• 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"

Where are these percentages coming from, OP? Afaik PSN doesn't give this information, only levels of rarity.

I assume psnprofiles.com.

While it doesn't represent the whole Playstation users as not everyone is registered there, I think it's still somewhat accurate as a sample.

They come from the PS4 system trophy menu. It shows not only levels of rarity but also percentage of players who got each trophy. So they are official numbers from Sony, and not from a third-party entity like psnprofiles.com
 

MilkBeard

Member
I think "Kay Plays" shows that the series doesn't need a difficulty option. What you need is patience and perseverance. Some people don't want to waste time on that, and that's totally okay. I don't think the developers need to add an easy mode to make the game more accessible. It already sells well enough. Think of it this way: I know people don't like this idea, but there are many games out there, and many other games that are riffing off the Souls style, so people can always try playing other games.

I mean, this boils down to characteristic traits of FromSoftware. They are intentionally vague, even with the lore. I know people have gripes with the way they tell stories, but I'd rather FromSoftware not take the "accessibility" approach to their games (at least for Dark Souls). They always have made unusual games, with unique gameplay and stories.

I don't really want to debate, but I just know that putting an easy mode in a Dark Souls goes against their design philosophy of "challenging but fair". It completely changes the philosophy.

I think FromSoft should just keep doing what they do. If they want to make a new series that has more accessible options, that's great, because it is part of the core design philosophy of their new creation. But Dark Souls was designed differently. I wouldn't want them to water it down further.

And there's one final thing that is important: Dark Souls content is probably not good enough to play for if you take away the challenging combat. There are many people who enjoy the lore, but part of the experience is being able to discover that lore as a reward for your challenges. People playing in easy mode will probably rip through the game, and then say..."that's it?" thus missing the experience that FromSoft had initially intended. If Dark Souls was more narrative based, this would be a different story. But as it stands, even understanding the lore means spending time and effort to figure it out, which goes against what these people who want an "easy mode" are about.
 
Lol will never understand why people would be against the addition of a mode that is optional and doesnt effect the standard gameplay experience in any way.


Imo those fighting against an easy mode for games like darksouls should spend less time worrying about how other people play games. Especially if its not really effecting them in any capacity.

(obviously this is all under the assumption that the addition of an easier moder does nothing to effect other difficulties or gate them behind additional paywalls)
 

Stealth50

Member
I have no problem with them adding an easier difficulty considering different people enjoy other aspects of the game. Personally I would however just make the current easy mode (CO-OP) more easy to use. Perhaps a matchmaking opt-in at the character creation page that would continuously match you against similar players? That makes it so you don't remove the inherent threat of the world while it is also makes it easier for casual players to enjoy the game.

With that said, I think there's a surprising lack of trophies for the truly difficult feats in the game. While I'm primarily thinking of solo-runs, I would also like to see trophies for players who handicaps themselves in certain ways. Like for instance: no-shield, no-armor, limited-leveling, etc.. I get that this is most likely due to the trophy-hunting phenomenon where developers are expected to hand out platinum trophies to anyone that puts in certain amount of time, but for a game that prides itself on its difficulty I think it would be pretty fitting to distinguish the players who put in the work from those who don't.
 

Lanrutcon

Member
Should the games be easier? nah.
Should the games have difficulty options? possibly.
Should whoever designed the Bed of Chaos be publicly shamed and exiled to the Mountains of Almost Certain Discomfort? definitely.
 

MilkBeard

Member
^I mean, I understand the basic idea. Easy mode means a win for everyone, in your argument. But it doesn't always work out that way. They have to devote development resources to an easy mode, which could otherwise go towards perfecting their singular experience that they would have made otherwise. Not all games need to be accessible for everyone. Dark Souls is one of those games. That's just how I feel. It's perfect how it is (not perfect, but you know what I mean ;) ).

And the fact of the matter is, none of the Souls games have easy modes. If FromSoft thought it necessary, they probably would have put one in already, since they made other changes to cater to their audiences.

That being said, I would be okay if they put an easy mode in a new IP. It would be designed from the ground up for a variety of players.
 

Joni

Member
I think it is quite simple: it has the reputation of being hard so it only attracts people looking at that challenge.
 

Lork

Member
Lol will never understand why people would be against the addition of a mode that is optional and doesnt effect the standard gameplay experience in any way.


Imo those fighting against an easy mode for games like darksouls should spend less time worrying about how other people play games. Especially if its not really effecting them in any capacity.

