this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
795 points (98.9% liked)

Gaming

3164 readers
282 users here now

!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.

Our Rules:

1. Keep it civil.


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.


2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.


I should not need to explain this one.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.


Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.



Logo uses joystick by liftarn

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I think the comic is contextually true. What really irks me are games designed to be quick, fast paced and aggressive, stop you dead in your tracks. An example is the Battle Toads reboot (which is great, play it) has these enemies that have shields or you can't hurt them until after they've done their thing, slows down an otherwise fast and fun beat em up. Another is DOOM Eternal, a game where you're running at Crack addict speed, and then they put in this dude with a shield that reflects your whole way of doing damage. Really jarring to have that speed bump in your experience. It's for sure a great game, but I think a poor design decision to make the enemy work this way.

[–] Andonyx 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think you're hitting on a slightly broader problem. Any game where combat is the major mechanic shouldn't have a situation where you can't do any damage for any extended amount of time. The Yakuza series handles this well, enemies can block, but the moment they do you have attacks that can break the block immediately, and start damaging again. (Or you can skill up to that that attack.) As the game goes on, it gets more intricate, different enemies have different blocks that require different moves to break. The player character also has different fighting styles that have different block breaking moves that you have to keep track of, but if you know what you're doing, you can break almost ANY block with one move.

Far far too many other games decide to arbitrarily create a mechanic where you can't do any damage for a WHILE. It's either the invincible enemy that you just have to spend 3 minutes dodging, which is boring and miserable in both action and even turn based RPG battles. Or they have a shield that you have to do some elaborate and rhythm breaking routine to remove the shield. It's a miserable slog whenever they do that kind of thing. Back in the early 2000s The second game of the Xenosaga trilogy changed the entire combat design and added the thing I hate most, the RPG stagger. You can do no appreciable damage to any thing in the game until you figure out what combination of attacks cause a stagger. It could be a three move sequence involving two characters that has to be done in the right order, or woops! Start all over. If you didn't give one of your characters a specific ability or attack during leveling, screw you, you're basically fucked.

The players, rightfully, rejected that crap then and they got rid of it for the third game. Now, it's everywhere. Every RPG I've played recently has that crap. I finally just put down FFVII Rebirth half way through and said, screw this, because it was so exhausting and miserable. Every battle becomes the equivalent of getting on a non-working escalator and your body still jerks because you think you're going to start moving. I hate this trend and it's everywhere as developers think, "this battle isn't bossy enough." "Add a stagger mechanic to make it last longer" "Brilliant old chap."

I don't know what disease is moving through the game development community that boss battles, especially, have to be a certain length. Is this a marketing thing? Is this being handed down from the publishing execs? FFXVI had 20-25 minute battles towards the end that were just repetitive dodging and a kaleidoscope of flashing lights. I could have just had a gummy and watched an old screensaver and it would be more memorable and less annoying.

Okay, I'm done complaining, but the long battle for no reason other than to make it feel like a boss, is, I think, an extension of the collect-a-thon, open world, sandbox mentality that just adds superfluous crap so they can say "This game is 44% larger than the last game we made, and will take you 215 hours to complete!" Who cares if it sucks?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Well said, although I haven't played Yakuza, I think having enemy depth through their mechanics, while giving the player space to solve the challenge, is good gameplay. This is different from "well they're invincible for now and you just need to deal with it." Some games this is appropriate, maybe like Fear and Hunger, but definitely not when the positive experience centers around dealing damage.

Totally resonate with the FF rebirth experience. Although I think the game altogether as one piece is good and I finished it, I have a laundry list of complaints. I generally like the combat system but the challenge fights towards the end are just nonsense. You spent time investing in your teams abilities, but it boils down to enemies that don't take damage, or get staggered (even from your ATB abilities) and then one shot your team mates just because you weren't in control of them. Don't even get me started on the Odin fight. It also feels really bad to slash at something as Cloud, and his sword just bounces off and he's useless for 3 seconds.

As an aside, XVI seems to be well reviewed and liked by people but I just didn't find it all that satisfying, I have yet to finish it even though I'm at the last act.

[–] Andonyx 2 points 2 months ago

It's interesting that we had reverse experiences regarding the recent FF titles. I think for me, it was because I played them very close to each other, and I probably would have been fed up by halfway through whichever one I played second. My gaming buddy mostly really liked Rebirth.

But they both had a slightly different version of this same issue, and my tolerance was pretty low by the time I got to Rebirth.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago

Another is DOOM Eternal, a game where you’re running at Crack addict speed, and then they put in this dude with a shield that reflects your whole way of doing damage.

Marauders? I actually kind of like them, they provide a new kind of threat that you can't just run over by unloading your weapons and quick swapping the gauss rifle. That said, fighting more than one at a time really does suck.

[–] Googlyman64 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I kinda disagree with your DOOM statement. I assume you're talking about the Carcass or the shield zombies. They may stop your momentum when you first encounter them, but the game (for me) is all about recognizing each enemy in a flash and quickly dispatching them. It's not like the shield is super hard to bust for the zombies, just a few plasma rifle shots and they blow up the nearby zombies too. For the carcass, a quick blood punch will one-shot them. Once you're able to recognize the enemies and their weaknesses at a glance, they become part of your momentum, instead of stopping it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

I appreciate the advice, but I'm talking about the Marauder. I think tankier enemies in doom make it more interesting but the Marauder just has this "no, it's my turn and you will wait for me to do my thing" energy. Just kind of stops you, when you should be continuing to have fun. I think you can balance powerful enemies while maintaining player agency.