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

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Ah, okay gotcha. Though in essence you did, in fact, read a guide. I am not trying to call you a liar or anything, the mimic thing just leads nicely into my next point. People arguing that an easy mode will kill the excitement of a DS game. I disagree based on these thoughts (I won't call them facts, as they are more opinion).

1: There are plenty of environmental hazards in the game, that combined with the enemies make for rather formidable areas. Even making the enemies easier will still lead to plenty of deaths in these areas. Thus creating the sense of accomplishment that you feel when you complete certain challenges. For the people who are looking for an easy mode, these challenges can be just as... well... challenging as what you faced on the normal difficulty.

I just read a few general tips is all, that is far from using a guide.

I would think an easy mode would mainly have more checkpoints than anything. Having to redo whole sections just to get to back to the part where you keep dying is usually the most aggravating part of most hard games.

 

[barbzilla]

Ah, okay gotcha. Though in essence you did, in fact, read a guide. I am not trying to call you a liar or anything, the mimic thing just leads nicely into my next point. People arguing that an easy mode will kill the excitement of a DS game. I disagree based on these thoughts (I won't call them facts, as they are more opinion).

1: There are plenty of environmental hazards in the game, that combined with the enemies make for rather formidable areas. Even making the enemies easier will still lead to plenty of deaths in these areas. Thus creating the sense of accomplishment that you feel when you complete certain challenges. For the people who are looking for an easy mode, these challenges can be just as... well... challenging as what you faced on the normal difficulty.

I just read a few general tips is all, that is far from using a guide.

I would think an easy mode would mainly have more checkpoints than anything. Having to redo whole sections just to get to back to the part where you keep dying is usually the most aggravating part of most hard games.

I wouldn't call it a full on guide either, I didn't mean to imply that. I was only referencing the similarity to getting the tip on an otherwise unavoidable death to the use of a guide to improve the ease of play. I'm sorry if I came off as accusing you of using a guide. Like I said, I don't mean to imply that you lied.

Snip

I also went on to say that those who don't change their reason tend to move forward with circular logic. Moving in circles is your way of avoiding defending your point. When your defense boils down to No no, your just wrong. Re-read my statements, you aren't lending to your credibility.

Ask the same question, get the same answer.
Not sure how it works against my credibility that I am actually consistent.

Because you don't actually answer the question, you only deflect the question to your previous posting. The question gets repeated because it is still there. I suppose saying it lessens your credibility isn't entirely accurate, just the credibility of the answer provided.

As to your previous statement, you are assuming that they are trying to make a mode that someone can playthrough with their eyes closed on a Sunday after noon while taking a casual walk through the park.

Nowhere do I say that.

It's not about making it a cake walk - it's about having to alter MY experience to make easy work.

Simple stat based changes will have almost no impact. It wil only serve to shift perception of difficulty from the enemy to the level design. Once that happens, you can bet your ass you'll get a general moan that the environment needs to be altered as well. Maybe it won't be implemented in DS2, but if the slippery slope that is appealing to mainstream audiences teaches us anything, by DS3, you can bet your bottom dollar the changes will be made.

That is once again, assuming that it will effect your experience. As many people have stated, it is not required that you change anything in the normal mode at all to create an easy mode. It really doesn't matter if they are going to further their complaints about the environment (honestly it doesn't even matter if they complained about the enemies in the first place, as implementing an easy mode is entirely optional). What I am getting at, is that they can in fact make an easy mode without effecting your gameplay experience. Yet you continue to deflect to the idea that they absolutely have to redesign the entire game to make an easy mode. That is why I say you are assuming that the people wanting an easy mode wish it to be a casual walk in the park (I am sure there are a few, but that isn't the point).

All I am really asking of you, is to admit to the fact that it is possible to create an easier version of the game, without effecting your gameplay. I am not asking that you concede to the idea that an easy mode is a good one, I am not trying to turn you into a filthy easy mode advocate. I am just asking that others (besides myself and the few I have added to my friends list at this point) look at this with a truly objective mind. I have concede points to anti-easy mode advocates, just ask RoosterCogburn. I believe that if we can all slow down and be objective about it we can reach a community answer that fits the way we wish it to be implemented (or not), even though in the end it is all a moot point, as FS will do it however they want to.

