Why did I sit through that?
Why did I sit through that?
Because you're in a Dark Souls thread.
I wonder how the PC version of number two will turn out.
So if I had bothered to read the Facebook posts down the bottom (which are usually frustrating), this dude accounts for Dark Souls on PC:
...
So Jim Sterling dun goofed.
Would you like to share the story of how you got butthurt?Sure. I played as the naked guy and I punched some guy in the dick at the campfire like 40 times and then he got angry with me and kept instagibbing me while being very pretentious about it. 0/10 terrible design 9.4/10 it's okay - IGN
Would you like to share the story of how you got butthurt?Sure. I played as the naked guy and I punched some guy in the dick at the campfire like 40 times and then he got angry with me and kept instagibbing me while being very pretentious about it. 0/10 terrible design 9.4/10 it's okay - IGN
Did you forget that I explicitly told you not to do that?No, but that only makes it worse. I'm angry at the game and I'm angry because you were not completely wrong for once. Butthurt squared.
pizaaplanet cannot into Dark SoulsIn the tutorial, it told me to find a shield so that I don't die from a zombie goast skeleton with a bow and arrow. I was too busy charging like a madman so I had to backtrack to find the shield afterwards. That's how hardcore I am.
Why are the arrows so slow?Because Dark Souls is the worst game ever
QuoteAsked whether From Software and Namco ever considered a Wii U port, Miyazoe bluntly replies: "No." When asked why, he explodes with laughter. "Wii U never came up, and we never doubted that (decision) either," he says. "It was more of a company decision, so I wasn't the one that decided this, but I think the audience for the Wii U is a lot different from the audience for Dark Souls."
Burn.
Anyway, I'm pleased to hear about the DLC and free-to-play crap.
Mm, Reddit drama is the best drama.
http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1tezg1/short_spat_in_rdarksouls_over_the_effect_on_the/
Mm, Reddit drama is the best drama.
http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1tezg1/short_spat_in_rdarksouls_over_the_effect_on_the/
No.
If they made one for Wii U I'd get it in a heartbeat. :[
Seriously, the gamepad makes the annoyance of inventories practically nonexistent. I never realized it was such a problem until I played RPGs on it, now it's kinda hard (and definitely painful) to go back.
Old.
The point is that being good at video games should surely be something of a prerequisite to playing video games for a living.Clearly you haven't seen iJustine's legendary Portal 2 playthrough.
The point is that being good at video games should surely be something of a prerequisite to playing video games for a living.Clearly you haven't seen iJustine's legendary Portal 2 playthrough.
Linkage? It doesn't seem to be uploaded by them anymore.She got rid of it because it led to her receiving death threats from angry video game guys. I have a backup of something like the first half of it (the "good" bits, before she gets some understanding of the game). I'll upload it and post a link in a moment.
Not that it matters. No game has a good character creator.
Moderately challenging? You played the beta! I thought you liked it!
Easier than what? Dark Souls isn't hard either. Based on my beta impressions, I'd say they're around the same difficulty. In fact, I probably died more in the beta than I would in an average Dark Souls playthrough, but I'd say that's mostly attributed to playing the game as if it was the original Dark Souls and getting fucked over by the gameplay changes as a result.
Please refer to /r/darksouls for the DS2 hype train.
Easier than what? Dark Souls isn't hard either. Based on my beta impressions, I'd say they're around the same difficulty. In fact, I probably died more in the beta than I would in an average Dark Souls playthrough, but I'd say that's mostly attributed to playing the game as if it was the original Dark Souls and getting fucked over by the gameplay changes as a result.
So does you being a balkno extend into other parts of your life, or do you just keep it to video games? I can totally imagine you buying an ice cream, eating it, and then complaining that the ice cream sucked because now all you have in your hand is the little stick. Or doing a crossword puzzle and then complaining that it was terrible because now it's been filled in.
Please refer to /r/darksouls for the DS2 hype train.
I'll not refer to reddit for anything.
Easier than what? Dark Souls isn't hard either. Based on my beta impressions, I'd say they're around the same difficulty. In fact, I probably died more in the beta than I would in an average Dark Souls playthrough, but I'd say that's mostly attributed to playing the game as if it was the original Dark Souls and getting fucked over by the gameplay changes as a result.
So does you being a balkno extend into other parts of your life, or do you just keep it to video games? I can totally imagine you buying an ice cream, eating it, and then complaining that the ice cream sucked because now all you have in your hand is the little stick. Or doing a crossword puzzle and then complaining that it was terrible because now it's been filled in.
wat
It's almost as if you're trying to say that Dark Souls wouldn't be a great game without being difficult. Why are you such a balkno?
Easier than what? Dark Souls isn't hard either. Based on my beta impressions, I'd say they're around the same difficulty. In fact, I probably died more in the beta than I would in an average Dark Souls playthrough, but I'd say that's mostly attributed to playing the game as if it was the original Dark Souls and getting fucked over by the gameplay changes as a result.
So does you being a balkno extend into other parts of your life, or do you just keep it to video games? I can totally imagine you buying an ice cream, eating it, and then complaining that the ice cream sucked because now all you have in your hand is the little stick. Or doing a crossword puzzle and then complaining that it was terrible because now it's been filled in.
wat
It's almost as if you're trying to say that Dark Souls wouldn't be a great game without being difficult. Why are you such a balkno?
No. What I'm saying is that you have this bizarre tendency to judge video games after you've essentially exhausted them - and then retroactively applying those judgments to the game as a whole. It makes no sense. Dark Souls is absolutely a very difficult game, and you've probably stated as such at least half a dozen times on the old site. It may be simple for you now, but that doesn't mean that the game magically became easier, it means that you got better at it after playing it so much.
Pressure plates? Dark corridors? I gave up on the second friendly NPC in the game, because he spawn-camped me.
How could you be bad at CoD when you played Tribes? It's the easiest shooter in the world and requires absolutely no planning or forethought to succeed. Just run and shoot.
In CoD if you get shot from behind, you're just fucked.
I told you about spawn camping, bro.B-but, bad vidya game design!
From videos I've seen of it I'm not missing anything though.I dunno man, you're missing out on controls designed to be far more complex than the controller was ever meant to be. That's something videos just can't convey.
I still haven't played this game. I don't own an xbox controller and I really don't feel like going through the whole obnoxious setup in order to get my PS3 controller working on my PC again.
From videos I've seen of it I'm not missing anything though.
From videos I've seen of it I'm not missing anything though.I dunno man, you're missing out on controls designed to be far more complex than the controller was ever meant to be. That's something videos just can't convey.
Mind you, that's not a "judgment" of the game. I just happen to think the game is fair, that's all. I absolutely do not believe it would be a better game if it was harder. It's just a little annoying to me that Dark Souls is just a "difficult game" for a lot of people when it succeeds on so many other levels.
Mind you, that's not a "judgment" of the game. I just happen to think the game is fair, that's all. I absolutely do not believe it would be a better game if it was harder. It's just a little annoying to me that Dark Souls is just a "difficult game" for a lot of people when it succeeds on so many other levels.
It's pure, uncompromising gaming that puts design and game philosophy first when most modern devs spend their time making pretty cutscenes and set pieces as an excuse for bland on-rails gameplay.
It means the game is well designed.But it's not.
It means the game is well designed.But it's not.
There's nothing wrong with a good noob trap. :-*I agree that poor design isn't necessarily "wrong", but that's irrelevant to your claim.
There's nothing wrong with a good noob trap. :-*I agree that poor design isn't necessarily "wrong", but that's irrelevant to your claim.
SaltVinegar
Like always, when attempting to get a thorough answer from Blanko, he just pretends nothing happened and moves on. Saddam, he can't answer because he doesn't know. The end.
for what it's worth.
I really hate his fast-talking shtick. It's such a transparent gimmick, and yet it's by far the most iconic (for lack of a better word) part of his reviews.