(obviously this is all under the assumption that the addition of an easier moder does nothing to effect other difficulties or gate them behind additional paywalls)
As has been explained ad nauseum every time this comes up, it would literally be impossible for an easy mode not to have an effect on the standard gameplay experience for multiple reasons. Of course, the difficulty crusaders don't care about that and will happily shout those posts down while simultaneously pretending that they didn't read them.

It's what makes this one of the most frustrating arguments to see on GAF. It never moves forward because the people arguing for an easy mode never acknowledge that it's not possible to implement without sacrificing some things, and so the real argument would be about whether or not it's worth making that compromise (hint: it isn't).
 
So like, beyond "games don't have to be for everyone" what logical argument actually exists for not including an easy mode provided the standard mode maintains the same level of quality? I honestly can't see a downside.

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.

I think the best way to make an easy mode is to have a ring that significantly increases your soul gain as a starting gift, so that players who aren't that good at the game can basically brute force their way through by gaining levels quickly without having to waste time grinding. Or just have a ring that combines the Covetous Silver Serpent Ring (with an even higher Soul gain) and Ring of Sacrifice which doesn't break at death. The game will still be difficult, but you remove the pressure of losing your souls, as well as preventing players from hitting a brick wall and having to spend hours grinding.

Just having it as a ring means it'll act as training wheels that the player can unequip once they get comfortable with the game.
 

MadYarpen

Member
That's nonsense, to look at this that way.

Lets take these people who have finished... Say, RDR. And have a look what percentage of them would finish BB.

Not saying Soulsborne are to difficult, just these statistics prove shit here.
 
I thought it would be fun to post up some figures from the xbox side as well :)

The true achievements site is really useful as it lists stats based on their registered population AND it can now show the whole xbox population as well.

Taking Dark Souls, which was a "free" game with gold, the TA percentage for Bed of Chaos is lower than on PS at 23%...BUT the xbox wider population is even lower at 14%.

I'm not quoting these to refute the OP, but to show that "selection" of populations can have a big effect. e.g. moving from a general population to one keener on achievements (TA) almost doubles the percentage.

Assuming xbox gamers are similar to PS ones, then the game being "free" has dropped the percentage from 37% to 23% (assuming TA gamers are like PSNtrophies gamers).

Another way of trying to look at the drop off from "free" games is the difference in the very first achievement "enkindle". It's for lighting a bonfire, is unmissable, and is kind of the point of souls games! Almost 100% of TA gamers got this achievement but only 88% of the general xbox population. So 12% of people have loaded the game and not made it out of the first couple of rooms...possibly trying to take on the demon rather than run past it!

So how does this compare with other games? I've picked 3:-

Destiny - first achievement - ship rite - 100% of TA BUT 66% of Xbox!!

EDIT - scrub that - i forgot it doesn't have an achievement for actually completing the story/campaign! As an aside - completing a raid is at 20% for the xbox population but I think that is quite high considering you need 6 people, and they can take 2 hours to complete or more...plus only 66% made it to the first mission so technically a third of those that completed the first mission went on to complete a raid.

COD BLOPS 3 - I'm assuming the first achievement is "a second chance". TA is 44% BUT Xbox is only 8%!? I'm not sure what has gone on here...completing the campaign is also very low - 21% and 2% respectively!

I'll try COD IW - this looks more like it - the first achievement is at 83% for TA and 40% for Xbox..the complete campaign (operation bloodstorm?) is at 38% and 13%.

Trials Fusion - IMHO this game has a very good difficulty curve, but is obviously more niche. The first achievement is at 96% and 48% respectively. The last campaign achievement - all hard tracks completed - is at 39% and 10%.

Ok...so what does all this mean? How do we want to define "hard"? We could base it on the straight completion percentage? Or we could choose something else, like the drop out rate through the game.

The drop out rate for Trials fusion is pretty high, out of the 48% that made the first achivement, only a fifth of them made it to the last campaign achievement. In Dark Souls the completion percentage drops from 88% to 14% which means only one sixth of people made it through the game.

Looking at a mainstream game like COD IW, the drop out rate is much less...over one quarter of people made it through the campaign.

So in summary, IMHO, DS is not any harder than other "hard" games like Trials...but is harder than mainstream "easy" campaigns like COD. The raw trophy/achievement percentages can look quite high because of selection in the population (e.g. most people buying DS/BS etc do it knowing what they're getting in to). Off the top of my head I'd suggest looking at drop out rates through the game as a better metric because it helps eliminate some of the selection effects and things like games being GwG.

If I knew more about games I would happily compile a table of first and last achievement percentages, and drop out rates, but it's a pain looking each one up to check what the last campaign mission was.
 

Tecnniqe

Banned
As has been explained ad nauseum every time this comes up, it would literally be impossible for an easy mode not to have an effect on the standard gameplay experience for multiple reasons. Of course, the difficulty crusaders don't care about that and will happily shout those posts down while simultaneously pretending that they didn't read them.

It's what makes this one of the most frustrating arguments to see on GAF. It never moves forward because the people arguing for an easy mode never acknowledge that it's not possible to implement without sacrificing some things, and so the real argument would be about whether or not it's worth making that compromise (hint: it isn't).
And what would be sacrificed by implementing my suggested way of doing a easier mode?
 
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.

I think the best way to make an easy mode is to have a ring that significantly increases your soul gain as a starting gift, so that players who aren't that good at the game can basically brute force their way through by gaining levels quickly without having to waste time grinding. Or just have a ring that combines the Covetous Silver Serpent Ring (with an even higher Soul gain) and Ring of Sacrifice which doesn't break at death. The game will still be difficult, but you remove the pressure of losing your souls, as well as preventing players from hitting a brick wall and having to spend hours grinding.

Just having it as a ring means it'll act as training wheels that the player can unequip once they get comfortable with the game.

Having those would kind of throw off the balance of the game since the rings you get in the beginning generally aren't very good to begin with so there would be little reason to not use those other than handicapping yourself.

I too agree that the lore of these games isn't strong enough to really enjoy if you're not being challenged during it, hence why, in my experience at least, subsequent playthroughs aren't nearly as fun and exhilarating as your first other than to see how much better in the game you have gotten.
 
It's amazing how people are still waving the "niche" and "dedicated fanbase" arguments even when repeatedly confronted with the fact that DS3 stayed in the top 10 selling games for a year, that is right there in the OP.

Although on second thought perhaps a strong correlation between wanting an easy mode and not reading the OP shouldn't be that surprising.
 
Having those would kind of throw off the balance of the game since the rings you get in the beginning generally aren't very good to begin with so there would be little reason to not use those other than handicapping yourself.

I too agree that the lore of these games isn't strong enough to really enjoy if you're not being challenged during it, hence why, in my experience at least, subsequent playthroughs aren't nearly as fun and exhilarating as your first other than to see how much better in the game you have gotten.

Not necessarily. It's not really any different than making a build that's overpowered, or starting off with Royalty on Demon's Souls etc.
Obviously, players who want to get a challenge from the game and play like normal won't choose the ring.
 

PillarEN

Member
But it should only work in offline mode and doesn't let you use consumables or change equipment during combat.

Yes that makes sense as that is part of the game system. Far from a "not fair/too hard" situation as even the EA published Dead Space had weapon changing and item selection on the fly only as well as Resident Evil 5 which was an extremely mainstream game.
 
As has been explained ad nauseum every time this comes up, it would literally be impossible for an easy mode not to have an effect on the standard gameplay experience for multiple reasons. Of course, the difficulty crusaders don't care about that and will happily shout those posts down while simultaneously pretending that they didn't read them.

It's what makes this one of the most frustrating arguments to see on GAF. It never moves forward because the people arguing for an easy mode never acknowledge that it's not possible to implement without sacrificing some things, and so the real argument would be about whether or not it's worth making that compromise (hint: it isn't).


Lol okay lets do a thought experiment....


The original Dark Souls releases and the default setting is the standard setting everybody knows and loves today...absolutely nothing is different about the game.....now if one goes out of their way to alter the defualt setting they notice a super easier difficulty....this diffuclty starts you with a flask that is unlimited and and removes all status effects, poisons, etc...


In this scenario how does the inclusion of an easy mode change the standard/default experience of the game?

Remember in the scenario the default setting is the exact same Dark Souls everybody experienced back in 2011... The only difference between the two modes is the inclusion of a single easily programable item and additionally one has to go out of their way to change to default settings of the game to gain access to said mode....

This example is not Unlike Starfox Zeros easy mode.

Imo under these circumstances (and even less stringent ones in other cases) easier diffuculties in games are perfectly acceptable and do nothing to alter the standard experience of a game...the idea that it would "literally be impossible" to add an easier difficulty without altering the standard difficulty is a dubious assumption imo.
 
