- Location
- The Hague
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Controversial gaming opinion: video games are good.
What are controversial gaming opinions you have?
- Location
- The Hague
- Pronouns
- He/Him
And like, they'd had Azar Javed in the first game (and I mena you can have a conversation about Zerrikania in general) and the games in particular turn on a reasonable effective discussion of racial discrimination, so it's not really in the same category as this douchebag continually doubling down every time someone asks him a fucking question.
- Location
- Drachyench on Discord
I wouldn't mind seeing more Vikings just so long as they're more... y'know, not what they're currently portrayed as. Where are the merchants? The actual coastal raiding (and in a manner that doesn't make the Ironborn look like savants of the art)? Can we have more than a singular token shield maiden who rarely even has a bloody shield? If people are going to keep using them over and over and over again at least give some variety: Even in the context of "Generic European Fantasy Setting" worlds we're at least starting to see some divergence, but nineteen times out of twentyVikings in games will be either "Rawr brainless scary berserker man" or "Generic raider enemies with specific uniforms".
E: Quip on shield as nine times out of ten "Token woman combatant" will be bow, spear (but no shield), or twin daggers / dagger-and-sword.
Last edited:
Hykal94
Orange Estus Kitteh
- Location
- Firelink Shrine
The reason why this is so because like 90% of popular fantasy fiction are these sorts of pseudo-medieval European-ish worlds that happen to have a lot of elves in em'. I don't mind it personally, I'd love to see more "medieval Europe aesthetics" and I also like 15th century armour so whatever.
If this was say, set in Golden Age Abassids or medieval Egypt, this would even be more my jam.
Reveen
Castro-Trudeauist
For Honor is a shame. Because it looks like it had a pretty neat combat system, well thought out mechanics, and while I didn't much like it aesthetically it had some art design. But Ubisoft just had to Ubisoft
Azar Javed is kinda the archetypical scary eastern wizard from old Conan stories. But I kind of like what they did with Ofieri in Witcher 3. Aside from the merchants they show up as antagonists. But it's reasonable because you killed their prince who was turned into a frog monster while they were trying to reverse the curse on him. They're carting Geralt off to be executed in a horrifying manner, but it's semi-understandable since you just from their perspective murdered the son of their king and the wizard leading the group is honorbound to see it done.
It's less them being scary easterling bad guys, and more just example of people who didn't necessarily deserve to die ending up dead because they ended up at cross purposes with Geralt. Kind of a recurring theme in the franchise.
The Englanderish
Schrödinger's Kuudere Kitty Caliph(a)
- Location
- Califat de Chats
Tbf, shields in general tend to be pretty scarce - especially if we're talking major characters.
Oh god no, it did not have well thought out combat mechanics in the least. If anything there was negative thought put into them. A massive disappointment on all fronts
- Location
- Drachyench on Discord
Which is odd. I get that by the time of "modern" plate harnesses they'd generally gone out of style, but:
1) A lot of Generic Fantasy settings are pretty armor and armament dissonant anyways,
2) Done right a game with some decent shield mechanics could offer a lot over its competition in terms of standing out in combat.
Reveen
Castro-Trudeauist
In Witcher 3 you can see stuff like a dingy peasant tavern having a nice looking mural of flowers painted on the side of it. I don't see shit like that in KCD.
I think if you have a "realistic" medieval fantasy and don't have stuff like that, your ideas are aesthetically dead in the first place.
I saw a lot of gameplay videos of people making pretty good use of the combat system, whats bad about it?
Last edited:
- Location
- Drachyench on Discord
Everyone knows that peasants hated the idea of decorations or otherwise applying any sort of aesthetics to their living spaces beyond "unpleasant shithole". I mean, if you budge on that then what's next on the list? Eating anything other than broth-soup, bread, and cheese wheels?
Basically you could guard or parry everything on reaction and break throws on reaction. So the only ways to actually hit someone was to use a glitch which messed up the shown direction of your attack or made your light attacks unblockable.
There was no thought put into how the mixup game would function, if there should be a spacing/neutral game, the role of stamina; just a lot of single player ideas thrown into a multiplayer focused game by people with little genre familiarity
I mean you don't even have to kill them.
You can totally just leave them on the beach and run away.
- Location
- United Kingdom
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Uhh... No? Seems to work fine to me.
Of course, I just poke people with my Nobushi stick, because it's funny, but people are perfectly capable of fighting properly. Sounds like you're just bad at it?
Also, like, people play For Honor because it's fun, not because of any crunch stuff.
"look Samurai clearly beat knights! They have katana and are like HIYAH"
"Nuh uh! Knights beat samurai! They're like RAWR and then they hit them with their sword which is bigger, so it works better!"
"Vikings are the best anyway!" - For Honor in a nutshell
It's not a serious game, and it isn't broken like you say it is, so I'm kinda lost?
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- They/Them
More seriously, it does seem to work for plenty of people. Not everyone's a hardcore fighting games person whose post I can only understand about a third of.
And that's okay.
In fact, I'd be controversial and say that it's a good thing.
Because holy shit that'd be obnoxious.
And that's okay.
In fact, I'd be controversial and say that it's a good thing.
Because holy shit that'd be obnoxious.
ZerbanDaGreat
Daemon Noble of D E M O G R A P H I C S
- Pronouns
- They/them
Mechanical depth is how a game achieves longevity. "When you play it at the absolute shallowest level it's fun" is not a defence of competitive multiplayer design. Like, if a veteran player showed up and said "Hey the latest CoD is fucked if you know the maps at all you can casually spawncamp the enemy" would you say "people play CoD because it's fun, not because of any crunch stuff."
Not understanding or bothering to google the terms used doesn't mean the post is unintelligible garbage unworthy of being discussed but worthy of being looked down upon as some symbol of hardcore fgc elitism. I'll break it down for you as someone who isn't into fighting games at all because this is some baby shit.
"Guard/parry/break throws on reaction" means you don't have to think ahead or otherwise predict your opponent at all. You just hit the button or turn the stick I guess and you're safe.
"Mixup game" is a corollary of this. In fighting games you can only block either standing or crouching. If you're standing, a sweepkick can still hit you. If you're crouching, a jumping attack or overhead can hit you. Thus 'mixup' is varying whether your attacks are coming high or low to try and trick your opponent. You're probably already aware of this concept, just not the name itself so you dismissed it as some kind of hardcore fgc terminology.
"Neutral game" is when nobody's actually gone in yet. The two fighters are apart, nobody's got the clear advantage (i.e. actively comboing your ass) yet. "Spacing" is exactly what it sounds like, trying to gauge distance so you can bait out a miss and punish ("whiffpunish" if you're feeling adventurous).
So if you want a 'plain English' translation, what Mutton is saying is that defending yourself in For Honour is so easy that any sufficiently skilled opponent is a theoretically unfuckable brick wall you just have to slam yourself into until one of you makes a mistake.
- Pronouns
- They/Them
I didn't say it was unworthy of being discussed.
Also, thanks for the information.
Though actually, people do? As far as I can tell, Mutton's criticism is completely right but less meaningful than it might seem?
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- They/Them
Also, it's five in the morning.
ZerbanDaGreat
Daemon Noble of D E M O G R A P H I C S
- Pronouns
- They/them
I was using that as a rhetorical device to try and convey that "they play it because it's fun" doesn't excuse mechanical problems that are kind of in need of solving because they become very large problems and thus Not Fun if you break a certain skill ceiling.
- Location
- The Hague
- Pronouns
- He/Him
It's very clear that For Honor was intended as a fairly serious competitive game. It has an enormous number of systems designed around just that.
I don't exactly agree with Mutton in every respect - I don't think it was nearly that broken - but it absolutely has a lot of balance issues and is kind of uninteresting long term.
I don't exactly agree with Mutton in every respect - I don't think it was nearly that broken - but it absolutely has a lot of balance issues and is kind of uninteresting long term.
- Location
- Russia
I haven't actually played Fpr Honor so my opinion's not really worth much, but from what I've heard, it's not really that bad. People say that the main problem is simply that For Honor has a very steep, rock-solid skill ceiling that quickly plateaus.
It takes very, very little time to get on that level, especially when you are effectively guided there by the power of the flashing symbol.
Basically if you're trying to play the game at any level other than closing your eyes and mashing you're going to quickly run into the problem that all your stuff gets blocked or parried. So you figure, oh, he's going to try and parry me so I'll throw him. Oh wait, throws are so laughably slow that you can break them just by pressing a button when the big flashing prompt occurs.
This mean that the only ways of doing damage was to either use area attack bugs (where you hit your big sweeping attack and then hit another attack, causing the "where to block" indicator to be wrong) or "unlock" glitches where your attacks became unblockable. Fights other than that dragged on and on and on because it came down to when one party got bored enough to try and do some razzle dazzle "I wonder if they're sleeping" attack and either caught the other person having gone to get a drink or is punished for their insolence.
It's a damn cool looking game, but the core systems just don't hold up very well once either person has started trying to win a fight. This is without going into the whole issue of stats and ragemode as well.
I think it was absolutely broken as the developers' imagined it; they pretty clearly wanted a game where stuff was reactable. They've been making some strides (and breaking the game in the other direction) in the meantime which got people riled up in the Shaman, but in order to make the game actually function beyond a mindless level the mechanics simply weren't naturally there.
I think the whole having 3 block zones instead of a standard and an on-reaction block zone just screwed up a lot of their later choices because now if you have the fast attacks doing damage you either need to make them reactable, dangerous to use, or functionally a reward for getting in close. The last one would mean that you'd have to work up a system of approaching and spacing against other combatants, where perhaps long range pokes were by default one zone or so such that the best option in a given range was able to be blocked on a default with the others forcing a reaction. So block left approaching, then right when you're at the more standard slash range, with high block being reserved for the game's equivalent of overheads (or lows in Tekken). But that requires a pretty fundamental shift as well, such that you can't just walk forward in block.
- Pronouns
- They/Them
I mean, I've seen actual people who've played it for months and haven't apparently hit whatever trigger you're talking about, nor did they spend all their time losing to the (everyone) that you imagine would figure it out? So. *shrugs*.
Like, maybe that's your experience, but it isn't other people's experiences?
I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying that it's clearly not even remotely as obvious as you think, or necessary to win just random matches.
Last edited:
The idea that the "yay, Knights vs Vikings" folks are still having fun is fine with me; I never said a word against the fantasy enveloped within the game, just the core mechanic designs.
- Pronouns
- They/Them
I was specifically just saying that you'd posited this: "It takes very, very little time to get on that level, especially when you are effectively guided there by the power of the flashing symbol.
Basically if you're trying to play the game at any level other than closing your eyes and mashing you're going to quickly run into the problem that all your stuff gets blocked or parried."
Which wasn't actually accurate, at least for some people? Like, maybe I missed an extra level of hyperbole.
I thought the implication was reasonably clear here, but as I try and horde what little tact text based communication affords us I was refraining from explicitly stating it.
If you play a game as an action figure simulator, where you're bashing Wolverine against GI Joe to show who really is the best at what they do, then you'll have a lot of fun no matter what you're playing. In fact games which have a skill floor above sea level might be a detriment because you'll attract players who try and reach it, resoundingly beating those who don't along the way.
So these people playing over and over once again goes to the power of the art team giving them Wolverine vs GI Joe and they deserve all the credit in the world. Fanservice games can be a ton of fun (which is what the whole "no crunch" is really about) but there's a reason they tend to lean on copious amounts of single player content instead of being online mp focused