Animavore wrote:You're just mad because you can't play it.

I know you mean I cannot play it, because it's a console exclusive and not because I'm not good at it, but your reply also reminds me of another tiresome aspect of the whole gaming world that has become a thing, and that is the "git gud" fanboy replies that tend to disregard obvious short-comings in a game's design that make certain games needlessly more frustrating than they need to be.

Thommo wrote:

Mazille wrote:Also, this is a really good read, if you've played Stardew Valley, or ever had an existential crisis.

I can't make up my mind if it was brilliant or ludicrously melodramatic. Slough is not exactly a frontier town in the wild west in 1860.

No, but from what I hear it's still a shit-hole. Regardless, the article is well written.

Thommo wrote:

Mazille wrote:Also, this is a really good read, if you've played Stardew Valley, or ever had an existential crisis.

I can't make up my mind if it was brilliant or ludicrously melodramatic.

Can't be both?

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Mazille wrote:Also, this is a really good read, if you've played Stardew Valley, or ever had an existential crisis.

I can't make up my mind if it was brilliant or ludicrously melodramatic.

Can't be both?

Could be. I could probably settle for "brilliantly written, but unappealing in most other qualities". I was struggling to maintain such a schizophrenic ambivalence though.

Maz is certainly right that it's fantastically well written and it was very well received in the comments section too. Not that it really matters what I thought.

He really did ham up the "no career opportunities in Slough" thing though, it's genuinely hard to see how it could be less true.

MattHunX wrote: I saw the same in Dark Souls 2, while fighting enemies that towered over me. They swung a sword, or whatever appendage they had, as big as them, at me, but wait...I had a small wooden shield, I held it up and bam, lost a tiny bit of health and completely negated said attack that should've sent me flying. Completely stupid. And people keep praising the combat in such games.

You must have played a different Dark Souls 2 to me then. My experience of the scenario you describe is one of hit, block, all stamina gone, staggered, next hit annihilates your health, ass on floor, dead.

The praise about DS2's combat isn't because of realism (at least that's not why I like it), but because it is challenging, tactical and fun. Sure, the game could be more realistic by having certain attacks send you flying, but there are all sorts of reasons not to do that in the interests of "fun."

Realism would be your puny blade not even scratching the armour of a giant knight, and he flattening you dead, right through your guard, in one hit.

Who wants that shit?

Sendraks wrote:

MattHunX wrote: I saw the same in Dark Souls 2, while fighting enemies that towered over me. They swung a sword, or whatever appendage they had, as big as them, at me, but wait...I had a small wooden shield, I held it up and bam, lost a tiny bit of health and completely negated said attack that should've sent me flying. Completely stupid. And people keep praising the combat in such games.

You must have played a different Dark Souls 2 to me then. My experience of the scenario you describe is one of hit, block, all stamina gone, staggered, next hit annihilates your health, ass on floor, dead.

The praise about DS2's combat isn't because of realism (at least that's not why I like it), but because it is challenging, tactical and fun. Sure, the game could be more realistic by having certain attacks send you flying, but there are all sorts of reasons not to do that in the interests of "fun."

Challenging? Yes.

Tactical? Yes.

Except, how the hell do they expect the player to be "tactical" when controls and movement feels unresponsive and sluggish, to the point where swinging off a few attacks drains stamina so much that it makes them unable to dodge or the opposite, where after a dodge or two, you cannot even counter-attack, wasting precious seconds waiting for stamina to regenerate. It is completely idiotic and IT is what makes the game truly and needlessly more difficult than it otherwise should be.

Unlike diehard fans of the series, I can actually see that the challenge, in such games, comes not from the player lacking any reflexes and ability to dodge and counter, git-gud,...etc., but from those actions purposefully being done not only in an untimely manner, but having far more adverse effects on the player's ability to act (stamina drain) than they should, by design.

And THAT is what takes care of the "fun" part, removing it completely. Or am I, as the player, just supposed to be completely satisfied and except that my supposed warrior and hero of a character nearly collapses after a string of attacks? When, even in real-life, a slob-of-a-person has more stamina? But, of course, the common response to such argument is usually along the lines of "LOL, you mad bro?" "Git gud!" "Learn to play!"...etc., completely failing to see the fault in the game they're enamored with.

Animavore wrote:Realism would be your puny blade not even scratching the armour of a giant knight, and he flattening you dead, right through your guard, in one hit.

Who wants that shit?

Well, as it is also common in such games, while you, the player, are limited in your ability to act (attack, block...etc., mind your stamina), those rules (set by the game) often don't seem to apply to NPCs/enemies or it doesn't really matter, because even if you manage to time your dodges, wait until they're open/are recovering from their own attack...etc. and connect with a good combo you stored enough stamina for, you barely do any damage (to larger, better protected enemies, anyway), while the most basic (doesn't even have to be a big bugger) of enemies can easily kill you with but a few hits, throughout the game.

MattHunX wrote:

Animavore wrote:Realism would be your puny blade not even scratching the armour of a giant knight, and he flattening you dead, right through your guard, in one hit.

Who wants that shit?

Well, as it is also common in such games, while you, the player, are limited in your ability to act (attack, block...etc., mind your stamina), those rules (set by the game) often don't seem to apply to NPCs/enemies or it doesn't really matter, because even if you manage to time your dodges, wait until they're open/are recovering from their own attack...etc. and connect with a good combo you stored enough stamina for, you barely do any damage (to larger, better protected enemies, anyway), while the most basic (doesn't even have to be a big bugger) of enemies can easily kill you with but a few hits, throughout the game.

There are ways of dealing with that.

Is anybody playing For Honour? Is it any good?

Mazille wrote:Is anybody playing For Honour? Is it any good?

I played the beta. I enjoyed it. It works best on 1v1 or 2v2 though.

I just received a Nvidia update for playing For Honour, Halo Wars2 and Ghost Recon.

MattHunX wrote:Except, how the hell do they expect the player to be "tactical" when controls and movement feels unresponsive and sluggish, to the point where swinging off a few attacks drains stamina so much that it makes them unable to dodge or the opposite, where after a dodge or two, you cannot even counter-attack, wasting precious seconds waiting for stamina to regenerate. It is completely idiotic and IT is what makes the game truly and needlessly more difficult than it otherwise should be.

Again, I don't know what game you're talking about. The controls of DS2 are, to me, responsive and not at all sluggish. Certainly vastly better than the "floaty" insubstantial feel of the DS1 controls.

I don't see any of your gripes with stamina are at all justified. This is all part of what makes the game tactical. You have a finite resource and have to use it sparingly, planning out what you're going to do before you execute your plan, as opposed to just spamming attacks or dodging willy-nilly. It is not remotely idiotic.

MattHunX wrote:Unlike diehard fans of the series, I can actually see that the challenge, in such games, comes not from the player lacking any reflexes and ability to dodge and counter, git-gud,...etc., but from those actions purposefully being done not only in an untimely manner, but having far more adverse effects on the player's ability to act (stamina drain) than they should, by design.

Again, see above. You're only going to get stamina drained and screwed over if you don't plan or if your plan fails. The latter is fine, the game is all about learning and refining your tactics, especially when you meet an unfamiliar foe or fight in an environment which forces your change in tactics. You "git gud" by adapting and improving, as opposed to just trying the same thing over and over until it just "works."

I'm not "gud" at Dark Souls, because I suck at parrying. I lack the reactions and the patience to train to be good at it. Fortunately, the game offers me other options for overcoming problems that don't rely on my ability to carry out that particular twitch based action.

MattHunX wrote:And THAT is what takes care of the "fun" part, removing it completely. Or am I, as the player, just supposed to be completely satisfied and except that my supposed warrior and hero of a character nearly collapses after a string of attacks?

Whoa now. One moment you're complaining about people not being whacked across the place by big attacks, now you're complaining about your character being worn down by attacks? A little consistency please. Because going by your earlier comments, yes, expecting to be worn down is what you should expect and it should be satisfying to find a way of not getting into that situation.

You get hounded into a corner by a number of enemies, you can't expect your shield to save you as they wail on you. The game performs consistently in that regard. Knowing that, it is down to the player to ensure they don't get into that situation and find ways round it.

MattHunX wrote:When, even in real-life, a slob-of-a-person has more stamina?

Well, no. Not at all. As someone who does train with actual weapons, just no. A slob of a person absolutely can and will be born down by relentless attacks they can't avoid and only block to defend. Fuck it, I can achieve that effect with LARP weapons.

MattHunX wrote: But, of course, the common response to such argument is usually along the lines of "LOL, you mad bro?" "Git gud!" "Learn to play!"...etc., completely failing to see the fault in the game they're enamored with.

And you're inventing faults with a game based on inconsistent arguments and misconceptions about reality. Plus your arguments seem to hinge on the player not taking responsibility for their actions.

Sendraks wrote:

MattHunX wrote:And THAT is what takes care of the "fun" part, removing it completely. Or am I, as the player, just supposed to be completely satisfied and except that my supposed warrior and hero of a character nearly collapses after a string of attacks?

Whoa now. One moment you're complaining about people not being whacked across the place by big attacks, now you're complaining about your character being worn down by attacks? A little consistency please. Because going by your earlier comments, yes, expecting to be worn down is what you should expect and it should be satisfying to find a way of not getting into that situation.

You get hounded into a corner by a number of enemies, you can't expect your shield to save you as they wail on you. The game performs consistently in that regard. Knowing that, it is down to the player to ensure they don't get into that situation and find ways round it.

MattHunX wrote:When, even in real-life, a slob-of-a-person has more stamina?

Well, no. Not at all. As someone who does train with actual weapons, just no. A slob of a person absolutely can and will be born down by relentless attacks they can't avoid and only block to defend. Fuck it, I can achieve that effect with LARP weapons.

MattHunX wrote: But, of course, the common response to such argument is usually along the lines of "LOL, you mad bro?" "Git gud!" "Learn to play!"...etc., completely failing to see the fault in the game they're enamored with.

And you're inventing faults with a game based on inconsistent arguments and misconceptions about reality. Plus your arguments seem to hinge on the player not taking responsibility for their actions.

I was talking about the player character running low on a stamina, not from a string of attacks from the enemy, but by a combo their character does themselves. So anything you said after that was stricken, since it's not pertinent.

And I NEVER EVER rely on damn shields, anyway (except that one time I mentioned, and that was purely out of curiosity to see how the mechanic works), exactly because the mechanic is so cheap and badly done in such games. It makes me downright despise the use of shields.

Nor am I ever hounded into a corner. And I wouldn't expect a shield to save me, either, if a group of enemies would wail on me, because in the Souls games, in particular, one's HP still takes a hit, even when one blocks. So, slugging around a shield and blocking is a wasted effort. And even if HP didn't get however small a hit, I still wouldn't rely on a shield. As far as I'm concerned, they're for people who cannot be bothered to observe and learn an enemy's patterns and get out of the way, provided movement is fluid enough.

And I have no misconceptions about reality. Or do you get so out of breath that you cannot even jump to the side, out of the way or roll to the side to save your life, after making a few swings with a weapon? Do you? Don't be absurd! Even in the pitiful physical state that I'm in, such a thing wouldn't happen.

MattHunX wrote:I was talking about the player character running low on a stamina, not from a string of attacks from the enemy, but by a combo their character does themselves. So anything you said after that was stricken, since it's not pertinent.

Wrong. Again, you're just trending towards a deeply inconsistent argument based around a failure to understand the game. Of course stamina using attacks is pertinent. It goes right back to what I was saying about it being a finite resource to use tactically. Yes, you can absolutely wind yourself using your attacks and leaving yourself briefly unable to defend. Again, the system is consistent in that regard and you have to plan accordingly. Your mighty hero can cut down most foes in a couple of attacks but, you have to measure that against whether that might leave you exposed to a counterattack from another quarter or if you screw up, being unable to deal with your targets counter attack.

The time window for stamina recovery, is small. Its not as if you're winded, panting for seconds at a time. It is, however, a long enough window to allow you to be punished for getting into that situation.

