Lords of the Fallen: Early Impressions

As someone who has played a lot of Dark Souls, let me just chime in and state that this game is LEAGUES easier than Dark Souls. It feels like the devs played Dark Souls 2, thought it was too hard and decided to make a copy of the game that they could beat. If you die before the third boss, I don't see how you survived at all in Dark Souls.

You can easily run through this game without leveling up until probably close to the third boss. At that point you'd need to level up a bit to make it manageable, but if you don't the experience becomes that of a Dark Souls boss battle (one or two hits to kill you, tons of health, but you can equip light armor and dodge everything).

I was never even close to dying until I got to the third boss, and even then I only died because that boss happens to have an instant kill mechanic that they give you no warning about.

The game is also fairly linear. Lots of locked doors that you can't access until later in the game. You can open up one area pretty early on if you complete a side quest, and that area is harder because you're not supposed to be there for quite some time. Beyond that, you can't explore all that much outside of the area the game wants you to be in for story purposes.
 
DrDogg said:
As someone who has played a lot of Dark Souls, let me just chime in and state that this game is LEAGUES easier than Dark Souls. It feels like the devs played Dark Souls 2, thought it was too hard and decided to make a copy of the game that they could beat. If you die before the third boss, I don't see how you survived at all in Dark Souls.

You can easily run through this game without leveling up until probably close to the third boss. At that point you'd need to level up a bit to make it manageable, but if you don't the experience becomes that of a Dark Souls boss battle (one or two hits to kill you, tons of health, but you can equip light armor and dodge everything).

I was never even close to dying until I got to the third boss, and even then I only died because that boss happens to have an instant kill mechanic that they give you no warning about.

The game is also fairly linear. Lots of locked doors that you can't access until later in the game. You can open up one area pretty early on if you complete a side quest, and that area is harder because you're not supposed to be there for quite some time. Beyond that, you can't explore all that much outside of the area the game wants you to be in for story purposes.
Click to expand...

SShadowH20 said:
There's a day 1 patch for the screen tearing... It's close to 5gb
Click to expand...

Hrmmmm...
 
Parakeetman said:
Im still torn by wanting to pick this up to see what they did with the title yet at the same time dont want to support devs that go blatantly grabbing a particular game style and trying to ride off the coattails of it.
Click to expand...

You must really dislike every genre ever created outside of the very first game in that genre huh?

Digby said:
So they're making a Darksiders clone and calling it a dark souls clone? I'm worried about this.
Click to expand...

Aside from the very generic aesthetic, it doesn't look anything like Darksiders, especially gameplay wise. If anything, it's closer to the Lords of Shadow games.

Camp Lo said:
If I hated Dark Souls, but liked Dark Souls 2, will I like this game?
Click to expand...

Who the hell knows, since your tastes are obviously very unique.
 
I'm surprised the UI made it to release. It's certainly functional, but seems to clash with the general aesthetic of the game. Just screams placeholder to me.

DXLelouch153 said:
might remove from my Christmas list then if its too easy
Click to expand...

There is always NG+ modes, which no one has started yet. The general line the developers kept repeating at trade shows was, 'accessible,' so it doesn't surprise me if the design is far easier.
 
DrDogg said:
As someone who has played a lot of Dark Souls, let me just chime in and state that this game is LEAGUES easier than Dark Souls. It feels like the devs played Dark Souls 2, thought it was too hard and decided to make a copy of the game that they could beat. If you die before the third boss, I don't see how you survived at all in Dark Souls.

You can easily run through this game without leveling up until probably close to the third boss. At that point you'd need to level up a bit to make it manageable, but if you don't the experience becomes that of a Dark Souls boss battle (one or two hits to kill you, tons of health, but you can equip light armor and dodge everything).

I was never even close to dying until I got to the third boss, and even then I only died because that boss happens to have an instant kill mechanic that they give you no warning about.

The game is also fairly linear. Lots of locked doors that you can't access until later in the game. You can open up one area pretty early on if you complete a side quest, and that area is harder because you're not supposed to be there for quite some time. Beyond that, you can't explore all that much outside of the area the game wants you to be in for story purposes.
Click to expand...

They give you a warning about it through one of the voice diaries. In fact, a lot of those voice thingies give away solutions and hidden clues.
 
DrDogg said:
As someone who has played a lot of Dark Souls, let me just chime in and state that this game is LEAGUES easier than Dark Souls. It feels like the devs played Dark Souls 2, thought it was too hard and decided to make a copy of the game that they could beat. If you die before the third boss, I don't see how you survived at all in Dark Souls.

You can easily run through this game without leveling up until probably close to the third boss. At that point you'd need to level up a bit to make it manageable, but if you don't the experience becomes that of a Dark Souls boss battle (one or two hits to kill you, tons of health, but you can equip light armor and dodge everything).

I was never even close to dying until I got to the third boss, and even then I only died because that boss happens to have an instant kill mechanic that they give you no warning about.

The game is also fairly linear. Lots of locked doors that you can't access until later in the game. You can open up one area pretty early on if you complete a side quest, and that area is harder because you're not supposed to be there for quite some time. Beyond that, you can't explore all that much outside of the area the game wants you to be in for story purposes.
Click to expand...

whats the third boss instant kill machanic? (people here probably want [] spoiler tagged
 
Beysus said:
Let's hope it's better than Bound By Flame.
Click to expand...

Truthfully it already looks better so thats a start.

SShadowH20 said:
Yea I don't think its a good idea either. I understand why they did it, but it only benefits the few I think & not the majority. Especially now that I see 3 threads for this game floating around because OT is release date dependant.
Click to expand...

Id say the mods should make it a case by case basis. Since seriously blanketing everything including smaller indie / niche etc type of titles isnt going to help them find followers ahead of time thats for sure.

The giant threads that are a fucking mess most of the time sure, but everything? Yeah not digging it at all looking back.
 
cleveridea said:
whats the third boss instant kill machanic? (people here probably want [] spoiler tagged
Click to expand...

after you down his hp past a certain point he charges this attack insta kills you unless you stand in one of these little shelters. He repeats it like every quarter of his hp.
 
Grief.exe said:
I'm surprised the UI made it to release. It's certainly functional, but seems to clash with the general aesthetic of the game. Just screams placeholder to me.
Click to expand...

Yep, it really is an eyesore. It's like they wanted to copy the Souls UI too, but "tweak it", so they just shrunk it, changed stamina to yellow and moved it to the bottom of the screen and called it a day. Hopefully it can be disabled.

sappyday said:
The first area of the game which a lot of people on YouTube have tried out has this Blizzard/WoW art style. Do the environments vary later on? I don't even care if they connect it properly but is it not generic high fantasy as you progress?
Click to expand...

There's only supposed to be two main areas of the game; generic castle and generic "underworld"/hell. Also, Blizzard didn't create that style.
 
The first area of the game which a lot of people on YouTube have tried out has this Blizzard/WoW art style. Do the environments vary later on? I don't even care if they connect it properly but is it not generic high fantasy as you progress?
 
Sanctuary said:
Who the hell knows, since your tastes are obviously very unique.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I found DS2 to also be the better game because I was allowed to actually participate in multiplayer while with DS1, I have never gotten multiplayer to work on PC. I can't wait till the GFWL removal patch.
 
Hawk269 said:
Hard to tell by your video, but first, thanks for posting that as there are not a lot of video's for this game. Anyways, back to what I wanted to say, it is hard to tell via the twitch video, but how is the frame rate and is there tearing that you noticed with the Xbox One version?
Click to expand...

It's there but it's not terrible by any means or consistent.
 
BigDug13 said:
To be fair, I found DS2 to also be the better game because I was allowed to actually participate in multiplayer while with DS1, I have never gotten multiplayer to work on PC. I can't wait till the GFWL removal patch.
Click to expand...

That really has nothing to do with the game itself though.
 
Sanctuary said:
That really has nothing to do with the game itself though.
Click to expand...
It kinda does. It was their decision to go with GFWL and it has kept multiplayer broken. Just like bad net code or poor server support can be blamed on the overall game, going with a completely shit service to handle multiplayer can be blamed on the game.
 
GECK said:
The hell? What kind of shit design is this..

75% off steam sale it is then.
Click to expand...

It does really seem if you are a Warrior you can tank through everyone's attacks. The Rogue dies WAY easier but can wreck enemies faster with his speedy combos and dodge all the enemies attacks if you are good enough. I think I may try that since it looks like it will feel more fulfilling and Warrior looks like baby mode.
 
honestly don't see why people are moaning that the game isn't dark souls enough for them. not every 3rd action game that is difficult or isn't a breeze has to be the same as the souls series. the souls series isn't even old, there were action games that were hard before them.

the same people would be complaining if it completely ripped it off.

do people moan that cod isn't battlefield and vice versa?
 
GECK said:
The hell? What kind of shit design is this..

75% off steam sale it is then.
Click to expand...

In vanilla DS2 there was also a noticeable difference between how different classes had more or less of a challenge. The mace given to the cleric is really good, and faith spells were really good on release, whereas the sorcerer was almost unplayable.
 
BigDug13 said:
It kinda does. It was their decision to go with GFWL and it has kept multiplayer broken. Just like bad net code or poor server support can be blamed on the overall game, going with a completely shit service to handle multiplayer can be blamed on the game.
Click to expand...

It really doesn't. A large majority played Dark Souls on the consoles where those issues didn't exist. You're talking about something that isn't part of the game itself. Just added baggage. Your overall experience may have been worse, but that's not the fault of the game itself.
 
JohnGrimm said:
An ARPG with Souls-esque combat is about what I wanted from this game. Might have to out buying Far Cry on hold for this.
Click to expand...
I feel the same way. It not being as vague as a Souls game is a plus for me. Its definitely in the mix for the one game I can grab this month.
 
funkypie said:
honestly don't see why people are moaning that the game isn't dark souls enough for them. not every 3rd action game that is difficult or isn't a breeze has to be the same as the souls series. the souls series isn't even old, there were action games that were hard before them.

the same people would be complaining if it completely ripped it off.

do people moan that cod isn't battlefield and vice versa?
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I love Dark Souls, it's my favorite series of last gen, but I'll be damned if I'm going to complain if every action game from now to eternity isn't just like it. This game looks like fun, I'll be playing it day one.
 
Sanctuary said:
It really doesn't. A large majority played Dark Souls on the consoles where those issues didn't exist. You're talking about something that isn't part of the game itself. Just added baggage. Your overall experience may have been worse, but that's not the fault of the game itself.
Click to expand...

Online stuff was garbage on 360 at launch of DkS1. So many failed invade attempts and co- op signs.
 
Uthred said:
Odd criticism since from the available material its pretty clear that its not really generic fantasy, it seems pretty clearly inspired by Games Workshop Warhammer aesthetic.
Click to expand...

Yeah it is said, by lot of post i read, to be inspired by blizzard (wow) which is something known (and largely inspired by warhammer art)

i'm none one of them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lords of The Fallen 2.0 Announced - Full seamless co-op
2 3 4
186
7K
Lord Panda replied
'Jump' for joy - Lords of the Fallen 2.0 is nearly here
2
59
5K
Arachnid replied
How graphic/gory should the next Lords of the Fallen be?
Social 
10
426
Danjin44 replied
Lords of the Fallen moderators in reddit are having a meltdown over the CEO
2 3 4 5
209
18K
cormack12 replied
Lords of the Fallen 2 is coming in 2026
News 
15
1K
Thief1987 replied
Top Bottom