Neither are you.

Better than anyone else is.

good meme

Do you have an argument, or are you just here to waste time?

Quote from: Simseoh on January 14, 2016, 11:02:33 AM

Yes, it is good enough.

No, it isn't. Players should have to send requests in order to duel other people. Period.

And you already answered yes when you decided to play the game.

Quote

It's obviously not broken though, it's intended by the developer.

Intentionally broken is still broken.

Also, mods are fucking retards in any case.

The invasion process works how the developer intended it too, that's not broken by definition. It may look broken because you thought it should do something else, but for its intended purpose, it isn't broken.

Quote

You're saying invasion as a concept should be removed from video games altogether?

Yes, if it works like it does in Dark Souls. NPC invasions are okay.

That's a strange opinion to have.

Quote

The civilization series is built on invasions, it's intentional, it's an interesting and entertaining game mechanic.

Except it's not, because human beings are involved. They could have built the entire thing around NPC invasions instead, and it would've still made sense. But no--they have players do it, too. Terrible design.

The whole point is for humans to beat each other. You are given multiple ways to do it, one of them is invasion. And invasion is honestly the most entertaining one of them all. It's the most involved, and most strategic, and one of the most fulfilling methods of winning. If it's entertaining, involves the players, and requires them to think for their victory, I'd say that's pretty good game design.

And you already answered yes when you decided to play the game.

Which isn't enough.

]The invasion process works how the developer intended it too, that's not broken by definition. It may look broken because you thought it should do something else, but for its intended purpose, it isn't broken.

The point is that they had bad intentions.

The whole point is for humans to beat each other. You are given multiple ways to do it. And invasion is honestly the most entertaining one of them all. It's the most involved, and most strategic, and one of the most fulfilling methods of winning. If it's entertaining, involves the players, and requires them to think for their victory, I'd say that's pretty good game design.

And if it was consensual, none of this would change. None of it at all.

Your argument is little more than you repeating that you don't consent to invasions

Because I've yet to receive a cogent refutation.

your personal criterion of consent for enjoyment isn't universal or objective.

Consent is objective. You enjoy it for poor, unsubstantiated reasons, as opposed to my reasons for not enjoying it.

Quote from: Ender on January 14, 2016, 11:29:09 AM

"I didn't consent to getting shot at in a first person shooter"

Absolute shit comparison.

Yes, you DO consent to getting shot at in a first-person shooter. You went to someone's server, read the rules of the game, and joined the match. That's as consensual as it gets.

Invasions are fully nonconsensual.

You're looking at it the wrong way

In a shooter you consent to getting shot at  by just buying the game because that's the purpose of the game.

In a Souls game you consent when you buy the game because unless you were born with half a brain youd know damn well that there's invasions and they're a big part of the games. It's like buying Dark Souls but getting mad that you didn't consent to absorbing other beings souls.

Consent is objective. You enjoy it for poor, unsubstantiated reasons, as opposed to my reasons for not enjoying it.

My "unsubstantiated" reason is that a player explicitly consents to invasion by using the only item in the game which allows your character to be invaded, whose sole purpose is to open a player to PvP interaction. When using an estus flask, I explicitly consent to health being restored. If at any point while playing DkS I felt uncomfortable with the prospect of being invaded (and I did on numerous occasions), I would negate my consent for invasion by removing humanity or playing offline. Obviously there is no system that holds your hand and expressly asks you to agree to be invaded by a specific player; that would be ridiculous. This game won't coddle you and it will challenge your skill as well as how you think a game should play ("why do I lose my money/experience when I die?", "why can't I skip this boss?", "why don't they just tell me the story?"). I've told you before but this game just isn't in your wheelhouse, though I'd loved to be proved wrong.

Your supposedly substantiated reason is that you don't like the consequence of using the item. That's it. This attitude is the source of pretty much every problem people have with you on this site: you always consider your viewpoints objective, obvious, and well-supported. You rarely open yourself to the consideration that something you believe could be incorrect, and when you do you spin it to show your previous opinion was right anyway.

"Invasion:
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain."

Are you a retard?

Quote from: Darth Pipsqueak on January 14, 2016, 11:37:35 AM

"Invasion:
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain."

Are you a retard?

No, I just find it retarded that you are complaining about this.

Quote from: Ender on January 14, 2016, 11:37:03 AM

In a Souls game you consent when you buy the game because unless you were born with half a brain youd know damn well that there's invasions and they're a big part of the games. It's like buying Dark Souls but getting mad that you didn't consent to absorbing other beings souls.

The issue isn't knowing whether or not there's invasions in the game--the issue is whether invasions should be in the game in the first place, because I don't think they should be. I think you should be able to play Dark Souls online without risking the possibility of getting invaded. I think you should be able to do that, and the fact that you can't is bullshit.

I really just can't stand that logic. It's like saying, "Don't go to Detroit, unless you want to get killed"--and yeah, sure, if you're in Detroit, you have a much higher chance of getting randomly murdered than in many other cities in the US. But that shouldn't prevent you from going to some place without fear of getting hurt.

Verb, man, I'm saying that by buying the game you consent to one if the biggest features in the game, I'm not asking if it's a bad thing to be in the game or not. The entire thing is about consent. By buying the game you are consenting to a core feature in the game.

Verb, man, I'm saying that by buying the game you consent to one if the biggest features in the game, I'm not asking if it's a bad thing to be in the game or not. The entire thing is about consent. By buying the game you are consenting to a core feature in the game.

I disagree. The game should take more direct measures of consent--like removing invasions entirely in place of having a fight request system.

Verb really wants From Software to get rid of one of the core online features of Dark Souls...

He really is a dumbass.

When the slogan is "prepare to die".

Letting you choose if you have a chance of dying from a possible enemy is just stupid.

When the slogan is "prepare to die".

Letting you choose if you have a chance of dying from a possible enemy is just stupid.

Except that's not what I want. I don't want the game to let you choose if you have a chance of dying--I want the game to let you choose whether or not you want to duel other players.

That's it.

Quote from: Fuddy Duddy II on January 14, 2016, 11:55:57 AM

I think a simple mechanic in a game that does nothing bad is wrong, so i'm going to complain and debate about it because I want "consent" in a video game.

Verb's argument in a nutshell.

Breaking consent is always wrong.

Quote from: Dean "Turkey" Strang on January 14, 2016, 11:52:52 AM

Why are you incapable of disagreeing with someone without acting like a toddler?

Toddlers aren't capable of formulating cogent arguments against their opposition like I am.

Cogency is irrelevant when the brunt of your argument is "I don't like this, and you're stupid if you disagree". You've presented no argument other than repeating ad nauseam that you don't see the use of an optional item designed specifically to allow you to engage other players as consenting. Clearly everyone else in this thread disagrees. If you, yourself, do not feel like you have sufficiently consented to invasions, then don't use the item. It's that simple. Unless you've managed to somehow co-opt every other DkS players' agency to consent, your argument holds no water.