MattHunX wrote:And I NEVER EVER rely on damn shields, anyway (except that one time I mentioned, and that was purely out of curiosity to see how the mechanic works), exactly because the mechanic is so cheap and badly done in such games. It makes me downright despise the use of shields.

You assert it is "cheap" and "badly done" but provide nothing to back that up.

Shields are not foolproof defences against attack. Not in reality, not in the game. A shield is a mitigation device, rather than an outright prevention device. The games shield mechanics work well and consistently in this regard. With the right build and right equipment you absolutely CAN tank most of the game with a shield. And, much like in reality, using the sorts of shields which allow you to do this make you slow as fuck and you change your play accordingly.

MattHunX wrote:Nor am I ever hounded into a corner. And I wouldn't expect a shield to save me, either, if a group of enemies would wail on me, because in the Souls games, in particular, one's HP still takes a hit, even when one blocks.

Nope. Some shields will mitigate 100% of the damage and continue to mitigate until you can no longer effectively use the shield to defend. At which point you're screwed. As I've already said, you can make viable tank builds for DS2 using shields. If you're not making such a focused build, the shield is just a backstop against taking damage from a mistimed dodge or a counter attack.

The idea of taking damage through some shields I'm fine with. Concussive damage is a thing after all and some shields, are designed to parry rather than outright stop damage.

MattHunX wrote: So, slugging around a shield and blocking is a wasted effort. And even if HP didn't get however small a hit, I still wouldn't rely on a shield. As far as I'm concerned, they're for people who cannot be bothered to observe and learn an enemy's patterns and get out of the way, provided movement is fluid enough.

As stated. This is not correct. You just have to build for it. And even then, a shield build doesn't ignore avoidance entirely but, as you'll be fat rolling, your approach to avoidance changes. You still have learn attack patterns, so you know which attacks you will strafe around to get an attack in or where your openings to counter safely are.

I use shields on most my characters, even non-tank builds, because I am not that "gud" at the game and the shield allows me to compensate for reactions on dodges and what not. They're also bloody handy for safely traversing projectile rich environments.

Dark souls is that rare game that occupies its own niche marvelously. It's a type setter. A lot of the things that are frustrating to some players are the very same things that have made it the success it is.

Any challenge can become a frustration. Any difficulty will seem to some to be punishment. But a Souls game without difficulty is a Souls game without soul, in my opinion.

Even amongst souls fans, there seems to be a lot of vitriol directed at DS2 that is completely undeserved, much in the same way the high praise thrown at DS1 is underserved as well. The second half of DS1 is a mess and falls very short of the standard set by the earlier part of the game up to Anor Londo.

People claim that Dark Souls was challenging but never unfair and then complain that DS2 is unfair, in ways that don't stand up to scrutiny. The popular whine are all the ambushes and gank squads that exist in DS2. While those exist, they can also be spotted ahead of time or escaped from if not spotted. It simply requires the player to be cautious, observe the environment and plan ahead. Sure in NG+ the game throws genuine surprises at you which you cannot see coming and they could be considered "unfair" but, to me, they were simply a test of my ability to react to a changing environment under pressure and see if I could employ what I'd learned in a wholly reactive manner. Sometimes I could, sometimes I couldn't. On the times when I couldn't, I was still able to see on reflection what it was I'd done wrong.

I read an article the other day asking whether 'Souls was a genre. He compared it to when DOOM came out, subsequent games for a while were called DOOM-clones. We see that now with Lords of the Fallen and Nioh which many articles cited these games as Souls-clones. The author argued that while that may be fair with Lords of the Fallen, calling Nioh simply a Souls-clone does both games a disservice. Nioh absolutely stands on its own while using a similar template.

DOOM-clones would eventually be called first-person shooters, and the author wondered if 'Souls games would eventually branch into their own genre, with Souls-like being the best we have right now.

It's an interesting thought. I'd certainly not be surprised if we see a few really high quality variations on the theme.

Kind of like what Life is Strange did with Telltale games formula.

Remember Doom. I enjoyed it because it was the first multi-player game I had seen and this was before the internet took off. We played it on our office LAN on Friday afternoons. Good times.