Anyone annoyed at games like Dark Souls?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Glutenbob (249 posts) -

Not at the fact that they are hard, but the fact that if you die you have to replay large sections that you found pretty easy just to get to the hard part and then possibly die again. Especially if those easy sections can span upwards of 30 minutes?

I love hard games, the later levels in Super Mario Galaxy, crown world in Super Mario 3D world, old NES games all of which were hard but didn't have you replaying 30 something minutes of easy gameplay just to possibly fail again.

I really love the artstyle, music, atmosphere and creativity of the world of Dark Souls, but I found it tough to have to replay the same sections over and over. Wish I could go back.

Anyone else in the same boat? or am I just a filthy casual gamer? XD

#2 Posted by locus-solus (499 posts) -

the soul series almost always has shortcuts in levels, so not really that big of a deal in my opinion

#3 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

Ofcourse.

Not Everyone's a masochist.

The Problem with Dark Souls is that its being advertised as "Difficult" when the more Accurate description is "Unforgiving".

Theres more emphasis on the conditions for failure than how the failure may happen. Perhaps you fell off a ledge. Perhaps its Trial and Error.

Again. Only Masochist get a kick out of this.

#4 Posted by Gamerno66666 (161 posts) -

Nope. I am replaying dark souls again and i only died like 3 times and I am on sen's fortress now.

#5 Posted by hellangel_boy (179 posts) -

I like them a lot, but I have to agree that they are not difficult in the sense of the fighting a mob and dying, they're unforgiving, so you have to be patient when you play them for the first time, that's all.

#6 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

I've died like 200 times, been stuck on one boss fight for over an hour at times. Loving every second.

#7 Posted by Pffrbt (6528 posts) -

Not at the fact that they are hard, but the fact that if you die you have to replay large sections that you found pretty easy just to get to the hard part and then possibly die again. Especially if those easy sections can span upwards of 30 minutes?

I can't really think of any moment in Dark Souls where this is the case. There's almost always a bonfire or shortcut nearby difficult spots.

#8 Posted by Metamania (11971 posts) -

I've died like 200 times, been stuck on one boss fight for over an hour at times. Loving every second.

See, hearing stuff like this makes me want to pick up Dark Souls II and really give it a shot once more. Despite the hundreds of deaths involved, it could be a very rewarding game if given the chance. We'll see.

#9 Posted by blangenakker (2225 posts) -

@Pffrbt said:

@Glutenbob said:

Not at the fact that they are hard, but the fact that if you die you have to replay large sections that you found pretty easy just to get to the hard part and then possibly die again. Especially if those easy sections can span upwards of 30 minutes?

I can't really think of any moment in Dark Souls where this is the case. There's almost always a bonfire or shortcut nearby difficult spots.

So there's one in the Depths? Because that would help me a lot

#10 Posted by jdc6305 (3805 posts) -

Dark souls has a steep learning curve. It can take anywhere from 4-10 hours before you catch on to it. Once you get the hang of it it's not as unforgiving. DS is not a mindless game that you can just mash buttons the entire way through the game. It takes thought and planning. I suggest anyone having problems pick up the guide and study it. Also watch a few videos on youtube. Most of todays games are stupid easy. I grew up in nes games. The original Castlevania took me 4 years to finish. I had to died 10000 times before I finished it.

#11 Edited by sukraj (22133 posts) -

I don't like these type of games.

#12 Posted by Mesomorphin (813 posts) -

To be completely honest, every game I've played that does this pisses me off like you wouldn't believe. But for some reason I actually like replaying sections of the Soul games, they improve my accuracy and timing, and heck its also an easy way to bank up on souls, as-long as you reclaim your blood stain each time that is, or unless it completely disappears on you like it has a few times with me :(

I also half believe that most of the time I die, it doesn't really bother me because I don't really have the intentions of ever properly finishing any of Soul games anyway, I play them because they're unique and a-lot of fun.

#13 Edited by Pffrbt (6528 posts) -

@blangenakker said:

So there's one in the Depths? Because that would help me a lot

The Depths aren't really very big and you can open up a shortcut by the boss that leads right back to the bonfire. The Depths are also optional if you have the master key or whatever it's called.

#14 Posted by locus-solus (499 posts) -

i know this is off topic but can anyone here explain to me how to do a jump attack in dark souls 1-2 (ps3)?

