Namco Denies Dark Souls Difficulty Comment

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Namco Denies Dark Souls Difficulty Comment

image

Dark Souls Director Hidetaka Miyazaki was apparently mistranslated when he speculated about adding an easier difficulty level to the game.

Dark Souls Game Director Hidetaka Miyazaki expressed disappointment last week that some people may avoid the game because of its notorious difficulty. "This fact is really sad to me and I am thinking about whether I should prepare another difficulty that everyone can complete or carefully send all gamers the messages behind our difficult games," he said.

Except that according to Dark Souls publisher Namco Bandai, he didn't actually say that at all. The company contacted Metro, which conducted the original interview, claiming that there had been a "translation mistake" and that what he actually said was, "This fact is really sad to me and I am thinking about how to make everyone complete the game while maintaining the current difficulty and carefully send all gamers the messages behind it."

Metro acknowledged that the interview translation had been rough in spots but said that the statement in question was "pretty unambiguous" and even went so far as to state, "We're not sure whether we believe it was a translation error" or just damage control in response to the outrage of Dark Souls fans appalled by the idea of letting the less-masochistically-inclined demographic in on the fun. It's not an entirely unreasonable proposition; following the interview, many ardent Dark Souls fans leapt onto forums to argue that the difficulty is what makes it fun, and that easing up on it would compromise the entire experience.

Source: Metro

Permalink

What there could be is some easier starting dungeons that then curve up to the normal difficulty that let them loose in the preexisting locations. There, problem solved, game is still as difficult, and now more accessible.

Why would he lie about mistranslation? Sure it could be considered damage control in some cases. but this is the second game in the series. who the fuck would all of a sudden decide they want their game to be easier after years of development?

EDIT: Development and consistency.

Angry Juju:
Why would he lie about mistranslation? Sure it could be considered damage control in some cases. but this is the second game in the series. who the fuck would all of a sudden decide they want their game to be easier after years of development?

EDIT: Development and consistency.

Not to mention the King's Field games, which weren't exactly cakewalks.

You remove the difficulty and the Souls games would lose their power. They fill a very important niche and I'm glad there's no danger of them taking a different route in the future.

I still have no idea why some fans are so upset at the very OPTION of an OPTIONAL easier difficulty for the people who want it. How does that "take away" anything if you can simply ignore it altogether?

Some fans are stupid.

Captcha: No brainer

There was a controversy over this? Gamers, getting upset because the developers might be adding a difficulty slider! Oh noes, people who have less 'skillz' then you can complete the game too and your cherished pathetic achievement of beating the game becomes less exclusive. Oh noes!
image

I think he should stick by his statement if it wasn't a mistranslation and not let the PR department appease the pettiest of fans but I can understand their actions and their desire to please their fans by keeping to their... urm... ideals.

Translation "I want everyone else to change so my game doesn't have to"
Yeah, that sounds SO much better.

Is he implying that these games are hard enough to warrant an additional easier difficulty?

if the game is too hard you know who to call for
image

I am always slightly confused by people who claim a lower difficulty somehow lessens the higher difficulties. If anything, adding lower difficulties gives devs more leeway to make the higher difficulties even harder.

See also: The people complaining that your character will have the ability to Respec in Torchlight 2. Because games are srsbsns ya'll, and if you even THINK about starting without first writing a doctoral thesis on the best build, you DESERVE your fate.

So hes not implicating that he wants to tone down the difficulty of the game, but rather that he wants to find a way to entice players to finish the game without touching down the difficulty...

Given what we know about FROM and thier previous association with Atlus, the former is the more probable translation.

rhizhim:
if the game is too hard you know who to call for
image

PRAISE THE SUN!

Twilight_guy:
There was a controversy over this? Gamers, getting upset because the developers might be adding a difficulty slider! Oh noes, people who have less 'skillz' then you can complete the game too and your cherished pathetic achievement of beating the game becomes less exclusive. Oh noes!
image

I think he should stick by his statement if it wasn't a mistranslation and not let the PR department appease the pettiest of fans but I can understand their actions and their desire to please their fans by keeping to their... urm... ideals.

Whoa there, big straw man guy.

You obviously didn't play the game. It is entirely designed around its difficulty. What you're saying is the equivalent of "we should add the option to remove jumping from Mario because that would make it more accessible."

There was a very legitimate concern that adding an easy difficulty would lure most players over to it and give them a crappy experience that damaged the franchise. There's no fun to be had in an "easy" version of these games, just disappointment. Without the difficulty you'd be left with a middling 3rd person combat game with a decent story and atmosphere.

Ehh but Dark Souls isn't THAT hard anyway if you ask me :z

Punishing would be a better way to define it, it's challenging and doesn't forgive mistakes and carelessness. It's hardly like it just kills you for shits and giggles like some older games used to. It's just challenging to force you into being a better player.

Besides, if you have that much trouble with it, you can always grind a bit and improve your stats and gear like any other RPG.

Except Skyrim. Where Orc + Warhammer + Hitting first = Victory.

ResonanceGames:

Twilight_guy:
There was a controversy over this? Gamers, getting upset because the developers might be adding a difficulty slider! Oh noes, people who have less 'skillz' then you can complete the game too and your cherished pathetic achievement of beating the game becomes less exclusive. Oh noes!
image

I think he should stick by his statement if it wasn't a mistranslation and not let the PR department appease the pettiest of fans but I can understand their actions and their desire to please their fans by keeping to their... urm... ideals.

Whoa there, big straw man guy.

You obviously didn't play the game. It is entirely designed around its difficulty. What you're saying is the equivalent of "we should add the option to remove jumping from Mario because that would make it more accessible."

There was a very legitimate concern that adding an easy difficulty would lure most players over to it and give them a crappy experience that damaged the franchise. There's no fun to be had in an "easy" version of these games, just disappointment. Without the difficulty you'd be left with a middling 3rd person combat game with a decent story and atmosphere.

Yeah without the constant omnipresent fear of something several times your height suddenly crushing you beneath it's mighty boot for having the audacity to smack it's pitiful minions about the game would be a lot less satisfying.

Nothing like beating a challenging stage only to find that there's a shit ton more of it to do. And that the boss you just killed was only a baby compared to the one a few rooms away.

My god you would still have to give the "easys" and the "normies" separate servers and that costs money.

Otherwise you compromise the multiplayer i dont want lowly peasant easy difficulty people invading my game.

captha: souffle girl

Yes Ill take both. lol

Good. I hated the idea of a difficulty slider even though I am not a good Dark Souls player. The game is very well designed, and various patches have tweaked its balance already. Impatient gamers wouldn't like the game in the long run in any case; the dark atmosphere and minimalist narrative presentation would ultimately bore them.

What about this game is difficult? I've never played it.

Difficulty is something that requires a careful touch. Too easy and it's no fun, too hard and it's frustrating.

In my opinion it's exceedingly rare when difficulty levels are done correctly. Most either make your opponent outright cheat, or simply gimps/undertunes the player or buffs enemies. Neither of those are fun to me.

When I think of games that do "hard" in a good way (for the most part) I think of Baldur's Gate 2, Castlevania Lords of Shadow, and Dwarf Fortress. Maybe Mount and Blade: Warband, but a little less so.

And games that do it in a bad way - Civ 5, Company of Heroes(almost works but the cheating is too visible when you know the game well) many/most MMO raid bosses.

BoogieManFL:
What about this game is difficult? I've never played it.

Difficulty is something that requires a careful touch. Too easy and it's no fun, too hard and it's frustrating.

The game is designed with a very specific and very difficult challenge curve in mind. You can only save at specific places, and saving respawns the surrounding enemies (as does dying).

Dying also removes all of your souls, which basically act as both you currency and experience points. You can get these back only if you can make it back to the place where you died last.

In addition to that, encounters are designed to provide a wide array of challenges that force the player to pay attention and use trial and error to come up with a winning strategy. So often, you'll find an encounter where there are enemies on your level with swords and enemies above with ranged weapons, and getting past the scenario is as much a puzzle as it is a combat situation. This extends to the boss fights where you often have to be particularly creative and cautious to win.

Also, the combat itself is really tough. It's very possible to be killed by a low-level grunt if you're sloppy.

Since the difficulty is hardwired into the design so much, changing that would pretty much make it an entirely different game. You'd lose the need for strategy, and the combat is tuned in such a way that it wouldn't be fun without the constant threat of death.

ResonanceGames:
You obviously didn't play the game. It is entirely designed around its difficulty. What you're saying is the equivalent of "we should add the option to remove jumping from Mario because that would make it more accessible."

There was a very legitimate concern that adding an easy difficulty would lure most players over to it and give them a crappy experience that damaged the franchise. There's no fun to be had in an "easy" version of these games, just disappointment. Without the difficulty you'd be left with a middling 3rd person combat game with a decent story and atmosphere.

