Dark Souls: an experiment in logic

[TrevHead]

I really believe that people go into the game with a mindset from other games. Inductively,their play-styles from other games have given good results-so it should be the same here.If those players played every game deductively,as if it was their first time playing ,each new game could be tackled in a new way-as a different game should be played.

I think having the correct mindset goes a long way into enjoying this game, many have said that they hated the game until something clicked in their heads and they "got it".

Personally I think much of the reason so many cult classics and niche genres fail to sell and impress on an wider audience is down to ppls narrow mindset and willingness to adjust their way of thinking to suit the game. I'm not trying to be an elitist fart here but it seems to me that many AAA genres have evolved into certain defined standards, ppl pick up a FPS and automatically expect a game to play a certain way and have options to suit their style of play. I personally think this is a large problem with gaming today, too many similar games that all play the same, that only big IPs and reboots have any hope to sell, and new IPs are often clones or are marketed as clones to attract a popular games playerbase. That's why Vanquish failed to sell SEGA marketed it as a Gears clone since it was a cover shooter, but its a completely different game with a different mindset of play.

As many have said DS for the most part isn't a hard game, it's more about been flexible with ones own way of thinking both to play on the games terms and how to think out of the box when it comes to overcoming it's challenges. I think many of the ppl who quit at the undead burg just see the games difficulty and automatically assume it's is some unfairly hard masocore game like I wanna be the guy, somrthing to beat by brute force rather than using the mechanics to make the game easy. I wonder how less popular DS would have been if there weren't ppl online telling others that it's a great game if played a certain way.

I guess those who think a game should adapt to suit their playstyle and those who don't are what divides many of the pro and con easymode ppl in this thread.

 

[barbzilla]

Partially offtopic:

How is this thread an "experiment in logic"? I read the OP and a few of the first replies, and there is not even a hint of a methodical series of steps in order to verify or debunk a statement in logic or by using formal or informal logic. Sure, it has a nice ring to it, I got into this thread lured by it, but then I was completly dissapointed because when I read something titled an experiment in logic I hope to see an experiment of some kind and logic present to a minimum degree; the discussion topics suggested in the OP are especially far from what was suggested in the title.

Ontopic - I try to interact online in DS as little as possible, because I find gear based PvP a bit boring. I guess if i cared more about DS as a whole, but TBH though i find it a good game and was happy to play it, I don't find it harder than a dozen other recent PC games.

Actually I did follow the scientific method when experimenting with the claims made against an easy mode. I just didn't write it as a scientific paper. The experiment in logic was referring to experimenting with the logic of the arguments against including an easy mode in the game. As for the discussion value I wanted to have something to discuss as I assumed (my first mistake) that the argument was over at this point. I was only giving my findings on the matter.

 

[barbzilla]

Wow, Im actually a little surprised. Most people wont touch the art side of gaming with a 10 foot pole.

I have to disagree, though not in the way you probably think. I do view games as communal art but the majority of them are not communal for the player, they are communal for the development team. Most exceptions to the rule mostly fall under those that give greater creative control to the player with a system of complex developer made tools (i.e Minecraft).

What you're talking about (not in your example obviously because that is communal art with the viewer not solely artists) is more like critiquing art instead of being a driving force that shapes it. As Ive said I think its fair to critique art and explaining how meanings and intentions could have been better portrayed. However in the case of difficulty, well it just doesnt work that way because Dark souls is defined by it. I dont believe you could change that and retain the same game much how you couldnt change the Mona Lisa's smile and have the same painting.

Well I chose to take the question because it was the second valid (from a logic standpoint and not an emotional one, I accept that there are other valid emotional standpoints) point I saw in the entire thread against making an easy mode. Life in general is art to me, so I fail to see how video games should be excluded as an art form.

On to your rebuttal;
It isn't inclusive to the developers alone as you have to consider they seek outside influence throughout the development process. In pre-development stages they seek funding and advice about the subject matter (funding is actually integral to the artistic process when it comes to video games, though I despise that fact). During the actual development stages they seek testers to check not just for bugs, but also for feedback about the game. Many many games have been changed during the alpha and beta tests because of negative feedback, all the way down to the core mechanics. Once the game releases the developers seek the feedback of the fans, that is how the patches are released (with the exception of fixing game breaking bugs), shaping and creating changes to the way the game plays, and in some cases even the story (ME3).

So I believe it to be a communal art project with the fans as well as the developers.

P.S.
Thank you for refuting me based on a logical argument by the way. I can't discussing with people who only say "not uh, my way is the right way. You are just wrong". Also it is refreshing to see art brought up about video games in a sense that isn't a case of "should it be art".

 

[BreakfastMan]

Don't insult me, I am not a child who is incapable of complexity. I understand their points of view, I just disagree. I am allowed to disagree with others who have different opinions than me, right?

I didnt insult you so calm down. You obviously lack the academic experience and knowledge to touch the artistic side of Dark souls. That is clear since you dont know what artistic method is or how it drives the game. Thats not calling you stupid its just stating the facts

You are allowed to disagree with people but your lack of academic experience and knowledge in regards to art makes it nearly impossible to go further with the discussion. How are we going to discuss the basic and intermediate artistic side of games if you dont know what Im talking about?

You know, it could just be that I have a good understanding of art and such, I just didn't take the time to memorize all the terms. Have you thought of that? Please, don't think I know nothing about the topic since I don't know the meaning of one specific (and quite generic sounding) phrase. I might know more than you think...

 

[FriedRicer]

Fine, I'm not angry because you suggested something that might hurt my enjoyment of the game. I'm angry because you felt the need to call people who hold my view "elitist, simple as that", even when you apparently acknowledge there are other reasons (even bad ones) to not want an easy mode in Dark Souls.

I'm going to take back that statement, as there seems to be people who have more sensible reasons than "OMG CASUALZ" to be against a lower difficulty setting in the game. I don't think I'll ever agree with most of them, though.
Still, my apologies for making generalizations based on my experience with idiots on other forums.

That answer begins with the assumption that Dark Souls is a Hard game.The difficulty is proportionate to the players interest in all of its mechanics.How would scaling damage and status effect being stun locked by the Four Kings?Or the Bed of Chaos?Or being pushed in BlightTown?You keep putting a solution from other games that build their difficulty on stats to a game that builds its difficulty on tactics.And my question on play-style have still not been answered-even though the game was made to be played as such.Reading,Patience,shield up,walk slowly-how can these things (the core of the game) be hard to do?I don't think the game is hard but since you know people who do,what are they doing that makes the game hard?

I'm not quite sure why they find the game hard, no. I can ask them later, if you want me to?
Although, I suspect they're just not methodical enough and thus take unnecessary damage before they understand their enemies. None of them played for very long anyways, to my knowledge, even though they thought the combat and atmosphere were well done.

Fine, I'm not angry because you suggested something that might hurt my enjoyment of the game. I'm angry because you felt the need to call people who hold my view "elitist, simple as that", even when you apparently acknowledge there are other reasons (even bad ones) to not want an easy mode in Dark Souls.

I'm going to take back that statement, as there seems to be people who have more sensible reasons than "OMG CASUALZ" to be against a lower difficulty setting in the game. I don't think I'll ever agree with most of them, though.
Still, my apologies for making generalizations based on my experience with idiots on other forums.

That answer begins with the assumption that Dark Souls is a Hard game.The difficulty is proportionate to the players interest in all of its mechanics.How would scaling damage and status effect being stun locked by the Four Kings?Or the Bed of Chaos?Or being pushed in BlightTown?You keep putting a solution from other games that build their difficulty on stats to a game that builds its difficulty on tactics.And my question on play-style have still not been answered-even though the game was made to be played as such.Reading,Patience,shield up,walk slowly-how can these things (the core of the game) be hard to do?I don't think the game is hard but since you know people who do,what are they doing that makes the game hard?

I'm not quite sure why they find the game hard, no. I can ask them later, if you want me to?
Although, I suspect they're just not methodical enough and thus take unnecessary damage before they understand their enemies. None of them played for very long anyways, to my knowledge, even though they thought the combat and atmosphere were well done.

Yeah ask them,that would be cool.Elitist(?)by the way,though I have helped a number of people play the game(Co-op,posts,wiki).I would like to point out that if they are not methodical enough they have set the game on hard mode.If someone plays the game as if the should "prepare to die" the game is easy.Most other posters explained why an easy mode would ruin the challenge of the game.Simply knowing that at any point the challenge can be customized would compromise the experience of tension that I,and every other player MUST ENDURE TOGETHER.In fact subtleties like hearing another players bell ring,seeing their ghosts at bonfires,and receiving/giving estus for lighting a bonfire where created to put an emphasis on the world that hates everyone in it-except the players that continue.

