Gagan said:

>has a soft spot for the order


>hasn't played Devil May Cry 5



Bitch

I've also recently started 3 games, none of which are Devil May Cry 3.

Gagan said:

Bitch

Don't make me start a fourth.

Gagan said:

the fuck are the 3, 4 games you are playing?



Also I'm over calling em beat-em ups now, so help me god if it's some open world bullshit vader game.

Sky, Wolfenstein reboot 2 and Return of the Obra Dinn.


No regrets on the former and the latter. I also downloaded Spec Ops to test download speed as much as anything else, but maybe I'll give it a try as well.


If you're calling them character action games it's time to seriously re-evaluate your entire life.

Gagan said:

Don't know what sky is, game is trash




Wolfenstein sucks. Then, Now, Forever.




Obra Dinn is some walk around on a boat shit, go play Clue, better game.




Nah, just action games.

As pointless a distinction as "character action game", but not full retard like it, so you needn't re-evaluate your whole life; just why you think the name needs to change in the first place.

Why is it superior to "beat 'em up"?

Gagan said:

Because I'm tired of having to do the whole thing about how they are Beat-em ups to the uneducated n stupid, and calling them Action games fundamentally lets me ignore the usual "well it's not trying to be Devil May Cry, so that means the combat can be shit". I now judge them as Action games, not the top of some niche genre the industry wants to forget, but the greatest action games ever made, no questions asked, no one else need apply. They are just action games with really great combat.



Much in the same way that deep down we should all come to accept the following: Action adventure games are just action games with really shitty combat.

So giving into peer pressure, just using action games instead of character action games to make it look like you aren't.

Dvader said:

Or they are games that offer much much more than just fighting things. Games where level design matters, where variety in gameplay matters, usually puzzles, exploration and more matters. This is all better than just going from one fight to the next.

"but mah more than the sum of its parts"...you know its weird, games that have actual good gameplay, they never seem to be given the more than the sum of their parts treatment. It's funny to me.


As nauseating as it would be to repeat the god of war thread, again, not really have a bunch of shallow interactions isn't my idea of engaging. It is what it is, shallow, and takes advantage of the fact that the player has ADHD and needs something new n shiny to distract them. Because the entirity of the action adventure space, I don't think you can name one game with the exception of like Metroidvania (I also admittedly gave up on this one tomas) like games where they can be considered great at anything.


Universally, in 3D, barring me digging Darksiders, do any of them have good combat.


Universally, in 3D, the puzzles are baby ass puzzles any idiot can solve, with no real interesting twist, no cheeky noise distracting them from the answer in their face, nothing. Here is tool we gave you, abuse it.

"but mah level design".............most people who love typing this, don't actually know how to even explain or articulate what worked about the level design in the first place. Level design, first and formost should compliment the mechanics n gameplay loop of the game you are playing. And beat-em up arenas, have always complimented the core gameplay, in fact, the lion's share of "bad parts" in these games is the part that isn't the combat itself. It's riding on missles, vanishing platforms while you're fighting, swimming shit. Mario 64 nor Galaxy nor whatever really have a believable space, but its best levels highlight your hop scotching, and if there is a knock to be made against Galaxy for instance, for the sake of variety, it has a lot of shallow interactions just to mix things up. Where as Mario 64 is pure hop scotching goodness Mario, with entire playgrounds that low level players can work their way through and high level players can speed their way through skipping entire scenarios to the star like a boss.


Level design that is only interesting to look at or to putz around does not interest me. It's why I don't like open world games, like at all.

Action Adventure games don't offer more, you're just gassing up a Diner to a 5 Star Stakehouse.

Dvader said:

You like one kind of game, high skill ceiling games, good for you, most of us actually like everything gaming has to offer. There is only so much mindless action I can take and games like DMCV which offer the best the genre has to offer is excellent for its one thing but I get bored of a game that doesn’t make me think.

Say what you will about a puzzle, a game that makes you THINK about the level, where you should go, how you should approach a challenge that is not just KILL IT TILL ITS DEAD is just as valuable. No amount of great boss battles is going to replace that feeling of entering a Zelda dungeon and knowing I am going to be in a game space that requires thinking of the level, how it all connects, solving puzzles, and getting a brand new game mechanic. Games like RE4 would be nothing if not for how the level design is constantly changing the way you approach each battle, DMCV doesn’t do that, only enemy placement and load outs change how you approach the fight. The entire game could have practically been bloody place rooms and it doesn’t change.

Galaxy does support its mechanics with its level design but you don’t like it cause to you some is “shallow”. Let me guess the bee outfit is a boring waste of time to you. I see it as a nice change of pace. You think Mario 64 allowing total player freedom to eventually master levels in ways outside the norm is more valuable than a game that is more strict but offer more gameplay variety, that’s fine, I know many who agree, I don’t. I’ll take a game that surprises, that is filled with new ideas around every corner and continues to impress with how many interesting ways to make levels.

I love DMCV but it’s very basic in its level design, more so than 1 and 3. But that’s fine DMCV is just about combat and it’s the best at what it does. Doesn’t mean every game needs to be that. The greatest games of all time are not one more games, the Zeldas, GTAs, Half Life, Doom, RE4, all the legendary RPGs, Mario games and so on so many things great.

Incorrect, I like metroidvania games, they aren't exactly high skill ceiling challenge fests. I like Breath of the Wild, that game isn't high skill anything.



"mindless action" and "high skill ceiling" doesn't exactly work. A game with depth to it rewards a thinking player. Doom (any iteration of it that isn't Doom 3) is a far more thoughtful game than Ocarina of Time or bum ass Call of Duty. Level design that actually makes you think would be shit like Ninja Gaiden NES, Classic Castlevania before Iga took over, Mega Man, Dark Souls, Resident Evil. All of those still have good combat loops, all of those are about working around enemies, or navigating around hazards. Because aint no one getting through Ninja Gaiden n Bayonetta or Devil May Cry on their highest difficulty, and getting by just mashing their way out and not thinking about their tools. Certainly not for S ranks n Platinum trophies, because again arcade scoring systems have merit. Mastery of systems has merit.



Level design is necessary for games whose mechanics need more from the level design to get more out of them. Doom needs enemy placement, different altitutudes of threats, and all that jazz. Bayonetta like its 2D equivalents like Streets of Rage, doesn't really need that as much as it needs a variety of enemies and interesting enemy pairings. Doom 4's best elvel design is the actual combat arenas you fight in, the actual maze shit they have going on are actually all pretty terrible designs. Needlessly tedious compared to their Doom 1 n 2 equivalents. A game where I would defend the mazes.

No I don't dislike Mario Galaxy, I think its a great game, 2 is better. The bee n cloud shit are whatever, it's more so the motion control gimmick levels, point at the screen, connect the stars, while you are being flung from star to star. Those aren't interesting, or thoughtful, mechanics. Which actually is my problem with a lot of action/adventure types is that if you actually think, there is nothing to it. A surprise to me is only valuable on one playthrough, it no longer surprises on the following playthrough, and a game that is better to play more than once is the better game.

I wildly disagree with the notion that DMC5 has worse level design than either 1 or 3. 3 has more visually interesting levels, but anyone pretending chapter 18 wasn't a thing, or the platforming, or the shitty ass Chimera are wildly misremembering that game. DMC1 I would argue gains very little from playing like a Resident Evil set up, because unlike The Mansion, The Police Station, or the opening alley's of 3, there isn't a whole lot of non-linear shit for the player to do. You have to do an A to B to C routine, on the other games yeah there is an optimal route, but even if you wanted to switch it up you aren't punished for doing a C>A>B>E>D>F routine to complete a goal. So what are you left with again? The platforming segments? Remembering which room you walked around n to press x to now go back to n press x again, and hit yes instead of no to match item with thing? Like I'm missing the thinking here, any putz can do that.



Resident Evil 4 is an excellent action games. It's variety and its level design aren't trying to compliment some puzzle, some movement the game isn't built for, nothing. It's all complimenting the thing Resi 4 happens to be great at, and that's the shooting n combat.

So yeah if I'm calling something that actually makes the player think, that list of games includes Doom, Devil May Cry, Metal Gear Solid, Splinter Cell, Thief, Quake, Street Fighter, Resi 4, Castlevania pre Iga

If anywhere I said people can't like thing, you would have point. But I am not apologizing for thinking merely okay, mediocre, average, or bad combat is anything but that, or a game can be good with that, when a lot of the game is combat (Rockstar games is a whole lot of missions about killing people, seems kind of absurd that their game can be allowed to be bad at it). I am not going to pretend puzzles that aren't all that interesting to solve or compelling stack up favorably to more meaty shit like Stephen's Sausage Roll, Infinifactory, or Baba is You (get on that Tomas). I get what people love about GTA, I'm not an ape. They have killer production value, Rockstar's taste in music is kino as fuck, they have more effort put into their writing than most games, the sheer scale of the world, the details of the world, and all that jazz. I played n completed GTAV, so it wasn't like I wasn't entertained. But if you asked me if I think it's a good game, I'm gonna go no.



To me you can not be a video game and be poor at the playing it part. I'll settle for the argument that some games work as an experience and their mechanics lend to that, that's at least an argument worth having. But that almost never applies to the lion's share of action/adventure games aka just action games with really bad gameplay.

You posted a lot so let me focus on a few things, action games having a skill challenge and mastery of the have merit, OF COURSE. Thats why I love them even though I only dip in the skill pool half way. I respect those that do master it, its incredible to watch and it shows how deep those games are.

Doom 4's best elvel design is the actual combat arenas you fight in, the actual maze shit they have going on are actually all pretty terrible designs. Needlessly tedious compared to their Doom 1 n 2 equivalents. A game where I would defend the mazes.

Doom 1 and 2 are games were the levels are mazes and the enemy placement and level design work hand in hand to create a challenge for the player. Its a perfect design. Doom 4 for some damn reason decided to split the two. Have kind of semi maze like levels to explore but then restrict the enemies to kill rooms. Yes those rooms are the best part but they suffer from repetitive level design as its usually just a square with two or three stories with jump ramps around. Why they went this route is a mystery to me, the combat is blast so it works but if they actually mixed the two correctly we would have a true Doom game. That said I will take the maze shit over just a linear hallway taking me to the next kill room any day.

I'm not saying DMC1 level design makes it better than DMCV cause the platforming in that game is SHIT. But I remember the game world in 1 and 3 so much more than 5 because I had to learn it, I had to think "did i go this way, what happens if I explore this way, oh no is this a dead end" and so on. That alone is part of the gameplay experience, sure it leads to a waste of time yet it was me trying to overcome something more than just fighting mobs.

Now the crux of a lot of this, replayability. I agree wgen you replay a game you want all the extra stuff out and you want to focus on the core. This is why DMCV is by far the most replayable.

A surprise to me is only valuable on one playthrough, it no longer surprises on the following playthrough, and a game that is better to play more than once is the better game.

This is a big one. The first part I agree, surprises are valuable on one playthrough. I dont agree on the other part, cause honestly I hardly replay games. The only games I really replay are the action games where mastery of the game and playing on harder modes is the game. But big action adventure games, MAYBE I play back to back if its short and I loved it. Zelda games, I dont replay for years, then I come back and it feels fresh again. I spent 40 hours on this one game, I loved it, I dont need to run through it again to satisfy my purchase. A 100 hour RPG, HELL NO I'm not playing again, get it right the first time. Replability is great, I don't view it as a necessity for being a good game.

While everything else is literally a matter of taste, that stuff conflating level design with visual direction is hogwash. The OG Bayonetta's visual design blows the OG DMC out of the water (notwithstanding the stupid filter), but its aesthetic is utterly forgettable in comparison because there's no architectural structure for its expression, let alone any reason to even pay attention to any part of the environment.  


While consistent with the matter of taste, as there's no objective reason anyone should care about this distinction, it is still a distinction that can't be explained away by the red herring of visual direction.