|
Watch 1 year from now when it stops being satire.
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:06 |
|
|
If only you folk did what I did and vote for the Lisa Retrospective instead of this? Hello!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
I really don't agree with the point about the healing system in Bloodborne and Dark Souls 2 being better than Dark Souls 1 where hbomberguy is talking about how it is unfun to be stuck in the same area over and over because of how limited the healing was in Dark Souls 1. Because there were points in Bloodborne where I'd be stuck against a boss and eventually just run out of healing items trying to beat him, so then I'd have to go grind blood vials and I think that's even less fun. At least with the Dark Souls 1 system I don't have to stop my attempts to go get more of the item that will help me win. I'm always focused on beating the boss.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Bloodborne maybe had the second worst healing item system, made slightly better by regain but things like microattacks and being able to get hit while your down kinda hurts that system. The worst is Dark Souls 3, which has the neat Dark Souls 2 Estus but without understanding why lifegems were there in conjunction with the more limited Estus. I found that for most points of comparison, the worst is Dark Souls 3.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
DS2 is by far the worst healing system imo, gently caress infinite lifegems forever. BB would have been better if it emphasized the rally system a bit more where bosses are concerned I think, in practice it often ends up not doing much unless you trade (which is rarely gonna go well against a boss). As it is the vials are a bit too important and plentiful I feel, but I still like the overall system and rallying especially. Also if you got stuck without vials and had to farm them that was awful, I bet a decent number of players new to these games ran into that. DS1 and DS3 are both tough for me to evaluate, I kinda prefer 3's. Thing is, it was cool in DS1 how even at the end of the game you wouldn't have more Estus unless you actually committed resources towards it. But in practice there was a TON of Humanity and you could always stockpile the items, use them on the bonfires of the most central/difficult areas, and be perfectly fine. Which kinda meant it was just artificially difficult on my first playthrough, where I hoarded Humanity like my RPG-hoarder roots demanded while dying way too much for soft humanity drops to be useful, while not knowing where kindling was best done or even where to get the Rite. On the other hand, I really liked how DS3 strains your resources early on but making Estus stocks just a permanent upgrade rather than something you had to keep committing resources to is a little lame too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
If anyone's interested, Hivory Hub (which I guess is a Yooka-Laylee dedicated YouTube channel) posted JonTron's deleted audio from the game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=req-W-V1bNk Censored Gaming posted a side-by-side comparison if you don't mind passive aggression. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gppMliYvBTY
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
I'm watching Hbomb's Dark Souls 2 video right now and this is a series I'm crazy about so I'll just kinda write down my own thoughts here as I go and hopefully they will make sense. Okay? Okay. -"The game is not as good as Souls 1 but the changes are interesting and are better off existing than not", yeah that's how I would describe the game -I disagree that getting killed while healing is "unfun". I mean, dying is rarely fun in these games in the first place, you don't want it to happen. Many people starting out will die while trying to heal, but that teaches them to be careful when healing, just like being killed by an ambush teaches the player to pay attention to their surroundings. A lot of things will kill people new to the game early on -I also disagree that attrition isn't a good source of challenge. In Dark Souls 2 since healing is essentially infinite, it is very easy to feel like you "got away" with no learning the fight at all by just relying on your giant pool of healing resources. Dark Souls limited your healing in a way that required mastery, and if you felt like it wasn't enough, kindling a bonfire was an option. -Part of what makes bosses Virgil great is their placement in the game. Virgil isn't something the game throws at you every level, he's a climactic boss you fight at key moments in the story. You could skip every cutscene in the game and still realize how important Virgil is based on the game design itself. If every level had a Virgil fight though, it would get old, Virgil isn't special anymore. Not to mention fights like Cerberus are still pretty loving fun. Dark Souls 2 has twice as many bosses as the other games in the series, and it shows because by and large they are very easy and forgettable affairs. There are a LOT of clunkers in this boss roster, it fucks with the game's pacing to have so many boss fights so close together. "Dudes in armor" is how people describe this problem when they can't quite put their finger on what the real problem is, which is that the bosses are largely disposable. I don't think fighting someone who is equal to you is necessarily more fun either, and if I did I would be playing a lot more fighting games. A lot of the fun of Dark Souls comes from seeing something that looks utterly impossible to defeat and then overcoming it through skill, persistence, and resourcefulness. -Dudes in armor are fun, they're fine, but they need to be good and memorable dudes in armor and the game needs variety to balance things out. There are so many of them and they all just blur together. Najka, Mytha, Dark Lurker, Ruin Sentinels, and the Executioner's Chariot are some of the most enjoyable fights in the base game, because they provide a distinct challenge that needs to be overcome. A lot of the other bosses just blur together, they're either bland, easy, or both. -Matthewmatosis's analysis isn't very good in retrospect, yeah -There you go, the system in Dark Souls 2 is designed well for fights with multiple enemies. So why is it bad for a boss fight to use two enemies whose movesets synergize together in order to create a challenge? Ornstein and Smough, Elena and Veldstadt, the Ruin Sentinels, their patterns fit together in an interesting way. -Yes, Phalanx and the Tower Knight are solid bosses. And they aren't one-on-one duels. Uhhh... -I do actually really like how some of the enemy movesets work in this game, you could feasibly dodge some enemies using only the analog stick if you learn their attacks well enough, there is some amazing hitbox porn on display here. All of your options in combat are viable, rolling away the enemy, rolling towards the enemy, rolling parallel to an enemy, sprinting, weaving, backstepping, the game does genuinely have great movement options, all of which have pros and cons and are useful in different situations. I actually really like the mechanics of this game, but the game that's built around the mechanics is very often lacking. And that's a shame because when it's great, it is pretty drat great. The DLC for this game has some of the best content in the entire series. -The flaws of the interconnectedness in Dark Souls 1 are real, but this doesn't eliminate its benefits. Blighttown wasn't designed to be gone through backwards, you even said that yourself, the blowdart guys are garbage if you go backwards. That's why the back door is there, you leave Blighttown a different way than how you got down there. And the area is extremely fun to go through the first time, the framerate sucks sure and it's scary and difficult, but that's kinda the point (not the framerate I mean, the other things) but it has really good level design and interesting enemy ambushes in dangerous terrain. The long runs to a boss can suck, but that's because of bad bonfire placement, not interconnectedness. And the thing is, there's a much better example of how good this can be in the game you're talking about. The Undead Burg is an incredibly well-designed area that connects to several other areas, and backtracking through it is effortless because you just need to kick a ladder down. That's all. The enemies work well going in one direction, and the other direction has a shortcut. Really good level design. Still, it has its problems, but instead of cutting out one of the coolest features in the game, that made people fall in love with the series in the first place, instead they should've just made it better. Or at least made it linear but sensible, like they went on to do with Bloodborne and Dark Souls 3, which still had a semblance of a feeling you were exploring an actual place. -The Gutter is a good level but nope, not better than Blighttown. You're talking crazy now. You're a crazy person speaking crazy nonsense. Begone crazy man. -"How is this a bad thing?" Because there is no logical flow between stages in terms of aesthetic, theme, or design, making the game feel like a disjointed mess that was stabled together from a troubled development where they had a ton of assets lying around but had no idea how they would be fit together logically. There is an example of a surreal environment transition in Bloodborne, you step out of a clock tower and end up in a fishing hamlet, and this works incredibly well because there is a deliberate transition in tone, delivered by the door slowly opening and revealing this strange place that shouldn't be here, and a reason that you are here that you will discover by playing the area, a very strong significance for why exactly you're in this village all of a sudden. In Dark Souls 2 you are just teleported around at random, nothing flows together, there is no build-up, no surreal imagery marking the transition from one location to the next, just go up in an elevator, oh you're in the lava world now. If we're going to assume this was intentional, jesus christ it could've been conveyed way better. It's just laughable as it is. Like, holy poo poo Anor Londo is pretty mind-blowing the first time you see it, and it was hidden from you by a wall, pretty simple. Bloodborne has "insight" that allows you to see cosmic horrors that were hiding in plain sight. You walk up into a painting in Dark Souls and get dragged into the world of the painting. These are good surprises because they had at least a few moments of thought put into them. Dragon's Aerie isn't so fantastical that you can't see anything like it in other Souls games but, you know, making actual sense. -Masking linearity isn't bad design. It's extremely good design actually. Super Metroid masks its linearity. Bloodborne masks its linearity. Guiding the player without the player feeling like they are being guided is, like, the definition of good game design. Not to mention having a list of things you have to do, but can do in any order, isn't completely linear. It isn't completely non-linear either, it's in the middle. You don't have to just be one or the other. -Everyone already knows that the post lordvessel stuff is bad. The presence of low points in DS1 does not excuse the lack of high points in DS2. This is kinda just a whataboutism -Hey you just showed a clip of Shulva when talking about why Dark Souls 2 has good level design! I mean I agree, but Shulva has interconnectivity, and it also has attrition-based challenge! Your freaking weapons get burnt by acid! It has a giant section in the middle that you have to run through without a bonfire -Doesn't this point that Souls 2 has less structured challenges contradict your previous point that Dark Souls 1 areas were built with backtracking in mind so couldn't make challenges as structured? Or they did make the challenges structured but let you backtrack anyway? Is Dark Souls 1 structured or not? I'm a bit lost here. -Situational and environmental awareness has been a big thing in the entire series. Dark Souls 2 has good examples of it, but it didn't just pop into existence with Souls 2's more open-ended fights. -Yes, you have to redo the level in Dark Souls 1 when you die. That's part of the game's design. That's why the traps are consistent, like you pointed out. This isn't a bad thing. Neither is the fact that it's hard. You were just talking about how MatthewMatosis was playing Dark Souls 2 wrong, but now you're sarcastically saying "maybe it's the player's fault"? Didn't you say you were gonna be pointing out how Dark Souls 2 was different, not necessarily better or worse? I might've liked to watch that video, instead of how dumb and stupid Dark Souls was. The hyperbole really weakens the defense. I do like Dark Souls 2, but come on, the game has some glaring problems. It also has moments where it does things very right. Dark Souls 1's level and boss design shines when you compare its best to Lost Izalith and the Bed of Chaos, because they show what elements make the game great and what happens when those elements are taken away. Dark Souls 2 is not of uniform quality either. The DLC is a massive leap forward from anything that's in the base game. If we act like Dark Souls 2 can do no wrong, why is such an obvious disparity in quality present? Should we just ignore what makes Shulva so great because we don't want to risk badmouthing Aldia's Keep? um, I didn't expect to write so much in response to this video. I'm gonna take a break from watching now, but so far I'm very disappointed in this video compared to Hbomberguy's other videos. I played Dark Souls 2 very recently and found a lot more to like than I used to find, so I was expecting a more thoughtful critique than this which is...kinda fanboyish so far? It gets some stuff right, but it's also very dismissive of legitimate game design, and ironically falls into a similar trap that MatthewMatosis falls into: "This form of difficulty is worse because it just is" (even though it actually adds an entire new layer of depth to the gameplay). Complaining about the fact that "locking onto an enemy locks you onto an enemy" isn't all that much different from complaining that "a healing system that forces you to think carefully before you try and heal makes it possible for you to mess up because you didn't think carefully before healing". It's just not a very thoughtful type of criticism at all, and it feels like this video is aimed specifically at people who already decided that they won't agree with it before ever watching, rather than people who actually think about Dark Souls 2 as a real game. He kinda just directly contradicts himself for the sake of contradicting criticisms of the game, which makes for a really confusing argument? Augus fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
I loving hate dark souls so much
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
watho posted:I loving hate dark souls so much
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
My favorite internet critic, Joseph Anderson, just release a long rear end video (seriously, it's almost 2 hours) about Breath of the Wild: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T15-xfUr8z4
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:My favorite internet critic, Joseph Anderson, just release a long rear end video (seriously, it's almost 2 hours) about Breath of the Wild: Now I've got something to use whenever my idiot co-worker gives me poo poo for DARING to like Horizon Zero Dawn.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Blighttown is just the worst.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
watho posted:I loving hate dark souls so much I'm sick and tired of all these
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
watho posted:I loving hate dark souls so much I have played hundreds of hours of souls, and just ordered DS2: Scholar of the First Sin, and somehow I agree
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
VolticSurge posted:Now I've got something to use whenever my idiot co-worker gives me poo poo for DARING to like Horizon Zero Dawn. They both feature pretty ladies who use melee and bows to beat up mechanical monsters in a post-post apocalyptic world, all while learning about their unknown past and liberating an authoritative woman imprisoned by a masculine figure bent on world annihilation. It's why I gravitated to both of them. I preferred Horizon myself, as I found the gameplay more to my liking than Zelda's, but I did love the puzzles in the shrines. Just wish they didn't all look the same.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
Augus posted:3354 words This could have switched to being galtse 2 paragraphs in and nobody would ever know
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
DStecks posted:This could have switched to being galtse 2 paragraphs in and nobody would ever know I was saving that for Dark Souls 3 but fine just ruin everything
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
The people that gripe about Souls games have gotten worse than any of the people just talking about it. Also DS2 made weapons that were completely useless in the other entries into actual good or at least doable + fun choices. Also power stance was good and I missed it a lot in 3, the vast majority of the weapon arts were samey and boring, with some gems here and there. Yardbomb fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
I like it when hbomb says bad games are bad instead of good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
Yardbomb posted:
Dark Souls 2 had a ladle that could be a real good weapon. It's the best! My current Scholar run is powerstancing caestus (caesti?) and it's great. On the other hand the twinkling dragon stones in Dark Souls 3 mean you can probably do a stand run on a ng+.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
Trojan Kaiju posted:Dark Souls 2 had a ladle that could be a real good weapon. It's the best! No, even if you go full mundane it's still really really bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
1-800-DOCTORB posted:No, even if you go full mundane it's still really really bad. Is this after they nerfed mundane? I thought I remembered hearing about it being worked into something worth using. The ladle is still pretty rad just as a thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Yeah, not sure how it was before the nerf. I mean the damage isn't terrible and it's comparable to other light weapons; it's just that it's not worth it considering the stat investment. Also it has almost no durability so it won't last long until it breaks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Trojan Kaiju posted:My current Scholar run is powerstancing caestus (caesti?) and it's great. DS2 gave us the Bone Fist and for that I can never hate it. Any time I can use fist weapons, I'll take them, but you give me a fist weapon that lets me leg sweep guys and throw out flying kicks too? That thing ain't coming off. Yardbomb fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
NCG's Defense of Doom 3 video has gotten me to replay Doom 3 (BFG Edition), using the flashlight only when I absolutely need to, and I'm... kind of getting into it? Like, I remember the opening bits scaring the absolute poo poo out of 14-year-old me, but it wearing thin as the game goes on, so maybe I'm just not at the point yet where it starts to become predictable? And the enemies react to gunfire way more than I remember, and the guns don't feel as wimpy as I remember too. It's really weird. I'm gonna have to ride this out some more, but I'm honestly shocked that I might be on course to reverse one of my longest-held Gamer Opinions. I kinda wish the BFG edition would have an option to toggle the old flashlight system on; even being conscious about it, it's easy to forget I've left the flashlight on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
Yeesh, that DS2 video was rough. Hbomb couldn't keep many of his points consistent for long, especially with regard to level design and combat, where there was a contradiction roughly every 20 seconds. It really doesn't help assuage the accusations of contrarianism. I enjoyed DS2, but it is nowhere near as good as the first game. I don't know who the gently caress Matthewmatosis is, and I don't care, but dismissing all criticism that has been echoed by like, everyone as some weird drinking of the Matthewmatosis Kool-Aid is just loving laughable. I'm glad that you enjoyed the story Hbomb. I agree that there's a lot of substance to it. But I don't know if willfully ignored like, all of DS1's story for the sake of a """joke""" or whatever, but you denied it any sort of critical eye by just repeating dialogue in a silly voice and saying it's dumb. DS1 is a story ABOUT storytelling - the supposed wiki porn that you make fun of is an integral part of that. Players make constellations of the little pieces of knowledge they scoop up and try to make sense of the whole thing. Textually, there's questions about the legitimacy of myth and how our beliefs in them influence our behavior - perhaps even against our self-interest. The "spoiler" about Gwynevere being fake isn't a spoiler; it's a part of the tapestry coming undone. It's deliberate. It's meant to make you question what you know. There's great stuff here to pair with an analysis of