Game News 2.0

J. Marston

DLC over two years since the release. That's mad.

Zero-Cool

It only came out recently that From acquired the rights to the Elden Ring brand from Bandai, I wonder if that deal delayed the dlc or its just going to be a mental size.

Potential-Monke

In dem olden days, such a gap would have either multiple expansions or follow on games at this point. I assume it's gonna be a big dlc drop, anything but is kinda a kick in the face for people waiting. I hope it lives up to expectations for ye. I also assume gaining the name rights means they have far more planned, be it dlc or additional games. I went off on a search to see if there's an easy mode mod for Elden Ring. There is, but my god people really don't want others modding this game to be easier. Porn? Grand. Thomas the Tank Engine? Fine. Make the game a bit easier? FUKHELLSNOYANOOBCNT! Kinda wanna do it now just to annoy the Souls fans! :pac:

Retr0gamer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121795489#Comment_121795489

Git gud.

Seriously though if you get rid of the challenge then the game would become a mindless button masher. It relies on the challenge. I think a lot of people think it's From fans gate keeping and being snobby but it's more a warning that the sense of accomplishment is a major factor of these games. Nobody plays them for story.

There's also the fact that these games have an easy mode already built in. Co-op makes most almost every part of these games an absolute breeze.

TitianGerm

Is Elden Ring hard? I still have to get back and finish it after taking an extended break from gaming but I can't say I found it hard.

McFly85

With Elden Ring there’s tons of ways to make it easier. Spending time levelling up, ash summons, gear upgrades, co-op etc, and there’s always someplace else to go and explore if you hit a wall. It’s probably the most welcoming souls game in that regard.

So I’m not sure what people actually want when they say make it easier. Is it to have a level where you don’t need to employ any of the above ways to progress and can get through bosses with relative ease?

The challenge is the whole thing, and these games do a great job of allowing the player to set the limits of the challenge with the systems outlined while maintaining a reasonable level of difficulty. Take that away and it becomes boring.

Grumpypants

Souls players.

J. Marston

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121795774#Comment_121795774

Sick little perverts who like pain.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121795760#Comment_121795760

I do think an argument can be made for different difficulties even just to accommodate persons with disabilities who may want to play the games but just can't control the character as quickly and responsively as others can. Even if it just affected speed or regularity of some enemy attacks, amount of health lost etc. But yeah on the whole, the challenge is what the game is designed for. It's not meant to be easy.

I've said before though that until actually playing a few of the games, I didn't fully realise/accept that death in these games isn't a failure, but rather a game mechanic (well, if you walk off a ledge messing up a jump or something, that's a failure). Yes, you may die, lose your souls/runes and have to go through enemies again to get back to where you were, but if you do, you'll have earned more souls/runes, can pick up the ones you lost so long as you haven't died again, and then you have even more souls/runes. You might have even gotten past those enemies again using fewer resources like health or FP flasks and be in an even better position than you were. Deaths can be frustrating, but they're also an opportunity.

There's also a delicate balance in the game when it comes to difficulty. Your build can have you melt some enemies/bosses, and have you struggle a lot against others. But the bosses are designed for the game as a whole, and really the challenge of the game is the whole point of the game. Dropping the difficulty just to make combat/bosses easier so you can get through the game is like wearing sunglasses to look at the Mona Lisa. Sure, you'll have seen it, but all you'll be able to do is say "I saw the Mona Lisa, didn't look that great". These games don't really have stories or cutscenes (at least none that you'll fully understand unless you watch a VaatiVidya 9-hour series of videos).

You really don't die as much in Souls games as the memes and reputation of the game suggest. You die a lot at the start because the game is forcing you to learn the mechanics and strategies required to succeed, and until you start playing that way you're going to get your head kicked in. As much as I love being a powered-up monster of a main character who can take on hordes of enemies by spamming special moves, that's just not these games. You have to be clever, deliberate, tactical and careful. Everything in Souls games is risk v reward, and every fight is a risk, every piece of loot shining at the end of a tunnel is a risk, every "I think I can make that jump" is a risk. Too many modern games these days, there's so little risk because you just respawn 10ft from where you were and have lost nothing.

