Starker on 27/5/2019 at 17:41
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
Being in a car crash is also very memorable. But I rather not do that. :)
I meant memorable in a good way. When I think fondly back on those frustrating moments, it's because they were meaningful, because they added to the game. The same with Dark Souls. Without the difficulty, the game is diminished, I would argue.
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
When you read about Dark Souls, google for Dark Souls, read threads on forums, it certainly has the reputation of being a hard game. I sometimes read the Reddit Dark Souls forums. And about half the posts there are: "look at me, I beat this boss, I beat the game, it was soo hard, I am so happy".
It's vastly overblown. With Dark Souls, it's a magician's trick most of the time, you just need to learn the trick. The bosses look huge and imposing, but you can block almost any attack. It seems like any hit from them would do you in, but you can usually take several and heal quite a bit of damage for free with estus (I actually think 20 swigs is too much and 10 would have sufficed). And outside of the bosses, most of the difficulty comes from not being careful and not paying attention. Plus Dark Souls is full of things you can use to greatly turn the odds in your favour, such as magic, buffing, kiting, summoning NPCs and players, and so on. Or you can just go and level up to make things easier. It's not an RPG for nothing.
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
I don't want to reduce the difficulty. I want to reduce the tedium. In particularly, one of the design-flaws of Dark Souls is that it punishes bad and new players too hard. It doesn't punish the new players by taking more time. It punishes bad and new players by making the game harder. I think that is wrong. (Not complaining, just stating my opinion). A game should be "easy to learn, hard to master". But in fact, DS is the opposite. Hard to learn, easy once you've climbed the initial learning curve. As an example: when you die, you lose humanity, ember or (in DS2) max-health. If you die a lot, you run out of humanity and embers. Or your max-health goes to 50% in DS2. And you can't summon NPCs (or players) anymore. The game gets a lot harder. Another example: in DS1 at the start you find 3 lightning resins. Advise on the net how to beat the gargoyles: use a resin. The problem here is that you have a limited amount. If you fail the fight 3 times, you don't have lightning resins left. Making the fight a lot harder. Not a problem for good or experienced players. But for new/bad/inexperienced players, it makes the game harder. I don't think that makes sense. Losing souls on death is also not helpful for new players. But it can be overcome. Running out of embers and resins, etc, is different thing.
You don't lose humanity when you die, you only lose humanity (and souls) when you don't make it back to your bloodstain. Additionally, nothing consequential happens even when you do lose them. Humanity is infinitely farmable from very early on and the amounts of souls you lose are typically pitiful. Plus there are lots of ways to manage these resources by saving up hard currency and regularly spending soft currency. And in other Souls games like Demon Souls and whatnot there are items to mitigate and reverse any loss you incur on death. Also, you don't beat the Gargoyles with resin -- that's just bad advice for complete newbies. You beat him with the help of Solaire or by leveling up in Darkroot Garden and farming titanite shards.
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
I'm not harming anyone, and the game is more fun for me.
I don't care what you do with your game. I just stated what I have observed from watching a lot of blind playthroughs. When the game stopped being challenging, it started being considerably less enjoyable for those players. Sure, you can play games like Doom in god mode or by giving yourself all the guns and still have fun, but nothing gives that adrenaline and dopamine rush like the right amount of challenge with just enough stakes to make it a nerve-wrecking on the edge of your seat kind of unforgettable experience. And the satisfaction from beating such a challenge is unlike anything else. And same goes for games like Nethack and savescumming -- these games are not meant to be completed, they are meant to be mastered, conquered. If you take too many shortcuts in that, you aren't just cheating the game, you are cheating yourself out of an experience that's meant to be a journey and an adventure in and of itself -- the chance to face and overcome adversity by growing and learning, and yes, the chance to fail and experience frustration.
Nameless Voice on 27/5/2019 at 22:09
You lose your humanity/embering when you die, it has nothing to do with if you pick up your souls from your bloodstain or not.
That means that your max health is reduced. Sometimes repeatedly the more you die, depending on which game.
DS3 does it a little less nastily by having embering give you bonus health on top of your normal pool, rather than dying or not being embered slowly taking your health away.
Starker on 28/5/2019 at 03:41
Ah yes, got a bit confused what with the similar terms and all. I thought it referred to benefits you get from carrying around liquid humanity. Well, the game is not meant to be played constantly running around in human form in the first place. Think of it as a buff more than the normal state. It's main use is to allow you to summon help for bosses you are having difficulty with. It's limited because it's meant to be used sparingly, especially as the summoned helpers can kill the boss on their own without you lifting a finger.
Gryzemuis on 28/5/2019 at 20:09
I don't want to discuss the details. I was trying to get a point across: some games are easy to learn, hard to master. And other games are hard to learn, but easy once you mastered them. I think good games should try to be the first. Not only because I'd like that. I think it's also good for the developer's income. And it's just friendlier to potential players.
That being said. During the last year I've got all the achievements in DS1, DS2 and DS3. And then last month (April) I decided to try a SL1 run. I got to Pontiff. Then I beat the Dancer (much to my surprise). I cheesed Oceiros (with a bow, because everyone says he's so frustrating at SL1). Then I stopped at Dragonslayer Armour. Yesterday I continued and killed DSA. Today I just killed Pontiff and Aldritch as SL1. I bet no one here expected me to do that ! :p
BTW, I still think DS3 should have an easier difficulty-level for new players. :)
And to make my earlier point, that I play games the way I like to: Everybody knows that in a SL1 run you have to play a Deprived and have all stats at 10. No problem for most people, because they will roll their way through the game anyway. But I like to use a shield. I've always used shields, in DS1, DS2 and DS3. I've beaten the Fume Knight by tanking him with a shield. But in DS3 there are no 100%-block shield with a requirement of only 10 strength. The closest thing is Silver Eagle Kite Shield. Which requires 11 strength. So I gave myself 1 extra strength. :) And while I was at that, I realized that you can't use a bow unless you have 12 dexterity. So I gave myself 2 extra dex. So I am doing my SL1 run at an actual level of SL4. I'm sure all the other SL1-runners don't agree. And I'm sure they are think I am depriving myself of the "real SL1 challange". But I don't care. I do my SL1-run at SL4. And I'm having fun.
Grand Archives next !
Starker on 29/5/2019 at 00:45
Dark Souls is not a mainstream game, catering to masses. You can tell that from the tutorial alone -- where other games would teach you step by step the mechanics of the game, DS tells you what the controls are and lets you figure things out on your own. It's aimed at people who are to a degree already games literate, not for people who hold the controller for the first time. And that's a line you can draw from King's Field through Demon Souls through Bloodborne through Sekiro. That's From's MO, the kinds of games they make. The difficulty is not there just because. It's an important part of the atmosphere of the game. It's not a coincidence that many of From's games since King's Field have had a crestfallen warrior type of character at the very beginning of the game. As for DS3, it's not exactly a starting point for the series -- its main audience is the people who played the previous games.
Also, anyone can get good at Dark Souls, if they play it enough. I've seen people going from struggling to figure out the controls to handing the ass to an unexpected invader. Even Jeff Green who started the game as a joke of how terrible he is at the game made it to the end. It's not that tough of a game. It's challenging, yes, but it's mostly fair and gives you all the tools to beat it, even some extremely overpowered tools.
Anyway, Mark Brown, as always, makes the argument better than I can:
[video=youtube;K5tPJDZv_VE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tPJDZv_VE[/video]
icemann on 29/5/2019 at 05:21
Be crazy if they didn't release that on the Switch.
Sulphur on 29/5/2019 at 06:20
That's very nice, but I don't remember Quake 2 being set on a planet that spun so fast that sunlight slid across its levels like that.
Gryzemuis on 29/5/2019 at 13:01
Quote Posted by Starker
Dark Souls is not a mainstream game, catering to masses.
Sure. But that doesn't mean you can't enjoy the game, unless your main objective in gaming is to overcome challenge. I don't care much for challenge. If I'd want a challenge, I'd go study medicine and become a doctor and save people's lives. And despite I am not part of the target audience for DS (according to you and maybe Miyazaki), I still enjoyed the games.
Quote:
You can tell that from the tutorial alone -- where other games would teach you step by step the mechanics of the game, DS tells you what the controls are and lets you figure things out on your own.
Not telling us about the control is not a problem. But lots of other aspects of DS are. E.g. I would never have used humanity if I hadn't read about how to summon NPCs. Because humanity is limited and scarce. So you'd think "I better save it for when I know what it does, or when I really need it". Same with the quests. I would guess that less than 10% of players finishes quests in DS games without looking them up on the net. They are too obscure, and require way too much precise ordering of events. The quests in DS games are just not good (unless you look them up on a wiki. Or you're playing the game for the 5th time). I've read posts from people who did not upgrade their estus-flasks, because they thought bone-shards were one-time use things. DS is good, but not perfect. So there must be ways to make it better. For the people who played the game. But also for the people who didn't play the game. I'm always in the camp of "more options is good".
Quote:
It's aimed at people who are to a degree already games literate, not for people who hold the controller for the first time.
I dare you to find anyone over the age of 6 in the civilized world who has not held a controller before.
