Incline Game Design Talk - Action Combat

[Ezekiel]

But here's a problem with cinematic cams in this kind of game. Depth perception. Messed up this jump twice, on a time limit. Although, could have simply extended the platform farther into the background.

 

[Lyric Suite]

and now the combat is basically all about spamming whatever broken combat art you like.

Completely false.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

That's a loaded question.

No it's not
You keep saying that Dante is more complicated than he needs to be
So I ask how would you "simplify" him to an acceptable degree while retaining his mechanical depth
It's legitimate question

when the enemy mostly stands around

If you're not playing past Devil Hunter that's your problem
Besides: Difficulty != Mechanical Depth

Get things like efficiency, comfort, spacing, risk/reward and style down

The game does all these gameplay elements well

You already have your biases.

And you have yours, which so far have shown to be dumbing-down gameplay design because it's demanding for you
Decline-enabler

 

[DJOGamer PT]

disagree with this notion that "depth" equates with "complexity"

Then, according to this notion, I guess you find Checkers has a similiar level of depth to Chess...

With Sekiro we have a Fighter were the players action repertoire is severely limited and many enemies are essentially hard-coded to counter almost all moves from the player save a very few
Your choices in combat are pretty much "either do what you're told, or get smacked" - which isn't a choice but an ultimatum

I understand the appeal of this combat system - it's extremely simple in mechanics (therefore effortless to learn and control), but the strict timing of enemy attacks keeps it challenging in that 1st run and the cool, energetic presentation and game feel give the action an edge
But is this a great Fighting system? No
Its a Fighter that actively deprives the player of agency and avoids mechanical nuance

The challenge is spatio/visual, and every boss is like a whole new song you have to learn.

This is nothing unique and remarkable to the genre
You say this because, even as you admitted once, you've barely played any 3D Fighters outside FromSoft's offerings
But is an aspect the genre has been playing with for decades

 

[Ezekiel]

You snip so much. I know I've done it too, but Jesus. Remember the whole meat of what I said being snipped out of the Batman arguments as well.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Your choices in combat are pretty much "either do what you're told, or get smacked" - which isn't a choice but an ultimatum

Maybe, but you can make a similar argument when it comes to level design. After all, in a level, your choices are basically set in stone. And yet, exploring a level is a far ritcher experience than roaming freely in an open map.

Why? Because the level is actually designed. It's the same when listening to a new song. All the notes are arranged in a fixed order which is always the same when you listen to it. So what's the point? Why not just listen to a random series of notes that is always going to be different and so always new and unpredictable? Because the essence of the song is the creative act of arranging the notes in a way that follows a particular intellective intent that can surprise and have an effect on the listener. It's the creative act that makes art what it is, not the "novelty" of it. Notice that there are some people who do argue against formal music or composed music, claiming the fact the song is always the same limits the experience, especially since the effect is not the same once the novelty has worn off. Sometimes they present improvisation as an alternative, sometimes they go so far as claim music should have no actual structure whatsoever, hence stuff like serialism in music or stuff like free jazz.

In either case, for me the appeal of FromSoft combat is that there is a creative act in how the bosses are designed and the experience of trying to figure out something that is the product of an actual intellective act is part of the appeal. Every boss is like a new song for me, and pretty damn good ones at that. FromSoft does have their own array of techniques they always use, sure, but that applies to most musicians as well, since they all have their own "style". But new songs are still new even if the musician or composer often defaults to familiar phrases or techniques.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

Except if we're making a level design analogy, Sekiro would almost be the equivalent of corridor level design
While the great level design is that which the player is presented with an abundance of choices each with distinct gameplay considerations, challenges, opportunities and results - in the best designed levels, this aspect is so up there that it is indeed possible for each player and playtrough to be wildly different experiences (remember Deus Ex?)

It's also why the music analogy doesn't work very well here - music is a passive experience, it requires no input from the audience
Videogames are primarily an active experience, the engagement comes above all from the input of the audience (i.e. the series of mechanical choices they make throughout the playtrough) and the complexity of the game's reaction to them (i.e. how the effects of these choices reward or punish the player and leads them to new gameplay scenarios and considerations)
Therefore the greater the depth of choices and reactions, the greater the depth of the experience

And since the fundamental gameplay activity of Fighters is to successfully assess and execute the best possible mechanical choice in the shortest amount of time
If the array of choices is so severely limited that no serious assement is required, then the Fighter is failling at its most basic mechanical ambition

Now Sekiro isn't purely a Hack 'n' Slash game, so there are other charateristics and gameplay elements to consider - which is why Sekiro is not a bad game
But on the mechanical design of figthing, it's just not good...

