Video Game discussion

[Kuroimaken]

"Frankly, this is no excuse.  The size, scope, etc. of the game are irrelevant.  Those are all Bethesda's call, and if they want to make a big huge game then they are going to be judged by the overall product.  And, but for the size of the game, it probably wouldn't have sold as well"

So, despite the fact that the game is massive and you can do almost whatever you want in it, that's irrelevant but you want to judge the game as a whole? You can't eat your cake and have it, too.

To use a comparison, you are saying the equivalent of denouncing Ulcerate's Everything is Fire because Drown Within has one of the worst transitions I've ever heard, never mind the fact that it is one the most ambitious and exciting death metal releases in the last decade (also, that it's really fucking good, too).

If you want the mods, buy the PC version. And, frankly, the only bug I've encountered was one where a plot NPC disappeared into a floor, but a simple reload fixed that. If you are willing to throw down your controller and cry foul over that, then don't play the game.

Skyrim uses the same engine as Bethesda's other games? Why isn't Valve held to same standard, they've used Source in every game they've made with minor alterations. I bet at it's core, Dark Souls and Demon Souls are powered by the same thing.

Dark Souls a superior game? Maybe, I've held off playing Skyrim because of it, but let's face it, Dark Souls isn't accessible. Full stop. Either you're a hardcore gamer and up the challenge or you aren't. It's like death metal, you get it or you don't. There's not much in-between. But Skyrim is accessible. Too hard? Turn the difficulty down. Too easy? Turn it up. And unlike Skyrim, success in Dark Souls is 90% equipment and 10% knowing when to roll or block. Yes, Skyrim grinding Smithing/block/blahblahblah, but raise your hand if you didn't grind for souls once to raise a single stat a little bit in DS. No one? I thought so.

Industry awards? Pffft. I could care less what game got Game of the Year or Best Graphics or Best Hidden Sex Scene. I don't take the Grammys, the Oscars, the Tonys or the Emmys seriously, why would I take gaming industry awards seriously.

And why is accessibility desirable? Back in the day, we gamed hard and played hard as nails games and by freaking gum, we loved every second of it.  One of the reasons I love Dark Souls is PRECISELY because it's difficult.

Equipment actually matters significantly little, until you define a build at least. Sure, it plays a big part early on, when going down to the catacombs is a suicide mission because you just plain can't damage the skeletons enough. But you're not really SUPPOSED to go there early on, except on NG+. If you need help, play in mortal form, summon some friends, and tear the universe a new one. Need more souls/humanity? Put down your summon sign, someone's bound to need your help. I actually got by fairly decently by remembering to keep my shield up at all times and not trying to tank a hit from anything above my own weight category. You want easy mode, start off as a pyromancer - you should be able to kill a lot of things really easy since upgrading your flame takes only souls and you have no stats you need to pump up. Dark Souls gets easier the more control you obtain over the mechanics themselves. One big breakpoint in power in the game is beating the Anor Londo boss. This gives you both mobility and access to the Giant Blacksmith, who can forge boss weapons AND sell you upgrade materials at low cost. Yes, you might need to grind a little, but you can always co-op in the process, which makes it significantly more fun.

Dark Souls and Demon's Souls use the same engine, Havok. The basic gameplay mechanics are the same - stamina gauge, blocking, parrying/riposting, etc.. And yet there are enough differences between the two that you can safely say Dark Souls is not a rehash of Demon's. My point about the engine was more that Bethesda KNEW their engine was buggy and they've done nothing to fix it.

The fact you've encountered only one bug and it didn't make you quit doesn't mean others are as fortunate or as tolerant. A great example of one such situation (to use a game not made by Bethesda at all) is Dead Island. It's essentially melee Borderlands with zombies, and it suffers from a crippling autosave bug that can erase all your freaking progress (not sure if it's been fixed by now). Those who haven't encountered the bug swear by the game; despite the fact it's a relatively fun title, it's not THAT great. Those who have cry foul in rage after losing hours of progress. There are workarounds, mostly playing offline, but that doesn't make those who encountered the bug any happier, and with good reason.

Now, I'm not exactly a death metal enthusiast (perhaps more accurately, I don't really have a formed opinion of it from lack of information/knowledge) so forgive me if your comparisons kinda went over my head there. 

[kurashu]

And why is accessibility desirable? Back in the day, we gamed hard and played hard as nails games and by freaking gum, we loved every second of it.  One of the reasons I love Dark Souls is PRECISELY because it's difficult.

You and I, maybe. I remember spending hours trying to GET to Gutsman. But you know who else did? Not my girlfriend, not many of my co-workers, my friends or most people in general. People want to play games that are fun to them. Sure, I wish more games wouldn't hold my hand but I realize that most people want that, especially when they are starting out with a new game/genre. Most people play a game because it's A) fun and B) interesting.

Dark Souls isn't either to most people; it's punishing (it took me HOURS to get through Undead Burg when I started) and it's boring in terms of plot. Yes the gameplay is engaging when you figure it all out, but if it isn't your thing, are you going to push through it?

Would you listen to Gorguts' Obscura hundreds of times to hear every little thing if you didn't like death metal? Hell, I do and have and that album is still tiresome mentally and physically to me. Listen to the title track and just don't turn it off immediately. Listen to it. Then again and again and again until that nearly non-existent rhythm embeds in your mind. That's what learning Dark Souls is. Why would anyone but someone who wants that do that?

That's why Skyrim is more popular and will continue to be than Dark Souls. Skyrim is conventional and generally good; Dark Souls isn't conventional and is good to a specific group of people.
 
Elitism like this is why video games aren't -- and likely ever won't be -- taken seriously. We say we want to be accepted generally but then bitch and moan and complain when a game tries to reach a more general audience without completely selling its soul. I can't even imagine what the opinions of RAGE or FEAR 3 or Bulletstorm are here. Or MW3 or BF3 or whatever Title Shooter Entry XX.

[Kuroimaken]

And why is accessibility desirable? Back in the day, we gamed hard and played hard as nails games and by freaking gum, we loved every second of it.  One of the reasons I love Dark Souls is PRECISELY because it's difficult.

You and I, maybe. I remember spending hours trying to GET to Gutsman. But you know who else did? Not my girlfriend, not many of my co-workers, my friends or most people in general. People want to play games that are fun to them. Sure, I wish more games wouldn't hold my hand but I realize that most people want that, especially when they are starting out with a new game/genre. Most people play a game because it's A) fun and B) interesting.

Dark Souls isn't either to most people; it's punishing (it took me HOURS to get through Undead Burg when I started) and it's boring in terms of plot. Yes the gameplay is engaging when you figure it all out, but if it isn't your thing, are you going to push through it?

Would you listen to Gorguts' Obscura hundreds of times to hear every little thing if you didn't like death metal? Hell, I do and have and that album is still tiresome mentally and physically to me. Listen to the title track and just don't turn it off immediately. Listen to it. Then again and again and again until that nearly non-existent rhythm embeds in your mind. That's what learning Dark Souls is. Why would anyone but someone who wants that do that?

That's why Skyrim is more popular and will continue to be than Dark Souls. Skyrim is conventional and generally good; Dark Souls isn't conventional and is good to a specific group of people.
 
Elitism like this is why video games aren't -- and likely ever won't be -- taken seriously. We say we want to be accepted generally but then bitch and moan and complain when a game tries to reach a more general audience without completely selling its soul. I can't even imagine what the opinions of RAGE or FEAR 3 or Bulletstorm are here. Or MW3 or BF3 or whatever Title Shooter Entry XX.

I disagree with you on the subject of Dark Souls' learning curve. It is not THAT high. It favors strategy and method rather than simple repetition of pattern, which is what makes a game fun to play. Here's a hint: the human brain is lazy. It seeks to find a pattern it can repeat whenever a given situation arises. The enjoyment from a videogame comes from when we see the pattern work, and our brain releases endorphins to reward us for it (which is why WoW is crack: it uses a slightly differing pattern that repeats itself over and over the course of the game until your brain is hooked on doing the same actions. Endorphins are addictive too after all). With Dark Souls, one pattern is not enough to win the game, so we must learn several, which is one of the reasons it's so hard. Part of fighting a boss repeatedly, doing better each time, is learning his attack patterns so you can safely attack in-between.

Casual gaming is the bane of existence. It should serve as nothing more than a gateway to the enlightenment of hardcore gaming to beings of all ages. Unfortunately, it sells better than hardcore gaming. This is because of a pre-stablished prejudice from the times it did not exist.

This comic says it all, really.

I don't personally care to see videogames taken seriously. It is a medium like any other, and there will always be some who snub a given medium in favor of another. Besides, I personally don't think elitism is a bad thing. In fact, I find it hypocritical to use elitism as a derogatory term. We always strive to get the best in our lives: the best cars, the best relationships, the best friends, the most money. It is the way we live our lives and are told to live our lives, accept no substitute for the best except if you can't HAVE the best. So what's the point in denying that only in specific, seemingly unimportant issues (and some important ones too)? It's idiotic.

[Unbeliever]

"Frankly, this is no excuse.  The size, scope, etc. of the game are irrelevant.  Those are all Bethesda's call, and if they want to make a big huge game then they are going to be judged by the overall product.  And, but for the size of the game, it probably wouldn't have sold as well"

So, despite the fact that the game is massive and you can do almost whatever you want in it, that's irrelevant but you want to judge the game as a whole? You can't eat your cake and have it, too.

To use a comparison, you are saying the equivalent of denouncing Ulcerate's Everything is Fire because Drown Within has one of the worst transitions I've ever heard, never mind the fact that it is one the most ambitious and exciting death metal releases in the last decade (also, that it's really fucking good, too).

You need to distinguish between 2 things, which you are consistently confusing. 

The first is size and scope.  The second is quality. 

A great game will still be a good, or even still a great game, despite bugs.  They are a black mark, depending on how annoying they are, but things don't have to be perfect.  That's what the death metal analogy speaks to:  the albums may be great and ambitious, and still have imperfect bits, but still be great regardless.  Their overall quality, which is determined in part by how high they reach and consistently reach doing so, may be enough to overcome any minor flaws.

But, no, I don't think size and scope excuses a game.  Games can be great regardless of their size and scope, a lesson developers seem to routinely forget.  And, when they make the decision to make a game of such scope, and to make that the main selling point of the product, then, no, I don't think they get to then hide behind their mommy's skirts and tell us that big games so hard. 

And, yeah, it seems that other companies don't have a notorious reputation for buggy games.  So, clearly somebody is doing it.  Actually, now that I think about it, I don't think I've played a single game with a "bug" that I can recall.  There have been questionable design choices, but nothing that was a clear programming error.  I am a bit behind the curve, and usually just play PC games, so it may be that I get them after they are patched (part of my plan for Skyrim).  But, to the extent that Skyrim has bugs -- and all my friends who have it and are enthusiasts for it (Xbox and PS3, I'm the only one who has it on PC) say it does -- it's failing where other companies in the marketplace have succeeded. 

[trappedslider]

guys there's a  skyrim thread so take it there http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1144.0

[kurashu]

I don't personally care to see videogames taken seriously. It is a medium like any other, and there will always be some who snub a given medium in favor of another. Besides, I personally don't think elitism is a bad thing. In fact, I find it hypocritical to use elitism as a derogatory term. We always strive to get the best in our lives: the best cars, the best relationships, the best friends, the most money. It is the way we live our lives and are told to live our lives, accept no substitute for the best except if you can't HAVE the best. So what's the point in denying that only in specific, seemingly unimportant issues (and some important ones too)? It's idiotic.

Elitism isn't wanting the best of something. It's wanting everyone else to fuck off because you were here first. It's crying at the first alleged symptom of selling out. It's creating a tight little community and then forming a barrier to not allow anyone else in. Elitism is not good for a community. It causes stagnation and it causes seclusion. You want a good example? Listen to a black metal band from the 80's and then listen to a "tr00 kvlt" black metal band now. It sounds exactly the same. Why? Because kvlt kiddies want that. They don't want innovation, they don't want new blood unless that blood pretends to be old, they want to left alone with their cassette tapes and bedroom recordings.

And as for the comments about how casual games are the bane of existence? What about all the shitty movies, books, shows, music, et cetera? It's not like there aren't ANY quality games out, and of those quality games, there are ones that pander to the hardcore gamer audience. Without casual games, we get ZERO games. Why? Because those casual games are the lifeblood of the industry right now.You don't like them? Don't play them, ignore them. For the most part, I do. But do know that some are worth your time. To keep up with my music analogy, you can't just listen to death metal all the time, you need to temper it with something else, otherwise it all sounds the same.

More over, that VG Cats strip hits a nerve with the mentioning the Wii as hurting the gaming community. Just because it has more than its share of bad games, Nintendo needs to make money otherwise we wouldn't have games like Legend of Zelda, Mario and Metroid. Just because the Wii came with Wii Sports and used motion controls -- which count me as one of the people who was sure it was a gimmick and would fail -- doesn't mean the console was bad for the industry. I have two words: Kinect and Move. Obviously Nintendo lit a fire under Microsoft's and Sony's asses.

You need to distinguish between 2 things, which you are consistently confusing. 

The first is size and scope.  The second is quality. 

A great game will still be a good, or even still a great game, despite bugs.  They are a black mark, depending on how annoying they are, but things don't have to be perfect.  That's what the death metal analogy speaks to:  the albums may be great and ambitious, and still have imperfect bits, but still be great regardless.  Their overall quality, which is determined in part by how high they reach and consistently reach doing so, may be enough to overcome any minor flaws.

But, no, I don't think size and scope excuses a game.  Games can be great regardless of their size and scope, a lesson developers seem to routinely forget.  And, when they make the decision to make a game of such scope, and to make that the main selling point of the product, then, no, I don't think they get to then hide behind their mommy's skirts and tell us that big games so hard.

I understand that size & scope don't equal quality, rather they are part of the quality. I don't think Bethesda is hiding behind anyone's skirt. They made a quality product, and when someone found a problem with it, they fixed it. They could have said, "That doesn't happen." or given any number of excuses, but they didn't. That takes a lot more work, but it also builds a relation with the community. They have a reputation for making games with minor bugs. I've never played one of their games that had a show stopping programming error.

For all the talk about how games should be judge on over all quality, people are still bitching a whole lot about how Skyrim is awful because of a few bugs in the overall experience.

Edit: Oh no, Ubuntu just told me there are patches that need to be installed because of an obscure security bug. I'm gonna throw a fit and complain about how buggy it is despite that fact that I've precisely one issue with not having enough memory in this ancient computer.

[Kuroimaken]

I don't personally care to see videogames taken seriously. It is a medium like any other, and there will always be some who snub a given medium in favor of another. Besides, I personally don't think elitism is a bad thing. In fact, I find it hypocritical to use elitism as a derogatory term. We always strive to get the best in our lives: the best cars, the best relationships, the best friends, the most money. It is the way we live our lives and are told to live our lives, accept no substitute for the best except if you can't HAVE the best. So what's the point in denying that only in specific, seemingly unimportant issues (and some important ones too)? It's idiotic.

Elitism isn't wanting the best of something. It's wanting everyone else to fuck off because you were here first. It's crying at the first alleged symptom of selling out. It's creating a tight little community and then forming a barrier to not allow anyone else in. Elitism is not good for a community. It causes stagnation and it causes seclusion. You want a good example? Listen to a black metal band from the 80's and then listen to a "tr00 kvlt" black metal band now. It sounds exactly the same. Why? Because kvlt kiddies want that. They don't want innovation, they don't want new blood unless that blood pretends to be old, they want to left alone with their cassette tapes and bedroom recordings.

And as for the comments about how casual games are the bane of existence? What about all the shitty movies, books, shows, music, et cetera? It's not like there aren't ANY quality games out, and of those quality games, there are ones that pander to the hardcore gamer audience. Without casual games, we get ZERO games. Why? Because those casual games are the lifeblood of the industry right now.You don't like them? Don't play them, ignore them. For the most part, I do. But do know that some are worth your time. To keep up with my music analogy, you can't just listen to death metal all the time, you need to temper it with something else, otherwise it all sounds the same.

More over, that VG Cats strip hits a nerve with the mentioning the Wii as hurting the gaming community. Just because it has more than its share of bad games, Nintendo needs to make money otherwise we wouldn't have games like Legend of Zelda, Mario and Metroid. Just because the Wii came with Wii Sports and used motion controls -- which count me as one of the people who was sure it was a gimmick and would fail -- doesn't mean the console was bad for the industry. I have two words: Kinect and Move. Obviously Nintendo lit a fire under Microsoft's and Sony's asses.

You need to distinguish between 2 things, which you are consistently confusing. 

The first is size and scope.  The second is quality. 

A great game will still be a good, or even still a great game, despite bugs.  They are a black mark, depending on how annoying they are, but things don't have to be perfect.  That's what the death metal analogy speaks to:  the albums may be great and ambitious, and still have imperfect bits, but still be great regardless.  Their overall quality, which is determined in part by how high they reach and consistently reach doing so, may be enough to overcome any minor flaws.

But, no, I don't think size and scope excuses a game.  Games can be great regardless of their size and scope, a lesson developers seem to routinely forget.  And, when they make the decision to make a game of such scope, and to make that the main selling point of the product, then, no, I don't think they get to then hide behind their mommy's skirts and tell us that big games so hard.

I understand that size & scope don't equal quality, rather they are part of the quality. I don't think Bethesda is hiding behind anyone's skirt. They made a quality product, and when someone found a problem with it, they fixed it. They could have said, "That doesn't happen." or given any number of excuses, but they didn't. That takes a lot more work, but it also builds a relation with the community. They have a reputation for making games with minor bugs. I've never played one of their games that had a show stopping programming error.

For all the talk about how games should be judge on over all quality, people are still bitching a whole lot about how Skyrim is awful because of a few bugs in the overall experience.

Edit: Oh no, Ubuntu just told me there are patches that need to be installed because of an obscure security bug. I'm gonna throw a fit and complain about how buggy it is despite that fact that I've precisely one issue with not having enough memory in this ancient computer.

We obviously have different concepts of what elitism is. Elitism, for me, is the selection of the best among the best in a series of traits or of given subjects. What you describe is my definition of bigotry, not elitism.

And I'm not touching other media with a 10-foot-pole in this discussion, man. There ARE obviously shitty songs, films and whatnot out there now. I live in musical freaking hell. There are things that are spawned from the feces-ridden brains of people here that somehow become viral hits EVERYWHERE despite lacking a single iota of goodness. I suffer for it everyday and I shun them like the plague.

