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

[Scars Unseen]

As long as the game is designed to be difficult, I don't care if there is an easy mode too. The problem is that most games these days are designed to be easy, and then the developers tack hard mode on as "easy with bigger numbers." That isn't hard mode, it's just annoying mode.

 

[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.

Blame? Blame for what?

The fans were happily enoying their game. Then some people start to play that found it too hard/ obtuse and start making demands. When those, who want the game to remain as is, disagreed, the easy mode proponents went on a rampaging smear campaign.

From Software made Demon's Souls and Dark Souls appealing to a specific group and succeeded quite nicely. Demon's Souls was the most imported game from Asia this gen until it was finally localized for the West. Dark Souls was even more popular. And all this without having to compromise their artistic integrity. It was only once the proponents started to screech that they started to question their designs. So I'm going to emphatically disgree with you.

BTW, I don't follow the "You win" part but don't bother explaining. I'd rather we let this drop.
This is definitely argument territory that's been tread, re-tread then beat with a dead horse.

It wasn't even a discussion until there was a mis-translation (which is still questionable). Then the hard-cores let the blow-back loose on From Software saying that an easy mode would ruin the game. That is the only point I was making. The blow back from a mis-translation is one of the layers on the table at a root cause analyses meeting. I don't mean for it to be an argument by a long shot. I was only stating what my thoughts were on the subject.

 

[cgmetallica1981]

If the game has an easy mode, I most likely won't buy it. There's no way they can implement an easy mode without having the regular game negatively affected. Somebody on YouTube by the name of EpicNameBro has a good video about this, can't find it right now though. It's probably been linked in this thread already.

Thankfully, there probably won't be an easy mode.

4Gamer:
You spoke about already having a large fan base, but how are you planning to adjust the difficult in Dark Souls II? To be honest, I can?t help but think that the needs of your existing fans and that of new players might be conflicting.

Shibuya:
Just as you say, it?s a difficult proposition. That?s why we plan on making the early parts of the game comparatively less difficult to ease new players in, and then at a certain point, we?ll tell them ?this is where the real game begins.?

 

[Windcaler]

Let me preface this by saying I haven't played the games yet.

For the issue at hand, I don't think anyone has a valid argument for them not including an easy mode as long as its done well. There were a couple valid points raised about stuff like not allowing for easy players to interact with normal characters (and vice-versa), but they mostly point seem to get at the idea that if easy is to exist it should be a separate entity and not affect their difficult version.

Those that are making the argument that no, because dark souls is supposed to be hard, or some other nonsensical statement, well in short your argument is stupid and bad. The difficulty is not going anywhere. There is talk of an addition of an easy mode, not the elimination of the normal mode. The brutal, no forgiveness gameplay that you claim to love will still be there. Why would you deprive other people who might be interested in the game, but not in its difficulty the ability to play and enjoy its contents? Sure they may not get the full experience of the game in your opinion (they probably won't in my opinion), but why is that your call to make? Let them play the game and decide for themselves.

The above argument eventually boils down to plain pointless elitism. People whose lives are empty, their lives are unfulfilling, or maybe they're just bitter and afraid of change, who don't want a change because it makes them feel special.

You know I am so bloody tired of people like you calling purists elitist because they feel that an easy mode cheapens the game. I have reported that very statement I dont know how many bloody times but the moderators of the forum refuse to address the personal attack on us. By definition an elitest seeks to be exclusionary and the souls community is anything but that, we've always been inclusionary. We've always tried to be helpful, to offer advice, to help people adapt to the challenges of Dark souls but for all those attempts people like you keep attacking us and calling us elitest. Im sick of it. How about you all make an actual intelligent argument while listening to our side without relying on insulting our views?

They won't do anything because its not a personal attack by definition. You're statment also makes no logical sense. How could an easy mode, whose only reason is to include a greater amount of people who can't or won't play at that difficulty level. Its good that you're offering helpful advice, a strong community can make or brake games, especially hard ones, but it is important to consider that some people can't play at that level no matter how much they try or just simply don't enjoy it.

Hell look at Dota 2. The game is very hard to play at a good level to the point where I'm a couple hundred hours in and still make plenty of mistakes, but there is a community with a lot of resources for me to draw upon. Some people however like the style and the game, but don't/ can't play at my level or higher and are put against easier players or have the option to play bots.

In much the same way between the two games I imagine, the community actively strives to teach and encourage the players to get better, but some people don't want to or can't invest the time to get that good, so there should be options for them to experience the game as well.

There's your intelligent argument, lets here yours now.

To take your example it screws with the art. This is where Dota 2 and Dark souls are infinitely different, Dota 2 is a game thats only made as an interactive product. Dark souls is a piece of art designed in such a way to be art and to be a product that scratches the single and multiplayer experience. Thats not even tackling the other end of the argument where I said an easy mode cheapens the game but I believe the artistic side is much more important to explore

That said, Im gonna ask you a question point blank. Do you believe that consumers of art have a right to tell an artist to change something?

 

[Whateveralot]

As long as adding an easy mode doesn't make hard mode harder, i'm in. You can simply choose to ignore easy mode then.

However, if that means they have to increase difficulty on hard mode, so it becomes unplayable for me (I'm not a GOOD DS player: just good enough to make it through the games), I'm basically stuck on easy mode if I want to finish the game within a reasonable amount of time.


But I can understand the addition of one such modes...to compensate for the lack of skill. It's very easy to make a mistake.

 

[Candidus]

If they make its standard mode easier I won't buy it.

If they add an easy mode, fine. Just so long as its players are totally segregated. I don't want to see them. I don't want to hear them. I don't want to get saddled with them in co-op. I don't want to waste my time on them in PvP.

 

[rbstewart7263]

No, because the appeal of the Souls series is its difficulty.

The difficulty is honestly overhyped. It has a steep learning courve and people mistake that with difficulty. Once you learn the gameplay it get's a shitton easier. The appeal for me is personally the variations on different weapons, not being bound to specific classes and being able to chance the playing style completely at all times.

Being able to take on every enemy in the game with dual-shields for example is a very exciting feeing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJat7fGQJ7I&list=PLIlU_HVFob8CWzMpm4O_Y_JIfvxc14z8o


OT:
It would depend on how they implement this difficulty. Splitting the playerbase will hurt PVP, especially if they really plan to go back to a regional server system. Changing the basic combat mechanics would change it into a different game.
I'd be okay with a better tutorial as long as it's either skipable or not one of those annoying tuts where it only let's you press the button it wants at that moment. Making a more reliable summoning system would also be a valid option to make the game easier.

I tip my hat to thee.

Honestly those complaining about the frequent ds topics. At least its not sexism.lol

OT: Im truly not that worried what I read was "Im gonna make sure your comfy before I throw you into the gauntlet" which is fine w me but if im wrong then oh well.

 

[not_you]

Alright, I'm not a current fan... I only just bought Dark Souls off steam yesterday...

I have played a bit of it, and so far, I'm more frustrated than anything...

If block only works 75% of the time, and parry works 25% of the time when I'm wearing my headset only on one ear... That's when if gets painful...

I'm sure I'd love the game, if not for that great big issue...
And the griefers... OH the griefers...

 

[Windcaler]

Yeah, yeah I would play it (though you seem to be asking two different things - one with your topic title, one with your actual OP... either way I'd play both of them. Unless Dark Souls 2 is actually a straight-up first-person shooter. That'd just be... weird).

I managed to pick up Dark Souls on steam yesterday, and... well, the game isn't exactly 'Hard'. It's got a hell of a difficulty curve and dying is punished pretty brutally, but that's about it. Once you figure out how everything works and how enemies attack, a solid 90% of the challenge drops from the game. It's not a game you can blaze through, requiring more thought about how your gonna proceed than anything else. I'm not gonna give the game props for it's difficulty, but I'll definitely give it points for atmosphere, pacing and being one of the few games out there that needs you to think before you act.

Saying that, I have no qualms with an easy mode in the next souls game - if they nerf the entire game so it's only an easy mode than I got an issue with it, but if there's just an 'easy mode' next to the regular mode than I'll have zero issue with that. As I have said in the last few threads of this discussion, easy mode isn't the apocalyptic reaper that shall ring Dark Souls Deathknell, in reality it's just a gate-way for not-so-experienced players to get into the game. And, as I have said twice now in similar threads, all an easy mode would do is give newer players the similar leg up veteran players have coming into the game - by making it easier for them to learn enemy attacks and how everything is done, they'll gain the same experience that people like me have (lots of experience with 'watch and wait' gameplay instead of 'attack attack attack') and older players of the series have (knowing what's coming due to playing it all before - much like how an FPS is easier after playing heaps of other FPS's).

So, in short - I would play a Dark Souls game with an Easy mode. Making the whole thing easier instead of giving people the choice of difficulty would be a deal breaker for me. Changing the formula up wouldn't really worry me though, unless it's a completely different game as a result (i.e. with the 'suddenly FPS' example I gave in the introduction), at which point I'd back away slowly and stick to playing Dark Souls.

You know I am so bloody tired of people like you calling purists elitist because they feel that an easy mode cheapens the game. I have reported that very statement I dont know how many bloody times but the moderators of the forum refuse to address the personal attack on us. By definition an elitest seeks to be exclusionary and the souls community is anything but that, we've always been inclusionary. We've always tried to be helpful, to offer advice, to help people adapt to the challenges of Dark souls but for all those attempts people like you keep attacking us and calling us elitest. Im sick of it. How about you all make an actual intelligent argument while listening to our side without relying on insulting our views?

How about y'all making intelligent arguments instead of insulting our desire for an easy mode to be added? In the past four threads this issue has been raised, I've seen attacks against people wanting easier mode (I believe there was a post somewhere about labelling easy mode 'wuss mode', with the intent of making people feel bad about playing it), with most of the 'anti-easy' (christ, the fact that I can use that in a paragraph and have it in context is just... sad) arguments boiling down to 'We don't want less skilled players in the fandom'. Now, there have been some very credible arguments and understandable worries raised over the 'possibility' of an easy mode, but most of the crap in the threads have been... well, crap.

And until I actually got into the Souls community yesterday, my general understanding (gleamed from these threads) of the Souls community was that they were all elitists wankers who could only communicate in rage and bile. Now, since I'm actually in the community, I know otherwise, but in the space of these last few threads the 'cream of the crop' hasn't exactly been on show so to speak. Maybe if everyone stopped throwing around such idiotic arguments about how easy mode will ruin EVERYTHING and debated the issue intelligently, then maybe the Souls community wouldn't be getting such a bad rap in these threads.

Though, a question for you if you are a 'Purist' - how does the addition of easy mode (a completely separate mode from the standard gameplay and, assumingly, separate in terms of multiplayer) affect you and your enjoyment of the game? I regularly play Halo 4 on Legendary difficulty and often start games on the standard difficulty setting if I'm new to the franchise, yet the option of easy mode has never affected me in any way, shape or form. So what exactly is the purists problem with easy mode?

If you really read the threads that have been posted then you would have seen the arguments I made in several threads. So Im calling that what it is, a lie. Its either a lie that you read them or a lie that you didnt see objective arguments being made.

That aside, while there are a few objective arguments that can be made what were really talking about here is something that is entirely subjective, difficulty. Some gamers like me are going to be much more adept at Dark souls then others. Some of that comes from experience, muscle memory, and reaction time but even then there are still people that are way better then I am. Try as I might I cant do a speed run in under an hour but heres the difference, I accept that. Im not asking for the game to be toned down to my level Im accepting that I either need to get better or need to accept that its a feat Im not going to conquer. That subjective way of thinking is what I feel is at the core of this debate. Two diametrically opposed philosophies bashing heads against one another.

If it can be a side in this debate I am on the side that says there needs to be games for everyone. Not all games should be for everyone. What I mean by that is every niche or genre audience needs to have something for them. The people that really enjoy dark fantasy with unforgiving difficulty have Kings field, Demon's souls, and dark souls. As far as Im aware that's all. At the same time there are flight simulators, racing games, Real time strategy, turn based strategy, First person shooters, third person shooters, etc, etc ,etc for the people that want to play them. Do the pro easy mode people tell those niche audiences that their games need to change to meet their whims? I doubt it and Ive yet to see an argument for such change

Agreed.
The moderation has been uneven on this topic.
The moderators are uneven on a few other topics cough*JRPGs*cough and sometimes overly harsh in defense of others *cough*Valve*cough* so it looks like something we'll sadly have to live with.

All I can say is keep reporting and maybe they'll get the message that this is unnacceptable as it induces flames.
Sometimes the mods (selectively?) forget the "Code of Conduct".

Its not just that, theyre also heavily in favor of anti-theism as I discovered a long time ago and what caused me to remove myself from Politics and religion. You just can not have a fair and reasonable debate in that forum, its like a law or something

Im not one to critisize moderators very often because I understand they are human but as rampant as this debate has been for the last several months it really shows what I view as some favortism

Its my hope that criticism where appropriate will spark appropriate action

 

[The_Echo]

Dark Souls wasn't already a linear action game? I mean, yeah, you could pretty much go wherever you wanted... but there was a very obvious single path to take. I'm pretty sure most, if not all Dark Souls players take that path.

All I know about Dark Souls II so far is that they want to make it "more accessible." This does not mean easier. It means more accessible. Just as Dark Souls is more accessible than Demon's Souls. As far as I'm concerned, they're probably just lowering the learning curve. Second verse, same as the first.

And if II has a less minimalist plot, then... I think I'll be fine with it as long as it's good. I do hope they keep it minimalist, though.

 

[Raioken18]

I'd still play it. I think an easy mode is a good thing as I was unable to complete the original Dark Souls, after a nightmarish tome of getting player killed seeking help for Smough and Ornstein (About 10 legit deaths and 40 player kills between the save point and the boss, and with a lot of farming humanity off rats...) I made it to the painted world and found the camera angle plus the harpies to be a pretty killer combination, and at that point I just didn't have the will to go on.

So while some people like being elitist player killers, they don't really see how it upsets and disheartens other people.

Frankly I think merging forced pvp with co-op was a massive mistake. I really hope they separate them.

Because... spending humanity to seek out help usually led to the opposite, and really there should be some ICD for invasions, my shortest time between invasions was 10 seconds or so, the time it took me to reload and had the same person invade me again right on the campfire...

But... the main thing was I missed half the game, and I regret that but I don't want to face constant invasions seeking help and I'm only an average sort of player and missed the event to have help for the upcoming fight Four Kings (which is apparently easier with co-op).

Also... the new producers. Their story line directions are clearly based on their preferences and not towards casuals, but the things they were saying prettymuch boiled down to, we don't like subtleness we are going to make the storyline and interactions with other characters much more obvious and deliberate. That is not the fault of casuals or anyone else, it's their decision based upon their own styles (I expect casuals to take the blame).

If you still feel an easy mode takes away your fun then I'd like to refer you to Jimquisition last week, it was about "Catering the the filthy casuals" and is much better at describing the mentality behind the elitism than I could do justice.

Frankly I think it boils down to, Learn to Share!

Edit:
I remember the line I liked (paraphrased), if I pay the same money for the same game, shouldn't I have the opportunity to experience all the content...

 

[rbstewart7263]

(paraphrased), if I pay the same money for the same game, shouldn't I have the opportunity to experience all the content...

Dude I swear I love jim but I hated that line. IF a DUMB ASS BUYS A GAME THAT IS LIKE " IM so fucking hard PREPARE TO DIE!!!" DONT DEY DESERVE IT ANYWAY!

His argument that a person deserves access to all the content when the game says right there on the box PREPARE TO DIE. IT doesnt lie and say "YOU GOT THIS" You know from that and the other descriptions on the back that your gonna play a hard game.

 

[Raioken18]

(paraphrased), if I pay the same money for the same game, shouldn't I have the opportunity to experience all the content...

Dude I swear I love jim but I hated that line. IF a DUMB ASS BUYS A GAME THAT IS LIKE " IM so fucking hard PREPARE TO DIE!!!" DONT DEY DESERVE IT ANYWAY!

Uhh... sorry?

Would you mind re-writing that. I'm not really sure I understand what you are trying to say.

 

[NightHawk21]

They won't do anything because its not a personal attack by definition.

I've seen mod wrath given in very similar terms, but as it applies Valve quite often.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/codeofconduct

It may not be a personal attack, but is inducing flames, which is point 1 under "Don't be a Jerk".
It could also fall into: "Have respect for others".

Maybe, but lets be honest if those rules were being upheld as strictly as they are written (especially with the large blanket rule 1 provides) these forums would be empty. Hell if you wanted to be really strict about it your little part on the mods would be in violation of rule 1 (what with essentially calling them biased and saying their judgment comes down to favoritism).

