Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Feb 2012
Location: Spain
member
Offline
member
Joined: Feb 2012
Location: Spain
Maybe this is a bit out of place but... have you seen that Divinity 2 director's cut is the most sold game right now in GoG? In fact, it has been like that for two-three days ^_^

Not sure if this is good for Larian apart from the fact that with more games sold, more people knowing about them, but, at any rate, it is good news for me.

P.D.- Yes, I know this is due to the current GoG "pick and pay less" offer.

Joined: Feb 2013
M
stranger
Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Feb 2013
I am not going to get into a big boring and pointless argument over this. but we are arguing over semantics here.

When I speak of intrigue in Risen/Gothic, I mean the sort of intrigue that opens up in my own head due to being involved in the game. i.e. interactive intrigue, which by necessity, is a very simple form of intriuge. The intrigue in Origins on the other hand is intrigue that develops in the story i.e. passive intrigue. This sort of intrigue can be as simple or as complex as the games devs like, whether they manage to get the gamer to give a damn about any of it is another matter.

However, I cant really talk too much about Dragon Age as I decided it was sh1t very early on in proceedings. I can always tell very early on whether I am into a game or not. With Divinity 2, even in the training stage I felt that there was something very cool and alluring about this game (I posted as much on this website) and it turns out that I am absolutely loving the game. I never got that feeling with any Bioware or Bethesda game ever and trying to stick with these games and 'get into them', just leads to ever increasing boredom for me.

I guess it is a matter of personal taste but I find that the following general rules:

Euro RPG = good
US RPG = bad

tends to work well for me, notwithstanding the odd exception.

Last edited by MatTheCat; 17/03/13 03:23 AM.
Joined: Feb 2013
C
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
C
Joined: Feb 2013
Dragon Age Origins is really a cool game. You just have to get pass that point where he drinks that blood (forget what it's called). It really shines after that. It's one of the few games where the voice acting didn't bore me. It was interesting.

Dragon Age 2 on the other hand didn't click with me.

I don't know what GoG is but any attention is better than nothing.

Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Support
Offline
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada

GOG is a digital distribution site, notable for their lack of DRM. GOG used to stand for Good Old Games, until they started listing more indie and new/newer games a year ago.

Joined: Dec 2009
M
addict
Offline
addict
M
Joined: Dec 2009
Originally Posted by crillgamer
Dragon Age Origins is really a cool game. You just have to get pass that point where he drinks that blood (forget what it's called).

If you liked the Universe, you can read Robert Jordan "Wheel of Time", it's very close to be a copy of this universe (but no dragons).

Joined: Aug 2010
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Aug 2010
@MatTheCat

I disagree of course but I've said my piece. Of course it's a matter of taste.

Bioware is a Canadian developer BTW and while I agree that there are some good RPG's from Euro developers right now in the past the best RPG's mostly came from the west (Ultima Series, Baldur's Gate series, Neverwinter Nights, Planescape, Fallout 1&2, Deus Ex, System Shock etc).

There are still a few good ones coming out from there but the western developers are now appealing to the mainstream audience sadly. In the end they suffer as proper RPG's fans (who form quite a large audience as those traditional RPG's launched on Kickstarter prove) look elsewhere, meanwhile the shooter/action fans these developers are trying to attract simply continue playing their shooter/action games which do the shooting/action better.

Dragon Age 2 wanted to be God of War but it failed. Mass Effect 3 wanted to be Gears of War but it failed. Skyrim is simply too dumbed down and lacks deep mechanics and tries to wow people with its visuals, open world and sandbox elements but remove that and you have a very shallow action-RPG with poor RP elements and a boring generic story.

If I want action then I'll go play Castlevania: Lords of Shadow and if I want shooting then I'll go play Halo. If these western developers want to attract fans of these games then they better start improving their gameplay. Action-RPG's like Dark Souls show that you can have good action combat gameplay and deep RPG mechanics and succeed. After Dark Souls all other action-RPG's just feel very lite in comparison especially with how they have sacrificed complexity and choice for accessibility for the ADHD gaming generation of today.

Last edited by Demonic; 20/03/13 12:11 AM.
Joined: Jan 2012
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2012
Originally Posted by melianos
Originally Posted by crillgamer
Dragon Age Origins is really a cool game. You just have to get pass that point where he drinks that blood (forget what it's called).

If you liked the Universe, you can read Robert Jordan "Wheel of Time", it's very close to be a copy of this universe (but no dragons).


What the hell?! Did you ever read WOT?! Did you ever play Dragon Age?
I read them, I played them, and there is absolutely absolutely no link. It's like comparing Divinity to Harry Potter!

I enjoyed playing Dragon Age Origins, but now that I did so, it doesn't seem that great too me anymore. No replayability. As I look bach, I believe the Dragon Age universe too artificial.

Joined: Aug 2010
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Aug 2010
No replayability? Are you serious? It was good for several playthroughs and more. Maybe it had no replayability for you but the general census was that it's generally a very replayable game if you enjoyed it.

The sequel on the other-hand wasn't very replyable due to lacking customization, no true consequences to choices and limited class customization with weapons specific to each class. Origins allowed you to create a dual wielding warrior, sword and shield warrior or two handed weapon warrior and you could even give them a bow and level them up in archery skills. DA2 on the other-hand only allowed you to create a sword/shield and two handed weapon warrior and the specifications didn't really add diversity, they were just extra skills.

Origins only starts lacking in replayability when you run out of ideas for class builds and go through every Origin having made every choice there is to make in different playthroughs.

Joined: Feb 2012
Location: Spain
member
Offline
member
Joined: Feb 2012
Location: Spain
Originally Posted by Demonic

The sequel on the other-hand wasn't very replyable due to lacking customization, no true consequences to choices and limited class customization with weapons specific to each class. Origins allowed you to create a dual wielding warrior, sword and shield warrior or two handed weapon warrior and you could even give them a bow and level them up in archery skills. DA2 on the other-hand only allowed you to create a sword/shield and two handed weapon warrior and the specifications didn't really add diversity, they were just extra skills.


I agree with you, but, I must say that Dragon Effect 2, despite being inferior to its predecessor in every aspect, it has more replay value than you might think: the customization is watered down, that's true, but there are some pretty heavy decisions to make: things that change entire sections and some tones/epilogues. The most noticeable one is Hawke's brother/sister fate -many things differ if you manage to bring him/her back from the Deep Roads alive and... "well". The outcomes in this matter surprised me because I thought it was pretty irrelevant. Apart from this, of course, it is the matter about allying with templars or mages (not that this is particularly well developed, but, hey, it is there, and changes the way the ending developes).

So, yes, I agree with you in everything except in that thing about big decisions; certainly, there are less climatic choices to be made, but there are some, and surprisnsingly, with some deep impact in plot developement.


Joined: Aug 2010
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Aug 2010
Those "big" decisions only impact whether there is a character alive or not and doesn't really hold massive bearing on the plot. Your choice at the beginning with what faction you side with upon entering Kirkwall could have been designed where you actually play-through that year as either a mercenary or smuggler but instead your choice only leads to differences in dialogue and access to a different side quest.

Even if you bring Bethany/Carver back from the Deep Roads alive this has little bearing on the plot as they're taken away from your party anyway. Really only the choice of who you side with (Templars or Mages) is really plot significant.

In contrast Origins featured bigger decisions which not only impacted companions but the sub-plots as well. You had the Circle Tower sub-plot, the dwarven politics sub-plot, the elves and werewolves sub-plot, the Connor sub-plot and of course the Landsmeet. In fact you can actually abandon Redcliffe which leads to everyone in it dying. Fighting to defend it is an optional quest. In this instance I think Origins had more freedom too.

That's not to say I hated DA2. There were some neat features like the personality system. The companions were interesting and there were still enough choices to make it a role-playing game but the rush development shows and not just with the recycled areas. Consequences could have been more fleshed out as once promised and the city could have evolved based on our choices.

Last edited by Demonic; 23/03/13 01:36 AM.
Joined: Feb 2012
Location: Spain
member
Offline
member
Joined: Feb 2012
Location: Spain
I was going to write down a long reply... but I don't think this is the place to do so wink

And both of us say more or less the same, anyway!

Joined: Sep 2011
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2011
Originally Posted by MatTheCat
Originally Posted by crillgamer
[quote=MatTheCat]

There are several games I've enjoyed that get little attention. Some of them were darn near masterpieces imo. But yeah marketing has a huge impact. Not much I can do except tell a few people. They did enjoy DKS and were surprised as well.


Thing is though, whilst I admit that I have spent way longer playing games like Mass Effect or Skyrim than they really deserved to be played (i.e. around 20 hours) as a result of good first impressions and the hype making me think that the magic will kick in if I just have a little more patience and give the game a little more time, ultimately I am forced to admit to myself that despite the high production values and sometimes stunning eye candy in these games, that I am bored out my fkn brains playing these souless empty uninspiring games.

But of course, I know that I am very much in the minority with statements like 'Skyrim, the biggest most overrated borefest that video gaming has ever seen'.

What is wrong with other people though that they cannot either see this or admit this to themselves? Is it the case that the sheer wieght of hype and the pressure of what the world tells an individual to think is great, can really overcome the fundamentals of what genuinely entertains and stimulates the individuals mind? I personally know people who have spent over 100 hours on Skyrim before admitting to themselves that most of the time they have spent on the game, that they were bored out thier heads, despite telling everyone they knew how great a game Skyrim was etc.


I played Skyrim for a week nonstop from the day it was released (11.11.11). From waking up to sleeping (less necessities such as taking a bath, cooking, eating, and depleting the drain), I played it for a week. I used my vacation leave just for this piece. Then it hit me. The game is just DAUGRS. Boring corpses. Used my unused vacation leave to travel lol.


"There is no such thing as absolute freedom because we are still prisoners of society"
Joined: Apr 2013
K
stranger
Offline
stranger
K
Joined: Apr 2013
I don't really see how skyrim is dumbed down gameplay wise compared to other elder scrolls game. They never really shined gameplay wise. Morrowind has a nice word, but my god the fights are painful.

Skyrim is more a platform for mod than an actual game. That said, there are a few interesting quests here and there hidden among the fetch quest.

Bethesda should take inspiration from fallout New Vegas. Now that was content, lots of interesting quests, interesting character build, and player agency.


Bioware used to make solid games, although their plots weren't necessarily brilliant, the gameplay used to be pretty nice. Now they've got some shitty writers that retcons things over and over, and they keep dumbing down the gameplay.

Mass effect claimed to be about player choice, but it's a total failure on that point.



Alpha protocol was much better in that regard.

Larian just has this skill, they make worlds with really a sense of wonders. They manages to be naive and serious, grim and humorous and the same time.


Dark souls is pretty overrated imo. Why ? Although there is some background if you track every item, the core story is really lacking. Unless you like conjectures without actual answer.

Gameplay wise, it's really most of the time a one trick pony. A decent shield and build will make the game smooth as a whole. What's irritating is how they don't explain core mechanics, and everyone has to wiki stuff.
The only good bosses are almost all in the Oolacile DLC.
The rest just have 1 or 2 method that make them incredibly easy, instead of a borefest otherwise.

Checkpoint and teleport placement ain't always ideal either.

Joined: Apr 2005
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2005
Hi,

best remedy to forget all those games you do not find that great is ...
... start playing a Divnity game and all sorrow is gone for a loooong time ! smile

For me it worked, YES ! celebrate
I've played Skyrim - and other non-Divinity-games - , but after awhile I really must start playing again DD or DKS because I had again the urgent wish (and need) to see coming "a great fantastic fun to play game" my way, or better say: coming my Mind in laugh !



On 7th of february 2015 : I start a new adventure in the Divinity world of Original Sin,
it's a Fantastic Freaking Fabulous Funny ... it's my All Time Favorite One !
Joined: Aug 2010
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Aug 2010
Originally Posted by Kamfrenchie
Dark souls is pretty overrated imo. Why ? Although there is some background if you track every item, the core story is really lacking. Unless you like conjectures without actual answer.

Gameplay wise, it's really most of the time a one trick pony. A decent shield and build will make the game smooth as a whole. What's irritating is how they don't explain core mechanics, and everyone has to wiki stuff.
The only good bosses are almost all in the Oolacile DLC.
The rest just have 1 or 2 method that make them incredibly easy, instead of a borefest otherwise.

Checkpoint and teleport placement ain't always ideal either.


1. Not really. The Prologue, Oscar, Frampt, Kaathe, Ingward and Gywndolin explain the entire premise and core story very clearly. The expansion adds to this greatly too furthering the whole "fire vs dark" aspect to the story.

The story is simply an example of quality over quantity and even the environment tells a story (i.e the big tree roots found in some areas can be traced down to Lost Izalith from whence all demons originated from after the chaos flame incident which you can learn about from Eingyi and Quelana as well as from items).

2. Well I've played through the game 7 times so far and have never had to "wiki" builds. If you were wiki'ing builds then it's only because you made a poor one by yourself. The game is meant to be challenging remember and not just in terms of combat but in terms of figuring out things for yourself.

If stuck with playing with a sword and shield then that explains why you got bored, it clearly weren't the build for you and you didn't want to experiment elsewhere preferring to stick to the generic "safe" PvP builds of the wiki.

My first character didn't even need a shield half-way into the game and stuck with two-handing a greatsword, I had another character two-handing an ultra-greatsword and then a dexterity-based warrior who used spear and ranged attacks. I could go on about my dual-wielding magic/pyromancy character or how each weapon has a different use, different attacks and different combos but then we'll be here all day.

You're entitled to your opinion as is anyone else but I can't see how you could call the bosses and combat of Dark Souls lame and yet hold Divinity 2 up as the perfect game out of all you listed. Divinity 2 was only good for its story, dialogue and role-playing. Gameplay wise it was a mess and the combat didn't know what it was. Divinity 2 can just about hold a flame to Divine Divinity and that's only due to the story, dialogue, quests and customization. You can also see the sacrifices made for the game to be on console.

Last edited by Demonic; 12/04/13 02:14 AM.
Joined: Apr 2013
K
stranger
Offline
stranger
K
Joined: Apr 2013
Originally Posted by Demonic
Originally Posted by Kamfrenchie
Dark souls is pretty overrated imo. Why ? Although there is some background if you track every item, the core story is really lacking. Unless you like conjectures without actual answer.

Gameplay wise, it's really most of the time a one trick pony. A decent shield and build will make the game smooth as a whole. What's irritating is how they don't explain core mechanics, and everyone has to wiki stuff.
The only good bosses are almost all in the Oolacile DLC.
The rest just have 1 or 2 method that make them incredibly easy, instead of a borefest otherwise.

Checkpoint and teleport placement ain't always ideal either.


1. Not really. The Prologue, Oscar, Frampt, Kaathe, Ingward and Gywndolin explain the entire premise and core story very clearly. The expansion adds to this greatly too furthering the whole "fire vs dark" aspect to the story.

The story is simply an example of quality over quantity and even the environment tells a story (i.e the big tree roots found in some areas can be traced down to Lost Izalith from whence all demons originated from after the chaos flame incident which you can learn about from Eingyi and Quelana as well as from items).

2. Well I've played through the game 7 times so far and have never had to "wiki" builds. If you were wiki'ing builds then it's only because you made a poor one by yourself. The game is meant to be challenging remember and not just in terms of combat but in terms of figuring out things for yourself.

If stuck with playing with a sword and shield then that explains why you got bored, it clearly weren't the build for you and you didn't want to experiment elsewhere preferring to stick to the generic "safe" PvP builds of the wiki.

My first character didn't even need a shield half-way into the game and stuck with two-handing a greatsword, I had another character two-handing an ultra-greatsword and then a dexterity-based warrior who used spear and ranged attacks. I could go on about my dual-wielding magic/pyromancy character or how each weapon has a different use, different attacks and different combos but then we'll be here all day.

You're entitled to your opinion as is anyone else but I can't see how you could call the bosses and combat of Dark Souls lame and yet hold Divinity 2 up as the perfect game out of all you listed. Divinity 2 was only good for its story, dialogue and role-playing. Gameplay wise it was a mess and the combat didn't know what it was. Divinity 2 can just about hold a flame to Divine Divinity and that's only due to the story, dialogue, quests and customization. You can also see the sacrifices made for the game to be on console.


Nope, the story really is lacking. You have hints and potential for a great story, but nothing is done with it. Frampt says you have to link fire, Kaathe says you need to bring a dark age.
No way to know the truth for sure, and no way to know the actual pros and cons of each choice.
Even the dark lord ending makes no sense, with frampt serving you after what happened.

There is nothing clear about it. And i don't see how the expansion expanded on flame vs dark. There was only dark in oolacile.


You never know why the war happened, why there is a giant raven helping you, or why the dragon won't reward you for killing ornstein but will reward you for giving scales.


The wiki is for the explanation of core mechanics like parry, the actual stats of gear, and the stat scaling.

My build was fine, I went with a shield because I wasn't going to gimp myself with the amount of dirty tricks the game has for you, and rolls are just make or break.
I wasn't going to exhaust all my endurance on a heavy weapon when ennemies can just dodge-phase through your sword.
Most weapons are honestly quite similar within a category, and there are some completely OP ones like katanas and such.



Ranged attacks are just a borefest tbh.


And I don't see where I said divinity 2 was perfect in that regard. It wasn't, but divinity 2 isn't overrated like dark souls. Combat was chaotic and sometimes became generic. Yes.


And again, almost all bosses are one trick ponies. Taurus, capra, hydras, gargoyle, quelaag, seath, etc.
Also no checkpoint before bosses.
When I've cleared an area, I don't want to redo it because I died before I could see the bosse's patern

Joined: Aug 2010
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Aug 2010
Then that proves you didn't listen to much of the dialogue. Ingward (the wizard in New Londo) tells you that it was sacrificed (flooded) so that the Dark would be sealed away. From the Dark came the Darkwraiths who Ingward describes as "enemies to every living thing with a soul" meanwhile in the Artorias expansion you discover that the Oolacille residents "upturned the grave of primeval man" according to the Marvellous Chester as they were fooled by that "toothy serpent" most likely Kaathe who seemingly lives in The Abyss.

This "grave of primeval man" is inhabited by humanity sprites implying that humanity arose from The Abyss (thus supporting what Kaathe said that a human should be the "lord of dark") but the fact that the darkness of the Abyss has mutated all modern humans into monsters and destroyed Oolacille shows Frampt is telling the truth that the fire of the bonfire Gwyn linked going out would be disastrous for the world.

The war was a power-struggle. The gods arose and challenged the dragons for rulership. The Greek mythological influence throughout the game is strong. Gwyn himself even looks like Zeus. In Greek mythology the gods challenged the titans for rulership. Dark Souls just replaced the titans with dragons.

The story couldn't be anymore simpler to understand.

Asides from the main story there are also the sub-stories such Solaire's quest for his sun, Siegmeyer's quest for adventure, the cleric plot-line, Logan's quest for knowledge and his eventual descent into madness and of course the plot of the expansion: to rescue a princess.

Concerning the giant raven, why does there need to be an explanation? All it does is fly you to Lordran and the Everlasting Dragon is a hidden covenant where you level up in by giving dragon scales. None of the covenants are part of the story.

Without a shield you don't have to rely on rolls. You just rely on your armor and poise and you can still block without a shield or even parry. Enemies can't "dodge phrase" through your sword. Heavy weapons actually have an area effect. Even if it doesn't reach your enemy, swinging an ultra-greatsword near an enemy will stragger them.

Oh and those bosses? You listed the easiest ones. I was almost expecting Pinwheel to show up there. But yeah, what did you expect? Once you discover the weaknesses of the bosses and have a good build, they won't pose the same threat they once did.

Last edited by Demonic; 20/04/13 02:48 AM.
Joined: Apr 2013
K
stranger
Offline
stranger
K
Joined: Apr 2013
Originally Posted by Demonic
snip


that's your interpretation, which is quite different from most people theory (especially that Epic name bro unpleasant dude)

Heck, even the writer in an interview said it's obscure on purpose. He said he used to read western novels and he didn't understand half the things written, so he had to make asumptions. He tried to recreate that feeling for the game.

"Concerning the giant raven, why does there need to be an explanation"



Because he's important to the plot, otherwise, it can only be described as a plot device, like in Mass effect 2 when everyone goes on a shuttle so the normandy can be invaded
http://youtu.be/sah6gq5o1nQ?t=2m45s


" Dark Souls just replaced the titans with dragons."
That's an interpretation, not an actual explanation given.


Parry is a lame all or nothing mechanic, and is never explained in game.
Yes ennemies can dodge phase through your weapons, the same can happen for the player. I've been backstabbed while rolling, I've rolled through ennemy attacks, and same goes for my ennemies.

"Oh and those bosses? You listed the easiest ones. I was almost expecting Pinwheel to show up there. But yeah, what did you expect? Once you discover the weaknesses of the bosses and have a good build, they won't pose the same threat they once did. "

compare artorias and the guardian to most bosses of the original game. They require tighter timing as they are pretty fast and don't give you that much time to breath. Even with a decent build (though not super optimized one) and knowledge of pattern they pose at least a decent challenge. Most of dark souls bosses don't. They often have a "nuke" attack that can pown you but that's it. I don't remember many bosses as being actually difficult.
O&S are kind of random, they can get a good combo or just handicap each other.
Gwynn is pretty alright I guess. But besides him ? i don't remember any other as being challengin rather than a cheap one trick pony (well Sif had an interesting pattern but he ain't that hard )

Joined: Apr 2011
Location: Your Mind
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Apr 2011
Location: Your Mind
I am making another run of this amazing game, for the first time in a couple of years. It will always be one of my alltime favorites. I have been lying in wait for new ones.

Sadly, I am no fan of isometric or turn based gameplay. I really felt they were onto a great thing with D2 DNS. However, it is their series and I wish them well.


UNKNOWN: Friends help you move...True friends, help you move bodies...
E.A.P.: Blood was it's Avatar and it's seal.
E.A.P.: Stupidity is a talent for misconceptions.

Joined: Aug 2010
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Aug 2010
Originally Posted by Kamfrenchie

that's your interpretation, which is quite different from most people theory (especially that Epic name bro unpleasant dude)


Actually most now agree The Age of Fire is beneficial. I've already explained how the Age of Dark is "natural" for humanity just not the humans that live today. Either way the "Argument from numbers" counter is kinda weak when everything in the expansion speaks contrary to what most once believed.

Originally Posted by Kamfrenchie
Heck, even the writer in an interview said it's obscure on purpose. He said he used to read western novels and he didn't understand half the things written, so he had to make asumptions. He tried to recreate that feeling for the game.


Things like Solaire being the firstborn of Gwyn, origin of the gods, the Primordial Serpents, the lore of the kingdoms and of heroes are obscure but the main story is pretty much explained in full now thanks to the expansion.

Originally Posted by Kamfrenchie

Because he's important to the plot, otherwise, it can only be described as a plot device, like in Mass effect 2 when everyone goes on a shuttle so the normandy can be invaded
http://youtu.be/sah6gq5o1nQ?t=2m45s


You just admitted the writer made the things obscure on purpose. Clearly this is the case with the giant raven. There doesn't have to be a reason and he's not important to the plot. All he does is save you days/months of travelling by flying you from the undead asylum to Lordran. The fact that this giant raven just appears from nowhere and hands around with Kingseeker Frampt just opens up speculation of the player. That's what was meant.


Originally Posted by Kamfrenchie

That's an interpretation, not an actual explanation given.


It is an explanation. The gods wanted to take over. The prologue makes that clear.

Originally Posted by Kamfrenchie

Parry is a lame all or nothing mechanic, and is never explained in game.
Yes ennemies can dodge phase through your weapons, the same can happen for the player. I've been backstabbed while rolling, I've rolled through ennemy attacks, and same goes for my ennemies.


Enemies don't roll and PvP is broken which is why I stick only with single-player but broken online mechanics hardly justify calling combat itself broken when it's not.

Originally Posted by Kamfrenchie
compare artorias and the guardian to most bosses of the original game. They require tighter timing as they are pretty fast and don't give you that much time to breath. Even with a decent build (though not super optimized one) and knowledge of pattern they pose at least a decent challenge. Most of dark souls bosses don't. They often have a "nuke" attack that can pown you but that's it. I don't remember many bosses as being actually difficult.
O&S are kind of random, they can get a good combo or just handicap each other.
Gwynn is pretty alright I guess. But besides him ? i don't remember any other as being challengin rather than a cheap one trick pony (well Sif had an interesting pattern but he ain't that hard )


They're not supposed to be hard. Even the main director of the game says that Dark Souls is not meant to be a super hard game it's just meant to provide a challenging experience in vain of old traditional RPG's. Once you recognize the pattern of bosses and know their weaknesses they aren't meant to be hard to kill. Some people call Dark Souls a "3D Castlevania" because of the similarities with bosses (i.e recognizing the patterns before taking them out).

In the end that's what Dark Souls was: a solid traditional-action-RPG with well-performed combat mechanics made unique by it's way of telling story (whether it be of the world, history or characters) in an obscure manner and even using the environment itself in doing this as well as containing a fascinating world to explore and a variety of builds for the player to create while freely going through the game in a non-linear fashion.

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Bvs, ForkTong, Larian_QA, Lar_q, Lynn, Macbeth, Raze 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5