Dark Souls: an experiment in logic

[barbzilla]

"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.

Therein lies the existential question about this debate. "If you do that for every enemy on the first play through,what will remain difficult?" I don't think this is the particular issue the players waiting for an easy mode are having. The way I see it (maybe not 100% accurate as I have to make assumptions) the players asking for an easy mode aren't asking for a walk through. I haven't seen anyone argue that point yet. They are only asking for a bit more forgiveness. This can be done through stat modification, AI modification (though I think that would be a bad idea), or just flat out redesigning the game (geared towards a bit more direction and hand holding... also a bad idea). Everyone I've seen argue the Pro easy mode, has argued to only slightly enhance survivability through stats modification. So I would assume that it would arguably remain a very similar experience for the players who actually "need" that extra time.

I don't think this is a good idea for all players though. That being said, I think it should be up to the player to decide which group they fall into (people able to complete normal mode, but unwilling to try, and people who genuinely have trouble with it). For example one of my club's members is 70 years old. He purchased the game to try, but he isn't that great at video games. Now I wouldn't say he isn't tactically capable of playing, as he often orchestrates our BF 3 plans (and quite well I might add). But this is from previous life experience. Since he only picked up video games a few years ago (when he was sent to a retirement community), he hasn't had the requisite time to become comfortable with the inherent skill set many of us take for granted. He is the type of person I advocated the change for.

You are quite welcome, but in all fairness I only answered those who bothered to quote me (with the exception of the art question, I just felt like nobody was going to answer that one).

 

[barbzilla]

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.

I've answered this point earlier in the thread, but I will again as I don't feel like looking back for it to quote it.

You can't call something integral to the game an easy mode. One could also pose the argument that doing those things is the "normal" way of playing, meanwhile avoiding those things equals a "harder" experience. Aside from that, if you play online summoning NPCs and other Players, you also open yourself up to invasions (usually by people that will far out stripe you with their gear). I can almost guarantee that most players will upgrade their gear as soon as they find the first blacksmith, so avoiding this would be artificially imposing limits on yourself (IE. Making the game harder). Using magic is something that can be said though. With the exception that in the beginning you are very limited on not just your spell selection, but the number of casts you get between shrines (I know the ruins BS sells a couple of spells, but a new player may not realise this), and this is just for the two classes that get magic from the start. It is quite a while before you find the first guy who will sell you spells (once again for a new player, I know you can rush to some of them pretty easily).

 

[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.

I've answered this point earlier in the thread, but I will again as I don't feel like looking back for it to quote it.

You can't call something integral to the game an easy mode. One could also pose the argument that doing those things is the "normal" way of playing, meanwhile avoiding those things equals a "harder" experience. Aside from that, if you play online summoning NPCs and other Players, you also open yourself up to invasions (usually by people that will far out stripe you with their gear). I can almost guarantee that most players will upgrade their gear as soon as they find the first blacksmith, so avoiding this would be artificially imposing limits on yourself (IE. Making the game harder). Using magic is something that can be said though. With the exception that in the beginning you are very limited on not just your spell selection, but the number of casts you get between shrines (I know the ruins BS sells a couple of spells, but a new player may not realise this), and this is just for the two classes that get magic from the start. It is quite a while before you find the first guy who will sell you spells (once again for a new player, I know you can rush to some of them pretty easily).

I read through about half of the thread before posting, must have overlooked that.
Actually the first guy to sell you spells is directly under Firelink Shrine (i agree on this one being easy to miss though), the second one before the 3rd boss, so it's not all that far. If you want pyromancies you can get them only a little after the 3rd boss. The first guy to sell you miracles is also directly at the start.

Invasions can be mostly avoided by turning human just before a boss. The game usually let's you find at least one humanity as a pickup item per area (5 humanity directly at firelink shrine!), it gives you more humanity after defeating a certain amount of enemies and after every boss. Besides, if you summoned someone and go 2vs1 on an invader most of them can't really do much against you.