No.

Just no.

Dark Souls doesn't need to be difficult. It's a huge part of the experience, yeah, but it would still be a functional game if it was easier.

Options don't damage franchises. That's ridiculous. Really. If someone wants to play Dark Souls but doesn't want soul crushing difficulty, then let them play Dark Souls without soul crushing difficulty, and you can keep playing it the way you want to.

Phlakes:

ResonanceGames:
You obviously didn't play the game. It is entirely designed around its difficulty. What you're saying is the equivalent of "we should add the option to remove jumping from Mario because that would make it more accessible."

There was a very legitimate concern that adding an easy difficulty would lure most players over to it and give them a crappy experience that damaged the franchise. There's no fun to be had in an "easy" version of these games, just disappointment. Without the difficulty you'd be left with a middling 3rd person combat game with a decent story and atmosphere.

No.

Just no.

Dark Souls doesn't need to be difficult. It's a huge part of the experience, yeah, but it would still be a functional game if it was easier.

Options don't damage franchises. That's ridiculous. Really. If someone wants to play Dark Souls but doesn't want soul crushing difficulty, then let them play Dark Souls without soul crushing difficulty, and you can keep playing it the way you want to.

Read what I just posted.

Functional? Yeah, obviously. Fun? Good? Relevant? No.

Usually difficulty options are a good thing. In this rare and specific case, they are not.

ResonanceGames:

Phlakes:

ResonanceGames:
You obviously didn't play the game. It is entirely designed around its difficulty. What you're saying is the equivalent of "we should add the option to remove jumping from Mario because that would make it more accessible."

There was a very legitimate concern that adding an easy difficulty would lure most players over to it and give them a crappy experience that damaged the franchise. There's no fun to be had in an "easy" version of these games, just disappointment. Without the difficulty you'd be left with a middling 3rd person combat game with a decent story and atmosphere.

No.

Just no.

Dark Souls doesn't need to be difficult. It's a huge part of the experience, yeah, but it would still be a functional game if it was easier.

Options don't damage franchises. That's ridiculous. Really. If someone wants to play Dark Souls but doesn't want soul crushing difficulty, then let them play Dark Souls without soul crushing difficulty, and you can keep playing it the way you want to.

Read what I just posted.

Functional? Yeah, obviously. Fun? Good? Relevant? No.

Usually difficulty options are a good thing. In this rare and specific case, they are not.

It would give more people a chance to play the game without affecting anyone who doesn't want to use it, including you. Unless you're one of those people who doesn't want dirty "casual" gamers having the same things you have.

hardcore and casual segregation. lol

Phlakes:

ResonanceGames:

Phlakes:

No.

Just no.

Dark Souls doesn't need to be difficult. It's a huge part of the experience, yeah, but it would still be a functional game if it was easier.

Options don't damage franchises. That's ridiculous. Really. If someone wants to play Dark Souls but doesn't want soul crushing difficulty, then let them play Dark Souls without soul crushing difficulty, and you can keep playing it the way you want to.

Read what I just posted.

Functional? Yeah, obviously. Fun? Good? Relevant? No.

Usually difficulty options are a good thing. In this rare and specific case, they are not.

It would give more people a chance to play the game without affecting anyone who doesn't want to use it, including you. Unless you're one of those people who doesn't want dirty "casual" gamers having the same things you have.

For the same reason, as I already said, that I wouldn't want Mario to have the option to remove jumping.

There are many, many options you can give players regarding difficulty that you wouldn't want to because it would fundamentally cheapen and change the experience.

That said, now that I think about it, I suppose that if it were handled by giving the player more experience points rather than making enemies and encounters easier, that would probably be acceptable. Something like that wouldn't change the fundamentals of the game.

Phlakes:
Dark Souls doesn't need to be difficult. It's a huge part of the experience, yeah, but it would still be a functional game if it was easier.

I understand where you're coming from, but I can't agree. Raw functionality isn't enough of a standard for judging whether a game is still itself. Take jumping out of Super Mario Brothers, to steal another post's example, and you just hold right for a few minutes before winning.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, it was extremely popular to change the ending of Romeo and Juliet so that the lovers survive. That didn't make the play any better...well, I'm not sure anything could make that particular play any better, but in any case, it was a change that encouraged people to ignore several points Shakespeare was making in the original text. It substantially changed both the work and its reception. Something similar happens if you add a difficulty slider to Dark Souls.

