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

[danon]

Just outside of the whole debate thing. Would you be so kind to stop to say that implementing a easy mode won't affect you if you don't use it. It's factually wrong and it drives me insane. Implementing a easy mode uses up time and money. You may now resume the debate.

 

[razor343]

All fanbases will have their fair share of whiners. There's no way around it.

Dark Souls, however, does have a rather nasty community. Which isn't to say that there aren't decent, well adjusted people that participate in Dark Souls/Demon's Souls regularly. See: PeevePeeverson, EpicNameBro, jblackmel, OnlyAfro, JerpDoesGames, BarneezyJones, vageta311 and OroborotheNinja. All of them are consistent video uploaders and fairly tolerable people in general.

What about AGermanSpy? How dare you miss out one name from an already quite extensive list? WHO SENT YOU!?

 

[Windcaler]

Here on the escapist, I pretty much had to endure over a year of whining and complaining that came from the Mass Effect fanbase which I am also a part of. Personally, I never felt the ending was that groundbreaking-ly bad to cause such an uproar.

Yay! Good to see another ME fan that didn't think the ending to ME3 was worthy of throwing your console through the tv and jumping through a 3rd story window!

OT: While I certainly wouldn't condone calling any group of fans a bunch of "whiny little twats", I can at least help describe the problem that non-DSers have with DSers.

First and foremost: it's the exact same as the situation with ME3. Just as the ending really didn't deserve the fan backlash that it got, so too does DS not deserve the fan backlash it's getting at the notion of an easy-mode getting tacked on to broaden the game's audience.

There in lies the key: broadening the game's audience. Everyone knows how soul-crushingly difficult Dark Souls is, it's a game that requires an obscene amount of tenacity and grit to struggle through and succeed at. Truly, it really is a badge of honor to be able to say "I Survived Dark Souls!" as a gamer. However, by definition, such a game can only be enjoyed by an elite few. And it's this fact that has bred an elitist mentality in the people that play Dark Souls, because that's the only possible reason they could be upset about the notion of an easy mode being tacked on to the sequel.

Everything the original fans want and crave, everything they love about the game will still be there, it's not going anywhere (from what I've heard thus far). Sooooooooo what's the problem? Everything you want in the game is still going to be available to you, but now the people who "can't pass the test" also get to enjoy all the work and effort the developers put into making the game. Needless to say this broadens the audience and allows for more sales which could, in the long run, lead to more DS sequels and such.

The only reason that current DS fans have to complain is all of a sudden their exclusive club of people able to conquer DS won't be nearly as exclusive. They can still play the game on hard mode, have their bodies and souls crushed 10,000 times over. They'll still be able to be proud of themselves for NOT taking the easy way out, for playing the game as it was originally intended.

Really I've yet to hear a good, valid explination as to why adding in an Easy Mode while the original difficulty is still offered for those who want it is a bad thing. I understand the passion behind the fanbase and I respect that in them. But just like with the ending to ME3, this REALLY isn't something to get upset over. I don't begrudge the complaints or consider them "whiny", but to others they appear as elitists complaining that they'll be losing part of what makes them elite....when in truth that part (DS with regular, brutal difficulty) will still be available to them.

In short: that's why people are complaining about the complaints of the DS fans. To everyone else it comes across as being elitist, since there really is no reason for them to be complaining seeing as how the standard difficulty for which the series is known for will still be available to them. They've lost absolutely nothing except that DS will no longer be nearly as exclusive as it used to be.

Here we have yet another post that seems well thought out and thought provoking but fails to realize what the community has really been saying. Please tell me how many times I have to make the real arguments before it catches on?

The main argument I make against an easy mode being implimented is it screws with the art. Games are art, both legally and socially accepted as such by people, by artists, and even by museums. Dark souls is one such piece of art and the primary artistic method the developers used to convey their expression of discovery and achievement was difficulty. They are quoted as saying "The difficulty is an important tool to create a sense of accomplishment and discovery". These were words that came out of their mouths before Dark souls was released and it shows us, fans and non-fans alike, what their artistic method was and what kind of expression they were trying to give

Now I believe that artistic method is sacrosanct. Unless you were promised something (i.e if you commissioned a work of art and arent happy with the end product) you have no right to demand change. That said, I feel it is also fair to criticize art. If a person can create an "easy" mode in such a way that it provides an equal or greater sense of accomplishment and discovery this argument will not hold any weight. The issue with that is, I see it as an impossible feat. Easy mode has been defined as a difficulty level in which any person can complete it since the early days of the NES and perhaps even before that. However to have a sense of accomplishment there must be a chance for failure. Failure is not dying in the game, failure is putting the game down forever. Walking away and never picking it up again. The chance to fail is part of the difficulty and helps further build a foundation for accomplishment for those that succeed.

The dark souls community accepts and thrives in the artistic method that Fromsoft used. For me it is one piece of the whole that makes a masterpiece. I dont believe you could change the difficulty of dark souls and have the same game, anymore then you could change the Mona Lisa's smile and have the same painting.

Let me talk a little more about what is difficulty. Many people make the argument that reducing damage will be fine for an easy mode but this fails in reality. For us verterns, the people who are really good at the game (and make no mistake there are people that are far more adept at the game then me) we've often used the calamity ring which doubles all damage we recieve. The problem is this doesnt actually make the game harder, its the same dodging, its the same blocking, its the same tactics working for the same bosses. The difference is one screw up usually gets you killed and that isnt increased difficulty. Neither can lesser damage be less difficulty. Less difficulty can only come from redesigning the game. Changing attacks so they're easier to read, taking out unblockable attacks despite their obvious tells, removing enemies despite the world already feeling quite empty. These are the only ways one could make a truely easier dark souls and to do it you would have to rip its guts out and make it a shadow of itself. How can an easy mode provide and equal or greater sense of accomplishment and discovery if an easy mode removes the chance for failure in the process?

Now lets talk about this fallacy that keeps getting thrown around about more accessiblity equals more sales. On paper this makes sense but gaming history has shown it to be completely false. Anytime a game has redesigned itself to target people outside its core audience three problems have occured. 1. The core audience it was targeting becomes disatisfied and leaves. 2. The reinvention never really targets new people, giving a mediocre experience to them and translates into less sales. 3. The franchises are quickly forgotten or slowly die out. How does that saying go? Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it? The argument is just a massive assumption that history has proven wrong

At the end of the day, the problem with this whole debate is the vitriol surrounding the two diametrically opposed philosophies on how games should be done. I personally feel like the majority of posters are just labling the dark souls community as elistist snobs and not listening to the actual arguments were making (exactly what Jim Sterling did). Its also getting to the point where I can just copy and paste the same argument from 10 different threads to say the same thing and quite frankly Im getting tired of saying it but I keep expressing my side of the argument in the vain hope that people will listen to reason

 

[RJ 17]

Snip

I respect your arguments, however they're all based upon an assumption. The assumption of what they intend to do with the easy mode. I could be as you describe it, it could require that the entire game is reworked in which case you will be perfectly justified in your indignation over the whole deal. Or it could be that putting it on Easy Mode means the game is more forgiving. Your timing doesn't have to be absolutely flawless. Yes, taking less damage would likely be assumed as part of the process of making a game easier, but everything I've heard about DS says that that's not what makes the game hard, it's the fact that your execution has to be perfect. Could they not simply tweek Easy Mode so that your execution does NOT have to be perfect?

While I do want to thank you for offering a valid explination of the argument against the easy mode (as I said in my post, I had yet to see one, but then again I haven't been paying very much attention to this issue since I really don't have a dog in the fight), it's based upon an assumption, meaning at the very least all the people issuing this complaints are jumping the gun with their protests. If the game comes out and your worst fears are realized that having an easy mode somehow completely ruins the standard difficulty, that's when you say "Holy Fuck! Fromsoft Destroyed Their Own Game!" and by all means rage on. Until then, you have no true idea how the Easy Mode will be made easier, it could be in a way that has absolutely no baring on the standard difficulty whatsoever, in which case, DS fans were complaining for absolutely no reason.

And please, if it's been announced how they intend to implement the Easy Mode, feel free to show me and I'll happily say "Well I'm full of shit and don't know what I'm talking about." Until then, though, it'll seem to me as though your complaint is based upon an assumption.

As for the game being art, I agree with that. I also agree that fans should respect what the artist does with his or her art. They don't have to like it (ahem, Star Wars prequels) but they should at least respect the fact that the ARTIST is the maker, tthe responsibility of keeping their art viable falls on their shoulders. If they make the right moves they are rewarded, if they make the wrong one's they're left behind. New does not always mean Bad when it comes to art.

As for franchises that change themselves to try and appeal to broader audiences - while that argument is still based upon your assumption that DS2 will be completely changed from DS - there's a difference between doing what DS2 claims to do (keep the authentic experience for those who want it) and what EA is doing with DS3 for example (rip out everything that made the series as close as it could be to a Survival Horror and turn it into a bland, generic 3rd person shooter).

If DS2 is true to it's word about having not changed the core of what made fans of the series enjoy it, then they have truly lost nothing and still have nothing to complain about. All I'm saying is maybe the complaints should wait until the game comes out. Look at the ME3 multiplayer, people bitched and moaned about that pre-launch like it was the coming of the anti-christ...turns out that it was and still is a wildly popular feature for the game.

 

[Tanakh]

-snip-

Humm, not really. Chess and Crocodile Wresting are only unpredictable if you are a newbie, otherwise a look at the board or the situation will allow an experimented person to tell the situation and it's likely outcomes for both sides. Of course, the more complicated the board, the more likely one player will make a missread and create a gap, but not due unpredictability, just because of a mistake. Then once in a couple of decades, maybe more, there will be an unpredictable move made in the world of pros, but that is so rare it really doesn't impact regular chess.

Having to replay a section has indeed nothing to do with difficulty per se, but it does force you to be more focused, creates tension, prevents bruteforcing attempts and helps with the sense of achivement. All psychological elements, but important for this game in particular.

For me difficulty would be divided in 3 parts:

- Variety of the gameplay/enemies: Giant Citizen Kabuto, Kirby games, Planetside 2, Crusader Kings II or Starcraft are good examples. You need to be good in a lot of different roles and against very different enemies to be really good at those games.

- Stuff you need to keep track of: WoW, Amnesia, DotA or Starcraft are good examples, in this games you can't tunnelvision because you need to keep track of the enemy, the map, the terrain, your resources, the cooldowns.

- Actions per minute you need to perform: Super Meat Boy, Guitar Hero, a good Shot Em Up or Starcraft are good examples, they require you to press a lot of buttons very fucking fast and react to the enviroment in a very small window of opportunity.

So yeah, replaying doesn't add to the difficulty, it's there for different reasons and tbh I don't mind it because the intended proposes for it are achived and the gameplay is good enough for me not minding clearing a zone again. Not to mention most of the bosses are close(ish) to a checkpoint and you can reach em quick if you know what you are doing.

Also, i would call dark souls difficult because it ranks well in those 3, but tbh its also easier than any competitive PvP game with a ladder. Even tough i don't think it's a good idea, a savepoint before each boss? Mhee, i wouldn't mind it either; and yeah, the game generally gives you a hint when it's about to kill you because the whole point it's for you NOT TO DIE, but if you do due being in a hurry, sucking ass or just being unprepared, it punishes you, works for me. Still, i would like their fandom to try really hard games (hint hint, to get good at a game with marines in the space), Dark Souls it's fun and forces you to be attentive, it ranks good for a single player game in my book, but it's by no means a hard videogame if you take into account the pvp scene, nor it will take that much to make an easy mode...

