Your video game hot take(s) thread

[Drathnoxis]

Not really. Did you not see the most recent Nintendo Direct?

I haven't ever seen a Nintendo Direct. I don't waste thought on games that haven't come out.

They're going back to another more traditional Zelda game next.

That's good to hear.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I felt like mounted combat feels MORE like a fridge on legs, not less. Having to turn Torrent so you can hit the enemy from the left or right side is way more awkward than hitting the enemy that's directly in front of you.

Torrent can jump, not only that, double jump. That alone makes a huge difference with movement. Sure, you can't strafe or back away, but just the speed itself is enough. Souls games never have an edge you can rely on, since everything is so clunky and all but the simple act of walking requires stamina. You don't have a solid dodge or guard, again stamina. Torrent isn't tied to anything like that. He doesn't require item useage or stamina or magic or anything. He's just there and he works and he's fast.

I would also say that the characters in Bloodborne and Sekiro feel decidedly not like a fridge on legs.

Sekiro, sure. But Bloodborne?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Torrent can jump, not only that, double jump. That alone makes a huge difference with movement. Sure, you can't strafe or back away, but just the speed itself is enough. Souls games never have an edge you can rely on, since everything is so clunky and all but the simple act of walking requires stamina. You don't have a solid dodge or guard, again stamina. Torrent isn't tied to anything like that. He doesn't require item useage or stamina or magic or anything. He's just there and he works and he's fast.

Circle strafing and back peddling are the core of all your defensive tactics in the Souls games. You would be surprised how much stuff misses you when you just circle around toward the side (with weapon wielding enemies specifically circling toward their weapon arm). Losing that as well as losing the ability to quickly turn while on Torrent makes everything about using him feel clunky. It doesn't matter that he's fast and can double jump, if he wasn't in the game there wouldn't be anything for you to need to double jump over.

Sekiro, sure. But Bloodborne?

Bloodborne's combat is fast and offense focused, and because you're never blocking you're constantly regenerating stamina so it's basically never an issue in combat. Stamina in Bloodborne is basically just meant to prevent you from constantly dodging and it's a limiter on your DPS against downed enemies. I honestly practically don't notice my stamina in combat because I'm never just spamming dodge. The biggest problem with Bloodborne is that it's locked to 30fps, which makes it feel less responsive than it actually is.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Circle strafing and back peddling are the core of all your defensive tactics in the Souls games. You would be surprised how much stuff misses you when you just circle around toward the side (with weapon wielding enemies specifically circling toward their weapon arm). Losing that as well as losing the ability to quickly turn while on Torrent makes everything about using him feel clunky. It doesn't matter that he's fast and can double jump, if he wasn't in the game there wouldn't be anything for you to need to double jump over.

Circle strafing and back peddling requires the lock-on, which in the Souls games suck. Every other hack-n-slash game around today is able provide great combat without the need for a lock-on, yet Fromsoft still can't.

As for the need for a double jump... in every other Souls game there are plenty of situations in which you need to jump with the game's oh-so intuitive jumping controls. Torrent simply jumps at the press of a button. Two presses and he double-jumps. So simple I guess it took Fromsoft a decade to realize something didn't need to be obtuse.

Bloodborne's combat is fast and offense focused, and because you're never blocking you're constantly regenerating stamina so it's basically never an issue in combat. Stamina in Bloodborne is basically just meant to prevent you from constantly dodging and it's a limiter on your DPS against downed enemies. I honestly practically don't notice my stamina in combat because I'm never just spamming dodge. The biggest problem with Bloodborne is that it's locked to 30fps, which makes it feel less responsive than it actually is.

The biggest problem with Bloodborne is that you have a gun you can't aim, except you know... with lock-on.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Circle strafing and back peddling requires the lock-on, which in the Souls games suck. Every other hack-n-slash game around today is able provide great combat without the need for a lock-on, yet Fromsoft still can't.

The souls games aren't hack and slash, and frankly the lock on works just fine. There's also a lot of moves (like dead angling) that are specifically done without lock-on.

Also, plenty of hack and slashes still use lock-on. Devil May Cry uses lock on pretty heavily.

The lock-on only gets problematic if you get surrounded, but if that happens its typically your own fault for not using the terrain more effectively.

As for the need for a double jump... in every other Souls game there are plenty of situations in which you need to jump with the game's oh-so intuitive jumping controls.

Not in combat there aren't. I can only think of one situation where you actually have to jump during combat and that was in the Bed of Chaos boss fight in DS1, which is universally known as the worst boss fight in the series, and it was in an area that wasn't done when the game shipped.

Torrent simply jumps at the press of a button. Two presses and he double-jumps. So simple I guess it took Fromsoft a decade to realize something didn't need to be obtuse.

Jumping just wasn't all that necessary in the previous souls games. You can also jump without Torrent in Elden Ring as well. The addition of a jump mechanically is fine, I enjoyed it quite a bit in Sekiro, and it's fine in Elden Ring, but if the game isn't built around having a jump then a jump isn't actually necessary.

The biggest problem with Bloodborne is that you have a gun you can't aim, except you know... with lock-on.

You can free aim with the camera, and you can first person aim with the telescope if you want to get an accurate shot off outside of combat. The gun isn't really used for gun purposes in Bloodborne though, it's just for parrying and interrupting attacks 99% of the time, just like guns in DMC or Bayonetta are basically just combo extenders from range rather than actual weapons in most situations.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The souls games aren't hack and slash, and frankly the lock on works just fine. There's also a lot of moves (like dead angling) that are specifically done without lock-on.

Also, plenty of hack and slashes still use lock-on. Devil May Cry uses lock on pretty heavily.

The lock-on only gets problematic if you get surrounded, but if that happens its typically your own fault for not using the terrain more effectively.

Devil May Cry is a fast moving action game with smooth controls and a good camera.

The lock-on is Souls games locks in your view and gets problematic whenever two enemies are more than 10 feet away from oneanother. Many an unjury and death was the result of turning the camera with the lock-on enabled locking me on to a different enemy and pulling my view away from other closer enemies. Enemies can also be so big and so fast that the lock-on totally screws you over.

There's no middleground to how the lock-on functions in Souls games. You either ignore it and struggle to get proper hits in, or you use it and turn your view into a tunnel.

You can free aim with the camera, and you can first person aim with the telescope if you want to get an accurate shot off outside of combat. The gun isn't really used for gun purposes in Bloodborne though, it's just for parrying and interrupting attacks 99% of the time, just like guns in DMC or Bayonetta are basically just combo extenders from range rather than actual weapons in most situations.

Free aim the camera that doesn't have a reticle. And first-person aiming a telescope in order to use a gun... yeah. The lack of proper aiming has always been an issue in the Souls games - A thing that hasn't been an issue in videogames since Resident Evil 4 in 2004. Not being able to aim your ranged spells in the Dark Souls games, and being reliant on the lock-on, which even then would still often result in you missing shots. This was already shit, but Bloodborne straight-up has a gun. If a game makes a simple act - something you could do easily in real life - this impossible hassle, than that's bad game design. This is a gun, you should be able to aim it, not just fire it and hope the lock-on will do it's job (which it often won't). I've had bullets pass by locked-on enemies that were in the act of attacking me due to the attack animation.

If you had infinite bullets like in DMC or Bayonetta I probably wouldn't have as much of an issue with it, but even this mechanic that you need to perform parries is a consumable in Bloodborne.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Devil May Cry is a fast moving action game with smooth controls and a good camera.

The only reason you don't complain about the DMC camera is because enemies don't attack you from off-screen. They are specifically coded to be less aggressive when they aren't in your field of view. This is a trick you learn when you play the games, and it lets you isolate enemies that are in a pack, and beat on them without worrying about being attacked from behind. Things like DMC and Bayonetta don't punish you for bad positioning and getting surrounded, they actually reward you, so the camera is less of an issue. Their cameras aren't actually better, they've made compromises in the enemy actions and AI to make up for the camera.

You're praising the camera in DMC but in many areas you don't even have camera control at all.

The souls games do have some camera issues, but this is mainly issues regarding how the camera interacts with walls (which is a problem that DMC has way less of because DMC just doesn't let you control the camera when there's a lot of walls around).

Many an unjury and death was the result of turning the camera with the lock-on enabled locking me on to a different enemy and pulling my view away from other closer enemies.

Sounds like user error. You need to be deliberate with your use of lock-on. It's a tool, there are times to use it and times to not use it. If you immediately turn on lock-on the moment you get into combat, and then don't disengage it until combat is over of course you're going to have a bad time, that's not how it's meant to be used. Also, if you're letting yourself get surrounded then you're going to have issues. Trying to fight enemies that are behind you and you can't see SHOULD be awkward.

