Dark Souls - Remembering why it is important

[HiddenX]

Gaming Bolt thinks Dark Souls is an important game and needs a remastered version:

Remembering Why Dark Souls Is Important (And Why We Need A Remaster)

Dark Souls’ success cannot be understated.

It’s actually hard to believe, but it has been six years since the original Dark Souls. From Software’ unassuming follow up to their PS3 exclusive cult hit game Demon’s Souls launched in 2011, a few months ahead of the launch of the uber anticipated The Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim. And while it was backed by a far larger marketing campaign than Demon’s Souls had been, it was still largely expected to be an under the radar release. Especially given the fact that RPGs at that point in time were still a niche genre, and games that enabled player agency, or actually challenged them, were considered anathema, most of the residual sales left after the usual Call of Duty, Battlefield, Assassin’s Creed, and FIFA were expected to go to Skyrim, and that was going to be that.

But something wonderful happened instead- along with Skyrim, Dark Souls went on to be a wild success, a far bigger one than anyone had anticipated. And much like Skyrim would go on to influence the next five years of game design, Dark Souls, too, left a lasting, indelible mark on the direction that game design take from then on. The success of Dark Souls was important, and is the reason that we are not in a market today where games like The Order receive good reviews and great sales- it was important, because it showed developers that not only could they trust the players to think for themselves and make their decisions for themselves and even fail for themselves, but that there was a thirsty, ravenous market for games that offered them just this.

[...]

Thanks Farflame!

More information.

 

[Metro]

I also hope, people going to remember that Dark souls is one of the most overrated game

 

[Pongo]

Nah, Dark Souls is a good franchise and the first one in particular is a fantastic game. The world design is utterly immersive. The only thing that bugs me is the pc conversion could have been better, but I've sunk tonnes of hours into it in any case and its a game I know I'll be playing again in the future.

In terms of its influence though, I dunno... there have been a few Dark Souls clones, and a few 2d games trying to emulate its style. The main thing for me was the interconnectivity of the levels and the open design, which wasn't carried through to later games in the series that tended to be structured more linearly overall (but still with opportunities for off-path exploring, secret levels, and some choice on area progression). I'd like to see more games taking the same open route as Dark Souls - maddening when you don't know what to do next, hugely satisfying when you work it out.

They also turned down some of the more comically unfair rules from Dark Souls in the later games. Like if you get cursed by one of the big-eyed lizard things you respawn at half health. when that happened to me I was raging at the devs, but in a good way. In later games they did away with this and made things a bit more obvious.

 

[SpoonFULL]

Very addictive franchise, giving so much control to the player, catering for so many play styles, open and yet connected, mysterious, atmospheric and highly replayable.

For me and in order of preference:

1) Dark Souls II: Scholar of the first sin (so many innovations, more balanced world, three DLCs are master pieces in every aspect, more NPCs with better world lore and story telling, much better replyability and lots of variety).

2) Demon Souls: less cluttered, beautiful and yet sometime limited world with much better balance of difficulty.

3) Dark Souls: least favourite, overly punishing, limited NPCs, lore is not well told, low replay value.

Not played Dark Souls 3 yet.

 

[booboo]

I tried DS2 a while back - my first attempt at such a grinding game. I disliked it intently - the whole idea of 'grinding' (souls in this case) and endless respawns is one I hate. Like a hamster on a wheel. To what end? The game combat was entertaining, but the fact that everything I'd toiled so hard to kill reappeared again was endlessly frustrating. And there was no story to speak of, although perhaps that improved over time. I quit after about 12 hours or so. Clearly this is a game with a very specific audience - but to me it was not an important game at all, certainly not as far as my cRPG desires are concerned.

 

[Ryder]

I also hope, people going to remember that Dark souls is one of the most overrated game

Oooooh poor little diddums couldn't beat the first boss so the game must be overrated.

 

[Morbus]

I'm trying Dark Souls 1 for the first time, having never played any other game in the genre.
It's phenomenal. The game design is there, but it's one of those cases where the sum of its parts is more than... the sum of its parts, how does that one go?
Anyway, I'm in love with the freaking game.

 

[Metro]

Oooooh poor little diddums couldn't beat the first boss so the game must be overrated.

You sound butthurt for some reasons
I actually beat first game few times and really like it, but it's FAR from being masterpiece what many people keep saying

 

[Watchtower]

Dark Souls certainly had a lot going for it. The atmosphere, the style, aesthetics and much more. Like the worlds disdain for the character and how pathetic the character is compared to the things out there yet can still do anything if the player's good enough, and knows enough because knowledge is required which opens the door to player discovery.

It deserves credit for many things though saying it "showed developers" isn't true, at most it "reminded developers" of certain things, presuming it even did that much and then there's still publishers to deal with.

Just like how single player and RPG games were dead because noone wanted them, hmm Skyrim is still selling (sure it can mostly thank mods for that but point made with many more titles that could easily be thrown in also). The perceived demand for such things is what changes, the big publishers stating what the market is rather than paying attention to what it wants, homogenising everything into a brown sludge of diluted genres to appeal to as many as possible and satisfying none. Where an "awesome button" makes something awesome happen constantly meaning nothing is awesome as you can't have highs without the lows, no accomplishment without trial.

Dark Souls reminded the oblivious that the market wants what it likes, it provided a pure experience in that it catered to a certain group, a certain taste, and once in a while everyone wants something spicy even if it burns.

I'm not sure Dark Souls even did anything original when considering individual aspects, maybe some good twists on things already done, though it brought all the appropriate ones together and wrapped them up in style. It's evolutionary not revolutionary though that's expected when so many games have already been made.

Still it did it with so much damned style, like having Giger, Escher, Vallejo etc each designing adjacent rooms so no matter which way you go you're in for something fantastical and will find something that grabs you that you won't easily forget.

It deserves credit though not what that piece gives, it also doesn't need some remaster. Though a PC version that isn't a shitty PC port wouldn't hurt, though thanks to the PC community most of that is sorted and I wouldn't expect some official version to do it as well, certainly not without messing up some other part.

I'm trying Dark Souls 1 for the first time, having never played any other game in the genre.
It's phenomenal. The game design is there, but it's one of those cases where the sum of its parts is more than… the sum of its parts, how does that one go?
Anyway, I'm in love with the freaking game.

The whole is greater than….

 

[SirJames]

Not played Dark Souls 3 yet.

What are you doing here then?!

 

[SpoonFULL]

What are you doing here then?!

I only have an old PC that does not meet the system requirements! It will be the first game to play 'when' I upgrade.

 

[Carnifex]

I played the first one, but never felt the need to play the following games. It was ok, but I didn't love it.

 

[Wisdom]

How can we forget? They won't stop talking about it...

In all seriousness I did play Dark Souls on KB+M. I enjoyed the game very much but it was not the pinnacle of gaming for me.

 

[Deleted member 18181]

First one was fantastic, exceptional level design, atmosphere and immersion; 2nd and 3rd were good too but nowhere near the first

I dont think the game needs a remaster, game looks very good with the fixes and sweetfx

 

[azsinistar]

I personally am not overly enamored with this whole remastering games trend. I'd vote to spend the time and money on a new game.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

The title alone put me off. It sounded too much "heavy metal" for me, and because of that title, I never had interest in it.

 

[NewDArt]

Demon's Souls was pretty great. The rest have just been one imitation after the other.

I mean, the formula is neat - but I guess I'm not fond enough to play half a dozen versions of the exact same game within the same amount of years.

 

[JDR13]

And much like Skyrim would go on to influence the next five years of game design, Dark Souls, too, left a lasting, indelible mark on the direction that game design take from then on.

I like Dark Souls (and From Software in general), but that's an exaggeration.

The whole article seems amateurish and reads like it was written by a hyperactive fanboy.

 

[BoboTheMighty]

To me it was one of bigger disappointments, though likely in part of going in with sky high expectations.

Japanese games are usually more coherent in mechanics, but not as popular in the west due to their "style"…and DS did well in "wrapping" more "eastern" themes/mythology in form ( particularly architecture) more suited for western audience.
It also came out in a time, when games that happen to play themselves: AC/Arkham/Skyrim/etc…were starting to drag, so it was something "new" on the market.
But did it introduce anything hardcore, new?…No, old adventure games ( such as Bladerunner) had far more involving mystery/puzzle solving and it's "difficulty" is vastly, vastly overblown. ( think there were only two fights that were genuinely challenging ).
Level design is top tier, but I disagree on immersion…world felt entirely cookie cutter designed around dungeon crawl/enemy encounters that just happen to surprise jump on player around every corner ( like playing a zombie game where one is hidden in every closet), completely lifeless( no weather, wind or really anything) and putting force fields ( for main story bosses) to prevent progression was disappointing.

Sense of Isolation when it comes to ambiance was solid at first, but quickly outstayed it's welcome…periodic music( like in Firelink shrine) would serve better.
But the biggest disappointment was combat…rigid, laggy, problems on every mechanical aspect ( camera, controls, hit boxes, UI, etc), cheap tactics/deaths, braindead AI, no gore, no combat music…except for few encounters( like with ghosts in the woods)…it was more a matter of patience, memorization than quick, creative thinking and skill.
In my favorite action games ( Ninja Gaiden, Bayo, DMC III, etc) it's fun to fight even on highest difficulty, you sometimes let yourself killed to replay some segments again…DS was labor.
It lacked speed, and complexity in terms of dynamic interaction between AI's, environment and responsiveness to player actions…on player end, it was too clumsy and rigid to allow rich experimentation. Tldr: circle strafe, hit, hit, block/roll, rinse and repeat ( let's not get into archery and magic )
I did like the weapons and how it ties to stats/crafting… it's a simple system but one that works well, solves traditional rpg scaling/difficulty issues
more intuitively and with a ton of flexibility for customization and metagaming( it's misconception to call it an "rpg"…it more uses some traditional rpg
elements for comprehensive load out system).
Second expanded builds and some mechanics and had a better PC port, but was far less cohesive, almost amateurish in some parts in comparison.
Third only played a few hours, but was plain dull and felt creatively bankrupt.

But it definitely did play a part in changing direction of some design in the west…BotW best example and even the coming Far Cry game seems to be ditching typical Ubisoft design thropes.

 

[ilm]

Dark souls is just a roguelite. One of many

I only played demon souls and enjoyed it. The dark souls franchise was on my steam wishlist for a long time. But ye, they are just pumping them out too fast for me to keep up so I just dropped it altogether. It just requires too much investment. And then there was that dark souls-like game (forgot the name) which supposedly was awesome. Luckily it was a PS4 exclusive.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk