Sorry to hear you have to deal with that as well. I hate to see that mentality in pretty much any community,
Your video game hot take(s) thread
- Thread starter Dany_the_penguin
- Start date
No need for the apologies. I avoided the NG community for a reason. DMC fan base has this problem, but most are cool; especially on the DMC fan forum. The only toxic parts of the fanbase you can find left are on GameFAQs. Even then, other users from that forum site are sick and tired of them.
I think it was in an Edge interview that Miyazaki said something along the lines of anything being fair game if it’s programmed into the game, including cheesing. There’s also a funny bit I saw regarding the elitist mentality of these games, where I’m guessing by the upvotes that most people understand how carried away people get with the git gud shit -
Part of me thinks this might be someone taking the piss, but the cynic in me knows it isn't.
Still casual tho
If you are using a controller or kb/m, you are NOT playing the way God and Miyazaki intended. SORRY - but physical buttons are just another name for easy mode, and real Fromers DON'T play easy mode. Physical buttons are a way for weak non-GAMERS to avoid learning to play directly with their mind.
Hhm. I kind of get that. Please let me reiterate and emphasize, "I kind of get that." I enjoy getting to overcome a boss fully and dislike when all it takes is some kind of bum rush tactic that blitz's them down before they can even do anything to beat them (An example of this being a lot of bosses in Kingdom Hearts 2).
However, that's myself, if someone else decides that's how they want to play then I believe that at most I can say I think it'd be more enjoyable to not do that but leave it at that. Harassing people for it is wrong. My solution when I see LPers sound things like that is just to stop watching, "I find that a boring way to play so I'll find something else to do." and move on.
To play the way God and Miyazaki intended, you simply focus your gamer skill upon the processor in your console or PC and use it to control the game by physically altering the flow of power through the billions of transistors within. GIT. GUD.
It absolutely is a satire on honest-to-god(Miyazaki) git gud crowd.
This is another take I'm going to have to disagree with. I definitely don't mind unconventional storytelling, but linear storytelling still has places in gaming. Doesn't matter if it's high budget or low budget. If every single game started doing unconventional storytelling, then the same thing would happen but in reverse. And we'll be right back at where we started. And eventually Yahtzee will complain about that too, because he always does.
Last edited:
I get some people want to play along very specific lines. I have a friend who likes to RP with builds in Souls and attempt challenge runs and do every boss possible, even the BS ones. And that's fine. He can play the way he likes.
For me, I don't see that as very fun. Throwing myself at a boss for hours until I learn their moveset so innately that I can then hypothetically win through pure fucking skill or luck feels with very little margin of error.... assuming I even have the reflexes to pull it off, it feels more like I've wasted hours of my precious time. There's a number of these fuckers in souls games I've beaten and finally upon victory wasn't the elation of a hard fought win, but the relief that I could just get on with it and I'd never have to deal with that bullshit ever again. I got shit to do and not once have I regretted asking for help in these games
Also I do really enjoy the feeling of striding in there at the head of a small party and showing the boss we're fighting on our terms, not his. Fight smarter, not harder.
The Souls community has long been rife with elitists who think if you don't suffer bleeding from your fingers, eyes, and ears by the time you've completed a FROM game, you didn't really play it. To them I offer: then why did FROM provide certain tools/capabilities if they weren't to be used? I maintain as long as I'm not hacking the games' code, I'm playing them in one or several of the ways that are each equally and exactly as FROM intended; validation from other, random players who think they know better affects me not.
I do have limits. I'm always trying to aim for a sweet spot where I'm being challenged but it doesn't feel unfair. DMC3 comes to mind as something that challenged me to "git gud" but wasn't unfair. The first time I played Superstar Saga it was a great challenge because I didn't understand how the level up bonus worked so all I was getting was extra HP but it meant I had to really engage with the mechanics to win and all my other plays of it have been too easy.
My feelings on Ninja Gaiden II in a nutshell. That's why I never bothered completing the original version of the game, nor doing the harder difficulties. There is so much bull crap and cheap tricks and take difficulty the game has.
