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's all fine, and I haven't said it should have sneaking or intricate stealth mechanics. I'm not asking them to change anything.
All I'm doing is saying what I like and what I don't like - and what I would have wanted if the game should appeal to me.
I understand that they don't want a stealth game - or a significant stealth approach.
But, you see, I love stealth and I always play stealth characters when I get the chance. I can't help it - I love that stuff.
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.
Yeah, I would agree that's a sort of minimal stealth system. I know you can sneak just by walking and being careful - and I did hear there were items that would reduce sound and what not. But a stealth system is about much more than that.
It would require something like Skyrim or Thief - where enemies would have search patterns - and they would "give up" after a while. It would need stuff like pickpocketing and looting while sneaking. It would need assassination moves and so on.
I understand that they're not going for that experience - and that's cool.
But you have to accept that it's not there - and that I would have wanted it there. It's simple, really.
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?
Yes, Skyrim has the best archery of any RPG that I'm aware of.
I'm not talking about archery being weak or useless in Dark Souls (or the sequel) - I'm talking about how it FEELS and how the UI/camera is awkward and annoying.
I'm not saying Skyrim is 100% realistic - and I don't think they're going for that either. Is it perfect? Indeed not. It has a lot of issues - many of which can be fixed by mods.
It still has a much better archery system that feels great and where I don't feel like I'm fighting the UI whilst trying to lock on to an enemy while being attacked, and what not.
We all like different things.
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.
That's all fine, but I don't see how it goes against anything I've said really. Maybe I haven't given the arsenal of spells enough credit - but that's not really my main problem with the system. I apologize for making it seem like there aren't enough spells. There weren't that many in Demon's Souls - but I admit I don't know the exact amount in Dark Souls. But again, it's more about a feeling of being distinct through classes or traits/perks/feats.
I never actually play mages much, and it's possible I would enjoy Dark Souls more if I did.
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.
That's not what I meant - I meant every character has the POTENTIAL to wield them. I'm fully aware that most things in Souls have attribute requirements - and that goes for equipment as well.
Spells are spells, though. They're not feats, traits or perks. I expect magic spells in any fantasy RPG - and I don't confuse them with feats, traits or perks.
If we're going that way, then anything can be anything if we allow for it. I don't think that's a smart way of simulating objectivity.
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.
Yes, you seem to get what I'm talking about - but you're also doing your best to dismiss my issues and problems with it, or you're just ignoring them.
It's not good that I have to wait 10 levels to feel I'm getting more powerful, as that's dull. Also, I don't like inching towards power - and that's precisely my problem with TES games (except Skyrim) - because even though level 100 Blade is much, much, MUCH more powerful than 30 Blade - you don't get to ever feel that, because you're inching towards it.
I understand that gear has requirements and I've acknowledged that it's a cool system - but it's not enough for me.
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.
That's true, it's a game that rewards paying attention. It plays fair - and that's nice.
Unfortunately, I don't see the point in getting better if the game doesn't give me something beyond being better at it.
That's why I stopped playing these games.
I once played WoW at "elite" level - where I stayed at #1 DPS during approximately 99% (or more, even) of what amounts to a few thousand raids.
Let me tell you right now that what the Souls games require is a complete and utter joke compared to what that experience demanded in terms of focus, understanding and dedication.
You know what I learned from 3 years of dedicating almost my entire life to a social computer game? Not just to play - but to be the best possible DPS rogue I could be, making sure I was on time every single night - which means 4 or 5 days pr. week, where I would raid 4-6 hours in a row after playing 6-8 hours beforehand, getting better gear and gathering mats for potions for raiding which, as a Rogue wanting top position, meant you essentially played Quake with total focus, where every single second would count and you couldn't afford to look away from the screen at all. I spent literally ~1500 hours trying to get a single Legendary item in WoW - but I never got the last drop for it.
I didn't have time for my job or my family. My GF played with me - and we pretty much dedicated our lives to WoW. So, I know what it means to invest myself and to overcome challenges in a computer game.
It's not really worth it.
Tough lesson to be sure, but I learned it well.
Let's just say it takes more than a good formula being repeated over and over to get me back there again.
Souls games are fine for what they are - and they do certain things extremely well. If you want to overlook the massive amount of stuff they DO NOT have - or the stuff they have that's not quite good enough, that's fine. Some people obsess over certain qualities and their brains turn into one part focused memory and one part oblivion. Great - but that's not me.
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.
Obviously, saying combat-combat-combat is an exaggeration. A lot of first person shooters also have quiet moments and stuff you can find in drawers like journals - and some interesting cutscenes.
It's really about what the game FEELS like, to me. Obviously, you don't feel combat is the primary ingredient - and the most essential part of the game.
I do feel like that, however. If the formula was reversed - and you spent as much of your time getting good at exploration and interaction with NPCs - and combat was something you did as a secondary thing, THEN the game would probably have been much better for me.
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.
That sounds like an awfully clunky and clumsy way of teaming up with friends, sorry.
I'd try it - if only the itemization and character systems appealed to me more.
Also, I don't really know anyone who plays these games in real life, so I can't try it.
It might have been fun to test it out, actually.
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.
Well, when I played Demon's Souls - it felt like going back in time. You see, I started playing games when I was 6 years old. I remember a time when pretty much every game out there was challenging along the same lines - and where you couldn't save a game and there were no checkpoints. Games were simply like that - and every game felt like a new challenge that I should overcome.
High scores were pretty much your goal - and it was enough for me.
That's kinda what Souls games feel like. You can pat yourself on the back for overcoming the challenge - and for grinding your way through it. It plays fair - as long as you dedicate yourself to it.
But where's the story? Where are all the toys? Why is it so cumbersome to join up with friends? Why is the itemization so limited in the name of perfect balance?
You know? It's just not enough.
I don't feel like I'm accomplishing anything by beating a game anymore. My WoW experience definitely had something to do with that. I've competed and "won" at a very, very high level of gaming. That's cool - but it's also not something I care to set as a goal ever again.
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.
Frankly, I don't think you truly understand that some people just don't care for what you love in the Souls games. It seems you boil it down to some of us not "getting it" and that if only we invested as the game demanded - we'd love it.
I'm not sure if you can truly "get it" - but that's NOT the case. Certainly not with me.
As for accusing me of spreading misinformation because I don't agree with you - and because I don't see the game in the same way as you do, that's your choice.
All I'm talking about is my response to what these games have to offer. Maybe I don't get it - or maybe I do get it, and it's just not enough. It's hard to say.
I have absolutely no inherent responsibility - no one does, as far as I know. That's something we can each have our own opinions about.
Personally, I like honesty and I try to be rational. I probably fail relatively often when it comes to being rational - but I rarely fail to be honest.
What I'm doing here is giving my honest opinion about my time with these games - and though I haven't played Dark Souls that much - and I haven't even touched Dark Souls 2 - I believe myself capable of speaking about their mechanics and their designs.
Is it possible Dark Souls did something amazing with the Demon's Souls system that you're all referring to without being clear about it? That the reviews failed to mention? Sure, it's possible - but I need at least one single example before I just assume my time with Demon's Souls didn't teach me sufficiently about this formula.
The ONE thing Dark Souls does differently is the level structure. As in, it's open and non-linear - where Demon's Souls was based on a hub structure. Pretty much everything else is a matter of small improvements - and more content.
That's not a bad thing, but it doesn't change the core of the experience - and I suspect you know it already. It's hardly fair to ignore that the games are EXTREMELY similar, now is it?
I can't tell you how often I read "misinformation" when people dismiss Diablo as a mindless clicker - or Skyrim as a hollow shell with nothing but repetitive content. People call MYST a pointless slideshow - and to me it was one of the most immersive experiences of my gaming life.
I feel like I should "correct" them, you know?
But the thing of it is I've learned not to bother, because there's no objective way to establish these things.
Instead of trying to correct people - I think it's better to just offer alternate points of view.
Once you start pretending to be objective and that there's some ultimate truth that should decide whether a game is good or bad, you're in trouble.
But that's just my perception.
