By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - In my opinion, Demon's Souls is a bad game.

theprof00 on 14 February 2010
loves2splooge said:
theprof00 said:
loves2splooge said:
theprof00 said:
loves2splooge said:
Gosh this thread is completely drenched with e-machismo posturing. A perfect example of why gamers are looked down upon as anti-social nerds. Pretty funny to see geeky jrpg gamers of all gamers (who are perceived as geeks by the alpha males of our society) act like e-tough guys. What is it with gamer nerds needing to be confrontational and aggressive behind a computer screen? I expect this kind of behaviour from a Halo or Call of Duty community (high-octane testosterone and what not) but to see it among the jrpg community is quite sad. As a self-proclaimed geek and long-time jrpg gamer, I'm ashamed that our community manages to stoop this low. Sure he made an unfair evaluation on the game (it's not a bad game per se. It does what it intends to do. It's just not for him and he's entirely within his right to disagree with From Software's game design philosophies), but is it necessary to attack him?

You have no right to complain about a game when you turn your attention to something else every 5-10 minutes.

strategy guides are one of the biggest gaming failures for the gamer. It completely removes the player from the game; for what? To get 3 more damage, or a slightly better weapon, or to beat the game in a shorter time? Why? Because you have other games to play? Which will be used with another guide? It's just one run after another and nothing is experienced. It makes the game predictable and reduces it to menial task mastering. It is by far the biggest travesty to the gaming experience.

Sure, if you're one of those people who do feel the need to use a guide, I have no foul intentions for you. But do not, DO NOT critisize it, because you have chosen to play it for some strange reason, and felt the urgent need to beat it in the shortest time possible.

Video games are about fun. I can't imagine that it would be fun for a gamer who can't seem to figure out how to get past an area without outside help to try a gazillion times and keep at it just to save face with geeky rpg gamers on the internets. In the real world, people ask for help all the time so I don't see why getting help on how to pass a part you are stuck on in a video game is all that bad. Is it a personal failing for you if you have to ask a co-worker or manager to help you with something you are unsure about? "I'm too good to get outside help". That is e-macho posturing at it's finest. Men are less likely to ask for help than women. It's cave man, mine is bigger than yours mentality. Men don't like to admit to weaknesses and admit to being the beta to an alpha. And we are seeing this psychology playing out in the gaming community. Because gamers feel like they need to compensate and have something to prove.

That is NOT what it is at all and you are skewing the OP or your own unmentioned experiences to support your idea. You took the most supportive argument you could find, but look above. 1.Died once. 2.Opened strategy guide. Your inclination to bend the truth to fit your argument is really perturbing, and I am really embarassed for you and your obvious spin. You talk about my "e-machismo", and "caveman psychology", and call me a beta with something to compensate for. What a joke. Even casuals don't use guides.

Obviously if you spend 10-20 times really trying to beat something and just know that you're missing something. Use a strategy guide. I do not blame you. Some games have problems with linearity and would take hours to figure out what you are supposed to do. Jumping to the conclusion that you need a guide before even really trying is a shame, a damn shame. Far too many gamers now use guides with everything and use them as a crutch, if they can even be considered gamers.

Casuals may not get a strategy guide to look through while they are playing. Just because the guides are often detailed and from beginning to end doesn't mean that they're following the guides from beginning to end. When they are stuck yeah. Casuals definitely do seek outside help for sure. Asking friends for help, or on online forums, looking at a guide online to help them pass an area they are stuck on, etc.

Strategy guides are such a taboo subject within the gaming community but considering the size of GameFAQs, it's clear that a lot of people are doing it. And not admitting to it.

As for whether the OP was quick to use the guide or not, whatever, video games are supposed to be entertainment. If he finds DS more enjoyable that way, then fine. I've used a guide for building Diablo 2 character builds. Is that really wrong? If you make an ineffectual build, that's countless hours down the drain. Countless wasted hours spent on empty leisure that could have been saved for a better experience. I mean what's the point of investing all that time when nothing results from it? To "become a better gamer"? As if that has any real importance in the real world. Gaming is something you do to relax, take a load off.

