Dark Souls.. Is this the game of the generation?

I have only played a handful of RPGs, but i think that it is the best. The only thing that is holding it back is the fact that its newly released sequel has better combat. However, the first Dark Souls had a world that felt connected and you were always wanting to say what lied beyond every path because you new you were heading toward the next step in your journey.

It's weird cos I usually HATE games with bosses especially massive overbearing ones, and this game is full of them from main bosses to mini ones.(don't let the word mini fool you)

My first play through I didn't know what the hell I was doing and just plodded along not really making any progress with character development or with the story. After some good advice I did a lot better when I restarted and ended up completing the game.

Darks souls isn't everyone's cup of tea cos of it's difficulty in the beginning you need patience.

Combat is so good and exploration leveling up, there's beautiful weapons and armour. I was never one to go running through areas, I always walked cautiously cos I never new what beasties were waiting round the corner.

Def in my top ten all time but for last gen it's got to be

Deus ex human rev

Dark souls

I just love the deus ex series

I do have a top ten but I can't be assed those are my top two.

It's undoubtedly up there, I've actually noticed that most people who hate on the game generally haven't gotten very far in it.

I really enjoy the games but no it's not my top game of the last generation. I think they're great, but not as mind blowingly great as some people say they are. There are some inherent flaws in the structure of the game that can make it very frustrating whether you like the game or not. It just depends on who you are.

LOL you can say that again Ride, i dont think i have meet a more passionate fanbase then here, but at least its not the lol/DOTA community.

True, but i think the fanbase that has kind of the same passion is Bioware and Valve fans.

The thing about the fanbase of Dark souls is that they have some good points. People who bitch about the game being too difficult are, simply put bad at it (which is fine, since everybody starts out being really bad at the game due to the way it's designed). But people who call it unfair and poorly designed miss the fact that there are people who can perform no death run throughs of the game. If a game really were poorly designed and unfair, how would that even be possible? I'm not saying that people don't have other, valid points (which means the games are definitely an acquired taste due to the tough mechanics) but the vast, vast majority of the time, people just complain about it being too difficult. Which, after learning how the game mechanics work with each other, ceases. The game is actually quite easy for the most part on New Game+, when you know how everything works.

Just some food for thought.

@Some-Mist: Lay off the flaming, it's not acceptable under any circumstance.

@ turtlethetaffer

Because once you've memorized it and know where all the unavoidable traps are(on the 1st playthrough when you know nothing) then dying gets kinda hard to do.

Thats the thing about Trial and Error and Role Playing Games that use their own rulesets and prey on the player's lack of knowledge instead of their actuall skill. Final Fantasy XIII wasn't difficult either but I died anyway because It doesn't explain you can use those rings to increase resistance to Magic and a bunch of other lore and logic unique only to Final Fantasy XIII that even dying doesn't even help explain what happened. that was my 1st JRPG by the way. a real eye opener.

Anyway I replayed it, memorized everything and Nailed it. No deaths.

Plus it was an RPG and Correct me If I'm wrong but isn't a difficult game suppose to challenge the player, not the character their playing as ? Your character build will be a huge determining factor in your success and failures. Its rather annoying going from a game that actually is difficult like A fighting game that required quick reflexes, metagaming, and strategy, to an RPG where your skills don't transfer because of micromanaging stats instead of mastering the gameplay (actuall gameplay, not micromanaging stats).

What does it mean to be good at Dark Souls ? Memorizing Attack Patterns ? knowing which attributes matter in which sitiuations ? Grinding to improve your equipment and restock your inventory ?

So hardcore ! ! !

For me , the best game of 7th generation was Mass Effect 2 .

Best RPG this generation, absolutely. In my opinion, it's the closest I've played to a flawless video game this gen.

I would definitely say not. It occupies a niche space in the market and has a very dedicated following who would say it is one of the best games of the generation but if you are not one of these people then it would be far from your list. I even wrote about why in another blog:

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/games-discussion-1000000/was-it-worth-it-challenge-versus-reward-in-video-g-31190693/#2

I can't see myself ever playing any in the series. Why not have an easy mode? It does not hurt the game whatsoever. They can just let the rest play the game on hard or whatever.

