623 réponses à ce sujet

[Zjarcal]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

It's worth noting that I have a deeply allergic reaction to not being able to buy or sell things due to schedules. I don't like it when the "sim" gets in the way of my gameplay. Doesn't mean shopkeepers couldn't leave, but it probably means that there'd be a "night guy" if a shopkeeper went to bed.

Of course, that would be supposing a day/night cycle, and that's just crazy talk. Right?

I agree. While it's nice to have stuff like a day/night cycle to add to immersion, it's not nice when the realism gets in the way of the fun. Being forced to sleep or do mundane activities just to keep up with realism is rarely, if ever, fun. TW1 for instance forced us to go to specific locations just to meditate and level up. I'm sure some appreciated that extra layer of realism, but I didn't. I was happy that TW2 allowed us to meditate anywhere (though it could've done without the overly long animation).

I like the idea of a "night guy" shopekeeper. No reason why medieval stores can't be open 24/7! 

[LobselVith8]

thats1evildude wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

That said, am I the only person who wants a proactive protagonist?

Your definition of "pro-active" roughly equates to "trigger-happy." 

My idea of a proactive protagonist has extended beyond situations in combat - Hawke doing nothing with his wealth but wear silk robes, or an apostate Hawke doing nothing with his magical abilities while Anders puts himself out there for the people, for example. For the situations that do focus on combat, how is it "trigger happy" to address that the protagonist should actually do something in situations that call for it, rather than do nothing at all? I find Hawke, for example, very passive in situations where I think an actual person would not simply stand idly by - such as when a murder takes place right in front of him because Hawke decides to simply stand there, when his sister will be taken to a Circle where mages are getting made tranquil illegally, when a religious fanatic says she will instigate a religious war that will get clearly get people killed, or when he can stop a dangerous foe and decides to do nothing at all instead (which is the pattern that the recent story DLCs have followed).

[Sylvianus]

google_calasade wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...
And more intelligent and 'life like' ambient behaviour is definitely something we're looking into for future projects. Giving NPCs their own schedules and lives, within certain boundaries, is one of the best ways to make a world feel 'alive'. Even if it's as simple as saying 'when event X happens within Y number of meters, do Z', and then having several sets of those behaviour - if they react to outside stimulus it helps lessen the feeling that you're playing a game that's divided into distinct parts, such as exploration, combat, etc.

We have a lot of ideas on how to improve this aspect in future titles. There's not a lot I can say about it regarding specifics, of course - but we're certainly aware that it's a high priority for a lot of people.

It's worth noting that I have a deeply allergic reaction to not being able to buy or sell things due to schedules. I don't like it when the "sim" gets in the way of my gameplay. Doesn't mean shopkeepers couldn't leave, but it probably means that there'd be a "night guy" if a shopkeeper went to bed.

Of course, that would be supposing a day/night cycle, and that's just crazy talk. Right?

Hopefully not crazy talk, and why would you have a deeply allergic reaction to schedules?  Impatience issue perhaps?  Back to the point...

You say you don't want the "sim" getting in the way of your gameplay whereas I see the "sim" as part of the gameplay.

Being able to do all things at any given point in a game is a little boring and takes away from the overall depth of the game by making the world in which you interact too convenient and one dimensional.  A day/night schedule adds a ton to immersion.

Give me a world that has day/night, where there are business hours, where my character needs to sleep for stamina the next day, for injuries to heal, etc, where the setting in which I find myself is different at night than it is during the day.  The Baldur's Gate series did this correctly.  The Witcher, too.  In both, different monsters appear at night and the ambience of whatever setting in which you found yourself changed considerably.  In BG 2, for instance, being out at night meant not only exposure to vampires but also a greater risk of getting mugged.  It added excitement.  The same goes for the Witcher, except you worried about drowners and the drowned dead.  Having to go out at night in the outskirts of Vizima to light the candles with those hell hounds and ghouls appearing?

Talk about fun!

Likewise, you should not be able to do the same activities in day and night, else what is the point except for the sun downing and the moon rising?  There's no value in that alone besides the aethsetic.

Immerision is about a thousand little things.  Granted, some are inconvenient, even tedious on occasion, but...make too many things too easy or non-existent, and well, you take away from the depth, challenge, and overall enjoyment of the game.

In Skyrim, we control the time. Scroll the time, and the night or the day disappears in a few seconds.  This can keep a semblance of realism, can bring many things and does not hinder the gameplay.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 12 janvier 2012 - 08:07 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Zjarcal wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

It's worth noting that I have a deeply allergic reaction to not being able to buy or sell things due to schedules. I don't like it when the "sim" gets in the way of my gameplay. Doesn't mean shopkeepers couldn't leave, but it probably means that there'd be a "night guy" if a shopkeeper went to bed.

Of course, that would be supposing a day/night cycle, and that's just crazy talk. Right?

I agree. While it's nice to have stuff like a day/night cycle to add to immersion, it's not nice when the realism gets in the way of the fun. Being forced to sleep or do mundane activities just to keep up with realism is rarely, if ever, fun. TW1 for instance forced us to go to specific locations just to meditate and level up. I'm sure some appreciated that extra layer of realism, but I didn't. I was happy that TW2 allowed us to meditate anywhere (though it could've done without the overly long animation).

I like the idea of a "night guy" shopekeeper. No reason why medieval stores can't be open 24/7! 

I very very strongly disagree. Howewer I wouldn't mind it at all if a game used the DA2 system ( you go on your map and you can make it night from there at the press of a button instead of bloody meditating every single time, or waiting as in Skyrim ) but they should add Dawn, Noon, Dusk and Midnight cycles and make time flow.

[Zjarcal]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

I very very strongly disagree. Howewer I wouldn't mind it at all if a game used the DA2 system ( you go on your map and you can make it night from there at the press of a button instead of bloody meditating every single time, or waiting as in Skyrim ) but they should add Dawn, Noon, Dusk and Midnight cycles and make time flow.

That's a fair idea. I like TW2's flexibility in terms of being able to choose the exact hour you wanted to advance, even if the process of choosing the hour was a chore.

[Yrkoon]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...


It's worth noting that I have a deeply allergic reaction to not being able to buy or sell things due to schedules. I don't like it when the "sim" gets in the way of my gameplay. Doesn't mean shopkeepers couldn't leave, but it probably means that there'd be a "night guy" if a shopkeeper went to bed.

Of course, that would be supposing a day/night cycle, and that's just crazy talk. Right?

Eh, I'm completely ok with shops that "close" at night, and "open" back up in the morning in games.  What gets under my skin, though is  when I have to go to  several different types of shops in order to unload everything in my inventory that I want to sell.  Because that gets tedious after a while.  Too Much "sim" in the way, as you say.

::: player goes to the blacksmith::: 

Blacksmith:  "Sure, I'll  buy the Weapons & Armor you've got, but you'll have to go down the street if you want to sell  that jewelery!"

::::Player goes down the street:::::

Jeweler:  "Hi!  I'll buy your rings and amulets.  But I don't want your Robes and staves, because this isn't  a magic shop.   You'll have to go to the  Magic shop across the street to get rid of those."


:::Player goes across the street::::

Mage:  Aah, Welcome,  I'll buy your Robes, Staves, and Scrolls.  But don't show me your Potions, because I don't want those.  Check the potion shop at the other end of town.

:::::Player travels to the other end of town:::::

Alchemist:  I'll buy all your  Non-stolen  Potions!  But you'll have to travel to the next city to find a fence to buy your stolen loot.....

:::::Player  says:  Screw it.  I'll just dump  the rest of this stuff in my house and get back to playing.:::::

Modifié par Yrkoon, 12 janvier 2012 - 08:40 .

[Gunderic]

JohnEpler wrote...

Gunderic wrote...

But... the Witcher 2 has your PC (a man) sleeping with women... and you can't do the opposite! Wouldn't saying that they're looking at the Witcher 2 aggressively anger the uber-feminists that sometimes lurk and post here?

Those pesky uber feminists and their desire for equal and fair representation in popular media. Where will their madness end?

I'm thinking never. They're fully able to create issues when they run out; it's like the gift that keeps on giving.*

*not referring to herpes.

[Gunderic]

Masako52 wrote...

Gunderic wrote...

But... the Witcher 2 has your PC (a man) sleeping with women... and you can't do the opposite! Wouldn't saying that they're looking at the Witcher 2 aggressively anger the uber-feminists that sometimes lurk and post here?

LOL - are you more mad about games that have men sleeping with other men, or about women playing video games? I really can't tell! 

Er, neither? Not sure what homosexuality has to do with this.

[Am1vf]

Yrkoon wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...


It's worth noting that I have a deeply allergic reaction to not being able to buy or sell things due to schedules. I don't like it when the "sim" gets in the way of my gameplay. Doesn't mean shopkeepers couldn't leave, but it probably means that there'd be a "night guy" if a shopkeeper went to bed.

Of course, that would be supposing a day/night cycle, and that's just crazy talk. Right?

Eh, I'm completely ok with shops that "close" at night, and "open" back up in the morning in games.  What gets under my skin, though is  when I have to go to  several different types of shops in order to unload everything in my inventory that I want to sell.  Because that gets tedious after a while.  Too Much "sim" in the way, as you say.

::: player goes to the blacksmith::: 

Blacksmith:  "Sure, I'll  buy the Weapons & Armor you've got, but you'll have to go down the street if you want to sell  that jewelery!"

::::Player goes down the street:::::

Jeweler:  "Hi!  I'll buy your rings and amulets.  But I don't want your Robes and staves, because this isn't  a magic shop.   You'll have to go to the  Magic shop across the street to get rid of those."


:::Player goes across the street::::

Mage:  Aah, Welcome,  I'll buy your Robes, Staves, and Scrolls.  But don't show me your Potions, because I don't want those.  Check the potion shop at the other end of town.

:::::Player travels to the other end of town:::::

Alchemist:  I'll buy all your  Non-stolen  Potions!  But you'll have to travel to the next city to find a fence to buy your stolen stuff.....

:::::Player  says:  Screw it.  I'll just dump  the rest of this stuff in my house and get back to playing.:::::

And what about the "all the shops of the city combined don't have enough cash to buy all your loot so you will have to travel across the whole continent selling things just to be able to buy this enchanted goblet (wich will be junk as soon as you gain 2 levels:crying:)".

What I really dislike is when a shopkeeper is only the activator for the shop, instead of a character.

Modifié par Am1_vf, 12 janvier 2012 - 08:44 .

[Gunderic]

JohnEpler wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

I don't think your approaches overlap at all, as the games are so ridiculously different they may aswell be different genres.

I suggest you look at that pesky TW2 that doesn't represent equal rights for everyone. Sure it's realistic in it's representation of Medieval equality, but please don't let that deter you. I'm sure you guys can find someway to incorporate every little population niche out there while still being inspired by it.

And that's the prerogative of The Witcher 2. They've chosen to go for a realistic view of gender politics in that particular period in history, and I certainly don't think it's any less valid of an approach - for many, this somewhat more 'real world' approach has a lot of appeal. And I'm glad! The more variety out there, the more likely that everyone will find something to their taste.

However, that particular goal has never been something we've ever shown much interest in, so it seems rather silly to chide us for not succeeding at something we've never made any suggestion that we were attempting, doesn't it? It's been rather clear since the beginning that inclusivity regardless of gender or sexual orientation is significantly higher on our list of priorities than accurately simulating medieval Europe.

Not to make the impression that I want gender discrimination in Dragon Age, but why does something like gender inclusivity = translate into progressive medieval video game societies? As long as you design a game with playing a female character in mind, you're being inclusive.

[Mike Laidlaw]

As to my thoughts on why I would prefer a "night guy" over "the store closes and you have to wait is because I tend to see four ways to deal with the latter:

1. You have to wait for time to pass. Perhaps you go do something else, perhaps you just stare at the screen, but time? It moves on its own.
2. You have to go somewhere to make time pass. Perhaps an inn, where you sleep and it becomes morning.
3. You "wait" and time passes around you. (as seen in skyrim/Fallout)
4. The store or service you need doesn't close, but who you deal with changes in some way (aka: "the night guy comes on shift" or "an alternative, nearby service opens up, offered by another guy...in an alley or something")

They all have perfectly valid rationales in a scheduled game.
1 is realistic, and borders on simulation, but may significantly impact the "flow" of your gaming if you absolutely need to interact with that service to progress.
2 maps well to our real world experience, in that to "advance time" we need to, typically, go to bed, but asks the player to travel, and potentially area-transition.
3 is exceptionally convenient in that you don't have to move/load, but breaks some degree of immersion in that you wonder if your character was standing perfectly still for that entire period of time.
4. Ensures the service is available and doesn't require travel time/loads, but does make less sense in a medieval world than it does in our night-shift society.

So, they're all fine, I just happen to prefer 4, because I happen to consider it the least disruptive to immersion. 

Largely an academic discussion at the moment, but since someone asked, there you go!

[Gunderic]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...


A significant number of the design team have played, enjoyed and considered Witcher 2, Deus Ex: HR and we've even been taking a look at some of the indie titles out there like Avadon (and even Aralon, on the iOs, which is pretty damn good, if you have the hardware).

Some of us have even taken a big 'ol swing through DA:O and the BG series.

Found everything those games did wrong yet? 

google_calasade wrote...

Hopefully not crazy talk, and why would you have a deeply allergic reaction to schedules?  Impatience issue perhaps?  Back to the point...

You say you don't want the "sim" getting in the way of your gameplay whereas I see the "sim" as part of the gameplay.

Being able to do all things at any given point in a game is a little boring and takes away from the overall depth of the game by making the world in which you interact too convenient and one dimensional.  A day/night schedule adds a ton to immersion.

Give me a world that has day/night, where there are business hours, where my character needs to sleep for stamina the next day, for injuries to heal, etc, where the setting in which I find myself is different at night than it is during the day.  The Baldur's Gate series did this correctly.  The Witcher, too.  In both, different monsters appear at night and the ambience of whatever setting in which you found yourself changed considerably.  In BG 2, for instance, being out at night meant not only exposure to vampires but also a greater risk of getting mugged.  It added excitement.  The same goes for the Witcher, except you worried about drowners and the drowned dead.  Having to go out at night in the outskirts of Vizima to light the candles with those hell hounds and ghouls appearing?

Talk about fun!

Likewise, you should not be able to do the same activities in day and night, else what is the point except for the sun downing and the moon rising?  There's no value in that alone besides the aethsetic.

Immerision is about a thousand little things.  Granted, some are inconvenient, even tedious on occasion, but...make too many things too easy or non-existent, and well, you take away from the depth, challenge, and overall enjoyment of the game.

'Sim' ideas can very easily translate into busted gameplay mechanics. I approve of a day and night cycle having more 'dimension' to it, in the sense that you meet certain people only at night, or can even rob closed shops. But it's not entirely unrealistic to have the possibility to sell your junk* to a fence at night either.

I believe games are at their best when they provide a combination of things like storytelling/cinematics and theme with gameplay that's both fun, functional and tells you something, which is why I respect Valve a lot because of their ability to succeed at that.

*vendor trash, that is.

Modifié par Gunderic, 12 janvier 2012 - 09:00 .

[Firky]

Wow. I'd reply to some of the "gender inclusivity" discussion but I'm actually offended by what I've read in this thread and I'd likely be rude. Which is not what I want to do.

On the day/night issue, while I really liked the visuals with time of day/weather, I don't think Witcher 2 nailed it. If you needed someone for something, you could just go wake them up. They weren't even mad. It made the game a lot easier, but I think design should be "in for a penny in for a pound." (Was the original Witcher like that? I'm going to guess no, because I can't recall being irked by it - but maybe it was.)

I initially didn't like the lack of day/night cycle in DAII, but the whole switching between modes became like an iconographic, representative style of play that I started to really enjoy. But I'm a very old school gamer who likes using her imagination over realism.

I do like day/night cycle, a lot, but only if it's supported by other facets of the game. Like in BG2, you had to rest. So if you had no pressing night business, that's when you rested. If you had to do something at night, you had to be organised and rest during the day. Then there was memorising spells during sleep too, etc.

[TEWR]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

As to my thoughts on why I would prefer a "night guy" over "the store closes and you have to wait is because I tend to see four ways to deal with the latter:

1. You have to wait for time to pass. Perhaps you go do something else, perhaps you just stare at the screen, but time? It moves on its own.
2. You have to go somewhere to make time pass. Perhaps an inn, where you sleep and it becomes morning.
3. You "wait" and time passes around you. (as seen in skyrim/Fallout)
4. The store or service you need doesn't close, but who you deal with changes in some way (aka: "the night guy comes on shift" or "an alternative, nearby service opens up, offered by another guy...in an alley or something")

They all have perfectly valid rationales in a scheduled game.
1 is realistic, and borders on simulation, but may significantly impact the "flow" of your gaming if you absolutely need to interact with that service to progress.
2 maps well to our real world experience, in that to "advance time" we need to, typically, go to bed, but asks the player to travel, and potentially area-transition.
3 is exceptionally convenient in that you don't have to move/load, but breaks some degree of immersion in that you wonder if your character was standing perfectly still for that entire period of time.
4. Ensures the service is available and doesn't require travel time/loads, but does make less sense in a medieval world than it does in our night-shift society.

So, they're all fine, I just happen to prefer 4, because I happen to consider it the least disruptive to immersion. 

Largely an academic discussion at the moment, but since someone asked, there you go!

I like to think my Nordic Master of all trades in Skyrim just stands there meditating, trying to make his powers more... well... powerful.

Or he's muttering to himself.

As for number 4, it would make perfect sense if say... fences opened up during the night where they're less likely to be noticed. So while maybe your preferred blacksmith may be closed at night, a fence would open up down the nearby alley and he'd be willing to buy your goods, whether stolen or earned.

EDIT: and in a way, Bonny Lem fit that bill.

EDIT 2: and my reading skills are way off today as you did suggest fences. I feel like a fool

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 12 janvier 2012 - 09:46 .

[Gunderic]

Firky wrote...

Wow. I'd reply to some of the "gender inclusivity" discussion but I'm actually offended by what I've read in this thread and I'd likely be rude. Which is not what I want to do.

Why? By being inclusive, I meant that the game should recognize and cater to the gender the player chooses, in both ways, and regardless of RL gender.

edit: just like choosing dwarves or elves as roleplaying variables.

Modifié par Gunderic, 12 janvier 2012 - 09:15 .

[craigdolphin]

Personally, I'd agree with ML that #4 is maybe the best of the options. But I'd differentiate between 'some other guy in the same shop' and 'a different shop opens in an alley while this one is closed'.

With imagination, the latter could easily be made to work well with the medieval setting without sacrificing immersion. It would add diversity to the night/day experience too.

The former...well, it would strike me as VERY odd in a medieval town/village that 24 hour a day retail service is common. Even today, it's not always the case and we have artifical lighting etc.

People forget that candles/lantern oil etc were not trivially cheap consumables back in the day. And why would people open a shop at night when almost everybody up at that hour would be either a criminal or a guard? That said, I suspect it could be made to work either way. I'm just saying that I would think 24 hour a day shopping should be the exception rather than the rule in the event day/night cycles were brought in. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

[jlb524]

Gunderic wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

Gunderic wrote...

But... the Witcher 2 has your PC (a man) sleeping with women... and you can't do the opposite! Wouldn't saying that they're looking at the Witcher 2 aggressively anger the uber-feminists that sometimes lurk and post here?

Those pesky uber feminists and their desire for equal and fair representation in popular media. Where will their madness end?

I'm thinking never. They're fully able to create issues when they run out; it's like the gift that keeps on giving.*

*not referring to herpes.

Your sarcasm detector is broken.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...
4. The store or service you need doesn't close, but who you deal with changes in some way (aka: "the night guy comes on shift" or "an alternative, nearby service opens up, offered by another guy...in an alley or something")

I prefer this with the 'alternative service'...it feels more legit than a shop having night service.

Modifié par jlb524, 12 janvier 2012 - 09:21 .

[Firky]

Gunderic wrote...

Firky wrote...

Wow. I'd reply to some of the "gender inclusivity" discussion but I'm actually offended by what I've read in this thread and I'd likely be rude. Which is not what I want to do.

Why? By being inclusive, I meant that the game should recognize and cater to the gender the player chooses, in both ways, and regardless of RL gender.

edit: just like choosing dwarves or elves as roleplaying variables.

I don't really care about roleplaying as a woman. I do appreciate the way BioWare does it, though. I'm also happy to be Geralt, or whoever. Would I presume to believe this attitude is common to all women, or men? No. I'd rather people had the opportunity to be allowed to speak their mind, even on the internet, without being bullied out of their truth by pre-emptively being called an "uberfeminist" or being accused of just finding things to complain about, rather than actually raising something that is important to them.

On topic, about Witcher 2. And to link to "authentic opinions about gender in games" or something. I thought TW2's mysogynistic world was well done, for the most part, with a few exceptions. At one point the guard was threatening female prisoners with rape. You kill him, but you can't then get a key off his body and free them. Like day/night cycle, I think the Witcher 2 was a bit "neither here nor there" in that it wasn't fully committed to either interactive or iconic world. I still liked it.

Modifié par Firky, 12 janvier 2012 - 09:29 .

[John Epler]

craigdolphin wrote...

Personally, I'd agree with ML that #4 is maybe the best of the options. But I'd differentiate between 'some other guy in the same shop' and 'a different shop opens in an alley while this one is closed'.

With imagination, the latter could easily be made to work well with the medieval setting without sacrificing immersion. It would add diversity to the night/day experience too.

The former...well, it would strike me as VERY odd in a medieval town/village that 24 hour a day retail service is common. Even today, it's not always the case and we have artifical lighting etc.

People forget that candles/lantern oil etc were not trivially cheap consumables back in the day. And why would people open a shop at night when almost everybody up at that hour would be either a criminal or a guard? That said, I suspect it could be made to work either way. I'm just saying that I would think 24 hour a day shopping should be the exception rather than the rule in the event day/night cycles were brought in. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

I don't think it'd be a stretch to suggest that certain vendors (like you said, in an alley or similar) might keep irregular hours. I think the primary concern is not 'let's make sure that the experience is exactly the same in the daytime or the night time', but rather 'let's make sure that the player has access to similar experiences regardless of the time of day'. Night time should be different from day time - in game play as well as in general atmosphere. However, there's a distinction to be made between 'it's night time, so everything is closed and all you can do is wander around the town, gazing forlornly into closed shops with your face pressed up against the glass' and 'it's night time, so certain services are located elsewhere and the general feel of the town is different'. I think the latter adds to immersion while avoiding certain pitfalls associated with hard 'IF YOU ARE NOT HERE AT THE RIGHT TIME THEN YOU ARE SOL' limits.

That's not to say there aren't games where the latter is appropriate (anything that mixes survival horror and open world seems like an ideal place to force you to spend the night outside, in a sleeping bag, holed up in a tree because oh my god the monsters might eat me), but the things you gain from this sort of thing have to be measured against the downsides of such an approach.

[Nighteye2]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Dasher1010 wrote...

I'd personally like to see more branching story paths along the lines of what The Witcher 2 did. There was more than one great RPG than Skyrim this year.

A significant number of the design team have played, enjoyed and considered Witcher 2, Deus Ex: HR and we've even been taking a look at some of the indie titles out there like Avadon (and even Aralon, on the iOs, which is pretty damn good, if you have the hardware).

Some of us have even taken a big 'ol swing through DA:O, DAII and the BG series.

Every RPG has pros and cons, and great ideas. I believe the reason Ray brought up Skyrim specifically is that he's very much a fan of certain elements of "openness" that he may or may not have been exposed to before that interview.

I can say no more.

That's good to hear. Are you also following Extra credits? It's a great series about game design, with some really good ideas in there.

[Il Divo]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

A significant number of the design team have played, enjoyed and considered Witcher 2, Deus Ex: HR and we've even been taking a look at some of the indie titles out there like Avadon (and even Aralon, on the iOs, which is pretty damn good, if you have the hardware).

Oh, and Dark Souls. Dear god, Dark Souls. I think timing the blades in Sen's Fortress may have broken a part of my soul, and I beat Demon's.

And then someone tells me Anor Londo is going to be worse. *sigh*

Still, Dark Souls is an exceptional example of atmosphere, mood and unquestionably clever level design.

Hearing a Bioware dev say this brings a tear to my eye. Dark Souls caught me completely off-guard with how well-designed the game is. If you guys are looking to steal gameplay/combat ideas from anywhere, I'm hoping it's this game. It's been a long time since I played a game where every small victory felt incredibly satisfying.

Modifié par Il Divo, 12 janvier 2012 - 09:48 .