You only live once, you are mortal, you have a finite amount of time in this world. You do what you enjoy, why should macho posturing people on the internets tell you how to enjoy something? So when I see gamers go on this thread (I'm not singling you out, this seems to be a general theme in this thread.) and flex their e-peen saying, "oh you just suck at this game. don't suck and you it won't be repetitive" or "this game punishes stupidity" or "getting help is for pussies", it just makes me ashamed of being a gamer. Gamers are seen as anti-social nerds for a reason and threads like this show why.

 

But the question keeps circling back. What's to enjoy about beating a game, when you had someone holding your hand the whole way. You are right, we only live once. So play games that make you want to play them. What you need to understand is that none of this has been about bashing people who ask for help. It's about the credibility of the criticism. It's not just about critisizing a hard game, it's about critisizing something that he hasn't even given a chance because he is being guided past the game.

I still don't know why you are hounding this macho venue. It's not working. It's a dead end. This is not the argument, but you do have a point. However, that point is off-topic because it doesn't relate to this at all. But I agree with you. There should be a certain amount of give. Just don't critisize something you are not really playing. It's like critisizing a game when you're using game-genie or whatever, or a downloaded save game.

It's like watching a scary movie and having a friend say "something is going to pop up in 5 seconds when it pans to the tv". Not because it helps you get through the movie, but because it ruins the atmosphere. For other games I really wouldn't be as persistant as I am, but in this case, the atmosphere is one of the main draws, and this ruins it.



Around the Network
BxN on 14 February 2010

Demon's souls isn't even that hard. Once you get better weapons and play cautiously, you'll rarely ever die at all.

If you die 500 times in one level, it's either because your character isn't good enough or you're just doing something wrong.



Dgc1808 on 14 February 2010
Garnett said:
Dgc1808 said:

You're only given an intro to the story. Everything else unfolds as you play and communicate with NPC's. The end of a level is made obvious when you get there... When you start up an area, you're job is to explore that area and find and destroy the boss Demon's that inhabit it.

If you die, walk back to where you died and die again, it means you failed again. Plain and simple. That's where you take the initiative to figure out what you're doing wrong and correct it. You have to work your way back there as punishment for dying in the first place. The game doesn't hold your hand and bring revive you at a check point that was just 8 seconds away form where you died. If you're able to and actually succeed at the level, you're rewarded with more souls than what you would have gotten with just a straight playthrough with no deaths. 

If this is to complicated for you then just give up:

The basterd sword is a Large sword and has a high strength requirement of 18.
If you got a message saying you weren't strong enough to wield this sword with one hand [right hand], then your strength stat is under 18.
Press triangle while the weapon is in your right hand (primary attack hand) and you wield it with both hands. Using a sword with two hand should be easier to wield than just one hand... makes sense? If all that's required for you to use the weapon is some better strength then two hands should fix the problem. Makes sense?
Of course, this means you don't have a shield. You can block with the sword but it doesn't guard as well as a shield so you will take more damage. Since you don't have your shield which is used for parrying, you can't parry...

How hard is it just to take some time and learn the status screen? Did the symbols scare you off?

The story was non existent IMO.

 

I dont mind going back the way i came but when they respawn the same enemies in the same location  then that is just lame development.

 

Again over complicates things, Just make it so i can only use the sword with two hands, why would they even give you the option to use it with one hand? If your using the sword with both hands then you can block with it, if your using it with one hand you cant... that makes sense.

 

I would rather be babied through a game and have fun than have a game  that is boring, tedious and repetitive. Maybe thats why FF games are so well liked?

...

1) You want the enemies in different locations? Then you say that you would prefer a game that holds your hand compared to this? Ok...

2) It's pretty simple

Use it with one hand:

You have a free hand for an additional weapon, casting tool, a shield, or if you're really good with parrying you can parry with your bear hands.
Standard strength.

Use with both hands:

Deal more damage with each attack.
Strength and Dexterity Requirement lower.
You can't parry.
You can block but it doesn't work as well as a shield [of course].

I can't remember if the Barbarian class starts off with enough strength to use the Bastard Sword, but it doesn't matter. Your class choice only determines what you are when you start. You can level your stats how ever you please once you start playing. Getting Strength to 18 is short work compared to other weapons like Garl's Brand or the White Bow.



4 ≈ One

Reasonable on 14 February 2010
Khuutra said:
Reasonable said:

??? Not sure I'm getting your point there, sorry.

I believe DS delivers exactly what the developers intended, and as such is a well made game with respect to itself.  However it's chosen design simply doesn't work for me, personally.  I just can't bother with games that require that level of effort and re-play to complete.  This is mostly a time based decision.  I have a family and kids plus lots of real life activity that limits my gaming time - therefore while I'm happy to invest a fair bit of time into the right game, it won't be one where I replay sections a lot to get a desirable result.  That just doesn't work for me right now.

So I was basically saying you can't call a game 'bad' because it's chosen mechanics or approach don't appeal if they are actually well done and as intended, that just means they don't appeal to you.

An analog would be some friends reaction to watching the film Revolutionary Road.  They said it was bad.  I asked why and they said because it was depressing.  I asked about script, acting, direction, etc. and they said all of that was great.  I then pointed out that clearly the film wasn't bad as everything that you can fairly critique was in fact excellent according to them, the problem was that it told a story they didn't want to experience, namely a very depressing one.  The issue was one of taste, not failure to execute.  I believe the same applies to the OP regarding Demon's Souls.

I'm not making a point, I was asking if you thought it possible to judge a design decision as inherently bad.

It seems you don't, so that is answer enough.

Ah, I see.  Not really, not unless it clearly didn't work as intended.  I mean, I can see that angle, particularly from a commercial angle.   But I'm more of an art over commerce sort of guy.  I think there are design choices that will narrow down your audience, perhaps hugely, but I don't think they should be seen as bad.  Of course, they will by many.

It's clear that LBP would have been better received by a lot of people of your Sackboy wasn't affected by gravity but instead moved and jumped with Mario precision, but I think that is an okay decision design for the game.  Or that DS would probably have more fans if it didn't have such drastic penalties for failure, however I can see the thinking behind it and clearly it found its audience who agree, or KZ2 had CoD style weight and movement vs what is has.

The closest I'm feeling to wondering if a design decision is bad are the controls in Heavy Rain, there I'm really not sure there is a better alternative to achieve the same goals.  With DS, I think the design decision works well for what they seem to want to achieve, a huge penalty for failure and an insistence on practical perfection to win through, but with HR I'm not sure the same design goal of immersion in a character driven narrative couldn't be achieved better without QTE style input.

And with that comment I'm probably opening my own can of worms with the HR fans!

 

 



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

lestatdark on 14 February 2010
bugrimmar said:
lestatdark said:
bugrimmar said:

^ no, diablo is completely different. with diablo, you don't HAVE to necessarily repeat whole sections of the game, exactly like you just did awhile ago.

one great feature that diablo included was that maps are always randomized every time you boot up the game. also, monsters only regenerate when you log out of the game (or after a certain period of time), which means you don't have to fight through the same guys just to get your body back.

see, in demon's souls, everything regenerates and the area is always the same. so you really gotta kill everything you just killed 10 minutes ago in the same area, again and again.

so actually, if demon's souls didn't regenerate everything after you die, it wouldn't suck. the fact is, it's a forced repetition with absolutely no variety.

Actually demon's souls works a lot more alike with Diablo (and Diablo 2) than you think.

Regenerating maps in Diablo don't change the fact that both enemies and the overall layout of the levels are already predetermined, just like in demon's souls. Also, in higher difficulties, dying in Diablo 2 spells even more doom than dying in Demon's Souls.

Take for example, chapter 5, Hell Difficulty. You die while fighting Minions of Hell that Baal summons. Trying to get your body back from it's borderline impossible. If you log out, you lose your body as well.

Demon's Souls corrects that fundamental flaw. Even if you die and log out, your bloodstain remains in the same place, and will continue to remain there until you get it or die again. That means that you can die in a hard place offline, go back into the game online, get some blue phantom help and go back to the place you left your bloodstain. It's all a matter of adapting your needs to the overall situation of the game.

Also, Demon's Souls challenge is pretty equal to the higher difficulty levels of Diablo 2, meaning that you will be doing the same parts over and over again in Diablo 2, just to get better loot or to gain some levels before tackling a pretty difficult boss. Doing solo Hell runs, will have you replying the Black Marsh Countess tower over and over again for hours, just to get some decent runes for your character. The same happens with Demon's Souls, you'll be replaying the same parts over and over again, either for souls to gain more levels or to upgrade your weapons, or to gain stones. 

Actually, Demon's Souls regenerating everything after you die it's one of the best additions they could have ever add. I hated to kill everything in a Diablo 2 map, Save & Exit just to have everything reloaded.

Plus, as a finishing line, you're not forced to do any kind of repetition in Demon's Souls. You can lineary go through levels, only defeating the bosses and not caring for stats or anything else. A straight run in Demon's Souls without doing anything on the side, will take you 20 hours tops.  Also, most of the deaths you saw on the pantheon from top players, are forced deaths in order to enable some of the World Tendency events, not actual deaths from screw-ups.

Actually, regenerating maps does make you at least experience something relatively new. At least you're not really going through the exact same place and you're constantly exploring a new area.

When you log out of Diablo 2, your body is brought back to the town area. I don't understand what you mean when you lose your body. All you lose is experience and gold, which is easy to get back anyway. The point is that you can easily get your body back no matter the situation in Diablo. In Demon's Souls, you MUST go kill the same monsters again. Your body will never return to town if it's caught in a deep part of a castle or something.

See, the difference with Diablo and Demon's Souls is choice. In Diablo, you can choose not to grind if you don't want to. You can choose not to go through Hell difficulty if you don't want to. Diablo lets you finish the game, and at least see the whole story, without having to go through impossible monsters that require a stronger character. Diablo gives a chance to players who don't really want to grind like hell. If you want to grind like hell, there's an option to do so. But the point is, Diablo gives you options. Demon's Souls has no options. Either you grind, or you grind.

You're not forced to do any repetition in Demon's Souls? That's new to me. Every single time you die you're forced to repeat everything. Not caring for stats? You can't defeat strong monsters without good stats. Straight runs? Yeah, you can do a short, straight run, after grinding like hell for most of the game.

I don't quite understand what you're getting at here. Diablo has so many choices for many different players. Demon's Souls only caters to the grinder.

My point is that you're nitpicking Demon's Souls to the maximum that you can in order to get your point across, when there are lots of games that have done the same thing that Demon's Souls is trying to do now.

Having logged more than 1000 hours in diablo 2 and more than 100 in Demon's Souls, I can safely say that the two of them have more in common than you're wanting to see.

Regenerating maps don't get you to explore a new area, they just change the geometry of the area, that's all. It will have a new nook or cranny, but the caves, the enemies, the exits, they are all the same, no matter how much geometry changes. Any pro Diablo 2 player can easily tell you that regenerating maps isn't even a consideration, since when you're stuck doing grinding sections for loot or exp, you don't pay any attention to the maps, not when you're in your 10th time around the map.

Isn't losing Exp and Gold the same exact thing as losing your Souls if you miss your Bloodstain? This is exactly the same thing. Only Demon's Souls gives you a chance to get it, even if you lose it in a very difficult part (if you ever get to 5-2/5-3 and lose your bloodstain on the swamp there, you'll see what I mean). Diablo 2 doesn't, either you go there and risk dying again, losing more exp in the process, or you log out, sacrificing exp and gold for your equipment.

Diablo 2 and Demon's Souls doesn't require you to grind if you want to finish the game. You can ask a lot of people who have already finished Demon's Souls here and they'll all say to you that the grinding aspect of the game is only required if you're aiming for platinum or NG+. Dying and going back to do the level is hardly grinding, unless you consider dying in every other game and going back to do the levels again, grinding. Also, as people have already told you too, almost all stages have a shortcut to finish them relatively fast. If you only care to finish the game and not grind anything, you can finish the game in 10-20 hours easily. Just like Diablo, you have the choice in how you want to play your game.

 I can see we're going to go back and forth in this dialogue, since you have already given indications that you do not want to see the similarities, which are more than blatant enough. Once more, I respect your opinion about demon's souls as it clearly isn't a game for everyone. But at least be a bit fair and try to see that Demon's Souls is not alone in it's mechanics, that can probably give you a better insight on Demon's Souls.



Current PC Build

CPU - i7 8700K 3.7 GHz (4.7 GHz turbo) 6 cores OC'd to 5.2 GHz with Watercooling (Hydro Series H110i) | MB - Gigabyte Z370 HD3P ATX | Gigabyte GTX 1080ti Gaming OC BLACK 11G (1657 MHz Boost Core / 11010 MHz Memory) | RAM - Corsair DIMM 32GB DDR4, 2400 MHz | PSU - Corsair CX650M (80+ Bronze) 650W | Audio - Asus Essence STX II 7.1 | Monitor - Samsung U28E590D 4K UHD, Freesync, 1 ms, 60 Hz, 28"

Around the Network
Wonktonodi on 14 February 2010

So you found the repetition a problem after dying three time? imagine giving up a Mario game after 3 tries. It just doesn't make sense to me that three deaths was enough to stop you. Also did you ever get anyone to help? When I was having a really hard time I got someone to help me and then got more experience by seeing them play plus the souls. Also it's a game where you need to have a focus on how you play. You can't just level everything up evenly. You need to focus on how you play. Also as many have said once you do things in the world you don't have to do it all again. The enemies will still be there but if you get gates open or bridges down you don't have to attack them.



XxXProphecyXxX on 14 February 2010

Ehhh its an opinion nothing more...



Wonktonodi on 14 February 2010
Garnett said:
Rpruett said:
Garnett said:
 

I dont mind going back the way i came but when they respawn the same enemies in the same location  then that is just lame development.

Why?  If they did that, then you certainly wouldn't be able to beat it and would be crying about not being able to complete a stage.  Demon's Souls is a VERY straight-forward game.  Use your brain, analyze, make wise choices and methodically move through the game and you will do fine.     Demon's Souls provides enough of a challenge by itself,  moving enemies around would just exponentially increase the difficulty for players. 

 

Again over complicates things, Just make it so i can only use the sword with two hands, why would they even give you the option to use it with one hand? If your using the sword with both hands then you can block with it, if your using it with one hand you cant... that makes sense.

 

Because if you played a high Endurance/Strength class you would be able to wield a powerful '2h' weapon in one hand as well as use a shield and protect yourself.

 

 

I would rather be babied through a game and have fun than have a game  that is boring, tedious and repetitive. Maybe thats why FF games are so well liked?

 

Well, that is totally an opinion.   That is why Call of Duty is so popular.  It takes very little skill to be an adequate player.   The real gem of Demon's Souls is that you have to play a bit into it and really engross yourself into the game and it's an absolute delight when you do. 

 

Actually i would be able to beat the stage, thats like saying "If you remove enemies from a level you wont beat it"

How about the enemies i killed stay dead? Why do they need to come back?

Can you imagine if CoD only had veteran mode and people said "Well use your brain and take your time through the level, This game doesnt baby you through it", Your right it flat out kicks you in the balls and laughs at you.

 

Ok so why dont they just make it so anyone who isnt a super dupe "1337" warrior cant use the weapon with one hand? Who would not want to block? 

 

That is why any popular game is good, because there simple to play and not over complicate shit. You think Call Of Duty is even in the same league as Operation Flash Point? Shit no OFP doesnt "Baby" You... 

 

 

 

 


If this was anything other than a RPG it would of gotten a 4/10.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you can't block with the two handed weapon because you aren't leveled for it  use a one handed weapon and a shield.  Then you can block.  You shouldn't expect to be able to do everything at the begining.  Sometimes you will have to wait a while before being able to use the weapons you want.



bugrimmar on 14 February 2010

Alright, so this is the end of this tirade. I'm never putting another foot into this game again. Guess I just don't dig repetition. Anyway, I traded the game for Ratchet and Clank: A Crack in Time. Ratchet has never failed me before, so I'm sure this one will be much fresher.



Khuutra on 14 February 2010

Picking up a game you're more likely to enjoy is probably the better option here, yes