Humanity said: Also super agreed - fuck world tendencies, but more than that fuck character tendencies. I would certainly love to play through it again. Someone explained this was the reason and I am only vaguely recalling it. It's a little clunky compared to newer releases but holds up. I suppose and I can always punish myself on later runs Pretty much what I do with the other games.
Izalith are far from on par with the early ones. Having beat both of them three times, I think I'm ready for a third serving of Souls. These white wisps are reminders that you're only a fragmented dimension away from being able to play with them, and when they die, the last few seconds of their life is recorded as a bloodstain you can touch to play back their final moments -- often serving as something of a warning when in new areas. It's peer to peer on Killzone 2. Personally, I find it very difficult to declare one as superior to the other. They are probably comparable to Demon's Souls, but still it's a huge plus. Demon's Souls looked great, but there was something about Dark Souls that drew me in unlike any other game.
I want it to be easy enough to actually survive the first play through. Nevermind the fact that there is barely any reason to try upgrading your own weapon because you're just going to find a better one like the Drake Sword, and later the Lightning Spear. But it's possible invasions would still work, maybe? By dropping a stone while in a non-corporeal state, you can leave a marking on the ground for those that are still alive, allowing them to pull you into your game where you'll earn souls, but you can't pick up any other items. There was upkeep in maintaining the servers. For a great example, you could fight the Flamelurker in 2-2 one time, and get totally destroyed by him, and the next, you could kill him depending on how the game changes and how you react to those changes, whereas in Dark Souls, if you can kite, you can beat them in one try, or if you make the boss do the same attacks over and over again where you can roll in and hit them, you can beat them on your first try.
Even more so as a person who gives a shit about Trophies and Achievements. Areas like Lost Izalith will still be a blight on the game, making everything past Anor Londo something of a slog. You'll have the same lag playing against the same person no matter the version. So I guess the online part will be blocked for those of us who imported the game, then. I would recommend buying both if your money isn't tight, or buying Dark Souls if you feel like giving greater support to the game's creator, though.
The game truly transcends traditional video games for me. The late game level design quality took a bit of a nosedive as well; a few places, most notably Izalith could have been done a lot better. DeS is a different game, on a different platform. Giant Bomb should do something with this, see if Brad can't get one more crystal lizard. Dark definitely has its strong points, primarily the achievement of a truly open world, some almost overly complex covenant mechanics, a greater sense of isolation and desperation, and higher-resolution graphics, though I'm not sure any of this is so much an advancement as it is a personal preference. .
This is all not to say Dark Souls is bad in any shape or form, it's just different. Sort of like From Software has done one of these before, and has learned a bit from their mistakes? While I think the structure of the games are more up to preference than anything else, I think that Demon's Souls hub world worked better for the game. Whereas the Knight armor in Dark Souls includes an open helm, revealing the players face, and the whole armor is not made out of only plated armor, making the ability to tank though bosses harder. The game is only available on Playstation 3. Last weekend I finally decided I needed to go through Demon's Souls and beat it all by myself the mission is going great, by the way. Stray said: I liked Dark a whole lot but liked Demons a bit better.
Another one of those brilliant design-choices Guerilla Games made. Sorry if this has been answered or explained elsewhere, but I can't find it. I feel Dark Souls 'version' of this did a pretty fair job, although it was only in Anor Londo light and dark. Now I know that my Dark Souls experience made Demon's Souls easy but it was just ridiculously easy. Also think of the thousands of people out shopping and think ''ooh what's this new game I like the sound of that. Dark Souls has been out long enough now to draw up comparisons and preferences and i was curious as to what people thought.
I appreciated how each branch of the Nexus had its own distinct 'theme'. You can be a complete ass in this game and delight in the misfortunes of others. What i'm more sad about tbh is losing all the messages and ghost data, but that's not a huge loss. I prefer Demon's for many reasons. Prepare for a new, despair-inducing world, with a vast, fully-explorable horizon and vertically-oriented landforms. The online system sucks and the weapon scaling for low levels kind of fucks up the balance towards elemental weapons until level ~100, but in terms of game design I think Dark Souls is just so much better.
The graphics are greatly improved and the combat feels even nicer. Remember that servers are region-restricted. Ok, so this post is super old but I just need to speak about this. Early in the game you're constantly running out of spells and hitting the bonfire to refill your magic respawns the enemies. There's no lobby, no matchmaking system at least in the traditional sense and no out-of-game invite system. I think taking the master key as a gift really hurt my game play experience.
The general look of the game, and the atmosphere in general, are just breathtaking. Sure you can warp between bonfires in Dark, but only after about 60% through the game, and only to certain areas. A photo of your trophy will no longer suffice. Again, the lag with the Sif battle could be a little annoying, but didn't bother me much. I love both games, but Demon's just a little more.