Bloodborne Will Be Less Punishing To Attract Wider Audience

#1 Edited by charizard1605 (61032 posts) -

From Software is aiming for a wider audience with Bloodborne, the next game based on the Souls concept, but is mindful there can be no compromise in regards of the series’s difficulty-demanding following.

“You died a lot in the previous games, and you had to persevere, but one of our main goals with this game is that we don’t want to focus on punishing the player,” he said.

“We want to deliver a game that gamers love. If the gamer likes the game they’ll definitely like it enough to have that bit of perseverance, but the way in which we’re making the game? The sense of punishment is much less.”

Does that disappoint you? Well, they actually confront this issue head on-

“In terms of who the game is aimed at, and who we want to capture in terms of the audience, obviously we can’t betray or disappoint the fans out there,” said producer Masaaki Yamagiwa, speaking at gamescom today.

“They’re very, very important. They’ll be the main ambassadors of the game.”

But “we do want more people to share in this experience,” he admitted.

He also talks about how he hopes the new online functionality will help attract a bigger audience:

While he couldn’t expand on it, Yamagiwa said that Bloodborne’s “new online concept and experience… will capture a wider audience.”

And finally, the Gamescom showfloor demo, which has been reported as being notably easier than past Souls games, has apparently been tweaked to be easier (which makes sense from a showfloor perspective):

Yamagiwa warned that players testing Bloodborne at gamescom should not “get too disappointed that it’s too easy”: the public demo has been toned down in difficulty compared to the retail version as From wants players to experience the full demo.

So what do you all think about this?

Personally? I think that the messaging here is a bit confused (maybe because of a poor translation?). I mean, they say they want the game to appeal to a wider audience, they say they won't dumb down the difficulty, but then they say the game will be less punishing than Dark Souls and Demon's Souls? How will that work? Those two games, and especially Dark Souls, struck the perfect balance between high punishment and high reward, and that is what led to the feeling of accomplishment that so characterized progress in those titles. I'm not sure if potentially messing with that is a good idea.

Then again, these are the geniuses who gave us Demon's and Dark Souls to begin with. I think I can trust them to know what they are doing. They certainly have earned that much.

What do you all think?

#2 Posted by freedomfreak (43100 posts) -

I think people will lose their shit over this.

#3 Posted by CyberLips (1824 posts) -

So they will make it easier enough to appeal to more people but not too easy because they don't want to disappoint the Souls fans. Seems reasonable.

#4 Posted by kinectthedots (2669 posts) -

Demon's Souls was perfect IMO, I don't know what to make of this, kind of sad to hear this really. I need to play the game to be sure but I don't like the way that "sounds".

#5 Edited by Shielder7 (5185 posts) -

BS they're trying to fix something that ain't broke, The people that they're trying to cater to now aren't going to buy their game anyway.

Loss of sale right here if they follow through.

#6 Posted by charizard1605 (61032 posts) -

One think I don't understand is why they want a 'bigger audience.' Dark Souls sold 2 million units worldwide, isn't that good enough? I mean, it's not Skyrim, but hell, nothing is, and chasing those kinds of numbers can't be good for you (see also: CoD, and what it did to FPSs).

Of course, as for Bloodborne, I am more than willing to wait it out before starting an internet rampage against From. As I said before- these guys have the benefit of the doubt, they've earned at least as much.

#7 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (7828 posts) -

I think the difficulty is one of the only things the Souls series got right. It would be nice if they focused on addressing the clunky, slow-paced gameplay.

#8 Posted by PS4hasNOgames (2307 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:

One think I don't understand is why they want a 'bigger audience.' Dark Souls sold 2 million units worldwide, isn't that good enough? I mean, it's not Skyrim, but hell, nothing is, and chasing those kinds of numbers can't be good for you (see also: CoD, and what it did to FPSs).

Of course, as for Bloodborne, I am more than willing to wait it out before starting an internet rampage against From. As I said before- these guys have the benefit of the doubt, they've earned at least as much.

the souls games weren't even hard at times just plain stupid. you go through some epic battles only to glitch fall off a ledge and start all over again.

#9 Edited by Shewgenja (10838 posts) -

I think they should stick to Demon's Souls difficulty. Stay true to the base. Hardcore gamers look to them for this.

#10 Posted by parkurtommo (27655 posts) -

Well um, no reason to really expect any similiarties to the souls games, because this is a new IP (supposedly). Yes, it has the same animations, same gameplay, same everything, but if anything changes, you shouldn't be angry, it makes no sense.

