Video Game Chat Thread - Pre-Alpha Experimental Version

Are videogames for children?


  • Total voters
    8
  • Poll closed .
The complete absence of any kind of aggression I am seeing lately in the playerbase is utterly BAFFLING.

People are timid to the point of outright throwing matches. It defies any kind of logic. People DO NOT WANT TO FIGHT in a game centered around fighting. You cannot goad them into doing anything, you cannot "lead by example", you are basically forced to sit and wait and hope for SOMEBODY to find where they left their testicles.
 
I've never heard of a boss going from completely busted to a pushover because of a patch, could you give an example?

How are delayed attacks unfair, exactly? Yes, they're meant to catch out people who reflexively roll too early, but it's not like you're forced to die/get hit. You can react to a delay the first time a boss uses it. I don't see how that's not a good in-universe decision either. Don't know about you, but if I was facing down a giant monster with a sword and my only means of avoiding death was dodging, I would probably try to wait until I was certain that the monster was actually bringing its sword down before dodging out of the way.

I mean, there's an in-universe way to determine if a chest is a Mimic. Just look at the chain. In DS3 you can also see the Mimic breathing if you look closely, which is a more of a tell than DS1 and DS2 had.
I can give you an entire game instead of just a single boss : Dark souls. https://darksouls.wiki.fextralife.com/PATCHES Read patch note 1.04. They made the game significantly easier across the board. 20% damage buff and double the souls dropped on everything but elemental weapons which got a 2% debuff. Dark souls 3 went in the opposite direction where except for slug boss in Anor Londo every boss in Dark souls 3 at launch was a push over. He was one of the hardest bosses in the series because he never stopped spamming homing spells the whole fight.

Delayed attacks are fine on fitting enemies. Dancer having one, Ponith having one and such would be fine. That's not what Dark souls 3 does though, it gives them to almost every boss in lazy game design. That's why things are so samey, you see the design document in action instead of a character.

In universe mimics wouldn't all be the exact same game model. Does Dark souls 3 even have metal chests or did they drop those too? I don't recall.
 
I can give you an entire game instead of just a single boss : Dark souls. https://darksouls.wiki.fextralife.com/PATCHES Read patch note 1.04. They made the game significantly easier across the board. 20% damage buff and double the souls dropped on everything but elemental weapons which got a 2% debuff. Dark souls 3 went in the opposite direction where except for slug boss in Anor Londo every boss in Dark souls 3 at launch was a push over. He was one of the hardest bosses in the series because he never stopped spamming homing spells the whole fight.
So, you complained that certain DS3 bosses are either broken or complete pushovers depending on the patch, I asked you for an example, and you linked DS1 patch notes. While trying to argue that DS1 is better than DS3. Plus, anyone who picks up DS3 today is pretty much guaranteed to be playing on current patch, so I fail to see how this is a problem.
Delayed attacks are fine on fitting enemies. Dancer having one, Ponith having one and such would be fine. That's not what Dark souls 3 does though, it gives them to almost every boss in lazy game design. That's why things are so samey, you see the design document in action instead of a character.
TIL that giving bosses varying attack delays is lazy game design if you do it too much, and that alone is enough to make every boss feel the same. By this logic, wouldn't the fights also feel similar if they rarely gave bosses delayed attacks?
In universe mimics wouldn't all be the exact same game model. Does Dark souls 3 even have metal chests or did they drop those too? I don't recall.
DS1 Mimics also all have the exact same model, so I fail to see how this is an argument against DS3. DS2 is the only game in the series to have metal chests, but all that means is now there's two Mimic models instead of one.
 
You have to decide if you want to discuss Dark souls 3 in a nutshell (which is a bland game but fine) or as part of the series (it's a bad game because it learns nothing from the past and is less interesting than it's previous entries). You can't keep switching between those two points which is what you're doing.
 
i prefer 3 based solely on the fact that having a gank squad is like an episode of tom and jerry and will never not be funny.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Furret
You have to decide if you want to discuss Dark souls 3 in a nutshell (which is a bland game but fine) or as part of the series (it's a bad game because it learns nothing from the past and is less interesting than it's previous entries). You can't keep switching between those two points which is what you're doing.
You've been criticizing DS3 both as a standalone game and as part of the Souls series, and I'm defending it on both fronts because I disagree with your assessments of it on both fronts. I think it's a good game and a decent Souls game, although it's not my favorite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SkunkFeet
Surprised there hasn’t been a thread regarding the “Just Cause” series yet.

JC 3 and 4 are on sale on PSN. I loved the 2nd one, and started the 3rd a while back but need to finish it. I WANT to like 4 trying to add a "take over the land zone by zone" mechanic, but it feels so drawn out and cumbersome. This not a series where you want to deal with menus and management - you're here to blow shit up and creatively use the grapple lines to kill people.

JC 3 is $4 for the basic edition, and $6 for the XXL Edition with all the DLC and Add-Ons.

JC 4 Complete Edition is $17.49, down from $69.99
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: albert chan
What a quality post. It was so shit they had to destroy a series tradition for diversity hires right? 100% an improved game because now it has 300% more watermelon fans and the final boss is white instead of brown. How could any one possibly not see how great Patches face and animation is?
Yeah lets ignore the fact that that the reason it was brown was because of every fucking game released in the 7th gen had that ugly brown and grey aesthetic
 
i prefer 3 based solely on the fact that having a gank squad is like an episode of tom and jerry and will never not be funny.
And that's a prime reason I don't like it. PvP mechanics were broken to allow Co op at all times every where so invasions are now a meat grinder for any one who invades. Over level mechanics and other bullshit mechanics make it pointless to invade any more. The odds of invading a single player and having a 1 on 1 fight are non existent. There's no reason to be open to invasions any more so no one is. And many areas which should be good for invading are overrun by idiots doing fight clubs. Compare that to Demon's souls where 1 area was used as a fight club and you could expect to run into 1 or maybe 2 players if you invaded on average.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: timecop
And that's a prime reason I don't like it. PvP mechanics were broken to allow Co op at all times every where so invasions are now a meat grinder for any one who invades. Over level mechanics and other bullshit mechanics make it pointless to invade any more. The odds of invading a single player and having a 1 on 1 fight are non existent. There's no reason to be open to invasions any more so no one is. And many areas which should be good for invading are overrun by idiots doing fight clubs. Compare that to Demon's souls where 1 area was used as a fight club and you could expect to run into 1 or maybe 2 players if you invaded on average.
you know i feel that, but at the same time i have to contest it a little bit. there have been countless times where the invader's fucked me by pulling a rabbit out of his hat and i am left in a DSP like state of confusion and misplaced anger. being able to have you and three other guys use a branch and jump the cunt like it's looney tunes gets me every time. i'm biased but i'd say it comes down to everyone involved. i've also found that the squat emote is a universal, diplomatic language and can be used for 1v1's.
 
You might enjoy being the gank squad but very few people want to engage in that and because of them it dams the whole PvP section of the game. People have to be prepared for fighting gank squads alone or they don't invade at all so the random invasions you might have got are bullied out of the eco system by 3 pricks thinking it's funny to break the pvp mechanic. Souls already had the issue of the host hiding behind a wall of phantoms and trying to attrition you by summoning dude after dude and instead of resolving that they encouraged it. Instead of a mostly isolated adventure it's become a co op game you can choose to solo. And the funniest thing is they don't even design the game for that, enemy AI is still broken by co op and makes every boss a free kill. Dark souls 2 did multifoe fights to balance this and people cried so hard they never returned to the concept unless the game is killing themselves. If they want to push multiplayer to be a real component they could at least give the bosses ways to punish multiple players switching aggro and attacks which hit the full area around them so hit the two ankle biters while host turtles with a great shield.
 
Oh my god the match quality tonight is absolutely garbage.

If I can pull 942 damage in a fucking Enforcer-5P and my team still loses they were fucking unsaveable.
 
you know i feel that, but at the same time i have to contest it a little bit. there have been countless times where the invader's fucked me by pulling a rabbit out of his hat and i am left in a DSP like state of confusion and misplaced anger. being able to have you and three other guys use a branch and jump the cunt like it's looney tunes gets me every time. i'm biased but i'd say it comes down to everyone involved. i've also found that the squat emote is a universal, diplomatic language and can be used for 1v1's.
This used to not be too big of a problem, but it's gotten worse over time. For the first few years of the game's life, gank squads were very rarely any good at actually fighting and just relied on the numbers advantage to win, so Invaders could even the playing field by being good at the game and using a few tricks. At some point, though, the gank squads started actually learning how to fight well and nullify the tricks Invaders were using to gain the upper hand, and now winning as an Invader is borderline impossible unless you're in the top 0.1% of PvP gods. Probably why fight clubs are so popular now.
You might enjoy being the gank squad but very few people want to engage in that and because of them it dams the whole PvP section of the game. People have to be prepared for fighting gank squads alone or they don't invade at all so the random invasions you might have got are bullied out of the eco system by 3 pricks thinking it's funny to break the pvp mechanic. Souls already had the issue of the host hiding behind a wall of phantoms and trying to attrition you by summoning dude after dude and instead of resolving that they encouraged it. Instead of a mostly isolated adventure it's become a co op game you can choose to solo. And the funniest thing is they don't even design the game for that, enemy AI is still broken by co op and makes every boss a free kill. Dark souls 2 did multifoe fights to balance this and people cried so hard they never returned to the concept unless the game is killing themselves. If they want to push multiplayer to be a real component they could at least give the bosses ways to punish multiple players switching aggro and attacks which hit the full area around them so hit the two ankle biters while host turtles with a great shield.
Honestly, I think co-op has always been pretty broken. People just didn't notice how bad it is until DS3 when the matchmaker started prioritizing worlds with Phantoms in them. I always laugh at game journalists who say that Souls games need an easy mode. They already have one.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: SkunkFeet
Honestly, I think co-op has always been pretty broken. People just didn't notice how bad it is until DS3 when the matchmaker started prioritizing worlds with Phantoms in them. I always laugh at game journalists who say that Souls games need an easy mode. They already have one.
When they say they want "easy mode" what they mean is they want a movie where they always, always win, the outcome of the game is never in question, they get their participation trophy by showing the fuck up.
 
When they say they want "easy mode" what they mean is they want a movie where they always, always win, the outcome of the game is never in question, they get their participation trophy by showing the fuck up.
Co-op can basically be that if you have the right bunch of Phantoms. I remember OnlyAfro did a video when DS3 first came out where he summoned a group of his friends and had them cheese through the entire game for him just to make fun of people saying that the game needs an easy mode. During some of the boss fights he literally just sat down on the ground and was never attacked because his buddies always had all the aggro. If you can make it through the tutorial and have a few competent people willing to fight for you then you can get through some areas without ever swinging a weapon.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: SkunkFeet
How players invaded others isn't the problem. The problem is being able to coop with your friends at all. You shouldn't be able to form gank squads in the first place.
 
How players invaded others isn't the problem. The problem is being able to coop with your friends at all. You shouldn't be able to form gank squads in the first place.
Problem is, how do you stop that from happening? Limiting the amount of Phantoms a player can summon to one will stop the worst of the ganks, but it won't stop people from going through the game with their friends, and a two-on-one fight is still pretty hard for an Invader if his two opponents are both skilled at PvP. IMO, DS2 handles this the best. Co-op is still pretty broken for PvE but that's not really something that can be stopped without removing the system completely. They fixed it for PvP in DS2 by blocking the Phantoms from healing when there's an Invader in the world, except through Miracles. This rewards people who come prepared and makes life easier for the Invaders since damage dealt to a Phantom can't immediately be erased by a swift Estus chug. It's not a perfect system, but it's pretty balanced.
 
Limit to 1 summon and once you have a summon all summon signs disappear until you die. Summons do half damage and any time you lay down a sun bro sign your PC uninstalls the game for being a faggot.

As I said, if you care about multiplayer in a fucking from software game you're so autistic you probably don't even know what's going on on screen.
 
Limit to 1 summon and once you have a summon all summon signs disappear until you die. Summons do half damage and any time you lay down a sun bro sign your PC uninstalls the game for being a faggot.
you're not really making me see things your way and i don't appreciate you trying to sneak in calling me a faggot for having gank squads, paisano. invaders are like a glowing seven year old being astral projected from spain breaking into your house swinging a stretch armstrong around over his head like a lasso, and when you smack him once he runs away to drink from his sippy cup. it's never some guy that wants to go three rounds, it's some minmaxxing medication recipient on his neighbor's wifi. that's why it never stops being funny watching some goober thinking he's hot shit get surrounded by the task force, and you're just mad you got got. if you just want to have some safe, sterilized one on ones so bad quit being a silly goose and go duel people at undead matches or after sullyvan
 
Back