From Software Elden Ring - From Software's new game with writing by GRRM

[Lyric Suite]

You do not need to learn only if a attack is dodgeable but also the exact angle and frame at which it is dodgeable. This linearly increases the amount of time wasted figuring this out and would be under any other context considered hollow filler.

It's filler to you, it's complexity to me. Dark Souls always had a degree of "physicality" to it, which in way is what makes the game feel a little bit more grounded than a mere button masher or something like Street Fighter etc.

Nioh was like that too. On the first boss, i had trouble understanding why i would keep getting hit even though it felt i successfully dodged his attacks. I then realized what was happening is that the ball would fall to the ground after his spin was complete, hitting me in the head if i happened to stand under it. So what i had to do is learn the correct timing that would allow me to position myself away from the rebound. You can see it in my video of the fight:



When he spins around, you need to make sure your dodge lands you close to the ball on the left, so you don't get hit by the one on the right bouncing down. And then there's another type of spin he does where you have to dodge into him so you don't get hit again by the ball falling into the ground, this time in front of him.

In FromSoft games, this kind of "spacial" awarness is pretty much an element of the combat system. On some level, it's probably unavoidable anyway if the game is 3D, but obviously since it's there it appears the developers are designing the game with that factor in mind. In Elden Ring, you can dodge entire combos just by positioning behind the boss. I remember when i fighting the Dancing Lion there was one attack that almost drove me crazy. It's basically the one where he bobs the head left and right which always seemed to be able to get me every time i dared to punish him after certain attacks. It drove me nuts as i felt there was no way around it. Turns out all i had to do is make sure to get behind him, where i was pretty much safe from it.

 

[Damned Registrations]

I'm also not sure whether it's the same thing. Having to redo something because you got unlucky with the RNG isn't exactly the same.

I've spent more time playing roguelikes than anything else. While they obviously contain an immense amount of RNG, blaming it for your loss is like blaming your bad luck for losing at Scrabble. Outside of some incredibly rare circumstances it's always the player's fault for lacking knowledge or playing carelessly. Top players can consistently streak wins in most decent roguelikes.

I actually find RNG more annoying in action games these days, as even if you know how to play around it, that generally means being passive and waiting for an opening, which is infuriating. Watching some boss spaz out for 2 minutes straight before I can safely attack is worse than an unskippable cutscene of the same length because the whole time you know it's just bad luck to even have happened.

 

[Silverfish]

It's very awkard, like something out of a third rate b movie

DMC is pretty unabashedly Kamiya's take on 80's Hollywood cheese.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Nioh footage making me want to pick the game up again, or rather, it's sequel. I wish more games did the glowy hands = unlblockable attack thing. Saves so much time and frustration from cheap gimmick kills.

 

[H. P. Lovecraft's Cat]

I'm too much of a fromdrone to enjoy DD, I'm sorry. I tried the first game recently and visually, storywise and, the most important, atmosphere–wise it's so bland that I didn't care about the combat at all. Maybe it is technically better (though I doubt it, maybe DD2 has the better combat, but I don't have any incentives to try it anymore), but nothing supports this combat. Believing in the world is one of the most important aspects to me, and FS always delivers the best worlds

Do you never go out at night and adventure? It's as atmospheric and tense as anything in the Souls games.

 

[Ezekiel]

Dark Souls 1 had up and r1 to make a kick. I would love if they would incorporate basics like parry etc. into moves like that. Like up and light attack = kick, back and light attack = parry etc.

Useless.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Needlessly complicated and given how difficult parry is for most people would mean nobody would use it. Most don't use it even now (even though Elden Ring made it a bit more necessary, probably another consequence of Sekiro).

 

[Lyric Suite]

It's very awkard, like something out of a third rate b movie

DMC is pretty unabashedly Kamiya's take on 80's Hollywood cheese.

I think there's an element of 90s cheese, like those terrible American John Woo movies.

If it was strickly 80s we might have responded better to it. Dante himself would look like less of a metrosexual i think. That haircut definitely screams 90s.

I guess the fact it's intentionally made to be stupid gives it context, though pretending to be retarded still makes you kinda retarded.

BTW, let me guess, Dante is cocky on the outside but is sad on the inside, hence why it's Devil May Cry instead of Devil May Care. I've consumed enough Japanese media to know where this is going lmao.

 

[Perkel]

Needlessly complicated and given how difficult parry is for most people would mean nobody would use it. Most don't use it even now (even though Elden Ring made it a bit more necessary, probably another consequence of Sekiro).

They don't use it because you have to pick between everything else and parry.

