• 181 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Edited by Qlanth (131 posts) -
#2 Posted by Fredchuckdave (6103 posts) -

Game is popular, well liked, reviewer posts contrarian opinion to boost site views; nothing new. Though if he did play it for 150 hours there's something horribly wrong with him or he's just an elaborate troll.

#3 Edited by believer258 (12177 posts) -

EDIT: Humanity has copied and paste the whole article below. If you must read this click-bait, just scroll down and read that without giving this guy more views.

I hated the first Dark Souls and so I decided I should learn it better than any other game. I have spent between 300 and 400 hours playing it,

Insane? No, but clearly he could be doing better things with his time than playing a game that he hates. I haven't actually read past this point so maybe, for some reason, he does a complete turn-around toward the end, but I doubt it.

But really, why would you spend somewhere in the ballpark of two week's worth of hours of your life on a game that you hate? So you could fucking write an article on Forbes about it?

EDIT: So I went into the comments and he also said this:

I’ll spare you my life’s history with video games, but it is a long one, and I haven’t come to be 36 and scraping by week to week writing about games because I don’t love them. And 3300 words (the first draft was more than 4000) aren’t produced without some love for both the form and the object of criticism. And I did enjoy the game. The game works. I am not criticizing the game’s inability to provide tension, distraction, escapism, nor operate on its player’s emotions. It does all those things, but for my own experience I think there’s something insidious about the industry that’s formed around replicating and prolonging those kinds of time-out-mind experiences–flow states. They’re not without power and I don’t suggest the game isn’t powerful, just that its a wasteful and exploitive example of creative power can be used. Also I don’t really distinguish between categories of high and low as you seem to suggest with your 50 Shades of Gray/Faulkner point. Anyway, hopefully we don’t have to go on considering the differences in different people’s experiences of a work as in conflict with one another, and hopefully you’ll see that even when there appears to be a consensus about a game, it’s illusory and leaves out a great number of countervailing experiences that deserve, at the very least, expression. Take from them as much or little as you’d like..

It's OK to dislike something, but you don't need to use your review as a soapbox at the expense of the game.

I could also take issue with his overly fancy writing style, but whatever. Duders, you don't need to read this article.

#4 Posted by mosespippy (4433 posts) -

Isn't Forbes.com different from Forbes in that it'll publish anything by anyone?

Online
#5 Posted by Abendlaender (2887 posts) -

Damn you Betteridge and your accurate law.

#6 Posted by mikey87144 (1806 posts) -

It's not like he didn't put in the time. He did end his article by saying it's the worst game he has ever played. Not everyone is going to like a generally well received game. Sometimes the things about it that the general audience likes is the thing that some specific people hate. He articulated his thoughts and rational well. Good read.

#7 Edited by YI_Orange (1172 posts) -

@believer258: He says early in the article he hated dark souls 1 so much that he spent 300-400 hours playing it. I think he might be a crazy person.

Also, I didn't finish reading it, but holy shit, is that how Forbes is written or is it just that guy? That was dripping with pretension and took forever to make any kind of point.

edit - Wow, I'm dumb. for some reason I glossed over that quote.

#8 Posted by JasonR86 (9723 posts) -

Hyperbole is a hell of a thing.

#9 Posted by Humanity (10049 posts) -

I normally don't care but as @fredchuckdave mentioned, this reeks of cheap click bait and I actually felt pretty bad about going to the article to see how outlandish it might be, specifically because it gave them those views.

So here is the article copy pasted so people don't actually have to go there.

Is Dark Souls II The Worst Game Ever Made?

“…you are the only men who think you know the future more clearly than what is before your eyes…” – Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War

There’s nobody left here. I’m running up a staircase toward a cathedral at vesper hour, the sky orange and filled with red dragons, whose shadows slide across the flagstone steps like sperm in war regalia. I have been running up these steps for the past five days. They were once guarded by giants in black armor with swords and shields as big as their bodies. There were also horn-headed men covered in gold carrying curved swords in each hand. A reanimated dragon lies at the end of this path, a city-block-sized cross between cat and lizard, mysteriously brought back from the time before time began, the last remaining life form in this world that I haven’t yet killed.

For days I climbed these stairs, slowly chipping my way through the scorched hulks, before coming to the top, passing through one last misty arch and finding the precursor of all life in the universe there on a stony circular pedestal with nothing but sky behind. And for days he killed me dead in one move, leaping into the air and spraying a pool of fire down in a circle so wide I couldn’t get out of its way, no matter how fast I sprinted. So large was this beast that when I was close enough to attack the toenail of his forepaw, the rest of his body would be impossible to see. The few visible cues he gave in advance of his fiery leap would go unseen, and then I’d be dead and thrown back to the bottom of the stairs, only to run back up through the gauntlet to be killed again.

And then, as if exhausted from seeing me caught in the same loop again and again, those soldiers began to disappear, bored by the predictability of my appearance, or in merciful recognition that repeated battle with the same enemy in the same place had begun to lose its meaning. And on the fifth day, at 3AM, after having branded every microsecond of the dragon’s movement into memory, I’m finally able to trick him into moving in whatever way I want and at just the time that I want. Then, finally, after pantomiming with the computer code operating his limbs and head, I swipe away at his body with my sword for another few minutes and kill him.

There is no mystery to it. I’ve known since the beginning what I would need to do in order to kill him, but like the gap between understanding how to hit a homerun and being able to do it, I have finally transitioned from observer to practitioner, and my prize is a small token that highly suggests this god dragon, progenitor of worlds, is an impostor, a mimic built from the husk of another species and mutated through sorcery into a replica that has actually been dead form the start.

The last living creature in the highest point in the world has been mastered and killed, and now there is nothing left here except for me. My reward for this murder is emptiness. And so I look at the wind disentangle the clouds on the horizon, swing my sword through the air a few more times for old time’s sake, then walk back down the staircase alone, every square inch of the world belonging to me, along with every inanimate thing remaining in it, not a single soul left to contest my claim.

The Excrement of Action

Released this week for PCs, Dark Souls II is the sequel to what I have long thought of as the worst game ever made, a work that demonstrated how and why videogames could become, to paraphrase Jeanette Winterson, the excrement of action, an elaborate network of interrelated parts oriented around an end goal of staggering waste. Like its predecessor, Dark Souls II is an open world combat game offering players a seemingly infinite variety of ways to do the same thing over and over again. You can kill with a sword, or magic spells, or giant clubs, or spears infused with fire. You can kill by striking first, or using a shield to block and then counter, or wear no armor and agilely roll beneath your enemy’s attacks then hit them from behind. But in every case you can only drain the fixed number of health points each enemy has, wiping them from the world, removing them from your path so you can move further along, where you can try another variation on the same basic idea.

Maybe it will be better next time. Image via author.

I hated the first Dark Souls and so I decided I should learn it better than any other game. I have spent between 300 and 400 hours playing it, running through its escalating levels of New Game+, in which the amount of damage required to kill an enemy increases alongside the amount of damage they output, a structure that ensures the game is never entirely solved but continually produces new mathematical variations. You might have killed Ceaseless Discharge once, but can you do it again if he can kill you with two hits instead of three, and when you need to hit him 16 times instead of 11?

The game’s traditional roleplay categories worked in concert with this infinity loop of new problems. You have finished the game as a knight with a shield and sword, but can you do it as a sorceror, or as a thief using tiny daggers? Have you tried playing the game without any armor at all? Or without ever leveling any of your character’s skills up? Have you beat the game using only your bare hands? Have you played online, competing in duels with other players, taking turns hitting buttons that produce second-long animations, trying to guess in advance how your opponent will respond while compensating for Internet latency that ensures the movement and location of your opponent is never really accurate. The first time I played the game it took me 90 hours to finish, and the last time I ran through it took me around three hours, having learned every hidden trick and obscure mathematical relation it hid beneath its combat puppetry against horned demons and scorpion pyromancers with pornografied breasts.

The game’s vagaries were so successful in triggering a masochistic cycle of obsession that a large community of players formed around it, sharing secrets and walk-throughs of advance copies imported from Japan, helping one another with the labor of unwrapping the game’s opaque systems. What did the “poise” category do, for instance? What was the difference between a counter hit and a critical hit? What does it mean when a weapon says it has “B” scaling with Dexterity? Why does the rate of bonuses derived from scaling suddenly seem to stop after a certain threshold?

There is no intuitive logic to these rules as they are broken down across a constantly shifting chart of variables. They cannot be intuited or thought through without empirical labor, switching back and forth between menus, equipping and unequipping weapons, moving points around, committing materials toward upgrading one piece of equipment while only guessing as to whether the time, currency, and scarce alloys used to strengthen it are being wasted on something suboptimal. And even once all these variously opaque systems have been uncovered, scored into one’s unconscious memory somewhere between instinct and avarice, they suddenly stop working as they had hours earlier. The rule undoes itself as soon as you’ve learned it.

