Miyamoto on why Mario 3D World lacks online co-op

  • 88 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Randolph
#1 Edited by Randolph (10542 posts) -

Link.

"It simply wasn’t the focus for us this time around," Miyamoto said of online play. Though it was a possibility, the development team "really wanted to do was to create something that people could experience fully while playing comfortably with others who were nearby them," as was also the case with Pikmin 3.

"Now that is to say the answer to this question might change in ten years time," the living legend continued. "If there’s a future game where for example we don’t think it’s important to be able to see the face of the person you’re playing with, then we might be able to focus more on some online function there. But for right now our focus is really on a comfortable play experience with people in the same room."

Ugh. So we may have to wait until 2023 to play online co-op in a Mario game, because the developers simply didn't feel like putting in the effort. A lot of gamers work full time, and a lot of us who have family around don't game, and a lot of us who have gaming friends know those friends, well, online. It's cool that they have multiplayer working in both traditional and more modern design style Mario games, but it would sure be nice if they would stop denying so many of us the ability to actually use that multiplayer feature.

Eventually, they have to come to terms with the idea that sometimes they will have to give consumers what they want, instead of always trying to give them what they THINK they want. Or just doing what they feel like doing, consumer be damned. It's this kind of thinking that cost them their leadership of the gaming market in the first place. They need to reign in Miyamoto and his people, because at some point, someone within the upper echelon should have grown a pair, stepped in, and said "this must have online co-op".

Avatar image for barrybarryk
#2 Posted by barrybarryk (488 posts) -

Yeah, as far as I'm concerned online co-op can go die in hole. It's not fun on consoles and while people seem to suggest it doesn't come at the cost of local co-op, the current trend of just not bothering to offer any form of local multi-player kind of bins that idea from the get go.

A Mario game doesn't need online co-op and I can't see that many fans of the series actually caring about its omission

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#3 Edited by foxhound_fox (96914 posts) -

Having a feature for it's own sake, rather than including it because it would make a meaningful addition doesn't seem like a good use of resources, and something Nintendo really has never done.

Avatar image for GAJY_FILTH
#4 Posted by GAJY_FILTH (112 posts) -

My problem is I don't know any one who plays local coop any more, all my friends get home from work and we invite each other to play online coop or multiplayer, we don't go round each others houses much because we have lives and are busy.

I don't think Nintendo gets the western audience, I think they're just thinking about how Japanese people play games. Even as a kid my Mum wouldn't let my friends come round a lot, I would have loved to have online back then.

It is frustrating, especially when I have Wii U games that have local multiplayer and I've never played that part of them, when I know that would be the most fun part. Like if Mario 3d world had online coop, I'd buy it in a heart beat, sadly it doesn't and so I have no interest in playing it alone.

Avatar image for branketra
#5 Edited by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

Online gaming continues to improve. Eventually, online gameplay will be integrated so well into traditional single player modes that it will be something different altogether. If a big company like Nintendo does not make at least one game with that new gameplay, people will think it is an artistically limited one. That is what is coming with the new generation in my opinion.

Avatar image for Randolph
#6 Edited by Randolph (10542 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:

Having a feature for it's own sake, rather than including it because it would make a meaningful addition doesn't seem like a good use of resources, and something Nintendo really has never done.

Millions of people being able to actually use a major feature of a game seems like it would be a meaningful addition.

Avatar image for Lulu_Lulu
#7 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (19564 posts) -

F#CK ONLINE CO-OP. People need some real friends.

Avatar image for Pffrbt
#8 Posted by Pffrbt (6612 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

F#CK ONLINE CO-OP. People need some real friends.

What if their real friends live in another state.

Avatar image for branketra
#10 Edited by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu

In before you outright say the internet is not real life

Avatar image for Randolph
#11 Edited by Randolph (10542 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

F#CK ONLINE CO-OP. People need some real friends.

Most of my friends locally lack interest in gaming of any kind, all of my family hates games, and my friends who did like gaming all moved out of state and I only get to game with them online. I work full time, so even if I did have a friend who played games locally, we wouldn't be able to get together after work just to game. Especially after a 12 hour work day. Having online co-op in this game would be the rough equivalent of walking and chewing gum at the same time for Nintendo. They even made it clear they could have done it, but simply did not feel like it.

I would be less pissed about it if they had an actual substantive reason, but simply deciding that it's not worth their time to make it possible for me to use a major feature of the game just makes me feel left out and kind of out right spurned. They claim to be all about broadening their audience and getting more people playing, well, how does this help that? More options are never bad.

Avatar image for Lulu_Lulu
#12 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19564 posts) -

@ Pffrbt

a Real friend will travel across the world to see you.

Avatar image for Lulu_Lulu
#13 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (19564 posts) -

@ Randolph

Then in the context of gaming, life screwed you over. I also have not seen me dear Adam in a while but I wouldn't cheapen our friendship with online multiplayer. Nah, I'd rather quit gaming. Its why I quit Facebook and I don't have any online friends here, I just don't consider them as real people, I need real people ! Not disembodied voices who are a shell of their formerselves.

Avatar image for FinalFighters
#14 Edited by FinalFighters (2782 posts) -

Nintendo still has that 90's mentality. they need a wake up call...maybe a Petition would help them change their minds!

Avatar image for Randolph
#15 Posted by Randolph (10542 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu: I don't know if you are trying to be funny or clever, but you're just spamming at this point, and it's annoying. Please stop. Thanks.

Avatar image for Randolph
#16 Posted by Randolph (10542 posts) -

@FinalFighters said:

Nintendo still has that 90's mentality. they need a wake up call...maybe a Petition would help them change their minds!

This is the number of things that online petitions have changed.

0.

I blame S0lid. But hey, Miyamoto thinks he may take a second look at this in ten years give or take, so maybe by the time me and my friends from my school days are all in our forties we'll finally be able to play a Mario game together again. Good times.

Avatar image for Lulu_Lulu
#17 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (19564 posts) -

@ Randolph

Netheir. I don't do rational discussions about multiplayer about Local Local Multiplayer nor Am I sympathetic the plight of anybody who can't do it for any reason, no matter how valid, I'l use that against you. Pure and simple. Everybody has a something they won't budge on, maybe it DRM, maybe its Voice Actors, For me its Local Multiplayer.

Avatar image for c_rakestraw
#18 Posted by c_rakestraw (14870 posts) -
@Lulu_Lulu said:

@ Randolph

Netheir. I don't do rational discussions about multiplayer about Local Local Multiplayer nor Am I sympathetic the plight of anybody who can't do it for any reason, no matter how valid, I'l use that against you. Pure and simple. Everybody has a something they won't budge on, maybe it DRM, maybe its Voice Actors, For me its Local Multiplayer.

Doesn't mean you have to start being a jerk and/or disruptive about it. If you can't be rational and civil, then don't bother participating.

Avatar image for Bigboi500
#20 Edited by Bigboi500 (35550 posts) -

@barrybarryk said:

Yeah, as far as I'm concerned online co-op can go die in hole. It's not fun on consoles and while people seem to suggest it doesn't come at the cost of local co-op, the current trend of just not bothering to offer any form of local multi-player kind of bins that idea from the get go.

A Mario game doesn't need online co-op and I can't see that many fans of the series actually caring about its omission

*claps* +1

Avatar image for c_rakestraw
#21 Edited by c_rakestraw (14870 posts) -

I don't see the harm in adding online co-op (really, it just means more people can play together; not like it has to come at the cost of local play, especially in Nintendo's hands), though it's absence doesn't affect me since I'm fortune enough to have people to play with locally. Still, a shame to see Nintendo continue being cagey about online play. I'm sure they could make it work well if they were to give it a shot.

Avatar image for ZZoMBiE13
#22 Posted by ZZoMBiE13 (22931 posts) -

I really think this is just a cultural thing. I mean the whole of Japan isn't as big as my state and has way more people. And way more dense urban areas. I'd wager it's easier to get a group of friends together when you're packed in that way? Maybe? Or perhaps that's just a stereotype and I'm misinformed; certainly a possibility.

