The House of Stark
Re: The House of Stark
The point about there "not being that many noob hunters" is somewhat undermined by the fact that we had a confessed noob hunter (talking about how it filled them with joy) in the chat the whole time.
Yes, Dark Souls is not beginner friendly, and it's gotten progressively less friendly as old veterans turned to noob-hunting for kicks. This is what we call "not good".
Yes, Dark Souls is not beginner friendly, and it's gotten progressively less friendly as old veterans turned to noob-hunting for kicks. This is what we call "not good".
Re: The House of Stark
deathjavu wrote:The point about there "not being that many noob hunters" is somewhat undermined by the fact that we had a confessed noob hunter (talking about how it filled them with joy) in the chat the whole time.
Yes, what was that, 1/500-600 viewers?
deathjavu wrote:Yes, Dark Souls is not beginner friendly, and it's gotten progressively less friendly as old veterans turned to noob-hunting for kicks. This is what we call "not good".
It's not ideal, I admitted that, but it is too minor to want to throw out the entire system as a result of it.
Re: The House of Stark
Arakasi wrote:deathjavu wrote:The point about there "not being that many noob hunters" is somewhat undermined by the fact that we had a confessed noob hunter (talking about how it filled them with joy) in the chat the whole time.
Yes, what was that, 1/500-600 viewers?deathjavu wrote:Yes, Dark Souls is not beginner friendly, and it's gotten progressively less friendly as old veterans turned to noob-hunting for kicks. This is what we call "not good".
It's not ideal, I admitted that, but it is too minor to want to throw out the entire system as a result of it.
One viewer out of what percentage of the viewership that actually plays Dark Souls? 25%? 10%? 1/125 or 1/60 griefer rate sounds pretty problematic to me. And that was only one that was dumb enough to broadcast their dickishness.
It seems to be a common experience for a player to encounter the PvP as utterly miserable bullshit, have some portion of the game's experience ruined, and forgo the multiplayer elements for the rest of the game. The way the mechanic was set up and tuned actively drives people away from the multiplayer aspect.
Re: The House of Stark
Where was it that someone tried to tell me Dark Souls was "a multiplayer game with single player elements"?
That wasn't here was it?
That wasn't here was it?
- Jamfalcon
- Posts: 3329
- Joined: 08 Aug 2011, 13:59
- First Video: Killer Instinct
- Location: Somewhat nearish Vancouver. Kind of.
- Contact:
Re: The House of Stark
I think that was in the Twitch chat, when you were streaming on Monday.
- romangoro
- Posts: 314
- Joined: 19 Feb 2014, 21:00
- First Video: The Couch
- Location: Buenos Aires
- Contact:
Re: The House of Stark
Personally I think that the problem with PvP on this game is that it feels out of place. It disrupts the atmosphere of epic loneliness of the game without adding anything to the experience specially when you're a beginner. And we all know what they say about first impressions, right?
- empath
- Posts: 13531
- Joined: 28 Nov 2007, 17:20
- First Video: How to Talk Like a Pirate
- Location: back in the arse end of nowhere
Re: The House of Stark
romangoro wrote:Personally I think that the problem with PvP on this game is that it feels out of place. It disrupts the atmosphere of epic loneliness of the game without adding anything to the experience specially when you're a beginner. And we all know what they say about first impressions, right?
TOUCHE!
FromSoftware undermines their own story and setting, just to appease the misanthropes...
Re: The House of Stark
Graham wrote:Where was it that someone tried to tell me Dark Souls was "a multiplayer game with single player elements"?
That wasn't here was it?
People were saying it again on Friday, when Cam/Alex were streaming.
Personally I think that the problem with PvP on this game is that it feels out of place. It disrupts the atmosphere of epic loneliness of the game without adding anything to the experience specially when you're a beginner. And we all know what they say about first impressions, right?
The obvious comeback is that the invaders are hostile, so they only reinforce the hostile lonliness of Dark Souls...but I'm not sure I buy it.
Re: The House of Stark
romangoro wrote:Personally I think that the problem with PvP on this game is that it feels out of place. It disrupts the atmosphere of epic loneliness of the game without adding anything to the experience specially when you're a beginner. And we all know what they say about first impressions, right?
The loneliness argument could be made for the co-op too. One always has the option to play offline. Though there is the argument that it adds to the hostility of the world, especially since it is worked into the lore (see NPC players invading).
And that was in the Twich chat Graham, as the other person mentioned.
Re: The House of Stark
Okay. That's an insane thing to say. Maybe that's how you play it, but it is not remotely that way.
And I agree with the loneliness aspect, I think that's part of why it bugs me.
And I agree with the loneliness aspect, I think that's part of why it bugs me.
- Merrymaker_Mortalis
- Posts: 7226
- Joined: 24 Feb 2010, 19:19
- First Video: ENN's First Episode on Escapist
- Location: Wales
Re: The House of Stark
Ganking players playing a solo experience should stay in MMOs in my opinion.
Re: The House of Stark
Merrymaker_Mortalis wrote:Ganking players playing a solo experience should stay in MMOs in my opinion.
See my prior replies to my larger post, there are basically two ways to see Dark Souls. A single player game, or an MMO with instances.
-
- Posts: 6120
- Joined: 25 Nov 2010, 03:31
- First Video: Whisky Tango Foxtrot
- Location: The ever-shifting landscape of the mind
Re: The House of Stark
The part that seems off to me (and I could be completely wrong as I've yet to play it) is that there doesn't seem to be a way to turn off being invaded without turning off the messages and stuff like that. The message idea seems pretty neat. To have the options of having them but being potentially trolled, or not have them to avoid trolls seems like a poor design choice.
But again, I don't know that for sure. That just seems to be the case since everyone recommends going offline, which seems like it'd take away that capability.
But again, I don't know that for sure. That just seems to be the case since everyone recommends going offline, which seems like it'd take away that capability.
Re: The House of Stark
Kapol, you can play the game as a hollow, meaning you get to see the messages and other passive interactions without risking invasion. However, if you want to be able to summon help or kindle bonfires you need to be human and open yourself up to invaders.
Arakasi, the MMO analogy isn't great since there are usually PVE worlds where you have the option of playing on your own or in a group, but are not subject to PVP unless you choose to be.
Arakasi, the MMO analogy isn't great since there are usually PVE worlds where you have the option of playing on your own or in a group, but are not subject to PVP unless you choose to be.
-
- Posts: 6120
- Joined: 25 Nov 2010, 03:31
- First Video: Whisky Tango Foxtrot
- Location: The ever-shifting landscape of the mind
Re: The House of Stark
xantheros wrote:Kapol, you can play the game as a hollow, meaning you get to see the messages and other passive interactions without risking invasion. However, if you want to be able to summon help or kindle bonfires you need to be human and open yourself up to invaders.
Arakasi, the MMO analogy isn't great since there are usually PVE worlds where you have the option of playing on your own or in a group, but are not subject to PVP unless you choose to be.
I know about that. I suppose there's also the option of putting yourself at a pretty significant disadvantage. But that's still not a good alternative to just giving the player a choice.
Re: The House of Stark
xantheros wrote:Arakasi, the MMO analogy isn't great since there are usually PVE worlds where you have the option of playing on your own or in a group, but are not subject to PVP unless you choose to be.
I wouldn't say 'usually' most of the MMOs I've seen have had non-optional PvP.
- empath
- Posts: 13531
- Joined: 28 Nov 2007, 17:20
- First Video: How to Talk Like a Pirate
- Location: back in the arse end of nowhere
Re: The House of Stark
You look in a rather limited circle of MMOs then.
And let's put the blame where it stands: okay, FromSoftware made a design choice, and it's only that some people love, and some people loathe.
But their multiplayer functionality would still be fine...
IF THE PLAYER COMMUNITY WASN'T SO TOXIC.
I think even the most pastel-colored carebear will concede that the 'griefing segment' in the Dark Souls is a MINORITY (maybe a hugely VISIBLE minority, and maybe one with a fuckton of apologists and supporters, but still). And yet there are still plenty of people decrying invasions? Could it be that even once is too often?
It is these borderline-sociopathic people who derive pleasure from ruining other people's activities, destroying their progress and befouling their entertainment and enjoyment, THESE folks are the reason the design choice so reviled. If there weren't a few ganking exploiters waiting to sour you impression of this game with a massively unfair fight roguth out of the gate, maybe the prospect of being invaded might not be such a deal-breaker for potential customers?
And yes, it's a minority, and yes the 'odds' of having this happen to you are slim, but when people refuse to buy your product due to the risk of this unlikely event happening to them and denounce your design choices so much...
Also, regards to the "oh, it's just such a small chance of it happening, you shouldn't worry about it" attempt at an excuse; just ask the insurance industry how people feel about slim chances of misfortune.
And let's put the blame where it stands: okay, FromSoftware made a design choice, and it's only that some people love, and some people loathe.
But their multiplayer functionality would still be fine...
IF THE PLAYER COMMUNITY WASN'T SO TOXIC.
I think even the most pastel-colored carebear will concede that the 'griefing segment' in the Dark Souls is a MINORITY (maybe a hugely VISIBLE minority, and maybe one with a fuckton of apologists and supporters, but still). And yet there are still plenty of people decrying invasions? Could it be that even once is too often?
It is these borderline-sociopathic people who derive pleasure from ruining other people's activities, destroying their progress and befouling their entertainment and enjoyment, THESE folks are the reason the design choice so reviled. If there weren't a few ganking exploiters waiting to sour you impression of this game with a massively unfair fight roguth out of the gate, maybe the prospect of being invaded might not be such a deal-breaker for potential customers?
And yes, it's a minority, and yes the 'odds' of having this happen to you are slim, but when people refuse to buy your product due to the risk of this unlikely event happening to them and denounce your design choices so much...
Also, regards to the "oh, it's just such a small chance of it happening, you shouldn't worry about it" attempt at an excuse; just ask the insurance industry how people feel about slim chances of misfortune.
- romangoro
- Posts: 314
- Joined: 19 Feb 2014, 21:00
- First Video: The Couch
- Location: Buenos Aires
- Contact:
Re: The House of Stark
And I insist, the problem is that it breaks the inmersion, when considering going human one of the things to ponder is outside of the game itself, i.e., griefing players.
I'm not sure if it's a bad mechanic on itself, the risk of one of the ghosts of other players becoming real is a cool idea on paper. But it's clearly badly balanced if it makes griefing so easy/tempting that it has to be considered part of the risks.
I'm not sure if it's a bad mechanic on itself, the risk of one of the ghosts of other players becoming real is a cool idea on paper. But it's clearly badly balanced if it makes griefing so easy/tempting that it has to be considered part of the risks.
- AdmiralMemo
- Posts: 7358
- Joined: 27 Nov 2011, 18:29
- First Video: Unskippable: Eternal Sonata
- Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
- Contact:
Re: The House of Stark
You haven't played Star Trek Online, then. The most apt criticism of STO is that "it's one of the best single-player games ever made." All PvP in STO is optional.Arakasi wrote:I wouldn't say "usually." Most of the MMOs I've seen have had non-optional PvP.
Graham wrote:The point is: Nyeh nyeh nyeh. I'm an old man.
LRRcast wrote:Paul: That does not answer that question at all.
James: Who cares about that question? That's a good answer.
- Master Gunner
- Defending us from The Dutch!
- Posts: 19383
- Joined: 29 Oct 2006, 12:19
- First Video: How To Talk Like A Pirate
- Location: In Limbo.
Re: The House of Stark
That hardly invalidates his point - STO is but one of hundred of MMOs.
That said, while I have not played many MMOs, I never felt particularly forced into PvP combat in WoW, Guild Wars, or Ragnarok Online.
(As an aside, STO is the only one of the MMOs I've played where I particularly enjoyed (and was any good at) PvP).
While the argument has being made that you aren't forced into PvP in Dark Souls either - you are missing out on a good chunk of the game mechanics if you do avoid it (either by staying hollowed or playing offline).
My biggest gripe over the Invasion mechanic in Dark Souls is just that, by my understanding, there's no real risk to the invader. They enter into the situation prepared, carrying no more souls/humanity than they are comfortable losing. If they die, they just respawn and try again. If the invadee dies, then in addition to souls/humanity, they're also slung back to their last campfire and lose progress as well.
That said, while I have not played many MMOs, I never felt particularly forced into PvP combat in WoW, Guild Wars, or Ragnarok Online.
(As an aside, STO is the only one of the MMOs I've played where I particularly enjoyed (and was any good at) PvP).
While the argument has being made that you aren't forced into PvP in Dark Souls either - you are missing out on a good chunk of the game mechanics if you do avoid it (either by staying hollowed or playing offline).