Woah...bit cheesy there.K, not as tense if I choose to make the game difficult arbitrarily.
The way it is now I know beat it the way it was intended.Makes it easier to bake cakes?

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I'm going to take back that statement, as there seems to be people who have more sensible reasons than "OMG CASUALZ" to be against a lower difficulty setting in the game. I don't think I'll ever agree with most of them, though.
Still, my apologies for making generalizations based on my experience with idiots on other forums.

I think that's awesome, I really appreciate your willingness to acknowledge another perspective even when you don't agree. Thumbs up to that. Forgive me, please, for freaking out lol.

My thoughts exactly. I've already conceded a point to you though, so don't give up entirely. I think the issue is that there are two completely separate paths of looking at the subject.

I don't think 'logical vs. illogical' is the most precise way to characterize the difference between those views. However, I do recognize that those views represent different value choices about the type of experience video games can convey or should strive to convey, or at least about what this game should strive to accomplish. I also don't completely agree with the premise of your first point but I'm sure I've said plenty on that. If it's still not clear I can try it another way. Basically I don't agree that From or anyone else is likely to do that, even if technically, they could. I think adding an easy mode to the game puts enormous strains on From Soft by pulling their core design focus in two different directions.

I think both sides of this issue will benefit from trying to empathize with the perspective of the other side. I admit, that isn't always easy for me to do. I frequently feel like some people don't want my perspective to be represented at all, and that defensiveness bleeds into my writing. Or you know, grabs it by the throat and runs with it.

You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar, and I agree with these points completely.

Dark Souls isn't about twitch gaming, or manual skill (though that can certainly help in some areas). It's about cleverness, it's about learning. It's about developing effective strategies.

I wouldn't have said "brainless". I just think that word says more than you probably meant to. But yea, I agree with you, and thanks =). I really think the people who are calling for scaling down the stats don't understand what they are asking for. What making the game more lenient in terms of stats actually accomplishes is to allow players to progress through Dark Souls without exploring the possibilities in the mechanics. That is not analogous to playing Halo on easy mode. That is more akin to playing Halo without guns.

I must say I agree wholeheartedly, Dark Souls isn't a hard game at all, it's just a game with little tolerance for the impatient and hasty. It's predecessor Demon's Souls was exactly the same, the challenge wasn't the crushing difficulty at all, the challenge was figuring out just how the hell you beat whatever it was that you couldn't beat.

Spoiler: Long story, and minor enemy weakness spoilers

On my first playthrough, I went to the graveyard at a relatively early level. It was hard, too hard maybe, but I just... had to know. Then I got to the scary as fuck Catacombs. And the bastards wouldn't die! They just kept getting back up! I knew I should turn back, but I just... had to know. So I spent all my souls, fought my way to the entrance, and then... BANZAI! I charged past the undying skeletons who chased the whole way down. Finally I met a necromancer in the blackness throwing fireballs at me! After a few quick dodges, I managed to get some hits in on the beast. He went down... and stayed down! I couldn't hold off the skeletons. I quickly lost stamina and died. But I knew. I knew I could kill the skeletons now. I knew I had broken the link with their evil master.

As I reappeared at Firelink Shrine, I was practically shouting this:


Short story long, I cleared the entire Catacombs that way and eventually killed Pinwheel. For my efforts, I was rewarded with the Rite of Kindling very early on, and enjoyed that tasty Estus for the rest of the play-through. Reflecting on that experience, I can't imagine how different that whole section of the game would have been for me if Dark Souls had an easy mode, what the people who actually play the easy mode are missing out on, and how that encounter would have to be tweaked to account for the needs of the easy mode players.

I am very encouraged to see people interested in discussing a video game as if it were art. It has been my experience that despite all the blather about games-as-art, most people are still very committed to analyzing and critiquing games strictly in terms of their value as products, like the game was a friggin' dishwasher. Jim Sterling, Yahtzee, MovieBob, I'm looking at you.

 

[Windcaler]

Wow, Im actually a little surprised. Most people wont touch the art side of gaming with a 10 foot pole.

I have to disagree, though not in the way you probably think. I do view games as communal art but the majority of them are not communal for the player, they are communal for the development team. Most exceptions to the rule mostly fall under those that give greater creative control to the player with a system of complex developer made tools (i.e Minecraft).

