Sooo where did you get all this from, it's just two sides debating their opinions. OP made a vague statement that didn't make much sense and calls a game archaic that's actually a breeze of fresh air in gaming. And really who cares if you played DS or not, and he made a post on a forum ofcourse he needs to justify or give us something to back his shit up if not then why bother posting in the first place? Nice effort thoughTen Foot Bunny said:
Dark Souls - without soul?
- Thread starter endtherapture
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Just an "effort," eh? Well, your post proved exactly what I was talking about in my earlier one. How on earth can the OP provide objective proof to back up their subjective opinion? Where is this mythical, scientifically obtained data that provides legitimacy to the OP's opinion and grants him the right to share it on a forum? Should he have simply kept his mouth shut without having such proof?Schmeiser said:
YOU think DS is a breath of fresh air, the OP does not. This doesn't automatically make either one of you correct or the end-all-be-all authority on the game's quality.
Regarding your requirement that the OP validate his opinion with proof, remember this is a casual internet forum about video games, not a doctoral dissertation.
------------------------------------
EDIT - if this is, as you say, "just two sides debating their opinions," how is it at all fair to demand objective proof of something that can only be measured subjectively (as I asked in my earlier post)? That does nothing but set the OP up for failure since no proof exists. Nobody can debate anything if one side requires proof that's inherently unobtainable due to the nature of the subject at hand.
I completely agree.Vigormortis said:
Souls fans who act like that, don't seem to realize that they're only alienating themselves.
No way would I play this game series. Not in a million years. I have the fans to thank for that.
Also because of this.Ten Foot Bunny said:
Hmmm didn't think of it that way, yes i think you are right. We could debate how useful his post was or were his intentions noble but in the end game it does not matterTen Foot Bunny said:
I can live with people having different opinions to mine. I just recently started playing DS for the first time and i love the shit out of this game so i might be a bit fanboyish in my posts 
If we're looking at RPGs - take Dragons Age, Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale - the enemies have AI that can react to what you're doing - they have the same skill set as you and will use those abilities reactively - for example to take out your weak mages first, so you have to counter and manage the agro for example, as well as engaging in spell battles etc. These enemies do feel like actual living beings and not very gamey.Drizzitdude said:
Hoooooo boy, okey dokie.
I'm a huge Dark Souls fan. 400+ hours in the first game and thoroughly enjoying the second, and I'm the first person to say that the games have flaws. LOTS of flaws. But I love them for those flaws, not despite them. The game feels rough and raw and gamey. I always say that Dark Souls is basically an NES game wrapped in a modern skin. It's not a super organic and dynamic shiny corridor to walk down like a lot of games try to be these days. It's both more and less than that at the same time.
It's slow and brutal and broody and methodic. You have a very limited, minimalist moveset to work with and adapt around. No +5 Cleave attack that bleeds enemies on a 2 second cooldown. Enemies and NPCs are raw and retro-feeling. They attack and move like hollow robots and if you're clever you can trick them into traps. You get lost and frustrated and often have no clue what the fuck to do or where to go. Your favourite weapons end up sucking in late-game because you didn't level up in the right way or you come across an area that counters your armour build. It forces you to stop and think and plan, not just bash your way through like nearly every other action game out there.
It's not meant to be for everyone, but you're totally entitled to your opinion man. But I don't want Dark Souls to be different. I don't want it to be like every other game. Dark Souls does what it does, and you either like it or don't. I fucking love it personally, but I'm never going to say that you have to as well. Oh sure, I might try and show you why I think it's great, if only because I want to share it. I probably went a bit overboard with this reply, but I really do love this series.
I'm a huge Dark Souls fan. 400+ hours in the first game and thoroughly enjoying the second, and I'm the first person to say that the games have flaws. LOTS of flaws. But I love them for those flaws, not despite them. The game feels rough and raw and gamey. I always say that Dark Souls is basically an NES game wrapped in a modern skin. It's not a super organic and dynamic shiny corridor to walk down like a lot of games try to be these days. It's both more and less than that at the same time.
It's slow and brutal and broody and methodic. You have a very limited, minimalist moveset to work with and adapt around. No +5 Cleave attack that bleeds enemies on a 2 second cooldown. Enemies and NPCs are raw and retro-feeling. They attack and move like hollow robots and if you're clever you can trick them into traps. You get lost and frustrated and often have no clue what the fuck to do or where to go. Your favourite weapons end up sucking in late-game because you didn't level up in the right way or you come across an area that counters your armour build. It forces you to stop and think and plan, not just bash your way through like nearly every other action game out there.
It's not meant to be for everyone, but you're totally entitled to your opinion man. But I don't want Dark Souls to be different. I don't want it to be like every other game. Dark Souls does what it does, and you either like it or don't. I fucking love it personally, but I'm never going to say that you have to as well. Oh sure, I might try and show you why I think it's great, if only because I want to share it. I probably went a bit overboard with this reply, but I really do love this series.
Can you explain this to me? I never got why people could stop/never enjoy a thing just because of it's fans. mIt just make no sense to me. It would be like me saying oh there are people on this form I don't like cause reasons, better stop using coming to the escapist then.IceForce said:
It just feels too much like quitting to me. Like your letting them warp your perspective of [thing].
Don't get me wrong though. If you truly don't like Souls games then you shouldn't play it. just don't make one of the main reasons you don't play it "the fan base".
I personally have to disagree with that. One of the strongest points about Dark Souls is that they ooze atmosphere. Drop me off in a random area and I'll know which one it is within fifteen seconds because they all have a unique feel to it. The world as a whole has this dying feeling to it, like it used to be bright and thriving but everything got swept away. The world itself feels like its on life support.Zira said:
As for characters, I'll admit that the game takes a minimalistic route to storytelling and that a lot of looking is required to find out about the characters. If that's a deal breaker for you, that's perfectly understandable, but there are a LOT of interesting characters. I'd highly recommend looking up the "Prepare to Cry" youtube series if you get the chance.
OT: I suppose that Dark Souls enemies CAN feel rather robotic at times, but it's part of the games limitations. It's a niche game being sold to a niche audience, it's got a limited budget and probably couldn't afford super fancy A.I.s a la Crysis. Plus, well, show me a game where this isn't the case. The list will probably be very short.
But does the game teach you the lore as you play it? If not, where on earth do the developers expect you to learn it from? I love the game, but it would be nice if you could find old documents or characters who slowly teach you things about the world as you progress. Maybe the game does have that, and I just haven't found any of it yet.Sniper Team 4 said:
OP: I actually found the enemies more adaptive to my attacks. If I repeated an attack multiple times, a lot of enemies would surprise me, and I'd have to change my strategy. It also helps that most enemies have completely different fighting styles, forcing me to quickly adapt. After finishing Upper Undead Burg, with its large quantity of hulking, slow enemies, I was caught completely off guard by the faster dogs and thieves in Lower Undead Burg, who would actually use tactics to defeat me. When I saw three thieves fanning out in different directions, darting past cover, surrounding me, and throwing knives, I knew that the name of the game had changed completely.
The irony about this thread is, Demons Souls, Dark Souls are popular BECAUSE their combat system is so good. I think it could be improved, sure, but it's pretty much a unique gems in a sea of awful.
I don't get how people feel that way. I played both other games, and DaS2 felt harder than both of themStriderShinryu said:
. almost no healing items at the start, no instant regeneration
. bosses are either more aggressive or have more enemies in general
. much more oneshot-kill moves (some of those got nerfed though)
. cruel level design (Shrine of Amana if you are playing melee. also somewhat nerfed by now.)
. poison hurts a lot more
Don't get me wrong. I'm not implying this is true for every Souls fan out there. I have plenty of friends/associates that like or love the series. Some of whom have been non-stop gushing about Souls 2 since release. However, none of them are anywhere near as obnoxious about it as I've been seeing in this and other forums.IceForce said:
When faced with similar criticisms about the series, these friends and associates of mine will often disagree - and at times even agree - on the validity of those criticisms, just as some have done here. But the key difference between them and some of the responses we're seeing is that they're not jerks about.
It's fine if someone wants to disagree about another's opinion. But don't pretend like that other person is "wrong". And definitely don't be mean or rude about your disagreement. That kind of reaction serves no one and only serves to intensify the animosity between fans and non-fans.
This has never really been the case for me. I tend to not let a particular thing's fanbase ruin the experience for me. From my perspective, the fanbase and the piece of media in question are two separate entities.
Now, admittedly, sometimes the type of fanbase a piece of media has is indicative of the kind of media it is. But generally speaking, the two are disparate.
As for the Souls series, I've tried both Dark Souls 1 and Dark Souls 2. Neither has appealed to me. As much as some gush over the combat and movement systems, they feel awkward and tedious to me.
I fully understand why the fans love it, but it's just not for me.
Now why can't others offer up a similar reply? Even a cursory glance around this thread will yield a number of veiled-insult posts. I mean, for fucks sake, someone actually used the term neophytes and lamented about how annoyed he was having to instruct them on the ins-and-outs of the game.Digi7 said:
The level of elitism is staggering.
Other fans could learn a lot from your kind of temperament.
I love the Souls games, but yes, I agree. The enemies are generally pretty dumb, and because they are usually standing around doing nothing in convenient clumps of 1-3, you can see exactly how dumb they are at all times. Of course, I never noticed the enemies in Crysis doing anything smart except "attempt to flank if there are 3+ enemies, throw grenades when the player is in cover, move in a spiral when the player can't be found" either, which is basically the FPS version of Dark Souls' "shield bash when the player has shield up, lunge when the player tries to heal" simplistic AI.
The reason it's more obvious in a Souls game is because the stakes are so high - even the regular enemies are quite capable of killing you, especially in small groups - that newer players are very reluctant to attack until they've memorized the pattern. An "unpredictable" enemy who's more random, attacks faster, moves around a lot, and generally behaves more like a competent human player is treated like a boss or mini-boss, because they have about a 50/50 chance of killing you. (Havel, Heide Knights, etc.)
For all the vaunted "difficulty," Souls games are not supposed to be masochistic challenge-fests. They are supposed to give you a steady diet of progress, but make you work for each bit of it, in order to generate a feeling of accomplishment, satisfaction, and relief. If the enemies were actually on par with you, you'd statistically never get anywhere, so they have to have a substantial weakness to compensate. The reason Souls fans describe the combat as "weighty" or "real" is that they don't take the standard action game route of making the enemies substantially weaker and slower than the player; instead, they make the enemies dumber.
The reason it's more obvious in a Souls game is because the stakes are so high - even the regular enemies are quite capable of killing you, especially in small groups - that newer players are very reluctant to attack until they've memorized the pattern. An "unpredictable" enemy who's more random, attacks faster, moves around a lot, and generally behaves more like a competent human player is treated like a boss or mini-boss, because they have about a 50/50 chance of killing you. (Havel, Heide Knights, etc.)
For all the vaunted "difficulty," Souls games are not supposed to be masochistic challenge-fests. They are supposed to give you a steady diet of progress, but make you work for each bit of it, in order to generate a feeling of accomplishment, satisfaction, and relief. If the enemies were actually on par with you, you'd statistically never get anywhere, so they have to have a substantial weakness to compensate. The reason Souls fans describe the combat as "weighty" or "real" is that they don't take the standard action game route of making the enemies substantially weaker and slower than the player; instead, they make the enemies dumber.
The AI is very stupid and predictable, I'll give you that. But saying they just randomly pull an attack from their moveset is false. Distance to the player and whether or not the player is blocking can affect their actions. Still, I agree with the overall statement. I don't like the fact that after seeing the first strike in an enemy's combo I can know precisely how long the combo is and what other strikes it consists of.endtherapture said:
That is not how Dragon Age works at all, you just messed up and let your mages draw aggro. Also, enemies in Dark Souls will gang up on you, surround you, and exploit openings in your defenses. You just have to be pretty dumb to wind up in those situations to begin with though. Some guys are real dicks though. For example, just try and keep distance between yourself and Ornstein/Old Dragonslayer. He will jump on you and start casting magic.endtherapture said:
http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Threat
I've played DA - it's about management of agro, you've got to keep agro on your tanks so your mages can cast powerful spells and dish out the damage. At the the enemies get to use the same tricks and abilities as you though.Revnak said:
Yeah of course enemies in Dark Souls gang up to you - cos they're basically all hard coded to simply attack the player on sight - hardly the epitome of challenging AI.
You know, except for the ones which stand back and throw bombs, or the ones that try and circle around you and backstab you, or the ones who try to back off and heal, or the ones that try to parry, or the ones who cast buffs on allies, or...endtherapture said:
They still feel like robots to me, which breaks the illusion of Lordran and reminds me I'm playing a game.Revnak said: