Demon's Souls
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Where in my original posting did I say he was wrong? Where did I give you the impression? If you read it, you would not have found any of those words? Here is my original post:Simriel said:
Please point out where I used the words "You are wrong! this game is brilliant!"
I can't handle criticism? Okay, let's go with that because it really does not matter what you think. I hear a lot worse from my peers in my chosen profession. It looks to me that you cannot handle criticism either because you overreacted when I posted my rebuttal.
Does anyone else who doesn't even live in Australia want to send Atkinson a verbal thrashing after reading this article?
Oh my God, all I want to say, is thank you for saying 'Frankenstein's monster' instead of 'Frankenstein', I don't usually get too seriously nerd-ragey over stuff, but when people call the monster 'Frankenstein', I flip my shit pretty bad, irrationally so.
So thank you, Yahtzee, thank you for not being an uncultured cretin.
So thank you, Yahtzee, thank you for not being an uncultured cretin.
But Splosion Man has checkpoints. It might be difficult but a death results in only being kicked back a few minutes as opposed to a few hours.Anarex said:
And as for Bioshock, you can select a difficulty as well as turn off vita chambers. Also his main point about the checkpoints in that game was that A) there were so many of them and B) they made the game non threatening and that's something I agree with to an extent. When I first started the game I did not know that I could walk past the Big Daddy and kill a different one later for the little sister. I thought there were 3 per level and I had to kill all 3. As it turns out I killed one, then another one showed up, followed immediately by another one. I fought all three in the same spot, back to back, without ever leaving for say, ammo.
That meant I died and a whole lot at that. But it wasn't a problem because I respawned 2 feet away. The result of this was that I killed a Big Daddy with a wrench and half a bar of plasmid power per respawn. The Big Daddy which is supposed to be a big scary threat was completely non menacing, just really tedious.
That's the thing about checkpoints is that there has to be just the right balance. If the game is obnoxiously difficult and is meant to be so then there had better be frequent checkpoints. If a game isn't all that challenging and the only punishment for dying is I have to walk back into that next room then nothing is threatening in the slightest.
I like a game that challenges me. I want a game to kick my ass three ways til sunday. Should I overcome the challenge however then I'm done. I beat it, I move on, that's all. If I die on the next challenge then I should do that one over, not both.
The final boss of God of War kicked my ass (specifically the segment where Kratos has to protect his family). I had to do it an obscene amount of times (those damn sword wielding Kratos kill the family in like 2 hits tops) but I finally beat it and felt accomplished. God of War was a challenging game in a lot of ways but it never really got frustrating (there were maybe two or three instances of me going "EVIL DESIGNERS! EVIL!" but I never say, threw a controller) and that's a balance that developers really need to find.
Demon's Souls doesn't do that at all. Demon's Souls creates a huge challenge and if you fuck up 10 seconds from the end of an hour long stretch of gameplay, your ass has to do it over. That's not fun, its irritating.
yeah, it's just too bad he might not be able to play Silent Hill at all, I mean, there is a high chance he won't like it anyway, but seeing as I feel the same way about horror games as Yahtzee does, it would be a real shame if he didn't at least get to play it.
Actually other reviewers and word of mouth both only seem to be saying positives about the game aside from repetition in the monster sections and its brevity.flabslapper said:
Then again this is Yahtzee so the norm doesn't necessarily apply to him, but that's why we watch him rant so it works out I guess.
Also I love horror games. Best. Genre. Ever.
That graph is entertaining and all, but there are far too many independant variables to take into account for that to be serious. For example, we were experiencing huge economic growth from the mid-late 90's until just a few years ago.Mertruve said:Hey, a link was found!
OT: I think Yahtzee's article here only makes me think that he doesn't get the game, regardless of what he says. The game is about an immersive environment, a sense of fear of dying, and ultimately, feeling very good about yourself after you take down that boss you've been trying to kill for hours.
Oh really? I have the PS3 version. I wouldn't know.Anarex said:
Well you can on PS3 so I guess if you want Bioshock Hard Edition then get it on PS3.
Hmmm, well one problem with the idea of including a "difficulty select" in Demon's Souls is that when you get down to it, the game really isn't all that difficult in of itself. The monsters are substantially weaker than the character for the most part, excepting of course bosses, and in many cases it comes down to the simple RPG staple of matching weapon type to opponent type. Say using blunt weapons on skeletons in time-honored Dungeons And Dragons tradition. World "4" which is the big farming/level up area is frequently screamed about as being "too tough" because of how hard things potentially hit, but that's only when people go in with the standard swords and spears. Walking in with say a club, or the morning star conveinently placed fairly close to the entrance of "World 5" turns that from being knuckle clenchingly hard, into almost a joke.
I can't see how making the character stronger and the enemies weaker would really change much, because typically when you die it's due to a trap, or gimmick. You remove a lot of that stuff or just let people walk through it unhurt, and well... I think it would ruin the game.
I see Demon's Souls as being sort of like an RPG version of the old game "Shinobi" and it's various cousins ("Rolling Thunder", etc...). You die, and you need to replay the level. There ARE checkpoints but they are spaced out a bit, but largely because the game itself is not all that big when you get down to it. The game is sort of an RPG homage to those old school games.
Like many RPGs the game is designed to take dozens of hours to complete (and longer for people like me who are cursed with slow reflexs, given that this is an action RPG). A lot of that is intented to be both replaing, and also trial and error as you experiment with differant weapons from various worlds in differant situations.
I'm not disagreeing that this is not a game for casuals, and it's not the kind of game that you can get the full experience of in a quick weekly review period. You definatly seem to understand the intention of it being "hard". I just think your wrong about being able to add a difficulty selector to it. I really have no idea how that would work without making the game into a mere shadow of itself where you would just walk from one end of the world to the other because I just can't see a middle ground here given the way things are set up.
I can't see how making the character stronger and the enemies weaker would really change much, because typically when you die it's due to a trap, or gimmick. You remove a lot of that stuff or just let people walk through it unhurt, and well... I think it would ruin the game.
I see Demon's Souls as being sort of like an RPG version of the old game "Shinobi" and it's various cousins ("Rolling Thunder", etc...). You die, and you need to replay the level. There ARE checkpoints but they are spaced out a bit, but largely because the game itself is not all that big when you get down to it. The game is sort of an RPG homage to those old school games.
Like many RPGs the game is designed to take dozens of hours to complete (and longer for people like me who are cursed with slow reflexs, given that this is an action RPG). A lot of that is intented to be both replaing, and also trial and error as you experiment with differant weapons from various worlds in differant situations.
I'm not disagreeing that this is not a game for casuals, and it's not the kind of game that you can get the full experience of in a quick weekly review period. You definatly seem to understand the intention of it being "hard". I just think your wrong about being able to add a difficulty selector to it. I really have no idea how that would work without making the game into a mere shadow of itself where you would just walk from one end of the world to the other because I just can't see a middle ground here given the way things are set up.
I am writing this in response to the responders of this thread (as opposed to the above which was a response to the article itself, not that I expect Ben to read it). I want to say the following:
Despite the general hate a certain Australian politician has garnered from the gaming community, phranking him probably isn't going to accomplish much. Sure, it's funny to send joke letters to the guy, but that just means the guy is going to ignore comments from the community in general. Given that the Australian system seems to be "broken" here as reports show that it's ONE guy holding up an 18+ rating (a majority, or even overwhelming majority consensus of his colleagues not being sufficient) the only thing we can do here via E-mail campaigns is to try and convince him he's wrong and to back down.
Of course in the end I expect him to ignore any pleas of this sort anyway. As I have said before I suspect that the only way to get rid of him and his supporters would be to start engaging in direct political activism. This means we'd need someone capable of organizing, funding (or gathering funds for) serious rallies and public demonstrations. Should that fail, you then begin to move beyond mere demonstrations. At any rate, the way things stand now the only ones with the resources to do something like this are companies like Valve, EA, etc... and of course those companies are acting in a very greedy and short sighted fashion. EA for example is laying off people and such apparently, because some of their titles have underperformed. On the other hand, while not making as much money as they might want they are facing a bigger threat from politicians both in the US and abroad in Australia (which is what we are discussing). Their market basically being killed under them through censorship while their pinching pennies.
It's amusing that Yahtzee gave us his E-mail address, I'm probably going to send him a mail myself (which will doubtlessly be ignored), but I don't recommend using it to phrank him, and right now if you really care about the situation in Australia (and elsewhere) I'd pressure the game companies to start taking some action in return, and see what you can organize.
I mean honestly, one of the reasons why the gaming community can be ignored as a "vocal minority" is because something like /B/ - Anonymous, can have nerds show up in strength wearing Guy Fawkes masks to harass Scientologists (albeit with very little effect apparently) and that is a massive organization that is known to be pretty bloody ruthless and dangerous (Fair Game policy). Yet the gaming community (which includes a lot of those guys) can't even get something going against one bloody civil servant, never mind taking it to that level.
Despite the general hate a certain Australian politician has garnered from the gaming community, phranking him probably isn't going to accomplish much. Sure, it's funny to send joke letters to the guy, but that just means the guy is going to ignore comments from the community in general. Given that the Australian system seems to be "broken" here as reports show that it's ONE guy holding up an 18+ rating (a majority, or even overwhelming majority consensus of his colleagues not being sufficient) the only thing we can do here via E-mail campaigns is to try and convince him he's wrong and to back down.
Of course in the end I expect him to ignore any pleas of this sort anyway. As I have said before I suspect that the only way to get rid of him and his supporters would be to start engaging in direct political activism. This means we'd need someone capable of organizing, funding (or gathering funds for) serious rallies and public demonstrations. Should that fail, you then begin to move beyond mere demonstrations. At any rate, the way things stand now the only ones with the resources to do something like this are companies like Valve, EA, etc... and of course those companies are acting in a very greedy and short sighted fashion. EA for example is laying off people and such apparently, because some of their titles have underperformed. On the other hand, while not making as much money as they might want they are facing a bigger threat from politicians both in the US and abroad in Australia (which is what we are discussing). Their market basically being killed under them through censorship while their pinching pennies.
It's amusing that Yahtzee gave us his E-mail address, I'm probably going to send him a mail myself (which will doubtlessly be ignored), but I don't recommend using it to phrank him, and right now if you really care about the situation in Australia (and elsewhere) I'd pressure the game companies to start taking some action in return, and see what you can organize.
I mean honestly, one of the reasons why the gaming community can be ignored as a "vocal minority" is because something like /B/ - Anonymous, can have nerds show up in strength wearing Guy Fawkes masks to harass Scientologists (albeit with very little effect apparently) and that is a massive organization that is known to be pretty bloody ruthless and dangerous (Fair Game policy). Yet the gaming community (which includes a lot of those guys) can't even get something going against one bloody civil servant, never mind taking it to that level.
You can. I think you need some DLC for it, though the DLC is thankfully free.snowman6251 said:
Beat me to it. Being page 4 of this thread, I know no one is going to see either of our posts, but I'm going to throw my two cents in here as well regardless.Therumancer said:
While it may seem great to spam Atkinson with emails and whatnot about what a knob he is, the international escapists don't have to deal with the consequences of such an action. I applaud Yahtzee's humour in how he posted the email, but by doing so he has pretty much killed what little chance we have of actually getting the rating while Atkinson is in office because he'll read a few of the emails, and lump all gamers into one category.
The government paper he is referring to is only an opinion piece. My brother and I have sent our letters in, but even if half the population of the country send in that we want an R18 rating, it still comes down to Atkinson.
But like I said, this is a review written by Yahtzee and it's on page 4 so no one will see this. Quote me to prove me wrong if you like.
Oh whats that? No one will read it?Adzma said:
Anyway that is the problem with the email address. Emails like "OMG UR A DICK I HATE YOU LET ME HAVE L4D2" are not going to help the Aussies. Most likely it will hurt them as he can print out some emails and say "see these are the kind of people who want that stuff". A well written letter would probably still have no effect but should be the type of thing sent in. Sadly though asking the average internet dweller to write well, especially to someone they don't like, is not going to work out well.
Ok: If you want to write letters that have an effect - or at least are annoying and waste a lot of time or money - read this.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/12/16/dont-waste-your-time-waste-theirs-a-guide-to-writing-to-ministers/
It's for the conroy internet filter, but the prinicples apply.
Key points for the lazy of clicking:
Ask multiple, tangentally related questions. (Like: If there is no R rating, does that mean Steam will be banned by the internet filter as it has RC content?). Ideally make them go to different sections or different departments: As soon as two different people need to provide responses to a ministerial the cost goes through the roof.
Don't send rude or joke emails; it costs about 1 minute as all the do is trash them.
Send questions to other ministers, as if a sitting member or minister forwards the question it MUST be answered.
if you're overseas, I recommend the 'I've just got in Australia, and am considering my options - but this R rating thing troubles me because (x). Also, can you tell me about imigration laws/how to pronounce 'G'day'? And what about these drop bears?
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/12/16/dont-waste-your-time-waste-theirs-a-guide-to-writing-to-ministers/
It's for the conroy internet filter, but the prinicples apply.
Key points for the lazy of clicking:
Ask multiple, tangentally related questions. (Like: If there is no R rating, does that mean Steam will be banned by the internet filter as it has RC content?). Ideally make them go to different sections or different departments: As soon as two different people need to provide responses to a ministerial the cost goes through the roof.
Don't send rude or joke emails; it costs about 1 minute as all the do is trash them.
Send questions to other ministers, as if a sitting member or minister forwards the question it MUST be answered.
if you're overseas, I recommend the 'I've just got in Australia, and am considering my options - but this R rating thing troubles me because (x). Also, can you tell me about imigration laws/how to pronounce 'G'day'? And what about these drop bears?