Dark Souls & Easy Modes: A Counter-Argument

I recently read a very good article arguing for the existence of an “easy mode” for Souls games.

While reading, I noticed that I agreed with the contour of his arguments and understood the motivation. And yet, I disagreed with a fundamental part of his premise - it is both presumptuous and abandons the responsibilities of both the author and the audience.

I’ll go into this in more detail, but the combat mechanics serve to reinforce a central underpinning of Dark Souls, which is an emotional arc that is reinforced through story, mechanics, art and lore.

First - where I agree with his arguments. The arguments against an easy mode that he is refuting are, actually, bad arguments against an easy mode. The first is ludicrous - I do not need to die repeatedly to appreciate an area in Dark Souls. In fact, the effect of the difficulty in Dark Souls is exactly why can appreciate combat areas without dying!

I also think that players should be able to consume games as they like. I don’t believe that there is something morally wrong about changing a piece of art. Where I disagree is about who that rests upon.

To underpin my objection to his argument, I’d like to talk about the role I think difficulty plays in Dark Souls. Many critics assume that the difficulty in Dark Souls primarily exists to force you to reckon with and master its mechanics. I think this is partly true, but mostly false. The reality is, no matter how well you have mastered the mechanics of the game, you can make progress in Dark Souls. The entire RPG conceit of levelling up and coming back to beat a boss later goes against the core concept that mastery must be used to beat bosses. Additionally, the social mechanics, and the summoned AI companions all provide workarounds for mechanical mastery. You could play through a Souls game, blissfully ignoring all mechanics, sheltered by players online. So the argument that demanding mastery of mechanics is the primary reason for Souls’ difficulty seems to be countered by the game itself, which provides many opportunities to circumvent mastery and still make progress.

Additionally, if pure mastery were the goal in a Souls game, I would argue that the games are extremely poorly paced - the RPG progression insures that the first areas in the game are often the most difficult, packed with the most frequent and seemingly unfair deaths. A game that was truly about mastery would layer increasing challenge against an undeveloping character - something like Titan Souls. Or Devil May Cry, though that does offer a soft progression system.

Instead, I see Dark Souls’ difficulty as a narrative paintbrush - it exists to reinforce the hostility of the world and elicit an emotional response on the part of the player. Everything in the game is designed to elicit a sense of anxiety, loneliness, and fear at being a stranger in a strange land. You are unwelcome. You should not be here. As you learn to navigate an area, you become more familiar with it - what once caused anxiety is now commonplace. You have made a foreign place your home.

That emotional arc proceeds on at least three levels - in individual encounters, in whole areas, and in the game as a whole. Your first encounter with a new creature often ends in death. The emotional journey is reinforced by every mechanical and artistic choice made in the game - the unsettling enemy designs that frighten at first, the spare music and echoing sound effects, the sense of extreme loneliness in a game with very few talking characters (and most of whom seem… not entirely there), and even the lack of any in-game map.  And, yes, the progression systems that ultimately make the end of the game easier than the beginning.

So, when people say that the difficulty itself is integral to Dark Souls, I think they are mistaken. The game’s difficulty is a tool to elicit an emotional response on the part of the player, not an end in itself.

Which leads me to why I disagree with what seems like a central supposition of his article - that the game should provide an easy mode.

I don’t, actually, think there’s anything wrong with wanting to play an easy version of Dark Souls. I also don’t think there’s anything wrong with publishing editions of books that remove “difficult” content. However, asking (or demanding) that the creator of the original work provide a compromised version of their vision to suit individual tastes presumes a responsibility on the artist that their art must appeal to the masses. It is demanding that the author not only share their vision, but also write the Cliff’s Notes. Either it fails to understand the artistic value of the mechanical aspects of the games, or it presumes that game creators’ role is to cater to the whims of their audience rather than express what they want to express. I can’t get behind this.

However! I said I agree that players should be able to enjoy games as the wish! And I do believe that.

What I think many of the arguments for an easy mode fail to recognize is the role and responsibility of the audience. There, in fact, does exist an easy mode, along with hundreds of other user customizations - you can go download them on the Dark Souls Nexus: https://www.nexusmods.com/darksouls/mods/top/?. Some of these can be used to lower the difficulty of the game, make monsters stand still, etc. There are maps available online that ease the sense of anxiety exploring new areas. These are all things that the audience has done, creative works of interpretation that a community has done in response to the creator’s original vision.

So - in short - there’s nothing wrong with wanting to play an easy mode in Dark Souls. There is something wrong with asking the creator to compromise their vision in order to deliver it into your hands. The artists responsibility is to communicate their vision, not necessarily to make sure that we all see it.