It can be hard if you skip all the tutorials and don't use the help function (select button) to see what your stats actually do. Generally, most of the difficulty comes from rushing into everything carelessly which you usually learn to avoid after the first few deaths.

The game gives you plenty of opportunities to make it easy, even if you are a new player. If you purposely limit yourself or don't learn from your mistakes it's not the games fault.

 

[barbzilla]

snip

snip

Two for one special here.

I concede points to not implementing the easy mode. I don't disagree with you entirely, so please don't take it as me trying to refute you absolutely. I don't even disagree with you on the point that the game is easy enough on its own if played with the right mindset. My ONLY reasoning is to make the game accessible enough for it to gain the popularity I know it can achieve. I know that popularity amongst games hasn't always worked out for the best, but when it does it can do brilliant things. I wanted From to have that chance to show the rest of the industry how it is done. As it stands now, it is an amazing niche title. I am content with it being as it is, and since there is no chance of From putting an easy mode in, this argument is purely a method of helping each side understand the other's argument.

As for my the game not being for my friend. Perhaps it isn't, but from a business standpoint (and don't be fooled, art or not, games industry is a business) that is bad policy. If you want to make money your goals are to find your market, and then expand. The first rule you will learn in business school is without change you stagnate and die. There is a delicate balance between being your own company and selling out, if From can't walk that line then they made the right choice. Another rule is to retain repeat business, from the game industry perspective that means don't lose your core fans (as you point out TES did). However if From could walk the line between "selling out" and "selling more" wouldn't you want them to?

 

[The White Hunter]

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.

Don't get me wrong I'm not huge on the "games as art "thing, and I certainly wouldn't waste my energy arguing about it with people, but games are definately an art form, they're a valid form of expression and potentially the highest form of expression, because rather than simply describe or depict your vision to your audience, you can throw them into your vision so they may experience is for themselves.

I also like when games try new and unique things, and take risks, though I understand that business requires stability in order for those risks to be less likely to be catastrophic failures.

Recently I got rather annoyed at Assassins Creed 3, because it seems to have really lost sight of what was special about Assassins Creed (and especially the second game) and gone after a more action packed appraoch, which we're already saturated with, I prefered to more intellectual and philosophical approaches of the first 2 games, and the gameplay focused more on stealthy assassination and covert actions against secret organisations than, forgive me for generalising the rather complex issue of the american revolution, the approach of a big action packed "'MURICA FUCK YEH!".

On a similar note I just did some reading into Black Ops 2, and they've apparently brought in a lot of new things to the single player mode and actually been creative for once, which is both astounding and very helpful for the industry. By all means keep making shooters of the military variety, but make them varied and creative damn it!

-grumble-

Sorry I kinda lost my focus, but there's my view of games as art and hopefully the two examples make my perspective a touch more easy to understand, as my perspective on things is very rarely a black or white approach.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Everyone I've seen argue the Pro easy mode, has argued to only slightly enhance survivability through stats modification. So I would assume that it would arguably remain a very similar experience for the players who actually "need" that extra time.

If that was true, they would have put easy mode in the game to start with. I really wish you would understand how untrue that is. That's how it works for most games. But Dark Souls is not most games. The only reason the player "needs" that extra time is because they haven't learned yet. It isn't because they can't do the ultra-precise aiming- there isn't any. It isn't because they can't do the ultra-precise timing- there isn't any. It isn't because they haven't figured out some complicated strategy- there isn't any.

They "need" the extra time so they don't have to figure out the game. But in Dark Souls, figuring out the game is what you do. The easy mode player is not having a similar but less intense or demanding experience. He is having a fundamentally different experience. If you could just make Dark Souls easy but leave it basically the same, like you can with Halo, I can only assume they would have just done that. Playing Dark Souls with more lenient stats takes away the CORE Dark Souls experience. You rip the backbone right out of the game.