 

[V8 Ninja]

snip

Funny as the majority of the arguments from people that hated the mass effect endings I read was due to them not taking into account the choices each player made. As I understand it (didnt play ME3 myself, I boycotted it)the pick an ending room was exactly the opposite of what was promised to them

Yes, the whole "Our Choices Didn't Matter" was certainly the biggest complaint against the ending. However, there are various other arguments against the ending, ranging from arguing that the star child was a Deus Ex Machina to how the scene completely throws away the "It Can Be Done" attitude that permeates the rest of the trilogy. Because of all of those arguments, pissed ME3 fans have reasons as to why they are angry. Moving onto the bigger issue...

In the case of dark souls community you are also wrong. The majority of complaints are because the community feels an easy mode harms the game in one or multiple aspects. If the souls community had so little self control then the various challenge runs would not be nearly as popular as they are. People are constatly trying to think up and complete challenges which are basicly just ways to gimp yourself during a playthrough. You would not see the mass of people doing speed runs, doing base level runs, doing unarmed runs, doing unupgraded equipment runs, etc

...

In dark souls case it does promise incredible challenge and it delivers. An easy mode compromises that promise. That's yet another argument against an easy mode that I have yet to make.

How would adding an easy mode be "Harming" Dark Souls? I've heard countless people say that it would, but I have yet to hear any reasons besides the reason you have specified, and that one is not a good argument because challenge is relative. Some people find Portal to be ridiculously easy while others find it to be frustratingly difficult. Also, the normal and hard difficulties of Dark Souls would still exist and not be altered if an easy mode was added. Your precious game would still exist in an unaltered form.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Are we STILL talking about this? Seriously? Well, I might as well give my two cents.

What is wrong with adding an easy mode? Games like XCOM: Enemy Unknown, Metal Gear Solid 3, Halo, Shadow of the Colossus, ect. have multiple difficulty settings, and no one seems to have a problem with that. (From what I've seen anyway) What the hell is so special about Dark Souls that it can't have an easy mode?

Now, I'm not saying Dark Souls SHOULD have an easy mode. But I certainly wouldn't mind the idea. I just won't choose it as I prefer to play on the default difficulty setting.

What's really sad is that XCOM's Game Hub on Steam is actually fraught with hardcore fans from the UFO Defense days gibbering about how Enemy Unknown is a consolized, unfaithful, lazy and worst of all, casual addition to the series. The purists tend to go "Check out Xenonauts instead! It's fucking hardcore!" while the rest of us go on with our lives and enjoy Firaxis' little gem the way we want to.

All Xenonauts has going for it is that it's a cut-and-paste reproduction of UFO Defense's mechanics. That means excessively large squads, needlessly complex Time Unit management, point for point loadout management and multiple bases.

I consider the two games as varying flavors of the same basic meal. One is slow, ponderous and utterly ruthless, the other one is a bit faster, its tactics are more easily accessed, and redundant elements were excised. It can be ruthless if you want it to, but it doesn't have to be.

 

[scorptatious]

Are we STILL talking about this? Seriously? Well, I might as well give my two cents.

What is wrong with adding an easy mode? Games like XCOM: Enemy Unknown, Metal Gear Solid 3, Halo, Shadow of the Colossus, ect. have multiple difficulty settings, and no one seems to have a problem with that. (From what I've seen anyway) What the hell is so special about Dark Souls that it can't have an easy mode?

Now, I'm not saying Dark Souls SHOULD have an easy mode. But I certainly wouldn't mind the idea. I just won't choose it as I prefer to play on the default difficulty setting.

What's really sad is that XCOM's Game Hub on Steam is actually fraught with hardcore fans from the UFO Defense days gibbering about how Enemy Unknown is a consolized, unfaithful, lazy and worst of all, casual addition to the series. The purists tend to go "Check out Xenonauts instead! It's fucking hardcore!" while the rest of us go on with our lives and enjoy Firaxis' little gem the way we want to.

