Why does Dark Souls get so much praise?

[Adeptus Aspartem]

The reasons why the game is gets praise: The story telling, the world building, the combat system, the death system, the pvp system, the exploration.

For me it's mainly the world and the stories which you discover while fighting through that world. The combat system isn't ultra fancy but it's very damn good. It keeps it simple but pulls it off very well. No lags, delays or wonky movement. It's crisp and that's fine.

 

[Helter Skelter]

Because it's a series that ranges from absolutely stellar, to just "Much better than most other games"?

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

It's all a function of patience and time,

a rarity in current AAA state

I get the lack of hand-holding being an attraction nowadays, although I suppose that having grown up with games that forced you to guess about everything (often due to horrible graphics), it doesn't really impress me.

again a rarity in current AAA state

am I missing something? Is it the fact that games have recently gotten stupidly easy (Batman, Witcher, etc.) and this game offers some form of difficulty?

and again a rarity in current AAA state. i really think you've hit the nail on the head for me. it's not that this is amazing, it's just that it's not often you come by it, so that's why I've forgiven its shortcomings.

Why can't we have games like this, but with much more complex combat? Put physics into swings, add REAL MOMENTUM AND FORCE! Like some of the other new games are doing (chivalry, war of the roses, etc.). Let characters climb. Make platforming a viable option. Simply add more COMPLEXITY to the EXECUTION in the game. The character development can stay the same and I would be happy.

sign me up

 

[BarryMcCociner]

Fan speculation? Do you know what speculation means?

I'm sorry but "you just don't get it" doesn't even begin to describe the problem with that point. See, sometimes there's information in the background. Not every plot detail needs to be explained to you. Sometimes you need to take a step further in order to fully understand a story and hash things out in your own mind. For instance, I'm just re-reading 1984, and one of the worst things this book (which I love) does is that it actively gives you too much explanation. Winston is constantly asking the question "Is Ingsoc actually at war with Eastasia and Eurasia, or do they actually dominate the whole world and the war is simple propaganda?" This shouldn't be painstakingly sounded out for the reader, it should be a question that is subtly implanted in their mind that they ask themselves.

The same goes for most of the observations Winston makes, rather than him telling us early on that one of his neighbors is too intelligent to not be "vaporized" (go missing and have his name stricken from public record) by the state, Orwell should have simply had that character disappear at some point, leading the reader to ask themselves where this character went and whether or not that is important to the story.

Not every plot detail needs to be made abundantly clear, there is such a thing as non-verbal storytelling. Information can be made clear to an audience through things as simple as color usage and character design.

And as for no puzzles? You can't just make an example of a puzzle then say that doesn't count. That's obtuse and you know it.

And your point about the combat, you know you can make anything sound stupid, repetitive and boring if you use that kind of language, right?

Witcher 3, search for red smears in the grass, read bestiary entry, apply oil to sword, drink potion, use sign, dodge, strike, strike, occasional potion, occasional sign, occasional strike, keep going, repeat until your beard reaches your knees.

 

[Asita]

I grew up with hard games that forced you to explore and be challenged, so none of that really does it for me anymore. That's what the anecdote was driving at.

The majority of what I do has to be interesting for me to enjoy it, after all the years of RPGs, MMOs, etc. I don't like grinding, or waiting for things to happen. I just want the creamy center of the oreo and not the cookie, though I guess I can understand why the cookie would be the world to you if you've never had it before.

I think then that you missed the point being driven at when people say that Dark Souls gives you an experience. The difficulty is not in and of itself the experience. It's that the difficulty reflects on an aspect of the story, making it more than just the sum of its parts, much like resets and the constant choice to kill or give mercy to any given encounter in Undertale. In the case of Dark Souls the difficulty and the stress it causes the player reflects the overwhelming despair of the dying and seemingly hopeless world in which the game takes place. More than that, however, it integrates the respawn system into the high concept of the setting. As an undead you cannot truly die, but when they lose their sense of purpose and drive, they go hollow. They either keep on pushing against seemingly insurmountable odds or they give up and lose themselves. The difficulty is not itself a selling point, rather, it is how the difficulty and resultant frustration meshes with the narrative to create a story that simply cannot be as effectively told in non-interactive mediums.

The same principle applies in a Nuzlocke run for Pokemon. The self-imposed limitations of the Nuzlocke run largely remove the interchangeable nature of the pokemon at your disposal and not only practically mandates that you use pokemon that you wouldn't ordinarily use, but also creates a stronger emotional connection to those game characters. It's not uncommon, for instance, for participants to hate that they had to add a given pokemon to their party and get choked up when it "dies" later in the game. In a weird way, it better reflects the philosophy that the protagonists are supposed to embody than the rules of an ordinary run do. That is what it means for gameplay to give you an experience. Not that it is difficult, not that it doesn't hold your hand, but that the gameplay actively helps to tell the story.

 

[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.

 

[Bawsto]

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.

 

[CaitSeith]

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...)

 

[CaitSeith]

Almost every single message is spam, and often they will prevent you from interacting with objects, such as switches and bonfires.

Wait, that's not true. When being able to read a message or interact with an object in the same place, the game prompts you the object as the default action.

 

[Dalisclock]

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.

 

[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.