current souls fans, would an easier souls game make you not want to play it

[Gormech]

In short, yes.
My fondest memories of the Souls games was when I was having trouble with an area, summoning a more experienced player and teaming up to conquer things that I wasn't able to do on my own at the time. As time passed, I got better and learned the tricks, soloing my way through new game after new game and even playing it differently with RP builds. After that, I had renewed joy of being able to place down a summon sign and help others follow the same path in between sessions of pvp and hunting down the gankers. When I got bored with a certain character, I'd always invade a low level area and drop all the high level stuff to give the host a bit of a boost before killing myself off a cliff or something. With an easier game in general, people won't need help getting through areas as much and that kind of lessens the fun of co-op. Right now, I just hope they might opt out and let the servers for Dark Souls stay up for the 'hardcore' group if the new game gets nerfed too much.

 

[infinity_turtles]

There are a lot of things I like about the Souls series. None of these, except maybe the challenge which they say they're going to keep(but they want to change things about the combat system so I don't trust that either) seem to be things that the new Directors see as part of the core of the franchise and want to change. Probably not getting Dark Souls 2, but I'll be watching it because sadly enough games with challenge that you have to adapt to rather then the other way around are so rare that I'll buy a game on that alone. Without those other elements that made the games in the series great it'll be a shell of a Souls game as far as I'm concerned though.

 

[NightHawk21]

snip

Well this is just off 2 seconds of thinking, but what about having enemies just deal less damage (just a flat level of what they deal normally) so that a player could make more mistakes in a fight, or try to figure the boss out for longer instead of dieing. You could combine this with stuff like regenerating health if you're no longer under attack or just some other small number tweaks and the game keeps that figure it out kind of spirit without all the one or two hit cheap kills.

 

[burningdragoon]

Hmm. Ultimately it depends on what "easier" means, but some thoughts (I may have already said them before):

1: I would love to see the Souls base gameplay mechanics in other styles of RPG.

2: If they release a Souls Lite meant for people new to the series or something, yeah I would get it.

3: Satisfying 1 or 2 without having a proper Souls game being made as well would give me a sad.

4: I will probably get Dark Souls 2 regardless, grumble if it has changed to much for the negative, feel relieved if still good, or mourn the loss of a great series if it's changed to something different but still pretty good.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Um... They already made the series more easier (or at least, less punishing), more accessible, and more linear with Dark Souls, and everyone loved it.

OT: Depends on the changes made, really. If they make it COD with swords (which I highly doubt they will do), then no. But, if they make it less obtuse (i.e. better directions and better tutorial) and maddeningly frustrating, then yes.

 

[Jack Rascal]

snip

Well this is just off 2 seconds of thinking, but what about having enemies just deal less damage (just a flat level of what they deal normally) so that a player could make more mistakes in a fight, or try to figure the boss out for longer instead of dieing. You could combine this with stuff like regenerating health if you're no longer under attack or just some other small number tweaks and the game keeps that figure it out kind of spirit without all the one or two hit cheap kills.

Would that be enough? I think the difficulties most people face with these games are frustration and impatience. If the enemies are still able to block, parry, bait, riposte and group against you, I don't see less damage necessarily as the option. If you're unable to get past the enemy defence and land a hit, it doesn't matter how little damage they do. You'll still feel frustrated. Most of the common enemies, especially in the beginning, are not hard if you understand how to play the game.

If the easy mode is set very low, meaning you deal high damage while enemies deal hardly any, I would see this as potentially very boring game. Boring games don't tend to get high praises from the masses. Where's the challenge of the game? The core is to offer a challenge to the player. They created a brutal world where you survive if you have your wits about you. You're almost supposed to advance the levels slowly with your shield held up high, terrified of what lurks behind the corner. If you're able to fly through the levels, in my opinion, it ruins the core of the game. Some people might enjoy though. But for example I don't play Skyrim for the battles, as the combat is horrid, I play it for completely different reasons. Skyrim offers so much more. What would Dark Souls offer, if not the combat? It does have story, but I fear that while flying through the levels most people would miss it. It has fantastic atmosphere, but with the easy mode, that would be ruined.

I think an optional tutorial in the beginning might actually help a lot of people. If it showed you the basic combat, weapons and armour most people would probably be fine with the game. Or maybe the easy mode had the first levels as tutorial levels and would get progressively harder until it reached the "normal" mode? And while you're in the tutorial, you cannot be invaded or invade anyone. I don't know...

 

[Yeager942]

If they have an "original" mode to go along with it, I see no reason why an easy mode shouldn't exist. Some things however, like basic tutorials should be common. Players of both modes should be able to know things like diminishing returns on stats or how dex affects spell cast speed.

 

[NightHawk21]

snip

Well this is just off 2 seconds of thinking, but what about having enemies just deal less damage (just a flat level of what they deal normally) so that a player could make more mistakes in a fight, or try to figure the boss out for longer instead of dieing. You could combine this with stuff like regenerating health if you're no longer under attack or just some other small number tweaks and the game keeps that figure it out kind of spirit without all the one or two hit cheap kills.

Would that be enough? I think the difficulties most people face with these games are frustration and impatience. If the enemies are still able to block, parry, bait, riposte and group against you, I don't see less damage necessarily as the option. If you're unable to get past the enemy defence and land a hit, it doesn't matter how little damage they do. You'll still feel frustrated. Most of the common enemies, especially in the beginning, are not hard if you understand how to play the game.

If the easy mode is set very low, meaning you deal high damage while enemies deal hardly any, I would see this as potentially very boring game. Boring games don't tend to get high praises from the masses. Where's the challenge of the game? The core is to offer a challenge to the player. They created a brutal world where you survive if you have your wits about you. You're almost supposed to advance the levels slowly with your shield held up high, terrified of what lurks behind the corner. If you're able to fly through the levels, in my opinion, it ruins the core of the game. Some people might enjoy though. But for example I don't play Skyrim for the battles, as the combat is horrid, I play it for completely different reasons. Skyrim offers so much more. What would Dark Souls offer, if not the combat? It does have story, but I fear that while flying through the levels most people would miss it. It has fantastic atmosphere, but with the easy mode, that would be ruined.

I think an optional tutorial in the beginning might actually help a lot of people. If it showed you the basic combat, weapons and armour most people would probably be fine with the game. Or maybe the easy mode had the first levels as tutorial levels and would get progressively harder until it reached the "normal" mode? And while you're in the tutorial, you cannot be invaded or invade anyone. I don't know...

I think the examples you listed in the last paragraph are great and I could see them working (especially the building up over a couple levels). Alternatively if the main problems come from enemy defense it might be worth considering stuff like maybe extending the swing time for an enemy attack/counter or how likely they are to counter attacks. IDK I could probably come up with better ideas when I actually get to the game.

 

[Jimmy T. Malice]

Um... They already made the series more easier (or at least, less punishing), more accessible, and more linear with Dark Souls, and everyone loved it.

OT: Depends on the changes made, really. If they make it COD with swords (which I highly doubt they will do), then no. But, if they make it less obtuse (i.e. better directions and better tutorial) and maddeningly frustrating, then yes.

You're kidding, right? Dark Souls may be less punishing, but it's certainly not as accessible, since you get very little tutorial and most of the mechanics aren't explained at all. Dark Souls is also less linear, because it actually has an interconnected world with many ways to sequence break rather than a rigid level structure.

 

[Jack Rascal]

Spoiler: spoilered due size

snip

Well this is just off 2 seconds of thinking, but what about having enemies just deal less damage (just a flat level of what they deal normally) so that a player could make more mistakes in a fight, or try to figure the boss out for longer instead of dieing. You could combine this with stuff like regenerating health if you're no longer under attack or just some other small number tweaks and the game keeps that figure it out kind of spirit without all the one or two hit cheap kills.