Elden Ring attacks being anti-parry is entirely different thing though.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

I'll demonstrate it to you. Say someone new to the series were to ask you to describe the kind of combat Dark Souls has, and how it is different from that of other games like DMC etc. If you were to begin with something like "well, in Dark Souls you often can't get a critical hit if the terrain happens to be on a slant, while in DMC sometimes you can't see an incoming attack because the camera is facing the wrong way" you'd be rightly called a fucking lunatic.

You really prefer going full retard over even conceding that factual techincal gameplay issues are indeed flaws?
Ok...

1. while I think lunatic might be a bit too strong for this case, I would agree idiot would be an apt and likely compliment, because really what kind of a moron starts a general comparison by delving first and foremost into specific details and not an overview - otherwise, if the analysis was about the technicalities of gameplay, I think shining light on particularly vexing issues such as those would be pertinent and valid point to make
2. however, a comparasion of those 2 elements doesn't work very well - Cameras are their own system and exist to frame all range of player activities, meaning their functionality isn't limited solely to Combat but also Exploration as well - while not landing criticals on slopes is an hyper specific deficiency directly related to the Critical Hit Mechanic, which is a component of the Combat System and therefore this issue exclusively affects the combat experience
3. another detail you've missed (which reinforces my accusation that you skim replies or simply ignore well founded arguments), is that that devs usually such errors try to correct with subsequent games - even disregarding the fact that bad camera angles was already an in infrequent problem in DMC1, it still stands that it was a problem that got rectified in the next games (DMC2 doesn't count) and eventually fully dealt with - while From still has these constant, consistent techinical issues, exactly as they were in DeS, even after making 5 sequels over the course of 15 years - this is inexcusable

Yes, technical issues, errors in design etc can be considered part of the experience of the combat system, but they aren't part of the system as such

Now who's grasping at straws?

"Errors aren't a part of the idea/theory of the system"
Yeah no shit
I guess must be why we say things like "ideally" or "theoretically"
But at the end of day, the system we the players experience, is the one "in practice"
And that system effectively has errors

it was the system itself that you described as "mediocre".

The system is overall mediocre, yes that has been my point
It has the potential to be better, but From refuses to explore that potential (in large part because fanboys think it's already great) and so the system hasn't aspired to be something more than a solid foundation since DeS

I'm just taking your perspective to it's logical conclusion.

No you aren't
You are taking your lame strawman of my opinion to it's logical conclusion

You seem to be putting a great deal of emphasis in what the player can do, while ignoring or downplaying what the game is pitting against the player.

And here's the proof you're arguing with your own poor mental construction of my arguments

The reason why I emphasize the player's lackluster ability roster in Sekiro, is because (like I've said a hundred times before) they are mostly useless to the dangers the enemies pose and even the few that can be considered efficient are simply boring... barely any mechanical depth to them
And the fact this system is clearly tuned this way so From can have their stupid Simon Says bullshit, doesn't sit well it me either because this is fundamentally lazy game design

Again, great game design is the harmonious interplay between challenge/reactivity and player choice/interactivity - Sekiro's combat doesn't strike that balance

Sekiro has to be seen as the worst FromSoft game and the worst melee action game in general

Nah DS3 gets the award for the former
And there's pleny of worse games in the later

it's clear you don't have a lot of admiration for the combat system of the game

Sure
But it's a clear fail in logic from your part to conclude that equates with me thinking it's a bad game
Specially considering I explicitly said otherwise in the past

I even kind of like that FromSoft is a kind of anti-matter to something like DMC. Instead of putting all the emphasis on what the player can do, all the focus is in what the enemy can do to the player, which to me is a perfectly valid premise for a combat system.

Which again goes to show how much you know
The reason the player has such a profound range of actions in DMC is in great part because the enemies themselves can also exert considerable influence on the player - it's even a good way to distinguish between novice and expert players, the former solely reacts to the enemy (meaning it's the enemy that has control over the player), while the later is the one that is in full control of the fight

As for the latter premise being a valid goal for a action combat system, the reason I would disagree is quite simple - it implicates a focus on linearity and arbitrary gameplay constraints

IMO, as I alluded in my "Action Combat" thread, this subject is essentially a "Chess vs Checkers" discussion

Except Dark Souls is not a fighting game. It's an RPG with roots in a first person dungeon crawler (King's Field). The combat eschews many of the characteristics of the games you are talking about essentially by design.

