Namco's official response to Dark Souls Multiplayer criticism.

  • 104 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Edited by mordukai (7184 posts) -

As you are well aware a large number of the Demon's Souls community are not happy with the changes made. Yesterday Namco put out an official response.

Due to several contacts we've received from users confused as to how the summoning feature works in game, we have provided this list to help.
Conditions for summoning (White Sign Soapstone):
  1. The host (person who's game world will be used) must be human. The client (person joining the game) can either be human or undead.
  1. The client’s level must fall within 10% (above or below) of the host’s level. Generally, this example formula should give you a good idea on whether you will be able to join: (L x 1.1)
    L(L x 0.9), where is L the level of the client and L is the level of the host. For example, if the level of the host is 20, then they will only be able to summon players who are levels 18 to 22.
  1. The area boss (Taurus Demon, Bell Gargoyles, Moonlight Butterfly, etc…) in the host’s world must still be alive. A client can still be summoned even if the client has already defeated their own area boss.
  1. The host must not have placed down a summoning sign. Summoning signs from other players will not appear in a host’s world if the host also has placed a summoning sign down. This is to prevent a network conflict of the host joining someone else's game world while the clients are trying to join the host's game world.
  1. After successfully summoning, the client will return to their world if the area boss is defeated, the client is killed or the host is killed.
Also, please note that there are several different servers/lobbies that are being used for Dark Souls, so you may not be able to summon a specific friend into your game even if you adhere to the steps above. We can only recommend that you follow the steps above for the best chance at being able to join a specific friends' game.

This, imo, is a slap to the large PvP and Co-op community that kept demon's souls alive for so long. I understand and respect what they are going for but that doesn't mean I will support it. This has completely put me off of Dark Souls.

#2 Posted by Shadowcoust (38 posts) -

WORKING AS INTENDED, SON.

#3 Posted by TekZero (2686 posts) -

Don't play it then.

#4 Posted by mordukai (7184 posts) -

@Shadowcoust said:

WORKING AS INTENDED, SON.

Noted and understood and I will not support it.

#5 Edited by Gumby (229 posts) -

Why couldn't they just have a way to enter a friend's game? I understand what they are going for, but if people want to play with their friends, let them!

#6 Posted by JackSukeru (5950 posts) -

"That does not mean I will not support it"

Edit your post, again.

#7 Posted by mfpantst (2574 posts) -

all this math.

#8 Edited by Gargantuan (1887 posts) -

That doesn't sound very different.

"The host (person who's game world will be used) must be human. The client (person joining the game) can either be human or undead."

Only difference here is that human characters can join

"The client’s level must fall within 10% (above or below) of the host’s level. Generally, this example formula should give you a good idea on whether you will be able to join: (L x 1.1)

    ≥ L ≥ (L x 0.9), where is L the level of the client and L is the level of the host. For example, if the level of the host is 20, then they will only be able to summon players who are levels 18 to 22."

They changed the level formula a bit, in Demon's Souls a lvl 20 can be joined by lvl 9 to 32 phantoms.

"The area boss (Taurus Demon, Bell Gargoyles, Moonlight Butterfly, etc…) in the host’s world must still be alive. A client can still be summoned even if the client has already defeated their own area boss."

Like in Demon's Souls.

"The host must not have placed down a summoning sign. Summoning signs from other players will not appear in a host’s world if the host also has placed a summoning sign down. This is to prevent a network conflict of the host joining someone else's game world while the clients are trying to join the host's game world."

Don't know if that's a change

"After successfully summoning, the client will return to their world if the area boss is defeated, the client is killed or the host is killed."

Like in Demon's Souls.

#9 Posted by lead_farmer (1041 posts) -

Can anybody explain to me how the multiplayer is structured? What other game is it similar to in terms of multiplayer? Sorry, all I have seen is the solo stuff.

Pardon my ignorance, I have not yet purchased this game. It is intimidating.

#10 Edited by ProfessorEss (7469 posts) -
@Mordukai:  Hmm, perhaps I shall quote another user when he was talking about another feature that some people weren't fond of. 
 
I believe the quote was "Deal with it". Who was it that said that again?  
 
I guess the developer just decided this is what's best for all players.
#11 Posted by JackSukeru (5950 posts) -

@Gargantuan said:

"The host must not have placed down a summoning sign. Summoning signs from other players will not appear in a host’s world if the host also has placed a summoning sign down. This is to prevent a network conflict of the host joining someone else's game world while the clients are trying to join the host's game world."

Don't know if that's a change

It's a change resulting from being able to be summoned while human. You couldn't do both in Demon's Souls.

#12 Posted by Bocam (3809 posts) -

How is this any different then Demon's Souls?

#13 Posted by Akyho (1693 posts) -

If the complaint about not being able to simply Coop with a friend. Cos that was never Demons Souls style. And with Dark Souls disabling party chat on 360. Dark souls is realy trying to not have to play with a friend.

They want you playing with a random person with no voice. Just action. Thats Demons Souls and Dark souls.

If you complaining about getting to play with anyone random or not. Then well as above poster said. Its just like Demon souls aside from while human this time.

Online
#14 Posted by haggis (1677 posts) -

Much ado about nothing, in my opinion. They wanted to create a specific feel for the multiplayer, and they did it. Is it a "slap" at dedicated players? Not really. The changes don't seem all that significant to me. If they seem that way to others, then they can choose not to play. I doubt anything said now about it is going to change anything. This my-way-or-the-highway attitude seems a bit counterproductive to me, to be honest.

#15 Posted by CJduke (796 posts) -

I'm glad they don't let you into a friends game. That would make the game too easy you could just do it all the time and be communicating with each other. Dark Souls is a single player game first and foremost anyway, I think if you bought Dark Souls because of the multiplayer than you made a mistake.

#16 Posted by mitter (63 posts) -

I completely understand that people are upset with the mp currently not working properly. I just don't quite get, why they complain about not being able to invite friends/directly form a group with them etc. since From Software did not announce that. If they did, I'm not aware of it and it's clearly a broken promise, that has to be fixed.

#17 Posted by benjaebe (2783 posts) -

@mitter said:

I completely understand that people are upset with the mp currently not working properly. I just don't quite get, why they complain about not being able to invite friends/directly form a group with them etc. since From Software did not announce that. If they did, I'm not aware of it and it's clearly a broken promise, that has to be fixed.

As far as I know, that's not what they announced. It was sort of assumed that you could find a friend/PVP match fairly easily since you could in Demons Souls, but that used a master server. This uses smaller lobbies and sorts you into them for various reasons, so you might just not get into the same world as your friend regardless of what you try and do. I'm not really all that concerned about playing with friends or PVP, I've just noticed that it's pretty rare to get summoned or to be able to summon other people, but that can be attributed to not many people playing in human form / having defeated bosses already / etc.

#18 Posted by Rayeth (1067 posts) -

These games are NOT meant to be co-op with your friends. The entire point is to get help from strangers and to not know how helpful the strangers will be. That is the whole point of the messages and the ratings. If you summon someone you get a random player near your level. This is nearly exactly how Demon's Souls worked.

Anyone complaining needs to get their expectations checked. If you were able to summon your friend before that was because there were so few people playing.

#19 Posted by rubberluffy (473 posts) -

I like how the co-op works.  I've spent most of my playtime today just dropping a summon sign by the church and helping people do Gargoyles.  Just helped my 6th person. 

#20 Edited by ttocs (778 posts) -

I think they knocked it out of the park. If you want to play it the old way, go play Demon's Souls. The game is still around and the online community will be supported for a while. If you want to play the new game they just came out then play Dark Souls (by the way - not named Demon's Souls 2.)

#21 Posted by SuperfluousMoniker (2913 posts) -

Huh, I thought you had to be human to summon or be summoned. I haven't really used the multiplayer much yet, I was human the first time I went into the Undead Parish and I summoned a couple of high-level players who destroyed all the hard enemies upstairs and the Bell Gargoyles for me. But as an undead much of the time I haven't had many opportunites to summon others, and trying to use my white soul sign thing just gives me some error message. Does it only work in areas where you beat your boss already if you are dead and want to be summoned?

#22 Posted by MildMolasses (3228 posts) -

@Gumby said:

Why couldn't they just have a way to enter a friend's game? I understand what they are going for, but if people want to play with their friends, let them!

What about the Souls games gives you the impression that user preference was ever a factor in design decisions?

#23 Posted by SoldierG654342 (1805 posts) -

It just sounds like it's set up to prevent trolling.

#24 Posted by EchoEcho (836 posts) -

@Gumby said:

Why couldn't they just have a way to enter a friend's game? I understand what they are going for, but if people want to play with their friends, let them!

They -- the developers of the game -- don't want you to play with your friends, they want you to play with random people, with no means of communication outside your actions within the game. That is the feel they wanted for the game, and they're standing by it. Just because some people want the game to be something it's not doesn't mean that the developers should cave to their demands. Either the game is for you or it's not, basically. Personally I'm glad that From Software is standing by their vision for the game as it was intended.

#25 Posted by ajamafalous (12129 posts) -

I respect their decision to not let you summon friends, but I'm not a fan of games that do that. Just let me play with my goddamn friends if I want to.

#26 Posted by bcjohnnie (442 posts) -

Part of the reason for the smaller servers is that they wanted to add some more nuance to the way multiplayer works. With the whole covenant system, some players will be "further away" from others online, depending on how "good" or "evil" they have chosen to play. I certainly get that people want to experience this together, but honestly guys, they never ever said that would be something you could just do off the bat. Give it some time, and people will figure out how to make this work better if you want to play with your friends.

But seriously guys, this game is plenty of fun by itself, or if you summon a random in (most randoms are in the same boat and just want to get through this too). Don't give up on the game just because they didn't include a feature that they never announced.

#27 Posted by TekZero (2686 posts) -

They disabled chat because they didn't want multiple people yelling "WHAT THE SHIT WAS THAT?!" over and over again.

#28 Edited by tekmojo (2302 posts) -

@Bocam said:

How is this any different then Demon's Souls?

*It feels essentially the same, and we are v1.3 expect tweaks to come in future whether you're on board or not.

#29 Posted by Jeffsekai (7049 posts) -

I've tried to summon people twice, both times it worked just fine and I beat the boss.

#30 Posted by Animasta (14718 posts) -

@ajamafalous said:

I respect their decision to not let you summon friends, but I'm not a fan of games that do that. Just let me play with my goddamn friends if I want to.

besides, what's the point of summoning friends? it's not like there's party chat anyway

#31 Posted by Kung_Fu_Viking (717 posts) -

So, I don't really understand the Demon's Souls/Dark Soul's multiplayer system here. I take it that someone can do a thing to try to summon someone else into their world but how does it choose who's coming into your world? Do you have to signify your willingness to do multiplayer or is it just random so long as you are connected to the internet?

#32 Posted by FancySoapsMan (5855 posts) -

You know what game this reminds me of?
 
Demon's Souls.

#33 Posted by Hailinel (25203 posts) -

@Laketown said:

@ajamafalous said:

I respect their decision to not let you summon friends, but I'm not a fan of games that do that. Just let me play with my goddamn friends if I want to.

besides, what's the point of summoning friends? it's not like there's party chat anyway

Yeah. There's no way to actually communicate in game other than through the tools provided. Dark Souls may be a game that can be played with others, but it's not designed around the concept of friends lists.

#34 Posted by Gumby (229 posts) -

@EchoEcho said:

@Gumby said:

Why couldn't they just have a way to enter a friend's game? I understand what they are going for, but if people want to play with their friends, let them!

They -- the developers of the game -- don't want you to play with your friends, they want you to play with random people, with no means of communication outside your actions within the game. That is the feel they wanted for the game, and they're standing by it. Just because some people want the game to be something it's not doesn't mean that the developers should cave to their demands. Either the game is for you or it's not, basically. Personally I'm glad that From Software is standing by their vision for the game as it was intended.

Still. One does not have to rule out the other. Aren't games meant to be fun? Somewhere down the line devs need to ask themselves what the consumers want and if you have a tonne of people complaining because they can't play with their friends maybe they should think about implementing that. Besides, it's not impossible to play with certain people, it's just a hassle. Why not make it easier for people who like the core game but also like co-op?

Right now, the Souls community feels exactly the same as the Monster Hunter one. To quote Jeff, every thought of changing something is met with: "IT NEEDS TO BE THE WAY IT IS!!!".

#35 Posted by Rayeth (1067 posts) -

@Kung_Fu_Viking: You get an item that you can put down summon signs that other will see. They see your sign and hit accept and you get summoned into their world.

The summoner must be human to do this however. That seems to be the sticking point as of now.

#36 Posted by EchoEcho (836 posts) -

@Gumby: Games are meant to be fun, but that doesn't mean they have to be all things to all people. Dark Souls is what Dark Souls is, because it's what the developers wanted it to be. I'm not saying I don't see your point, far from it -- I think it would kick ass to be able to play a game like this one with a friend, start to finish, without having to jump through hoops to accomplish it. Thing is, I understand that From Software had a vision for what they wanted this game to be and how the multiplayer functions within the setting, and they have a right to fulfill that vision. At the end of the day, there are other games that cater to those who want a full-on, hassle-free co-op experience with their friends -- not every game needs to scratch that itch.

Anyone who really, really wants to play this game with a friend without the element of randomness and luck has a right to be disappointed, I'm not debating that at all. Once people start accusing From Software of slapping their fans in the face (like the OP), or claiming From's obligated to provide a specific kind of multiplayer experience simply because many other games do, that's where I have to draw the line.

#37 Edited by McShank (1629 posts) -

you said in another post that they promised you the ability to play with friends.. That was them saying *Strangers are your friends in this game* not, Lets open our friends list and summon my friend who lives down the street so we can make things easier then just some random person. This game is to be difficult, and not having the choice to always get your friends or Ever get your friends is part of that. Also this is Namco, not atlus. The servers are done their way this time around so we just have to deal with it and keep dieing the glorious deaths. Also, I have had 0 problems with being summoned and summoning. People have liked help from me and I have done so, and I have found many soapsigns to summon others also, so I have had no problems with it except that i feel lonely that no one wishes to invade me yet :( Only reason I have stayed human for so long.

#38 Edited by MetalMoog (908 posts) -

I'm confused. How is this any different than Demon's Souls multiplayer? I found it impossible to summon a friend in Demon's Souls too because you'd always just get a random person that found your summoning stone. Not sure how this is any different?

Read the explanation on Co-Optimus. It's because Dark Souls is running on multiple servers, whereas Demon's Souls was not. I would think this is to be expected as this game is probably going to sell 100x what Demon's Souls did being multi-platform and a spiritual sequel to a game that left a huge mark years ago.

#39 Posted by SgtGrumbles (1024 posts) -

@Gumby said:

@EchoEcho said:

@Gumby said:

Why couldn't they just have a way to enter a friend's game? I understand what they are going for, but if people want to play with their friends, let them!

They -- the developers of the game -- don't want you to play with your friends, they want you to play with random people, with no means of communication outside your actions within the game. That is the feel they wanted for the game, and they're standing by it. Just because some people want the game to be something it's not doesn't mean that the developers should cave to their demands. Either the game is for you or it's not, basically. Personally I'm glad that From Software is standing by their vision for the game as it was intended.

Still. One does not have to rule out the other. Aren't games meant to be fun? Somewhere down the line devs need to ask themselves what the consumers want and if you have a tonne of people complaining because they can't play with their friends maybe they should think about implementing that. Besides, it's not impossible to play with certain people, it's just a hassle. Why not make it easier for people who like the core game but also like co-op?

Right now, the Souls community feels exactly the same as the Monster Hunter one. To quote Jeff, every thought of changing something is met with: "IT NEEDS TO BE THE WAY IT IS!!!".

Like somebody else said, why do all games have to be accessible to everyone, not every film is made with every audience in mind, this has always bothered me about games, people say they're a gamer and assume all games are for them, I'm very much into movies but I wouldn't assume all movies are made for me and I really wouldn't go online and complain that they should be. I find it really odd.

#40 Posted by dragonzord (825 posts) -

@ModerateViolence said:

@Gumby said:

@EchoEcho said:

@Gumby said:

Why couldn't they just have a way to enter a friend's game? I understand what they are going for, but if people want to play with their friends, let them!

They -- the developers of the game -- don't want you to play with your friends, they want you to play with random people, with no means of communication outside your actions within the game. That is the feel they wanted for the game, and they're standing by it. Just because some people want the game to be something it's not doesn't mean that the developers should cave to their demands. Either the game is for you or it's not, basically. Personally I'm glad that From Software is standing by their vision for the game as it was intended.

Still. One does not have to rule out the other. Aren't games meant to be fun? Somewhere down the line devs need to ask themselves what the consumers want and if you have a tonne of people complaining because they can't play with their friends maybe they should think about implementing that. Besides, it's not impossible to play with certain people, it's just a hassle. Why not make it easier for people who like the core game but also like co-op?

Right now, the Souls community feels exactly the same as the Monster Hunter one. To quote Jeff, every thought of changing something is met with: "IT NEEDS TO BE THE WAY IT IS!!!".

Like somebody else said, why do all games have to be accessible to everyone, not every film is made with every audience in mind, this has always bothered me about games, people say they're a gamer and assume all games are for them, I'm very much into movies but I wouldn't assume all movies are made for me and I really wouldn't go online and complain that they should be. I find it really odd.

Because Joe Schmoe wants to get in on the action but he wants his hand held. Demon's Souls 2 will have CTF.

