Now THAT'S a Dragon Fight!!!

[Ranorak]

People here need to play Monster Hunter. The dragons and other creatures in this game are far, far more ferocious and it feels absolutely fantastic when you manage to take one down by yourself. Hell, look at this guy -

The complete opposite of this is God of War. It doesn't matter how large the boss it and how scary it might look. If you can take it down with a few simple dodges and a quicktime event, it just does not feel satisfying to finish him.

Question, what game is this exactly?
Cause it seems like fun.

 

[ERaptor]

Never thought id say this, but i agree with Phoenix that the PVP in Dark Souls can be unbalanced

The chaotic nature of Dark Souls pvp makes it unbalanced by design, that's kinda the point. Hunting another player in their own world is not subject to the rules of fair duelling.

There's things to be said about twinks, though. They're never fun in any game. This could've been avoided if the game had a ranking system that considered your soul level as well as weapon upgrades and spells you had equipped. No reason to punish a legit game system that works perfectly well in any other area.

I didnt imply that its a bad thing that NEEDS changing, but its one of the few things i did not like about the game. The Difficulty of DS was allways harsh, but fair. PVP on the other hand allowed a dude to equip a lightning-enchanted weapon and two-shot you even trough your Block. It was really unecessarily unfair sometimes, its one of the things i sympathise with people if they take issue with it.

Question, what game is this exactly?
Cause it seems like fun.

Monster Hunter - Series. I can highly recommend the games if you like Bossfights against giant Monsters. It also boasts really cool hunting mechanics.

 

[SKBPinkie]

Question, what game is this exactly?
Cause it seems like fun.

Monster Hunter Portable 3rd for the PSP, specifically. Although if you want a test-drive, you should pick up Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate for the 3DS or the Wii U. It's a mechanically intensive game; with elements from old-school 2D boss fights (ex: Megaman, Castlevania, Contra) where pattern recognition and player positioning / timing are crucial to efficiently fight a monster.

It can seem intimidating at first, but if you spend a little bit of time with a specific weapon class, there's no game as rewarding, in my opinion.

 

[PrimitiveJudge]

Dark Souls does have stealth, in fact the first Black Knight you encounter, you can sneak up behind him and backstab him before he notices you. Just walk slowly with light armor.

 

[SKBPinkie]

Question, what game is this exactly?
Cause it seems like fun.

Monster Hunter Portable 3rd for the PSP, specifically. Although if you want a test-drive, you should pick up Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate for the 3DS or the Wii U. It's a mechanically intensive game; with elements from old-school 2D boss fights (ex: Megaman, Castlevania, Contra) where pattern recognition and player positioning / timing are crucial to efficiently fight a monster.

It can seem intimidating at first, but if you spend a little bit of time with a specific weapon class, there's no game as rewarding, in my opinion.

Wait, what? Positioning and patter recognition is crucial? Nah. I managed to get through all of it with only three or four deaths by just whacking it over and over again with a giant mace and dodging every once and a while. No studying, just hitting!

If you're solo-ing your way through the game (which I highly recommend, btw), there are quite a few monsters that you have to dodge quite often. Nargacuga, Zinogre, Stygian, Savage Jho, Deviljho, Alatreon, Pink Rathian, Gold and Silver Raths, Brachydios, both Barioths, both Agnaktors, etc.

So yeah, not for every single monster in the game - but if you're fighting with a hammer, which you are, you simply have to dodge very often. You have to know which direction to dodge in, and if you are dodging attacks, you need to know how the attack's range and direction.

 

[DementedSheep]

I'm sad DD is not on the PC.

Yeah running into random dragons was real fun in that game. Even the smaller stuff was a good challenge on lower levels, it made for a fun time.

That being said, I can't rightfully give DD any awards for Dragon fighting when this glorious boss exists...

Just feels so good. One person, one giant fucking dragon,, and a big place to fight in. It's a lot less flashy than DD but it feels a whole lot better when you finally win.

I think Kalameet suffers from the same problem a lot of boss fights against very large enemies do. His attacks are easy to see and avoid and it kinda feels like your just poking at him until he dies. Trying to cut off his goddamn tail was driving me to the edge of madness though. Damn my inability to just leave unique items when I can't even use them.

A real Dragon boss fight:

If you're fighting him in Chapter 2 or 3, you'll get your ass kicked most likely. A massive challenge overall and one of the toughest bosses in videogames if you don't cheese him.

All the Dragon fights in BG2 were absolutely epic.

Argh I remember him, took me ages to beat and I had to go off and buy spells I didn't have to do it.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Oh, YOU never used the bottomless box. Well I guess that settles it, then. The bottomless box can never be useful, nor do people ever use it, because YOU don't use it.
Carrying around all your sets is actually very convenient. The game expects you to use what's good for each situation. Not that you really need to, most of the time. But how is it any different from carrying 2-3 sets and swapping them out? Hell, even Baldur's Gate had a bottomless bag.

There's nothing wrong with the bottomless box, I said it's pointless when your character is a bottomless box as well. DS isn't a loot game either. There's one Iaito for example, I'm not going to find a Iaito, then a new Iaito that does 10 more damage, then another Iaito that does another 10 more damage, etc. Your own inventory doesn't get clogged up because your not going to have THAT much stuff in it even if you search for everything.

Edit: oh hey wait I forgot the stealth system bit. I never said there's a "Stealth mechanic" in Dark Souls, so can you get off of the strawman and try to touch on what I'm actually saying? There's a visibility and sound mechanic in Dark Souls. If an enemy has his back on you, and you walk up to him without wearing heavy armor (indicated by the sounds you make when you run), you can backstab him before he turns around. Likewise, you can run past enemies without them noticing you if you have the rings or spells that reduce visibility and sound. You can also distract enemies with certain items or spells. Just a few of the things you can do that add depth to the game.

The game doesn't allow for a stealth option without items. You can stealth in Fallout, Skryim, Kingdoms of Amalur, etc. Dragon's Dogma doesn't have stealth either (I'm sure there's some kind of invisibility thing in DD too). I don't know why you are arguing about DS having stealth, it doesn't.

You're absolutely right! NOBODY does level 1 challenge runs in Dark Souls! They're too tedious! [http://www.reddit.com/r/onebros] Oh wait what's that? This subreddit has almost 1.500 users and the last post was TEN HOURS AGO?
You are so cute the way you go on and on about things that are horribly wrong.
SL1 runs are the most common challenge run in Dark Souls because it's very doable and not too difficult due to a few factors of "bad game design" that the game offers. There are many more. [http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dark+souls+challenge&sm=3]

It's a figure of speech, not a literal. It's one of those things you don't really want to do because of how you have to play the game to do it. I'm almost positive I can beat DS at level 1 if I wanted to, I don't get the point of proving that you can indeed do something you already know you can do while having less fun doing it. It's like playing Uncharted on Crushing difficulty (which I did do), it devolves into whack-a-mole because you can only pop out and shoot for 1-2 seconds so you're camping in cover pretty much all game waiting for enemies to pop their heads up. It's not really hard, just annoying to play. That's what I meant. That 1,500 people on reddit makes up less than 0.1% of the people that bought DS. It's something that no one wants to do but there's always those people that do it just to say they did it.

Alright, I was just teasing. It does offer depth to the combat by giving you an alternative to just blocking and countering. Or killing from afar. Or parrying. Or jump-attacking. Or pushing off ledges, or plunge-attacking, or facetanking, or dodging.

I'm not saying the backstab is bad. I'm saying the enemy AI is so bad, you exploit it just playing regularly, which is the whole reason I even mentioned the backstab. I felt cheap every time I used a bow DS. Almost every game (if not every game) has some way to exploit the AI but for the most part you have to go out of your way to do it.

Why would people be enthusiastic about and make community-driven events in a game with "horrible" pvp? But of course, it's not your standard, therefore it doesn't matter.

Hey, did you know that the Darkmoon Blade covenant lets you invade players 70 levels lower? By design?
Also nice latching on to what major_chaos said back there. I never saw you even mentioning pvp before this; now it's your main argument. "Ah yes, it's broken, because... oh, is that why? Yes that's why! I totally know what I'm talking about." I could've sworn I had an argument with you not long ago in which I was trying to convince you that magic is not underpowered.

I didn't have to mention PvP, I wouldn't care about most of the balance stuff if there wasn't PvP. I didn't care for the invasion system at all. I built my character for PvE as I didn't give a shit about PvP but I have to deal with players invading that built there characters specifically for PvP so I'm at a disadvantage even if they are the same level and not using awesome stuff. But most players are using awesome stuff and can easily one-hit kill me, it's just stupid. I couldn't even use my most powerful attack (lightning spear) because it sucks against a human player. I like the concept of the invasion system but it was executed very poorly as doing any kind of online mode/feature must be extremely well thought out due to how people act on the Internet.

Lastly, it seems most people in fact have said the Kalameet is a poor boss battle, which is the whole point of the thread. Dark Souls did boss battles poorly and it seems like Demon's Souls had much better fights than Dark Souls as well.

This being an example. Firstly, not every RPG has inventory limits. And secondly, arguing that an inventory limit automatically goes along with "ressource management" is bullsh*t. Its absolutely possible to push the weightlimit in most RPG's to a point where your PC has 3 different armor sets and 6 different weapons with him at all times. Funny enough, in a lot of RPG's Potions and Scrolls do not have a weight at all, enabling you to just jug healt potions until the Enemy drops dead.

And if we're talking about abusing game mechanics to your advantage, did you know that you can easily cheese your way trough almost any fight in Dragon's Dogma, by standing on a ledge/ rock or abusing aggro range? Dragons can be easily kited by shooting them with arrows from afar, if done from a certain distance the Dragon will use maybe one breath attack (which wont hit you, because of the distance) and then loose interest and turn around.

What im trying to say is, if we apply your "X is broken because i can abuse it"-logic, i can think of almost no RPG that can not be cheated by a variety of means. IF you need to establish arbitary standards, please apply them to every game, and not just the ones you dont like.

An invetory limit in Dark Souls would've just been a tedium. You'd enter an area "Oh they're using poison?" and then you'd have to walk back all the way to your stash to change to your anti poison-gear and then come back. Thats not a challenge, and its not punishing your for your mistakes (Because you cant know what awaits you in an area before you enter it), so it wouldnt fit the feeling the game is going for. And there is still the matter of upgrading gear. A fully upgraded armor may not have the specific resistance, but has a lot better protection. And while its certainly cool that the giant Doomspider cant poison you, she wont have a problem chewing your arms and legs off because you decided to remove your armor in favor of a Robe. The fact that you can change gear on the run isnt "broken" at all, it just allows the Player to adapt his Playstyle.

I didn't say other RPGs were perfect and Dark Souls was the only bad one. Weight plays a pretty important role in Dark Souls but the unlimited inventory makes weight a non-issue. You gotta be under 25% weight for that quick roll and being able to carry everything makes it simple to always be under 25%. You're not going to be able to carry 3 armor sets and 6 weapons in Dark Souls and stay at your weight if what you didn't actually have equipped went into your weight. And Dark Souls even fails on the exact point about a spider wearing something that stop poison but then your physical defense sucks (that standard give and take); you can wear clothes and stand in front of Seath just hacking away, not blocking or dodging once.

I'm saying Dark Souls is so exploitable just playing normally, you don't even have to try to exploit the game. I felt like I exploited the game every time I used a bow. And, the ability to circle strafe an enemy to his back is so bad. I haven't found a way to exploit Dragon's Dogma just playing normally.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

The game doesn't allow for a stealth option without items.