Enemies can also be so big and so fast that the lock-on totally screws you over.

When an enemy is that big you typically don't need lock-on unless you're targeting a specific body part.

Free aim the camera that doesn't have a reticle. And first-person aiming a telescope in order to use a gun... yeah. The lack of proper aiming has always been an issue in the Souls games - A thing that hasn't been an issue in videogames since Resident Evil 4 in 2004. Not being able to aim your ranged spells in the Dark Souls games, and being reliant on the lock-on, which even then would still often result in you missing shots. This was already shit, but Bloodborne straight-up has a gun. If a game makes a simple act - something you could do easily in real life - this impossible hassle, than that's bad game design. This is a gun, you should be able to aim it, not just fire it and hope the lock-on will do it's job (which it often won't). I've had bullets pass by locked-on enemies that were in the act of attacking me due to the attack animation. If you had infinite bullets like in DMC or Bayonetta I probably wouldn't have as much of an issue with it, but even this mechanic that you need to perform parries is a consumable in Bloodborne.

Yeah, it's not a shooter either. Your gun in Bloodborne isn't a primary method of dealing damage, and it isn't meant to be. You're complaining that this game isn't a different type of game. It's like complaining that you don't manually aim in Starcraft just because the Space Marines have guns.

How come all games with a sword don't let you manually direct the angle of every cut like Metal Gear Rising Revengeance? That game came out more than 10 years ago, and yet games with swords still just use baked in animations to direct your sword swings for you! Clearly every game should let you cut things exactly how you like, and if they don't then it's just bad game design.

This you, this is how silly you sound.

 

[BrawlMan]

Their cameras aren't actually better, they've made compromises in the enemy actions and AI to make up for the camera.

You're praising the camera in DMC but in many areas you don't even have camera control at all.

Then Bayonetta, DmC, and DMC5 happened lets you have full control of the camera. DMC3 and DMC4 allowed some control of the camera, but only if you're playing Bloody Palace, or in an area/arena that allows a full 180 degree rotation.

Fighting games stories do matter. Otherwise, why would anyone even bother? Character designs, gameplay tool kits, and personalities are just as important and usually more so, but I care about most of these characters how they develop. I 100% agree on what Woolie is going on about. Fighting game stories don't have to suck and can have great gameplay at the same time. It's why I like the SFV's individual stories so much. They hang up loose character plot threads, or have certain characters finish their specific arc and struggles. It's why I like seeing characters age and go through costume/clothing changes. It's why I love Garou and City Wolves so much when the latter releases. I am tired of the classic Fatal Fury/KoF look and want these characters to move on and grow. It's why I heavily favored III over IV, despite the latter bringing in more characters from III in later editions. SFIV is literally SFII is back baby! I like SFIV, but I don't play it much nowadays compared other Street Fighters and other fighting games.

For the record Pat, there are plenty of fighting games with good or better story not called MK9:

• Bloody Roar 2 & Primal Fury, before Hudsonsoft fucked it up with 4.
• Tekken 3-5. 6 I hated and stopped caring, and 7 is nothing, but set up for 8. 8 actually made me care about the story again.
• The SF: Alpha games
• Skullgirls - Though I never played that often.

​

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Then Bayonetta, DmC, and DMC5 happened lets you have full control of the camera. DMC3 and DMC4 allowed some control of the camera, but only if you're playing Bloody Palace, or in an area/arena that allows a full 180 degree rotation.

Yes, I've played all of those.

I actually don't remember the camera in DmC all that well (that game had a lot of other problems), but there are definitely still times in DMC5 where you don't have camera control. For example the Nidhogg boss fight. There's also a couple of hallways and indoor areas (in the early part of the game when you're playing as Nero in the not yet destroyed city) where you don't have full camera control, but they're overall pretty rare.

DMC3 and 4 both have the issue of static camera angles that mess up the direction you're moving when you move between screens.

 

[BrawlMan]

but there are definitely still times in DMC5 where you don't have camera control. For example the Nidhogg boss fight. There's also a couple of hallways and indoor areas (in the early part of the game when you're playing as Nero in the not yet destroyed city) where you don't have full camera control, but they're overall pretty rare.

Yes, but as you said they're rarer and much less of an issue compared to past titles and now.

DMC3 and 4 both have the issue of static camera angles that mess up the direction you're moving when you move between screens.

