naw it's truth. those games were lazily designed. even contra let people have access to the contra code. artificial difficulty is a real thing, and if you look at the gameplay mechanics from a developer point of view there's just not much there.
You have no actual analysis, just conclusions asserted as facts.
i'm sorry that you don't want to actually read anything and attach yourself so fully to a piece of software, enough to think that i'm attacking you by attacking a badly designed slog meant to extract capital.
Clearly you are unable to discuss this topic constructively, so it would be better to just pick topics you will engage with in a better manner.
i'm picking topics just fine, you're the one who is taking my points on a trash game personally.
but either way you should probably just get outside more (of you can do so without it being too dangerous, of course).
the conclusion isn't an assumption, the conclusion is explained in the next sentence, that next sentence being ...
the fact that you have to ‘learn’ an enemies timing and moves, while dying so quickly and then repeating the process over and over again doesn’t make for a fun experience. it’s just annoying bad game design.
in addition to that, each comment in this thread works as a backup to a previous point, just as conversations typically go. you can combine my comments on this topic throughout this thread and it would form a small essay with various different points that all form together cohesively.
you don't need two different premises, you need a line of reasoning that explains a conclusion.
and there's multiple replies throughout this topic if you want to piece together the overall point that "dark souls and bloodbourne are bad games."
edit: i've even explained that i'm not against difficult games, but am against games that superficially extend themselves through artificial difficulty while still demanding a full pricetag for what is just a few hours of gameplay, bloated into an annoying repetitive experience.
sekiro as i've stated is a difficult game, but it's an entire game that isn't based solely around a single gameplay mechanic. if you were to look at this through the eyes of a developer you would see how barren the experience is.
flappy bird may have been a hollow simple experience but it didn't present itself as some sort of epic experience, and you would be pretty hard up to find people who played the game and defend it as such against fair criticism.
this is like saying you can't say red is a color you have to say red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet make up the rain bow.
the point i was making was that it's repetitive garbage. you seem to be asking me for more reasons that it's not a good game, even though I think that being repetitive garbage is enough to make it bad on it's own.
naw it's truth. those games were lazily designed. even contra let people have access to the contra code. artificial difficulty is a real thing, and if you look at the gameplay mechanics from a developer point of view there's just not much there.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
i'm sorry that you don't want to actually read anything and attach yourself so fully to a piece of software, enough to think that i'm attacking you by attacking a badly designed slog meant to extract capital.
i'm picking topics just fine, you're the one who is taking my points on a trash game personally.
quoted to demonstrate your hypocrisy.
deleted by creator
here ya go
deleted by creator
the conclusion isn't an assumption, the conclusion is explained in the next sentence, that next sentence being ...
in addition to that, each comment in this thread works as a backup to a previous point, just as conversations typically go. you can combine my comments on this topic throughout this thread and it would form a small essay with various different points that all form together cohesively.
deleted by creator
you don't need two different premises, you need a line of reasoning that explains a conclusion.
and there's multiple replies throughout this topic if you want to piece together the overall point that "dark souls and bloodbourne are bad games."
edit: i've even explained that i'm not against difficult games, but am against games that superficially extend themselves through artificial difficulty while still demanding a full pricetag for what is just a few hours of gameplay, bloated into an annoying repetitive experience.
sekiro as i've stated is a difficult game, but it's an entire game that isn't based solely around a single gameplay mechanic. if you were to look at this through the eyes of a developer you would see how barren the experience is.
flappy bird may have been a hollow simple experience but it didn't present itself as some sort of epic experience, and you would be pretty hard up to find people who played the game and defend it as such against fair criticism.
deleted by creator
this is like saying you can't say red is a color you have to say red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet make up the rain bow.
the point i was making was that it's repetitive garbage. you seem to be asking me for more reasons that it's not a good game, even though I think that being repetitive garbage is enough to make it bad on it's own.
deleted by creator