And why is that relevant to anything? What game design handbook has "stealth without items IS THE ONLY KIND OF STEALTH. SO SAYETH THE GOD OF GAME DESIGN" written on it?
And no, there are a few situations in the game where you can walk up to an enemy undetected.[/quote]

Stealth is mainly dependent on enemy AI, enemy placement, and enemy routes. DS fails in all those regards. That's what makes Metal Gear Solid, Splinter Cell, Thief, etc. stealth games and what makes Uncharted, COD, Vanquish, etc. not stealth games. I don't even remember why stealth even got brought up anyways.

Challenge runs in Dark Souls are done by experienced players to try and re-live the difficulty of their first playthrough. Challenge runs are so prevalent in the game that the devs included a special item [http://darksoulswiki.wikispaces.com/Calamity+Ring] in the DLC that does nothing but double the damage you take, tailored specifically for challenge runs. It's a form of replayability. People don't do it to prove anything. They do it to have fun.
I said sl1 is a viable challenge run, and unlike you, I know it isn't tedious and I know it's very doable because I did one myself [http://i.imgur.com/n7La50I.jpg]. You just have to plan ahead, be strategic with your playstyle and be good enough so that you rarely get hit in combat.
It took me about 15 hours. My first playthrough was well over 60. So much for tedium.

Isn't NG+ supposed give you a similar, if not harder challenge, as your 1st playthrough? I remember someone told me recently here that beating DS the 1st time is easy and NG+ is where it's at when I said DS was too easy. I got no issue with upping the difficulty on a harder setting or like that ring for the most part as Bayonetta is awesome on NSIC; however, Uncharted sucks on Crushing (not hard, just not fun). The game should give me a great challenge without limiting myself, which is what a level 1 run does. Where did I say a level 1 run wasn't viable? I actually said it was most likely pretty easy, I said it just wouldn't be fun. I'm guessing that 60 hours was exploring probably every dungeon when you didn't know where anything was. I know DS can be beaten real fast when you only go through the areas you need to go through and know your way around. There's speed runs under 1 hour, so your 15 hour level 1 run was over 15x longer than if you didn't horribly limit yourself thus there was tedium.

Deflecting an enemy blow then circling around and backstabbing is a viable strategy. There's only one enemy type where incessantly circling them for backstabs is preferable: Darkwraiths. Otherwise it's easier to use the enemy's momentum as he swings.
Still don't get why you're making it out to be such a problem. Enemies in Dark Souls are very much about figuring out their patterns, not about twitch reflexes.

I don't get why you don't understand how you can circle strafe most enemies and get easy backstabs. It takes no skill to do because the enemy AI is so bad, they just let you move to their back. The problem is there's like nothing to figure out, they show you their few attacks quite quickly. I was so disappointed with how easy the game was. I was hoping to be challenged and the game didn't challenge me.

Invasions aren't there to be balanced, they're a risk you're taking in order to be able to co-op. That's all there needs to be said about this.

Most of the time I just wanted to be human because it looked better, that was all. Most of the time when I did co-op, I did it after I beat the boss and just wanted to beat the boss again, it was annoying being invaded when I was just waiting to be summoned.

Who exactly are these "most people"? There's a bunch of people who disagreed with hazabaza's post, and some people who didn't even fight the boss at all. Including you.
If there's one thing Dark Souls is known for, it's the bosses.
By the way, you could cheese bosses with arrows much easier in Demon's Souls. The concept was good, the execution was pretty bad. Dark Souls is an improvement in this regard. Proof: this playlist [http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYk2EK7Engpm3vvgyWXqJAdjbtkp2woGx]. The guy uses the lava bow for most of his playthrough.

Just look through the thread, the people that quoted the post with the Kalameet boss fight video mostly said they thought it was a poor boss fight. Monster Hunter and Vindictus boss fights have been talked about more than Dark Souls as well.

Here's where someone said Demon's Souls boss fights were much better. I agree because my friend played Demon's Souls as I played Dark Souls and every Friday he would describe this awesome boss fight he had, which sounded awesome and I was always like I hope Dark Souls has at least a few of those kind of fights. It has nothing to do with being able to cheese the boss, it was about the puzzle aspect to them, which Dark Souls didn't have.

Spoiler: Demon's Souls vs Dark Souls

Also, and I may be in the minority here, but Demon's Souls bosses were far better overall than Dark Souls which are largely slugfests. In Demon's every boss was more like a puzzle to be solved, and also it can kill you in two or three hits. Even the slugfest bosses of it (Phalanx, Old Hero, Flamelurker) had tricks to them like the Old Hero was blind and hunted you down by sound, so you could hide your footsteps by wearing the Thief's Ring making him go from this aggressive and agile monster into him blindly walking the hall, occasionally slicing between pillars.

---

You must've gotten so lucky during that fight. I guess you never saw the corpses of cursed players that littered the area. Seath usually has a large AoE attack that can and will kill you if you just stay there and whack at him.

In another thread I had one Dark Souls expert saying I lied about Seath and another one saying everyone knows how easy Seath is so you Dark Souls experts make up your minds. I faced Seath twice, I stood in front of him the first time trying to get a feel, getting a few hits in, and I was like he doesn't seem like he can do much so I started just hitting him, I got him down to about a quarter health and he cursed me. I came back with my curse resistant clothes and ring(s) on and just stood in front of him meleeing without blocking or dodging once. What I experienced happened 2 times in a row and the only 2 times I faced him.

 

[Diablo2000]

Isn't NG+ supposed give you a similar, if not harder challenge, as your 1st playthrough? I remember someone told me recently here that beating DS the 1st time is easy and NG+ is where it's at when I said DS was too easy.

Ok first of all: "DS is too easy" is a sentiment you and no one else shares. Ask anyone in this thread who played Dark Souls and they'll tell you their first run through it was daunting and terrifying. It's widely considered one of the most difficult games this generation, and for good reasons.
Second, NG+ lets you keep all of your gear. Whoever told you NG+ is supposed to be the hardest time you'll face is seriously out of his goddamn mind.

The game should give me a great challenge without limiting myself, which is what a level 1 run does.

The game's difficulty is knowledge-based. Did you use a guide or walkthrough on your first playthrough? Because that would explain a lot. When you already know what to do and how to do it, the game stops being that hard. Hence why you limit yourself. Again, if you don't understand what a challenge run is, I'm not gonna sit here all day detailing it to you.

Where did I say a level 1 run wasn't viable?

"it's one of those things you don't really want to do"
"There's a difference between challenge runs and runs that are something you know you and everyone can do but nobody does just because it's so fucking tedious. "
What does viable mean to you? I just showed you it's not tedious and by far the most popular challenge run.

There's speed runs under 1 hour, so your 15 hour level 1 run was over 15x longer than if you didn't horribly limit yourself thus there was tedium.

...what? Genius level rationale right here. Is your average Morrowind run 15 minutes long? If not, it's tedious. Is your average Doom 2 run longer than 18 minutes? If so, it's tedious. What about Super Mario 64? More than 8 minutes? THUS THERE IS TEDIUM.

Either that or you're confusing challenge run with speed run. Proving further that you have no idea what a challenge run is. I put my time there to show you that I didn't spend hours and hours grinding something or trying to defeat a boss. Which, you know, is what being tedious is all about. Or maybe you don't know. You're being really confusing right now.
I do wonder now how long your first playthrough was.

I don't get why you don't understand how you can circle strafe most enemies and get easy backstabs. It takes no skill

Christ, I DO understand you can circle strafe the enemies in *some* areas and get easy backstabs. I'm also trying to tell you that there's nothing wrong with that. You can also block and get easy counters. Or shoot them with magic. It's not about twitch reflexes. It's about knowing what to do.

I was so disappointed with how easy the game was.

All hail phoenixmgs, conqueror of Blighttown, destroyer of Tomb of the Giants and champion of Sen's Fortress. Gaming master of the world.

Just look through the thread, the people that quoted the post with the Kalameet boss fight video mostly said they thought it was a poor boss fight.

Since you're only seeing what you want to see, let's make a list, shall we:

People who have played the game and thought Kalameet was a good boss fight:
hazabaza1 (he started the whole Kalameet discussion)
s69-5 (told you to stop comparing games to Dark Souls)
Twenty Ninjas (me)
Kilo24 ("Eh. I'd consider Dark Souls's boss fights as better overall")
Gormech ("Dark Souls Kalameet was better in my opinion just out of style")
Caramel Frappe ("Aahhhhhhh~ my favorite boss to fight against. Kalameet.")
Ragsnstitches ("The most epic 20 minutes in Dark Souls.")
XCell935 ("he ended up being my favorite dragon boss fight in video game history")
Church185 ("Dark Souls is such a thrilling game, and I can't wait for the sequel.")
grimner ("I'd still take most boss fights in Dark Souls over Dragon's Dogma's.")
Dethenger ("Yeah, Kalameet's not that bad. A sturdy boss fight, to be sure")


People who have (maybe) played the game and (maybe) thought Kalameet was a poor boss fight:
Phoenixmgs (you)
The_Lost_King ("not a huge fan of DS myself")
Cybyit ("Demon's Souls bosses were far better overall than Dark Souls")
DementedSheep ("it kinda feels like your just poking at him until he dies")

People who mentioned the fight scene or the game but either didn't play the game or didn't express an opinion on the fight itself:
Eve Charm ("Eh I don't see how ... Dark souls ... can be better")
Diablo2000 ("Dark Souls is my favorite game of all time")
Frostbyte666 (" if the boss fights are all like that in DS then I'm glad I didn't bother with it.")
Ishal ("DD tried to climb higher, but it fell and fell hard, landing below Dark Souls and Skyrim in terms of value and quality")
ThePuzzldPirate ("Dark Souls achieved what it was striving for in spades or I wouldn't keep going back to it.")
yesbag ("Nobody cares about your shielding habits")
Ponyholder ("Both are fun games")
Storm Dragon ("See, that fight there just doesn't do it for me.")

Of which, 4 like Dark Souls, 3 don't (none of them have played it), and one is neutral.

Care to dig yourself out of this hole? I've got all day.

Here's where someone said Demon's Souls boss fights were much better. I agree

One of your biggest gripes with Dark Souls is that the AI "is shit". I just gave you an entire playlist of shit Demon's Souls boss AI. I am utterly convinced that if you played Demon's Souls you would not like the boss fights for the same major reason you didn't like Dark Souls.

In another thread I had one Dark Souls expert saying I lied about Seath

I don't believe there's reason for you to lie. I believe you got the wrong impression and are now trying to argue from incomplete knowledge on the matter.

I did mention the Kalameet boss fight, I said he was easy and that could be because I had OP gear (Then again, he didn't tried to yellow ring me) when I met him and that Artorias was harder.

And about Dragon's Dogma... Yeah, so far I didn't like it very much. Fighting giant enemies are great, but I mostly fight petty globins and bandits which are a chore to fight. The story is kinda bland and so are the characters.
And the blocking and lack of dodging in this game make me apreciate Dark Souls even more.
Nice character creation though...

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Ok first of all: "DS is too easy" is a sentiment you and no one else shares. Ask anyone in this thread who played Dark Souls and they'll tell you their first run through it was daunting and terrifying. It's widely considered one of the most difficult games this generation, and for good reasons.
Second, NG+ lets you keep all of your gear. Whoever told you NG+ is supposed to be the hardest time you'll face is seriously out of his goddamn mind.

Isn't the whole point of NG+ is that you keep everything? Obviously, with that in mind, the game ups the difficulty of the enemies. It makes sense that NG+ can be harder than a 1st run if the increased difficulty is enough.

Most people that have played a good amount of games will say the Souls' games aren't hard or even close to the hardest games of the generation. Make a thread on GameFAQs (not that it's even a good forum) but there's a whole bunch of people that are going to say the Souls' games are easy. I've seen threads on the PS3 board starting something like "So, besides Demon's/Dark Souls, what's the hardest game?" and most of the comments are people saying the games aren't hard at all. It's similar to the reviews of Resonance of Fate saying that it's hard, it's only hard until you figure out the battle system, and then it's pretty easy as there's literally only 2 fucking strategies you need to use all game.

The game's difficulty is knowledge-based. Did you use a guide or walkthrough on your first playthrough? Because that would explain a lot. When you already know what to do and how to do it, the game stops being that hard. Hence why you limit yourself. Again, if you don't understand what a challenge run is, I'm not gonna sit here all day detailing it to you.

Knowledge-based difficulty isn't hard. That's like saying Portal 2 is the hardest game of this generation. I didn't use a guide at all and I even got through Sen's Fortress without getting hit with a single trap, they were so fucking easy to spot. There's only a couple strategies you ever have to use the whole game. I died a lot at the beginning because I thought as a thief I couldn't depend on blocking so I was trying to only dodge but then I found out you can block just about every enemy's attacks with a light shield. Dark Souls disguises the fact that it's an easy game by not telling you a damn thing, but once you figure out the game, it's a cakewalk. The first enemies in the Undead Burg and the knights on the way to the last boss can be fought in the exact same manner, Dark Souls just doesn't evolve as you keep playing.

Where did I say a level 1 run wasn't viable?

"it's one of those things you don't really want to do"
"There's a difference between challenge runs and runs that are something you know you and everyone can do but nobody does just because it's so fucking tedious. "
What does viable mean to you? I just showed you it's not tedious and by far the most popular challenge run.

Viable means its doable. Most people don't want to run around the block naked, it's not that they can't do it, it's that they don't want to do it. That's is what I meant. I can do a level 1 Dark Souls run, but its something I just wouldn't want to do as it wouldn't be fun.

...what? Genius level rationale right here. Is your average Morrowind run 15 minutes long? If not, it's tedious. Is your average Doom 2 run longer than 18 minutes? If so, it's tedious. What about Super Mario 64? More than 8 minutes? THUS THERE IS TEDIUM.

Either that or you're confusing challenge run with speed run. Proving further that you have no idea what a challenge run is. I put my time there to show you that I didn't spend hours and hours grinding something or trying to defeat a boss. Which, you know, is what being tedious is all about. Or maybe you don't know. You're being really confusing right now.
I do wonder now how long your first playthrough was.

I was saying that I know Dark Souls is a short game if you only go through the areas you need to and know where everything is. I'd be guessing on a normal run just going to through the areas you need to go through, it would take 5 hours or so for an experienced player. Your run took 15 hours. You compared your first time through to your level 1 playthrough which is just as bad as me comparing a speed run to your level 1 run, which is why I did that. Of course, your 1st playthrough is going to be much longer than any kind of run just going through the areas you need to go through.

Christ, I DO understand you can circle strafe the enemies in *some* areas and get easy backstabs. I'm also trying to tell you that there's nothing wrong with that. You can also block and get easy counters. Or shoot them with magic. It's not about twitch reflexes. It's about knowing what to do.

Enemies shouldn't just let you slowly walk to their backs, there's no challenge in that.

All hail phoenixmgs, conqueror of Blighttown, destroyer of Tomb of the Giants and champion of Sen's Fortress. Gaming master of the world.

Blighttown was easy. All you had to was keep your shield up to block the darts and be careful not to fall. Sen's Fortress traps were so obvious they should've had neon arrows pointing to them. The Tomb of the Giants is supposed to be hard because it's dark? One of the best parts of Dark Souls is its atmosphere, but that just gives you that creepy, on-edge feeling, it doesn't actually make the game harder.

Since you're only seeing what you want to see, let's make a list, shall we...

You proved me wrong, I forgot how many Dark Souls fans posted in this thread. I also thought more people that didn't play either game watched the video and didn't like the fight. You don't have to actually play the fight to see if you'd like it or not, I can tell from gameplay footage if I'd like a game or not. I can tell Skyrim's dragons suck from watching a friend fight one. I can tell I would hate GTAV from watching a friend play it because it's still basically the same game that it was on PS2 that I didn't like.

The Kalameet boss fight video was just the guy slashing at the dragon's shins, which is my exact problem with the Dark Souls' bosses. That's not how one would fight a dragon and it's just not epic at all.

And, I did play Dark Souls, check my trophies if you want (Phoenixmgs).

One of your biggest gripes with Dark Souls is that the AI "is shit". I just gave you an entire playlist of shit Demon's Souls boss AI. I am utterly convinced that if you played Demon's Souls you would not like the boss fights for the same major reason you didn't like Dark Souls.

But most of the AI stuff I complain about doesn't count for bosses. Can you circle strafe bosses to get easy backstabs? No. Can you pull bosses one by one with arrows? No, and you are already fighting 1v1 for the most part. And, you rarely have a stealth option during a boss fight even in Metal Gear Solid. It's a boss fight because the boss knows you're there already. I didn't like the Dark Souls bosses because as one of the other posters said, you're just poking them to death for the most part. Imagine how lame Shadow of the Colossus would be if you could just keep slashing the ankles of the colossi.

I don't believe there's reason for you to lie. I believe you got the wrong impression and are now trying to argue from incomplete knowledge on the matter.

What wrong impression? I fought Seath twice and that's what happened exactly as I explained it. There was someone in a thread that said I lied about my fight and another person that said everyone knows how easy Seath is and what I did was nothing special, which I never tried passing off as special as my point was that it was a sorry excuse for a dragon fight.

And about Dragon's Dogma... Yeah, so far I didn't like it very much. Fighting giant enemies are great, but I mostly fight petty globins and bandits which are a chore to fight. The story is kinda bland and so are the characters.
And the blocking and lack of dodging in this game make me apreciate Dark Souls even more.
Nice character creation though...

All RPGs you are fighting the lesser enemies much more than the big strong ones. The characters and story are usually bland, how many RPGs actually make you feel like the NPCs are any more than quest givers? Dragon's Dogma like most RPGs sadly is just about the fighting. The strider gets a dodge at rank 5, the game allows you to dodge or block, not both.

