Other Gaming Forum

Topic: Where the Dark Souls II love at?

Showing 21 to 38 of 38

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Phatosaurus

21. Posted:

Edit: Why doesn't bold text always work in this site, what's the deal with that?

Dave24 wrote:

Phatosaurus wrote:

It outsold Titanfall in Germany. It's only Germany but how crazy is that?

Well, when it outsells big budget AAA title, it speaks for itself how "niche" it is.
Only in Germany. Germany is Playstationland, Titanfall was never going to dominate in that country (though it still sold well.

What bugs have you experienced? Just curious, the games' aren't flawless but I've never come across any bugs or glitches. Dark Souls II definitely has some issues with hit detection, is that your issue with it?

Hit detection is god awful in nearly all of the series. Even with targetting you can actually miss, which is sad.
Personally I disagree there. I've never had a problem with hit detection in Demon's souls or Dark Souls 1. DSII, yes. Mainly with the smaller enemies.

Massive framerate drops (even in 1-1 in Demon's... now that's pathetic), enemies with stiff animations and spamming with attacks (nearly all the time),
Not bugs/glitches, but true.

wasting items without using them (thank God it happened to me only twice),
Elaborate, please.

and the best of all - killing enemy without killing enemy. It actually happened in DS2. There is "tutorial" that says that backstab is critical hit, so I used it most of the time killing the small undead, until I came to the bunch of them (2 and 1 with crossbow), so I killed one with the backstab, accompanied with awesome animation, and while killing the guy with the backstab I couldn't do anything, so the other guy came in and slaughter me with the sword and the backstabbed guy turned around in place and gave me final blow, even though his HP was 0. That's ubercheap.
[b]Only true for DSII. I'm not sure why they nerfed backstabs so much in this game, they took away the invincibility while in the backstab animation and decreased the angle at which you can perform a backstab. I'm not a fan of it personally, but it isn't cheap.
You can cancel out of a backstab, plus you if you followed any of the pre-release interviews you would know you're not invincible during a backstab anymore. Performing them within a mob of enemies is just leaving yourself vulnerable.
As for interrupted backstabs not killing an enemy, I was not aware of that. I don't backstab much at all in DSII compared to the earlier games. Did you get the the DMG numbers on the screen before being interrupted and still have the kill not count?[/b]

Also, enemy with mace is faster than enemy with sword. That is worth a thousand facepalms.
Not true for every mace enemy. Some are extremely slow and telegraph their attack well in advance.

The only time the game is cheap, in my opinion, is with certain boss fights. The gimmicky ones like the Bed of Chaos in Dark Souls 1 or the Dragon God and Storm King in Demon's Souls.

Also great knight or whatever his name was is god awful - the stage overall was pretty easy and I didn't die, even at the boss fight, but the cheapness... Even though you stood far away from the shield slam, you still take damage. And armored spider a little. But dogs (or are they wolves) are hella cheap.
[strong]Great Knight? Do you mean Tower Knight? Nope, not cheap. The shield slam has visual cues to show the AoE.
The Armoured Spider telegraphs her attacks a week in advance. You're grasping here.
Dogs can be kinda bull****, only if you rush through an area and agro a pack of them at once. In DeS and DS1, you can agro dogs one at a time and deal with them one at a time. In DSII they're nerfed to hell and back.[/strong]

About the rocks, I think @CanisWolfred talks about 1-1 (or 1-2) in Demon's Souls. The rocks are coming from behind without any warning, greeting you with crushing death. At least I guess that's what he means. But the game overall is cheap with some jumps you must do or enemy placement (with explosive barrels of course).
Now that I recall, there is another boulder trap in 1-1 that I forgot about. It's 3-4 boulders that trigger after you walk past them down a narrow walkway. You can see them before you trigger them and even break the wooden fence holding them in place before walking past. Not cheap..

Edited on by Phatosaurus

3DS: 3840-6043-8686
WiiU: Phatosaurus

AuthorMessage
Avatar

SpookyMeths

22. Posted:

I think I may be the odd one here, but intentionally killing the player repeatedly for the sole purpose of frustrating them seems like a poor game design to me.

What, like full moons, silver bullets, and eyebrows that join in the middle?

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Swiket

23. Posted:

CaviarMeths wrote:

I think I may be the odd one here, but intentionally killing the player repeatedly for the sole purpose of frustrating them seems like a poor game design to me.

