The Soulsborne combat debate

Retr0gamer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

2001: A Space Odyssey and Save the Green Planet spring to mind and I love those films dearly. In the case of Save the Green Planet what first appeared to be a bizarre mish mash of genres and inconsistent tone was actually a lot deeper when I took the time to think about it.

I think David Lynch fans might have something to say about that as well.



Similarly, and I don't know how to say this without being antagonistic but I'm not, I think it's a bit rich to tell people it's bad storytelling because you didn't understand/appreciate it.

Storytelling isn't just the story that's being told, it's also the way it's told and Dark Souls I feel is unique and very clever in how it uses it's mechanics and also it's obtuseness to enhance its story. It's something I think is lost in the sequels which use the same storytelling devices but is kind of obtuse for the sake of it rather than it actively enhancing the story.

I think that gets to the whole point of why Souls fans are so defensive of the series. It's like finding a great TV series, telling your mates about it and then them watching designated survivor instead of the Wire. You want to share the experience with other people but it's tough to get other people on board when there is a lot of misinformation about the game scaring people away. Then you also have to deal with people saying the game is awful.

There's always people out there that for some reason like dreadful games. I got in a facebook argument recently with Sonic Adventure 2 fans who are quite clearly deranged if they think that game is good and the fans of Legend of Dragoon baffle me. But Dark Souls is objectively not a bad game. You might not get it, you might not understand it, you might not have the patience for it but to call it bad is just wrong. Same with Sim Racing. The level of execution in those games is beyond me and I don't have the interest in cars others would but I wouldn't call them bad.

And I'm not being holier than thou because I've been on the wrong side of history before. Even recently I hated FF12 since release. I didn't get the game and was baffled at how well loved it was. Tried it again with the recently rerelease and you know what, I was wrong. It's a fabulous game. And why did I hate it before? I was up to my eyes with college work and didn't have the patience for it so critical pathed it and didn't take my time with it. The reason I didn't like it was entirely my fault.

Sometimes it's ok to admit you are wrong or don't understand something.

Unless it's Legend of Dragoon and then you are objectively wrong.

Fair enough. David Lynch is a great example. I think Twin Peaks is irritatingly obtuse mysterious nonsense. Kinda like a popular game series' story telling. We seem to agree on how the story is told in DS. I simply don't like that. It's as if the game requires multiple play throughs to get the most of it. I think that's very flawed in a medium that requires 40 odd hours to do one play through.

I don't think DS are bad games, they are good. Just calling them unarguably (I think you meant that tongue in cheek) the pinnacle is hard to agree with. They have obvious flaws to me.

Retr0gamer

Unarguably great games is what I meant.

Saying it's the pinnacle is up for argument. You can't state that. Too many great games out there and there's plenty of great character action games and action RPGs up there with Dark Souls.

And Dark Souls definitely isn't perfect. Every game has flaws. DS1 has Lost Izalith and Capra Demon. Bloodborne has a few duff bosses. And DS2 has DS2.

As for the story requiring multiple playthroughs? Kind of through. It takes a lot of work to get the full story but I never had to look into it. I was perfectly happy with what I got out of the story of every souls game in one playthrough. I didn't really need to know more and if I did sure I could explore it more or look to Vaati or other youtubers. I actually think fully having everything explained to you ala the god awful codex entries in Bioware games is detrimental to game narrative. You don't need to know. In the souls games you don't need to know the full story. In fact not knowing the full story is part of the experience. Imagine if pulp fiction told you what was in the briefcase? It could negate the mystery of the briefcase, change the mood of the story and ultimately that's not what the film is about. It's not important. It's about each character's journey. Similarly Dark Souls the most imporant thing in the story is the players journey.

It's like a Murakami book. You don't need to know what happens or need to understand the full story. It's about the emotions you take out of it.

Greyfox

Arcadeheroes wrote: »

You said you played bloodborne for 4 hours and dark souls 2 for 5 hours , thats not enough time for you to experience what the games are all about .

If your playing a game for 3 hours and you have not got any enjoyment then you need to stop playing the game as 3 hours is a decent attempt and developers should not be expecting more time to be given

TitianGerm

Greyfox wrote: »

If your playing a game for 3 hours and you have not got any enjoyment then you need to stop playing the game as 3 hours is a decent attempt and developers should not be expecting more time to be given

There's people in the PlayStation thread who say you should put 30 hours into Days Gone because that's around the time it starts to get decent. I so wanted that to be a smash hit

gimli2112

a hear if you're playing a game for 30 hours and not enjoying it you should have been doing something else about 20 hours ago
I got into Days Gone immediately if anything the longer it went on the worse it got but still really enjoyed it

nix

The way i look at people who constantly complain about Dark souls like games after only playing like 1% of the game is no different than someone watching a movie for 5-10mins, not liking it, turning it off and then constantly harping on about how bad it is based on those 10mins.. It's just dumb.. That goes for any genre of game/movie or whatever, not just Dark souls..

