• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Are Souls games too hard? Completion trophy percentages say "no"

ViciousDS

Banned
It's true that there are methods it could be added. If FromSoft comes up with an ingenious method for making an easier mode to one of their games, then that would be really cool.

However, Dark Souls games are built for a singular difficulty experience. My argument is that other modes just aren't necessary, as the game gives plenty of options for the players who are willing to find them.


So you'd rather have me glitch my way to infinite souls rather than just tone down the experience for players who want to enjoy it?

Demon Souls I glitched

Dark Souls 1 I glitched

Dark Souls 3 I glitched


All 3 of those I completed with an insane amount of joy and had a shit load of fun and all 3 probably wouldn't have been completed had i not been able to glitch.


But somehow......they effect other players experience personally even if they dont opt in.
 

Lanrutcon

Member
The important thing here is that no Soulsborne games from From Software have an easy mode. Listing "it's their experience" is not a good argument for why the design philosophy, which has been garnering much success as it is, should be changed.

Why would they want to make an arbitrary change to a successful design? It clearly works, and many people buy the games and love them. Really, it would boil down to the fact that the developers see it as not a part of their design philosophy. Once they see it as integral to have different difficulty modes, they will implement it. But the Souls games are built for all players to have a "challenging but fair" experience. They are successful on most instances, although there are always cheap elements or ways to cheese. But I would say they are mostly successful.

The proof is in favor of this. I still haven't seen anyone provide good proof for why FromSoft would arbitrarily change their successful formula because some people want to have an easier experience.

Whether it "should" be changed isn't up to us. We can voice our opinions (towards either leaning) and see what happens. What I think most of us are arguing is that, hypothetically, it wouldn't be a disaster should it come to pass. I haven't seen a single (not one) compelling argument against difficulty levels that didn't involve some soapbox level gymnastics.

If I want to play a Souls game as a neon beaver with infinite health and a rocket launcher (whyyyyyyy though), and From deems it fit to implement that separate mode, then it won't be the end of the world. You'll still have the standard mode in all its glory.
 

MilkBeard

Member
So you'd rather have me glitch my way to infinite souls rather than just tone down the experience for players who want to enjoy it?

Demon Souls I glitched

Dark Souls 1 I glitched

Dark Souls 3 I glitched


All 3 of those I completed with an insane amount of joy and had a shit load of fun and all 3 probably wouldn't have been completed had i not been able to glitch.


But somehow......they effect other players experience personally even if they dont opt in.

You can if you want...doesn't mean I agree with what you did, lol. The exploits are dependent upon how well they code their games. Really, if you want, you can just go PC and get cheat engine or something or other. But cheating is looked down upon in the PvP community.

Again, this doesn't have to do with a good reason for adding an arbitrary easy mode. You exploited the game because you could. FromSoft should fix their games, but you found a way within their system to win, I suppose.
 

Tecnniqe

Banned
It's true that there are methods it could be added. If FromSoft comes up with an ingenious method for making an easier mode to one of their games, then that would be really cool.

However, Dark Souls games are built for a singular difficulty experience. My argument is that other modes just aren't necessary, as the game gives plenty of options for the players who are willing to find them.

i.e. "They've built it into their game experience to allow people to have more, or less, challenging experiences, but players should be resourceful in finding them" in favor.

"tacking on an easy mode to a game that wasn't developed for it" not in favor.
"...Now say Dark Souls give you two options;

Simple - Easier mode for experiencing the content
Souls - The Souls experience

A simple fix for Simple mode would be to remove some boss moves from being used and/or adding (yet again taken from WoW) Determination
Your persistence in the face of adversity strengthens your resolve.

Damage dealt increased by 5%.
Healing received increased by 5%.
Health increased by 5%.

Which you can accept, will only trigger after X deaths and may scale even further if you keep dying.


This won't affect anyone or the gameplay design..."

I fail to see how this ruins the sanctity of the game or their vision, if anything having more people being able to customize your game to enjoy it is a greater artistic achievement. While at it why not throw a hard mode in there which grants enemies the same buffs if you die or something? 😉

At the end of the day normal souls is still there and those who want or need assistance get it without massive gameplay changes.
 

ViciousDS

Banned
You can if you want...doesn't mean I agree with what you did, lol. The exploits are dependent upon how well they code their games. Really, if you want, you can just go PC and get cheat engine or something or other. But cheating is looked down upon in the PvP community.

Again, this doesn't have to do with a good reason for adding an arbitrary easy mode. You exploited the game because you could. FromSoft should fix their games, but you found a way within their system to win, I suppose.


To win what? Personal enjoyment?

Also fuck the PvP community I don't care about the mode. Love Co-Op though
 

MilkBeard

Member
If I want to play a Souls game as a neon beaver with infinite health and a rocket launcher (whyyyyyyy though), and From deems it fit to implement that separate mode, then it won't be the end of the world. You'll still have the standard mode in all its glory.

This has been my argument, really. I personally don't find an easy mode necessary at all, as long as the game is designed well. However, this is FromSoftware: if they deem it necessary, they will find a way to build it to the core gameplay element. In this case, then I would say that it is a good thing, because the developers found it to be central to their design and they decided to build their games around it.

To win what? Personal enjoyment?

Also fuck the PvP community I don't care about the mode. Love Co-Op though

I don't really have anything to add to this. This is your personal opinion, and that's fine.
 

PillarEN

Member
So you'd rather have me glitch my way to infinite souls rather than just tone down the experience for players who want to enjoy it?

Demon Souls I glitched

Dark Souls 1 I glitched

Dark Souls 3 I glitched


All 3 of those I completed with an insane amount of joy and had a shit load of fun and all 3 probably wouldn't have been completed had i not been able to glitch.


But somehow......they effect other players experience personally even if they dont opt in.

In this case it sounds more like a yearning for good ol' cheat codes. Ain't nothing wrong with that. Probably would make it so you would be taken offline and that's that.
 

Necro900

Member
This is the problem I have with taking a stance on a game forum. People always try to find ways to shame you. This has nothing to do with adding gay romances in another, completely different game, that relies on relationships. I don't care what relationships they allow. The fact of the matter is, this is Dark Souls, which is reliant on "challenging but fair" combat experiences. You can even change your gender in some of the games if you want. This isn't about sexuality, my friend.

Erhm, no shit? :p
I said it reminds me of the way the existence of an option somehow disrupts some people's enjoyment of a game (specifically, in those cases it was about gay romance).
The concept is the same, the matter is different since we're obviously not talking about sexuality here, are we? Can't understand why you had point out this isn't about sexuality, maybe I wasn't clear enough.

The idea is still that of limiting the enjoyment of other people for no other reason than ideals and convictions on how something should be. While I admit the example I've taken is quite extreme (and I'm in no way saying anyone here is homophobic, for the love of god), this opposition to having more ways to enjoy a game made me think of that. Nothing personal, sorry if I was somehow ambiguous.
 
Sometimes at night, you can still hear the rest of them pressing that circle.
Completion of games shouldn't really be a measuring stick if difficulty.

I never even made it to Mexico in RDR, all those huge single player games have a super slim window before returning to COD/Battlefield/destiny type game. People get distracted too easily, or open world fatigue.

An optional easy mode that will have zero impact for the hard core (don't change anything but player health depletion) would not only be more accessible, but would let you learn the fights better, allowing you to one day attempt it the way it was meant to be played.

The hardcore #notmysouls crowd ....Idk what to say to them, I want your special toy too but I don't feel like playing it the "only way" with my $60.

Let's face it, if game genie was still a thing I would be using it for these games.
 
No. I have played harder games due to being 'cheap' or just poorly made which makes them artificially difficult.

I am not a big Dark Souls fan but I fully appreciate them and would not change a thing about them. They reward a lot of things such as persistence, concentration, memory and of course skill.
 

rtcn63

Member
I actually did play GoW III and I did continue to punch Zeus a lot longer than I should have. I think I just stopped pressing the button at some point out of frustration, only to notice that the game continued to progress onward.
 

Maxey

Member
Interactive Movie mode: experience the story of Dark Souls without the actual gameplay.
Easy Difficulty mode: the Dark Souls experience with minimal challenge
The One True Difficulty mode: the real Dark Souls experience.
 