Intentionally killing you? The only time you are literally intentionally killed is at the beginning of Demon's Souls (edit: and one boss fight in Dark Souls), and that's just to kick off the story. The game isn't actively seeking to torture you, it's just unforgiving towards mistakes. With some patience and some awareness for your surroundings you can get through an area without a single death. Pretty much any enemy in the game is manageable in a one-on-one fight and the path to the next bonfire is fairly linear. I know it might sound elitist but it really isn't that hard.

Edited on by Swiket

I had fun once and it was awful.

3DS Friend Code: 4828-4964-0323

AuthorMessage
Avatar

hiptanaka

24. Posted:

CaviarMeths wrote:

for the sole purpose of frustrating them

That one's on you.

The difficulty is not much different than Mega Man, Castlevania, or other older, hard games. You'll get killed numerous times but each time you'll have the opportunity to learn something. When you adjust your strategy properly and become skilled enough to execute it, you will win. Fighting a boss for the first time can make you feel hopeless, but when you rise against that and finally beat it, it's a great feeling. After a while, you will approach new bosses with a curiousity to "solve" it, instead of with fear.

I loved Dark Souls, the first half more than the second half, and I'm currently at ~35 hours in Dark Souls 2. It's better in some ways, and less good in others. Overall a great game.

I never had any problems with hit detection, by the way.

Metroid 5?

AuthorMessage
Avatar

CanisWolfred

25. Posted:

I like Mega Man. I like Castlevania. I like other old hard games. Dark Souls is not those games. Those games were short, often beatable in a single sitting once mastered. They were not 50 hours of frustration.

Mecha Wolf Prime

Avid Fan of Anime, Webcomics, and Wolves
My Den - My door is always open....Too bad it's an empty closet.
My DeviantArt - I like to call it "the blank wall"

Wolfrun
Wolfrun Chibi
Scary Wolfrun...
...Scared Wolfrun

Arooo~

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Phatosaurus

26. Posted:

CaviarMeths wrote:

I think I may be the odd one here, but intentionally killing the player repeatedly for the sole purpose of frustrating them seems like a poor game design to me.

the only intentional, unavoidable death in the entire series is in Dark Souls 1. almost half way through the game against Seath The Scaleless and it for the sake of advancing the plot of the game.

Every single attack can be avoided via blocking of dodging. Either by physically moving out of the way of the attack or by using abusing the invincibility frame that come with dodging.

CanisWolfred wrote:

I like Mega Man. I like Castlevania. I like other old hard games. Dark Souls is not those games. Those games were short, often beatable in a single sitting once mastered. They were not 50 hours of frustration.

Demon's Souls and Dark Souls can be beaten within an hour. Dark Souls 2, less than an hour and fifty minutes. Okay, that speed run territory, but even an inexperienced, but even an above average player could beat any of the games in less than 4 hours providing they had played the game through at least once. Not unlike MegaMan or Castlevania.

3DS: 3840-6043-8686
WiiU: Phatosaurus

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Chrono_Cross

27. Posted:

CanisWolfred wrote:

I like Mega Man. I like Castlevania. I like other old hard games. Dark Souls is not those games. Those games were short, often beatable in a single sitting once mastered. They were not 50 hours of frustration.

It's not even that. The lack of an interesting story, important characters, music, and the linearity is unbearable.

A lot of the levels in these games look like the studio designed it first and figured out how you explored it second.

It's a mess of a game with no replay value or rewarding factors present. The only reason why it's popular is because no other developer wants to risk its resources and time with a clone or an improved alternative.

Just for you.
"I'm just a musical prostitute, my dear." - Freddie Mercury

AuthorMessage
Avatar

hiptanaka

28. Posted:

CanisWolfred wrote:

I like Mega Man. I like Castlevania. I like other old hard games. Dark Souls is not those games. Those games were short, often beatable in a single sitting once mastered. They were not 50 hours of frustration.

It's a very different experience from Mega Man and Castlevania, for sure. I'm just saying you're wrong in saying that the game kills just to frustrate the player. Difficulty wise, it's not too different from Mega Man and Castlevania. It kills to have you learn, and it's (almost) always fair.

Chrono_Cross wrote:

It's a mess of a game with no replay value or rewarding factors present. The only reason why it's popular is because no other developer wants to risk its resources and time with a clone or an improved alternative.

You're throwing around opinions as though they were fact. Hundreds of thousands of players see great replay value and reward in Dark Souls. It's not without flaws, and it's not for everyone, but to some people, including me, it offers things that very few other games these days do.

Edited on by hiptanaka

Metroid 5?

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Chrono_Cross

29. Posted:

It's called criticism. Yes, we know, opinions are not facts.

Edited on by Chrono_Cross

Just for you.
"I'm just a musical prostitute, my dear." - Freddie Mercury

AuthorMessage
Avatar

hiptanaka

30. Posted:

Not very constructive criticism, and you presented much of it as facts. "The only reason why it's popular is because no other developer wants to risk its resources and time with a clone or an improved alternative." That sounds more like a general claim than an opinion.

Metroid 5?

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Chrono_Cross

31. Posted:

hiptanaka wrote:

Not very constructive criticism, and you presented much of it as facts. "The only reason why it's popular is because no other developer wants to risk its resources and time with a clone or an improved alternative." That sounds more like a general claim than an opinion.

I never said that it was a fact but nice assumption. (Instead of assuming, you can be a tad more productive and discuss my valid points.)

Or sit there and falsely accuse. That's fine, too.

Just for you.
"I'm just a musical prostitute, my dear." - Freddie Mercury

AuthorMessage
Avatar

hiptanaka

32. Posted:

Chrono_Cross wrote:

you can be a tad more productive and discuss my valid points.

Sure. I guess you mean:

Chrono_Cross wrote:

It's not even that. The lack of an interesting story, important characters, music, and the linearity is unbearable.

I can just say I disagree. I was totally sucked into the lore of Dark Souls, and the way it subtly leaves hints for the player in dialog, items descriptions, etc. I'm actually a big advocate of less cinematic narrative. I mean, less cut scenes and explicitly told story, and more hints in the environments as to what has happened, and bits and pieces of dialog that you will have to make sense of yourself. I can see why you wouldn't like this if you just want a cool plot, but to me the explorative nature of the narrative matches the exploration of the game world very well. I was really curious about most of the characters, as well, in a "what the hell is this person's story?" way. And the helpful characters really felt like rocks in that hostile world.

I don't remember much of the music, but I remember liking how the absense of music often added to the suspense.

I also didn't find the game too linear. In many ways it reminded me of the old "Metroidvanias" I like, where you first follow a pretty linear path, and the game then opens up more towards the second half. And even when it's linear, there are plenty of (often clever) secrets and hidden passageways, plus you can enter not yet beatable places and grab some items, akin to the first Zelda.

Chrono_Cross wrote:

A lot of the levels in these games look like the studio designed it first and figured out how you explored it second.

I don't know what you mean by that. Care to explain?

Metroid 5?

AuthorMessage
Avatar

JayArr

33. Posted:

Praise the Sun!!!

[insert 25 Cents here to play]

AuthorMessage
Avatar

BandG

34. Posted:

Chrono_Cross wrote:

CanisWolfred wrote:

I like Mega Man. I like Castlevania. I like other old hard games. Dark Souls is not those games. Those games were short, often beatable in a single sitting once mastered. They were not 50 hours of frustration.

It's not even that. The lack of an interesting story, important characters, music, and the linearity is unbearable.

A lot of the levels in these games look like the studio designed it first and figured out how you explored it second.

It's a mess of a game with no replay value or rewarding factors present. The only reason why it's popular is because no other developer wants to risk its resources and time with a clone or an improved alternative.

Damn, why so much hate towards Dark Souls? The Souls games are amazing.. So you are saying you like short, easily beatable games with no difficulty, that are hardly worth your money? That's cool, but some people prefer to get the most out of their money with games that will last them more than a day or two. Also the story in the games are fantastic, just because you have to look to find it, and it isn't just given to you, doesn't mean it sucks. There are many important characters that you come to really like by the end.
Look up Gwyn's theme, or The Adjudicator's theme, and tell me those aren't good songs. Dark Souls really isn't that linear, there is many paths that reconnect in awesome ways you didn't notice before, and there is much to look at, and explore.
The levels have fantastic design, perfectly place traps, and hidden coves. The enemy placement is perfect, because they didn't just place them randomly about, they placed them specifically where it will make things interesting, but fair. Point is, there is no reason to hate something you clearly don't even understand, or want to give a chance.
(Sorry this post is rushed)

Edited on by BandG

Super Smash Bros. Can't Wait!

