Dark Souls II - Has Ruined Gaming Forever

[killias2]

@Dart

I will say that, obviously, a huge part of this is taste. The Souls games have their roots in dungeon crawlers (like From's own King's Field series), not open-world C&C-style RPGs that a lot of RPG Watchers tend to prefer. At the end of the day, combat is what you'll spend a lot of the game doing.

However, I do disagree with some of your comments.

First, I actually think the Souls games have done a lot for video game story-telling. Again, this isn't the kind of story-telling that tries to go toe-to-toe with the Witcher or something like that. But there is a lot of interesting stuff here. The story is told indirectly. Part of the game, if you get involved, is piecing together clues from item descriptions, the bits of lore you actually are told, the way the worlds are designed and put together, etc. There are plenty of examples of the game or NPCs straight up lying to you, but there are clues everywhere saying the truth. There are also neat NPC moments that give me the feels better than traditional RPGs tend to. The atmosphere, the lore, the do-it-yourself element of story-telling - these are all interesting elements that add up to a cohesive whole. If Demon's Souls is where most of your experience with the series is, I'll warn you that Dark Souls did all of these things significantly better. (And DS1 did it better than DS2).

Weapons - I think comparing the Souls approach to weapons to a Diablo-like is really unfair. In the Souls games, there are a set amount of weapons. They are all uniquely designed and only available at certain spots in the world/from certain enemies/or from certain shops. It's basically the opposite approach of a Diablo-style game, with the explosive loot and randomly generated weapons. Also, in Souls, all the weapons are fairly well balanced. Basically, different weapons represent different approaches to combat. Dual wielding daggers will play a lot differently than two-handing a halberd or sword-and-boarding with a Longsword.

Equipment progression is tied into the upgrades more than into the different pieces of equipment, as the latter is more tied into how you want to play the game. Here too, I think you're unfair. The upgrade system for weapons and equipment is actually quite deep. You want to choose a weapon and a scaling upgrade path for said weapon based on the kind of build you're going for. Not only are there +1/+2+/+3/etc., but there are upgrade paths for: fire, holy, dark, magic, int (similar to magic, only represents as physical damage rather than magic damage), having spread out attributes, or preferring high base damage over scaling of any sort. A lot of this is taste, but the system is deep on its own terms. Personally, I love the approach Souls takes to its equipment/weapons/etc. It feels much more "designed" than most games in the genre. Everything is meticulous. Nothing is random or thoughtless.

In terms of leveling progression, I think this is more solidly a matter of taste. Souls games, sort of like the Divinity games and Diablo 1, give you a lot of freedom to building your own class. It's basically the opposite of, say, Diablo 3, where classes are fundamentally different. If you prefer a more closed off class system, that's your pick, but I seem to remember the Elder Scrolls games been more open-ended in progression as well. So I'm not sure what your bone to pick is there.


Overall, I think the Souls games do a lot of things incredibly well. They've innovated on story-telling, combat, multiplayer, progression, etc. However, I do want to emphasize one thing before ending this rant: that these games are thoroughly designed. They're not linear point-to-point games, even if there are obvious linear elements. They're also not GTA-style open world sandboxes, filled with mostly nothing. There is plenty to explore and see and all of it was designed in a specific way. The design of the levels emphasizes gameplay, story-telling, atmosphere, equipment progression, and more. I think that's one of the elements everyone should respect of the series. Again, it's the opposite of a Diablo-like. Nothing is random. These are games that have open elements but are still thoroughly designed to give a certain set of experiences. And I think that's why they're so well loved.

If you've only played a few hours of Dark Souls, I do suggest trying to get further. Even after loving Demon's Souls, I initially bumped off of Dark Souls 1. A year and a half later, I tried it again.. spent 100 hours on it. Dark Souls 2… 130 hours. Easily my two most played RPGs of the last generation (and among my most played ever). Demon's Souls plays more like a proof of concept in some ways. Dark Souls is the real deal, but it really doesn't open itself up to you until you're somewhat deep into the game.

 

[SpoonFULL]

Strangely enough, I kind of agree with DArtagnan!

I love so much about DS2, but the constant combat gets tiring. Yeah there's "dialog" (really just exhausting NPC responses and a few choices (you can kill NPCs) but it's mostly grinding through a puzzle-world to kill a boss… only to find a new area of puzzle-world with more difficult mobs leading to another boss.

