i honestly don't know how @benpack can play (anything) with mouse sensitivity that high. i guess it must work for him but man i'd feel like i was on The Drugs if i pumped my sensitivity up there.
is that grey hamster dude another player or a creature they spawned?
@steveurkel: yea... this is just a worse version of the emails segment from the podcast. i really like the emails so i'd dig more time on those, but call-ins just don't do anything for me.
call-ins end up being more about the callers seeking attention than they are about interesting discussion.
@golguin i wasn't responding to the people criticizing the DLC. i agree that it's disappointing, though i still thought it was fantastic. there just wasn't enough of it. the valley area was pretty boring compared to the interesting snowfield and corvian settlement areas. tbh the valley feels a lot like the middling areas of DS2.
i got about 10h out of the DLC, including 2.5h or so on the main boss, all singleplayer. that is actually a good length, but when i go through there again i'll be very lucky if the whole DLC lasts 2h. looking back, there actually wasn't that much ground to cover, at least compared to the previous souls DLC.
this apparent disappointment with DS3 is making me think i've taken crazy pills. i've put 250h into dark souls 1 and 2 each over the years, and i'd be near there with DS3 as well already if i wasn't waiting for the second DLC. it's my favorite in the series.
the level design is consistently good for the first time, instead of having the last third be unfinished (DS1) or having a third of the areas be completely superfluous and uninteresting (DS2). DS3 has 3 areas that i'd say aren't that great: demon ruins, consumed king's garden, and profaned capital. but CKG and PC are pretty dang short, they're more like epilogues to the areas they connect to.
i don't think DS3 hits the highs that DS1 does, but it never comes close to the lows of DS1 and DS2 either. bosses, areas, lore, characters, and combat are all more consistently great in DS3 than they've ever been in the series.
i've never seen such compulsive and negative reactions to mere discussion of competitive skill in a video game.
as if the very idea of talking about different people being differently good-at-the-video-game is inherently offensive. that the discussion of dan's skill has been almost entirely benign and yet has elicited such strong rebukes is bizarre.
aurens's comments