I'm the same, I tried so hard to like Bloodborne because I was so enthralled by the universe and lore. But I just could not have fun playing it, or more specifically the fun I did have was swiftly undone by frustration.
I can enjoy difficulty when I don't have to redo things I've already done; I'm fully on-board with something like a Super Meat Boy or a Hotline Miami, which are also games where death is expected and a core part of the loop, but when dying to a boss involves trekking back through 5-10 mins of low-level enemies I very quickly lose interest.
Am I suggesting all games should account for my very specific tastes in difficulty in games? Absolutely not, but I sure wish that one did. I'm also not sure I buy the argument that the mere presence of an easier mode would somehow invalidate the enjoyment of those with more skill and patience.
> I can enjoy difficulty when I don't have to redo things I've already done; I'm fully on-board with something like a Super Meat Boy or a Hotline Miami, which are also games where death is expected and a core part of the loop, but when dying to a boss involves trekking back through 5-10 mins of low-level enemies I very quickly lose interest.
Sekiro and Elden Ring are both much better here in terms of checkpointing close to bosses, though it's still not always just right outside it often is. Indeed I remember a few very tedious routes in Bloodborne and Dark Souls. It just didn't bother me quite so much because I enjoyed optimizing them also!
With Elden Ring also at least there is always other stuff to do/explore (at least so far for me at ~50 hours in) so you can come back later.
The trekking back to bosses in games that aren’t Sekiro or Elden Ring is totally valid. But in terms of the overall difficulty, I think it’s more a case of something closer to user error than the game actually being ridiculously difficult. This is a common thing and it bums me out because the difficulty aspect of these games is severely overhyped, partially because people try them out without fully understanding the mechanics, and then are turned off from them. Same thing happened to me and I’m so thankful that someone set me straight.
The number one thing is this: you cannot interrupt yourself once you begin an action. Neither can your enemy. An attack is a commitment of the entire animation associated with it. This one single thing affects everything else.
Also: rolling! You are very briefly untouchable while rolling.
Time your rolls and your attacks with intention, and the difficulty drops drastically. The game’s are still tough and unforgiving, but in a good way.
Hope you end up revisiting and enjoying the games. I’m historically not a fan of “hard” games and these have quickly become my favorite, gameplay being just as big a reason as atmosphere and lore.
I realize you're not asking for help in Dark Souls, but should you ever find yourself playing it again, I feel like I should tell you that you can run past nearly every standard enemy in pretty much every FromSoftware game. I often play the game sections in reverse. Sprint through looking for the next safe spot, then after activating it, work backwards to the previous safe spot.
Not at all, in fact the enemies basically wind up being red herrings.
They drop trivial amounts of souls which are used to buy levels, but souls are also gained by beating bosses and from using items that also grant souls.
I've experimented a lot with this. If you just fight bosses and use boss soul items and other easy to reach soul items, you will end each game roughly 5 levels below someone who is more meticulous and clears each zone of enemies without grinding them repeatedly.
At the end of the game, those 5 levels will be a trivial difference.
As it happens, Elden Ring takes care of the specific problem you mention by having save points, or some temporary respawn point, ahead of pretty much every tough boss available. This is done even for many optional bosses: You will respawn 10 seconds away from the fight. It will still not help when, instead of a boss, the wall is a slightly stronger low level enemy, and there might be an example or two of this problem in a few side dungeons, but it's nowhere near as common a problem as in their earlier games.
Now, this often means said bosses are often quite a bit tougher than in earlier games, but you don't have to go through a 10 minute dungeon to get to them every time you die.
Sounds like you might enjoy the Ori games (Ori and the {Blind Forest, Willow of the Wisps}).
Not exactly the same genre as the ones you mentioned, but some challenging combat (at times, not throughout) that doesn’t involve slogging back if you die.
Elden ring doesn’t have an explicit easy mode, but you definitely can play it in easy mode. You can outlevel weak enemies, play with mage, and for bosses just summon in other players to kill them for you.
"Just grind to level up" is, in my opinion, a way worse system than "go to the menu and select 'easy mode.'" The effect is roughly the same but takes hours of boring gameplay rather than five seconds of menuing.
I'd be much more receptive to the "no easymode" argument if the games didn't have RPG elements at their very core.
My experience with the game has been that I've been over-levelled for almost all bosses (and the ones I wasn't were all optional), just by exploring the world. The game is designed so that if you get stuck somewhere, you can go do something else and come back later. If you stubbornly hammer your head against the one challenge or focus purely on the critical path, then I feel the difficulty is self-inflicted.
For example, some of the early bosses I've heard people complain about, Margit and Crucible Knight, I beat first try without much difficulty at all because I explored the starting areas thoroughly before reaching them and was naturally overpowered. I plan to actually play again when I'm done and purposely not level just so I can experience the challenge.
Speaking of self-inflicted, I've also seen a ton of people (eg on Reddit and Youtube) complaining that they're being one-shotted by bosses with their high level characters, but when they share their stats, they pumped everything into a damage dealing stat and few (or often NONE!) into their health. Of course they're being one-shotted if they don't increase their health. Again, this difficulty seems completely self-inflicted.
There are some truly hard bosses, for sure, but with a game as huge as Elden Ring and with as much value for money as Elden Ring is, I think people just have to make peace with the fact that unless you're dedicated to overcoming the challenges it presents, you may not see every bit of content the game has to offer. FROM Software certainly are ok with that.
>> Of course they're being one-shotted if they don't increase their health. Again, this difficulty seems completely self-inflicted.
Unfortunately it happens to the same people who will shout the loudest that "BUT THE GAME DOESN'T TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE TO DO THAT", as if somehow that should validate their (wrong) choices in the game. It's a role playing game. That's what the RP stands for in RPG. If you are role playing someone with inhumane strength but no health whatsoever, then you have to accept consequences of your choices. Like the other comment said - games require a certain level of literacy, not just in terms of actual reading but also in terms of understanding what the stats actually mean.
Resistance is a stat you can put points into. It does virtually nothing. Little in the game will make it obvious that putting points into Resistance will be a waste. "Well, you made bad choices" is not a perfect defense against this.
I would not recommend a casual reader pick up "A Brief History of 7 Killings" but it is still a great book.
Fromsoft games have an author, Miyazaki, and that author has the right to decide how their work is presented and engaged with.
Honestly I agree that there should be an "accessibility mode" but I understand why it is not in there. Musicians don't include a "kids bop" copy of their albums
Yet we also translate books, even when recognizing that translations will always interfere with an original vision.
Miyazaki has the right to set whatever difficulty he wants. My complaint is less with FromSoft. I've resigned myself to the fact that they'll never release a game with difficulty that is accessible to everybody. My complaint is more with the community, who sees any discussion of "hey the monster design and lore and scenery look cool but I can't get past the Asylum Demon" as some sort of threat and responds with vitriol. The discussion here has been largely positive but even here I've got somebody who decided to just respond "git gud." You can imagine how it goes on reddit or twitter.
As someone who has declined in gaming skills as I lose free time I’ve adopted just using mods on PC versions. It removes the online aspect of the game but allows you the chance to explore the world. I’ll be in the retirement home paying someone $20 to update the mod engine for Elden Ring 3.
you really really dont need a mod for ER, nor do you need online mod.
the game is super accessible and if you thorougly explore the world, also quite easy
It's funny you picked the Asylum Demon as an example. At the first encounter with it you don't even have your class-specific weapon. Anyone who would try to fight it for more than a few attempts with the starting weapon (broken sword that does almost no damage) is just not treating it like an RPG.
Lowering the difficulty is not going to fix that. If the devs cater the game to players who can't be bothered to explore or read their own characters stats, it will ruin a lot of aspects that most fans enjoy. After seeing so many franchises release boring, easy, focus-grouped games (where the difficulty is just HP and damage multipliers) time and time again, can you really blame fans for saying "No, don't change it, we like the game how it is"? Almost all of the From Souls games are highly regarded classics, and sticking to their guns on design philosophy is a big part of that.
PS run through the grate door, pick up your weapons and plunge attack Asylum Demon, or pick Black Firebombs as your starting gift (only takes 4-5 to kill him)
There is toxicity around literally every topic on every corner of the internet. Why does it bother you only specifically with FromSoft games.
Because you disagree. Which is fine I respect your opinion. However, I would argue "community toxicity" is a bad cloud to yell at and can be used to justify any statement.
I think the fear is that one day the FromSoft suits will demand they start making their games easier so they can sell more. A fear that's pretty reasonable: they've already made one or two Elden Ring bosses easier with patches.
I'm not aware of anybody who wants the game to be made easier with no option to maintain its difficulty. People are generally asking for optional difficulty settings.
Having the settings exposed in the options menu changes the game, and the experience of the game, and the discussion around the game. I don't want the temptation of changing to a lower difficulty.
You didin't address any of the things I said, just made some vague remark about the words being used as "juvenile". I know you don't care about the game, so it is easy for you to dismiss counter criticism as unnecessary, and to scoff at "charged" language like "gaslight" and "threat". In my view this is a legitimate assessment of the original posters criticism. And It's clear that once all of your legitimate criticism of game mechanics fall flat in the face of reality, you both fall back on critiquing the words and "community" that previously defended the proper game design. I must ask, why are you in this thread if you neither care about the game (As evidenced by calling discussion about it juvenile), nor have played it (As evidenced by you and the original posters insistence that the game is somehow broken in a way that prevents them from playing as they enjoy)?
I bought elden ring and I’m not used to open world games and have found I'm not a fan. I’ve been grinding and have made no progress and am about to give up.
The problem isn't that it's open world, it's that there is zero guidance. There are no quests markers, no quest log, anything. The most you get is the ability to put markers on the map.
so what precisely is the problem? if you listen to what noc s are saying, its quite hard actually to not know where to go.
furthermore, there is not much dialogue. and its also not that you have 30 quests at the same time open.
heck, snes game havent gotten quest logs either. just use a notepad?
There really is, but I would also proffer that the difficulty is a little important because it makes you afraid of the world and makes your achievements meaningful. A tour of Lordran wouldn't be as enjoyable.
That said, I think this is what Elden Ring was going for. There's a massive amount of content such that you can avoid fighting a tough boss until you're strong enough.
The difficulty certainly adds a level of tension and atmosphere that other games simply don't have.
For the most part, outside of some specific bosses, the games aren't actually thaaat difficult, they're just uncompromising and they punish mistakes. I feel that the Dark Souls 1 marketing focusing on the difficulty so much was a detriment to the series really. Don't get me wrong, the games are definitely not easy, but most of the content can be experienced without too much challenge if you're methodical and take it slow.
I think the punishing elements of the games would be a lot better received if the larger enemies and bosses weren’t as tanky. Or, I’ve noticed a lot of frustration (that prevents the eventual sense of achievement) comes from having to competently hit/dodge a big armoured boss 10-12 times (rather than 3-4).
It starts to feel like an unearned slog, or at worst, a Skinner Box if you luckily pull it off after the nth time.
> I think the punishing elements of the games would be a lot better received if the larger enemies and bosses weren’t as tanky
I think you're right. Its one thing to require me to learn to dodge and find an opening a few times, but having to continuously do it for ten minutes straight might be a bit much for most people.
I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on a different alternative, given you probably have better insight into the game's difficulty than I do. I think fans appreciate a sense of "fairness" [1] from Elden Ring and it seems very similar to Celeste in a lot of ways. Part of me wonders if that's a visual communication thing?
Enemies (and especially bosses) in FromSoftware games usually have big, slow, windups. It's visually interesting and a big part of getting to know the openings like you mention. I find I have to empirically learn the cause/effect of those animations though, or I find I can't necessarily know how big Godrick's wind attack is without experiencing it a few times first. I sometimes wonder how the game would play if there was more visual information on the safe zones of attacks that the player could intuit. Or, I've noticed that my friends have gotten frustrated when they've gotten hit and not known why. Thoughts? Maybe it ruins the magic though.
All that said, I think Elden Ring is overall fine as it is.
Well, what I meant by that is that in FROM games, even the weakest enemy can kill you if you're complacent, but beating or avoiding said enemy is incredibly easy.
I've watched a ton of beginners to FROM games play Bloodborne on streams and there are a few common trends I noticed. For example, players often tend to rush into an area without first observing what's actually there. They get punished for this by getting ambushed or surrounded or whatever. Its not that the area is hard, but the player gets punished for the mistake of rushing in without first taking a good look around. Players also rarely look up... and FROM games love to hide enemies above you.
Another mistake I saw a lot is that players see something that looks scary, get scared and back away. Or they get hit, panic, and back away. But instead of just backing away enough to get out of range of the enemy and then stopping, they continue to back away... right into another group of enemies. They get punished for this mistake.
Actually, panic was a major cause of death.
Consider also that you can basically run through any region or level without engaging in any enemy, all it takes is some understanding of the required spacing and to not be afraid of them. Yet the first time I go through an area, I certainly fear the danger the enemies represent. So the regions aren't actually all that hard, when you really look at it.
The enemies also tend to hit hard, especially bosses. So its harder to just shrug off an attack and brute force your way through. You often have to take a step back and take some time to learn the attack patterns, the openings, etc.
Not that there aren't some truly hard situations or bosses, where even these things are taken to the extreme, because there certainly are, but most of these tend to be optional. Although admittedly there are a few throughout the series that aren't, so I'm definitely not claiming the games are easy. Because they are not.
I think nobody cares about those. Levels with enemies tend not to be that hard at any point in the game. Surprise enemy ambushes are funny. Dying can be fun. Nobody ever feels like they hit a wall on the levels.
It’s the bosses that frustrate people. They break a lot of norms and falsely make people think it’s a stats problem.
My issue with dark souls is that it encourages high variance play styles if you’re not good. Biggest weapon, dodge around and hit the boss in just a few spurts. Allows you to succeed if you suck but does nothing to really improve your skills given enough tries.