The best way around this, was to never let go of the direction of control stick when switching cameras. This usually worked not too many figured it out on the first go around, and gets finnicky depending on the game back in the PS2 days and early 360 days.

I actually don't remember the camera in DmC all that well (that game had a lot of other problems),

The only time you don't control the camera in DmC is during scripted Uncharted running/escape/chase sequences, the Succubus boss fight, and the Mundus boss fight (which is just an easier and way less tedious version of the Savior DMC4 boss fight) , and that's it. 97% of the time, the camera control is your hands.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Yeah, it's not a shooter either. Your gun in Bloodborne isn't a primary method of dealing damage, and it isn't meant to be. You're complaining that this game isn't a different type of game. It's like complaining that you don't manually aim in Starcraft just because the Space Marines have guns.

How come all games with a sword don't let you manually direct the angle of every cut like Metal Gear Rising Revengeance? That game came out more than 10 years ago, and yet games with swords still just use baked in animations to direct your sword swings for you! Clearly every game should let you cut things exactly how you like, and if they don't then it's just bad game design.

This you, this is how silly you sound.

No, I'm complaining that an action game where a gun is one of your prominent weapons, which has consumable ammo, can't be manually aimed. Bloodborne isn't a turn-based RPG or a strategy game. The gun was prominently featured in the game's marketing - the Souls game that replaces the shield with a gun. It isn't just some fringe mechanic of the game, it's your primary means for staggering enemies.

This sounds silly to you, to ask for the ability to aim your gun where you will? You gave the advice to use a dang telescope to line up shots, and THIS sounds silly to you? Seriously, what's to stop Bloodborne from having an actual aim button, or even just an onscreen reticle? Other than it's Fromsoft therefor it must be obtuse about these things. Is this me wanting the game to be something it's not? Yes, I guess it is, because what is now is just annoying for the sake of it, when I could just be aiming the freaking gun, instead of being reliant on a lock-on mechanic with a less than 100% succes rate.

Again, it's a gun, in a thrid-person action game... that I can't aim. How is me wanting the ability to aim silly?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

No, I'm complaining that an action game where a gun is one of your prominent weapons, which has consumable ammo, can't be manually aimed. Bloodborne isn't a turn-based RPG or a strategy game. The gun was prominently featured in the game's marketing - the Souls game that replaces the shield with a gun. It isn't just some fringe mechanic of the game, it's your primary means for staggering enemies.

This sounds silly to you, to ask for the ability to aim your gun where you will? You gave the advice to use a dang telescope to line up shots, and THIS sounds silly to you? Seriously, what's to stop Bloodborne from having an actual aim button, or even just an onscreen reticle? Other than it's Fromsoft therefor it must be obtuse about these things. Is this me wanting the game to be something it's not? Yes, I guess it is, because what is now is just annoying for the sake of it, when I could just be aiming the freaking gun, instead of being reliant on a lock-on mechanic with a less than 100% succes rate.

Again, it's a gun, in a thrid-person action game... that I can't aim. How is me wanting the ability to aim silly?

The gun isn't meant to be a primary method of dealing damage. Giving you the ability to aim it from long range gives you the ability to do damage from a range that none of the enemies are able to deal with, and gives you the ability to draw enemies away from their positions from a long way away, breaking the intended encounters.

That's the reason they don't give you a crosshair and the ability to aim your gun. It's not supposed to be a long range option. And it works perfectly fine at the range it's meant to be used within. If you miss with it, it's typically because you mistimed your shot on a moving enemy. You don't aim the gun and shoot things from long range because none of the enemies were designed with that play-style in mind.

Also, I didn't bring up the telescope to tell you that's how you should aim the gun all the time. That would indeed be silly. I brought it up as another tool, one that warrants occasional use in specific circumstances (like if you notice an enemy on a ledge that's going to ambush you, and you want to knock it down). I'm not suggesting that this is something that you would use to aim mid-combat.

Again, this isn't a shooter, the gun is not your primary form of dealing damage. Your problem isn't with the game, it's your own stubbornness and misunderstanding of the intent of the mechanics.

Having the ability to deal damage to enemies from significantly outside of their melee range makes a lot of the enemies and bosses trivial. It's why sorcery is considered the "easy mode" of souls games.