It's an Action jRPG with a Hack 'n' Slash combat system
So no, it doesn't eschew design philosophies of the "school" it draws it's action elements from, that part of the game very much fits the mold and can be judged according to it

A game like DoDonPachi cannot give the player anything more than the most basic attacks because all the focus and attention is on what's happening on the top side of the screen

Ok, but the "accompanying upgrade in intricacy of the game's challenges" part, very much implies that said focus would also suffer changes
Obviously it could then be argued that the resulting experience would not really be DoDonPachi...

Easier to just pick your battles on the points that matter.

Sorry, but avoiding the strong arguments and twisting the weaker ones is a chick thing
I don't do that

 

[Odoryuk]

It's an Action jRPG with a Hack 'n' Slash combat system

 

[cvv]

Yeah DJOGamer PT is weird with these comparisons, for some reason he can't see the souls genre attracted a huge new audience precisely because it was unlike anything that came before in the aRPG genre, especially with its novel implementation of stamina and animation commitment, resulting in a much more deliberate and tactical experience than traditional hack'n'slashes.

He's been calling souls "fighting games" for years now, it's a variety of autism I haven't seen anywhere else but if it makes him happy....

 

[Lyric Suite]

DJOGamer PT, you are free to believe the "system" is mediocre, but technical flaws don't enter into it. They cannot enter into it, because they are not part of the "system" by definition. They are... errors, glitches, aspects of the combat system that aren't intended by the original design, and it is the design you are addressing.

Like i said, flaws can be part of the experience of the system, but they aren't part of the system as such. And in fact, at no point have you ever mentioned flaws until that particular post. Your argument as always been that the system is mediocre because you have deemed it to be simplistic and lacking in the complexity of other games you have presented as an alternative, games which you believe should determine the evolution of the combat system in FromSoft games if they wish to become more than "mediocre".

Here's another way i can demonstrate the fallacy in your argument: let's imagine that FromSoft were to fix all those glitches today, like, right in this instant. The camera, the problem with the lock on, everything. Would the combat system cease to be "mediocre" all of a sudden?

Conversely, you consider Sekiro to be even more mediocre, and yet Sekiro doesn't contain the same flaws Elden Ring has.

So again, it is the system you are addressing.

Again, great game design is the harmonious interplay between challenge/reactivity and player choice/interactivity - Sekiro's combat doesn't strike that balance

Your argument had nothing to do with "balance". Your problem was in this alleged lack of "complexity", or "mechanical depth" to use the phrase you just employed in this reply.

As far as i'm concerned, Sekiro is perfectly balanced for what it does. It is in fact supremely balanced. The non-viability of the few extra tools you get is besides the point, because conceptually those tools are just meant to serve as cheap shots to keep in line with the whole Shinobi mythology. They are just a fancier version of throwing sand or dirt into the opponet's eyes. Dirty tricks a Shinobi can use to cheat his way to victory. Conceptually, they aren't intended to produce any particular effect on the enemy besides distraction or interference, which they do.

All of this is of course perfectly obvious. Like a said a million time, your problem is that for you everything has to be conpared to this arbitrary definition of what a combat system HAS to be like, passing judgement and making assumptions about the presumed deficiencies of other system which for all you know may be based on completely different standards or principles which do not in fact conform to your definition.

As for the latter premise being a valid goal for a action combat system, the reason I would disagree is quite simple - it implicates a focus on linearity and arbitrary gameplay constraints

IMO, as I alluded in my "Action Combat" thread, this subject is essentially a "Chess vs Checkers" discussion

Yeah but just like i said a billion time, that's like, your opinion man.

I simply don't agree. You claim the constraints are "arbitrary". I say they have a perfectly valid reasons for being, and there isn't much in Sekiro that is missing as far as i'm concerned. Like, at all. In fact, i'm impressed how they nearly managed to cover every possibility of this new combat system, leaving no stones unturned to the point i'm not even sure what else they could do were they to develop a direct sequel. It's like they invented the system and then said the final word on it right on the first game.

Sorry, but avoiding the strong arguments and twisting the weaker ones is a chick thing
I don't do that

Yeah well, i do, 'cause i'm lazy and i can't be bothered. This multi-quote shit goes into TL;DR territory for me.

 

[Anonona]

specially with its novel implementation of stamina and animation commitment

Animation commitment is a concept of fighting game and some hack 'n slash like Ninja Gaiden, despite their speed. They bosses have random chances of escaping your combos and if you smash the attack button you won't recover fast enough to dodge, so they demanded the player learn to hit-confirm. And in terms of RPGs, games like Oblivion had action combat with. stamina systems. None of them are truly innovations. I remember games like Dark Cloud also having their own take on ARPG with stamina and there are probably many more examples, like Severence: Blade of Darkness or Gothic.

While I wouldn't call Souls RPG combined with Hack n' Slash, the combat systems wasn't really very innovative nor impressive, it was a decent starting point and controlled well enough. The innovations that really caught people attention was the unique old school design, being challenging in a times games were piss easy, the multiplayer and message system, and the death mechanic. The superb level design, solid RPG mechanics, decent combat and beautiful aesthetics did the rest.

 

[cvv]

Animation commitment is a concept of fighting game and some hack 'n slash like Ninja Gaiden, despite their speed........And in terms of RPGs, games like Oblivion had action combat with. stamina systems.

I'll leave people more savvy about fighting games than me judge how much the souls commitment resembles anything in fighting games.

And stamina as a concept has obviously existed since forever (the first time I saw it was in Wizardry 6, in a very different application ofc) and afaik even previous FromSoft games like King's Field featured a version of stamina. But its implementation in DeS WAS novel. (IIRC Morrowind and Oblivion only used stamina for power attacks? And sprinting? Definitely not for basic attacking. Someone fact check me).

I'm not even sure DeS' uniqueness was down to it being challenging. Yes, western AAA games were p. pussified by the end of the 00s but I'm p. sure Japanese games were just as hardcore as before. I really think DeS was such a revelation due to a uniquely tactical action combat, the death mechanics and the invasion system (probably the first case of PvP merged seamlessly with PvE).

 

[Anonona]

I was trying to explain that what DJOGamer said wasn't that strange; DS still retains the basic design tenets of old action games and drawn inspirations from many systems before it. It didn't eschew design conventions, many who were influenced by Fighting games, so the comparison is understandable.

 

[cvv]

so the comparison is understandable.

No, the comparison is retarded. The very reason we even have genres is so we can group games into similar categories to easier keep track of them, even though all of them obviously share many similar features.

You said it yourself, Oblivion has a similar stamina system as DeS, and superficially even looks similar in a third-person view. Does it mean that it's also basically just a fighting game? Is THAT comparison understandable?

The only result of this kind of retarded deconstruction is the kind of confusion we wanted to sort out with genres in the first place.

 

[Anonona]

It doesn't change the fact that Demon's Souls still uses a lot of conventions of past action games for combat and share the same principles. You stamina example, Oblivion doesn't share them, but Severence does for example. Even without the stamina system, the combat design is very much using many conventions from past action games. Iframes, parries, hyperarmor, combination inputs to do certain moves, a limited set of weapons the player prepare beforehand and can carry and change in real time, lock-on system, critical hits giving invincibility is a concept straight up from Beat em' Up, even 3D ones like God Hand with its "finishers", and many more. Even the boss design is very much similar to those action games.

Also genre definitions are blurry as fuck. Kingdom Hearts, Diablo 2, Dark Souls and Tales Of are all ARPGs and yet they couldn't be more different. Even Hack n' Slash is quite a tenues thing, both nuGoW and old GoW are Hack n' Slash despite how different they are. And even then, across different genres you can find similar design paradigms. That is why many of the things used in Fighting Games have places in other action genres, including ARPGs, they don't stop aplaying because we gave them a different name.

 

[cvv]

Also genre definitions are blurry as fuck

Doesn't mean we should deconstruct them.

The difference between a squirrel and a beaver is also blurry as fuck - they both have fur, tail and an overbite - but saying a squirrel is basically a beaver is retarded, regardless of much comparative sophistry you can employ.

 

[Anonona]

The difference between a squirrel and a beaver is also blurry as fuck - they both have fur, tail and an overbite - but saying a squirrel is basically a beaver is retarded.

I understand where you are coming from and I agree to a certain extent But even if using Hack n' Slash wasn't the right choice of words, he follows it with an explanation of his point which does hold weight.

So no, it doesn't eschew design philosophies of the "school" it draws it's action elements from, that part of the game very much fits the mold and can be judged according to it

Also the issue is that Hack n' Slash as a term has become confusing. Search Steam, you have Diablo IV, FF XVI, Granblue Relink, Middle-earth: Shadow of War and Sekiro, at least 3 different types of action combat there, and that kind of weird amalgamation of games under the same umbrella isn't anything new. I remember people calling games like Diablo Hack n' Slash even before they used the term for DMC.

There is even an Spectacle fighter and Action Character game tab there and there isn't any real difference between the two.

 

[Odoryuk]

but Severence does for example.

I am 99% sure FS don't know what Severance: Blade of Darkness is, because it's a Windows–only game which was only released in NA and EU regions in early 2000s. DeS's stamina system is a continuation of stamina system from Shadow Tower Abyss, where the amount of attacks you could do was discrete, which itself was a continuation of a similar system of attack power from King's Field 1-4 and first Shadow Tower game, were only attacks with full attack power bar deal full damage (and also attacks with less than full power drain more durability), it was kind of reverse stamina system from DeS.
Demon's Souls got it, and also I'm pretty sure most of its third person action stuff was taken from 3D Zelda games, not character action games like Devil May Cry (unless you consider 3D Zeldas to be in the same genre, which is weird tbh)

There also may be some ideas from Evergrace games, which were third person action RPGs that FS made before Demon's Souls, but the games look and sound so wack I never got to play them.

 

[Anonona]

Demon's Souls got it, and also I'm pretty sure most of its third person action stuff was taken from 3D Zelda games, not character action games like Devil May Cry (unless you consider 3D Zeldas to be in the same genre, which is weird tbh)

No, Zelda combat was influencial, of course, but you are just taking a single element (lock-on system that alters how you move) and ignoring the rest of the combat system. Elements like iframes, the way you are supposed to tackle bosses (bosses with complex patterns where you use your skill, spells and weapons to damage it while using blocking, good positioning or/and iframes to survive), how chaining attacks work and even small things like the inputs for the kick are classic elements of action games, including things like invincibility during certain moves. DMC adopted the lock on system from games like Zelda and introduced new elements that them other action games adapted, both japanese and western, and those would influence future games.

Demon's Souls combat is by no means something unique, but instead a product of influences of past action games and RPGs. Even if the stamina system is an adaptation of King's Field, is not such a novel or unique thing that was so determinant for the game sucess. MH has an stamina system and it was huge in Japan for a very long time, so there war already a tradition in place to take inspiration from nor it blows players minds.

Just as you cannot negate Zelda's influence in action games, you cannot negate DMCs, MHs and many other milestone action games influences, Demon's Souls follows the tradition of set by these games. Also you keep coming back to DMC, but we are talking about conventions set many years before, to the point of going back to fighting games.

 

[Odoryuk]

Just as you cannot negate Zelda's influence in action games, you cannot negate DMCs, MHs and many other milestone action games

Oh, MH for sure affected Demon's Souls, that's undeniable. But I don't consider MH a part of Character Action genre

 

[Anonona]

But I don't consider MH a part of Character Action genre

It isn't, but it does share design principles of almost all action games, including Character Action. Character Action aren't fighting games, but they share principles too. Even certain ARPGs, when they focus a lot on the Action part, like DD having attacks straight out of DMC and MH. Hell, Souls have PvP, it has even fighting game conventions due to this fact. The kick in old souls games was in place as the "grab" command in fighting games, a way to punish people that shielded too much, which was phased out because the AoW system was more flexible and had more options.

If you look at From's history of games is obvious they do not shy from taking inspiration. You have Ninja Blade as inspired by Ninja Gaiden and Otogi's combat system inspired by DMC. Even in ER they are still taking great inspiration. The Great Katana shares almost all its moveset with the Longsword of MH. To me is obvious they had a lot of learning experience with other action games.

Is not about Character Action being better than Souls, but that Souls combat could be better and there are examples of what it could improve when comparing with action games in general.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

As it stands From's combat isn't about challenging the player with mechanically interesting choices
It's about playing Guitar Hero: Prepare to Roll Edition

So Lyric Suite seems like you are in agreement with DJOGamer PT then.

It's funny (and annoying as well)

We understand Lyric's arguments as for why From's combat is so "clever", specially regarding boss fights
We understood it the day he made that comparison to classical music
For him it's all about the specific "tempo" of the fight, the "mood", the "meaning" they convey, how they remain consistent even when the bosses are playing tricks on the player, even when new "layers" are added with the new phases, how From connects these themes and how they "coerce" the player to "dance along" with the tune, whether he likes it or not
It's an approach that fundamentally tickles his /mu/fag autism

He on the other hand, can't still see why we ultimately don't find it all that special - even after being repeatedly and plainly told the reasons for years
It's an approach that only works by excessively increasing the combat's linearity - i.e. an unreasonable rejection of player agency, so the devs can enjoy higher authority over the player
An approach which, even if what's being "expressed" is indeed quite smart, the fact still remains that it is fundamentally lazy game design, that only leads to shallow gameplay

Truly great combat design, what takes real creativity and craftsmanship from the devs part, is making a fight that can still convey a particular experience and even reframe what the player learned from the combat, while still preserving and if possible promoting player agency

And it is ironic he so vehemently defends the opposite, considering that he loves to hate CoD and Fallout 3 for casualizing his beloved Doom and F1...