Jimquisition: Dumbing Down for the Filthy Casuals

[grumbel]

Video games are NOT movies, TV or books, they are an interactive medium, they require you to earn their content.

And that's a problem that should be fixed. The days of arcades are long gone, there is no need to lock content to extract more coins from customers these days as you already paid for it when you bought the game. Are movies any less interesting because you have a fast forward button? No, of course not. Because you simply don't use it and watch the movie as intended most of the time. But it's nice that it's there in case you need it.

The only argument against this seem to come from weak minded people who apparently aren't man enough to ignore an easy option when it's available. Man up, just see that easy option you have to resist as another challenge and as a badge of honor developers can even install an achievement for it if they like. Problem solved.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Video games are NOT movies, TV or books, they are an interactive medium, they require you to earn their content.

And that's a problem that should be fixed. The days of arcades are long gone, there is no need to lock content to extract more coins from customers these days as you already paid for it when you bought the game. Are movies any less interesting because you have a fast forward button? No, of course not. Because you simply don't use it and watch the movie as intended most of the time. But it's nice that it's there in case you need it.

The fact that the player has to work for it to get a video game's content is not a problem, that is the ENTIRE POINT of video games. Why make video games interactive if the player doesn't have to do much of anything to access the game's content? Why not just make them movies? Movies have a fast forward button because they are MOVIES, you are supposed to sit there and enjoy them with no further effort on your part, video games are an interactive medium that requires the user to play it and earn the game's content through their efforts, at least somewhat, regardless of the video game.

The only argument against this seem to come from weak minded people who apparently aren't man enough to ignore an easy option when it's available.

And the only argument FOR an easy mode seems to come from weak minded people that aren't man enough to play through the game at it's current difficulty. See? Easy to turn that argument around.

Man up, just see that easy option you have to resist as another challenge and as a badge of honor developers can even install an achievement for it if they like. Problem solved.

No, NOT problem solved. The fact that a developer is willing to make a game easier in ANY way to make it more accessable means that they will make all future games in the series easier to make it more accessable as time goes on. That's the same reason why the original Super Mario Bros is so difficult that it has been ranked many times among the hardest games of all time, while the more recent Mario games are so easy that they can be beaten by a random monkey picked out of some forest somewhere.

That, and the fact that someone can accomplish what other people do with a fraction of the effort required lessens the impact of what those people did. If Dark Souls 2 is easier than Dark Souls, it makes the efforts of the people that beat Dark Souls less meaningful. Just the fact that an easy mode EXISTS is enough to degrade a game. Making the gameplay better? THAT doesn't affect it as long as the difficulty remains intact, that is not a problem, lowering the difficulty for ANY reason is.

 

[m0ng00se]

Hilariously, Justanothergamer's "Buying a product is optional" is the best retort I've seen in the whole thread outside of Cogburn kicking asses all over the damn place.

You bought a game marketed for its difficulty, labelled with "Prepare to Die!" on the back and you feel entitled to the content? Go buy a cello from the store and go back with "I paid 3000 dollars for this cello and I deserve to be able to play all of the content a cello is capable of" and you will be shown the door. Pick up a few of the more niche genres and it's a lot easier to understand that games aren't simply analogous to film and literature. My relationships with shmups, fighters, and RPGs are vastly different despite the fact that they are all video games.

Games are many things. As art, they have no purpose in sacrificing identity in pursuit of mass-market appeal. As consumer products they have justification in maintaining the loyalty of their niche and pedigree of their brand rather than chasing many markets and appealing to none. As a series of challenges they don't owe you success.

 

[grumbel]

Why make video games interactive if the player doesn't have to do much of anything to access the game's content?

Because those two are completely unrelated concepts? Interaction just means a game has to be interactive, it does not imply that the player has to be forced to die dozens of times on the same stupid enemy or that you aren't allowed to skip chapters.

And the only argument FOR an easy mode seems to come from weak minded people that aren't man enough to play through the game at it's current difficulty. See? Easy to turn that argument around.

That's not much of an argument. There is nothing wrong with adding something for the weak minded. Maybe they aren't even weak minded, maybe they are to old, to young or broke their arm or otherwise not at 100% capacity to beat the game the regular way. Let them play the way they want to. I would like to hear an argument for the excluding of an easy mode that doesn't really on idiotic elitism.

No, NOT problem solved. The fact that a developer is willing to make a game easier in ANY way to make it more accessable means that they will make all future games in the series easier to make it more accessable as time goes on.

You know which games can get away with being super hardcore? Racing games. Why can they do that? Because they plastered with assist and options to make them easier, heck you could finish Gran Turismo 4 by letting it play itself on auto-pilot most of the time. Options simply mean you get to play the game how you want. Not having options means the game has to be build to appeal to the least common denominator.

That's the same reason why the original Super Mario Bros is so difficult that it has been ranked many times among the hardest games of all time, while the more recent Mario games are so easy that they can be beaten by a random monkey picked out of some forest somewhere.

That's the result of not having an easy mode. Nintendo games almost always only have one difficulty and as a result the games got simpler the bigger and more casual the audience got.

If Dark Souls 2 is easier than Dark Souls, it makes the efforts of the people that beat Dark Souls less meaningful.

How does it make the effort any less meaningful? They still only have beat it on easy mode and they don't get the achievement for hard mode. I can go and watch the ending or even a complete Lets Play of Dark Souls on Youtube without even picking up the controller? Do you feel less like a man because of that?

Or hey, how about they release two games? Dark Souls Casual Edition with an optional easy mode and Dark Souls regular, which is the exact same game, except with the easy mode removed. Happy now?

 

[jmarquiso]

Just replace "casuals" with "cash".

But who's providing the cash?

(I hate to say it might be console gamers...but that's a whole other elitism I'd rather not get into right now...

I skipped the first 5 minutes of the video just because I don't agree with the elitist *cough*fanboy*cough* view that "console gamers" dumb down the market. Consoles have been around for almost as long as video games, so why all of a sudden would that be the key factor in "dumbing down" games. It's a ludicrous conclusion.

Besides, none of the points he raised in the video have anything to do with the game appearing on consoles. Even the points he alluded to near the beginning weren't console dependant. So why make the argument at all?

Something I'd like to mention:

Value of items:
It seemed like a minor non-issue gripe to me, but I get his reasoning behind the value of items being reduced. The problem is not that the item's value has been reduced, but that it hasn't been reduced enough! He argues that Morrowing had the Savior Hide at 150,000 gold. By Skyrim is barely breaks 2000 gold. My argument is that it should be neither 150k or 2k. It is a rare and priceless artifact. In Final Fantasy, such an item would have a value of 1 gil. Why? It is priceless and should really not be sold - just like his argument about rare items in TES.


The rest of his arguments (especially quest/ journals) are dead on.

To be fair to the video - he never says "console gamers" he says "casual gamers" which he characterizes as a couple of kids. I said console gamers, which is also a position I don't necessarily agree with. I think it's been "streamlined" for consoles, but that does NOT mean "dumbed down". Simply means less keys are necessary.

I'd like the ability to negate your own main quest. A large part of the audience doesn't.

Keep in mind I purposefully put forth a video I disagreed with mainly because I thought it'd add to the discussion. I should have checked that there've already been nearly 800 responses first

 

[jmarquiso]

No, NOT problem solved. The fact that a developer is willing to make a game easier in ANY way to make it more accessable means that they will make all future games in the series easier to make it more accessable as time goes on. That's the same reason why the original Super Mario Bros is so difficult that it has been ranked many times among the hardest games of all time, while the more recent Mario games are so easy that they can be beaten by a random monkey picked out of some forest somewhere.

Absolutely not true. Super Mario Bros was designed in its way to A) Extend its life and addictive qualities (those who play it for challenge) and B) based on the same design as arcade design, which wanted you to put in more and more quarters.

These are BOTH outdated ideas. Tetris perfected the difficulty curve, starting off slow and becoming more difficult as the nature of the game. You play THAT game for the challenge. Mario these days - on the other hand - seems to be enjoyed for many different reasons.

"EASY" difficulty has been around since most of PC Gaming, and around since the days of the Super Nintendo. It added a replay value of creating replay value for the select few who want more challenge. Saying that adding an easy mode invariably dumbs down everything is a fallacy. Attempting to reach a wider audience might, but saying that adding the mode does is just an overgeneralization.

For the record, I don't entirely buy the "reading a wider audience" argument either. If you look at board games, they don't have variable difficulty. Popular games range from simple and linear(Snakes and Ladders) to challenging (Chess). Even Settlers of Catan is easy to learn, but hard to master. The most popular games usually fit in the latter category.

 

[grumbel]

If you look at board games, they don't have variable difficulty.

