Death Mechanics and Dark Souls

[hermes]

Because (it seems) you can't claim to have a "FULL" experience if your PS3/360 is unplugged from the web... Unlike MW3/BF3 which have fully functional campaigns that don't depend on whether you are online or not.

I agree. But my point here is that playing BF3 for example in single player is also not getting the full experience. The multiplayer aspect of BF has always been the main part of the game. In fact the BF series (pure, not Bad Company) never even had a single player until this iteration. (BF2 had bot matches which just emulated the MP)

So Yahtzee has in effect played 30% of BF3 and portrays it as one of the shittiest games of 2011 but doesn't apply the same "courtesy" to Dark Souls.

I don't care whether or not he likes either MW3 or BF3 and I fully understand that some people just don't enjoy that type of game or playing online in general, but then in my view it makes his opinion meaningless seeing as he hasn't experienced the bear-share of the game.
In effect it would be like playing DS offline and basing your view of the game solely on that - totally ignoring the fact that DS has that multiplayer component.

It's undeniable that hasn't given his attention to either those titles properly. He's saying you can't fully appreciate DS without playing it online but he also says that you can fully appreciate MW3/BF3 without playing them online. Which is a double standard. (which in essence is all I'm pointing out)

Maybe all the caps and the quotes when saying "full" was not clear enough, but I was being sarcastic.

He is not saying you can't fully appreciate DS without online. He is saying that many people would complain about his opinion because he didn't play online and they regard it as a big portion of the game. There are only two answers to that comment: either they are wrong and the campaign is completely judgeable without online; or that is just bad design, as an offline experience should not need an online component to be "complete". Make it more enjoyable or expand on it, fair enough; but not be instrumental to the point it invalidates someone's opinion. I agree more with the first part, but his comment is more a critique to people complaining about the validity of his opinions than a critique against the way DS is instrumented.

BF3/MW3, on the other hand, are totally different beasts. One could argue that the focus of those games is in the online component, or that he choose to base his review on the "worst" part (namely, the single player campaign), but that is what he always does. Even in game he likes, he pays little to no attention to the multiplayer options, but since they are entirely separated noone could argue "bwaa, bwaa, you didn't play Red Dead Redemption online, your opinion in the campaign is trash"...

 

[JaredXE]

Oh God. Back in the relationship game for you, eh?

See, I just assumed he got himself a cat.

 

[AlternatePFG]

I've been playing a lot of Dark Souls lately and had pretty much the same experience.

The first few hours are maddening, obtuse, confusing, frustrating, and then after you beat the Taurus Demon and reach the parish, something just clicks. You learn to take it slow, to enjoy it for the oppressive, cruel but mostly fair beast that it is.

By the time you kill the Bell Gargoyles you'll have felt a kind of rewarding feeling that very few games these days can offer.

Totally agree. Once you finally decide to roll with the punches and go with it, the game can get really fun and exhilarating. (It helps once you realize that souls are essentially an infinite resource, so if you lose a lot of them it's not that big of a deal) It's also because that even though I've beaten it and played a significant amount of time more on other characters, that area between the Taurus Demon and Gargoyles still feels like such a fucking gauntlet.

 

[hermes]

i never found multiplayer a key part of dark souls. i barely ever played online and still loved the game. even if multiplayer was a key part of the game, its also a key part of cod and halo, but he doesnt play online when he reviews those games. feels like a flimsy excuse to me. and where did he hear it gets good after a certain amount of time? it gets easier after the first 10 hours but if you hate it from the start, it doesnt suddenly feel like a completely different game at one point.

I don't think he said those things as excuses, more as anticipated defenses to everyone that complains about his position in Dark Souls because:
A) He didn't played it long enough, and the game gets better after XXX amount of hours/YYY levels.
B) He didn't played it online, and online is such a big component of Dark Souls that he is wrong and he is playing it wrong.

