|
Post by Garamoth on May 4, 2014 17:37:45 GMT -5
My thoughts exactly. What you'd gain in immersion, you'd lose in quality of the combat. King's Field didn't exactly have many thrilling fights.
|
|
|
Post by Snarboo on May 4, 2014 17:42:06 GMT -5
Melee combat generally kind of sucks in first person. Honestly, if you're going to make a first person melee game, your best bet is just to ripoff Dark Messiah of Might & Magic's combat system and call it a day. I could easily see a first person Soul's game playing exactly like that game does.
|
|
|
Post by AfroRyan on May 4, 2014 23:50:34 GMT -5
Melee combat generally kind of sucks in first person. Breakdown and Riddick disagree. Also Zeno Clash.
|
|
|
Post by loempiavreter on May 5, 2014 4:05:41 GMT -5
+1 for Breakdown.
Maken X, Crossed Swords II too.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Joestar on May 7, 2014 9:12:32 GMT -5
I'm really glad that MS is making things simple this time. With the 360 I was conflicted, since there was stuff like Mass Effect (which was an exclusive), Gears of War (which I didn't know how self-loathing gay it was), and various exclusive RPGs and shmups. I hate the 360 as a system, XBox Live is bullshit, the 360 has the shittiest, least-reliable controllers I've dealt with since the Intellivision, BUT I love some of the games on it. This time there really isn't shit, it's like they're continuing the trend they've been following since releasing the Kinect. It's refreshing, because this is the first time in like EVER it's been so easy to not be tempted to buy a system.
|
|
|
Post by Allie on May 7, 2014 9:47:03 GMT -5
What From Software REALLY needs to do is return to King's Field. At the end of this year is the 20th anniversary of the first King's Field, and I'll be ticked if they let that slide by with nothing. It's been almost 13 years since King's Field IV, so it's getting a bit ridiculous. All we've had since then was that collection of the first four games, those crappy PSP games, and some mobile games that nobody outside of Japan can play anyway. And none of those were exactly recent either. Even if not King's Field in name, make another Shadow Tower or something completely new like Eternal Ring was, just something in that style. With all the attention the Souls games have brought to the King's Field series, you'd think this would be a good time to revive it. But with all the success that Souls has brought From Software, it seems like it's also trapped them. As for me, I'd like a 3rd Evergrace. Forever Kingdom was an oddly engrossing experience, for me, and its non-traditional soundtrack was a draw, too. It'd never happen, though. From is definitely trapped. They might be able to get away with making another Armored Core, but otherwise, Souls fanatics will rip them apart for making anything that isn't as punishing (and doesn't have invasion mechanics) as the Souls franchise.
|
|
|
Post by Super Orbus on May 7, 2014 10:41:23 GMT -5
There's a solution for that though. Just quietly hire a new team to make more Souls games while the key players move on to other things.
Looks at Dark Souls 2. Wait a minute...
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Joestar on May 7, 2014 14:46:43 GMT -5
What From Software REALLY needs to do is return to King's Field. At the end of this year is the 20th anniversary of the first King's Field, and I'll be ticked if they let that slide by with nothing. It's been almost 13 years since King's Field IV, so it's getting a bit ridiculous. All we've had since then was that collection of the first four games, those crappy PSP games, and some mobile games that nobody outside of Japan can play anyway. And none of those were exactly recent either. Even if not King's Field in name, make another Shadow Tower or something completely new like Eternal Ring was, just something in that style. With all the attention the Souls games have brought to the King's Field series, you'd think this would be a good time to revive it. But with all the success that Souls has brought From Software, it seems like it's also trapped them. As for me, I'd like a 3rd Evergrace. Forever Kingdom was an oddly engrossing experience, for me, and its non-traditional soundtrack was a draw, too. It'd never happen, though. From is definitely trapped. They might be able to get away with making another Armored Core, but otherwise, Souls fanatics will rip them apart for making anything that isn't as punishing (and doesn't have invasion mechanics) as the Souls franchise. Yeah, aren't people bitching already about DS2 being "too easy"? I haven't played it yet so I was checking.
|
|
|
Post by Super Orbus on May 9, 2014 17:57:20 GMT -5
The Ring of Life Protection effectively completely alters the hollowing dynamic once you get it.
Other than that I won't necessarily say it's too easy.
|
|
|
Post by moran on May 9, 2014 19:38:29 GMT -5
I'd say its relative to how you play though. You don't have to use the ring and you could go through the game without ever finding it. Its also up to you to summon NPCs or other players, which greatly effects difficulty.
|
|
|
Post by raziel on May 10, 2014 10:57:39 GMT -5
How much of the whining could also be attributed to the fact that people are coming right from beating the first game? Since the game mechanics are the same at their core, once you are proficient at the first game, the second one shouldn't stomp you with a learning curve of the same degree.
|
|
|
Post by Malroth on May 10, 2014 11:27:20 GMT -5
Dark Souls 2 is definitely "comparatively" easier. I was struggling to decide if it was because I had finished Dark Souls 1 a few months before I played the newest installment. Honestly, only one or two bosses actually pushed me to any degree. Most of them I died once or twice two, while about three of them I killed during the first encounter.
That's not exactly a bad thing, I guess. You DO have the option to make the game harder if your Big Brass Ones aren't getting enough attention. The game is definitely more accessible, which I think is a good thing. I'm still hungering for a challenge, so I'll likely continue playing into NG+.
|
|
|
Post by DPB on May 10, 2014 14:02:20 GMT -5
I found DS2 to have a more uneven difficulty than the first. The beginning was a lot harder for me - with the route I took, I didn't get the Ring of Binding until relatively late and I spent a long time with only 50% HP. There were more bosses I could defeat on the first attempt, but some gave me just as much trouble as anything in DS. I thought the normal enemies in DS2 were more of a threat - even with an over-leveled character many enemies near the end of the game were capable of killing me in just a few hits, which wasn't really the case in the original.
One thing that did make DS2 easier was co-op actually working reliably every single time. 9 times out of 10 when I tried to summon someone in the PC version of DS I'd be greeted with "SUMMONING FAILED."
|
|
|
Post by Super Orbus on May 10, 2014 14:05:24 GMT -5
It also helps that right now there's a ton of people online to help out. 6 months from now, it'll be a lot less. Just the hardcore and noobs.
|
|
famicommunist
Junior Member
That's a pretty nasty tan you have there SNES-tan.
Posts: 60
|
Post by famicommunist on May 10, 2014 23:07:36 GMT -5
After the poorly designed travesty that was Dark Souls 2, I couldn't care less.
|
|