Sign in to follow this  
Chris

Idle Weekend May 6, 2016: Top This

Recommended Posts

Idle Weekend May 6, 2016:

924__header.jpg

Top This

The Weekenders are joined by freelance game critic extraordinaire Heather Alexandra to discuss AAA game franchises' ever-present need to top themselves. Will every major franchise end up in space? Is marketing to blame? Is Saints Row really the best? Plus: Overwatch, Blizzard's candy colored shooter, and Kim, a Rudyard Kipling novel adaptation. So, basically the same thing.

Discussed: Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War III, Mass Effect, Saints Row, Overwatch, Rudyard Kipling's Kim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Williams mail : What ? Another queer gamer from northen Sweden who also listens to thumbs podcasts? Awesome!

I live in Umeå and I think there's a pretty good support for the things you mentioned in your mail here. I was recently attending Global game jam on Humlab X which I believe is a space where people can converge and make stuff that's funded by the University. When I was attending we mostly stuck to free software like blender, Unity, and other stuff that doesn't need licencing. If you have a laptop I think you can sit in the library as well. I usually sit at the university on weekends.

 

I have classmates that teach children to program in Scratch, there's game jams going on pretty much all the time and tons of free software so I don't see any problem in it. Or did I misunderstand your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gotta say that I'm surprised at Rob's dislike of ME3 multi. I ignored it on principal for probably 6 months following release. Finished the single player game, and eventually gave it a try as a means of doing more Mass Effect stuff. Man, that game. The monetization aspect of it is abhorable (some back of the napkin math I did suggests that buying BioWare points for chests to unlock everything in the game would be $5000 in the absolute best case), but the gameplay itself is in the running for being the best cooperative multiplayer game I've ever played. In fact, enough people are still playing it that you can fire up the game and be into a match via the matchmaker within 30 seconds of logging in, any time of the day or night. Great fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys have really great guests! I don't know if I've read anything by Heather before, but she was an interesting guest with enviably conciseness to her discourse.

 

Maybe I misunderstood what the cast was getting at with their cigarette butt sensei metaphors, but this week I felt the cast basically condemn the harshness of the Souls games (and The Witness) as unnecessary and being mean. I somewhat disagree with that point of view. Rob did state what I think is the only sensible point that yeah, the makers of the game were ok with excluding people who don't have the time to sink in to the game and thus it's not for me. Rob continued by talking about the great community, yet added that the community exists because the game is a shitty teacher. And I kind of have trouble with that way of phrasing it. That the community is some kind of a sunk costs club, valued by those tortured by the teacher, partly because of the exclusivity of surviving that torture. Earlier Heather said that it's bad that the reason for the great community is that the game is a bad teacher.

 

I hadn't really thought about it before, but the Souls series are niche games. People rarely complain about IL Sturmovik being hard, why are Souls games different? The discussion around The Witness focused a lot on its difficulty, where as the discussion around Stephen's Sausage Roll seems to mostly focus on $30 being too much for game that doesn't look prettier. Perhaps there's a question of is it disingenuous to market a game for everyone if it is not for everyone, but we all should understand that not everything the society produces is for us. I suppose part of it is that games have been such a mono-culture that it is still always somewhat strange to come up with a game that is fundamentally not for me. Could never be for me.

 

I am not a Souls player myself, having abandoned Demon Souls perhaps third of the way in. Since then my only real Souls experiences have been my friends lunch time stories and watching the Thumbs' Tiki & Souls streams. Based on that I think that Dark Souls 3 is fair. It absolutely is. If you approach it with a meticulous mindset. Why is it not acceptable that for the first time you should enter each room hiding behind the biggest shield you have. You peek in to the right, you back out. Nothing jumped at you, You peek at the roof, the the left. Perhaps I can enter. Is there anything strange about the texturing of the floor, possibly indicating a trap? Doesn't that sound kind of cool? I'd never want to do that for more than three rooms. So not a game for me. Yet it is wonderful that there's an experience that can demand that from those that want/enjoy that. I think it's unfair to say it's a sadistic sensei set on your demise.

