Some design choice you question

Siyano_v1legacy

New member
Jul 27, 2010
362
0
0
Drathnoxis said:
I would guess that the reason Mario still uses a live system is so they have something somewhat rare to hide throughout the levels. They can hide 1-UP mushrooms around the level so that the explorative player will feel like they are being rewarded, without having to make extra content for collectables or unlockables. They aren't actually worth anything, but they can still give the player a little rush of excitement for finding them. It's basically a placebo.
well for me if I find a secret and get a measly 1 up, im not excited, im almost the opposite, angry to some degree, I did all this work to find a secret and all I get is a measly 1 uP! oh cmon!

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

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

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

sanquin

New member
Jun 8, 2011
1,837
0
0
fix-the-spade said:
Weapon and item degredation!

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

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

Souplex

Souplex Killsplosion Awesomegasm
Jul 29, 2008
10,312
0
0
Dirty Hipsters said:
Souplex said:
I will never understand why dodging can give invincibility frames in the souls series. Dodging should be a simple matter of "Did you get out of the way of the attack". People who roll can live without it if they just git gud.
The invincibility frames represent dodging the enemy attack by moving your body (ducking under an enemy blade, etc). The problem is that in order to have these dodges look realistic they'd have to animate a different dodge for pretty much every attack for every enemy type in the game. That's a shitload of extra animation, literally hundreds of extra hours of work that they'd have to pay for, so instead you get i-frames which take no animation.

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

I-frames aren't really an elegant compromise, but I can totally understand why they're there.
The solution is simple: git gud and block the attack.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
7,120
1,355
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
Souplex said:
Dirty Hipsters said:
Souplex said:
I will never understand why dodging can give invincibility frames in the souls series. Dodging should be a simple matter of "Did you get out of the way of the attack". People who roll can live without it if they just git gud.
The invincibility frames represent dodging the enemy attack by moving your body (ducking under an enemy blade, etc). The problem is that in order to have these dodges look realistic they'd have to animate a different dodge for pretty much every attack for every enemy type in the game. That's a shitload of extra animation, literally hundreds of extra hours of work that they'd have to pay for, so instead you get i-frames which take no animation.

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

I-frames aren't really an elegant compromise, but I can totally understand why they're there.
The solution is simple: git gud and block the attack.
Not everyone wants to play with a shield, and blocking basically turns the game into easy mode.

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

Siyano_v1legacy

New member
Jul 27, 2010
362
0
0
Casual Shinji said:
Not being able to aim your gun in Bloodborne. Just why?!
IIRC you can aim Ludwig's Rifle (and others?) with the monocular. It's not a shooter though. Gun use is mainly a defensive strategy, and it's telling of the game's design when even the main defensive strategy is still an offensive one at heart.
 

Recusant

New member
Nov 4, 2014
699
0
0
sanquin said:
My baffling design choice:
In the TES series, why haven't they added co-op yet? They give us excuses, but all of them can easily be circumvented fairly easily. And I don't doubt that a game like Skyrim would have been a LOT more popular than it already was if it had co-op. Heck, I bet it would have been lauded as the game of the decade if you could play it with even just one friend.
They did. Remember Battlespire?
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
17,358
1,496
118
Dirty Hipsters said:
In Dark Souls it's incredibly easy to break encounters by just using the bow, pulling enemies one by one, and fighting them one at a time.

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

The damage the gun does has nothing to do with it.
There's an easy solution to that; Make the gun lose its ability to hit/damage/pull past a certain distance -- like for example the distance it takes to lock on -- which could be indicated by a greyed-out reticle.

And the game's environments in general are so claustrophobic that there's very few places where you could kite enemies from far away even if you did have inlimited range. And as it stands you can still draw enemies away one by one with rocks to dispose of them in a secluded area. The Soulsborne games are typically all about you finding ways to exploit the mechanics to make it easier on yourself.
hanselthecaretaker said:
It's not a shooter though. Gun use is mainly a defensive strategy, and it's telling of the game's design when even the main defensive strategy is still an offensive one at heart.
I know, but if you put a gun in an action game I expect it to have some level of efficiency, which the Bloodborne guns just do not have.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
7,120
1,355
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
Casual Shinji said:
Dirty Hipsters said:
In Dark Souls it's incredibly easy to break encounters by just using the bow, pulling enemies one by one, and fighting them one at a time.

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

The damage the gun does has nothing to do with it.
There's an easy solution to that; Make the gun lose its ability to hit/damage/pull past a certain distance -- like for example the distance it takes to lock on -- which could be indicated by a greyed-out reticle.

And the game's environments in general are so claustrophobic that there's very few places where you could kite enemies from far away even if you did have inlimited range. And as it stands you can still draw enemies away one by one with rocks to dispose of them in a secluded area. The Soulsborne games are typically all about you finding ways to exploit the mechanics to make it easier on yourself.
What would be the point of free aiming the gun if you couldn't shoot it past lock on distance? Why would you even want that ability? What purpose could it possibly serve?
 

sXeth

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,636
117
68
Dirty Hipsters said:
Seth Carter said:
Speaking of movement speed, the forced 'slow walk" segment. Often used to try and instill some kind of drama, or stop the player from outrunning an NPC spouting exposition. I actually don't know how this one even came about. It's more elegant to just have a cutscene if you want to have this sort of thing then arbitrarily shove player input into it that has no purpose.
Those tend to be transitions between areas and are used to hide loading screens. If they used a cutscene instead then they'd have to load the cutscene and you'd get a loading screen anyway.
The last two cases I've encountered of it definitely weren't loading screens. The Monster Hunter World one comes distinctly after a loading screen already, and Destiny's 2 also appears after a loading screen into the mission (while it could hypothetically be loading the background elements, they're not any more dense then show up without loading screens in other areas)
 

laggyteabag

Scrolling through forums, instead of playing games
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,934
478
88
UK
Gender
He/Him
Ezekiel said:
Hawki said:
Laggyteabag said:
SNIP
Not a fan of silent protagonists either. I think he was talking more about the purity of the gameplay, how it tells a story with so few interruptions. The game wants you to play. Gordon could have talked and it would have been the same.
You got it, pal.

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

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

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

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

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
17,358
1,496
118
Dirty Hipsters said:
What would be the point of free aiming the gun if you couldn't shoot it past lock on distance? Why would you even want that ability? What purpose could it possibly serve?
Not having to rely on the atrocious lock-on for one. This is an issue these games refuse to fix, and with Bloodborne your second most important weapon completely depends on it. You also wouldn't need to account for the sluggish control input.

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

Siyano_v1legacy

New member
Jul 27, 2010
362
0
0
Casual Shinji said:
Dirty Hipsters said:
In Dark Souls it's incredibly easy to break encounters by just using the bow, pulling enemies one by one, and fighting them one at a time.

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

The damage the gun does has nothing to do with it.
There's an easy solution to that; Make the gun lose its ability to hit/damage/pull past a certain distance -- like for example the distance it takes to lock on -- which could be indicated by a greyed-out reticle.

And the game's environments in general are so claustrophobic that there's very few places where you could kite enemies from far away even if you did have inlimited range. And as it stands you can still draw enemies away one by one with rocks to dispose of them in a secluded area. The Soulsborne games are typically all about you finding ways to exploit the mechanics to make it easier on yourself.
hanselthecaretaker said:
It's not a shooter though. Gun use is mainly a defensive strategy, and it's telling of the game's design when even the main defensive strategy is still an offensive one at heart.
I know, but if you put a gun in an action game I expect it to have some level of efficiency, which the Bloodborne guns just do not have.
It?s more like Dante?s guns in DMC or Bayonetta?s in...her games. I?m sure there are other modern examples of guns you can?t free aim, but like you said, they are action games not shooters. Bloodborne was even more deliberate in its design by telling the player guns are a supplementary sideshow at best, seeing as how NPC bullets move slowly enough for the player to dodge.

Another thing is the perspective and level design wouldn?t mesh well with free aim, especially on console. If the main use of a gun in the game?s design is to parry, then lock on seems to be the most efficient and effective way to implement aiming. As for lock on issues, I really don?t know how it could best be remedied. For example if you sort-hold a shoulder button for it you would have to move a major offensive function to a stick click, which would be even more awkward.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
17,358
1,496
118
hanselthecaretaker said:
It?s more like Dante?s guns in DMC or Bayonetta?s in...her games. I?m sure there are other modern examples of guns you can?t free aim, but like you said, they are action games not shooters. Bloodborne was even more deliberate in its design by telling the player guns are a supplementary sideshow at best, seeing as how NPC bullets move slowly enough for the player to dodge.
The difference there being that those games have a solid lock-on and infinite ammo. I'd have little issue with no free aim in Bloodborne if the lock-on wasn't garbage and there wasn't an input delay to firing your gun.
 

Siyano_v1legacy

New member
Jul 27, 2010
362
0
0
Dirty Hipsters said:
Souplex said:
I will never understand why dodging can give invincibility frames in the souls series. Dodging should be a simple matter of "Did you get out of the way of the attack". People who roll can live without it if they just git gud.
The invincibility frames represent dodging the enemy attack by moving your body (ducking under an enemy blade, etc). The problem is that in order to have these dodges look realistic they'd have to animate a different dodge for pretty much every attack for every enemy type in the game. That's a shitload of extra animation, literally hundreds of extra hours of work that they'd have to pay for, so instead you get i-frames which take no animation.

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

I-frames aren't really an elegant compromise, but I can totally understand why they're there.
Aha! Yes I think we?ve got a bird in hand here. Shields would actually have a tactical purpose vs something that just looks cool. Think of all the time and effort that?s gone into designing dozens of game assets and mechanics that most people ultimately think is a waste of time...probably far more than they?d need to rework animations sans i-frames. All they?d really have to do is register the whole hit instead of essentially clipping it for a few frames if you?re in range.

Shield useage isn?t the problem; it?s that Souls generally doesn?t do that dynamic nearly enough justice to be considered compelling. But again, I?m more prone to get bored just bouncing around wrecking everyone?s shit, which has been done to death in nearly every action game. There needs to be enough of a counterpoint in the design or I feel like something?s missing.
 

Siyano_v1legacy

New member
Jul 27, 2010
362
0
0
Casual Shinji said:
hanselthecaretaker said:
It?s more like Dante?s guns in DMC or Bayonetta?s in...her games. I?m sure there are other modern examples of guns you can?t free aim, but like you said, they are action games not shooters. Bloodborne was even more deliberate in its design by telling the player guns are a supplementary sideshow at best, seeing as how NPC bullets move slowly enough for the player to dodge.
The difference there being that those games have a solid lock-on and infinite ammo. I'd have little issue with no free aim in Bloodborne if the lock-on wasn't garbage and there wasn't an input delay to firing your gun.

I?ve never played a game with lock on that didn?t at some point cause issues with targeting correctly. It?s unavoidable when there?s multiple targets close together, or the environment is in the way somehow. Given how much more complex SoulsBorne environments are next to the arenas in DMC and Bayonetta, that?s where most of my issues with it lie, ie around corners or behind pillars, etc.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,184
173
68
Ironman126 said:
Souplex said:
I will never understand why dodging can give invincibility frames in the souls series. Dodging should be a simple matter of "Did you get out of the way of the attack". People who roll can live without it if they just git gud.
I tend to view the invincibility frames as a workaround necessitated by the buggy dogshit that was/is the Souls engine. This is the engine that has trouble telling if you're behind an unaware enemy, how is it supposed to know if you're out of the way of a big fuckoff demon ax?

After a while, players got used to the "feature" and it stuck.
I disagree. Invisibility frames isn't something new nor exclusive to the Souls series.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,184
173
68
Final Fantasy XV Chapter 10, not being able to separate yourself from the Ignis too far, or you'll get stopped in your tracks and scolded. Even if the decision of making Ignis to act accordingly with his disability was bold; it ended up dragging the dungeon exploring for way too long.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
17,358
1,496
118
hanselthecaretaker said:
I?ve never played a game with lock on that didn?t at some point cause issues with targeting correctly. It?s unavoidable when there?s multiple targets close together, or the environment is in the way somehow. Given how much more complex SoulsBorne environments are next to the arenas in DMC and Bayonetta, that?s where most of my issues with it lie, ie around corners or behind pillars, etc.
Sure, lock-on will always be a tad finnicky, but then I can't really think of another game where a secondary projectile weapon with consumeable ammo is tied to it. The lock-on in 3D Zelda games isn't that great either, but projectile weapons you can actually aim.

Dark Souls had a similar issue when using projectile based magic spells, where for some baffling reason you couldn't manually aim your soul arrows. But at the very least these would recharge at bonfires. Maybe if Bloodborne had a feature like that in place the gun mechanic wouldn't piss me off as much.
 

Siyano_v1legacy

New member
Jul 27, 2010
362
0
0
Casual Shinji said:
hanselthecaretaker said:
I?ve never played a game with lock on that didn?t at some point cause issues with targeting correctly. It?s unavoidable when there?s multiple targets close together, or the environment is in the way somehow. Given how much more complex SoulsBorne environments are next to the arenas in DMC and Bayonetta, that?s where most of my issues with it lie, ie around corners or behind pillars, etc.
Sure, lock-on will always be a tad finnicky, but then I can't really think of another game where a secondary projectile weapon with consumeable ammo is tied to it. The lock-on in 3D Zelda games isn't that great either, but projectile weapons you can actually aim.

Dark Souls had a similar issue when using projectile based magic spells, where for some baffling reason you couldn't manually aim your soul arrows. But at the very least these would recharge at bonfires. Maybe if Bloodborne had a feature like that in place the gun mechanic wouldn't piss me off as much.

True, but in Bloodborne you have to literally be popping off shots like Yosemite Sam to run out, since nearly every other enemy drops them. I don?t think I?ve ever dropped below 150 in storage and I?ve only gotten decent at parrying towards the end of my first play through, including all main chalice dungeons.