I hope I was clear about the difficulty level. I'm not just complaining about that. I really, really like this game's combat. I like that it forces you to be deliberate in your attacks and defenses, and I like that every action has a very real consequence.

My point is that I feel like I've put a lot of effort into learning the mechanics, but the game does nothing to reward me for that. That's not a question of difficulty; it's a question of positive reinforcement. I don't mind failing as long as I have something to show for it.

That's unfortunate. I think Fallout 3 made me feel a similar way, except in a Western RPG fashion. Even though I earned my own house and a whole slew of other collectibles, I never felt compelled to finish it. Some of the side quests had an unfair fashion of slaughtering me with high-level monsters, such as Nukalurks. After getting killed numerous times, I really felt like the game dejected me for my failed efforts.

Your recollection literally reminds me of the stupid moment in the minefield, when that awful sniper kept killing me from a distance. It wasn't a pleasant experience.

GAH. And I tried so hard to avoid double entendres when I was writing this.

But if people don't know what entails success in the game, and the game doesn't tell you, you won't enjoy it, because you won't feel like you're accomplishing anything. That's the problem I have. If I misunderstand how success is qualified, that means the game didn't communicate properly.

And I do know what Humanity is for, and I figured out the usual ways to get it. (You can also find it on certain creatures as a drop, as long as you haven't already beaten the boss of that area.)

In the circumstance I mentioned in the article, I hadn't discovered a new bonfire. I hadn't killed a boss. I hadn't used an item. I suddenly just was given a Humanity point. For no discernable reason. I just respawned, and there it was. I'm sure there's an internal logic to it, but I don't know what that logic is.

It's that sense of deliberate obfuscation that makes it hard for me to keep playing.

I guess that is part of the charm. To be honest, one of the reasons I enjoy it is that nearly everything must be discovered by the player.
Okay, I got a random bit of Humanity as well, but I can't remember why either. I think if someone enkindles a bonfire near you in their game you may get one. I think.

I think Demon's Souls success is measured in big victories and small discoveries. I feel an excusion has been a major success when I find a useful new item, or when I defeat a boss, or when I open a shortcut. Doing any of those 3 things is about as satisfying as beating the final boss in an average game, for me--simply because they seem to carry more meaning.

I am not saying your wrong, and I am not trying to blindly defend the game. This is just how I feel about it.

No worries! Honestly, I totally do understand why people like Dark Souls. I want to like the game more than I do. I feel like a lot of individual aspects (the combat, the interconnected level design, the atmosphere) are great and unique.

But when it comes to me, sitting there, holding the controller, trying to play it...it just doesn't click for me. And I've got too many other games I want and need to play to spend any more time on it. That's just me. :)

Hey, I understand. I am at a part that was completely do-able for me, but I could not find a specific switch so I was going to look around...

Then Batman came out.

We are living in a post-Batman world, and until that plot is resolved Dark Souls is on the backburner for me.

Oh shit. Uncharted comes out soon, right? Goddamit.

At least after that I can...What's that? A new Elder Scrolls? Son of a bitch!

My first 15 hours in Dark Souls, I had many of the things you describe happen to me. I Found one area where I couldn't hurt anything, another where there giants clearly beyond my level.

I then ended up running past a minor boss to get to an area where I found an actual boss that I wasnt ready for, and died after a valiant but totally ineffective 30 minutes of dodging and fighting.

I coulndt figure out exactly how the humanity system worked, Im still not sure I completely get how they have worked the message system. And, while I never put the effort into a New Game +++++++++++ in Demon's Souls, I consider myself a hardened veteran of it.

Eventually though I discovered the right way to go, lost thousands of souls (Alex is totally right about them not being THAT important.) I clawed my way back again and again,  and each time I learned something about my foe, the environment, and even myself. I learned to manipulate what I could, play to my strengths, and minimize my weaknesses. And when it all finally falls into to place, and that stupid damned demon is dead, it is glorious. That is Dark Souls positive reinforcement, you make it, because they certainly won't give it to you.

I don't mean this to be rude in the slightest, but the game really doesn't care about you, or me for that matter. It does not exist to give you a good time. It is your enemy. It is to be vanquished. They devs were kind enough to leave clues on how to vanquish it, if you know what to look for. And if you don't well, learn, because what kind of enemy will tell you what his or her weaknesses are?

You listed totally valid reasons for not liking this game. For you. For me, I gave up on FF13 about hour 30 because the battle system got old, the writing and story was bland, I couldnt care about any of the characters, unless hating Hope with a burning hatred counts. And after the original Red and Blue Pokemon (which I will admit I loved when they came out)  has been nothing to me but glorfied rock-paper-scissors/exercise in painfully slow EXP sharing.

That is ok, and it is also my point. You say the Dark Souls players condescendingly say it is, "not for everyone." And, respectfully, I think that is all you have said as well.

Also, I am almost overjoyed that Battlefield 3 is coming out tomorrow. Because the shear force of will it takes to play this game (on occasion) is actually physically tiring sometimes. It will be nice to just  worry about whether I like the Assault or the Support class more...........

  And then Skyrim will be released. And the world will no longer turn.

Good comments. You're right that the game doesn't give a crap about the player. For some people, that's a virtue -- it makes vanquishing the game rewarding.

For me (and I'd venture to say for most gamers overall), the fact that Dark Souls clearly HATES ME and makes no effort to encourage me to keep playing is reason enough for me to stop.

I don't think it's a bad game. On the contrary, I think it does a lot of great things. I just wish it was easier to enjoy the things I like instead of drudging through everything else.

Alex, great comment. I think you've explained well why Dark Souls' rewards are different from most other games. They are intrinsic rewards, i.e., personal growth as a player (whether that's measured in discovered knowledge of the game world; increased familiarity with specific weapons, miracles, spells, or pyromancy; or experience -- not represented with numbers, but actual, human experience -- gained from defeating enemies).

And you're right that it's not meant to be condescending to say that Dark Souls isn't for everyone. This is a game for people who value instrinsic rewards. Most games give players extrinsic rewards (the positive reinforncement that Layton seeks): acheivements, arbitrary stat numbers, or accumulated currencies.

Dark Souls wants to tell you that those things ultimately don't matter -- that's why the game takes away your souls when you die. If you can't make it back to the same spot a second time, you haven't finished your education in that area.

I think that's a difficult hurdle for some people to overcome and why they eventually give up. And that's fine, too.

I know I'm incredibly late here (like... 6 months) but I wanted to point out the source of your randomly gained humanity for either new players who might be reading this article or for you (author) to maybe satisfy your own curiousity. (Or maybe just for my own OCD and overwhelming need to correct errors.)

From your account of the circumstances concerning the questionably earned humanity I am just about completely positive that you got it through one of your little orange "sign" messages. Whenever another online player reads a message you've left and gives it a little upvote of confidence you, as a player, earn humanity. And humanity earned in this fashion doesn't get added into your inventory in item form, instead getting added directly into your humanity counter in the HUD's upper left corner.

On a related note, user Alex Gagne's suggestion that the humanity was recieved when another player kindled a nearby bonfire is incorrect. While you DO get a little reward/helpful boost when that does happen, it's not in the form of humanity. What you actually earn is an extra swig from your eustace stash. For example, let's say you have just rested at a bonfire you've only kindled once, meaning you recieve 5 eustace uses each time you rest there. If another player kindles the fire while you are within range of said fire, you get a single extra use out of your eustace. I'm really not very sure what the max/min required ranges are to recieve them but I do know you can get them at very long distances--I've recieved bonus eustace from as far as 30 minutes from the nearest bonfire (though 30 mins can be a misleading measurement in this game, especially with the condensed and overlapping level design featured in so much of the game). IMHO, I don't think there's a limit to how far you can be to get bonus flasks. Instead I'm pretty sure you will just get the swigs from when whenever the CLOSEST bonfire to you is kindled, even if that bonfire's an hour of gameplay back and halfway across the area.

Appreciate the clarification, Robin. Honestly, if I had had a little more time and patience, I probably would have stuck with Dark Souls for longer. But I had to move on to other games (Uncharted 3, Skyrim, etc.), and I doubt I'll ever have time to go back to it.

My loss, I suppose. :) But thanks for the comment!

It is true that Dark Souls hasn't much in the way of story, but I find that it makes up for it in the details and atmosphere of the world. The story is told through the sights and sounds of the environment, NPC's, and enemies. It's plot is made up of the stories from the player, much like the old WIzardry games. I suppose it is also trying to be realistic about things, in an odd way...

I mean, you learn a little bit of plot from the NPC's when they deign to tell you a little bit of what is going on, and the rest you infer from the world and the enemies in the game. Think about it...If you walked up to someone on the street and asked them to tell you about the history of the street you are on they would either tell you to piss off, or give you a quick anecdotal remark, or comment that the potholes got worse when such-and-such took office as mayor. They wouldn't give you a long winded Final Fantasy-esque tale of the last 100 years about that street.

Similarily, you don't find books scattered around like in an Elder Scrolls game. "Ah, I just killed a horde of fire-tossing zombies. I am just going to cuddle up by the fire and read up on this castle." No, Dark Souls is about surviving horror and possibly defeating it. Almost everything not directly related to the raw nature of the game has been excised. Dark Souls serves it's atmosphere and it's gameplay and little else.

Given that Battlefield, Uncharted, and Skyrim are all about to drop...I'm pretty sure I'll be pulled into something more fun very soon. :)

Good stuff, man. Thanks!

He never said the game has no meaning or significance -- just that it wasn't for him. If you read the comments, especially, he says there are things he likes about the game.

I'd say that there's no wrong way to play Dark Souls (or Demon's Souls)! Part of the reason behind the online systems is to give players a way to help each other anonymously.

But more than that, another Bitmob community writer made this point: Dark Souls is a lunch-table game, which is to say, this is the kind of game we would have discussed with our friends around the table in the school cafeteria when we were kids. Things like, "Hey, did you find this cool weapon?" "No, where is it/how do I get it?" Or, "I finally beat that crazy boss!" "Can you tell me how you did it?"

The Internet and wikis are just the logical extension of this once commonplace phenomenon.

Every time I tried to go somewhere else during the early game, I was stymied almost immediately. Burned by a dragon, destroyed by skeletons, unable to harm ghosts, slain by a giant black knight...any alternate path I tried immediately seemed much more difficult than the one I was faced with.

And summoning help presupposes that you have Humanity, which I never seemed to have (until the game randomly granted it to me for no apparent reason).

This will likely just turn you off from the game more, heh, but I'll offer this anyway: Sometimes, you need to take risks.

Dark Souls (and Demon's Souls) goes out of its way to emphasize caution and patience, but you do need to take risks in the game. Just like Demon's Souls, Dark Souls first teaches this lesson to you with a red dragon guarding a bridge, which is the only way through. You have to go against better judgement and charge head first into the firey breath. Defintely obtuse, but this is just Dark Souls wanting you to figure things out yourself by trying something new (much like roguelikes, where item effects aren't explained at all until you try the item itself!)

And yes, summoning requires humanity. But you can always drop your white soapstone to be summoned into another game even if you have zero humanity (that's the point, too). If you defeat the boss in another player's world, you're awarded with one humanity, so then you'll be able to summon help for you own game world. You can't take until you give!

Also, the random humanity comes from defeating a large number of enemies in quick succession. The award rate is very low (I've read between 1% and 0.1%). This also might be dependent on whether you've already defeated that area's boss. I don't think this is something to really get hung up on. There are explicit ways to farm humanity in the game (helping other players and certain enemies drop humanity when killed).

I find the assertion that most defenders of Dark Souls are being condescending to be somewhat spurious since most of these conversations take place as text on message boards. You can't read tone and inflection on the Internet. Did you ever consider that they were being polite by saying "it isn't for everyone" instead of spewing out "GTFO noob, you suck" like you hear in 99% of conversations about most "mainstream" online shooters?

I personally find more overt and unquestionable elitism in discussions about military shooters than I ever did with Dark Souls. Every single person I've spoken to that enjoys Dark Souls has been polite, thoughtful, and helpful. Can your average Call of Duty player say the same?

It's not so much the message boards, but the pervasiveness of articles defending Dark Souls by professional videogame journalists. The Call of Duty crowd are loyal to the brand, they play the game and express their opinion as anonymous users. That doesn't worry me as much, though it's still depressing. What really irks me is the percentage of professional videogame writers extolling the difficulty of Dark Souls, often hearkening back to the "old school" days. They are becoming more akin to film or literary critics and that type of elitism. Videogames are often not regarded as "high art" or whatever by those types. So you'd think videogame critics would know the pain of being looked down upon by condescending film critics, and avoid doing it themselves. Given, they haven't been overt, but it's a slippery slope. 

Do you have any examples of this elitism? I haven't noticed that in professional reviews, but than again, I haven't read too many, either.

I will say that I have noticed the press jumping on the difficulty bandwagon (and not necessarily as something positive)...but I really don't think the game is that difficult (and I genuinely mean that in a non-condescending way).

This perceived difficulty is the least interesting aspect to discuss; there's so much more to talk about with this game, but that topic unfortunately dominates Dark Souls' coverage.

Those are still written/typed words, Steven. How can you tell they're being condescending? Extolling the virtues of something and comparing it to retro gaming is hardly indiciative of elitism. Last time I checked, expressing an honest opinion didn't equate to one particular group of people being better than another group of people.

Did you ever come across that meme on ign "Winner: Dark Souls" ? It came from a piece about "Top five reasons dark souls will eat Skyrim's face" which was clearly written to push a lot of people's buttons and create some buzz, but it definitely smacked of elitism to me. 

Here's a quote from the article:

"An entire generation of gamers raised on Halo and Call of Duty has never trudged through an epic journey like this, something on the scale of intricacy and difficulty of Castlevania II: Simon's Quest. Dark Souls is Zelda, all grown up, evil. From Software is effectively making the first truly modern advancement in classic hardcore gaming, following closely on the hardcoreness of Demon's Souls. The developers have created one of the final bastions of classic action adventure in an industry dominated by short campaigns that play themselves and offer easy rewards."

I know they are just "written/typed words" but if you were a big halo or Call of Duty fan, can you see how they might feel condescending?  

Hmm. I suppose I'm not reading the same meaning between the lines. I see that excerpt and I see a comparison that puts Dark Souls above Call of Duty and Halo, irrespective of their players.

Certainly, one could argue that there's a segment of players who haven't experienced anything like Dark Souls and that they should have that experience. That's not necessarily condescending unless you have a personal stake in Call of Duty or Halo.

The opposite of condescension is empathy and being considerate. So l challenge you to try and read this from the perspective of a halo fan. They are being told they haven't played something with scale, intricacy and difficulty: those sound like features in a mature, adult game. "Dark Souls is Zelda, all grown up," the author writes, implying if you don't like Dark Souls, you like games for children.

From Software is making advancement in "classic hardcore gaming".

Can you see how "Classic," and "hardcore" denote belonging to an elite crowd? To put things in terms of film, words like black and white film, or "classic" Japanese cinema are also only enjoyed by an elite group.

Even the word "bastion" suggests a tower, a place of strength, removed from the lower masses in an "industry dominated by short campaigns that play themselves and offer easy rewards."

So if you don't like Dark Souls, you like short campaigns, that "play themselves" and offer "easy rewards."

If you were told your game plays itself, how would that reflect back on you the player? 

I'm not saying the article is wrong, that may very well be the case, but it is also elitism and a shot at halo fans, or even just gamers who don't like Dark Souls in general.

To put things in terms of film, yes, Casablanca is a classic and "high art" but don't look down on those of us who would rather watch Captain America.

Wow, I certainly didn't mean to spark such a line of debate with that comment! :)

The reason I've read it that way (and I could definitely be misreading the intent, as Jay points out), is that many people who say Dark Souls isn't for everyone fail to acknowledge WHY it isn't for everyone -- their praise is so effusive that it feels like a throwaway line, insincere.

If you really mean that, you'd probably indicate some things that might not be enjoyable. You'd acknowledge that, while you love the game, you understand why others may not, and you consider their opinions and criticisms valid. That way, "It's not for everyone" comes off less as a value judgment ("not everyone is cool or clever enough to handle and understand this obvious masterpiece") and more a simple agreement to disagree.

I could be totally wrong. That's just a feeling I've had as I've read some articles and opinions. I didn't mean to make any generalizations. And as I've said repeatedly, I really do see why so many people love it. But for me (and me only -- I can't speak for others), the cons outweigh the pros. 

Also, as I indicated at the close of the article, I feel like Dark Souls goes out of its way to be inaccessible. I know that's part of the game's appeal, but I think it could have done more to lower its barrier to entry without ruining its philosophy of exploration, discovery, and intrinsic reinforcement (Rob was spot-on in pointing that out). 

I wonder if journalists feared the average gamer would dismiss Dark Souls because of its difficulty, and launched an editorial campaign to encourage gamers to check it out, because in their opinion, it was worth playing. But their fear reveals their view of the average gamer. 

And is this the role of a videogame journalist?

Anyways, thank you Layton for adding a different view on Dark Souls, and making some of us feel better even though Dark Souls is "not for us"

I can't speak for other "journalists," Steven, but I can say that I personally never had any motive other than to share my honest opinions about Dark Souls. It's not my job to get people to buy the game. That's what marketing and advertising are for. I strive to provide a service to our readers by providing sincere views about the games I play; I don't write for publishers or the game industry as a whole.

I also have no preconcieved views of the average gamer. In fact, I've written more than once that I despise the labels that gamers even place on themselves, and I believe that we should all be free to identify as gamers regardless of which games we like.

That said, I don't honestly think Dark Souls is as difficult as people make it out to be. I just think you have to approach it as its own game and not try to play it like any other RPG or third-person shooter you've played. It just has its own mechanics that you have to get used to in order to garner any measure of success.

If you (or anyone else) feel that Dark Souls is not rewarding enough or too difficult, I strongly encourage you to not waste time on a game you don't enjoy playing. That's why I don't play Call of Duty. I just don't enjoy the experience at all.

Thanks for the thoughtful response Jay, I wish more videogame journalists wrote with a respectful and encouraging tone.

And you're right, the labels we place on ourselves are often to blame. I don't wish to see elitism abolished, I just want to be a part of the elite club. But when all the respected voices in videogame journalism are hailing Dark Souls as the ultimate hardcore experience and I can't get into it, you begin to wonder if everyone is cooler are more hardcore than you. But if we're all gamers regardless of the games we play, then it's ok.

I even caught myself about to say,  "you don't enjoy Call of Duty? How can you not enjoy shooting stuff and ramping a snowmobile," when I remembered, hey, that's ok. We both like games, and that makes us part of the same club.

Is this what it feels like to grow up?

Yeah, it's funny Steven. Self-described "hardcore" gamers usually identify with multiplayer shooters like Call of Duty. I don't play any of those types of games, yet I really enjoy Dark Souls. I wonder where that places me on the "hardcore" scale. Not that I really care what other people think, but it's interesting that so many gamers engage in this one-upmanship based on what games they play. Why can't we accept that certain people either play more or simply get more enjoyment out of certain types of games and not try to label ourselves as better or worse than other gamers?

seriously guys, not everyone likes everygame, i seriously dont understand why retards play pokemon  or why narrow minded ppl, play COD or fanatic freaks play final fantasy 13, which btw is a cliched, boring, shit characters, shit story, shit bosses, every game is ubber easy  to win, its just there for the taking, you dont eve nhave to think a lil bit, to beat these games,  now dark souls is different, as some of my fellow members posted, it is hard and strategic, everyone says skyrim is the shit, and i will tell you, it is a fun game, but only for  2 weeks or so, after it, its all boring and easy. dragons become  annoying as insects, and its all the same boring scenarios, LISTEN GUYS, I DONT WANNA SOUND LIKE AN ASSHOLE, BUT DARK SOULS ISNT FOR EVERYONE! enjoy your retarded freaky, boring games!  

You already did write a rude response which ended up in several inboxes.

"Play for the challenge, not to lose touch with reality."

What are you talking about?