I have to agree with ResonanceGames. The "difficulty" of Dark Souls is an integral part of its design--tense, methodical action that requires patience and attentiveness. Uncovering the lore also requires effort and attention. Adding a mode that circumvents these aspects substantially changes both the work and the way gamers interact with it. The same would be true for nearly all roguelikes. System mastery, not basic story progression, is the point of the game. Games that work well with multiple difficulty levels are generally designed that way from the start and do not integrate combat and narrative progression to the same extent.

Twilight_guy:
There was a controversy over this? Gamers, getting upset because the developers might be adding a difficulty slider! Oh noes, people who have less 'skillz' then you can complete the game too and your cherished pathetic achievement of beating the game becomes less exclusive. Oh noes!
image

I think he should stick by his statement if it wasn't a mistranslation and not let the PR department appease the pettiest of fans but I can understand their actions and their desire to please their fans by keeping to their... urm... ideals.

to me, Dark Souls difficulty is an integral part of the story. Basically the second NPC you meet says something like "Oh, another undead sent on the mission? Yes, you're not the only one, there are many being sent on the same mission as you, constantly. None of them is ever heard of again. Do you really think you can succeed?" and it's meant seriously, the game is telling that to you, not to the character. Dark Souls is meant to be that way so the story is not just a cheap bullshit designed to make you feel like hero just because you invested some time into it to get to the end. I suspect there are many people who wouldn't be able to finish the game even if they spent half of their life playing it (and as I see it, I might be one of them), because there are many characters (implied, at least) in the game(world) with the same fate. It gives the story much more weight, makes it real. You can be sure it's not just a setup for a grandiose victory, it's a pure challenge. The outcome of the (meta)story DEPENDS on your abilities. It's similar to the difference between an airsoft battle and a real war. Play airsoft long enough, and you're guaranteed to win at least once. Fail once in real war, and you're guaranteed it's over for you. As I said, if the game doesn't try to make you win just to provide you the "experience" of its story, you know it's really you who won, and the experience of the story is so much more real and impactful thanks to that.

I've been thinking about similar concepts for a long time, as I myself am creating a puzzle/RPG game that is MEANT to be as difficult and incomprehensible as possible, providing no help, no hints, and it is integral to its design, experience and meaning. If this game had an easier difficulty, or any difficulty setting at all, it might as well not exist. Dark Souls, I feel, is similar, though not as extreme case.

Phlakes:

It would give more people a chance to play the game without affecting anyone who doesn't want to use it, including you. Unless you're one of those people who doesn't want dirty "casual" gamers having the same things you have.

For most games I'd completely agree with that, almost all games should have a difficulty option. In general I think the the easiest mode is too difficult, as anyone who hasn't played a game (particularly a 3-d one) before would still struggle considerably.

But with Dark souls? The art style, the minimal story, the atmosphere all build around how desperate the situation of Lordran is. Remove the difficulty and the rest is pretty meaningless. Not all games need to be all things to all people.

kyogen:
snip

ResonanceGames:
For the same reason, as I already said, that I wouldn't want Mario to have the option to remove jumping.

There are many, many options you can give players regarding difficulty that you wouldn't want to because it would fundamentally cheapen and change the experience.

That said, now that I think about it, I suppose that if it were handled by giving the player more experience points rather than making enemies and encounters easier, that would probably be acceptable. Something like that wouldn't change the fundamentals of the game.

kyoodle:
But with Dark souls? The art style, the minimal story, the atmosphere all build around how desperate the situation of Lordran is. Remove the difficulty and the rest is pretty meaningless. Not all games need to be all things to all people.

See, I get where you all are coming from, but options are optional. That's why they're called options. Because they're optional. As in the only effect it has is on the people that choose to use that option. You're saying that people shouldn't even have that choice.

You have-

[The Dark Souls that exists now] + [the easier mode]

The easier mode does change the fundamentals of the game, and does remove a major part of why the game exists and why a lot of people enjoy it, but those changes only exist in the easier mode. Again, the game that you've played won't be touched. But if Steve wants to play that mode because he doesn't enjoy Dark Souls as it is, there's no reason not to give him that choice. It might be fun to him. It might not, but there's someone out there who would enjoy an easier Dark Souls, and the idea that they shouldn't even have the chance to play an easier Dark Souls because what they play wouldn't be fundamentally "right" is just ridiculous.

It's like saying that diet soda shouldn't exist because artificial sweeteners cheapen its fundamentals.

Trishbot:
I still have no idea why some fans are so upset at the very OPTION of an OPTIONAL easier difficulty for the people who want it. How does that "take away" anything if you can simply ignore it altogether?

Approximately 98% of the games out there nowadays play themselves or could be played by lobsters bashing away at a controller, if you leave Indies like Super Meat Boy or IWTBTG out of that you get like only Dark Souls and maybe some other obscure Japanese or Russian games priding themselves on offering a challenge, and you are SERIOUSLY asking why people don't want "easy-mode" in those last few bastions of hope too?

I heard there's a whole number of Facebook and iPad games out there that cater to non-gamers, I haven't ever played any of them (except maybe some Ports to PC I might not have realized) and I frankly don't give a fuck if they design those with lobsters in mind since they don't itnerest me. I will just continue to ignore them, not go out of my way and throw a tantrum how they should be more like the games *I* like and they should solely cater to *me*.
Not everything has to be a homogenized sludge appealing to everyone despite what all the publishers are always saying, and more often than not it just turns the thing (whatever it is) into shit.

You shouldn't expect to be able to "win" at everything and be able to just skip any obstacle, that's one of the reasons why I deeply appreciate and like Super Meat Boy (despite not having seen the ending so far) for instance as it harkens back to the times of Battletoads when finishing a game actually meant something.

Phlakes:

No.

Just no.

Dark Souls doesn't need to be difficult. It's a huge part of the experience, yeah, but it would still be a functional game if it was easier.

Options don't damage franchises. That's ridiculous. Really. If someone wants to play Dark Souls but doesn't want soul crushing difficulty, then let them play Dark Souls without soul crushing difficulty, and you can keep playing it the way you want to.

While that may be true with most games, it doesn't apply to the Souls games. They don't offer good dialogue, story or characters. They offer a diverse combat system that allows for different approaches and a beautiful world that immerses the player by feeling lonely, oppressive and murderous. If you add a faceroll slider to that, you get nothing. It would be like playing Minesweeper without mines. Not all games need to be beatable by everyone, some have a more niche target audience and are built from the ground up to accomodate them, people need to deal with it. I suck dick at platformers, but I didn't bitch because I can't beat Super Meatboy.

This game is almost completely misrepresented in the media, even by the company itself. It is not hard, it requires skill, meaning that you will get better with practice. Hard games are ones where everything has to be done completely right or you die and have to start again. Hard is know the exact frame in which a player is vulnerable in street fighter. Hard is rote memorization of specific move patters that are almost impossible to avoid with the exception of a few pixels.

This game is skill based, meaning you learn to play your character better as you go against enemies of ever increasing difficulty. In a NG+, a beginning enemy may be able to one hit you, but you probably won't get touched by the beginning enemies because you have moved far beyond their ability to be dangerous. You have learned their attacks, their attacks effective range, and your own effective range of combat.

In this situation, an easy mode would only be accomplished by making enemies stand there and attack less. In this game you are not measuring pixels or precise timing. It's fluid, you make the experience what you want to make it. Ergo (latin), that Calamity ring exists. That doubles your damage taken. The game is not beyond anyone, but it requires time, just like becoming good at Basketball.

Carnagath:

Phlakes:

No.

Just no.

Dark Souls doesn't need to be difficult. It's a huge part of the experience, yeah, but it would still be a functional game if it was easier.

Options don't damage franchises. That's ridiculous. Really. If someone wants to play Dark Souls but doesn't want soul crushing difficulty, then let them play Dark Souls without soul crushing difficulty, and you can keep playing it the way you want to.

While that may be true with most games, it doesn't apply to the Souls games. They don't offer good dialogue, story or characters. They offer a diverse combat system that allows for different approaches and a beautiful world that immerses the player by feeling lonely, oppressive and murderous. If you add a faceroll slider to that, you get nothing. It would be like playing Minesweeper without mines.

That's a little extreme. What a person would play in an easier Dark Souls would be the same, just in a different way.

Not all games need to be beatable by everyone, some have a more niche target audience and are built from the ground up to accomodate them, people need to deal with it.

That's entirely true, but it doesn't mean it should never happen. Expanding an audience is never a bad thing if it leaves everyone else (the people the game was built to accommodate) alone. The game won't stop appealing to that niche, it'll just start appealing to more.

rhizhim:
if the game is too hard you know who to call for
image

Sunbros for life, man! We'll be there for ya if that boss just gives you HELL.

A note to those discussing difficulty sliders for a souls game...it wouldn't work. If there was an "easy mode" where swinging used 1/50th of your stamina and you could one-shot pesky foes without having to "worry" about upgrading or enchanting your weapons and armor, the game would be broken. There is an easy mode, but you have to explore for it, watch the hints from others, and piece it together. That Is The Magic, Folks. For example,


If you go into King's field or Souls expecting traditional continues, autosaving checkpoints every 5 seconds, and the ability to nerf everything, I guarantee that you won't have fun and the pure JOY involved in leaping out of your chair and jumping in the air when that boss finally falls, and that folks is the rush that keeps us coming back.

We want this world to be hell. A festering, horrible, wretched place where anything at any time can and will kill you if you let your guard down or get greedy. The suspense, tension, and pure sense of reward is what defines the entire experience. If this bothers you, then the game wasn't made for you. It's perfectly okay, no sane person thinks they're better than you, and there's thousands of games that are more up your alley.

Many of us were raised on gaming experiences that others would consider masochistic to actually complete, and the Souls games were a glimmer of hope to tell us that we haven't been forgotten, and that it can be done with our modern architecture. Many of us growing tedious of hour long tutorials, or 12 tutorials dressed as quests, and incessant hand holding were given a gift by From Software, twice. If that gift looks to you like that ugly Christmas sweater your aunt knitted you, nobody's making you wear it, and you don't even have to lie and say you like it, because nobody is judging you outside of the trolls. And if all else fails, return to line one, call on the Sunbros and PRAISE THE SUN!

Dark souls doesnt have different difficulty levels, it is an open game and people PVP within the game boundaries... an easier mode would not fit or it would create an entire other game mode. Creating an EZ mode slider wouldn't be easy, it would create an entire slew of balance problems.

rhizhim:
if the game is too hard you know who to call for
image

Turns out that EA put that stuff into every single game now. Even the easy ones.

Dexter111:

Trishbot:
I still have no idea why some fans are so upset at the very OPTION of an OPTIONAL easier difficulty for the people who want it. How does that "take away" anything if you can simply ignore it altogether?

Approximately 98% of the games out there nowadays play themselves or could be played by lobsters bashing away at a controller, if you leave Indies like Super Meat Boy or IWTBTG out of that you get like only Dark Souls and maybe some other obscure Japanese or Russian games priding themselves on offering a challenge, and you are SERIOUSLY asking why people don't want "easy-mode" in those last few bastions of hope too?

I heard there's a whole number of Facebook and iPad games out there that cater to non-gamers, I haven't ever played any of them (except maybe some Ports to PC I might not have realized) and I frankly don't give a fuck if they design those with lobsters in mind since they don't itnerest me. I will just continue to ignore them, not go out of my way and throw a tantrum how they should be more like the games *I* like and they should solely cater to *me*.
Not everything has to be a homogenized sludge appealing to everyone despite what all the publishers are always saying, and more often than not it just turns the thing (whatever it is) into shit.

You shouldn't expect to be able to "win" at everything and be able to just skip any obstacle, that's one of the reasons why I deeply appreciate and like Super Meat Boy (despite not having seen the ending so far) for instance as it harkens back to the times of Battletoads when finishing a game actually meant something.

Except I owned Battletoads and never managed in the entire time I owned and played it to make it past the speeder biker level. And that SUCKED. I wasn't even bad at games (I managed to get through Castlevania, Contra, and MOST of Ninja Gaiden), but I never saw over 80% of Battletoads.

... And I WANTED to. I hated that stupid speeder bike level. I wanted to get past it to fight new enemies in new levels with new mechanics and new backgrounds and music and experiences. But the difficulty on a few early levels was so extreme that it was impossible for me to experience the rest of the game.

The same goes for Dark Souls. You never answered my question about how an OPTIONAL easier difficulty could impact the experiences of hardcore players who could STILL PLAY THE ORIGINAL EXPERIENCE when they wanted to. Is it such a terrible thing that some players have an option to sustain and deal more damage? To have an option like "save anywhere outside of combat"? To have things such as higher drop rates, more souls, and less upgrade costs? Little things that would allow those with less time, skill, or patience to still enjoy a dark, foreboding world with imaginative and epic bosses, deep combat and customization, and rich RPG mechanics and lore?

I see no reason why something like that couldn't exist. And if you don't like it, you don't have to play it whatsoever.

Hell, make it a two-fer. Add an easier mode AND a HARDER mode for those complaining. Give them a mode that has even more powerful enemies, even tighter death penalties, even less damaging weapons, higher upgrade costs, and weaker gear. Would fans complain about THAT?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here