More Info Released About Dark Souls 2

[Professor Lupin Madblood]

It seems to me that the Souls community are afraid that all the blood, sweat and tears they put into learning the arcane mechanics and strategies of the first two games will be rendered null and void because the people who make Souls are realizing that perhaps it's a good idea to tell people what the fucking statistics means.


(You should watch the whole thing, if you can spare the time. It's fascinating stuff.)

Now, this particular video might not seem like it has anything to do with this, but at about 2:52, they mention this idea that, because something was so difficult to get through, it's that much sweeter for having gotten through. This is called effort justification and this idea is what defines Dark Souls.

There's unique mythology and lore, to be sure, there are a broad cast of memorable characters and environments, sure, but the thing that everyone knows about Dark Souls is how difficult it is.

What they're trying to do (I imagine, anyway) with DS2 is to remove the artificial aspects of the difficulty. Not knowing what the symbols next to an item mean (its weight, for instance, and how that weight affects the player when using it) doesn't make the game more challenging, at least not in a good way. It makes it harder, but only by virtue of the player's ignorance. It's frustration, not difficulty. Same thing with not knowing the best strategies for fighting bosses, or which way to go through the areas, or how covenants work, or that there are covenants at all.

I mean, hell, if you do what the game's characters and narratives tell you, and give this important item to the guy whom you should give it to, you'll miss out on one of the more powerful covenants in the game. How is that good design?

It's all too early to predict now, especially since the game might not even make it out in 2013, but it seems like the dev team behind DS2 are taking a long hard look at the Soul series and realizing that sometimes a blemish can lend charm to a game, and sometimes it is just a blemish.

 

[Lt._nefarious]

basically they want to limit player choice, the guy in charge of dark souls and demons souls wont be involved, they want the game to be more action oriented, it seems like you wont be creating your own character and the guy in the trailer is the character you will be playing and the girl in the trailer is apparently his love interest in the game. i mean as long as its still as difficult as the first two games im sure ill still enjoy it, but it just seems like its not going to have the same feel as the previous souls games

What the shit!? No! No, you can't do this From! Love interest?! But... But... But that's not Dark Souls! Why?! WHY!?!

If the gameplay remains intact it'll be good but if that's true it won't be as original or interesting, mysterious, fun as Dark Souls 1,,,

Damn you, From!!!!!! Damn you to hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HEEELL!!!!!!

 

[JagermanXcell]

Their plan to make the game broader/straight forward to appeal to a wider audience wouldn't work because that would mean they would have to change a lot, including the core mechanic WHICH IS BAAAAAAAAD.
If there are two things I personally think they should change its to add more features to the already perfect combat and to improve the tutorial so new players know what they're getting themselves into control and world wise. If things like markers that tell you where to go or narrative cutscenes were added or even *gulp* an easy mode... then the whole game will fall victim to the other unoriginal BS we see now a days, and the Souls games will no longer be unique.

I definitely need to see A LOT of gameplay before I considering buying this, and if there is more exposition then boss fight cutscenes, I'm out.

OT: Funny how people say the game should be easier, when all the information regarding how Dark Souls works shows up on wikis even before release to help people who are stuck. I guess gamers who buy the game are so lazy and uninterested in Souls that they have to complain for easy mode instead of doing research that almost 99% of the time can be found...

 

[Gormech]

For the most part, it sounds like they're changing it into something similar to a dark version of Zelda.

 

[00slash00]

as i said, timing your attacks blocks and rolls correctly. the fact that you have to learn patterns doesnt make the game less tactical. regardless of what your feelings are about souls combat, theres a world of difference between god of war combat and dark souls combat

Actually...it does make the gameplay less tactical. Tactics only come into play once you have all the information you need, and then you use that information to devise a strategy of attack. Or defense.

I agree there's a wold of difference between GoW and DS combat, but neither of them is "tactical". You know what's "tactical"? Persona 3 on highest difficulty.

exactly. you learn an enemys attacks and then use that knowledge to put develop a strategy for dealing with them. ive never played a persona game but given that its turn based battles i would assume that it probably is more tactical but souls games are about as tactical as real time combat gets. its not a simple hack and slash and thats the point i was trying to make

 

[nasteypenguin]

I'm not sure what's "tactical" about "Hey I have no clue what this guy does, so I'll just run in a few times and get pulverized to get all the information I need" to be completely honest. Once you have that information, the gameplay is purely reactive, which is, in my eyes, a bad thing, and limiting player choice in and of itself.

I think that's more of a limitation in games as a whole, since a game cannot stop you from replaying an area/keep on killing a specific enemy, being able to learn an enemies actions from repeatedly dying to it is always viable. You do however have to ask yourself whether or not it's a form of cheating however; the souls series does actively punish you for dying so it's not promoting that type of tactic and, perhaps outside of a roguelike one life system, it is rather a limitation of the medium, is it preventable?

