So.....I have three games I'm thinking about getting.....

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Not deep? Almost every weapon has a different moveset, and you have 4 attributes to manage to create a build. It's straightforward in some cases, but not shallow. A game is not only as deep as the shallowest playstyle. Although I agree there's nothing that forces you to riposte if you've got a decent shield, I'd rather that than heavy shields be useless sometimes and be forced into a specific playstyle.

EDIT: Although expecting combat to be as deep as a fighting game, which basically only has to worry about combat, is a tough ask for any non-fighting game.

I only mentioned the fighting game thing because another poster said Dark Souls combat was as deep as a fighting game.

Technically, you can get by with leveling 2 attributes (vitality and endurance) as you can put an element on a weapon thereby negating the needed strength or dexterity for damage and you can use pyromancy as your magic, which doesn't require leveling an attribute at all. You don't even need use magic either if you don't want to. I'd say you'll want to choose either strength or dexterity to level for your weapon damage and pick a kind of magic to use (which will require leveling faith or intelligence for miracles and sorceries or no stat for pyromancy) just so your character can do more than one thing. There really isn't much to character builds in Dark Souls to be honest, you seriously just pick the type of weapon you want and the type of magic, level those attributes (strength or dex along with faith or intelligence), and that's it.

The weapon movesets aren't nearly that big of a deal, they all have basic light and heavy attacks (sure the animation is a bit different but functionality the same), then you have that one special move you can do, which you really never have to do and it doesn't really have much combat advantage to actually use either. I really only did the special moves just to mix things up. And, I made a thief that just wore clothes (not armor) because I wanted the fastest dodge, I used the spider shield most of the game and that blocked everything, even boss attacks (the knight's triple sword combo was even fully blocked by my light shield). You just block an attack, let go of block for a second, and you got full stamina back. Heavenly Sword's combat literally has more depth than Dark Souls.

The way the game throws stuff at you to try to kill you, I had no problem exploiting the game back since it does the same to you. Plus, there's really no way to fight that's really stylish or anything so there's really no reason to get out of doing the standard block and attack. The riposte is cool but it's much much riskier than just standard blocking and attacking while going for the backstab with really very little, if any, upside to actually doing (backstab pretty much allows you to kill just as fast as a riposte plus it's just easier and far safer to do). I actually practiced the shit out of the riposte at the beginning of the game to get good at it since I figured the game would throw enemies at me that required me to use the move (especially playing as a thief wearing just clothes) so I wanted to be prepared, but that time never came.

 

[A Weakgeek]

Choose games like NOX

Oh NOX, my definitive childhood RPG. Never was my 5-7 year old self more scared of videogame sprites than when facing one of those scorpions the first time, and some of those deathscreens have been permanently burned into my memory. (Like the one where you're being burned in a pyre with an apple in your mouth). Used to get nightmares about the game ALL the time, but I still loved it.

 

[The_Echo]

I need something fun to play

Saints Row.

Max Payne 3 and Dark Souls are fantastic games, but they're challenging.

The former was a really stylish game with a decent narrative (personally, it feels like a bit of a black sheep compared to the other two), but the game's fuckin' hard. Like, make-you-legitimately-upset-sometimes hard. For me, anyway. Maybe I'm just bad.

Dark Souls is a beautiful world with top-notch gameplay, atmosphere, story and challenge. You will die. A lot. It's not quite so hard as everyone makes it out to be. But when you're the freshest of meat, it's quite the beast.

So I suppose it depends on what your definition of "fun" is, and what kind of fun you're looking to have. I personally haven't actually played a Saints Row game, but I know enough about it to know that it's a game that aims to let you have fun.

 

[Ickorus]

Of the three, I have only played Dark Souls and would thoroughly recommend it, I have over 200 hours in the game (If you count both PC and PS3 play-time) so far so if you're anything like me you'll definitely get your money's worth.

 

[GundamSentinel]

Max Payne 3 is a decent game with great gunplay and surprisingly fun multiplayer as well. The single player is quite cutscene heavy and the AI pulls some dick moves sometimes. And it really doesn't compare to Max Payne 2.

Saints Row 2 is a great game, lots of fun things to do and a great open world. Like a newer GTA with all the fun put back in.

