124 réponses à ce sujet

[Eternal Phoenix]

I would love to see a sequel to God Hand. Capcom owns the rights but it's all about if PlatinumGames wants to make one as well I'd imagine.

 

As for DD, the nights on any difficulty weren't that hard for me. Only the drakes and some of the magical enemies posed a threat (since on hard mode, many magical attacks can end you quickly if you don't have the right resistances) but it's really Bitterblack Isle that made the game really challenging. IIRC when I first went in there for the first time, I was LV 70 and completely unprepared (you have enemies there that can turn you to stone) and once you get a hang of the new enemies, the game throws even tougher enemies at you like the Executioner or Undead Dragon.

 

It gets harder returning a second time through Bitterblack where every dungeon is now randomized with enemies, bosses now invade you more and there's new and tougher enemies. At times though the hard difficulty of the game felt unfair as it just amounted to having enemies with higher damage, resistances and health but it also made you re-evaluate your tactics and really focus on enemy weaknesses, although just like with the normal mode, once you got to a certain level, you effectively enter god-mode and either one hit kill everything or stun-lock everything regardless with some of the higher level abilities.

 

Bloodborne (and the Souls games) feel more balanced and fair where enemies can easily be killed but can easily kill you too if you don't dodge or block/parry them etc etc...

 

Once you learn about character builds, stat scaling and the invisibility frames when dodging, many of the enemies become easy. In fact I'd say Bloodborne is easier than any of the Souls game thanks to the easier performed visceral attacks and how charged attacks can be spammed against most enemies (in fact I spammed Vicar Amelia to death with the charge attack of Ludwig's holy sword and it kept stunning her). What makes Bloodborne feel harder in some places is that you have lower defences so enemies do more damage than they would in the Souls series where you can hide behind a shield and actually upgrade your armor.

[In Exile]

Ah, but Pillars didn't have the same amount of advertising as Inquisition or Bloodborne, yet still outscored the former and was only two points below the latter. What does it say about a crowd-funded game when it's able to stand up against AAA titles?

That catering to a smaller audience that's incredibly enthusiastic about your product and deliver, that incredibly enthusiastic audience will give enthusiastic reviews?

[Voxr]

I have re read both of these posts numerous times now, and I still have zero idea whats going on. Just thought id comment.
 

I like to imagine its encrypted love letters

[Fast Jimmy]

I like to imagine its encrypted love letters

[Il Divo]

So I actually had an interesting dilemma this morning. I got this sudden urge to go out and buy a PS4 just so I could play Bloodborne, just given that Dark Souls is my favorite game of all time. After thinking it over, I ended up picking up Scholar of the First Sin for the 360, since PS4 literally has nothing else that I want at the moment. It's definitely not the same, but I'm having a damn good time even after playing Dark Souls II. 

[Eternal Phoenix]

So I actually had an interesting dilemma this morning. I got this sudden urge to go out and buy a PS4 just so I could play Bloodborne, just given that Dark Souls is my favorite game of all time. After thinking it over, I ended up picking up Scholar of the First Sin for the 360, since PS4 literally has nothing else that I want at the moment. It's definitely not the same, but I'm having a damn good time even after playing Dark Souls II.

 
Dark Souls 2 Scholar of the First Sin Edition is just Dark Souls 2 with the DLC (which is digital on last gen releases). No revised enemy placements, no 60fps, no nothing. You might as well downloaded the DLC from Xbox Live as it would have been cheaper. Scholar of the First Sin is a rip-off on last gen.

[Dio Demon]

Dragon's Dogma on hard... *shudders* thankfully I had my Assassin. Just parry all the enemy attacks  until you missed... then you were screwed!

[Il Divo]

 
Dark Souls 2 Scholar of the First Sin Edition is just Dark Souls 2 with the DLC (which is digital on last gen releases). No revised enemy placements, no 60fps, no nothing. You might as well downloaded the DLC from Xbox Live as it would have been cheaper. Scholar of the First Sin is a rip-off on last gen.

 

Yeah, just realized that a little while ago. I went to Heide's Tower of Flame and it was nothing like how described from next gen console playthroughs. Bit of a kick in the balls. 

[Eternal Phoenix]

Yeah, just realized that a little while ago. I went to Heide's Tower of Flame and it was nothing like how described from next gen console playthroughs. Bit of a kick in the balls. 

 

Get a refund if you can.

 

Ah how I love Amazon where I can even get a refund for a Steam game and continue playing it for free like I did for Skyrim

[Rawgrim]

Actually, Pillars of Eternity had a bug that literally broke the game, along with one that would prevent characters from lockpicking, so they weren't really minor bugs.

 

DA:I had two major ones that completely broke the game. One where the conversations just stopped. Had to pull the power cord out of the xbox in order to even turn the console off. That one got fixed in patch two. Second one was when you follow the assassin during the ball in Orlais. Once you reach the top floor a cutscene is supposed to play. That one never happened for me (tried 12 times or so). Got fixed in the last patch.Kept me from playing the game from December til mid March.

 

Those were kind of bigger than a lockpicking bug.

[Voxr]

lmao jimmy and I usually have these back and forths. He is one of my favorite posters actually. Mostly because (Our bromance is soooooooooooooo god-tier, Like you don't even know. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW BRUH!!! GOML) we are in a similar field but have usually different opinions.

[TheChris92]

DA:I had two major ones that completely broke the game. One where the conversations just stopped. Had to pull the power cord out of the xbox in order to even turn the console off. That one got fixed in patch two. Second one was when you follow the assassin during the ball in Orlais. Once you reach the top floor a cutscene is supposed to play. That one never happened for me (tried 12 times or so). Got fixed in the last patch.Kept me from playing the game from December til mid March.

Those were kind of bigger than a lockpicking bug.

Are we really having this argument? My bugs are bigger than your bug! Because I'm kinda not. I like both games despite the irritating issues and my post was solely directed as a response towards the other guy.

[Fast Jimmy]

I have to disagree on your. The reasons why I like TDD is that every piece of code written has a test to go with it. It might look slow but the idea of fixing bugs before they appear is a much cheaper alternative that developing code and testing it later.

Spoiler

My team was in the same boat before we started employing it.

Yes, but wait until you see a unit that becomes pared down to make testing complete. Watch as your team begins doing things like cutting out database pulls or web requests simply due to shorter unit testing cycles. Before long, you have a system made of countless shortcuts and "it wasn't THAT important for this unit to perform an I/O call" and before you know it, you have a fully tested system that looks like you tried to build a tower by stacking chairs. Which then requires you to perform vigorous system testing, anyway.

TDD adds more work and only adds the illusion of added stability. Testing at every step is a great concept, but I've seen it invariably affect the final product for the worst in order to complete the testing. Maybe not at first, but a programmer begins to find these "shortcuts" in their testing habits over the years and see it as improving and not forming nasty, dangerous bad habits.

[Fast Jimmy]

There is no reason these should be in a unit tests. The only thing they should test for at this moment is integration tests. These basically test for connections. Having database connections to a unit test just adds to the dependency. Better they make a mock interface or use an ORM

Seriously though, how can you verify your queries will produce the right data without accessing the database (or at least A database) during your testing?

[Fast Jimmy]

Why do you have queries in the code in the first place? The queries written in plain text shouldn't be in your code. That is just a recipe for disaster. It is preferred you encapsulate that. If you are writing your own query builder then of course it would be tested but in a standard environment, your framework would provide the capability to do so. At this stage, you realize that testing this object is not your responsibility but the framework's responsibility. You are just adding unneeded dependencies to a lightweight testing module.

I guess this is where out industry's differ - in HRIS development, the vast majority of actions the system takes are essentially database queries and updates and must make sure data is both quality and not duplicated. Without a strongly viable testing environment with a robust database source, our teams run into problems with rolling out code that correctly pulls the right respective data.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

 
Dark Souls 2 Scholar of the First Sin Edition is just Dark Souls 2 with the DLC (which is digital on last gen releases). No revised enemy placements, no 60fps, no nothing. You might as well downloaded the DLC from Xbox Live as it would have been cheaper. Scholar of the First Sin is a rip-off on last gen.

 

Scholar of the First Sin update was free on Xbox 360 to those who already owned the game. The Edition clearly describes itself as the DLC + the game, so it's only a ripoff if you buy the game twice without realizing what you're doing.

 

The SotFS update does change the game, add phantoms, a new boss, and a new ending, which is exactly what the description said that it would do when I downloaded it.

 

My impression is that it is a ripoff on PC, where they actually had to pay for the update.

[LinksOcarina]

That catering to a smaller audience that's incredibly enthusiastic about your product and deliver, that incredibly enthusiastic audience will give enthusiastic reviews?

 

To be fair, that's why it didn't need advertising, it had that audience already.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Scholar of the First Sin update was free on Xbox 360 to those who already owned the game. The Edition clearly describes itself as the DLC + the game, so it's only a ripoff if you buy the game twice without realizing what you're doing.
 
The SotFS update does change the game, add phantoms, a new boss, and a new ending, which is exactly what the description said that it would do when I downloaded it.
 
My impression is that it is a ripoff on PC, where they actually had to pay for the update.

 
No the PC patch was free too. Patch 1.1 was free for everyone. On PC you have to pay to upgrade to the 60FPS and enhanced graphic version just like every console player.

http://www.eurogamer...-upgrade-priced
 

The rip-off with this is that PC players who not only own Dark Souls 2 but all the DLC are paying £12 just for the enhanced technical tweaks and revised enemy positions, so basically something that could work in a free patch.

 

Re-releasing Dark Souls 2 on last gen with the same title as the next gen versions (which were heavily covered and marketed as having many tweaks) is definitely a rip-off. Namco knew what they were doing and put simply: they didn't need to re-release on last gen at all because - as you rightly pointed out - the free patch already adds in the additional features so you're just paying £25 for the same game and the digital codes if you already own the base game and you can get the DLC cheaper on Live/PSN.