What you're talking about (not in your example obviously because that is communal art with the viewer not solely artists) is more like critiquing art instead of being a driving force that shapes it. As Ive said I think its fair to critique art and explaining how meanings and intentions could have been better portrayed. However in the case of difficulty, well it just doesnt work that way because Dark souls is defined by it. I dont believe you could change that and retain the same game much how you couldnt change the Mona Lisa's smile and have the same painting.

Well I chose to take the question because it was the second valid (from a logic standpoint and not an emotional one, I accept that there are other valid emotional standpoints) point I saw in the entire thread against making an easy mode. Life in general is art to me, so I fail to see how video games should be excluded as an art form.

On to your rebuttal;
It isn't inclusive to the developers alone as you have to consider they seek outside influence throughout the development process. In pre-development stages they seek funding and advice about the subject matter (funding is actually integral to the artistic process when it comes to video games, though I despise that fact). During the actual development stages they seek testers to check not just for bugs, but also for feedback about the game. Many many games have been changed during the alpha and beta tests because of negative feedback, all the way down to the core mechanics. Once the game releases the developers seek the feedback of the fans, that is how the patches are released (with the exception of fixing game breaking bugs), shaping and creating changes to the way the game plays, and in some cases even the story (ME3).

So I believe it to be a communal art project with the fans as well as the developers.

P.S.
Thank you for refuting me based on a logical argument by the way. I can't discussing with people who only say "not uh, my way is the right way. You are just wrong". Also it is refreshing to see art brought up about video games in a sense that isn't a case of "should it be art".

Considering that dark souls is the third game of its type (the previous two I know of being Demon's souls and kings field) I personally dont think that feedback played as large part in its development as you're implying. However to be fair, if it did were still talking about the difficulty being the core artistic method to help the player experience the goals of the game (a sense of accomplishment and discovery) that was designed by people within the games design instead of with the developers themselves.

It also seems to me that patches are normally used to fix bugs and bring in new content not to effect the art thats already there. ME3 is a case where that happened but I consider that more of an exception. However, this still goes back to the question of whether artistic methods like dark souls difficulty is sacrosanct or not. I personally believe it is and that gamers, even though they are consumers, need to respect the methods used in the game. Its not like the whole ME3 ending where millions of people were promised an ending that was tailor made to their game and made use of their choices only to get the pick and ending room. The only promise dark souls makes is that its a hard game. Its not trying to be the extremely roleplaying and story driven games that Biowares known for and its not trying to be the massive expansive world that Bethesda makes. Its just trying to be itself, a game with unforgiving difficulty thats trying to build players up with its challenges. A sub genre that has been neglected for a long time

 

[FriedRicer]

I would say this topic is thoroughly exhausted. We're repeating ourselves. Since I'm throwing in the towel, it's only fair that I let you have the last word on this. I will only respond if something new gets brought up but I will read it.

My thoughts exactly. I've already conceded a point to you though, so don't give up entirely. I think the issue is that there are two completely separate paths of looking at the subject.

1: Lets do it!

This path is focused on the fact that From can make the game have an easy mode that doesn't break down the core mechanics of the game (IE only making minor changes to add to survivability) without effecting the current players. This path follows a more basic logic route.

2: Kill it with fire!

This path is focused on either keeping the game pure to its core design/feel or providing the sense of accomplishment that you get from beating it (or as you have enlightened me on; keeping the brutality of the game intact by not allowing players another option. Do or die as it may be). This path follows a much more illogical route, but still has very valid points.

So how do we solve this?
Easy answer, we don't. The core of the argument will exist wherever we go, just look at the xcom making easy easier thread. Same exact arguments are being brought up there, despite it having a vastly different system. Just feel safe for now that From has decided it would be a bad idea and doesn't intend to implement it.

How is the second path illogical if it has valid points?As someone who has taken Logic, Philosophy and came here to talk about Dark Souls logically, there isn't a whole lot of it-no offense to you. I kept asking my questions over and over and haven't gotten an answer.TC maybe you can help me.This time with logic.I'll ask after showing what Argument (I think)you are making.
Argument 1
Stats deal with numbers/values(like the ones the player is given).
Tactics can manipulate or ignore numbers(enemies habits and weaknesses/players approach).
A Game can be hard due to stats.
Stats can be altered to make the game easier.
Dark Souls is hard due to tactics.
Stats can be altered to make the game easier?
My Question
All your stats could be at max-if you have not figured out how to get around the Bed of Chaos
"You are Dead".Certain enemies were made and positioned just to force you to rely on a certain game mechanic rather than a stat.

Argument 2
Games that have an easy mode have a harder/hard mode.
This game has no easy mode/modes of difficulty.
This game is hard?
My Question
Couldn't I use that same logic and say the game is easy?
I have picked up almost every item in the game and have looked at all of their locations in comparison to bosses,enemies and etc.The game constantly gives you items to beat the next area.Constantly.If the game is as hard as the player makes it(this is a fact) and people find it hard...then they need to change the way they play.

Argument 3
Artist make art.(Money is not a goal)
Salespersons sell products.(Money is a goal)
Developers make games.(A hybrid of the first to groups I guess)
A game can be both art and/or a product (freeware/indie/AAA title).
It is illogical not to make the game easy so more sales will be generated?
My Question
Why is it illogical to expect a developer/publisher might not be 100 percent inclined to treat their art as a complete product and please multiple demographics-when a game is a thing that is not completely a product?That making more money will out-way art all the time?It doesn't.

If those are not the arguments you seem to be making-What are they?Is an easy mode worth risking the good game we have already? Just so people can play a stat-based game in a tactics created environment?

 

[Tanakh]

Actually I did follow the scientific method when experimenting with the claims made against an easy mode. I just didn't write it as a scientific paper. The experiment in logic was referring to experimenting with the logic of the arguments against including an easy mode in the game. As for the discussion value I wanted to have something to discuss as I assumed (my first mistake) that the argument was over at this point. I was only giving my findings on the matter.

Anything called scientific must be at the very least mesurable. You had one subjective play of DS, which is a good way to spend time, but there was no hypothesis, no messures during the activity, the activites can't be repeated nor it had a control group; what definition of scientific method are you using?

Also, logic and arguments over preferences have seldom a close connection. But it might be commendable to try base your arguments on logical deductions

 

[barbzilla]

Wow, Im actually a little surprised. Most people wont touch the art side of gaming with a 10 foot pole.

I have to disagree, though not in the way you probably think. I do view games as communal art but the majority of them are not communal for the player, they are communal for the development team. Most exceptions to the rule mostly fall under those that give greater creative control to the player with a system of complex developer made tools (i.e Minecraft).

What you're talking about (not in your example obviously because that is communal art with the viewer not solely artists) is more like critiquing art instead of being a driving force that shapes it. As Ive said I think its fair to critique art and explaining how meanings and intentions could have been better portrayed. However in the case of difficulty, well it just doesnt work that way because Dark souls is defined by it. I dont believe you could change that and retain the same game much how you couldnt change the Mona Lisa's smile and have the same painting.

Well I chose to take the question because it was the second valid (from a logic standpoint and not an emotional one, I accept that there are other valid emotional standpoints) point I saw in the entire thread against making an easy mode. Life in general is art to me, so I fail to see how video games should be excluded as an art form.

On to your rebuttal;
It isn't inclusive to the developers alone as you have to consider they seek outside influence throughout the development process. In pre-development stages they seek funding and advice about the subject matter (funding is actually integral to the artistic process when it comes to video games, though I despise that fact). During the actual development stages they seek testers to check not just for bugs, but also for feedback about the game. Many many games have been changed during the alpha and beta tests because of negative feedback, all the way down to the core mechanics. Once the game releases the developers seek the feedback of the fans, that is how the patches are released (with the exception of fixing game breaking bugs), shaping and creating changes to the way the game plays, and in some cases even the story (ME3).

So I believe it to be a communal art project with the fans as well as the developers.

P.S.
Thank you for refuting me based on a logical argument by the way. I can't discussing with people who only say "not uh, my way is the right way. You are just wrong". Also it is refreshing to see art brought up about video games in a sense that isn't a case of "should it be art".

Considering that dark souls is the third game of its type (the previous two I know of being Demon's souls and kings field) I personally dont think that feedback played as large part in its development as you're implying. However to be fair, if it did were still talking about the difficulty being the core artistic method to help the player experience the goals of the game (a sense of accomplishment and discovery) that was designed by people within the games design instead of with the developers themselves.

It also seems to me that patches are normally used to fix bugs and bring in new content not to effect the art thats already there. ME3 is a case where that happened but I consider that more of an exception. However, this still goes back to the question of whether artistic methods like dark souls difficulty is sacrosanct or not. I personally believe it is and that gamers, even though they are consumers, need to respect the methods used in the game. Its not like the whole ME3 ending where millions of people were promised an ending that was tailor made to their game and made use of their choices only to get the pick and ending room. The only promise dark souls makes is that its a hard game. Its not trying to be the extremely roleplaying and story driven games that Biowares known for and its not trying to be the massive expansive world that Bethesda makes. Its just trying to be itself, a game with unforgiving difficulty thats trying to build players up with its challenges. A sub genre that has been neglected for a long time

I find it very hard to vote one side or the other on the art side. It is impossible to see the effects it would have unless it is done, and as such impossible to give a valid argument on (at least from my side). As for the patches, if dark souls added an easy mode it would be done through a patch, so perfect example of patches effecting the artistic medium of the game without having to look very hard. Anytime an outside personality has an chance to influence the art, there will be ripples. This is where I was going with my original example of performance art. It acts in the same way that chaos theory works, the smallest influence can bring the largest changes given the right circumstances, and this is why I find games as an artistic medium so fascinating.

 

[barbzilla]

snip

Point 1:

You are making a logic jump here that doesn't follow through. By lowering the amount of damage the enemies deal you have, in fact, lowered the difficulty. I am really not sure what you are trying to argue, so I will have to guess.

I am guessing you are using the thought that for there to be an "easy" mode it has to be a complete cake walk, and this just isn't true. Just by lowering every stat on every monster by 1 point you have technically made the game easier (though not really worthwhile to patch in). This should read more like.

A game can be hard because of stats;
A game can be made easier by lowering stats;
A game can be hard because of tactics;
A game can be made easier by lowering the AI;
A game can be hard because of stats;
A game can be made easier by lower AI;
A game can be hard because of tactics;
A game can be made easier by lowering stats;

all of these are true. They don't have to follow a linear path.

Point 2:

Once again, I really don't know what you are getting at. The game is as hard as the individual playing the game feels it to be. That is as close to the point as I can get.

Point 3:

Well here I can at least see a demi-point. There are no definites in the universe, it is entirely possible that EA could announce tomorrow that they will release their next 5 games for free as an apology for being such twats (though its incredibly improbable). So saying that a publisher is out 100% for its money or 100% for their game to be seen as art is illogical as well.

I don't expect them to change anything in the game you love. I expect the game to remain the same game it has always been. From has already stated it will not be implementing an easy mode and the debate will never truly be settled.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

*sniped*

I didnt think anyone was actually going to read that post. So yay we get to talk about how games are art!

I've learned that there's always people who've read your post, even if it wasn't quoted. Don't forget the lurkers too.

I realized while going over the thread again that while arguments were made as to why Dark Souls shouldn't have any easy mode, nobody directly tackled the question of "Even if it did and you never used it or looked at it, why would it affect you?" I'm going to be brave and attempt to tackle that head-on. Please don't flame me as I make an effort to never do the same.

For me personally, and I imagine it's the same for many others, the mere presence of an easy mode would be a conceptual loss. Dark Souls was released on its own terms, with such a degree of creative freedom that in Japan the publisher and developer are the same small company. It was made without regard to industry standards, what sells well, focus groups, or any goal other than to fill a void left during the shift to "next-gen". At the core, when looking at the game as a work of art, a request to have them cater to a wider market is looking at Dark Souls as a product; like a car or a toaster. The makers of products are very interested in focus groups, what the public wants their product to be, and what they can change to maximize the number of people purchasing and using it.

Dark Souls is much more a piece of art, and an artistic statement than it is a product. Just as you can find it on the shelf like products, prints of paintings and albums of music are available like products. That does not make Dark Souls a product, subject to change based on suggestion and demand. Many people love Dark Souls not just for what it is, but what it represents. It is a AAA game made outside of the traditional publisher model that has grown to continue poisoning traditional gaming, with all of the homogenization and stagnation that it brings. From did not ask for an outside publisher in Japan, who would provide additional funding as well as input, demands, a deadline, and insistence that it not alienate any consumers. The inclusion of that would detract from their stated goal and the core of what they set out to do.

Asking that they add or remove anything because "most games do that/offer that" is a step away from the concept that video games can be legitimate artistic statements that are individually unique without regard to what other games do. I and many others don't want From to do anything with the Souls series in the interest of "being like other games/'the system'" or to detract from the artists' stated wishes. McMillen had a reason for not including a mode in Super Meat Boy where a portion of the saws were removed (or however else you'd handle that). If we have a vested interest in the growth and maturity of our medium as an art form, then we'd have no place to insist that he alter his creation in order to make it more palatable to a wider range of people.

