Creator contemplating adding an easier difficulty - thoughts?

  • 122 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Edited by Humanity (10145 posts) -

Taken straight from The Polygon story found here: http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/9/4/3290781/darks-souls-creator-contemplates-introducing-easy-mode

Hidetaka Miyazaki is contemplating adding an easier difficulty option for the game in order to broaden the appeal of Dark Souls to more casual players scared off by the nefarious reputation of being "like omg the hardest game ever". I can certainly see where he is coming from. From Software created a very unique and engrossing experience and to see many people not even try the game because they're too scared that they just won't be able to hack it is disheartening. In his place I'd want as many people to see what I put 2-3 years of my life into as well.

I think he says it best

"Having said that, however, it is true that Dark Souls is rather difficult and a number of people may hesitate to play," he explained. "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 adds that players aren't searching for easy games so much as worthwhile ones, "so I think it is natural that hindrance or stress that does not attribute to such interesting and worthwhile elements will be removed in the end."

It's very true what he says there in the end, that it's not the hindrance or stress that makes a game like Dark Souls - and removing that barrier for certain people that want to experience the world and the story is in no way defacing the game as some might believe.

What do you Souls fans think?

EDIT:

thanks to

Not sure if this has already been posted;

Namco Bandai got in contact with us, claiming that there was a ‘translation mistake’. Although we did note at the time that the interview’s translation wasn’t very good the sentence in question always seemed pretty unambiguous. But this is apparently what it should have been:

‘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.’

According to Namco Bandai, ‘This revision has been made in order to inform Miyazaki-san's true intention and what has been originally posted had a mistake because of mistranslation.’

http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/games/910855-miyazaki-backtracks-over-dark-souls-difficultly-level

#2 Posted by TeflonBilly (4713 posts) -

My initial reaction is

But honestly, it's no skin off my nose and Dark Souls really is a great world and game. And if people who aren't ready for the commitment of the game are scared off then having an easier mode available might just make more people able to experience how great the game is.

#3 Posted by HH (639 posts) -

i didn't find the difficulty in demon's souls to be a problem at all, but there were a couple of things in dark souls that just weren't well thought out, and required too much attrition to master - the snipers on the anor londo cathedral in particular.

if there is an easier difficulty there is no way in hell I'll play on it, i just want the mechanics in the main game to be considered a little more, like they seemed to be in demon's souls.

Online
#4 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3999 posts) -

Some hate this, I understand, but I think it would work well if it was a tweaked mode. To me it wouldn't have to be too much off the main as far as difficulty. Things I'd like to see:

  • A bit more info provided to the player.
  • Less penalty for death, as far as loss of souls
  • Less expense to things in the world
  • Invasions able to be disabled (I played offline on my PS3 to avoid them... I have enough issues with the game world)
  • Some kind of check pointing feature perhaps?

There's a thread on this at NeoGAF and no surprise many fans of the series are outraged. They assume this means ruining their franchise, but that's a simple minded way to approach it. Did Ninja Dog difficulty ruin Ninja Gaiden? No. These kinds of things can be done right.

I think it also does a disservice to the Souls series to paint it in a light that all it has going for it is difficulty. To me, the atmosphere, mysterious story, fighting mechanics, graphics, enemy variety, level design, and monster design are the real draws. Just like difficulty was certainly part of Ninja Gaiden, but the beauty was the actual combat system, which is the GOAT.

Played Dark Souls for a while and enjoyed all those aspects and I love a challenge often times. To me, Dark Souls just felt like it wasn't valuing your time after a while. With those tweaks maybe it would. I would love less overall penalty. I am a huge fan of Ninja Gaiden for example, and in that game if I'm having a tough time with an encounter, I can just keep trying until I get it right. I know this is true to an extent in Souls, but it's certainly far different.

#5 Posted by Brodehouse (10140 posts) -

I don't want the core gameplay to be easier, per se. I want the stupid bullshit surrounding it to be less stupid. Losing progress from every cheap death and trial and error exploration and mechanics that are never explained in the game and necessary items that no one would find without a FAQ, I don't need that.

It reminds me of the original Resident Evil, where I have to put down my Shotgun and First Aid Spray in order to pick up the Doom Books, then I have to know to look inside the Doom Books from the menu, then I have to take the Crests from inside and run over to the well, then I have to go back and get my Shotgun and First Aid Spray from the room. That's not exciting survival horror gameplay, that's stupid bullshit that interferes with the best part of the game. That's a 3 hour game that balloons up to 8-10 because of stupid bullsht.

#6 Posted by FluxWaveZ (19388 posts) -

I'm not sure about this. Part of the reason why I like the Souls games is because they're the only ones who have actually forced me to be patient and meticulous as opposed to other games where I have the freedom to do crazy things and then die because there isn't much of a penalty for that.

Demon's Souls was better than Dark Souls, in my opinion, and I thought it was because the design of the former game was just so much better (and the online worked). Blighttown was a mess and it simply wasn't fun. I also preferred the level system instead of the open world one. I think those kinds of design decisions should take priority over simply dumbing down the game for very little reason and losing the dedicated fanbase they had to opt for a "broader audience" that, I don't think, will help them in the end.

#7 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

Why do I feel like all this new mode will do is put a bow on your character and replace all the save points (or nearest equivalent) with ones that read "wuss"?

#8 Edited by Karkarov (3293 posts) -

I don't have a problem with an "easier" mode. Honestly nothing stops you from playing on the normal settings even if it is there so it doesn't take anything away from the people looking for a harder game, especially if the easy mode is not the default setting. I would probably like it simply for no other reason than sometimes I am just out to farm materials for weapons or something, or some souls to buy a new spell. It would be nice to farm without having to be on my A game the whole time. Also this has no effect on other players, so the already ridiculously brutal invasions will only be even worse for the "easy" moders.

EDIT: Just to throw it out there, I also think Demon's Souls is the better of the two games. There were a couple spots in that game where I felt like you could die for "cheap" reasons and mostly due to unintended weirdness. There were many many of those moments in Dark Souls and most of them felt by design. From Anor Londo archers, to Blighttown lag bombs, to rooms with something like 5+ giant skeletons just camping the door, not to mention first time encounters with actual invisible enemies, multiple boss mechanics that punished you severely your first time fighting them... There was just alot of "cheap" moments in Dark Souls that seemed light on challenge and high on bad design or cheese.

#9 Posted by ShaggE (6727 posts) -

A resounding "whatevs" from me. What could possibly be bad about more people enjoying a game? Maybe if you're the type to mutter "filthy casuals" or say "PC master race" unironically, but if that's the case, a new mode in a game is the least of your problems.

#10 Edited by Turambar (6898 posts) -

No, that is a terrible idea because it would fracture the online community.

You cannot have people playing in easy mode and players in normal mode on the same servers if you want easy mode to serve a purpose.

If the next Souls game had a far more single player focus, fine, I can deal. But the previous two has placed fairly heavy emphasis on online play to get the full experience.

#11 Posted by Humanity (10145 posts) -

@FluxWaveZ said:

I'm not sure about this. Part of the reason why I like the Souls games is because they're the only ones who have actually forced me to be patient and meticulous as opposed to other games where I have the freedom to do crazy things and then die because there isn't much of a penalty for that.

Demon's Souls was better than Dark Souls, in my opinion, and I thought it was because the design of the former game was just so much better (and the online worked). Blighttown was a mess and it simply wasn't fun. I also preferred the level system instead of the open world one. I think those kinds of design decisions should take priority over simply dumbing down the game for very little reason and losing the dedicated fanbase they had to opt for a "broader audience" that, I don't think, will help them in the end.

But adding an easier difficulty mode does not compromise the gameplay for core players that can still opt out and play the game as intended with no "hand holding" as it were. I agree with your assessment as I also thought Demons Souls was structured far better than Dark Souls. I believe they are both very intense games to play in the beginning, and that hub world styling of Demons Souls lent itself quite well to offering the play a moment of respite when you finally got to an archstone. Dark Souls tends to feel really exhausting at times because it just doesn't end. You get to a bonfire and in the beginning you can't teleport so you're there - kinda stuck if you will. There are other things that I thought were better executed in Demons Souls, performance being key and foremost, but to get back on track I see no problem with them adding an easier setting - something that almost all modern games have.

Of course bettering the original game by redesigning some elements that were not quite up to snuff would be amazing but that won't happen. I'd hope they would take suggestions under consideration for when/if they make a third game. I think getting rid of the crystal geckos was a great move as that was a horrible upgrade mechanic as was adding more than one checkpoint per area.

#12 Posted by Make_Me_Mad (3134 posts) -

@Turambar said:

No, that is a terrible idea because it would fracture the online community.

You cannot have people playing in easy mode and players in normal mode on the same servers if you want easy mode to serve a purpose.

If the next Souls game had a far more single player focus, fine, I can deal. But the previous two has placed fairly heavy emphasis on online play to get the full experience.

This was my immediate worry. Would it only allow you to interact online with other players in the same difficulty setting as you? It'd be a hell of a weird divide, but doing it any other way would create some serious weirdness with the invading and co-op systems.

#13 Posted by Ares42 (2800 posts) -

Having played through almost the entire game on the PC (after abandoning it on PS3) over the last few days, I gotta say the difficulty of the game is overplayed. While you will certainly die from time to time, you just need to approach it with the same attitude you have with something like a mario game or something. Death is rarely a major setback. There are definitely spots in the game that fall under my favorite saying about it's predecessor though, "it's not hard, it's bad". Anor Londo archers is a good example of that. Other than those there are only a very few spots in the game that are actually difficult.

Most of the supposed difficulty however comes from the lack of explanation in the game, but that is also an intrinsic part of the absolutely amazing atmosphere the game creates. Once you learn how the systems work and get a better grip on how you're supposed to approach the game however deaths become pretty rare. Looking at my own experience, once I truly understood the crafting system and the attributes (which operate very differently than what you're used to in RPGs) things fell right into place.

If anything what the game needs is a better introduction about how weapon choice matters, but it would probably be hard to do it in a natural way without just a series of textboxes. That and a big fat "do not get overly attached to your souls, there are plenty more out there" warning. At almost any point in the game where you run into a situation where it's easy to lose all your souls, once you're past it you're almost always in an area that just pours out souls compared to what you're used to.

#14 Posted by FluxWaveZ (19388 posts) -

@Humanity: Yeah, I suppose it wouldn't hurt as an option for players who find the game daunting, but I'm just afraid that it would affect the game's overall design. Fundamentally, the game is made to be difficult and that difficulty is incorporated into the level structure itself. If they had to take into account a lower difficulty setting, would they then opt to have "difficulty" be determined by a bunch of sliders changing minor things like enemy damage, player health and player damage instead of having a lot of the difficulty be represented by the level layout?

Plus, like mentioned, this could split up the already relatively small online community, which would be awful.

#15 Posted by Terramagi (1158 posts) -

Dark Souls is NOT a hard game. It's an indifferent game. The game doesn't bend backwards at the mere sight of you. It won't simply let you walk by. It will put you in the ground unless you smack that game around and teach it who the fuck is the boss around here.

Certainly, the game could do with some more transparent systems, and maybe some covenents - should that part of the game return in the next Souls game - could do with some streamlining (I sure as shit wouldn't mind if the Darkmoon Blades would teleport you to an appropriate sinner ala the Dark Anor Londo system). But the general feel of the game, that you are not hot shit until you PROVE that you're hot shit, should stay.

I think getting rid of the crystal geckos was a great move as that was a horrible upgrade mechanic as was adding more than one checkpoint per area.

The crystal lizards are still in the game. They're just not REQUIRED.

#16 Posted by J12088 (462 posts) -

No thanks. It's not a hard game it's just not holding your hand. Theres thousands of games out there that do the handholding why take away one of it's best points.

#17 Posted by mosespippy (4475 posts) -

I didn't find Dark Souls difficult. Just be careful and keep an eye out and you'll spot everything in advance. Adding a wuss mode won't change the game's reputation for being difficult, so it really wouldn't bring in those who are afraid.

#18 Posted by Terramagi (1158 posts) -

Also, for the record, the Anor Londo Archers were fucking easy. You run straight up to the tower, wait for the archer to fire, run straight up to the one on the right and punt that motherfucker off while hugging the wall.

You'd think from the way people trump up that thing as "WHOMG UNFAIR GAME DESIGN" that the arrows homed in on you. They're exactly the same as every other archer in the game, they just do more damage and have a knockback - which isn't a problem as long as you treat them like every other archer in the game and book ass past them.

Only thing that really needed to change was for Gwyndolin to be like "yo bro, here's a map of the hotspots where sinners are, now get hunting" so you didn't have to use meta-game knowledge.

#19 Posted by Humanity (10145 posts) -

@FluxWaveZ: Personally I think the whole online aspect is overplayed. I played through all of Demons Souls by myself and and Dark Souls as well. I was online, I saw the messages but I hardly ever summoned or did anything of that nature. If I was forced to play offline it wouldn't ruin the experience for me much.

#20 Posted by emem (1974 posts) -

Isn't it too late for Dark Souls anyway? I don't really see a point in doing it now. But it would certainly make sense for a new game if they want to make more money... nothing wrong with that as long as there are 2 seperate game modes to prevent long time fans from freaking out.

#21 Posted by Ares42 (2800 posts) -

@Terramagi said:

You'd think from the way people trump up that thing as "WHOMG UNFAIR GAME DESIGN" that the arrows homed in on you.

You do realize that they actually do, right ? all arrows shot by NPCs in the game are somewhat homing. The fact that they do knockback is the problem with the encounter. There are a few other encounters like this (like the golem in crystal caves and the demon in Lost Izalith) where they put you on small ledges and face you up against enemies with heavy knockbacks, making the enemies into random one-shotters no matter what kinda gear or level you are.

#22 Posted by Terramagi (1158 posts) -

@Humanity said:

@FluxWaveZ: Personally I think the whole online aspect is overplayed. I played through all of Demons Souls by myself and and Dark Souls as well. I was online, I saw the messages but I hardly ever summoned or did anything of that nature. If I was forced to play offline it wouldn't ruin the experience for me much.

I think it's this is part of the problem - people who played on their own typically bitched the most. You know those messages on the ground, vaguely warning you about things yet to come? Imagine how much easier those "trial and error bullshit game design from the 80s" Anor Londo archers would have been if you had summoned somebody and watched how they do it. Imagine how much differently Biggy and Smalls would've gone if you'd summoned somebody and watched how they dodged attacks.

#23 Posted by Morningstar (2242 posts) -

It's not that hard anyway.

#24 Posted by Terramagi (1158 posts) -

@Ares42 said:

@Terramagi said:

You'd think from the way people trump up that thing as "WHOMG UNFAIR GAME DESIGN" that the arrows homed in on you.

You do realize that they actually do, right ? all arrows shot by NPCs in the game are somewhat homing. The fact that they do knockback is the problem with the encounter. There are a few other encounters like this (like the golem in crystal caves and the demon in Lost Izalith) where they put you on small ledges and face you up against enemies with heavy knockbacks, making the enemies into random one-shotters no matter what kinda gear or level you are.

You do realize that the homing is negated by simply running up that railing like a crazy motherfucker, right? The way you should've dodged every archer in the game prior to that point?

I've NEVER ONCE died to those archers. I took an arrow to the shield, saw how far it pushed me back, looked at how precarious the footing was, and figured it out without slowly tiptoeing my way up when I KNEW it wasn't going to work.

Same thing with the golems in Crystal Cave. Admittedly I DO hate that area because of the walkways, but that's why they gave you 20 Prism stones not 5 minutes beforehand. It's not like you can run out of the things - they cost 10 souls apiece! Arrows cost more!

