Exactly, when first playing I found the game to be the most rewarding single player experience that I'd come across in years. I couldn't quite believe that was then matched by the multiplayer element when I braved the online features, the amount if customisation that you and other players can impose is astounding.

Play the game as a co-op experience, invade other people's worlds and kill them at any cost, fight in duels with rules which have been implemented by a passionate community or make a comedy character to troll people with, there's so many possibilities that I've found it impossible to get bored with.

Petey wrote:

Tempy wrote:

The uniqueness of the online mechanic is emphasised by its paucity.

The paucity is (mostly) a choice that you, as a player, make. If you want to treat the game purely as a PvP experience, you can via in-built mechanics, and it's just as valid as never once turning human or invading another world. That blend is one of my favourite aspects of the game.

Yeah I have no issue with I just don't desire to take it further, if I wasn't clear originally.

You simply don't have a broadsword +1 or +4 you just have a broadsword. That's it. No stupid increments, just weapons being useful based on how they operate. As I've said a few times, this would work in a game system that has no levelling. It wouldn't be an RPG. If you were persistent or good enough you could make it through with a Longsword or whatever the equivalent of the most all round weapon in the real world is (single handed axe maybe?) but you'd find it easier to follow the game world by using the correct weapons on the correct enemies, with finding weapons being the equivalent of a Metroid style "unlock" to the next area.

Have one place teeming with skeletons that are easier to take down with a mace or hammer, or another area full of scaled enemies that have weak spots that are easier to get at with a spear, it'd be about encouraging the player to take a specific route the the game whilst not preventing them from doing that. Make skill, not numbers, the measure of progress.

The ability to run in with a huge two handed claymore giving you huge damage and area attack potential, but sacrificing your ability to wield a shield. I'd also limit the weapons you could carry, and only allow you to swap them at the main hub. Armour would be more important, and swapping equipment would take time like The Last of Us, instead of being a press of a button to swap from sword to bow.

It's easier to just say "nah that wouldn't work" than to talk about how it possibly could, but I would love to see someone really take the heart of Dark Souls, and take the reach/speed/weight and cumbersome, solid nature of the combat and have apply it into a none RNG engine.

@Tempy Maybe I got confused by what you said originally:

If I was making a Dark Souls game I'd do what your Bro is doing and cut out the worst part of it: numbers. Fuck them all. I'd probably try my best to remove and levelling system of any sort too.

But basically I agree that what you're saying could make a fine game, just not a Dark Souls game. The question is whether 'the heart of Dark Souls' is something that requires RPG stuff or not. I'm not sure there - it depends on what exactly we think that heart is - but my initial thought is what you're suggesting would limit some of the fundamental aspects, such as the relatively free exploration, and the customisation. It becomes a lot more linear perhaps.

Suddenly we do seem to be talking about a Metroid (or, at a stretch, Mega Man) game rather than a Souls game (Super Metroid especially), which is no bad thing in itself of course.

@JonB I don't think the heart of Souls is in numbers. I think it's about the combat and the exploration. Although you can tackle Souls in a fairly broad order, it's certainly easier to go and do the Gargoyles before the Catacomb, which is the same as I'm proposing. Sure, you can try and tackle area X without getting weapon Y first but it'll be tougher. 

But at the same time that doesn't mean you can't do it. Obviously as it's just an idea, it's hard to convey every tiny aspect, but I'd essentially want the same freedom as a Souls game, but without the numbers attached. The ability to take a risk and grab an item in the same way you can 'sequence jump' in Metroid, something that you can also do in Dark Souls with the Skeleton Key. I also think, as Brook has said, that Metroid is a great touching point for Souls, but souls Souls hides its funneling more naturally, which is something I'd want to emphasise. It's not about saying "you have to go this way", it's about saying "the first time you play, this way is naturally easier, but there is nothing stopping you going another way"

It'd be harder to do, but I don't think it's by any means impossible.

@Fent ugh, do I have to clarify every tiny thing? No. I don't. But I will: 
Quick change is too quick. 
Having stacks of armour in your inventory is ridiculous. 
Having to rely on stats to decide what you can equip and can't is dumb.

ok, sorry

Fentonizer wrote:

ok, sorry

so you damn well should be - I keep checking this thread instead of playing XCOM omg

Brooks wrote:

but which is more fun and rewarding? Learning those properties from having fought a lot, or looking shit up on a chart?

Slightly fatuous but... don't look shit up on a chart then. I never did.

Aye, DkS is basically the swords'n'sorcery Metroid for me, or at least should be.

But it isn't, and isn't trying to be. It seems odd to take a game that does X really well and then say it's not that great because it should be Y instead. I mean, Y might also be good, but it has no bearing on the quality of X.

JonB wrote:

but which is more fun and rewarding? Learning those properties from having fought a lot, or looking shit up on a chart?

Slightly fatuous but... don't look shit up on a chart then. I never did.

Aye, DkS is basically the swords'n'sorcery Metroid for me, or at least should be.

But it isn't, and isn't trying to be. It seems odd to take a game that does X really well and then say it's not that great because it should be Y instead. I mean, Y might also be good, but it has no bearing on the quality of X.

You can't really avoid it, I mean it's all over the pause menus. Moreover the entire difficulty curve is largely dictated by how physically hard things can duff you vs. your ability to do same. There is some nuance to the combat but it's pretty easily quashed. The level of jankiness in the MP basically confirms for me that the weren't thinking hard enough.

I know it wasn't trying to be. It should've been.

Which is why the topic's general claim had my eyebrow up in the first instance.

Tempy wrote:

Fentonizer wrote:

I know what you're saying. I don't know why I focused on the literal examples you gave. Sorry.

Nah it's fine. Also, did you read the stuff I said way back on page 2 before all this chat started? Was it dickish? I didn't want it to be dickish.

I did and I took it on board; it was not having the qualities of a dick, no.

I just worry if I approach every game like that, I'll be repeating myself because a lot of games make the same (in my mind) ludological faux-pas.

And if you consider how much more mighty model shader tech is now, it's crying out to be exploited so.

It still seems quicker and more reliable just to refer to a number. There's a lot to be said for that.

JonB wrote:

Honestly, it probably would be a good idea for some of you to play Bushido Blade, to see that's it's actually a bit poor, and not just because it's badly executed.

Paul the sparky wrote:

If I played Bushido Blade now what would I make of it? It's borderline ancient now.

JonB wrote:

I played it when it was out. Was ok for a while, but we got bored of it pretty quickly.

I still play Bushido Blade.  It is still one of the best games ever made.

It's not Bushido Blade.  All games should be Bushido Blade.  Here's a thing I wrote about Bushido Blade*. You should write a thing about how Bushido Blade should be Dark Souls.





* Do I feel dirty pimping my thing in another guys thread for pimping his thing?  Yes, yes I do.