Support NeoGAF

[Relceroi]

Prepare to Die was very much built into the game.

I think that you are essentially right about that. There is a difference in the design philosophies between Demon's Souls and Dark Souls.

Simply put, you are not only expected to die in Dark Souls but also supposed to. And while there are often ways for the most careful players to avoid many of the intended deaths, that intention is reflected in both how the game is designed and how it was marketed but also how death is essentially used as a tool. It's not supposed to be a big deal at all that you do die on occasion (which is a possible reason for why the mechanic of losing health upon death was removed). How you react to that design philosophy will undoubtedly have an affect how much you like or dislike Dark Souls. With Dark Souls specifically the expectation that death was something that would and should happen still worked for me, but since then the series has gotten stale.

I remember heavily disliking the marketing that they started to use with Dark Souls. I thought that it missed the point entirely and perpetuated the belief that the series was all about difficulty. There was definitely a shift in the series' design philosophy.

To an extent I do have to disagree with the video about boss designs. Demon's Souls does have memorable bosses but whatever else might be said about them, as fights they are not as enjoyable as many of the ones in the later titles. Micolash was not a fun fight either, which only becomes more apparent in low level runs.

While Dark Souls remains my personal favorite game in the series, I think of Demon's Souls as the best one. Whenever I play it I get the impression that it was exactly what From Software wanted to make and not much else. In the end it happened to work out brilliantly.

 

[ebullientprism]

That was a fantastic video. I agree with some of his points, disagree with others and he does a lot of cherry picking.

But he does make some fascinating points that I never thought of.

 

[DealWithIt]

What he is arguing about is that the series has become way too focused on its action without really expanding any aspects associated with it. That focus on action is even carried over to things like level design and boss design (heck, in Dark Souls 3 most boss enemies are just strong enemies with different phases and cheap tricks - compare that to Demon's Souls mostly unorthodox boss design)

I tend to agree with him seeing how I didn't even bother to buy any of the DS3 DLCs or finishing the BB DLC because they don't do enough for me anymore; having played all of those games, at one point you just see through it all and know all the weaknesses of the Souls framework: you not only understand how the sausage was made but every ingredient of it

Besides, telling someone who likes a series and takes the time to produce a video to criticise it to look for a different experience just because you disagree with that person is so weak

The Bloodborne DLC might be the best single piece of content FROM has ever made. 5 unique bosses and some of the most unique items ever to be in their games.

 

[astroturfing]

I hate the tendency stuff but it's a great fucking game, one of my all time favorites.

Still haven't got the Pure Bladestone drop though.

Patch in better drop rate From, plese.

true story: i once got 2 Pure Bladestones back to back, then a third one 20min later. i couldn't believe it myself. 3 in under 30min.

 

[GoldenCrow]

I agree with pretty much every point he made in that and summed up why Demon's is my favourite in the series. The other games are still fantastic but lack the elements that truly made Demon's such a special game.

One element he didn't address is the multiplayer aspect. In Demon's is tied to the lore of the game with the Nexus, seeing the other players feels part of that and is the reason why Demon's is the only one I play online. In the later games it is just a feature. Even the eye stones work much better in terms of lore for co-op and PvP.

 

[ElFly]

This conversation is pointless. You're taking the contrasts I mention and combat them with other comparisons that have little to do with the point I'm making.

The Anor Lando area was straight up garbage design only unpatched because it fits the whole zero consequence, adjust or die again philosophy of DkS. And typical solutions didn't even work for me. I didn't have a large shield nor the stats to use one and the punishment was falling off a ledge into death. I actually passed it by save scumming. Personal skill or bad stat decisions aside, it was in no way designed as a puzzle that you could have figured out how to engage properly by looking from a distance. It's a "kill player, let them adjust later" moment. It's only the most famous one, there are far more too.

In DeS, even with the lowest Vit (I have done SL1 runs) there are very, VERY few attacks that OHKO. In a normal game, this allows the player to engage, fail, and regroup without dying.

Sure there are holes, gaps, builders and the very few times something is an OHKO (like the dragon's fire) but all of these things are telegraphed in ways that most of the DkS crap isn't.

I will even go on to say BB suffers this in its boss encounters which is where 90% of its difficulty is. The whole challenge of the boss fight is pretty much learning when to dodge and when to attack, with a bunch of systems to switch it up like a Flame Dog (or whatever the fuck it is) on a balanced levelled character to delay its attack in the third phase for an OHKO.

I'm not saying people can't prefer DkS, or like both, but they do not have the same design philosophy around difficulty.

I feel this is the very thing that makes Dark 1 far superior

the game forces you to sit down and deal with a situation or you are either fucked, or have to take the huuuge penalty of having to backtrack by foot. you gotta make do with what you got with you, plan ahead, be careful, all while not being completely linear; if in Demon you find a difficult spot, no problem, just teleport back to home base, upgrade things, gather herbs, gain levels, etc. If you are stuck in Anor Londo, or Ariamis, or Blight Town, you have to sink or swim. Given you always get at least 5 healing items, it is always doable. Meanwhile in Demon? you ran out of herbs, you better go gather some more

demon is very gimmicky. it is lucky most of its gimmicks are pretty cool, but you cannot expect From to keep getting all the gimmicks right forever in a series. Imagine if instead of Maiden Astraea you got another Dragon God? Dark had Bed of Chaos which was also terrible. They did decide to play it safe but you gotta acknowledge a lot of Demon is good luck on the designer's part, and a lot of good will on the player's part to put up with Demon's bullshit

Dark improves on Demon on almost every area. The real problem with the series is that, after Dark, it regresses from the progress made on each iteration. Sure, Dark has a bunch of OHKOs here and there, but I will take that every day over the grindingness of Demon...and somehow From decided it was such good design that should come back for Bloodborne? that was real dumb. I feel that From knows that Demon had "something" special and has tried to go back to it after Dark 1, but all it has done it is to bring back the bad parts

would not be surprised if the eventual Dark 4 or BB2 has your full inventory weighting you down like in Demon, cause, god, From has an uncanny ability to select the wrong parts of Demon to bring back

 

[MajinSweet4]

Some of the implications he makes in this video are just so absurd it's hard for me to take this video seriously. Like, Bloodborne is an example of a game worsened because of focus groups or something? But even ignoring that, a lot of the things he says are flat out wrong. Such as how Demon's Souls World Tendency system makes the game harder every time you die. That's simply not true. You need to die in body form, something you don't have most of the time, unless you're duping items or something. The worst thing about this video though is how almost everything always comes back to this thought of "Well, Demon's Souls did it first." and I just find that to be the most shallow way to view game design. Yes, Demon's Souls was more innovative than it's sequels (no shit), yes, Demon's Souls did a lot to change gaming trends. But if I'm going to play a Souls game right now, is it going to be the one I'm most likely to play? No, because Demon's Souls simply doesn't hold up from a game design perspective where the other games do. And this is coming from someone who has put probably more time into Demon's Souls than pretty much anyone. Don't believe me?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TubnrKmZpfY

The funny thing is, even during that challenge, where I'm not allowing myself to use most of the games core mechanics, where I'll die in 1 hit to anything, a lot of the bosses are still really easy. And I don't even mean that from the perspective of a Souls vet. In just a few minutes I could teach someone how to beat a lot of the bosses of Demon's Souls in that challenge. During this video it's said how immersion is Demon's Souls greatest attribute. Well, you know what's not immersive? Knowing everything an enemy is going to do before they do it. A boss being so reductive as to be more of a puzzle than an actual fight. And I'm not even talking about the more blatant examples like Dragon God. Adjudicator, Leechmonger, Fool's Idol, Storm King etc. They are very puzzle like in there design, in that all of the challenge comes from simply knowing how they work. That's not technically a bad thing, it's the main concept behind most of Zeldas enemy design. But you know what it's not? Immersive. It's video gamey in it's purest form. Where as even the easier fights in recent games at least feel like I'm fighting an actual thinking enemy. For example, they have attacks designed to bait you as he mentioned, they sometimes have attacks with actual mix up potential. This might not be the deepest game play interactions ever, but it's a hell of a lot better than what Demon's Souls has to offer. So again, very strange to make a point about lack of depth while trying to say Demon's Souls got it right.

https://youtu.be/burze6O16p4?t=19m26s

Now I don't want to try to say first time player experiences are not important, that would be absurd. But again, he tries to claim that Demon's Souls managed to make it all work. You simply cannot claim that it has the replay value of the newer games when the bosses don't hold up. You can have bosses with emotional impact that are also mechanically challenging. Demon's Souls is also a fairly short game, due to it's low budget which again, hurts its replay value. Innovation is one thing, but personally I prefer good iterative design. I like to see how a developer learns from there mistakes and continues to polish a good set of systems.

 

[horkrux]

Barely an RPG compared to what though? Other Souls games or RPGs in general? Because BB certainly gives the player more role playing opportunities than the vast majority of RPGs out there.



They are actually more RPG than most RPGs. In the very classic role playing sense.

Compared to... RPGs? You're always playing as a hunter. It's kind of like the Witcher, but without the abundance of side quests, great characters and decisions/consequences beyond getting s.o. killed. Build options are also heavily reduced.

Some of the implications he makes in this video are just so absurd it's hard for me to take this video seriously. Like, Bloodborne is an example of a game worsened because of focus groups or something? But even ignoring that, a lot of the things he says are flat out wrong. Such as how Demon's Souls World Tendency system makes the game harder every time you die. That's simply not true. You need to die in body form, something you don't have most of the time, unless you're duping items or something.

A little bit meticulous, don't you think? You have to be in body form, yes, but then it does apply. They're also not super rare, so unless you know what you're doing it's easier to fall into this trap than some might think.
You also did actually gain negative character tendency with every death in the original version to be pedantic.

You simply cannot claim that it has the replay value of the newer games when the bosses don't hold up. You can have bosses with emotional impact that are also mechanically challenging.

I don't know man. DS3 and Bloodborne had way less replay value than say DS1 for me, simply for the fact that in the latter you had way more ways to go and could do things in a different order. That game also relied heavily on gimmicks, with most of the fights not being all that difficult by themselves.
Sure, the bosses in Demon's Souls are kinda broken, I mean it's the first game in the series after all, but they are servicable. A roadblock with a massive moveset and health pool does not increase replay value for me at all. In fact sometimes it makes things so hard that I'm put off from trying some harder runs, because they would get too hard at certain points and I don't perceive that as worth the trouble tbh

 

[Keihart]

The video is full of false statements and jumps to conclusions by making big (wrong) assumptions to drive the narrative. It has the same style as the videos from superbunnyhop but none of the same quality if you are critical of what you are hearing.

 

[Vinneh]

I hate the tendency stuff but it's a great fucking game, one of my all time favorites.

Still haven't got the Pure Bladestone drop though.

Patch in better drop rate From, plese.

Agreed; those pure stones are a hell to get.

 

[joe_zazen]

The video is full of false statements and jumps to conclusions by making big (wrong) assumptions to drive the narrative.

Such as?

His bedrock point is that Demon's Souls was made by a team that had free reign to make the game they wanted to make and nothing to lose. That almost never happens at a commercial publisher. It gave players something they almost never get: genuine surprises in a big budget game. I have hope that Death Stranding might do the same thing. But if Sony is involved, there will be focus groups out the wazoo.

All the following souls games have been iterations on a formula, and, as such, the souls series is the same as all the other franchises on the market in terms of not wanting to piss players off.

 

[lowhighkang_LHK]

Demon's Souls is so fucking cool

I know right. Fuck.

I almost wish From would create two franchises out of this. With Demon Souls being a bit separate from Dark Souls. Be a bit more risky and creative with Demon Souls 2, less flash/pomp and circumstance, maybe a smaller budget - understand that it might not be as "mainstream" as Dark Souls but go ape shit on it and take risks with Demon Souls 2.

 

[silenttwn]

The video is full of false statements and jumps to conclusions by making big (wrong) assumptions to drive the narrative. It has the same style as the videos from superbunnyhop but none of the same quality if you are critical of what you are hearing.

In other words it's a Matthewmatosis video

 

[benicillin]

Such as?

His bedrock point is that Demon's Souls was made by a team that had free reign to make the game they wanted to make and nothing to lose. That almost never happens at a commercial publisher. It gave players something they almost never get: genuine surprises in a big budget game. I have hope that Death Stranding might do the same thing. But if Sony is involved, there will be focus groups out the wazoo.

All the following souls games have been iterations on a formula, and, as such, the souls series is the same as all the other franchises on the market in terms of not wanting to piss players off.

See I really don't like this argument because it gives the whole thing an air of "oh well it was the first so it was the best before they sold out" hipsterness. It had a lot of great ideas. It also had a lot of bad ideas. Dark Souls was iterative but also maybe closer to the original vision that the director had for the series. Bloodborne was a different take on it. Dark Souls 3 was their end to the series.

Also worth noting that the marketing really has very little to do with the game design - as far as I know From has always self-published in JP and only partnered for western distribution and localization so I don't think they're getting a ton of pressure.

 

[Mockerre]

I wholeheartidly disagree. Demon's Souls is great, Dark Souls 1 refines it and is on a completely different level. I will agree that Dark Souls 2 and 3 lost something along the way.

 

[Lulubop]

I appropriate Demon Souls, but I mean the subsequent games improved and refined so much on it. It kinda blows my mind when people say it's the best.

 

[ActWan]

Amazing video. Enjoyed it so much...Demon's Souls is a truly special game.

 

[Vince DiCola]

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.

That really is the dream team, oh my God. A world and levels designed by Miyazaki, story and scenario by Taro and Kamiya in charge of gameplay.

 

[Joe Condor]

He still hasn't critiqued Dark Souls 3, has he?

 

[mebizzle]

This video does bring up some really good points on some of the annoying crutches FROM has leaned on in the sequels (weird delayed animations just to be weird) but it's really hard to see his entire point as anything other than "this series was good when it wasn't designed for normies reeeeeeeeeeeee"

 

[ghibli99]

That was a fantastic video. I agree with some of his points, disagree with others and he does a lot of cherry picking.

But he does make some fascinating points that I never thought of.

Yep, that last part is what keeps bringing me back, even though there are many points in almost every one of his videos where I'm flat-out shaking my head 'no'.

 

[Lynx_7]

I have mixed feelings about this video. It feels like he purposefuly downplays the other games in the series, specially what DkS 1 brought to the table, in order to push his argument. Also, as much as I love DeS (it's my second favorite in the series), I could never argue it has better bosses than any other Souls game.

I do agree with the fact that the series has become predictable at this point and I really want to see Miyazaki tackle something new. And by new I don't mean "Souls in another setting" like BB basically is, I mean something that builds upon what they learned in the Souls series and completely revamps it, similar to the King's Field -> Demon's Souls jump in design.

 

[AgentOtaku]

Completely and utterly agree and it's why Demons STILL remains my favorite of the series

 

[HK-47]

Demons easily has the least interesting bosses in the series. Especially on repeat playthroughs

There are plenty of things other games in the series did much better that make me wish they were in Demons.

 

[Mt Heart Attack]

I never played Demon's Souls, but I do agree with some of his points about the later games in the series compared to Dark Souls. I still love the games but they are getting somewhat stale and formulaic, and there's an over-reliance on a challenging for challenging's sake design.

On a tangential note, is there any way to play Demons on a PS4? I sold my Ps3 before I got into these games:/

 

[Psyfer]

I have mixed feelings about this video. It feels like he purposefuly downplays the other games in the series, specially what DkS 1 brought to the table, in order to push his argument. Also, as much as I love DeS (it's my second favorite in the series), I could never argue it has better bosses than any other Souls game.

I do agree with the fact that the series has become predictable at this point and I really want to see Miyazaki tackle something new. And by new I don't mean "Souls in another setting" like BB basically is, I mean something that builds upon what they learned in the Souls series and completely revamps it, similar to the King's Field -> Demon's Souls jump in design.

I agree 100%. Couldn't play DeS when it came out because PS3s were expensive, but the first time I played Dark Souls, I was blown away by how fresh the experience was. Fast foward to BB or DaS3, and that feeling is gone. I know exactly what I'm getting into. The game is new, with things I haven't seen or played before, with new mechanics to learn, but it still just feels like treading water. A safe game built on an existing formula.

It's already been argued, but this is kind of the problem with AAA games. Everything is too safe. A game with a development as rocky as Demon's Souls was to begin with would be canceled today. I hope that if Miyazaki has some crazy ideas for games, he finds a way to make them a reality. I really can't imagine what an evolution or revamping of the Souls series would even be like, and that is really exciting.

 

[Isaac Otherworld]

I actually think it's really fitting that this post is paired with a Drakengard avatar (that art is dope, btw, do you have the source?) since atmosphere and immersion are similarly what make Yoko Taro's games so interesting. I could never really get behind the argument that the later games in the series are superior to Demon's Souls purely because of the mechanical improvements - sometimes the complete package is more important and it's for that reason that I'm not surprised to see some Taro fans on here say they prefer NieR Gestalt to Automata (although I don't agree personally). The shift in gameplay quality isn't nearly as massive as NieR's but it's a similar conversation imo.