Casual games are giving the industry lots of money, true, but the industry isn't even trying to innovate anymore with that money (with very few notable exceptions). Let's not mince words: the Wii prints money because it panders to a crowd that never played before, and never MEANT to play before, because of preconceptions born in the 80's and overall bad press. Basically, people who never touched a videogame and suddenly noticed they can be fun. Look at small games/developers now: there are few games out there that are genuinely good, and some of them are coming out of backwoods companies, while Squenix farts a Final Fantasy per year and calls it done (or farts out the billionth remake of an old RPG). If a game is successful, a sequel is rushed out of the woodwork to cash in. Right now, games are on the decline in quality because getting the game out early is more important than making the game come out right. This is something that's wrong with the industry as a whole, NOT just casual games, and it did not happen back when hardcore games were the norm because the industry knew they could afford to delay a game by a year or two and people would STILL buy it; that's how loyal their fanbase was. But hey, why make something great when merely "good" sells better?

To be fair, part of my gripe against Skyrim is the fact it's a first-person game. I actually studied game design and I know from experience that programming a first-person game is the absolutely LAZIEST ASS WAY of making a game, period. You spend practically zilch time on modeling and animation, because the player won't see most of it anyway, and you can add difficulty simply by adding blind spots to the scenery (since the camera has a fixed, limited 180-degree angle, which is something else you don't have to worry about, by the way). To be a good game AND first-person, for me, the game has to have something else. Bioshock is actually one of the most awesome games I've ever played, even though it belongs to a genre that, as I just mentioned, is a lazy way to make a game.

[Prime32]

Skyrim is a casual game? Definitions must have shifted, because last time I checked "casual game" meant something like Tetris. Certainly not anything with a plotline or persistency.

[SneeR]

Sorry, Kuroimaken, but you are incorrect, though I hate to admit it.

Elitism is defined as: "consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group."
So that means kurashu was right in regards to the kvlt people (I have no idea who they are, but they are elitists). Unfortunately, elitism is almost universally negatively connotative, so don't call yourself an elitist with pride.

Also, did you know that you can play virtually all of Skyrim in the 3rd person perspective, only switching to first for arrow accuracy (not unlike, say, Dark Souls)? I think you are absolutely incorrect in your notion of spurning any part of gaming culture. D&D used to be regarded as the engine of satanism before it became mainstream, so it took the de-ghetto-iszation (as in splitting oneself off from others) of the culture for it to gain a real community outside of mouthbreathers in their moms' basements (not unliike this community we share here!).

[trappedslider]

To be fair, part of my gripe against Skyrim is the fact it's a first-person game. I actually studied game design and I know from experience that programming a first-person game is the absolutely LAZIEST ASS WAY of making a game, period. You spend practically zilch time on modeling and animation, because the player won't see most of it anyway, and you can add difficulty simply by adding blind spots to the scenery (since the camera has a fixed, limited 180-degree angle, which is something else you don't have to worry about, by the way). To be a good game AND first-person, for me, the game has to have something else. Bioshock is actually one of the most awesome games I've ever played, even though it belongs to a genre that, as I just mentioned, is a lazy way to make a game.

thank god you said "for me" cuz I was about to point out Half Life and Halo which both influenced the designs of FPS well into this coming decade.


GOING BACK TO THE MAIN TOPIC OF THIS THREAD
I'm playing Fable 3 again jsut to get some of the cheevos I haven't gotten yet,I plan to go back to playing MW3 once i get a new mic (not thta it really matters since no one talks) and at some point i'm going to finish Halo CE anniversy on legendary with some of the skulls turned on.

[SneeR]

Hate to say it, trappedslider, but we are discussing video games.

Is anyone else interested in continuing this discussion of video games? I suppose if yes, I could oblige trappedslider and make a new thread.

[trappedslider]

Hate to say it, trappedslider, but we are discussing video games.

Is anyone else interested in continuing this discussion of video games? I suppose if yes, I could oblige trappedslider and make a new thread.

oh shut up  i'm sick stupid flu bug... and now back to arguing about the definetion of eliteism and whats makes a good game

[Kuroimaken]

Sorry, Kuroimaken, but you are incorrect, though I hate to admit it.

Elitism is defined as: "consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group."
So that means kurashu was right in regards to the kvlt people (I have no idea who they are, but they are elitists). Unfortunately, elitism is almost universally negatively connotative, so don't call yourself an elitist with pride.

Also, did you know that you can play virtually all of Skyrim in the 3rd person perspective, only switching to first for arrow accuracy (not unlike, say, Dark Souls)? I think you are absolutely incorrect in your notion of spurning any part of gaming culture. D&D used to be regarded as the engine of satanism before it became mainstream, so it took the de-ghetto-iszation (as in splitting oneself off from others) of the culture for it to gain a real community outside of mouthbreathers in their moms' basements (not unliike this community we share here!).

Well, that definition also differs from my own. Perhaps more to the point, I am supportive of the idea that selecting the best traits of a given subject is actually a positive trait, but I don't think I can find a suitable one-word definition for it.

And yes, I knew that. The animation for every weapon is going to be exactly the same, like watching a wooden dummy roll over. That's boring as heck.

EDIT: Incidentally... the option to switch to first-person is not a draw for me, so it's not something I particularly miss, though I understand your point. And you can use first-person view for shooting arrows in Dark Souls too.

[Sinfire Titan]

I personally hate the 3rd person option in any Elder Scrolls game. The targeting system they use is designed for FPS games, not RPGs that have a Hack-and-Slash combat system. And the camera doesn't pull back far enough to make a difference to me.

[Risada]

I saw some vids on Skyrim gameplay and... I did not find it enjoyable. At least, not as much as dying while playing Dark Souls... maybe when I stop playing DkS, I can see Skyrim in a different way...

... and just killed Priscilla in DkS, but did not get the goddamned dagger from her tail. Hit her with a lot of stuff on various attempts (lightning spear +5, Quelaag Furysword with a lot of humanities, Great combustions) and she did not become visible... until I killed her.

At least I have something as a must get on NG+...

[kurashu]

I saw some vids on Skyrim gameplay and... I did not find it enjoyable. At least, not as much as dying while playing Dark Souls... maybe when I stop playing DkS, I can see Skyrim in a different way...

... and just killed Priscilla in DkS, but did not get the goddamned dagger from her tail. Hit her with a lot of stuff on various attempts (lightning spear +5, Quelaag Furysword with a lot of humanities, Great combustions) and she did not become visible... until I killed her.

At least I have something as a must get on NG+...

If it makes you feel better, Seath killed me four times before I gave up trying to get the Moonlight Greatsword. And I haven't bothered with any of the special soul weapons this play through. NG+ is going to be when I worry about that stuff.

[Kuroimaken]

I saw some vids on Skyrim gameplay and... I did not find it enjoyable. At least, not as much as dying while playing Dark Souls... maybe when I stop playing DkS, I can see Skyrim in a different way...

... and just killed Priscilla in DkS, but did not get the goddamned dagger from her tail. Hit her with a lot of stuff on various attempts (lightning spear +5, Quelaag Furysword with a lot of humanities, Great combustions) and she did not become visible... until I killed her.

At least I have something as a must get on NG+...

DUDE!! What SL are you? I've got three different characters on that game (well, two I can probably coop with. The third is a character I glitched to 711 to test damage caps).

With Priscilla, I find that the (relatively) easier way to get a bead on her is to cast Poison Mist at the beginning of the fight; the damage isn't much but it should allow you to at least be able to tell where she is. Cutting off her tail, like with Seath, is significantly easier when you've got a partner to do it with though.

As for Seath himself, there are a couple of tricks that make it easier:

- When the fight starts, run towards the crystal, and wait for him. He'll lumber slooooooooowly towards you. The SECOND you see him move to attack, haul ass around him towards his tail: he'll strike the crystal himself and get stunned for a brief but relatively good while, which should be enough for you to whack his tail (make sure you hit the tip of the tail and not the base). According to some Gamefaqs people, two shots of Great Combustion with a fully ascended Pyromancy Flame should suffice.

-Equip the Slumbering Dragoncrest ring. Apparently, Seath is kinda blind, so if you do that, he won't use the most devastating attacks in his repertoire. If you stick to a medium distance of him, he'll always resort to the crystal laser sweep move, which should give you enough time to move around to his backside (depending on equip load anyway). Be careful though, because until you cut off his tail, he will still occasionally use his tail thrashing attack.

Cutting off Seath's tail was a pain in NG, but not so much in NG+ (on two different characters that is). Now, NG+ Four Kings solo... yeah. I couldn't find anyone to summon, and given that the character I was using had been Covenant-hopping to get goodies, I had sinned like a motherfucker, so the Darkmoon Blades were on my ass like kids on crystal meth-laced candy. I ended up having to solo them without even the aid of Phantom Beatrice to avoid the hassle of extra HP. Thankfully, being a specialist Sunlight Warrior at 50 Faith with all the Spear miracles made the fight significantly easier. I just unloaded spell after spell, then Iron Flesh'd up and whacked away the rest. Managed to kill one king at a time before they had the chance to gang up - after that, death would have been pretty instantaneous.

EDIT: As far as the special boss soul weapons... Well, many of them are not that worthwhile. There are a few notable exceptions (Tin Darkmoon Catalyst for Faith-based characters, Quelaag's Furysword for easy to upgrade fire damage with a decent moveset, Crystal Ring Shield pre-patch was pretty beastly, Greatsword of Artorias for awesome scaling - plus the cursed version for the New Londo ghosts), but overall you'd have to know what you're looking for to get a decent investment out of them. As a rule, I've observed that even the best STR-based weapons simply don't scale that well in damage and you do end up having to rely on weapon buffs to get something out of them (again, there are exceptions, though I dislike their movesets. The Zweihander is a good example, as its strong attack knocks enemies flat but is also slow as all hell. On the other hand, the Black Knight weapons all deal very decent, pure physical damage, but cannot be enchanted). DEX-based weapons scale more quickly but at poorer return rates the higher you go, to make up for significantly faster attacks. INT-based weapons tend to kinda fall into the gimmicky area, except the Moonlight Greatsword - that weapon is REALLY boss. Faith-based weapons scale decently, but some enemies resist it more than others (at least the occult variety seems to be more commonly resisted, though I haven't tested it extensively).

[Risada]

DUDE!! What SL are you? I've got three different characters on that game (well, two I can probably coop with. The third is a character I glitched to 711 to test damage caps).

With Priscilla, I find that the (relatively) easier way to get a bead on her is to cast Poison Mist at the beginning of the fight; the damage isn't much but it should allow you to at least be able to tell where she is. Cutting off her tail, like with Seath, is significantly easier when you've got a partner to do it with though.

My char is SL 60... with 400k souls available to spend on levelling up, if needed (co-op'ing like a mad man to get the Chaos Covenant to rank 2... got the pyromancy, but no shortcut to Lost Izalith? What happened here?  )

Anyway... just tried entering Duke's Archives and got raped by the Armored boars...

I guess it's time to invest into some Endurance so I can wear better armor...

[kurashu]

Armored boars are easy peasy. Just great combustion them a couple of times. They don't respawn either, so if you die to one (such as me), just run back, grab your souls and make porkchops of the other one.

As for me, I just beat Nito -- fully upgraded Pyromancy and just flamed him to death. I'm not forward to Londo Ruins and I'm trying to farm humanity to unlock the shortcut so I can try to kill another boss before going crazy.

edit: Risda, Elite Knight Armor is pretty awesome without having to sacrifice for a bunch of endurance. Havel's Ring + 29~ Endurance lets me run around just fine. I've also found that the best weapon against the crystal schmucks is the Gravelord Sword. It took them down in two strong hits as opposed to four from the Dragon Sword and three from my Enchant +5 Halberd (though, I have also have about a 12 INT)

[trappedslider]

After playing thru fable III I've decided to retrun to MW3 atleast till either HL3 happens (hahaha) or something else catches my eye