So yeah, at best I wouldn't mind if there were some difficulty options for accessibility purposes. There are definitely ways to make the core game itself easier, with recognised prime builds and guides, items which can help you, and Elden Ring goes far greater in those respects than other Souls game particularly with the summons', some of which can practically play the game for you in some areas. But if someone just made the game easier just to get through the game and experience it, you haven't experienced the game and will never get from the game what the people who do love the games get. And at that point, there's not a lot to be gained from playing the game that way, because the challenge is the game.

McFly85

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121795874#Comment_121795874

Agree with all of that, but I think it’s important to consider accessibility apart from general difficulty. There’s a host of things that would come under making the game accessible and outside of the difficulty from custom control schemes or controllers to visual aids. I do find it slightly condescending when players with disabilities are used in the argument for lowering the difficulty as a whole -I’m sure most would like the opportunity to experience the game as-is if it’s at all possible!

But yeah, sometimes as part of accessibility the only way may be to have some modifiers available which is fine. I’d have my doubts as to whether we’d actually see that in souls games though - I think they will continue with their design philosophy, with anyone feeling too much difficulty at any point can ask someone for help.

Retr0gamer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121795874#Comment_121795874

I'm all for accessibility in videogames for people with disabilities but near every moaner that says hard games need to be made easier for people with disabilities is always able bodied and just a moany little bitch that can't take the heat. The actual accessibility options disabled gamers are looking for are totally re-bindable controls and control systems that allow them to take part. Those disabled gamers that apparently want easier games are all beating stuff like punchout, battletoads and, shock horror, souls games when they are give the tools to do so.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121796009#Comment_121796009

Oh definitely, and you'll never be able to accommodate everyone's disabilities or restrictions because it's such a huge spectrum. I was more trying to make the point that even if you included those sort of difficulty levels or adjustments people could make (which may be included for accessibility reasons), if someone used those just to make the base game easier for themselves because they don't want to deal with the difficulty of the game then they're never going to experience the game on their own level and they'll always be playing a lesser-version of what the game should be.

The memes and reputation the games have for deaths/difficulty is really overstated. They're not difficult, and dying isn't an issue. They just require a different mindset compared to most third-person action games where you're basically superman who can destroy anything and everything in front of you first try, or if you don't there's little to no consequence, and where a huge chunk of the game is about story, cutscenes, puzzles, traversal and setpieces. Admittedly, it's something I found trouble adjusting to the first time I played Bloodborne which was my first attempt at a Souls game and I eventually gave up. It was really Sekiro that then helped me attune to the fundamentals of the death cycle and how it's not an issue etc, and to play for the difficulty rather than try fight against it which made me revisit Bloodborne and then try other Souls games.

McFly85

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121796145#Comment_121796145

Most people seem to have a similar loop.

I tried Bloodborne after seeing all the praise, died a ridiculous amount of times, thought it wasn’t for me as the difficulty was way too high.

Went back to it after a while after having nothing to play and stuck with it. After getting through Gascoigne that was it, I was hooked. After that point death wasn’t nearly as much of an issue as I was for more aware of what to expect from the rest of the game.

I know a couple of others who discovered their love for souls games in pretty much the same way.

Retr0gamer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121796222#Comment_121796222

I imagine Bloodborne was a tough one for people to get into. The opening streets section and Gascoigne are far and away the toughest parts of the game and I guess getting curb stomped so early so many times was a turn off for a lot of new comers to souls games. I actually find Bloodborne a relative cake walk once you get past Vicar Amelia, it's by far the easiest of the modern From games.

Then again I guess people stuck with it as it was the only good exclusive on PS4 for years, what else were you going to play? 😝

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121796222#Comment_121796222

Yeah I've said before that you'll probably always die a lot in the first few hours of a Souls game, because the game is essentially saying that unless you adapt to the playstyle we are trying to teach you, you are not going to make it through the rest of the game. But the games aren't as tutorialised as other games where it would have giant flashing arrows and pauses repeatedly to play you a video of what you're meant to do when it wants you to something. Like how at the start of Bloodborne, you find a good few pebbles because the game is trying to make you realise that you're not supposed to run up to a group of enemies, you're supposed to use the pebbles to lure enemies away from groups and take them on one by one. It has enemies hidden around corners because you can't just go blindly charging through areas but instead you need to keep your guard up at all times.

I made it to Bloodstarved Beast on my first attempt at playing the game, but I knew that whatever the game was, it just wasn't clicking with me even though I was progressing. A lot of it was due to the levelling and items systems in the game, where I was using too many consumables, and I was levelling up all skills etc. So I gave up at that stage until playing and loving Sekiro made me decide to give it a fresh start, and then I just got it from the start. There are definitely issues with some game systems not being explained well in Souls games, though once you've learnt it for one it pretty much carries over to all the others.

Grumpypants

Making games that are Accessible shouldn't be mixed up with having Accessibility settings in games.

One is the ability to onboard players to your game in a way that makes it work across a broad spectrum of players.

The other supports people with disabilities so they can enjoy the same games you do.

Souls games don't make their games accessible. But by choice. It's a choice I don't understand. In my book it is bad game design.

I remember reading something around the time Returnal came out that only 20% or so had beaten the last boss and less than 9% got the "true ending". I'd guess a huge % never got past the first boss (like me). I've also bought and got nowhere in dark souls, demon souls, Bloodborne, elden ring. I keep thinking this is the one where I'll see what everyone is talking about. But that's yet to happen.

I can't see how having the majority of players not play the majority of your game can be considered good design.

It's a single player game. Making it easier hurts no one. I don't know why anyone is against it. It's literally a toggle in a data base.

Make hit points do less damage.

Make health higher.

Increase timing window.

Boom done.

It's like when someone tells me to watch a TV series and says the first two seasons are a slog but it gets good in the third season. Yeah that's not good TV I won't be watching that.

johnny_ultimate

I have to disagree with the idea that a game being hard or challenging is bad game design. Good game design is a lot more complex than simply ushering a player to the finish line. In fact, often that approach leads to lazy design. From games consistently boast some of the most fantastic, purposeful and agile game design around. That's not to say they're immune from criticism - I have plenty of complaints about the difficulty and build balancing in the final third of Elden Ring, for example - but making them easier wouldn't just make them 'better'. And I'm by no means opposed to more options for players to engage with them.

I'm terrible at Street Fighter, but I respect that the game design is incredibly nuanced and versatile. I'm not going to dismiss the boundless possibilities for high-level play just because I'm not any good at it.

As for Elden Ring, Steam stats show a third of players have defeated the game's hardest optional boss Malenia, while a good 50% have finished the game. Those are pretty enviable stats for any big, sprawling RPG IMO, let alone one with some famously tricky 'skill checks'. The Witcher 3 - a similarly popular game but one that wouldn't be considered as difficult - has much lower completion rates in comparison.

Retr0gamer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121796715#Comment_121796715

And that there is a severe misunderstanding of how game design actually works. You think it's just a toggle in the game code but if you change something small it can completely alter your game. A lot of time goes into polishing and balancing games and making a game too easy can completely ruin a game, a good example is, and I hate admitting this game exists, Devil May Cry 2, which lowered the difficulty to be more accessible and become a boring button masher.

I don't see it as an accessibility issue at all. It's more like movies. Sometimes a movie or genre just isn't for you. And you know that's fine. There's so many movies and game experiences out there that do cater to your tests. I find complaining about making souls games easier is like complaining David Lynch films don't make sense and he should make them more approachable with traditional storytelling.

Retr0gamer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121796785#Comment_121796785

25.6% of players got the steam achievement for the chapter 3 boss of RE4 remake and that game is 6 hours long. Souls games in comparisons to most games have pretty high player completion rates on steam.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121796715#Comment_121796715

It's a hard one to determine without knowing why or when you gave up in those games, but the Souls games (and Returnal) are designed to be challenging, and if you were able to drop or adjust the difficulty, is it even worth playing at that point?

It comes down to that balance between 'accessibility' and difficulty. It's not really up to the game to adjust to the player, but the player to adjust to the game. But then I remember a routine Dara O'Briain used to do about how different games are to other media, and how if you get stuck in a game you can't progress any furthers, whereas books don't just suddenly slam shut unless you can prove you can answer questions about the themes etc. It can definitely be a kicker when you've put time and money to a game and then find you're really struggling to progress.

That said, it's not just Souls games which do it; pretty much all games do in some way or form. You're usually locked out of certain content/areas in the game until you've progressed enough to where you should have the tools and abilities to get past it. Same with Souls games. Usually if you're in an area or you reach a boss, you should have all the tools and abilities required to beat them, and the game is a series of skill checks. Some bosses will wreck your life with how many tries it takes you to beat them, some you'll beat first time. But like I said, the games are usually more difficult at the start because you're supposed to get used to the ryhthm and playstyle the game needs you to have (as that's what the game, enemies and bosses have been designed for), rather than the game adjusting to just help you get through it. There are ways to farm to level up more, or respec your skills or change items etc. But yeah, beating the bosses requires learning them as much as possible, and that happens through numerous tries and deaths.

It's why I eventually grew to love Sekiro; I died so many times to most of the bosses (you tend to stop counting after about 20 attempts), but when you get into the rhythm of the boss battles where you know their moves, know how to counter, know when to pressure and know when to pull back, the boss fights never stop being enjoyable even when you die, and the rush when you win is insane. If you could just reduce the difficulty to make them easier, is that making the game more accessible, or just more dull?

Zero-Cool

I'm so for accessibility but Souls games would absolutely lose their magic if there were difficulty settings. Hands down, i would have turned it to easier difficulty setting do many times during the game where i was stuck on a boss but sure would have gotten past it but it would have become a bland button mash with no reward. Not a snob view at all but the game is designed to make you better through failure and rewarding when you finally git gud enough to beat a boss.

I played the first area of returnal and it didn't do anything for me even though it has a similar design.

johnny_ultimate

(Returnal is great and the best first-party Sony title of the generation so far. Really must go back and finish off that final boss)

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121796886#Comment_121796886

Returnal is definitely a bit different due to the roguelike mechanics. It takes so many tries to even get to the first boss, and a lot more tries after that to even beat them. But you do level up so much due to permanent upgrades and unlocking new abilities that after that you start to sail through the first level. Then you get stuck on the second level and have to level up more etc.

It's a difficult game for sure, but after a while it's like seeing the code from the Matrix; you start being able to identify where to go, what weapons to use, what items/upgrades to aim for, when to avoid enemies, general risk v reward mechanics etc. You don't even have to beat the boss of each area again, you can skip to the next level once you find the access point which will be somewhere in the level.

Kind of similar to Souls games in that once you do get used to the challenge and general design (common things like checking corners, listening for enemies, knowing where there are likely going to be traps) and getting used to how you need to play the game, it all starts making sense and working in your favour.

Exclamation Marc

Ok... but what's wrong with having an option for lowering the difficulty and having a big massive warning when you select that difficulty that by playing the game at that difficulty, it is not the vision of the developers and may lead to an unbalanced experience that the developers did not intend for you to have. And then if you beat the game, you get a Ghost & Goblins ending that you need to play it on the intended difficulty to get the proper ending.

You want to play it in the intended version, have at it.

You want to play it but you're finding it too difficult, have at it but you're going to get the warning so you can't complain if its a wonky experience.

Personally, I don't care if a game is super difficult, I'm all for it. But the relentless gatekeeping by those who've played it that it couldn't possibly be made a bit easier is just weird.

Game might sell more copies - win/win.

But I would agree 100% that the games aren't badly designed.

johnny_ultimate

I've zero problem with more difficulty options. If From go ahead and do it, I'm all for it and will cheer 'em on as it'd be great to see more people engaging with the games.

But equally, I would reject the suggestion that the Fromsoft games are badly designed in their current form because they lack difficulty options. Not every game has to be for everyone, and that's fine too. Plenty of games I respect as good games but have zero interest and - often - zero skill in.

Grumpypants

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121796790#Comment_121796790

I get that if a game challenges you, and you overcome it, it's like everything else in life where hard work is more rewarding.

What I don't see, is how you getting your game with the difficulty mode which is how it "should be played" and you enjoy it.

And I get to play the same game in "story mode" that's "unbalanced in my favour" but I enjoy it, is affecting you in anyway to the point where you would rather I go play something else.

I'd much rather everyone that wants to play the games I like, can play and enjoy them.

I was playing immortals recently, got about 70% in and it got annoyingly difficult. I stuck it on story mode and boom I enjoyed it again. Zero other people were affected by this.

As long as you have a TV a David lynch movie is accessible. You can watch to the end without any issues. He isn't putting any additional restrictions on you.

If you understand it, or enjoy it, that is taste.

A more comparable example is when movies only release on IMAX. Great that the director only wants people to see it "as he intended on IMAX", but if you don't have an IMAX cinema near you then you are locked out of seeing the movie.

I'd prefer the director to say IMAX is the best way to enjoy it, but it can also be on blue ray, dvd, VHS, streaming, TV etc so more people can enjoy it.

Much like I'd like game designers to say normal mode is how it was intended to be played, but you can also play in these other ways.

I'm sure there are nutters out there that would like a hard mode in souls games. I'm happy for them to have it.

Retr0gamer

I think people also don't understand that making an easy mode isnt just moving some sliders and hey presto, you have an easy mode. That mode has to be balanced and play tested and tweaked just like the normal mode and considering From are such a small studio and they obviously struggle to get the games out the door as is, it's a big ask to add an easy mode just because you can't engage with the game. It's doesn't come for free. It also doesn't make sense for From Software. They have the sales and acclaim already and that's not going to change with an easy mode.

Also I'm not sure why I'm even arguing here because as I said every from game other than sekiro has an easy mode with the coop options. Honestly if you want an easy mode just summon help.

McFly85

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121797195#Comment_121797195

There is a hard mode in souls games. Players play without levelling up, using base equipment, doing no hit runs etc. Basically, instead of having a menu option to say this is easy, medium or hard, it’s up to the player to set the challenge they want as they play.

Typically the first way a player will encounter a tough boss is by themselves, and they can adjust to match, by learning the enemies moves, going off to level up or asking for help from another player. Whatever the player wants to do. But there’s always options available to allow progression.

Penn

I do agree that changing the difficulty is more complex due to the balancing of the game. There may be ways around it that an 'easy mode' just means you take less damage from hits, and do more damage, rather than affecting the bosses attacks or patterns.

Jedi Survivor had good difficulty options, where the difficulty modes affected parry windows, enemy aggressiveness and damage, but again I would say that the combat and boss fights are a smaller part of the whole when taking into account story, setting, traversal, puzzles etc. Whereas in Souls games, the combat and challenge is pretty much the entirety of the game. I played Jedi Survivor on the second hardest difficulty, and I doubt any boss fight took me more than maybe 4 tries at most. I died in general combat a good bit, but not really a huge amount either. The only bit I had to drop difficulty for was one of the optional side challenges with two Rancors, as that was just insane.

That's the thing though, could I have won that fight without dropping difficulty? Maybe if I'd kept plugging away at it I might have. If I'd had similar options in Sekiro, some of the bosses wouldn't have taken me 20-30 tries. I may have been a lot quicker to just drop the difficulty. Would I then consider Sekiro to be one of the best games ever made? I genuinely don't know.

I agree that someone else being able to change the difficulty of the combat etc doesn't affect me and so why should I care, and I wouldn't care to be honest. But the strongest argument against the devs including that option, is that it goes against the ethos of the game, which is that it's supposed to be difficult and challenging, and you're supposed to keep trying and improving, and overcome it.

The games aren't really that difficult once you accept how often you'll die and that it doesn't really matter. Once that clicks with you and you get into the pattern and rhythm of the games, they're never easy but they're never "difficult" either. I say this as someone who it took over 25 years to beat Sonic 2.

PixelPlayer

Elden Ring lacks a story. I don't mean Sony interactive cutnscene level, but just something to give a purpose other than getting past a boss.

I stopped a good bit into the game and never went back because other than levelling up to defeat the next boss I had no incentive to get back into it. I've already levelled up, defeated a load of bosses. The bosses are interesting and it's satisfying when you go from one hit deaths to figuring out the pattern to kill them. But I don't know, I just had no urge to go back to it.

Having said that, my mistake was probably stopping. I tend not to go back to a game once I stop because once my interest is gone I find it very hard to get it back. But it's also the type of game where you need a break.