Click to expand
Rank #5542 on CommentsLevel 227 Comments: Mind Blower
OfflineSend mail to nmurphy Block nmurphy Invite nmurphy to be your friend
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||3/14/2011|
|Funnyjunk Career Stats|
|Highest Content Rank:||#5265|
|Highest Comment Rank:||#1105|
|Content Thumbs:||868 total, 995 , 127|
|Comment Thumbs:||3817 total, 4089 , 272|
|Content Level Progress:|| 0% (0/10) |
Level 85 Content: Srs Business → Level 86 Content: Srs Business
|Comment Level Progress:|| 80% (80/100) |
Level 227 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 228 Comments: Mind Blower
|Times Content Favorited:||22 times|
|Total Comments Made:||345|
- Views: 8585'Weird Al' caught with a dead...
226 10 Total: +216
- Views: 2847Morbid Channel Posts
46 16 Total: +30
- Views: 540Hide and Seek World Championship
11 2 Total: +9
- Views: 1297Everytime I see a feels post
26 21 Total: +5
- Views: 656Brace Yourselves (Kim Jong Il)
6 3 Total: +3
- Views: 830Frozen Tail
3 8 Total: -5
latest user's comments
|#2 - Excuse me? [+] (56 new replies)||03/27/2015 on Explaining the new gen systems||+5|
#42 - anonymous (03/27/2015) [-]
Exclusives are good for companies but bad for consumers, that people support them as a good thing at all confuses the hell out of me.
#17 - anonymous (03/27/2015) [-]
I love all the PS4 fanboys that are shit-talking PCs because of Bloodborne. It's a great game, but your company of choice buying exclusivity to force people to buy their console isn't a 'win' it's a desperate, pathetic act.
Personally I'm just going to wait for someone to crack it and port it to PC. The homebrew ports are usually better than the cack attempts by the Souls dev.
#137 - anonymous (03/27/2015) [-]
it has been like this since the NES era, learn to fucking deal with this. wanna play the newest Halo buy an xbox one, wanna play bloodborne buy a ps4, wanna play bayonetta 2 buy a wii u
#40 - kyotolover (03/27/2015) [-]
You do know that Demon's Souls, the game that started all, was developed by From Software with production assistance from SCE Japan Studio. It was exclusive to PS3.
Demon's Souls, a different game from Demon's Souls, was created by From Software and sold by Namco Bandai internationally. It was on PS3, 360, and PC because Sony had nothing to do with the product itself.
Bloodborne is the same with Demon's Souls. It was created by both SCEJ and From Software. Without Sony's support, the game would have not been born in the first place.
It makes no sense to say that they're forcing you to buy a PS4. The original game was exclusive too.
#49 - anonymous (03/27/2015) [-]
Yes because it's not as though Sony don't have a PC line of games, is it?
Oh wait they do. The reason they don't cross-platform is because they want to make you buy a playstation in order to play the good games. Exclusivity is always going to be bullshit no matter how you like to try and dress it up. I'll simply stick to DS2 for now, and pirate Bloodborne when the decent cracks become available.
#60 - kyotolover (03/27/2015) [-]
By the way, this business practice is done pretty much everywhere.
Sony Pictures makes Breaking Bad exclusively on AMC.
No one bats an eye.
Hulu invests in creating original content for their service.
No one bats an eye.
Apple hires music journalists to write original content for iTunes.
No one bats an eye.
Sony invests in a project exclusive to their console.
Every one of you freak out.
You guys seem to not understand what capitalism is.
#124 - kiratheunholy (03/27/2015) [-]
Literally all of the examples you provided are software, meaning they can be used on multiple platforms.
Then you mention the PS4 as if it's the same as the examples, but it's hardware.
Breaking bad exclusively on AMC? I'll watch it on the TV I already own.
Hulu original content? I suppose I'll pay the subscription fee for Hulu to watch it on either my TV, PC or other device.
Itunes specific artists? I guess I'll have to get Itunes for one of the many mediums it's available on.
PS4 Specific game? Well shit I don't have a PS4, either forced to buy a $400 machine or not play it.
I get that it's a good business practice; but don't act like people are just nitpicking. There is a reason people aren't batting their eyes at the examples you provided.
#165 - kyotolover (03/28/2015) [-]
So are you gonna complain about Pokemon being Nintendo exclusive too?
It's exactly same as From Software and Sony.
Nintendo invests in Game Freak. Game Freak makes Pokemon exclusive on Nintendo.
And I see nobody complaining about it.
Sony invests in From Software. From makes Bloodborne exclusive on Sony console.
And now you guys are freaking out.
What's the difference here?
Yes, exclusives are sometimes extremely annoying. I understand that. But people shouldn't be attacking Sony. If anything, people should be attacking Microsoft making an already existing franchise exclusive to their console (Tomb Raider).
I currently don't own an Xbox One, but if Naughty Dog, one of my all time favorite developers happen to make an independent game on Xbox One, guess what.
I'll have to get the console to play it. And I'm not even forced to make that purchase.
No one is pointing a gun at you and telling you to buy the damn thing.
Without Microsoft's support, that very game I want to play would have not been born in the first place. So why should I attack Microsoft. If anything, I'll be glad they made a game that interests me.
#55 - kyotolover (03/27/2015) [-]
Dude, it's called business.
When a company wants people to buy their product, they invest in various services and features that can only be enjoyed with their product.
Sometimes a company will choose a platform to produce their product.
Sony wanted From Software to make a game for them. They paid From Software to make one. From Software makes an independent game for a Sony console.
What's the big deal here.
I understand if they made a sequel to a game that was originally cross-platform and suddenly turned the franchise into an exclusive title, but Bloodborne has no connection to any other games. It's an independent title. Just like Besiege or Five Nights at Freddy's, which can only be played on PCs.
If console gamers want to play these games, they would have to get a PC.
Don't want Bloodborne? Don't buy it then. It's just a fucking video game. It's not like Sony is monopolizing the cure for cancer.
Keep in mind that Bloodborne, the very game you're criticizing for being PS4 exclusive, would have not been born without Sony's investment.
It's not like From Software made a game and then Sony took away the rights and made it into an exclusive title.
The game was created by both Sony and From.
Deal with it.
#24 - midgetmistro (03/27/2015) [-]
#205 - anonymous (9 hours ago) [-]
To be fair, they got the contract for bloodborne before darksouls 2 even came out. Not knowing how well the game would do they pretty much had to jump at the chance to make an extra bit of money for it being an exclusive game
#45 - kiratheunholy (03/27/2015) [-]
As good as the game is, there's no way I can justify putting that much money into one game. However many hours I spend on it... 10... 50... 100... 1000... $500 is just too much for me to shell out.
It feels bad to see all these people talking about Bloodborne and knowing I'll never get to experience it.
#13 - stadic (03/27/2015) [-]
>said system is better made for watching Netflix than playing games
>Proven by the fact that the loading screens are extremely long in a game where you die over and over, making you sit through the same loading screen each time
Yeah man, solid argument right there
#43 - anonymous (03/27/2015) [-]
24-30fps and around 30 second loading times, which if you die alot becomes a problem. But the setting is awesome and the mechanics seem interesting.
#204 - anonymous (9 hours ago) [-]
I get 60 fps on mine =/
#206 - anonymous (9 hours ago) [-]
At least these games are fun and thought provoking
#48 - kiratheunholy (03/27/2015) [-]
Not bait. He's actually right. The game relies on souls fans being loyal enough to the souls-genre to sell their console.
There are a lot of die-hard souls fans that purchased a ps4 JUST for this game and I know because I'm one of them and if I had the money to waste $500 on a single game I would in a heartbeat, cause shit is cash. Unfortunately I don't, so I'll never be able to experience this game.
