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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Gave up on Dark Souls after my third attempt

I've never been able to get into it. Life is difficult enough as it is, I don't need some game constantly killing me over and over because of silly little mistakes, all in a dark, depressing world. I almost couldn't play Jedi Fallen Order because the game felt so lifeless and void of happiness, and I know that game is apparently a more friendly version of this genre, if you will, than Dark Souls. I know we all like different games, but for me games are about escaping stress. I will almost never play horror, or depressing games, or ones that do both of those (the last of us). I want colors, jokes, and light-hearted banter.



Around the Network

I've only playe Ni-Oh and Code Vein, and I enjoyed both of them. I mainly played Code Vein in co-op with a friend though.

I was never interested in the Souls games because of the setting. I like the setting of Bloodborne better, and gave it a shot, but I gave up on it because I didn't like how I have to farm up healing items after every time a boss kills me. I just want to get back to the action and practice the boss.Not take a detour to farm items.

In Ni-Oh this wasn't an issue becase even if you completely run out of healing items, they always let you start with a minimum of 3, which you can upgrade to be higher.
I don't recall how it worked in Code Vein, but I didn't have any issues with it.



Agente42 said:
kirby007 said:

Purists say the clunkyness is what makes it great, idiots if you ask me

Nioh, Bloodborne and DS 3 are better games.

In Nes and SNES era have a bunch of difficult games, and few people can complete. 

In PSone era the game, with the up of cinematograph games, games become easier and the low difficult are the norm.

Souls games bring the arcade difficult to modern cinematograph style.

@Metallox, Maybe stamina base game is not your forte. Try Ninja Gaiden ( Xbox and the originals), try any bullethell, try CupHead( and other run an gun games). Doom Eternal in Nightmare Difficult is brilliant(and hard). Hollow Knight ( true ending, Path of Pain and Pantheon is a blast).

I really bad at RTS, Great Strategy Games, SRPG, I liked, but always low the difficulty in these games. 

I actually just finished DOOM Eternal on Nightmare a few days ago, it was an authentic blast. I wanted to do an UN run but Gargoyles are some tough bitches, maybe I'll try again when the DLC comes out on Switch, if it does. After stopping that plan, I went with Dark Souls thinking I needed a change of pace and finally beat it... It never felt pleasant, though, same deal as with the previous attempts. I rarely had a good time. 

At the very least, I can say I tried this time. 



The types of games arent my cup of tea either.
I can see how some can find it enjoyable but, similar to you, I gave up on Bloodborne and it wasnt due to just the difficulty.



tag:"reviews only matter for the real hardcore gamer"

Heh, this thread reminds me of most of the comments I read when Demon's Souls and Dark Souls were new games.  Most people didn't like it.  Maybe that is still true, but people don't realize it.

 

Mnementh said:
freebs2 said:

Beforhand I think Demon't Souls and Dark Souls are excellent game, but at the same time I don't like very much From Software later games.

As for first playthrough impressions. My first souls game was Demons Souls, so when I started Dark Souls I already knew the basics...but still I had a lot of difficult times.
Firstly yes, the game can be overwhelming...the thing is DS rewards caution and carefull exploration. Also to be played properly it requires you to understand how the rpg elements in the game work and that can be a challange at fist. I would say DS is one of the few games I recommend playing with a guide for the first time, not much for walkthoughs but to understand how character progression and equipment power ups work.
That said, I would recommend to approach Demon,DS,DS2 not much as action games but more as survival games. The key to beat the game is to utilise your resources and to minimize risks. As for boss fights it's very important to understand thier moveset, the environment, its weak points, if it gets to difficult it's also usefull to experiment with different approaches.
Contrary to what 'purists' say it's not always fair and it has a lot of rough edges, but It's still my favourite single player game of last generation, regardless.

I think the characterization as survival more than action games seems about right.

I am not good at fast paced action games. I like the flashyness and the style of Bayonetta for instance, but the combat frustrates me and feels a lot harder than in souls games. That is because the pace of the fight overwhelms me. In Souls on the other hand I can plan out my moves and react to the enemy, as the combat is slowed down (probably what feels clunky about it). This is why Bayonetta, while overall an enjoyable game, fails to make my TOP 50, while Demon's Souls enters it.

