A Review of Dark Souls by Someone Who Didn?t Play It

[Tengukami]

But did watch someone else play it.

I've never been able to get it to run in WINE, personally, so I haven't played it, either. Which is a shame, because as a Nethack fan, I enjoy dying over and over and over again. But what I'm curious to know from those of you who've played it is: is this review accurate? If not, where, and what's the real story?

I'd end this with something about praising and the sun, but it's been raining for like 5 weeks in a row so the sun can go sod itself for all I care.

[Amraphenson]

Welcome to amra's comment-as-you-read, where I have too much free time on my hands.

-Everything does respawn when you die and when you use your checkpoints/bonfires, yes, but the reviewer is mistaken about saving. The game autosaves every second and you can quit to menu anywhere you want; everything will remain as is when you come back unless you die or bonfire, again.

-thank you, even someone who didn't actually play the game realizes that human form is an agreement to multiplayer.

-I disagree heavily with there being no narrative myself. The reviewer didn't note that much of the backstory and foreshadowing lies within item descriptions, which add to the background and motivation for lots of characters and areas. For example, should you kill Solaire and take his gear, you'll learn that all his gear is absolutely mundane, which makes you suspicious of his origin

Spoiler:

seeing that the major fan theory is that he was the First Son of Gwyn, stripped of all his divinity.

Or all the pyromancies and occult weapons sealed away in the

Spoiler:

Painted World of Ariamis

. The Souls obtained from bosses and the weapons you can make from them, and especially the Keys also have very compelling tidbits of info.

In the the end I do agree with most of the points made, though. Really nice review for someone who just watched it being played.

[Sahgren]

To build off of what Amra said, the review is mostly correct in that there isn't a typical RPG narrative like what's described in the final paragraph. A lot of the "story" of the game is in the world-building that the player can piece together from the atmosphere, item descriptions, and tidbits friendly NPCs are willing to give you. That said, there is character development in the game. It's just all in the NPCs you interact with, with your own character being solely whatever the player wants them to be.

[Drake]

-I disagree heavily with there being no narrative myself. The reviewer didn't note that much of the backstory and foreshadowing lies within item descriptions, which add to the background and motivation for lots of characters and areas. For example, should you kill Solaire and take his gear, you'll learn that all his gear is absolutely mundane, which makes you suspicious of his origin

Spoiler:

seeing that the major fan theory is that he was the First Son of Gwyn, stripped of all his divinity.

Or all the pyromancies and occult weapons sealed away in the

Spoiler:

Painted World of Ariamis

. The Souls obtained from bosses and the weapons you can make from them, and especially the Keys also have very compelling tidbits of info.

this sounds similar to when people say the metroid prime trilogy had no narrative or story
which is extremely frustrating

[Amraphenson]

If I recall, Metroid Prime had that whole deal about scanning everything for descriptions correct? If so, it's very similar to that. The amount of information you can find just from the location of an item and its description is staggering. There's for example a secret room in Anor Londo that contains Havel's armor and weapon, and

Spoiler:

a mimic that drops a club upgraded for the Occult path. Occult weapons are especially effective against the gods that populate Anor Londo, and Havel was said to have hated magic in the description of Great Magic barrier. So why was Havel hiding one of those in his secret stash behind so many levels of protection? A planned coup? And is this the reason he was locked away at the bottom of the tower by a 'dear friend', as written on the key's description that allows you to find the hollowed out Havel in person?

As the reviewer said, Dark Souls was meticulously crafted. It certainly has its fair share of flaws, but it's amazing how much you can imply in the way they chose.

[Sagus]

Dark Souls is my absolute favorite gaming series (I like Touhou's lore slightly more, but I meant favorite in the gameplay sense), and I found most of the points in the review valid, with the exception, as Amra pointed, being the guy's opinion on the narrative. Not only is there a lot (a LOT) of backstory in item descriptions, but the story followed by the game itself is strong too. It seems simple enough, but as you talk with both Frampt and Kaathe, you notice that the mess your character was throw into is more complex than it appears. DaveControlLive's "Dark Souls' lore" video series shows just how expansive and well-crafted the game's setting is, using canon info and mentioning both popular and his own theories regarding many plot points.

[Tengukami]

the guy

[Ryuu]

Dark Souls is my absolute favorite gaming series (I like Touhou's lore slightly more, but I meant favorite in the gameplay sense), and I found most of the points in the review valid, with the exception, as Amra pointed, being the guy's opinion on the narrative. Not only is there a lot (a LOT) of backstory in item descriptions, but the story followed by the game itself is strong too. It seems simple enough, but as you talk with both Frampt and Kaathe, you notice that the mess your character was throw into is more complex than it appears. DaveControlLive's "Dark Souls' lore" video series shows just how expansive and well-crafted the game's setting is, using canon info and mentioning both popular and his own theories regarding many plot points.

>dark souls lore

>not vaatividya or epicnamebro

[Sagus]

you understood what i meant no need to aya shameimaru my typos

alright I didn't actually notice the author's name =P

>dark souls lore

>not vaatividya or epicnamebro

Yeah yeah, I just like DaveControlLive's videos more.

[Bardiche]

Have we sunk so low these days that we "review" games without even playing them? As much as I appreciate the effort she took into writing it, and that a bunch of these observations are correct, I don't really get the point of reviewing games you haven't even played. That's like writing a review on how a car drives, but you've always been in the passenger seat; fit for mental masturbation, but not to be taken serious if you want to know what the driver experience is.

[Tengukami]

I think because the observations can be different for someone totally new to the game and not immersed in it that might provide an interesting perspective. Any writing can be called "mental masturbation" and to be honest you didn't need to waste time announcing your disinterest in a thread and its subject. That's kind of a pointless no-fun-allowed threadshit.

[Bardiche]

I think because the observations can be different for someone totally new to the game and not immersed in it that might provide an interesting perspective. Any writing can be called "mental masturbation" and to be honest you didn't need to waste time announcing your disinterest in a thread and its subject. That's kind of a pointless no-fun-allowed threadshit.

I don't think I announced any disinterest. I did indicate I read it, but the reviewer herself states that she's reviewing a game that she wouldn't even like to play, and also hasn't. The thread title is about someone reviewing Dark Souls, and so I think I'm not being particularly "disinterested" by stating my opinion on that subject matter. Maybe I'm just weird that I think it's related.

The reviewer for example states that Dark Souls has no plot. Dark Souls most definitely has a plot, and most definitely has narrative─the protagonist is just silent. Passages like these are unfairly negative:

In short, this is a game for those who love gameplay for its own sake, who have no desire to be instructed in where to go or why, and who are uninterested in complex narrative or character development as the core part of their gameplay fantasies ? players whose fantasies are about challenge and skill progression.

When Dark Souls isn't just about "gameplay for its own sake", and I'd challenge that it isn't just about "challenge" and "skill progression". At least during my playthrough of Dark Souls, I found there to be a story and a strong exploration element. The sense of immersion you get from being an actual player as opposed to talking about a player is largely different, and usually you'd want to read a review to see what the player experience is like. Not what the observer experience is like.

A review has always been about someone sampling the subject you're interested in in the same capacity as you would be engaging the subject, and sharing their experiences. Writing a review from the point of view of someone who has not and will not sample a subject may be all sorts of interesting, but in the end, it's the user experience you want, not the bystander experience. As much as it piques (y)our intellectual curiosity, I still think it's not as valuable for potential buyers as a player reviewing it would be.

[Tengukami]

I don't think I announced any disinterest.

When someone drops into a thread to dismiss an article as "mental masturbation" without saying anything of substance about the content itself, yes, that's a threadshit. Glad you were able to find it in you to actually address the article - mostly with points already covered by others.

Writing a review from the point of view of someone who has not and will not sample a subject may be all sorts of interesting, but in the end, it's the user experience you want, not the bystander experience. As much as it piques (y)our intellectual curiosity, I still think it's not as valuable for potential buyers as a player reviewing it would be.

It's the user experience you want, you mean. For whatever reason, others seemed capable of appreciating the novelty of someone reviewing the game they watched but haven't played. I don't even think the author is implying this is supposed to be a utilitarian review. There are plenty of reviews of Dark Souls out there by people who have played it - this is just a different take on that, for the purpose of "fun". People have been known to enjoy that kind of thing from time to time.

[Bardiche]

Well, there's the ad hominem, huh. It'd have been nice if that could have been avoided, but this is the internet, I guess. Maybe the way I think is weird, but if I am disinterested in a thread, I am unlikely to open it, and extremely unlikely to post in it; that I'm disinterested is just what you've decided. When I say "mental masturbation", I mean that there's little practical purpose to it, however much you might enjoy the activity. For the record, the term has always been used in this capacity for me, so I'm not sure why you find it dismissive.

You did ask if the review was accurate, and I find that the review is good to read for fun, but it's not suitable if you're thinking of buying it. I'm sorry you don't like that.

I maintain that I don't get why one'd write an article about Dark Souls and then call it a review, since it doesn't fit the purposes of a review. There are many articles that state the features of a specific subject and the writer's experiences to it, and for articles it's fine if the author is just a bystander. At least where I'm from, we use reviews to gauge whether a specific product/service should be purchased or avoided. If I want to buy a game, I'll look up a review for it. Ultimately, no matter how much fun the bystander's view is and no matter how novel, you won't get the clear view of the actual game. For all the reviewer's talk about how Dark Souls is all gameplay, she doesn't mention the combat system even once; that's a critical flaw in a review when you boldly say Dark Souls is all gameplay. If you were reading this review because you want to purchase the game (or not), I'd think you'd want to know how the gameplay works outside of the humanity and player interaction systems.

[Drake]

i don't see the ad hominem

I personally have no issue with game reviews by observers: really I think it's pretty interesting to do so, especially if you were to contrast what players see versus observers. Even the fact they didn't see narrative or whatever and apparently had to "dig" for it (although like I said I find that attitude pretty poor in general), that was, well, their review. Most of the article was pretty detailed for just an observer, and they would explicitly preface their opinions with "as an observer" and compare to the player's opinions, so props for that.

Really though I do take issue with the rhetoric used at the very end of the review (mostly just in the last paragraph) where the observations made as a non-player cross the gap into suggesting things about the game as though they had played it. I think they dropped the hat of "just an observer" a wee bit and it stained an otherwise decent article, I think.

[Tengukami]

Well, there's the ad hominem, huh. It'd have been nice if that could have been avoided, but this is the internet, I guess.

I'm not sure ad hominem means what you think it means.

Maybe the way I think is weird, but if I am disinterested in a thread, I am unlikely to open it, and extremely unlikely to post in it; that I'm disinterested is just what you've decided. When I say "mental masturbation", I mean that there's little practical purpose to it, however much you might enjoy the activity. For the record, the term has always been used in this capacity for me, so I'm not sure why you find it dismissive.

I find it hard to believe you can't see why calling an article "mental masturbation" would be dismissive, and I think this really needs no elaboration.

You did ask if the review was accurate, and I find that the review is good to read for fun, but it's not suitable if you're thinking of buying it. I'm sorry you don't like that.

Are we reading the same thread? I have already said that addressing the actual points of the review is welcome. But you seem to be missing a key factor here which is:

I maintain that I don't get why one'd write an article about Dark Souls and then call it a review, since it doesn't fit the purposes of a review.

You could start with the actual title of the article, which does offer a tongue-in-cheek admission that this is not a review intended to be taken as a super-serious guide for potential buyers. I think that much should be obvious to the most obtuse reader, so I can't tell if you're making this nitpick because you genuinely cannot accept the concept of a less-than-serious style of review, or you're just bored right now, or both.

Either way, consider your point taken, three times now.

Really though I do take issue with the rhetoric used at the very end of the review (mostly just in the last paragraph) where the observations made as a non-player cross the gap into suggesting things about the game as though they had played it. I think they dropped the hat of "just an observer" a wee bit and it stained an otherwise decent article, I think.

Yeah, I think this was a hand-tip made out of genuine rush-to-finish sloppiness. The closer is crucial, and could have been tightened up a lot better, I agree.

[Reddyne]

I'd like to have a chance to give this a proper look and formulate a proper response when not preoccupied, but for the time being I will agree that there's plenty of storytelling, world-building, and lore built into the world that is subtle or not built into the narrative. So much of the game and the things you encounter are done on purpose and aren't simply there for gameplay's sake. EpicNameBro has tons of videos on the subject regarding untold stories, incidents in other countries and their politics, and a variety of other things, and I found that the only thing I ever thought he was really wrong about was that the great scythe was the best dex weapon. Seriously, that thing has a 5 minute wind-up and even I can parry that beast.

[Amraphenson]

great scythe dead angles and phantom ranges like you have no idea man, shit's stupid to deal with