This game is alright, but it's overrated as hell.

#101MarthMoopaPosted 2/12/2013 8:41:02 PM(edited)
From: wilowns1
Seriously Marth? The difficulty in Dark Souls is overrated? Either you're just trying to troll or you are so conceited you actually believe that you are some special gaming god who is just good at everything they do.


People claim that Dark Souls is one of the hardest games ever invented..... it's not.

It's "hard", yes, but it's not SUPER DUPER ZOMG WOW hard (such as a game like Ys: Oath in Felghana on Inferno).

Dark souls actually made you think and memorize your enemy's attack patterns and adapt to the situation at hand. I'm glad they took out unlimited health items like they did in Demon's Souls (I'm not counting humanity, unless you want to fight rats for days) because it gave you a reasonable challenge, making every eskus flash count. Fight Gwyn without any sort of heavy armor on and win easily, I dare you.


Before I played Dark Souls(played Demon's sometime after), people were claiming that it was some insanely difficult game that only the greatest video game gods could beat.

But when I actually played it.... it was pretty standard difficulty. I was expecting something legendarily difficult, but it was only normal difficult.

I'm not saying it's Hello Kitty Easy, I'm saying the difficulty was astronomically overrated. But hey, good job in COMPLETELY misunderstanding what I said and flying off your rocker.
#102Orochimaru024Posted 2/12/2013 8:40:41 PM
TC's post is a reasonable insight but this marthmoopa guy is just an endgame jr. troll.
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motomu_Toriyama
#103WestbrickIIIPosted 2/12/2013 8:40:53 PM
MarthMoopa posted...
Not being able to use whatever you wish is a limit, not a goal.

Requiring the player to waste time to obtain a specific set of experience that is probably not even necessary is a limit, not a goal.


Congratulations on missing the point. See below:

Limiting the amount of items a player can use is an absolutely arbitrary limitation.


Why is it any more or less arbitrary than turn restrictions?

There is no reason to impose it.


It encourages more conservative funds use and more evenly-spread experience. Those are factual reasons to impose it. Now it's your job to demonstrate why they're somehow bad or negatively impact strategy.

Fastest with whatever you want to get there: ultimate efficiency
Somewhat fast with whatever the game wants you to do to get there: arbitrary and inefficient


Merriam-Webster says your definition is wrong. You are not more knowledgeable about word meaning than Merriam-Webster.

All other games are equally bad at character balance.
Blazing Sword's ranking system demands completely arbitrary criteria, and there is never any danger in Blazing Sword.
Yes, because they do not implement anything to encourage strategy gameplay: you're merely engaging the enemies on a statistical level.


1. LMAO! Are you really going to sit there and say that FE7 isn't more balanced than FE4? The game where mounted units are unquestionably better than non-mounted units, and where holy weapons give +20 stat boosts? This is absurd.
2. Already covered. You neglected to respond to the fact that maximizing experience means bringing underleveled units into battle.
3. In other words, all non-Thracia games in the series are equally unstrategic. So why is FE7 the "worst game ever" and not every other game in the series?
---
Play Fire Emblem: Awakening.
#104TiamatKillerPosted 2/12/2013 8:41:51 PM
Nothing like a classic Troll and Stroll.

Maybe TC will come back to this thread in a few years.
---
i5-3570k @3.4GHZ_GTX 560Ti (2GB)_Asus P8Z77-V Pro_Samsung 840 (250GB)_1TB Seagate_8GB RAM_Zalman 9900 MAX_CoolerMaster HAF 912
#105azn_boy150Posted 2/12/2013 8:50:38 PM
Oh oh oh! Is it too late to jump on the bandwagon?

Let's see, Marth; stop trolling. Flamingace18; I have no idea what the hell you're doing, but it's getting weird. Everyone else; hi!
---
I'm my own best friend and worst enemy. Often at the same time.
PSN: azn_boy150
#106MarthMoopaPosted 2/12/2013 8:52:01 PM
From: WestbrickIII
Why is it any more or less arbitrary than turn restrictions?


Because it's imposing something that a player should be deciding for himself. A "funds/experience ranking" should be achieved naturally by the player as they plan on how to achieve their goal of obtaining a difficult turn count. The PLAYER should decide what equipment he needs to get, how to use it (and being able to actually USE IT), and what experience they need in order to achieve their goal.

The game shouldn't punish a player for using items, it makes the item entirely irrelevant to the game and is imposing arbitrary restrictions. Why have it if the player can't use it? It's arbitrary, it's stupid, and it's counter-intuitive to strategy gameplay.

It encourages more conservative funds use and more evenly-spread experience. Those are factual reasons to impose it. Now it's your job to demonstrate why they're somehow bad or negatively impact strategy.