 

I think it is extremely great that games have enough room and audience, that something like Souls can exists at it's budget level. That it is feasible to serve a relatively specific experience for those who desire it. Around 8 years ago I was worried that outside of Spiderweb Software level indies, old fashioned turn based rpgs were disappearing. All the new big budget RPGs were action games, à la Mass Effect or Fallout 3. Nowadays there are more interesting, varied RPGs than I would have had time to play as a kid. Sure, I'm still missing the holy union of RPG with roughly 15 XCOM level tactical battles, but I think everywhere you look the old-era Idle Thumbs question "What is game?" is being answered more broadly year after year.

 

In this respect I believe the fact that Dark Souls isn't for many any more than Super Meat Boy is, should be lauded, seen as some kind of purity of design instead of belittling the experience by saying well I suppose masochists will have fun in the sadists class. Now, if only Dwarf Fortress could support such a budget, and have all that budget be spent on interactions instead of graphics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys have really great guests! I don't know if I've read anything by Heather before, but she was an interesting guest with enviably conciseness to her discourse.

 

Maybe I misunderstood what the cast was getting at with their cigarette butt sensei metaphors, but this week I felt the cast basically condemn the harshness of the Souls games (and The Witness) as unnecessary and being mean. I somewhat disagree with that point of view. Rob did state what I think is the only sensible point that yeah, the makers of the game were ok with excluding people who don't have the time to sink in to the game and thus it's not for me. Rob continued by talking about the great community, yet added that the community exists because the game is a shitty teacher. And I kind of have trouble with that way of phrasing it. That the community is some kind of a sunk costs club, valued by those tortured by the teacher, partly because of the exclusivity of surviving that torture. Earlier Heather said that it's bad that the reason for the great community is that the game is a bad teacher.

 

I hadn't really thought about it before, but the Souls series are niche games. People rarely complain about IL Sturmovik being hard, why are Souls games different? The discussion around The Witness focused a lot on its difficulty, where as the discussion around Stephen's Sausage Roll seems to mostly focus on $30 being too much for game that doesn't look prettier. Perhaps there's a question of is it disingenuous to market a game for everyone if it is not for everyone, but we all should understand that not everything the society produces is for us. I suppose part of it is that games have been such a mono-culture that it is still always somewhat strange to come up with a game that is fundamentally not for me. Could never be for me.

 

I am not a Souls player myself, having abandoned Demon Souls perhaps third of the way in. Since then my only real Souls experiences have been my friends lunch time stories and watching the Thumbs' Tiki & Souls streams. Based on that I think that Dark Souls 3 is fair. It absolutely is. If you approach it with a meticulous mindset. Why is it not acceptable that for the first time you should enter each room hiding behind the biggest shield you have. You peek in to the right, you back out. Nothing jumped at you, You peek at the roof, the the left. Perhaps I can enter. Is there anything strange about the texturing of the floor, possibly indicating a trap? Doesn't that sound kind of cool? I'd never want to do that for more than three rooms. So not a game for me. Yet it is wonderful that there's an experience that can demand that from those that want/enjoy that. I think it's unfair to say it's a sadistic sensei set on your demise.

 

I think it is extremely great that games have enough room and audience, that something like Souls can exists at it's budget level. That it is feasible to serve a relatively specific experience for those who desire it. Around 8 years ago I was worried that outside of Spiderweb Software level indies, old fashioned turn based rpgs were disappearing. All the new big budget RPGs were action games, à la Mass Effect or Fallout 3. Nowadays there are more interesting, varied RPGs than I would have had time to play as a kid. Sure, I'm still missing the holy union of RPG with roughly 15 XCOM level tactical battles, but I think everywhere you look the old-era Idle Thumbs question "What is game?" is being answered more broadly year after year.

 

In this respect I believe the fact that Dark Souls isn't for many any more than Super Meat Boy is, should be lauded, seen as some kind of purity of design instead of belittling the experience by saying well I suppose masochists will have fun in the sadists class. Now, if only Dwarf Fortress could support such a budget, and have all that budget be spent on interactions instead of graphics.

You should write in to [email protected]!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if William Wickland was on these here forums so I could quiz them about what online game-making communities they are aware of. I know the email seemed to be more about fostering a local scene, but it drives me crazy thinking that they might not know about non-capitalist game-making culture like Glorious Trainwrecks, and the Wizard Jam. I like to think that once someone is able to define their desire for non-commercial games, they can simply find them but I'm not sure if that is true. One certainly can't expect non-capitalist games or the communities who make them to be marketed in widely broadcasted distribution-channels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Dawn of War 3:

 

I know the increase in scope and scale over DoW2 is what a lot of folk want, but I'm a little sad. DoW2 was a fascinating project, and was really three games in one. There was the single player, which was a real time tactical RPG in RTS clothes. There was the co-op, which was a three player hero based horde mode with neat progression. Then there was the competitive multiplayer, a more standard RTS- Company of Heroes in space. I loved the multiplayer. I loved it because it had a reduced scope and scale; you would field a small number of squads, each beautifully designed and realised, stuffed full of character. The battles were full of action and spectacle, but at a managable scale, where quick reflexes might be a help, but thoughtful positioning and use of abilities would grant the advantage. I worry so much of that delicious nuance is lost when you go for bigger and more. 

 

On Overwatch as a teacher:

 

For a rather unforgiving game, I think Overwatch goes out of its way to teach. Seeing your opponent's point of view when they kill you is useful, as is the play of the game show that concludes a match- you can see successful play demonstrated, and get a sense of where you went wrong. I love that you get character specific tips when you die, and I've learned some nuance from those tips. Even the notes that pop up when you're building a team 'No support' 'Too many snipers' 'Low team damage' are fantastic- most teams I play with are actually well balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny that email talked about Dark Souls as mental exercise, because I started the game again a little while ago with the idea that it would make me more patient and conscientious. I tried playing it before and eventually the game crushed me and I bowed out. This time round, I had a better idea of what to do going in, but by the halfway point I didn't feel like it was really demanding all that much intellectually out of me. I mostly had to memorise enemy locations/patterns and retain a sense of carefulness. But it really wasn't pushing me to be patient or any of the things I expected.

 

I am not some sort of souls lord though, I didn't become that good at the game. I probably just overlevelled or accidentally got a really good build because even the final boss only took a few tries. I still hadn't really figured out his attack patterns when he died. I enjoyed the game a lot and am glad I was able to finish it in the end, but I don't think the game really lives up to the American dream style idea of "Anyone can make it if you try hard enough".

 

PS: Chris/whoever edited the episode, you left in both versions of the transitions between segments. Danielle says "And with that we'll go to our mailbag after this word from our sponsors. (pause) And I'll do another just in case. And with that, we'll go into our mailbag."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found it more than a little depressing to hear the cast being so critical of a masterpiece like the Dark Souls series and then wax on excitedly about Overwatch.

Dark Souls is not hard. How many other games allow you to call in multiple people to aid you on your journey. The variety of gameplay, exploration and story of DS are unsurpassed by any other title.

The conversation here was analogous to 3 people moaning about how they didn't get Pink Floyd and couldn't be bothered to work out what the lyrics meant before all getting excited about the colours and lights of the latest Justin Bieber video. Come on guys and gals, raise your game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosh, I disagree with the letter-writer who complains about the checkpoint spacing. I'm not a hardcore fan. Stopped playing Dark Souls after 5 bosses, about 9 bosses in to Bloodborne.

 

The best feeling in either of those games is the feeling of persisting to the shortcut. To the next lantern. Of going forward, even though I'm terrified of going forward and losing everything. And then succeeding. Not dying. Succeeding.

 

You know how I do it? I play online, and I read the messages. I'm almost never surprised by an ambush. The community exists to teach you the game. And not in the "go check the wiki" sense. In the game, as a design, a feature. They leave messages "Ambush ahead." "Watch for traps." "Beware of foe." "Fire is effective." "Sneak attack time." Etc.

Of course, I get my face crushed by bosses regularly, and it's painful and I would often really prefer if there were no bosses, most of the time, because while levels are a slow crawl ever forward, bosses are a wall. I agree, that's deeply painful. But traps, ambushes? Tough monsters? Rarely am I surprised by them, and not because I'm reading a guide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here to raaaaaage about the opinions on ME3CoOp! I kid.

I totally understand the distaste associated with the idea of a Bioware game having multiplayer. I'll echo the first post, the microtransaction element of it was the level worst of any micros I think I've ever seen in a serious AAA game. However, it was by no means necessary. Further, and I think this is why I stuck with it so long and probably isn't an experience that can be applied retroactively, every paid single player expansion was accompanied by a free multiplayer expansion that added new, unique weapons, classes, levels and enemies to the game. The multiplayer received a LOT of dev love and I think at the time that understandably endeared the community to the game.

Plus, for me, it had the perfect mix of rewarding co-op strategy and frequent and abundant sidegrades plus a dose of variable challenge. I don't know that it's easy to tell a person to get into it now, since a ton of the good will was had by being there as the game updated and the devs were responsive, but as the first poster said you can still find pub matches years after development stopped. That says something, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mass Effect 3 was actually an example of escalating stakes I liked a lot! But I think the reason for that was because Mass Effect 2 was so low-stakes in general-- the Collectors were doing their thing out on the edge of space, so mostly you just enjoy these episodic adventures in a galactic society that's still basically functional-- which makes the Reapers arriving and blowing everything up mean a lot more in Mass Effect 3, since you've become invested in the setting by just kind of hanging out there for a while when there's no ongoing crisis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was late to the party with Mass Effect, so for me it was less "neat, free updates" and more "I can't believe they still sell all the essential story DLC full price and there's no complete GOTY-edition". Though, thankfully I also missed out on all the ME3-ending drama...

I was very skeptical of the idea of multiplayer and especially of it being required to get a better chance at the good ending(s). Nevertheless I found myself enjoying co-op rather a lot, and even playing it long after finishing the main game. It made me appreciate the combat more in singleplayer too (which can be a lot of fun on the higher difficulties).

For the record, the micro-transactions were indeed bullshit, but you could bypass those entirely and unlock stuff by simply playing the game, so unless you absolutely *must have* all weapons and characters it's not really an issue (sort of like AC: Unity).

I can't say I agree with Rob that ME3 is an example of ill-judged escalation a la Call of Duty post-"Modern Warfare"... Given the preceding games a final epic confrontation with the Reapers seems pretty inevitable at that point and whatever its flaws I really don't think raising the stakes was one of them.

To me ME3 is a bit like The Extended DVD: Return of the King to ME2's Fellowship of the Ring (the one that is the most standalone and cohesive single story)... A few strange bits that don't work, but some of the highest high points of the series, bringing its various arcs to a close, and overall a fitting and spectacular conclusion. While it's not without problems, ME3 (with extended ending + DLC Leviathan, From Ashes and Citadel included) is my favourite game in the series, and personally I would defend it as the best one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a really good point Ninja Dodo. The scope of Mass Effect 3's narrative doesn't go far beyond what Mass Effect establishes by its end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, the micro-transactions were indeed bullshit, but you could bypass those entirely and unlock stuff by simply playing the game, so unless you absolutely *must have* all weapons and characters it's not really an issue (sort of like AC: Unity).

 

The basic problem with the unlock system in ME3 multi is that the loot chests might contain persistent things like new character classes and weapon upgrades, but they also might contain single use items or even additional "XP" for a class you've already unlocked. So a chance at getting a cool new thing is always competing with the chance to get another of like 50 single use items, each in stacks of 255, not to mention the useless XP upgrades that you can get even for maxed out classes. I've put hundreds of hours into ME3 multi and there are classes and weapons that I still don't have at all, simply because of bad luck with the loot chest RNG. I still enjoy the game and have a ton of cool stuff unlocked, but not having a clear path towards the things I don't have but would like to try can be kind of annoying.

 

That said, they used a similar unlock system for Dragon Age: Inquisition multi, only the tweaks they made to the design were even far worse than was was in ME3 multi. I played a few matches of DAI, got literally nothing towards unlocking new classes or weapons, and just gave up. Though the changes they made to the gameplay resulted in a much worse experience as well. If that had been more fun I might have stuck with it.

 

On the single player ME3 game... all I'll say is that the Geth arc was basically the same as the Reaper arc, only told in a much more effective and personal manner. They could have ripped the Reapers out entirely, made the entire trilogy about the Geth, and I think the series would have been stronger for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of went off the deep end and made a big delving nerdy post about SoulsBourne. Hopefully there's something interesting in the takeaway to this:

I found the point that DS is a shitty teacher and not very respectful of time constraints (which it is in many cases) interesting because that overall is my experience with certain cult hit strategy games. 

This isn't meant to be a combative post or anything I just mean that in very much the same way I will never become one of those grand strategy Gurus who takes over continental Europe from nothing in about 8+ hours of play; and I'll certainly never even take over just the UK without going to an outside community to actually explain/walk me through the sometimes obtuse interactions of the particular game.

Or to say that I'd never really improve my game in Starcraft 2 if it weren't for community education projects from people like Day9.

Idk I just thought it was interesting that Rob in particular said he wasn't interested in playing this game/series (SoulsBourne) that don't respect time, or that they require a set investment of time before you get anywhere with them. But he's (in a good way) a geek for a lot of deep mechanically meaty games that do up front require a massive investment of time. It's totally understandable that having put in that investment into an area that already is super rewarding he doesn't feel the urge to have to do all that for Dark Souls -a genre that he's not invested in the first place (I'm assuming). But he also plays a genre of game that can make a newcomer feel like they have to go through the same process.

 

I know this was Heather's example but going through an area over the course of an hour and then dying before the next progress save point also feel similar to a process found in the strategy genre where a player identifies a goal in mind for the game and then spends a large chunk of time engineering the game state to fit that goal only to have all progress ruined by some other variable they couldn't plan for. I know there's a lot of difference between unlocking a new area of a game and realising a self directed desire in an open format game. But these parallels feel interesting to me.

 

I'm a big fan of the hosts and I want to end with are these criticisms unfair to Souls? No. But I don't think they're just the problems of Souls. I also don't think they can't be taken as interesting challenges for other players. these games try to subvert your expectations of what and which danger is apparent. The game feels like it tries to deliberately troll you with weak enemies being placed in difficult circumstances, traps emerging right when you let your guard down, or some other "bullshit" emerging right when you've defeated an explicitly tough challenge. It's dick move territory for a lot of people but for others it's tapping into that ephemeral humour of haha I didn't expect that or Oh Dark Souls.

 

I guess this is going longer than I planned but. Also a lot of the community isn't here to just celebrate the meme difficulty. I only became a souls fan because after rebounding on it so many times I read things that celebrated the tone and mystery of the series. A lot of the underlying mystery does come from an underlying reluctance to say a lot of things that in other games comes as expected information. Or the early premise of being an outsider learning a culture's myths and histories without having a lot of the context that goes into understanding it. But there's just something nice about the tone of these games and the specific way they chose to tell their story. A way that isn't for everyone and makes me cringe when I read people describe a deliberately hidden and aloofly told/shown story as being perfect (particularly when in later games things that suggested story like item and enemy placement are really just placed for gameplay reasons) because to really find a decently rewarding story in these games often you do need to drink the kool aid and accept certain premises. You accept that you will read the item descriptions, you accept that you'll pay attention to what and were items/enemies are placed and their relationship to the context of the surrounding and previous areas, you accept that to draw conclusions about one thing you have to reorganise a whole cast of head-canon theories. But these premises aren't told up front and in a lot of ways they're not desirable for many people.

At the outset finding the story that generates all of the fan theories in the game is rather monumental and requires a large amount of time and effort. Even worse is that the game doesn't really communicate that process as being an option.

But because of this community efforts to look at the game from say the Bonfire Side Chat people, EpicNameBro, and VaatiVidya are so celebrated because they create a very layered look at a game that does a rather good effort at being indiscernible or down right cryptic in its objectives and contexts.

I like souls games and I like the challenge they offer. But I also like that it's a fundamental part of the game to have the option to play with other adventurers (which is encouraged by the game and should be in no way shamed). From a gameplay standpoint there shouldn't be a pure way to play it and there shouldn't be a correct way to play the pve or pvp. There are ways that make it easier (even then sword and board is often subverted in challenges that make its use harder). But I guess the game does expect you to change the way you play to better meet certain challenges although you shouldn't have to completely change your investment into strength, dex, or spell-like weapons.

 

If I were to school a new player on what to expect from Dark Souls games I would say that the game is nominally fair but will caveat its rules in order to still pose or ramp a challenge. I'd also say that at its best the game wants to ensure that everything in the environment from covenants to what items are found on or around corpses is meant to serve an underpinning story or lore reason for its presence. But that the game does fail or isn't completely honest in its attempts to meet those requirements.

 

I think it's a brilliant flawed game with a community that does have a lot of assholes in it. But if you can accept the at times arbitrary ways you're expected to interact with it you can find a lot to love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love that I could listen to this episode and then know that I would already find some wonderfully reasoned rephrasings of my objections to the Souls discussion waiting in the thread. Thanks, community <3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, I wanted to add one thing to my comment on the bosses. Although I don't much like them as a player, as a designer, I recognize that they perform a necessary function in Dark Souls's design.

Why? Because they support the level design. The shortcuts in levels are meaningless if you don't need to run back through the levels. Why do you need to run back through the levels? Because the bosses are hard and take several tries to learn. Otherwise, you'd get to a shortcut and you'd be like, "Great I went in a circle, yay me." This is especially true in the Soulsborne games beyond the first Dark Souls, as they all have some form of fast travel and hub areas, so the reward of quicker/less perilous traversal only matters when you need to get to the boss.

This is, I think, the heart of the matter. The difficulty serves the design. It's an interesting question about games in general--at what point have you changed so much that the machinery of the design is fundamentally different? You don't like the machine, that's fine. You find it exhausting--understandable. But at what point have you tuned the Soulsborne difficulty to the point that you might as well be playing The Witcher 3, an action RPG with a much more forgiving difficulty curve, equally beautiful world art, and a far more interesting story?

So, I think an interesting question is "How can you make Dark Souls less frustrating while still making it work?" Adding a save anywhere system or more checkpoints would undermine the terror (this is a good feeling; it is a feeling shared between player and in-world character, moving through these forbidding places.) Removing bosses makes shortcuts less rewarding. Unless of course, there is some other reason to backtrack. Yet backtracking should always feel like progress, so it's not enough to spread the merchants out. (This is actually the smart part about Bloodborne's design. You use the shortcuts to move forward to the boss, only rarely to move backward.) I am racking my brain for games with a similar system that don't rely on bosses--but here Dark Souls is really just classic Metroidvania, and those games all use bosses and checkpoint systems. I mean, in this respect, Dark Souls is more forgiving than its inspirations, because it gives you a chance to recover what you lost, rather than reloading you at the last checkpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I think an interesting question is "How can you make Dark Souls less frustrating while still making it work?" Adding a save anywhere system or more checkpoints would undermine the terror (this is a good feeling; it is a feeling shared between player and in-world character, moving through these forbidding places.) Removing bosses makes shortcuts less rewarding. Unless of course, there is some other reason to backtrack. Yet backtracking should always feel like progress, so it's not enough to spread the merchants out. (This is actually the smart part about Bloodborne's design. You use the shortcuts to move forward to the boss, only rarely to move backward.) I am racking my brain for games with a similar system that don't rely on bosses--but here Dark Souls is really just classic Metroidvania, and those games all use bosses and have spread out checkpoints. I mean, in many respects, Dark Souls is very forgiving, because it gives you a chance to recover what you lost, rather than reloading you at the last checkpoint.

 

I think that the effort to make the game more player friendly is worth it. After playing the game the default way I might not want to make use of new quality of life mechanics but I know that for many implementing saves in the game, adding a pause function to the game, more checkpoints, or an "easy mode" (that the lead developer publicly floated as an idea) would enable so many people to just play the game. For instance there must be many busy people who really want to engage with the game but don't want to accept constraints like never pausing or even the invasion mechanics when say they are a caregiver. Or maybe there are people who have less mobility that want to enjoy the game and the simple addition of a pause function would be a massive help in letting them engage with the systems.

 

I also think that maybe yeah some of those options might need to stream players into different match making contexts at (just) in terms of pvp modes simply for game balancing. But making the game more accessible while also staying true to the underlying spirit of a SoulsBourne adventure should be an offer of player choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a parent, Dark Souls 3 has pretty much hit the sweet spot as regards ability to stop playing in case of emergency for me with the instant homeward bones and 100% opt-in invasions (the little health boost from being human is not all that relevant to my playstyle).

I also think it's an important point to make that in some quite real ways the Souls games are indeed a lot more forgiving than most old-fashioned console games that had a lives/checkpoints system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a pause button is a reasonable request. But I'm still of the belief that at some level of accommodation to people "simply wanting to experience the game" you are not, in fact, experiencing the game any longer, but a different fun-machine entirely. "Save anywhere" is one of those features. I mean, checkers is a more accommodating game than chess--all the pieces move the same way. But you can't play checkers and say you've played chess.


Certainly there are modifications you can make that do preserve much of what's essential while making the game friendlier. As osmosisch points out, the Homeward Bones (or Bloodborne's Bold Hunter's Marks) are a good compromise that keeps the game's systems in-tact while giving people an option. It's an elegant solution to making the game friendlier that respects what makes the design work. So is the constrained fast travel--although that does, as I've pointed out, have consequences for the level design. But you are rather less likely to come up with these solutions if you dismiss the fundamental risk-reward core loop of Dark Souls as mere masochism for the "git gud" crowd.

Further, it's an action game, and there will always be some people who can't experience it as a game, no matter how accommodating you make it. But in this era of twitch, is that necessary? Watch a streamer, see the beautiful world, speculate on its story, have none of the frustration, need none of the hand-eye coordination. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet the experience of playing a game is not the same as watching it. That's why film and games are considered different media.

In the same way you call it "experiencing a different fun machine entirely" you have people speed running or challenge running the game for a specific experience that they want from it. These people are free to choose how they want to engage and consume media. For some the quintessential dark souls experience heavily involves pvp, no healing estus, or only using a strength based great sword or sword and board. These are all personal ways to experience the game which the creators ultimately make a available to the player as part of their choice and all adding options to make the game more accessible (that you don't ever have to choose) does is add the potential for more fans and revenue.

Dark souls has never just been about action, it's an adventure, it has in its own way a story focus, heck the type of action completely changes depending on your play style or self imposed challenge.

So at the end what refusing to make this game more accessible does is remove people's choice to evaluate how they want to interact with it.

It's saying that people who can't play without constant distractions,have a bigger work/life commitment, more difficult circumstances as a caregiver than someone like Osmosich (thanks for offering your experience as a parent, it's always interesting to hear how other people choose to engage with media depending on their different constraints and options), or some kind of health issue like arthritis or something more severe, isn't allowed to play the game at all just because you or the creator have arbitrated that they're not allowed to despite that the game already consciously making different experiences possible and that options to make the game more accessible don't have to be imposed on others.

One of the great things about Pillars of Eternity is that it gave the player like 30 options to tailor their rpg experience without some kind of rpg Lord hanging over their shoulder and telling them how they were actually supposed to interact with the game.

You actually see players in the souls game sequence breaking whatever experience people are supposed to have with the game when players go to wikis or forums to gain information about the game that they haven't found in their personal experience. There's nothing in the game that tells the player that the external souls community is required to experience the game yet people choose to do so because they are free to make the judgement call themselves.

So at the end of the day with all of the different opt in/ opt out ways to experience the game I'd say they're really not playing checkers or chess. They're playing a game with the name of Dark Souls on the cover with all of the trappings and options that Dark Souls games tend to have. Which is a completely different experience to watching a specific player play Dark Souls.

I doubt you'd actually assume this from my post but I find the idea of always expecting the ambushes or traps and never being surprised utterly boring and maybe I'd even go so far to say that is absolutely not the kind of DR experience I want for myself. But I'm not someone who would ever disapprove of leaving/reading those messages because I understand how valuable those are to some people's experiences and the option is there for the taking. I just think that it wouldn't be skin off anyone else's nose for certain other options to also present for people to consider.

Anyway I don't have more to say. I think I'd go in circles. Sorry for the derail everyone(else).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have nothing to add but that was a really good post Mawd. As someone who enjoyed the regular Dark Souls experience I was thinking similar thoughts but you worded them way better than I would.  :tup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely LOVE Freespace 2 and was super excited to hear Rob bring it up.  His description of the player's role in the game is very accurate.  The game's writer said that the goal was to make the player feel like a nameless cog in a machine, similar to the first game.  That very much comes through in the game as you play an important role in many missions but you are never the one the fate of the war hinges on.  That's part of what endears that game to me so much.  After playing so many games where I single handedly defeat the evil army and save the universe it was really refreshing to play something that didn't make me assume the role of the biggest badass the world has ever seen.  Heck, I was so into it when I first played that on one mission that starts with you patrolling a space station, I actually flew around in a patrol pattern despite knowing where the enemy was going to appear.  I had my orders and I was going to follow them damn it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this