General Gaming Man, Dark Souls really ruined action games huh

[Paperclyp]

I’m all for more difficulty options, but I don’t need people to tell devs that they’re wrong for not including them. If they want to put them in, great, if not, I think that’s fine. 

[Bacon]

As a gamer, I am entitled to tell devs how they are wrong.

[DarkStar189]

4 hours ago, Biggie said:

I’ll never buy a FromSoftware game again. It’s not that they are bad but I’ve come to terms that they are above my pay grade and I’m not able to advance at a certain point. Which isn’t fun. 

Did you try Elden Ring? I was in your exact spot, swearing off all future From games because I could never get far into them. Never beat Dark Souls (put over 60 hours in), never beat Bloodborne(maybe 20 hours before I quit), and Sekiro I lasted about 5 hours before calling it quits. Waited almost a year to try out Elden Ring, took the risk , bought it on sale and it hooked me big time. If you run up against something hard there are a ton of other directions for you to explore. I’m probably 3/4 of the way through the game, 76 hours in and plowing through bosses left and right. Really not even paying attention to what little story it tells you and it’s still so addicting.  Never thought it would happen.

[stepee]

Just now, Paperclyp said:

I’m all for more difficulty options, but I don’t need people to tell devs that they’re wrong for not including them. If they want to put them in, great, if not, I think that’s fine. 

 

I feel like telling developers things you want to see in their games makes about as much sense as something can 

[Paperclyp]

4 minutes ago, stepee said:

 

I feel like telling developers things you want to see in their games makes about as much sense as something can 

for sure, I think go out and say that it’d be great to have them and you want them and whatever. It’s probably a small sample size but I see people go a step farther and say it’s like ableist to not have them is all. 

[stepee]

3 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

for sure, I think go out and say that it’d be great to have them and you want them and whatever. It’s probably a small sample size but I see people go a step farther and say it’s like ableist to not have them is all. 

 

Oh yeah I think it could be considered an accessibility option but calling developers ableist is just dumb and just makes people probably want to be against the idea 

[skillzdadirecta]

52 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

I will say that Sekiro is perhaps the one Souls-like game where having decent reflexes can make a significant difference and the lack thereof could definitely lead to non-completion.

 

This is largely the result of Sekiro not having the build variety of other Souls-like games where having not-quite-as-sharp dexterity can be compensated for by other means.

Sekiro is the exception which is why even a lot of Souls haven't finished it. Bloodborne maybe as well. The other Souls games? Nah you don't need good reflexes at all to beat those games unless you choose to play that way. All of those games can be cheesed even without summoning help.

[thedarkstark]

1 hour ago, DarkStar189 said:

Did you try Elden Ring? I was in your exact spot, swearing off all future From games because I could never get far into them. Never beat Dark Souls (put over 60 hours in), never beat Bloodborne(maybe 20 hours before I quit), and Sekiro I lasted about 5 hours before calling it quits. Waited almost a year to try out Elden Ring, took the risk , bought it on sale and it hooked me big time. If you run up against something hard there are a ton of other directions for you to explore. I’m probably 3/4 of the way through the game, 76 hours in and plowing through bosses left and right. Really not even paying attention to what little story it tells you and it’s still so addicting.  Never thought it would happen.

You can go a million different directions in souls games also, you're rarely forced down a particular path but the open world definitely makes exploring other options far easier and more apparent.

 

Once you beat elden ring you may want to try revisiting the souls games and exploring different paths if you hit a roadblock

[thedarkstark]

24 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Sekiro is the exception which is why even a lot of Souls haven't finished it. Bloodborne maybe as well. The other Souls games? Nah you don't need good reflexes at all to beat those games unless you choose to play that way. All of those games can be cheesed even without summoning help.

Have you guys seen the clip of Elon Musk playing Elden Ring? He posted a clip of him fighting Radahn with a health bar 10 miles long and he was fat rolling the whole time. If somebody as trash as him can beat it, it would be a walk in the park for our boy @stepee

[stepee]

4 minutes ago, thedarkstark said:

Have you guys seen the clip of Elon Musk playing Elden Ring? He posted a clip of him fighting Radahn with a health bar 10 miles long and he was fat rolling the whole time. If somebody as trash as him can beat it, it would be a walk in the park for our boy @stepee

 

well I did beat that one so

[thedarkstark]

2 minutes ago, stepee said:

 

well I did beat that one so

If you beat it you can beat all of the souls games, same tactics can be applied only difference is no world map.

