Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #300 on: April 01, 2014, 04:43:28 AM »
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.

Rushy's finally lost it.  :'( I'm starting to pity you, so I'll just help you out this once:
SotC isn't poorly designed because it's simple, it's poorly designed because its simple mechanics aren't good.

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.

Quote
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.

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.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2014, 04:47:22 AM by Blanko »

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #301 on: April 01, 2014, 06:44:50 PM »
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.

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.

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."
« Last Edit: April 01, 2014, 06:46:30 PM by Irushwithscvs »

Ghost of V

Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #302 on: April 01, 2014, 06:56:28 PM »
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 wouldn't expect you to know this, considering you haven't played Dark Souls, but there are several PvP aspects to the game. Yes, where players actually fight other players. You wouldn't miss points like this if you had actually played the game.

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #303 on: April 01, 2014, 07:08:31 PM »
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.

...

What did I just say? Oh, SotC isn't a bad game because it's simple? It's because of something else? Is that what I said?

I don't really know how explicit I have to be about this. You keep saying things that are completely irrelevant to what I'm saying.

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.

Quote
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.

PvP is more of an integral aspect of the game than bosses are. Oh? You didn't know that? Hmm. I wonder why.

Quote
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."

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.  ::)
« Last Edit: April 01, 2014, 07:18:14 PM by Blanko »

*

Offline beardo

  • *
  • Posts: 5230
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #304 on: April 01, 2014, 07:09:35 PM »
I believe this has gone on long enough.
The Mastery.

Ghost of V

Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #305 on: April 01, 2014, 07:51:48 PM »
We have to give him time to come up with his retort. The fact that he hasn't played the game is making it difficult for him, I'm sure. But I think he'll manage. Trolling is hip.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #306 on: April 01, 2014, 07:57:33 PM »
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).
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #307 on: April 01, 2014, 08:00:05 PM »
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.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #308 on: April 01, 2014, 08:01:46 PM »
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
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #309 on: April 01, 2014, 08:05:51 PM »
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

Neither does making unnecessary assumptions about a subject you barely know anything about. It's almost like this whole argument is complete trash or something.

Ghost of V

Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #310 on: April 01, 2014, 08:06:08 PM »
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

None of what's been said here has moved the discussion further. Just saying.
Also he misses basic points about the game throughout all his arguments because he hasn't played the game. It is completely valid as a point, because playing a game is essential to understanding the nuances of the game itself. It's like judging a wine based on the description of it, you need to taste the wine to fully understand it and judge it properly.

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

Why wouldn't you know? Have you not read the posts? If not, then you're just like Rushy. Lol.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2014, 08:09:16 PM by Ghost of V »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #311 on: April 01, 2014, 08:36:01 PM »
he misses basic points about the game throughout all his arguments because he hasn't played the game
Incorrect.

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.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Ghost of V

Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #312 on: April 01, 2014, 08:41:14 PM »
he misses basic points about the game throughout all his arguments because he's trolling.

Is that better?

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #313 on: April 01, 2014, 08:47:10 PM »
he misses basic points about the game throughout all his arguments because he hasn't played the game
Incorrect.

Yes, it's more general than that. He misses basic points because he doesn't know about them. I don't expect him to play a game he's hell-bent on hating for no real reason, but the least he could do is simple research if he insists on having an opinion (or "facts") about it.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2014, 08:48:50 PM by Blanko »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #314 on: April 01, 2014, 08:47:31 PM »
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 :^)
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Ghost of V

Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #315 on: April 01, 2014, 08:57:24 PM »
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 :^)

I understand what you're saying, but still... passing extreme judgement as fact about a game you've never played before doesn't sit well with me.

*

Offline beardo

  • *
  • Posts: 5230
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #316 on: April 01, 2014, 09:32:31 PM »
It's almost like this whole argument is complete trash or something.
But it is.
The Mastery.

Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #317 on: April 01, 2014, 10:30:32 PM »
This is the only interesting thread on this site. And I don't know what Dark Souls is.

Rama Set

Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #318 on: April 01, 2014, 10:54:17 PM »
This is the best thread of 2013.

Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #319 on: April 01, 2014, 10:54:46 PM »
And 2014