allows others to join your game

And are you warned beforehand of this, or does it just happen?

Because if it's like, "Oh, by the way, if you do this, some fuckhead might choose to invade you, so beware,"
or something to that effect

Then I guess I'd have to concede that it's consensual. But I get the feeling that it doesn't work like that.

You can't selectively open your world and only have good, strong and friendly players join to make the game a walk in the park for you. When you open your world, bad things might come out of it too.

Which is a game flaw.

Players should ultimately be able to play the game however they want. I'm not saying I'd personally want the game to be made super easy by having a co-op partner--I just want the right to be able to if I so choose.

And if someone else DOES want to play Dark Souls Lite, who the fuck is anyone else to say they shouldn't be able to? Just because of your silly notions of lore and vision?

It might be the creator's vision to have the game be the way it is, and that's absolutely fine, and I fully support their right to have their vision. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with their vision.

If you really can't reconcile yourself with that and think that it's terrible game design despite it being virtually universally acclaimed by players and critics alike, then that's fine. Just don't play the game and be done with it. The creators had their vision, their world and their experience thought out. If you can't appreciate it then just leave it be. I don't understand why you feel the need to be so hostile about it and can't just accept that even though you don't get it, it is a proven and praised concept that tens of thousands of players love.

Hostile? I don't think I've really insulted anybody here--except people who invade people, maybe.
But that's because they're ridiculous cunts.

Anyway, that's sort of why I have this discussion--because I don't get it. I don't get why people are okay with this.
What is there to "love" about such a system?

Verb itt

...Except not at all. I've responded to every single one of his points.

And I'm not losing.

Quote from: I slam Islam on December 06, 2015, 07:34:34 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on December 06, 2015, 07:19:26 PM

Quote from: I slam Islam on December 06, 2015, 07:17:26 PM

Dark Souls has inspired many developers. It's really one of the best games ever made.

Nobody cares about the opinion of some guy who couldn't beat the tutorial.

I refused to beat the tutorial, because the game was just that much of an insult.

You just suck at Dark Souls. What's the big deal?

I suck at tolerating a game that allows you to fuck over other players who are just minding their own business.

You can just play hollow, then people can't invade you.

Or you could just "git gud" and fend off invaders. It's really not that hard -- I tricked and destroyed a 3 man deathsquad before.

Quote from: KinderEssen on December 07, 2015, 10:12:08 AM

You can just play hollow, then people can't invade you.

You shouldn't have to do that.

Exactly, you should just play through the game normally and summon someone if you think that you've bumped into trouble that you can't handle.

Not like it matters these days because there are only a few invading hotspots like the forest.

Exactly, you should just play through the game normally and summon someone if you think that you've bumped into trouble that you can't handle.

Except you run the risk of getting invaded, then.

Also, you'll come to see that there is no real punishment for death - souls should be already spent and humanity is acquired easily unlike Dark Souls II.

I don't care.

But you have nothing to lose and your progress is only slightly hampered.

I don't want it hampered at all--not for something that wasn't my fault. I don't care how "rare" it is.

Also, you'll come to see that there is no real punishment for death - souls should be already spent and humanity is acquired easily unlike Dark Souls II.

except you can get a ring in like the 3nd area that makes it so there's literally no penalty for death, providing you repair it for 3k souls each life. The punishment in souls games is a bit overrated

Quote from: KinderEssen on December 07, 2015, 10:20:54 AM

But you have nothing to lose and your progress is only slightly hampered.

I don't want it hampered at all--not for something that wasn't my fault. I don't care how "rare" it is.

Well, just don't play it, then. PvP is an intrinsic part of Dark Souls.

Quote from: Incan on December 07, 2015, 10:21:29 AM

I believe Verb might enjoy Bloodborne more, as that gives you a warning to when the window for invasion is up and a way to stop it.

Really? Cool.

Yep, you're open to invasion whenever a bell ringing woman is around. These spawn when you're in co-op, if you your self seek out PVP or are just in some area's by default as non-respawning enemies. If you kill them you're safe to go.

How? I fail to see how a PvP oriented game is flawed because it's a PvP oriented game.

Because it isn't consensual, and you have to hamper your game experience in order to avoid it.

Bad game design.

Street Fighter is a PvP-oriented game. Matches are conducted consensually. You can kick players you don't like.

Quote from: KinderEssen on December 07, 2015, 10:28:39 AM

How? I fail to see how a PvP oriented game is flawed because it's a PvP oriented game.

Because it isn't consensual, and you have to hamper your game experience in order to avoid it.

Bad game design.

Street Fighter is a PvP-oriented game. Matches are conducted consensually. You can kick players you don't like.

It is consensual. Don't want people to invade? Go hollow or don't play the game. I really fail to see how that's bad game design. I personally enjoy it when people invade me and I promptly hand their asses to them.

It's just not your kind of game. It wasn't mine, either, until I got past the first hour.

Why should we have to have trade-offs and make hard decisions that can greatly alter how we play wtf I want my choices to all result the same way wtf guys

Why should we have to have trade-offs and make hard decisions that can greatly alter how we play wtf I want my choices to all result the same way wtf guys

Thank you for misrepresenting my argument again.

You enjoy getting raped--I get it. Not everyone is as crazy as you are.

Quote from: eggsalad on December 07, 2015, 10:34:53 AM

>thinking invasion is inherently bad
fucking lmao
it adds to the game and fits the narrative
just because you don't like having your path towards your goals challenged doesnt make it bad

Thank you for misrepresenting my entire argument.

My problem with invasions isn't because I don't like "having my path challenged."

My problem with invasions is that they are not consensual, and the only way to avoid them is to mitigate your experience.

"why do I have to fight this boss? I don't consent to this enemy being here"

"oh I can skip the boss at the cost of having to traverse a dangerous area? Wtf I don't want to mitigate my experience"