I've sunken a lot of hours into DS2. But I haven't gotten past Harvest Valley. I've gotten there on three different characters and then get a weird deflated feeling that it's just going to be more of the same, more of the same.

The combat in DS (1/2) can be tiring, but you control the pace. In DS2, I tend to clear areas (until there is no respwn) after killing their boss if I am tired, then relax in Majula by upgrading weapons/armour, looking at my stats and deciding what to level up/attune .. etc.

I am also very fond of progression in Dark Souls, because (to me) this means more areas to explore, more new weapons and armour to find, and more souls to harvest for upgrading and leveling up. I mean the amount of weapons and armour to choose from is just HUGE, and upgrading and infusing them gives another degree of freedom, and I can't get enough of it.

 

[killias2]

Oh and I managed a whole Dark Souls rant while only casually mentioning the multiplayer. Simply put: the multiplayer is great. Especially in Dark Souls 2, it's a huge part of the game. In NG+ and ++, invaders are probably a bigger threat than the mobs and stages themselves. I probably spent 30-40 hours in Dark Souls 2 PvPing, CoOping, being a Bellbro/Ratbro, killing Bellbros/Ratbros, invading, dueling in the arena, and being invaded. None of this is a necessary part of the game, but the integration between multi and single player is pretty seamless. It's not a separate entity sewn onto the SP in some sort of haphazard manner or in a separate mode.

 

[DArtagnan]

Killas, that's a detailed and worthy response - and I promise to respond in kind soon. I'm cooking dinner for the family/GF - so I probably won't be able to do it until tomorrow.

 

[DArtagnan]

Witcher 2 combat (what I played of it at least) was bad. The long, tedious and linear beginning throws you into battle with a dozen enemies and allies a few different times. At least in Dark Souls, enemies don't "take turns" hitting you. If you get surrounded by even 2-3 low level bad guys you can easily be overwhelmed and killed.

Witcher 2 enemies don't take turns hitting you. Multiple enemies will hit you - and it's much, much easier to fight a single enemy.

Sure, Witcher 2 melee combat wasn't perfect - but it was entertaining, challenging - and it took something to master it.

Dark Souls melee combat is better, for sure, but that's also pretty much the best thing about the game.

 

[killias2]

Killas, that's a detailed and worthy response - and I promise to respond in kind soon. I'm cooking dinner for the family/GF - so I probably won't be able to do it until tomorrow.

Fair enough. If you even managed to read through it all, I'll give you a hat tip. While writing it, I realized it was just growing and growing and growing. It's just that... I have so much to say about the Souls games. It's hard to hit the biggest points without going on and on about the details.

 

[SpoonFULL]

Dark Souls melee combat is better, for sure, but that's also pretty much the best thing about the game.

That is your view ofcourse, but I disagree as there is more to Dark Souls than combat, otherwise you only see young people with fast reflexes excelling, enjoying and appreciating Dark Souls - which is not the case. As an older person with slow reflexes, I am terrible at combat and yet managed to progress in Dark Souls 2 to completion and progressing with NG+.

Again, different tastes and views on what is entertainment in gaming.

 

[irongamer]

In my book the Dark Souls games have a strong reactionary combat system, pathetic story telling, ok exploration, poor character model to environment interactions, and a high degree of difficulty.

This is great if you like reactionary combat and difficulty. However, if you enjoy a deeper and better presented plot Dark Souls doesn't hold a candle to something like Dragon Age: Origins. Many isometric arpgs have a similar or better telling of a story.

Exploration is pretty good, there are a good number of places to go and secrets to discovery. Avatar interaction with the world feels like titles from the late 90's, lots of invisible walls, poorly defined collision boxes with the environment, and clunky interfaces.

When I play these games it feels like a poorly made fps with melee weapons, mostly due to the lack of how the character interacts with the environment. At the same time the difficulty and some platforming areas bring back memories of old school game difficulty.

The level design is close to something like metroid/castlevania where you will revisit and pass through the same area to find new areas.

All this said, if you like a challenge and/or reactionary combat in a 3D rpg for single player or pvp these games don't really have competition in the genre so they will be your go to games.

As for multiplier being innovative… perhaps. It is different, that is for sure. But I believe it is a step backward as it makes it rather difficult to connect with friends for pvp or co-op.

I can't say this series has done anything to change my view of games. To me it is just a 3D game with the difficulty of classic games.

 

[killias2]

In my book the Dark Souls games have a strong reactionary combat system, pathetic story telling, ok exploration, poor character model to environment interactions, and a high degree of difficulty.

This is great if you like reactionary combat and difficulty. However, if you enjoy a deeper and better presented plot Dark Souls doesn't hold a candle to something like Dragon Age: Origins. Many isometric arpgs have a similar or better telling of a story.

Exploration is pretty good, there are a good number of places to go and secrets to discovery. Avatar interaction with the world feels like titles from the late 90's, lots of invisible walls and poorly defined collision boxes with the environment.

When I play these games it feels like a poorly made fps with melee weapons, mostly due to the lack of how the character interacts with the environment. At the same time the difficulty and some platforming areas bring back memories of old school game difficulty.

All this said, if you like a challenge and/or reactionary combat in a 3D rpg for single player or pvp these games don't really have competition in the genre so they will be your go to games.

As for multiplier being innovative… perhaps. It is different, that is for sure. But I believe it is a step backward as it makes it rather difficult to connect with friends for pvp or co-op.

I can't say the games have done anything to change my view of games. To me it is just a 3D game with the difficulty of classic games.

I think you have some points, though there are two things I strongly disagree with you about:

1. Story
At the end of the day, if you compare Dark Souls to DAO on DAO's terms, sure, DAO is better. But DAO's story and its approach to story-telling are about as old as time itself. In most story-focused games, the stories either feel like badly written movies or rehashes. DAO is in the latter department. I liked DAO a lot, but I actually prefer the atmosphere/lore/DIY approach of Dark Souls. DAO's story was pretty much the "white bread" of video game storytelling.

Edit: Just to compare a little bit more, Dark Souls spawned a whole community of people discussing the lore and the universe, including a bunch of really solid lore videos on YouTube (VaatiVadya does one of the better series). Did anyone even care enough about DAO for that to happen? "Oh my, the big baddy that comes every so many years has been put down. Gee, let's talk about.. it."

2. Multiplayer
I agree that Dark Souls and Demon's Souls have a lot of connectivity issues, but Dark Souls 2 solves -a lot- of those issues. If you're looking for a Diablo-style multiplayer, sure, that's not what Dark Souls offers at all. For the Souls games, the multiplayer is basically part of the singleplayer. It's not a game where you're supposed to play the whole thing with your buddy. It's more a game where, sometimes, strangers will either kill you, help you defeat a boss, help you kill another player, or just goof off a bit before disappearing mysteriously. Not only does the latter work better with my gameplay tendencies (I did much more multiplayer in Dark Souls 2 than Diablo 3, for example), but I also think it's innovative and interesting even outside of my personal preferences. But I do get that, beyond the innovation, many might prefer a more game-y, menu-driven, Blizzard-style approach.

 

[irongamer]

I think you have some points, though there are two things I strongly disagree with you about:

1. Story
At the end of the day, if you compare Dark Souls to DAO on DAO's terms, sure, DAO is better. But DAO's story and its approach to story-telling are about as old as time itself. In most story-focused games, the stories either feel like badly written movies or rehashes. DAO is in the latter department. I liked DAO a lot, but I actually prefer the atmosphere/lore/DIY approach of Dark Souls. DAO's story was pretty much the "white bread" of video game storytelling.

Yeah, this is really down to what people like. Dark Souls lore approach makes me think of countless mmorpgs and it just isn't palatable on my story taste buds. Mind you atmosphere/lore and discovery are important it just doesn't work for me in the series, mostly due to the amount I've been exposed to in mmorpgs.

2. Multiplayer
I agree that Dark Souls and Demon's Souls have a lot of connectivity issues, but Dark Souls 2 solves -a lot- of those issues. If you're looking for a Diablo-style multiplayer, sure, that's not what Dark Souls offers at all. For the Souls games, the multiplayer is basically part of the singleplayer. It's not a game where you're supposed to play the whole thing with your buddy. It's more a game where, sometimes, strangers will either kill you, help you defeat a boss, help you kill another player, or just goof off a bit before disappearing mysteriously. Not only does the latter work better with my gameplay tendencies (I did much more multiplayer in Dark Souls 2 than Diablo 3, for example), but I also think it's innovative and interesting even outside of my personal preferences. But I do get that, beyond the innovation, many might prefer a more game-y, menu-driven, Blizzard-style approach.

Again, my experience in mmorpgs may be skewing my take on the multiplayer aspects. If you play on the right servers you get the same randomness of individuals helping or attacking you. I guess you could say having that randomness in a more single player experience is innovative. (It almost needs a new category, 1 1/2 player or something) However, I don't feel it does anything for gaming in general as it only serves to fragment your gaming community.

 

[killias2]

I mean, I've played MMOs before. I don't think comparing either aspect to MMOs is fair. If you've played through a Souls game and haven't really thought about the story or anything, that's fine. The game is definitely set up so that that can happen. But lore/world design/character narrative/item placement/item descriptions are all combined in a very particular way to give you an interesting story experience if you seek it out. No MMO has even touched this element of Souls, at least that I've played. This isn't the equivalent of picking up a book in Elder Scrolls and learning a bit of the history.

Ditto with the multiplayer. I don't think it's fair to say it "fragments" the gaming community because that presupposes that the game "should" be an MMO or a Diablo-like. The multiplayer is basically part of the singleplayer experience. The game tries to get you to think that way, as you can invade some NPCs in the same way you can invade PCs, using a similar item. Also, NPCs can help you with bosses the same way PCs can, and, unless you know a bit about who is who, you might not even know which helpers are NPCs and which are PCs. There are also bosses that are actually other PCs or that summon PCs to fight you. Just neat stuff all around with no real equivalent in MMOs, Diablo-likes, or other RPGs.

Sure, if it's not your taste, that's fine. But acting as though the Souls games are malformed MMOs is just objectively wrong, and it does a disservice to the series and its fans.

 

[killias2]

Just as an example of what I mean: in Dark Souls 2, there is a place called Aldia's Keep. Aldia is not a character in the game, yet he is referenced here and there. Yet... clues from the keep, from places near the keep, from items in the keep, from the kinds of creatures that are in the keep all imply, heavily, that Aldia.. well.. let's just say that he plays a HUGE role in the story of Dark Souls 2. But if you went through without thinking about it or wondering about it, you'd probably have no idea about any of that at all. Again, it's not just a simple matter of a book you pick up or reading a quest description in an MMO. It's a lot of things. In particular, it's damned clever and interesting if you let yourself get caught up in it a little bit.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Dark souls certainly ruined 3rd person ARPG combat for me. Combat in The Witcher, Skyrim and Risen really feels shit now in comparison.

What about other Action-RPGs ? How does it compare to them ?

 

[killias2]

What about other Action-RPGs ? How does it compare to them ?

Any game in particular that you'd want it compared to? I know a lot of people call Diablo-likes Action-RPGs, which just seems wrong to me. They're so different that they're not comparable. However, Souls plays a lot like 3D Zelda games.. only with slower/more strategic/more challenging combat (and, of course, much much more RPG-style progression and equipment). Rolling is a huge part of it, as is raising your shield. Magic and range can be a big part of it, depending on your play style.

 

[ikbenrichard]

If it ever does, it will be a loooong time yet

But it'll have tactical turn-based combat with just a single player character. It will be more reactive and will provide numerous ways to counter attacks, for instance.

Also, combat will be rare and most encounters will have other ways to overcome them.

I'm not a big fan of filler combat - and I generally want a lot more tension in a fight than the vast majority of games provide.

Dark Souls is good for tension, it's just lacking when it comes to exploration, progression and other avenues of success.

My design is very much about providing the player with the freedom to develop a character as he/she sees fit. As in, if you want a character that's entirely based on dialogue/empathy/diplomacy - the system will allow you to talk/charm your way out of a lot of encounters.

But let's just say there's a long, long way to go yet.

Anyway, that was a sidetrack - I apologize.

sounds good, too bad you cant seem to get it going

 

[Brumbek]

People actually play Skyrim in third person? First person immersion is the only legitimate view in TES!

I had high hopes for Witcher 3. Unfortunately, after seeing the E3 demo featuring Geralts ridiculous, flamboyant spinning strikes, animations entirely for show which would be completely nonviable in a real fight, coupled with underwhelming puffs of magic, I'm afraid it looks like another failure in the gameplay department.

