The absolute state of Elden Ring haters
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
twitter.com
honestly given ER's massive success anything these guys say is just completely unfounded. they cant even use this "this is why it flopped/didnt do as well as it could have!" excuse. why the fuck should anyone care about what they say *should* be done when obviously successful things can be made when you dont do those things? why bother?
Christ, this is like the rant equivalent of that Simpsons bit with the independent thought alarm.
Ya, that and the sheer lunacy of what xe's actually saying.
>the game has to railroad players or they'll get ideas!
It's been fascinating seeing all these devs talk about how the game is wrong for respecting the player.
>"Walking around a hard enemy is an idea that a designer literally can't imagine"
Don't tell me these people are making games people actually play...
not making, but dictating
>Twitter screenshot thread
>giving people the option of ignoring a boss is bad because you’re telling them what to do
>also, you have to tell players what to do or they’ll get ideas
Absolutely mindbroken
These are the people spamming Yea Forums with their mindless ER hate.
it's a fucking artist thinking it's a dev
many such cases
some even want to credit the janitor for developing games
FPBP
There are so many layers of stupidity, it's pretty amazing.
joke is on you, thats a screenshot from a youtube video showing a tweet
>NOOOOOOOOO how dare you don't do exactly what we want you to do!!!1111
Why are liberals like this?
>blurring out names
kys OP fuck off
Extreme entitlement
>players will get ideas that you, the designer, didn't think about
Then think harder you, the designer.
He probably got it from r*ddit
friend at work who never played a souls game bought into elden ring hype, and proceeded to get his teeth kicked in by tree sentinel for hours then gave up.
i told him how to get torrent and to level up a bit.
next day he said he dropped the game because he couldn't kill tree sentinel.
i was like dude just go level up, and hes like nah it made me mad
thank you tree sentinel for filtering these fucking retards
There are legitimate issues with this game but it's absolutely baffling how those retards are aleats talking shit and taking offense about some of the stuff that actually works well
I got it from YT
These people don't come to Yea Forums retard. The anons hating on the game are complaining about how the endgame sucks donkey dick.
For me, he's there for you to practise a bit and get used to ER's strange dodge mechanics.
Took me around half an hour to beat him with starting gear and level. First playthrough obviously.
>The anons hating on the game are complaining about the endgame
lurk more, unironically.
Well it's obviously true for a certain part of the population. Remember that time Joseph Anderson walked straight into a lynel and being unable to kill it made him so fucking mad he made a 2 hour video shitting on the game?
Impossible for a designer or even group of designers to think of everything that thousands of players might think of. Not saying she's right in her desire to railroad but the solution to player choice isn't to think of all potential actions a player might make but to make a game that gives the player enough freedom to try whatever they think of.
maybe designers should play more games themselves
The more a game tries to rail road me, the more I end up resisting it just to see what happens if you don't.
It was fun jousting with the tree sentinel, wish there were more enemies with a horse combat focus
Same kind of person who is against open speech because they are worried that some of the speech will lead listeners to get 'dangerous ideas'
>I DON'T CARE IF IT'S AN RPG WHERE I CAN LEVEL UP AND FIND ITEMS TO GROW STRONGER, I AM ENTITLED TO KILL EVERYTHING I COME ACROSS EVEN IF I'M TOO WEAK TO BE THERE
I don't think you're wrong in this case, but
>honestly given Pokémon Sword/Shield's massive success anything these guys say is just completely unfounded. they cant even use this "this is why it flopped/didnt do as well as it could have!" excuse. why the fuck should anyone care about what they say *should* be done when obviously successful things can be made when you dont do those things? why bother?
That's why these games get worse and worse with success. Assassin's Creed 3 lead to Assassin's Creed Unity, Fallout 4 lead to Fallout 76 and many others, these success stories of games riddle with issues only get worse in the next installment as they ignore the signs and just keep doing down the wrong path.
Read the first tweet at the top.
As shitty as it is, xe is not entirely wrong if we're speaking from a mass market video game's dev perspective. People are more retarded than you can imagine and will proceed to blame the game for their stupidity.
It should worry us that even in games people are like that.
And yet ER is a huge success.
After over a decade of moviegames, people are desperate for actual open games.
I took it as meaning you need to railroad because you can't assume what the player will do
>Honestly, given Diablo 3's massive success anything these chuds say is just completely unfounded, they cant even use this "this is why it flopped/didnt do as well as it could have!" excuse. Why do they think that making it diablo 2.5 be more successful? Why bother catering to niche old timers?
>#gamedev design advice
I wonder what games she worked on
It's a shame it won't lead to any actual change in the industry. It's not like game designers make railroaded games because of players, they make them because they're failed film students and it's easier.
>she
Trannies don't use real life pics for their profile
>just printscreen 2 monitors lmao
fuck me.
>but to make a game that gives the player enough freedom to try whatever they think of.
To be fair Fromsoft is garbage at making a game like this. It has freedom, but its designed poorly for that freedom. If you dont do things exact way and order devs imagined it , youll be lost, wont know where the next steps for quests are and youll get overpowered fast, or stumble into area you cant handle.
you will never be a woman
That is not the case at all. It was a success because they got a big name western writer on it that most normies know thanks to an HBO show and has open world which has been show to increase sales having that alone.
Never said they were the best at it, but they do at least allow you to wander off in whatever direction you want even if it leads to you getting lost and/or having your shit pushed in.
>Assassin's Creed 3 lead to Assassin's Creed Unity
> Fallout 4 lead to Fallout 76
So, in zoomer's world f4 and AC are good games now? Sounds like a parody.
>ból odcinka piersiowego
You ok there, user?
well I hope not
Can we kill all the trannies yet bros?
Godrick's soldiers stand up and attack you though, the merchant doesn't. I don't understand this argument at all.
yeah, I basically needed to hit the gym after eating pizzas for 3 months
I doubt that many normalfags knew that GRRM was attached
>And yet ER is a huge success.
Can you FROMKEKS stop making this retarded argument? ER's huge success has nothing to do with game's quality or issues. 90% of its success is because of successful Marketing campaign.
Pointing out its success is only relevant if we are discussing Marketing/PR strategies of Bandai Namco.
WHY ARE PEOPLE LIKE THIS ALLOWED TO MAKE GAMES OR EVEN WORK AS A CREATIVE ANYWHERE
YES I'M MAD
>use the word you multiple times
>use u sometimes just because
I feel a level of violent rage welling in me and it's not just because this writer is a fucking moron.
That's the point in the second tweet.
Which is not only retarded in its own right, but completely contradicts the first tweet (which in itself contains a contradiction).
I didn't say they were good games, I said they sold well so they didn't give a shit about the quality of the games.
>Sounds like a parody.
you are right but not for the reasons you think
>play the game
>meet your first set of undead soldiers
>they immediately start attacking you
>lesson learned for the rest of the game
>stumble on a merchant
>he doesn't attack you
>lesson learned fort he rest of the game
Not very hard
But I took the first tweet as meaning the same as in the second. Maybe I'm retarded
>you have to give the good guys shiny gold armor, and the bad guys rusty silver armor
fucking lmao, is this the same person from the OP tweets?
This faggot is way worse than I thought, an absolute caricature.
because you didn't get in the industry. Think about it, undesirable work leads to undesirable people holding the job
point:
>she's right to criticize ER from a mass marketing perspective
counterpoint:
>ER is a mass marketing success
Try to keep up, please.
>I doubt that many normalfags knew that GRRM was attached
They only ever plastered his name on it in all their marketing trailers, so it was obviously a really obscure fact that he was working with From.
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
Developers right now are just way too concerned with pleasing everybody or somebody having a bad experience with a game. Since many games now shoot for larger and larger audiences. Not only is it futile to try and please everyone, you're also going to inevitably water down your final product in the attempt. I think it's just as simple as that. You just have to accept some people are not gonna like your game.
dont you fight a godrick soldier in the tutorial area as a "boss"?
Not him but that goes for all AAA games. But ER's relatively open nature didn't alienate normalfags like a lot of devs like to pretend it would.
>Players might get their own ideas!
Good. If you can solve a game in a way the maker didn't think of without breaking its mechanics? That means you have mechanics consistent enough that they can exist beyond the creators intent.
blame twitter character limit
heres the rest of the thread:
>Interactive experiences are not films, and by nature have to railroad a player down a path or else they will get all manner of ideas that you, the designer, didn't think about. Precisely why we playtest games with audiences- because we cannot assume.
>In the case of...
>Elden Ring's tree sentinel, this poster assumes that you:
>A: walk straight out of the door far enough to see and use the grace. (I looped around the building as I knew designers hide goodies for people around the back of starting places)
>B:... The tree sentinel appears immediately before you, in shining gold as you walk forward. It could be a friendly NPC, and the music and tone of the area certainly suggests a safe space with verdant trees and peaceful animals like deer and critters hopping about calmly.
>C) a methodical player will fight the first enemy first, second next, and so on and so forth. Players who are neurodiverse may feel extremely uncomfortable not doing things in order. Players who assume the first encounter is meant to be beaten will suffer.
>D) you already met a soldier in the caves, and they are shown as a boss, with a huge health bar. When you see more, you may immediately avoid them... however they are grunts now that you grind on.
>E) the grafted beast has already absolutely slaughtered you in a few hits...
>F) so coming out and being absolutely slaughtered by the first enemy you encounter if you do not realise you should jump down the dangerous looking cliff with the dead guy to do the tutorial
No no, the first tweet claims that the idea of "making one of the first enemies you see (tree sentinel) so difficult compels players to avoid him at first" is 'player prescriptive' (another fancy word for railroading).
This is portrayed as bad.
Normalfags don't watch videogame trailers.
>Two characters absolutely destroying you before you can scratch them isn't fun.
>When you design an experience, be very, very careful of your assumptions on how a player will act and react.
>Design your spaces with a visual language that you carefully reinforce so players can safely make decisions about their actions. So an upright standing guy in gold armour is a good guy, a shambling guy in rusty bloody silver armour is a bad guy. This lessens unintended decision making, but doesn't prevent it.
>Early on you meet Godrick's soldiers sitting by camp fires, and you get attacked...
>...later you encounter merchants sitting by camp fires (much later if you wander the "wrong" way). They can look similar in bad weather, and attacking a merchant will not only have them destroy you with magic, but stop you accessing them on returning as they will always attack you. These are not clever design decisions, these are bad design decisions.
>Why bad?
>Because you are punishing players for not making your assumptions.
>So on one hand you are being told to "get good" but thereader elsewhere with...
>...no reason or motivation, I would never have done so... especially considering Kale is next to the tree sentinel. Fuck that. Avoid.
>I only found all this stuff out from youTube.
>That isn't game design folks, that is an array of garbage decisions.
>You can rearrange some of the elements given here and create a game that onboards new players to the series and gives entertainment for all levels and play styles for at least a zone or two. Outside that can be steadily as hardcore as fuck.
>This is a curated broad experience.
>Most retweets haven't read the thread and attack immediately because they see a black and white argument of "make it easy vs make it hard".
>No, I am keeping the difficulty and mystery, just providing a ramped difficulty allowing players to onboard early before dropping them in.
It's easier to think you are just (You) posting than than to believe you are so stupid and out of touch that you missed his name plastered on very advert and news for this game.
They are so fucking afraid that a player will do a wrong move. It's unreal.
>an upright standing guy in gold armour is a good guy, a shambling guy in rusty bloody silver armour is a bad guy
This is hilarious, god I'm so fucking happy From is wrecking Western """devs""".