-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Wii 2 (Project Cafe): Officially Announced, Playable At E3, Launching 2012 [Updated]
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
- Status
GAF A60-Rim A
Banned
I feel like the mine cart and rocket barrel stages were a nice break from the standard level design, if a bit frustrating at times. But what game doesn't have parts that frustrate?
Even if you were outraged by the trial-and-error nature of those 10% of levels in the game, and even if you still didn't consider those levels pretty fun (and beautiful) anyway, whether by principle or whatever, surely the 90% imaginative, bursting-at-the-seams levels hold some weight?
I only had two problems with the game: shake to blow (motion control overkill) and certain rocket barrel stages (except the last one which I beat on my first try lol). I'm surprised others don't feel the same, but opinions, and all that!
I look forward to an HD, refined sequel, although I wouldn't be surprised if it found its way onto 3DS.
Even if you were outraged by the trial-and-error nature of those 10% of levels in the game, and even if you still didn't consider those levels pretty fun (and beautiful) anyway, whether by principle or whatever, surely the 90% imaginative, bursting-at-the-seams levels hold some weight?
I only had two problems with the game: shake to blow (motion control overkill) and certain rocket barrel stages (except the last one which I beat on my first try lol). I'm surprised others don't feel the same, but opinions, and all that!
I look forward to an HD, refined sequel, although I wouldn't be surprised if it found its way onto 3DS.
Donkey Kong Country: Returns was quite a mess. It had some cool stuff and some really stupid stuff and the people that made the omg Ridley, Quadraxis, Dark Samus etc. boss battles somehow made some of the most boring and repetitive bosses in the history of video games for DKCR. Nintendo even managed to sneak in a Andross/Master Hand thingy at the end.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
If they started work on DKCR 1.5 years before release, doesn't that leave a two year gap after Metroid Prime 3?Shiggy said:
JoshuaJSlone said:
Metroid Prime 3 was finished in summer 2007 with most art contractors and so on having left already a little bit before (you don't need too many artists at the end of the dev cycle). After MP3 they worked on various pitches/prototypes of which a Sheik game came through, canned when the Armature Studio people were fired (well, "asked to leave immediately"). In April 2008, DKC:R was started.
This is off-topic so it's my last post on Demon's Souls here
Yup. The beginning wasn't even remotely hard (unless you count that first boss during the training part that just wacks you in one hit to death - you can beat him, but I clearly wasn't read for that and you have to be a walking God to dodge him as many times as you need to take him down there lol). I walked extremely slowly through the level, avoided bloody obviously horrible enemies like the flying flame dragon and the red eye knight guy, observed my surroundings by reading the floor to avoid the trap on the stairs and in the ground, carefully analyzed my upcoming enemies and made sure to pick them off one by one.
Demon's Souls is the type of game that seems much harder to people than it really is BECAUSE they're so used to games allowing them to be their typical, impatient rush-in-all-arms self. I knew from the second I started Demon's Souls this was different. Yes, I died in Demon's Souls - on many occasions. On almost every occasion, it was due to me rushing and not taking into considerations my surroundings.
This is not 'crazy', as I've read accounts similar to my own from literally dozens of other neoGAF posters who agree it is patience, not trial-and-error, that leads to victory. Even in this thread we have confirmation and agreement of this even among those who think it's trial-and-error like yourself.
The crafting system is not even necessary to beat the game. I only utilized it after grinding for a while in level 4 and I started getting certain drops that made me curious. Even then, there's an actual fairly simple rhyme and reason to the process that didn't take much to figure out. Either way, crafting trial-and-error is not the same as trial-and-error built into the gameplay you must overcome to beat levels. If it's not necessary to beat the game, it's generally not enough to make a game considered trial-and-error.
As I said, I got killed in Demon's Souls. You're attacking a strawman. I said I never died on a single occasion from a situation that wasn't purely related to me being impatient (except for Maneaters). And that is true. Whenever I methodically swept through a level, organizing my steps, carefully measuring the risks/rewards of certain enemy encounters and groups, I never died. When I thought 'damn I don't feel like fighting these guys maybe I can rush past them and get through', that is when I died.
That is the distinct difference between a genuine trial-and-error game and one that merely requires skill to beat, and as long as you have that skill you'll be able to beat it even on your first try. Demon's Souls is a skill-based game. It requires patience, a basic comprehension of the battle system (which is easily grasped in the tutorial the game sets you off in) and yet more patience.
I firmly disagree that Demon's Souls is trial and error. I maintain if it was your first time ever through and you approached every situation patiently, you would have made it through 99% of the time.
Now, there are probably one or two boss related exceptions. I had real trouble with Maneaters, but just because he was a bitch not because I didn't know what it took to surpass him. And I know some people had trouble with that giant knight (I didn't, I beat him first try) and some of the other bosses, but generally I didn't even find the bosses all that complex.