Actually they do, if you don't like a rule, you can just ignore them or change them to something else. There is no authority in board games that forces you to play a specific way. As long as everybody can agree on the rules, everything is fair game. If you want to play checkers with your chess figures, you totally can.

 

[immortalfrieza]

If you look at board games, they don't have variable difficulty.

Actually they do, if you don't like a rule, you can just ignore them or change them to something else. There is no authority in board games that forces you to play a specific way. As long as everybody can agree on the rules, everything is fair game. If you want to play checkers with your chess figures, you totally can.

If you change even 1 rule from a board game, it is no longer the same game, it's a somewhat similar game game that you made up. If you take the ability to collect rent out of Monopoly, it is no longer Monopoly. The actual board and pieces are irrelevant true, so yes, you can play checkers with chess pieces, but the rules are what make game what it is, so if you use chess pieces to play checkers if you still have to play by the rules of checkers if you are actually playing checkers.

 

[jmarquiso]

If you look at board games, they don't have variable difficulty.

Actually they do, if you don't like a rule, you can just ignore them or change them to something else. There is no authority in board games that forces you to play a specific way. As long as everybody can agree on the rules, everything is fair game. If you want to play checkers with your chess figures, you totally can.

If you change even 1 rule from a board game, it is no longer the same game, it's a somewhat similar game game that you made up. If you take the ability to collect rent out of Monopoly, it is no longer Monopoly. The actual board and pieces are irrelevant true, so yes, you can play checkers with chess pieces, but the rules are what make game what it is, so if you use chess pieces to play checkers if you still have to play by the rules of checkers if you are actually playing checkers.

There are quite a few house rules in monopoly made popular in different regions. In the UK, you don't pick up property in the first round as it gives an unfair advantage to the first player. In others, auctioning is required when someone can afford property. Heck, the original game "The Landlord Game" was actually a statement against Monopolies, created during the Great Depression.

Finally, Chess, Poker, and checkers all had different regional and historical rulesets in their long history. Mass production has changed this quite a bit, but there are still people who use family, regional, or different house rules for everything. Yes, changing a single rule is a different-ish game, but it's similar enough to know it's the same game with slightly different rules. So I do stand corrected there is a "difficulty" setting, but that's agreed upon by all players in general. It isn't a "different" game as it isn't different enough to be called completely separate. In fact, most Milton Bradley boxes even SAY you can change a rule here and there for your friends and family. That means the Designers looked at it as a guideline as long as the spirit and components remain similar enough.

 

[jmarquiso]

Actually they do, if you don't like a rule, you can just ignore them or change them to something else. There is no authority in board games that forces you to play a specific way. As long as everybody can agree on the rules, everything is fair game. If you want to play checkers with your chess figures, you totally can.

You're correct, I stand corrected.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Why make video games interactive if the player doesn't have to do much of anything to access the game's content?

Because those two are completely unrelated concepts? Interaction just means a game has to be interactive, it does not imply that the player has to be forced to die dozens of times on the same stupid enemy or that you aren't allowed to skip chapters.

Ha! You're just twisting my words around when you know DAMN well what I meant. The fact is, that's exactly what video games are supposed to be, failing countless times until you finally beat it, and you aren't allowed to skip anything, that is the essence of video games, the entire reason they exist, doesn't matter how easy or difficult the game is either. That is the reason they are video games and not some other media, it's what makes them unique.

And the only argument FOR an easy mode seems to come from weak minded people that aren't man enough to play through the game at it's current difficulty. See? Easy to turn that argument around.

That's not much of an argument. There is nothing wrong with adding something for the weak minded. Maybe they aren't even weak minded, maybe they are to old, to young or broke their arm or otherwise not at 100% capacity to beat the game the regular way. Let them play the way they want to.

Why not? It's the same exact argument YOU gave except the other way around, so it's wrong when I say it, but not when YOU do? Double standard much?
If someone can't beat a game for WHATEVER reason, they don't deserve to beat it, simple as that. It doesn't matter what disabilites or ailments they have. Either let them find another game they CAN beat, or do something besides play video games if they really truly can't win, don't ruin the game for everyone that likes it the way it is just because some people don't.

I would like to hear an argument for the excluding of an easy mode that doesn't really on idiotic elitism.

Again, let's flip that same argument back at you shall we? I'd like to see an argument for the inclusion of an easy mode that doesn't involve ridiculous and senseless entitlement, laziness, and dismissal of the problem out of hand, the last of which I'd definitely like to hear.