You have a point. The reason so many of us love Souls combat is the very precise direct control. Geralt just flails about like a lunatic, and honestly in the Witcher 2 I mostly just button mash and win even on Hard. Button mashing in Souls games never ends well.

 

[Ovenall]

I think DS &DS2 goes too far in keeping the story opaque. I think DA:O goes too far the other way.

DS combat is great, except for the fact that the platforming and interaction with the environment is TERRIBLE. You can't move over ankle-high rocks. Sometimes. Long weapons clip into walls routinely. You kind of skid-glide over the ground when trying to careful move.

My final thought on DS mobility and combat is that they ultimately had to make it ALL ABOUT PvP. Getting better stats barely makes you much tougher, or faster or whatever. They had to balance it this way or there'd be wild variations when 2 players fight one another. I'm not a PvP fan in general, and I think this is why the games don't quite hold my attention after a while.

DS2 is a great game. As I've mentioned before, my problem with DA was everyone spewing out paragraphs of expository dialog which becomes a grey wall of "who cares?" after a while. I'd like to see some balance between the two.

 

[Soulbane]

Even though I feel kilias2 gave a perfect description of the way things are in the Souls games, I feel I have to respond and add a few things, primarily regarding DArt's comments:

1. I believe sneaking as known in other games (ie. turning 'invisible' depending on stats, having enemies detect in line of sight, or playing with shadows) is primarily not in Souls games, because it would be cheesing things, and the designers went for confrontation. They don't want players to skip encounters much by simply assassinating enemies. Encounters CAN be skipped by simply running through in a lot of places, but it's not the same as you don't reap any rewards. Now I'm not saying that a vast and detailed sneak system wouldn't benefit the game, but that would also take away a lot of resources this small dev studio never had. Miyazaki always said he wanted players to feel endangered all the times, and sneaking would be a safe mode in his eyes I think.
That said, you CAN sneak very well in DS1 (not in 2, sadly)! There's a ring and a spell that make you fairly invisible, and another ring and spell that make you soundless. With the two combined, you can exploit the hell out of enemy spacing and terrain to damn near skip and/or backstab most enemies in the game. Course it doesn't work much on bosses, but again, it would go against the philosophy. I did have a dark assassin build in DS1 on one of my characters and it was deadly.
Edit: I almost forgot how there's a lore explanation to enemies sensing you, since most of them are soul starved, so they immediately sense a dude full of souls approaching. They sorta home in on you.

2. Bows and crossbows are not very good in DS1, but are very very powerful in DS2. Not only is there a lot of variation in bows and their attack styles (short range but fast, long range sniping), you can upgrade and infuse the hell out of them and use all types of arrows for special purposes. In both games enemies have weak spots you can shoot for extra damage. In both games you have sniper mode/manual aim. In both games you can exploit the hell out of enemy placement and AI to murder the crap out of enemies from range. Most boss fights can be done with ranged as easily as with melee, if not easier. The ones that cannot need no super-powerful melee either, just some practice. I never felt problems with the camera when shooting apart from the fact that in sniper mode, you don't see where you're going while moving, which is - imo - pretty damn logical.
I understand if it's not something that suits some players. But Skyrim of all games as your comparison?? Where you can sneak-shoot and enemies stand in place like idiots and not realize you are pelting them with arrows? Where you are invisible in sneak and can stand RIGHT BEFORE and enemy and pickpocket off his armor??? Really?

3. In both Dark Souls games there are 4 kings of magic that work differently and excell in either damage, status effects, support, or some other field. Some (beginner) spells are just bolts you can fire, but especially in DS2, most spells are so different in application, you need to learn to use them well first. Spells are more like skills and abilities from D3. I loved my caster playthrough, I had to prepare spells from a large selection to best match the challenges ahead, often juggling with spell slots, items that give bonuses, had to keep enemies at a distance, outsmart bosses and use my limited casts perfectly to beat them. It's a lot of fun, and it's as deep as a melee playthrough, where you need to switch weapons in the same way to adapt.
Also, not any character can wield spells. They have hard requirements, and that's often not enough, you need to pump spell stats (the 4 magic schools demand different stat progression) to be able to use them really effectively. Like I said, spells themselves are perks/feats/traits. You get them the same way and you can build characters around them, really.

4. For character development: what kilias said. I can understand that the stat placement levelling does not make spme players feel like making head, but if seen not level by level, but say, every 10 level, you DO feel you are getting more powerful. Add to that your equipment and/or spell progression that counts vastly towards your efficiency, and you can go on real power trips. Sure, you get no fancily named perks that add some points or give you some shiny icon on your UI for a new ability, but image that these functions are items and spells you use. And for those, you need the prerequisite stats. Most of your levelling will be trying to achieve some stat combination to be able to use a new cool weapon/armor or a great new spell.
But what is - I think - more important, that in Souls games more so than in any other game I have ever played, players themselves level up. I found that I got better and better at the controls, mechanics, the knowledge of areas, bosses, etc mattered MUCH more than a few points spent here and there. The game actually made me get better and better, crafting challenges one after the other to teach me, and this is truly remarkable to my mind.

5. DS is not combat-combat-combat. SpoonFULL described it perfectly. Combat is a means to an end. This is something that very few new players to Souls understand. That it's super fun most of the time is a great plus. But why -I- play these games and why they pulled -me- in (and I know a lot of others, too) is the exploration, both physically (areas) and abstractly (as in, mechanics and lore). Collecting all the unique items hidden around the level, getting precious loot from non-respawning enemies, finding great vistas or atmospheric places, reading item descriptions that provide lore, following an NPC's storyline… these are the things that make me want to explore. Looking at the broken remains of a world, I wonder "what happened here?" "who built this?" "what went wrong?" and I try to find out. Nobody tells me this. Everyone went mad or died, the ones who live on are unreliable, have an agenda. It's a mystery. I look for meaning, and it's there! But I have to work for it. And it's glorious. One has to, however, delve into it, because it's fairly hidden. And I am perfectly fine with players who are not interested in this part, but for me and many many others it is one of the most important factors of Souls.

6. Kilias described the special design of multiplayer perfectly. As for proper coop, it is completely doable in DS1 with the connectivity mod. I had runs where we only did not coop areas where multiplayer is switched off (with good reason). It's not intended to work like this, because it makes some challenges too trivial. This is why, in DS2, they took this away, and all coop summons are time limited. You can, however, very very easily team up with friends using a certain ring available from the beginning. So you can coop large areas and bosses easily. I can see how this fits the design philosophy of the game, but one has to play a lot to understand why they took this route I think.

With all this considered, it is no wonder if Souls games (and Dark Souls in particular) were a gamechanger for many people. When I played it, I marvelled at how it gave me back some old magic in computer game and kept me thrilled and engaged. Few games could do this, and yes, I feel myself comparing other games to it. Thankfully, I still enjoy other games a lot, so I wouldn't call it "ruining". Game designers I know personally almost exclusively praise many aspects of the Souls games, saying they learned a lot from it.

I can still understand how these games are not for every gamer, as they are very demanding, very difficult to "get" at first. But I found them worth the trouble. The only reason I wrote these down, DArt, is because I feel you were factually wrong in some cases in your posts above, and as a pillar of this community, as someone whose opinion matters to a lot of people here, you have responsiblity not to spread misinformation I think. I can still fully respect your taste, even if Souls games are not for you (according to you) based on your limited time with them.

 

[The Wanderer]

Dark souls certainly ruined 3rd person ARPG combat for me. Combat in The Witcher, Skyrim and Risen really feels shit now in comparison.

I am happy that Dark Souls has done what it has done.
I feel that it has raised the bar for future action games.

The level of difficulty of the game is something that the market should have brought to the players decades ago.

I haven't played DS II but have heard that some bosses have been nerfed because of cry babies……. Damn them. The cry babies that is.

 

[Lemonhead]

People actually play Skyrim in third person? First person immersion is the only legitimate view in TES!


You have a point. The reason so many of us love Souls combat is the very precise direct control. Geralt just flails about like a lunatic, and honestly in the Witcher 2 I mostly just button mash and win even on Hard. Button mashing in Souls games never ends well.

I play Skyrim in third person when using melee and wondering around outdoors and then I switch to first person when using archery and dungeon crawling.

Yep button mashing in DS will make you very dead very often.