Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,002 profile views
  1. Parksey

    Dark Souls 3

    Yeah I'm thinking of trying a DEX/Magic build. I'm not sure how viable magic is in this game, but apart from very late in the game in Dark Souls (when I had level ups to spare) I've never really dabbled in magic. I tend to not like splitting my focus as I find that you end up half as good in two stats rather than a powerhouse in one, but might give it a go this time. Bloodborne I was basically a DEX machine. Loads of stamina and fast attacks. Can't remember what I did in Demons, but in Dark Souls I think I used a spear/halberd/rapier with lightning attached to it. And some spells later. Dark Souls 2 I just went for a STR melee build. Was doing loads of damage and had the health to take a hit. Didn't really use my shield and just dodge. Had the stamina to do that, though not to the extent of Bloodborne (seems hard to rack up the stamina in DS2). Any recommendations for starting class?
  2. Parksey

    Dark Souls 3

    I've just finished DS2 and having left that game for a few months when I got to Drangelic Castle, I still have a bit of an itch to be scratched. I have DS3 already purchased, do people reckon I should go straight in to it, or am I likely to get fatigue? Since 2016 I've went through the entire series, doing roughly one a year, and DS3 is the last one standing (apart from Sekiro, if that counts). As much as I fancy starting it tonight, I don't want to ruin it by becoming bored midway through.
  3. The other advice I would recommend is to not over-rely on the dodge roll - it's better to simply move between bullet waves. Often you'll roll out of one wave and immediately before another one.
  4. Speculation for a character death next week:
  5. Parksey

    Final Fantasy XV

    Yeah that was a typo at the end - I know that they aren't connected, which is a relief, given all the entries floating around the series now.
  6. Parksey

    Final Fantasy XV

    I was actually going to start this next weekend. I bought it when there was the PSN pricing error that cropped up on HotUKDeals and nabbed it for a tenner not long after launch. I heard the game had quite a divisive final third and that they were looking at fixing it. Did they only fix it in paid-for DLC (think it was called the Royal edition) but not the vanilla base game? Also I heard the story was basically incomprehensible without watching a feature-length anime beforehand. If anyone can provide a quick synopsis of what I am supposed to know before starting the game, that'd be great. Bar a quick play on the FFXIV trial and a an hour or two of FF7, this will actually be my first FF game. I know that the plots are actually connected though, thankfully.
  7. Parksey

    Nioh - Feudal Souls

    Yeah those sub-missions of two bosses at the same time are just a cheap way of adding challenging content. The bosses aren't designed to be a team, like O+S from Dark Souls and they are just an exercise in frustration. Plus the level recommendation, if I remember rightly, is quite a bit higher than what I was when I finished the game. And due to my careful playstyle, I was probably already quite a bit higher than most people at the end. Like the Souls games, it does become quite easy by the end, not helped by Nioh's reuse of enemies meaning they don't change much throughout the game and the Living Weapon/Sloth letting you absolutely go to town on some of the bosses. Still, the game's base systems are so fun, I was tempted to go back and play through it again in NG+(I think I actually did a few missions). I like how you can flick between the modes too and there are actually about five New Game difficulties eventually I think. But with a backlog and digital sales, I can't really afford the time to just replay the same game/levels over and over. I might go back to it one day, most likely when I have finished what's left of the Dark Souls series (2's DLC and 3) and have an itch to scratch. I haven't bought Nioh's DLC so might need to get on that before the sequel hits. Heard it's a step up in difficulty though.
  8. Parksey

    Switch - Too many ports?? (Ports Die Twice)

    Whoever said gaming has a rich back-catalogue that needs to be taken forward with us each generation is right. However I do wish that Nintendo especially, would make this a persistent digital Virtual Console. I'd happily pay a sub if it meant I could access any past Nintendo game on their onlone service. I know that this is unlike to happen given that they sell Gameboy games on the 3DS for £8. As it is though, most of their stuff is just dormant. Neither making money for them or getting paid. I would object to them charging for each individual title if they had it all up there. Instead we get a painfully slow dripfeed of select titles, before it's on to the next generation of consoles and we start again. Why aren't old games persistently available? Anyway, I don't mind ports personally, as I left the UK and my Wii U behind back in 2014 and barely got through any titles for it bar MK and Super Mario Bros. So a lot of these ports are brand new. I'm guessing, given the uptake on the Wii U, this is the same for a lot of people, and also Nintendo's reasoning behind the rereleases. I'd feel differently if I'd actually played them, I guess. I can see why it must be annoying for those who rinsed the Wii U. It'd be interesting to see how the two systems compared over a two year period, and what games were released for each. I know the Wii U also got quite a few ports (the Zelda games, Monster Hunter, loads of third party stuff) and that it probably didn't host anything quite up to the standard of Breath of the Wild (2 years in, anyway) and Mario Odyssey. But I would imagine that actually, the two systems probably had a similar number of good first party stuff at the respective points in their lives. What I do feel, is that the Wii U was arguably the more daring system. This is a little odd, given that I actually think Nintendo dialled back on their own tablet controller and never really utilised as well as they should have, but I do think that perhaps the Wii U's output was a little more diverse. This is countered by the fact that the Switch has basically become my indie game platform of choice. I used to get that stuff on my PS4 and Vita but now I'll automatically just get it on the Switch. It's great for that stuff, and really helps the gaps between releases. I guess we don't really know if ports actually stop or slow down new releases or not. My inkling is that even if we didn't have ports, the new titles would still be releasing around the same time. And yeah, there is a sense that Nintendo know we will pay for portable versions of their recent stuff. They are absolutely right on this. But I also think most gamers want portable versions of their games. In this sense, is it taking advantage of that or pandering to your audience. I imagine most people complaining of ports on the Switch, nevertheless have a dream port stuffed in the back of their mind that they would clamour over and immediately buy should it be re-released. So it's definitely not always a case of "ports=bad", but obviously as it's an older game, everyone's mileage with a port differs. Not a new title, where obviously the entire world has never played it until release, you get a much more mixed audience for an older game. Saying that, the prices are definitely off. But again, this is perceived value. I've never played Hyrule Warriors. By and large, it's a mammoth game with load of content and has received a lot of praise on here. If I bought it for £30-40 I could easily get my money's worth out of it. But I played and finished Super Mario Bros U so wouldn't want to play that again for anything more than £15. At that price point it would definitely get my attention, but I'm not desperate. So even price is an odd thing to judge. What is a brand new experience for some is maybe going to deter people who have played it and would only revisit it if it was cheap. It's also the age old argument of whether Wind Waker, which was worth £40 in 2003 is still worth that in 2019. It's still the same game and the HD port obviously improved it even, but then some gamers don't like the idea of the price tag holding up 15 years later. But then, age is never really a determiner of value or price in other industries. I wouldn't expect to pick up, say, the first Harry Potter book or Apocalypse Now for a quid despite them being 20 or 40 years old now. They generally get re-released or republished (with fancy new covers too). Price and value are hugely subjective. I wasn't interested in Mario and Rabbids, a brand new game and a brand new IP which was highly praised, at full price. But as soon as it was £15 I immediately snapped it up and wanted to play it. I'll probably find out what value I attach to it once I do play it. So yeah, we've all just wasted 10 minutes of our lives watching me sit on the fence. Good job everyone.
  9. Parksey

    Nintendo eShop (Software Chatter)

    I wish I'd read these replies earlier this morning. I always wanted Y-L on the Switch for portability, but the Switch Tax meant it was £34.99 as opposed to just over a tenner on PS4. The current sale finally pushed it down to a more palatable price so I bought got. Hopefully nostalgia for Rare's late 90s output will save it.

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.