So, the Dark Souls Community are a bunch of uppity twats... supposedly?

[IronMit]

Gameplay-wise Prince of Persia Warrior Within was the best of the series, the level design was even awesome. However, everything else about the game sucked.

I disagree about Dark Souls, it isn't much of an RPG, it's about the combat first and foremost. I used the same equipment and gear throughout most of the game, I wore some ninja looking clothes the whole game because they looked the coolest (outside of a few areas where I put on stuff like poison and curse resistant clothing). You level up your sword so it does more damage because the enemies now have more health so in reality nothing really changes, you level up just to stay on an even playing field basically. I prefer RPGs to give you new abilities and skills over just better stats because that changes gameplay like say how in Borderlands your character plays totally different when fully leveled than they did at the start of the game.

Warrior within...level design & gameplay was awesome... the soundtrack? the voice acting? the story was decent, few twists. 2 different outcomes, I mean you see some phantom thing...then you turn into it and realise it was you travelling through time. pretty cool for the type of game it is. Every now and again that crazy music starts and the dahaka chases you down.lol

darksouls
the new abilities and moves are up to you. you pick up new pyromancy, sorcery and faith moves to change your approach and gameplay if you want to. It's not dictated by the game..it's up to you.

Rings that give you a certain edge

armour with different weights. resistances &poise that effect combat, rolling and stamina regen. And also how many hits you can take before dieing...some armour may allow you to take 1 or 2 extra hits before death at the expense of the other factor I just mentioned.

some weapons scale with you, some don't. some have resistant enemies some are effective. Different move sets, range with weapons. Do you want a weapon that causes bleeding, or hits through more poise? or has better range...but then do you want to upgrade the stats to wield it at the expense of other stats? a thrusting weapon can be used with the shield up and is better at piercing through armoured enemies, but have a smaller hit box etc etc

if you prefer the other rpg style & mechanics you pointed out then fair enough, but this game does have very relevant rpg mechanics and style that is difficult to ignore even when enjoying a game like borderlands.


edit.
you can block everything in dark souls with a light shield? some attacks would deplete the stamina in my medium shield in one hit. Did you just stand there with your shield up against the capra demon and 2 dogs with a light shield....or stand infront of the gaping dragon? you are over simplifying it.

I had to upgrade my medium shield and stamina and fight havel much much later after the first encounter because one hit would destroy my shield and follow through and kill me. I kept dodging but I would mess up once and die even when not relying on the shield

 

[V8 Ninja]

snip

Why cant you read the dozen other replies Ive made in this thread and others that outline how an easy mode that doesnt touch our game still effects it? Its a fallacy, I know its a fallacy, you know its a fallacy, everyone knows its a fallacy but people keep parroting it as if it will suddenly become true

I don't want to sound selfish, but I'm not going to read what equates to about two dozen pages of someone arguing that a video game should not have a completely optional feature added to it.

 

[Piorn]

Adding an easy mode would only do one thing, break the online play. It means either splitting the already limited matchmaking in half, or putting vastly different skill levels together, potentially boring or overburdening players.

 

[Sylveria]

You know, I didn't have a single negative opinion of this franchise until I came on here and heard fans talking about it.

I think what killed it for me was people trying to push the notion that being good at Dark Souls meant one was "elite". As in, that they were somehow better than other gamers.

I totally understand how players can get enthusiastic about a certain title. After all, Terraria and FTL have pretty well captured all of my free time. But the moment you think that your choice in imaginary video hobby makes you a better person than others, that's when you need to take a step back and reassess your life.

Not one. Not a single person said we were better. I think people think that: "Try playing another game" = lesser gamers when it's not. Some people just aren't made for some games or just not good at that specific one. I suck horribly at Sports games and racing games, I tried to play them but I just sucked.

People really do have an illusion as to what Dark Souls players say. They take things not meant to be insults and then yell at them like they were when it's obvious it's not.

I've seen quite a few threads here of the Dark Souls playerbase saying, essentially, "It's supposed to be hard. If you aren't good enough, go play something else you carebear." It's not people taking what Dark Souls players say out of context or taking it the wrong way. A portion of the DS community IS taking the "It's supposed to be hard, easy mode for the filthy casuals would ruin the game," position.

It's mind blowing, almost as if these people never played a game with an "easy" setting before. "Easy mode" can be something as simple as decreasing the number of enemies and the damage they do. What really blows me away is how DS players place so much of their self worth on the fact they beat that game. Again, not taking stuff wrong or out of context, there is a portion of the base that has stated, clearly, they don't want their achievement lessened by less-hardcore players being able to say they beat it.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

The only thing I don't like about the Dark Souls community is their inability to accept that gear boosting and lagstab kind of ruin the game for those who want to play it properly.

