@theht: So okay. By my definition, I think punishing difficulty and a danger-from-all-sides atmosphere are integral to the quality of the atmosphere. I think the invasions are a tool they use to deliver on that, but it's one of many. You could remove it, and there'd still be plenty of that there. I would not be tempted to say that that game would not be a "real" dark souls game. But lets use your definition. I concede that a significant group of people would agree, then. A souls game without demanding melee combat? Same. Mass effect without choices? Probably. (by the way, I would not argue that by my definition, only combat matters. Storytelling is important to quality. Removing choice significantly impacts that in ME, in the context of interactive choice, it's a good way to explore the universe and increase investment but remove that, and the dialogue as written is incredibly clunky for a straightforward cutscene due to writing style concessions made to the choice system. Lower quality). Journey without the online? Not familiar enough, can't comment.
Now, my issue with that definition is that I think, you need to clarify whether or not creator intent is the key factor. If a side feature becomes huge hook for the playerbase, and the reason people play, is that side feature integral? Likewise, if the creators of the game intend for something to be a big hook but it's not actually what keeps the playerbase there and it feeling distinct, is that integral? Unless your going to go strictly by creator intent, both definitions are going to be subjective based on general experience. It's inevitable. And I think fewer people where drawn to the game by the multiplayer than you think. I also remember reading, as someone above mentioned, that according to the developers most people just stayed hollow and ignored the online. The major on-liners are a small minority, but a vocal one.
Eithar way, I would concede that summoning and invading may(may) be integral by your definition. But back to the OP, I would still argue that the messaging system is not. It is not really a "Biggest hook", it's a side attraction. Though people may still like it, and removing it might cause a bit of grumbling, on the whole the change could not be reasonable be considered an argument for "this is no longer a Souls game." Doesn't help it that the system really was unnecessarily clunky in DS.
Finally, really bringing it back around- by that original sticking point, that adding more indication, even a small one squirreled away in the lore on item descriptions for the lake-I still hold fast that that would be a superior designed thing, and perfectly reasonable. And I addend that it doesn't even matter whether the messaging system is integral. Even when working as intended, it is still unreliable, and gets more unreliable depending on the zeitgiest and month-to-month popularity of the game. Integral or not, if relied on as the only hint it has the potential to hinder a bit of souls DNA much truer than it- that secrets reward exploration and attention to detail, period. So in this case, it should still be supplemental. Even something as simple as putting more obviously crappy loot behind the first wall - Twin Humanities is not crappy enough because there are literally only 2 vanishing walls before that, both in optional areas and neither containing loot so no basis for comparison - would be enough. Hell, they could even do what they did with the other vanishing wall hiding significant content- put a developer message revealed by seek guidance. Wouldn't be enough, but would still be a bit better. That would, I hold, be a better designed solution catering to a larger percent of their playerbase and compromising nothing.
Log in to comment