 

[saxman234]

Hmm this tread is very familiar . . . I feel like this just happened with Kingdom of Amalur, and the end result was that we got weird comparisons such as Bayonetta to Dark Souls. Or you just trying to validate your own opinion while bashing Dark Souls. Dragon's Dogma looks like fun, I haven't played it yet and do not have a ps3. But why do you feel the need to keep bashing Dark Souls. People love it, they have expressed their opinion on why they think that it is great, you have expressed your reasons for not enjoying it. Now it is time to move on and to stop bringing it up, you know the fans of Dark Souls will argue back.

Not everything revolves around combat for some people. Some people enjoy atmosphere, or lore, or story, or characters, etc. You seem to enjoy a certain type of fighting system, one that is more flashy, one that is fast with more things going on, which is fine. Other people like the more methodical slow combat of Dark Souls which is also fine. Some people don't really care about combat at all and just want to explore a vast world such as Skyrim, which is also fine. Basically no one is wrong with their opinions. You can try and state why you feel one way, but everyone else will have their own experience and reason for liking or disliking a game. At this point there is no where else to go, we all know your stance on Dark Souls, and you know the stance of people who love Dark Souls. There will be no agreement and that is fine. I am glad you found another rpg you really enjoy, but please do not dismiss every other beloved rpg and the people who play them.

About strictly dark souls, we understand that you think Dark Souls is simple and this is fine. I feel like the combat is incredibly exciting and deep. We have different ideas of what makes a combat situations exciting and our differences are fine. It seems like you just start these threads to get everyone riled up and to bash dark souls (because you know the dark souls fanbase will fight back).

Basically, I think the last Loading Ready Run really explained it best. "Who gives a shit".

[edit] After reading more of the thread it is painfully obvious that you like to just hate on Dark Souls for some reason and state your experience which is way completely different from what most people experience. I'm sorry Dark Souls was not as fantastic for you as it was for me and everyone else that loves the game. In my opinion it sounds like you use alot of hyperbole when describing your dark souls experience (being able to backstab everything, which has not been true in my experience (any balder knight humanoide type enemy on tries to turn towards you making backstabs tricky), saying the game is easy, which is not true for the vast majority of people, saying that it is easy to stay under 25% unencumbered, which is just not true unless you have light armor with no poise and a small weapon, etc). Also, I am not sure why you keep dismissing problems in the games you enjoy as problems that exist in all rpgs somehow trying to make it ok. If it is a problem, it is a problem. (This is for whenever anyone says something negative about Dragon's Dogma, you just dismiss it as a problem with all rpgs and you did this same exact thing in you Kingdoms post).

 

[saxman234]

I have listed so many issues with Dark Souls that are just true about the game. It seems From has fixed everything I said was broken about the game with DS2 from what people have said of the beta. If From didn't think those things were broken (or at least needed fixing) then why would they fix them? It's hard to say From succeeded when they have fixed so many things; wouldn't they just be refining instead of fixing if they succeeded? I require solid RPG mechanics from an RPG and DS failed heavily in that regard. There's so many basic things wrong with DS that should not even have made it out of the conceptual/design phase (like an unlimited inventory) let alone in the game and DS is not the 1st game but the 2nd game. So, I don't have much confidence in From making a solid RPG, maybe they can now with a different director.

It's very much like I don't have any confidence in Naughty Dog making a solid 3rd-person shooter because they have failed 4 times now with implementing proper TPS mechanics into their shooters. Do people enjoy and still play Uncharted and The Last of Us? Sure, but they have very definite shortcomings with regards to their mechanics. You can't even change the fucking camera sensitivity in those games (and the camera is sluggish as hell), which was what you fucking aim with in a TPS.

I may indeed be too harsh on DS but others are blind to the game's flaws or fail to admit they are there.

Ahahhh I wanted to stay out of specific quotes and thread. But how is an unlimited inventory a basic design choice that is wrong?!? Next, you point out that having an unlimited inventory is a terrible conceptual design idea?! Know what is one thing I hate in many rpgs, having a limited inventory! Every weapon is unique and viable in Dark Souls unlike every other rpg so why shouldn't I be able to carry all of them if I want to. It would just be dumb if I could only carry on me 2 right hand weapons and 2 left hand weapons. Opps, I'm just gonna drop my katana that I have leveled up because I found a rapier that I want to carry. Next, it is fantastic that they are changing stuff for what they think is for the better, but change doesn't mean the last game is bad! Every good series makes changes between sequels. auahahuha, This is why everyone fights you, you are relentless with your hatred of Dark Souls for dumb reasons and just want everyones approval. You state 'problems' are facts (or to quote you "just true about the game", it is your opinion! Opinion (god damn I want to use capitalization, but I have given people shit about capitalizing stuff).

I think Skyward Sword is horribly designed at points, I hate the separated overworld, I feel like most things in the game are time wasters (such as collecting tadpoles, going back to the first dungeon for a glass of water, repeat boss fights, etc), I can go on and on why I am disappointed by the game but at the end of the day it is just my opinion. Technical issues (such as matchmaking issues in a multiplayer game, inconsistent framerate etc), may be stated be 'factual' problems, but game design choices such as unlimited inventory or slower combat is not a factual problem.

Everything that you hate in Dark Souls 1 will be present in DS2, please do us a favor and just do not play it. You will waste your money, you will despise it, you will not have to mention it in future post, and everyone will be happy for it.

 

[newwiseman]

I remember my first drake in that game, I was way under level for the fight. My companions died instantly and I was doing next to zero damage. The fight took around 5 hours with a bathroom break... great fun. Too bad you can't buy the added content as DLC; or play it on PC.

 

[Phantom Kat]

Dragon's Dogma actually looks fun with interesting fights, though I'm sad it's not on PC as I cbf buying a ps3 or 360 at this point in time.