The debacle regarding the fans of Mass Effect and more specifically ME3 is a different issue. It was published by EA, who has no wish offer a video game as an artistic statement and who views the games they release as money-making products. They may contract developers who initially have a goal and artistic vision for a game they'd like to make, but that vision very frequently ends up in pieces on the cutting room floor as deadlines move along and the publisher insists on further changes. The ending to ME3 was changed as a business decision, due to bad PR and outcry. As Dark Souls represents the unique position of AAA level funding for the kind of independent freedom usually found in the lower-budget indie market, its fans wish to see nothing modified or added to it where the basis is as a business decision or to undermine the unique position it has outside of that system.

All of this said, it's important to reiterate the argument that Dark Souls already offers an "easy mode". If the opposing argument is that "easy mode" would simply be the scaling down on damage, then you can put more points into resistance/defense to lessen damage taken. If you need the hits to do less damage because you can't get out of the way, then wear the heaviest armor available because you aren't trying to roll anyway. You can level yourself too high for an area if the enemies are too tough. You can get a Drake Sword if you're having trouble leveling up the lower-powered weapons. The point is that Dark Souls is magnificent due to the choice it offers. No two people play exactly the same, and it's a beautiful thing that ties into the collective internet-based struggle that the game offers. If you can't get to the point where you can make those choices, then this isn't your game. It wasn't made for you, and that doesn't make you any less of a gamer, you just aren't this kind of gamer. If you find certain aspects interesting, than the way to handle this would be to ask that other games include those aspects, not that Dark Souls change the other aspects you don't like in order to accommodate you. Dark Souls, from the very beginning has no interest in accommodating anyone other than the people who were dying to be totally left alone and experience something totally unaccommodating.

 

[barbzilla]

Actually I did follow the scientific method when experimenting with the claims made against an easy mode. I just didn't write it as a scientific paper. The experiment in logic was referring to experimenting with the logic of the arguments against including an easy mode in the game. As for the discussion value I wanted to have something to discuss as I assumed (my first mistake) that the argument was over at this point. I was only giving my findings on the matter.

Anything called scientific must be at the very least mesurable. You had one subjective play of DS, which is a good way to spend time, but there was no hypothesis, no messures during the activity, the activites can't be repeated nor it had a control group; what definition of scientific method are you using?

Also, logic and arguments over preferences have seldom a close connection. But it might be commendable to try base your arguments on logical deductions

Wow, okay your right. I didn't have a control group and I didn't utilise a proper sample size. I apologize to the scientific community for calling the thread an experiment in logic.

What I did do is read many posts on what people consider the issue to be and make a few lists of why the easy mode should not be implemented. I then played the game through on the regular difficulty (IE: not NG+) and after each boss scaled how I felt each of the issues had effect on me personally with a numerical system.

I then did the same thing on NG+, however it was a moot point by here as I had already learned the enemies movements and attacks, so my plan was ruined. Thus I didn't bother listing my findings in a scientific manner as I didn't have much to back it up with. I hope this clears things up and appeases the scientific community.

 

[barbzilla]

snip

Well put sir. I actually think it was a well thought out rebuttal of the argument, with the exception of the last point you make. Saying Dark Souls already has an easy mode depending on your stat allocation isn't true. That is part of the games fundamental aspect (and resistance is a mostly useless stat). Apart from that, I thank you for the verbose post.

 

[FriedRicer]

snip

Point 1:

You are making a logic jump here that doesn't follow through. By lowering the amount of damage the enemies deal you have, in fact, lowered the difficulty. I am really not sure what you are trying to argue, so I will have to guess.

I am guessing you are using the thought that for there to be an "easy" mode it has to be a complete cake walk, and this just isn't true. Just by lowering every stat on every monster by 1 point you have technically made the game easier (though not really worthwhile to patch in). This should read more like.

A game can be hard because of stats;
A game can be made easier by lowering stats;
A game can be hard because of tactics;
A game can be made easier by lowering the AI;
A game can be hard because of stats;
A game can be made easier by lower AI;
A game can be hard because of tactics;
A game can be made easier by lowering stats;

all of these are true. They don't have to follow a linear path.

Point 2:

Once again, I really don't know what you are getting at. The game is as hard as the individual playing the game feels it to be. That is as close to the point as I can get.

Point 3:

Well here I can at least see a demi-point. There are no definites in the universe, it is entirely possible that EA could announce tomorrow that they will release their next 5 games for free as an apology for being such twats (though its incredibly improbable). So saying that a publisher is out 100% for its money or 100% for their game to be seen as art is illogical as well.

