Dark Souls Impressions - The FINAL Update

Co-op is designed to be easier. There's no correct way to play the game any more than there is a canon way to finish the story. I really enjoy dropping my sign at the start of levels and helping people explore. I see no issue with summoning for boss fights when you can already summon NPCs for half of them anyway. It also adds to the roleplaying aspect of the game, seeing lords of cinder cooperate to link the fire.

I do think the forced invasions in 3 are pretty frustrating. There's a part that summons two invaders at once, and the only way to progress is to kill them or go un-embered. And invaders in the swamp...just fuck those people. That said, it's no coincidence that there are tons of summon signs around those areas to help out.

Invading is fun though, you just have to limit yourself on how much of an asshole you want to be

[...] is there really anything good about the MP in this game?

You let yourself be summoned by those in need of jollyforced memecooperation, who otherwise couldn't progress (without brute forcing it), and revel in the thought that you helped another person. You also get humanity for it.

Invading is fun though, you just have to limit yourself on how much of an asshole you want to be

cracking an invader's skull open in real life would be fun, but i would never dream of i would never actually do that

being an asshole to other players who are just minding their own business probably shouldn't be a thing

[...] is there really anything good about the MP in this game?

You let yourself be summoned by those in need of jollyforced memecooperation, who otherwise couldn't progress (without brute forcing it), and revel in the thought that you helped another person. You also get humanity for it.

the way i see it, you're only taking away an opportunity for them to learn the game for themselves, which would have ultimately been a lot more satisfying to the average player--so it would make me feel pity, more than anything

if they just want to cruise through the game without any strife, then they're probably playing the wrong game, but w/e

[...] is there really anything good about the MP in this game?

You let yourself be summoned by those in need of jollyforced memecooperation, who otherwise couldn't progress (without brute forcing it), and revel in the thought that you helped another person. You also get humanity for it.

the way i see it, you're only taking away an opportunity for them to learn the game for themselves,

They are taking away their own opportunity to learn by summoning you - or anybody else for that matter.
The summoned isn't at fault.

They are taking away their own opportunity to learn by summoning you - or anybody else for that matter.
The summoned isn't at fault.

Well, I don't really understand how summoning works. I'm assuming you can refuse to be summoned, right?

They are taking away their own opportunity to learn by summoning you - or anybody else for that matter.
The summoned isn't at fault.

Well, I don't really understand how summoning works. I'm assuming you can refuse to be summoned, right?

You can't be involuntarily summoned. You use an item that places a summon sign in other players' game, and they can activate it to summon you to their game. You go back to your game when you die or the area boss is killed, or he returns you himself using a different item.

the way i see it, you're only taking away an opportunity for them to learn the game for themselves, which would have ultimately been a lot more satisfying to the average player--so it would make me feel pity, more than anything

if they just want to cruise through the game without any strife, then they're probably playing the wrong game, but w/e

Well look, that argument can be extended indefinitely. Look at your playthrough for example: you're a knight (I believe) using heavy armor and turtling behind a shield with a spear. It's a legitimate build, but something like that is a typical beginner build because it's a lot easier than maybe another dex build. I recently played through DkS1 again completely offline, and even as an experienced player some of the bosses can be extremely difficult, and there's no reason to think you're missing out on some esoteric experience by not soloing everything in the game.

They are taking away their own opportunity to learn by summoning you - or anybody else for that matter.
The summoned isn't at fault.

Well, I don't really understand how summoning works. I'm assuming you can refuse to be summoned, right?

You use the white Soapstone on the place your summon sign should appear.

Other players (who are online and human) will see your summon sign and can choose to summon you by touching your sign (pressing interact button) and confirming their action

You yourself will be notified that you are being summoned and use the black separation crystal during the time of notification to abort the summoning process

Otherwise you'll be summoned as a white phantom in the host's world; you can still use the black separation crystal to leave though - as can the host to send you away

I do think the forced invasions in 3 are pretty frustrating. There's a part that summons two invaders at once, and the only way to progress is to kill them or go un-embered. And invaders in the swamp...just fuck those people. That said, it's no coincidence that there are tons of summon signs around those areas to help out.

It's intentional game balancing you dingus.
forced invasions have always been a thing in dark souls

you're a knight (I believe)

wanderer

my avatar is me, if you haven't noticed

anyway, you make a sort of fair point, i guess
i don't necessarily agree with the comparison, though

I do think the forced invasions in 3 are pretty frustrating. There's a part that summons two invaders at once, and the only way to progress is to kill them or go un-embered. And invaders in the swamp...just fuck those people. That said, it's no coincidence that there are tons of summon signs around those areas to help out.

It's intentional game balancing you dingus.

Yeah, no shit. That was the point of my post.

forced invasions have always been a thing in dark souls

you'd think they'd learn from their mistakes

To also be fair, you can get items in the game that banish invaders. It's easier to get the items in each subsequent game iirc.

To also be fair, you can get items in the game that banish invaders. It's easier to get the items in each subsequent game iirc.

Yeah, I believe I picked up a couple of those. Once I get a nice stockpile of them, I may consider popping online, just to see what it's like.

TL;DR
A couple of my other Dark Souls-playing friends told me that co-op shouldn't ever be done, because it makes the game too easy, and that playing single player offline is the best way to go. To them, multiplayer takes from the spirit of the game, and the invasion system only serves to make the game more frustrating and less fun. What do you make of that?

For most bosses I agree with your friends. The bosses are designed around interacting against one enemy. Exploiting their poor AI with aggro trading trivializes a boss fight, while that fault can easily be put on the game's design and not players for just wanting to play together, you're still opting to deprive yourself of more meaningful experiences.

I would have absolutely zero qualm with some optional bosses being put in the game that are so difficult for one person that they're essentially designed for coop play, which is already true to some extent.

I think your reasoning for disliking player written notes is just...so boring. If you remove all of the coy jokes or deception, it just becomes a fucking walkthrough tutorial of the game, in the game. That's not fun. That's just "ooo shiny". I think you'd like Borderlands, Verb.

As for invasions.
It's a BALANCE MEASURE. Embers and humanity allow coop and other huge bonuses. It is intentionally designed to be a trade-off. You consent to being invaded when you play Dark Souls and remain human/embered just like you consent to be tackled when you play football and hold the ball.

forced invasions have always been a thing in dark souls

you'd think they'd learn from their mistakes

Go make your own Dark Souls game and see how many people like it. 

i bet verb actually listened to "try jumping"

the way i see it, you're only taking away an opportunity for them to learn the game for themselves, which would have ultimately been a lot more satisfying to the average player--so it would make me feel pity, more than anything

if they just want to cruise through the game without any strife, then they're probably playing the wrong game, but w/e

Well look, that argument can be extended indefinitely. Look at your playthrough for example: you're a knight (I believe) using heavy armor and turtling behind a shield with a spear. It's a legitimate build, but something like that is a typical beginner build because it's a lot easier than maybe another dex build. I recently played through DkS1 again completely offline, and even as an experienced player some of the bosses can be extremely difficult, and there's no reason to think you're missing out on some esoteric experience by not soloing everything in the game.

Well, no, it can't.

Playing offline and poking with a spear from behind a shield still requires a modicum of agency by the player himself, since he has to get through the areas alone.

But after a player (A) has summoned another player phantom (B), A can theoretically sit idly by and let the phantom clear the area until B reached the boss.
After traversing the fog to the boss, A has to manage to avoid the first few attacks until B has gained the boss' attention. A can yet again sit idly by and let B kill the Boss.


I mean this is an improbable scenario but it could happen. Most sorcerer hosts I've seen rely on their summons to gain the attention of their enemies, so they can cast their spells safely.

i bet verb actually listened to "try jumping"

Don't drag this thread through the mud with your toxicity.

I think your reasoning for disliking player written notes is just...so boring. If you remove all of the coy jokes or deception, it just becomes a fucking walkthrough tutorial of the game, in the game. That's not fun. That's just "ooo shiny". I think you'd like Borderlands, Verb.

i do like borderlands

But anyway, I think you've missed my point. I hate the messages in general, not just the ones that try to mislead you or make dumb jokes. The fact that they can help you is bullshit, too.

I just prefer the old-school gaming philosophy of DIY. No guides, no help--just two things: 1. You. 2. Game. No tips.

The fact that you can mislead players, too, just adds insult to injury. The entire system is bad. That's why you play offline, because you don't even have to worry about it anymore. Most people play games to escape from all the idiots in their lives--so it kinda baffles me that people embrace this system so much.

As for invasions.
It's a BALANCE MEASURE. Embers and humanity allow coop and other huge bonuses.

Yeah, I realize this. That doesn't make it a good feature, though. Co-op is bad, and invasions are bad, too. That's why I asked the question--what's good about MP?

i bet verb actually listened to "try jumping"

Nope.

I mean, for fuck's sake--why would I want to remove the bad messages without also removing the helpful messages?

Egg really is the best example of the toxic Dark Souls fanboy on this website.

i do like borderlands

guess I'm biased because I hate borderlands

But anyway, I think you've missed my point. I hate the messages in general, not just the ones that try to mislead you or make dumb jokes. The fact that they can help you is bullshit, too.

I just prefer the old-school gaming philosophy of DIY. No guides, no help--just two things: 1. You. 2. Game. No tips.

ah
i can agree with that
I enjoy clever or subtle hints that can help build anticipation, and sometimes the game just feels lonely and empty without them. sometimes just those messages that show that other people are having trouble with an area too makes a difference.

The fact that you can mislead players, too, just adds insult to injury. The entire system is bad. That's why you play offline, because you don't even have to worry about it anymore.

to make sure that true messages don't become too revealing, the temptation and likelihood of players to lie and deceive helps draw doubt on every message, which can just give better anticipation because you'll never be sure if a message was true or not.
they balance themselves out in that way, similar to coop and invasions.
while their self-cancelling effect might seem to make them pointless, it spawns a sub-culture in the game's community. gives it charm and some things to talk about. I think they do more good than bad.

Most people play games to escape from all the idiots in their lives--so it kinda baffles me that people embrace this system so much.

a lot of people play games to connect with other people, or at least that's what they end up doing. and this game offers opportunity to kill and defeat those idiots in combat.

but you might as well be asking why people play smash if they play video games to escape other people.

Yeah, I realize this. That doesn't make it a good feature, though. Co-op is bad, and invasions are bad, too. That's why I asked the question--what's good about MP?

Well Dark Souls PvP is what gave the game longevity for me and a lot of people, so I'd say it's very good for the game community as a whole. It's a type of competitive multiplayer that doesn't really feel like anything else on the market.

I mean, for fuck's sake--why would I want to remove the bad messages without also removing the helpful messages?

Egg really is the best example of the toxic Dark Souls fanboy on this website.

and you're the best example of a CASUAL.

*CASUL

IF YOU WANT TO MEME, MEME AT LEAST THE RIGHT WAY

No really though, I don't try to say that Dark Souls is some objectively perfect game everyone should like. I just think that if you're going to assess it, you're going to have to assess it with consideration of genre and intended effect. An effective comedy can be said to be an awful drama, but that doesn't mean a thing. If you wanted to critique perma-death in a rogue-like, you have to start by critiquing the rogue-like genre as a whole.

the game just feels lonely and empty without them.

lmao casuals can't into atmosphere

to make sure that true messages don't become too revealing, the temptation and likelihood of players to lie and deceive helps draw doubt on every message, which can just give better anticipation because you'll never be sure if a message was true or not.
they balance themselves out in that way, similar to coop and invasions.
while their self-cancelling effect might seem to make them pointless, it spawns a sub-culture in the game's community. gives it charm and some things to talk about. I think they do more good than bad.

i see what you're saying, but i disagree completely

lying, axiomatically, can never be justified--not even in a video game

Well Dark Souls PvP is what gave the game longevity for me and a lot of people

and a consensual PvP system would not have changed that somehow?

and you're the best example of a CASUAL.

how, though

as you've read, a lot of my opinions so far are anti-casual and anti-hand holding

i hate the idea of receiving help from other people, and i'm all about the heuristic process of learning games for yourself, because that, to me, is the most satisfying part of beating a game--you did it yourself, with your own wits

a casual gamer would want their hand to be held--they don't want a challenge, they just want a superficial "weeeeee"

that's the opposite of what i want, yet i'm a casual somehow, just because i fucking hate everything about netplay

To be fair, mean-spirited messages are almost non-existent. Stuff like "try jumping" on a ledge are just tongue in cheek jokes.

To be fair, mean-spirited messages are almost non-existent. Stuff like "try jumping" on a ledge are just tongue in cheek jokes.

yeah, i get it

i'm not laughing though

My dad would probably be the type of person to fall for something like that, because he grew up in an era where leaps of faith were commonplace, and hidden secrets could be found even if you jumped into what appeared to be bottomless cliffs, or valuable items placed on top of a set of spikes, or something. That kind of shit was everywhere.

lmao casuals can't into atmosphere

considering the signs and player interactions are incorporated into lore, it adds to it more than it takes away IMO. I'm halfway to agreeing because while it does break more vivid immersion in the gameworld, it creates a better connection emotionally with the game as it ties the worlds of players, and their experiences, together.

lying, axiomatically, can never be justified--not even in a video game

To some degree comedy is based on deceit isn't it?
The surprise and punchline of a joke comes from something that contradicts one's expectations, doesn't it? At least to some degree.

This leads into asking what moral axioms don't extend into video games, obviously you've said before that killing another player without explicit consent is inherently immoral. But in response the only answer is that your consent is filed when you play the game human/embered. You hold the football, you get tackled. You weren't forced onto the field, you chose to play football.

and a consensual PvP system would not have changed that somehow?

I suppose not. But without it coop would truly be too easy. And I'd say coop deserves to exist in the game, it could have been better with more reactive boss design (flat HP buffs aren't enough compensation), but I think the PvP is a workable alternative to that. 9 man 3v3v3s are great experiences.

how, though

as you've read, a lot of my opinions so far are anti-casual and anti-hand holding

i hate the idea of receiving help from other people, and i'm all about the heuristic process of learning games for yourself, because that, to me, is the most satisfying part of beating a game--you did it yourself, with your own wits

that's the opposite of what i want, yet i'm a casual somehow, just because i fucking hate everything about netplay

The point is that you don't want to deal with invasions and other players opposing you, which is something made to be part of the game experience. You might hold anti-casual opinions on other things and just overall not actually be casual, but wanting the game to change to you because you don't want to deal with competitiveness off your own terms is trying to eliminate difficulties in the game, a casual leaning motive.