The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Arts & Entertainment => Topic started by: Vindictus on December 10, 2013, 09:26:54 PM

Title: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on December 10, 2013, 09:26:54 PM
Gonna revive the Dark Souls thread with this:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/8545-Shaming-PC-Ports-Because-Why-Not
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on December 10, 2013, 09:33:04 PM
Why did I sit through that?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on December 10, 2013, 09:34:23 PM
Why did I sit through that?

Because you're in a Dark Souls thread.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on December 10, 2013, 09:35:44 PM
Why did I sit through that?

Because you're in a Dark Souls thread.

I guess... Fuck you.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on December 10, 2013, 09:40:02 PM
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:

"I won't defend all bad PC ports (and there are plenty), but at least Dark Souls doesn't deserve the flack it gets. From Software never intended to do a PC port, and they were pretty up front about not knowing how. They only did it because a very vocal group asked for it, and when they did cave to those demands they said it wouldn't be optimized for PC. All the texture and frame-rate issues that were fixed by DS fix are in the console version of the game, at least to my knowledge (I played the console version and saw footage of the 'broken' PC version). It's an almost exact port of the game with the same quality that was in the console version, and came with the free DLC that the console gamers had to buy separately, so if anything I'd say it's very slightly better even pre-DS fix. Unfortunately when people say "I want a PC version of this game" what they actually mean is "I want an optimized PC version of this game that isn't built around the constraints of ancient 360 and PS3 hardware", and that's not something that From Software was in a position to deliver. People asked for a PC port of the console version, and they got a PC port of the console version."

So Jim Sterling dun goofed.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on December 10, 2013, 09:44:22 PM
Yeah, when he said he didn't expect PC ports to be better than console versions, he clearly meant "I want my 1080p60 like in other PC ports", because without fixes the DaS port is essentially just the console game; not really better, but not worse either (not counting the fact that it came out with at the time exclusive content). I mean, it's completely fine to expect the PC version to be the best version, but he should just fucking say it.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on December 10, 2013, 09:50:36 PM
Dork Souls
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 10, 2013, 10:39:40 PM
I wonder how the PC version of number two will turn out.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on December 10, 2013, 11:01:10 PM
I wonder how the PC version of number two will turn out.

Most likely better. The network test already seemed to have unlocked framerate, and that was on the PS3. So it seems promising.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 13, 2013, 04:17:12 AM
But will it be...fee-to-pay?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/8524-Fee-to-Pay-and-the-Death-of-Dignity
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on December 13, 2013, 04:25:16 AM
why
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 13, 2013, 04:47:45 AM
I can imagine it now.  Paying to unlock upgrading your equipment.  Paying to unlock joining factions.  Paying to unlock PvP.  There's a lot of potential for whoring this game out.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on December 13, 2013, 04:50:23 AM
stahp
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 13, 2013, 05:23:59 AM
EA is buying Namco.  Once that's done, they'll release several shitty new games in the franchise before shutting the studio down permanently.  There will be hand-holding!  Quest markers!  Cinematic setpieces!  It will pander to the casuals!
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on December 13, 2013, 05:35:11 AM
The PC port controls might not suck! The horror!
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 16, 2013, 12:57:14 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXIewCMep64

Also, I'm still butthurt about Dark Souls. I might get over it and give it a proper try soon, though.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on December 16, 2013, 01:56:28 PM
Would you like to share the story of how you got butthurt?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on December 16, 2013, 02:04:29 PM
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.

Never played it on any platform but that sounds reasonable

Basically "We made a console game theat people liked, then loads of people baaaawwwed that it wasn't on PC, eventually we said 'Fine! It's on PC now, exactly as it is on the consoles, will you whinging crybabies STFU now?' then people whinged that it wasn't EVEN BETTAH than the console versions, so basically... STFU."
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 16, 2013, 10:26:33 PM
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
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on December 16, 2013, 10:36:08 PM
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?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 16, 2013, 10:37:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 16, 2013, 11:32:39 PM
pizaaplanet cannot into Dark Souls
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on December 16, 2013, 11:37:15 PM
Sadaam is better at video games than pizaaplanet
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 17, 2013, 08:11:56 AM
pizaaplanet cannot into Dark Souls
In 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on December 17, 2013, 08:29:36 AM
Why are the arrows so slow?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 17, 2013, 08:44:29 AM
Why are the arrows so slow?
Because Dark Souls is the worst game ever
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on December 17, 2013, 12:34:10 PM
I would imagine it's just so they can be dodged more reliably.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on December 21, 2013, 08:25:35 PM
Talking about the DS2 PC development, as well as DLC for the DS2:

http://www.edge-online.com/features/dark-souls-producer-says-pc-version-was-rushed-problems-were-expected/
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on December 22, 2013, 04:05:49 AM
I wouldn't mind DLC like the type we got in Dark Souls, I just want the game to come out finished.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on December 22, 2013, 06:46:28 AM
Quote
Asked 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.

They're not making it for the PS4 or Xbone either, and the Wii U is notoriously difficult to develop for. I'm not surprised that they aren't making a Wii U version, but I would love one.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on December 22, 2013, 07:49:43 AM
Mm, Reddit drama is the best drama.

http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1tezg1/short_spat_in_rdarksouls_over_the_effect_on_the/
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Снупс on December 22, 2013, 10:15:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on December 22, 2013, 11:24:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on December 22, 2013, 01:37:55 PM
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.

C'mon Blanko, there's some very enjoyable butthurt in there.

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.

Yes. It really is too bad that it'll never happen.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on December 22, 2013, 11:13:45 PM
Another thing I realised, isn't the Wii U pretty big in Japan? I'm not sure of the PS3/360 market share over there, but I'm sure a ton of Wii U consoles were sold over there.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Снупс on December 23, 2013, 12:27:59 PM
I think about 11 have been sold internationally.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on January 15, 2014, 10:07:39 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POWgn4u0juk
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on January 15, 2014, 10:08:21 AM
Some of those bosses looking pretty chilling.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 25, 2014, 03:17:05 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dHz4nYCDdM
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on January 26, 2014, 05:23:51 AM
Old.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 26, 2014, 05:36:44 AM
Old.

You know more?  Please continue.  Who is this weirdo, and why does he do LPs when he clearly sucks this much?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on January 26, 2014, 05:39:41 AM
Why does anyone do LPs?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 26, 2014, 06:07:11 AM
balkno

The point is that being good at video games should surely be something of a prerequisite to playing video games for a living.  Although in this guy's case, people may just be watching his videos for the comedy factor.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on January 26, 2014, 06:10:03 AM
No, the prerequisite to playing video games for a living is being able to get money from it. If people find someone playing bad more entertaining than them playing as well as they could, I can't blame them. Being "good" at video games really only starts applying when we're talking about challenge runs and speedruns.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on January 26, 2014, 01:17:53 PM
Why is he recording his TV/monitor with a camera?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 26, 2014, 02:11:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Снупс on January 26, 2014, 05:18:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 26, 2014, 05:20:33 PM
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.

EDIT: Here's what I have: http://omgomg.eu/ijustinep2 (http://omgomg.eu/ijustinep2). Sadly, the rest of the playthrough may be lost forevermore, unless someone hax YouTube or convinces iJ to make it available again. The whole thing was 57 parts.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 07, 2014, 02:49:30 AM
Moar information, and apparently there's a better character creator this time around:

http://www.vg247.com/2014/02/04/dark-souls-2-delving-into-the-dark-soul-of-from-software/

http://segmentnext.com/2014/02/06/dark-souls-2-character-customization-detailed-want-macho-girl/

Not that it matters.  No game has a good character creator.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on February 07, 2014, 03:54:52 AM
Not that it matters.  No game has a good character creator.

Your standards must be sky high. I welcome a better character creator with open arms.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 09, 2014, 05:23:48 PM
The lack of excitement in this thread disappoints me.  Isn't there anyone else who can't wait to die again?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on February 09, 2014, 05:29:04 PM
Yes, I'm fully Prepared To Die™ in this upcoming moderately challenging game.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 09, 2014, 05:38:46 PM
Moderately challenging?  You played the beta!  I thought you liked it!
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on February 09, 2014, 05:46:08 PM
I like a lot of games that aren't very challenging.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 09, 2014, 05:49:03 PM
But you didn't mention that the game seemed easier in your review of the beta.  Wouldn't that have been an important point to bring up?  I feel misled!
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on February 09, 2014, 05:53:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Снупс on February 09, 2014, 06:26:07 PM
Moderately challenging?  You played the beta!  I thought you liked it!

You took his bait! I thought better of you. >:[

Anyway, I look very much forward to not getting around to playing this game for several years. It does look like it'll be pretty awesome, though.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 09, 2014, 09:24:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on February 10, 2014, 02:09:18 AM
Please refer to /r/darksouls for the DS2 hype train.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on February 10, 2014, 02:20:05 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/mEJFBUM.jpg)
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 10, 2014, 02:22:15 AM
Please refer to /r/darksouls for the DS2 hype train.

I'll not refer to reddit for anything.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on February 10, 2014, 04:39:36 AM
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?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on February 10, 2014, 04:53:28 AM
Please refer to /r/darksouls for the DS2 hype train.

I'll not refer to reddit for anything.

