Compare Dark Souls up to Anor Londo with Dark Souls post-Anor Londo. No one complained? The last leg of the game SUCKED (DLC was great though). Obviously warping isn't solely to blame for this, development was rushed towards the end, and warping is kind of necessary at that point since there's so much ground to cover, but traveling around is just not interesting after the Lordvessel. That's not something that "self-control" or "just don't use it" will fix.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
New previews for Dark Souls II
- Thread starter ezekial45
- Start date
Compare Dark Souls up to Anor Londo with Dark Souls post-Anor Londo. No one complained? The last leg of the game SUCKED (DLC was great though). Obviously warping isn't solely to blame for this, development was rushed towards the end, and warping is kind of necessary at that point since there's so much ground to cover, but traveling around is just not interesting after the Lordvessel. That's not something that "self-control" or "just don't use it" will fix.
Again... I mean you could say something similar about the Master Key too, right? (I always picked Master Key, always).
It allows you to skip bosses and locations, not everything, sure, but a good portion. So, the same argument that everyone has with the bonfire warping (that I won't use either, I wish they hadn't done it, I didn't even use it really in Dark Souls 1), can be put forth. They didn't have to include or put much effort into the portions that you can skip with the master key, yet they did.
I mean, look at the sequence breaking you can do with the thing, yet no one is really forcing you to do so. It's all "optional" at that point, yet everyone still explored those places and attention to detail was put forth. In fact, some of the later required areas weren't as well done as these "optional" areas.
I disagree, it may not have been as good, but it didn't suck, and I enjoyed it all the same. I rarely teleported even when tping was available to me, of course I'm not saying I'm an authority and I'm sure most people did teleport, but that's a conscious choice. You could still cover all that ground and explore, however if you'd searched every nook and cranny, it may not be worth the time to do so anymore. It's just part of the game, I know it's a bad comparison and please don't go "OH MAH GOD, HE'S MAKING A SKYRIM VS DARK SOULS COMPARISON", but you could fast travel in Skyrim (an open world, rpg game, that's much less interconnected than Dark Souls), and nobody complained about the option, people just wa;led if they wanted to and fast traveled if they wanted to, no big deal.
I'm not arguing for this, I just genuinely don't understand the outrage over it.
I haven't played the game since the DLC came out, i bought it though. I burned myself out of Dark Souls after doing the campaign, PvP, etc. way too much for a good while after it came out, neither do I have the time commitment to start a new playthrough.
I'm sure that these area's will still be interconnected. I doubt you will be forced to warp, then again I don't really care if it makes sense. Warping to me sounds like warping into a world in Demon's Souls. Sure it wasn't a totally connected world but it was fine. It was annoying in Dark Souls when you had to backtrack and waste time.
I don't view and did not originally use the Master Key as a sequence breaker, even though it gives you that option, but simply as a tool that gives you the ability to explore more freely.
It unshackled you, gave you the option of braving certain more dangerous areas earlier on in the game for the challenge and/or the more tangible rewards. It made the game more of a true open-world experience, especially since the series already features a lack of enemy scaling. And in that stead, it's cool - great even - that Dark Souls 2 is now apparently giving that option to everyone from the start. It's what the first one should have done.
I think that is a phenomenal design decision. What I'm waiting to see is how that will fit together with the newfound early warping option.
There will probably be smaller versions of that kind of shortcut within individual "branches" of the game, since there's supposed to be less of a main story "trunk." Might be a little less intricate since Majula serves as the hub for the whole game in a different way than Firelink, but I don't see them throwing out the Metroidvania type area design for no reason.
I'm not outraged, but fans of the Metroid-style interconnected continuous world are right to be pessimistic about what appears to be a shift toward more discrete level design. And as far as walking after you have the Lordvessel: why bother? The game is clearly not designed for that, and you're just forcing yourself to walk for the sake of walking. There's nothing interesting happening, nor are there shortcuts implemented to facilitate that style of play. It's just a self-inflicted chore essentially. It's good that you bring up Skyrim: how interesting is it to traverse the world by foot, compared to the early parts of Dark Souls? THAT is why fast travel is in the game; you're not missing anything by using it.
You should really play the DLC btw, it's really really good. Successive playthroughs after you've already beaten the game and know where everything is go really quick, you could unlock the DLC in like 5 hours with Master Key.
justjustin
Member
In general: Giving the player an option-- any option-- affects the overall design of the game. How far the consequences extend is different for each game, but there are consequences nonetheless. No option exists in a vacuum. From the developer's perspective there is a chain of consequences to consider when giving the player an option in any game because every "what if" situation must be assumed true. The game must facilitate all possible choices whether or not you choose to utilize them, and the broad, underlying consequences will be felt by all players.
The same applies to bonfire warping in Dark Souls II. We will see how From Software reconciles exploration and chance discovery with the ability to warp anywhere anytime, but I won't be disappointed either way. I much preferred the world structure in Demon's Souls which allowed you to do just that-- warp anywhere anytime. It even had huge shortcuts to skip swaths of enemies. I still felt like I was going on an adventure while playing that game.
The same applies to bonfire warping in Dark Souls II. We will see how From Software reconciles exploration and chance discovery with the ability to warp anywhere anytime, but I won't be disappointed either way. I much preferred the world structure in Demon's Souls which allowed you to do just that-- warp anywhere anytime. It even had huge shortcuts to skip swaths of enemies. I still felt like I was going on an adventure while playing that game.
Deified Data
Banned
At least Skyrim had an element of randomness to it. You might find a dragon or patrol on the way from point A to point B, so there's that. Dark Souls is largely static. It's going to be the same enemies and scenarios staring you in the face over and over again
Sanctuary
Member
Miyazaki isn't absent, he's just not the primary director this time. They've already stated that he's more than just a casual observer on the project.
Err, while I can't say I fully disagree with this, it does seem somewhat contradictory to your reservations about bonfire warping in Dark 2. After my initial playthrough without the key, I always played with the key. End result? I skip many of the "shit" areas that really feel like a chore, such as the correct way to access and proceed through Blighttown. You'd might miss all of that "fun" if you took the Master Key from the beginning, because you already have a key that grants you easy shortcuts. And honestly, I wouldn't recommend it for new players at all. Easy access to one of the best shields, early armor and Havel's within the first ten minutes of the game? Yeah, it might actually be more freedom, but you should pay your dues before being handed the key to the kingdom.
Duebrithil
Member
Well, I meant in the sense that you wouldn't get back any of the souls you spent leveling up, and if that process cost souls you'd end up paying to lose your soul level. Or maybe implement a system similar to leveling up (the more you level, the more expensive it becomes), but in reverse with the substraction of points and with a higher base cost.
Do we know what enemies will have limited respawning? In Demon's/Dark there are some enemies who just don't come back to life. Maybe this affects those types of units. Who knows...
But why pointing that certain enemy dont respawn if is the same from the previous games?
They have included something different or tell us that is pointless
I disagree. I really enjoy Duke's Archives each time and New Londo was a nice gimmick the first time through. Four Kings is a great boss, especially on NG+ and beyond.
Demon Ruins and Lost Izalith can go suck a dick though.
Maybe the Namco PR guy who said that just got it wrong? Or he didn't realize it was in previous games too. We will have to wait and see.
According to rumors from GAF's insiders he's working on a new Demon's Souls. For the most part he is loosely overlooking Dark Souls 2, but not in any decision making fashion - more like suggestions. The new director has a lot of input on this game.
The major enemies did not respawn, yes - but it seems like in general enemies are limited to 15 respawns after the players makes certain progress.
The bit about nobody complaining that fast travel was in Skyrim is patently false, and quest design was clearly worse off for having fast travel available from the start. You had to jump around the entire world to finish meaningless sidequests, and it was never done in a way that you'd be heading back there naturally. You were just expected to warp around to return items and deliver crap. There were plenty of problems with Skyrim in general and it's quests specifically, but fast travel absolutely influenced it in a negative way. Most people didn't complain about it, but that's in large part due to the fact that it was watered down to appeal to "most" people. That potential is exactly what has people worried here.
I wonder if these respawning "general" enemies are harder than they would be normally? But yes, it does seem strange. I won't know if I like it until I get a chance to try it out. Not having general enemies in certain area's means you would get less souls per run and it would make the world seem empty. It would make the game harder to not be able to farm so I wonder how it's balanced.
I'm not talking about using the Master Key to sequence break or to do brainless suicide runs. I'm talking about using it to open up exploration, which is precisely how I used it in those very early Dark Souls days and how most anyone would who isn't staring at a wiki or on a subsequent playthrough.
If you go into some unknown, potentially dangerous area and come away with shiny loot? Well hey, good for you - reward for exploration. If you smack down Havel at a point when he can one-shot you with every individual hit and takes several of your own to finally take down? Then you deserve his ring.
I had no idea what I was getting into when I first unlocked Havel's tower and went down to face him. He looked super imposing relative to the other enemies of that area and promptly crushed me, but I vowed to take him down, and did. That I got a great ring for it on top of the satisfaction of beating him was extremely rewarding.
I then moved on to Darkroot, stumbled across the enormous squirming Hydra off in the foggy distance, looking just terrifying. I discovered the Titanite Demon under Andre's, fought and killed him in an awesome fight. I fought the Drakes very early, bled them out with my Bandit's Knife, came across the Undead Dragon, found the back way into Blighttown and said "nope," etc. It was hugely compelling stuff, with crazy discoveries around every corner. In its exploratory value it was almost an unmatched experience.
That's the whole idea - a willingness to explore and challenge yourself is potentially fruitful. That is the hallmark of the best open-world RPGs, and it's also precisely why people heavily criticize such mechanics as enemy scaling.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
A shitty thing about having enemies respawn a limited number of times by default is that it seems like it would make seeking certain weapons and armor a lot more difficult.
Even with 20+ humanity and the gold serpent ring it isn't uncommon at all for it to take more than 15 parish runs to get a Balder Side Sword, for instance.
Even with 20+ humanity and the gold serpent ring it isn't uncommon at all for it to take more than 15 parish runs to get a Balder Side Sword, for instance.
SeventhSon
Member
Good point. That's probably where a consumable at the bonfire can be used to reset the spawns.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
I hope there's plenty of this item to go around because I'll be using them. I'm kind of neurotic when it comes to farming for full armor/weapon sets.
Deified Data
Banned
I literally can't think of a single upside of limited respawns. If it's what I think it is it serves absolutely no one. Here's hoping From has a plan...
NoirVisage
Banned
I actually like the idea of enemy "extinction" and fast travel once you've met certain criteria, some of you really like redundancy for its own sake, if I've thoroughly explored an area, why the blue eff do I need to go through that entire area the whole time wading through pointless battles (or run past enemies) when I can just warp to a spot near the next zone I want to explore?
All signs seem to indicate that the interconnected continuous world is still present. At the worst, it might be slightly less interconnected than DaS.
From http://www.reddit.com/r/DarkSouls2/...a_journalist_who_just_played_3_hours_of_dark/ :
Q: I'm curious about the the level design. Do you unlock shortcuts to boss areas like you did in the previous games? Do the areas appear to be interconnected parts of a single world like in dark souls or are they feel more separated and remote like in Demon's Souls?
A: No, they feel like Dark Souls' connected world. For the [boss spoiler]
Last Giant, there is a door just before the lift down to him which opens up the way back to the second bonfire.
the Giant, I got a key which opened up previously locked doors in the forest fortress.
a face in a wall which needs an item called Pharros' Lockstone to activate ( I picked up the Lockstone but was unable to backtrack in time)
a big ornate door which needs the sigil of the King, referring to King Vendrick who the Emerald Herald mentions.
there's a story in Dark Souls?
Structurally, I mean. The initial part of the game has two objectives you can technically complete in either order, though the difficulty and navigation will route 99% of the players to go to the Parish before Blighttown. The next part of the game is a linear "bridge" consisting of Sen's Fortress followed by Anor Londo, then you gain the ability to warp and start on the non-linear endgame bosses and DLC.
From what we've been hearing so far, the entirety of Dark Souls II is supposed to be more like the second half of Dark Souls in that you can complete most objectives in any order you want.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
there's a story in Dark Souls?
Yes, and it's good.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWLedd0Zw3c5RCXboUsPwHsZJlXB2CzCz
Cool, I had been avoiding that thread so I didn't know. I actually personally wouldn't mind much if it was essentially discrete levels, but I do like the Metroid-style world traversal so that's encouraging.
I'd guess the general idea is to keep people moving forward. No shortage of testimonies over the years of players giving up in the early Dark Souls areas because they kept dying to such and such. By allowing those players a better opportunity to advance, it at least keeps them in the game.
It seems to be a clever give-and-take. You remove those obstacles from players who keep dying and allow them to move forward, but they also lose the ability to gain more souls and item drops from those enemies unless they use the respawning item, potentially making the next area that much rougher for them. And that difficulty could cascade exponentially as they progress.
That's a design decision I have no issues with, at least on paper.
I mean a coherent narrative. There are 100's of books in Skyrim too, but that's not the gameplay story.
This is the gameplay story. You're not spoonfed the plot in cinematics, you have to piece it together yourself like it's an archaeological dig.
that's cool and all, but I prefer gameplay story. Somewhere in the middle between all books and Fable.
edit: I'm not saying this should change. Just that..... I don't really have time to research this much just to figure out my motivation in a game.
fluffydelusions
Member
Maybe we should start a petition to get a dark souls release date for PC ffs lol
To be fair, it's not like Skyrim where you have to read 20-page books at every turn. Story details are dropped like hints. You piece the story together by contemplating the game environments, listening to scraps of dialogue and reading very short item descriptions.
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
So say they give a date. If they miss it people will shit themselves in anger accusing FROM of lying to them.
fluffydelusions
Member
I'm just somewhat confused. I thought they said PC was lead dev platform so surely that would be out same time as console release unless they are doing a rockstar and afraid of piracy/want people to double dip.
Yeah, I think I like it. No more farming souls from the forest, Painted World, or Hellkite Dragon.
There can still be delays on titles whose "definitive" version is on PC. Borderlands 2 and Batman: Arkham City comes to mind. It could also be something simple like the PC version needing to print and ship separately because they're making fewer copies of it and not all regions are even getting a retail version.
Deified Data
Banned
I'm okay with some enemies having limited respawn, but if it's applied to everything the world is going to seem pretty dead about 90% of the time. I'm still excited for DSII like nothing else, but I have to say this is the worst piece of news I've heard announced yet. I'm still holding out hope that it's some sort of translation error, honestly. I'm not one of those "they made the game casual!" types but simply removing enemies from an area after the player fails enough sounds...really suspect.
I enjoy the combat in Dark Souls - why would I want less of it?
Did farming seriously effect the difficulty of the game, though? Even if it did, I feel like this problem would be better solved by diminishing returns on souls from killing the same enemies over and over again.Yeah, I think I like it. No more farming souls from the forest, Painted World, or Hellkite Dragon.
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
That's a good point. I have to think that there's other factors at play here that they're trying to get their heads wrapped around such as distribution etc. I'm remembering the thread that accused Platinum of instituting DRM for MG: Rising when in fact it was just them making a mistake with Steam.
To clarify again, the enemies aren't removed after the player dies/respawns a certain number of times, but after the enemy has been killed ~15 times. I suppose it does make things easier in that you'll be able to get to bosses more reliably if you're repeatedly trying and failing to beat them, but at the same time you're losing the option of farming the area to level up to actually beat the boss.
Yep, Sakuraba again.
I'm on the side that's just a little worried about fast travel availability. My first play of Dark Souls had a supremely tense trek from Darkroot Garden to Blighttown loaded with souls to upgrade my pyro glove. It was one of my more memorable experiences from the game and I ended up losing all those souls. Now I could do it blindfolded, one-handed, SL1 and blackout drunk.
However, I've noticed that the game I originally played and the one available now is very different for new players. Vets notice only in passing because PvE challenge has generally become trivial. The patches released since launch just rain too much of everything on players. Losing souls is no big deal because there are so many now. Humanity drops much more frequently. Several traps have been nerfed. Some items are now guaranteed drops.
Nothing is going to deter my DS2 pre-order. I can't wait to play the game. Even playing it in its current state Dark Souls is a fantastic game. Just noticing a general feeling of something being awry that I never had before.
PS: Amazon has PS3 Black Armor Editions available again. YMMV.
However, I've noticed that the game I originally played and the one available now is very different for new players. Vets notice only in passing because PvE challenge has generally become trivial. The patches released since launch just rain too much of everything on players. Losing souls is no big deal because there are so many now. Humanity drops much more frequently. Several traps have been nerfed. Some items are now guaranteed drops.
Nothing is going to deter my DS2 pre-order. I can't wait to play the game. Even playing it in its current state Dark Souls is a fantastic game. Just noticing a general feeling of something being awry that I never had before.
PS: Amazon has PS3 Black Armor Editions available again. YMMV.
maybe by that time you would be guaranteed to have enough resources to beat the boss. Of course..... nothing is guaranteed in DS.
teh_J0kerer
Member
I really hate the argument that there's no problem if there's a feature in a game making it too easy if you can avoid it.
The whole point of game design is to create a fun set of rules to challenge the player to reach a given goal. If the player has to invent the rules themselves to keep things fun then the game is badly designed pretty much by definition. When I'm playing a game like Dark Souls my mindset is to be trying to solve the "puzzle" the game is presenting me with. If I have to start creating my own rules for the puzzle to be interesting then I lose my motivation.
Now you can say "well different people find different things fun". But that's why there's lots of games out there to choose from. The Souls' series has been one of the only remaining series to be fun for players who want a hardcore, non dumbed down adventure game. It's really the only series I even care about anymore.
Obviously I hope my worry is misplaced and From knows what they're doing, but the warping and enemy non-respawns sound pretty bad. Respeccing could be bad too unless it comes with a huge cost. My guess is once per NG+, but even that strikes me as too much.
The whole point of game design is to create a fun set of rules to challenge the player to reach a given goal. If the player has to invent the rules themselves to keep things fun then the game is badly designed pretty much by definition. When I'm playing a game like Dark Souls my mindset is to be trying to solve the "puzzle" the game is presenting me with. If I have to start creating my own rules for the puzzle to be interesting then I lose my motivation.
Now you can say "well different people find different things fun". But that's why there's lots of games out there to choose from. The Souls' series has been one of the only remaining series to be fun for players who want a hardcore, non dumbed down adventure game. It's really the only series I even care about anymore.
Obviously I hope my worry is misplaced and From knows what they're doing, but the warping and enemy non-respawns sound pretty bad. Respeccing could be bad too unless it comes with a huge cost. My guess is once per NG+, but even that strikes me as too much.
Deified Data
Banned
Trying to imagine a scenario where you've lost all the souls you've gained with no way of grinding them back and no way of buying a respawn item (because you have no souls) or getting one as loot (since there are no enemies). Perhaps a tough boss is bottlenecking you, or more realistically a Crest of Artorias-type scenario where you have to buy an item to advance further. Plausible?
Edit: I suppose you could get souls by invading/beating invaders but if you can't beat a boss you probably won't be able to beat an invader, either.
Edit: I suppose you could get souls by invading/beating invaders but if you can't beat a boss you probably won't be able to beat an invader, either.
Yeah, there are two ways of looking at the non-respawning enemies: "You've suffered enough, just go on ahead" and "You've eaten enough, get out of my buffet!" And as far as making it easier for players, the fact that you just don't get souls if you don't progress in a timely fashion seems like it punishes (repeated) failure more.
And yes, of course leveling (and farming by extension) makes the game easier. Take it to an extreme and look at the difficulty of beating the game at SL1 vs SL120. It's very quick and easy to grind out a couple hundred hp's worth of vitality if you know the good farming spots.
SeventhSon
Member
Assuming this is the case, the potential way out is to put down your summon sign and earn souls in co-op, particularly by defeating bosses.
Well, there's apparently an item that causes those enemies to return, so it seems to mostly be a concession to players who get frustrated and give up after dying dozens of times to the same set of enemies.
Whether or not they intend to minimize the ability to farm depends on how easy or not it is to get that supposed respawning item. Farming isn't the only way the same enemies are going to die 15+ times, after all; they're effectively going to die that many times if the player is also dying that many times and has to keep going through them.
It's roughly the same end result, though. There are enemies you're going to kill pretty much every time along a certain path till you reach the point where you get stuck, so it seems like it'll allow a player to brute-force their way to the next area or at least the boss through less repetition than it would otherwise need.
It seems like the respawning limit will only affect certain enemies as well, and presumably that will be the tougher ones along a path since those will be both a) the ones who give out more souls/better items and as such are superior for farming, and b) the ones players are more likely to die to.