Disclaimer: I don't agree with any of those statements, but seeing how defensive comments get in all his reviews, I can see those arguments coming out, several times.

 

[1nfinite_Cros5]

Oh God. Back in the relationship game for you, eh?

I anticipate the upcoming review in which you, once again, claim women are evil.

Also, "I stopped caring" sums up my experience with Demon's Souls as well. I had no investment in it. Or to put it in your terms, the context was just not there. The challenge certainly was there, and I suppose there's gratification in knocking over the big guys, but after the thousandth little guy I knock over, the chore becomes more apparent and it becomes increasingly clear that I'm not controlling a character with thoughts, feelings, and drives, but a series of numbers trying to beat other numbers.

And yet, Binding of Isaac (which someone else brought up) stuck with me. Perhaps it's the brevity, or the style, or maybe I'm actually investing in Isaac due to the setup and his depressive state.

'Sup Cyric? What brings you from GameFAQs?

Anyways, if Yahtzee only pushed a little bit further would he have finally reached the gratifying part of Dark Souls. He says he went the wrong way, so I'm wondering if he was heading towards the Tomb of the Giants. That area is BRUTAL at the beginning of the game.

But, alas, he has had enough, and I won't pester him for it. He doesn't have enough determination to plow through the game, and I won't complain

 

[Zom-B]

To each his own, I suppose. And, I guess that these just aren't the games for Yahtzee. Then again, I'm not really sure which are the games for him. Guy doesn't seem to like anything.

This not true in the slightest

stop saying this

this is getting really fucking annoying

Hey, he wouldn't have the reputation if it wasn't somewhat true. But okay, I retract my statement.

Yahtzee doesn't seem to like very many games. I can't think of any except Rayman Origins, but I'm sure he must like something.

That being said, the guy has made a career out of basically trashing games and reviewing games negatively. He's not the guy you go to for glowing praise and 5 star recommendations.

 

[walrusaurus]

That right there is pretty much the thing i hated most about dark souls. I understand that they want us to clear each gauntlet of trash between bosses as a discrete unit, I'm fine with them resetting everything when you die. What i wasn't fine with was being forced to redo the entire 20-30 minute trash gauntlet after every single attempt on the viciously difficult boss fights. There needs to be a save point before every boss. Its unbelievably irritating, and when your irritated you aren't as focused, and in a game like dark souls loosing your focus is suicide. It leads to a feedback loop, in which your pissed off at having to do the trash again, so you rush through it, and die getting more pissed off. Its a huge problem. Nearly a gamebreaking one for me. Its the reason i still haven't finished it, i can only make myself try a boss 1 or 2 times before i just get so irritated at the repetition that it just wasn't fun. That and the camera are the only two issues i have with the game.

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

The game actually managed to break me as well. When i first bought it i only played for like 2 hours before not bothering anymore. I picked it up again last friday, started a brand new character and just today i'd rang both Bells of Awakening and i've had probably just as much fun as frustration.

What turned me off Dark Souls in the beginning though was all the people telling me how "You have to play the game its own way" and "if you die it's all your own fault. you're just being punished for being stupid". Such half-assed arguments i can live without, thank you very much.

 

[bjj hero]

The original Aliens Vs Predator (the 2000 game, not the abortion released last year) was criticized because you had to start the level over if you died. And the human and alien characters died if an enemy so much as noticed them. An update added a very interesting mechanic to satisfy these complaints.

They gave you a limited number of "saves" based on the play difficulty. So now choosing to save or not was turned into a strategic gameplay element instead of an obligatory extra button push every time you passed a save point, or every 30 seconds in the case of games with quicksave like doom3.

If you screwed up and saved in the wrong place there was a chance you couldn't beat the level and had to start over. If you were too conservative then you had to go pretty far back to your last safe location.

It was a great way to modernize the gameplay while still retaining the tension inherent in the "make one mistake and lose" situation and a very long level.

That sounds awful. So if Im called into work, the baby wakes up, guest drop by unexpectedly, then the game gives me the shaft for having a life?

A game should let me save whenever I need too.

 

[Something Amyss]

But Dark Souls doesn't do any of the sort. I eventually asked my self "why am I bothering? is there going to be any reward in this? Better locations, more amazing music, improved combat? No, there isn't... sod this, back to my other games."

And therein lies the difference between challenging and punishing.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

That sounds awful. So if Im called into work, the baby wakes up, guest drop by unexpectedly, then the game gives me the shaft for having a life?

A game should let me save whenever I need too.

You could still pause and walk away whenever you wanted (unlike diablows 3). You just couldn't save an unlimited amount.

 

[bjj hero]

You could still pause and walk away whenever you wanted (unlike diablows 3). You just couldn't save an unlimited amount.

Having one over diablo 3 doesnt make it right. Id rather not leave my game paused for hours on end either. Its fine if you have no responsibilities but my gaming time is more and more fractured by family life as I get older. It may have fitted me when I was a teen/student.

There really is no excuse not to let me save when I need to.

 

[Mr Companion]

Two games that did infinite life wrong:
I want to be the guy
Prince of Persia (2008)

I actually thought that Prince of Persia did infinite lives well - when you screwed something up, you turned back the clock to before you messed up. And while I haven't played I want to be the guy, I have seen it played and it seemed to work fairly well.

Just my two cents.

No he means the confusingly titled Prince of Persia game that came out in 2008 where the graphics were cell shaded and the game was hard as sin to learn but patronized the shit out of you every step of the way by having a motherly figure waving away all your problems whenever you messed up which made death about fifty times more annoying and humiliating.

You know, the one where what passed for combat was shuffling around counter attacking everything over and over. The one where you came back to life after a boss kills you but they regenerate most of their health as well which serves triple shift ruining tension by making all your actions devoid of consequence, ruining satisfaction by making you feel like you suck at the game and finally ruining the very purpose of anti-death mechanics by reverting you to a point near the start of the battle thus wasting your time anyway in the same way that a checkpoint or save would have done.

The REAL Prince of Persia games were awesome I agree, the only anti-death mechanic that served a storyline purpose a gameplay purpose and was genuinely satisfying to boot.

 

[Bostur]

The worst part about delay between attempts, is pesky loading screen tips that state the obvious.
"Tip: If you struggle with this boss, try avoiding the swirly, green chaos vortexes of death"

Yes I already figured that out. And on the off-chance that there happens to be a boss that is not completely obvious, I'd rather miss the spoiler.

 

[beetrain]

The the slightest mistake while fighting any single enemy could leave me dead in two hits - only to find that I was supposed to be going another way all along.

The skeletons in Firelink Shrine, right?

 

[Kahunaburger]

I like the way Dungeons of Dredmor ( and other roguelikes) do it. If your character dies, your character is dead and it's time to roll up a new character.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

That right there is pretty much the thing i hated most about dark souls. I understand that they want us to clear each gauntlet of trash between bosses as a discrete unit, I'm fine with them resetting everything when you die. What i wasn't fine with was being forced to redo the entire 20-30 minute trash gauntlet after every single attempt on the viciously difficult boss fights.

That's why Dark Souls and its predecessor are all about opening shortcuts as you go along. Take the Taurus Demon... your first go through, you'll clear all the zombies including rooftops, get owned by the fire trap, fight the big black knight, go up the tower and start fighting Taurus. Good times, then you die. By the 10th time, you'll probably just sprint down the bridge until the bit of broken wall, roll and fall down to the ledge guarded by the black knight, and sprint up the stairs to the tower with those zombie knights half-heartedly chasing you. There's a little danger, but it's a speedy run compared to the first go through. Just at a guess there are never more than 10 enemies on the shortest route from a bonfire to the next boss or area. That bonfire might be hidden and/or a trap, but it's still there and the rule holds.

Personally I think Dark Souls' death and revival mechanisms are the best videogaming's ever had it.

Compared with other RPGs, failure and revival are part of the story instead of an ugly vestige of videogaming's roots in quarter-eating arcade cabinets. Compare with FFXIII, Deus Ex, Fallout, any of them: those stories have no answer for those times when the best-laid efforts of a whole programming staff result in someone finally managing to off your character(s). As a player, you can only get in the way of the story... at best you get the sense of keeping things on-script, and otherwise the whole production comes screeching to a halt. For a compulsive enough player, it's like watching the filming of a movie, instead of the movie itself... CUT! used too many bullets. CUT! come on, you could have dodged that. CUT!! do-over on that last level-up. The inevitable failures don't break immersion, and the save system isn't prone to all kinds of perfectionist gaming.

At the same time, Dark Souls' cranks the stakes WAY up when it comes to death as well. You feel it deep in your guts when you die just short of reclaiming a big pile of souls, or in your human state - especially with a couple phantoms helping you. Sure a lot of the time you can throw your character off a cliff with no other consequences than a good laugh, but knock off a boss or two and the exact same game mechanics have you fighting desperately for survival.

 

[Burst6]

I'm kinda with Yahtzee. For a day or two I was addicted, but in the end there came a point where I just couldn't be bothered with Dark Souls. The game has no payoff what-so-ever.

I like challenging games. I love my manic shooters. When I become good enough to dodge 100 bullets whilst elegantly blasting the s**t out of the enemy, all in beautifully hand drawn 2D graphics, with an unbeatable soundtrack, I almost fall into a high.

But Dark Souls doesn't do any of the sort. I eventually asked my self "why am I bothering? is there going to be any reward in this? Better locations, more amazing music, improved combat? No, there isn't... sod this, back to my other games."

Only reason I keep my copy is in the hope my limited edition rises in value in time.

The thing is dark souls isn't about pure skill, it's more about patience.You have to pace yourself, keep your shield up, and keep yourself from getting greedy.

What kind of payoff are you looking for? The locations are nice and varied ranging from ruined castles, swampy shanty towns, crystallized libraries, and icy worlds inside paintings.

Dark souls isn't a game to have fast paced awesome soundtrack because it goes against the atmosphere. What music there is is there to help the atmosphere.

The combat is already tight, and there is a massive variety of unique weapons to choose from. There are 17 different categories of weapons that each fight differently, and each weapon is usually different from the others in the same category. Also this is the only game i ever played where straight swords and scimitars fight differently, and the only game that actually implemented rapiers properly.

Dark souls is a different game. It's slow and rewards restraint, cautiousness, and preparation over just skill. It's different from a lot of other challenging games that reward reaction and speed. It's a niche game. It's not lacking in payoff, it just goes about it a different way.

 

[MrHero17]

I think the reason people say Dark Souls gets better is that the further you get into the less you care about leveling up and since level ups are more expensive than everything else it's not so big a deal when you lose a bunch of souls. My characters around lvl 45 right now and giving a +1 to any of his stats just doesn't do much for making me stronger. One more point of strength gives him +4 damage but spending a 5th as many souls upgrading his sword gives him +40 damage.

 

[josemlopes]

I've been playing a lot of Dark Souls lately and had pretty much the same experience.

The first few hours are maddening, obtuse, confusing, frustrating, and then after you beat the Taurus Demon and reach the parish, something just clicks. You learn to take it slow, to enjoy it for the oppressive, cruel but mostly fair beast that it is.

By the time you kill the Bell Gargoyles you'll have felt a kind of rewarding feeling that very few games these days can offer.

Exactly, the path to reach the Tauros Demon (plus the fight itself) is the harderst part of the game because the player is still learning how to play, after beating the boss he will be ready to fight multiple enemies and while he may still die from time to time he will have control over the battle and understand what has to be done to win.