Don't worry, everyone sucks at Dark Souls. Even Blanko.
Look at all that glorious fun I'm missing by not playing this game.
Go back to Excel online.
Have you even actually played the first game yet
Have you beaten it, though?
Kotaku is tumblr for video gamessig'd for truth
Does it really need to "top" the original to be worth playing?
I feel like nothing can top Dark Souls
I keep watching videos of Dark Souls and teasers for Dark Souls II. The game honestly doesn't look fun to play, it looks like people play it simply to say they can beat it. All I can see is a generic RPG with a story that exists but isn't told.
Snupes is a social justice warrior.
Kotaku is tumblr for video games
But tumblr doesn't keep you informed on the latest games, trailers, announcements and other miscellania like Kotaku D:
I keep watching videos of Dark Souls and teasers for Dark Souls II. The game honestly doesn't look fun to play, it looks like people play it simply to say they can beat it. All I can see is a generic RPG with a story that exists but isn't told.It's not fun to play.
No, but I don't like the vague threat of permanent disadvantages hanging over my head. I wouldn't mind if the effigies were more like traditional consumables that enemies could drop, because then at least there would be some breathing room to play around with them and figure out when they should be conserved and when they should be used. But with a strict limit on how many there are, there's no recourse if you discover that you should have used them on this other point in the game when you have none left.
Also, if you kill them enough times, enemies stop respawning when you rest at a bonfire. That worries me. Okay, it'll be helpful to not have to kill the same enemies I've killed fifty times before on my way to a boss, but what if I really need to farm souls? Again, it's like the game is putting artificial restrictions on my ability to recover from mistakes.
No, but I don't like the vague threat of permanent disadvantages hanging over my head. I wouldn't mind if the effigies were more like traditional consumables that enemies could drop, because then at least there would be some breathing room to play around with them and figure out when they should be conserved and when they should be used. But with a strict limit on how many there are, there's no recourse if you discover that you should have used them on this other point in the game when you have none left.
Also, if you kill them enough times, enemies stop respawning when you rest at a bonfire. That worries me. Okay, it'll be helpful to not have to kill the same enemies I've killed fifty times before on my way to a boss, but what if I really need to farm souls? Again, it's like the game is putting artificial restrictions on my ability to recover from mistakes.
No, but I don't like the vague threat of permanent disadvantages hanging over my head. I wouldn't mind if the effigies were more like traditional consumables that enemies could drop, because then at least there would be some breathing room to play around with them and figure out when they should be conserved and when they should be used. But with a strict limit on how many there are, there's no recourse if you discover that you should have used them on this other point in the game when you have none left.
Also, if you kill them enough times, enemies stop respawning when you rest at a bonfire. That worries me. Okay, it'll be helpful to not have to kill the same enemies I've killed fifty times before on my way to a boss, but what if I really need to farm souls? Again, it's like the game is putting artificial restrictions on my ability to recover from mistakes.
Or maybe you're wrong about both of those things. How about that?
No, but I don't like the vague threat of permanent disadvantages hanging over my head. I wouldn't mind if the effigies were more like traditional consumables that enemies could drop, because then at least there would be some breathing room to play around with them and figure out when they should be conserved and when they should be used. But with a strict limit on how many there are, there's no recourse if you discover that you should have used them on this other point in the game when you have none left.
Also, if you kill them enough times, enemies stop respawning when you rest at a bonfire. That worries me. Okay, it'll be helpful to not have to kill the same enemies I've killed fifty times before on my way to a boss, but what if I really need to farm souls? Again, it's like the game is putting artificial restrictions on my ability to recover from mistakes.
Or maybe you're wrong about both of those things. How about that?
What the hell are you talking about? I'm already playing the game, remember? I'm not wrong about the things I've already observed.
From what I've seen, the game is a lot less pretty than its original reveal
In all seriousness, I guess you haven't heard that it's possible to make enemies respawn again. And I might as well assume that there's a way to get effigies you don't know about either.
From what I've seen, the game is a lot less pretty than its original reveal
"This is how it is going to look on PC"
"...and this is how it actually looks on your shitty ass consoles that use hardware from 2009"
I don't see how this is a problem. Do you really expect a console to have even remotely good graphics compared to PC?
Oh, no. Stop it right now. We're not having this argument again.
^ assuming you upgrade your PC every year.
"This is how it is going to look on PC"
"...and this is how it actually looks on your shitty ass consoles that use hardware from 2009"
I don't see how this is a problem. Do you really expect a console to have even remotely good graphics compared to PC?
^ assuming you upgrade your PC every year.
Holy shit, would you assholes just shut the fuck up about this already? We've had this debate a hundred times before. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that you can say that you haven't already said each of those hundred times. Stop derailing threads into yet another rehash of them!
That's not the issue at all. The issue is Dark Souls 2 was advertised by showing footage of the PC version and not footage from the console version. They never said it was PC footage. They lead people to believe that the console version would look like the version they showed footage of, but it's considerably worse looking now that it's out.
Maybe there was a disclaimer thrown in somewhere, I don't know.
They probably do this because it doesn't affect their sales at all but makes their PR skyrocket. No (intelligent) person buys a console for its graphics, so in the end no one says "Dark Souls looks like shit, I won't buy it."
Probably, but people should see it for what it is: bait and switch.
Defense is important. You're not going to be able to dodge every blow.
If watching speed run videos are any indicator, the best strategy is to wear no armor at all. It is also how you know that the game was poorly designed. Out of all the armor choices the best armor is... none of them.
I was invaded by a kind gentleman who dropped a chaos shortsword +5 and a twin humanities.
I thought he was going to rape me so I jumped at him as soon as he got close but he stepped back and stopped moving, so I watched him for about 10 seconds with my shield up when he just stood there. Suddenly he dropped the sword and moved away from it. I just walked over and took it, then he dropped the humanities, waved at me and disappeared. What a weird invasion.
I suck at this game, and I'm currently being raped by Gargoyles, but I probably wouldn't have come this far without that sword.
Blanko's jimmies got rustled so hard he moved his defeated, soul-less arguments to CN. Ahahahahah
For anyone that wanted to see the thread that made Blanko butthurt enough to move it: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1353.0
Please keep trolling to designated shitposting areas. You have been warned.
I consider the game poorly designed because rather than skill it is based on memorization and the subsequent exploitation of game mechanics.
1. Light rolls, where you can wear no armor and roll endlessly. There are no downsides to this whatsoever, all bosses can be dodged. I don't consider any form of memorization to be a skill. Basically this means you will defeat a boss over time just by learning when to dodge. You never have to do anything else. It is like bruteforcing a game that should require you to use varying strategies.
2. Necessitating that ranged characters are more difficult to play compared to a naked guy with a dagger. This is a combination of poor level design and character thought. The game was most likely designed specifically for melee characters, and magic/arrows are "because RPG" after-thoughts. This assumes the ranged character didn't find some sort of level bug where you can shoot the boss with no aggro or counterattacks, which again is just bad design. Also see Diablo III, a game where playing a barbarian means you win, Diablo in general is guilty of this but Diablo III put it in overdrive.
3. The AI is abysmal. Bosses should be exciting and fresh every time, not unbearably predictable by having a small array of attacks that can be assumed to be used at certain times. Even the bosses that randomize their attack array is still boring.
Most RPGs I give leeway because they are you playing a role in a story, and sometimes the gameplay is just there for a story. In Dark Souls the story is almost so nonexistent some people didn't even know Dark Souls had a story at all. This only leaves gameplay. Terrible, stereotypical gameplay that was fantastic in the 90's but there is no excuse for it in the 2010's.
Blanko's jimmies got rustled so hard he moved his defeated, soul-less arguments to CN. Ahahahahah
For anyone that wanted to see the thread that made Blanko butthurt enough to move it: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1353.0
I don't think he moved it because he was butthurt. He moved it because you're arguing without real ammunition, which is akin to nonsense. You need to play the game first, then come back with some valid opinions.
