I vehemently disagree. I really want to stress just how much I do not align with this kind of thinking, this is the most important part of this debate I would say. We don't always know what we want. That is why I seek out the work of artists I respect. Really think about this for a second, how are you going to truly broaden your horizons if you are never going to truly embrace something new? For example, if someone asked me what I wanted out of David Bowie's last album, it definitely wouldn't have been anything like BlackStar. And that would have sucked. This also goes back to the faulty notion that "options are always good". If Demon's Souls provided a large list of options in the name of accessibility, I'm positive Dark Souls wouldn't even exist. If that game was easier, had difficulty modes, had options to turn off invasions, party based co-op, it would have just been another game. It wouldn't have created the strong identity it eventually did, it wouldn't have made a community for itself. We treat games like they are junk food and I hate that. I want more games that have a vision, that really have something to say. Not less. We have so many games that don't do things the way I like, so imagine my frustration when someone says "No, what you like is wrong, I need 100% of things to align to my tastes, not 99%." The industry is filled with games that are essentially a sandbox. We're the player basically gets to play designer. When I'm playing a game, I don't want that. I want to engross myself in the experience. I want to understand what the artist was going for. Why can't we have 1% of games that stand firm and say "This is the vision for our game."
I vehemontly disagree with your disagreement, and I'll explain why these things are not problems:
"We don't always know what we want." - this is both perfectly true and completely irrelevant to options. All it takes is a willingness to explore new material, something you are already doing with any new product no matter what. I explore plenty of new things, even with infinite options to customize things to my particular tastes at any time I choose. The trick is not to pre-emptively choose what you want. Experience, then adjust to what you will. That's how I do it.
"If that game was easier, had difficulty modes, had options to turn off invasions, party based co-op, it would have just been another game." - Well, I can't speak for others, but I'm currently playing it with a kind of OP build that has made several parts of the game pretty trivial with invasions turned off, and I'm still finding the experience to be special because the game has what I enjoy most out of a souls game - atmosphere, fantastic design, and unique room to write your own narrative. I don't know if it will replace Bloodborne for me, which I also played in offline mode so I didn't have to deal with people barging into my game, but it's still one of the most special games to me. I don't know if my build was OP, but I did everything I could to ensure it was, and still got my ass kicked plenty of times. So, personally, this is patently wrong.
"When I'm playing a game, I don't want that. I want to engross myself in the experience. I want to understand what the artist was going for. Why can't we have 1% of games that stand firm and say "This is the vision for our game."" - To this, again, I bring up the case of Dyack's Too Human. There's an auteur for you. There's a man who wanted to make something unique, and actually did! There is a man who had something to say. How do quantify that game? Like I said before, you can't sanctify the artistic vision, and then say it doesn't apply if you don't like what it envisions because that's just subjectivity. By this logic, there is no reason that anything about Dyack's game ought to be changed, however obvious the flaws of that design are. The truth of the matter is that creators are just human, and all humans are creators, including you, including me. The disparity is just a matter of taste and a matter of skill. Miyazaki is a developer, he's much more skilled at creating games than I am, but difference in tastes always exists, and people should have the freedom to follow their tastes. Keep in mind, this doesn't close the door to the option of exploration. Having an easy mode didn't stop people from getting good and tackling higher difficulties of DMC and Ninja Gaiden and Bayonetta. Why would it here?
Of course, you are free to mess with whatever on your private time. No one has a problem with that. Like, if someone goes through the trouble of giving themselves God mode to play through Dark Souls, whatever. (Just stay offline please) But this is a totally different issue than if FromSoftware put in a God mode. The creator of a game basically decides on the rules. A God mode being cheating or not is a big factor on how the game will be viewed by its players. Or in the case of this debate, an easy mode.
Don't worry, I stay offline by default.
I think this part of the crux of the problem. People hear 'easy mode' and seem to think this is turning on god mode, which is absurd. I would think people would still get a challenge, it'd just be relatively easier to normal. But for the sake of argument, lets say that there
did a god mode. A god mode breaks any game with combat. Literally, ANY game. Yet the implementation of such a mode mean that even a small but significant portion used it to play the whole game that way? Name me one time the existence of an easier difficulty stopped people who wanted to play harder difficulties from doing so?
I mean, it's just such a non-issue, slippery slope argument. Consider this: Plenty of people do SL1 runs, including on this forum. There is nothing whatsoever stopping them from upgrading and making the game easier. But they CHOOSE to apply that level of difficulty to themselves. That's how it's always worked. People choose the difficulty they make for themselves, and never once, until dark souls, has there been an argument that an easier difficulty would somehow break any game.
You can't see how a mode specifically intended to make the game not difficult would effect the games identity as a difficult game? You've got to be kidding me.
