|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Dark Souls II - No Easy Mode Allowed

Default Dark Souls II - No Easy Mode Allowed

April 18th, 2013, 12:37
Originally Posted by guenthar View Post
I guess all of the videos I watched about this game showing twitch combat were wrong since that was the main reason I haven't played the game yet. If the combat is more like Risen then I wouldn't have a problem since that is usually about watching the enemy then about being fast and accurate like in the videos I watched for this game.

PS. I can't play highly action oriented (twitch) combat because I can't physically do it fast enough and accurate enough to not lose so I can't progress at all in those kinds of games.

SpoonFULL: Thank you for the information on making the game easier to play. I didn't read anything about that till now and if I get the time I'll probably try the game.
Well, I'd say it definitely requires some fast reflexes. DS is difficult because it a) requires "learning" your opponents moves, attacks and weaknesse before you have a chance to defeat them which usually requires several attempts, b) requires accurate timing of attacks once you learned a successful attack pattern c) has a checkpoint system, that is you have to win a large number of individual fights, pass all traps, etc. without dying before you can proceed with the next section d) you can only take a few hits, and you have a very limited supply of "health potions". e) level progress is slow, because you can easily loose your souls (~ XP but also doubles as currency) and f) is non-linear enough that it allows you to run into some very difficult opponents that you probably canot defeat without telling you that.

It's worth a try though, it is a great and unique experience, if you can get into it.
GhanBuriGhan is offline

GhanBuriGhan

GhanBuriGhan's Avatar
Wose extraordinaire

#21

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,462

Default 

April 18th, 2013, 13:31
Played this on xobx, loved it, but I was pretty useless at it and got stuck a couple of hours in. I keep intending to go back to it for some more pain! Personally, I'm happy if they keep the sequel rock hard, although I'd really like to see more frequent save points if possible.
Pongo is offline

Pongo

Pongo's Avatar
Watchdog
RPGWatch Donor

#22

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: London
Posts: 162

Default 

April 18th, 2013, 14:21
How long does it take to finish the game (DS1) if you have "below average" reflexes?

I want to try the game but don't have much time for gaming now. So if it will take more than 20 hours to finish the game I will wait few month before buying it. Price might even drop then!
lostforever is offline

lostforever

Keeper of the Watch

#23

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,022

Default 

April 18th, 2013, 14:30
Originally Posted by lostforever View Post
How long does it take to finish the game (DS1) if you have "below average" reflexes?

I want to try the game but don't have much time for gaming now. So if it will take more than 20 hours to finish the game I will wait few month before buying it. Price might even drop then!
I have played it for 50 hours and have not finished it. I have heard it takes about 60 hours or more to complete but it depends on your play style.
SpoonFULL is offline

SpoonFULL

SpoonFULL's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#24

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,312

Default 

April 18th, 2013, 15:12
Being the world's most inept player of anything involving fast reflexes, this game isn't for me.

But good on the developer for making the game the way they want to make it. Video games will never approach "art" so long as game creators water down their vision of what their game should be to make it more "accessible" (a word I hate).
teije is offline

teije

teije's Avatar
Watcher

#25

Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 48

Default 

April 18th, 2013, 15:13
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
It's just a game that asks you to invest yourself to succeed. Anyone willing to do that will eventually succeed.

The vast majority of AAA games today would never dare to ask you to invest to succeed - so obviously a lot of gamers think the game is overly harsh.

That's ok - and they don't have to play games that ask them to invest themselves. Most games don't - so I don't see why it's a big deal.

That's because people have other commitments like real life and can't devote hours to master some silly game that will be forgotten in a couple years. I get the whole vision thing, but to resolve that with a difficulty slider all they have to do is put the word recommended by the difficulty setting that fits how they think you should play.

Not putting an easier setting in for people who don't have the time to devote hours of time is costing them thousands (if not 10s of thousands) of sales.
TimtheTaxMan is offline

TimtheTaxMan

Watcher

#26

Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 78

Default 

April 18th, 2013, 15:15
Originally Posted by TimtheTaxMan View Post
That's because people have other commitments like real life and can't devote hours to master some silly game that will be forgotten in a couple years. I get the whole vision thing, but to resolve that with a difficulty slider all they have to do is put the word recommended by the difficulty setting that fits how they think you should play.

Not putting an easier setting in for people who don't have the time to devote hours of time is costing them thousands (if not 10s of thousands) of sales.
They're clearly not too concerned with how it affects sales - so that's really their own choice.

You're underestimating what it takes to balance a game so dedicated to a very specific level of challenge. It's not like TES games where you just adjust numbers.
DArtagnan is online now

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#27

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,161

Default 

April 18th, 2013, 15:41
Originally Posted by teije View Post
Being the world's most inept player of anything involving fast reflexes, this game isn't for me.
Fast reflexes are nothing; the combat is very slow and deliberate.

Knowledge and bravery rule here! \o/
SirJames is offline

SirJames

SirJames's Avatar
Sentinel

#28

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 520

Default 

April 18th, 2013, 16:34
Originally Posted by TimtheTaxMan View Post
That's because people have other commitments like real life and can't devote hours to master some silly game that will be forgotten in a couple years. I get the whole vision thing, but to resolve that with a difficulty slider all they have to do is put the word recommended by the difficulty setting that fits how they think you should play.

Not putting an easier setting in for people who don't have the time to devote hours of time is costing them thousands (if not 10s of thousands) of sales.
This is the reason that I have no desire to play this game or it's predecessors. Punishing gameplay + a checkpoint system = No purchase from me. I have better things to do than lose 10 minutes at a time due to a crappy save system. It's a shame, because I really liked the King's Field games made by the same developer (except for the fixed save point system). As far as I'm concerned, there is simply no excuse for any modern game not to provide a save-anywhere system.
gozioso is offline

gozioso

Watchdog

#29

Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 150

Default 

April 18th, 2013, 16:40
Originally Posted by gozioso View Post
This is the reason that I have no desire to play this game or it's predecessors. Punishing gameplay + a checkpoint system = No purchase from me. I have better things to do than lose 10 minutes at a time due to a crappy save system. It's a shame, because I really liked the King's Field games made by the same developer (except for the fixed save point system). As far as I'm concerned, there is simply no excuse for any modern game not to provide a save-anywhere system.
That's not quite it though. The repetition until you beat a section is very much part of the experience (and is nicely woven into the lore of the game). It's not lazyness, it's part of the design. It's… you are up against impossible odds, but also you cannot die. You're in a purgatory of fighting to the death, and little by little, you claw your way out of it. It wouldn't be the same with a save anywhere system.

But it's OK, this game really isn't for everybody. I didn't really think its for me, but i was impressed once I tried it.
GhanBuriGhan is offline

GhanBuriGhan

GhanBuriGhan's Avatar
Wose extraordinaire

#30

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,462

Default 

April 18th, 2013, 16:58
Originally Posted by guenthar View Post
I suck at action games but I love rpgs so not having an easy mode makes me avoid the game. Why can't they base the gameplay around the normal difficulty and have an easy mode as an extra which lowers the damage you take by a large amount. That wouldn't change the game at all but allow people that are not good at action games to play.
I'm like you - terrible at action games. Dark Souls handed me my butt over and over again into submission. I only got as far as beating the first boss and exploring some of the next area before my time with that game was over.

But I wouldn't want the developers to make the game easier for someone like me. One of the foundational aspects of this franchise is that it's HARD. Once a UI feature is introduced that allows players to adjust the difficulty, the series abandons this foundational aspect of the series - not a smart thing to do when HARD is what put this game on the 'map' in the first place.

This is a game for people who want HARD. Let them have their game, there are plenty of other games out there for people who don't want or just suck too much at HARD action games (like me, for instance).

It's still fresh in my mind what Arcania did to my beloved Gothic series. I wouldn't want to sick that kind of result on others who cherish what Dark Souls is all about.

If I'm right but there is no wife around to acknowledge it, am I still right?
TheMadGamer is offline

TheMadGamer

TheMadGamer's Avatar
SasqWatch

#31

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,957

Default 

April 18th, 2013, 17:01
Originally Posted by gozioso View Post
As far as I'm concerned, there is simply no excuse for any modern game not to provide a save-anywhere system.
Usually I would agree with this but there are some games like Dark souls, Miasmata,
Lone survivor where it's essential part of game's concept.
Nameless one is offline

Nameless one

Nameless one's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#32

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,108

Default 

April 18th, 2013, 17:27
Originally Posted by TheMadGamer View Post
I'm like you - terrible at action games. Dark Souls handed me my butt over and over again into submission. I only got as far as beating the first boss and exploring some of the next area before my time with that game was over.

But I wouldn't want the developers to make the game easier for someone like me. One of the foundational aspects of this franchise is that it's HARD. Once a UI feature is introduced that allows players to adjust the difficulty, the series abandons this foundational aspect of the series - not a smart thing to do when HARD is what put this game on the 'map' in the first place.

This is a game for people who want HARD. Let them have their game, there are plenty of other games out there for people who don't want or just suck too much at HARD action games (like me, for instance).

It's still fresh in my mind what Arcania did to my beloved Gothic series. I wouldn't want to sick that kind of result on others who cherish what Dark Souls is all about.

The thing is, no one is asking for them to not make it HARD. We are asking for an OPTION to play it easier. Those who want to play with the familiar level of difficulty still can. Us playing it at a more causal level doesn't impede their fun at all.

All this boils down to is gamer elitism. They don't think we ought to be able to enjoy the game because we can't invest hours upon hours and therefore aren't worthy.

It's too bad too because like someone above, I really enjoyed the King's Field series and the Demon's Souls atmosphere is very similar although a bit faster paced and 3rd person. We can wish for a King's Field 5 someday.
TimtheTaxMan is offline

TimtheTaxMan

Watcher

#33

Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 78

Default 

April 18th, 2013, 17:42
Originally Posted by TimtheTaxMan View Post
The thing is, no one is asking for them to not make it HARD. We are asking for an OPTION to play it easier. Those who want to play with the familiar level of difficulty still can. Us playing it at a more causal level doesn't impede their fun at all.

All this boils down to is gamer elitism. They don't think we ought to be able to enjoy the game because we can't invest hours upon hours and therefore aren't worthy.

It's too bad too because like someone above, I really enjoyed the King's Field series and the Demon's Souls atmosphere is very similar although a bit faster paced and 3rd person. We can wish for a King's Field 5 someday.
Adding +or- % to enemy health/damage is bad way making difficulty levels as it usually creates terribly balanced difficulty levels, any other balancing takes resources from other areas.Also high difficulty adds lot to atmosphere of dark, threatening world.Without it Dark souls is just another action game.
Nameless one is offline

Nameless one

Nameless one's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#34

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,108

Default 

April 18th, 2013, 18:36
Originally Posted by TimtheTaxMan View Post
The thing is, no one is asking for them to not make it HARD. We are asking for an OPTION to play it easier. Those who want to play with the familiar level of difficulty still can. Us playing it at a more causal level doesn't impede their fun at all.

All this boils down to is gamer elitism. They don't think we ought to be able to enjoy the game because we can't invest hours upon hours and therefore aren't worthy.

It's too bad too because like someone above, I really enjoyed the King's Field series and the Demon's Souls atmosphere is very similar although a bit faster paced and 3rd person. We can wish for a King's Field 5 someday.
Well I can appreciate your point of view. But I still (respectfully) disagree. This is an issue that is no longer relegated to the pedantic and theoretical.