MilkBeard

Member
Erhm, no shit?
I said it reminds me of the way the existence of an option somehow disrupts some people's enjoyment of a game (specifically, in those cases it was about gay romance).
The concept is the same, the matter is different since we're obviously not talking about sexuality here, are we? Can't understand why you had point out this isn't about sexuality.

The idea is still that of limiting the enjoyment of other people for no other reason than ideals. While I admit the example I've taken is quite extreme (and I'm in no way saying anyone here is homophobic, for the love of god), this opposition to having more ways to enjoy a game made me think of that. Nothing personal, sorry if I was somehow ambiguous.

Well the fact of the matter is, the formula they have is successful, and their design philosophy "challenging but fair" is good enough to not require an easy mode. There have been issues: I love Bloodborne, but the difficulty in the beginning is much higher, but then once you pass the initial beginning area, the difficulty becomes easier, and it has more to do than just gaining skill. The developers failed to make the difficulty level smooth all throughout. I think these things should be addressed instead. Good development will negate any need for an easy mode.

Really, gamers just need to understand the core concept of the combat. I like FromSoftware's vagueness, but really I think much of the challenge comes from them not explaining mechanics well enough. That doesn't mean I want them to put a tutorial, but they should try to find ways to portray the combat mechanics better.

And in that, as a veteran of the series, I can hop in with no trouble, but someone new who doesn't know the game may have a miserable time because they simply don't understand the mechanics. I understand this issue, and it comes with all of their games. They have tried to mitigate it, but somewhat unsuccessfully.
 

rtcn63

Member
I love Bloodborne, but the difficulty in the beginning is much higher, but then once you pass the initial beginning area, the difficulty becomes easier, and it has more to do than just gaining skill. The developers failed to make the difficulty level smooth all throughout. I think these things should be addressed instead. Good development will negate any need for an easy mode.

Interestingly enough, I think that actually depends somewhat on how you played the previous Souls games. I stopped using sword and board after my first time through, opting for a more aggressive play style in general. When I picked up Bloodborne initially, I beat the first few bosses with relative ease. I noticed that stat distribution and weapon upgrading were heavily stream-lined (every weapon uses the same material types and at the same amounts) and thus were quick to grasp, even though I was going in mostly blind.
 

MilkBeard

Member
Interestingly enough, I think that actually depends somewhat on how you played the previous Souls games. I stopped using sword and board after my first time through, opting for a more aggressive play style. When I picked up Bloodborne for the first time, I beat the first few bosses with relative ease. Stat distribution and weapon upgrading (every weapon uses the same material types and at the same amounts) were quick to grasp even though I was going in mostly blind.

I guess that makes sense. But it comes down to the fact that you are thrown in without many weapons, with hordes of enemies and no way to level up. You are trapped, especially if you are a new player, in this loop. There are ways they could have made it smoother without actually affecting the balance too much. Simply allowing the player to level up from the beginning would have helped, and wouldn't have really affected the progress of the game at all.
 

Vitten

Member
Completion trophy percentages have a lot more to do with how dedicated a certain group of players are than the dificulty of the game.
Niche games which attract more dedicated players will always have higher percentages compared to AAA games with a much wider and casual audience. Just look at Uncharted 4, the platinum is piss easy but only 1% seems to bother with it.

Also, the Soulsborne platinums are somewhat seen as a 'badge of honor' and more people will try and make that extra effort to show off their mad skillz to their friends.
 
If you don't hit your first trophy, it's very easy to delete the game from your trophy list, I know I did that with Demon Soul's on PS+ after playing for maybe an hour.
 

unround

Member
Something I don't see mentioned much in this discussion is having a difficulty option is completely opposed to the game's uncaring nature. When you start Dark Souls, all illusions of the player character being some sort of chosen one are made clear to be bollocks. You're just the latest in a long line of fools to attempt to ring the two bells and you can see your eventual fate in the bodies of other undead scattered around, the state of the NPCs, and even the enemies themselves. When you're killed, the ones who kill you don't gloat, or even continue attacking - they just casually walk away. No-one in this world gives a shit about you.

Having a difficulty option would establish the player as a godlike figure who can change the state of the world on a whim, which is completely at odds with the tone the game attempts to set.
 

rtcn63

Member
You can parry with something else other than your firearm in BB?

