Which is your opinion about Trial and error in videogames?

[TheHeroOfTime]

Now that the release of Rare replay on Xbox One (August 4) is very close, I've been reading a bit about some games that are included in the compilation. I was very surprised to see such negative review games like Perfect Dark (also to Goldeneye N64, not included in the compilation) and Perfect Dark Zero, which its "ambiguity" is criticized in guiding the player for the objectives you have to perform at the level as a mistake in one of these objectives means having to restart the entire level. I also read criticisms Battletoads, especially the famous and classic level Turbo Tunnel, where the player ends up dying practically over and over again until end level learning to play.

On the other hand, I've also been reading articles critical of the Trial and error as a way of creating "artificial difficulty", on the other hand I also read other articles and forums where mechanical defended as a way to teach the player to play a game, making the latter responsible for their own victory or defeat. For example, the Souls saga in a greater or lesser extentalways got accused of this type of mechanic. I think it would be interesting to see what you think about it. I would also like to know the opinion of those who played Goldeneye and Perfect Dark on her day (preferably in the normal difficulties of the games, which is the most balanced) how the objectives are structured, what you know and what you can know as a player about them throughout the levels. Perfect Dark is a game that I have crushed to exhaustion, it's my favourite FPS game, but I played Goldeneye very little in comparison when i was a child and it was not until a couple of years ago to when I could get by myself a cartridge of the same on Ebay.

Spoiler

 

[pippin]

Golden Eye is bad because it always was. The controls were clunky and it had bad graphics even when compared to other N64 games.
I never really played Perfect Dark, so I can't comment on that one.

Now, I do think trial &error is a bad way of building a fake difficulty to your games. It's like those "nintendo hard" games of old, which were hard because hit detection was weird (which is common to Souls games as far as I know). A good game does not have to be *hard*. A complex game does not have to be *hard*. If your encounter or level design are shit, different difficulty levels won't do shit to your game.

 

[Neanderthal]

Playing Warhammer: Shadow of the Horned Rat in between Arcanum and i'm really not minding the save scumming that is necessary there, it's just a chance to optimise my playstyle, tactics and long term strategies. Similarly in games such as Severance: Blade of Darkness or the Souls series, that save scumming, trial and error gameplay will introduce you to the game and let you perfect tactics and strategies, but at some point in the game your expertise will increase so that you have mastered viable playstyles. I think i've arrived at that point now, where i've learned the game and formulated a playstyle that allows me now to not have to save scum in SotHR, while i'm untouchable in Severance.

I like to learn games like this, though i've got to admit i've not played Goldeneye, Perfect Dark or anything like that. I see this as basic familiarisation.

Love that fucking cartoon.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

I'd love to see modern game reviewers play Rick Dangerous nowadays. That's a classic example of "Trial & Error" and also "Memory test".

Only in a handful of cases can you even tell whether there's a trap somewhere, otherwise the only way for a player to learn to navigate safely through each level is to try, die and try again. There are a handful of lives, but otherwise there are no savestates, no checkpoints and no passwords. Oh, and in order to beat Rick Dangerous 2 you must beat all 4 levels plus the secret fifth level that's only available to play once you've beaten the other four without turning off the game.

You know, that shit just ain't any fun at all. Stupid kids like myself went through it back then, but no one with two braincells will bother with such a game nowadays - which is why they aren't made nowadays, except as some homebrew homages to 80s platformers (IWBTG).

The Souls games are different because they're closer to experimentation - after you've learned the controls and game mechanics it's time to experiment with the game elements, see what works, where it works best and how you can use it all to your advantage.

 

[Sjukob]

I always disliked one fact about videogames , once you learned the algorithms the game becomes very easy . Since trial and error approach to difficulty strongly concentrates on learning algorithms I find myself bored quite fast . It might pretty entertaining for the first time , but the second playthrough already feels like a chore .

I don't know how classic games did this , but judging modern games , the result of such approach usually leads to player not being afraid of defeat which is very bad in my opinion . What I want to say is that , defeat becomes a regular part of the game , so regular that people don't even pay attention to it . I still wonder if there is game that is still hard even after you learned it from begging to the end that is what I call true difficulty .

P.S. Dark souls so called "difficulty" is one of the most insanely overrated nonsense I've ever heard . The only two parts I had troubles with were: cutting off kalameet's tail and beating Artorias .

 

[Great Deceiver]

Terms such as "failure states", "emergent difficulty" and "player agency" are buzzwords coined by butthurt shistain game reviewers who can't be bothered to learn systems and feel they're entitled to finishing every game they start.

Trial and error is a necessary element of gameplay, there is no learning without failure, and no drive to learn without suitable punishment for it. Follow the compass and everyone wins are strictly modern concepts that have contributed to the inexorable decline of the industry.

 

[TheHeroOfTime]

I'm a huge fan of the Souls games series but honestly I never believed that they're extremely difficult. They're games like the old ones, whose aren't constantly helping the player to win. In the same manner that they portray that the player can win and obtain satisfaction the portray that the player can loose and get despair. I mean, just look games that the last COD, especially their main campaing: It's a sucession of checkpoints. You can die every time that you want because you will reload a couple of minutes before. You don't have the need to play in a skilled way or concentrated because losing means nothing for you. This is a shame if we remember that COD are games that are representing the war, the motherfucking war. There is no motherfucking checkpoints in the war, neither health regeneration. Even Counter strike, which is a multiplayer game, managed this better with its health management and respawn system giving a player a reason for not want to being fired.

Let's remember the first Super Mario bros: I'm pretty sure that the first goomba, the first koopa and his shell and even the first piranha plant emerging from a pipe killed you the first time you saw them. They killed you because you didn't know how to play the game, you didn't know what the fuck were these thinks or even because you didn't know how fast Super Mario moved. Of course those things could have been avoided by adding a fucking 1 hour or 30 min tutorial, explaining the whole game. Bu It's really enjoyable play a game when you know how each enemy or each platform works and when interact with them? Is enjoyable a graphic adventure like Monkey island when you know how to act in all the situations and riddles?

Every game in the existence have Trial and error IMO. Even the multiplayer ones. Is something attached to learning. And, of course, there is well driven Trial and error and a bad driven one.

Golden Eye is bad because it always was. The controls were clunky and it had bad graphics even when compared to other N64 games.
I never really played Perfect Dark, so I can't comment on that one.

 

[Average Manatee]

Actual trial and error (i.e. map a minefield with your corpses) is bad.

Most games don't have that and reviewers bitch that the game allows them to fail.

 

[pippin]

Give me examples why we should consider Golden Eye as a good game. Don't tell me it was cool at the time. Let's pretend I've never even heard of it. What could you say to defend it?
Keep in mind: Blood, Dark Forces 2, Hexen 2 among others were released the same year than Golden Eye.

 

[Mr. Pink]

Trial and Error is how we learn lessons in the real world, so if you want to make a game that feels realistic and reactive, you need to give players the freedom to fail.

If you hate throwing bodies at things, I suggest investing in a SSD so you can cut those load times between deaths. That helps a lot.

 

[TheHeroOfTime]

Give me examples why we should consider Golden Eye as a good game. Don't tell me it was cool at the time. Let's pretend I've never even heard of it. What could you say to defend it?
Keep in mind: Blood, Dark Forces 2, Hexen 2 among others were released the same year than Golden Eye.

I don't need to have others FPS in mind to talk about Goldeneye. We're writing about if Goldeneye was a good game or a bad one, not comparing its quality with others FPS released in the same year. The existence of other good/better FPS games than Goldeneye don't make it a bad or a worse game. Also, this thread is not for argue if Goldeneye was good or not.

Spoiler

But if you want:

The gameplay of the game is solid. It is surprisingly good considering how the pad of the N64 was, having only one stick. Other FPS in the N64 are hard to manage because its control mapping on the pad, like Turok 2. Goldeneye could be confusing if you are wonted to the control of others FPS, but soon you start confortable with it. The character aims automatically to the enemies foward making the shooting and dodging (With the C buttons) more easier, and it have the option to aim more precisely with a crosshair when is needed. It have a good variety of weapons, a good level design in the main campaign (With some downfalls in levels like Runway), and a great and addictive multiplayer. The main campaign is divided in mission objectives than we must complete through the scenarios, whose are classified in different difficulties of the game that makes the player explore the levels doing more things than killing enemies only. The scenarios in the main campaign are filled with elements that are interactive, like alarms, doors, computers, screens and even manageable vehicles like tanks. The enemies are interactive too, they respond depending in which place of the body you shot them. The art direction of the game is solid and is well inspired in the film Goldeneye. All the old 3D games are bad in graphics (In terms of visuals the old 3D games are saved thanks to their art direction), this is undeniable, but it's true that Goldeneye have worse graphics than other same console games. But in exchange it have a very good distance rendering, allowing you to use the sniper rifle in open scenarios in a satisfactory way. The soundtrack of the game is amazing, one of the best of the N64 era:



The negative points of the game are some confusing mission objetives, its poor graphics, and the poor AI showed by the enemies in certain situations of the game. But in overall, it is a great console FPS, even with its dated things.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

"Trial and error" is a loaded term when it comes to gaming. As others in this thread have noted, gaming journos often misappropriate the phrase, applying it to situations they simply weren't "gud enuff" to handle, invoking it as some sort of face-saving maneuver. "I'm not an incompetent gamer who can't read or reason....it's just outdated, trial-and-error design!", the trans-skilled, hipstercuck stammers.

That said, there's definitely a point in which difficulty mechanisms go rotten and are no longer interesting nor fun.

Part of the fun of games is working out one's intellect by solving them in more time-economical means. I bet plenty of folks here *know* the feeling of triumph that comes with passing a complex puzzle or encounter with few or no re-dos; it reflects on your understanding and mastery of the game systems, and maybe your IQ as well. It's a primal thrill, and there's no shame in enjoying it; you showed that code who's boss.

Good difficulty supports this. Obstacles, to a point, can be overcome with a strong knowledge of the underlying mechanics and expectations communicated by previous challenges. Sure, early encounters might have even the best players stumbling around a bit, getting a feel for the way the game plays, but after an unspecific time period better players should be expected to fail less.

I want to use Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne as an example of this sort of difficulty. Early on, the game does a good job instrucing the player in most all of the dangers they might face. Random encounters can be brutal, particularly if the enemy party goes first or has a free round of attack via ambush. The wrong elemental affinities/weaknesses can let foes unleash devastating sequences of hits on your party. The main character must be protected at all costs, even if that isn't easy to do. And instant-death spells (both kinds) start showing up about 2 hrs into the game. This game pulls no punches.

But a thoughtful player can mitigate these threats, given that they, well, read the manual and play well. I myself decided to invest heavily in the main character's Agility and Luck when it came to allocating stats, allowing for a higher chance of going first and less chance of ambush respectively. And I also leaned towards slotting in equipment that negated Instant-Death attacks. That solved most of my problems. Sure, bosses were a wee bit difficult with the main character non spec'd as some sort of damage-dealing cannon (at least in the early-mid game), but those fights were still solveable. Oh, and my solutions weren't the only ones; Nocturne didn't force a linear playstyle in order to be beaten.

The game set groundrules and made challenges that rewarded the players who understood, internalized, and adapted to them. That's good difficulty. Certainly, bad players might have to brute force their way through segments, but that's mostly their own fault.

However, plenty of games don't do such a bangup job when it comes to difficulty. Many times, games place challenges in front of the player that are wholly disconnected from the core mechanics or demand extremely specific lines of play. These are the legitimately "unfun" instances of difficulty, in which trial-and-error is rightfully scorned.

People are talking about (Dark) Souls games here, so I'll highlight a couple examples from these games in which difficulty is done poorly. While the games are generally good when it comes to difficulty, testing core skills and rewarding careful, observant players, there are some real stinkers as far as design goes.

Probably the foremost example is the Mimic. There's no real warning, there's no precedent, and there's no response allowed to the player. If you open a Mimic, you die. End of story. All Mimics are placed in the same locations, and generally a player is unlikely to ever fall for this trap more than once. And players in-the-know will find sussing out or dealing with future Mimics a breeze; just give every chest a quick whack before opening it.

It's a really shitty design, punishing the player for not having meta-knowledge, yet offering nothing to an experienced player; it's not like murdering exposed Mimics is some sort of Herculean challenge. Dark Souls 2 tried to make a slightly better iteration of this design with trapped chests that didn't kill a player unfortunate enough to open them, instead subjecting them to clouds of poison gas, crossbow bolts, or enemy-luring alarms; all things that could be reacted to be a surprised, but savvy player. Still, these were held back by being, once again, completely static and dead to meta-knowledge. It takes a legitimatelt great game like Dragon's Dogma to show folks how it's done. It's Maneater enemy can spawn randomly in chests located in the megadungeon and can be neutralized by plenty of plays available within the swath of core mechanics, be it abilities of skillful use of Pawns.

Souls games also suffer from extremely linear and blunt enemy/boss design at times, particularly late-game optional bosses. Lots of foes (like Manus, Vendrick, or Ancient Dragon) have attacks that are not intuitively dodged/blocked, but have the capacity to one-shot a large portion of character builds. This leads to boring, trial-and-error fights wherein you learn to negotiate their critical attacks and then stomp them in ever subsequent encounter. Booooring.

And this is to say nothing of the abysmal gimmick bosses favored by Muhzaki-san, the Infallible. Storm King, Bed of Chaos, Dragon God, Ceaseless Discharge, Moonlight Butterfly, Adjudicator...need I produce more examples? How much fun is it to fight a boss that completely upends the typical combat logic, but is a complete pushover once you have the requisite metaknowledge?

These are basically the equivalent of the oft-maligned, but rarely-seen "pixel-perfect jump" (these really don't occur at all outside of hardcore glitching/speedrunning in most all commercially released games); something wherein the solution is extremely narrow and linear, but not particularly interesting to perform. A.k.a., not fun.

So there are legitimate gripes with things that may fall under the umbrella of "trial-and-error" difficulty. Challenges with narrow, linear solutions that don't follow the internal logic established by the rest of the game are, generally, shit. That said, most game journos and Yout00b LPers aren't pointing out the right targets...ever.

PS: Don't read my drunken ramblings.

 

[Ludo Lense]

I think it is only well done when the gameplay loop is very short. Ala Hotline Miami or Limbo.

Dark Souls doesn't have trial-and-error...mostly. It is hard but quite fair. Being attentive and not rushing the content can get you through most areas.

 

[Average Manatee]

I want to use Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne as an example of this sort of difficulty. Early on, the game does a good job instrucing the player in most all of the dangers they might face. Random encounters can be brutal, particularly if the enemy party goes first or has a free round of attack via ambush. The wrong elemental affinities/weaknesses can let foes unleash devastating sequences of hits on your party. The main character must be protected at all costs, even if that isn't easy to do. And instant-death spells (both kinds) start showing up about 2 hrs into the game. This game pulls no punches.

But a thoughtful player can mitigate these threats, given that they, well, read the manual and play well. I myself decided to invest heavily in the main character's Agility and Luck when it came to allocating stats, allowing for a higher chance of going first and less chance of ambush respectively. And I also leaned towards slotting in equipment that negated Instant-Death attacks. That solved most of my problems. Sure, bosses were a wee bit difficult with the main character non spec'd as some sort of damage-dealing cannon (at least in the early-mid game), but those fights were still solveable. Oh, and my solutions weren't the only ones; Nocturne didn't force a linear playstyle in order to be beaten.

...

Souls games also suffer from extremely linear and blunt enemy/boss design at times, particularly late-game optional bosses. Lots of foes (like Manus, Vendrick, or Ancient Dragon) have attacks that are not intuitively dodged/blocked, but have the capacity to one-shot a large portion of character builds. This leads to boring, trial-and-error fights wherein you learn to negotiate their critical attacks and then stomp them in ever subsequent encounter. Booooring.

So in Nocturne things that one shot you are good and reasons to build a character who is protected from one-shots at the expense of raw glass cannon power, yet in Dark Souls its a mistake to have them and bosses should be unable to one-shot players? I don't think there's any bosses in Dark Souls that will one-shot a decently protected character with the exception of attacks with very obvious windups and getting knocked off ledges, which is fair enough.

And this is to say nothing of the abysmal gimmick bosses favored by Muhzaki-san, the Infallible. Storm King, Bed of Chaos, Dragon God, Ceaseless Discharge, Moonlight Butterfly, Adjudicator...need I produce more examples? How much fun is it to fight a boss that completely upends the typical combat logic, but is a complete pushover once you have the requisite metaknowledge?

I think you're a little too hard on this. These are still bosses that require dodging attacks, which is still part of the traditional combat routine, and I don't think every boss needs still be challenging after several replays to be considered a good boss. Not that I'd consider most of your examples to be good bosses, but not really trial and error bosses either, you can generally stay alive until you figure out what you are supposed to do and do it. Excepting Bed of Chaos with the horrible collapsing floors and the leap of faith you needed to make to end it.

And there's plenty of bosses in Nocturne that become pushovers with meta knowledge, it's pretty much what the resist/absorb/reflect system is designed to do. Bosses usually have backup physical/almighty attacks to use once in a while, but they tend to be significantly weaker and give advantage to the player.

 

[Alfons]

Dark Souls doesn't have trial-and-error...mostly. It is hard but quite fair. Being attentive and not rushing the content can get you through most areas.

How is it not? You learn the pattern and the timing, when you don't know those things you get brutalized. Some of the attacks have huge wind-up times but the dodge window in terms of timing and location is extremely precise and you can only learn it by trying, and likely failing.

If you choose to block then you're screwed simply because of the existence of grab attacks. It's all about learning what you can do and how to do it and that means trial and error.

I don't think there's any bosses in Dark Souls that will one-shot a decently protected character with the exception of attacks with very obvious windups and getting knocked off ledges, which is fair enough.

Every magic attack Manus does. Besides, very obvious wind-ups don't mean shit. Obvious wind up doesn't mean it's obvious which attack is coming if it's your first time seeing it.

 

[Average Manatee]

Every magic attack Manus does.

So dodge? They are obviously meant to be dodged. Can't say I had any trouble with Manus my first time, he was a pushover. And you can still certainly tank it with tanky characters.

Besides, very obvious wind-ups don't mean shit. Obvious wind up doesn't mean it's obvious which attack is coming if it's your first time seeing it.

It doesn't matter which attack is coming, if its an obvious wind up you dodge. If it looks like something you can block, you block. If it doesn't then you keep dodging. You aren't supposed to face-tank every attack your first time through just to see if you can, it should go without saying that you go into every area for the first time with a defensive mindset.

 

[Alfons]

So dodge? They are obviously meant to be dodged. Can't say I had any trouble with Manus my first time, he was a pushover. And you can still certainly tank it with tanky characters.

That has nothing to do with what you said. You claimed there are no one shots, I gave you some.

It doesn't matter which attack is coming, if its an obvious wind up you dodge. If it looks like something you can block, you block. If it doesn't then you keep dodging.

And how in the fuck do you know where to dodge or what you can block the first time around? I'd like to see you dodge his circle pursuers first time around. As far as wind ups go, what I previously posted still stands.

 

[Average Manatee]

That has nothing to do with what you said. You claimed there are no one shots, I gave you some.

I said there were no one shots that weren't telegraphed. Big difference. And again, most of his attacks can be completely tanked by a decently buff character, which was the point. If your thin twig of a character barely able to hold his shield gets destroyed by 9 out of 10 of his attacks, that's your character's fault.

And how in the fuck do you know where to dodge or what you can block the first time around? I'd like to see you dodge his circle pursuers first time around. As far as wind ups go, what I previously posted still stands.

Quick thinking and adapting to the situation?

Its a game about being able to time dodges and maneuver around enemies to not get hit, it's not some kind of sin that they don't make it so easy that you can do it 100% your first time.

 

[Alfons]

My bad, but if only a dedicated tank can survive it and an averagely armored medium buff dude gets wiped that's a one shot.


Yeah they make it easy to do once you know what to do, when you don't you usually fail. I'd go as far as say that the whole game is based on that idea.

 

[TheHeroOfTime]

How is it not? You learn the pattern and the timing, when you don't know those things you get brutalized. Some of the attacks have huge wind-up times but the dodge window in terms of timing and location is extremely precise and you can only learn it by trying, and likely failing.

If you choose to block then you're screwed simply because of the existence of grab attacks. It's all about learning what you can do and how to do it and that means trial and error.

I think he's trying to say that Dark souls hasn't trial and error in the hard and bad meaning of the term. You don't need to be constantly dying to learn and improve, and mostly situations of the game can be succeded without dying the first time (Sen fortress traps for example).

 

[CryptRat]

Probably the foremost example is the Mimic. There's no real warning, there's no precedent, and there's no response allowed to the player. If you open a Mimic, you die. End of story. All Mimics are placed in the same locations, and generally a player is unlikely to ever fall for this trap more than once. And players in-the-know will find sussing out or dealing with future Mimics a breeze; just give every chest a quick whack before opening it.
[...]
Souls games also suffer from extremely linear and blunt enemy/boss design at times, particularly late-game optional bosses. Lots of foes (like Manus, Vendrick, or Ancient Dragon) have attacks that are not intuitively dodged/blocked, but have the capacity to one-shot a large portion of character builds.
[...]
And this is to say nothing of the abysmal gimmick bosses favored by Muhzaki-san, the Infallible. Storm King, Bed of Chaos, Dragon God, Ceaseless Discharge, Moonlight Butterfly, Adjudicator...need I produce more examples? How much fun is it to fight a boss that completely upends the typical combat logic, but is a complete pushover once you have the requisite metaknowledge?

I totally disagree with you, there.
All these things were very fun, IMHO.
I like to die, a lot. In the Souls game, Another World, Rick Dangerous, Prince of persia, Bread Dead 13, Eryi's Action, Limbo or Finding Teddy, discovering all the ways you can die, and surprisingly dying is an important part of the fun, if not the most important one. I really enjoyed all these games.
I agree that it is not related with assimilating the overall mechanics of the game (knowing them doesn't help, and that doesn't help learning them), but I don't see a problem there, on the contrary each trap is midly "unique" and I think that is pretty fun.

 

[Animal]

Trial and error is shit.

Goldeneye was awesomesauce.

 

[Average Manatee]

My bad, but if only a dedicated tank can survive it and an averagely armored medium buff dude gets wiped that's a one shot.

And how is that different from the Nocturne example?

Yeah they make it easy to do once you know what to do, when you don't you usually fail. I'd go as far as say that the whole game is based on that idea.

Not really, I got through probably 75% of Dark Souls without dying.

 

[Damned Registrations]

I think the concept of trial and error can be applied in two different ways, one good, and the other bad.

The bad way to apply trial and error is memorization of game content. Having to remember that you'll fall through the floor and die instantly on the 33rd screen of Castlevania 2 is a pretty shit way to add difficulty.

The good way to apply the concept is to systems/mechanics. Figuring out that hairy enemies are especially vulnerable to fire, or that walking down a flight of stairs with an iron ball chained to your leg will hurt you, are interesting or at least entertaining aspects of playing a game, because while you need to fail to learn them, that one failure lets you succeed in many other places, rather than just that specific spot.

This is, of course, a matter of taste to some extent. I personally like having to puzzle out an enemy's stats and weaknesses through trial and error, but other people think of it as a chore. Likewise I hate shmups that rely heavily on memorizing a specific way to dodge bullet patterns, but other people enjoy that.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

So in Nocturne things that one shot you are good and reasons to build a character who is protected from one-shots at the expense of raw glass cannon power, yet in Dark Souls its a mistake to have them and bosses should be unable to one-shot players?

My biggest complaints about one-shots in Dark Souls are mostly environmental hazards. Mimics, Seath's ambush, Kalameet before Gough, the Hellkite Drake, and, while not really a "one-shot" (in some cases more painful, Reah getting ganked. Things that just bone the player once and then are never an issue, completely solved by meta-knowledge and offering no substantive gameplay afterwards, or on subsequent replays. A crappy way to do instant death attacks compared to Nocturne, which took a much-maligned mechanic and made interesting enough gameplay out of it.

I don't think there's any bosses in Dark Souls that will one-shot a decently protected character with the exception of attacks with very obvious windups and getting knocked off ledges, which is fair enough.

"Decently protected" is pretty nebulous. Even a tanky, well-armored character is probably going to take a lot of damage from Vendrick's swings; guy hits like a truck. Ancient Dragon will pretty much one-shot any character with sub-80% fire resistance if it scores a double hit on its flying firebreath attack (not too uncommon an occurrence). And Manus' dark magic can deal serious damage. An SL120 with ~30VIT and 40 END and wearing Artorias' armor (fully upgraded) lost about 70% of their health through block with a high-tier medium shield (Silver/Black Knight) against one of his magic attacks. That a lot of damage to a decidedly tanky build.

Point is, the Souls games have a habit of making some (optional) endbosses into damage-bloated freaks because, I dunno, scrubs need to gitguder?

Then again, this is a point I'd be mostly willing to concede or drop. Bosses with one-shotting attacks aren't really my biggest bugbear.

I think you're a little too hard on this. These are still bosses that require dodging attacks, which is still part of the traditional combat routine, and I don't think every boss needs still be challenging after several replays to be considered a good boss. Not that I'd consider most of your examples to be good bosses, but not really trial and error bosses either, you can generally stay alive until you figure out what you are supposed to do and do it.

I agree that not every boss needs to be challenging on the Nth replay. I do expect them, however, to at least be fun on the first one, which most of the bosses I listed as examples weren't, mostly due to how linear they are. There's one right way to fight them and, maybe, some terribly boring wrong ways to go against them.

Beating Ceaseless Discharge with the hilariously obscure one-shot trick is mostly painless. Looping its tentacle slam as you slowly chip away the demon's health is a goddamn chore.

Or what about the Hydras? Try fighting it at a distance; it's not going to be easy and it certainly won't be fun. But fight it the "right" way, by running up close to bait its ineffectual head slam attack, and tons of opportunities for safe. easy punishment crop up.

Woe betide anyone who enters the Moonlight Butterfly's fog gate without a ranged attack. Those unfortunate enough to do so will be subjected to one of the most stupefying battles ever in which they dodge for ~4 minutes before the Butterfly deigns to land and be beat upon. This is doubly painful if the player hasn't significantly upgraded their weapons, making the battle into even more of a dull, repetitive slog.

And then there's Dragon God and Bed of Chaos, two-entirely linear shitbosses. I think enough virtual ink has been spilled on these marvels...

In all of these bosses the player's still penalized heavily for a lack of metaknowledge. Even if the player is skilled/savvy, and can avoid death through strong core skills, they're still punished with an awful play experience. And in some ways, this a lot worse than cheap deaths are.

And there's plenty of bosses in Nocturne that become pushovers with meta knowledge, it's pretty much what the resist/absorb/reflect system is designed to do. Bosses usually have backup physical/almighty attacks to use once in a while, but they tend to be significantly weaker and give advantage to the player.

Oh, for sure. Metaknowledge tends to overpower any challenge that isn't sufficiently randomized or rooted in player reflexive skill. That said, Nocturne's bosses (mostly) have numerous solutions, and can be taken apart in different ways. While they can easily be thrashed by the power of GameFAQs, there's still a lot more fun that can be gleaned from them than a lot of shitty bosses that infest the (Muhzaki) Souls games.