I think Dark Souls 2 should be more like Demon's Souls

[hazabaza1]

So why we're talking about Demon\Dark Souls, does anyone one know any interesting Demon Souls Let's plays?
I figured I should watch someone else do all the work for once lol

So yea, any recommended Lets players?

Epicnamebro is generally pretty good, lots of good lore videos too.

If he's not up your alley, try Vageta311. He's recently started a Dark Souls 1-hit Boss Challenge run.

 

[Fat Hippo]

So why we're talking about Demon\Dark Souls, does anyone one know any interesting Demon Souls Let's plays?
I figured I should watch someone else do all the work for once lol

So yea, any recommended Lets players?

I thought this LP did a very good job of showing Demon's Souls: http://lparchive.org/Demons-Souls/

+ Great knowledge of game
+ Pleasant voice
+ Doesn't talk like a moron

? Very skilled player: Little repetition, but also makes the game look far easier than it really is.

- Sub-par video quality

 

[lucky_sharm]

Epicnamebro is currently in the middle of a Demon Days series in which he plays Demon's Souls. Very knowledgeable and pleasant to listen to in general. Vageta311 has also done a few live commentary playthroughs of Demon's Souls.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

All I really hope for is that I don't end up with 99 of each grass organically and without even trying to. If there's going to be servers again, I hope we don't see the "world tendency" system anymore. It was always fucked up when you played online, and required needless grinding to see everything if you were offline. Maybe more bosses that wreck your face with their skill/power as opposed to their size, like the False King. When I respawned, deleveled and wondering what the hell just happened...that was awesome.

 

[IronMit]

I have played dark souls but not demon souls yet!!!! :s

Very interesting read. I can't wait to get my hands on demon souls now. Like most predecessors i expect the game to be a step back in a few areas but from what people are saying it will also be a step forward in a few more.

My greatest regret is constantly referring to wiki's and looking up stuff on youtube. I felt it may of ruined my immersion and sense of exploration and hopelessness in dark souls.

The problem is pvp is a very fun aspect of the game but it is very unbalanced for a newcomer. People will run ahead at a low level, find the best equipment, upgrade armour, enlighten weapons, know where the best spells are, abuse backstab etc...the pvp matching doesn't take this into account so I felt I needed to look up stuff.

What's demon souls pvp like? Will I get hammered if I don't look anything up. I plan to completely ignore wiki's and youtube and any source material. will play this game fresh, so shall I avoid pvp?

 

[dancinginfernal]

So why we're talking about Demon\Dark Souls, does anyone one know any interesting Demon Souls Let's plays?
I figured I should watch someone else do all the work for once lol

So yea, any recommended Lets players?

Geop from the SA forums has reached about the 70% mark in his Dark Souls LP. He's on a Christmas hiatus, so the thread is locked, but here's the link [http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3493343&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1] for when it starts up. (Sometime in early- to mid-January he says) Depending on whether or not you have an SA account you might not be able to see it.

It's a group LP, he has his friends guiding him along and the three are very knowledgeable about the game and its lore. They also like to mess with him, so there's lots of fun and humor in it.

One of his friends, Kuvo, also does occasional streams for his Dark Souls Character which has its own gimmick - and they just go balls out with breaking the game on his character.

(Spoiler: His name is Shieldfried. Figured out the gimmick yet?)

 

[Quicksilver_Phoenix]

Dark Souls may be more linear, but the world actually feels connected. In Demon's Souls I never really got a feel for the backstory and connection between each area, since all you get to go on is the paragraph of description in the Archstone menu.

Demon's Souls is much cheaper with deaths in several areas. There's one dragon bridge in Dark Souls which is fairly easy to pass through. In Demon's Souls, there are FOUR, and they're all incredibly tedious and hard to time. The one in 1-2 particularly raises my ire, because the dragon constantly performs strafing runs with its instant-death fire and it's impossible to avoid being hit even if you time it perfectly. The Dragon God is even worse- every attack kills you instantly and there's no way to even dodge most of them. I've never managed to kill that thing.

I never really felt as alone and hopeless in Demon's Souls as I did in Dark Souls. Maybe it's because I played the later game first, but also the fact that you were only a quick warp away from the hub at all times made me feel less like I was trapped in the dungeons and alone.

Thing with the dragon, though, is that you can kill him. And when he's dead, he doesn't respawn and you can help yourself to the sweet loot.

If the Dragon God is one shotting you, that is entirely your fault as you haven't raised your vitality and/or endurance enough. For example, my character got hit once or twice, but it only took off half my health. Oh, and his attacks can be avoided. The walkway has pillars at regular intervals that you can shelter behind. Just sprint between those.

 

[Piorn]

While I have to say Dark Souls improved some mechanics, like the healing items and multiplayer, I agree with you, and have only a little thing to add.

I felt DeS's world far more massive and threatening, because of the contrast. The Nexus was a safe haven, compared to the levels where everything was dangerous. I felt like an astronaut stepping through the airlock of a spaceship, into the hostility of space.
In DkS, everything had at least a mild threat level, and you could always see enemies from your bonfire. I think this devalued the dangerous parts, because the athmosphere lacked contrast.

 

[The_Echo]

In Demon's Souls, however, the entire game is already open to you. The central hub, Nexus, already connects all the worlds you can go to and nothing actually forbids you from entering all these areas apart from the challenge and difficulty. You could complete half of Stonefang, then come back and visit the Valley of Defilement, then take a visit to Latria, come back to Stonefang etc etc. There were always options and I was never actually limited by general world design. On paper, the connected world of Dark Souls sounds more free and just better, but in practice I found the hub design of the Nexus far more liberating.

Uhm, I don't agree with that.

While, admittedly, my time and experience with Demon's Souls is lacking, I did get a good foothold into the meat of the game. If by "the entire game," you mean stage X-1 of each level, and you can only move to X-2 after beating X-1, then yes, I agree. But that segmented setup isn't what I'd call open. Furthermore, there are distinct barriers that prevent the player from moving on. Being that I am only a portion of the way through the game, the only one I've seen is the fog wall in 1-2, after the Tower Knight. You are required to have a Demon's Soul before being allowed entrance. (It occurs to me that this may be the only instance, and is perhaps end-game content, but the point stands.)

I very much prefer the open-world style of Dark Souls, however shallow that openness may be. To me, it makes it feel like a real world. Demon's Souls's world felt segmented and not unlike games such as Mario 64 or Spyro in that sense. Yeah, Dark is essentially a linear game at heart, but I like that it doesn't present itself as such. Demon's's (...) world felt artificial, really. I didn't see how it was all connected.

There is a bigger focus on environmental challenge in Demon's, whereas Dark is more about the challenge of the enemy. Ideally, I'd like for Dark Souls 2 to have a good mix of both, without losing the original spirit of either. But if it was just more Dark Souls, while expanding on the universe of the first, I'd be more than happy with that. Because really, there wasn't even any indication we'd be getting a second one.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

The mimic is not a proper enemy. It's a surprise little f*ck-you-up. But - significant but - you can avoid dying to it by actually doing that standing back and observing bit. The mimic is alive, it moves. A normal chest doesn't do that. Also, there were plenty of online multi-player scrawlings warning me about whatever the hell it was I was looking forward to meet. I was also warned of the spike-trap elevator this way. Then there's the bit about mimics actually being somewhat rare, and I only got bitten by one when I forgot about that one special chest... and I only saw a mimic in all its seven foot glory in action when I decided to take one on fully frontal. I think mimics are spectacular characters. Love the creep factor, love the tongue. They also make you wary of chests, which, I think, is LaVey levels of giddy giddy mindfeck fun... and I think I've first heard about something very much like them decades ago, in the wonderful world of D&D?

No, I don't think you absolutely have to die in Dark Souls to learn. It's just highly probable. The darn hard label was slapped on it by lazy game reviewers and high profile writers for high profile magazines and websites. When I first read about Demon's Souls, I thought 'oh those crazy Japs are at it again!' - and left it at that. Only when I - purely accidentally - found out it was by From Software did I actually WANT to get it and see for myself.

There are very few moments where I felt 'cheated' and thrown in front of a speeding, Christian-eating lion. The first towering black knight I encountered felt off, so I proceeded to pull him and then snipe him from above. Eventually, I learned about backstabbing and parry-ripose. That was much, much easier and much more time efficient. It was also more fun, as I really felt 'in control of the situation, containing the threat'. Hah.

I enjoyed both Demon's and Dark Souls. I liked the more Lovecraftian feel of Demon's, but - to me - the general feeling of loneliness, despair and futility was much stronger in Dark Souls. The bosses of Demon's Souls oftentimes had names that elicited sexual connotations, which made me giggle even when I was all cramped up, tense and in awe of what might await me next.

I like the rather different level design choices of both Demon's and Dark Souls. Creature design - I think Dark Souls wins that one hands down. Just look at the redesigned Phalanx - in Demon's Souls they were little more than armed blobs. In Dark Souls, they look like friggin' Giger had a clone baby with Bottin and then sent it through Brundlefly's teleportation chamber with Clive Barker. Awesome, awesome stuff. Also, I might have been somewhat afraid of making a mistake or lose grip on timing and die to, say, the flame-spitting dragon while running on that Chinese Wall stretch in Demon's, but there's just hardly an equivalent to the proper scares and feelings of dread when a towering Tower Knight comes charging at you, a 'harpy', aka Crow Demon first wraps her legs around your shoulders and pecks away at your head or you notice you just made a mistake running into half a dozen Man Eater Shells that also seem very indiscriminate and all-too happy to munch away on lady rogues.

I liked the Demon's Souls experience, but I am still deeply in love with Dark Souls. Both are splendid starting points for another outstanding, excellent game. If the same twisted minds are willing to get together and sell me more of that, let me throw money at them. I want more.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

I think they need to offer elements from both of the previous games.

1. Smoother animations: the animations in Demon's Souls felt a lot more natural to me.
2. Upgrade system: Dark Souls upgrade system was a lot more straightforward, Demon's Souls had more skill based options but
3. Combat: the combat in both is great. Dark Souls felt more immersive but backstab/riposte sequence in Demon's Souls were much smoother.
4. Level design: layout from Dark Souls (open world), atmosphere from Demon's Souls. Bonfires of course. More traps would be good.
5. NPCs, Demon's Souls had them go around the level and get attacked by enemies, they should bring this back.

Things that neither have but should include.
1. Bosses: neither games have bosses that respond to the player's attacks very much. They need to have more responsiveness.
2. Give weapons some more attack options (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jznkSdsJaC8)

What I (personally) want: all the armors from the previous games in Dark Souls 2 (along with new armor of course).

EDIT: I forgot one of the most important things, bring back Demon's Souls inventory management system. It was miles better than the one in Dark Souls.

 

[King Billi]

One thing I'd like to see return from Demon's Souls is some form of Character and World Tendancy only done in a more straightforward manner..? Possibly through Covenants.

I'd like to see a greater emphasis on Covenants if they should return with more variety and unique benefits associated with different Covenants.

Imagine if every NPC in the game belonged to a specific covenant and you wouldn't be able to talk to them or summon them for a fight if you weren't also in their covenant! Maybe if you betray your covenant and abandon them for another they'll send black phantoms to invade your game?

I'd really like it if there was more incentive to stick with one particular covenant for an entire playthrough instead of just switching whenever I find a new one.

 

[Nomanslander]

snip

LoL, I totally disagree.

I felt Dark Souls was a huge improvement compared to Demon's Sous in every way.

-First off: Yes, Dark Souls isn't open world... as in, being completely open. It has the metroidvania design set up, and that's what's great about it. I think it's been expressed time and time again that true open world games sorta fall flat in level design because of all the approaches you're allowed in the game, the tempo and pacing depend on it and that's what does it in. So, ven though it's not really open world, it's better. You can still completely get lost in the game, and that's the true purpose of metroidvania: to plot your route from trail and experience (which is completely different from trail and error) instead of just being pointed where to go which is what almost all true open world games do. Which ironically enough, has made true open world games feel more linear than the Dark Souls/Metroid sorts.

Demon's Souls on the other hand was completely a linear experience, and I never felt helplessly lost in the game, which I feel was crucial, at least in my thrill of the game.

-Thesecond point you argued was the fairness in the difficulty. And to that I don't have much to say except I felt both games were equally fair in that matter. Both games gave you an option to approach with caution, and pass the level; and with both regards, I felt the games were well done. You're example was the mimic's in Sen's Fortress. Well, you do know they're not instant death traps, right? It takes a second for them to come alive, and when they do so you can kill them and get the best rewards you'd find in any treasure chest. Granted they're a hard fight, but I only died once from them because I underestimated one and didn't take precautions during the fight. All in all, if they were death traps, they would have to be instant. Since I had an opportunity to counteract and confront them, it's no longer considered trail and error.

Anyways. Totally disagree. Might be just my opinion but Dark Souls was vastly superior to Demon's Souls in every way.

 

[chadachada123]

snip

Uhm, I don't agree with that.

While, admittedly, my time and experience with Demon's Souls is lacking, I did get a good foothold into the meat of the game. If by "the entire game," you mean stage X-1 of each level, and you can only move to X-2 after beating X-1, then yes, I agree. But that segmented setup isn't what I'd call open. Furthermore, there are distinct barriers that prevent the player from moving on. Being that I am only a portion of the way through the game, the only one I've seen is the fog wall in 1-2, after the Tower Knight. You are required to have a Demon's Soul before being allowed entrance. (It occurs to me that this may be the only instance, and is perhaps end-game content, but the point stands.)

I very much prefer the open-world style of Dark Souls, however shallow that openness may be. To me, it makes it feel like a real world. Demon's Souls's world felt segmented and not unlike games such as Mario 64 or Spyro in that sense. Yeah, Dark is essentially a linear game at heart, but I like that it doesn't present itself as such. Demon's's (...) world felt artificial, really. I didn't see how it was all connected.

There is a bigger focus on environmental challenge in Demon's, whereas Dark is more about the challenge of the enemy. Ideally, I'd like for Dark Souls 2 to have a good mix of both, without losing the original spirit of either. But if it was just more Dark Souls, while expanding on the universe of the first, I'd be more than happy with that. Because really, there wasn't even any indication we'd be getting a second one.

The Fog Gate at 1-2 IS the only such instance, with Dark Souls having an equivalent that is far worse: Their Fog Gates don't open until after getting the Lord Vessel, meaning you can't beat a single "World" boss until after getting the Lord Vessel. Contrast that with Demon's Souls, where only 1 end boss is blocked by a gate.

Let me explain. In Demon's Souls, after beating Phalanx, you can beat EVERY world, and every end-world boss, barring world 1 right from the get-go. In Dark Souls, you can't beat a single end-boss-equivalent until you clear the Fog Gates. It might make sense as far as story goes, but in terms of gameplay, it is very restricting. Edit: Apologies, you can beat a single world-boss equivalent without the Lord Vessel: The Four Kings.

The "feel of the linearity" part is subjective, however, and I can only disagree based on my own preferences: I prefer the feel of Demon's Souls, where each gate leads to a different part of Boletaria, and that they are upfront about the openness, instead of having fake-openness like in Dark Souls. Demon's Souls tells you straight up: Here are five different mostly-linear paths, have at it. Dark Souls deceives you with openness, yet is actually more linear than the former, as demonstrated here:

 

[The_Echo]

snip

snip

The Fog Gate at 1-2 IS the only such instance, with Dark Souls having an equivalent that is far worse: Their Fog Gates don't open until after getting the Lord Vessel, meaning you can't beat a single "World" boss until after getting the Lord Vessel. Contrast that with Demon's Souls, where only 1 end boss is blocked by a gate.

Let me explain. In Demon's Souls, after beating Phalanx, you can beat EVERY world, and every end-world boss, barring world 1 right from the get-go. In Dark Souls, you can't beat a single end-boss-equivalent until you clear the Fog Gates. It might make sense as far as story goes, but in terms of gameplay, it is very restricting. Edit: Apologies, you can beat a single world-boss equivalent without the Lord Vessel: The Four Kings.

The "feel of the linearity" part is subjective, however, and I can only disagree based on my own preferences: I prefer the feel of Demon's Souls, where each gate leads to a different part of Boletaria, and that they are upfront about the openness, instead of having fake-openness like in Dark Souls. Demon's Souls tells you straight up: Here are five different mostly-linear paths, have at it. Dark Souls deceives you with openness, yet is actually more linear than the former, as demonstrated here:

I don't see what you mean by "world boss." (After typing it out, I realize you might mean the bosses bearing Lord Souls. I still wouldn't consider them "world bosses" purely by how Dark Souls is designed.) Dark Souls operates in just one world. To equate it more to Demon's Souls, Firelink Shrine might be 1-1, and Kiln of the First Flame is 1-19. Each boss is a region boss. I guess you're right in saying you can't beat an "end-boss-equivalent" until placing (and filling) the Lordvessel, since that opens up the Kiln and Gwyn would be the end-boss or world boss.

I guess calling either game open-world in any sense of the word is kind of... incorrect. Dark Souls is more of a connected world, but not necessarily open. They're both very, very linear games in their own ways.

It kind of feels like we're putting linearity in a bad light here. But personally, I prefer it.

 

[kommando367]

In dark souls, all you had to do was level up a bit and find some better equipment. In demon's souls, you got diminished EXP on lower level baddies and you had to work for the good equipment.

You want the purple flame shield? That shit wasn't on a ledge or hiding in a nook. You had to avoid some dragons to get that shield.

You want the best armors? You have to kill the badasses that were wearing or guarding them.

There wasn't a drake sword to smash through early game and fire spells were classified as magic and weren't even that powerful without a lot of INT.

The closest thing to an easy way out was farming grass in 1-3. Hell, even after that, you could still get whooped by red eyes if you weren't careful.

So yeah, if they limited the easy ways out and balanced a few things, Dark Souls 2 might be a pretty decent game.

 

[chadachada123]

snip

snip

The Fog Gate at 1-2 IS the only such instance, with Dark Souls having an equivalent that is far worse: Their Fog Gates don't open until after getting the Lord Vessel, meaning you can't beat a single "World" boss until after getting the Lord Vessel. Contrast that with Demon's Souls, where only 1 end boss is blocked by a gate.

Let me explain. In Demon's Souls, after beating Phalanx, you can beat EVERY world, and every end-world boss, barring world 1 right from the get-go. In Dark Souls, you can't beat a single end-boss-equivalent until you clear the Fog Gates. It might make sense as far as story goes, but in terms of gameplay, it is very restricting. Edit: Apologies, you can beat a single world-boss equivalent without the Lord Vessel: The Four Kings.

The "feel of the linearity" part is subjective, however, and I can only disagree based on my own preferences: I prefer the feel of Demon's Souls, where each gate leads to a different part of Boletaria, and that they are upfront about the openness, instead of having fake-openness like in Dark Souls. Demon's Souls tells you straight up: Here are five different mostly-linear paths, have at it. Dark Souls deceives you with openness, yet is actually more linear than the former, as demonstrated here:

I don't see what you mean by "world boss." (After typing it out, I realize you might mean the bosses bearing Lord Souls. I still wouldn't consider them "world bosses" purely by how Dark Souls is designed.) Dark Souls operates in just one world. To equate it more to Demon's Souls, Firelink Shrine might be 1-1, and Kiln of the First Flame is 1-19. Each boss is a region boss. I guess you're right in saying you can't beat an "end-boss-equivalent" until placing (and filling) the Lordvessel, since that opens up the Kiln and Gwyn would be the end-boss or world boss.

I guess calling either game open-world in any sense of the word is kind of... incorrect. Dark Souls is more of a connected world, but not necessarily open. They're both very, very linear games in their own ways.

It kind of feels like we're putting linearity in a bad light here. But personally, I prefer it.

That's why I considered putting "world boss" and stuff in quotes, since they aren't identical between the two games, but yes, I meant the ones bearing Lord Souls (in addition to the Four Kings, because, as far as gameplay goes, he may as well be a Lord Soul-bearing boss).

But yeah, I'm not opposed to linearity either, I just have a preference for the way Demon's Souls does it. That isn't to say that I dislike Dark Souls, or the way linearity in Dark Souls was set up, though. I freaking love both, and wish more games would emulate either.

 

[DarkishFriend]

While I agree on a lot of points about Demon Souls having things about it that were better than Dark Souls I will say that it's difficulty wasn't even close to fair.

Anyone who has died multiple times in 4-1,4-2,5-1 and 5-2 knows exactly what I'm talking about.

4-1 and 4-2 were full of pitfalls, large enemies with long sweeping attacks that break guards easily and they force you to fight these enemies on small narrow paths so you can not dodge them or you'll fall off and die. Also in 4-2, there is an enemy that has never been seen before that comes out of the ground and attacks you and it goes that in a group of 5-6 when you grab some treasure. That's bullshit.

5-1 and 5-2 does something similar too. Up until the last two worlds, the way to play Demon Souls was forgoing armor and dodging attacks. When you get to 5-2 it's a giant swamp that you can dodge roll, or even sprint in that poisons you for being in it.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Yes, Dark Souls isn't open world... as in, being completely open. It has the metroidvania design set up, and that's what's great about it. I think it's been expressed time and time again that true open world games sorta fall flat in level design because of all the approaches you're allowed in the game, the tempo and pacing depend on it and that's what does it in. So, ven though it's not really open world, it's better. You can still completely get lost in the game, and that's the true purpose of metroidvania: to plot your route from trail and experience (which is completely different from trail and error) instead of just being pointed where to go which is what almost all true open world games do. Which ironically enough, has made true open world games feel more linear than the Dark Souls/Metroid sorts.

Dark Souls had that sensation of going further down the rabbit hole.

Finding a hole in the wall or a branching path and thinking to yourself, "Do I really wanna go down there?" Pushing further and further through this beehive of twistedness hoping that there'll be a shortcut or an elevator at the end that'll bring you back to the surface. And knowing that if there wasn't you'd have to make that entire way back.

The feeling of wandering into Ash Lake after having made my way down what felt like miles of branches and roots was indescribable.

This sense of journeying was completely lacking in Demon's Souls, where every area was hermetically sectioned off. Making every overall area feel kind of... boxy.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

With the argument of linearity, we have to understand what we're talking about.
Are we taking about the environments being linear or the path of the game being linear.

Dark Souls environments are interconnected which allow yourself to choose paths around more creatively, albeit only in the main starting areas. I think they should expand on this idea because a literal hub world (as in Demon's Souls) is kind of simplistic.