I think the whines about no easy mode is justified though. What the hell is the point people it's hard but it's not THAT hard.

 

[lapan]

snip

Why cant you read the dozen other replies Ive made in this thread and others that outline how an easy mode that doesnt touch our game still effects it? Its a fallacy, I know its a fallacy, you know its a fallacy, everyone knows its a fallacy but people keep parroting it as if it will suddenly become true

I don't want to sound selfish, but I'm not going to read what equates to about two dozen pages of someone arguing that a video game should not have a completely optional feature added to it.

Read the post directly under yours. An easymode will split the online play further. It is already split over several plattforms and will likely have a regional server system like in Demon Souls. Many people fear that the online play will be really hurt by this, both the co-op and pvp.

 

[anthony87]

One thing I find interesting is that I've repeatedly seen people say things like "If you find the game too hard then look at the wiki or check out video walkthroughs or guides". Now this is valid advice but how come it's not frowned upon in the same way that this hypothetical easy mode is? I mean aren't people who use walkthoughs essentially getting a diminished experience too? They've had the hard work done for them and they're just checking off a list of things to do.

So how come that's okay according to some of the fans?

Just to be clear, I'm not decrying people who use walkthroughs or people who'd like an easy mode. Just curious is all.

 

[Colt47]

The risk / reward system of the game does make implementing an easy mode a bit of a mess, though. It's sort of like every time you actually start thinking about how the solutions would work in game, it just doesn't seem to quite work right. Also there is the fear that adding an easy mode would lead to the situation brewing in World of Warcraft. Due to raid finder there's fewer people to do normal mode with due to folks migrating towards the easier content, so the only thing people can do is either go do 10 man normal and hard mode or join the face roll that is 25 man raid finder. This kind of situation in Dark Souls brings about the issue of how to deal with player interactions between easy mode games and normal games.

Personally, I think the design of Dark Souls is a bit flawed on a logic level. A good challenge design would at least introduce the mechanics of the area boss through minions or environmental effects first, so that way when the player reaches the boss they at least know what it can do. Otherwise it's like running a D&D game where the player group is walking through a multi floored dungeon, there's no traps in sight for the last three dozen rooms, and then suddenly there's a trap, the players of course aren't checking for traps since they didn't find any in the last 36 rooms, and they all get annihilated. It's not impromptu learning to get insta-killed by something a person has no reason to believe is there.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

darksouls
the new abilities and moves are up to you. you pick up new pyromancy, sorcery and faith moves to change your approach and gameplay if you want to. It's not dictated by the game..it's up to you.

Rings that give you a certain edge

armour with different weights. resistances &poise that effect combat, rolling and stamina regen. And also how many hits you can take before dieing...some armour may allow you to take 1 or 2 extra hits before death at the expense of the other factor I just mentioned.

some weapons scale with you, some don't. some have resistant enemies some are effective. Different move sets, range with weapons. Do you want a weapon that causes bleeding, or hits through more poise? or has better range...but then do you want to upgrade the stats to wield it at the expense of other stats? a thrusting weapon can be used with the shield up and is better at piercing through armoured enemies, but have a smaller hit box etc etc

if you prefer the other rpg style & mechanics you pointed out then fair enough, but this game does have very relevant rpg mechanics and style that is difficult to ignore even when enjoying a game like borderlands.


edit.
you can block everything in dark souls with a light shield? some attacks would deplete the stamina in my medium shield in one hit. Did you just stand there with your shield up against the capra demon and 2 dogs with a light shield....or stand infront of the gaping dragon? you are over simplifying it.

I had to upgrade my medium shield and stamina and fight havel much much later after the first encounter because one hit would destroy my shield and follow through and kill me. I kept dodging but I would mess up once and die even when not relying on the shield

You can pretty much play any playstyle at the start of Dark Souls, then you just level stats basically. I was a faith and dex based character, I used basically 2 swords all game (Scimitar then the Iaito when I got that), I leveled them up and that was it, I got Quelaag's Furysword just to fool around with it. Each weapon has a slightly different power attack or whatever, but you don't need to use those attacks anyways so I just went with the katana that had the cooler looking move set. There wasn't many exciting faith spells that really changed gameplay, the lightning spell was always the best, and then I got a newer stronger version of it. I dabbled with pyromacy and leveled the Flame since it wasn't stat-based and I never found the newer fire spells much different other than just being stronger than the old fire spells, the Iron Flesh spell was already nerfed when I played the game.

The rings are probably the best items in the game.

Yeah, I could block basically everything with my light shield (I remember using the Spider Shield most of the game). I'm sure there were a select few attacks from a select few enemies that I couldn't block but I expected that I wouldn't be able to block the attacks of the big and strong normal enemies and bosses (like Quelaag), and I could for the most part. I could even block multi-hit combos from strong enemies like the knights. The Capra Demon was probably the hardest boss due to the in-closed area and the dogs. Once I killed the dogs, the Capra Demon was easy. I don't think I went close to the Gaping Dragon because it was spewing stuff that I didn't know what it was and didn't want to find out. The giant wolf was probably the best boss fight for me because I went in (without knowing it at the time) underleveled with not-so-great weapons and gear so I really needed to learn the attack patterns as the only thing that was damaging it well was my lightning spear faith spell, and I only had enough time to do that spell after one specific attack chain. I believe I only upgraded my shield to level 5 the whole game. Yeah, you (or I) couldn't block Havel during the first encounter because you weren't supposed to be able to as his stats were way above yours at that time. Enemies like that is the game saying, "Hey, you're not supposed to go that way yet." Same thing with those skeletons right next to the starting area.

I feel like my character gets more powerful when I get abilities and skills. I don't feel powerful say getting my strength to 99 because the stat just went up and the enemies' stats went up as well so fighting endgame enemies has the same feel as the introductory enemies. RPGs that mainly level stats (like many JRPGs) just don't make me feel like my character is getting stronger, I level just because the enemies up ahead are a higher level and I can't beat them until I get my stats up. Whereas in Borderlands, I level to get new skills like my Maya in Borderlands 2 has immunity to bullets due to a skill and a class mod, which is awesome.

 

[burningdragoon]

One thing I find interesting is that I've repeatedly seen people say things like "If you find the game too hard then look at the wiki or check out video walkthroughs or guides". Now this is valid advice but how come it's not frowned upon in the same way that this hypothetical easy mode is? I mean aren't people who use walkthoughs essentially getting a diminished experience too? They've had the hard work done for them and they're just checking off a list of things to do.

So how come that's okay according to some of the fans?

Just to be clear, I'm not decrying people who use walkthroughs or people who'd like an easy mode. Just curious is all.

For one, the Souls games are already designed with the playerbase helping each other out in mind. And most of the playerbase wants to help each other/others with the game.

 

[Bertylicious]

Personally I blame America. America is a country where people occupy polar positions and where compromise, consesnus, is regarded as failure and/or defeat.

Though China is also the same, now that I think about it. Also Russia. And Poland. Eastern Europe generally. Also the French. Australia too, they're very keen on adverserialism. South Africa. Africa generally.

Brazillians are generally very keen to find middle ground though, also they have excellent weather. If it weren't for all the murder and corruption I'd say they were the best country, but they do so it's still the UK for the 3 months that it is inhabitable.

Wait, what were we talking about again?

 

[Pink Gregory]

Lol dying is a core mechanic of the game because it happens so often because of the difficulty...

Yeah, but it's designed that way; ie dying is a core mechanic in the way that it's expected, that it's not an instant game-over, that the player accepts that they are likely to 'die' and perhaps take that into consideration when they're deciding where to go and when.

Really the closest comparable 'difficulty' is in platformers in which there are no 'lives'. That's a horribly mangled comparison though, and enjoying that kind of hinges upon the kind of player; for example, I don't have a problem with fighting the same enemies again because I enjoy the combat of DS and I like trying out new weapons/sorceries/miracles that I may have come across.

 

[Pink Gregory]

One thing I find interesting is that I've repeatedly seen people say things like "If you find the game too hard then look at the wiki or check out video walkthroughs or guides". Now this is valid advice but how come it's not frowned upon in the same way that this hypothetical easy mode is? I mean aren't people who use walkthoughs essentially getting a diminished experience too? They've had the hard work done for them and they're just checking off a list of things to do.

So how come that's okay according to some of the fans?

Just to be clear, I'm not decrying people who use walkthroughs or people who'd like an easy mode. Just curious is all.

For one, the Souls games are already designed with the playerbase helping each other out in mind. And most of the playerbase wants to help each other/others with the game.

This is true; hell the limited edition came with a downloadable strategy guide; although I don't know how much was contained therein, not having looked at it.

I didn't need to use it, because of the community helping out.

 

[V8 Ninja]

snip

I don't want to sound selfish, but I'm not going to read what equates to about two dozen pages of someone arguing that a video game should not have a completely optional feature added to it.

Read the post directly under yours. An easymode will split the online play further. It is already split over several plattforms and will likely have a regional server system like in Demon Souls. Many people fear that the online play will be really hurt by this, both the co-op and pvp.

That is a fair enough argument.

 

[Church185]

Realistically the easy mode shouldn't affect anyone, It is a separate mode that does not affect anyone that doesn't play it, at worst you have to clarify what mode you beat it on to, do whatever you do for stuff like this. Having that easy mode so the developer and publisher can make more profit off the game really shouldn't be causing as much of a stir as it is. And if they make enough money maybe they will make more later on, Rather than stopping at game number two or one, like so many other games that tried to appeal to just the "Elite" or "Hardcore" Market.

