Fatigued Souls (Part 1)

What exactly was this rut? I do remember during the 2000s particularly that Intel processors were skyrocketing in price for a little while and have since gone back down to considerably more affordable levels. Was it a labor problem or were they just being lazy? Something else (logistics)?

the P4 architecture had nowhere to go beyond hitting (a uniquely inefficient) 3ghz. it took AMD adding a 64-bit instruction set to x86 and mainstreaming dual-core systems for them to finally revive the P3.

the PS3 could probably even be emulated on the PS4 if not for the PS4ā€™s relatively terrible single-threaded performance making that project very unappealing.

Has there been a new architecture to go beyond this or are most processors just increasing the number of cores now? Sorry for all the questions, just not familiar with processors beyond X processor being better than Y processor (and even then Iā€™m often unsure why anymore - it was more straightforward when there was a clear increase in the processing power of each core).

most of the C2D/C2Q line was a relatively straightforward (= rocket science) evolution of the Pentium 2/3, adding new instruction sets and cores and process shrinks. they made major architectural changes between Penryn and Sandy Bridge (2008-11) and since then have mostly focused on GPU/thermal/platform stuff.

sadly Iā€™ve seen scenarios where PS3 runs better than PS4

ugh Unityā€™s console ports are baloney

dark souls 2 scholar is just so fucking dope

goddammit why does no one agree (i mean, i guess people agree but only with the caveat that ā€œdark/demon/bb was betterā€

all the things that seem like complete dealbreakers for other people, iā€™m like

have you played other From games? they all have this same shit. itā€™s part of the charm! itā€™s part of the appeal! it is what it is, and it works perfectly as what it is. nothing else can give me the feelings that ds2 gives me. itā€™s unique, and different. and it works on its own merits

like holy shit how can people even enjoy kingā€™s field but think of dark souls 2 as tedious or unfair or repetitive whatever

they are all repetitive, unfair, and tedious in a lot of ways

sorry iā€™m bored at work and ranting because i want to go home and play more ds2

i wish i could afford playstations. maybe everything will become clear to me if i play demonā€™s/bb

3 Likes

I have played at least 2 other From games U_U

That said, i just learned today (somehow for the first time) that Scholar edition is also available for PS3 (i thought it was this gen only!), and between this thread and your letā€™s playing i might just pick up a copy and see where iā€™m at with it, so thereā€™s something.

oh, uh

donā€™t buy the PS3 version, itā€™s not the ā€œrealā€ sotfs

it has the DLC and some patches but not the new item and enemy locations, nor the NPC invaders

i have considered trying to play the original layouts again to compare and contrast, but itā€™s hard to get myself to do it. i just prefer the revised layouts so much. everything makes more sense

there are some minor little things as well, like my absolute favorite thing in ds2 that i assume most people will never even see

Itā€™s that or i will most likely never play it though. My PC canā€™t run it* and i doubt iā€™ll own a PS4, at least anytime soon.

Iā€™ll think it over a little more. Part of me wants it just so i can try the much-vaunted DLC.

*at least i am pretty certain i canā€™t. If it was ever on sale for suuuuuuper cheap i might try it just for kicks/in case i ever get a newer PC, which is more likely than a PS4

the DLC is nice but idk, iā€™m just really, really partial to next-gen scholar. so many improvements. i had the same opinion as everyone else when i first played vanilla 2 - this is OK but not as good as the first one. got about 1/3 of the way through and then stopped playing

when i started scholar after having blasted through maybe half(?) of ds3 (iā€™m in the bone level with the giant skeleton boulder) because i wanted to more or less go in order through the series before finishing 3, i became obsessed with the game and binged played it to completion. my playthrough ended up being 120+ hours and i loved every second. it was quite the change after being so meh on the vanilla release. the revised layouts were a big part of that. the game really eases you in to what it expects of you in the new layouts instead of the very uneven difficulty curves in vanilla

after i finished scholar i tried to go back and finish ds3 but it just felt frantic and reckless and inconsiderate.

itā€™s incredibly pretty, though

Well some of the things iā€™ve heard about the revised SotFS have sounded like definite improvements (actual torch use, heide knights where they ought to be, pursuer shows up more) so iā€™m for sure interested, even if my opinion merely bumps up from ā€œpretty goodā€ to (Gough wood carving voice) ā€œvery goodā€. If i ever spot an opportunity to play it iā€™ll give it a shot.

For me, the biggest split between Dark and Dark 2 is environment design ā€“ how itā€™s built, what it looks like, how it all makes me feel and what I can find lasting value in. Iā€™ve been watching your first video (thanks for doing these btw) and I understand that youā€™re not approaching the LP as an opportunity to smartly remark upon every little thing but I am interested in some explication about your love for the DLC installments, the third part especially, which I find so far from what captivates me about these games that I can get existential about the whole medium. Itā€™s exactly the opposite of the Boletarian Palace: everything has been reduced to a mere gauntlet, practically none of the level design is suggestive or narrative. I can play a lot of other games that are mechanically engaging!

But, unless Iā€™m misremembering, you said that the thing you enjoy most about DS2 is the combat, so Iā€™m pretty sure weā€™re approaching these games in a different manner.

EDIT: also I appreciate the slam against Senā€™s fort above, these threads need more surprising opinions

dark 1ā€™s joy, for me, was in initially plumbing the depths of the world, discovery, exploration. some of the bosses were thrilling (sif in particular was a highlight for me), many of the environments very compelling, but not without their share of issues each. the sheer thrill of discovery was enough to quell those concerns.

however, going back to dark1, i find that, having already explored and discovered nigh-everything there is to find, that dark2 is the more compelling environment to return to repeatedly. moving through the early areas in dark1 now feels rote and boredom quickly sets in, because the encounter design doesnā€™t push my buttons until later in anor londo (the traps in senā€™s, for example, are only interesting on the first playthrough or so - afterward they merely serve as an annoyance) - which is close to when the environments start being less captivating as a whole, in my opinion. dark 2, by not hinging on this exploratory focus, rewards much closer study of the game and repeated playthroughs. i donā€™t know that combat is the principal reason the game speaks to me so dearly, but it definitely seems to be the focus of the game writ large: you spend most of your dark2 playtime in combat, and iā€™d bet that that attendant ratio in dark1 is much lower - you spend much more time in dark1 doing things that hold limited continued appeal, at least to me.

itā€™s interesting how my opinion of these games has changed over time, definitely - combat was more important to me in dark1 when every single enemy was a massive threat. as i improve, i find the first hours of dark1 almost continuously unengaging

for some reason this reminds me of my opinion on Super Mario World v Super Mario Bros 3

i am a rabid defender of World - the ā€œsbā€ elevated opinion seems to be that world is trashy and shite, but i find it a meaningful, important, and endlessly enjoyable deviation from something that almost certainly wouldnā€™t have been improved on

the world map in world has never been equaled

9 Likes

fwiw, early on your damage is increased way more by upgrading weapons than leveling strength, skill, or arcane ā€“ you can easily up your health to 18-20 or so by gascoigne and never touch it again till NG+ or way deep into chalice dungeons

This is why I appreciated Scholarā€™s change to the dragon shrine, making the dragon knights neutral. I think these games are more interesting when not every place is a setting for your demise and thereā€™s some room for ecosystems/fairly passive sustained navigation. Itā€™s an attribute that distinguishes them from other comparable games. Great Hollow and Ash Lake were like that for me. Dark 3 has some parts a bit like that, but one of them is dead-boring. Honestly, two of my favorite sections of Dark 2 are the waterways you take to Heideā€™s tower and no-manā€™s wharf. They are almost stunningly uneventful but I find their quietness and transience affecting.

3 Likes

i think they are important areas, and i found them memorable personally. the dearth of them relative to dark1 is an important thing to note about the intent and focus of their respective games

not to spin this off even further but SMW is absolutely peak 2D mario. I think itā€™s visually unappealing in a few ways, but even that has a coherency that, frankly, SMB3 lacks.

And yes, the world map is :kissing_smiling_eyes::ok_hand: perfect.

Thereā€™s a reason the SMW ROM hacking scene blew up where SMB3 didnā€™t. (Mostly it is because there is a dead simple editor but the other reason is that itā€™s perfect)

Hey guys actually Sonic was never good.

6 Likes

Not to take this too much further, unless we want to have this argument again, but Iā€™ve been spending (too much) time lately thinking about why I prefer SMB3ā€™s world maps over SMWā€™s world map. And really, the most interesting SMB3 map is probably really still World 1, since its branching and optional paths are the most tightly designed (itā€™s also the only world every player was guaranteed/likely to play through partway). Nonetheless, even contrasted against SMWā€™s nifty secret exits and overall sense of mystery and contiguity, I really like the straightforward angularity and clear systematic organization of it.

Mostly, though, Iā€™ve been wondering if Iā€™ll ever be able to really think through SMB3 with enough distance, since I was basically raised in its world. Iā€™ve probably played it more than any game still. Meanwhile, I didnā€™t play SMW really until I was like 22, so.