Your video game hot take(s) thread

[hanselthecaretaker2]

Oh, we're b*tching about lock-on mechanics? My only complaint is when the lock-on dictates my character's physical positioning. I've had a few instances where my being locked-on to an enemy who's precariously close to a ledge and goes over, and my locked-on status caused me to swing around to keep the enemy screen-centered, but also threw me over the ledge. I've died a lot in Souls games, but those kinds of deaths are the most frustrating because it's not a mistake I made [using the game's mechanics,] rather a fault of a fundamental system within the game that I can't control outside of toggling it on or off, and in some instances, the reflexes required to acknowledge and effectively execute a change is nigh unreasonable. I'd say it's not a fault of being locked-on, but a fault of the system allowing the lock-on to change the position of my character and not just the camera.

This kinda ties back into my point as to why a lock-on function that performs perfectly or near it in pure action or hack n slash games wouldn’t really fit in Souls framework. Environmental hazards can be as much of an enemy as normal enemies. All four shoulder buttons are dedicated to primary attack/defensive commands, because sometimes during enemy encounters the player needs to use the right stick to move the camera around during spots where the environment is simultaneously a hazard.

The face buttons are for secondary commands like flask use, environmental interaction, dodge/roll, and jumping. None of those should ever require camera use on right stick so they work best there. Maybe strong attacks could be made with an L1 hold so R2 could be freed up for a soft lock or something, but then the player shouldn’t have to hold anything else to perform another primary attack either, or while locking on. Or maybe during combat a face button like triangle could be freed up, but that would be context-sensitive which would mean Souls environments and enemies would need to be separated into more defined zones like action games.

Maybe that’s partly why a more intuitive system hasn’t been implemented yet. There’s too many variables to ever feel intuitive on current gamepad layouts without some sort of compromise. In this case it’s basically a stick click/nudge.

 

[Gordon_4]

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.

I’ve always felt the best way to look at fighting games is they don’t have A story, they have stories. Certainly some of them have a central thread - Tekken and the ongoing soap opera that is the Mishima/Kazama family nonsense (that I love) - but generally each character has their own reason to be there. It doesn’t have to add to the main story although it can be fun to see them intersect. Like take Lilli Rochefort from Tekken 5. She contributes nothing to the aforementioned soap opera narrative at all. But it is undeniably funny to watch her spend her time with the tournament basically as one long excuse to wind Asuka Kazama up like an old toy because she can’t figure out how to ask her on a date. Or Marshall just wanting to run his restaurant despite the many roadblocks life throws at him.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

This kinda ties back into my point as to why a lock-on function that performs perfectly or near it in pure action or hack n slash games wouldn’t really fit in Souls framework. Environmental hazards can be as much of an enemy as normal enemies. All four shoulder buttons are dedicated to primary attack/defensive commands, because sometimes during enemy encounters the player needs to use the right stick to move the camera around during spots where the environment is simultaneously a hazard.

The face buttons are for secondary commands like flask use, environmental interaction, dodge/roll, and jumping. None of those should ever require camera use on right stick so they work best there. Maybe strong attacks could be made with an L1 hold so R2 could be freed up for a soft lock or something, but then the player shouldn’t have to hold anything else to perform another primary attack either, or while locking on. Or maybe during combat a face button like triangle could be freed up, but that would be context-sensitive which would mean Souls environments and enemies would need to be separated into more defined zones like action games.

Maybe that’s partly why a more intuitive system hasn’t been implemented yet. There’s too many variables to ever feel intuitive on current gamepad layouts without some sort of compromise. In this case it’s basically a stick click/nudge.

If the game would just hit the enemy I'm pointing the left stick at when I attack them, lock-on literally wouldn't be required at all in a Souls game. The only reason you use lock-on is so you actually hit the enemy you're trying to hit. The game can do that for you.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

If the game would just hit the enemy I'm pointing the left stick at when I attack them, lock-on literally wouldn't be required at all in a Souls game. The only reason you use lock-on is so you actually hit the enemy you're trying to hit. The game can do that for you.

I haven’t played the older games much lately so maybe there were some attacks that didn’t hit the same way as locked on, idk. I do distinctly remember being able to play it without lock-on at least here and there without these whiffing issues you speak of.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I haven’t played the older games much lately so maybe there were some attacks that didn’t hit the same way as locked on, idk. I do distinctly remember being able to play it without lock-on at least here and there without these whiffing issues you speak of.

Then what do you use lock-on for if not to make sure you character doesn't miss like 5 feet to the left? You don't need it for the camera, you said the reason the attack/defense is on the shoulders is so you can move the camera. Even with games with the main buttons being the face buttons, I don't have trouble moving the camera and most action games have faster enemies that require more camera adjusting than Souls.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

Then what do you use lock-on for if not to make sure you character doesn't miss like 5 feet to the left? You don't need it for the camera, you said the reason the attack/defense is on the shoulders is so you can move the camera. Even with games with the main buttons being the face buttons, I don't have trouble moving the camera and most action games have faster enemies that require more camera adjusting than Souls.

Lock-on is generally a bit of a crutch, at least for melee. It’s primarily meant to keep the character facing the enemy so they can do things like flank, strafe, dodge roll, etc. without changing perspective during prolonged fights. It shouldn’t be needed for just hacking down whatever’s in front of the player.

As an old personal example, in Blighttown there are narrow ledges with poor lighting where archers shoot from different directions, and there are enemies in front blocking the path. Falling means death. The lock-on would screw the player if they need to turn 180 to block arrows with a shield by flicking back on the left stick, then turn back to fight the enemy. Even just hearing the archer release an arrow lets the player know to turn around with shield raised. The camera doesn’t even need to move in that instance, only the player character. Once the enemy is dealt with on the ledge, the player can then turn around and also turn the camera with them while staying in place to use lock-on for a ranged attack on the archer. Or, if the enemy in front hasn’t been killed yet and the player wanted to turn the camera on the archer while guarding against the ledge enemy, that’s also possible. The game has to account for people with different play styles wanting to do different things.

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

The mosquitos in Elden Ring made me re-think the very value of lock-on mechanics in Souls games. HARD lock on to this mosquito no matter what else is going on.

Funny enough I thought Forspoken's approach was elegant- it's more of a softer lock-on. Even with all the flashy whiz-band of everything else going on, it would break the lock-on enough to avoid the mosquito situation and keep me always in the relevant action.

 

[BrawlMan]

The mosquitos in Elden Ring made me re-think the very value of lock-on mechanics in Souls games. HARD lock on to this mosquito no matter what else is going on.

Funny enough I thought Forspoken's approach was elegant- it's more of a softer lock-on. Even with all the flashy whiz-band of everything else going on, it would break the lock-on enough to avoid the mosquito situation and keep me always in the relevant action.

Now that you have beaten the game, did you check out those combo videos yet?

 

[Old_Hunter_77]

Now that you have beaten the game, did you check out those combo videos yet?

Yeah, they're neat, thx

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Lock-on is generally a bit of a crutch, at least for melee. It’s primarily meant to keep the character facing the enemy so they can do things like flank, strafe, dodge roll, etc. without changing perspective during prolonged fights. It shouldn’t be needed for just hacking down whatever’s in front of the player.

As an old personal example, in Blighttown there are narrow ledges with poor lighting where archers shoot from different directions, and there are enemies in front blocking the path. Falling means death. The lock-on would screw the player if they need to turn 180 to block arrows with a shield by flicking back on the left stick, then turn back to fight the enemy. Even just hearing the archer release an arrow lets the player know to turn around with shield raised. The camera doesn’t even need to move in that instance, only the player character. Once the enemy is dealt with on the ledge, the player can then turn around and also turn the camera with them while staying in place to use lock-on for a ranged attack on the archer. Or, if the enemy in front hasn’t been killed yet and the player wanted to turn the camera on the archer while guarding against the ledge enemy, that’s also possible. The game has to account for people with different play styles wanting to do different things.

Why do you think people use lock-on as a "crutch" in the 1st place? If the game just had your character attack the enemy you press the left stick at (like 99% of games), people wouldn't use it. The game is setup for your player character to attack directly in front of you so if your position (mainly character facing direction) is just slightly off, you'll miss.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

Why do you think people use lock-on as a "crutch" in the 1st place? If the game just had your character attack the enemy you press the left stick at (like 99% of games), people wouldn't use it. The game is setup for your player character to attack directly in front of you so if your position (mainly character facing direction) is just slightly off, you'll miss.

I guess a lot of these people replying must’ve never hit anything then -

https://www.reddit.com/r/darksouls/s/mkMi0VNcrq

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I guess a lot of these people replying must’ve never hit anything then -

https://www.reddit.com/r/darksouls/s/mkMi0VNcrq

The secret to not dying to the "yonky camera" is to never lock on an enemy bigger than yourself, except when you need to quickly recenter it.

It really depends, against mobs I generally lock on, against bosses I generally dont, but that depends too.

Other than that, being able to roll in any direction felt so much better than playing locked, personally.

Why would someone say to lock-on to basically everything but bigger enemies? In your opinion, why is that? The game, like basically every other game, can have your character attack the enemy you're trying to hit without the lock-on and you can be able to roll in any direction you want (from the last quote from that thread). I don't understand why you don't want a simple QOL improvement that just about every single game that's mainly 3rd-person melee combat has had since the PS2 generation. Outside of like PS1 and some PS2 games, I've never used lock-on in a game except for very specific circumstances since then outside of Souls games.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

The secret to not dying to the "yonky camera" is to never lock on an enemy bigger than yourself, except when you need to quickly recenter it.

It really depends, against mobs I generally lock on, against bosses I generally dont, but that depends too.

Other than that, being able to roll in any direction felt so much better than playing locked, personally.

Why would someone say to lock-on to basically everything but bigger enemies? In your opinion, why is that? The game, like basically every other game, can have your character attack the enemy you're trying to hit without the lock-on and you can be able to roll in any direction you want (from the last quote from that thread). I don't understand why you don't want a simple QOL improvement that just about every single game that's mainly 3rd-person melee combat has had since the PS2 generation. Outside of like PS1 and some PS2 games, I've never used lock-on in a game except for very specific circumstances since then outside of Souls games.

The first one also added this -
-You run more precisely when looked off, which means you need less rolling and consequently can hit more often, but it also helps backstabbing enemies quicker.

All in all, I keep locked on if I'm gonna parry or aim for magic attacks

Spoiler: Others

- Only lock on for the range attacks, other than that absolutely not. The dodge while locked on an enemy is just so bad

- I look at it like: If my positioning is important, I won’t lock on. If it doesn’t matter where I’m at, I’ll lock on

- Lock on for ranged. Don’t use otherwise.

- it's very situational really, depends on which weapons you're running, what place you're in or what enemies you're fighting. But eventually once you develop enough muscle memory the lock on isn't even that important, it's just helpful at times

- My basic rule is this: don't lock on unless it's a knight enemy. I recently played through the game and had a blast playing unlocked, and locked on basically only for basic knight enemies and the artorias fight. Other than that, being able to roll in any direction felt so much better than playing locked, personally. And this is coming from someone who played DS3 as their first game and suffered through playing DSR locked on.

- honestly i feel like locking on is all personal preference or just a habit sometimes. absolutely nothing wrong with it!

So yeah, mileage varies and there is no definitive answer or personal experience. I’ve already detailed all my reasonings in the last few posts above and knew this would devolve into an endless back and forth, because you’re refusing to acknowledge anything beyond or own reasoning. I’ll leave it at that because dragging it out any further is an exercise in futility.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

The first one also added this -
-You run more precisely when looked off, which means you need less rolling and consequently can hit more often, but it also helps backstabbing enemies quicker.

All in all, I keep locked on if I'm gonna parry or aim for magic attacks

Spoiler: Others

- Only lock on for the range attacks, other than that absolutely not. The dodge while locked on an enemy is just so bad

- I look at it like: If my positioning is important, I won’t lock on. If it doesn’t matter where I’m at, I’ll lock on

- Lock on for ranged. Don’t use otherwise.

- it's very situational really, depends on which weapons you're running, what place you're in or what enemies you're fighting. But eventually once you develop enough muscle memory the lock on isn't even that important, it's just helpful at times

- My basic rule is this: don't lock on unless it's a knight enemy. I recently played through the game and had a blast playing unlocked, and locked on basically only for basic knight enemies and the artorias fight. Other than that, being able to roll in any direction felt so much better than playing locked, personally. And this is coming from someone who played DS3 as their first game and suffered through playing DSR locked on.

- honestly i feel like locking on is all personal preference or just a habit sometimes. absolutely nothing wrong with it!

So yeah, mileage varies and there is no definitive answer or personal experience. I’ve already detailed all my reasonings in the last few posts above and knew this would devolve into an endless back and forth, because you’re refusing to acknowledge anything beyond or own reasoning. I’ll leave it at that because dragging it out any further is an exercise in futility.

You wouldn't answer my basic question of "why do people even use lock-on in the first place?"

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

You wouldn't answer my basic question of "why do people even use lock-on in the first place?"

Because you ignored my previous two or three posts explaining why.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Because you ignored my previous two or three posts explaining why.

You said it was a crutch but really didn't explain how. You said it's to keep the character (which I think you meant camera) facing the enemy. But Souls is a slow paced game with rather slow enemies and people have no problems in faster paced games with faster enemies keeping the camera/character facing the enemy.

 

[BrawlMan]

Giga Skullmageddon from Double Dragon Neon is a better Super Shredder final boss fight than the actual Super Shredder from Shredder's Revenge.

Killer Is Dead is peak No More Heroes style combat. Yes, it's more streamlined compared to No More Heroes 1 & 2, but NMH3 is more streamlined than KiD. KiD gives you much a larger move set, 3 types of counters (1 that can be upgraded), and combat is much faster.

 

[hanselthecaretaker2]

You said it was a crutch but really didn't explain how. You said it's to keep the character (which I think you meant camera) facing the enemy. But Souls is a slow paced game with rather slow enemies and people have no problems in faster paced games with faster enemies keeping the camera/character facing the enemy.

You kept talking about how unless you’re perfectly facing an enemy you’ll miss by like five feet or some exaggerated bs if not locked on, conflating it with using shoulder vs face buttons and how it shouldn’t matter. I’ve already explained in detail why Souls uses shoulder buttons instead of face buttons for offense and defense and it’s about camera function more than anything to do with accuracy during combat. Somehow this gets misinterpreted to the point of insanity.

Other lines of thought or experience with something can exist even if something didn’t work for you, or how you’re used to. You’re also adamantly comparing being able to attack without lock-on to completely different genres and combat systems. It reminds me of an old article I probably brought up on the old forums about this very same topic -

Lock-On Styles in Action Games

3D action games with freely rotating cameras need a way to focus on objects of interest, otherwise characters moving around enemies can cause the camera to lose sight of their target. It’s di…

critpoints.net

Excerpts regarding Souls -

Spoiler

…For this reason there is a draw to combat without lock-on. It’s enjoyable to play Dark Souls without lock-on, and it’s technically more efficient for a lot of tasks as it allows the player to run and dodge in any direction unlike during lock-on.


I think Dark Souls is very fun when fighting multiple enemies without using lock-on or when fighting bosses without the use of lock-on, but keeping lock-on as an option makes some actions and situations easier, so it’s more of an optional tool to be utilized rather than something necessary to keep the combat functioning at all (though it probably would be unreasonable to not include it).

Between this and the Reddit replies it’s clear people can have differing opinions and experiences with something. Let’s just leave it at that shall we, or agree to disagree if nothing else.

 

[BrawlMan]

With games like DMC5 (when playing as V), Astral Chain, Bayonetta 3, and Path of the Goddess existing, it's pointless to bother playing or going back to Chaos Legion. Unless you're a hardcore fan of IP, a PS2 nut, just love early 2000s gothic anime art style, or all of the above. Granted, I didn't like Astral Chain either.

 

[BrawlMan]

​