Well, apparently Dark Souls Creator Guy Whose Name I Don't Remember is considering adding difficulty modes to the next Souls game. Not a bad idea.

Is that necessarily a bad thing though? Perhaps some people don't mind playing games that require trial and error.

My point isn't to argue that you, or anyone, should like a game that you don't enjoy, but simply that people enjoy different things. It might be a niche thing, but there are players who enjoy 8-bit Nintendo-style difficulty that isn't afraid to stomp on you at every misstep.

It's not for everyone, but it doesn't have to be.

Oh yeah, I remember that. The internet as always were up in arms because of that statement. "Easy modo in our game? Even though that wouldn't change a thing in the normal difficulty? Preposterous!"

But wasn't your example the difficulty Metro in the hardest mode? Why suddenly mentioning the game's difficulty on normal?

Dieing while blocking an attack is completely a players fault in most cases as they don't know the game mechanics or what the statistics on a shield mean. Blocking is probably the thing that makes the game as easy as it is along with being completely 100% invulnerable while parrying.

And I'm perfectly fine with that. It's just hardcore gamers have made this game sound like a pinnacle of RPG gaming ever for everyone, and I'm not the first nor the last person to fall into that trap - most people don't say what you do, most people just say "PLAY IT NO MATTER WHAT!" But that's ... Well that's just not true.
Yeah, I suppose it's my fault for not wanting to read a bloody DS wikipedia before playing it.

Difficulty, in its essence, require a delicate touch and as some have said not every game can be suited for everybody. In its own category or trial & error-type of the game I'm sure Dark Souls is highly ranked. That goes for timing and reflexes as well. I recently played through Mark of the Ninja where in some situations you need to be quick and apparently I was and it was fun even when I failed.

Indeed. I had such a great experience with that game. I've been meaning to replay it but my current backlog needs a shredding.

No, my example was Metro, period. I just said that it was tough as nails on hardest difficulty and yet I found it fair.

Yes, and then you proceeded to elaborate that it's because when you die, it's your own fault, that you don't have to go through by trial and error, just being cautious and attentive is enough. Are we on the same page so far?

Well, my point since post one is that Dark Souls does fit that bill! With a few exceptions of course (not as many as you think).

You know, I... Actually agree with that. The very reason why I gave up on Dark Souls was repetition because of boss battles, which I just hated with passion.
Do. It's a game that offers 3 distinctive combat styles that you can mix together, and every single one of them is polished to perfection. Just don't abuse kicking too much, it's not really well balanced sadly.

I said in this thread before, I love Dark Souls, but Demon's Souls is ten times better because of its linearity imo.

Go through a whole level until you reach the boss kind of like megaman.

Yeah, apart from that you need to die at each enemy before you know if you can block and how they fight. And the block, riposte thing is quite broken. It simply is the normal attack. Blocking is useless, a jump back is faster, less draining and has the same.

Oh, and the "left stick plus rbt/trigger = kicking? Well not for me. The char swing his sword like an amateur. No grace, no control (and I did take the warrior).
Yes, that game is perfection in many ways. Brilliant!
The game is like the old NES games. Long areas with no checkpoint. HIgh damage attacks by the enemy, low damage attacks by you, environmental hazards everywhere, combat, forced on you in this environmental hazards because enemies hardly move and spawn sometime out of nowhere, Boss fight are "pattern learning" at its worst, unresponsive controls, bad hit connection (Shield bash? Nope, proper riposte? Nope). And so on...


I'm just not sure if the game is badly designed or just pretentious ...
A shame really, as the rest is promising

All i can say is that the controls work perfectly, they are tricky to learn and master. but everything works as intended on PC.

... and now it crashed.

Great.

I gave it another try with the supposed "slick" character of the wanderer. That was better, at least he moved a bit and dodging was actually an option.

The bad design can be exemplified on the very first boss (which I had the "honour" in fighting again). While his pattern is easy and you should dodge his attacks, the dodge doesn't get you out of the area of attack completely. Therefore, you always lose some health.

Also, a game that is so "hardcore" that you can't pause, but when you drink your potion you are suddenly invulnerable. Uh-hu ....

Also, the combat is "fiddly" at best. Rolling and dodging is the only real option as parry and riposte doesn't work proper and blocking is dependent on knowing the enemy. No swordplay, no back and forth. What is most irritating for me is that the weapons have no "weight". They just slice through the enemy and the dices roll. That was OK in Morrowind, but that was ten years ago.

You say like this game is unplayable which is not...