after spending the holiday toying with the xbone, ps4, and making my first WiiU digital purchase, I have to post here gushing about how Sony handled install times. The install times on the PS4 are fucking godly. I'm sitting here, right now, installing w101 on my WiiU and NBA 2k14 on my xbone. W101 has been installing for 20 minutes, NBA 2k14 has been installing for like half an hour.
This is ridiculous. Sony deserves way more credit for keeping their install times reasonable.
Yeah, total turnaround from how awful it was on PS3. Feels like they were the only ones who really put thought into it for this generation...
To be fair, the installs on the 360 were pretty ridiculous, they were just unnecessary.
On my xbone some combination of limited download speed and puny install speed makes buying digital games a serious chore. There's also no way to see exactly what download speed you are getting or what the damn thing is doing. With a 22 GB download, 100 percents is not enough information! I look forward to when I can grab a PS4 to live next to it and be the primary console.
They were very similar games in some ways but inFamous at least tried to interest you in playing as a good guy. Prototype was all about kill everything you see.
Well, that made sense for the prototype storyline. I mean ...
I figured the PS4 version of Diablo III would drop when the expansion did. Any word on that? Because that would be wonderful.
They haven't announced a release date yet. I think they mentioned the console release coming 1-2 months or so after the PC expansion release, but that may just be a rumor.
Yeah, they probably want to have an ad campaign running somewhere around 60-90 days prior to the new release date.
Especially given their crippling loss of momentum postponing it so suddenly last year. I'm guessing they take up the Rockstar slot, aka last week of April through the second week of May. That's proved to be an incredibly lucrative window to release open-world games, and there likely won't be much competition this year in that release window.
I know reading the comments section is akin to willingly accept a brain tumor...
but this talks about injecting new content into older, emulated games that are cloud streamed.
How are they not going to use this specific feature to add microtransactions / season passes / DLC to PS2 and PS3 titles that did not have it? It feels tailor-made for it.
That said, if the core game itself is capable of being played at PS3 levels of quality without discernible lag, it will make me move on buying a PS4 that much faster; I really want to play TLoU, but I do not want to buy a console that probably has 1-2 years of "good" life left in it at best.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I know reading the comments section is akin to willingly accept a brain tumor...
but this talks about injecting new content into older, emulated games that are cloud streamed.
How are they not going to use this specific feature to add microtransactions / season passes / DLC to PS2 and PS3 titles that did not have it? It feels tailor-made for it.
That said, if the core game itself is capable of being played at PS3 levels of quality without discernible lag, it will make me move on buying a PS4 that much faster; I really want to play TLoU, but I do not want to buy a console that probably has 1-2 years of "good" life left in it at best.
That's an enormous leap you've made.
I'd bet on this merely being an idea to help incentivise the purchase of PS1/PS2 classics. They filed a similar patent last year, dealing with adding trophies to emulated games.
I know reading the comments section is akin to willingly accept a brain tumor...
but this talks about injecting new content into older, emulated games that are cloud streamed.
How are they not going to use this specific feature to add microtransactions / season passes / DLC to PS2 and PS3 titles that did not have it? It feels tailor-made for it.
That said, if the core game itself is capable of being played at PS3 levels of quality without discernible lag, it will make me move on buying a PS4 that much faster; I really want to play TLoU, but I do not want to buy a console that probably has 1-2 years of "good" life left in it at best.
Is it really worth it to add that kind of stuff to old games?
You think people would want or pay for ps2 DLC and if they would would the return on the money for sony and the dev be worth it?
or season passes and micro transactions for old sports games and shooters? who wants that crap? lol
Dont be mistaken though... Gaikai will be behind a pay wall...
I think it will be PS+ only with individual charges for every game you buy
Others think it will be everything i said above plus some extra Gaikia only surcharge
As far as the PS3 goes I agree with you... no need to buy one right now with its value decreasing with every new PS4 game that is released and announced.... especially for someone like you who only wants one game.
0
Options
zllehsHiding in a box, waiting to strike.Registered Userregular
Even if the streaming was near-flawless, close to the Vita's remote play when locally connected, buying old games on Gaikai is not going to be for me
I'm not going to buy a game where the entire act of playing it is dependent on being connected to the Internet
Okay. Given the success of the entire MMO genre as well as the yearly "Play Multiplayer shooting mans oh and we sorta threw in a campaign for traditions sake" titles I think we can safely say that your belief isn't common.
Also note, this is how you sell internet required connection required stuff. Make it obviously have an upside to the consumer. Like the previous genres I mentioned they all have clear reasons to be online, they wouldn't be the same games if they weren't online. While it's possible to do something like Genkai offline it's inconvenient and I'll certainly shell out some cash for convenience.
Though I love reading the charts in patents, the descriptions are so general that anybody could easily come up with the basic premise from whole cloth.
I'm thinking about buying a Playstation 3 (yes, three) soon and I'm not quite sure which version / edition / whatever to buy.
My main deciding factor is definitely the price - the cheaper, the better. The reason I'm only thinking about buying one now is because I'm on a fairly limited budget and so far there just haven't been enough games on the PS3 that interest me to justify the hefty price tag.
Now that the PS4 is out, console prices have dropped and are finally in a range I consider acceptable for what I'm looking to get out of this system (mainly some JRPGs). I bought my PS2 in 2008 for 60€ and was pretty happy with my purchase.
Now, what's caught my eye was the 12GB PS3 Slim which I can get for around 150€. Sure, not a lot of space on it but I don't plan on buying many digital games so this isn't much of a concern..and I've heard it's fairly easy to install a bigger hard drive.
The one thing that's holding me back from buying it right now is that it's not backwards compatible. I've heard that only the older PS3s are backwards compatible, is that right? The thing is, I can barely find these older editions online a) new and b) for a decent price, I'm kinda weary about buying a console used after buying a shitty used PSP once.
I guess I can still keep my PS2 around so this isn't a huge deal, but still. Is there some other reason why buying a 12GB Slim is a horrible idea or should I just do it?
Which drive did you buy?
Can you take the old 500 GB drive from the PS4 and then format it and use it on the PS3?
When you swap drives do you have to back anything up or can you just format it, download what games you want, and revert to cloud saves you've uploaded previously for those games?
- It has 12gb of storage space. A lot of installs are 4gb
- If you decide on a PS4 in future you'll probably get PS+. This will also get you a LOAD of free PS3 games. You won't be able to fit many on a 12gb drive.
- The 12gb drive has horrendously poor delete speeds. For example it takes GT5 about 5 mins to delete on a standard PS3 (there are hundreds and hundreds of tiny files, it's an extreme example). The 12gb takes over 10 mins. Rage is an extreme example too, on a standard PS3 it takes 50 seconds, on the 12gb PS3 it takes 9 minutes.
- The build quality of the PS3 is below that of the standard Slim and of the Fat. The Super Slims look and feel pretty damn tacky.
- If you want to upgrade the drive you need to buy a separate caddy, you can't just slot in a new 2.5" drive.
- Installing on the PS3 is a bit dumb. If you did want to buy a digital game you'd be stuffed if it was over 6gb. The console needs double the space to install the game.
On the plus side the 12gb has slightly better write/seek speeds under some circumstances so Rage (which relies on the read speed for it's MEGATEXTURES(TM)) actually performs slightly better.
Personally if you're trying to save cash I'd look for a store that does pre-owned Slims with a 1 year warranty. They're really reliable.
Also keep in mind that many games have mandatory installs that will obliterate 12 GB. I'd check if your desired games are among them.
Yeah, absolute first thing I would do if you go that route is buy a hard drive. You're using €, so I'm not sure where you're at, but the UK Amazon store has hdd's for as low as £30 and even that would at least make the system functional. But looking at Game.co.uk it looks like the price difference between the 12GB and 500GB unit is only about £50 and includes a game.
So yeah… Hybrid drive is so much better than default drive. No durr, I know
I finally capitulated and bought one for my PS3; should be in the mail today. It's only got 8GB of SSD, so I'm more excited about the 1TB of storage, but from what I was reading, games that take me several days/weeks to finish should still see an improvement in load times.
Also keep in mind that many games have mandatory installs that will obliterate 12 GB. I'd check if your desired games are among them.
Ah, that sucks.
So, what are some good JRPGs on the PS3? So far what I'm interested in is Tales of Graces, Tales of Xillia and Ni no Kuni. Any other "must-haves"?
That's a pretty good start. I didn't like NNK but a lot of people did so I'll allow it. I started Xillia and enjoyed it, and I also have ToGf on my desk right now.
Other big-name candidates: Eternal Sonata, Valkyria Chronicles, Resonance of Fate, FFXIII, FFXIII-2, the upcoming FFX|X-2 HD, and then get hyped for Persona 5 in the distant future of 2015.
3DS: 2466-2307-8384 PSN: bssteph Steam:bsstephanTwitch:bsstephan Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e Occasional words about games:my site
I'm thinking about buying a Playstation 3 (yes, three) soon and I'm not quite sure which version / edition / whatever to buy.
My main deciding factor is definitely the price - the cheaper, the better. The reason I'm only thinking about buying one now is because I'm on a fairly limited budget and so far there just haven't been enough games on the PS3 that interest me to justify the hefty price tag.
Now that the PS4 is out, console prices have dropped and are finally in a range I consider acceptable for what I'm looking to get out of this system (mainly some JRPGs). I bought my PS2 in 2008 for 60€ and was pretty happy with my purchase.
Now, what's caught my eye was the 12GB PS3 Slim which I can get for around 150€. Sure, not a lot of space on it but I don't plan on buying many digital games so this isn't much of a concern..and I've heard it's fairly easy to install a bigger hard drive.
The one thing that's holding me back from buying it right now is that it's not backwards compatible. I've heard that only the older PS3s are backwards compatible, is that right? The thing is, I can barely find these older editions online a) new and b) for a decent price, I'm kinda weary about buying a console used after buying a shitty used PSP once.
I guess I can still keep my PS2 around so this isn't a huge deal, but still. Is there some other reason why buying a 12GB Slim is a horrible idea or should I just do it?
I'd stay away from the super slims. Kind of cheap build quality and small HDD size. I'd also stay away from the fats (the old original ones that are BC). They are much more expensive (because of the BC) and also are prone to overheating (mine over heated twice). I'd recommend the slim : looks nice, much smaller than the fat, decent HDD size right out of the box (same HDD form factor the fat uses) and doesn't have the overheat problems (runs much cooler)
I would pick up playstation plus. You get a ton of great games on it. I feel like there are lot of great games I can play on the PS3 atm - more in fact than for the PS4 for the forseeable future. There's AC IV, XCOM, Uncharted 3, Dragons Dogma...etc. I forget exactly what is on the PS+ instant game collection atm but bioshock infinite is supposed to be added next month? That's another one I haven't played.
I would definitely not say "oh I won't buy any digital games a tiny HDD is no problem" as I think the excellent PS+ lineup , which of course is all digital, is one of the best reasons to buy a PS3. I'd recommend putting in a nice big Hard drive
Basically if someone was starting from scratch and had no consoles I'd still recommend a PS3 at this point over a PS4. It would be a no brainer if they had a vita or were planning to get a PS4, as the PS+ subscription builds your collection up. I have a PS4 and will be keeping my PS3 for the forseeable future. Does the PS4 even have a remote like the PS3 does?
an additional reason to have both the PS3 and the PS4 is so that you can stream netflix on the PS3 while doing remote play on the vita via the PS4.
Dark Souls is great, but yeah it had some problems. The camera was pretty terrible, and the level design didn't compensate for it (quite the opposite actually). Spellcaster enemies could aim-target you from farther away than you could for no reason other than a strange interface decision. Most bosses were kinda poorly designed in that they were either strangely easy, or they would drop you in one or two hits if you didn't dodge properly, which you couldn't do until you'd learned their movements. That means you were basically forced to die a bunch (and thus replay sections) until you could recognize the attacks and react properly.
It was fun for a run or two, but I'd definitely like a new take on the formula. I'm hoping Deep Down delivers that.
All the positive things that people are saying about Dark Souls are things I appreciate, but this post is a good start to what turned me off of the game entirely. It's great that it's difficult, and rewards tight mastery of the game, but it does that and then goes a step further to punish you in really cheap ways. There are deaths where you screwed up, and deaths where the game decided it didn't want to give you a chance.
When I'm looking forward to an experience devoted to system mastery I'll spend my time on fighting games; when I'm willing to put up with winning by repeated learning-by-dying attempts, I'll just play something like Hotline Miami where I respawn instantly and death costs me 30 seconds. Maybe I just don't have time or patience to be dicked around the way Dark Souls does.
This, plus someone leading a raid insisting we must do it their way, is exactly why raiding in MMOs started to suck.
The idea that an encounter should require the raid to wipe on it several times before achieving success in order to artificially sweeten that success?
Utter bullshit. Platformers are the ultimate expression of challenging gameplay because there aren't any real surprises. You know what you've got to do. Sometimes you get new tools to do it, but fundamentally nothing changes between 1-1 and 10-4.
Dark Souls is not an MMO, but maybe you were just crossing streams. Anyway, platformers aren't really different from dark souls type design. The first time you start jumping to some platform that suddenly moves when you didn't expect it and you fall to your death only to come back and know what to do now, it's not unlike seeing a boss in dark souls and dying a couple times seeing what needs to be done to beat it.
And that's not to say you HAVE to die the first couple times you see a Dark Souls boss. A good and cautious player can beat them the first time without needing any trial and error. A recent example of a fun and decently challenging action game for me was Metal Gear Rising which I picked up this month. There were a few bosses that took me a few tries, because my reflexes, dodge timings, etc. weren't perfect. If i'm not on easy mode and i'm beating an action game without even having to be cognizant of anything other than smashing buttons, then that's going to be entirely unsatisfying to me.
Tangential, but no MMO i've ever played has had raid content that required you to wipe on it before beating it. Every time any raid I have been in has died to a well designed encounter it was because we didn't execute properly. Even the absolute hardest fights in WoW could've been beaten first try by a group of people playing perfectly and reacting and recognizing what was going on in real time. Just because people aren't perfect and have to see something, take it in, learn from their mistakes, etc. is not bullshit. It just means it was designed to require tight mechanics and execution that's hard to pull off the first try.
If an encounter is designed to where you know what to expect and it doesn't require tight mechanics to pull off then it's not hard, and sometimes people want something that is actually hard.
Where Dark Souls fails is in having its bosses be able to drop you in a hit or two (build dependent of course). This prevents you from being able to react properly because you're given no opportunity to do so. The boss uses two moves you've never seen before, you don't know where the proper dodge timing / positioning is to counter those moves, and you don't have time to learn and react because the first shot of those two moves killed you.
A simple modification would have been to have the bosses start out dealing less damage (so that it takes 4-6 hits to drop you), then they get stronger the longer the fight goes on. That way you have time to learn and react while the attacks are still non-fatal, but it's still hard because if you don't learn quickly and implement the right approach, you will get flattened. To keep the difficulty level high, you'd probably increase the bosses' HP / defenses some to compensate.
As it stands, I typically summoned phantoms who had killed the bosses dozens of times and let them do it for me.
Fleur de Alys on
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
Posts
On my xbone some combination of limited download speed and puny install speed makes buying digital games a serious chore. There's also no way to see exactly what download speed you are getting or what the damn thing is doing. With a 22 GB download, 100 percents is not enough information! I look forward to when I can grab a PS4 to live next to it and be the primary console.
Well, that made sense for the prototype storyline. I mean ...
They haven't announced a release date yet. I think they mentioned the console release coming 1-2 months or so after the PC expansion release, but that may just be a rumor.
Add Final Fantasy X/X-2 on there
And...don't hold your breath for Watch Dogs
Yeah
Insane March
The official release just says Spring, which I guess could be late March but almost certainly means closer to June.
Sony Patents PlayStation Remix (Cloud-Based Emulation)
Especially given their crippling loss of momentum postponing it so suddenly last year. I'm guessing they take up the Rockstar slot, aka last week of April through the second week of May. That's proved to be an incredibly lucrative window to release open-world games, and there likely won't be much competition this year in that release window.
I know reading the comments section is akin to willingly accept a brain tumor...
but this talks about injecting new content into older, emulated games that are cloud streamed.
How are they not going to use this specific feature to add microtransactions / season passes / DLC to PS2 and PS3 titles that did not have it? It feels tailor-made for it.
That said, if the core game itself is capable of being played at PS3 levels of quality without discernible lag, it will make me move on buying a PS4 that much faster; I really want to play TLoU, but I do not want to buy a console that probably has 1-2 years of "good" life left in it at best.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Why yes, I would like to play The Last of Us as Sly Cooper
That's an enormous leap you've made.
I'd bet on this merely being an idea to help incentivise the purchase of PS1/PS2 classics. They filed a similar patent last year, dealing with adding trophies to emulated games.
Is it really worth it to add that kind of stuff to old games?
You think people would want or pay for ps2 DLC and if they would would the return on the money for sony and the dev be worth it?
or season passes and micro transactions for old sports games and shooters? who wants that crap? lol
Dont be mistaken though... Gaikai will be behind a pay wall...
I think it will be PS+ only with individual charges for every game you buy
Others think it will be everything i said above plus some extra Gaikia only surcharge
As far as the PS3 goes I agree with you... no need to buy one right now with its value decreasing with every new PS4 game that is released and announced.... especially for someone like you who only wants one game.
The back catalog is massive...
I'm seriously wondering about how they will roll out these games
Maybe we get a free one every month that stays on the server for a year giving you plenty of time to play it if you really want to
Maybe a game a month from all 3 of the past consoles will be added to be available to buy
The possibilities are endless
I'm not going to buy a game where the entire act of playing it is dependent on being connected to the Internet
Okay. Given the success of the entire MMO genre as well as the yearly "Play Multiplayer shooting mans oh and we sorta threw in a campaign for traditions sake" titles I think we can safely say that your belief isn't common.
Also note, this is how you sell internet required connection required stuff. Make it obviously have an upside to the consumer. Like the previous genres I mentioned they all have clear reasons to be online, they wouldn't be the same games if they weren't online. While it's possible to do something like Genkai offline it's inconvenient and I'll certainly shell out some cash for convenience.
Though I love reading the charts in patents, the descriptions are so general that anybody could easily come up with the basic premise from whole cloth.
I just said it wasn't for me
Also I'll gladly pay for PS++ if it gives me access to either:
a) A Netflix style back library of PS2 and PS3 games
or
b) Access to all the PS3 games I have discs for.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
shit... i didnt really think of that possibility...
get PS++ and play as many PS1 PS2 and PS3 classics as you want for ... $10 $12 $15 a month?
I'm thinking about buying a Playstation 3 (yes, three) soon and I'm not quite sure which version / edition / whatever to buy.
My main deciding factor is definitely the price - the cheaper, the better. The reason I'm only thinking about buying one now is because I'm on a fairly limited budget and so far there just haven't been enough games on the PS3 that interest me to justify the hefty price tag.
Now that the PS4 is out, console prices have dropped and are finally in a range I consider acceptable for what I'm looking to get out of this system (mainly some JRPGs). I bought my PS2 in 2008 for 60€ and was pretty happy with my purchase.
Now, what's caught my eye was the 12GB PS3 Slim which I can get for around 150€. Sure, not a lot of space on it but I don't plan on buying many digital games so this isn't much of a concern..and I've heard it's fairly easy to install a bigger hard drive.
The one thing that's holding me back from buying it right now is that it's not backwards compatible. I've heard that only the older PS3s are backwards compatible, is that right? The thing is, I can barely find these older editions online a) new and b) for a decent price, I'm kinda weary about buying a console used after buying a shitty used PSP once.
I guess I can still keep my PS2 around so this isn't a huge deal, but still. Is there some other reason why buying a 12GB Slim is a horrible idea or should I just do it?
Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e
Occasional words about games: my site
Ah, that sucks.
So, what are some good JRPGs on the PS3? So far what I'm interested in is Tales of Graces, Tales of Xillia and Ni no Kuni. Any other "must-haves"?
Can you take the old 500 GB drive from the PS4 and then format it and use it on the PS3?
When you swap drives do you have to back anything up or can you just format it, download what games you want, and revert to cloud saves you've uploaded previously for those games?
- It has 12gb of storage space. A lot of installs are 4gb
- If you decide on a PS4 in future you'll probably get PS+. This will also get you a LOAD of free PS3 games. You won't be able to fit many on a 12gb drive.
- The 12gb drive has horrendously poor delete speeds. For example it takes GT5 about 5 mins to delete on a standard PS3 (there are hundreds and hundreds of tiny files, it's an extreme example). The 12gb takes over 10 mins. Rage is an extreme example too, on a standard PS3 it takes 50 seconds, on the 12gb PS3 it takes 9 minutes.
- The build quality of the PS3 is below that of the standard Slim and of the Fat. The Super Slims look and feel pretty damn tacky.
- If you want to upgrade the drive you need to buy a separate caddy, you can't just slot in a new 2.5" drive.
- Installing on the PS3 is a bit dumb. If you did want to buy a digital game you'd be stuffed if it was over 6gb. The console needs double the space to install the game.
On the plus side the 12gb has slightly better write/seek speeds under some circumstances so Rage (which relies on the read speed for it's MEGATEXTURES(TM)) actually performs slightly better.
Personally if you're trying to save cash I'd look for a store that does pre-owned Slims with a 1 year warranty. They're really reliable.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
Yeah, absolute first thing I would do if you go that route is buy a hard drive. You're using €, so I'm not sure where you're at, but the UK Amazon store has hdd's for as low as £30 and even that would at least make the system functional. But looking at Game.co.uk it looks like the price difference between the 12GB and 500GB unit is only about £50 and includes a game.
I finally capitulated and bought one for my PS3; should be in the mail today. It's only got 8GB of SSD, so I'm more excited about the 1TB of storage, but from what I was reading, games that take me several days/weeks to finish should still see an improvement in load times.
That's a pretty good start. I didn't like NNK but a lot of people did so I'll allow it. I started Xillia and enjoyed it, and I also have ToGf on my desk right now.
Other big-name candidates: Eternal Sonata, Valkyria Chronicles, Resonance of Fate, FFXIII, FFXIII-2, the upcoming FFX|X-2 HD, and then get hyped for Persona 5 in the distant future of 2015.
Tabletop:13th Age (mm-mmm), D&D 4e
Occasional words about games: my site
Valkyria Chronicles is a good recommendation!
Also FFXIII-3 which will suddenly be fighting Bravely Default for my playing time in February. Those two games release 4 days apart!
I'd stay away from the super slims. Kind of cheap build quality and small HDD size. I'd also stay away from the fats (the old original ones that are BC). They are much more expensive (because of the BC) and also are prone to overheating (mine over heated twice). I'd recommend the slim : looks nice, much smaller than the fat, decent HDD size right out of the box (same HDD form factor the fat uses) and doesn't have the overheat problems (runs much cooler)
I would pick up playstation plus. You get a ton of great games on it. I feel like there are lot of great games I can play on the PS3 atm - more in fact than for the PS4 for the forseeable future. There's AC IV, XCOM, Uncharted 3, Dragons Dogma...etc. I forget exactly what is on the PS+ instant game collection atm but bioshock infinite is supposed to be added next month? That's another one I haven't played.
I would definitely not say "oh I won't buy any digital games a tiny HDD is no problem" as I think the excellent PS+ lineup , which of course is all digital, is one of the best reasons to buy a PS3. I'd recommend putting in a nice big Hard drive
Basically if someone was starting from scratch and had no consoles I'd still recommend a PS3 at this point over a PS4. It would be a no brainer if they had a vita or were planning to get a PS4, as the PS+ subscription builds your collection up. I have a PS4 and will be keeping my PS3 for the forseeable future. Does the PS4 even have a remote like the PS3 does?
an additional reason to have both the PS3 and the PS4 is so that you can stream netflix on the PS3 while doing remote play on the vita via the PS4.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
I hope someone makes it happen.
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
The idea that an encounter should require the raid to wipe on it several times before achieving success in order to artificially sweeten that success?
Utter bullshit. Platformers are the ultimate expression of challenging gameplay because there aren't any real surprises. You know what you've got to do. Sometimes you get new tools to do it, but fundamentally nothing changes between 1-1 and 10-4.
And that's not to say you HAVE to die the first couple times you see a Dark Souls boss. A good and cautious player can beat them the first time without needing any trial and error. A recent example of a fun and decently challenging action game for me was Metal Gear Rising which I picked up this month. There were a few bosses that took me a few tries, because my reflexes, dodge timings, etc. weren't perfect. If i'm not on easy mode and i'm beating an action game without even having to be cognizant of anything other than smashing buttons, then that's going to be entirely unsatisfying to me.
Tangential, but no MMO i've ever played has had raid content that required you to wipe on it before beating it. Every time any raid I have been in has died to a well designed encounter it was because we didn't execute properly. Even the absolute hardest fights in WoW could've been beaten first try by a group of people playing perfectly and reacting and recognizing what was going on in real time. Just because people aren't perfect and have to see something, take it in, learn from their mistakes, etc. is not bullshit. It just means it was designed to require tight mechanics and execution that's hard to pull off the first try.
If an encounter is designed to where you know what to expect and it doesn't require tight mechanics to pull off then it's not hard, and sometimes people want something that is actually hard.
A simple modification would have been to have the bosses start out dealing less damage (so that it takes 4-6 hits to drop you), then they get stronger the longer the fight goes on. That way you have time to learn and react while the attacks are still non-fatal, but it's still hard because if you don't learn quickly and implement the right approach, you will get flattened. To keep the difficulty level high, you'd probably increase the bosses' HP / defenses some to compensate.
As it stands, I typically summoned phantoms who had killed the bosses dozens of times and let them do it for me.