#15 Edited by groowagon (2761 posts) -

@Pffrbt said:

@Glutenbob said:

Not at the fact that they are hard, but the fact that if you die you have to replay large sections that you found pretty easy just to get to the hard part and then possibly die again. Especially if those easy sections can span upwards of 30 minutes?

I can't really think of any moment in Dark Souls where this is the case. There's almost always a bonfire or shortcut nearby difficult spots.

sometimes the bonfires are at redicilously hard places to find (requires dropping down from a certain edge or behind illusory wall) but i guess that's when the multiplayer components steps in... found these thanks to some useful messages.

but i still think there would be room to cut away some extra tedium. it wouldn't make the game easier imo.

i love the game, but there are days when i don't want to start dealing with the frustration levels that the game introduces. then i'll just play something else.

#16 Posted by Ballroompirate (22555 posts) -

Yes and no, I love the Soul games but they have some cheap moments, I don't even think they're hard just made with stupid designs that are there to kill you tell you get it right or "get lucky".

#17 Posted by PyratRum (561 posts) -

I've died like 200 times, been stuck on one boss fight for over an hour at times. Loving every second.

This right here. The struggle is real.

And soooo good.

#18 Posted by LoG-Sacrament (20397 posts) -

no, not with dark souls. i like not having the safety net of being able to load right before a boss in case i die. sometimes i get bored with the boss fight trope and the souls games (among a few others) remind me why i liked them in the first place with the higher stakes and all the gameplay drama that brings.

#19 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@ LoG-Sacrament

Ive been giving this some thought lately.

Some people can't help themselves and exploit the system put in place, for promoting convenience and a better designed game, to increase their odds of success but would rather the game force these consequinces on them.

This is also one of those scenarios where you can't have it both ways.

#20 Posted by loafofgame (469 posts) -

I haven't played Dark Souls II yet, but in Dark Souls I would find a specific way to evade easier enemies on route to the boss and just run past them. That worked most of the times...

I died a lot in that game, because I generally suck at games, but I hardly ever felt any tedium (also because the world and atmosphere were a great experience). At one point I just got into a certain flow in which I kept repeating until I made it through. That's also how I 100% Super Meat Boy. I could spend hours on one level... Sadly these instances had nothing to do with skill; only with patience. And the ability to kid yourself that spending so much time on something that has absolutely no value is somehow worth it...

#21 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

@locus-solus: up plus strong attack at the same time

#22 Posted by bussinrounds (2030 posts) -

I wouldn't mind if they gave you the ability to manually save, BUT make the combats harder, the world bigger/more complex, more enemy variety....

#23 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@ bussinrounds

I agree. Speed and Variety is my definition of real difficulty.

#24 Posted by LoG-Sacrament (20397 posts) -

@ LoG-Sacrament

Ive been giving this some thought lately.

Some people can't help themselves and exploit the system put in place, for promoting convenience and a better designed game, to increase their odds of success but would rather the game force these consequinces on them.

This is also one of those scenarios where you can't have it both ways.

convenience doesn't have much to do with it. convenience, as it pertains to save systems, is being able to stop playing when you want, save, and reload again later without losing your progress. you can do all those things with souls games. you just can't use the save system to make up for your mistakes.

i see the choice as a sign of extra care taken by the developers. most developers don't care how you experience their game. From Software has a specific vision on how the souls games should be experienced and went through the trouble making sure that's how players will experience them. i hate analogies, but it's like a steakhouse taking ketchup off tables. maybe you eat your steak with ketchup at home and maybe there's nothing wrong with that but, dammit, you're only tasting steak here.

#26 Edited by SovietsUnited (1912 posts) -

I replayed Dark Souls many times and the second time around it was really surprising to see how many shortcuts/secrets I have missed.

Indeed, the best term to describe Souls games is Castlevania: Symphony of the Night in 3D; impossible the first time around but very easy once you work out the game's systems and controls

#27 Edited by turtlethetaffer (16675 posts) -

Yeah it ccan be very annoying but rewarding once you accomplish the task.

#28 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@ turtlethetaffer

Is this one of those, The Results Vindicate the Process scenarios ?

Thats definately way above my paygrade.

#29 Edited by LoG-Sacrament (20397 posts) -
@Lulu_Lulu said:

@ LoG-Sacrament

Not every death in Dark Souls will be your fault or will be fair or may even be avoidable until its too late. One of those scenarios happening even a single time puts the developers decision to make the game so unforgiving into question.

Also the game is clearly mean't to be played online and yet its not mandatory. Clearly the developers' vision is flexible and yet the game's difficulty.... Not so much.

I think they have a double standard.

which specific deaths aren't the player's fault and how are you defining "fault"? i see a death as being the player's fault if they, as part of the intended audience, could have seen it coming. i've played through demons' souls and dark souls (i'm still in the middle of DSII) and i've never died and thought "well, i had no way of seeing that coming." or if i did, i always went back and saw that the clues were there and i simply didn't make the connection.

as for the online functionality, that's actually something that From Software has been working on. in the first dark souls, they did what they could to bring the online functions to offline play. you could get invaded by NPC's, co-op bosses with NPC's, and find items that reveal offline hints left by the developers. beyond that, demons' souls will save your game and drop you back to the main menu if you play online and then lose connection so you can't really muddle with the experience on online players. there have also been special considerations for how the save system records item drops for players in order to keep online play under control. i'd say that online play and its presence have always been a consideration.

EDIT: actually, there is one time in demons' souls where the player has to die, but you don't get punished for it (which is why it never really breaks its rule about being accountable for mistakes). it's just the final lesson of the tutorial, telling you that you're likely to die but it's not game over.

#31 Posted by speedfreak48t5p (6953 posts) -

@sukraj said:

I don't like these type of games.

#32 Posted by LoG-Sacrament (20397 posts) -

@ LoG-Sacrament

I don't know, sir. I haven't played any of the games. Usually I just bring up the gist of it and hand over the reigns to a seasoned veteran. Still waiting for the 2nd part to happen. Also I don't exactly trust Dark Souls fans about whats fair and what isn't because they sound like domestic abuse victims "Ofcourse he slapped me, I shouldve kown better than to breath when Tom's been Drinking" I mean say you wondered into a Boss Fight with the Wrong Build and and underpowered, two things that won't be evident to you until you tango with the Boss and get your ass Killed or severly injured. Sounds unfair to me.

if you can make it through the level and up to the boss, you're powerful enough to beat the boss. i've seen optional side bosses that are harder than the more official end-of-level bosses though. with those ones, you can run away if you feel you aren't up to it (although i've seen some crazy low level runs). as for builds, mostly anything is viable although different builds will have an easier or harder time with different obstacles.

as for the domestic abuse analogy, it only seems that way because most of gaming is so backwards with how they treat this sort of thing. i can't count how times i've controlled a big burly knight/space marine on a "hopeless" mission only to have the game coddle me at every turn. constant checkpoints and save anywhere, the ability to change to easy mode on the fly, waypoints on incredibly detailed maps, and lots more. it makes me feel less like a tough hero and more like a child that might fall and bump their head at any moment. the souls games also put you on "hopeless" quests but, while they aren't actually hopeless either, they don't go out of their way to make you comfy.

#33 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@ LoG-Sacrament

Well what if you skip all the lower level enemies leading up to the Boss ? Doesn't that make it harder ? More accurately speaking, is The Game's difficulty heavily reliant on stats more than it is your own skill ? Can you win by grinding to level up higher than the intended requirement to beat the boss if you're not sure of your skills as a player ?

Let me give you an Example of a game that is infact, more difficult than people give it Credit For. Prince Of Persia reboot (2008). You can't die at all in this game but it does have a failure state. See anytime you get pummeled in combat or fall to your death in platforming, That Bare Foot B!tch intervenes (I'm sorry, I forgot her name...... ah yes ! ! ! Elika.... Its Elika :D). Anyway, her intervention is a failure state that instantly resets the challange.

In combat if you get pummeled too much she'l interupt and when that happens, yours and the enemy's health resets, and will continue to do so until you get good enought to succeed. Its still difficult but theres zero penalty whatsoever. Same with Platforming, zero penalty, but the task its self is challenging. Dark Souls is more or less the same.... But with a Massive Penalty. Penalties are not difficulty, penalties are just that.... Penalties ! In Dark Souls that means redoing something you allready know you can overcome (because you over came it before), just for the privelage of getting to the place where you died for a second chance. Thats just padding and punishment. Again, it takes a certain type of individual to take pleasure in that.

And lets not forget the Stat thing.

It raises alot of questions.

In Prince of Persia your character is pretty much capable of beating the toughest of enemies and traversersing the most hazardous of terrain, from the beginning. The games challenges will progressively get more and more difficult and the static nature of your character ensures your only way of beating each challenge is to get better and better, no leveling up and no upgrades. Isn't this a much more satisfactory and rewarding method of progression as it pretty much guarantees that it was truly you who triumphed, and is a more clear indicator of your skill ? As opposed to a certain Role Playing Element.

I do feel coddled when I'm playing a shooting game that its method of restoring your health simply requires you to cower behind a wall. Its just wrong to let a player off scott free like that. Regenarating Health needs to be re-examined But the generous check point and savesystem.... Thats something I think is fair and not coddling at all. Except in the case of The Last Of Us where the game has multiple check points active with in a stealth section. If you die, it can respawn you right smack in the middle of the section where you've already killed a few threats instead of starting you over from the beginning of that section.

its a very complicated subject.

#34 Posted by Byshop (11156 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@ LoG-Sacrament

I don't know, sir. I haven't played any of the games. Usually I just bring up the gist of it and hand over the reigns to a seasoned veteran. Still waiting for the 2nd part to happen. Also I don't exactly trust Dark Souls fans about whats fair and what isn't because they sound like domestic abuse victims "Ofcourse he slapped me, I shouldve kown better than to breath when Tom's been Drinking" I mean say you wondered into a Boss Fight with the Wrong Build and and underpowered, two things that won't be evident to you until you tango with the Boss and get your ass Killed or severly injured. Sounds unfair to me.

if you can make it through the level and up to the boss, you're powerful enough to beat the boss. i've seen optional side bosses that are harder than the more official end-of-level bosses though. with those ones, you can run away if you feel you aren't up to it (although i've seen some crazy low level runs). as for builds, mostly anything is viable although different builds will have an easier or harder time with different obstacles.

as for the domestic abuse analogy, it only seems that way because most of gaming is so backwards with how they treat this sort of thing. i can't count how times i've controlled a big burly knight/space marine on a "hopeless" mission only to have the game coddle me at every turn. constant checkpoints and save anywhere, the ability to change to easy mode on the fly, waypoints on incredibly detailed maps, and lots more. it makes me feel less like a tough hero and more like a child that might fall and bump their head at any moment. the souls games also put you on "hopeless" quests but, while they aren't actually hopeless either, they don't go out of their way to make you comfy.

Just ignore Lulu. He trolls every Dark Souls thread with stuff like this. He makes up reasons why the game is unfair and then admits to never having played any of them.

-Byshop

#36 Posted by LoG-Sacrament (20397 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: in most cases, it's harder to run past enemies all the way to a boss than it is to just fight them. you'll eventually run right into a trap because you aren't being cautious. or even if you did manage to avoid all the enemies and traps in these narrow hallways at first, you'd have to stop and get your bearings only to get hit by a crowd.

higher stats can make the game easier, but only to a point and that point is temporary. i can't speak for DSII yet because i haven't gotten to the high level parts, but in the others you got diminishing returns as you level up. if you grind strength for hours and hours, it won't really matter unless you perform some crazy late game task that most people will miss. other stats have similar or more restrictive scaling functions. you may have a notably easier time for a little while, but it will catch up to you. the amount of grinding to negate the influence strategy and caution would be ridiculous and unreliable.

the souls games also always play with the concept of leveling up in their stories and it's perhaps easier to see why it's there once you get the full experience. player characters are all afflicted with a curse that gives them a need for souls (XP) like an addict. the addictive feeling of leveling up becomes the equivalent for the player and a means for From Software to tell a story about a need for power. again, the souls games are an experience and you can't just take the context out of them.

it would be easier to get the big picture if you just went out and bought one of the games rather than try to hear little snippets for various different sources. demons' souls is dirt cheap right now and i'm sure people are still playing online if the servers are up. if not, i'm sure dark souls is pretty cheap too and there are certainly people still playing it.

#37 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@ LoG-Sacrament

Would it be wrong if I pirated it just to get alil taste of death ? :p

Also Ive always been more interested in the people who played the game than I am interested in the game itself. Its just more interesting hearing about it from multiple perspectives. I'm busy for the next three months so I can't risk throwing my controllers at the TV everytime I die (I learn slow and got a not so good memory) so.... One day...... Maybe

Would you be a dear and give Byshop a hug.... He won't accept one from me but I think he really needs one. ;)

if only to get him off my back.

#38 Posted by SaintJimmmy (2815 posts) -

From what i heard it seems like they addressed that problem in Dark Souls 2

but, I understand your angle it changes things those are the kind of things that distinguish challenging from cheap in difficult video games

atleast that was really the only annoying thing that went on in that game.

I'm a challenge-seeker in video games if you say its hard I will own it.

#39 Posted by Jacanuk (4222 posts) -

Not at the fact that they are hard, but the fact that if you die you have to replay large sections that you found pretty easy just to get to the hard part and then possibly die again. Especially if those easy sections can span upwards of 30 minutes?

I love hard games, the later levels in Super Mario Galaxy, crown world in Super Mario 3D world, old NES games all of which were hard but didn't have you replaying 30 something minutes of easy gameplay just to possibly fail again.

I really love the artstyle, music, atmosphere and creativity of the world of Dark Souls, but I found it tough to have to replay the same sections over and over. Wish I could go back.

Anyone else in the same boat? or am I just a filthy casual gamer? XD

I love how much the carebear gaming has become the standard most games think is best and when a game like Dark Souls goes back to the old way, still using checkpoints thou, but at least doesnt hold your hand, people call it hard.

Go play most old arcade games and you will see the same attitude towards gaming, you died and it was either game over or it was back to the start and try again.

So im not annoyed at Dark Souls for being "hard" im annoyed at Dark Souls for being overrated and bringing the worst out in some gamers. And for the whole "i play dark souls therefore i am "hardcore"" song

#40 Posted by Byshop (11156 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: in most cases, it's harder to run past enemies all the way to a boss than it is to just fight them. you'll eventually run right into a trap because you aren't being cautious. or even if you did manage to avoid all the enemies and traps in these narrow hallways at first, you'd have to stop and get your bearings only to get hit by a crowd.

higher stats can make the game easier, but only to a point and that point is temporary. i can't speak for DSII yet because i haven't gotten to the high level parts, but in the others you got diminishing returns as you level up. if you grind strength for hours and hours, it won't really matter unless you perform some crazy late game task that most people will miss. other stats have similar or more restrictive scaling functions. you may have a notably easier time for a little while, but it will catch up to you. the amount of grinding to negate the influence strategy and caution would be ridiculous and unreliable.

the souls games also always play with the concept of leveling up in their stories and it's perhaps easier to see why it's there once you get the full experience. player characters are all afflicted with a curse that gives them a need for souls (XP) like an addict. the addictive feeling of leveling up becomes the equivalent for the player and a means for From Software to tell a story about a need for power. again, the souls games are an experience and you can't just take the context out of them.

it would be easier to get the big picture if you just went out and bought one of the games rather than try to hear little snippets for various different sources. demons' souls is dirt cheap right now and i'm sure people are still playing online if the servers are up. if not, i'm sure dark souls is pretty cheap too and there are certainly people still playing it.

Yeah, the law of diminishing returns on stat upgrades combined with the necessity for venturing out for spells, armor, weapons, etc to really make your character more powerful is how this is balanced. One thing also worth noting is that you really have to plan your stat upgrades because it's really possible to upgrade yourself into a corner by increasing stats that don't help you with your overall survivability, thereby increasing your level and making it take longer to upgrade the stats you might need (i.e. don't skimp on hitpoints or stamina).

Trust me, you're wasting your breath on Lulu though.

-Byshop

#41 Posted by LoG-Sacrament (20397 posts) -

@Byshop: i've played my sharel of PvP matches, but i've always done PvE/co-op builds. for that use, diverse builds have always worked out well for me. like i might not make a melee character that casts miracles, pyromancies, and spells, but might make a melee character that can enchant his weapon or another that can heal up with miracles. PvE benefits a lot by a balanced approach to putting a little bit in a bunch of things because it's easy to be above average at a fairly wide range of skills and a little less viable to focus on 1 or 2 stats because of the diminishing returns.

but for PvP, i can see where making a really focused character has it's advantages. like you can still throw people off with a bit of diversity, but the pure efficiency of a focused build can be hard to deal with too.

#42 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (10284 posts) -

@ Byshop

Thats interesting, the way you describe it: Dark Souls has a temporary Positive Feedback loop it counters that with a "delayed" version of level scaling. Its also a Negative Sum Game,with Conditional but ultimately Unlimited Reources which, as you know, is the exact opposite of a Negative Sum game. Anyway theres still the issue of where this Statistical sweet spot is. Does the game balance itself out to make you more or less level with the enemies or does it balance itself in such a way to keep you just behind the curve. Not that it matters, I think stats only effect the duration of combat not the actually difficulty. Lower stats means it takes you longer to win because you do less damage and shorter to lose because you can't sustaine much damage, but Higher stats means it takes you a shorter time to win because you deal more damage and a longer time to lose because of your massive HP or resistence to status ailments.

However there is a certain thresh hold where it affects more than just battle duration but such extremes are rare.

Ofcourse I'm not expecting to reply maturely to anything I just said. So go ahead, deflect with the usual troll and "didn't play game" combo.

Oh hey I just learned something just now... Prince Of Persia doesn't have a positive or negative feedback loop. Infact theres no loop since you can't die or upgrade your character. The game is pretty much jaded towards how you perform with in it. I find this interesting.

#43 Posted by Byshop (11156 posts) -

@Byshop: i've played my sharel of PvP matches, but i've always done PvE/co-op builds. for that use, diverse builds have always worked out well for me. like i might not make a melee character that casts miracles, pyromancies, and spells, but might make a melee character that can enchant his weapon or another that can heal up with miracles. PvE benefits a lot by a balanced approach to putting a little bit in a bunch of things because it's easy to be above average at a fairly wide range of skills and a little less viable to focus on 1 or 2 stats because of the diminishing returns.

but for PvP, i can see where making a really focused character has it's advantages. like you can still throw people off with a bit of diversity, but the pure efficiency of a focused build can be hard to deal with too.

That's true. You can always balance it out with advancement through PvP, but I try to judge the SP aspects of any game on their own merits (i.e. ignoring the semi-forced multiplayer element of games like Mass Effect 3). I spent over 200 hours in DS1 and my main PvE character was my first who was a 125+ SL high STR/End build (could do cartwheels with decent armor and a greatsword and lightnight washing pole equipped) but with really low HP for that level. My other build was around 75SL Dex build which was my main PvP character. The first character is the one where I experienced pain, because it basically meant I couldn't make any mistakes at any point or I could be killed very easily. Essentially, I guess it was a very "skill" build since the mobility and damage potential were high but at the cost of a reduced margin for error. Gwyn was an absolutely pain in the ass with that character and NG+ is brutal because just about everything can kill me in 2 hits.

-Byshop

#44 Edited by ShepardCommandr (2417 posts) -

@sukraj said:

I don't like these type of games.

#45 Edited by udUbdaWgz1 (631 posts) -

I absolutely despise games that force me to replay content I've already done. and, i'll throw in the damn cut-scenes that I often can't skip, as well. and, i'll add in checkpoint saving, in general.

it's sloppy mechanics that lacks innovation, penalizes the player needlessly and is a dereliction on the developer.

#46 Posted by SapSacPrime (8737 posts) -

Yeah that's annoying and boring; my biggest issue with that game in particular is the fact it doesn't even teach you how to play it (including the manual -- I had to look shit up on a wiki that should have been explained ingame).

#47 Posted by Byshop (11156 posts) -

I absolutely despise games that force me to replay content I've already done. and, i'll throw in the damn cut-scenes that I often can't skip, as well. and, i'll add in checkpoint saving, in general.

it's sloppy mechanics that lacks innovation, penalizes the player needlessly and is a dereliction on the developer.

I agree, but Dark Souls isn't really like that. It's not a checkpointed game, but it continually autosaves as you play so every action you take is permanent. You'll never get a repeated cutscene and you don't have to repeat progress exactly. It's an open world, so the closest thing you get to replaying an area is when you are exploring or backtracking. The only difference from a game like Skyrim is the enemy spawning positions are fixed instead of random, so going back through an area means you have to fight/avoid the same foes over and over. However, the combat is fun and satisfying and all kills earn you souls (XP) so this never really feels like a chore. Not all enemies respawn, either. Some stronger foes don't come back after they've been killed even once, although when you see how many souls you get for killing some of these you might wish they did. Also, the respawn is triggered by resting at a bonfire and replenishing your supplies. If you clear an area and come back to it, it will still be cleared so long as you didn't rest.

Dark Souls 2 balances this further by limiting the number of times enemies respawn. Clear an area, rest at a bonfire, and clear again only works so many times until those enemies stop coming back. This forces you to keep moving forward and not stay in the same area farming weaker enemies forever, but it also means you can wander areas relatively unharrassed.

-Byshop