On December 17 2012 15:32 Ideas wrote: How would you guys feel if they made the game more random? IE random enemy/loot placements every life or even procedurally generated levels?
The biggest thing that put me off from playing both souls games for more than 8-10 hours was how tedious the grind became: get a little further than you got before -> die or go back to the campfire -> redo EVERYTHING again -> repeat process.
I loved everything else about the game: the gameplay, atmosphere, level design, enemy design, etc. I just HATE having the replay the same sections dozens of times. I wonder if there is a way to make the game still be mostly the same but have some random elements that can keep it feeling fresh ( maybe not as extreme as games like FTL or Spelunky, but maybe similar to diablo or something).
That's kind of the point of the game. Do I continue forward and hope that there's a campfire. Or do I go back and refresh myself at the old campfire but now I have knowledge of where/what the enemies are and hope I fare better the next time.
I think hes more referring to the Grind then to level of difficulty and i can kinda see where hes coming from. Im tempted to buy Dark Souls cause i love hard games, but somehow i keep reading that its "grindy" and i cant say im a fan of that^^
I don't really know why you'd be grinding anything in this game. you can beat it at level 1...there's no grinding required.
On December 17 2012 15:32 Ideas wrote: How would you guys feel if they made the game more random? IE random enemy/loot placements every life or even procedurally generated levels?
The biggest thing that put me off from playing both souls games for more than 8-10 hours was how tedious the grind became: get a little further than you got before -> die or go back to the campfire -> redo EVERYTHING again -> repeat process.
I loved everything else about the game: the gameplay, atmosphere, level design, enemy design, etc. I just HATE having the replay the same sections dozens of times. I wonder if there is a way to make the game still be mostly the same but have some random elements that can keep it feeling fresh ( maybe not as extreme as games like FTL or Spelunky, but maybe similar to diablo or something).
That's kind of the point of the game. Do I continue forward and hope that there's a campfire. Or do I go back and refresh myself at the old campfire but now I have knowledge of where/what the enemies are and hope I fare better the next time.
I think hes more referring to the Grind then to level of difficulty and i can kinda see where hes coming from. Im tempted to buy Dark Souls cause i love hard games, but somehow i keep reading that its "grindy" and i cant say im a fan of that^^
I don't really know why you'd be grinding anything in this game. you can beat it at level 1...there's no grinding required.
Apparently learning how to play a game is a grind to many people :/
On December 17 2012 16:25 Cynry wrote: If your definition of grinding is mindless repetition, which it is for me, then DS isn't a grindy game. Or you're playing it wrong.
I wouldn't say DS has true grinding unless you purposefully try to grind out souls somewhere. But a big part of the design is memorizing levels by going through them many times, which to me gets quite repetitive at times and prevents me from wanting to continue.
I'm going through Spelunky again right now which I think has a lot of parallels to the spirit of DS' design. Both games are incredibly hard and you die A LOT. Both games demand that hte player becomes a master of the mechanics and to have a methodical pace while playing, while also being able to quickly analyze and react properly to situations.
Both games have a lot of gameplay depth: a veteran player is MUCH better at controlling their character and playing the game than a novice player. However the games differ in the way the offer these challenges to the player and how they allow for "progression."
DS has a more traditional RPG-style level of progression: earn souls and level up your stats so that early levels are easier. This is on top of the game-playing skills that the players themselves acquire while playing (knowing the weakness of enemies, memorizing timings of attacks and animations, memorizing level layouts, etc). So the game allows the player/player-character avatar to become exponentially more powerful in the game.
Spelunky on the other hand has procedurally-generated levels: every time the player starts a game the level layout is completely different but is comprised of the same sort of enemies, loot, and obstacles (although that varies depending on the world you are in). The way the player progresses is by doing a long run-through some levels meeting specific requirements (IE giving the tunnelman what he wants) to unlock new worlds. The only way the player becomes more powerful in the game is by being able to play the game better.
Now I'm not saying that I think DS' design is bad or worse than Spelunky's, but Spelunky definitely appeals to me more because the experience is ALWAYS fresh becuase of the random levels (also the mechanics have an INSANE skill cap). In my experience (bare in mind i only played each DS game for about 8-10 hours each), level memorization is a pretty big skill to acquire in the DS game, which can just get very tedious to me (and i would bet a lot of other people that never player/completed a DS game).
One thing to note however is what death means in both games: in DS death is EVERYTHING: you lose all your souls, and if you don't reach your bloodstain they are gone FOREVER. In Spelunky death is mostly meaningless unless you are in the middle of trying to unlock a new world: die or live you are about to see a new level. The speed/scope of the game is such that at most you are losing 10 minutes of progress. These combine in a way that any frustration you get from JUST missing the exit to a new world is quickly relieved because you are so quickly playing a brand new level and in the game again.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think adding in some smartly-designed random/procedurally-generated elements to the game COULD help make the game a lot more appealing to folks like me that do not like having to go through the same level over and over again, and I think if done correctly it could PROMOTE the parts of DS' design that are most-loved. I think there could be some great synthesis of the design of both games where you take the more meaningful progression system of DS and combine it with Spelunky's take on constantly giving the player a fresh experience.
This is all hypothetical though. But if I were making DS2 and had a mandate to make the game more accessible for new players (which apparently From has said they do), I would definitely look into seeing if there was a way to make elements like that fit into the game.
Or maybe I'm just really bad at DS and I end up repeating the same 15-20 minutes of gameplay dozens of time when no one else does (or minds)
If they make the game easier they will kill the series. Same thing with making the game more 'accessible'; part of what made DS so good was the exploration where shit don't get handed to you on a silver plate, unlike many other games... Also the story wasn't this cheesy crap that forces you along, you were free to do whatever you wished.
On December 17 2012 16:25 Cynry wrote: If your definition of grinding is mindless repetition, which it is for me, then DS isn't a grindy game. Or you're playing it wrong.
I wouldn't say DS has true grinding unless you purposefully try to grind out souls somewhere. But a big part of the design is memorizing levels by going through them many times, which to me gets quite repetitive at times and prevents me from wanting to continue.
I'm going through Spelunky again right now which I think has a lot of parallels to the spirit of DS' design. Both games are incredibly hard and you die A LOT. Both games demand that hte player becomes a master of the mechanics and to have a methodical pace while playing, while also being able to quickly analyze and react properly to situations.
Both games have a lot of gameplay depth: a veteran player is MUCH better at controlling their character and playing the game than a novice player. However the games differ in the way the offer these challenges to the player and how they allow for "progression."
DS has a more traditional RPG-style level of progression: earn souls and level up your stats so that early levels are easier. This is on top of the game-playing skills that the players themselves acquire while playing (knowing the weakness of enemies, memorizing timings of attacks and animations, memorizing level layouts, etc). So the game allows the player/player-character avatar to become exponentially more powerful in the game.
Spelunky on the other hand has procedurally-generated levels: every time the player starts a game the level layout is completely different but is comprised of the same sort of enemies, loot, and obstacles (although that varies depending on the world you are in). The way the player progresses is by doing a long run-through some levels meeting specific requirements (IE giving the tunnelman what he wants) to unlock new worlds. The only way the player becomes more powerful in the game is by being able to play the game better.
Now I'm not saying that I think DS' design is bad or worse than Spelunky's, but Spelunky definitely appeals to me more because the experience is ALWAYS fresh becuase of the random levels (also the mechanics have an INSANE skill cap). In my experience (bare in mind i only played each DS game for about 8-10 hours each), level memorization is a pretty big skill to acquire in the DS game, which can just get very tedious to me (and i would bet a lot of other people that never player/completed a DS game).
One thing to note however is what death means in both games: in DS death is EVERYTHING: you lose all your souls, and if you don't reach your bloodstain they are gone FOREVER. In Spelunky death is mostly meaningless unless you are in the middle of trying to unlock a new world: die or live you are about to see a new level. The speed/scope of the game is such that at most you are losing 10 minutes of progress. These combine in a way that any frustration you get from JUST missing the exit to a new world is quickly relieved because you are so quickly playing a brand new level and in the game again.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think adding in some smartly-designed random/procedurally-generated elements to the game COULD help make the game a lot more appealing to folks like me that do not like having to go through the same level over and over again, and I think if done correctly it could PROMOTE the parts of DS' design that are most-loved. I think there could be some great synthesis of the design of both games where you take the more meaningful progression system of DS and combine it with Spelunky's take on constantly giving the player a fresh experience.
This is all hypothetical though. But if I were making DS2 and had a mandate to make the game more accessible for new players (which apparently From has said they do), I would definitely look into seeing if there was a way to make elements like that fit into the game.
Or maybe I'm just really bad at DS and I end up repeating the same 15-20 minutes of gameplay dozens of time when no one else does (or minds)
Good points, and it shows how much taste comes into play.
Procedurally generated level have their pros, and I do play games that use that, but I wouldn't like it applied to DS. The "handcrafted" world had a feeling that I believe, couldn't be reproduced with randomized generation.
Same with the way the difficulty is handled, and the weight of dying. It's all part of the experience for me and many others. I think it has something to do with the player actually being a visitor of a virtual world (and a harsh one), and not a virtual world bending itself to make it easy for the player. Not sure if I am making sense...
Anyway, if they are indeed making it more accessible, well... Wait and see... And hope...
On December 17 2012 16:25 Cynry wrote: If your definition of grinding is mindless repetition, which it is for me, then DS isn't a grindy game. Or you're playing it wrong.
I wouldn't say DS has true grinding unless you purposefully try to grind out souls somewhere. But a big part of the design is memorizing levels by going through them many times, which to me gets quite repetitive at times and prevents me from wanting to continue.
I'm going through Spelunky again right now which I think has a lot of parallels to the spirit of DS' design. Both games are incredibly hard and you die A LOT. Both games demand that hte player becomes a master of the mechanics and to have a methodical pace while playing, while also being able to quickly analyze and react properly to situations.
Both games have a lot of gameplay depth: a veteran player is MUCH better at controlling their character and playing the game than a novice player. However the games differ in the way the offer these challenges to the player and how they allow for "progression."
DS has a more traditional RPG-style level of progression: earn souls and level up your stats so that early levels are easier. This is on top of the game-playing skills that the players themselves acquire while playing (knowing the weakness of enemies, memorizing timings of attacks and animations, memorizing level layouts, etc). So the game allows the player/player-character avatar to become exponentially more powerful in the game.
Spelunky on the other hand has procedurally-generated levels: every time the player starts a game the level layout is completely different but is comprised of the same sort of enemies, loot, and obstacles (although that varies depending on the world you are in). The way the player progresses is by doing a long run-through some levels meeting specific requirements (IE giving the tunnelman what he wants) to unlock new worlds. The only way the player becomes more powerful in the game is by being able to play the game better.
Now I'm not saying that I think DS' design is bad or worse than Spelunky's, but Spelunky definitely appeals to me more because the experience is ALWAYS fresh becuase of the random levels (also the mechanics have an INSANE skill cap). In my experience (bare in mind i only played each DS game for about 8-10 hours each), level memorization is a pretty big skill to acquire in the DS game, which can just get very tedious to me (and i would bet a lot of other people that never player/completed a DS game).
One thing to note however is what death means in both games: in DS death is EVERYTHING: you lose all your souls, and if you don't reach your bloodstain they are gone FOREVER. In Spelunky death is mostly meaningless unless you are in the middle of trying to unlock a new world: die or live you are about to see a new level. The speed/scope of the game is such that at most you are losing 10 minutes of progress. These combine in a way that any frustration you get from JUST missing the exit to a new world is quickly relieved because you are so quickly playing a brand new level and in the game again.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think adding in some smartly-designed random/procedurally-generated elements to the game COULD help make the game a lot more appealing to folks like me that do not like having to go through the same level over and over again, and I think if done correctly it could PROMOTE the parts of DS' design that are most-loved. I think there could be some great synthesis of the design of both games where you take the more meaningful progression system of DS and combine it with Spelunky's take on constantly giving the player a fresh experience.
This is all hypothetical though. But if I were making DS2 and had a mandate to make the game more accessible for new players (which apparently From has said they do), I would definitely look into seeing if there was a way to make elements like that fit into the game.
Or maybe I'm just really bad at DS and I end up repeating the same 15-20 minutes of gameplay dozens of time when no one else does (or minds)
Well written, but I have to disagree here. Spelunky is a fun game, but I don't think it's comparable, and there's different goals and thus different forms of satisfaction. In Dark Souls, you might very well be forced to go through the same area 10-20 times until you've become good enough at beating it... but you progress a little bit every attempt, which makes you feel like you're improving, giving constant satisfaction. In Spelunky, you might get very far one attempt, die immediately the next... it all feels random and up to luck. Of course you get better over time, but it's not handed to you in the same way as in DS. In DS you have direct obstacles which you are slowly learning to overcome, in Spelunky, it might very well feel like you're just waiting for that lucky generation where you will sail through large parts of the game.
I personally prefer the Dark Souls way, though the games are too different to really compare.
EDIT: As for the gravity of dying, I think a bit part of the game is learning to not care so much about dying. The price of dying is high, no doubt, but dying is a definite part of the game, unless you're unusually good, you should expect to die a few times in each area at least. While it sucks to die twice and lose 20+ humanity etc, you should always spend humanity and souls in the likely even of dying... and you will only have really large amounts of it if you're actually good enough to get far without dying. So really, while I got really frustrated when I died at first, I learned not to care, which made the game far more enjoyable. The deaths are there to make you want to play well, not to make you not want to play the game.
ah dark souls, most horrible pc port I ve played in my life. It's like when someone makes a very nice meal for you and then decides to puke all over it. at least prepare to die was a well chosen titel, haha .
I ve little hope that they might have learned from their mistake, so I ll stay away from this one. gg.
On December 17 2012 20:25 Wrath 2.1 wrote: ah dark souls, most horrible pc port I ve played in my life. It's like when someone makes a very nice meal for you and then decides to puke all over it. at least prepare to die was a well chosen titel, haha .
I ve little hope that they might have learned from their mistake, so I ll stay away from this one. gg.
There's a difference, when they made dark souls they had no intention of porting it to pc. With darks souls 2 they've announced it from the beginning so they'll hopefully keep that in mind during the development, especially things like the textures, fps lock and controls.
On December 17 2012 20:25 Wrath 2.1 wrote: ah dark souls, most horrible pc port I ve played in my life. It's like when someone makes a very nice meal for you and then decides to puke all over it. at least prepare to die was a well chosen titel, haha .
I ve little hope that they might have learned from their mistake, so I ll stay away from this one. gg.
It's just as "bad" as every other pc port. You're going to let that ruin the game? Not to mention it honestly isn't that bad of a port. Oh no 30 frames. Boohoo, it's still a great game.
The pc port isnt even that bad. I honestly dont get what people are whining about. 30 frames is fine for me. Nothing wrong with the controls either, they did an excellent job of translating the control scheme to the keyboard imo. I can play with a keyboard just as well as with a controller, it did take some getting used to ofcourse. Windows live was a complete bitch to set up but after a rage inducing 45 minutes Ive had no trouble since. It just logs in when you start the game. Im curious if people have other gripes with the port.
The PC version is perfectly fine for what it was: A quick fix to allow PC players to enjoy the game without having to buy a console. Of course the controls were a bit lacking, the 30 FPS lock a bit disappointing and xbox 360 control symbols in the tutorial messages a bit weird... but what we got was a perfectly playable version of Dark Souls on PC. The game was just as enjoyable as on console, at least if you had a proper control.
I'm gona get DS when I have the money because it looks vaguely like Shadow of the Colossus and Ico. And until they make a new game like them I guess I am forced to take whatever can be approximately compared to them.
On December 17 2012 16:25 Cynry wrote: If your definition of grinding is mindless repetition, which it is for me, then DS isn't a grindy game. Or you're playing it wrong.
it's not a grindy game at ALL, if you just want to experience the game beat it, maybe level a different character type and call it a day.
DS can be a very grindy game if you're hardcore and want to have various builds at different soul levels for pvp. Grinding slabs, chunks, blossoms etc., can be very, very grindy. This is a small population of the userbase though and I think they know what they're getting into.
On December 17 2012 21:26 Tobberoth wrote: The game was just as enjoyable as on console, at least if you had a proper control.
I'd say the PC version is the best so long as you use a controller and DSFIX. The only real problem with the PC version is the playerbase is a fraction compared to xbox/ps3. The port itself was a 'bad port' but it doesn't really matter in the end because the game is so fucking good.
On December 17 2012 16:25 Cynry wrote: If your definition of grinding is mindless repetition, which it is for me, then DS isn't a grindy game. Or you're playing it wrong.
it's not a grindy game at ALL, if you just want to experience the game beat it, maybe level a different character type and call it a day.
DS can be a very grindy game if you're hardcore and want to have various builds at different soul levels for pvp. Grinding slabs, chunks, blossoms etc., can be very, very grindy. This is a small population of the userbase though and I think they know what they're getting into.
Wow totally forgot about those people, and I wouldn't say they are playing the game wrong ^^ Seeing some PvP videos where the guy had 99 divine blessings...Ugh grindfest indeed...
On December 17 2012 20:25 Wrath 2.1 wrote: ah dark souls, most horrible pc port I ve played in my life. It's like when someone makes a very nice meal for you and then decides to puke all over it. at least prepare to die was a well chosen titel, haha .
I ve little hope that they might have learned from their mistake, so I ll stay away from this one. gg.
It's just as "bad" as every other pc port. You're going to let that ruin the game? Not to mention it honestly isn't that bad of a port. Oh no 30 frames. Boohoo, it's still a great game.
Just because there's a lot of bad ports out there doesn't mean dark souls wasn't a bad port. Play a game that are actually ported correctly and there's a big difference. They did the least amount possible for the game to be playable and saying a bad port is acceptable will only screw us consumers by giving us even more bad ports. Look at the difference between borderlands 1 and 2 for instance. Same game basically, different ports by quite a lot.
If you thought dark souls was the minimum amount for a port then try the PC version of darksiders II.. worst UI/menu experience I've had in several years. Itt basically roped you into using a gamepad/controller unless you spent a good amount of time tinkering with the keyboard controls.