Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #320 on: April 01, 2014, 11:00:11 PM »
It's crap. Rushy turned his disdain towards a popular game into a troll, and we've all been feeding him for 10+ pages.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #321 on: April 01, 2014, 11:04:14 PM »
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.
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

Saddam Hussein

Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #322 on: April 02, 2014, 01:01:55 AM »
Snupes says that she's begun playing the game.  She's doing much better than beardo, which is a good start.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #323 on: April 02, 2014, 01:26:58 AM »
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?

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

That doesn't make it a PvP game. Try again.

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.  ::)

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.

Saddam Hussein

Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #324 on: April 02, 2014, 01:40:53 AM »
Please don't reply to him.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #325 on: April 02, 2014, 02:39:51 AM »
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.

*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1957
  • Counting wolves in your paranoiac intervals
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #326 on: April 02, 2014, 02:49:18 AM »
I'm not incredibly far in the game, but so far I have somewhat ascertained that dodging is most definitely not the only "right" way to play through the game. I've fared kind of crappily with it so far and have been doing much better utilizing a shield and a parry -> riposte strategy, which is very exciting to correctly initiate and I'm pretty damn good at them. ALL MY TWITCH TRAINING IN GAMES HAS WORKKEDD! !
There are cigarettes in joints. You don't smoke it by itself.

Rama Set

Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #327 on: April 02, 2014, 04:10:13 AM »
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...

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #328 on: April 02, 2014, 04:33:32 AM »
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...

Irrelevant.

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #329 on: April 02, 2014, 04:50:43 AM »
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?

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.

Quote
That doesn't make it a PvP game. Try again.

Did you actually not know that the game had PvP? That's hilarious.

Quote
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.

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.

*

Offline beardo

  • *
  • Posts: 5230
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #330 on: April 02, 2014, 04:58:40 AM »
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.
The Mastery.

Ghost of V

Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #331 on: April 02, 2014, 07:37:29 PM »
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?

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #332 on: April 02, 2014, 07:45:44 PM »
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.

Ghost of V

Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #333 on: April 02, 2014, 07:50:51 PM »
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.

Makes sense. Although, it would be harder than normal if you didn't distribute your stats, you can still progress in theory.

*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1957
  • Counting wolves in your paranoiac intervals
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #334 on: April 03, 2014, 02:23:32 AM »
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
There are cigarettes in joints. You don't smoke it by itself.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #335 on: April 03, 2014, 05:58:36 AM »
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.

That's a fair assessment.

Did you actually not know that the game had PvP? That's hilarious.

A game having PvP doesn't make it a PvP game. You still don't know what that means, do you?

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.

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.

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #336 on: April 03, 2014, 09:01:11 AM »
That's a fair assessment.


w0w

Quote
A game having PvP doesn't make it a PvP game. You still don't know what that means, do you?


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.

Quote
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.

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.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #337 on: April 03, 2014, 02:33:49 PM »
w0w

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #338 on: April 03, 2014, 03:47:41 PM »
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.

Sorry, I was legitimately under the impression that you're unable to admit to anything. I'm not sure how to feel about this.

Quote
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.

But PvP is a part of the "entire game". If you play offline, then you're not playing the game in its entirety.

Quote
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.

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?

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: Dark Souls
« Reply #339 on: April 03, 2014, 03:58:04 PM »
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.


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.