Dark Souls II - Interviews @ EDGE

TheMadGamer said:

I agree with everything you wrote there. And I agree that the game is challenging, but it isn't insurmountable. The key question is if the player has the patience and time to spend more time in areas and/or figuring out how to defeat a boss than is customary these days.

Mentally, I've settled in with the notion that Demon's Souls and Dark Souls require that you sort of 'marinate' in an area for a while and 'stew' around with a boss for a time. That is one aspect of the style of these games.

But it does fly in the face of most modern games where you zip through the game world and glide past hordes of baddies/bosses.

I've come to actually appreciate what this series is offering because it is quite rare in the lineup of contemporary titles.

Click to expand...

Well said and agree with you totally. I also noticed that the expectation now of action/adventure games is how 'owesome' it is to go through hundreds of baddies with few button mashes with the challange being how many hits and combos can be scored with the least amount of time.

I am glad for games like Dark Souls.

One thing I like about the combat in Dark Souls is how slow and deliberate it can be. The heavy weapons really behave like they have weight. Sweet.

Still, the game's sometimes too twitchy for old me.

I have the perfect solution for this: Give the player an option to adjust the speed of the game. Slow motion gameplay for slow people. Bullet time for those boss fights. Obviously a single player option only.

Actually, I would like this option in every action game. For instance, I didn't find the combat in Dragon Age 2 difficult at all, but I would have slowed it down once in a while, just to see what was going on.

I suppose they could implement an easy mode where enemies did 25% of normal damage. It would be easy, and you could 'play' the game like a tourist, soaking up the atmosphere (minus the constant threat of being murdered, which is a significant contributor to the atmosphere of the game) and just seeing the world.

The thing is, if they included that mode, they would be obliged to make playing the game in that mode not be shit. And that would take time, a lot of time. If they just implemented it with no care for how it affects the experience, it would be a pretty poor experience. Having that option available, many reviewers who want to be able to say that they played the whole game, but don't want to spend 100s of hours to do it are going to play the easy mode and come away thinking the game isn't very good.

Why implement a sub-par game mode just as lip service to people who want an easy game? Those people have, like, practically every other game that is released to choose from.

I often see people claim that they should 'just' implement an easy mode, but I've yet to see a single viable suggestion as to how to do it without taking development resources away from making a great Souls game for the actual fans of those games.

JonNik said:

There are other very atmospheric very accessible games out there i.e Take your pick.

Click to expand...

Really? No. Can't think of any. Depends on what you mean by "atmospheric", of course. GTA V, for instance, is pretty atmospheric. But it's an entirely different kind of atmosphere.

Come to think of it, GTA V is an interesting comparison to Dark Souls. I have played both games extensively for the exploration/immersion factor. GTA V has superb walking and great driving. Dark Souls is also good for a walk and handles big weapons with weight. While Dark Souls is dark an opressive, GTA V is sunny and trying to be funny. Both offer convincing worlds to explore. Actually playing the game becomes a chore in both, for completely different reasons. (GTA V has no interesting gameplay mechanics. While driving is great, racing is horrible. And the shooting sucks big time.)

As for atmosphere, the opening section of Planescape: Torment is the only other game I can think of that matches Dark Souls in dark, opressive poetry.

Badesumofu said:

I suppose they could implement an easy mode where enemies did 25% of normal damage… The thing is, if they included that mode, they would be obliged to make playing the game in that mode not be shit.

Click to expand...

No, they would not. "Shit" is a relative term in this context. It would be a better game to some, without any further work at all. And they could call it "Shit Mode" for all I care.

Badesumofu said:

Having that option available, many reviewers who want to be able to say that they played the whole game, but don't want to spend 100s of hours to do it are going to play the easy mode and come away thinking the game isn't very good.

Click to expand...

I can somewhat understand this objection. But naming the mode appropriately would take care of the problem; Tourist Mode, Looser Mode, Wimp Mode, whatever necessary to keep the "real" players away.

