Some design choice you question

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

I am not sure how I could named this post.
So, anyway.
After playing the latest Kirby, a question went to mind, why do we even use a life count and an collect the star to get 1 up anymore in game like this or mario?
After few stage in Kirby you already at 25 life because they gave you so much stars and life.
Eventually I tried to lose all life, and gameover, does nothing, I just went and started a new save to test this (its was very hard to die haha), I'm not talking about why the game is easy, im just questioning why we still use this design choice if its as almost no purpose.

On the other hand, I hate when a game use the "save" system such as in final fantasy, where if you die you have to restart from there, i prefer how pokemon does it for example.
that if for some reason I forgot to save for 30 minutes or so, well you have to "replay" the 30 minute pars, its irritate so much.

I recently played through Max Payne 3 for the first time.

The game was solid enough, but I have to say, the constant screen flickering got old super quick, and if I had a penny for every time that the game took control from the player, to play a cutscene - big or small - I probably would have refunded myself the price of the game.

Im not going to go full on B-Cell when it comes to story in games, and whilst I had a good time with it, I just wish that it wasn't quite so aggressive when it came to telling the player that story.

If Half Life 2 is a prime example of story through gameplay, Max Payne 3 is the complete antitheses to that idea.

Another one that really gets on my nerves is when NPCs travel at different speeds to the player character. This isn't so much of an issue on console, because at least then, the analogue stick allows you a greater choice of movement speeds than "Full speed ahead" and "Literally standing still" (though it is still annoying), but on PC, it is just an infuriating nightmare.

When you are following a character, and they are running maybe 10% slower than you are, or if you are doing an escort quest, and they are just gently strolling along.

Speaking of escort quests: They are just the worst in WoW. I am pretty sure that they have improved them greatly, but they used to just saunter along, and then sprint up to whatever mob you have attacked, and then sprint back to where they were before they entered combat, just so they could continue their slow wander towards the end of their path.

Dumb.

I will never understand why some games change your FOV when you sprint or boost. People's eyes don't work that way. Stop it.

Laggyteabag:
I recently played through Max Payne 3 for the first time.

The game was solid enough, but I have to say, the constant screen flickering got old super quick, and if I had a penny for every time that the game took control from the player, to play a cutscene - big or small - I probably would have refunded myself the price of the game.

Im not going to go full on B-Cell when it comes to story in games, and whilst I had a good time with it, I just wish that it wasn't quite so aggressive when it came to telling the player that story.

If Half Life 2 is a prime example of story through gameplay, Max Payne 3 is the complete antitheses to that idea.

This, though I don't mind the screen flickering.

A bigger problem I have with Max Payne 3 right now is the terrible kick vote system and auto-aim. It's way too easy to get voted out by only 50 percent of the players with how small the community is. It's rare that I even find an active Free Aim server these days (I refuse to play in Soft Lock.) and I love kicking ass in MP3, so you can imagine my disappointment at constantly being booted by sore losers. Sometimes, the game itself even prevents me from reconnecting to a server because it doesn't think my user/connection is compatible after a disconnect. It got so bad that I even bought another copy. The networking of that game is awful too. Usually, I have to exit and enter the game several times before it will even allow me to connect to multiplayer.

It can be fun, but it's getting so hard to find a good match that I seldom play it anymore.

I would guess that the reason Mario still uses a live system is so they have something somewhat rare to hide throughout the levels. They can hide 1-UP mushrooms around the level so that the explorative player will feel like they are being rewarded, without having to make extra content for collectables or unlockables. They aren't actually worth anything, but they can still give the player a little rush of excitement for finding them. It's basically a placebo.

For my own I'm going to cheat and just quote a massive post on The Consuming Shadow I just made, because it roughly fits the topic.

Toggle sprints. Granted, on KB/M you'd need them, but why they're still hanging around on games with joystick controls that already have the functionality of Move-Move Faster-Move Really Fast built in.

Speaking of movement speed, the forced 'slow walk" segment. Often used to try and instill some kind of drama, or stop the player from outrunning an NPC spouting exposition. I actually don't know how this one even came about. It's more elegant to just have a cutscene if you want to have this sort of thing then arbitrarily shove player input into it that has no purpose.

Seth Carter:
Toggle sprints. Granted, on KB/M you'd need them, but why they're still hanging around on games with joystick controls that already have the functionality of Move-Move Faster-Move Really Fast built in.

Because pushing the stick gently (but not too gently) at almost all times would be uncomfortable and require more dexterity.

I will never understand why dodging can give invincibility frames in the souls series. Dodging should be a simple matter of "Did you get out of the way of the attack". People who roll can live without it if they just git gud.

Souplex:
I will never understand why dodging can give invincibility frames in the souls series. Dodging should be a simple matter of "Did you get out of the way of the attack". People who roll can live without it if they just git gud.

I tend to view the invincibility frames as a workaround necessitated by the buggy dogshit that was/is the Souls engine. This is the engine that has trouble telling if you're behind an unaware enemy, how is it supposed to know if you're out of the way of a big fuckoff demon ax?

After a while, players got used to the "feature" and it stuck.

Weapon and item degredation!

Admittedly some games have done it well. In STALKER for instance a weapon will fire several thousand rounds before reliability starts to become an issue, then remain usable but increasingly unreliable until it is eventually broken and has to be repaired. It also applies weapon condition logically, that rifle you dragged from under an adandoned car in the garbage zone will be a wreck, but the one you took from a freshly killed mercenary will be nearly new.

Other games just don't get it, Breathe of the Wild was almost ruined for me by the constant need to find new weapons as the ones you pick up break over and over and over. Far Cry 2 is another that holds a special place for it's use of Explodium Alloy in all the rifle barrels.

It's immersion breaking and extremely annoying to have weapons that are unreliable to such a ridiculous degree. It's artifical difficulty and whenever it gets into games in that unrealistic state I have to assume that there is an extremely dogmatic designer somewhere who would not compromise on his (or her) idea, at all. Or nobody did any playtesting.

What is that shit at the end of Rayman Legends? The music levels are genius, but merely throwing an intrusive screen filter to make life difficult for you while you're obligated to replay them is the epitomy of lazy half-arsed cuntiness. I'd accept an extra few enemies, spiked walls or whatever to at least show they cared about making them extra challenging, but not legitimately hindering your sight all the way through and calling it a day.

The option to skip puzzles. I mean not only are puzzle piss easy nowadays, but why even put a puzzle if you are going to give the option to skip them? you know damn well that people are just going to gamefaqs it anyways. At least leave them the shame of having to manually look it up.

Seth Carter:

Speaking of movement speed, the forced 'slow walk" segment. Often used to try and instill some kind of drama, or stop the player from outrunning an NPC spouting exposition. I actually don't know how this one even came about. It's more elegant to just have a cutscene if you want to have this sort of thing then arbitrarily shove player input into it that has no purpose.

Those tend to be transitions between areas and are used to hide loading screens. If they used a cutscene instead then they'd have to load the cutscene and you'd get a loading screen anyway.

I hate having to toggle RMB for ADS in shooters on PC. ADS shouldn't be used for more than a supplementary aiming function, so the extra click to return to hip fire is just annoying.

Souplex:
I will never understand why dodging can give invincibility frames in the souls series. Dodging should be a simple matter of "Did you get out of the way of the attack". People who roll can live without it if they just git gud.

I'm pretty sure iframes have been around long before Souls games, but agree they are an unnecessary design crutch. I can deal with it if the game itself is good, but prefer a more logical approach to combat.

I also can't wait for technology to more fully support realistic and dynamic damage models to NPCs and environments. It's getting old relying solely on life bars for enemy feedback.

Not being able to aim your gun in Bloodborne. Just why?!

Souplex:
I will never understand why dodging can give invincibility frames in the souls series. Dodging should be a simple matter of "Did you get out of the way of the attack". People who roll can live without it if they just git gud.

The invincibility frames represent dodging the enemy attack by moving your body (ducking under an enemy blade, etc). The problem is that in order to have these dodges look realistic they'd have to animate a different dodge for pretty much every attack for every enemy type in the game. That's a shitload of extra animation, literally hundreds of extra hours of work that they'd have to pay for, so instead you get i-frames which take no animation.

If you only had the roll with no i-frames they'd have to make their bosses and enemies much slower since you'd have to roll backward away from an attack, and then spend time running back in to get a hit in. This means that enemies would have to attack less frequently to allow you an opportunity to hit them, or if they left the enemies exactly the same then pretty much everyone would have to play with a shield build.

I-frames aren't really an elegant compromise, but I can totally understand why they're there.

Casual Shinji:
Not being able to aim your gun in Bloodborne. Just why?!

Prevent cheesing from range.

Dirty Hipsters:

Casual Shinji:
Not being able to aim your gun in Bloodborne. Just why?!

Prevent cheesing from range.

With the amount of damage that thing does, you couldn't even cheese an actual cheese. So that's no excuse.

Casual Shinji:

Dirty Hipsters:

Casual Shinji:
Not being able to aim your gun in Bloodborne. Just why?!

Prevent cheesing from range.

With the amount of damage that thing does, you couldn't even cheese an actual cheese. So that's no excuse.

In Dark Souls it's incredibly easy to break encounters by just using the bow, pulling enemies one by one, and fighting them one at a time.

In Bloodborne they gave you rocks to throw to do the same thing, but the rocks have extremely limited range. If they gave you free aim of the gun people would use that to pull enemies from much farther way, making it easier to break encounters and cheese from range.

The damage the gun does has nothing to do with it.

Laggyteabag:
I recently played through Max Payne 3 for the first time.

The game was solid enough, but I have to say, the constant screen flickering got old super quick, and if I had a penny for every time that the game took control from the player, to play a cutscene - big or small - I probably would have refunded myself the price of the game.

Im not going to go full on B-Cell when it comes to story in games, and whilst I had a good time with it, I just wish that it wasn't quite so aggressive when it came to telling the player that story.

If Half Life 2 is a prime example of story through gameplay, Max Payne 3 is the complete antitheses to that idea.

Can't comment on Max Payne, but Half-Life 2 I'd say is far more questionable in regards to storytelling.

You want to remain silent about aspects of the worldbuilding, let the player figure out stuff? Fine. You want to present Gordon as a silent protagonist with the personality of a brick? Fine - silent protagonists are questionable in general, but I can bear them. You want to sell that Gordon is so silent that he never asks anyone about anything (did the twenty years of stasis make him forget the English language?), and that Alyx is infatuated with him (with her father's approval no less), despite never showing any element of personality, thereby implying that Alyx is only attracted to Gordon because of superficial reasons (I doubt that was the developers' intent, but Alyx's reasons for being attacted to Gordon can only be inferred - maybe because he's good at killing?). Eh, now we're getting into iffy territory. You want to cite "immersion" by not having cutscenes, only by still having cutscenes that you can't skip where Gordon can just do whatever, standing mutely while slightly more interesting characters yammer on? As in, keep the cutscenes from other games, only just remove the ability to skip them?

Yeah...

Frankly, I'll take the Metal Gear (and I assume Max Payne) approach, where we have actual characters with actual personalities. Or if you're going to do the Half-Life 2 approach...well, it's been done elsewhere, and done better. Another World is too obscure for its own good IMO, but there's at least a reason why Lester can't ask Buddy anything (the language barrier). Jack is silent from BioShock, but there's at least a concievable reason why he remains silent (under Fontaine's control, lack of actual emotional experience). Half-Life 2 is just awkward when it comes to its character interactions, the only exception being Breen (since the lack of response does give the sense of him being all powerful...which might explain why he's easily the best character in the game).

TBH, I think silent protagonists in general are a questionable design decision, and Half-Life 2 is simply one of the more egregious examples, but that's just me.

Hawki:

Laggyteabag:
I recently played through Max Payne 3 for the first time.

The game was solid enough, but I have to say, the constant screen flickering got old super quick, and if I had a penny for every time that the game took control from the player, to play a cutscene - big or small - I probably would have refunded myself the price of the game.

Im not going to go full on B-Cell when it comes to story in games, and whilst I had a good time with it, I just wish that it wasn't quite so aggressive when it came to telling the player that story.

If Half Life 2 is a prime example of story through gameplay, Max Payne 3 is the complete antitheses to that idea.

Can't comment on Max Payne, but Half-Life 2 I'd say is far more questionable in regards to storytelling.

You want to remain silent about aspects of the worldbuilding, let the player figure out stuff? Fine. You want to present Gordon as a silent protagonist with the personality of a brick? Fine - silent protagonists are questionable in general, but I can bear them. You want to sell that Gordon is so silent that he never asks anyone about anything (did the twenty years of stasis make him forget the English language?), and that Alyx is infatuated with him (with her father's approval no less), despite never showing any element of personality, thereby implying that Alyx is only attracted to Gordon because of superficial reasons (I doubt that was the developers' intent, but Alyx's reasons for being attacted to Gordon can only be inferred - maybe because he's good at killing?). Eh, now we're getting into iffy territory. You want to cite "immersion" by not having cutscenes, only by still having cutscenes that you can't skip where Gordon can just do whatever, standing mutely while slightly more interesting characters yammer on? As in, keep the cutscenes from other games, only just remove the ability to skip them?

Yeah...

Frankly, I'll take the Metal Gear (and I assume Max Payne) approach, where we have actual characters with actual personalities. Or if you're going to do the Half-Life 2 approach...well, it's been done elsewhere, and done better. Another World is too obscure for its own good IMO, but there's at least a reason why Lester can't ask Buddy anything (the language barrier). Jack is silent from BioShock, but there's at least a concievable reason why he remains silent (under Fontaine's control, lack of actual emotional experience). Half-Life 2 is just awkward when it comes to its character interactions, the only exception being Breen (since the lack of response does give the sense of him being all powerful...which might explain why he's easily the best character in the game).

TBH, I think silent protagonists in general are a questionable design decision, and Half-Life 2 is simply one of the more egregious examples, but that's just me.

Not a fan of silent protagonists either. I think he was talking more about the purity of the gameplay, how it tells a story with so few interruptions. The game wants you to play. Gordon could have talked and it would have been the same.

Drathnoxis:
I would guess that the reason Mario still uses a live system is so they have something somewhat rare to hide throughout the levels. They can hide 1-UP mushrooms around the level so that the explorative player will feel like they are being rewarded, without having to make extra content for collectables or unlockables. They aren't actually worth anything, but they can still give the player a little rush of excitement for finding them. It's basically a placebo.

well for me if I find a secret and get a measly 1 up, im not excited, im almost the opposite, angry to some degree, I did all this work to find a secret and all I get is a measly 1 uP! oh cmon!

in Pokemon game, why are the battle still so slow! even without animation, a normal battle should not take 3 minutes.

The trivial quest, mainly in RPG, I have been replaying WoW recently and something I questing the "press this button, you win quest"! quest that are just boring and have no challenge and you just complete them by pressing a button, like the on rail shoot something. I understand ost of them are there to change the pace, but for me, they are boring.

The there too much gold conundrum in WoW, that too, there so many thing is this game that cost so much gold because its gold sink, but on the other hand I can do daily quest and such and get so much gold in rewards. That like saying that the loaf of bread cost 20 000 but your salary is 10 million! so its make doing the old quest without incentive, where when you complete them you get a few silver.

fix-the-spade:
Weapon and item degredation!

Other games just don't get it, Breathe of the Wild was almost ruined for me by the constant need to find new weapons as the ones you pick up break over and over and over.

They did this to encourage trying out new weapons, and to always seek out new ones to take along with you. Otherwise you could just find the weapon with the most damage, and use that for the rest of the game. It also means that there's no real problem with making every area accessible right at the start. Since even if you find a location for a strong weapon, and immediately go get it, you won't be able to use it for all that long. Meaning you'll be 'stuck' with the weapons appropriate for the area you're in again.

My baffling design choice:
In the TES series, why haven't they added co-op yet? They give us excuses, but all of them can easily be circumvented fairly easily. And I don't doubt that a game like Skyrim would have been a LOT more popular than it already was if it had co-op. Heck, I bet it would have been lauded as the game of the decade if you could play it with even just one friend.

Dirty Hipsters:

Souplex:
I will never understand why dodging can give invincibility frames in the souls series. Dodging should be a simple matter of "Did you get out of the way of the attack". People who roll can live without it if they just git gud.

The invincibility frames represent dodging the enemy attack by moving your body (ducking under an enemy blade, etc). The problem is that in order to have these dodges look realistic they'd have to animate a different dodge for pretty much every attack for every enemy type in the game. That's a shitload of extra animation, literally hundreds of extra hours of work that they'd have to pay for, so instead you get i-frames which take no animation.

If you only had the roll with no i-frames they'd have to make their bosses and enemies much slower since you'd have to roll backward away from an attack, and then spend time running back in to get a hit in. This means that enemies would have to attack less frequently to allow you an opportunity to hit them, or if they left the enemies exactly the same then pretty much everyone would have to play with a shield build.

I-frames aren't really an elegant compromise, but I can totally understand why they're there.

The solution is simple: git gud and block the attack.

Souplex:

Dirty Hipsters:

Souplex:
I will never understand why dodging can give invincibility frames in the souls series. Dodging should be a simple matter of "Did you get out of the way of the attack". People who roll can live without it if they just git gud.

The invincibility frames represent dodging the enemy attack by moving your body (ducking under an enemy blade, etc). The problem is that in order to have these dodges look realistic they'd have to animate a different dodge for pretty much every attack for every enemy type in the game. That's a shitload of extra animation, literally hundreds of extra hours of work that they'd have to pay for, so instead you get i-frames which take no animation.

If you only had the roll with no i-frames they'd have to make their bosses and enemies much slower since you'd have to roll backward away from an attack, and then spend time running back in to get a hit in. This means that enemies would have to attack less frequently to allow you an opportunity to hit them, or if they left the enemies exactly the same then pretty much everyone would have to play with a shield build.

I-frames aren't really an elegant compromise, but I can totally understand why they're there.

The solution is simple: git gud and block the attack.

Not everyone wants to play with a shield, and blocking basically turns the game into easy mode.

If there's ever a souls boss I'm having trouble with I throw on a tower shield and beat them in one try.

Casual Shinji:
Not being able to aim your gun in Bloodborne. Just why?!

IIRC you can aim Ludwig's Rifle (and others?) with the monocular. It's not a shooter though. Gun use is mainly a defensive strategy, and it's telling of the game's design when even the main defensive strategy is still an offensive one at heart.

sanquin:
My baffling design choice:
In the TES series, why haven't they added co-op yet? They give us excuses, but all of them can easily be circumvented fairly easily. And I don't doubt that a game like Skyrim would have been a LOT more popular than it already was if it had co-op. Heck, I bet it would have been lauded as the game of the decade if you could play it with even just one friend.

They did. Remember Battlespire?

Dirty Hipsters:
In Dark Souls it's incredibly easy to break encounters by just using the bow, pulling enemies one by one, and fighting them one at a time.

In Bloodborne they gave you rocks to throw to do the same thing, but the rocks have extremely limited range. If they gave you free aim of the gun people would use that to pull enemies from much farther way, making it easier to break encounters and cheese from range.

The damage the gun does has nothing to do with it.

There's an easy solution to that; Make the gun lose its ability to hit/damage/pull past a certain distance -- like for example the distance it takes to lock on -- which could be indicated by a greyed-out reticle.

And the game's environments in general are so claustrophobic that there's very few places where you could kite enemies from far away even if you did have inlimited range. And as it stands you can still draw enemies away one by one with rocks to dispose of them in a secluded area. The Soulsborne games are typically all about you finding ways to exploit the mechanics to make it easier on yourself.

hanselthecaretaker:
It's not a shooter though. Gun use is mainly a defensive strategy, and it's telling of the game's design when even the main defensive strategy is still an offensive one at heart.

I know, but if you put a gun in an action game I expect it to have some level of efficiency, which the Bloodborne guns just do not have.

Casual Shinji:

Dirty Hipsters:
In Dark Souls it's incredibly easy to break encounters by just using the bow, pulling enemies one by one, and fighting them one at a time.

In Bloodborne they gave you rocks to throw to do the same thing, but the rocks have extremely limited range. If they gave you free aim of the gun people would use that to pull enemies from much farther way, making it easier to break encounters and cheese from range.

The damage the gun does has nothing to do with it.

There's an easy solution to that; Make the gun lose its ability to hit/damage/pull past a certain distance -- like for example the distance it takes to lock on -- which could be indicated by a greyed-out reticle.

And the game's environments in general are so claustrophobic that there's very few places where you could kite enemies from far away even if you did have inlimited range. And as it stands you can still draw enemies away one by one with rocks to dispose of them in a secluded area. The Soulsborne games are typically all about you finding ways to exploit the mechanics to make it easier on yourself.

What would be the point of free aiming the gun if you couldn't shoot it past lock on distance? Why would you even want that ability? What purpose could it possibly serve?

Dirty Hipsters:

Seth Carter:

Speaking of movement speed, the forced 'slow walk" segment. Often used to try and instill some kind of drama, or stop the player from outrunning an NPC spouting exposition. I actually don't know how this one even came about. It's more elegant to just have a cutscene if you want to have this sort of thing then arbitrarily shove player input into it that has no purpose.

Those tend to be transitions between areas and are used to hide loading screens. If they used a cutscene instead then they'd have to load the cutscene and you'd get a loading screen anyway.

The last two cases I've encountered of it definitely weren't loading screens. The Monster Hunter World one comes distinctly after a loading screen already, and Destiny's 2 also appears after a loading screen into the mission (while it could hypothetically be loading the background elements, they're not any more dense then show up without loading screens in other areas)

Ezekiel:

Hawki:

Laggyteabag:
SNIP

SNIP

Not a fan of silent protagonists either. I think he was talking more about the purity of the gameplay, how it tells a story with so few interruptions. The game wants you to play. Gordon could have talked and it would have been the same.

You got it, pal.

I dont think that I have ever actually completed Half Life 2, to be frank.

As for silent protagonists, though, I really cannot stand them.

I get that the whole point is for the player to imprint their personality into the character (which I find hard to do when the character already has a name, a face, and a job), but it really irks me when you just run around the game, being spoken at.

I always just feel like some mook who is just running around, shooting bad guys, whilst all of the story happens around you.

Dirty Hipsters:
What would be the point of free aiming the gun if you couldn't shoot it past lock on distance? Why would you even want that ability? What purpose could it possibly serve?

Not having to rely on the atrocious lock-on for one. This is an issue these games refuse to fix, and with Bloodborne your second most important weapon completely depends on it. You also wouldn't need to account for the sluggish control input.

I want the gun to be an actual gun, not something I fire blindly with the hope it'll hit something.

Casual Shinji:

Dirty Hipsters:
In Dark Souls it's incredibly easy to break encounters by just using the bow, pulling enemies one by one, and fighting them one at a time.

In Bloodborne they gave you rocks to throw to do the same thing, but the rocks have extremely limited range. If they gave you free aim of the gun people would use that to pull enemies from much farther way, making it easier to break encounters and cheese from range.

The damage the gun does has nothing to do with it.

There's an easy solution to that; Make the gun lose its ability to hit/damage/pull past a certain distance -- like for example the distance it takes to lock on -- which could be indicated by a greyed-out reticle.

And the game's environments in general are so claustrophobic that there's very few places where you could kite enemies from far away even if you did have inlimited range. And as it stands you can still draw enemies away one by one with rocks to dispose of them in a secluded area. The Soulsborne games are typically all about you finding ways to exploit the mechanics to make it easier on yourself.

hanselthecaretaker:
It's not a shooter though. Gun use is mainly a defensive strategy, and it's telling of the game's design when even the main defensive strategy is still an offensive one at heart.

I know, but if you put a gun in an action game I expect it to have some level of efficiency, which the Bloodborne guns just do not have.

It's more like Dante's guns in DMC or Bayonetta's in...her games. I'm sure there are other modern examples of guns you can't free aim, but like you said, they are action games not shooters. Bloodborne was even more deliberate in its design by telling the player guns are a supplementary sideshow at best, seeing as how NPC bullets move slowly enough for the player to dodge.

Another thing is the perspective and level design wouldn't mesh well with free aim, especially on console. If the main use of a gun in the game's design is to parry, then lock on seems to be the most efficient and effective way to implement aiming. As for lock on issues, I really don't know how it could best be remedied. For example if you sort-hold a shoulder button for it you would have to move a major offensive function to a stick click, which would be even more awkward.

hanselthecaretaker:
It?s more like Dante?s guns in DMC or Bayonetta?s in...her games. I?m sure there are other modern examples of guns you can?t free aim, but like you said, they are action games not shooters. Bloodborne was even more deliberate in its design by telling the player guns are a supplementary sideshow at best, seeing as how NPC bullets move slowly enough for the player to dodge.

The difference there being that those games have a solid lock-on and infinite ammo. I'd have little issue with no free aim in Bloodborne if the lock-on wasn't garbage and there wasn't an input delay to firing your gun.

Dirty Hipsters:

Souplex:
I will never understand why dodging can give invincibility frames in the souls series. Dodging should be a simple matter of "Did you get out of the way of the attack". People who roll can live without it if they just git gud.

The invincibility frames represent dodging the enemy attack by moving your body (ducking under an enemy blade, etc). The problem is that in order to have these dodges look realistic they'd have to animate a different dodge for pretty much every attack for every enemy type in the game. That's a shitload of extra animation, literally hundreds of extra hours of work that they'd have to pay for, so instead you get i-frames which take no animation.

If you only had the roll with no i-frames they'd have to make their bosses and enemies much slower since you'd have to roll backward away from an attack, and then spend time running back in to get a hit in. This means that enemies would have to attack less frequently to allow you an opportunity to hit them, or if they left the enemies exactly the same then pretty much everyone would have to play with a shield build.

I-frames aren't really an elegant compromise, but I can totally understand why they're there.

Aha! Yes I think we've got a bird in hand here. Shields would actually have a tactical purpose vs something that just looks cool. Think of all the time and effort that's gone into designing dozens of game assets and mechanics that most people ultimately think is a waste of time...probably far more than they'd need to rework animations sans i-frames. All they'd really have to do is register the whole hit instead of essentially clipping it for a few frames if you're in range.

Shield useage isn't the problem; it's that Souls generally doesn't do that dynamic nearly enough justice to be considered compelling. But again, I'm more prone to get bored just bouncing around wrecking everyone's shit, which has been done to death in nearly every action game. There needs to be enough of a counterpoint in the design or I feel like something's missing.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here