Though, I will agree that changes to appeal to more people are not always a good thing..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perimeter_%28video_game%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perimeter_2:_New_Earth

You forgot to mention Ninja Gaiden 3 my good man.

I'm anti-easy mode, but those are arguments that I can agree with. As long as "being more accessible" isn't a detriment to the quality of the game as a whole, then it should see the light of day. But, if the quality of the game suffers, just for potential profit, then I'm going to have to abandon ship, like I did Ninja Gaiden.

Ahh, look at me being a whiny elitist.

 

[burningdragoon]

To OP: Your tone does not really help your point.

To the unavoidable discussion:

1. Designing a Souls game with modal difficulty will have an effect. It may be small or big, good or bad, but it will be there. Most people who are really into the Souls games don't see a way to implement an easy mode that won't have a negative effect on their experience. Absolute best case with modal difficulty, still leaves the fact that time spent on making the game scale-able is time that could have been spent on something that people who don't want easy mode would have probably preferred.

2. The Souls games are some of the only recent, fairly big-named games out where many of the mechanics, including the difficulty and dying, are a part of the game's setting and story. Modal difficulty is effectively changing that. The world of Dark Souls is cold and unforgiving. It doesn't care about you, your struggle, your family, your likes and dislikes. It doesn't even care about your time. Adding a switch that can make things easier takes all that away. If you think that would a good thing, then fine, but why take that away from people who like it being there?

3. If you think modal difficulty is the only way to make the Souls games (or any game) more accessible or "easier", then you're at best a little too close-minded about game design and at worst not very smart.

4. "What's wrong with options?" What's wrong with being deprived of optionswhich isn't even true. You have plenty of options. by design if you aren't forced to play it?

5. When I (and probably many others) say "this game is not for you" I'm not saying "you suck/are a filthy casual/etc" I'm saying "this game is not for you." It's the same as not liking the first person perspective that much and not having very twitchy reflexes means many FPS games are not for me or how not liking being rushed in making decisions and not being very skilled with a mouse+keyboard means many RTS games aren't for me. Games not being for you is not something to be ashamed of nor is it supposed to be an insult. There are games out there for almost everybody. If you find one that doesn't appeal to you for some reason, then find one that does.

 

[Colt47]

One thing I find interesting is that I've repeatedly seen people say things like "If you find the game too hard then look at the wiki or check out video walkthroughs or guides". Now this is valid advice but how come it's not frowned upon in the same way that this hypothetical easy mode is? I mean aren't people who use walkthoughs essentially getting a diminished experience too? They've had the hard work done for them and they're just checking off a list of things to do.

So how come that's okay according to some of the fans?

Just to be clear, I'm not decrying people who use walkthroughs or people who'd like an easy mode. Just curious is all.

For one, the Souls games are already designed with the playerbase helping each other out in mind. And most of the playerbase wants to help each other/others with the game.

This is true; hell the limited edition came with a downloadable strategy guide; although I don't know how much was contained therein, not having looked at it.

I didn't need to use it, because of the community helping out.

Poor game design is the issue. Dark Souls has a number of unavoidable death situations that have little to no foreshadowing. In order to make this look like a strength the marketing team decided to pitch the game as exceptionally difficult and that players should expect to die. Needless to say, a good number of people took it line and sinker.

It's actually pretty easy to recreate a facsimile of the situation in a pen and paper RPG like D&D. Just make a large dungeon and have a bunch of rooms with no traps. Then have one lone room with a trap that can kill the entire party. It's the same principle. Also, infinite lives is like a juryrig solution.

 

[Church185]

For anyone that doesn't know, Miyazaki (the guy to blame for leading the design team that made the games they way they are) won't be at the helm for Dark Souls II. While I lament the loss, and fear for what it might mean for the series, the game is still pretty far away and there is no way to be certain if this will add to the game or be a detriment.

It was a decision made by the producer, not the developer, which leads me to believe it may be a profit based decision (dons tinfoil hat).

Sauce -> http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/12/17/on-the-edge-dark-souls-2-article-and-its-foreboding-forecast/

 

[Brutal Peanut]

I actually haven't noticed this mode vs. mode at all - maybe I just need to pay attention more. I doubt they are any worse than some of the Eve players I've talked to - talk about pretentious. I don't really see the point of an 'easy mode' being made. Part of me feels like it is a detraction from the original design purely for added financial gain. It can be a slippery slope from there.

Then again, another part of me feels that as long as it's a separate mode, doesn't detract, and you aren't forced to play it then I don't see a huge problem with it. So obviously I'm torn, but I still don't understand some of the rage which is being generated by this. Then again, I'm not really part of a 'community hive-mind'(which is how it seems to be described here..)

,...................................that I am aware of.