Demon's Souls
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
No, but then you get people like my friend Josh, who says that freaking Ninja Gaiden 2 on the hardest difficulty setting is "easy".Jory said:
Yeah, but you never turned a corner in fear of what's around because you also knew you'd get a do over. You never dodge rolled at the end of a forced run because you didn't know what was at the end. Never go into sniping stance just to see if there was any movement. Never go down a narrow hallway constantly turning around to see if some assassin BASTARD jumped up behind you. Never had your heart jump at your throat when enemies surround you, or feel the adrenaline pump of a fight or flight instinct kicking in when you see that a Black Phanthom invaded your game.solidstatemind said:
You may not have suicided at every turn just for kicks, but I'm damned sure you didn't fear for your life at every turn either...
Funny, there was no boss that took me more than, say 3 tries in Demon's Souls... And yet, the game is somehow "too hard"...snowman6251 said:
Btw, how can you say you tried the same part an obsecene number of times until you finally succeeded and NOT see how checkpoints have made difficulty pointless?
Not myself, unfortunately. I feel like I should, but I also feel like I shouldn't, though I don't know why.williebaz said:
Okay about the Demon's Souls thing, I also, to a degree, feel that way, but uhh, explain to me how having checkpoints makes difficulty pointless.The Deadpool said:
True, but then I'm not even from Austrailia, so I kind of feel like I'm getting into other people's business when I do.williebaz said:Go for it, this is how democracy worksKingPiccolOwned said:
It becomes a game of trial and error much quicker. "Oh, that didn't work, oh well, just try something else literally RIGHT NOW"
It's less strategy and skill and more memorization and luck. I've beaten Demon's Souls more than once and I've yet to memorize a single bosses attack pattern... I just didn't fight them often enough.
Despite popular belief, you will not die 15 times in EVERY SINGLE boss fight. Hell, you die more in the stage than in the bosses.
It's less strategy and skill and more memorization and luck. I've beaten Demon's Souls more than once and I've yet to memorize a single bosses attack pattern... I just didn't fight them often enough.
Despite popular belief, you will not die 15 times in EVERY SINGLE boss fight. Hell, you die more in the stage than in the bosses.
Because it was only one short segment. It was a total of about maybe 5 minutes of gameplay that I had to repeat until I did it perfectly and was allowed to pass. The segment was difficult and challenging and felt like an accomplishment when I beat it. If say I lost the segment and got sent back to the beginning of the temple that wouldn't be fun, just frustrating.The Deadpool said:
Then lets say I died in the next phase of the boss and had to do the whole boss fight over again. That'd just be a massive pain in the ass. I'm not even against no checkpoints in boss battles but having them there allowed it to be a much longer, more epic and varied fight without becoming frustrating.
Yes, I did live in fear of death-- via suspension of disbelief. When I play a game, I try not to die. Bottom line. I took great pride in not losing a single unit in RTS games, even though it meant fuck-all in the statistics at the end of the level. Really, if I don't care enough to try to preserve the ingame personafication of myself... then what's the fucking point, anyway? Blowing shit up? Meh: that gets old fast, in my book. But I agree, I'm sure other people out there don't feel the same... but again, that is a matter of personal choice-- as I said in my original response, one of self control. Something I personally believe I should be the one to select, not something that is dictated to me by some developer who thinks they know what should be 'fun' for me.The Deadpool said:
The following is directed at all those championing distance between checkpoints, not just you DeadPool (so don't feel like I'm flaming you, ok?) :
Look, you can try to argue it as much as you like, but the length of time defined by the distance between checkpoints in a video game in re: the number of tasks you have to repeat is absolutely not a measure of SKILL. The following is absolutely, unimpeachably true: virtually any animal can be trained to accomplish a series of tasks if the trainers spend enough time and effort. Therefore, the 'mechanic' you are all defending is simply a measure of endurance... in this case, endurance of punishment for failure.
That's why it's a very lazy game 'mechanic', if you insist upon giving it that label at all.
The bottom line is that you are proving nothing by overcoming said interval, except that you are a) more stubborn than others, and b) have more time to spend in your efforts. What is exceptional about either of those traits??? Seriously?!? Before you respond, consider this: on each independant iteration, how can you truly differentiate between the person who skillfully overcame the obstacles, and the person who happened to be lucky enough to hit the right button (infinite monkeys, infinite typewriters aside)? If you can't, what are you really proving? That you're probably better than everyone else?
The truth is that the 'long time between savepoints' is a cheap way for game developers to make their product appear to last longer, but ultimately, it's the same mechanic at work while you play Solitare, for fuck's sake! "Eventually, you'll get it right." I find no satisifaction in that.
Before anyone goes on further about the validity of this game 'mechanic', I would strongly suggest that you go look up BF Skinner, Behaviorism, and rodent mazes. You may see some strong parallels.
One last observation: perhaps the draw of this element of DS is that there is some joy to be found in the 'elitism' of finishing a 'really hard game'? I can see that, but it's never been the draw for me (but I'll have to admit it clearly has widespread appeal given the explosion of online 'medals' and such); but if you enjoyed DS as a vehicle for entertainment and its worth as a game, and not just a means of lording your 'superiority at gaming' over others who couldn't (or couldn't be bothered to) complete it, then you would think you would at least endorse the idea of easier options, since that would allow for a much larger audience (and thus more sequels/offshoots/etc) than an "oMg!H4rdC0r3zzzz Onlee!" attitude.
Now if you all will excuse me, I believe there are a couple of sour ales in my fridge that need some tender loving care.
the same way Charlie Chaplain was out of America?The Great JT said:
wouldn't surprise me, lol. Him and his deviant ways, especially as he's basically set the entirety of this websites community against the Australian government (i've only sent my message twice... xD)
Me neither, but i sent him a letter anywayKingPiccolOwned said:True, but then I'm not even from Austrailia, so I kind of feel like I'm getting into other people's business when I do.williebaz said:Go for it, this is how democracy worksKingPiccolOwned said:
I tried a different approach
Dear Mr. Atkinson
As you're no doubt aware of, your email adress has been publicised on a very popular website for hobbyist gamers. I can imagine that this will have led to a not inconsiderate amount of various emails written with the sole intent to harass and maybe even intimidate. For my own part I consider this a good opportunity to voice my disagreement in a more civilized fashion. Although I doubt that you'll ever read this, as this message is more than likely to drown in the ocean of other messages already pouring into your inbox. Still, it's worth an attempt.
As a gamer of grown age I've followed the debate on violence in videogames over the years and like to believe I have managed to remain somewhat unbiased on the issue (I do however enjoy several of the titles that have been given an 18+ rating, so my neutrality on the subject can be questioned), after all you have to know the subject matter to be able to make a balanced decision on any subject. In my experience there exist among us hobbyists (or childish, asocial nerds to some) a general consensus that yes, there are strong arguments that point towards a connection between violence in games and desensitization towards violence among minors. This should not be confused with the wrongful assumption that violent videogames leads to more violence, but it's pretty easy to understand that if a child is exposed to a great deal of graphic violence this will have an affect. However, this is no different to violence in films or books. Yes, the violence is interactive. Yes, you participate. And yes a lot of the violence is childish and sadistic. Violence in horror/slasher films is equally sadistic (take the "Hostel"-series as an example). A lot of great novels carry pretty graphic depictions of violence and sex and not always in a fashion generally considered moral or constructive. Yet, these mediums are accepted as entertainment because they were made for an adult audience, and not with children in mind.
I do believe you understand where I'm going with this and you've probably heard it before but remain unconvinced. Alas, it can't hurt to say it once more. Not all videogames are made for kids. In fact the term videogame is misleading and should be replaced with "interactive entertainment" or something similar. Videogames can be a form of art (I strongly suggest that you check out the game studio Tale of Tales with their titles "The Path" and The Graveyard") where themes such as death, sex and violence is given context. To deny these titles the right to be distributed by argumenting that "they are potentially harmful to children" is in my opinion both prejudiced and narrow. (You don't ban cigarettes, even though many minors get older people to purchase them for them).
I also believe that as an adult I'm entitled to certain rights. If I want to see Joel Schumacher's "Falling Down" where Michael Douglas, fed up with society, goes on a killing spree, I'm free to do this. If I want to write a novel about a guy torturing kittens and enjoying it, I'm free to do so as well. If I want to play a videogame intended for an adult audience, whether it be artsy, pseudo-melancholic, murder riddles or simply good old-fashioned beheading an alien with a chainsaw, shouldn't I be free to do so as well.
Pretty much every government in the world think so (including my own Norwegian government). Maybe you should reconsider too?
Sincerely yours,
Vivendel
Dear Mr. Atkinson
As you're no doubt aware of, your email adress has been publicised on a very popular website for hobbyist gamers. I can imagine that this will have led to a not inconsiderate amount of various emails written with the sole intent to harass and maybe even intimidate. For my own part I consider this a good opportunity to voice my disagreement in a more civilized fashion. Although I doubt that you'll ever read this, as this message is more than likely to drown in the ocean of other messages already pouring into your inbox. Still, it's worth an attempt.
As a gamer of grown age I've followed the debate on violence in videogames over the years and like to believe I have managed to remain somewhat unbiased on the issue (I do however enjoy several of the titles that have been given an 18+ rating, so my neutrality on the subject can be questioned), after all you have to know the subject matter to be able to make a balanced decision on any subject. In my experience there exist among us hobbyists (or childish, asocial nerds to some) a general consensus that yes, there are strong arguments that point towards a connection between violence in games and desensitization towards violence among minors. This should not be confused with the wrongful assumption that violent videogames leads to more violence, but it's pretty easy to understand that if a child is exposed to a great deal of graphic violence this will have an affect. However, this is no different to violence in films or books. Yes, the violence is interactive. Yes, you participate. And yes a lot of the violence is childish and sadistic. Violence in horror/slasher films is equally sadistic (take the "Hostel"-series as an example). A lot of great novels carry pretty graphic depictions of violence and sex and not always in a fashion generally considered moral or constructive. Yet, these mediums are accepted as entertainment because they were made for an adult audience, and not with children in mind.
I do believe you understand where I'm going with this and you've probably heard it before but remain unconvinced. Alas, it can't hurt to say it once more. Not all videogames are made for kids. In fact the term videogame is misleading and should be replaced with "interactive entertainment" or something similar. Videogames can be a form of art (I strongly suggest that you check out the game studio Tale of Tales with their titles "The Path" and The Graveyard") where themes such as death, sex and violence is given context. To deny these titles the right to be distributed by argumenting that "they are potentially harmful to children" is in my opinion both prejudiced and narrow. (You don't ban cigarettes, even though many minors get older people to purchase them for them).
I also believe that as an adult I'm entitled to certain rights. If I want to see Joel Schumacher's "Falling Down" where Michael Douglas, fed up with society, goes on a killing spree, I'm free to do this. If I want to write a novel about a guy torturing kittens and enjoying it, I'm free to do so as well. If I want to play a videogame intended for an adult audience, whether it be artsy, pseudo-melancholic, murder riddles or simply good old-fashioned beheading an alien with a chainsaw, shouldn't I be free to do so as well.
Pretty much every government in the world think so (including my own Norwegian government). Maybe you should reconsider too?
Sincerely yours,
Vivendel
Without making a big thing about it, checkpoints and save points directly effect difficulty. No matter how hard a game is, there are always patterns. The game is trying to figure out the patterns. The hardest games are those that offer the fewest chances to learn the entire pattern.
The hardest game I ever played was Everquest. Old Everquest was brutal. Nothing comes close. There wasn't anything amazing about the boss battles, you just had a very limited ability to learn the pattern. There was no instance. The mob was up in the real world. If another guild killed it, it wouldn't be up for a week or more. On top of that, you needed around 80 plus real people to make the attempt. When I got my epic, it meant something. WOW just does not compare. I know people call it punishment not difficulty, but its not. Its all difficulty.
Simple truth, more checkpoints means more opportunities to learn the pattern. Once you master the pattern the game is on farm status. Farming isn't fun. Just the way it is. Difficulty is always directly related to the death penalty. The lower the death penalty, the easier the game. That will never change. There is no point arguing about it. Some people just prefer easier games. Nothing wrong with that. I just did not think Yahtzee was one of them. I was wrong.
The hardest game I ever played was Everquest. Old Everquest was brutal. Nothing comes close. There wasn't anything amazing about the boss battles, you just had a very limited ability to learn the pattern. There was no instance. The mob was up in the real world. If another guild killed it, it wouldn't be up for a week or more. On top of that, you needed around 80 plus real people to make the attempt. When I got my epic, it meant something. WOW just does not compare. I know people call it punishment not difficulty, but its not. Its all difficulty.
Simple truth, more checkpoints means more opportunities to learn the pattern. Once you master the pattern the game is on farm status. Farming isn't fun. Just the way it is. Difficulty is always directly related to the death penalty. The lower the death penalty, the easier the game. That will never change. There is no point arguing about it. Some people just prefer easier games. Nothing wrong with that. I just did not think Yahtzee was one of them. I was wrong.
As Michael Atkinson has said "This is a question of a small number of very zealous gamers trying to impose their will on society -- and, I think, harm society" I would love society to think the same way as I do, there would be a lot less arguments, but the simple fact remains that playing games has never forced anything on society (with the exception of Running Man, 1982 book by Stephen King, and I'm almost certain that the book was a work of fiction).
The fact that I just want to see zombies explode into a glorious shower of body parts has nothing to do with a deep seeded fantasy to rampage through the streets yelling "The heads, you have to shoot them in the heads!" I just find it humorous.
Although the best part of his statement was "98 percent, 99 percent of gamers will tell the difference between fantasy and reality, but the 1 percent to 2 percent could go on to be motivated by these games to commit horrible acts of violence". Now I suppose this would be a valid argument if every week there was a murder where on the wall near the victim there was a message that said "The princess wasn't here either" or maybe a person sifting through the persons pockets saying "Why haven't you dropped any coins?" Then I might be concerned with what video games are doing to the minds of the impressionable.
Okay lets have a little bit of simple maths, lets say that we take on of the highest selling games of recent years with a decent amount of violence, Halo 3. There were 8.1 million copies sold going with 1% of gamers been unable to tell fantasy from real life that means 81,000 people could possibly go on to "commit horrible acts of violence" because of Halo. I may not have all of the incidences of game violence at hand but main-stream media has shown about fourteen over the last ten years to have tentative links to video games, we're talking the "They might have seen a video game in the past" tentative links.
Enough of me complaining here, I'm off to send one or seven e-mails to Mr. Atkinson.
The fact that I just want to see zombies explode into a glorious shower of body parts has nothing to do with a deep seeded fantasy to rampage through the streets yelling "The heads, you have to shoot them in the heads!" I just find it humorous.
Although the best part of his statement was "98 percent, 99 percent of gamers will tell the difference between fantasy and reality, but the 1 percent to 2 percent could go on to be motivated by these games to commit horrible acts of violence". Now I suppose this would be a valid argument if every week there was a murder where on the wall near the victim there was a message that said "The princess wasn't here either" or maybe a person sifting through the persons pockets saying "Why haven't you dropped any coins?" Then I might be concerned with what video games are doing to the minds of the impressionable.
Okay lets have a little bit of simple maths, lets say that we take on of the highest selling games of recent years with a decent amount of violence, Halo 3. There were 8.1 million copies sold going with 1% of gamers been unable to tell fantasy from real life that means 81,000 people could possibly go on to "commit horrible acts of violence" because of Halo. I may not have all of the incidences of game violence at hand but main-stream media has shown about fourteen over the last ten years to have tentative links to video games, we're talking the "They might have seen a video game in the past" tentative links.
Enough of me complaining here, I'm off to send one or seven e-mails to Mr. Atkinson.
