Dark Souls is officially a buzzword

http://kotaku.com/lightning-returns-producer-compares-the-game-to-dark-so-514945566

I read an interview with the director of Dragon Age 3, and he commented that "They are not afraid". Sorry, can't remember the link. Seems From is starting to get some serious respect from the other developers.
i

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/bioware-is-not-afraid-of-either-the-witcher-3-or-dark-souls-2/

Found link

i hate that DARK souls gets the press. i know its the multiplatform game, and has a official sequel. but DEMONS needs more love. we need a demons souls 2. without the demons there would be no dark. i know most people here get that, but it sadens me. especialy because IF we ever get a demons souls to the absolute rage that will follow due to people assuming dark enspired demons.

rant over. it is nice to see more and more souls media. its getting into mainstream, which scares me. but not being elitest, i fail plenty. i just want it to keep its roots. other games are welcome to borrow from soulsconcepts, it would make games more worthwhile. but the day souls borrows from other games...

It might sound elitist, but I like that Souls doesn't appeal to everyone, and I hate that "like Dark Souls" is being thrown around as if it means anything. I don't like it when parallels are drawn between games, but when you throw "like Dark Souls" around, you're essentially trying to capitalise on its popularity and try to give your game a semblance of difficulty. If you've read the Kotaku article I linked, they're saying Lightning Returns will have a time limit of seven in game days, and that it can be extended to 13. I don't see how that's like Dark Souls, it seems more like an arbitrary restriction to make it seem like your game is difficult.

All I really want is for games to be able to stand on their on two feet and be recognised for their merits, rather than what is or isn't similar to a popular game. There's a reason not ever shooter is called Call of Duty, it's because there's only one Call of Duty. Now they're pulling this crap with Dark Souls and using it as a "difficulty indicator".

My issue with the buzzword labeling is it is often inaccurate. Anytime I hear "like Dark Souls" it is always in reference to difficulty. However, fans of the Souls series know what makes Souls Souls is so much more than just being hard. It's smart and demands determination. It's why I have still yet to go all in on the sequel because the only reassurance we are getting is that it's still "hard".

Square?
BioWare?
Bwahahahahaha!

No seriously, did at least one of those nutheads play Dark Souls?
They don't seem to refer to the game itself, but to it's notorious difficulty. However, what they fail to grasp is that while Dark Souls is indeed difficult, it is also very fair to the player, which basically reduces the infamous difficulty only to unforgivness towards player's mistakes.
None of their games can boast to have this fairness in them. All these two use is artificial difficulty, by raising enemy stat numbers, or the number of actual enemies you have to face. That has nothing to do with Souls games.

I agree with E, by using it as a catch phrase or buzzword, the casual reader will only get the "it's hard" aspect of the game.  I just read that Kotaku article and that was literally the only comparison.  I came here to snidely quip: 

"If that producer wants me to buy another Final Fantasy game, maybe they should stop comparing it to Dark Souls and start comparing it to the good Final Fantasy games"

Then I read the article.  They did that.  They said "open world" and made sure they distanced themselves from the last couple titles.  Hurray!  But they really gloss over that aspect didn't they?  It went right back to the things that would make the game "hard" (which I doubt it will be to be honest).  


So my real gripe is this: I'm ok with a hard game.  I don't mind you telling me your game will be difficult.  Hell, in inFamous, not only is there a hard mode but the game suggested I play it that way.    I'm all for that.  With games, I approach it like hot sauce.  Any idiot can make a hot sauce that will make you regret eating it (hint, add really hot peppers....and done).  The trick is to make my tastebuds enjoy the punishment.  So to sell me your hot sauce, it's ok to say "it's hot."  But I'm not buying it unless you can sell me on the flavor.  So come on Square-Enix, tell me more about the story.  Tell me more about the gameplay.  Show me how open the world is.  I'll take the challenge, but only if it looks rewarding.  


There were hard monsters in XIII, I just didn't give a rat's *** about them.

Beautiful analogy about the hot sauce. Even Miyazaki himself said about Souls, is he wanted it to be "spicy" which is so much different than "hot".

crbngville2 wrote:I read an interview with the director of Dragon Age 3, and he commented that "They are not afraid". Sorry, can't remember the link. Seems From is starting to get some serious respect from the other developers.
i

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/bioware-is-not-afraid-of-either-the-witcher-3-or-dark-souls-2/

Found link

That news report was nothing more than a piece of drama. The Dragon Age series has it's fans, just like the Elder Scrolls, the Witcher and the Souls series. There is nothing to fear because new games have made some new standards. DA3 will sell well because it's consumer base is waiting to purchase it because that is what they want.

Dark Souls? What's that? Never played it.

I agree with Skare, Sentiel and E, the way the industry throws the term around undermines the fact that Souls isn't just about being hard for the sake of being hard.

As for the Bioware reps' comment, I can accept that statement because they're not trying to sell Dragon Age 3 as something it's not, and they're not callous enough to throw around words like "this is like this game", despite the tone of "We're better than you".

fun little thing I noticed; yesterday I was looking through lists of ps3 games (as I need something new to play) and in 4/5 of them demons and dark souls were present within the top 10 and in 3 cases demons was rated above dark souls... I just found this sort of interesting.

Even though smaller in scope and content I do believe Demon's is the superior game based on presentation and atmosphere. It feels much more like a puzzle to explore and conquer whereas Dark trades that for a focus on combat.

