EternallyBored said:
Except it is worse, like pretty much everyone keeps mentioning in one form or another, everything in the game is boring and tedious except the combat, and even that's debatable considering how easy it is to totally break the system, and even without exploits the enemy design is lackluster (seriously have you beaten the game yet? past the midway point it feels like the majority of the enemies are just color swaps of earlier enemies) and they just aren't that fun to fight.
Like I said Dragon's dogma does the hack and slash high energy RPG combat better and even then, Dragon's dogma is still seen by most as slightly above average with some interesting mechanics. You say you can skip to the main story and that solves the games problems, but to me that just brings into focus the meandering story that takes forever to get anywhere and blows its climax at the start of the new continent, before going right back to tedious quests and an abrupt final boss, I beat the game and I had to go to gamefaqs just to remember anything beyond the barebones basics of the story. That's pretty much the worst sin an RPG can commit, to have a boring story, it doesn't matter if the combat is good, people play RPGs to experience the story.
Which it's why it's kind of telling that the conversation has slipped into talking about Bayonetta and DMC, games that thrive on their combat system, also not RPGs. The people playing these other RPGs don't want KoA's combat in their games, the fans of Dragon Age would have a meltdown if you tried to make the combat in it more like KoA. Hell, a lot of them threw a fit just for the changes between DA1 and DA2. You want to know what kind of combat fans of Dragon's Age want? They want slow combat against formations of enemies that allows them to meticulously plan and arrange their party to best take advantage of the positioning and abilities of their tanks, rogues, mages, and healers. That's pretty much the opposite of KoA's combat, the combat in that game would necessitate you only being able to control a single character at a time, that's pretty much anathema to a party based game.
Here it is summed up, "why isn't Amalur as praised as Skyrim or Dragon Age?" because it committed the cardinal sin of RPGs, it had a terrible story and a boring world. People wanted to know what happened to the Grey Warden and his/her friends, and they wanted to explore Skyrim and see every nook and cranny, nobody cared about the hero of Amalur, the hero didn't have any friends stick around long enough to care about, and the world of Amalur was too boring and too empty to want to explore it. Even the games combat system was derivative of more action oriented games, the people who praise Skyrim and Dragon Age generally don't care or want a combat system like KoA's anywhere near their games. The combat they like isn't like KoA, they complain about problems with the combat in these games, but KoA isn't what they want either, in cases like DA that try to mimic the D&D systems of old, it's pretty much the opposite of the type of combat they want in their RPGs.
I have gotten to the point where combat has become too easy, but I'm pretty much on the homestretch now. The game was more challenging than Dark Souls to me. And, the game has gotten easy due to getting abilities instead of just stat increases. I can dominate enemies because all my abilities not because my stats just went up, which is how most RPGs get too easy (mainly JRPGs).
What you spend the most time doing in a game is the most important part of the game. What you do most in RPGs usually is kill enemies thus combat is the most important part. RPGs SHOULD be about story and characters but 99% of them aren't as they aren't real RPGs as very few video game RPGs have role-playing to begin with. Mass Effect has more time spent role-playing than fighting enemies, which is a great thing (more RPGs should be like that). And even then Mass Effect has great combat (the shooting is solid and the powers make it more than just a TPS), its TPS shooting is better than quite a few actual TPSs (like say Max Payne 3).
There's very few RPGs that actually have good characters and a good story so why are all these people that want good stories and good characters playing video game RPGs? Very few games at all have a good story. Also, most RPGs don't have good combat for the most part either. You can skip over the story and dialog if you like the gameplay but if you like the story and dialog, you can't skip over the bad combat; that's the big difference. RPG players want strategy, which is fine again; however, there's very few RPGs that are strategic either. Skyrim isn't strategic nor does it have a party system either (why are you leveling that against KoA but not Skyrim?). Dragon Age has more strategy then most, but it's nothing special in the strategy department either. Funny thing is that the game probably the closest to DnD combat (at least recently) is actually XCOM, it's basically exactly the DnD combat system but tailored for gun combat; it's completely turn-based and every character has a move action and a standard action just like DnD, and it's actually strategic.
I hope you realize the bad combat systems of RPGs past and present are going by the wayside. Games like KoA, Dragon's Dogma, and Demon's/Dark Souls are ushering in real-time combat that doesn't suck anymore. Fighting a dragon by slashing at its ankles is just boring and bad, Dragon's Dogma showed gamers how dragon fights SHOULD be, not Skyrim or Dragon Age. With Skyrim, Bethesda made the Elder Scrolls series more action oriented, Bioware is making Dragon Age more action oriented (DA2 is a misstep not because it was more action oriented but because the action combat was just poorly done). I have nothing against a slow DnD-esque combat (I play Pathfinder weekly by-the-way) but do something like XCOM to actually give me that type of experience instead of giving me the boring and crappy combat systems of past RPGs that try to be a bit action-y and strategic but fail at both.
infinity_turtles said:
I'm gonna go ahead and just say this is wrong. The way you're describing how you played? Not the way a tank with a greatsword plays in Dark Souls. Characters with tank builds and two-handers in Dark Souls generally don't block as much as dex builds, if at all. The reason is that they have poise so they can get hit and not have their animations canceled. With higher Vitality and defenses, they just take the damage while they attack the enemy, until they get low enough on health that they need to heal. Then they sit there and let the enemy attack them as they heal, because again, poise means their animation doesn't get canceled. They may occasionally block or fat roll away, but what attacks you do that for are chosen rather then doing it for all of them. For new game anyway, New Game+ and it's iteration ends up making anything other than dodging less and less viable each time.
Different builds in Dark Souls do play differently. The combat in general is slower than other games, so maybe you're assuming that since your light and fast character is the same speed as big tanky guys of other faster games all styles play that way. They don't. The game is just slower paced then you like.
So you either play a character that blocks and attacks or a character that just attacks with no need to block? Abilities/skills are the heart of an RPG that yields the many different playstyles; look at any other RPG like KoA, Skyrim, Dragon Age, Dragon's Dogma, Borderlands, Mass Effect, and many more, it's the abilities and skills that differentiate characters, Dark Souls doesn't have that. Dark Souls is way too much just about stats going up (upping your Str/Dex) or leveling up your weapon, you aren't earning new abilities or skills. Magic is really the game's only new abilities to learn.
lassiie said:
First off, about Bayonetta. As you admitted yourself you can get through the game without using most of the mechanics that are needed. I did, I got all the way to Infinite Climax before I learned. Was it particularly graceful or did I get good ratings, fuck no, but I was able to do it. By using the mechanics in the game, I got much better and started to get Plat/Pure Plat consistently because I was using everything the game had to offer. And as for Gracious/Glorious, they are not immune to Witch Time, You just have to either dodge the last attack in a combo, or a power attack for it to activate. Most of the semi-boss enemies are like that. Cannot comment on Heavenly Sword. Either way, this is the exact same thing you have with Dark Souls. Can you get through it using a dex build with light shield and just block everything, you probably can, can you do it gracefully, fuck no. If Dark Souls had ratings you would be getting horrible ratings because of it. Once again, I prove my point that Bayonetta is only hard to get Pure Plat in, its not hard as a game itself. It has been praised by multiple critics for its ability to be forgiving to players who aren't familiar with the style as play, as well as provide a challenge for those who do (Pure Plat rating).
As for blocking. No you cannot block every single enemy in the game, I can think of at least two that attacks intentionally drain stamina and would break your guard and deal massive damage to your health. You can block most of them, yes, is it particularly effective? No. It is the same thing in Bayonetta, I can dodge EVERY single enemies attacks. Dodge makes you immune for a split second. So even when the bigger enemies SHOULD hit you, and it shows them hitting you, you won't take damage. Is this a bad thing? No, because that is how dodge is made to function in the game.
As for the Iaito comment. First off, it is the best weapon for a Dex build, because it scales with dex, AND another reason, which you failed to mention. Because it can be combined with Lightning Weapon/Crystal Magic Weapon. Without either of those, it is not better then a Lightning Iaito or any other elemental weapon. If you used that weapon for most of your playthrough, then you did yourself a disservice as you would not have had enough dex to make it useful. Yet it seems like you did, and you also had enough stamina to block every single enemy in the game. Honestly, your story is kind of falling apart here. It seems to me you had quite a bit of outside help while playing through this game to make it easier. Almost any game is like that, if you have prior knowledge the game becomes easier. Just like XCOM that you mentioned, if you played any of the originals, then it was probably a LOT easier then someone who had never played the XCOM series.
I am not questioning whether or not you have played the game. I just think that you are using your current knowledge now, which unless someone told you you wouldve had no way of knowing when you started the game, to judge how hard Dark Souls is. Once you learn what all the stats are for, what weapons are effective with what builds, what magic/pyromancy spells are effective and how to use them, know where enemies are hiding, know how to upgrade your weapons and armor (something that most people these days don't think about, because they are used to getting new, better weapons thrown at them every 5 minutes), then yes the game is easy. Once you have learned everything about the game, it becomes easy, just like any other game.
Gracious and Glorious are completely immune to Witch Time and you do face them on Normal:
http://bayonetta.wikia.com/wiki/Gracious_and_Glorious
Bayonetta (at least on Normal) is a game that wants you to beat it and experience the story at least once, that's why you get the lollipops and you have frequent checkpoints. The fact that you are getting bad ratings is because you aren't playing it well, and the game informs you about it like that instead of outright killing you like Dark Souls. If Dark Souls did have a rating system, it would probably be only about damage taken and time taken (what else can the game rate you on?). I would do well with damage taken, poorly with time taken because I explore every area of the dungeons. Getting through Dark Souls gracefully is just not getting hit, the game is about survival, not flash. Properly fighting an enemy in Dark Souls is about losing as little health as possible, properly fighting an enemy in Bayonetta is losing little health and looking awesome while doing it.
If a game has a dodge, you can dodge every enemy, that's what a fucking dodge is. You can dodge every enemy in Bayonetta but you can't use the same strategy with every enemy, that's the difference.
How many times do I have to say "I didn't block EVERY enemy"? I said in a previous post that I think the only NORMAL enemies a "rogue" build can't block are those guys with rocks in Blighttown and those giant knights in Anor Londo, you can block in 99% of your enemy encounters as a rogue, which is just stupid. A rogue is supposed to trade strength and, you know, blocking ability for speed and quickness, you shouldn't be able to block 99% of enemies while being fast and quick. Dark Souls is an RPG so you need trade-offs like that whereas in Bayonetta, you are play as a single character that is fast and quick, and you don't even have a block (outside of that one accessory) even Bayonetta understands fast and quick characters shouldn't be able to block.
Why would I make the Iaito into a lightning Iaito and lose the Dex scaling? Just from a quick Google search it seems keeping the Iaito scaling with Dex (for a Dex build) is the best way to go:
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/606312-dark-souls/66237262
I did have good (maybe high stamina) because what the fuck else am I going to even level? I was leveling Vit, End, Dex, and Faith. I know I could put an element on my weapon so I didn't need the Dex scaling but I wanted to be a Dex build (I usually play Dex based characters in DnD and other pen and paper games) and I also know I didn't need Faith but I wanted to use some magic and I got Miracles earlier than the other kinds of magic. I know I could've totally not invested in Dex or Faith magic so my End (Stamina) would've been even higher as I could've taken pretty much everything out of Dex and Faith and put all that into End to make my stamina way higher than it was, but I wasn't playing to min/max my character, I was playing for FUN. Dark Souls fails at even some basics of RPGs because there just isn't anything you really need to level, which is rather stupid for an RPG. Leveling up should be something you look forward to; in Dark Souls, I didn't even give a shit that I died and lost my souls, there was nothing to level and nothing to buy anyways.
