DriftSPace

Let's not spread misinformation here.

The player in the video teleported because of the ring of candles below the bell; the teleport had nothing to do with the bell itself. Those candle rings appear in Isz dungeons, and are teleportation traps, as they are difficult to spot until they've been activated, and often toss players into the middle of a room full of monsters. If this player had stepped into the ring in an offline game: they would have arrived at the exact same location. The fact that the "host" was located in that room is a coincidence, or the players set it up to troll and say they figured out the purpose of the bells.

If someone wants to post a video of someone teleporting in a dungeon which is not Isz (the only kind of dungeon with teleport traps), and only using the bell: then we can agree the bells are used to teleport. Until that happens: the bells (which appear in all dungeon types, not just in Isz like the teleport rings) seem to serve no purpose, even when rung.

PS3.

I have not played "Unity," so I have no basis for comparison regarding this particular issue/game, and I won't assert that all five of the aforementioned games had game-breaking issues; I think maybe 2-out-of-5 did. I enjoyed them for the most part, regardless of bugs, until the basic chore-list-with-annotated-map style of game-play (and jumping in directions I did not intend) started to wear on me. I really enjoy how the series spins historical events, but I just can't play them anymore. It's too bad, because AC multiplayer was really starting to become pretty awesome when I quit...

You know what I am saying with the Bethesda comment; AC (for me at least) became one of those franchises where I just refused to play them until several months had passed. Even when I purchased an AC collector's edition: I would shelve it for a while, let everybody else beta-test it, and wait for patches.

Every single Assassin's Creed game I have played -- and I bought the first five major home console releases on their launch dates -- have not worked properly "out-of-the-box"; every time I end-up contacting customer support, reading forums to verify that I was not the only one with that particular issue, etc. I even remember Assassin's Creed 2 letting me play for 2-3 hours (or more?) and then locking-up to the point where I had to delete my save and start from the beginning because I was trapped in an endless "transitional" area.

I enjoyed the AC series for a while, but I've learned my lesson; I won't buy Assassin's Creed games at launch ... if I buy them at all anymore. (I'm mostly just sick of games with endless chore lists which tell you exactly what to do, where to do it, etc., but the day-one bugs don't help.)

There are just companies/franchises which have a habit of releasing half-baked games; Elder Scrolls (or any Bethesda games) are another good example...

Pharros' Lockstones are completely unlimited. Join the Rat King Covenant, and you get one every time you kill an invader, which is actually pretty easy because that area is positively designed for ambushing/setting-up invaders. I'm pretty terrible at PVP, and I achieved Rank 3 in that covenant in a matter of hours at level 75. (I burned some Bonfire Acetic at the entrance bonfire to beef-up the rats, too.) I have over 30 Pharros' Lockstones. Yes, some of Pharros' mechanisms are sort of useless (like pools of healing water not far from a bonfire, or the pool of poison in Earthen Peak ... if you don't know to destroy the windmill to stop the poison) but that just reinforces putting thought before action, which is the crux of these games.

Yeah, this is poorly-designed. With unlimited fast-travel it feels like a huge waste of time to warp to Majula every time you want to level. The Emerald Herald also repeats herself too much, and how many lines of (the same) dialogue before you get her menu? 3 or 4?

My complaints are definitely fast-travel, and enemy AI during co-op. If I summon 2 players for a boss battle: it's always an assured victory, and summoning has definitely been notably easier and more frequent than previous Souls games. Both bosses at Heide's Tower just kind of pivoted awkwardly, seemingly trying to figure-out who to target, while we surrounded and beat the snot out of them; it felt positively broken. I like that boss HP scales with the number of players present, but the AI should improve as well; maybe there should have been specific multi-player boss attacks.

Weapon/Armor durability is also a joke; all equipment magically repairs itself at bonfires, so what's the point? I've almost never had durability problems with my equipment, except in areas with enemies/hazards which degrade equipment durability, and even in those cases: a bonfire isn't far away.

Someone also said the areas feel disconnected, which I feel is also an affect of the fast-travel mechanic. I'm more than half-way through the game, and I don't remember how I got to all the areas, nor do I remember how they are tied together; in Dark Souls I quickly had a grasp of how the areas fit together.

It feels pretty easy, but it's hard to tell if that's because I've put so many hours into the previous games, or because new mechanics are negatively impacting the difficulty.

I also don't understand why we're allowed to re-spec character stats, but can't re-design our character's physical appearance; character stats directly influence game-play and game-balance, but character design has absolutely no impact on game-play. I eventually got sick of designing my character (the designer is too involved and convoluted) because I wanted to play the game, but players should be allowed to go back and fine-tune if they want. Hell, I have 3 Soul Vessels, yet no present desire to respec, but I'd love to try to make my character less ugly ... or more ugly.

Any idea if this is a PS4 & Vita only thing, or is it possible that PS3 users would receive the invite?

Why does this line of reasoning persist? Nintendo has made practically all it's money off of console sales, with over half a billion sold during the last 30 years; they have over a trillion dollars in assets; DS itself nearly outsold PS3 & Xbox360 combined; Wii outsold both aforementioned consoles; Nintendo profits off every console sold.

Why would a company which has made billions off mostly game console sales -- the most successful game console manufacturer in the world -- suddenly stop making hardware because their current console isn't an immediate success?

Wildly inaccurate, actually.

For a few years? Wii outsold the PS3 and Xbox 360; DS practically outsold both PS3 and Xbox360 combined, and -- unlike Sony & Microsoft -- Nintendo made a profit on every single one of their consoles. Of the over half-billion consoles Nintendo has sold world-wide since the 80's: half were sold during the last 10 years.

Nintendo hasn't been competition in the console market? Nintendo has been the console market on a world-wide level, and the other "big dogs" are always playing catch-up. Yes, Nintendo had to lower their profit projections (or even report a loss) for the next fiscal year, but Nintendo is still a trillion-dollar company where their assets are concerned; both Sony and Microsoft -- as entire companies -- have around 150 billion in total assets. Unlike Nintendo: those companies make lots of products unrelated to game consoles. If you go by those numbers -- actual, global success over the last 30 years -- it's only not a competition because Nintendo practically owns the console game playing-field.

Nintendo has plenty of money ... mostly from several hundred-million console sales.

Finally, If you don't see how Nintendo has innovated over the last few decades: you're not paying attention. As Michael Ancel said recently: Nintendo is almost innovative to a fault.

Forgive me, but I think I'll agree with Ancel's (experienced) opinion over yours.

I think it's because many gamers from certain cultures feel like playing a whimsical, brightly-colored game would be an affront to their (already fragile) masculinity; those of us who are perfectly secure in our being and can enjoy games for what they are don't have that problem.

I agree that Nintendo makes great games -- well polished, no patches, already "complete" upon release -- but don't even think they are doing anything "wrong" with the hardware, either. Wii U is an odd console because it's not sporting the fastest processor or integration with NFL and Facebook, but I don't think the people who care about those things are Nintendo's target demographic.

Notice both Microsoft and Sony have some kind of dual-screen functionality with their new consoles ... following Nintendo's lead yet again.

We have a Wii U at my house and my 4-year-old plays it daily. Interesting/unconventional design always takes time for normal people to appreciate and accept, but my (unpretentious) kids love it. "Core gamers" reacted the same way to the Wii when it was released, but Nintendo still managed to out-sell both Sony & Microsoft during that console generation.

Before the Wii U came out ... like when the Wii was out? The #5 best-selling game console of all time? You said that Nintendo should stop making hardware while they were manufacturing the home console which out-sold Xbox360 and PS3 by more than 20 million units? You said this during the time that Nintendo nearly sold more DS consoles than PS3 and Xbox360 sales combined?

I'm going to guess (and hope) that you do not consider yourself a financial advisor.

You say "dying hardware" like Nintendo hasn't been making any money, but Nintendo is (right now, regardless of the news about a projected profit loss) the most financially-successful console manufacturer in the entire world. The margin by which Nintendo leads all-time global console sales is massive: more thanhalf a billion Nintendo consoles sold over the last 30 years. The majority of Nintendo's success is directly from hardware sales.

Why is this fact so difficult for people to understand?

I was addressing the statement/concept that Nintendo is doing a bad job in the console market as enthnocentric, and not necessarily the people; ethnocentrism refers to viewpoints, anyway. I'm sure people in Asia don't see Nintendo as "failing," or needing to exit the console sales business, for example.

About your nationality: you say where you are from in your profile, and while you are not "American" in the sense that you are from the USA, you are from "the Americas," and not from Asia, where Nintendo has seen most of their success. Regardless: this isn't about you, and was not meant as insulting.

I do agree with you that "the Americas" are not "small potatoes," (sorry for the hyperbole) but I think part of the reason so many "Americans" are upset at Nintendo is because Nintendo seems to proceed with its designs without regard to what "American" gamers want. America is not Nintendo's first consideration, and why should it be? The majority of the planet's population lives in Asia!

I apologize if I upset you, as this wasn't really all about you; I was mostly just frustrated with the trend of posts where people compare Nintendo to Sega, say that they should get out of the console business, etc. when, in fact, Nintendo is today (by the numbers) the most successful game console manufacturer of all time. Sega never even got close to that. You spoke about Nintendo following Sega as though it was inevitable, and I don't think history or the numbers support that possibility at all.

Why should/would Nintendo exit the console business when they're still on-top globally?

Another issue here is that people are treating handhelds and home consoles as different markets, which isn't appropriate; they are all "consoles." Yes, it is true that Nintendo's biggest successes have been handheld consoles, but the Wii was nothing to laugh at; it outsold PS3 and XB360.

Maybe Nintendo will stop making home consoles (and I doubt it) but I'm pretty sure they will never stop making gaming consoles altogether.