Badesumofu said:

I've yet to see a single viable suggestion as to how to do it without taking development resources away from making a great Souls game for the actual fans of those games.

Click to expand...

So, how about my suggestion about slow motion gameplay for slow people? Giving the player an option to adjust the speed of the game would change nothing. The gameplay would be exactly the same, only slower. Have no idea how hard it would be to implement from a programming standpoint, though.

Mr Smiley said:

Really? No. Can't think of any.

Click to expand...

Atmospheric definitely doesn't mean dark gothic and brooding exclusively… First time I've seen anyone narrow the definition down so much…

Anyways atmospheric games ? :

Gothic 1-2-3 Risen 1-2, Witcher 1-2, Skyrim, Morrowind, Deus X, the list is too big really
Gothic 1 and Witcher 1 are sufficiently dark and brooding at places but not to Dark Souls level of course… Stalker Realms of the Haunting and Clive Barkers Undying are quite a bit darker (for a look outside the genre). The Diablo games I guess (not my thing eh ?). Dark messiah of might and magic perhaps and also Severance (although that is hardly accessible and also both of them not RPGs)…

Oh hell we had that discussion recently.

Badesumofu said:

I suppose they could implement an easy mode where enemies did 25% of normal damage. It would be easy, and you could 'play' the game like a tourist, soaking up the atmosphere (minus the constant threat of being murdered, which is a significant contributor to the atmosphere of the game) and just seeing the world.

The thing is, if they included that mode, they would be obliged to make playing the game in that mode not be shit. And that would take time, a lot of time. If they just implemented it with no care for how it affects the experience, it would be a pretty poor experience. Having that option available, many reviewers who want to be able to say that they played the whole game, but don't want to spend 100s of hours to do it are going to play the easy mode and come away thinking the game isn't very good.

Why implement a sub-par game mode just as lip service to people who want an easy game? Those people have, like, practically every other game that is released to choose from.

I often see people claim that they should 'just' implement an easy mode, but I've yet to see a single viable suggestion as to how to do it without taking development resources away from making a great Souls game for the actual fans of those games.

Click to expand...

I completely agree with everything you said here. Pretty much what I was implying above.
Special note about a certain level of challenge contributing to the Atmosphere. Its what I've been saying for the Gothics (#1 and #2 with NOTR particularly) for years. You just need the "I could die at any point like that" feeling to convey a dark and brooding atmosphere in particular, or it quickly becomes so much fluff that you can easily start seeing through…

Back to the Catacombs for me now

JonNik said:

Gothic 1-2-3 Risen 1-2, Witcher 1-2, Skyrim, Morrowind, Deus X, the list is too big really; Gothic 1 and Witcher 1 are sufficiently dark and brooding at places but not to Dark Souls level of course… Stalker Realms of the Haunting and Clive Barkers Undying are quite a bit darker (for a look outside the genre). The Diablo games I guess (not my thing eh ?). Dark messiah of might and magic perhaps and also Severance (although that is hardly accessible and also both of them not RPGs)…

Click to expand...

Indeed. I Played and enjoyed most of those. (Even perservered with Severance, despite insane difficulty. The combat was truly revolutionary. Really looking forward to Bare Mettle attempting somewhat similar combat in Sui Generis.)

I'd like to add Myst to the list. Half Life 2 also, by the way. Both games with enigmatic, understated piecemeal storytelling, like Dark Souls. (I could imagine a Myst-like game in the Dark Souls universe, with no combat, only mystery.)

There are lots of other great games out there. But I resent the "go play something else" argument in general. My opinion is that game difficulty should always be up to the player. Sure, the experience won't be the same. But it's never the same anyway. We're all different. The developers don't know my skill and can't determine what difficulty would be appropriate for me.

Will probably get Dark Souls II anyway. And from what I've seen in previews, I presume that I'll complain about the difficulty too.

JonNik said:

Oh hell we had that discussion recently.

Click to expand...