So in my opinion, cut it off before the cancer takes root.

Yet you still try to vie for the final word. I don't wish cancer on anyone, just an intelligent discourse with like minded people who are able to elaborate on their points, while arguing in an objective and logical reason.

How is Xenoblade Chronicles? (I know its a bit off topic, but no reason we can't be civil about other things)

Good so far. The world is expansive. There are ample side-quests (mostly fetch quests or kill "X" number) but I can forgive it that.
I may be the only person to say this, but I kind of get a FFXII vibe from it (though there aren't gambits). From level design, to mobs, to rare creatures, to abilities, to AI controlled party members it just seems to play in a very similar way (not exact though).

Well I was almost sold, then you brought up FFXII. Though in all honesty 12 wasn't that bad, I just lamented the deviation from the previous style of game (I know, kind of odd that that conversation gets brought up with me on the other end of it ;-P) Does it keep true to the style of the previous Xenogear games, or has it changed up more than just the gameplay? (also is it turn based or real time?)


P.S.
I really am not trying to frustrate you, I just feel like you might be able to elaborate on a common argument I hear used against the easy mode in such a way that I might understand your view point. The issue is, we can't understand each other until we both try to understand the other side (if that makes any sense to you at all).

 

[shadow skill]

I think the big worry is that this is a kind of money grab and that the publisher thinks that they will be able to do epic numbers with this franchise if they change it into something it simply isn't. This doesn't feel like removing fake difficulty or other barriers to mastering mechanics which would let more people play. But then again there are people that like things like execution tests in videogames because it allows them to think they actually accomplished something when it was really their physical ability that got them through it. (See frame counters in the DMC scene for example.) But doesn't it strike people odd that relatively big name franchises are all making changes that people are afraid will destroy the game entirely or have made those changes and flopped miserably lately? NG3 tried to attract a wider audience and failed miserably and then promptly came out with a version of the game that was actually acceptable to fans of the franchise, DMC is set to die off of the developers douchebaggery alone, not to mention the imho boring gameplay, and now Dark Souls might end up trying to do the same thing and falling flat on its' face.

I personally suspect that this whole thing will not turn out well because the original producer is not going to be involved more than anything else.

 

[lapan]

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.

Wait, people actually defend lagstab? And gear boosting...I don't really hate it, but I guess it could make PvP kind of unfair. That hopelessly broken mode.

Oh I have seen entire threads that go on and and on with people saying 'It's in the game so it's not cheating to use it' etc.

I mean okay cheat if you want to but don't act like it's an honest to goodness intended part of the gameplay when it's clearly broken. That's just kidding yourself.

As another comment about the easy mode there is a disturbing pattern of people not wanting to LEARN to do anything in games anymore and that's not in the so distance past. We aren't talking about early 80's here. If you have to beat a boss you figure out a tactic with trial and error I don't see how that is so abhorrent. Unless gaming is just made up of people who want to just hammer A to be awesome now.

Yeah, lagstab IS pretty damn stupid.

Many people don't lag backstab on purpose since on their screen it looked fine. There are some backstabfishing assholes though.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Actually, so long as you're whining at all, you're worthy of my name calling. I don't care if someone else got more time to complain or you never did such things or blah blah blah blah, if you're making a shrill, pointless noise I'm going to say you're making a shrill pointless noise. I'm calling you out on what you are doing and if you can't stand it then cease those actions I am noting (or ignore me, since I'm usually wrong on most things).

Also, no, your fanbase isn't special. No fanbase is special. Everything has fanbases and most of them have whiners and trouble makers. Hell at least DS only complains on a small number of issues. Fanbase for major game development companies have laundry lists of things they complain over.

 

[lapan]

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.

It has exactly 2 encounters that are designed to kill you: the first battle against Seath and the first Battle against Kalameet.

Everything else is foreshadowed.
It teaches you from the tutorial on to be aware of your surroundings. Since you can barely damage the boss at first you will look around and discover the door. Some take a bit longer than others to realize that though.

The drake in the burg appears once before the bridge and the bridge he appears on is scorched by his fire. (funfact: if you avoid the first encounter he doesnt appear at all) Also the first attack only takes a tiny bit of your health, so unless you are already almost dead he won't kill you with it.
Mimics breathe and have a different chain from the rest. The first one appears in a fortress full of traps. The elevator next to it has a giant spot of blood on it to indicate the next trap.

The game is easier than it's hype says, it just has a steep learning curve. It was only marketed as hard with the PC version to cash in on that hype.

 

[barbzilla]

I think the big worry is that this is a kind of money grab and that the publisher thinks that they will be able to do epic numbers with this franchise if they change it into something it simply isn't. This doesn't feel like removing fake difficulty or other barriers to mastering mechanics which would let more people play. But then again there are people that like things like execution tests in videogames because it allows them to think they actually accomplished something when it was really their physical ability that got them through it. (See frame counters in the DMC scene for example.) But doesn't it strike people odd that relatively big name franchises are all making changes that people are afraid will destroy the game entirely or have made those changes and flopped miserably lately? NG3 tried to attract a wider audience and failed miserably and then promptly came out with a version of the game that was actually acceptable to fans of the franchise, DMC is set to die off of the developers douchebaggery alone, not to mention the imho boring gameplay, and now Dark Souls might end up trying to do the same thing and falling flat on its' face.

I personally suspect that this whole thing will not turn out well because the original producer is not going to be involved more than anything else.

You see, this is the reasoning I get behind. If the devs are going in to this as a money grab it won't work. The Souls games have established themselves as difficult games and the community likes that (generally speaking). The people who don't like challenging games aren't likely to play it either way. If it comes out as a money grab the hard core fans (I.E. the ones likely to day one purchase and review it) are going to trash the game on the forums/scoreboards/review sites and the fence buyers will avoid it as a potentially bad purchase. If they go forward with removing knowledge check difficulty and fake difficulty, streamline the gameplay, and ramp up the tactical challenge (as opposed to technical challenge), the fans will love it, it will seem easier (though it isn't, at least from a tactical standpoint), and they will gain new players. Same can be said if they keep the game difficulty the same, streamline the online component (as well as removing some of the knowledge check difficulty), but add a separate easy mode (I recommend reduced enemies and no optional bosses including optional area gear) you will see the same effect. (The removal of said items makes the game easier, but also encourages the players to move up in difficulty. As well as giving players competent of completing the challenge a reason not to try easy mode in the first place).

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.

It has exactly 2 encounters that are designed to kill you: the first battle against Seath and the first Battle against Kalameet.

Everything else is foreshadowed.
It teaches you from the tutorial on to be aware of your surroundings. Since you can barely damage the boss at first you will look around and discover the door. Some take a bit longer than others to realize that though.

The drake in the burg appears once before the bridge and the bridge he appears on is scorched by his fire. (funfact: if you avoid the first encounter he doesnt appear at all) Also the first attack only takes a tiny bit of your health, so unless you are already almost dead he won't kill you with it.
Mimics breathe and have a different chain from the rest. The first one appears in a fortress full of traps. The elevator next to it has a giant spot of blood on it to indicate the next trap.

The game is easier than it's hype says, it just has a steep learning curve. It was only marketed as hard with the PC version to cash in on that hype.

To the uninitiated there are plenty of unavoidable death situations. Many of them are caused by a combination of new enemies and environment, causing a situation where the player was unaware of a special attack that enemy preforms causing an environmental death from falling/traps/ect. The game is rife with artificial difficulty, however it is also filled with a good amount of puristic difficulty. It is the puristic difficulty that generally gives you that sense of accomplishment though. The knowledge check difficulty will often only kill you once or twice, so it isn't hard per say, it is just annoying. This is the wrong kind of difficulty, and one I hope they steer clear of in the future.

 

[lapan]

5: It would ruin multiplayer.
A: No it wouldn't. It would be a simple process of splitting the modes, or just not allowing easy mode to have PVP access. Just take the invasions out of easy mode, and bam.