Edit - Oh also I just want to say that his comment about Demon's Souls being less concerned with making you feel like a big man is one of the biggest reasons I love it so much. The moral gray area is a lot less interesting in the sequel games, as good as they are.

Artwork is here.

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net...anahred.png/revision/latest?cb=20140126224744

While I think Dark Souls 1 is still the best, Demons Souls had a sense of existential dread that none of the other games had. Honestly most of my issues with the series is DkS3. It's just immensely boring and phoned in.

 

[QuantumSquid]

The video is full of false statements and jumps to conclusions by making big (wrong) assumptions to drive the narrative. It has the same style as the videos from superbunnyhop but none of the same quality if you are critical of what you are hearing.

You didn't provide any examples.

 

[bender]

Demon's Souls is still my favorite Souls experience. Could be because it was the first and this franchise has been intensely samey, but dem's the breaks.

That's my line of thought as well. I also really enjoyed Bloodborne and I think a lot can be attributed to a much needed change of setting.

 

[Despera]

Hope Miyazaki's next game combines both Demon's Souls' and Bloodborne's strengths.

 

[Spyderist]

Probably the most important video he's made since his bioshock infinite one, instead of just about misused political commentary or the press with the bioshock video, he's attacking serving the fans at the expense of the art.

 

[Meffer]

You didn't provide any examples.

He only provided salt.

 

[GwyndolinCinder]

Err is this whole video about praising gimmicks and narrative spin?

Couldn't disagree more with whats being said, i think some of the gimmick fights are really good, but every time i encounter one it feels like "-1 fun boss" for future playthroughs.
And yea i didnt feel more immersed because a gimmick existed, i didnt see the tower knight and go "I should hit his legs, i'm an adventurer!! Wooo!!!", i pressed r3 and it auto targeted its legs, amazing.

"If all this game is, is a good action game. Why would i not play a better one?"
Like wut, disregarding the fact that this isn't the case at all, please enlighten to me as to where all these games are.

 

[Ashler]

Still the best game in the series for me. I remember getting and playing Demon's Souls on a whim, importing it from Asia. I took the better part of a day just to get to and defeat Phalanx. The gameplay was just so brutal and different from anything I had ever experienced Got hooked on it immediately.

PS4 Remaster please.

 

[E-flux]

Err is this whole video about praising gimmicks and narrative spin?

Couldn't disagree more with whats being said, i think some of the gimmick fights are really good, but every time i encounter one it feels like "-1 fun boss" for future playthroughs.
And yea i didnt feel more immersed because a gimmick existed, i didnt see the tower knight and go "I should hit his legs, i'm an adventurer!! Wooo!!!", i pressed r3 and it auto targeted its legs, amazing.

"If all this game is, is a good action game. Why would i not play a better one?"
Like wut, disregarding the fact that this isn't the case at all, please enlighten to me as to where all these games are.

He's talking about games like Dmc3 and bayonetta where the combat mechanics have a lot more depth than souls, yet the bosses work pretty much the same. And to me the point about gimmicks and why i fell in love with souls was how unpredictable the game was, that is all gone in the later installments. Dark souls 3 was the nail in the coffin for me, unless the next game isn't truly something different i'm not even going to bother even though i count souls series as one of my favorites.

 

[Sami+]

On that same note it's sad to see enthusiasm for the series starting to peter out. I definitely feel it though. I bought the game + season pass edition of Dark Souls 3 but I just can't bring myself to play more than the first two levels. Not because it's bad but I've just been burnt out for so long lol.

 

[kromeo]

I think the problem with souls games was that too many people played them all through about 10 times each, I didn't get burned out but I never touched new game + in any of them

 

[Red Liquorice]

Hey, I agree with his assessment of the bosses in DeS and why Micolash is one of my favourite bosses of BB too. I like the variety that 'gimmick' bosses bring to the series.

Also completely agree with the points about the 'holding the weapon out for a long time to trick you' animations of a lot of the enemes and bosses in DS2 onwards.

 

[Drencrom]

If you thought this video was interesting, I'd recommend Matthewmatosis' Demon's Souls Commentary where he talks about its game- and world design and some lore (It's over 2 hours long)

Demon's Souls commentary

 

[i-Lo]

Really want to watch this but have yet to play BB (stopped after killing Cleric beast over a year ago), DSII and DSIII. Given his warnings about spoilers, are they significant (for anyone who has played all 4 games)?

 

[ethomaz]

Best Souls game ever created.

Characters, atmosphere, environment and levels are top notch.

Tendency is suck an amazing concept... love it.

 

[RangerBAD]

To be fair, most Souls fans approach a new game in a way that Demons' and Dark Souls taught them. To be methodical, worrying about traps and hidden enemies. So there's not much of a way to reinvigorate that element. Not to mention it's being used in more games now. Not much for the designers to do without alienating fans. It's no easy task to reinvent mechanics I'm sure. The "Souls-like" experience is now shackled to those games. I appreciated that freshness when I played DeS, so I can see where this guy is coming from.

 

[Raitaro]

Fully agree with the video. I sorely miss DeS's boss variety, world design with regards to short cuts and the game's overal tone and stronger emhasis on being a smart adventurer instead of an action hero with limitless resolve. Apart from some QoL things seen in the later games along with DS 1's interconnected world and estus system, DeS for me remains the best game without a doubt.

This video also reminds me why I hate the late games' more direct PvP focus as well as the "git gud" mind set usually expressed by exclusively using rolling and/or no armor or shields to tackle (boss) encounters. This series should have never become about getting so skilled at rolling that you don't need armor. No, it should have remained focused on asking of the player to "get smart;" smart enough to find a boss' weakness, to be careful and attentive when exploring a new environment, to not carry souls unnecessarily, to equip items most useful in certain situations, etc.

What in other words started as a series about mindful adventuring and being on your toes, ended as a series about combat and conquering your foes.

Heck, even veteran Souls let's players like the Super Best Friends or ChristopherOdd regularly fall into the trap of continously treating the games as character action games where better rolling and learning to avoid attacks is the only valid strategy instead of using better equipment such as flame resistant rings or to look for weaknesses to exploit. And this is not even fully their fault; it's the fault of the difficulty emphasizing marketing (by Bandai-Namco mostly) and the later games' forgetfulness with regards to certain elements found most strongly in DeS (i.e. those of course discussed by Matthewmatosis such as bosses havig exploitable weaknesses etc).

I truly hope that for the next game, Miyazaki and his team will go back to the drawing board while ignoring expectations so that we can at least have one more new game that can wow us with a new set of experiences centered around adventuring in a dark world before the publisher driven, checklist design process and fan demand kicks back in and certain things get watered down or over-emphasized again.

 

[Sande]

I agree 100% with pretty much everything he said.

It was especially refreshing to hear some proper critique leveled towards the entire series for a change instead of the constant fanboy gushing by practically everyone everywhere. It's one of my favourite franchises ever, but boy do some of the flaws start to irk me after so many games, especially the ones they've already fixed in previous entries but go back on for whatever reason.

 

[ZdkDzk]

One thing i really miss from Demon's is how simple and straight forward the world is. Other players aren't a result of wibly-wobly multiverse theory, they're just other people who also died and got trapped in the Nexus. Finding an undead npc corpse doesn't make any sense, but finding an npc corpse in Demon's means that that npc either gave up or went mad, and they just never returned for their body. People going insane isn't a side effect of zombie Alzheimer, they went insane because they saw shit like the Valley of Defilement, got captured by Mindflayers, or disembowled too many times by Flamelurker.

Level design is another thing that's lacking moving forward. Where Dark Souls levels are all about looping shortcuts, Demon's is all about navigating 3D mazes, with each level being unique in shape, size, and execution. 1-2 is a bridge that (if you know what youre3doing ) you can run across in 1 minute, but otherwise requires you to explore and bounce between the 3/4 stacked hallways which make up the bridge. 2-2 is a winding maze of interconnected tunnels, pits, and scafoldings of a mountain mining operation, whereas 4-2 is a single, path weaving in and out of a rock spire in the middle of a ocean, where you're constantly forced into fights with hidden
ghost in cramped coridors and giant skeletons and sky mantas on narrow clifsides. 3-1 is a prison that requires you to find keys to progress and which incentivises carefull exploration and sneaking to avoid being caught off gaurd by the mindflayers guards on their routes, ambushed by slaves, or caught in actual traps. This is then followed by 3-2, a high altitude spiderweb of chains linking various towers, with elevators conecting it to a lovecraftian swamp bellow, forcing you to bounce back and forth to get to the towers holding up the giant pulsating heart at the level center blocking your progress, all of which feels a lot more at home in Zelda than any of the later Dark Souls games.

 

[TheCobraTwister]

Tower of Latria.

 

[Nocturnowl]

Eventually got around to this, while Demon's is my least favourite (well, I need to replay it really) there's a lot I agree with here.

I'm particularly rallying behind the boss situation, his assessment on the DS3 bosses helps me narrow down why few of the encounters stick with me despite being technically solid. Similarly why I appreciate chasing Micolash down corridors as well.
Variety in bosses can sometimes lead to some encounters of dubious quality but I'll take the misfires if it adds more twists to the proceedings.
Truth be told I still haven't pushed myself through the last of DS3 DLC because I'm already guessing that the bosses I'm working my way towards are another round of multiple form slugfests which I've had my fill of in DS3 alone.

 

[Raitaro]

One thing I really miss from Demon's is how simple and straight forward the world is. Other players aren't a result of wibly-wobly multiverse theory, they're just other people who also died and got trapped in the Nexus. Finding an undead npc corpse doesn't make any sense, but finding an npc corpse in Demon's means that that npc either gave up or went mad, and they just never returned for their body. People going insane isn't a side effect of zombie Alzheimer, they went insane because they saw shit like the Valley of Defilement, got captured by Mindflayers, or disembowled too many times by Flamelurker.

Level design is another thing that's lacking moving forward. Where Dark Souls levels are all about looping shortcuts, Demon's is all about navigating 3D mazes, with each level being unique in shape, size, and execution. 1-2 is a bridge that (if you know what youre3doing ) you can run across in 1 minute, but otherwise requires you to explore and bounce between the 3/4 stacked hallways which make up the bridge. 2-2 is a winding maze of interconnected tunnels, pits, and scafoldings of a mountain mining operation, whereas 4-2 is a single, path weaving in and out of a rock spire in the middle of a ocean, where you're constantly forced into fights with hidden ghost in cramped coridors and giant skeletons and sky mantas on narrow clifsides. 3-1 is a prison that requires you to find keys to progress and which incentivises carefull exploration and sneaking to avoid being caught off gaurd by the mindflayers guards on their routes, ambushed by slaves, or caught in actual traps. This is then followed by 3-2, a high altitude spiderweb of chains linking various towers, with elevators conecting it to a lovecraftian swamp bellow, forcing you to bounce back and forth to get to the towers holding up the giant pulsating heart at the level center blocking your progress, all of which feels a lot more at home in Zelda than any of the later Dark Souls games.

Well said. You've put into words nicely why I (unconsciously) liked DeS's world design so much.

 

[Octavia]

I really really liked Demon Souls, though it definitely had its share of problems too. The biggest one was mostly just being limited to PS3 problems, mostly those damn load times. The online world tendency breaking stuff was really annoying too, so Demon Souls to me had no netplay. I never saw messages nor got invaded because I needed tendencies to get certain items I liked.

One thing it didn't suffer from that the later games did, is that I found myself hating the second half of Dark Souls, I hate half the areas in Dark Souls 2, and strongly dislike a lot of areas in Dark Souls 3. Those games just go on and on. I didn't hate any area in Demons and it's short enough that you can do 2-3 playthroughs in a row without getting fatigued.

Wish we could get a remaster.

Edit: Also, the transition in 3-2 when you remain in the game without a load screen, and go wayyyyy down into the swamp was sorta mindblowing for that generation.

 

[zma1013]

I disagree about the combat part. I think the simplicity of the combat is one of this series strengths. I'm glad the games aren't bogged down by upgradeable skill trees and combo focused combat that a lot of developers seem to be inserting into their games. It's sort of a "do the best with what you have" kind of survival in Souls to overcome challenges and I appreciate that. If I wanted a more combo and multi-move focused combat games, we have plenty of them.

Another thing is he talked about how there are no moments like Sif anymore in the series and I think he forgot about the Demon King in Dark Souls 3. He does something very similar to Sif when his health gets low. He becomes visibly weakened, falls to one knee, and lets out his last little bit of flame then weakly flails his arm and can no longer raise his club. It was rather sad in a way.