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.