Same thing with the Titanite Demon in Lost Izalith. ALL Titanite Demons have the same weakness. Hell, I'd go as far as to say all ENEMIES have the same weakness. Strafe towards their non-dominant hand and they can't hit you.

#25 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4899 posts) -

The problem for Dark Souls isn't so much that it's difficult (it kinda is and kinda isn't), it's that the game is fucking obtuse. It doesn't explain itself well mechanically. There is the briefest of tutorials but it doesn't explain how magic works, or crafting, or even what Humanity is. While we know all of this now, it was still a pain in the ass to learn at the time.

Hopefully From doesn't make the game "easier," they just start explaining the systems and mechanics in their games better.

#26 Posted by Zidd (1857 posts) -

I'd love to play this type of game but I have better things to do than bang my head against a wall for 4 hours trying to make progress in the game. These games would probably benefit from containing less bullshit.

#27 Posted by NegativeCero (3041 posts) -

I don't really care as long as they make it an option and don't replace the default. Like people have mentioned already, making the game easier by traditional means (enemies not hitting as hard, less hp, etc) doesn't solve some of the difficulty that comes from game design (falling off ledges as enemies attack you).

#28 Posted by Ares42 (2800 posts) -

@Terramagi: You don't need to tell me how to do it :P All I'm saying is that it's cheap gameplay when there suddenly are encounters that require flawless execution when you don't need it for any other part of the game.

#29 Posted by Doppelgamer (245 posts) -

Seriously, what's the big deal if it's simply optional?

#30 Posted by Hairy_Fish (366 posts) -

@Humanity said:

He adds that players aren't searching for easy games so much as worthwhile ones, "so I think it is natural that hindrance or stress that does not attribute to such interesting and worthwhile elements will be removed in the end."

It's very true what he says there in the end, that it's not the hindrance or stress that makes a game like Dark Souls - and removing that barrier for certain people that want to experience the world and the story is in no way defacing the game as some might believe.

Weird. I always thought the hindrance and stress were EXACTLY what made Dark Souls a worthwhile experience. It is the feeling of hopelessness and then the overcoming of it that Dark Souls delivers better than any other game.

#31 Posted by Terramagi (1158 posts) -

@Ares42 said:

@Terramagi: You don't need to tell me how to do it :P All I'm saying is that it's cheap gameplay when there suddenly are encounters that require flawless execution when you don't need it for any other part of the game.

It's not cheap. The first railing has walls that make it impossible to fall off. This allows you to safely take a hit on your shield, which you will since you're still in turtle mode from Sen's Fortress, without falling off. The first hit should be your indication that the typical strategy won't work, since you'll probably end up being pushed back 6 steps for every 5 you take. You then approach cover, which allows you to survey the geography and enemy placement without fear. Then you can crawl forward, completely safe from one of the archers and, since you know the pushback of their arrows, you've probably walked a good distance forward which allows you to see the next railing while also taking a hit on your shield. You can then retreat back to safety and, when you're ready, use all of your accumulated knowledge of the situation to run up that roof like a madman and, since you saw the left archer had a tower next to him he wouldn't be able to shoot past, deal with the one on the right first. Then you double back, murder the shit out of him (since he's not able to knock you off) and grab the Hero soul. Then you drop down to the bonfire.

Honestly, a lot of the "WHOMG THIS IS THE MOST DIFFICULT GAME EVER MADE" bullshit comes from people who either take a wrong turn and go to the Catacombs and turn the game off in disgust, or people who run up to the aqueduct and swing their weapon around like a retard, get blocked by the first enemy with a shield, eat a firebomb and die. Then they turn off the game and start complaining about archaic game design.

#32 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4899 posts) -

@Terramagi said:

@Ares42 said:

@Terramagi: You don't need to tell me how to do it :P All I'm saying is that it's cheap gameplay when there suddenly are encounters that require flawless execution when you don't need it for any other part of the game.

