Lurker > Philip027

Too many whack jobs out there with guns that aren't afraid to use them at any perceived slight.

Easily before, if possible. If you think you're getting yourself perfectly clean by just rubbing yourself down with some dry paper, I invite you to try doing the same thing with your dishes.

Not a particularly great puzzle (fitting that you're looking in garbage cans), but yes, there are elements of it to be "figured out" that make it far easier to do than just guessing randomly. If a puzzle to you is something where you should be able to infallibly 100% guaranteed sniff out the correct solution with the information provided, then yeah, it won't seem like one.

It kinda reminds me of The Price is Right's game Half Off. Guessing from the 16 boxes purely randomly, it's difficult to win. You're meant to play the game properly (or in Pokemon's case, beat the gym trainers and get their hints, if you don't already know how it works) to get rid of 8, 4, and then 2 of the dud boxes to better your chances. Even played perfectly though, you are still never guaranteed to pick the correct box.

Dungeater posted...

what a stupid post

always with the fakeass ppl on here. i dont get it

live for something other than spite

Pot, kettle, etc.

Cemith posted...

Okay. Then it's just not a game for you. Acknowledging that and playing something else is mentally good for you. Just saying though that it isn't a problem with the games design if you don't mesh with it, is all.

That's where we disagree, though, and where I disagree with the developer sentiment expressed in the OP. I do think the game could have been made more approachable in a very simple way that could have been easily ignored by anyone who did not want an easier or less challenging experience. To me, it reads like a cop-out, like a flimsy excuse.

Like I said, if he had just said instead "you know, we could have done this, but we just didn't feel like it", all I could really do in response to that would be to shrug and say OK. I might still not personally like that sort of take, but I couldn't exactly say it was wrong.

And you can still watch videos, read lore, etc. There's still plenty you can do to engross yourself in the game without having to actually play it.

Sure, but I'm sure you know that isn't really a satisfying substitute for immersing yourself into a game/world you wanted to try experiencing firsthand. If it were, you would never buy/play any video games and just hop on twitch/YT/whatever to watch other people play them for free.

Dungeater posted...

thats not what fluttershy said

Maybe you should try reading harder, then.

and ive been active in this thread

I don't care to look through the whole thread for where you commented. That's why I was talking about this page only.

Cemith posted...

"Git Gud" is literally the entire ethos of the Soulsborne ethos. When you "git Gud" that's what makes the games so incredible is that feeling of accomplishment.

If you think making some sliders go down because you changed a menu option will give you that same sense of shared communal accomplishment, you don't actually want to play the game.

That's pretty much why the genre doesn't appeal to me. I don't get any sense of "accomplishment" out of finally beating something I was throwing myself at for hours. I just want to progress through the game. Same sort of reason why I never got into raiding scenes in the MMOs I play. The other people who do it seem to honestly relish the challenge and whoop and holler when they eventually succeed; I am instead just like "... thank fuck that's over; can we never do this torturous thing again?"

The thing is though, I did originally want to play this game. Pre-release, the environments and setting looked interesting to me. People were generally saying that for a souls game, this was on the easier side (which may very well be true; I wouldn't know), so I figured if I was ever going to actually try one, this would be it. But the actual experience was still just constant frustration for me.

Dungeater posted...

philip could u sound any more disingenuous rn

I have better things to do with my time than engage with someone throwing out the same old tired tryhard "git gud" arguments that defenders of this game seemingly always resort to. If you want to call that disingenuous, knock yourself out, because I really couldn't care less.

Now, do YOU have any meaningful contribution to this discussion, guy who hasn't posted anywhere else on this page until now, or are you just here for potshots?

Fluttershy posted...

i mean, that's only if you want to actually participate in the discussion instead of just whine about how the game isn't exactly what you want.

I am participating, but it sure looks like you just want to "whine" about takes that don't agree with yours, so I don't think I'll be giving you specifically any further time of day.

buddhamonster posted...

That's kind of the beauty of the sign system. The playerbase finds things, then goes back and puts down a sign saying, "Powerful Item ahead. And be wary of ambush!"

The "I don't want to explore and put in the effort to find what's good" mentality actually has a built-in mechanic to circumvent it, and, incidently enough, it's directly linked to the devs vision of overcoming challenge together, as all the assistance is provided via player message interactions.

That's a much better system, to me, then just mindlessly adjusting sliders on a main menu screen until nothing can harm you anymore. But to each their own I guess.

Yeah, I don't want to play this game online; I've seen other people doing it and seeing blood puddles everywhere and trolly messages about pitfall traps and "but holes" kinda kills the immersion for me. Hopefully that's understandable.

Fluttershy posted...

well, that's the thing, you can play the game in that instance and try to discover them yourself.

Yeah, I tried that, and that wasn't working out. In many other modern games, I could have just simply dropped the difficulty mid-game (itself an improvement from games of the past, where you could only decide on a difficulty at the start and if it didn't suit you, tough luck; you had to start over)

Here though, there's only so much you can do; I hear the game has a stat reroll system but it must be something that unlocks further in the game than I ever got, because I never came across it.

ask yourself what you'd add to the game other than an easy mode option to make it easier. while maintaining the difficulty for those who want that too.

Why do I need to consider what else should be added? Why exactly does adjustable game difficulty have to be something complex?

People who want to "maintain the difficulty" can just not use it, the same way they already do it by just continuing to beat their head against the wall with their berserker melee build instead of taking the "cheap" ways out by doing magic or summons or whatever.

CoyoteTheGreat posted...

Sometimes, people need to feel uncomfortable for the choices their governments make, or else nothing will ever be done to change their government. Israel is an apartheid country, but its an apartheid country where its citizens vote, so I think it is appropriate to deny them services because of the ongoing genocide.

Yeah, no. Unless you know who they support or how they voted (doubt it), that's likely just you looking for an excuse to discriminate.

There's probably been a handful of examples, but all that's coming to mind right now is Quest 64.

Fluttershy posted...

i mean, this is literally about the difference between having a game designed so it has in-experience tools that you can use to adjust the difficulty in a natural way vs. a menu option.

one design approach is a whole hell of a lot lazier than the other. it would be in keeping with the already-established design if people were asking for better difficulty-mitigating choices in the game itself (stronger spirit ashes, stronger npc summons, what have you) and that would be fine.

the devs are trying to do something better with the series than a menu option for its difficulty -- that's the point. they have loftier design goals. it'd be like going to a fancy restaurant, ordering the most expensive steak, telling the chef to season it and cook it how they want, and then refusing to eat it because they didn't serve it with a little tub of ketchup on the side.

I personally prefer menu options for such things. I won't necessarily know the "meta" strategies or any such tricks that people use to get through the game easier if they're having a hard time.

I don't know if I'd call their approach "loftier", but it certainly isn't all-around superior.

I don't buy it, considering many, many other video games have difficulty modes and they don't seem to come apart at the seams when they are used.

I would respect this guy's take more if he were honest about it and said they just didn't feel like implementing them. Statements like this just make you look lazy/incompetent.

I swear I saw this topic already recently.

In any case, yeah, would be easy. No ketchup plz.

Multiple times daily, usually skim, sometimes chocolate

I don't really care about this game but my spouse gets some level of enjoyment out of it, so why not.

If you think the sounds are bad, imagine what your food looks like by the time you finish chewing and swallow it.

Well, it isn't necessarily true that it's advantageous to play.

Most people will do it anyway though, because when you actually get to be on a game show, you tend to want to spend your time there, y'know, actively playing the game, rather than waiting on the sidelines to give a single answer.

cjsdowg posted...

I'm guessing you are conventionally attractive? Because what you're suggesting that people can't get a date simply because they're picky is not true at all. Many people, through no fault of their own, struggle to find a partner. There are countless reasons people can have trouble getting someone lovein' . It's overly simplistic to assume that everyone who is lonely or single is just being too selective. Consider the current loneliness epidemic. If finding a partner was as easy as snapping your fingers, we wouldn't be facing such widespread isolation.

1) No, I'm not
2) Why are you talking about getting a date? I'm talking about getting sex. That is what celibacy is referring to, no?

I never thought of it as a particularly accurate term. In this day and age, I think there's truly very few people that can legitimately be considered to be involuntarily celibate. Pretty much anyone who actually wants sex can surely get it somehow, so anyone who isn't is either fine with their situation or they just simply aren't making much of an effort to change their situation.

You might not be able to get it with the person or under the circumstances that you'd like, but that's just life. Nobody is owed that, and not getting that does not make one "celibate", it just makes you picky/entitled.

Unlikely; if Elden Ring is supposed to be one of their easier games (still too hard for me), I can't imagine having a good time with this one.

I don't care about sex (I'm asexual). Money on the other hand is actually useful.

Easy money.

Ilishe posted...

So your partner is a transman?

Correct! He didn't really know/accept it until some time into our relationship, but by that point it wasn't enough to actually change anything between us. It's not like he became a totally different person.

I freely admit though that if he had known he was trans when we first met, we never would have entered our relationship, so that helps him accept his relatively late trans realization as somewhat of a blessing in disguise.

Weirdly not, even though I technically am in such a relationship now as a result of my partner being trans.

SuperShake666 posted...

Half-Life 2, Halo 2 and GTA San Andreas turn 20 this year.

Never played any of them so I evaded the oldfeels this time!

I don't think even Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Yeah man, there you go.

Nah. Generic statements of fact like these aren't enough to make me feel old.

You need to use something that appeals to my sense of childhood in some way in order for me to feel it. Like, in a couple years or so, come back here and remind me that Super Mario 64 will be 30 years old at that point. That'll do it.

Fine with me. I am not big on them anyway, and thanks to becoming diabetic, there's a number of other things that I like much more that I had to give up for free.

Sure, why not. If they made Snake work, I'm sure she could too.

Never touched a Horizon game, so I have zero stake in this race.

nocturnal_traveler posted...

I honestly don't see how they can top Smash after the finale type spectacle that was Ultimate.

Ehh, I remember people saying exactly that about both Melee and Brawl too.

Actually not too surprised by this.

Now what would be surprising is if he said he's never had Rolling Rock.

No Bored Apes?

Uhh, The Matrix, I guess?

CruelBuffalo posted...

Its more the train blows up while shes trying to hack still

If you're not able to shoot Xenia to buy the few extra seconds, she has a better chance of surviving if you go to the left after exiting the train instead of the right (seems counterintuitive because the level's exit is toward the right). It means you will probably take some extra hits though, so hopefully you still have some health left.

Dakimakura posted...

ya like when people complain about exp share in Pokemon. Just turn it off.

You literally can't do this anymore in recent Pokemon games. It's forced on.

Do you really think they wanted to get a bunch of calls about Braille though, instead of, like, actual gameplay advice?

The instruction booklet included with North American copies does not include a braille chart, instead including a Trainer Tip recommending that players contact Nintendo for help with braille

Honestly surprised that Nintendo would have been okay with something like that getting printed.

It feels like it would be on a similar level as a newspaper adding "if you're wondering how this dude died, feel free to contact their family about it at 555-5555" to one of their obituaries.

It's a word I've only heard of because of Incineroar, so that.

Yes, until your prankster stipulation, then no. Not worth having someone constantly trying to kill you.

I highly doubt Nintendo even sees any purpose to rereleasing older Smashes. From their point of view, they just keep making the next one bigger and better, so they don't see the point of going back.

I appreciate it for what it is (introducing friendship mechanic in a limited/showcasey way, and the concept of follower Pokemon), but objectively speaking it's kind of a miserable way to play the first couple of hours of gen 1.

A Pikachu that cannot evolve (and isn't strengthened in any way from a typical Pikachu, like the one from Let's Go is) simply makes for a bad Kanto starter.

Heyo

That seems like too much of a pain in the ass. Pun maybe intended.

Fine with me. Interviews are stupid anyway

KainWind posted...

What's wrong with shorts? They are ad free too.

Post #10 pretty much outlines all the reasons why it's bad. It's just an inferior video format.