My biggest gripe over the Invasion mechanic in Dark Souls is just that, by my understanding, there's no real risk to the invader. They enter into the situation prepared, carrying no more souls/humanity than they are comfortable losing. If they die, they just respawn and try again. If the invadee dies, then in addition to souls/humanity, they're also slung back to their last campfire and lose progress as well.
Twitter | Click here to join the Desert Bus Community Chat.TheRocket wrote:Apparently the crotch area could not contain the badonkadonk area.
Re: The House of Stark
romangoro wrote:And I insist, the problem is that it breaks the inmersion, when considering going human one of the things to ponder is outside of the game itself, i.e., griefing players.
You never actually do though, the only thing one should consider when going human is whether or not there'll be people/NPCs available for summoning to help you with the area/boss. It is so rare to actually be invaded, it may only happen like 6-7 times per play-through, unless you are excessive with humanity use or something. Humanity is designed to involve things outside the game itself, i.e. other players. It's written into the lore.
It's never that significant of a loss to be killed by an invader, you can always easily get back to where you were and get your souls/humanity back, unless you're far out of your depth. Hell, dying in DS isn't really that bad in most situations. There's only one place where I'd consider it a large loss, and that's when trying to get to the second bonfire in Blighttown.
I think what it really comes down to, is that a lot of people that haven't tried it, or have come into it with a heavily biased view to begin with, are the ones who are judging it here. I was of a similar mindset when I first started Dark Souls-ing. That's partly why I played offline initially. But once I actually tried it I was surprised about how much it added to the game, despite the (very occasional) person who would invade and be built for PvP. Hell, I even had fun invading other people's worlds, as a blue spirit designed to punish people for killing Gwyndolin or Gwynevere. I wasn't built for PvP, to my knowledge, and yet I still did okay against other people. It's no where near as rigged against you by trolls and noob hunters as people think it is.
Remember that watching a stream on Dark Souls attracts the minority who do like doing those things too, so seeing it happen to Graham or Alex is not exactly a good sample, and you don't get to see the good side of going human because they don't want to summon in players. Oh, and Graham, in-case you thought it was me, it wasn't me who said that thing in the Twitch chat. I see the game as either an MMO-esque game or a single-player experience. I'd generally suggest the first play though someone does be single-player anyway, just to get an idea of what to do before you start interacting with others.
Most of the people I encountered online, were helpful people who wanted to be summoned to help people kill bosses, or wanted to summon me for the same thing. I even had quite a few people chat with me about it. Hell, when I was a Blue Spirit, you can only invade someone's world once if you kill them, and there was just this one guy I couldn't kill. I ended up talking with him and helped him kill the area boss, after I finally managed to kill him.
It's not the terrible experience you all seem to think it is.
Re: The House of Stark
On a slightly related note, I just bought Dark Souls and I'm trying to figure out which emulator to use to get my Philips PC gamepad to work on it. Some folks say MotionJoy, others say X360ce. What are your thoughts?
I don't have any other games that require/strongly suggest a X-box controller.
I don't have any other games that require/strongly suggest a X-box controller.
Re: The House of Stark
Can't you just map the buttons in game? Is the Dark Souls port really so bad it only supports Xbox controllers?
Anyway X360ce is usually a better bet, Montioninjoy is a bit more finicky to set up.
Anyway X360ce is usually a better bet, Montioninjoy is a bit more finicky to set up.
Re: The House of Stark
ch3m1kal wrote:Can't you just map the buttons in game? Is the Dark Souls port really so bad it only supports Xbox controllers?
Anyway X360ce is usually a better bet, Montioninjoy is a bit more finicky to set up.
The controller buttons aren't re-mappable in-game. If you plug in a controller that isn't an Xbox, then it will re-map the buttons and sticks in weird ways. When I tried to use my controller un-modded, the enemy-lock-on and menu were switched, along with the dodge and use item buttons. The camera control stick was bonkers -- X and Y were on diagonals and the lightest brush would send it spinning. Probably some of the other stuff was screwed up as well, but I stopped playing because it was too difficult trying to walk around and not fall off cliffs constantly.
It also supports keyboard and mouse. The keyboard is re-mappable in-game, which is good because the default setting is a tad peculiar. And there's so many important hot-keys. The mouse control is a bit shaky, though I've heard there's a mod to fix that. From what I've heard, keyboard-mouse can work once you've figured out a comfortable place to put your hands.
Last edited by Lysander on 27 May 2014, 07:29, edited 1 time in total.
Return to “LoadingReadyRun Streams”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests