4chan Search
11 results for "9a52d178b906fb2895d7dee1aa6d25f2"
We're just going to recap the whole series now
>>151056957
The problem with Dante losing is that this outcome still wouldn't fix Dante vs. Bayonetta, and that would imply to Death Battle normies that the Kamiya-verse as a whole is weaker than the FF-verse, when the most powerful Bayonetta characters could have defeated FF's top tiers instead. Death Battle could ruin the image of Kamiya games as a whole, just like how they fooled normies into thinking that Bleach doesn't beat Naruto. Also, Death Battle insisting so much on DMC is weird, when not only Bayonetta, but also Okami, and arguably Viewtiful Joe, depending on how you interpret movie magic, have more powerful leads than Dante.
At least we see planetary and multiversal destruction in Bayonetta, plus she destroys Platinum's offices in the third game. In VJ, you can argue that each movie is a whole world or universe by itself, while in Okami, you can create stars and control the Sun and Moon. Even W101 has bosses who can casually blow up moons or Earth, and has Kamiya as part of the playable cast. But DMC lacks all of that.
The problem with Dante losing is that this outcome still wouldn't fix Dante vs. Bayonetta, and that would imply to Death Battle normies that the Kamiya-verse as a whole is weaker than the FF-verse, when the most powerful Bayonetta characters could have defeated FF's top tiers instead. Death Battle could ruin the image of Kamiya games as a whole, just like how they fooled normies into thinking that Bleach doesn't beat Naruto. Also, Death Battle insisting so much on DMC is weird, when not only Bayonetta, but also Okami, and arguably Viewtiful Joe, depending on how you interpret movie magic, have more powerful leads than Dante.
At least we see planetary and multiversal destruction in Bayonetta, plus she destroys Platinum's offices in the third game. In VJ, you can argue that each movie is a whole world or universe by itself, while in Okami, you can create stars and control the Sun and Moon. Even W101 has bosses who can casually blow up moons or Earth, and has Kamiya as part of the playable cast. But DMC lacks all of that.
>roll for nefer
>spent fragile resin to farm her ascension boss material
>get her to level 80
>there is no fucking content to use her on
>close the game
>spent fragile resin to farm her ascension boss material
>get her to level 80
>there is no fucking content to use her on
>close the game
>>719993135
I'll one-up you. I can never imagine someone properly pedaling a bike. I always imagine the foot slipping then the leg getting tangled around the pedal like spaghetti around a fork.
I'll one-up you. I can never imagine someone properly pedaling a bike. I always imagine the foot slipping then the leg getting tangled around the pedal like spaghetti around a fork.
>>2137684
You know which civ-like has solved the micromanagement in late game issue?
Old World, with its orders system.
In it, you can only do a limited amount of actions each turn, so the rough amount of actions you do and time it takes to do a turn stays roughly the same throughout the ENTIRE game.
It basically works like this: Each turn you have a limited amount of order points available. The amount can only slightly be modified, like by getting a good king. Any action you take spends those points. Some actions like moving a unit are repeatable while others like attacking, starting a trade caravan or constructing a tile improvement end a turn, so a unit can move vast distances (unless blocked/attacked) if you are willing to spend points on it but it can't attack 20 times in a row on the same turn.
The effect is that in the early game, you can't do as much but you can do those things more intensely (spending more points on them) while in the late game you can do a lot but have to choose carefully about where to spend your comparatively very limited order points.
In the mid game a lot of focus is on balancing growth or military and which enemy to prioritize where. There's often an uneasy truce if you aren't literally at truce or allied, because your enemy may suddenly decide to spend his points on only you and you may get severely hurt if you are out of position from delaying them.
I think it's pretty genius and wish it was used in more games.
You know which civ-like has solved the micromanagement in late game issue?
Old World, with its orders system.
In it, you can only do a limited amount of actions each turn, so the rough amount of actions you do and time it takes to do a turn stays roughly the same throughout the ENTIRE game.
It basically works like this: Each turn you have a limited amount of order points available. The amount can only slightly be modified, like by getting a good king. Any action you take spends those points. Some actions like moving a unit are repeatable while others like attacking, starting a trade caravan or constructing a tile improvement end a turn, so a unit can move vast distances (unless blocked/attacked) if you are willing to spend points on it but it can't attack 20 times in a row on the same turn.
The effect is that in the early game, you can't do as much but you can do those things more intensely (spending more points on them) while in the late game you can do a lot but have to choose carefully about where to spend your comparatively very limited order points.
In the mid game a lot of focus is on balancing growth or military and which enemy to prioritize where. There's often an uneasy truce if you aren't literally at truce or allied, because your enemy may suddenly decide to spend his points on only you and you may get severely hurt if you are out of position from delaying them.
I think it's pretty genius and wish it was used in more games.
oh my god this is insufferable
Did I miss something or where is flash gauntlet 1
>>713776392
My nigga you are, in your very own post, talking about "strong" execution barriers, meaning you yourself believe there are degrees to what an execution barrier can be.
It's not a matter of WWs or DO being impossibly hard to do (for me or other people). It's a matter of what they actually add to the game. How does the player's input relate to the output of the game? Does doing action X have an effect on the enemy or not? How many button presses do you need to change an enemy's state? How frequently does a game require you to do a given action, and therefore make choices over using muscle memory and playing as routine? And so on.
There is such a thing as elegance in design, and it's based on not putting more in something than it's required for it to work. Bayonetta fails at such elegance on just about every aspect of its design, with the gameplay being no exception.
My nigga you are, in your very own post, talking about "strong" execution barriers, meaning you yourself believe there are degrees to what an execution barrier can be.
It's not a matter of WWs or DO being impossibly hard to do (for me or other people). It's a matter of what they actually add to the game. How does the player's input relate to the output of the game? Does doing action X have an effect on the enemy or not? How many button presses do you need to change an enemy's state? How frequently does a game require you to do a given action, and therefore make choices over using muscle memory and playing as routine? And so on.
There is such a thing as elegance in design, and it's based on not putting more in something than it's required for it to work. Bayonetta fails at such elegance on just about every aspect of its design, with the gameplay being no exception.