This interruption of well-intended plans toward an optimal end-state mirrored the game’s plot following the sorcerous contestations of mythic figures who overthrew their universe’s original rulers (dragons), and found themselves fractiously fumbling with an overabundance of power that none could control. Among these thieving demi-gods were a scaleless traitor of his dragon bretheren, an outcast witch who taught her daughters pyromancy, a skeleton king who kept the dead at peace, and the king of sunlight who wore feather’d epaulets and could hurl lightning from his bare hands.

It was like Ovid retold in the tobacco clouded arcades of my adolescence, assembled in fragmentary sentences hidden in item descriptions that became contradictory the further one read, mirroring the obsessive impossibility of mastering the game’s over-complex fighting system with a nesting of story details that seemed only to produce best guesses made to endlessly doubt themselves. Each memorized pattern or statistical secret was agitated by the knowledge of how quickly and easily one can be killed. One is never safe, and one can never trust the particular splinter of skill one’s mastered, always conscious of how many other possible splinters there are left to study.

It’s the worst and least ethical form of play, taking the naturally constrained single encounters of Chess or Go into the heart of an infinity spiral rotating out from the center of a box of microprocessors built out of a grand network of exploitive labor practices around the world, creating a transfixing hallucination sublimely disassociated from the networks of labor required to produce it. The friendships formed in message boards and YouTube comment threads offset by the number of lives pinned in place by the economic conditions necessary for the creation of such hallucinatory machinery, offering the great thrill of achievement for having done nothing but press a few half-inch buttons, hypnotized by the unseen patterns passing through the screen, scrutable only to those others who’d undergone the same rite of initiation and spoke the secret lexicon.
You Can’t Be Defiled Twice

When I started Dark Souls II, I had little hope of not falling into another lightless pool of fixation. I had no rhetorical defense for why I was going to do it. You can’t be defiled twice, and already having been swept away into the digital miasma of numbers and growth charts built around killing what was already dead, there was no way to believe it would be better this time. On the contrary, it would be worse, horrible, stupid, mendacious complexity, maximally toxic in its newness, each torturously undiscovered secret and statistical twist energizing the swarm of play workers eager to find friendship and community in demonstrating their worth with game achievement and documentation. The game’s formal irony verges into defeated sarcasm, its ruined fantasy world of corrupt kings warring over supernatural artifacts producing a community of fanatics sprung up in the cracks of socio-economic disintegration spread by the industries responsible for conjuring up the machinery of that dissolution, an arrangement that creates new emotional attachment to the game by worsening the circumstances that make its players needful in the first place.

A hole to crawl into. Image via author.

It’s unsurprising that the sequel to the worst videogame ever made is also the worst videogame ever made. From Software have built a faithful variation of the original, simulating progress with a series of minimally impactful changes. Dark Souls’ interconnected world, which that threaded back and forth across itself the longer one played, producing new entry points into old spaces, or a surprising new views of familiar landmarks, has been forsaken in favor of a world of constrained spokes leading away from the game’s safe central area hub area without ever overlapping. This creates an anxious sense of distance, in which the further one advances down any particular path, the farther away one feels from all the others. There’s a persistent sense of being caught in a narrow ravine masked by digital set dressings–a gaseous mining operation powered by a windmill, an onyx castle covered in midnight rain, an abandoned penal colony on a forgotten coastline, a hidden crypt from which some of the game’s most illicit magics have come.

In the first game these areas might have connected four or five times over, a secret door in a bookshelf revealing a link between crypt and mine or castle and prison, but here there is only one way in and one way out, with only a dead end waiting at the end of each spoke. To compensate, players are given the ability to teleport between checkpoints—visualized as eerie bonfires planted throughout the world. Instead of relating to the space as terrain to be read, the sequel makes relating one’s immediate surroundings to the world at large secondary and in many cases, topographically impossible. One chips away in isolation, struggling through sealed-off objectives instead of plumbing the complexity of an integrated whole.

Dark Souls II encourages a kind of amazed storytelling about how it was one managed to survive. The game is so large and hostile to the player’s presence every moment feels like a precursor to some cruel twist or miraculous delivery from unexpected doom that could merit retelling. Victories and discovery only become meaningful to an audience who knows how much work must be put into them, and so these player tales are implicitly clouded by the unspoken murk of failure and defeat. This structure of play is ideally matched with a culture of emotionally and socially isolated individuals—still primarily men—who rush toward non-intimate prompts for social exchange, creating the impression of a community without requiring any reciprocal vulnerability nor emotional obligation. Dark Souls provides an empirical baseline to use in describing one’s own experience, which makes admissions of weakness or incompetence tolerable through the impersonal nature of the game’s system. There no psychoanalytic backdrop to distinguish sorcerers from warriors or thieves.

It’s often argued the Dark Souls II teaches players, but one rarely hears about what is being taught. In its exploded plot we are told about love, guilt, greed, sex, war, chauvinism, hatred, and many other safely fictive themes, but we aren’t taught anything about them, nor are they presented in a way in which players could meaningful begin to experiment with them on their own. The game only teaches players about itself. The amount of time and effort spent in learning its lessons is dramatically outweighed by the significance of having that knowledge. What good does it do me to know that Intelligence scaling for magic users becomes half as effective after level 40? What have I learned by knowing that The Rotten’s overhand smash attack can be dodged by rolling directly into it, or that his offhand sweep attack will automatically cause damage even when your character is several feet away.

I learned all this and more, too much more. It took hours, and days, and weeks, and even now, after 150 hours of play, I have only just started to unravel the most arcane parts of the game. Why? This is less an education than a massive structure of enforced compliance, insisting on obedience to illogic by dressing it up as a fantasy diversion, and counterposing curiosity with swift and punishing traps that reset major progress, a kind of negative reinforcement that’s long been established as the least effective form of instruction possible. This fusion of the worst possible teaching method with the least worthwhile knowledge become insidious when applied to a play structure designed for endless repetition, in which the next goal is always moving farther away.

The Zombie in the Progress Narrative is Me

In Techniques of the Observer, Jonathan Crary described the emergence of Modernism as something that “presented the appearance of the new for an observer who remains perpetually the same, or whose historical status is never interrogated.” The rhetoric of modernity, which once flourished around cinema, has easily migrated to videogames, advocating for them as progress accelerants in schools, international aid, and social change, all of which can be optimized with game-like principles. We have become passengers embarking toward the future, and the videogame is, if not the vessel, at least fuel for it. But what kind of progress does Dark Souls 2 offer? It may be that the great achievement of videogames is to further entrench an epoch of mediated pacification, accelerating our disengagement from the physical world in exchange for enrapturement with the symbolic.

It’s hard to even identify what a videogame is–both a physical disc storing a collection of files, edited and manipulated over the course of years, assembled inside a specialized computer, and then projected on a screen. The videogame is the perfect 21st object in that its essence is nowhere to be found in any of its physical manifestations–even the spirit of a game like Dark Souls II can be ruined in a few instants by hacking its code to make one’s character invincible, reducing a struggle of weeks into a few minutes of effortless floating from beginning to end. It was only play when we were being punished for failing to precisely comply with an invisible set of rules communicated through a rosetta of numbers, glyphs, and fragmented fictions.

There’s nothing produced, nothing furthered, nothing questioned, nothing intimated–there are only commands, and the community they call into being, each wrestling with the system’s inflexibility in the most personal way possible. But the personal desire can never exceed the system’s right to punish, the game becomes purposeless when every player within it is free to choose their own purpose. Baudrillard described an arbitrary sign as something produced when, “instead of linking two persons in an unbreakable reciprocity, the signifier starts referring back to the disenchanted world of the signified, a common denominator of the real world to which no one has any obligation.” Videogames produce this sort of paradox in requiring depersonalized adherence to arbitrary order to qualify as play, while simultaneously engendering forgetfulness of the ethics surrounding them the more game-like they become.

This is not a problem in need of a solution, but it is a useful compass for navigating the different kinds of obsession that games can create. And there is no one in more need of navigation advice than I, who set out in all this knowing I would find only a dead end down every spoke of meaning I chased. And still I chased, absorbing the math and the topography and the names for things I don’t wish to know. I don’t want to know a Velstadt, or a Vendrick, or a Vengarl, nor how they all relate to one another. But do not think I was forced into following their stories by any hand other than my own. In so joining that chase I have come to embody the incoherence I wished to project onto the world, all from a position of pacified focus on a thing that was only ever partially there to begin with, and something which left me only partially there the longer I played it.