Your entire argument is just that you don't want to play the game the way it was designed. Just because a game has a gun doesn't make it a shooter. Just because a game has a sword does not make it a hack and slash. You are completely misunderstanding what these games are, what they are trying to do, and how you're supposed to approach them. I actually totally understand your mindset, because I did not "get" Demon's Souls when it came out. I tried to play Demon's Souls the same way I would any hack and slash, and I ended up hating it. The whole formula didn't click with me until years later when I bashed my head against Dark Souls for literally days. The reason I hated it is because I was playing it wrong.

The games that you are comparing the soulsborne games to isn't a correct comparison, which is why you're misunderstanding them at a fundamental level.

 

[Worgen]

Fighting games stories do matter. Otherwise, why would anyone even bother? Character designs, gameplay tool kits, and personalities are just as importatn and usually more so, but I care about most of these characters how they develop. I 100% agree on what Woolie is going on about. Fighting game storties don't have to suck and can have great gameplay at the same time. It's why I like the SFV's individual stories so much. They hang up loose chracter plot threads, or have certain characters finish their specific arc and struggles. It's why I like seeing characters age and go through costume/clothing changes. It's why I love Garou and City Wolves so much when the latter releases. I am tired of the classic Fatal Fury/KoF look and want these characters to move on and grow. It's why I heavily favored III over IV, despite the latter bringing in more characters from III in later editions. SFIV is literally SFII is back baby! I like SFIV, but I don't play it much nowadays compared other Street Fighters and other fighting games.

Stories matter in every game. A really good game can get away without one, but a good story can elevate a good game to a great game and a great game to a transcendent one. A bad story can hurt a great game, but usually not that much.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The gun isn't meant to be a primary method of dealing damage. Giving you the ability to aim it from long range gives you the ability to do damage from a range that none of the enemies are able to deal with, and gives you the ability to draw enemies away from their positions from a long way away, breaking the intended encounters.

That's the reason they don't give you a crosshair and the ability to aim your gun. It's not supposed to be a long range option. And it works perfectly fine at the range it's meant to be used within. If you miss with it, it's typically because you mistimed your shot on a moving enemy. You don't aim the gun and shoot things from long range because none of the enemies were designed with that play-style in mind.

Also, I didn't bring up the telescope to tell you that's how you should aim the gun all the time. That would indeed be silly. I brought it up as another tool, one that warrants occasional use in specific circumstances (like if you notice an enemy on a ledge that's going to ambush you, and you want to knock it down). I'm not suggesting that this is something that you would use to aim mid-combat.

Again, this isn't a shooter, the gun is not your primary form of dealing damage. Your problem isn't with the game, it's your own stubbornness and misunderstanding of the intent of the mechanics.

Having the ability to deal damage to enemies from significantly outside of their melee range makes a lot of the enemies and bosses trivial. It's why sorcery is considered the "easy mode" of souls games.

Your entire argument is just that you don't want to play the game the way it was designed. Just because a game has a gun doesn't make it a shooter. Just because a game has a sword does not make it a hack and slash. You are completely misunderstanding what these games are, what they are trying to do, and how you're supposed to approach them. I actually totally understand your mindset, because I did not "get" Demon's Souls when it came out. I tried to play Demon's Souls the same way I would any hack and slash, and I ended up hating it. The whole formula didn't click with me until years later when I bashed my head against Dark Souls for literally days. The reason I hated it is because I was playing it wrong.

The games that you are comparing the soulsborne games to isn't a correct comparison, which is why you're misunderstanding them at a fundamental level.

Then why even have the gun in the game at all? If the gun doesn't really matter, why are there different versions of them in the game. Even one that has longer range. If the damage doesn't matter, why is there a consumable expressly to make your bullets more damaging? And forget the damage because I never said anything about that. I want to aim my gun to have more precise control over getting stagger shots on enemies. The lock-on is faulty. Sure, it'll work most of the time, but not all of the time. And every time a shot misses eventhough I'm locked on, or the lock-on disengages at the exact moment I choose to fire, it's the game screwing me over. The ability to aim puts the succes or failure completely in my hands.

And breaking intended encounters is pretty much what all these games are about. Finding an exploit, summoning a co-op partner, and certainly kiting enemies away to deal with them one at a time. Bloodborne already allows for you to use your gun in that manner anyway, and the A.I is generally dumb as bricks. The ability to manually aim wouldn't break the encounters anymore than you already can.

Also note that I never mentioned it should be a shooter. Breath of the Wild isn't a shooter either, but you can actually aim a bow.

