killias2
Disastrous Fate
- Joined
- September 16, 2011
- Messages
- 445
@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.
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.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2011
- Messages
- 445