Support NeoGAF

[Hollywood Hitman]

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.

I know I was saying before I got into demons souls, that idea that I was losing something meaning souls bugged me but I quickly learned how the knowledge of progress is what is key and getting souls back was never a true issue

 

[kayos90]

I know I was saying before I got into demons souls, that idea that I was losing something meaning souls bugged me but I quickly learned how the knowledge of progress is what is key and getting souls back was never a true issue

I think once you're completely fine with losing a few tens of thousand souls you're fine. That is ultimately what really matters. The game is sort of meta in a way that knowledge is far more valuable than the actual monetary number you see on the bottom of the screen. That being said you should be fearful of losing it. But once you lose it, it's not as if you've completely lost. It's supposed to be a moment of self-reflection.

 

[Adam_Vania]

having gone back and attempted playing Dark Souls 2 again, i keep thinking of all the ways Dark Souls 3 has made strides to make these games more accessible, "easier" if you will, yet still maintaining the challenge of boss fights:

- quick estus flask that you can drink while walking. DS1/DS2 had you stand still, locked in place, while you slowly drink.
- pick up soul memory while walking, even w your shield up. DS1/DS2 had you stop and put down your shield to pick these up.
- no halfing your health bar. DS1's curse mechanic and DS2's main health mechanic could give you half a health bar.
- stunlock on skeleton wheels is nerfed. they also appear in only a few spots. DS1 featured traps w these in large numbers and they were 10x as difficult.
-bonfire warping from the start. DS1 we had to walk to go everywhere.
- plenty of bonfires. some people even say too many. i think this is fine. bosses are always very close to the bonfire. no more running through all of New Londo Ruins hoping you don't die before you even get to the boss.
- very good hitboxes. DS2 feels like battling a box with a picture of a bad guy on it. DS3 combat feels very natural, with characters much bigger onscreen, so dodging past weapons is more accurate.
- silver serpent ring at start of game. ring that gets u more souls from every kill w a little exploring at the main hub area. in DS1 you didn't get this until the traditionally late-game catacombs area.

FROM has made many changes to the series that remove a lot of the aggravation and more frustrating mechanics. if anyone has ever thought the series was too tough but interested in giving DS3 a try i highly recommend it. it is the most player-friendly Souls game imo.

 

[WilyRook]

There was no core design to do Co op summons, that plays a huge part in difficulty needing to be the same throughout

Yeah, if there was anything like an easy mode it would have to be offline, the multiplayer aspect would be all messed up.
Only thing I could see being done is that they give you a premade character that has good fast roll armor, a good selection of the better melee weapons, good selection of spells, etc. They don't necessarily have to give you all the best up front but maybe enough to at least make decent progress and ease into the whole rhythm of the thing. I'd like to imagine that most players that would pick this hypothetical starting class would naturally want to restart with a standard level class, since they'd be destroying everything left and right.
Also, trophies would be disabled of course.

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

well, yeah...

 

[Dark_3nergy]

Not in the slightest. You see; the level design, monster placement, monster type and the monster AI play into the experience a lot. The teams that worked on those aspects of Darks Souls/ Bloodborne really did nail bringing the package together as a whole. You cannot run through and expect to cheese Souls Borne content. The monsters are specifically set up to punish you when you make mistakes. On the flip side, the monsters are also just as vulnerable to being exploited for the mistakes they make too. There is a special air of fairness to Souls Borne titles that really attract a lot of players. Don't forget the Director has said in different interviews that his main focus is creating a grand sense of accomplishment to the player when they play his titles.

However, throughout the various installments, there is definitely criticism to be said about the difficulty ceiling changes betwixt Dark Souls 1-3. While I kind of take each title on its own merits, personally speaking Dark Souls 1 and Bloodborne are the cream of the crop in terms of 'feeling' like I am accomplishing great feats.

 

[Veelk]

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.

Like, maybe it did on some subconcious level, but I don't see what it would have done differently in terms of how I go about things. Whether I have no souls or a bunch of souls, I don't want to die, I don't want to have to travel back to the start of the checkpoint. If I don't want those things, then I need to play carefully, which I feel I can say I generally do. All it does is enact a heavier punishment for what I'd do anyway. For that, maybe I played even more cautiously sometimes than I would anyway? Idk, it doesn't feel like it added a lot for me.

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.

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.

But Bloodborne IS my taste. I fucking love the game. I just hate that part of it. It adds an unnecessary level of tension that would already be present from the intimidating designs and ferocity of the enemies. I'm at the point where souls genuinely don't matter to me, and my experience is improved for it because now I don't worry about losing them, I just worry about dying, and this is a more positive experience for me. I still feel tension, but it's tension that comes from the threat of the enemies alone, a tangential feature like not on losing your game investment, and that's better for me.

Guys, it's extremely weird to be told over and over how one of my favorite games of all time is "not for me". I dislike one element of it and have outlined why I consider it unnecessary even if you do not, yet still love it. I feel this response to that kind of exemplifies the lack of willingness to put yourself in the shoes of others.

Think about how little this makes sense. If Bloodborne was not for me becuase this souls currency system is it's defining feature, how can I love the game like I do? And why would I love the game even more now that I've rendered it redundant through overleveling? I don't see how this conversation makes sense otherwise. Explain to me, in pure logical, modus ponens terms, If you believe the currency system is such a defining the game that the entirety of the game's identity is dependent on it to such an extent that the game is rendered pointless without it, and I hate it, how can I love these games with it in? These things just don't add up. I mean, whats the alternative explanation here? That I'm lying? Did I trick myself into putting hundreds of hours into games I believe I like but actually don't? Come on.

At some point you have to accept that I appreciate different things about the game than you do and hold to a different game philosophy of what is considered good or enjoyable design, allowing me to hate the currency system you may see as integral, but it certainly is not to me. That's the only way I see this being coherent.


Okay, Majin, I'm pretty much done with this debate because it is getting way, way too long and too much of a hassle to reply to every possible point being made, but I feel the need to respond to this post.

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.

I feel I have, if not to you, then others. But, lets go over a clifnotes version of my basic argument here, if only for the sake of clarity.

Here is what I understand the defense against the easy mode to be: "if an easy mode happens, it will change the whole game. How you interact with the NPC's, the world, the level design, even the culture of the game, not just the combat"

Okay, lets go over this step by step. For one, you criticized me for not being specific on what an easy mode would entail. I don't do this because it's not my job to create an easy mode, it's the developers, because while I think some people oversold the idea of how much such a mode would cost to make, it would require testing and tweaks. I don't think we can apply a blanket "cut all damage by 25%" or anything like that. It also depends on how easy easy mode is. Would you want a mode that subtly turns down enemy damage, one that changes the aggression value, or do you just give the player more recovery items than they would ordinarily have? Any one of these, or a combination of them could work, but I am not going to put together a design doc right here and now. For the sake of argument, assume it's a bit of everything and the easy mode was built to make the game more survivable relative to the main game, while still challenging. To make things simple, it's a mandatory offline mode. So, things that would be affected:

The combat: This is the most obvious and tangible affect, and it is the entire point of an easy mode as this will be what 99% of the player base gets stuck on. This is the part that I think, if one were to do an easy mode, it's what ought to be changed. But then we have a rippling affect that does indeed affect other areas of the game.

The NPC's: You mentioned something to the affect of how you share a relation to the NPC's because your living a similarly horrible life of death. Well, in my personal experience, this isn't what I felt at all. In all 3 of my playthroughs, I feel I am above the rest of them in a way that clearly evokes aspects of a power fantasy. I mean, first off, they are extremely lifeless, while I'm constantly getting out there and taking down monsters and gods. You get a few every so often that are on a journey themselves, but it's always noticeable how often they feel outmatched by the world around them, while I don't. And I usually play with an overleveled build, do it's not long before I stand head and shoulders above these NPC's. Not to mention that I have immortality. It's canonical that no matter how many times I die, I just come back, which is not something afforded to other NPC's. They die, they're not coming back. So I find this connection that I'm supposed to feel with the NPC's tenuous at best. But okay, easy mode. They're still suffering while the player has a slightly easier time of it than they do. Well, assuming that the easy mode still challenges the player somewhat, they will feel the strain of the world's violence to some extent, like they do. But assuming that it's super easy....well, if I had to pick who my favorite Souls NPC characters are, it'd probably be Eileen and Maria and Arianna and the Samaritan from Bloodborne. I try to imagine how their interactions play out if the game is easier, and honestly, the things I like about them are the things I would remain the same. I like how the Samaritan is so kind even though he's got anxiety issues and the world is a jerk to him. That doesn't change even if the game is a walk through, because it's about his personality and interactions with the world, not mine. The only one of those that could even potentially change is Lady Maria. I think it's important that she is a powerful boss to get a proper feel for who she is. However, if the easy mode is only easy relative to normal mode, she could still be a challenge to lesser skilled players, who would be the audience for the mode.

The world: Honestly, the intense difficulty of the game is kind of what hurts the believability of the world to me for a little bit. I mean, this is a world where you can't go 10 feet without something trying to kill you, but somehow people built these amazing castles and buildings with this incredible architecture and art. Even 'normal' people are inert and passive in this world and all act super weird. No matter how hard I try, I don't picture how this world came to be in a normal, functional, anthropological sense. The people in it act too alien for it to seem plausible. And I don't think this is an flaw, because this lends the world a sort of mythological feel, where you're in an epic where not everything might make sense, but it feels grand. I don't feel the difficulty of the world affects this overly much. The mythical feel of the world here is less about how the souls games are oppressive and more about how they're just...weird. If we're talking about the clues about the world we find, I see a similar disconnect. Why, precisely, would finding an item that tells me Hollows love the taste of Mountain Dew or whatever be any more or less interesting for the fact that I had to fight a small army to get to it vs just finding it lying on the side of the road. More important and obscure pieces of information can be hidden away in the world, sure, but how you acquire that information just doesn't feel like it'd be more important than the information itself.

Level design: Well, this is related to combat, so some of the answers are going to be the same. The ambushes aren't going to have the same punch to them, but they're not really supposed to since the goal here is for greater player survivability. But would it mean that players would be more careless in exploring? Eh, maybe, depends on how easy easy mode is. But there's other things, like how worlds are explored. Well, I don't see a difficulty change affecting this too much, atleast if I were playing it. I'd still be collecting all the stuff I could, which would mean I'm scouring every area looking for stuff to pick up. I'd want armor, for the sake of fashion if nothing else, or to pick up new weapons that would still make an impact for the player. I just don't see new items as ceasing to have worth even if the game is easier, because I'm a hoarder and because of the chance they could be useful even considering the lowered difficulty. I'm trying to think of what you actually do with level design other than kill enemies and scour for items. This would also probably be different depending on the game. DS1, with it's open world hub, would be different from bloodborne's more linear level design.