Now i wouldnt expect people to play through an entire game just so they can get to the end to call it sh!t, but you really should put some time and effort in before throwing in the towel. Some games are a lot longer than others, so the amount of time spent on a game to know you like it should vary, so id say a good gauge would be 25% of the game. Thats roughly the least amount of time id put in before packing it in or not, You should have the experience then to make the right decision for you.

I don't actually stop playing games at all these days now myself as ive played enough games to usually know if id like it and do enough research before hand before committing. Although i did want to stop playing Control recently as i wasnt enjoying the game, but i knew it was short so just hammered through to the finish.

Arcadeheroes

Greyfox wrote: »

If your playing a game for 3 hours and you have not got any enjoyment then you need to stop playing the game as 3 hours is a decent attempt and developers should not be expecting more time to be given

Playing 3-5 hours of a 70-100 rpg is not putting a decent attempt into a game though . 3 hours of bloodborne barely gets you to cleric beast which is only the tutorial boss, so ya for sure you can say nah Im not putting 70-100 hours of my life into this but you cannot say you gave it a proper go and whatever opinion you have is automatically invalid since you missed like 98% of the content in the game.

this is not the equivalent to when FF13 fans said you need to play at least 25 hours before the game opens up and becomes open world .

It be like me stopping a movie 30mins in and going ya its crap . it makes no sense.

johnny_ultimate

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We'll never agree in this case. Imagine coming out of a film without understanding what happened.

I think there are very fine lines when it comes to this. Obviously something can be vague or mysterious to the point of frustrating, but done well I think it can be one of the most potent types of storytelling.

One of my favourite films from the past decade is Upstream Colour. First time through it I couldn’t really grasp the precise details of the plot, but was left with a lot of strong emotional responses, striking visual and the curious ways images and moments linked up to each other. It was a really powerful experience but again in ways I couldn’t precisely articulate immediately. So I sat down, had a ponder, read up on it, and watched it again. Then I could figure out the film in a much deeper way.

There’s only a few films that have hit me that way (Godard’s Goodbye To Language being another) but it’s a hugely rewarding sensation. I don’t think the Souls games hit that same level (I’m also in general not a big fan of dense ‘lore’), but they do capture some of that essence of images and ideas that hit even when the details are ambiguous. Actually think Sekiro is possibly a bit less interesting for me in that respect because the story is a bit more straightforwardly told.

Tbh though I’m not sure any game yet quite reaches as deep as the best ‘mysterious’ or ‘difficult’ films do. Kentucky Route Zero, the end of Outer Wilds, INSIDE or indeed some From games are some that do to some degree.

noodler

Jesus, just because Dark Souls and it's brothers don't spoon-feed you the story doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the style.

I'm with Retr0, let every other game have 15 minute cut scenes or massive chunks of exposition.

Greyfox

Arcadeheroes wrote: »

Playing 3-5 hours of a 70-100 rpg is not putting a decent attempt into a game though . 3 hours of bloodborne barely gets you to cleric beast which is only the tutorial boss, so ya for sure you can say nah Im not putting 70-100 hours of my life into this but you cannot say you gave it a proper go and whatever opinion you have is automatically invalid since you missed like 98% of the content in the game...

It be like me stopping a movie 30mins in and going ya its crap . it makes no sense.

Oh but it is, i think its silly to claim otherwise as time is important to most people. Nobody has time to spend 20 or 30 hours on EVERY good RPG that's out there before enjoying it, if anybody makes a game that takes 20 hours to start enjoying it they need to learn how to make better games. With films after 30 mins you should only continue if there is some things about the film that you like.

nix

Greyfox wrote: »

Oh but it is, i think its silly to claim otherwise as time is important to most people. Nobody has time to spend 20 or 30 hours on EVERY good RPG that's out there before enjoying it, if anybody makes a game that takes 20 hours to start enjoying it they need to learn how to make better games. With films after 30 mins you should only continue if there is some things about the film that you like.

Not every game does that though, but if you're jumping into a new game type you havent played before, its gonna be bumpy at first until you learn how to play that type of game and that process will consume time, but you can then carry that knowledge/experience into other games like it..

Like Dark souls, you will get wrecked at first until you learn what to do and what not to do, that experience then carries over into its sequels, Bloodborne, Sekiro, Nioh, Ashen, the surge etc

Its silly to think because you cant be bothered to learn how to play a game, that thats bad game design :rolleyes:

And nobody is saying you should spend 20 hours to learn how to play a game, they're saying you should play that much to properly experience what the game is offering before deciding whether its for you or not..

Arcadeheroes

Greyfox wrote: »

Oh but it is, i think its silly to claim otherwise as time is important to most people. Nobody has time to spend 20 or 30 hours on EVERY good RPG that's out there before enjoying it, if anybody makes a game that takes 20 hours to start enjoying it they need to learn how to make better games. With films after 30 mins you should only continue if there is some things about the film that you like.

Sorry the whole time is important thing is an excuse . Many people have jobs , school , looking after their families and have beaten the souls games multiple times and had no problem despite being busy.

with each installment we all started on ground 0 at a level playing field and had to overcome the same hurdles. when demon souls came out I was in music school and still beaten it in the middle of my music test.

Im not asking for people to play 20-30 hours but 3 hours is nothing , You missed out on the majority of the game so you automatically have no opinion on how good or bad or overrated a game is period.

I find it funny though when people say is I dont have the time , but they have plenty of time playing Call of Duty Warzone or Fornite for thousands of hours , God of war which took me 50 hours to finish but I finished Sekiro is less time (43 hours )

There isnt exactly alot of games out these days that are 5-10 hours in length . the majority of AAA games range from anywhere from 30-100+ hours so if you have the time for them I think you can manage alittle more than 3 hours before throwing in the towel playing any of the from software games.

Robert ninja

Arcadeheroes I think you're spot on especially about the no time for it etc but it's still completely fine to drop a game if you find it not fun after X hours.

gimli2112

Arcadeheroes wrote: »

I find it funny though when people say is I dont have the time , but they have plenty of time playing Call of Duty Warzone or Fornite for thousands of hours , God of war which took me 50 hours to finish but I finished Sekiro is less time (43 hours )

personally the reason I won't invest time into something that's not grabbing me is because I want to play COD or something else I actually want to play.
There's certain genres I just won't enjoy and specific games I don't like but that doesn't mean they're bad games, just not for me.
Being crap at COD never stopped me.

Greyfox

Arcadeheroes wrote: »

Sorry the whole time is important thing is an excuse . Many people have jobs , school , looking after their families and have beaten the souls games multiple times and had no problem despite being busy.

If your 3 hours into a game and its only ok you should give it more time but if after 3 hours its just constant frustration your better off putting on a fun game instead. I understand that most people love the game after they got use to it but it doesnt mean everyone will.

Arcadeheroes

Greyfox wrote: »

If your 3 hours into a game and its only ok you should give it more time but if after 3 hours its just constant frustration your better off putting on a fun game instead. I understand that most people love the game after they got use to it but it doesnt mean everyone will.

Thats not my argument though , my argument is people who have played so little of a game but then say the game is overrated crap . To be little something because someone does not understand it or like it is really just sheer ignorance .

Ive already said multiple times there is absoutely nothing wrong not liking bloodborne , or any of the souls games . its perfectly fine. but to tarnish the game and spread misinformation is what I will never agree with .

Its like when someone says I dont like Nintendo games because they look like games for kids . its ignorance .

a point I brought up in a previous post is I dont like the beatles but they are probably the most important band in the world to rock and pop , but Im not gonna come out and say ya their entire catalouge of music is crap .

again I have to stress this , the issue is not if someone played 3-5 hours and gave up . its when people play 3-5 and experienced 1% of the entire game , drops it , goes to forums and writes negative things they never gave a proper chance to experience for themselves and have a reader glance over who may be interested in trying it out and get scared off from it entirely .

Is any of the souls games flawless ? no absoutely not . but they are far from bad games

I don't think there is anything wrong dropping a game after 3 hours. It's enough time to get a feel for the mechanics. I think I put less time into Doom Eternal before dropping it.

Retr0gamer

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Unarguably great games is what I meant.

Saying it's the pinnacle is up for argument. You can't state that. Too many great games out there and there's plenty of great character action games and action RPGs up there with Dark Souls.

And Dark Souls definitely isn't perfect. Every game has flaws. DS1 has Lost Izalith and Capra Demon. Bloodborne has a few duff bosses. And DS2 has DS2.

