Pretty much how I expected people to react in this thread.
yup
but I don't have a paruru gif that's appropriate damnit
-
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.
Matthewmatosis: The Lost Soul Arts of Demon's Souls
- Thread starter lightskintwin
- Start date
yup
but I don't have a paruru gif that's appropriate damnit
Good critique of the combat in Souls, shallow critique of the bosses. He talks about Souls having refinement, but doesn't think to consider bosses similarly. A lot of the Demon's Souls bosses are simple bosses with a gimmick to make up for the simplicity. They're unique and experimental, certainly, but they lack the depth of later franchise bosses. The bosses in each game are made to fit the narrative as well, no less than Demon's Souls. There was room for more Demon's Souls-type unique fights, but he talks about the bosses as if they are a bad fit or shallow. They're not. He ostensibly plays games like DMC with similar boss design philosophies, so he should know better.
Very few Soulsborne bosses are buffed enemies or feel like it.
Very few Soulsborne bosses are buffed enemies or feel like it.
Soul of the Beast
Member
You reminded me that I still haven't finished his 6 hours long Dark Souls vid....maybe someday.....I guess.
I speel my dreenk
Member
He literally makes that exact point, though, that "just because it's rather simple, doesn't necessarily mean it's bad." He then elaborates on that point, in detail and with examples, regarding the later games' emphasis on the combat and negligence of some of the more unique aspects from Demon's Souls.
Really enjoyed the video, and agree with him.
Which game he played first isn't even a factor here. DeS was the first game thereby it is the innovator. Everything that follows should be compared to it in order to see how From software have built on the series.
Furthermore, telling a critic to look elsewhere is completely missing the point of criticism. It isn't about the critic's likes or dislikes or how he spends his time. It's about the work that is being criticized.
Earthpainting
Member
I found myself agreeing with most of that. Usually not a big fan of his videos due to their length, so I'm glad he kept it relatively brief this time around.
I'm not sure if he meant to imply they were a bat fit or shallow. He was merely highlighting that the boss variety decreased beyond their aesthetic as the series went on. They found some things that worked, and ended up reusing that overall structure again and again. It's probably clear why, as these bosses are still beloved in spite of the patterns they fell into. It should also be noted that most game series work this way, so it isn't an "issue" exclusive to the later Souls games. It is only a thing of note because the first game bucked this design philosophy and Miyazaki brought it up himself in an interview.
The second DS3 DLC is a very obvious plea from Miyazaki to players to let him do something different. I thought BB was iterative and I want to see further iteration.
Every fucking Souls game outside Dark Souls 1 is basically a sequel to Demon's Souls, LOL
I miss the days when I didn't have to warp to the hub to talk to a level up waifu.
Raven117
Gold Member
Your true squeal is not Demon's at all, but "unfiltered FromSoftware" and Miyazaki not afraid to fail.
BossDarkseid
Member
Does it make sense that I agree with him on a lot of points, despite loving parts of DS1 and DS3 so much? Like I enjoy BB but the only boss I really come close to "loving" is Ludwig, and that's more the presentation. DS2's controls are too damn floaty to be satisfying to play for me...but even if I love certain bosses...my favourite of the entire series is still Maiden Astraea.
I agree with the other poster saying TRC was Miyazaki saying "Plz. Something new. Let it burn away"....i mean for a series that has a fair bit of interpretive storytelling, FromSoft being tired of the Souls formula wasn't subtle.
In some dream scenario we have Yoko Taro, Miyazaki and Kamiya all teaming up for a project.
the best points he makes is that From has been stupid in abandoning fixes that it had done in previous entries, and that early teleport waste completely the interconnectedness of yharnam
certainly the need for a level up waifu is something that the games should have abandoned after demon. From prolly doesn't get which of the smaller details made the games good and randomly decides to abandon improvements and bring back problems for no good reason
certainly the need for a level up waifu is something that the games should have abandoned after demon. From prolly doesn't get which of the smaller details made the games good and randomly decides to abandon improvements and bring back problems for no good reason
TyphoonStruggle
Member
I loved Dark Souls and Bloodborne, and really enjoyed Dark Souls 3, but... I really agree with Matthewmatosis here.
Waddle Dee
Member
As someone who has no interest in the Souls series, I'm admittedly a little disappointed that Matthew isn't doing a review for Viewtiful Joe yet (assuming he still plans on doing one).
I'll still watch it though since Matthew can make an interesting critique out of any game. He's in the top of class.
I'll still watch it though since Matthew can make an interesting critique out of any game. He's in the top of class.
Not saying I don't agree.
Someone else puts it best by use of a comparison.
DkS is basically what MvC3 tries to do. Take the most popular element of the game (flashiness for MvC2) and make it easy and frequent for everyone to experience.
Where DeS had the deaths, difficulty as its main advertised feature, DkS just centres the whole game around it making it lose its significance.
I dislike the games in that as popular as they get, we will move further away from the ability to have something quite as rewarding as DeS.
Necron
Member
Raven117
Gold Member
Lots of negatives, there but I think we want the same thing!
Unbridled Miyazaki and FromSoftware (with some guidance from Sony Japan...raw creativity does need to be tempered sometimes. . . to keep in on the rails).
The gaming community didn't even know it wanted Demons Souls (or Dark), but Miyazaki gave us something daring and brilliant. I wonder if they have another one in them.
Bloodbore narratively is insanely brilliant and different with an art design that actually is better than Demon's IMO... don't want to take away from that
DeS was more thoughtful than the others. Yes, it was hard...but if you went slow enough and thought through it enough...it worked better. Dark still had that, but it wasn't quite as thoughtful...Dk2 and 3 almost not at all.
I haven't managed to play the entirety of the Souls series (Started with Bloodborne, played DS3, have DS 1 and 2 but computer isn't powerful enough to run Dark Souls 1 and 2 but I got sick of waiting so I looked up whats in those games. I started Demons Souls but kinda fell away from it after a while. Should get back to it), but I don't agree with the main thrust of his points.
He's basically arguing that Demons Souls was innovative in it's time while the future games are neither iterative enough nor as innovative as Demons Souls, with several smaller points about how that's so that I mostly disagree with.
For one, the combat being shallow. I agree that it's not as deep as games that are out and out designed for it like Bayonetta or Ninja Gaiden or whatever, but he says this is because all your mechanics are designed around damaging the enemy and dodging their attacks. Which is a puzzling argument to make because...that's what full on action games are. And that isn't the kind of thing that really gets old since each boss has a unique movement set from other bosses (mostly). I get his complaint in the abstract, because that's the feeling I got from Nioh (Movement in that game is straightforward and very, very quick, so the dodge timing is the same for each enemy), but that's just not the case in the Souls games because each enemy is unique onto themselves (though I admit human enemies tend to hit harder with this because you predict movements of human bodies more). And while it doesn't have the same depth as other action games, yeah, I'd say that Bloodborne's combat is fairly deep given the variety of movesets you can do with the huge variety of weapons. That they all are centered around damaging opponents is just how they work. Because they're weapons.
He exemplifies the ideals he's talking about by referring to Micolash and to quirky unique stuff like turning into an object so you can sneak up on your opponent. First, let me point out that in both cases, the object of both these examples is to kill your opponent, so it's not like it fundamentally changes the criticism of getting a truly different experience. Second, I don't agree that those are particularly good experiences. Like, okay, turning yourself into an object and kicking an invader off a map can be good for a laugh occasionally, but it's not an interesting or deep game mechanic. It would get tiresome in higher doses than an occasional goof because the combat is the real meat and potatoes of the game. So, yeah, of course people would want an arena where they can walk in and do just that.
And his example of Micolash is one I fully disagree with. He says in his videos that being different isn't alone good enough for an encounter ot be good....but that's all the justification he gives for Micolash. And while kinda curious for his quirks and personality, Micolash fucking sucks, guys. Having to chase him down can be at best interesting the first time, if that, and it's just tedious every time afterwards after you learn his trick because there's no depth to it. I have fun fighting all the bosses multiple times (and wish the game had a rematch mechanic available so I could do it more without having to play the whole game again) he writes off in favor of Micolash, while Micolash being different is a "Hey, look at that" moment the first time, and a chore every other time.
He rails against the Souls games becoming 'safer' with each iteration, but honestly, there is a reason the combat has become the focus of the series in favor of that other stuff, and it's kinda dismissive to do it because FromSoft now has to appeal to the peons occupying the common denominator (he doesn't say it so derisively, but that's basically the tone I'm getting from him). I also don't agree with some of his more minor complaints about the series (the camera is atrocious, but not because of dumb reasons like "I can't move the camera without not being able to dodge". There are a lot of times I hate the camera, but never for that reason).
He also mentions the poison swamp and how it was a good area in Demons Souls because that was the first time it happened, but by it becoming a tradition of the Souls series, it's lost it's appeal. I would argue that poison swamps have never been good because I dislike that kind of handicap on gameplay in general and it was ineffective the first, second, third and fourth time I went through them.
Of course, I'm someone who jumped on board rather late, so I have a different perspective on things. The nature of Souls combat is relatively new to me than it is to someone whose been here from the series start. And I can understand his general sentiments as things that I can potentially experience. But he's yearning for things innovation on the idea that it being different makes it inherently worthwhile (so long as it's done competently enough), and....sure, but the likes of Micolash isn't what I consider competent enough when the combat is as well done as it is.
He's basically arguing that Demons Souls was innovative in it's time while the future games are neither iterative enough nor as innovative as Demons Souls, with several smaller points about how that's so that I mostly disagree with.
For one, the combat being shallow. I agree that it's not as deep as games that are out and out designed for it like Bayonetta or Ninja Gaiden or whatever, but he says this is because all your mechanics are designed around damaging the enemy and dodging their attacks. Which is a puzzling argument to make because...that's what full on action games are. And that isn't the kind of thing that really gets old since each boss has a unique movement set from other bosses (mostly). I get his complaint in the abstract, because that's the feeling I got from Nioh (Movement in that game is straightforward and very, very quick, so the dodge timing is the same for each enemy), but that's just not the case in the Souls games because each enemy is unique onto themselves (though I admit human enemies tend to hit harder with this because you predict movements of human bodies more). And while it doesn't have the same depth as other action games, yeah, I'd say that Bloodborne's combat is fairly deep given the variety of movesets you can do with the huge variety of weapons. That they all are centered around damaging opponents is just how they work. Because they're weapons.
He exemplifies the ideals he's talking about by referring to Micolash and to quirky unique stuff like turning into an object so you can sneak up on your opponent. First, let me point out that in both cases, the object of both these examples is to kill your opponent, so it's not like it fundamentally changes the criticism of getting a truly different experience. Second, I don't agree that those are particularly good experiences. Like, okay, turning yourself into an object and kicking an invader off a map can be good for a laugh occasionally, but it's not an interesting or deep game mechanic. It would get tiresome in higher doses than an occasional goof because the combat is the real meat and potatoes of the game. So, yeah, of course people would want an arena where they can walk in and do just that.
And his example of Micolash is one I fully disagree with. He says in his videos that being different isn't alone good enough for an encounter ot be good....but that's all the justification he gives for Micolash. And while kinda curious for his quirks and personality, Micolash fucking sucks, guys. Having to chase him down can be at best interesting the first time, if that, and it's just tedious every time afterwards after you learn his trick because there's no depth to it. I have fun fighting all the bosses multiple times (and wish the game had a rematch mechanic available so I could do it more without having to play the whole game again) he writes off in favor of Micolash, while Micolash being different is a "Hey, look at that" moment the first time, and a chore every other time.
He rails against the Souls games becoming 'safer' with each iteration, but honestly, there is a reason the combat has become the focus of the series in favor of that other stuff, and it's kinda dismissive to do it because FromSoft now has to appeal to the peons occupying the common denominator (he doesn't say it so derisively, but that's basically the tone I'm getting from him). I also don't agree with some of his more minor complaints about the series (the camera is atrocious, but not because of dumb reasons like "I can't move the camera without not being able to dodge". There are a lot of times I hate the camera, but never for that reason).
He also mentions the poison swamp and how it was a good area in Demons Souls because that was the first time it happened, but by it becoming a tradition of the Souls series, it's lost it's appeal. I would argue that poison swamps have never been good because I dislike that kind of handicap on gameplay in general and it was ineffective the first, second, third and fourth time I went through them.
Of course, I'm someone who jumped on board rather late, so I have a different perspective on things. The nature of Souls combat is relatively new to me than it is to someone whose been here from the series start. And I can understand his general sentiments as things that I can potentially experience. But he's yearning for things innovation on the idea that it being different makes it inherently worthwhile (so long as it's done competently enough), and....sure, but the likes of Micolash isn't what I consider competent enough when the combat is as well done as it is.
I honestly have no idea what version of Dark Souls you played.
The most significant difference between Dark Souls and Demon's Souls is the world design, not death, and I find Dark Souls' world a hell of a lot more interesting.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
While I don't take an extreme an aversion as he does, the constant refrain of "best of" this and "homage" that from a plethora of Dark Souls 3 reviews and anecdotes points out that his overall goal of describing the winnowing away at the wierd chaff is true.
It's a tendency to not CASULIZE it, but those roadblocks from DeS, (or even DS1) are solved. We can deal with bottomless pits aplenty as we survived it. We can deal with Curse now as we survived it. We can deal with heavily stat-dependant builds as we've done so in the past.
So. Why. Not. Remove. It. Since. It's. A. Known. Quantity. And. Not. A. Threat. Anymore.
Hell, I wouldn't doubt that's why the games feel less like 3D ARPG Blobbers with each entry. Gets "in the way", "been there, done that".
Now Duel of the Fates boss fights, that's something that never gets old! Oh. I guess it can.
This mindset isn't an uncommon event:
And we see here the genesis of this journey we stand at the destination of, more of the good things we know OF, the results we know OF, and now. The winnowing down has already begun anew.
Such lovely, lovely trees. But it does nothing for anyone that we're here wanting mystery back if we're going to wander astray from it all over again, if not in that next Miyazaki project, or others.
Oh, if Matt is reading this, the camera centering is from this being a Japanese 3D game.
edit: also, Demon's Souls feels closest to Bloodborne than the Darks to me (perhaps its due to that clean slate factor).
It's a tendency to not CASULIZE it, but those roadblocks from DeS, (or even DS1) are solved. We can deal with bottomless pits aplenty as we survived it. We can deal with Curse now as we survived it. We can deal with heavily stat-dependant builds as we've done so in the past.
So. Why. Not. Remove. It. Since. It's. A. Known. Quantity. And. Not. A. Threat. Anymore.
Hell, I wouldn't doubt that's why the games feel less like 3D ARPG Blobbers with each entry. Gets "in the way", "been there, done that".
Now Duel of the Fates boss fights, that's something that never gets old! Oh. I guess it can.
This mindset isn't an uncommon event:
And we see here the genesis of this journey we stand at the destination of, more of the good things we know OF, the results we know OF, and now. The winnowing down has already begun anew.
Such lovely, lovely trees. But it does nothing for anyone that we're here wanting mystery back if we're going to wander astray from it all over again, if not in that next Miyazaki project, or others.
Oh, if Matt is reading this, the camera centering is from this being a Japanese 3D game.
edit: also, Demon's Souls feels closest to Bloodborne than the Darks to me (perhaps its due to that clean slate factor).
No it's not, its a fucking NPC with Call Beyond and Auger of Ebrietas. The only "unique" part is that you run after Micolash for a while before fighting him. It's one of the laziest bosses From has ever designed.
"..I find this refreshing for the simple fact that's it different from everything else. This for me at least was the real appeal of Demon's Souls"
He loved the game in spite of itself for the sole reason that it was unique. He later says:
"If these games are going to be iterative sequels at the very least they could be good at that, but they're not. 5 installments is more than enough time to figure out what makes these games good and iron out the kinks."
Clearly they have figured out what makes the games good (including the focus on the action, which we obviously disagree on). The things he is claiming are good about Demon's Souls simply because they were unique were dropped because others disagreed.
He makes a good case where they take it too far but I won't rescind my previous comment that what he is looking for is another type of game entirely, something that surprises him. He doesn't want a series, he wants FROM to make a new more experimental game.
Raven117
Gold Member
From a mechanical standpoint, maybe...but the lines I can still hear....GRANT US EYES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and that was the point. Its the experience. Maiden Astrea has effing zero mechanics...yet its impact is huge. Thats the point.
I'm talking exclusively about bosses which have become too stagnant.
If you don't think that DkS is clearly designed around killing the player, far more so than DeS ever did, I'm not sure what game YOU played.
"Prepare to Die" is all that needs to be said.
benicillin
Banned
I think it needs to be specified that Maiden Astrea is an actual boss fight that does have boss mechanics. She only kills herself if you kill Garl Vinland first. If you attack her while he's still alive, she'll fight you with miracles. You can cheese her from far away but that's only if you fight through the baby swamp/followers and have high enough damage on your arrows to kill her before she heals.
Best bosses? I'm not having that
QuantumSquid
Member
Great video.
Yeah. But almost every boss had a cheese.
From what I remember, only Vanguard, Flamelurker and the final boss were pure combat oriented (with the gargoyles being the jankiest of them all).
Thes rest had very specific cheeses clearly designed into the game and it was beautiful.
His point about the giant archer in Dark Souls 3 didn't make much sense to me. If the arrow were to stay fixed to one location after being fired then the player would never get hit unless they were standing perfectly still.
Aside from that, I really liked the video. Demon's Souls is an incredible experience and one of the best games of the last generation.
Aside from that, I really liked the video. Demon's Souls is an incredible experience and one of the best games of the last generation.
How many different paths can you take at the start of Bloodborne or Dark Souls 3? 0 to 1.
How many can you take at the beginning of Dark Souls? 2 perhaps.
Demon's? Oh about 5.
"Prepare to die" was marketing, LOL. It wasn't part of the development of the game.
Dark Souls isn't designed around killing the player any more than Demon's Souls is. This should be clear when the tutorial of Dark Souls doesn't throw a scripted death at you at the end.
Melon Husk
Member
I disagree with his critique on the combat system's shallowness. Mediocre action RPGs just leave it at mindless button mash ie. R1 spam.
The puzzle elements in boss fights (and the traps too) definitely made Demon's Souls more immersive. The environment was the real boss fight.
The puzzle elements in boss fights (and the traps too) definitely made Demon's Souls more immersive. The environment was the real boss fight.
I don't get why people defer to him so much for his souls opinions.
They aren't that interesting.
Omg I've never actually tried fighting her while Garl was still alive.
They aren't that interesting.
Omg I've never actually tried fighting her while Garl was still alive.
If you start with the master key then it's about 5 in Dark as well.
This is actually true. A shame as well since DS1 has some brilliant design, and yet with DS2 onward the series regressed back to the dumber aspects of Demon's.
benicillin
Banned
It has some of the best bosses, but it's also full of bad bosses. Adjudicator, leech monger, dirty colossus - all more or less completely forgettable. Storm King is fantastic in theory and the setting is excellent, but the actual fight is really dull.
The thing is... Why on Earth would you ever want to fight through the hell of plague baby swamp when Garl Vinland is a complete joke of a boss?
Also, doesn't she just heal herself? I don't recall her using offensive miracles.
I agree with nearly everything he said
The Dark Souls series and Bloodborne are fantastic games no doubt, some of my favourite games. But Demon's Souls is still unchallenged to me in how unique and kinda unbecoming it is mechanical to other games. Even now when I look back to it after playing four spiritual sequels I still feel Demon's Souls does many things better than the sequels, like the variety of bosses and mechanics that don't adhere what's seen as "proper gamedesign" as matthew brings up in his video (still kinda salty people hated so much on the world tendency mechanic which made FROM stray away from world changing mechanics like it in future games)
As for now, Demon's Souls still stands as the most esoteric and innovative game I've ever played.
The Dark Souls series and Bloodborne are fantastic games no doubt, some of my favourite games. But Demon's Souls is still unchallenged to me in how unique and kinda unbecoming it is mechanical to other games. Even now when I look back to it after playing four spiritual sequels I still feel Demon's Souls does many things better than the sequels, like the variety of bosses and mechanics that don't adhere what's seen as "proper gamedesign" as matthew brings up in his video (still kinda salty people hated so much on the world tendency mechanic which made FROM stray away from world changing mechanics like it in future games)
As for now, Demon's Souls still stands as the most esoteric and innovative game I've ever played.
The combat complaints for Bloodborne are insane, because I can't think of a better combat system at all. Bayo/DMC dont require to you tuse any of the deeper mechanics, nor are there any enemies designed around those deeper mechanics, while Bloodborne constantly kept me on my toes the entire game with direction dodging and not simply being able to cancel out of every attack.
Agreed. Adjudicator music owns though.
Also agreed. I think people just like hearing their own opinions told back to them lol
phantasmic_glaive
Member
Nah.. You only get to experience the introduction of the Storm King, once. And for me, that was one of the best bosses ever in a game.
Edit:
I always seen it as the boss fight that is being fought up until the time you get the
storm sword? I forget it's name.
Will watch later.
Demon's is a masterpiece, and I respect it so much, but out of the other games in the series, it really doesn't hold up too well. It's too easy, it's clunky, it has poor visuals, some upgrades are a chore, and world tendency can become tedious to manage. It's definitely at the bottom of the series (including BB) for me, despite being one of my favorites, but I would still call it a 10/10 masterpiece (that's just how good all of these games are).
Demon's is a masterpiece, and I respect it so much, but out of the other games in the series, it really doesn't hold up too well. It's too easy, it's clunky, it has poor visuals, some upgrades are a chore, and world tendency can become tedious to manage. It's definitely at the bottom of the series (including BB) for me, despite being one of my favorites, but I would still call it a 10/10 masterpiece (that's just how good all of these games are).
Auxiliary Bro
Member
This might be his best video, or at least one of my favourites from him. I definitely felt like this helped me realise something I felt but couldn't word - a sense I regularly get from Matthew's videos funnily enough - but more importantly I like how it really just focused on that one point. I don't think Matthew necessarily makes unstructured pieces, but this one just felt a lot tighter and easier to follow (I don't think I need to explain why a structured, 6 hour video might be hard to follow). It definitely felt like a nice, fresh change of pace from his longer review videos.
That's fair, though I don't think that goes against the point that it's subversive and I'm sure many players will defeat her by killing Vinland first and probably never figure that out. If anything, that you can fight her alone just gives a little thing for revisiting, experimental players to discover.