Talk:Dark Souls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Video games (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Sources are inaccurate[edit]

I have removed a portion that was made with several lies in order to make the game appear to be more popular than it was. The "sales" figure that was quoted of 2.3 million had absolutely zero sources for that. One place published it, but it wasn't actually an article. They were saying that someone that was at something told them that figure. That's very different than the company reporting that number. http://www.vgchartz.com/game/47349/dark-souls/ That is much more reliable, and places the number at 1.8. Darksouls was also reported in this article as an indie game in order to take advantage of a ranking system setup. The setup was also made so that it did not take into account actual indie games. 76.123.173.210 (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Head of From Software, Eiichi Nakajima, stated the 2.3 million number himself. It's clearly stated within the the article cited. I don't know how much more accurate you can get than that. And, nowhere is it reported that it is an Indie game either, Indie games are listed within the article being cited but the most played Windows PC games are also listed within the article, which is what DS is in fact. Also as a side-note, VGChartz was determined under consensus by the project to be a highly unreliable source for sales data and blacklisted I believe. As such, I have reverted your deletion. DrNegative (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Controversy Section[edit]

Although funny, it's not really appropriate for a Wikipedia article. 24.237.72.151 (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Street date break[edit]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-09-21-dark-souls-dev-punishing-early-birds Good for a dev/release section. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Much Expansion Needed[edit]

Talk about brief. What about multiplayer gameplay, development etc. etc. etc. Just because this isn't CoD or something, that doesn't mean it isn't a AAA, critically acclaimed title! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.64.76 (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the editors who would be expanding this article are probably busy playing it, it'll flesh out in time. Someoneanother 17:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's been 6 years now and the development section is still just a paragraph or so long, most of which is dedicated to the PC port rather then the initial development of the original game, a bit disappointing to see considering how influential this game has become over the years. I think the we've had enough time to finish the game by now.81.103.122.41 (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree, this page is pretty awful for a such an influential and discussed game. However, I've looked in the past and haven't really found that much on the development history of it; most articles about the game only discuss its legacy or famed difficulty. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC) ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Cameos[edit]

I've heard that Seath the Scaleless and one other character in the game are from King's Field, and I've seen Patches the Hyena (from Demon's Souls) appear. Should these be mentioned somewhere? --TacticianJ (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

PC Version Section[edit]

After the brief, small scale edit war (see the article's history) over "speculation" being added to the PC Version section, I felt I should point out that a single speculative statement added to a section does not warrant deleting the entire section. If we can't be civil and logical about this, everybody will lose once the article needs to be protected to some degree due to constant reversions and opinionated speculation over whether or not speculation about speculation in fact has a speculative place on Wikiepdia. I'm sorry if I sound like I'm being obtuse, but the fact of the matter is - a very large number of gaming news sites reported the forthcoming announcement and the rumor of its purpose, and Wikipedia has a number of articles with no such sources for rumors that are kept in them for much longer. I am not going to judge whether or not the announcement's rumored ties to the PC port is worthy of inclusion as I see it as a sourced statement, a speculative statement, and simple news, all at once. But the interest on the part of Namco-Bandai in the petition's popularity and its overwhelming surge of support is relevant to the article, as it's about the game and its continued developments. Shotgunmaniac (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

AGREED! PC version just came out and every review is disgusted at how incredibly poor this port is!
"I can give it this much: Dark Souls: Prepare to Die Edition does run. Yet when over 100,000 PC gamers petitioned Namco Bandai to bring its popular console action RPG to the PC, this probably wasn't exactly what they had in mind. We've had our concerns over the quality of the PC ever since we first saw it earlier this year, and now that it's here, the worst of them are confirmed: this is just about a worst-case scenario port. It's a shame, too -- it's like getting that bike you asked for for Christmas only to find that it's so poorly assembled you can barely ride it. "
" To some extent this feels like I'm looking a gift horse in the mouth here, since Namco Bandai only created the PC version of Dark Souls after PC gamers cried out for it en mass. But in reality, Namco isn't "giving" us anything -- it's charging us $40 for a product, and that product is technically poor."
"I can now confirm first-hand that no matter what resolution you set in the options, Dark Souls will run at 1280x720 (or 720p) and stretch to fit. It looks pretty terrible on a PC monitor, or anything higher than 720p resolution. Everything's blocky, and even text looks awful. Of all the low-quality shortcuts From could've taken in putting Dark Souls on the PC, limiting the resolution may well be the most inexcusable. I've seen a lot of bad ports, but it's been a long time since I've seen something this bad."

So there is a new edit war about the following quote from Eurogamer:

Dark Souls: Prepare to Die Edition does not come with the technical options you would expect from a well-engineered PC game, because it's a port of a console game, and that's all From Software ever promised to deliver. Anyone who passes up Dark Souls for this reason is cutting off their nose to spite their neckbeard of a face.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-08-28-dark-souls-prepare-to-die-edition-review

I don't see why it would be removed while keeping the preceding paragraph. Eurogamer is commenting on the preceding statements, and they feel like a source more reliable than Neogaf. Fabjan (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

GameSpy "worst port ever" quote[edit]

A lot of people are quoting Game Spy as saying the PC port is the "worst port ever". However, in the linked article, no such phrase exists. The review is actually very generous towards the game, though damning its technical limitations. Several forums(1, 2), however, have copy-pasted a more damning review, sourcing the same link. These have the "worst port ever" quote. I figure they removed the old review and put up a new, less critical review in its place. So I guess we ought to remove the quote? They did say it at one point, but it's a bit tricky to reliably cite it, and they redacted it anyways. --Mikaka (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It's there (Port Authority: Dark Souls PC), however, it doesn't appear in the newer version (Dark Souls (Prepare to Die Edition). Why they changed it, I don't know, but if someone wants to quote that as an initial reaction, it's there. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 17:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

PhyreEngine[edit]

Tweet. This claims otherwise. I also find it unlikely. 85.207.131.6 (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Trolling in the very first line?[edit]

From the first line: "[...]is an eat shit video game set [...]" seems like some was trolling to me?

Legacy[edit]

How did this influence The Witcher series as stated in the article?

The first Witcher game came out in 2007, and The Witcher 2 came out the same year this did. If anything the influence would be the other way around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sekraan (talkcontribs) 04:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Legitimate or Not -- Game Design and Features[edit]

I am a very occasional wikipedia editor. This computer game, Dark Souls, is unusually well done.. an instant classic on many levels. I am inspired to make this article reflect design aspects of this important and unique game. Meanwhile, the article as of three days ago was in a shambles.. poorly written, missing details and badly worded to a point of being inaccurate. I changed several paragraphs of Gameplay. Next I added a detail. The edit was deleted by some guy right away as "not needed" ?? More deletions follow...

I commented on his page HERE Now more deletes "badly written and unnecessary" .. really ? what is going on .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CDA6:6A10:223:6CFF:FE94:23E3 (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Dissident93's revert. The quote from Kei Horono would belong in the Development section, if appropriate to even have in the article. Some of the other things like "Covenants" is not necessary, we don't need to explain every aspect of the game. Wikia is better suited for the nuanced details. -- ferret (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I have never heard of wikia until.. I do get the "game clutter" concept from the guidelines, and even with that, the things I added were relevent on the largest scale, the game itself.. not some level detail nit or small part of a character mechanic. So I am not convinced.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CDA6:6A10:223:6CFF:FE94:23E3 (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Covenant info is exactly what the WP:GAMECRUFT guideline is trying to prevent (see #3, #4, and #7). Not trying to be mean or anything, but that stuff is better suited for external Wikias. The article doesn't need any more info on them besides that they exist and each serve a separate purpose. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Synopsis[edit]

Having never played the game(s), I find the plot synopsis:

a) at times basically gibberish (what's a Gwyn? What's a Lord Soul?);

b) tonally inconsistent ("but all flames must fade" is something a guy with a gravelly voice says in a video-game cutscene, not an encyclopedic remark);

c) inconsistent in terms of grammatical tense.

If I knew anything about the story, I'd try to be bold (or WP:BOLD, even)! Still, as it stands, the section is utterly pointless for somebody not already familiar with the subject. -83.204.241.141 (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dark Souls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Dark Souls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Dark Souls Board Game[edit]

Sourced, relevant I added here regarding the Dark Souls board game has been removed from the legacy section without a clear argument being made as to why it should be removed. Failing a consensus here that it doesn't belong, I'll add it back in here shortly. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  • The info was moved to the series page, where it's a better fit because it includes elements from Dark Souls 2 and 3 as well. Maybe a passive mention of it could be added, but anything too detailed belongs on the series page. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I didn't see that it was moved to the series page - that handles it perfectly. Thanks for the work you do around here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
No problem. Feel free to add any more info there. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we have a section on Dark Souls Remastered?[edit]

So I know that there is ton on info on Dark Souls Remastered, why don't we have a section on it yet? Felicia (talk)

  • It's covered in the Legacy section. Feel free to expand with pertinent information. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Really not much different about it, so a section wouldn't be needed. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
We do now. Interqwark talk contribs 18:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

To mention or not to mention “30 fps”[edit]

Dissident93 and I had a disagreement about whether to mention that the Switch version of Dark Souls: Remastered runs at 30 fps. Dissident93 edited the article to say that the game runs at 60 fps on all platforms except for the Nintendo Switch, as opposed to mentioning that the game runs at 60 fps or 30 fps on the Nintendo Switch. The latter is more consise, and I don’t think that it’s more technical as he argued here since it’s only mentioning a different frame rate. Frame rates were already mentioned in the section, so it’s not more technical or confusing to mention 30 fps in addition to 60 fps.

Which is better: this or this (or a different, reformed sentence)?

Example one: The game runs at a native 60 frames per second (fps) (or 30 fps on the Nintendo Switch)
Example two: The game runs at a native 60 frames per second (fps) on all platforms except the Nintendo Switch Interqwark talk contribs 21:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

  • As the original game runs at 720/30fps, I simply think that stating the Switch version features no enhancements in those areas, while the other 3 platforms do, is easier to understand. The source being cited has the exact details if people wish to know more. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@Dissident93: There’s no indication that the Switch version runs at the same frame rate as the unrelated Prepare To Die Edition anywhere in the sectinon, and editing it to mention that would be much less consise and more confusing than simply mentiong that it runs at 30 frames per second. We don’t need to mention the specific resolutions of every version, as that’s more complicated when it comes to the Switch, but I don’t see the problem with simply mentioning the frame rate of 30 fps of the Switch version in parentheses. Interqwark talk contribs 22:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
That's exactly my reasoning, why mention the Switch's technical details when we could just state it doesn't feature any enhancements from the original release, unlike the other 3 versions of DSR? If this has to be added, then I think this is better off being added in a note than in the body itself. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@Dissident93: I think that since the article already says that the exception to the frame rate of 60 fps of the other versions is the Switch version, we might as well mention that it runs at 30 fps. It’s shorter. I don’t see a reason to say that the Switch doesn’t run at 60 fps without mentioning that it runs at 30 fps. Interqwark talk contribs 22:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Open world[edit]

The article says it is open world, but is it true?

  • "Open world" is a modern buzzworld for any game that isn't completely linear. In my opinion, I would not call it open world in the same vein as Skyrim or Witcher 3, but if sources call it that, then we can't really argue it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)