You'd be right at home in /r/gaming.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on February 10, 2014, 04:58:07 AM
I changed my mind, I don't think I want to play the same games as Reddit.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on February 10, 2014, 05:56:34 AM
Dark Souls is far too popular for Blanko.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 10, 2014, 03:17:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on February 10, 2014, 03:36:55 PM
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.

You're mistaking being bad at video games for the game being difficult. Granted, I did so as well, and only later did I realize how mistaken I was (there was some fanboy mentality as well). I could pick up a game like CoD and do absolutely terrible in it, but that doesn't mean the game is hard. I'm just bad at it. As for Dark Souls, I just don't see what's that difficult about it; there's no one-hit deaths, enemies don't hit you very hard, you have an ample and constantly available source of potent healing items which can be used in very generous timing windows, there's no RNG and there's nothing in the game that's mechanically challenging in execution (at least in PvE). Moreover, the upgrade system makes you outscale the power of your enemies very easily.

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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 10, 2014, 08:25:44 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/Rpnlc.jpg)
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 10, 2014, 08:30:11 PM
Pressure plates? Dark corridors? I gave up on the second friendly NPC in the game, because he spawn-camped me.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on February 10, 2014, 08:33:33 PM
Pressure plates? Dark corridors? I gave up on the second friendly NPC in the game, because he spawn-camped me.

I told you about spawn camping, bro.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on February 10, 2014, 09:01:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on February 10, 2014, 09:11:04 PM
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.

Really? I never used automatics in Tribes so I don't know how that comparison is at all relevant. Totally different styles of gameplay.

Anyway, you die really fast in CoD. I don't get it!
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on February 10, 2014, 09:37:07 PM
Tribes requires crazy good twitch aiming to blue plate, and timing to hit them as they land. In CoD everyone is moving slower and the target is much larger, so you have less room to screw it up. Then there's the stupid run and gun format that takes no planning at all.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on February 10, 2014, 09:58:22 PM
I wouldn't call Tribes twitchy, you can lead shots literally seconds in advance or during reloads due to the way air control works. You don't need quick aim, you just need good prediction. And when you do get hit from behind for example, it's fairly safe to air around for a recovery. In CoD if you get shot from behind, you're just fucked.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 10, 2014, 10:18:32 PM
In CoD if you get shot from behind, you're just fucked.

So don't get shot from behind, you scrub.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on February 10, 2014, 11:35:44 PM
I think close range shooting was quite twitchy, especially when trying to blue plate people.  But there was nothing as satisfying as pulling off a beautifully lead mid air blue plate.

I miss that game, it's too bad HiRez are such opportunistic twats. I think the Australian community is completely dead now.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2014, 02:05:31 AM
I told you about spawn camping, bro.
B-but, bad vidya game design!
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on February 11, 2014, 02:09:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2014, 02:19:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on February 11, 2014, 03:00:33 AM
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.

The controller setup is a pain in the ass, but it's worth it.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on February 11, 2014, 01:49:26 PM
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.

Yeah, buttons corresponding to individual actions is so complex.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 11, 2014, 07:56:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on February 11, 2014, 08:01:52 PM
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.

Quality sadaam.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 11, 2014, 08:19:19 PM
Yes.  But in all seriousness, do you still stand by that assessment, even though you no longer consider the game to be that difficult?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on February 11, 2014, 08:30:31 PM
I didn't say anything about difficulty in that quote...
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 11, 2014, 08:57:33 PM
Not directly.  I didn't know if you considered the difficulty to be at least a part of the pure, uncompromising gaming or game philosophy.  If you didn't, could you please explain in greater detail what you meant?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on February 11, 2014, 09:12:14 PM
It means the game is well designed.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 11, 2014, 09:48:54 PM
But how?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on February 11, 2014, 10:04:05 PM
Are you trying to bait me into something? We're not even talking about the difficulty anymore.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2014, 10:36:33 PM
It means the game is well designed.
But it's not.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on February 11, 2014, 10:38:07 PM
It means the game is well designed.
But it's not.

There's nothing wrong with a good noob trap.  :-*
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2014, 10:40:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 11, 2014, 10:45:52 PM
To be more specific, it's the "pure, uncompromised gameplay" part that I'm not clear on.  If it's not the difficulty, then what it is it about the gameplay that's so pure and uncompromised?  Is it just the lack of cutscenes?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on February 11, 2014, 10:48:54 PM
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.

Salt
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2014, 10:50:10 PM
Salt
Vinegar
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on February 11, 2014, 10:54:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on February 11, 2014, 11:03:55 PM
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.

Like always, projection
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 12, 2014, 12:43:50 AM
On the Notion of Dark Souls

18:07   Blanko   Enemies that get stuck don't return to their spawn points
18:07   pizaaaaplanet   Correct
18:07   Blanko   So since the warrior returned to his spawn point, he must have deaggro'd
18:08   pizaaaaplanet   Assuming he has. I've been unable to reproduce that
18:08   Blanko   Because you're bad at video games
18:08   pizaaaaplanet   Which, by the way, only confirms my proposal that the game is not well-designed
18:08   Blanko   Yes, the game is unsuitable for your skill level

***

18:17   pizaaaaplanet   You appear to confuse "gud things" with design
18:17   pizaaaaplanet   There are many games that are designed like utter shit that people enjoy. Good design is not a prerequisite for a good game
18:18   pizaaaaplanet   Good design is extraordinarily rare, and it's difficult to take you seriously when all you have to say is "all these design flaws are because GET GOOD"
18:18   Blanko   Aside from a bug with mobs getting stuck, everything you're proposing as "bad design" is just "this is too hard"
18:18   pizaaaaplanet   Not at all
18:19   Blanko   Actually, yeah
18:19   pizaaaaplanet   An expectation for me to know a key combination that's not stated to me is poor design
18:19   Blanko   It's not hard at all
18:19   pizaaaaplanet   Yes, I can Google it, or I can ask you. It's not good game design that I have to.
18:19   Blanko   True
18:19   Franklin   casual scum
18:20   Blanko   You could have figured it out yourself
18:20   Franklin   "hold my hand mr. video game"
18:20   Franklin   fucking filthy casuals
18:20   pizaaaaplanet   Blanko: Yes, that's what we call "trial and error gameplay" <3
18:20   pizaaaaplanet   (A form of poor design)
18:20   Blanko   Woah okay
18:20   Blanko   A form of game design is poor BECAUSE I SAID SO
18:21   pizaaaaplanet   Nah, I've taken a course on that, I'm far from an expert, but I understand the principles
18:21   pizaaaaplanet   But let's try this the other way around
18:21   pizaaaaplanet   Dark Sols is gud design BECAUSE I SAID SO
18:21   Blanko   >course on game design
18:21   Blanko   Alright, bigshot
18:21   pizaaaaplanet   Software design*
18:22   Blanko   So not relevant
18:22   pizaaaaplanet   Stop the presses, Dark Souls is not software
18:23   Blanko   Yeah, I'm sure software design 101 deals all the objective facts about trial and error gameplay
18:23   pizaaaaplanet   In case you haven't noticed, I'm a software developer with a tad more experience than "software design 101", but I think I do agree your University of /v/ degree is probably better

***

19:01   pizaaaaplanet   We'll have to agree to disagree on the crestfallen guy. It breaks a number of principles I listed, which are standard knowledge. You're welcome to substitute it with your own view of good design, although you may want to elabroate on it when you do so
19:01   Blanko   Like you said yourself, it's "case-specific"
19:02   pizaaaaplanet   Wrong principle
19:02   Blanko   So I don't see how some principles are applicable when we're treating things case-by-case anyway
19:03   Blanko   I don't personally see a design difference between the crestfallen guy and figuring out how to methodically clear a room of enemies
19:03   pizaaaaplanet   If you're going to take things I said about one thing and apply it to others, then I'm going to do the same and claim that the crestfallen guy being a bug
19:03   pizaaaaplanet   is a bug*
19:03   Franklin   Wait
19:04   Franklin   You guys are still fucking going on this topic?
19:04   Blanko   Yes
19:04   Blanko   Problem?
19:04   Blanko   pizaaaaplanet: The only principle I recall you specifically mentioning was the undocumented interface one
19:05   Franklin   I'm going to go smoke a cig, and maybe get some food. If you fuckers are still going I will be impressed by your combined stubbornness and unwillingness to reach consensus on such a stupid topic.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on February 12, 2014, 12:59:05 AM
Shitty excerpts, 2/10 would not skim through
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vongeo on February 19, 2014, 05:22:33 AM
Lol Pizza planet sucks at this game.

I DRESSED LIKE A FAT MAN AND PAINTED MY SKIN ORANGE WITH A GIANT STUPID GRIN AND ONLY WHERE CHAINS ON MY HEAD!
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on February 20, 2014, 01:42:31 AM
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/8802-Dark-Souls
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Снупс on February 20, 2014, 02:03:16 AM
Yahtzee is no fun unless he's doing negative reviews, because then I can talk about how stupid his reviews are. :[
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on February 20, 2014, 02:09:31 AM
It's pretty scary how many Escapist links I've seen Vindictus post here.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on February 20, 2014, 02:48:20 AM
It's like.. the only gaming media site I visit, besides things like /r/truegaming (which, surprisingly, is where I heard about Yahtzees Dark Souls review first). And no one is going to read the cerebral stuff on there if I link it.

I haven't watched it yet but apparently he has given it his seal of approval, for what it's worth.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on February 20, 2014, 02:54:10 AM
for what it's worth.

Right, yeah. How much is that?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 20, 2014, 03:51:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on February 20, 2014, 05:40:44 AM
But he's got a hat.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on February 20, 2014, 06:09:39 AM
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.

I thought the most iconic part of his reviews was the bad, and often stretched, metaphors.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on February 23, 2014, 09:19:39 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hhXNM5Z9hE
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 24, 2014, 02:26:53 AM
Supertails      02:17:17 AM   Viewing the topic Dark Souls.

For fuck's sake, Snupes, play the damn game already.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on February 24, 2014, 02:49:52 AM
DS2 comes out in like.. 1 month.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on February 24, 2014, 03:30:34 AM
Supes probably can't afford it :(
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on February 24, 2014, 09:36:47 AM
I died and died. I'm extremely bad at this game. I've tried playing a thief, a cleric and a knight, and I can't kill the asylum demon with any of them. (Yeah, I'm not trying to fight the first time he appears) I'm also extremely bad at using the controller so I suck at maneuvering and I can't seem to get the timing right. And it's not exactly entertaining when you have to go through the same fucking enemies over and over and over again every time you die. Enemy respawning is bullshit. I'll keep trying though. I just need to get more proficient with the controller. But I'll probably lose my hair while at it. I might be too old for this.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on February 24, 2014, 10:39:45 AM
Don't worry, everyone sucks at Dark Souls. Even Blanko.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 24, 2014, 03:04:05 PM
There are many difficult moments in this game.  Fighting the Asylum Demon is not one of them.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on February 24, 2014, 04:10:04 PM
Don't worry, everyone sucks at Dark Souls. Even Blanko.

It's true, I get rekt in fight clubs
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on February 24, 2014, 06:14:38 PM
I don't know the trick. I can do the plunging attack from the balcony, but then I tend to get tossed around too much.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on February 25, 2014, 05:28:57 AM
I killed it. I'm at the ruin where the raven dropped me off now.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on February 25, 2014, 05:29:17 AM
inb4 goes the wrong way
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on February 25, 2014, 05:34:47 AM
Going the wrong way after that is part of the game.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on February 25, 2014, 05:35:19 AM
Look at all that glorious fun I'm missing by not playing this game.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on February 25, 2014, 05:37:44 AM
Look at all that glorious fun I'm missing by not playing this game.

Go back to Excel online.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on February 25, 2014, 05:39:33 AM
I didn't proceed further because it seemed obvious that one or many of the paths is the wrong way to go, so I just carefully explored the paths without getting into any fights. There's one path that leads down to a graveyard I think, and one path down the stairs with a mute figure behind bars, one with a guy who tells me he'd like to keep a distance, and one that takes me up some stairs to an open area with a bunch of guys waiting for me to get too close. No idea where to go, and I don't want to go the wrong way.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on February 25, 2014, 05:46:01 AM
Try the path with the enemies you've already fought previously maybe
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on February 25, 2014, 05:49:28 AM
The graveyard sounds like the best option out of those choices. The other two sound like obvious traps, while the graveyard is probably just a setting scare.

Go back to Excel online.

Don't make me break out my damage spreadsheet. I'll fuck you up after a few minutes of calibration and ship fitting.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on February 25, 2014, 06:40:16 AM
I avoided the graveyard because I've seen clips on jewtube of people going there only to be raped by skeletons.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on February 25, 2014, 04:38:08 PM
"YOU DIED"
>stating the obvious
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 04, 2014, 02:44:06 PM
Squee, only a week left!  For me.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on March 04, 2014, 09:24:53 PM
Not for PC.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V on March 05, 2014, 01:09:41 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/eAea3.gif)
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Lemon on March 05, 2014, 03:09:48 PM
Worst game ever.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on March 06, 2014, 11:09:21 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9x_koRZ2bA&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 06, 2014, 08:38:13 PM
I watched about a minute of that before turning it off.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on March 06, 2014, 09:08:10 PM
DS2 is $90 on steam. Looks like I'm waiting for the sales.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 06, 2014, 09:14:23 PM
Are you sure that's not the bloated collector's edition?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on March 06, 2014, 09:17:31 PM
Nope. There's only one edition available on steam, so it must be the Australia tax again. /r/darksouls pointed me to GreenManGaming, which has the PC version for $40 with a coupon.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 07, 2014, 05:15:33 AM
Have you even actually played the first game yet
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on March 07, 2014, 06:16:51 AM
Have you even actually played the first game yet

Of course I have.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 07, 2014, 04:35:42 PM
Have you beaten it, though?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V on March 07, 2014, 07:04:12 PM
Have you beaten it, though?

100% and have the platinum trophy on PSN. :D
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 08, 2014, 05:44:32 PM
I might get Dark Souls II because it advertises real PC controls. Glorious.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Снупс on March 09, 2014, 10:31:56 PM
http://darksoulsdeaths.com/

If you have the PC version, find out how many times you've died. I'm excited to see people's statistics, particularly Blanko's. :P
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 09, 2014, 10:40:53 PM
Total deaths: 12    
Total deaths: 174    
Total deaths: 32    
Total deaths: 11    
Total deaths: 24    
Total deaths: 4    
Total deaths: 33    
Total deaths: 25    
Total deaths: 54    
Total deaths: 23

I guess it doesn't count PvP deaths
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 09, 2014, 11:14:11 PM
Why is it that this is such an easy yet disturbing way to explain the story of Dark Souls?

"Long ago, during the Age of Ancients, the Dragons ruled a boring, one dimensional setting. The Dragon version of Tolkien was said to have once put to pen the idea of a tree that was sort of a brownish gray, instead of just gray. He was immediately executed for his dangerous, heretical ideas. It would take the four Lord Souls - weird spirit things that some naked zombies found in a fire - to put an end to this era of stupidity. The Souls transformed these naked, on-fire zombies into naked, on-fire humans that would quickly learn just how on-fire they truly were.

The Furtive Pygmy was the least popular of all the four Lords. He was slammed against many lockers, and was totally turned down by the Witch of Izalith when he asked her to prom. But the Pygmy understood how to play the long con, and set a dark plan in motion: to have sex with countless numbers of zombies. Like, thousands of them. No butterface was too stank for the Furtive Dick, in those days. From this long period of weird, secret corpse fucking, there arose all of humanity.

All humans today are descendents of a single corpse fucker. The gods - descendents of the other three Lords - were totally freaked out by this. From their big ass ancient city, they would rule over this sea of incestuous corpse fucking murder-happy pedophile weirdos, who also were all midgets. This would later be known as the glorious Age of Fire. Eventually, the gods would leave the capital of this age of horrifying sexual frenzy. Human historians would be totally confused as to why.

And so was set, the stage for the possible beginning of a new, Dark Age. Where supposedly it'll still be corpse fucking, but without light? I guess? Set forth, noble sex weirdo, to claim your birthright and fulfill the dark wishes of the Furtive Pygmy. It'll be rad. Probably."
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on March 10, 2014, 12:51:20 AM
I'm pretty sure that stretches things and is wrong in a few places.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Снупс on March 11, 2014, 08:14:27 AM
http://kotaku.com/dark-souls-ii-the-kotaku-review-1540752877

This is such a vague review. It'd be nice if he took a little more time to write more than a one-page summary of it and go more in-depth. :[ Though, by the sounds of it, I should definitely be familiar with the first before trying to play that one.

Apparently it's gotten better reviews than the first game, though, so I'm glad to hear that.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 11, 2014, 08:48:50 AM
w0w kotaku writing something that isn't great who would have thought
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 11, 2014, 08:49:54 AM
Wait, people still give a shit about Kotaku?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on March 11, 2014, 09:49:56 AM
I don't even know what kotaku is.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Снупс on March 11, 2014, 04:23:39 PM
Why not? It's pretty good about keeping me really up to date about games, announcements, trailers, gaming stuff and other miscellaneous things I'm interested in.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 11, 2014, 04:24:35 PM
Snupes is a social justice warrior.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Снупс on March 11, 2014, 04:29:08 PM
that's tumblr
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 11, 2014, 04:31:53 PM
Kotaku is tumblr for video games
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 11, 2014, 06:30:13 PM
I use the Steam store home screen for my gaming news. It is probably easier on your wallet to use Kotaku, so that's a point for them.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 11, 2014, 06:38:57 PM
Kotaku is tumblr for video games
sig'd for truth
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: fappenhosen on March 11, 2014, 07:22:32 PM
I lolled.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 11, 2014, 07:32:50 PM
15:21   Blanko   Saddam: video games
15:21   Saddam   Yes, video games
15:22   Saddam   Like Dark Souls 2
15:22   Blanko   Did you get it
15:22   Saddam   No, I decided I'm not going to bother with it after all
15:22   Saddam   Of course I got it
15:22   Blanko   Maybe you were going to be too busy with Fallout 2
15:23   Saddam   No, Dark Souls is always a priority
15:23   Saddam   Over everything
15:23   Blanko   Then why haven't you completed the DLC yet
15:24   Saddam   Because it's tough to play as a magic guy
15:24   Blanko   >mfw
15:24   Saddam   Everyone says it's so much easier than melee but I don't get it!
15:25   Saddam   Anyway, I'll get back to that later
15:25   Saddam   For now, it's DS2
15:25   Saddam   Which is gud
15:25   Saddam   Well, at least from what I saw of it
15:25   Blanko   >mfw
15:26   Saddam   As you know, I'm incredibly slow, so don't expect too many updates
15:26   Blanko   Why would I want updates
15:27   Blanko   I haven't even gotten to play it myself
15:27   Saddam   Because you are a fanboy
15:27   Saddam   You played the beta tho
15:27   Blanko   i.e. not the actual finished game
15:28   Saddam   From what I've seen of it, it was pretty close
15:28   Blanko   Well, yes
15:28   Blanko   I've confirmed that it is still Dark Souls
15:28   Saddam   The new attributes are good
15:28   Crudblud   Generic Grimdark Souls
15:29   Saddam   Crudblud is a terrible gamer who doesn't have the skill to handle anything beyond point-and-click games
15:29   Saddam   There, I said it
15:29   Saddam   You have no skillz
15:29   Crudblud   I have grill skills
15:29   Blanko   r u a grill
15:30   Saddam   I am a stove
15:30   Blanko   what up stove
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V on March 11, 2014, 07:43:26 PM
I played Dark Souls quite a bit, have over 200 hours on the Ps3 version and the platinum trophy, but I have no interest in Dark Souls II. Maybe because I feel like nothing can top Dark Souls, so why bother?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 11, 2014, 07:44:29 PM
Does it really need to "top" the original to be worth playing?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V on March 11, 2014, 07:46:01 PM
Does it really need to "top" the original to be worth playing?

Not really, but Dark Souls is also a huge time investment, and I'm guessing Dark Souls II is the same way. I am playing too many games right now as it is.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 11, 2014, 07:53:35 PM
I feel like nothing can top Dark Souls

>mfw
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 11, 2014, 10:40:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V on March 11, 2014, 10:43:07 PM
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 actually surprisingly fun, at least the first one is. The combat is amazing and makes the game for me. If you evade properly and parry effectively you can beat the game without getting hit, in theory. That's awesome. It makes the game more about skill than it does about grinding or leveling up (although, that helps). I can see how the combat could appear sluggish or something if you're watching a video, though.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on March 12, 2014, 12:22:10 AM
Snupes is a social justice warrior.

Quiet, cishet shitlord.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Снупс on March 12, 2014, 03:08:16 AM
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:
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 12, 2014, 03:12:57 AM
But tumblr doesn't keep you informed on the latest games, trailers, announcements and other miscellania like Kotaku D:

Well, that really depends on what your idea of "informed" is.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Снупс on March 12, 2014, 03:38:36 AM
I'm not trying to argue that Kotaku's writing is good, but I'd be hard-pressed to deny that it's kept me pretty damn up-to-date with gaming and gaming news, as well as some other things on the side.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 12, 2014, 04:50:09 AM
Kotaku is actually infamous for picking up on news stories particularly slowly, which is why we have pictures like this:

(http://i.imgur.com/yUxSnh4.jpg)
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Снупс on March 12, 2014, 05:18:02 AM
Like what? It hasn't really afforded me any moments where I tell someone something I've heard from it and it's old news or something. However, if there are other sites that cover the same range of topics better feel free to recommend them rather than being completely unhelpful. I visit Polygon, too, and I don't know if that's just as bad but they tend to have the same stories as Kotaku in the same time-frame or slower, while being better writing-wise.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on March 12, 2014, 05:51:16 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 13, 2014, 07:37:18 PM
I really don't like this new thing where your max health keeps going down every time you die, and there's only a limited number of effigies you can use to reverse the effect.  And only one fucking dose of Estus, seriously?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 13, 2014, 07:44:47 PM
What's this, is the game too hard for you?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 13, 2014, 09:35:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 14, 2014, 03:44:59 AM
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.

Well, most of you lemmings bought their last game simply because it was hard to play, or at least they think that's why you bought it. What do you do then? Make the game harder!
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 14, 2014, 05:10:30 AM
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?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on March 14, 2014, 05:44:00 AM
How to be good at Dark Souls.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 14, 2014, 08:37:59 AM
vidya game design
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on March 14, 2014, 09:01:04 AM
How to not die and be forced to replay the same parts over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again until you get lucky enough to reach a bonfire.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 14, 2014, 12:49:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 14, 2014, 12:59:08 PM
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.

Oh, you've completed and found everything out about the game already? That was fast.

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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 14, 2014, 02:46:12 PM
I has my copy now. Wanna race to beat the game, Saddam?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Снупс on March 14, 2014, 03:04:37 PM
From what I've seen, the game is a lot less pretty than its original reveal
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 14, 2014, 03:08:50 PM
From what I've seen, the game is a lot less pretty than its original reveal

Yeah, the lighting in particular took a serious downgrade. Hopefully they'll retain the superior effects in the PC version.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 14, 2014, 03:41:47 PM
>have to get through a million updates just to play a game

Oh lord should I maybe use my consoles more often
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 14, 2014, 04:47:38 PM
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.

There are bonfire ascetics that you can use to reset the respawn counters in an area, as well as making the enemies more difficult, yes.  It's clear that those items are very rare and probably finite, though.  As for the effigies, I'm going by what the developers have said.  A few people on the Internet are saying that they've found them being dropped like any other consumable, but it's possible they're just being dumb and mistaking a reward for beating a special enemy as a regular drop.

Anyway, what class are you playing as?  I'm a knight.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 14, 2014, 06:25:41 PM
I'm a swordsman. I'm still going through Forest of the Fallen Giants after like three hours, it's so huge and sprawly. I love it.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V on March 14, 2014, 06:31:13 PM
From what I've seen, the game is a lot less pretty than its original reveal

Video game devs/publishers have been doing this a lot lately. They "reveal" the game, and it looks spectacular, almost like nothing you've ever seen before, then a month before release they show you some footage from the final version which looks like shit compared to the original reveal.
One perfect example of this is the game Watchdogs, if you look up footage from E3 last year then compare it to recent footage... the difference is undeniable. It's misrepresentation at it's finest and I'm not sure how they're getting away with it. I don't play games for graphics, so I don't really care, but it's still a sneaky business practice.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: jroa on March 14, 2014, 11:21:06 PM
What is this?  I have never...
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V on March 15, 2014, 12:22:40 AM
Found this thread on Neogaf about the Dark Souls 2 downgrade. Has some screenshot comparisons.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=781625

One user cleverly calls it "Light Souls"
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 15, 2014, 01:54:25 AM
"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?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: fappenhosen on March 15, 2014, 02:07:51 AM
^ assuming you upgrade your PC every year.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 15, 2014, 02:47:23 AM
"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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 15, 2014, 03:39:38 AM
^ assuming you upgrade your PC every year.

If you bought a $600 computer since 2010, congratulations, you can play at a higher graphics setting and resolution than any console ever released.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V on March 15, 2014, 08:16:36 AM
"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?

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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on March 15, 2014, 01:01:33 PM
^ assuming you upgrade your PC every year.

Haven't upgraded in 1.5 years and still going strong. The card isn't anything amazing either.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 15, 2014, 01:08:03 PM
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!
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 15, 2014, 02:07:46 PM
Play Dark Souls 2
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 15, 2014, 02:40:54 PM
So almost immediately after defeating the Last Giant, I've got to face off against this Pursuer guy.  Boo!
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 15, 2014, 02:45:03 PM
I got rekt by The Pursuer so I went to Heide's Tower of Flame and made some nice progress there instead. Dragonrider was a fun fight, even if it was a little on the easy side.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 15, 2014, 02:45:43 PM
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!

Please only contribute to the discussion at hand. No one cares about your Dark Soul twitter feed.

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."
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Снупс on March 15, 2014, 03:48:38 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=filH-2IOze8

Truly an expert review and commentary.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 15, 2014, 04:04:19 PM
That video makes the graphics look hideously bad.  I don't know if it's a YouTube thing or what to dull down the graphics, but it looks much better on my TV.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 15, 2014, 04:18:47 PM
OH GOD ORNSTEIN WHY ARE YOU IN THIS GAME
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 15, 2014, 05:50:47 PM
Yet another game being released for PC after the console release. I guess they want to make sure the glorious PC gamers don't hurt the fragile morale of console peasants.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V on March 15, 2014, 05:58:28 PM
Have to keep those PC gamers in check.

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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 16, 2014, 03:53:54 AM
Probably, but people should see it for what it is: bait and switch.

Even if they do see, they'll still buy the game. Gamers are the first to complain and the last to do anything about it. I can't say anything of course, I've bought games that I hated on before, during and after playing (see: Simcity 2013). In the end companies only change what they do if it significantly damages their bottom line and it never does.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 16, 2014, 04:28:26 PM
How are you equipped, bro?  I've got the full falconer set +2, a longsword +3, and a large leather shield.  The shield seems kind of wimpy, but if there's a better one, I haven't found it yet.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 16, 2014, 04:53:13 PM
I'm wearing the wanderer set (unupgraded because lol defense), a long sword +4 in the right hand and an estoc +4 in the left hand. That combo has such great synergy.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 16, 2014, 05:53:54 PM
Defense is important.  You're not going to be able to dodge every blow.

Also, why is there no "Well! What is it!" gesture?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 16, 2014, 05:56:00 PM
Defense is important.  You're not going to be able to dodge every blow.

Oh, then why am I doing better than you?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 16, 2014, 06:02:10 PM
Irrelevant.  You would be doing better than you are now if you improved your defense.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 16, 2014, 06:25:00 PM
Unlikely. If I upgraded my defense, that would either mean I spent my precious titanite on upgrading my armour instead of my weapons, or I equipped heavier armour and thus lost agility.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 16, 2014, 06:55:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 16, 2014, 06:56:15 PM
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.

Yeah, speedruns are a great indicator of how well a game is designed.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on March 16, 2014, 06:57:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 16, 2014, 07:02:43 PM
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.

Wow. Wouldn't that sword pretty much two-shot the gargoyles?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on March 16, 2014, 07:08:45 PM
If I could get close enough, maybe.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 16, 2014, 07:15:44 PM
The invader was a divine messenger, bearing a gift for beardo from the gods of gaming, who in their infinite mercy had taken pity on him.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 16, 2014, 07:20:55 PM
the gods of casuals
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on March 16, 2014, 07:22:25 PM
Just a couple of minutes later, I was invaded by someone else, but I was able to vanquish him with my new sword. I wonder what that felt like.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy 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
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 29, 2014, 10:40:32 PM
All four primal bonfires lit, lvl 156.  Nobody can even touch me.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko 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?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Снупс 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
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko 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?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 29, 2014, 11:19:48 PM
heheheheh

watch this everyone

SotC is bad

heheheheh
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Снупс 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on March 29, 2014, 11:45:52 PM
SO WHAT DID YOU GUYS THINK OF YAHTZEE'S DS2 REVIEW? Besides Saddam.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Снупс 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy 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.

Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on March 30, 2014, 12:03:55 AM
Bitches, stop.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 30, 2014, 12:09:50 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.

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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V on March 30, 2014, 12:11:19 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.

You do realize you haven't played Dark Souls. Right?  ??? ???
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 30, 2014, 01:59:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 30, 2014, 02:00:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 30, 2014, 02:07:00 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 30, 2014, 02:10:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 30, 2014, 02:29:08 AM
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?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 30, 2014, 02:35:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 30, 2014, 04:23:44 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on March 30, 2014, 04:32:48 AM
This is ruining the thread.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 30, 2014, 05:57:46 AM
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"
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V on March 30, 2014, 06:09:17 AM
It is a lot more fun this way.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on March 30, 2014, 07:18:10 AM
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'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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 30, 2014, 10:55:41 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 30, 2014, 02:32:41 PM
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.

Thanks to Blanko, the destroyer of threads, you mean.

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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 30, 2014, 02:49:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 30, 2014, 04:32:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 30, 2014, 04:35:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 30, 2014, 04:47:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 30, 2014, 05:01:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 30, 2014, 05:05:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 30, 2014, 05:10:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 30, 2014, 05:20:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 30, 2014, 05:22:46 PM
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.

SotC isn't poorly designed because it's simple, it's poorly designed because its simple mechanics aren't good.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 30, 2014, 05:58:14 PM
But of course, you wouldn't know that.
Why wouldn't he?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 30, 2014, 06:01:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 30, 2014, 06:16:16 PM
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.

I'm pretty sure they didn't want it to be a poorly designed game.

Quote
But of course, you wouldn't know that.

A poor attempt to avoid the point. Reply again or assume defeat.

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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 30, 2014, 06:36:19 PM
I'm pretty sure they didn't want it to be a poorly designed game.

Correct.

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.

We've already been over this. You admitted Dark Souls is just dodging/swiping.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 30, 2014, 06:42:22 PM
Correct.

Well, then the game isn't exactly how they wanted it to be.



Quote
We've already been over this. You admitted Dark Souls is just dodging/swiping.

No I didn't.

Just like how to an outside observer [...] Dark Souls is, er, I guess rolling and swiping.

I'm not an outside observer, you are.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 30, 2014, 07:00:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 30, 2014, 07:18:43 PM
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.

It's funny because I was talking about SotC and you're talking about Dark Souls, he he he

Quote
No I didn't.

You said earlier that dodging and swiping is a generalization of Dark Souls, are you taking that back?

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.

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 30, 2014, 07:25:42 PM
Why is this thread?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 30, 2014, 07:35:00 PM
Why is this thread?

Because nobody is actually playing either of the two Dark Souls games other than me and Saddam so I guess I might as well feed Rushy
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 30, 2014, 07:46:31 PM
Because nobody is actually playing either of the two Dark Souls games other than me and Saddam
ehehehehe is it because drak solls is such a terrible gaem?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 30, 2014, 07:48:40 PM
Because nobody is actually playing either of the two Dark Souls games other than me and Saddam
ehehehehe is it because drak solls is such a terrible gaem?

No, everyone else is a filthy casual and massive pleb
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 30, 2014, 08:41:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 30, 2014, 08:52:31 PM
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.

Or maybe you do, since I've already addressed this.

Quote
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.

Incorrect, but of course you wouldn't know that.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
No, everyone else is a filthy casual and massive pleb

Dark Souls is targeted towards casual gamers.

Irrelevant.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on March 30, 2014, 09:09:32 PM
bitches, pleeeeeease
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 30, 2014, 09:11:35 PM
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.

bitches, pleeeeeease
Disregard Beardo, acquire Blanko tears.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 30, 2014, 09:25:51 PM
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.

Yes, you keep saying that, while I've already addressed this.

Quote
Incorrect, but of course you wouldn't know that.

You know what really is hilarious, I, ah well I won't spoil it.

...

ok

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
Irrelevant.

Filthy casual.

I'm just a casual, not a filthy one.

Quote
Disregard Beardo, acquire Blanko tears.

Yes, of course, I forgot you're only doing this to "rustle jimmies". Perhaps another move is in order?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Particle Person on March 30, 2014, 11:36:58 PM
le master troller
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on March 31, 2014, 12:20:54 AM
I resent being called a filthy casual. Just because I don't play the game doesn't mean I'm not an expert on how it works.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 31, 2014, 12:52:35 AM
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.

I'm just a casual, not a filthy one.

I was going to say something along the lines of dirty or things like that and I didn't like the phrasing and euphemistic sounding of it.

Yes, of course, I forgot you're only doing this to "rustle jimmies". Perhaps another move is in order?

I'm not doing this to rustle jimmies, but if I rustle a few jimmies along the way, no big deal.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 31, 2014, 01:06:49 AM
This thread is relevant:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60154.0

I especially liked PP's comment:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Particle Person on March 31, 2014, 01:23:12 AM
PP was wise. Applies even more so today. Worst thread 2014
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 31, 2014, 02:35:28 AM
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60154.0

Aww, look, I have fans!
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 31, 2014, 04:28:20 AM
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'm not dodging anything. I'm telling you, I've already addressed your point, yet your reading comprehension continues to repeatedly fail you.

Quote
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.

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:

Those game mechanics are poorly implemented, in such a way that they are wholly unnecessary.

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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on March 31, 2014, 05:26:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 31, 2014, 05:55:17 AM
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.


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.


Quote
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.

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".
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on March 31, 2014, 04:20:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V on March 31, 2014, 04:39:40 PM
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.

I only leveled sneak and archery. I didn't put points in anything else. I was sneak shooting people with the bow for massive damage and blew through the game. Bad game design? Absolutely. Am I pissed because the developers gave me a lot of options? Absolutely.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on March 31, 2014, 04:52:26 PM
To be fair, Skyrim is pretty bad
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V on March 31, 2014, 05:12:40 PM
To be fair, Skyrim is pretty bad

I wouldn't say it's a terrible game, but it does have its flaws.... especially on the PS3.  :'(
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on March 31, 2014, 05:20:56 PM
There are no great games.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on March 31, 2014, 11:16:06 PM
So Rushy has finally given up.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Particle Person on March 31, 2014, 11:44:00 PM
Not before wrangling some serious jammies, though.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 01, 2014, 01:25:49 AM
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.

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.

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".

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.

So Rushy has finally given up.

Believe it or not, I'm not on the forum 24/7.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on April 01, 2014, 03:26:16 AM
Believe it or not, I'm not on the forum 24/7.

Bugger.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 01, 2014, 04:04:51 AM
To be fair, Skyrim is pretty bad
no m8 its gr8
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy 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."
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko 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.  ::)
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on April 01, 2014, 07:09:35 PM
I believe this has gone on long enough.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior 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).
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior 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
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V 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?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior 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 :^)
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on April 01, 2014, 09:32:31 PM
It's almost like this whole argument is complete trash or something.
But it is.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: fappenhosen 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rama Set on April 01, 2014, 10:54:17 PM
This is the best thread of 2013.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: fappenhosen on April 01, 2014, 10:54:46 PM
And 2014
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 02, 2014, 01:40:53 AM
Please don't reply to him.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Снупс 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! !
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rama Set 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...
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V 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?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Снупс 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
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko 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?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on April 03, 2014, 04:08:38 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.

There's the Rushy I know. :^)

Quote
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.

oh
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
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.

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?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on April 03, 2014, 04:25:04 PM
anyone can beat every boss in Dark Souls using a dagger and dodging
I can't.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 03, 2014, 04:32:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on April 03, 2014, 04:41:43 PM
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!
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 03, 2014, 04:48:15 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/nixopax/yesitisnoitisnt.gif)
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 03, 2014, 04:48:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on April 03, 2014, 04:52:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 03, 2014, 04:59:41 PM
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).
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on April 03, 2014, 05:07:09 PM
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?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 03, 2014, 05:16:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on April 03, 2014, 05:19:30 PM
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.

Trying different things at random until you find something that works.

Quote
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.

Likewise. :^)
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 03, 2014, 05:23:38 PM
Trying different things at random until you find something that works.

You would lose against your opponent every time. Whereas in Dark Souls, you would win eventually. A badly designed game compared to well designed game always loses.

Likewise. :^)

You're just stalling then? How sad.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on April 03, 2014, 05:26:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 03, 2014, 05:29:57 PM
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.

Since no game is literally impossible to beat, this applies to every game.

Alright, then. Since it applies to every game, I want to see a video of a person beating all campaign missions in StarCraft using the same strategy over and over again. I will afterward provide a video of someone running Dark Souls beating every enemy in the game by using only dodging and attacking.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on April 03, 2014, 05:38:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 03, 2014, 05:44:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on April 03, 2014, 05:56:26 PM
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.  ::)
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rama Set on April 03, 2014, 06:44:07 PM
This is why fist fights are better.  They are equally as senseless but done way sooner.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on April 03, 2014, 06:55:10 PM
Here's an idea. Take this shit to PM, bitches.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 03, 2014, 07:50:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on April 03, 2014, 07:57:36 PM
Rushing with SCV's works every time.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 03, 2014, 07:59:32 PM
Rushing with SCV's works every time.

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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on April 04, 2014, 04:08:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 04, 2014, 04:23:35 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on April 04, 2014, 04:26:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 04, 2014, 04:31:05 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on April 04, 2014, 04:36:42 AM
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.

You didn't answer my question.

Quote
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?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 04, 2014, 04:41:11 AM
You didn't answer my question.

I see you also ignored my 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?

There is no "winning game."
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on April 04, 2014, 04:41:57 AM
You can't win games in Starcraft. Okay.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 04, 2014, 04:45:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on April 04, 2014, 04:55:02 AM
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?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 04, 2014, 05:01:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on April 04, 2014, 05:10:47 AM
What about rushing with anything else? Would that not win any games?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 04, 2014, 05:17:25 AM
What about rushing with anything else? Would that not win any games?

That would depend on who I'm playing. I change strategies based on my opponent in Starcraft. I don't need to do that in Dark Souls. Dodge/stab beats everything, including other players, unless they can dodge/stab better than I can. Then its just a game of twitch fighting. Quite droll.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on April 04, 2014, 05:20:57 AM
It's okay, we have infinite attempts, remember? So let's take a zerg rush for instance, would that not ever win a game?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on April 04, 2014, 05:29:48 AM
If you get six Zerglings up in less than a minute and you know where your opponent is by scouting with an Overlord, and if your opponent sucks at micro'ing every match, yes you'd win. Might even win against the A.I. most of the time.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on April 04, 2014, 05:32:59 AM
Well, that's convenient. I guess we don't even need to randomise anything to win matches.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on April 04, 2014, 05:34:51 AM
This is of course if the map is small enough for the Zerglings to reach the enemy base and kill all the workers fast enough. Would be harder to pull off on a large map with several starting locations unless they're right fucking next to you.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on April 04, 2014, 05:37:38 AM
It's fine, we have infinite attempts. Though it doesn't sound like we'd need that many.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on April 04, 2014, 05:38:27 AM
Of course, if you're Rushy, you'd probably just rush with Drones.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 04, 2014, 05:39:32 AM
It's okay, we have infinite attempts, remember? So let's take a zerg rush for instance, would that not ever win a game?

That depends on your opponent.

Well, that's convenient. I guess we don't even need to randomise anything to win matches.

Which is exactly what the argument was about. I'm glad you realize that your "hurr durr I can pick a strategy at random" argument is erroneous.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on April 04, 2014, 05:42:11 AM
Yes, now we're back to a real equivalent, where we can just use the same strategy to eventually win. Very convenient indeed.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 04, 2014, 05:42:53 AM
Yes, now we're back to a real equivalent, where we can just use the same strategy to eventually win. Very convenient indeed.

Please proceed to use that strategy to win all Starcraft games. I really would like to see it.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on April 04, 2014, 05:44:40 AM
That's irrelevant, like it is in your argument about Dark Souls. We can try again if we fail, like trial and error dictates.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on April 04, 2014, 05:46:10 AM
Well, it can't be done in the campaigns, no. But in VS matches, it's not that hard.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 04, 2014, 05:47:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on April 04, 2014, 05:49:30 AM
The C-14 rifle is a Marine's best friend.

Also, stimpacks.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on April 04, 2014, 05:51:56 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 04, 2014, 05:54:03 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on April 04, 2014, 05:57:29 AM
I am not very good.
I thought you learned form a korean master.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on April 04, 2014, 05:59:21 AM
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.

Good, so we agree that you can beat Starcraft by picking different methods at random? I'm glad that's settled.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 04, 2014, 06:01:19 AM
I thought you learned form a korean master.

I never said what he was a master of, I don't even think he was an actual korean. I think it is illegal for them to teach their ways to the white people.

Good, so we agree that you can beat Starcraft by picking different methods at random? I'm glad that's settled.

Uhh, no. Remember when I asked you to provide evidence that was possible? You didn't (because it isn't). Feel free to take that offer up any time. The only thing you determined was that picking a zerg rush when it is a good time to pick it wins. In other words, you win if your intelligently choose a strategy. Your random trial and error attempts will always result in a loss.

Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Particle Person on April 04, 2014, 06:29:12 AM
Well, it can't be done in the campaigns, no. But in VS matches, it's not that hard.

Are you talking about Brood War, or Starcraft II? Because a zergling rush is going to be a mild irritant to anybody who's Silver or better.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on April 04, 2014, 06:41:34 AM
I generally talk Brood War when I discuss multiplayer.
I don't have enough Starcraft II multiplayer experience to talk about that.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V on April 04, 2014, 05:47:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 05, 2014, 01:20:19 AM
I finally beat the Smelter Demon, with the help of a sunbro I summoned.  Blanko will know what I'm talking about.

@Vauxy/Ghost of V: Get the sequel.  You'll like it.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V on April 05, 2014, 08:07:45 PM
@Vauxy/Ghost of V: Get the sequel.  You'll like it.

Nope, already watched a speedrun and I hate it.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 05, 2014, 08:49:03 PM
@Vauxy/Ghost of V: Get the sequel.  You'll like it.

Nope, already watched a speedrun and I hate it.

It's hard to ignore the terrible design in all of the videos.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 05, 2014, 10:10:40 PM
Fuck off, Rushy.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rama Set on April 05, 2014, 11:23:50 PM
Saddam, ignore him.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 05, 2014, 11:56:33 PM
Fuck off, Rushy.

(http://i.imgur.com/vt7yc1x.jpg)
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on April 06, 2014, 02:40:24 AM
Hahaha, that's exactly what I thought as well.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Снупс on April 06, 2014, 03:17:39 AM
Ha ha ha this thread = hilarious!!!!
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on April 06, 2014, 10:42:21 AM
Hey guys, here's a funny .gif stolen from Reddit:

(http://giant.gfycat.com/OptimalEvilBarasinga.gif)
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 06, 2014, 06:26:26 PM
Video games
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 06, 2014, 11:09:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on April 06, 2014, 11:52:01 PM
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.

Do it. You can help me kill bosses with your keen understanding of the strategy.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 07, 2014, 12:29:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 07, 2014, 02:02:43 AM
I'd watch that almost as much as Dave's tutorial to holding things in your hands.

I would ask if you're serious, but maybe I don't want to know.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on April 07, 2014, 05:06:41 PM
>pizaaplanet
>serious
Are you serious?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 07, 2014, 06:45:53 PM
>pizaaplanet
>serious
Are you serious?

I treat all posters and their words equally. It requires much less thought on my end.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vongeo on April 08, 2014, 05:42:11 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

Blighttown is the worst place to be in any RPG.
Blighttown is my favorite place in the world.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 12, 2014, 04:32:27 PM
I beat the game!  Yay!
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rama Set on April 12, 2014, 05:10:52 PM
I beat the game!  Yay!

Like that is hard.  Dodge/Stab/Dodge/Stab mirite?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vongeo on April 12, 2014, 06:21:14 PM
I beat the game!  Yay!

Like that is hard.  Doge/Stab/Doge/Stab mirite?
Get outta here with your internet memes.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rama Set on April 12, 2014, 06:23:02 PM
I beat the game!  Yay!

Like that is hard.  Doge/Stab/Doge/Stab mirite?
Get outta here with your internet memes.


I've been memeing to do that.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on April 24, 2014, 08:55:29 PM
omg it comes out tomorrow guise! It's the 25th here but I think I have to wait.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on April 24, 2014, 08:57:22 PM
Who gives a shit?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on April 24, 2014, 08:58:57 PM
I do :(
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on April 24, 2014, 08:59:14 PM
Who gives a shit?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on April 24, 2014, 08:59:53 PM
I do :(
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rama Set on April 24, 2014, 11:03:28 PM
I watched some of a speed run of Dark Souls today, which was my first introduction to it. Looks pretty cool. It sounds like there a few different development paths which are cool.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on April 25, 2014, 04:22:02 AM
Please stop watching speedruns as introductions to games
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on April 25, 2014, 04:29:47 AM
I liked that they added a tutorial section. The game also runs great on PC, I can actually play it without using a controller. Also appreciate the hints warning me of a giant hole.. right in front of a giant hole. Heaps of people dying to easy stuff as well.

Smacked the first hippo thing and saved at the second bonfire. I guess I'll go forest of fallen giants next since they only other way I could find had a scary looking miniboss holding a corpse.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V on April 25, 2014, 05:10:03 AM
I'd love to try Dark Souls on the PC...
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rama Set on April 25, 2014, 10:31:52 AM
Please stop watching speedruns as introductions to games

I am not Rushy. I fully realize doped runs are terrible depictions of true gameplay.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on April 26, 2014, 03:00:41 AM
Fuck Ornstein.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vongeo on April 26, 2014, 03:29:36 AM
I'd love to try Dark Souls on the PC...
too bad its over 5 dollars
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 26, 2014, 04:12:35 AM
Please stop watching speedruns as introductions to games

Speed runs are the optimum way to view how a game works. Not only that, but as implied by the name, they are the fastest way to garner such information as well.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on April 26, 2014, 04:13:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 26, 2014, 04:51:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Снупс on April 26, 2014, 05:03:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on April 26, 2014, 05:05:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rama Set on April 26, 2014, 05:07:35 AM
Cue the pedantic portion of the evenings festivities.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 26, 2014, 05:11:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on April 26, 2014, 05:36:07 AM
Suddenly all of your whinging makes even less sense. Are you seriously saying that the encouragement to avoid damage is bad game design?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on April 26, 2014, 05:38:10 AM
Any game that doesn't have SCV's that you can rush with is badly designed.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 26, 2014, 05:43:46 AM
Suddenly all of your whinging makes even less sense. Are you seriously saying that the encouragement to avoid damage is bad game design?

No, that's never been what I have been saying. You should read the argument again before you go about trying to put words in my mouth.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on April 26, 2014, 05:51:47 AM
I only remember "you can dodge everything therefore bad game".
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Снупс on April 26, 2014, 06:06:06 AM
Please stop feeding him. It was vaguely amusing at first, but it's just annoying now.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on April 26, 2014, 06:13:45 AM
Please stop feeding him. It was vaguely amusing at first, but it's just annoying now.

Hey, I was the first to say this. I can be a hypocrite now if I want.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V on April 26, 2014, 08:43:51 AM
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.

You can beat Pokemon by bashing one button over and over again...

.. not that I'm defending Arkham City, because those are some of the worst games I have ever played in my entire life, barring obvious others like Superman 64, Big Rigs, or ET.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on April 26, 2014, 08:52:38 AM
Have you played Big Rig and ET?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V on April 26, 2014, 09:00:55 AM
Have you played Big Rig and ET?

Yes and yes. Both pirated.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on April 26, 2014, 09:43:36 AM
Man, they really did step it up for the port. Framerate is a constant 60fps on max settings, and loading times are something like 90% faster. 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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V on April 26, 2014, 09:46:53 AM
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.

It usually is when you're playing on a high end PC.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on April 26, 2014, 09:48:01 AM
My PC is not high end.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on April 26, 2014, 09:52:55 AM
Yep, even my laptop runs the game nicely on the processor graphics, which isn't surprising as the game isn't exactly Crysis. They've picked up their game this time, the PC version is bloody great and I'm enjoying it a lot.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rama Set on April 26, 2014, 12:24:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 26, 2014, 04:33:33 PM
I only remember "you can dodge everything therefore bad game".

That's a pretty terrible memory. That, or poor reading comprehension.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V on April 26, 2014, 04:48:37 PM
My PC is not high end.

It probably is compared to my PS3.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on April 26, 2014, 06:00:06 PM
I only remember "you can dodge everything therefore bad game".

That's a pretty terrible memory. That, or poor reading comprehension.

Probably both.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on April 27, 2014, 01:47:51 AM
Probably both.

You're supposed to get mad, dammit!
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V on April 27, 2014, 02:45:07 AM
I'm fucking pissed.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on April 27, 2014, 03:25:39 AM
The only thing making me mad right now is the lack of bonfires in no man's wharf.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on April 30, 2014, 09:41:51 PM
The Pursuer is kicking my ass because I'm a slow knight and I can't parry for shit.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Снупс on May 01, 2014, 02:22:27 AM
That's your fault for not playing a dodge build.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V on May 01, 2014, 03:10:15 AM
That's your fault for not playing a dodge build.

Exactly right. You need to put more points in dodge and rolls.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 01, 2014, 06:29:52 AM
I'm just gonna wear lighter armour and learn to parry. And pray.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 04, 2014, 06:16:33 AM
You guys have a special strategy for the 3 sentinels? I solo one but the other two are a problem. I could probably get it in a few more tries but taking 2 at once seems inefficient.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 04, 2014, 12:09:17 PM
Get gud.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on May 04, 2014, 12:55:49 PM
Dodge and stab.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on May 04, 2014, 04:24:54 PM
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!
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on May 04, 2014, 04:28:55 PM
I play Knight too, and yes, I suck at parry, and yes, dodging is too slow. Tanking should be a viable option to dodge, but apparently it's not. Why is there a tank class in a game in which tanking doesn't work?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on May 04, 2014, 04:31:11 PM
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!

Dude, I think he's past it already.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 04, 2014, 08:11:09 PM
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!

Well I could have blocked my way to victory using a big shield, but that's boring. He was a pain in the ass because he had a decent health pool, hit hard and had an annoying move set, so I could scratch away at him but one mistake and you're fucked. Dodging doesn't necessarily work well against him either, unless you have a good amount of immunity frames in your roll or you memorise his move set beyond what is required for most early bosses.

There's also the ballistas, and I tried using them but he always moved too fast for me to set it up properly.

In the end I just summoned someone with a lightning range attack and cheesed it. Only boss so far that I haven't enjoyed at all.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on May 04, 2014, 08:14:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 04, 2014, 08:26:27 PM
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.

Yeah. Problem was I suck at parrying.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 04, 2014, 08:36:48 PM
No dodging or stabbing required.
omg worst game design ever
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 05, 2014, 02:38:00 AM
I guess I'm up to the Lost Sinner now. I'm afraid to fight her.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on May 05, 2014, 03:55:42 AM
her

omg have you been reading le reddits?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 05, 2014, 03:58:10 AM
her

omg have you been reading le reddits?

Yeah. I've read some threads where people refer to the boss as a her. I think she's behind the mist at the end of that water filled hallway.. but I don't know yet.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Particle Person on May 05, 2014, 11:21:21 PM
The Lost Sinner is not difficult.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Снупс on May 05, 2014, 11:43:43 PM
The Soft Linen
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 06, 2014, 08:31:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V on May 06, 2014, 08:39:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on May 06, 2014, 08:48:29 AM
Is it possible to just run past them and get to the clock tower?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 06, 2014, 11:02:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on May 06, 2014, 11:47:55 AM
I think you can summon the sun guy
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 06, 2014, 12:18:54 PM
This is Dark Souls 2.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on May 06, 2014, 01:22:08 PM
motherfuckers
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 07, 2014, 01:00:16 AM
Finally summoned someone and smacked the gargoyles. Lost Sinner was easier than I thought as well, she moves a lot but isn't hard to learn. Currently wading through Hunstman's Copse.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 08, 2014, 12:42:51 AM
Chariot boss is broken. Sometimes still get hit by the chariot in the side alcoves.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on May 08, 2014, 05:47:24 AM
you need to dodge and stab
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 08, 2014, 07:54:01 AM
It's funny because you can't dodge your way to victory with this boss. A good shield helps a lot and dodge isn't all that useful against the horse.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vongeo on May 10, 2014, 05:32:50 AM
The PC controls are ass backwards
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on May 10, 2014, 10:19:02 AM
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.

+2? On gargoyles? Dude, upgrade that shit.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 10, 2014, 10:34:18 PM
I use my +6 greatsword most of the time. It was just too slow for gargoyles though.

Also I had no shards until I bought out that vendor in the poison zone. Now I have heaps.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vongeo on May 11, 2014, 01:29:54 AM
The PC controls are ass backwards
nvm I learned how to play
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on May 12, 2014, 06:37:27 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/i4UtVL1.png)
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 14, 2014, 04:31:51 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8x9JtrDS_o

Some people are damn good at this game..
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: fappenhosen on May 15, 2014, 09:23:51 PM
Obvious hack the sword disappears when he rolls.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 18, 2014, 10:21:42 AM
Everyone says Old Iron King is easy but he's not, just because the area to fight in is shit house.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 18, 2014, 01:26:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vongeo on May 18, 2014, 05:01:37 PM
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.


Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 18, 2014, 10:02:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vongeo on May 19, 2014, 04:13:58 AM
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?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 19, 2014, 04:21:32 AM
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?

Well I don't really count the first try because I was a phantom.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 20, 2014, 08:09:13 AM
I fucking hate being invaded by cunts that can destroy me when I'm not even in a PvP area. Might just play offline all the time.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on May 20, 2014, 08:11:02 AM
>not even in a PvP area

eh wot m8
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 20, 2014, 09:42:52 AM
I randomly got invaded in shaded woods before the scorpion lady.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on May 20, 2014, 12:24:44 PM
Why wouldn't that be a PvP area?  ???
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 20, 2014, 08:31:17 PM
Why wouldn't that be a PvP area?  ???

I don't know, I didn't think there was a covenant there or anything. I don't want to PvP at all, especially against overpowered fuckwits that kill you instantly.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 20, 2014, 10:02:53 PM
There doesn't need to be a covenant there for people to invade you.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 21, 2014, 01:36:57 AM
Well that's shit. I don't want to be invaded, and I don't want to waste human effigies to prevent it.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on May 21, 2014, 04:21:13 AM
Did you even play the first Dark Souls
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on May 21, 2014, 04:23:48 AM
You don't need to play it. Just search "dark souls speed run" and you can watch the entirety of how fun the game is in about an hour.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on May 21, 2014, 04:25:11 AM
ok rushy thanks you can go back to arguing about Bitcoins being a physical entity now
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on May 21, 2014, 04:28:05 AM
ok rushy thanks you can go back to arguing about Bitcoins being a physical entity now

Dark Souls isn't a physical entity because its made of numbers.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on May 21, 2014, 04:29:57 AM
Dark Souls is literally Bitcoins
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Particle Person on May 21, 2014, 04:31:50 AM
Dark Souls is the number one. Can you hold the number one in your hand? Checkmate round earthers.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 21, 2014, 07:57:22 AM
Did you even play the first Dark Souls

Yeah for like 15 hours or something.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on May 21, 2014, 11:46:50 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 21, 2014, 12:40:12 PM
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.

Yeah, I'm awful at Dark Souls so I was hollow the whole time. The guy invaded and blew me up with a fire spell instantly. So much for pyromancy not being OP.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vongeo on May 22, 2014, 06:56:12 AM
The rat covenant is the best thing ever.

1. You get to be a dungeon master and laugh at people throwing hello stones to welcome them into your dungeon
2. People don't know how to pvp there because they didn't willing join and don't know what the fuck is going on
3. You get to help Gyrm people kill people, and they are kickass
4. Every other convenent is full of unhonorable bastards who refuse to bow, but as a person who serves a rat, who the fuck is expecting a fair fight
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: The Terror on May 22, 2014, 01:59:26 PM
You only get lockstones as a reward for killing intruders, and they're not exactly rare in the game.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vongeo on May 22, 2014, 04:50:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on May 22, 2014, 04:56:34 PM
Yeah it sure is fun watching people suicide because no one wants to deal with that bullshit
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vongeo on May 22, 2014, 05:30:21 PM
Yeah it sure is fun watching people suicide because no one wants to deal with that bullshit
I'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.

I also like douche bagging em with a bunch of corrosive urns.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: The Terror on May 22, 2014, 05:33:29 PM
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
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vongeo on May 22, 2014, 05:35:13 PM
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
d-bag.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: The Terror on May 22, 2014, 05:37:10 PM
d-bag with a bunch of titanite chunks.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 22, 2014, 07:24:37 PM
I think I've only fought a covenant member once. Every other one I've always DC'd or run.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on May 22, 2014, 07:26:58 PM
 :-\
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on May 22, 2014, 07:32:16 PM
invasion/multiplayer is terrible
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 22, 2014, 09:02:39 PM
It is when I'm a noob that doesn't know it'll happen until it does, so when it does I'm unprepared and unwilling.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 22, 2014, 09:10:18 PM
I think I've only fought a covenant member once. Every other one I've always DC'd or run.

I see, you're one of those people who ruin it for everyone.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 23, 2014, 03:29:42 AM
No, I just prefer fair play in PvP. It's the people only playing for ganks that ruin it. Nothing more frustrating than working your way through a level only to get raped randomly by some dude with a bunch of taps unlocked.

I also put my sign down to help people with bosses, so I'm totally a nice guy.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Ghost of V on May 23, 2014, 03:33:06 AM
I had one guy troll me by getting on a ledge that was very narrow and leaded to the next area. He crouched there with a huge shield and just threw pyro shit over and over. Eventually we both ended up falling off the ledge. I think this was in Anor Londo.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on May 23, 2014, 04:22:36 AM
They should really only allow players of the same level and similar gear to invade.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vongeo on May 23, 2014, 05:36:47 AM
They should really only allow players of the same level and similar gear to invade.
I get it.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Particle Person on May 23, 2014, 05:42:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 23, 2014, 07:45:15 AM
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.

Because it takes someone with maturity to join a covenant and gank you from ledges. The game already scares away people because it doesn't hold your hand and it's pretty punishing.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on May 23, 2014, 08:08:33 AM
yeah what's balancing?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Particle Person on May 23, 2014, 10:31:11 AM
Have you guys tried Barbie's Secret Fairy Adventures?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on May 23, 2014, 10:37:40 AM
No, it's too hard.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 23, 2014, 11:42:16 AM
I'm not bitching about the game. I like everything about it, except some of the PvP. I don't mind it when you have a fun duel but I never get those.

Anyway, I'm up to Drangleic Castle now. It's not as scary as it looked from Majula.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: The Terror on May 23, 2014, 10:24:38 PM
Have you been invaded much? It's only happened to me once or twice outside of the Bell Covenant areas. In the first Dark Souls you'd get invaded as soon as you used a humanity.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 23, 2014, 11:32:48 PM
Only once and I've spent most of the game human. My bigger beef is with the covenant areas.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vongeo on May 23, 2014, 11:40:09 PM
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!
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vongeo on May 28, 2014, 04:39:06 AM
I killed the ancient dragon, I'm the ultimate badass of pandora
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 28, 2014, 04:48:36 AM
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?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on May 28, 2014, 04:49:47 AM
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?

No, you don't. And he doesn't drop anything worthwhile either.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Rushy on May 28, 2014, 05:03:54 AM
You jackasses are the reason we don't have dragons today.  >:(
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 28, 2014, 05:21:45 AM
Dragon Aerie has heaps of dragons flying around. So no.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vongeo on May 28, 2014, 07:29:51 AM
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?

No, you don't. And he doesn't drop anything worthwhile either.
He makes vendrick real easy
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Blanko on May 28, 2014, 08:43:44 AM
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?

No, you don't. And he doesn't drop anything worthwhile either.
He makes vendrick real easy

But ancient dragon is much harder even without the extra giant soul. Four souls for Vendrick is more than enough. 
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on May 28, 2014, 08:47:47 AM
I nearly killed Vendrick on my first attempt. I was disappointed when I found out it was a bug that treats his mitigation like normal bosses but only for 1 attempt. Went in the second time and was hitting him for 12..
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vongeo on May 28, 2014, 06:16:03 PM
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?

No, you don't. And he doesn't drop anything worthwhile either.
He makes vendrick real easy

But ancient dragon is much harder even without the extra giant soul. Four souls for Vendrick is more than enough.
Its the journey not the destination.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vongeo on May 29, 2014, 09:34:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on June 04, 2014, 02:35:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vongeo on June 04, 2014, 02:43:42 AM
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.
Best part of dark souls, is making a really weird looking person and wearing a helmet for the rest of the game.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on June 05, 2014, 01:12:15 AM
http://www.twitch.tv/previouslyrecorded_live

The guys at Redlettermedia are live streaming themselves failing at Dark Souls. Enjoyable if you watch their crap.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on June 05, 2014, 01:23:20 AM
Also this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_24S4j-jWU
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on June 07, 2014, 08:45:57 AM
I liked this.

http://gfycat.com/InsidiousOblongBeetle

Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vongeo on June 07, 2014, 11:27:13 PM
I liked this.

http://gfycat.com/InsidiousOblongBeetle
Yes, those bell fuckers need to die.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on July 11, 2014, 08:42:21 AM
I'm up to Nashandra and she looks easy, but I'm yet to do her myself ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vongeo on August 15, 2014, 08:05:20 PM
I'm stabbing people in Sunken Crown land and Making stabing noises.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on August 15, 2014, 11:12:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vongeo on August 15, 2014, 11:24:25 PM
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.
What about the ancient dragon?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on August 15, 2014, 11:30:29 PM
I'm too scared to kill him.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vongeo on August 16, 2014, 01:58:02 AM
I'm too scared to kill him.
Very understandable, pussy.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on August 16, 2014, 02:22:58 AM
I am afraid when I play dark souls.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: The Terror on August 24, 2014, 09:03:24 PM
Lightning spears are getting nerfed again. From Software really hate clerics.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vindictus on August 24, 2014, 11:32:48 PM
Noooooooooo. How will I cheese bosses now?
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 02, 2015, 07:58:42 PM
Dark Souls is an RPG.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: beardo on January 02, 2015, 09:27:14 PM
(http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=354;type=avatar)
(http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=354;type=avatar)
(http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=354;type=avatar)
(http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=354;type=avatar)
(http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=354;type=avatar)
(http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=354;type=avatar)
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: Vongeo on January 02, 2015, 10:56:40 PM
Lightning spears are getting nerfed again. From Software really hate clerics.
Well so does the king of Lordaron.
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: George on July 31, 2016, 02:40:30 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzJDimvPW1Y
Title: Re: Dark Souls
Post by: jroa on December 30, 2016, 12:33:29 AM
Gay.