Decline Dodge rolling is fucking stupid and I will refund any game that features it

[JarlFrank]

I'm sure this is correct with vikings and some light small shields but i have my doubts in case of Romans. Their ranks could get tight which at least in some circumstances would suggest using shield for more passive defence. OTOH roman line was supposed to be more flexible than others from the era and they fought in a less concentrated formations so it would fit. Possibly the way shield was used depended on circumstances?

Vikings also fought in shield walls a lot.
Using your shield actively is useful in formation, too. Romans especially used the shield in a very flexible manner, it needs to be mobile and easy to move around in order to form formations like the famous testudo.

You gotta be able to lift it over your head as soon as the centurio gives you the command.
Also, despite their larger size Roman shields are still light enough to be easily wielded with your hand, no need to strap it to your arm. The most common offensive use of the Roman shield was to hit the enemy shield in order to unbalance his defense, then follow it up with a sword stab.

The Roman way of fighting relied heavily on a core of flexible legionary units that could both operate in small squads and in larger shield wall formations. They managed to defeat Hellenistic phalanx armies with their more rigid formations that way: present a closed front but split off some lads to go on flanking maneuvers.

 

[Serus]

I'm sure this is correct with vikings and some light small shields but i have my doubts in case of Romans. Their ranks could get tight which at least in some circumstances would suggest using shield for more passive defence. OTOH roman line was supposed to be more flexible than others from the era and they fought in a less concentrated formations so it would fit. Possibly the way shield was used depended on circumstances?

Vikings also fought in shield walls a lot.
Using your shield actively is useful in formation, too. Romans especially used the shield in a very flexible manner, it needs to be mobile and easy to move around in order to form formations like the famous testudo.

You gotta be able to lift it over your head as soon as the centurio gives you the command.
Also, despite their larger size Roman shields are still light enough to be easily wielded with your hand, no need to strap it to your arm. The most common offensive use of the Roman shield was to hit the enemy shield in order to unbalance his defense, then follow it up with a sword stab.

The Roman way of fighting relied heavily on a core of flexible legionary units that could both operate in small squads and in larger shield wall formations. They managed to defeat Hellenistic phalanx armies with their more rigid formations that way: present a closed front but split off some lads to go on flanking maneuvers.

Actually there other possible explanations of their victory over Greeks. The fact that Hellenistic armies were... complicated, often made of more types of troops than legions which in turn required good generals to command effectively and utilise their strengths. But no Greek Hannibal to fight Romans ever emerged. Romans otoh, had "elected", in a manner of speaking, generals and had a military based on a simpler to command legion and simpler combat principles. This way even a consul with low MIL score could command an army effectively.
I'm just referring one of the theories why Romans beat Greeks relatively easily. A theory less "popular" that the "legion beats phalanx every time" but also found in literature.
I suppose i got carried away. Way outside the topic.

 

[JarlFrank]

The biggest issue with late Hellenistic armies is that their leaders didn't know how to properly utilize their different units. Pyrrhus was pretty good and defeated the Romans numerous times, but lost due to attrition: the Romans just had way more men to throw at him than he did.

Late Hellenistic generals over-relied on the phalanx, but the true strength of Hellenistic armies was the combined arms aspect: the phalanx as the anvil, the cavalry as the hammer, and light infantry for support.

Alexander would have easily wiped the floor with the Romans, but maybe I just say that because I'm highly biased towards Alexander, one of the greatest men to ever live

 

[tritosine2k]

Just 'kwan things:

 

[normie]

I imagine dodge rolling in a full set of heavy armor must be incredibly painful

for you

 

[Great Deceiver]

Other aesthetic combat thing that bothers me in those games is how they hold their shields. They don't strap them to their arms like normal people, they hold them in their fists so that any hard hit will shatter the bones in their hand/arm.

Elden Ring characters definitely hold their shields fully strapped to their forearm. Just equip the jelly greatshield and marvel at the japs.

 

[Norfleet]

They implement it because shitty displays and framerate only allows 3rd person ( less stuff closer to camera the better with 30fps). And FPP lost in grand scheme because computards believe moving a "FOV slider" gives them actual FOV instead of warped and distorted view. Only a larger display gives that, which is an issue further compounded by viewing distance.

My kid would do this on purpose, intentionally warping the FOV until it got full 360-degree vision. It was MASSIVELY distorted, but somehow, it adapted to simply get used to this.

 

[Ismaul]

My kid [...] it adapted

 

[tritosine2k]

...

My kid would do this on purpose, intentionally warping the FOV until it got full 360-degree vision. It was MASSIVELY distorted, but somehow, it adapted to simply get used to this.

Wouldn't call it adaptation it only "works" somewhat because fps are so dumbed down theres neither adjustable movement speed nor AoE.

On the other hand some diablo-esque ARPG went all in with AOE and boundaries and it worked out pretty well.

Fps players begging for FOV always looked dumb and their outlandish settings never work hence:
https://docs.unrealengine.com/4.27/en-US/RenderingAndGraphics/PostProcessEffects/PaniniProjection/

 

[General Disarray]

Dodge roll is faster than you think IRL, watch a Judo or BJJ warmup, with long rolls you basically fly across the room and you can easily chain them without losing momentum.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Dodge roll is faster than you think IRL, watch a Judo or BJJ warmup, with long rolls you basically fly across the room and you can easily chain them without losing momentum.

now do it while wearing armor and holding a sword

 

[tritosine2k]

Dodge roll is faster than you think IRL, watch a Judo or BJJ warmup, with long rolls you basically fly across the room and you can easily chain them without losing momentum.

Point is to overdo it and rolls happening mid-air, hence barrel roll, aerobatics and such in "animation driven" games.

You won't see realistic sidestepping & shit because they don't even model foot placement hence foot sliding 4 eva.

 

[Totktospit]

Dodge roll is faster than you think IRL, watch a Judo or BJJ warmup, with long rolls you basically fly across the room and you can easily chain them without losing momentum.

now do it while wearing armor and holding a sword

It is possible to perform dodge roll in armor with sword. You can find videos in youtube proving that. But nevertheless dodge rolls are silly, with armor or without If fighter wants to move from line of attack simple side step is much more effective. Parrying is also quite often is the better option, but in games by some reason parrying requires more strict timings. Also stamina in actual fights depletes rather fights, there is a reason, why rounds in box lasts only 3 minutes. Dodge rolls will deplete it much faster. The problem is not physical effort by itself, you must also keep breathing rythm.

 

[Totktospit]

Other aesthetic combat thing that bothers me in those games is how they hold their shields. They don't strap them to their arms like normal people, they hold them in their fists so that any hard hit will shatter the bones in their hand/arm.

Bro, that's how Romans and Vikings used their shields: holding it in your hand and using it as an active defense weapon. Both Romans and Vikings used their shields aggressively, jabbing at the enemy. Celts too. Renaissance fencing also used smaller metal shields that are sturdy but light, and therefore very useful for offensive use.





Shields strapped to your arms were mostly a Greek phalanx thing, but those shields were so big and heavy they were only useful in formation. Barely any mobility, their main use was presenting a solid impenetrable wall of shields to the enemy.

Strapping a huge shield to your arm is great when you fight in formation, but in single combat holding a lighter shield in your hand is a lot more useful due to greater flexibility and ease of movement.
In a 1v1, the guy who has his shield strapped to his arm is likely to lose against the guy holding it in his fist.

But those guys at the top are still holding their shields in a way that places the arm against. In Souls, every shield is held with the arm pointing out.

I'm sure this is correct with vikings and some light small shields but i have my doubts in case of Romans. Their ranks could get tight which at least in some circumstances would suggest using shield for more passive defence. OTOH roman line was supposed to be more flexible than others from the era and they fought in a less concentrated formations so it would fit. Possibly the way shield was used depended on circumstances?

You hit the point, romans fought in formations. It is very different from individual combat. Tight formations was the reason why romans prefered gladius to spatha for a long time. Actual difference between short sword and long sword is not related to amount of damage dices

 

[SmilingGorion]

Fuck Japanese people for popularizing such an autistic and lazy way to implement damage avoidance in games.

 

[Ash]

So I read through the entire thread to try and determine what the problem supposedly was and it turned out to be...a perceived conflict with realism. Even though it's reasonably in-line with reality, and was popularized by a fantasy game with magic, fire-breathing dragons and has other concessions for fun and enjoyable gameplay. Jesus fucking christ realismfags remain pea-brained chimps even 25 years later when retards first started unreasonable retarded criticism of games for this kind of thing. Unable to perceive value in the abstract. Unable to suspend their state of disbelief. Unable to put gameplay, convenience and fantasy first. Yet another form of decline enabling.
It would be one thing if there was a special move where you turn into an anime tranny flying through the air shooting rainbows. That would be too much, clash stylistically, visually, and just be distasteful. But this is not that. You are acting as if it is, and wasn't done with 100% justifiable purpose (good gameplay).

Realismfaggotry is one major factor that contributed to the great decline. Realistic graphics. Realistic gameplay. A lack of realismfaggotry (or intelligent application of realism that still knows when to make concessions for gameplay, like Deus Ex lets say) was why the golden age was so great. Dark Souls isn't even trying to be a reality simulator, so learn to not be so retarded please. Realism for sure has its place, in moderation. Not every game has to have it, and even games that do have it it is of great importance to know when it is appropriate and when it is not. No game simulates potentially tripping over debris and extrusions when moving for example. Why? Because it wouldn't be FUN and furthermore cannot be reasonably implemented with current control hardware.

 

[General Disarray]

Realismfaggotry is one major factor that contributed to the great decline. Realistic graphics. Realistic gameplay. A lack of realismfaggotry (or intelligent application of realism that still knows when to make concessions for gameplay, like Deus Ex lets say) was why the golden age was so great. Dark Souls isn't even trying to be a reality simulator, so learn to not be so retarded please. Realism for sure has its place, in moderation. Not every game has to have it, and even games that do have it it is of great importance to know when it is appropriate and when it is not. No game simulates potentially tripping over debris and extrusions when moving for example. Why? Because it wouldn't be FUN and furthermore cannot be reasonably implemented with current control hardware.

For me the rolling in it self is not a problem, not having any other way to engage with the enemy mob is, mostly a problem in ds3 and elder ring. In ds1&2 the slower speed allowed you to distance manage and work on angles for counters, and blocking was more viable and working poise. That's why I think Bloodborne and Sekiro are more engaging, they add mechanics that encourage you to stay close and stay in the fight. That's why Lies of P and Lords of the fallen seems promising with blocks parrying allowing you to either regain health from blocks or do posture damage.

Elden ring is the worst with the 7-15 charge combos that just forces you to hit the roll button like it's a quick time event waiting for your turn.

But on debris and extrusion Death Stranding actually implemented this and made it the main thing, balance heavy weight across broken open terrain and made it fun and engaging. But you could call that a walking simulator, or more accurately a hiking simulator. It sure is more engaging than running full-speed back to town in Outward with a full backpack with loot to sell, but even there the weight and stamina reduction because of the weight adds a kind of last stretch feel powering through that can be enjoyable.

 

[Ezekiel]

On a subject I think is related, Ocarina of Time got lock-on right over twenty years before FromSoftware continues to get it wrong. By assigning it to the back button or left bumper/trigger instead of R3, you can strafe and run backwards even when there is no target. Let the player decide if the camera moves behind the character when it's pressed and there is no target and let them switch targets with a second stick as is common now and it's perfect. Only reason FromSoftware does it the way they do is because controllers never evolved with the shift to orbital cameras and heavy use of aiming. You can't easily use the face buttons anymore because every game now uses the right stick so much. But pressing L1 or L2 to target was common back then. Metal Gear Solid 3 did this too, since it originally came out with only the "fixed" camera. Snake can strafe and run backwards just like Link when there is no target. FromSoftware could try opening up the field of view more for a proper L1 targeting system with attacks on the face buttons. That or allow the player to strafe and move backwards by holding the parry/block button. That might seem redundant with R3 already locking on, but how often are you people really turning left and right with your shield up? Do you really need to? Imagine skeleton archers shooting at you from across a chasm and then running sideways along your path while keeping your shield up, still able to see where you are running, the camera still free. Not targeting them, but just defending yourself as you strafe with L1.

 

[SmilingGorion]

Realismfaggotry is one major factor that contributed to the great decline. Realistic graphics. Realistic gameplay. A lack of realismfaggotry (or intelligent application of realism that still knows when to make concessions for gameplay, like Deus Ex lets say) was why the golden age was so great. Dark Souls isn't even trying to be a reality simulator, so learn to not be so retarded please. Realism for sure has its place, in moderation. Not every game has to have it, and even games that do have it it is of great importance to know when it is appropriate and when it is not. No game simulates potentially tripping over debris and extrusions when moving for example. Why? Because it wouldn't be FUN and furthermore cannot be reasonably implemented with current control hardware.

For me the rolling in it self is not a problem, not having any other way to engage with the enemy mob is, mostly a problem in ds3 and elder ring. In ds1&2 the slower speed allowed you to distance manage and work on angles for counters, and blocking was more viable and working poise. That's why I think Bloodborne and Sekiro are more engaging, they add mechanics that encourage you to stay close and stay in the fight. That's why Lies of P and Lords of the fallen seems promising with blocks parrying allowing you to either regain health from blocks or do posture damage.

Elden ring is the worst with the 7-15 charge combos that just forces you to hit the roll button like it's a quick time event waiting for your turn.

But on debris and extrusion Death Stranding actually implemented this and made it the main thing, balance heavy weight across broken open terrain and made it fun and engaging. But you could call that a walking simulator, or more accurately a hiking simulator. It sure is more engaging than running full-speed back to town in Outward with a full backpack with loot to sell, but even there the weight and stamina reduction because of the weight adds a kind of last stretch feel powering through that can be enjoyable.

That's exactly it. The utter lack of ability to stay in the fight, toe-to-toe with the enemy, parrying, side-steping, outmaneuvering, is just dishearteningly dogshit game design that unfortunately has cemented itself in modern game design in no small part thanks to the swathes of slack-jawed sissies who somehow get their dopamine fix from the fucking Parappa the Rapper tier rhythm game experience that has them rolling on the ground in a supposedly "fun" and "non-realismfaggotry"-esque manner while fighting demons and dragons.