Making a game so hard that many, or even most, players won't actually complete it is a laughably bad design choice. Doing so just to appease people who want to feel better than everyone else by finishing a hard video game defies all reason.
There's nothing wrong with a game that presents itself as hard and challenges the player. But when someone dies dozens of times in the same place and shows no desire to grind it's time for the game to let them advance. Ideally through a system that's organic and unnoticeable, such as making the enemies slightly easier or making the player slightly stronger. That way masters of the game will be challenged just as much as noobs are, but both will actually be able to experience the whole game.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;42259279]Will people stop fucking saying shit like this? It's so condescending and douchebaggy.[/QUOTE]
all aboard on the elitism bandwagon hehe those non-hardcore plebs will be steamrolled
[QUOTE=Zeke129;42259383]Making a game so hard that many, or even most, players won't actually complete it is a laughably bad design choice. Doing so just to appease people who want to feel better than everyone else by finishing a hard video game defies all reason.
There's nothing wrong with a game that presents itself as hard and challenges the player. But when someone dies dozens of times in the same place and shows no desire to grind it's time for the game to let them advance. Ideally through a system that's organic and unnoticeable, such as making the enemies slightly easier or making the player slightly stronger. That way masters of the game will be challenged just as much as noobs are, but both will actually be able to experience the whole game.[/QUOTE]
I'm going to have to disagree with you there, but I will say that making the game get harder when you fail at it is completely terrible game design. It was terrible in Demon's Souls (which is why they patched it so you could die in soul form and it wouldn't lower the tendency of the world you're in) and it will be terrible in DS2 unless they come up with something really clever to offset it.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;42259383]Making a game so hard that many, or even most, players won't actually complete it is a laughably bad design choice. Doing so just to appease people who want to feel better than everyone else by finishing a hard video game defies all reason.
There's nothing wrong with a game that presents itself as hard and challenges the player. But when someone dies dozens of times in the same place and shows no desire to grind it's time for the game to let them advance. Ideally through a system that's organic and unnoticeable, such as making the enemies slightly easier or making the player slightly stronger. That way masters of the game will be challenged just as much as noobs are, but both will actually be able to experience the whole game.[/QUOTE]
i kinda like the existence of said games, because it keeps the elitists/maniacs at a single place lol, kinda like EVE online.
i'm not saying everyone who plays EVE online, demon/dark souls or similar games is an elitist btw.
[QUOTE]Doing so just to appease people who want to feel better than everyone else by finishing a hard video game defies all reason.[/QUOTE]
a fair share of people game exactly for that reason through, it isn't really absurd, its pretty much the same logic that drives a sizable number of people to become "better" at anything really.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;42259439]I'm going to have to disagree with you there, but I will say that making the game get harder when you fail at it is completely terrible game design. [B]It was terrible in Demon's Souls[/B] (which is why they patched it so you could die in soul form and it wouldn't lower the tendency of the world you're in) and it will be terrible in DS2 unless they come up with something really clever to offset it.[/QUOTE]
No it wasn't.
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;42258935]but you could just get summoned and help someone to beat a boss to regain your humanity[/QUOTE]
I only ever played it offline, I never even knew that.
[editline]20th September 2013[/editline]
and I don't understand where everyone is getting this elitist stuff from.
If you just sit down, think for a second about what you're doing and actually try you'll find that the path to victory is actually a stone's throw away.
Why wouldn't they up the challenge? After playing Dark Souls a whole lot it became easy, I don't want the second one to be a cake walk.
[B]Anyone [/B]can beat these games, it just takes patience but I guess that doesn't fit with some people's play styles.
[editline]20th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;42259439]I'm going to have to disagree with you there, but I will say that making the game get harder when you fail at it is completely terrible game design. It was terrible in Demon's Souls (which is why they patched it so you could die in soul form and it wouldn't lower the tendency of the world you're in) and it will be terrible in DS2 unless they come up with something really clever to offset it.[/QUOTE]
Having your health halved when you're in soul form was what taught me to be careful more than anything.
I don't see why it's terrible game design, it's a simple punishment for dying. I think more games need to have consequences when you die. What's wrong with that?
There's many games out there that just end when you die and you have to restart from the beginning.
Or game like Ghosts n Goblins, when you exhausted all your lives you'd be sent back to the first level no matter how far you are.
This is generous compared to those games
[editline]20th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;42259279]Will people stop fucking saying shit like this? It's so condescending and douchebaggy.[/QUOTE]
I'll admit I died a lot, these games have been too hard for me before.
I didn't complain or quit though, I kept playing because I wanted to beat it, regardless of the challenge.
Someone who's wanting to buy a game in this series is probably looking for a challenge, it's how they market it even.
If Dark Souls II isn't any more difficult than Dark Souls one the same issue I had when switching from Demon's Souls to Dark Soul's will happen, it'll be too easy.
People switching from Dark Souls to Dark Soul's II will most likely find it easy if they've mastered Dark Souls unless DSII is actually harder.
All I'm doing is defending a game series I love.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;42259383]Making a game so hard that many, or even most, players won't actually complete it is a laughably bad design choice. Doing so just to appease people who want to feel better than everyone else by finishing a hard video game defies all reason.
There's nothing wrong with a game that presents itself as hard and challenges the player. But when someone dies dozens of times in the same place and shows no desire to grind it's time for the game to let them advance. Ideally through a system that's organic and unnoticeable, such as making the enemies slightly easier or making the player slightly stronger. That way masters of the game will be challenged just as much as noobs are, but both will actually be able to experience the whole game.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it was just terrible, that's why Demons Souls went on to be praised by both critics and players and is a PS3 Greatest Hit. Because everyone just HATED its obviously BULLSHIT challenge.
Giving shit players a buff isn't gonna teach them shit. It'll encourage them to exploit the system and kill themselves just for said buff. It's bullshit. There should be real consequences that accompany death that should make you go "Well FUCK I shouldn't have done that!". You want fucking hand holding go play a different game.
[editline]20th September 2013[/editline]
I mean death in games is generally something that you're encouraged to fucking avoid right or am I living in crazy land? Where is the incentive to avoid death if it would REWARD you for dying?
[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;42260207]The incentive for avoiding dying is losing humanity, souls, and progress.
Does it really need any more penalty?[/QUOTE]
Except you didn't lose them unless you were an idiot and died twice in a row without picking your shit up??
Minor inconvenience at best.
[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;42260207]The incentive for avoiding dying is losing humanity, souls, and progress.
Does it really need any more penalty?[/QUOTE]
Dark Souls gave you humanity by the bucketfull and you could always reclaim your souls. Once you do that you're right back where you left off.
Not much of a penalty.
Like Chunkymonkey said, it's a minor inconvenience. Not a punishment.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;42259279]Will people stop fucking saying shit like this? It's so condescending and douchebaggy.[/QUOTE]
Honestly whats so fucking wrong about saying that? I'm tired of people going to difficult games and complaining about how hard they are, people did it with RO, people did it with ArmA and people are now doing it with Dark Souls 2 and I have seen it with other games. That's how the game is designed, honestly deal with it, if you don't like a harder and more challenging game then play a game that isn't hard, what's so fucken wrong with that?
You don't see me yelling at games like Cod and BF to be harder because that's how they are designed, like you don't see people like me telling Cod and BF and others to be harder yet it's ok for people to go to harder games and yell for them to be easier? explain how that makes sense, FingerSpazem is totally right, there are other games to play so god damn play them instead. Honestly think about that and hell it works the other way around too, I remember playing BFBC2 only on hardcore mode because I was tired of emptying mags into people and watching them round a corner, heal up and come back and yet there were people complaining that hardcore is shit and your stupid if you play it bla bla bla bla. Let us people who enjoy a higher difficulty play our games and stop trying to change them by complaining because I am seeing this with every game that tries to be challenging then "WHOOPS!" the sequel is now easier oh great, let us enjoy our games and you go enjoy yours.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;42259383]Making a game so hard that many, or even most, players won't actually complete it is a laughably bad design choice. Doing so just to appease people who want to feel better than everyone else by finishing a hard video game defies all reason.
There's nothing wrong with a game that presents itself as hard and challenges the player. But when someone dies dozens of times in the same place and shows no desire to grind it's time for the game to let them advance. Ideally through a system that's organic and unnoticeable, such as making the enemies slightly easier or making the player slightly stronger. That way masters of the game will be challenged just as much as noobs are, but both will actually be able to experience the whole game.[/QUOTE]
Ummmm this only works in theory? remember what games use that system? Oblivion and Skyrim and how many people do you see complaining about those systems? In Morrowind tough enemies were actually, yeah know, tough and I couldn't just go into a dungeon and fight a tougher enemy if my skills were bad and I wasn't prepared, but in Oblivion and Skyrim it didn't make that much sense because you would have bandits like in Oblivion spawn with high level gear and be really tough for no other reason then (to challenge you!!!) if you keep dying in the same spot over and over again that's honestly your own fault, why should the game make the enemy easier because your not good? no you should come back when you are higher levelled, have better gear, more prepared in general and you know how he fights then you can beat him. It's like those games where they go "OMG we have a super duper hardcore mode for leet players!!!, we will make it so you die in one shot but you need to use 4 nukes and 5 grenades to kill an enemy rat!!"
Honestly think about it, what would dark souls be without it's difficulty combined with the world? it's exactly like STALKER in that regard, it would just be a generic medieval type kills monsters with sword game where there is no challenge other bullshit ones that normal devs put in.
TDLR: Let hard games be hard and go play games your used to and that's it.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;42251684]The only thing I'm not liking is the timer on coop phantoms. I get the reasoning to add some kind of limitation because you could super cheese Dark Souls 1 with a partner (see: last half of DSP's playthrough) but I feel like it's going to be inconvenient.[/QUOTE]
It does suck because doing co-op with a friend is a lot of fun in Dark Souls (when you get it to work), or doing co-op with a stranger-become-friend due to a long solid co-op experience with someone you summoned. Especially when someone invariably invades you while you are at it.
But at the same time I can see why they did it. Dark souls was never meant to be a co-op game, its a single player game first and foremost with really interesting "world-melding" multiplayer events that transform an otherwise solid single player experience into something a bit more. Dark souls was always intended to be a lot like Journey in the multiplayer aspects - in that you never really have control over what happens to your game world while you play, who you are with, etc. I wouldn't even doubt it if they just went full-journey and made it 100% anonymous this time around instead of being able to see gamertags n such of people you summon.
[editline]21st September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=BlkDucky;42253889]Bed of Chaos wasn't remotely difficult, it was just cheap and broken. The hardest boss in the game is 4 kings, by far.
[editline]20th September 2013[/editline]
Seriously, past O&S the game becomes a joke besides that one boss.
[editline]20th September 2013[/editline]
Assuming you don't use the cheap stone armour but then there's literally no difficult boss past the midpoint of the game.[/QUOTE]
Lmao you are joking
Bed of Chaos is hard because it s a broken design so we're not counting that
O&S is by far the hardest boss in the standard game, because you have to juggle two different difficult, powerful enemies at the same time that have both completely different attack patterns. Its hard enough that even if you are somewhat overleveled for the area they are in, you will still get your ass kicked unless you learn how to beat the boss and execute your dodges, blocks and strategy very well.
4 Kings on the other hand is a straight-up gear check. They are really, really easy [B]if[/B] you can beat one of the kings before the next one spawns. The boss is really, really hard if you don't have the DPS yet to take down a king before the next one spawns. Which is why if you aren't doing 4 Kings last or close to last then you will have a very hard time but if you do what I did and save the boss near the end of the game you'll be able to beat him easily. 4 King's attacks are very predictable and they all are clones of each other. The only issue with the boss is when multiple kings start spawning in. Do enough DPS to kill a king before the next one spawns in and the fight becomes one of the easiest. It's actually kind of brilliant.
Of course IMO hardest boss including the DLC is Kalameet. Kalameet is simply balls-hard until you master the art of good timing, patience, and dodging. You don't even want to bother trying to fight him if you can't fast roll or mid-roll. He's "easy" when you are good at the game, but isn't that true for all the bosses? The reason why kalameet is so difficult is that he will rip you to shreds and deny your assault at pretty much any level, and your opening for attacking him is very very short due to how aggressive he is. It's literally a balance on stamina management and being able to get one hit in every 1-2 minutes for the entire duration of the fight without making a big mistake in timing that leaves you hit. Especially since some of his attacks are very hard to avoid unless you catch them early on in their attack to know when and how to get out of the way.
Goddamn, the boss design in dark souls is so masterful. Except bed of chaos, fuck that piece of shit.
[QUOTE=J!NX;42257750]you die in the game
[U][I]you die in real life[/I][/U][/QUOTE]
Everyone dies to the first torch hollow, From just wanted everyone to play their game, but we weren't good enough to survive.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;42259383]Making a game so hard that many, or even most, players won't actually complete it is a laughably bad design choice. Doing so just to appease people who want to feel better than everyone else by finishing a hard video game defies all reason.
There's nothing wrong with a game that presents itself as hard and challenges the player. But when someone dies dozens of times in the same place and shows no desire to grind it's time for the game to let them advance. Ideally through a system that's organic and unnoticeable, such as making the enemies slightly easier or making the player slightly stronger. That way masters of the game will be challenged just as much as noobs are, but both will actually be able to experience the whole game.[/QUOTE]
dark souls 2 won't be hard to beat like a shit fake difficulty game like old NES games or IWTBTG, it's going to have the old difficulty we're used to with a few extra hurdles. plenty of players beat dark souls 1, even me, the guy who is shit at every videogame he plays and had pretty much the worst experience during the first part of the game. from did demon's souls and dark souls 1 very well, so i have high hopes for dark souls.
so what's with dark souls fans believing their opinions are factual statements?
god forbid somebody doesn't like this idea that's being put into a game, i guess that means it's a good time to shit on them forever.
[editline]21st September 2013[/editline]
unless they put "you must be this hardcore to play this game" on the box, all you have to do is shut the fuck up if someone doesn't like the invasion aspect of DS2. seriously.
[QUOTE=FFStudios;42262604]so what's with dark souls fans believing their opinions are factual statements?
god forbid somebody doesn't like this idea that's being put into a game, i guess that means it's a good time to shit on them forever.
[editline]21st September 2013[/editline]
unless they put "you must be this hardcore to play this game" on the box, all you have to do is shut the fuck up if someone doesn't like the invasion aspect of DS2. seriously.[/QUOTE]
Right that's great, and people are allowed that opinion but this whole debate started because people began to discuss the change, that's how a debate works, deal with it.
[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;42263251]My opinion is that the game doesn't need to be harder than dark souls. It does need to be more thought out, ala bed of chaos, but not ramped up to the point where it becomes frustrating. It should be sufficiently different enough to throw off veteran DKS players to put them in a similar boat with new players. Lateral movement of difficulty.[/QUOTE]
There is a lot of that in the game. You don't roll around enemies any more, you roll in the direction you press. Parrying knocks enemies down rather than making them immediately open to a riposte. Enemy attacks track you slightly when you roll, making them harder to dodge.
[QUOTE=bravehat;42262628]that's how a debate works, deal with it.[/QUOTE]
generally speaking, you don't tell people to fuck off in a debate, nor do you insist that real gamers shouldn't have a problem with the changes
do you know what a debate is? doesn't seem like it
[QUOTE=FFStudios;42264026]generally speaking, you don't tell people to fuck off in a debate, nor do you insist that real gamers shouldn't have a problem with the changes
do you know what a debate is? doesn't seem like it[/QUOTE]
None of that was ever said.
[QUOTE=FFStudios;42264026]generally speaking, you don't tell people to fuck off in a debate, nor do you insist that real gamers shouldn't have a problem with the changes
do you know what a debate is? doesn't seem like it[/QUOTE]
Yeah none of that stuff was said.
I even said that anyone can beat these games if they actually try.
come on really
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;42259737]No it wasn't.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;42259738]
Having your health halved when you're in soul form was what taught me to be careful more than anything.
I don't see why it's terrible game design, it's a simple punishment for dying. I think more games need to have consequences when you die. What's wrong with that?
There's many games out there that just end when you die and you have to restart from the beginning.
Or game like Ghosts n Goblins, when you exhausted all your lives you'd be sent back to the first level no matter how far you are.
This is generous compared to those games.[/QUOTE]
I'm referring to what Demon's Souls was like at launch, before the first patch. Back then, every time you died the world tendency dropped, regardless of whether you were in human or soul form. This was FUCKING TERRIBLE game design because all you had to do was die 10 or so times and the game became several times harder with the only way to reverse it being to start an entirely new game. Obviously From Software agreed that it was stupid because the first thing they did after releasing the game was patch it so that you only lowered the world tendency by dying in human form.
Dark Souls was a step up in the series because it was harder without being more punishing or more frustrating. Most of Demon's Souls's bullshit was because of punishing players permanently for hard to avoid mistakes (World Tendency as punishment for dying, missed crystal lizards being gone forever, etc.) whereas Dark Souls fixed many of these issues by giving you ways to fix them (crystal lizards that escape respawn, if you accidentally piss off an NPC there's a character you can go to in order to fix it, etc.)
Long term punishments for mistakes like dying in a long game like Dark Souls is shit game design. There should be no argument about that. The only ways a game should punish you is for doing something incredibly stupid (killing NPCs) or in the short term (losing progress, souls, etc.) That's a key game design philosophy for long games (with short games it's different, as they can easily be restarted and replayed). In Demon's Souls, taking away half your health (or a quarter of your health if you have the cling ring) is a short term punishment, as the game is designed with the expectation that many players will be playing with that small amount of health. In Dark Souls, enemies do way more damage at once and having half your health would completely fuck you over in many cases.
Making health decrease piece by piece is worse than simply losing half of your health at once, because if effigies are really limited in amount then once you run out then you're going to be stuck at half health. That's a long term punishment. In Demon's Souls you never used effigies for the health boost because if you died you're right back to half health, so the game was designed so that you could beat it at half health. Having effigies basically be used to restore your max HP from being permanently decreased means the purpose of using one will be to make the game easier by restoring your max HP. Which means once you run out the difficulty will suddenly double and there's not shit you can do about it except start the game over (or possibly grind for them).
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;42267394]I'm referring to what Demon's Souls was like at launch, before the first patch. Back then, every time you died the world tendency dropped, regardless of whether you were in human or soul form. This was FUCKING TERRIBLE game design because all you had to do was die 10 or so times and the game became several times harder with the only way to reverse it being to start an entirely new game. Obviously From Software agreed that it was stupid because the first thing they did after releasing the game was patch it so that you only lowered the world tendency by dying in human form.
Dark Souls was a step up in the series because it was harder without being more punishing or more frustrating. Most of Demon's Souls's bullshit was because of punishing players permanently for hard to avoid mistakes (World Tendency as punishment for dying, missed crystal lizards being gone forever, etc.) whereas Dark Souls fixed many of these issues by giving you ways to fix them (crystal lizards that escape respawn, if you accidentally piss off an NPC there's a character you can go to in order to fix it, etc.)
Long term punishments for mistakes like dying in a long game like Dark Souls is shit game design. There should be no argument about that. The only ways a game should punish you is for doing something incredibly stupid (killing NPCs) or in the short term (losing progress, souls, etc.) That's a key game design philosophy for long games (with short games it's different, as they can easily be restarted and replayed). In Demon's Souls, taking away half your health (or a quarter of your health if you have the cling ring) is a short term punishment, as the game is designed with the expectation that many players will be playing with that small amount of health. In Dark Souls, enemies do way more damage at once and having half your health would completely fuck you over in many cases.
Making health decrease piece by piece is worse than simply losing half of your health at once, because if effigies are really limited in amount then once you run out then you're going to be stuck at half health. That's a long term punishment. In Demon's Souls you never used effigies for the health boost because if you died you're right back to half health, so the game was designed so that you could beat it at half health. Having effigies basically be used to restore your max HP from being permanently decreased means the purpose of using one will be to make the game easier by restoring your max HP. Which means once you run out the difficulty will suddenly double and there's not shit you can do about it except start the game over (or possibly grind for them).[/QUOTE]
Except launch Demons Souls doesn't fucking exist anymore because as you've said, they patched it. So why you are bringing it up like it's still relevant is beyond me.
Crystal lizards re-spawned when you killed bosses, World Tendency is a moot fucking point since as you've incessantly pointed out it doesn't work the same anymore, NPC's attacking you wouldn't happen if you weren't a bloody idiot.
It's not shit game design and if you can't deal with that than you can take a long walk off a short pier. Seriously, if you learn to fucking play the game then it's not really a problem is it? You talk as if they haven't fucking thought of anything and just "DERP HALF HEALTH FUCK OFF FAGGOTS!". Get over yourself ya armchair game dev.
How is losing it piece by piece fucking worse!? If anything it's more forgiving! Your argument for this point is bollocks since you're going off of information that we don't know much about yet.
Honestly for most games telling people to "Get good" is bullshit but in this case it's perfectly legitimate... So learn to play and get good and watch as (most of) your problems go away! Just ask Fatfatfatty in the DS thread. He was fucking shit at the game and constantly bitched and moaned. Then he learned how to fucking play the game and guess what! His problems went away! Who'd a thought!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.