It's not cheap. The first railing has walls that make it impossible to fall off. This allows you to safely take a hit on your shield, which you will since you're still in turtle mode from Sen's Fortress, without falling off. The first hit should be your indication that the typical strategy won't work, since you'll probably end up being pushed back 6 steps for every 5 you take. You then approach cover, which allows you to survey the geography and enemy placement without fear. Then you can crawl forward, completely safe from one of the archers and, since you know the pushback of their arrows, you've probably walked a good distance forward which allows you to see the next railing while also taking a hit on your shield. You can then retreat back to safety and, when you're ready, use all of your accumulated knowledge of the situation to run up that roof like a madman and, since you saw the left archer had a tower next to him he wouldn't be able to shoot past, deal with the one on the right first. Then you double back, murder the shit out of him (since he's not able to knock you off) and grab the Hero soul. Then you drop down to the bonfire.

Honestly, a lot of the "WHOMG THIS IS THE MOST DIFFICULT GAME EVER MADE" bullshit comes from people who either take a wrong turn and go to the Catacombs and turn the game off in disgust, or people who run up to the aqueduct and swing their weapon around like a retard, get blocked by the first enemy with a shield, eat a firebomb and die. Then they turn off the game and start complaining about archaic game design.

Those archers WERE bullshit, dude. I like the game as much as you do, but not recognising those two assholes as Satan's hellspawn created solely for fucking with the player is tantamount to putting blinders on. I, like many others, got by on the good fortune of while shielding and walking with my ass to the wall toward the archer on the right (from the mad run up), that the second archer didn't shoot me in the back, knocking me off. The whole encounter lasts maybe 30 seconds if you do it in one shot, but for some people it lasted hours.

#33 Posted by Humanity (10145 posts) -

@Terramagi: I sure did imagine a lot of those things because I waited around several areas in the game for literally an hour at a time with no summons signs to be found. Should I by any chance actually stumble onto a blue sign and rush over to it head over heals, I just go summoning failed. The fact that the online was largely non functioning at time of console launch aside - I did read messages. I beat Demons Souls many times over and had fun. What you don't take under consideration in your condescending rant on online play is that some people want to find things out on their own. Some want just a hint, they don't want others to just do it for them. No amount of showing how great someone dodges Ornstein and Smough will make YOU dodge them any better. You just have to play and find out. Months later when the online was fixed with a patch I summoned a blue phantom to help me with that boss fight and it went alright, he died halfway through but I managed to end it.

You seem pretty passionate about the game but you should take a step back and maybe two calming breaths at that. The entire game can be boiled down to how easy it is "just don't get hit!" best advice you can ever give someone in Dark Souls.

#34 Posted by Loafsmooch (365 posts) -

I think this is a great idea. The world in Dark Souls is a compelling, immersive one. Playing the game feels like an adventure, you endure the hardships with your character. If this leads to more people being able to enjoy this beautiful gameworld I'm all for it.

#35 Posted by Terramagi (1158 posts) -

@Oldirtybearon said:

@Terramagi said:

@Ares42 said:

@Terramagi: You don't need to tell me how to do it :P All I'm saying is that it's cheap gameplay when there suddenly are encounters that require flawless execution when you don't need it for any other part of the game.

It's not cheap. The first railing has walls that make it impossible to fall off. This allows you to safely take a hit on your shield, which you will since you're still in turtle mode from Sen's Fortress, without falling off. The first hit should be your indication that the typical strategy won't work, since you'll probably end up being pushed back 6 steps for every 5 you take. You then approach cover, which allows you to survey the geography and enemy placement without fear. Then you can crawl forward, completely safe from one of the archers and, since you know the pushback of their arrows, you've probably walked a good distance forward which allows you to see the next railing while also taking a hit on your shield. You can then retreat back to safety and, when you're ready, use all of your accumulated knowledge of the situation to run up that roof like a madman and, since you saw the left archer had a tower next to him he wouldn't be able to shoot past, deal with the one on the right first. Then you double back, murder the shit out of him (since he's not able to knock you off) and grab the Hero soul. Then you drop down to the bonfire.

Honestly, a lot of the "WHOMG THIS IS THE MOST DIFFICULT GAME EVER MADE" bullshit comes from people who either take a wrong turn and go to the Catacombs and turn the game off in disgust, or people who run up to the aqueduct and swing their weapon around like a retard, get blocked by the first enemy with a shield, eat a firebomb and die. Then they turn off the game and start complaining about archaic game design.

Those archers WERE bullshit, dude. I like the game as much as you do, but not recognising those two assholes as Satan's hellspawn created solely for fucking with the player is tantamount to putting blinders on. I, like many others, got by on the good fortune of while shielding and walking with my ass to the wall toward the archer on the right (from the mad run up), that the second archer didn't shoot me in the back, knocking me off. The whole encounter lasts maybe 30 seconds if you do it in one shot, but for some people it lasted hours.

If they were bullshit, how was I able to accurately describe exactly how you're supposed to figure it out? The archer on the left CAN'T shoot you while you're dealing with the one on the right, because he's situated behind a giant tower. The AI isn't smart enough to switch to melee and move up to get a better angle. It will keep shooting into the wall until you approach close enough for it to switch to sword and board - at which point it will probably vault straight off the building and kill itself.

There are a few times where the geography works against you - Stray Demon mostly - but the Anor Londo archers are one of the most overblown freakouts people have in this game, second only to "oh I went into the graveyard and I bled to death, so I shut the game off and am now bitching about it online".

#36 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4899 posts) -

@Terramagi: The archers were bullshit because, even if you were to figure all of that out on the first attempt, it still boils down to luck on positioning as well as attack. The archer on the left isn't supposed to be able to shoot me while I'm on the ledge creeping ass to wall toward to Archer #2 (aka Beelzebub), but he did, several times.

#37 Posted by psylah (2187 posts) -

Get the fuck out my face with that easy mode shit.

#38 Posted by DelroyLindo (387 posts) -

@mosespippy said:

I didn't find Dark Souls difficult. Just be careful and keep an eye out and you'll spot everything in advance. Adding a wuss mode won't change the game's reputation for being difficult, so it really wouldn't bring in those who are afraid.

i pretty much concur with this

#39 Edited by Humanity (10145 posts) -

@psylah said:

Get the fuck out my face with that easy mode shit.

I was hoping that more people could see beyond the "difficulty" of the game rather than holding it as some sort of internet badge of honor.

The whole response from people of "well if they want to put in a PUSSY mode HEH then whatever I'll be down in the pits with my other Dark Souls bro *fist bump*" is disheartening. The games were great but not because you get double teamed by two heavy damage dealing bosses in a game where targetting isn't the smoothest thing ever, but because it tried something different and had a great atmosphere. There are many things I would tweak to make the gameplay better while still leaving the challenge intact. Some parts of the Souls games are a chore. You overcame it, and got a huge sense of satisfaction for it - but these games are skating that edge of "one more try" and "fuck it this is stupid I'm playing something else" a little too close at times.

When I fought Siff, and my character just constantly whiffed air with my spear weapon that wasn't a challenge, it was just broken and cheap because the targetting is ass at times. When I beat him I didn't feet satisfaction because I had to change my entire gamestyle and it didn't feel rewarding. With enemies that can just grab you and destroy 65% of your health bar with 1 attack making sure all YOUR attacks connect is a must. When you're just running around chipping bosses 2% life at a time, thats not rewarding gameplay when the game can't even target the boss properly for you and you end up dying because of it.

#40 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4899 posts) -

@rebgav said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

@Terramagi: The archers were bullshit because, even if you were to figure all of that out on the first attempt, it still boils down to luck on positioning as well as attack. The archer on the left isn't supposed to be able to shoot me while I'm on the ledge creeping ass to wall toward to Archer #2 (aka Beelzebub), but he did, several times.

The Anor Londo archers are one of my favorite parts of the game. It's a troll encounter which you overcome by having a little skill, a little luck and a lot of balls. Usually you're going to get through it in one shot but sometimes you take a giant arrow to the back of the head and fall to your death - or maybe the archer on the right will switch to melee and walk right off the ledge. There's a bonfire right before it and a bonfire right after it, I don't know why it makes people so mad.