#11 Posted by charizard1605 (61032 posts) -

@Shewgenja said:

I think they should stick to Demon's Souls difficulty. Stay true to the base. Hardcore gamers look to them for this.

This, but with Dark Souls instead of Demon's Souls lol. Dark Souls was perfect.

#12 Posted by Mr-Powers (466 posts) -

They want the online to appeal to more people, sounds fine to me. I know a lot of people post on these forums saying they don't want to play online because it makes it harder with invasions and the world tendancy in Demons Souls made the game harder. Plus the game is more offense now and there's no sheilds, so you can't tank anymore.

As long as it's not dumbed down like the PC version of DS2 was when it launched, it's fine. I don't think that'll be a problem though.

#13 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (16061 posts) -

I don't like the sound of this, but I couldn't imagine them dumbing down the difficulty much, especially when it was debuted Miyazaki said it will be tough as ever.

#14 Posted by cainetao11 (19290 posts) -

LOLOLOLOLOL Dumbed down not the quality of Demons/Dark Souls confirmed LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Keep that easy shyte, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

(In truth, I think it can still be a great game)

#15 Posted by FoxbatAlpha (8859 posts) -

They sold out. A shame.

#16 Edited by Renegade_Fury (17505 posts) -

Hard =/= Punishing. Mega Man, Alien Solider, Contra Hard Corps, DoDonPachi, and so on, are hard games that take skill, but none of them waste your time. To me, it probably means the combat will be the same, but the consequences won't be as severe - By that I mean such as something akin to not losing all of your souls, or having to backtrack as much if you die.

#17 Posted by Shielder7 (5185 posts) -
@charizard1605 said:

One think I don't understand is why they want a 'bigger audience.' Dark Souls sold 2 million units worldwide, isn't that good enough? I mean, it's not Skyrim, but hell, nothing is, and chasing those kinds of numbers can't be good for you (see also: CoD, and what it did to FPSs).

Of course, as for Bloodborne, I am more than willing to wait it out before starting an internet rampage against From. As I said before- these guys have the benefit of the doubt, they've earned at least as much.

Whenever a game developer says the next game will appeal to a wider audience it's never good, you can't please everyone and when you try you please no one. The Translation of this is they're dumbing it down and hand walking you through it.

#19 Edited by Shinobishyguy (22587 posts) -

They said the same thing about Dark Souls 2. It's all PR speak

#20 Posted by ghostwarrior786 (5811 posts) -

if people want to keep dying then play it on hard mode or something. great news all round

#21 Edited by Shielder7 (5185 posts) -
@FoxbatAlpha said:

They sold out. A shame.

For once I agree with you......

#22 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (16061 posts) -

@Desmonic said:

Hmm. I think we may need a better translation, but from that I'd say that they want it to make it as hard as usual but less punishing; ie a lesser penalty for dying. Perhaps more checkpoints, smaller penalties when in a "dead state", faster access to your body or something along those lines.

Also curious to see what they'll do with the online. The Demon Souls/Dark Souls online concept was pretty cool! More games could do similar things as far as I'm concerned.

Same, something seems lost in translation.

#23 Posted by happyduds77 (1554 posts) -

Or just make two levels of difficulty.

One that keeps the traditional sadistic difficult and another that appeals to the masses.

#24 Posted by Shielder7 (5185 posts) -
@charizard1605 said:

@Shewgenja said:

I think they should stick to Demon's Souls difficulty. Stay true to the base. Hardcore gamers look to them for this.

This, but with Dark Souls instead of Demon's Souls lol. Dark Souls was perfect.

No it wasn't Demon Souls was better, much better. Everyone had their own healing none of that Flask BS where the main member over used or under used them, The had a stealth system that wasn't over powered and Demons was more mage friendly with the mana bar.

#25 Posted by TigerSuperman (3503 posts) -

Hmm, exactly what I though they were doing when I told you. So I was correct.

#26 Posted by Heil68 (46850 posts) -

@Animal-Mother

Told yah...awwww yeahhhhh Day fucking 1 :D

#27 Edited by ReadingRainbow4 (16061 posts) -

@Shielder7 said:
@charizard1605 said:

@Shewgenja said:

I think they should stick to Demon's Souls difficulty. Stay true to the base. Hardcore gamers look to them for this.

This, but with Dark Souls instead of Demon's Souls lol. Dark Souls was perfect.

No it wasn't Demon Souls was better, much better. Everyone had their own healing none of that Flask BS where the main member over used or under used them, The had a stealth system that wasn't over powered and Demons was more mage friendly with the mana bar.

magic was strong as hell in Demon souls, but DarkSouls had ridiculous pyro scaling.

