Why Easy Games Fail Yahtzee's Game Theory

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Why Easy Games Fail Yahtzee's Game Theory

To quote Meatloaf, "Two out of three ain't bad."

Read Full Article

I glad that the game theory is still being utilised and even refined!
I feel like gratification is one of those things that while a bit awkward to describe is easy enough to "get".

Ah good old game theory. I must say I agree, this is part of why multiplayer shouldnt be relied on as a main component for a game, no matter how well you design it there's still pretty much a guarentee somebody will end up rage quitting.

Look at the current best-selling games. Modern Fps garbage, WoW and similar MMo's and RPG #1742674. What do these all have in common? They're really easy. The only difficult and somewhat successful game I can think of is Dark Souls.

Yahtzee Croshaw:
Why Easy Games Fail Yahtzee's Game Theory

To quote Meatloaf, "Two out of three ain't bad."

Read Full Article

It would probably help people if they could separate "easy" from "simple." A game doesn't have to be one to be the other.

Easy/Hard depends on the ability of the average person to quickly overcome the challenge in a given situation. Simple/Complex depends on the number of tools and pathways and obstacles available to the player (basically, the number of 'moving parts'). To my mind, a game's Easy/Hard index should ideally be the opposite of its Simple/Complex index.

While I didn't play it, your description of Ninja Gaiden leads me to believe this game was both easy and simple -- not much of a challenge, and a very small number of ways to beat it. Easy + Simple = Boredom. And then you've got the Souls games -- hard and complex. A recipe for frustration.

Compare that to your "intentionally difficult" games, which usually have a high degree of challenge, but pretty simple controls and mechanics. Yeah, it's frustrating, but you get a sense that you're thiiiiis close to grasping it -- your failure is a result of you just not having it yet, not the game being stupidly obtuse.

And then you've got games like Dead Rising. It's a pretty easy game (excluding the occasional curve-breaking boss fight). Basically, bash the slow-moving zombies. But there are so many different ways to do it, and that makes it a different kind of fun. Easy (in difficulty), but Complex (lots of moving parts).

In not so many words, you've got games that don't have much going on, but what's going on is crazy difficult, and you've got games that have a lot of easy stuff going on. Two different kinds of fun/challenge balancing.

Yahtzee Croshaw:
"because as frustrating as replaying the same section over and over again can get, no one will remember that frustration once they've actually gotten past it, and their satisfaction with their achievement increases the more attempts it took. The more frustration one builds up the more pleasing it is to all drain away, it's like putting off having a wank for a day or two."

That's why it's quite strange that Yahtzee called Dark/Demon's Souls too hard. In essence, it provides him with what he says is a good balance between context and payoff. I think it was just because his schedule is too pressed in order for him to be able to spend a lot of time fighting through the challenges.

irishda:

That's why it's quite strange that Yahtzee called Dark/Demon's Souls too hard. In essence, it provides him with what he says is a good balance between context and payoff. I think it was just because his schedule is too pressed in order for him to be able to spend a lot of time fighting through the challenges.

I think the problem with Dark Souls is that some of the bosses/areas are slightly cheap when it comes to "skill". Most of the game was quite good, but several places were a bit ridiculous. I loved the game, but some of the bosses were just tuned a little too high, Four Kings comes to mind, and the only way I beat Ornstein and Smough was waiting for an hour or two until someone finally joined my game. When I finally did beat them it didn't feel nearly as gratifying as beating someone like Sif, or the Capra Demon. Coupled with the fact that you lost pretty much everything on death, and had to play the super careful game if you had a lot of souls saved up on that first death made quite a lot of the game more harrowing than was necessary at times. And don't get me started on Plague Town or the super dark underground section that I forget the name of. Awesome ideas, but I'll be damned if I didn't have to stop playing for long spurts of time because of those sections.

You put Cave Story on the list of deliberately hard games? With the exception of the secret final level, I didn't find Cave Story all that difficult. It wasn't exactly a walk in the park, but I thought it's difficulty level was pretty reasonable. Now, Poacher, that's a game I'd call deliberately hard.

"I think it's never a bad day to over-analyze shit so let's get started."
-Yahtzee

I'm going to remember this quote.

Yahtzee, you Charismatic Stallion, how dare you have a nuanced approach to things that is not black and white?

