After watching a couple of playthroughs of Dark Souls III, I've got to say I'm very disappointed by the lack of change or innovation in gameplay. Bloodborne was a luke-warm reception from me, as again they refused to change the combat but at the very least had an interesting setting. What's really worrying is that they seem to churn these souls games out nearly every year -- it really does seem that the survival RPG market the souls series has cornered is being Call of Duty-ified.
What do you guys think?
ID:2063904
 Apr 3 2016, 7:00 am
|
|
Oh no, I think it's great. It's just that II and III have felt a little less enthralling than the first to me.
| |
You do know 2 wasn't made by the same developers as Demon Souls and Dark Souls 1 + Bloodborn, and Why the hell would they innotave even more? We like Dark Souls games because its Dark Souls we don't want more changes we just want more game time with our beloved Dark Souls Universe. :P
| |
Ter13 wrote:
I don't think Bandai-Namco is letting FromSoft evolve. I've played FromSoft/ASCII Ent games since King's Field II. They are absolutely phenomenal at overcoming technical challenges and improving the overall product with each iteration. I agree. Kings Field II was my first PS1 RPG, and boy it was great. Emphasis on was because the controls are pretty terrible by today's standards, but I'll be damned if it didn't innovate the genre at the time. Just thinking about all the little secrets the game had makes me giddy with nostalgia. Yut Put wrote: dude DS3 is awesome. everything about it is really great. i would rant about all the reasons why but im on my phone rn lol I'm all ears. I just can't help but think this game series is being coddled for its difficulty. The formula they laid down 7 years ago hasn't changed much at all, and at this point it is just not stimulating at all for me. Zasif wrote: You do know 2 wasn't made by the same developers as Demon Souls and Dark Souls 1 + Bloodborn That's kind of irrelevant. and Why the hell would they innotave even more? We like Dark Souls games because its Dark Souls we don't want more changes we just want more game time with our beloved Dark Souls Universe. :P You're absolutely entitled to think that Dark Souls III is the greatest game of all time, if you want to. It's just that this type of logic is a slippery slope, and can stagnate the game design process a la Call of Duty. | |
I haven't played any of the Demon/Dark Souls games.
I understand why people like it though.  | |
DS1>DS3>BB>DES>DS2
I agree they're locked into non-innovation, but I don't think that's a particularly bad thing, because they're still great at what they do. The few souls-like games released that aren't by From Software are all very mediocre at best, and with the exception of DS2, all of the series (Including BB and DES) are exceptionally fantastic. I guess you could say it's stale but, it's a genre (And a series of games). Sure they could change the UI, add new items, change a few concepts, but it'll always be the same game. Bloodbourne is effectively a completely difference game to DS1 in this respect, just in the same genre. If DS3 was crazily different to DS2/1 whilst being a direct sequel in the same universe (And not exactly same time period, but you know what I mean), it'd be weird. Bloodbourne is a clear example of mixing up the formula a little, and I hope there's a Bloodbourne 2 in its style, and I also hope there's a whole new set of games too, but if they make a DS4, I want it to be like the first three. Editors note: I butchered the wording, English and spelling of this post because I'm tired as shit. | |
Who cares about another Dark Souls? Where is Armored Core 6 or a new Otogi game? Maybe now From Software has milked people for a bit of cash, they can go back to making good games.
| |
The Magic Man wrote:
Who cares about another Dark Souls? Where is Armored Core 6 or a new Otogi game? Maybe now From Software has milked people for a bit of cash, they can go back to making good games. I want the adventures of cookie and cream 2 :P. | |
Yut Put wrote:
DS1 basically nailed the formula, and DS3 caters to it as a throwback to the mechanics of DS1 but also adds more challenging boss fights and weapon arts that make PVP and PVE both more dynamic along with plenty of new items I was hoping to hear about SOMETHING innovative, but this just disappoints me even more. You say that Link to the Past is the greatest game ever made, and quite frankly I'm inclined to agree, but how would you feel if they re-released that game 4 times within a span of 7 years only changing the world and making small tweaks to the equipment? Wouldn't you think that's a tad bit lazy? LttP might have come close to perfection, but one of the reasons why Ocarina of Time was so successful was because they changed it up so much. Some of the changes were for the better, and some were for the worse, but in essence change is a good thing in game design so long as it doesn't alienate your core demographic. However, it should be noted that you should never change for the sake of change, either. it's like this for me: I don't agree with this list at all, considering Smash was never made to be played competitively. We all know what happens to games when they cater to just that elite audience *cough* Starcraft 2 *cough*. But I won't open that can of worms. i mean yeah the formula hasn't changed much but it's the little things that matter more. Pokemon hasn't changed that much either and I still enjoy the shit out of every new game. "good sequel" and "different sequel" aren't the same thing, plenty of sequels can just be the same game mechanics with new levels and items and that's totally okay because people who liked the first game will have no complaints This is straight up Call of Duty logic, man. Also, you're comparing a premier console title to a casual handheld game. Nevertheless, Pokemon has actually innovated quite a bit; take the comparison of Pokemon Diamond/Pearl to Pokemon X/Y, for example. If you played those two games you would immediately notice a difference between the two. For Dark Souls, well, let's play a game! From which Dark Souls game is each of these screenshots? Get them all right and win a prize (real men don't read the URLs)! such innovate very design much new wow Complaining about similar sequels is just stupid. It's like complaining about Magic: The Gathering for how they haven't changed the game enough across expansions. They actually have if you played the game. If you were to take a 4th edition player and plop him into play nowadays, he would undoubtedly feel overwhelmed. Not by the addition of new cards, but the decks themselves have also changed in fairly significant ways since then. I guess it's just trendy though to be the contrarian edgy kid who hates every new game that comes out because they're just trying to get your money, man Okie dokie. | |
WE'RE ENTERING THE WRONG OPINION TAR PIT BOYS
GRAB YOUR HAT AND YOUR PLASTIC COVERING SHITS COMING IN HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT | |
Popisfizzy wrote:
WE'RE ENTERING THE WRONG OPINION TAR PIT BOYS You're literally my favourite BYONDite. | |
How dare you call Pokemon "casual"? Even in the theme song lyrics, it says "I wanna be the very best, like no one ever was."
