Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    games, movies, comics, manga

Recent Profile Visitors

10,731 profile views
  1. Options don’t get added to games for free, adding an easy mode is more coding and more balancing and more testing. The budget for that would come from somewhere. If everything had infinite time and budget I’m sure we’d see more options, but as it is the resources to do that come from somewhere. FromSoftware are successful in part because they took their limited budget and used it in unusual ways. It’s perfectly feasible that if it had needed to provide, balance and test three difficulty levels they might not have had enough money to even finish Demon’s Souls. I’m betting if they were a normal triple A game their weird, innovative online stuff would’ve been cut a long time before difficulty modes. Nobody has has ever suggested that it’s not ok to make an easier Dark Souls game. What seems weird is people feeling entitled to demand FromSoftware restructure the entire development and budget of their next project to suit their personal tastes. Not only is it the opposite of what has made them successful and recognisable, it’s just not ever going to happen. Dark Souls has an extremely modern and diverse set of tools to moderate the difficulty, all of which are more intelligent and more in keeping with the design goals of the game than making your character invincible because people want to wander around the environment without actually having to play the game and don’t seem to have heard of the PC version.
  2. There definitely are, but it seems weird to me that a lot of people seem to be expecting FromSoftware to make them. They've gotten very successful making specific types of games for a specific audience, so what I always find weird about the Dark Souls easy mode debate is how much focus people seem to put on demanding that the people in the industry who are best at making these specific types of games should be allocating more of their budget, time and effort to adding modes and options that are counter to the the design ethos that has made them successful. Anybody could set about making an easier Dark Souls style game, or one with no combat, but tonnes of this discussion seems to focus around entitled demands that current franchises from visible publishers should adapt their game to be more generic and ordinary. If you add quest markers, and a map, and you reduce the difficulty of the combat so the player doesn't die very often, you're literally stripping out all the unique and exciting things that made Dark Souls stand out from other games. People go on about the architecture and atmosphere being something they'd like to experience, without realising that what makes that architecture meaningful and what builds that atmosphere are the choices made in every aspect of the design, especially the enemy encounters. Dragon Quest Inquisition has beautifully designed towns and buildings. You walk through them ignoring them because you're pushing towards a quest marker and looking at your map, and there's no challenge so you only visit them once and never really become familiar with them or appreciate their details. The way you play Dark Souls, from the progression, to the layout, to the dying again and again, is what creates the atmosphere and what breathes life into the locations, pull that out and you've got any other AAA game with lovely art direction that you never see as you're checking your map for the next quest marker and then leaving that place forever.
  3. There’s not really any exploration in Midgar, just places you can stop and talk to a few people. I think the issue is that old JRPGs use a lot of obfuscation to give the impression of a larger environment. Things like world maps have fallen out of favour as graphics have advanced to look more realistic, as they break the immersion with realistic characters. But budget, time and manpower wise, we’re not remotely capable of creating a world that’s as big as the one FFVII implied, which is what I think a lot of people are imagining. Rather than developing more modern alternatives to these techniques, the industry generally either produces Disney ride experiences, where you walk through a long, pretty corridor where you can see lots of cool things but not go to them, or throws hundreds of artists at crafting a giant map then copy and paste the same mission all over it.
  4. Even if you took out the grinding, something like Dragon Age inquisition would still be shite, because the story is terrible garbage. Without any systems to distract you from that, you’ve got David Cage games. A terrible story that wouldn’t make it in to the sci-fi channel that occasionally pauses itself and asks you to press a button to continue watching. Obviously games like Alpha Protocol and Life is Strange make the game out of a choose your own adventure style structure, and they’re both excellent because they’re designed as interactive stories and effort has been put into the writing. But most games seem to have no respect whatsoever for storytelling structure or the job of a writer. They’re either written by lead designers who think they’re also talented movie writers, or given to someone incredibly cheap to save money. We’ve had games with celebrity likenesses for twenty years, and had numerous film directors involved in games, but I can’t think of any games made in collaboration with famous writers, except for Elden Ring. Movies make up a disproportionate amount of the influence gaming draws from other media, when structurally it’s the least like it. Radio plays, TV shows, comics and novels would all make better inspirations than movies, and I’d argue that when technical limitations forced games to be more like novels than movies they generally had better stories. At the moment most triple A story based games are like GTA, they’re like a movie structure except it’s two hours till the inciting incident, then the first act is thirty hours long, the second is three hours and the last act is one mission. That’s a terrible balance, and I’d point to that as a reason so few people finish games long before I’d go to difficulty. The reason finishing games feels so good is because there’s usually a massive rush of actual story development at the end which feels far more satisfying after hours of nothing but posturing and maintaining the status quo. Just fucking with the difficulty or amount of gameplay won’t fix the problems with storytelling in video games, it will just remove the dressing that hides them.
  5. I imagine its there here to give a visual element to him talking to them through air buster. A more ore logical alternative to their big long zip line. It always has been, her name was changed for the western release.
  6. I think I’m much more likely now to give up on things if one aspect is bad, especially if it’s the thing you do most. I used to play a lot of RPG games with shit, boring combat. I put up with it because that’s not what I was there for. I remember feeling genuinely amazed when FFXII came out that it had s battle system that was actually enjoyable and exciting to play with, because I just didn’t expect that from FF games. Now when I start up a game, if the story is intriguing but the actual battle and exploration systems feel shit, I just don’t bother (hello Dragon Quest Inquisition). If I want an interesting story with some branching choices, I could play something like The Walking Dead or Life is Strange where I just get that and don’t need to spend hours doing pointless busywork to tick RPG boxes. Most open world games just present a thousand icons, with some of them being exciting challenges to walk to this icon. Or it’s the GTA model, huge, long, terribly written cutscenes dividing up stale, challenge free gameplay, all wrapped up in the most expensive dressing in the world. Generic shite with an increasingly more dazzling and expensive coat of paint.
  7. Broker


    I’m loving the last few chapters of AOT. Absolutely crazy, obviously, but it feels within the boundaries of the story.
  8. Is this a bit? The primary colours are blue, yellow and red. You mix yellow and blue to make green. Some colour wheels use yellow, light blue and a pinky purple. Green is never a primary colour.
  9. I don’t know or care what that means. Does it provide a solid frame rate on all games? I might consider that an upgrade. More peas is just imaginary shite, I’m not paying for the exact same experience with four times the pointless detail.
  10. No it wasn't, and without a 4K TV it did literally nothing at first. I’m not getting sucked into wasting money on the TV equivalent of those £1000 speakers hi-fi weirdos buy and then demand you listen to carefully even though it sounds exactly the same. If they’d tried to make it an attractive proposition to people who don’t have hundreds of pounds to waste on pixels the human eye can’t even see maybe I’d buy one.
  11. Broker

    Gears 5

    Whilst I know it will come as a surprise to you, my children is a subject I have even less interest in your opinion on that how great you literally always think the new xbox game is. Keep your idiotic posts on the topic of the one thing you actually understand, pretending a corporation is your friend until you die alone.
  12. If the game doesn’t run well on the Xbox or PlayStation I bought at launch I’ll probably just not bother to play it. I’m not exactly short of stuff to play, and if they can’t be bothered to make it work properly on the machine a large portion of their audience own then they don’t deserve any money for it.
  13. Broker

    Gears 5

    My son seemed genuinely hostile towards the idea of them "adding new shit", so I'll see what he thinks.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.