What is Souls actually like?

The lot of ye's are grade A bawbags especially if ye don't like souls games.

At least I got an A grade.

Dark Souls is a tough game obviously, but it is also a bloody brilliant one. It's a game that keeps you on your toes at all times without feeling like a chore or casually screwing you over. You can delve into it as much or as little as you want but you can get whatever you want out of it regardless.

I am awful at learning my way around worlds/maps. I still get lost on Rainbow 6 siege and I've played crazy numbers of hours of it, but I can still picture my way around DS's world. I still remember the short cuts, the routes to the various areas and even lots of cool little treasure locations. It's just a brilliant world to explore. Some of that obviously comes from trying a section again and again, but that's never a case of feeling that the game has screwed me over, I know that I've done something stupid and deserved that death. For similar reasons games like Monster Hunter feel so good, it's nice to have a game that tests your skill instead of your ability to grind.

The hardest part of any of the souls games is the start, you have to get stuck in and learn your new weapon inside and out and you'll mess up quite a few times in the process, but once you get to grips with it the rest of the game is a joy to play. I don't think the start is any more punishing than other games that take a bit of learning. If it's a rhythm game on your first few goes you'll either just scrape by or straight up fail the song (at least I tend to anyway), if it's a fighting game you're going to take a lot of punches to the face, if it's a racing game you'll probably smash your car/kart into the wall a few times. You're still having to restart and improve to get anywhere, however in DS at least your failed run can translate to some souls to power yourself up a bit more and give you the edge when you do get it together.

The lore never really bothered me, but I don't think I look back on it any less fondly than someone who has got well into it. To me it's just a mechanically brilliant world to explore and conquer.

It's basically everything I don't like in games.  The world, or at least the impression its advertising gives off, is a world of horrific almost senseless brutality and grotesque asphetics, now this is just me personally but it's so much so of the latter that I simply cannot find any desire to enter such a world.  I can normally take a world that has had its light stolen, its denizens downtrodden to the point they don't even believe a saviour can exist much less hope for such a thing (Mistborn is awesome btw!), but it's just too dark.  Too gruesome.  I guess you could say it goes beyond the point where I might find it a compelling challenge (game of thrones) and just find it plain repulsive.  

I'm all for games that play on the feels, grab the players heart and give it a good squeeze (Persona 3 in a nutshell, Tales of Xillia 2 where all four of its endings have pivotal deaths also counts), but there's a fine line between that and smothering someone in a cloud of absolute hopelessness.  The latter isn't my scene.

Then there's the gameplay.  Now I've distanced myself from the franchise since it became clear to me from years back it wasn't for me based solely on the aesthetic, but as far as the gameplay itself (of what I've heard about it) is concerned it sounds less the observant skill based thing and more the die and memorize thing.  Which is normally a perfectly valid design choice, but the games punishments for "dying" are well known even to me, punishments that make mere game over screens desirable outcomes.  

Basically I don't agree with the inclusion of both, you cannot make a game where the player is essentially forced to lose at times and then whack them with enormous punishments.  

I'm all for challenges, I go on nuzlocke runs in Pokemon games from time to time and I rarely, if ever, reset if I lose someone in a Fire Emblem game.  But the Souls games take that up to eleven, and to me sound more like tests of masochism than they do a challenge.  

I get it has its appeal, especially in this day and age where the vast majority of games are content making things pathetically easy for players (because god forbid not everyone is good enough to clear the game!), but that appeal is not for me.  


Ultimately though, its that first reason that detracts me from trying the games.  If they were the same thing but in a cloak of Tales Of or Persona I'd probably be there in an instant.  As it stands Dragons Dogma is as dark as I'm typically willing to go with a video game.

Athrun wrote:

Then there's the gameplay.  Now I've distanced myself from the franchise since it became clear to me from years back it wasn't for me based solely on the aesthetic, but as far as the gameplay itself (of what I've heard about it) is concerned it sounds less the observant skill based thing and more the die and memorize thing.  Which is normally a perfectly valid design choice, but the games punishments for "dying" are well known even to me, punishments that make mere game over screens desirable outcomes.  

Basically I don't agree with the inclusion of both, you cannot make a game where the player is essentially forced to lose at times and then whack them with enormous punishments.  

The punishment for dying isn't as severe as you may think because it's essentially down to the player how far they want to push themselves, often if I think I am carrying too many souls and don't like the look of a new area I'll go cash in those souls so I can avoid any potential annoyances from losing them.

I won't deny that there is an element of die & memorise at least when first learning the game but as others like Jay have said it does reward being observant & skilful a lot more, in fact I've been able to apply that to other games I play & it's only made me a better player overall.

Jas is pretty on the ball about the gameplay; that's kind of the main thing I wanted to make this thread about. The game's marketing and the memes surrounding it all revolve around the HARSH DIFFICULTY and YOU WILL DIE and THIS GAME IS HELL ONLY HEROES FINISH IT! Obviously, it sells pretty well so I guess they're doing something right. But I really don't like it, that doesn't describe the game at all.

On your first point: the world is pretty grim, on the edge of ending, but it actually uses that to tell little character stories full of hope. The game is all about finding the one thing that keeps you sane and gives you a reason to go on. If you get a chance, listen to CJ Black talk about Dark Souls II and Dementia. I nearly cried listening to a podcast.

Personally, I really like melancholy, desperate stories. Light shines brightest in the dark and all that. In terms of the visuals, I sent this to Balla when he said something similar:
These are all locations from the first Dark Souls. Images like this don't capture the way one can visit anything they can see, and the interconnectedness of it all.

A series I've never played as Demon's Souls was a PS3 game, and I've always had an Xbox 360. When Dark Souls came to Xbox, I'd wound down my regular gaming sessions in 2011 due to my 360 at the time, dying. I didn't get a 360 again until 2015, and had changed my gaming habits due to becoming a parent. The Souls series is something I would love to try, but is about as anti-family-friendly as GTA, not just because of the grim aesthetics and brutal difficulty, but because it's a game you have to spend a lot of time with to reap the rewards. Time which I just don't have.

Having not played it, the one thing that puts me off is the sluggish-looking swordplay. Having grown up on Ninja Gaiden (Xbox) and then latterly Bayonetta, it looks like you're taking on the geriatric versions of the knights in armour from Resi 4 (who were slow already). Ninja Gaiden in particular, is one of my all-time favourites, and that also had a rabid fanbase at the time, mostly because it was renowned for being very difficult. That's the one game I compare it to, and what also makes the combat look so "stuck-in-treacle". I think if I was single and ten years younger, I'd give the Souls series a chance, but it's just not the type of game I play any more. However, I understand the appeal.

I remember briefly doing some part-time work at GAME in 2012 (on top of my full-time job) and it was for Christmas temps. In the interview process, we all had to share our greatest achievements, and one lad said 'completing Dark Souls'. He was laughed at and management shortly after said he didn't get the job due to the childishness of his answer (he was being serious). I think that is another element that puts me off a little - the fact that it's the most recent example of gamer-verification, a badge of honour if you will. You are more of a gamer, if you complete Dark Souls. GTFOH.  

Dark Souls takes you to an all new 3-D world of pain as you race over hundreds of miles of hazard-strewn tarmac. Run the gauntlet against four gangs of psycho bikers through city streets to treacherous canyons and high speed freeways. Punch, kick and race your way to the finishing line in the most combat intensive Dark Souls yet!

• All new 3D world with fully animated, motion-captured riders
• 12 custom bikes that handle just like the real thing
• Close combat attacks and weapons including chains, clubs and stun guns
• 150km of richly textured roads link cities, mountains and stunning coastal routes
• Original soundtrack featuring tracks from CIV, Full on the Mouth, Kid Rock, Sugar Ray and The Tea Party

slow, weighty (if not clunky), methodical, trial-and-error based action-jrpgs with a heavy western influence, especially in themeing, with optional online PVP elements. Demon's Souls lacks refinement, Dark Souls is (apparently) the best, Dark Souls II suffers from cheap game design and an incoherent world, and Bloodbourne trades the slow, defensive nature of the series for a much faster, attack-orientated experience.

The slow trial-and-error approach you have to take to the games combined with sparse checkpoints leads to a frustrating, repetitive experience that failed to hold my attention.