Recently there was talk of what some believe is a new direction for Dark Souls 2. This is all because of the director saying he wants to make it more approachable and understandable. I don't think it is anything to get really crazy about because the original developer or maybe the creator, one of the two, is going to be overseeing the project. I could also see where they could make it more understandable in certain aspects of the game to make info more obtainable and so it explains more. Some items for example aren't explained in great detail. Also the addition of a bestiary would be cool, maybe giving a nod to Castlevania and hinting at possible weak points as well as a drop list that unlocks after obtaining said drop from that enemy. That's all I think the game really needs just some explaining on certain parts. The whole approachable part though, that just screams mainstream and easy. I don't think they need to touch the difficulty, after all that is what Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are known for.

I had Demon's Souls shortly after release and played it constantly and then picked up Dark Souls on release and found it slightly easier but not game breaking. I enjoyed the difficulty it required you to actually think and use a bit of strategy. It's funny that most of the people that complain about it play it thinking they can run in to horde of enemies like it's Dynasty Warriors or something. You have to be careful with what you do. I remember in Demon's Souls I had died in a tunnel before getting to the Armor Spider and got mobbed by the undead enemies. I was so careful getting back to my bloodstain and right as I went to get it an undead lunged through a cluster of worm exuvia and killed me. I lost near 75,000 souls which at that time was my peak. Still I very much enjoyed the difficulty of the game because it was genuine. There was no gimmick to it or cheapness just pure difficulty.

This seems like a trend though as more and more games coming out require less and less of you. Most games back in the day made you think, they had riddles and puzzles that you had to apply knowledge to. One series I am disappointed in is the Resident Evil series. I grew up with RE and the first 3 games were amazing they had that classic camera, awesome music, puzzles and sweet bosses. Then came 4, while still and excellent game it kickstarted the downfall. It had only a few puzzles with most of the game focusing on action. Then came 5 which pretty much abandoned everything, no puzzles at all except for the laser one, all action, and ridiculous action at that. It is a good game just a bad RE game to me. It's not survival horror.

When I think survival horror the main game that comes to mind is Amnesia. This is a game where you can't even attack and are trying to avoid monsters in a dark castle with stealth elements where it is easy to lose your sanity or die. RE 5 is all about killing zombies, mutants is closer. With RE 6 it is even more so. I have only played the demo and I enjoyed what I played as an action game but it really isn't a RE game.

I think the only real RE games outside of the main line is Outbreak 1 and 2 and in some respects they have better features such as bracing/barricading door, multiple characters and the item creation. I'm not saying the RE series shouldn't changing and advance with time but it did it in the wrong way as it didn't stay with it's genre. Other games do this too, they move away from their base as some game/book adaptions move far away from their source material. To me it just seems like they try to cash in on the shooter genre with a lot of games recently. Feel free to leave your thoughts.