To give you a representation of the patience I had in this game, On level 1-2 I sat on top of a castle rampart on that bridge and shot arrows for like miniscule damage for over an hour until i killed that Dragon who was flaming the bridge with fire. THAT is how patient I am. And THAT is how simple it is to beat Demon's Souls as long as you share that patience.
As far as Yurt goes, however, I will confess the reason I knew about that is because I was spoiled because someone didn't use spoil tags and I had to fix the mistake and thus got spoiled myself. I am sure that might have caused me problem. Still, a single enemy causing me issues in a 40 hour game experience is hardly enough to categorize it as trial-and-error imo.
We'll just have to respectfully disagree, but I know I've talked to many many people who felt the same way I did: It's patience, not trial-and-error, every single time.
ThoseDeafMutes said:
Yup. The beginning wasn't even remotely hard (unless you count that first boss during the training part that just wacks you in one hit to death - you can beat him, but I clearly wasn't read for that and you have to be a walking God to dodge him as many times as you need to take him down there lol). I walked extremely slowly through the level, avoided bloody obviously horrible enemies like the flying flame dragon and the red eye knight guy, observed my surroundings by reading the floor to avoid the trap on the stairs and in the ground, carefully analyzed my upcoming enemies and made sure to pick them off one by one.
Demon's Souls is the type of game that seems much harder to people than it really is BECAUSE they're so used to games allowing them to be their typical, impatient rush-in-all-arms self. I knew from the second I started Demon's Souls this was different. Yes, I died in Demon's Souls - on many occasions. On almost every occasion, it was due to me rushing and not taking into considerations my surroundings.
This is not 'crazy', as I've read accounts similar to my own from literally dozens of other neoGAF posters who agree it is patience, not trial-and-error, that leads to victory. Even in this thread we have confirmation and agreement of this even among those who think it's trial-and-error like yourself.
ThoseDeafMutes said:
The crafting system is not even necessary to beat the game. I only utilized it after grinding for a while in level 4 and I started getting certain drops that made me curious. Even then, there's an actual fairly simple rhyme and reason to the process that didn't take much to figure out. Either way, crafting trial-and-error is not the same as trial-and-error built into the gameplay you must overcome to beat levels. If it's not necessary to beat the game, it's generally not enough to make a game considered trial-and-error.
As I said, I got killed in Demon's Souls. You're attacking a strawman. I said I never died on a single occasion from a situation that wasn't purely related to me being impatient (except for Maneaters). And that is true. Whenever I methodically swept through a level, organizing my steps, carefully measuring the risks/rewards of certain enemy encounters and groups, I never died. When I thought 'damn I don't feel like fighting these guys maybe I can rush past them and get through', that is when I died.
That is the distinct difference between a genuine trial-and-error game and one that merely requires skill to beat, and as long as you have that skill you'll be able to beat it even on your first try. Demon's Souls is a skill-based game. It requires patience, a basic comprehension of the battle system (which is easily grasped in the tutorial the game sets you off in) and yet more patience.
ThoseDeafMutes said:
I firmly disagree that Demon's Souls is trial and error. I maintain if it was your first time ever through and you approached every situation patiently, you would have made it through 99% of the time.
Now, there are probably one or two boss related exceptions. I had real trouble with Maneaters, but just because he was a bitch not because I didn't know what it took to surpass him. And I know some people had trouble with that giant knight (I didn't, I beat him first try) and some of the other bosses, but generally I didn't even find the bosses all that complex.
To give you a representation of the patience I had in this game, On level 1-2 I sat on top of a castle rampart on that bridge and shot arrows for like miniscule damage for over an hour until i killed that Dragon who was flaming the bridge with fire. THAT is how patient I am. And THAT is how simple it is to beat Demon's Souls as long as you share that patience.
As far as Yurt goes, however, I will confess the reason I knew about that is because I was spoiled because someone didn't use spoil tags and I had to fix the mistake and thus got spoiled myself. I am sure that might have caused me problem. Still, a single enemy causing me issues in a 40 hour game experience is hardly enough to categorize it as trial-and-error imo.
We'll just have to respectfully disagree, but I know I've talked to many many people who felt the same way I did: It's patience, not trial-and-error, every single time.
I really didn't care about QTE in the Gamecube games because it was so damn easy to know which button I had do press..... I rarely missed one.
However, i HATE HATE HATE QTEs in the PS2/3 games..... Seriously, I've been using the Dualshock for quite a good time, and I still can't get used with that crap in QTEs.......
