I read this whole article and just don't relate at all to the author's description of the game. It reads like they are actually saying "I am just really bad at this game" without actually wanting...
I read this whole article and just don't relate at all to the author's description of the game. It reads like they are actually saying "I am just really bad at this game" without actually wanting to admit it. I'm a tad over 100 hours in myself, and while the game does have a good many issues, combat ain't one of them. It's smooth and I daresay elegant. There are "slapstick" moments at the very beginning when you're learning how to play the game, but even getting passably decent with your basic skills should get you past that point pretty quickly.
Above all, FromSoftware’s Dark Souls series and Elden Ring have driven the trend toward refinement in combat design; these are RPGs in which players live or die by the care with which they watch enemies’ tells and the precision with which they time their attacks.
...which is exactly how both DD2 and its predecessor work, too.
Did the author actually play the game for more than a couple of hours?
I've only played DD1, but I suspect the author didn't spend as much experimenting or looking things up. Capcom loves making complex systems that aren't explained within the game. 🤪 For example, it...
I've only played DD1, but I suspect the author didn't spend as much experimenting or looking things up. Capcom loves making complex systems that aren't explained within the game. 🤪 For example, it looks like the standard dodge mechanic really was removed and replaced with a more difficult alternative. They were also taken aback by the simplicity of pawn commands, but I hardly used them in DD1. I assume that the interaction between a pawn's inclination, monster knowledge, and learned behaviors carries over in DD2 - info we only have thanks to the help of data miners, haha.
That's what I loved about DD1: you really have to play as a team to shine. About that though: So in DD1 pawn AI made a huge difference in their effectiveness, but the system behind it is rather...
That's what I loved about DD1: you really have to play as a team to shine. About that though:
So in DD1 pawn AI made a huge difference in their effectiveness, but the system behind it is rather cryptic opaque. Your main pawn would be influenced - among others - by the orders you give it but also tactics it learned from your own behavior. So if you've been training your main pawn to rush in head first along side you to play super melee bros the entire game it will retain that AI even if you now make it into a frail ranged spell caster. And it's neither easy nor obvious how to alter that behavior.
I specifically remember keeping on hiring the same rogue pawn simply because he had just the right AI even though there were others of much higher level available.
Unfortunately there wasn't a great way to filter hired pawns for their AI other than simply trying them out.
In both games I still find myself returning to under-leveled Pawns for that very reason. I know how they will behave, and that means more to me than some stat numbers.
I specifically remember keeping on hiring the same rogue pawn simply because he had just the right AI even though there were others of much higher level available.
In both games I still find myself returning to under-leveled Pawns for that very reason. I know how they will behave, and that means more to me than some stat numbers.
It's worth clarifying that Dodge wasn't re-moved, just moved. I had to just now load up DDDA to confirm, but just like in DD2, the only class with an actual Dodge mechanic are the thief variants...
For example, it looks like the standard dodge mechanic really was removed and replaced with a more difficult alternative
It's worth clarifying that Dodge wasn't re-moved, just moved. I had to just now load up DDDA to confirm, but just like in DD2, the only class with an actual Dodge mechanic are the thief variants (Strider/Ranger/Assassin/Magick Archer), and only when the daggers are equipped. In fact it's actually more complicated than in DD2 because in DDDA, the class-specific dodge ability is only available while holding in the "Primary Skills" trigger, while in DD2 it's just a single main button. Fighters, Warriors, Mages, and the other hybrids don't have a dodge in the original game, and still don't in DD2.
That said, almost every class aside from Mage and Sorcerer has a special movement power which can function exactly like a dodge when used with that intention, from the fighter's Burst Strike to the spearhand's "Seching Storm."
I do really like the Pawn inclinations and commands in DD2. They were complicated and pretty arcane behind the scenes in DDDA, and I don't miss having to conserve my commands for fear of changing their behaviour.
I can get it if they aren't used to that kind of game. I find it annoying in the Soulslike games from From because I only managed to get into it after I started playing it's predecessor, King's...
I can get it if they aren't used to that kind of game. I find it annoying in the Soulslike games from From because I only managed to get into it after I started playing it's predecessor, King's Field. the KF games feature largely melee combat in the first person, but attacks seemed really easy to figure out if it's going to hit or not.
That being said, I find an unskilled reviewer is much more likely at play in this case. The last King's Field game was probably 20 years ago now.
Fully agreed. I'm close to hitting level 60 soon, and while the game does have its flaws, I think the combat is great. Many styles to choose from, possibility to mix them up even (Wayfarer class),...
Fully agreed. I'm close to hitting level 60 soon, and while the game does have its flaws, I think the combat is great. Many styles to choose from, possibility to mix them up even (Wayfarer class), and even though the amount of skills you can equip is very limited, I'm having loads of fun with it. I wouldn't call it sloppy at all.
This is pretty much the problem with almost all video game reviews/journalism. You have people who have wildly different tastes and tolerances reviewing everything and anything. Even if it's...
I read this whole article and just don't relate at all to the author's description of the game. It reads like they are actually saying "I am just really bad at this game" without actually wanting to admit it.
This is pretty much the problem with almost all video game reviews/journalism. You have people who have wildly different tastes and tolerances reviewing everything and anything. Even if it's obvious they'll hate it.
The kind of person who's down to grind in practice mode and lab out setups in a fighting game is going to get a hell of a lot more out of the genre than someone who just wants to push buttons and see special moves, but the second type will weigh in as if they're the first.
Agreed completely. What's most telling here is that there are a large number of gripes that players have about the game, all of which could fill a review like this, and yet the reviewer didn't...
Agreed completely.
What's most telling here is that there are a large number of gripes that players have about the game, all of which could fill a review like this, and yet the reviewer didn't even really glance over them, instead inventing problems that the game doesn't even have. It's like they couldn't even be bothered to spend an hour skimming a forum to learn of the many, valid, and sometimes egregiously awful complaints that actual players have before writing about it.
I once dated a writer, and they would churn out entire articles based on very, very limited experiences. Like going to a restaurant once for a single meal. It was pretty wild, but when you get...
Did the author actually play the game for more than a couple of hours?
I once dated a writer, and they would churn out entire articles based on very, very limited experiences. Like going to a restaurant once for a single meal. It was pretty wild, but when you get paid pennies per word...
Honestly, it's not hard to write about some piece of fiction or game, even if you haven't experienced it. You can search many things about it, read summaries and opinions, and then form your...
Honestly, it's not hard to write about some piece of fiction or game, even if you haven't experienced it. You can search many things about it, read summaries and opinions, and then form your opinion based on these second-hand experiences. I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, but that it's very much doable, and I'd wager most people read at least a few such articles without realizing this was the case. Žižek, for example, known for his insightful ideological critiques of movies, admitted to not watching half the movies he wrote about.
Respectfully and with no intent to cause an unfortunate dispute, in my opinion the mention of Zizek weakens the point you are trying to make here. A friend of mine firmly believes Umberto Eco...
Respectfully and with no intent to cause an unfortunate dispute, in my opinion the mention of Zizek weakens the point you are trying to make here.
A friend of mine firmly believes Umberto Eco didn't read many books he quoted. That makes sense because lifetime is finite and books take a long time to read. Perhaps that is a more persuasive example to your point.
I took no offense, but I'm not sure if my point came across. My only point is that one can write about these things without experiencing them first-hand, and that it's not always obvious to tell....
I took no offense, but I'm not sure if my point came across. My only point is that one can write about these things without experiencing them first-hand, and that it's not always obvious to tell.
Edit: I'm not trying to pass any judgement one way or another.
I see. It's just that Zizek is not the first that comes to mind when a lot of people think of intellectual rigour, so I thought Umberto Eco might be a better example of how those things are not so...
I see. It's just that Zizek is not the first that comes to mind when a lot of people think of intellectual rigour, so I thought Umberto Eco might be a better example of how those things are not so black and white.
I read this whole article and just don't relate at all to the author's description of the game. It reads like they are actually saying "I am just really bad at this game" without actually wanting to admit it. I'm a tad over 100 hours in myself, and while the game does have a good many issues, combat ain't one of them. It's smooth and I daresay elegant. There are "slapstick" moments at the very beginning when you're learning how to play the game, but even getting passably decent with your basic skills should get you past that point pretty quickly.
...which is exactly how both DD2 and its predecessor work, too.
Did the author actually play the game for more than a couple of hours?
I've only played DD1, but I suspect the author didn't spend as much experimenting or looking things up. Capcom loves making complex systems that aren't explained within the game. 🤪 For example, it looks like the standard dodge mechanic really was removed and replaced with a more difficult alternative. They were also taken aback by the simplicity of pawn commands, but I hardly used them in DD1. I assume that the interaction between a pawn's inclination, monster knowledge, and learned behaviors carries over in DD2 - info we only have thanks to the help of data miners, haha.
That's what I loved about DD1: you really have to play as a team to shine. About that though:
So in DD1 pawn AI made a huge difference in their effectiveness, but the system behind it is rather cryptic opaque. Your main pawn would be influenced - among others - by the orders you give it but also tactics it learned from your own behavior. So if you've been training your main pawn to rush in head first along side you to play super melee bros the entire game it will retain that AI even if you now make it into a frail ranged spell caster. And it's neither easy nor obvious how to alter that behavior.
I specifically remember keeping on hiring the same rogue pawn simply because he had just the right AI even though there were others of much higher level available.
Unfortunately there wasn't a great way to filter hired pawns for their AI other than simply trying them out.
In both games I still find myself returning to under-leveled Pawns for that very reason. I know how they will behave, and that means more to me than some stat numbers.
It's worth clarifying that Dodge wasn't re-moved, just moved. I had to just now load up DDDA to confirm, but just like in DD2, the only class with an actual Dodge mechanic are the thief variants (Strider/Ranger/Assassin/Magick Archer), and only when the daggers are equipped. In fact it's actually more complicated than in DD2 because in DDDA, the class-specific dodge ability is only available while holding in the "Primary Skills" trigger, while in DD2 it's just a single main button. Fighters, Warriors, Mages, and the other hybrids don't have a dodge in the original game, and still don't in DD2.
That said, almost every class aside from Mage and Sorcerer has a special movement power which can function exactly like a dodge when used with that intention, from the fighter's Burst Strike to the spearhand's "Seching Storm."
I do really like the Pawn inclinations and commands in DD2. They were complicated and pretty arcane behind the scenes in DDDA, and I don't miss having to conserve my commands for fear of changing their behaviour.
These reviews all boil down to the same thing: No lock on makes them miss attacks, therefore it's clunky.
I can get it if they aren't used to that kind of game. I find it annoying in the Soulslike games from From because I only managed to get into it after I started playing it's predecessor, King's Field. the KF games feature largely melee combat in the first person, but attacks seemed really easy to figure out if it's going to hit or not.
That being said, I find an unskilled reviewer is much more likely at play in this case. The last King's Field game was probably 20 years ago now.
Fully agreed. I'm close to hitting level 60 soon, and while the game does have its flaws, I think the combat is great. Many styles to choose from, possibility to mix them up even (Wayfarer class), and even though the amount of skills you can equip is very limited, I'm having loads of fun with it. I wouldn't call it sloppy at all.
This is pretty much the problem with almost all video game reviews/journalism. You have people who have wildly different tastes and tolerances reviewing everything and anything. Even if it's obvious they'll hate it.
The kind of person who's down to grind in practice mode and lab out setups in a fighting game is going to get a hell of a lot more out of the genre than someone who just wants to push buttons and see special moves, but the second type will weigh in as if they're the first.
Agreed completely.
What's most telling here is that there are a large number of gripes that players have about the game, all of which could fill a review like this, and yet the reviewer didn't even really glance over them, instead inventing problems that the game doesn't even have. It's like they couldn't even be bothered to spend an hour skimming a forum to learn of the many, valid, and sometimes egregiously awful complaints that actual players have before writing about it.
I once dated a writer, and they would churn out entire articles based on very, very limited experiences. Like going to a restaurant once for a single meal. It was pretty wild, but when you get paid pennies per word...
Honestly, it's not hard to write about some piece of fiction or game, even if you haven't experienced it. You can search many things about it, read summaries and opinions, and then form your opinion based on these second-hand experiences. I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, but that it's very much doable, and I'd wager most people read at least a few such articles without realizing this was the case. Žižek, for example, known for his insightful ideological critiques of movies, admitted to not watching half the movies he wrote about.
Respectfully and with no intent to cause an unfortunate dispute, in my opinion the mention of Zizek weakens the point you are trying to make here.
A friend of mine firmly believes Umberto Eco didn't read many books he quoted. That makes sense because lifetime is finite and books take a long time to read. Perhaps that is a more persuasive example to your point.
I took no offense, but I'm not sure if my point came across. My only point is that one can write about these things without experiencing them first-hand, and that it's not always obvious to tell.
Edit: I'm not trying to pass any judgement one way or another.
I see. It's just that Zizek is not the first that comes to mind when a lot of people think of intellectual rigour, so I thought Umberto Eco might be a better example of how those things are not so black and white.