hybridial said:
Digi7 said:
No other series has given me the same tight, bare-bones, a little goofy but utterly engrossing combat without the useless flab and shallow sparkle of a thousand other modern melee combat engines.
Oh, you mean that combat engine that has you use the same three attack animations to kill everything in the game?
My mind is made up. I beat Dark Souls 1 and 2. I guess I don't "get it" because I felt 2 was objectively better thanks to online code that worked, visuals that were inherently more impressive across the board and some fixes to the RPG systems that definitely made sense.
It still didn't mean it was good. It was still essentially a reskin of an already flawed game.
They aren't good to me. And Bloodborne won't be either. I guess I'm just amused at all the nonsense on the internet of people pretending it's the second coming.
Is it the animations that are bothering you? You only use 3 animations? You know you can do way better than that right?
In Dark Souls 2 one of my favourite and most successful classes was a 'weapons master', he used a falchion off hand, estoc on hand primarily and switched between 2-handing the estoc, dual wield stancing the two weapons and no stance to allow for the parry and fast jabs. Had a dagger on swap (thieves' I think?) for the damage to riposte over the estoc and used all 3 types of throwing knives to pretty slick effect.
3 attack animations there? No, dozen+ and not because I was being silly, like I said it was one of my more dangerous builds, won a lot of PvP with that guy and once I got good at parrying it became extremely dangerous. Of course sometimes
I got confused by my weapon style/stance swapping and got myself killed but that was part of the fun. When I pulled it off I felt untouchable, must have been weird to fight.
Anyway, point is I don't think I've ever used a class that just had 3 attack animations, do you only use R1? Why not make your life a little easier and switch it up a bit. It might be a little harder to get hold of the skill required to swap between attacks and such but it works to good effect, different attacks have different arcs, swing times, damage types and damage ranges. Knowing how to mix it up makes you a far better player.
I agree that those aspects of DS2 were improved but I don't see how that makes it objectively better, the level design was worse in my opinion, looser and less concise and it skipped out on the fun of the tight interconnected world that DS1 had in buckets. Similarly DS1's enemies were a little fairer, the ridiculous on the spot rotation of DS2's enemies was there as a shoddy counterbalance to the occasional back-stab circling shenanigans which made a lot of things silly, similarly the dodge mechanic was a little worse, requiring different and "odd feeling" timing sometimes.
Hyperbole aside (has anyone seriously referenced it as the "second coming" without joking?) it's an extremely good game, I'm sorry if you can't see that but hey, I think RE4 sucks and that puts me in the minority. Don't be disheartened by your disagreement, just be ready to look at the evidence. I have yet to be shown why I'm wrong about RE4 but if someone could demonstrate to me why it's good I'd drop my dislike of it in a heartbeat, the sign of a good mind is flexibility, if someone could answer all your criticisms of Bloodborne and show you how fun it is, I hope you embrace that rather than spitefully refusing to enjoy yourself.