Zero Punctuation: Demon's Souls

Recommended Videos

yzzlthtz

New member
May 1, 2008
190
0
0
MilkyFresh said:
I watched this and then checked out the IGN review on youtube.... It was looking interesting up until the bit where i found out the enemies get HARDER the more you die. So fucking stupid.
They don't necessarily get harder, actually, unless you are dying in body form, which is impossible to do on the 1st level anyways. Reviewers get this wrong all the time.

The changes to the world when you die in body form don't take effect until you leave the level for the Nexus. So the difficulty won't actually increase unless you have died in body form at least once and you have left the level and returned.

Also, more difficult foes give you greater rewards, meaning more souls for leveling, better item drops....
 

yzzlthtz

New member
May 1, 2008
190
0
0
Le_Pecheur22 said:
crystalsnow said:
Le_Pecheur22 said:
That's not right, you get your max healthbar back by beating a level. That and using a stone of ephemeral eyes. That's it for single player.

However, if you die and use a stone of ephemeral eyes, the world gets darker tendency which makes it harder. Also, when you die, you lose all your souls at the spot you died, and everything respawns. You have to get to that spot to get your souls back. If you don't, you lose your souls for good. Also, on your first playthrough you're almost guaranteed to die on almost every level at least once.
You sure? I could have sworn that you can get your health bar back before beating the boss.

Oh well, I haven't played the game myself so I don't really know.
The only other way in single player is to use a stone of ephemeral eyes. You can also get it back through multiplayer, but being a black phantom is a retarded crap shoot of whether the lag kills you instead of the player, along with being at every disadvantage possible in the game besides having the demons on your side. Being a blue phantom. The survival rate, I've found, for blue phantoms through the boss fight is about 1/1000000000000. Literally, I rarely get to the point where I can even rate other players because they die so effing quick, and the same happens for me when I've tried to be a blue phantom also.
I win about 60% of my invasions (retarded crap shoot?), depending on what character i play. 80% with one, 40% with another. Lag is sometimes an issue, but more often than not the connection is good and the fight is fair.

I usually survive a stint as a blue phantom. It's really fun too. As far as blues dying, yeah, it happens. But blue phantoms also get risk-free experience points, and, if they're novice players, insight into the level. Blues are there to die, anyways, in order to save you, the host, from dying, since there is absolutely no penalty for dying as a blue phantom.

Blue phantoms and being a blue phantom were crucial elements for me in my first-play through.
 

Azaraxzealot

New member
Dec 1, 2009
2,403
0
0
yzzlthtz said:
Azaraxzealot said:
w/e i can flame about how badly i hated this game all i want, because when i played it, i found the experience frustrating, pointless, and unenjoyable. it's only internet reputation anyways.
Too bad.
That's all you really had to say, though. No need to make supporting arguments just: "I played it and it made me sad."
Cause trust me: We Demon's Souls fans are relentless and pitiless.
well, then i can agree to (strongly) disagree with all of you, no matter how shitty i feel this game is, because I can't change anyone's opinion, but neither can you change mine, I will always hate 80% of what comes out of japanese publishers, so just ignore and don't respond to my statements (should be easy for everyone) when i make my strongly biased accusations and you make yours, then i won't stir up shit because both of us will always think we're right anyways. that's the fucking internet, and i always knew that, i just wanted to see how many fanboys i could piss off by throwing my (strong) opinion out there.
 

LockeDown

New member
Sep 27, 2009
354
0
0
As someone who beat the game, I can safely say that while the game is not as brutally difficult as it was made out to be (though some bosses, like False King Allant, are just infinitely irksome), it's definitely designed to be rather unfriendly to new players. This game truly throws the standard tendencies of most normal gamers in an RPG setting out the window. Usually, if you want to "brute-force" through an RPG, you simply roll a warrior, pick up the biggest pointy stick you can find, and hold down the swing button until you've cleared everything from the first measly grunt to the final boss. Sure there's the occasional nuanced fight where you might actually have to dodge an attack, but those fights are usually fairly forgiving, what with your "hold down forward + attack" strategy being temporarily thrown out the proverbial window and all.

