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

[DJOGamer PT]

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.

Still spliting hairs over the "system in theory" and the "system in practice", just so you can dodge giving a definitive on whether you think those issues hurt the experience of not?
I think this like the 4th time you do this...

Anyway, I am addressing both (as if that wasn't obvious)

And again, at the end of the day "the system" is both the abstractions of design and the factual gameplay that the players engange with
And it doesn't matter if the system has unintentional errors, then at the end of day they are still there, disrupting the system and the player's experience with it

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

The joke that you missed here - because again you don't actually read what you reply to - is that I mentioned those technical issues to demonstrate that it's near impossible to have a fruitful discussion about game design with you, because you can't even acknowledge minor but factual problems

At this point you've more than earned a "Fanboy" tag

games which you believe should determine the evolution of the combat system in FromSoft games if they wish to become more than "mediocre".

I believe I used a "softer" term like - inspire
"Determine" is very strong word - makes it sound like I want From to ripoff from others

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?

Since the technical issues are minor flaws, fixing them would make the combat system less mediocre - in a scale of 1 to 100, I say they would bring the system from 50 to 60 points
Better, but still mediocre yes
For that cease, more important flaws would have to be adressed

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.

Nigga are you afraid to read?

I literally explained that my focus on criticizing the lackluster mechanical design is exactely because it's the half that throws the equation out of balance

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.

" Yeah the game is perfectly balanced on the matter of gameplay. Eh? What? All those various extra mechanics and abilities the game hypes and wastes resources on, kinda suck and some are in fact pointless? Meh. They don't actually exsit to expand the gameplay, but because the devs though they were conceptually cool. They're basically just a gameplay illusion to make you feel like a cool ninja. Peak game design wouldn't you say? "

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.

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

And like I said, my definition isn't solely based my on arbitrary opinion, subjective taste and personal experience - while all evidence implies the opposite regarding your stance
And in fact heavily hinges upon the general knowledge that spams years of game design theory and experimentation by hundreds of other enthusiasts (including devs themselves) and analysis of both great and bad games - knowledge you've repeatedly proved to have little of

Knowledge which doesn't disregarded each game's particular goals and intentions
Bushido Blade is significantly different from Nioh, yet the combat of both games respects the principles of this "tradition" as you've called it

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

That and you're also condescending and opinionated
But I suspect not so arrogant as to not realise that engaging with these arguments would require for you to reassess your own preconceptions

 

[DJOGamer PT]

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

It's a jRPG with Action based gameplay, including a Combat system whose design primarily relates to Hack 'n' Slash games
So yes, it seems like a valid description

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.

Blade of Darkness was released in early 2001
DeS in late 2009

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.

C'mon man, I am not one to dismiss the importance of genre definitions, but this not a good example
Squirrels and beavers are concrete physical entities with objective, observable distinctions
Videogame Genres are mental constructs, inherently abstract and alwauys having a degree of ambiguity

I am 99% sure FS don't know what Severance: Blade of Darkness

Doesn't matter
DeS combat wasn't truly "novel" when it released

 

[Machocruz]

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.

I don't see a conflict, all those games qualify. Hack and Slash is just describing, at a basic level, a type of action/combat a game has, it's not a genre unto itself, or not just a genre unto itself. I heard/saw the term going back to the 80s, where it was widely applied to any game that had real-time, melee combat with weapons* -mainly those of a bladed variety, but I suppose blunts qualify. It was like the melee analog to Run n' Gun, a type of Shooter (as arcade and consoles gamers knew them then). I'd say terms like this fall under the heading of Style, Type, or Sub-Genre, rather than Genre.

But the standards for what constitutes a vg genre have always been lax at best, their induction and inclusion based more on whim, accident, and how many people how often repeat what some other random person has said rather than any thorough and critical examination**. And Steam tags are loosely applied even by that standard. HnS just conveys the bare minimum of what you can expect a game to play like, I see nothing wrong with this. If one wants to know or convey more than that, that's what whole sentences are for. But people want to be lazy and have the single catch-all term that can explain the whole of what a game is. Such terms do not and probably will never exist

*that this action was highly repetitive and briskly paced may be a distinction.

**and as such, we are free to accept or reject any and all labels on our own subjective terms. Use whatever words best suit you.

 

[Damned Registrations]

(IIRC Morrowind and Oblivion only used stamina for power attacks? And sprinting? Definitely not for basic attacking. Someone fact check me).

You're wrong. Attacking in Morrowind does consume stamina, and having a low stamina bar drops hit rate by 40%. Since your actual chance to hit is ( hit rate - evasion ) cutting your hit rate by 40% while fighting an evasive enemy can cut your chances to hit to basically nothing if your character has low stats.

 

[Lyric Suite]

But I suspect not so arrogant as to not realise that engaging with these arguments would require for you to reassess your own preconceptions

Says the person unable to reassess their preconceptions.

I mean, so far my "preconception" is basically that i disagree with your assessments. I disagree that FromSoft combat is "mediocre". I disagree that it is simplistic. And i disagree that it is deficient in any particular way (aside for some jank and glitches, which is neither here nor there).

Given all this, i wonder who is the one who is truly arrogant here.

 

[Lyric Suite]

And like I said, my definition isn't solely based my on arbitrary opinion, subjective taste and personal experience - while all evidence implies the opposite regarding your stance
And in fact heavily hinges upon the general knowledge that spams years of game design theory and experimentation by hundreds of other enthusiasts (including devs themselves) and analysis of both great and bad games - knowledge you've repeatedly proved to have little of

Knowledge which doesn't disregarded each game's particular goals and intentions
Bushido Blade is significantly different from Nioh, yet the combat of both games respects the principles of this "tradition" as you've called it

Appeal to authority is what this sounds like to me.

This is also fallacious in the sense whenever a new comer comes along, of course it is going come against a long standing "traidition" spanning years of "game design theory" and all the rest. But that is a completely irrelevant and inconsequential fact. FromSoft themselves came up against their own tradition and years of "game design theory" spanning over four games before they came up with Sekiro. Does it mean that the latter should have been forced to rely on all the lessons they had accumulated over their multiple Souls releases? I'm sure some of the maturity they gained over the years with Dark Souls did have an impact on the game, but ultimately the whole point of Sekiro was to be a new thing, following its own conventions and concepts.

The fact you can have different kind of games all rooted in the same "game design theory" is all well and good, but is there room for something to set itself completely apart from this tradition? Or must everything continue along the same course for all time?

And like i said, the more i look at the games you are demanding should be used as the blue print for all future FromSoft releases, the more i don't want them to go there. In no way, shape or form i want anything FromSoft does to even remotely resemble this:



You keep repeating that Dark Souls or Sekiro belong to this "tradition" which spans from Street Fighter to this Bushido Blade all the way to Ninja Gaiden, DMC and what's happening in the above video and i still don't see how that is actually the case.

 

[Anonona]

From hasn't created new convention or theory of designs. Complex bosses, rythmic attack patterns and parry focused gameplay existed since the times of 2D action games. Games with few moves but with each move being practical have coexisted with complex, combo crazy combat and in-between. From takes entirely from all action combat before. From even did some other action games like Ninja Blade and Otogi before Demon's Souls.

It doesn't set apart from tradition, it takes almost everything from it. Is then logical that comparisons can be drawn.

Also is weird to generalize all actions games from a single video. MH and Dragons Dogma are very good and for the most part doesnt look or play like Nioh. Even Nioh can look very different depending on weapon, build and playstyle. You yourself have experience with this. Also, what is specifically you dislike about the video?

 

[cvv]

Yea, for a game that supposedly follows closely established traditions it looks suspiciously nothing like anything anyone has played before.

Just a reminder DeS spawned its own subgenre. Kindda strange for a game that's not really that different or remarkable in any way from the predecessors.

 

[Anonona]

Yea, for a game that supposedly follows closely established traditions it looks suspiciously nothing like anything anyone has played before.

Really? There are a lot that can be at least comparable. Dark Chronicles kind of reminds me to it with lock on and dodging. Vanhelsing for PS2, despite trying to copy DMC, actually looks closer to a simpler Souls combat due to the aesthetics and gameplay. Many actions games did the lock-on, iframes on dodge combat, and many were just as simple as Souls. Even Zelda is similar as said before by another user. Hell, if you take jumping away, DMC1 can even be considered similar, it even has combat rollls for dodges and the options are quite more limited than following games (understandable so as it was experimental for its time and were trying to find their ground). If anything is hard to cite any example in particular because the combat system is quite generic. Ironically, the imitators have done a better job at giving their copycats more identity.

Just a reminder DeS spawned its own subgenre. Kindda strange for a game that's not really that different or remarkable in any way from the predecessors.

God of War wasn't unique nor novel, but it inspired clones non stop, much more than DMC. Megaman Legends' Lock-on system predates Zelda, yet it was Zelda that made it popular. RE4 didn't invent over the shoulder cameras, neither Gear of Wars, but both were key to make them popular. Something being popular is more important than original or unique to set tendencies.

Souls-like as a subgenre is pretty much nothing. The only thing that are unique to souls is the checkpoint and death system, and you can pretty much slap those in almost any game. They are closer to 3d Castlevanias like SotN. Lyric put it quite well in another topic, Soulsclones is a better term when looking for similar games, similar to how one search for God of War clones if he wanted something similar (god knows there were lots of them back in the day).

 

[Odoryuk]

The only thing that are unique to souls is the checkpoint and death system

These are not unique and were done before Souls

 

[Damned Registrations]

^ The checkpoint and death system is pretty much just cribbed from diablo anyways. The only thing about it that is noteworthy is your corpse evaporating if you die a second time.

 

[Damned Registrations]

For what it's worth, I can understand the argument of 'I want more of the same and don't give a fuck what other people like more.' I felt the same way about Armored Core and instead got fucking Armored Souls with magical estus nanites, camera lockon and retarded energy mechanics that simulate the souls stamina bar.

What I don't understand is defending blatant laziness regarding all the jank, lack of weapon variety, and bosses that have become spastic crackheads while our defenses have improved 10%.

 

[Odoryuk]

The checkpoint and death system is pretty much just cribbed from diablo anyways

The idea that you have to get back to the place were you died to take something back is lifted from Diablo/early MMO corpseruns, but dying and getting back to the specific part of the world without loading your save (meaning you retain everything you got prior to dying, if you pressed some switches or killed a boss, this will remain the same after death) was actually introduced in King's Field 1 back in 1994, but you have to contain a very rare item (Dragon Tree Fruit) in your inventory in order to respawn this way, and the item gets consumed after you respawn. Die without it and you have to load a save

 

[Lyric Suite]

From hasn't created new convention or theory of designs. Complex bosses, rythmic attack patterns and parry focused gameplay existed since the times of 2D action games.

If you generlize things it's easy to make those kind of claims.

In reality, FromSoft DID come up with their own conventions or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

And that's relevant here because your argument is that Dark Souls is essentially the same as DMC... except lesser. My point is that it is something else altoghether so comparisons like that don't apply. The fact you can perform five thousand spazzy combos in Nioh but not Souls doesn't mean Souls is just a more simplistic version of the same thing. Take all the flashy combos and Nioh becomes babby's first Dark Souls, and Nioh is the only one that actually incorporates some Souls-like elements. Take all the combos out of DMC and i'm not even sure what you would get.

 

[Anonona]

Sorry, I think we are getting nowhere. If after all this we are still on "combos" then there has been a serius issue of communication

Take all the combos out of DMC and i'm not even sure what you would get.

A fantastic but lesser game with a myriad of options to deal with bosses attacks, from parries to multiple form of dodges, jump, enemy stomp, animation canceling, devil trigger to gain hyperarmor, movement options like teleports, weapon clash and probably more.

Offensivenly, an array of moves with diverse purpose, reposition, blocking, guard point, adding hyperarmor, charge attack, attacks that consume meter or build their own resources, that reposition the enemy, that grant you iframes, long and short range, etc.

All always at disposition of the player

 

[Damned Registrations]

Actually, if you took all the flashy combos out of Nioh, you'd still have a more interesting stagger mechanic with permanent ki damage on demons and the corrupted ground, more interesting status effects and buffs that do things besides 15% more damage, a much, much wider variety of basic weapon attacks, more meaningful equipment, the living weapon transformation and it's effects, locational damage on enemies and bosses, and a better NG+ system.

 

[cvv]

Actually, if you took all the flashy combos out of Nioh, you'd still have a more interesting stagger mechanic with permanent ki damage on demons and the corrupted ground, more interesting status effects and buffs that do things besides 15% more damage, a much, much wider variety of basic weapon attacks, more meaningful equipment, the living weapon transformation and it's effects, locational damage on enemies and bosses, and a better NG+ system.

All true and still, souls would remain their own thing, fun and engaging in their on way. Precisely because they're different.

The main reason most people don't consider Nioh a soulslike is the combat which ACTUALLY follows the flashy, stylized, fast paced animu tradition of hack'n'slashers and fighters. Demon's Souls was such a sensation precisely because it veered from it, going with heavy, slow, "realistic" movements with long commits instead.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Actually, if you took all the flashy combos out of Nioh, you'd still have a more interesting stagger mechanic with permanent ki damage on demons and the corrupted ground, more interesting status effects and buffs that do things besides 15% more damage, a much, much wider variety of basic weapon attacks, more meaningful equipment, the living weapon transformation and it's effects, locational damage on enemies and bosses, and a better NG+ system.

None of that means a whole much for me because we are talking about quanity vs quality.

I happen to think that the basics of FromSoft games are qualitatively superior. This is why i brought up music as an analogy, because you can compare the number of notes and chords all you want, but that tells you nothing about the actual quality of the melodies and harmony of the songs. Making comparisons between what's on paper tells you nothing about all the "invisible" intricacies that exist once you look at the actual reality (it's a bit like claiming Deus Ex is infinitely superior to Doom on every level while ignoring the gunplay in the latter is actually vastly better designed).

The attack patterns and movements of enemies in Nioh was fairly "middle ground" compared to anything in Dark Souls. I wouldn't use a word like "mediocre" because unlike some people here i don't have an axe to grind one way or another, but it's still a fact that if you play the game as if it was Souls it's not even remotely as good. The design of the attacks in FromSoft games are in the main more clever, more unique and look better visually.

Nioh just felt fairly middle of the road in terms of what it does that is similar to Souls. Was better than Dark Souls 2 but in a way it reminded me of the latter, just not as janky.

Now, would the addition of all those other intricacies like combos etc tip the scale, putting the game above FromSoft combat? Maybe. I wish i had seen it but like i said this idea you have to wait until NG++ or whatever in order to get to that part is to the detriment to the game. But from a visual point of view alone, i'm not really keen to what i'm seeing. That guy doing all those spazzy combos in that video i just posted. Might be impressive in terms of gameplay design, is still not particularly appealing to me as a matter of preference. I don't want to spazz around doing animu combos with magic shit shooting out everywhere.

One of my favored fights in Sekiro was this dude:



It's not even a major boss, just a minor mini-boss. But it's the whole visceral feeling i had during this fight. The second he hits me i got so mad (doing a no-hit video on this one was obnoxious because of his buddies at the start) that i just pushed him into the corner and basically pulled some next level (for me anyway) deflect-fu just out of sheer rage.

I never felt this level of intensity when fighting anything in Nioh. Even when i kept the fights simple, the combat didn't feel to have as much "weight" to it, felt more arcadish and less grounded.

Would i feel something similar if i was doing all the DMC style crap that guy is doing in that video? Maybe, maybe not, but just aesthetically i can tell you that kind of thing alienated me a bit. I could still probably enjoy the game by simply accepting it for what it is, but if Nioh 3 and Sekiro 2 were to be announced toghether, my money would go to the latter first, purely out of personal preference.

 

[Anonona]

None of that means a whole much for me because we are talking about quanity vs quality.

First off, yeah, it mattered. Didn't you pride yourself on finding "clever" solutions to fights? What those things allow in Nioh is the same, but instead of dividing them in multiple weapons, those options are grouped in weapon types. Is not all about combos.

What he said was in fact is quality over quantity. Souls is more quantity than anything else, Tons of weapons yet their movesets are very similar and sometimes give an impression of being unfinished. Jump light attack, backsteps, full chain of attacks and some uniques moves are usually either too niche or downright useless, with some becoming more useless after ER added new moves that occupied their niche. And because your moveset is always so limited, niche options are pretty much ignored, even if they would offer help in certain fights because you had to sacrifice a much better one to use it. Or how some of these actually had purpose in past games but somehow they refused to reuse those improvements. Is so dumb how in ER backstep was so weak due to the changes in combat and refusal to use DS2's backstep, and suddenly in the DLC they introduce a talisman so it can be useful again.

Feels like there was no testing or real though put into them.

That guy doing all those spazzy combos in that video i just posted.

Half of the things the dude did were moves to chase or reposition himself. Also you don't seem to realize that people will find combos everywhere because the nature of combos are just creative use of player tools.

The grounded, comboless combat of Sekiro





Oh, shit. A combo, in my Elden Ring?





Your real problem seems to be aesthetics and "game feel".

 

[Lyric Suite]

Didn't you pride yourself on finding "clever" solutions to fights?

I think i was just taking the piss with that, mostly at myself.

Which boss was it anyway? I even forgot what we were talking about.

As for doing combos, sure, it's possible, and Ongbal has been able to pull some crazy stuff over the years but the system itself doesn't revolve around that and most of what he does is kinda gratuitous and superflous. It looks good visually but it's not more effective or anything.

I remember in Sekiro i tried to substitute the regular jump stomp with that kung-fu kick but it didn't last long until i got bored with it.

Call me a minimalist i just don't find that stuff interesting.

Your real problem seems to be aesthetics and "game feel".

That's not an irrelevant factor.

I actually disliked the snappiness of movement and attack in Nioh. Made the game "feel" less grounded and more arcadish, which is invariably less interesting to me.

 

[Damned Registrations]

That Sekiro fight looks so banal to me. I can't unsee a god of war style quick time event playing out every time he raises his sword or whatever. PRESS TEH BUTTAN!

The design of the attacks in FromSoft games are in the main more clever, more unique and look better visually.

What are you smoking? 80% the bosses in fromsoft games are just a human spazzing out with hyper armour. Dark souls was the only one with decent variety, having moonlight butterfly, priscilla, Nito, 4 kings, and Gwyndolin all being pretty unique and interesting fights.

Even bosses that are superficially very different in ER like Loretta and a godskin noble get fought against in basically the exact same way- you passively circle strafe and counter attack certain moves after trial and erroring enough to learn which ones are safe. They're pretty much all like that.

 

[Lyric Suite]

That Sekiro fight looks so banal to me. I can't unsee a god of war style quick time event playing out every time he raises his sword or whatever. PRESS TEH BUTTAN!

That just indicates you are retarded.

What are you smoking? 80% the bosses in fromsoft games are just a human spazzing out with hyper armour.

Maybe it looks like spazzing out because you can't actually see what's going on?

 

[Anonona]

I think i was just taking the piss with that, mostly at myself.

Really? A shame, I agreed with you. Imo, I find in many of your videos you tend to find intelligent solutions to use against bosses combined with good play.

As for doing combos, sure, it's possible, and Ongbal has been able to pull some crazy stuff over the years but the system itself doesn't revolve around that and most of what he does is kinda gratuitous and superflous. It looks good visually but it's not more effective or anything.

Dude, he is shutting down enemies with those combos and achieving faster kills. They are anything but superfluous.

 

[Lyric Suite]

As for doing combos, sure, it's possible, and Ongbal has been able to pull some crazy stuff over the years but the system itself doesn't revolve around that and most of what he does is kinda gratuitous and superflous. It looks good visually but it's not more effective or anything.

Dude, he is shutting down enemies with those combos and achieving faster kills. They are anything but superfluous.

If you are talking about the Sekiro video, he is shutting them down with the fire crackers or fire and then perform flashy attacks while they are staggered.

In my videos, i intentionally ignored prosphetic tools for the most part precisely to avoid "shutting down" the enemies because i wanted to display how far i had gotten mastering their attacks. I also ignored some of the skills that also had that effect and only used them sporadically when i thought they didn't invalidate the fight or made it seem i wasn't doing it "legit".

In my fight with Messmer, i "shut him down" during his second phase by calculating posture damage in my head but i don't consider that a display of skill. I basically cheated my way out of learning his second phase.

BTW, before some retard starts to assume i'm claiming i'm better than Ongbal, get the fuck off with that shit and learn to read and understand arguments.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Maybe it looks like spazzing out because you can't actually see what's going on?

Or maybe it's because they're jumping 20 meters across the room every 5 seconds, attacking non stop all over the place like they're trying to kill an invisible horde of zombies? Sorry I can't hallucinate secret hints from the bosses to justify their behaviour like you and your 'sword glint' from Margit.