Insane Difficulty: Why You Shouldn't Want Dark Souls to Have an Easy Mode - Insane Difficulty

ID Bot, on 11 September 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

I'm not saying there is. There's really only one part of my post speaking to the semantics.

Quote

THERE ARE NO STATISTICS.

*head explode*

There is a trend of games in general getting easier, but there's absolutely no example of a game that includes an easy mode becoming easier in future iterations because of the presence of an easy mode. All evidence points to the effect of an easy mode being neutral.

philsov, on 11 September 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

No, that's not what I meant. I mean that when companies try to make the game easier in a way that does not compromise or cheapen the experience of the harder mode. This may tie into your baseline difficulty argument, but I'm talking about it being separate as well.

Making something easier without making it stupidly easy is not something I see done correctly too often at all.

In other words, I'm not arguing your point.

ah; that the easy mode would suck rather than the game.

Natch. Apologies.

Edit: I... disagree, from a statistical standpoint. The majority of games that do feature an easy mode haven't nerfed the game to the point where it trivializes the game, nor created such a large gap between Easy and Normal that it's a wall-like abyss that locks people into Easy forever. For example: Devil May Cry, Contras, Wizardry, Civilization series, Fire Emblems. What evidence are you citing of crappy easy modes?

philsov, on 11 September 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

Hmm.. I suppose WoW would be one of them. It's possible to easily carry people in some of the raids post-nerf with appropriate-level gear; It's the baseline being nerfed, but still.

Admittedly, I can't really think of very many off the top of my head, (if I think of any after writing this I'll either edit this post to show them or make a new post) but as for my idea of what a bad easy mode is, it's.. well.. as you said, trivializing the game, but more to the point it's ruining the experience.

For Dark Souls it would be something along the lines of taking away the necessity of knowledge and/or skill.

But, if nothing else, I think that it's this same concept (easy mode making a game piss easy) might be part of the reason why "easy mode" has such a stigma around it.

Edit: The Mass Effect series. You play Mass Effect 2 or 3 on the lowest setting, then play it on Insanity, and there is a huge difference. Not just in enemies health and protection (armor/shields/barrier) but in your play style.

On easy you don't even really have to use cover, like at all. On normal you need (I hesitate to use the word have, because I just know someone's going to link a YT video proving me wrong) to, but these two difficulty modes are pretty simple without using your skills and abilities.

Hardcore you can still go through it without using your abilities, but it's harder.

Insanity if you poke your head out and keep it out while you spray and pray, you die. You need to make good use of your powers and abilities to survive.

I'll admit that Insanity has been in the franchise since the first Mass Effect, but this is a good example of what I mean. Keeping the same feel and the same playstyle throughout all difficulty modes isn't usually done.

Also, the article I saw that reminded me of this (the above is my own statement, it's not copypasta'd from the article) I believe is relevant.

http://www.escapistm...ode-Ruins-Games

Edit 2: No, you're right, it doesn't create that huge, nigh-impassable gap, but I was just talking about the fact that easy in comparison to normal is just... (in my examples, at least) when you are able to completely disregard a mechanic that is build into and lies at the core of a game, in my opinion that's pretty retarded.

zombero, on 11 September 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

That's failure. Their goal is to provide a sense of achievement. If the player makes a decision that the developer can influence that lessens that, the developer has failed to meet the goal- and could have done something about it.

zombero, on 11 September 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

I couldn't disagree more. It's easy to tweak numbers and call it an easy mode, but if you want to provide a good experience you have to carefully rebalance the whole game and QA test that shit, too. This idea of throw an easy / hard mode in there to broaden the appeal without putting effort into is a large part of why they have a bad reputation in the first place. In addition to that, there are ways to adjust the difficulty that DON'T depend on a new mode and the full game rebalancing that it entails, and there's even a system like that present in this game. One that, if improved upon, could be a huge boon to both less skilled players and top players alike.

Advent, on 11 September 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

No, it isn't. The developers' goal is to provide a sense of achievement. The players' choices affect that sense of achievement. If the player makes a choice that detracts from their sense of achievement AND the developer had some input into the decision, the developer failed in some way. It doesn't matter if it was actually too hard and they took it back to the store or if they went to easy mode when they would have gotten more enjoyment from normal mode. Either way, the if the developers' choices impacted the players' ability to have a sense of achievement (stated goal of the product), the developer failed.

The player has free will in both situations, but the developer ALSO had input into the decision.

EpicNameBro, on 11 September 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

Yes, it is. By your logic it is a gun's fault when someone is shot; or more accurately the company who produced the gun. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to say that when someone changes the difficulty in a game it is the developer's fault. When you change the difficulty settings that is your action, not the developers.

Now, if you mean that developer failed in providing an adequate experience for a gamer and this caused them to lean towards changing the difficulty, I may be inclined to agree that some fault does lie with the the developer. But to say that when someone changes the difficulty and cheapens their experience is the fault of the developer is absolutely ludicrous.

Edit: To clarify, you're correct, but if that sense of achievement is the absence of a choice like this, then no.

Your arguments contain too many fallacies for me to have the mental energy to continue. Good luck with the rest of your discussion.

