|
Dr. Tim Whatley posted:I own a switch and the only good game, thanks for a dead console Nintendo. Snipperclips may be GOTY but consider buying Zelda as well my friend
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 16:32 |
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:No. You spin people out if you boost into them. And cars have weight affecting that. And it doesn't hurt much. If you boost it recovers a spin. If you don't you just lose acceleration for a second. Crashing is lenient too boost immediatley to be back in the race. I'm convinced there are some places that if you crash it HELPS you. And the Note 5 you can put it in backwards, and if you pull it back out it breaks a little sensor in the phone
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
I didn't stealth that section since I'm a huge gently caress up at stealth so I walked backwards in circles and alternated between bomb arrows and throwing bombs, then finished the last one or two off normally They kept seeing me! I had to!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Isn't it spring now? Where's ARMS Nintendo!!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
If the weapons didn't break down then you'd run to Hyrule Castle, grab one of each Royal Guard weapon, then the rest of the game has no challenge and everything dies in one hit. They'd have to rebalance the way the whole game works.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
s.i.r.e. posted:If you can manage to do that then you deserve for the rest of the game to be a cake walk. They wouldn't have to balance poo poo because having OP weapons the whole game would rule. Also those weapons aren't astronomically better than the rest of the game and won't OHKO larger enemies. Yeah except there are lots of ways you learn over the course of the game to sneak into the castle without needing to fight anything, which is very cool and they'd need to change that, which is rebalancing the game!! Trivializing the rewards system they use (maybe you'll find a sweet weapon here if you explore enough! You come across a hard enemy, you get a stronger weapon to use for a while) would radically alter the game. You could change it so you didn't have weapon durability but it would significantly impact every system the game uses and it would require a total rework of nearly every piece.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Stux posted:thats not a counterpoint at all. why cant the player choose themselves to use weapons they enjoy instead of being forced to switch around? other games trust that people will probably just try out new stuff out of being curious and then let them use the things they enjoy. i think thats a good system. People will as a general rule do whatever's most effective, not whatever's most fun for them. If there was no weapon durability, and nothing else changed, I could throw away the weapons after I use them a bit myself, but I wouldn't, and I would have less fun as a result since I'd never switch weapons again.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:I don't understand the sorting at all. Depending on which item you have highlighted when you press Y, it sorts in a different order. Sometimes similar things are grouped together, sometimes not. As far as meals, it inexplicably puts hearts-only items at the beginning EXCEPT for things like seared steaks, baked apples, etc. which it puts at the end. I don't think it depends on what's highlighted, I believe they'll often have one or two different sorting logics and it switches between them (like for armor, it alternates between sorting by set and sorting by slot). For food I think there's just one sorting, and it puts the pot-cooked meals first and the cooked on the ground meals second.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Stux posted:what? youre saying you would do something less fun on purpose knowing youd have less fun? that isnt what most people do sorry, in games like dark souls where you get a bunch of fun and interesting weapons and armor, people play the game like a dress up sim despite the high difficulty seemingly "rewarding" min/max play. its just not an issue and trying to rationalise an unfun and limiting design choice this way is bizarre There's obviously a continuum but if a tactic is sufficiently more effective, you're going to use it even if it's less fun. If for some reason claymores all did 1 damage (an extreme example), nobody would ever use them, even if someone might have more fun using the 2 hander with a spin charge attack and needing to focus on timed dodges instead of parries. In the case you brought up, if weapons never degraded, nobody would ever throw away their weapons manually, and now there's one fewer type of reward for combat and exploration, which would suck some of the enjoyment out of the game for a lot of people. It's like if you're playing a card game or a fighting game; if one character/deck is so oppressively much better than your favorite character/deck, there's a good chance you're going to dump your fun option for the effective one because you still want to be able to win.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
s.i.r.e. posted:But here's the problem, what we're talking about is already in the game just with a weapon durability system in place. There's nothing from stopping a good player from constantly looting the Castle over and over (since the weapons respawn anyway) and "breaking" the game never using low-rank gear. The game is all about being open and tackling objectives how the player sees fit and "balancing" the game so the player who did manage to loot high level weapons isn't that powerful completely goes against this. The game is fine with someone stomping through with the best weapons because even with that poo poo it's still challenging. If you want to go back and constantly farm the best weapons you're sure free to, but it's not automatically more effective than playing normally because it's going to take you a lot, lot longer. You'd be trading your time for effectiveness in combat, which is both a fine decision to make and also not by default the "best" thing you could do to beat the game. I trade time for effectiveness in combat in different ways, by grabbing food and resources while exploring to get food that helps me fight. If you wanted to do a similar thing by raiding the castle constantly you could do that too! They are both effective, valid ways of playing because the weapon durability system exists. If it didn't you'd be gimping yourself by not grabbing the best stuff right off the bat, which would be lame.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Stux posted:no, im not, im going to do whats fun because i play games to have fun? again with games like the souls games which are a lot more challenging than zelda, people genuinely use whatever they find most fun rather than min max builds, because games are about having fun. if you personally find yourself only doing min/max stuff in games and stifling your own fun maybe you should try making a conscious effort not to rather than assuming everyone needs some weird system forced on them to do so I'm talking about the average player. Obviously there are individuals who do whatever they want, but to bring the example back to Zelda, you could make some of the easier games like Twilight Princess more difficult by never getting any more heart containers, and for sure less than 1% of players ever did that. Saying "you could just do x or y to have more fun!" is fundamentally misunderstanding the way that video games work. Edit: I'd also like to point out in your Souls example that the game is well designed enough that a wide range of things is effective, is the point. If one thing was far and away way more effective than everything else, that would be an issue and would definitely make the game less fun for a lot of people.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Stux posted:the average player is a normal human who will naturally try out new weapons etc that they pick up out of curiosity and pick which ones to use based on what they personally feel works best rather than statistical based min maxing. min maxing is not what average players do. That's exactly my point. If you like the way the one handed sword plays best but you pick up an axe and it always kills everything in one hit, the average player will still use the axe and that would be indicative of poor balancing. In Zelda, if there was no weapon durability, if you found a super strong weapon you would only use that forever. That is the balance issue.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Stux posted:i think you're confusing what you would do with what people actually do. many games do in fact have heavier weapons which do more/lots of damage but they arent ubiquitous as people will prefer to use a lower damage but better handling weapon. this has been a solved problem in gaming for a long time and adding durability in this way does nothing but penalize people and stop them from using things they enjoy using. I get that your thing is being deliberately obtuse, but I'm not talking about a well balanced games with multiple viable options. You seem to be deliberately misreading what I'm saying. I was bringing up a hypothetical where there are two options, a one handed sword and an axe, and in that specific case, the balance was hosed and the axe is flat out better in every way. Even if you'd prefer the playstyle of the one handed sword, the average player would almost always use the clearly more effective axe. This would be indicative of a failing of the game, which would naturally lead to one method of playing it be obviously more effective which would make the game less fun. When you're talking about BotW specifically, you can't look at the weapon durability system in a vacuum, you have to look at it in the context of the game. In the context of BotW, removing weapon durability would make the game work much, much worse. The reasons for it have been pretty extensively gone over, if you'd care to read them in good faith.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:I don't think this is true, because the game designers did a good job of balancing pros and cons for each weapon. One handed weapons are great because you can strike repeatedly AND use a shield, even if it does less damage. Spears are awesome for the same reason, but they also allow you to strike from a further away range. Two handed melee weapons are powerful, but it takes longer to wind up and swing, it also tends to knock the enemy back like 15-20 feet so you have to run over to them before dealing them another blow. Right, I meant more generally, like if you found a Royal Guard Sword with 48 attack you'd never go back to using a rusty sword or spiked boko club in a pinch. If you found a similarly strong weapon in a different category you might use it, but you'd only be finding "better" weapons a handful of times over the course of the game in that hypothetical vs how you find them constantly the way it is now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Stux posted:you brought up a strawman and i ignored it, yes. It's not a strawman, it's analogous to how removing weapon durability in BotW would severely and negatively impact the balance of the weapon system. Just because you don't care to think about the consequences of changing the system doesn't mean a reasoned argument is a strawman.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:If you found a super strong OH sword, you would always use that sword when you need a OH weapon. The same goes for any category. The current system works pretty well to make you switch things up every once in a while. It's not just about switching things up, it's about the rewards system they use for encouraging combat and exploration. It's an additional thing you can be excited to find when exploring a new area or seeing a group of enemies off the path. Edit: Stux posted:you literally said it was a hypothetical argument. perhaps a better way to make your point would be to use an actual example next time Just like how removing the weapon durability system is a hypothetical situation. What are you even talking about?