We have reached a point in our modernization where it seems we are more indebted to our symbolic objects than the people we live amongst, in terms of both time, energy, and attention. If we are indeed advancing through history and not treading water or actively receding back into it, our progress might be traced through our willingness to exchange one another for symbolic succor, and the farther we progress the more interchangeable the game and the player become . The longer I spend on these quests for achievement and advancement, the more I wish to have never begun them at all. I can think of no worse end to an undertaking than to regret its conception, and for me there can be no better measure for saying Dark Souls II the worst game I’ve ever played.

#10 Posted by flasaltine (1702 posts) -

"I hated the first Dark Souls." "I have spent between 300 and 400 hours playing it."

#11 Posted by freakin9 (1171 posts) -

Just give this man a pulitzer prize.

From what I skimmed of it it was at least an interesting read. It's also possible it's a subjective "worst". Like it could just be a different way of saying "Hardest", or "unfair". It sounds like the confusion broke him.

#12 Posted by Myrmicus (223 posts) -

I was lost from the : "Is Dark Souls II The Worst Game Ever Made?".

This sentence alone mark the obvious trolling. Even when I hate game, I can't say they were the "worst game ever made", it's just a ridiculous statement, for any game.

#13 Posted by SlashDance (1843 posts) -
#14 Edited by Vahleticar (153 posts) -

Mouse clicks, page views. You see it on you tube all the time. Oh btw my uncle make 500,000 a week find out how!!!

I'd just like to add that forbes completely bypasses my adblock, and its got some real pain in the ass fullscreen block you type ads. Fucking monsters

#15 Edited by thomasnash (585 posts) -

I actually think it's an interesting article. He is being deliberately provocative with that title and repeatedly calling them the worst games ever made, but he is making an interesting and substantive point about videogame and the way we interact with them and the way our relationship with them could be seen as recursive or circular in some way.

I don't know, I find the article problematic in a lot of ways that I might go in to later, but I think if you can get past the title, it's clear that actually he does really enjoy the experience of playing Dark Souls; I think he wants to ask questions about that experience and its value.

I'm a huge fan of both dark souls games, but it's always interesting to try and grapple with opposing opinions, and I think he sets out an interesting counter-argument to a lot of the praises for dark souls that have calcified as it has grown. I'd really recommend people go in with an open mind.

#16 Posted by Zevvion (2345 posts) -

"I hated the first Dark Souls." "I have spent between 300 and 400 hours playing it."

Yup.

If you actually read the entire article, you'd be laughing how contradictory it is. It is full of quotes like this. Does anyone know the full name of the author? I didn't go to the site to avoid the very possibility of clickbait. I'm going to keep a blacklist. I've had just about enough of 'critics' trying to stand out. If it ever concerns a game I don't know about, I would want to know how trustworthy the article I'm reading is.

#17 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4878 posts) -

People shouldn't be giving this guy hits, but just an fyi Forbes has a writer named Erik Kain and he's really good. He's got some great articles on the Souls series (he's not a blind fan either, he's got criticism for days), so ignore this guy and go give Erik some love.

Here's Erik's rebuttal to the above article.

#18 Posted by Icemael (6363 posts) -

Is "Is Dark Souls II the worst game ever made?" the worst article ever made?

#19 Edited by freakin9 (1171 posts) -

It's like people don't realize they are on a website who's founder is prone to over exaggerated negativity to make a point.

The internet's ability to go to war against anyone with a negative opinion on a game they like is eye-rolling.

#20 Posted by Judakel (115 posts) -

It is a good review, even if I do not agree with it. I find the personal attacks on the comments section to be really strained. A fanbase can never take criticism well and everything he states is true. It is simply a positive for the game's fanbase, whereas it is a negative for him. The sophomoric attempts to attack his writing are particularly painful. They are really trying...

#21 Posted by TheManWithNoPlan (5979 posts) -

Sigh... you know what? Just gonna ignore it. Don't mind me. Just passing on, enjoying stuff.

#22 Posted by probablytuna (3822 posts) -

I could never invest 300 - 400 hours into something I hate, so kudos to him?

#23 Edited by IrrelevantJohn (1089 posts) -

Sure, it's his opinion and I will respect that but spending that much time on a game you don't like is such a waste of time.

#24 Edited by Myrmicus (223 posts) -

@judakel said:

It is a good review, even if I do not agree with it. I find the personal attacks on the comments section to be really strained. A fanbase can never take criticism well and everything he states is true. It is simply a positive for the game's fanbase, whereas it is a negative for him. The sophomoric attempts to attack his writing are particularly painful. They are really trying...

I, on the other hand, was quite delighted to see the comments on his reviews. His article is an obvious troll, it's apparent from the title alone. Then, when you actually read it, you can see how condescending it is, not to the game, but to the players. It uses too many sentances to say nothing, too many obfuscating expressions and is overall just a clickbait. His writing is part of what makes this article so damn condescending in the first place, it says "Look how good I can write !". But even when you overlook this trait, and when you analyze what he actually says, there few things about the game itself, he just spits to the face of video games in general, which makes the statement "Thiz-game worst evaaar !" even more unfair.

#25 Posted by Ozzie (211 posts) -

It's clearly him just fishing for clicks which your giving him. Hey if he hates the game that's fine clearly not everyone likes Dark Souls that's ok. But it's definitely not the worst game because... come one we've all seen some terrible games, and I mean some TERRIBLE games. So clearly this is him just seeing people loving the game and how do you get attention? Hating something a lot of people love and being VERY vocal about it.

Like I said people can not like a game and they have the right to express their opinion which is always interesting to read, but titles like that aren't meant to express opinion it's meant to get views.

#26 Edited by Spoonman671 (4768 posts) -

*Clicked on article, saw Michael Thomsen by-line, laughed*

The most frustrating part about that article is his misunderstanding of the term "negative reinforcement". Why do people continue to use this phrase without learning what it means?

#27 Posted by Myrmicus (223 posts) -

*Clicked on article, saw Michael Thomsen by-line, laughed*

The most frustrating part about that article is his misunderstanding of the term "negative reinforcement". Why do people continue to use this phrase without learning what it means?

What does it means ? I'm not trolling, promise, I just want to know ^^'

#28 Posted by Evilsbane (4735 posts) -

"I hated the first Dark Souls." "I have spent between 300 and 400 hours playing it."

Yep yep so fucking ridiculous "I HATE THIS SO MUCH, PLAYED THE FUCK OUT OF IT!?!"

#29 Posted by Daiphyer (1350 posts) -

Man, fuck this guy.

#30 Posted by JasonR86 (9723 posts) -

@spoonman671:

Oh man, don't even get me started on people misusing psychology terms.

#31 Posted by mlarrabee (3057 posts) -

It’s the worst and least ethical form of play, taking the naturally constrained single encounters of Chess or Go into the heart of an infinity spiral rotating out from the center of a box of microprocessors built out of a grand network of exploitive labor practices around the world, creating a transfixing hallucination sublimely disassociated from the networks of labor required to produce it.

The writer has clearly had a stroke. Or they desperately need to read The Elements of Style.

#32 Edited by Spoonman671 (4768 posts) -

@myrmicus: I added a link to the definition. Negative reinforcement is commonly used as a synonym for punishment, but is in fact the opposite. Negative reinforcement is a type of reward in which an undesired stimulus is taken away when the desired behavior is achieved. For example, if you want a mouse to push a button, one way to train it to do so would be to play an irritating, high-pitched tone that is only discontinued when the button is depressed. The mouse would eventually learn to press the button when the sound is made.

#33 Edited by Yummylee (22511 posts) -

#34 Posted by Spoonman671 (4768 posts) -

Oh, and did anybody catch the part where he complains about only being able to interact by killing things after describing his frustration at trying to kill a completely optional opponent? You don't have to kill the Ancient Dragon, Mike. You just chose to.

#35 Posted by ch3burashka (5239 posts) -

I don't subscribe to the accusation of "They do it for the hitz!" because we are all people with opinions that differ, but this is ridiculous. The article may have merit but the title is a fucking joke. If I were an EIC at any news outlet anywhere, I would have a three-strike rule for any member of my organization attempting to writing up such bullshit titles.

#36 Posted by Nitrocore (369 posts) -
#38 Edited by Spoonman671 (4768 posts) -

@zevvion: The author is Michael Thomsen. Back when he freelanced for IGN, he was the fellow who gave us the "Metroid Prime is gaming's Citizen Kane" argument. Remember that old chestnut?

#39 Posted by lord_canti (1522 posts) -

you underestimate how popular this game is, firstly this niche game had quite a persistent ad champagne here in the uk where every time i turned on the tv there was a ad for dark souls 2. on top of that my local morrisons that never updates its games apart from the big ones that are selling like mad... the only new ones there are titanfall, fifa and dark souls 2.

#40 Posted by TheManWithNoPlan (5979 posts) -

@flacracker said:

"I hated the first Dark Souls." "I have spent between 300 and 400 hours playing it."

Yep yep so fucking ridiculous "I HATE THIS SO MUCH, PLAYED THE FUCK OUT OF IT!?!"

Wow, Dark souls is one of my favorite games ever and I've only sunk in about 80 hours with it. I just can't understand people like that.

#41 Posted by Milkman (17308 posts) -

You know, the internet could definitely used some more well-reasoned criticism of Dark Souls as it's quickly becoming one of those "untouchable" games in which no one would dare say anything negative about. But this is not the way. If you just remove the "worst game ever made" part of the article, I think you have a pretty good, critical piece but that hyperbole is all anyone is ever going to see. It's unfortunate the writer feels the need to cheaply grab the reader's attention like that instead of allowing his criticisms to stand on their own.

We all know how this ends though. Instead of ignoring something that is clearly only meant to invoke a negative reaction, Dark Souls fans will probably find this dude's Twitter account, blow it up with a bunch of insults and the internet cycle repeats itself again.

#42 Posted by Yummylee (22511 posts) -

@milkman said:

You know, the internet could definitely used some more well-reasoned criticism of Dark Souls as it's quickly becoming one of those "untouchable" games in which no one would dare say anything negative about.

Well, we're clearly not there yet as there was an active thread on this very board discussing criticisms about the game. In fact Dark Souls II overall is looking to be a little more mixed than the original as far as user-impressions go.

#43 Posted by I_Stay_Puft (3795 posts) -

Not sure why people would be up in arms about a review that is totally opposite of yours. I mean not everyone is gonna like the same thing, for example I don't like nutella so does that make me a wrong?

#44 Posted by Viking_Funeral (1889 posts) -

Looks like someone is trying to provoke the internet.

And there will be Dark Souls backlash soon enough. Anything that starts to get this popular will have some people passionately hate it. It's the nature of people.

#45 Posted by BelligerentEngine (348 posts) -

The whole thing is a bit sensationalist and the title obviously exists to manufacture outrage. However I actually really enjoyed the article as a piece of reading. Nothing to lose your shit over imo.

#46 Posted by Shortbreadtom (860 posts) -

It’s hard to even identify what a videogame is–both a physical disc storing a collection of files, edited and manipulated over the course of years, assembled inside a specialized computer, and then projected on a screen.

That sentence made me throw up in my mouth. Christ, it's pretentious.

His entire argument seems to come down to whether or not it's worth putting in all this time and effort into an intangible reward, which is different for all people. I personally find enjoyment in beating a particularly hard video game or section of game, because I feel like I've achieved something. If you don't, then the Souls series isn't for you. It's certainly not worth playing for 300-400 hours so you can post a click-bait article with a hyperbolic headline.

#47 Posted by Pr1mus (3943 posts) -

I think he just doesn't like videogames in general. Of course it could be click bait, which it absolutely is if he does in fact otherwise like video games because most of the complaints he makes can be applied to most games. He's very condescending too.

#48 Posted by Clonedzero (4196 posts) -

I love hyperbolic titles like that. Easier to tell what i can skip reading that way.

#49 Posted by TheHT (11768 posts) -

@zevvion: The author is Michael Thomsen. Back when he freelanced for IGN, he was the fellow who gave us the "Metroid Prime is gaming's Citizen Kane" argument. Remember that old chestnut?

http://x4.fjcdn.com/thumbnails/comments/Creepy+child+stories+Creepy+child+stories.+gt+Be+_ad4ffde168dad279af4268edb8e2487e.gif

#50 Posted by rocketboot (138 posts) -

How can anyone be taken seriously when they make a hyperbole like this? Is Dark Souls 2 really the WORST game you've ever played? As a "game journalist" writing reviews for Forbes? This guy must be pretty lucky, not having to play any bad games in his career. Or maybe the reason he's avoided all the shitty games from the past 3-4 years is because he's been playing nothing but Dark Souls...

Well I'm just gonna come right out and say it, this guy is WORSE than Hitler.