Nier: Automata Impressions

[Fox12]

For people saying the game is too easy on normal, it kinda is apart from some side quests that are just out of your weight class for a while. Until route C. Then the game checks if you're on point with your skill.

I just really wish that there was a difficulty between normal and hard.

At the start of the game on normal difficulty you can take like 8-10 hits before you die, on hard you die after 2. THAT'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE. Such a huge difference in fact that the only time I've died in the game on normal was when I got insta-killed by a crusher in the factory.

On hard I died 3 times in the first combat room with the first group of enemies and the buzzsaw arm mini-boss before giving up on hard because I got sick of replaying the opening flight tutorial.

I feel like that's really poor balancing. If on normal I can easily beat enemies double my level (level 17 vs enemies at level 36) then there's something seriously wrong with the challenge curve.

But isn't that somewhat standard with Platinum games? You can breeze through the early game and then the game decides to see if you've been lazy?

Not to mention that this isn't even a platinum game. It's a Nier game with way better controls. And it's really good at being that.

 

[JagermanXcell]

For people saying the game is too easy on normal, it kinda is apart from some side quests that are just out of your weight class for a while. Until route C. Then the game checks if you're on point with your skill.

I just really wish that there was a difficulty between normal and hard.

At the start of the game on normal difficulty you can take like 8-10 hits before you die, on hard you die after 2. THAT'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE. Such a huge difference in fact that the only time I've died in the game on normal was when I got insta-killed by a crusher in the factory.

On hard I died 3 times in the first combat room with the first group of enemies and the buzzsaw arm mini-boss before giving up on hard because I got sick of replaying the opening flight tutorial.

I feel like that's really poor balancing. If on normal I can easily beat enemies double my level (level 17 vs enemies at level 36) then there's something seriously wrong with the challenge curve.

But isn't that somewhat standard with Platinum games? You can breeze through the early game and then the game decides to see if you've been lazy?

This is the more JRPG with a Platinum twist than their more traditional character action games, so balancing issues being apparent isn't a stretch.

Though while the difficulty issue might just be classic Platinum balancing issues, it also may have come out of request from Taro to have Normal be a tad bit easy (till Route C) because he has a philosophy on giving the player a fairly smooth time through to have a nicer experience and grasp on the story. He even stated in interviews that the difficulty settings are there just for those who want a challenge (no trophies for beating the game on any difficulty is evidence of that).

That being said, he's not wrong. I wish there wasn't such a huge power gap between Normal and Hard, while the gap between Hard and Very Hard is "you die in 2 hits instead of 1". Thats just a blatant oversight after how well balanced the demo was. It doesn't help that the punishment at the beginning of a Hard mode run is 20min of progress erased per death.

 

[sXeth]

I was kind of haphazardly following an LP of it to gauge potential interest for it once I'm done with other games (or it goes on sale, whichever). My initial impression was that the shifting gameplay was a turn off, but that actually seems to be the highlight. When it gets into an RPG with quests and dialogue and stuff it just grinds down the pace to molasses.

The RPG mechanics from what I saw just seemed confusing, doubled by meta-stuff like the GUI components counting as equipment.

 

[CritialGaming]

Difficulty levels increasingly seem to be outdated and lazy design. Back when games were simplistic like Contra or Castlevania maybe an Easy mode made sense, but now there are so many ways to naturally make a game more difficult or not.

Level design and traversal, dynamic AI, combat options, etc. The challenge should already be there but in varying degrees based upon what a given goal might be. Go climb that peak with a treacherous path or more challenging enemies to get a super rare item for example.

There should be no place left for the mere, "Oh, not tough enough? Well then try this option with more bullet/hit sponging with less health" or whatever.

Blegh.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Is the original game worth picking up? Never played the series before.

 

[CritialGaming]

Difficulty levels increasingly seem to be outdated and lazy design. Back when games were simplistic like Contra or Castlevania maybe an Easy mode made sense, but now there are so many ways to naturally make a game more difficult or not.

Level design and traversal, dynamic AI, combat options, etc. The challenge should already be there but in varying degrees based upon what a given goal might be. Go climb that peak with a treacherous path or more challenging enemies to get a super rare item for example.

There should be no place left for the mere, "Oh, not tough enough? Well then try this option with more bullet/hit sponging with less health" or whatever.

Blegh.

I think there are good reasons for them though. Difficulty modes allow your game to be accessable by more people, and thus enjoyed by more people. Imagine gamers who would love to play your game but have nerve problems, disabilities, etc, that prevent them from playing your Dark Souls mode or whatever. But easy mode, allows those players to get through your game despite their issues. Isn't then worth letting everyone experience your game.

People who want the challenge can play the harder modes. No big deal. It doesn't take anything away from their more challenging experience to allow others to play on an easier setting. And frankly it's not even that much effort to code, so it doesn't hurt development budget or time.

 

[CritialGaming]

Difficulty levels increasingly seem to be outdated and lazy design. Back when games were simplistic like Contra or Castlevania maybe an Easy mode made sense, but now there are so many ways to naturally make a game more difficult or not.

Level design and traversal, dynamic AI, combat options, etc. The challenge should already be there but in varying degrees based upon what a given goal might be. Go climb that peak with a treacherous path or more challenging enemies to get a super rare item for example.

There should be no place left for the mere, "Oh, not tough enough? Well then try this option with more bullet/hit sponging with less health" or whatever.

Blegh.

I think there are good reasons for them though. Difficulty modes allow your game to be accessable by more people, and thus enjoyed by more people. Imagine gamers who would love to play your game but have nerve problems, disabilities, etc, that prevent them from playing your Dark Souls mode or whatever. But easy mode, allows those players to get through your game despite their issues. Isn't then worth letting everyone experience your game.

People who want the challenge can play the harder modes. No big deal. It doesn't take anything away from their more challenging experience to allow others to play on an easier setting. And frankly it's not even that much effort to code, so it doesn't hurt development budget or time.

A game doesn't have to be hardcore to scrap the notion of difficulty levels though. Everything from GTA to Journey to Souls type games work perfectly well without having to select a difficulty mode. They serve as little more than labels that sour the experience right from the beginning; which is really the "correct" one to choose for optimal enjoyment anyways...it's an artificial construct on top of something that's already artificial.

As far as being disabled, a reasonably capable person would either be able to play a game or not, regardless of selecting a difficulty. There are also games that can automatically adjust certain parameters if it senses the player having trouble with something. At this point development technology has advanced enough that studios could implement something like a "Guided Mode" that could be toggled if needed.

Basically anything to ditch the typical difficulty select that most games still cling to. IMO in terms of game design it's become a lazy, cheap and derivative turnoff.

 

[Maximum Bert]

Is the original game worth picking up? Never played the series before.

Obviously it is going to depend on what you want out of it. If you like Nier Automatas story and characters or rather writing in general then quite possibly yes if you just like its gameplay then absolutely not.

I have not finished Nier yet (bought it late last year) but I find it a real mixed bag the sidequests are annoying as hell but I do them because the writing is great and I honestly want to hear the characters converse on them as well as find out more on the world also the combat in Nier while functional is for me at least not very engaging.

I will go back to Nier simply because I find the world, characters and story so compelling I feel the slog of some of the gameplay is worth it also you can skip pretty much all sidequests if you wish which may save your sanity.

As an overall product Nier Automata is much easier to recommend but Nier is different enough to be its own beast. It is also nice seeing how the world and landscape has changed from Nier to Automata.

Personal reasons why I have not finished Nier yet are I hate the sidequests but love the banter when doing them so sorta makes me do stuff I hate to get stuff I do not, the combat is not very engaging outside of a few encounters i.e bosses. Some of the drop rates for parts are annoyingly low and it is tedious to get them so much so that I pretty much stopped caring about the idea of fully upgrading weapons and finally their are other games I wanted to play that gave me more overall pleasure such as Nioh and Nier Automata.

 

[zombiejoe]

I beat Nier Automata a little while ago, and I am still constantly thinking about the game. Really loved the experience, the smooth gameplay, the story, the sheer amount of experimentation both allowed to the player and from the game itself. I'm glad that it's getting generally high praise from the critics, and hopefully this will ensure we get to see more of Yoko Taro and his craziness in the future.

 

[CritialGaming]

Difficulty levels increasingly seem to be outdated and lazy design. Back when games were simplistic like Contra or Castlevania maybe an Easy mode made sense, but now there are so many ways to naturally make a game more difficult or not.

Level design and traversal, dynamic AI, combat options, etc. The challenge should already be there but in varying degrees based upon what a given goal might be. Go climb that peak with a treacherous path or more challenging enemies to get a super rare item for example.

There should be no place left for the mere, "Oh, not tough enough? Well then try this option with more bullet/hit sponging with less health" or whatever.

Blegh.

I think there are good reasons for them though. Difficulty modes allow your game to be accessable by more people, and thus enjoyed by more people. Imagine gamers who would love to play your game but have nerve problems, disabilities, etc, that prevent them from playing your Dark Souls mode or whatever. But easy mode, allows those players to get through your game despite their issues. Isn't then worth letting everyone experience your game.

People who want the challenge can play the harder modes. No big deal. It doesn't take anything away from their more challenging experience to allow others to play on an easier setting. And frankly it's not even that much effort to code, so it doesn't hurt development budget or time.

A game doesn't have to be hardcore to scrap the notion of difficulty levels though. Everything from GTA to Journey to Souls type games work perfectly well without having to select a difficulty mode. They serve as little more than labels that sour the experience right from the beginning; which is really the "correct" one to choose for optimal enjoyment anyways...it's an artificial construct on top of something that's already artificial.

As far as being disabled, a reasonably capable person would either be able to play a game or not, regardless of selecting a difficulty. There are also games that can automatically adjust certain parameters if it senses the player having trouble with something. At this point development technology has advanced enough that studios could implement something like a "Guided Mode" that could be toggled if needed.

Basically anything to ditch the typical difficulty select that most games still cling to. IMO in terms of game design it's become a lazy, cheap and derivative turnoff.

I hear you, and Dark Souls does have a difficulty setting (it just isnt obvious). But there is something to be said for just giving people the option of experiencing games without nessescarily having to deal with the game's challenge.

It's better for gaming overall to have more options. And look, it could be labeled "Guided mode, Story mode, etc" the effect is still the same. And having these easier modes doesn't affect you and your Harder experiences. Those aren't going anywhere. And I think that by saying there shouldn't be easy modes is kind of silly. A lot of gamers see easy-mode as a threat to their serious gaming challenges and it really isn't.

Like I said, there are all kinds of reasons why somebody couldn't naturally get through a game like Dark Souls on their own. But could enjoy the game under some sort of easy mode. Games have a lot more to offer than challenge. That's something to consider I think.

 

[CritialGaming]

^^My whole point is that there are other, better ways to do difficulty. Or at least there can be at this point. It isn't about "preserving the challenge" as much as it is about unnecessarily segregating the experience, based on experience. A person playing a game on "easy" could end up with a very different impression of a game vs someone playing on "hard", and indirectly influence a potential player to give it a try or not.

Challenge should be more superfluous and woven into the design, not tacked on like a cheap suit.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Is the original game worth picking up? Never played the series before.

Obviously it is going to depend on what you want out of it. If you like Nier Automatas story and characters or rather writing in general then quite possibly yes if you just like its gameplay then absolutely not.

I have not finished Nier yet (bought it late last year) but I find it a real mixed bag the sidequests are annoying as hell but I do them because the writing is great and I honestly want to hear the characters converse on them as well as find out more on the world also the combat in Nier while functional is for me at least not very engaging.

I will go back to Nier simply because I find the world, characters and story so compelling I feel the slog of some of the gameplay is worth it also you can skip pretty much all sidequests if you wish which may save your sanity.

As an overall product Nier Automata is much easier to recommend but Nier is different enough to be its own beast. It is also nice seeing how the world and landscape has changed from Nier to Automata.

Personal reasons why I have not finished Nier yet are I hate the sidequests but love the banter when doing them so sorta makes me do stuff I hate to get stuff I do not, the combat is not very engaging outside of a few encounters i.e bosses. Some of the drop rates for parts are annoyingly low and it is tedious to get them so much so that I pretty much stopped caring about the idea of fully upgrading weapons and finally their are other games I wanted to play that gave me more overall pleasure such as Nioh and Nier Automata.

I will warn you about Nier (and Drakengard), Taro hates 2 things above all others, children and completionists. Platinum was able to reign his hatred completionists in, but in previous games he had full creative control. To get all the endings usually requires you to grind until you despise the game. Drakengard 1 was the worst about it, but Nier was pretty bad too. There are plenty of skippable sidequests, but not all of them are skippable to get the final ending.

 

[Worgen]

I'm liking it but I have misgivings about the open world nature of it. It has a ton of side quests and the competitionist in me has to do them all before doing more of the story. Which makes me run the risk of getting bored and doing other things.

 

[Worgen]

I'm liking it but I have misgivings about the open world nature of it. It has a ton of side quests and the competitionist in me has to do them all before doing more of the story. Which makes me run the risk of getting bored and doing other things.

If it makes you feel any better, the quests aren't missable. You can do them in chapter select after completing ending C. The hassle is figuring out which chapters aren't so tied up in the story that they allow you to do the quests.

Actually it does help. I can finish the few I'm doing then just do more story and not worry about them so much.

 

[drednoahl]

I don't really consider this a Platinum game. The way I saw it even before playing the demo was that Platinum was basically coming in to spruce up Nier's combat. And, from playing the demo, that's exactly what they did. Automata is still a Nier game with the same director. Expecting a full-fledged Platinum combat system like Bayonetta wasn't going to happen.

Speaking of Bayonetta and as someone already mentioned, Bayonetta used "R2" for its dodge. I never had issue with that. I imagine you can remap the dodge to another button especially on PC and on PS4 you can remap all buttons for any game as well. I never have to use L3 for sprint again, I'm using R2 for sprint in Horizon for example.

My main concern for Automata is whether the characters will be good. The 1st game was carried by Kaine and Weiss and the main androids don't come off as interesting at all in Automata. Nier's story has some issues even more so after watching Super Bunnyhop's recent Nier video. Hopefully, you don't have to play Automata multiple times to reveal the whole story like the original, which wasn't near (pun unintended) that amazing enough to lock details behind multiple playthroughs.

The demo doesn't give the impression that Automata is Platinum at their best I agree, but the demo is effectively the beginning of the game before you can counter and use witch-time like mechanics. Late game is very similar to Bayonetta where taunting (not as important as dodge offset is in Bayonetta - thankfully imo because my hands cramp up playing Bayonetta now,) countering and witch time give a real risk/reward factor to the combat in Automata. For me the combat is sublime and really satisfying however it took a bit of testing different loadouts to find what I wanted.

The first Nier game was graft I agree, although I think the story was really good after I'd done the 'A' ending and got some way through 'B.' I'm not that bothered by the characters in Automata - with their eyes covered the models have limited expression, and where I am in my playthrough now I don't think I'm supposed to care about them or even like them. In all my time gaming finishing Nier properly is one of the most incredible experiences I've had, but I'm in no rush to repeat that. Nier Automata is much more playable though; just for the hell of it I'll grind for half an hour and I'm having fun. I am happy to see the different endings because they are much easier to get than the one's in the first Nier.

That said I am not liking the invisible walls at all....seriously Automata has like the worst invisible walls I've seen for a long while.

 

[BrawlMan]

I like this games, but I loathe the save system. Some of the bosses are bullshit and certain gimmicks can wear thin too. Otherwise, story I love, music is spectacular, and I can't wait to unlock the rest of the endings. I am currently on path C right now.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

That said I am not liking the invisible walls at all....seriously Automata has like the worst invisible walls I've seen for a long while.

Yeah, that's the first thing I noticed when I got into the city ruins.

"Hey, I wonder what's through that door..."
"Oh, you thought that was a door? Nope, it's a wall."
"Well I wonder what's in that crack between the buildings..."
"Fuck you, more walls."

I don't even understand why they did it. There are tons of spots where the models could fit through doors and cracks in the environment, and everything on the other side is clearly modeled (even if it is totally useless space), so why not allow us to go there? A tiny empty room filled with debris is fine, an invisible wall in front of the tiny empty room filled with debris is annoying.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

I'm done with it and... I liked it, a lot, even.

It wasn't as good of a an action game as most of Platinum's actual action games and that's fine because there are some concessions to be made when you want to to that kind of combat in the context of a fully fleshed out RPG. But as an Action RPG it worked fairly well, it was one of the few games in the genre where the combat was enjoyable for its own sake which is more than one can say for Witcher 3, Final Fantasy XV or any given Elder Scrolls game. It was fast, dynamic and overall pretty satisfying. I can dig it.

The meat of the game is obviously in the story and the themes it explores and overall it did explore them well. I'm unfamiliar with the first Nier or the Drakengard games, all I knew about Yoko Taro was that he's some quirky japanese man in a mask who has a reputation of making very subversive fantasy games and now that I've played Automata I kinda feel bad for having missed out on his other games. Automata is certainly a game that has a lot to say. All of its characters are robots but with these robots it tells a story about what it means to be human. I'd hate to spoil the game for anyone so I'm not gonna get deeper into that but Nier Automata is a game that asks a lot of pretty difficult questions and presents a lot of pretty uncomfortable answers.

Also, it made a better point about the nature of war than any game about actual war (with maybe Spec Ops: The Line being the exception) ever did. Gotta give it some credit for that.

 

[The Wykydtron]

I'm having so much fun with Automata. I'm 11 hours in and let's just say that the City Ruins are the least interesting environment in the game. I still can't get over the Amusement Park and how creepy yet charming it is. They do go places with the simplistic enemy designs later, you're literally at the start of the game.

The controls are a bit weird yes but you'll get used to them after a while. The combat is very Bayonetta which can only be a good thing and I like how for once the gun you have is actually more effective than a pea shooter unlike every other character action game released since Devil May Cry.

EDIT: Just got to the start of route 3 and holy fucking shit. I was not ready for the game to just drop so many bombs on me within one hour. Automata has exceeded all of my expectations and then some.

Spoiler

RIP 2B. I thought the Bunker blowing up was shocking but damn I was not expecting her to just drop 10 minutes after. I hope she comes back but I don't think she will, the death scene was just so perfectly done. The gameplay leading up to her death was very well done too, a lot of the time the MC dying in a cutscene can feel shitty because "wtf give me control and i'd have ruined that guy" but Automata really hammered home how utterly fucked 2B was. Mission objective was pretty clearly implied as: Find a hole to crawl into and die quietly. The soldiers were just the final kick in the teeth.

It's not often a game can kill off Based Girl and survive but Automata pulls it off.

 

[Zach Wymore]

This game doesn't come close to being GOTY imo nor a 'must have', but it at the very least is worth trying out.

To avoid any spoilers, i'll be as non-specific as possible.
:The game is incredibly short for one. Getting 100 percent completion (weapons, skills, pods, chips, index, quests, etc) only took me roughly 33 hours, and that was while consistently playing on hardmode.
:This game doesn't quite qualify as a genuine 'open world' though many claim the game to be so. Each area is rather small or clustered with obstructions/ invisible walls, thus making it a very linear experience.
:While combat/movement mechanics are fluent, repetition sets in fast. You don't feel a sense of accomplishment for anything you do.

What really drives the nail in the coffin for me is the fact that this game should be thriving with its story telling and the characters involved. Everyone is boring or follows a typical trope of some kind. 2B is basically every would-be lonewolf badass you've ever seen in jrpgs or anime. 9s is the epitome of wimp trying to get into the spotlight (or at the very least, get out of the friendzone). A2 is a slightly less bland version of 2B. These 3 playable characters get about as much color and development in their life collectively as a side quest npc you only meet once. Now imagine how bad it is for the actual side characters. You can't get attached to anyone or anything in here, even if the game desperately name drops and refers to things from previous titles. This measly attempt at nostalgia barely adds a sense of importance to the world you are involved in and the 'people' around you.

TL;DR

Bland characters, small bland world with no sense of pace in story telling, fun yet repetitive combat. Too short a game.