Dark Souls is good as well, but I personally prefer Demon's Souls. Dark Souls has better gameplay, but IMO that's the only advantage Dark Souls has over Demon's Souls. In particular, I liked the story, atmosphere and music in Demon's Souls a lot more.

 

[not_you]

Well, the only game out of those three I have actually played is Dark Souls (And this is on PC)

I know a LOT of people said that Dark Souls was at it's worst on the PC, and if that's true, then I'm impressed...

For a small-scale production team to make a PC Port of a game because it was ASKED of them... That's gotta say something about the devs...

As for the game itself, well, I have ~140 hours clocked... Only finished it once because there are so many different ways to play it there's no reason not to try them all...
But yeah, as people have said before, it's only hard if you are ignorant... Learn the game, learn your enemies, and you'll have a hell of a lot of fun with it...

And the PvP is COMPLETELY optional! Although quite exhilarating if you win...

My choice is that...
Despite not having played the others, I'll claim being closed-minded and run with that idea....
ha HA

 

[Alakaizer]

I've played both Dark Souls and SR2, and I'd probably recommend SR2 a bit more. They're both quite good, but SR2 has quite a bit more variety, and a lot more fun in it. SR2 also has an amazing voice cast, mind-destroying amounts of customization, substantial replay value(for me, at least), and is generally more accessible.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

snip

I only mentioned the fighting game thing because another poster said Dark Souls combat was as deep as a fighting game.

Fair enough then. I agree it isn't.

Technically, you can get by with leveling 2 attributes (vitality and endurance) as you can put an element on a weapon thereby negating the needed strength or dexterity for damage and you can use pyromancy as your magic, which doesn't require leveling an attribute at all. You don't even need use magic either if you don't want to. I'd say you'll want to choose either strength or dexterity to level for your weapon damage and pick a kind of magic to use (which will require leveling faith or intelligence for miracles and sorceries or no stat for pyromancy) just so your character can do more than one thing. There really isn't much to character builds in Dark Souls to be honest, you seriously just pick the type of weapon you want and the type of magic, level those attributes (strength or dex along with faith or intelligence), and that's it.

I'm not sure when you played, but 1. getting an elemental weapon that doesn't require stat investments is a challenge in itself for the early game and 2. split damage is pretty lacklustre as of recent-ish updates. Pyromancy is a bit OP considering the minimal stat investment. But everything you're describing is the most straightforward way of doing things, which isn't exploring the full depth of combat. Try faith/int or finding a use for the Darkmoon Catalyst.

The weapon movesets aren't nearly that big of a deal, they all have basic light and heavy attacks (sure the animation is a bit different but functionality the same), then you have that one special move you can do, which you really never have to do and it doesn't really have much combat advantage to actually use either. I really only did the special moves just to mix things up. And, I made a thief that just wore clothes (not armor) because I wanted the fastest dodge, I used the spider shield most of the game and that blocked everything, even boss attacks (the knight's triple sword combo was even fully blocked by my light shield). You just block an attack, let go of block for a second, and you got full stamina back. Heavenly Sword's combat literally has more depth than Dark Souls.

I refuse to believe you blocked either Smough or Sif's spin with a Spider Shield without stacking End, and on that note, Dark Souls' difficulty is largely optional. You can do things the easy way or the satisfying way, but the point is you have the choice. The weapon movesets are different enough to create a fair bit of variety, but even giving similar movesets in classes of weapon, there are enough classes of weapon to create sufficient variety to be called 'deep'. As for Heavenly Sword, having a combat system that essentially amount to Rock Paper Scissors in the case of certain enemies isn't deep, it's narrow (although my memory isn't too good, it was years ago). Dark Souls doesn't force you to do or use anything combat-wise except choose a build and dedicate to it. If you want to block everything, they have Havel's Shield, which essentially makes that viable everywhere - assuming you have the 50 strength. If you want to dodge, that requires more skill, and appropriately less stat investment.

The way the game throws stuff at you to try to kill you, I had no problem exploiting the game back since it does the same to you. Plus, there's really no way to fight that's really stylish or anything so there's really no reason to get out of doing the standard block and attack. The riposte is cool but it's much much riskier than just standard blocking and attacking while going for the backstab with really very little, if any, upside to actually doing (backstab pretty much allows you to kill just as fast as a riposte plus it's just easier and far safer to do). I actually practiced the shit out of the riposte at the beginning of the game to get good at it since I figured the game would throw enemies at me that required me to use the move (especially playing as a thief wearing just clothes) so I wanted to be prepared, but that time never came.

In fact, I had to basically force myself to riposte enemies in new areas because I could generally play it safe with a shield instead of learning new timings (Darkwraiths and Serpentmen come to mind), and this all ties into my point: You have a choice. I feel like I'm getting more out of the game by soloing, riposting and rolling.

At the end of the day, we both played it, you don't have quite as high an opinion of it as I do and I think it's the bee's knees, neither of us are going to change the other's mind and we've both made valid points. Agree to disagree?

 

[Arslan Aladeen]

Dark Souls is the best of the that trio, but Saints Row 2 is probably the one that's more about 'fun'.

Also, what's up with calling Dark Souls a hack and slash? I thought that was used to refer to Devil May Cry/God Of War style games. Those kinda games you want to throw as many moves onto the enemy as possible, hacking and slashing away, where Dark Souls seems much more deliberate, striking when you got an opportunity. Might as well say any game with a sword is a hack and slash.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

It depends what your looking for. I've played all 3 and enjoyed 2 of them. Dark Souls is a terrible game, Saints row is OK and Max Payne 3 is pretty good

Difficulty goes to Dark souls (artificially), but the game is like Marmite so maybe rent it before you buy it (I think it is a shitty broken game but there are enough frothy knickered fanboys for it that i'll let you make your own mind up). The combat is piss-poor and easy and you will end up pecking large monsters to death over and over and over and over again. I do not recommend this game to anyone.

Longevity goes to Max Payne 3 with it's many game modes and fairly long storymode...pretty tricky in places aswell so the challenge is there. The story is OK, the gameplay is involving and difficult and the miserable one-liners make me laugh. Max Payne is a more miserable bastard than me...and that takes some doing.

Nothing goes to Saints Row 2 though. It's a simple, easy, short game with very little replay value and whilst it shares a lot in common with GTA (it is pretty much a clone until 3) it has no chance in comparison to the master itself. Imagine GTA 4 with some of the depth removed...infact i'd suggest GTA 4 if you haven't played it, far more a rewarding game to finish.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Try faith/int or finding a use for the Darkmoon Catalyst.

Which is something you get from an optional boss that is rather late in the game. A new player isn't going to build a character around that item. And you still need heavy investment into intelligence to do the better scorceries that now scale with faith. You really can only invest heavily into 4 attributes unless you grind for souls; you'll want vitality, endurance, strength or dex, and then there's only 1 left to invest in. You can't solely use magic to get through areas so you can't ignore strength or dex.

I refuse to believe you blocked either Smough or Sif's spin with a Spider Shield without stacking End, and on that note, Dark Souls' difficulty is largely optional. You can do things the easy way or the satisfying way, but the point is you have the choice. The weapon movesets are different enough to create a fair bit of variety, but even giving similar movesets in classes of weapon, there are enough classes of weapon to create sufficient variety to be called 'deep'. As for Heavenly Sword, having a combat system that essentially amount to Rock Paper Scissors in the case of certain enemies isn't deep, it's narrow (although my memory isn't too good, it was years ago). Dark Souls doesn't force you to do or use anything combat-wise except choose a build and dedicate to it. If you want to block everything, they have Havel's Shield, which essentially makes that viable everywhere - assuming you have the 50 strength. If you want to dodge, that requires more skill, and appropriately less stat investment.

Sif was easy and I fought him way underleveled as the only thing I had at the time that did any damage was my lightning spear and that takes some time to do. I had to wait for Sif to do a certain attack as there was the only one of his attacks that gave me a big enough window to do my lightning spear. I don't remember if I blocked or dodge Sif's attacks, but his attacks were so telegraphed. I fought Smough in co-op.

Games either have counters to things or they don't so you are either playing Rock Paper Scissors or basically just rock (which is Dark Souls); there's really nothing else but those 2 options. It really pisses me off when people say "well, it's just Rock Paper Scissors, it's not deep" when that is literally as deep as it gets. Go find whatever the deepest strategy game of all-time is and every single tactic will have a counter because if there wasn't a counter to a certain tactic, it would result in everyone using the same tactic and it would be a horrible strategy game (yeah, there will be more than 3 tactics but at it's core, the game will basically be Rock Paper Scissors). I don't understand the logic in saying one game has enemies that require different combat strategies while another game's enemies require only one combat strategy, and the later game has more depth, that doesn't make sense. You shouldn't be allowed to do one thing over and over again. If a pitcher just threw curveballs all game, he would get lit up.

In fact, I had to basically force myself to riposte enemies in new areas because I could generally play it safe with a shield instead of learning new timings (Darkwraiths and Serpentmen come to mind), and this all ties into my point: You have a choice. I feel like I'm getting more out of the game by soloing, riposting and rolling.

At the end of the day, we both played it, you don't have quite as high an opinion of it as I do and I think it's the bee's knees, neither of us are going to change the other's mind and we've both made valid points. Agree to disagree?

Just for balance and game mechanic purposes, the riposte should have more upside. I think the backstab probably yields a very similar amount of damage dealt while having far less risk. The more risk, the more upside something should have; that's just a general rule.

The game should force you to get good, not the other way around. Playing the game with one hand tied behind my back is harder as well, but I shouldn't have to limit myself to get a challenge out of a game, especially one that is advertised and marketed as being a hard game. Bayonetta gives me a challenge without taking anything away from me because it makes me use and master all its mechanics.

 

[crimson sickle2]

I've only played Dark Souls and would recommend it, if your in for a game that is mostly about exploration and fighting huge bosses, but if you just want to have chaotic fun in a huge city, then get Saints Row (I have played SR3, but I got somewhat tired of playing it). I'm afraid I don't know anything about Max Payne, it's just not on my radar.
Sidenote:

Just for balance and game mechanic purposes, the riposte should have more upside. I think the backstab probably yields a very similar amount of damage dealt while having far less risk. The more risk, the more upside something should have; that's just a general rule.

Ripostes with the hornet ring are so powerful it's actually considered being a bad sport in online mode, it's usually a one-hit kill except with some heavy duty armor and a lot of vitality. Another upside is that ripostes work on the final boss. If there was any more benefits to ripostes then backstab fishers would be riposte fishers.

 

[J9ACK9]

Everything that others have said about Max Payne is essentially correct: it definitely lacks the... previous Max Payne "vibe" of the other two. There's a flash-back sequence in 3 that has him back in New York, and playing that level just made me wonder why the entire game wasn't like this.
That's not to say that the game was bad, I just would have enjoyed it so much more if I had gotten to run around the gritty, rain-slicked streets of New York rather than a ghetto in Brazil.

All in all, I'd say that (for me) Max Payne 3 is a weekend-rental, rather than a buy.

 

[michael87cn]

So many people calling Dark Souls a hack and slash in this thread!

facepalm.jpg ...

Dark Souls will eat you alive and spit you out if you button mash.

It's also nothing like a fighting game.

You can get through the entire game without having to worry about Parrying/Riposting, these are actually more of a PvP thing.

The hardest part of the game is learning to keep your shield up 100% of the time. Usually, if you died, you weren't paying attention and your shield was down.

Take your time, explore the world, learn what weapon animations you enjoy, and kick some demon ass.

 

[michael87cn]

It depends what your looking for. I've played all 3 and enjoyed 2 of them. Dark Souls is a terrible game, Saints row is OK and Max Payne 3 is pretty good

Difficulty goes to Dark souls (artificially), but the game is like Marmite so maybe rent it before you buy it (I think it is a shitty broken game but there are enough frothy knickered fanboys for it that i'll let you make your own mind up). The combat is piss-poor and easy and you will end up pecking large monsters to death over and over and over and over again. I do not recommend this game to anyone.

Longevity goes to Max Payne 3 with it's many game modes and fairly long storymode...pretty tricky in places aswell so the challenge is there. The story is OK, the gameplay is involving and difficult and the miserable one-liners make me laugh. Max Payne is a more miserable bastard than me...and that takes some doing.

