Why does Dark Souls get so much praise?

[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.