I played Demon's Souls (original) and the Dark Souls games as they released. While I played them for many, many hours -- most very close to full completion -- the only game of the series I fully completed was Dark Souls II. As the marketing of Elden Ring has begun in earnest, I decided to revisit Dark Souls and...

... I'm simply not enjoying it.

I'm still fascinated by the lore, world design, and "secrets" strewn across the intricate maps, and I admire the attention to both detail and atmosphere...

... but...

... the game feels like a lifeless, mechanical exercise. Even in beating hardened enemies, there is (for me) no joy in the accomplishment. Granted, I have played most of the material in each of these games so familiarity is certainly an issue, but I'm simply finding no joy in the experience.

What makes this all so vexing is that I enjoy difficult games... and... my favorite game of all time is Dragon's Dogma Dark Arisen, which has more than a few similarities in DNA to the Souls series. But I'm wondering if...

... I enjoy adventuring and dungeon crawling with others, even if those others are AI?

Well, truth is I know that aspect draws me in... but... I never knew it was a necessity -- in some instances -- for my enjoyment.

Dragon's Dogma gives me an approximation of that team aspect and that has meant that I continually wander the world even having beaten the game multiple times (yes, I even enjoy the pawn banter!). Dark Souls does not have this aspect. Instead, in Dark Souls one is always painfully and tragically alone...

... and that feeling has meant that I can "hang up" the controller without the need to keep going.

But there are many games where one plays alone!

Yes, but few -- short of horror games -- with Dark Souls' adherence to a lonely and oppressive tone.

The first time I played these games I remember a sense of achievement -- almost akin to a rite of passage -- but now I come away feeling the game's just a depressing waste of time (for me).

I'm not saying others should dislike the experience(s) or hate the game(s)... and I genuinely think the Souls games are high quality experiences... but I'm just not enjoying them anymore. I thought my appreciation would grow to more enjoyment over time, but for me, that hasn't been the case.

Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen focuses in team work and achievement through it, while Demon Souls and Dark Souls focuses in true isolation fear and survival.
The moral push to accomplish a higher goal through the encouragement of your pawns is what moves you to keep going in Dragon's Dogma.
The dread and fear, the solitude and will to survive and get out of a harsh situation, even if you're alone, moves you to keep going in Demon Souls/Dark Souls.

Imo, they're different games, even if Dragon's Dogma was inspired in Dark Souls. The closest we get to Souls atmosphere is Post-Grigori world and BitterBlack-Isle, which are awesome, but, unfortunately, incomplete. I enjoy them both (Dogma and Souls), but I gotta admit that after Dark Souls 1, things went down in Soul series, mechanically*. Demon Souls, Dark Souls and Sekiro being the best for me. (I know way too little about Bloodbourne to talk anything.)

*= 'things went down in soul series, mechanically' - They started making all bosses with attack delays to trick users into sooner dodges. Weird enemy movements and animations, to to trick users into dodges beforehand. A strategy that train players to, always, focus in close quarters dodge all combat.

I still enjoy both games, but the 'Lord of the Rings' feel in Dragon's Dogma is unbeatable for me. It's just a shame that the game didn't get to it's final development stage.

Well, yes. That was my impression too when I tried Dark Souls at a friend's place. Or, to word it a bit more strongly, my impression of Dark Souls is: "Who would be masochistic enough to voluntarily play something like this?"

But aparently there are plenty of masochists around who enjoy repetetive gameplay and frustration.

I played Dark Souls 1 for like 20 hours and this was pretty much my feeling on it. I loved the look and world, and even the basic game design, but actually playing it felt more like a chore than a good time. Not even for the difficulty, I play lots of games on harder modes, but because of the repetition and methodical way you had to do everything, combined with respawns.

That said I like the aesthetic enough I hope to give it another try someday, or maybe jump to 3 which everyone says is the best.

Demon souls... i played that for like 8 hours and gave up on it. Certainly i could eventually 'get gud' or whatever, but what's the point?

The game is full of cheap deaths and you have to memorize all the good paths and the bad traps and get perfect timing to do anything. That's not fun.

To quote Log Horizon....

I have not played Souls games themselves, but I have played Nioh 1+2, considered the same genre...

There's a lot to be said in learning the distinction between meaningful difficulty, and arbitrary/artificial (or even capricious) difficulty. I definitely got the vibe from Souls games (including watching when my husband played Bloodborne) that they fell into the latter rather than former group.

In Nioh, I felt when the game progressed beyond the 2nd or possibly 3rd difficulty setting [as in, once you began the 3rd or 4th], it crossed that line. (I also felt the DLCs, even on the lowest difficulty setting, were on that side of things too.) It's not that it became too hard (though it did for me). It's that how it made the game harder wasn't the fair/fun type of hard, but instead stealth rocket launchers, or enemies that prevent you from engaging in certain mechanics.

Some games have both. Hollow Knight is known for being a challenging game, but most of it was meaningfully difficult. But some of the late-game bosses (circus dude, the pantheons) were the other type.

I sadly do not find myself able to define the difference between them, other than feeling it, at this point.

A few months ago I played the first Dark Souls Remastered Version for a couple of dozens of hours.

But then I got worn out because there is no map and no minimap and no quicksave/quickload.

Adding those basic features, which pretty much all modern games have because they are useful and necessary, would improve the quality of life of those games to a tremendous degree.

Without them, playing the games is a tedious chore.

Instead of feeling excited to go back and play the game more, it feels like playing them is akin to performing a job that I really don't like...hence why I haven't gone back to it in months, and don't know if or when I ever will. Is that statement intended to imply that Dark Souls isn't a horror game? Because it definitely is. It's a fantasy/horror hybrid.

Quicksave/load would remove most of the cost of failure, and before entering each room you'd quick save and do it over and over. Sometimes you'd quicksave right before getting assaulted and get stuck in a loop probably until you just accepted the loss and started effectively over.

Though most likely being a multi-player game that wouldn't bode well...

I don't know.

If you can quick save and load it would be easy to have a "perfect" run. I'm a big fan of the Souls series (recently beat Sekiro) and while the "git gud" thing has been hashed to death it's somewhat correct and can be enjoyable. Aside from just eliminating the penalty that comes with death it allows you to just skip the parts you feel you've already conquered. Improving to the point where you can zip through sections because you've mastered mechanics is distinctly different from just memorizing enemy patterns.

I think I found this even more evident and rewarding in Sekiro. I was garbage at the begininng of the game. By the end I could zip around like a ninja and take on 4 or 5 enemies (the late game red samurai guys) at once which made me feel like an actual ninja. This wasn't due to power-ups or special items. A fight with 5 enemies is going to be dynamic and play out a bit different every time but because I felt comfortable with the mechanics I could quickly block,dodge, counter,grapple hook, etc. in a way I just wasn't comfortable with in the beginning. There is no way I would have gotten that comfortable with the mechanics if I'd been able to save after every difficult fight. Being forced to beat a difficult section multiple times made me better because I have to dial in my skills. Getting lucky just one time wasn't going to be enough to forget that section permanantly.

I'm going to conclude by saying the Souls games are not for everyone. By all rights they should be a niche subgenre getting little attention. I have no idea how these games exploded into popularity when so many other genres were becoming more accessible (not saying dumbed down or casual). If you don't get the itch for "one more try and it'll be different this time" after a few hours please don't force yourself through the game. The lore is great but you'll hate virtually the entire experience. We all have more games than we can play these days so go find some undiscovered gem you grabbed on sale and have a blast actually enjoying gaming.

I don't think any game was ever made as unappealing to me on reputation alone as Dark Souls. There's plenty of infamously bad games I'd rather try than it. Some games hold up for us even decades later, on 15th playthrough, but others.... sometimes we just can't return to the experience we once had. I recently had that happen with Freedom Force. I remember absolutely loving it back in the day, but now, while I still love the way it perfectly and gently spoofs old superhero comics, the gameplay itself is kind of a chore, with attack missing all the damn time, characters sometimes forgetting what they were doing and just standing there getting shot to pieces etc.

It's why I sometimes dread returning to some games, while at the same time it's why finding a beloved classic still holds up as good as ever is such a thrill.

I thought this was interesting because Souls games have a reputation for being difficult but fair (you died because you mistimed a dodge or something). Havent played Souls but finally got Bloodborne at a good price so planning on trying it out.

I do think the difference between artificial difficulty and fair difficulty lies in how easy it is to correct the "mistake" that is made and how lenient the chance to correct that mistake is. By easy to correct, even if the attack is punishing there is a clear "tell" for when the attack comes and if you keep an eye out and can respond to it (response is not limited by bar or some other resource), you can avoid the damage and can be rewarded with a chance to deal damage. Artificial difficulty is when this isnt taken into account, where numbers are just ramped up and pitted against the player for "difficulty."

I think the Valkyrie boss fights in God of War are difficult but fair. Each on has specific moves that are deadly but all have a tell that with enough practice, can be avoided completely.

I think Gravewalker difficulty in Shadow of War is a pretty good example of unfair difficulty. The difficulty was added because players complained the game was too easy (which to be fair kind of is although also kind of the point of the story) by just ramping up the numbers which made many of the story missions incredibly difficult to beat (you essentially need to already know the game and make a specific build).

Demon Souls and Dark Souls themes are about feeling lost and uncomfortable. Like you said, they have also a tone of horror in them. Giving the player a map and quicksave/load option would kill it's premise in the way they built it, thus, it's series innovation and style of gameplay. (...back then, I mean.)

The secret of Souls formula is the danger of losing the most valuable item you can have: Souls.
The way they achieve that feeling of horror and isolation is by creating the sense of danger in the player because you use Souls to do everything (Well, almost.) level up, buy items, etc. So they achieve the fear of dying in the player removing from the player their most important resource when they fail. (That's why people think it is way too punishing. Yes, it is, can't disagree with that statement in a practical level.)

Talking about quicksave/loads, if we'd add quicksave/load to this formula, we would break it.
Players would just load if they lose their Souls in a dangerous unkown place that they don't have a map to rely on.
Same way, if you give the player a map, the fear (and joy, in some cases) of exploring the map, walking in a corner you can't remember if you were there before, entering a room, -add weird Demon Souls and Dark Souls circunstances here- would disappear, imho. Personally, I enjoy this formula. I wouldn't call it artificial difficulty because when you fail, you know why you failed. (Talking about Demon Souls, Dark Souls and Hollow Knight here, as I have never played Nioh1&2.) Agree with the Pantheons though. That thing is bizarre. lol. :P

Those games aren't hard I think. They are about pattern memorization and analytical approuch of harsh situations, including permanent decisions.

I'd also recommend every Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen fan to play it without map for a while (you can deactivate it in settings) and/or without pawns. Things get really weird and scary. A fun experiment if you're into it. But this is really subjective.

"Dark Souls' adherence to a lonely and oppressive tone."

This is the intriguing and captivating thing about the first Dark Souls game, even when compared to the other Souls-games and FromSoft Souls-likes. The first game captures a sense of abandon and dread, in an unnerving yet somehow somberly comfortable game-world. I don't think the other games captures this feeling to the same degree.

I'm extremely picky when it comes to this sub-genre of action-rpg, I only like a very few of them; the first Dark Souls, the Surge series, Salt and Sanctuary ... in fact, I generally prefer the 2D types. Others like Nioh, Bloodborne, Mortal Shell, Remnant ... I have no interest in, not even Dark Souls 2 & 3.

It's onlly the first Souls game that engages me. If I replay it, it is mainly for the atmosphere to be honest. It's the same with games like Dead Space and Alien Isolation, where the atmosphere is fantastic. I already know the gameplay and lore in these game, but it's the atmosphere I miss when I decide to go back into them.

So for me, it's not really about the difficulty per se, but more about the game-world and atmosphere. I think when you make sequels or "inspired-by" projects, the atmosphere can sometimes be difficult to replicate and could end-up feeling too artificial/clinical or "plastered on".

Personally, I don't think the Souls games are always "fair." I think they're often "fair"... and usually enemies show openings or weaknesses... but enemy attacks often go through solid walls or register beyond the visible reach of weapons.

In my experience Nioh has a much better implemented combat system.

(and again I lost interest in Nioh halfway through)

good for u
ive never got the urge to try these games out
ive only tried out Remnant from ashes , how that holds compared to the other ds games?