Here's the thing. We've already gathered based on other discussions that challenge is subjective. One man's hard is another man's really easy. So it comes to the question of whether or not it is appropriate to demand that a developer attempt to appeal to everyone, or to continue to trust in the direction a game's designers are going. And once again, people don't ask games (and when they do is fairly rare) that are fairly simple and easy for a hard mode to challenge them. Personally, I am under the camp that not every game is for everybody, and there are plenty of games out there that cater to various levels of skill.

Harbringer, on 11 September 2012 - 06:01 PM, said:

This, I agree with. The only thing I'm saying is that the very notion of "it's the dev's fault if you put it on easy mode" is just flat out outrageous.

The only way the developer has no responsibility for a player's decision is if they have no input in it. I didn't say it is entirely the developers fault (in fact I very specifically stated that it wasn't). But if your decision is influenced by something they did and it doesn't align with their goal, that's a failure on their part. Maybe YOU don't think they should take their input into a player's decisions into consideration, and that's fine. Fromsoft seems to be holding themselves to a different level of responsibility on that front. (and it's not coincidence that the Souls games are hailed with critical acclaim as some of the most rewarding titles of this generation)

Did you ever stop to wonder WHY the current in-game selection is the way it is? What the benefits and drawbacks to it are? How modal selection could be better or worse? Do you even KNOW about the current method and how it works? I'm guessing not... which is exactly why there hasn't been any decent discussion about DARK SOULS in this thread.

I know this is a general gaming site, but I seriously thought people here were actually interested in different types of game mechanics and how they might be a step forward (or backward!) for gaming as a medium. But there has been absolutely no discussion of the actual game mechanics at all (or why they are so broken as to warrant a new difficulty mode).

If you want to believe that adding modal difficulty to a game can't possibly be a bad thing, fine. If you want to believe that developers have to stick to the traditional ways of doing things, that's cool too. If you reject the idea that you can actually control player behavior via OMISSION of elements as well as ADDITION to achieve results more in line with your goals, fine. You can belittle new ideas and ways of doing things as illogical and outrageous all day. Enjoy your box- I'll enjoy games like Dark Souls and BoI that aren't afraid to step out of it.

EpicNameBro, on 11 September 2012 - 11:42 PM, said:

On the topic of game mechanics, I'm not knowledgeable enough about them to make my own argument about them. I'm not one to say I know something when I don't, which is why I said it outright at the beginning.

EpicNameBro, on 11 September 2012 - 11:42 PM, said:

However, more to your point, I'm not saying that they should or should not add it. As a matter of fact, assuming I were saying it should, you can look up a few posts and see I directly contradicted myself. Some games do it good, some games don't do it so good. If you ignore the core element in a game -- the skill -- by putting in easy mode, you do it wrong. When it keeps the core gameplay intact and ramps up, I think it's a good thing.

What I have been saying is to omit a choice from the game period -- as in keeping it static with only one setting (I've heard you say there's a difficulty setting in the menu, but I'm receiving conflicting statements on that) -- is not a good thing by any means. The omission of something is fine as long as something else takes its place. The omission of choice period, I will say again, is one of the reasons I believe FFXIII was received so negatively (and is my main beef with it, to boot). I'm not trying to derail this thread, I'm just using that as an example.

Maybe the developer has some fault in it, but I have much more respect for a developer that gives you a choice -- albeit a poor one, or one they should've thought out more -- than one that gives you no choice at all.

EpicNameBro, on 11 September 2012 - 11:42 PM, said:

I can see you're passionate about this, and in all truthfulness, I respect that.

Now, an alternate option would be... well, give it a hard mode. There is a choice there, regardless of if it's "easier" or not. I know that I, personally, dislike when I'm pigeon-holed into anything, be it the plot, a certain build, or even difficulty. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way.

That being said, I do find Dark Souls' sense of difficulty to be really appealing, honestly. My only beef with it really (aside from the gameplay, but that's part of its difficulty) is the complete and utter randomness of summoning friends into your world. The no communication thing I can let go, I suppose. But I think there needs to be a far less random invite mechanic. I'm not talking about invasions, by the way.

EpicNameBro, on 11 September 2012 - 11:42 PM, said:

I understand these debates get heated, but this is ridiculous. I haven't belittled anyone; quite contrary to your claim, you seem to be the one pushing that cart. The only thing I've done is point out the holes in your logic. If someone speaking objectively against your argument is "belittling" your ideas, then I really have nothing more to say about that. At least, nothing appropriate for this debate. Wait, yes I do.

I would think that you would welcome others' opinions on this topic, especially ones that differ from your own as they provide valuable insight into differing points of view.

From where I'm sitting, you're the one in a box here, belittling the opinions that don't mirror your own.

In order to accurately assess the "difficulty" in Dark Souls it is one game that you really do need extensive experience to debate. I'm not saying that from some sort of pedestal either, but the game differentiates itself in a way that it is too unique to be debated from "here say" and research.

The only thing particularly difficult is learning the game's combat mechanics by reacting to your enemy and understanding basic game-play functions. I do think things like stability and poise and an explanation of damage modifiers should be included in a manual or pause menu.

