[Archael]

EpicNameBro explains why Dark Souls doesn't need an Easy Mode and discusses related opinion pieces on the internet.



Click here to view the article

[zombero]

I decided to check out this vid because it's very relevant to me personally. For one, people frequently request an easy mode for my game Soul Shepherd. For two, I also spend a lot of time creating new difficulty settings for games (in the form of creating a Hard mode).

While I think your vid does a good job laying out reasons to play Demon Souls on Normal, rather than on an Easy mode, should one come to exist, I don't feel very convinced of the merits of not having an Easy mode. I empathize strongly with the position. A part of me wants to coerce other players into more challenging experiences, and to exclude from communities those who can't hack it, so that their opinions can't cheapen my experience. But the fact is some players are just less capable than others, due to their personal gaming history, genetics, or what have you, and an Easy mode for them just might give them the same experience that I can have on Normal. You address this point in your vid, basically saying you would be happy to give -only- those players an Easy mode, but that you still wouldn't want to give everyone an Easy mode. But since you acknowledge usefulness in having an Easy mode, the question is what is the usefulness in not having one? To this, you give several arguments:

An Easy mode deviates from the game's intended experience: Well, technically if the designers include an Easy mode, it doesn't, but in this specific case we're talking about adding an Easy mode after the fact, so you could call it a bit of a special case. Anyway... would you still regard the game's intended experience in such sacred regard if the designers were talking about adding a new Hard mode to the game? While there are many changes you could make to a game that *do* disrupt its design, I don't find a difficulty setting to be one of them. The reason for this is the difficulty of the *actual experience* depends on a combination of the player's abilities and the difficulty level. If I wanted to give the same, intended experience to a novice gamer and and seasoned veteran, I would need two different difficulty settings to achieve this. The two versions of the game would be almost entirely the same, most likely enemies would just deal less damage in one version than the other, allowing for more mistakes.

The existence of an Easy mode cheapens the experience of those playing on Normal mode: Ideally, Normal and Easy modes shouldn't interact at all. Once you choose one difficulty, you should have to restart the game to switch to another. I don't really agree with difficulty settings that function any other way. Under these conditions, I don't see how one affects the other. If you beat Demon Souls Easy, you still haven't beaten Demon Souls Normal. The option is there to play an easier game, but of course that option is there. Afterall, you could be playing Final Fantasy 12 instead of Demon Souls. Easy and Normal are basically different games. Would it change your opinions if they were sold separately? What if Easy mode had a different game title?

Blech, I got interrupted so many times writing this that I'm not sure if there were other arguments I wanted to address, so that will have to do for now. The main reason I felt compelled to argue against the idea that games shouldn't have an easy mode is because I wish all the commercial RPGs had a *hard* mode. And whether or not this would count as adding an easy mode is just kind of an arbitrary matter of perspective. I would gladly let the scant few challenging RPGs have a hard mode if it meant the overwhelming majority of easy RPGs would have a setting that I could enjoy.

[auraplatonic]

zombero, on 10 September 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

I decided to check out this vid because it's very relevant to me personally. For one, people frequently request an easy mode for my game Soul Shepherd. For two, I also spend a lot of time creating new difficulty settings for games (in the form of creating a Hard mode).

While I think your vid does a good job laying out reasons to play Demon Souls on Normal, rather than on an Easy mode, should one come to exist, I don't feel very convinced of the merits of not having an Easy mode. I empathize strongly with the position. A part of me wants to coerce other players into more challenging experiences, and to exclude from communities those who can't hack it, so that their opinions can't cheapen my experience. But the fact is some players are just less capable than others, due to their personal gaming history, genetics, or what have you, and an Easy mode for them just might give them the same experience that I can have on Normal. You address this point in your vid, basically saying you would be happy to give -only- those players an Easy mode, but that you still wouldn't want to give everyone an Easy mode. But since you acknowledge usefulness in having an Easy mode, the question is what is the usefulness in not having one? To this, you give several arguments:

An Easy mode deviates from the game's intended experience: Well, technically if the designers include an Easy mode, it doesn't, but in this specific case we're talking about adding an Easy mode after the fact, so you could call it a bit of a special case. Anyway... would you still regard the game's intended experience in such sacred regard if the designers were talking about adding a new Hard mode to the game? While there are many changes you could make to a game that *do* disrupt its design, I don't find a difficulty setting to be one of them. The reason for this is the difficulty of the *actual experience* depends on a combination of the player's abilities and the difficulty level. If I wanted to give the same, intended experience to a novice gamer and and seasoned veteran, I would need two different difficulty settings to achieve this. The two versions of the game would be almost entirely the same, most likely enemies would just deal less damage in one version than the other, allowing for more mistakes.