#51 - perfonator (03/27/2015) [-]
Don't get me wrong, I hate exclusive titles as much as any other guy. I would pick up Bloodborn too if it was on pc.
Still, I disagree that the souls series is nothing more than re-skins of their predecessors. The point of a sequel is to keep or improve core gameplay, but come up with new areas, new enemies, new lore etc.
And even if it wasn't, Dark Souls II changed a lot of Dark Souls' core mechanics. For better or for worse, it is far from being a Dark Souls re-skin.
#53 - kiratheunholy (03/27/2015) [-]
I see it differently but they still intrigue me.
To me they pretty much are re-skins. Not enough has dramatically changed for me to think of it as any way different. Though that being said I actually enjoy playing them.
I think of it as the same game but in a different environment each time. For many thinking of it that way may seem repetitive but as long as it's new content I actually like it.
#54 - perfonator (03/27/2015) [-]
I wouldn't say that they are the same game. A lot of things changed from Dark Souls to Dark Souls II, but it certainly still feels like a sequel:
Fighting works similar, rolling and 'kicking' feel different, invasions happen not just in human form, 'humanity' works differently, max health depleting after each death, weapons repair automatically at bonfires but are more fragile than a toothpick made of glass, fast travel between bonfires (but worse level-design imo) but no leveling up at them, of course new story, new areas, new characters, new bosses, new weapons, new covenants (blues work differently!), graphics upgrade, some small new mechanics (torches, pharros lockstones etc.)...
I feel Dark Souls 1 and 2 are very much different games and not re-skins at all.
#77 - gangbangtime (03/27/2015) [-]
Invasions happen. Form doesn't matter.
They removed humanity entirely, and instead of making it so that if you die less, you get more defense, you just get to keep your health.
Weapons repair automatically. This does not change the game, and it's pretty much negated by the fact that they break easily.
Fast travel exists in Dark souls 1, it just comes into play later.
Leveling is done like it was in Demon Souls. But it doesn't matter anyways since you can fast travel between each one.
Yeah, all the new stuff is a given, and there are some neat weapons, but they aren't vastly different than Dark souls 1. It's simillar to how a new call of duty game gets a new campaign, new maps, and new weapons, but is it really that much of a difference? Although it's not as much of a rehash as that pile of trash.
Meh, the graphics are different, I feel the visuals are a bit worse, but that's just my look on it, and I did come from the first game. Torches were under-used, and the Pharros lockstones are similar to pulling a lever, but you have to use an item to do so.
They're not really different. The fighting works the same way, the PVP is still broken, the coop still sucks, the servers are still awful, the level design got worse, there's less actual challenge and more artificial bullshit, and more DLC. Aside from the new visuals and tweaked numbers, It's not a huge difference. It's just more dark souls, which is fine, except for the part where from forgot to add what made dark souls so good.
#190 - gangbangtime (21 hours ago) [-]
I don't see how this applies to dark souls, since very little combat wise was changed.
I like comparing this to CoD since it knows the formula so well, which is
1. Change some kill streaks
2. Change some perks
3. New weapons
4. Change some sounds
5. New story
6. New maps
7. Repeat forever
8. Rake in the profits
I'm not saying Dark Souls 2 is turning into call of duty, or any of that shit, I'm just saying that no, It's not different. It did absolutely nothing new, and the gameplay was largely unchanged.
#191 - perfonator (21 hours ago) [-]
As I see Dark Souls as very story rich and dripping in atmosphere, I think story (including character design since a big part of the story is told via them) and level design are extremely important parts of the game. While gameplay wise, not a tremendous amount of things have changed, story, levels and characters are certainly new.
These especially are things I consider new and thus consider Dark Souls II a good sequel, and not a re-skin at all. The story and atmosphere may not have been just as good, but they are still new.
#192 - gangbangtime (20 hours ago) [-]
Meh. I never thought the actual canonized story was rich. It is more of a "Do it yourself" type of story afterall, where implications are made and random bits of information are there, and people tend to make shit up from there on out, and others will try to make logical conclusions, although usually theres 1 or 2 other possibilities that are just as likely when they try to make the story more coherent. This isn't exactly a "Good" story, because it's not really a story, but it's well done regardless because the game itself requires you to think and play very smart, or you'll lose, but I'm getting off topic.
I'm not sure where character design comes in, or what exactly you mean by it, since characters are never really fleshed out and are rather simple. The levels are different, but use alot of the same tropes Dark Souls 1 used, and at the same time are worse. Rather than have level design that requires you to consider where you are moving where fighting, or make you look extremely carefully for environmental clues, dark souls 2 is either blatantly obvious with its clues, or there are none.
And again, because I like using the analogy so much, if you consider the game, CoD: Modern Warfare 2, and CoD: Black ops 1, to be substantially different, then this argument probably won't go anywhere.
But the biggest reason that Dark Souls 2 isn't getting shat on for being very similar, is because it isn't the fifth or seventh game in its series, it's just the third, if you include Demon souls.
#196 - perfonator (13 hours ago) [-]
I never said that Dark Souls II's level design was done well, only that it is an important aspect to create atmosphere. Neither have I said that Dark Souls II has done that efficiently.
Characters in Dark Souls one actually have personality and story lines, characters in Dark Souls II have story lines as well, just not so great ones. I find the story superb, with what you call the 'do-it-yourself' part a vital part of it: Lordran lies here before you, and the story doesn't give a fuck about you, just as little as the game itself does. It doesn't care if you think the way to the catacombs is the right way from the beginning, it doesn't care if you think fighting the hellkite drake first time seeing him is a great idea. Dark Souls doesn't hold your hand and give you a great big message that says "hey, don't fight that dragon! but if you shoot its tail with arrows, you'll get a cool sword!". Neither does the story do that. The story is there, and it doesn't care if it's found or not. It doesn't care if you care to piece it together, but it gives you the chance to do so.
I wouldn't say that modern warfare and BO are very different from each other, but Dark Souls 1 and 2 have enough differences and feel different enough for me to say that they aren't re-skins at all. As I said before, they changed and added enough to justify a sequel while keeping enough the same to still be considered a franchise.
But I can see our discussion isn't leading anywhere. To me, Dark Souls II feels far different from Dark Souls 1, not every sequel that keeps aspects of its original is bad, after all, that's why it's a sequel and not a new game. An upgrade in the sense of performance, graphics and connectivity was very much needed. And by all means, adding new maps, new characters (and all the other points you mentioned as well) is definitely far more than a re-skin. Also, I think there is a difference between waiting one year to push out a new game (like Cod does) and waiting three before getting ONE sequel out.
#197 - gangbangtime (13 hours ago) [-]
The personality of the characters in dark souls are blatantly obvious from the get-go. They aren't very deep and are almost a little too extreme in their personalities to elicit any kind of feeling, but they do work, if only just.
The problem is that dark souls 1's story isn't a story. When I say "Do it yourself" I literally mean it. You have to make baseless assumptions, make almost illogical conclusions and really think about it to even have a story, but if you made it up yourself, is the "Story" good, or are you simply good at rationalizing what you think the story is?
The story isn't there, It's bits of information very loosely tied together and overall very incoherent. If you scrutinize dark soul's suppossed story, many inconsistencies are found and unanswered questions. You may or may not like that, and personally, I think it fits very well with the challenging gameplay and the backstory of the creator, but it's still not a good story in the normal sense. If two people play the game and pay attention to the story, they can come up with vastly different conclusions, each just as likely as the other, and that's not exactly a good part of actual story-telling.
See, here's the problem. People say CoD games, even the latest ones, are re-skins of the first ones. And they are completely correct. Changing one or a few aspects, keeping the core game together, and adding in new levels, characters, and everything else isn't actually changing or improving the game. The difference is that with Call of Duty, it's happened far too often, and with dark souls, this is the first time it's repeated itself. If it did this 2 or 3 more times, we'd all be sick of it. But that still doesn't change the fact that it is largely a re-skin with no meaningful changes, and the newer content is an expectation of any game, even call of duty knows better than to use the same levels, characters, and weapons again.
>implying dark souls 2 has better connectivity
Thank god they fixed the PC performance issues atleast.
Ah, I would go into a little extra pointless detail about how time doesn't really matter, especially since this is the first time from's pulled this bullshit. Although, I imagine that it won't be the last time they try this shit, what with the "Widening the net" shit they talked about.
#198 - perfonator (12 hours ago) [-]
Adding new content is pretty much the opposite of a re-skin.
The mystery in Dark Souls' story makes it very interesting. And since hints given in item descriptions are referenced several times in npc dialogue, saying that those story parts are "incoherent" and that you have to make illogical connections is simply not true.
The characters in Dark Souls do have an undeniable story which add to their depth. Taking Siegmeyer for exemple, he is confident in his doings the first time we meet him. Calm, but assured his problems will solve themselves sooner or later, since he - as a successful knight and adventurer - has always found a solution to his problems. Hell, Sieg (meaning victory) is even in his name. We encounter him multiple times, always needing help from the chosen undead. It saddens him (as we can take from his dialogue) and decourages him that he always needs help, even so much that he would die in Lost Izalith to keep his glory and pride. If we deny him even this wish, he will be utterly mortified.
The characters in Dark Souls II have a story and development as well. Let's take Lucatiel as an example. Everytime we meet her, we not just learn new things from her quest and past, we can also see the effects the curse has on her. She slowly loses her mind, everytime remembering less of us. She tells us of her tragic backstory and how she seeked this land in search for her brother. After meeting her for what will be the last time, we are invaded by her brother, so we can conclude that they've had one final battle.
Being unable to follow the story carefully laid out by the devs doesn't mean there is none.
>Implying Dark Souls II doesn't have better connectivity than the trainwreck that was GFWL
also, dank maymay-arrows, well done.
#199 - gangbangtime (12 hours ago) [-]
Except it is.
Even in the most detailed and best of the "Dark souls lore explained" type of videos, it still relies on alot of bullshit. And there are still parts of the story that remain unexplained, short of someone simply making shit up.
Yeah, they have a story that develops as you interact with them. This is blatantly obvious, and has no depth to it. Your point? The personalities of said characters are still generic and simple, which again, is nothing special.
Actually, the story wasn't carefully laid out ever-so carefully. We can infer this from the date dark souls was released in japan on PC, October 25th. 2+5=7. the phrase "no story" is 7 letters long.
Dark souls 2 still has shit servers, which I can't say are any better than DsK1's Peer to peer shit. But maybe that's just my connection.
|#9 - Talk about SCP-076 and some of the tasks forces [+] (2 new replies)||03/22/2015 on What the heck is SCP (Part 2)||+1|
|#100 - <- Profile Pic [+] (1 new reply)||03/19/2015 on What do you look like, FJ?||0|
|#12 - It looks good, but it has Kevin James and Adam Sandler||03/18/2015 on Pixels||0|
|#47 - That's okay. You make us smile, and that's enough||03/16/2015 on Please help Admin||+1|
|#155 - Awesome||03/13/2015 on Besiege stealth bomber||0|
|#65 - Picture||03/12/2015 on Show FJ your orgasm face||0|
|#4 - Is SJWiki real? I though Conservepedia was a joke and that … [+] (1 new reply)||03/11/2015 on SJWiki||+1|
|#4 - You are aware that Obama's the one bombing ISIS||03/10/2015 on Jobs for all my friends,...||+2|
|#93 - You ************ . You got me||03/10/2015 on Are you kidding me?!?||+2|