Demon's Souls

[Anarex]

Not legitimate? Is it not legitimate to disable the save feature in an rpg in the middle of a fight? Is it not legitimate to have a check point system versus a save whenever you want system? What about requiring you to use a limited item to save? Was Resident Evil not legitimate? Is it not legitimate to fail to create a check point during a fight involving multiple bosses? What about failing to create a checkpoint in between boss transformations? Is that not legitimate? Do you want save to every time you dodge an attack or score a good hit? Is that what it means to be legitimate?

Your position is just wrong. It is easier to finish a game if you can save whenever you want. Trying to separate difficulty from time spent is silly. Difficulty is how long it takes you to win. It is time based. Increasing the time it takes you to win makes the game harder to beat. It is possible to make a game too difficult. This game might be too difficult for you.

 

[megalomania]

I remember when Yahtzee did the viewer mail episode he mercilessly corrected every tiny mistake in the letters and I think turn about is fair play: The correct plural of Attorney General is Attorneys General not Attorney Generals.

And to think I held you to a higher standard Yahtzee...

 

[vxicepickxv]

There are quite a few developers, in particular Japanese based ones, who don't really agree with things like difficulty level, or playability, or even fairness in their games. This isn't really anything new. I'm pretty sure it started with the NES(or Famicom) with games like Super Mario Brothers and Ghosts & Goblins(or Ghouls and Goblins I can't remember which), or the Megaman series, which wasn't quite as hard, and had difficulty selects which did change a lot of the gameplay.

For a while American developers were just as bad, if not worse. If you don't believe me, look at the older Rainbow 6 games for the PC. I still get nightmares from some of those games. Sometimes games will be made that are too hard for the masses, and Demon's Souls sounds like one of them. I'm not trying to sound like too much of a grammar nazi, but shouldn't the title be Demons' souls?

 

[Anarex]

You say nightmares but I bet deep down inside you are proud of yourself for beating games like the older Rainbow 6. That ultimately, you look back on the experience as favorable and it brings you joy (assuming you eventually won).

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

Pondering...

Would a unified 'difficulty rating' be a good idea to have for games in the future? A simple 1-5 rating where 1 would be a casual game like pegle while 5 would be games like this one, where frustration would be great cause it is designed to kill you as many times between check points as possible.

Yet... do we want to give Australia another way to ban games?

"oh, we don't have a 5 difficulty rating so it can't be rated... and therefore can't be sold, sorry."

 

[Gondito]

IWBTG - High Challenge + Low Punishment = Momentary Fun

Demon's Souls - High Challenge + High Punishment + Careful, skillful play = Constant, rewarding fun.

 

[Helba1984]

Yahtzee, I know you're all for comedy and sarcasm, but you missed a few glaring points that would have made things clearer for those who rely on you to help them choose games.

1: "No checkpoints"
No, there's no checkpoints in the sense that "Oh shit, I died, I'll respawn here and only have to walk five feet to get back where I was", but there ARE game mechanics that function the same way and it seems you either willfully omitted mentioning them or didn't spend any time exploring to find them.

In the first level, the two side towers of the main gatehouse have locked gates; make it down to the bottom from the top entrance via the battlement, and there's a lever you can pull to open them. Those gates stay open, and act like checkpoints because even if you die you can just fight back up the tower and instantly be back on the battlement without having to slog through the entire beginning again.

1a: "No saving until a boss is beaten"

Not true. Above-mentioned unlocked shortcuts STAY even if you quit the game, go somewhere else, or die.

2: "Dodging doesn't do shit"

Dodging works, but it's not a quicktime event. You have to keep dodging or blocking, and the skeleton scenario you described counts as TWO attacks, so you have to respond to both by either blocking, countering, or dodge/rolling. You can't just sit there like a twat and bask in the glory of your dodge. BTW - what he did to you is called a Riposte.

3: "Dragon came out of nowhere"

Sure, it's seem that way if you ran out onto the rampart like a football player chasing teenage skirts, but if you'd explored the castle gatehouse you'd have SEEN that dragon and realized the entire level is one big area, and HE FLIES BEHIND THE GATEHOUSE.

4: "Notes left by other players are worthless"

Again, you didn't play long enough to see this (clearly), but bad comments don't last more than a day. If messages aren't promoted, they're deleted during a server cycle (about once a day).

5: "Only way to get HP back is to defeat a major Demon"

Again you didn't seem to play enough to find this out, but you can also get your life back by helping another player (Via blue-eye stone), killing another player (via red-eye stone), or having a message that is promoted by a certain number of other players as being helpful.

6: "Difficulty.DemonsSouls = Concrete.obj + forehead.obj"

Again, not true. Each enemy simply requires a different tactic to beat, and the game punishes you for running in like Rambo without thinking about it. Once you learn a tactic to defeat each enemy, it's more about keeping up with the new ones and upgrading your armor than banging your head against an impossible wall. One solution does not fit all monsters.

Also, Turpentine kills those dogs MUCH quicker, upgraded armor will help you IMMENSELY against the Tower Knight and his guards, and yes, the underground way is much much easier.

In conclusion, all this stuff I learned on my own because I'm awesome that way, but if the difficulty is like so much water in your treacle, there's an official wiki that everybody who plays the game contributes to where you can quickly learn these hints and benefit from other players' experiences.

The game is great and I think you should give it another go with this knowledge.

- Helba

He's pretty much referring to this elitist douchebag.

If your sarcasm-o-meter is busted, maybe you didn't notice the "i'm awesome" part was a large dose of it, to match the tone of the review.

Hope that helps.

 

[Helba1984]

Spoiler: THANK YOU

All this debate about whether the checkpoint system is really about difficulty is silly and should stop. It really just boils down to whether you want to play a game that inspires real fear or not. People that get truly upset about having wasted there time when they die should not be playing the game. Its not for you. If the game is making you angry about having died or messed up, the designer did its job right. That is the point. You are suppose to be upset and angry you died. It was built that way on purpose.

Some people game to see the story all the way through. Like a book or a movie. If you paid 60 bucks for it, they feel entitled to see the end without feeling frustrated. That is ok. It is a perfectly valid reason to play games. Go play the newest Prince of Persia or Assassin's Creed or Uncharted 2, they were made specifically with you in mind. It fact, more and more games are being made with this player in mind. But, accept that other players exist who gain enjoyment from something else. Understand that these players were here first. When we started gaming this is all we had. Do you think we played Final Fantasy or Super Mario for the rich story?

For many people, gaming is not just about seeing the story to the end. We want to loose. We want to die many times and be severely punished for doing so. When I see a boss for the first time, I want it to absolutely destroy me. When I die because I messed up, I want to be punished so that I will learn from my mistakes. There are limits, but it has to be meaningful punishment. It has to make you upset on some level. I want to be afraid of dying. To feel like I need to be careful. It makes the victory that much better for me. Just because it has no significance for you does not mean our view is invalid.

Why does every game have to be for the casual gamer? Some games should be just for us. Besides this game and the last Ninja Gaiden, name the last major console game that was for us. All the games used to be for us. Now only a very few. Giving the few games made for us negative reviews is wrong. We are the people the industry was built on. We should never be totally left out in the cold. Without us, you would have no games.

 

[Rete]

I really feel like Yahtzee missed the ball on this one.

1. He makes a comparison of Demon's Souls to I Wanna Be The Guy as a example of how to do difficulty RIGHT. The biggest problem with this is that they're TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GAMES. Making the comparison purely because their difficulty is similar would be like comparing Super Mario to Super Street Fighter because they both have "Super" in their title.

A better comparison would have been between games of similar genres. While I may be wrong, I feel that Demon's Souls would fit somewhere more along the lines of "horror" (or more appropriately "Tension"), in which case, Demon's Souls could be compared to Resident Evil, or Silent Hill.

Even though the mechanics of these two games are completely different, the core "checkpoint/save" system for both these games are very similar (lengthy gaps between saves and generous amounts of backtracking). Without any form of acclimating punishment (higher risks -> higher rewards), all type of horror from the game is lost. So changing Demon's Souls at such a fundamental level would have wide arcing consequences. It'd be like playing Resident Evil 1 using save states, or playing Resident Evil 4 (with it's checkpoint mechanics, and NON-HORROR style gameplay). And nobody compares Resident Evil 4 to 1 anymore because every one knows they're completely unique experiences. Comparing one to the other just makes you look stupid.


2. Stating macro-design decisions things like "Wow, why hasn't anyone higher up just added difficulty settings? It's the most OBVIOUS solution ever" (para-phrase) is a tool move. First off, making a decision like "just throw more money at it" is never a good solution. There's budgets and deadlines companies have to adhere to, and changing NOT ONLY things like stat balancing (changing enemy HP and whatnot), but also enemy placement is a huge endeavor. It's not just changing values. For example, let's say we made all enemies have 20% less health, and damage. Does that mean all enemies give 20% less XP? Or would it be more appropriate to give the player 35% less XP since enemies are being nerfed in multiple categories. Do we change item drop tables? Does a whole new set of inventory items have to be created for these new difficulty levels? Does this open up exploits where power users can level faster at lower levels? Does the game actually get harder near the end because less XP gain -> more grinding for Demon's Souls -> higher chance of losing all your souls -> more wasted time? And so on, and so on.

This doesn't even touch other major aspects such as PvP. Users who play on easier difficulties are suddenly encountering a enemy player who has played on normal, and all of a sudden the easy player is whooped because they're not used to this standard of play. Would we remove PvP from Demon's Souls (it's main mechanic) depending on your initial selection? Do we remove hints which are neg repped? It's a constant spiral of changes and making light of the developers for it without seriously thinking through the consequences is just a bad show. Especially coming from a published Game Reviewer whose also has had their hands in Game Development (your Trilby series).


3. At the end of your review, you stated that you didn't have the time to waste on games such as Demon's Souls, even though you knew it was an RPG which was of somewhat notable length. You can't punish them for that. You don't go to a comedy, and rate it poorly because you were in the mood for a drama. If you don't have the time, why not play it only a little bit in between your other game reviews rather then bash it because of your own scenario? I don't review soccer games and immediately give them low marks because I naturally dislike soccer games.


4. Extreme over exaggeration is not professional. Every level has a shortcut to the boss, or the level itself is extremely short. 1-2 can be beaten in less then 5 minutes (if you know the path to the boss [pro-tip: walk straight]), and 1-1 lets you fight the boss (after unlocking the shortcut) in under a minute and a half (pro-tip: walk straight). Stating that the game takes you over an hour to get to your previous locale is very misleading, and doing so just to prove your point is something that doesn't belong in journalism. Regular chat's fine though. It also shows a strong misunderstanding of the game's core level design which is that every level (if they're too long) has a shortcut to the boss, much like Ocarina of Time. And to the people who say you might have missed it, I cry foul. Level 1-1 has 2 shortcuts, one is missable, but the other is MANDATORY. It unlocks the boss. Ignoring these details is total weaksauce.




***As an alternate solution to the checkpoint problem, some type of town teleport spell would have been a cleaner solution. That way death is left in the hands of player decision, and less on player patience.

*****They do give the user this ability to town teleport later on in the game, but it comes a little too late into the game. It should have been a spell the user gets the moment they beat after the first major boss (just before the dragon death sequence you quit at).

 

[Credge]

Holy hell, I've never seen Yahtzee so far off on his opinion of something in my life.

The only thing he's right about is that Demon's Souls isn't hard. It isn't. If he finds that the game mechanics are 'wasting his time' then he's doing it wrong.

 

[Helba1984]

I really feel like Yahtzee missed the ball on this one.

