Bayonetta is a Bitch (to learn)

Bayonetta doesn’t have a large move list, most of the weapons are pretty same-y. A bit of experimentation will let you figure out which combos are suitable for a given situation (e.g. do you want to launch the foe, do you want range, do you want something quick). And the moveset is pretty flexible so it’s more about understanding the fundamentals of movement and approaching various enemies than memorizing an entire list of combos. I mean, DMC has more moveset memorization than Bayo for sure. Also, none of PG’s other games have much memorization. MGR has a dial-a-combo moveset, but once you understand move properties, you’ll quickly realize which ones are worth using in a given situation. The rest are for showing off.

The trouble is that they’re rather samey despite having so many, and you get punished score-wise for repeating them. I’ve been meaning to give Bayonetta another shot since I beat it the first time.

MGR has more dial combos than I want to memorize, and I did memorize them at one point. It was disappointing because they were so samey (and also useless).

I think dial combos are alright in moderation, but more than 3 on a given weapon in a given stance is overkill. Nero hit the sweet spot there. He has a basic mash combo, then he has 2 special combos, one for AOE, one for damage. Both of those can be extended with good timing.

http://bayonetta.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Combo_Attacks
Bayonetta has 19 ground combos and 6 air combos!

And you can only see the list of these during training mode, or by pausing during gameplay! (Unless there’s a menu option to enable the training dialogue during gameplay)

The only way to realistically learn all these combo chains is to sit in training mode and try each combo listed one by one until you memorize by rote. The game doesn’t feature a natural process for learning these combos. You aren’t introduced to them one by one and expected to become acclimated to them over a long period of time before more are introduced (the others don’t even have to be locked off, you could have all the moves from the beginning, but guided exercises using specific ones would have sufficed).

The level of complexity here is made very high, but the game does not gain a lot of depth from it, because combos need to repeat moves from intermediary combos, so the more useful moves are functionally chained to the moves that come earlier in the combo.

The average person sees this and probably doesn’t want to put up with memorizing so many sequences. I’ve learned skullgirls B&Bs that are less of a pain than this, because at least every single move in the combo is something I can perform by itself and I know has a functional purpose in the combo. In Bayonetta and games like it, these are completely arbitrary sequences that have no sort of aid or tutorial process for committing them to memory.

In fighting games, there are a bunch of different combos because there are a bunch of different openers and resources that can be spent, as well as different states of advantage the combo can end in. In Bayonetta, those same tradeoffs don’t exist, combos are expected to fulfill the role of functional moves, but because they need to go through all the lower moves to get to the last one that is functional, they end up being samey.

Option Selects are Kinda Lame

I don’t play fighting games but, option selects seem lame. Are they?

Yeah, kinda. I mean, you can cover multiple options with one input, lets you hedge your bets really hard. 3-way option selects are even crazier. For example, the command throw YRC/air throw option select in Guilty Gear Xrd is basically an unblockable, which is bad because unblockables are bad. Continue reading

Abstract on Tradeoffs

What do you think of tradeoffs in games (like trading all your meter for a melee attack in Vanquish, or trading off tankiness for mobility in the souls series, etc.)

If you don’t have tradeoffs, then elements that overlap in niche literally don’t work. This is a rather weird question, it’s kind of fundamental to games that everything needs to have a tradeoff in some way. Tradeoffs are what differentiate design elements. I mean, this is super broad. It’s hard to say anything.

Nier which I reviewed recently is probably a good example of a game that lacks tradeoffs between its elements. You have charge attacks, a ton of magic types, multiple weapons, but you never need to really trade off between them, because it’s always better to not charge attack, to use only dark lance, dark fist, dark blast, and to always use the stronger weapons.

I mean, tradeoffs between things with similar roles (things that make you move fast, deal damage, inflict hitstun, etc), are what allow multiple of these things to exist in the system, they have differing functions because they trade off. Simple.

Adding a cost to things, spending one thing to get another, helps prevent you from doing that one thing all the time, if that is the most efficient thing to do otherwise. Yeah, you might have a powerful rocket launcher, but you can only use it 3 times, so then the skill is in using it at the right times.

If you lack tradeoffs then people will only use the strongest thing. Balance between elements promotes diversity in play style, makes it a lot harder to win using any individual thing. Tradeoffs are what make elements themselves different from other elements, and what reinforce their use.

Not much else I can say.

Comparing Zelda to Souls

Is it fair to even compare Zelda to Dark Souls? I hear comparisons between the two alot, but it never really makes too much sense to me.

I think it’s a fair comparison because they’re both third person action games featuring sword combat. Zelda visibly lost something in translation to 3d, so people think dark souls might have that element zelda lacks, nonlinearity, tight enemy combat, no cutscene bullshit.

Dark Souls gives a glimpse of at least some of what zelda could have been. Obviously zelda has its own established canon of mechanics sine the first game, so there’d be differences in how a lot of the mechanics worked, but a lot of fucking stuff was possible on the N64 and had been done in other formats that zelda could have taken inspiration from. It could have used fixed camera angles to make up for its weakness there as an interim until dual analog came along (playing ratchet and clank and nier back to back, it’s funny how it took until the 3rd 3d gen that cameras got good, considering it’s actually simpler to code a camera like nier’s probably)

Dark Souls in a big way feels like what I originally came to the zelda series for, what I was always looking for, but couldn’t find satisfaction in zelda games. I think this is something a lot of people feel.

To add onto this: Zelda and Dark Souls are superficially similar, being 3rd person action games centered on exploration & secret finding through fantasy settings with primarily Melee combat.

Dark Souls is as hard as Zelda used to be. Zelda was a cultural phenomenon with the very first game (which sold the best proportional to the population of its time, meaning it had the biggest cultural influence of any Zelda game).