No, NOT problem solved. The fact that a developer is willing to make a game easier in ANY way to make it more accessable means that they will make all future games in the series easier to make it more accessable as time goes on.

You know which games can get away with being super hardcore? Racing games. Why can they do that? Because they plastered with assist and options to make them easier, heck you could finish Gran Turismo 4 by letting it play itself on auto-pilot most of the time. Options simply mean you get to play the game how you want. Not having options means the game has to be build to appeal to the least common denominator.

Uh huh. Those are games DESIGNED for the casual market, and even they require you to work to experience it's content just like hardcore ones do, it's just a game that happens to be easier. Oh, by the way, there have been and probably will continue to be made plenty of racing games out there that are super hardcore, just so you know.

That's the same reason why the original Super Mario Bros is so difficult that it has been ranked many times among the hardest games of all time, while the more recent Mario games are so easy that they can be beaten by a random monkey picked out of some forest somewhere.

That's the result of not having an easy mode. Nintendo games almost always only have one difficulty and as a result the games got simpler the bigger and more casual the audience got.

No, that's the result of gamers whining until Papa Nintendo made it easier for them. If you don't like that a game isn't easy enough for you, you can always leave and find another game or entertainment, don't complain until you get your way like some spoiled brat.

If Dark Souls 2 is easier than Dark Souls, it makes the efforts of the people that beat Dark Souls less meaningful.

How does it make the effort any less meaningful? They still only have beat it on easy mode and they don't get the achievement for hard mode. I can go and watch the ending or even a complete Lets Play of Dark Souls on Youtube without even picking up the controller? Do you feel less like a man because of that?

It makes it less meaningful because when people are able to accomplish the same thing with less time and effort, it makes the time and effort that those that had to do it the hard way look pointless. Bragging rights only matter when few others are able pull it off, not practically everyone.

Or hey, how about they release two games? Dark Souls Casual Edition with an optional easy mode and Dark Souls regular, which is the exact same game, except with the easy mode removed. Happy now?

No, that's just the exact same thing as putting an easy mode in the game, doing that would be just a half assed attempt to make it look like it wasn't, but I'm sure you know that, you're just screwing with me at this point.

 

[NemotheElvenPanda]

Now in that light, if I had Dark Souls, would I try to play it as "intended"? Yes, however after losing time and time again, I'd switch an easy mode out sheer frustration. That's just how I am, and I can't play game because of that, because I'm not really up for a head-splitting harrowing when I could be enjoying the game's lore or appearance? Sorry, but that comes off as a bit selfish to me.

If you want the lore and appearance, I'm pretty sure there's plenty of concept art, story summations and youtube videos of the game you can indulge yourself in.

But what if I...you know...*want* to actually play the game and try it out for my own perceived merits? Sure, I can go to the wiki and watch some videos, but it's a stark difference playing my own character through the stages, choosing his weapons, and his battles, and actually most play-throughs I've watched tend to gloss over the lore and story, like many that feature Silent Hill.

However, giving the *option* to make a game easier to deal with is not harming anyone, neither the game, for reasons mentioned already.

But it would harm the game since it would ruin its fundamental point. Not to mention resources that would go into rebalancing, retweaking, reimagining ideas, only to pander to people outside of the audience the game has created.
Do you think there should be abridged movies with extra narration so that everyone can follow the plot as well? Should classical books be rewritten in simple english? Should statues, art and poetry come with a de facto explanation and reasoning behind every brushstroke? Should the rules for each sport, and team and player biographies be told to you every time you watch a football game?
Sometimes the consumer needs to make an effort in order to partake in a medium. And it's most often that very effort that makes the reward that much sweeter.

Me fighting a creature with less health on one difficulty as opposed to a common mook with boss-level health on harder modes is not a game-changer. This isn't pandering, it's letting people with less time or different interests to enjoy the game. We don't all have the time, much less the desire to, fight a battle over and over again. I like the occasional challenge, I really do, but I dislike dying; a lot. I do however like fighting and advancing in rank...in my own way. A game like Dark Souls to simply let me fight easier opponents will not affect you.

