Ryan Davis, you're awesome and will always be.
SearingLight's forum posts
So, I tried to run this on a top-of-the-line non-Retina Late-'12 MBP. Here are my (basic) specs:
2.7GHz Intel Core i7
8GB 1600MHz DDR3 RAM
NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M 1GB GDDR5
1TB 5400RPM HDD
And on a Medium settings profile it performed with so much lag I could barely play it. On a Low Settings profile the game still hitched enough to annoy me into quitting out halfway through the tutorial. Tried it on many other resolutions and settings profiles as well as my Windows 7 Ultimate Boot Camp installation to the exact same results. For some reason, I highly doubt that this is a problem with my hardware...
On the whole, I felt that nearly all of the points made here were quite salient, and informative to the decisions being made for and on Greenlight. Being only a consumer, I personally see nothing but benefit from the $100 fee, as - much like stated above - it keeps those with the intention of putting something obviously meant to clog up the service away (albeit, unfortunately, not all), and hopefully shows that most of the projects submitted will be 'truer' works with honest-to-goodness effort behind them.
There's one statement, however, that I believe shows a level of naïvety that I thought only possible of other sub-classes of popular culture (especially anime and other traditionally marginalized ones): O'Reilly's "traditionally poor people" quip.
That was the state of the industry in... never. Gamers will always pay for games that they want, given the (admittedly, convenient) means by which to do so. This has been proven time and time again by Steam, GOG, Amazon, arcades (before the advent of the affordable home console and true single-player games) and, hell, even Kickstarter. Those pirates that make these arguments now are lambasted by some of the only voices that the industry is able to call mainstream, and have increasingly few avenues via which to actually validate their argument or perpetuate their actions.
Admittedly, most of modern gaming's audience is made up of people living independently and with little disposable income to their name. Yet, when game sales are setting records in the entertainment industry as a whole, O'Reilly's argument becomes not only moot, but absurd. No matter if those that purchase these games purchase merely that game alone for the year, they are still gamers, and constitute full and legitimate members of the "hobby" and industry on the whole. Poor or not, game sales, development, and trends do not reflect this statement at all.
This argument would only make sense should gaming's sales distribution stratum look more like that of the Japanese import market (specifically anime and manga). Which is already drawn moot since that particular industry's dominant age base's sole income is considered discretionary anyways.
I am making a large issue out of a small one, yes, but in the (paraphrased) famous words of the Second World of Wayne: "if you publish it it, they will come."
My companion stuck with me through piercing wind and striking ice, blazing sun and roaring dust, a sumptuous hell and fleeting heaven. My companion did not fear a dragon's roar, or the uncertain path. My companion even shared the secrets of the ever-winding tower.
My companion and I walked hand in hand into death, to return as only strangers along the way.
I never really got into Isometric RPGs, mainly due to me finding them incredibly boring... I have to admit, however, that the possibilities for iPad-style interaction with this style of game is really quite appealing. If I ever end up getting a tablet, I have a feeling this will be a must-buy.
@SearingLight said:In truth it's you nit picking. So what if someone forgot that? It would be different if it was much worse.
Mmm, delicious sarcasm abound. I love it! Ah well, there goes my lofty goals to use this as a launching point for spectacularly minor quibbles with great games. Gosh darn it.
It most certainly is. Did I deride the game for it? Not particularly. Do I think less of it for containing such an error? Not at all. A terrific game is a terrific game.
In fact, I believe I even point out - multiple times, even! (who knew repetition could be a good thing?) - that the very fact that I'm "worried" about this may be a sign that I have nothing better to worry about.
Oh, and you forgot an apostrophe there. I helped you out with it.
Edit: This "problem" has been fixed as of patch 2.0. I like follow-up.
So, I noticed a strange little thing in the opening screens explaining the save icon for Journey: "Please do not turn of the PlayStation 3"
Combined with the lovely "Capcapom" activities of late, is it safe to assume that not even fantastic games are free from poor grammar and lack of extra editorial eyeballs? Or is this just a silly, silly thing that I am far too worked up over?