No. Sorta. You can stagger enemies using heavy charged attacks (or just a sustained succession of heavy attacks), allowing you to perform a visceral. There may even be arcane abilities that can stagger, can't recall.
 

Lork

Member
So your point to refute is "you should have this experience and no other options even if it don't affect me at all"?

Buuuuullshit.

I can play all the games with godmode and one hit kill right now and you can't say I won't enjoy it because maybe I just like to explore the world. You don't know and it sure as hell isnt breaching any sanctity of the game or nothing.

My solution isn't the same as the guy above, and if you want to refute it directly quote it and tell me why each step I said would somehow ruin the game.
In your original post that you keep re-quoting, you said "This won't affect anyone or the gameplay design..." - this is an extremely flimsy claim and can be attacked from many angles, which is one of the reasons why I didn't feel the need to get specific. But since you're so insistent, to my eyes by far the most decisive one is this:
People will argue that it's ruining the sanctity of the experience even though they don't have to use the easier difficulty, but the biggest problem is that it'd have to split the multiplayer playerbase.
Dark Souls is a multiplayer game, and more than that, it's a "living world" multiplayer game, constantly smashing players together in both cooperative and competitive capacities at and against their will. If From were to implement your difficulty options "that won't effect anyone" they would have two options: either allow "simple mode" players to have a huge advantage online, or segregate the community. Thus, a compromise of some kind must be made.

You can move on to trying to downplay the effects of such a compromise if you'd like, but to claim that it wouldn't have to be made is utterly ridiculous.
 
Dude.

1) Doesn't matter. That's their experience, and their experience is none of your business.
2) Doesn't matter. That's their experience, and their experience is none of your business.

My point is that if the developers didn't want to make that particular kind of experience, they wouldn't have made Dark Souls. I'm less arguing for myself and more arguing what the developers' thought process must have been like - I'm saying that it's thoughtless to just say "eh, toss in an easy mode, it won't change anything".

3) The community will cope just fine with the split as there will be more than enough players desperate to maintain their street cred and virility by playing on standard mode.

Why should the community have to cope and shrink when the current method is perfectly fine and - as evidenced by this thread's premise - does not alienate a significant amount of players?
 

Kill3r7

Member
"...Now say Dark Souls give you two options;

Simple - Easier mode for experiencing the content
Souls - The Souls experience

A simple fix for Simple mode would be to remove some boss moves from being used and/or adding (yet again taken from WoW) Determination
Your persistence in the face of adversity strengthens your resolve.

Damage dealt increased by 5%.
Healing received increased by 5%.
Health increased by 5%.

Which you can accept, will only trigger after X deaths and may scale even further if you keep dying.


This won't affect anyone or the gameplay design..."

I fail to see how this ruins the sanctity of the game or their vision, if anything having more people being able to customize your game to enjoy it is a greater artistic achievement. While at it why not throw a hard mode in there which grants enemies the same buffs if you die or something? 😉

At the end of the day normal souls is still there and those who want or need assistance get it without massive gameplay changes.

Some good suggestions but I think there is a simpler solution. In simple mode reduce enemy and boss movement speed by 30-50%. It makes the game trivial. Saw a video of someone doing this in Nioh using a slow magic spell which essentially made any encounter trivial. I think something like this could be very instructive for a new player. That way if they want they can change difficulties and test what they have learned on the fly.
 

Maxey

Member
No. Sorta. You can stagger enemies using heavy charged attacks (or just a sustained succession of heavy attacks), allowing you to perform a visceral. There may even be arcane abilities that can stagger, can't recall.

That's not a parry then. It's a stagger.

I just thought I was about to have my world flipped around with a revelation that you can parry with your main weapon or something, lol.
 

rtcn63

Member
Some good suggestions but I think there is a simpler solution. In simple mode reduce enemy and boss movement speed by 30-50%. It makes the game trivial. Saw a video of someone doing this in Nioh using a slow magic spell which essentially made any encounter trivial. I think something like this could be very instructive for a new player. That way if they want they can change difficulties and test what they have learned on the fly.

