Anyone else thought Dark Souls was garbage?

[Jodell88]

The best ambush was Havel and his dragon tooth, that bastard. 😀

 

[blackened23]

So much wrong in the OP. Not even going to bother.

It's another one of those 2$ steam sale guys that play for 20 minutes while not paying attention IMHO

 

[smackababy]

I get the OP's comments. It is sold as an RPG because it has RPG elements such as choosing a class and managing stats as you 'level up'. But it isn't the traditional RPG like BG or even the Elder Scrolls games. It is mainly a hack and slash.

Where I think people have the most fun is that the combat is non-traditional and hard as heck. But if you went to play it for the story line or any kind of interaction, you didn't watch the marketing adds or read the reviews. It is almost exclusively about progressively punishing levels, really epic monster battles and some competition.

If I were to compare it to another game, I'd almost say it has more in common with L4D than it does with any RPG. But even then it isn't really the same.

It is more about limited resources and taking a tactical approach to an ever increasing labrynth and combat.

I personally think that the combat approach they took was quite unique. Moving around actually has weight and actually 'Feels' to me a bit more like combat than games like Dragon Age or Skyrim. I love getting in behind some poor soul and stabbing them in the back for huge amounts of damage, but there are quite a few monsters that you simply can't deal with.

At the end of the day, it was marketed as a punishingly difficult combat heavy game 'with RPG elements'. If you go in it from that perspective, you should have fun. At least I do.

I feel people who think on a traditional RPG has to have a story laid out forcing you to do it are missing out a lot. Was Ultima 4 not a tradition RPG because it didn't have a "hey do this and save the world / princess / whatever" format? No, of course not.

There is a massive story in the game, you just have to actually look for, unlike pretty much every other game. This game has nothing in common with L4D, except they are both video games. This game is like a single player version of Ultima Online, if the game ended when you defeated the Harrower.

 

[thespyder]

I feel people who think on a traditional RPG has to have a story laid out forcing you to do it are missing out a lot. Was Ultima 4 not a tradition RPG because it didn't have a "hey do this and save the world / princess / whatever" format? No, of course not.

There is a massive story in the game, you just have to actually look for, unlike pretty much every other game. This game has nothing in common with L4D, except they are both video games. This game is like a single player version of Ultima Online, if the game ended when you defeated the Harrower.

I take objection to this. I enjoy traditional RPG games, but when playing these, Yes. I expect a story. I don't need to be spoon fed the story as some do, and i don't think that a story alone makes it an RPG but without it, it becomes a POOR RPG.

Where I find a problem is when people create Mario Brothers and say "With RPG elements". I don't see a significant impact of RPG elements in Dark Souls. I don't think the stats add anything at all as no matter what you put points in, you ultimately end up with the same character.

And as for story, where? Can you sum it up in less than one paragraph? Does your character actually play a PART in the story? Because that is crucial in a Role Playing Game. Because you are playing a ROLE in that story. That, to me, is the criteria of a RPG. Not just that you level up and can put some non-value add points into some nebulous stats.

And no, I do not consider any MMO to be an RPG. They are (in my opinion) social networking sites with better graphics. I played Evercrap for a year and never once encountered a role playing situation of any worth. Same with Diablo and with the persistent worlds in NWN2.

As for L4D, i think it compares because you have a starting choice of character types. it is more or less the same point of view and you gear up as you go. I don't think they are "Close" but I think that they are about as close as it comes.

 

[smackababy]

And as for story, where? Can you sum it up in less than one paragraph?

The story is as such: A plague has come over the land, marking all how have it with the Dark Sign. This causes the person to now die, but instead become Hollow. Eventually, the Hollow will go insane and thus are imprisoned as such. There is a legend that one undead will come forward and change all of this. You are that person, of course. After escaping the asylum, you learn the chosen undead is supposed to ring two bells. You ring things and then are told you are the chosen and will link the flame, which is failing and prolong the Age of Fire by a primordial serpent. You have to acquire an item from an abandoned city "bathed in Sunlight". So, you go there and get the item. You meet the daughter of Lord Gwyn, who linked the first flame ushering in the Age of Fire. Upon returning to the serpent, you discover you have to fill the item (the Lordvessel) with 4 souls of some baddies. That will give you access to the kiln and allow you to defeat the Lord of Cinder and link the flame. Now, that is what you are told through dialog with the main NPCs you encounter. The rest of the amazing story is told through other NPC dialog and reading item descriptions. If you do a few other things, you discover another serpent, who claims you are actually the decedent of one of the 4 original god and are actually meant to usher in the Age of Dark, the age of man. However, if you look deep enough into the items, you can infer both serpents are using you towards their own end. Which, ultimately gives you the choice of what to do and which is the "good" and which is the "bad" is completely ambiguous. There is a ton of other background lore you have to discover and all of the characters have interesting backgrounds, but you can easily miss it. A bit longer than a paragraph, but that is the story. And yes, it is very easy to miss it.

Where I find a problem is when people create Mario Brothers and say "With RPG elements". I don't see a significant impact of RPG elements in Dark Souls. I don't think the stats add anything at all as no matter what you put points in, you ultimately end up with the same character.

At first glance, it does seem like the levels and stats don't do anything. There is a much more in depth, which is why I brought up Ultima Online. The starting choices merely determine your starting stats and items. Where you go from there, is up to you. There is armor, magic, weapons, and miracles that all require certain stats and specific builds. If you want to be a mage, you can be one. If you want to be a fighter with heavy armor, build it. They limit you only on your imagination. The gear also plays a huge spot in your character, and there is a plethora of choices for how you want your character to play.

The game does have a platformer feel with how it the combat is; but that does not mean anything against it being an RPG. Is Dragon Age a better RPG because the combat is better than Planescape Torment? No, it is simply an extension of how you play. The platformer feel was a design choice that really worked. And, FROM have stated with Demon's Souls it wasn't their intention to make the game hard, but when they made their combat system it ended up that way and they kept it.

Even with how much I actually like the game, I understand it isn't for everyone. However, I feel a lot of the criticisms are from people who don't give it a fair chance.

 

[HeXen]

^Well said. I was always curious about it. I never played the game only because I just don't have the time for such challenging games as I play sporadically and not daily. I loved how challenging the old games were back in the day and it was so gratifying but I had time then.

 

[sweenish]

Without reading the OP or the rest of the discussion, I'll just say that it's certainly not for me. Difficult is one thing, and I can respect that, but rote memorization added on top of that never was my cup of tea.

I certainly wouldn't call it garbage. Demon's Souls showed a lot of polish and thought, and I imagine Dark Souls is the same. I wanted to like these types of games, but alas.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

I tried getting into it the first time, was bored to tears within a few hours. Tried longer the second time, third time, fourth time, I could never keep going even when forcing myself. It's just there's no depth to the game, it's just hack'n'slash with no purpose, there's no NPC's to interact with, there's no story or plot, no towns or characters, there's nothing to do except the clunky and repetitive combat. I don't even know why they call it an RPG, there are no elements of RPG in it, there's just class-choosing at the beginning of the game which makes absolutely no difference except at the beginning. It's more like Ghouls N Ghosts in 3D, kill monsters; kill the boss; rinse repeat.
Why is this game treated like the second coming of christ?

Sorry you didn't like it. Personally I loved Dark Souls and its predecessor, Demons Souls. There is plenty of story. It just isn't spoon fed out like lots of RPG's. And the loneliness element (i.e., lack of NPCs) is a design element because the game is supposed to make the player feel like he/she is in a desolate place. The fact that the game is actually damn hard is also a big plus too. Its like golf in some places. Frustrating as hell for a long time, until you get past one boss battle and actually get an adrenaline rush from it.

As for classes, you can certainly decide to make a generalist from any class. But that defeats the purpose somewhat and ultimately the character ends up weaker if he is a jack of all trades instead of a master of a few. It can be quite fun to play through the game as a sneaky thief, knowing that just about any enemy can one shot you. Makes you really conscious of what you are doing. Also forces you to really learn how to dodge.

 

[thespyder]

The story is as such: A plague has come over the land, marking all how have it with the Dark Sign. This causes the person to now die, but instead become Hollow. Eventually, the Hollow will go insane and thus are imprisoned as such. There is a legend that one undead will come forward and change all of this. You are that person, of course. After escaping the asylum, you learn the chosen undead is supposed to ring two bells. You ring things and then are told you are the chosen and will link the flame, which is failing and prolong the Age of Fire by a primordial serpent. You have to acquire an item from an abandoned city "bathed in Sunlight". So, you go there and get the item. You meet the daughter of Lord Gwyn, who linked the first flame ushering in the Age of Fire. Upon returning to the serpent, you discover you have to fill the item (the Lordvessel) with 4 souls of some baddies. That will give you access to the kiln and allow you to defeat the Lord of Cinder and link the flame. Now, that is what you are told through dialog with the main NPCs you encounter. The rest of the amazing story is told through other NPC dialog and reading item descriptions. If you do a few other things, you discover another serpent, who claims you are actually the decedent of one of the 4 original god and are actually meant to usher in the Age of Dark, the age of man. However, if you look deep enough into the items, you can infer both serpents are using you towards their own end. Which, ultimately gives you the choice of what to do and which is the "good" and which is the "bad" is completely ambiguous. There is a ton of other background lore you have to discover and all of the characters have interesting backgrounds, but you can easily miss it. A bit longer than a paragraph, but that is the story. And yes, it is very easy to miss it.

So a little bit more than I ever knew about, and so I give it props. But if you compare that story to Baldur's gate or Planescape: Torment or Dragon Age: Origins or even Skyrim and Fallout, not quite so much. All I am saying here is that, if someone was looking for an RPG, and saw Dark souls marketed as such, and was therefore lead to believe that it was something typical of the genre, they aren't quite getting that. Sure there are elements and a story, but it could easily be a let down to someone who was expecting a story on the level of those other games, agreed?

At first glance, it does seem like the levels and stats don't do anything. There is a much more in depth, which is why I brought up Ultima Online. The starting choices merely determine your starting stats and items. Where you go from there, is up to you. There is armor, magic, weapons, and miracles that all require certain stats and specific builds. If you want to be a mage, you can be one. If you want to be a fighter with heavy armor, build it. They limit you only on your imagination. The gear also plays a huge spot in your character, and there is a plethora of choices for how you want your character to play.

Honestly, I never felt that the stats made any difference. Each stat you put points in seem to effect the secondary stats in similar, if not the same, ways. Increase one and your damage goes up. Increase a different one and .... your damage goes up. I had always heard that it didn't matter what class you started out as, you could still get anywhere you ultimately wanted. Which is fine, if a bit on the "Platformer" side. And yes, there are probably builds and the like as you might see in a classic RPG. But again, if you purchased it because it was an RPG and were expecting BG or Kotor or even Mass Effect or any of the others that I mentioned above, it is easy to be disappointed.

The game does have a platformer feel with how it the combat is; but that does not mean anything against it being an RPG. Is Dragon Age a better RPG because the combat is better than Planescape Torment? No, it is simply an extension of how you play. The platformer feel was a design choice that really worked. And, FROM have stated with Demon's Souls it wasn't their intention to make the game hard, but when they made their combat system it ended up that way and they kept it.

Even with how much I actually like the game, I understand it isn't for everyone. However, I feel a lot of the criticisms are from people who don't give it a fair chance.

I am not saying that BG or Dragon age are "Better Games". I am saying that if you were looking for an RPG like BG and you bought the game because it was marketed as an RPG, I can easily see how the two are not similar in almost any way and therefore it is quite easy to get disillusioned on the whole thing.

Dark Souls has elements of RPGs, I'll grant you. But if you are looking for what is considered to be the RPG standard, you may not find it in Dark Souls. Does that make it a bad game? no.

The same can be said for MMOs. I don't personally like MMOs and do not consider them RPG games. Others disagree with me. I don't want to grind and camp the same monsters hundreds of times. I would rather quest than campfire. I would like to see my actions actually have impact on the gamescape. And I want to be 'The' hero of the story, not one of ten thousand.

The same for Dark Souls. It is a more accurate thing to say that the things I go to RPG games for, engaging interactive stories, development that feels effected by the choices you make and interaction with other characters such that you actually have to do more than fight (aka talk and discuss and make conversation choices), and actually play a role, you aren't going to find these in Dark Souls to any significant degree. that isn't to say there isn't loads of fun to be had. Merely, that if I had an interest in playing an RPG and looked through the games that I have on my shelf, that wouldn't even be on my top ten. If I were instead looking for a combat heavy game platform type game that was challenging and fun, I might absolutely pick up Dark Souls.

 

[fixbsod]

I do understand cheap hard. And placing enemies in spots that are just out of reach by camera / blocked by current view, especially in areas that are on tight ledges and walkways is cheap. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't like I was dying left and right on these cheap enemies, and I'm all QQ about it. You figured it out pretty quick, as I noted it became like a memory game and so it was like ok watch for this guy on the left you can't see, and this guy behind the pillar you can't see and this guy just beyond the doorway you can't see etc etc. But it just kept going every level as such and you'd think these programmers were the ones who had invented this type of mechanic for how overused it was and so instead of it feeling difficult it felt cheap and also got old and boring.

A better mechanic would be instead of having all these pretty easy enemies that are only a challenge due to their placement and then to have these ultra difficult bosses would be to have something in between. How about some guys that you would need to block, parry, dodge, etc and go toe-to-toe with. The bosses did give you some of this but it was with no forgiveness -- a few hits and you were toast. I recall a few mini bosses like some knights but a lot of times due to the few hits you could take the strategy was more picking them off from a distance / hit and running.

So pretty much dying was like -- oh you didn't see this enemy, HAH!! Blasted off a ledge. Or oh did you try and take on this huge enemy? Well even tho you will need to hit him 20 times he only needs to hit you twice and your dead! HAH!

That's not something that makes for good game mechanics -- needs something more. They tried to add in a bunch of RPG elements for good measure which came off petty as they didn't really add much to the core game. It gave it a little flavor but was still very weak. Sure, some people will accept the challenge, and progresssing in a difficult game always feels good, but the problem I had, and others had including the OP was that the actual game WASN'T FUN ENOUGH to make it worthwhile to keep trying.

Let me give another example of a cheap hard game that IS fun:

Metro 2033

I played thru this on the 2nd hardest difficulty and had a BLAST, gave it another go almost immediately after beating it and was able to breeze thru a lot and noticed the cheese. On many levels despite how dark and well hidden you are and where the enemies are it was often the case that killing one immediately made all the other enemies aware of your location. The sensitivity overall was way off on enemies awareness to your location. There were also a few spots with enemies that would continue to spawn forever and scripted events that you could not impact despite it seeming like you should have been able to blow away the enemy before anything went down.

That said, the large environments, overall wonderful ambience and level design, many different paths to take and ways to take out your enemies made it a much more enjoyable sandbox to play. Shoot out the lights? Sneak around with a knife and NV? Go down this way or around the back? Grab some cover and hope they miss? Stealth it all with no kills? The choice was yours.

DS? Just memorize the location of the cheap enemies and boss movements to know when they were vulnerable. Basically one big Simon (the lights and sound game).

I don't think you understand cheap hard. Nintendo hard was cheap hard. Hitting invisible walls in Silver Surfer was cheap. Not paying attention to a group of enemies stabbing me in the face in Demon's Souls is not cheap, it is me being punished for playing stupidly.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I was not a fan of this game. I finished it but when there are so many paths that cause you to fall because of the slow to respond controls or when enemies are placed on ledges designed to make you fall and start again, that's artificial difficulty.

The biggest issue for me was the lack of direction to the action or plot. You're told a small tidbit in the beginning and an npc tells you what you should try doing but beyond that nothing. There was nothing driving me forward, no reason to continue. I guess the word for me would be boring. I was bored.

 

[Grooveriding]

Wasn't a fan. But I can see why people enjoy it. I like difficult games and it definitely has that going for it. But being a PC gamer and not enjoying hardly anything on console, it was just terrible on the PC. Truly, truly bad.

 

[Dumac]

Wasn't a fan. But I can see why people enjoy it. I like difficult games and it definitely has that going for it. But being a PC gamer and not enjoying hardly anything on console, it was just terrible on the PC. Truly, truly bad.

With DSFix + a controller, it was glorious on PC. Much, much better than on console.

 

[turn_pike]

So a little bit more than I ever knew about, and so I give it props. But if you compare that story to Baldur's gate or Planescape: Torment or Dragon Age: Origins or even Skyrim and Fallout, not quite so much.

I am first and foremost a lover of the old school Bioware and Black Isle RPGs. Torment and Mask of the Betrayer are some of the very best games I've ever played because of their story. -That- said Dark Souls is also included in that list among others because of, not instead of, its story.

The thing with From software style of story is that it is often ambiguous, told in fragments and deliberately left incomplete for the players to fill the blanks with their own interpretations. It is the polar opposite of Bioware type of story where every single detail is explained meticulously (and therefore left little for player to debate or put forth their own interpretations).

For one thing asking for a complete story of Dark Souls in one paragraph as someone above had done is completely missing the point. Most of the stories, the best ones anyways, are the side stories such as the story of the Knight Artorias and his wolf Sif.

Moreover the story is often not a straight up narrative. It is the history of the world of Dark Souls. Just like with the historiography of our own world, we have to make do with incomplete information. The architecture, the enemies you fight or items you find in an area all gives you a clue of what had happened there but it is never enough to give you a clear answer. You are challenged to synthetise all the above information with some conjectures of your own to come up with a narrative.

For those who have completed the game once or twice. The lore of the game could be -the- reason why you play. You hunt for rare items hoping not to use it but to read the item descriptions. Once you have replayed the game once or twice, slowly but surely you'll begin to understand that there are many stories, layer upon layer of story, hidden in plain sight.

 

[thespyder]

It is the polar opposite of Bioware type of story

My point in a nutshell. Absolutely there is nothing wrong with enjoying Dark Souls for whatever reason. I too enjoy the game. But if i were looking for a Bioware style of RPG, Dark Souls is bound to disappoint me in that arena.

 

[smackababy]

My point in a nutshell. Absolutely there is nothing wrong with enjoying Dark Souls for whatever reason. I too enjoy the game. But if i were looking for a Bioware style of RPG, Dark Souls is bound to disappoint me in that arena.

I think what FROM does and BioWare has failed at, at least of late, is that grey area between good and evil. The choices are always blatant. You get your good choice, your neutral choice, and your bad choice. Same with the endings. Dark Souls doesn't give any explanation for the endings. It is upon the player (and community, which is another huge plus to Dark Souls) to determine themselves which ending they want to be good.

But yes, if you were going in expecting a BioWare RPG, you would be disappointed. I don't think anywhere it is marketed as such though.

This game exemplifies what developers need to get back to doing. So much time and effort was put into details that are easily missed and often overlooked. Most developers these days, if they put in something they believe is cool, will force it down your throat. I long for the days of there being Easter eggs in games again.

 

[thespyder]

I think the mistake people are making is that they think I don't like Dark Souls. I in fact do like the game.

However, I understand the OP in that they were looking for an RPG (presumably in the vein of BG or NWN or Dragon Age: Origins) and didn't get it. I was merely saying, I get that sentiment and was attempting to share that insight with the community. Not that I agree with the overall tone of the negative remarks about the game. Just that I get that it isn't the type of typical RPG that a lot of people might think it is when a game is marketed as an RPG in today's market.

 

[smackababy]

But expecting a game in the vein of BG or NWN or Dragon Age and just buying Dark Souls because it is an RPG is stupid. This is 2013. If you can't look up any information about something before you buy it, you have zero room to complain. The "I didn't look up any information about this game and it sucks because it isn't just like this other game it never marketed itself as" argument doesn't work. It hasn't for a long time.

The OP is probably, as suggested in this thread, one of those Steam bargain buyers who purchased it on sale and went in blind because they had heard it was good and it was cheap.

 

[darkewaffle]

I tried Demon Souls (I think, whichever was the first one on PS3) after hearing good things about it and couldn't get into it. Tried it for like an hour or two - I get that it's supposed to be hard but it crossed the line between hard and obtuse imo. I'm sure some people love how "hardcore" that makes them feel but I think it's just obnoxious when a game is intentionally uninformative and your only recourse is banging-your-head-against-the-wall style of trial and error.

Plus I remember thinking the controls were pretty sluggish and unpleasant. At the end of the day if I'm not even enjoying the very fundamentals of a game I probably won't stick with it, that killed Skyrim (fast) and The Witcher for me and I just barely made it over that hump with Mass Effect lol.

 

[smackababy]

The game told you the basic mechanics of fighting. That is the entire game. They did not explain and hold your hand on every mechanic of every monster, but the gist of the game is there. You dodge or parry attacks. The only difficulty was that you didn't get regeneration health and quite a few monsters can kill you in one hit.

I don't understand what you'd like them to inform you about that you were intentionally uninformed of going in. They told you the controls and the basics. Is WoW intentionally uninformative because they don't give you a breakdown of the boss mechanics and what you need to do to beat them? Of course not.

 

[darkewaffle]

I vaguely remember the tutorial, but something about parry/block in particular left a bad taste in my mouth. Like there was only one monster to try using it on or I couldn't get the timing quite right at first or something. And then a couple moments after that you're in a room with a bit nigh unbeatable enemy that that shit doesn't even work on lol - it gave you the basics but I want to say it skipped or only mentioned some of the more advanced combos/mechanics in passing? Hard to say years later.

I remember feeling like even the first level had a number of "trapdoor" moments and really the only way to pass them... was to fall in them and then basically remember to not fall in them the next time. Kind of like the red eye knight or whatever where the only way to find out you shouldn't fight him is to fight him and then die. I just don't find that to be that fun or a great design. It's kind of like playing Minesweeper by just remembering where all the mines are rather than actually using the numbers to uncover them. I guess I'd rather have the opportunity to learn and adjust on the fly rather than "this game is so hard trivial missteps will kill you and make you do everything again".

Actually now that I look up the controls I think I remember my biggest complaint, simply that the controls were pretty ass backwards for anyone who had played any other 3rd person action game on a controller ever and you couldn't change them. I felt so awkward attacking with the triggers and my "main" buttons now being my "secondary" buttons (and vice versa) that I was regularly pressing one button and wanting something different to happen - wasting my items, inadvertant deaths. And while I did have the tutorial, very little of it 'registered' because it was so "greek" to me - none of the buttons worked the way I wanted/expected them to.

Probably could have gotten used to that eventually, but nothing about the rest of my [albeit limited] experience pulled me in enough to care to try.

 

[smackababy]

That first boss fight you're supposed to lose. Even if you kill him, you die anyway from something right after.

I agree the controls are very strange at first. But, after awhile, they are extremely good (IMO).

A lot of the "trapdoor" moments are telegraphed if you look for them. But, you have to either know or learn to look for that stuff and not just go rushing in.

The game isn't for everyone though.

 

[clok1966]

I picked up DEMONS SOULS as i was a HUGE Kings Field (these guys PSone and 2 games) fan. Whrn i started playing I was a bit annoyed by "cheap" attacks, but as I playe the game I started to understand there is nothing Cheap in this game, there is no spot where you can not be prepared for what is to come. Early in DEMONS SOULS there are guys that hop out from behind barriers, seemed cheap, but if i actually looked they where visible all along. A bolder trap on a stairs, its 100% in view long before it goes off if you look, you can stand at bottom of stairs and STARE at it all day long and it wont go off till you start to climb them. You enter a door way and get attacked from a side, cheap!, not if you enterd a dark doorway and looked in all directions first.. the attack is not instant, but takes time, actually looking everywhere first solves it.. but its designed to put the butthurt on the standard player who rushes and does not think. After I learned this I dies very few times to standard monsters in DEMONS SOULS, only learning boss attacks took time (and after the first i actually killed the next 3 without dying on first try). now this is DEMONS SOULS, i have only got into Dark Souls a tiny bit (have not had the time the game deserves, so have not played it much) but the little i have played, its the same game, new locations, new monsters.

in the end I never once felt it was brutally hard or cheap. I did feel i had to think about my every move, plan all the time, never rush.. all stuff that is 100% different then gaming nowdays.. You want brutal, finish castlevania (original, 3 lives plus bonus, no continues, you beat it with those lives or start from square one). megaman, etc.. there where no regenerating health, no continue from last checkpoint forever till you beat it.

NO.. if you don't like it, don't worry, go play a game you do like, why bother complaining about it?

 

[Attic]

I loved it, but I can identify with the OP's complaints.


The game is a paradigm shift from most gameplay we as gamers have been accustomed to. It is a harder jolt for some than others. I'd encourage you to get back on, there is a wealth of fantastic environments, gameplay, lore, story, exploration to engage in.

It's friggen awsome, friggen frustrating as hell, and shouldn't be missed.

 

[ControlD]

I think my problem with Dark Souls is that:

(1) It pretty much has to be played with a X360 controller
(2) You need to be really, really, really proficient at using (1) to have any hope

Since I suck at using controllers in general I found Dark Souls to be nothing but pure frustration. I never even got past the first boss. I finished Tomb Raider using a X360 controller since then, so maybe I should go back and give this game another shot.