Why do you like/dislike Dark Souls?

#41SubTonic14Posted 1/19/2013 1:24:35 AM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#42arcnetPosted 1/20/2013 12:58:24 AM
This is actually a compelling thread. So...

lucky_sharm19 posted...
This is most certainly not true. Your post comes off as someone who played for the first 10 minutes, got frustrated, and quit. The game already saves automatically for every action that you take, so why would you need a manual save option?


So like if you are tired, not living a precisely monastic lifestyle, something happens, the phone rings, the game has a bug, your kid is crying, who knows, you can recover your game. Or just convenience, because every other game has a save function.

The reason why you can't pause is to accommodate the multi-player aspect. Imagine invading somebody else's world and being frozen in space waiting for the host to come back. There really isn't any point that you'd need to pause outside of combat since enemies don't actually aggro until you get close to them.


That's precisely what should happen. Games are for humans, not the other way around. If the other party gets bored, its just like having to wait because there is a call on the other line. That's life. If a player seemed to be using pause as a cheat they could be flagged.

You complain as if everyone else has had as much difficulty as you had. You're entitled to your opinion, but your opinion doesn't represent everyone else's, mister "People won't put up with this kind of thing".


I'm not arguing from a place of ego. Games need to be accessible. My real complaints with Souls is just that the controls are going in the wrong direction. If anything we need to be standardizing control schemes after this many decades, and this just isn't the best possible control scheme for this kind of game but even still they are not done well.

That and it lacks artistic depth. But maybe that isn't what it's supposed to be. But it would be nice if From' didn't drop all of its other games to focus on a new kind of game without any depth.

SolidKnight posted...

No it isn't. By playing online, you are implicitly agreeing to being invaded. The ability to just quit when invaded ruins the experience for other players.


I think you can quit by using the PS button. I'm not working for the other players. And a lot of the time I get invaded while I was going to quit in a little bit anyway. There should be an item that prevents invasion.

Players that do invade are likely to be more obsessed with the game (antisocial types) than people who are not interested in pvp. It's not really a fair way to match people up in the first place.

Also, you technically can quit when invaded as long as you do it prior to the invader spawning.


Not my experience. I notice the bonfire going out and the quit function being disabled minutes before the invader announcement shows up. Might be something about satellite internet. It's kind of spooky though, you know the invasion is coming.

In fact I only ever get invaded when sitting at the bonfire, which is annoying because that's usually when I am about to turn the game off.

[quote]:Are you trying to say that Dark Souls should abandon the auto-save feature and replace it with manual saving just so you can quit and reload every time you fail or make a bad decision just so you don't have to live with the consequences? Is that your argument?"[/quote]

The auto save is like a backup feature. No most games nowadays have both.

I'm not saying it should do anything. Just that it is a human rights abuse. I don't know if it is trying to put off a BDSM vibe or what.

Anyone can choose to never save their game. I used to play games where if I died once I would start all the way over. Because that's the way it is in real life.
---
About Me: I'm pushing 30. I could be your dad.
Quote: It's a fecal matter. Stay out of it.
#43SolidKnight(Topic Creator)Posted 1/20/2013 11:51:43 AM
arcnet posted...
So like if you are tired, not living a precisely monastic lifestyle, something happens, the phone rings, the game has a bug, your kid is crying, who knows, you can recover your game. Or just convenience, because every other game has a save function.


It's saved. Just press quit from the menu. When you reload, you'll literally be standing in the exact position you where when you quit.

That's precisely what should happen. Games are for humans, not the other way around. If the other party gets bored, its just like having to wait because there is a call on the other line. That's life. If a player seemed to be using pause as a cheat they could be flagged.


It would get abused and destroy all multiplayer (co-op and invasions alike). The flagging system would get abused as well.

I think you can quit by using the PS button. I'm not working for the other players. And a lot of the time I get invaded while I was going to quit in a little bit anyway. There should be an item that prevents invasion.


That defeats the purpose of playing online. If you don't want to get invaded, play offline. Problem solved.

Not my experience.


Too bad for you. Everyone else's differs greatly.

The auto save is like a backup feature. No most games nowadays have both.

I'm not saying it should do anything. Just that it is a human rights abuse. I don't know if it is trying to put off a BDSM vibe or what.

Anyone can choose to never save their game. I used to play games where if I died once I would start all the way over. Because that's the way it is in real life.


In other words, yes. You do want to be able to quit and reload to undo everything. That would, in fact, be the only benefit of having manual saves.
#44goose_juicePosted 1/20/2013 11:58:04 AM
i dont like the serious lack of weapon movesets. but i understand why.
---
PSN: BlackDante1
#45arcnetPosted 1/21/2013 1:57:26 AM
Cvdf3 posted...
You can't quit while being invaded so every invader doesn't get shafted. Takes all of the risk out...
Saving anywhere is nothing new. Especially if you have played PC.
I don't even understand your complaints about combos. You mean an RPG doesn't have combat as complex as a game that does nothing but combat? Really...


Saving anywhere means saving where you stand instead of at designated save spots. Being able to save anywhere means you can save every 30 seconds if you want to and never risk anything. You don't have to but some people can't help themselves and end up wishing that they could.

As for combos, it means that the combo detection is not good. You input the combo and do not get the correct result. If a fighter worked that way people would not play it period. Doesn't help that when the combo does not fire in Dark Souls the result is always the precise opposite of what you intended to do. And that always means getting burned.
---
About Me: I'm pushing 30. I could be your dad.
Quote: It's a fecal matter. Stay out of it.
#46arcnetPosted 1/21/2013 2:11:09 AM
Cvdf3 posted...
-lackluster bosses. Nito, Four Kings (DPS race), Bed of Chaos, Pinwheel (seriously), Seath.
To a lesser extent Capra, Iron Golem, and Gaping (fantastic design though).


This was my main beef with Demons' Souls. It's still true in Dark Souls only the bosses are designed to be coop'd now but the NPCs are too powerful versus them, and no one with other things to do is going to play NG+ after spending so much time in NG. Most of the bosses are too difficult without the help from the NPCs. It's all very sloppy.

In Demons' Souls there are literally only 2 or 3 boss fights that are even mentionable. Probably 1-2, 3-1, and 4-3. From' just isn't able to get its head around bosses. That said I am not a fan of boss fights. From' has made many great games that eschew a level-boss-repeat structure.

The core of the controls is a bigger issue but for a game that seems to be all about boss set pieces the bosses are really meh. It doesn't help either when the difficulty of a boss is not comparable to its surroundings either.
---
About Me: I'm pushing 30. I could be your dad.
Quote: It's a fecal matter. Stay out of it.
#47Snipa_Wulf12Posted 1/21/2013 2:13:58 AM
arcnet posted...
Cvdf3 posted...
You can't quit while being invaded so every invader doesn't get shafted. Takes all of the risk out...
Saving anywhere is nothing new. Especially if you have played PC.
I don't even understand your complaints about combos. You mean an RPG doesn't have combat as complex as a game that does nothing but combat? Really...


Saving anywhere means saving where you stand instead of at designated save spots. Being able to save anywhere means you can save every 30 seconds if you want to and never risk anything. You don't have to but some people can't help themselves and end up wishing that they could.

As for combos, it means that the combo detection is not good. You input the combo and do not get the correct result. If a fighter worked that way people would not play it period. Doesn't help that when the combo does not fire in Dark Souls the result is always the precise opposite of what you intended to do. And that always means getting burned.


wut?
---
PSN:Snipa_Wulf
FOOL! You understand nothing.
#48hak145Posted 1/21/2013 2:23:35 AM
i am so glad this game doesn't allow you to save whenever you want. It is brilliant because it actually gives weight to the whole "Your choices matter" concept. I cant tell you how many times in fallout 3 i simply reload my last save before a conversation in order to try out every dialog choice possible to reap the best rewards. I remember reading an interesting article calling it "object permanence" I think, and its a big reason I like this game.
---
Gamertag XL:CRAZYjump
Winner: Dark Souls
#49arcnetPosted 1/21/2013 2:25:14 AM
SolidKnight posted...

arcnet posted...
"So like if you are tired, not living a precisely monastic lifestyle, something happens, the phone rings, the game has a bug, your kid is crying, who knows, you can recover your game. Or just convenience, because every other game has a save function."

It's saved. Just press quit from the menu. When you reload, you'll literally be standing in the exact position you where when you quit.


Ok, you're still not getting it. Moving on...

It would get abused and destroy all multiplayer (co-op and invasions alike). The flagging system would get abused as well.


The flagging can be done by the game.

SolidKnight posted...

arcnet posted...
"I think you can quit by using the PS button. I'm not working for the other players. And a lot of the time I get invaded while I was going to quit in a little bit anyway. There should be an item that prevents invasion."

That defeats the purpose of playing online. If you don't want to get invaded, play offline. Problem solved.


If only the online features were that granular (or logging on/off was that effortless)

SolidKnight posted...

arcnet posted...
"Not my experience."

Too bad for you. Everyone else's differs greatly.


I doubt it. If you are arguing so strongly for not being able to evade invasion, then how could it be that the game lets you do so? You can't have it both ways.

In other words, yes. You do want to be able to quit and reload to undo everything. That would, in fact, be the only benefit of having manual saves.


That is the only reason save features exist.
---
About Me: I'm pushing 30. I could be your dad.
Quote: It's a fecal matter. Stay out of it.
#50arcnetPosted 1/21/2013 2:27:51 AM
hak145 posted...
i am so glad this game doesn't allow you to save whenever you want. It is brilliant because it actually gives weight to the whole "Your choices matter" concept. I cant tell you how many times in fallout 3 i simply reload my last save before a conversation in order to try out every dialog choice possible to reap the best rewards. I remember reading an interesting article calling it "object permanence" I think, and its a big reason I like this game.


Adults need a save feature period. But it doesn't have to be save anywhere at anytime. And just because a game gives you that option doesn't mean you have to use it.
---
About Me: I'm pushing 30. I could be your dad.
Quote: It's a fecal matter. Stay out of it.