I've addressed this like a thousand times at this point. The change of identity
is the point. But
only for the people who want that change made.
Unless you're talking about the game's reputation, so players can't market it anymore as the game that's known for it's difficulty. In which case, yeah, I don't give a fuck about that. I will defend your ability to play dark souls on hard difficulty as much as I can, I will not defend your ability to call dark souls for the exclusively hardcore.
Hell, even if the easy mode was like, a super slight nerf to certain things, and wasn't even easy, just it's existence would be a big deal. It would certainly turn people off to the franchise. The presentation of a game is also very important, just as much as the mechanics in many ways. You can't say "This is our hardcore arpg franchise, Prepare To Die!...Unless you don't really want to, I mean, we have this other mode that lets you just kinda do whatever." You can't have your cake and eat it too.
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.
But the most important part of this passage, how it effects me. I've already mentioned this earlier in the thread (Among many other point in this post) but it's less about how it effects me and more about how it effects them. If people want to try a Souls game, I want them to enjoy it. I want them to "get it". To get the same types of feelings so many of us have already had. Moments like this:
https://twitter.com/Quillcannon/status/795292935017365504
It's about appreciating something new, enjoying something unique. I don't want an easy mode because I
care. I've sold and gifted tons of copies of Souls games to friends and practically strangers over the years. I've gotten many people into this franchise. It's not about me. It's not a matter of accessibility. An easy mode wouldn't be the same experience, so it defeats the whole point of all this.
Here's the thing...you said earlier that people don't know what they want. And that's true. But you don't know what they want either. I imagine there are a bunch of people that actually, truly do not want all that souls offers, while still desiring others.
If you can sell Souls as it is, you should still be able to sell souls playing it normal, and they would have the same game experience. And that's all I'm seeking to defend here. If you need the culture surrounding souls to enjoy it, then maybe you don't like souls as much as you think you do.
Again, it has nothing to do with elitism, stop it. It's because that version of Bloodborne would suck. It would be a short, hollow experience. Hell, some people already complain that the game is short, now that you take away the challenge people are just going to smash through it. Not caring about the world or characters. They won't need to learn how the combat really works, making it just another hack and slash. Just shorter and "with no story". The game isn't designed to be easy. So you might say, so what? At least they tried it! The problem with that is, their first experience is always going to be this lame, watered down version. And chances are they will walk away from the franchise thinking "Why do people talk so much about this? Probably just to brag about being hardcore." Plenty of people who didn't like hard games have gotten into Souls, plenty of people who found the game too hard on a first play have come back and fell in love. An easy mode would make it so those people never have that realization. That's why a creator doesn't always give people what they demand, this is what I mean by respecting and trusting creator intent.
Well, again, you don't know what other people would like. You can use that as evidence for why Souls works the way it does, but it goes both ways, and there are potentially plenty of people who would not have an appreciation for what souls does and would actually enjoy the watered down version of it. And hte idea that those people exist and might be just as satisfied with a watered down version being something that seems to anger you, it does feel like elitism.
Elitism isn't any less exclusive when you offer one and only one path into a club. You're basically saying here "It's our way or the high way" in regards to difficulty setting. "This is the right way to play it, and any other is meaningless." No, if it wasn't elitist, you wouldn't be trying to adhere to some kind of 'proper way' to find meaning. You'd let people find their own meaning and hold their experiences to be just as valid. And that's definitely not what your doing if you're suggesting that the prestige of the games is just as important as the games themselves.
This argument has never made sense. If they stopped focusing on X, and focused on Y, they'd make more money! For way too long the video game industry has always fallen for this trap. You have to increase your playerbase, you need to be more "inclusive". This line of thinking has actually killed franchises before. And I'm sure it would be the beginning of the end for Souls as well. It would turn off a lot of the Souls playerbase. A passionate dedicated group of customers. And for what? For a group of customers that don't like what you create? What sense does that make? And the fallacy that people would see the "incredible level design" and "atmosphere" just shows a naivety of game design. Those things stand out because of the challenge. The level design is all based around the difficulty, a ruthless trap becomes a slight annoyance in an easy game. The trap is better off not being their in an easy game. The "incredible level design" becomes weird and bad. The atmosphere resonates with people because the challenge. People become a part of the world because it feels alive. When an NPC tells you about the horrible plight they are in, you believe them, because you too are in that plight. In an easy game, that character becomes a joke, not someone you respect. Players stop caring about the atmosphere as they blow through the game. The difficulty is an important part of the games design. It's one of many gears that makes the whole thing tick. Taking it out makes the game worse. That's the important thing. I don't want people playing a worse game. I want them to play a good game. If someone just can't enjoy the game for what it is, then the game wasn't for them. That's not a matter of "exclusion" or "elitism". I don't say that Skyrim sucks and needs to be changed to match my tastes. I just don't play it. That is accessibility. An industry that provides something for everyone, not this bizarre demand that every individual game cater to every possible person. That's impossible and impractical.