All Xenonauts has going for it is that it's a cut-and-paste reproduction of UFO Defense's mechanics. That means excessively large squads, needlessly complex Time Unit management, point for point loadout management and multiple bases.

I consider the two games as varying flavors of the same basic meal. One is slow, ponderous and utterly ruthless, the other one is a bit faster, its tactics are more easily accessed, and redundant elements were excised. It can be ruthless if you want it to, but it doesn't have to be.

I actually saw the creator of Xenonauts make a review of XCOM EU. While his review was mostly positive, he constantly talked about the things taken out from the game and talked about how those things will be in his game.

Self-advertising much?

 

[Kleingeier]

The irony is strong in this thread. It's almost overwhelming.

As a DS and From Software enthusiast I don't care if there's an easy option as long as Dark Souls 2 has the option to be harder than Dark Souls. And if you play DS2 on easy mode, I will be making fun of you because I am better than you at the video game.

I personally prefer people who whine about video games over people who whine about whiners, but I also don't see how changing the entire dynamic and point of the game isn't cause to complain from fans, so I guess I'm still an odd-man-out on the ever-passive-aggressive following of The Escapist.

 

[Kleingeier]

I've got the complete reverse impression. Dark Souls players who are really into the game don't play it because it's hard, they play it because they find it interesting and challenging and it has a lot of implied backstory, missable content and is open to any playstyle you decide to adopt. The community has been practically universally helpful in my experience, hardly ever condescending, even to players having trouble with easier sections. They're willing to give time to help those who are willing to put effort in. I would go so far as to say the Dark Souls community is pretty much the most generally knowledgable, helpful community I've come across, possibly as a result of the game itself requiring a higher level of comprehension than other games. I've voiced my opposition to a more straightforward Souls game many times now, but one facet of that could be interpreted as elitist or superior - that a strong commmunity centred around a uniquely deep and challenging game doesn't want their game compromised for the benefit of those who weren't willing to put the effort in before - I find completely understandable.

Admittedly, occasionally you get pricks who've gone through the game on SL10 and just troll the f*** out of new players, but even they bow more often than not.

This, this ENTIRELY.

I've never really seen it as difficult, just different.

The whole 'Prepare to Die' angle isn't about difficulty, because dying is essentially a core mechanic of the game; I know a bunch of peoples on another (music) forum that absolutely love Dark Souls up to the plums, but none of them rag on about difficulty or 'filthy casuals'. In fact the only worry they have for DS2 are the comparisons made to Skyrim, which is understandable, but not down to 'difficulty'.

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

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I actually saw the creator of Xenonauts make a review of XCOM EU. While his review was mostly positive, he constantly talked about the things taken out from the game and talked about how those things will be in his game.

Self-advertising much?

Ouch. Yeah, that's pretty lame. It's mostly just clumsy. Marketing still usually comes complete with a dose of diplomacy and tact. I saw the video, and the guy has neither.

For the sake of being on-topic, though, I'd add that I just don't get the uproar about Dark Souls having an Easy mode. All From Software has to do is keep the hardcore types with their ilk and the Easy Mode players with one another. That way, there's no chances of some obsessed elitist's precious game being "contaminated" by noob cooties after one drops in or invades his game as a Dark Shade.

Games are meant to be played. This idea that some titles should remain the exclusive province of the more skilled players out there is what's detrimental to the industry. It propagates and encourages hate for casual players in competitive circles. Before long, the Dark Souls community earns something like its own take on Aris Baktarians - the idiot who eluded that girls shouldn't be allowed in the competitive circuit for fighters.

The entire issue annoys me. It reminds me of the PGA's dropped monocles at the initial suggestion that women might join the association. The whole "Casuals VS Hardcore" discussion feels like a leftover from a previous age that just refuses to go.

 

[danon]

A lot of people should read up on modal difficulty vs organic difficulty which dark souls has btw.

 

[Kleingeier]

The irony is strong in this thread. It's almost overwhelming.

As a DS and From Software enthusiast I don't care if there's an easy option as long as Dark Souls 2 has the option to be harder than Dark Souls. And if you play DS2 on easy mode, I will be making fun of you because I am better than you at the video game.

And there's the problem. People holding video games in a far more important position than they actually are.

Did I say I'm a better person than someone who plays on easy mode? That playing on easy mode makes them a weak person? Saying I'm better at a video game is nothing more than saying I'm better at a video game. The problem is passive-aggressive projecting in this weird ongoing fanboy/elitist witchhunt in the gaming community.

 

[Legion]

I don't really care what they do as long as the core Souls experience is left unharmed. Want to make it more accessible? Have fun! If they want to add an Easy Mode, sure go for it. As long as it's only an option. Force an Easy Mode down my throat and then we have a problem.

Which is essentially what most people unhappy with easy mode are unhappy about, not that the people who want to criticise them are willing to pay attention to that. It's much more fun to call them whiny and entitled than actually respond to a discussion.

The fans from what I gather, do not object to the game having the option of being easier. They object to the game being fundamentally changed in order to become easier. Their argument is that you cannot simply add on an easy mode, the game would require a significant design shift in order to be made easier, and this would affect the game for everybody, not just those who do not like the challenge.

The real comparison would be to a game such as Mass Effect and Dragon Age. The fans didn't want the game to be essentially changed to appeal to a wider audience in the sequels. The previous games had more RPG elements, whereas the sequels tended to gear more towards action. The original fans didn't care about new players, they just didn't want the series they enjoyed, drastically changed simply to attain a larger audience.

That's not elitism. It's wanting something you enjoy to remain enjoyable for you.

 

[Something Amyss]

An entire year of Mass Effect fans not STFU, and after two weeks of DS fans, I'm hearing this crap.

False equivalence AND loading the numbers. Colour me intrigued.

But seriously, it hasn't just been two weeks. DS fans have been at this for a while. This wasn't the first time an easy (or easier) mode has come up and DS fans have lost their mind. It's not the first time they've lost their minds, period.

I don't even consider Dark Souls to be difficult, just punishing.

The game is essentially a dance routine and failing a step means you need to start the number all over again.

The general lack of direction the game gives you is not a point in its favour. Some will call it "old school" and I guess it's as "old school" as bi-planes and segregation - just because people did something in the past doesn't mean it was a good idea or refined.

Mistakes in the game are just more time consuming than other games so the price of failure is higher. The game doesn't so much have a learning curve as a series of learning locked doors. Once you find the right key for it you repeat the same action again and again.

Maybe rote action and punishment are "true gaming," after all. It was what people pine for, it seems. I have learned that in looking for smarter enemies and better challenges, I've been doing it wrong. I should also, apparently, go back to Modern Warfare and stuff.

Because ponies, you see.

 

[Windcaler]

Gamers of all types tend to get pissed when something they love is taken away from them and there are no other alternatives out there on the market to fill the same gap. Such is the life of a niche gamer when a game or genre they love changes it's format to suit popular trends.

It's not an issue of popular trends taking over niche appeal. It's basic game design to have "Easy, Medium, Hard" difficulty".

Actually that isnt basic game design. Its merely one option used by many designers. Some developers, for whatever reason, shy away from the easy, medium, hard difficulty settings. Specifically in dark souls case there is not difficulty menu option or slider because medium difficulty is the default difficulty already, easy difficulty comes from level ups and upgrading equipment. Hard difficulty comes from various community challenges, those things where you intentionally gimp yourself in one or multiple ways.

The fact that Fromsoft's artistic choice has inspired such a passionate community is a marvel in itself but the fact that the community can participate and challenge others to play the game in a more difficult and engaging fashion speaks for how well their design philosophy works in practice.

OT: When did "Some people are just pricks" vanish from our minds? I'll give you the one and only reason why they don't want an easy mode added to their game: It makes it harder for them to insult and belittle people who don't have the time or patience to train their fingers until a needlessly complicated control scheme almost seems to work.

That's it. Fans don't want an easy mode so they can continue to feel superior and stroke their own ego.

This an attack on the community that I have reported and hope the mods deal with (not likely considering they never dealt with your other personal attacks). Even so Im going to respond with my main objective argument just as I did earlier. Maybe you'll listen to the actual argument this time

The main argument I make against an easy mode being implimented is it screws with the art. Games are art, both legally and socially accepted as such by people, by artists, and even by museums. Dark souls is one such piece of art and the primary artistic method the developers used to convey their expression of discovery and achievement was difficulty. They are quoted as saying "The difficulty is an important tool to create a sense of accomplishment and discovery". These were words that came out of their mouths before Dark souls was released and it shows us, fans and non-fans alike, what their artistic method was and what kind of expression they were trying to give

Now I believe that artistic method is sacrosanct. Unless you were promised something (i.e if you commissioned a work of art and arent happy with the end product) you have no right to demand change. That said, I feel it is also fair to criticize art. If a person can create an "easy" mode in such a way that it provides an equal or greater sense of accomplishment and discovery this argument will not hold any weight. The issue with that is, I see it as an impossible feat. Easy mode has been defined as a difficulty level in which any person can complete it since the early days of the NES and perhaps even before that. However to have a sense of accomplishment there must be a chance for failure. Failure is not dying in the game, failure is putting the game down forever. Walking away and never picking it up again. The chance to fail is part of the difficulty and helps further build a foundation of accomplishment for those that succeed.

The dark souls community accepts and thrives in the artistic method that Fromsoft used. For me it is one piece of the whole that makes a masterpiece. I dont believe you could change the difficulty of dark souls and have the same game, anymore then you could change the Mona Lisa's smile and have the same painting.

Let me talk a little more about what is difficulty. Many people make the argument that reducing damage will be fine for an easy mode but this fails in reality. For us verterns, the people who are really good at the game (and make no mistake there are people that are far more adept at the game then me) we've often used the calamity ring which doubles all damage we recieve. The problem is this doesnt actually make the game harder, its the same dodging, its the same blocking, its the same tactics working for the same bosses. The difference is one screw up usually gets you killed and that isnt increased difficulty. Neither can lesser damage be less difficulty. Less difficulty can only come from redesigning the game. Changing attacks so they're easier to read, taking out unblockable attacks despite their obvious tells, removing enemies despite the world already feeling quite empty. These are the only ways one could make a truely easier dark souls and to do it you would have to rip its guts out and make it a shadow of itself. How can an easy mode provide and equal or greater sense of accomplishment and discovery if an easy mode removes the chance for failure in the process?

Now lets talk about this fallacy that keeps getting thrown around about more accessiblity equals more sales. On paper this makes sense but gaming history has shown it to be completely false. Anytime a game has redesigned itself to target people outside its core audience three problems have occured. 1. The core audience it was targeting becomes disatisfied and leaves. 2. The reinvention never really targets new people, giving a mediocre experience to them and translates into less sales. 3. The franchises are quickly forgotten or slowly die out. How does that saying go? Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it? The argument is just a massive assumption that history has proven wrong

At the end of the day, the problem with this whole debate is the vitriol surrounding the two diametrically opposed philosophies on how games should be done. I personally feel like the majority of posters are just labling the dark souls community as elistist snobs and not listening to the actual arguments were making (exactly what Jim Sterling did). Its also getting to the point where I can just copy and paste the same argument from 10 different threads to say the same thing and quite frankly Im getting tired of saying it but I keep expressing my side of the argument in the vain hope that people will listen to reason

You can stand there and you can talk about how I am an elistist to the core till you are blue in the face but its simply not true. Its misinformation, its a personal attack, and its being a jerk. Exactly what the forum rules state you should not do. The fact is I have an objective argument along with subjective ones no matter what you say or how to try to demonize us my arguments and the arguments of other Dark souls fans still hold weight in this debate.