The existence of an Easy mode cheapens the experience of those playing on Normal mode: Ideally, Normal and Easy modes shouldn't interact at all. Once you choose one difficulty, you should have to restart the game to switch to another. I don't really agree with difficulty settings that function any other way. Under these conditions, I don't see how one affects the other. If you beat Demon Souls Easy, you still haven't beaten Demon Souls Normal. The option is there to play an easier game, but of course that option is there. Afterall, you could be playing Final Fantasy 12 instead of Demon Souls. Easy and Normal are basically different games. Would it change your opinions if they were sold separately? What if Easy mode had a different game title?

Blech, I got interrupted so many times writing this that I'm not sure if there were other arguments I wanted to address, so that will have to do for now. The main reason I felt compelled to argue against the idea that games shouldn't have an easy mode is because I wish all the commercial RPGs had a *hard* mode. And whether or not this would count as adding an easy mode is just kind of an arbitrary matter of perspective. I would gladly let the scant few challenging RPGs have a hard mode if it meant the overwhelming majority of easy RPGs would have a setting that I could enjoy.

I have not played the game but I have seen and heard enough about it to think that the only way to make a truly successful easy mode would be to make an experience that would be very different then the original mode. To be good at this game you actually have to be a good player and not get RNG lucky so Easy mode in this case would be something along the lines of nerfing enemies to a point of the player not having to use much tactics at all because if they had to and were not successful it would be "too hard". This is one of those games I would think that people who believed in "fake" difficulty would like because it seems very skill based and you can only go far in the game if you are good at it.

I understand the content experience argument because Blizzard makes the same one but I truly think that this is a game that the player should be able to earn their stripes playing.

[zombero]

I think they could lower enemy damage 20 or 30% in Easy mode and the game would still need to be played in much the same way, there would just be more room for error. Granted, it's highly unlikely that an Easy mode would be that subtle, and you may be right that what they would actually put out would detract highly from the Demon Souls experience. But it wouldn't detract from Normal mode's Demon Souls experience. And I don't understand the reasoning that it would. I get the author's point from the analogy where the restaurant specializing in pickles, and how you should give something a chance to impress you. And I agree that people should choose to play on Normal before considering Easy. But once you've tried the pickles, that restaurant shouldn't force you to eat them if you still don't like it.

[philsov]

Zombero pretty much covers what I'd say; different players have different skill levels so it's perfectly reasonable to acknowledge that someone playing the game, even on easy, will have a more challenging experience than an average player rocking the game on normal. And because the two are in separate and non-interchangeable tracks, easy cannot by definition cheapen normal.

The 1up article references easy and Legendary Halo, which I think is a good parallel. I can cite D3 as similar, which is probably more familiar with the forumites here -- anyone with a pulse can beat D3 on Normal. Does this make Inferno any more paletteable? Any less rewarding? Anyone?

Regarding some more direct responses:

- Almost all action games reward the player with a sense of accomplishment, discovery, lore, equipment, etc via a means of difficultly. I don't hold Demon Souls into a special category that separates it from, say, the Devil May Cry series, Monster Hunter, or Mario (!).

- Easy mode does not necessarily mean no death, no risk, and no fear of failure. That is putting the cart before the horse.

- The pickle analogy where the chef knows more than the orderer is a flawed one, and either you misunderstood or I didn't clarify well enough. The nice thing about most restaurants and fast food joints with variables IS the choice. Claiming I know everything about fun is a very false.

That the dev is forcing the player into a difficulty assumes that the dev knows more than the player. Not that the dev is absolute and knows everything about fun. And the opposite is true. It's not that the player always knows what is fun, it's that they have a better idea of what they find fun over a stranger. That a player stays within their given comfort zone [of easy] is the fault of the player. It's the equivalent of always ordering a hamburger regardless of whatever food specialty place you're present at. With food and music in particular, I try a LOT of shit out. If I can't pronounce it, that's the thing I'm ordering. But that's the thing -- there is a menu with choices in the first place. I can pick if I want something I can't pronounce or a hamburger. And I'm happier because it is my choice, even if I order what would've been brought out to me anyways.

A place that specializes in pickles having a pickle-less item on the menu does not mean the pickle-filled dishes are of any less quality. It's not like the red wine supply seeps into the white wine supply, and when I order white wine it's tainted with the stench of filthy, room temp casuals.

- A general sentiment I wish to address at the expense of looking like some hypersensitive douche who belongs on tumblr -- the term rage quitting is part of the problem. It's the equivalent of going U MAD? U MAD? U MAD? U MAD? until between the original problem your beration that they inevitably become mad. By labeling people who want easy mode as those who are easily upset, lacking patience, lacking skill, or lacking creativity, there is no way you can see their side rationally because you already think they are miles beneath you. The point is, they are not having fun and wish to have fun within the confines of the game. So long as this occurs without a normal playthrough needing to be altered, if the devs wished to do so they have my full support.

~

Either way, this is nothing but speculation and it's exactly if and how much nerfing occurs on whether or not easy mode will strip the game of its core, or keep the core intact and simply make the game experience more palettable for more people -- who, after beating easy and getting a grip on many of the mechanics, will happily tackle normal when they otherwise never would have. Obviously I'm in the latter and optimistic group.

For example, a boss with reduced health -- there's less opportunities for screw up. You still need to roll/dodge/flee as necessary, but doing this so they need to be attacked only 15 times instead of 20 does not destroy the core of the game. It's still not hand-holding, you still need to experiment or ask around and try various methods -- but once it's down to simple execution, reducing the length of execution required, by ENB's omission the core is intact because the "content" of the game has already occurred.

[SakuyaP]

If they ever make an Easy Mode, boss health adjustments are better than damage adjustments. Why? Because you still need common sense on when to attack.

The thing is, you can actually compare Dark Souls with Monster Hunter. It's not in its own special place. MH doesn't hand hold you, but the biggest difference between DkS and MH is there is a rather informative (AND OPTIONAL) tutorial for MH, which gives new players a sense of direction. They're still both just as hard for new players (i.e. me dying to Rathalos a bazillion times, he was my O&S) but MH empowers the player with enough information to make sound decisions. What does DkS tell you? Movement controls... They don't tell you what shield stability does, they don't tell you about dual-defense gimping elemental weapons, etc.

If they want the game to be easier, put a tutorial that actually teaches you mechanics instead of making an in-game controller manual. Players nowadays want to be spoonfed. The proper way of handling this is spoonfeeding them crucial information, instead of progression.

[EpicNameBro]

I'm off to work right now, and I'll respond more later, but until you can tell me that the following person would not have been slighted by the presence of an easy mode, you can't tell me that it's always a good thing.

This is GoodForWaterMocassin from Reddit:

Quote

I died to the tower gargoyles on my first character over 40 times. Given the option, I would have lowered the games difficulty if it had one, and without thinking would have robbed myself of one the most enjoyable experiences I've had in gaming. Instead, I learned how combat worked, learned to start memorizing animations and patterns, searching out what items and armor I should use and so on and so on. The tower gargoyles aren't shit it turns out. I can best both of them without getting hit now on a fresh unleveled character, in fact I don't think there's a fight I would consider challenging anymore in the entire game. I hadn't felt that sense of mastery since Mega Man X when I was in elementary school. I forgot what mastering a games combat felt like as opposed to just scraping by which is what most games will let you do. Unless there was a human element to the game, like Starcraft or TF2 or Dota and so on at some point I had just sort of given up at learning to excel at a game because it was no longer a requirement for gaming like it was in my youth.

His experience WOULD have been cheapened by an easy mode, and he is not the only one who has expressed this sentiment. You can pretend that everyone is made of steel and never wavers in the face of adversity if you want, but the fact is people DO waver... if you let them.

The devs are playing a balancing act to deliver the intended experience- if people are literally unable to clear it, they fail, but if people choose an easy mode when they could have improved and cleared it, they fail. Easy mode is not necessarily good any more than it is necessarily bad- player options are something that need to be balanced just like every thing else in the game.

But the thing that really breaks the bank on all of this argument for the addition of an easy mode is the simple fact that there is already difficulty selection IN THE GAME NOW that everyone is ignoring.

[Stann]

EpicNameBro, on 10 September 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

I'm off to work right now, and I'll respond more later, but until you can tell me that the following person would not have been slighted by the presence of an easy mode, you can't tell me that it's always a good thing.

This is GoodForWaterMocassin from Reddit:



His experience WOULD have been cheapened by an easy mode, and he is not the only one who has expressed this sentiment. You can pretend that everyone is made of steel and never wavers in the face of adversity if you want, but the fact is people DO waver... if you let them.

The devs are playing a balancing act to deliver the intended experience- if people are literally unable to clear it, they fail, but if people choose an easy mode when they could have improved and cleared it, they fail. Easy mode is not necessarily good any more than it is necessarily bad- player options are something that need to be balanced just like every thing else in the game.

But the thing that really breaks the bank on all of this argument for the addition of an easy mode is the simple fact that there is already difficulty selection IN THE GAME NOW that everyone is ignoring.

Since there is no easy mode, he did not have the option to play with it. Therefore, no one knows what type of experience he would have come away with had he played with it. You can't compare oranges with non-existent oranges.

[Archael]

Stann, on 10 September 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

Since there is no easy mode, he did not have the option to play with it. Therefore, no one knows what type of experience he would have come away with had he played with it. You can't compare oranges with non-existent oranges.

How dare you use logic and rationality in here!?

[zombero]

His experience would not have been cheapened by an easy mode. It would be cheapened by his decision to give up and play the easy mode. It's just like giving up and playing an easier game or doing an easier activity altogether. Naturally, some people will waver, and some people will be better off for wavering, while others may be worse. But even the person who you are quoting admits that *he* would have robbed *himself* of the experience, not that the developers would have robbed him of the experience by offering another experience as well. That's like saying the easier games than Demon Souls detract from Demon Souls because the player has the option to play those games instead when he gets flustered.

[Stann]

Archael, on 10 September 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

How dare you use logic and rationality in here!?

Sorry.

[Harbringer]

I have a slightly off topic, but relevant question: If demon's souls had not been critically acclaimed, and not received mainstream level sales that propelled it and Dark Souls to the spotlight, would the difficulty be written off as an aspect of it's niche status? (since for all intents and purposes, that's exactly what it started out as, a niche title) I get the feeling that the difficulty would have been written off as a niche aspect. The developers of Demon's Souls and Dark souls set out to make the game that they would want to play, and I feel that it's one of the best games of 2009/2011/2012 and I personally feel that they nailed it out of the park. More over, I don't really see people asking for the developers to make a hard mode for a game that's particularly easy, like FF for instance, so it creates this disconnect where the core is almost always yielding to the mainstream, and it becomes a question of whether or not every game should reach every audience. I personally feel that the answer is no, and that's okay, because there are a whole ton of games of all kinds that people can play.

[EpicNameBro]

Stann- he feels like it would have. Do you have some evidence to the contrary? It's an example of how someone -can- have a lesser experience through the existence of an easy mode... which is something that philsov doesn't seem to believe possible. Unless you are stating that it is impossible for someone to lose out on the achievement of clearing the game on normal by choosing easy in a fit of rage, the point stands.

And I'm sorry, Zombero- whether he robs himself of the experience or the game developers robbed him of the experience doesn't matter- it's the developer's failure either way.

Example: Game has an easy mode
Players gets frustrated and chooses easy when it isn't needed = developer failure
Player gets frustrated and does something else = developer failure

Example: Game doesn't have an easy mode
Player gets frustrated and does something else = developer failure


From earlier, philsov

Quote

- Almost all action games reward the player with a sense of accomplishment, discovery, lore, equipment, etc via a means of difficultly. I don't hold Demon Souls into a special category that separates it from, say, the Devil May Cry series, Monster Hunter, or Mario (!).

"You don't hold it in a special category?" That doesn't mean anything. Are you saying it's the same or not?

Quote

- Easy mode does not necessarily mean no death, no risk, and no fear of failure. That is putting the cart before the horse.

That wasn't directed at you. That was directed at the countless people asking for just that.


Your whole argument about the player's choice ignores the fact that the player chooses to buy the game. You want a menu? When you walk into the game store, the choices are there.

The whole thing about rage quitting... put forward an alternative theory about how people quit Dark Souls. I've seen the rage quit first hand. And it's not a UMAD UMAD thing. It's completely descriptive. The player gets angry, and quits without thinking about the problem. I'm not looking down on anyone for getting angry or for quitting.

But I've got to be honest... this is getting really, really ridiculous. So many people here lobbying for an easy mode, and not ONE person has addressed what's so inadequate about the current the in-game difficulty selection? I'm starting to think you guys are white-knighting without knowing how the game works.

I'm not sure why a little bit of product differentiation is such a bad thing.