Well, if you read my post, you'd see that I specifically pointed out that I have no stock invested in from, so I don't actually care how they do as a company in terms of finance. I mean, I want them to do well enough to keep making games, but that's pretty much it.
When I say expand their player base, I am just saying so more people can enjoy it. Also, true, I can perfectly agree with you that moving toward an attempt at inclusivity has harmed games when it's done at the cost of the game's identity. However, I've stressed time and time again that this would not happen with an easy mode merely existing. As long as the normal mode continues to exist, the identity of Souls would be left intact...unless, again you just want to preserve it's reputation rather than its' actual content, in which case, I can't help you out there. Keep in mind that for as many failed attempts at inclusion, there have been plenty of successful ones, whose fanbases have nourished and thrived for it, games that have been made better. You can't just use the worst case scenario and act like it's the default and inevitable result. People got sold on the identity of franchises they might not otherwise try because marketing said they include an easy mode now, but that didn't stop DMC3 from recapturing and popularizing the franchise when it appealed to more people with Dante's cheesy attitude turned up to 11 and the crazy combo's he's now able to perform. It took the identity that began with DMC1, and forged it into the series new face, making it's popularity soar. There are several examples of it. Halo 4's MP lost it's way according to many, but without doing much different in terms of design philosophy, 343i managed to reinvigorate the population by creating the best multiplayer the series has ever seen. And so on. So I feel the trick is to not forget who you are, while still moving for broader appeal.
It's possible to do.
Also, what your talking about is actually diversity, not accessibility.
That said, I respect your opinion on it. If it makes you feel better, I am confident that an easy mode is unlikely to come to pass and I respect that you took the time to write out such a detailed response. But these posts are getting extremely long, so I think I'll have to bow out here.
That depends: does their drive to see Yharnam outweigh their disinterest with the combat?
If not, there isn’t any way they can do that, so they either play Bloodborne on its own terms or they don’t. There is nothing wrong with a game asking something from the player.
No, but similarly there is nothing wrong with the player looking to have their cake and eat it too, and I see no reason not to root for the player to make it happen.
What’s not sensible about playing something else that’s more to your liking rather than asking the niche title to accommodate you (and thus millions of others) individually?
Because then they have to leave what they wanted to get out of bloodborne. I agree with your general point, there's nothing wrong with demanding something from the player, but I usually don't feel good about leaving things unfinished. For a quick example, I usually read all the books I start, even if I grow to hate them. I didn't like Wheel of Time from book 1. I made it more than halfway through book 4 before giving up. It was SO bad. But I still have to force myself not to go back, for no other reason than to sate my curiousity of how the rest of the story goes. For the record, there are 14 very large books in the series. I have to force myself to do the 'sensible' option and just read a better book, which I am doing now.
My point is, I totally understand what it means to go through a lot of crap to get at one small diamond in the rough, and anywhere there can be made an argument to improve the crap/diamond ratio, I'd support, for myself, and for others.
To be honest, I don’t think I need to. You ‘stressed’ that you ‘consider it imperative that Souls keeps its identity.' The design philosophy is part of that identity, whether you know it beforehand or not (which I didn’t when playing DS1), and it leads to a lot of the neat design quirks (like the skeletons) that give the game its unique flavour that people love.
If a player plays through Bloodborne without ever discovering Cainhurst Castle, does Bloodborne have Cainhurst Castle, or has it lost that part of it's identity?
I consider imperative that Souls keeps it's identity in the sense that it exists within the game, even that the default way of approaching the game. But the point of an easy mode is to give the player the option to ignore that identity when they choose to do so. So yes, they will not see it experientially, but the game will still have it.
If that’s how it makes you feel, I’d argue that the system is working exactly as intended.
So do Iron Maidens. Explain to me why it should work as it's supposed to when I gain nothing from it. In such cases, I'd rather the system didn't work as intended and taking measures to break it seems like the more sensible option.
I think you’re underplaying this somewhat. If you remove a founding stone when it is an approach to design from the top-down, I believe that it’d change more than just the ‘feel’ of the game, as I exampled in my previous post.
Regardless, the point of a different mode is infact to change the game, in feel or however else you want to describe it. Parse it how you want, the point is what you may consider the whole thesis or purpose of the design, it's loss isn't that significant to someone whose not engaged in it the way you are. Think of it like this, the final and most significant piece to the set up of the design is the player themselves. If they don't fit in right, it doesn't matter how snug the rest of the structure is.