Would that be enough? I think the difficulties most people face with these games are frustration and impatience. If the enemies are still able to block, parry, bait, riposte and group against you, I don't see less damage necessarily as the option. If you're unable to get past the enemy defence and land a hit, it doesn't matter how little damage they do. You'll still feel frustrated. Most of the common enemies, especially in the beginning, are not hard if you understand how to play the game.

If the easy mode is set very low, meaning you deal high damage while enemies deal hardly any, I would see this as potentially very boring game. Boring games don't tend to get high praises from the masses. Where's the challenge of the game? The core is to offer a challenge to the player. They created a brutal world where you survive if you have your wits about you. You're almost supposed to advance the levels slowly with your shield held up high, terrified of what lurks behind the corner. If you're able to fly through the levels, in my opinion, it ruins the core of the game. Some people might enjoy though. But for example I don't play Skyrim for the battles, as the combat is horrid, I play it for completely different reasons. Skyrim offers so much more. What would Dark Souls offer, if not the combat? It does have story, but I fear that while flying through the levels most people would miss it. It has fantastic atmosphere, but with the easy mode, that would be ruined.

I think an optional tutorial in the beginning might actually help a lot of people. If it showed you the basic combat, weapons and armour most people would probably be fine with the game. Or maybe the easy mode had the first levels as tutorial levels and would get progressively harder until it reached the "normal" mode? And while you're in the tutorial, you cannot be invaded or invade anyone. I don't know...

I think the examples you listed in the last paragraph are great and I could see them working (especially the building up over a couple levels). Alternatively if the main problems come from enemy defense it might be worth considering stuff like maybe extending the swing time for an enemy attack/counter or how likely they are to counter attacks. IDK I could probably come up with better ideas when I actually get to the game.

Defence is not a problem per se, not on its own. The problem is that people are too impatient. This is not a hack & slash game. If you run to every battle just swinging your sword wildly you will die. So even if the enemies were weaker, you would still have to learn the combat. When you learn the combat the game becomes surprisingly easy. But even then, the game keeps its atmosphere and is very enjoyable.

That's why I think tutorial is all this game needs. I can understand that reading a 50 page mini-manual before the game sounds daunting to some, so if this was integrated to the first few levels of the game, I'm sure most people would be able to enjoy it.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Um... They already made the series more easier (or at least, less punishing), more accessible, and more linear with Dark Souls, and everyone loved it.

OT: Depends on the changes made, really. If they make it COD with swords (which I highly doubt they will do), then no. But, if they make it less obtuse (i.e. better directions and better tutorial) and maddeningly frustrating, then yes.

You're kidding, right? Dark Souls may be less punishing, but it's certainly not as accessible, since you get very little tutorial and most of the mechanics aren't explained at all. Dark Souls is also less linear, because it actually has an interconnected world with many ways to sequence break rather than a rigid level structure.

Yes, it is more accessible. It explains its mechanics better than Demon's and gives you much better directions. And it is more linear. I can tackle any world whenever I want in Demon's Souls. Can't really do that in Dark Souls, I am forced to go to one of three places.

 

[thejackyl]

I wouldn't mind an easy mode as long they can't interact with the other difficulties. As one of the first posters stated:

If I co-op with someone on Easy, and I get bumped down to easy, it'll ruin the experience for both of us. Too easy for me, and I don't know many people who like to be carried through content. If it's the other way around (Them bumped up to normal) and the difference is too much for them, it doesn't change much for me (other than I wasted time summoning them), but they would get frustrated VERY easily.

The only difficult parts I would change:

Anor Londo Archers - Get rid of them completely, or at the very least SLOW DOWN THEIR SHOTS!!!! (not the arrow speed, but the delay between consecutive shots).

Tomb of the Giants - Remove a few of the Giant Skeletons (I hate the massive knockback from their kicks ESPECIALLY on narrow ledges.) One at the very beginning (there's a spot with two of them after the second jump. If you pull them both you may as well suicide... and it's VERY easy to pull both without the Fog Ring) and one at the very end right before the mini-Pinwheels. There's a spot with 3 Giant skeletons (one is an archer, two have the swords), remove one of them.

I don't mind knockback, and I don't mind fighting on narrow ledges, but don't add the two together.

Everything else I would leave as is since every other difficult part can be taken care of by summoning and upgrading gear.

snip

That would obviously be PART of the solution, but as I stated the only parts that can still kill me have nothing to do with damage. It's the mechanics of the combat and the area that makes some of the areas difficult.

 

[Valdus]

I'm not a pretentious, arrogant hipster, so why would an option for easier play put me off? I wouldn't use it myself, but I can see my friends or GF using it.

It would give me a chance to share something I like with people I like, and as long as I don't use the option myself my own personal experience won't change. Where is the issue exactly?

I hate the arguments of "But Dark Soul's is about being a hard game". That's ridiculous. I wanna be the Guy is also hard yet I can't stand that game. Even without the difficulty Dark Souls is still a open-ended, thought-provoking and generally well-designed game. An easier version won't change those elements.

 

[Vegosiux]

A more interesting question would be "If you are not really impressed by Dark Souls, would you give it another chance if it was easier?"

To which I answer, no, no I would not.

 

[malestrithe]

It would not matter to me in the slightest. I would play the next Souls game when it comes out.

Now, I would play easy mode a few times if for no reason than I want to spite every single one of you that is complaining right now about how an easy mode will somehow making the game less exclusive.

On top of that, I am going to get copies for all systems it will be on at launch. I will even get multiple copies of the game for each system. Will I play them all? Hell no.

I want you all to know that your complaining did influence my decisions, but not in the way you expected it. Had you let it drop and remain rumors, it would have been something else. Now because you can't let it go, I am going to do something you disapprove of.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

It depends on WHY the difficulty is added. If the designers want to explore the game down different avenues thats fine, since my avenue exists also it doesnt hurt me at all.

However if it speaks of a market that DEMANDS that all games be all 100% accessable to all people i dont like that. That limits the artistic ability of the maker since they are forced to work in such small confines. Or at least feel like they need to tack an easy mode onto every hard mode.

My point is that anyone arguing that a game NEEDS an easy mode is just as silly as someone who argues that a game CANT have an easy mode. It should be totally up to the developer what they do or want, and every game has a right to appeal to whoever it wants for any reason.

 

[barbzilla]

It's the exact thing that Souls fans were worried about when all these crybabies and blowhards latched onto the series claiming it was too hard and they wanted it easier. Then they began screeching at Souls fans that they are being elitist and they don't have a right to have even one game that is different.

I'm sorry I'd put more of the blame on the anti-easy mode advocates than the easy mode advocates. It is a business and a business will do what it has to do to stay in business. In this case, everyone yelled at From for even considering an easy mode. Well they want to appeal to a wider audience, but they don't want to lose the people who are against the idea of an easy mode. One of the chief complaints is that it would take the game being developed with the goal of being easier for the easy mode to succeed, well, guess what? You win.

 

[Tomaius]

Oh no! If only some handsome British man had talked about alternative ways to make Dark Souls more accessible without compromising its difficulty!

Oh wait.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrQLdKf2VK8

In summary: An easy mode would serve to undermine the sense of art that Dark Souls has created. Rather than standardizing video games From Software should get more creative with their concept of an easy mode. Dark Souls 2 can be more accessible without compromising its core assets difficulty and depth, its just a matter of slowly easing the player in, talking them through the decisions they are about to make and giving options to players who are struggling to help them along.

 

[Benpasko]

I don't want an easier game, or even an easy mode. Dark Souls has an oppressive, dark atmosphere, and it would completely lose that if you weren't challenged by every enemy.