It sounds like a lot of people would be fine with that. But it is not safe to assume that cutting out the CORE design philosophy, the basic premise of the game, the whole idea of it, the obstacle that the whole game is built around, would result in a similar experience for easy mode players. They would effectively be skipping to the end of the game without playing it. Figuring out how to make Dark Souls easy is Dark Souls. If it's easy to start with, that is to say, if you can beat it without learning, you may as well just make your character and skip directly to the end credits.

I am thinking about how to make everyone complete the game while maintaining the current difficulty and carefully send all gamers the messages behind it.

However if From could walk the line between "selling out" and "selling more" wouldn't you want them to?

Of course, but the question is how.

Don't get me wrong I'm not huge on the "games as art "thing, and I certainly wouldn't waste my energy arguing about it with people, but games are definately an art form, they're a valid form of expression and potentially the highest form of expression, because rather than simply describe or depict your vision to your audience, you can throw them into your vision so they may experience is for themselves.

I also like when games try new and unique things, and take risks, though I understand that business requires stability in order for those risks to be less likely to be catastrophic failures.

Recently I got rather annoyed at Assassins Creed 3, because it seems to have really lost sight of what was special about Assassins Creed (and especially the second game) and gone after a more action packed appraoch, which we're already saturated with, I prefered to more intellectual and philosophical approaches of the first 2 games, and the gameplay focused more on stealthy assassination and covert actions against secret organisations than, forgive me for generalising the rather complex issue of the american revolution, the approach of a big action packed "'MURICA FUCK YEH!".

On a similar note I just did some reading into Black Ops 2, and they've apparently brought in a lot of new things to the single player mode and actually been creative for once, which is both astounding and very helpful for the industry. By all means keep making shooters of the military variety, but make them varied and creative damn it!

-grumble-

Sorry I kinda lost my focus, but there's my view of games as art and hopefully the two examples make my perspective a touch more easy to understand, as my perspective on things is very rarely a black or white approach.

I wasn't addressing you in particular about the "games as art" thing, but other people were talking about it. Sorry, I can see how unclear I was. But it worked it out, because you make some good points.

I think most hobbyists can agree that games are art. But it is so obvious there is a total lack of groundwork and language for discussing games as art. We REALLY need some scholarly literature on this topic. I mean Mass Effect 3 ending? artistic integrity! Dark Souls? easy mode please! It's art without merit, and until we can distinguish kitsch from art, there can be no serious conversation about games as art.

 

[The White Hunter]

Everyone I've seen argue the Pro easy mode, has argued to only slightly enhance survivability through stats modification. So I would assume that it would arguably remain a very similar experience for the players who actually "need" that extra time.

If that was true, they would have put easy mode in the game to start with. I really wish you would understand how untrue that is. That's how it works for most games. But Dark Souls is not most games. The only reason the player "needs" that extra time is because they haven't learned yet. It isn't because they can't do the ultra-precise aiming- there isn't any. It isn't because they can't do the ultra-precise timing- there isn't any. It isn't because they haven't figured out some complicated strategy- there isn't any.

They "need" the extra time so they don't have to figure out the game. But in Dark Souls, figuring out the game is what you do. The easy mode player is not having a similar but less intense or demanding experience. He is having a fundamentally different experience. If you could just make Dark Souls easy but leave it basically the same, like you can with Halo, I can only assume they would have just done that. Playing Dark Souls with more lenient stats takes away the CORE Dark Souls experience. You rip the backbone right out of the game.

It sounds like a lot of people would be fine with that. But it is not safe to assume that cutting out the CORE design philosophy, the basic premise of the game, the whole idea of it, the obstacle that the whole game is built around, would result in a similar experience for easy mode players. They would effectively be skipping to the end of the game without playing it. Figuring out how to make Dark Souls easy is Dark Souls. If it's easy to start with, that is to say, if you can beat it without learning, you may as well just make your character and skip directly to the end credits.