Lastly, the culture: You mentioned camaraderie in your post. Well, this wouldn't disappear, especially since online stuff would be relegated to normal mode, so people who interact with other players will still have their experience. Communities will always be there for players and an easy mode will not quell such a thriving one right off. I can agree that it would then be harder to hype the game up as the hardest mainstream title, but people would still be able to hold normal mode as the standard by which the souls games would still be played. So, all in all, this would probably be the aspect that takes the hardest hit after combat, but it would definitely survive and continue to thrive.

Still, I feel that you will insist "But it will be different...." Well, I can give you that. On some subtle, psychological level, you will be affected by knowing you could have chosen an easier path. An easy mode player might feel a slight more disconnect with the NPC's than they otherwise would, might approach levels more carelessly than they would otherwise would...but not so much that everything about the series would be ruined for them. That's just dramatizing it beyond realism.

But things would be different. But for this argument to work, you have to put yourself in the shoes of someone who is not interested in the same things as you. They don't want to overcome adversity and be rewarded for it. Some people just want to see the burning ruins of Old Yharnam or figure out who the fuck Gherman really is. They will care that they aren't getting it the proper way far, FAR less than you would in a similar situation, and I see no reason why they shouldn't have that chance unless it would impede other players in some way.

Which brings us back to the crux of the argument, the thing that is the reason I can't get passed and reconcile with people who disagree with me here. How would it affect YOU that some guy you don't even know played an easy mode version of the game that you didn't? A game mode which, for the sake of argument, lets say we know for a fact had no impact on the development of what would otherwise be a normal Souls game. I mean, as far as you personally go, you said you were able to SL1 your way through DS3 on your first playthrough and like to choose the hardest modes from the onset, so the idea that you'd lack the self control to not go for the easy mode is not the case. What about the gaming public at large? Well, I would imagine the easy mode to be locked in once you chose it at the start, similar to your stats, or name, or whatever, without a respec option. That would prevent people from just backing out and playing the easy version if them resisting the urge to lower the difficulty is such a problem for you. They wouldn't want to lose the progress they have made. But even if they could, I just don't get why you'd care.

You run into a post occasionally that says 'Man, the boss was just too tough for me, I had to lower the difficulty for him". So what? It's not even that different from summoning for the sole purpose of trivializing a boss fight. But this is just a barrier I cannot seem to get past to truly empathize with your position. You apparently feel you've offered plenty of evidence why this would absolutely murder the soul of the souls games. But I just don't see it. "Someone played the game differently than me." Having read many posts on this matter, I still simply can't see why anyone would care.

 

[Just_myles]

"You need to learn how to play it and get better to proceed"

Been playing since demons souls and I'm all for the git gud movement. That's what makes it fun. That's what makes life fun. Practice makes perfect. More games need to be this way.

 

[SpecialAgentDaleCooper]

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

In my own experience with this game, and also not having played many of it's ilk before it is quite an oppresive game, that for all the reasons above is better for it. I actually got kind of a headache after playing for extended periods and found it quite taking because it was so effective. I think the worst jump scare I ever had was when the slime drops on you right after entering the sewers after the butcher. It's not just the dark stuff either, this atmosphere makes all the other thing so much more evocative, seeing anor londo for the first time, the Great Gray Wolf Sif, and my personal favorite the Painted World/w Priscilla.

I think much of that would have been lost had the game been easier, not having to experience that. Not going hollow, we are all kindred sprits in this world, and if we ever feel we need a helping hand, we could always join up in a bit of jolly cooperation!

Sigh, try again please, I said take that whole story, and add an easier difficulty that you NEVER used. Then tell me what changes.

 

[joms5]

As someone who just played the first Dark Souls this year, after years of straying from it due to the talk about it's difficulty being high, I can say that all of that talk was hyperbole.

The game only becomes difficult when you refuse to play by it's rules.

Patience is the name of the game. I beat many bosses on my first time simply by observing the patterns and striking when I knew I could not be hit. Does that sometimes result in 20-30 minute boss fights. Absolutely. But that's just how it works.

These games have been made with a very specific intent. I understand that some may find them daunting and would like them to have an easy mode, but like many genre's I have tried multiple times to get into, sometimes a game may just not be for you. You don't "have to" like what everyone else likes.

Also since I never mentioned it earlier. I adored the first game. Wish I cared as much, or even noticed, the lore that everyone else speaks of.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

People try to justify the difficulty level in souls games but they are not difficult, they are just not fair.

What a bunch of rubbish. It is extremely rare that the games are unfair.

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.

Okay, and? Why should we care about people who don't care about going through that learning curve exactly? Can I whine that mobas or fighting games are too hard/have a too high learning curve and demand that people let me win every now and then or something?

Yeah these games aren't for everyone. Not everyone wants to bother "gitting gud". That's fine. I don't want to spend the time gitting gud at Street Fighter, so I don't play it. I don't go into fighting game threads saying "hey these games are too hard, they should dumb them down for me".

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"

Yuuuup

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?

Absolutely. A perfect example would be walking around in Undead Burg or Central Yharnam with a level 100 character and maxed out equipment. It's almost relaxing, you are not in any danger from the mobs, there is no tension anymore.

 

[Bloodporne]

The meme-level difficulty misconception only gets frustrating when one considers that it's where the thought process behind Dark Souls 2's design seems to have stemmed from.

 

[kayos90]

I think the crux arguments really boil down to mediocrity of the users who keep screaming about wanting easy mode or wanting their perspective to be vindicated vs the posters who keep saying that easy mode simply isn't feasible.

I'll put it simply. To the first set of posters: you're not the designer and you clearly don't understand the intent of the game's design or the designers themselves so why are you even trying to argue for this position or demand validation. I'm hearing absolute garbage posts like "I want to appreciate this aspect of the game but I can't because of this one aspect so they should change it" or "every game should be accessible" or "easy mode should be in there" etc etc. These are all garbage notions. For the games that people love and adore, they don't adore every aspect of it. No one player really loves EVERY aspect of the game. To quote a line from House M.D: " Doing what you love means dealing with things you don't." If you don't love the game to the point where you can't deal with the portions you can't then simply put, you don't have the patience or mentality to simply enjoy the game to certain extent. Get over it. Don't try to push your own selfish idea of what the game should be to others. Accept it for what it is and move on. Unbelievable how people have to go through a mental olympics just to understand.

To the posters who are saying easy mode is simply not possible, it definitely is. Would the game be changed drastically? Yes. Is difficulty part of the design? No. The game itself is hard and that's a result of people being unfamiliar with the natural design of the game. The game is not hard because of some stupid reason because there are more enemies or because they hit hard or other bullshit. It's hard because it takes the typical approach of games and makes you actually becomes 100% famliarized with the game's environment, enemy placements, movements, etc so you can GAME the game. That's all it is. You can still teach this philosophy with it being easy. Would you get the full extent of the game's intent? Probably not but it's feasible.

 

[Skii]

Like, maybe it did on some subconcious level, but I don't see what it would have done differently in terms of how I go about things. Whether I have no souls or a bunch of souls, I don't want to die, I don't want to have to travel back to the start of the checkpoint. If I don't want those things, then I need to play carefully, which I feel I can say I generally do. All it does is enact a heavier punishment for what I'd do anyway. For that, maybe I played even more cautiously sometimes than I would anyway? Idk, it doesn't feel like it added a lot for me.





But Bloodborne IS my taste. I fucking love the game. I just hate that part of it. It adds an unnecessary level of tension that would already be present from the intimidating designs and ferocity of the enemies. I'm at the point where souls genuinely don't matter to me, and my experience is improved for it because now I don't worry about losing them, I just worry about dying, and this is a more positive experience for me. I still feel tension, but it's tension that comes from the threat of the enemies alone, a tangential feature like not on losing your game investment, and that's better for me.

Guys, it's extremely weird to be told over and over how one of my favorite games of all time is "not for me". I dislike one central element of it and have outlined why I consider it unnecessary, yet still love it. I feel this response to that kind of exemplifies the lack of willingness to put yourself in the shoes of others.

Think about how little this makes sense. If Bloodborne was not for me becuase this souls currency system is it's defining feature, how can I love the game like I do? And why would I love the game even more now that I've rendered it redundant through overleveling? I don't see how this conversation makes sense otherwise. Explain to me, in pure logical, modus ponens terms, If you believe the currency system is such a defining the game that the entirety of the game's identity is dependent on it, and I hate it, how can I love these games? These things just don't add up. I mean, whats the alternative explanation here? That I'm lying? Did I trick myself into putting hundreds of hours into games I believe I like but actually don't? Come on.

At some point you have to accept that I appreciate different things about the game than you do and hold to a different game philosophy of what is considered good or enjoyable design, allowing me to hate the currency system you may see as integral, but it certainly is not to me. That's the only way I see this being coherent.

It is not at all unnecessary. Very few games have the balls nowadays to say "everything you've learnt over the last hour can be lost within a second if you don't pay attention". There's something very endearing about that. How can you not enjoy the tension that brings as newcomer to the series? It's just so different from the vanilla subpar RPGs we have at the moment.

And the best part is, it's all designed to teach you that your souls mean nothing. After you're half way through the game and it "clicks", you realise that it's far more important to learn your enemies than to out-level them. So I would walk around with 50-100k souls and would lose them and I wouldn't really care because Souls meant very little. If I had them at the bonfire, cool. If I didn't, I'll just pop my soul consumables and be on my way.

It's a brilliant lesson that the player has to eventually learn. No other game really tells you that the currency isn't as important as you think it is. That's why SL1 runs exist because souls are insignificant compared to you learning the game.

And at the end of the day, almost everyone will agree with me in saying that the way we interact with the currency in this game is completely different and far more interesting and rewarding compared to most other games on the market. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not overwhelmingly popular with everyone else.

I feel I have, if not to you, then others. But, lets go over a clifnotes version of my basic argument here, if only for the sake of clarity.

Here is what I understand the defense against the easy mode to be: "if an easy mode happens, it will change the whole game. How you interact with the NPC's, the world, the level design, even the culture of the game, not just the combat"

Okay, lets go over this step by step. For one, you criticized me for not being specific on what an easy mode would entail. I don't do this because it's not my job to create an easy mode, it's the developers, because while I think some people oversold the idea of how much such a mode would cost to make, it would require testing and tweaks. I don't think we can apply a blanket "cut all damage by 25%" or anything like that. It also depends on how easy easy mode is. Would you want a mode that subtly turns down enemy damage, one that changes the aggression value, or do you just give the player more recovery items than they would ordinarily have? Any one of these, or a combination of them could work, but I am not going to put together a design doc right here and now. For the sake of argument, assume it's a bit of everything and the easy mode was built to make the game more survivable relative to the main game, while still challenging. To make things simple, it's a mandatory offline mode. So, things that would be affected:

You do understand that From probably tried creating an "easy mode" if not in Demon's but Dark Souls and it failed miserably. It probably didn't give the player this sense of urgency, this need to survive that Miyazaki wanted them to feel and they scrapped it. They thought long and hard about how they could bridge the gap between players that were struggling and then finally they came up with the idea of coop. The fact that you can summon NPCs to help with fights is pretty much proof this is what happened. They tried an easy mode and it didn't work out. They worked long and hard on finding a solution which I believe they did and yet it still isn't good enough for the people who want their hand held for the entire game.

The NPC's: You mentioned something to the affect of how you share a relation to the NPC's because your living a similarly horrible life of death. Well, in my personal experience, this isn't what I felt at all. In all 3 of my playthroughs, I feel I am above the rest of them in a way that clearly evokes aspects of a power fantasy. I mean, first off, they are extremely lifeless, while I'm constantly getting out there and taking down monsters and gods. You get a few every so often that are on a journey themselves, but it's always noticeable how often they feel outmatched by the world around them, while I don't. And I usually play with an overleveled build, do it's not long before I stand head and shoulders above these NPC's. Not to mention that I have immortality. It's canonical that no matter how many times I die, I just come back, which is not something afforded to other NPC's. They die, they're not coming back. So I find this connection that I'm supposed to feel with the NPC's tenuous at best. But okay, easy mode. They're still suffering while the player has a slightly easier time of it than they do. Well, assuming that the easy mode still challenges the player somewhat, they will feel the strain of the world's violence to some extent, like they do. But assuming that it's super easy....well, if I had to pick who my favorite Souls NPC characters are, it'd probably be Eileen and Maria and Arianna and the Samaritan from Bloodborne. I try to imagine how their interactions play out if the game is easier, and honestly, the things I like about them are the things I would remain the same. I like how the Samaritan is so kind even though he's got anxiety issues and the world is a jerk to him. That doesn't change even if the game is a walk through, because it's about his personality and interactions with the world, not mine. The only one of those that could even potentially change is Lady Maria. I think it's important that she is a powerful boss to get a proper feel for who she is. However, if the easy mode is only easy relative to normal mode, she could still be a challenge to lesser skilled players, who would be the audience for the mode.

You are branded by the dark sign. That's why you come back. The game literally explains this to you and why it's only for a select few.

The world: Honestly, the intense difficulty of the game is kind of what hurts the believability of the world to me for a little bit. I mean, this is a world where you can't go 10 feet without something trying to kill you, but somehow people built these amazing castles and buildings with this incredible architecture and art. Even 'normal' people are inert and passive in this world and all act super weird. No matter how hard I try, I don't picture how this world came to be in a normal, functional, anthropological sense. The people in it act too alien for it to seem plausible. And I don't think this is an flaw, because this lends the world a sort of mythological feel, where you're in an epic where not everything might make sense, but it feels grand. I don't feel the difficulty of the world affects this overly much. The mythical feel of the world here is less about how the souls games are oppressive and more about how they're just...weird. If we're talking about the clues about the world we find, I see a similar disconnect. Why, precisely, would finding an item that tells me Hollows love the taste of Mountain Dew or whatever be any more or less interesting for the fact that I had to fight a small army to get to it vs just finding it lying on the side of the road. More important and obscure pieces of information can be hidden away in the world, sure, but how you acquire that information just doesn't feel like it'd be more important than the information itself.

This is where I'm starting to think this is some sort of elaborate piece of trolling by you. You don't buy the world being oppressively difficult. I genuinely don't know what to say.

Did even pay attention to the story of these games? These monsters weren't there when the buildings and castles were built. They arrived afterwards when everyone went hollow.

Honestly man, I think everyone should just give up trying to explain to you why this wouldn't work. It's been 3-4 pages and numerous responses and no one is getting anywhere. You aren't even making sense anymore and nitpicking on some absolutely nonsensical things.

Sigh, try again please, I said take that whole story, and add an easier difficulty that you NEVER used. Then tell me what changes.

The player doesn't feel the tension or need to survive anymore. The Dark Souls experience that Miyazaki wanted them to have has been ruined for them.

 

[Veelk]

It is not at all unnecessary. Very few games have the balls nowadays to say "everything you've learnt over the last hour can be lost within a second if you don't pay attention". There's something very endearing about that. How can you not enjoy the tension that brings as newcomer to the series? It's just so different from the vanilla subpar RPGs we have at the moment.

And the best part is, it's all designed to teach you that your souls mean nothing. After you're half way through the game and it "clicks", you realise that it's far more important to learn your enemies than to out-level them. So I would walk around with 50-100k souls and would lose them and I wouldn't really care because Souls meant very little. If I had them at the bonfire, cool. If I didn't, I'll just pop my soul consumables and be on my way.

Let me point out that this isn't new information for me. I did indeed learn that souls mean very little. It doesn't change my feelings on the system. I don't like losing progress, even insignificant progress, and even when I know it has no tangible affects on my capabilities. I went through the entirety of DS3 knowing souls didn't really matter, and losing them was still not something I liked to see.

And at the end of the day, almost everyone will agree with me in saying that the way we interact with the currency in this game is completely different and far more interesting and rewarding compared to most other games on the market. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not overwhelmingly popular with everyone else.

I don't think I ever made it out to be more important than myself, but you are missing the point entirely. The central thrust of the argument that the vast majority of people arguing against an easy mode is that "It will lose the entire point!" and they insist in no uncertain terms that Souls will be rendered meaningless without that difficulty, because all it's systems are designed for this purpose, including and especially the currency system.

Well, one of the most permeating systems in place to manufacture greater tension in the game is highly ineffective on me, yet I still enjoyed Bloodborne an incredible amount, and I loved it even more once the currency system became moot due to my overleveling. I am living proof that you can remove a significant aspect of tension in the game that everyone seems to believe is so integral that it's irremovable and a player can still find something to cherish the games.

My point is, how many more are there like me, who would love bloodborne with a great passion, but the difficulty prevents them from experiencing it? It's not certain, because anyone who tries to voice a desire for an easier experience is shut down with cries of "IT WIILL BE RUINED FOREEEVERRR!", because people insist that you either have to love the difficulty, or you can't love the series at all.

Majin says I am being inflammatory by regarding the portion of the fanbase that acts like this elitist, but I don't know how else to catergorize a idealogy that insists that a difficulty modulator is something that no one will enjoy just because that's not how they enjoy them, and do their best to quell any dissenting opinons on that.

You do understand that From probably tried creating an "easy mode" if not in Demon's but Dark Souls and it failed miserably. It probably didn't give the player this sense of urgency, this need to survive that Miyazaki wanted them to feel and they scrapped it. They thought long and hard about how they could bridge the gap between players that were struggling and then finally they came up with the idea of coop. The fact that you can summon NPCs to help with fights is pretty much proof this is what happened. They tried an easy mode and it didn't work out. They worked long and hard on finding a solution which I believe they did and yet it still isn't good enough for the people who want their hand held for the entire game.

That just tells me what they had at the time didn't work out, not that the idea isn't worth continuing to try and implement.

You are branded by the dark sign. That's why you come back. The game literally explains this to you and why it's only for a select few.

Okay? So what? I'll admit I didn't know that because I haven't played Dark Souls 1 and I don't remember this from Dark Souls 3, but my point here wasn't a narrative inconsistency, it's the fact that I'm special and better than the NPC's. The point is they whine about how their lives are hard, while I go "hey watch this" jump off a cliff to my death then tap dance back. It doesn't matter what the narrative justification is, the point is that I don't share in their despair of death because I don't experience death.

This is where I'm starting to think this is some sort of elaborate piece of trolling by you. You don't buy the world being oppressively difficult. I genuinely don't know what to say.

Did even pay attention to the story of these games? These monsters weren't there when the buildings and castles were built. They arrived afterwards when everyone went hollow.

Honestly man, I think everyone should just give up trying to explain to you why this wouldn't work. It's been 3-4 pages and numerous responses and no one is getting anywhere. You aren't even making sense anymore and nitpicking on some absolutely nonsensical things.

I mean, it's hard, sure, but it's hard to be down about death when you're immortal. I did feel oppressed by Bloodborne, but it wasn't because of deaths or anything like that. That was for other reasons. As for the rest of the world, yeah, I know that some kind of apocalyptic shit happened, but it doesn't change the fact that all I know of the world is what I see, and the only thing I've seen it's it's end. It's not that strange that I look at the world and think "how did it go from something that could build something like that, to this". It's wierd because I'm not even criticizing it, but it evokes a sense of wonder in me that makes it feel more fantastical than realistic.

As for your insinuations, honestly, this is what the problem is. I have a different experience from you, and you just try to make it illegitimatize it in some way. I have reasons for why I experienced the world of souls games the way I did and how you're acting is just kind of unwelcomin and dickish. "You didn't feel as oppressed by the world as I did? You must be trolling" Or maybe I focused on different things, maybe I saw things a different way. What are you trying to say here, that I was wrong to do that? How? Because I'm not sure what my response is supposed to be to you being upset that I didn't feel the same thing you felt about the game.

 

[joms5]

I think the crux arguments really boil down to mediocrity of the users who keep screaming about wanting easy mode or wanting their perspective to be vindicated vs the posters who keep saying that easy mode simply isn't feasible.

I'll put it simply. To the first set of posters: you're not the designer and you clearly don't understand the intent of the game's design or the designers themselves so why are you even trying to argue for this position or demand validation. I'm hearing absolute garbage posts like "I want to appreciate this aspect of the game but I can't because of this one aspect so they should change it" or "every game should be accessible" or "easy mode should be in there" etc etc. These are all garbage notions. For the games that people love and adore, they don't adore every aspect of it. No one player really loves EVERY aspect of the game. To quote a line from House M.D: " Doing what you love means dealing with things you don't." If you don't love the game to the point where you can't deal with the portions you can't then simply put, you don't have the patience or mentality to simply enjoy the game to certain extent. Get over it. Don't try to push your own selfish idea of what the game should be to others. Accept it for what it is and move on. Unbelievable how people have to go through a mental olympics just to understand.

To the posters who are saying easy mode is simply not possible, it definitely is. Would the game be changed drastically? Yes. Is difficulty part of the design? No. The game itself is hard and that's a result of people being unfamiliar with the natural design of the game. The game is not hard because of some stupid reason because there are more enemies or because they hit hard or other bullshit. It's hard because it takes the typical approach of games and makes you actually becomes 100% famliarized with the game's environment, enemy placements, movements, etc so you can GAME the game. That's all it is. You can still teach this philosophy with it being easy. Would you get the full extent of the game's intent? Probably not but it's feasible.

Only addressing the parts that I bolded.

You can't say that. lol In some cases that might be true, but not all. I can name a number of games that I can say "I love everything that this game does. EVERYTHING". That's the truth too. Not so for Dark Souls but you seemed to be talking about any game.

This may get confusing but as someone who says the game is not difficult, I think the difficulty is crucial to the game. So the game is difficult for some, the reason being they aren't playing the game the ways it's meant to be played (before people take issue with that statement as derogatory) meaning they think its like any other character action game that involves melee combat. This game punishes those who refuse to adhere by the rules which I think is crucial for teaching people how it is meant to be played. They could have you go through a tutorial but with the different builds that one can make it would change on a character to character basis.

The important thing about the Souls game is that you cannot spam attacks. There's stamina, you are locked into your attacks and enemies can do massive damage. By making players learn the hard way by dying easily, it is in essence preventing them from playing it like any other character action game. If you were to put in an easy mode that may ruin this fundamental design decision. How?

Well in a game that is about carefully planning your attacks and defense to manage your stamina meter you may end up encouraging players to spam attacks. This alone changes the way the designers meant for players to experience the game.

I mean let's be honest, there's only so many ways to make a game easier if you're basing it on an already designed template. Make enemies do less damage, you do more damage, less enemies on screen, etc. All of these would encourage offense and discourage defense which goes against everything this series is about.

I'm not saying there isn't a way for it to be done, but so far I haven't heard of any examples that wouldn't change the game drastically.

 

[Budi]

What a bunch of rubbish. It is extremely rare that the games are unfair.


Okay, and? Why should we care about people who don't care about going through that learning curve exactly? Can I whine that mobas or fighting games are too hard/have a too high learning curve and demand that people let me win every now and then or something?

I thought fighting games had difficulty settings for the single player? Since ofcourse you wouldn't compare PVE to PVP, right?

 

[Screaming Meat]

Like, maybe it did on some subconcious level, but I don't see what it would have done differently in terms of how I go about things. Whether I have no souls or a bunch of souls, I don't want to die, I don't want to have to travel back to the start of the checkpoint. If I don't want those things, then I need to play carefully, which I feel I can say I generally do. All it does is enact a heavier punishment for what I'd do anyway. For that, maybe I played even more cautiously sometimes than I would anyway? Idk, it doesn't feel like it added a lot for me.

I'd say an encounter with a bunch of enemies or a boss I wasn't prepared for was a tenser experience with 30K on me than without. When you have something to lose, it makes the world of difference imo.

 

[Veelk]

I'd say an encounter with a bunch of enemies or a boss I wasn't prepared for was a tenser experience with 30K on me than without. When you have something to lose, it makes the world of difference imo.

But it doesn't make me do anything different, which was what you were trying to assert. I'm trying to stay alive in one scenerio, and I'm still trying to stay alive in another. All it does, is that it makes it more tense. But I feel every scenerio comes with a built in tension. I don't need another reason to not want to die, I already want to survive all my encounters. Placing more tension in addition to that doesn't feel legitimate to me. And it's fine if it feels legitimate to you, it just doesn't to me. Which is my only point here, that there is room for more kinds than just people who seek to raise the tension as high as possible.

 

[kayos90]

But it doesn't make me do anything different, which was what you were trying to assert. I'm trying to stay alive in one scenerio, and I'm still trying to stay alive in another. All it does, is that it makes it more tense. But I feel every scenerio comes with a built in tension. I don't need another reason to not want to die, I already want to survive all my encounters. Placing more tension in addition to that doesn't feel legitimate to me. And it's fine if it feels legitimate to you, it just doesn't to me. Which is my only point here, that there is room for more kinds than just people who seek to raise the tension as high as possible.

No offense but I find this a load of codswallop. That's like saying you're going to drive differently on the road the same whether you have your kid in the car or not. Should you drive the same? Yes but the reality is you don't.

 

[Mael]

I kinda like the difficulty in the Souls I played.
That means Demon souls is great fun, Bloodborne is one of the best game ever, Dark Souls 2 can die in a fire.
I already can't stand how ugly the ps4 version of DS2 is but on top of that the game actually wants to kill me over and over in the most boring environment ever is where I draw the line.
Sure Demon Souls and Bloodborne can be hard, I mean I kept hitting my head on the wall so many time and STILL have fun with it!
Heck I bought the expansion of Bloodborne and I don't even think I'll ever access it and it's still fun!
DS2? That you even get an achievement for dying is so fucked up, the experience of Souls is not about dying!
The whole point of playing is overcoming whatever the game is throwing at you, not the suffering in the process!
If the level design, the monster design and the gameplay was shite we wouldn't even be talking about it!
It's easy to make a difficult game, ask the people who made arcade games!

 

[Veelk]

No offense but I find this a load of codswallop. That's like saying you're going to drive differently on the road the same whether you have your kid in the car or not. Should you drive the same? Yes but the reality is you don't.

I didn't deny the possibility, but if I do act differently, its subconscious. Maybe I'm twitchier to unexpected noises. As far as I can tell, I just try to stay alive.