Sekiro was much better. It forced you to get competent to succeed. Many bosses were serious inflection points in difficulty and you just felt so much cooler when you nailed it.
You can actually progress until the main capital without killing a single enemy. Like 70% of the games world.
I started as a Wretch and arrived completely under leveled and without gear at the first boss, which felt nearly impossible to beat so I just started adventuring. At some point you get blocked by a barrier that requires you to defeat two main bosses. I was actually a bit disappointed about that.
I was talking about skipping Margit (which is boss 1) and all bosses after. But at the capital after the Dectus lift you will get blocked. I don't wanna spoil too much, but that's basically as far as you can go without killing anything.
For me "easy mode" was watching people playing on Twitch. It got me a "good" understanding of the story and let me enjoy the world, without the stress of having to actually play the game. :)
I've been totally sucked into the Twitch Elden Ring streams. BarbarousKing having his fourth playthrough already, and I'm still watching the first one. A magical game I'm going to try myself when it works well with Proton on Linux.
I've heard that it works fairly well on Proton already. In fact, perhaps even better than it does on Windows in some regards as a result of Valve having implemented some mitigations for things the engine does incorrectly in Proton. (Thanks to a desire to have the game work properly on the Steam Deck)
I haven't tried yet, though, as I'm playing my way through the Dark Souls series proper before giving Elden Ring a try.
Proton uses Vulkan to replace DirectX and Elden Ring's handling of DirectX isn't optimal, or something along those lines. The end result is the game running better on Linux because it coincidentally circumvents those issues.
See, this is why developers should just put in a god mod. Good ol IDDQD, then let your customer just have fun killing monsters rather than scaring them off to Twitch or YouTube to watch someone else have fun.
How so? Games are ultimately there to be enjoyed. If following a guide makes it more enjoyable, then that's perfectly valid. And I say that as a working games developer.
The same way cheating in solitaire is just lame. Or save scumming in a roguelike. Or installing a mod to just make the game much easier. Or walking for a bit on a long run. Or pretty much any solitary situation where you bend the rules for your favor.
Once you do it, you will likely internalize that you’re not capable of doing it and will rely on such methods and general lack of skill for the rest of the game, and eventually reach a point of indifference where it’s not about you doing well but rather just attempting it a number of times where your incompetence works.
If that makes things more fun for you, sure, whatever. I did this a lot as a kid. But now I would be acutely aware that I’m cheating myself of the full experience and skill curve of the game and feel very little satisfaction from it.
I’m current doing a bit of owl cat’s pathfinder video games. The game is pretty well balanced on normal. The game includes a very unbalanced mode called unfair which requires a lot of metagaming hyper min maxed character development. There is further a mode that gives you one self deleting save slot so you have one chance permaloss.
I see a fair number of people playing in unfair, with one save slot, bragging about their completion of the game having looked up character builds for every unit, used mods to make some parts easier, and save scummed to undo the effect of choosing permaloss.
I think they’re morons personally. Don’t delude yourself into thinking you’ve accomplished something when you’ve outsourced, cheesed, and cheated many parts of it. Play games on lower difficulties and play them fairly instead of playing them on harder difficulties and cheating to get through.
There’s a wide spectrum and sure it’s just a single player activity but I find it personally exceedingly lame. My mum plays games and is not technically skilled so she plays on the lowest difficulty and uses guides and it’s still very hard for her and you know that’s great.
Well, that just sounds like a pretty sad attitude, especially when it comes to a fun activity like video games. Any games that I work on - please feel free to look up guides(or cheat[0] or use mods or cheese them) if that makes you enjoy them more. I definitely won't judge, and I frankly don't see why anyone would. You beat dark souls by "getting gud"? Great for you. You beat it by looking up optimal strats for each boss and cheesing routes? Equally as good. It's not a competition. There are no medals at the end. The only "lame" thing here is people judging others on the internet for how they play games.
[0] as long as it's not a multiplayer game of course.
You say that, but do you have any released games? Have you personally experienced the toxicity of complaining players who want to be handed every sense of achievement and simultaneously feel like it’s very difficult and exclusive? Or complaining that it’s unfair because their idiot min maxed build is viable for everything? All single player games become multiplayer in communities
I build games myself. Nothing released. Likely won’t ever manage to do so.
>>You say that, but do you have any released games
7 AAA titles and counting.
>>Have you personally experienced the toxicity of complaining players who want to be handed every sense of achievement and simultaneously feel like it’s very difficult and exclusive?
Also yes. We have millions of players. I have experienced both the very good and very bad from players - that doesn't mean I'll start telling them how to enjoy our games. As for communities being "multiplayer" - forums for games have existed for decades, and you always had people complaining that yes, their idiotic build doesn't work in your game. But that didn't lead me to developing a position where I think people are stupid for doing something and trying to ovverride their desires.
I just want to add one thing here - you seem to be saying(and please correct me if I'm wrong) that the way to play a game is ultimately up to the creator and no one else.
And well, I agree but only to a certain extent. For a counterexample - creator of Studio Ghibli said many times now that his films are made for children, and he finds it weird that adults watch them. Like, he can have that opinion, it's his work after all - but I think he's very wrong about this. Disregarding his opinion is not lame or weak, because ultimately once his work is out there it's not his role to gatekeep access to it. Similarly, From Software games obviously have a certain style of gameplay attached to them, but if your preffered way is to play with a guide, or by installing a mod that just gives you top stats......great. Enjoy it.
For the last example - one of my favourite games of all time is SOMA - it has a fantastic Sci-Fi story that is well worth exploring, but unfortunately it also happens to be a horror game. I don't enjoy those, not even because they make me uncomfortable, it's just that the horror elements of the game get in the way of enjoying a fantastic story. So I installed a mod(way before it was made official) that made the monster docile - that allowed me to complete the game and enjoy myself. Is this wrong or lame? Maybe - but the point is, you as a player shouldn't care what others think.
I strongly feel the opposite. The difficulty is what makes you spend time with the game, and truly appreciate each bit of progress you make. Without the suffering, you can't truly appreciate what you find around the next corner.
Imagine you were forced to do a SL1 run on your first play. That'd be more difficult. You would suffer more. Would you appreciate it more? I suspect not.
The sweet spot is when something is challenging for the particular player and they are able to overcome that challenge through growth. But because each player is different, it is not possible for a single tuning to hit that sweet spot for every possible person.
> Imagine you were forced to do a SL1 run on your first play
I don't think that's quite a good comparison -- because leveling up is literally a method to overcome the difficulty. Grind. Get Good. Kill some foes, run back to the bonfire. Kill them again, run back to the bonfire.
Eventually killing them becomes trivial, as a combination of muscle memory and leveling up.
Some might even call that practice.
It's an unwillingness to invest time into practice that hinders people from enjoying more of it, not the inherent difficulty. And this goes for a great many things, sports, music, painting, programming, woodworking etc.
It's also totally ok that people don't want to invest the time -- I'm not making a value judgement here.
