Saddam Hussein

Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #220 on: March 29, 2014, 07:33:13 PM »
I see that no one has been posting in this thread for a while!  The game is delightful so far.  Blanko tells me that he managed to beat it today, for which I congratulate him.  Hopefully I will follow suit shortly.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8292
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #221 on: March 29, 2014, 07:56:36 PM »
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
« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 07:58:58 PM by Irushwithscvs »

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #222 on: March 29, 2014, 08:01:30 PM »
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.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8292
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #223 on: March 29, 2014, 08:03:24 PM »
Please keep trolling to designated shitposting areas. You have been warned.

Please pull that stick out of your ass. Just because you got butthurt from an argument you couldn't deal with, doesn't mean it was trolling, it just means you should have admitted defeat. Instead you started slinging mud in an attempt to bury the argument:
Quote
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.

If you can't argue a point don't post. It isn't rocket science. Don't play the game of thread thrones and then get mad when you lose.

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #224 on: March 29, 2014, 08:24:57 PM »
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.

Ghost of V

Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #225 on: March 29, 2014, 08:58:29 PM »
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.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8292
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #226 on: March 29, 2014, 10:32:51 PM »
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.

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.

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.

The argument devolved into that because you ultimately responded to all of my points with "Well, that's just your opinion, man" which isn't making a point against my argument, it is just ignoring it.

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.

It was actually a rhetorical series of posts poking at your own style of feedback, made more hilarious by you devolving the argument further. You were quintessentially arguing with yourself three or so posts after my original bullet points.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 10:34:54 PM by Irushwithscvs »

Saddam Hussein

Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #227 on: March 29, 2014, 10:40:32 PM »
All four primal bonfires lit, lvl 156.  Nobody can even touch me.

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #228 on: March 29, 2014, 10:42:35 PM »
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?

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8292
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #229 on: March 29, 2014, 10:58:44 PM »
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.

Ghost of V

Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #230 on: March 29, 2014, 11:02:36 PM »
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.


I'm not talking about Dark Souls II.  I'm talking about Dark Souls. You haven't played it and you certainty "haven't played it but have played it" either. You're a fraud until you actually sit down and play Dark Souls. I don't see how you think Dark Souls is a money grab, either. From Software? They were basically a niche company until Dark Souls. Demon Souls was popular, but not nearly as popular as Dark Souls and it is structured differently than Demon Souls in regards to everything excluding combat. If Dark Souls was a money grab it would have been more appealing to "casuals" and a fuckload easier, or a Dragon Age/TES rip off... I dunno. If it was a money grab it would have been anything but what it turned out to be.

I agree with you about Shadow of the Colossus, however.

*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1956
  • Counting wolves in your paranoiac intervals
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #231 on: March 29, 2014, 11:05:03 PM »
How do you find Dark Souls bosses to be predictable and formulaic, and then praise SotC?

To be fair, he didn't say anything about Shadow of the Colossus' bosses. I have to jump in here because Shadow of the Colossus is like one of my favourite games in history and I am actually legally and contractually obligated to defend it wherever necessary
There are cigarettes in joints. You don't smoke it by itself.

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #232 on: March 29, 2014, 11:13:30 PM »
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?

Saddam Hussein

Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #233 on: March 29, 2014, 11:19:48 PM »
heheheheh

watch this everyone

SotC is bad

heheheheh

*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1956
  • Counting wolves in your paranoiac intervals
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #234 on: March 29, 2014, 11:29:37 PM »
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.
There are cigarettes in joints. You don't smoke it by itself.

Ghost of V

Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #235 on: March 29, 2014, 11:31:45 PM »
You just described every boss in most every video game. All games are formulaic when it boils down to it.

Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #236 on: March 29, 2014, 11:45:52 PM »
SO WHAT DID YOU GUYS THINK OF YAHTZEE'S DS2 REVIEW? Besides Saddam.

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #237 on: March 29, 2014, 11:47:00 PM »
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.

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.

*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1956
  • Counting wolves in your paranoiac intervals
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #238 on: March 29, 2014, 11:51:28 PM »
You just described every boss in most every video game. All games are formulaic when it boils down to it.

Sure, my point was that you can only compare things like that through generalizing, but I suppose I aimed that towards Blanko because I saw his post as saying they were the same rather than that Rushy was using general vagueness and being silly, so I guess it was more a case of misinterpretation. Also, my contractual legal obligation


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.

Right, I definitely agree.
There are cigarettes in joints. You don't smoke it by itself.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8292
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #239 on: March 30, 2014, 12:00:40 AM »
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.