I've always felt that they're equal but different.  My only sense of disappointment with Dark Souls after playing Demons was that they used a lot of the same ideas so some things were predictable.  Like the Bell Gargoyle fight.  After I saw the cutscene I knew we'd be fighting more than one.  Even after only one jumped down I was still expecting a second.  The Gargoyles are an improvement though since, while they can knock you to your death, it's only if you become lost in your surroundings.  Hall and Oates (Maneaters, get it? HA HAHA) felt a little cheap at times.  On the flip side, Iron Golem is the inferior version of the Tower Knight.  The archers pressuring the fight are an amazing idea with the environment being a puzzle to victory.  And the achilles slashing was more gratifying with the Tower Knight.  Although you could arrow spam him, which leads me to one of the improvements in Dark.  Most bosses don't have as cheap of a method to kill them.  

And for the record, I still love the Dragon God boss.  From a philosophical and storytelling view it's amazing.  And still less cheap than arcing your arrows with the white bow into the final boss.

I see you're points, and even if you prefer one to the other I think we all agree that what makes us love the game series is a lot more than just the difficulty. The difficulty is a means to an end in a true Souls game and not a be all end all. Present directors and publisher please be aware. Also, moving this to General because it deserves a full participation. I would say this is a very important topic that needs to be discussed and addressed by the fans of this series, especially to ensure that we are correcting misconceptions and conveying what it is about Souls that we truly love, and the type of game that we are going to embrace.

What I love about the souls game is the community it brings with it, how it challenges the player.

No other game has a community knitted together this way, we have all searched for our own meaning in the game, we have all looked for it's secret, and we have all failed, conquered, and in the end, learnt something new.

The game might be hard objectively, but what it forces is determination.

Agreed E, we are the Soulsbassadors!  Man is that an awkward looking word.  Oh well. 

And sorry, I wasn't trying to make much of a point actually except what you rightly said.  They're both great games and the term "spiritual successor" fits perfectly.  There's enough there to recognize the roots but they're really quite different at their core.

Just want to share this...

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/when-difficult-is-fun

As for the topic itself regarding DA3, I personally learned not to trust bioware PR anymore.

I just feel it is a worthy activity to articulate what it is we truly love about this game, especially while it is still in development. So often we only call out things they should fix, accept what they present as new and assume that what we love deep down about the series will be retained. It's a dangerous assumption to make and it would be a disservice to both the creators and fans of the series if the game was reduced to just its difficulty.

Absolutely.  I think it was Tolvo who posted an interview with the new director.  He stated they hoped to retain the storytelling method where the player figures it out for themselves based on what they see.  I'm sure you can imagine how happy I was to hear that.

While I do often recognize Dark Souls as hard, I also recognize its difficulty as a tool, which is something most casual players might not notice.  Dark Souls was not good just because it is hard, it used design and emphazized it via difficulty, although the game difficulty did have its own merits. They have to understand they have to design the game around the difficulty if they plan to keep this like this. Difficulty in itself isn't fun as there are many ways to create difficulty.

On the topic of Demon's Souls, I think comparing the 2, or more specifically declaring one greater, is wrong. One of the reasons I like Dark Souls 2's progress is because it has demonstrated a change. Demons yad its own merits which it excelled in, while Dark excelled in others, which made both games sucessful, but equal. Unlike most sequels (do consider them sequels), they both warrant individual purchase for their own points. True, Dark 2 is like Dark 1, but the fact they have demonstrated considerablr change while maintaining one of the 2 core concepts shows...

Oh wait, getting off-topic. Let me just guess back on-topic and say that they are misunderstanding what made Souls sucessfull. Ironically, FF was already hard!

Here's a thought concerning what the player would like and what the developers deliver.

People who played Demon's Souls and Dark Souls wanted a structured Player vs. Player experience and they gave us the arenas in the downloadable content. I tried the arena once or twice. Granted, I'm not a big PvP guy, but I didn't like it.

What I like about the DS experiences are the "old school" aspect of gaming that when your character dies you have the risk/reward to get back to where you died. You learn how to defeat the game rather than just mashing buttons to solve a problem.

Here's a random thought about a new arena-type PvP area: Imagine the forest where there is not a host, but dozens of different colored phantoms (red, blue, gold, white) where you have an open area that's free-form (entirely). You don't earn a crown or any visual indicator of your victories, but you receive souls (and sometimes gear) from defeated foes. I suppose friends could even form quasi-teams where they watch each others back.

Okay, I'm not a fan of the PvP stuff, but this is something I would like to try and I think with enough reps I would get better at fighting.

One point I think Square Enix may be referencing of Dark Souls when comparing Lightning Returns to it is the loneliness of the journey, something I disagree with and I think completely undermines Final Fantasy. In my opinion, one core component of Final Fantasy has always been the theme of friendship, travelling with your friends and meeting new people, friends turning foes and foes turning ally, etc.

Souls, on the other hand, has a theme of loneliness to it, this journey is yours to make and even if you get help from a phantom, ultimately you're on your own on this adventure. With Final Fantasy XIII: Lightning Returns, they're trying to capture that essence of loneliness by turning the game into a single character, action RPG where you are literally against everyone else, it's Lightning VS The World. I don't think this a good development for a Final Fantasy title, and if I'm right about them referencing Dark Souls on this point I definitely think they've completely lost focus on their own franchise.

I'm hoping From Software looks at this and takes it as a lesson that you shouldn't lose focus of what your game, your IP is all about. You can change things, introduce new concepts, make things more interesting, but ultimately your game or series should have a core set of values you shouldn't deviate from. If you do, your game is no longer a unique product but the nth game in an arbitrary genre.

FROMSOFTWARE = Square Enix..in its prime?