Difficulty is not the goal of any of the Souls games (not talking about soulslikes). The challenge is a means to get you to think methodically and strategically, and is a vessel to bring you catharsis and release when you overcome it.
Sometimes, but casting has a lot of run up in DD, and sometimes the pawn might know to cast the right thing, but not have the forethought to cast it at the right time, or they'd give you a buff that was good in a current fight, then weak against the next monster, but because you can't dismiss a buff you have, you'd just be stuck weak like that.
Little things like that compounded and because I could always just do all of it myself better, instead of incentivizing me to spend a lot of time retraining a pawn without very much feedback on where their tendencies were, it was far easier and immediately gratifying in so many ways to just become mage and do it myself.
I'm hoping DD 2 will have much more transparency in the pawn behaviors and personalities, and allow even more customization of what abilities they use and when, but I do still want it to retain some of that organic learning feel, I'm definitely not advocating for a Final Fantasy 12 programmed AI routine, as much as that's cool in its own right, the organic feeling that your pawn is learning is part of the charm of DDDA.
I fuckin love Dragon's Dogma. I love NPC companion systems in general in games, and DDDA was one of the only games I've seen where you can have a party of NPCs that autonomously interact with the world. They'll engage in fights of their own volition, buff or heal you on their own, will open chests, destroy boxes, and loot on their own, and the ways you can modify their behavior by teaching them is very interesting.
Granted, they were never smart enough about buffing or healing, which often made me want to go Mage because I could do the job far better than them, but playing a game where I can play support and healer for an NPC party is another thing I love about DDDA that you don't often see in other games.
I think the better way to help fix this issue is random encounters, spawns, and a world that changes as the game moves along.
Moving along the same road can be made interesting if different things are happening every so often as you come through. New friendly encounters, new fights with different enemies, maybe randomly spawning treasure or scripted puzzle sequences that can appear dynamically around the whole world. Add to that a world that becomes modified by story events, maybe that road gets blocked and a different passage opens up that takes you to the same end destination, but with a new path and things to explore.
It's not an unsolvable problem, but it is something that goes by the wayside often.
While I don't think that being an asshole about something is a reasonable response, I find it a very understandable response, especially about subjects like this. Regardless of how "turn the other cheek" I happen to be personally, the issues surrounding video game marketing are pretty large, and this sort of cycle of selling a product that doesn't match its marketed features and level of polish happens far more than it should.
The only thing I feel bad about when it comes to agreeing with your outlook is that there totally are developers who technically work for the parent company receiving toxicity, but had nothing to do with deciding how polished the game could be at release, what top level features the game could receive, or how the game could be marketed, but still end up receiving toxicity for the state of the game because they still are the devs, and if you go down the path of "getting out of the game" when it comes to those people, they may not have ever known it would end up that way when they took the job, or they may need that job to survive.
That grey area is the one part that gives me pause, and it's the reason I think companies at large pull that card, because you can never prove that the public isn't hurting innocents, and even though you could look at a case like this, establish that you can't see any toxicity or death threats in forums, and decide that the company is lying about toxicity existing at all, they may have deleted those posts, continuing to muddy the waters.
It's just a fucked up situation all round and there's no black and white answer to it, for me. I think being a manager at my job has hard taught me that sinking to someone's level when it comes to emotional response is absolutely never a good idea, and that's bled out to other areas of my life, but I can understand your outlook and agree to disagree on how we'd react to this situation individually.
I mean, you're right, that's just life™, but that's still fundementally fucked up. For profit companies have to do that because they want everyone's dollar, and if that means you're a better fit for a job because you can deal with people being awful, then... It's a shame we've ended up in that position, societally.
Well, you're correct on where the fault rests as long as the lies were willingly made, but in the scenario we're originally talking about the ultimate result you're ending up with is... Being an asshole. So, in this total fucked system of manipulation and marketing lies the justice you're pushing for is being an asshole on a forum. I don't really think that solves anything or justifies itself.
Don't think that I'm arguing that the company should get a free pass for any of this or that the company isn't at fault/isn't the system, the root of what I'm saying is that toxicity isn't really warranted when it's about buying a videogame that wasn't made well and didn't meet marketing expectations, and if you want to avoid being in a situation where you got burned buying a product that didn't meet your expectations, you can establish expectations closer to reality by doing smart research that is absolutely everywhere and easily obtained for free post-release. Being an asshole to a developer as a whole targets people that fundementally aren't at fault, which is what allows companies to pull the whole "people don't feel safe" card when public relations toxicity gets out of hand. A small part of that can be true, and doesn't help our case.
Some people will fall for it, yes, and awareness helps reach people that aren't going out of their way to research what they're buying, but you can raise awareness and make a scene about this stuff in a mature fashion. I'm in no way saying we shouldn't make a stink about situations like this, it's how you do it.
I wouldn't say consumers deserve that burden, but we have it because there's no governmental regulation of moral marketing practices. If we can legally move towards that somehow, then hell yeah, but I'll be honest that I'm too lazy and/or legally inept to do that myself.
I'm not saying it should be the customer's problem, but as humans that are great at learning pattern recognition it can help us avoid misery and wasting our money, and I wouldn't also say that people should do that willy nilly just because ideally you'd be able to trust marketing. You can't. It's just the only way to cope with this messed up system in its current state.
I'm talking generally, I have no real knowledge or horse in this specific race. If people aren't actually being toxic here, then that's awesome and they should keep it up.
Yes, I think if a developer does that and everyone involved in delivering that marketing and the developers knew from the outset they would have to deliver those features, but wouldn't be able to, and they didn't stop the people giving the public that information if they are even able to do that, then the specific people involved in those decisions would be dicks, even then, sinking to their level is not a good look.
This is also why people should wait for release and reviews. No one forced you at gunpoint to pay for a gane that didn't deliver on its marketing. This happens so much in this industry you should almost expect it and be wary, and the main way to get that message across to the dev is to not buy it until it's satisfactory. That's what they deserve for their transgression and what will hit them where it hurts deservedly, no money.
Is there a word for an argument that tries to justify their side by saying "it happens in this other place, so it should be okay here, too", because that's what that sounds like to me.
You can be constructive without being a dick, full stop. No justification from it happening elsewhere will actually justify that. Being a dick is not justifiable. Feeling upset and angry absolutely is, and you can express that, again, without being a dick.
So because their job means interacting with the community that means they customers are allowed to go ham and be total assholes? That's like saying that just because you work retail you shouldn't be upset by customers being dicks.
It'll absolutely happen anyway due to the nature of humans, and having a thick skin will help you cope with working a job like that, but that doesn't mean the customers should be acting that way and that we should just normalize and enable that behavior just because that's the way it is. It just perpetuates the problem.
It really depends on the game. I think an important thing to note is that if you're going to mention the incredible library of a PC platform like the Steam Deck that a lot of these older than five years or so PC games will absolutely require more particular settings and fiddling to get them to run perfectly compared to consoles that guarantee you a game running with comfortable controls with no hassle for anything in their library.
Performance notwithstanding, but even then striking the balance between performance and image quality with graphics options is sometimes more of the experiential decision making than a casual console gamer might want to be concerned with. I think you absolutely get used to and probably don't notice the lower level of these things if you've been on PC for a while, but it is a big part of whether I choose to play switch or PC.
And of course, if your only concern is playing modern releases on PC, then this won't matter as much, but it is a factor.
It does still have an advantage of being plug and play compared to the Steam Deck's "it's like a portable console except you're still PC gaming so I hope you like caveats, changing settings, and troubleshooting"
Doesn't that only confirm that it's a play in the games where the visuals explicitly show that it's a play? Beyond that Mario games don't seem to clearly be in any sort of fictional medium context at all, just because SMB3 was a play doesn't automatically mean Super Mario Sunshine is also a play or a movie, at that point that's just the characters' lives.
I actually find it funny trying to make any sense of Mario mythos at all. The characters are endearing placeholders for protagonists and enemies and create an easy design language to use for a game, but there's not really a consistent lore, the closest we've come to this whole sort of idea being legitimatized is how Nintendo has handled Zelda.
They could eventually try to create a Mario canon, but I think it's a bit too silly of a franchise to try to seriously do that with, the characters and world just bend to fit whatever works best on a per-game basis, for tone and mechanical reasons more than anything else, whether that's a play or ostensibly real characters in their regular lives.