Mmm, I feel like under heavy time constraints like that, there are worse barriers than difficulty to a game’s experience. For example, it’s hard to appreciate a narrative and big reveals when you’re spreading your play out so much that it’s hard to remember who characters are. It’s also hard to enjoy exploring a large space, and feeling like you’ve covered it well.
Elden Ring, for example, is a massive game. I soared through Elden Ring, as I played the whole franchise (besides what’s locked to PlayStation) first, and happened to stumble into an extremely powerful build. The game still took me 140 hours, including the DLC.
I also still don’t think it’s an accessibility constraint. I’d totally understand why you don’t want to commit to a 150hr experience when you’re playing less than 3hrs a week, you’d be stuck on it for a whole year. But learning over time in little pieces is totally viable. Stuff like muscle memory and skill sticks with you, I could put down Souls for the next few years and when I came back I’d still be much better at it than when I first sat down.
Also, I actually find small time slots one of the best ways to conquer a tough challenge. When I get hard stuck, like I did on the final boss of the ER DLC, I chose to play like, 20 minutes of attempts a night, and then go to bed and sleep on it. We know from academia that studying something right before you sleep helps, since your brain can lock that fresh experience into memory better. You’re also starting each attempt “fresh”, in that you aren’t already frustrated and annoyed by the boss. And this worked great, it took a boss that I couldn’t beat with a whole free evening, and I beat it after only a few days. It’s a technique I’ve used repeatedly.
All that to say, I don’t think difficulty is the best reason to not play a Souls game while working 70+ hour weeks. And I don’t think it’s exclusive to Souls, I’d also avoid story-heavy JRPGs, and massive open worlds in general. Not that you couldn’t sacrifice the time to play any of those things, but frankly, I’d recommend a game that’s better consumed in bits and pieces, such as GotY nominee Balatro, a competitive multiplayer game with constrained matches, or a roguelike experience such as Hades. And that’s not that odd, I also wouldn’t recommend reading an epic novel like Dune, or trying to binge Game of Thrones or something.
My honest take on your story, is that I’m really glad Souls didn’t have an easy mode for you at that time. As you say, you prefer games with high difficulty now. I would hate for you to have played a compromised version of what From Software carefully designed here, when the intended experience ultimately really worked for you. It’s the same reason I avoid trailers for games I know I want to play, that is, if you would’ve even came back to replay a game you’d already “beaten”.
In other comments, I’ve already talked about my friend who only played games on easy before playing Souls, which made him realize how much he enjoyed hard games and the rest of beating a tough challenge. He fell in love with the experience From Software set out to make. If DS1 had had an easy mode at that time, I’m not sure he would’ve ever learned that about himself, because he would’ve played it on easy. He might’ve enjoyed the art, and the visual design of the creatures, but it’s only because From Software had the confidence to assert their intended vision that it’s his favourite game and franchise ever made.
Your first point about spreading out the narrative in such a way… that is how most media worked until very recently. I grew up waiting upwards of months for the next installment, if those are large installments, years. Also, Elden ring came out after I stopped working those hours, I am mostly having this experience, in terms of Fromsoft games, with Demon’s Souls - Sekiro, but that doesn’t change the argument, just putting up my time frame.
I am more likely to not retain the patterns of attack, etc., when I have to break it up, in such a fashion, unlike the experience of seeing the new things, and partaking in the world, and its lore.
The reason I was unable to get through the souls games was that I had time to learn things like the attack patterns of the monsters, or time to experience the world and its lore in a way the memorization part was getting in the way of. When I learned something, and returned to it weeks later, I had to relearn a lot of the rote aspects of the game play. This blocks access to me experiencing the art, and lore, which is more important to me, in such games, than the mechanics of it. So, yes, I lost access.
Having now played the games, I do not wish it had this barrier back then, as I still would have preferred to experienced and easier version, so that I could participate in the larger zeitgeist, of the pop culture of the time, and then got to enjoy it how it is, now that I have time. Let me repeat that, I would have preferred to have had an easy mode, back when it was new, to experience my preferred part, when it was most culturally relevant. Now that I have played them, I STILL would have preferred that, even if I never got to experience it otherwise.
You are basically telling me how YOU would prefer to do something, and you are glad I had to conform to YOUR preferences. Meanwhile, having the option for and easier mode, would not have changed YOUR experience at all, unless YOU choose to. While my suggestion would not have affected your experience, it would have allowed me to have experienced the games when they was at their relevance peak. Meanwhile, what you ask for affects me in a negative way. To say that an option for an easy mode, on the screen, when you start, that you do not have to select, would damage your experience, is wild. That is very, very, weird. You are adamant the idea that someone could have a variant in preferences, that affect you in no way, would damage your experience because what? Because you had to see the option on the screen? Because people you deem lesser gamers would have played it? Is this some weird ideological axiom? Because people are simply doing something different than you? What is it that bothers you so much about other people having a different choice, you don’t need to make, or experience?
Well alright, I’m choosing to disregard the fact that this is 90% insults and calling me a weirdo freak. Thanks for that, btw, I’ve put a lot of effort into expressing myself clearly across a lot of different comments here.
In the latter half of this comment, I articulated why I feel an easy mode actually does make playing the game worse, even if you don’t select it. I also articulated why a simple scaling difficulty wouldn’t really work.
And in the latter half of this comment (start at “But I also think games are art”), I expressed why I think an Easy mode hasn’t been added, and wouldn’t be the same experience.
To add to that final point, the reason I don’t want others to play an easy mode isn’t because I’m a loser and beating Souls is the only way I know I’m a real man. I just think Souls is an amazing and unique offering, and it would be a real shame for someone to play the game on easy (which would “break the game itself” in Miyazaki’s words) and think that’s all there was.
I want more people to give it a try and experience it, and hopefully love it, not less. But just like it’s frustrating to watch a movie you love with someone who’s on their phone the whole time, it would be frustrating to see a ton of people play a kneecapped version of one of my favourite things and end up not “getting it”. And it would be more of a loss for them than me. It’s just the same Miyazaki quote over again, both me and him love what has been made here, and want more people to experience it, but not at the expense of compromising it. To paraphrase the end of his quote, would we even be talking about it if From Soft hadn’t had the confidence to stick to their intended vision?
“If we really wanted the whole world to play the game, we could just crank the difficulty down more and more. But that wasn’t the right approach,” he said.
“Had we taken that approach, I don’t think the game would have done what it did, because the sense of achievement that players gain from overcoming these hurdles is such a fundamental part of the experience. Turning down difficulty would strip the game of that joy - which, in my eyes, would break the game itself.”
90% calling you names? in the last 1/4 I brought up how it is weird to be bothered by the experience of others, when they don’t affect you, then pushed for a reasoning of it, by laying down an array of possibilities, and then asking what yours was. I used the word weird twice, and it was in relationship to the behavior, not the person. My guy, you are way too sensitive, like you imagined something isn’t there, if this is really how you viewed that comment.
There is more to scaling that just HP/Damage. It isn’t that great of a challenge to add in more time for response, and reduce pattern complexity so you don’t have memorize as much, or for as long. This is how many FPS games, Fighting games, and RTS games have done it for decades. No one bemoans Quake for having something other than nightmare, or Mortal Combat for having an easy option. Hell, in Sekiro, giving more time to respond for parries/blocks, and reducing the number needed, in order to execute the instant kill function, would have worked. There are many ways difficulty could be changed. Even if they did the dumb thing by reducing the HP of enemies, and increasing the damage you do, if normal is just as it was intended, how did it change your personal experience, since you wouldn’t play the game?
It is possible to disagree, and have a discourse about it, with the creators. You don’t have to accept artist/authorial intent as if it was the law of reality governing their product. I agree with him that people who enjoy those challenges will get more from a game than they would otherwise. However I think it is weird, maybe even self-centered in nature, to assume that everyone would get that increase in satisfaction, for the same reasons, as he does. He is free to say he doesn’t want to do this, and people who play his games are free to disagree with him on the subject.
Mmm, I feel like under heavy time constraints like that, there are worse barriers than difficulty to a game’s experience. For example, it’s hard to appreciate a narrative and big reveals when you’re spreading your play out so much that it’s hard to remember who characters are. It’s also hard to enjoy exploring a large space, and feeling like you’ve covered it well.
Elden Ring, for example, is a massive game. I soared through Elden Ring, as I played the whole franchise (besides what’s locked to PlayStation) first, and happened to stumble into an extremely powerful build. The game still took me 140 hours, including the DLC.
I also still don’t think it’s an accessibility constraint. I’d totally understand why you don’t want to commit to a 150hr experience when you’re playing less than 3hrs a week, you’d be stuck on it for a whole year. But learning over time in little pieces is totally viable. Stuff like muscle memory and skill sticks with you, I could put down Souls for the next few years and when I came back I’d still be much better at it than when I first sat down.
Also, I actually find small time slots one of the best ways to conquer a tough challenge. When I get hard stuck, like I did on the final boss of the ER DLC, I chose to play like, 20 minutes of attempts a night, and then go to bed and sleep on it. We know from academia that studying something right before you sleep helps, since your brain can lock that fresh experience into memory better. You’re also starting each attempt “fresh”, in that you aren’t already frustrated and annoyed by the boss. And this worked great, it took a boss that I couldn’t beat with a whole free evening, and I beat it after only a few days. It’s a technique I’ve used repeatedly.
All that to say, I don’t think difficulty is the best reason to not play a Souls game while working 70+ hour weeks. And I don’t think it’s exclusive to Souls, I’d also avoid story-heavy JRPGs, and massive open worlds in general. Not that you couldn’t sacrifice the time to play any of those things, but frankly, I’d recommend a game that’s better consumed in bits and pieces, such as GotY nominee Balatro, a competitive multiplayer game with constrained matches, or a roguelike experience such as Hades. And that’s not that odd, I also wouldn’t recommend reading an epic novel like Dune, or trying to binge Game of Thrones or something.
My honest take on your story, is that I’m really glad Souls didn’t have an easy mode for you at that time. As you say, you prefer games with high difficulty now. I would hate for you to have played a compromised version of what From Software carefully designed here, when the intended experience ultimately really worked for you. It’s the same reason I avoid trailers for games I know I want to play, that is, if you would’ve even came back to replay a game you’d already “beaten”.
In other comments, I’ve already talked about my friend who only played games on easy before playing Souls, which made him realize how much he enjoyed hard games and the rest of beating a tough challenge. He fell in love with the experience From Software set out to make. If DS1 had had an easy mode at that time, I’m not sure he would’ve ever learned that about himself, because he would’ve played it on easy. He might’ve enjoyed the art, and the visual design of the creatures, but it’s only because From Software had the confidence to assert their intended vision that it’s his favourite game and franchise ever made.
Your first point about spreading out the narrative in such a way… that is how most media worked until very recently. I grew up waiting upwards of months for the next installment, if those are large installments, years. Also, Elden ring came out after I stopped working those hours, I am mostly having this experience, in terms of Fromsoft games, with Demon’s Souls - Sekiro, but that doesn’t change the argument, just putting up my time frame.
I am more likely to not retain the patterns of attack, etc., when I have to break it up, in such a fashion, unlike the experience of seeing the new things, and partaking in the world, and its lore.
The reason I was unable to get through the souls games was that I had time to learn things like the attack patterns of the monsters, or time to experience the world and its lore in a way the memorization part was getting in the way of. When I learned something, and returned to it weeks later, I had to relearn a lot of the rote aspects of the game play. This blocks access to me experiencing the art, and lore, which is more important to me, in such games, than the mechanics of it. So, yes, I lost access.
Having now played the games, I do not wish it had this barrier back then, as I still would have preferred to experienced and easier version, so that I could participate in the larger zeitgeist, of the pop culture of the time, and then got to enjoy it how it is, now that I have time. Let me repeat that, I would have preferred to have had an easy mode, back when it was new, to experience my preferred part, when it was most culturally relevant. Now that I have played them, I STILL would have preferred that, even if I never got to experience it otherwise.
You are basically telling me how YOU would prefer to do something, and you are glad I had to conform to YOUR preferences. Meanwhile, having the option for and easier mode, would not have changed YOUR experience at all, unless YOU choose to. While my suggestion would not have affected your experience, it would have allowed me to have experienced the games when they was at their relevance peak. Meanwhile, what you ask for affects me in a negative way. To say that an option for an easy mode, on the screen, when you start, that you do not have to select, would damage your experience, is wild. That is very, very, weird. You are adamant the idea that someone could have a variant in preferences, that affect you in no way, would damage your experience because what? Because you had to see the option on the screen? Because people you deem lesser gamers would have played it? Is this some weird ideological axiom? Because people are simply doing something different than you? What is it that bothers you so much about other people having a different choice, you don’t need to make, or experience?
Well alright, I’m choosing to disregard the fact that this is 90% insults and calling me a weirdo freak. Thanks for that, btw, I’ve put a lot of effort into expressing myself clearly across a lot of different comments here.
In the latter half of this comment, I articulated why I feel an easy mode actually does make playing the game worse, even if you don’t select it. I also articulated why a simple scaling difficulty wouldn’t really work.
And in the latter half of this comment (start at “But I also think games are art”), I expressed why I think an Easy mode hasn’t been added, and wouldn’t be the same experience.
To add to that final point, the reason I don’t want others to play an easy mode isn’t because I’m a loser and beating Souls is the only way I know I’m a real man. I just think Souls is an amazing and unique offering, and it would be a real shame for someone to play the game on easy (which would “break the game itself” in Miyazaki’s words) and think that’s all there was.
I want more people to give it a try and experience it, and hopefully love it, not less. But just like it’s frustrating to watch a movie you love with someone who’s on their phone the whole time, it would be frustrating to see a ton of people play a kneecapped version of one of my favourite things and end up not “getting it”. And it would be more of a loss for them than me. It’s just the same Miyazaki quote over again, both me and him love what has been made here, and want more people to experience it, but not at the expense of compromising it. To paraphrase the end of his quote, would we even be talking about it if From Soft hadn’t had the confidence to stick to their intended vision?
90% calling you names? in the last 1/4 I brought up how it is weird to be bothered by the experience of others, when they don’t affect you, then pushed for a reasoning of it, by laying down an array of possibilities, and then asking what yours was. I used the word weird twice, and it was in relationship to the behavior, not the person. My guy, you are way too sensitive, like you imagined something isn’t there, if this is really how you viewed that comment.
There is more to scaling that just HP/Damage. It isn’t that great of a challenge to add in more time for response, and reduce pattern complexity so you don’t have memorize as much, or for as long. This is how many FPS games, Fighting games, and RTS games have done it for decades. No one bemoans Quake for having something other than nightmare, or Mortal Combat for having an easy option. Hell, in Sekiro, giving more time to respond for parries/blocks, and reducing the number needed, in order to execute the instant kill function, would have worked. There are many ways difficulty could be changed. Even if they did the dumb thing by reducing the HP of enemies, and increasing the damage you do, if normal is just as it was intended, how did it change your personal experience, since you wouldn’t play the game?
It is possible to disagree, and have a discourse about it, with the creators. You don’t have to accept artist/authorial intent as if it was the law of reality governing their product. I agree with him that people who enjoy those challenges will get more from a game than they would otherwise. However I think it is weird, maybe even self-centered in nature, to assume that everyone would get that increase in satisfaction, for the same reasons, as he does. He is free to say he doesn’t want to do this, and people who play his games are free to disagree with him on the subject.
It appears we fundamentally disagree here.