Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Did Souls "no reload" spoiled other games for you?

Sigourn

uooh afficionado
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
5,623
I always felt from the way people described DS that Gothic 2 with Night of the Raven expansion was similar to it and was something like our (PC) version of that type of thing except you could save whenever you wanted, like a real man. Is there any truth to this?

It has similarities. Both games prioritize equipment progression over level progression. Both games also emphasize the fact that, with enough skill, you can make do without stats or equipment, but only the really, really good players can pull this off. And the combat is absolutely brutal in both games, but Dark Souls is simply much more fun IMO.

Gothic II doesn't let you grind, and Dark Souls most definitely does. Then there's also the saving system of Dark Souls. The big difference compared to Vagrant Story is that, in Vagrant Story, you knew the next save point wasn't particularly far away from you. And the enemies weren't as brutal. In Dark Souls, you can die easily and the bonfires are spread fairly apart from each other. This makes it a much, MUCH more tough and exciting experience.

I suppose you could say Gothic II NotR is "like Dark Souls, but in PC", but only if you ignore most of the things that make Dark Souls great. Gothic II is great for a lot of other things, like how level progression works and how you are gated by enemies you can't outlevel. Imagine if Dark Souls didn't let you grind. It would be a bore: once you kill enemies, they never respawn, and the way is clear until you kill a new boss, and repeat. It takes the fun out of the game because you won't die anywhere near as often (anyone can kill a single enemy, but killing 20 isn't that easy), just like how Gothic would be boring if you could grind lower level enemies.
 

Sigourn

uooh afficionado
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
5,623
that the Souls series is unique, and nothing (or nothing that I know of, I could always be wrong) like it has ever existed before Dark Souls
What about Demon's Souls? :happytrollboy:

I'm pretty sure I stated before that Demon's Souls is the only game (before Dark Souls) that plays like Dark Souls, I simply didn't feel like repeating the obvious all the time.
 

YES!

Hi, I'm Roqua
Dumbfuck
Joined
Feb 26, 2017
Messages
2,088
Well, Dark Souls was the first game to try this amazing trick. The courage it must have took to try something that has never been done before is just amazing.
 

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,226
The big difference compared to Vagrant Story is that, in Vagrant Story, you knew the next save point wasn't particularly far away from you. And the enemies weren't as brutal. In Dark Souls, you can die easily and the bonfires are spread fairly apart from each other. This makes it a much, MUCH more tough and exciting experience.

this thread :argh:

alright you faggots, if you want checkpoint systems with absolute brutality between each save placement, start with these:

1_castlevania_circle_of_the_moon.jpg

header.jpg

Ninja_Gaiden_%282004_video_game%29.png

Mega_Man_X_Coverart.png

Doom-U-SLUS-00077-front-300x300.jpg

But honestly you could pick some old school console game at random and it'd be likely what you'd find to some degree, this goodness used to be standard. Even shit like Crash Bandicoot or Disney's Emperor's New Groove could often get brutal and tense (Disney games were notoriously difficult back in the day).
 
Last edited:

Mastermind

Cognito Elite Material
Patron
Bethestard
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
21,144
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
It doesn't play anything like Dark Souls. I would know: it's probably one of my favorite games. It doesn't have real-time, very punishing combat. It doesn't rely on player reflexes. It isn't third-person with the camera behind it. It certainly doesn't have fucking "restrictive" saving, unless by "restrictive" we begin to understand it as "you can't save everywhere at any time". And that's just some of the surface elements.

Try again. Give me a game where I can say "this feels like Dark Souls", without it being Demon's Souls, Dark Souls II & III, or Bloodborne. To illustrate what I mean: New Vegas shares a lot of elements with Fallout. But Arcanum feels like Fallout.

p sure there are a bunch of souls clones out by now. just off the top of my head: Lords of the Fallen, The Surge (DS with robots), Salt and Sanctuary (DS sidescroller clone).
 

No Great Name

Arcane
Joined
Jan 24, 2014
Messages
572
Location
US
that the Souls series is unique, and nothing (or nothing that I know of, I could always be wrong) like it has ever existed before Dark Souls
What about Demon's Souls? :happytrollboy:

I'm pretty sure I stated before that Demon's Souls is the only game (before Dark Souls) that plays like Dark Souls, I simply didn't feel like repeating the obvious all the time.
I heard that Demon's Souls is a spiritual successor to the King's Field games in the same way Dark Souls is a spiritual successor to Demon's Souls. I've never played any of the King's Field games so I don't know if that's true or not.
 

Lyric Suite

Converting to Islam
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
56,157
It's not. Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are basically the exact same fucking game. King's Field was something else entirely, doesn't matter how many things they may have borrowed from it.
 

Sigourn

uooh afficionado
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
5,623
p sure there are a bunch of souls clones out by now. just off the top of my head: Lords of the Fallen, The Surge (DS with robots), Salt and Sanctuary (DS sidescroller clone).

Aside from Salt and Sanctuary (which is a sidescroller), aren't the rest pretty much mediocre or outright crap because all they looked to imitate was the combat with complete disregard for everything else? I haven't played them so I wouldn't know, but the overall feel I got from the Codex is "game to play until the next DS comes out".
 

Sigourn

uooh afficionado
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
5,623
I heard that Demon's Souls is a spiritual successor to the King's Field games in the same way Dark Souls is a spiritual successor to Demon's Souls. I've never played any of the King's Field games so I don't know if that's true or not.

King's Field is a very entertaining game levels 1-2, but levels 3-4 the quality takes a major plummet. A shame. But those first two levels were REALLY, REALLY good. I've never been so addicted to a game in years, reminds me of my PS1 days.
 

Mastermind

Cognito Elite Material
Patron
Bethestard
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
21,144
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
p sure there are a bunch of souls clones out by now. just off the top of my head: Lords of the Fallen, The Surge (DS with robots), Salt and Sanctuary (DS sidescroller clone).

Aside from Salt and Sanctuary (which is a sidescroller), aren't the rest pretty much mediocre or outright crap because all they looked to imitate was the combat with complete disregard for everything else? I haven't played them so I wouldn't know, but the overall feel I got from the Codex is "game to play until the next DS comes out".

Maybe, but I mainly care about the combat anyway. I thought Lords of the Fallen had a decent enough atmosphere and the combat was very, very good. Haven't played Surge yet.
 
Self-Ejected

aweigh

Self-Ejected
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
17,978
Location
Florida
can we all just take a moment to agree that if a game relies on player twitch-reflexes then it isn't an RPG
 

Mastermind

Cognito Elite Material
Patron
Bethestard
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
21,144
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
can we all just take a moment to agree that if a game relies on player twitch-reflexes then it isn't an RPG

no, we've already debated what is an RPG already and those of us in the cognitive elite decided that a game that relies on player skill is, in fact, a game, and it cannot be a game if it does not rely on player skill. Thus any game may rely on player skills (like twitch-reflexes) and still be role playing GAMES.
 
Self-Ejected

aweigh

Self-Ejected
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
17,978
Location
Florida
i didn't say skill for a reason man, i said reflexes.. never forget that the foundation of an rpg comes from abstraction
 

Sigourn

uooh afficionado
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
5,623
can we all just take a moment to agree that if a game relies on player twitch-reflexes then it isn't an RPG

IDK man. Anyone with basic reflexes could beat Dark Souls, since grinding is very much a thing and eventually you would curbstop everything.
 
Self-Ejected

aweigh

Self-Ejected
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
17,978
Location
Florida
bingo Lyric Suite

that its not. I like doing this exercise because:

1) Souls fans get pissed because they think I'm invalidating their tastes

2) it helps bring up the topic of what is and is not an RPG with clear-cut examples (of what isn't)

3) eventually helps some realize that a game does not have to be an RPG to be good

4) also eventually segues into whether or not the Codexian meme of "'c&c' actually constitutes much of the RPG dna; some here believe it's te only thing that makes up an RPG which is dumb

5) eventually degenerates into an upvote/downvote miasma that's sure to kill the thread

I remember I did a poll in GRPG with yes/no about whether or not Witcher games are RPGs and it was split right down the middle, and Witcher games look proper in comparison to Souls games so...

And for the record, no Witcher games aren't RPGs either
 

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,226
So Arx Fatalis or Morrowind aren't RPGs either? You have stats, like Dark Souls, but positioning, aiming, timing etc also counts, also like Dark Souls. Arx Fatalis and Morrowind very much are RPGs. If anything Dark Souls isn't an RPG because it's mainly combat combat combat....but then again so were many early RPGs.

Dark Souls has:

-character customisation and fancy dress.
-involved enough stat and progression systems, although twitch skill can overcome any challenge regardless of stats.
-Even has the occassional dialogue option and character interaction, story-based C&C.

It's missing some RPG staples, but I think it's enough to define it as an ARPG. Stuff like Diablo, Dark Messiah and System Shock 2 get away with it, even system shock 1 somehow which makes no sense (I wouldn't consider Shock 1 an RPG). Souls is more an RPG than those games.

Meh. "wut is an RPG" is a little boring and futile.
 
Last edited:

Mastermind

Cognito Elite Material
Patron
Bethestard
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
21,144
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
3) eventually helps some realize that a game does not have to be an RPG to be good


For the most part a game has to not be an RPG to be good.

I remember I did a poll in GRPG with yes/no about whether or not Witcher games are RPGs and it was split right down the middle, and Witcher games look proper in comparison to Souls games so...

And for the record, no Witcher games aren't RPGs either

Witcher makes you play a pre-made character, they just make it an "RPG" by gimping that character and only letting you effectively use some of the abilities that the actual geralt is supposed to have.
 

Mastermind

Cognito Elite Material
Patron
Bethestard
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
21,144
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
sure, i agree it's an ARPG.

i don't consider ARPGs to be RPGs though, as I know many others don't either.

do you realise how silly that sounds

all RPGs are hybrids. it's like calling fallout a turn based strategy RPG and then saying it's not an RPG either.
 

Decado

Old time handsome face wrecker
Patron
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
2,544
Location
San Diego
Codex 2014
A few thoughts in no particular order:

1) Why the fuck are people putting Nier in the same category as Dark Souls? Did we play the same game?
2) Dark Souls 1, Dark Souls 3, and Bloodborne are no doubt absolutely terrific games and should (will!) go down in history as some of the best examples of their respective gameplay types. Bloodborne is probably the best console-exclusive game ever made, period.
3) Souls fanboys can get annoying, this is true. But even worse are the edgelord, "Souls isn't hard!!" type grognard douchebags who insist on shitting on everything. They are the equivalent of those annoying retarded asshats on social media who, during the Superbowl, insist on telling everyone that they "don't watch sports . . ." Good for you, shut the fuck up.
4) I've never understood this idea that one game can spoil you on another. I like Dark Souls. A lot. I also like Elite: Dangerous, Pillars of Eternity, Yakuza 0, and Metal Gear Solid 3 on my little ass PS Vita. I also like the original Bard's Tale and Betrayal at Krondor and Phantasie, and occasionally booth up my old DOS machines to play them.
5) Comparing old school RPGs like Wizardry to Dark Souls is just fucking dumb. They are both "hard," in the same way that a hamburger and a grilled cheese are both a "sandwich." You're comparing two, almost totally different experiences -- the only thing they have in common are two pieces of fucking bread, and not even the same kind. If you don't believe me, make a grilled cheese sandwich on a hamburger bun and try to not kill yourself in despair. See you on the other side, loser.
6) As others have pointed out, a slew of DS clones including Surge (total fucking shit), Lords of the Fallen (unbelievable total fucking shit), Salt and Sanctuary (pretty looking but boring), and Nioh (okay, but does not have DS's staying power and is too fucking twitchy), have at least indicated to developers that people are okay with "harder" games. The inclusion of the soul-recovery mechanic into sides scrolling platformers (Shovel Knight) and Metroidvanias (Hollow Knight) are good signs.
7) Elex fucking sucks.
 

Sigourn

uooh afficionado
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
5,623
sure, i agree it's an ARPG.

i don't consider ARPGs to be RPGs though, as I know many others don't either.

How can an "action RPG" not be an "RPG" though? It's an RPG of a different kind, nothing less, nothing more. Sure, it may not be a "true" RPG (Fallout, Baldur's Gate), but not that I care. Neither is Wizardry for that matter.

:troll:
 

CryptRat

Arcane
Developer
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
3,548
RPGs for everyone including people who hate RPGs =/= video games for people who hate video games.
Dark Souls certainly does not belong to the second category, and I personally loved the game, but whether it belongs to the first category is arguable in my opinion, I don't think that Souls fanboys are notably people craving for classic RPGs (turn-based D&D, blobbers, etc...) and I think that they're just people who like good 3d action games.
 
Last edited:

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom