Aller au contenu

Photo

The graphics look great but...


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
115 réponses à ce sujet

#101
Realmzmaster

Realmzmaster
  • Members
  • 5 510 messages

My description of the boss fights is spot on. My usage of the word puzzle is after 2 posts that I'm trying to explain that every boss has specific combat mechanics that the player needs to familiarize himself and a party won't make much difference if the player can't do this. Not my fault if it's taken out of context. If it was made to support a party then it would be a different game. I don't accept that every game that is more difficult than DA would be "fixed" by adding a party and change the gameplay to support it.

 

No matter how you tackle a boss, you need to understand it's mechanics. Also there aren't a million ways. There is melee and magic, with minor variations (weapons,weight), and most bosses have an alternative approach like the tower that you do the overhead attack against Taurus Demon, or hacking at the feet of Iron Golem that causes him to lose balance and dropping of the bridge, and some kind of choice (chop the tail first for extra weapon, choose which one to kill first against Ornstein and Smough etc). 

 

Anyway, since it seems my opinion is the obvious minority I'm going to stop. But I'm pretty curious to see where my description is "inaccurate". If there is something questionable, it's to use only a few bosses as examples to make a counter argument against the "party" suggestion. Which is not wrong but I can see why it may be considered cherry picking.

 

If what you are saying is correct then StM is correct in stating that basically boss combat in Dark Souls is no more than a puzzle. A puzzle with only one way to beat the boss rather than being able to beat a boss multiple ways.

 

Let's take your Iron Golem example. You state that the way to beat it is to chop at its feet, get it off balance so that it falls off the bridge. So basically what happens is that the gamer tries one approach and the protagonist dies, tries another approach and dies. The gamer finally hits on the proper solution that works. So there is only one way to kill the boss which is found by a trial and error method or going online to ask other gamers what they did.

 

Am I correct or am I missing something? I have not played Dark Souls 1 or 2 so I do not know. I am seeking clarification. 



#102
Enigmatick

Enigmatick
  • Members
  • 1 916 messages

If what you are saying is correct then StM is correct in stating that basically boss combat in Dark Souls is no more than a puzzle. A puzzle with only one way to beat the boss rather than being able to beat a boss multiple ways.

 

Let's take your Iron Golem example. You state that the way to beat it is to chop at its feet, get it off balance so that it falls off the bridge. So basically what happens is that the gamer tries one approach and the protagonist dies, tries another approach and dies. The gamer finally hits on the proper solution that works. So there is only one way to kill the boss which is found by a trial and error method or going online to ask other gamers what they did.

 

Am I correct or am I missing something? I have not played Dark Souls 1 or 2 so I do not know. I am seeking clarification. 

He's 100% wrong. Just look at any video online if you need proof. Hell you can summon an NPC and he's strong enough to solo it if you're on your first NG.

 

To close, the bosses in the Souls series function pretty much like bosses in any other gamer they're just have the capabality to do enough damage to kill the player as quickly as the player could kill lesser enemies (most of the time, depending on the player's build). What he gave you is the instant kill solution. It isn't the most common method of defeat, like any other game most players learn the bosses attacks and kill it through damage.



#103
Nefla

Nefla
  • Members
  • 7 672 messages

 I played both and I honestly didn't like them, it was a cross between cheesy characters and game controls that I didn't enjoy. And no before you wonder that's not me trying to get a reaction out of people, I just didn't like them.

Then you wont like this one.


  • Lizzunic aime ceci

#104
Enigmatick

Enigmatick
  • Members
  • 1 916 messages

Also I saw your about me and your signature OP, normally I'd tell you to go **** yourself but I'm curious why you feel that way.



#105
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 108 messages

Did you play Dark Souls? Because that's BS, there's a million different strategies, builds and paths to victory. Thanks mainly to the lack of stupid class restrictions. Even so, skill is ultimately the most important part.

Of course not.  I wouldn't touch an action game with a 10-metre cattle prod.

 

I was just rephrasing what I was told about DS in this thread.

 

You make it sound much better.  And make my initial reference to more relevant.


  • Enigmatick aime ceci

#106
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 108 messages

He's 100% wrong. Just look at any video online if you need proof. Hell you can summon an NPC and he's strong enough to solo it if you're on your first NG.

 

To close, the bosses in the Souls series function pretty much like bosses in any other gamer they're just have the capabality to do enough damage to kill the player as quickly as the player could kill lesser enemies (most of the time, depending on the player's build). What he gave you is the instant kill solution. It isn't the most common method of defeat, like any other game most players learn the bosses attacks and kill it through damage.

And my initial point was that that approach would be easier with pause&play and full party control, so the difficulty in Dark Sould arises not so much from the characteristics of the enemies as from the control scheme.

 

People were appealing to Dark Souls as an example of how to design more challenging boss fights.  My response was that those fights wouldn't actually be as challenging with DA's control scheme.



#107
Enigmatick

Enigmatick
  • Members
  • 1 916 messages

And my initial point was that that approach would be easier with pause&play and full party control, so the difficulty in Dark Sould arises not so much from the characteristics of the enemies as from the control scheme.

 

People were appealing to Dark Souls as an example of how to design more challenging boss fights.  My response was that those fights wouldn't actually be as challenging with DA's control scheme.

For party based games do you feel that multiple enemy bosses like Saverok's party are the better designed more challenging ones?



#108
Gtdef

Gtdef
  • Members
  • 1 330 messages

If what you are saying is correct then StM is correct in stating that basically boss combat in Dark Souls is no more than a puzzle. A puzzle with only one way to beat the boss rather than being able to beat a boss multiple ways.

 

Let's take your Iron Golem example. You state that the way to beat it is to chop at its feet, get it off balance so that it falls off the bridge. So basically what happens is that the gamer tries one approach and the protagonist dies, tries another approach and dies. The gamer finally hits on the proper solution that works. So there is only one way to kill the boss which is found by a trial and error method or going online to ask other gamers what they did.

 

Am I correct or am I missing something? I have not played Dark Souls 1 or 2 so I do not know. I am seeking clarification. 

 

I said that there is the option to do this. You can kite him with magic attacks, or kill him traditionally in melee. You can do a heavier armor build and try to block some attacks, or do a lighter build and go back and forth under his feet to avoid the attacks. If you can hit his legs in a certain manner, then he trips and drops down the bridge. It's just another way to beat him but it can be more difficult cause it involves switching targets, having enough damage to trigger it, having to stay in melee to target better.

 

At face value, there are 3 approaches. Heavy build, using counter attacks, Light build where you try to dodge his attacks by hit and run, and ranged. If you know how to make him trip, it's the same fight, but faster, cause you have to do less damage to kill him. The puzzle is to understand his attack patterns, how he moves, how much damage you can do before having to move, how much endurance you need to block him. The game is unforgiving on this aspect, cause everything is timed. Trying to squeeze some more damage is the easiest way to die.

 

Then for the melee approaches is the type of the weapon you use. You have to know how it interacts with the target. How fast is the animation, which govern how safe it is to chain attacks. It's a smaller concern but it's something that comes from experience.

 

You can't just go at him and start hitting him expecting to do something, it will never happen cause if you fail to avoid the normal attack, it's possible to die on the spot depending on your build and even the heaviest builds can't tank more than 1-2 hits.

 

Also this is one of the more straightforward bosses, with easy attack patterns. There are more involved ones. There is a double boss that has about 7 approaches, without counting details cause depending on who you kill, the other will enrage and it becomes oneshot material, so the question is, which one you can handle better, so you kill the other first. Pretty much the hardest fight in any game I've ever played.

 

 

 

He's 100% wrong. Just look at any video online if you need proof. Hell you can summon an NPC and he's strong enough to solo it if you're on your first NG.

 

To close, the bosses in the Souls series function pretty much like bosses in any other gamer they're just have the capabality to do enough damage to kill the player as quickly as the player could kill lesser enemies (most of the time, depending on the player's build). What he gave you is the instant kill solution. It isn't the most common method of defeat, like any other game most players learn the bosses attacks and kill it through damage.

 

I gave the instant kill solution because we discuss party combat. What is the difference between co-op and single play? That someone kites while the other tries to do some damage. Essentially it's just added damage, which I said that it's a non factor because if damage is your problem, then you can 2shot the bosses. The problem is to survive them.

 

Then I gave the example of the Stray Demon, second Asylum visit. His aoe is so strong that it will kill ANYTHING in the range, which is 90% of the room. Tell me one difference that party play will do except damage. You can't flank, you can't tank, nothing. You will just die if you don't get to the safe zone between attacks.

 

Don't take my post out of context. When I started posting I wasn't sure that Sylvius hadn't play the game, so I took some things for granted. But the discussion was that "if Dark Souls had a party like DA does, it would be easier". Saying that you can recruit an npc to solo the boss is not the same. The npc is not a party member, and it doesn't function like a playable character does. He is just a boss that you ask to kill the boss, and it's not something you can do all the time.



#109
TheChosenOne

TheChosenOne
  • Members
  • 2 402 messages

Like I said opinion =/= troll, no matter how different it is. But I wont explain that in this thread since it's not the place for it.


The **** is up with your signature!?! Very disrespectful,bro.
  • Nefla et Mulsanne Blue aiment ceci

#110
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 108 messages

The game is unforgiving on this aspect, cause everything is timed.

And this is primarily why I didn't think that the bosses from Dark Souls were good models. With a game that allows pausing, and giving commands to multiple party members while paused, timing becomes irrelevant. If I can pause the game, I can always get the timing right.

I once (once) played God of War on someone else's console, and I quickly concluded that the game a mindless exercise in timing the pressing of buttons. And sure, figuring out the timing can be fun, but having to manually execute that plan in real time is, I think, really dull. Whether I can press buttons when I want to press buttons isn't an interesting question.

#111
Nefla

Nefla
  • Members
  • 7 672 messages

The **** is up with your signature!?! Very disrespectful,bro.

This person just has to troll in every aspect, I'm surprised he or she doesn't have an offensive user name.


  • TheChosenOne aime ceci

#112
LiquidLyrium

LiquidLyrium
  • Members
  • 327 messages

I always felt that in Skyrim, my character was more of a cipher, or a means to explore the vast world of the Elder Scrolls--useful, but not someone I cared about too terribly much because there wasn't a lot there story-wise. It's still fun, but it's harder to connect with a virtually "blank" protagonist. I'm not invested in any of my Wardens in the same way as I am my Hawkes, but I am still head and shoulders way more invested in them than any of my Skyrim dragonborns. Even if it's difficult to tell what is intended from just text, it's a lot clearer that you can give the Warden a far wider opinion on the world and events around them than the DB. Add in the voiced protagonist with Hawke, and it's definitely clear that you play a fully-fleshed out character.

 

Which is also not to say that mute/voiceless protagonists can't be completely solid characters, it's just harder to do and harder to make the audience connect with them, but it is possible. (Chell, Link, Gordon Freeman, etc)



#113
bairdduvessa

bairdduvessa
  • Members
  • 726 messages

*comes in to get the lay of the land...turns around quickly and leaves...*


  • SofaJockey, Nefla et TheChosenOne aiment ceci

#114
Gtdef

Gtdef
  • Members
  • 1 330 messages

And this is primarily why I didn't think that the bosses from Dark Souls were good models. With a game that allows pausing, and giving commands to multiple party members while paused, timing becomes irrelevant. If I can pause the game, I can always get the timing right.

I once (once) played God of War on someone else's console, and I quickly concluded that the game a mindless exercise in timing the pressing of buttons. And sure, figuring out the timing can be fun, but having to manually execute that plan in real time is, I think, really dull. Whether I can press buttons when I want to press buttons isn't an interesting question.

 

My objection isn't that pausing and party play is the superior model. It's that, like most action games, this is a game that the challenging part is the reaction to the enemy telegraphing the attack. So pausing wouldn't make the game easier, cause while it gives you perfect control, there is no difference between pausing or just dodging an attack. For example pausing late would have the exactly same result as dodging late because the time to react has already passed and the character doesn't have the mobility to do anything more.

 

Dull is an accurate description if you see it from a bigger picture perspective. After all, there are no classic rpg skills and talents, no synergy, battlefield control tactics. Instead you do the equivalent of autoattacking. But the whole point is the depth of single combat, not only the reactionary part but the mindset as well. It's very organic in a manner that most action games fail. It's also really immersive but it can turn to frustrating because it's so easy to die to impatience and it has a emotional snowball effect :P 

 

Personally I enjoy the lone protagonist action rpgs more than party based. If I had to pick a favorite game, that would be Risen.

 

The reason is that it deals with the survival and self-defense concept. I have some martial arts training, and it's always nice to be able to apply this knowledge in a game. It adds a touch of realism.



#115
Sylvius the Mad

Sylvius the Mad
  • Members
  • 24 108 messages

My objection isn't that pausing and party play is the superior model. It's that, like most action games, this is a game that the challenging part is the reaction to the enemy telegraphing the attack. So pausing wouldn't make the game easier, cause while it gives you perfect control, there is no difference between pausing or just dodging an attack. For example pausing late would have the exactly same result as dodging late because the time to react has already passed and the character doesn't have the mobility to do anything more.

If I pause every half second just to check whether a dodge is necessary, that should do it.

But this is why I often request a variety of auto-pause optons, as well. While I enjoy the tactical flexibility offered by real-time-with-pause combat (BioWare's traditional mechanic) when compared to a turn-based game, I dislike the extent to which the timing if pauses is important.

So perhaps, to make my point about Dark Souls, I should have referred to how challenging those bosses would be in a turn-based game.

#116
Han Shot First

Han Shot First
  • Members
  • 21 144 messages

Generic Characters? In a Bio Ware Game? COMPARED TO SKYRIM?!

 

Whatever you smoked, I don't want any of it.

 

 

Yeah, I laughed out loud when I read that.

 

In Bethesda games characters are an afterthought. The game world itself rather than the characters that populate it is Bethesda's focus. As a result you have pretty sandboxes to play in, filled with shallow characters that are about as interesting as watching paint dry,


  • Mulsanne Blue aime ceci