Demon's Souls doesn't apologize for the fact that you can't "re-re-run" through the bulk of its content, and it punishes you for trying. Dying while alive (read: not in Soul Form), reduces the "tendency" of your world, and the enemies get stronger each time it happens. Checkpoints are non-existent because a lack of checkpoints is a proven, legitimate way to add difficulty to a game (see IWBTG). Dodging properly (read: not pressing circle just the one time as a get-out-of-danger-free button) becomes something you have to learn, and the game encourages you to treat its denizens as a real threat; even the lowly, psychotic, half-naked tribal fool with a broken sword.

The game provides a very stark, lonely atmosphere, and maintains it very well because of its limited multi-player capabilities (blue phantoms are hit-or-miss, and black phantoms are the bane of my existence), and while some of the player notes are rather useless, many of the ones I've found provided information I would not have had otherwise (thank you to whoever pointed out that those big red grubs were more dangerous than they seemed). The game encourages you to be more realistic in your approach to combat, forcing you to be cautious or selective about your targets (with the exception of those rare character setups that allow for utter domination with a few memorized sequences) lest you wind up some lesser beastie's evening snack.

I can understand Yahtzee's beef with the game, partially because (and this is key, folks) it's his job to find things to gripe about, and because, as mentioned earlier, the game is rather callous toward the uninitiated player. Dodging takes awhile to get the hang of, the game's not very kind about giving you "practice time" for your abilities, and some of the bosses have inventively cruel ways of punishing you for reacting the wrong way to a flashing-light-attack you're seeing for the first time (Curse you, Allant!!!). However, if you're tired of the over-the-shoulder dungeon crawler that rewards you for duct-taping your attack button down and your joystick forward while you run off to snag a piece of pie (or tail, whatever you prefer), then I'd recommend giving this thing a look. Maybe not a purchase, but at the very least, a rental.
 

Lord Doom

New member
Aug 7, 2008
57
0
0
Demon's Souls isn't that hard. Yahtzee most likely went in thinking it was like Ninja Gaiden. You need to plan your attacks. Also, Yahtzee, How the hell did you get killed by the first boss? A kid could beat him. Also, you weren't online. Those messages you read were put in by the developers for people on their first play through. After you beat the first boss, you are really playing online. Play the game some more. Try summoning Blue Phantoms to help you. I fully see you are not capable of beating this game and I say this for one reason. World 5-2. Those who have played this game know the horrors of that place. What he experienced in 1-1 is what we experience in 5-2. His trouble with 1-1 will make 5-2 impossible for him. P.S. Still funny review as always.
 

Roadclimber

New member
Dec 17, 2009
1
0
0
Am i the only one who played this game who picked up on the fact that Yahtzee never figured out how to use online support? If you're having a brutally hard time at running through a level then you can bring in 2 other players in ghost form to back you up.

Of course you have to be in body form to use them so... that might be the problem. Then there's the joy of having a Black phantom (other player) jump into your level and try to kill you... All the more satisfying if you have a team with you and you tear him to shreds.

Yahtzee also had the choice of 4 other worlds to jump into at that point so if he was having a hard time getting to the Tower Knight... he should've gone exploring elsewhere.

Demon's Souls reminds me of the Monster Hunter franchise in that you CAN play solo but it's not easy. I managed to run a wizard through the game and only needed to be backed up for the final fight against Allant.
 

Verrenxnon

New member
Nov 17, 2009
154
0
0
Axikal said:
Lord_Seth said:
Verrenxnon said:
The 'supposed to lose fight' is an arbitrary, lackluster trope in the context of a videogame; removing choice from a medium defined by it reduces the medium.
I'm going to disagree with that; I actually like hopeless boss fights, as long as they're pulled off right. The purpose of a hopeless boss fight is to either show you how impotent you are or how strong the enemy is, or both. For example, Bowser wiping the floor with you at the start of Paper Mario demonstrates that thanks to the Star Rod, he is too strong for you to defeat until you rescue the Star Spirits. Saturos and Menardi destroying you in Golden Sun serves to show that you're a wimp at that time and sets them up as the most powerful villains of the game. These could be rendered in cut scenes, but it drills home the point better if it's in an actual battle.

Of course, like with many things in video games, it depends on how it's carried off. A good hopeless boss fight makes you want to keep going so that you will eventually be able to actually beat the boss in a rematch later. A bad one just comes across as contrived and annoying.
Hear hear. Though, I have to say that for the most part, I just stick to arrows and distance to remove the more obnoxious enemies (Mind Flayers!). Demon's Souls has simply taught me to learn more "indirect" approaches to battles. And my first two fights with invading players? Holy crap. I was about to crap myself when I saw the giant titling appear: "A Black Phantom Has Invaded Your World". Truly a terrifying experience. Very gratifying when I won, too. That's the mark of a damn good game. That feeling of satisfaction.
Axikal: I'm lucky enough to have played Paper Mario and Golden Sun to have seen and remembered these 'supposed to die' battles. Paper Mario worked, I felt, because I didn't have the time to build up and thus care about my character. Golden Sun was ok, but I would've prefered Final Fantasy VII's approach of finishing me in a cutscene. Why make me fight something I can't win? It's unnecessary programming and arbitrarily game-lengthening.

While 'supposed to die' battles drills into me my dire situation, I feel like a cutscene is more fair to the player. A 'supposed to die' fight works, but it renders the players' work fruitless. I'd much rather see a cutscene where my epic character falters. There'd be no excuse; I wasn't controling them. The 'supposed to die' fights that really ruffle my feathers are when your opponent summons hitherto unknown powers and wastes you. Final Fantasy IX's fight with Belatrix is a perfect example.

Lord Seth: A gratifying victory against a seemingly impossible foe? Excellent. The sensation of APPARENT impending doom spiced up the fight and rendered it satisfying. What if a game did that to your wonderful character; made your opponent seem just on the cusp of surmountability when they abruptly pulled the plug and mopped the floor with your face? Is it worth all the excitement and suspense if it's ultimately worthless?
 

Kanlic

New member
Jul 29, 2009
307
0
0
Azaraxzealot said:
man, console exclusives always get more praise than they deserve... Halo was good, but not amazing, and Uncharted 2 was okay, but not superb, and this game is just not half as good as RPGs that have come before. I say Japanese-made RPGs have a long way to catch up as Pokemon has already set the bar so high that they may never achieve it (i think that may be the nostalgia talking though). Fun is ultimately what games were meant to be, and so far, Japan's game industries have made (more than 80%) games that i find more hand-gnawingly insane than fun or even playable.
I'm sorry if I come off as a jerk, but the Pokemon series was a bland and boring experience that demanded that the player had to grind their ass off. I don't appreciate it when games force you to battle through endless amounts of generic battles rather than setting up the game so that someone who isn't spending three hours searching bushes is punished for not doing so, and I didn't appreciate it when I was a youngin' taking the fad with full on pride.

I understand that the point of Pokemon is collecting as many cute animals and badges you can, but if that is what set the bar, then you can thank the franchise for all the mindless hording of random nonsense that permeates games today, such as the flags in Assassin's creed.

on another note, the cute facade of the Pokemon was just a cover for something truly evil, the corporate rape for money. Am I the only one that thinks that paying full price for a game for half its content is bullshit? The games always came out in pairs, each containing half of the full monster roster, but that's it. The areas were the same, events remained the same, encounters remained the same, all except the fricken monsters. I personally never gave in to that ridiculousness, but its mind-boggling that a majority of other people have. Pokemon's only contribution to gaming as a whole is that it introduced it to a wide audience, but tagged along with that would be the market's decline into squeezing every last penny from the consumers until their bank account is in the red.

aside from that, I agree with you on your opinion's of the games you mentioned, but not on your view's of console specific games as a whole. Aside from multi-platform games, console specific games are what really differentiate the consoles. I agree that Halo is praised for more than its worth and that Uncharted is also, but those are the games that people are looking at when considering to buy a console, not the Modern Warfare's of the world, because that's like potential assholes, available everywhere. Games should, and usually are, judged by their merit, even if there is a little ignorance sprinkled in the assessment. So yes Halo was a mediocre game that was inflated because of its social popularity as is Uncharted's tendency to look really pretty, but they are both competent games, something that im finding very taxing when on the search for my next gaming endeavor.

Dead Rising was awesome for the Xbox as was Demon's Souls was for the playstaion, and the games that find themselves in between such as Brutal Legend are just dandy as well.
 

Verrenxnon

New member
Nov 17, 2009
154
0
0
rdrouyn said:
yzzlthtz said:
Verrenxnon said:
The 'supposed to lose fight' is an arbitrary, lackluster trope in the context of a videogame; removing choice from a medium defined by it reduces the medium.
It is? I can think of so may things that might be "arbitrary lackluster tropes," but "have to lose fights" as part of a tutorial, especially a fight that is actually possible to win, doesn't come to mind. Even if it is as you say, Demon's Souls does it pretty damn well.

Everyone on here who is criticizing demon's souls without actually playing it: why do you waste your life blubbering on pretending to know everything about video games? We all like what we like.

Demon's Souls is a good game. I've spent over 100 hours playing, have beat it like 8 times, have killed almost 200 invaders, and have had a damn fun time with it.

So then all these kids come around to stand behind Yahtzee's sarcastic bantering to throw rocks at the monumental achievement that is Demon's Souls and it looks just like you'd expect to anyone who has actually delved into it : children boasting about throwing rocks at a mountain.
Yeah I love how all the tools come out of the shed to gang up on a game they never played just because Yahtzee didn't like it enough to play it more than an hour. I guess these people never play a JRPG or a Mario game because daddy Yahtzee doesn't let them. Its sad to not have any taste of your own.
Note, kind people, that I've never directly attacked Demon's Souls in my theorizing. I'm attacking the 'supposed to die' cliche'. While I can't speak to it being in the game or not, I suggest that the trope is flimsey like the overused slow-motion effect.

Having not played the game, I have no particular feelings about it. It looks cool enough, and I'm sure if I had a PS3, I'd certainly give it a go. I'm glad you all had fun playing it, but my argument is past Demon's Souls; it concerns a select game tendency used within the game. If you find that incendiary, that's your concern. I'd argue that we need to be more objective about our gaming experiences and less "Oh! Shiny!" than most praise posts tend to be.
 

Verrenxnon

New member
Nov 17, 2009
154
0
0
Photon987 said:
Verrenxnon said:
The 'supposed to lose fight' is an arbitrary, lackluster trope in the context of a videogame; removing choice from a medium defined by it reduces the medium.
It is not arbitrary in this case. The boss fight is still part of the tutorial, and getting yourself killed by the Vanguard lets the game address both what happens when you die and the Nexus/what it has to offer you. If anything, it is actually a rather novel way of presenting a tutorial.quote]

This is a well-reasoned argument which I feel stands on its own two feet. Thank you.

Admittedly, I hate the 'supposed to die' mechanic so much that I'd rather see another way for the game to express the same information.

I don't like being cast into a battle I cannot win; it's a waste of my time.
 

Helba1984

New member
Dec 17, 2009
97
0
0
VioletZer0 said:
[...]Though, I totally agree with the ''Demon's Souls'' part about the 's. In fact, I made a rant about this a few days ago. So I am just calling it Demon Souls from now on.
Loved the rest of your comments :) However the name is appropriate because the big demon is collecting souls, the boss demons are doing the same, and the title references the Demon's Souls (which you are trying to steal, collect and trade for better items and equipment! [and ostensibly to increase enough in power to take the Old One behind the shed]) - sooooo :p correct context :)
 

WaderiAAA

Derp Master
Aug 11, 2009
869
0
0
Awesome review. I prefer games that are hard in a challenging way, not hard in a way as though it has been made by the devil of gaming.

I thought he would be doing Silent Hill Homecoming this week. Perhaps next week. Or perhaps he don't want to make another whiny "not as good as it used to be" review.
 

WaderiAAA

Derp Master
Aug 11, 2009
869
0
0
1. The first kind you mean? I think Yatzee would disagree. Whatever, I don't plan to get it anyways.

2. Yes, I am