Poll: Will you ACTUALLY be playing Dark Souls 2 easy mode? (if there is one)

[Something Amyss]

Hell no. I won't even buy it if they do. I mean, how can I possibly enjoy the game knowing others are playing it differently?

 

[crimson sickle2]

I'm playing on normal (hard) but I don't see why all the hate on an easy mode, some are just at that level.

 

[Calcium]

Hmmm, if there was an in between option I'd choose it. I'm not averse to player choice, but with all games I always avoid difficulties less than normal, unless Normal is so hard that I'm pushed towards easy mode. FTL was one of the best games I've played this year, but without an easy mode there's no way I would have played it as much as I have. The difficulty was too punishing for getting over the learning curve on normal mode, and it still took in excess of 10 hours for me to complete it once on easy.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I don't plan on buying the game so no by default. If I do end up grabbing a copy though and there is an option for easy mode I probably will take it. It's how I generally play games anyway, on easy or normal. Nothing against Dark Souls 2, 1 or, Demon's Souls it's just a series I never got into.

 

[WoW Killer]

But it will to some extent. Simply by designing it to have a the difficulty scaled down will effect how the normal version is designed. The Souls games already scale up in NG+, so they could maybe do it successfully without impacting normal mode, but the mere idea of "we will need to scale it down" will be a factor to every decision. The literally only way adding easy mode wouldn't have any effect is if it is 100% an afterthought not even slightly considered until the game is already complete.

That's not as unreasonable as you make it sound. So long as the main mode is the priority (and I presume it is) then they can get that down first before they even think about options. All they really need to scale the combat is a few stats like HP, attack power, swing speed, and they have these already. Someone mentioned a compass in another topic. I can see how a game without a compass would be designed differently (you need noticeable points of interest in your scenery for the player to navigate). Having both options is easy enough: you design all the levels pretending the compass isn't there, with proper landmarks and architecture to allow you to navigate without one, then for the easy mode you just add the compass over the top. The main mode remains unchanged, because that's what you've designed it all around.

Something a bit different: fast travel in Skyrim. I always mod out the fast travel, because I happen to think the game is a lot more enjoyable without it. But then the world isn't all that well designed for that. You've got carriages, but they only go to a few limited locations. So I run with a few other mods that change up the carriages amongst other things (and I'm still not all that happy with it tbh). In comparison, in Morrowind you had various different transportation types, silt striders, mages guild etc. You could use a combination of these to get to most areas. Some places were purposefully less accessible than others and this was appropriate to the quests etc. Because they didn't have fast travel, they designed the game better around the limited transport they had. Now for the next TES game, they're looking at putting in a hardcore mode with things like food/water (like in New Vegas) and of course a limited fast travel. Now that this is going to be a proper option at the beginning, I'm hoping they'll be able to design the world a bit better with this in mind. It shouldn't be a problem; you design the world first and foremost without fast travel, then you can add it in as an option.

Basically what I'm saying is, yes I get that sometimes different options can change the way you design things, but if you've got a clear priority you should be able to add these things without breaking the main mode.

But if people really want a straight up easy mode (under how it's usually defined. Selectable, scaled, etc) to the game there is one way I think it would be okay. Make an easy Souls game. Call it Souls Lite or something. Hell even have an easy mode to Dark Souls 2 that is a completely separate game. Different levels, different enemies or weaker versions that are clearly distinguished. Basically something akin to Final Fantasy Mystic Quest, which was basically designed as a beginner's Final Fantasy game.

I was actually about to use something like that as an example xD

Imagine something just like that: two versions of the game in different boxes, with one intended for beginners. Now imagine both games coming in the box, on separate discs. Now imagine both being on the same disc, one being a selectable easy mode. It's all the same.

There's the argument that it's all development time that should have gone on the main mode. To that, you've got to appreciate that these accessibility options will no doubt bring in more revenue. In fact, they'll likely allow for more funding to go to the main games. What that certain 'elite' crowd wants is for less people to play the game, which means less money for the developers, which means less money going into making future games in the series.

 

[burningdragoon]

Snipta Claus

Speaking only for myself really, if they made a Souls game meant to be easier along side of the "normal" I would still play both of them. If they made a supplemental easy mode that was a different enough from the main game, I would also still play it.

To go along with the fast travel example: Designing a game around using fast travel is a valid approach. Designing a game where getting around without fast travel is doable if the player wants to is also a valid approach. But designing a game where you don't have any kind of fast travel is still a valid approach.

Some people seem to have trouble accepting that third one is still okay for a game to do. Asking "what's the harm of giving fast travel to those who want it?" is basically saying "I don't care if the developers had a vision of a world without fast travel, it should still have fast travel for those who want it." The other side of "don't tell me how I play the game is wrong" is "don't tell me the game not catering to you is wrong"

Let's make some shaky analogies to books:

What's the harm in adding pictures to within your novel? If the reader doesn't like them, he/she can just not look at them.

-or-

What's the harm in including a summary at the end of each chapter? If the reader doesn't want to read them, he/she doesn't have to.

Or a shaky analogy to movies:

What's the harm in adding an overlay to explain what's happening. If the viewer doesn't like it, he/she can just turn it off

Maybe the harm is that sometimes not being helped out can be a) the point, b) what the creator(s) wanted and c) a good thing.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

I'm surprised that doesn't make any sense. You don't understand how someone can consider the difficulty of a game a big part of their experience with it? There's no way I'm touching easy mode either. I enjoyed the struggle to beat Dark Souls immensely (occasionally in between hating it), it just wouldn't be as fun without it.

People who want to play it on easy mode? Power to you, have fun. I'll just be quietly considering you a wimp

an easy mode that does not affect the core game TAKES NOTHING AWAY FROM HIM....

also wimps? seriously? there could be other reasons..like like of time or whatever

call people wimps for not wanting to do somthing risky, not for not wanting to play a game

Note how this thread specifies if you will be playing it, not if you can't stand the idea of anyone playing it. Given that context all he was saying that there was no way he'd play the easy mode, not that he wouldn't accept it in the game. He could believe that, but nothing from his post suggested it

And the comment about wimps is about as serious as you could be when calling someone one

 

[skywolfblue]

That's the beauty of it: If you make it to, say, bonfire #2 in any given area, you can activate it and if you decide to rest your aching bones there, it will be the one spot you'll 'spawn' from. If you decide that, in case of death expected or unexpected, you want to continue your little stroll and tumble through wicked wonderland from this newest, latest and closest bonfire (aka checkpoint/spawn point/base/flag/vita-chamber), then just simply do as you please, kind sir, woman or beast! If, however, you don't like it here, just die already and go back instantly whence you came from!

And then there's even such a thing as a Homeward Bone. Ooh how you would love to know about those.

The bit about having to do 'a whole section again' when failure grabs you by the spine and sucks your sweet meat off of it might very well be true, but you can still decide to change your stance, your approach, your strategy at any given point in time. Once you find a walk of (gaming) life that suits you well, stick to it. It might carry you all the way to the very end boss, or at least the next couple of hours of play time ahead of you. I know of people who have finished the game without ever caring about, say, parry-riposte. I myself decided in the wonderful poshness of the Anor Londo interiours that parry-riposte would just be such a godsend, my personal little fast-forward button, that I singled out some lonely silver knight and went into Inigo Montoya mode, dying quite a few times before I perfected the parry-riposte timing, learned the full move set of the silver knights and cut down the time to cut down silver knights by an average 95%.

As to your question: If you don't kill anything, you don't get no points/cash/souls/mushrooms, so there is absolutely nothing to lose when you die (in the 'easy' Dark Souls, that is). Bear in mind that dying did have consequences in the first title of the series, Demon's Souls.

So, in a way, Dark Souls was already a new iteration of Demon's Souls with a number of facilitations installed, or some wads of hair and insects removes from your gaming soup.

Once you reach most Bonfires, you'll be able to speed things up considerably anyway. But even before that, reaching a number of bonfire #2s usually means you'll find/activate a shortcut or you'll see that jumping here, walking there, dropping there could actually be your homemade shortcut because you just figured it out yourself.

Oh, and most 'levels' or areas are actually puzzles and mazes themselves, and they would take up but an amazingly tiny footprint from a square mile approach to things.

One level feels like being thrown into a surprise Takeshi's Castle alternate reality, and I had an absolute blast. There's not many games or, say, films that could pull something like this off. Dark Souls did it, with grace, a cheeky smile and just a little nibble at your 'nads.

Brilliant, brilliant game.

If you use Homeward Bone, or walk back to the last bonfire, do enemies respawn? Is it possible to use the item, save at the bonfire, then the next time you die the enemies don't respawn?

 

[Xdeser2]

Thats Funny

Everyones not even going to touch it, so If they made a setting where you do more damage, enemies take more, and poison dosent last as long, who cares as long as theres a "True" difficulty setting and you only play that? Its like complaining about a movie you've never seen and have no intention to watch :/

Well, Im sure im going to get a thousand quotes of backlash ammounting to "Go Home Casual" (Keeping in mind Ive beaten Dark Souls about 3 times with completly diffrient builds and loved the challenge.) I just dont see a problem if Im not even going to play that mode.

 

[Korten12]

If you use Homeward Bone, or walk back to the last bonfire, do enemies respawn? Is it possible to use the item, save at the bonfire, then the next time you die the enemies don't respawn?

The game auto saves nearly every second. If your in the middle of Sen's Fortress, you can quit and then pick up literally exactly where you were standing with all of the enemies still dead.

 

[skywolfblue]

If you use Homeward Bone, or walk back to the last bonfire, do enemies respawn? Is it possible to use the item, save at the bonfire, then the next time you die the enemies don't respawn?

