He mostly bothers me cos he talks about good game design like it's set in stone.
Like he praises Fallout New Vegas for railroading you down the safe route through enemy placement and such, and criticises Fallout 3 for being too open.
Like it's okay to have an opinion on what you think works of course, but it feels dismissive of the differing design philosophies. Like it doesn't take them into account. One's "the right way™" and the other is wrong.
What's "not focused" for one person, is an "exploration opportunity" for someone else. NVs approach might be well crafted but it means that every run will be:
The safe way designed by developers.
Save-scum challenge run through high level area.
So repeat playthroughs may feel more samey. Fallout 3 you can beeline for whatever you want. You can call it too easy but it's genuinely just personal preference.
That's intended, as the age of fire keeps rolling along space and time stop making sense, like how phantoms keep appearing everywhere in DKS1. It's just that in DKS2 space itself becomes warped and doesn't have to make sense anymore. To wit, in DKS3, Anor Londo is right next to Irythil. What the hell is it doing there? Countless ages have happend in the meantime, Anor Londo should have been turned to complete and utter dust. And where's all the crap it was conjoined to, like the Duke's Archives (and the Crystal Caves) or the Painted World of Ariamis. The lore answer is "places from time are just being randomly pulled in as the age of fire makes space-time disappear up it's own arse multiple times in a row".
Eh, I've heard that before and it just doesn't work for me. Dark Souls 3 just pulls off the folding space-time thing that much better.
In 3 it feels foreboding, but in 2 it feels silly. I genuinely just think it's the structure. It's like someone said "this is my idea for a sequel" and they just couldn't execute it the way 3 does.
I get what they were going for, it doesn't work for me.
he spends the first 20 minutes complaining about how u don't get to vidya in the first 1 minute of the game and you see, it's not possible to make a game like that because of this totally infallible script he only knows about on how to make good games.
I'll pass on this one, methinks.
You don't think he's got good points on the artistry of an unplayably miserable plague simulator?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
He mostly bothers me cos he talks about good game design like it's set in stone.
Like he praises Fallout New Vegas for railroading you down the safe route through enemy placement and such, and criticises Fallout 3 for being too open.
Like it's okay to have an opinion on what you think works of course, but it feels dismissive of the differing design philosophies. Like it doesn't take them into account. One's "the right way™" and the other is wrong.
What's "not focused" for one person, is an "exploration opportunity" for someone else. NVs approach might be well crafted but it means that every run will be:
The safe way designed by developers.
Save-scum challenge run through high level area.
So repeat playthroughs may feel more samey. Fallout 3 you can beeline for whatever you want. You can call it too easy but it's genuinely just personal preference.
dark souls 2 is the best game ever made
Based and powerstance-pilled
Dark Souls 2 deserved the flak it got, and Scholar of the First Sin brings it up to okay game with some really good ideas in it.
deleted by creator
what did it change from the original version?
The biggest positive change I can say is the item and enemy placements.
Vanilla had a lot of bullshit that just didn't make sense design wise.
Plus there's an NPC who adds a bit more fleshing out to the story.
Even then DS2 just feels a bit more haphazard than the first game felt. The most famous example being the volcano castle at the top of a windmill.
That's intended, as the age of fire keeps rolling along space and time stop making sense, like how phantoms keep appearing everywhere in DKS1. It's just that in DKS2 space itself becomes warped and doesn't have to make sense anymore. To wit, in DKS3, Anor Londo is right next to Irythil. What the hell is it doing there? Countless ages have happend in the meantime, Anor Londo should have been turned to complete and utter dust. And where's all the crap it was conjoined to, like the Duke's Archives (and the Crystal Caves) or the Painted World of Ariamis. The lore answer is "places from time are just being randomly pulled in as the age of fire makes space-time disappear up it's own arse multiple times in a row".
Eh, I've heard that before and it just doesn't work for me. Dark Souls 3 just pulls off the folding space-time thing that much better.
In 3 it feels foreboding, but in 2 it feels silly. I genuinely just think it's the structure. It's like someone said "this is my idea for a sequel" and they just couldn't execute it the way 3 does.
I get what they were going for, it doesn't work for me.
he spends the first 20 minutes complaining about how u don't get to vidya in the first 1 minute of the game and you see, it's not possible to make a game like that because of this totally infallible script he only knows about on how to make good games.