Nothing goes to Saints Row 2 though. It's a simple, easy, short game with very little replay value and whilst it shares a lot in common with GTA (it is pretty much a clone until 3) it has no chance in comparison to the master itself. Imagine GTA 4 with some of the depth removed...infact i'd suggest GTA 4 if you haven't played it, far more a rewarding game to finish.

I personally think its 'piss-poor' combat is a refreshing change from the regenerating health and cover-shooting you'll find in Saints Row and Max Payne. If that makes me a frothy knickered fan-boy so be it. I just find no challenge what-so-ever in regenerating health and cover shooting games.

 

[ThePenguinKnight]

I'd go with Dark Souls but only if you don't mind the fact that it has no pause button, which is moronic.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Ripostes with the hornet ring are so powerful it's actually considered being a bad sport in online mode, it's usually a one-hit kill except with some heavy duty armor and a lot of vitality. Another upside is that ripostes work on the final boss. If there was any more benefits to ripostes then backstab fishers would be riposte fishers.

But the hornet ring also ups backstab damage too. So how does the hornet ring make the riposte a better option than a backstab. The backstab has much less risk so the riposte needs a much bigger upside over it. The move being more beneficial to one enemy in the whole game is that big of a deal. The game has lots of balance issues with regards to PvP.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

So many people calling Dark Souls a hack and slash in this thread!

facepalm.jpg ...

Dark Souls will eat you alive and spit you out if you button mash.

Any good hack and slash will spit you out if you button mash as well.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Try faith/int or finding a use for the Darkmoon Catalyst.

Which is something you get from an optional boss that is rather late in the game. A new player isn't going to build a character around that item. And you still need heavy investment into intelligence to do the better scorceries that now scale with faith. You really can only invest heavily into 4 attributes unless you grind for souls; you'll want vitality, endurance, strength or dex, and then there's only 1 left to invest in. You can't solely use magic to get through areas so you can't ignore strength or dex.

You can use solely magic. It's a challenge. Once again I suggest that there is a great system for making builds for those who want to exploit it, and you counter with what a new player would do.

snip

Sif was easy and I fought him way underleveled as the only thing I had at the time that did any damage was my lightning spear and that takes some time to do. I had to wait for Sif to do a certain attack as there was the only one of his attacks that gave me a big enough window to do my lightning spear. I don't remember if I blocked or dodge Sif's attacks, but his attacks were so telegraphed. I fought Smough in co-op.

Fighting O&S solo is basically the highlight of every melee run I do. Co-op's not quite the same.

Games either have counters to things or they don't so you are either playing Rock Paper Scissors or basically just rock (which is Dark Souls); there's really nothing else but those 2 options. It really pisses me off when people say "well, it's just Rock Paper Scissors, it's not deep" when that is literally as deep as it gets. Go find whatever the deepest strategy game of all-time is and every single tactic will have a counter because if there wasn't a counter to a certain tactic, it would result in everyone using the same tactic and it would be a horrible strategy game (yeah, there will be more than 3 tactics but at it's core, the game will basically be Rock Paper Scissors). I don't understand the logic in saying one game has enemies that require different combat strategies while another game's enemies require only one combat strategy, and the later game has more depth, that doesn't make sense. You shouldn't be allowed to do one thing over and over again. If a pitcher just threw curveballs all game, he would get lit up.

While that's broadly true, there are different amounts of RPS. Situations where you have to adjust overall approach or strategy, and situations where you must use a particular skill or approach because others don't work at all. I can't think of an enemy that forces you to use ripostes that wouldn't create an instance of the first category. It should also be able to be backstabbed, and tanked if you've built your character for that. For me the enemies already make me use ripostes when it means they'll die in one shot rather than two, and that's enough when you're dealing with Darkwraiths and that sort of thing, although taking the easier way out doesn't require as much effort.

In fact, I had to basically force myself to riposte enemies in new areas because I could generally play it safe with a shield instead of learning new timings (Darkwraiths and Serpentmen come to mind), and this all ties into my point: You have a choice. I feel like I'm getting more out of the game by soloing, riposting and rolling.

At the end of the day, we both played it, you don't have quite as high an opinion of it as I do and I think it's the bee's knees, neither of us are going to change the other's mind and we've both made valid points. Agree to disagree?

Just for balance and game mechanic purposes, the riposte should have more upside. I think the backstab probably yields a very similar amount of damage dealt while having far less risk. The more risk, the more upside something should have; that's just a general rule.

Oh shit no. Ripostes do a fair bit more damage than backstabs. If anything backstabs should be made a bit weaker.

The game should force you to get good, not the other way around. Playing the game with one hand tied behind my back is harder as well, but I shouldn't have to limit myself to get a challenge out of a game, especially one that is advertised and marketed as being a hard game. Bayonetta gives me a challenge without taking anything away from me because it makes me use and master all its mechanics.

Yes, but you have to go out of your way to make the game easier my exploiting it's mechanics. At the most basic level it does force you to play better. To make the game easier for yourself you have to do it deliberately. You tying your hand behind your back would be going out of your way to make the game harder, which you don't have to do. Dark Souls isn't marketed as a hard game, I don't think. It says you'll die alot, which is true. But the difficulty thing mostly comes from fans. For what it's worth, I completed Bayonetta, and I prefer the variety of Dark Souls, but it was still good, and challenging on the harder modes, but the normal mode, ie. the level the game expects you to play at, didn't require knowledge of the combat system to the degree harder ones did.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

You can use solely magic. It's a challenge. Once again I suggest that there is a great system for making builds for those who want to exploit it, and you counter with what a new player would do.

I don't know if you'd have enough magic to kill everything between bonfires, that's really my only concern with being a straight-up mage. You said that a new player wouldn't be able to put an element on a weapon so they'd need strength or dex when I said you didn't need to put points into those attributes, that's why I mentioned that a new player isn't going to make a build based off some item that they don't even know about and an item they probably won't even get.

Oh shit no. Ripostes do a fair bit more damage than backstabs. If anything backstabs should be made a bit weaker.

Ripostes should have more upside whether that is nerfing backstabs or buffing ripostes or a combination of both. It just doesn't make sense to riposte unless you're just concerned about time, which is never an issue since you're almost always (like 99.999% of the time) facing one enemy at a time.

Yes, but you have to go out of your way to make the game easier my exploiting it's mechanics. At the most basic level it does force you to play better. To make the game easier for yourself you have to do it deliberately. You tying your hand behind your back would be going out of your way to make the game harder, which you don't have to do. Dark Souls isn't marketed as a hard game, I don't think. It says you'll die alot, which is true. But the difficulty thing mostly comes from fans. For what it's worth, I completed Bayonetta, and I prefer the variety of Dark Souls, but it was still good, and challenging on the harder modes, but the normal mode, ie. the level the game expects you to play at, didn't require knowledge of the combat system to the degree harder ones did.

How am I exploiting the game and its mechanics by fighting every enemy one at time and just normally blocking and attacking? I can see if I purposefully cheesed every enemy with a bow and arrow or found some broken combination of items, but I didn't do anything like that. And, the game mechanics don't work well at all when facing multiple enemies at once.

The game says "Prepare to die" on the back of the box. And a game where you die a lot is a difficult game since you are dying a lot. The thing is I didn't even die a lot in Dark Souls. I went through entire dungeons without even dying once. I beat a lot of bosses my first try. I even went through Sen's Fortress and didn't even get hit by one trap (I didn't use a walkthrough either). That one dragon that curses you got me the 1st time, but then I wore my best curse resistant clothes plus a ring and I literally just stood right in front of it mashing melee, not blocking once, and killed it with no issue.

Bayonetta very subtly makes you get better. The Jeane fights on normal are trying to get you to use the dodge offset mechanic. Yeah, you'll be able to beat her after X amount of tries eventually but to be able to consistently beat her without dying, you'll have to start getting good with the combat system. Then the game throws you some enemies immune to Witch Time on normal as well (then hard has a lot of those enemies, then NSIC has no Witch Time, the game is weening you off Witch Time basically). Bayonetta just doesn't punish you as much for every death and gives you more "get out of jail free" cards (the lollipops) than Dark Souls. You just can't do the same thing over and over again even on Bayonetta's normal mode and not die while you can do the same thing from the start of Dark Souls until the end and not die, that's the difference. At least Bayonetta forces you to deal with multiple enemies.