As for the rest of your comment, there's one problem: video gaming is a very *intimate* medium; you're not staring at something to arouse some deep philosophical quandary, or read text in all its intricate prose, most games, good games, actually involve much of the above and more. People play games for alternative reasons for their intentions all the time; for example I play Tropico to create an "idealized" society where everyone is has happy and free as possible and to enjoy (an albeit shallow caricature) Latin-American culture and the dark Cold War humor, rather than making my island a living satire of a Banana Republic to make as much money as possible at the expense of the islanders. It's not easy, it's not what the game is technically meant for, it's an option which is all what this about. I just want the *option* to play games on easier levels so that I can enjoy things other than the tenacious combat, and when I want to, I can easily change it to a more realistic level. That affects no one. I already play most of my RPGs like Skyrim or Mass Effect on difficulties ranging from easy to master/nightmare, so I don't see how doing that to Dark Souls will change anything.

 

[immortalfrieza]

There are quite a few house rules in monopoly made popular in different regions. In the UK, you don't pick up property in the first round as it gives an unfair advantage to the first player. In others, auctioning is required when someone can afford property. Heck, the original game "The Landlord Game" was actually a statement against Monopolies, created during the Great Depression.

Finally, Chess, Poker, and checkers all had different regional and historical rulesets in their long history. Mass production has changed this quite a bit, but there are still people who use family, regional, or different house rules for everything. Yes, changing a single rule is a different-ish game, but it's similar enough to know it's the same game with slightly different rules. So I do stand corrected there is a "difficulty" setting, but that's agreed upon by all players in general. It isn't a "different" game as it isn't different enough to be called completely separate. In fact, most Milton Bradley boxes even SAY you can change a rule here and there for your friends and family. That means the Designers looked at it as a guideline as long as the spirit and components remain similar enough.

If the creator of a board game takes allowances for custom rules, then that counts as a rule in and of itself, and thus is it still the same game if you make a few rule changes, if the creator doesn't, and you still do, then is it a similar game, not the same game. Rules are what make chess chess and not checkers, what makes chutes and ladder chutes and ladders, not candyland, and so on, change a rule, it's not the same board game. Anyone can have any rules for any game they want in private sessions at home, that still doesn't mean checkers still won't be checkers if they're playing like chess. Besides, what about if you're playing a board game officially, like in a tournament? You can't change the rules then, where does the variable difficulty come from then?

 

[BytByte]

It makes it less meaningful because when people are able to accomplish the same thing with less time and effort, it makes the time and effort that those that had to do it the hard way look pointless. Bragging rights only matter when few others are able pull it off, not practically everyone.

Why are you worried about what other think about your accomplishments? You would know that you beat whatever game on the hardest difficulty; is validation from other people all that matters? Besides, as other people have suggested, throw in some achievement proving that you beat the game on the harder mode if you care that much about people knowing you are the hardest of core.

 

[chikusho]

Movies have those things called fast-forward buttons, you can press them and abridge them how much or how little you want. You can even pause them or reverse them, at any time completely without cheatcode. Or switch on the audio-commentary and you don't even have to finish the movie first to unlock them. And if that isn't enough, I am sure Wikipedia will have a plot summary explaining the rest of it.

Games are not movies, and movies are not games. Either way, you can buy any movie you want the same as you can buy any game you want, but that doesn't mean you'll either understand or appreciate the content of the disc. You can enjoy any amount of colors moving on screen in front of you in a movie the same way you can enjoy pressing buttons to make stuff happen in a game. But if you _make an effort_ to learn more about cinematography, special effects, narrative structure and set creation you'll be able to partake in the medium in a completely different level. The same way that if you _make an effort_ to learn controls, understand basic systems in the game and practice the mechanics enough to move forward at a satisfying pace works in a game.

Should classical books be rewritten in simple english?

That stuff exist plentiful there are even books that summarize and help you interpret books.

No, there is in fact _not_ simple english versions of every book released, because the literary community does not need to cater to audiences that does not understand or appreciate every work. If games are to be taken seriously as an artistic medium, everything must not be accessible to everyone.
Also, yes, there other people, authors and academics that provide analysis of classical books, but none of their words are printed with the original copy.
And guess what, there are other communities, forums and walkthrough writers who explain and summarize how to be more effective in Dark Souls. _Make an effort_ and find these things _outside of the game_ and there's your easy mode.

Should statues, art and poetry come with a de facto explanation and reasoning behind every brushstroke?

There is no shortage of that either.

All content you personally have to _make an effort_ and seek out outside of the actual work.

Should the rules for each sport, and team and player biographies be told to you every time you watch a football game?

What has that to do with anything? Nobody is requesting to force easy mode on everyone. Options are optional.

It has to do with, if you don't understand the rules of football, the history of the teams or the players that make them up, there's a good chance you won't enjoy watching sports. You have to _make an effort_ to learn these things if you want to become a part of the sports community.

Also, because an easy mode is unnecessary and ruins the integrity of the product.
Also, "Easy Mode" is not just "enemies have less health and do less damage", you'd be forcing developers to completely rebalance what would basically be a new game and abstain from key mechanics that make up the core of Dark Souls as a whole. It would be like an artist trying to capture the same point or emotion he or she was trying to make with a painting in a cartoon alongside every work.

Sometimes the consumer needs to make an effort in order to partake in a medium.

No other medium requires an effort to consume it. You can read through a book without getting it or what a movie while asleep. Only games lock content.[/quote]

And you can endlessly play around in the starting level of every game? Every other medium requires an effort to consume. For example, if you don't get the political metaphor for democracy in Orwell's Animal Farm, there's an entire layer of references, allusions and commentary you'll never get to see unless you make an effort to understand it.
If you don't get the gameplay aspect of a game, there's an entire level of environments you won't get to see unless you make an effort to get good enough to reach it.

 

[immortalfrieza]

It makes it less meaningful because when people are able to accomplish the same thing with less time and effort, it makes the time and effort that those that had to do it the hard way look pointless. Bragging rights only matter when few others are able pull it off, not practically everyone.

Why are you worried about what other think about your accomplishments? You would know that you beat whatever game on the hardest difficulty; is validation from other people all that matters? Besides, as other people have suggested, throw in some achievement proving that you beat the game on the harder mode if you care that much about people knowing you are the hardest of core.

It's less about what others think and about how much I think my time and effort was worth putting in, bragging rights are just icing on the cake.

 

[grumbel]

If you don't like that a game isn't easy enough for you, you can always leave and find another game or entertainment,

That's what people have been doing for the last 20 years and that's the reason why modern games are so watered down these days. Publishers see the sales for the hard games dwindle and retool their next game so that they are more accessible to wider audiences by making them easier by default.

Your suggestion of simply not buying those games is the cause for all the problem we have with game difficulty today, not the solution. If you want to have hard games stay hard, they have to sell and adding optional difficulty settings that preserves the challenge, but make the game accessible to new gamers is quite a good way to do that.

It makes it less meaningful because when people are able to accomplish the same thing with less time and effort

How exactly did they complete the same thing? Playing a game on easy mode is a different experience then playing it on hard. Your achievements reflect that, that's why that stuff was invented. If you try to brag with your easy-mode accomplishments, people will call you out on it.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Movies have those things called fast-forward buttons, you can press them and abridge them how much or how little you want. You can even pause them or reverse them, at any time completely without cheatcode. Or switch on the audio-commentary and you don't even have to finish the movie first to unlock them. And if that isn't enough, I am sure Wikipedia will have a plot summary explaining the rest of it.

Games are not movies, and movies are not games. Either way, you can buy any movie you want the same as you can buy any game you want, but that doesn't mean you'll either understand or appreciate the content of the disc. You can enjoy any amount of colors moving on screen in front of you in a movie the same way you can enjoy pressing buttons to make stuff happen in a game. But if you _make an effort_ to learn more about cinematography, special effects, narrative structure and set creation you'll be able to partake in the medium in a completely different level. The same way that if you _make an effort_ to learn controls, understand basic systems in the game and practice the mechanics enough to move forward at a satisfying pace works in a game.

Should classical books be rewritten in simple english?

That stuff exist plentiful there are even books that summarize and help you interpret books.

No, there is in fact _not_ simple english versions of every book released, because the literary community does not need to cater to audiences that does not understand or appreciate every work. If games are to be taken seriously as an artistic medium, everything must not be accessible to everyone.
Also, yes, there other people, authors and academics that provide analysis of classical books, but none of their words are printed with the original copy.
And guess what, there are other communities, forums and walkthrough writers who explain and summarize how to be more effective in Dark Souls. _Make an effort_ and find these things _outside of the game_ and there's your easy mode.

Should statues, art and poetry come with a de facto explanation and reasoning behind every brushstroke?

There is no shortage of that either.

All content you personally have to _make an effort_ and seek out outside of the actual work.

Should the rules for each sport, and team and player biographies be told to you every time you watch a football game?