If you would like to actually argue a point, then go ahead. Spouting "but is fact because I said so" and "rustled jimmies butthurt" is just trolling and I am treating it as such. I'll admit I went overboard myself, since neither of us were taking it seriously. Nobody is getting punished for it, as long as you don't keep doing it here.
As for your actual points, I don't think it would get anywhere on a repeat try. I provided my own views, which you dismissed as incorrect because your own views were supposedly "fact", although you started that original post with the words "I consider". How you expect something civil to come out of that, I have no idea.
Take Shadow of the Colossus for instance. Now that is a good fucking game right there. It is even considered the best game on the PS2 for a lot of folks. The people who made that game knew exactly what they were doing, making a great game. The people who made Dark Souls knew what they were doing too, making a money grab. Dark Souls does nothing to improve the genre and is in and of itself poorly designed and even more disastrously implemented.
How do you find Dark Souls bosses to be predictable and formulaic, and then praise SotC?
I haven't played Dark Souls II, but I have, if you get my meaning. It isn't exactly a next generation genre or something. The "RPG hero vs lots of bosses and hoards of enemies" isn't some fantastic new kind of game.
Take Shadow of the Colossus for instance. Now that is a good fucking game right there. It is even considered the best game on the PS2 for a lot of folks. The people who made that game knew exactly what they were doing, making a great game. The people who made Dark Souls knew what they were doing too, making a money grab. Dark Souls does nothing to improve the genre and is in and of itself poorly designed and even more disastrously implemented.
How do you find Dark Souls bosses to be predictable and formulaic, and then praise SotC?
How do you find Dark Souls bosses to be predictable and formulaic, and then praise SotC?
SotC is purposeful in its design. Dark Souls tries not to be formulaic and fails.
Yet in practice they're the same thing. SotC bosses have small movesets, no real AI, and you utilize the same tactic to defeat every single one of them. The exact same criticisms you had about Dark Souls. Is SotC an exception to these criticisms because it's predictable and formulaic on purpose?
Yet in practice they're the same thing. SotC bosses have small movesets, no real AI, and you utilize the same tactic to defeat every single one of them. The exact same criticisms you had about Dark Souls. Is SotC an exception to these criticisms because it's predictable and formulaic on purpose?
While I'm far from with Rushy on this one, are Dark Souls' bosses as much of puzzles as Shadow of the Colossus' are? I don't consider them fights as much as puzzles, figuring out where to go and how you're supposed to get there, as well as a test of reflexes and fighting ability. You're not going to defeat Argus by climbing up his leg like you would Valus or Quadratus, you won't beat Phaedra by getting him to attack as you would Argus, can't do either with Kuromori or Avion and so on and so forth. While the generalized end result is the same (maneuvering the boss, stabbing its weak points), they're all unique in that the largest portion of the fight is finding out how you're going to get to their weak point, and then how to stay on them. Then all the fun of finding the quickest ways to beat them in the time attack trials, utilizing how they move and their attacks to your advantage. I think it's pretty silly trying to compare the boss fights of two games whose boss fights are immensely different unless generalized.
You just described every boss in most every video game. All games are formulaic when it boils down to it.
Well, it's pretty much what Vauxy said. I think SotC is a fine game, but the criticisms Rushy has about boss fights can be boiled down to essentially any game with boss fights. I'm generalizing SotC because Rushy is generalizing Dark Souls. In both games you still have to figure out how to beat the boss before you can actually beat it. You don't see the puzzles in a SotC speedrun, just saying.
Well, it's pretty much what Vauxy said. I think SotC is a fine game, but the criticisms Rushy has about boss fights can be boiled down to essentially any game with boss fights. I'm generalizing SotC because Rushy is generalizing Dark Souls. In both games you still have to figure out how to beat the boss before you can actually beat it. You don't see the puzzles in a SotC speedrun, just saying.
If Dark Souls was a money grab it would have been more appealing to "casuals"
Well, it's pretty much what Vauxy said. I think SotC is a fine game, but the criticisms Rushy has about boss fights can be boiled down to essentially any game with boss fights. I'm generalizing SotC because Rushy is generalizing Dark Souls. In both games you still have to figure out how to beat the boss before you can actually beat it. You don't see the puzzles in a SotC speedrun, just saying.
In Dark Souls you can beat literally all bosses by dodging and swiping at them with a dagger. No other form of strategy is necessary. Going around in SotC doing nothing but dodging and attacking is never, ever going to work, no matter how hard you try. This is what I was talking about when saying effectiveness and difficulty are not the same thing, you know, in that part of the thread you moved because reasons.
Well, it's pretty much what Vauxy said. I think SotC is a fine game, but the criticisms Rushy has about boss fights can be boiled down to essentially any game with boss fights. I'm generalizing SotC because Rushy is generalizing Dark Souls. In both games you still have to figure out how to beat the boss before you can actually beat it. You don't see the puzzles in a SotC speedrun, just saying.
In Dark Souls you can beat literally all bosses by dodging and swiping at them with a dagger. No other form of strategy is necessary. Going around in SotC doing nothing but dodging and attacking is never, ever going to work, no matter how hard you try. This is what I was talking about when saying effectiveness and difficulty are not the same thing, you know, in that part of the thread you moved because reasons.If Dark Souls was a money grab it would have been more appealing to "casuals"
Oh may gawd my sides.
Right, and in SotC literally all you have to do is find out a simple gimmick at the start of each fight, at which point you move on to the exact same climbing and stabbing section as last time. You can think, but you don't have to. Just like in Dark Souls, right?
It's very easy to generalize things like that in every game.
Right, and in SotC literally all you have to do is find out a simple gimmick at the start of each fight, at which point you move on to the exact same climbing and stabbing section as last time. You can think, but you don't have to. Just like in Dark Souls, right?
It's very easy to generalize things like that in every game.
Except with Darks Souls it never moves beyond the generalization. It doesn't get more detailed than dodge/swipe.
And in SotC it doesn't get more detailed than climb/stab.
And in SotC it doesn't get more detailed than climb/stab.
Each enemy in SotC requires you to figure out how to climb and where to stab. Dark Souls enemies take damage anywhere and all attacks can be dodged.
In SotC you don't even have to dodge anything nor are you ever in danger, you just have to push left stick in a direction until you get to the next obviously marked weak point. It's starting to seem more and more obvious that it's a terribly designed game.
In SotC you don't even have to dodge anything nor are you ever in danger, you just have to push left stick in a direction until you get to the next obviously marked weak point. It's starting to seem more and more obvious that it's a terribly designed game.
Grasping at straws. Who is really the troll here?
I'm simply demonstrating how flawed your generalizations are. If I'm grasping at straws, then so are you.
This is ruining the thread.
This is ruining the thread.
How so? Do you see any other relevant discussions taking place? Would you prefer everyone just treat this thread as their own personal Dark Souls twitter feed? Because that was the only thing going on before.
"Just beat the asylum demon on my first try #yolo #canttouchthis #bootywarrior"
I'm simply demonstrating how flawed your generalizations are. If I'm grasping at straws, then so are you.
Your arguments represent a basic misunderstanding of mine, not a reflection.
I'd rather the thread die than rehash the same crap ad nauseam. Not to mention the loss of 7 pages of posts thanks to it.
Unfortunately, you wouldn't know that. Seeing as you haven't played the game, you have no idea what you're actually generalizing; I do, on the other hand, and I produced the most accurate equivalent argument for SotC that boils down criticisms in the exact same manner. Just like how to an outside observer SotC is just doing that same climbing section over and over again, Dark Souls is, er, I guess rolling and swiping. You know there's more to SotC than that, yet you're hellbent on assuming there isn't anything else to Dark Souls without confirming it yourself in any way, shape or form. You've just seen the fights without the "puzzles", so to speak.
Unfortunately, you wouldn't know that. Seeing as you haven't played the game, you have no idea what you're actually generalizing; I do, on the other hand, and I produced the most accurate equivalent argument for SotC that boils down criticisms in the exact same manner. Just like how to an outside observer SotC is just doing that same climbing section over and over again, Dark Souls is, er, I guess rolling and swiping. You know there's more to SotC than that, yet you're hellbent on assuming there isn't anything else to Dark Souls without confirming it yourself in any way, shape or form. You've just seen the fights without the "puzzles", so to speak.
Dark Souls is about as puzzling as a 1x1x1 Rubiks cube.
It's still more puzzling than SotC, but I guess you wouldn't know.
It's still more puzzling than SotC, but I guess you wouldn't know.
There are no puzzles in Dark Souls. You get puzzled a lot while playing it, but that isn't because there are puzzles.
It does have puzzles and it has more of them than SotC, but I guess you wouldn't know.
It does have puzzles and it has more of them than SotC, but I guess you wouldn't know.
Puzzles and getting puzzled are not the same thing.
I agree. However, Dark Souls does have more puzzle-like elements than SotC, and it requires the player to think about their strategies far more. SotC is an extremely straightforward game, with the only think requiring any presence of mind being figuring out the small, easy gimmick at the start of each fight, after which the only thing you need to care about is moving left stick until you find the obvious weak spot which is conveniently marked for you. SotC might be a fun experiment thematically, but in execution it is just poor. There's no movesets you need to learn, no effective combos to find out, no attack windows, and you don't need to worry about positioning because no boss ever poses a real threat. All of which makes Dark Souls require more thought and strategy than SotC, but I guess you wouldn't know.
I agree. However, Dark Souls does have more puzzle-like elements than SotC, and it requires the player to think about their strategies far more. SotC is an extremely straightforward game, with the only think requiring any presence of mind being figuring out the small, easy gimmick at the start of each fight, after which the only thing you need to care about is moving left stick until you find the obvious weak spot which is conveniently marked for you. SotC might be a fun experiment thematically, but in execution it is just poor. There's no movesets you need to learn, no effective combos to find out, no attack windows, and you don't need to worry about positioning because no boss ever poses a real threat. All of which makes Dark Souls require more thought and strategy than SotC, but I guess you wouldn't know.
Both SotC and Darks Souls are simplistic, yes, but you seem to forget that SotC did that on purpose and Dark Souls tries to be complex but remains to be wanting.
SotC is a poorly designed game on purpose?
Okay, I don't know why that would make a difference. Dark Souls is still a lot more complex than SotC, but I guess you wouldn't know.
SotC is a poorly designed game on purpose?
What makes you think that? Simplicity by design is good design. Simplicity by fuck up is not.
Okay, I don't know why that would make a difference. Dark Souls is still a lot more complex than SotC, but I guess you wouldn't know.
It isn't more complex than SotC, but it really tries to be. That's what makes its poor design shine like a star.
But of course, you wouldn't know that.Why wouldn't he?
SotC isn't poorly designed because it's simple, it's poorly designed because its simple mechanics aren't good.
But of course, you wouldn't know that.
SotC isn't poorly designed because it's simple, it's poorly designed because its simple mechanics aren't good.
SotC is exactly what its developers wanted it to be. I can't say the same for Dark Souls.
But of course, you wouldn't know that.
A poor attempt to avoid the point. Reply again or assume defeat.
I'm pretty sure they didn't want it to be a poorly designed game.
The point? You mean, the claim? Demonstrate how Dark Souls isn't more complex than SotC or assume defeat. You're basing everything on what you've seen in a speedrun, not how the game actually is.
Correct.
We've already been over this. You admitted Dark Souls is just dodging/swiping.
Just like how to an outside observer [...] Dark Souls is, er, I guess rolling and swiping.
Well, then the game isn't exactly how they wanted it to be.
No I didn't.
I'm not an outside observer, you are.
Well, then the game isn't exactly how they wanted it to be.
I'm glad we agree, then. Dark Souls is poorly designed because they developers wanted a complex game, but made a simplistic one. Simplicity in and of itself is not poor design.
No I didn't.
You said earlier that dodging and swiping is a generalization of Dark Souls, are you taking that back?
I'm not an outside observer, you are.
Which is irrelevant. You keep bringing this up, I can only assume it's because you don't have any better arguments to make. How droll.
Why is this thread?
Because nobody is actually playing either of the two Dark Souls games other than me and Saddamehehehehe is it because drak solls is such a terrible gaem?
Because nobody is actually playing either of the two Dark Souls games other than me and Saddamehehehehe is it because drak solls is such a terrible gaem?
It's funny because I was talking about SotC and you're talking about Dark Souls, he he he
I guess generalization isn't the best word for it. Call it an oversimplification, then. Point being, there's a lot more to the game mechanics than "dodging and swiping", even in playstyles that utilize those two things. I've already listed a few earlier, which you didn't address.
I keep bringing it up because you don't seem to realize that you don't have the necessary knowledge to support your own arguments.
No, everyone else is a filthy casual and massive pleb
It's funny because I was talking about SotC and you're talking about Dark Souls, he he he
The difference being SotC was designed to be simple. Dark Souls tried to be complex, and failed miserably. Simplicity by design: good. Simplicity by fuck up: bad. I feel like I'm repeating myself because you have such poor reading comprehension.
I guess generalization isn't the best word for it. Call it an oversimplification, then. Point being, there's a lot more to the game mechanics than "dodging and swiping", even in playstyles that utilize those two things. I've already listed a few earlier, which you didn't address.
Those game mechanics are poorly implemented, in such a way that they are wholly unnecessary.
I keep bringing it up because you don't seem to realize that you don't have the necessary knowledge to support your own arguments.
In that case it should be rather easy to argue against all my points. Instead, you dodge them repeatedly. Quite the paradoxical situation.
No, everyone else is a filthy casual and massive pleb
Dark Souls is targeted towards casual gamers.
Or maybe you do, since I've already addressed this.
Incorrect, but of course you wouldn't know that.
Of course it's easy, that's why I keep bringing up that you don't know shit. You don't have a leg to stand on, and all I have to do to counter your points is to demonstrate that.
Irrelevant.
bitches, pleeeeeeaseDisregard Beardo, acquire Blanko tears.
Or maybe you do, since I've already addressed this.
You don't seem to understand the difference between simplicity by design and simplicity by accident. One is good, the other, not so much. This is why SotC has good design while Dark Souls does not.
Incorrect, but of course you wouldn't know that.
You know what really is hilarious, I, ah well I won't spoil it.
Of course it's easy, that's why I keep bringing up that you don't know shit. You don't have a leg to stand on, and all I have to do to counter your points is to demonstrate that.
It's so easy you're not making a point? You're making a point about making a point, but you seem to have forgotten the actual point. All you seem to be full of is excuses. This is exactly how the last argument degenerated, you can't admit that Dark Souls really is poorly designed. It's not even that great of a game, it's amazing your so glued to its ass.
Irrelevant.
Filthy casual.
Disregard Beardo, acquire Blanko tears.
Yes, you keep saying that, while I've already addressed this.
I can't admit it because you've yet to make a convincing argument. See, I actually know the points you're trying to make are wrong, because I actually know how the game works whereas you don't. You can keep taking gut shots all you want, though. You've made like one good point about ranged combat and that's about it.
I'm just a casual, not a filthy one.
Yes, of course, I forgot you're only doing this to "rustle jimmies". Perhaps another move is in order?
Thork obviously has terrible opinions, but he at least expresses them clearly and responds to his opponents counter arguments directly. Every 8 out of 10 of Rushy's posts is something like "ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y", except with even less correct grammar and spelling.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60154.0
Yes, you keep saying that, while I've already addressed this.
Blanko uses dodge... its not very effective. Well, unless you were playing Dark Souls, then the description would be something to the phrase of instantly winning.
I can't admit it because you've yet to make a convincing argument. See, I actually know the points you're trying to make are wrong, because I actually know how the game works whereas you don't. You can keep taking gut shots all you want, though. You've made like one good point about ranged combat and that's about it.
You've been quietly (loudly) sweeping points under the rug, not addressing them. "No you're dumb" is not arguing my points, its basically admitting defeat.
Those game mechanics are poorly implemented, in such a way that they are wholly unnecessary.
I'm not dodging anything. I'm telling you, I've already addressed your point, yet your reading comprehension continues to repeatedly fail you.
Classic Rushy projection, amirite? Let me remind you that I did attempt to demonstrate how Dark Souls is more complex than you claim it is, and you shot it down with this:
Now, I know your standards for "making a point" are very low, but usually you would include a thing called "reasoning". I'm really not sure what you expect me to address when you're not addressing any of my points first.
I'm not dodging anything. I'm telling you, I've already addressed your point, yet your reading comprehension continues to repeatedly fail you.
Oh, we're playing by those rules, huh? In that case, I've already won. Why? Well, because I say so, of course. Arguing the Blanko way is a lot easier than actually putting effort into making points.
Classic Rushy projection, amirite? Let me remind you that I did attempt to demonstrate how Dark Souls is more complex than you claim it is, and you shot it down with this:
That's what you call an attempt?Now, I know your standards for "making a point" are very low, but usually you would include a thing called "reasoning". I'm really not sure what you expect me to address when you're not addressing any of my points first.
Take the skill system for example. You could run through the entire game... and not even use it. Now you might say "well thats player choice man" no it isn't. It is horrific design. You can ignore an entire system in the game and still get through. They attempted to add complexity to the game that was wholly unnecessary. You would hardly notice if they never implemented it at all.
it's true, if you don't need something in a game then it's bad design.
I played through Skyrim without building up my heavy armour, double handed, smithing, enchanting, alchemy or conjuration skills. therefore this is a bad game.
To be fair, Skyrim is pretty bad
Why are you trying so hard to pretend I haven't addressed your point? If you don't remember or know what I've said - despite you responding directly to it - you could just ask me to repeat it.
On the contrary, it's a sign of good design that the game is consistent in its design philosophy. Since the game is designed not to pull cheap spots on you, by extension you don't need to pad your stats to withstand cheap shots either. I don't see what's bad about giving the player options anyway. You say it is, but again... no reasoning.
In addition, if the stat system wasn't ignorable, that would mean it would be poorly designed. Because if it wasn't, that would mean the player would be forced to spec into something the game would expect you to require, completely eliminating the ability to specialize and thus defeating the purpose. It sounds to me like you want RPGs to be garbage where you raise stats because "lol bigger numbers".
So Rushy has finally given up.
Believe it or not, I'm not on the forum 24/7.
To be fair, Skyrim is pretty badno m8 its gr8
Oh, look, another strategy. "I'll just pretend I actually presented a point and project the dodging away, that'll work" --what's left of Blanko's brain.
SotC isn't poorly designed because it's simple, it's poorly designed because its simple mechanics aren't good.
They're giving the player the wrong kind of options. The options should be "how do I want to strategize my character?" not "do I want to strategize my character?" Player options are good in a game, yes. The problem is these are pretty terrible player options.
And before you start repeating yourself ad nauseum again, let me be absolutely clear that I don't disagree that simplicity by design is bad. SotC just doesn't do it well. It has a good simplistic formula in place but in execution it's just tedious and repetitive.
When did I say anything about strategizing? That has little to do with stats, except for stat checks which are the worst possible kind of forced strategizing. More so for Dark Souls because it's a PvP game, and if suddenly the game dictated builds by necessity in PvE instead of what you actually want to play, it truly would be awful.
For instance, imagine if you were in charge of the game and you decided to put a completely unavoidable attack in the game that deals high damage (because you know, dodging is teh bads), forcing the player to level up their vitality to increase health. This move alone would single-handedly make this particular stat completely irrelevant to even be an option because there is no choice involved in actually taking it, and it would eliminate a wide variety of different glass cannon builds. And if you applied similar arbitrary roadblocks in the game involving other stats, the stat system would be increasingly pointless and homogenized, making it something truly horrendous like you would find in a Blizzard game. So you see, if the game didn't force bullshit like that on you, then by necessity the game must be beatable without leveling up, or you actually do end up with some stat check garbage.
You apparently don't know what a PvP game is, either. Are the bosses controlled by players? Oh? They're not. Hmm. Doesn't sound quite like Player vs Player to me.
And before you start repeating yourself ad nauseum again, let me be absolutely clear that I don't disagree that simplicity by design is bad. SotC just doesn't do it well. It has a good simplistic formula in place but in execution it's just tedious and repetitive.
This is where the disconnect must be, see, you're still under the impression that "design" is an opinionated term. It isn't. Let's say SotC and Dark Souls devs are both car manufacturers. SotC wanted to design a small, reliable car that goes from point A to point B simply and elegantly. Dark Souls wanted to design a monster truck that could go all sorts of places and had many, many available options and was just awesome to use. SotC designed the car they wanted, but Dark Souls didn't design an actual engine in theirs. Now you have one car that was designed correctly and one that wasn't. Dark Souls didn't do what they set out to do and that is make a game that is more complex than SotC, as clarified by the fact they added multiple systems on top of an already overused RPG gameplay tactic.
When did I say anything about strategizing? That has little to do with stats, except for stat checks which are the worst possible kind of forced strategizing. More so for Dark Souls because it's a PvP game, and if suddenly the game dictated builds by necessity in PvE instead of what you actually want to play, it truly would be awful.
You apparently don't know what a PvP game is, either. Are the bosses controlled by players? Oh? They're not. Hmm. Doesn't sound quite like Player vs Player to me.
I would add an addtional stat that increases dodge speed and length, so the player could choose to strategize as fast and low health or slow and high health. I wouldn't start the player with a character that can win the game as-is. Might as well paste on the front of the game "thinking not required."
The fact that he hasn't played the game is making it difficult for him, I'm sure.I don't understand why you keep saying this and acting like you have a point While first-hand experience can be very useful, it is by no means the only way of forming opinions (or valid opinions, for that matter).
The fact that he hasn't played the game is making it difficult for him, I'm sure.I don't understand why you keep saying this and acting like you have a point While first-hand experience can be very useful, it is by no means the only way of forming opinions (or valid opinions, for that matter).
Yes, but Rushy is basing a lot of what he's saying on simple misinformation. He's saying "this game is this way" when it's actually that way.Which may be a valid point (I wouldn't know), but saying "hurdur you didn't play the game" does nothing to move the discussion either way
Yes, but Rushy is basing a lot of what he's saying on simple misinformation. He's saying "this game is this way" when it's actually that way.Which may be a valid point (I wouldn't know), but saying "hurdur you didn't play the game" does nothing to move the discussion either way
Yes, but Rushy is basing a lot of what he's saying on simple misinformation. He's saying "this game is this way" when it's actually that way.Which may be a valid point (I wouldn't know), but saying "hurdur you didn't play the game" does nothing to move the discussion either way
Which may be a valid point (I wouldn't know), but saying "hurdur you didn't play the game" does nothing to move the discussion either way
he misses basic points about the game throughout all his arguments because he hasn't played the gameIncorrect.
Why wouldn't you know? Have you not read the posts? If not, then you're just like Rushy. Lol.Whether or not I read the posts has no bearing on how much I trust you fuckers about what you say.
he misses basic points about the game throughout all his arguments because he's trolling.
he misses basic points about the game throughout all his arguments because he hasn't played the gameIncorrect.
Is that better?Sure. I'm only opposed to you claiming that him not having played the game is a dealbreaker, because it's not :^)
Is that better?Sure. I'm only opposed to you claiming that him not having played the game is a dealbreaker, because it's not :^)
It's almost like this whole argument is complete trash or something.But it is.
It's crap. Rushy turned his disdain towards a popular game into a troll, and we've all been feeding him for 10+ pages.Many more. Someone moved like half of this thread to CN at some point.
Actually, I'll just use this awkward analogy. If SotC was meant to be a simple and elegant car, they got the simple part down but botched hard on the elegance. It's probably got a gas leak or something. Maybe the breaks are cut.
PvP is more of an integral aspect of the game than bosses are. Oh? You didn't know that? Hmm. I wonder why.
That wouldn't be a bad idea, except in order to make the game impossible without leveling up, you'd still have to introduce arbitrary stat checks in the game without any sensical place for them. Apparently it's not good enough that it's simply much harder. ::)
As you can see, Saddam thinks Blanko has a poor argument and cannot win. He would prefer Blanko give up and go home. Will Blanko wallow in defeat, or will he fight to the very last? Tune in at 11 to find out.
As you can see, Saddam thinks Blanko has a poor argument and cannot win. He would prefer Blanko give up and go home. Will Blanko wallow in defeat, or will he fight to the very last? Tune in at 11 to find out.
I think he is talking to you...
Actually, I'll just use this awkward analogy. If SotC was meant to be a simple and elegant car, they got the simple part down but botched hard on the elegance. It's probably got a gas leak or something. Maybe the breaks are cut.
What part of SotC do you think is lackluster?
That doesn't make it a PvP game. Try again.
This is the part where you forget difficulty versus effectiveness again. An effective strategy should never be artificially difficult. Dark Souls feels difficult because it punishes you for thinking. It would rather you pummel away at a boss over and over again. It's more like a memory game than an RPG.
Snupes says that she's begun playing the game. She's doing much better than beardo, which is a good start.Maybe she actually enjoys it. I don't.
How exactly does Dark Souls not have stat checks? You have to have your stats distributed a certain way to use specific weapons, is that not considered stat checking?
How exactly does Dark Souls not have stat checks? You have to have your stats distributed a certain way to use specific weapons, is that not considered stat checking?
No, it means you're denied the ability to progress until you meet certain requirements. Weapons don't apply unless they're required to be used.
I've already addressed this in about five different posts, but since you're so conveniently forgetful, and I'd rather not see the whole "hurr better just insult the opponent because I don't know what to say" act again, I'll summarize it; SotC is lackluster not because it's mechanically simple, but because the mechanics are utilized in a completely predictable and repetitive manner. You know you're going straight to the next boss after beating the last one, and you know you're gonna climb and stab it. It completely undermines the excellent visual design when these otherwise creative designs are reduced down to slightly varying climbing grounds. There's like, two? bosses that try to break the formula a bit, but for a game that's mechanically so simple, they needed to do much more than that. Compare that to a game like Journey, which is even more simple than SotC but it paces itself and varies its emotional impact on the player throughout the game effectively.
Did you actually not know that the game had PvP? That's hilarious.
Then it must not be very effective. Did you just admit to having been wrong this entire time?
Well, that's convenient. Also, stat checks are still not strategy. Please stop being Blizzard.
That's a fair assessment.
A game having PvP doesn't make it a PvP game. You still don't know what that means, do you?
At this rate are you just blathering on random information hoping to drive the discussion off topic? Your lower post was nonsense. I know that Dark Souls is badly designed, and that therefore it is impossible to argue that it is well designed, but you're not even trying. It's like you already know that Dark Souls is bad and now you realize you'll never make a good point.
w0w
It does if you consider it to simultaneously be a PvE game. However, it doesn't really matter what you call it; it still has a large focus on PvP and thus arbitrarily limiting its potential would be poor design.
Well, you're the one passing off artificially difficult and purely trial and error strategies as "effective". Although it should not be those things? It looks to me like there's only one conclusion to come to, and I've done just that.
Would you prefer I just say you don't know what you're talking about, you've never played SotC, you're dumb, etc. like you do? That seems to be your preferred response style.
We were not talking about PvP. It is a different beast entirely, and no, Dark Souls doesn't concentrate on being a PvP game. You could play the entire game and not actually fight another player.
Strategy does not require trial and error. Trial and error in and of itself is a strategy. A very bad one. It's like saying I want to solve for x in "2x+5x=49" and instead of just doing in the normal mathematical way (49/7=x) you simply guess every possible number as x until you get the answer. If you answer the problem in a completely idiotic fashion, the game should punish you for it. That would be the kind of game that is hardcore, not casual kiddie swordfighting that Dark Souls is.
Sorry, I was legitimately under the impression that you're unable to admit to anything. I'm not sure how to feel about this.
But PvP is a part of the "entire game". If you play offline, then you're not playing the game in its entirety.
Yes, that would be an awful strategy. So why do you keep talking about it? Why is it relevant in Dark Souls in particular? You can beat any game by finding the right combination of button presses through trial and error, and especially in actual strategy games it would be a whole lot easier than in Dark Souls. So is every game terrible?
Sorry, I was legitimately under the impression that you're unable to admit to anything. I'm not sure how to feel about this.
I know. It must be such a strange, foreign concept to you. Feel free to take an aspirin to alleviate the massive headache you must have as you try to process what is certainly something you've never contemplated doing.
But PvP is a part of the "entire game". If you play offline, then you're not playing the game in its entirety.
A game that has PvP does not make it a PvP game. Planetside 2 is a PvP game, Darks Souls is not.
However, it doesn't really matter what you call it; it still has a large focus on PvP and thus arbitrarily limiting its potential would be poor design.
Yes, that would be an awful strategy. So why do you keep talking about it? Why is it relevant in Dark Souls in particular? You can beat any game by finding the right combination of button presses through trial and error, and especially in actual strategy games it would be a whole lot easier than in Dark Souls. So is every game terrible?
You're confused again. See, anyone can beat every boss in Dark Souls using a dagger and dodging. You don't need to trial and error strategy, as Dark Souls contains one basic winning strategy. The game doesn't even try to get you to use other strategies because it includes zero bosses that don't enforce dodging as your primary tactic.
anyone can beat every boss in Dark Souls using a dagger and dodgingI can't.
You didn't answer my question. You said trial and error is "a very bad" strategy, yet every game employs it and doesn't require you to use anything else. Just like Dark Souls. So I ask again, is every game terrible?
You didn't answer my question. You said trial and error is "a very bad" strategy, yet every game employs it and doesn't require you to use anything else. Just like Dark Souls. So I ask again, is every game terrible?
Dark Souls requires you to trial and error defeating a boss, not strategy. You use the same strategy every time. The only thing Dark Souls requires is that you play a memory game of bosses. Other (well designed) games require you to use different strategies. For example, if I'm playing starcraft and the computer is using battlecruisers, I will never win using siege tanks. Ever.
Yeah, so in trial and error once you've tried siege tanks and found them to not be effective, you would just move on to try something else instead. That's the whole point. You don't need to think about what you're doing or why something works, you would still beat any game given enough time and variations. So, maybe we should put "no thinking required" on every game box!
Yeah, so in trial and error once you've tried siege tanks and found them to not be effective, you would just move on to try something else instead. That's the whole point. You don't need to think about what you're doing or why something works, you would still beat any game given enough time and variations. So, maybe we should put "no thinking required" on every game box!
No, the Dark Souls equivalent would be me using Siege Tanks over and over again and they eventually win. In Dark Souls you're not using trial and error for choosing a strategy (you are already going to dodge/stab) you are using trial and error against the boss. You already go in knowing dodge/stab wins, you just don't know how it wins. That is bad design.
The equivalent of a very bad strategy is a very bad strategy. Even if you don't use siege tanks over and over again, it's still going to be trial and error, and thus still be a very bad strategy, like you've already said, no? You can beat Starcraft by pure trial and error, and that is bad design.
The equivalent of a very bad strategy is a very bad strategy. Even if you don't use siege tanks over and over again, it's still going to be trial and error, and thus still be a very bad strategy, like you've already said, no? You can beat Starcraft by pure trial and error, and that is bad design.
Trial and error is a bad strategy to use against bosses, not games. I don't think you're understanding the difference between fighting strategy and playing strategy. In Dark Souls you use the same strategy against every boss. In StarCraft, use the same strategy against every player and prepare to lose. Even computers don't fall for the same strategy over and over again in StarCraft (as it uses actual AI, unlike Dark Souls).
So it's fine that you don't have to think about strategy at all in order to beat Starcraft?
Well, that's interesting. I guess we can still put "No thinking required" on the box, but it wouldn't be derogatory?
So it's fine that you don't have to think about strategy at all in order to beat Starcraft?
Please offer me a strategy that beats all StarCraft games. A strategy equal to the all powerful dodge/stab of Dark Souls.
Well, that's interesting. I guess we can still put "No thinking required" on the box, but it wouldn't be derogatory?
What's interesting is your argument seems to lean on not understanding mine. At this point you're just stalling and have already lost.
Trying different things at random until you find something that works.
Likewise. :^)
Trying different things at random until you find something that works.
You would lose against your opponent every time.
Incorrect. If there is a method to beating a particular thing, then that method can be picked at random and replicated.
Since no game is literally impossible to beat, this applies to every game.
Incorrect. If there is a method to beating a particular thing, then that method can be picked at random and replicated.
This does not apply to StarCraft.
That would be impossible, unless some part of the campaign was actually unbeatable. If it is beatable, then a method to beating it definitely exists; even if it changes by AI (unlikely), a method would still eventually be picked out at random.
That would be impossible, unless some part of the campaign was actually unbeatable. If it is beatable, then a method to beating it definitely exists; even if it changes by AI (unlikely), a method would still eventually be picked out at random.
Oh, if it is impossible maybe you should prove it, then. Use a random calculator to determine the size and composition of your force, then defeat at least one opponent at multiplayer (including vs. AI) StarCraft (excluding anything under "Hard" as that hamstrings the AI). I'll then post evidence of a player fighting a boss over and over again using dodge and attacking until he wins, even better, I can show PvP battles where the players only use dodge and attack.
Basic Chaos Theory will show that you'll never win a game of StarCraft unless your opponent is also choosing a random strategy, something AI or a player would never do.
I would say you could just use a video, but funny enough, there is no one who plays StarCraft by using a random trial and error strategy, there hundreds of videos of players using trial and error to beat Dark Souls, though.
So you're saying a strategy that would win a game normally, wouldn't win if it was picked at random instead. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. ::)
Rushing with SCV's works every time.
So you're saying a strategy that would win a game normally, wouldn't win if it was picked at random instead. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. ::)
A strategy picked at random would never win against a strategy that actively adapts to its opponent.
But there's nothing stopping the random strategy from being exactly same as the one where the player has actively adapted to their opponent.
But there's nothing stopping the random strategy from being exactly same as the one where the player has actively adapted to their opponent.
If this were true, then I suggest you provide evidence of it. This will be the third time I've asked, and probably the third time you'll gloss over it.
But why wouldn't it be true? If a winning game can be reduced to a series of button clicks, then why wouldn't that same sequence of clicks be able to win as well? Even if the AI adapts differently (again, unlikely), we would still have infinitely many attempts.
But why wouldn't it be true? If a winning game can be reduced to a series of button clicks, then why wouldn't that same sequence of clicks be able to win as well? Even if the AI adapts differently (again, unlikely), we would still have infinitely many attempts.
It's not true because you have no evidence for it. If you pick a random strategy to use against an opponent in StarCraft, you will always lose. That's a pretty easily falsifiable statement. All you have to do is compile a list of all possible button clicks and then pick from that list randomly, then proceed to win a game of StarCraft against another player or AI. If you can't do that, then why bother making the assumption that you can? You're just arguing a straw man at this point.
If a winning game can be reduced to a series of button clicks, then why wouldn't that same sequence of clicks be able to win as well?
You didn't answer my question.
If a winning game can be reduced to a series of button clicks, then why wouldn't that same sequence of clicks be able to win as well?
You can't win games in Starcraft. Okay.
You can't win games in Starcraft. Okay.
Not in the fashion you have described up to this point. Trial and error does not win you any games in StarCraft. You must intelligently pick a strategy to win, unlike "thinking not required" Dark Souls. The same strategy will always eventually win.
Would rushing with SCVs not win any games in Starcraft?
Only when I do it, though. The true secret of SCV rushing has been passed down to me by a Korean master who has dominated the field of Starcraft for over 200 years.
What about rushing with anything else? Would that not win any games?
It's okay, we have infinite attempts, remember? So let's take a zerg rush for instance, would that not ever win a game?
Well, that's convenient. I guess we don't even need to randomise anything to win matches.
Yes, now we're back to a real equivalent, where we can just use the same strategy to eventually win. Very convenient indeed.
That's irrelevant, like it is in your argument about Dark Souls. We can try again if we fail, like trial and error dictates.
That's irrelevant, like it is in your argument about Dark Souls. We can try again if we fail, like trial and error dictates.
You won't eventually win all games, though, just some. In Dark Souls you win literally all fights against the computer by dodging and stabbing. A 6pool zergling rush may work against Protoss/Zerg sometimes, but it will never work against Terran. In fact if a 6pool works at all you are playing an absolutely abysmal Starcraft player or a computer on Normal or lower.
Beardo we should play Starcraft some time. It is fun and I am not very good.
That's still fine. If we picked zerg rush at random where it works, we can pick something else where it doesn't.
I am not very good.I thought you learned form a korean master.
That's still fine. If we picked zerg rush at random where it works, we can pick something else where it doesn't.
Yes, Starcraft actually requires you to use different strategies to defeat different players. That must be mind blowing for a Dark Souls player such as yourself. I'm glad you could finally come to your senses on this issue.
I thought you learned form a korean master.
Good, so we agree that you can beat Starcraft by picking different methods at random? I'm glad that's settled.
Well, it can't be done in the campaigns, no. But in VS matches, it's not that hard.
I am a fair bit into it; I've rung the first bell at the Undead Parish and have had my progress halted as soon as I've entered Blighttown and learned to hate it with all my heart. :D Fucking hate how everything is toxic and will make sure you die slowly and painfully. And I hate poison bug enemies in RPGs in general, particularly flying ones. The game's really awesome up to that point (and to reiterate, I've had more luck parrying and blocking than I have with dodging), but it seems like Blighttown is going to be a very non-enjoyable section of the game. All the lag in the area isn't helping. So if there's any area that's going to get me to stop, it will be this one X.x
@Vauxy/Ghost of V: Get the sequel. You'll like it.
@Vauxy/Ghost of V: Get the sequel. You'll like it.
Nope, already watched a speedrun and I hate it.
Fuck off, Rushy.
When Dark Souls 2 comes out for PC I am going to post an entire walkthrough of the game doing nothing but complaining about its terrible design. Blanko will watch every single one of them.
When Dark Souls 2 comes out for PC I am going to post an entire walkthrough of the game doing nothing but complaining about its terrible design. Blanko will watch every single one of them.I'd watch that almost as much as Dave's tutorial to holding things in your hands.
I'd watch that almost as much as Dave's tutorial to holding things in your hands.
>pizaaplanet
>serious
Are you serious?
Blighttown is my favorite place in the world.I am a fair bit into it; I've rung the first bell at the Undead Parish and have had my progress halted as soon as I've entered Blighttown and learned to hate it with all my heart. :D Fucking hate how everything is toxic and will make sure you die slowly and painfully. And I hate poison bug enemies in RPGs in general, particularly flying ones. The game's really awesome up to that point (and to reiterate, I've had more luck parrying and blocking than I have with dodging), but it seems like Blighttown is going to be a very non-enjoyable section of the game. All the lag in the area isn't helping. So if there's any area that's going to get me to stop, it will be this one X.x
Blighttown is the worst place to be in any RPG.
I beat the game! Yay!
Get outta here with your internet memes.I beat the game! Yay!
Like that is hard. Doge/Stab/Doge/Stab mirite?
Get outta here with your internet memes.I beat the game! Yay!
Like that is hard. Doge/Stab/Doge/Stab mirite?
Please stop watching speedruns as introductions to games
I'd love to try Dark Souls on the PC...too bad its over 5 dollars
Please stop watching speedruns as introductions to games
They're wrong though. I just killed the dragonrider without dodging once. Even if dodging has been nerfed, it's not a strategy you apply to everything and an ability you use all the time.
They're wrong though. I just killed the dragonrider without dodging once. Even if dodging has been nerfed, it's not a strategy you apply to everything and an ability you use all the time.
If you avoided being attacked, you were dodging.
Wot. Dodging is when your character rolls, it's an ability you actually have to use. Strafing is not dodging.
Suddenly all of your whinging makes even less sense. Are you seriously saying that the encouragement to avoid damage is bad game design?
Please stop feeding him. It was vaguely amusing at first, but it's just annoying now.
You should literally be able to beat everything by standing there and mashing square. Games should be like Arkham City, where it is one button to win.
Have you played Big Rig and ET?
You still have some oddities like controller prompts when playing on mouse and keyboard, but aside from that it's a much smoother and prettier experience than on consoles.
Wot. Dodging is when your character rolls, it's an ability you actually have to use. Strafing is not dodging.
Dodging is the act of avoiding something. What you're referring to is a "dodge roll" not dodging in general.
Cue the pedantic portion of the evenings festivities.
I only remember "you can dodge everything therefore bad game".
My PC is not high end.
I only remember "you can dodge everything therefore bad game".
That's a pretty terrible memory. That, or poor reading comprehension.
Probably both.
That's your fault for not playing a dodge build.
The Pursuer is kicking my ass because I'm a slow knight and I can't parry for shit.
The Pursuer is kicking my ass because I'm a slow knight and I can't parry for shit.
After noting page after page of an argument based on the lunacy of how there is no way to win the game except to dodge/stab, why would then choose not to dodge/stab, lose, and then whine about it? If you're not going to use the winning strategy, don't be surprised when you lose!
The Pursuer is kicking my ass because I'm a slow knight and I can't parry for shit.
After noting page after page of an argument based on the lunacy of how there is no way to win the game except to dodge/stab, why would then choose not to dodge/stab, lose, and then whine about it? If you're not going to use the winning strategy, don't be surprised when you lose!
The most effective method to beating the Pursuer is parrying him in front of the ballista, and then shooting him with it. No dodging or stabbing required.
No dodging or stabbing required.omg worst game design ever
her
her
omg have you been reading le reddits?
The Lost Sinner is not difficult.
The Lost Sinner is not difficult.
No boss is when you know them.
Trying to kill the gargoyles. I can stay alive forever against them if I want, but it's hard to do damage to them without getting myself killed.
The Lost Sinner is not difficult.
No boss is when you know them.
Trying to kill the gargoyles. I can stay alive forever against them if I want, but it's hard to do damage to them without getting myself killed.
Sounds like you need to use a faster weapon or a completely different approach.
Is it possible to just run past them and get to the clock tower?
The Lost Sinner is not difficult.
No boss is when you know them.
Trying to kill the gargoyles. I can stay alive forever against them if I want, but it's hard to do damage to them without getting myself killed.
Sounds like you need to use a faster weapon or a completely different approach.
I'm using my broadsword +2. I guess I could use something faster but it would take even longer to kill one. I want to summon someone to help, because 3 at a time takes far too long to kill, but I'm constantly being invaded.
Belfry Luna is a pretty stupid zone, I think. I had to go offline just to kill the damn bell keeper.Is it possible to just run past them and get to the clock tower?
Na.
The PC controls are ass backwardsnvm I learned how to play
Everyone says Old Iron King is easy but he's not, just because the area to fight in is shit house.
Everyone says Old Iron King is easy but he's not, just because the area to fight in is shit house.
He's incredibly easy. Hell, he's practically a Nintendo boss in how straightforward the pattern is.
Took me more attempts than the Lost Sinner, but only because I got her on my second try. I'm lost and fighting giant frog monsters now.You took more than one attempt on the lost sinner?
Took me more attempts than the Lost Sinner, but only because I got her on my second try. I'm lost and fighting giant frog monsters now.You took more than one attempt on the lost sinner?
Why wouldn't that be a PvP area? ???
ok rushy thanks you can go back to arguing about Bitcoins being a physical entity now
Did you even play the first Dark Souls
Did you even play the first Dark Souls
Yeah for like 15 hours or something.
Did you even play the first Dark Souls
Yeah for like 15 hours or something.
Did you play as hollow the entire time? Red phantom invasions were much more common in the first game. Now you shouldn't even be facing "overpowered" opponents because of soul memory, so you probably just got rekt by someone with similar equipment.
You only get lockstones as a reward for killing intruders, and they're not exactly rare in the game.It ain't about the money, its about the kill.
Yeah it sure is fun watching people suicide because no one wants to deal with that bullshitI've never had that happen. On occasion they will run up to that little cliff edge on the side so there will be a "fair" fight, but I just shoot them from there until they get on there way.
You only get lockstones as a reward for killing intruders, and they're not exactly rare in the game.It ain't about the money, its about the kill.
d-bag.You only get lockstones as a reward for killing intruders, and they're not exactly rare in the game.It ain't about the money, its about the kill.
For me it's all about the titanite chunks. I'm in the Bell Covenant
I think I've only fought a covenant member once. Every other one I've always DC'd or run.
They should really only allow players of the same level and similar gear to invade.I get it.
They should really only allow players of the same level and similar gear to invade.
They should really only allow players of the same level and similar gear to invade.
Then the game would appeal to the age 4 and under crowd.
Only once and I've spent most of the game human. My bigger beef is with the covenant areas.oh no the areas you get invaded you get invaded in!
Do you have to kill the ancient dragon? Cos he just gave me the thing so I can get giant souls. Do I come back later to kill him?
He makes vendrick real easyDo you have to kill the ancient dragon? Cos he just gave me the thing so I can get giant souls. Do I come back later to kill him?
No, you don't. And he doesn't drop anything worthwhile either.
He makes vendrick real easyDo you have to kill the ancient dragon? Cos he just gave me the thing so I can get giant souls. Do I come back later to kill him?
No, you don't. And he doesn't drop anything worthwhile either.
Its the journey not the destination.He makes vendrick real easyDo you have to kill the ancient dragon? Cos he just gave me the thing so I can get giant souls. Do I come back later to kill him?
No, you don't. And he doesn't drop anything worthwhile either.
But ancient dragon is much harder even without the extra giant soul. Four souls for Vendrick is more than enough.
I'm making a new guy, and I can't get past the Things Betwixted.
The characters name is I dont know and when they ask me if I'm sure of my name I say no so I can't get forward.
Edit: I lied and pressed yes, but then she lied and told me that I at least know my own name.
Best part of dark souls, is making a really weird looking person and wearing a helmet for the rest of the game.I'm making a new guy, and I can't get past the Things Betwixted.
The characters name is I dont know and when they ask me if I'm sure of my name I say no so I can't get forward.
Edit: I lied and pressed yes, but then she lied and told me that I at least know my own name.
You're a strange person.
I liked this.Yes, those bell fuckers need to die.
http://gfycat.com/InsidiousOblongBeetle
I'm up to Nashandra and she looks easy, but I'm yet to do her myself ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
What about the ancient dragon?I'm up to Nashandra and she looks easy, but I'm yet to do her myself ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Now I just need to kill Vendrick.
I'm too scared to kill him.Very understandable, pussy.
Lightning spears are getting nerfed again. From Software really hate clerics.Well so does the king of Lordaron.