Live data from Hacker News

A Close Look at Dark Souls’ Ingenious Difficulty

savetherobot.wordpress.com

71–75 of 75 posts

Re: A Close Look at Dark Souls’ Ingenious Difficulty

#71
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you bother trying to understand what was meant before replying? How, after reading my post, was your take away "everyone plays NG+" (something anyone who plays the game knows is false)? The point is that people replay the game knowing what is to come, with everything already foreshadowed, and consequently being able to make much more informed choices. Whether you happen to be on NG+ or not is completely independen…

Yeah, silly me, interpreting a direct follow-on sentence as referencing the sentence before it. I like how you call me lazy for this breakdown in communication; it apparently never occurring to you that perhaps there was actually a connection there, intentional or not. Did you bother to even consider that you had written ambiguously? I mean seriously, your criticisms of the game are just generic whines because you've…

>Did you bother to even consider that you had written ambiguously?

All speech is ambiguous. You're expected as an adult to try to understand other people. You failed to understand me, and looking back at my post it ought to be obvious that you didn't read it carefully at all. The connection with the preceding sentence (a given in any paragraph you dunderhead) does not amount to "everyone does NG+ on their second play through". Nowhere is this written or implied. It's simply pure lazy reading on your part, eager as you are to take issue with what I said. And if you're going to come back with me with this sort of bullshit, maybe you should have some kind of real issue with what you now realise I actually said. But no, we get...

>I mean seriously, your criticisms of the game are just generic whines because you've encountered a hard one.

I've played through both games 3 times each. I didn't find them overly hard. Dark Souls is harder, and some bits were tough. I like that. And alternating bosses is exactly how I dealt with the harder bosses. None of this conflicts with my criticisms at all. Do you have some kind of argument to make? Or are you just upset that in your rush to piss on my post you grossly misinterpreted it? The point stands: the first play through is largely about bumbling around wasting your time. It is disorganized. It lacks clues. Do you have an answer to this, the thing I actually said? It seems it's very hard for you to change your P.O.V. to a superior one, one that can actually be defended with an argument, rather than garbage attacks like accusing me of "whining" because the game is "too hard". In fact, I don't think it's all that hard at all! Which is why in this very thread I spoke about how easy it is to beat the game with vitality builds, which is what I did on my first play through. The only "whining" here is that you didn't read my post, were butthurt by my retort, and without responding with an argument - one that contradicts something I actually said.

Re: A Close Look at Dark Souls’ Ingenious Difficulty

#72
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's not true? I didn't say you were forced as some kind of hard requirement to use the wiki - just that the use of the wiki forces you out of the game and that it is clearly designed to be used in conjunction with a wiki. It should be taken as read that it can be played without it. I mean, who wrote the wiki? The requirement for guessing and repeating segments is just so high that it detracts from the experience.…

the use of the wiki forces you out of the game and that it is clearly designed to be used in conjunction with a wiki. Are you aware that this is a console game, and was for quite some time before it was ported to PC? It really isn't 'designed for use with a wiki', let alone 'clearly' so. Yes, for competitive PvP you need to know as much as possible, but that's the same with any game. So tell me: how do you figure out…

>I don't use fire weapons and every time I've beaten the fire sage, I've done it by reading its actions and responding appropriately - and this in particular is the absolute strength of the game.

So why bother with all the fancy environments (which are extremely costly to produce)? Why bother with all the character builds? What a load of garbage. The combat is in fact clunky and repetitive. You wouldn't play this game if it was just boss battles, which just goes to show that it's not the key strength of the game. The key strength of both games are the environments, with the boss serving the SECONDARY purpose of providing a climax.

And the point of my post is not that Demon Firesage is impossible without fire weapons. I've beat it without fire weapons, and it is one of the easiest bosses. My point is that the game is poorly organized and in many ways counter-intuitive. And Demon Firesage is a perfect example of this. So what is your rebuttal? Are you even making one? Do you have a brain? You look like someone who is so in love with Dark Souls that when someone (A FAN OF THE GAME NO LESS) criticizes it you run in all butthurt looking for something to take issue with, barely bothering to read what was said before replying.

>It really isn't 'designed for use with a wiki'

It has the URL of the wiki on the back of the PS3 case. So does Demon's Souls. They very clearly intended players to have the wiki available. Did you think I came into this thread not knowing it was on the PS3? Motherfucker I own it on the PS3 as well as the PC. It is quite possible to finish the game without the wiki. But the point of a game is to be ENJOYED, not finished. And the level of trial-and-error present in Dark Souls detracts from the experience. This doesn't apply in Demon's Souls because it's just that much simpler and smaller. Are you going to respond to this, or just post more reactive bullshit about Demon Firesage, which was an EXAMPLE?

>I relished the challenge that the game provided, a game that rewards skilful play more than decking your character (and I'm not particularly dextrous).

Good for you. Maybe you'll get around to making a point in this reply?

>You seem intent on min/maxing.

I'm not "min-maxing" anything. There's no need to "min-max" Demon Firesage. It's not a hard boss.

>but it doesn't make it a shit game because you didn't like developing that skill.

Are you a fucking imbecile? I finished this game 3x. I will probably finish it again. It is a nice game, and nowhere near as hard as the hype would suggest. But it is very poorly organized, and overall a less polished product than Demon's Souls. So here's a crazy idea I just had: maybe next time read the top-level comment so you know the general point being made and respond to that, instead of reactively scanning deep into the thread to find something to take out of context. And then maybe you will succeed in responding to something I actually thought or said. Like the fact that it Dark Souls is a messy game oriented heavily toward trial-and-error. So please just read what I said in this post, understand it (this is important when talking to people), and then respond to this last about messiness and trial-and-error, because (in spite of the fact that you are too stupid to see it), everything else I've written is just a minor elaboration on this one point.

Re: A Close Look at Dark Souls’ Ingenious Difficulty

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's not true? I didn't say you were forced as some kind of hard requirement to use the wiki - just that the use of the wiki forces you out of the game and that it is clearly designed to be used in conjunction with a wiki. It should be taken as read that it can be played without it. I mean, who wrote the wiki? The requirement for guessing and repeating segments is just so high that it detracts from the experience.…

- Demon Firesage isn't particularly weak to fire. And what does it matter? You don't need a fire weapon to kill him. You also don't need to parry Gwyn to beat him, so why does it need to be spelled out? Although there is often a message by the door that says Try Parrying. The game isn't really about trying a bunch of stuff until you find the "right" way to beat an area. If you think your best bet is to go everywhere…

>Demon Firesage isn't particularly weak to fire. And what does it matter? You don't need a fire weapon to kill him.

Does this contradict me? I mean, I don't even disagree with it, nor can I see how you would infer that I would from my comments - except by guessing. How many bits of hidden and often counter-intuitive information do you suppose there are in Dark Souls? Demon Firesage is an EXAMPLE of how badly coordinated it is. The fact that you can still beat the boss is completely beside the point. How about: the location of all the fire embers, which is impossible to know by any means other than running around? But hey, I don't NEED the embers I can beat every boss by skill alone, so it doesn't matter how poorly arranged they are. So why even bother to put them into the game at all? Hopefully you can now see how silly this line of argument is.

>You also don't need to parry Gwyn to beat him, so why does it need to be spelled out?

First, I didn't say it needed to be "spelled out". Why do you feel licensed to put words straight into my mouth? Just sticking a sign on the door saying "parry him" is stupid, and a good example of why the lazy soapstone sign system is poorly conceived. One better way to handle this would be to make it so every character (no exceptions - unless there is a CLUE for the exception) with a certain characteristic is parryable. Or you could have disparate hints that can be combined to obtain that information. And so on. Just sticking random stuff like that in there and waiting for people to stumble into it is the kind of thing that is good for autistics who want to collect useless information, not people who want to experience an open fantasy world where decisions are meaningful.

Demon's Souls is more polished in spite of following the same basic design approach - because it is smaller and simpler, and so there is less room for inconsistency. For example, for the most part the boss dependencies go down five straight lanes. This is simpler and less interesting than Dark Souls' more complex boss dependencies, but it is very consistent. Bosses come at regular intervals and the archstones are warpable in the same way all the way through the game.

I mean, this ought to be the most elementary thing but some people in this thread just can't get it into their heads. What is the most interesting map for a small village? The answer: no map. You want to wander a bit and discover some things for yourself. There isn't much room in that sized place for things to become too messy. Does that apply to a city? No! Even with a quite a detailed map a city will always have nooks and crannies. But without a map or some directions you'll just wander around with zero clues as to where the interesting stuff might be. Of course, in a real city you can just ask people for directions, which is more interesting than using a map. But you can't do this sort of thing in Dark Souls, and that is the core of the problem.

>The game isn't really about trying a bunch of stuff until you find the "right" way to beat an area. If you think your best bet is to go everywhere and pick up every item, then you don't have a very good understanding of the character building mechanics.

What is the game "about"? It's about exploring interesting areas while fighting monsters. And part of the exploration is discovering detail like items, monster placements, bonfires and traps. But it is not done all that well, because most of the discovering comes about by way of trial-and-error. If you can't see that discovering things foreshadowed by clues and an organized system of placement is more interesting than stumbling upon stuff at random, then you should play more video games before commenting on them on the Internet.

>Although there is often a message by the door that says Try Parrying.

Which is sheer laziness. If From had put in their own hints then they could calibrate the level of detail in the hints so that the player gets just enough information to be HINTED without sticking neon signs on every hidden item or illusory wall. I mean, if your defense is "sometimes you get lucky and there's a sign telling you the answer directly", then I can only laugh right in your face.

>There are plenty of other games that hand-hold and don't have the time investment requirement of Dark Souls.

This is the classic conflation comment. You conflate my irritation with the disorganization and time-wasting of Dark Souls with an aversion to time investment and a love of hand-holding. In fact, I love to put lots of time into a game that I like. I like Dark Souls and have invested 200+ hours into it. I like to invest my time in things that are _enjoyable_. And Dark Souls has faults that detract from the experience relative to Demon's Souls, which is a less ambitious but more polished game. Just as Tetris is a far more polished game than Dark Souls even though Dark Souls has far higher potential and is overall the better game. It's like intelligence: a person with IQ 140 has the potential for not just cleverness but also stupidity far in excess of, say, a dog. The dog is a more polished animal mentally than many people, because there's only so far wrong it can go in life.

>I feel like Dark Souls respects the player much more than those games, because you truly do have the freedom to make your own choices.

Well, this just goes to show how little you've thought about this. It's only a "decision" in the most degenerate, worthless sense unless you have enough information to make a good one. That is the entire point of my posts in this thread. And far from respecting you it is in fact simultaneously (a) making a fool out of you by giving you the illusion of meaningful choice, and (b) showing contempt for your time by including so much trial-and-error.

Again for the people who still don't understand that I like this game, you need to realize that only an ambitious and interesting game can harbor these sorts of flaws.

Re: A Close Look at Dark Souls’ Ingenious Difficulty

#74
post #18

What really annoys me about Dark Souls is the shitty PC port. They're still selling tons of copies of the game for PC because of all the silly hype around it, and yet the game is virtually unplayable - even with all the mouse fixes, mods, etc. Why is it acceptable for game developers to completely abandon their customer base and continue to sell a broken product? I picked up the game during a Steam sale, spent a good…

I'm going to say first of all that I am a major fan of Dark Souls. So I'm obviously going to be biased here.

Was the PC port rushed? Yes, there's no doubt about it. Is it a broken product, though? No, not at all, because the simple fact is that it was never intended to be played using a keyboard and mouse. The developers, probably at the behest of the publisher, didn't really make that clear for the PC version, and that's a shame, but this game was designed from the ground up for a gamepad to a similar extent that Starcraft is designed for a keyboard and mouse. I think if this was communicated more clearly people would have been less caught off guard by the atrocious keyboard and mouse support in the vanilla PC port.

You need to pick up a gamepad, preferably an Xbox 360 one, to play Dark Souls on the PC the way it was meant to be played.

> And for those few hours I did play it, nothing about it stood out to me as being incredible or ingenious.

Of course, there is no way you can expect to appreciate the game itself if you're struggling with the controls.

Re: A Close Look at Dark Souls’ Ingenious Difficulty

#75
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, yes... the PC version should come with a giant red warning that says "DO NOT ATTEMPT TO PLAY THIS WITHOUT A CONTROLLER". There's still a learning curve even with a controller, but once past that the controls have a beautiful simplicity and responsiveness that I've seen in very few other games.

What's the point of playing a PC game with a controller? If I wanted to play a game with inferior controls, I would just use a console.

This is a really ignorant comment. First, it's downright silly to assume that KB+M is necessarily better for every game; even if the developers had invested time in improving the KB+M controls, the game would still operate far better with a gamepad. Second, it's also downright silly to think that there's no reason to ever use a gamepad with a PC. If you already have a gaming PC and you don't have a console, that's a pretty big reason to play it on PC. If you have a high resolution monitor that you want to take advantage of, that's a pretty big reason to play it on PC. If you're interested in modding, that's a pretty big reason to play it on PC.
Post reply on HN