He isn't some infallible expert on the souls series and yet people still choose to shut conversations down by citing him and his videos as if he were.
I don't agree with a lot of what he says. His conception of what Souls is and what it should be on a game to game basis is his own. I get that people agree with him but it gets really tiring being told that I like these games wrong because reasons.
So I just watched the video and, instead of talking about "MM's just got first album syndrome" or "I agree lol fanboys y u mad tho" I've got some long winded, poorly edited, likely-to-never-be-read thoughts:
The only thing I can wholeheartedly agree with boss design which, even having only played the game once, is definitely the best factor of the game. In 2 and 3 especially I began to abuse summons not just because I was getting wrecked (which is true) but because I just couldn't be bothered to do it myself. Though I must disagree with the implied assertion that DaS's bosses aren't very varied; whilst, yes, most of them are simple affairs there's also plenty of bosses that offer their own gimmicks or unique aspects. Taurus Demon and the bridge, Priscilla's invisibility, the Four King's in the abyss, the 'rematch' with Seath and, of course, Sif. Bed of Chaos can get fucked though.
As for everything else though, I can't help but feel that, whilst being the most innovative, Demon's is also the least refined Miyazaki Souls game . The healing mechanics are easily world tendency is an interesting yet incredibly obtuse mechanic that forces one to play the game unnaturally to get the most out of things, the worlds can be done in any order but the level design itself is heavily unrefined in many areas. Stonefang Tunnel in particular was just poor, poor level design the entire way through; the needlessly long and claustrophobic tunnels, the flying bug spam, it was one of the worst 'levels' in the series for me. It's, overall, an unrefined game, and whilst you may be fine with that a mechanic or design that doesn't work is a mechanic or design that doesn't work. The same can be said for Dark Souls as well, of course, but I see its improvements to the formula as
The video also ignores story to its detriment. Again only in my opinion, the story is so much more cohesive and fitting for the mechanics in Dark Souls than the generally disjointed fantasy tale of Demon's. That, above all else, is why Dark is my favourite, because it manages to take the mechanics of Demon's, refine them, and then create a world that works with the mechanics instead of working beside it. It's fitting that the Valley of Defilement is my favorite area in Demon's because it's the one that, above all else, tells a unique and memorable story which the other areas simply don't for me. Again, the unique inter-connected world of Dark makes it so that each area has to relate to the world in general whereas in Demon's each world is almost entirely disconnected so the story follows. The world design is also why I disagree on his point about DeS feeling more like an adventure; when you're stuck in Blighttown you're stuck in Blighttown, when you're stuck in the Valley you can warp out, try another level or grind and get your bearings, it's just not the same to me.
However, I can definitely agree that, after the "debut albums" in Demon's and Dark the series stagnated quite significantly. 3, in particular, was an amazing game but in hindsight it never reaches anywhere near the same heights as the earlier games. It felt like a mish-mash of the entire franchise to date and that can be seen from the combat to to the literal mish-mash of random nostalgic elements; considering the ending and DLC I think Miyazaki sees it that way as well. I'll always keep coming back to the series (especially if we get a DeS remaster or Switch port *end blatant port beg*) but Miyazaki and the team at From really has to go on to something new that isn't just Souls but in a different setting (though I'd be fine with that as a side project). As an aside franchise fatigue has, rather unfairly, rubbed of on Ni-Oh which, despite having bought the deluxe edition I've dropped after 10 hours as I just can't handle another 30+ hours of the same gameplay even if it's different in many ways.
To conclude I'd like to comment on the whole "which Souls game is your favorite," debate."The fact that we've got talk of fanboys and the classic Micheal Jackson popcorn gif in this thread shows that it's gotten a bit silly. You can talk for days about which game you think is the best but which game is your favorite does depend on so many different external factors. What order you played the series in (yes, I know I said I wouldn't talk about it, but I'm not using it to dismiss Matthew's arguments here), what you value in a game, how you played the games, etc. The argument that the completely optional PvP arena in 3 is somehow wrong because Matthew doesn't personally care for PvP (I don't, either) has nothing to do with the games, just what he thinks the game should be. The truth of the matter is that the Souls games have become so prevalent because they've become so many different things to so many different people. The games have fostered a community where, for example, someone like VaatiVidya can co-exist with funny OnlyAfro meme videos and they can both coexist with complex critiques from Matthewmatosis himself. The series is one where even the 'worst' games are better than most out there, so whatever one you pick as a "favorite" is going to be great no matter what. So, just enjoy the games, ya'll.