I think it's the Meat Boy thing. Sure you don't really lose anything but time considering respawning is virtually instantaneous, but there is a build-up of aggression after running into that same brick wall over and over again. I never got "been here for hours and still didn't get by them" stuck like some people have, but I would say that I did it after at least half a dozen attempts. Not enough to throw a controller, but just enough to say "FUCK those archers" with some venom.

#41 Posted by MentalDisruption (1670 posts) -

I'm ok with it if it is optional. Doesn't affect how I play my game, and it may get more people to experience Dark Souls. Sounds good to me.

#42 Posted by Hunter5024 (5982 posts) -

Sweet. Now if he just added competent animation I might consider playing his games.

#43 Posted by SharkEthic (1064 posts) -

Wasn't the brutal difficulty the whole point of the exercise?

Anyway, play it on easy. Don't. Couldn't care less.

#44 Posted by Nux (2429 posts) -

I think at is really dumb. Part of the Dark Soul's appeal is how hard it is. It just wouldn't be as fun if it was easier.

#45 Posted by BabyChooChoo (4833 posts) -

@ShaggE said:

A resounding "whatevs" from me. What could possibly be bad about more people enjoying a game? Maybe if you're the type to mutter "filthy casuals" or say "PC master race" unironically, but if that's the case, a new mode in a game is the least of your problems.

I'm in the same boat. I absolutely love the franchise in it's current form and if they want to add an easier difficulty so the game is accessible to more people, then more power to 'em. It would not bother me one bit.

#46 Posted by jakob187 (21780 posts) -

I think that the better response for the creator of the game would be this: leave Dark Souls the way that it is since it is very much its own experience and instead use the hype around Dark Souls to create a separate IP that can deliver upon the same general notes with an easy mode available for it as well. I understand that they don't exactly have oodles and oodles of money to throw at a game, but at the same time, continually iterating these things about Dark Souls when they could be working on a new effort seems kind of jumbled and will eventually do nothing but soil the reputation of a great game that they built.

#47 Posted by ArbitraryWater (12138 posts) -

I feel like the difficulty is an intrinsic part of the experience, along with the part where the game doesn't tell you anything.

#48 Posted by laserbolts (5372 posts) -

This doesn't bother me at all. As long as I still can play on the default setting that's all that matters to me. Making it easier can bring in some more copies sold which would help fund the next game anyways.

#49 Posted by Undeadpool (5003 posts) -

I'm sure there's a pretty big backlash against this from people desperate to sound cool about videogame difficulty, but honestly as long as the mode is optional, I see literally not one problem.

@Turambar said:

No, that is a terrible idea because it would fracture the online community.

You cannot have people playing in easy mode and players in normal mode on the same servers if you want easy mode to serve a purpose.

If the next Souls game had a far more single player focus, fine, I can deal. But the previous two has placed fairly heavy emphasis on online play to get the full experience.

Not necessarily. The difficulty would just need to be set by whatever game you're being brought into. So you could go from normal to easy (no real problem as long as level geometry isn't changed) or easy to normal (also not a problem since there's no death penalty when you go into someone else's game).

#50 Posted by Turambar (6898 posts) -

@Undeadpool said:

I'm sure there's a pretty big backlash against this from people desperate to sound cool about videogame difficulty, but honestly as long as the mode is optional, I see literally not one problem.

@Turambar said:

No, that is a terrible idea because it would fracture the online community.

You cannot have people playing in easy mode and players in normal mode on the same servers if you want easy mode to serve a purpose.

If the next Souls game had a far more single player focus, fine, I can deal. But the previous two has placed fairly heavy emphasis on online play to get the full experience.

Not necessarily. The difficulty would just need to be set by whatever game you're being brought into. So you could go from normal to easy (no real problem as long as level geometry isn't changed) or easy to normal (also not a problem since there's no death penalty when you go into someone else's game).

Wouldn't that pretty much deter beginners from attempting to be summoned into any games as a white phantom, or invading as a dark phantom, for fear of the difficulty being suddenly higher than they're used to?

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.