Heavy is the head that wears the (PC gaming master race's) crown.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

That is bullshit and you know it. Every gaming publication known to man harps on about Dark Souls being difficult, no review (official or user-made) has ever mentioned it being easy, and the whole POINT of the easy mode debacle is that the difficulty turns people off. I am dead certain that the overwhelming majority of people (that is, 90% or more) who have ever played this game consider it one of the more difficult, if not the most difficult, games they've ever played. The whole reason Demon's Souls sold so well was its difficulty. Dark Souls is not considered much easier.

That's bullshit too. This is why I hate Dark Souls fans so much, so much fucking hyperbole. DS is one of the most difficult games you ever played? LMFOA, did you just start gaming this gen? The very 1st Super Mario Brothers is a harder game, The Lion King is a fucking harder game. DS is only considered hard because of how easy modern games usually are in comparison. Most games are designed for you to beat them the first time to experience the game and its story, and the harder difficulty levels are where the real challenge is, which is why I start almost every game on hard. Dark Souls, on the other hand, doesn't want to just "let" you beat it so people think it's hard.

Here's a review [http://gripyajoystick.com/review-dark-souls/] saying Dark Souls is not hard. I came into DS hoping for a legitimate hard game, it's not hard. All you have to do is learn the game's mechanics and it's a cakewalk. There's only a couple strategies you ever have to use all game, and you just do the same couple things over and over again. I died a lot in the beginning because I picked thief as my class and I thought I had to play like a thief until I realized I could block just about anything (I thought I'd have to dodge to survive). Then, the game got kinda hard again as my weapon wasn't doing much damage as I figured I would find better weapons so I leveled up my weapon and I was fine again (I actually beat Sif when I had a weapon that did like no damage). It's like the reviews of Resonance of Fate saying the game is hard when you just have to learn the battle system and 2 strategies and you're golden all game.

Viable means its doable.

It actually means practicable, workable. But okay. You didn't say it's not doable. You said about a thousand other things that conflict with reality.

Don't you realize viable, doable, workable are all synonyms?

My last 3 completed characters: 20 hours, 28 hours, 20 hours. I re-checked my sl1 time, and it's 21 hours. With the DLC, which is a few more hours. So let's say 17 hours without the DLC.
"just going through the areas you need to go through"? You keep using that phrase. There are 4 areas you don't need to go through: Darkroot Basin, Ash Lake, Great Hollow and Painted World. Altogether these amount to about 3 hours of gameplay, and I'm being generous. So tell me again about all these areas I'm doing just to lengthen my playthroughs.
But that's not even the point. WHY would I not want to go through them? If I enjoy the game, I'm not gonna rush to finish it. Or did you think that's what "run" meant? No, "run" has nothing to do with speed run. It's just a normal playthrough. Same goes for doing it at soul level 1.

Oh, come on. I'm not a Dark Souls expert but there's a lot more you can skip but those 4 areas. I know you only have to go through a very small part of Blighttown for example.

So let me get this straight: if you think someone's making a shitty comparison, you make another shitty comparison RIGHT BACK AT THEM to prove you're just as good as them at making shitty comparisons. No attempt to understand, no explanation, you just let it rip and figure they'll magically understand. Because god forbid someone makes a shittier comparison than you. What can I say. Congratulations.

Don't give me a shitty comparison and I won't give one back. Stupid questions deserve stupid answers too. You knew your SL1 time vs your 1st playthrough time was shit.

I think most people will agree with me that in the case of games like Dark Souls, Monster Hunter and any other atmospheric or intense games, you do indeed have to play the game in order to tell whether you like it. But by all means, keep insisting of the contrary. I'm sure there was never any game that you've ever disliked where you've changed your mind after trying it. Nor does that ever happen.

Dark Souls and Monster Hunter are very dependent on their game mechanics and combat system. Yeah, Dark Souls has good atmosphere and you have to play it to understand that, but you don't have to play it so see if you'd enjoy the combat, and if you don't like the combat, you won't like the game very much. Dark Souls is not at all similar to say Amnesia or Silent Hill where it's pretty much all atmosphere.

Let me use the argument from subjectivity for once: It was epic enough to me. In fact it was more epic than most flashy scripted fights in other games. Kalameet, the last of the great dragons, shot down from the sky by the giant spear-arrow of a blind dragonslayer giant. You, the small undead trying to keep from turning hollow, engaging this ancient beast with only sword and shield. You, the time traveller, seeking to evoke the dragonslayer's glory and knighthood's highest calling with no audience and no one to speak of your exploits, with only sheer strength of will as your motivation. The significance and weight behind it is more than enough to carry the feeling.

All that has nothing to do with the fight itself. The description has no impact on the actual fight itself. Hell, that description can just lead to a quicktime event or just straight cutscene. If anything, that description would make the fight that much more disappointing as I'd be like "that's all it took to kill Kalameet?"

I didn't like the Dark Souls bosses because as one of the other posters said, you're just poking them to death for the most part.

And that is exactly what happens in Demon's Souls as well. For the most part, at least. The Dragon King (which is bed of chaos redux) and Storm Ruler are a bit different, admittedly.

From my friend and the following poster's reply, most of the bosses in Demon's Souls were puzzles to be solved. I'm sure there were a couple just "hit them until they die" bosses but for the most part the Demon's Souls gave you a way to take out the boss if you were smart enough to figure it out. Maybe you didn't fight them that way, but the point is that option was available. Dark Souls disappointed me because I was hoping for boss fights like that as my friend told me about his awesome Demon's Souls boss fights.

Spoiler: Demon's Souls' bosses

Also, and I may be in the minority here, but Demon's Souls bosses were far better overall than Dark Souls which are largely slugfests. In Demon's every boss was more like a puzzle to be solved, and also it can kill you in two or three hits. Even the slugfest bosses of it (Phalanx, Old Hero, Flamelurker) had tricks to them like the Old Hero was blind and hunted you down by sound, so you could hide your footsteps by wearing the Thief's Ring making him go from this aggressive and agile monster into him blindly walking the hall, occasionally slicing between pillars.

Flamelurker didn't really have such tricks to him, sadly, other than the fact that if you pumped your flame resistance with certain gear you could halve his damage and effectively negate his AoE bursts.

how many RPGs actually make you feel like the NPCs are any more than quest givers?