In Zelda Ocarina of Time, Eiji Aonuma became the enemy and dungeon designer. Aonuma is a person who did not like the original Legend of Zelda. He never finished it, quitting after fighting octoroks and failing to progress.
http://www.ign.com/…/26/gdc-2004-the-history-of-zelda…

So suddenly he was in charge of designing enemies, and he made them all really easy in Ocarina and they’ve continued to be really easy ever since.

In 3d zelda games, your slashes are really fast, while the enemies are really slow. In Dark Souls, both you and the enemies are slow at the same pace, so you need to either act preemptively, or punish their whiffed attacks. You need to judge your ranges more carefully before deciding to attack.

3d Zelda games are about key-finding more than anything else. You need to find keys to open doors in the dungeons, which give you items that function as additional keys for getting through rooms in the dungeons. There are very few “Interesting choices” in Zelda, meaning choices where you won’t always pick the same thing, where you need to choose carefully and think about what you’re doing, where different options have advantages and disadvantages which change situationally. 3d Zelda is very much about just doing the thing they want you to do. See a peahat? Boomerang it to cut off the propeller, then slash it to death with A buttonmash. Oh, you have arrows? Instant kill. Deku Scrubs? Octoroks? Hold up your shield, you literally cannot do anything else, and have no real reason to not pick this choice because it will always work.

In 3d Zelda’s combat, you really only need to mash A versus most enemies, or use the item that they are weak against. In 2d Zelda, you needed to move around the enemies as they moved and shot projectiles, and find a place to attack them safely from. It was like a Shmup where both you and the enemies could attack in 4 directions. They would pair up different enemies to be more effective against you and pair those with traps or features like walls or water sometimes too.

In other 3d action games, you have a variety of moves to use, but in Zelda, you only really have slashing and jump slashing. There’s also crouch stabbing, but your slashes are already fast, and apart from the exploit where it copies jump slash damage, it’s not really useful.

The puzzles in zelda, the other major element with 3d zelda (one which was mostly absent in 2d zelda, even a link to the past) are really easy and simple in comparison to actual puzzle games. They almost all use different mechanics from one another, instead of a shared system that is built up over time. This is another major problem with 3d zelda, they keep introducing new shallow mechanics that see only a few uses instead of iteratively improving a core set of mechanics like combat or puzzles.

Everyone suddenly got really harsh on Skyward Sword, and it was certainly the worst 3d Zelda, but everything everyone hated about it was in the previous 3d Zelda games. All 3d zelda games have long unskippable cutscenes. All 3d zelda games have bad combat compared to 2d zelda games, to Ys games (Oath in Felgana and Origin have combat similar to 2d zelda), to Dark Souls, to Witcher 3, to Severance Blade of Darkness (2001). 3d zelda could have had better combat design, both in link’s moveset and in the enemy design. It should have considering combat is the core gameplay (if you don’t think combat is the core gameplay, then please tell me what is).

Games that are harder than Dark Souls

You’ve said in the past that souls games aren’t that hard, they’re just hard in contrast to current standards. So what games would you consider to be really hard? God Hand in hard maybe? DMC at a high level?

God Hand on Normal is harder than Dark Souls. Maybe even on easy.

DMC3 on normal I found harder than dark souls, though I replayed on hard with vergil and breezed through, so maybe it was just unfamiliarity with the game. DMC4 is definitely easier until the higher difficulties though (though it’s also weird because you get enemy handicap when you die which makes it easier if you continue).

Vanquish is harder, Bayonetta too (played both on hard on my first go).

Quake is harder (assuming you don’t use savestates and always restart the level when you die, also I played on nightmare only).

Doom is harder (on ultraviolence).

Half Life 1 on hard is harder. HL2 as well.

I’d say Super Mario Bros 1 is about the same difficulty because of world 8.

Ninja Gaiden gets harder around world 5 or 6. Modern Ninja Gaiden is definitely harder.

Metal Slug (any) is harder.

Contra is harder.

Shatterhand is harder.

Nioh is harder.

The original Legend of Zelda is harder.

Castlevania 1, 3, Harmony of Dissonance, and Order of Ecclesia are harder. (Not sure about the latter two, haven’t played them in a while)

Any megaman game is harder.

I mean, Dark Souls is probably harder than any other game on normal difficulty last gen, but there’s a lot harder than it in the past and on higher difficulty modes. I don’t like people going, “pssh, dark souls is easy,” because it’s clearly hard, but it’s also not the pinnacle of difficulty in games, even in 7th gen. A TON of NES games will give it a run for its money or easily outclass it.

Extra Credits Done Quick

What is your opinion on Extra Credits’ video on speedrunning? I know you’ve mentioned it before that it was god awful, but could you go into more detail about it?

Goddamnit, I hate having to do this, but fine, I will.

First mistake is EVER mentioning the term “glitchrun”. There’s NEVER rules for whether you’re allowed to glitch past large sections, there’s only ever rules forbidding you from doing so. Skipping things does not require permission, it is allowed by default. Using the term “glitchrun” implies that glitches are the aberration, not the standard. Continue reading

Nier Notes (Review)

I’m genuinely surprised you liked Nier enough to give it a 7/10.

I wrote up a full summary right after I finished it while watching the speedrun of the game to help refresh my memory. I hope it has everything. Nier was a hotbed of good ideas executed well, between poor execution of a ton of tiny and not so tiny things, long-ass cutscenes, pointless sidequests, and a couple stupidly long unskippable sequences (like Fyra). I think the game fell short of its potential on many levels and goes to show both what’s possible for a 3rd person action game with projectiles, and what not to do. In the hands of a better developer it could have been something really amazing, you can see that there are so many clear balance issues between the weapon types, the different magic powers, poor enemy design in many areas, and other huge faults. Continue reading