From Software The Dark Souls Discussion Thread

[cvv]

When did I say they were easy?

When you said the supposed difficulty is a lie.

The problem with Dark Souls is that it mixes both: tough enemies and bosses, and having to hike a long trek if you die just to face the boss again. It's a retarded design decision, and there's a reason why barely any games other than the Souls series use it.

There's also a reason why DS1 is widely considered one of the best videogames ever made.

 

[cvv]

But ok, there are two legitimate complaints - having to needlessly trek to a boss through an empty area. This isn't a case in DS1 afaik, but was a problem in DS3, for example the trek to the Dragonslayer Armour or Two Princes.

In DS1 there's only the thing with Capra Demon - the trek to it is very long (the longest in all Souls afaik), filled with trash mobs and the boss fight is designed to kill you in the first 2 seconds. That is a reason to rage. The problem aren't tough mobs on the way to the boss but trash ones.

 

[Sigourn]

When you said the supposed difficulty is a lie.

You didn't understand what I was saying, then. The enemies themselves are difficult. That is a nice difficulty. The most enjoyable aspect of the game is fighting the normal enemies. The most infuriating parts are fighting the bosses. Not because the bosses are ridiculously hard or anything else. But because of how the levels are designed, the player more often than not will get frustrated at the "length+enemies+boss" combination.

There's also a reason why DS1 is widely considered one of the best videogames ever made.

So is Skyrim. I consider Dark Souls one of the best games ever made. The difficulty is not one of the reasons. At all.

 

[cvv]

You didn't understand what I was saying, then.

I really don't. First you say the difficulty is a lie. Then you admit the normal enemies actually are difficult. And then you indirectly admit even the bosses are apparently difficult, seeing how you have to run to them over and over again. You wouldn't be frustrated if you whack every boss on the first or second attempt would you?

So the difficulty actually isn't a lie then?

 

[Sigourn]

I really don't. First you say the difficulty is a lie. Then you admit the normal enemies actually are difficult. And then you indirectly admit even the bosses are apparently difficult, seeing how you have to run to them over and over again. You wouldn't be frustrated if you whack every boss on the first or second attempt would you?

So the difficulty actually isn't a lie then?

The difficult of the final product is a lie. I'm not saying it is not difficult. I'm saying it's a bullshit type of difficulty. Well made, this game would be considerably easier. Not because the enemies are easier, or the bosses are easier. But because the game would get rid of these pointless reruns of the same areas just to get to a boss.

 

[janior]

nigga u don't even know what you're talking about, it's time to stop talking

 

[Gentle Player]

If you want to give your players a sense of accomplishment, you make tough enemies and bosses. If you want to frustrate your players, you place 20 enemy and a long ass walk between the nearest bonfire and the next boss.

Hm. If those 20 enemies are easy how is the game frustrating? Shouldn't you be able to just blast through them?

When did I say they were easy? The problem with Dark Souls is that it mixes both: tough enemies and bosses, and having to hike a long trek if you die just to face the boss again. It's a retarded design decision, and there's a reason why barely any games other than the Souls series use it.

Remember that these are console games, and in most console games (or at least older ones) there is no quicksave, so if you died you would have to reload from a fixed checkpoint - which of course would also mean repeating the same content again, perhaps more depending on the generosity of the checkpoints. However, the difference between bonfires and loading a save is that with the former you've not necessarily lost everything. You keep all items that may have dropped; you needn't make detours to areas containing treasure; NPC questline stages aren't reset; and of course you can potentially get your souls back if you manage to not die again, adding a bit of tension which I'd argue is important to the identity and feel of the game. I think it's an excellent design decision; it solves the problem of saving on demand trivialising many games and checkpoint systems punishing players who haven't failed but suddenly find they need to turn the game off for whatever reason, without going full Roguelike.

 

[Sigourn]

Remember that these are console games, and in most console games (or at least older ones) there is no quicksave, so if you died you would have to reload from a fixed checkpoint - which of course would also mean repeating the same content again, perhaps more depending on the generosity of the checkpoints. However, the difference between bonfires and loading a save is that with the former you've not necessarily lost everything. You keep all items that may have dropped; you needn't make detours to areas containing treasure; NPC questline stages aren't reset; and of course you can potentially get your souls back if you manage to not die again, adding a bit of tension which I'd argue is important to the identity and feel of the game. I think it's an excellent design decision; it solves the problem of saving on demand trivialising many games and checkpoint systems punishing players who haven't failed but suddenly find they need to turn the game off for whatever reason, without going full Roguelike.

I've played many console games. I don't remember any where the boss was so far away from a savepoint that it made me rage hard. I've noticed that the only times I feel "tension" in Dark Souls is when I'm doing the same boss fight for the 10th time, and I'm about to win. The Gaping Dragon fight? No tension, because it was my first try. The Minotaur fight? No tension either, I soon realized what I was supposed to do. That thing with the two dogs in the enclosed space? High tension, because I had died to it like 15 times because of the stupid camera, the fucking dogs, and the long trek past the assassins and the other dogs. Same with the Bell Gargoyles, lost far too many times and when I finally got rid of one of them, the tension was up the fucking roof. And it was a one and a half minute fight that felt eternal.

When you think about it, Dark Souls isn't really punishing when it comes to death. You just lose your Souls and Humanity, but everything else is still there. By making the game easier, but increasing the punishment for failing, I would feel tension most of the time while having a fun time, IMO.

 

[dunno lah]

Someone has no appreciation for stage-based action games.

 

[Sigourn]

Someone has no appreciation for stage-based action games.

I was told this was an RPG, but I think the Codex lied to me.

 

[dunno lah]

Codex never ever said this was a pure RPG. This game is clearly an Action! RPG with progression very similar to old school action platformers.

 

[CryptRat]

You didn't understand what I was saying, then. The enemies themselves are difficult. That is a nice difficulty. The most enjoyable aspect of the game is fighting the normal enemies. The most infuriating parts are fighting the bosses. Not because the bosses are ridiculously hard or anything else. But because of how the levels are designed, the player more often than not will get frustrated at the "length+enemies+boss" combination.

I disagree.
It's (always?) better in games when bosses are at the end of a section instead of after a checkpoint, another thing FF1 and many other old JRPGs did fine. Besides the length of one walk between a bonefire and the next boss in Dark Souls is fine, it's not too long.
And if you eventually get bored it's totally possible to walk around many monsters if you don't want to fight all of them again and again.
By the way it's also a really cool feature that some bonefires are hidden which may make a section longer that it could be.

 

[Great Deceiver]

When did I say they were easy? The problem with Dark Souls is that it mixes both: tough enemies and bosses, and having to hike a long trek if you die just to face the boss again. It's a retarded design decision, and there's a reason why barely any games other than the Souls series use it.

That's not a 'problem'. You must be a millenial and must have started playing videogames during the Xbox era. 8 and 16-bit (and arcade) games worked exactly like that - except there were no saves whatsoever. If you died during a boss in a tough platformer, you had to play through the entire level (and there were no shortcuts like in the Souls games, you couldn't run past enemies), which were often quite long. You simply couldn't beat the game if you didn't become proficient at it. Finishing the game wasn't a given for everyone.

 

[Excidium II]

remember it's lucas9, he's always whining about games he plays.

I just returned to the Undead Asylum and fell through the floor... I'm not calling you morons, FromSoftware, but this is a retarded design decision if I've ever seen one. For what purpose, other than annoy the player?

The more I play Dark Souls, the more convinced I am it's not so much "difficult" as it is retardedly designed. Any game can be made difficult with retarded design.

"retardedly designed" for daring to set up a trap. That boss is very easy so they set that up to have you be on your toes at least for 5 seconds.

 

[cvv]

If you died during a boss in a tough platformer, you had to play through the entire level (and there were no shortcuts like in the Souls games, you couldn't run past enemies)

 

[Suicidal]

First playthrough, L1-ing bosses to death with his eyes closed. We might be witnessing the birth of a new Souls legend here.

I'm not exaggerating:





Notice how in the 1st gif the boss keeps swinging to the front all the while I am behind it ramming my sword up its anus

Also don't misunderstand. I'm not saying I'm good at the game - on the contrary, I'm quite bad at it and I'm sure that any player who actually bothered to learn all the mechanics, like dodge timing and parrying and which weapon is best in which situation would easily kill me without getting hit once. My point is that you don't need to play well in order to beat the game. The 4 bosses I mentioned were among the very few things that actually punished my way of playing. And I struggled with them a lot. If all the bosses in the game were like those then it would probably take me 100 hours to beat the game but I'd have enjoyed it a lot more.

 

[Excidium II]

I guess you were lucky that priscilla doesn't want to go invisible or seathe won't use his tail.

 

[Hyperion]

The most infuriating parts are fighting the bosses. Not because the bosses are ridiculously hard or anything else. But because of how the levels are designed, the player more often than not will get frustrated at the "length+enemies+boss" combination.

Now you know where the 'git gud' meme comes from. You want to stop being frustrated by long walks back? Stop dying. Pay attention to your surroundings and quit falling for stupid traps. Memorize enemy layouts and attack patterns. Learn when it's safe to pop Estus, and when you should double down on blocking / rolling to make sure the boss doesn't get you with that last hit. You can rotate your camera 360 degrees. Why aren't you checking around corners, below your feet, above your head, and everywhere in between? It sounds like you're trying to play this like Devil May Cry, which is a surefire way to get absolutely wrecked.

Also, plenty of console games have had long walks back to bosses. Dragon Warrior has never allowed saving outside of churches (to be changed in the new one). Castlevania (which was a platformer, so...) up until Symphony of the Night, which still had some walks back. The 7th Saga had some excruciating walks to bosses, towns, dungeons, and everywhere in between. Even some of the earlier Final Fantasies had some nasty walks if you ate it at any point. As modern as 7 could fuck you up good if you got your shit pushed in by the Safe boss in the Shinra Mansion if you didn't understand the mechanic to it. If memory serves, games as late as Valkyrie Profile 2 had you walking back through some annoying puzzles and enemy configurations if you died to a boss. Shining the Holy Ark could force you to redo an entire dungeon (1 - 2 hours) if you died to the boss.

Older games kinda expected you to leave a dungeon and save after you cleared it of the loot and knew the shortest, easiest path back if you didn't want to risk losing tons of progress. Dark Souls is extremely casual in that most areas have shortcuts that save 10+ minutes and a dozen or so enemies.

 

[Excidium II]

Not even remotely close to being an issue in Dark Souls. You can just sanic from the bonfire to the boss fog. I almost always just end up clearing the way again for souls + possible drops.

 

[Suicidal]

I guess you were lucky that priscilla doesn't want to go invisible or seathe won't use his tail.

Priscilla went invisible at the beginning of the fight and hit me twice while I was trying to find her, that was it. Would be cool if she was invisible for the entire fight but that would have actually been difficult so they probably decided against it.

Seath started going apeshit and smashing his tails once mid fight at which point I ran to the corner of the room and waited for him to finish before resuming my friendly game of "chase the tail". Admittedly, I did die the first time he did this but then I just knew to expect it.

Actually there weren't that many bosses that I did on my first try. I probably died once on most. But dying once does not make me consider a boss challenging. I died like 10 or 15 times on the DLC abyss guy and I really liked that fight.

 

[Excidium II]

Would be cool if she was invisible for the entire fight but that would have actually been difficult so they probably decided against it.

She actually does that generally. I think you have to break her poise for her to appear again or something.

Seath started going apeshit and smashing his tails once mid fight at which point I ran to the corner of the room and waited for him to finish before resuming my friendly game of "chase the tail". Admittedly, I did die the first time he did this but then I just knew to expect it.

He should do it everytime you are hitting the tails...

 

[Suicidal]

Would be cool if she was invisible for the entire fight but that would have actually been difficult so they probably decided against it.

She actually does that generally. I think you have to break her poise for her to appear again or something.

Seath started going apeshit and smashing his tails once mid fight at which point I ran to the corner of the room and waited for him to finish before resuming my friendly game of "chase the tail". Admittedly, I did die the first time he did this but then I just knew to expect it.

He should do it everytime you are hitting the tails...

For me she appeared after I hit her once.

Also I agree that Seath should have enraged every time you hit the tail. In fact, ALL the bosses should have mechanics that prevent you from just clicking them to death in relative safety.

 

[Excidium II]

By "should do it" I mean he actually should have done it there because it's what he does. Like the effortless way to beat Seathe is just attacking the belly and moving back when he does crystal breath, then in again when it expires. (which is kinda funny since the front is usually the most threatening area of a boss)

 

[Suicidal]

By "should do it" I mean he actually should have done it there because it's what he does. Like the effortless way to beat Seathe is just attacking the belly and moving back when he does crystal breath, then in again when it expires. (which is kinda funny since the front is usually the most threatening area of a boss)

he wot? Why didn't he do it for me then? Both my attempts he did it once at around 50% hp so I assumed it was a second phase thing.

 

[janior]

he doesn't go too hard on casuls