[Stann]

Harbringer, on 10 September 2012 - 10:56 PM, said:

I have a slightly off topic, but relevant question: If demon's souls had not been critically acclaimed, and not received mainstream level sales that propelled it and Dark Souls to the spotlight, would the difficulty be written off as an aspect of it's niche status? (since for all intents and purposes, that's exactly what it started out as, a niche title) I get the feeling that the difficulty would have been written off as a niche aspect. The developers of Demon's Souls and Dark souls set out to make the game that they would want to play, and I feel that it's one of the best games of 2009/2011/2012 and I personally feel that they nailed it out of the park. More over, I don't really see people asking for the developers to make a hard mode for a game that's particularly easy, like FF for instance, so it creates this disconnect where the core is almost always yielding to the mainstream, and it becomes a question of whether or not every game should reach every audience. I personally feel that the answer is no, and that's okay, because there are a whole ton of games of all kinds that people can play.

Maybe, but when video games starting having budgets in the millions, and they don't sell to the mainstream, they stop getting made. That may be a different argument altogether of whether or not developers should be spending so much money on a game (Hello all you MMO developers) but I still think it applies to the Souls series. The game only broke through its niche status because the gameplay is so good. If the game wasn't very good, it would've died in obscurity like so many other games. Do you hear anyone raving about how sweet Castle Shikigami is? No, that's because it's brutally hard AND not a very good game. Then again, that game probably had a budget in the thousands from the look of it, so they were able to sell it to their niche audience and turn a profit. Well, maybe.

If you're going to make a game for an HD console with the presentation quality of Dark Souls, you need to reach the biggest audience you can or you're going to lose a lot of money. It's a good thing for FromSoft that they made sure to get the gameplay right the first time, because this game wouldn't have the brand power it does today. If they were trying to sell it solely on the difficulty though, I don't think we'd even have a Dark Souls, Demons Souls probably would've been a failed experiment.

[Stann]

EpicNameBro, on 10 September 2012 - 11:23 PM, said:

Stann- he feels like it would have. Do you have some evidence to the contrary? It's an example of how someone -can- have a lesser experience through the existence of an easy mode... which is something that philsov doesn't seem to believe possible. Unless you are stating that it is impossible for someone to lose out on the achievement of clearing the game on normal by choosing easy in a fit of rage, the point stands.

My original point was that no one has evidence to the contrary, because the contrary doesn't exist. Unless he has the ability to perfectly predict the outcome of a different scenario, he's basing his opinion of a non-existent scenario on the current one. That's like saying that if I didn't get into a car accident when I was 9, my life would be so much better right now. That's an impossible statement to prove, because I was in a car accident when I was 9.

There's no way that this person would know that his experience would have been less fulfilling had there been an easier difficulty. Maybe he would have played on easy for 10-20 hours enough to learn the game, then restarted on the default difficulty and had a better time of it. I understand overcoming hardships and the rewards it gives you, but if you fail on the bell gargoyles 40 times in a row, I think that's a bit overkill. Maybe he would've been able to enjoy the game earlier.

Hell, if we're going to invent scenarios that haven't happened, let's turn it into a game. Maybe playing on easy would've encouraged him to go back to school and study for a better career. Maybe if he played it on easy he would've found two hundred bucks the next day. Who knows.

[EpicNameBro]

I understood your point. I'm asking you if it's not possible for a player to lessen his or her experience by choosing easy when it isn't needed.

[Harbringer]

Stann, on 10 September 2012 - 11:28 PM, said:

Maybe, but when video games starting having budgets in the millions, and they don't sell to the mainstream, they stop getting made. That may be a different argument altogether of whether or not developers should be spending so much money on a game (Hello all you MMO developers) but I still think it applies to the Souls series. The game only broke through its niche status because the gameplay is so good. If the game wasn't very good, it would've died in obscurity like so many other games. Do you hear anyone raving about how sweet Castle Shikigami is? No, that's because it's brutally hard AND not a very good game. Then again, that game probably had a budget in the thousands from the look of it, so they were able to sell it to their niche audience and turn a profit. Well, maybe.

If you're going to make a game for an HD console with the presentation quality of Dark Souls, you need to reach the biggest audience you can or you're going to lose a lot of money. It's a good thing for FromSoft that they made sure to get the gameplay right the first time, because this game wouldn't have the brand power it does today. If they were trying to sell it solely on the difficulty though, I don't think we'd even have a Dark Souls, Demons Souls probably would've been a failed experiment.

I've underlined all of the points that I feel are incorrect. For the first point, I was largely unable to find a development budget for Dark souls when it originally came out, But no, I don't think it applies to any game at all. In fact, a large amount of big name budgets typically go to voice acting (Oblivion, anyone) and as a secondary, maybe art, but very little goes the way of story and gameplay, and the fact that a lot of recently released doom levels have high quality texture work indicates to me that it can be fairly cost effective if done properly, which is why so many low budget games are capable of high quality gameplay and story/art direction, such as demon's Souls.

As to your second point, it may have flopped somewhat because it wasn't a good game, but what is the point of strong, tight gameplay if there is no challenge to really show it off? There wouldn't be, which is exactly why a lot of games can get away with sloppy gameplay.

As demon's souls, and for a lesser part, Disgaea, they have proved that marketting to the niche is very okay. The fact of the matter is is that there are plenty of indie games on a lesser budget that can provide the quality of a dark souls game or greater who are capable of making money by making the games they want to make. So your third point is moot.

Yes, had they attempted to sell it on on difficulty alone, they would have likely failed, or stayed a niche title. Had they marketed on gameplay alone, though, it would have been written off as another lacklustre hack and slash that was a largely unmemorable experience.

[Stann]

EpicNameBro, on 10 September 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

I understood your point. I'm asking you if it's not possible for a player to lessen his or her experience by choosing easy when it isn't needed.

I didn't say it's not possible either, but everyone who's arguing against the reduced difficulty seems to be assuming not only that it can lessen the experience, but that it will lessen the experience.

[Stann]

Harbringer, on 11 September 2012 - 12:01 AM, said:

I've underlined all of the points that I feel are incorrect. For the first point, I was largely unable to find a development budget for Dark souls when it originally came out, But no, I don't think it applies to any game at all. In fact, a large amount of big name budgets typically go to voice acting (Oblivion, anyone) and as a secondary, maybe art, but very little goes the way of story and gameplay, and the fact that a lot of recently released doom levels have high quality texture work indicates to me that it can be fairly cost effective if done properly, which is why so many low budget games are capable of high quality gameplay and story/art direction, such as demon's Souls.

Yes, low budget games are capable of high quality, but that wasn't my point. My point was that with a game like Dark Souls that has so many audio/visual assets, and at such a high quality of presentation, the budgets start to go through the roof. Don't underestimate the amount of time and money it requires to make all those environments, backdrops, character models, etc. HD development is very pricy.

Quote

As to your second point, it may have flopped somewhat because it wasn't a good game, but what is the point of strong, tight gameplay if there is no challenge to really show it off? There wouldn't be, which is exactly why a lot of games can get away with sloppy gameplay.

You are assuming that a reduced difficulty mode wouldn't have an aspect of challenge. That doesn't have to be the case. As I've said previously, there are many ways that the game could be made easier without removing the challenge. Less challenge =/= " no challenge to really show it off"

Quote

As demon's souls, and for a lesser part, Disgaea, they have proved that marketting to the nice is very okay. The fact of the matter is is that there are plenty of indie games on a lesser budget that can provide the quality of a dark souls game or greater who are capable of making money by making the games they want to make. So your third point is moot.

Comparing Disagaea, an isometric strategy RPG with sprites, to Demon's Souls is interesting. The presentation quality for those two games are like night and day. NIS markets to their niche audience by making very low budget games, often reusing assets from previous titles and making extra content through procedurally generated dungeons which reuse the same assets repeatedly. Demon's Souls is a unique experience from beginning to end with ever-changing scenery and NPCs in full 3D. It's obvious that Disgaea does not have the same presentation quality of the Souls games, which was my point, you can't market to the niche audience while having huge budgets.

Quote

Yes, had they attempted to sell it on on difficulty alone, they would have likely failed, or stayed a niche title. Had they marketed on gameplay alone, though, it would have been written off as another lacklustre hack and slash that was a largely unmemorable experience.

Maybe. You seem pretty confident of your prediction abilities. I certainly don't think those people that are putting hundreds of hours into PvP are doing it for the difficulty of the PvE. Clearly there's a large fanbase that enjoys the core gameplay, so much so that they are willing to roll up new characters and stomp the PvE experience just to get to SL120 with a different build.

[EpicNameBro]

I know you didn't say it's not possible. That's also not the same as saying it's possible. I've been dealing with people who are saying it's not possible for easy mode to detract from the experience of the game.

So, is it possible? Impossible?

You're talking about people assuming that it will lessen the experience... that's not fundamentally different from the people who are assuming that it will improve the experience. As you so aptly pointed out, that can't be proven either (as it doesn't exist).