[stepee]

22 minutes ago, thedarkstark said:

If you beat it you can beat all of the souls games, same tactics can be applied only difference is no world map.

I thought so but I went back and couldn’t even get to a second level boss in Demon Souls then quit again 

[best3444]

7 minutes ago, stepee said:

I thought so but I went back and couldn’t even get to a second level boss in Demon Souls then quit again 

 

True. Demon Souls is ridiculously difficult and not fun for casuals. 

[thedarkstark]

10 minutes ago, stepee said:

I thought so but I went back and couldn’t even get to a second level boss in Demon Souls then quit again 

So demon souls is a bit weird in that the bosses aren't really meant to be tackled in order. Also if you got stuck on the rock guys they take like no damage with a sword, but a blunt weapon like a hammer will fuck them up.

 

The world tendency can also make it dramatically harder, but you can influence that. 

[stepee]

Just now, thedarkstark said:

So demon souls is a bit weird in that the bosses aren't really meant to be tackled in order. Also if you got stuck on the rock guys they take like no damage with a word, but a blunt weapon like a hammer will fuck them up.

 

The world tendency can also make it dramatically harder, but you can influence that. 

 

I did mess up and did a level I shouldn’t have yet at first but then read that and tried one I was supposed to do and it still just wasn’t happening for me.

 

I can’t stand not making progress for too long, it make it so games aren’t fun for me when I hit that brick wall. So part of it is just going to be that Elden Ring did a better job at pacing the feel of making progress for me which allowed me to continue forth.

 

I mean Im just saying I felt it was too hard for me so I stopped playing, like it’s not something that can be debated, I’m not arguing if the game is hard or not, I’ve stated a few times that I don’t consider myself to be good at video games. 

[thedarkstark]

4 minutes ago, stepee said:

 

I did mess up and did a level I shouldn’t have yet at first but then read that and tried one I was supposed to do and it still just wasn’t happening for me.

 

I can’t stand not making progress for too long, it make it so games aren’t fun for me when I hit that brick wall. So part of it is just going to be that Elden Ring did a better job at pacing the feel of making progress for me which allowed me to continue forth.

 

I mean Im just saying I felt it was too hard for me so I stopped playing, like it’s not something that can be debated, I’m not arguing if the game is hard or not, I’ve stated a few times that I don’t consider myself to be good at video games. 

Yeah that's fair and I'm not suggesting you force yourself to play if you are not having fun.  I just think the reputation of these games sometimes overshadows everything else and pre-conditions people into maybe giving up a bit too soon but you have clearly given it enough time and decided it isnt for you which is totally fine and valid.

[stepee]

Also guys I’ll tell you what give me an easy mode in Lies of P and I’ll give you a hard mode next Kirby game

[crispy4000]

11 minutes ago, stepee said:

Also guys I’ll tell you what give me an easy mode in Lies of P and I’ll give you a hard mode next Kirby game

 

[Dodger]

Well you did mention summons, that basically is your easy mode. So they do give you options to manage the difficulty. And honestly getting a group of 2-3 jolly cooperaters might be the most fun way to play. Also I’ve learned that I’m good enough to beat a souls game but not good enough to make a dent in Returnal. Well I’m not that good, because I’ve never beat that dark dragon or whatshisface that’s the final boss of the ringed city dlc.

[stepee]

Probably a few examples you could use actually but I meant a hard mode you can select in the beginning!

[crispy4000]

2 minutes ago, stepee said:

Probably a few examples you could use actually but I meant a hard mode you can select in the beginning!

 

So cheat codes don't count? 

 

[stepee]

2 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

So cheat codes don't count? 

 

 

oh lol I didn’t remember how you got there, that counts then..maybe a hard mode in the next Game-Feel game then

[Phaseknox]

4 hours ago, Bjomesphat said:

I certainly prefer games that have a singular difficulty and are specifically tuned to that. And I definitely prefer that Souls games take this approach too. I like that there’s a shared community experience that every single player can relate to. One thing I firmly believe is that Dark Souls saved the direction the industry was going in, and that has 100% to do with no compromises on the difficulty. Dark Souls became a huge success because overcoming the challenge became a feat that people strived for. With a difficulty slider, I don’t think this happens and I don’t think we have as much acceptance in the industry now to letting the player experiencing failure.

I dislike singular difficulties in games, because if the difficulty is too easy or too hard for me and I can’t make it harder or easier to suit my personal skill level then I’m not going to be able to enjoy it. It’s very important for me to be able to adjust a game’s difficulty to my liking, that’s why I like games to have difficulty settings. Everyone’s skill level is different, so only offering one set difficulty alienates a lot of people if that one difficulty doesn’t suit them. And I couldn’t care less about a shared community experience when it comes to games. Games are a solo activity for me, not a social one. Also, how did Dark Souls save the direction that the game industry was going in? Dark Souls became a huge success due to factors other than just its difficulty. Its art style, world design and play mechanics all had a part in its success.

[crispy4000]

I find games with different difficulty selections tend to fail at a compelling difficulty ramp up within a setting.  It's really hard to accommodate for the player getting better naturally, and that problem compounds with multiple settings.  It's best addressed with intelligent design choices, a dynamic scaling difficulty, or both.  A game like Resident Evil 4 threads that needle pretty much perfectly, to where it needs no difficulty slider.

 

There's also the issue of games scaling up difficulty by only adjusting damage outputs, health bars and parry windows.  I completely understand the idea that playing on higher difficulties forces you engage with the systems better.  But if that means it turns into Bushido Blade, or I'm wailing at enemies twice as long, screw it.  That's just poor game design.  Do a legitimate hard mode, not a half-assed one that doesn't change the content of the game whatsoever.

 

I consider Viewtiful Joe to be one of the worst offenders.  It's a decently enjoyable experience at lower difficulties.  It encourages you to replay levels on higher difficulties.  But it becomes a tedious, nauseating piece of crap the harder you push it.  It's a game that feels designed to make you hate it the more you play.  And I do, so mission accomplished.

[Bjomesphat]

8 hours ago, Phaseknox said:

Also, how did Dark Souls save the direction that the game industry was going in? Dark Souls became a huge success due to factors other than just its difficulty. Its art style, world design and play mechanics all had a part in its success.

 

The allure of the game to the wider audience was its unrelenting difficulty and kind of the status that came with beating it. Yes the game design is immaculate and its greatest strength, but I don't think it gets the same reputation and cult following if you take away the difficulty.

[Paperclyp]

8 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

I find games with different difficulty selections tend to fail at a compelling difficulty ramp up within a setting.  It's really hard to accommodate for the player getting better naturally, and that problem compounds with multiple settings.  It's best addressed with intelligent design choices, a dynamic scaling difficulty, or both.  A game like Resident Evil 4 threads that needle pretty much perfectly, to where it needs no difficulty slider.

 

There's also the issue of games scaling up difficulty by only adjusting damage outputs, health bars and parry windows.  I completely understand the idea that playing on higher difficulties forces you engage with the systems better.  But if that means it turns into Bushido Blade, or I'm wailing at enemies twice as long, screw it.  That's just poor game design.  Do a legitimate hard mode, not a half-assed one that doesn't change the content of the game whatsoever.

 

I consider Viewtiful Joe to be one of the worst offenders.  It's a decently enjoyable experience at lower difficulties.  It encourages you to replay levels on higher difficulties.  But it becomes a tedious, nauseating piece of crap the harder you push it.  It's a game that feels designed to make you hate it the more you play.  And I do, so mission accomplished.

I agree 

[Slug]

11 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Sekiro is the exception which is why even a lot of Souls haven't finished it.

 

I feel this.  I've beaten multiple layers of NG+ for every other FROM game and do challenge runs for some of them.  I've yet to beat Sekiro even once.  Not even close.  Parrying/timing is not my style and I don't have a great reaction time generally.  I'm going to give it another shot at some point, but I'm content to know that I just may never see most of that game.

[Bjomesphat]

26 minutes ago, Slug said:

 

I feel this.  I've beaten multiple layers of NG+ for every other FROM game and do challenge runs for some of them.  I've yet to beat Sekiro even once.  Not even close.  Parrying/timing is not my style and I don't have a great reaction time generally.  I'm going to give it another shot at some point, but I'm content to know that I just may never see most of that game.

 

If you can beat the first significant story boss (don't want to spoil anything, but basically the end of the first 1/3 of the game) you'll be able to beat the rest of the game. Don't get me wrong, the game gets harder, but that's the only barrier in the game that will prevent you from completing it. Basically, that fight forces you to learn the game's mechanics, and once you do, the game becomes manageable even in its difficulty. That's kind of where it really clicked for me, and had a blast for the rest of the game.

[Slug]

18 minutes ago, Bjomesphat said:

 

If you can beat the first significant story boss (don't want to spoil anything, but basically the end of the first 1/3 of the game) you'll be able to beat the rest of the game. Don't get me wrong, the game gets harder, but that's the only barrier in the game that will prevent you from completing it. Basically, that fight forces you to learn the game's mechanics, and once you do, the game becomes manageable even in its difficulty. That's kind of where it really clicked for me, and had a blast for the rest of the game.

 

I remember playing until I like, got transported to this village area where everything was on fire.  I don't remember the details but I seem to remember it being like a flashback or something?  In any case at the end, at the back of this on fire village there was a big dude in a watery area.  I could never get past him.  I don't know if this was an area I was supposed to be in or if I"d gone off sequence or what, but I never got through that bit.

[ShreddieMercury]

Personally, I really don't care about Dark Souls, and the addition of difficulty options would not make a difference to me.  And while some of the discussions about accessibility become a bit irrational and veer toward outright entitlement, I think difficulty scaling is one of the absolute no-brainers that adds flexibility and opens games up to a wider audience.

 

My main issue is that I don't like to see the influence of Souls games in anything that isn't directly inspired by them.  Despite the art and settings, I don't think they have that many compelling gameplay elements aside from the difficulty and pointlessly punishing save systems, so when games en masse decide to implement these specific mechanics, or to up their difficulty in crude and cheap ways, it's baffling to me.  This is a trend that I don't like and one that I think runs counter to the direction that the industry has been moving regarding accessibility in general.

[Bjomesphat]

30 minutes ago, Slug said:

 

I remember playing until I like, got transported to this village area where everything was on fire.  I don't remember the details but I seem to remember it being like a flashback or something?  In any case at the end, at the back of this on fire village there was a big dude in a watery area.  I could never get past him.  I don't know if this was an area I was supposed to be in or if I"d gone off sequence or what, but I never got through that bit.

 

I can't remember if that area is completely optional or not, but I do know you can go there early and it's significantly harder if you do. It's best to continue on the main path and come back to that when you're ready. Or at the very least, beat the big dude, because there's a boss after him that will 100% make you quit the game if you don't have the patience. Best to do her later too.

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, Slug said:

 

I remember playing until I like, got transported to this village area where everything was on fire.  I don't remember the details but I seem to remember it being like a flashback or something?  In any case at the end, at the back of this on fire village there was a big dude in a watery area.  I could never get past him.  I don't know if this was an area I was supposed to be in or if I"d gone off sequence or what, but I never got through that bit.

A lot of people miss the fact that there's an NPC there that will help you fight that guy. If you can kill some of the adds that are in that area before fighting the boss, there's an NPC samurai that can help you fight that battle with the big guy. Honestly the toughest parts of Sekiro are the earlier parts where the game is teaching you the mechanics. Once you master the parrying mechanic (it's easier than most folks think and will eventually become second nature) the game is pretty easy... until you get to the final boss. Then you'll spend a TON of time trying to beat him and his FOUR phases.

 

The thing is that Sekiro is the toughest of the Souls games because you can't level your way past tough parts and the game requires you to play it the way its intended to be played. However it IS doable. It just takes time and patience.

 

1 hour ago, Bjomesphat said:

 

I can't remember if that area is completely optional or not, but I do know you can go there early and it's significantly harder if you do. It's best to continue on the main path and come back to that when you're ready. Or at the very least, beat the big dude, because there's a boss after him that will 100% make you quit the game if you don't have the patience. Best to do her later too.

I don't think its optional. The boss you speak of after this guy is a main story boss. The first one I think.

[eventide11]

16 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

EXACTLY like that, except at least in FF6 there's a chance I might level the characters because I like them. In Octopath you're just handicapping yourself in 99% of the game if you go around fully kitting them out for an endgame boss fight.

I think I had that same problem with Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles. Last boss, unused or ignored characters had to fight and the game never made it clear those characters needed to be leveled properly or else. I basically said screw it I've experienced all I wanted to anyway. 

[Bjomesphat]

30 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I don't think its optional. The boss you speak of after this guy is a main story boss. The first one I think.

 

She's a lot of people's first real boss, because the game pushes you toward Hirata Estate early when you probably shouldn't go there. Or at least you should kind of go back and forth between that and the main path.

 

But it actually is completely optional. However, you really need every prayer bead and boss memory, especially for the early game, so it needs to be done at some point.

[skillzdadirecta]

6 minutes ago, Bjomesphat said:

 

She's a lot of people's first real boss, because the game pushes you toward Hirata Estate early when you probably shouldn't go there. Or at least you should kind of go back and forth between that and the main path.

 

But it actually is completely optional. However, you really need every prayer bead and boss memory, especially for the early game, so it needs to be done at some point.

She's optional? I didn't know that. She was my first boss for sure.