I want thm to pull a dick move like old games did and not let you get morew than halfway in on Easy.The Lazy Blacksmith said:
OT: Nah, probably not, I play standard/normal as default anyway on everything.
Poll: Will you ACTUALLY be playing Dark Souls 2 easy mode? (if there is one)
- Thread starter CpT_x_Killsteal
- Start date
Recommended Videos
OT: Nah, probably not, I play standard/normal as default anyway on everything.
Why do you need to take a 'hardline' for this? I can understand your problems with multiplayer, and I agree with your solution to that, but why does it matter to you what other people do? You say that you don't want them to abandon their player base, yet I don't see how they are simply by expanding their audience to people who don't have the time or patience to master the game. Are you saying that you want the developers to cater to you and you only? Because if you are, that seems a little silly. The other thing you said about having a 'badge' seems a little petty as well- a sort of 'oh I can get this but other people can't' thing. Again, why does it matter to you that other people don't achieve the same thing? Is your accomplishment negated because someone else has achieved it an easier way?viranimus said:
I will probably not. I do however know several people who probably will, and am quite happy they get a chance to play such an excellent game. I enjoy the difficulty but I don't think it is what makes the game good.
No, and if there's an easy mode I may not be playing Dark Souls II at all, because it will indicate to me how far they have strayed from what made the first game great ... There are plenty of games that hold your hand and tell you where to go and what to do -- how much do I have to beg for there to be just one more that doesn't?
No because I have patience and know it isnt god of war.What they need to do though is FIX THE FUCKING CAMERA.
I wonder how many times I've said this...
Dark Souls is not a hard game. It's a challenging game. Most "hard" games are defined by how much punishment enemies can take while still slapping the player around like a limp fish. That's not Dark Souls. Dark Souls has challenging combat because practically everything, including the player, will die in two or three hits. There are special enemies and the bosses that are exceptions, but most of them don't respawn after you've killed them. The game is so notorious for its difficulty level because it's every bit as much about knowing your surroundings and abilities, and paying attention to how enemies telegraph their moves as it is just having the perseverance to push through. There is always a way to overcome any spot you might be stuck on, no matter how hopeless it might seem while you're playing it at the time.
So I honestly don't know how they could implement an 'easy' mode outside of just reducing the amount of damage enemies do, because any other ways of making the game easier would completely upend the entire design philosophy that has been behind Demon's/Dark Souls, and would gut the interesting level/monster design.
With that out of the way, if they put in an 'easy' mode that has no impact on a classic Dark Souls mode, then no, I don't see myself using it. But then, I'm not one of the people complaining about how they're thinking about making the game easier to understand/more accessible, either. If these rumors do end up in them destroying the marvelous level design the series has had up to this point, though, then I might take issue.
Dark Souls is not a hard game. It's a challenging game. Most "hard" games are defined by how much punishment enemies can take while still slapping the player around like a limp fish. That's not Dark Souls. Dark Souls has challenging combat because practically everything, including the player, will die in two or three hits. There are special enemies and the bosses that are exceptions, but most of them don't respawn after you've killed them. The game is so notorious for its difficulty level because it's every bit as much about knowing your surroundings and abilities, and paying attention to how enemies telegraph their moves as it is just having the perseverance to push through. There is always a way to overcome any spot you might be stuck on, no matter how hopeless it might seem while you're playing it at the time.
So I honestly don't know how they could implement an 'easy' mode outside of just reducing the amount of damage enemies do, because any other ways of making the game easier would completely upend the entire design philosophy that has been behind Demon's/Dark Souls, and would gut the interesting level/monster design.
With that out of the way, if they put in an 'easy' mode that has no impact on a classic Dark Souls mode, then no, I don't see myself using it. But then, I'm not one of the people complaining about how they're thinking about making the game easier to understand/more accessible, either. If these rumors do end up in them destroying the marvelous level design the series has had up to this point, though, then I might take issue.
Hell no.