Again, I agree there are lots of things that people can figure out on themselves. But some are a lot harder. And it's not always about figuring out stuff, it's also about executing them. I'm pretty smart (if I may say so myself), but my execution in games suck. And I've seen people who are even worse than me. You don't want those people to enjoy any games ?
Quote:
That's From's MO, the kinds of games they make.
Understood. That doesn't mean I agree with that. It's nice that challenge gives satisfaction. But if you can't overcome the challenge, there is no satisfaction, not even a game. And if you dont' care for challenge, there is no satisfaction either. I'll give you another example from my own experience: almost 20 years ago, I played a lot of Unreal Tournament. I loved the game. But after a while I realized that playing online would make me feel miserable. Almost depressed. Because: 1) when I won a game, I'd think "the opponents must suck, I was lucky, it was nothing". And 2) when I lost, I thought "I suck, I'm terrible". I loved moving around in the game-world of UT. But I didn't enjoy the competition or challenge. And then I played Morrowind. Loved it. And lots of other single-player games. Even WoW. You can play and enjoy those games both when you're an awesome gamer and when you suck.
Quote:
It's <difficulty> an important part of the atmosphere of the game.
Sure. And still there are things that could be improved. Not just decreasing bosses' health or increasing the players armor.
If I had to make an easy mode for DS games, it would something like this:
*) You can always go from normal mode to easy mode. At the start of a new game, but also in the middle.
*) You can never go from easy mode to normal. Well, maybe at the start of NG+.
*) When playing easy mode, you are always embered, or in human form.
So you always have the health benefits (and other benefits, like resistance, etc).
When you die, you stay embered/human.
*) So you can always summon NPCs or players to help you.
*) You can never get summoned (to help another player). Except to help other players who also play in easy-mode.
*) You can never be invaded (biggy).
*) There will be a few more bonfires in the game. Bonfires just outside the fog-gates of bosses.
In easy-mode, you can always run to a boss without fighting trash.
(Like the Rotten in DS2, or later bosses in DS3).
*) When you make a trade, you have an hour to "undo" the trade. You can go back to the trader and get the same amount of souls back.
If you bought something (a weapon) and beat a boss, then the sale become permanent earlier.
*) Same thing with upgrading and infusing weapons.
You can undo it, get your materials and souls back. But if you use the weapon to beat a boss, the deal is permanent.
*) More flexibility when doing quests. Maybe a little more explaination (by NPCs) what to do next.
The text in DS-games is sometimes very cryptic. And uses pretty obscure words. In a way that is fun.
But as a non-native english speaker, it often gets hard to understand what the NPC says. Especially if they say it only once.
*) When a player dies, he loses half his souls, not all of them. Or maybe the amount can gradually increase.
E.g. you lose no souls if you die before beating a boss. Once you beat a boss, you lose 10% of your souls.
After beating a 2nd boss, you lose 20%. Etc. After beating 10 bosses, you lose all 100% of souls, like you do now.
Not sure about this one. But the goal is to let new players level up early, even when they die a lot.
*) I'm sure there are more things that can be done to improve the game for new players.
I'll write them down when I think of more.
I think these changes would reduce the tedium a bit.
They don't reduce the difficulty of bosses at all.
So hopefully it would make the game less frustrating, and equally challenging and rewarding.
Quote:
Also, anyone can get good at Dark Souls, if they play it enough. ... It's challenging, yes, but it's mostly fair and gives you all the tools to beat it, even some extremely overpowered tools.
Sure. This again is: hard to learn, easy once you've mastered it. Fine when you play the game multiple times (like I do). But if you play a game only once, it doesn't help you much. And most of the tools are there for experienced players. Or available when you read a lot of walk-throughs and wikis. Not my favorite way of learning a game. It's fine if some things (like using magic/faith/dark) are a bit obscure and available in reality only to experienced players. Or that experienced players can run from boss to boss, avoiding fighting trash mobs completely. But when core mechanics are hidden (like humanity, summoning, etc) that can be improved, imho.
Mark Brown makes a good point. But the point again is mostly: "when the game wouldn't be hard, you won't feel the level of satisfaction once you beat the game". That is true for some players. But not for others. I think that with some adjustments, the game could appeal to a broader audience. Without taking anything away from the current audience. That's my point.
Anyway, I think I've made my point. Even Dark Souls, which is an awesome game, could be made more attractive, without losing its appeal to current players. I think something similar could have been done for Pathologic 2. I think it's a shame that Icepick Lodge didn't even try, and just made their game less accessible. And your point is: some players enjoy challenging games, and if you don't, go play something else.