salt and sacrifice

[starslinger]

enough already.

I for one highly recommend buying sacrifice. wait for it to hit steam if you want, i totally get that.

at least, don't write it off until you try it -- without rushing; it's not a linear 20 hour game, you can't enjoy it if you just try to blow through and add it to your list of completed games.
it's not salt and sanctuary 2. it's different. you will have to play differently. it's difficult and frustrating, yeah, like every other soulslike. you can't just hold block and spam heavy attack. you will need to farm a little and upgrade your gear unless you plan on never getting hit.

i can understand it not being your thing, even if sanctuary was, and fair enough. but say /that/. ngl, seeing people call it "a bad game" makes me think they're clowns. plenty of bad games being made these days, but this is not one of them.

also, the best coop experience i've found in literally years.

[Bankai9212]

^That would make sense if DS2 was trying to mix ideas. DS2 while I still enjoy it had development problems hence why it ended up as is. Sacrifice tried to mix DS with monster hunter which didn't satisfy either.

[Phirestar]

引用自 Bankai9212：

^That would make sense if DS2 was trying to mix ideas. DS2 while I still enjoy it had development problems hence why it ended up as is. Sacrifice tried to mix DS with monster hunter which didn't satisfy either.

I'm curious: what did you think about Dark Souls 3 changing up the formula by trying to mix Souls gameplay with the faster-paced, more-aggressive nature of Bloodborne's combat system?

I ask because that, too, is an instance of them changing a sequel to be more in line with a different game. And I've heard some people rag on DS3 for doing that, claiming that it's "not Dark Souls", despite the fact that it's still a case of the sequels "being different" from Dark Souls 1, and the fact that one of the popular statements made of DS2 is that "it's a good game, just not a good Souls game". (And to add to that, people are simultaneously claiming that DS3 just copied DS1 and did nothing new of its own, which... those two statements cannot go together: a game cannot be an unoriginal copy and something entirely different at the same time.)

It feels like opinions flip-flop constantly - things that this game did were okay and made it better, but now that another game did them it's a bad thing. I also realize that are talking about separate series made by different developers, but I'm pretty sure that the majority of players overlap between both communities, so generally we're talking about a lot of the same people.

[Bankai9212]

People will always have a different view/opinion on games which is why I don't bother with reviews anymore, as for DS3 it was speed up but not by much it didn't include much from bloodborne. If anything DS3 is like any other sequel DS2 included there wasn't much new it was a sequel. That said DS3 had a goal and vision and from soft new there strengths at that point. Sacrifice just implemented systems failing to realize why they worked in their respected games.

[Jauder le Bonette]

引用自 Phirestar：

So I have been watching a couple of reviews for Sacrifice, as well as reading the comments section, and it seems like a lot of the major criticisms are things that can be leveraged at Dark Souls 2. Things like being ganked by multiple enemies or combo'ed to death, the disjointed world design that strays away from its original (albeit not in the exact same way), and the general complaints about the game changing so much from Sanctuary's template, and being overall frustrating at every turn.

Nooot really, no. Like yes, the wording used in the complaints is the same, but the sheer magnitude is completely different. World of sacrifice isn't just disjointed - it's not connected at all. There aren't just gangs, there are 3 factions of enemies, 2 of which respawn in real time, fighting each other on 2D plane, and they can juggle you DMC style.

[Phirestar]

引用自 Phirestar：

So I have been watching a couple of reviews for Sacrifice, as well as reading the comments section, and it seems like a lot of the major criticisms are things that can be leveraged at Dark Souls 2. Things like being ganked by multiple enemies or combo'ed to death, the disjointed world design that strays away from its original (albeit not in the exact same way), and the general complaints about the game changing so much from Sanctuary's template, and being overall frustrating at every turn.

Found a couple more reviews that were much more positive of the game, and I do love the people in the comment sections claiming it to be a paid review, and telling them that their coverage is biased because they're a fan of the original game.

There's no way that someone might genuinely like the game, and not have the same problems with it as other people. No, you're definitely right: they were paid by the developers to make dishonest reviews about the game. That wouldn't be an extremely risky and absurdly stupid move for a two-person indie studio to make.

(And as far as the "biased fan" argument is concerned, you could say the same thing about people who didn't like the sequel. "Oh, well you're just complaining because it's different. You need to be more open-minded and not let your love of the first game cloud your judgement." It is a pointless assertion to make... and probably one made of Dark Souls 2 when that game released, as well.)

[Kristoffer]

Please come to Steam.
I'll buy copies for my friends.

[Nathaniel Prime]

The thing is, nobody was asking a game like Sacrifice. A lot of people wanted a legit sequel to Salt & Sanctuary - something similar but more refined and with new content. If they start with a bad idea, "what if we made Salt & Sanctuary except your character sucks", no matter what kind of execution they have, it will be a bad game.