Why does Dark Souls get so much praise?

[Headdrivehardscrew]

First things first, my flabby friend:

[HEADING=1]It's not about age; it never is.[/HEADING]

To me, Dark Souls feels a lot like myths and legends... and grandma's bedtime stories.

Boiled down to TLR essentials, I would have to agree that combat is the main interactive course on offer here, but there's really so much more. Dark Souls (and Demon's Souls, mind you!) has inspired, invigorated and annoyed me like no other, not before, not since. The variety of enemy creatures and the design of the bosses just makes me beam and grin and dance with gaming bliss. To me, Dark Souls feels very much like one of those old role-playing adventures, where most of the action takes place in the privacy of one's own imagination - combined with a 3D rendering of the old, unforgiving platformers of yore. It's got the legs of Makaimura/Ghosts'n'Goblins, the ass of Bard's Tale and the eyes of H. R. Giger. Rare mix, that.

The feeling of proper, true, genuine exploration was just so... amazing and overwhelming the first time you manage to break out of your initial confinement, as you find yourself enjoying your new freedom, mostly by exploring Lordran and dying like there's just no tomorrow, ever. But there is!

The lack of exposition through yadda yadda blah cutscenes still feels refreshing to me. every cutscene, every talkie NPC just gets more weighted, like a really heavy, heavy thing. OMG! CUTSCENE! PLEASE LORD, NOT NOW, I AM NOT READY AND ALL OUT OF ESTUS!

You don't have to dabble in fan theories to let the look and feel of Dark Souls get to you, touch you in places it almost feels like molestation and inspire you in whatever it is you do outside of everyday, boring mundane life. I used Dark Souls to get back into drawing and painting, even though I was dead certain I wouldn't have time to do so. I decided to it anyway and, hey, I suddenly had so much more time to do so many more things. Life is short. Dark Souls managed to just naturally nudge me into being better at being myself, despite being myself. And it's been doing so for five years now. That's very, very rare for a game.

The feeling of accomplishment when you 'get' a boss, understand their attacks, tells and timings was (and still is) second-to-none. All the options you have for upgrading your weapon(s) of choice - sure, most of them are useless in PVP or plain suck for anything, really. Still, figuring things out before you load up the wiki and SimStim all the accumulated knowledge into that brain of yours - Dark Souls just did it right, like no other.

The places you visit, the characters (unique and sometimes not-so-unique, hello Berserk) you meet and the bosses you eventually kill after they've made you gasp and curse and die by pretty much doing everything wrong - to me, they are the stuff of game-making Legend. If dreams need to be woven, give me nothing but Dark/Demon's Souls, a thousand pages of Clive Barker and a good bottle of gin. Something caffeinated will also do.

I think you're cheating yourself out of a really, really good ride when you reduce Dark Souls to "100% combat". I don't know about you, but the first few hours of Dark Souls, to me, were all about going in all the wrong directions, bumping my head against enemies that would just one-shot me and dance on my mangled corpse, with me rejoicing at any and all progress made (real or perceived) and marvelling at the new locales and vistas thrown at me. Plus, dragons. Scary, deadly dragons. Well, one dragon. But a really big and angry one. The Red Asshole Dragon of Lordran.

The combat in Dark Souls - I like to compare it to making sushi. striving for Perfection (with a capital P) is key, I think. If you don't feel that urge, I would assume it instantly makes things feel bland, mundane and boring.

As for complexity - I have to disagree, strongly. Look where the games, the industry, we as consumers are at now. Look at, say, the fighting and climbing/freerunning/parkour subsystems of Assassin's Creed. When they work, we're all having a blast. When they don't, you'll end up crouching on a chair, getting chopped and sliced to inevitable death by your pursuers while you do little more than defiantly teabagging that chair, trying to get off.

The limitations of Dark Souls gave me boundaries within which I felt like I had almost absolute freedom to do what I want, to kill whomever I want (also by accident, WHAT? I NEEDED THAT GUY!) and to explore and discover at my own leisure. Back in the days when Dark Souls was fresh, hardly any two players had the exact same ride - beyond the dying-a-lot bit, of course.

You don't need to praise the Sun to respect it just doing its thing. And that's cool.


