Amazing games that however are TOO EASY!

  • 111 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for ConanTheStoner
ConanTheStoner

23706

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#51  Edited By ConanTheStoner
Member since 2011 • 23706 Posts

@turtlethetaffer said:

@ConanTheStoner: The thing about FF games is that they always (or usually) have really tough super bosses. Granted, they're optional but I think they should be taken into account. But I can see why in the case of something like FFVI you'd say the game is too easy. Get a Celestriad (or Economizer depending on the version) and teach a guy Ultima= instant win button. Still a lot of fun, though.

But other ones, like the DS version of FFIV are very challenging. FFIV was the second one I played and it's very tough at times, especially your first time through. I'm sure there are tricks to it, but they aren't immediately obvious like they were in VI.

Oh yeah, FFIV was my first go with the series and it kicked my ass.

And yes, FFVI was the one on my mind (it's the only FF game I truly thought was AMAZING), but yeah a bit too easy for so many reasons.

You're right about the difficult super-bosses, there are a few in the series that I never even beat. But overall, the games tend to be a bit too easy. I hate that the last boss is usually a pushover too. I'm not a big fan of level scaling enemies, but I think the final boss should always be scaled as a formidable foe. Even if your party is fully leveled with all the best equips, the final boss should still be a challenge.

Avatar image for ReadingRainbow4
ReadingRainbow4

18733

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#52 ReadingRainbow4
Member since 2012 • 18733 Posts

@ConanTheStoner said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

Also, I guess I'd say ICO. Amazing game but there's really not much to it difficulty wise aside from wacking at shadows, it's really more of a puzzle, platform, exploration game than straight up combat anyway so it didn't exactly hurt the experience.

Yeah, it's funny. ICO and SotC. Both games are easy. Both games are short. Both games feel rough around the edges... yet both games are awesome. I can never pinpoint exactly why I like these two games so much. I guess they just feel refreshing. Like Team ICO developed them in some vacuum outside the rest of the industry.

I just love the atmosphere team ICO's games give, absolutely nothing like it. Such a lonely desolate world, minimalistic beauty at every turn, It just makes me want to learn more and more about that place.

If only we could get an open world game developed by team ICO, oh my god.

Avatar image for ConanTheStoner
ConanTheStoner

23706

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#54  Edited By ConanTheStoner
Member since 2011 • 23706 Posts

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

I just love the atmosphere team ICO's games give, absolutely nothing like it. Such a lonely desolate world, minimalistic beauty at every turn, It just makes me want to learn more and more about that place.

If only we could get an open world game developed by team ICO, oh my god.

@getyeryayasout said:

That's why I still hold out hope for TLG, Team Ico delivers game worlds that feel like you're visiting actual places. Team Ico delivers escapism like no other company, and I love them for it. When TLG is announced for PS4 at E3 in a couple months, I'mma be moist. Moist son.

Yes, you guys describe it perfectly!

I'm also holding out for TLG. I get my hopes up every year, but THIS will be the year that it makes it to E3.

Avatar image for kemar7856
kemar7856

11783

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#55  Edited By kemar7856
Member since 2004 • 11783 Posts

3d Zelda games are way too easy I've been saying this for years I could easily beat those games with 3 hearts I guess after adventure of link it scared nintendo

Avatar image for Lulu_Lulu
Lulu_Lulu

19564

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#56 Lulu_Lulu
Member since 2013 • 19564 Posts

Journey ?

Avatar image for Gaming-Planet
Gaming-Planet

21064

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#57 Gaming-Planet
Member since 2008 • 21064 Posts

I thought Bioshock Infinite was way too easy mainly because the combat was too exploitable.

Dishonored is easy if you don't play the stealthy approach.

The first Portal game.

Avatar image for Netret0120
Netret0120

3594

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#58  Edited By Netret0120
Member since 2013 • 3594 Posts

GTA5 was pretty easy. Enjoyable but pretty easy. 9/10 for me.

Avatar image for Pffrbt
Pffrbt

6612

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#59 Pffrbt
Member since 2010 • 6612 Posts

Klonoa 1 and 2.

Avatar image for g0ddyX
g0ddyX

3914

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#61 g0ddyX
Member since 2005 • 3914 Posts

Are people playing EVERY game in HIGH DIFFICULTY? Not straight away...
Uncharted and COD, easy games, but can be annoying in some parts as in Crushing Mode and Veteran Mode.
Similiar to other games, like hack and slash games and RPG's, Shooters etc.
Resident Evil games can be a cakewalk but in Professional and higher modes when your limited its a struggle.
Some games like Dead Space have trophies and achievements where you just use ONE gun to finish the game.
In DMC, all modes were a breeze except the last boss in the last mode where you die in 1 hit.

Maybe its better off playing easy for the experience and story for those who dont want a re-run or have time for it.
So it really goes down to how much your willing to restrict yourself and make it challenging by increasing difficulty and how much time your putting in.

Avatar image for bezza2011
bezza2011

2729

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#62 bezza2011
Member since 2006 • 2729 Posts

@always_explicit said:

sports games are the worst for this. I play and enjoy a fair few sports games (fifa, fight night etc) however once you have mastered the mechanics almost all of the challenge and therefore competitive fun elements are removed.

Saying that I love the fight night series, and do play it repeatedly just do enjoy it. Truly some of the most underrated games ever, unfortunately MMA seems to be receiving the majority of video game attention at the moment and its just not as good.

I would agree but after playing UFC and MMA over the years I just found the fight night series to be very clunky and shots just didn't feel like they had much power, compared to how the UFC is handled on the feet punching it out, i felt so much more fluidity to it, i just couldn't get to grips with the fight night games anymore, i did like champions, and esp the story mode was great (wish there were a little more to it than just doing what the story told me to do). but I think the one problem you have is, Boxing is a dying sport, not because it isn't a great sport (was my favourite) but because it governed is an absolutely atrocious way, no one fights anyone there all scared, once someone gets the belt, all they do is pick and choose there opponents, which should not happen, and this in turn is making the sport into a bit of a joke, and the attraction of the sport is going down because of this, UFC on the other hand is, everyone fights the best of the best, and to stay on top you need to beat the rest, it's brilliant.

Avatar image for Bread_or_Decide
Bread_or_Decide

29761

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#63 Bread_or_Decide
Member since 2007 • 29761 Posts

Okami.

Avatar image for Farsendor1
Farsendor1

462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#64  Edited By Farsendor1
Member since 2012 • 462 Posts

Infamous, Killzone, binary domain, original orcs must die other games of course but im not to bothered about listing them all.

Avatar image for dommeus
dommeus

9433

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#65 dommeus
Member since 2004 • 9433 Posts

I don't really care if a game is easy. If it's a great experience, then it doesn't matter. Not all games need to be challenging. The medium is branching out.

Avatar image for Heil68
Heil68

60681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#66 Heil68
Member since 2004 • 60681 Posts

The Walking Dead

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
R4gn4r0k

45996

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#67  Edited By R4gn4r0k
Member since 2004 • 45996 Posts

@Salt_The_Fries said:

1.Eternal Darkness

3.BioShock 1 (towards the end of the game)

You found eternall darkness to be too easy ? The game was too hard for at times. I found it difficult to manage my sanity :/

South Park was really easy. I died a few times fighting Al Gore though. But apart from that I never died.

All the Bioshocks were easy IMO. Throughout Bioshock 1 I was constantly carrying 10 medkits. Not that dying mattered though, as you would just revive in a Vita chamber.

I found myself reloading a save game before re spawning though, I never liked using Vita chambers.

To answer your last question: a game that is too difficult will make me give up harder than a game that is too easy. I'm no quitter. but once I played a part 20 times and I still get nowhere I sometimes want to quit.

Avatar image for PAL360
PAL360

30570

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 31

User Lists: 0

#68 PAL360
Member since 2007 • 30570 Posts

Most games are too easy, these days, even in the harder difficulty levels! The last one i played was Second Son. My first playthrough was on hard and died ten times at most :?

Avatar image for turtlethetaffer
turtlethetaffer

18973

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 144

User Lists: 0

#69 turtlethetaffer
Member since 2009 • 18973 Posts

@ConanTheStoner said:

@turtlethetaffer said:

@ConanTheStoner: The thing about FF games is that they always (or usually) have really tough super bosses. Granted, they're optional but I think they should be taken into account. But I can see why in the case of something like FFVI you'd say the game is too easy. Get a Celestriad (or Economizer depending on the version) and teach a guy Ultima= instant win button. Still a lot of fun, though.

But other ones, like the DS version of FFIV are very challenging. FFIV was the second one I played and it's very tough at times, especially your first time through. I'm sure there are tricks to it, but they aren't immediately obvious like they were in VI.

Oh yeah, FFIV was my first go with the series and it kicked my ass.

And yes, FFVI was the one on my mind (it's the only FF game I truly thought was AMAZING), but yeah a bit too easy for so many reasons.

You're right about the difficult super-bosses, there are a few in the series that I never even beat. But overall, the games tend to be a bit too easy. I hate that the last boss is usually a pushover too. I'm not a big fan of level scaling enemies, but I think the final boss should always be scaled as a formidable foe. Even if your party is fully leveled with all the best equips, the final boss should still be a challenge.

That's very true. I haven't really ever been challenged by the final bosses, including in the DS FFIV (which was weird because the monsters on the way to the boss could kick my ass). I think it was the only boss in the game I beat on my first try.

Avatar image for Salt_The_Fries
Salt_The_Fries

12480

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#70  Edited By Salt_The_Fries
Member since 2008 • 12480 Posts

I always play all games on the hardest difficulty level from the get-go. So mind that my conclusions are still based on this very factor!

Avatar image for Minishdriveby
Minishdriveby

10519

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#71 Minishdriveby
Member since 2006 • 10519 Posts

@mems_1224 said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@Cranler said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

Every AAA game released in the last 8 years that isn't souls.

Souls is only hard because you can't save and there's no checkpoints.

yeah, no. It encourages careful play but there's plenty of challenge to be had.

He's right though. If you could save anytime you wanted it would pretty much eliminate most of the difficulty and cut a bunch of hours off the play time.

It saves every second.

Avatar image for speedfog
speedfog

4966

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 0

#72 speedfog
Member since 2009 • 4966 Posts

Journey

Avatar image for clone01
clone01

29822

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#73 clone01
Member since 2003 • 29822 Posts

@Crypt_mx said:

Dishonored, Far Cry 3 (Even patched on Master mode)

There's been more but those are my recent ones. I would say I enjoyed both of them a good amount but once I mastered the gameplay elements I found that there was nothing more for me to do. When death is no longer a fear how fun can a game remain? I think difficulty for me, mostly just attributes to replay value. I'd still rate Dishonored at a 9 and FC3 at an 8.5 despite how easy they become after few hours.

You beat me to it on Dishonored...I still really enjoy the game, though.

Avatar image for Cranler
Cranler

8809

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#74  Edited By Cranler
Member since 2005 • 8809 Posts

@Minishdriveby said:

@mems_1224 said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@Cranler said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

Every AAA game released in the last 8 years that isn't souls.

Souls is only hard because you can't save and there's no checkpoints.

yeah, no. It encourages careful play but there's plenty of challenge to be had.

He's right though. If you could save anytime you wanted it would pretty much eliminate most of the difficulty and cut a bunch of hours off the play time.

It saves every second.

But if you die it doesnt take you to the last save it takes you to bonfire and you lose all exp. In God of War you could die in a boss battle and be only 1-2 minutes of gameplay before where you died while in Souls it could take 15 minutes to get back to where you were when you died.

If Souls had a traditional checkpoint and respawn system it would make the game easier than GoW, DMC and NG plus it would make the game 1/4 the length.

Avatar image for ReadingRainbow4
ReadingRainbow4

18733

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#75  Edited By ReadingRainbow4
Member since 2012 • 18733 Posts

@Cranler said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@mems_1224 said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@Cranler said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

Every AAA game released in the last 8 years that isn't souls.

Souls is only hard because you can't save and there's no checkpoints.

yeah, no. It encourages careful play but there's plenty of challenge to be had.

He's right though. If you could save anytime you wanted it would pretty much eliminate most of the difficulty and cut a bunch of hours off the play time.

It saves every second.

But if you die it doesnt take you to the last save it takes you to bonfire and you lose all exp. In God of War you could die in a boss battle and be only 1-2 minutes of gameplay before where you died while in Souls it could take 15 minutes to get back to where you were when you died.

If Souls had a traditional checkpoint and respawn system it would make the game easier than GoW, DMC and NG plus it would make the game 1/4 the length.

Souls has never been a spectacle fighter, it's got more in common with dungeon crawlers and rogue likes than anything, also a dash of monster hunter.

Also your being selective about what spells out difficulty and challenge. Risk/Reward is a valuable part of the Souls Series, taking it away would seriously hurt the pace.

GOW has never been hard, DMC stopped being a challenge after 3, and NG is all but a dead franchise.

I'm not seeing how you're so upset about my 8 years comment when it's largely true.

Avatar image for Minishdriveby
Minishdriveby

10519

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#76 Minishdriveby
Member since 2006 • 10519 Posts

@Cranler said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@mems_1224 said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@Cranler said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

Every AAA game released in the last 8 years that isn't souls.

Souls is only hard because you can't save and there's no checkpoints.

yeah, no. It encourages careful play but there's plenty of challenge to be had.

He's right though. If you could save anytime you wanted it would pretty much eliminate most of the difficulty and cut a bunch of hours off the play time.

It saves every second.

But if you die it doesnt take you to the last save it takes you to bonfire and you lose all exp. In God of War you could die in a boss battle and be only 1-2 minutes of gameplay before where you died while in Souls it could take 15 minutes to get back to where you were when you died.

If Souls had a traditional checkpoint and respawn system it would make the game easier than GoW, DMC and NG plus it would make the game 1/4 the length.

When you die it starts you at the last checkpoint which was the bonfire. Because an action occured in the game, you dying, the game saves. Just run past all the enemies which doesn't take 15 minutes, and you're back at the place you died. Bonfires aren't extremely far apart.

Avatar image for Cranler
Cranler

8809

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#77  Edited By Cranler
Member since 2005 • 8809 Posts

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@Cranler said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@mems_1224 said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@Cranler said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

Every AAA game released in the last 8 years that isn't souls.

Souls is only hard because you can't save and there's no checkpoints.

yeah, no. It encourages careful play but there's plenty of challenge to be had.

He's right though. If you could save anytime you wanted it would pretty much eliminate most of the difficulty and cut a bunch of hours off the play time.

It saves every second.

But if you die it doesnt take you to the last save it takes you to bonfire and you lose all exp. In God of War you could die in a boss battle and be only 1-2 minutes of gameplay before where you died while in Souls it could take 15 minutes to get back to where you were when you died.

If Souls had a traditional checkpoint and respawn system it would make the game easier than GoW, DMC and NG plus it would make the game 1/4 the length.

Souls has never been a spectacle fighter, it's got more in common with dungeon crawlers and rogue likes than anything, also a dash of monster hunter.

Also your being selective about what spells out difficulty and challenge. Risk/Reward is a valuable part of the Souls Series, taking it away would seriously hurt the pace.

GOW has never been hard, DMC stopped being a challenge after 3, and NG is all but a dead franchise.

I'm not seeing how you're so upset about my 8 years comment when it's largely true.

This is about difficulty that's why I compared it to hack n slash games which are among the most difficult console games.

The games I mentioned could easily add a no checkpoint system or the player could simply choose an old save when dying to get the Souls style of difficulty.

GoW is very difficult on the higher difficulties plus it's got puzzles. Videos below show difficult scenarios that just don't exist in the Souls series.

8 year comment? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Loading Video...
Loading Video...
Loading Video...

Avatar image for Cranler
Cranler

8809

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#78 Cranler
Member since 2005 • 8809 Posts

@Minishdriveby said:

@Cranler said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@mems_1224 said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@Cranler said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

Every AAA game released in the last 8 years that isn't souls.

Souls is only hard because you can't save and there's no checkpoints.

yeah, no. It encourages careful play but there's plenty of challenge to be had.

He's right though. If you could save anytime you wanted it would pretty much eliminate most of the difficulty and cut a bunch of hours off the play time.

It saves every second.

But if you die it doesnt take you to the last save it takes you to bonfire and you lose all exp. In God of War you could die in a boss battle and be only 1-2 minutes of gameplay before where you died while in Souls it could take 15 minutes to get back to where you were when you died.

If Souls had a traditional checkpoint and respawn system it would make the game easier than GoW, DMC and NG plus it would make the game 1/4 the length.

When you die it starts you at the last checkpoint which was the bonfire. Because an action occured in the game, you dying, the game saves. Just run past all the enemies which doesn't take 15 minutes, and you're back at the place you died. Bonfires aren't extremely far apart.

Fact is, not having checkpoints or traditional quick saving makes the game much longer. Every game would be 3-4 times longer if it had a save system like Souls.

Dark Souls is about 5 times longer to beat that God of War but is about the same length when doing a speed run. That proves how the lack of checkpoints pads the length.

Avatar image for ReadingRainbow4
ReadingRainbow4

18733

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#79 ReadingRainbow4
Member since 2012 • 18733 Posts

@Cranler said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@Cranler said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@mems_1224 said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@Cranler said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

Every AAA game released in the last 8 years that isn't souls.

Souls is only hard because you can't save and there's no checkpoints.

yeah, no. It encourages careful play but there's plenty of challenge to be had.

He's right though. If you could save anytime you wanted it would pretty much eliminate most of the difficulty and cut a bunch of hours off the play time.

It saves every second.

But if you die it doesnt take you to the last save it takes you to bonfire and you lose all exp. In God of War you could die in a boss battle and be only 1-2 minutes of gameplay before where you died while in Souls it could take 15 minutes to get back to where you were when you died.

If Souls had a traditional checkpoint and respawn system it would make the game easier than GoW, DMC and NG plus it would make the game 1/4 the length.

Souls has never been a spectacle fighter, it's got more in common with dungeon crawlers and rogue likes than anything, also a dash of monster hunter.

Also your being selective about what spells out difficulty and challenge. Risk/Reward is a valuable part of the Souls Series, taking it away would seriously hurt the pace.

GOW has never been hard, DMC stopped being a challenge after 3, and NG is all but a dead franchise.

I'm not seeing how you're so upset about my 8 years comment when it's largely true.

This is about difficulty that's why I compared it to hack n slash games which are among the most difficult console games.

The games I mentioned could easily add a no checkpoint system or the player could simply choose an old save when dying to get the Souls style of difficulty.

GoW is very difficult on the higher difficulties plus it's got puzzles. Videos below show difficult scenarios that just don't exist in the Souls series.

8 year comment? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Loading Video...
Loading Video...
Loading Video...

I knew wall of hades climb had to be in that list, lol.

That's not difficult it's just required memorization and had no checkpoints.

C wut I did there.

Avatar image for Minishdriveby
Minishdriveby

10519

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#80 Minishdriveby
Member since 2006 • 10519 Posts

@Cranler said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@Cranler said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@mems_1224 said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@Cranler said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

Every AAA game released in the last 8 years that isn't souls.

Souls is only hard because you can't save and there's no checkpoints.

yeah, no. It encourages careful play but there's plenty of challenge to be had.

He's right though. If you could save anytime you wanted it would pretty much eliminate most of the difficulty and cut a bunch of hours off the play time.

It saves every second.

But if you die it doesnt take you to the last save it takes you to bonfire and you lose all exp. In God of War you could die in a boss battle and be only 1-2 minutes of gameplay before where you died while in Souls it could take 15 minutes to get back to where you were when you died.

If Souls had a traditional checkpoint and respawn system it would make the game easier than GoW, DMC and NG plus it would make the game 1/4 the length.

When you die it starts you at the last checkpoint which was the bonfire. Because an action occured in the game, you dying, the game saves. Just run past all the enemies which doesn't take 15 minutes, and you're back at the place you died. Bonfires aren't extremely far apart.

Fact is, not having checkpoints or traditional quick saving makes the game much longer. Every game would be 3-4 times longer if it had a save system like Souls.

Dark Souls is about 5 times longer to beat that God of War but is about the same length when doing a speed run. That proves how the lack of checkpoints pads the length.

A timed run is done under different conditions than a normal leisurely run. Yes, the first time I beat Dark Souls it took 35 hours, and yes the third time I beat it, it took 8-10 hours, but that's not because of a checkpoint system. It's because I know the patterns, I know the layout, and I know shortcuts around bosses.

The fact of the matter is that Dark Souls regularly auto-saves, and has a check-point system in place. Albeit the auto-saving after every action and check-point system that re-spawns enemies might not be as lenient as some modern games like God of War, but Dark Souls isn't trying to be God of War or Ninja Gaiden where you clear a room once, reach a checkpoint for clearing that room, and move along in a linear progression of the game.

I don't think Dark Souls would benefit from that style of autosaving and checkpoints.

Avatar image for j_assassin
j_assassin

1011

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#81  Edited By j_assassin
Member since 2012 • 1011 Posts

Souls game invented the smartest auto saving method, you dont have to get the same items again when you die, except the souls you dropped, ( shouldnt run around with 100k+ souls, should use it to level up sraight away) bonfire travelling, shortcut to bosses etc...

Avatar image for voljin1987
voljin1987

1135

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#82 voljin1987
Member since 2012 • 1135 Posts

ni no kuni.. get a dinoceros and pump out some tokos and boom the game is a cakewalk

Avatar image for inb4uall
inb4uall

6564

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#83 inb4uall
Member since 2012 • 6564 Posts

Pokemon is one that stands out in my mind.

Avatar image for Cranler
Cranler

8809

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#84  Edited By Cranler
Member since 2005 • 8809 Posts

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@Cranler said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@Cranler said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@mems_1224 said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@Cranler said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

Every AAA game released in the last 8 years that isn't souls.

Souls is only hard because you can't save and there's no checkpoints.

yeah, no. It encourages careful play but there's plenty of challenge to be had.

He's right though. If you could save anytime you wanted it would pretty much eliminate most of the difficulty and cut a bunch of hours off the play time.

It saves every second.

But if you die it doesnt take you to the last save it takes you to bonfire and you lose all exp. In God of War you could die in a boss battle and be only 1-2 minutes of gameplay before where you died while in Souls it could take 15 minutes to get back to where you were when you died.

If Souls had a traditional checkpoint and respawn system it would make the game easier than GoW, DMC and NG plus it would make the game 1/4 the length.

Souls has never been a spectacle fighter, it's got more in common with dungeon crawlers and rogue likes than anything, also a dash of monster hunter.

Also your being selective about what spells out difficulty and challenge. Risk/Reward is a valuable part of the Souls Series, taking it away would seriously hurt the pace.

GOW has never been hard, DMC stopped being a challenge after 3, and NG is all but a dead franchise.

I'm not seeing how you're so upset about my 8 years comment when it's largely true.

This is about difficulty that's why I compared it to hack n slash games which are among the most difficult console games.

The games I mentioned could easily add a no checkpoint system or the player could simply choose an old save when dying to get the Souls style of difficulty.

GoW is very difficult on the higher difficulties plus it's got puzzles. Videos below show difficult scenarios that just don't exist in the Souls series.

8 year comment? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Loading Video...
Loading Video...
Loading Video...

I knew wall of hades climb had to be in that list, lol.

That's not difficult it's just required memorization and had no checkpoints.

C wut I did there.

How many times would the average person have to try that climb to memorize the sequence?

Imagine how hard God of War would be if you died during the climb and respawned with 10 minutes of gameplay before getting back to the puzzle.

Avatar image for Cranler
Cranler

8809

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#85  Edited By Cranler
Member since 2005 • 8809 Posts

@Minishdriveby said:

@Cranler said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@Cranler said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@mems_1224 said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@Cranler said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

Every AAA game released in the last 8 years that isn't souls.

Souls is only hard because you can't save and there's no checkpoints.

yeah, no. It encourages careful play but there's plenty of challenge to be had.

He's right though. If you could save anytime you wanted it would pretty much eliminate most of the difficulty and cut a bunch of hours off the play time.

It saves every second.

But if you die it doesnt take you to the last save it takes you to bonfire and you lose all exp. In God of War you could die in a boss battle and be only 1-2 minutes of gameplay before where you died while in Souls it could take 15 minutes to get back to where you were when you died.

If Souls had a traditional checkpoint and respawn system it would make the game easier than GoW, DMC and NG plus it would make the game 1/4 the length.

When you die it starts you at the last checkpoint which was the bonfire. Because an action occured in the game, you dying, the game saves. Just run past all the enemies which doesn't take 15 minutes, and you're back at the place you died. Bonfires aren't extremely far apart.

Fact is, not having checkpoints or traditional quick saving makes the game much longer. Every game would be 3-4 times longer if it had a save system like Souls.

Dark Souls is about 5 times longer to beat that God of War but is about the same length when doing a speed run. That proves how the lack of checkpoints pads the length.

A timed run is done under different conditions than a normal leisurely run. Yes, the first time I beat Dark Souls it took 35 hours, and yes the third time I beat it, it took 8-10 hours, but that's not because of a checkpoint system. It's because I know the patterns, I know the layout, and I know shortcuts around bosses.

The fact of the matter is that Dark Souls regularly auto-saves, and has a check-point system in place. Albeit the auto-saving after every action and check-point system that re-spawns enemies might not be as lenient as some modern games like God of War, but Dark Souls isn't trying to be God of War or Ninja Gaiden where you clear a room once, reach a checkpoint for clearing that room, and move along in a linear progression of the game.

I don't think Dark Souls would benefit from that style of autosaving and checkpoints.

You don't find it off that a 10 hour game takes as long to complete during a speed run as a 35 hour game?

Why wouldn't Dark Souls benefit from a traditional save and checkpoint system. Are you saying God of War wouldn't benefit from having a penalizing checkpoint system like Souls has?

Avatar image for Cloud_imperium
Cloud_imperium

15146

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 103

User Lists: 8

#86  Edited By Cloud_imperium
Member since 2013 • 15146 Posts

Tomb Raider , Broken Age , Uncharted 2 , The Walking Dead , Far Cry 3 . I could name 90% of other AAA titles as well but thing is , most of them are boring and overrated like COD or newer Assassin's Creed games etc , and this thread is about "Amazing Games" .

Avatar image for Minishdriveby
Minishdriveby

10519

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#87 Minishdriveby
Member since 2006 • 10519 Posts

@Cranler said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@Cranler said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@Cranler said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@mems_1224 said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@Cranler said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

Every AAA game released in the last 8 years that isn't souls.

Souls is only hard because you can't save and there's no checkpoints.

yeah, no. It encourages careful play but there's plenty of challenge to be had.

He's right though. If you could save anytime you wanted it would pretty much eliminate most of the difficulty and cut a bunch of hours off the play time.

It saves every second.

But if you die it doesnt take you to the last save it takes you to bonfire and you lose all exp. In God of War you could die in a boss battle and be only 1-2 minutes of gameplay before where you died while in Souls it could take 15 minutes to get back to where you were when you died.

If Souls had a traditional checkpoint and respawn system it would make the game easier than GoW, DMC and NG plus it would make the game 1/4 the length.

When you die it starts you at the last checkpoint which was the bonfire. Because an action occured in the game, you dying, the game saves. Just run past all the enemies which doesn't take 15 minutes, and you're back at the place you died. Bonfires aren't extremely far apart.

Fact is, not having checkpoints or traditional quick saving makes the game much longer. Every game would be 3-4 times longer if it had a save system like Souls.

Dark Souls is about 5 times longer to beat that God of War but is about the same length when doing a speed run. That proves how the lack of checkpoints pads the length.

A timed run is done under different conditions than a normal leisurely run. Yes, the first time I beat Dark Souls it took 35 hours, and yes the third time I beat it, it took 8-10 hours, but that's not because of a checkpoint system. It's because I know the patterns, I know the layout, and I know shortcuts around bosses.

The fact of the matter is that Dark Souls regularly auto-saves, and has a check-point system in place. Albeit the auto-saving after every action and check-point system that re-spawns enemies might not be as lenient as some modern games like God of War, but Dark Souls isn't trying to be God of War or Ninja Gaiden where you clear a room once, reach a checkpoint for clearing that room, and move along in a linear progression of the game.

I don't think Dark Souls would benefit from that style of autosaving and checkpoints.

You don't find it off that a 10 hour game takes as long to complete during a speed run as a 35 hour game?

Why wouldn't Dark Souls benefit from a traditional save and checkpoint system. Are you saying God of War wouldn't benefit from having a penalizing checkpoint system like Souls has?

No, because again that's the purpose of the speed run to complete it as fast as possible by exploiting systems of the game.

And no, God of War wouldn't benefit from the same style of checkpoint system as Dark Souls. God of War is more of a linear romp through the game. It's not a labyrinth like Dark Souls; there's only one path. Dark Souls sets you back at a somewhat further checkpoint, not at the entrance of every room, to allow for exploration of the map. Oh? You died in the catacombs in the first hour of the game and are now back at the firelink shrine? How about you go the opposite way and see where that leads you? Dark Souls checkpoint system works because a lot of content is skippable and there are various hidden paths/alternate routes to explore where as if you're stuck in God of War you can't do anything else in the game; you're stuck.

Avatar image for Sweenix
Sweenix

5957

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

#88 Sweenix
Member since 2013 • 5957 Posts

@ConanTheStoner said:

The amount of games I consider amazing are very few and most of them do the difficulty just right which I guess is part of why they're amazing.

Good/great games that are too easy though? Most of the Zelda games, most of the FF games, some of the Mario games and damn near every AAA game to come out since last gen.

What are you talking about? Final Fantasy games are extremely hard, in fact. I have only finished 1 final fantasy game, despite playing them all, and the other games, i ended quitting on the final boss, because they were way overpowered.

Avatar image for Minishdriveby
Minishdriveby

10519

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#89 Minishdriveby
Member since 2006 • 10519 Posts

I think another problem with the comparison between dark souls and god of war is god of war usually locks you in a room of enemies until you complete that room; god of war is comprised of mini-challenge rooms. That's not the structure of Dark Souls.

Avatar image for ConanTheStoner
ConanTheStoner

23706

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#90 ConanTheStoner
Member since 2011 • 23706 Posts

@Sweenix said:

@ConanTheStoner said:

The amount of games I consider amazing are very few and most of them do the difficulty just right which I guess is part of why they're amazing.

Good/great games that are too easy though? Most of the Zelda games, most of the FF games, some of the Mario games and damn near every AAA game to come out since last gen.

What are you talking about? Final Fantasy games are extremely hard, in fact. I have only finished 1 final fantasy game, despite playing them all, and the other games, i ended quitting on the final boss, because they were way overpowered.

Shut up!

Damn Sweenix, ruining my morning.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#91  Edited By foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts

Red Dead Redemption definitely tops the list. It is piss easy from beginning to end, but it's just so much fun.

Avatar image for kinectthedots
kinectthedots

3383

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#92 kinectthedots
Member since 2013 • 3383 Posts

Really can't think of any game I consider to be "amazing" that is also "too easy". lol that's kind of like an oxymoron. I can think of some games that could have been better than what they ended up being if the difficulty had been more of a challenge.

Fable 1 on the original xbox comes to mind.

Avatar image for Cranler
Cranler

8809

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#93  Edited By Cranler
Member since 2005 • 8809 Posts

@Minishdriveby said:

@Cranler said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@Cranler said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@Cranler said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@mems_1224 said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@Cranler said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

Every AAA game released in the last 8 years that isn't souls.

Souls is only hard because you can't save and there's no checkpoints.

yeah, no. It encourages careful play but there's plenty of challenge to be had.

He's right though. If you could save anytime you wanted it would pretty much eliminate most of the difficulty and cut a bunch of hours off the play time.

It saves every second.

But if you die it doesnt take you to the last save it takes you to bonfire and you lose all exp. In God of War you could die in a boss battle and be only 1-2 minutes of gameplay before where you died while in Souls it could take 15 minutes to get back to where you were when you died.

If Souls had a traditional checkpoint and respawn system it would make the game easier than GoW, DMC and NG plus it would make the game 1/4 the length.

When you die it starts you at the last checkpoint which was the bonfire. Because an action occured in the game, you dying, the game saves. Just run past all the enemies which doesn't take 15 minutes, and you're back at the place you died. Bonfires aren't extremely far apart.

Fact is, not having checkpoints or traditional quick saving makes the game much longer. Every game would be 3-4 times longer if it had a save system like Souls.

Dark Souls is about 5 times longer to beat that God of War but is about the same length when doing a speed run. That proves how the lack of checkpoints pads the length.

A timed run is done under different conditions than a normal leisurely run. Yes, the first time I beat Dark Souls it took 35 hours, and yes the third time I beat it, it took 8-10 hours, but that's not because of a checkpoint system. It's because I know the patterns, I know the layout, and I know shortcuts around bosses.

The fact of the matter is that Dark Souls regularly auto-saves, and has a check-point system in place. Albeit the auto-saving after every action and check-point system that re-spawns enemies might not be as lenient as some modern games like God of War, but Dark Souls isn't trying to be God of War or Ninja Gaiden where you clear a room once, reach a checkpoint for clearing that room, and move along in a linear progression of the game.

I don't think Dark Souls would benefit from that style of autosaving and checkpoints.

You don't find it off that a 10 hour game takes as long to complete during a speed run as a 35 hour game?

Why wouldn't Dark Souls benefit from a traditional save and checkpoint system. Are you saying God of War wouldn't benefit from having a penalizing checkpoint system like Souls has?

No, because again that's the purpose of the speed run to complete it as fast as possible by exploiting systems of the game.

And no, God of War wouldn't benefit from the same style of checkpoint system as Dark Souls. God of War is more of a linear romp through the game. It's not a labyrinth like Dark Souls; there's only one path. Dark Souls sets you back at a somewhat further checkpoint, not at the entrance of every room, to allow for exploration of the map. Oh? You died in the catacombs in the first hour of the game and are now back at the firelink shrine? How about you go the opposite way and see where that leads you? Dark Souls checkpoint system works because a lot of content is skippable and there are various hidden paths/alternate routes to explore where as if you're stuck in God of War you can't do anything else in the game; you're stuck.

A speed run also gives an idea of how large the game world really is.

The main point of a harsh save/checkpoint system is to pad the length and increase difficulty. You don't see other open world games using such a harsh system. Games like Gothic 1,2 and Morrowind have areas where a low level character will get destroyed. What do you do when you find out your character is too weak for a certain area? Revert to an earlier save.

According to a stat site, the average number of deaths per playthrough of Dark Souls is 674. If it takes just 5 minutes to get back to where you died the game seems much larger than it really is. http://darksoulsdeaths.com/cgi-bin/stats.py

Avatar image for Minishdriveby
Minishdriveby

10519

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#94 Minishdriveby
Member since 2006 • 10519 Posts

@Cranler said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@Cranler said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@Cranler said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@Cranler said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@mems_1224 said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@Cranler said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

Every AAA game released in the last 8 years that isn't souls.

Souls is only hard because you can't save and there's no checkpoints.

yeah, no. It encourages careful play but there's plenty of challenge to be had.

He's right though. If you could save anytime you wanted it would pretty much eliminate most of the difficulty and cut a bunch of hours off the play time.

It saves every second.

But if you die it doesnt take you to the last save it takes you to bonfire and you lose all exp. In God of War you could die in a boss battle and be only 1-2 minutes of gameplay before where you died while in Souls it could take 15 minutes to get back to where you were when you died.

If Souls had a traditional checkpoint and respawn system it would make the game easier than GoW, DMC and NG plus it would make the game 1/4 the length.

When you die it starts you at the last checkpoint which was the bonfire. Because an action occured in the game, you dying, the game saves. Just run past all the enemies which doesn't take 15 minutes, and you're back at the place you died. Bonfires aren't extremely far apart.

Fact is, not having checkpoints or traditional quick saving makes the game much longer. Every game would be 3-4 times longer if it had a save system like Souls.

Dark Souls is about 5 times longer to beat that God of War but is about the same length when doing a speed run. That proves how the lack of checkpoints pads the length.

A timed run is done under different conditions than a normal leisurely run. Yes, the first time I beat Dark Souls it took 35 hours, and yes the third time I beat it, it took 8-10 hours, but that's not because of a checkpoint system. It's because I know the patterns, I know the layout, and I know shortcuts around bosses.

The fact of the matter is that Dark Souls regularly auto-saves, and has a check-point system in place. Albeit the auto-saving after every action and check-point system that re-spawns enemies might not be as lenient as some modern games like God of War, but Dark Souls isn't trying to be God of War or Ninja Gaiden where you clear a room once, reach a checkpoint for clearing that room, and move along in a linear progression of the game.

I don't think Dark Souls would benefit from that style of autosaving and checkpoints.

You don't find it off that a 10 hour game takes as long to complete during a speed run as a 35 hour game?

Why wouldn't Dark Souls benefit from a traditional save and checkpoint system. Are you saying God of War wouldn't benefit from having a penalizing checkpoint system like Souls has?

No, because again that's the purpose of the speed run to complete it as fast as possible by exploiting systems of the game.

And no, God of War wouldn't benefit from the same style of checkpoint system as Dark Souls. God of War is more of a linear romp through the game. It's not a labyrinth like Dark Souls; there's only one path. Dark Souls sets you back at a somewhat further checkpoint, not at the entrance of every room, to allow for exploration of the map. Oh? You died in the catacombs in the first hour of the game and are now back at the firelink shrine? How about you go the opposite way and see where that leads you? Dark Souls checkpoint system works because a lot of content is skippable and there are various hidden paths/alternate routes to explore where as if you're stuck in God of War you can't do anything else in the game; you're stuck.

A speed run also gives an idea of how large the game world really is.

The main point of a harsh save/checkpoint system is to pad the length and increase difficulty. You don't see other open world games using such a harsh system. Games like Gothic 1,2 and Morrowind have areas where a low level character will get destroyed. What do you do when you find out your character is too weak for a certain area? Revert to an earlier save.

According to a stat site, the average number of deaths per playthrough of Dark Souls is 674. If it takes just 5 minutes to get back to where you died the game seems much larger than it really is. http://darksoulsdeaths.com/cgi-bin/stats.py

Speed runs don't give a sense of how large the world is because the purpose of the speed run is to bypass as much of the world as possible. God of War has an extremely small linear path for the games world, but because of the linear structure, the time it takes to beat can only be dwindled down by so much. Depending on how you do the speed run for dark souls you can skip 50% of the content and beat the game in 30 minutes. You cannot run past every enemy in God of War; you're forced to fight everything and there isn't much skippable content in god of war which is why the record is 2 hours. Taking Morrowind into consideration you can speed run that game in 3 minutes; I guess that game has unnecessary padding as well, it must not have a very large world either?

I don't really understand your second point... Why would you revert to an earlier save if your character is too weak for an area? Why not just leave the area and go somewhere else until you're ready for that area?

And the last statement depends on how far you make it from a bon fire before dying, if you die 2 feet away from a bonfire it doesn't take 5 minutes to get back to where you died.

Avatar image for inb4uall
inb4uall

6564

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#95 inb4uall
Member since 2012 • 6564 Posts

I think it's funny that people think half the reason darksouls is both "good" and "hard" is that it takes 15 min to get back to a boos fight if you **** it up. GTA IV did the same damn thing on later missions. If you died you had to start all over, often driving halfway across the map. I just call that poor and annoying game design. Not "good" or "hard"

Avatar image for Bread_or_Decide
Bread_or_Decide

29761

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#96 Bread_or_Decide
Member since 2007 • 29761 Posts

@inb4uall said:

I think it's funny that people think half the reason darksouls is both "good" and "hard" is that it takes 15 min to get back to a boos fight if you **** it up. GTA IV did the same damn thing on later missions. If you died you had to start all over, often driving halfway across the map. I just call that poor and annoying game design. Not "good" or "hard"

The check points in GTAV are a god send...so is the skip feature. Those last few minutes were just...ugh...F-those last few missions.

Avatar image for Minishdriveby
Minishdriveby

10519

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#97 Minishdriveby
Member since 2006 • 10519 Posts

@inb4uall said:

I think it's funny that people think half the reason darksouls is both "good" and "hard" is that it takes 15 min to get back to a boos fight if you **** it up. GTA IV did the same damn thing on later missions. If you died you had to start all over, often driving halfway across the map. I just call that poor and annoying game design. Not "good" or "hard"

I don't think that reason makes the game "good" or "hard," I'm just saying the system works for Dark Souls. There are other features that draw me to Dark Souls outside of the overrated difficulty and the combat that everyone likes to talk about, but I would agree with you about GTA IV's mission design. I think part of the problem is that the game was broken up as driving/shoot-out/tail/drive and if you failed anyone of these parts it would set you back quite a large amount and redo the linear mission structure again. GTA V handled it much better by check pointing in between each mission segment. Again I think the way Souls handles its save system/checkpoint the best for the style of game it is; it allows for resource management, but there are ample amounts of bonfires and shortcuts, so you're never set back extremely far, except on the occasion of having to run to Capra Demon from fire link (which again is a boss that can be skipped).

Avatar image for Midnightshade29
Midnightshade29

6003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 301

User Lists: 0

#98  Edited By Midnightshade29
Member since 2008 • 6003 Posts

The 3ds zelda, a link to new worlds... ughh. Having all the items at the begining of the game ruined any sort of difficulty. Also the enemies are too easy. They made this "kid" freindly and that sucks for someone who's been gaming since the Atrai 2600.

Hell back then atari games were brutal and so were many nes games after that. We didn't whine and give up like children today (as i have two of my own, they do this... and its freakn sad!), We played what we had and mastered it.

The other one i can think of off the top of my head is FF4 on DS... they added 3d and took out the difficulty. Thankfully Ff4 complete on PsP/vita brought it back but took out 3d and used hd sprites instead.

Avatar image for Cranler
Cranler

8809

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#99  Edited By Cranler
Member since 2005 • 8809 Posts

@Minishdriveby said:

@Cranler said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@Cranler said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@Cranler said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@Cranler said:

@Minishdriveby said:

@mems_1224 said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

@Cranler said:

@ReadingRainbow4 said:

Every AAA game released in the last 8 years that isn't souls.

Souls is only hard because you can't save and there's no checkpoints.

yeah, no. It encourages careful play but there's plenty of challenge to be had.

He's right though. If you could save anytime you wanted it would pretty much eliminate most of the difficulty and cut a bunch of hours off the play time.

It saves every second.

But if you die it doesnt take you to the last save it takes you to bonfire and you lose all exp. In God of War you could die in a boss battle and be only 1-2 minutes of gameplay before where you died while in Souls it could take 15 minutes to get back to where you were when you died.

If Souls had a traditional checkpoint and respawn system it would make the game easier than GoW, DMC and NG plus it would make the game 1/4 the length.

When you die it starts you at the last checkpoint which was the bonfire. Because an action occured in the game, you dying, the game saves. Just run past all the enemies which doesn't take 15 minutes, and you're back at the place you died. Bonfires aren't extremely far apart.

Fact is, not having checkpoints or traditional quick saving makes the game much longer. Every game would be 3-4 times longer if it had a save system like Souls.

Dark Souls is about 5 times longer to beat that God of War but is about the same length when doing a speed run. That proves how the lack of checkpoints pads the length.

A timed run is done under different conditions than a normal leisurely run. Yes, the first time I beat Dark Souls it took 35 hours, and yes the third time I beat it, it took 8-10 hours, but that's not because of a checkpoint system. It's because I know the patterns, I know the layout, and I know shortcuts around bosses.

The fact of the matter is that Dark Souls regularly auto-saves, and has a check-point system in place. Albeit the auto-saving after every action and check-point system that re-spawns enemies might not be as lenient as some modern games like God of War, but Dark Souls isn't trying to be God of War or Ninja Gaiden where you clear a room once, reach a checkpoint for clearing that room, and move along in a linear progression of the game.

I don't think Dark Souls would benefit from that style of autosaving and checkpoints.

You don't find it off that a 10 hour game takes as long to complete during a speed run as a 35 hour game?

Why wouldn't Dark Souls benefit from a traditional save and checkpoint system. Are you saying God of War wouldn't benefit from having a penalizing checkpoint system like Souls has?

No, because again that's the purpose of the speed run to complete it as fast as possible by exploiting systems of the game.

And no, God of War wouldn't benefit from the same style of checkpoint system as Dark Souls. God of War is more of a linear romp through the game. It's not a labyrinth like Dark Souls; there's only one path. Dark Souls sets you back at a somewhat further checkpoint, not at the entrance of every room, to allow for exploration of the map. Oh? You died in the catacombs in the first hour of the game and are now back at the firelink shrine? How about you go the opposite way and see where that leads you? Dark Souls checkpoint system works because a lot of content is skippable and there are various hidden paths/alternate routes to explore where as if you're stuck in God of War you can't do anything else in the game; you're stuck.

A speed run also gives an idea of how large the game world really is.

The main point of a harsh save/checkpoint system is to pad the length and increase difficulty. You don't see other open world games using such a harsh system. Games like Gothic 1,2 and Morrowind have areas where a low level character will get destroyed. What do you do when you find out your character is too weak for a certain area? Revert to an earlier save.

According to a stat site, the average number of deaths per playthrough of Dark Souls is 674. If it takes just 5 minutes to get back to where you died the game seems much larger than it really is. http://darksoulsdeaths.com/cgi-bin/stats.py

Speed runs don't give a sense of how large the world is because the purpose of the speed run is to bypass as much of the world as possible. God of War has an extremely small linear path for the games world, but because of the linear structure, the time it takes to beat can only be dwindled down by so much. Depending on how you do the speed run for dark souls you can skip 50% of the content and beat the game in 30 minutes. You cannot run past every enemy in God of War; you're forced to fight everything and there isn't much skippable content in god of war which is why the record is 2 hours. Taking Morrowind into consideration you can speed run that game in 3 minutes; I guess that game has unnecessary padding as well, it must not have a very large world either?

I don't really understand your second point... Why would you revert to an earlier save if your character is too weak for an area? Why not just leave the area and go somewhere else until you're ready for that area?

And the last statement depends on how far you make it from a bon fire before dying, if you die 2 feet away from a bonfire it doesn't take 5 minutes to get back to where you died.

Morrowind speedrun is done so quickly because of glitches. You do realize Morrowind has sidequests that take much longer than the main quest right? One side quest character has more dialogue than every character in Dark Souls combined. If Morrowind used the Souls style of of only being able to respawn in certain spots it would take 100 hours for just the main quest.

You usually don't realize you're to weak for an area until it's too late. You could die in one or two hits with a low character in the wrong place. Even if you don't die you could revert to an earlier save to avoid backtracking.

I finished Demons Souls and got about halfway through Dark Souls and I rarely died close to a bonfire. It's painfully obvious how the respawn system makes the game much much longer.