If anyone has a spare PC code, I would love one. And you, if you give it to me!
Oni's forum posts
I read the complaints and they seem legit. But, by and large, there's 2 kinds of Diablo 3 players, and the problems won't really affect one of those 2. Casual players who aren't concerned with endgame will likely find little fault. Diablo 3's problems don't really come to the forefront until you hit the level cap. Those who DO care about endgame progression, ie. the long-term players, have problems with itemization and drop rates, which seems legit. Itemization looks like it hasn't really been fixed, still revolving around the holy trinity - vitality, all resist, crit chance, and then your primary damage stat (Str/Dex/Int). That's boring and limiting.
Compounding that - Blizzard has been SO SLOW to actually fix Diablo 3. In fact, they haven't. For such a large studio to not try to fix these problems and instead wait until an expansion so they can charge for it, that's pretty galling. Compare Diablo 3 to Marvel Heroes, a game made by a much smaller studio - that game's evolved so much in the last 6 months, almost EVERYTHING under the hood has been replaced with new, better systems, all the while adding new content. Perhaps Blizzard's gotten too big to be so reactive, or they're reluctant to actually make change, or they just don't actually know what to do, or they don't care - no one knows, because their communication with their community is almost non-existant, except for official releases. That's a bad way to be for a game so community driven. Say what you will about BNet, which can be a toxic shithole, they are the people that care the most and want the games to be the best they can be, by and large.
Take it with a grain of salt, but don't dismiss everything out of hand because it's Bnet. But also put things in perspective - if you're more of a casual player, you're probably gonna be fine. These are the concerns of players who want to play a great ARPG for hundreds of hours.
To the "Dark Souls is not hard" people: did you beat the game dying less than 50 times? ...
It highly depends on what version of Dark Souls you're playing. Vanilla Dark Souls was considerably harder than the game we're playing now. Via patches, the amount of souls you get was increased a great deal (more than doubled essentially), some enemies were nerfed (the aggro range of the Lost Izalith butts was decreased), etc. etc.
Also, when you've watched videos of people playing Dark Souls for years, you kinda know what to do and how to approach the game.
It's true that Vanilla Dark Souls is a different experience than what the game is today. I remember spending hours trying to get summoned into someone's world because I needed humanity only to see the host get one shotted by whatever boss we were fighting. Upgrading was such an unknown thing back then and I didn't find out how to properly do it (didn't touch it because I didn't want to make any mistakes) until Anor Londo. Even then I didn't know about Poise for armor or Stability for shields, which is pretty critical stuff. I never had the Wolf Ring during my first run of the game and I kept myself light meaning I was basically fighting with no poise.
Fighting the dino butts in Lost Izalith is a Dark Souls highlight for me because I KILLED EVERY SINGLE ONE. I summoned the same guy 3 times and over the course of 3 hours we cleared my world of all of them. You can literally walk through the place now without having to fight a single one.
Wow. 3 hours? I killed all of them my first time but I figured out that they can kill eachother, so I got to a safe spot, aggro'd as many as I could and let them kill each other off, finishing off stragglers with a bow. In subsequent playthroughs, before you could (or I knew you could, anyway) go through without aggroing them, I used the chaos covenant shortcut every single time and skipped the whole place.
Anyway, Patrick is great at this game. Doing better than my first time, that's for damn sure. People trying to dismiss his skill are just mad jealous. It's true the game's a little easier now, and he is getting SOME help from chat, but beating O&S in one? That's just skill, man. Same deal with Capra. That's crazy. Unheard of, even.
Man, this "WHY IS BIOSHOCK INFINITE A SHOOTER" thing irritates me. BioShock Infinite HAS to be a shooter. That's the best way to convey the setting. Columbia is a dangerous, dark, violent place. If the entire game was just exploring the city without incident, that would not be true to the story. Comstock is a dangerous, violent man. Booker DeWitt is a dangerous, violent man who has committed horrific atrocities in his past and this is his last ditch effort to save himself. There is no other way for anybody or anywhere in the game to be.
I agree with all of this. I will say I wish Infinite was a better shooter. It's not bad, but it's the least interesting part of the game. I also wish the tone of the action bits wasn't always SET IT TO 11, what with the constant screaming, yelling and discordant crashing chords every time you kill a guy. Some more middle ground between quiet exploration and the violence would've been nice.
Insightful interview, Scoops.
If anyone wants further reading, a while back Kotaku did a good piece (I know right) on how messed up SK's behavior was during the development of X-Men Destiny. http://kotaku.com/5955223/what-went-wrong-with-silicon-knights-x+men-destiny
Basically they stole the publisher's money to make something else and cranked out a shitty game just to fulfill their end of the bargain. GG, Dyack.
I'm in full agreement. This is probably the best game in the series. They haven't changed a lot at all, mechanically, since 2, but the reduced emphasis on land-based missions, more infrequent combat and abundance of stealth areas make it much less of a hassle. Also combat is really easy to cheese with smoke bombs and berserk darts, if you're so inclined. I love the pirate theme and sailing around doesn't really get old. There ARE too many tailing/eavesdrop missions still, but they're generally very easy and forgiving, and checkpoints are never far off. I'd say if the game looks appealing and you're in for the pirate stuff, it's totally worth getting as it satisfies on that front.
The story/characterization is also the best it's been yet. Edward is up there with Ezio for me, but all the secondary characters are really well drawn and the voice acting is great. I love James Kidd, Ed Thatch and all the other pirates. There's an air of inevitability, men struggling against their growing irrelevance, that reminds me of the somber overtones of the end of the Wild West era in Red Dead.
It's a great goddamn game.
Mass Effect 2 over Skyrim? What the fuuuu ok. Skyrim on the PC with mods is one of my favorite games of the gen. It would lose to Dark Souls, but not much else. RIP Skyrim.
One of my favorite Batman storylines, No Man's Land, ends sometime around Christmas/New Year's I think.
It's basically the worst Christmas ever, but yeah.
Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me. Joker kills Sarah Essen-Gordon on Christmas Eve if I recall correctly. It's one of the best, and longest, Batman arcs ever. Couple of weak links in there, as many different artists and writers worked on it, but man oh man is it good.
should old acquaintance be forgot...