BTW, someone just bumped an old OG article on Dark Souls over at Kotaku. Now, I don't like Kotaku. But that Dark Souls article (What Dark Souls Is Really About, 2012), written by one Chris Dahlen, makes for an excellent read, methinks. Not all is lost. Then again, I am tainted by the Touch of Dark Souls and a stubborn will to never let hope die. Silly, I know.

 

[Kerg3927]

In addition to all that's been said in favor of the game, I really do think that DS is a franchise that you truly benefit from playing right at release.

I've played every Souls game well after its release date and I absolutely adore the games. It's something to consider, but it's not core to what makes them great games.

With the bugs and glitches that happen in the first weeks, I'm pretty much against playing any AAA title right at release. But I agree that playing Dark Souls online when there's lots of players gives a slightly different experience (faster to summon other players and be summoned, more messages, more bloodstains, more freaking invasions, etc...)

Assuming you're into that. I opted out of the MP for my fourth Souls game. I didn't want any help and I didn't wanna deal with overpowered opponents, cheaters, lag and idlers who never show themselves, preventing you from going through fog gates. Almost every single message is spam, and often they will prevent you from interacting with objects, such as switches and bonfires. I used to like the MP, but after three games it's lost its thrills and just became tedious.

I just started the series a couple of months ago. Played DS1 three times through, and I'm currently on my first DS2 playthrough. DS3 is next. I had just finished Witcher 3, which I thought was a solid game, and DS just blew it out of the water and made it seem almost like a waste of time by comparison. I don't even know if I am going to play the new Witcher 3 DLC, and it's already paid for. I'm worried that once I'm done with DS, future RPG's are going to feel like weaksauce, tedious busywork, and I've been playing RPG's for 30 years. It's changed my whole perception of gaming.

I'm not much into MP, although I do participate when invaded. But DS stands on its own as a great game even if you play entirely offline. It's a secondary part of the game, IMO. But if MP is a big deal, there seems to still be an active fanbase playing these games. In DS1, I finally went offline when I was trying to learn and beat O&S in Anor Londo because I couldn't clear to and summon Solaire fast enough before I would get invaded. And there are still messages on the ground everywhere, most of them spam, some of them humorous, occasionally they are helpful for secret doors and chest traps.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

I just started the series a couple of months ago. Played DS1 three times through, and I'm currently on my first DS2 playthrough. DS3 is next. I had just finished Witcher 3, which I thought was a solid game, and DS just blew it out of the water and made it seem almost like a waste of time by comparison. I don't even know if I am going to play the new Witcher 3 DLC, and it's already paid for. I'm worried that once I'm done with DS, future RPG's are going to feel like weaksauce, tedious busywork, and I've been playing RPG's for 30 years. It's changed my whole perception of gaming.

Welcome, friend. Yes, absolutely. I've been living this nightmare for more than half a decade now. Life after Dark Souls is, indeed, different.

I finished Witcher 3. Wanted to do hard mode. Wanted to play all the DLC I bought. So far, I never did. I did take part in the Demon's Souls Global Restart Day. I finished Dark Souls 3 half a dozen times, helped an odd two dozen buddies and friends complete it, played PVP for... days, not hours. Last time I took a gaming break from Souls, I sleepwalked through Uncharted 4. The games are stacking up, have been doing so for years now. There might be a hint of Groundhog Day in this, but I'm having a good time. I also have a bookshelf filled with copies of Demon's Souls. Because it's my favourite game.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

In addition to all that's been said in favor of the game, I really do think that DS is a franchise that you truly benefit from playing right at release.

I've played every Souls game well after its release date and I absolutely adore the games. It's something to consider, but it's not core to what makes them great games.

That's why I said benefits from and not that it's required. I played DS1 a decent time after release with very little multiplayer and it's my favorite. But in DS3 (and 2 I guess) I got to decipher people's cryptic and often trolly messages that sometimes warned me of traps up ahead and participate in a more vibrant multiplayer scene.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

In addition to all that's been said in favor of the game, I really do think that DS is a franchise that you truly benefit from playing right at release. The sense of wonder and exploration is much higher and the buzz within the community makes for a different experience than trying it months or years later. Dark Souls (to me) is at its best when you have that dichotomy between the oppressive and nihilistic nature of the story and world combined with the teasing and mildly dirty messages left by players on the ground.

Also, not everyone has to like the same stuff. It's no one's job to prove one side wrong and the other right.

The downside of playing at release is the fact that a lot of games nowadays feel unfinished when they launch. At best they have a couple DLCs which add new areas and story and content, but now you have to buy them separately when you could just wait for a complete edition and get everything.

The worst case(and this happens even more often) are bugs that somehow didn't get caught by the QA department(and sometimes major ones, like a bonfire crashing the game). BTW, did they ever fix that hacker problem DS3 was said to have or is FROM still acting like it's not their problem?

In both cases, it feels like it makes more sense just to wait for the complete version to drop and then buy it. Presumably then you get the entire package the way it was meant to be, with fewer bugs and less content, for the same or even lesser price then you would have paid orignally.

And if game companies don't want people feeling cynical about this stuff, maybe the games should be complete and relatively bug free at launch.

I agree with you completely on wanting a bug-free and complete experience, and in a perfect world you wouldn't have to choose between a complete game or purchasing earlier into its life cycle. When it comes to Souls games I think From has done a better job than many developers in providing that complete experience with relatively few bugs (non dsfix DS1 excluded. That was a mess). The DS3 bonfire bug for example could be fixed by setting the lighting to low, probably one of the easier workarounds for a pc game ever. I found the durability bug and controller deadzone issues from DS2 much more annoying, and those were never patched out by the developers. Not saying the bonfire bug should be given a free pass, just that it's not that intrusive.

I believe they started addressing the hacking issue and reevaluating their system for determining bannable behavior, but don't quote me on that. I haven't played DS3 in months. Anyway, my point is I don't see much benefit in waiting to purchase a Souls game later on. There might be bugs but they're not going to get fixed anyway based on From's track record, and I haven't found many people claiming they felt that a DS game was unfinished or not worth the money. Too linear, too easy, too fan-servicey-too repetitive? Sure, I've seen all those things, but not unfinished (again, except for maybe DS1 since so many people don't find the post Lord Vessel content up to snuff.

And again, I agree with you completely. I can't help but be cynical myself based on the number of absolutely shoddy pc versions of some games that have come out recently. I just enjoy being a part of the initial surge of players in a DS game and I think it's something to consider.

 

[runic knight]

Dark souls is a great game of atmosphere, deep lore, solid combat, uncompromising difficulty (not, this is not the same as easy or hard, merely it doesn't give up its difficulty in response to the player being good or bad at the game, thus having more defined skill requirements), and with the first game in particular, a great metroid-vania style map to explore in nearly any order you wish to go.

I do get the criticisms you've made, though it seems largely to come fro ma place of comparing the game towards that of fighting or DMC style games, when it isn't trying to be that. The lore is very deep, but it is given to you not in great exposition, but rather pieces you must figure out yourself if you wish to know. That is one of the puzzle aspects of the game.

The combat is slower for a reason, as it is meant to test your ability to judge the risk and reward of an action on the fly but also make your decisions carry weight for the time they take to complete. With the higher difficulties of NG+ and especially during multiplayer combat, this can be a very deep and enjoyable experience as when to attack, block, parry, cast, use items or flee outright become far tighter windows of opportunity and usually always with a great risk/reward aspect in play. This is where the idea of combobreakers pops in when in the middle of a 2-4 swing r1 combo, you keep increasing the likelyhood of a parry that would wreck you. On in the middle of a set up for a heavy attack you could get a heavy blast of spell to the face. When added to the shear variety of weapon movesets you could run against, it makes the combat a lot more involved then you present here.

I will say elements like physics to attacks or the ability to climb and even parkor would be an interesting element to see in the games. I do know that it would take out some of the way the games have faced character interaction with level design, but it could lead to interesting ideas.

 

[Dalisclock]

I agree with you completely on wanting a bug-free and complete experience, and in a perfect world you wouldn't have to choose between a complete game or purchasing earlier into its life cycle. When it comes to Souls games I think From has done a better job than many developers in providing that complete experience with relatively few bugs (non dsfix DS1 excluded. That was a mess). The DS3 bonfire bug for example could be fixed by setting the lighting to low, probably one of the easier workarounds for a pc game ever. I found the durability bug and controller deadzone issues from DS2 much more annoying, and those were never patched out by the developers. Not saying the bonfire bug should be given a free pass, just that it's not that intrusive.

I believe they started addressing the hacking issue and reevaluating their system for determining bannable behavior, but don't quote me on that. I haven't played DS3 in months. Anyway, my point is I don't see much benefit in waiting to purchase a Souls game later on. There might be bugs but they're not going to get fixed anyway based on From's track record, and I haven't found many people claiming they felt that a DS game was unfinished or not worth the money. Too linear, too easy, too fan-servicey-too repetitive? Sure, I've seen all those things, but not unfinished (again, except for maybe DS1 since so many people don't find the post Lord Vessel content up to snuff.

And again, I agree with you completely. I can't help but be cynical myself based on the number of absolutely shoddy pc versions of some games that have come out recently. I just enjoy being a part of the initial surge of players in a DS game and I think it's something to consider.

I was talking more in general then anything else. FROM actually seems to do DLC right, where the Atorais DLC was a nice add-on that doesn't feel like something chopped off and held for ransom and I've heard the DS2 DLC are generally the same way(However, I haven't played DS2, just read a lot about it considering I got kinda obsessed while playing DS1 recently).

I intend to play DS2 and DS3 someday, though with DS3 I'm just gonna wait for the complete, all DLC included game because right now there's no reason not to. Having finished DS1 for the first time last weekend, I kind of need a break from the series for a few months at least(Taking 70 hours to finish a game will do that) and by the time I'm ready to jump back in, the complete DS3 will be out, probably.

This probably would be more of a dilemma if I had already beaten DS long ago and was pumped up when DS3 came out, rather then finally becoming interested enough in the series to actually jump into it with all the DS3 hype. It also made me realize that I already had DS1 in my steam account, from 3 years ago.

Of course, my big dilemma is probably going to be whether to play DS2 or DS3 first, assuming DS3 actually has all it's DLC released by the time I'm prepared to die again.

I really, really wish Bloodborne would get a PC release because that's the game I'm more interested in then either DS2 or DS3, despite the fact I know this is probably never going to happen because Sony is a greedy bastard. So I'll probably have to wait for a good deal on the PS4 to grab one and Bloodborne.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

Of course, my big dilemma is probably going to be whether to play DS2 or DS3 first, assuming DS3 actually has all it's DLC released by the time I'm prepared to die again.

I clocked in hundreds of hours in DS2, but it's the only Souls title where the vast majority of hours was spent doing nothing but honourable, competitive multiplayer. There was hardly a boss I cared to see again. There wasn't a single zone I absolutely wanted to experience again. It's a shame.

The game itself, to me and many others, has no soul. Miyazaki was busy doing Bloodborne when the B Team cobbled together a Souls-like. Enemies and bosses are mostly very uninspired, and the few gems it has on offer came exclusively through DLC and the Scholar of the First Sin special edition re-release. For me, it was too little, too late. I do know people that absolutely love DS2, but all of them played DS2 as their first Souls title, ever.

I really, really wish Bloodborne would get a PC release because that's the game I'm more interested in then either DS2 or DS3, despite the fact I know this is probably never going to happen because Sony is a greedy bastard. So I'll probably have to wait for a good deal on the PS4 to grab one and Bloodborne.

If Sony was just greedy, they'd hire a random team to patch up a quick fix PC release and sell it on PC full price (special shout-out to Gearbox). Bloodborne is PS-exclusive because Sony sponsored the gig, just like they did with Demon's Souls. Bloodborne was set up to be a system seller. Maybe we can eventually convince Sony (and From?) that a lot of us are willing to throw money at them again, if they just reconsider their stance.

 

[Trunkage]

In addition to all that's been said in favor of the game, I really do think that DS is a franchise that you truly benefit from playing right at release.

I've played every Souls game well after its release date and I absolutely adore the games. It's something to consider, but it's not core to what makes them great games.

I thank god every I didn't pick up DS1 on release. By the time I got to play it there were let's play and they could tell me where to go. Because I almost gave up after first going to the Catacombs and New Londo seemed. I didn't even see the stairs so I could have missed the whole experience because they didn't give me a clue of where to go.

EDIT: It was really stupid because I kept starting Let's Plays to see which area I should go next, then turn them off before they got anywhere so I could experience it myself.

 

[DefunctTheory]

I thank god every I didn't pick up DS1 on release. By the time I got to play it there were let's play and they could tell me where to go. Because I almost gave up after first going to the Catacombs and New Londo seemed. I didn't even see the stairs so I could have missed the whole experience because they didn't give me a clue of where to go.

That's actually why I loved DS1. Before I went one inch in the 'right' direction in the first game, I had almost reach Pinwheel, and spent an hour or so in Lando. And then, almost like magic, I happened to see the stair case to the first proper area.

I was really wondering why everything was so god damn hard.

 

[SqueezetheFlab]

In addition to all that's been said in favor of the game, I really do think that DS is a franchise that you truly benefit from playing right at release.

I've played every Souls game well after its release date and I absolutely adore the games. It's something to consider, but it's not core to what makes them great games.

With the bugs and glitches that happen in the first weeks, I'm pretty much against playing any AAA title right at release. But I agree that playing Dark Souls online when there's lots of players gives a slightly different experience (faster to summon other players and be summoned, more messages, more bloodstains, more freaking invasions, etc...)

Assuming you're into that. I opted out of the MP for my fourth Souls game. I didn't want any help and I didn't wanna deal with overpowered opponents, cheaters, lag and idlers who never show themselves, preventing you from going through fog gates. Almost every single message is spam, and often they will prevent you from interacting with objects, such as switches and bonfires. I used to like the MP, but after three games it's lost its thrills and just became tedious.

This x infinity (although on the message/object point, I think the option is given of which one you want to interact with). Multiplayer is at best a double edged sword, where the flaws are often greater than the benefits. I'd much rather be in control of what I play and be able to do as I please than having to deal with all the drawbacks that result from a flawed network implementation.

This, and the very fact that this series loses a good amount of the feelings of isolation, unease and need for resourcefulness when "Pra1s3daSunG0d3" or whoever shows up. The passive mp mode is definitely a nice extra when it works well, but that's the keyword here imo, "extra".

 

[SqueezetheFlab]

In addition to all that's been said in favor of the game, I really do think that DS is a franchise that you truly benefit from playing right at release.

I've played every Souls game well after its release date and I absolutely adore the games. It's something to consider, but it's not core to what makes them great games.

Same here. I can understand the appeal of the party atmosphere of a new game with everyone on it, but like I said in a post above, it ends up changing the feeling of the game, which in this case is a big thing.

There were still just enough people playing Demon's Souls when I first went through it to get a full spectrum of the game's design anyways. Oddly though for that one I don't remember running into any of the spammers, glitchers and cheaters I got playing DS1 for the first time, at around the same point after initial release.

 

[Athennesi]

Well, it seems there are two very wildly different perceptions of the game.
Personally, I found the game, in equal parts interesting and tedious, well crafted and very flawed.
World: 9/10
Lore, an interesting blend of Asian inspired mythology in a more Western setting, great and layered level design and art style... very compelling world to explore. Those three are the strongest aspects of the game, by far.
Ambience: 8/10
Nihilistic theme was captivating at first, but after some point those "Mwahahaha" lines after end of dialogue ( which really isn't well written, in some parts, honestly closer to being amateurish) felt childishly contrived. Overall good atmosphere, a bit hampered by sound design, lack of (even brief) music and far too many trash mobs( whose positioning and jumping at player around the corners after a while, became far too annoying and predictable).
Combat: 6/10...I've mentioned this in previous thread. Great variety of styles, weapons and enemies, slow and more tactical approach, well implemented game mechanics into the world, but at the same time indefensibly flawed when it comes to fundamentals, polish and precision: camera, lock on, physics, hit boxes, animation clipping and sync, enemy AI, UI, sounds, controls and input lag, lackluster visual effects, "cheese factor", plus poorly designed and implemented archery/magic systems/bombs. Overall decent, but unexceptional animation quality.
Also, I prefer combat where player actually feels skilled or grows in skill and game play reflects that, as well as rewards creativity and quick thinking: fenomenal combos from Bayonetta/Gaiden/DmC, brutality from Severance, Arkham/Witcher/Mordor choreography...in DS, whatever your style or preference, at the end of the day, you're never a master swordsman/duellist/etc...more a master "strafer" .
I think the game would've Hugely benefit, from having less varied unique weapon animations, but more extensive "character progression" in existing ones, like in Severance, with player advancing at mastering different techniques instead of never moving past basic attacks.
After a while( especially post Anor Londo), it felt more and more like something that keeps getting in the way of enjoying the game, than simply being difficult/"hardcore"/whatever. A test of patience, as much as skill, than anything else.
Few other things:
Excellent character customization
Solid crafting system
Good soundtrack
Poor net code
Lackluster New Game +
And in my opinion, rather disappointing endings... simply too brief and uninspired. Wait, I played 60+ hours and died over and over for THAT?

 

[SqueezetheFlab]

.
Also, I prefer combat where player actually feels skilled or grows in skill and game play reflects that, as well as rewards creativity and quick thinking: fenomenal combos from Bayonetta/Gaiden/DmC, brutality from Severance, Arkham/Witcher/Mordor choreography...in DS, whatever your style or preference, at the end of the day, you're never a master swordsman/duellist/etc...more a master "strafer" .

Yes, I miss this as well from other RPGs.

That is why the game became very tedious very quickly to me. The gameplay, unlike in other games where you unlock more moves/combos/abilities, stays pretty much the same from the get go and all you really get better at is in being able to dodge more frequently, or take more hits, or deal more damage.

Contrast that with DmC where you unlock more combos, or even the darksiders games where you can progress your techniques in addition to your weapon damage (though that was admittedly a weaker aspect of that game).

And not to discount what you said at the end of your post:

Maybe you have played Vampire: The Masquerade. The combat in that game wasn't any better, but it did have the skill progression thing going for it (if I remember correctly) along with an ending where it felt like you made one hell of a difference.

That game was to me an example of having a wonderfully crafted story where you genuinely felt you were a part of a whole new universe. Some might perceive the story as being spoon fed, but that was the genius of it: It was an interactive story at it's heart, but it still didn't detract from the incredible ambience that game created, or from the myriad bits of lore that were inside the game taken directly from the literature.

.. Talking about endings. Final Fantasy Tactics. I honestly never saw that coming (not spoiling it).

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I'm pushing 40, so if I just don't "get it", please just say so and help me die inside a little bit more.

As a guy at a similar age to you, I'm not sure why not "getting" the appeal of a particular game would make you "die inside". By now you should be familiar with your predilections and preferences and comfortable with the reality that not everything is going to match up perfectly with them.

Dark Souls is not "Complex Combat: The RPG". It is oversold as the hard, complicated game for hard, complicated men to play while drinking whiskey and waxing their chest hair. While the game is reasonably challenging and has a relatively high skill floor, it's also incredibly forgiving, not does feature any real loss condition, and can be easily overcome through practice and repetition by the most middling of talents.

But the repetition and trial and error, often a hallmark of laziness in design, is actually a thematic push here. This, at least for me, is where Dark Souls is praiseworthy. It wraps its game play mechanics into its lore and its atmosphere. It's about a dying world where all the fires are going out. You're supposed to feel melancholy, and despair, and dread, and loneliness, and the repetitive trudge again and again into the dark is something of a narrative accoutrement. Other than the STALKER titles, I'm not sure I've played a game more confident and accomplished in its atmospheric world building. Certainly showpiece games like Bioshock or Dishonored can do more in bursts, but those games are on the tracks of story momentum and are always churning forward. You don't "live" in the space the way you do in Dark Souls. This is something MMOs (at least, properly made ones) actually did well. Places take on significance and weight because the player spends a lot of time there, struggles there, overcomes challenges and progresses there, often all within a relatively small stamp of game real estate.

Yeah the game has some dreary lore that is nicely gummed into the background/subtext, but like the combat I think that tends to get a bit oversold because the presence of it is often surprising. It's like finding a marshmallow in your Cheerios, it's memorable. Something like Elder Scrolls, which is using both fists to cram lore into every orifice you have, is like Lucky Charms. Marshmallows are EXPECTED there. They're mundane.

So, am I missing something?

Clearly. If something is EVER both popularly and critically acclaimed (or really, even one or the other), and you cannot find merit in it, the obvious conclusion is "you are missing something". Not that the world is delusional and you're the only one clever enough to see it.

All that said, I think the decision to franchise Dark Souls (5 games and counting now in the "Souls" mythos) is slowly diluting the uniqueness that made the game such a cult phenomenon. It would have been best as a one and done, and Bloodborne is really the only spinoff differentiated enough to make a strong case for itself as a stand alone.

Also, and I mean this in the gentlest possible way, the fans of the series haven't done the public perception of it any favors. There was a real crossover of "difficulty" wonks and "I liked it before it was cool" hipsters braying about its merits night and day. Made it really easy to come into the game with an axe to grind right off the bat.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

That is why the game became very tedious very quickly to me. The gameplay, unlike in other games where you unlock more moves/combos/abilities, stays pretty much the same from the get go and all you really get better at is in being able to dodge more frequently, or take more hits, or deal more damage.

Contrast that with DmC where you unlock more combos, or even the darksiders games where you can progress your techniques in addition to your weapon damage (though that was admittedly a weaker aspect of that game).

In Dark Souls the "unlocking" of different combos comes from trying different weapons instead of upgrading existing ones. I think you're understating Dark Souls' combat a bit by only saying it's those three things you mention: in addition to those there's backstabs, parrying, dodging, knowing when to use what type of attack, use of consumables and healing items, learning the enemy movesets, special item buffs like the Red Tearstone Ring, knowing what enemy types are weak against what type of damage and so on. Dark Souls' combat is more about timing and reading the environment than quick reflexes than knowing how to pull of ultra combos. Say, in God of War, it doesn't usually matter what environment you're fighting in: there are very rarely environmental hazards, pitfalls or the level design restricting your movement. All you need to focus on are the enemies. Blocking isn't much of a hassle either: holding it down will block most attacks, regardless of the enemy type or direction the attacks come from, and you can hold the button down as long as you want without penalty.

In Dark Souls the environment and misreading it is usually even more dangerous than the enemies. There's poison swamps, rickety bridges, fire breating dragons in the distance, things blocking your path, bottomless insta-death pits, paths leading to dead ends, tight corridors where swinging a greatsword will only have you bouncing off the walls, sludge that slows your movement and way more. This is the biggest reason why people say the series rewards patience: assessing the situation and your surroundings before rushing the enemy gives you much more an edge over the enemies: should I fight this group of enemies in this open field when they can surround me, or will I goad them up a hill when they can only come from one direction? Can I lure these enemies closer to this pit edge where I can kick them off it? How well can I swing my massive sword here without it getting stuck on the walls/trees/similar?

Then there's timing. Do I have enough time to use my healing item now? Will this particular enemy's moveset allow me to use the spin attack and damage more enemies in the process? At what point during this enemy's attack animation does the Parry need to be executed? How are my fighting chances or is it time to escape? How many firebombs can I lob at this guy before we're in close quarters?

 

[9tailedflame]

To me, the appeal of dark souls was very simple. It was tough but fair, simple but challenging. It didn't have crazy multi-button moves, no crazy chain combos, you weren't moving super fast, and that all gave it weight to me. It felt very grounded and real. The combat was practical and strategic, and the bosses were a nice challenge. Plus, the game didn't spend huge amount of time making you load after dying, or go back to the title screen, just a quick statement that you died and right back to it, i very much appreciated the lax attitude with death, as well as the way they fit it well into the story. The fighting is simple and, to some, boring, but it's about mastery of the simple things. There's a triumph in figuring out how to properly parry and dodge roll, in getting a little more skilled at something every death, not because you have higher stats (genearlly) but because you're getting better at the game, because you've learned to read the enemy, know their tells, and execute the simple, practical moves at your disposal more skillfully.

Plus, the lore is really nice, it's blended into the game in a really appealing way to me, it makes you want more, instead of expositioning at you. It's everywhere, in little details throughout the world, and that's really cool.

 

[Dalisclock]

Plus, the lore is really nice, it's blended into the game in a really appealing way to me, it makes you want more, instead of expositioning at you. It's everywhere, in little details throughout the world, and that's really cool.

The last two RPG's I played prior to Dark Souls were The Witcher and Final Fantasy X. Which both arguably have a good plot but terrible presentation. I actually found DS's understated approach a breath of fresh air in comparison, being able to seek out lore and explore the world instead of being funneled through the tunnel of FFX and being forced to watch yet another awful, awful cutscene. The Witcher wasn't quite as bad, but still had the "awful, stilted" cutscene problem.