Yes. It's a discussion worth having more than once:
http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18996
http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20083

Mr Smiley said:

There are lots of other great games out there. But I resent the "go play something else" argument in general. My opinion is that game difficulty should always be up to the player. Sure, the experience won't be the same. But it's never the same anyway. We're all different. The developers don't know my skill and can't determine what difficulty would be appropriate for me.

Click to expand...

That is most definitely not the argument I am making though. Far from it!
Mine is: "invest in this game" when you have the time and patience for it, and when you get over the difficulty curve (*) you will see that theres is a particular reason for it to be this way… and that is all I am doing here really. Saying why this design should stay as is and not make compromises.

(* and you will. And the second time through will feel as smooth as any other game you enjoy replaying if my first 13 hours or so on run #2 are any indication)

P.S

Mr Smiley said:

Yes. It's a discussion worth having more than once:

Click to expand...

I was referring to the "Atmospheric games" Discussion that I linked as an indication of what I think for atmosphere in games…

JonNik said:

That is most definitely not the argument I am making though. Far from it!
Mine is: "invest in this game" when you have the time and patience for it, and when you get over the difficulty curve (*) you will see that theres is a particular reason for it to be this way… and that is all I am doing here really. Saying why this design should stay as is and not make compromises.

Click to expand...

I did invest in the game. I spent well over 100 hours playing Dark Souls and got as far as the Duke's Archives Prison Tower before I quit. That is how hard it was for me. And to me, difficulty is a matter of how much time I wish to spend with a game. If the lore and atmosphere are good, I can take a higher difficulty. Personally, I think 30 hours would have been reasonable in this case. I would have been perfectly happy with the difficulty if I had gotten as far in 30 hours. Then I would probably have continued to complete the rest of the game.

I like the combat and type the of difficulty it presents. I love the rather slow, deliberate pacing, and the fact that the game plays fair (mostly). I wouldn't have spent over 100 hours playing the game if I didn't like it. But I still suck at it. It's not that I can't figure out how to beat enemies in the game. Even when I know exactly what to do, I find the timing and execution hard. Much for the same reason, I never play real time strategy games, while I love turn based ones.

When I finally defeated Ornstein and Smough, it was not because I had suddenly figured out how to do it, it was sheer luck that I was able to actually implement my strategy. And that's not how it's supposed to be.

I understand the feeling of accomplishment others get from "beating" a difficult game. However, myself I don't get that feeling and I don't need it. I also understand that people who enjoy Dark Souls this way wish others to enjoy it the same way they do. But it's not possible, because everybody is different.

From what I've read lately it appears that DS2 will instead be harder than DK, and that they, based on their experiences with the beta is thinking about upping the difficulty even more, so I wouldn't hold my breath for an easy mode.

@ Mr Smiley

Fair enough then. It was my honest opinion that this game, being slow and deliberate and not very tied to reflexes(*) it would seem logical to me that most people could beat it if they figured it out. But that is an extra problem that intensifies the difficulty: The unforgiving balance and cryptic nature that will not communicate its mechanics to the player (i.e making a sorcerer and dumping more than 40 in int is a bad idea. You need to buff up other aspects too and change gear to keep your options open etc…). Making that part more accessible would go a lot of ways on helping people with their game and builds without compromising the experience. I believe they have said that they actually would for #2…

(* Take Severance, or Blade of Darkness as we called it! Now this was a really twitch dependent game. Very unforgiving in the timing and you needed hours to adapt to it learn the combos etc iirc. But we were made all out of time back then I doubt I would invest that much time and effort nowadays tbh)

Steinawarjar said:

From what I've read lately it appears that DS2 will instead be harder than DK, and that they, based on their experiences with the beta is thinking about upping the difficulty even more, so I wouldn't hold my breath for an easy mode.

Click to expand...

It's a tricky game to balance, really.

Every encounter has to be winnable Singleplayer and offline mode. So, lets the the enemies are all 100% of their efficacy at this point. You summon another player and they're down to 50%. But you can summon TWO people bringing them down around 33%! But its not like the enemy can target and engage 3 players at once, either. The player the enemy is attacking can just block while the others are free to lay in the hits. So the challenge with 3 players is more like 10% of what It originally was. Easy enough?

So, how do you balance this to actually keep the game hard? Do you scale the enemies stats up based on the players in the world? Spawn more enemies based on players in the world? No, neither of these are happening. Changing the AI to accommodate the extra players is the best option I can think of, but I don't think this is happening, either. The monsters will just get their asses kicked by the three of you. All we know at the moment is FromSoftware is messing around with the summoned players being unsummoned after killing a certain amount so they cant carry you all the way, but its all still undecided.

If you take all this into consideration then its obvious you'd never need an "easy" mode because you can just summon people to carry you though the whole game. If you'd never worked this out then it wasn't the combat difficulty that was the problem - it's just that you didn't understand the underlying game mechanics applicable to your success. Making the enemies hit for 1/4 damage wouldn't help you learn to summon people any faster. It's a suggestion only someone who doesn't understand the game would make.

FURTHERMORE, having an "easy" mode would separate players into two groups who couldn't interact with each other, which would make finding people to summon in order to make the fights more easy a harder task. All the "easy" mode noobs would be stuck with only each other to summon when they could have just summoned a pro who'd remove the challenge entirely. I reckon I could win dark souls without ever killing a boss myself just through summoning players!

@ JonNik

I like your description of the slightly esoteric mechanics and abstract way the game delivers its meanings to the player. There are so many hidden layers that are just waiting for the inquisitive and creative player to uncover. New insights into exploratory paths, narrative choices and consequences become more apparent the longer one "toils" away.

JonNik said:

(i.e making a sorcerer and dumping more than 40 in int is a bad idea. You need to buff up other aspects too and change gear to keep your options open etc…).

Click to expand...

I'd have to politely disagree with this though. If one has a vision for creating a pure blooded sorcerer, I think the game is flexible enough and provides leeway and the means for this to be possible. The highest sorcery I believe requires 50 intelligence (My sorcerer is up to 42 now…) and there are items which actually scale with intelligence making this a perfectly legitimate thing to aspire to.
For instance, I'm finding the Moonlight Butterfly horn to be a fantastic melee backup weapon - its scaling with intelligence has been amazing, giving the weapon great longevity.

So whilst I agree it can be foolhardy to just add stats without considering the build or future of your character, (I also greatly despise the jack of all trades mentality) I've found at least to my experience, that game is open enough to experimentation and that by and large you can make things work.

Pessimeister said:

I'd have to politely disagree with this though. If one has a vision for creating a pure blooded sorcerer, I think the game is flexible enough and provides leeway and the means for this to be possible. The highest sorcery I believe requires 50 intelligence (My sorcerer is up to 42 now…) and there are items which actually scale with intelligence making this a perfectly legitimate thing to aspire to.
For instance, I'm finding the Moonlight Butterfly horn to be a fantastic melee backup weapon - its scaling with intelligence has been amazing, giving the weapon great longevity.

So whilst I agree it can be foolhardy to just add stats without considering the build or future of your character, (I also greatly despise the jack of all trades mentality) I've found at least to my experience, that game is open enough to experimentation and that by and large you can make things work.

Click to expand...

I stand corrected! I am still fairly early in the sorcerer run so I had no idea that there are sorceries with a 50 int requirement! And of course I agree about the scaling and the flexibility that the game has in allowing you to build as you like. Its a completely open system in the end… Even if you have to grind a bit to make minor corrections if something doesn't exactly pan out.

Actually as I have said Sorcerer feels like a cakewalk to me (even the catacombs were easy!) But I really believe that you need to be an experienced player and have a prior knowledge to the game to really leverage the advantage. I can see first time players (I am almost certain myself would be included) having trouble with a pure sorcerer build so my comment was targeted mainly at them and advising a more cautious approach…

Your point on grinding is also spot on; the game is open to this practice should you need to fix a misplaced stat point or two.