It does not "encourage more conservative funds", it encourages NOTHING, it's simply limiting the player on what they can use to achieve their goal.

Merriam-Webster says your definition is wrong. You are not more knowledgeable about word meaning than Merriam-Webster.


Merriam-Webster has no credibility. See here:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

Their second definition is LITERALLY a direct contradiction of the actual meaning of the word. It is LITERALLY incorrect.

3. In other words, all non-Thracia games in the series are equally unstrategic. So why is FE7 the "worst game ever" and not every other game in the series?


Because, unlike Monshou, Seisen, PoR, and RD... Blazing has NO OTHER redeemable qualities about it.
#107CincadaPosted 2/12/2013 8:57:21 PM
wilowns1 posted...

Dark souls actually made you think and memorize your enemy's attack patterns and adapt to the situation at hand. I'm glad they took out unlimited health items like they did in Demon's Souls (I'm not counting humanity, unless you want to fight rats for days) because it gave you a reasonable challenge, making every eskus flash count. Fight Gwyn without any sort of heavy armor on and win easily, I dare you.


Umm, Well, With The gold Serpent Ring and 10 Humanity nearly every rat drops a(n) Humanity item....sooo....Yea. (Buffed Itemfind yo)

As a person who has ran MANY different classes and builds, (Yes, even did the Double Bonewheel Shield one once for kicks and grins...Best forest pvp time ever) And owns the game for Both Consoles, I feel that the game is just like Demon's souls in that it's just pattern recognition for the Story line, and Moveset memorization for Pvp. Once you learn how people can move and react, even pvp becomes a lot less challenging.

As for Gwyn....He's not even a boss bro, no one who seriously plays that game considers him a boss. He can be parried, and therefore is a complete and total joke as a "Last Boss" People have more trouble with Capra Demon than they do with Gwyn.

Not trying to troll you...But, really? Hell the Man eaters and Flamelurker in Demon's soul were thousands of times worse than lolgwyn.
Anyway....
Back to Fire Emblem =D
---
Xbox360 Gamertag: Cincada
Pawn: Serena (Current Vocation: Ranger **I think**)
#108wilowns1Posted 2/12/2013 8:59:40 PM
Well I'm sorry I got a bit upset, but too a point it bothers me when people argue something that is completely ridiculous. TBH the way you present yourself I really thought that you were the type of person who beat Demon/Dark Souls and said it was "SO easy" or any of that BS.

Seriously why are you trying to refute the point about limited funds by saying that doesn't make it difficult that just restricts the player. I'm not really sure what your definition of difficult is, but I'm pretty sure it encompasses anything that can give the player a challenge towards completing a goal.
---
My Ranking of the Final Fantasies:
IV>>>VII>VI>>X=IX>XII>V>>I>XIII>>VIII>III>>II
#109WestbrickIIIPosted 2/12/2013 9:03:18 PM
MarthMoopa posted...
Because it's imposing something that a player should be deciding for himself.


You could say the exact same thing about turns. Why "should" the player not be able to decide how long it takes to complete the game?

See, Marth, this is what people mean when you don't understand the difference between fact and opinion. Worse still, you haven't even begun to justify your position. *Why* are funds / experience more arbitrary than turns?

The game shouldn't punish a player for using items,


The game shouldn't punish a player for using extra turns.

It does not "encourage more conservative funds", it encourages NOTHING, it's simply limiting the player on what they can use to achieve their goal.


Factually incorrect. To get five stars in funds, you have to be more conservative with money / expensive weapons.

Merriam-Webster has no credibility.


L

O

L


Because, unlike Monshou, Seisen, PoR, and RD... Blazing has NO OTHER redeemable qualities about it.


In terms of gameplay, however, you must agree by your own standard that all non-FE5 games are equally terrible.
---
Play Fire Emblem: Awakening.
#110MarthMoopaPosted 2/12/2013 9:03:25 PM
From: wilowns1
Seriously why are you trying to refute the point about limited funds by saying that doesn't make it difficult that just restricts the player. I'm not really sure what your definition of difficult is, but I'm pretty sure it encompasses anything that can give the player a challenge towards completing a goal.


It's an arbitrary limitation. It prevents the player from being able to use whatever he pleases to create whatever strategies he feels are going to get him the best final score. It requires the player to follow a very specific and meaningless piece of criteria, just because the game says so.

Without the limitation, the player is free to create more strategies, and BETTER ones that are going to achieve a better final score, all while being much more difficult than following a cookie cutter list of things he "needs" to do just for the sake of doing it to satisfy some arbitrarily defined criteria.