You should play Baldur's Gate 2.

Most RPGs have NPCs that are just quest givers and nothing else. I know there are exceptions but those are, of course, exceptions and not the norm. Bioware and Obsidian are the main companies that give character to their NPCs. Going into Dark Souls or Dragon's Dogma and expecting good NPC characters is kinda stupid.

Not everything revolves around combat for some people. Some people enjoy atmosphere, or lore, or story, or characters, etc. You seem to enjoy a certain type of fighting system, one that is more flashy, one that is fast with more things going on, which is fine. Other people like the more methodical slow combat of Dark Souls which is also fine. Some people don't really care about combat at all and just want to explore a vast world such as Skyrim, which is also fine. Basically no one is wrong with their opinions. You can try and state why you feel one way, but everyone else will have their own experience and reason for liking or disliking a game. At this point there is no where else to go, we all know your stance on Dark Souls, and you know the stance of people who love Dark Souls. There will be no agreement and that is fine. I am glad you found another rpg you really enjoy, but please do not dismiss every other beloved rpg and the people who play them.

[edit] After reading more of the thread it is painfully obvious that you like to just hate on Dark Souls for some reason and state your experience which is way completely different from what most people experience. I'm sorry Dark Souls was not as fantastic for you as it was for me and everyone else that loves the game. In my opinion it sounds like you use alot of hyperbole when describing your dark souls experience (being able to backstab everything, which has not been true in my experience (any balder knight humanoide type enemy on tries to turn towards you making backstabs tricky), saying the game is easy, which is not true for the vast majority of people, saying that it is easy to stay under 25% unencumbered, which is just not true unless you have light armor with no poise and a small weapon, etc). Also, I am not sure why you keep dismissing problems in the games you enjoy as problems that exist in all rpgs somehow trying to make it ok. If it is a problem, it is a problem. (This is for whenever anyone says something negative about Dragon's Dogma, you just dismiss it as a problem with all rpgs and you did this same exact thing in you Kingdoms post).

I would LOVE an RPG with literally no combat. I usually don't play RPGs because the combat isn't good, and the combat not being good or even great isn't a dealbreaker; the dealbreaker is when the combat isn't good and that's a majority of the game. I can go to a game like Bayonetta for combat, I go to RPGs for something more than just combat. If I'm fighting stuff most of my game time, why am I slogging through such and such RPG dealing with bad combat when the story and characters aren't even good? So many RPGs are exactly that. RPGs for the most part have lost their way, they are way too combat focused while not delivering that well on the combat. When did I ever say I don't like slow combat, none my criticisms of Dark Souls have anything to do with its slow combat.

I shouldn't be able to circle strafe around any enemy for easy backstabs. I said it was easy to stay under 25% unencumbered because your character can hold literally everything you pick up. What you are holding (and what you have equipped) should go into your carrying weight. I'm not dismissing problems, I'm saying that if those problems are dismissed in say Skyrim, they should be dismissed in other games too. It's a double standard to levy a problem against one game and not against another when both games have said problem. That's my point. I'm very hard on games when I score them, I'm not acting like Kingdoms or Dragon's Dogma are 10/10 games (I'd say both are in the 6.5-7.5 range but so are the RPGs that get praised as well).

Ahahhh I wanted to stay out of specific quotes and thread. But how is an unlimited inventory a basic design choice that is wrong?!? Next, you point out that having an unlimited inventory is a terrible conceptual design idea?! Know what is one thing I hate in many rpgs, having a limited inventory! Every weapon is unique and viable in Dark Souls unlike every other rpg so why shouldn't I be able to carry all of them if I want to. It would just be dumb if I could only carry on me 2 right hand weapons and 2 left hand weapons. Opps, I'm just gonna drop my katana that I have leveled up because I found a rapier that I want to carry. Next, it is fantastic that they are changing stuff for what they think is for the better, but change doesn't mean the last game is bad! Every good series makes changes between sequels. auahahuha, This is why everyone fights you, you are relentless with your hatred of Dark Souls for dumb reasons and just want everyones approval. You state 'problems' are facts (or to quote you "just true about the game", it is your opinion! Opinion (god damn I want to use capitalization, but I have given people shit about capitalizing stuff).

I think Skyward Sword is horribly designed at points, I hate the separated overworld, I feel like most things in the game are time wasters (such as collecting tadpoles, going back to the first dungeon for a glass of water, repeat boss fights, etc), I can go on and on why I am disappointed by the game but at the end of the day it is just my opinion. Technical issues (such as matchmaking issues in a multiplayer game, inconsistent framerate etc), may be stated be 'factual' problems, but game design choices such as unlimited inventory or slower combat is not a factual problem.

Everything that you hate in Dark Souls 1 will be present in DS2, please do us a favor and just do not play it. You will waste your money, you will despise it, you will not have to mention it in future post, and everyone will be happy for it.

Just because you hate a limited inventory doesn't make it bad. Why would you only be able to hold 2 weapons per hand? You are able to hold as much weight as your inventory allows for with any combination of weapons/items/armor. Most of my complaints I have about Dark Souls, I have legit reasons for. You can't have 3 kinds of magic with 2 requiring a stat and 1 not requiring a stat when PvP is part of the game. If Dark Souls was only PvE, then that balance issue isn't a problem, and I wouldn't give a shit about it. With my complaint about the controls not letting you backpedal or strafe with a shield up is because the game literally doesn't let me do what I should be able/want to do. Whereas if you made the change to the controls to allow for that, it would take literally nothing away from another player as you will still be able to turn around just as fast as you currently can. Something like a whole stat (resistance) not doing anything is just poor game design, that is fixed in Dark Souls 2.

I haven't played Skyward Sword but you're probably right about it as my friend, who is a die hard Zelda fan, just can't force himself to even finish it. Professional reviewers are horrible (almost all) and give games scores much higher than they deserve.

Almost everything I hate about Dark Souls will be fixed in Dark Souls 2.