I definitely agree about prior experience being invaluable in subsequent character runs. My poor ol' cleric in my first time with the game struggled horribly against the Bell Gargoyles for instance, but my sorcerer combined with my experience of these previous trials, was able with the assistance of the noble Solaire no less, to dispatch it on the first shot. Must confess, it was very satisfying indeed!

I found with Demons Souls that as soon I obtained the spell Homing Soul Arrow that the rest of the game became markedly easier to the point of being a breeze.
I was concerned this may happen with Dark Souls when I obtained the equivalent spell, Homing Soul Mass. However, this has thankfully not been the case demonstrated with the rather brutal hammering I got at first from the Firesage Demon.

SirJames said:

If you take all this into consideration then its obvious you'd never need an "easy" mode because you can just summon people to carry you though the whole game. If you'd never worked this out then it wasn't the combat difficulty that was the problem - it's just that you didn't understand the underlying game mechanics applicable to your success… I reckon I could win dark souls without ever killing a boss myself just through summoning players!

Click to expand...

Sounds a bit like cheating to me.

I never play online, have no interest in multiplayer and have always figured that an easy mode would be an offline only thing. If the multiplayer aspect of Dark Souls is all that important, From Software could make the next game online only. If they do, I will avoid it for sure.

In general, I think that single player and multiplayer are so different that it's a bad idea to offer both in one game. Had no problem playing Borderlands 2 on my own though.

Pessimeister said:

The highest sorcery I believe requires 50 intelligence (My sorcerer is up to 42 now…) and there are items which actually scale with intelligence making this a perfectly legitimate thing to aspire to.

Click to expand...

There is ONE spell that requires 50INT but no one uses White Dragon Breath. It's poorly designed and lags up most peoples systems. The damage and cast speed is nothing special, either. Nice amount of castings and AOE ability is good, but I just don't like it. Bad spell, imo.

The ideal INT for a "pure blooded" sorcerer I decided was 44 as this is the requirement for Crystal Soul Spear and the magic adjust value for Logans Catalyst dies off after 45. The difference between 45 and 50 int is just 2 magadj! That's two extra spell damage for 5 stat points. There is advantage taking the Tin Crystal Catalyst up to 50INT (to gain 11 magadj from 45 to 50), but I never use that one because it halves your castings. It could be alright to use in controlled PVP environment where you rest after each fight and use it purely to cast Magic Weapon, but in an extended adventure into the dungeons extra castings is better for sure.

44 or 45 INT is best unless you absolutely must have WhiteDragonBreath spell, but most stats you should stop leveling at 40. Never go over 50 for anything.

Mr Smiley said:

I never play online, have no interest in multiplayer and have always figured that an easy mode would be an offline only thing. If the multiplayer aspect of Dark Souls is all that important, From Software could make the next game online only. If they do, I will avoid it for sure.

Click to expand...

Offline only, hey? Just buy it already!

The unique multiplayer aspects are a huge part of what makes the game so special. The covenants are all about the multiplayer with each adding its own flavour to the mix.

When you say "no interest in multiplayer" what specifically do you have no interest in? What situations do you want to avoid? I propose that as you're being social on this forum right now, surely there are circumstances where you'd enjoy being social in a game too?

SirJames said:

There is ONE spell that requires 50INT but no one uses White Dragon Breath. It's poorly designed and lags up most peoples systems.

Click to expand...

Wow, no one uses it? All the more reason then for me to check it out.
I mean come on, what kind of self-respecting megalomaniacal sorcerer doesn't want to at least check out the highest level spell in their class?
And it lags their systems too you say? Phwoar, definitely must try it then, I need every advantage I can get!

In all seriousness, I play offline almost exclusively as well to avoid the unwanted interruptions you get by invaders and the powergaming trolls. Also, never say never. I think there are many exceptions to hardline rules or rigid ways of thinking in Dark Souls. An overly prescriptive mentality can easily limit ones enjoyment of the game.