Game Theory:Does Dark Souls ACTUALLY SUCK?!?

That's pretty much why it's so late. This video would've been fine when no one had analysed the game to death with no Miyazaki interviews. But now that we know everything, their arguments(on both sides) feel pretty hokey.

I usually hate games that are overly hard with outrageously sized bosses, for some reason Darksouls captured my interest and kept me engrossed in its world, even after dying a thousand times throughout the game it didnt deter me.

@Lulu_Lulu: The minute I started paying more attention, I started dying less, so maybe it's something wrong with how you're playing if you still think it's cheap.

@mastermetal777:

Ofcourse you did...... but you didn't stop dying alltogether ! The game will kill you And waste your time with cheap deaths.

@drflyntcoal:

Indeed...... its pointless.

We should all move on, theres just so many fun games out now.....

@Lulu_Lulu: so what you're saying is...death is cheap no matter what. Would you rather have a game that didn't kill you at all?

@mastermetal777:

PoP reboot..... managed to stay challenging despite the absolute lack of death.

Anyway death is cheap when its an avoidable and its stupid when it makes you lose alot of progress even if it was avoidable..... Dark Souls does both and suddenly thats a good thing ?

LOL this thread :D

Its also fun to watch people debate Dark Souls with Lulu.....

@Lulu_Lulu: Most games are like that. And the Prince of Persia reboot wasn't challenging at all. Because you couldn't die, there was no tension, just annoyance.

@mastermetal777:

Doesn't matter if you couldn't die.... you could still fail...... the difference is you jump right back in where you failed.... literally ! You miss a jump ? Elika takes you back to the last solid piece of ground you stood on..... if you you take too much damage before you kill the enemy then they get all their health, no bullshit game over screen or load times you litetally start over from the last place you did something right, but most importantly none of that had anybearing on the difficulty of the actual mechanics and design of its challenges, it didn't make the platforming easier you still had to do all the jumping and timing and all that yourself.....

Well if you couldn't have cared less about my opinion then why did you even bother trying to initiate a conversation about it. You have much to learn about what constitutes as a 'fact'.

@Archangel3371:

Because I was fed the same bullshit of "if you die then its because you weren't paying attention" and I think its important for people to know both sides of the story before they run out and buy their trial and error simulator.

Lest they wind up regretting their purchase decision because of your "oppinion".

Essentially for every death you think is fair then I have two that are unfair.

Now it just sounds like you're flip-flopping. First you say you don't care about my opinion then you say that you think it's important to know both sides.

@Archangel3371:

Yeah and ? What I say still stands.

lol Well alrighty then.

This conversation is over then. Thank god for small favours I guess.

@Lulu_Lulu: That's not a good example of failure. It's the game telling you "Oh look, you were never in any real danger, you have a magical fairy girl saving you every time you fall." The difference between that and the original games is that in the original, you had limited uses at a time before you restarted at a reasonable checkpoint. If you have someone keeping you alive, you never learn what you did wrong so you can try again and not make the same mistake like an insane person.

@mastermetal777:

I don't play games for tension and danger I play them for a challenge and a shitty save system does not increase a challenge and a quick time saving check point system doesn't decrease the challenge. Who the hell plays a game for danger ?

" If you have someone keeping you alive, you never learn what you did wrong so you can try again and not make the same mistake like an insane person."

IF YOU MAKE A MISTAKE THEN YOU DON'T PROGRESS.... duh !!! Are you telling me that just because Elika saves you you'l never notice that falling everytime isn't getting you forward ? You don't need punish someone for failing..... being stuck is the punishment....... making you restart all over again even further back and worse off is just wasting time.

No really think about what you're saying, lets say you could die in PoP, lets say you lose all those blue spark thingies everytime you died ? Then what ? Its the exact same game... only more annoying. it doesn't change the level design.... it doesn't change the mechanics..... it doesn't change the difficulty all it does is pad the games length as if we're still living in the 80's.

LoL you know whats funny, even if you do play for Danger and Tension all Dark Souls does is cause tedium and frustration..... its an Action RPG not a Survival Horror game..... or maybe it does for you...... I don't know how you interpret danger.

Yeah, like Bloodborne. :p

@drflyntcoal:

Exactly... like Bloodbor....... wait a minute !!!

You almost tricked me there !!! :p you ol sly fox you.

@Lulu_Lulu: Haha, I try my best. Someday I'll win. :P

That is not what makes them good. What makes them good is the fact that they adhere to pretty classic principles of reward and punishment schemes atop of a very basic game structure. Most games today have completely departed from some of these principles that you would never see absent in arcades, games in the 90's or even up to the 00's era.

The game literally never holds your hand, but it does grant you enough information to learn everything and use the tools you are given to make it through. The difficulty formula is very simple: overcome disadvantaged situations. As you progress into the next playthrough, numbers change, and that is all.

I didn't watch the video.

@X_CAPCOM_X:

By "Disadvantaged Situation" I'm assuming your sugar coating Unfair and unBalanced Situations.

I think its important that before we decide the whole reward and punishment thing is a good thing we should first analyze the very tasks the game is rewarding and punishing you for....... or does that part not matter ?

Well that's what makes them good for me.You don't get to decide that for me.

It's also only "reward and punishment" if the game is "difficult" for you.To me, the "gameplay" consists of nothing more than a combination of dodging/blocking and attacking. If it weren't for the exploration this game would be nothing more than a generic action game.

All right I finally watched the video....... obviously I'm on Jirard's side.... Duh !!!

But I didn't understand Matts argument at all.....

Dark Souls breaks conventions....... seems like he ruled that is a good thing not even bothering to adress what those conventions are or why they need breaking in the first place.

Dark Souls makes death matter........ yeah it does...... unfortunately he's not to concerned with how it does that..... ge just likes dying appearently.

Dark Souls allows you to explore on your own..... this one is just stupid.... Dark Souls is not just the only game that does this..... it doesn't do it particularly well either.... if you don't want a giant arrow pointing you in the direction then fine..... but if you don't have any method of navigation other than by going everywhere and memorising everything then that shit is just stupid.

But like I said.... I don't understand what he's talking about..... maybe someone can explain what his position is.

@Lulu_Lulu:

he explained everything very clearly, that you choose to ignore it, that's your issue. ;)

@Gue1:

He explained it poorly...... Jirard's points were alot more concrete....... he actually had visual evidence backing up one of his points.....

I didn't choose to ignore anything I am trying to understand what his position is..... if I wanted to ignore then I would just ignore him then we can all get some ice cream