It may not be truly tactical, but I feel Souls gave enough of an illusion of it for it to be fun.

 

[Vegosiux]

the souls series does actively punish you for dying so it's not promoting that type of tactic

What do you lose, except for time? Try dying in Diablo 2 Hell (not hardcore of course) when you're three mob kills short of level 99...that'd be a lot more punishing than anything the Souls can throw at you.

Incidentally, "time" is why I laid down the controller halfway through, a day only has 24 hours of which 14-18 are committed to other things...so it was shoved to the back of my backlog for now. "Not really fun" was the main reason for it.

 

[Erttheking]

I think we might want to double check before we jump to conclusions.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/12/17/on-the-edge-dark-souls-2-article-and-its-foreboding-forecast/

 

[nasteypenguin]

What do you lose, except for time? Try dying in Diablo 2 Hell (not hardcore of course) when you're three mob kills short of level 99...that'd be a lot more punishing than anything the Souls can throw at you.

Incidentally, "time" is why I laid down the controller halfway through, a day only has 24 hours of which 14-18 are committed to other things...so it was shoved to the back of my backlog for now. "Not really fun" was the main reason for it.

I'm not trying to change your opinion on the game, I'm talking about the mechanics. The punishment is in losing currency which, you have pointed out, is just time. Now I'm not really wanting to discuss that so for arguments sake lets say time is a viable punishment; how do you prevent someone from learning all the actions of an enemy by repeatedly dying to it? You can punish someone for said dying, but again with time being the only real method of punishment, that's not exactly a prevention. You could give enemies far more actions to make it harder to learn, but this is a limitation of the hardware and unfortunately isn't exactly viable. You could give every enemy every action in order to force players to think on their feet a little bit more, but this crushes enemy variability and ultimately loses the fun.

What I'm trying to say is, how does one force the use of tactics in the gaming medium without having the "repeatedly lose to enemy to learn actions" 'tactic,' viable somehow; if that is the only reason Dark Souls isn't tactical then I think it did a bloody good job considering. However, is a singleplayer game that forces absolute tactical thought throughout possible without absolute punishment?

 

[Nomanslander]

snip

Okay, I read your post and watched your video, and I disagree.

In the video pbsideachannel talked about effort justification, and even though I agree and I fully knowledge the concept, that just wasn't my experience with Dark Souls. The one game that really comes to mind that embodies the concept mentioned there that I've played was World of Warcraft, at least back in it's vanilla days.

Now this might be just be me, but my personal joy of playing Dark Souls was the experience of discovery. I liked the idea of getting lost in the game and trying to find my way out and to the finish line. It's like the joy of doing a maze puzzle. If the next game was to introduce directional arrows, it would completely diminish that aspect of the game and ruin the one major quality that I liked about it.

It wasn't the frustrating amount of effort I placed into the game that made it worth while for me. To tell you bluntly, Dark Souls is a lot more easier than most games that I've played in the past. You see, the only thing that Dark Souls has to offer in difficulty is its demand for player precaution, labyrinthine like structure of the level design, and high learning curve.

That's it.

Once you've mastered those aspect of the game, the game almost become a cake walk. Most other games level of difficulty are based on trial and error, where it isn't your fault that you lost, but only the fault of your ignorance of what to expect next. With Dark Souls, as long as you took precaution, the game always gave you a chance to move forward and not fall into any traps or difficulty spikes. Most of the bosses I was able to defeat my first try because I spent a lot of the time standing back and watching for patterns before engaging. That there isn't what trail and error games do because they generally don't allow you enough chance to take precaution. The only time the game really stuck it to me and got cheap was in Anor Londo with the two archers on the catwalks (look it up), but either than that the game was almost always fair.

The only time the game really punishes you is when you decide to grow rash and rush in. That is all.

Now maybe you find getting lost in the game world a nuisance and would rather have directional arrows guide your way, maybe you get bored with playing defensively and holding yourself back. Well, with that, I have to say that's just your taste and in no ways the games fault.

I liked getting lost with no sense of direction in its world, I liked its harsh but fair way of treated us as gamers, and I liked that it was a game full of secrets. For me there was almost nothing of effort justification because in order for that to be true, I would have had to experience none of what I mentioned above. Effort justification happens when there's no joy to be had, and you then rationalize the difficulty you're put through by saying that it's worth it.

 

[Vegosiux]

Now I'm not really wanting to discuss that so for arguments sake lets say time is a viable punishment; how do you prevent someone from learning all the actions of an enemy by repeatedly dying to it? You can punish someone for said dying, but again with time being the only real method of punishment, that's not exactly a prevention. You could give enemies far more actions to make it harder to learn, but this is a limitation of the hardware and unfortunately isn't exactly viable. You could give every enemy every action in order to force players to think on their feet a little bit more, but this crushes enemy variability and ultimately loses the fun.

You make a good point. I'm actually point the finger on the limitations of the AI, because after enough iterations, every AI pattern is going to be predictable, and that's the gist of it, after you've run into a wall enough times, you'll know all its points, so it can't surprise you anymore and a game AI simply can't keep tossing surprises at you indefinitely.

However, you can't really try any tactical problem solving if you have no information in the first place. One could argue that limited information can work, as it might make people guess and take risks, and I'd agree with that, but in order to have a tactical plan, you need to know your enemy's capabilities to an extent.

What I'm trying to say is, how does one force the use of tactics in the gaming medium without having the "repeatedly lose to enemy to learn actions" 'tactic,' viable somehow; if that is the only reason Dark Souls isn't tactical then I think it did a bloody good job considering. However, is a singleplayer game that forces absolute tactical thought throughout possible?

Well, as I said. Give the player all the information they need to begin with, tell them what the enemy can do, how the enemy is likely to act in response to the player's actions and this does turn into a game of mental chess. Tactics is about making you think before you go into battle, not on the fly.

Mind, I do not mind thinking on the fly against an unpredictable opponent (another thing where an AI gets boring after a while). It's fun. But it's not "tactical", it's purely reactive. Even if it's fun.

 

[sXeth]

While I haven't played Demons Souls myself, I've been acquainted with a fair few that have, and almost universally brow-beaten that Dark Souls was already a step downwards. That said, I have gone through Dark Souls (and also conferred with those same folks), and even it takes a definite slide in the third act. The narrative flies off to ne'er be seen again, the bosses are much more basic and phoned in, and the levels themselves start throwing gimmicks like the darkness and invisible bridges.

The above said, maybe a new direction isn't the end of all things as its made out to be, as it seems the old one was either turning stale or running out of steam. Granted (and I'm a proponent of this for a lot of series), the new direction might be best applied as an all new IP, but the current business model of brand-farming is responsible for that.

 

[Sack of Cheese]

Direct sequel huh? I wonder which ending is the canon ending for Dark souls.

While I haven't played Demons Souls myself, I've been acquainted with a fair few that have, and almost universally brow-beaten that Dark Souls was already a step downwards. That said, I have gone through Dark Souls (and also conferred with those same folks), and even it takes a definite slide in the third act. The narrative flies off to ne'er be seen again, the bosses are much more basic and phoned in, and the levels themselves start throwing gimmicks like the darkness and invisible bridges.

I'm almost finished playing Demon's souls at the moment, I'd say Dark souls is a more polished Demon's souls. The boss battles in Dark souls are much more amazing, the levels feel bigger and full of hidden treasures.

 

[Smolderin]

And now, expectations of Dark Souls 2 significantly lowered. I don't like what I am hearing so far, but I'll keep my ears and mind open.

 

[nasteypenguin]

Well, as I said. Give the player all the information they need to begin with, tell them what the enemy can do, how the enemy is likely to act in response to the player's actions and this does turn into a game of mental chess.

I would have to remark that Dark Souls did give you the information beforehand, at least on regular enemies, new enemy types were generally first encountered individually in a safer environment for you to fight and learn from before shoving them into encounters between multiples or in hazardous environments, as with many other games.

Unfortunately the more I think of it the more I have to agree with you when it comes to the bosses. The game was fairly poor at leading up to them, part of me wants to say that the unpredictability and new styles of each boss gave the game a much more surprising element and sense of unknowing, it definitely added to the atmosphere, the sense that you didn't know what was coming. However I have to admit it definitely does summon the problem of being forced to at least take damage before one can understand what their dealing with. My main thought to this was Ceaseless Discharge, the fact that no other enemy in the game does anything similar to him. I guess a better design would be the whole bosses being the sum of the mobs that came before them thing, which Dark Souls did not do.

Games do have a limitation when it comes to predictability however, as much as we would like it to be "mental chess" most mechanics mean that the gameplay is very much on the fly, as in one action does not tend to have any impact on any action taken later on in the fight. I am horrible at explaining this but, if you block the enemies attack, it has no bearing on what action you should perform in, say, 5 seconds when the fight had progressed. Perhaps all I'm doing is picking at your simile here but I don't think knowing what your enemy can do and knowing how to counter it translates well into tactics in a gameplay perspective, at least not in action oriented games like this.

 

[Brotherofwill]

Shame, shame, shame. Loved Demon's Souls, loved the overall additions of Dark Souls (altough it seemed like the game was a little less tight, a little more bloated) and now Dark Souls 2 will be something completely else.

Really goes to show how 'drastic' this industry changes shit. A guy makes a low budget, revolutionary old-school game, then people fucking love it and declare it the savior of old standards and buy it (i fucking bought Demon's Souls in China to play it in Europe when it came out XD) and then BAAAAAMMMM 'let's go in a different direction because money'. Fuck erryone.

Let's hope for Demon's Souls 2 directed by the original guy XD.

...
...
...
Demon's Soul's 2's.

 

[Professor Lupin Madblood]

Wall o' text ahoy, cap'n.

If the next game was to introduce directional arrows, it would completely diminish that aspect of the game and ruin the one major quality that I liked about it.

Now maybe you find getting lost in the game world a nuisance and would rather have directional arrows guide your way, maybe you get bored with playing defensively and holding yourself back. Well, with that, I have to say that's just your taste and in no ways the games fault.

Why are you so obsessed with directional arrows? I never once mentioned them and nowhere have the dev team for DS2 even remotely mentioned anything like that, and you can't seriously think they would be dumb enough to include objective markers in a game that doesn't have an objective system. Furthermore, why much I either love arrows or love total freedom of exploration? There are plenty of games that mix exploration and direction to great effect, and having an actual narrative (instead of just discovering things about the world, which was pretty much what you did in DS), which they've hinted at in DS2, would lend itself very well to this setup: there's a progression of events that gives you direction, but you can ignore it in favour of exploring.

You see, the only thing that Dark Souls has to offer in difficulty is its demand for player precaution, labyrinthine like structure of the level design, and high learning curve. That's it. Once you've mastered those aspect of the game, the game almost become a cake walk.

I don't get the point you're trying to make here. The game isn't difficult once you've mastered it? The game isn't difficult if you set aside everything that makes it difficult? I would think that go without saying.

Most of the bosses I was able to defeat my first try

Bullshit.

The only time the game really stuck it to me and got cheap was in Anor Londo with the two archers on the catwalks (look it up), but either than that the game was almost always fair. The only time the game really punishes you is when you decide to grow rash and rush in. That is all.

There's a part fairly early on where you come across a dilapidated little shrine, and if you have 25 faith, you can pray at the shrine and enter into the Covenant of Solaire of Astora. As I'm sure you know, the Covenant gives you a number of benefits which come mostly in the form of miracles.

Now, to my knowledge, the game:

Does not tell you this.
Does not indicate you need more faith if you approach with less than the requisite amount.
Does not indicate that you can lower the faith requirement by five for each fellow player you help defeat a boss.
Does not explain what the fuck Covenants are, or why you would ever want one.
Does not explain what a miracle is, or how it differs from Sorcery/a spell.

And that's just to do with Covenants, let alone the more complicated aspects of the game. There's giving the player a world of secrets and then there's just forcing the player to backtrack to every remotely interesting piece of architecture every time they raise a stat or do something semi-important if they want to fully explore the world. You are certainly entitled to enjoy that form of exploration if it's your thing, but I think the simple fact of the matter is that a) most players don't, and b) it's not terribly good game design.

It's that sort of thing that's unfair about Dark Souls. It tells you very little, and the world is designed to be explored by someone who knows pretty much everything. There are opportunities to learn, but they're hardly encouraged, and you can go through the whole game with large chunks of information missing.

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the wiki and the DS community, both of which are superb, but, personally, a game shouldn't rely on third party help, at least not with the basics (see my earlier point about it not telling you what half the stats/numbers on your character screen do).

For me there was almost nothing of effort justification because in order for that to be true, I would have had to experience none of what I mentioned above. Effort justification happens when there's no joy to be had, and you then rationalize the difficulty you're put through by saying that it's worth it.

I think you've thoroughly misunderstood effort justification. EJ isn't forcing yourself to enjoy something because of its difficulty and in spite of its horrible mechanics and general lack of quality - that's masochism. EJ is rather something that gets added on top of a work's inherent value.

Ulysses, to use the video's example, is extraordinarily difficult to read, but its narrative and characters would still be enjoyable without the barrier of language. Same thing with Dark Souls: there's the EJ factor of the punishing checkpoints and the fact that any enemy poses a significant threat, but there's also the exploration, the simple yet deep combat system, the grand and unique lore, and the memorable environments and bosses.

Spoiler: This isn't really related, but I just wanted to mention someone taking a rational approach to what little we know about DS2.

There is also a Forbes article about it: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/12/17/on-the-edge-dark-souls-2-article-and-its-foreboding-forecast/