What has that to do with anything? Nobody is requesting to force easy mode on everyone. Options are optional.

It has to do with, if you don't understand the rules of football, the history of the teams or the players that make them up, there's a good chance you won't enjoy watching sports. You have to _make an effort_ to learn these things if you want to become a part of the sports community.

Also, because an easy mode is unnecessary and ruins the integrity of the product.
Also, "Easy Mode" is not just "enemies have less health and do less damage", you'd be forcing developers to completely rebalance what would basically be a new game and abstain from key mechanics that make up the core of Dark Souls as a whole. It would be like an artist trying to capture the same point or emotion he or she was trying to make with a painting in a cartoon alongside every work.

Sometimes the consumer needs to make an effort in order to partake in a medium.

No other medium requires an effort to consume it. You can read through a book without getting it or what a movie while asleep. Only games lock content.

And you can endlessly play around in the starting level of every game? Every other medium requires an effort to consume. For example, if you don't get the political metaphor for democracy in Orwell's Animal Farm, there's an entire layer of references, allusions and commentary you'll never get to see unless you make an effort to understand it.
If you don't get the gameplay aspect of a game, there's an entire level of environments you won't get to see unless you make an effort to get good enough to reach it.[/quote]

Could it be? Can it be possible that there's someone else around here that understands the points about effort that I've been trying to make? *GASP!* And just when I was starting to think I was alone in the universe.

 

[jmarquiso]

If the creator of a board game takes allowances for custom rules, then that counts as a rule in and of itself, and thus is it still the same game if you make a few rule changes, if the creator doesn't, and you still do, then is it a similar game, not the same game. Rules are what make chess chess and not checkers, what makes chutes and ladder chutes and ladders, not candyland, and so on, change a rule, it's not the same board game. Anyone can have any rules for any game they want in private sessions at home, that still doesn't mean checkers still won't be checkers if they're playing like chess. Besides, what about if you're playing a board game officially, like in a tournament? You can't change the rules then, where does the variable difficulty come from then?

By your own narrow definition, a tournament is an additional layer of ruleset and therefore not the same game. It is no longer Monopoly, it's Tournament Monopoly.

Tournaments publish their own house rules all of the time. I've been involved in a few of them.

As with Chess - not all people use En Passant for example - but it's an "advanced" rule that changes up the gameplay slightly. For some it's "purer" for others it's not. Historically it's a fairly modern french variation on the game.

 

[jmarquiso]

Making this its own post -

This article -

Spoiler

Staying Power: Rethinking Feedback to Keep Players in the Game [http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4171/staying_power_rethinking_feedback_.php]

uses actual statistics on game completion, which is one of the motivations for designing difficulty. This is just interesting in a way to look at how many consumers are - well - consuming all content.

Personally, I think it's fine if there's an Easy Mode - as much as their are abridged versions of books. These are methods to make things more accessible and consumed by more. You could go several steps further and say that The Iliad is only meant to be read in the original Ancient Greek (and in that, heard as spoken word as mass production of the poem was rather difficult then, and that would make it a lost piece of art since NO ONE SPEAKS ANCIENT GREEK ANYMORE), or the New Testament should only be read in Latin, or more appropriately Aramaic. Becoming a purist doesn't actually help anybody. Did any of these translations - straying away from how they. I've had a teacher friend of mine who got inspired to get his masters in Ancient Greek precisely because he enjoyed the story so much - his thesis project involved his own translation of the poem. Reading an English version abridged in Edith Hamilton's Mythology is what originally inspired him. That's right, reading the poem on "easy mode" inspired him to go to the most effort-involved difficulty level possible - MAKING HIS OWN TRANSLATION.

This is what "easy mode" can do for games as much as 1995 mode in Bioshock: Infinite, or "This is Deus Ex" in Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Now I understand that - in Dark Souls - difficulty is part of the design. But the proposed "easy mode" did involve redesigning the game SPECIFICALLY IN THAT ONE OPTIONAL MODE. It may - in fact - inspire the "casual" player to become more "hardcore" from their original enjoyment in "easy". As many people have in other games.

Anyone playing on easy knows they didn't "really" beat it in a competitive fashion.

Edit: And Edith Hamilton's Mythology is quite possibly the most dumbed down version of the poem I've seen, aside from the film "Troy".

Edit 2: Though Troy had my favorite scene from the poem, that is the between Hector and his son.