Exactly. You will be splitting the modes even further, they are very split already (per plattform (PS3, XBOX, PC), rumors are servers are coming back in DaS2 too). Imagine waiting even longer for co-op partners or invasion targets. Unless there is really a lot more players overall it WILL hurt online.

 

[barbzilla]

5: It would ruin multiplayer.
A: No it wouldn't. It would be a simple process of splitting the modes, or just not allowing easy mode to have PVP access. Just take the invasions out of easy mode, and bam.

Exactly. You will be splitting the modes even further, they are very split already (per plattform (PS3, XBOX, PC), rumors are servers are coming back in DaS2 too). Imagine waiting even longer for co-op partners or invasion targets. Unless there is really a lot more players overall it WILL hurt online.

This is actually something I said, so I'll reply. In my opinion easy mode should not have multiplayer. Easy mode in a game like dark souls should be set up as training wheels. A way to get someone who is the flabby, pale, pasty kid (of video game players, not as an actual person) trained up to a semi-fit fighting machine able to take on the challenges of normal mode. Ideally you would have two groups of people who would utilize an easy mode (in my mind, though I'm sure there are more). The people who just want to see the story and the people who just need more time and practice to acclimate to the game itself. The people who just want story mode most likely don't give two flips about multi-player and would be unlikely to participate anyway, the others are not yet up to the level of the twinked out level 12s and 20s running about the burg and wouldn't get past the first bonfire. Either way, not the ideal candidate for pvp or a co-op partner. The idea is to get the interested in the game, and have them move up to normal mode. Though this is purely hypothetical and a product of my mind, so take that as you will. My main point here, is that it doesn't have to interfere with the primary multi-player aspect of the game. An ideal solution solves more than one problem though, and this does. This would increase the number of players you get online in normal mode, mainly as you draw in new players with the easy mode that you would otherwise not have, and then entice them to play on normal mode.

Besides I play on PC and Xbox, and I can tell you that the Online content is a joke. On PC at least 1/2 of the players I encounter in PVP are cheating, anywhere from unlimited divine blessings all the way to full on immortality (with a few even immune to fall damage apparently, as they are still alive after kicking them off ledges). It isn't too much better on the Xbox, I would say at least 1/3 of them are cheating, though it leans more towards infinite items instead of infinite health. These are also the same people that will help you with a boss completely destroying any challenge the boss might have had for you (something many anti-easy mode advocates claim is of major importance). That is assuming you can even manage to invade/be invaded/summon/be summoned without it failing due to GFWL on the PC (not nearly as much of a problem on the xbox, thus my buying the xbox version after I already had it on PC)

 

[lapan]

To the uninitiated there are plenty of unavoidable death situations. Many of them are caused by a combination of new enemies and environment, causing a situation where the player was unaware of a special attack that enemy preforms causing an environmental death from falling/traps/ect. The game is rife with artificial difficulty, however it is also filled with a good amount of puristic difficulty. It is the puristic difficulty that generally gives you that sense of accomplishment though. The knowledge check difficulty will often only kill you once or twice, so it isn't hard per say, it is just annoying. This is the wrong kind of difficulty, and one I hope they steer clear of in the future.

The game teaches you fast to observe an enemy attack pattern. In the very least those scenarious don't sound "unavoidable" to me. Keeping your shield up can avoid 90% of deaths to new enemies. Unless you engage Havel in starting equipment this will help you against almost any situation, thus not unavoidable.

5: It would ruin multiplayer.
A: No it wouldn't. It would be a simple process of splitting the modes, or just not allowing easy mode to have PVP access. Just take the invasions out of easy mode, and bam.

Exactly. You will be splitting the modes even further, they are very split already (per plattform (PS3, XBOX, PC), rumors are servers are coming back in DaS2 too). Imagine waiting even longer for co-op partners or invasion targets. Unless there is really a lot more players overall it WILL hurt online.