Nintendo Network ID: Waterwraith

AuthorMessage
Avatar

hiptanaka

35. Posted:

BandG wrote:

there is many paths that reconnect in awesome ways you didn't notice before

Yes. Let me just say the elevator early on blew my mind.

Great secrets in that game, too. Just when I thought the game industry had given up on cool secrets, Dark Souls came and delivered.

Edited on by hiptanaka

Metroid 5?

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Chrono_Cross

36. Posted:

I don't know what you mean by that. Care to explain?

I applaud your opinion as there's nothing to discuss there. We both disagree about our opinions of the series.

As for your question, yes, I will. Elaborate castles, caverns, swamps, they're all pretty great to look at. Until you explore them. The level design is not realistic. As if the developers didn't have the player in mind when constructing. Jumping from platforms (that decrease your health purposely... like wtf?), planks, and conveniently placed ladders are just some of the exploring faults of its design. I always ask the same questions area after area: Who put that plank of wood there and how did the people of before navigate around this death trap? lol

Damn, why so much hate towards Dark Souls?

No hate, I just don't understand the love for the games. I'm sure if a better developer with better resources made an alternative, it would truly show how archaic the series is. Of course, that's not going to happen.

So you are saying you like short, easily beatable games with no difficulty, that are hardly worth your money? That's cool, but some people prefer to get the most out of their money with games that will last them more than a day or two.

You're talking to the guy who plays Animal Crossing for hundreds of hours and plays the Metal Gear Solid series religiously.

So no, I'm not saying I like anything. Though, are you saying difficulty makes games good? If so, you are oh-so wrong.

Also the story in the games are fantastic, just because you have to look to find it, and it isn't just given to you, doesn't mean it sucks.

Just because a game gives you the story does not mean it sucks, either.

Look up Gwyn's theme, or The Adjudicator's theme, and tell me those aren't good songs.

You look up Scandal and I Want It All by Queen, and tell me Queen isn't the greatest band ever formed.

The levels have fantastic design, perfectly place traps, and hidden coves. The enemy placement is perfect, because they didn't just place them randomly about, they placed them specifically where it will make things interesting, but fair. Point is, there is no reason to hate something you clearly don't even understand, or want to give a chance.

There's so much wrong with this.

Respawning enemies because you didn't dodge the boss that one time is punishing. That's okay if done right, but Souls refuses to do it correctly. I don't have a lot of time. Not to mention I'm getting too old for stressful games like this. But to have to potentially redo everything because of one hiccup (not to mention if you die a second time you lose all of your souls on your previous life), no. I'd rather have the boss be 10% stronger/faster than to march my way to the boss through hoards of enemies again. I did it once, why should I have to do it again? Unnecessary is the word.

I understand the game as I've played both Demon's and Dark Souls II. I've also extensively watched Dark Souls I (a game I refuse to play). But I don't hate them. I dislike games like Red Steel and Skyward Sword for other reasons, but not the Souls franchise. The only thing I can't fathom is how anyone enjoys it.

Just for you.
"I'm just a musical prostitute, my dear." - Freddie Mercury

AuthorMessage
Avatar

BandG

37. Posted:

@Chrono_Cross
What does Queen have to do with anything? You said the music sucks, and i said it didn't. You may not like the style of game that the Souls games are, but to say you don't know how anyone does is ridiculous. I don't like Mario galaxy, but i understand how people like it. There is literally nothing unfair about the game... nothing. And just because you don't have a lot of time, and you are getting too old for stressful games, doesn't mean it's a bad game.

Edited on by BandG

Super Smash Bros. Can't Wait!

Nintendo Network ID: Waterwraith

AuthorMessage
Avatar

Chrono_Cross

38. Posted:

You said the music sucks

No, I did not.

I don't like Mario galaxy, but i understand how people like it.

That's good but that's not helping. Saying that "this, this, and this are fantastic!" is not convincing anyone.

Why do you (and many others), play Souls games?

There is literally nothing unfair about the game... nothing.

Now I see it your way. Thanks!

What does Queen have to do with anything? You said the music sucks, and i said it didn't.

Queen has everything to do with anything.

Just for you.
"I'm just a musical prostitute, my dear." - Freddie Mercury