However, i HATE HATE HATE QTEs in the PS2/3 games..... Seriously, I've been using the Dualshock for quite a good time, and I still can't get used with that crap in QTEs.......
boyshine
Member
X and Triangle are fine, but Circle and Square.. I will never ever be able to remember which is where without looking down.. the pink and peach colours doesn't help it either. And yes, GameCube was great for this. A and B was automatic because of size, shape and positioning, and "Y to the sky" made Y and X easy to remember as well.Fat Goron said:
Hero of Legend
Member
Celine said:
And look at the great success they've become! Oh... wait.
I just don't see this new deal with Capcom being fruitful after failing to do anything with EA, another one for the Nintendo Curse (TM) list it would seem.
In my opinion, they should've just manned up and just stayed and not have tried any bullshit, I mean DKC:R is Retro's highest selling game period (though it was made after the Armature folks left and due to that), and I doubt they're making much (at all) with whatever they're doing now.
Also, if say DKC:R happened anyway, they might've grown to have loved doing it.
NotGameboy
Banned
I consider myself a core gamer all my life and even though I love Mario and Zelda I have absolutely no faith left in Nintendo anymore. I've been keeping my fingers crossed since the GC era for something with a little meat on it from Nintendo. I just don't believe they have their finger anywhere near the pulse of today's core gamer. Nintendo returning to the core gamer with the Wii successor just isn't likely and I'm not buying it. I'd love to be proven wrong though.
evilromero
Member
You act as if they haven't released the Galaxy games, which many consider better than anything put out on the GC.Gameboy said:
nckillthegrimace
Member
Gameboy said:
What does "something with a little meat on it" mean? Like substance? Depth?
So, First post here, though I was a big reader back at the launch of the wii, and have been reading the forums here for the last month, but just got my account activated so I could share in the discussion.
I wanted to put out some speculations on Project Cafe's power based on rumored size of the console, TDP limitations of consoles, and the R700 series, so here it goes.
The rumor from IGN is that the console will resemble a modernized super nes, roughly the same size as the 360, since it is being shown at e3, we have to assume that the design is close to final, and that it won't change much from here.
The 360's power usage was 160watts, that was the entire system, so Nintendo should look to be under there, though RRoD isn't a overheating issue (it's actually a warping issue for those who don't know, the gpu doesn't actually get to hot, the heatsink was poorly designed and warped away from the gpu causing the error)
So Nintendo should be able to build a console around that size with the same power draw, what does this mean for R700? well an entire computer system running the 4870 was 233 watts at full load: http://arstechnica.com/hardware/reviews/2008/06/ati-4800-series-review.ars/7 , this GPU was made at 55nm, and should be taken into consideration when you compare it to the R740 (4770) which was produced at 40nm, IBM says when you half the size of the chip, you save 30% of power and gain 40% performance, this would put the same system at just over 160 watts, and this is with an HDD, which consumes more energy then a SSD, now what I am saying is that Nintendo should be able to use anything between the 4770 - 4870, anything less wouldn't make since thanks to the size of the console.
As for RAM 1GB GDDR5 (Nintendo loves fast ram, and I wouldn't be suprised if it was 256bit wide, since again Nintendo likes their ram) some T1sdram is likely for BC, it would need 88mb minimum, and of course some ram reserved for the GPU. (a small ammount) this is likely the specs we are looking at, and also should give you reason to cheer, because nothing the PS4 and Xbox720 could have in 2014 would out date the wii2 to not get at least a 720p version of the game. Also thanks to this architecture, PC ports and xbox 360 ports would be stupid easy to code, you would literally be working with more powerful hardware in the same line.
Hard Drive is the big question for me, I was hoping for 16gb internal memory (seeing as how it's Nintendo, they would likely stick to flash type memory, but 8gb rumor is very likely, with the SD slot being at least SDHC compatible, it wouldn't be a huge problem, 32gb sd cards can be had for about 50 dollars online (sometimes less and free shipping, no tax) 8 just seems too low for modern digital download markets, but at least they are rumored to be moving to the 25gb discs, that is a nice change.
Online will be a drastic change from Wii, that seems very much a focus of Nintendo, to just hire a company to manage their networks for them, before anyone says Gamespy, Gamespy did the middleware work for Nintendo, but it was still Nintendo's lack of network that caused their problems, Steam as dream worth as it sounds, does make a lot of sense, they are working with Sony on the PS3, and have a big announcement coming up soon, if it's a paid subscription model, I can see steam taking a large percentage of that, 20m users at $10 a month, is still 2.4b a year, and I can't see Steam seeing that as a bad business idea. Valve is very smart after all, and so is Nintendo, hopefully everyone can at least look at that dollar amount and see the value there, because it's something someone wants, and Nintendo is looking for a partner, so why not Valve, the company that gives Nintendo their best bet.
