That said, even if I hate on the strange lag, or latency if you will that I and hopefully you as well, have with Asian players, they are kind people. It's not like they send you hatemail, or tell you to stfu and gtfo if you message them. They will talk to you in most cases, even if they know little English, which is more than the rest of randoms I meet do. They usually only end up sending me stuff like "get gud scrub *insert many poorly written profanities and insulting one's own mother*.
My usual reply to these is that this is not Call of Duty.
There are aspects of USA casual gameplay culture I could do without, and you've mentioned them. That said, every population group has its good and bad players. I would have 0 problems playing with Asian players, even if they knew as much English as I know Chinese/Japanese/Korean (very little, a couple Japanese words that I could only say, not write, not enough to manage a 5 second conversation I'd suspect). The only problem is the lag.
In some games, lag doesn't matter a whole lot. Take any game series like HOMM, Civilization, Warlords, or other turn-based strategy games for example. You could have 1000ms ping, and it would only be mildly frustrating because people are moving based on taking turns. Given the option, one would likely not set their system to only connect to opponents with excellent ping in TBS, at least if there were some anti-double moving checks in place.
However, in games like Dark Souls, where being 1/4 to 1/2 of a second behind can kill you nigh-instantly, it's not a fun experience. It's not fun to repeatedly lose or even to win that way. It gets to the point where connection absolutely trumps all player skill and choices.
So, why not have an option to cap how much ping one is willing to play with, and wait until you find a game with a suitable connection? Games with *good* design around their net code would allow this. It's been many years and I've yet to see a single good excuse from designers or anyone else as to why having such a simple feature is a bad thing. It would be especially useful given how difficult it apparently is for your typical game to "make lag fair" between players with higher ping times. I'm tired of watching people pull host and then be at a substantial disadvantage in other games, it's a joke much like how it is literally impossible to sight-parry in DS online because the visual delay is so great (why are backstabs client side, but not parries? It's arbitrary).
DS 1 would be made considerably better by simply making backstabs and ripostes not do a client-side updating animation, and instead simply being a regular attack that hits for an equivalent amount of damage. The hard-animation of BS and their ability to interrupt other actions is what makes them seem so ridiculous compared ot other attacks. During REGULAR attacks, you can hit someone and even get animation that you hit them on your screen, and do no damage. That absolutely can't happen with backstabs right now, only way there's no damage is if you're hit for damage yourself...which isn't a requirement for evading other attacks. Lag literally alters their balance relative to other attacks, because lag treats them differently than other attacks...only exacerbated by the fact that the game will happily connect you to someone with ridiculous ping times to you.
Telling your game "Hey, only connect me to <75ms (or 100, or whatever) ping" is a simple and long-time effective solution. Why can't you do this in any popular modern game I can think of? This is one way I *would* mod a console lol.
It really pisses me off. You could do a manual search to hosts by ping over 10 years ago, grab any host with an acceptable value along with other players who did the same, and have great first-person shooter experiences on a consistent basis. It is utterly pathetic that games like DS, Black Ops II, and Halo can't even match, let alone surpass, a simple and effective system that was available to people who played Unreal Tournament over a decade ago.
by 
