By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Namco on Dark Souls 2 marketing: "treating it as a massive AAA title, would be nice to attract Skyrim players"

kitler53 on 16 May 2013
SvennoJ said:
...

Do you not see the contradiction there?
Remove the penalty risk of dying is not the same as auto win, or running to the end. It merely concentrates the experience, play Guacamelee to see what I mean. Then imagine that setting you back to the nearest town at every attempt at a boss fight.


no contradiction and i'll tell you why..

prepare to die.   ...and die i did.

i've already plat'd guacamelee and it's not even close to the same experience.  guacamelee's gameplay focus is on the combat.  even though i've already plat'd guacamelee i'd still have a lot of trouble beating flame face again (especially on hard mode).  dark souls' focus is on the exploration and learning of the enviornment.  even though i died countless times on my first playthough -- the though of me dying to Capra Demon, or Ceaseless Discharge, or Dark Sun Gwyndolin or, Nito, or The Bed of Chaos, or Seath The Scaleless, or really any boss is completely laughable. i've learned my lesson.

if you think the bonfires are too far apart it means one thing... you aren't learning.  which in turn means you completely missed the point of this franchise.

my friend was having issues with new londo so over the phone (cause he lives a state away) i talked him though the entire area including every enemy location/attach direction, item locations and contents.  that's probably a good 100 things to remember.  i learned my lesson and i learned it well.

..but if you dont' want to concentrate on the experience this game offers and instead morph into some other game experience you would like better who am i to tell say you are wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you are wrong.



Around the Network
Thaimasker on 16 May 2013

About 28 bosses if u include DLC(4 bosses) and thats not even including the likes of hydra,etc

and yeah the Time between the boss fight and bonfire is nothing. Especially with the shortcuts and being able to just run past/ignore the enemies. Getting rid of that punishing experience gets rid of a huge part of the experience. Hell its not even that punishing at all as it is compared to demon souls. Its for people that like a challenging and somewhat punishing experience plain and simple..It is a hardcore RPG What do u expect lol.

 

Also one thing about DS2...In the Gameplay Vid one director said that you'll be able to fight the boss Mid way through the area...I Imagine that is only for the experienced players tho.



VXIII on 16 May 2013

Dark Souls changed me as a gamer. Now, no matter what game I play, I always set the difficulty on hard, hoping to get the same sense of caution and accomplishment that Dark Souls gave me.

It almost feels like that every game after Dark Souls is lacking.



JGarret on 16 May 2013
kitler53 said:
SvennoJ said:
...

Do you not see the contradiction there?
Remove the penalty risk of dying is not the same as auto win, or running to the end. It merely concentrates the experience, play Guacamelee to see what I mean. Then imagine that setting you back to the nearest town at every attempt at a boss fight.


no contradiction and i'll tell you why..

prepare to die.   ...and die i did.

i've already plat'd guacamelee and it's not even close to the same experience.  guacamelee's gameplay focus is on the combat.  even though i've already plat'd guacamelee i'd still have a lot of trouble beating flame face again (especially on hard mode).  dark souls' focus is on the exploration and learning of the enviornment.  even though i died countless times on my first playthough -- the though of me dying to Capra Demon, or Ceaseless Discharge, or Dark Sun Gwyndolin or, Nito, or The Bed of Chaos, or Seath The Scaleless, or really any boss is completely laughable. i've learned my lesson.

if you think the bonfires are too far apart it means one thing... you aren't learning.  which in turn means you completely missed the point of this franchise.

my friend was having issues with new londo so over the phone (cause he lives a state away) i talked him though the entire area including every enemy location/attach direction, item locations and contents.  that's probably a good 100 things to remember.  i learned my lesson and i learned it well.

..but if you dont' want to concentrate on the experience this game offers and instead morph into some other game experience you would like better who am i to tell say you are wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you are wrong.


Considering the first time you faced each boss, what was the hardest for you?



SvennoJ on 16 May 2013
kitler53 said:
SvennoJ said:
...

Do you not see the contradiction there?
Remove the penalty risk of dying is not the same as auto win, or running to the end. It merely concentrates the experience, play Guacamelee to see what I mean. Then imagine that setting you back to the nearest town at every attempt at a boss fight.


no contradiction and i'll tell you why..

prepare to die.   ...and die i did.

i've already plat'd guacamelee and it's not even close to the same experience.  guacamelee's gameplay focus is on the combat.  even though i've already plat'd guacamelee i'd still have a lot of trouble beating flame face again (especially on hard mode).  dark souls' focus is on the exploration and learning of the enviornment.  even though i died countless times on my first playthough -- the though of me dying to Capra Demon, or Ceaseless Discharge, or Dark Sun Gwyndolin or, Nito, or The Bed of Chaos, or Seath The Scaleless, or really any boss is completely laughable. i've learned my lesson.

if you think the bonfires are too far apart it means one thing... you aren't learning.  which in turn means you completely missed the point of this franchise.

my friend was having issues with new londo so over the phone (cause he lives a state away) i talked him though the entire area including every enemy location/attach direction, item locations and contents.  that's probably a good 100 things to remember.  i learned my lesson and i learned it well.

..but if you dont' want to concentrate on the experience this game offers and instead morph into some other game experience you would like better who am i to tell say you are wrong.

I'll try to explain myself again.

I loved the exploration, didn't mind dying and learning the layout, shortcuts, finding stuff, loved slowly building a mental map of the entire interconnected world in my head. The best was getting lost in the depths after jumping to safety and hitting a bonfire in the middle of nowhere. No clue where to go, slowly mapping the confusing layout and learning to deal with the threats.
Other favorites were going off on my own down the great hollow and ash lake, fighting the huge hydra there for an hour. Exploring the painted world of Aramis, New londo ruins, the catacombs and tomb of the giants. As long as there were no bosses behind fog walls in sight the game was perfect for me.

I did not like the game for being unnecesarily obscure, having to resort to the internet to find out about basic game mechanics.
I did not like having to track back to boss battles every time to try a different approach, just a waste of time, especially with unwanted invasions.

Having an option to have more checkpoints does not take away from the difficulty, the learning curve, mapping the environment, the exploration part. It only removes pointless repetition, retreating the same steps over and over.

Make it an option you can enable: Retry last fight from the state you were in, or return to bonfire to get there better prepared / via a more efficient route or go somewhere else first.
After failing a boss: Offer all the players to retry it instantly, or quit back to bonfire. Or disable it entirely in options and it will never match you with players that like to have that option.

How does this take anything away from your experience? It would make mine much better.
I would not have finished Quacamelee if it had the same set back system as Dark Souls. (That game had plenty exploration too btw, loved sniffing out all the hard to reach chests)



Around the Network
YukanaSenix on 16 May 2013
VXIII said:

Dark Souls changed me as a gamer. Now, no matter what game I play, I always set the difficulty on hard, hoping to get the same sense of caution and accomplishment that Dark Souls gave me.

It almost feels like that every game after Dark Souls is lacking.


Yeah especially in this Gen you have to do this to get some challenge in your games.
But soon Hardmode will probably be something like a standard DLC/PreOrder Bonus cause most people don't like Hardmodes anymore.



Thaimasker on 16 May 2013

^ XD its already DLC in Metro last light.

and dark souls isn't meant to be a time saving, convenient experience when it comes to punishment or dying...Would you like Milk and Cookies with that death?
But as I said before Bonfires, shortcuts and ignoring mobs is convenient/easy enough as it is. Prob gonna be even more so in DS2.



zuvuyeay on 16 May 2013

i'm sure they would like a few of the skyrim players,no harm in dreaming for them,i like skyim and DS,i havent started dark souls yet though it is waiting for me on the shelf



                                                                                                                                        Above & Beyond

   

yo_john117 on 16 May 2013
kitler53 said:
yo_john117 said:
...

I'm not saying change the puzzling aspect. In fact they could easily keep it all the same sans making the boss's (normal mobs aren't a huge problem) not hit as hard as on the classic difficulty which would basically mean they wouldn't destroy you instantly if you make one small mistake. I mean there is nothing, NOTHING worse for me than to spend an hour or so getting to a boss only to be wrecked upon and having to spawn back about 30-60 minutes from that boss. I absolutely hate redoing sections over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. To me it's basically like losing a save and stuff like that makes me not want to play the game ever again (which coincidentally, is what I did with both of them, despite both games being really fun)

In fact they could just add two simple little optional addition for an "easy" mode. And that is to a). have enemies give you more souls so you level up at a slightly faster rate (which means less annoying grinding) and b). give the option to put a checkpoint right before a boss so you don't have to backtrack so much.

If they did those two things they wouldn't have to change any core mechanics or puzzleling elements and their core fanbase would still be able to play the same type of game as Demons/Dark Souls as well as the game being more accessible to people who don't want to spend such an inordinate amount of time in the game.

You have to admit, something like that wouldn't hurt your gameplay at all, right?

i still don't think you'd have any fun with the game if those features were implemented.  i think you'd find it to be a very boring game in that configuration as the game is very slow paced and basic when you remove the risk factor.  also, i'm really have to question what you are doing wrong if you think any spawn point is 30-60 mintues back cause there is a bonfire every 10 minute interval,.. max.   i mean, the entire game can be beaten in 1 hour 26 mintues. 

but if you want an easy mode that basically removes your risk of dying so that you can go through the motions..  i suppose that wouldn't break my experience.  of course the reviews would be absouletly terrible when every reviewer uses easy mode and complains it is only a 2 hour game (instead of the 80 hours i spent my first play though).

But it's up to me to decide what I would enjoy or not. And I happen to know that I would enjoy the game (and have the patience to beat it). The changes I suggested would not make it as easy as you make it seem (maybe ultra easy for you, but obviously not for me). I would still obviously die, I just wouldn't feel so defeated (because of the retarded amount of backtracking) if they implemented those into the game.

Everyone's main problem with me saying there should be an easier mode was that it would wreck their core gameplay and make the game useless. I've shown that such an easy mode could be easily implemented and it wouldn't effect the core players ever slightly. So you guys should literally have no problem with this at all.

What do you think I would enjoy more? A game that I give up and stop playing due to frustration, or a game with a nice amount of challenge but one that I can beat (remember, I'm not a super god gamer like you. What may be super easy for you is normal or difficult for me). I know what I would enjoy, and I know I tend to enjoy games that I can beat more than games that I can't.



JGarret on 16 May 2013

I got the Prepare to Die edition yesterday.I hope the new areas and bosses are worth it.