Have a Souls easy mode where if you dodge at the right time, you activate witch time. And if you parry at the right time, you can slice the enemy's vital parts while the world is slowed.

I could go for this.

That's not a parry then. It's a stagger.

I just thought I was about to have my world flipped around with a revelation that you can parry with your main weapon or something, lol.

Can't you like parry with regular/heavy weapons in Dark Souls 2/3? When dual-wielding.
 

Maxey

Member
Can't you like parry with regular/heavy weapons in Dark Souls 2/3? When dual-wielding.

I think so but not in Bloodborne. Apart from a "joke" wooden shield you can eventually pick up, you can't block attacks in BB, afaik.
 
Wait, so I've been playing on hard mode all this time?

Nah Axe is probably the "worst" there since it's the slowest weapon of the three. It has an awesome moveset but you really need to get your timings right.

Saw is pretty much the best and cane is an amazing weapon overall.
 

Sequiel

Banned
But how many of those % quit the game because of difficulty?

I guess most people quitting the other games are due to different reasons than finding the game too hard, whereas the majority of souls players quit due to difficulty, frustration and being forced to grind and farm.
 

rtcn63

Member
I think so but not in Bloodborne. Apart from a "joke" wooden shield you can eventually pick up, you can't block attacks in BB, afaik.

You know, I wouldn't mind if BB2 had a class of weapons that could be used for parrying. I two-hand in BB almost exclusively.

Nah Axe is probably the "worst" there since it's the slowest weapon of the three. It has an awesome moveset but you really need to get your timings right.

Saw is pretty much the best and cane is an amazing weapon overall.

The axe is easy mode in its two-handed form. Reach, damage, and a very useful charged spin move. I've played the game with all three, although I prefer the beast cutter over the cane.
 

Maxey

Member
The axe is easy mode in its two-handed form. Reach, damage, and a very useful charged spin move. I've played the game with all three, although I prefer the beast cutter of the cane.

I used spin-to-win until I got ahold of Ludwig's Holy Blade.

I guess the Kirkhammer is great too if you like to keep yourself open to attacks. ;p
 

Tecnniqe

Banned
In your original post that you keep re-quoting, you said "This won't affect anyone or the gameplay design..." - this is an extremely flimsy claim and can be attacked from many angles, which is one of the reasons why I didn't feel the need to get specific. But since you're so insistent, to my eyes by far the most decisive one is this:
Dark Souls is a multiplayer game, and more than that, it's a "living world" multiplayer game, constantly smashing players together in both cooperative and competitive capacities at and against their will. If From were to implement your difficulty options "that won't effect anyone" they would have two options: either allow "simple mode" players to have a huge advantage online, or segregate the community. Thus, a compromise of some kind must be made.

You can move on to trying to downplay the effects of such a compromise if you'd like, but to claim that it wouldn't have to be made is utterly ridiculous.
So your argument is multiplayer? You have many options there. Tick boxes to allow invasion or being invaded by these, put them in their own pool or play offline without any interaction with AI as many already do. Multiplayer is a faux argument for no easy mode as the argument would have them playing it in the first place.
 

rtcn63

Member
I used spin-to-win until I got ahold of Ludwig's Holy Blade.

I guess the Kirkhammer is great too if you like to keep yourself open to attacks. ;p

Some natural progressions:

Axe -> Holy Blade/Pizza Cutter

Saw/Threaded Cane -> Beast Cutter (it's effectively a two-handed saw in its one-handed form, a cane in the two-handed)

Kirkhammer is such a disappointment. The damage output is unreliable because of the weird (and noted by numerous internet sources) sweet spot/splash mechanic. The Holy Blade has better reach in both forms, a similar amount of raw damage, is faster with a wider arc, and tracks enemies like a beast.
 

KHlover

Banned
Just add a dog companion that draws aggro and fetches items for you. Doesn't even need to be able to deal any significant damage, anyone who ever played a Souls game can tell that not having aggro is easy mode already.

Alternative answer: Souls games already have an easy mode, you activate it by popping a Humanity/Human Effigy/Ember
 

Costia

Member
You can if you want...doesn't mean I agree with what you did, lol. The exploits are dependent upon how well they code their games. Really, if you want, you can just go PC and get cheat engine or something or other. But cheating is looked down upon in the PvP community.

