Dark Souls III looks like shit, and here's why

So I've been observing snippets of news and hands-on previews of Dark Souls III by From Software. Typically, when I am scouring the internet for news on upcoming games it is because I am looking forward to, or feel excited by the prospect of playing said upcoming games. However, with Dark Souls III my interest is purely academic (well, it is now anyway).

You see, I find From Software's series of games - Demon's Souls, Dark Souls I and II, and Bloodborne - fascinating in that they typify precisely why modern gaming journalism is rotten to the very core. I mean, Demon's Souls was a great game, and helped meet the urge that many of us feel when playing a game that properly challenges us, and isn't afraid to throw us in at the deep end. Demon's Souls felt fresh, invigorating, and unique (though I do acknowledge the influences of the King's Field series, here). Sure, the visuals were a little janky in places, the framerate was horrific during particular phases of gameplay (such as dragons throwing fire at yo' ass), the controls were overly clunky and stiff, and some of the game's content was more a chore to endure than something to be enjoyed (how about that swamp in Valley of Defilement?). But I was willing to give it a free pass - to an extent - on these obvious flaws, because it was an original game with bright ideas and, seemingly, a bright future. What happened next, though, would cause me to feel agitation and sorrow in equal measure.

This was the original, and best, Souls title. Original. Thrilling. Unique.

Initially, it appeared that those 'journalists' who played Demon's Souls saw the merit of its executions, and praised it accordingly. However, it is worth stating that Demon's Souls took a fair while to release in Europe (and other territories, I'm guessing), and so any buzz surrounding the game was disjointed and unconvincing to those on the fence. Then came Dark Souls on both PS3 and Xbox 360. Dark Souls was, essentially, a bonafide 'Greatest Hits' version of Demon's Souls, with reworked geography, and some not-so-subtle switching of keywords regarding narrative (instead of Boletaria, we were now in Lordran, but it was essentially the same place), to help ease the transition of the franchise away from Sony, and towards a multi-platform audience. Aside from these subtle changes, however, little else was different, particularly regarding the visuals and gameplay. In the old days, Dark Souls would have been released as a mere expansion-pack for Demon's Souls, since the core gameplay, graphics engine, and everything else important to game design was, essentially, the same. This was nothing more than Demon's Souls 1.5 Edition. This was fine with me, though at the time I had already had my fill of Souls and found Dark Souls too lacking in innovation to even bother completing it (I played maybe 10 hours, or so, before getting bored with the samey graphics and gameplay). What did 'reviewers' say, though? Most of the 'big' websites spoke of the game as if it were an original concept, and so approached the game as many of us did with Demon's Souls. To Xbox 360 users, it probably was a new concept. In other words, Dark Souls was Demon's Souls to many. Considering the subtle switch of the franchise's title, and the shedding of console exclusivity, I could somewhat understand this process. Even so, Dark Souls, to me, wasn't as good as Demon's Souls because it was essentially the same game, and did little else to move the formula forward.

Then came Dark Souls II. Again, a copy & paste job. Same weapons. Same armour types. Same enemies. Same bosses. Same graphics. Same UI. Same. Same. Same. Sure, there were some new locations, and new enemies, and new weapons, but it was - once again - akin to a £20 expansion pack PC gamers used to buy back in the day; a game that looks the same, feels the same, but offers some extra content. Dark Souls II is Demon's Souls 1.5.5. The law of diminishing returns is killing the franchise. The worse part is, I managed to put some 100+ hours into Dark Souls II, but that was purely because it was on PC and I could enjoy some slightly better visuals and a more stable framerate. But it was still the same shoddy PS3 engine, and little had changed for the better (if at all).

Dark Souls looked and felt eerily familiar to Demon's Souls.

With Dark Souls II, surely 'reviewers' must have finally realised that From Software had not improved the formula whatsoever? The short answer is: no. Once again, 'journalists' fawned over From Software's creation, and failed to mention anything regarding visual decay, technical limitation, lack of innovation, and archaic gameplay. Then came Scholar of the First Sin. An expansion pack, of sorts, for a game which was already an expansion pack itself. But the reviews continued the praise.

My problem with all of this? Two things.

1. The unwillingness of boneheaded 'journalists' to stick to any sense of objectivity essentially helps reinforce From Software's belief that they never need to innovate, as their Souls games will be successful regardless. When a From Software developer reads a glittering IGN 9.0+ review, with little-to-no criticism, he is thinking 'great! no need to innovate: we can just pump this shit out over and over until they finally get sick'. It is the role of reviewers, no matter the medium, to engage with, observe and assess a film, a book, a game, in the means to not only tell us whether it is good or not, but also to give the creator or the developer feedback on their product. When you have the entire section of 'gaming journalism' bestowing infallible praise upon Dark Souls II, it sells the players short - since Dark Souls II isn't a superb game, by any stretch of the imagination - and it sells the developers short as they lack any credible information on how they can improve their games.

If you think this first point is a load of rubbish, then let me ask you this: what if, instead of rendering PS2-era textures, Dark Souls II had a visual style akin to The Witcher 3? What if, instead of a maximum of 5 detailed enemies on screen t once, you could fight dozens upon dozens of huge, fully detailed monsters? What if, instead of having to meet obtuse criteria to summon a friend for co-op, you could play the game in full co-op from beginning to end? What if, instead of fumbling around with a lock-on system better suited to a Nintendo 64 game, you could fluidly target multiple enemies without having to sacrifice time, effort or the competence of the game's camera? All of these things are not impossible. Take a look at a lot of games and you'll see developers pushing technology to its limits, like they're supposed to do. But no, we're still stuck with an early PS3 version of a game which has so much more potential. All because 'journalists' are grotesquely incompetent at their jobs. Just think about that.

2. For all the praise Demon's Souls 1.5.5 receives - despite being essentially the same game three times over - 'journalists' are seemingly over-eager to bash other games which employ the same tactics. Batman: Arkham Origins? Too samey as Arkham City; doesn't innovative; too derivative. Madden NFL 16? Too similar to last year's iteration; doesn't do enough to warrant the price of admission. Yet, for Demon's Souls 1.5.5, which employs precisely the same design philosophy as Arkham Origins and Madden 16, the praise is unparalleled. This is beyond infuriating, and makes me want to individually throttle each 'journalist' who persists in overrating From Software titles with each passing year. They are killing journalism with their lack of informative and objective criticism. They are a cancer to gaming as a medium. Games cannot evolve when gaming media is overloaded with idiotic, easily pleased, juvenile and pathetic writers.

Dark Souls II: SotFS. Looks and feels exactly the same. Again.

So, finally, onwards to Dark Souls III (or, as I shall now call it, Demon's Souls 1.5.5.5). Today I watched a 13-minute snippet of the game from PAX. Now, as anyone who has ever played a Souls game before, is it honestly fair to say anything in that gameplay video is original? The only thing new(ish) is the faster pace of the combat, ripped directly from - you guessed it - another From Software title, Bloodborne. (It is worth pointing out, at this stage, that Bloodborne also utilises the exact same technology as Demon's Souls, and so is also technically abysmal, but at least makes a concerted effort to mix it up with the game's setting and combat.) Aside from that, the graphics are precisely the same. The weapon and armour look precisely the same. The enemies look eerily familiar, and utilise the same boneheaded AI philosophy. The UI is precisely the same. It is also too late to have any hopes that this early build of the game will evolve too: this is exactly what Dark Souls III will look like and play like on launch. At this point, I think gamers will become increasingly weary by playing the same game yet again. Reviewers? I'm predicting another 90+ rating on Metacritic.

Ultimately, Dark Souls III, based on the PAX gameplay demo, looks like shit. It looks like a budget game developed by a small Japanese company who completely missed the boat with the PS4, and are only now deciding to port it over and hope nobody notices. Except From Software are not a small developer. They have the means and the capacity to utilise the PS4's, Xbox One's and PC's infrastructure, yet they are not doing so. They are, instead, doing what Activision, EA and Ubi-Soft get lambasted for almost every year: they are shipping the same game, year-in year-out, with minimal changes. The difference is, they have the gaming media onside. As a gamer, and as someone who really enjoyed Demon's Souls, I feel robbed of a thrilling Souls experience, because I know what more can be achieved. Any other Souls fans, in all honesty, should feel the same.

The Problem with From Software, Souls, Bloodborne, and Gaming Media

Back in 2009 I remember reading a review over on Eurogamer about some game called Demon’s Souls. From the sounds of it at the time, this was a rather obscure, unique and hardcore (on that generation of hardware) Japanese title that looked as though it had little chance of ever arriving in Europe. Even so, I was fully enticed by Keza MacDonald’s glowing review,[1] of a game with huge depth, with considered and challenging combat, and with a hybrid online system that was neither an MMO nor fully single-player. Like the game itself, the coverage of Demon’s Souls evoked the type of mystery that oozed from Boletaria, the game’s fictional fantasy setting. Having decided Demon’s Souls was likely a game I would never get to play living in the UK, I bought a US imported copy from eBay and thanked the Gods of technology that Sony had decided to keep their system region-free.[2]

So, how was the game? Well, most gamers are now, surely, probably aware of the quality of Demon’s Souls, since it was that game which sparked the current craze over From Software’s current fantasy action-RPG titles. However, when I played Demon’s Souls I was a member of the first wave of gamers encountering these type of games. Of course, there existed countless of others who had previous experience with the King’s Field series too. Regardless, to us born in the 70s and 80s, these games represented a reawakening of the type games which became the foundation of our gaming ability. Back in the day, if you died in a game you were punished. You had to get good; you had to learn. These days most games are too afraid of punishing players, and aim to appeal to as broad an audience as possible. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but by skewing the content of games away from challenge, and skill, and precision, there immediately arises a new market of gamers looking for something different; in a way, to spite the fact that too many games are simply too basic, and too eager to molly-coddle players. Of course, the setting, the atmosphere, the mystery, and the sound of the Souls games are also as valid as the gameplay, but the latter plays a huge part in drawing in bigger audiences who feel bored with existing “triple-A” titles.

Demon’s Souls, then, rekindled a standard of gaming most of us had not seen since the 1990s. But it was also a genuinely good game; but not perfect. MacDonald’s praise was, by and large, accurate but – as is often the case – she let the rose-tinted glasses get in the way of criticisms which are obvious for all to see. For a start, From Software, for some unbeknown reason, felt that platforming was a viable option for this and other Souls titles. The problem is, that movement and jumping are hugely clunky in these games, and assigning a jump function to an analogue-stick is usually a good indication that certain design aspirations are clearly not meant to be. Yet From Software went ahead and put sections – however brief – into the game which require some form of balance and platforming. But trying to manoeuvre a double-decker London bus across a tightrope would be beyond a joke in reality, which is exactly how it feels to play Demon’s Souls at times. Furthermore, the framerate drops substantially during certain sections of the game. This usually occurs, as is often the case with some games, when the game’s engine buckles under heavy load; too many enemies on the screen, too many particle effects, and so on. Finally, those who wrote about the Demon’s Souls lauded the perceived fact that the game was “challenging, but fair”. Again, this is somewhat untrue. For, perhaps, 85 per cent of the game, if the player dies it is through their own mistakes, which is great. However, there are sections of the game which are clearly designed to be unfair on the player. One section, in particular, sees the player wading through a swamp-like environment, where entering the knee-deep water (which is unavoidable) slows the player substantially; dodging becomes much more difficult, as does general movement. Yet enemies maintain the same movement speed and attack capabilities in the water as they do on land. There exist specific enemies called ‘Phantoms’ who also loiter in this area. Phantoms are essentially the NPC equivalent to your character, yet in this environment they, again, can move at full capacity regardless of the swamp. How is that fair? Furthermore, there are countless occasions where death is almost inevitable; to encourage trial and error. Again, setting up a trap that even the most conservative of players will fall foul of is not fair design; it is cheap.

That Demon’s Souls has noticeable flaws is, then, undeniable. However, such flaws are only minor blemishes on an otherwise solid 8/10 title. A game that, if improved upon, could go on to achieve great things. Surely, the upcoming “spiritual successor”, Dark Souls, would go above and beyond its predecessor, with From Software acknowledging the newfound popularity of Demon’s Souls, and fully willing to push themselves further to go one more beyond their first title; to go from ‘solid’ to ‘superb’. That was my theory, anyway. In reality, however, Dark Souls was a disappointing failure.

Dark Souls, released a couple of years after Demon’s Souls, was essentially the same game as its predecessor. The combat was the same. Movement was the same. The graphics engine was the same. Many of the weapons and armour looked eerily familiar. This was, simply put, Demon Souls 1.5. Many will argue that the tweaks to use of magic, or the multi-layered, multi-faceted environmental design, or need for new boss-tactics was original ‘content’, but the core argument remains true: Dark Souls is almost exactly the same as Demon’s Souls bar new locations, new weapons and armour, new music, and new bosses. This was what we older PC gamers would call a traditional expansion pack, of sorts. That would have been fine, but From Software, somewhat unfortunately, had the gall to peddle Dark Souls as a fully-fledged and improved sequel (with a full RRP to boot), which it clearly is not. Dark Souls is a lazily designed game, clearly intended to bridge the gap between audiences of Demon’s Souls on the PlayStation 3, and new fans to the franchise on Xbox 360 (and, eventually, PC). From Software merely took the same engine and pumped out some content, rebranded as an entirely new game, and shoved it out the door for quick gains; on the back of the unexpected but huge success of Demon’s Souls, but also on basis that new fans would be acquired across multiple platforms. Personally, I can understand this tactic from a business perspective: using existing design software to create a more-or-less similar game to keep existing fans happy, but also to release on more platforms to create a greater market share. It’s hugely cost-effective, but it is, like it or not, hugely lazy. From Software made no attempt with Dark Souls to push the formula forward, and they did absolutely nothing to suggest that they had any new concepts or ideas to utilise within this or future titles. However, since Dark Souls was, in actuality, a cost-effective and successful business decision, I am willing to give it a free pass for the time being; a lazy but nonetheless decent 7/10 title with diminishing returns for those who played Demon’s Souls. That’s fine, I guess. As such, I was fully anticipating and expecting Dark Souls II to finally illustrate what From Software had really been working on for all these years. Dark Souls II would, surely, be the first foray onto new and better technology, with new and original concepts, and a genuine feeling of “this is a sequel” about it.

Oh, how wrong I was. Yet again, From Software, with a staggering 5-year gap since the original Demon’s Souls, pushed out the same game yet again. The graphics engine was the same. The combat was the same. The weapons and armour were even the same. From Software even had the cheek to reuse enemies and entire boss battles from the previous title! This was laziness on a new scale. I was staggered that, after 5 years of utilising PlayStation 3 technology, From Software were still content with pumping out the same game yet again. Where is the inspiration? Where is the desire to push the envelope? If anything, Dark Souls II was a complete regression for the entire series, with recycled textures, enemies, weapons, armour, sound and graphical effects, and the almost complete lack of narrative or context. Here we were, in 2014, with a game that still had NPCs with no lip-syncing to speak of, with framerate issues when too much was happening on screen (less noticeable on PC, granted), and, one again, with ridiculously clunky platforming sections. Watch a YouTube video of Demon’s Souls and then watch one of Dark Souls II and be astonished at how little difference there is to distinguish between them. Call of Duty and Assassin’s Creed get called out every year for recycling repetitive content, yet here we are, with a popular “hardcore” title doing the exact same thing. Why are we not calling From Software out on it? Dark Souls II is the epitome of design laziness. I loved Demon’s Souls, grew bored of Dark Souls, and felt Dark Souls II was an insult, especially when, once again, a full retail asking price was required to play the game. Diminishing returns is killing this series. Dark Souls II is a 6/10 game. It is a game that has quite literally squeezed the tube of content as far as it can go, yet the media lapped it up. What is happening here?

Once again, what is happening – and all that as ever happened – is that the gaming media is showing itself to be entirely incompetent, uninformative, and entirely absurd. This is a collection of journalists who will comply with a level of double-standards that is beyond incredible. In a 6/10 review for Batman: Arkham Origins, GameSpot reviewer Carolyn Petit argues that the game has little ‘surprise or innovation’; that the game is, essentially, identical to Arkham Asylum and Arkham City. As it happens, I do not disagree with these sentiments: Arkham Origins is, undoubtedly, lacking in originality and relies upon the same graphics engine, combat and stealth design, and overall design philosophy of the first two games in the series. Diminishing returns makes it a lesser game. However, GameSpot then go on to award Dark Souls II a 9/10, where mention of lazy design, diminishing returns, and lack of ‘surprise’ or ‘innovation’ are completely omitted. Why does Dark Souls II – identical to Arkham Origins in terms of its copy and paste philosophy – get a free pass? This is hypocritical beyond belief, and merely evidences the amateurish nature of modern gaming journalists. They are an embarrassment to the journalism profession.[3] The problem with having such blatantly bad reviewers is not insignificant, either. When From Software consult Metacritic, for instance, they will feel contented that Dark Souls II is a success with little-to-no need of improvement. Since they’re a Japanese developer, they’re not likely to look under the bonnet of mainstream media – they will not look at blogs like this, or forums, or the comments section on reviews. I know most people who play these games are happy with what they’re getting, and that’s great, but some of us want and expect more. Having idiotic reviewers blow smoke up From Software’s arse does not bode well for further Souls titles, as the same copy-and-paste, recycled and lazy design will continue.

So, what about Bloodborne? Ironically enough, the exclusivity deal with Sony has actually meant that From Software have been forced to alter the formula somewhat. This time, we have a game with a radically different setting, and a substantial shift in combat design. However, much remains the same. The graphics engine is exactly the same one as utilised for Demon’s Souls, for instance, which is beyond shocking. The UI is eerily familiar. Picking up items looks and feels the same. NPCs still have no lip-syncing. The load times are laughable (a patch is meant to alleviate this, but I’m unsure how successful it is). I’m happy that From Software are attempting something slightly different, to be sure, but should we not expect new and better technology by now? And, again, why are the media saying absolutely nothing negative in this regard? It seems like gamers and journalists alike have been completely swept-up by the nostalgia of “hardcore-ness” and “challenge” that they have lost all faculty to highlight obvious flaws with these games. By the same token, it is fair game to call Call of Duty derivative, or Assassin’s Creed repetitive and boring. Yet Activision and Ubi-Soft are doing nothing different to From Software. It is bizarre and hugely annoying.

Ultimately, there is very little I can do as a one insignificant blogger on a webpage that likely gets as many as 3 hits per year. But what I can do, regardless, is vent my frustrations and write down my thoughts in a way that feels more constructive than continually moaning to my friends about it. With that in mind, here is what I would suggest to From Software if, in some parallel universe, they ever asked me for my opinion on the Souls titles:

-       - Firstly, it is time to upgrade the technology and have the Souls games at least on-par with existing current-gen games (which it fails at miserably as things stand)

-       - Secondly, introduce new gameplay concepts and ideas. Bloodborne is cool in terms of basing combat on dodging and counterattacks, but how about adding that as an additional class-based dimension in the Souls series (e.g. as a rogue or dual-wield warrior type, on top of existing classes)?

-      -  Thirdly, sort the controls out and make movement and jumping more fluent and less clunky. If you insist on placing narrow-ledges and jumping sections in the games then you’d better make sure the gameplay can accommodate that without players feeling frustrated.

-      -  Fourthly, sort the multiplayer out. Demon’s Souls was great for the way it mixed a unique style of offline and online play together. However, after four games it has gone past the point of stupidity that I still cannot summon and play with a friend co-operatively, from start to finish, without jumping through countless hoops and ensuring abstract criteria are continually met each time one of us dies.

-      -  Fifthly, having the player rely on item descriptions to glean parts of the narrative is not good writing or game design. Again, Demon’s Souls was allowed a free pass because of its initial glory, but it is entirely plausible to offer a game with mystery and a sense of isolation without necessarily resorting to the anti-Souls trends of cut-scenes or hours of NPC dialogue (see: ICO and Shadow of the Colossus).

-       Sixthly, try and simply up the scale of the games. It is clear that just about as much that can be achieved has been achieved in these games. New technology should allow a broadening of content, of environments, of enemies, and of the sheer amount that can happen at any one time. As it stands, trying to hit 30 frames-per-seconds on consoles, and trying to avoid framerate meltdown ensures that inspiration is kept in check. Future titles can be less restricted and so could offer much more.

-       - Seventhly, modernise the bloody UI! The UI and menus look like they’ve been torn straight from the PS2 era. It doesn’t need to change the aesthetic style of the game to simply tidy-up and polish non-gameplay components. This is really something that has annoyed me since Dark Souls, as it simply evidences a “can’t be arsed” attitude from the developer when it is one of the things most easily upgradeable with sequels.

So there we have it. Seven bullet-point improvements that I would like to see adopted in future Souls titles. There are likely more to be added, but at the current moment these are the most pressing concerns. Of course, the odds of any of the above being implemented any time soon are slim when reviewers are constantly assuring From Software that anything they touch is almost-perfect. As it stands, however, I can be content with knowing that I have contributed something – as minor as this is – to a debate that seemingly doesn’t exist, but should.

---

[1] It is worth noting that I actually respected MacDonald at this point, but she appears to have diminished in objectivity and genuine journalistic agency over the past few years, and is no better or no worse than the countless other useless gaming “journalists” contributing their laughable drivel to various websites and print media.

[2] Of course, the game did eventually make it to Europe based on its huge popularity in Japan and the US.

[3] It is worth noting that this trend is not only apparent with Dark Souls II: many other games have often been dismissed for being too similar to previous iterations, while others – if the reviewer is feeling particularly bone-headed – are be praised with little-to-no mention for diminishing returns.