Because without the constant threat of death, the game would be boring. Part of the reason the games are so loved is due to the element of the unknown. Exploring levels could very easily bring you a great new item, or it could send you into the hands of death. There's a constant sense that you're never really safe, and because of the difficulty, you are forced to learn the rules of the game. I can't eve count how many games I've played that had some sort of feature that I never ever used because I never thought I'd need them (and I ended up not needing them). Dark souls is not like that. You need to use every resource, every trick you have to survive.

Also, there is an unofficial "easy mode" in Dark Souls II. you can get a ring that makes it so you don't lose any souls or humanity upon death. Granted, the ring breaks after death BUT unlike the first game you can repair this ring for 3000 souls (which, after a certain point in the game, becomes chump change). Which means that as long as you don't completely suck ass at killing enemies (which you should get the hang of after a few tries) you can pretty much remain human and lose no souls outside the ones it takes to repair the ring when you die.

And, people who complain about the health reduction should know that there's a ring that makes it so you only lose up to 25% of your health rather than 50% from dying too many times. You can find the ring really, really early in the game, too. 75% health makes the game a lot more manageable than only 50%.

@turtlethetaffer: it's still not something i would try, making something difficult just for the sake of being difficult is stupid imho

I have just completed Dark Souls II and have completed Dark Souls I. Definitely high up my favourite games list though the second one has just slipped down some places, since I failed to get that much satisfaction out of defeating it.

But game of the generation? Not really. I'm not sure there can be a game of a generation. Everyone will have their favourite games. I mean Final Fantasy VII would always fair well overall. As would Half Life and many other super popular games.

No matter which game gets a title of game of the year, game of the decade, whatever there will always be people who disagree. When you open up the time scale to game of a generation, not only do you need to define the generation but it is too long a time and covers too many games to get a reasonable answer.

I would say Last of us, but Dark Souls is definitively among the top 5.

Never played, but I don't think a game as highly polarizing as Dark Souls should be considered in the running for a universal game of the generation. A title like that should be reserved for a near unanimously acclaimed game that helped push gaming to a new level in some way, whether it was from innovation or exceptional refinement of traditional mechanics.

No.In some other time or generation it could've been, but in this generation ,it's The Last of Us.

Then the games aren't for you, simple as that.

I came here to say the same thing. Demon's Souls tried something new and succeeded admirably. Dark Souls was an extension of that concept and succeeded in a number of ways, such as fantastic lore hidden through a tightly connected world.

Speaking of which, has anyone noticed how weird the world is designed in DSII? For example, if you go to Harvest Valley, you can look at the windmill and that's all there is. It's just empty air around the windmill, which is fine. So you climb the tower, kill the medusa thing, and then there's an elevator that takes you to the Iron Keep. Apparently, the Iron Keep is invisible from the outside because it comes out of nowhere. It just isn't as tightly designed as Dark Souls 1.

Anyway, Demon's Souls deserves more recognition. It did things in it's design that influenced several other titles. Something that very, very few games did this past generation.

One of the first things I noticed once I got there. Apparently, there's a sea of lava floating somewhere over Earthen Peak... ok.

You're right. I'm playing both 1 and 2 at the same time. In 1, I can see the Duke's Archives all the way down from the base of Sen's Fortress. I liked the the way Souls 1 interconnected- there's not as much of that in the sequel.

Yeah that's something I loved about DS1 too. You really feel connected to the world and get to see where you're going long before you get there. If you see a distant structure you simply figure out how to get there later. You can even get glimpses of bosses before the actual fight.

This is something that just doesn't exist in DS2. Which is a damn shame since it seems like it won't be that way at the start. Seeing the Castle off in the distance from Majula made me giddy to start exploring. But instead of creating interconnected environments it's just a large mess of random areas crammed together.

Not a deal breaker or anything. The game is still great, it's just a disappointment in that area.

@IndianaPwns39 I agree. I love both games, but Souls 2 is basically just a hub area and a some branching paths. As someone who loves nonlinear games a la Metroid, it's something that I miss. There were multiple paths into Blighttown, Lost Izalith, Darkroot, etc. Game still rocks though. One thing that struck me immediately after revisiting 1 was the difference in control- 2's controls are leagues smoother.

@gpuFX16: Agree about the controls. DS1 had some input lag that bugged me. DS2 is quicker and more responsive. Good thing too, since there are less invisibility frames and dodging can be a pain in the ass.

I'd say it's in the top 15 but doesn't beat TLOU or Skyrim in my opinion.