For a sports analogy: I don't want to invest time in practicing (or even learning about) basketball. As a result, I'm horrific at it. I'm quite fine with that. It does however mean that a decent chunk of popular culture is inaccessible to me.
"Just grind" is, in my opinion, the argument that proves all of this gatekeeping is garbage. Grinding achieves the same thing as an easy mode except it takes hours of mindless low-engagement gameplay to complete. Grinding has widely been considered bad gameplay for more than two decades at this point.
If the game didn't have RPG mechanics and there was no mechanism to just make the enemies deal a smaller percentage of your health pool or to make your attacks deal more damage then I'd be much more amenable to the "the game is flawlessly tuned according to the developer's vision and that should not be touched" but it obviously isn't since every single player will arrive at each encounter with different character and weapon stats.
There is another point by people like me - I really would love to experience this game, but I don't have life to waste in yet another largely meaningless grinding. I have 2 kids to raise, wife to attend, work to work, real hobbies like sports to do. I've definitely grown out of putting insane hours of my life into gaming, and not going back, ever.
This one-fits-all-or-goodbye approach means I'll miss this game, forever. And just as you say - only damage/defense stats would need to be tuned a bit and I could approach it. Why would that hurt anybody wanting to play it on harder level is beyond me...
It’s disappointing to read takes like this because you’re talking yourself out of what is a really special gaming experience - unique, in fact.
When you use the word “grind”, it connotes that you feel the game is extracting an unreasonable price from you in order to allow you to progress: making you play the “bad parts” in order to see the “good parts”. Lesser games are certainly guilty of this! But that’s not at all what these games do. People don’t put “insane hours” into these games because of the grind - they do it because they love it.
All one can ask is that you forget what you think you know, and take another look. There’s something really special here.
I’ve got kids too man, I don’t have time for bullshit, but Miyazaki’s given us something really special here. I’m just thankful that in the few hours left to me each week, I can sit down and play something like this.
> People don’t put “insane hours” into these games because of the grind - they do it because they love it.
But I was just told to grind to level up to make the game easier. That isn't putting in insane hours for fun. That is saying "if you want to beat O&S, go spend a bunch of hours killing knights in Anor Londo for hours."
I didn’t tell you that. The whole point of my comment was that you should take another look at what you’re calling “grind”, because there’s more to it.
Look, you complained about gatekeeping, and about the community. This is a bona fide attempt from someone in the community to ask you to set aside your preconceptions and take another look at what the game is trying to say.
If it doesn’t gel with you, well then maybe it really just isn’t for you - and that’s fine. Not every game is for every person. But changing a bunch of difficulty sliders isn’t going to fix that.
You didn't tell me that, but this is what another person up thread said to me
> I don't think that's quite a good comparison -- because leveling up is literally a method to overcome the difficulty. Grind. Get Good. Kill some foes, run back to the bonfire. Kill them again, run back to the bonfire.
I don't know how that can be interpreted any other way than "do a repetitive and boring thing until your stats are higher."
I've played all three Dark Souls games as well as Bloodbourne to completion. I switched from xbox to PC for DS1 because I had the original unpatched disk and got frustrated in Lost Izalith. I'm very confident that I would have had more fun if it took me four attempts to beat O&S rather than 20.
It’s possible they’re just not for you, then. But why don’t you give Elden Ring a chance, if you haven’t already - changes have been made and maybe it will appeal. It’s a pretty amazing experience.
I guess just the last thing I would say is that one thing that ER tries to communicate to you early on is that, if something is frustrating you, don’t keep banging your head against a wall. Heed that advice: go away, explore, learn, come back later. With a new perspective it will look different.
I love a lot of grindy games. What I always tell people is it’s all about whether you enjoy the core combat loop or not. The swinging and ducking and dodging and shooting and running around. If the moment to moment action isn’t fun for you the game can’t be even if it offers “goals” that you feel like you want to see.
> Why would that hurt anybody wanting to play it on harder level is beyond me...
Two reasons, first people can't control themselves. Just like people have a hard time not eating a cake sitting in front of them they also have a hard time not using easier difficulty modes, even when they would enjoy the harder ones more. You can't just tell these people to control themselves, to them this is a really important part of the game and adding difficulty options hurts their ability to enjoy the game. Not using easy mode is as easy as not eating so much and get fat, if you could solve the issue that easily then 50% of the population wouldn't be obese.
Secondly is development, if you add easy modes most testers will run the game through on easy, and the game will mostly be designed around easy. Hard mode gets run to see that it is possible, but not to see that it is enjoyable, meaning that in basically every game with multiple difficulty modes the hard mode is a boring slogfest. Fromsoft games is a breath of fresh air here, they are hard without being boring, that is its major selling point.
One of the things that cause immersion to spike for me is exactly the difficulty, or rather "this enemy just kicked my ass, WHAT do I need to do to beat it? what do I need to change, are there other areas I did not check, any clues I may have passed by" etc.
If the game is too easy chances are I'll zone out and "play" it, in a very inert way just watching what happens.
Not a Souls-like, but the game where I saw this at play the most is TeS Oblivion (not sure if it also works in Skyrim), as soon as I started playing it as a battlemage with the Tower sign (it takes away auto regen of magicka). Lots of content in Oblivion I felt was filler that I just went through out of inertia, but playing a battlemage with no magicka regen? Survival depends on the potions you craft and any other helpful items found along the way. Suddenly even the most boring dungeon became interesting and potentially helpful in the long run because it could contain helpful loot. Those ayleid ruins with the crystals that help a ton with magicka? Godsent rather than long and samey.
Of course I eventually leveled up enough to become OP and the game ended up being a chain of filler stuff once more, but that was several tens of hours into the playthru. But those first tens of hours were an amazing experience, where I needed to carefully plan out and scour the world for items in order to hope to survive.
Do you start each of these games with SL1 runs? Likely not.
This means that you are engaging with the game in an optional way that makes the game easier (leveling up). You do not have to do that. In what way is somebody engaging with the game in a different optional way that makes the game easier unacceptable?
What it sounds like you want is for the game to sit near the top of an individual players' capabilities. What if making the game optionally easier achieves that for some people?
Watching a playthrough is the easiest optionalest option, also one that is doable from start to finish by the largest number of gamers. Such an extra-inclusive option, all games should feature it. "Watch the bots play".
With your philosophy, you get games with pointless difficulty systems like Skyrim & co. Sliders that range from "enemies die in one hit" to "you'll spend half an hour hitting this boss before it dies because now it has hitpoints defined by your_level * 9999999999". None of the bosses in Souls games take half an hour to fight unless you do something exotic like SL1 runs, if you're not done with a boss in a couple of minutes chances are something's wrong with your build, because otherwise your skills are good, else you wouldn't survive for 2 minutes with a Souls boss.
> None of the bosses in Souls games take half an hour to fight unless you do something exotic like SL1 runs, if you're not done with a boss in a couple of minutes chances are something's wrong with your build, because otherwise your skills are good, else you wouldn't survive for 2 minutes with a Souls boss.
