Lurker > wpot

adjl posted...

Granted, it's a Zelda game and "spoilers" is therefore a pretty generous term, but still.

Spoiler: Ganon is revived and Zelda is imperiled.

Sorry not to mark that one. :)

adjl posted...

Nintendo's gonna Nintendo

You can bold that also.

That said, I'll give them credit: when they tell us what we should like they're better at it than many other developers. :)

papercup posted...

dungeons

True "temples" with unique designs (and some story) as I understand...sounds good.

Welp, the reviews couldn't be much better. We'll see when I feel I have enough time to buy/play...

If I'm gathering correctly durability is still a thing, although the ability to create your own weapons takes away a lot of the fear of losing some unique functionality because the items you carry around allow you to give most weapons whatever characteristic you want (including strength, by and large). And you can save favored designs to quickly whip together something you like. That could work: we'll see how it feels.

adjl posted...

The system that exists now allows for armour customization based on what you choose to upgrade first, gated behind having to find certain materials, and I just think that putting weapons in that position (since there are fewer broad weapon types with more room for upgrade paths) and making armour the thing that's randomly found in the world (because there's greater variety and therefore potential to make every exploration reward unique) makes more sense.

....maybe! There are several linked issues (armor swapping was always awkward both mechanically and logically and I want that fixed, it seems weird to find armor laying around but not weapons, etc) but in a pure gaming sense I see where you're coming from.

adjl posted...

That's why I'm optimistic about fusion: It turns that maintenance task into an opportunity to try something new based on what you can improvise from the environment. Is it going to be better than doing away with durability and coming up with a better way to incentivize exploration? I honestly kind of doubt it, but I am definitely interested in trying it out myself and I expect there to be some fun there.

I thoroughly agree with that. It'll be fun to try something different and it might be good, although I'm not expecting it to be the end-all fantastic solution to the issue.

adjl posted...

Of course, it managed that by simply not having any sort of meaningful "build" system beyond "do you want health or stamina first?", which isn't necessarily the same as allowing flexible build creation, but there is something to be said for games that don't require forethought to avoid screwing up your character.

Agreed with that as well: I do think Zelda could benefit from broader build options. Given that they already have a precedent for changing build decisions there's no reason that flexibility couldn't be expanded to strength/agility/skills/other growth should any of those be added.

The more potential you add for growth the more difficult it becomes to speedrun or play 'out of order', but I think that's a price worth paying...to an extent.

adjl posted...

The easiest solution to that problem would be to randomize them to a certain extent

That would work well for a while. The problem is that, without breakage, you'll hit a limit where they stop being interesting fairly quickly even with a gradation and gates. Weapons were at least somewhat interesting all of the way through BotW given breakage, although - no - most weren't great by the end. And really, I think BotW had several armor gates already (to say nothing about how armor 'crafting' converted the rarer field items into tangible armor rewards).

I'm not saying I liked BotW's durability partial "solution" to their "what to put in the world" problem, but I do appreciate what they were trying to do.

Of course I play differently also: I don't go in with a set build in mind. I like to keep exploring and building my character to be better and better...so long as that's fun to do. BotW allowed for that mindset better than Skyrim/Souls IMO.

Maybe. One of my primary complaints about modern RPGs is that many have forgotten why it used to be fun to explore: occasionally you would find a Sword of Awesomeness or something and it would all be worthwhile. You WANTED to go to the dead end first. BotW went to the lengths of adding an annoying durability mechanic in order to preserve some of that, which I can appreciate (while still being annoyed by durability).

So no, it wouldn't be a big problem for swords to remove durability so long as there is some other improvement mechanic. Could armors be fun enough to find? Maybe, but without some sort of armor durability...I rather doubt it. There are only so many gimmicks that could be added to keep them interesting, or it would be the Dark Souls result like you said.

I might vote for a system similar to the heart/stamina systems where you find "+1 sword strength" fusion boosts in chests around the world. Each one you find makes your sword stronger than it has ever been before, which should keep it interesting for awhile. The net effect of the +1 would drop off over time (similarly to the hearts) so you may or may not need to pump up the power boost (+3) after a while...but whatever.

The main problem with that it that you would need to explore significantly to beat later game enemies/bosses, but you could work around that. Maybe the Master Sword still 'awakens' for truly difficult fights again...or something.

Blightzkrieg posted...

it's about constantly needing to go to the menu to swap weapons mid fight because your shit is made of paper.

Agreed that was one of the most annoying things about it, quick menus or not.

It was basically sword - greatsword - spear - bow. Then there were rods, boomerangs (throwable swords), and a bunch of goofier things that were gimmicky versions of the main four. The different versions were stronger/weaker, had elements or special (crushing) abilities, etc...but that was basically it.

I don't know how fusion works in Tears, but I wouldn't be shocked if they gave you a 'Master' version of the big four and you fused something to it to give it one of the added abilities either temporarily or until such time as you wanted something else. You would also have to be able to make them continually stronger (probably through fusion) for some sort of progression over time. That could work.

The main problem with doing something like that is that they added durability to BotW primarily such that you would want/need to find weapons in the world. There are many fewer interesting things to find in that big world if you don't need new weapons constantly. Can fusion materials be exciting enough to fill that the void? Something else?

adjl posted...

Although there are way too many combat shrines and more enemy variety would have been nice.

And longer/more Divine Beasts would have been nice, sure.

adjl posted...

It's definitely not enough to avoid the game entirely over it.

Everything in this post.

Is durability annoying? Sure. Is it a major issue that should stop someone from playing the game? No. You'll always have a weapon that's 'good enough' if you're halfway competent. You just might not have your favorite.

As for 'empty world' again agreed that doesn't fit. I found it rather boring to explore Skyrim/etc after discovering the major cities/etc. I never got to that point in BotW: I was always interested to see what was in areas I had never been to before. A lot of it is shrines, towers, and koroks, sure, and they get repetitive after a while...but they're fun for a long time. I was perfectly happy to solve the small puzzles at each of them for more hearts/weapons/maps/etc - it felt like things were progressing (as opposed to other games where there are aren't so many puzzles - just more of the same stuff). And there were other quests/challenges/fountains/memories/NPCs/etc to find as well. Good world.

3/10 trolling.

If you want to troll a game you need to go after it's core features i.e. plot content and gameplay. If you go for backstories, SNES graphical design, and (every troll's favorite) pacing...it's a rather transparent attempt.

papercup posted...

I've literally never blocked anyone. What is the point? To run away from ideas I don't agree with? No I'll just tear their shitty arguments apart and laugh.

This. Or ignore them. This is GameFAQs: if I block one person that only leaves the other four of us.

When you stop looking human I no longer find you attractive. She's kind of in the uncanny valley zone.

^ Yeah, it was a pretty easy win for Dominion. The judge in the case outright wrote: The evidence in the case demonstrates that is CRYSTAL clear that none of the Statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true,". He wrote this before the settlement and he added the CAPS.

I wasn't as surprised to see Fox trying to settle as I was to see Dominion accepting it.

Prettymuch. I saw one good picture from Forest Lake, but nothing from the cities themselves. I couldn't see anything from the south side, personally.

I once saw them great from Woodbury (randomly) but I think that's the only time I've seen them around the Metro.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

You couldn't see them in the Twin Cities - maybe a bit more outstate.

Hmm...good choice. He does ooze smarminess and the beard does give him a LotR villain aura somehow, but if they were standing next to each other I think I'd go for Tucker if he was doing his pouty/concerned thing. Both would be good.

I expect Fox has realized that they can't give these wings nuts completely free reign to say whatever they want. Tucker was too big too control. I expect they'll hire someone else who does 95% the same thing...but holds back on the few statements that could cause them to lose a billion dollars in court. They'll still be the same political cancer as always: they'll just be safer about it.

papercup posted...

pouty lipped

That plus the "I'm faking concern" eyebrow furrow: was there ever a more punchable face?

KingDavid posted...

Because otherwise it just taste like shit.

Then you're eating the wrong things. :)

Ketchup is a 3/10, maybe. Most other condiments I can think of are better...if used appropriately.

The first is the answer...although the second is growing in importance in an "important because it's killing us" kind of way.

Although I'm glad the third is keeping that pack of soldiers lurking just outside of my house from coming in.

Ozmose posted...

Loose the 2nd amendment, and there's absolutely nothing stopping every other right from being stripped away. History shows the people with the guns will always enforce their will on the people without.

*hardest eye roll possible* Whoever controls the army wins. Whichever yahoos have the most guns in their houses is only important if society completely breaks down. Until that point it just makes random stupid violence much worse.

No

Ocarina of Time?

Yes, I know it would make little difference to the great majority. But there are still a few who aren't completely indoctrinated and you have to try.

captpackrat posted...

The problem is that Dominion doesn't care about doing the right thing, they're in it for the money.

Yes, Fox and Trump and others should be getting held accountable by legal/political mechanisms, but those have almost completely failed...so we are having to rely on a business suing a business. The fact that was the mechanism alone shows how businesses have too much power.

Long story short: I can't blame Dominion. They're just a business. But that's why I find the Lindell thing more amusing.

Right: that was a buzzkill. Dragging all of those anchors to court and making them admit they were lying about the rigged election (and even liking Trump) would have been the greatest thing ever. It's pretty clear why Murdoch paid $1B to avoid doing that (for a company that's only worth $13B if what I heard is correct).

...is this:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/20/politics/mike-lindell-2020-election/index.html

Let's splash this one across more front pages. Kind of weird legally, but man have I been waiting for someone to take that clown down.

JOExHIGASHI posted...

I didn't think the movie was that good. Everyone thinks I'm crazy for this opinion

It wasn't bad, but I saw it and forgot most of it relatively quickly. It's one of those movies people like because the characters resonate with them (and not because the plot is memorable). If you're indifferent to the characters there's not much else there. Cult classic thing.

Clench281 posted...

no

It depends how your withholdings work, so often 'yes'.

Ogurisama posted...

You didnt get it right, its the Canyonero

I knew, but you didn't ask me. :)

Clench281 posted...

what. your refund has nothing to do with whether you make a lot or a little. it's just a function of how accurately you withheld

True, but it tends to go down if you make a lot more one year than the year before if you don't think ahead.

That said I usually pay in (because I want my money earlier) so it's not an exciting day for me.

Things are going just fine.

...although my increasing agnostic existentialism means I don't care much about any of it, which sucks.

Why do we exist?

Of course: you are who you are and there are a million people both better and worse than you in relation to any specific insecurity you may have. The fact that a bully chose to tease you related to a perceived weakness of yours (while possibly quite painful at the time) really says nothing about you - it just highlights a weakness of the bully's. You are who you are either way.

I do find it interesting that a first-grade bully could still be memorable years later. Usually bullies don't really get good at what they're doing until years later (although I suppose an older kid could have been bullying you).

My more painful memories are from 5-8th grades.

Yeah, I really don't think there's anything wrong with saying that there are cockroaches and that you can't be associated with a place that lets that occur. If you try to avoid outright saying that you might come across as disgruntled without a cause, which...

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Or as I would phrase it they might fear that you are 'chronically unhappy'.

Yellow posted...

The small ones are useless.

This. My wife got one that fit in her pressure cooker. It made about three onion rings at a time.

I thought of Night Court because I confused him with John Larroquette.

Cool. As long as I could set my drink down and reach it whenever I would be I'd be happy.

Looks nice. The only things I would wonder are:
1) If you're standing in the deep part would you have something to lean against (and set your drink on) or are the bottom/sides always curved?
2) I would hope that the umbrellas/etc could be moved around to provide direct shade when I'd like it.

It hit 88 in Minnesota yesterday (after snowing a foot two weeks ago) so I'm ready for that to show up in my backyard. :)

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Why not? It's mostly brainless moral-less entities using it as-is.

At this point it probably makes little difference, but if it was salvageable I'd say we should keep one more out. :)

Lokarin posted...

I think I trust a brainless moralless entity more than some people... a being without morals is at least not actively subverting them.

Sure, someone trying to be an ass is worse...but I still don't see that it has any real positive value. It just looks like a toy that can cheat on tests.

Yeah, as I get older I'm losing sympathy for "idiot does something idiotic" stories. I am coming to prefer more of a Darwin Award approach to these issues rather than spending a whole bunch of societal resources to stop idiots from doing idiotic things.

That said do I think ChatGPT and similar things are going to be a benefit to society? .....no. We don't need more brainless/moral-less entities summarizing the internet for us, even if it's written well. I can't think of many legitimately good applications.

Applicable Simpsons bit:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2MuKi_QOk4

The DLC was pretty good - it added some challenges that were notably lacking in the main game. Worth it in this instance I think.

The heros path thing in particular was also awesome to let you know which little parts of the world you hadnt looked at yet.

My questions are answered.

LinkPizza posted...

started puking on the door a bunch

I have questions about this unrelated to the start time.

I would say it's acceptable to be waiting by the door and perhaps looking in hopefully.

Outright knocking at 10:59 is obnoxious, though.

I'd be happy to sleep, but there's no way I actually would, so I watch a movie or play a game.

Take the first one off before you put the second one on. :)

"They put a lot of work into him" means "I like him and want to say something to defend him without having anything real to point to".

He was a character; he's now a squeaky-clean mascot.

TheFalseDeity posted...

Dont listen to either but would rather Swift over Madonna if i had to choose.

This. I tend to dislike Madonna songs. I tend to be rather indifferent to Swift songs.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I am a conscientious objector to giving lawyers unearned money. That probably means I'll never accomplish anything significant, but I feel better.

Jen0125 posted...

Yeah I can get it done free with my work benefits so there's no reason to wait

That's the way to go.

The scary/funny/etc animals are all sleeping, so that's the correct answer by default.