The game auto saves nearly every second. If your in the middle of Sen's Fortress, you can quit and then pick up literally exactly where you were standing with all of the enemies still dead.

So, say you quit, and it saves.

You load the game up, and about 20 seconds later, die. Does the game go all the way back to the bonfire and respawn the whole section? Or only back to where you quit?

So I could use quitting the game to save after every fight and thus not have to lose any progress if I die?

 

[Korten12]

If you use Homeward Bone, or walk back to the last bonfire, do enemies respawn? Is it possible to use the item, save at the bonfire, then the next time you die the enemies don't respawn?

The game auto saves nearly every second. If your in the middle of Sen's Fortress, you can quit and then pick up literally exactly where you were standing with all of the enemies still dead.

So, say you quit, and it saves.

You load the game up, and about 20 seconds later, die. Does the game go all the way back to the bonfire and respawn the whole section? Or only back to where you quit?

So I could use quitting the game to save after every fight and thus not have to lose any progress if I die?

Yes. It goes to the last bonfire when you die. If you were human, you become hollow, if your already hollow then you stay hollow. Your souls also drop where ever you died, but if you can get back to them you can get your souls. However if you die before getting them, then your souls vanish forever.

 

[skywolfblue]

If you use Homeward Bone, or walk back to the last bonfire, do enemies respawn? Is it possible to use the item, save at the bonfire, then the next time you die the enemies don't respawn?

The game auto saves nearly every second. If your in the middle of Sen's Fortress, you can quit and then pick up literally exactly where you were standing with all of the enemies still dead.

So, say you quit, and it saves.

You load the game up, and about 20 seconds later, die. Does the game go all the way back to the bonfire and respawn the whole section? Or only back to where you quit?

So I could use quitting the game to save after every fight and thus not have to lose any progress if I die?

Yes. It goes to the last bonfire when you die. If you were human, you become hollow, if your already hollow then you stay hollow. Your souls also drop where ever you died, but if you can get back to them you can get your souls. However if you die before getting them, then your souls vanish forever.

Yeah, that's what I was afraid of.

 

[Korten12]

If you use Homeward Bone, or walk back to the last bonfire, do enemies respawn? Is it possible to use the item, save at the bonfire, then the next time you die the enemies don't respawn?

The game auto saves nearly every second. If your in the middle of Sen's Fortress, you can quit and then pick up literally exactly where you were standing with all of the enemies still dead.

So, say you quit, and it saves.

You load the game up, and about 20 seconds later, die. Does the game go all the way back to the bonfire and respawn the whole section? Or only back to where you quit?

So I could use quitting the game to save after every fight and thus not have to lose any progress if I die?

Yes. It goes to the last bonfire when you die. If you were human, you become hollow, if your already hollow then you stay hollow. Your souls also drop where ever you died, but if you can get back to them you can get your souls. However if you die before getting them, then your souls vanish forever.

Yeah, that's what I was afraid of.

And removing that for easy mode is literally taking part of the story away. Dying, losing souls, being hallow form is all part of the story, likewise with dropping your Humanity. Removing all of those and your no longer part of the story, your a whole different character.

 

[Vault101]

Yes, that is abundantly clear. It is also clear by virtue of cherry picking what you see as valid and what you wont, you are not going to. You have exhibited you do not want to.

its called not agreeing with you....

ok, if I can try an understand basically what your saying is a different mode goes agaisnt what the game is fundamentelly about and for whatever reason you don't like the fact that somone else plays the same game as you and can still win...

its still bullshit

 

[Nomanslander]

I play Mario for platforming, Skyrim for sid-questing, and FarCry 3 to release tigers on South Pacific pirates to watch hilarity ensue. And when I play Dark Souls, I play it for the grueling difficulty in it.

Why on earth would I play a game for beyond its intended reasons?

 

[Lee Quitt]

I would rather buy the collectors edition, snap the disk and burn the art book than play on some sort of easy mode.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

Nope, and I'll be having a long hard look at the game before I get it, if I do. These developments smell like bullshit to me.

Adding this quote that I stumbled on, totally not mine but for the lulz or however the hell you kids would put it:

Inspired by gamesasylum on Twitter we?ve been thinking of various ways we could improve Dark Souls II without changing the core experience and appeal of the original. We came up with the following list:

gamesasylum ? Duel pistol wielding, slow-mo bullet time.
joetele ? Easy mode, recharging health.
Dookie3000 ? The Flood.
EuclidianBoxes ? Freemium in-game currency purchases, Nintendo?s Super Guide mode, EA Trax with DJ Atomica, Quick Time Events, particularly a dance off.
gamecentralfans ? ?Better with Kinect?, escort quests, onscreen hints and directions, invincibility star with upbeat music, rewind time ability, killstreaks, a talking protagonist, a comedy sidekick.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why games should not be made by committees.