Skyrim is a perfect example. You could ignore a bevy of 'easy mode' features (difficulty adjustment, fast travel, the GPS compass etc.) if you wanted to. But it just isn't the same as a game that is hard-wired a certain way. Gothic 2 is a good example - that game is really tough especially early on. And if you want to go from Khorinis to the Bandit Camp because you forgot to do one little thing the last time you were there, you gotta walk it. The two games have a totally different vibe in this area. I like both games, but I have to admit I got more satisfaction from Gothic 2 because ultimately I had to beat the game totally on its terms.

I believe this is what Dark Souls fans love about that franchise. And when you put alternatives in to make the game easier, it just won't be the same - because in the back of your mind you are always aware that if the going gets too tough (or annoying) you can always just easy-mode your way through it - and that changes everything about the experience.

I disagree that this is about elitism. To make yet another of my world-known horrible analogies, this is much like complaining that a car racing game does not behave like a flight simulator. If you want a flight simulator game, get a flight simulator game. Car racing game fans are not elitists because they like car racing games.

If I'm right but there is no wife around to acknowledge it, am I still right?
TheMadGamer is offline

TheMadGamer

TheMadGamer's Avatar
SasqWatch

#35

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,957

Default 

April 18th, 2013, 18:46
Originally Posted by TheMadGamer View Post
Gothic 2 is a good example - that game is really tough especially early on. And if you want to go from Khorinis to the Bandit Camp because you forgot to do one little thing the last time you were there, you gotta walk it. The two games have a totally different vibe in this area. I like both games, but I have to admit I got more satisfaction from Gothic 2 because ultimately I had to beat the game totally on its terms.
Gothic 2 + NOTR was brutally hard, but that game let you save anywhere. That makes a huge difference. If there was a checkpoint/auto-save system in that game, then I would never have finished it.

Originally Posted by TheMadGamer View Post
I disagree that this is about elitism.
There hasn't been a game in recent years that has inspired internet weenies to have quite the degree of e-penis measure-offs as Demon/Dark Souls.
gozioso is offline

gozioso

Watchdog

#36

Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 150

Default 

April 18th, 2013, 18:52
Originally Posted by TheMadGamer View Post
Well I can appreciate your point of view. But I still (respectfully) disagree. This is an issue that is no longer relegated to the pedantic and theoretical. Skyrim is a perfect example. You could ignore a bevy of 'easy mode' features (difficulty adjustment, fast travel) if you wanted to. But it just isn't the same as a game that is hard-wired a certain way. Gothic 2 is a good example - that game is really tough especially early on. And if you want to go from Khorinis to the Bandit Camp because you forgot to do one little thing the last time you were there, you gotta walk it. The two games have a totally different vibe in this area. I like both games, but I have to admit I got more satisfaction from Gothic 2 because ultimately I had to beat the game totally on its terms.

I believe this is what Dark Souls fans love about that franchise. And when you put alternatives in to make the game easier, it just won't be the same. I disagree that this is about elitism. To make yet another of my world-known horrible analogies, this is much like complaining that a car racing game does not behave like a flight simulator. If you want a flight simulator game, get a flight simulator game. Car racing game fans are not elitists because they like car racing games.
The Skyrim analogy isn't valid, because I'm not asking for any changes in the core game play mechanics for those who choose hard difficulty. The only difference would be one screen when you start a new game that allows you to select the difficultly. Hell it could even default to hard and make you manually change it.

For some reason, people don't want to give other people the option to have an easier time. I think it is gamer elitism. They want to feel special because they can beat Demon's Souls and few others can invest the time to do the same.

Gothic 2 wasn't nearly as difficult a game as Demon's Souls. What makes Demon's Souls hard is having to redo 15-20 min of gameplay over and over due to a minor mistake. Gothic 2 you could save anywhere and that is huge. Even instituting that minor change for an "easy" mode in Dark Souls 2 would make a huge difference in accessibility.

I don't think your car analogy is correct either. Demon's/Dark Souls are action rpgs. I'm not wishing it was a strategy game, I'm wishing there was a mode that I could play in the amount of time I have available in my life for gaming. I don't want to change it whatsoever for those who want the challenge.
TimtheTaxMan is offline

TimtheTaxMan

Watcher

#37

Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 78

Default 

April 18th, 2013, 18:54
Originally Posted by gozioso View Post
Gothic 2 + NOTR was brutally hard, but that game let you save anywhere. That makes a huge difference. If there was a checkpoint/auto-save system in that game, then I would never have finished it.
I'm not a fan of games that use checkpoints. But I can appreciate its implementation in Dark Souls.

My view is that the developers are wanting the players to master certain sections of gameplay before moving on. Love it or hate it, this is part of the difficulty paradigm they have created. You have to successfully navigate through defined segments of game-space battling lesser monsters and then survive a 'boss' fight before you can 'save' your progress. This is a lot like early Mario Bros. games where if you die during a level you have to repeat that portion - same concept really. I'm not a big fan of this but there are a lot of gamers that love it and that's ok.

If I'm right but there is no wife around to acknowledge it, am I still right?
TheMadGamer is offline

TheMadGamer

TheMadGamer's Avatar
SasqWatch

#38

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,957

Default 

April 18th, 2013, 19:00
Originally Posted by TimtheTaxMan View Post
For some reason, people don't want to give other people the option to have an easier time. I think it is gamer elitism. They want to feel special because they can beat Demon's Souls and few others can invest the time to do the same.
Clearly we will not agree. You can scrutinize my examples and invalidate them with arguments. But doing that is to continue missing my point while repeating yours again and again. I'm not your enemy and as a gamer I think I actually prefer the kinds of games you do.

But I don't see games like Dark Souls as catering to elitists or that a gamer is somehow an elitist because they like games like Dark Souls. I find FPS games against real players too hard for me. I drop into a game and I just get chain killed over and over. My first thought (or second thought, or millionth thought) has never been, 'wow what a bunch of elitists.' What I've learned is, multiplayer FPS games are not my cup of tea because I really suck at it. That other people are good at those games doesn't threaten me or how I view myself and certainly doesn't form conclusions in my mind about those players attitudes about gaming.

If I'm right but there is no wife around to acknowledge it, am I still right?
TheMadGamer is offline

TheMadGamer

TheMadGamer's Avatar
SasqWatch

#39

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,957

Default 

April 18th, 2013, 19:07
Originally Posted by TheMadGamer View Post
Clearly we will not agree. You can scrutinize my examples and invalidate them with arguments. But doing that is to continue missing my point while repeating yours again and again. I'm not your enemy and as a gamer I think I actually prefer the kinds of games you do.

But I don't see games like Dark Souls as catering to elitists or that a gamer is somehow an elitist because they like games like Dark Souls. I find FPS games against real players too hard for me. I drop into a game and I just get chain killed over and over. My first thought (or second thought, or millionth thought) has never been, 'wow what a bunch of elitists.' What I've learned is, multiplayer FPS games are not my cup of tea because I really suck at it. That other people are good at those games doesn't threaten me or how I view myself and certainly doesn't form conclusions in my mind about those players attitudes about gaming.
I'm not saying your my enemy. I'm saying I can't understand why a group of gamers would be opposed to having an easier setting available for more casual players. It would be like if there were a newbie area in FPS for you. It doesn't affect the more advanced players and you could still have a good time.

I could see the opposition if I were saying they we needed to change the game at the expense of the more advanced players, but I'm not sure how a difficulty select would do that.

One would think that advanced players would welcome additional people playing because that means more money for FROM software and likely more games.
TimtheTaxMan is offline

TimtheTaxMan

Watcher

#40

Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 78
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Dark Souls II - No Easy Mode Allowed
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 21:06.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch