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.
