@believer258 said:

You can call me "casual" for the following response if you wish. I don't care.

But I don't really want Dark Souls because I'm simply not fond of the hardest difficulty in games. Dark Souls caters to the people who adore the hardest difficulty in games. Is it because I suck at games? No! I am very much capable of beating games on the hardest difficulty, I just plain don't want to. Every time I sit down to attempt to do that, I usually just drop it.

This whole first part tells me that you do care, much more than you should in fact. I won't give you any crap for not being into it (I will however defend the game itself, in just a bit) and if anyone does they are not worth acknowledging, so there's really nothing you have to defend here.

@believer258 said:

I never enjoy having to replay something. In my mind, if I have passed a challenge, then I have proven that I can do it. I do not think that it's ever good design to make you have to redo the last challenge that you passed if you happen to fail the next one. I don't at all see how making you go back and replay thirty minutes of game that you've already beaten is "challenging". It's just tedious as far as I'm concerned. This is why I now play all of my old games on emulators, complete with save states. I don't have to put up with that.

At this point I'd make the argument that the challenge doesn't lie in separate encounters, but the level as a whole. You have a limited number of resources, such as health potions or spells, with which to make it through. If you are replaying some part of the game, it is because you didn't clear the challenge, you stumbled at the finish line or even before that. Basically, what defines a challenge is determined by the game design and there are no rules set on how long such a challenge should be, it's all up to the separate games. Dark Souls & Demon's Souls simply asks more of you than most other modern games, and puts more on the line. It's the way it chose to do things and that's all there is too it.

Not into it? You know what to do.

As for the topic at hand, I think that the game has been given its due by the games industry, and it certainly seem to have sold well enough. I've played enough of it at this point to know that there are things totally messed up and janky about it, and it's even super ugly at parts. I put up with it because there really isn't any other game that does what this does for me at this point. Given its craftmanship, I think some of the praise lavished upon it is certainly undeserved, but I appreciate how its old school design have seemingly created a bit of a debate on the subjects of challenge and design in the industry.

I think Dark Souls got well enough attention to the point where it has almost reached a mythical legendary state of being the hardest game you will ever play in your life. I think that's overblown way out of proportions and turned people away from what is otherwise a really well thought out and atmospheric game.

I've been replaying Mass Effect 2 on insanity and I can tell you that difficulty is complete utter bullshit compared to what you see in Dark Souls. The enemies in Mass Effect 2 can kill you in three seconds flat if you poke your head out and they will shoot you if you reveal yourself, to add to the difficulty every single enemy has shields or armor or both that take forever to bring down. It ramps up the difficulty by making the game extremely unbalanced and unfair towards you.

My point is, Dark Souls is a really good game and more people should play it! =)

However, I do hope Atlus doesn't get the idea of milking the franchise with it's increased popularity and sales though!

because the vast majority of people in the world are fucking stupid.

What more people need to realize is that Demon's/Dark Souls are pretty flawed games.

They're great, but still flawed. The people posting in this thread had the patience/experience to put up with it's unique brand of jank, nearly non-existent storyline, and punitive systems. We gloss it over, to get to the good parts.

Give this game to someone who typically plays something else, and you'll begin to see why it could never be "successful" (by your terms). This is a niche, niche, niche game my friends.

Don't get me wrong, I loved Dark Souls enough to beat it twice (NG+), but it has accessibility problems which are borderline inexcusable for a general audience. I'm just happy I'm not part of that audience, I suppose.

Hey man don't blame me; I bought it! It wasn't exactly my cup of tea, but gosh darn I sure did pay dollars for that thing!

@Giantstalker: This is pretty much how I feel about the Monster Hunter series, which has it's own set of similar problems.. Yet there's a devoted fanbase that seems to believe they're 100% perfect, everyone should play and love them and that any changes made would ruin the fundamental gameplay.

Whilst I agree it could do with polish and translation fixes, the overarching gameplay difficulty, lack of explanation and some times clunky feel is what makes Dark Souls the game it is. It is a niche game but removing the difficulty would just make it another boring dungeon crawler.

I am playing the game for the first time. I don't have my PS3 hooked up to the web so I play offline. I like the challenge, but I must admit to feeling discouraged at times over the difficulty. I really think that the brutally hard combat is a big reason the game isn't more popular than it is. I also think the lack of any real direction when you first start out, and the dearth of basic gameplay information, like something you would find in a helpful game manual, keeps noob players at arms length. I know you can search out everything online, and I have, but that is a lot of work just to get the basics of the gameplay down. An instructive game manual that you can keep with you while you are playing would be a big help. This manual that ships with the game is not adequate.

Not everyone wants a game that beats them down over and over. I have gotten as far as beating the butterfly boss, and the game has been a constant in your face struggle the entire time. It just never lets up, unless I backtrack to someplace like the Undead Burg where I can play on a more casual level.

Lack of an engaging story is another reason the game is not mainstream popular. I am not actually a huge fan of story in my video games, but many gamers are. Maybe even the majority of gamers place an engaging story as a top priority in their games, and to pass over this story aspect in your video game is going to alienate a big portion of the potential player base.

To sum up, I think having an option for a more noob friendly difficultly setting would be a smart move. Giving new players more direction as they enter the game for the first time, in the sense of giving them a clue of what to do and why to do it, and finally fleshing out the story a little more, allowing it to unfold as the game progresses, giving the player a real purpose for all this work!

I think the better question is why are games like this niche? It's like people don't like being challenged at all. A lot of people want instant gratification and want things to be easy. Slow-mo quicktime events seem to be the future of the mainstream gaming audience. It's the movie Idiocracy in our very own reality. Games play themselves now a'days. If they don't, it's apparently niche.

I think the better question is why are games like this niche? It's like people don't like being challenged at all. A lot of people want instant gratification and want things to be easy. Slow-mo quicktime events seem to be the future of the mainstream gaming audience. It's the movie Idiocracy in our very own reality. Games play themselves now a'days. If they don't, it's apparently niche.

General public / average joe only want games that they can easily jump into and understand/compete in.

That's why Call of Duty does so well. It has the lowest skill barrier possible, really. Especially on console with its hand holding aim assist.

It probably has something to do with the fact that it sucks. Just putting that out there.

I don't consider the challenge of the game to be fun. There are a lot of other things to enjoy, but the clunkiness and difficulty is insurmountable for me.

Didn't get the attention it deserved?

It was showered with awards, it has had excellent support, the community was able to talk them into what will be the announcement for a PC release, they've already stated that they plan on doing DLC when there were no original plans for it, and the game sold gangbusters in comparison to what they were expecting.

What part of that is "didn't get the attention it deserved"?

@rebgav said:

@Popskinz said:

waypoints and maps to guide you along? Forget it. Forgiving checkpoint systems and minimal punishment for dying? To hell with that

Playable framerates? Pussy chow. Adequate translations? Forget that noise!

If the game was more polished and not surrounded by arm-linking mouth-breathers claiming it to be the hardest of hardcore then it would probably fare a little better. Still, there's going to be a limited audience for a grindy, storyless RPG regardless of the quality or perception of the game. The Souls games are the definition of niche titles.

1. The frame rate issues are in one section of the game, and if you've been in Blighttown, you'd understand why the 360 hardware can't handle it well. I'm willing to take that hit. As for translations, they seem perfectly fine to me. If they aren't, you could've fooled me. One of the beautiful things about the game is the amount of mystery behind everything, allowing you as the player to interpret things the way you wish.

2. People claim that it is hardcore because it IS hardcore. Moreover, it's an incredibly rewarding and sobering game. Right when you've beaten the game and you think you are ready for New Game Plus, you jump in to find out that you are still the little speck that you have always been. You can memorize everything about this game, but it's YOUR OWN MISTAKES that are your biggest threat in this world.

3. There is a TON of story to be had in this game. Whether you pay attention or not is your own issue.

4. The game is grindy if you allow it to be. There's a TON of content to be had in the game, and I've never felt like I was grinding while playing the game.

Not every game has to sell 18 million copies to be considered a success, you know.

IMO, for a game to be successful it has to:

1. Be profitable.
2. Be well regarded by critics and players alike.
3. Create an audience or a following for itself.

Dark Souls has met and exceeded all those criteria.

Demon's Souls and Dark Souls didn't get that great success because they are games that differ from the norm. People played it assuming it's a hack&slash game, failed because it's not, and then told all their friends about how clunky the game is and how horribly it controls. Word of mouth spread and people avoided the game.

@FancySoapsMan said:

I think Demons/Dark Souls did pretty well considering the type of game they are.

Yeah, those RPGs where you stab things are so incredibly niche

@Rohok said:

I think the better question is why are games like this niche? It's like people don't like being challenged at all. A lot of people want instant gratification and want things to be easy. Slow-mo quicktime events seem to be the future of the mainstream gaming audience. It's the movie Idiocracy in our very own reality. Games play themselves now a'days. If they don't, it's apparently niche.

There is a big difference between a game that is easy, a game that is challenging, and a game that is punishing. Demon's/Dark Souls aim to be very punishing, and the simple fact is that a lot of people don't find it fun to play really punishing games. I'm not saying I don't want to be challenged at all, but for me personally games like Demon's/Dark Souls overdo it.

@Popskinz:

Lets look at the numbers. Mind you that I'm going off of Vgcharts so take these numbers with a gain of salt.

Demon's Souls - Global sales number of 1.56 million.

Dark Souls - 1.46 million.

I don't know about you but considering how niche these games are I'd say they have been very successful. I don't know why, or even when, this thought pattern started that for a game to be successful, and profitable it has to do CoD/Halo/AC numbers.

@SlasherMan said:

Not every game has to sell 18 million copies to be considered a success, you know.

I fully agree.

I was under the impression that Dark Souls sold quite well. I could be wrong though.

The question about Dark Souls being a success, begs the additional question, "A success compared to what? CallofDuty? Skyrim? New Super Mario Bros?

I played through Dark Souls three times, but that was because I cheated with the dragon head glitch to make the game easier. After the 1.05 patch came out, I sold it. I think the single biggest problem with this game is that it lacks a difficulty setting. It is too difficult and lacks story to be labeled as an RPG game and too clunky and scattered to be labeled as an action platformer game. Dark Soul's biggest problem is that it is hard to define what type of game it is, and even if you try to categorize it, it falls short. It is a niche game. I originally bought this game because I like RPGs on the xbox 360 like Fallout 3, Skyrim, Red Dead Redemption. I found the character leveling system to be too difficult compared to what I typically like to play, so I cheated. After that, I started enjoying this game more as an action platforming type of game and loved it.

To make this game more appealing to the masses, the developer needs to add more RPG customization options and difficulty settings and story to bring it up-to-date with modern RPG gaming, or abandon the RPG elements and go more toward action platforming.

No, because it's not that amazing. Demons Souls was better

It's because the majority of gamers want polish, and to an extent, some amount of hand holding. D/ Souls has none of that. It understandably puts people off. Nobody wants extremely challenging games.

It sold way better than it deserved...

Because games are supposed to be fun, not torture.

@Rattle618 said:

Because games are supposed to be fun, not torture.

I think the games that are torture are fun in their own way because once you conquer the obstacle, the rewards are immense and satisfying. Example 1: Fallout.

seriously OP? Haven't played Dark Souls but why is it considered a pro to get stuck or to not know what you're supposed to do? What's the point of presenting a challenge to overcome yet the player shouldn't even know what the challenge is?

OP sounds llke ''this game is poorly designed... why hasn't it sold well??''

Because the average gamer is now, for lack of a better word, a casual, and can not handle it.

It's hailed as the single greatest game of this generation.

Success it achieved.

It's like asking why does Nickelback sell out theaters and Our Lady Peace still tours club shows. There's just a lot of stupid people.

@Rattle618 said:

Because games are supposed to be fun, not torture.

Who says games are only supposed to strive for fun? Surely they can have a different emotion in mind. Besides fun is a both relative and highly subjective. I personally consider Dark Souls greatly enjoyable but in a different way then say Vanquish is going for.

@MikkaQ said:

Because Dark Souls is completely inaccessible. It makes no attempt to teach you how to play, which is a pretty terrible way to go about things if you actually care about selling plenty of copies. Somehow I don't feel like that was a priority for From.

That was the point. 20 years ago back in the NES days, games didn't give you hour long tutorials on how to play the game. You turned it on and learned by playing.

For me and people I have spoken to, it is the fact that you can lose all your progress after a second death. I would be fine with sinking dozens of hours to learn mechanics, but just the fact that I can lose all the work sucks.

From forums I have heard blight town has stupidly low fps and it makes it such a pain to get through.

For me and people I have spoken to, it is the fact that you can lose all your progress after a second death. I would be fine with sinking dozens of hours to learn mechanics, but just the fact that I can lose all the work sucks.

From forums I have heard blight town has stupidly low fps and it makes it such a pain to get through.

Game had plenty of of attention allot more so than most, was pretty much the game that came up on almost every if not every gaming podcast for months it was all you could hear about. I don't really think this game needs to get more recognition, everyone that would want to know about this game totally knows about it.

It actively pushes people away by making itself time consuming and difficult. I like the game for that too, but it's not what attracts consumers.

The fact the first game got a sequel is pretty amazing.

It sold... alright... but when the game was announced it's like some sort of glorious miracle happened.

Unfortunately though, I didn't like Dark Souls nearly as much as the first one, so I don't really care if there's another sequel, which there probably will be.

Dark Souls is a hardcore game made for a very specific niche audience. it was a wild success in that niche (to my knowledge).

isn't that real success? or you need bieberheads to validate your own opinion?

@Drez said:

@MikkaQ said:

Because Dark Souls is completely inaccessible. It makes no attempt to teach you how to play, which is a pretty terrible way to go about things if you actually care about selling plenty of copies. Somehow I don't feel like that was a priority for From.

That was the point. 20 years ago back in the NES days, games didn't give you hour long tutorials on how to play the game. You turned it on and learned by playing.

That's not totally accurate, NES games were mechanically simple enough to be able to do that, and if not, NES manuals were pretty useful. If you were stuck you bought Nintendo Power. Sometimes I think games were deliberate confusing to sell magazines.

My turn off is the difficulty. I don't play to feel challenged, as for that I have real life. I desire new experiences that I can't get if I'm wrestling with unforgiving difficulty.

Dark Souls is a new version of Simon's Quest.

Backtracking and replaying sections over and over against your will is not 'rewarding'. 'Punishment' is not challenge. Super Meat Boy does not send you to 1-1 on every death. It doesn't use shitty controls as a proxy for challenge. Technical play is based on timing and dexterity, not exploiting AI and mechanics.

I just don't get how people buy into it.

Also, claiming the game has a good story is a bit fallacious in my opinion. There are very few, if any engaging characters. Plus, really all the overarching mythos is just some standard LOTR-esque story that's an excuse for you to fight big shit.

You sir are the problem of this generation. Games don't need to sell like CoD to be good. This line of though has killed many developers and will continue to do so until it is changed.

I bought it. That's about all I can do. I have the same issues with a number of other genres I love that never sell. That's why so many games go for broad appeal and lose everything that makes them interesting. There are too many people out there who want the same damn thing out of their video games. I guess I should find it odd that "the same damn thing" means "shoot people with guns."

@DragoonKain1687 said:

You sir are the problem of this generation. Games don't need to sell like CoD to be good. This line of though has killed many developers and will continue to do so until it is changed.

this man speaks the truth

Plus if you are going to blame someone, blame the company. All because they make a game you like doesn't mean they naturally should sell well no matter what steps they went to market it.

@FancySoapsMan said:

I think Demons/Dark Souls did pretty well considering the type of game they are.

this.

the game is a hard sell, but i personally think it was a huge success.

It needs more polish. I used to love unpolished clunkers, and I still do, but mainstream hits are usually of a level of quality and playability that is above what ds has.

@Brodehouse said:

Dark Souls is a new version of Simon's Quest. Backtracking and replaying sections over and over against your will is not 'rewarding'. 'Punishment' is not challenge. Super Meat Boy does not send you to 1-1 on every death. It doesn't use shitty controls as a proxy for challenge. Technical play is based on timing and dexterity, not exploiting AI and mechanics. I just don't get how people buy into it.

Hipster alert!!!

@Brodehouse said:

Dark Souls is a new version of Simon's Quest. Backtracking and replaying sections over and over against your will is not 'rewarding'. 'Punishment' is not challenge. Super Meat Boy does not send you to 1-1 on every death. It doesn't use shitty controls as a proxy for challenge. Technical play is based on timing and dexterity, not exploiting AI and mechanics. I just don't get how people buy into it.

Hipster alert!!!