I don't expect them to change anything in the game you love. I expect the game to remain the same game it has always been. From has already stated it will not be implementing an easy mode and the debate will never truly be settled.

Point 1.
I did not assume you meant cake-walk but let's take it to that example and say I did mean just that.How would certain monster move-sets and platforming parts of the game be made easier by lowering stats? I know it isn't a linear problem-that's why I showed that simply talking about lowering the stats(by 1 point or 100/etc) certain levels would still remain out of the reach of certain players? The other aspects you pointed out in your "revision" was what you should have had in your first post,mainly the A.I part,because it would lower the players need to use tactics to win the tactics-based game(easy?).Lowering stats in a game whose difficulty is based on tactics solves nothing end-game wise.Technically,making the game easier could also mean giving you 1 more point of damage.But you and I both know that would not stop people from getting parried/grab/etc. But what if we mad the enemies grab only when you heal?Take out attack patterns that are designed to stun?Such and the like is what you should have brought up.

Point 2.
That was my point and, because it is a fact,wouldn't an easy mode be completely redundant?If you are patient and observant the game is easy...people want an easy mode. Are they unable to possess those two traits?

Point 3.
You did not see a demi-point.You saw the whole thing.But thank you for understanding that it is not immediately illogical for a company (that makes art at least) to not always put the dollar above other interests all the time.FROM has proven that so-far.

I thought Mathematics were the few definite things we had...?Otherwise scaling would get messy...IN THE FUTURE!

 

[FriedRicer]

Actually I did follow the scientific method when experimenting with the claims made against an easy mode. I just didn't write it as a scientific paper. The experiment in logic was referring to experimenting with the logic of the arguments against including an easy mode in the game. As for the discussion value I wanted to have something to discuss as I assumed (my first mistake) that the argument was over at this point. I was only giving my findings on the matter.

Anything called scientific must be at the very least mesurable. You had one subjective play of DS, which is a good way to spend time, but there was no hypothesis, no messures during the activity, the activites can't be repeated nor it had a control group; what definition of scientific method are you using?

Also, logic and arguments over preferences have seldom a close connection. But it might be commendable to try base your arguments on logical deductions

Wow, okay your right. I didn't have a control group and I didn't utilise a proper sample size. I apologize to the scientific community for calling the thread an experiment in logic.

What I did do is read many posts on what people consider the issue to be and make a few lists of why the easy mode should not be implemented. I then played the game through on the regular difficulty (IE: not NG+) and after each boss scaled how I felt each of the issues had effect on me personally with a numerical system.

I then did the same thing on NG+, however it was a moot point by here as I had already learned the enemies movements and attacks, so my plan was ruined. Thus I didn't bother listing my findings in a scientific manner as I didn't have much to back it up with. I hope this clears things up and appeases the scientific community.

"I had already learned the enemies movements and attacks, so my plan was ruined."

If you do that for every enemy on the first play through,what will remain difficult?

Also,Thanks for being a good TC and answering everyone.

 

[Zyst]

I'm a complete asshole online, I always let people invade me since it keeps me tense and I love invading and killing or attempting to kill the player. I just find it fun, although there are some moments where invasions have made me rage (About to kill a mob that has already killed me twice then suddenly boom I fucking die, and it was a player) but that's part of the fun for me.

Not even gonna get into the easy mode thing, I enjoy the game difficulty and I don't care how others enjoy it, as long as my experience doesn't change because of it I'm cool with it.

 

[lapan]

snip

The thing is, the game already has an easymode, it's just not a setting in the options. You can summon NPC or human companions to help you with the levels. You can upgrade your equipment, which makes a much bigger difference than leveling early on. there is a blacksmith right at the starting point, but it isn't far to the next one who sells the materials as well. You can use magic, which makes most of the game really easy. You can turtle behind a shield which also turns most of the game into easymode.

It's more of an organic difficulty selection than hardcoded difficulty.

 

[barbzilla]

snip

Fair enough, it looked like you were saying you could only fix tactics difficulty by lowering the AI, and only fix stats difficulty by lowering the stats. I am sorry if I misinterpreted your meaning. As to your question, I don't think it is necessary to change the monsters habits and tactics to implement an easy mode. As a matter of fact, I think that would, in fact, ruin the game as others have said.

And yes math is important, as evident in my Order of Operations thread (in the past).