Lords of the Fallen Review - The Fake Dark Souls Starts Here

Lords of the Fallen Review - The Fake Dark Souls Starts Here

An inferior Dark Souls, but surprisingly fun in spite of itself.

Read Full Article

So do I get this or Dark Souls 2? It looks fun for what it is, but not 49.99 worth of fun.

Ragsnstitches:
So do I get this or Dark Souls 2? It looks fun for what it is, but not 49.99 worth of fun.

Dark Souls 2.

I am definitely enjoying Lords of the Fallen in the early stages, but if you want a real Souls style game, DS2 is superior in almost every way.

So far I haven't run into any major bugs in LOTF. I did notice several of the things that Jim points out in regards to enemy behavior and balance, though.

The aesthetic is a matter of taste. I've never been big on the whole "giant pile of meat in massive square spiky armor" thing, but it works ok here for the main character. The enemies, however, tend to be a bit samey in look.

I do have to say that I hate the bouncy camera when you're moving. The character may be bouncing a bit, but the camera should stay smooth. Also, Jim's dead on with the targeting. The targeting in LOTF is entirely left/right on the control stick, as opposed to the 360 degree stick movement to select enemies in the Souls games, which is a major step back. It also doesn't target enemies off the visible screen, as the Souls games will. These actually need to be patched in, as proper targeting and enemy management is one of those things that allows Souls games to stay fair and manageable.

Still, it's a Souls wannabe, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Creating an entire genre out of what were niche games, as long as they are done well and have their own identity, is a fine prospect to me.

Ragsnstitches:
So do I get this or Dark Souls 2? It looks fun for what it is, but not 49.99 worth of fun.

Dark Souls 2, definitely. It gets a lot of flak for not being as good as Dark Souls 1, but the gameplay has really been tuned to give you a challenge and a sense of wonder even if you normally blaze through this type of game. (Just withholding decent shields and spells from the player for the opening hours is enough to really make you think on your feet.)

I recently have been playing Arkham Origins and actually quite enjoying it, even if AT LEAST half of what makes it good was just directly brought over from Asylum/City. However, even though the writing is quite poor in places, what makes it still worthwhile to me (rather than just playing City again) is in large part the story, plus a few of the gameplay additions (Remote Claw, new enemy varieties, actually good boss fights--don't underestimate that last one, IMO the boss fights in Asylum were uniformly awful and there was only one good boss in City, whereas there's at least three good bosses in Origins). With that in mind, I suppose what I'm wondering is, with what sounds like a bare bones 'story', would there really be any reason for me to play *this* game rather than just play Dark Souls for the seventh-plus time?

Quorothorn:
I recently have been playing Arkham Origins and actually quite enjoying it, even if AT LEAST half of what makes it good was just directly brought over from Asylum/City. However, even though the writing is quite poor in places, what makes it still worthwhile to me (rather than just playing City again) is in large part the story, plus a few of the gameplay additions (Remote Claw, new enemy varieties, actually good boss fights--don't underestimate that last one, IMO the boss fights in Asylum were uniformly awful and there was only one good boss in City, whereas there's at least three good bosses in Origins). With that in mind, I suppose what I'm wondering is, with what sounds like a bare bones 'story', would there really be any reason for me to play *this* game rather than just play Dark Souls for the seventh-plus time?

I think it depends on what you want in a game. I hated Origins and quit about 2/3 of the way through. I was bored to tears. The story and depiction of the Joker, however, I thought were superior to both Asylum and City, but the general fight mechanics were a step back. The boss battles were better, though, I agree. The city was ho-hum, more of the same.

If you're looking for a deeper story than Dark Souls 2, I don't think you're going to find it in LOTF. It's more in your face than a Souls game, but with less depth, at least so far as I can tell. That said, the gameplay is pretty solid and enjoyable.

If you're that much on the fence about it, I'd suggest waiting until a Steam sale. It rarely is worth buying a game at release unless it's something you know you'll like. Better to wait a few months and pay 2/3 or 1/2 the price on Steam.

Myself, I bought it because I was looking for some decently fun Souls-esque gameplay and to get the bad taste that is The Witcher 2 out of my mouth (I'm really really trying very hard to like that game, but can't.).

I find myself ambivalent on games which have this weird power scaling thing. On the one hand it IS nice to feel powerful and to start smiting everything left right and centre without so much as a hiccup. On the other hand it feels weird to suddenly become powerful and I think the balance for me lies in how easy it is to acquire that power.

I LOVE the scaling in Dark Souls 1 and 2, by the end of 1 I felt damned pro at it, I could smite enemies on NG+7 and upward with very few problems and the only challenges came from the damned good PvPers out there. Similarly in Bioshock I liked the progression of my power as I was slowly amped up, bit by bit until I was a monster in Rapture, tearing my way through these other weaklings who didn't take as many steroids as me.

It seems to fall apart in games where your power acquisition is sudden. I feel less like someone who has worked for power and more like I've just been given a cheat sheet, one of the best things about power in the DS series thus far is that a lot of it is skill, you learn and you tweak and you study and you excel to the point that even a poorly statted low level character can threaten terrors. If they just give me a BFS after the third level and everything starts to die it just doesn't have the glamour or the true feeling of power, much less skill...

Robyrt:

Ragsnstitches:
So do I get this or Dark Souls 2? It looks fun for what it is, but not 49.99 worth of fun.

Dark Souls 2, definitely. It gets a lot of flak for not being as good as Dark Souls 1, but the gameplay has really been tuned to give you a challenge and a sense of wonder

Indeed, by which I'm sure you mean you're left wondering about how attacks that clearly weren't close to hitting you still did damage. Phantom range sure is some good "tuning" to provide a sense of "I wonder wtf just happened." >.>

Shjade:

Robyrt:

Ragsnstitches:
So do I get this or Dark Souls 2? It looks fun for what it is, but not 49.99 worth of fun.

Dark Souls 2, definitely. It gets a lot of flak for not being as good as Dark Souls 1, but the gameplay has really been tuned to give you a challenge and a sense of wonder

Indeed, by which I'm sure you mean you're left wondering about how attacks that clearly weren't close to hitting you still did damage. Phantom range sure is some good "tuning" to provide a sense of "I wonder wtf just happened." >.>

Smelter Demon. A few normal humanoid mobs have some bugs in their animation that can cause them to hit you.

Beyond that, I haven't noticed any hit-on-player collision problems, at least not in any consistent way. A few enemies have weird hit detection when you go to hit them, but it rarely presents a problem.

Dark Souls 1 was definitely the overall better game. However, DS2 is still super solid, polished and the bugs are very rare. They are only noticeable because when they do show up, they are a glaring sore thumb next to the rest of the game. In most games these days, there is so much wonkiness that this kind of stuff would just skate by.

Robyrt:

Ragsnstitches:
So do I get this or Dark Souls 2? It looks fun for what it is, but not 49.99 worth of fun.

Dark Souls 2, definitely. It gets a lot of flak for not being as good as Dark Souls 1, but the gameplay has really been tuned to give you a challenge and a sense of wonder even if you normally blaze through this type of game. (Just withholding decent shields and spells from the player for the opening hours is enough to really make you think on your feet.)

By that, he means, most of the good spells are held back for way too long, and you won't have a collection of spells unless you happen to find a optional vendor, depending on what type of magic you choose.

That said, i'd probably say Lords of the Fallen actually. Having gone through all of Dark Souls 2 and DLC, i'm actually enjoying LotF more-so then Dark Souls 2. But I have a chip on my shoulder since they fucked up after Dark Souls 1.

LotF is actually a bit more faithful to game mechanics then Dark Souls in several manners, like poise and burden and weapon requirements, as well as world exploration.

Then again, having a enemy slam you across a room and just kick your ass with no way to recover can get irritating.

Dark Souls 2 indeed, but I STRONGLY suggest getting it with the Three Crowns DLCs. They are superb and arguably better than the basic game (and both dlc and main game feed into each other creating a more wholesome experience overall).

Sounds about what I was expecting from this game: Like a Souls game, but not. The silly younger brother or something like that. I'll pick this up when I get my PS4 next month. Hopefully it will have dropped in price by a few bucks, but if not, oh well.

Alarien:

Quorothorn:
I recently have been playing Arkham Origins and actually quite enjoying it, even if AT LEAST half of what makes it good was just directly brought over from Asylum/City. However, even though the writing is quite poor in places, what makes it still worthwhile to me (rather than just playing City again) is in large part the story, plus a few of the gameplay additions (Remote Claw, new enemy varieties, actually good boss fights--don't underestimate that last one, IMO the boss fights in Asylum were uniformly awful and there was only one good boss in City, whereas there's at least three good bosses in Origins). With that in mind, I suppose what I'm wondering is, with what sounds like a bare bones 'story', would there really be any reason for me to play *this* game rather than just play Dark Souls for the seventh-plus time?

I think it depends on what you want in a game. I hated Origins and quit about 2/3 of the way through. I was bored to tears. The story and depiction of the Joker, however, I thought were superior to both Asylum and City, but the general fight mechanics were a step back. The boss battles were better, though, I agree. The city was ho-hum, more of the same.

If you're looking for a deeper story than Dark Souls 2, I don't think you're going to find it in LOTF. It's more in your face than a Souls game, but with less depth, at least so far as I can tell. That said, the gameplay is pretty solid and enjoyable.

If you're that much on the fence about it, I'd suggest waiting until a Steam sale. It rarely is worth buying a game at release unless it's something you know you'll like. Better to wait a few months and pay 2/3 or 1/2 the price on Steam.

Myself, I bought it because I was looking for some decently fun Souls-esque gameplay and to get the bad taste that is The Witcher 2 out of my mouth (I'm really really trying very hard to like that game, but can't.).

Thanks for the suggestion. Pity to hear that Witcher 2 is not letting you in, so to speak--I remember that feeling. I'll definitely wait and see, and go back to that Wanderer no-level-up run in the meantime. x)

Robyrt:

Ragsnstitches:
So do I get this or Dark Souls 2? It looks fun for what it is, but not 49.99 worth of fun.

Dark Souls 2, definitely. It gets a lot of flak for not being as good as Dark Souls 1, but the gameplay has really been tuned to give you a challenge and a sense of wonder even if you normally blaze through this type of game. (Just withholding decent shields and spells from the player for the opening hours is enough to really make you think on your feet.)

What withholding of decent shield ? The shield the merchant sell are good enough, especially the tower shield, due to been half the weight of other shield in that category and tower shield that are worth the extra weight don't show up until late game (unless you Fashion Soul). But I'm part of the those that think peoples overvalue 100% melee shield.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here