Dark Souls 2 is still the worst and anyone who thinks its their favorite is wrong
Only half of that is a joke, I'll let you guess which half
Fantastic video, I still enjoy Bloodbone gameplay the most and prefer its bosses but the video did a lot to remind me just how special Demon's is, free from hype it's the most unique Souls game. I think I'm actually down for a remaster now.
"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.
Anor Lando, mimics, how you can fight a boss and have no way to actually deal even decent damage to it?
DkS on a blind run has deaths feeling like they were designed into the game and relatively unavoidable. The video in the OP even talks about a lot of the methods they use to catch the player out.
Case in point, my first play through of DeS, blind, was 20 deaths in 20 hours. My blind run of DkS was full of frustrating bullshit couple with accidentally going into areas and finding out they were for way above my SL.
If you fought a late game enemy in DeS like say, the red dragon or whatever that golden armour dude was called, you will typically survive the first attack.
Yeah, neither do I. I like most of his videos but I don't agree with most of his opinions of Souls games. Saying Bloodborne combat isn't that great? Come on Matt.
I like how he pointed out that community only wants certain things which takes the uniqueness from the series. Just like the Melee community but with the added annoyance that everything should be like Souls.
Anor Lando, mimics, how you can fight a boss and have no way to actually deal even decent damage to it?
DkS on a blind run has deaths feeling like they were designed into the game and relatively unavoidable. The video in the OP even talks about a lot of the methods they use to catch the player out.
Case in point, my first play through of DeS, blind, was 20 deaths in 20 hours. My blind run of DkS was full of frustrating bullshit couple with accidentally going into areas and finding out they were for way above my SL.
If you fought a late game enemy in DeS like say, the red dragon or whatever that golden armour dude was called, you will typically survive the first attack.
Anor Londo? What about Anor Londo? There's nothing in the level beyond typical obstacles. I fail to see how the Silver Knight archers are any more offensive than, say, wandering out into the Valley of Defilment and getting fucked by a cheating meat cleaver NPC.
You find the first Mimic conspicuously placed in the center of a room inside a level filled with traps... And thanks to the message system, if you're online there is plenty of warning. And once you encounter the first Mimic, you know to check other chest in the game.
And yes, if you wander into a hard area before you're ready, it will be hard. This is like complaining when you walk into the Shrine of Storms in Demon's Souls right after 1-1 and get ganged up on by the skeletons, or when you decide to fight the first red-eyed knight in Boletarian Palace. Those hard enemies are the games' way of telling you "come back later".
thinking he was a bit harsh on all that's followed (particularly afa bloodborne, which accomplishes so much, atmosphere-wise, it manages to succeed in ways the previous games never even dreamed of), but, yeah, the boss design, the over-all attention to detail, & the vision/innovation of demon's souls put it in a class all its own: it came first, &, in many ways, actually still does it best ...
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 was a great vid that shows how little progression there has been from one game to the next.
With that title I went i thinking it was some sort of deep dive on magic that wasn't included in DeS, what I got was a thesis defense :\ Not my cup of tea I guess.
However I'm on board with DeS being the most unique-- "special"-- in the SoulsBorne series, and my #2 favorite behind Bloodborne, but I guess I just find the things I enjoy about each and not let obsessive nitpicking ruin my experience.
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).
Anor Lando, mimics, how you can fight a boss and have no way to actually deal even decent damage to it?
DkS on a blind run has deaths feeling like they were designed into the game and relatively unavoidable. The video in the OP even talks about a lot of the methods they use to catch the player out.
Case in point, my first play through of DeS, blind, was 20 deaths in 20 hours. My blind run of DkS was full of frustrating bullshit couple with accidentally going into areas and finding out they were for way above my SL.
If you fought a late game enemy in DeS like say, the red dragon or whatever that golden armour dude was called, you will typically survive the first attack.
Anor Londo? What about Anor Londo? There's nothing in the level beyond typical obstacles. I fail to see how the Silver Knight archers are any more offensive than, say, wandering out into the Valley of Defilment and getting fucked by a cheating meat cleaver NPC.
You find the first Mimic conspicuously placed in the center of a room inside a level filled with traps... And thanks to the message system, if you're online there is plenty of warning. And once you encounter the first Mimic, you know to check other chest in the game.
And yes, if you wander into a hard area before you're ready, it will be hard. This is like complaining when you walk into the Shrine of Storms in Demon's Souls right after 1-1 and get ganged up on by the skeletons.
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 think for the dragon it didn't catch me at all in my first play through. I took my time. I came from a NGB background the fact that I could see the pattern before needing to beat it was all I needed.
I can't remember for World 5 (swamp?) but I believe I did it earlier than another level. The vast majority of my deaths (maybe like, 6-7 of them?) were all on Old Hero because I didn't know its gimmick until NG+ ;(
I agree with the opinion that bosses like Micolash and making mechanics make sense in the lore of the game are part of what make this games good but it really bothered me how much he made up facts just to fit his narrative of "combat is shallow".
"parrys dont work on bosses"
"every weapon does the same with diferent numbers"
"bosses don't react to damage"
I've wasted my time with worst videos tho, so whatever.
I agree with the opinion that bosses like Micolash and making mechanics make sense in the lore of the game are part of what make this games good but it really bothered me how much he made up facts just to fit his narrative of "combat is shallow".
"parrys dont work on bosses"
"every weapon does the same with diferent numbers"
"bosses don't react to damage"
I've wasted my time with worst videos tho, so whatever.
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.
I mean, there are plenty of ways to do this. Use Chameleon. Use Poison Arrows. Just bumrush the archer on the right.
It sounds like you just had a lot of trouble with this part and assumed it was somehow a difference in the design compared to Demon's Souls. As pointed out by other people in the thread, Demon's Souls was no stranger to environmental hazards or "cheap" deaths.
It seems like a lot of the disappointment expressed in the video was how the bosses have evolved to be more fun in combat as the series went on, and I just can't agree that has been to the series detriment. Demon's Souls has very interesting bosses sure, but they usually ended the moment you understood the trick which was almost often immediately.
Maiden Astraea and the final boss are memorable because she defied the concept of a boss and had a fantastic story to tell, but many other bosses weren't nearly as memorable and were shut down quickly. If anything it made the bosses that are more similar to what you would find in the later, more action oriented Souls games stand out as the game's highlights like flamelurker (I know there's cheese but I don't think the designers intended it?) and maneaters.
I think the main difference between Demon's Souls and later Soulsborne games is that the tougher, more conventional boss fights are given the good stories while the interesting but easily taken out bosses are just kind of there, because both types of bosses still exist but the narrative focus are given to the action oriented ones.
I never really thought the bosses were Demon's Souls' strong point anyway. It was always the level design and the enemies that inhabited it. Tower of Latria is the biggest star of the game.
Tell that to most Bloodborne bosses wich can be killed with a few parrys+ viceral or stagered hitting certain parts of the body wich are harder to hit depending on the weapon and move you use. None of that is true, i have vids and can prove it if you insist.
5 games in people have pretty much mastered the souls formula for boss fights, and combat in general, so it's hard for From to impress the veterans with any of the usual gotcha-mechanics in the fights. I agree that the more out there boss "fights" break up the monotony of the usual 2/3-stage roll and punish affairs, but on the other hand a lot of these story bosses don't really feel that interesting after the first time, since it's mostly just going through the motions. That said, if you've mastered the Souls combat, that too becomes tiresome, kinda like W3 combat was after you figured it out. Keeping things fresh is the real challenge in these sequels where people expect the game to step it up a notch.
I do agree that the newer games are pushing for more action than RPG, so it would be interesting to see if From could make a game that's more of an RPG. I think Miyazaki has stated somewhere how part of why Souls games story is so limited and obtuse is that he's not confident in creating a compelling typical RPG story. Very few RPG games have a truly good story so I do feel From has made the best out of theis skills and resources to the point that Souls titles have very barebones mechanics outside combat and environmental storytelling.
I've always wondered what it would feel like to play BB or DS3 as your first game, as opposed to going through from the first game. It seems like the newer games are mechanically much more complex, but at the same time they also tend to be more approachable and forgiving. The difficulty of a given Souls-title heavily depends on your previous experience, and knowledge of the mechanics. When Souls was a new thing, everyone was struggling to just control their characters, and now if you're a first timer going into a Souls game, it'll make a world of difference in terms of difficulty if you go in completely blind, or if you go in with all the hot tips. Going into yet another Souls game really has lost its allure partly since they feel familiar instead of fresh and exciting. Hopefully the next From title will be a truly fresh experience that deviates from the formula considerably, but still keeps the core ideas of what make the franchise stand out, like atmosphere and environmental storytelling. While the combat system is perhaps the key Souls thing, I feel that for From to create a new game that reaches the same heights as the first Souls game, they'll need to have a combat system that feels equally fresh. The usual trappings of Souls combat like rolling and punishing need to be revamped, as well as hacking giant bosses feet while struggling with the camera. Perhaps the whole instance of a boss battle needs rethinking. Maybe you could span it out around an entire map. I think From has occasionally even attempted such designs, but ultimately they've always ended with a separate boss fight.
I agree with idea behind most things in this video but disagree with the actual effect of them; for instance, he's right that the bosses in Demon's Souls are more unique, but, while it does lead to some memorable first experiences, it also leads to the problem of a lot of them being based around shallow gimmicks that don't hold up at all on replays. The later game bosses might mostly be more "generic" in concept but are usually more engaging to refight. Things like world tendency are interesting experiments that don't really work, but "don't really work" ends up the important part, especially as it's tedious to manipulate on top of issues like it's obscurity. Also, given how quick people are to jump on Dark Souls 2's mechanical changes I find it odd how much the mechanical jank in Demon's Souls gets glossed over, especially after doing a SL1 run and having most of my deaths coming from rolling backwards having an arbitrary delay at times.
That generally applies throughout; he's not wrong about the nature of specific aspects, I just disagree they make a better game than the sequels (though I have always said I'd like to see the spirit of boss ideas from Demon's Souls refined and used more, rather than just being relegated to a few gimmick fights in the sequels). On the other hand his rant a minute or so from the end about the games randomly dropping improvements or going backwards on good things is pure hesrightyouknow.gif
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.
It was around three playthroughs before my first death to the Anor Londo archers, there's little trial and error about them given the giant piece of cover the game gives you beforehand to plan out your run.
I think for the dragon it didn't catch me at all in my first play through. I took my time. I came from a NGB background the fact that I could see the pattern before needing to beat it was all I needed.
I can't remember for World 5 (swamp?) but I believe I did it earlier than another level. The vast majority of my deaths (maybe like, 6-7 of them?) were all on Old Hero because I didn't know its gimmick until NG+ ;(
I'm saying those zones are also full of "be prepared to die." moments. Aleast if you want to go melee. 5-2 is the swamp which slows you down and throws 3 giant depraved ones at you. Or the Meat Cleaver BP which for some reason can walk through the swamp just fine. 4-2 has those reapers who, I think, are the only enemy in any Souls game that can one shot you no matter how much HP you have.
So you can time the dragon breath but can't time the arrows with very regular intervals? Weird. I assume that's what you were talking about in regards to Anor Londo? I have never used a shield for more than 10 mins in a Souls game yet I managed to get past the archers just fine. Multiple times even. All you need to do is press roll and forward at the right time. A shield actually seems like a disadvantage against the archers as they'll probably destroy your stamina bar.
I like Matosis's vids but not on Souls game though.
1 thing I will agree with him though, Micolash is awesome.
His love for shields shine through again in this vid, funnily enough.
99% agree with the video. I like the enemies dumb pathing and being able to find cheap ways to deal with some areas. It plays into the whole "honor" thing around the series.