Sometimes at night, you can still hear the rest of them pressing that circle.

lol

Lol okay lets do a thought experiment....


The original Dark Souls releases and the default setting is the standard setting everybody knows and loves today...absolutely nothing is different about the game.....now if one goes out of their way to alter the defualt setting they notice a super easier difficulty....this diffuclty starts you with a flask that is unlimited and and removes all status effects, poisons, etc...


In this scenario how does the inclusion of an easy mode change the standard/default experience of the game?

Remember in the scenario the default setting is the exact same Dark Souls everybody experienced back in 2011... The only difference between the two modes is the inclusion of a single easily programable item and additionally one has to go out of their way to change to default settings of the game to gain access to said mode....

This example is not Unlike Starfox Zeros easy mode.

Imo under these circumstances (and even less stringent ones in other cases) easier diffuculties in games are perfectly acceptable and do nothing to alter the standard experience of a game...the idea that it would "literally be impossible" to add an easier difficulty without altering the standard difficulty is a dubious assumption imo.

An unlimited flask would completely nullify gameplay systems like kindling bonfires and finding the rite of kindling, which is very nice bit of player empowerment. Even someone who is only in it for the story would be negatively affected, because gameplay and narrative in Souls games are closely intertwined. There is a lot of lore speculation about the nature of kindling bonfires. What does it really mean to burn away humanity to strengthen the fire? If there was no need for the player to ever kindle, the lore implications of kindling would be entirely lost on the player
 

MilkBeard

Member
lol



An unlimited flask would completely nullify gameplay systems like kindling bonfires and finding the rite of kindling, which is very nice bit of player empowerment. Even someone who is only in it for the story would be negatively affected, because gameplay and narrative in Souls games are closely intertwined. There is a lot of lore speculation about the nature of kindling bonfires. What does it really mean to burn away humanity to strengthen the fire? If there was no need for the player to ever kindle, the lore implications of kindling would be entirely lost on the player

The important thing that I see...is that with an "easy" mode, the game will be experienced in a more superficial way that wasn't intended by the developers. I'd rather have FromSoftware add a feature only if it complies with their vision for the game. Everything is tied together with lore, to make a package.
 

Necro900

Member
^I mean, I understand the basic idea. Easy mode means a win for everyone, in your argument. But it doesn't always work out that way. They have to devote development resources to an easy mode, which could otherwise go towards perfecting their singular experience that they would have made otherwise. Not all games need to be accessible for everyone. Dark Souls is one of those games. That's just how I feel. It's perfect how it is (not perfect, but you know what I mean ;) ).

And the fact of the matter is, none of the Souls games have easy modes. If FromSoft thought it necessary, they probably would have put one in already, since they made other changes to cater to their audiences.

That being said, I would be okay if they put an easy mode in a new IP. It would be designed from the ground up for a variety of players.

I like that everyone now is apparently an insider of development teams (japanese teams, even), and without any source whatsoever they just claim that lowering some damage/exp values takes lots of time off the core game development.

"Guys, I know we wanted to develop a new area for Bloodborne 2, but you know, we're going to have to fiddle with numbers the whole month because of easy mode. I like to lower values by decimals, sorry."
 
I like that everyone now is apparently an insider of development teams (japanese teams, even), and without any source whatsoever they just claim that lowering some damage/exp values takes lots of time off the core game development.

"Guys, I know we wanted to develop a new area for Bloodborne 2, but you know, we're going to have to fiddle with numbers the whole month because of easy mode. I like to lower values by decimals, sorry."

You mean like how some other armchair experts just know how effortless implementing and balancing a separate difficulty setting would be?
 

Necro900

Member
You mean like how some other armchair experts just know how effortless implementing and balancing a separate difficulty setting would be?

Ha, nice one.
It's not effortless, never said that, but thanks for trying.
Anyway, it's not something that undermines development as much as souls hardcore fans want it to be in order to justify their more or less explicit "sanctity of game" argument.
 

MilkBeard

Member
I like that everyone now is apparently an insider of development teams (japanese teams, even), and without any source whatsoever they just claim that lowering some damage/exp values takes lots of time off the core game development.

"Guys, I know we wanted to develop a new area for Bloodborne 2, but you know, we're going to have to fiddle with numbers the whole month because of easy mode. I like to lower values by decimals, sorry."