This is actually something I said, so I'll reply. In my opinion easy mode should not have multiplayer. Easy mode in a game like dark souls should be set up as training wheels. A way to get someone who is the flabby, pale, pasty kid (of video game players, not as an actual person) trained up to a semi-fit fighting machine able to take on the challenges of normal mode. Ideally you would have two groups of people who would utilize an easy mode (in my mind, though I'm sure there are more). The people who just want to see the story and the people who just need more time and practice to acclimate to the game itself. The people who just want story mode most likely don't give two flips about multi-player and would be unlikely to participate anyway, the others are not yet up to the level of the twinked out level 12s and 20s running about the burg and wouldn't get past the first bonfire. Either way, not the ideal candidate for pvp or a co-op partner. The idea is to get the interested in the game, and have them move up to normal mode. Though this is purely hypothetical and a product of my mind, so take that as you will. My main point here, is that it doesn't have to interfere with the primary multi-player aspect of the game. An ideal solution solves more than one problem though, and this does. This would increase the number of players you get online in normal mode, mainly as you draw in new players with the easy mode that you would otherwise not have, and then entice them to play on normal mode.

Besides I play on PC and Xbox, and I can tell you that the Online content is a joke. On PC at least 1/2 of the players I encounter in PVP are cheating, anywhere from unlimited divine blessings all the way to full on immortality (with a few even immune to fall damage apparently, as they are still alive after kicking them off ledges). It isn't too much better on the Xbox, I would say at least 1/3 of them are cheating, though it leans more towards infinite items instead of infinite health. These are also the same people that will help you with a boss completely destroying any challenge the boss might have had for you (something many anti-easy mode advocates claim is of major importance). That is assuming you can even manage to invade/be invaded/summon/be summoned without it failing due to GFWL on the PC (not nearly as much of a problem on the xbox, thus my buying the xbox version after I already had it on PC)

That would only work out if the actual playerbase grows by a lot. If the percentage of non-online easymode players is too high the rest will suffer from it.

Online needs a lot of tweaks. GFWL is horrible as a plattform an makes connecting to other players even harder than on the other systems. The number of cheaters doesn't seem as high to me as you picture it though. I maybe encountered 4 cheaters total which was an annoyance, but small enough to not ruin multiplayer for me.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

How about this, fix the invasion system. That alone is enough to make me hesitant to reverse hollow because inevitably I will be invaded by someone that is obviously of a higher level with superior equipment (lightning great sword, armor that can only be gotten after Sen's Fortress). If they can fix that so people are more closer in terms of level and equipment then it would actually be fair. For the sake of reference, I have been invaded 4 times, each time I was trying to summon help for some part of the game (only worked once), fail to summon help and get ganked by invader. I have yet been able to kill one of them.

You can just sign out of PSN or Live when you get invaded; the game saves your exact spot, then load your save and you are exactly where you were without enemy respawns as well, That's what I did as I couldn't care less about PvP.

 

[AVATAR_RAGE]

I see both sides of this argument. A lot of fans are scared that the game will be ruined, including a friend of mine who will not shut up about how Dark Souls 2 will break the franchise and it will never be the same again, blah blah blah. Honestly we have saw nothing other than a few articles and a cinematic trailer. So I don't see why people is all up in arms over well an announcement of what will probably be a good game.

The exact same thing happened with Demon Souls though so I am not really surprised.

 

[Colt47]

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.

It has exactly 2 encounters that are designed to kill you: the first battle against Seath and the first Battle against Kalameet.

Everything else is foreshadowed.
It teaches you from the tutorial on to be aware of your surroundings. Since you can barely damage the boss at first you will look around and discover the door. Some take a bit longer than others to realize that though.

The drake in the burg appears once before the bridge and the bridge he appears on is scorched by his fire. (funfact: if you avoid the first encounter he doesnt appear at all) Also the first attack only takes a tiny bit of your health, so unless you are already almost dead he won't kill you with it.
Mimics breathe and have a different chain from the rest. The first one appears in a fortress full of traps. The elevator next to it has a giant spot of blood on it to indicate the next trap.

The game is easier than it's hype says, it just has a steep learning curve. It was only marketed as hard with the PC version to cash in on that hype.