-The bonfire placement is a little bit more forgiving for boss proximity than Demon's physical checkpoints were. Of the bosses I've taken on so far, none required more than 5-ish minutes of backtracking (although one required membership in a Covenant to ensure minimal fighting between bonfire and boss). There hasn't been any egregious bits like 1-2 or 4-2 Demon's where it's all LOL PLAY THE ENTIRE LEVEL AGAIN! It's still a design decision I disagree with. Boss fights are intended to be hard. You are likely to die repeatedly on many of them. To have to slog through tedious crap for minutes just to try again is pointless busy work. I'll gladly take on a harder boss if it has a bonfire immediately next to the fight trigger. As a player I don't like having my time wasted. But, as you said, it's not so bad in Dark Souls.
The only thing I really have a problem with in Demon's and this is permanent repercussions for committing certain easy to make mistakes (intentionally so). Finite number of spawns for a particular breed of slippery ore carrying lizards in Demon's, and the HP curse/item degradation stuff in Dark. The kind of thing where missing the thing/dying not only takes away your current progress, but additionally sets you back even further than you were when you started. It's one thing if the mistake is something you can see coming and have an opportunity to prepare for without having to read an FAQ, quite another if its something the game springs on you quickly and without warning. All that aside, I'm having a blast with this game. It's a great sequel to another great game.
I think that you quite well summarize my argument with the above, and bring up a fantastic point with the bolded statement below: the inherent scarcity not of resources, but of opportunity. Much like the blink-and-you'll-miss-'em 100% item completion criteria that plague some JRPGs (at least where completionists like myself are concerned), to me, one of the biggest wrongs that can be committed in game design is to give a player a - what I will confusingly deem - 'non-choice choice'. This is a choice that is formed around the player being able to obtain or do something (let's take, for example, killing a Crystal Lizard in Demon's Souls), where the possibility to do either gradually diminishes over time, not comparable with the vanishing of player capability, but with the deliberate taking away of the choice itself.
So, the player is presented with the "choice" to return and attempt to kill the Lizard as many times as he may seem fit, until the expiration of its predetermined number of appearances. Or, using the item degradation example: the player is presented with an item that is acquired through play and thought, but is shown that the acquired item will, eventually, have to pass from his/her hands via absolutely no fault of their own. In the Crystal Lizard example, the player's non-choice choice is to choose to attempt to kill the Lizard now, at the risk of never seeing it again (although the player does not know this); and in the item example, it is to use what the player has been trained to think is an item to be acquired by gameplay, only to know that it will be taken away all the same (which, although a conscious realization, it is one the player has very little to no input upon).
I think this kind of design is really what puts me away from some games, no matter how amazing their premise, and swell their execution. Because of this kind of design, the mere possibility of thoroughly "screwing up" one's Demon's Souls experience is so high that even walking around the Nexus causes me some slight palpitations, even though that very feeling of walking on eggshells is what I admire about the game.
Perhaps, in the end, while I won't be trying Dark Souls - I have ever so little time to even enjoy the games I've barely begun to play - I will feel comfort in that it's only going to get more interesting from here on out.
I still can't help but feel that there's still something just so needlessly hollow about Demon's Souls - and thus Dark Souls - that prevents me from getting into the game like many others have. I usually sum it up like this:
-That you can destroy any and everything you see, including those NPCs necessary to progress? Fascinating and well implemented.
-A dual currency/exp. system? Same thing.
-Online play that actually immerses you into the game? ...I don't even... that's just bloody cool.
-Actually rewarding skillful and patient play? Freaking finally.
-Corpse running? Sure, whatever, it's been done many times before in a far less fun way.
-Making you run back through an entire level that you've already been through 5 times before just to attempt to figure out the second stage of the boss fight (only to die again)? Very tedious, unintuitive, and most certainly not fun.