Nothing against the player in this video. He's a cool dude and only plays what he enjoys. I'm just showing these videos as an example of how much bull crap you have to deal with these games
That's the trick, really. Too Easy and something gets boring and routine. Too hard and becomes frustrating and tedious. I do think that's where challenge runs come into play for people who want the experience to be harder and summons and certain armor/weapon types for people who want the game to be easier, speaking about souls specifically. Some of the games had "hidden" modes to make the game notably harder(the Demon Bell in Sekiro, for example) but the curve can be modified in the other direction as well. I think with the summon/ash spirit thing in ER/Souls, one thing people gloss over is that there's often different ones available and some are clearly better then others. Hell, sometimes it's better not to use certain summons because the extra health a boss gets isn't offset by the summons damage or ulitiy.
IN ER, there's a whole bunch of different spirit ashes, any of which(but only one and you can't use player summons if you use an ash) can be deployed in a Boss fight(most of them anyway) and while the Mimic tear is very powerful(depending on your loadout) you can also customise the tear by having one loadout, deploy the mimic and then switch to another loadout. And that's not counting you can bring any one of the less powerful ashes with you to modulate the difficulty if you need the aggro break but doesn't want to make the fight too trivial. Honestly, I think there's a lot of potential with the ash system and people don't really experiment with it. Honestly, I'm kinda tempted to try different Ashes now to see how it changes the fight, since the wolves are gonna give a different experience then the mimic then the archer lady. Hell, there's the jellyfish that just tanks and spits poison from a distance. Probably won't win the fight for you but will draw aggro and absorb a lot of punishment. So you can just use the mimic and then say "That fight was too easy" or you could use a less powerful summon and try adjusting from there. Fuck, the game gives you the summon bell practically from the start and a free ash summon(the good bois, one of my favorites) so it's clear they want you to use them when needed. And yes, I loved taking the good bois into battle.They may stack up to every fight, especially later, but it's funny to watch a boss have to deal with a pack of doggos for once.
But yeah, the ability to adjust the experience(in some form or another) to where it's engaging is vital or else a lot of people are just gonna give up.
And not to say there aren't niche games which are going to cater to a very specific type of player(Simulation games can get fantastically anal retentive about detail at the expense of fun), but those are kind of in their own category and I'm going to derail this by going into those.
Last edited:
As much as I love DMC3 it had some cheap moments too. The original Western release turned Normal to Easy, and Hard became Normal. That is not right. It's partially the reason why I avoided buying the original release of the game and waited for Special Edition. Another problem with DMC3 is that Arkham is not fun to fight on Dante Must Die. He gets so much health, and you can't use Devil Trigger. I know this will be a hot take, but I find that this game has the worst version of Dante Must Die. Lesser demons get way too much health. You can try and prevent one from DTing, or from becoming the biggest threat, but you're almost always going to have one, that gets a big health boost. It's just a case of putting the highest damage output. This drags the fights out, and actually limits your play style, if you're playing the original or special edition, and not the Switch version. I'll go on the record and say that DMC4 and DmC have the best use enemies DTing. It gets even better for DmC, because, if you hit enemies hard enough, you can knock them out of DT temporarily. About 8 to 12 seconds.
Last edited:
The main point they’re missing is most of these kinds of people probably never played actual unforgivingly difficult games before, and simply don’t know any better than to spout arrogance thinking they’re all that and a bag of chips. Regarding difficulty, Miyazaki‘s goal with these games is for players to feel a sense of accomplishment from finishing something that initially seemed too difficult. He’s nowhere near as sadistic as some classic era developers, or even a few modern ones.
Most of them know better, they just choose to act like dicks and drink the Kool-Aid. Let's say the Dark Souls games didn't exist, they would just be elitist jackasses somewhere else. You do have a point about a majority of them not playing that many difficult games before. Throw them a copy of Comix Zone, anything from Ninja Gaiden, or many difficult games in the PS2 era, and they will cry like little bitches.
Last edited:
We're very likely never going to see Bloodborne 2. Notably because aside from the Dark Souls Trilogy, Modern FromSoft seems not particularly interested in doing direct follow ups. Dark Souls was a Spiritual Successor to Demons Souls, Bloodborne was a spiritual successor to Dark Souls. Sekiro took some souls aspects but then something very different with it in its combat system. Elden Ring is basically a big spiritual successor to all the games they've made in the last 15 years without being a direct follow up.Dark Soul 2 was trying to be something notably different from Dark Souls but the troubled dev cycle and console limitations ended up causing it to be something quite different then it's original intent. Dark Souls 3....feels almost like a apology for Dark Souls 2's reception, considering how was mostly a refinement of Dark Souls and Bloodborne and mostly ignored 2 entirely.
Also the fact that both Dark Souls 3 and Elden Ring show obvious influences from Bloodborne, both in Some of the level design(the Eternal Cities in feel like something directly out of Bloodborne) and the emphasis of horrifying things filtering down from the stars in Elden RIng. Dark Souls 3, aside from the faster combat system, has a big theme of humans reverting to beasts.They're already cribbing elements for their other games, so it feel less likely they'd just do a flat out sequel when they can just crib themes and iconography as needed.
But honestly the big thing is the fact that Bloodborne 2 would have surpass the expectations of the original game and I have no fucking clue how they would do that at this point. Bloodborne feels like lightning in a fucking bottle and while it's not perfect, it's so tight and finely tuned that it made a great impression, but trying to just do BB again would be underwhelming at this point.
Also the fact that both Dark Souls 3 and Elden Ring show obvious influences from Bloodborne, both in Some of the level design(the Eternal Cities in feel like something directly out of Bloodborne) and the emphasis of horrifying things filtering down from the stars in Elden RIng. Dark Souls 3, aside from the faster combat system, has a big theme of humans reverting to beasts.They're already cribbing elements for their other games, so it feel less likely they'd just do a flat out sequel when they can just crib themes and iconography as needed.
But honestly the big thing is the fact that Bloodborne 2 would have surpass the expectations of the original game and I have no fucking clue how they would do that at this point. Bloodborne feels like lightning in a fucking bottle and while it's not perfect, it's so tight and finely tuned that it made a great impression, but trying to just do BB again would be underwhelming at this point.
Thats part of the fun for some people. Otherwise they carry on like History Professors forced to sit through a 'based on historical events' Hollywood blockbuster.
I don't know how it happened but I went on a Mass Effect binge, and now I have a question to propose:
Does the knowledge that you could have done things differently really add any value to the outcome you chose?
For example. Bioware made it so that you could never recruit Garrus in ME1, and so for the next two games (or at least ME2), they had to add different dialogue and interactions to make up for it. But why, why would ANYONE ever skip Garrus? Arguably one of if not the best companion in the series? But that's just a small example (at least in terms of implications for future games). Let's have another, Morinth. If you choose to save her instead of allying with Samara, not only are you a goddamn psychopath, you lose out on a sizeable chunk of content in ME3. I don't think there's any good reason to choose either of these choices.
I can acknowledge that there is some fun in having role-playing choices, but a fair number of these choices in the series seem like pointless fluff, serving only to entertain those who binge "All Companion Dialogues + Secret Scenes" videos like me.
Another hot take: Liara is fucken annoying and I don't get why she is so many people's space-waifu.
Does the knowledge that you could have done things differently really add any value to the outcome you chose?
For example. Bioware made it so that you could never recruit Garrus in ME1, and so for the next two games (or at least ME2), they had to add different dialogue and interactions to make up for it. But why, why would ANYONE ever skip Garrus? Arguably one of if not the best companion in the series? But that's just a small example (at least in terms of implications for future games). Let's have another, Morinth. If you choose to save her instead of allying with Samara, not only are you a goddamn psychopath, you lose out on a sizeable chunk of content in ME3. I don't think there's any good reason to choose either of these choices.
I can acknowledge that there is some fun in having role-playing choices, but a fair number of these choices in the series seem like pointless fluff, serving only to entertain those who binge "All Companion Dialogues + Secret Scenes" videos like me.
Another hot take: Liara is fucken annoying and I don't get why she is so many people's space-waifu.