Third Parties, I'm someone who believes Iwata, he might not always be right, but that isn't from lack of trying, I think they are very seriously looking at R*, and also Dice's BF3, if they can match the PC's features for that game, it will give the hardcore dudebros a reason to pay attention, especially if Steamworks is behind the online. Do I know anything? nope, I'm just speculating on what's best for Nintendo to do, as for the 4870 being powerful enough? yeah it's defiantly powerful enough to handle the next gen consoles inside a closed system, I was running Galaxy 2 at 1080P @60fps with an althlon2 640...
The main point to remember is next gen, Sony and Microsoft's next consoles will most likely sell on software alone, the graphics jump, while being noticeable, can not reach the change they saw this current gen, 1080p simply can't do that without huge power draws, even at 20nm tech, you'd need a box to have over 250 wattage, and unless you think the next gen consoles will be midsize ATX computer cases, you should put that thought out of your head. At best you'll have the ps4 xbox720 playing games that look next gen at 640p or whatever halo3 was res'd at, and that will be about halfway through Cafe's life cycle.
Sorry I went on so long, but hopefully someone found that interesting... I've just been watching these threads for the last few weeks, and really wanted to comment on everything and simply couldn't.
I wanted to put out some speculations on Project Cafe's power based on rumored size of the console, TDP limitations of consoles, and the R700 series, so here it goes.
The rumor from IGN is that the console will resemble a modernized super nes, roughly the same size as the 360, since it is being shown at e3, we have to assume that the design is close to final, and that it won't change much from here.
The 360's power usage was 160watts, that was the entire system, so Nintendo should look to be under there, though RRoD isn't a overheating issue (it's actually a warping issue for those who don't know, the gpu doesn't actually get to hot, the heatsink was poorly designed and warped away from the gpu causing the error)
So Nintendo should be able to build a console around that size with the same power draw, what does this mean for R700? well an entire computer system running the 4870 was 233 watts at full load: http://arstechnica.com/hardware/reviews/2008/06/ati-4800-series-review.ars/7 , this GPU was made at 55nm, and should be taken into consideration when you compare it to the R740 (4770) which was produced at 40nm, IBM says when you half the size of the chip, you save 30% of power and gain 40% performance, this would put the same system at just over 160 watts, and this is with an HDD, which consumes more energy then a SSD, now what I am saying is that Nintendo should be able to use anything between the 4770 - 4870, anything less wouldn't make since thanks to the size of the console.
As for RAM 1GB GDDR5 (Nintendo loves fast ram, and I wouldn't be suprised if it was 256bit wide, since again Nintendo likes their ram) some T1sdram is likely for BC, it would need 88mb minimum, and of course some ram reserved for the GPU. (a small ammount) this is likely the specs we are looking at, and also should give you reason to cheer, because nothing the PS4 and Xbox720 could have in 2014 would out date the wii2 to not get at least a 720p version of the game. Also thanks to this architecture, PC ports and xbox 360 ports would be stupid easy to code, you would literally be working with more powerful hardware in the same line.
Hard Drive is the big question for me, I was hoping for 16gb internal memory (seeing as how it's Nintendo, they would likely stick to flash type memory, but 8gb rumor is very likely, with the SD slot being at least SDHC compatible, it wouldn't be a huge problem, 32gb sd cards can be had for about 50 dollars online (sometimes less and free shipping, no tax) 8 just seems too low for modern digital download markets, but at least they are rumored to be moving to the 25gb discs, that is a nice change.
Online will be a drastic change from Wii, that seems very much a focus of Nintendo, to just hire a company to manage their networks for them, before anyone says Gamespy, Gamespy did the middleware work for Nintendo, but it was still Nintendo's lack of network that caused their problems, Steam as dream worth as it sounds, does make a lot of sense, they are working with Sony on the PS3, and have a big announcement coming up soon, if it's a paid subscription model, I can see steam taking a large percentage of that, 20m users at $10 a month, is still 2.4b a year, and I can't see Steam seeing that as a bad business idea. Valve is very smart after all, and so is Nintendo, hopefully everyone can at least look at that dollar amount and see the value there, because it's something someone wants, and Nintendo is looking for a partner, so why not Valve, the company that gives Nintendo their best bet.
Third Parties, I'm someone who believes Iwata, he might not always be right, but that isn't from lack of trying, I think they are very seriously looking at R*, and also Dice's BF3, if they can match the PC's features for that game, it will give the hardcore dudebros a reason to pay attention, especially if Steamworks is behind the online. Do I know anything? nope, I'm just speculating on what's best for Nintendo to do, as for the 4870 being powerful enough? yeah it's defiantly powerful enough to handle the next gen consoles inside a closed system, I was running Galaxy 2 at 1080P @60fps with an althlon2 640...
The main point to remember is next gen, Sony and Microsoft's next consoles will most likely sell on software alone, the graphics jump, while being noticeable, can not reach the change they saw this current gen, 1080p simply can't do that without huge power draws, even at 20nm tech, you'd need a box to have over 250 wattage, and unless you think the next gen consoles will be midsize ATX computer cases, you should put that thought out of your head. At best you'll have the ps4 xbox720 playing games that look next gen at 640p or whatever halo3 was res'd at, and that will be about halfway through Cafe's life cycle.
Sorry I went on so long, but hopefully someone found that interesting... I've just been watching these threads for the last few weeks, and really wanted to comment on everything and simply couldn't.
Wait, someone refresh my memory of Demon's Souls: isn't passing the dragon flaming the bridge in 1-2 simply a matter of waiting for it to swoop by, roast all the enemies on the bridge and then just running down the bridge before it circles back for another pass? I can't remember if there's an advantage to killing it, or maybe you're talking about a different bridge.Amir0x said:
I agree both F-Zero GX and Demon's Souls are great examples of skill/patience over trial-and-error (for the most part), though I'll add both games have their share of strange choices in presentation, like the butt-ugly "humans" of Demon's Souls, or GX's incohesive contrast of '90s Saturday morning cartoon characters and Blade Runner realism, as well as shit techno-trash music (bring back X's butt-rock PLEASE) and no Death Race outside of the admittedly awesome Chain Gang mission.
I also agree Pikmin 3 and F-Zero Next at launch would be the greatest launch ever. The best part is we have a few weeks left to dream about such glory before Nintendo presumably shreds the warm comforting security blanket of our *waves hands forming a rainbow* imagination.
LOLzoukka said:
Outtrigger888
Member
Syferz said:
10$ a month your joking right? I dont see nintendo charging a dime for there online service.
zoukka said:
You can merely avoid him, it's simply far riskier is all. That's the whole deal with being being fooled into thinking Demon's Souls is trial-and-error: people like taking the risks and thus they die a lot thinking a death is somehow unavoidable the first time. Most everything in Demon's Souls is overcome with simple peppering of patience and perseverance. It may not sound fun but when that Dragon collapsed with my final bolt I literally jumped out of my seat in celebration. It's the simple things
Neiteio said:
The advantage is every time you pass through the bridge you no longer have to encounter it. it's an added risk you advert. I am not sure if you are forced to face it later on as a boss, though, since every time I play the game I kill it there.
Gameboy said:
Well, I think Super Mario Galaxy shows us that the Nintendo of the GCN-era is still around buried there somewhere. And judging from the latest string of Iwata comments, even accounting for Iwata-ism, sounds like they are planning to at least put even more effort toward satisfying our group this time instead of just mostly splooging over one extremely casual group and letting the other fight for the occasional table scrap by announcing a game five minutes before it releases developed by some C-team or farmed out shit dev. Or as is the case with Wii, maybe not even release at all in the USA.
Where is Xenoblade anyway? It's gotta be confirmed to released in the USA at E3, no?
I think they have it in them. We know Pikmin 3 is going to come, and I think Skyward Sword is probably going to be a very high quality Zelda game. I think it's going to surprise a lot of people. And with the new focus on Stream, I think Nintendo realizes it does have to compete. It can't just drop out and expect to be successful forever. It's going to be exciting to see them get serious.
AceBandage
Banned
That was an excellent first post, Syferz.
Though, I don't think we'll see Steam integration and Nintendo won't go with a paid online model.
Being free and easy to use is a big selling point to them.
Though, I don't think we'll see Steam integration and Nintendo won't go with a paid online model.
Being free and easy to use is a big selling point to them.
boiled goose
good with gravy
DKCR was a good game. It had its flaws, but it had moments of shear greatness.
Some of the best 2D platforming ever period.
The flaws:
shake to roll. The most stupid decision ever. At the very least give the player options. the lack of CC controller support is mind boggling.
Bosses were stupid.
Music and art were a bit lacking compared to previous titles (DKC2)
People mention it is too trial and error heavy but this is a bit overstated. There were maybe 5 times where there was truly no way for me to not die the first time around. Most of the other time, i was simply not fast enough to react properly. I think reflexes are a component of skill.
Some of the best 2D platforming ever period.
The flaws:
shake to roll. The most stupid decision ever. At the very least give the player options. the lack of CC controller support is mind boggling.
Bosses were stupid.
Music and art were a bit lacking compared to previous titles (DKC2)
People mention it is too trial and error heavy but this is a bit overstated. There were maybe 5 times where there was truly no way for me to not die the first time around. Most of the other time, i was simply not fast enough to react properly. I think reflexes are a component of skill.
Wait, so we ARE thinking of the same thing. You spent over an hour killing that? With all due respect (and I'm being sincere), why? Literally, all you have to do is step briefly onto the bridge, step back into the shadows, let the dragon fly by toasting everything, and follow it one step behind. It's impossible for it to come anywhere even close to hurting you if you follow this strategy. You could've safely traversed the bridge 1,000 times in the span of time it would've taken you to kill it with arrows for, really, no tangible gain.Amir0x said:
The only way I could see killing it as being advantageous is if it's also one of the dragons you encounter later, and if killing it at the bridge spares you encounters later in the level. But I recall there being multiple dragons, so...
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Touching on DKCR's minecart stages, I personally consider the 'trial and error' argument a load of tripe. One of my favourite aspects of the game is that the minecart levels rarely, if ever, put you in a position where you're unlikely to react fast enough. I thought they were exceptionally well designed in that there were no cheap trick or pitfalls you'd likely miss on a first time. I always felt in control, and that a failure was my own fault.
I know Amir0x and co will vehemently disagree, arguing that the minecart stages are objectively inferior trial and error gameplay, but I just cant see it.
The rocket barrel stages? Those I feel had trial and error mechanics. But not the minecart stages. I thought they were wonderful platforming.
EDIT: The 1-2 red dragon in Demon's Souls is an abysmal example of tactical, skill based gameplay. It's not even a fight. You sit at the top of the tower and punt arrors/spells/whatever at it every time it flies down. There is zero skill involved, and zero tactical play, as you are completely out of harms way while it will continue the same animation and attack cycle over and over until it is dead.
I know Amir0x and co will vehemently disagree, arguing that the minecart stages are objectively inferior trial and error gameplay, but I just cant see it.
The rocket barrel stages? Those I feel had trial and error mechanics. But not the minecart stages. I thought they were wonderful platforming.
EDIT: The 1-2 red dragon in Demon's Souls is an abysmal example of tactical, skill based gameplay. It's not even a fight. You sit at the top of the tower and punt arrors/spells/whatever at it every time it flies down. There is zero skill involved, and zero tactical play, as you are completely out of harms way while it will continue the same animation and attack cycle over and over until it is dead.
linko9
Member
Neiteio said:
You kill it so you can get a huge number of souls very early on, at least that's why I did it. Also, I can't remember if it makes it easier to get the Purple Flame Shield, because I always killed it before I got to the shield.
Great post Syferz, that echoes what others have been saying. I had been convinced that Sony and MS would wait it out until their consoles could produce a huge graphical advantage over the previous generation, but it looks like that's sort of out of the question.
EDIT: Neiteio: it takes at most 15 minutes even very, very early on in the game. Usually more like 10. And it's worth it for the 10 or so soul levels it allows you to jump up.
Neiteio said:
Because that's how patient I am. That's how easy it is to avoid the risk of dying in Demon's Souls if you have patience. Not only do you get the benefit of all those souls, but you clear the air just that much more.
It's an example of the extreme level of patience one can apply if they choose to avoid any such trial-and-error nonsense being bandied about for Demon's Souls. Demon's Souls is about patience.
linko9 said:
Really? What did you use to kill it in 15 minutes? It was a while ago since I've done it now but I definitely recall at least a half an hour, but it definitely felt more like an hour...
Outtrigger888
Member
amtentori said:
The only thing I agree with are the bosses. The music and art is pretty awesome in my opinion, and I had no problem with the shake and roll but I can see why others could have had a problem.
Rocket Barrel music alone makes the music great
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4KmS7o8B28
Am I wrong in thinking that only three people left Retro to form Armature, from a workforce of 80+ permanent employees? It seems these guys not only over-estimated their own worth, but lacked the foresight to just simmer down and work out their differences in a civilised way. Instead they tried to do everything they could to sink the studio. There is no way Nintendo would not act to protect one of its brightest development teams.
I'm struggling to understand your post. How do you define the concept of being a core gamer? Is it someone who buys a lot of games, plays a lot of games, have interest in only a certain type of game or games from a certain franchise? Please elaborate.
Gameboy said:
I'm struggling to understand your post. How do you define the concept of being a core gamer? Is it someone who buys a lot of games, plays a lot of games, have interest in only a certain type of game or games from a certain franchise? Please elaborate.
boyshine
Member
I don't get complaints like this. Nintendo has been doing what Nintendo has always done, releasing great games for "kids of all ages". I think you're disappointed that as you grew up Nintendo didn't follow. Think back to NES, SNES or N64.. what did Nintendo release that would fit your description of "core"? The only difference is that we who grew up with Atari and Nintendo are now in our 30s, and we started wanting games that were just for us, so the FPS/Action/Racing game boom happened. That's a completely separate industry from what Nintendo does.Gameboy said:
And if you're talking about a Nintendo console not being able to attract these games from third party publishers then you're wrong. If any publisher can choose to release their game on four platforms instead of three they will jump in with both feet. I also believe the timing is perfect on Nintendo's part as a lot of developers are sitting on ideas that are difficult to sell five years into a generation, and a new console opens a large window of opportunity for these games.
AceBandage
Banned
Boerseun said:
Well, the three guys that left were pretty important in the creation and design of the Prime series. However, yes, they seemed to kind of overblow the situation. They wanted more freedom or something, but Nintendo wanted to keep them on a shorter leash.
Some developers work better when they are given free reign, some do not.
And honestly, given Retro's past, they are not one of those studios that would have done better. They need that constant supervision from Nintendo.
They have immense talent on their own, but they need that guidance to make their games nearly flawless.
But you could've also patiently creeped out of the doorway, creeped back into the shadows, and then simply followed the dragon to the other side, no trial and error required. The dragon announces itself loudly enough and won't blindside you unless you sprint down the bridge as soon as you step foot on it. I understand what you're saying, but I think this is one case where your patience made a great deal more work for you than necessary. Although I suppose as Linko9 noted, you probably reaped some benefits in the way of souls.Amir0x said:
Honestly, the most efficient way to play Demon's Souls is probably to do a "scouting run" each level and die the first time around but at in so doing know what lies ahead. You don't need to do that to expose the flaming bridge trap (and thus you don't need to spend an hour shooting arrows to effortlessly pass it), but in other cases one death gives you knowledge that puts your patience and preserverance to much better use the second time around, since you don't end up wasting huge amounts of time eliminating non-threats.
Still, if it's satisfying to you to do that, then it's not a waste, per say.
Neiteio said:
But if you have to do a 'scout run' and die, then you're performing trial and error. I am not here to play efficiently, I am here to be successful in not dying. Dying feels like a failure and the lost souls agrees. Once I beat a boss, I want to KEEP my full health
Therefore, things that seem anal like killing that Dragon reaps soul rewards and slightly added safety that makes it worth it to me. I know I can easily dodge his flame, I've done it dozens of times, but I don't want to. it's a risk I won't take. In any event, the example is an illustration of the basic principles of applying patience over trial-and-error in Demon's Souls. You can beat almost every part of Demon's Souls without dying once even on your first time if you play exceedingly cautiously and use your head.
EatChildren said:
This is you kneejerking and failing to use your critical faculties to even remotely consider what you've said. The "tactics" come in killing it so that I can gain the souls and avoid having to ever dodge its flames again. It's not about the difficulty of the battle itself, it's about carpet cleaning the path so I don't have to face unnecessarily risky scenarios. This is a small example of behavior that applies on virtually all levels in Demon's Souls. There is almost always a safe, patient way to avoid harm if you choose to take your time. No matter how 'easy' you feel the dodging is - and it is easy - it's a risk not worth taking, and the patient gamer knows this. The patient gamer, who knows Demon's Souls has nothing to do with trial-and-error, takes no risks and thus dies no times.
Amir0x said:You can merely avoid him, it's simply far riskier is all. That's the whole deal with being being fooled into thinking Demon's Souls is trial-and-error: people like taking the risks and thus they die a lot thinking a death is somehow unavoidable the first time. Most everything in Demon's Souls is overcome with simple peppering of patience and perseverance. It may not sound fun but when that Dragon collapsed with my final bolt I literally jumped out of my seat in celebration. It's the simple things
So all this time your point was that the game isn't about trial and error IF you play it very very slow and safe (slow meaning OCD-like patience and repetition).
In other words Ninja Gaiden is easy and Ghosts 'n Goblins doesn't have trial & error in it.
In other words you were trolling.
Hmm. Well, soul levels aside, I think the flame bridge isn't the best example to use, but I get what you're saying. Slightly different approaches, then. I'm willing to die the first go-around, but then methodically, painstakingly creep and whittle away at enemies and bide my time the second. I'm less willing to be so patient if I don't know there's a payoff. Again, soul levels aside, I'd feel pretty dumb if I spent an hour shooting that dragon and then heard from a friend you can simply wait at the entrance of the bridge, watch it fly by and walk behind it, no arrows or time needed. But eh. It almost sounds like the game's reputation for difficulty preceded it to such a point that you exercised threat control literally everywhere, even where there were none. But I suppose in principle that's the safest way to survive in DS.Amir0x said:But if you have to do a 'scout run' and die, then you're performing trial and error. I am not here to play efficiently, I am here to be successful in not dying. Dying feels like a failure and the lost souls agrees. Once I beat a boss, I want to KEEP my full health
In any event, the example is an illustration of the basic principles of applying patience over trial-and-error in Demon's Souls. You can beat almost every part of Demon's Souls without dying once even on your first time if you play exceedingly cautiously and use your head.
And holy shit I really want Dark Souls to come out now.
zoukka said:
You better learn to stop accusing people who are participating and engaging in explanation of their positions of trolling. You've got only a few more days before that sticky goes down and it will be enforced. I've been giving everyone fair warnings about the situation because this gamefaq-level shit is going to end.
No, the point is as simple as stated. Patience in Demon's Souls means you won't die, save on one or two of the hardest bosses. There is no virtually no trial and error involved if you apply yourself. You approach all battles cautiously, you observe your surroundings, you read player messages left about the world, you go into every battle prepare and you take out every unnecessary risk around. It's a simple strategy that is neither OCD or particularly repetitious: in Demon's Souls when you take out something like the dragon it never comes back again. You cannot, therefore, be repeating something you only do once.
The only virtue you repeat is patience. And it is a virtue.
Neiteio said:
Well, the dragon was a threat. It's just the severity of the threat was fairly small compared to some of the other ways I was able to avoid threats later. I used it as an example because it was the most extreme example of patience application in the game.
But yeah, I only ever died when I stupidly rushed into a situation when I got frustrated from waiting, so I'd say the principle carried well
Outtrigger888
Member
Gameboy said:
The wii had more quality "nintendo" games the the GCN.
GCN had Mario Sunshine, wind waker, SSBM, and pikmin. That was about it, nintendo has served us more games than usual this gen.
Hot Coldman
Banned
Metallix said:
DKCR has ideas? (Seemed like an old-school platformer to me, offering not much new.) The level design wasn't up there with an EAD joint but DKC never was, it was always the B-tier Nintendo platformer that still had its charms.
Also, hey guys, what about that Wii2 eh
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
Amir0x said:
I really cannot fathom how you use this example, of all the great elements in Demon's Soul, as a positive one, as if spending 20+ minutes pot shotting an unresponsive borderline bugged enemy, incapable of defending itself and attacking you, is worthy of design praise. As if this is an argument for the upper tier of game design which rewards patient gamers, versus gutter trial and error that punishes players for mistakes they could never avoid.
Just as I would criticise artificial game extending fetch quests so too is this particular battle deserving of criticism.
Amir0x said:
Sorry about that.
And yes technically you can avoid the hazards in DS if you are careful enough. Personally I didn't play it very fast. I used bows and magic, but I still felt some enemies were pretty much trial & error because I had to fight them to know how they react/attack and often died while figuring this out. Same with the bosses. Same with the mines that had giant pits for you to fall into.
Also how in earth would you get an idea to shoot thousands of arrows into a dragon that's basically a moving hazard and a part of the level @_@
28 days until E3, folks! I hope it goes by fast! I need to play an amazing game or something to help pass the time. Damn. I can't wait any longer!
I'm just thinking about all the leaked booth pictures that are bound to happen a day or two prior to E3. I loooove pre-E3 as much as E3, especially on GAF *remembers NSMBW leaked booth pics*
Now, I think I'm going to go play SMG2 again. Or maybe start Demon's Souls since I have it and haven't played it yet
I'm just thinking about all the leaked booth pictures that are bound to happen a day or two prior to E3. I loooove pre-E3 as much as E3, especially on GAF
*remembers NSMBW leaked booth pics*Now, I think I'm going to go play SMG2 again. Or maybe start Demon's Souls since I have it and haven't played it yet
EatChildren said:
It's not an argument for the upper tier of game design. I was not advocating the quality of the battle. I was using the most extreme example I could think of how everything in Demon's Souls eventually just comes down to patience. I certainly thought the pot shotting was tedious, and I did it for the souls and to avoid even the slight risk of being flamed throughout 1-2. I could have easily dodged it, being similarly patient in my movements along the level, but I felt the better way to do this was merely to take it out up there and get its souls. It's a lot of souls.
The reason it always take so long for me is because I fight it the second I get to 1-2, which is a really weak moment to take him out, so my hits were doing like no damage to the beast. If I waited a little while through the game you could take it out in less than five minutes.
The essential point is merely that patience allows you to avoid all risk. If you're willing to apply your patience in even the most tedious of moments, you'll be able to apply it during most any moment in the game. Dodging that one flame dude's attacks by dodging behind pillars instead of fighting him out in the open, for example. A patient man is not afraid to do a little hiding, a rushed man will just expose himself.
Demon's Souls is not a perfect game, even though I'd largely consider it a top five game of all time. No game is perfect. It definitely had a few lame encounters like this dragon one. You don't HAVE to encounter him if you don't want, though, so it's entirely optional. It's just one less risk to me.
zoukka said:
if I recall, it was accidental. He was making a swoop and I noticed I could target him on the roof. Then I did the one move... it might have actually been a soul magic thing really... and it hit him. Like a little sliver of his bar ticked off and I was like 'oh shit I can kill it here!?' Then I proceeded to test it out and yup, after an hour, it died. It took so long because I had just finished 1-1 for the first time. I was at the weakest possible moment in the game to take it on
- Status