kreight
Guest
It's a fucking paradise for emos, autists and other edgy teenagers who want to make playthroughs with a starting weapon and no armor using a dance pad.
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Is Dark Souls overrated?
- Thread starter Baron Dupek
- Start date
Morenatsu.
Liturgist
So you like Skyrim, right?
karoliner
Arcane
Dark souls is shit
Morenatsu.
Liturgist
Literally, perhaps, but not figuratively.
Duralux for Durabux
Guest
Dark souls is good because it's not an open world. Instead of making big huge empty map, over developers should have done many areas connected and inter-connected. That's why Dark souls was so popular, it shows that Metroidvania level design is the best of them all. It can turn a decent game to a game considered a masterpiece.
Reader
Scholar
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2018
- Messages
- 191
What a thread! Of course it is! Here's my two cents
1. The game was created with online play and it had bad consequences
a) Bosses. If you play coop most of the boss' mechanics go to hell. One player just kites the boss, other kicks the boss. Switch roles according to aggro. If you play solo then yes you should learn mechs but hey, devs thought that it would be unfair, therefore you are given the option to summon AI cannon fodder.
b) Loot. It was "balanced" for online of course. It was "balanced" to the point where finding new piece of gear simply is not rewarding. And sorcerers for example may not find more than two new staves in the whole playthrough. Plus there are simply nooks and crannies protected by enemies where you'll find...nothing. Bad design.
There are games from FS which don't have these problems. It's King's Field series. These games has great exploration and loot. You just feel the impact of every piece of gear you find. And you find them pretty often. There is no fancy swordplay of course, but i wouldn't call rollrolloverroll in DS a fancy swordplay too.
2. Big bosses are shit. If you are a melee all you see is a trembling piece of a texture with no ability to see what the boss are goiing to do next.
3. The story. I just don't believe this bullshit that he has the solid noncontradicting story in mind which he then telling us through the objects' descriptions and their placing in the world. Again King's Field has a vague but quite understandable story.
4. So called "hardcore". They even call "soulslike" now every game where you can die and omg lose a bit of progress. Then all the games of 1985-1995 were "soulslike". And even more. I replayed Duck Tales yesterday. I fucked up once on spikes and the plant bite me. And here i am with one hit from death and the whole level before me. And no fucking estus flask!
With all that said i don't consider DS games bad. But overhyped indeed. Also DS2 and DS3 are absolutely secondary. Level design is not so good and monsters are not so creepy anymore.
1. The game was created with online play and it had bad consequences
a) Bosses. If you play coop most of the boss' mechanics go to hell. One player just kites the boss, other kicks the boss. Switch roles according to aggro. If you play solo then yes you should learn mechs but hey, devs thought that it would be unfair, therefore you are given the option to summon AI cannon fodder.
b) Loot. It was "balanced" for online of course. It was "balanced" to the point where finding new piece of gear simply is not rewarding. And sorcerers for example may not find more than two new staves in the whole playthrough. Plus there are simply nooks and crannies protected by enemies where you'll find...nothing. Bad design.
There are games from FS which don't have these problems. It's King's Field series. These games has great exploration and loot. You just feel the impact of every piece of gear you find. And you find them pretty often. There is no fancy swordplay of course, but i wouldn't call rollrolloverroll in DS a fancy swordplay too.
2. Big bosses are shit. If you are a melee all you see is a trembling piece of a texture with no ability to see what the boss are goiing to do next.
3. The story. I just don't believe this bullshit that he has the solid noncontradicting story in mind which he then telling us through the objects' descriptions and their placing in the world. Again King's Field has a vague but quite understandable story.
4. So called "hardcore". They even call "soulslike" now every game where you can die and omg lose a bit of progress. Then all the games of 1985-1995 were "soulslike". And even more. I replayed Duck Tales yesterday. I fucked up once on spikes and the plant bite me. And here i am with one hit from death and the whole level before me. And no fucking estus flask!
With all that said i don't consider DS games bad. But overhyped indeed. Also DS2 and DS3 are absolutely secondary. Level design is not so good and monsters are not so creepy anymore.
Apostle Hand
Liturgist
dark souls is shitty game
fork
Guest
Resident Evil 4 is overrated.
Twitcher 3 is overrated.
GTA 5 is overrated.
Shitty walking simulators are overrated.
A whole lot of crap is overrated.
Dark Souls is not. If anything, it is underrated, because it often gets reduced to its supposed difficulty, which in reality is just a tiny fraction of what makes it so great. The fact that it's not been surpassed, not even by FromSoft themselves, proves just how great a game it is.
Twitcher 3 is overrated.
GTA 5 is overrated.
Shitty walking simulators are overrated.
A whole lot of crap is overrated.
Dark Souls is not. If anything, it is underrated, because it often gets reduced to its supposed difficulty, which in reality is just a tiny fraction of what makes it so great. The fact that it's not been surpassed, not even by FromSoft themselves, proves just how great a game it is.
Last edited by a moderator:
DJOGamer PT
Arcane
Morenatsu.
Liturgist
Metroidvania is not open-world.
Morenatsu.
Liturgist
Dark Souls is the Dark Souls of Dark Souls.
We already went over this. Demon's Souls is the Dark Souls of Dark Souls.
PorkyThePaladin
Arcane
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2013
- Messages
- 5,174
I think the main achievement of Dark Souls was that when those games came out in 2010s, the entire industry was firmly enmeshed in the notion that they need to dumb everything down and make it more digestible and simpler for the common pleb playing video games, and Dark Souls franchise turned all of that on its head. Mainstream games were filling themselves up with quest compasses, map markers, NPC quest giver exclamation marks, massive exposition lore dumps, simplistic combat systems, and other crap like that to make sure nobody is lost, and here comes a game (and then sequels) that just shat on all of that. Brutal combat, limited save points, figuring out how to proceed yourself, lore told through subtle environmental hints or dialogue scraps, it was an amazing blow for the real gamer when Dark Souls sold well and gained fame.
Aside from that, I do believe the quality of the games declined over the span of the franchise. Dark Souls was amazing, and while it might not be everyone's cup of tea with its gameplay formula of repeating the same segments until you "win" them, it's still an outstanding and fun experience. Dark Souls 2 lost some of that, with its inferior level/world design, and what I think was a downgrade of the combat system in terms of build options and fun. And Dark Souls 3 just became way too twitchy and rolling oriented. But the first game, I would advise any RPG fan to at least try.
Aside from that, I do believe the quality of the games declined over the span of the franchise. Dark Souls was amazing, and while it might not be everyone's cup of tea with its gameplay formula of repeating the same segments until you "win" them, it's still an outstanding and fun experience. Dark Souls 2 lost some of that, with its inferior level/world design, and what I think was a downgrade of the combat system in terms of build options and fun. And Dark Souls 3 just became way too twitchy and rolling oriented. But the first game, I would advise any RPG fan to at least try.
samuraigaiden
Arcane
It is overrated but it's contribution to gaming culture far surpasses it's quality as a game. Dark Souls proved a bunch of idiots wrong and it being overrated further rubs it in their faces, so I welcome it's overrating.
samuraigaiden
Arcane
Severance: Blade of Darkness is the Dark Souls of Dark Souls. In fact, it is more than that. Severance is Dark Souls IRL.
Alphard
Self-Ejected
its difficulty is overrated, not the game itself
Maxwell's Demon
Arcane
I don't understand why people say Dark Souls is difficult. If anything, the combat is way too slow to enjoy. I can never get more than two or three hours into a run before I get too bored to continue. Still, I have to give Fromsoft some props for their popularizing a design philosophy that isn't retarded.
Mojobeard
Augur
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2010
- Messages
- 393
Souls games are pretty much perfect video games, and I honestly look down on people that don't like them.
I do understand the shitty "prepare to die" marketing gimmick, awful copycat games, and the wankfest that is the pvp community, giving some people a wrong impression about what they're about.
I do understand the shitty "prepare to die" marketing gimmick, awful copycat games, and the wankfest that is the pvp community, giving some people a wrong impression about what they're about.
samuraigaiden
Arcane
For games with so much emphasis on real time combat, they sure lack some finesse.
fork
Guest
No, they really don't. Unless you think gimmicks equal finesse.
Souls combat is easy to learn, hard to master. And you can play in dozens of different ways.
Mojobeard
Augur
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2010
- Messages
- 393
If you want more buttons to press, try Bloodborne or Sekiro.
Lyric Suite
Converting to Islam
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2006
- Messages
- 56,609
Dark Souls was never "press button within this millisecond or die" gameplay. They introduced that eventually but it's never been about that.
Action or not, Dark Souls is still an RPG and part of the enjoyment comes from stuff like character buliding, exploration, level design, enemy placement etc.
Difficulty is a red herring if you think the game is shit because it's not as hard as some turbo twitch game out there you are missing the point.
BTW, i think Thief too can become piss easy once you learn how the AI works. Doesn't mean the game isn't a masterpiece or that it isn't as fun anymore.
Action or not, Dark Souls is still an RPG and part of the enjoyment comes from stuff like character buliding, exploration, level design, enemy placement etc.
Difficulty is a red herring if you think the game is shit because it's not as hard as some turbo twitch game out there you are missing the point.
BTW, i think Thief too can become piss easy once you learn how the AI works. Doesn't mean the game isn't a masterpiece or that it isn't as fun anymore.
Lacrymas, do you care to elaborate on this thing you said 5 years ago?
Why do you say that nothing happens? Can you make an example of a game where something happens and compare it to Dark Souls to make me understand the difference?
Yours sincerely,
NJClaw
Nifft Batuff
Prophet
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2018
- Messages
- 3,203
"It's a Souls-like" has became the justification to not have a decent save system, because devs are not able to implement a functioning one in Unity.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.