The only difficult thing in Demon Souls and Dark Souls was that god damn awful camera, 95% of my deaths was due to that fecking camera moving slightly to the left as I try to navigate along a narrow cliff side/bridge, or in blighttown the camera decided to show me ceiling instead of whats killing me in front. God I hated that damn camera
The only difficult thing in Demon Souls and Dark Souls was that god damn awful camera, 95% of my deaths was due to that fecking camera moving slightly to the left as I try to navigate along a narrow cliff side/bridge, or in blighttown the camera decided to show me ceiling instead of whats killing me in front. God I hated that damn camera
If the normal mode is Dark Souls 2 is going to be similar to Dark Souls, than no. Dark Souls isn't really that hard once you got through the levels once or twice. That and all the bosses have some sort of exploit that's relatively easy to pull off even for a none experienced player. Though, you have to pay attention and be willing to fail to learn about it.
The only ones that don't really have a "cheesy" strategy are the Stray Demon, and the Demon Firesage. Who are both easy if you have A: A shield with high magic resist, or B: High magic resist on your gear. (Yeah, the Firesage attacks with magic, not fire despite his name.)
Haven't tried the DLC, but I'm guessing they all have tricks.
But as an average player there are only two places anymore that give me trouble: Anor Londo's archers (which I'm getting better at), and The home stretch in the tomb of the giants. Both involve going over small ledges with enemies that have a LOT of knockback.
As for an idea about how to handle the difficulty without pissing off the existing player base:
1: All Enemies deal less damage and bosses and non-respawning enemies have their HP reduced, (about 10%-25% on both)
2: Easy players can only play with other Easy players
3: Easy mode players don't have access to boss weapons and special items.
Kind of like what Resident Evil 3 did: Easy: You start with an assault rifle and a large amount of ammo in storage and enemies die easier. However you can't get the parts to upgrade your weapons. Hard: You start with a loaded handgun and nothing else. If you beat Nemesis at certain points he'll drop upgrade parts.
The only ones that don't really have a "cheesy" strategy are the Stray Demon, and the Demon Firesage. Who are both easy if you have A: A shield with high magic resist, or B: High magic resist on your gear. (Yeah, the Firesage attacks with magic, not fire despite his name.)
Asylum Demon and Taurus Demon had the initial drop attacks (Taurus you could do two or 3 and finish the fight without engaging him directly)
Gargoyles you could summon 2 NPCs
Capra you can cheese with jump attacks, provided you survive his initial lunge.
Gaping Dragon you can lure his head slam for free hits. (also 2 NPCs)
Quelaag you could stun lock with arrows, or summon an NPC.
Ceaseless you can kill in 6 hits if you can dodge a single attack.
O&S you can summon an NPC (and its a very common place for co-op).
Sif you can stand under him and not take damage.
Iron Golem you can summon an NPC and watch him fight for you.
Seath has a relatively large deadzone near one of his legs where he can't hit you.
4 kings deal less damage the closer you are
Demon Centipede you can summon an NPC
Bed of Chaos doesn't reset if you die, so you can make that run over and over once you break the orbs outside.
Gwyn can be parried. 2 or 3 parries and he is dead.
Pinwheel you can summon an NPC + he's laughably easy. 3 hits from a decent weapon.
Nito - get close and wail on him. He'll kill his own skeletons. Or just use a holy weapon to kill them before he's in range.
OPTIONAL:
Gwyndolin you can use the cubbyholes on the side to block his arrows and small magic (large magic is easy to avoid)
Priscilla won't initiate combat, and has VERY low health. Hit her with an arrow and you'll know where she is for a while.
Gargoyles you could summon 2 NPCs
Capra you can cheese with jump attacks, provided you survive his initial lunge.
Gaping Dragon you can lure his head slam for free hits. (also 2 NPCs)
Quelaag you could stun lock with arrows, or summon an NPC.
Ceaseless you can kill in 6 hits if you can dodge a single attack.
O&S you can summon an NPC (and its a very common place for co-op).
Sif you can stand under him and not take damage.
Iron Golem you can summon an NPC and watch him fight for you.
Seath has a relatively large deadzone near one of his legs where he can't hit you.
4 kings deal less damage the closer you are
Demon Centipede you can summon an NPC
Bed of Chaos doesn't reset if you die, so you can make that run over and over once you break the orbs outside.