I am thinking about how to make everyone complete the game while maintaining the current difficulty and carefully send all gamers the messages behind it.

However if From could walk the line between "selling out" and "selling more" wouldn't you want them to?

Of course, but the question is how.

Don't get me wrong I'm not huge on the "games as art "thing, and I certainly wouldn't waste my energy arguing about it with people, but games are definately an art form, they're a valid form of expression and potentially the highest form of expression, because rather than simply describe or depict your vision to your audience, you can throw them into your vision so they may experience is for themselves.

I also like when games try new and unique things, and take risks, though I understand that business requires stability in order for those risks to be less likely to be catastrophic failures.

Recently I got rather annoyed at Assassins Creed 3, because it seems to have really lost sight of what was special about Assassins Creed (and especially the second game) and gone after a more action packed appraoch, which we're already saturated with, I prefered to more intellectual and philosophical approaches of the first 2 games, and the gameplay focused more on stealthy assassination and covert actions against secret organisations than, forgive me for generalising the rather complex issue of the american revolution, the approach of a big action packed "'MURICA FUCK YEH!".

On a similar note I just did some reading into Black Ops 2, and they've apparently brought in a lot of new things to the single player mode and actually been creative for once, which is both astounding and very helpful for the industry. By all means keep making shooters of the military variety, but make them varied and creative damn it!

-grumble-

Sorry I kinda lost my focus, but there's my view of games as art and hopefully the two examples make my perspective a touch more easy to understand, as my perspective on things is very rarely a black or white approach.

I wasn't addressing you in particular about the "games as art" thing, but other people were talking about it. Sorry, I can see how unclear I was. But it worked it out, because you make some good points.

I think most hobbyists can agree that games are art. But it is so obvious there is a total lack of groundwork and language for discussing games as art. We REALLY need some scholarly literature on this topic. I mean Mass Effect 3 ending? artistic integrity! Dark Souls? easy mode please! It's art without merit, and until we can distinguish kitsch from art, there can be no serious conversation about games as art.

Don't worry about it it's nice to have civilised and reasonable discussions here, far to often things boil into the usual internet dickery in recent months, What with the instant slagging of rumoured PS4 specs without actually seeing any performance as a recent example.

I didn't play Mass Effect 3 because 2 bored me half to death. Dark Souls is easy, you just need patience for it! If you want an easier Souls experience use the internet or a strategy guide to get you through.

But yeah it's hard to get a good discussion going about it without prententious funts ruining the whole thing by dragging it to far into the the art without judging it as a game. Personally if a game isn't fun it's not worth it, in my opinion, no matter how artistic it may be, a tiring or boring gameplay experience is not justified by a magnificient and creative story alone...

 

[barbzilla]

snip

snipity snip snip snaroo

Just a quick interjection on the games as art thing. We can't have it one way and the other. We either acknowledge games as art, or we do not. I won't argue the fact that we get few good artistic pieces from games, but its a new form, it hasn't had the benefit of centuries (or even many decades). We have to make the choice, I find in favor of art only because I can see the artistic embellishments of the artists when a games comes out, even if it turns out to be horrible. Every person has their own unique style in the industry.

@Rooster;
I don't think the game "needs" an easy mode. Far from it, I "wanted" for there to be an easy mode for the reasons I've listed previously. The game is already a success and nothing more is needed. As long as they keep the servers up, they can stop support and we would be fine. Please don't think I misunderstand your points, I not only hear them, I understand them. I even agree with some of them, I just think the pros outweigh the cons (in my opinion), while you feel the reverse to be true.

@Skar
You've actually struck on an idea i've been tossing about for another thread about this debate. What if Dark Souls came with an in game browser that linked to a strategy guide (spoiler free) that disabled achievements on that character. Kind of an easy mode per say, in the fact that you get that helping hand (though I feel it would be a worse idea than an easy mode, it might alleviate some fear of game change). It doesn't change anything major in reality, as you can go online and check out strategies till your heart is content.

 

[The White Hunter]

snip

snipity snip snip snaroo

Just a quick interjection on the games as art thing. We can't have it one way and the other. We either acknowledge games as art, or we do not. I won't argue the fact that we get few good artistic pieces from games, but its a new form, it hasn't had the benefit of centuries (or even many decades). We have to make the choice, I find in favor of art only because I can see the artistic embellishments of the artists when a games comes out, even if it turns out to be horrible. Every person has their own unique style in the industry.

@Rooster;
I don't think the game "needs" an easy mode. Far from it, I "wanted" for there to be an easy mode for the reasons I've listed previously. The game is already a success and nothing more is needed. As long as they keep the servers up, they can stop support and we would be fine. Please don't think I misunderstand your points, I not only hear them, I understand them. I even agree with some of them, I just think the pros outweigh the cons (in my opinion), while you feel the reverse to be true.

@Skar
You've actually struck on an idea i've been tossing about for another thread about this debate. What if Dark Souls came with an in game browser that linked to a strategy guide (spoiler free) that disabled achievements on that character. Kind of an easy mode per say, in the fact that you get that helping hand (though I feel it would be a worse idea than an easy mode, it might alleviate some fear of game change). It doesn't change anything major in reality, as you can go online and check out strategies till your heart is content.

Well that was exactly my idea, leave the game entirely untouched and just use some kind of strategy guide to supplement your experience, there's no shame in it whatsoever and it leaves the Souls experience untarnished. I'd probably buy a high quality hardback guide for the games just because I like those things and it'd be useful for quick referencing things and such.

Frankly anyone considering playing a Souls game is probably enough of a nerd gaming enthusiast that having such a thing on their shelf and indeed paying for such a thing is no hardship to them or their self esteem.

 

[barbzilla]

snip

See I've always felt as though I was cheating if I pulled out a strategy guide on my first playthrough. On subsequent playthroughs I would usually reference one to see what all I missed the first time through though, so I'm not completely opposed to them. I just figure that the developer laid things out in a certain way to promote exploration/experimentation so I followed them. This is honestly the first game I've seen where a strategy guide will literally give you the physical strategy required to beat enemies, so I feel it would be more detrimental than an easy mode. On the other hand it is a matter of self restraint, so I don't see the issue with implementing such an idea.

 

[Tallim]

snip

See I've always felt as though I was cheating if I pulled out a strategy guide on my first playthrough. On subsequent playthroughs I would usually reference one to see what all I missed the first time through though, so I'm not completely opposed to them. I just figure that the developer laid things out in a certain way to promote exploration/experimentation so I followed them. This is honestly the first game I've seen where a strategy guide will literally give you the physical strategy required to beat enemies, so I feel it would be more detrimental than an easy mode. On the other hand it is a matter of self restraint, so I don't see the issue with implementing such an idea.

I did my first playthrough of Dark Souls completely blind, although I am a Demon's Souls vet so it's hard to gauge how it would measure up to a first time experience with the game system. This probably led to me doing things that new people would not normally do, like suicide dashes to pick things up etc

I can absolutely attest to a strat guide ruining the game though. I looked at one for one of the worlds of Demon's Souls when I was first playing that and the game was suddenly very very different and I really wished I hadn't looked. Fortunately it was just for that one section but I knew I wouldn't go near one for Dark Souls.

From Software have a way of setting up places and events that almost subconsciously train you for other areas or techniques. Often it is a fantastically brutal lesson of misery and death but you learn quite fast from that. If you don't learn then you aren't improving.

 

[The White Hunter]

snip

See I've always felt as though I was cheating if I pulled out a strategy guide on my first playthrough. On subsequent playthroughs I would usually reference one to see what all I missed the first time through though, so I'm not completely opposed to them. I just figure that the developer laid things out in a certain way to promote exploration/experimentation so I followed them. This is honestly the first game I've seen where a strategy guide will literally give you the physical strategy required to beat enemies, so I feel it would be more detrimental than an easy mode. On the other hand it is a matter of self restraint, so I don't see the issue with implementing such an idea.