DS2, which isn't just about cycles of destruction and madness, but also about the lucrative yet lamentable nature of The Sequel itself. But instead the whole argument just comes across as reductive, disrespectful, and frankly embarrassing. Seriously, DS2 is good, but your analysis felt like it was constantly undercutting itself. Many of my responses to the game's design and combat style can be found in Augus's post, so I'm basically seconding that as well. I do appreciate the critical look you took on the game's story and how it's expressed visually and mechanically. That's a worthwhile pursuit regardless of the general quality of a game. This is coming from someone who's currently balls deep in writing an extended essay on the Drakengard/Nier games. Beefstew fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
In non-Souls related news, MovieBob continues to say disturbing stuff:  DStecks posted:NCG's Defense of Doom 3 video has gotten me to replay Doom 3 (BFG Edition), using the flashlight only when I absolutely need to, and I'm... kind of getting into it? Like, I remember the opening bits scaring the absolute poo poo out of 14-year-old me, but it wearing thin as the game goes on, so maybe I'm just not at the point yet where it starts to become predictable? And the enemies react to gunfire way more than I remember, and the guns don't feel as wimpy as I remember too. It's really weird. I'm gonna have to ride this out some more, but I'm honestly shocked that I might be on course to reverse one of my longest-held Gamer Opinions. Max Wilco fucked around with this message at 06:52 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
For my money the best thing about DS2's level design, or rather the interconnectedness design, is the way that it does actually communicate thematic dimensions of the game. The chosen undead drifts from place to place, the space in-between vanishing into nonsense. It's an attempt at conveying the experience of memory through seamless level transitions, and I think it's really cool even if it doesn't always work. Which would be my bottom line for DS2: a lot of really neat ideas that don't always work. The aggressive durability system would work better if weapons like the Washing Pole actually did enough damage that it makes sense to contextualize them as limited ammunition, something you pull out specifically when you need to wreck someone's day. Instead it falls half way in between with weapons that just generally break too fast relative to their damage output to be worth using (on top of the glitches in the system that originally degraded weapons much faster than intended). The multiplayer in DS2 is also the best that they've had, and the way that it loops into the rest of the mechanics (including various contentious systems like durability) is honestly kind of brilliant, though this is something often missed by the Git Gud crowd who look at summoning as Scrub behaviour. The intended baseline approach is that you're almost always with someone else, either helping them (in exchange for all the benefits of using a bonfire w/o any of the drawbacks) or having them help you. This actually is a dimension of the attrition and health system that HBomb didn't mention: in DS2, when you hit the limit of your resources, you can drop your sign, get summoned, and get a full refresh out of the deal. Even if many of the individual moments in DS2 have left less of an impact on me than moments from the other games the multiplayer is so gameplay-loop-dopamine-burst--lizard-brain-rewarding I often load it up just to play multiplayer. That said, there's some criticisms of DS2 that I think are as close to objective as you're going to get. The controls are less tight, the movement is much less precise and the animations don't *quite* line up with the actual rate of movement leading to everything having a slightly floaty/ice-skating feel. On top of that are the areas that intended to capitalize on the new lighting engine as a gameplay (and visual) centrepiece that never actually made it into the game (though Scholar attempted to mostly rectify that). Forgotten Woods' approach, stripped of the god rays and mottling intended to wow the player, feels like a forest level lifted out of a Quake Engine 2 game. The Lost Sinner fight is laughable without the intended lighting engine, as she jumps away from the light into the slightly-dimmer-lit corners of the room. Also I think there's a lot to be said for the change in vocabulary with regard to how DS2 handles 'bosses'. A lot of pedants have flung mud at DS2 for having "too many bosses" but this is almost entirely a result of DS2 elevating non-respawning mini-bosses to "boss" by virtue of giving them the final trappings of a "boss", namely fog gates, name plates, and a health bar. Where Prowling Magus and Congregation would have simply been a harder-than-average room in DS1, comparable to the Giant Cat, in DS2 they get all the same fanfare as Velstadt. It does create a situation where the signifiers lose their impact due to overuse, an odd situation where DS2 doesn't necessarily have too many bosses, but rather has too many encounters that use the symbolic language of bosses. (I think the designers ultimately agreed on this point, as the two subsequent games have both pulled back, reserving the fanfare and other trappings for only "real" bosses).
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
sun rise, sun set, miata still good car
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 09:28
|
|
|
Max Wilco posted:In non-Souls related news, MovieBob continues to say disturbing stuff: Moviebob is a weirdo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 10:15
|
|
|
Moviebob would have turned out like Elliot Rodger if he had better cardio.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 10:27
|
|
|
I'm having trouble parsing what the hell he's even getting at, it's loving word soup
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 10:43
|
|
|
cat doter posted:I'm having trouble parsing what the hell he's even getting at, it's loving word soup I think he's saying that smart people are better than not-smart people. He's using smart people language to make sure that you don't think he's a not-smart. But he's loving it up and creating word salad because, you see, he's not very smart. e: he's also astonishingly arrogant and I am genuinely amazed that he hasn't fallen in with the alt-right/manosphere/other group of horrids. KayTee fucked around with this message at 11:27 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 11:24
|
|
|
he's seemingly arguing that globalism and tech are doing away with "mediocre brutes" being successful which is an absurd argument to make within the confines of what is essentially a capitalistic argument like, he's arguing that the thing that has allowed capitalism to spread and succeed to such an extreme degree is also creating a meritocracy which is perhaps one of the most politically ignorant arguments I've ever seen but he sure does like to couch this argument in terms that try to betray that ignorance the argument that the fascists see the far-left as their "betters" is also literally the opposite of the truth, like the entire political identity of fascists is built upon the idea that they are inherently superior (but oppressed by their inferiors, the great paradox of fascist thought) he sure is a big dummy
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 11:48
|
|
|
cat doter posted:I'm having trouble parsing what the hell he's even getting at, it's loving word soup The Turner Diaries : Neo-Nazis :: Ready Player One : Moviebob
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 12:21
|
|
|
echopapa posted:The Turner Diaries : Neo-Nazis :: Ready Player One : Moviebob the "for sale: baby shoes, never worn" of our time
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
oh wait the guy who said you're a sexist if you don't like other m said something dumb well i'm shocked
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 13:12
|
|
|
Max Wilco posted:In non-Souls related news, MovieBob continues to say disturbing stuff: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUwzpEE9KsI this brash games hole goes a lot deeper than i thought holy moly
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:06 |
|
|
Checking back in re: Doom 3: one thing I somehow never noticed is that this game does not have reload cancelling of any kind. If you start reloading a gun, you are locked into that animation until it completes. No swapping guns. As you can imagine, this leads to more than a few infuriating close quarters situations where I get locked into reloading the SMG when I want to just switch to the shotgun. EDIT: I figured out why I got the perception that the enemies in this game never react to being hit, and it's this lack of reload cancelling that tipped me off to it. So, my guess is that this game uses a rudimentary finite state machine for playing animations, but the "pain" animation can only be triggered from the idle state, or the standard walking animation. So if enemies are standing in place, or just walking around in a normal way, then they will react to being hit, but if they're charging or diving or winding up an attack, then that animation will play to completion. DStecks fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2017 14:39
|
|