#41 Posted by Hailinel (25203 posts) -

@ModerateViolence said:

@Gumby said:

@EchoEcho said:

@Gumby said:

Why couldn't they just have a way to enter a friend's game? I understand what they are going for, but if people want to play with their friends, let them!

They -- the developers of the game -- don't want you to play with your friends, they want you to play with random people, with no means of communication outside your actions within the game. That is the feel they wanted for the game, and they're standing by it. Just because some people want the game to be something it's not doesn't mean that the developers should cave to their demands. Either the game is for you or it's not, basically. Personally I'm glad that From Software is standing by their vision for the game as it was intended.

Still. One does not have to rule out the other. Aren't games meant to be fun? Somewhere down the line devs need to ask themselves what the consumers want and if you have a tonne of people complaining because they can't play with their friends maybe they should think about implementing that. Besides, it's not impossible to play with certain people, it's just a hassle. Why not make it easier for people who like the core game but also like co-op?

Right now, the Souls community feels exactly the same as the Monster Hunter one. To quote Jeff, every thought of changing something is met with: "IT NEEDS TO BE THE WAY IT IS!!!".

Like somebody else said, why do all games have to be accessible to everyone, not every film is made with every audience in mind, this has always bothered me about games, people say they're a gamer and assume all games are for them, I'm very much into movies but I wouldn't assume all movies are made for me and I really wouldn't go online and complain that they should be. I find it really odd.

To be fair, in the realm of film snobbery, if you don't like a movie that someone else does, it's not the film's fault. It's yours for being a mentally and culturally deficient excuse of a human being.

#42 Posted by kingzetta (4307 posts) -

From software's repose is a big middle finger.

#43 Posted by Shadowjester (93 posts) -

Why do I feel we are going to get a very similar post whenever the game Journey comes out? To me it seems that this is a very deliberate feature by From Software. And more or less is a core concept to the game and extremely similar to the way Demon's Souls was.(minus the server changes obviously)

#44 Posted by Nekroskop (2786 posts) -

I bet this "outrage" mostly comes from new players on the 360 platform.

#45 Posted by Hailinel (25203 posts) -

@ahaisthisourchance said:

I bet this "outrage" mostly comes from new players on the 360 platform.

Did you see the thread discussing the lack of voice chat? The amount of rage was comical.

#46 Posted by SgtGrumbles (1024 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

@ModerateViolence said:

@Gumby said:

@EchoEcho said:

@Gumby said:

Why couldn't they just have a way to enter a friend's game? I understand what they are going for, but if people want to play with their friends, let them!

They -- the developers of the game -- don't want you to play with your friends, they want you to play with random people, with no means of communication outside your actions within the game. That is the feel they wanted for the game, and they're standing by it. Just because some people want the game to be something it's not doesn't mean that the developers should cave to their demands. Either the game is for you or it's not, basically. Personally I'm glad that From Software is standing by their vision for the game as it was intended.

Still. One does not have to rule out the other. Aren't games meant to be fun? Somewhere down the line devs need to ask themselves what the consumers want and if you have a tonne of people complaining because they can't play with their friends maybe they should think about implementing that. Besides, it's not impossible to play with certain people, it's just a hassle. Why not make it easier for people who like the core game but also like co-op?

Right now, the Souls community feels exactly the same as the Monster Hunter one. To quote Jeff, every thought of changing something is met with: "IT NEEDS TO BE THE WAY IT IS!!!".

Like somebody else said, why do all games have to be accessible to everyone, not every film is made with every audience in mind, this has always bothered me about games, people say they're a gamer and assume all games are for them, I'm very much into movies but I wouldn't assume all movies are made for me and I really wouldn't go online and complain that they should be. I find it really odd.

To be fair, in the realm of film snobbery, if you don't like a movie that someone else does, it's not the film's fault. It's yours for being a mentally and culturally deficient excuse of a human being.

I think that's what gaming needs, more snobbery and more range to the hobby!

#47 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

@ahaisthisourchance said:

I bet this "outrage" mostly comes from new players on the 360 platform.

Did you see the thread discussing the lack of voice chat? The amount of rage was comical.

Did you see Final Fantasy go from III to XIII? The amount of zippers was comical.

#48 Posted by Hailinel (25203 posts) -

@SeriouslyNow: That doesn't even work as a retort. The context is completely wrong.

#49 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

@SeriouslyNow: That doesn't even work as a retort. The context is completely wrong.

Substitute zippers with Androgyny, Shitty Gameplay, Poor story telling, awful fans. Take your pick.

#50 Posted by SammydesinasNL (840 posts) -

'Deal with it'

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.