Dark Souls is far from flawless (disclaimer: haven't watched the video yet), and I disagree about it being way too hard. It's a matter of learning and being patient, really.

It's also one of my favourite games ever made. Probably into my top three.

This

You've got it summed up pretty well here.  I'll go on to say that it's easily (EASILY!) the best series to emerge from the 7th gen consoles. And I'm including Demon's Souls, Dark Souls 1 and 2, and Bloodborne as all part of the same series. 

I'd fully support the Castlevania series going in this direction, rather than the God of War direction. The Souls games are really just another form of Metroidvania anyways.

The guy defending the game really does a poor job. He even goes as far to say that the game isn't fun and it's all about the atmosphere. Horrible video.

Also that ring to walk on water isn't neccessary to beat the game.

In the end if you lose in this game it's because you are bad at it. There aren't deaths in the game that come from bugs or glitches (or at least that never happened to me). Admit it, you just suck balls at the game.

It's ok to admit it, unless your ego is up there on the moon.

i know you're a nintendo fan so i'll try to put things in terms you may appreciate.

demon's/dark souls or bloodborne is mysterious like how super metroid was mysterious.  there is a deep engaging story built into these game but you can also simply ignore it if you don't care.  it's more of a show instead of tell method of story telling.  it's subtle at times but also rewarding and intriguing.  also a big part of these game's gameplay is exploration and discovery.   if you just came out and said everything about everything you lose that joy of discovery when you put the peices of the puzzle together.

demon's/dark souls or bloodborne is difficult like how donkey kong country (or some mario 3 levels like the air ships) was difficult.  that is to say they aren't hard but their is a rhythm to the gameplay you need to learn to succeed.  each enemy has a very, very scripted AI.  it does the exact same thing every single time you play.  the hard part is learning what enemy's to kite, which to rush, which to parry, which way to dodge, and the timing of when they are vulnerable.  it's no different than DKC where there is a jump that comes quickly and requires precision timing land.  the first time it is "cheap" and the second time it is "easy".  again, this feeds into the joy of discovery which is so fundamental to gameplay.

it's unforgiving of mistakes but not cheap.   like games of yore you will die,. a lot.  but if you have even an oodle of patience you'll learn from your mistakes.  ..and the feeling of accomplishment when you succeed is immensely rewarding.  compare that to the majory of games today where death is an impossiblity or minimual setback to a checkpoint that occurs every 2 minutes of gamplay you'll find that these games are novel in today's market.

Both arguments were really poor. Matt failed to offer a rebuttal to Jirard even when his points were flat out wrong or wishy washy (The Iron Rusted RIng, the over exaggerated claim about stats, the game offering no direction, combat). I found Dark Souls to be fun, it was my highlight of the games I played last year and with that being said, it's not a game for everyone. It's a game which requires an investment of time both in and outside the game and it requires a lot of patience and some trial and error to master the mechanics.

I feel much the same. I would call it mediocre at best. Certainly not unplayable and it therefore doesn't "suck" but it has shortcomings in pretty much every area that there is (graphics, audio, story, menus, gameplay etc.).

I think the difference between games like the Souls games and games like DKC or Super Meat Boy is that the 2D plane offers much more precise control of your character and lends better awareness to your surroundings. While examining your surroundings is fundamental to the Souls games, it can also feel quite cheap, however, that can be forgiven.

The more pressing matter is the control of your character. There are times in the Souls games which just feel janky. The boundaries of some of the environments can be unclear and all "platforming" is completely busted. (Things like overhead auto-tracking in DS2 were pretty much bullshit too...)

The Souls games also do a terrible job at tutorializing you. 2D games tend to be fairly intuitive and simple (easy to learn hard to master), while the Souls games throw a lot of information at you and never really explain the systems. You are forced to learn on your own (or look it up), and while some people like that, I think the tremendous wall to beginning Souls games is in large part a fault in game design.

There are also numerous things done which can be extremely annoying, such as (in Demon's Souls) the shopkeepers who hate you forever if you hit them and the ability to basically ruin your game if you kill an NPC accidentally.

While difficulty (and death) is fundamental to the Souls experience, I think there are numerous areas which call for improvement.

To me DS + BB is about learn, adapt, apply - or die.
none of them are by any means perfect, and some are better than others but it's about perception too
I loved the previous DS games, but hated BB until my perception changed during a PvP encounter.
I've now got over 200 hours in that game, and far from putting it down.

my point: some things suck until something clicks; then it doesn't suck anymore.
If nothing DOES click, then yes the game will continue to suck. forever.

The series haven't made me want to play, but I see no value in complaining about a game I don't like but others love.