There's always been an easy mode in every souls game, it just wasn't obvious. That's why when people ask for lower difficulty settings it makes me go "WTF, did we play the same games?"

#28 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (18338 posts) -

Masochists must be very dissapointed to play a good game for a change... :p

#29 Posted by jsmoke03 (13137 posts) -

lol y? just alienated the fanbase

#30 Edited by Wasdie (50598 posts) -

I think people who want to brag to their friends how much more hardcore of a gamer they are for playing Demon's Souls or Dark Souls are going to be pissed.

#31 Posted by KHAndAnime (14632 posts) -

God forbid they incorporate the option to...*gasp* choose your difficulty. All they have to do is ask players if they want a veteran experience or a newcomer experience, split the online servers in two, and the problem is solved - they can now appeal to everyone. If they were genuinely interested in appealing to their fans, they would do something like this.

#32 Posted by locus-solus (593 posts) -
@charizard1605 said:

While he couldn’t expand on it, Yamagiwa said that Bloodborne’s “new online concept and experience… will capture a wider audience.”

Maybe FromSoft is finally adding game invites would definitely make the game easier and as a veteran souls player myself i'd appreciate the time not wasted looking for my friends FromSoft servers aren't always reliable!

#33 Posted by glez13 (9016 posts) -

So basically it's going to be like Dark Souls 2, the superior game in the series.

#34 Edited by Gue1 (11266 posts) -

I wonder if they realize that one of the elements that helped the Soul series to become so popular is that they were challenging. And these games weren't even that hard to begin with, is just that most people play them like brainless idiots. I found Yakuza 3 on hard to be way more challenging than the Souls series, and on very hard it was only worse.

#35 Posted by jg4xchamp (50059 posts) -

Yeah I remember when Dark Souls was meant for a broader audience, and Dark Souls 2 was meant for a broader audience. Really ruined the satisfaction of those games.

#36 Posted by Aljosa23 (25903 posts) -

@Renegade_Fury said:

Hard =/= Punishing. Mega Man, Alien Solider, Contra Hard Corps, DoDonPachi, and so on, are hard games that take skill, but none of them waste your time. To me, it probably means the combat will be the same, but the consequences won't be as severe - By that I mean such as something akin to not losing all of your souls, or having to backtrack as much if you die.

YES. This awesome gent gets it. And props on the Alien Soldier and Hard Corps namedrops, the Genesis is my favourite console ever.

Anyway, anyone freaking about this needs to calm the fuck down - something like this has been said before Dark Souls and Dark Souls II, and the games were still the same difficulty as Demon's Souls. Even then, if they take out some of the silliness like losing all your souls, shitty hallway fights with multiple enemies from Dark Souls II, dwindling health bar for no reason, and other arbitrary "features" that just make the game more obtuse, I am perfectly okay with that. The game can be plenty difficult without hating the player.

#37 Edited by marinko123 (416 posts) -

IMO the only punishment in souls games is having to backtrack through the level after dying 5 times on bosses because you need to learn their attack patterns. However, since you could just run through the level avoiding enemies, it was a nuisance at best and I hope they'll get rid of it/spawn you outside boss room after dying.

Other than that, loss of souls is not such a huge deal since they're farmable. There were always rings like cling ring to lessen hp loss in soul form/hollow form + abundance of effigies/stone of ephemereal eyes.

They should really focus on explaining things better to the players, the lack of explanation makes for some annoying difficulty, not challenging and fair difficulty. I shouldn't be required to look up wikis to get the best enjoyment out of the game and especially out of PvP. I wish normal enemies have better AI and are not as easily exploitable as they are. Also I wish for more boss fights like sinh from ds2 dlc or DeS maneater/flamelurker. Challenging, but fair. And well designed.

#38 Posted by 001011000101101 (4106 posts) -

Nice. Might actually give this a chance if I can have fun with it without having to sacrifice my own life in order to get good at it.

#39 Posted by Nike_Air (18425 posts) -

Fun , challenging , and not too punishing you say ? Just when you thought the game couldn't sound any better .... it does. Day 1.

#40 Edited by charizard1605 (61032 posts) -

@jg4xchamp said:

Yeah I remember when Dark Souls was meant for a broader audience, and Dark Souls 2 was meant for a broader audience. Really ruined the satisfaction of those games.

Hey, like I said: I'm not the one who's worried :p

#41 Posted by Blabadon (28276 posts) -

Dark Souls 2 was pretty easy compared to the first two, minus a few parts. Will wait and see.

