Lhynn
Arcane
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2013
- Messages
- 9,824
They have, its called Painkiller and its good.They should make a game that takes place in a room where you do nothing but fighting.
They have, its called Painkiller and its good.They should make a game that takes place in a room where you do nothing but fighting.
It isn't as good, duh and it's a clone during dark souls height of popularity.Please tell me why Lords of the Fallen isn't as popular as dark Souls
Please tell me why Lords of the Fallen isn't as popular as dark Souls
Yes, I'm the dumbfuck. Please tell me why Lords of the Fallen isn't as popular as dark Souls.
I like what I like based on nothing but what I like. I admit when I like something that isn't good objectively, or an exception to my usual likes or dislikes. I loved ME 1-3. I went in to the first thinking I'd hate it, like all the other bioware shit games. But I loved it. Why? All that is important is that I decide for myself what I like. I don't give a shit what other people like or dislike. I do care about why the like what they claim to like - and quess what that reason is?
What is a well designed game? That is just fluff, hollow words. It is the same vapid shit little girls say when explaining why they love whatever shit they listen to.
I live in the old school and have bought and played every crpg that came out since the console exodus. Your prattle that this resurrects anything is such console thinking for console monkeys.
"Gameplay=combat is fucking stupid. Level design, dungeon design, itemization, menu design, stats and how well they work, NPC interactions it's all part of the gameplay. Of course, depending on the game, some of these things weight more than the others."Gameplay=combat is fucking stupid. Level design, dungeon design, itemization, menu design, stats and how well they work, NPC interactions it's all part of the gameplay. Of course, depending on the game, some of these things weight more than the others.
What about videogames that don't have combat? They have no gameplay? FFXIII is a game made 99% of combat yet it's piss poor, guess why?
Because Planescape main gameplay system is not the combat, it's the dialogs. Everything happens through dialogs, you learn new abilities through dialogs, your stats mostly serve to open new dialog options, you gains item through dialogs, solve puzzles and recruit people. Every new NPC is an experience itself, a puzzle for you to crack.
Who the fucks judges Planescape by the combat anyway, when it's literally the 5% of the game?
Arguing with Roqua
Copy protection. DS3 were widely pirated.Dark Souls has good gameplay.
Dark Souls has shit for monkeys. The whole game and myth that it is some holy grail of combat is just console monkiness and hipsterism at its bleakest and most harmful form. People want to be cool and like the super popular thing, so they force themselves to play and like it. Like all hipster nonsense, it is just shit for shitheads. Trendy fucking retards and tyranny of the masses. Let others think for you and decide what you will like.
You're a dumbfuck hating because it's popular. Isn't that what a hipster is by the traditional definition, before dumbfucks like you butchered it? How ironic.
Dark Souls is a well-designed game, revives a long lost design philosophy, is sufficiently hardcore, and is pure catering to old school gamers. That it is popular among modern monkeys is a rare blessing. It means old school principles are still viable in some form, even if it's not an RPG.
I long for a return of old school design principles. Old school hack and slash. Old school shooter. Old school RPG. Old school everything, because it's just plain superior in most respects. Fuck you for shooting down incline that you clearly haven't even played.
So much stupid irony in your post.
Yes, I'm the dumbfuck. Please tell me why Lords of the Fallen isn't as popular as dark Souls.
Coming from the previous thread, we were talking about what's an rpg and what isn't. This isn't about that, but rather about how poor the gameplay mechanics of a lot of rpgs are and why they are so mediocre to bad. Looking at the prestigious top 50 - 70 list on the codex, the majority of the games I've played from them had poor or boring combat and mechanics that didn't work all that well.
For a genre that is supposedly gameplay focused, you would think the devs would be better at their jobs.
The game [Planescape Torment] is far more about combat than anything else.
Dark Souls has shit for monkeys.
In RPGs you make character once, often deciding major things that you won't be able to change ever.
In RPGs you make character once, often deciding major things that you won't be able to change ever.
RPGs force the player to commit to a build (stats, abilities, etc.)
RPGs are meant to be beatable without having to restart the game after playing for countless hours
This means that RPGs must be relatively easy to beat with any build
Games with parties should have a pregen party.
Also, it's kind of a no brainer that you need different characters, and not six identical ones.
But there are solutions for this already. I haven't encountered game stopper because of sub-optimal character builds... I don't recall when. Maybe I can't repair every toaster in the Wasteland, but then that's C&C and actually part of the game experience. I was able to finish the campaign anyway. Maybe my Decker character can't stomp right through every battle in game but I'm forced to trying to be find a better tactic, but I was able to finish the story anyway and I actually like it this way. Even for trivial things there are often multiple ways to solve issues. Can't pick lock because ain't got dex or skill? Well, use explosives, or spells, or smash it to pieces with strong character.
On the contrary that's exactly what I'm talking about. The RPGs can't have really complex or demanding combat encounters like some turn based strategy games do because then some players would be simply unable to finish the game. Likewise, entering places cannot be too challenging because the game has to be possible to be finished with sub-optimal parties. That means no complicated puzzle-like combats encounters like some missions in strategy games, no difficult bosses like in other genres, which in turn leads to combat not being as satisfying as these other games.
I actually kind of like what you are trying to do here, even though I don't agree with it. You only take combat in account when you write about gameplay and totally ignored example from ME series. Combat alone doesn't make great RPG, was it real time or turn based.Last game where I really paid lot of attention to attributes was last run through Baldur's Gate series and that was ages ago. I recall I had difficulties in Kotor I and II final encounters because my fucked up builds, but I managed to finish them anyway. Arcanum, Fallouts, then new Shadowrun series of games and Wasteland 2, all I managed to beat even my choices in character building weren't optimal. The thing is I have a new game, I'm not sure how things work, so I don't choose absolutely the hardest difficulty level right from the start.
That's what I'm talking about, the challenges has to be dumbed down and simplified because the weaker characters will simply be unable to beat them. RPGs have to less tight and demanding than other games which leads to worse game-play. That's why endgame of Fallout for consists of targeting head and blasting everyone with turbo-plasma rifle in one shot from the other side of the map while wearing armour that can deflect almost anything, while in JA2 the endgame consists of fighting through Deidranna's elite troopers, who can react better than seasoned mercs, have top-notch equipment and will fuck you up if you aren't careful. Because in JA2 if you find yourself unable to beat the last locations you can just hire different, mercs, buy different equipment and experiment. If FO endgame was as demanding as JA2 endgame then people with sub-optimal build would just have to restart the game. That's why endgame in FO = standing in place and shooting peasants and endgame in JA2 = fighting enemies as good as best mercs but more numerous.
That's why RPGs can't have better gameplay. Because even COD-clone could just throw a very complex and demanding situation at the player and expect him to use his skills to deal with it if the devs wanted it, while people making RPGs have to consider if all optimal and sub-optimal builds and if they'll be able to beat that encounter. And if they just decide to fuck it you are left with Age of Decadence. And FFT, where if you don't have a ninja by a certain point of the game you are fucked.
Can you name rpgs where pregen parties don't suck? I'm serious here. I've always thought of them as characters which could be good for tutorial levels but won't help you through the game, as if the devs expected you to try them, notice their weaknesses, and then restart with a party of your own. So I want to know which rpgs really have pregen parties which can take you through the entire game.
I finished Shadowrun series of games without recruiting merc characters ever. I recall there were posters complaining Glory's combat abilities in Dragonfall discussion here, but for me she worked out just fine, don't recall what buff's I used though.Games with parties should have a pregen party.
Also, it's kind of a no brainer that you need different characters, and not six identical ones.
Can you name rpgs where pregen parties don't suck? I'm serious here. I've always thought of them as characters which could be good for tutorial levels but won't help you through the game, as if the devs expected you to try them, notice their weaknesses, and then restart with a party of your own. So I want to know which rpgs really have pregen parties which can take you through the entire game.
From what I've seen, MM1 and maybe Wiz 1 had pretty good pregen party comps.So I want to know which rpgs really have pregen parties which can take you through the entire game.
He is getting chubby.