If it took all of this to nerf the gun and prevent players from using the gun as an actual gun, then the gun should never have been there. I don't like the stamina system in the Souls games either, but I understand why they feel this adds something to the game. It's a design that I dislike, but it makes sense. Not being able to aim a gun that does virtually no damage anyway, in a game where you can already break encounters by kiting enemies, makes no fucking sense.

 

[BrawlMan]

Then why even have the gun in the game at all?

Sick parries.

​

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Then why even have the gun in the game at all? If the gun doesn't really matter, why are there different versions of them in the game. Even one that has longer range. If the damage doesn't matter, why is there a consumable expressly to make your bullets more damaging? And forget the damage because I never said anything about that. I want to aim my gun to have more precise control over getting stagger shots on enemies. The lock-on is faulty. Sure, it'll work most of the time, but not all of the time. And every time a shot misses eventhough I'm locked on, or the lock-on disengages at the exact moment I choose to fire, it's the game screwing me over. The ability to aim puts the succes or failure completely in my hands.

And breaking intended encounters is pretty much what all these games are about. Finding an exploit, summoning a co-op partner, and certainly kiting enemies away to deal with them one at a time. Bloodborne already allows for you to use your gun in that manner anyway, and the A.I is generally dumb as bricks. The ability to manually aim wouldn't break the encounters anymore than you already can.

Also note that I never mentioned it should be a shooter. Breath of the Wild isn't a shooter either, but you can actually aim a bow.

If it took all of this to nerf the gun and prevent players from using the gun as an actual gun, then the gun should never have been there. I don't like the stamina system in the Souls games either, but I understand why they feel this adds something to the game. It's a design that I dislike, but it makes sense. Not being able to aim a gun that does virtually no damage anyway, in a game where you can already break encounters by kiting enemies, makes no fucking sense.

You're really hung up on the fact that it's a gun. It's not really a gun, it's a function. The function is to parry and stun enemies. To that end it could have been anything. Instead of having you fire a gun they could have had you throwing a brick, shooting off a roman candle, using a spring-loaded boxing glove, whatever. They chose a gun because a gun is a cool thing for it to be, not because they wanted the function of a gun.

To explain this with another example: Halo has a weapon, the energy sword. People aren't complaining that the game doesn't let you have big cool sword fights with the energy sword with blocking and parrying and ripostes, because that's not the function of the energy sword. The function of the energy sword is to be a close range power weapon that can one hit kill. It's just the Covenant equivalent of the shotgun in terms of function. It wouldn't matter if it was a sword, an energy shotgun, a short range heat ray, or something else. It exists to be a close range power weapon, it doesn't exist to be a sword, despite being a sword.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Fighting games stories do matter. Otherwise, why would anyone even bother? Character designs, gameplay tool kits, and personalities are just as importatn and usually more so, but I care about most of these characters how they develop. I 100% agree on what Woolie is going on about. Fighting game storties don't have to suck and can have great gameplay at the same time. It's why I like the SFV's individual stories so much. They hang up loose chracter plot threads, or have certain characters finish their specific arc and struggles. It's why I like seeing characters age and go through costume/clothing changes. It's why I love Garou and City Wolves so much when the latter releases. I am tired of the classic Fatal Fury/KoF look and want these characters to move on and grow. It's why I heavily favored III over IV, despite the latter bringing in more characters from III in later editions. SFIV is literally SFII is back baby! I like SFIV, but I don't play it much nowadays compared other Street Fighters and other fighting games.

For the record Pat, there are plenty of fighting games with good or better story not called MK9:

• Bloody Roar 2 & Primal Fury, before Hudsonsoft fucked it up with 4.
• Tekken 3-5. 6 I hated and stopped caring, and 7 is nothing, but set up for 8. 8 actually made me care about the story again.
• The SF: Alpha games
• Skullgirls - Though I never played that often.

​

The thing about fighting game stories is that they're really kind of an afterthought. As far as I can tell when a fighting game is made the companies first design what characters are going to be in the game, and then they contrive some reasons for those characters to fight. This doesn't create compelling stories.

Obviously the reason for this is that the story itself is a fraction of the playtime that the game is going to get. The vast majority of people aren't even going to touch or care about the story. Everyone is there for the versus mode, so designing the versus mode comes above all else.

Because of this it does seem like a cop out to say "we didn't include X character in versus mode because they didn't appear in the story." The versus mode and the story should really be treated separately. In fact, I feel like if fighting games like Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat changed to a free to play model, where the versus mode was a "live service" and they just periodically released stories as expansions or DLC separate from the multiplayer whenever they just had a good idea for the story it would probably make for more compelling stories than trying to shoehorn a story into what is essentially a roster and systems update every few years. They could also tell smaller more personal stories that way because they wouldn't be forced to give every character on the roster something to do in the story just to justify their inclusion in the game.

Currently the push for the fighting game release isn't that someone on the team had a great idea for a story. A new fighting game comes out because the company wants a new version of the game so that people will re-buy the same characters again with a slightly modified move-set and new systems. That's not how great stories get written.

 

[BrawlMan]

They could also tell smaller more personal stories that way because they wouldn't be forced to give every character on the roster something to do in the story just to justify their inclusion in the game.

Street Fighter V pretty much did that with the personal character stories (either bringing character arcs or personal stories to a close for most of them) at the beginning and via all of the roster updates/season DLCs. SF6 does this too with the arcade mode, but it's more set up or an extended explanation of why and what the characters' current situation is. Or why some of them are located in Metro City, or bumming around there.

The thing about fighting game stories is that they're really kind of an afterthought.

I know, but it doesn't excuse the lack of trying in certain cases. I know you're not excusing it, but this is me criticizing those that do it or pull a "nothing can be done". Bloody Roar 2 and Primal Fury didn't treat stories as afterthoughts and clearly had efforts put into both of them. Same with Skullgirls. I've noticed the indies in particular actually care to put in more effort for their stories compared to most AAA fighting games. So it shows it doesn't have to be this way on always being an afterthought and is not always for the best.

I don't mind Gal Guardians: Demon Purge being easier than the standard Castlevania fair, or the Bloodstained: Curse of the Moon sub-series. Those two games could get absurdly difficult for the wrong reasons, and Demon Purge is basically Curse of the Moon 3, all but in name. I am glad it's not a Metroidvania either and is on the more Classicvania angle. There are still unlockable paths to explore, but it's more akin to Rondo of Blood and Ghost n' Goblins than anything Symphony of the Night. The only thing about the game that might suck for some people is that it does the Ghost n' Goblins thing of going back to the beginning of the stage to collect the true weapon to beat the true final boss. I dislike that type of padding as well, but padding in Curse of the Moon 2 is much worse and annoying. Don't even get me started.

I bought Gal Guardians: Demon Purge, and I am already calling it the best modern Castlevania game ever made right now.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Street Fighter V pretty much did that with the personal character stories (either bringing character arcs or personal stories to a close for most of them) at the beginning and via all of the roster updates/season DLCs. SF6 does this too with the arcade mode, but it's more set up or an extended explanation of why and what the characters' current situation is. Or why some of them are located in Metro City, or bumming around there.

Sure, but if we're going back to Street Fighter 5, what exactly did Laura do in the story that warranted her inclusion? They created her because they wanted a new character, and clearly they wanted to represent Jiu-jitsu in the game. That's cool. They included her in the story, because if they're going to add a new character then they have to be IN the story, contributing. But what did she DO? What was her actual point in the story? She was just there so that they could have her in the multiplayer.

 

[BrawlMan]

Sure, but if we're going back to Street Fighter 5, what exactly did Laura do in the story that warranted her inclusion? They created her because they wanted a new character, and clearly they wanted to represent Jiu-jitsu in the game. That's cool. They included her in the story, because if they're going to add a new character then they have to be IN the story, contributing. But what did she DO? What was her actual point in the story? She was just there so that they could have her in the multiplayer.

Laura was made as a substitute for Blanka at the time (electrical powers, Brazillian though 1/2 Japanese), foreign sexy fan-service, the Jiu-jitsu you just mentioned, and to let you know that's Sean's older sister to serve as a link to SFIII (other characters from III showing up in V takes this even further). Gill, Kolin, and Urien (more so the latter two) played a part in why Bison stayed dead (until SF6 brought him back) in III. SFV is a prequel that takes place after IV, but before III. Like I said before, not every character has a closing arc or just thrown in their to lighten the mood and have fun. Which is nothing new for the franchise, and I don't have an exact problem with. I know the main story for SFV sucks (made with no budget and a time with Capcom's financial issues), but the personal stories are so much better.