Talk:Dark Souls

Script error

This article is currently displaying a script error at Souls (series)#Reception: "Lua error in Module:Video_game_series_reviews at line 95: attempt to concatenate local 'sitelink' (a nil value)". That is due to a new Wikidata item Dark Souls: Remastered (Q55728812) which has no link to an article ("siteLink"). Would someone please fix the Wikidata page after checking that the information is valid (I have no idea). @ferret: You might like to consider whether buildGameWikidata in Module:Video game series reviews should do something special if siteLink is nil. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I am unable to look at the module till later this week, @Izno: is this a valid wikidata item to even have? -- ferret (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

If the game exists, I wouldn't be troubled. Fits under the structural criterion for notability at Wikidata, probably. --Izno (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Nevermind I grabbed a moment to fix it. All good now. Will just use label if no sitelink. -- ferret (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

"Demon's Souls" isn't a part of the genuine "Dark Souls" video game series.

The "Dark Souls" series (1,2,3) constitutes the spiritual successor to "Demon's Souls" but has no direct relation to it, neither legally nor storywise. Similarities in game design and the same game director are not sufficient to name them as one genuine video game series.

"Demon's Souls" must stand alone as does "Bloodborne" because the same rules apply here: Similarities in regard to general game design and the same director but a different IP owner and no connections inside the fictional universe unless of course the player wants to imagine them so.

"Demon's Souls" and "Dark Souls" are not marketed as a series and the director himself sees them as two different games: "'Dark Souls' is not a sequel to 'Demon’s Souls' by any means". (Cf. see below) To my mind there exists no "Souls" series from an encyclopedic point of view but there is "Demon's Souls" and there is the "Dark Souls" series and they should be designated in this way.

References:

(Hidetaka Miyazaki, 2011) https://blog.eu.playstation.com/2011/02/04/dark-souls-qa-variety-is-the-spice-of-death/

IP Demon's Souls (->) Sony (https://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/02/10/shuhei-yoshida-interview.aspx)

IP Dark Souls (1-3) (->) Bandai Namco (https://en.bandainamcoent.eu/dark-souls)

HAXrbt 00:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaxAreBoot (talk • contribs)

This has been discussed multiple times in the past. See the talk page archives and the sources in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 00:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I personally think that having the title be moved to "Dark Souls (series)" while keeping the prose the same (meaning Demon's is still considered a part of the series) is the best way to handle this. "Souls (series)" is too ambiguous even if you disagree with that. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this has been discussed several times. When I first created the page, I did in fact create it as Dark Souls (series), and now that is just a redirect link because the general consensus quickly became that Souls (series) is the proper title. Osh33m (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

As a fan I understand the general consensus and I accept it but if you put the term to a test: neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability, it does not hold up. The term "Souls" - created certainly more by fans than by the actual creators - to designate one coherent video game series does not feel right inside an encyclopedia. Possibly Miyazaki's games are simply not made to be put into unalterable terms. If the content can't be moved to/titled as "Dark Souls (series)" perhaps - to reclose this discussion for now - the history of the term "Souls" should be explained in the article so that newcomers understand that this is one series by similar gameplay mechanics only and not by any other verifiable quality. HAXrbt 18:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaxAreBoot (talk • contribs)

I think we need to open a new RfC solely about the page title. All previous discussions on the matter were about including Demon's or not, so this would not be kicking a dead horse. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the article explains it well enough for newcomers already. Miyazaki has time and time again grouped and referred to the series as "Souls", and this statement in the Dark Souls section exists that already puts to rest this discussion --> "From Software wanted to craft games similar to Demon's Souls but the exclusivity of the IP to Sony prevented them from using the same name on other platforms. Instead, From Software crafted a new intellectual property to be published on multiple consoles." Osh33m (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Right, my issue is with the page title only, as Souls (series) is too ambiguous in my opinion. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Understood, I updated the first line of the article to include both so that the terms can be inclusive and interchangeable. What do you think? Osh33m (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with this approach as it just adds more clutter and confusion to somebody reading about the series for the first time. We need to hold a proper RfC about the page title only, as consensus is to keep Demon's apart of the series and that doesn't look to be changing anytime soon. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it would be seen as confusing. Especially how the Dark Souls (series) link itself is a redirect to Souls. If anything, it would dissolve the confusion to somebody reading the article. Osh33m (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The fact that the other name redirects here, it probably does need mentioned. -- ferret (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

So then what's wrong with my previous edit? Osh33m (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn't revert you so can't answer. -- ferret (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought my reason was sufficient enough. Dark Souls/Souls are meant to be the same thing, not alternative titles. Therefore, having both in the opening sentence just leads to potential confusion and objective bloat. If the page title was Dark Souls (series) like I and others have been suggesting for a while now, then this problem doesn't exist in the first place. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

'Souls Series'?

I'm not sure that Demon's Souls should be lumped in with the three Dark Souls titles as a 'series'. The Demon's Souls IP is owned by Sony, and has no official connection to Dark Souls. Although Demon's Souls, Dark Souls 1-3 and Bloodborne have a community around them which consider them part of a series (usually 'Souls' or 'Soulsborne', see speedsouls.com or 'Souls' series on speedrun.com), this is strictly community based and non-official. 'Dark Souls' is a franchise, 'Souls' is not.