I spent several days on O&S. Two hours would have been fun and I would have felt a sense of accomplishment. In the end, I cheesed it by pinning Smough to the broken pillars.
He meant the battle itself ends in roughly a few minutes. The number of battles and attempts could be much longer.
It’s a major deviation in difficulty definitions between fromsoft and difficulty sliders — the usual increase in difficulty is to just bump the stats, which typically just means you have to play perfectly for longer durations.
Fromsoft just asks you to play perfectly for a minute, maybe two (and honestly not that perfectly).
Eg I’m playing triangle strategy atm, and the hard mode difficulty bumps their stats so high that the strategy ultimately devolves into some kind of cheesing in many cases (and then spend 15 minutes executing that cheese because the enemies are taking chip damage). At the same time, normal mode (apparently) is easy enough to just plow through, so I’m pretty much stuck if I want an actual challenge — and that’s hardly a surprising state of affairs.
In fact, death is an intended game mechanic of Soulsborne games. The highs of overcoming a challenging foe is much greater if victory isn't handed to you on a platter. And the game philosophy of the Dark Souls series has always been one of the protagonist being little more than just a mindless undead, unfit to live, let alone wear a crown.
The difference is whether you see death as a set back and learning experience, or just a complete failure that frustrates you. It's a matter of mindset.
But in general the difficulty of Soulsborne games is overstated. They're mechanically simple, combat is fair (RNG isn't a big factor), with plenty of opportunities to make the game easier. Just level up more. Now with Elden Ring you can choose to go elsewhere, and come back later, stronger. This game isn't about easy victory, so easy mode has no place existing. A piece of media doesn't have to cater to all audiences.
Part of. The context for this discussion is the atmosphere, lore, and art. That is independent of difficulty.
And further, it is clearly not the case in any of the soulsborne games that the difficulty is tuned perfectly for each player. If that were true, there would be no interest in SL1 runes or there wouldn't have been patches rebalancing of Lost Izalith in DS1 or summons wouldn't be an available option.
The difficulty and risk of death and loss is intrinsically intertwined with the atmosphere. There are many other games with amazing dark art, but without the actual fear of death from the game system, they have less impact.
It's not the dark art that makes Dark Souls unique. It's the combination of deep lore that isn't fully explained or explainable in the game, world building that somehow finds a way to look and feel extremely realistic and fitting while being dreamlike and fantastical at many points, a story that couldn't care less if you followed it, NPCs building an inescapable spell on your mind with 3 lines of non-sensical dialogue, and dark art that underlines and brings all those things together.
There certainly aren't many games like that out there. I'd wager very few to nine, to be honest.
On the contrary, there are boatloads Soulslike games out there that imitate the gameplay (including the difficulty and risk of death) that cannot even be mentioned with being in the same league as the original Souls games. If anything, in the year 2022 it's the Souls gameplay that's "generic" while the rest of the game is still unique in every sense of the word.
You're going to need a guide to understanding the lore and atmosphere. The hard mode is not contained to the game play. Bloodborne, for example, has the atmosphere change based on certain unlocked events and paths you choose to go down. Even if you notice the change in atmosphere, you're not going to understand how it fits together with the story.
I'd just watch a YouTube walkthrough if you don't want to play. Playing the game, alone, is not enough to fully appreciate any of the Souls games.
However, "difficulty" is Souls games has two parts. One good--one bad.
1) There is the "Git Gud" part. This is fine. Having some difficulty in executing game actions is fine. Having to be alert to even low-level enemies is fine.
2) There is the "WTF do I upgrade?" part. This is bad. "Poise" was the canonical example where if you didn't understand it you would get turned into paste by enemies with no idea why. Having to read a full treatise on the web before starting a game is not something you should have to do.
To be fair, most RPGs suffer this problem, but the Souls games suffer it worst because the enemies hit very hard. I think the Souls games would benefit a lot from being able to freely reallocate your points in skill until you hit some level (10-15-20?) that then locks them in. "Hey, I got pasted by that enemy. Maybe I should adjust my skill points and see what that "poise" thing does on the next pass."
The interesting thing about FromSoft games is that almost all of the difficulty is observation and timing. It's real difficulty, to be sure, but almost anybody (obviously without severe visual impairment) can learn observation and timing. It's not like a high APM or high precision thing, where you need good reflexes or dexterity with keyboard and mouse; it's mostly a matter of learning when to hit which button.
The problem is that some people find it highly satisfying to learn when to hit which button, but some people find it boring. To the latter, this manifests as a level of difficulty so high that it almost prohibits playing the game. Which is fine -- not everyone needs to like every game -- but it's annoying to those people when others tell them that they should like it.
There isn't much opportunity for learning when you get to face the enemy for just a few seconds, get killed and then have to grind through loading screen and low level enemies to get another try. It's just awful game design.
I feel like people who say this sort of thing just have not actually played these games. I understand that in theory, a game could require extremely good reaction times or complicated inputs which make it exclusive. But Elden Ring is definitely not hard in that respect. In fact, part of the difficulty is that all the animations are long and you can't cancel them. This actually removes the need for good reaction time -- you have more than enough time to hit a button when you know you will need to.
The "difficulty" really arises from the need for game knowledge -- you have to keep dying until you figure out the right weapon, right spell, or right attack which works well against a particular encounter. And find all the places you can upgrade your weapons and tools and such. After you do these things, the game is in fact quite easy. Hunting around and gathering this stuff is the core fun of the game and I can't see how this is exclusionary toward anybody who would want to play.
I suppose there is a segment of people who would like to see images of the game without doing that but honestly... just watch a Let's Play. That way you don't even need to pay for the game.
I mostly agree... and I'd still argue that the FromSoft games kinda fail at the "knowledge gathering" phase. Walking into a boss that kills you in less than 20 seconds means very little knowledge can be gathered, and sometimes it takes minutes to go back and try again. This is a specific thing that Hollow Knight does pretty much perfectly: you can keep most bosses at bay, because the focus isn't usually to survive, but to find openings where you can safely do some damage.
Needing game knowledge is a great approach to game design. Dispensing such knowledge in the random way FromSoft games do is not. And this goes beyond just the combat aspect. Equipment and items in FromSoft games usually have non-discoverable hidden effects that at best turn the game into a weird puzzle, and at worst draw parallels to graphic adventure games of old. Case in point: Father Gascoigne in Bloodborne. You can find a music box that staggers the boss if you use it during the battle. It makes some sense from a lore perspective, but it's pure bullshit from a game perspective.
I think it's part of the game design. I also think it's bullshit from a game perspective. Tying the box to Gascoigne is a secret bordering on an easter egg. The item must be equipped in the usable items bar. And you have to use it on the very first battle against another hunter, an enemy who keeps attacking relentlessly and gives no time to think. Even more, the effect of the item doesn't give enough feedback to the player.