#42 Edited by Nanomage (2335 posts) -

They kinda have to,for as much love those games get they don´t sell anywhere near as much as you´d think,and from soft is on the business of making money.

#43 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (16061 posts) -

@glez13 said:

So basically it's going to be like Dark Souls 2, the superior game in the series.

Darksouls 2 was shit.

#44 Posted by charizard1605 (61032 posts) -

@Nanomage said:

They kinda have to,for as much love those games get they don´t sell anywhere near as much as you´d think,and from soft is on the business of making money.

@charizard1605 said:

One think I don't understand is why they want a 'bigger audience.' Dark Souls sold 2 million units worldwide, isn't that good enough? I mean, it's not Skyrim, but hell, nothing is, and chasing those kinds of numbers can't be good for you (see also: CoD, and what it did to FPSs).

Of course, as for Bloodborne, I am more than willing to wait it out before starting an internet rampage against From. As I said before- these guys have the benefit of the doubt, they've earned at least as much.

#45 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (16061 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:

@Nanomage said:

They kinda have to,for as much love those games get they don´t sell anywhere near as much as you´d think,and from soft is on the business of making money.

@charizard1605 said:

One think I don't understand is why they want a 'bigger audience.' Dark Souls sold 2 million units worldwide, isn't that good enough? I mean, it's not Skyrim, but hell, nothing is, and chasing those kinds of numbers can't be good for you (see also: CoD, and what it did to FPSs).

Of course, as for Bloodborne, I am more than willing to wait it out before starting an internet rampage against From. As I said before- these guys have the benefit of the doubt, they've earned at least as much.

the moment every game aspires to be skyrim, is the second I kill this hobby of mine.

#46 Posted by Heil68 (46850 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:

@Nanomage said:

They kinda have to,for as much love those games get they don´t sell anywhere near as much as you´d think,and from soft is on the business of making money.

@charizard1605 said:

One think I don't understand is why they want a 'bigger audience.' Dark Souls sold 2 million units worldwide, isn't that good enough? I mean, it's not Skyrim, but hell, nothing is, and chasing those kinds of numbers can't be good for you (see also: CoD, and what it did to FPSs).

Of course, as for Bloodborne, I am more than willing to wait it out before starting an internet rampage against From. As I said before- these guys have the benefit of the doubt, they've earned at least as much.

Maybe they'll have other difficulty levels our NG+ for those wanting more of a challenge.

#47 Edited by Zelda187 (1047 posts) -

Good

I don't mind a challenge, but making a game so difficult that it just pisses you off and frustrates the shit out of you is stupid. I play games to have fun, not grit my teeth, pull out my hair and break shit.

It seems like that was always the main point of emphasis when "Souls" fans would talk about the series.

Me: "So what's so great about this game?"

Them: "Well...it's just so hard dude! Like you just jumped in a time machine and went back to playing Super Ghouls N Ghosts! It doesn't even have a pause button, man! Have to answer the phone? Have to take a piss? Kid crying in the other room? Tough shit buddy!"

#48 Posted by charizard1605 (61032 posts) -

@ReadingRainbow4: Same. I mean, I adore Skyrim, but that's precisely because it's one of a kind.

@Heil68: Dark Souls already had a New game Plus, though. Difficulty levels sounds like a good idea, until you realize that the reason Dark Souls works is because the entire game is tuned and balanced to the existing difficulty level and enemies. Having two difficulty levels could potentially compromise that.

#49 Posted by Nanomage (2335 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:

@Nanomage said:

They kinda have to,for as much love those games get they don´t sell anywhere near as much as you´d think,and from soft is on the business of making money.

@charizard1605 said:

One think I don't understand is why they want a 'bigger audience.' Dark Souls sold 2 million units worldwide, isn't that good enough? I mean, it's not Skyrim, but hell, nothing is, and chasing those kinds of numbers can't be good for you (see also: CoD, and what it did to FPSs).

Of course, as for Bloodborne, I am more than willing to wait it out before starting an internet rampage against From. As I said before- these guys have the benefit of the doubt, they've earned at least as much.

Dark Souls only sold 2M copies worldwide? I´d say it´s probably around 3M,but more interesting is to see that around 1.4M people have Dark Souls on steam,according to that ars technica article,if we go by these numbers then it´s either the best selling version of the game or close. Interesting.

#50 Posted by mems_1224 (48422 posts) -

@jg4xchamp said:

Yeah I remember when Dark Souls was meant for a broader audience, and Dark Souls 2 was meant for a broader audience. Really ruined the satisfaction of those games.

There was satisfaction in those games?