Welp, welcome to the world of video games. Where realism is overrated, and usually unneeded. Especially in my over the top, demon killing, FPS.
I would pay money to that type of game! You're speaking my language!
Have you played Ultrakill? That game lets you parry so many projectiles, you can even parry your own bullets as you fire them to make them come out of the gun faster and deal more damage. It is exactly as awesome as it sounds (and earns you a style bonus).
If your game bills itself on being a hyper-realistic simulation of a specific activity, such as warfare, then yes, being as realistic as possible is important. On the other hand, if your game is essentially high fantasy with guns (e.g. 'Doom: The Dark Ages'), then realism should only be included where it makes the game more fun, and discarded where it makes the game less fun. After all, the game you are talking about doesn't to my knowledge involve 18th-century French musketeers or WWI troopers and trenches.
Love you back.
Which ones?
In addition, Simmons and I are on the same wavelength right now. Realism sucks indeed.
I've played a LOT of RPGs in my day, and the FF7 Remake project easily has the best hybrid action system of any combat system in any other RPG I've ever played. The sheer amount of things you can combine and do between skills and materia setups is just crazy.
Before I watch the video I think the simplest answer to the question is that we have the technology to have tight enough button control inputs to make parrying feel good.
Yeah it's basically my whole thing- parrying is fine, I get why people like it, but no one thing is ever so good that it has to be everywhere, and now it's kind of everywhere and it's a little annoying.
Yahtzee has middle ground to what you've both said. He doesn't find parries to be as problematic as the gaming sphere makes them, but does state that not every game needs one, if the developers don't know how to do them right, or just throw them in their for the sake of it, or because Arkham, Rising, Souls, and Sekiro did it.
As always, there's a line. If you make the game too easy, people will get bored and walk away- but if you make it so arcane and inscrutable that only one person in the world can figure it out, well... that one person will be thrilled, but nobody else is going to play. Unfortunately, a lot of people think that going toward the latter means that the game is good.
Needs to strike a balance. Like a bell curve, where the bulk fall square between the two extremes of playing themselves and being impossible.
I think it's a good thing for games to have a high skill ceiling and a learning curve. Emphasis is on curve. There is a very limited audience for games with millions of complicated interacting mechanics that just throw you in at the deep end and expect you to figure it out. I mean, there are people who are into that sort of thing but most will throw up their hands and then just put the game on their backlog, probably never returning to it. My experience with E.Y.E. Divine Cybermancy, by the way. And I'm sure it's far from the worst offender there.