Do any of the enemies before reaching the boss of an area use a similar attack to the boss on the player? When I'm referring to foreshadowing, I'm referring to the actual move set the boss uses, not finding out that a dragon happens to breath fire. It is useful information, just it doesn't say how it will use that in actual combat against the player unless that bridge strafe happens to be how it attacks in the encounter (the boss might do it faster or as part of a combination of attacks, but it does do that exact move). It's like teaching someone the contents of a poker deck and giving them some basic rules on how poker works: The player in question doesn't know exactly what combination the guy teaching him the deck has drawn, but at least he knows that there are 13 cards of each type and how they can be chained together.

This is more of a preference on game design, though. Personally, I believe the creator of Dark Souls went with more of a MTG style of thought where the player knows the rules of the game, but not necessarily the contents of the deck he's playing against. It's still possible to get information from the area before encountering the boss: your example with the drake is kind of like seeing an opponent play a mountain, so at the very least there is some expectation as to what might be used. However, it doesn't necessarily show any mechanics in play before the actual boss encounter, so it's guess work from there.

I'm still buying the game after trying it. Even if it has some parts that I don't like, it's one of the few games I've played in a while that actually understands that there is only a sense of achievement if the challenge in question has a chance to actually defeat the player.

 

[chadachada123]

Do any of the enemies before reaching the boss of an area use a similar attack to the boss on the player? When I'm referring to foreshadowing, I'm referring to the actual move set the boss uses, not finding out that a dragon happens to breath fire. It is useful information, just it doesn't say how it will use that in actual combat against the player unless that bridge strafe happens to be how it attacks in the encounter (the boss might do it faster or as part of a combination of attacks, but it does do that exact move). It's like teaching someone the contents of a poker deck and giving them some basic rules on how poker works: The player in question doesn't know exactly what combination the guy teaching him the deck has drawn, but at least he knows that there are 13 cards of each type and how they can be chained together.

This is more of a preference on game design, though. Personally, I believe the creator of Dark Souls went with more of a MTG style of thought where the player knows the rules of the game, but not necessarily the contents of the deck he's playing against. It's still possible to get information from the area before encountering the boss: your example with the drake is kind of like seeing an opponent play a mountain, so at the very least there is some expectation as to what might be used. However, it doesn't necessarily show any mechanics in play before the actual boss encounter, so it's guess work from there.

Also, quite ironically, I'm still buying the game after trying it anyway. It's got some flaws like every game ever made, but it's a lot of fun.

But nearly every boss fight is not an unavoidable death like you describe at all. Other than the Capra Demon, pretty much every boss has more than enough room to do what you're supposed to do with EVERY new enemy encounter, boss or otherwise:

Back the fuck up.
Chill the fuck out.
And watch the enemy and learn its movements.

If you treat a boss any different from normal enemy encounters, you're going to get killed, obviously. But if you take it slow, most bosses are very realistically beatable on their first encounter just from being aware of your surroundings and not doing anything stupid (like rushing into the fray).

To use your analogy, it'd be like telling someone the basics of card dealing and sticking them in a casino. If they're stupid enough to immediately jump into a table and lay down a bunch of chips, they deserve to lose. If, however, they do the intelligent thing and watch at least a few hands before taking a stab at it, they will fair much, much better.

 

[Colt47]

Do any of the enemies before reaching the boss of an area use a similar attack to the boss on the player? When I'm referring to foreshadowing, I'm referring to the actual move set the boss uses, not finding out that a dragon happens to breath fire. It is useful information, just it doesn't say how it will use that in actual combat against the player unless that bridge strafe happens to be how it attacks in the encounter (the boss might do it faster or as part of a combination of attacks, but it does do that exact move). It's like teaching someone the contents of a poker deck and giving them some basic rules on how poker works: The player in question doesn't know exactly what combination the guy teaching him the deck has drawn, but at least he knows that there are 13 cards of each type and how they can be chained together.

This is more of a preference on game design, though. Personally, I believe the creator of Dark Souls went with more of a MTG style of thought where the player knows the rules of the game, but not necessarily the contents of the deck he's playing against. It's still possible to get information from the area before encountering the boss: your example with the drake is kind of like seeing an opponent play a mountain, so at the very least there is some expectation as to what might be used. However, it doesn't necessarily show any mechanics in play before the actual boss encounter, so it's guess work from there.

Also, quite ironically, I'm still buying the game after trying it anyway. It's got some flaws like every game ever made, but it's a lot of fun.

But nearly every boss fight is not an unavoidable death like you describe at all. Other than the Capra Demon, pretty much every boss has more than enough room to do what you're supposed to do with EVERY new enemy encounter, boss or otherwise:

Back the fuck up.
Chill the fuck out.
And watch the enemy and learn its movements.

If you treat a boss any different from normal enemy encounters, you're going to get killed, obviously. But if you take it slow, most bosses are very realistically beatable on their first encounter just from being aware of your surroundings and not doing anything stupid (like rushing into the fray).

To use your analogy, it'd be like telling someone the basics of card dealing and sticking them in a casino. If they're stupid enough to immediately jump into a table and lay down a bunch of chips, they deserve to lose. If, however, they do the intelligent thing and watch at least a few hands before taking a stab at it, they will fair much, much better.

Just looked back on the comments. I think I had my mind on Demons Souls when I wrote the original post (there were bosses in that game which pretty much were a death sentence on the first go, but obviously they've fixed this in Dark Souls given the comments I'm receiving).

 

[lapan]

Just looked back on the comments. I think I had my mind on Demons Souls when I wrote the original post (there were bosses in that game which pretty much were a death sentence on the first go, but obviously they've fixed this in Dark Souls given the comments I'm receiving).

The average boss is Demon souls was actually easier, however there was a lot more gimmick bosses similar to Dark Souls Bed of Chaos. It's poosible that you mean those. At least the Dragon God actually is hard without getting any hints about what you have to do. He is much less straightforward than Bed of Chaos and also can potentially oneshot you. It took me a while to find out what triggers the dragon gods attacks and that i could destroy those pillars.

 

[barbzilla]

snip

That would only work out if the actual playerbase grows by a lot. If the percentage of non-online easymode players is too high the rest will suffer from it.

Online needs a lot of tweaks. GFWL is horrible as a plattform an makes connecting to other players even harder than on the other systems. The number of cheaters doesn't seem as high to me as you picture it though. I maybe encountered 4 cheaters total which was an annoyance, but small enough to not ruin multiplayer for me.

If the actual playerbase doesn't grow from the easy mode (though I imagine it would gain at least 15%, but that is pure speculation), then it really doesn't matter if it is split. It means the game would continue with what it already has, that is it. So it wouldn't be the fault of the easy mode at that point, it is just the fault of the game dying out (I don't mean the game is bad and dying, only that players are moving on to other games). As it stands now, many people play offline mode anyhow. Of the players I know personally, I know of two that will disconnect their internet to play the game. Many people who are struggling with the game (I.E. people who would benefit from an easy mode), have already turned off the online content (or run around as beef jerky) so they don't have to deal with twinked invaders.

I won't be completely obtuse though, I can see that you might lose a few potential players from online participation. These are the people who would have played online, but didn't want to deal with the normal mode. The thing is, these people would be few and far between. After all, if you can compete competitively in PVP on Dark Souls, you can beat the game on normal. So we cut the easy mode and lose those few, but only so we don't have complaints about the PVP being unfair because easy mode players can get their stuff so easy at lower levels, making twinking even more prevalent.

As for GFWL, I know it is horribad (like I said I switch to the 360 version so I could actually interact online consistently). As for the number of hackers I see, it may be that you don't notice them as easily. Many hackers only use simple things like unlimited stam, unlimited items, or even unlimited spells. They are not all immortal players running about with their obvious hacks on. That isn't to say they are all hackers, and I may be off on my estimates. I am just going off of my last two sessions of pvp in the Burg and Oolacile Township. Out of the 37 fights, 16 of them were hackers. It isn't quite 50%, but its close.