BilltheEmu said:
Demon's Souls was absolutely a niche title, and it was released to a world of gamers who had long been lacking such a title. The result seems to reflect Mr. Carpenter's ideas quite well, in that Demon's Souls created its own sizable audience, which From themselves may not have expected. Dark Souls came along later, and built on that audience.
This is likely the very reason Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are so incredibly precious to those who happen to appreciate them for what they are. Demon's Souls in particular was not intentionally designed to be appreciated by anyone in particular, but if someone does happen to find it to their liking then they will likely appreciate it all the more for it. The ingenuity of actual creativity that hasn't been affected by things like popular demand almost always results in something that is seen as something truly special by those who learn to appreciate it.
Having said that, I fully stand by my opinion that the sudden appearance of "Easy Mode" on the game menu would have literally zero impact on my enjoyment of the game.
Whether the suggested addition of "Easy Mode" to the game would have an impact on your or anyone elses enjoyment of Dark Souls or not is not of the issue here. It is completely besides the point I was trying to make by bringing up Edmund Snow Carpenter's work, for the reasons I will soon state.
It also just so happens that I have in fact explained on several occasions how the sudden appearance of "Easy Mode" potentially could create a massive disconnect between how Dark Souls presents itself to the player and how the player experiences it.
All of us who are fans of Dark Souls have, presumably, completed the game at least once. It's been over a year since the original release, and months since PTDE, so if you're a fan, and you haven't by now, well...
As for the argument about new players not getting the "correct" experience playing on easy? Who cares? I mean, seriously, why does that matter? You cannot apply your argument about games creating an audience to this.
The point I was trying to make is that there often is some notable value in things that are considered to be significant and that preserving them as they are is the responsible thing to do. The issue here is that Dark Souls itself, which I concider to be a creative work of art, is suggested to be altered in some way. By people outside of the audience or inside of it even. There is no need for this since Dark Souls succeeded in exactly what it was set out to do and is appreciated greatly by those who do happen to enjoy it for what it is. People are demanding it to be something it never had the intention of being.
A person has spoken and what they have said has been noted by many to be significant. An audience has been created. While the person that has spoken is not practically speaking accountable to the audience that was created (even less so to people outside of it), it would be incredibly irresponsible of them to take advantage of the audience in any shape or form. This includes any and all deliberate alterations of any aspects of what they have spoken in an attempt to please some specific party. Doing so would, in a sense, make them a hypocrite.
The change in the case of Dark Souls, a video game, would work sligtly differently than in the case of spoken words, but the basic principle still remains the same: if going by the rules Edmund Snow Carpenter has set out for us in
They Became What They Beheld, as artists the persons that spoke have no more right to start addressing themselves to audiencies after they have spoken than they did before they had spoken.
As for the argument about new players not getting the "correct" experience playing on easy? Who cares? I mean, seriously, why does that matter? You cannot apply your argument about games creating an audience to this.
I happen to care very much. It also matters because it is imperative that a creative work is preserved to have the composition it had when it first was published (aside for perhaps fixes). Just because I have already experienced Dark Souls doesn't mean that I should just ignore the repercussions of altering it in some way. I sincerely want any and all people, no matter where and when they live, to have the opportunity to experience any creative works as they were originally. I would also argue that a creative work that doesn't intentionally address any audiences simply doesn't have any responsibility of being made accessible to those that do not belong to any created audiences in the first place.
Steps are already being taken to preserve pieces of literature, movies and music - parts of our culture - in an attempt to make sure that their original composition is never lost. Why not video games? Should we have to admit thay they are not worth preserving in their original form? No, I think many video games are worth preserving for the future, and because of this the integrity of a creative work should in general be left intact for any future people that want to experience it as it was when it was completed.
Thus I believe that all of our concern for the Souls series should be directed toward the future, not the past.
It is just as imperative to prevent possible alterations to Dark Souls, which is an already existing title, if they were to be done for the sole reason of appealing to a wider audience or if these alterations present a very real chance of being in some way harmful to the way Dark Souls presents itself.
It has already been stated that Dark Souls II will be quite different from the previous titles where Miyazaki acted as a director. Watch ENB's latest video [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB0LXzDfLKs]. Other than that I don't have much else to say about Dark Souls II. Hopefully they end up making a game they honestly want to create, not one that they think has the most selling potential.