Gwyn can be parried. 2 or 3 parries and he is dead.
Pinwheel you can summon an NPC + he's laughably easy. 3 hits from a decent weapon.
Nito - get close and wail on him. He'll kill his own skeletons. Or just use a holy weapon to kill them before he's in range.
OPTIONAL:
Gwyndolin you can use the cubbyholes on the side to block his arrows and small magic (large magic is easy to avoid)
Priscilla won't initiate combat, and has VERY low health. Hit her with an arrow and you'll know where she is for a while.
Haven't tried the DLC, but I'm guessing they all have tricks.
But as an average player there are only two places anymore that give me trouble: Anor Londo's archers (which I'm getting better at), and The home stretch in the tomb of the giants. Both involve going over small ledges with enemies that have a LOT of knockback.
As for an idea about how to handle the difficulty without pissing off the existing player base:
1: All Enemies deal less damage and bosses and non-respawning enemies have their HP reduced, (about 10%-25% on both)
2: Easy players can only play with other Easy players
3: Easy mode players don't have access to boss weapons and special items.
Kind of like what Resident Evil 3 did: Easy: You start with an assault rifle and a large amount of ammo in storage and enemies die easier. However you can't get the parts to upgrade your weapons. Hard: You start with a loaded handgun and nothing else. If you beat Nemesis at certain points he'll drop upgrade parts.
Most likely not.
Not because I'm against the idea of an easy mode. (I'm sorta on the fence about the idea) But I just like playing games at the default difficult now.
Not because I'm against the idea of an easy mode. (I'm sorta on the fence about the idea) But I just like playing games at the default difficult now.
Depends what it consists of. If 'easy mode' means a tutorial that actually explains what to do, hell yeah. If it takes away any of the actual FUN challenges the game has to offer (like the general toughness of the enemies and obstacle courses, as opposed to the fact I don't know what the fuck I'm meant to be doing) then no. Usually I have no problem playing games on easy mode, but unless they do it right, it could really spoil the fun of Dark Souls.
For reasons I've stated in another thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.396865-Whats-wrong-with-a-game-being-made-for-elitist-Dark-Souls#16170430], no, I would not play an easy Souls game. In as few words as possible: I think making it easy ruins the spirit of the game.
You. You're cool in my book.shrekfan246 said:
No, and I'm discouraged by what Namco and From have said about their plans for Dark Souls 2. I don't enjoy the Souls games purely for the raw challenge, and I never brag about my skills because I have none to speak of--I finished both games by being persistent, not good. I enjoy the series because they take an aesthetic sense I find appealing and a fantasy universes I find interesting and create an uncompromising experience within them. Sure, I have to work at my play if I want to see the experience through to the end, but that's a huge part of the fun. The game world isn't just a challenge for my avatar. It's a challenge for me.
If the gameplay and narrative structure are too oversimplified in Dark Souls 2, I won't buy the game at all. We don't have enough information about it to be able to tell yet, however, so I hope for more encouraging news later.
If the gameplay and narrative structure are too oversimplified in Dark Souls 2, I won't buy the game at all. We don't have enough information about it to be able to tell yet, however, so I hope for more encouraging news later.
The struggle is part of it without it you are just playing a watered down impostor.Vault101 said:
If Dark Souls had an easy mode...that wouldn't make an average game easier to stand. As much as the difficulty made me rage in Dark Souls, I ended up telling the game to fuck off after I'd spent nearly seven hours on the game, and still had no real idea where I was, who I was, and what I was supposed to be doing. There was some mention of Bells during the opening scene, and an Eagle picking me up after I escaped from some prison. So...unless Dark Souls 2 is just generally better, Easy Mode it will be for me (Because fuck grinding through one area over and over again, using all my health potions against three enemies, refilling my health potion, and then having the enemies respawn. That's not difficult, that's fucking bad game design).
You know, I am actually glad you framed it in such a way. Please understand me, taking the "cant we all just get along"-ish stance is not lost on me. I do in fact get the reasoning that there is an ideology of everyone enjoying equally. On some level there is merit to that.Fractral said:
However here is the problem. The more that I think about it, the more I find reason to accept that, Yes it in fact DOES adversely effect me. It robs me of any sense of satisfaction or accomplishment I could derive from the game knowing that those accomplishments, really arent because anyone can do it if they just dial it down to their level.
I accept that perhaps I am skewn by my perspective and my gaming heritage. Growing up we started off with our first goals as being a simple score counter. We would keep playing till we flipped the score or lost interest or pocket change, which ever came first. Then as the age of Nintendo came forth, we were given challenges to master, quests to complete and we took them to task. More often than not we "beat" the games we played. And when you sunk weekends or had to rush through homework/chores just to get another chance to finally overcome the challenge It was an unparalleled feeling to a child. The first time you beat Mike Tyson, or got past the Battle toads speed bikes, Killed Jason Voorheeves or completed the electrified seaweed sewer in TMNT it was a momentary state of exuberant bliss. So I know thats what drove me to play, as did many others my age. It is how we were trained in gaming. That strive to do something hard that your friends couldnt do, to for a brief moment be a champion, and with that moment of win, it drove us to find more, and harder challenges. Again it was how the first generation was indoctrinated toward gaming.
So you see how important having integrity of challenge would be in such a situation. Imagine if you kept trying for weeks to again, Beat Mike Tyson, to talk to your friends about it only to have your bratty kid sister swoop in and tell you about how she did it too and how he was such a push over and how lame the ending was... all because she had access to a toggle switch that made it accessible to her ability? It essentially takes away the reward for rising to a challenge, and in the process gives you no reason to bother pushing your boundaries to see what greater challenges you can overcome.
Here, Just in case this comes off as alien Ill allow someone else to explain essentially the same thing with different examples as a point of cross reference.
(WTG Google for screwing up something else. Start clip at 3:30)
And if it still eludes, perhaps a softer, more aged and wise perspective.
In games nowadays, there is no incentive for the player to play on anything other than easy mode. Honestly If games that consistently presented players with challenges to overcome and not evolved into a rubbery safety coated blob of grey beating you over the helmeted head with the painfully obvious, walking you step by step guiding you every step of the way (even in lauded Sandbox games like Fallout for that matter) removing any possible danger posed by accidentally figuring something out without having to be told, If that type of game were a dime a dozen, absolutely, There would be no argument against allowing souls to try to expand its base by making it more accessible.
However, that is not the gaming landscape we live in. Souls specifically gained its notoriety BECAUSE of its punishing difficulty and the challenges it presented. Given that souls gained such note specifically BECAUSE it was a desired niche that had long been left unattended that it stepped in to sate. So yes, there is a world of difference between having an easy toggle switch and a bare minimum for entry. If someone else had to put forth a fraction of the effort that I did, to receive the same result, then it DOES in fact diminish the value of the effort I put forth and outright eliminates any possibility for sense of accomplishment and discourages me to ever bother trying harder. It is no less unreasonable than to try to expect people with Bachelors and Masters degrees to work as farm hands.
Ill finish this with a personalized example. In my first run through of Dark Souls, I heard a lot of clamor about people complaining about the early difficulty of Capra Demon. Now Souls is known for its "trial and error" approach to things like bosses. I can see where Capra would be a problem fending off multiple targets in a not only tight stairway area, but one that visibility is hindered by overgrowth. To me, in reading these mini fits people would throw about Capra brought massive joy and contentment to me, knowing that I put down Capra demon without first dying to it, all rather by accident, not expecting it to be behind the fog door. Without that commonly shared aggravation by having multiple people encounter the same difficulty, I would have never realized Capra was a problem for others, and I would not have found the satisfaction and sense of accomplishment from it that I did.
So that is why I have to take the hard unpopular stance. To remove a major contributing factor of what made a games popularity and leave those that made it popular BECAUSE of that fact with nothing in return to offset that loss, Or other alternatives to fill that void is not acceptable. To have a company do so leaves me with no choice to voice my contempt and dissatisfaction for such a decision by no longer supporting that product by refusing to purchase it, because they no longer produce what I wanted to play.