Again, this doesn't have to do with a good reason for adding an arbitrary easy mode. You exploited the game because you could. FromSoft should fix their games, but you found a way within their system to win, I suppose.
This is really the point.
Why do you even care that he exploited while playing single player?
Why do you think that something that is fun, and has no affect on you should be fixed?
Why does he even need an exploit to have fun?
Would it kill you if From implemented it as a game mode that allowed him to have fun with absolutely no impact on your experience?

I pllayed DS1 up to the O&S fight.
Unfortunately I am now getting older and don't have much time for gaming.
I would love to explore the unique DS worlds and lore.
But as of now to do that i will have to invest dozens of hours (sorry, i am not as good as you and can't beat the bosses on first try), and that is time i simply do not have.

If From decides not to make an easy mode because it's not their philosophy - its up to them.
But i don't understand why the players of the game are so vocally against more people playing their favorite game.

If you think it will water down the experience, then don't use that mode. Why do you think you are entitled to tell other people how to play and enjoy games?
If you can enjoy DS only on hard mode, thats great for you. You should play the game the way you like. Why are DS fans so against other people playing the game the way they like, which might be different from theirs? Why do they think they can tell everyone what is the "correct" way to play a game?

Edit:
AFAIK there is a mechanic in Nioh that slows down bosses to a snail pace. Has it killed the game for everyone else?
 

MilkBeard

Member
Some good suggestions but I think there is a simpler solution. In simple mode reduce enemy and boss movement speed by 30-50%. It makes the game trivial. Saw a video of someone doing this in Nioh using a slow magic spell which essentially made any encounter trivial. I think something like this could be very instructive for a new player. That way if they want they can change difficulties and test what they have learned on the fly.

I think this is acceptable. That way the mechanics are the same, just the enemies are slower. They could also have less HP. In theory it could work, but I just don't think it is necessary.

At the same time, if a newbie wanted to play easy mode, and then play online, they would have to be warned that they would play in normal mode only or something like this. The difference could be jarring though lol.
 

MilkBeard

Member
This is really the point.
Why do you even care that he exploited while playing single player?
Why do you think that something that is fun, and has no affect on you should be fixed?
Why does he even need an exploit to have fun?
Would it kill you if From implemented it as a game mode that allowed him to have fun with absolutely no impact on your experience?

I pllayed DS1 up to the O&S fight.
Unfortunately I am now getting older and don't have much time for gaming.
I would love to explore the unique DS worlds and lore.
But as of now to do that i will have to invest dozens of hours (sorry, i am not as good as you and can't beat the bosses on first try), and that is time i simply do not have.

If From decides not to make an easy mode because it's not their philosophy - its up to them.
But i don't understand why the players of the game are so vocally against more people playing their favorite game.

If you think it will water down the experience, then don't use that mode. Why do you think you are entitled to tell other people how to play and enjoy games?
If you can enjoy DS only on hard mode, thats great for you. You should play the game the way you like. Why are DS fans so against other people playing the game the way they like, which might be different from theirs? Why do they think they can tell everyone what is the "correct" way to play a game?
It wouldn't kill me, no, but in reality, we are only discussing theoretical ideas, when in fact they haven't added an easy mode to their games, and for good reason. They work as they are supposed to, and they have found success.

Now, if they added an easy mode, I would just deal with it. Do I think it is necessary? No, absolutely not. Do I think it goes against their design philosophy for their games? Yes.

Do what you want when you play the games. But until From adds an easy mode to a Dark Souls game, I will continue to say that it is completely arbitrary and against their core design.
 

PillarEN

Member
This is really the point.
Why do you even care that he exploited while playing single player?
Why do you think that something that is fun, and has no affect on you should be fixed?
Why does he even need an exploit to have fun?
Would it kill you if From implemented it as a game mode that allowed him to have fun with absolutely no impact on your experience?

I pllayed DS1 up to the O&S fight.
Unfortunately I am now getting older and don't have much time for gaming.
I would love to explore the unique DS worlds and lore.
But as of now to do that i will have to invest dozens of hours (sorry, i am not as good as you and can't beat the bosses on first try), and that is time i simply do not have.

If From decides not to make an easy mode because it's not their philosophy - its up to them.
But i don't understand why the players of the game are so vocally against more people playing their favorite game.

If you think it will water down the experience, then don't use that mode. Why do you think you are entitled to tell other people how to play and enjoy games?
If you can enjoy DS only on hard mode, thats great for you. You should play the game the way you like. Why are DS fans so against other people playing the game the way they like, which might be different from theirs? Why do they think they can tell everyone what is the "correct" way to play a game?
Isn't this flawed the same way how it would be for someone complaining that Prince of Persia 2008 and Kirby's Epic Yarn are too easy and it's not fair that these games don't include "hard" difficulty? Those 2 games are designed to have a a low skill floor. Different design philosophy.
 

Costia

Member
It wouldn't kill me, no, but in reality, we are only discussing theoretical ideas, when in fact they haven't added an easy mode to their games, and for good reason. They work as they are supposed to, and they have found success.
Now, if they added an easy mode, I would just deal with it. Do I think it is necessary? No, absolutely not. Do I think it goes against their design philosophy for their games? Yes.
Do what you want when you play the games. But until From adds an easy mode to a Dark Souls game, I will continue to say that it is completely arbitrary and against their core design.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...irector-considering-adding-optional-easy-mode
Isn't this flawed the same way how it would be for someone complaining that Prince of Persia 2008 and Kirby's Epic Yarn are too easy and it's not fair that these games don't include "hard" difficulty? Those 2 games are designed to have a a low skill floor. Different design philosophy.
Kirby games with a hard difficulty would be interesting. So I would be in favor of including harder difficulties.
Ithink that it is just a question of game dev resources and priorities. I dont think you will find anyone arguing against a possible existance of a hard mode in any game the way you see against easy mode in DS games.
 

rtcn63

Member
Just add a dog companion that draws aggro and fetches items for you. Doesn't even need to be able to deal any significant damage, anyone who ever played a Souls game can tell that not having aggro is easy mode already.]

BB2 introducing DD from MGSV
 
The axe is easy mode in its two-handed form. Reach, damage, and a very useful charged spin move. I've played the game with all three, although I prefer the beast cutter over the cane.

I love the axe but against thougher and faster enemies sometimes it wasn't ideal since I ended up trading because the weapon is considerably slow. If you use a faster weapon you can get more openings to deal damage having enough time to avoid the attacks. IMO the saw weapons are pretty much op in this game, and also offer good stagger potential with the transformation attacks.
 

MilkBeard

Member

He was just musing, obviously, as three games have been released and no easy mode. In theory it could work, but I think, (I'm just hypothesizing) they decided that the component wasn't necessary, and that they instead decided to work on improving the intro to their games, which is why Dark Souls 2 has a somewhat more robust introduction area. However, Bloodborne's early area, as I said before, is a bit flawed in its progression of difficulty. Miyazaki said that he made The Abyss Watchers in Dark Souls 3 fairly approachable because he wanted to avoid the high difficulty of the early area in Bloodborne. This isn't exactly the best solution, as I personally wish that boss was more difficult, but you can see how they decided to approach the design.
 

rtcn63

Member
I love the axe but against thougher and faster enemies sometimes it wasn't ideal since I ended up trading because the weapon is considerably slow. If you use a faster weapon you can get more openings to deal damage having enough time to avoid the attacks. IMO the saw weapons are pretty much op in this game, and also offer good stagger potential with the transformation attacks.

Most people will eventually learn to predict enemy attacks and compensate. Meaning swing/charge the axe before you would a faster weapon. (This works particularly well for mobs that can be interrupted)

I agree that the saw is close behind, especially in more skilled hands. But that's why the axe is considered "easy mode".
 

MTC100

Banned
Resonance of Fate: 8.4% beat the game

Interesting choice, I am among those 8.4%, what a game, too bad it didn't meet as much love as it deserved, one of the best JRPGs on the PS3 and can even compete with Valkyria Chronicles imo.

More ontopic: People that buy Dark Souls III already know what they're up against, of course most people will play through them. Also note that everyone can beat it eventually, it's only the question if you have the endurance to do so.
 
Top Bottom