I never thought of Super Meat Boy as frustrating. I'm not saying I'm awesome at the game. I died. A lot. But it never had me angry or frustrated. I kept wanting to get through the next level time and again. And if it took 200 lives, so be it.

5ilver:
Look at the current best-selling games. Modern Fps garbage, WoW and similar MMo's and RPG #1742674. What do these all have in common? They're really easy. The only difficult and somewhat successful game I can think of is Dark Souls.

But didn't demon's souls/dark souls sucessful BECAUSE it was hard? The fact that it was so hard made a breath of freash air in the current market . It's a case of right place right time in my opinion . Hypothetically speaking , if every game was as hard as those two ,they probably wouldn't have been so sucessful . There definately is a market for difficulty games right now due to the lack of hard games .

Also, i'm not sure , but wasn't Catherine somewhat sucessful? And that game was hard AND a puzzle game , another genre that is slowly dying . And to be fair WoW was hard when it came out way back when .

Dastardly:

Yahtzee Croshaw:
Why Easy Games Fail Yahtzee's Game Theory

To quote Meatloaf, "Two out of three ain't bad."

Read Full Article

It would probably help people if they could separate "easy" from "simple." A game doesn't have to be one to be the other.

Easy/Hard depends on the ability of the average person to quickly overcome the challenge in a given situation. Simple/Complex depends on the number of tools and pathways and obstacles available to the player (basically, the number of 'moving parts'). To my mind, a game's Easy/Hard index should ideally be the opposite of its Simple/Complex index.

While I didn't play it, your description of Ninja Gaiden leads me to believe this game was both easy and simple -- not much of a challenge, and a very small number of ways to beat it. Easy + Simple = Boredom. And then you've got the Souls games -- hard and complex. A recipe for frustration.

Compare that to your "intentionally difficult" games, which usually have a high degree of challenge, but pretty simple controls and mechanics. Yeah, it's frustrating, but you get a sense that you're thiiiiis close to grasping it -- your failure is a result of you just not having it yet, not the game being stupidly obtuse.

And then you've got games like Dead Rising. It's a pretty easy game (excluding the occasional curve-breaking boss fight). Basically, bash the slow-moving zombies. But there are so many different ways to do it, and that makes it a different kind of fun. Easy (in difficulty), but Complex (lots of moving parts).

In not so many words, you've got games that don't have much going on, but what's going on is crazy difficult, and you've got games that have a lot of easy stuff going on. Two different kinds of fun/challenge balancing.

I like this, I really have nothing else to add to this. I think Yahtzee's game theory could use this as an addition of some sort.

Maybe "gratification" is better understood when called "achievement". That word certainly fits the happiness you get from activities varying from chopping a zombie in half to building a castle. Sure, "achievement" is increased when semi-frustrating challenge and/or intriguing context have come up before, but that's part of the balancing act.

I never got into the fourth chapter of Super Meat Boy, but that's not because the challenge wasn't fair enough. It may be because the sense of achievement was not enough. After beating some ridiculous boss level, my sense of achievement is flattened by the fact that worse challenges lie ahead.

On the other hand, I almost completely beat Rayman Origins (I haven't gotten the time challenges done even to get the purple smile-things yet.) That game has achievement down much better than SMB, thanks to the hundreds of smiles popping up and the screams of the enemies across most levels. Also, the difficulty curve is perhaps better than in SMB.

I have to agree with what Yahtzee says about Poacher. It's got a (slightly unfair in favor of the enemies, but nonetheless) fitting difficulty level, you've got your general context, which makes beating the boss fights all the sweeter. But I have one complaint about Poacher. I'M DROWNING!! *dead* I'm that far in the game. And I can't get any farther. Because good ol' Derek can't swim, he can only jump. Underwater. Which is pretty awesome, when you think about it, but still.

Oh, yeah. I'm Replying. Um... Ninja Gaiden. The Game Theory. Poacher.

... Magenta. That is all.

krazykidd:

But didn't demon's souls/dark souls sucessful BECAUSE it was hard?

Basically this.

I feel that "not too easy, but not too hard" is less a requirement for a good game and more a requirement for the sort of game that Yahtzee likes to play.

Personally, I like difficult games, as long as those games are designed with difficulty in mind. So a roguelike like Brogue is fun to play, despite the fact that I've never even successfully made it to the endgame and have only come close a handful of times. Why? Because death feels fair (there's something you could have done, 5 moves back or 5 levels back, to avoid it) and it's a chance to try a new character that explores new levels and finds new stuff.

People who play stuff like Dark Souls and Super Meat Boy know what they're getting into, and in fact actively seek that kind of challenge out. "I will give this a negative review because it was too hard for me" strikes me as missing the point.

I'd suggest the psychobabble term "validation" as a replacement for gratification. The feeling that you are a good person. Solving a challenge is internal validation (I'm smart/fast/lucky). A good plot is external validation (I have a mission/Bad guy is bad/I rule you weakling scum).

Plus, then you can make jokes about getting more validation from the car park where you buy the game. Oh, wait, now I've already made it. And there was really only that one. And it wasn't really that good. Never mind.

Better name than 'gratification:' viscosity (in that a nice thick clam chowder is way better than boiled water with a few celery sticks in it. Also sounds like 'visceral', which is what Yahtzee is trying to qualify).

As for lack of challenge hindering the other elements of gameplay, I believe its a matter of degree. Which is why I would love to see Yahtzee's take on Warriors Orochi 3 (among other reasons). It's not a hard game, but the shear joy gleamed from killdozering your way through hundreds if not thousands of troops makes up for it, imo.

Of course, Yahtzee will probably hate it anyway, but his opinions have surprised me in the past.

As an alternative label for "gratification," I recommend "indulgence."

The examples that Yahtzee uses for "gratification" (mowing down tons of easy squishy enemies, running over civilians in GTA, hitting people with a purple dildo-bat in SR3) all involve indulging some desire or fantasy that can be enjoyable even if there is no challenge or context in the matter. The fun comes from the indulgence, so I say it comes down to Context, Challenge, and Indulgence.

remnant_phoenix:
As an alternative label for "gratification," I recommend "indulgence."

The examples that Yahtzee uses for "gratification" (mowing down tons of easy squishy enemies, running over civilians in GTA, hitting people with a purple dildo-bat in SR3) all involve indulging some desire or fantasy that can be enjoyable even if there is no challenge or context in the matter. The fun comes from the indulgence, so I say it comes down to Context, Challenge, and Indulgence.

I like this. And then, when you have a fanservice-y (in the non-sexual sense) moment in a series, that also applies to Indulgence because of the Context. For example, shooting bottles with Garrus on the Citadel in ME3: the context tells us why this is awesome, then the indulgence kicks in and we all collectively squee.

I guess you could say it taps into the "fanboy" part of all of us.

What I want to know is if AVGN got any complaints for calling that one Bugs Bunny game he reviewed too easy after calling most of the other games he's played too hard.

Difficulty is both arbitrary and relative. Point in case, the numerous reviews of NG3 suggest starting at the hard difficulty, if you're already familiar with the series. But no, I again say, it's all relative. Consider Perfect Dark (& I think Goldeneye 64). Upon completion of those games, you have pre-stage settings for tailoring the enemy to be as weak or hard as you please.
Alternatively, give yourself a handicap, like 'not using a particular attack for the entire game'. Now it becomes more challenging, not because it was made that way, but because you yourself made the choice to make it more challenging.

When you take a more philosophical view, you won't give a flying f**k either way.

Give me more games like demons souls and less games like well anything AAA today.....

Dark Souls doesn't give a fig about being fun enough to keep you playing, anymore than War&Peace cares about stringing together exciting cliffhangers to keep you reading. It's why it's established within the narrative of the game. All these enemies you're fighting? Dudes who gave up and turned hollow.

What's that? The game's too hard, and you want to stop playing?

Well, fuck you then.

I think it's a mistake, and I think it's very limiting, to operate under the assumption that a game must bend over backwards to keep you playing, and that if you stop playing, it's the game's fault. I think this is a fundamentally wrong idea, I think it runs completely counter to the very idea of what challenge represents, and I think it cripples the ability of games to expand their reach and say anything meaningful, if we're asking them to drip-feed us "fun" every ten minutes. Or even that neutered version of fun, "engagement," which has become the new game design hot-word.

I object!

I say fuck engagement!

A game doesn't have to be "engaging" any more than a book does. Is War&Peace engaging? Jesus Christ, no, it's an absolute snore, same as most Russian lit. Does that make it less important? Of course not. A book only has to be the bare minimum of "logistically READABLE in my written language" -- like a game has to be the bare minimum of PLAYABLE. That's it. Nothing more.

Is Dark Souls "fun"? Sometimes. Not usually.

Is it engaging? Sometimes. Not for a while, though. In fact, it spends a lot of time trying to convince you to give up, and turn around, and go back to where the sun is shining and everything is safe.

But is it playable?

Oh god yes.

And is it Important, with a capital I?

Absolutely and unequivocally.

A game doesn't have to be accessible to anyone and everyone to be good. It doesn't have to open up and be capable of spilling its secrets to you, your grandma, and everyone in between. There are books that some people will never be able to understand. Not everyone is going to be able to read Cormac McCarthy. And not everyone will be able to complete Dark Souls. And THAT'S OKAY. And in fact absent of that, and absent of every single completely uncompromising and singlemindedly PURPOSEFUL design choice present at EVERY LEVEL of Dark Souls -- it wouldn't be noteworthy at all! The game would be completely unremarkable. Dark Souls is one of those few games where, when you're playing it, you're confronted with the sense that, whether you agree with it or not, every creative decision is 100% deliberate, and whatever the game is up to, it's certainly doing it consistently.

"And I wonder WHY this decision was made this way? What were they trying to say there...?"

And that lofty praise in no way applies to "any and all games which are really challenging." This isn't some wishy-washy Jane McGonigal -inspired editorial about the beauty of challenge, and how gamers are uniquely gifted to face it, and yadda yadda yadda, bla bla bla. That's bullshit, too. Ninja Gaiden, Devil May Cry, and Battletoads are all hard as hell, and they have nothing new or interesting to say about the art of game design, much less the human condition.

Dark Souls does.

I feel like this article was long winded and said in 8 paragraphs what basically could have said in 1.

drtweek:
I'd suggest the psychobabble term "validation" as a replacement for gratification. The feeling that you are a good person. Solving a challenge is internal validation (I'm smart/fast/lucky). A good plot is external validation (I have a mission/Bad guy is bad/I rule you weakling scum).

Plus, then you can make jokes about getting more validation from the car park where you buy the game. Oh, wait, now I've already made it. And there was really only that one. And it wasn't really that good. Never mind.

Validation requires a goal worked to. "Gratification" is enjoyment for the sake of enjoyment. It's sniping a headshot and giggling at the geyser of blood that results. It's picking Bloody Mess as a perk in the Fallout games. It's dressing up your character in the most ridiculous getup you can and beating people to death with a giant dildo. It's catharsis. It's revelry. It's fun "because I can".

teknoarcanist:
*Snip*

I appreciate someone else shares this sentiment.

Some people read Shakespeare, some don't care for the language.
Some listen to Chopin, some don't care listening to a 12 minute arrangement with no words
Some play Chess, some aren't interested in learning the movement patterns.
Some watch Citizen Kane, some can't get into Black and White narrative Dramas.

Though I do object. I do feel Dark Souls has strong context and gratification, but only if you can get pass the entry level challenge. I feel one of the dark secrets of our society today is that generally you have to learn how to enjoy challenging material. It is a bit of a leap of faith that if you put enough into it you will get something out of it. What you get out of Dark Souls is that pilgrimage(context). Both in a in game and out of game sense. It's not suppose to be easy, and you don't do it for any reward. You do it simply for the experience of it (Lest ye become the Crestfallen Knight). And as for gratification, swaggering through the Burg fully armored 1-hitting everything brings me extreme joy. Took be hours to get to that point, but now I boot it up just for that experience.

/pretentiouswankingoff

ManupBatman:

Snip.

Yeah, no, Dark Souls has a terrific sense of reward and validation. I just recently started replaying the game, after lending it to a friend, and was amazed how terrifically I found myself steamrolling in minutes things that took me hours before. And it wasn't even in that autistic youtube speedrun sort of way, where I had an encyclopedic knowledge of all the enemies or something -- I just knew how to play the game now. And like opening up a deeply-studied section of Finnegans Wake, the game just fell open in front of me, and clicked, and made perfect sense.

But I do remember the first time through, and while the gratification was there to be had in fits in starts, the overwhelming emotion I felt most of the game was not hope and empowerment, but despair and dread. I remember killing Queelaag, thinking, "There, Christ, I've FINALLY made it to the bottom of the world." And then I took one step further, found myself in the Demon Ruins, saw cracked plains and lava flows like something out of Dante's Inferno, and went, "My god, it just never ends."

And then I wussed out. I turned right around, and went back the way I'd come, sprinted back through Blighttown, scampered up the ladder to the Valley of the Drakes, hammered the "get the hell out" button on the elevator to Darkroot Basin, jogged wheezing up the staircase to the Undead Burg, burst back out into the sunlight, and fell down crying, because HOLY SHIT was I not going back down there again.

teknoarcanist:

A game doesn't have to be "engaging" any more than a book does. Is War&Peace engaging? Jesus Christ, no, it's an absolute snore, same as most Russian lit. Does that make it less important? Of course not. A book only has to be the bare minimum of "logistically READABLE in my written language" -- like a game has to be the bare minimum of PLAYABLE. That's it. Nothing more.

Is Dark Souls "fun"? Sometimes. Not usually.

Is it engaging? Sometimes.

Actually, a book/movie/etc DOES have to be engaging in some form. If you don't find a book engaging at any level, you won't read it. Of course you have to have the right background and interests to find War & Peace engaging, but it sure is for certain people. I certainly don't know why anyone would choose to read a book that they didn't find engaging in any form.

So I expect that you do find Dark Souls engaging, maybe not all the time but enough of the time to make you keep playing it. It's the challenge x reward mechanic and all.

Otherwise I agree that no game/book/movie etc needs to be engaging to everyone. But it must be engaging to someone, otherwise no one will play/read/see it.

I don't know how to break it to Yahtzee, but Poacher feels like it was made purposely out of poor design decisions to be hard, instead of forged by the devil's blacksmiths into cold, calculating player hatred. It fails to deliver a tight experience, and in doing so, fails to support the the other two weaker legs of the game, because the rushed and barebones story, isolated jokes, and lack of actual victory gratification aren't doing anything.

He 'accidentally' designed the game to dwell on failures because you place checkpoints at the start and end of huge areas filled with points at which both your gun failing to fire because it doesn't think you're in range of a creature who then manages to hurt you a second after you misfire and your tendency to jump strangely followed by enormous knockback and control lockout after being hit is punished by being set back by a room or several, or dying, followed by being set back by ALL OF THE ROOMS. Although you do put save points in between sometimes, most of them are in areas where it is not actually difficult enough to justify it.

if the game were cleaned up and had music added, it might help slightly towards making it something i actually try to finish, instead of ragequit like mentioned in the article because i'm not getting anything out of the experience

tautologico:

teknoarcanist:

A game doesn't have to be "engaging" any more than a book does. Is War&Peace engaging? Jesus Christ, no, it's an absolute snore, same as most Russian lit. Does that make it less important? Of course not. A book only has to be the bare minimum of "logistically READABLE in my written language" -- like a game has to be the bare minimum of PLAYABLE. That's it. Nothing more.

Is Dark Souls "fun"? Sometimes. Not usually.

Is it engaging? Sometimes.

Actually, a book/movie/etc DOES have to be engaging in some form. If you don't find a book engaging at any level, you won't read it. Of course you have to have the right background and interests to find War & Peace engaging, but it sure is for certain people. I certainly don't know why anyone would choose to read a book that they didn't find engaging in any form.

So I expect that you do find Dark Souls engaging, maybe not all the time but enough of the time to make you keep playing it. It's the challenge x reward mechanic and all.

Otherwise I agree that no game/book/movie etc needs to be engaging to everyone. But it must be engaging to someone, otherwise no one will play/read/see it.

Well there you go then. Well said. You've shown the need for a clearer definition.

Let's say "universally engaging."

A game does not need to be universally engaging. And I think this is a pretty core assumption a lot of us hold at present. Something like Portal 2 or Angry Birds holds it as its core design philosophy--that anyone should be able to pick the game up and complete it--and those games are lauded for how well they achieve that principle. And maybe rightly so.

But Dark Souls very insistently and very deliberately goes in completely the opposite direction, and accomplishes something extremely unique and important for it. If you think about it, and if you read developer interviews, MOST of its creative decisions are not made with any core specific player-set in mind, least of all the audience that carried over from Demons' Souls. It's not made, like Skyrim, to be "really appealing to RPG fans" or "really appealing to action-game fans" or something. Its made to be itself, as purely and straightforwardly as possible. Those decisions are made the way they are to uphold a singular, specific vision of what the game should be.

Now something like "Passage" by John Blow--and in fact a lot of games made by guys like Blow--have been toeing that same line for a while; the idea that a game doesn't need to be good on the terms of its intended audience, but simply NEEDS TO BE GOOD, on its own terms. And they've been called pretentious and obtuse for it. As has Dark Souls, actually, just with different terminology. "Stubborn," "frustrating," "punishing," unfair, unclear, inexplicable, etc.

And when you really think about, the idea that a game should be playable and enjoyable by everyone seems completely ass-backwards. It'd be like trying to sit down and write a story that "everyone in the world will like." It's insane, absurd, and impossible. And it's likely not going to result in anything special.

I prefer easy games when there's something else going on.

For example I was quite happy to play Mass Effect 3 on casual at all times. Partially because it was fun to go peanut banana crazy with the Prothean beam rifle while being more or less invincible while flinging Carnage shots at the cowards hiding behind walls, but mainly because there was something better waiting at the end. Most notably the story. I'm not saying that removing the gameplay from Mass Effect 3 is a good idea, it's still fun. But I was much more interested in playing out the story of my Shepard the way I wanted because I knew there was more to the cutscenes than other games (cure Genophage, resolve Geth/Quarianwar, shoot Ashley as many times as possible while she defends Udina etc)

5ilver:
Look at the current best-selling games. Modern Fps garbage, WoW and similar MMo's and RPG #1742674. What do these all have in common? They're really easy. The only difficult and somewhat successful game I can think of is Dark Souls.

What? You've put up three completely non-existent Strawmen and decried them as "Really easy", without first defining any game except WoW (Which I highly doubt you've ever played: Most of the end-game dungeons are damn hard, and the only reason anyone has a CHANCE of survival or victory is the strategy guides).

As for FPS's... The only times I've found them to be "Easy" is when the difficulty was set to "Easy" or "Normal", the first being a sightseeing tour, the other being something anyone can beat with enough time. Sure, there are a lot of people capable of beating any Halo game on legendary, but they are far, far, far above and beyond the average gamer's ability.

As for RPGs... One of the biggest criticisms of Dragon Age: Origins is its tendency toward stupidly obtuse difficulty spikes. Other RPGs have a variety of challenge, but unlike any other genre, RPGs offer so many ways to tackle a problem that they end up being "Easy" by virtue of either exploiting an ill-balanced mechanic, or grinding themselves past the challenge (Like beating Hogger in WoW: Those of the "appropriate" level find him an infamously frustrating challenge, but just a few levels over him and he goes down fast.)

Xman490:
Maybe "gratification" is better understood when called "achievement". That word certainly fits the happiness you get from activities varying from chopping a zombie in half to building a castle. Sure, "achievement" is increased when semi-frustrating challenge and/or intriguing context have come up before, but that's part of the balancing act.

But that doesn't work, because the game that spawned this theory in words was Saints Row the Third, and there was almost no achievement, but tons of visceral gratification in the ridiculous violence that was present when firing a man from a car canon, or poisoning people with a fart-in-a-jar, or punching someone into giblets with the apocofist. There's almost no achievement, but there is gratification.

teknoarcanist:
snip

I agree with everything you said except for one thing: That all applies to the original Ninja Gaiden on the Xbox (and Ninja Gaiden Black, possibly to an even greater extent) just as much as Dark Souls. Ninja Gaiden is more than just a game with an arbitrarily high difficultly level, it's built into the game the same way difficulty is built into Dark Souls. The key difference is that Dark Souls has more focus on the environments whilst Ninja Gaiden put an emphasis on exceptionally intelligent enemy AI. Otherwise their approach to difficulty is very similar. For example, as far as boss fights go, I consider the games more or less equals. You know that feeling you get when you go to face Ornstien and Smough? The Alma bossfight in Ninja Gaiden evokes that same feeling. Ninja Gaiden also lends itself very well to that feeling of mastery and the rewards that brings, just like Dark Souls.

As an aside, that is why to this day Ninja Gaiden Black is by far the best game in the series (and IMHO the best action game ever made), because as much as I love NG2, it lost sight of what made the games before special, which is that same thing Dark Souls captures.

I think the idea that Yahtzee is trying to capture is carpe diem or something. It's about living in the moment and enjoying the experience itself, not the pay off that comes from the experience.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here