However, So many games have put many of us in a mindset of see Adversary! destroy adversary! In most modern games we are brainwashed into not needing to give the AI any respect, It was also a relatively foreign concept to me when i got into Dark Souls, to take into account how the enemies were positioned, or taking any sort of visual cues that will alter my strategy.

I think if a game functioned like Dark Souls a few console generations ago it wouldn't have been such an alien concept. Many people advocating for an easier difficulty in the Souls series, want (Dark/Demon Souls) to conform to what is more comfortable and familiar.

An easier difficulty's implementation the way it wouldn't deter from the quality of the series i don't find necessary and here's why...

In future Souls titles i do think there needs to be an optional tutorial that would introduce players to the combat mechanics and explain more of the in depth statistics with your character. Much of the alleged difficulty in Dark Souls comes from being a novice with limited experience when you are dropped into the game world.

When you do that to people that have no understanding for the game when it is so unique, you risk frustrating players into felling the game is "unfair" or "too hard". I say optional because one of the things i particularly was amazed by was my personal sense of the unknown, and both exploration literally from the get-go and learning all the intricacies present in the game.

Many "dare i say" Westernized gamers do not typically have the sort of mindset that From Software caters toward with their games. But at the risk of devaluing the game's achievement and depth i think From Software needs to accept and cherish that their games are reaching worldwide appeal. But they need to make some concessions to make the game more accessible from the get-go.

I wouldn't put it past From Software just giving up, and deciding to include an easier mode for the majority of gamers who either don't have the willingness or patience to "learn". However adding such a thing would only be possible at the expense of part of the "Heart and Soul" of the series. Ill expand on this... Player Skill has very little to do with the difficulty present in Dark Souls, thus in order for a difficulty mode/method to actually make the game easier some of the core combat mechanics would either need to be simplified or become unnecessary.

Their is also in my opinion a brilliant system in place of Summoning Phantoms to assist you at any point in the game. (I think From Software should explain more about this system for the Westernized Crowd more used to the spoonfeeding norm they are used to).

But the system itself creates a subservient Difficulty selection for players to substitute for their personal experience and skill level. You could play nearly the entire game in the shadow of others "literally" if you preferred. The only problematic aspect to that was getting enough Humanity to stay human in order for organic difficulty to assist you. I think this was made far easier after the 1.3 Update of the game, so i can't criticize it beyond not making it clearer.

I may expand on this a bit later but i am out of time and i had many more points to make, Thanks for reading, i tried to keep my opinion out of my argument as much as possible.

Sadly im only Human, not hollow... Bad Jokes aside i have not seen many people make points about an easy mode that would directly correlate to how it would impact Dark Souls, This isn't a generalized discussion.

Which is part of the reason i see EpicNameBro is seeming standoffish and maybe slightly Elitist.

ExpGamer22, on 12 September 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

Well, I never attempted to argue the mechanics in the first place, simply the logic. I could play a game till I'm blue in the face, but that's not going to change an error in critical thinking.

I'm not putting words in your mouth; just putting that out there.

At the end of the day, people will just do what they want and the developer can't really stop it. If I want a rage-inducing challenge, I'll play the game on hard. If I want a easier run, where I feel like I can learn the game at my own pace, I'll play on normal/easy. If the game has one difficulty and nothing else that I feel meets what I would like, I won't play the game. Better to give the player the option to play an easier game than to give them no options at all. Besides, giving a specific game an optional difficulty shouldn't affect you if you can still play on the setting you believe to be the best. I enjoy in my way, you enjoy in yours. It's not always about hard work/challenge for players.

View, on 12 September 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

Play a hand in it? Maybe. But, stop it? Hell no.

Quote

Eh, my angle is more than all games should have an easy mode, so what would grant Dark Souls exemption status?

So far the best I've gotten is that easy mode already exists in the form of summons, which is a poorly explained mechanic that relies on a finite and non-feasibly farmed consumable. If the mechanic were better explained (even in the manual), there wasn't an autosave feature (ie, no burned Humanity), and maybe increased humanity drop rate, I think it'd suffice, personally. It doesn't necessarily have to be modal to be player-chosen. Some sort of fix would need to occur, and whether it's the above or a more typical "everything has less health, deals less damage, and everything costs less" mode is simply a matter of style.

That a player is ignorant of mechanics when the mechanics are either poorly or never explained, in a game that thrives on secrets, and suffers because of that ignorance... is very much of a bad thing. If some of the fun of the game is derived from figuring things out on your own, referring one to a wiki page spoils that experience. And without the wiki page the player can easily be SOL. It's a catch-22. It's a fine line to teeter between explanation and self discovery and one that Dark Souls has failed at, imo.

philsov, on 13 September 2012 - 06:07 AM, said:

I asked Harb about this last night and had it explained more, since I didn't quite catch it when ENB said it. That mechanic does not equate to easy mode at all, it's just getting someone to help you out.

That's probably the one mechanic I can talk about since I did play with a friend of mine.

Nevermind this post, it was just some redundant stuff that everyone knew.

Sumpfie, on 13 September 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

Which destroys the core of the game orders of magnitude worse than traditional easy modes.