Lol, you're falling into your own compaint. Sorry pal. I don't claim to know anything, but there's a lot more than just "lowering values." For any kind of game mode, developers have to do extensive testing, otherwise it will end up like a broken POS. I know this and I know practically nothing about development.

Ha, nice one.
It's not effortless, never said that, but thanks for trying.
Anyway, it's not something that undermines development as souls hardcore fans want it to be in order to justify their more or less explicit "sanctity of game" argument.

Also, I have given lots of examples of why an easy mode is not necessary. One of them is the fact that there are well-known streams of people who aren't really proficient at gaming, and they do quite well with Souls games. I listed Kay Plays, and another mentioned Jeff Green. It really boils down to patience and perseverance, not so much the difficulty.

Souls games are made with the idea of being "challenging but fair". This concept is interwoven into the game's singular playing experience, and adding another mode bypasses this element and creates a different thing entirely. Which is why I've been saying, every time, that if they are going to do an "easy" mode, it should be in a new IP, not in Dark Souls.
 

rtcn63

Member
+ The axe with its spin-to-win move.

Axe = Easy, Saw = Normal, Threaded Cane = Hard

"Oh, Bloodborne 2 implemented an easy mode where you do double damage and take half? But like, the enemies can still knock you off cliffs and there are status effects and bosses don't stand there while you spam attack with +0 weapons..."

There's an argument to be made that the people who aren't willing to learn the basic systems of the Souls series in its current state (because once again, the series isn't that hard to grasp) are the same who wouldn't be satisfied unless the games were changed on a fundamental level.

For the worse. And likely not just for them alone.

Concessions were already put in place as the series progressed (fast travel, etc. as I mentioned before) to significantly improve accessibility for more casual audiences, and more will likely be added as Souls continues (directly or not). The games are in a good place for the most part.

If you want to play a Souls game but are afraid of the oft-rumored difficulty and complexity- look at the various OTs and wikis across the internet. Most will have beginner guides explaining the various systems and even "just follow this shit to a T" OP builds specifically for your use-case.

No, you don't have to fight every enemy. Yes, you can run past and pick up items, carrying zero souls so that if you die, who cares. No, if you didn't kill the boss on your first try at SL1 like your favorite streamer, it doesn't make you a trash player. Yes, you can wade through that poison water. It's just poison. Unless it's toxic.

And if you can't do even that, then... maybe consider playing something else.
 

Ferr986

Member
Lol okay lets do a thought experiment....


The original Dark Souls releases and the default setting is the standard setting everybody knows and loves today...absolutely nothing is different about the game.....now if one goes out of their way to alter the defualt setting they notice a super easier difficulty....this diffuclty starts you with a flask that is unlimited and and removes all status effects, poisons, etc...


In this scenario how does the inclusion of an easy mode change the standard/default experience of the game?

Remember in the scenario the default setting is the exact same Dark Souls everybody experienced back in 2011... The only difference between the two modes is the inclusion of a single easily programable item and additionally one has to go out of their way to change to default settings of the game to gain access to said mode....

This example is not Unlike Starfox Zeros easy mode.

Imo under these circumstances (and even less stringent ones in other cases) easier diffuculties in games are perfectly acceptable and do nothing to alter the standard experience of a game...the idea that it would "literally be impossible" to add an easier difficulty without altering the standard difficulty is a dubious assumption imo.

What would happen is that people would play Dark Souls IV Easy Mode. Then bitch on internet because it was too easy, repetitive and boring because the game is just about killing idiot goons and bosses (there's no story and no other gameplay other than that, even the AI is laughlable).

If From didn't implement an Easy mode is for a reason, and it's not because they don't want people to not play the game, but the game is focused about some gameplay aspects, one is difficulty.

It's like asking for an easy mode with dumber puzzles on Fez or The Witness. It would defeat a core aspect of those games.
 

Floody

Member
I amazed such a high percentage of people were willing to grind the covenant items in DS3, maybe they greatly improved how quickly they'll auto summon you to a game since I last played, but it would never work for me and farming the enemies to get them took way too much time and was really boring, they'd probably all be 0.1 percent in most other games.

As for them be too hard, I think summoning is a good enough alternative, From should just add a hidden NPC for every boss for those that find it too hard, have the boss give less Souls or something if you use them as punishment, if it's a human helping give the Souls to them.
 
In this scenario how does the inclusion of an easy mode change the standard/default experience of the game?

Well, for one thing, you have to take the developers' intentions into account too. This easy-to-add item essentially makes the player an invincible god and significantly reduces the levels of thought and engagement asked of the player - are the developers going to want players to mindlessly consume the game in the manner afforded to them by this super flask? It may not be the standard mode, but for many players this will become their Dark Souls experience - they will vaguely remember Dark Souls as the game with the infinite health pool they were able to mash their way through and put down.

Second, although it is true that such a mode would attract players who would otherwise give up on the game, it will also allow an easy out for players who might have otherwise developed their skill to overcome obstacles. In Dark Souls as it exists today, if you get hopelessly stuck, your only option (aside from quitting) is to develop a stronger understanding of the game and how best to use the tools available to you. But undoubtedly, at least some players will back out and choose to take the super flask upon running up against the wall, denying them whatever harrowing and rewarding experiences they might have had down the line.

And third, yeah, the Souls games' online systems are heavily dependent on their difficulty, and working them around multiple modes of play would be a problem. Do you place all players in the same pool (meaning that invaders can haplessly attack the world of a super-flask-wielding player and find themselves up against an invulnerable foe) or do you sequester super-flask mode players into their own pool of online players (thus splitting the online playerbase and shrinking the standard mode's community)? Not to mention that players who are having trouble with the game - the kind of players who would pick the super-flask mode and would probably need to be separated from the main online playerbase - are among those most likely to summon others for help, meaning that you'd be dampening the game experience for those players eager to be summoned and help others out, too.
 

Necro900

Member
Also, I have given lots of examples of why an easy mode is not necessary. One of them is the fact that there are well-known streams of people who aren't really proficient at gaming, and they do quite well with Souls games. I listed Kay Plays, and another mentioned Jeff Green. It really boils down to patience and perseverance, not so much the difficulty.

The fact that you'd neet to be patient and perseverant cause the game constantly throws you curve balls is enough to assume that lots of people won't be able to finish the game because either 1) they don't have enough time to bash their head against a wall until they succeed 2) they may never "get" the technique/strategy to overcome a given obstacle, or they may not want to go back and grind just to try and beat a boss.

Given these cases (but I'm sure there's others) stating "it's just a matter of patience" is a really weak argument. What if you're not a streamer that has 12 hours a day for playing games, and you still wanted to experience the whole game you paid 60$ for, only with a slightly less punishing gameplay?

Easy mode may be a piece of cake for you, but for them, it would hit the right spot in terms of game enjoyment/difficulty. Easy as that.

Denying people of a way to enjoy games in the name of some sort of sanctity is pure bullshit. Up until now all the arguments in favor of such way of thinking haven't presented a single reasonable point, it's either "sanctity of game" or hypotheticals such as "it may undermine the core game development".

Let's keep it factual: exactly why wouldn't you want a toggle in the options menu you may never even see that would help other people enjoy a game you enjoy as well?
 

MilkBeard

Member
The fact that you'd neet to be patient and perseverant cause the game constantly throws you curve balls is enough to assume that lots of people won't be able to finish the game because either 1) they don't have enough time to bash their head against a wall until they succeed 2) they may never "get" the technique/strategy to overcome a given obstacle, or they may not want to go back and grind just to try and beat a boss.

Given these cases (but I'm sure there's others) stating "it's just a matter of patience" is a really weak argument. What if you're not a streamer that has 12 hours a day for playing games, and you still wanted to experience the whole game you paid 60$ for, only with a slightly less punishing gameplay?

Easy mode may be a piece of cake for you, but for them, it would hit the right spot in terms of game enjoyment/difficulty. Easy as that.

Denying people of a way to enjoy games in the name of some sort of sanctity is pure bullshit. Up until now all the arguments in favor of such way of thinking haven't presented a single reasonable point, it's either "sanctity of game" or hypotheticals such as "it may undermine the core game development".

Let's keep it factual: exactly why wouldn't you want a toggle in the options menu you may never even see that would help other people enjoy a game you enjoy as well?

^It's not a weak argument, it's the foundation of how they designed the games. Also, "Kay Plays" isn't a professional stream, it's just a person who tried to play a game, who was a relative newby, and found that she was really successful with playing through Dark Souls because she was patient and observant.

And no, I don't think all games should reward impatience. Some games will take effort to play and learn, because it's how they are designed.
 

Randomizer

Member
I don't think trophies are representative of a games difficultly. The Souls game are extremely well made and designed games, so of course people will want to play until completion. Also the difficult and frustration can encourage people just as much as discourage them. Overcoming a hard boss or area is extremely satisfying and rewarding.
 

Lork

Member
And what would be sacrificed by implementing my suggested way of doing a easier mode?

Lol okay lets do a thought experiment....


The original Dark Souls releases and the default setting is the standard setting everybody knows and loves today...absolutely nothing is different about the game.....now if one goes out of their way to alter the defualt setting they notice a super easier difficulty....this diffuclty starts you with a flask that is unlimited and and removes all status effects, poisons, etc...


In this scenario how does the inclusion of an easy mode change the standard/default experience of the game?

Remember in the scenario the default setting is the exact same Dark Souls everybody experienced back in 2011... The only difference between the two modes is the inclusion of a single easily programable item and additionally one has to go out of their way to change to default settings of the game to gain access to said mode....

This example is not Unlike Starfox Zeros easy mode.

Imo under these circumstances (and even less stringent ones in other cases) easier diffuculties in games are perfectly acceptable and do nothing to alter the standard experience of a game...the idea that it would "literally be impossible" to add an easier difficulty without altering the standard difficulty is a dubious assumption imo.
LOL, this is what I'm talking about. There's no need for me to reiterate what other people have said because there are multiple posts that soundly refute your arguments in their entirety on this page. In GankzyMcfly's case, before you even made them! Maybe try addressing those points before you start patting yourself on the back...
 

Lanrutcon

Member
Well, for one thing, you have to take the developers' intentions into account too. This easy-to-add item essentially makes the player an invincible god and significantly reduces the levels of thought and engagement asked of the player - are the developers going to want players to mindlessly consume the game in the manner afforded to them by this super flask? It may not be the standard mode, but for many players this will become their Dark Souls experience - they will vaguely remember Dark Souls as the game with the infinite health pool they were able to mash their way through and put down.

Second, although it is true that such a mode would attract players who would otherwise give up on the game, it will also allow an easy out for players who might have otherwise developed their skill to overcome obstacles. In Dark Souls as it exists today, if you get hopelessly stuck, your only option (aside from quitting) is to develop a stronger understanding of the game and how best to use the tools available to you. But undoubtedly, at least some players will back out and choose to take the super flask upon running up against the wall, denying them whatever harrowing and rewarding experiences they might have had down the line.

And third, yeah, the Souls games' online systems are heavily dependent on their difficulty, and working them around multiple modes of play would be a problem. Do you place all players in the same pool (meaning that invaders can haplessly attack the world of a super-flask-wielding player and find themselves up against an invulnerable foe) or do you sequester super-flask mode players into their own pool of online players (thus splitting the online playerbase and shrinking the standard mode's community)? Not to mention that players who are having trouble with the game - the kind of players who would pick the super-flask mode and would probably need to be separated from the main online playerbase - are among those most likely to summon others for help, meaning that you'd be dampening the game experience for those players eager to be summoned and help others out, too.

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.
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.
 

PillarEN

Member
The fact that you'd neet to be patient and perseverant cause the game constantly throws you curve balls is enough to assume that lots of people won't be able to finish the game because either 1) they don't have enough time to bash their head against a wall until they succeed 2) they may never "get" the technique/strategy to overcome a given obstacle, or they may not want to go back and grind just to try and beat a boss.

Given these cases (but I'm sure there's others) stating "it's just a matter of patience" is a really weak argument. What if you're not a streamer that has 12 hours a day for playing games, and you still wanted to experience the whole game you paid 60$ for, only with a slightly less punishing gameplay?

Easy mode may be a piece of cake for you, but for them, it would hit the right spot in terms of game enjoyment/difficulty. Easy as that.

Denying people of a way to enjoy games in the name of some sort of sanctity is pure bullshit. Up until now all the arguments in favor of such way of thinking haven't presented a single reasonable point, it's either "sanctity of game" or hypotheticals such as "it may undermine the core game development".

Let's keep it factual: exactly why wouldn't you want a toggle in the options menu you may never even see that would help other people enjoy a game you enjoy as well?

What is the ideal easy mode for a Souls game? It seems that these games are not so much about normal, easy, hard, European hard, but more so about a specific balance that is designed for all players. In the case of Souls games that balance starts at a higher skill floor than the vast majority of games. No doubt. Maybe the developer themselves doesn't have that ideal solution for creating an "easier" experience. Is their idea of easy going to be easy enough? Would it still be too hard? It would seem like everything is designed to be very specific. More so than maybe a Halo game where yeah the Heroic difficulty is more challenging than Easy but perhaps the differences for making those difficulties is pretty basic. Dumb down the enemy, severely limit their damage while enhancing the amount of damage they take, make a wave smaller. In Souls games maybe it wouldn't be as simple as that to find a balance with how the game would work on an easier setting or even a harder setting.
 
Well i am faar from a skilled gamer really. But i have platinum on Bloodborne (Nioh as well, similar-ish game), finished DS3 and DS2 remaster. Played til Blighttown in DS1 but my saved got forked, maybe i will pick up the game again. Demon's Souls i picked up at PSN store and my PS3 got forked (YLOD)

So the games arent that hard if a gamer like me who is complete ASS at fast paced games like CS:GO, Overwatch and so can beat them. All you need is to learn patterns, yell at your TV, monitor and have some jolly good co-op.
 

ViciousDS

Banned
Out of those 50% who soul glitched?



That was the only reason the circle of my friends even bothered playing through it was because we were overpowered and had fun.



I ONLY BOUGHT the game because of the soul glitch before it was patched.

If the soul glitch didn't exist, I wouldn't have bothered honestly
 

Tecnniqe

Banned
LOL, this is what I'm talking about. There's no need for me to reiterate what other people have said because there are multiple posts that soundly refute your arguments in their entirety on this page. In GankzyMcfly's case, before you even made them! Maybe try addressing those points before you start patting yourself on the back...
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.
 

Necro900

Member
^It's not a weak argument, it's the foundation of how they designed the games. Also, "Kay Plays" isn't a professional stream, it's just a person who tried to play a game, who was a relative newby, and found that she was really successful with playing through Dark Souls because she was patient and observant.

And no, I don't think all games should reward impatience. Some games will take effort to play and learn, because it's how they are designed.

It may not be a professional stream, but she definitely devotes lots of time to streaming.

Still, it's not about rewarding impatience. It's about playing at a difficulty level you feel comfortable with. For you it's the one chosen by From software, for others (in other games) is hard/merciless mode, for some it's Easy mode.

They implement easy mode =/= there's no other mode. It wouldn't hamper your game experience in any way. Your game would be exactly the same. So tell me again, why are you still opposing this?

Damn, this reminds me of the debates on gay romances options in games and the people who feel the mere existence of those options would ruin their game.

It's not an option for you, why do you care?
 

MilkBeard

Member
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.
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.

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.

It may not be a professional stream, but she definitely devotes lots of time to streaming.

Still, it's not about rewarding impatience. It's about playing at a difficulty level you feel comfortable with. For you it's the one chosen by From software, for others (in other games) is hard/merciless mode, for some it's Easy mode.

They implement easy mode =/= there's no other mode. It wouldn't hamper your game experience in any way. Your game would be exactly the same. So tell me again, why are you still opposing this?

Damn, this reminds me of the debates on gay romances options in games and the people who feel the mere existence of those options would ruin their game.

It's not an option for you, why do you care?

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.
 

PaulloDEC

Member
As has been explained ad nauseum every time this comes up, it would literally be impossible for an easy mode not to have an effect on the standard gameplay experience for multiple reasons. Of course, the difficulty crusaders don't care about that and will happily shout those posts down while simultaneously pretending that they didn't read them.

It's what makes this one of the most frustrating arguments to see on GAF. It never moves forward because the people arguing for an easy mode never acknowledge that it's not possible to implement without sacrificing some things, and so the real argument would be about whether or not it's worth making that compromise (hint: it isn't).

What would be sacrificed by giving Easy Mode players more frequent bonfires?

What would be sacrificed by starting Easy Mode players at a higher level?

What would be sacrificed by giving Easy Mode players more Estus Flask charges?

I'm not trying to be a smartarse here, I'm genuinely asking. Because all of those things would be a huge help, and I can't for the life of me see how they'd negatively affect people not playing on Easy.
 

Tecnniqe

Banned
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.
Nobody is asking them to change their formula but rather adding to it which won't affect anyone outside those that would like an alternate or otherwise experience.

Again I've yet to see solid argument against my solution other than it's supposedly would ruin the game somehow even though it won't matter to those that don't opt in to it.
 

MilkBeard

Member
Nobody is asking them to change their formula but rather adding to it which won't affect anyone outside those that would like an alternate or otherwise experience.

Again I've yet to see solid argument against my solution other than it's supposedly would ruin the game somehow even though it won't matter to those that don't opt in to it.

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.
 
Top Bottom