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Why do people bother arguing with stux? Why do children starve to death? Because God wills it. Stux posted:no, there are many games without durability systems or more lenient ones, its not hypothetical at all If my claim that there are games that exist with poor balance is a hypothetical, then the universe you live in is extremely enviable to me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Stux posted:they were your words, not mine. if you had an example in mind perhaps you shouldve used it instead The specific game doesn't matter because the point was to illustrate a type of situation, which you refuse to address because you're not having an argument in good faith, as evidenced by how you're trying to argue over wording instead of backing up your own argument.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Stux posted:i backed up my own argument with a game where there are many different weapon types and a genuine benefit to min maxing with dark souls. im happy to continue talking about this if you want to provide an actual example of what you're saying happens in your hypothetical argument. Your argument was that a different game that works very differently doesn't use weapon durability, which does nothing to address the changes that would result in BotW from removing weapon durability in that specific game. Nobody has made the argument that no game would work without weapon durability, which is the only thing your example would address. The point is the game needs to be designed as a whole with that system in mind. BotW was designed with weapon durability in mind, so to remove it would require a total overhaul. You could do it, but it'd be debateable if it was "better," and it would certainly be a different game. The hypothetical I was bringing up was addressing a different facet of the argument, that players do what's effective over what's fun. If you desperately need a specific example, a good one is Hearthstone or Magic the Gathering. There are plenty of "fun" decks that are wacky or whatever, but most people end up playing whatever the top tier decks are at the moment, even if they personally find them less fun, because they're more effective. When those games are more well balanced, a wide variety of decks are viable. When they're poorly balanced, only a handful are, which makes the game less fun for people who don't like using those decks.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Claytor posted:I've mostly stuck to the retro and Let's Play threads during my time on the forum. Is Stux a gimmick account, or does he just have problems? I think anybody willing to be a gimmick in the first place has problems, so
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:I definitely felt like I broke the game though. I had a full inventory of hugely powerful weapons. Armor that was the highest defense I could find. literally 250+ lighting arrows and around 75 of the other ones. Only 20 ancient but that's a end game 1 shot kill to guardians. And more full heals then I could carry. This is the result of being pretty far end game where you'd naturally assume you'd be strongest, but I agree that it's less fun. I'm in the same boat. This is why I'm hoping the hard mode is more than enemies deal more damage/have more health, and I'm optimistic because they proved they really knew what they were doing when they built the game in the first place. Weapon durability doesn't make much of a difference end game, true, but it makes a huge difference earlier on.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:I agree with that, It gets less bad. I wished that the special weapons you get didn't break, but you got other ones that can be more powerful or elemental that break. I really liked the Goron one and make pilgrimages to death mountain to get a knew one regularly. I feel bad for that goon who loved the Giants boomerang. Have fun twice in the game I guess (there might be more I found 2 I remember). Or maybe actual weapons merchants who sold these things?t If you take a picture of the weapon, it'll give you a general idea of where you can find another, and then you can use the sensor to track it more precisely. I had to do this a few times for the kid's "show me these weapons" quest and I think it was pretty fun to do. Like a mini adventure.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
pixaal posted:You also get other content with it since you can't buy the 2 DLC packs separate they are just staggering the release. The real content in the stuff in December. The Summer pack is to give you something to do during the long summer months (unless you are an adult and have work). I'm hoping there is more to it but I wouldn't be overly angry if it was just normal hard mode. Maybe with a tacked on you need 5 orbs to upgrade instead of 4 meaning you will have less hearts and stam when you hit end game. Food that gives max hearts not also topping you off would be pretty interesting since you would need to heal before using it. It would also make inns a ton more viable. That would be really disappointing to me because the way the game works is really convenient and accommodating and lets you do all sorts of things you feel like it should be able to let you do, but once you know the ins and outs you can really break it. Stuff like switching between armor types mid combat (sneak with sneak outfit, then switch to tank armor once the fight starts as an example), the full heal thing, even just chomping tons of food mid fight take a lot of the challenge out, and even if the numbers are tweaked, unless it's so insane you HAVE to do those things to beat it, it'll still be pretty easy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Guess we could talk about all the other games... I like Human Resource Machine
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
BDawg posted:Got an actual Switch question for the Switch Thread. I'm using https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01422TC14/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1 and https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00S8GU2OC/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1 and it works fine when I'm playing on my couch. I'm probably not going to buy a separate travel adapter.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
s.i.r.e. posted:Once you get the Shrine in Hyrule Castle getting there is a non-issue, and with Shrines all over the world it would be easy to just warp, restock and warp back to a point that's probably a 5 minute walk away from where you last were. Spending the time required to farm the weapons that only appear every so often is the trade off. It's still not going to save you time since it would still take a while to do. Yes, if the game was totally rebalanced for removing the weapon durability system it could work. The entire point of the argument is that they would have to rebalance the entire game to get it to work that way. It would, as a result, be a different game. However, the game as it is is done really well and the weapon durability system is a key part of how everything gels together. Pants Donkey posted:Arms needs to come out soon so I can start training for EVO I've been training 6 hours every day, in my mind, during my Switch Medidation Session. I have already decided Spring Man is OP.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
turnways posted:Is there a place to get that conductive foam? I don't want to be without my Switch for a week, but I don't mind opening up my Joycon. I did this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnMnke6lF0c and it works great now
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
eonwe posted:guys i cant fuckin wait until mario kart 8 Same but ARMS ARMS!!!!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
Cartoon Man posted:That one on the right isn't announcing something...is it??? How do you still have hope?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Deltron 3030 posted:PSA: If you choose Exit after a round you can turn off motion controls in the options, as well as change inversion, sensitivity, etc. In other information you shouldn't use, you'll die if you stab yourself repeatedly
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Feenix posted:New Nintendo owner here, my take on Splatoon TestFire is not very positive. I'm no stranger to multiplayer games, first person shooters, third person shooters, you name it. I do well, usually. There's no auto aim, so if you turn off gyro you're at a severe disadvantage. If you're having trouble killing people, focus on spreading ink instead, since that's all that counts in the end. If you're getting surprised constantly, you need to be aware that enemy ink is always dangerous because enemies can squid through it, so try not to have your back to it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Jimmy Hats posted:Dualies definitely had the best kit in the demo. Splattershot had the terrible balloon bombs and the special seems pretty useless. Oh well! The burst bombs are actually pretty good, but their use is very specialized - generally they're good for longer rangers, or very close range. If you try to use them like a grenade you'll be very disappointed, but for fighting chargers at long range you can lob them from relative safety, and if you're right on top of someone throwing them right at the floor is often more effective than trying to track them with the gun.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
LethalGeek posted:I thought the splattershot special was great. Yeah its not hard to dodge but all the specials in this game telegraph like mad. The point is a matter of timing or plain area denial. I will never betray the Splattershot
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Test fire live
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
poo poo works great in handheld mode, I bumped all my sens up to 0 and it feels so good handheld
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:I have trouble because sometimes I'm leaning forward and sometimes I sit back and the controller is in two completely different positions because of that. I realize I can reset with Y but I'd prefer the controls just be the same no matter what position I'm sitting in. I... what? I'm not sure what you're asking, pressing one button to reset the 0 position is like the best possible solution to your problem. I'm not sure what you mean by "controls just be the same" since all it detects is its orientation. It is the same, from the controller's point of view. It can't know you're shifting and not just tilting.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:I mean I'm used to playing shooters where I don't have to reset the controls 6 times a game. Why is it like a weird thing to wish that I didn't have to do that? You can turn off the motion controls entirely (which makes it worse) but if you want to use a control system based on positioning you have to accept pressing one easy to reach button occasionally when you shift your position, which I don't feel is particularly onorous It's sort of like lifting your mouse up to reposition, it's really not a big deal once you get used to it
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
A FUCKIN CANARY!! posted:Seriously why is "aim the direction you rotate the controller to" not an option, yet alone the default? I agree adding more controller remapping is a big miss generally in Nintendo games, I don't see any good reason not to include more options
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
FireMrshlBill posted:So, I am looking forward to Splatoon 2, just hope I don't burn out on it like I did Splatoon 1 after 2-3 months. Also looking forward to MK8, Rime, Shakedown: Hawaii, and that Mr Shifty looks like an interesting Hotline Miami clone. I read this before and specifically tried it out, pressing y in handheld mode definitely changed the y axis for me. Maybe there was something else up but I imagine it should still work
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 16:32 |
|
|
Empress Brosephine posted:Hey perhaps if a game requires you to constantly recalibrate it then maybe it should t use that as a control option. This is why nobody likes playing FPS's on PC, you constantly have to lift your hand to recalibrate the mouse position. It's a huge problem.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 06:02
|
|