It's also, likely, part of Nintendo's place in the industry as the family friendly console. I think they may just be afraid to offer the online modes for fear of things like parents hearing online chats with the racial slurs or other verbal diarrhea.

Who knows. I don't want to play a game like that online anyway as I find the most fun from Mario games comes from a solitary play through. But still, I can see why others would want it. And it is a true shame that Nintendo won't offer it to those who would like it.

Avatar image for Randolph
#23 Edited by Randolph (10542 posts) -

@barrybarryk said:

Yeah, as far as I'm concerned online co-op can go die in hole. It's not fun on consoles and while people seem to suggest it doesn't come at the cost of local co-op, the current trend of just not bothering to offer any form of local multi-player kind of bins that idea from the get go.

A Mario game doesn't need online co-op and I can't see that many fans of the series actually caring about its omission

I've had plenty of fun in co-operative online play on consoles, and I'm not sure how a few developers who are not Nintendo decided to just do online co-op and omit offline co-op completely means Nintendo would do the same, given how different they already are than the rest of the industry, suggesting they would simply follow the trend in that event seems unlikely, to say the least. In fact, they have two game series, Mario Kart, and Smash Bros. which offer both on and offline competitive play, so why is both on and offline co-op play such a strange and impossible task for them in your view?

I don't know how many of us their are who care, but I've been playing Mario games since I had Mario Bros. (not Super, just Mario Bros.) on Atari, and moving on to the Super Mario Bros. games on the NES, and I would benefit greatly from it. It seems I simply have more faith in their ability to pull off both, and offer a more robust package that appeals to and serves more people than you do.

Avatar image for Bigboi500
#24 Posted by Bigboi500 (35550 posts) -

@ZZoMBiE13 said:

It's also, likely, part of Nintendo's place in the industry as the family friendly console. I think they may just be afraid to offer the online modes for fear of things like parents hearing online chats with the racial slurs or other verbal diarrhea.

I doubt it's any of that because I've seen tons of that kind of garbage on both Mario Kart Wii and Mario Kart DS. I just think they know most of us who are Mario platformer fans don't care about online modes for a game like this, and that it probably isn't worth the time and resources.

Avatar image for ZZoMBiE13
#25 Edited by ZZoMBiE13 (22931 posts) -

@Bigboi500 said:

@ZZoMBiE13 said:

It's also, likely, part of Nintendo's place in the industry as the family friendly console. I think they may just be afraid to offer the online modes for fear of things like parents hearing online chats with the racial slurs or other verbal diarrhea.

I doubt it's any of that because I've seen tons of that kind of garbage on both Mario Kart Wii and Mario Kart DS. I just think they know most of us who are Mario platformer fans don't care about online modes for a game like this, and that it probably isn't worth the time and resources.

Yeah, you may be correct. Honestly, its hard to see what kind of reasoning would lead to such a choice.

Avatar image for Randolph
#26 Edited by Randolph (10542 posts) -

@Bigboi500 said:

@ZZoMBiE13 said:

It's also, likely, part of Nintendo's place in the industry as the family friendly console. I think they may just be afraid to offer the online modes for fear of things like parents hearing online chats with the racial slurs or other verbal diarrhea.

I doubt it's any of that because I've seen tons of that kind of garbage on both Mario Kart Wii and Mario Kart DS. I just think they know most of us who are Mario platformer fans don't care about online modes for a game like this, and that it probably isn't worth the time and resources.

I wouldn't normally care either. I didn't care when it wasn't in the NSMB games because the co-op looked like a damned mess.

Mario 3D World's co-op looks sublime, and at best I may be able to play it with one other person once or twice a year. I know the game will still offer yet another fantastic and wholly enjoyable single player experience. But it wounds me to see the delicious potential for fun in taking on those stages with four players at a time out of my reach.

Avatar image for Lulu_Lulu
#27 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19564 posts) -

@ c_rakestraw

I can't. Gotta defend the dying concept of Local Multiplayer. The jerkness must be allowed to continue. Disruption...... Inevitable ! :(

Avatar image for Randolph
#28 Edited by Randolph (10542 posts) -

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@ c_rakestraw

I can't. Gotta defend the dying concept of Local Multiplayer. The jerkness must be allowed to continue. Disruption...... Inevitable ! :(

If you can stay serious for just a moment... why do you think Mario 3D World having both on and offline co-op would contribute to the dying concept of local multiplayer? This is like when I talk to Dark Souls fans who say the inclusion of an easier mode would ruin the game. I ask them how someone else playing the same game differently than they play it, (and actually being enabled to enjoy it), despite the fact that it would not change the way they play as it is an option, and thus something they could easily choose to simply not use. I never actually get a clear answer from them either. I just have people infer I am not a "real" Dark Souls fan, and my issues are ignored after a quick appeal to majority dismissal. (their are more of us than their are of you, so only we should eve get what we want)

If I'm not a "true" fan of the Dark Souls team and games, why do I have so much more faith in their ability to pull it off without a hitch than the "real" fans do? Pretty much the exact same thing I get from Nintendo/Mario fans. Vague suggestions I am not a true fan, and a appeal to majority dismissal of what I've said, no matter how simple, clear, and logical it is. It's a perplexing phenomenon.

Avatar image for GodModeEnabled
#29 Edited by GodModeEnabled (15314 posts) -

I feel like that if there is anything Mario does not need is online play. Have you ever seen Super Mario Wii U with 4 player coop? It is a DISASTER. I would rather scratch my balls with a rusty razor than suffer through that mess.

Maybe if they can incorporate in some meaningful, actually fun way then it could be good. I just don't see it improving the game any personally.

Avatar image for c_rakestraw
#30 Edited by c_rakestraw (14870 posts) -
@Randolph said:
@Lulu_Lulu said:

@ c_rakestraw

I can't. Gotta defend the dying concept of Local Multiplayer. The jerkness must be allowed to continue. Disruption...... Inevitable ! :(

If you can stay serious for just a moment... why do you think Mario 3D World having both on and offline co-op would contribute to the dying concept of local multiplayer? This is like when I talk to Dark Souls fans who say the inclusion of an easier mode would ruin the game. I ask them how someone else playing the same differently than they play it, despite the fact that it would not change the way they play as it is an option, and thus something they could easily choose to simply not use. I never actually get a clear answer from them either. I just have people infer I am not a "real" Dark Souls fan, and my issues are dismissed after a quick appeal to majority dismissal. (their are more of us than their are of you, so only we should eve get what we want)

Pretty much the exact same thing I get from Nintendo/Mario fans. Vague suggestions I am not a true fan, and a appeal to majority dismissal of what I've said, no matter how simply, clear, and logical it is. It's a perplexing phenomenon.

I've always seen the Dark Souls thing as a matter of balance. The game is designed in such a way to support the game being as hard as it is. From where enemies are placed to how much damage they deal, it's all very deliberately designed. The fear is that an easy mode or some other form of modal difficulty would upset that balance because everything is built and geared toward being hard and unrelenting. The game wouldn't be as interesting without the challenge, so changing those variables would only serve to make the game worse.

I think there are better ways to ease up the punishment without sacrificing the challenge. Perhaps an option to, say, only lose half your souls upon death instead of all of them; to start just outside of boss gates should you die to a boss. Stuff like that. Make it something to opt-in on when starting a new game and that alone would solve the problems while still not hindering the core experience the fans crave.

Avatar image for Randolph
#31 Posted by Randolph (10542 posts) -

@GodModeEnabled said:

I feel like that if there is anything Mario does not need is online play. Have you ever seen Super Mario Wii U with 4 player coop? It is a DISASTER. I would rather scratch my balls with a rusty razor than suffer through that mess.

Maybe if they can incorporate in some meaningful, actually fun way then it could be good. I just don't see it improving the game any personally.

I wouldn't want it for NSMBU either. Mario 3D World is a whole different beast though, it looks fun and a lot less like an absolute clusterfuck.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
#32 Posted by MirkoS77 (12784 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:

Having a feature for it's own sake, rather than including it because it would make a meaningful addition doesn't seem like a good use of resources, and something Nintendo really has never done.

But this Mario game is designed around co-op play. Playing online is the same as playing locally, the only difference is not having the people there so it's a perfectly meaningful addition. It seems if they're going to take the time to design an entire game around being able to play with 3 others, not using resources to introduce that ability to those wishing to play online seems like a senseless decision.

Avatar image for GodModeEnabled
#33 Edited by GodModeEnabled (15314 posts) -

Do you think 4 players running around on screen would be plausible? It would be the same kind of mess as the other game. What kind of coop do you suggest they implement?

Avatar image for Randolph
#34 Edited by Randolph (10542 posts) -

@c_rakestraw said:

I think there are better ways to ease up the punishment without sacrificing the challenge. Perhaps an option to, say, only lose half your souls upon death instead of all of them; to start just outside of boss gates should you die to a boss. Stuff like that. Make it something to opt-in on when starting a new game and that alone would solve the problems while still not hindering the core experience the fans crave.

That's pretty much what I've always suggested. My idea of an "easy" mode for those games is not everything dying in two hits and starting characters having a billion hit points. It's common sense stuff like you mentioned, and to maintain the integrity of online play, people who opt in to the less punishing mode (easy mode) would not be allowed to take their characters online, it would be an offline only mode. Yes, a lot of us prefer to fly solo in these games, the games do have a lot of griefing that can make the online experience aggravating, to say the least, especially in certain areas.

It would also allow the ability to pause the game, so that I don't have to choose between losing a very close boss fight or answering a very important phone call from work. I was in that situation one night fighting Sif when the alarm went off at the store and I was called to go check things out. It was infuriating. Especially because I was playing offline. Not being allowed to pause the game and go take care of that was just absurd.

Avatar image for ZZoMBiE13
#35 Edited by ZZoMBiE13 (22931 posts) -

@GodModeEnabled said:

I would rather scratch my balls with a rusty razor than suffer through that mess.

You know, there are people in the world with an imaginative mind. And when a vivid selection of words such as this is on offer, then these people have no choice in the matter as a horrific image of said words manifests before their mind's eye.

I am one such person. And thanks for ruining the rest of my evening as I try to get that image out of my head. I'm gonna go stare at some pictures of cute bunny rabbits until this subsides.

...t h e - h o r r o r...

Avatar image for Randolph
#36 Posted by Randolph (10542 posts) -

@GodModeEnabled said:

Do you think 4 players running around on screen would be plausible? It would be the same kind of mess as the other game. What kind of coop do you suggest they implement?

The one they already have, but just online. The co-op for Mario 3D world looks much smoother, and I would really like to try it out, but I can't. No one can know if it would work or not if no one is willing to even try. A weird situation from a company known primarily for taking bold risks.

Avatar image for ZZoMBiE13
#37 Posted by ZZoMBiE13 (22931 posts) -

Ahhh. much better....

Avatar image for GodModeEnabled
#38 Posted by GodModeEnabled (15314 posts) -

@ZZoMBiE13 said:

@GodModeEnabled said:

I would rather scratch my balls with a rusty razor than suffer through that mess.

You know, there are people in the world with an imaginative mind. And when a vivid selection of words such as this is on offer, then these people have no choice in the matter as a horrific image of said words manifests before their mind's eye.

I am one such person. And thanks for ruining the rest of my evening as I try to get that image out of my head. I'm gonna go stare at some pictures of cute bunny rabbits until this subsides.

...t h e - h o r r o r...

I am terribly sorry, please accept this photo as my condolences.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
#39 Posted by MirkoS77 (12784 posts) -

@GodModeEnabled said:

Do you think 4 players running around on screen would be plausible? It would be the same kind of mess as the other game. What kind of coop do you suggest they implement?

I'd think local play for a platformer would be far more of a hassle as everyone would have to share the same screen and pace instead of each person having their own screen and allowance for different paces.

Avatar image for GodModeEnabled
#40 Posted by GodModeEnabled (15314 posts) -

@Randolph said:

@GodModeEnabled said:

Do you think 4 players running around on screen would be plausible? It would be the same kind of mess as the other game. What kind of coop do you suggest they implement?

The one they already have, but just online. The co-op for Mario 3D world looks much smoother, and I would really like to try it out, but I can't. No one can know if it would work or not if no one is willing to even try. A weird situation from a company known primarily for taking bold risks.

I haven't actually seen the coop for 3D world, i'll have to check it out.

Avatar image for c_rakestraw
#42 Posted by c_rakestraw (14870 posts) -
@Randolph said:
@c_rakestraw said:

I think there are better ways to ease up the punishment without sacrificing the challenge. Perhaps an option to, say, only lose half your souls upon death instead of all of them; to start just outside of boss gates should you die to a boss. Stuff like that. Make it something to opt-in on when starting a new game and that alone would solve the problems while still not hindering the core experience the fans crave.

That's pretty much what I've always suggested. My idea of an "easy" mode for those games is not everything dying in two hits and starting characters having a billion hit points. It's common sense stuff like you mentioned, and to maintain the integrity of online play, people who opt in to the less punishing mode (easy mode) would not be allowed to take their characters online, it would be an offline only mode. Yes, a lot of us prefer to fly solo in these games, the games do have a lot of griefing that can make the online experience aggravating, to say the least, especially in certain areas.

It would also allow the ability to pause the game, so that I don't have to choose between losing a very close boss fight or answering a very important phone call from work. I was in that situation one night fighting Sif when the alarm went off at the store and I was called to go check things out. It was infuriating. Especially because I was playing offline. Not being allowed to pause the game and go take care of that was just absurd.

And that's reasonable -- especially the ability to pause while in offline mode. I can see the reason why they don't allow that, but it would certainly be nice since it can bea real inconvenience.

Most people who request an easy mode basically ask that Dark Souls not be Dark Souls, which defeats the whole purpose of playing the game in the first place. That's where a lot of the opposition comes from, I think. Any reasonable fans would probably be fine with our suggestions. So long as the core experience wouldn't be impacted, I don't see any harm.

Avatar image for Lulu_Lulu
#43 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (19564 posts) -

@ c_rakestraw "I think there are better ways to ease up the

punishment without sacrificing the challenge.

Perhaps an option to, say, only lose half your souls

upon death instead of all of them; to start just

outside of boss gates should you die to a boss"

Or they can just admit they designed it using artificial difficulty for masochists instead of people who want a real challenge then they don't have to change anything. its much more cost effective that way and more importantly, nobody would dispute it.

Avatar image for c_rakestraw
#44 Edited by c_rakestraw (14870 posts) -
@Lulu_Lulu said:

Or they can just admit they designed it using artificial difficulty for masochists instead of people who want a real challenge then they don't have to change anything. its much more cost effective that way and more importantly, nobody would dispute it.

Eh. Artificial is selling it short. Limbo is artificial -- deaths literally spring out of nowhere and are completely unavoidable unless you know exactly when they're going to spring and when. Dark Souls simply asks you to be vigilant. It only feels artificial if you refuse to pay attention to your surroundings and the player messages left all over. It's completely fair otherwise.

Avatar image for ZZoMBiE13
#45 Posted by ZZoMBiE13 (22931 posts) -

I've been wary of the Souls games. I don't mind a challenge, I don't even mind a punishing challenge so long as it's rewarding once you finally figure it out and learn what to do.

But what keeps me from playing them is that as I've grown older I have a much lower threshold for frustration. I've heard enough fans say what Rake is saying; just be vigilant. And that's probably the case. But I am almost afraid to hop in and be the game's whipping boy. I don't want to break anymore controllers. :P

Better to let Souls just be Souls and for me to stick with games that are more in my wheelhouse.

Avatar image for Lulu_Lulu
#46 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19564 posts) -

@ c_rakestraw

ofcourse ! And what do you lose in LIMBO ? Nothing! Do restart the whole section in LIMBO ? Nope. Plus limbo never claimed to be difficult or challenging or hardcore. Limbo is honest and upfront. Dark Souls is full of Sh!t, they don't have to change it, they just have to admit the truth and stop trying to bait me in to their trap. I love a challenge thats what put Dark Souls on my radar in the 1st place, good thing I didn't fall for the hype.

Avatar image for c_rakestraw
#47 Posted by c_rakestraw (14870 posts) -

@ZZoMBiE13: It can definitely be frustrating. Even with all the wikis, video guides, and general common-knowledge about those games that make them more accessible, they still provide one hell of a challenge. I was only able to stumble through Demon's Souls with the help of the wiki, and even that didn't help me get through the more intense parts of the game. They're great games, but brutal, too.

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@ c_rakestraw

ofcourse ! And what do you lose in LIMBO ? Nothing! Do restart the whole section in LIMBO ? Nope. Plus limbo never claimed to be difficult or challenging or hardcore. Limbo is honest and upfront. Dark Souls is full of Sh!t, they don't have to change it, they just have to admit the truth and stop trying to bait me in to their trap. I love a challenge thats what put Dark Souls on my radar in the 1st place, good thing I didn't fall for the hype.

Limbo claimed to be a puzzle game. But when its puzzles amounted to "walk into death trap multiple times to know where it is and how to avoid it," it's tough to put up with. It was annoying and boring as hell. Such a blatant disregard for player agency is disgraceful. At least Dark Souls always gives you the chance to avoid dying. I can't think of a single instance wherein you're supposed to die at the hands of a trap for the game's amusement, unlike Limbo where that happened every five minutes.

Avatar image for Lulu_Lulu
#48 Posted by Lulu_Lulu (19564 posts) -

@ c_rakestraw

Okay then they both suck. Happy ?

If limbo must be considered bad to prove Dark Souls is no better than so be it. I'm Kamekazi like that !

Avatar image for IndianaPwns39
#49 Posted by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -

@c_rakestraw said:

@ZZoMBiE13: It can definitely be frustrating. Even with all the wikis, video guides, and general common-knowledge about those games that make them more accessible, they still provide one hell of a challenge. I was only able to stumble through Demon's Souls with the help of the wiki, and even that didn't help me get through the more intense parts of the game. They're great games, but brutal, too.

@Lulu_Lulu said:

@ c_rakestraw

ofcourse ! And what do you lose in LIMBO ? Nothing! Do restart the whole section in LIMBO ? Nope. Plus limbo never claimed to be difficult or challenging or hardcore. Limbo is honest and upfront. Dark Souls is full of Sh!t, they don't have to change it, they just have to admit the truth and stop trying to bait me in to their trap. I love a challenge thats what put Dark Souls on my radar in the 1st place, good thing I didn't fall for the hype.

Limbo claimed to be a puzzle game. But when its puzzles amounted to "walk into death trap multiple times to know where it is and how to avoid it," it's tough to put up with. It was annoying and boring as hell. Such a blatant disregard for player agency is disgraceful. At least Dark Souls always gives you the chance to avoid dying. I can't think of a single instance wherein you're supposed to die at the hands of a trap for the game's amusement, unlike Limbo where that happened every five minutes.

There's one instance in both Demon's Souls and Dark Souls in which you have to die. In Demon's, you have to die during the tutorial. In Dark Souls, you have to die at Seath the Scaleless. Both of these are for story purposes and neither of them come close to the sheer bullshit Limbo threw at you. I enjoy puzzle games to be challenging and present a sense of death (Catherine is a great example), but Limbo was just trial and error.

But yeah, @Randolph, I understand completely. I don't know anyone locally that would enjoy playing this game with me but I know tons of people all over the country that would love to co op this. I think it's unfortunate that it isn't featured since it would have helped sell me on a Wii U.

Avatar image for Randolph
#50 Edited by Randolph (10542 posts) -

I didn't like Limbo either, honestly. Once I got past the novelty of watching my little shadow guy die in so many gruesome and sometimes hilarious ways. It just didn't have any substance to it.