I appreciate u/BrawlMan engaging us with the discourse and I watched the video. I kinda feel bad that I don't have much to respond with. The video was kind of muddled in what it was trying to say or how it was trying to express. I guess if I can take away one thing I see it as a confirmation example of a thing I will express at any given moment: there is no such thing as "good combat" because it means something to different people.
Like he's talking about the importance of replayability and shitting on reviewers for not playing a game more than once. As we've talked about before, that's not really important to me personally and I would wager I am more common than most- we play a game then we're done, only replaying our very very very favorite games. The quickest way to turn me off is to lecture me about not having really experienced a game by "only" playing through it once... like, stfu lol (not directed at anyone here, just at generic fictional gamr dude).
u/Brawlman and I both liked Hi-Fi Rush- I played it once and was done. I learned the combat enough to get to end credits and explore levels as much as I wanted. He did post-game stuff and DLC IIRC. Did I play it wrong? No. He liked the game more than me- though I liked it fine- because of context- it's look, its theme, its style, etc. That is where subjectivity comes in. Does the game have "good" combat? Sure- it's a rhythm game. If someone tells me that it has better combat that a game I like more I'd like to ask that person to seriously think about comparing a rhythm action game to an open world RPG or whatever.
"Sekiro has the best combat ever"- a sentiment one would think I would agree with given my obsession with that game but it, like, Hi-Fi Rush, is very specific. How dare anyone make such claims?
The idea that Soulsborne games messed up people's understanding of good combat is clearly clickbait. But if it means it can make someone like me, who doesn't play a lot of hard action games and almost never replays or gets "creative" with combat, think Sekiro has "good" combat, then maybe he's kinda right, who knows. And also I do sympathize with him being annoyed at consensus, repeated opinions, which he expresses early. Then I also very much agree with u/CrtiticalGaming about his harping on reviewers for not playing a game long enough. Meh.
My own personal salt is being reprimanded on the internet for enjoying Witcher 3 or AC: Valhalla combat. Insert "stop having fun" meme.
>The reason that people like the Soulsborne games is specifically because attacks are easy to execute and the combat is relatively easy to master, but the games force you to completely master the combat system and then throw you into situations where you can only succeed through that perfect mastery. You get satisfaction through using the combat system to beat challenges, not from the combat system directly.
Sure, but also the reason people like Soulsborne games is that the combat is in a context of art, lore, world-building, exploration, etc. It's also why non-From Souls-likes rarely if ever gain traction. I mean sure there are fans of Mortal Shell or whatever but these are not the critical darlings with huge fan bases, it's a niche.
I consider Rom the Vacuous Spider from Bloodborne one of my favorite combat encounters of all time. But the mechanics are just more of what you been doing- it's the setting, what came before and after, the theme, the visualization, that makes the whole experience. And yes of course the mechanics work well to realize it otherwise it wouldn't work but it's how it all comes together.
Like he's talking about the importance of replayability and shitting on reviewers for not playing a game more than once. As we've talked about before, that's not really important to me personally and I would wager I am more common than most- we play a game then we're done, only replaying our very very very favorite games. The quickest way to turn me off is to lecture me about not having really experienced a game by "only" playing through it once... like, stfu lol (not directed at anyone here, just at generic fictional gamr dude).
u/Brawlman and I both liked Hi-Fi Rush- I played it once and was done. I learned the combat enough to get to end credits and explore levels as much as I wanted. He did post-game stuff and DLC IIRC. Did I play it wrong? No. He liked the game more than me- though I liked it fine- because of context- it's look, its theme, its style, etc. That is where subjectivity comes in. Does the game have "good" combat? Sure- it's a rhythm game. If someone tells me that it has better combat that a game I like more I'd like to ask that person to seriously think about comparing a rhythm action game to an open world RPG or whatever.
"Sekiro has the best combat ever"- a sentiment one would think I would agree with given my obsession with that game but it, like, Hi-Fi Rush, is very specific. How dare anyone make such claims?
The idea that Soulsborne games messed up people's understanding of good combat is clearly clickbait. But if it means it can make someone like me, who doesn't play a lot of hard action games and almost never replays or gets "creative" with combat, think Sekiro has "good" combat, then maybe he's kinda right, who knows. And also I do sympathize with him being annoyed at consensus, repeated opinions, which he expresses early. Then I also very much agree with u/CrtiticalGaming about his harping on reviewers for not playing a game long enough. Meh.
My own personal salt is being reprimanded on the internet for enjoying Witcher 3 or AC: Valhalla combat. Insert "stop having fun" meme.
>The reason that people like the Soulsborne games is specifically because attacks are easy to execute and the combat is relatively easy to master, but the games force you to completely master the combat system and then throw you into situations where you can only succeed through that perfect mastery. You get satisfaction through using the combat system to beat challenges, not from the combat system directly.
Sure, but also the reason people like Soulsborne games is that the combat is in a context of art, lore, world-building, exploration, etc. It's also why non-From Souls-likes rarely if ever gain traction. I mean sure there are fans of Mortal Shell or whatever but these are not the critical darlings with huge fan bases, it's a niche.
I consider Rom the Vacuous Spider from Bloodborne one of my favorite combat encounters of all time. But the mechanics are just more of what you been doing- it's the setting, what came before and after, the theme, the visualization, that makes the whole experience. And yes of course the mechanics work well to realize it otherwise it wouldn't work but it's how it all comes together.