IMO my statement isn't wrong (the original one about elitism, not the one you quoted), and while you have the right to your opinion I do have the right to call you out on it. That's how a discussion/debate works, and just because someone says that my beliefs don't agree with theirs and calls it a personal attack, doesn't make it so, and certainly doesn't make it ban worthy.

 

[Raioken18]

Oh, I get the hard game thing. But I feel that implies that your deaths will be fair, complementing the revival system where you lose your souls but have a chance to recover them.

When it came to Co-op and trying to seek help, the pvp deaths were in my experience very very excessive, averaging 20-1 (invasion to summon) odds every time I used humanity, also resulting in many 1 hit kills as soon as a stage loaded. I would be all for a fair pvp style, but the thing was that there were so many exploits anyone playing naturally would not be able to win.

Now aside from my own gripe about that. I don't understand wanting to have a closed community of people who could appreciate the Souls series. There is clearly a demand for an easy mode, adding one could ensure that a few more games are released, and that overall more people would have a similar gaming experience to you. Just because it's "easier" does not mean that it is going to be a cakewalk for casuals either.

Here let me put it like this.

Easymode A - They increase player HP and increase player damage, the player still needs to memorize what to do, but will have slightly more opportunity to do so. It wouldn't really provide that much of an advantage.

Easymode B - Less enemies, more souls, for the few enemies that still remain... the player would still have to defeat them in the normal way, there is just less enemies to challenge, but the challenge of those enemies would stay the same, if anything this would steepen the learning curve.

Easymode C - Enemies movements and attacks are slower. A less likely scenario, however the slower attacks would provide more time to react for others, but they would still have to react the right way.

Now... combinations of these is unlikely but not impossible. What I am trying to get at is there are different types of easymode, but the base difficulty and traps would likely remain the same. They would simply be reducing their chance to fail by a little, not getting rid of it all together. For most of those players it would still provide quite an adequate challenge for their level.

So... the challenge would still be there for others, even if you chose to play easy mode it would be easier for you. But having an easy mode wouldn't effect you in the slightest unless you CHOSE to play it.

Hence my lack of understanding at "Prepare to Die" being a definite term for an only hardcore game, when deaths are relative to the style of player and really are likely to be just as common for the casual players on easy, as they are for the hardcore players on normal.

 

[NightHawk21]

snip

snip

snip

To take your example it screws with the art. This is where Dota 2 and Dark souls are infinitely different, Dota 2 is a game thats only made as an interactive product. Dark souls is a piece of art designed in such a way to be art and to be a product that scratches the single and multiplayer experience. Thats not even tackling the other end of the argument where I said an easy mode cheapens the game but I believe the artistic side is much more important to explore

That said, Im gonna ask you a question point blank. Do you believe that consumers of art have a right to tell an artist to change something?

I would argue that if you want to bring art into the picture, all games have something artful about them (yes even CoD as much as we all like to deny it), but I want to look at your next statement about it cheapening the game first.

I don't understand how exactly it cheapens the final product. Who exactly does it cheapen it for?

The creators? No. Seeing an increase in the amount of people experiencing their product, the possibility for them to continue to do what they love due to the products increased reception, being able to know that they were part of something that has affected so many people, why more artists would kill for that.

The investors? No. Seeing the product they backed getting more sales, bringing in more money, and getting more money then before (without easy mode), why what could be better for the backers.

The consumers? No. Ultimately if the core game is not touched how could more extra content be a bad thing, and for those of us with friends who may not be able to play at our level, it presents less of a barrier of entry to the past time we love.

So who exactly does it cheapen the game for, because I sure as shit can't think of anyone.

Lets touch on the art now.
In response to your question, I would have to respond with no. No I don't think the consumers have a right to dictate to the artist how they should make their product. At the same time however I do think that consumers do have the right to (and should) be able to express any ideas on how to make the product better and for those who aren't enjoying the product to the creator why, and let them (the artist) decide if he wants to address the problem.

 

[NightHawk21]

snip

Thank you for writing this so well. This is the one argument I have yet to see answered by anyone who argues against easy mode: namely how exactly does it affect YOU? All of your changes are good and wouldn't likely be too hard to implement as they're simply number changes for the most part (for those who want to throw argument over development time). I would really like to hear from the NO community:
"If the core dark souls game is unchanged (ie. the game is identical to the way it is now) and they simply add an easy mode on the main menu (which is completely optional), why would you be against it?"