That item is just one of many in that game. The end effect is that players have to either treat the game as an arcane puzzle, or just search for solutions and ruin the mystery. No middle ground. Even accessing the DLC content borders on bullshit! There's only one clue to find the solution that puts the player in the first DLC area, and finding it becomes a process of trying dumb things until you find the right one by pure chance. Of course, that creature did a different thing when you found it earlier, but the game usually rewrites its own rules constantly so that's less of a surprise. Players can do this... or just turn to a guide and forget about the "graphic-adventure-puzzle level of randomness" aspect of Bloodborne and the other FromSoft games.
This is why I think this is a valid criticism. FromSoft games excel at world building, atmosphere, combat design, and music. But their approach to game knowledge is only enjoyed by those who love that arcane aspect, and the only way around it for those who love all else save for that part is to ruin the magic and reach for a guide.
PD. Also, some text translations in Spanish do not manage to keep the knowledge clues present in the English version. Discovering that was not very fun.
> you have to keep dying until you figure out the right weapon, right spell, or right attack [...] Hunting around and gathering this stuff is the core fun
Different things are fun for different people. That sounds pretty tedious to me, a long slog of arbitrary "guess what the game designer is thinking of" puzzles. Especially when it's all built around killing, something that just doesn't interest me much. To each their own, I guess.
Most of these that I've come across are fairly intuitive. For example stone enemies being resistant to slashing damage, or dark ghosts being weak to holy damage. There's also typically a workaround, for example a jumping attack with a small slashing weapon does more physical damage.
I believe you, and it sounds like that is fun for you.
Maybe I can explain by analogy. I'm very fond of the author Raymond Chandler, who wrote noir mysteries. I love his work, and especially the way he uses language. But I don't care at all who did it. The artificial puzzle aspect of mysteries just doesn't interest me.
It's the same deal here. I get people like this kind of thing. I'm just saying I'm not one of those people. It sounds like I might appreciate the aesthetics of the game, so if I could play through it on easy mode, I might. Sort of the way I read through a mystery and am allowed to ignore the whodunnit aspect.
I definitely get that it isn't for everyone. I'm not familiar with that author but I can relate via House Of Leaves and only really liking parts of it.
Looking at it from the opposite side, some people have no problem with the gameplay, but pay little attention to the aesthetics or dialogue and lore or item descriptions. For them they can instead look up YouTube videos or Wiki articles to explain things. I don't think it's a bad thing those alternatives options exist, but I think adding say a logbook like in Outer Wilds would cheapen the experience for people who really want to get immersed in the world.
I think practically watching a playthrough or just modding the game to make your character OP is the best workaround.
> I feel like people who say this sort of thing just have not actually played these games.
I think this is uncharitable. You can look at completion rates on Steam for some data. I personally stopped playing the xbox360 version of DS1 because the goddamn giants in Lost Izalith kept respawning (something that was mercifully changed with patches). I'd have kept going if I had the patched (and easier) game.
> You can look at completion rates on Steam for some data.
I think we have to accept that not every game is for every person. How adamantly FROM Software fans defend the difficulty shows that this style of game is greatly appreciated by many and, while it sucks to not be into that if the rest of the game looks good to you, I think we just have to be ok with the fact that ok maybe this game was made for people who are into that.
Personally, I appreciate that FROM Software basically force me to learn their games mechanics rather than button mashing my way through, even if it is very frustrating in the moment. I know I'm not good enough to persevere if I could just play in easy mode, and I would have missed out on some truly exhilarating moments. I understand that that's just me and everyone is different, but I mean, there's plenty of games out there, not all have to cater to everyone. There are certainly plenty of games that I think look really cool but ultimately I don't feel are for me (most multiplayer games, really. Even if they look awesome, I just don't have the dedication for it).
This is also why I think its important to watch gameplay videos before you buy, so that you know what you're getting yourself into.
I do agree that not every game is for every person. I'd prefer it if the games could be made easier, but FromSoft can do what they want. What I find frustrating is that asking for this feature produces intense backlash in many communities.
I'm not asking to be able to button mash my way through. Perhaps this is a problem with terms. I'd like a "hard but doable for me" mode. That mode is tuned lighter than the default tuning of the game as released.
Consider that the games already come with many various forms of hard mode. You can do NG+ runs that are harder. You can do SL1 runs that are harder. You can put all of your souls into Resistance and waste your character. If the game shipped without level ups and everybody was forced into SL1 runs, would that make the game better? Surely for some people that'd place the difficulty right at their boundary of "hard, but doable." But for you (or certainly me) that'd be a frustrating wall.
> What I find frustrating is that asking for this feature produces intense backlash in many communities.
I can understand it though. I mean, leaving aside whether or not adding an easy mode actually affects the game for those who don't want to play in it. Its kinda like, the developers created a game that, as it stands, appeals to person A. Person B wants changes made or added to the game so that the game appeals more to them. Of course person A is going to be upset that others want the game changed to suit those other people, when it works perfectly fine for person A as is.
For me, I know that adding an easy mode would affect my experience, but the reason for that is a me problem: because I know I don't have the tenacity to persevere if I have a choice to just play in easy instead (yet I also know that being forced to persevere has led to some of the greatest satisfaction I've gotten from playing games). That's my problem, though, but for me its like yeah well the game as is suits me, so.. please don't change it. Of course I totally understand that this is just me and that others could enjoy the game much more if this were added to the game, and I should just work on my self control in that area.
But I totally get it, especially if this is the only thing that prevents someone from enjoying a game that in every other way would be enjoyable to them.
The controversy (or rather the online dialogue about a controversy which may or may not really exist) over game difficulty is kind of a smaller proxy battle in a larger culture war, as well as a topic that tends to come up when megacorps can use it for self-promotion. e.g. Microsoft/Double Fine and Psychonauts 2. Have they said anything whatsoever about Elden Ring accessibility?
Please continue to tell me that I'm having fun incorrectly.
I'm 46, I have well over 10k hours in hundreds of video games. Been gaming since I had an Atari and games had no directions or guides like Indiana Jones.
Having difficulty that I don't enjoy in a game is the number 2 reason after "it didn't click" that I abandon a game.
There's literally nothing that stops me from reading a novel or watching a movie or walking through a museum or a world historical site to gate keep that experience. Games is the only one where we say "you must enjoy frustration or read spoilers to progress". Just gate keeping that great artistic vision. If it is art worth the experience it shouldn't behind a wall saying "get gud to enter". Let people experience it how they can or want to or have time to.
We're no longer charging quarters based on deaths but that still has it's tendrils in our artform.
To be clear I die a ton in games, I also appreciate it when the game is like ok buddy you tried you can go forward like gta5/gth2. I died 10 times to gremlin shamans in valheim yesterday, but that isn't gatekeeping some artwork, and that game has creative mode.
For my part I don't enjoy games where the gameplay is just something you do to experience a story. Last of Us is a good example. Great story, great atmosphere, bored to tears playing it. If Dark Souls were easy I would probably feel the same.
It's also important to appreciate how difficult it is to balance a game especially when your character's power level increases throughout the game. Most games that have a hard mode are lazy: bosses just have more health or enemies suddenly get headshots all the time. The game needs to be balanced around an intended difficulty level to make it compelling. It takes a lot of talent to make a good difficulty curve, as proven by the lame ripoffs of Souls games that have come out over the years.
That's the beauty tho, an optional difficulty mode lets people pick and choose. For instance in GT5 which has the 3 fails and skip mode, I can choose to try again, or I can chose to move the story forward, it's my choice. This fixes massive difficulty spikes and smooths out other parts of the game. So you can have it either way. It doesn't in any way remove your choice to have the "pure" experience, or mine to get 95% of your experience out of the game.
I think I skipped one mission in GT5 (yoga) and about 5 in GTH2 (the cuba stealth missions that were broken). My brother played along side me and is not an experienced gamer, he would skip the parts that required constant fast aiming, but played the rest. It worked well for both of us.
As a note, Sony had an internal stat a while back, only 10% of people ever finish any game, only 30% make it past the first 3rd... This was for people who purchased the game. This wasn't an average across all titles, this was very consistent for most titles. This was measured with trophies. People fell off very obviously at each boss or challenge increase. If you're making an "Authorial experience" this type of gate keeping will keep most people from experiencing it that would have otherwise.
Great points. I’m turning 40 in a few couple months, so I saw a mostly saw it all since the beginning as well, from Kings Quest till games today as they evolved. I would concisely boil my view down to, and I think you’ll agree: I prefer games be fun even when losing.
For me that says it all. And I don’t find the Souls games fun. Too much 3D camera control, and frustrating rather than fun when dying. I think if you removed the beautiful graphics, few people would play them. I also think the player base for these titles are going to skew younger, those who haven’t experienced as much as we have. I see nothing special in them at all. They landed on no magic for me.
The game that brought me to this realization that a good game should be fun even when losing is League of Legends. While there’s too many kids that think the fun is only in stomping out the opponent quickly or they want to quit, for me that game is fun in the struggle for a comeback. And I’m still mysteriously unbothered when I lose. I enjoy it all the way.
For me, that’s the mark of a good game. And it’s probably not a coincidence that it’s the most popular video game in the world.
The only thing that stops me from reading Ulysses is that I didn't enjoy it, not because I couldn't memorize the correct pattern of verbs to pass Garrett Deasy and acquire my paycheck.
Your comment seems unreasonable to me. What exactly does it mean to enjoy things to you?
Sure, it's physically possible to read any part of Ulysses as there are no physical barriers but for what gain? You're not going to pull any enjoyment out of reading the last few pages of Ulysess. The non existing barrier is a moot point.
The only way of enjoying the last pages of Ulysess is by enjoying the whole thing. And to enjoy Ulysess, you havr to put in your time and go through hoops that aren't usual for most other books. I feel like it's very disingenuous to say that the only reason you haven't read Ulysess is bc you didn't enjoy it. Enjoying Ulysess contains enjoying going the extra mile for it.
Streamers (e.g. MoonMoon's playthrough) are pointing out that if you go "everywhere" and do "everything", truly immersing yourself (as perhaps intended), and you don't rush from boss-to-boss that that "difficulty" is greatly reduced to non-existent. Yes, some very hard spots, but far less than one would assume from the outset based on quick overviews. There are also builds that greatly reduce difficulty making some "impossible" bosses trivial.
Hmmm...I wonder if that's something you would have to deliberately do. In Witcher 3, the world was so huge and engrossing that, just by exploring and participating in it, I outleveled quests, and had a very hard time catching my quests and world progression up to my power even when I tried to. Enabling enemies to scale to my level wasn't the best solution, since it just meant that instead of everything being easy, everything became equally hard.
Sure. And there is similarly nothing wrong with a product adding options to cater to a wider audience. I don't think many of the people asking for easy mode think that Miyazaki is a bad person. But I've certainly been called some pretty nasty things for suggesting an easy mode. What I'd like is for people to be able to express their preference without being attacked for being perceived as scrubs.
There is no game with multiple difficulty options where hard mode is as well designed as in fromsoft games. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that adding easy modes significantly detracts from the experience of hard mode options. You can argue all you want about how in theory it shouldn't affect hard mode experience, but that goes against everything we see happening in practice.
So for the people who likes hardmode, you are extremely greedy when you want to remove the only game offering the hardmode those people want, you can just go and play any of all the other easy mode games while they have no other options. You are a part of the majority who is catered to in almost every game going to the minority asking them why they don't cater to you as well, of course they get angry.
> There is no game with multiple difficulty options where hard mode is as well designed as in fromsoft games.
I don't believe this is true at all. Heck, you can look at the patches put into the various games to see places where FromSoft agreed that they botched something. I don't think anybody thinks that Bed of Chaos is the good kind of hard.
And Soulsbourne games do have multiple difficulty options. NG+ exists. SL1 exists.
I’m always surprised to read things like, “please change the difficulty so I can appreciate the art.” The difficulty is the art - you can’t just carve it out. It couldn’t be done even if Miyazaki wanted to do it. You’d lose the essence of the art because so much hangs on the challenge: the failure, the success, the relationship of the player with the game.
Instead, the real solutions to the mechanical challenges that Soulsbornes throw at you are sprinkled throughout this thread.
> I don't believe this is true at all. Heck, you can look at the patches put into the various games to see places where FromSoft agreed that they botched something. I don't think anybody thinks that Bed of Chaos is the good kind of hard.
The fact that they patch the experience of their hardmode helps my case, not yours. It shows that they care deeply about the experience of their hardmode players, since everyone is forced to play it they have to care about it. While other developers just say "if you find it too hard just play on easy", fromsoft has to actually fix their games when they mess it up.
> NG+ exists
NG+ isn't a higher difficulty, its just continuing the game with yoru current character. The monsters have higher stats than the first run, but so do you since your character is higher level.
> SL1 exists
Deliberately choosing to not use certain options in the game makes every game harder, yes, but that isn't a part of difficulty options and the game isn't designed around SL1 runs.
But games with difficulty modes always are. It happens naturally, developers and testers are just doing their job after all, to them it is easier to always test things on the easiest difficulty setting so that setting is what gets most development time. Solo developers might be able to work around this, but in a large team this will always happen. High level of polish comes when everyone is forced to run through the content, since then everyone will provide feedback and solutions to problems will be found. If a part is too hard or too tedious people will complain and the part will be made easier or changed, this wont happen if you enable developers or testers to run easier modes.
Very well put. And the feeling of accomplishment of conquering a boss is shared by _everyone_ who plays this game. Beating Radahn or Malenia in ER or The Nameless King in DS3 or O&S in DS1 was always a magnificent feeling and one that everyone else in the community knew and appreciated when found in one another. It would cheapen it so much if I knew you could just turn a slider down and really diminish the community experience.
Agreed, go play something else if you want an easy game. This ain’t it.
"We don't want to include a difficulty selection because we want to bring everyone to the same level of discussion and the same level of enjoyment," Miyazaki said. "So we want everyone … to first face that challenge and to overcome it in some way that suits them as a player."
"We want everyone to feel that sense of accomplishment. We want everyone to feel elated and to join that discussion on the same level. We feel if there's different difficulties, that's going to segment and fragment the user base. People will have different experiences based on that [differing difficulty level]. This is something we take to heart when we design games. It's been the same way for previous titles and it's very much the same with Sekiro."
It makes some sense, the constant in the world is the bosses, so you have to change yourself in some way to beat them. If you suck at souls games, like I do, that means a lot of studying to finally win. But then I'm content that I've beaten the same thing everyone has.
On the other hand, Celeste is an example of a brutally difficult game with much lauded accessibility options. It’s not the same as “easy mode”, but the results are similar.
because art is a way of personal expression and its function, ideally is to elicit growth in the people who engage with it. On the other hand I don't need a Dark Souls can opener.
you attribute to art things which you don't define ("personal expression") and a function that cannot be measured and which you probably can't even define ("... growth in the people who engage with it").
'growth'? in what?
what is 'engage with it' mean?
What if I disagree, does that mean I have a different and valid opinion, or that I'm mentally stunted and unable to 'grow'?
I could go on. Your justification is the kind of unchallengeable nebulosity that artist types come up with to justify stuff, and if I don't get it, I'm wrong.
I'm not anti-art by any means, but I do wonder at the ability of 'art' as a topic to inhibit critical thinking, or making up one's own mind.
Not really sure where the confusion comes from. Personal expression in art is translating feelings, ideas or concepts you have into a work of art. If other people understand you through your work of art, you've done a good job as an artist.
Growth can come in many forms. Learning something about the artist, learning something about yourself while studying art, learning how to distinguish good critique from bad critique, how form and function of art work together, and so on.
There's nothing nebulous here. It's ironic that you go on a rant about 'art types' and demand critical thinking but then in some passive aggressive tone deserve that people serve you definitions on a platter.
And sure you can disagree, nothing I said implies you can't, I didn't call anyone mentally stunted so I don't know where that comes from.
This is a respectable attempt at an answer (bar para 3 anyway) and exactly what I so rarely get. I just get shut down because "it's art" and you don't question it. It's art so it's beautiful, it's art so it's valuable. The angry grunt from people or the silent downvotes here is the usual, so I appreciate this answer, or an attempt at thereof
I don't agree with what you say but I do appreciate your trying. Not enough karma to upvote you so a simple thanks must suffice. I wish we had a chance to talk in person on this.
I doubt this is true, as much for many people, they're not willing to invest the time to overcome the challenge. Which is fine, but they're not the target audience, and that's also ok.
Welcome to the 70s and 80s where there was no such thing as savegames for the most part and you got 3 deaths before starting over. This is no different. A boss is just a level of sorts. You learn the mechanics and then you beat the boss and move on. Do it enough times and you can do it in your sleep. People have been playing ridiculously forgiving and easy games where there's no cost of failure so long that they don't even know what a merely challenging game is.
Difficulty systems in the 70s and 80s were famously for eating quarter rather than based on any actual game design philosophy. Not exactly a comparison I think is worth making.
The "just learn the boss" argument is also somewhat frustrating given how frequently there are long ass walks back from bonfires to boss doors. Dying a bunch to learn the tells and attack timings is much less attractive when it takes minutes to go from a death to your next attempt. Compare this to something like Hotline Miami where you are playing again instantly. Much better option there.
When I was a kid, being invited over to watch your friend play a single player game was the peak of lameness. Streaming culture seems very odd to me unless there’s something noteworthy about the streamer.
I would say it's like watching any show about sport in general. Sometimes, you root for the person to win. Other times, you can learn something new by watching the streamer. And it can just be entertaining as watching a reality show.
Quite the contrary, I would say. I watch videos of people playing video games when there is something special about the video game, but (for any of several reasons) I know I won’t be playing the video game myself any time soon.
So far this appears to be a "choose your own difficulty" game. I've deliberately chosen to "git gud" at melee, since I've always sucked at melee. Could level to 99 and just blast through things, but where is the fun in that?
Elden Ring has taught me calm and resolve in the face of overwhelming odds. Also, the value of a battle honestly fought. It's a great teacher, and an amazing game.
Okay. And how am I supposed to find these play styles? Looking up walkthroughs that show you OP builds and where to find relevant items is surely more immersion breaking than changing a difficulty setting in a menu that makes enemies do 20% less damage and have 20% less health.
Farm normal enemies slowly, ignore bosses until you are over leveled - say by 20%, spend the time slowly exploring and methodically clearing out enemies instead, mount and run away or through packs of enemies, use summons and the NPC or human summons, play as a mage, try boss fights mounted where you are allowed.
easy mode is magic and using summons, you can literally beat any souls game without attacking a single enemy, but the challenge is 100% part of the entire game philosophy
>“I do feel apologetic toward anyone who feels there’s just too much to overcome in my games,” Miyazaki told me. He held his head in his hands, then smiled. “I just want as many players as possible to experience the joy that comes from overcoming hardship.”
>“I’ve never been a very skilled player,” Miyazaki told me recently, via Zoom. He was sitting in his office, a book-lined room in the Shinjuku ward of Tokyo. “I die a lot. So, in my work, I want to answer the question: If death is to be more than a mark of failure, how do I give it meaning? How do I make death enjoyable?”
Isn't that worse than an easy mode? The outcome is the same but it takes hours rather than seconds and the locations where you can quickly farm levels are not obvious in game and require you to look up advice online.
You don’t have to farm levels. You just go do something else that naturally results in levels or loot making your character stronger. Since all of the game is wonderfully designed, it’s never a situation where you run off and “kill 10 bats” that people might have in mind due to precedents set by e.g. world of Warcraft.
Also, few ppl understand this, but community knowledge is actually a core part of the design philosophy. That’s why there’s player messages and blood stains built into the game. It’s not a dirty thing in this game to look stuff up or ask for help. There’s a huge community and comradary aspect to the game.
You can summon Solaire which eliminates the hardest part of that fight, which is both bosses chasing you at once. While it's true that you need to defeat them eventually you can detour through the Painted World to get some levels and items.
A potential upside is that because it's tedious, you'll probably want to do it for only as long as necessary before trying again so the difficulty is somewhat adjusted to the player's need, and you don't actually change how enemies behave - the mechanics of the game are still the exact same, your numbers are just a bit bigger. When I imagine an easy mode I would figure making changes for how things work would be necessary, like having a boss' attacks be more predictable.
We translate novels, despite knowing that translation fundamentally damages the text in major ways. And it is rarely the case where the mechanics of reading a novel are intended to be difficult. Chaucer didn't write with the intention of confusing readers 700 years later. But because of the changing nature of language his writing has larger barriers today than in the past (modulo basic literacy).
translation is not the same thing as rewriting it with the 2000 most common words or whatever the literary equivalent of easy mode is. children routinely beat fromsoft games, they are not arbitrary, but it is normal for the game to beat you up before you figure out how to play. the entire tone of the game is set by this experience and you might as well just watch an LP if you want to skip it, but i have sincere contempt for people who want to reduce art to the lowest common denominator. if you don't respect the choices made in its creation why should respect be afforded to your whims?