And yet, exploring a level is a far ritcher experience than roaming freely in an open map.

Sure, if said open map is poorly deisgned then even a very linear but well paced level with smart encounters and memorable set pieces will be a far more engaging experience

for me the appeal of FromSoft combat is that there is a creative act in how the bosses are designed and the experience of trying to figure out something that is the product of an actual intellective act

I hope you're not implying this is an uncommon charateristic in other Figthers...

 

[Lyric Suite]

I found Sekiro's alleged lack of level design to be grossly exagerated when i played the game. Yeah it's not Dark Souls, but saying it's a "corridor" is hyperbole.

I also disagree with the notion music requires no input. It requires no physical input, but you still need an intellective "exertion" to get it. Listening to it passively means you are just listening to garbled pretty sounds. People who listen to music "aesthetically" aren't actually getting it.

Anyway, i'm not making any comparison with other action games, just answering arguments made specifically against FromSoft style combat. I don't see it as simplistic merely because you have reduced options for skill expression. Of course, the fact i have no affinity for skill expression (i pointed out even if i could do what Ongbal does i still wouldn't do it as i'm not interested in making things fancy for the sake of demonstrating "skill") also comes into play here. I just have no affinity for anything of a "gratuitous" nature. That includes games giving you tons of options for the sake of having options even though you don't need most of them to get it done. If we set up a distinction between what you can do and what you need to do, and then we consider complexity and emphasis in each aspect, i tend to favor anything that puts emphasis in the second, which i think is where FromSoft is situated at, Sekiro being the ultimate example given you only have one weapon.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Listening to it passively means you are just listening to garbled pretty sounds. People who listen to music "aesthetically" aren't actually getting it.

Pretty retarded take, tbh. Yeah, there's an extra level to appreciate things on if you understand the reasons they were created the way they are. But that can also ruin the experience in many cases (I wish I could bleach a lot of movie tropes out of my brain) and one can appreciate the difference between different pieces of art without understanding why.

I don't need to understand the principles of colour and composition to think the roof of the Cistine Chapel looks better than a dickbutt. Or have preferences on a more subtle level between more comparable artwork.

I DO need to understand that I can do more than walk forward and mash a single button to appreciate why Nioh is a better game than Geometry Dash, because without that understanding you can't actually play Nioh.

Your analogy to music would be closer to understanding the game design principles underneath the hood. And you don't need to know why they put torches above the doors leading forward, or even consciously notice that they're there, to enjoy a game properly. If anything, such knowledge detracts from the experience.

 

[Lyric Suite]

No, you have no idea what you are talking about. The objective elements in art are not an "extra" level. They are THE level. And if you don't understand "why" it means you have no understanding of art at all.

 

[Damned Registrations]

No, you have no idea what you are talking about. The objective elements in art are not an "extra" level. They are THE level. And if you don't understand "why" it means you have no understanding of art at all.

Then you've no understanding of videogames at all because you don't know how to program one. Fuck off.

 

[Lyric Suite]

No, you have no idea what you are talking about. The objective elements in art are not an "extra" level. They are THE level. And if you don't understand "why" it means you have no understanding of art at all.

Then you've no understanding of videogames at all because you don't know how to program one. Fuck off.

That's not what i'm talking about at all but it's a typical mistake people who don't undestand art make.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Yes, yes, you're talking about something too smart for everyone around you to understand. You're very special and we all believe you and envy you.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

I found Sekiro's alleged lack of level design to be grossly exagerated when i played the game. Yeah it's not Dark Souls, but saying it's a "corridor" is hyperbole.

I was not talking about Sekiro's level design
You made a point that the best level design is one in which the player's progression through it is carefully curated by the developer and essentially the player has not much say in that matter (at least this is what I understood by your "set in stone" claim)
I made the counter-argument that the best level design is that which offers the player the largest variety of meaningful gameplay choices, specially if the combination of these choices is able to create a multitude of possible distinct ways to navigate said level
And that in this level design analogy, Sekiro's combat is dangerously close to be considered the equivalent of the "Corridor based level design" - where any deviation from the intended path is immediately met with either a failure state or a very high punishment, because the gameplay is so is so extremely fined-tuned that there is only 1 valid way to play it

I also disagree with the notion music requires no input. It requires no physical input, but you still need an intellective "exertion" to get it.

I do find it ironic you say this, but still defend Sekiro's combat design which as far as Figthers go requires very little mental exertion

I don't see it as simplistic merely because you have reduced options for skill expression.

I think I've been more than clear that the problem here isn't simply just reduced options for skill expression
Although options for skill expression are important since they add replay value and make the game experience more personal to each individual player

Fact is, the whole design of Sekiro's combat is ultimately basic and bare
I know I'm repeating myself here, but the depth of the game's combat really does not go much beyond the fundamentals learned in the first few hours and those fundamentals are themselves are few and as simple as any mechanic could be

In an ideal Figther, the moment-to-moment gameplay during battle should endeavour create a constant stream of gameplay possibilities and considerations
"How do I deal with this particular enemy? Do I play it defensively or agressively? Perhaps I could use this opportunity to test that new mechanic I unlocked last time? What weapons should I employ? Oh he's doing a charge attack, do I nibble him with some quick light attacks or do I attempt a more riskier move? What moves do I have that best overwhelm the enemy? If I manage to counter him, what combo do I follow up with?"
And in an ideal Figther, the answers to these questions shouldn't be clear-cut for most situations - like in Chess, a degree of ambivalence is part of the appeal, as it make the game more challenging and also puts emphasis on the player's choice

Is this regard, the best Fighting games go above and beyond the most complex hack-and-slashes, with even basic moves being packed with small mechanical details
Which is why those games can genuinely be played for years and still not fully understood by its players

Sekrio on the other hand, for the overwhelmingly majority of the campgain the "intellection" boils down to:
"The enemy performs a thrust attack? Mikiri-counter. The enemy performs a sweep attack? Jump. The enemy performs a grab? Dodge. The enemy uses a shield? Break it the axe. The enemy is airborne? Throw a shuriken. Aside from that, all regular enemies are riff-raff that can be spam-clicked to death (or insta-killed with the hilariously lenient stealth) and for Bosses just learn their patterns by heart."

About as much gameplay possibilities and considerations as Flowchart Ken lol

This is the main problem, but everything is not much better either...
Having the Combat Arts limited to one slot is a stupid decision that discourages their use and needlessly curtails player expression, but further having them tied to a limited non-regenerative consumable resource is just plain retarded - even fucking cooldowns would've a more elegant solution
The simplicity of the mechanics and the fact that most of what you learn after the tutorial is useless, the game has nothing to learn and pratice - something which has always been big appeal of the genre and is guaranteed to hook the more enthusiastic audience - but alas Sekiro's combat has no substancial meat for the player to chew on past the 1st playthrough

I just have no affinity for anything of a "gratuitous" nature. That includes games giving you tons of options for the sake of having options even though you don't need most of them to get it done. If we set up a distinction between what you can do and what you need to do, and then we consider complexity and emphasis in each aspect, i tend to favor anything that puts emphasis in the second, which i think is where FromSoft is situated at, Sekiro being the ultimate example given you only have one weapon.

You're taking a reductive utilitarian stance on this matter to unreasonable levels
Under this outlook, RPG's don't really need much in the way of stats and skills - just have a martial, magic and machiavellian parameter for the character building
Hell if the RPG is about killing shit in the dungeon, why have 3 playstyles at all, just keep whichever is most efficient at clearing the dungeon and scrap the other two

Shit, under this outlook Checkers are a better designed game than Chess
It's absurd to take it things to this degree

And Sekiro also doesn't survive scrutiny under this outlook - the vast majority of the "progression unlocks" (extra items, item upgrades, skills) are useless or highly situational.

 

[Strange Fellow]

The problem with this discussion is that Lyric has to contend with the limitations of a real game, while you appear to be imagining a perfect product in your head. You need to start naming names, because I doubt there are games out there with as many options available to the player at every stage of gameplay as you describe, that at the same time require you to pay as much attention to and respect towards enemies as Sekiro does. If your metric for what constitutes good action combat is only what the player can do, then obviously Sekiro's approach of putting most of the emphasis on the enemies will seem pointless. Then you're just talking past each other.

 

[Lyric Suite]

I do find it ironic you say this, but still defend Sekiro's combat design which as far as Figthers go requires very little mental exertion

Well, see, this is the crux of the problem, because i disagree with this statement entirely.

I suspect part of the issue is that you are operating under the notion "intellect" is synonimous with the cerebral alone. For me, there's a bit more to it than that.

As a way of example, i already pointed out that i found Nioh's enemies to be easier to read compared to those designed by FromSoft. On some level in fact i found Nioh to be a little bit pedestrian in many places, where as with FromSoft i'm always in a state of awe at how clever they tend to be when designing movesets and attack patterns.

For me FromSoft boss design is more "clever" than "cerebral", and it's uncanny how they always seem to be a step ahead of the player.

This is why i brought music as an analogy. Because on "paper" a lot of music may seem to be the "same", when in reality that is often not the case at all. You could have two melodies that appear to be identical on the surface (same number of notes, same harmonies etc) and yet one could be highly original and clever while the other may be completely mediocre and derivative. There are "invisible" realities the intellect can percieve which cannot be actually put down in "words". The same seems to apply to video game design. There many be things which no "chart" can actually capture. A game like Doom may appear to be as simple as it gets, and yet within this "simplicity" there are elements which are incredibly difficult to replicate. Many developers have tried, not many succeeded. A game like Deus Ex may be far more "complex" than Doom, but i bet you anything if the same developers had actually tried to make a straightforward shooter like Doom, they probably couldn't have done it.

You're taking a reductive utilitarian stance on this matter to unreasonable levels

I'm not making a value judgement here, just stating a preference.

Your examples (spells in an RPG etc) don't apply here btw because the context was "gratuitous" skill expression, not any kind of option whatever. If a game gives me the option to "embellish" my play style with a lot of complicated but ultimately superflous options, i woudn't find that interesting because i have no affinity for that kind of stuff. For me the difficutly has to lie on the other end of the equation, on what the games is forcing me to do and not on the "freedom" to do whatever i want even though i don't "need" any of that freedom.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

The problem with this discussion is that Lyric has to contend with the limitations of a real game, while you appear to be imagining a perfect product in your head.

Fighting games have been doing this since the 90s
Even the earliest 3D hack and slashes like Blade of Darkness and Devil May Cry (both from 2001) strived for the combat design I've been defending
Before making claims that Sekiro has the bestest hack and slash gameplay evah, you should try to play other games in the genre
I recommend you start with Ninja Gaiden Sigma

If your metric for what constitutes good action combat is only what the player can do, then obviously Sekiro's approach of putting most of the emphasis on the enemies will seem pointless

Player limitations are at the core of game design
The conflict of "what the player can and can't do" VS. the game's "obstacles and challenges", is what defines the gameplay experience
Finding the equilibrium between these two is the devs job

Sekiro's combat is heavily skewed to the latter side, because From (and their fanboys) operate under the notion that difficulty for difficulty's sake equals good game design
Regardless the imbalance is clear
Still, the reason I hesitate to call Sekiro's combat a failure (despite being objectively bad) is because it also clearly achieves what it sets out to accomplish
It's just that its goal was a visually flashy (and mechanically shallow) game of "Simon Says"

Besides, what the is the point of working with a medium whose inherent unique quality is interactivity and reactivity - allowing the audience to experience wide range decision making and even impredictability from said work - if the game mostly shuns said qualities and prefers forcing the audience down a narrow path?

 

[DJOGamer PT]

I suspect part of the issue is that you are operating under the notion "intellect" is synonimous with the cerebral alone.

Yes, because that is the actual definition of the word "intellect"
And not just in English, but also in my native tongue of Portuguese as well
So unless the Italian definition is different...

On some level in fact i found Nioh to be a little bit pedestrian in many places, where as with FromSoft i'm always in a state of awe at how clever they tend to be when designing movesets and attack patterns.

For me FromSoft boss design is more "clever" than "cerebral", and it's uncanny how they always seem to be a step ahead of the player.

Another Portuguese language fact
The common translation for "clever" is "esperto", which is also commonly synonymous with "cunning" (as in underhanded)
Excessive tracking, shamelessly abusing animation cancelling (yet denying it for players), unnecessarily long enemy combos, exagerated hitboxes, HP pools, damage, stagger and AoE, even sinking as low as routinely reading player inputs
I have to agree with you, FromSoft's enemy moveset design since DS3 is definitely "clever"

And it's not difficult to "predict" what the player is going to do when your combat loop is intentionally limited that distinct playstyles, from the ones the devs conditioned the gameplay for, are either near impossible (Sekiro) or simply ineficient for most of them (DS3 and ER)
You can even see with DS3 final boss that From knows exactely what is the dominant playstyle - which isn't hard, because again it's the playstyle they've contioned the game for (plus by that point they've had 4 games with similar combat to analyse common player behaviours) - so that's the playstyle they primarily design the combat for
And proof of this is how new mechanics in ER that step outside that playstyle, like certain spells, summons and weapon arts, completely triavialise encounters that in the "intended" playstyle would be a bitch

So you say Nioh's enemies to be easier to read compared to those designed by FromSoft
But I would say this is a point in favor of Nioh
As Nioh's enemy movesets don't rely on lazy gotchas to pressure the player and more importantly the enemies are designed to present a challenge to all playstyles (though obviously the difficulty across playstyles and enemies isn't uniform, nor should it be)
The latter being something which is far more difficult to get right than designing with just 1 approach in mind, therefore requiring a greater degree of expertise from the devs and smarter game design

There are "invisible" realities the intellect can percieve which cannot be actually put down in "words". The same seems to apply to video game design. There many be things which no "chart" can actually capture.

Honestly
I think you might as well just say: "the combat design is better because I like it more"

A game like Doom may appear to be as simple as it gets, and yet within this "simplicity" there are elements which are incredibly difficult to replicate. Many developers have tried, not many succeeded.

Did they?
Considering how autistic the Doom fanbase can be, I am more willing to believe those devs were trying to do something creatively different despite the clear inspiration in Doom - but as always Doom fanboys will insist that "he was clearly trying to ape Doom but failed. should've just stuck doing wads lol"

Also considering the mountains of fan wads that are far better designed than the official episodes, it seems to me that Doom's qualities rest on concrete elements, not abstract characteristics that can only be intuited or felt

I'm not making a value judgement here, just stating a preference.

Well given all your previous statements on the matter, it seems to me your preference is a well paced linear experience with straigthfoward mechanics over a dynamic non-linear campaign with multilayered interactions and reactions

Also means we'll never see eye to eye on the more important aspects of game design I guess...

Your examples (spells in an RPG etc) don't apply here btw because the context was "gratuitous" skill expression, not any kind of option whatever.

I think it does because as you said what matters is what the game forces you to do and therefore a game should strive to remove anything unnecessary - you even praised Sekiro for this as it only has 1 single weapon

Under this "philosphy", the devs are justified to remove alot of gameplay aspects and other enjoyable elements of the genre because they ultimately aren't utilitarian enough
We could say the Warrior class only needs sword and board because every other weapon isn't as powerful, that the game works just as well if the 10 Attributes were streamline into 4, that mages only don't need debuff spells, that powerful equipment being scattered throughout the game world isn't expedient it should be acessible in shops, we could say an elaborate narrative and setting aren't needed because the bulk of the experience is mob slaying, etc.

And again, under this viewpoint Sekiro's combat (as well as other aspects) also fails

 

[Strange Fellow]

The problem with this discussion is that Lyric has to contend with the limitations of a real game, while you appear to be imagining a perfect product in your head.

Fighting games have been doing this since the 90s
Even the earliest 3D hack and slashes like Blade of Darkness and Devil May Cry (both from 2001) strived for the combat design I've been defending
Before making claims that Sekiro has the bestest hack and slash gameplay evah, you should try to play other games in the genre
I recommend you start with Ninja Gaiden Sigma

If your metric for what constitutes good action combat is only what the player can do, then obviously Sekiro's approach of putting most of the emphasis on the enemies will seem pointless

Player limitations are at the core of game design
The conflict of "what the player can and can't do" VS. the game's "obstacles and challenges", is what defines the gameplay experience
Finding the equilibrium between these two is the devs job

Sekiro's combat is heavily skewed to the latter side, because From (and their fanboys) operate under the notion that difficulty for difficulty's sake equals good game design
Regardless the imbalance is clear
Still, the reason I hesitate to call Sekiro's combat a failure (despite being objectively bad) is because it also clearly achieves what it sets out to accomplish
It's just that its goal was a visually flashy (and mechanically shallow) game of "Simon Says"

Besides, what the is the point of working with a medium whose inherent unique quality is interactivity and reactivity - allowing the audience to experience wide range decision making and even impredictability from said work - if the game mostly shuns said qualities and prefers forcing the audience down a narrow path?

I don't have a dog in this race and don't claim that Sekiro is the best action game ever. I appreciate that you dropped some names, though. Both so I can try the games (Ninja Gaiden is on my list, DMC looks horrible and is of no interest to me), and so I know where you're coming from. For the record, the idea that Blade of Darkness, which I have actually played and is the epitome of "find the best combo and use it against every enemy in every situation", has better combat than Sekiro is ludicrous.