D
DArtagnan
Guest
@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.
Yeah, that part about taste is key to this whole thing - I will agree with that.
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).
I won't try to objectively deny that the approach to story in the Souls games is great - or that it has done something for the genre.
All I can say is that the approach isn't for me. Some people like this opaque style - and the minimal approach to exposition and back-and-forth interaction.
Yes, most of my experience comes from Demon's Souls - but that game actually had quite a bit of exposition in the large hub section. It was only out in the world the NPCs were sparingly populated and partially mute and melancholy. They seem to sit around in a deep depression and speak a few lines - some of which make sense, and some of which are probably deliberately obtuse.
This is how Dark Souls felt to me as well, and this is the approach to story that I find rather dull and not exactly motivating.
But, I can't say if the game changes tone in a 180 style later on. I just don't have a reason to believe it, and so far - it seems that people who like this approach also like a lot of other things about Souls games that I don't really care for.
It's just one part of a larger whole - and if the rest of the game had appealed to me - I'm sure the NPCs and story would have been something I could get past.
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.
Well, I'm not trying to compare them while saying they should be the same. I'm simply saying I would probably have enjoyed Souls games more, personally, if they were more like Diablo - as in if they were designed for cooperative multiplayer.
I need a lot of depth in my itemization to stay interested in a Diablo game, though - so it would need more than it has.
But I'm fully aware of how weapons work - as it worked the same way in Demon's Souls. I actually really like how the attributes tie into weapons - and how they're weighted differently.
It's just that the arsenal is tiny compared to a loot-hunt game, and that's ok.
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.
I don't consider myself unfair - and you seem to recognize that it's about taste as well.
I'm strictly speaking from my personal experience and while I can see the system working and that is has an amount of depth, it's too simplistic and predictable. Compare the item system with, say, Hellgate London - and there's just no comparison.
But again, that's just my opinion.
I made the mistake of looking up items for Demon's Souls while playing it - and I was disappointed to see how limited the arsenal was.
I'm sure Dark Souls (and the sequel) has more items - but the system seems to be almost identical.
But I agree the system is well designed and meticulous - and that's part of the problem. The developers obviously have a deep respect for balance - and they care a LOT about everything working together in their system.
But the problem here is that the human mind is surprisingly limited - and the more you strive for the perfect balance, the more you have to restrict your system and what you can do with it.
This is why Chess is close to perfect and elegant - it's meticulous and well designed. It's also incredibly dull to a gamer like me - who loves a huge gameplay arsenal and tons of powers and toys.
I don't mind a lack of balance. The key to combat a lack of balance in a rich system is to provide enough toys and ways to counter them, that no human mind can truly get it all. That's why I love the D&D system - because every broken build usually has a weakness and there's always some build that's even more broken. You can ask people to come up with the best character, and they'll each have their own version of the perfect build - and they'll all be wrong.
That's fun to me.
Souls is elegant - it's kinda beautiful - but it's also dull. To me, that is.
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.
I don't like the Elder Scrolls system in general. I think it's way too generic. It was only with Skyrim that the system opened up a bit, and became interesting. That's because I love Perks and the Shouts. That was a big step forward.
But my favorite systems are D&D 3-3.5 and something like SPECIAL from Fallout.
I like the Souls system for its elegance and simplicity. I like how every stat matters in way that will ultimately be quite noticable. But it has a profound lack of toys and things to look forward to.
I'm a big power gamer at heart - and one of my primary drives in any RPG is to see my character come into his own. To keep my attention, a game needs to have a carrot for the larger part of the game. Otherwise, I tend to get bored with the system.
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.
I actually do respect the series - and I'm simply talking about my own opinion based on my own tastes and preferences. That said, I would never ask other people to respect something I liked or respected. That has to be down to their own point of view - and there are always people who hate what you love. That's just part of reality.
This is why I'm not going to ask you to respect GTA or Diablo for THEIR strengths - and trust me, they do have them. They're just very different games trying to do very different things.
I think Souls games do certain things very, very well - and I understand the design and the intention.
They're very pure games that have obviously been given a lot of care. But they've hardly evolved from Demon's Souls - and IIRC, Demon's Souls also had a predecessor that was quite similar.
I'm not terribly impressed by seeing essentially the same game over and over. That bores me to tears, even if I cared for Demon's Souls a lot - especially in the beginning.
Well, that's not entirely true. Gothic, for instance - is arguably very much like the Risen games, and I still love those.
In the end, it comes down to the kind of game you enjoy.
I do love dungeon crawling - but I prefer games like Ultima Underworld for that. I do like action RPGs - but I prefer games like Diablo or Hellgate for that.
To me, and I've said this before, Demon's Souls feels more like Diablo than any other game - except that it has much more refined mechanics and a much more deliberate pace. But the actual core gameplay in terms of design and mechanics is quite similar.
Since I like Diablo a lot, that would have been fine as a cooperative multiplayer game with a more interesting loot-system and a character progression system like the best in the genre.
But as a solo game, I just don't enjoy what the game has to offer. The story doesn't fulfill me and the tiresome respawning gets to me, as I don't feel rewarded just because I adapt to a boss fight or some enemy. The loot, while decent, isn't quite enough to keep me going. I don't think the character system has enough toys. I don't like the multiplayer implementation - as I don't feel like I can control my experience, and I need to feel in control of when I want to compete and when I want to play with friends.
I admire the scenery - and I understand that the exploration is great for some people. It just doesn't really work for me.
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.
Well, people say this - but they fail to point out how it's significantly different. I've read several reviews in the media - and they've all pointed out that it's a very similar game.
So, I'm not really buying it.
As I said, I tired of the formula - and the formula is more or less the same. If you're honest, you've got to admit that.
Last edited: