Thread: 5.3 Preliminary Patch Note

Originally Posted by Roda

Finally some good freaking facts. ♥




"Oh hecc he's charging up a big swing for a long time, better back off to see what happens since the game seems to be giving me the time to do so" -Me, person who has played a videogame before, circa 2013

Do you run away and see what happens every time you see a castbar? Honestly that name sounds like a tankbuster to me.

Originally Posted by Darsien

He bends down and holds the club in front of his body. In addition, his archtype has "Swing" attacks prior to meeting him. Sure, players may die the first time seeing Swing. Specifically Physical Melee since this is the first instance of Chariot in the game. Once they see it once, they'll know what to do the second time. They've learned. Not bad design. Basic design. One employed by Super Mario.

It's bad design because there's no way to infer what's coming and avoid it. There's nothing in Super Mario that works like that.

Originally Posted by Roda

Long cast bar? Yeah pretty much on my first time seeing a boss. Pretty standard practice to change what you're currently doing when a game starts you off with doing one thing, and then shows itself giving you a long time to react to something. And PB AoEs are like the most common threat like that in mmos. Pair that with his initial attacks before "reconsidering" discribing his cleaves as a "swipe" and then showing "swing" with a long cast bar and similar charging animations to the swipe and you have to assume he's going to let out something that's a bit more than a "swing" that works similarly without precise floor indicators.

lol, well if that's your method then kudos, you guessed right on Coincounter and guessed wrong on nearly every other boss you've faced in every dungeon going forward.

Look, I understand that you're just trying to rationalize this in hindsight now to pretend that exactly what the attack does is obvious from the name and castbar alone, but you're being disingenuous. There's literally no way to know what the attack does with that information; saying new players should be able to work it out is completely unrealistic.

Originally Posted by Darsien

The first Goomba in SMB1 was designed to be this: If a new player doesn't know how to jump, then they die right out of the gate. They must learn to jump, something that wasn't obvious back when the game first released. They needed to experament to figure out how to get passed this obstacles and they died until they did.

Death as a teacher is one of the oldest tropes in video games. Few games do not use it. This is simple fact.

You guys are making disingenuous arguments now. It's perfectly reasonable to expect people to know how to jump before even the first Goomba in SMB. There's literally only 2 buttons you can press and you have plenty of time to try them both before you're confronted with an enemy.

Coincounters mechanic isn't something you can realistically infer with the information and tools you have going into the fight.

Originally Posted by Darsien

Ah. Making an argument you cannot handle by citing the most famous example in existence means I'm being "disingenuous" now, huh? Don't take it from me. Take it from one of the many interviews with Shigeru Miyamoto, aka one of the best video game designers of all time.

No, I handled the argument fine; even explained why you're wrong. Death being a "fine teacher" has literally nothing to do with what I'm saying about Coincounter. The fact that has mechanic can be learned doesn't make it a good mechanic; It's still a 1 hit kill with no tells and thus still crap design.

Your SMB example simply doesn't work. Everything in SMB can be inferred in the moment and avoided.

Originally Posted by Darsien

In the case of coincounter, you get the tools during the fight. You don't always need all tools going in. That sort of mentality is 10-ply.

In Coincounters case you get the tools after the fight, when you've already died. If you got the tools during the fight, and were given the opportunity to use them during the fight, it would be different. Since that's not the case, it's a bad mechanic.

Originally Posted by Darsien

You don't get to decide why Shigeru Miyamoto designed SMB1 the way he has stated he did. How embarrassing for you to try. Now who's being unreasonable? Lol

I didn't say anything about how he designed SMB1. I said Coincounter is a completely different design than SMB1, and I'm right. Coincounter is bad design because it doesn't give you a way to infer the mechanic and react correctly during the fight. In SMB1 everything can be inferred during the fight.

Originally Posted by Darsien

You don't get to decide why Shigeru Miyamoto designed SMB1 the way he has stated he did. How embarrassing for you to try. Now who's being unreasonable? Lol

As you're clearly stuck in your way of thinking, I'll let you be. As a final note, there is a difference between playing difficult games and succeeding in them. Food for thought the next time you decide to falsely boast about having played something difficult: it's an empty statement; hollow.



You're wrong entirely, but whatever keeps your spirits up in these trying times, buddy.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. I've succeeded in plenty of difficult games and have even posted evidence of that here.

Also, saying I'm wrong without elaboration while retreating from the argument is probably the most hollow thing you can do.

Originally Posted by Roda

snip

lol, you are literally just arguing in bad faith to "win," but it's fine. Pretending even an experienced Veteran of this game would see the name and the cast bar and immediately know; "yep, 360 degree 1 hit kill coming; sooo obvious," is just silly. You can say whatever you want, though.

Also, like I said, I've already shown some of the difficult games I've played here.