It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
People who want to punish themselves should play Iron Storm.
avatar
kai2: Mainly because the Souls games (and most Souls-like games) are solitary experiences. There is no group dynamic or sharing of levity or common humanity. It's one player (you) against an unforgiving word.
That's not accurate at all. Souls games are designed to have the bosses fought as co-op battles.

Co-op play is an essential feature of those games.
avatar
Warloch_Ahead: I played Dark Souls II and a little bit of III. I don't get what was so special about the combat, it felt like a pile of jank to me.
You want to see a pile of jank, then try the combat in Witcher 2 and/or Witcher 3. Now that's what real jank feels like, with the horrendous play control of those games.

The Souls games are special because they don't suffer from that kind of jank.
Post edited July 16, 2024 by Ancient-Red-Dragon
avatar
Ancient-Red-Dragon: You want to see a pile of jank, then try the combat in Witcher 2 and/or Witcher 3. Now that's what real jank feels like, with the horrendous play control of those games.
"Really bad take" achievement unlocked.

I mean ok, I might give you Witcher 2, at least as it was on release (I'm not sure what changes have been made later), but Withcer 3? I have not even the slightest idea what problem with controls you could have there. At least on PC, with mouse and keyboard.
avatar
Ancient-Red-Dragon: That's not accurate at all. Souls games are designed to have the bosses fought as co-op battles.

Co-op play is an essential feature of those games.
While a feature, it's not an essential feature.

From what data there is, it looks like most players tend to play the Souls franchise solo (offline) due to the aggravation of invasions.

I would argue the only Dark Souls game designed specifically for co-op is...

... Dark Souls II.

The addition of boss and enemy "trash mobs" makes Dark Souls II MUCH harder to accomplish solo because there are too many high damage enemies cycling through different moves (and tells) simultaneously. Impossible solo? No, but extremely hard compared to Demon's Souls or Dark Souls 1 & 3 (all of the others are completely doable IMO as single-player experiences with or without invasions). But again a case could be made that co-op is essential for Dark Souls II.
avatar
Ancient-Red-Dragon: You want to see a pile of jank, then try the combat in Witcher 2 and/or Witcher 3. Now that's what real jank feels like, with the horrendous play control of those games.

The Souls games are special because they don't suffer from that kind of jank.
I played Witcher 2 but no one was praising its combat unlike Dark Souls ("This is what action RPG combat should be like from now on" and then we get an entire genre of piss poor imitations). I believe Tim Cain said it best, it feels too choreographed, but I'll also add that it felt like I was adding suggestions to an action queue instead of playing the game. And yes, I played all of Dark Souls II up to the end but never beat it. I don't like it but I can respect it for what it is.
avatar
Ancient-Red-Dragon: That's not accurate at all. Souls games are designed to have the bosses fought as co-op battles.

Co-op play is an essential feature of those games.
The main menu "offline" option in 1,3 and ER kinda implies differently.

Co-op, npc summons, spirit ashes in ER, for the most part they're the hidden difficulty settings, you know the accessibility in place that the folks that resent the hell out of these games argue should be there. NPC summons can be regarded as essential at key points if you're invested in moving their "storylines" along, but co-op, even with some features clearly designed strictly with it in mind, is 100% optional.

The "offline" menu option is missing in DS2, I don't know why, i'm guessing it has something to do with the game being a tad weird tech wise, something which also affects controls and combat animations. While i absolutely don't consider the combat to be jank i don't consider it to be completely fluid either by virtue of the controls' unresponsiveness that keeps making itself noticeable every now and again. I absolutely love DS2, adjusting to the slight "weirdness" is trivial, but i don't consider the combat to be on par with that of the other games. Or maybe objectively it is on par with that of the other games and i simply like it slightly less, i don't know.

In any case that missing option in 2 didn't stop anyone from playing the entire trilogy with no co-op, no pvp, no invasions, no nothing other than a 100% straight up solo / singleplayer experience, for DS2 it's just a matter of turning steam itself to offline mode and viola - which would likely render the game useless to you since that means no cheevo's, i finished SotFS at least 2 times and i have 1 out of 32 :)
I tried al few Souls-Like games, and had no real problem with the difficulty. However - It's just not for me. I don't like the atmosphere, and the fact that you have to grind a lot (and die a lot) to get some progress. It's not that I hate difficult games, but at the other hand I do not really enjoy them.

I don't really like the dark depressive environment, and the loneliness that ooze out of every part of the world.

As said - I do not really hate difficult games. I played Shin Megami Tensei III Nocturne, and that game is far from easy to get through. I could name other games, but you get the picture.

That all said - I don't say that those Souls games are bad games. Far from that. It's just not my "piece of cake" so to say.

The only thing I do have problems with are the people that like the genre and take a dump on all other games that are not "difficult" enough in their opinion. For instance, take a game of the (let's say) Trails series. It does not matter these games are more about the story telling, as long as they are not "Souls-Like" hard, they are simply garbage. The same for games that are not even meant to be hard (like the Atelier series). All those games are easy, so they are garbage. That are the moments I really feel like I could hate the whole Souls-Like Genre. Not the genre itself, but those bragging people that take a dump on any other game.

Anyway - I really tried to like the games, but at the end I just got bored and gave up. It's just not for me...
I haven't played one Souls game yet simply because they aren't DRM-free and I'm not willing to pay more than 10€ to rent one.
Post edited July 16, 2024 by viperfdl
My personal reasons for turning away from these sorts of titles is almost opposite of the OP. For myself, it's almost entirely due to the fact that the developers of said titles basically put zero thought and consideration towards their single player base. It seems that almost all of these "newer" titles don't have any reasonable and full pausing options that are available for their single player modes. With a team of over 500 developers, Larian wasn't capable of building an engine that could support a full and proper pause? Outside of using external hacking programs, it seems that many of these newer engines and titles are only built with multiplayer/online modes in mind....even when playing entirely offline and single player.
Post edited July 16, 2024 by Jidokwon
avatar
idbeholdME: Played a couple souls-like games. None of the mainline games like Dark Souls or Elden Ring because they are not on GOG, but the difficulty of this type of game seems reeeeeally overblown to me. The mere fact that you can just grind stats forever means the game is as difficult as anyone wants it to be. You can bash your head against a boss or go grind 20 levels for a couple of hours and just steamroll it...
Oh boy, hours of grinding... I can't wait to waste my time.
avatar
teceem: Oh boy, hours of grinding... I can't wait to waste my time.
You don't have to if you can tackle the bosses as you go on. But if you can't, the option to just grind stats is there. Someone may not need to grind at all, someone struggling might need the extra stats from farming trash enemies repeatedly to beat bosses. Varies from person to person. Which is why Souls games are a bad measurement for difficulty in general.
Post edited July 17, 2024 by idbeholdME
avatar
Breja: I'm not sure what you mean. You could just as well say humans wouldn't have the ability to combat dragons or aliens. We make it all up, the "power levels" are what the authors decide. Killing demons with a sword, or a boom-stick depending on the setting, makes as much sense as anything, as long as there is internal consistency about this sort of thing.
avatar
kai2: Although games and entertainment have always had the odd "trip to hell," since DOOM (and yes that was pretty early on! ha) it seems IMO that fantasy games have more-and-more dealt with "trips to hell" or dealing with a "hell on Earth"... over fighting an evil beast (ie dragon), saving someone, or procuring something (ie Grail) to either bring harmony or stop evil's spread. Yes, there is overlap, but IMO there's a difference lately. As was stated above, I think there has been a move toward grimdark and away from adventure -- almost a worship of pessimism and meaninglessness... of darkness.

I know I'm grasping ATM. I have a definite feeling about what's happening in society, but my argument isn't yet fully formed.

All I can say is that I'm back to reading The Chronicles of Narnia.
I think we had so many high adventure/upbeat games in the past that people have convinced themselves that going against that grain and making something grim and depressing is fresh. But of course with how these things work, everyone jumped on the same bandwagon all at once (everyone is a goth girl who insists they aren't "like all the other girls") and now doing something happy has swung back into being a counterculture.