Tell that to most Bloodborne bosses wich can be killed with a few parrys+ viceral or stagered hitting certain parts of the body wich are harder to hit depending on the weapon and move you use. None of that is true, i have vids and can prove it if you insist.
Also, given how quick people are to jump on Dark Souls 2's mechanical changes I find it odd how much the mechanical jank in Demon's Souls gets glossed over, especially after doing a SL1 run and having most of my deaths coming from rolling backwards having an arbitrary delay at times.
This is what strikes me as odd. Not just when comparing jank, but when comparing weird but interesting ideas and mechanics. Dark Souls 2 is full of that stuff.
Not really? Plenty of bosses are parriable. I think ALL of them are in Bloodborne. "bosses don't react to damage"? The hell they don't. Shit, if anything, people are complaining that too many bosses have multiple phases to them, which is triggered by how damaged they are. They get staggered, they get stunned when hit enough times.
Every weapon doing damage is technically true but kind of a baffling thing to list as a complaint. It's a weapon. Damage is what it's supposed to do. And what else is there to do in a combative game? Stun them? That's technically what the guns are for. Buffs/debuffs? Well, you have tools that can do basically that, prevent healing or prevent your own staggering. And either way, any other effect you could have on an enemy that is not damage would only be there to supplement you so you can damage them even more. It's just a point I am confused by. It's partially an action game. What other way are you intending to interact with enemies if not damaging them?
Beast bosses will stagger with damage thresholds. In addition, some beast bosses have a mechanic where certain parts of their body can be broken, causing an automatic stagger and changing the damage dealt to that part of the body.
This is pretty similar to how games like Monster Hunter do bosses.
Some humanoid bosses have super armor on certain attacks... Because they can be staggered instantly on all their other attacks. If they didn't have some attacks with super armor, you could beat them just by hammering R1 forever.
As a general point, especially not in BB, many bosses can't be parried. Again, it's not a huge complaint. But in BB, it is extremely hard to know which attacks can be parried. There's no real indication as to what can or can't be.
"bosses don't react to damage"? The hell they don't. Shit, if anything, people are complaining that too many bosses have multiple phases to them, which is triggered by how damaged they are. They get staggered, they get stunned when hit enough times.
He's talking about Super Armour here. It means that weapons don't have impact. How low their HP and changing their behaviour has nothing to do with it. Any weapon can deplete a bosses health to a lower point. Hell, a rock throw and make the boss hit a threshold.
Every weapon doing damage is technically true but kind of a baffling thing to list as a complaint. It's a weapon. Damage is what it's supposed to do. And what else is there to do in a combative game? Stun them? That's technically what the guns are for. Buffs/debuffs? Well, you have tools that can do basically that, prevent healing or prevent your own staggering. And either way, any other effect you could have on an enemy would be one that helps you damage them more. It's just a point I am confused by. It's partially an action game. What other way are you intending to interact with enemies if not damaging them?
It's not my list of complaints. I mostly don't mind this as it is rarely true that weapons are different (in NG2, the only difference is the probability of cutting limbs and that doesn't apply to bosses). It's still true. I don't really want to brainstorm ideas because gameplay balancing is hard af.
Uh... no? He didn't say "no bosses can be parried". He said, "bosses can't be parried." Whether not that's a valid complaint doesn't mean he intended on saying there are no instances where you can.
You mean the weak points? Those aren't exclusive to the canes.
Usually, action games work off of the fighting game system where certain attacks force an enemy to guard or interrupt them. Whether or not they're safe is part of the depth. In BB, you must attack without the intention of interrupting.
Explaining the person's position doesn't mean I agree with the criticism. You basically just agreed with him that it's a fact. You're not required to agree it's a problem.
Great video. He explains his points well, even though I disagree with a lot of them. Micolash, for instance: yes, he's interesting when you first meet him because it's utterly unlike any boss encounter to that point, and figuring out how to chase him down and trap him is a fun exercise ... the first time. Once you've figured out the gimmick, it becomes a boring affair that offers little to no challenge (unless you're in NG+ Jesus Christ stoponeshottingmeffsaaahhhhhhhhhh). That tends to be the pattern for many of the experimental bosses in this series, especially those in DeS. When the games are so clearly built around being replayed multiple times - NG+, huge selection of weapons and armors, restrained leveling system (don't expect to reach the softcap for every stat in the course of an average playthrough), lots of NPC questlines (some pretty obscure ones, too), World Tendency and covenants, multiplayer - then the bosses should also hold up to repeat playthroughs. The issue with the types of bosses that frequently appear in DeS is that while they may provide a memorable experience on your first blind run, they lose most of their impact on subsequent runs and thus become less interesting than the more standard action-heavy bosses, which consistently demand a certain level of combat mastery from the player across different characters and playthroughs.
The best kind of gimmick boss is something like Armor Spider: The gimmick isn't just an off-or-on thing, it's an important aspect of the entire battle that invites a variety of solutions.
Usually, action games work off of the fighting game system where certain attacks force an enemy to guard or interrupt them. Whether or not they're safe is part of the depth. In BB, you must attack without the intention of interrupting.
You absolutely can attack with the intention of interrupting. Most humanoid bosses only have super armor for a few moves and will instantly stagger for everything else. Kinda like, you know, a fighting game character.
Uh... no? He didn't say "no bosses can be parried". He said, "bosses can't be parried." Whether not that's a valid complaint doesn't mean he intended on saying there are no instances where you can.
You mean the weak points? Those aren't exclusive to the canes.
Usually, action games work off of the fighting game system where certain attacks force an enemy to guard or interrupt them. Whether or not they're safe is part of the depth. In BB, you must attack without the intention of interrupting.
You say hit stun and then mix them with weak points? that's not the same, some weapons have hit stun like the axe in Bloodborne and weak points are something different.
The video is very wrong on combat statements and is not because he doesn't get it, is just to fit the narrative of the video wich i think is lame.
I'm saying those zones are also full of "be prepared to die." moments. Aleast if you want to go melee. 5-2 is the swamp which slows you down and throws 3 giant depraved ones at you. Or the Meat Cleaver BP which for some reason can walk through the swamp just fine. 4-2 has those reapers who, I think, are the only enemy in any Souls game that can one shot you no matter how much HP you have.
So you can time the dragon breath but can't time the arrows with very regular intervals? Weird. I assume that's what you were talking about in regards to Anor Londo? I have never used a shield for more than 10 mins in a Souls game yet I managed to get past the archers just fine. Multiple times even. All you need to do is press roll and forward at the right time. A shield actually seems like a disadvantage against the archers as they'll probably destroy your stamina bar.
My character was unable to guard the arrows and running during the cool down of the dragon's flame is not at all comparable to the precision required to dodge the arrows AND fight the enemies at the balcony in Anor Lando.
From what I understand, they don't shoot the arrows until you're right up to that platform (it's been years) and there are two of them? Besides, it's just one example. DkS is full of these moments whereas in DeS they were never intended to be that way.
DeS wanted to punish players for lack of patience, rather than lack of precision or the correct stats.
Why would they put the giant shield there as the intended answer if it's possible the character can't even wield it? It'd be like giving a poison resistance spell prior to fighting a poison boss but it required a certain about of Vit to use or something.
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.
It does look bad from an "indifferent but fair" perspective. Like, the goal was to be difficult, not potentially difficult but easy peasy if you were observant or lucky (and the arrows didn't start flying until you were engauged in combat and the baddies didn't hang out IN the drop zone).
I agree with idea behind most things in this video but disagree with the actual effect of them; for instance, he's right that the bosses in Demon's Souls are more unique, but, while it does lead to some memorable first experiences, it also leads to the problem of a lot of them being based around shallow gimmicks that don't hold up at all on replays. The later game bosses might mostly be more "generic" in concept but are usually more engaging to refight. Things like world tendency are interesting experiments that don't really work, but "don't really work" ends up the important part, especially as it's tedious to manipulate on top of issues like it's obscurity. Also, given how quick people are to jump on Dark Souls 2's mechanical changes I find it odd how much the mechanical jank in Demon's Souls gets glossed over, especially after doing a SL1 run and having most of my deaths coming from rolling backwards having an arbitrary delay at times.
That generally applies throughout; he's not wrong about the nature of specific aspects, I just disagree they make a better game than the sequels (though I have always said I'd like to see the spirit of boss ideas from Demon's Souls refined and used more, rather than just being relegated to a few gimmick fights in the sequels). On the other hand his rant a minute or so from the end about the games randomly dropping improvements or going backwards on good things is pure hesrightyouknow.gif
It was around three playthroughs before my first death to the Anor Londo archers, there's little trial and error about them given the giant piece of cover the game gives you beforehand to plan out your run.
My character was unable to guard the arrows and running during the cool down of the dragon's flame is not at all comparable to the precision required to dodge the arrows AND fight the enemies at the balcony in Anor Lando.
From what I understand, they don't shoot the arrows until you're right up to that platform (it's been years) and there are two of them? Besides, it's just one example. DkS is full of these moments whereas in DeS they were never intended to be that way.
DeS wanted to punish players for lack of patience, rather than lack of precision or the correct stats.
Why would they put the giant shield there as the intended answer if it's possible the character can't even wield it? It'd be like giving a poison resistance spell prior to fighting a poison boss but it required a certain about of Vit to use or something.
They start shooting when you're running up, not when you reach the balcony.
And a giant shield isn't really the optimal solution. The optimal solution is just running up, turning right, and rolling through the arrow from the archer on the right. The archer on the left if blocked from shooting you once you reach the archer on the right.
It does look bad from an "indifferent but fair" perspective. Like, the goal was to be difficult, not potentially difficult but easy peasy if you were observant or lucky (and the arrows didn't start flying until you were engauged in combat and the baddies didn't hang out IN the drop zone).
The arrows start flying at the enemies who exit the house in the Undead Settlement. You're not going to get hit by them unless you dash straight ahead.
And by the time you reach the other places where the giant can shoot, a NPC warns you to avoid walking near white birch trees.
If he says it is "often completely impossible" then it's true. It's true for all DkS, DeS whereas it may or may not be often in BB, it's for the majority of attacks by BB bosses. What he says isn't false.
You say hit stun and then mix them with weak points? that's not the same, some weapons have hit stun like the axe in Bloodborne and weak points are something different.
I didn't bring up weak points. You did. Super Armour negates any inherent hit-stun of any attack and it is almost always there. Once an enemy, especially a boss, readies and attack there is nothing you can do to interrupt it and it goes for most boss attacks in the game.
Again, I'm not agreeing with it being criticism. It's a fact of the genre.
They start shooting when you're running up, not when you reach the balcony.
And a giant shield isn't really the optimal solution. The optimal solution is just running up, turning right, and rolling through the arrow from the archer on the right. The archer on the left if blocked from shooting you once you reach the archer on the right.
It may not look how I remember but that was what I meant. If they start shooting when you're running up then that only explains my frustration with the design even further.
Regardless of if it is a shining example of DkS design or not, it's poorly designed and that part sucked.
If he says it is "often completely impossible" then it's true. It's true for all DkS, DeS whereas it may or may not be often in BB, it's for the majority of attacks by BB bosses. What he says isn't false.
I didn't bring up weak points. You did. Super Armour negates any inherent hit-stun of any attack and it is almost always there. Once an enemy, especially a boss, readies and attack there is nothing you can do to interrupt it and it goes for most boss attacks in the game.
Again, I'm not agreeing with it being criticism. It's a fact of the genre.
It sounds like you need to disagree with the video because the conclusion differs from your opinion.
Anyway, you didn't have the patience or interest in watching the video in the OP, you don't have to have this semantic argument I brought up.
At the very least, Matt is in no way making up facts to conclude that the combat is average.
i started saying that i agree with the final point of the video about what makes this games great, but i don't agree with stating false things about the combat to fit the narrative about being shallow. The games play more and more like Monster Hunter against big monsters and like his own version of zelda when against humanoid enemies, which is far from shallow. Do i need to quote myself because you didn't read?
You did mix weak points with hit stun, both things happen, bosses do react to damage.
I did watch the whole video, how you conclude i didn't?
...