That's fine if you don't want to use a strategy guide, and that's kind of my point. Soul's games aren't hard, they just demand trial and imrpovement (not trial and error), and thoughtfulness and patience. For some that's annoying and they just want to experience the world and content, and they can use a strategy guide for a much less frustrating experience, whilst those like you can willfully ignore it's existence and maybe use it to enhance a second playthrough or exploration in the post-game, and those like me who will turn to it after a few hours of failure and reaching the point of "ok just what the fuck is this thing weak to!?" for a quick reference for an elemental weakness and the like on occasions where I just desperately want to move on to the next challenge.

Frankly you could apply the same theory to a lot of games these days. Final Fantasy could do with being a bit harder again, same with pokemon! (Though Black & white 2 require grinding, which I just do not do so it's fairly challenging so far.)

The best thing is that such a guide is a separate thing to the game, and can be used to enhance the game for everyone, without detracting from the games artistic integrity or indeed the developers vision of the game.

You could of course keep things out of the guide, like the recently revealed pendant function in Dark Souls.

[small]I also like maps for post games and such. Especially poster maps.[/small]

 

[The White Hunter]

snip

See I've always felt as though I was cheating if I pulled out a strategy guide on my first playthrough. On subsequent playthroughs I would usually reference one to see what all I missed the first time through though, so I'm not completely opposed to them. I just figure that the developer laid things out in a certain way to promote exploration/experimentation so I followed them. This is honestly the first game I've seen where a strategy guide will literally give you the physical strategy required to beat enemies, so I feel it would be more detrimental than an easy mode. On the other hand it is a matter of self restraint, so I don't see the issue with implementing such an idea.

I did my first playthrough of Dark Souls completely blind, although I am a Demon's Souls vet so it's hard to gauge how it would measure up to a first time experience with the game system. This probably led to me doing things that new people would not normally do, like suicide dashes to pick things up etc

I can absolutely attest to a strat guide ruining the game though. I looked at one for one of the worlds of Demon's Souls when I was first playing that and the game was suddenly very very different and I really wished I hadn't looked. Fortunately it was just for that one section but I knew I wouldn't go near one for Dark Souls.

From Software have a way of setting up places and events that almost subconsciously train you for other areas or techniques. Often it is a fantastically brutal lesson of misery and death but you learn quite fast from that. If you don't learn then you aren't improving.

I agree, in my post above I tried to explain and justify the idea. It's definately a better option than an easy mode would be in my opinion, though Soul's games I'd personally avoid a strategy guide and spoilers because it defeats the point of what makes the games special.

For content tourists and atmosphere sponges that are faint of heart it would enhance their experience without affecting your experience like an easy mode would.

 

[Tallim]

snip

See I've always felt as though I was cheating if I pulled out a strategy guide on my first playthrough. On subsequent playthroughs I would usually reference one to see what all I missed the first time through though, so I'm not completely opposed to them. I just figure that the developer laid things out in a certain way to promote exploration/experimentation so I followed them. This is honestly the first game I've seen where a strategy guide will literally give you the physical strategy required to beat enemies, so I feel it would be more detrimental than an easy mode. On the other hand it is a matter of self restraint, so I don't see the issue with implementing such an idea.

I did my first playthrough of Dark Souls completely blind, although I am a Demon's Souls vet so it's hard to gauge how it would measure up to a first time experience with the game system. This probably led to me doing things that new people would not normally do, like suicide dashes to pick things up etc

I can absolutely attest to a strat guide ruining the game though. I looked at one for one of the worlds of Demon's Souls when I was first playing that and the game was suddenly very very different and I really wished I hadn't looked. Fortunately it was just for that one section but I knew I wouldn't go near one for Dark Souls.

From Software have a way of setting up places and events that almost subconsciously train you for other areas or techniques. Often it is a fantastically brutal lesson of misery and death but you learn quite fast from that. If you don't learn then you aren't improving.

I agree, in my post above I tried to explain and justify the idea. It's definately a better option than an easy mode would be in my opinion, though Soul's games I'd personally avoid a strategy guide and spoilers because it defeats the point of what makes the games special.

For content tourists and atmosphere sponges that are faint of heart it would enhance their experience without affecting your experience like an easy mode would.

It was incredible what a difference reading up on that one section of Demon's Souls made. It fundamentally altered my view of the experience and left that bit a bit hollow in my mind.

I actually get annoyed now when I see people trying the game asking for "tips" early on and almost always the first thing that gets suggested is exactly how to acquire the Drake's Sword which really undermines your learning early game as you don't have to deal with longer fights with mooks etc.

 

[barbzilla]

snip

See I've always felt as though I was cheating if I pulled out a strategy guide on my first playthrough. On subsequent playthroughs I would usually reference one to see what all I missed the first time through though, so I'm not completely opposed to them. I just figure that the developer laid things out in a certain way to promote exploration/experimentation so I followed them. This is honestly the first game I've seen where a strategy guide will literally give you the physical strategy required to beat enemies, so I feel it would be more detrimental than an easy mode. On the other hand it is a matter of self restraint, so I don't see the issue with implementing such an idea.

That's fine if you don't want to use a strategy guide, and that's kind of my point. Soul's games aren't hard, they just demand trial and imrpovement (not trial and error), and thoughtfulness and patience. For some that's annoying and they just want to experience the world and content, and they can use a strategy guide for a much less frustrating experience, whilst those like you can willfully ignore it's existence and maybe use it to enhance a second playthrough or exploration in the post-game, and those like me who will turn to it after a few hours of failure and reaching the point of "ok just what the fuck is this thing weak to!?" for a quick reference for an elemental weakness and the like on occasions where I just desperately want to move on to the next challenge.

Frankly you could apply the same theory to a lot of games these days. Final Fantasy could do with being a bit harder again, same with pokemon! (Though Black & white 2 require grinding, which I just do not do so it's fairly challenging so far.)

The best thing is that such a guide is a separate thing to the game, and can be used to enhance the game for everyone, without detracting from the games artistic integrity or indeed the developers vision of the game.

You could of course keep things out of the guide, like the recently revealed pendant function in Dark Souls.

[small]I also like maps for post games and such. Especially poster maps.[/small]

Wait they announced what the pendant does? *rushes to look it up*
.
..
...
....
WTF; really? It does absolutely nothing. It was something they added to the game to have no function. Blah! Its genius though. Many people spent quite a number of hours trying to figure it out, hell I tried to figure it out for a bit (after I found out about Arty's insanity due to the pendant I started experimenting there).

I think we have reached an agreeable median point though in the argument. Just include a guide with the purchase. If they want to use it and lessen their experience fine, let them.

 

[Shadowcreed]

I love the way multiplayer is tied into the game. I'm part of the Forest hunters and always wear the ring so I can potentially invade to defend the forest. However what I've found is that ppl that actually invade the forest are usually guys that are overly geared for their soul level, and usually if you do manage to drop them they have over 200k souls - so yeah that's a bit fishy. Kinda cheapens the game down if you encounter such a player and pick up that many souls, managed to level up 4x and get my gear upgraded to +10 far before I should have been able to.

While I love the PvP in the game it really does have these annoying occurrences where you do something and the game doesn't respond, maybe its lag, maybe its the mechanics behind it. The whole backstabbing is seriously buggy, whoever lags the most lands it (at least that's how I feel it happens, I'm not that great at it but I've studied the mechanics of it and srsly that stuff is pretty badly implemented.)

TLR - PvP in Dark Souls is the most fun thing of the game for me - the randomness of being invaded or summoned to invade or assist makes it fun 24/7.
Downside - the game suffers from massive lag and occasional lag spikes (at least at my experience) to the point where PvP can be rather sucky. Especially when both of you are fishing for backstab because that's just the most efficient way to go... Feels like it takes the skill away. I suppose a good player just avoids getting backstabbed at all, though I never manage to do so. [also, Wrath of the Gods spamm is fckn lame and shouldn't be done -.-']
There's some really lame elements to the PvP in Dark Souls -yeah everything can be countered but I don't want to be 1 shotted by a player that seemidly was because of a lucky backstab or some lag spike so that you missed a parry...

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I love the way multiplayer is tied into the game. I'm part of the Forest hunters and always wear the ring so I can potentially invade to defend the forest. However what I've found is that ppl that actually invade the forest are usually guys that are overly geared for their soul level, and usually if you do manage to drop them they have over 200k souls - so yeah that's a bit fishy. Kinda cheapens the game down if you encounter such a player and pick up that many souls, managed to level up 4x and get my gear upgraded to +10 far before I should have been able to.

While I love the PvP in the game it really does have these annoying occurrences where you do something and the game doesn't respond, maybe its lag, maybe its the mechanics behind it. The whole backstabbing is seriously buggy, whoever lags the most lands it (at least that's how I feel it happens, I'm not that great at it but I've studied the mechanics of it and srsly that stuff is pretty badly implemented.)

TLR - PvP in Dark Souls is the most fun thing of the game for me - the randomness of being invaded or summoned to invade or assist makes it fun 24/7.
Downside - the game suffers from massive lag and occasional lag spikes (at least at my experience) to the point where PvP can be rather sucky. Especially when both of you are fishing for backstab because that's just the most efficient way to go... Feels like it takes the skill away. I suppose a good player just avoids getting backstabbed at all, though I never manage to do so. [also, Wrath of the Gods spamm is fckn lame and shouldn't be done -.-']
There's some really lame elements to the PvP in Dark Souls -yeah everything can be countered but I don't want to be 1 shotted by a player that seemidly was because of a lucky backstab or some lag spike so that you missed a parry...

You are correct about the lag. I don't know if it matters which player is more laggy. When I see someone sprinting toward me like they're going back stab fishing, I usually just put my shield up and back away from them. Eventually they realize I'm not interested in letting them just fish for back stabs.

On the other hand, sometimes it just happens and they never intended it. On their screen, it looks like you have made a mistake and left yourself exposed for a legitimate back stab. On your screen, they literally teleport behind you and back stab. It's bullshit but it's not really their fault. You may not know which back stabs you got by outplaying your opponent and which were the result of lag.

I think most players have decided that, since there is nothing to be done about this issue, the only thing to do is just accept it as part of the game, and adjust your strategy accordingly. That's not exactly ideal, but it seems to be the best we will get until the next title. I think they are aware how badly the lag situation impacted this game. I hope they really focus on fixing that for the next title.

I have heard Wrath of the Gods is actually pretty balanced once you get used to the timing for dodging out of it. I don't have enough experience to say though. The people who have tried using it against me either killed me by other means or weren't using it very effectively.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

The game is already a success and nothing more is needed. As long as they keep the servers up, they can stop support and we would be fine.

I just wanted to add that we don't have to worry about that with Dark. Due to all the issues with Demon's and people petitioning to keep the main server running longer and continuing to spend that money, Dark uses a P2P system. Basically, as long as people are still playing you'll be able to play with them. I think this is partly why the world tendency thing was done away with (other than you having no control over it online).

Either way, I think it's great that on the internet a conclusion and middle ground was reached through intelligent discussion and respect, with nobody getting banned. A victory was had here.

 

[TrevHead]

Saw this article about the makers of Hitman having trouble getting playtesters to improvise. Makes me wonder how badly some gamers today are conditioned with rail roading and handholding.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/180845/New_Hitman_asks_players_to_improvise_but_have_they_forgotten_how.php