1. He makes a comparison of Demon's Souls to I Wanna Be The Guy as a example of how to do difficulty RIGHT. The biggest problem with this is that they're TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GAMES. Making the comparison purely because their difficulty is similar would be like comparing Super Mario to Super Street Fighter because they both have "Super" in their title.

A better comparison would have been between games of similar genres. While I may be wrong, I feel that Demon's Souls would fit somewhere more along the lines of "horror" (or more appropriately "Tension"), in which case, Demon's Souls could be compared to Resident Evil, or Silent Hill.

Even though the mechanics of these two games are completely different, the core "checkpoint/save" system for both these games are very similar (lengthy gaps between saves and generous amounts of backtracking). Without any form of acclimating punishment (higher risks -> higher rewards), all type of horror from the game is lost. So changing Demon's Souls at such a fundamental level would have wide arcing consequences. It'd be like playing Resident Evil 1 using save states, or playing Resident Evil 4 (with it's checkpoint mechanics, and NON-HORROR style gameplay). And nobody compares Resident Evil 4 to 1 anymore because every one knows they're completely unique experiences. Comparing one to the other just makes you look stupid.


2. Stating macro-design decisions things like "Wow, why hasn't anyone higher up just added difficulty settings? It's the most OBVIOUS solution ever" (para-phrase) is a tool move. First off, making a decision like "just throw more money at it" is never a good solution. There's budgets and deadlines companies have to adhere to, and changing NOT ONLY things like stat balancing (changing enemy HP and whatnot), but also enemy placement is a huge endeavor. It's not just changing values. For example, let's say we made all enemies have 20% less health, and damage. Does that mean all enemies give 20% less XP? Or would it be more appropriate to give the player 35% less XP since enemies are being nerfed in multiple categories. Do we change item drop tables? Does a whole new set of inventory items have to be created for these new difficulty levels? Does this open up exploits where power users can level faster at lower levels? Does the game actually get harder near the end because less XP gain -> more grinding for Demon's Souls -> higher chance of losing all your souls -> more wasted time? And so on, and so on.

This doesn't even touch other major aspects such as PvP. Users who play on easier difficulties are suddenly encountering a enemy player who has played on normal, and all of a sudden the easy player is whooped because they're not used to this standard of play. Would we remove PvP from Demon's Souls (it's main mechanic) depending on your initial selection? Do we remove hints which are neg repped? It's a constant spiral of changes and making light of the developers for it without seriously thinking through the consequences is just a bad show. Especially coming from a published Game Reviewer whose also has had their hands in Game Development (your Trilby series).


3. At the end of your review, you stated that you didn't have the time to waste on games such as Demon's Souls, even though you knew it was an RPG which was of somewhat notable length. You can't punish them for that. You don't go to a comedy, and rate it poorly because you were in the mood for a drama. If you don't have the time, why not play it only a little bit in between your other game reviews rather then bash it because of your own scenario? I don't review soccer games and immediately give them low marks because I naturally dislike soccer games.


4. Extreme over exaggeration is not professional. Every level has a shortcut to the boss, or the level itself is extremely short. 1-2 can be beaten in less then 5 minutes (if you know the path to the boss [pro-tip: walk straight]), and 1-1 lets you fight the boss (after unlocking the shortcut) in under a minute and a half (pro-tip: walk straight). Stating that the game takes you over an hour to get to your previous locale is very misleading, and doing so just to prove your point is something that doesn't belong in journalism. Regular chat's fine though. It also shows a strong misunderstanding of the game's core level design which is that every level (if they're too long) has a shortcut to the boss, much like Ocarina of Time. And to the people who say you might have missed it, I cry foul. Level 1-1 has 2 shortcuts, one is missable, but the other is MANDATORY. It unlocks the boss. Ignoring these details is total weaksauce.




***As an alternate solution to the checkpoint problem, some type of town teleport spell would have been a cleaner solution. That way death is left in the hands of player decision, and less on player patience.

*****They do give the user this ability to town teleport later on in the game, but it comes a little too late into the game. It should have been a spell the user gets the moment they beat after the first major boss (just before the dragon death sequence you quit at).