To me Dark Souls feels like old school D&D.  You are trying to make your way through a death dungeon.  It is a lot like a roguelike.  It's a real-time roguelike.  I don't think of it as an action game. 

Having said that, Dark Souls is one of my favorite games of all time.  I think younger people want to play it as an action game, because they don't really make challenging action games anymore.  If I want to play a challenging action game, then I'll just play some game from the 80s.  But for younger people, they may not even consider these games, so they try to make Dark Souls into an action game instead.



Around the Network
The_Liquid_Laser said:

Heh, this thread reminds me of most of the comments I read when Demon's Souls and Dark Souls were new games.  Most people didn't like it.  Maybe that is still true, but people don't realize it.

 

Mnementh said:

I think the characterization as survival more than action games seems about right.

I am not good at fast paced action games. I like the flashyness and the style of Bayonetta for instance, but the combat frustrates me and feels a lot harder than in souls games. That is because the pace of the fight overwhelms me. In Souls on the other hand I can plan out my moves and react to the enemy, as the combat is slowed down (probably what feels clunky about it). This is why Bayonetta, while overall an enjoyable game, fails to make my TOP 50, while Demon's Souls enters it.

To me Dark Souls feels like old school D&D.  You are trying to make your way through a death dungeon.  It is a lot like a roguelike.  It's a real-time roguelike.  I don't think of it as an action game. 

Having said that, Dark Souls is one of my favorite games of all time.  I think younger people want to play it as an action game, because they don't really make challenging action games anymore.  If I want to play a challenging action game, then I'll just play some game from the 80s.  But for younger people, they may not even consider these games, so they try to make Dark Souls into an action game instead.

Yeah, I've watched what people do with these games in speedruns. It's impressive. If you remove the glitches and the out of bounds tricks, you get to see incredibly precise movements that consume the enemies' health in the blink of an eye. They sometimes make the games look like your regular hack and slash. 



The_Liquid_Laser said:

Heh, this thread reminds me of most of the comments I read when Demon's Souls and Dark Souls were new games.  Most people didn't like it.  Maybe that is still true, but people don't realize it.

 

To me Dark Souls feels like old school D&D.  You are trying to make your way through a death dungeon.  It is a lot like a roguelike.  It's a real-time roguelike.  I don't think of it as an action game. 

Having said that, Dark Souls is one of my favorite games of all time.  I think younger people want to play it as an action game, because they don't really make challenging action games anymore.  If I want to play a challenging action game, then I'll just play some game from the 80s.  But for younger people, they may not even consider these games, so they try to make Dark Souls into an action game instead.

I wouldn't compare it to a rogue like. Those are about procedural generation, different every time, see how far you get. Dark Souls is the opposite, every enemy is always in the same spot, behaves the same, nothing left up to chance. It's more like Ultima Underworld.

Approaching it like old school D&D is what got me stuck in my first play through. The stats are not all that important, equipment is. I had to throw my notions how to approach an RPG out the window and simply treat stats as 'unlocks' for weapons, armor and spells.

It's still an action game, just a slower paced one. You can't rush it, but you better have good timing and reflexes to dodge and parry. Very different from games like Everquest and WoW where you simply turn attack on and let the dice do the work. Everquest was much harder than Dark Souls even though the actual combat had very little to do with timing. Well, apart from tons of timers before you could use / stack an attack again.




Initially, I didn't like it much...from my POV it was slower Severance: Blade of Darkness with worse combat...that and falling off the ledges due to bad camera annoyed the hell out of me. Eventually I got used to it and liked it. A lot. Tried DSII - didn't like it, stopped playing it after few days. DSIII, played and liked - probably easiest to get into. Got back to DSII - loved it this time, so much that it became my favourite DS.



SvennoJ said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

Heh, this thread reminds me of most of the comments I read when Demon's Souls and Dark Souls were new games.  Most people didn't like it.  Maybe that is still true, but people don't realize it.

 

To me Dark Souls feels like old school D&D.  You are trying to make your way through a death dungeon.  It is a lot like a roguelike.  It's a real-time roguelike.  I don't think of it as an action game. 

Having said that, Dark Souls is one of my favorite games of all time.  I think younger people want to play it as an action game, because they don't really make challenging action games anymore.  If I want to play a challenging action game, then I'll just play some game from the 80s.  But for younger people, they may not even consider these games, so they try to make Dark Souls into an action game instead.

I wouldn't compare it to a rogue like. Those are about procedural generation, different every time, see how far you get. Dark Souls is the opposite, every enemy is always in the same spot, behaves the same, nothing left up to chance. It's more like Ultima Underworld.

Approaching it like old school D&D is what got me stuck in my first play through. The stats are not all that important, equipment is. I had to throw my notions how to approach an RPG out the window and simply treat stats as 'unlocks' for weapons, armor and spells.

It's still an action game, just a slower paced one. You can't rush it, but you better have good timing and reflexes to dodge and parry. Very different from games like Everquest and WoW where you simply turn attack on and let the dice do the work. Everquest was much harder than Dark Souls even though the actual combat had very little to do with timing. Well, apart from tons of timers before you could use / stack an attack again.


I am talking about the overall design philosophy rather than specific mechanics.  The overall design philosophy of roguelikes (especially older ones) is "here is a big, nasty, deadly dungeon.  See if you can get through it."  That is also the design philosophy of Dark Souls.  The procedural generation of a roguelike is there to make the game more challenging and to extend replay value.  However, the main point of a roguelike is to experience a big, nasty, deadly dungeon.  That is also the point of Dark Souls.  You are still going to end up needing several tries to get through most parts of Dark Souls even though the dungeon isn't procedurally generated.  Also, both roguelikes and Dark Souls rely a lot more on thinking and strategy than a twitch game does.

Old school D&D often had a similar philosophy.  It often had deadly dungeons and the point was both to survive and also get lots of treasure.  You survived by your wits.  Dark Souls isn't as treasure oriented as old school D&D, but the rest of it has a pretty similar feel to it.



mZuzek said:

I tried it twice and could not understand at all what was supposedly so great about it. Granted, in both attempts I stopped pretty early into the game, but that's because I was hating every second of it.

For one, the story sucks. I don't mind games that want to tell their story in cryptic ways, but if you're gonna do it like that, don't treat me to a confusing lore dump at the opening cutscene, I'd rather just play the game and learn things at my own pace. For another, the graphics also suck. I don't need games to have highly advanced technology but Dark Souls is just so ugly, I was actually impressed it managed to look so lifeless because I didn't know it was possible. Everything was so gray and low-contrast, nothing stood out, nothing was interesting. Even the UI was hideous and opening the menu just made matters worse, what with its overwhelming collection of arbitrary RPG numbers scattered everywhere.

Then the gameplay... oof. It's one thing to make your game hard, it's another thing entirely to have a lot of trial-and-error bullshit where you get instakilled for not knowing better, and then that death makes you lose like 30 minutes of progress. Then you wanna get back to where you were quicker, end up dying again, and there go all your levels and now you're basically fucked and have to grind for an eternity. I like that the game actually punishes you for dying, but the way it goes about it is entirely wrong. People say "oh you only got instakilled because you didn't pay attention to this random detail!", well, yeah, I'm bound to not pay as much attention to details when your game is ugly as fuck and also has a confusing story that doesn't make me interested in the slightest. But more importantly, the issue is that I wasn't given a checkpoint close to this. If I had that checkpoint, got instakilled, and could quickly try again, that's a good way of teaching me that this game will throw random instakills at me if I'm not careful, and then I'd be inclined to be more careful from that point on. But by making me lose 30 minutes of progress, I'd rather just go play something else instead.

It was a wholly negative experience, really. That was several years ago, to be fair, maybe if I gave it another chance it'd finally click, but I think I'd rather play games I actually have fun with, there's several of those.

So like Ori and the Blind Forest? That game was way worse about this sort of thing, so I find your love of it a bit confusing after reading this. In fact Ori literally has almost half of the game dependent on enemy A.I. co-operating with the player in order to even do the platforming sections right, which creates scenarios where the enemy A.I. won't respond correctly and you'll lose progress for no reason other than the fault of the A.I. not being good. Just saying, I don't see how that is any better than Dark Souls.