I don't know about you but that sounds pretty hardcore competitive to me. | |
Azurift wrote:
What's really worrying is that they seem to churn these souls games out nearly every year -- it really does seem that the survival RPG market the souls series has cornered is being Call of Duty-ified. King's Field 1 -- 1994 King's Field 2 -- 1995 King's Field 3 -- 1996 Shadow Tower -- 1998 King's Field 4 -- 2001 Shadow Tower Abyss -- 2003 Demon's Souls -- 2009 Dark Souls 1 -- 2011 Dark Souls 2 -- 2014 Dark Souls 3 -- 2016 The games are being released decidedly less frequently. And really, they still have a significant amount of depth and love put into them -- even if they've lost some magic in the last couple entries. It's nothing like CoD. Maybe more like Final Fantasy. | |
^Sequelization is a problem. I don't think Dark Souls has worn out its welcome yet, but the formula, I think is starting to show. We're about three more games from tired, I think.
Which interestingly, tired is exactly where Armored Core is right now. Metal Gear actually managed to almost get there at one point, but the Peacewalker experiment really paid off and Phantom Pain took the mechanics experimented with in peacewalker to a whole new level. Let's hope that by the time Souls gets tired Fromsoft will find something to attempt to innovate. See Fallout 4 for an example of FalloutScrolls games' tiredness being beaten out by new meta. The settlement building gimmick really did a lot for the game, and I think it's going to be a real direction changer for their fanbase and modding community. | |
Bloodborne is darksouls in a better universe.
Edit: So Bloodborne --- 2015 Editv2: Im playing fallout 4 rite now. | |
Fugsnarf wrote:
Azurift wrote: The base game is fantastic; I sunk over 80 hours into Demon's Souls. Calling it CoD may be a bit of a hyperbole. However, I can't in good conscience relate it to a Final Fantasy game, as all of them have pretty stark differences. I can only hope that Miyazaki will adhere to his word about Dark Souls III being a "turning point for the series." Ter13 wrote: ^Sequelization is a problem. I don't think Dark Souls has worn out its welcome yet, but the formula, I think is starting to show. We're about three more games from tired, I think. I think it's important to factor in playtime when considering what constitutes a tired formula. Kings Field's multiple releases worked because you can beat the game anywhere from 10-20 hours each respectively. There's not a lot of replayability. Whereas with Dark Souls, it's not uncommon to sink over 100 hours into a single game. Which interestingly, tired is exactly where Armored Core is right now. You bring up an interesting point about the careful balance of maintaining the product's vision all the while innovating it at the same time. We should all look to the shining paragon that is Mega Man X for this solution. Egoraptor explains why in a much more entertaining way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FpigqfcvlM | |
Azurift wrote:
The base game is fantastic; I sunk over 80 hours into Demon's Souls. Calling it CoD may be a bit of a hyperbole. However, I can't in good conscience relate it to a Final Fantasy game, as all of them have pretty stark differences. You didn't seem to be comparing Dark Souls to CoD in those terms, but in release schedule and tiredness. I was comparing it to Final Fantasy in a similar way. Those games are released in about as frequently a schedule as Dark Souls, and both series have lost a lot of magic in recent installments. Ghost of ET wrote: Bloodborne --- 2015 I actually forgot about Bloodborne. Doesn't help that it was a PS4 exclusive. | |
Unfortunately, I think Bandai-Namco is pushing them into a less innovative direction to try to ensure that the cow stays milked.