I think that if anything, the system has a great affect on how I play after I lost my souls and am trying to get them back, because then I have a secondary objective with a set path line.

 

[BNGames]

Im not a Souls fan myself, but I played the original and found the design to be a huge turn off. Im not saying its a bad game, but it wasn't good enough for me to keep banging my head against.

I feel the same way about Monster Hunter, it just doesn't click with me.

 

[Mael]

I didn't deny the possibility, but if I do act differently, I can't tell you how. Maybe I'm twitchier to unexpected noises. As far as I can tell, I just try to stay alive.

I think that if anything, the system has a great affect on how I play after I lost my souls and am trying to get them back, because then I have a secondary objective with a set path line.

I feel like the Souls loss of the games is a bit...not enough.
Like sure I want to get them back but if I don't, in the end it's just grindy time and that's it.
On other games like Zombi/U where you lose your stuffs, it could actually set you way back if you lost your +5 crossbow or something.
A mechanism to make you lose your stuffs and have you get it back feels better I think.

 

[DudeWithNoName]

It is difficult, to me. I gave up on Demon's because I died a hundred time's at this one boss. A pair of dragons. I was told I could use a crossbow glitch and snipe them through the portal to help make it easier. Fuck that.

 

[D Bo Chops]

What bothers me is the the reputation is making some people NOT want to try the games. For me, its what MADE me want to try the games. I was sick of the scripted, waypoint, button mash garbage that was out and WANTED to take on the difficulty. Ended up being my favorite series of all time.

 

[Screaming Meat]

But it doesn't make me do anything different, which was what you were trying to assert.

I was elaborating on other effects the mechanic has.

Unless I misread your post, you kinda said it did make you play differently, but weren't sure. I mean, I think you're being a little coy, but that's your prerogative.

 

[pablito]

Based off where the conversation is going from a few posts I've read, I'll just say this. It's completely fine that Souls doesn't have an easy mode. "Tough" games like Souls are allowed to exist, and should be allowed to exist in peace.

 

[gogosox82]

You got trolled mate, sorry

Well damn. I've heard some variant of that argument that I just assumed he meant it while being overly hyperbolic. Well played by that poster because he totally got me.

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.

I should probably clarify then. I don't mean that people won't struggle when they play their first souls game. What I mean is, you don't have to have any discernible skills to beat the game. You just need patience to play through it. That's not really a skill I would say.

 

[SpecialAgentDaleCooper]

The player doesn't feel the tension or need to survive anymore. The Dark Souls experience that Miyazaki wanted them to have has been ruined for them.

Which player? Try to keep up with the context please. The person I was speaking to had a long winded story about what the difficulty meant to him in defense of no option. My question, to him, specifically, was how would his experience have changed if there was an easier difficulty that HE himself had NOT actually used?

Is that clear enough?

I note the person I responded to hasn't actually responded. Given the time available to do so, I can only surmise its because the answer isn't one that he likes, which is there would be absolutely zero change in the experience he went on and on about. No, the only response I got was you, talking all concern about other peoples experience, lol.

 

[Silent Chief]

I was playing Kings Field: The Ancient City back in the day and my wife cousin was watching me and wondering what the hell I was doing. I just ignored him.

When I first got Demon's Souls a co worker asked to borrow it to try it.
I said no. It's not the kind of game you try. If you're not going to put at least 40 hours in it, don't bother.

That bothered him so much he ended up buying the game and all the sequels and DLC.

 

[SpecialAgentDaleCooper]

It's not the kind of game you try. If you're not going to put at least 40 hours in it, don't bother.

lol, what? if you can't sign up for 40 hours sight unseen you cant play it? Nonsense.

 

[Bloodporne]

When I first got Demon's Souls a co worker asked to borrow it to try it.
I said no. It's not the kind of game you try. If you're not going to put at least 40 hours in it, don't bother.

What the...?

I'm a huge fan(atic) of the series but I mean...of course it's the kind of game you have to try. It's obtuse and obscure as hell.

 

[Rookhelm]

Your experience is precisely the point, though. There's all these options to get through the games. They're only hard if you refuse to engage with the features and mechanics present. Co-op, NPC summons, reading item descriptions, these are all things that make the games extremely accessible. All the game asks is that you explore them, and it rewards you.

If someone says a blind first-time offline run is easy, they're being disingenuous. These games are much harder than average if you go down that path. Although even then, the amount of enemies you can simply run past is staggering. The game becomes much easier (and shorter) if you notice that.

You're absolutely right in that the game gives you the tools you need. I suppose when people say Dark Souls is hard, they mean the "default" way to play (if there is such a thing). No summoning, no walkthroughs, having to find stuff on your own, etc. And imo, I'll say that summoning is the only thing that makes a meaningful impact on the difficulty (aside from upgrading your stats and weapons, which everyone will undoubtedly do except for a self imposed SL1 run).

Keeping up on what items do what, or finding all the items in the world (weapons, armor, whatever) will only get you so far. Bosses can still be quite difficult despite these things. But summoning 2 other players makes 99% of bosses trivial.

Of course you can include summoning as a game mechanic when you discuss the game as a whole, but I suspect when people talk about the game's difficulty, the implication there is "without summoning".

 

[Mael]

Wait! The games are supposed to be played with walkthroughs?
What's the point of an exploration game were you already know the locations?