3 ms·

For me, Souls was about From Software doing something against the grain, breaking out of the mold and being rewarded for it. They made a game that was actively

For me, Souls was about From Software doing something against the grain, breaking out of the mold and being rewarded for it. They made a game that was actively user hostile - brutal difficulty, gimmicky instakill traps, lost progress for dying, "no story". You can't even pause the game to change gear/use items (even if you're offline), limited fast travel and lots of backtracking. All of these superficially seem like a bad idea and most of them can be rectified to make the game more accessible but to me, when you concede on all these you water down the overall creative output. Bit like how every MCU movie now feels the same because they all use that Disney formula to derisk every film to make sure it has mass appeal. Let's also not forget - Demon's Souls was arguably not an AAA game, it was a niche rpg inspired by ghouls and goblins. From Software don't owe people anything - sometimes it's ok to make a game the way you want it because that's how you want to make the game. We can let the market decide whether we should reward that or not.

paulryanrogers 5y ago
People aren't owed anything. Yet this trend toward artificial and inaccessible difficulty adds little and keeps many away from what might otherwise be interesting experiences. How is having an option so offensive? These aren't indies struggling to make ends meet.
- djtango 5y ago
  That's a reasonable question and has made me pause. The practicalities of things like pvp balance is interesting - if you invade someone on easy mode what should that mean? Does easy have an edge? Can players abuse that? What if an easy player wants to invade? Do they get an edge? If you then restrict like for like are you fracturing the player base? If easy disables invasion that is allowing players to avoid a part of the experience of souls which adds a lot of tension. As an opinionated creator (From Software) do you want to allow people to turn that off? Difficulty is part of the IPs DNA - losing to bosses and being cheesed by traps or losing your souls creates a bonding experience and by extension community. Maybe that's why it feels "off" to allow features that water that down. I guess when I perceive a game through the lens of a creative art, rather than a product, then an obtuse adherence to some vision seems more reasonable. Though the lines are blurry

paulryanrogers 5y ago

People aren't owed anything. Yet this trend toward artificial and inaccessible difficulty adds little and keeps many away from what might otherwise be interesting experiences. How is having an option so offensive? These aren't indies struggling to make ends meet.

djtango 5y ago
That's a reasonable question and has made me pause. The practicalities of things like pvp balance is interesting - if you invade someone on easy mode what should that mean? Does easy have an edge? Can players abuse that? What if an easy player wants to invade? Do they get an edge? If you then restrict like for like are you fracturing the player base? If easy disables invasion that is allowing players to avoid a part of the experience of souls which adds a lot of tension. As an opinionated creator (From Software) do you want to allow people to turn that off? Difficulty is part of the IPs DNA - losing to bosses and being cheesed by traps or losing your souls creates a bonding experience and by extension community. Maybe that's why it feels "off" to allow features that water that down. I guess when I perceive a game through the lens of a creative art, rather than a product, then an obtuse adherence to some vision seems more reasonable. Though the lines are blurry