Good counter!

But let me add the following:

1: There are only so many "checkpoints" as noveau-gamers have come to know them, but the shortcut mechanic functions in the same capacity, only it cannot be quick-save abused which seems to be a huge complaint (gee, wonder why?

2: Every Nexus teleport point (spawned when you beat bosses) functions this way. In fact the first one is right before the room leading up to that dragon.

 

[Helba1984]

There are quite a few developers, in particular Japanese based ones, who don't really agree with things like difficulty level, or playability, or even fairness in their games. This isn't really anything new. I'm pretty sure it started with the NES(or Famicom) with games like Super Mario Brothers and Ghosts & Goblins(or Ghouls and Goblins I can't remember which), or the Megaman series, which wasn't quite as hard, and had difficulty selects which did change a lot of the gameplay.

For a while American developers were just as bad, if not worse. If you don't believe me, look at the older Rainbow 6 games for the PC. I still get nightmares from some of those games. Sometimes games will be made that are too hard for the masses, and Demon's Souls sounds like one of them. I'm not trying to sound like too much of a grammar nazi, but shouldn't the title be Demons' souls?

No. The Old One (boss of whole game) has many souls you are trying to steal/free.

therefore Demon's Souls refers to them.

 

[The Deadpool]

Some folks- yourself included- have made interesting counter-arguments, but I can't help but notice that that are almost completely (if not 100%) based upon Demon's Souls ... and while it might be interesting to speculate how to use this EP to invalidate some of Yahtzee's original points in the ZP, the central thesis remains intact: 90% of the time, long periods between checkpoints is a bullshit move by the game developer.

And I'd have to disagree with you. Just because most people use a tool improperly has no impact upon the tool itself.

Just because most people use animation to make kids show, does not make Cowboy Bebop any less adult. Just because most people use Wii for horrible gimmicky games does not detract from Silent Hill.

Demon's Souls takes the long range checkpoint feature and puts it to GREAT use. It creates an emotional reaction from the player most games this generation lacks, and adds to the atmosphere and sheer immersion of the game. The fact that few games before it have used it this way has no bearing upon it...

 

[Anarex]

I love this use of a generic term to mean an exact figure. Long periods between checkpoints, i.e. too long for you. For some reason each game has to have a check point system designed around your personal tolerance for frustration and challenge. Maybe you better nail down what exact length is acceptable. This way, developers know how to customer tailor their games for you in the future.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

He's pretty much referring to this elitist douchebag.

If your sarcasm-o-meter is busted, maybe you didn't notice the "i'm awesome" part was a large dose of it, to match the tone of the review.

Hope that helps.

Yet, despite that tiny tidbit of an excuse, you still presented yourself as the elitist douchebag you denied being. Also, the nature of nearly every single one of your other posts completely destroys your "sarcasm" argument's credibility. I make the accusation of your case for denying the fact that you are indeed an elitist douchebag to be nothing but empty excuses; and I have proof.

 

[Xvito]

So guys... Demon's Souls isn't that hard...

I got it the other day and I've been playing it a lot. It is not nearly as hard as it was made out to be and I can't see how anyone could get frustrated with it. It's nowhere near the difficulty of, say... Devil May Cry or the old Megaman-games. It's hard, yes. But not to the point of controller-throwing...

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is: "What the hell Yahtzee!? Stop whining... And man up..."

 

[Anarex]

It makes you wonder how he got through Devil May Cry 3 and Ninja Gaiden 2. Was he playing on easy to make sure he finished in time for a review?

 

[Anarex]

http://i.imgur.com/taEe0.png

I found this to be amusing

 

[Macgyvercas]

Y'know, just from reading all the idiotic things Atkinson has said, I'm half-tempted to send him an e-mail now and rub his own stupidity in his face from half a world away. Of course, I don't know how well that'd go over.

Believe me, I had the exact same thought.

 

[Tdc2182]

Theres nothing to be ashamed about calling it a BS game. It sounds rediculous from multiple people who have played it