How many combos do you actually use in Bayonetta?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

My arm huuurts trying to stay in the air in that secret level. This is the other thing that bothers me about spectacle fighters. They expect you to keep tapping tapping tapping tapping. Thank god for stamina systems.

Edit: Two minutes later, finished it, finally. I don't know how I'm gonna play these games when I'm fifty.

@Phoenixmgs: I beat level 5 an hour ago. I found the Souls games harder. The intricate, claustrophobic, vertical level design adds another layer of depth to regular fights that you can't get from empty spectacle fighter arenas. Compared to my first playthroughs of Demon's Souls and Dark Souls, I'm breezing through these bosses. Dark Souls II has the DLC bosses and III has some of the deadliest, including Pontiff Sulyvahn and Soul of Cinder. I don't see how Bayonetta is any harder. Like in Dark Souls, you can dodge everything. The difference is, there's no limit to how much you can dodge, since you have unlimited stamina. You also don't die from two successive hits and you can take items while the game is paused, without any animation.

Ezekiel:

I don't remember complaining about the combat being unrealistic. I said it was fluff (shallow) and implied the spectacle is unengaging. I agree with Hansel on this. I want the challenge to be the combat itself, rather than the high score.

That was an example. I wasn't saying you said the combat is unrealistic, I said that your complaint is akin to people complaining about things being unrealistic.

Basically, the high score isn't the challenge, the challenge is being cool, the score is just a way of measuring how cool you are. Even without the score, you ought to still want to complete the game in the fashion that would raise your coolness score to the max, naturally. I never had to TRY to do a cool or stylish approach, it was how I normally played the game, I think the type of player who doesn't wanna experiment and maximize all tools given to them and try to find unique uses for them or imaginative combinations just won't enjoy a game like this.

If you don't naturally approach the game that way, that is in itself the problem and you're not focusing on what the depth of the game is and where the main fun is derived from. It isn't a type of challenge in merely surviving as it is a challenge of defeating the foes in front of you while being as awesome as possible.

But why would she need a zipper when her hair conforms to her whole body?

If my clothes could do that, I would never bother with zippers again. Zipper malfunctions can be a pain!

No part of the outfit is utilitarian. It's all due to aesthetic-related reasons. Zippers evoke the image of how one would look were they to be unzipped, for one, so her very sexy look goes with that hand in hand.

Ezekiel:
@Phoenixmgs: I beat level 5 an hour ago. I found the Souls games harder. The intricate, claustrophobic, vertical level design adds another layer of depth to regular fights that you can't get from empty spectacle fighter arenas. Compared to my first playthroughs of Demon's Souls and Dark Souls, I'm breezing through these bosses. Dark Souls II has the DLC bosses and III has some of the deadliest, including Pontiff Sulyvahn and Soul of Cinder. I don't see how Bayonetta is any harder. Like in Dark Souls, you can dodge everything. The difference is, there's no limit to how much you can dodge, since you have unlimited stamina. You also don't die from two successive hits and you can take items while the game is paused, without any animation.

You're not supposed to use the healing items since they negatively affect your score and subsequent rewards at the end of each stage. That's part of the challenge of the game, playing without getting hit so that you never have to heal.

If I remember correctly the only way to heal in the game without using items is by countering with the moon bracelet on.

Ezekiel:
@Phoenixmgs: I beat level 5 an hour ago. I found the Souls games harder. The intricate, claustrophobic, vertical level design adds another layer of depth to regular fights that you can't get from empty spectacle fighter arenas. Compared to my first playthroughs of Demon's Souls and Dark Souls, I'm breezing through these bosses. Dark Souls II has the DLC bosses and III has some of the deadliest, including Pontiff Sulyvahn and Soul of Cinder. I don't see how Bayonetta is any harder. Like in Dark Souls, you can dodge everything. The difference is, there's no limit to how much you can dodge, since you have unlimited stamina. You also don't die from two successive hits and you can take items while the game is paused, without any animation.

Like Dirty Hipsters said, the challenge of Bayonetta is getting good at the game, not beating it like say Dark Souls. You have healing items so you don't go into a fight with a sliver of health. The game doesn't want to punish you nearly that much for learning and trying new things. Compared to Dark Souls where the game's systems dissuade you from doing anything other than finding something that works (or something cheap) and sticking to it or you'll be punished by losing a decent chunk of progress. In Souls, you have basically an unlimited dodge as you just need a sliver of stamina to dodge. IIRC, a combo by Gracious and Glorious will basically one-hit kill you in Bayonetta even with fully upgraded health. Sure, Dark Souls is harder to beat due to the checkpoint system and longer length; however, Bayonetta is far far harder to master.

Phoenixmgs:
Sure, Dark Souls is harder to beat due to the checkpoint system and longer length

And because of genuine danger. Don't deny it.

Shoot 'em ups were hard to master too, but they didn't rely on their scoring systems for difficulty. The picture was often littered with hazards and you were vulnerable at all times. If you finished one with an unimpressive score, it was still an accomplishment. Bayonetta's difficulty is mostly superficial, with automatic turning, endless stamina, enemies who are usually unassertive and a dodging mechanic that slows time for more one-sided beating. The score is a facade. Survival is more thrilling than getting a good score. I've done that, back when I played a lot of DMC3. I stopped caring.

If using the same attack and defensive maneuvers gets you through the whole game, then so be it. How about, instead of coming up with an artificial challenge like a style score, you force the player to use different tactics, by giving enemies varied defenses and attacks?

CaitSeith:
Well, that's a pretty bait n' switch title.

I don't know what you mean.

Even if all you do is spam the same attack combinations, having the option is nice.

I have yet to try Bayonetta but the DmC remake basically had an absurd number of combo combinations you could do with the weapons changing on the fly, dark/light and the hooks. Even though most of the time I just stunlocked things to infinity with my light chakrams or whatever, whenever the going got difficult I found that experimenting a bit more with the various options helped me progress. When you're getting mobbed by some difficult enemies, turns out all the attack variations isn't just about spectacle. Throw chakrams to lock one opponent, swing axe at a second, hook myself towards it as it is knocked back to create space so I don't immediately get pounced when my chakrams stop hitting.

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:
Sure, Dark Souls is harder to beat due to the checkpoint system and longer length

And because of genuine danger. Don't deny it.

Shoot 'em ups were hard to master too, but they didn't rely on their scoring systems for difficulty. The picture was often littered with hazards and you were vulnerable at all times. If you finished one with an unimpressive score, it was still an accomplishment. Bayonetta's difficulty is mostly superficial, with automatic turning, endless stamina, enemies who are usually unassertive and a dodging mechanic that slows time for more one-sided beating. The score is a facade. Survival is more thrilling than getting a good score. I've done that, back when I played a lot of DMC3. I stopped caring.

If using the same attack and defensive maneuvers gets you through the whole game, then so be it. How about, instead of coming up with an artificial challenge like a style score, you force the player to use different tactics, by giving enemies varied defenses and attacks?

There's very little danger in Dark Souls. I played Sen's Fortress blind and never got hit by a single trap and I didn't die once in that dungeon. All to a Souls game is just paying attention, the games aren't skill-based. I actually die much more in other games than a Souls game. In other games, I try doing skill-based moves and maneuvers and experimenting all the time because they allow for it, it's fun, and you lose little progress for failing. You know when you had an awesome fight and played well in any game, you don't need a scoring system. I didn't play Bayonetta over and over to reach a score, I wanted to "git gud" at the game, utilize all the mechanics, experiment with different weapons (which change gameplay more than weapons in a Souls game do), and just plain look cool fighting. Horizon Zero Dawn doesn't have any type of scoring system, you know when you had an awesomely epic battle or just cheesed it. Most games want you to beat them and it's up to you if you really want to challenge yourself and master them. Something simple like not using health items makes Bayonetta a lot harder, it was always my goal to finish an entire level with just my base health. Platinum has no problem making just succeeding a challenge, go play Vanquish and complete just Challenge 6 (which can be beat in less than 5 minutes if you're good), that's harder than beating any Souls game. Vanquish has a far lower platinum trophy completion % completely due to Challenge 6 alone, which is the only reason I don't have the platinum trophy myself. 5 minutes of content is harder to beat than beating the well over 100+ hours of content it requires to finish every Souls game.

-Automatic turning is better than Dark Souls which turns your character around when you don't want to. Move back with a raised shield without being locked-on (archaic mechanic) causes your character to turn around instead of backstep. I don't think there's any other game that does that.
-Endless stamina that just about every game has makes games easy? None of the hardest games even have a stamina mechanic.
-Unassertive enemies are an element of Dark Souls, you wait around so long just for an enemy to attack so you can dodge or block. Platinum's games always have aggressive enemies. Bayonetta has normal enemies that are more aggressive than even the most aggressive enemy in Bloodborne. You haven't reached the enemies that force you to use different mechanics in Bayonetta yet. Try facing Gracious and Glorious not knowing how to dodge offset, they'll eat you for breakfast. No Souls enemy forces you to change your tactics or use advanced game mechanics.

Phoenixmgs:
There's very little danger in Dark Souls.

Bullshit. If you're able to avoid every trap and attack, that doesn't mean the danger isn't there, it just means that you're good at noticing and avoiding it. Even if, as you say, the danger poses little immediate threat, it's still a threat. Stop twisting meanings. All I wanted was for you to basically admit that the world of Dark Souls is hostile and wants to kill you. You make Dark Souls out to be a peaceful stroll in the woods, which makes it unreasonably difficult to talk to you. You say Dark Souls takes long because of the checkpoint system, not admitting that you have to die for that to be a factor.

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:
There's very little danger in Dark Souls.

Bullshit. If you're able to avoid every trap and attack, that doesn't mean the danger isn't there, it just means that you're good at noticing and avoiding it. Even if, as you say, the danger poses little immediate threat, it's still a threat. Stop twisting meanings. All I wanted was for you to basically admit that the world of Dark Souls is hostile and wants to kill you. You make Dark Souls out to be a peaceful stroll in the woods, which makes it unreasonably difficult to talk to you. You say Dark Souls takes long because of the checkpoint system, not admitting that you have to die for that to be a factor.

Any game with enemies is a hostile world that wants you dead. I said as you can see in the quote, Dark Souls has very little danger, not no danger. Dark Souls normal enemies are arguably the weakest enemies in gaming, they are all trash mobs and nothing else. And they have to be weak because of checkpoints being so far apart. You die either due to being hasty or not paying attention. Dark Souls takes longer than Bayonetta because it's just a longer game. Assuming you never died in either game, Dark Souls would take longer. The Souls games would be so much better if they went full survival horror with a usually peaceful but very tense stroll because the atmosphere and level design is top-notch. Remove like 90% of the enemies and only have a few enemies here and there but make those enemies real threats.

Guilion:
However doing so on Hard and Non-stop-climax would most likely get you killed, fast. Large combo strings can be absolutely worthless when facing enemies that can easily break them as more often than not large combos usually deal little damage per hit and have YOU and your target loced in a single place and susceptible to attacks.

That's what I've been saying for pages. Grace and Glory are tougher than most bosses in a Souls game let alone normal enemies. Even the ones you can witch time will hit you the instant witch time ends. Get stuck in one of their combos and you're dead. I'd say Hard is probably the best difficulty for Bayonetta because you get thrown a bunch of enemies immune to witch time so you can't solely rely on it but you still get to use witch time unlike NSIC, which is more fun for the experienced player though.

Guilion:
... I don't know?...
I mean yes, anyone could probably beat the game using 3-4 of the cheapest and more stupid combos in normal difficulty.

However doing so on Hard and Non-stop-climax would most likely get you killed, fast. Large combo strings can be absolutely worthless when facing enemies that can easily break them as more often than not large combos usually deal little damage per hit and have YOU and your target loced in a single place and susceptible to attacks.


Combos can also be rather useless depending on the weapon that you have equipped as the time and damage that they deal vary greatly.

So basically I have no idea because the combos that I use change depending on the situation that I'm facing at the moment.

The only good thing about Grace & Glory is that easier to deal with in Bayonetta 2, even on the hardest difficulty. And that is saying something. They're mini-boss versions of Agni & Rudra, so it is to be expected. Once you unlike the Durga and set and beat G & G (and the suped up forms Gracious and Glorious) at their own game, is is so satisfying.

I don't feel any motivation to learn those combos that you say make the game hard. It feels entirely superficial when the same attacks get you through the whole game. Like I said, the scoring system is a facade. I also feel little motivation to totally master dodging, since the enemies do negligible damage and the game has frequent checkpoints with fully replenishing health. I've still never had a Game Over. (I assume those things in the continue screen are lives.) "Making your own fun" is a philosophy I'm not too fond of. The fun should already be there. If Hard mode really is the best difficulty for Bayonetta, then it's unfortunate that it's not available from the start, since I have no intention of replaying this.

I found the Souls games to be compelling, reasonably challenging adventures. If you find Dark Souls easy, then maybe try Dark Souls III or the Dark Souls II DLCs. Other than that, I can't say much to change your mind. I've liked the idea of a combat system focusing on immediate attacks, directional attacks and positioning ever since Ocarina of Time. My ideal combat system would have four to five immediate attacks, all bound to the mouse, along with alternate stances/styles, with the right button being parry, and the fights and environments would encourage the player to use those alternate attacks. Combos would be totally pointless in my system, just as they're totally pointless in the combat systems Ocarina of Time has inspired.

Lock-on isn't archaic. It's still the only system I can think of that allows the player to keep facing towards an opponent in a third-person game. Obviously, lock-on isn't gonna be a big deal in a flashy game like Bayonetta, where keeping your guard up isn't important. Saying it's archaic only reveals your limited imagination of what combat systems can be.

Edit: Oh, and I just beat Grace and Glory again. They're not that hard.

It still irritates me a bit that Bayonetta's wing is always clipping through her leg when she runs with the best weapon. Why couldn't they fix that after seven and a half years?

Ezekiel:
I don't feel any motivation to learn those combos that you say make the game hard. It feels entirely superficial when the same attacks get you through the whole game. Like I said, the scoring system is a facade. I also feel little motivation to totally master dodging, since the enemies do negligible damage and the game has frequent checkpoints with fully replenishing health. I've still never had a Game Over. (I assume those things in the continue screen are lives.) "Making your own fun" is a philosophy I'm not too fond of. The fun should already be there. If Hard mode really is the best difficulty for Bayonetta, then it's unfortunate that it's not available from the start, since I have no intention of replaying this.

I found the Souls games to be compelling, reasonably challenging adventures. If you find Dark Souls easy, then maybe try Dark Souls III or the Dark Souls II DLCs. Other than that, I can't say much to change your mind. I've liked the idea of a combat system focusing on immediate attacks, directional attacks and positioning ever since Ocarina of Time. My ideal combat system would have four to five immediate attacks, all bound to the mouse, along with alternate stances/styles, with the right button being parry, and the fights and environments would encourage the player to use those alternate attacks. Combos would be totally pointless in my system, just as they're totally pointless in the combat systems Ocarina of Time has inspired.

Lock-on isn't archaic. It's still the only system I can think of that allows the player to keep facing towards an opponent in a third-person game. Obviously, lock-on isn't gonna be a big deal in a flashy game like Bayonetta, where keeping your guard up isn't important. Saying it's archaic only reveals your limited imagination of what combat systems can be.

Edit: Oh, and I just beat Grace and Glory again. They're not that hard.

I didn't say learning the combos makes the game hard, it makes it more fun. Learning at least just 4 combos to be able to control where the wicked weaves come from (left, right, top, bottom) makes combat a lot more fun. I'm sure you can get through Normal with just the PKP combo, but then you'll get your ass handed to you on Hard. Every game you have to "make your own fun" to a degree. You can turn Dark Souls into a super boring game of arrow cheese if you want. There's pretty boring ways to play just about any game. Read Jim Sterling's review of Vanquish where he played the game like whack-a-mole then complained about the game not being "fun" plus he didn't understand some of the game mechanics either. The thing with a Souls game is that there's really nothing to strive to get better at besides better timing really. Look at top tier gameplay of Bayonetta vs a normal player, it's a night and day difference. Even look at a Dishonored StealthGamerBR youtube video vs a normal player. Then, compare that to the difference between a great Souls player and a normal player; one just gets hit more than other, that's basically it.

I played Dark Souls and Bloodborne. I doubt any other of those games will be more fun than Bloodborne which removed or alleviated most of the issues I had with Dark Souls. There are no tactics to a Souls game though. I thought going into Dark Souls that every move I make would have to be calculated due to the stamina system but that's not the case at all. Thus the combat isn't tactical, hard, or fun. Even in Bloodborne you can stun-lock just about every enemy with just mashing R1 with just about any weapon. I can only see PvP being skill-based and tactical but the series is notorious for horrible lag and also unbalanced weapons and items (which ruin PvP for any game).

Lock-on has a place but in Dark Souls it makes the game harder to control. It's much harder to fight multiple enemies at once because of the lock-on system; I can't block effectively when there's multiple enemies due to my character walking backwards instead of backstepping when moving back with a raised shield and not locked-on to an enemy. Thus, the dodge is god. Literally no other game I have played has had my character turn his back when I moved backwards with a raised shield. Bloodborne fixed that by removing shields. Dragon's Dogma plays just fine with a shield and no lock-on mechanic. I haven't played For Honor but that game seems to have a really solid sword and shield 3rd-person combat with no lock-on either, other issues like netcode were the biggest problems with the game. Even Bloodborne, it's objectively better to not lock-on to quite a few of the bosses in the game.

I've been saying GracIOUS and GlorIOUS for pages, they are immune to witch time unlike Grace and Glory.

Phoenixmgs:
Lock-on has a place

That's pretty much all I wanted to hear from you with regard to lock-on. I wasn't that interested in defending Dark Souls and I can see that part of the argument isn't going anywhere.

As for turning around with a raised shield, yes, I've long had an issue with that, though it usually doesn't endanger me, since there usually is no longer a hostile in front of me to lock onto. A solution would be to let the player move sideways and backwards without the lock-on, by holding the defense button.

ITT: A guy compare apples to oranges then complain about oranges not being apples.

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:
Lock-on has a place

That's pretty much all I wanted to hear from you with regard to lock-on. I wasn't that interested in defending Dark Souls and I can see that part of the argument isn't going anywhere.

As for turning around with a raised shield, yes, I've long had an issue with that, though it usually doesn't endanger me, since there usually is no longer a hostile in front of me to lock onto. A solution would be to let the player move sideways and backwards without the lock-on, by holding the defense button.

Bayonetta has a lock-on mechanic and my favorite online shooter of all-time, MGO2, has a lock-on mechanic. Why would I say there is no place for a lock-on mechanic ever? It's just that a game shouldn't be as reliant on lock-on as Dark Souls is. There was quite a few times in Dark Souls when there was any enemy around a corner that I saw, hit lock-on, and my character turned around and got hit in the back because the lock-on didn't take due to the enemy being blocked enough by the wall or something (only made worse by enemy attacks going through walls). The lock-on is also the main issue causing fighting multiple enemies at once being much harder than it should be. The Dark Souls combat system clearly excels at 1v1 combat and not much else. Dragon's Dogma plays a better "Dark Souls" than Dark Souls; you can play Dragon's Dogma like Dark Souls playing only solo (no AI pawns) and not using all the flashy special moves and it's a better combat system than Dark Souls.

Curious. Why is the currency of a witch who fights the divine halos?

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:

Phoenixmgs:
Lock-on has a place

That's pretty much all I wanted to hear from you with regard to lock-on. I wasn't that interested in defending Dark Souls and I can see that part of the argument isn't going anywhere.

As for turning around with a raised shield, yes, I've long had an issue with that, though it usually doesn't endanger me, since there usually is no longer a hostile in front of me to lock onto. A solution would be to let the player move sideways and backwards without the lock-on, by holding the defense button.

Bayonetta has a lock-on mechanic and my favorite online shooter of all-time, MGO2, has a lock-on mechanic. Why would I say there is no place for a lock-on mechanic ever? It's just that a game shouldn't be as reliant on lock-on as Dark Souls is. There was quite a few times in Dark Souls when there was any enemy around a corner that I saw, hit lock-on, and my character turned around and got hit in the back because the lock-on didn't take due to the enemy being blocked enough by the wall or something (only made worse by enemy attacks going through walls). The lock-on is also the main issue causing fighting multiple enemies at once being much harder than it should be. The Dark Souls combat system clearly excels at 1v1 combat and not much else. Dragon's Dogma plays a better "Dark Souls" than Dark Souls; you can play Dragon's Dogma like Dark Souls playing only solo (no AI pawns) and not using all the flashy special moves and it's a better combat system than Dark Souls.

Dragon's Dogma's combat isn't similar to Dark Souls. It's closer to Devil May Cry than Dark Souls. Dark Souls' combat feels appropriately heavier. Every action game doesn't need to be of the Devil May Cry variety. The Souls games are all better than Dragon's Dogma.

Bayonetta, lock-on? You mean when you hold R1 and she WALKS?! It's completely useless in that kind of fast-paced spectacle action game. It's also weird to have Run/Dodge and Lock-on right next to each other on the top of the controller. You normally shouldn't need to have two fingers there.

Dark Souls' lock-on system is designed for single and multiple targets. That's why they allow you to switch from one target to another by nudging the stick. But I often don't use lock-on when I have to fight multiple opponents or very big ones. There's no real problem with a game prioritizing lock-on. Some games don't do it as well as they should, though. My game would mitigate the need for lock-on as much as possible, but it would still be an important mechanic.

Ezekiel:
Dragon's Dogma's combat isn't similar to Dark Souls. It's closer to Devil May Cry than Dark Souls. Dark Souls' combat feels appropriately heavier. Every action game doesn't need to be of the Devil May Cry variety. The Souls games are all better than Dragon's Dogma.

Bayonetta, lock-on? You mean when you hold R1 and she WALKS?! It's completely useless in that kind of fast-paced spectacle action game. It's also weird to have Run/Dodge and Lock-on right next to each other on the top of the controller. You normally shouldn't need to have two fingers there.

Dark Souls' lock-on system is designed for single and multiple targets. That's why they allow you to switch from one target to another by nudging the stick. But I often don't use lock-on when I have to fight multiple opponents or very big ones. There's no real problem with a game prioritizing lock-on. Some games don't do it as well as they should, though. My game would mitigate the need for lock-on as much as possible, but it would still be an important mechanic.

I said if you play Dragon's Dogma like Dark Souls and only use shield and light/heavy attack, it plays a better "Souls" game than Dark Souls. Dragon's Dogma is totally not a spectacle fighter, there's not even a combo system; Kingdoms of Amalur is more of a spectacle fighter than Dragon's Dogma. Also, MGS4 has better shield controls than Dark Souls as well; it's kinda sad that a shooter has better shield controls (with a properly implemented lock-on system) than a melee combat game. Lock-on can be useful in certain situations like taunting in Bayonetta and certain moves that require accurate directional input, tertiary things is what lock-on is good for. There's a reason you see lock-on used quite often in Bayonetta combo videos. There was quite a big uproar in the DMC community when it was revealed that DmC didn't have a lock-on mechanic.

Dark Souls enemy switching was clunky as hell in the heat of close quarters combat.

Bayonetta's lock-on is shitty, though. It's on the wrong side of the controller and prevents you from moving quickly.

I didn't say Dragon's Dogma is a spectacle fighter, I said it has more in common with Devil May Cry's combat than with Dark Souls'. The emphasis on positioning isn't similar, the backstep dodge of the fighter class is inferior to the four way dodge in Dark Souls and especially to the 360 degree dodge in Dark Souls II and III, the level design is duller and the grapple mechanic that comprises much of the combat is mediocre. You don't "feel" the boss's motions like you do when climbing in Shadow of the Colossus. The camera work is awful when you're climbing a big boss. Often, you have no idea in which direction you're climbing, because you can't get the camera to align with your character or the boss is blocking them from view. Besides, Dragon's Dogma is party-based instead of solitary. It doesn't play like a Souls game. It features a constant soundtrack with electric guitars because it's going for a different play style and tone. It also doesn't have different movesets for swords, like the Souls games, and doesn't allow you to wield swords with both hands. It's also missing pole weapons, which were the most common weapons in the middle ages.

I don't even remember a shield in MGS4. I don't want to keep defending Dark Souls from games that have little in common with it. I regret even mentioning it.

Ezekiel:
Bayonetta's lock-on is shitty, though. It's on the wrong side of the controller and prevents you from moving quickly.

I didn't say Dragon's Dogma is a spectacle fighter, I said it has more in common with Devil May Cry's combat than with Dark Souls'. The emphasis on positioning isn't similar, the backstep dodge of the fighter class is inferior to the four way dodge in Dark Souls and especially to the 360 degree dodge in Dark Souls II and III, the level design is duller and the grapple mechanic that comprises much of the combat is mediocre. You don't "feel" the boss's motions like you do when climbing in Shadow of the Colossus. The camera work is awful when you're climbing a big boss. Often, you have no idea in which direction you're climbing, because you can't get the camera to align with your character or the boss is blocking them from view. Besides, Dragon's Dogma is party-based instead of solitary. It doesn't play like a Souls game. It features a constant soundtrack with electric guitars because it's going for a different play style and tone. It also doesn't have different movesets for swords, like the Souls games, and doesn't allow you to wield swords with both hands. It's also missing pole weapons, which were the most common weapons in the middle ages.

I don't even remember a shield in MGS4. I don't want to keep defending Dark Souls from games that have little in common with it. I regret even mentioning it.

Bayonetta's lock-on definitely does it job. It's been so long since I played Bayo that I forget if I had an issue with the button placement but all games should have full remapping, that's one awesome thing about the PS4.

I was just pointing other games that do things better than Dark Souls that Dark Souls should be the best at. Dragon's Dogma can be played solitary if you so desire. I'm just saying DD controls better if you were just to use a shield with light/heavy attack and nothing else than DS does at shield controls. Same with MGS4, more so with its online component MGO2 (which is coming back!!!), shielding was by far the hardest thing to do in the game and required just phenomenal positioning (much more than DS does) and mastery of knowing when to use and when not use lock-on. A shooter shouldn't be able to best what is considered one of the best melee combat games at shield controls, that's all I'm saying.

Ezekiel:

I don't even remember a shield in MGS4. I don't want to keep defending Dark Souls from games that have little in common with it. I regret even mentioning it.

Shouldn't have to either. It almost seems like Phoenixmgs has some kind of grudge against Souls games; perhaps because they don't play like he thought they should based on the hype surrounding them.

What drew me to them is the fact they didn't play like anything else. I think it was the physics. Every action felt deliberate and tangible, like I was connected to the world and controlling a real person vs some paper thin avatar. It has its flaws but they only stand out more because it's execution is beyond what most games don't even bother attempting.

hanselthecaretaker:

Ezekiel:

I don't even remember a shield in MGS4. I don't want to keep defending Dark Souls from games that have little in common with it. I regret even mentioning it.

Shouldn't have to either. It almost seems like Phoenixmgs has some kind of grudge against Souls games; perhaps because they don't play like he thought they should based on the hype surrounding them.

I'm just saying a game that should prioritize shield controls dropped the ball a bit and made a very simple yet impactful mistake. When I have a shield raised and I press backwards, my character should backstep, not turn around. Bloodborne fixed that by removing shields altogether.

The last boss has an interesting design. I like the enemy designs overall. (Bayonetta's design has kind of grown on me too.) But this game sucks at giant bosses. Too many QTE surprises and guesswork, scene changes, occasionally weird camera angles, and trial and error as you try to figure out what the game wants you to do. The game doesn't play to its strengths. There are long sections in which you're not even hacking and slashing, like that tediously long shoot 'em section with the persective that makes it hard to judge positions. At least NieR: Automata pulled the camera up above the action for the flying sections.

There was one part earlier in which a giant rock was being thrown towards me. I reacted by trying to dodge with the trigger, but the game wanted me to press A and B. Great example of how QTEs go against a game's mechanics and are bad overall.

Edit: Okay, I just finished it. Devil May Cry 3 was better. It didn't have a lot of the crap I mentioned, like what I said above about the bosses, and it had a more cohesive story overall, using fewer, shorter cutscenes. Edit: Playing Devil May Cry 3 again right now, I also just remembered that the enemies still attack you when they're not in the frame, but the game warns you with sound cues, unlike in Bayonetta, where they wait until you can see them again.

Phoenixmgs:

hanselthecaretaker:

Ezekiel:

I don't even remember a shield in MGS4. I don't want to keep defending Dark Souls from games that have little in common with it. I regret even mentioning it.

Shouldn't have to either. It almost seems like Phoenixmgs has some kind of grudge against Souls games; perhaps because they don't play like he thought they should based on the hype surrounding them.

I'm just saying a game that should prioritize shield controls dropped the ball a bit and made a very simple yet impactful mistake. When I have a shield raised and I press backwards, my character should backstep, not turn around. Bloodborne fixed that by removing shields altogether.

But then you wouldn't be able to do anything to defend against the enemies who ambushed behind you, which often happens. Recentering the camera automatically when raising a shield would probably be the most critical mechanic for these instances; maybe that's what you meant? But then in that case you'd possibly be dealing with a disorienting effect of constant camera adjustment, which could be a distracting problem in the heat of a fight. Since the attack and defend buttons are on the shoulders, leaving the player free to adjust the camera independently of combat situations is probably still the most viable, if imperfect solution.

These games are more multidirectional than say a TPS like The Last of Us or Gears of War (or the upcoming God of War) where you're always facing forward regardless, and imo benefit more from the free camera movement. Not sure what a better solution would be since lock-on is a vital mechanic, as well as positioning during a battle or even just basic platforming. There were a few times in Sen's Fortress where free camera movement around the character really helped judge distances for those pendulum traps, especially on narrow ledges.

hanselthecaretaker:
But then you wouldn't be able to do anything to defend against the enemies who ambushed behind you, which often happens. Recentering the camera automatically when raising a shield would probably be the most critical mechanic for these instances; maybe that's what you meant?

Just lower the shield, press back, then raise shield like, I believe, literally every other 3rd-person game with a shield or defensive blocking mechanic. You already want your shield lowered right after you block an attack in Dark Souls anyways to you regain stamina at a much faster clip when you lower your shield vs keeping it raised. So if I say have an enemy at my front and back with blocking the front enemy's attack and seeing the back enemy about to attack, my shield would already be lowered after front enemy's attack that I blocked. If I'm blocking whether with a shield or sword or Chaos Blades (God of War), I want my character to backstep when I move backwards, not turn around. I wouldn't at all want the camera to be centered when raising my shield.

Phoenixmgs:

Ezekiel:
Bayonetta's lock-on is shitty, though. It's on the wrong side of the controller and prevents you from moving quickly.

I didn't say Dragon's Dogma is a spectacle fighter, I said it has more in common with Devil May Cry's combat than with Dark Souls'. The emphasis on positioning isn't similar, the backstep dodge of the fighter class is inferior to the four way dodge in Dark Souls and especially to the 360 degree dodge in Dark Souls II and III, the level design is duller and the grapple mechanic that comprises much of the combat is mediocre. You don't "feel" the boss's motions like you do when climbing in Shadow of the Colossus. The camera work is awful when you're climbing a big boss. Often, you have no idea in which direction you're climbing, because you can't get the camera to align with your character or the boss is blocking them from view. Besides, Dragon's Dogma is party-based instead of solitary. It doesn't play like a Souls game. It features a constant soundtrack with electric guitars because it's going for a different play style and tone. It also doesn't have different movesets for swords, like the Souls games, and doesn't allow you to wield swords with both hands. It's also missing pole weapons, which were the most common weapons in the middle ages.

I don't even remember a shield in MGS4. I don't want to keep defending Dark Souls from games that have little in common with it. I regret even mentioning it.

Bayonetta's lock-on definitely does it job. It's been so long since I played Bayo that I forget if I had an issue with the button placement but all games should have full remapping, that's one awesome thing about the PS4.

I was just pointing other games that do things better than Dark Souls that Dark Souls should be the best at. Dragon's Dogma can be played solitary if you so desire. I'm just saying DD controls better if you were just to use a shield with light/heavy attack and nothing else than DS does at shield controls. Same with MGS4, more so with its online component MGO2 (which is coming back!!!), shielding was by far the hardest thing to do in the game and required just phenomenal positioning (much more than DS does) and mastery of knowing when to use and when not use lock-on. A shooter shouldn't be able to best what is considered one of the best melee combat games at shield controls, that's all I'm saying.

I disagree. Dragon's Dogma's shield isn't better than Dark Souls'. That you move backwards and sideways is nice, but it slows you down too much. The fighter class already feels pretty limiting without a good dodge. In Dark Souls, you can still move normally with a shield up.

Phoenixmgs:

hanselthecaretaker:
But then you wouldn't be able to do anything to defend against the enemies who ambushed behind you, which often happens. Recentering the camera automatically when raising a shield would probably be the most critical mechanic for these instances; maybe that's what you meant?

Just lower the shield, press back, then raise shield like, I believe, literally every other 3rd-person game with a shield or defensive blocking mechanic. You already want your shield lowered right after you block an attack in Dark Souls anyways to you regain stamina at a much faster clip when you lower your shield vs keeping it raised. So if I say have an enemy at my front and back with blocking the front enemy's attack and seeing the back enemy about to attack, my shield would already be lowered after front enemy's attack that I blocked. If I'm blocking whether with a shield or sword or Chaos Blades (God of War), I want my character to backstep when I move backwards, not turn around. I wouldn't at all want the camera to be centered when raising my shield.

The problem with this is Souls games aren't arena combat games. The shield-forward design is more cumbersome when trying to navigate environmental hazards for instance. Why should I have to lower my shield at all to move freely if there are attacks coming from multiple directions when I'm say, on a narrow walkway?

I'd rather have to adjust the camera than leave myself vulnerable for a second just to turn around. If backstepping with shield raised is needed, then that's where lock-on comes into play. And it's very easy to switch targets in Souls in any direction. You can focus on any enemy you want to that's in range.

I've come to accept that these games are not for me. There's just too much there for me to bother with. And all the combos seem the same to me. But some people find these games stylish, so I'm glad those fans are getting what they want.

I did like Nier Automata, which I'm told is a simplified version of other Platinum games. I can sort of get why people like these games.

I can never remember more than two or three in the heat of battle.

Ezekiel:
I disagree. Dragon's Dogma's shield isn't better than Dark Souls'. That you move backwards and sideways is nice, but it slows you down too much. The fighter class already feels pretty limiting without a good dodge. In Dark Souls, you can still move normally with a shield up.

The tank character isn't something I really ever play. I tried out the fighter for a bit in DD and on the most basic level, the controls were fine.

hanselthecaretaker:
The problem with this is Souls games aren't arena combat games. The shield-forward design is more cumbersome when trying to navigate environmental hazards for instance. Why should I have to lower my shield at all to move freely if there are attacks coming from multiple directions when I'm say, on a narrow walkway?

I'd rather have to adjust the camera than leave myself vulnerable for a second just to turn around. If backstepping with shield raised is needed, then that's where lock-on comes into play. And it's very easy to switch targets in Souls in any direction. You can focus on any enemy you want to that's in range.

Name literally any other 3rd-person game where the character turns around with a raised shield. I can just as easily ask, why do I have to use a lock-on mechanic to backstep? I'm pretty sure I remember the lock-on switch going from right to left or vice verse one enemy at a time so you can't just switch to the enemy you want to lock-on to, you have to cycle to them.

Also I found the following video SORTA demonstrating one of the biggest issues I had with the lock-on system:

There was quite a few times I'd see an enemy around a corner, press lock-on, then I would press back to backstep against the incoming attack to only turn around and get hit in the back because of lock-on not taking (I guess due to the enemy being behind the wall enough). The same issue that caused that death would cause my character to not lock-on quite often.

Phoenixmgs:

Name literally any other 3rd-person game where the character turns around with a raised shield. I can just as easily ask, why do I have to use a lock-on mechanic to backstep? I'm pretty sure I remember the lock-on switch going from right to left or vice verse one enemy at a time so you can't just switch to the enemy you want to lock-on to, you have to cycle to them.

Also I found the following video SORTA demonstrating one of the biggest issues I had with the lock-on system:

There was quite a few times I'd see an enemy around a corner, press lock-on, then I would press back to backstep against the incoming attack to only turn around and get hit in the back because of lock-on not taking (I guess due to the enemy being behind the wall enough). The same issue that caused that death would cause my character to not lock-on quite often.

I get what you're saying, but for the most part this seems like an agree to disagree thing. I've never thought of free movement with shield raised being a problem. I've had lock on be finicky with enemies around a corner too, but then again...they were around a corner.

That video was a legit targeting issue though, which should've easily been patched out. Only solution would be to not try to lock on until you're in the same room as the intended target.

hanselthecaretaker:
I get what you're saying, but for the most part this seems like an agree to disagree thing. I've never thought of free movement with shield raised being a problem. I've had lock on be finicky with enemies around a corner too, but then again...they were around a corner.

That video was a legit targeting issue though, which should've easily been patched out. Only solution would be to not try to lock on until you're in the same room as the intended target.

I don't see how a game not letting me do something I want to do due to the controls is not a control issue. That exact scenario may have been patched out, but the core issue causing it wasn't patched out. It's kinda hard to wait to get into the same room to lock-on to specific enemies considering the enemy isn't waiting for you to get in the room to attack and the fact that enemy attacks also go through walls.

Phoenixmgs:

hanselthecaretaker:
I get what you're saying, but for the most part this seems like an agree to disagree thing. I've never thought of free movement with shield raised being a problem. I've had lock on be finicky with enemies around a corner too, but then again...they were around a corner.

That video was a legit targeting issue though, which should've easily been patched out. Only solution would be to not try to lock on until you're in the same room as the intended target.

I don't see how a game not letting me do something I want to do due to the controls is not a control issue. That exact scenario may have been patched out, but the core issue causing it wasn't patched out. It's kinda hard to wait to get into the same room to lock-on to specific enemies considering the enemy isn't waiting for you to get in the room to attack and the fact that enemy attacks also go through walls.

You know, if you hit the dodge button without a direction input your character does a back step.

Your problem is literally solved with a single button press as there is a back step button.

Dirty Hipsters:
You know, if you hit the dodge button without a direction input your character does a back step.

Your problem is literally solved with a single button press as there is a back step button.

Literally name 1 other game that does shield controls like Dark Souls, just one. No other game does it because it doesn't work.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 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