You keep talking about how an easy mode is this simple thing they could just throw into the game. So I say, put up or shut up. Burden of proof is on you. How would an easy mode actually work?

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.

Again, back to the elitism strawman. I'm just gonna say, it's not a good look in a debate to keep trying to paint the other side as an enemy. It's really low. And I would say it is important if a franchise dies because it wanted to sell itself to people that don't like it. Because then, ya know, people that have a game they like won't have it anymore? Seems pretty obviously bad.

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.

You're still not getting it. Those people can play the game right now, in fact, you might not even realize but the games have continued to sell better and better. People are getting it, and it doesn't require changing the game into something it's not. It doesn't require the franchise risking everything. And you seem to be willingly missing the main point here. They wouldn't be playing it now with an easy mode. They'd be playing a completely different game. Thus defeating the whole point.

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.

Complex games don't work that way. Stop treating them like junk food. You keep ignoring the most important parts of this debate. The difficulty is needed for those other "desired" things to work. To function. This goes back to my point of "how would easy mode actually work". You just keep saying things but don't actually explain how any of it work. Me and others have gone into great detail about how an easy mode wouldn't work with Souls design.

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.

Again at the elitism. I've made many detailed points about why the game should be played as it is. Hell, I wouldn't even say the "culture" has nothing to do with it. It is a part, their is a lot camaraderie among Souls players you typically only see for fighting games and stuff. That's cool! And it's part of the shared experience. That's a good thing that an easy mode would take away. But that's only one small part. A lot of it is tied to the mechanics and design. The games level design doesn't make sense in a easy mode game. The games length doesn't make sense in an easy mode game. The story/lore doesn't make sense in an easy mode game. The list goes on.

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.

This is the fallacy that one game can appeal to everyone. It's crazy and makes no sense. It's the type of thinking marketing tries to beat into people. "For Everyone!" This ignores my point that Skyrim doesn't align to my tastes. Skyrim should change right? If it doesn't then the people who like it are elitist. Right? You see how this argument makes no sense? Skyrim on the hardest settings isn't fun because the game wasn't really designed to be hard. Should Skyrim be completely redesigned to suit my desires? You can continue to dismiss my arguments by attacking my character, labeling me, that's fine. It's what you want to do. But you should at least say something like "how would easy mode work". The burden of proof is on you.

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.

Again, Skyrim. The game doesn't appeal to me, so it should change. It's not that I can just play a different game. Skyrim should appeal to every human being that exists, if not the people who like it are bullies, bad people, elitist etc. I'm sorry, but this argument is terrible.

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.

Okay first, your Devil May Cry example is hilarious because it was DMC2 that tried to make the game more appealing to a larger audience that could have killed the franchise to begin with. DMC3 was them going back to what DMC1 started, just building on it. What they should have done to begin with. What the Souls games have been doing since the start. You again, perfectly prove my point. Hell, just look at DmC, another attempt by Capcom to get the game a "broader appeal" which backfired. And with Halo, haven't most long time fans moves on? Because the series isn't even really about what it once was? These seem like really bad examples. Why is it bad that a game have a fanbase that likes it, and the creators continue to try and please them. As players, why do we need "broader appeal". Not every game needs to sell 10 million copies, that thinking is bad for the industry. Seriously, I hate this type of thinking with a passion. Heaven forbid a game caters to a medium sized audience (Souls isn't even niche anymore!) What your advocating is harmful.

Also, what your talking about is actually diversity, not accessibility.

No, I specifically mean accessibility because diversity leads to that accessibility. (On an industry level) The reason I did that is because it shows the fallacy that a burden of accessibility should be on a specific game. It shows that by trying to force "accessibility" into every game, you actually hurt diversity, which in turn hurts accessibility. We don't need more skyrims. The people who like those games have them in droves. What people don't realize about accessibility is that it's all determined by the user. What's approachable to you, isn't to me. We tend to think about accessibility as in "make games easy, make games easy to understand" and while that is true for the majority of people, that same way of thinking pushes some people away. You are calling for more homogenizing of the industry. That is never a good thing for creativity and artistic merit.

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.

To be frank, I cannot say the same for you. It's not good for debate to continue to attack the other person while ignoring the actual points of the debate. I've put a decent amount of effort into these posts and I feel like you are not actually reading them. As you continue to say things I've already addressed or simply miss huge points. For example your insistence on how an easy mode could be done, whilst a levy of points have been made to the contrary, without any defense in sight.

 

[sublimit]

The thing that annoyed me with Souls difficulty was the fact that before I played Demon's Souls, I read a load of things of people saying stuff like "it's all based on skill: if you can't beat a boss at SL30, levelling up to SL100 won't let you beat it".

I understand that this is the case with some bosses (like Artorias will curbstomp you until you get his pattern down and learn how to fight him), but for the most part, hitting a boss with 50 strength makes fights a lot easier than hitting them with 12 for example.

Yes but unlike most other games you could still die pretty quick even with the easier bosses if you are not careful.That could be death from the environment,bad stamina management,poor timing to chug (like right before the boss is getting ready to hit you),or screwed by the camera if you get cornered and you are not used to lock-on/lock-off.Being Soul level 100 will not save you if you don't bother to learn how to play the game.

 

[Screaming Meat]

The original point is flawed. There's no reason to have a cake if your not gonna eat it. The more useful meaning is as a metaphor to have everything lined up to work for you.

Ha! Either you missed the point of the saying or you’re deliberately reinterpreting it for the sake of your argument.

Well, then I'm glad you see how the existence of an easy mode would not diminish the identity of a normal mode for it existing.

That’s very clearly not the point I was making. Let’s not start being disingenuous. Secret areas that have obscure pathways, are part of the identity of the game. Easy Mode isn't.

Or we could make it possible to not be miserable to work through.

…and undermine the principle point of the work? No, ta. Easier for people to move on to something more to their liking. It’s not like there’s a lack of games out there to cater for all kinds of whims.

Anyway, to answer your question.... Honestly? Not really. Some, but not as much as you think. It actually mostly just made me run back whenever I felt I had enough, level up or buy something, then run back rinse repeat, until I just wasn't getting the souls for losing them to matter.

More effective was just death itself. If I was reckless, I'd just die. Like, I literally wouldn't be able to progress without being careful. So I had to be careful to progress.

So no, it mostly just made me more fearful when I had large amounts of souls. It didn't teach me anything I wouldn't have learned anyway.

As I said earlier, that’s an intended effect. Death in video games is a consequence free affair. DS upped the ante. If you think it didn’t make death more effective and didn't affect how you played at all, well, I don’t know what more to tell you. Again, plenty of other games out there that don't have that mechanic.

You being scared gives the atmosphere, world design, the gameplay etc. weight. It makes the world and enemies feel as dangerous and threatening as the lore and aesthetic tells you they are. Would it be the same experience if you could just stroll through without a care and feel powerful?

Precisely. It's part of the holistic design.

More like if you can appeal to a demographic without it really costing you anything, I don't see why you shouldn't, which is what I see the case of the souls games as.

Well, as I’ve suggested throughout the discussion, I believe the game would lose something. Not sure what more I can tell you, chief.

 

[Chronospherics]

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,

Spoiler

including a somewhat well hidden shortcut

and second boss. Add on top that it is much faster than the earlier DS games. While DS3 starts off with a boss fight that can be a showstopper for new players, it should quickly teach them about rolling and blocking and stamina management.

I think that initial difficulty curve and forcing you to learn to dodge within its early hours is what makes the entire game seem easier than the others, personally. It forces you to learn the the fundamentals the other games kind of leave you to develop your own playstyle and make your own mistakes. Then you get to a point in the game where your playstyle doesn't work anymore, like blocking with a sword and shield against bosses that damage you through the shield.

Either way, whichever you play first will be your hardest one, and those early hours will generally be the toughest part of that.

 

[Skii]

I mean... I know all this.

Am I supposed to be impressed? Should I be praising the game?

No, it made my experience worse. If you like being scared, sure, and yeah, I can respect the cleverness of the design.

Doesn't change that it didn't improve my experience. It's pretty much one of the most clear cuts examples of why even a very competently executed creator's vision isn't necessarily a good thing for the experience.

It didn't teach me anything. I'd have been cautious no matter what. It didn't make me enjoy the game more. It didn't do anything positive for me whatsoever. I don't really gain anything from being scared in games.

You are literally saying that you hate what makes these games so good... the tension. Just don't play these games if you don't like tension. That is the philosophy of Dark Souls. The fact that you beat the gaping dragon and now have 60k souls and the stress you feel as you descend down Blighttown trying to find the next bonfire before you lose all those potential levels is exactly what Miyazaki is trying to encapsulate. How can you not understand this? You would not feel that tension if the game was in easy mode?

It's clear that all of us in disagreement with you are just banging our heads against a brick wall. And it's got to the point where my skull's cracked and there's bits of brain smeared across the wall now from all this trauma.

You just flat out refuse to accept that someone can have a vision for a game that isn't absolute pandering to what you want.

 

[snow in jamaica]

I'm just disappointed that the level of challenge is what came to define the series, it being practically the only point of interest since Demon's Souls bewilderment.

 

[More_Badass]

I'm just disappointed that the level of challenge is what came to define the series, it being practically the only point of interest since Demon's Souls bewilderment.

Yeah, I'd agree with that. As I said in my Bloodborne LTTP, no series since Silent Hill has done creature designs as creepy, disgusting, and awe-inspiring grotesque as these. Half the fun is seeing what horrifying monstrosity the team has imagined next

 

[Skii]

Yeah, I'd argue with that. As I said in my Bloodborne LTTP, no series since Silent Hill has done creature designs as creepy, disgusting, and awe-inspiring grotesque as these. Half the fun is seeing what horrifying monstrosity the team has imagined next

Exactly. I haven't even played Bloodborne's DLC because I actually dread playing through the game again. It was so oppressive that it emotionally affected me whenever I played. That is beautiful in its own way and it's just a tragedy that all everyone focuses on is the difficulty rather than the atmosphere, tension, level design, creature design etc. that the From team worked meticulously on.

 

[Purple Cheeto]

People should be more upset with the shitty camera, unresponsive controls and cheating AI than anything.

 

[NinjamicWZ]

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.

This series has been around for quite awhile now. There's lots of opinions, articles and threads about it. "They shouldn't make games like this" has been around longer and is a more widespread sentiment, as per the disproportionate ratio between customers and media personalities who don't enjoy less popular games, and those who do. The sentiment is institutional even, all the way back to Sony's decision not to publish it in the West, and From's recounting of necessary secrecy in regards to the game's difficulty level while developing it. I'd say resistance to the very idea of these games existing and obstructing their dissemination or proliferation is where the contention begins and perpetuates.

If you want the series to stay as is, accept that it appeals to a smaller demographic

So people can have it and enjoy it, but only if they agree to certain conditions wherein success, acclaim and fanfare for the series is kept to a minimum.

 

[Screaming Meat]

Half the fun is seeing what horrifying monstrosity the team has imagined next

...and killing it. With impunity. And fire.

Lots of fire.

 

[Vanadium]

It's all part of the mystique. There are certainly sadistic design choices in some parts of the games, but no more challenging than Contra or a MegaMan 2 back in the day.

 

[Gai Murakumo]

The Souls games are a bit difficult at first until you understand the blocking, dodge and roll mechanics. Then once you master parrying Souls becomes a cake walk at least till New Game Plus playthrough's. I feel character action games (i.e. Devil May Cry, Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden etc.) are much tougher then souls games when it comes to difficulty.

 

[Effect]

I get annoyed at the misconception of the series difficulty to a degree. I'm more annoyed and frustrated by the idea that the games are actually "fair" to you the player or that it's completely up to your own skill. I find those statements or beliefs completely untrue. There is a lot randomness in these games. How powerful you can make your weapon and as quickly as possible matters a whole lot.

With DS1 I think that game's difficulty (after the hours I put into that game before finally walking away I really do believe this) has a lot to do with how it actually controls and it doesn't control well. Be it done on purpose or just growing pains but the controls I feel are what get you killed more then anything in that game be it movement or command inputs. Now you can adapt to the controls as they are but that still doesn't make them good or well done. I think the level design of the game is really good but that doesn't excuse the controls the problems it has.

Now the games have you operating under a set of rules. However the games can and quite often will have enemies completely ignore those rules and don't have to work within their frame work, even enemies that are of the same size of you and have human form. So you'll come up against enemies often that significantly faster then you, act faster and in ways you can't, operate as if they have infinite stamina and magic. Can swing through objects you can't. Can spot you with no indication of line of sight. This is especially the case I noticed in Dark Souls 3 where the control issues were finally sorted out. So to make things difficult they just made it so you're handicapped by certain rules and enemies aren't and just up the number of enemies thrown at your and more ambushes.

I don't find the idea that enemies can do so much damage to you challenging. People complain about bullet sponge type enemies all the time. The Souls games has the damage dealing equivalent of that. I don't even understand why From Software bothers with putting stats on armor. What I think is challenging is enemies being able to properly block and dodge you. Being able to possibly retreat from a fight if they're losing. Call in help. I'd rather have that and fewer enemy encounters in these games.

 

[Bleeether]

Souls is only hard when you fail to adapt. I mean the enemies are really not that hard when you figure out their move set. It punishes those who don't learn.

 

[Sephzilla]

Yes, the misconception bugs me. Because the Souls games are only hard when you don't play the game the way the game wants you to play it. If you play the game smart and cautiously, you'll be fine. If you fuck up or don't play it that way, the game will slap you across the wrist with a rusty nail bat. The games aren't hard for the sake of being hard. The difficulty is only through punishment for messing up.

Except for Dark Souls 2, because that game is bullshit hard for the sake of being hard.

 

[More_Badass]

I don't find the idea that enemies can do so much damage to you challenging. People complain about bullet sponge type enemies all the time. The Souls games has the damage dealing equivalent of that. I don't even understand why From Software bothers with putting stats on armor. What I think is challenging is enemies being able to properly block and dodge you. Being able to possibly retreat from a fight if they're losing. Call in help. I'd rather have that and fewer enemy encounters in these games.

Why would things like these even care about trying to block and dodge you or be scared of you and try to retreat or call in help? Why wouldn't they easily destroy a simple human like your hero?

Do you feel the same about the creatures in The Witcher 3 or Monster Hunter?

 

[Rookhelm]

I'm just disappointed that the level of challenge is what came to define the series, it being practically the only point of interest since Demon's Souls bewilderment.

This is a pretty good point. And part of why I play co-op a lot of the time. It's not the difficulty that satisfies me, but the atmosphere, enemy design, level design, bosses, items, lore...all that stuff.

 

[More_Badass]

This is a pretty good point. And part of why I play co-op a lot of the time. It's not the difficulty that satisfies me, but the atmosphere, enemy design, level design, bosses, items, lore...all that stuff.

I played co-op in Bloodborne for the first time yesterday and felt it was to my detriment. Sure, they helped me defeat a boss, but then we rushed through the next area, showing me where items were and whatnot. Now when I go back alone, I have no mental map of the area and will easily get lost because the slow careful exploration when you're alone helps cement the area layout and enemy placement in your memory.

 

[PseudoViper]

I think the whole aspect of dying and losing your souls is what gets to people and makes them bitch up. once you go through the game and you know your way, it's soooooo much easier. You know what to expect, when to expect it and how to tackle stuff. It's really NOT. THAT. BAD!

Nobody wants to die, but clearly dying is apart of learning.

 

[afternoon delight]

I think "tedium" could be inserted over most mentions of difficulty and it'd be closer to the truth- yes, it will take sometimes up to five minutes to reach where you just were. Yes, it will be just as hard to get there. Sorry, autosaves are crutches for what they're going for, memorize the journey, mazes are more interesting than straight lines, etc.

I get it! I was just dealing with trying to reach Seath. But I and millions of others enjoy what that entails and find the loop fascinating in the hands of From.

The easy mode secret n00b trick to DS 1 and 2 (can't vouch for the others) is grind to a higher level. It's impossible to lose with enough stat points above your adversary.... Which leads into the tedium I was discussing.

 

[Efren is G.O.A.T.]

I consider the series to be challenging and punishing. Back in the NES days, all games were "hard" like this. These games become hard if you don't pay the respect it deserves. If you go in guns blazing and think this is going to be a walk a in the park then you will get raped in every know orifice and they will tear a new one. But if you are careful and respect every monster then it's not that hard but it always remain challenging.

 

[The Dude]

I think the whole aspect of dying and losing your souls is what gets to people and makes them bitch up. once you go through the game and you know your way, it's soooooo much easier. You know what to expect, when to expect it and how to tackle stuff. It's really NOT. THAT. BAD!

Nobody wants to die, but clearly dying is apart of learning.

At first that was me, I was like I can't stand losing progress but it really does work out to where when you die you start to fully understand the issue and it'd quickly solvable

 

[Adam_Vania]

At first that was me, I was like I can't stand losing progress but it really does work out to where when you die you start to fully understand the issue and it'd quickly solvable

you are never "losing progress". progress in Souls games is not the number of souls you have, it is your skills, your knowledge of enemy layout and attack tells, the feel you have for your weapon/build and how safe you need to be with attacking/defending, etc. experience. all of this is far more valuable than any number of souls. if you have the skills you can beat any boss at SL1.

 

[afternoon delight]

Okay a lot of fun being tied to humanity in DS1 is annoying pre-Tomb of the Ancients. That's difficult to grasp. Fuck your goddamn rats in the Depths I want easy access lul

 

[Omegasquash]

Difficulty ain't the point. Overcoming challenge is what I chase.

And then there's the wide range of builds. And then there's the gear. And PVP. And co-op. And lore. And enemies.

Yeah, it can be tough in some places, or maybe tough to figure something out, but once you get it, you've got it. And it gets even better when you lose your souls. Because then you've got absolutely nothing to lose, so why not have fun with it?

 

[kayos90]

Uh... the games are most definitely hard. It's not even a matter of learning and "gaming" the game so you can get better at it but simply put the areas can be punishing because of things happening or because the enemies do a ton of damage. It requires as minimal amount of mistakes as possible and you can do several things to minimize it but to go and say "the game is not difficult really" is an asinine thing to say. And this is coming from someone who beat Bloodborne and it was pretty freaking easy outside of Father G.