I think the story criticisms are dumb, I don’t really like story criticisms.
I’m fine with there being more connections to the original dark souls, especially with them being more directly related in cause to the events of the original dark souls. I agree that totally original settings each time would be preferable, but if they’re going to trot out a sequel, they might as well connect it better than dark souls 2.
The main character of dark souls 1 is not the special star child progeny of the furtive pygmy, literally all of mankind is the special starchild progeny of the furtive pygmy. This is why the darkwraith ending is about the end of the age of fire and the beginning of the age of man. Notice that all the gods are significantly taller than humans, and they are referred to as the race of giants. Pygmy means someone small. Humans are comparatively small to the giants. Beyond that, the label of “chosen undead” is a fabrication. Oscar in the asylum says, “if thou art undead, thou art chosen.” In cut dialog he fights the player over the right to be the chosen undead. Any undead is potentially chosen, you just happened to be in the right place at the right time, so the gods of anor londo and frampt employed you to link the fire again to prolong the age of fire in their own self-interest, and to prevent the ushering in of the age of man, the rise of the abyss due to the connection of the dark soul to manus, the creator of the abyss. This hidden possibility existed in the undead, but the gods of anor londo made a legend about the chosen undead to manipulate undead everywhere to attempt to depose of the corrupted keepers of the lord’s souls and kill gwyn, relinking the fire. This is my favorite bit of lore about dark souls, and he screws it up completely.
I don’t think graphical quality matters. The crash issue was caused by a buffer overflow in the lighting code is what I heard.
“we’ve talked enough about pragmatic things and should talk about the actual game” Does he not know what the word pragmatic means? It means basically the opposite of what he tried to use it here for.
Does he do these reviews all stream of consciousness?
He repeats the “dark souls is better 1 on 1” meme. Also whines about multiple enemy encounters. Calls them bad enemy placement. Stop. You’re supposed to play with and without lock-on in many situations. You’re not supposed to only ever fight 1 enemy which you are locked onto perpetually. Fighting multiple enemies means prioritization, figuring out when you can hit multiple, finding openings in their joint patterns. Matthew Matosis did dark souls a disservice when he made this bullshit up. I really want people to stop repeating it. Watch as people complain about this in Nioh when that comes out. His reasoning here is awful, he should be ashamed.
THEN HE SAYS HE CAN ONLY THINK OF TWO BOSSES THAT DON’T DO ANYTHING MECHANICALLY INTERESTING: BOREAL DANCER AND PONTIFF SULYVAHN
ARE YOU SHITTING ME.
Fuck this video.
His complaints about Pontiff Sulyvahn, which for the record, I consider the best fight in the game, and the most brilliant boss mechanic I’ve seen in a long time (attacking with an after image, so it can cover his attacks sometimes), are SUCH RATIONALIZATION BULLSHIT. His comments on multi-enemy combat are SUCH RATIONALIZATION BULLSHIT. “it’s not actually hard, you just can only attack half the time, so it’s like they have twice as much health.” “oh bluh, the boreal dancer isn’t interesting like this other boss that ‘teleports you into the abyss to attack specific parts of him’ it’s just a fight with a lot of spam” It’s a fight with a boss that is difficult to attack unpunished with a variety of attacks that need to be evaded differently and can be tricky to read in an arena that gives you an ample amount of tactical advantage on the boss. He glazes over so much shit with this crappy rationalization bullshit. He doesn’t provide enough evidence or breakdowns of the actual ways the bosses work to justify his conclusions. This is the type of asshole who runs into a flowchart ryu player and complains that street fighter is bad because it enables too much spam instead of analyzing for five fucking seconds that he might just be bad and that there is more going on than he’s willing to admit.
Then he complains that there’s a bunch of enemies in front of bosses, and speaks positively about how older games had you fight through the level again, with the remark that sure you could just run past them, but at least they don’t encourage it by having a hallway full of enemies. The hallway full of enemies is to discourage running through, idiot. To make it harder because you need to move around or manipulate several enemies to get past. You also think multi-enemy combat is bad, so why should your opinion be any smarter on this? I liked when dark souls 2 had the delay on going through fog doors to at least slightly discourage this type of bullshit.
I don’t care about the story, the gameplay review was horrible. Missed tons and tons of elements I would have remarked on about the changed engine, about the designs of specific enemies, specific encounters, bosses, spells, weapon abilities, items, progression, quests. Fuck.
This review really pissed me off. I was already going to watch his skyrim review because it was linked randomly somewhere else, had it on the plate for a while as a way of seeing if there’s any other good youtubers out there (went through a list, was down to 3 people including him), but this video tells me I should clearly avoid this channel.
I’m tired of reviewing dark souls 3 video reviews. I’ve gotten a lot of these lately and they’re long and it’s boring to listen to the same group of points.
He says a lot of the same stuff as everyone else, then at the halfway mark he gets really scrubby and complains about stuff that wrecks him and isn’t even unfair. This is a recurring trend. They make the game harder, dude complains that they’re not making the challenge as “satisfying” and cites miyazaki, they just did this cheap and lazy thing to make it harder, especially if it involves multiple enemies.
I need to make bad dark souls critique bingo. The chart would definitely include, complaining about use of multiple enemies, complaining about the lore using a misinterpretation of it, complaining about good/innocuous mechanics harming immersion, complaining about tracking, shitting on dark souls 2, claiming the system is designed for 1 on 1 combat, artificial difficulty, the reviewer being under/over powered, and not understanding some core upgrade system.
Free space is complaining that it’s just trying to be hard for the sake of being hard instead of _________.
Shit review. Shit reviewer.
This is pointless nitpicking over things that don’t matter.
It doesn’t matter that there’s no lipsyncing. It doesn’t matter that the palette is limited or the graphics are bad. (he seriously thinks these graphics are bad?) Framerate issues are bad, but honestly rare.
Razorfist seems to have problems recognizing how a system works and dealing with it. Yes, when you pick up an item it is gone. What a surprise. The game works based on autosaving all the time and if you quit out, you can lose information because it’s not constantly autosaving, just frequently, because constantly autosaving could create save corruption if the game is turned off mid-save, which is why they ask you to use the quit menu feature, so it can be sure it’s saving properly.
There’s no pause because people are allowed to invade without queuing into a menu. Also because that would mean you could totally switch your equipment config for every enemy. Also because it’s for casuals, and the tutorial is frankly out of the way and far from condescending. It never stops you. Most of it is in the hub. It doesn’t tell you anything besides the controls. It ends in the first 5 minutes.
He demonstrates the issues with dark souls 2 collision by shooting at a placeholder enemy model. This is such a corner case, it only happens once in that game. You can’t use that to argue the whole game is at fault.
And yes, like most games, if you attack an enemy, your attack will go through them, and like every 3d zelda, if you hit a wall, your sword bounces off the wall. This was a deliberate decision. They are very clear about when it happens. There isn’t any inconsistency about it, and yet he complains.
It’s funny that he complains about how it’s impossible to make a level that folds back in on itself and uses old yharnam as an example, when it does that many times. Also no footage in this review seems to be as far as forbidden woods, except the short clip of Rom at the start, suggesting that he didn’t encounter framerate issues with Rom himself, he just used someone else’s footage.
Game is silent most of the time. Who cares? Game has no story you need to listen to most of the time. Great. I am fine with this. Why is he complaining about this? I don’t want to deal with any plot. Furthermore, it’s not the same thing as lovecraft, just because it features going mad with knowledge and tentaclebeasts. SBH’s bloodborne video actually went over this rather well. It’s not a hollow facsimilie, it’s one of the closest tributes that expands on the core lovecraft concept out there.
Bloodborne doesn’t stack the deck. They have groups of enemies with consistent behaviors, and you can simply learn how they work and counter them. They are arranged together to be challenging. There’s very few ambushes in the game and it’s telling he used the first two.
He’s lazy, he’s stupid. He blames everything but himself for everything. And doesn’t get how insight works.