Yeah, just play offline if you want to avoid being invadedIt's not ideal, but... You'll get to properly review the game at least, without having to skip out on being human
Quote from: Kiwicake on January 14, 2016, 03:13:07 AMYeah, just play offline if you want to avoid being invadedIt's not ideal, but... You'll get to properly review the game at least, without having to skip out on being humanIn what way is it not ideal? Not ever getting invaded sounds like a pretty unstoppable deal to me.I know I won't get to read messages (which is another plus), and I won't be able to summon people to help (which I wouldn't have ever done anyway), so is there anything else?
Bloodborne actually gives you the option to play offline or online, which is neat (It's the first thing you do when you load up the game)
Quote from: Flee on January 14, 2016, 03:15:05 AMI'll respond to this later, but just know a great deal of my trepidation over this game has pretty much vanished, because I just now learned from Batch that it's possible to play offline while still being human, as you stated (I was under the impression that you were stuck as Hollow until you went online--which would have been fucking stupid).That's a good thing--I only wish that it functioned like Bloodborne does, where it asks you within the game itself.
He didn't, though. Like I said, I'll tear it apart later.
Quote from: Fuddy Duddy II on January 14, 2016, 03:27:09 AMQuote from: Flee on January 14, 2016, 03:15:05 AMI'll respond to this later, but just know a great deal of my trepidation over this game has pretty much vanished, because I just now learned from Batch that it's possible to play offline while still being human, as you stated (I was under the impression that you were stuck as Hollow until you went online--which would have been fucking stupid).That's a good thing--I only wish that it functioned like Bloodborne does, where it asks you within the game itself.Even if you loved PvP like I did, Bloodborne isn't that fantastic with it. Even with enemy human NPC's it just feels like a bunch of jumping and flailing around. The only "skill" would be to time your shots to counter the, but that's it. The game certainly captures the atmosphere, but it's easily the least interesting of the Souls games I've played in terms of story, characters, and replayability.
Like I said, I'll tear it apart later.
I'm planning on finishing it sometime soon, but I doubt I could replay it, there doesn't seem like there's much to it beyond the first playthroughyou all got me addicted to ff xiv so im stuck playing that though
Quote from: Fuddy Duddy II on January 14, 2016, 03:28:36 AMLike I said, I'll tear it apart later.Also, this sounds very arrogant. We may never see eye to eye on it, but Flee brought up a good point when he said "You may not like it, but that doesn't make it objectively bad game design."
Quote from: Kiwicake on January 14, 2016, 03:32:26 AMI'm planning on finishing it sometime soon, but I doubt I could replay it, there doesn't seem like there's much to it beyond the first playthroughyou all got me addicted to ff xiv so im stuck playing that thoughDark Souls 2 is the one I've sank most hours into due to the replayability it offers. And good :>
I implore you to ignore any more arguments about the ethics of invading, if you don't want this to keep getting bigger before you even startI wanna see what you think of the game, not the same arguments all over again
if you don't want this to keep getting bigger
>165 replies>haven't even started playing yetwew
Quote from: eggsalad on January 13, 2016, 09:15:19 PMWho says consent is the measure of value to a competitive game?I do. Consent is the measure of value for all human activity.In Street Fighter, you are not forced to fight people online. You have options to kick people you don't want to play against from your server. Every fight is consensual.It's a fighting game, and you have to give your express consent for each fight.Good game design.QuoteAll games have variables that consent does no account for, what if your opponent is more skilled than you because of naturally fluid MMR? What happens if your opponent uses weapons or strategies you never explicitly permissed?All that matters is if I want to play you in the first place. If I don't want to play you, I should be able to kick you out. Anything beyond that doesn't matter. It's similar to anti-natalism in a way--I wouldn't have a single motherfucking problem with life if you could simply consent to your own birth, but you cannot do that.Likewise, you can't consent to being invaded in Dark Souls, and I consider that shit game design. SHIT game design.Once you solve that problem, I don't give a fuck about any other variables--you've solved the one big variable that matters. You don't have to consent to your opponent using certain strategies--that's retarded. If you don't want to play someone you know is going to use a particular strategy, don't play that person. That's the game.QuoteOh, that's because whether or not those things matters depends on the context of an individual game. Want to know why there aren't popular gametypes like that? Because it favors the home playing field at all times. You are only consenting to play when it is within your comfort zone. It is not an objectively worse or unethical design, it is a different design made for the purpose of incorporating elements of challenge and risk, because those elements are what make games rewarding when your risks pay off as a result of your skills. With this consent shite you are arbitrarily holding up as the standard of a game, you are just eliminating the value of game design itself.Because I don't think that particular design choice has any value.Indeed--it has negative value.QuoteIt's like you're reading a book meant to be a tragedy and complaining that it is objectively worse to the reader because it doesn't make them feel happy in the end compared to a fairy-tale. You refuse to acknowledge what the intended effect of the damn thing is and then try to give it some objective value or quality.What a categorically shit comparison. A better comparison would be if I were reading a book, and every once in awhile, someone tried to snatch the book away from me as I was trying to read it, for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I ask them why, they tell me, "It's part of the experience."If that's part of the experience, then it's a shit experience.>4 likes on this postWhat a joke.I doubt anyone actually understood the points you were making.
Who says consent is the measure of value to a competitive game?
All games have variables that consent does no account for, what if your opponent is more skilled than you because of naturally fluid MMR? What happens if your opponent uses weapons or strategies you never explicitly permissed?
Oh, that's because whether or not those things matters depends on the context of an individual game. Want to know why there aren't popular gametypes like that? Because it favors the home playing field at all times. You are only consenting to play when it is within your comfort zone. It is not an objectively worse or unethical design, it is a different design made for the purpose of incorporating elements of challenge and risk, because those elements are what make games rewarding when your risks pay off as a result of your skills. With this consent shite you are arbitrarily holding up as the standard of a game, you are just eliminating the value of game design itself.
It's like you're reading a book meant to be a tragedy and complaining that it is objectively worse to the reader because it doesn't make them feel happy in the end compared to a fairy-tale. You refuse to acknowledge what the intended effect of the damn thing is and then try to give it some objective value or quality.
Or is part of playing a game with an established set of rules independent of your preferences?
Are you playing without any hints or walkthrough tips?
Quote from: Big Boss on January 14, 2016, 05:26:14 AMAre you playing without any hints or walkthrough tips?Preferably. I might have a few questions about some things, but yeah, as usual, I'd like this to be as blind as possible.