As for the story requiring multiple playthroughs? Kind of through. It takes a lot of work to get the full story but I never had to look into it. I was perfectly happy with what I got out of the story of every souls game in one playthrough. I didn't really need to know more and if I did sure I could explore it more or look to Vaati or other youtubers. I actually think fully having everything explained to you ala the god awful codex entries in Bioware games is detrimental to game narrative. You don't need to know. In the souls games you don't need to know the full story. In fact not knowing the full story is part of the experience. Imagine if pulp fiction told you what was in the briefcase? It could negate the mystery of the briefcase, change the mood of the story and ultimately that's not what the film is about. It's not important. It's about each character's journey. Similarly Dark Souls the most imporant thing in the story is the players journey.

It's like a Murakami book. You don't need to know what happens or need to understand the full story. It's about the emotions you take out of it.

I couldn't help but laugh that you choose to reference Murakami of all authors. An ex gf of mien was mad about him but I couldn't for the life of me get into him. Each to their own

Penn

noodler wrote: »

Jesus, just because Dark Souls and it's brothers don't spoon-feed you the story doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the style.

I'm with Retr0, let every other game have 15 minute cut scenes or massive chunks of exposition.

I think presentation is key. If a game has long cutscenes, they need to be very well acted, written and presented to keep you engaged. If a game barely has any cutscenes and expects you to seek through NPC dialogue and scattered notes or item descriptions etc, they need to be engaging enough to make you want to piece together the story yourself.

Both are valid ways of telling a story, one is just more passive than the other, and relies on the story being presented to you, whereas the other requires active engagement and interest to want to find the story.

Potential-Monke

Re: the time aspect, I don't use the excuse of not having enough time, I use the excuse of I could spend my time better doing something else. They're obviously good games, oeople do like them, for all the reasons mentioned above. But I disagree that 3-5 hours on those games is not enough. As ye said, there's feck all story, so all you're really doing is fight, die, repeat, which you're supposed to do for 20+ hours before you can say you gave it a good go. Which is nonsense imo. As mentioned above, if the gameplay mechanics don't grab you within 3-5 hours, it's not a game for you. And it's unfair, for want of a better word, to label people who do that as people who didn't give it enough time.

There's still elitism, which is still the crux of the problem. Very few people who have enjoyed the games have said 'Ok, you didn't like it, so be it'. Nearly everyone defends it, makes sure you know you're missing out on great combat, an excellent but vague story, etc, blah. It's the defence of it is fanboyish. Some mentioned cinema as another example, like stopping a film after 30 minutes and complaining it was crap. Should I continue to watch after the first 30 minutes of Birds of Prey? I was pretty sure at that stage it was crap, regardless of what was coming afterwards. Save for Margot Robbie doing a full frontal masturbation show, I won't ever watch the rest of it.

I too don't like the Beatles, not my thing, never was. But as you said, I agree they did something for the music industry. I had to google what the Souls series did for gaming, when throwing it into the same league as Mario, Minecraft, etc. I don't think it did as much as those other legendary games. It had 'difficult but fair combat' (bullet hell players might have already got that), a new way to save that respawns enemies, a story that needs to be found if you're interested, and many different locations in the same smallish maps. But that's me reading it as not a fan. If it did more, I'm open to correction. Just don't think it belongs up there with the actual game changers. Probably hit a nerve there...

gimli2112

I agree with a lot of what you said but I do think it was a game changer. A whole genre of games are now described as Soulsborne. I'm not a huge fan of the series BB aside. When Remnant from the Ashes was described as a Soulsborne game my interest was piqued. When someone said it was Bloodborne with guns all I heard was white noise and the next thing I knew I was playing it.
It's probably my favourite game of last year, flaws and all.
I bought it solely due to the connection with From Software type games.

sweetie

I bought Code Vein recently due to its connection to Souls games, played an hour and traded it. That said Dark Souls never clicked with me until after Bloodborne and then I devoured the whole From catalogue. Remnant I was excited for and bought but couldn't pass the first boss and gave up. Any tips Gimli?

Arcadeheroes

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Re: the time aspect, I don't use the excuse of not having enough time, I use the excuse of I could spend my time better doing something else. They're obviously good games, oeople do like them, for all the reasons mentioned above. But I disagree that 3-5 hours on those games is not enough. As ye said, there's feck all story, so all you're really doing is fight, die, repeat, which you're supposed to do for 20+ hours before you can say you gave it a good go. Which is nonsense imo. As mentioned above, if the gameplay mechanics don't grab you within 3-5 hours, it's not a game for you. And it's unfair, for want of a better word, to label people who do that as people who didn't give it enough time.

There's still elitism, which is still the crux of the problem. Very few people who have enjoyed the games have said 'Ok, you didn't like it, so be it'. Nearly everyone defends it, makes sure you know you're missing out on great combat, an excellent but vague story, etc, blah. It's the defence of it is fanboyish. Some mentioned cinema as another example, like stopping a film after 30 minutes and complaining it was crap. Should I continue to watch after the first 30 minutes of Birds of Prey? I was pretty sure at that stage it was crap, regardless of what was coming afterwards. Save for Margot Robbie doing a full frontal masturbation show, I won't ever watch the rest of it.

I too don't like the Beatles, not my thing, never was. But as you said, I agree they did something for the music industry. I had to google what the Souls series did for gaming, when throwing it into the same league as Mario, Minecraft, etc. I don't think it did as much as those other legendary games. It had 'difficult but fair combat' (bullet hell players might have already got that), a new way to save that respawns enemies, a story that needs to be found if you're interested, and many different locations in the same smallish maps. But that's me reading it as not a fan. If it did more, I'm open to correction. Just don't think it belongs up there with the actual game changers. Probably hit a nerve there...

I did a quick google search from when demon souls and dark souls first came out back in 2009-2011 and found multiple articles with the headline those games are the most influential games of the last decade/century .

The series has also been cited by Yoshida as an influence on several of the PlayStation 4's PlayStation Network features, it was the reason there was a share button implemented on the controller and have video sharing features .
The bloodstain mechanic, leave messages on the floor in game worlds have been used by other games like Nioh and Nier Automata .

Demons souls was revolutionary to how to still be connected with other people online seamlessly without feeling like you were playing an online game.

Then there was the spawn of the genre Soulslike games which took heavy inspiration from DS mechanics and level design .

Witcher 3 , God of war , star wars jedi fallen order , hollow knight , Nioh , The surge .. and the list goes on and on all were heavily influenced by the souls games .

These are more than enough reasons to put Souls alongside Mario, Zelda , Minecraft , Tetris .

petes

sweetie wrote: »

I bought Code Vein recently due to its connection to Souls games, played an hour and traded it. That said Dark Souls never clicked with me until after Bloodborne and then I devoured the whole From catalogue. Remnant I was excited for and bought but couldn't pass the first boss and gave up. Any tips Gimli?

Exactly how I played them but I fecked BB off first as it was too hard before going back to it and then playing the rest.

Played the demo of Code Vein during the week, thought it was okay, thought there was far too much to remember for each blood types etc.

Was thinking of getting Remnants, might give it a go today.

Exclamation Marc

I'm sorry but saying its in the same league as Mario, Tetris, Zelda etc is just wrong. Those games are next level as regards their influence, legacy and even how they transcended and transformed gaming. Certain iterations of those series broke new ground for gaming, penetrated the mainstream and became cultural phenomenons.

Dark Souls may be an incredible game to some people and its commendable fine tuning of certain gaming tropes and difficulty demands were top drawer (and obviously inspired a genre) but adoring it doesn't equate it to those games. Plenty of games were influential and left their mark on the gaming industry or refocused the narrative but that's not enough on its own.

It's not my cup of tea as I've outlined (i find it repetitive and the difficulty curve is attainable but needlessly restrictive - only my opinion) but I respect it and what it brings and what if has done and it deserves to be recognised as an incredible game but saying its up there with Tetris, Mario or even games like GTA and the like is just not true. Its legacy is primarily as a hard as nails, unforgiving challenge with fantastic lore underpinning it, but that's nowhere near what a Zelda or Half Life or Minecraft did for gaming - and that's not necessarily a reflection on the game, it's just an insanely high bar.

gimli2112

sweetie wrote: »

I bought Code Vein recently due to its connection to Souls games, played an hour and traded it. That said Dark Souls never clicked with me until after Bloodborne and then I devoured the whole From catalogue. Remnant I was excited for and bought but couldn't pass the first boss and gave up. Any tips Gimli?

The bosses are random. In the first area you get a bull like eejit with a sword and a monk that can damage you from afar (these are mid-level not end level bosses). The sword eejit is a real pain. What makes both tough are the adds, it's really about managing the respawning adds, nearly every boss fight is. Some of the later bosses are cruel. I wouldn't say necessarily more difficult than BB bosses but very frustrating, Sometimes a particular load out will make it a lot easier but that's well into the game after you've collected stuff.

As you level up and upgrade your gear and weapons it becomes a lot easier. There's a thing you collect which gives you extra life which is huge but it takes ages through the game to get them all. The problem with the first level is you are so underpowered it makes it very tough. I can beat it at a canter now.

there's a magnum pistol in the first level somewhere, get it this will be your best friend

Some of the bosses have cool mechanics, I got stuck on one on a bridge for hours. It's actually easier solo or in duos as it levels up with the number in your party.

If you beat Souls and BB you'd manage this but it's all about making the breakthrough.

TitianGerm

petes wrote: »

Exactly how I played them but I fecked BB off first as it was too hard before going back to it and then playing the rest.

Played the demo of Code Vein during the week, thought it was okay, thought there was far too much to remember for each blood types etc.

Was thinking of getting Remnants, might give it a go today.

Remnant is on GamePass if you have it.

Retr0gamer

Going to chime in to say that demons souls and the from software games are the most influential games of the last 15 years.

Their biggest innovation was asynchronous multiplayer and how it used online connectivity. Before demons souls multiplayer was basically join a server for a competitive match or else join a friend for coop which had to be set up before a game.

Demons souls made that seamless. It's not only a part of the game but also a part of the lore. Not only were the coop and competitive elements active while you played but other systems enabled by online systems were bubbling away in the background from hint systems and bloodstains and world tendencies.

You might not think it was influential because people now take these systems for granted but it was demons souls that started that.

I also feel that demons souls also really changed the industry in a positive way.

Before demons souls triple A gaming was a complete cesspit. Budgets were so big that massive sales numbers were needed to support them. Publishers were afraid to scare away customers so made sure to baby players with over long tutorials and making games that never punished the player. All games were boiled down into a tiny pool of genres that publishers thought would sell.

And then Demons souls came along. It wasn't a game about handholding the player through a rollercoaster that didn't let the player off the tracks. It was a game about exploration, about mechanics and letting the player figure it out. It let the player figure it out for themselves. It didn't treat them like babies. It was a game for people that lived videogames and completely at odds with the barely interactive cutscenes most games had become.

Even the publisher Sony had no expectations for it, sending it out to die. But it started selling insane numbers. Still Sony didn't believe in it and gave publishing duties in the west to third parties. It ended up breaking the million mark in the US and Europe and became atlus's biggest sales success ever. And then the sequels kept selling more.

It made publishers realise there was a market for challenging games. Games based around mechanics and exploration and didn't hold the players hand. Publishers started taking risks on these games. After ninja Gaiden was ruined by trying to make it appeal to the triple A market with ninja gaiden 3 team ninja made nioh. Activision published Sekiro. Triple A games are now more mechanically rich and have been respecting the player far more. I actually think breath of the wild would never exist if not for dark souls.

So from software games for me are arguably the most important games in the last 15 years. I'd rank them alongside stuff like Minecraft or even cave story/braid that sparked the indie game revolution.

So you may think dark souls isn't innovative but you probably played a game last night heavily influenced by it. Game designers by their nature love souls games because they are so mechanically rich and well designed.

Arcadeheroes

Arcadeheroes wrote: »

I did a quick google search from when demon souls and dark souls first came out back in 2009-2011 and found multiple articles with the headline those games are the most influential games of the last decade/century .

The series has also been cited by Yoshida as an influence on several of the PlayStation 4's PlayStation Network features, it was the reason there was a share button implemented on the controller and have video sharing features .
The bloodstain mechanic, leave messages on the floor in game worlds have been used by other games like Nioh and Nier Automata .

Demons souls was revolutionary to how to still be connected with other people online seamlessly without feeling like you were playing an online game.

Then there was the spawn of the genre Soulslike games which took heavy inspiration from DS mechanics and level design .

Witcher 3 , God of war , star wars jedi fallen order , hollow knight , Nioh , The surge .. and the list goes on and on all were heavily influenced by the souls games .

These are more than enough reasons to put Souls alongside Mario, Zelda , Minecraft , Tetris .

How is the Witcher 3 influenced by dark souls? The only thing Hollow Knight inherited was the ****e story. And that already existed in Metroid.

Arcadeheroes

Deleted User wrote: »

How is the Witcher 3 influenced by dark souls? The only thing Hollow Knight inherited was the ****e story. And that already existed in Metroid.

CDProjektRed Damien Monnier said in an interview awhile back that Dark souls was the biggest influence on him and the studio for how the combat was designed in Witcher 3 .