Dark Souls II Catch-All

Fedaykin98 wrote:

I think the inability to communicate actually added to the experience and to the tone of the community. It was like being in an old silent film featuring wandering ronin teaming up, complete with formal bows, etc.

I completely agree with this. The interactions ended up fitting the aesthetic of the game perfectly.

I also think that if you watch Shawn and Cory doing the GWJ Let's Play videos that there is another perfectly viable experience to be had if you can pick a friend to play with and talk to them freely. Removing the choice only results in limiting the number of people who can enjoy the game.

Yeah, I specifically want to pay real money for top of the line co-op symbols on the ground.

Elycion wrote:
Fedaykin98 wrote:

I think the inability to communicate actually added to the experience and to the tone of the community. It was like being in an old silent film featuring wandering ronin teaming up, complete with formal bows, etc.

I completely agree with this. The interactions ended up fitting the aesthetic of the game perfectly.

I also think that if you watch Shawn and Cory doing the GWJ Let's Play videos that there is another perfectly viable experience to be had if you can pick a friend to play with and talk to them freely. Removing the choice only results in limiting the number of people who can enjoy the game.

Don't forget the invasions. Even when Shawn and I teamed up, we had to react to random PvP, which turned out to be awesome.

Dakuna wrote:

Sweet, let's get read for Call of Duty: Dark Souls!!

Judging from this post, what I actually need to get ready for is "Dark Trolls".

Elycion wrote:

stuff

Sweet, let's get ready for Call of Duty: Dark Souls!!

**Multiple edits due to mistakes and interruptions**

Fedaykin98 wrote:

Tuffalo: Random partners text things to each other on 360 all the time, although it's not the majority of the time. People will indicate tactics for O&S, or trade items, etc.

Ah, that's interesting. Whenever I've done coop, it's been a more similar experience to Journey. I really like that aspect of it. I didn't know people could and would go so far as to start sending texts to your username. I'm surprised I haven't received any messages of "WTF? Y U SUK?" on PS3 with Demon's Souls and on PC with Dark Souls.

Maybe you're just awesome, Tuff.

Seriously, I got messages from maybe 5-10% of my co-op partners. And occasionally I sent one that said "You need to flask to heal your phantoms!"

Mostly it was the silent movie.

tuffalobuffalo wrote:
Fedaykin98 wrote:

Tuffalo: Random partners text things to each other on 360 all the time, although it's not the majority of the time. People will indicate tactics for O&S, or trade items, etc.

Ah, that's interesting. Whenever I've done coop, it's been a more similar experience to Journey. I really like that aspect of it. I didn't know people could and would go so far as to start sending texts to your username. I'm surprised I haven't received any messages of "WTF? Y U SUK?" on PS3 with Demon's Souls and on PC with Dark Souls.

The only messages I've ever sent or received were tips or gentle jokes about the AI or some silly thing that happened. I have never received an antagonistic message when playing.

Elycion wrote:
Fedaykin98 wrote:

I think the inability to communicate actually added to the experience and to the tone of the community. It was like being in an old silent film featuring wandering ronin teaming up, complete with formal bows, etc.

I completely agree with this. The interactions ended up fitting the aesthetic of the game perfectly.

I also think that if you watch Shawn and Cory doing the GWJ Let's Play videos that there is another perfectly viable experience to be had if you can pick a friend to play with and talk to them freely. Removing the choice only results in limiting the number of people who can enjoy the game.

As I said I think a lot of the current need to "friend up" comes from the age of the game. If the population is big enough (which it surely will be) and the online services stable enough (remains to be seen, but it was true in Demon's Souls) then I think it is critical that people work within the random system to keep a healthy online ecosystem.
I had the same experience as Fedaykin - by and large the community is nothing but helpful. I believe one reason this is true is that it is tough for groups to form up and remain together. Thus the population that would normally be inclined to group up remains in the general population. It's like Left 4 Dead - playing in a random lobby can be kind of awful because the quality players all segregated themselves into groups. Your perspective is that providing options to the player is a positive - but I really honestly think doing so cheapens the product in the same way providing save points in Spelunky might. Dark Souls is one of the few "big" games out there that I feel has a unique vision and I'd hate to see it diluted. Sorry but not everything has to be everything to everyone.

On another speculative note...
There are other implications that may come to pass if such a system were in place. I see a friend-based lobby setup as an easy way for griefers to team up, beat the game at low level and move on to being those "jacktards" you so colorfully describe. This happens anyway eventually, and is a reason that teaming up with friends is important at this point in Dark Souls' online evolution. I could easily some of the less savory PvP elements using more structured co-op as a quick means to a end that causes harm to the enjoyment of the game for others. Of course at that point other people would have to team up in structured groups to counteract it.

Elycion wrote:
Dakuna wrote:

Sweet, let's get read for Call of Duty: Dark Souls!!

Judging from this post, what I actually need to get ready for is "Dark Trolls".

QFT

You know, most all people I've ever run into at random online through PSN or on the PC have all been pretty cool, so I'm not sure what I was talking about. Maybe I just pick the right games to play online.

imbiginjapan wrote:

I see a friend-based lobby setup as an easy way for griefers to team up, beat the game at low level and move on to being those "jacktards" you so colorfully describe.

This is possibly true, but what you can't overlook is that even with the existing system in Dark Souls people were already doing that. Have you ever played as an invader and found your host happily running around with multiple red & white phantoms? I certainly have.

The griefers are going to find a way, even if that means hacking or exploiting. Opening up the tools to everyone just helps level the playing field.

Elycion wrote:
imbiginjapan wrote:

I see a friend-based lobby setup as an easy way for griefers to team up, beat the game at low level and move on to being those "jacktards" you so colorfully describe.

This is possibly true, but what you can't overlook is that even with the existing system in Dark Souls people were already doing that. Have you ever played as an invader and found your host happily running around with multiple red & white phantoms? I certainly have.

The griefers are going to find a way, even if that means hacking or exploiting. Opening up the tools to everyone just helps level the playing field.

I didn't overlook it, I said it "happens eventually." As I said that aspect was more or less hypothetical. My main argument is that keeping the non-grouped player pool large minimizes the chances that someone jumping in for the first time is going to meat Sack-Head the Nude or Trollface Poo-Chucker as their first online experience. Instead they're more than likely going to meet those decent folk that under other circumstances might be playing in a friends-only lobby somewhere.

imbiginjapan wrote:
Elycion wrote:
imbiginjapan wrote:

I see a friend-based lobby setup as an easy way for griefers to team up, beat the game at low level and move on to being those "jacktards" you so colorfully describe.

This is possibly true, but what you can't overlook is that even with the existing system in Dark Souls people were already doing that. Have you ever played as an invader and found your host happily running around with multiple red & white phantoms? I certainly have.

The griefers are going to find a way, even if that means hacking or exploiting. Opening up the tools to everyone just helps level the playing field.

I didn't overlook it, I said it "happens eventually." As I said that aspect was more or less hypothetical. My main argument is that keeping the non-grouped player pool large minimizes the chances that someone jumping in for the first time is going to meat Sack-Head the Nude or Trollface Poo-Chucker as their first online experience. Instead they're more than likely going to meet those decent folk that under other circumstances might be playing in a friends-only lobby somewhere.

I don't think anyone who is for better friend co-op system has mentioned lobbies or "friends only" games. You can still have both of the things your talking about.

There wouldn't have to be a formal lobby; I only play with Goodjers in tons of Xbox games that don't have a friends-only lobby. I think his point is accurate, whether one is compelled by it or not.

Again, I've co-oped in Dark Souls with GWJers. I think the current system plus Demon's Souls type dedicated servers would be just fine, but if they add an ability to summon a friend, that's not the end of the world.

EvilDead wrote:

I don't think anyone who is for better friend co-op system has mentioned lobbies or "friends only" games. You can still have both of the things your talking about.

Can you clarify what you envision? The ability to summon a friend already technically exists in both Dark and Demons' souls, it's just that in Dark Souls the peer-to-peer system is kind of junk and you would barely ever see any signs friend or no. I'm really just asking that the Demons' Souls system gets brought into Dark Souls II without any new bells and whistles.

imbiginjapan wrote:
EvilDead wrote:

I don't think anyone who is for better friend co-op system has mentioned lobbies or "friends only" games. You can still have both of the things your talking about.

Can you clarify what you envision?

Maybe a friend summon soapstone or just having it favor friends in general (or have that be an option in the options menu).

The hack for Dark Souls on the PC just makes it check your friends list first for people with summon signs, then continues to populate the rest as usual. That's the only built-in matchmaking functionality I'd see as being a needed improvement.

I think it would be nice if they added the option to turn on voice chat between co-op partners for the dirty console gaming peasants, but of course as a member of the Glorious PC Gaming Master Race I have other options available to me if it is not implemented on my platform.

Elycion wrote:

The hack for Dark Souls on the PC just makes it check your friends list first for people with summon signs, then continues to populate the rest as usual. That's the only built-in matchmaking functionality I'd see as being a needed improvement.

I think it would be nice if they added the option to turn on voice chat between co-op partners for the dirty console gaming peasants, but of course as a member of the Glorious PC Gaming Master Race I have other options available to me if it is not implemented on my platform. ;)

On the 360 you could voice chat (between 2 people), just not party chat. I have no idea why you could do one but not the other.

This entire multiplayer debate is solved by using the Demon's Souls server system. There is no need for a specific friend summoning system in that scenario. You just tell your buddy that you're going to throw down your stone in a specific part of the map, and off you go. Easy summons for your friend that work every time. Put the sign off to the side, and there is minimal risk that anyone else will touch it before your buddy.

I wouldn't want a dedicated friends system for all of the reasons that imbiginjapan laid out so eloquently. The existing system accomplishes everything requested without risk of ruining the experience. This was the one thing Dark Souls screwed up big time.

I may be a glutton for punishment, but that's a common description for Dark Souls fans anyway: I actually think that not being able to just instantly team up with your friends adds to the mood of the game. Things are vague and unclear, various heroes are drawn across the ages as phantoms...I think that if it takes a little doing to get together, that's Dark Souls. If one of you dying means regrouping and starting the area all over, that's Dark Souls.

Just add dedicated servers ala DeS and let's all play however we want to play.

Elycion wrote:
detroit20 wrote:

Allowing conventional parties will mean allowing players to miss out on one of the most important parts of the Souls experience. In addition, I suspect that allowing parties will effectively neuter the game, making it much too easy.

I'm really having a hard time reading this as anything other than "Oh no! People won't be forced to play Dark Souls 2 the way I think they should."

Yes, you read it that way. Fair enough. But it is less about me wanting to dictate how other people can play than me wanting DS2 game to remain true to essential elements of the Souls 'vision' (for want of a better word).

Also, I'm not sure that allowing conventional co-op wouldn't affect my game or the way that I play. There's only one difficulty setting in the game, and I don't see how this wouldn't need to be adjusted to allow for an easier co-op mode.

Nonetheless, what I've read about the game thus far still makes it a week one or week two purchase for me.

People were talking about the rag doll goofiness of the dead bodies in the DS thread. I hope they get rid of that in DS2. It completely breaks the immersion. There has to be a way for them to just modify the body weight after someone dies.

Anyone notice from the game demos if they fixed this? Realistic dead bodies would be incredible.

tuffalobuffalo wrote:

People were talking about the rag doll goofiness of the dead bodies in the DS thread. I hope they get rid of that in DS2. It completely breaks the immersion. There has to be a way for them to just modify the body weight after someone dies.

Anyone notice from the game demos if they fixed this? Realistic dead bodies would be incredible.

I think one reason they are so floppy is to prevent them from blocking you from moving. In the case of DSII if you watch the temple knight clip on Page 2 at the very end you'll see him just walk right through a dead body instead of causing the ragdoll effect. Of course that could not be final but it's fine with me... still "gamey" but less silly.

The way Havok works is by setting up simulation islands, and then either activating or deactivating islands where you want physics simulation done. When you deactivate an island, say after objects reach a low threshold of movement, then all bodies in the island drop to a resting state and simulation ceases. As long as an island is active, it will continue to simulate.

The reason you get the wacky ragdoll effects is a result of islands failing to be deactivated, it actually has nothing to do with the weight of the simulated object. The Havok engine will automatically deactivate islands if you set it to do so, or you can manually deactivate them. Either way, this issue arises from the DS developers failing to deactivate the islands after an enemy is dead. Yes it can be fixed, sometimes it's a lot of engineering work and sometimes it's not very much. It's all about how much effort the dev wants to put in, some put in more (Assassin's Creed and Company of Heroes being a couple examples of done well) and some put in less (Oblivion and Dark Souls being a couple examples).

I'd like to see it fixed too, but given that From didn't fix it in Demon's Souls or Dark Souls, I don't imagine they're going to fix it in Dark Souls 2, especially since the game comes out next year.

imbiginjapan wrote:
tuffalobuffalo wrote:

People were talking about the rag doll goofiness of the dead bodies in the DS thread. I hope they get rid of that in DS2. It completely breaks the immersion. There has to be a way for them to just modify the body weight after someone dies.

Anyone notice from the game demos if they fixed this? Realistic dead bodies would be incredible.

I think one reason they are so floppy is to prevent them from blocking you from moving. In the case of DSII if you watch the temple knight clip on Page 2 at the very end you'll see him just walk right through a dead body instead of causing the ragdoll effect. Of course that could not be final but it's fine with me... still "gamey" but less silly.

I completely assume that is the case for DS. I would rather you clip through bodies than ragdoll them around, personally, so that's good news for me. I would sort of hope they could come up with a middle-ground between clipping and ragdoll, though.

tuffalobuffalo wrote:
imbiginjapan wrote:
tuffalobuffalo wrote:

People were talking about the rag doll goofiness of the dead bodies in the DS thread. I hope they get rid of that in DS2. It completely breaks the immersion. There has to be a way for them to just modify the body weight after someone dies.

Anyone notice from the game demos if they fixed this? Realistic dead bodies would be incredible.

I think one reason they are so floppy is to prevent them from blocking you from moving. In the case of DSII if you watch the temple knight clip on Page 2 at the very end you'll see him just walk right through a dead body instead of causing the ragdoll effect. Of course that could not be final but it's fine with me... still "gamey" but less silly.

I completely assume that is the case for DS. I would rather you clip through bodies than ragdoll them around, personally, so that's good news for me. I would sort of hope they could come up with a middle-ground between clipping and ragdoll, though.

Like, keep the physics, but add a 'weight' factor? I think Skyrim had a good balance with that side of things.

Heh, I like the floppy ragdoll in these games. I still find it hilarious I wouldn't mind too much if they fixed it though.

Dakuna wrote:

Like, keep the physics, but add a 'weight' factor? I think Skyrim had a good balance with that side of things.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. It's been too long since I've played Skyrim, but I'm guessing they got it right for the most part.

Dyni wrote:

Heh, I like the floppy ragdoll in these games. I still find it hilarious I wouldn't mind too much if they fixed it though.

When my PC can solo dragons, giants, etc it doesn't really bother me that his gluts and quads have the power to punt bodies like puppies.