The directional based input parry in Rising is how parries should be used in all games! Now we need that Godhand right stick dodge mechanic used more often. Imagine a game like that nowadays. IGN would hate it......again 😂
@@Sultansekte That's true, it did. I was thinking more of how in Godhand you flick the stick and Gene moves in that direction (ducking, swaying, backflipping and you can sweep with it too). God of war has it, Godhand is more in depth with it. Punch out, wade hixtons counter punch, they all use it. Wish more games used it in the way Godhand utilizes it. Makes for a more enjoyable experience. Be a better use for it than just focusing the camera like in most games
I agree my dude, the function of the player still needing to track enemy positioning in order to compete the parry is a very good balancing mechanic to keep the spacing game in play and not making the parry a simple timing press. We want spacing to be part of the combat, and not just have your combat be a 1 button rhythm game.
@@TheElectricUnderground Maybe it's a good idea to make different effects for a parry, depending on direction? It would invalidate argument about that directional parry is overcomplicated unnecessary.
You know I was thinking about this lately and came to conclusion, that one of the most underrated, and also hated, game mechanics, is tank controls. Especially in games like Onimusha and God Hand. Tank controls allow you to move and aim at the same time with the same input, while most of the modern games have to rely on camera lock mechanics (Dark Souls), that allows you to focus only on one enemy at the time. Fighting multiple enemies in this games is kinda pain in the ass. Also God hand has a lot of "parry" mechanics, like counter hit or throw break. However forward dash is probably the best parry mechanic in video games. Because how it tights up to your movement, it allows you to recover faster without loosing your position, wile other dash options are much saffer but requare you to move away from the oponnet. So unlike most of the modern games, where parry breaks your offence, in God hand parry allows you to be more aggressive. Also you looks like a hippie grandma in this poncho :D Love your video.
oh yes "tank controls" are really underrated for another reason in that they create a limitation that the player can work around and enemies can exploit. On paper it seems like having the player being able to aim and move without any restriction is always good, but then what that does is naturally push the balance towards just being good at aiming and shooting, because the spacing game becomes arbitrary. So if you have a limitation on one mechanic, you can then emphasize other mechanics to help give the game a more individual feel.
@@TheElectricUndergroundthe problem I think is that there are different types of limitations and the types that seem to appeal to the most people are the ones that are quickly understood. Tank controls DO restrict the player and create opportunity for skill, but they don’t often do a good job of doing so intuitively. It’s a trade off - and there are other forms of movement limitations that can still be restrictive without such a high barrier to entry
Core combat in MGR is completely typical Platinum where you shred through crowds, have little to no ways of inflicting hitstun on tougher enemies and bosses, and react to telegraphs by canceling into defensive options. Much of your gameplay in this video clearly demonstrates this. Having to be vaguely aware of the enemy's position to parry is cool but doesn't come close to overhauling the appeal. Your excitement at such a shallow element makes you sound underexperienced with other 3D action games to the point of having an overly narrow view in regards to how they've managed to balance modern design trends with the pillar of fundamental concepts you describe. Bayonetta and God Hand are much stronger examples of positioning and awareness being important in a 3D game that still fairly telegraphs most attacks and still lets you cancel into powerful defensive options. Sekiro is indeed an example of combat made shallow by an overly central defensive option, I understand anyone who's bored by it, but it's totally committed to its approach. It provides a flavor of style over substance while keeping the player in control and answering demands at all times, and is built to reward repetition and memorization as a mode of accessibility in a relatively brutal game compared to whatever other AAA RPG-hybrid slop. The appeal clearly isn't for you, but by writing it off entirely, you're ignoring it's expert understanding of human reaction ability which itself is a fundamental pillar of action game (and fighting game) design. It's almost as if different types of action games exist and not all games about launching hitboxes at hurtboxes in real time can be judged through the same narrow template! 😀
I love mechanical discussions like this. First, I really do enjoy games like sekiro for having that hone-to-perfection style gameplay, but I'll fully admit that they can just be put down after you follow the very linear and narrow road to mastery. It's just a kind of challenge that's about doing exactly what they ask of you with no deviance or experimentation, and it's neat in it's own right. But for games like MGR, for games that can embody that arcade philosophy of constantly presenting an ambiguous challenge with no pre-defined optimal solution, (or allow other options to coincide with more powerful ones like the action dodge to the parry), that road to mastery becomes wide and winding. It's a game that deserves to be played over and over because there's more to do than figure out the parry timings. It's just gets harder to appreciate the way newer games are when they constantly strip themselves out of having the mechanical and systemic depth of it's predecessors.
I think Sekiro has more variety available in its combat than people give it credit for. You can search around TH-cam and see high-level players tackling fights in a variety of different ways using different loadouts and tactics.
@@MrEverythingX76Sekiro is one of the few games where the mastery of its core mechanic will be more than sufficient to beat the game. So it's understandable that players that are good at parrying don't bother to explore its other mechanics and tools, leading to a less than ideal experience. FromSoft made Sekiro parries too damn good and enjoyable that they discourage experimentation.
@@lilmurferI guess if you just want to parry everything, that's fine, but you're making the game both harder and less fun for yourself if that's all you do. Messing around with your prosthetics, combat arts, items, stealth options, and movement options (yes, movement options can be quite useful in Sekiro) and figuring out which situations they'll give you an edge in is part of the fun.
@@MrEverythingX76 I'm with you there. I've just observed alot of players not experiencing all Sekiro has because they got too comfortable with the parry "minigame".
Exactly, you get it :-) sekiro has a really great initial feel, and I think that's what the game was going for. I think fromsoft were experimenting with the design a bit, because they made sure the mechanics of elden ring were more balanced. So sekiro has a lot of strong points, but the combat is just too geared towards the parry in the long run
Strong parries in SP games (where actual attack prediction would feel like BS) entirely rely on soft balancing mechanisms, mainly the player's lack of ability or consistency. If you can't always parry attacks, whether to parry or not will be a legitimate choice, dodges can then work as a safer low risk low reward option, spacing can also fill a similar role. But once you address that lack by getting good, the balance crumbles entirely because nearly every thing made you vary up moves disappears. And as you said - this type of balance effectively punishes you for getting better by giving you a less varied, less interesting game to play (self imposed challenge aside). You can address that in a lot of ways. You could make the execution/consistency demands so high that it'll be insanely difficult to get good enough to nullify soft balancing (incorporating direction like MGR, tightening up timing, varying up enemy attack timing, less telegraphing, incorporating positioning/direction of *swing*, giving the parries variable startup times and range, etc). You can build in some hard natural tradeoffs/limitations for parrying that will make it less/more viable depending on situation (NG2's two counter types & their ability to break strings). OR you could simply make the parries a weak tool relative to the rest of your kit without a particularly strong advantage either defensive or offensive outside of niche situations. Then there's also balancing follow ups to parries if there are any. Something that's worth mentioning is that multi enemy fights (especially if they can do overlapping attacks) are a good natural way to balance parries, especially tight ones, because then the attacks will not only come out at a fast pace but possibly a pace too fast to actually parry successfully. It reincorporates spacing back into the system by undermining your ability/consistency. With how parries are going, they are moving in the exact opposite direction - parries are becoming even more universal, using simpler inputs, with less tradeoffs, with a more direct advantage (stamina drain leading to finisher), with more lenient timing, cleaner telegraphing, and less emphasis on spacing. It sucks ass, such a shitty mechanic that only gets worse with time somehow. I was watching a GDC by the God of War 2018 combat director and the way he spoke about parries seemed to be entirely focused around low to mid level play, whether he intended it or not (afaik GoW's parries are more situational but never played). He was talking about parries as a choice that players make based on their current skill level, without exploring what happens when the players actually learn how to parry. And it does make sense that most devs would think about game mechanics this way - after all if you got good at their game they already won, your money's been spent, the glowing reviews have already dropped & refund windows have been passed.
On the GOW point, even on higher levels of play you still see the players missing parries a lot due to mental stack (many attacks go through your block in the game, which doesn't help that enemies bombard you with attacks from every angle and you can only parry attacks directly in front of you). Ragnarok actually addressed this even further for pro playing by having an armor set directly made for challenge players which, alongside other things, makes only the most basic attacks blockable and parrieable, and all of the otherwise intended parrieable ones become unblockable, making dodges the only way to counter them (which have super strict timings)
@@madrugaman1915 Not talking about GoW specifically but I will say that whether a failure to parry is interesting or not depends on what lead to that failure, if it's actually a failure of tactics/negative snowballing ("mental stack" as you say) then it can potentially be interesting cuz it's balanced naturally. If that failure is simply a failure of reaction or execution then it's pretty zzz - you effectively get the same thing in rhythm games with 0 longterm gameplay implications. From what you're saying about GoW it seems like it's doing what God Hand's enemies do - making it literally impossible to dodge via overlapping attacks.
@@boghogSTG Failure of reaction and snowballing aren't mutually exclusive though. You can have mildly lenient parry timings in a game, and have the player miss them frequently due to the amount of enemies with different attack timings that they have to account for at the same time (maybe due to a tactical failure as you say, or just the game giving you these tests of mental stacking). Which is how games like RE4R and NuGOW balance the mechanic and is probably my favorite way of doing so outside of Character Action games (DMC Royalguard is absolute peak)
@@madrugaman1915 Depends on whether the parries have hard counters or not, and how lenient is too lenient. For instance if the parry of that shitpile known as RE4Rs wasnt directional and had no recovery frames (and if the close quarters movement wasnt some of the worst in action games) then you could just jump in and parry everyone - after all people play randomized rhythm games with far more complex inputs and timing all the time. But the parry being directional and overlapping enemy attacks create a situation where it might be quite literally impossible to parry every attack heading your way creating a hard counter. Combine that with the parries just arent very rewarding normally and you have a game where the dynamics kinda work and your gameplan is built around risk minimization. Skew the balance and make the parries rewarding like what mercs does and this completely breaks - now if I fail it doesnt inform my tactics, it just makes me take the hit or maybe try again. Same happens if theres a difficult parryfest boss - it doesnt matter if I fail at parries, all it means is that I just need to practice a bit more. Thats what Mark and I mean when we say that parry based mechanics get less interesting the better you get at them - unless there exist hard counters and unless the reward is low, your gameplan is just "parry, but better". Theyre not mutually exclusive but risky execution isnt enough for any kinda solid balance
@@boghogSTG For parryfest bosses that rely on memorization and reaction testing, you're working under the assumption that players will get so good at them that this skill becomes so natural that the game becomes boring, which just isn't the case, considering that even the highest tiers of players will consistently fail multiple times simply due to how tight timings are and how tricky the enemy movesets in these games get. In RE4R's case (the campaign more specifically), the confusing timings + unability to mash parries makes them a good panic last resort, but by no means a centralizing way of play, but more of a reset to neutral button instead. This does change with Mercs, which I think is more of a scoring issue than a parry issue. Take away the super meter gained on parry and it'd become pretty balanced since relying on them to fill Mayhem Mode would spend more time than you'd gain from killing enemies inside said mode.
I've never played MGR, but a buddy once told me that the campaign for Jetstream Sam (DLC, I think), is more challenging and less reliant on parries. And apparently the taunt mechanic has a higher risk/reward. But this is just something I heard, so take it with a grain of salt. On the topic of parrying, there was an older indie game I used to play called Hyper Princess Pitch that had its own parry-style mechanic (an airborne suplex/throw) that had a ton of invincibility and evasion and insta-killed enemies in an AOE. The difficulty was that it took 4 inputs to use it while not attacking, making it very risky unless you had the skill to pull it off. Some players complained that this was too hard, but honestly, it made the game all the more rewarding. And on a somewhat unrelatede note, the game also fixed your aim when shooting, unlike the popular twinstick shooters of the time, making it feel more akin to classics like SmashTV. But again, this challenge made it all the more fun. Twinstick shooters bored me to tears, but I have numerous hours devoted to HPP.
Oh man I did play a bit of the jetstream dlc, and holy crap yes it's brutal in the best ways ha. I'd love to dig into that dlc more at some point in the future, because yeah the character is totally a different beast than raiden in terms of moveset and how he plays. The dude has an airdash lol. I was gonna talk about it in the review, but it felt like there was enough material there for it's own vid ha. So I might talk about just the jestream character in a different vid in the future.
To give some context to the Zandatsu mechanic: Alongside Blade Mode It's actually one of the few holdovers from when the game was Metal Gear Solid Rising made by KojimaPro. (Raiden performs the move in the CGI trailer for the game, so they clearly considered it iconic and important). I think this explains quite a lot about how it doesn't really fit "the flow" of MGRR, it's a relic from when Rising was a MGS game, it probably made sense in a more stealth focused game with slower paced combat.
I bought this game day one back in the day on PS3 and still enjoy it, most recently on Steam Deck. I agree with the heart ripping mechanic getting old. I seem to remember this game was in development hell for quite a bit because they wanted every object to be able to be cut. It turns out it ate up too many resources for the game to run. It is still the best character action game to this day.
It was under development at Kojima Productions basically as a glorified physics tech demo. You can find some old footage on TH-cam. They gave up on the game and Platinum Games started over from scratch.
Metal Gear Rising is one of my all time favorite games. Such a fun and challenging experience with tons of depth and huge replayability. I would love for a sequel to happen someday🙏 *i see berk👀
yes it's a shame we didn't get a sequel to mgr, I assume maybe because working with konami was probably complicated ha. But it would be fantastic to have seen what they did with a follow up. These days though, plat are more on the rpg side of things, so it probably wouldn't be as good as plat making a sequel in their heyday.
'time to kick this guy out of my youtube recs' i immediately thought to myself, and i'm not even a huge fromsoft dork. i get it - it's engagement bait, don't hate the player hate the game etc. etc. but man the attention economy sucks ass.
@@fraudcakesyou'll miss a lot in your video gaming life, if you kick this guy out. 🤷🏼♂️ Trust me 😎 p.s. Sekiro is one of my most favourite games ever
@@mishikomishiko9088 i'll be fine - the faint desperation tells me he needs my clicks more than i need his videos. plus, just getting vague icycalm vibes (real ones know) and i definitely don't need that in my life rn.
@@fraudcakes it’s just insane to me how wrong you are lol. This dude was doing this wayyyy before he ever got views- he even has videos talking about that subject. He also puts on a yearly shmup event by himself for free, made a version of retro arch custom made for shmups for free, and will gladly engage you in dms to help you out with whatever you need. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they’re automatically “clickbait farming’ or whatever.
Zandatsu is the thing that keeps me playing the game, I’ve taken thousands of spines but I still love seeing the animation. It is my favorite mechanic in the entire game
love that Nirvana analogy! I feel like it's the same with Halo CE, fantastic game in a bubble but then every console shooter tried to be like Halo CE and failed at it, giving CE a bad rep.
Yes i think it can apply to a lot of game mechanics where the game that initially introduces the mechanics, thinks much more about how it fits in with the overall combat system. But then once that mechanic is shown to be fun and engaging, then other games just take the idea and throw it into their game, without considering if it fits with the rest of the game's combat. And even worse, now instead of balancing the mechanic, like the parry, around stuff like frame data and execution, they just toss a meter on the top of it like knife durability ha. When in doubt, just add a meter.
What I dislike about mgr’s parry is that at least half the time the “post-parry-hit” doesn’t even conect on the enemy. Raiden swings his sword into the air because the enemy is not within range anymore. And that happens a lot, its super unappealing. It’s like your parry reward is not taking damage and thats it.
Oh I love this aspect of the parry in mgr, because it rewards positioning. So if you parry too far away from the attack, you miss the follow up. It also incentivizes using the forward offensive dodge instead of the parry. So while it is a bit more complicated, it is another way to balance the parry away from being the one size fits all solution
Great points! I'm a pretty casual player who enjoys both Sekiro (playing charmless now) and MGRR (just finished a normal run), loving your technical discussions into game design. Sekiro's parry activation is similar to MGRR - you need to face an attack to be able to do so. I actually prefer MGRR's input method as that is more intuitive when fighting groups. You definitely need to think about spacing and who to attack first in Sekiro in group situations. (E.g. Juzou fight), fortunately Sekiro offers other ways to approach this(stealth). That said both game's focus is clearly different, Sekiro designed for one on ones and MGRR brawling groups. Most bosses you cannot win by just deflecting I believe, save for lady butterfly who is like a tutorial to teach you about parrying. You usually need to whittle down their health to a point where posture damage overtakes recovery to get a deathblow. I agree Sekiro's parry feels a tad overpowered once you get the timing down, sometimes I wish the boss would switch up a notch or get more aggressive once you deflect too many times to push you back. Even then getting the timing down for deflects is generally really hard, I find dodging, running around, keeping space and feinting to get attacks works easier and still fun, so there is definitely ways to get creative especially with prosthetics and getting attacks through small gaps in the long animation windups. I can't say the same about MGRR, where the group fights are definitely the highlight, but boss fights feel way more a slog and telegraphed than Sekiro. (Can you even win no damage without parrying Monsoon?) On the topic of getting combat to feel more dynamic, it feels like most brawlers throws more mobs at you so the situation is more unpredictable - if a single mob or boss's attacks is too random the player might feel unfair and stop playing. In Sekiro the bosses do do have some different perlious attacks and feints on random but could definitely do with more I believe. In many ways it feels like games do needs predictable elements to be enjoyable, finding that balance is hard and subjective. Would love to hear more about your thoughts on single vs group fights, also how attack speed and DPS affects game design (e.g. damage per second, e.g. attacks in Sekiro/Souls are way slower and less comboable than MGRR but more damaging to you)
This is a great observation flutter, because I think it helps demonstrate the difference in the mechanics when it comes to how the parry systems handle group situations vs 1 on 1 fights. So in MGR and Sekiro, 1 on 1 fights are mostly the same, where you are going to lock onto the boss. However, in sekiro, once you are locked onto the boss, the directional aspect of the parry is gone because the game automatically orients you to the boss. In MRG, the directional aspect of the parry remains, because you still need to press into the direction of the attack locked on or not. So what this creates in 1 on 1 fights in MRG, is thet ability of bosses to get tricky with their attacks and genuinely mix up the player into what angle their attack will come from (sam does this in cool ways). Whereas in Sekiro, once you lock onto the boss, that is not possible for the boss to do against the player since you auto turn locked on, and you will almost always play locked on. In group battles, this gets interesting. On paper, sekiro becomes more like MGR because you will need to start paying attention to where you are turned and I'm sure there are some scenarios like this from time to time. However, what this mechanic generally means in sekiro is just to enforce the player to use the targeting system more, which i think was the intent. So if you are facing a group of enemies in sekiro, you are not manually turning your character to get the parries in most cases. Instead you are simply switching your targeting to who you want to focus on and that will make the parry input automatic (direction wise) because your character automatically faces who he targets. This is then compounded by the issue that sekiro has wide open spacing and the ability to run away all the time because the levels are massive and you have a grappling hook. So in sekrio, the facing enemy requirement is going to actually reinforce the playstyle of divide and conquer, since the hitboxes and not big enough to handle hitting groups of enemies all with the same parry. In MGR however, since the parry input requires a direction input, locked on or not, it DOES incentivize the player to group up enemies and hit them all together with the same attack, since the hitboxes of the game are much larger, the hitstun is stronger, and the fighting environments are smaller. Massive reply, but in short the facing enemy requirement of the parry in sekiro is more of a product of the targeting system and acts to reinforce the player to use the targeting system. Whereas the input requirement for all parries in MGR is always an active input, locked on or not, and so keeps the need for spatial awareness of enemies in tact better.
Ah I hadn't thought of the targeting system + hitbox sizes affecting gameplay, that is a very good point, it makes sense now. Fromsoft/Sekiro probably opted for a locked targeting and tighter hitboxes to emphasize on the one on one combat aspects, for better or worse, making it great for head on combat but harder to have more dynamic attacks like multidirectional ones working well. Now that you brought that up, it does seem like Sekiro recognizes that issue and tries to mix that up with some bosses, e.g. Owl fight where he throws a smoke bomb, when he disappears/reappears from his pet or with the headless fights - that's where the lock disengages and you need to reorient/target which kind of breaks the fluidity of combat IMHO. On the other hand with Sam and Monsoon in MGR I do remember those parts where you had to react to those multidirectional attacks were way more engaging/tense without breaking the flow. Now I'm very curious as to how Sekiro would play if they went with MGR's targeting system+directional parry... There's always hoping for Sekiro 2...
@@TheElectricUnderground "hitboxes and not big enough to handle hitting groups of enemies all with the same parry." You have a lot more tools in Sekiro than just a parry, and on charmless you can't rely on parries nearly as often.
@@klauztigr Charmless makes you more reliant on parries, though. Functionally it just makes fights longer and blocking less viable. Unless you’re bad at the game and don’t have the timings down I don’t see how it disincentivizes parry spam. Also the increase in HP and posture means that prosthetics and special moves are simply less powerful, and given that they still use the same amount of spirit emblems, I could see players actually being less incentivized to use other tools when playing charmless.
@@shitfuckmcgee8611 If you know all the timings and can reliably react to all of them, then bossfights are already solved for you, no matter how parries are implemented. Only additional enemies can switch things up here. "same amount of spirit emblems" That's probably why charmless option is given after the first run, on NG+ you actually have a lot more of them with tanto, as long as you replenish your health faster than lose it.
This game was extremely challenging for me to play at the time it was released, but I patiently stuck with it and learned how the game expected me to engage with it most of the time while still giving me the freedom to experiment with alternatives.. and I guess the second part of that statement goes to the core of what's you're saying here. Creating more layers with combat options and situational awareness. I'm glad I stuck with the game because it was very satisfying once it all clicked. For the sake of accessibility, though, I think you can still have a more forgiving parry timing window but still expect the player to get directional input correct. That would be a good compromise. I dunno if it's an age thing, but I'm almost 50 and I found that my reaction speed isn't what it used to be.
Hi rodney great comment! Yes what you are writing here makes a lot of sense and I agree. Where if a dev wants to make the parry a more accessible input, i'd rather have the actual timing of the parry be more lenient than removing the direction input requirement. And actually, I think the best way that the dev can handle this, that will work for everyone, is to make the actual parry window larger in lower difficulties, and then smaller in higher difficulties. So on normal mode, I think it's perfectly fine for the game to have a nice and big parry window while keeping the direction input as a requirement (since that is still important to have in terms of spacial awareness of moves). And then as the game difficulty modes increase, the parry window will get tightened up a lot more since the player will have a better knowledge of the game system and enemy attacks. Best of both worlds right there I think. Great comment :-)
You want a character action game with a campaign that nails it, you should play Assault Spy. Hell, you should play Assault Spy if you want a good character action period.
You know I do indeed appreciate the directional input factor of MGR's parry, I think flicking the stick to your left or behind you to deflect incoming attackers is cool and quite satisfying, but you are hyping it up and going "new games make the parry too easy so you can feel cool without even trying"... meanwhile MGR's parry window is like deadass 2 seconds. Try it on Monsoon's big magnet wheel. You can input the parry before the thing even starts rolling. Imo MGR is actually one of the biggest offenders of "easy parry so the player feels sick despite not doing anything particularly impressive." Royal Guard in DMC doesn't have the directional component (unless you're going for a Release I guess), and it is significantly harder than any parry MGR ever made me do. Agree wholesale about Zandatsu being the worst part about this game btw. It is such a pacebreaker that is way too rewarding not to indulge in every now and then, and it's soooo slow and boring. Don't understand people who make the claim "it never gets old", unless they played the game like once. Blade Mode is cool but I have issues with tech that uses it in an interesting way having this quick zoom in and out which gives me a bit of a headache, and I think the "cut anything" gimmick, despite being wildly technically impressive, is quite underwhelming in its implementation, since aside from slicing limbs off when they turn blue, it's basically an instant kill and the actual cutting doesn't matter. I've had this idea for a long time now, but I wish instead of the clunkyass L1 quick use items, Raiden would not have any ranged attacks, but instead be able to cut up enemies or pieces of the environment to kick at other enemies as basically makeshift projectiles (similar to Viewtiful Joe). That way the way you cut would actually matter
4:26 That's so wrong. Sekiro is one of the few games you can actually interrupt most of the bosses' attacks, even Isshin the Sword Saint. There are bosses you can constantly interrupt like Genichiro, bosses you can barely interrupt like Corrupted Monk and bosses you can never interrupt like Guardian Ape. Dodging is also extremely useful for attacks that pushes you even if you perfect parry. For example when Owl does the shuriken to running sword slash combo, best way to avoid is deflecting the shuriken and dodging the sword slash so you can end up behind him to get free hits which he can't block. 9:23 Why is this even a bad thing? And how is this not a problem in most action games? When you know what to dodge in souls games it's done as well. Is simplicity and the challange disappearing after perfecting it is a bad thing? The challange was get to there and learning every attack and how to response against those attacks. Now it's about having fun while absolutely demolishing the enemies/bosses since you know everything about them. The beauty of these games are they're easy when you master them. Action games trying to give more challange after players are accustomed to the basics and enemy patterns are actually the worst. Look at how Sifu at master mode ruined its bosses by giving them MKX 50/50s with zero telegraphy just to make the game more difficult again after players mastered it. 17:19 It's absurd to say predictability and consistency removes complexity. And using MGR:R to make this statement is even weirder. 20:30 Can be done and better in Sekiro considering the prosthetic tools especially with Sabimaru's dodge. 27:40 Zandatsu is the only redeeming feature of this messy game honestly. Game's just ''worse Ninja Gaiden'' without it. Could've been faster like steel on bone on Ninja Gaiden 3 though, to not stop the game every time you go for it. And yeah it's way too rewarding and needs a rework on that part. 39:55 MGR:R's and GoW's checkpoint system would save a lot of old action games' replayability. I think MGR:R is a nice&fun game but it was the Dmc1 of the series which never happened. Great ideas that aren't executed well to make it a masterpiece.
no you misunderstand what I mean. I don't mean you can't interrupt enemy attacks like certain boss patterns that have built in interrupt windows. I mean the game lacks the ability to interrupt enemy attacks via hitstun. So boss interrupt windows are programmed in as like a part of the sequence where if you attack during this window, the attack will be interrupted (mgr has this as well). What I mean is that your attacks do not do natural hitstun, so if you attack outside the interrupt window, the boss or enemies will just power right through the attack and smack you. This is why you cannot combo in a traditional sense in sekiro or dark souls, because you can't lock the enemies up with hitstun. The enemies run on timers and you have to adjust to their timing to get your attacks in. Vs think of a game like ninja gaiden Xbox, where when you slash an enemy, they get stunned and whatever they were up to is interuppted. There is no special window where this has to happen like in sekiro. So you can then follow up that slash with another slash and keep them stunned and you can combo from that point. In dark souls games, like sekiro, this is not possible because hitstun doesn't really exist (or is really low). So if the enemy is not programmed to be interrupted, it'll just power right through your attacks.
@@TheElectricUnderground But you can actually lock any enemy to hitstun with certain tools like prosthetics and combat arts. Not only bosses cancel their attacks when you start attacking they also get hitstunned during direct attacks. You can stop most of their attacks with firecrackers or mortal draw as well. Even in Souls games including Elden Ring, if the enemy isn't a brute type that you can never stun, you can outright kill them by attacking first and keep attacking until they're dead if you have enough stamina. This also happens against brute enemies as well if you wield a heavier weapon or a skill that lets you do it. The funny thing is Ninja Gaiden, a character action game, doesn't even let your attacks to damage most of the bosses and forces you to use one powerful attack to one spesific opening. The way Ninja Gaiden tried to balance out Hayabusa's damage output is worse than anything in any game.
Is dodging "extremely useful" or does it have very niche use for attack-specific optimal punishes? Optimization that only matters for self imposed challenges since you don't really lose anything by just deflecting outside of the context of speedruns. It's the latter, don't conflate the 2 because when you do this it becomes impossible to discuss the focus of combat, or even combat broadly since practically all games have niche use case stuff like this. Also, if you want to open the can of worms that is efficient play (speedrunning) then combat vs regular enemies hardly even matters at all. (That said I actually agree that this is a problem in most action game boss fights - they actively simplify dynamics when they're not outright disabling your moves/their properties)
No dodging is the superior choice in a lot of situations, either the attack is too strong to parry effectively or dodging gets you in a better position to get a few free hits at the enemy's back. Also sometimes is the easier option when you have a hard time figuring out the timing. I have to say again, i think too many people "played" Sekiro by watching youtube videos instead of actually playing and mastering the actual game.@@boghogSTG
@@joxerrrrr "Too strong to parry effectively" - what is this suspiciously vague wording even supposed to *mean* ? The very occasional grab? Maybe some ape/demon of hatred attack I'm forgetting? All niche. Your 2nd example is one where parrying is the *inferior* option but taken cuz the player's not good - the goal is to parry that shit, and if your goal is efficiency (which I assume mastery implies, cause otherwise what else?) then parry that shit you will cuz unless you're parrying or attacking, you are losing time. What you're left with is sneaking in some extra attacks - that's superior in the context of speedruns but once again it's a situational option compared to the basis of combat - non stop deflects.
Admittedly I'm a scrub who mostly only plays platformers, so the parry mechanic is still a novel concept for me. The place where I most commonly see them are (unsurprisingly) indie platformers. I don't mind it too much in Pizza Tower, because using it is rare, especially in high-level gameplay. Having to parry almost seems like a punishment for bad gameplay ironically enough. There's also the Spark the Electric Jester series. I thought it was cool in 1 because it was combined with a dash, allowing you to go through enemies if you timed it right, which was especially cool during bosses because positioning mattered. In Spark 2 it was way overpowered because it was a 3D game. In Spark 3, parrying froze you in place and I mostly just relied more on movement unless I had to break a boss's shield. Oh yeah, I guess Sonic Frontiers also had a parry. That probably has the worst parry mechanic in any game possible and it doesn't even come close. During normal gameplay, you can just hold it down infinitely with zero drawback. The only time you actually have to time it is during a boss rush mode added nearly a year after the original release. Now instead of just holding it, you have to press it during really drawn-out and poorly animated attack animations where the boss is completely invincible unless you parry.
Oh yeah it s funny how widely the mechanic is spreading across various genres. Another comment mentioned that it s even an issue in the boss fights of hollow knight ha
I like most of your videos but I think the Sekiro criticism here is off-base. The main theme of the game is embracing death. Wolf's job is to die protecting Kuro, and he refuses to betray him in the beginning of the game even though it gets him killed. Most of the conflict in the story is centered around the characters' obsession over immortality and your mission becomes severing that possibility. Even when that means his death or Kuro's. The gameplay reflects this. The game railroads you into a rushdown playstyle which requires you to get into the opponents face and be aggressive. It's a high risk playstyle until you learn the parry timings. The optimal goal is to break their posture bar without having to do a ton of damage first. If you could space them out and whiff-punish your way through the game it defeats the point. You're not supposed to be able to play it safe. I think the comparisons to character-action games misses the point because that's not really what Sekiro is trying to be. It's more a rhythm game turned into a combat system. You attack until you get parried, at which point you respond to whatever they throw at you (parry, mikiri, jump over sweeps, deflect lightning etc). Several of the games in the beginning of the video do this as well; Sifu, Hi-Fi Rush, Furi deserves a mention too. It's fine to prefer character-action games over this style, but it's really an apples to oranges comparison. I think Sekiro absolutely nails what it sets out to do and deserves the praise it gets.
I really, really, agree with the parry discussion and I've had a the same sentiment for a long time, because I've played a lot of games that suffered from parry mechanics being one button fixes to otherwise nuanced situations. Samus Returns and Dread makes the existing combat mechanics obsolete, Rivals of Aether (which I love) has a parry that way over-simplifies shield interactions you can find in Melee, and even Dark Souls runs into the problem (why would you not just parry Gwyn when it makes the fight significantly easier). I've had an idea for a game design video which talks about analog vs discrete mechanics and parrying would have been a major focus of that, but its not just limited to that. For instance you could look at Castlevania jump arcs (discrete) vs Sonic jump arcs (analog) and how they service the gameplay or the horizontal movement in Super Metroid vs Hollow Knight. It's not that one is always better than the other but the primary focus of the game should probably use an analog system because there will be more depth and longevity, whereas secondary systems can be more digital in nature so they do not detract from the focus of the game. As you said in the video, once you know exactly what to do in a game using a discrete system, the game is kinda solved and its not very entertaining to explore it further. The majority of my favorite games use systems with a lot of variability in outcome because repeat playthroughs can feel extremely unique and I'm able to express myself as a player beyond just consistency. I think bullet hells are actually a great example of this as well.
OH MAN fellow rivals player, we gotta talk about this because if there is one game that really makes you see the problem with one button parries, it is absolutely rivals ha. First off, I agree completely that the game simplifies stuff way to much compared to melee's beautiful, wonderful, shield system. The shield mechanics of melee are so underrated, I'm glad you can see how good they are. Anyway, holy crap I had a friend who was ALL IN on rivals and basically for social reasons I sort of had to play rivals all the time, even though I wasn't a huge fan of the game. And man the parry mechanics of that game got old really fast, because they were so simple. the parry completely removed the concept of whiff punishing from the game and instead reduced it to a game where you ran back and forth and jabbed all day since jabs couldn't be parried lol. Vs in melee where if you can get a big move out in neutral (falcon kick/nair famously) then the hitboxes and shield stun of the move would justify the longer startup. In rivals though, stuff like falcon kicks and nairs (moves like them obv, since falcon isn't in the game) are just giant parry bait, and so are much too risky to use in nuetral. funny enough I think fighting game players are much more understanding on the issues parries can create, since it's a mechanic that has been explored more in fighting games.
Yeah Rivals parry is definitely what ruined it for me long term, its just a complete momentum stopper for anyone on offense and an inconsistent defensive tool for anyone on defense. Feels bad all around. I believe Rivals 2 is replacing the parry with a smash-style shield and I personally like the character movesets a lot, so that game should be a lot more fun.
Nioh one had a fantastic spacing/footsie element, the game had multiple types of parries but they each had limitations and since its an rpg you could spend points on other skills. I definitely felt like nioh 2 played differently though
It's funny. I actually don't really care for how parries are implemented into MGR at all, but you do make a lot of really salient points about the problems with modern again games making parrying THE central mechanic that everything else is designed around. Great video.
I'm really happy to hear that! Because yes, as a player, you are going to be a bit annoyed by the extra demands of the parry system at first, but once you understand purpose it's going to help you appreciate its choices in the long run
Funny thing is the people I know that play Sekiro like MGR instantly get wrecked. Also in Dark Souls positioning doesn't really matter if you fight individual boss as long as you master parry technique which arguably more rewarding than block or dodging
Yeah I think you can do this in elden ring as well, though in the ds games the parry seems more risky and tricky to master ha. My issue with sekiro is not the parry existing or anything, just how overly balanced towards it the combat is, because a parry is a more static combat mechanic than movement and even dodging, since they are more granualar. With a parry you either hit it or not, but with a dodge where and when you dodge still matters
8:53 It is hard to agree that parrying strategy is easier, to me it is a way to involve player in action since you do not just crush enemies thoughtlesly. As you mentioned, you have to see with what your enemy will come up, read telegraphing and make decision is it time to attack or it is time to parry and spacing does not gone anywhere... at least this my impression about sekiro, as opposite example ghost of tsushima you mostly solve positioning to avoid backstabs and then chose target chose stance and make combo - done. you absolutely not interesting in what action your opponent does, you just get closer and make combo whereas sekiro do not forgive your reclesness, it gives you thought that there is time to attack and there is a time to defence, it is not simply: when you defencing - you not attacking, it more close to reality where you can not attack always like a machingun. but I agree with your idea that situational parry would be much nicer. in sekiro it is situational dodge
When seeing this video, that reminds me of my play through with Breath of the Wild, and the parry, known as the perfect guard, requires several conditions to happen: There should be one or few enemies within Link's front facing direction Link should have at least one weapon available because weapons break. Link must have a shield available If Link has a one hand sword equipped, a shield is on the other hand If Link ha a two handed weapon, Link must put the weapon away to then use a shield When doing the shield, it is used to block enemies from the front position, but cannot cover side or back To perform a perfect guard, Link has to face the enemy in front and not let any other enemy get close The prefect guard is best performed when the enemy is about to make a melee attack or a powerful shot is approaching (Guardian) within short timing and close enough distance When the perfect guard is performed on a melee enemy, they are briefly stunned to allow for more combat options, especially arrows on the head to stun them even longer There is also another form of parry that triggers Flurry rush, and that is performed by doing a jump and going the reverse direction or side direction from an enemy attack based on directional telegraph and being very close to the enemy attack, and that is basically like a slowdown attack rush that also make an enemy stunned longer, but pushes the enemy away that requires Link to run towards the enemy before it gets up. The flurry rush could be done efficiently when the enemy is positioned close to a wall or corner that prevents the enemy from moving when doing such attack sprees. Because the majority of fights are in open areas, along with occasional small enclosures, players need to constantly read the spacing of the enemies and prioritize taking out ones that are least threatening before approaching ones that are larger threat. I personally find the Flurry rush a more potent dodge parry when dealing with multiple enemies facing the front. I barely use the perfect guard except for the Guardians, which they are the only enemies that require mastery of perfect guard due to easily telegraphed lasers, but not the same with guardian scouts laser beams that are more strict with perfect guard timing Druk's protection is an optional and toggle-able all area protection that can be useful in some situations, like many simultaneous guardian beams firing without being able to reach the front of the shield, as perfect guard reflects any laser beams that are towards Link's front while Daruk's reflects the beams from any directions. What are your thoughts on BOTW's use of parry (Perfect guard) and dodges (Flurry rush trigger)?
I think the thesis of this video is on point and I'll definitely be watching more of your stuff, but I do think a couple of your examples are missing the point somewhat. Sekiro isn't trying to be a super expressive action game with a lot of options, mastering the timing on the parrying is pretty much the entire point of the game. It doesn't replace the combat, it is the combat, and the game was made with that in mind. It's more of a case of a good idea in a good game being misunderstood and misused, continuing the trend from the earlier souls games honestly. Likewise, the RE4 Remake parry is perfect for what it is, because the remake already leaned more into the survival horror side of things than the original did. You're making more decisions and being forced to strategize more - for example, Leon can move and shoot at the same time, but the enemies are also a lot faster, and he has real momentum that prevents him from changing direction on a dime, so you have to improvise and make more involved plans on the fly. Parrying is a much needed defensive option in what are already chaotic fights where getting cornered can be a death sentence, it fits thematically because Leon already did it in the Krauser fight, and since you already have a lot of things to juggle, making it a limited resource with lenient timing on lower difficulties works perfectly with the other parts of the combat system. Saying it's just "tossed on to an existing system" doesn't seem well thought out at all
Metroid Dread has the worst parry. It’s so overpowered ( 1 hit kill and you get a ton of health) and Easy to do once you get the timing right it makes every enemy feel the same. Funny enough I haven’t heard a single complaint about it.
Totally agree. Played this with my friend and we had to make a rule that you could only parry when you could hear the health warning, because it was the only convenient way to heal and the consequences of missing was death. Actually made the game a lot more fun until the bosses started forcing it lol.
I'm 5 months late cause I only discovered this channel recently, but it's vindicating that you're out here sticking up for old-school game design and challenge. I would love to see a whole video of you eviscerating RPG mechanics in action games and the excuses for them, I too have wished that action games would dispense with the bullshit and let you have your full moveset at the start, balancing the first playthrough and tutorials around a full character kit to experiment with. I have to start over fresh on DMC5 because I lost my old save, and it's such a drag that I HAVE to play on Devil Hunter at base health/DT with no upgrades or weapons unlocked especially with Nero missing entire core mechanics until new game plus. What's really annoying is when character upgrades are passed off as a form of tutorialization, like somehow I can't be trusted to experiment with the tools at my disposal unless they're fed to me piecemeal. Insane that MGR locks away basic moves like the dodge, aerial parry, and gap-closer behind upgrades instead of dropping quick tooltips at the start like they do for the other basic controls. And having to level up health and special meters in any action game is fake progression that exists to justify wasting time on collectible-hunts and grinding IMO. I'm kinda rambling at this point but it would be an important topic to cover in a video at least just to push back against the trend of skill trees and stat-leveling getting shoved into every action game.
Ok thinking about it some more, it's funny that the issue with overpowered parries resonates so much with what I thought about Hollow Knight's boss fights. Yes, Hollow Knight's bosses gave me a hard time the first time round, as they'll choose their moves at random and you'll have to react fast. But on subsequent playthroughs, I have already learned the timings and... these boss fights are all boring as heck. The bosses have very few moves, resulting in very little complexity. Even the hardest bosses like NKG and Pure Vessel have like 5 or 6 attacks only. This in turn, means little room for the player to develop tactics and strategies. (Absolute) Radiance and Mantis Lords/Sisters of Battle are pretty much the only good boss fight in Hollow Knight, since they're the only ones that have some complexity and ambiguity. Overlapping attacks, conflicting priorities... basically good action 101. In contrast, all the other bosses only have one attack going on at a time. Once you know how to dodge an attack once, that's it. The boss is "solved". Then, it's just a matter of how much HP the boss has. The more it has relative to the size of its moveset, the more it feels like a damage sponge, and the worse the boss fight feels. If the boss is gonna be simple, at least have the courtesy of letting me annihilate it in 30 seconds or less.
yes it's a real symptom of parry focused combat I'm afraid. I had the exact same experience in sekiro, where at first I was like, wow these boss fights are brutal and insane (but in a good way). But then I watched some replays where they were just caking them all with parries, and then I went back and viola, turns out just parry my friend.
@@TheElectricUnderground Heh, I'd imagine it would be like if Dodonpachi had Varth's bomb recharge mechanic. Why dodge bullets? Just spam bombs! (RIP Maximum bonus, but 2-ALL will be so free lol) But yeah, it's always a big issue when encounters can be reduced to a single infallible strategy. That's the common trend I'm starting to see between the games I like and the games I don't, regardless of whether they're action or turn-based or something else. Usually, the games with this issue are the ones that are boring to play even on the first playthrough. The devs failed to make even the initial experience fun and engaging, much less on repeated playthroughs. But of course, they circumvent this by adding bloat and other time wasters so that you only realise this after the refund window passed. They're not even designing for the first playthrough anymore, just the first couple of hours.
Because I wanted to critique sekiro's parry system and I like mgr's parry system. I think it's interesting to compare the two. Sekiro is a cool game, but I have issues with its parry system that I think MGR has a better solution for. Why can't I critique sekiro exactly? I bought the game, played it a bunch, and didn't like the parry system. It's not like I'm randomly picking sekiro out of nowhere ha. Also I think it's much more relevant to compare games with each other directly, vs just speaking hypothetically. My form of game analysis I try to be as specific as possible, so using particular games as discussion pieces is more interesting and relevant i think.
@@TheElectricUnderground If there's anything I've learned about the Souls/Sekiro community it's that they absolutely hate it when you compare their games to anything else. Fromsoft's games must be analyzed in a bubble where every design decision is a secret stroke of genius from Miyazaki and any attempt to demonstrate that, for example, other games have better parrying mechanics, is misguided. Obviously I'm exaggerating a bit but it's a very common pattern that I've noticed mostly with this community.
I guess when someone critiques harshly and unjustly your favorite games, you take it like a champ eh? People like you tend to be the biggest hypocrites. Nothing wrong with critiquing and comparing, but if you do it expect people to have their own opinions as well.@@shitfuckmcgee8611
@@shitfuckmcgee8611 nope. Fromsoft deserves criticism where valid but these two games have very different parry systems and goals and you don't need to bring another game down to push another up.
@@morriganrenfield8240 Why exactly can't you compare a parry-centric game with light stealth mechanics to another parry-centric game with light stealth mechanics? Just because one comes out on top doesn't mean that the comparison is done in bad faith. Also not every video about a game needs to be a holistic review of that game. This video is almost exclusively focused on parries, so it doesn't make much sense to mention that Sekiro focuses more on exploration and atmosphere than MGRR, for instance. Sekiro certainly has other goals than being a pure action game, but when combat makes up so much of the game it warrants comparison to other combat-heavy games.
This is one of my favorite videos from you yet. I have always hated the Arkham titles and other bland capeshit games along similar lines but could never really find the words other than "it's dumb". There's a handful of games I've played that just have really terrible action and shoehorned elements. I know it's not supposed to be some super arcade-y action game, but the most recent Zelda's have some of the worst and most overpowered implementations of parrying I've seen yet. Which is funny because it's then outclassed by the horrendously broken Witch Ti- I mean, Flurry Rush that is so overtuned it happens by mistake. I always loved MGR. I remember hearing people call it mid or bad or unintuitive and I heard a lot of the same thing about Bayonetta 1, but I was head over heels for both games. Platinum was really on something good back in gen 7.
@@daserfomalhaut9809 Of course it's gotta be the age. And no, I am a decade older than that. MGR had one of the most braindead combat I've played. Parrying is extremely easy and quite literally negates every damage
take my like, even dont have time to watch this epic yet, just for the sake of its finally happening, on eve of my mobilisation. extra like for poncho. i still left my dl-vr-30 mission s rank unfinished sadly
Downplaying SEKIRO is certainly a choice, however I’m happy to see you expand more often your critique and thoughts on other games. Who knows, maybe in 10-12 years it’ll be revealed to you what makes SEKIRO special. PS. People should learn that there is actually only 2 genres and schools in gaming: Arcade gaming and Modern gaming. And although there can be a cross-discussion/discourse, they cannot be compared 1:1 for what they intend to achieve.
Imagine pushing up and jump to jump a gap in Mario. Why not press 3 buttons to Parry? Might as well just keep making it even more complicated. It will satisfy some gamer nerd somewhere.
@@TheElectricUnderground i completed that as well..on my xbox 360...what a fantastic action game it was..pure gold...an hidden gem...what a pity it didnt get any sequel or spinoff...
You're totally right how little positioning/spacing matters in modern game design. I realized modern games are designed to hold the hands of players as much as possible when I tried to play an older beat em up title, Urban Reign. The game kicked my ass very early on. You can't just rely on mindless aggression or your blocks and parries. Enemies circle around you very quickly and literally juggle you to death. You have to carefully manuever around and pick your battles one by one without whiffing any of your punches. This game's design was an eye opener to me. Have you ever tried Urban Reign, Mark? I think it's right up your alley.
exactly my dude! and the part about action games now is that by trading out the manual spacing for automated spacing, then you lose the nuances of what the player can engage in. So being able to take smaller calculated risks or bigger risks is removed in favor of just doing what is expected and that is that. So modern games are trading out subtly of design for ease of access, which give the game less depth in the end. Also I'll have to take at a look at urban reign. :-) I've never tried it.
oh sick!! you used part of the 3rd strike anti air tutorial me and my friend made way back when. it was inspired by CVS2 legend buktooth saying he didn't like 3rd strike parry because he thought it made jumping in too good and I wanted to showcase that the defending grounded player still had better options than the jumper. one thing I didn't put in the video was the crouching to standing last minute parry for the grounded player making the available mixup timing window for late jump-in normals much smaller (depending on your character size - shorter the better). this was the kuroda / MOV chun li tech that was still kinda secret back then hahaha.. anyway - love the channel sick vids dude!
oh shit that's awesome! great job on the tutorial! I needed to find footage to show how you have to adjust your fundamental spacing and strategy around the parry mechanic, and your video was the perfect illustration of this :-) Another topic in 3s that I considered to put in, but it seemed a bit too technical for the vid, was the red parry of 3s. And how by tying parries to extremely strict inputs, it creates a more natural balance to them because on paper red parry is broken af, but since it's execution is so hard, it naturally balances in terms of risk and reward.
@@TheElectricUnderground thanks! yah the red parry having only a 2 frame input window only was definitely perfect to keep it balanced. for supers the last high usually hit the hardest and would often get additional follow-up so missing it was very punishing. the small window made it so timing/move strength mix-ups on a red parrying opponent were very viable . For individually inputted block strings like ken short->short or strong->fierce it meant that going for red parry had to done immediately and the opponent could do things like single short into stand strong for a mid mix-up. totally agree about sekiro also! haha
100% agree that there should be a training mode in Platinum Games where you could choose a section of a stage. In Bayonetta, it was so infuriating having to go through the terrible shmup stage before you could practice the last Jeanne fight (which was by far the hardest fight in the game)
yeah completely! and I think if the developers of character action games understood their arcade game heritage or crossover fanbase, they would add in more modes and features based on combat and not progression systems.
I don't even play many character action games, yet while I enjoyed Sekiro I also found it really difficult to get into, because it basically punished my instinctual reactions to space and dodge. I eventually put it down because my wrist started to really hurt from constantly spamming parry. Even something so basic as attack in Dark Souls, which is also mapped to a trigger, is used more situationally and never gave me wrist pains from repetitive pressing. Just goes to show how heavily parrying overrides everything else in Sekiro.
I had a similar experience with sekiro where I spent hours trying to make the spacing and dodging work, until I realized, oh wait the game wants me to parry ... A lot ha. I think fromsoft were experimenting with it because they really toned it back in elden ring
By watching your videos, I think there’s only one thing that you seem to get wrong or at least we fundamentally disagree. When you say no action game should have these “fillery platformy gimmick sections” or whatever that are popular on Platinum/Kamiya games I really disagree. We are only humans after all and performing a repetitive task often causes us to become increasingly careless. Psychologists call that “Vigilance Decrement” that apparently begins to take effect after just 15 minutes and one way of combating that problem is to give players a breather by asking them to do something else for a moment instead. That way I think it works on games like bayonetta and viewtiful joe and the wonderful 101 when you have to do a little puzzle or get some kind of key item in the area or whatever. Of course there’s room for criticism for some of the gimmick but that’s the core idea behind it all, I think. Anyway amazing video on rising. Sekiro really is one of my all time favourites and I find its parry more satisfying than mgr’s but I really get your point here.
The core idea is crap to begin with - it's the developers being afraid that players won't pick their game up if they dare to take a break because it has nothing going for it, so they mommy players around with these forced breaks in case they feel exhausted attempting to create a compulsion-based playstyle. If you get away from that mentality and just simply take breaks the problem completely goes away and in fact the opposite starts happening - you'll start enjoying it when games exhaust you because it creates a very fulfilling satisfying experience. Surely the whole point of action games is that they're intense bursts of energy, no? That is inherently a little exhausting and will overload your senses, that's great because a short session will feel "full" in a way that slow, varied, low intensity games can never match. There's also an asymmetry - you can always take a break in games without minigames/exploration/'platforming/what have you, I can't always skip this worthless filler.
@@boghogSTG yeah sure fair enough, but I disagree. That’s a case of intuition vs logic, of course one would think an action game should be all action but bayonetta 1 for example would actively be a worse game (for me at least) without these moments. Why bother conveying at all a story, scenarios, different levels etc. if they can turn every single action game into an arena that you start with and simply all the encounters you would have in the level are just waves of enemies until you beat the whole thing? That makes me feel bored, it’s unappealing. You seem to argue for a very “Shmup” point of view, I don't know if you love these types of games or not but a shmup is something built to last like 30 minutes, isnt it? I think that in action campaigns there is room for these little segments that are not focused on action. I'm not saying that I want my games flooded with that Walkie Talkie segments shit from Sony, and definitively that Missile shmup segment in Bayonetta could be shorter, but the extreme opposite of having nothing at all is bad either.
@@xHanabiran This is a different issue though - if the concern is that worldbuilding and such will go to waste then surely that can be completely fixed with optional voluntary activities that arent forced? Them being forced is my problem, them existing as extras isn't a problem because that removes the asymmetry Im talking about. Alfheimrs are kinda like that (though too abstract & locking Angel Slayer behind them is stupid) - why not simply relegate that stuff to the side where you can enjoy it, but it wont interfere with my enjoyment? Neither of us need devs to paternalistically micro manage our whole experience I assume. I will say though that the problem is that even if I enjoy the story stuff once (I did with MGR and even Hi Fi Rush), it doesnt work at all on repeated playthroughs cuz at that point Im focused on the gameplay and the story stuff becomes a nuisance. If these were walking sims you play once for the story thatd be ok but the games dont even really start until your 2nd or 3rd playthrough. This design just completely clashes with their arcadey nature
@@boghogSTGEvery platinum game I have played has an extra mode that's just combat. You can play that. Personally I'm not a big fan of minigames either on replays but I like the variety that the campaign has. Non stop action gets tiring no matter how good the gameplay is. Take RE4 a simple slower paced game that also has a lot of quiet moments.
@@13kickheadspin49 Yes I only play modes like Angel Slayer or specific chapters nowadays cause the campaigns are so bad but there's a problem with that - you're basically forcing the best content to be a debug arena looking thing. I mean, I'll play it either way but not having any environmental variety or sense of forward movement during combat sucks. Also don't just say "non stop combat gets boring" like it's some universal truth - it doesn't. I can play Angel Slayer for hours with little to no breaks and not get bored in the slightest but will get bored outta my skull redoing the worthless platforming or "puzzle solving". It might be true for you but that's an argument for making it optional rather than forcing it. Another thing is, combat & "quiet" time are not mutually exclusive - you can increase/decrease combat tension to create varied pacing without resorting to completely unengaging gameplay.
Parry ruined alot of spacing element in Monster Hunter. If you compare a Longsword play in Monster Hunter Rise and Longsword play in games like 4U, you will see that the longsword isnt very recognizable.
Definitely. 4 was kinda the beginning of the end though in my opinion, I really don't think mounting and those aerial attacks were a good thing to add (or at least weren't implemented well) (still a good game though). And in Generations they really went all out adding all kinds of wacko parries, dodges and even more meter management to the game. I didn't even play World or Rise but I can only imagine the direction they took it in.
@@Steve-Fiction in the beginning part of 4u, it kinda hard to avoid doing mounting since the fields are designed around mounting. Maybe 4U is a bad example but it is the oldest MH i have played. Not gonna lie though, the addition of insect glaive and charge blade are the sign of Capcom implementing modern game design to MH series. Ohh boy my opinion is now invalid.
@@Steve-Fiction about generations, the game atleast remained to be grounded. But I cant deny that those hunter arts change some weapons on how they really play. Look at the lance, its supposed to be an upclose weapon about careful poking turned into vroom vroom chariot.
While I enjoyed Rise a good deal, I really hope that Wilds will return to a more fundamentals-based combat system. I'd love to see less weapons relying on the parry, and for the parrying to be less of a catch-all solution. Even switchblade, which has always relied heavily on spacing and dodging, got a parry in Sunbreak.
@@qwertyuiopqwerqwererty I always see switch axe as a weapon that is overly commited to slashing, like a greatsword but more on stationary yet continuous slashing. Kinda hard to imagine that having defensive tool.
I’m so tired of reviewers complaining about games that require skill. Games for me have never been passive entertainment, the challenge was always the key fundamental. I love Rising, not only cos of the gameplay but how just how cool it looks and feels. It’s the same feeling I used to get when I saw model 2/3 Sega cabinets as a kid. Mark, you’re always on the money and a very important voice in the world of unskilled video game reviewers. I really appreciate your work brother!
yes I agree, and I think part of this stems from putting the gameplay of the games second and the interactive story elements of the games first. So if you play games for their interactivity, then brutal difficulty is going to get in the way of that ha.
I love that subtitle hah, It's so true. Another good thing to mention about parry implementation is that the game doesn't score you on its usage. if you play any other modern action game™ with parries, you know it's gonna have some meta-mechanic that forces player to use it and penalize ignoring it. Overall, ranking system is very well-thoughtout and very flexiable in a way that it allows for reaching S ranks. It allows for many different playstyles depending on which categories player chooses to prioritize to obtain an S rank, because you don't have to perfect all categories for the necessary 5K BP. There is even hidden non-lethal bonus, that requires player to incapacitated human enemies instead of killing them (if you're playing this way, you don't have to watch zandatsu animation all the time too).
yes I agree completely, this is my big problem with the zandatsu system. Where you can tell platinum got all excited about it, but didn't realize that they were funneling the player into a really static playstyle by making it a scoring bonus. Luckily you can get around this since the s rank requirements are more flexible, but if you were playing purely for score then you'd have to zandatsu all the time, ugh.
I don't really feel at home with this genre yet so I learned quite a bit in this video. You seemed very inspired here which is always a great thing. When the long introduction started I knew I was in for a treat.
yes I'm hoping what this vid can do for new players is create a roadmap to how the mechanics of the game work ha, where you do sort of go through cycles of playing the game as you learn its mechanics, and how you feel about the game shifts as you learn and appreciate the mechanics, like the directional based parry.
Your critique of Sekiro falls apart the second you start praising MGR for the exact same things Sekiro does, like having ublockable attacks, grabs, groups of multiple enemies (Sekiro does that a lot lol) to make combat less reliant on parries. Saying that MGR has viable alternatives to parries by showing you fighting Sam painfully slowly is just funny to me. Wow, you can run away from him to bait an attack that triggers at long range and then dodge him. I mean, that's VERY basic and also very slow and not effective, so why not just parry him and kill him faster and more easily? I've seen people running away from Isshin like an idiot and attacking him after he exposes himself instead of parrying him, so I don't really see the difference here. Honestly, parry in MGR is stronger than in Sekiro, because it's much easier to perform and it doesn't require any tight timings, it's very low risk unless you're going for counter. And if you're going for a counter, that's even stronger since on Revengeance you basically one shot and even on lower difficulties you do a lot of damage, so why wouldn't you just do that? I don't understand your reasonings.
Not sure if you mentioned it as I haven’t watched the whole vid yet. But even with parry focused combat, mgrr has stylish combos you can preform with animation canceling, weapon swap tech, and raidens big movelist. You can get pretty creative with combos in this game. I feel that this gives it the edge over other parry based games as the combat is deep too.
yes for sure! what I like about mgr is that it does have a strong parry system, but it also supplements it with a ton of other options and systems (like ninja run and fast movement), so it's more of a fundamental combat system with a parry attached, vs a parry system with a combat game attached ha.
MGRR is phenomenal and RE4 absolutely went too far with the parry, i agree with you there, but a lot of the Sekiro stuff in this video is wild. Spacing is super important, there are viable alternatives to the parry (blocking with meter and positioning management, i-frame dodges, prosthetics, and execution i-frames all go a very long way when used in appropriate situations) and attacks that go right through it that require different responses, tracking is very reasonable, i could go on. I've had more fun on every subsequent playthrough of the game by finding new ways to use combat arts, movement, and prosthetics in boss fights. I have 150 hours in that game and at least 100 of it is in the reflection mode, fighting bosses over and over again, just like Metal Gear Rising. The combat encounters in Sekiro are every bit as engaging, replayable and variable as those in Meral Gear Rising for me, it's just a very different game. It really seems like youre ignoring a lot of things about Sekiro to make it fit your points when comparing it to MGRR is inherently flawed. They're massively different games trying to do massively different things.
The problem with Rising is, it’s neither as good and engrossing adventure as SEKIRO nor as mechanically deep and satisfying and arcadey and insane as Ninja Gaiden 3 RE. It fits somewhere in the middle and it’s fun, as is the conversation around its cult status. Anything more is kind of absurd and idiosyncratic.
It's funny that the video of Sekiro he used to try to emphasize his point that positioning doesn't matter, dodging is disadvantageous, and attacks can rarely be interrupted shows the player dodging around an attack to get into a more advantageous position and interrupting some attacks with their own to score a little vitality and posture damage.
@@MrEverythingX76 yeah, you can pretty clearly see them spamming block to let RNG decide if they get a parry as well. It looks like day one gameplay, it's so clearly from somebody who doesn't understand the finer points of how the game works. I finished the video since writing my original comment and yeah, wow, it's a poor point made poorly.
I think there is a big overlap between the games, both of them are approaching towards parry heavy 3d melee combat, both of them even have a stealth mechanic ha. I wouldn't be at all surprised if mgr was an influence on sekiro. I do appreciate that sekiro still has free movement (unlike sifu) but its the balance of the combat I have a problem with. Your character is just too slow to maneuver around enemies effectively and the enemies just power through your attacks without much hitstun. Then of course there is the stagger bar to push the parrying even harder (you don't get stagger for dodging right). So it s from being really heavy handed with the game balance to make sure that the parry is core. And then the parry is just a button press rather than a combo of button and direction. So you end up with a system that is too good and too simple to ignore. It would be,fascinating if I could find a way to rebalance sekiro with cheats to show how the game could have better combat, because the ingredients are there
@@TheElectricUnderground I'm in the middle of playing Sekiro right now, and I have to seriously disagree with the statement that your character is too slow to move around enemies effectively. Wolf isn't as fast as Ryu Hayabusa, but his dodge and run are more than fast enough to get around attacks with big windups and get yourself into a good position to do some vitality damage and force your opponent back into a blocking pattern to build up posture damage and bait out a predictable response to counter. Parry is extremely powerful because it builds up posture meter and gets you one step closer to victory, but dodging and running at the right times has been an integral part of every single victory I've had against every single boss I've fought so far.
I'm relatively new to character action games and beat em ups, so i appreciate your mechnical break down in the first half of the video. It makes it really easy to contrast my recent experience with streets of rage 2 and how enjoyable the moment to moment gameplay is against a range of modern action games.
I'm glad you enjoyed the mechanical analysis, because ironically enough as much as people talk about the mechanics of the game, they don't get down to the fundimentals of stuff like spacing and hitboxes, usually reviews focus on special moves.
FOr my money VanQuish has the best campaign of any PG game. There are no Perm upgrades to carry to NG+. JUst your skill of what you learned. You upgrade weapons as you play but those start over wich each playtrhough.
I haven't seen anyone mention the little dig at Super Punch Out!! at 9:45, so I'll bite on that one. There's plenty of juice left in Super Punch Out!! after you know the patterns. Once you know the patterns, you can really start to dominate the game. The world record for fastest completion of the game just got set in 2022, 29 years after the game came out. It's like saying there's not much challenge left in a shmup after you can consistenly 1cc it, which we all know isn't true. I honestly think this video was uncharacteristically sloppy at points.
honestly i disagree with a lot of your initial titles but i always love watching your videos as you articulate your arguments so well there have been several times you have 100% changed my mind and times where i disagree but can absolutely understand and see where your coming from. Great writing!can’t wait to see what’s next!
Oh that's awesome jamer! Yes, I'm hoping that the title is intriguing and then the content can back up what I'm talking about, and that what I am talking about is rather unexpected. Because part of what motives me to make a video on a subject, is if I feel like it is an unexplored topic. Parries are think are a great example of this, where everyone has been happy with some of the fun aspects of parries, but doesn't talk about what tradeoffs they create in the combat system of the game overall.
Mark out here dressed like a white college girl’s wall nice shit Great video I’d like to also bring up Stranger of Paradise in this discussion where you treat your parries like a resource with your guard bar getting used up and raising your mp so it’s luring you into a mindset where you want to parry everything but you end up getting guard broken and your ass handed to you so you have to find different ways to handle attacks based on what your resources are like and I enjoy that a lot Sufficed to say Team Ninja stays on top in the action game genre
it's my homage to the poncho outfit in mgr ha, I love that outfit. :-) Also yes I need to talk about stranger of paradise! bog loves it and it sounds like it's got a lot of awesome stuff going on, team ninja goes hard.
Def sick of parries. Surge 2 had a descent directional parry system too but luckily you still didn't 100% need to use it. Like Lies of P though it was heavily pushed & reccommended. But yeah i'll dodge & space myself instead thank you very much 🙄
Bayonetta 3 let's you choose and repeat the verse you want to get S/platinum. Sometimes cuts some of the running/intro staff. I think is one of my favourite features of that flawed game.
Yes I think devs are starting to pickup on these types of features from fighting games. Another funny one is that ff16 had an arcade mode. The mode itself wasn t that good but they are starting to get the idea at least. I should try it again, I heard it was patched recently
I’m awful at parrying in any game including this one, but Rising was so damn fun back on the 360. Pretty sure now I need to buy it on Steam and play through again.
Absolutely fantastic video! It's such a strong discussion on a topic that I think gets glossed over, since parries "feel good" for the many casual, "one playthrough" players. But we do lose a lot of depth that was present in action games by focusing on easier, more frequent parries. My one disagreement is that while I do think it's fair to blame Sekiro for causing this boom in poorly implemented parries, I don't think that the game itself is actually bad. Unlike many of its copycats, Sekiro isn't trying to be an action game. It's trying to give a certain "vibe," the stylish Shinobi fantasy, the ebb and flow of clashing blades. The combat system lacks depth and player agency, but it looks and feels spectacular when you have a successful fight, which is the primary goal of that game. I'm like you in that I prefer action games myself, so I'm also not the biggest fan of Sekiro personally, but I do think there's strong craftsmanship behind it. It's different than when parries are shoehorned into other games where they fundamentally don't belong with the rest of the combat system
yes exactly galaxy. I think these days the go to mentality for game design is to make every mechanic as accessible as possible, while not thinking about the depth that is lost by making them extremely easy to access. Another example like this is the one button super. Where fighting games have been removing the input complexity of a super in favor of making them a single button press. However, what this causes is that the risk reward game of executing the super is gone, and so now if you have super and you hit a connecting move, you should always super. Whereas in the past , if your super is a motion input, you'd have to make sure to setup the motion input as well. So the technique of input buffering is just gone.
another examples of great parrying is dmc5, you can use nearly any melee attack hitbox to clash into the enemy attacks (or hell, any projectile), and the sounds are phenomal funny enough, dmc reboot had it too
I really enjoy the Royal guard mechanic of dmc, especially since it can be used offensively for cancels as well as defensively. Also jumps have start up s, that s really cool ha
I think a really good example of the impact of adding parries into a game is the Ys series. The Ys series was all about positioning for a very long time then they introduced flash guard into Ys Seven where it wasn't too bad because the game is still designed to be enjoyable without using it, and it's a little more out of the way then later games, even if it's really strong. Then they added flash move (basically witch time from Bayonetta) in Memories of Celceta and by the next game, Ys VIII, bosses are designed with the parry mechanics in mind and are not fun without using them, but when using them positioning loses all importance. It went from a series where the boss fights were the most enjoyable aspect of the game to one where they're basically large normal enemies that you only fight once.
it's funny because i remember back then everyone thought the parry in MGR was clunky and obtuse, on top of being a downgrade over a bayonetta-like perfect dodge mechanic, which I honestly still prefer over a perfect parry tbh.
The parry system and posture meter in Sekiro have a specific design purpose that fits into the studio's overall vision for combat: they were attempting to simulate the ebb-and-flow and feeling of tension that comes with close-quarters sword combat. They were using the combat mechanics to capture a particular feeling, not create an exquisitely refined battle system. This inclusion needs mentioning as it serves to differentiate Sekiro from games like Rising which incorporate an approach to combat you obviously find favourable. Now, I completely understand anyone preferring one approach to combat mechanics over another, but it seems unfair to offer up a critique which negatively chastises a game like Sekiro for an approach it never set out to follow. I do get the impression sometimes that your critiques are aimed at addressing perceived injustices or misconcpetions in the gaming discourse. In the majority of cases, I think you do a fantasitc job and are easily one of the most perceptive and thorough commenters here on TY. However, we are all human, and occassionaly, I feel that your critiques are held back due to your contrarian impulse to "deflect" these perceived injustices.
As a reviewer, the point is to critique games from the perspective of the player, not the developer (or for that matter, the businessman). The developer can have a specific design goal and execute it perfectly, but if that makes for a terrible game, how is that the player's problem? Furthermore, how many people are following a game's development history to know what is intended and what isn't? The average Joe certainly isn't. Edit: The following has been updated because some people can't let go of one tiny error about a clearly indicated *hypothetical* example. It's like a game is marketed as a shmup but it turns out to be a euroshmup because the developer has some silly design goal (which is really how euroshmups ended up being created historically). The player expects they are going to play a Japan-style shmup, but what they got was something that is still shmup but very awful. Is the game still a shmup? Yes. Did the devs achieve their goals? Yes. Did the game turn out well? No. Is the player at fault for having the wrong expectations? No. It's the job of the devs to balance the design goal with good gameplay. If the devs want to overly focus on the design goal *at the expense* of gameplay, they should go and make something else. Want to focus on story? Go write a book. Want to focus on pretty graphics? Go make a film. What makes games different from other media is gameplay. If you're gonna sacrifice gameplay, then you're obviously making a bad game. Everything else doesn't matter.
@@magicjohnson3121 And someone's preferences don't dictate good or bad design. Its the intent and the execution that you can maybe critique objectively.
@@lunaria_stg Critique on the player's side will always be biased. Even if a player thinks the use of mechanics in a game makes for a bad experience, another can say the experience was great. The problem with videos like this one is comparing games with completely different mechanical goals as if they're intended to follow the same principles with the same experience in mind, which is just argumenting in bad faith. Also, literally no one thinks Sekiro is a character action because it never tries to be one, nor does it even pretend to be one. Anything past the tutorial will force you to play by the game's rules and once the intended flow clicks, every player understands why the unorthodox use of these already existing mechanics were applied the way they are, no need for interviews or other external material.
I don't play games with a parry mechanic, so I don't have much to say there. But regarding being depowered and how NG+ is the real game... One reason I love shmups is because it is just gameplay at its most saturated, and it's interesting to see how trends evolved in the genre. When it comes to power ups, shmups went from Gradius syndrome, to removing checkpoints and giving power ups on death for easier recovery, to removing power ups on death (Mushi), and finally to removing power ups altogether (later CAVE games). And honestly? More action games should just unlock everything from the beginning. I may praise Rabi-Ribi for being a masterpiece, but it's not without flaws. One part that sucks is how attacks have to be slowly unlocked in the beginning of the game, but it helps that this doesn't last very long. Unfortunately, the semi-spiritual successor, TEVI, doubled down on this. You have to slowly unlock attacks all the way until lategame. And after finishing the game, you get access to a modifier that unlocks all these attacks from the very beginning. Essentially, a NG+ mode. So... why not just unlock all the attacks from the beginning? If the purpose is to ease players into the mechanics and not to overwhelm them from the beginning, it's simple. Just slowly introduce tutorials along the way that reveals the existence of these moves. And even if some players are still overwhelmed, they can just stick to the basic moves themselves. Why artificially limit the better players for the sake of weaker players? When I frame the question like this, it becomes obvious how little sense this RPG progression makes. In a single player game, why should another player's own limitations affect my gameplay experience? That's the whole point of a SINGLE PLAYER game right? In a multiplayer game, this also makes no sense. You want the better player to win, so it doesn't make sense to weaken the better player at all. On a side note, now that I have a bit of game development experience, shouldn't developers be acutely aware of their games having poor replayability? If you're not having fun playtesting it, that the game isn't fun, period. I made two games for a game development course: a caravan shmup done on my own (that I should really work on more) and a puzzle game done as a group (actual puzzles, not puzzle action like Tetris and Puyo Puyo). I was having so much fun testing the shmup and I knew I struck gold. But the puzzle game? Wow, playtesting was just tedious. It has zero replayability and I hated the game way before development even finished. (It was what the group wanted to do, so I couldn't do anything about it. I already tried to push my idea to make a shmup but of course no one is receptive.) I think these modern character action game developers must have repeated fights over and over, to the point they are actually sick of an overpowered, centralising mechanic, right? How in the world did they think it was ok to stick with it? Are the people in charge of designing the game not doing extensive testing? In that case, maybe the roles of game designer and game developer must be merged...
Wow! I never knew you are developing a game. As for my second wow, its sad that no one in your group appreciate shmup. Also, thank goodness that Rabi Ribi isnt a parry fest of a game. I actually felt like I am playing Megaman Zero series when playing Rabi Ribi.
Keep in mind that the bigger the team and the more specialized the directors role, the more difficult itll be to iterate on the fly. Indie dev is often all about letting games build up organically but with bigger teams you need a solid gdd/idea early on and needless to say its insanely hard to visualize how everything will connect in the end. Theres also just the fact that theyre not really that rewarded for making games with longevity - people who go hard and replay char action games are a small niche, ultimately not THAT different to shmuppers... Also idk if its just me but I have a better time learning if Im just dropped into a hard encounter with every tool in the game unlocked
@@boghogSTG Yeah I could guess as much. Honestly, I won't be suited to do game development as a full time job, because my game design philosophy is completely at odds with what the studios want. And that's also why as a player, I prefer smaller, more focused games. And yeah, it's the tough fights that would make me review my strategies and try to optimise my DPS. Slowly rolling out the player's moveset usually doesn't work for me. After all, I'm not being incentivised to review my current strategies, and so I'll quickly forget that move even existed.
@@soratheorangejuicemascot5809 It's just Bun Bun Panic, hahaha. I plan to port it to Godot (because screw Unity), polish it up in terms of QoL, and maybe replace some assets. This is what I plan to do this month, but it's more of a demo rather than a full, proper release. For a full release, I would want to update the assets, make the game longer (3-5min), introduce more enemy types, and even out the rank system or abolish it altogether. But I have no idea when I'll get around to doing that, because I'll have to basically redesign the game and finding assets may be tough. No one appreciating shmups is pretty common, though. Heck, they couldn't even differentiate a shmup from a Vampire Survivors-like game. ThEy'rE aLL sHoOteRs, they say. Like seriously, they said a lot of groups were doing shooters, but we got a Vampire Survivors, a MOBA, a puzzle platformer, a metroidvania, a roguelike, and... uhh, I don't really know what genre the last one is, but it's certainly not a shooter. Like wow, so many shooters! There were so many that I didn't need any fingers to count them! Well, whatever. I'm just gonna take my other shmup idea and do it myself. Gives me full creative control anyway, which will be for the better.
@@lunaria_stg Well there's probably always gonna be more comfy smaller teams around that are generally on the same wavelength thankfully. But yea doing game design for big studios just seems like a nightmare - no matter what your preferences are you'll just get sucked into the AAA design vortex.
Ha yeah, I think action games are starting to pickup on this idea more, because even FF16 had like an arcade mode with leaderboards. So action games seem to be picking up on the idea of what kinds of extra modes would be good, but sadly the core combat of bayo 3 doesn't interest me nearly as much as the original.
The issue with the directional parry is that it's relative to the somewhat jank camera. When it's working well, it feels excellent to pull off, but I feel like the camera being so close behind Raiden causes it to move around a lot in certain sections and changes the angle you have to tilt the stick while you're trying to do it. It's not a major issue, but it causes some frustration.
oh yeah I'll make a vid about my thoughts on cameras pretty soon, but despite a few issues with the camera getting tripped up, I actually do like the mgr's close up camera. The thing is that, with action games lately, you'll notice the camera keeps getting further and further away from the player. Nioh compared to ninja gaiden for example, and for the most part players do prefer this. But one reason why I like the close camera, is that I don't view the camera as like an objective eye of god, but rather a gameplay mechanic unto itself. So part of the skill of NG and MGR is knowing how to manage the camera and where to place it, and the trade off for this is having more visceral presentation and getting a closer look at what's happening with the enemy attacks. So if you think of the camera as more of a mechanic that you need to manage and tests your spatial memory, then it feels less arbitrary than just being a broken point of view ha. There's a balancing point to this of course, but it feels like players are becoming more and more used to a standard camera angle across all games, rather than thinking of the camera as a mechanic unto itself.
Sekiro is an action game and can thus be compared to other action games. Ninja Gaiden Black has a more adventure feel to it, with a map that you can explore with some freedom, backtracking, shops, hidden collectibles, but it's still an action game.
Im not sure that adding a directional input for parrying actually motivates spacial awarenes in any significant amount Most of the the time enemies are in front of you anyway And even if an enemy attacks you from a side or from the back and you have parried him it would take the same amount of awarness to parry such enemy in any other game like sekiro Because in order to parry an enemy the most awarness is spend on recognising the fact of the attack and recognising this attack pattern rather then recongnising the part of the screen wher this enemy is located This is why I don't think that the directional parry makes it nay different Directional parrying could add more awarness to the game if it would use it's direction not to the direction of the enemy but to the direction of its attack movement In this case the player is motivated to learn not only timings but also directions of the attacks and lear recongise those different attacks and directions LIke it was implemented in Sifu with its evade mechanic The parry in MGR suffers a lot from the fact thet it is an OP mechanic wich doesn't punish the player for spaming it You are basically invinsible if you spam your parries an you can do this infinetely There is no reason in learning enemies animations and the exact attacks timings - you will punish the enemies with a powerfulll pary attacks less frequently if you spam the button, but it doesn't really matter, you can damage them between your parry spams with just your attacks Most of the games without directional parry solve the parry spaming problem in multiple ways Like adding some cooldown for the parry or making unsuccessfull parries fill your poisture bar like sifu or sekiro
Bayonetta has this too with the direction parry, and doesn’t Zelda have that too since you need to perform a counter from a block which also leaves you vulnerable? It leaves you exposed and it’s a riskier approach because the block doesn’t remain.
I haven't played the newer zelda games, only a tiny bit of BOTW, but it is funny if they figured out why adding a direction to the parry is a good idea ha. And yes bayo 1 has a really good dodge mechanic because it's dodge is more granular than a parry. Where a parry is a very static outcome, you either hit it or don't', but a dodge is more nuanced because it also requires a direction to move into, so you can dodge into enemies for more risk, dodge away for less risk, or dodge sideways for sort of medium risk. I like dodges because they still factor into the overall spacing game.
Great video! I figured you'd be a big MGR fan. Even though it was quite popular, it still doesn't get the love it deserves compared to the other "cuhrayzee/action games". I think I actually prefer MGR and Bayonetta 1 to almost every other action game except maybe NInja Gaiden 2 (Though I like Vanquish better than all of them and it's not even close)
Yes this game is so funny because when I first started playing it, it had some elements I was a bit concerned about (namely how parry focused it is and the zandatsu system). But then as I kept playing ... I just couldn't stop ha. It just has that nice blend of well made player moveset plus enemy design that is hard to find and really engaging once you find it. I think if the game just did something to fix the zandatsu system and had a full on angel slayer mode, it would also be my number one plat game.
One of the comments here made me think of Onimusha. I loved the first 2 games, they were a great combo of character action and survival horror. A glitch in Onimusha is what inspired Dante's sword juggles in DMC 1 iirc. You should check em out!
oh yeah onimusha is an interesting one to look at, especially in terms of how it would compare to the dark souls style combat. I haven't played onimusha much but it would be so fascinating to compare it's dna to dark souls and the souls series for sure.
Literally the worst version of Moon of Mahaa-Kalaa from Bayonetta 1. That's all I can say about the parry system of mgr (as well as the game itself :\)
Great video, love this game. Another game with a nice presentation and stage select system is lords of shadow, even better that you can change difficulty in any given stage, to me it encourages me more to complete and learn than having to clear everything in one go every single time. However you can change difficulty on the fly at the last minute but that defeats the purpose. I know it's not a game some are fond of but I think it was pretty good, same problems though, QTEs and such but overall I really like what was done, like a summary of action games of the last decade.
Oh yeah I love dynamic difficulty in games, but I'm not a huge fan of the player being able to change the difficulty directly. Because then it gives the player an instant escape hatch ha. But I like the idea of the game changing it's difficulty based on the player's performance in different ways, rank basically ha.
Interesting video overall. I was hoping you would have more criticisms towards Sekiro, but they were actually few and far between. Even if I disagree with some of the things you said, I can see the appeal towards MGRR over Sekiro. Not really my cup of tea. Side note, I implore you to play Sekiro without Kuro's charm and learn how to better utilize the tools and arts. Once you really learn how to incorporate those mechanics in with the base attack/deflect mechanic, it really opens the game up. You can do some amazing combos.
It was on your flop list, but I think Wo Long had some pretty interesting ideas with the parry that I hope they build on in a sequel that I doubt will happen. 1. Double-tapping the parry button results in a dodge; The parry window is pretty lenient, but it at least ensures that you keep your inputs somewhat precise. 2. Parrying also moves you in the direction you hold your stick in. The game doesn't lean into this as much as I wish it did, but there are some bosses like Zhang Liao where you can essentially parry your way around a combo, and escape it early to get in some attacks of your own while the enemy continues to flail forward. This can also come into play with group encounters, since you have to think about where you want to parry towards, though group encounters in Wo Long are not often used. 3. There are moments where parrying is a wasted action; If your spirit bar is full and you're still parrying, you could be using that spirit to use a martial art, some of which can evade enemy attacks just by virtue of how they position you. There are still a lot of problems with it in practice, but I find it to be a much more thoughtful implementation of parries than most games these days.
Yeah I wouldn't take my flops super seriously as I said in the vid that was more of a for fun from the gut list than any kind of definitive review ha. I was mostly disappointed by wo long being sort of ehh rather than being a bad game or anything ha. One team ninja game I m def gonna follow up on though is stranger in paradise 😊
the previous tongue-in-cheek thumbnail stating 'sekiro but good' was far more provocative and user engaging
The directional based input parry in Rising is how parries should be used in all games! Now we need that Godhand right stick dodge mechanic used more often. Imagine a game like that nowadays. IGN would hate it......again 😂
If you think about it, even the first god of war game had directional dodge mechanic with the right stick.
@@Sultansekte That's true, it did. I was thinking more of how in Godhand you flick the stick and Gene moves in that direction (ducking, swaying, backflipping and you can sweep with it too). God of war has it, Godhand is more in depth with it. Punch out, wade hixtons counter punch, they all use it. Wish more games used it in the way Godhand utilizes it. Makes for a more enjoyable experience. Be a better use for it than just focusing the camera like in most games
@@markmillar4910 some sort of compromise would be nice. I really don't like god hands camera despite that i like other things about it.
I agree my dude, the function of the player still needing to track enemy positioning in order to compete the parry is a very good balancing mechanic to keep the spacing game in play and not making the parry a simple timing press. We want spacing to be part of the combat, and not just have your combat be a 1 button rhythm game.
@@TheElectricUnderground Maybe it's a good idea to make different effects for a parry, depending on direction? It would invalidate argument about that directional parry is overcomplicated unnecessary.
You know I was thinking about this lately and came to conclusion, that one of the most underrated, and also hated, game mechanics, is tank controls. Especially in games like Onimusha and God Hand. Tank controls allow you to move and aim at the same time with the same input, while most of the modern games have to rely on camera lock mechanics (Dark Souls), that allows you to focus only on one enemy at the time. Fighting multiple enemies in this games is kinda pain in the ass. Also God hand has a lot of "parry" mechanics, like counter hit or throw break. However forward dash is probably the best parry mechanic in video games. Because how it tights up to your movement, it allows you to recover faster without loosing your position, wile other dash options are much saffer but requare you to move away from the oponnet. So unlike most of the modern games, where parry breaks your offence, in God hand parry allows you to be more aggressive. Also you looks like a hippie grandma in this poncho :D Love your video.
he should review Onimusha or Onimusha 2, classic classic games imo
oh yes "tank controls" are really underrated for another reason in that they create a limitation that the player can work around and enemies can exploit. On paper it seems like having the player being able to aim and move without any restriction is always good, but then what that does is naturally push the balance towards just being good at aiming and shooting, because the spacing game becomes arbitrary. So if you have a limitation on one mechanic, you can then emphasize other mechanics to help give the game a more individual feel.
@@TheElectricUndergroundthe problem I think is that there are different types of limitations and the types that seem to appeal to the most people are the ones that are quickly understood. Tank controls DO restrict the player and create opportunity for skill, but they don’t often do a good job of doing so intuitively. It’s a trade off - and there are other forms of movement limitations that can still be restrictive without such a high barrier to entry
Core combat in MGR is completely typical Platinum where you shred through crowds, have little to no ways of inflicting hitstun on tougher enemies and bosses, and react to telegraphs by canceling into defensive options. Much of your gameplay in this video clearly demonstrates this. Having to be vaguely aware of the enemy's position to parry is cool but doesn't come close to overhauling the appeal. Your excitement at such a shallow element makes you sound underexperienced with other 3D action games to the point of having an overly narrow view in regards to how they've managed to balance modern design trends with the pillar of fundamental concepts you describe. Bayonetta and God Hand are much stronger examples of positioning and awareness being important in a 3D game that still fairly telegraphs most attacks and still lets you cancel into powerful defensive options.
Sekiro is indeed an example of combat made shallow by an overly central defensive option, I understand anyone who's bored by it, but it's totally committed to its approach. It provides a flavor of style over substance while keeping the player in control and answering demands at all times, and is built to reward repetition and memorization as a mode of accessibility in a relatively brutal game compared to whatever other AAA RPG-hybrid slop. The appeal clearly isn't for you, but by writing it off entirely, you're ignoring it's expert understanding of human reaction ability which itself is a fundamental pillar of action game (and fighting game) design. It's almost as if different types of action games exist and not all games about launching hitboxes at hurtboxes in real time can be judged through the same narrow template! 😀
I love mechanical discussions like this. First, I really do enjoy games like sekiro for having that hone-to-perfection style gameplay, but I'll fully admit that they can just be put down after you follow the very linear and narrow road to mastery. It's just a kind of challenge that's about doing exactly what they ask of you with no deviance or experimentation, and it's neat in it's own right. But for games like MGR, for games that can embody that arcade philosophy of constantly presenting an ambiguous challenge with no pre-defined optimal solution, (or allow other options to coincide with more powerful ones like the action dodge to the parry), that road to mastery becomes wide and winding. It's a game that deserves to be played over and over because there's more to do than figure out the parry timings. It's just gets harder to appreciate the way newer games are when they constantly strip themselves out of having the mechanical and systemic depth of it's predecessors.
I think Sekiro has more variety available in its combat than people give it credit for. You can search around TH-cam and see high-level players tackling fights in a variety of different ways using different loadouts and tactics.
@@MrEverythingX76Sekiro is one of the few games where the mastery of its core mechanic will be more than sufficient to beat the game. So it's understandable that players that are good at parrying don't bother to explore its other mechanics and tools, leading to a less than ideal experience. FromSoft made Sekiro parries too damn good and enjoyable that they discourage experimentation.
@@lilmurferI guess if you just want to parry everything, that's fine, but you're making the game both harder and less fun for yourself if that's all you do. Messing around with your prosthetics, combat arts, items, stealth options, and movement options (yes, movement options can be quite useful in Sekiro) and figuring out which situations they'll give you an edge in is part of the fun.
@@MrEverythingX76 I'm with you there. I've just observed alot of players not experiencing all Sekiro has because they got too comfortable with the parry "minigame".
Exactly, you get it :-) sekiro has a really great initial feel, and I think that's what the game was going for. I think fromsoft were experimenting with the design a bit, because they made sure the mechanics of elden ring were more balanced. So sekiro has a lot of strong points, but the combat is just too geared towards the parry in the long run
Strong parries in SP games (where actual attack prediction would feel like BS) entirely rely on soft balancing mechanisms, mainly the player's lack of ability or consistency. If you can't always parry attacks, whether to parry or not will be a legitimate choice, dodges can then work as a safer low risk low reward option, spacing can also fill a similar role. But once you address that lack by getting good, the balance crumbles entirely because nearly every thing made you vary up moves disappears. And as you said - this type of balance effectively punishes you for getting better by giving you a less varied, less interesting game to play (self imposed challenge aside).
You can address that in a lot of ways. You could make the execution/consistency demands so high that it'll be insanely difficult to get good enough to nullify soft balancing (incorporating direction like MGR, tightening up timing, varying up enemy attack timing, less telegraphing, incorporating positioning/direction of *swing*, giving the parries variable startup times and range, etc). You can build in some hard natural tradeoffs/limitations for parrying that will make it less/more viable depending on situation (NG2's two counter types & their ability to break strings). OR you could simply make the parries a weak tool relative to the rest of your kit without a particularly strong advantage either defensive or offensive outside of niche situations. Then there's also balancing follow ups to parries if there are any.
Something that's worth mentioning is that multi enemy fights (especially if they can do overlapping attacks) are a good natural way to balance parries, especially tight ones, because then the attacks will not only come out at a fast pace but possibly a pace too fast to actually parry successfully. It reincorporates spacing back into the system by undermining your ability/consistency.
With how parries are going, they are moving in the exact opposite direction - parries are becoming even more universal, using simpler inputs, with less tradeoffs, with a more direct advantage (stamina drain leading to finisher), with more lenient timing, cleaner telegraphing, and less emphasis on spacing. It sucks ass, such a shitty mechanic that only gets worse with time somehow.
I was watching a GDC by the God of War 2018 combat director and the way he spoke about parries seemed to be entirely focused around low to mid level play, whether he intended it or not (afaik GoW's parries are more situational but never played). He was talking about parries as a choice that players make based on their current skill level, without exploring what happens when the players actually learn how to parry. And it does make sense that most devs would think about game mechanics this way - after all if you got good at their game they already won, your money's been spent, the glowing reviews have already dropped & refund windows have been passed.
On the GOW point, even on higher levels of play you still see the players missing parries a lot due to mental stack (many attacks go through your block in the game, which doesn't help that enemies bombard you with attacks from every angle and you can only parry attacks directly in front of you). Ragnarok actually addressed this even further for pro playing by having an armor set directly made for challenge players which, alongside other things, makes only the most basic attacks blockable and parrieable, and all of the otherwise intended parrieable ones become unblockable, making dodges the only way to counter them (which have super strict timings)
@@madrugaman1915 Not talking about GoW specifically but I will say that whether a failure to parry is interesting or not depends on what lead to that failure, if it's actually a failure of tactics/negative snowballing ("mental stack" as you say) then it can potentially be interesting cuz it's balanced naturally. If that failure is simply a failure of reaction or execution then it's pretty zzz - you effectively get the same thing in rhythm games with 0 longterm gameplay implications. From what you're saying about GoW it seems like it's doing what God Hand's enemies do - making it literally impossible to dodge via overlapping attacks.
@@boghogSTG Failure of reaction and snowballing aren't mutually exclusive though. You can have mildly lenient parry timings in a game, and have the player miss them frequently due to the amount of enemies with different attack timings that they have to account for at the same time (maybe due to a tactical failure as you say, or just the game giving you these tests of mental stacking). Which is how games like RE4R and NuGOW balance the mechanic and is probably my favorite way of doing so outside of Character Action games (DMC Royalguard is absolute peak)
@@madrugaman1915 Depends on whether the parries have hard counters or not, and how lenient is too lenient. For instance if the parry of that shitpile known as RE4Rs wasnt directional and had no recovery frames (and if the close quarters movement wasnt some of the worst in action games) then you could just jump in and parry everyone - after all people play randomized rhythm games with far more complex inputs and timing all the time. But the parry being directional and overlapping enemy attacks create a situation where it might be quite literally impossible to parry every attack heading your way creating a hard counter. Combine that with the parries just arent very rewarding normally and you have a game where the dynamics kinda work and your gameplan is built around risk minimization. Skew the balance and make the parries rewarding like what mercs does and this completely breaks - now if I fail it doesnt inform my tactics, it just makes me take the hit or maybe try again. Same happens if theres a difficult parryfest boss - it doesnt matter if I fail at parries, all it means is that I just need to practice a bit more. Thats what Mark and I mean when we say that parry based mechanics get less interesting the better you get at them - unless there exist hard counters and unless the reward is low, your gameplan is just "parry, but better". Theyre not mutually exclusive but risky execution isnt enough for any kinda solid balance
@@boghogSTG For parryfest bosses that rely on memorization and reaction testing, you're working under the assumption that players will get so good at them that this skill becomes so natural that the game becomes boring, which just isn't the case, considering that even the highest tiers of players will consistently fail multiple times simply due to how tight timings are and how tricky the enemy movesets in these games get.
In RE4R's case (the campaign more specifically), the confusing timings + unability to mash parries makes them a good panic last resort, but by no means a centralizing way of play, but more of a reset to neutral button instead. This does change with Mercs, which I think is more of a scoring issue than a parry issue. Take away the super meter gained on parry and it'd become pretty balanced since relying on them to fill Mayhem Mode would spend more time than you'd gain from killing enemies inside said mode.
I've never played MGR, but a buddy once told me that the campaign for Jetstream Sam (DLC, I think), is more challenging and less reliant on parries. And apparently the taunt mechanic has a higher risk/reward. But this is just something I heard, so take it with a grain of salt.
On the topic of parrying, there was an older indie game I used to play called Hyper Princess Pitch that had its own parry-style mechanic (an airborne suplex/throw) that had a ton of invincibility and evasion and insta-killed enemies in an AOE. The difficulty was that it took 4 inputs to use it while not attacking, making it very risky unless you had the skill to pull it off. Some players complained that this was too hard, but honestly, it made the game all the more rewarding.
And on a somewhat unrelatede note, the game also fixed your aim when shooting, unlike the popular twinstick shooters of the time, making it feel more akin to classics like SmashTV. But again, this challenge made it all the more fun. Twinstick shooters bored me to tears, but I have numerous hours devoted to HPP.
Oh man I did play a bit of the jetstream dlc, and holy crap yes it's brutal in the best ways ha. I'd love to dig into that dlc more at some point in the future, because yeah the character is totally a different beast than raiden in terms of moveset and how he plays. The dude has an airdash lol. I was gonna talk about it in the review, but it felt like there was enough material there for it's own vid ha. So I might talk about just the jestream character in a different vid in the future.
To give some context to the Zandatsu mechanic: Alongside Blade Mode It's actually one of the few holdovers from when the game was Metal Gear Solid Rising made by KojimaPro. (Raiden performs the move in the CGI trailer for the game, so they clearly considered it iconic and important). I think this explains quite a lot about how it doesn't really fit "the flow" of MGRR, it's a relic from when Rising was a MGS game, it probably made sense in a more stealth focused game with slower paced combat.
You are so damn right about MGRR.
First time I figured out how the parry works on that game I was amazed.
It is so intuitive.
I bought this game day one back in the day on PS3 and still enjoy it, most recently on Steam Deck. I agree with the heart ripping mechanic getting old. I seem to remember this game was in development hell for quite a bit because they wanted every object to be able to be cut. It turns out it ate up too many resources for the game to run. It is still the best character action game to this day.
It was under development at Kojima Productions basically as a glorified physics tech demo. You can find some old footage on TH-cam. They gave up on the game and Platinum Games started over from scratch.
Mark, you really outdid yourself with this one. This is a great review of MGRR.
Thank you for the kind comment my dude :-)
Metal Gear Rising is one of my all time favorite games. Such a fun and challenging experience with tons of depth and huge replayability. I would love for a sequel to happen someday🙏
*i see berk👀
Folks, the cracks are starting to show
@@electricmint this is the reality of the situation and it is so so incredibly sad. Shut it down.
yes it's a shame we didn't get a sequel to mgr, I assume maybe because working with konami was probably complicated ha. But it would be fantastic to have seen what they did with a follow up. These days though, plat are more on the rpg side of things, so it probably wouldn't be as good as plat making a sequel in their heyday.
Metal Gear Rising is an amazing game but "Sekiro But Good" on the thumbnail is actually insane
He's right tho
'time to kick this guy out of my youtube recs' i immediately thought to myself, and i'm not even a huge fromsoft dork. i get it - it's engagement bait, don't hate the player hate the game etc. etc. but man the attention economy sucks ass.
@@fraudcakesyou'll miss a lot in your video gaming life, if you kick this guy out. 🤷🏼♂️ Trust me 😎 p.s. Sekiro is one of my most favourite games ever
@@mishikomishiko9088 i'll be fine - the faint desperation tells me he needs my clicks more than i need his videos. plus, just getting vague icycalm vibes (real ones know) and i definitely don't need that in my life rn.
@@fraudcakes it’s just insane to me how wrong you are lol. This dude was doing this wayyyy before he ever got views- he even has videos talking about that subject. He also puts on a yearly shmup event by himself for free, made a version of retro arch custom made for shmups for free, and will gladly engage you in dms to help you out with whatever you need. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they’re automatically “clickbait farming’ or whatever.
Zandatsu is the thing that keeps me playing the game, I’ve taken thousands of spines but I still love seeing the animation. It is my favorite mechanic in the entire game
love that Nirvana analogy! I feel like it's the same with Halo CE, fantastic game in a bubble but then every console shooter tried to be like Halo CE and failed at it, giving CE a bad rep.
Yes i think it can apply to a lot of game mechanics where the game that initially introduces the mechanics, thinks much more about how it fits in with the overall combat system. But then once that mechanic is shown to be fun and engaging, then other games just take the idea and throw it into their game, without considering if it fits with the rest of the game's combat. And even worse, now instead of balancing the mechanic, like the parry, around stuff like frame data and execution, they just toss a meter on the top of it like knife durability ha. When in doubt, just add a meter.
What I dislike about mgr’s parry is that at least half the time the “post-parry-hit” doesn’t even conect on the enemy. Raiden swings his sword into the air because the enemy is not within range anymore. And that happens a lot, its super unappealing. It’s like your parry reward is not taking damage and thats it.
Oh I love this aspect of the parry in mgr, because it rewards positioning. So if you parry too far away from the attack, you miss the follow up. It also incentivizes using the forward offensive dodge instead of the parry. So while it is a bit more complicated, it is another way to balance the parry away from being the one size fits all solution
Great points! I'm a pretty casual player who enjoys both Sekiro (playing charmless now) and MGRR (just finished a normal run), loving your technical discussions into game design.
Sekiro's parry activation is similar to MGRR - you need to face an attack to be able to do so. I actually prefer MGRR's input method as that is more intuitive when fighting groups. You definitely need to think about spacing and who to attack first in Sekiro in group situations. (E.g. Juzou fight), fortunately Sekiro offers other ways to approach this(stealth). That said both game's focus is clearly different, Sekiro designed for one on ones and MGRR brawling groups.
Most bosses you cannot win by just deflecting I believe, save for lady butterfly who is like a tutorial to teach you about parrying. You usually need to whittle down their health to a point where posture damage overtakes recovery to get a deathblow.
I agree Sekiro's parry feels a tad overpowered once you get the timing down, sometimes I wish the boss would switch up a notch or get more aggressive once you deflect too many times to push you back.
Even then getting the timing down for deflects is generally really hard, I find dodging, running around, keeping space and feinting to get attacks works easier and still fun, so there is definitely ways to get creative especially with prosthetics and getting attacks through small gaps in the long animation windups. I can't say the same about MGRR, where the group fights are definitely the highlight, but boss fights feel way more a slog and telegraphed than Sekiro. (Can you even win no damage without parrying Monsoon?)
On the topic of getting combat to feel more dynamic, it feels like most brawlers throws more mobs at you so the situation is more unpredictable - if a single mob or boss's attacks is too random the player might feel unfair and stop playing. In Sekiro the bosses do do have some different perlious attacks and feints on random but could definitely do with more I believe. In many ways it feels like games do needs predictable elements to be enjoyable, finding that balance is hard and subjective.
Would love to hear more about your thoughts on single vs group fights, also how attack speed and DPS affects game design (e.g. damage per second, e.g. attacks in Sekiro/Souls are way slower and less comboable than MGRR but more damaging to you)
This is a great observation flutter, because I think it helps demonstrate the difference in the mechanics when it comes to how the parry systems handle group situations vs 1 on 1 fights. So in MGR and Sekiro, 1 on 1 fights are mostly the same, where you are going to lock onto the boss. However, in sekiro, once you are locked onto the boss, the directional aspect of the parry is gone because the game automatically orients you to the boss. In MRG, the directional aspect of the parry remains, because you still need to press into the direction of the attack locked on or not. So what this creates in 1 on 1 fights in MRG, is thet ability of bosses to get tricky with their attacks and genuinely mix up the player into what angle their attack will come from (sam does this in cool ways). Whereas in Sekiro, once you lock onto the boss, that is not possible for the boss to do against the player since you auto turn locked on, and you will almost always play locked on. In group battles, this gets interesting. On paper, sekiro becomes more like MGR because you will need to start paying attention to where you are turned and I'm sure there are some scenarios like this from time to time. However, what this mechanic generally means in sekiro is just to enforce the player to use the targeting system more, which i think was the intent. So if you are facing a group of enemies in sekiro, you are not manually turning your character to get the parries in most cases. Instead you are simply switching your targeting to who you want to focus on and that will make the parry input automatic (direction wise) because your character automatically faces who he targets. This is then compounded by the issue that sekiro has wide open spacing and the ability to run away all the time because the levels are massive and you have a grappling hook. So in sekrio, the facing enemy requirement is going to actually reinforce the playstyle of divide and conquer, since the hitboxes and not big enough to handle hitting groups of enemies all with the same parry. In MGR however, since the parry input requires a direction input, locked on or not, it DOES incentivize the player to group up enemies and hit them all together with the same attack, since the hitboxes of the game are much larger, the hitstun is stronger, and the fighting environments are smaller. Massive reply, but in short the facing enemy requirement of the parry in sekiro is more of a product of the targeting system and acts to reinforce the player to use the targeting system. Whereas the input requirement for all parries in MGR is always an active input, locked on or not, and so keeps the need for spatial awareness of enemies in tact better.
Ah I hadn't thought of the targeting system + hitbox sizes affecting gameplay, that is a very good point, it makes sense now.
Fromsoft/Sekiro probably opted for a locked targeting and tighter hitboxes to emphasize on the one on one combat aspects, for better or worse, making it great for head on combat but harder to have more dynamic attacks like multidirectional ones working well.
Now that you brought that up, it does seem like Sekiro recognizes that issue and tries to mix that up with some bosses, e.g. Owl fight where he throws a smoke bomb, when he disappears/reappears from his pet or with the headless fights - that's where the lock disengages and you need to reorient/target which kind of breaks the fluidity of combat IMHO.
On the other hand with Sam and Monsoon in MGR I do remember those parts where you had to react to those multidirectional attacks were way more engaging/tense without breaking the flow.
Now I'm very curious as to how Sekiro would play if they went with MGR's targeting system+directional parry... There's always hoping for Sekiro 2...
@@TheElectricUnderground "hitboxes and not big enough to handle hitting groups of enemies all with the same parry." You have a lot more tools in Sekiro than just a parry, and on charmless you can't rely on parries nearly as often.
@@klauztigr Charmless makes you more reliant on parries, though. Functionally it just makes fights longer and blocking less viable. Unless you’re bad at the game and don’t have the timings down I don’t see how it disincentivizes parry spam.
Also the increase in HP and posture means that prosthetics and special moves are simply less powerful, and given that they still use the same amount of spirit emblems, I could see players actually being less incentivized to use other tools when playing charmless.
@@shitfuckmcgee8611 If you know all the timings and can reliably react to all of them, then bossfights are already solved for you, no matter how parries are implemented. Only additional enemies can switch things up here.
"same amount of spirit emblems"
That's probably why charmless option is given after the first run, on NG+ you actually have a lot more of them with tanto, as long as you replenish your health faster than lose it.
Mark, your mum said she wants her curtains back
just noticed the part 4 poster in the back, epic.
hifi rush mentioned 🎶
I'd love to hear your thoughts on astral chain, the other game with blade mode in it
Yeah I need to get a cleared save file for the game and try out its combat trials. I do love its visual style.
This game was extremely challenging for me to play at the time it was released, but I patiently stuck with it and learned how the game expected me to engage with it most of the time while still giving me the freedom to experiment with alternatives.. and I guess the second part of that statement goes to the core of what's you're saying here. Creating more layers with combat options and situational awareness. I'm glad I stuck with the game because it was very satisfying once it all clicked. For the sake of accessibility, though, I think you can still have a more forgiving parry timing window but still expect the player to get directional input correct. That would be a good compromise. I dunno if it's an age thing, but I'm almost 50 and I found that my reaction speed isn't what it used to be.
Hi rodney great comment! Yes what you are writing here makes a lot of sense and I agree. Where if a dev wants to make the parry a more accessible input, i'd rather have the actual timing of the parry be more lenient than removing the direction input requirement. And actually, I think the best way that the dev can handle this, that will work for everyone, is to make the actual parry window larger in lower difficulties, and then smaller in higher difficulties. So on normal mode, I think it's perfectly fine for the game to have a nice and big parry window while keeping the direction input as a requirement (since that is still important to have in terms of spacial awareness of moves). And then as the game difficulty modes increase, the parry window will get tightened up a lot more since the player will have a better knowledge of the game system and enemy attacks. Best of both worlds right there I think. Great comment :-)
You want a character action game with a campaign that nails it, you should play Assault Spy. Hell, you should play Assault Spy if you want a good character action period.
Characters aren't my thing but this looks sick. Glad I check this guys comments sections.
You know I do indeed appreciate the directional input factor of MGR's parry, I think flicking the stick to your left or behind you to deflect incoming attackers is cool and quite satisfying, but you are hyping it up and going "new games make the parry too easy so you can feel cool without even trying"... meanwhile MGR's parry window is like deadass 2 seconds.
Try it on Monsoon's big magnet wheel. You can input the parry before the thing even starts rolling.
Imo MGR is actually one of the biggest offenders of "easy parry so the player feels sick despite not doing anything particularly impressive."
Royal Guard in DMC doesn't have the directional component (unless you're going for a Release I guess), and it is significantly harder than any parry MGR ever made me do.
Agree wholesale about Zandatsu being the worst part about this game btw. It is such a pacebreaker that is way too rewarding not to indulge in every now and then, and it's soooo slow and boring. Don't understand people who make the claim "it never gets old", unless they played the game like once.
Blade Mode is cool but I have issues with tech that uses it in an interesting way having this quick zoom in and out which gives me a bit of a headache, and I think the "cut anything" gimmick, despite being wildly technically impressive, is quite underwhelming in its implementation, since aside from slicing limbs off when they turn blue, it's basically an instant kill and the actual cutting doesn't matter.
I've had this idea for a long time now, but I wish instead of the clunkyass L1 quick use items, Raiden would not have any ranged attacks, but instead be able to cut up enemies or pieces of the environment to kick at other enemies as basically makeshift projectiles (similar to Viewtiful Joe).
That way the way you cut would actually matter
4:26 That's so wrong. Sekiro is one of the few games you can actually interrupt most of the bosses' attacks, even Isshin the Sword Saint. There are bosses you can constantly interrupt like Genichiro, bosses you can barely interrupt like Corrupted Monk and bosses you can never interrupt like Guardian Ape. Dodging is also extremely useful for attacks that pushes you even if you perfect parry. For example when Owl does the shuriken to running sword slash combo, best way to avoid is deflecting the shuriken and dodging the sword slash so you can end up behind him to get free hits which he can't block.
9:23 Why is this even a bad thing? And how is this not a problem in most action games? When you know what to dodge in souls games it's done as well. Is simplicity and the challange disappearing after perfecting it is a bad thing? The challange was get to there and learning every attack and how to response against those attacks. Now it's about having fun while absolutely demolishing the enemies/bosses since you know everything about them. The beauty of these games are they're easy when you master them. Action games trying to give more challange after players are accustomed to the basics and enemy patterns are actually the worst. Look at how Sifu at master mode ruined its bosses by giving them MKX 50/50s with zero telegraphy just to make the game more difficult again after players mastered it.
17:19 It's absurd to say predictability and consistency removes complexity. And using MGR:R to make this statement is even weirder.
20:30 Can be done and better in Sekiro considering the prosthetic tools especially with Sabimaru's dodge.
27:40 Zandatsu is the only redeeming feature of this messy game honestly. Game's just ''worse Ninja Gaiden'' without it. Could've been faster like steel on bone on Ninja Gaiden 3 though, to not stop the game every time you go for it. And yeah it's way too rewarding and needs a rework on that part.
39:55 MGR:R's and GoW's checkpoint system would save a lot of old action games' replayability.
I think MGR:R is a nice&fun game but it was the Dmc1 of the series which never happened. Great ideas that aren't executed well to make it a masterpiece.
no you misunderstand what I mean. I don't mean you can't interrupt enemy attacks like certain boss patterns that have built in interrupt windows. I mean the game lacks the ability to interrupt enemy attacks via hitstun. So boss interrupt windows are programmed in as like a part of the sequence where if you attack during this window, the attack will be interrupted (mgr has this as well). What I mean is that your attacks do not do natural hitstun, so if you attack outside the interrupt window, the boss or enemies will just power right through the attack and smack you. This is why you cannot combo in a traditional sense in sekiro or dark souls, because you can't lock the enemies up with hitstun. The enemies run on timers and you have to adjust to their timing to get your attacks in. Vs think of a game like ninja gaiden Xbox, where when you slash an enemy, they get stunned and whatever they were up to is interuppted. There is no special window where this has to happen like in sekiro. So you can then follow up that slash with another slash and keep them stunned and you can combo from that point. In dark souls games, like sekiro, this is not possible because hitstun doesn't really exist (or is really low). So if the enemy is not programmed to be interrupted, it'll just power right through your attacks.
@@TheElectricUnderground But you can actually lock any enemy to hitstun with certain tools like prosthetics and combat arts. Not only bosses cancel their attacks when you start attacking they also get hitstunned during direct attacks. You can stop most of their attacks with firecrackers or mortal draw as well.
Even in Souls games including Elden Ring, if the enemy isn't a brute type that you can never stun, you can outright kill them by attacking first and keep attacking until they're dead if you have enough stamina. This also happens against brute enemies as well if you wield a heavier weapon or a skill that lets you do it.
The funny thing is Ninja Gaiden, a character action game, doesn't even let your attacks to damage most of the bosses and forces you to use one powerful attack to one spesific opening. The way Ninja Gaiden tried to balance out Hayabusa's damage output is worse than anything in any game.
Is dodging "extremely useful" or does it have very niche use for attack-specific optimal punishes? Optimization that only matters for self imposed challenges since you don't really lose anything by just deflecting outside of the context of speedruns. It's the latter, don't conflate the 2 because when you do this it becomes impossible to discuss the focus of combat, or even combat broadly since practically all games have niche use case stuff like this. Also, if you want to open the can of worms that is efficient play (speedrunning) then combat vs regular enemies hardly even matters at all.
(That said I actually agree that this is a problem in most action game boss fights - they actively simplify dynamics when they're not outright disabling your moves/their properties)
No dodging is the superior choice in a lot of situations, either the attack is too strong to parry effectively or dodging gets you in a better position to get a few free hits at the enemy's back. Also sometimes is the easier option when you have a hard time figuring out the timing. I have to say again, i think too many people "played" Sekiro by watching youtube videos instead of actually playing and mastering the actual game.@@boghogSTG
@@joxerrrrr
"Too strong to parry effectively" - what is this suspiciously vague wording even supposed to *mean* ? The very occasional grab? Maybe some ape/demon of hatred attack I'm forgetting? All niche. Your 2nd example is one where parrying is the *inferior* option but taken cuz the player's not good - the goal is to parry that shit, and if your goal is efficiency (which I assume mastery implies, cause otherwise what else?) then parry that shit you will cuz unless you're parrying or attacking, you are losing time. What you're left with is sneaking in some extra attacks - that's superior in the context of speedruns but once again it's a situational option compared to the basis of combat - non stop deflects.
Admittedly I'm a scrub who mostly only plays platformers, so the parry mechanic is still a novel concept for me. The place where I most commonly see them are (unsurprisingly) indie platformers.
I don't mind it too much in Pizza Tower, because using it is rare, especially in high-level gameplay. Having to parry almost seems like a punishment for bad gameplay ironically enough.
There's also the Spark the Electric Jester series. I thought it was cool in 1 because it was combined with a dash, allowing you to go through enemies if you timed it right, which was especially cool during bosses because positioning mattered. In Spark 2 it was way overpowered because it was a 3D game. In Spark 3, parrying froze you in place and I mostly just relied more on movement unless I had to break a boss's shield.
Oh yeah, I guess Sonic Frontiers also had a parry. That probably has the worst parry mechanic in any game possible and it doesn't even come close. During normal gameplay, you can just hold it down infinitely with zero drawback. The only time you actually have to time it is during a boss rush mode added nearly a year after the original release. Now instead of just holding it, you have to press it during really drawn-out and poorly animated attack animations where the boss is completely invincible unless you parry.
Oh yeah it s funny how widely the mechanic is spreading across various genres. Another comment mentioned that it s even an issue in the boss fights of hollow knight ha
I like most of your videos but I think the Sekiro criticism here is off-base.
The main theme of the game is embracing death. Wolf's job is to die protecting Kuro, and he refuses to betray him in the beginning of the game even though it gets him killed. Most of the conflict in the story is centered around the characters' obsession over immortality and your mission becomes severing that possibility. Even when that means his death or Kuro's.
The gameplay reflects this. The game railroads you into a rushdown playstyle which requires you to get into the opponents face and be aggressive. It's a high risk playstyle until you learn the parry timings. The optimal goal is to break their posture bar without having to do a ton of damage first. If you could space them out and whiff-punish your way through the game it defeats the point. You're not supposed to be able to play it safe.
I think the comparisons to character-action games misses the point because that's not really what Sekiro is trying to be. It's more a rhythm game turned into a combat system. You attack until you get parried, at which point you respond to whatever they throw at you (parry, mikiri, jump over sweeps, deflect lightning etc). Several of the games in the beginning of the video do this as well; Sifu, Hi-Fi Rush, Furi deserves a mention too. It's fine to prefer character-action games over this style, but it's really an apples to oranges comparison.
I think Sekiro absolutely nails what it sets out to do and deserves the praise it gets.
I really, really, agree with the parry discussion and I've had a the same sentiment for a long time, because I've played a lot of games that suffered from parry mechanics being one button fixes to otherwise nuanced situations. Samus Returns and Dread makes the existing combat mechanics obsolete, Rivals of Aether (which I love) has a parry that way over-simplifies shield interactions you can find in Melee, and even Dark Souls runs into the problem (why would you not just parry Gwyn when it makes the fight significantly easier).
I've had an idea for a game design video which talks about analog vs discrete mechanics and parrying would have been a major focus of that, but its not just limited to that. For instance you could look at Castlevania jump arcs (discrete) vs Sonic jump arcs (analog) and how they service the gameplay or the horizontal movement in Super Metroid vs Hollow Knight. It's not that one is always better than the other but the primary focus of the game should probably use an analog system because there will be more depth and longevity, whereas secondary systems can be more digital in nature so they do not detract from the focus of the game. As you said in the video, once you know exactly what to do in a game using a discrete system, the game is kinda solved and its not very entertaining to explore it further. The majority of my favorite games use systems with a lot of variability in outcome because repeat playthroughs can feel extremely unique and I'm able to express myself as a player beyond just consistency. I think bullet hells are actually a great example of this as well.
OH MAN fellow rivals player, we gotta talk about this because if there is one game that really makes you see the problem with one button parries, it is absolutely rivals ha. First off, I agree completely that the game simplifies stuff way to much compared to melee's beautiful, wonderful, shield system. The shield mechanics of melee are so underrated, I'm glad you can see how good they are. Anyway, holy crap I had a friend who was ALL IN on rivals and basically for social reasons I sort of had to play rivals all the time, even though I wasn't a huge fan of the game. And man the parry mechanics of that game got old really fast, because they were so simple. the parry completely removed the concept of whiff punishing from the game and instead reduced it to a game where you ran back and forth and jabbed all day since jabs couldn't be parried lol. Vs in melee where if you can get a big move out in neutral (falcon kick/nair famously) then the hitboxes and shield stun of the move would justify the longer startup. In rivals though, stuff like falcon kicks and nairs (moves like them obv, since falcon isn't in the game) are just giant parry bait, and so are much too risky to use in nuetral. funny enough I think fighting game players are much more understanding on the issues parries can create, since it's a mechanic that has been explored more in fighting games.
Yeah Rivals parry is definitely what ruined it for me long term, its just a complete momentum stopper for anyone on offense and an inconsistent defensive tool for anyone on defense. Feels bad all around. I believe Rivals 2 is replacing the parry with a smash-style shield and I personally like the character movesets a lot, so that game should be a lot more fun.
Nioh one had a fantastic spacing/footsie element, the game had multiple types of parries but they each had limitations and since its an rpg you could spend points on other skills.
I definitely felt like nioh 2 played differently though
It's funny. I actually don't really care for how parries are implemented into MGR at all, but you do make a lot of really salient points about the problems with modern again games making parrying THE central mechanic that everything else is designed around. Great video.
I'm really happy to hear that! Because yes, as a player, you are going to be a bit annoyed by the extra demands of the parry system at first, but once you understand purpose it's going to help you appreciate its choices in the long run
Funny thing is the people I know that play Sekiro like MGR instantly get wrecked. Also in Dark Souls positioning doesn't really matter if you fight individual boss as long as you master parry technique which arguably more rewarding than block or dodging
Yeah I think you can do this in elden ring as well, though in the ds games the parry seems more risky and tricky to master ha. My issue with sekiro is not the parry existing or anything, just how overly balanced towards it the combat is, because a parry is a more static combat mechanic than movement and even dodging, since they are more granualar. With a parry you either hit it or not, but with a dodge where and when you dodge still matters
He coming HARD AF with that shirt.
That poncho looks comfy af
8:53 It is hard to agree that parrying strategy is easier, to me it is a way to involve player in action since you do not just crush enemies thoughtlesly. As you mentioned, you have to see with what your enemy will come up, read telegraphing and make decision is it time to attack or it is time to parry and spacing does not gone anywhere... at least this my impression about sekiro, as opposite example ghost of tsushima you mostly solve positioning to avoid backstabs and then chose target chose stance and make combo - done. you absolutely not interesting in what action your opponent does, you just get closer and make combo whereas sekiro do not forgive your reclesness, it gives you thought that there is time to attack and there is a time to defence, it is not simply: when you defencing - you not attacking, it more close to reality where you can not attack always like a machingun. but I agree with your idea that situational parry would be much nicer. in sekiro it is situational dodge
When seeing this video, that reminds me of my play through with Breath of the Wild, and the parry, known as the perfect guard, requires several conditions to happen:
There should be one or few enemies within Link's front facing direction
Link should have at least one weapon available because weapons break.
Link must have a shield available
If Link has a one hand sword equipped, a shield is on the other hand
If Link ha a two handed weapon, Link must put the weapon away to then use a shield
When doing the shield, it is used to block enemies from the front position, but cannot cover side or back
To perform a perfect guard, Link has to face the enemy in front and not let any other enemy get close
The prefect guard is best performed when the enemy is about to make a melee attack or a powerful shot is approaching (Guardian) within short timing and close enough distance
When the perfect guard is performed on a melee enemy, they are briefly stunned to allow for more combat options, especially arrows on the head to stun them even longer
There is also another form of parry that triggers Flurry rush, and that is performed by doing a jump and going the reverse direction or side direction from an enemy attack based on directional telegraph and being very close to the enemy attack, and that is basically like a slowdown attack rush that also make an enemy stunned longer, but pushes the enemy away that requires Link to run towards the enemy before it gets up. The flurry rush could be done efficiently when the enemy is positioned close to a wall or corner that prevents the enemy from moving when doing such attack sprees.
Because the majority of fights are in open areas, along with occasional small enclosures, players need to constantly read the spacing of the enemies and prioritize taking out ones that are least threatening before approaching ones that are larger threat.
I personally find the Flurry rush a more potent dodge parry when dealing with multiple enemies facing the front. I barely use the perfect guard except for the Guardians, which they are the only enemies that require mastery of perfect guard due to easily telegraphed lasers, but not the same with guardian scouts laser beams that are more strict with perfect guard timing
Druk's protection is an optional and toggle-able all area protection that can be useful in some situations, like many simultaneous guardian beams firing without being able to reach the front of the shield, as perfect guard reflects any laser beams that are towards Link's front while Daruk's reflects the beams from any directions.
What are your thoughts on BOTW's use of parry (Perfect guard) and dodges (Flurry rush trigger)?
I don't live near Mexico, but IN Mexico. Does that count?
I think the thesis of this video is on point and I'll definitely be watching more of your stuff, but I do think a couple of your examples are missing the point somewhat. Sekiro isn't trying to be a super expressive action game with a lot of options, mastering the timing on the parrying is pretty much the entire point of the game. It doesn't replace the combat, it is the combat, and the game was made with that in mind. It's more of a case of a good idea in a good game being misunderstood and misused, continuing the trend from the earlier souls games honestly.
Likewise, the RE4 Remake parry is perfect for what it is, because the remake already leaned more into the survival horror side of things than the original did. You're making more decisions and being forced to strategize more - for example, Leon can move and shoot at the same time, but the enemies are also a lot faster, and he has real momentum that prevents him from changing direction on a dime, so you have to improvise and make more involved plans on the fly. Parrying is a much needed defensive option in what are already chaotic fights where getting cornered can be a death sentence, it fits thematically because Leon already did it in the Krauser fight, and since you already have a lot of things to juggle, making it a limited resource with lenient timing on lower difficulties works perfectly with the other parts of the combat system. Saying it's just "tossed on to an existing system" doesn't seem well thought out at all
Any thoughts on The Surge 2 parry system?
Metroid Dread has the worst parry. It’s so overpowered ( 1 hit kill and you get a ton of health) and Easy to do once you get the timing right it makes every enemy feel the same. Funny enough I haven’t heard a single complaint about it.
Totally agree. Played this with my friend and we had to make a rule that you could only parry when you could hear the health warning, because it was the only convenient way to heal and the consequences of missing was death. Actually made the game a lot more fun until the bosses started forcing it lol.
I'm 5 months late cause I only discovered this channel recently, but it's vindicating that you're out here sticking up for old-school game design and challenge. I would love to see a whole video of you eviscerating RPG mechanics in action games and the excuses for them, I too have wished that action games would dispense with the bullshit and let you have your full moveset at the start, balancing the first playthrough and tutorials around a full character kit to experiment with. I have to start over fresh on DMC5 because I lost my old save, and it's such a drag that I HAVE to play on Devil Hunter at base health/DT with no upgrades or weapons unlocked especially with Nero missing entire core mechanics until new game plus.
What's really annoying is when character upgrades are passed off as a form of tutorialization, like somehow I can't be trusted to experiment with the tools at my disposal unless they're fed to me piecemeal. Insane that MGR locks away basic moves like the dodge, aerial parry, and gap-closer behind upgrades instead of dropping quick tooltips at the start like they do for the other basic controls. And having to level up health and special meters in any action game is fake progression that exists to justify wasting time on collectible-hunts and grinding IMO.
I'm kinda rambling at this point but it would be an important topic to cover in a video at least just to push back against the trend of skill trees and stat-leveling getting shoved into every action game.
Ok thinking about it some more, it's funny that the issue with overpowered parries resonates so much with what I thought about Hollow Knight's boss fights.
Yes, Hollow Knight's bosses gave me a hard time the first time round, as they'll choose their moves at random and you'll have to react fast. But on subsequent playthroughs, I have already learned the timings and... these boss fights are all boring as heck. The bosses have very few moves, resulting in very little complexity. Even the hardest bosses like NKG and Pure Vessel have like 5 or 6 attacks only. This in turn, means little room for the player to develop tactics and strategies.
(Absolute) Radiance and Mantis Lords/Sisters of Battle are pretty much the only good boss fight in Hollow Knight, since they're the only ones that have some complexity and ambiguity. Overlapping attacks, conflicting priorities... basically good action 101. In contrast, all the other bosses only have one attack going on at a time. Once you know how to dodge an attack once, that's it. The boss is "solved".
Then, it's just a matter of how much HP the boss has. The more it has relative to the size of its moveset, the more it feels like a damage sponge, and the worse the boss fight feels. If the boss is gonna be simple, at least have the courtesy of letting me annihilate it in 30 seconds or less.
yes it's a real symptom of parry focused combat I'm afraid. I had the exact same experience in sekiro, where at first I was like, wow these boss fights are brutal and insane (but in a good way). But then I watched some replays where they were just caking them all with parries, and then I went back and viola, turns out just parry my friend.
@@TheElectricUnderground Heh, I'd imagine it would be like if Dodonpachi had Varth's bomb recharge mechanic. Why dodge bullets? Just spam bombs!
(RIP Maximum bonus, but 2-ALL will be so free lol)
But yeah, it's always a big issue when encounters can be reduced to a single infallible strategy. That's the common trend I'm starting to see between the games I like and the games I don't, regardless of whether they're action or turn-based or something else.
Usually, the games with this issue are the ones that are boring to play even on the first playthrough. The devs failed to make even the initial experience fun and engaging, much less on repeated playthroughs.
But of course, they circumvent this by adding bloat and other time wasters so that you only realise this after the refund window passed. They're not even designing for the first playthrough anymore, just the first couple of hours.
Action games now play like rhythm games where you have only 1 note coming at you every 5-10 seconds. Terrible game design
Pretty cool review..i completed this game on my xbox 360 a decade ago..no zandatsu missed..ahahah
Is my brother wearing a poncho or a mumu?
Where is the sequel thoughhh
Thumbnail is REALLY stupid. The games set out to do different things. Both are EXCELLENT titles, why bring down a game when trying to build one up?
Because I wanted to critique sekiro's parry system and I like mgr's parry system. I think it's interesting to compare the two. Sekiro is a cool game, but I have issues with its parry system that I think MGR has a better solution for. Why can't I critique sekiro exactly? I bought the game, played it a bunch, and didn't like the parry system. It's not like I'm randomly picking sekiro out of nowhere ha. Also I think it's much more relevant to compare games with each other directly, vs just speaking hypothetically. My form of game analysis I try to be as specific as possible, so using particular games as discussion pieces is more interesting and relevant i think.
@@TheElectricUnderground If there's anything I've learned about the Souls/Sekiro community it's that they absolutely hate it when you compare their games to anything else. Fromsoft's games must be analyzed in a bubble where every design decision is a secret stroke of genius from Miyazaki and any attempt to demonstrate that, for example, other games have better parrying mechanics, is misguided.
Obviously I'm exaggerating a bit but it's a very common pattern that I've noticed mostly with this community.
I guess when someone critiques harshly and unjustly your favorite games, you take it like a champ eh? People like you tend to be the biggest hypocrites. Nothing wrong with critiquing and comparing, but if you do it expect people to have their own opinions as well.@@shitfuckmcgee8611
@@shitfuckmcgee8611 nope. Fromsoft deserves criticism where valid but these two games have very different parry systems and goals and you don't need to bring another game down to push another up.
@@morriganrenfield8240 Why exactly can't you compare a parry-centric game with light stealth mechanics to another parry-centric game with light stealth mechanics? Just because one comes out on top doesn't mean that the comparison is done in bad faith.
Also not every video about a game needs to be a holistic review of that game. This video is almost exclusively focused on parries, so it doesn't make much sense to mention that Sekiro focuses more on exploration and atmosphere than MGRR, for instance. Sekiro certainly has other goals than being a pure action game, but when combat makes up so much of the game it warrants comparison to other combat-heavy games.
MadWorld was pretty ridiculous and fun.
Is MGRising better than Sekiro?
Yes
I don't think so, but it's a preference at the end of the day.
Sekiro for me but I love both
Yes :-)
*gasp* You can't shit talk From Software, that's heresy.
Maan i want this gsme to come back
This is one of my favorite videos from you yet. I have always hated the Arkham titles and other bland capeshit games along similar lines but could never really find the words other than "it's dumb". There's a handful of games I've played that just have really terrible action and shoehorned elements. I know it's not supposed to be some super arcade-y action game, but the most recent Zelda's have some of the worst and most overpowered implementations of parrying I've seen yet. Which is funny because it's then outclassed by the horrendously broken Witch Ti- I mean, Flurry Rush that is so overtuned it happens by mistake.
I always loved MGR. I remember hearing people call it mid or bad or unintuitive and I heard a lot of the same thing about Bayonetta 1, but I was head over heels for both games. Platinum was really on something good back in gen 7.
Arkham Knight is a masterpiece, MGR is trash compared to it lol
@@rae5425 If you're 12 maybe.
@@daserfomalhaut9809 Of course it's gotta be the age. And no, I am a decade older than that. MGR had one of the most braindead combat I've played. Parrying is extremely easy and quite literally negates every damage
take my like, even dont have time to watch this epic yet, just for the sake of its finally happening, on eve of my mobilisation. extra like for poncho. i still left my dl-vr-30 mission s rank unfinished sadly
nvmd, got it and still avoided the war
Downplaying SEKIRO is certainly a choice, however I’m happy to see you expand more often your critique and thoughts on other games.
Who knows, maybe in 10-12 years it’ll be revealed to you what makes SEKIRO special.
PS. People should learn that there is actually only 2 genres and schools in gaming:
Arcade gaming and Modern gaming. And although there can be a cross-discussion/discourse, they cannot be compared 1:1 for what they intend to achieve.
waiting for bloodborne review
anybody and erybody talkin shi on the net
Nice snuggie. Stop hating on Sekiro
Imagine pushing up and jump to jump a gap in Mario. Why not press 3 buttons to Parry? Might as well just keep making it even more complicated. It will satisfy some gamer nerd somewhere.
Sekiro wasn't that good.
@@d3bugged Neither was Metal Gear Reddit
vanquish is made for you mark, hard mode removes lvl up for your weapons so it's basically an arcade mode
Maaan, what a game Vanquish is.
yes I def need to play vanquish, it seems like a perfect match for my tastes :-)
@@TheElectricUnderground i completed that as well..on my xbox 360...what a fantastic action game it was..pure gold...an hidden gem...what a pity it didnt get any sequel or spinoff...
Hard mode really does that? Never heard about it
You're totally right how little positioning/spacing matters in modern game design. I realized modern games are designed to hold the hands of players as much as possible when I tried to play an older beat em up title, Urban Reign.
The game kicked my ass very early on. You can't just rely on mindless aggression or your blocks and parries. Enemies circle around you very quickly and literally juggle you to death. You have to carefully manuever around and pick your battles one by one without whiffing any of your punches. This game's design was an eye opener to me.
Have you ever tried Urban Reign, Mark? I think it's right up your alley.
exactly my dude! and the part about action games now is that by trading out the manual spacing for automated spacing, then you lose the nuances of what the player can engage in. So being able to take smaller calculated risks or bigger risks is removed in favor of just doing what is expected and that is that. So modern games are trading out subtly of design for ease of access, which give the game less depth in the end. Also I'll have to take at a look at urban reign. :-) I've never tried it.
based Mark dabbing on fromdrones
oh sick!! you used part of the 3rd strike anti air tutorial me and my friend made way back when. it was inspired by CVS2 legend buktooth saying he didn't like 3rd strike parry because he thought it made jumping in too good and I wanted to showcase that the defending grounded player still had better options than the jumper.
one thing I didn't put in the video was the crouching to standing last minute parry for the grounded player making the available mixup timing window for late jump-in normals much smaller (depending on your character size - shorter the better). this was the kuroda / MOV chun li tech that was still kinda secret back then hahaha..
anyway - love the channel sick vids dude!
oh shit that's awesome! great job on the tutorial! I needed to find footage to show how you have to adjust your fundamental spacing and strategy around the parry mechanic, and your video was the perfect illustration of this :-) Another topic in 3s that I considered to put in, but it seemed a bit too technical for the vid, was the red parry of 3s. And how by tying parries to extremely strict inputs, it creates a more natural balance to them because on paper red parry is broken af, but since it's execution is so hard, it naturally balances in terms of risk and reward.
@@TheElectricUnderground thanks! yah the red parry having only a 2 frame input window only was definitely perfect to keep it balanced. for supers the last high usually hit the hardest and would often get additional follow-up so missing it was very punishing. the small window made it so timing/move strength mix-ups on a red parrying opponent were very viable . For individually inputted block strings like ken short->short or strong->fierce it meant that going for red parry had to done immediately and the opponent could do things like single short into stand strong for a mid mix-up. totally agree about sekiro also! haha
You are supposed to wear the awesome Battle Garegga Berserk mash up sweater and hang up the curtains, not the other way around.... ;)
great video as always
100% agree that there should be a training mode in Platinum Games where you could choose a section of a stage. In Bayonetta, it was so infuriating having to go through the terrible shmup stage before you could practice the last Jeanne fight (which was by far the hardest fight in the game)
yeah completely! and I think if the developers of character action games understood their arcade game heritage or crossover fanbase, they would add in more modes and features based on combat and not progression systems.
I don't even play many character action games, yet while I enjoyed Sekiro I also found it really difficult to get into, because it basically punished my instinctual reactions to space and dodge. I eventually put it down because my wrist started to really hurt from constantly spamming parry. Even something so basic as attack in Dark Souls, which is also mapped to a trigger, is used more situationally and never gave me wrist pains from repetitive pressing. Just goes to show how heavily parrying overrides everything else in Sekiro.
I had a similar experience with sekiro where I spent hours trying to make the spacing and dodging work, until I realized, oh wait the game wants me to parry ... A lot ha. I think fromsoft were experimenting with it because they really toned it back in elden ring
By watching your videos, I think there’s only one thing that you seem to get wrong or at least we fundamentally disagree. When you say no action game should have these “fillery platformy gimmick sections” or whatever that are popular on Platinum/Kamiya games I really disagree. We are only humans after all and performing a repetitive task often causes us to become increasingly careless. Psychologists call that “Vigilance Decrement” that apparently begins to take effect after just 15 minutes and one way of combating that problem is to give players a breather by asking them to do something else for a moment instead. That way I think it works on games like bayonetta and viewtiful joe and the wonderful 101 when you have to do a little puzzle or get some kind of key item in the area or whatever. Of course there’s room for criticism for some of the gimmick but that’s the core idea behind it all, I think. Anyway amazing video on rising. Sekiro really is one of my all time favourites and I find its parry more satisfying than mgr’s but I really get your point here.
The core idea is crap to begin with - it's the developers being afraid that players won't pick their game up if they dare to take a break because it has nothing going for it, so they mommy players around with these forced breaks in case they feel exhausted attempting to create a compulsion-based playstyle.
If you get away from that mentality and just simply take breaks the problem completely goes away and in fact the opposite starts happening - you'll start enjoying it when games exhaust you because it creates a very fulfilling satisfying experience. Surely the whole point of action games is that they're intense bursts of energy, no? That is inherently a little exhausting and will overload your senses, that's great because a short session will feel "full" in a way that slow, varied, low intensity games can never match.
There's also an asymmetry - you can always take a break in games without minigames/exploration/'platforming/what have you, I can't always skip this worthless filler.
@@boghogSTG yeah sure fair enough, but I disagree. That’s a case of intuition vs logic, of course one would think an action game should be all action but bayonetta 1 for example would actively be a worse game (for me at least) without these moments. Why bother conveying at all a story, scenarios, different levels etc. if they can turn every single action game into an arena that you start with and simply all the encounters you would have in the level are just waves of enemies until you beat the whole thing? That makes me feel bored, it’s unappealing. You seem to argue for a very “Shmup” point of view, I don't know if you love these types of games or not but a shmup is something built to last like 30 minutes, isnt it? I think that in action campaigns there is room for these little segments that are not focused on action. I'm not saying that I want my games flooded with that Walkie Talkie segments shit from Sony, and definitively that Missile shmup segment in Bayonetta could be shorter, but the extreme opposite of having nothing at all is bad either.
@@xHanabiran This is a different issue though - if the concern is that worldbuilding and such will go to waste then surely that can be completely fixed with optional voluntary activities that arent forced? Them being forced is my problem, them existing as extras isn't a problem because that removes the asymmetry Im talking about. Alfheimrs are kinda like that (though too abstract & locking Angel Slayer behind them is stupid) - why not simply relegate that stuff to the side where you can enjoy it, but it wont interfere with my enjoyment? Neither of us need devs to paternalistically micro manage our whole experience I assume.
I will say though that the problem is that even if I enjoy the story stuff once (I did with MGR and even Hi Fi Rush), it doesnt work at all on repeated playthroughs cuz at that point Im focused on the gameplay and the story stuff becomes a nuisance. If these were walking sims you play once for the story thatd be ok but the games dont even really start until your 2nd or 3rd playthrough. This design just completely clashes with their arcadey nature
@@boghogSTGEvery platinum game I have played has an extra mode that's just combat. You can play that.
Personally I'm not a big fan of minigames either on replays but I like the variety that the campaign has. Non stop action gets tiring no matter how good the gameplay is.
Take RE4 a simple slower paced game that also has a lot of quiet moments.
@@13kickheadspin49
Yes I only play modes like Angel Slayer or specific chapters nowadays cause the campaigns are so bad but there's a problem with that - you're basically forcing the best content to be a debug arena looking thing. I mean, I'll play it either way but not having any environmental variety or sense of forward movement during combat sucks.
Also don't just say "non stop combat gets boring" like it's some universal truth - it doesn't. I can play Angel Slayer for hours with little to no breaks and not get bored in the slightest but will get bored outta my skull redoing the worthless platforming or "puzzle solving". It might be true for you but that's an argument for making it optional rather than forcing it.
Another thing is, combat & "quiet" time are not mutually exclusive - you can increase/decrease combat tension to create varied pacing without resorting to completely unengaging gameplay.
Parry ruined alot of spacing element in Monster Hunter. If you compare a Longsword play in Monster Hunter Rise and Longsword play in games like 4U, you will see that the longsword isnt very recognizable.
Definitely. 4 was kinda the beginning of the end though in my opinion, I really don't think mounting and those aerial attacks were a good thing to add (or at least weren't implemented well) (still a good game though). And in Generations they really went all out adding all kinds of wacko parries, dodges and even more meter management to the game.
I didn't even play World or Rise but I can only imagine the direction they took it in.
@@Steve-Fiction in the beginning part of 4u, it kinda hard to avoid doing mounting since the fields are designed around mounting. Maybe 4U is a bad example but it is the oldest MH i have played.
Not gonna lie though, the addition of insect glaive and charge blade are the sign of Capcom implementing modern game design to MH series. Ohh boy my opinion is now invalid.
@@Steve-Fiction about generations, the game atleast remained to be grounded. But I cant deny that those hunter arts change some weapons on how they really play. Look at the lance, its supposed to be an upclose weapon about careful poking turned into vroom vroom chariot.
While I enjoyed Rise a good deal, I really hope that Wilds will return to a more fundamentals-based combat system. I'd love to see less weapons relying on the parry, and for the parrying to be less of a catch-all solution. Even switchblade, which has always relied heavily on spacing and dodging, got a parry in Sunbreak.
@@qwertyuiopqwerqwererty I always see switch axe as a weapon that is overly commited to slashing, like a greatsword but more on stationary yet continuous slashing. Kinda hard to imagine that having defensive tool.
I’m so tired of reviewers complaining about games that require skill. Games for me have never been passive entertainment, the challenge was always the key fundamental.
I love Rising, not only cos of the gameplay but how just how cool it looks and feels. It’s the same feeling I used to get when I saw model 2/3 Sega cabinets as a kid.
Mark, you’re always on the money and a very important voice in the world of unskilled video game reviewers. I really appreciate your work brother!
yes I agree, and I think part of this stems from putting the gameplay of the games second and the interactive story elements of the games first. So if you play games for their interactivity, then brutal difficulty is going to get in the way of that ha.
I love that subtitle hah, It's so true. Another good thing to mention about parry implementation is that the game doesn't score you on its usage. if you play any other modern action game™ with parries, you know it's gonna have some meta-mechanic that forces player to use it and penalize ignoring it.
Overall, ranking system is very well-thoughtout and very flexiable in a way that it allows for reaching S ranks. It allows for many different playstyles depending on which categories player chooses to prioritize to obtain an S rank, because you don't have to perfect all categories for the necessary 5K BP. There is even hidden non-lethal bonus, that requires player to incapacitated human enemies instead of killing them (if you're playing this way, you don't have to watch zandatsu animation all the time too).
yes I agree completely, this is my big problem with the zandatsu system. Where you can tell platinum got all excited about it, but didn't realize that they were funneling the player into a really static playstyle by making it a scoring bonus. Luckily you can get around this since the s rank requirements are more flexible, but if you were playing purely for score then you'd have to zandatsu all the time, ugh.
I don't really feel at home with this genre yet so I learned quite a bit in this video.
You seemed very inspired here which is always a great thing. When the long introduction started I knew I was in for a treat.
yes I'm hoping what this vid can do for new players is create a roadmap to how the mechanics of the game work ha, where you do sort of go through cycles of playing the game as you learn its mechanics, and how you feel about the game shifts as you learn and appreciate the mechanics, like the directional based parry.
@@TheElectricUnderground
Absolutely, and the video also gave me new thoughts and examples to analyse other games by.
Your critique of Sekiro falls apart the second you start praising MGR for the exact same things Sekiro does, like having ublockable attacks, grabs, groups of multiple enemies (Sekiro does that a lot lol) to make combat less reliant on parries. Saying that MGR has viable alternatives to parries by showing you fighting Sam painfully slowly is just funny to me. Wow, you can run away from him to bait an attack that triggers at long range and then dodge him. I mean, that's VERY basic and also very slow and not effective, so why not just parry him and kill him faster and more easily? I've seen people running away from Isshin like an idiot and attacking him after he exposes himself instead of parrying him, so I don't really see the difference here.
Honestly, parry in MGR is stronger than in Sekiro, because it's much easier to perform and it doesn't require any tight timings, it's very low risk unless you're going for counter. And if you're going for a counter, that's even stronger since on Revengeance you basically one shot and even on lower difficulties you do a lot of damage, so why wouldn't you just do that? I don't understand your reasonings.
Not sure if you mentioned it as I haven’t watched the whole vid yet. But even with parry focused combat, mgrr has stylish combos you can preform with animation canceling, weapon swap tech, and raidens big movelist. You can get pretty creative with combos in this game. I feel that this gives it the edge over other parry based games as the combat is deep too.
yea and i like that the enemies aren't just combo fodder.
yes for sure! what I like about mgr is that it does have a strong parry system, but it also supplements it with a ton of other options and systems (like ninja run and fast movement), so it's more of a fundamental combat system with a parry attached, vs a parry system with a combat game attached ha.
MGRR is phenomenal and RE4 absolutely went too far with the parry, i agree with you there, but a lot of the Sekiro stuff in this video is wild. Spacing is super important, there are viable alternatives to the parry (blocking with meter and positioning management, i-frame dodges, prosthetics, and execution i-frames all go a very long way when used in appropriate situations) and attacks that go right through it that require different responses, tracking is very reasonable, i could go on. I've had more fun on every subsequent playthrough of the game by finding new ways to use combat arts, movement, and prosthetics in boss fights. I have 150 hours in that game and at least 100 of it is in the reflection mode, fighting bosses over and over again, just like Metal Gear Rising. The combat encounters in Sekiro are every bit as engaging, replayable and variable as those in Meral Gear Rising for me, it's just a very different game. It really seems like youre ignoring a lot of things about Sekiro to make it fit your points when comparing it to MGRR is inherently flawed. They're massively different games trying to do massively different things.
The problem with Rising is, it’s neither as good and engrossing adventure as SEKIRO nor as mechanically deep and satisfying and arcadey and insane as Ninja Gaiden 3 RE. It fits somewhere in the middle and it’s fun, as is the conversation around its cult status. Anything more is kind of absurd and idiosyncratic.
It's funny that the video of Sekiro he used to try to emphasize his point that positioning doesn't matter, dodging is disadvantageous, and attacks can rarely be interrupted shows the player dodging around an attack to get into a more advantageous position and interrupting some attacks with their own to score a little vitality and posture damage.
@@MrEverythingX76 yeah, you can pretty clearly see them spamming block to let RNG decide if they get a parry as well. It looks like day one gameplay, it's so clearly from somebody who doesn't understand the finer points of how the game works. I finished the video since writing my original comment and yeah, wow, it's a poor point made poorly.
I think there is a big overlap between the games, both of them are approaching towards parry heavy 3d melee combat, both of them even have a stealth mechanic ha. I wouldn't be at all surprised if mgr was an influence on sekiro. I do appreciate that sekiro still has free movement (unlike sifu) but its the balance of the combat I have a problem with. Your character is just too slow to maneuver around enemies effectively and the enemies just power through your attacks without much hitstun. Then of course there is the stagger bar to push the parrying even harder (you don't get stagger for dodging right). So it s from being really heavy handed with the game balance to make sure that the parry is core. And then the parry is just a button press rather than a combo of button and direction. So you end up with a system that is too good and too simple to ignore. It would be,fascinating if I could find a way to rebalance sekiro with cheats to show how the game could have better combat, because the ingredients are there
@@TheElectricUnderground I'm in the middle of playing Sekiro right now, and I have to seriously disagree with the statement that your character is too slow to move around enemies effectively.
Wolf isn't as fast as Ryu Hayabusa, but his dodge and run are more than fast enough to get around attacks with big windups and get yourself into a good position to do some vitality damage and force your opponent back into a blocking pattern to build up posture damage and bait out a predictable response to counter.
Parry is extremely powerful because it builds up posture meter and gets you one step closer to victory, but dodging and running at the right times has been an integral part of every single victory I've had against every single boss I've fought so far.
I'm relatively new to character action games and beat em ups, so i appreciate your mechnical break down in the first half of the video. It makes it really easy to contrast my recent experience with streets of rage 2 and how enjoyable the moment to moment gameplay is against a range of modern action games.
try out the openbor games. its old beat em ups but modded by the community to have a bunch of content. and its all free
I'm glad you enjoyed the mechanical analysis, because ironically enough as much as people talk about the mechanics of the game, they don't get down to the fundimentals of stuff like spacing and hitboxes, usually reviews focus on special moves.
@@SenumunuSweet will look into it!
FOr my money VanQuish has the best campaign of any PG game. There are no Perm upgrades to carry to NG+. JUst your skill of what you learned. You upgrade weapons as you play but those start over wich each playtrhough.
I haven't seen anyone mention the little dig at Super Punch Out!! at 9:45, so I'll bite on that one.
There's plenty of juice left in Super Punch Out!! after you know the patterns. Once you know the patterns, you can really start to dominate the game. The world record for fastest completion of the game just got set in 2022, 29 years after the game came out. It's like saying there's not much challenge left in a shmup after you can consistenly 1cc it, which we all know isn't true.
I honestly think this video was uncharacteristically sloppy at points.
honestly i disagree with a lot of your initial titles but i always love watching your videos as you articulate your arguments so well there have been several times you have 100% changed my mind and times where i disagree but can absolutely understand and see where your coming from. Great writing!can’t wait to see what’s next!
Oh that's awesome jamer! Yes, I'm hoping that the title is intriguing and then the content can back up what I'm talking about, and that what I am talking about is rather unexpected. Because part of what motives me to make a video on a subject, is if I feel like it is an unexplored topic. Parries are think are a great example of this, where everyone has been happy with some of the fun aspects of parries, but doesn't talk about what tradeoffs they create in the combat system of the game overall.
transformers devastation when?
Mark out here dressed like a white college girl’s wall nice shit
Great video I’d like to also bring up Stranger of Paradise in this discussion where you treat your parries like a resource with your guard bar getting used up and raising your mp so it’s luring you into a mindset where you want to parry everything but you end up getting guard broken and your ass handed to you so you have to find different ways to handle attacks based on what your resources are like and I enjoy that a lot
Sufficed to say Team Ninja stays on top in the action game genre
Yeah I really liked that system in Stranger of Paradise
it's my homage to the poncho outfit in mgr ha, I love that outfit. :-) Also yes I need to talk about stranger of paradise! bog loves it and it sounds like it's got a lot of awesome stuff going on, team ninja goes hard.
Def sick of parries. Surge 2 had a descent directional parry system too but luckily you still didn't 100% need to use it. Like Lies of P though it was heavily pushed & reccommended. But yeah i'll dodge & space myself instead thank you very much 🙄
Incredible video. Once again spanking gaming when it's being a naughty mf.
Love and blessings!
Ha I love that visual image! Naughty parries need to be spanked back into proper balance
I've been wanting this game to get covered for ages, looking forward to an absolutely quality lunch break today watching it
Hell yes riff, and I think you'll have a fun time with the video!
Bayonetta 3 let's you choose and repeat the verse you want to get S/platinum. Sometimes cuts some of the running/intro staff. I think is one of my favourite features of that flawed game.
Yes I think devs are starting to pickup on these types of features from fighting games. Another funny one is that ff16 had an arcade mode. The mode itself wasn t that good but they are starting to get the idea at least. I should try it again, I heard it was patched recently
I’m awful at parrying in any game including this one, but Rising was so damn fun back on the 360. Pretty sure now I need to buy it on Steam and play through again.
oh yeah well the nice thing is if you outright refuse to parry in this game, you can still do well, just gotta get used to using offensive dodge :-)
Absolutely fantastic video! It's such a strong discussion on a topic that I think gets glossed over, since parries "feel good" for the many casual, "one playthrough" players. But we do lose a lot of depth that was present in action games by focusing on easier, more frequent parries.
My one disagreement is that while I do think it's fair to blame Sekiro for causing this boom in poorly implemented parries, I don't think that the game itself is actually bad. Unlike many of its copycats, Sekiro isn't trying to be an action game. It's trying to give a certain "vibe," the stylish Shinobi fantasy, the ebb and flow of clashing blades. The combat system lacks depth and player agency, but it looks and feels spectacular when you have a successful fight, which is the primary goal of that game. I'm like you in that I prefer action games myself, so I'm also not the biggest fan of Sekiro personally, but I do think there's strong craftsmanship behind it. It's different than when parries are shoehorned into other games where they fundamentally don't belong with the rest of the combat system
yes exactly galaxy. I think these days the go to mentality for game design is to make every mechanic as accessible as possible, while not thinking about the depth that is lost by making them extremely easy to access. Another example like this is the one button super. Where fighting games have been removing the input complexity of a super in favor of making them a single button press. However, what this causes is that the risk reward game of executing the super is gone, and so now if you have super and you hit a connecting move, you should always super. Whereas in the past , if your super is a motion input, you'd have to make sure to setup the motion input as well. So the technique of input buffering is just gone.
another examples of great parrying is dmc5, you can use nearly any melee attack hitbox to clash into the enemy attacks (or hell, any projectile), and the sounds are phenomal
funny enough, dmc reboot had it too
I really enjoy the Royal guard mechanic of dmc, especially since it can be used offensively for cancels as well as defensively. Also jumps have start up s, that s really cool ha
I think a really good example of the impact of adding parries into a game is the Ys series. The Ys series was all about positioning for a very long time then they introduced flash guard into Ys Seven where it wasn't too bad because the game is still designed to be enjoyable without using it, and it's a little more out of the way then later games, even if it's really strong. Then they added flash move (basically witch time from Bayonetta) in Memories of Celceta and by the next game, Ys VIII, bosses are designed with the parry mechanics in mind and are not fun without using them, but when using them positioning loses all importance. It went from a series where the boss fights were the most enjoyable aspect of the game to one where they're basically large normal enemies that you only fight once.
I'll have to try this series out, I know bog is a fan of it and it seems like a fun time.
Bog Hog told me to try Oath in Felghana and Origin first. Now I get why he did.
I also tried Ys 9 and didnt like it
it's funny because i remember back then everyone thought the parry in MGR was clunky and obtuse, on top of being a downgrade over a bayonetta-like perfect dodge mechanic, which I honestly still prefer over a perfect parry tbh.
The parry system and posture meter in Sekiro have a specific design purpose that fits into the studio's overall vision for combat: they were attempting to simulate the ebb-and-flow and feeling of tension that comes with close-quarters sword combat. They were using the combat mechanics to capture a particular feeling, not create an exquisitely refined battle system. This inclusion needs mentioning as it serves to differentiate Sekiro from games like Rising which incorporate an approach to combat you obviously find favourable. Now, I completely understand anyone preferring one approach to combat mechanics over another, but it seems unfair to offer up a critique which negatively chastises a game like Sekiro for an approach it never set out to follow.
I do get the impression sometimes that your critiques are aimed at addressing perceived injustices or misconcpetions in the gaming discourse. In the majority of cases, I think you do a fantasitc job and are easily one of the most perceptive and thorough commenters here on TY. However, we are all human, and occassionaly, I feel that your critiques are held back due to your contrarian impulse to "deflect" these perceived injustices.
Contrarian impulses are one hell of a drug.
As a reviewer, the point is to critique games from the perspective of the player, not the developer (or for that matter, the businessman). The developer can have a specific design goal and execute it perfectly, but if that makes for a terrible game, how is that the player's problem?
Furthermore, how many people are following a game's development history to know what is intended and what isn't? The average Joe certainly isn't.
Edit: The following has been updated because some people can't let go of one tiny error about a clearly indicated *hypothetical* example.
It's like a game is marketed as a shmup but it turns out to be a euroshmup because the developer has some silly design goal (which is really how euroshmups ended up being created historically). The player expects they are going to play a Japan-style shmup, but what they got was something that is still shmup but very awful.
Is the game still a shmup? Yes.
Did the devs achieve their goals? Yes.
Did the game turn out well? No.
Is the player at fault for having the wrong expectations? No.
It's the job of the devs to balance the design goal with good gameplay. If the devs want to overly focus on the design goal *at the expense* of gameplay, they should go and make something else. Want to focus on story? Go write a book. Want to focus on pretty graphics? Go make a film.
What makes games different from other media is gameplay. If you're gonna sacrifice gameplay, then you're obviously making a bad game. Everything else doesn't matter.
Artsy fartsy intentions don’t exempt bad game design
@@magicjohnson3121 And someone's preferences don't dictate good or bad design. Its the intent and the execution that you can maybe critique objectively.
@@lunaria_stg Critique on the player's side will always be biased. Even if a player thinks the use of mechanics in a game makes for a bad experience, another can say the experience was great. The problem with videos like this one is comparing games with completely different mechanical goals as if they're intended to follow the same principles with the same experience in mind, which is just argumenting in bad faith.
Also, literally no one thinks Sekiro is a character action because it never tries to be one, nor does it even pretend to be one. Anything past the tutorial will force you to play by the game's rules and once the intended flow clicks, every player understands why the unorthodox use of these already existing mechanics were applied the way they are, no need for interviews or other external material.
I don't play games with a parry mechanic, so I don't have much to say there. But regarding being depowered and how NG+ is the real game... One reason I love shmups is because it is just gameplay at its most saturated, and it's interesting to see how trends evolved in the genre. When it comes to power ups, shmups went from Gradius syndrome, to removing checkpoints and giving power ups on death for easier recovery, to removing power ups on death (Mushi), and finally to removing power ups altogether (later CAVE games). And honestly? More action games should just unlock everything from the beginning.
I may praise Rabi-Ribi for being a masterpiece, but it's not without flaws. One part that sucks is how attacks have to be slowly unlocked in the beginning of the game, but it helps that this doesn't last very long. Unfortunately, the semi-spiritual successor, TEVI, doubled down on this. You have to slowly unlock attacks all the way until lategame. And after finishing the game, you get access to a modifier that unlocks all these attacks from the very beginning. Essentially, a NG+ mode. So... why not just unlock all the attacks from the beginning?
If the purpose is to ease players into the mechanics and not to overwhelm them from the beginning, it's simple. Just slowly introduce tutorials along the way that reveals the existence of these moves. And even if some players are still overwhelmed, they can just stick to the basic moves themselves. Why artificially limit the better players for the sake of weaker players?
When I frame the question like this, it becomes obvious how little sense this RPG progression makes. In a single player game, why should another player's own limitations affect my gameplay experience? That's the whole point of a SINGLE PLAYER game right? In a multiplayer game, this also makes no sense. You want the better player to win, so it doesn't make sense to weaken the better player at all.
On a side note, now that I have a bit of game development experience, shouldn't developers be acutely aware of their games having poor replayability? If you're not having fun playtesting it, that the game isn't fun, period. I made two games for a game development course: a caravan shmup done on my own (that I should really work on more) and a puzzle game done as a group (actual puzzles, not puzzle action like Tetris and Puyo Puyo). I was having so much fun testing the shmup and I knew I struck gold. But the puzzle game? Wow, playtesting was just tedious. It has zero replayability and I hated the game way before development even finished. (It was what the group wanted to do, so I couldn't do anything about it. I already tried to push my idea to make a shmup but of course no one is receptive.)
I think these modern character action game developers must have repeated fights over and over, to the point they are actually sick of an overpowered, centralising mechanic, right? How in the world did they think it was ok to stick with it? Are the people in charge of designing the game not doing extensive testing? In that case, maybe the roles of game designer and game developer must be merged...
Wow! I never knew you are developing a game. As for my second wow, its sad that no one in your group appreciate shmup.
Also, thank goodness that Rabi Ribi isnt a parry fest of a game. I actually felt like I am playing Megaman Zero series when playing Rabi Ribi.
Keep in mind that the bigger the team and the more specialized the directors role, the more difficult itll be to iterate on the fly. Indie dev is often all about letting games build up organically but with bigger teams you need a solid gdd/idea early on and needless to say its insanely hard to visualize how everything will connect in the end.
Theres also just the fact that theyre not really that rewarded for making games with longevity - people who go hard and replay char action games are a small niche, ultimately not THAT different to shmuppers...
Also idk if its just me but I have a better time learning if Im just dropped into a hard encounter with every tool in the game unlocked
@@boghogSTG Yeah I could guess as much. Honestly, I won't be suited to do game development as a full time job, because my game design philosophy is completely at odds with what the studios want. And that's also why as a player, I prefer smaller, more focused games.
And yeah, it's the tough fights that would make me review my strategies and try to optimise my DPS. Slowly rolling out the player's moveset usually doesn't work for me. After all, I'm not being incentivised to review my current strategies, and so I'll quickly forget that move even existed.
@@soratheorangejuicemascot5809 It's just Bun Bun Panic, hahaha. I plan to port it to Godot (because screw Unity), polish it up in terms of QoL, and maybe replace some assets. This is what I plan to do this month, but it's more of a demo rather than a full, proper release.
For a full release, I would want to update the assets, make the game longer (3-5min), introduce more enemy types, and even out the rank system or abolish it altogether. But I have no idea when I'll get around to doing that, because I'll have to basically redesign the game and finding assets may be tough.
No one appreciating shmups is pretty common, though. Heck, they couldn't even differentiate a shmup from a Vampire Survivors-like game. ThEy'rE aLL sHoOteRs, they say.
Like seriously, they said a lot of groups were doing shooters, but we got a Vampire Survivors, a MOBA, a puzzle platformer, a metroidvania, a roguelike, and... uhh, I don't really know what genre the last one is, but it's certainly not a shooter. Like wow, so many shooters! There were so many that I didn't need any fingers to count them!
Well, whatever. I'm just gonna take my other shmup idea and do it myself. Gives me full creative control anyway, which will be for the better.
@@lunaria_stg Well there's probably always gonna be more comfy smaller teams around that are generally on the same wavelength thankfully. But yea doing game design for big studios just seems like a nightmare - no matter what your preferences are you'll just get sucked into the AAA design vortex.
The funny thing is, Bayonetta 3 did have an encounter selection feature (of sorts anyway). Monkeys paw wish granted for ya, I guess.
Ha yeah, I think action games are starting to pickup on this idea more, because even FF16 had like an arcade mode with leaderboards. So action games seem to be picking up on the idea of what kinds of extra modes would be good, but sadly the core combat of bayo 3 doesn't interest me nearly as much as the original.
The issue with the directional parry is that it's relative to the somewhat jank camera. When it's working well, it feels excellent to pull off, but I feel like the camera being so close behind Raiden causes it to move around a lot in certain sections and changes the angle you have to tilt the stick while you're trying to do it. It's not a major issue, but it causes some frustration.
oh yeah I'll make a vid about my thoughts on cameras pretty soon, but despite a few issues with the camera getting tripped up, I actually do like the mgr's close up camera. The thing is that, with action games lately, you'll notice the camera keeps getting further and further away from the player. Nioh compared to ninja gaiden for example, and for the most part players do prefer this. But one reason why I like the close camera, is that I don't view the camera as like an objective eye of god, but rather a gameplay mechanic unto itself. So part of the skill of NG and MGR is knowing how to manage the camera and where to place it, and the trade off for this is having more visceral presentation and getting a closer look at what's happening with the enemy attacks. So if you think of the camera as more of a mechanic that you need to manage and tests your spatial memory, then it feels less arbitrary than just being a broken point of view ha. There's a balancing point to this of course, but it feels like players are becoming more and more used to a standard camera angle across all games, rather than thinking of the camera as a mechanic unto itself.
@@TheElectricUnderground Absolutely. The close up camera is great for highlighting the action; it just sometimes clashes with the directional parry.
yeah the jank camera made me fail to register the parry most of the time, wish there's dedicated block button instead
Comparing any FromSoftware game to linear character action games like Platinum titles is completely missing the point of these games.
Sekiro is an action game and can thus be compared to other action games. Ninja Gaiden Black has a more adventure feel to it, with a map that you can explore with some freedom, backtracking, shops, hidden collectibles, but it's still an action game.
Im not sure that adding a directional input for parrying actually motivates spacial awarenes in any significant amount
Most of the the time enemies are in front of you anyway
And even if an enemy attacks you from a side or from the back and you have parried him it would take the same amount of awarness to parry such enemy in any other game like sekiro
Because in order to parry an enemy the most awarness is spend on recognising the fact of the attack and recognising this attack pattern rather then recongnising the part of the screen wher this enemy is located
This is why I don't think that the directional parry makes it nay different
Directional parrying could add more awarness to the game if it would use it's direction not to the direction of the enemy but to the direction of its attack movement
In this case the player is motivated to learn not only timings but also directions of the attacks and lear recongise those different attacks and directions
LIke it was implemented in Sifu with its evade mechanic
The parry in MGR suffers a lot from the fact thet it is an OP mechanic wich doesn't punish the player for spaming it
You are basically invinsible if you spam your parries an you can do this infinetely
There is no reason in learning enemies animations and the exact attacks timings - you will punish the enemies with a powerfulll pary attacks less frequently if you spam the button, but it doesn't really matter, you can damage them between your parry spams with just your attacks
Most of the games without directional parry solve the parry spaming problem in multiple ways
Like adding some cooldown for the parry or making unsuccessfull parries fill your poisture bar like sifu or sekiro
Bayonetta has this too with the direction parry, and doesn’t Zelda have that too since you need to perform a counter from a block which also leaves you vulnerable? It leaves you exposed and it’s a riskier approach because the block doesn’t remain.
I haven't played the newer zelda games, only a tiny bit of BOTW, but it is funny if they figured out why adding a direction to the parry is a good idea ha. And yes bayo 1 has a really good dodge mechanic because it's dodge is more granular than a parry. Where a parry is a very static outcome, you either hit it or don't', but a dodge is more nuanced because it also requires a direction to move into, so you can dodge into enemies for more risk, dodge away for less risk, or dodge sideways for sort of medium risk. I like dodges because they still factor into the overall spacing game.
The direction you dodge doesn’t matter at all in BOTW and you have invulnerability so it’s super easy to exploit
Great video! I figured you'd be a big MGR fan. Even though it was quite popular, it still doesn't get the love it deserves compared to the other "cuhrayzee/action games".
I think I actually prefer MGR and Bayonetta 1 to almost every other action game except maybe NInja Gaiden 2 (Though I like Vanquish better than all of them and it's not even close)
Yes this game is so funny because when I first started playing it, it had some elements I was a bit concerned about (namely how parry focused it is and the zandatsu system). But then as I kept playing ... I just couldn't stop ha. It just has that nice blend of well made player moveset plus enemy design that is hard to find and really engaging once you find it. I think if the game just did something to fix the zandatsu system and had a full on angel slayer mode, it would also be my number one plat game.
One of the comments here made me think of Onimusha. I loved the first 2 games, they were a great combo of character action and survival horror. A glitch in Onimusha is what inspired Dante's sword juggles in DMC 1 iirc. You should check em out!
oh yeah onimusha is an interesting one to look at, especially in terms of how it would compare to the dark souls style combat. I haven't played onimusha much but it would be so fascinating to compare it's dna to dark souls and the souls series for sure.
Another banger
Literally the worst version of Moon of Mahaa-Kalaa from Bayonetta 1. That's all I can say about the parry system of mgr (as well as the game itself :\)
Great video, love this game. Another game with a nice presentation and stage select system is lords of shadow, even better that you can change difficulty in any given stage, to me it encourages me more to complete and learn than having to clear everything in one go every single time. However you can change difficulty on the fly at the last minute but that defeats the purpose. I know it's not a game some are fond of but I think it was pretty good, same problems though, QTEs and such but overall I really like what was done, like a summary of action games of the last decade.
Oh yeah I love dynamic difficulty in games, but I'm not a huge fan of the player being able to change the difficulty directly. Because then it gives the player an instant escape hatch ha. But I like the idea of the game changing it's difficulty based on the player's performance in different ways, rank basically ha.
Interesting video overall. I was hoping you would have more criticisms towards Sekiro, but they were actually few and far between. Even if I disagree with some of the things you said, I can see the appeal towards MGRR over Sekiro. Not really my cup of tea.
Side note, I implore you to play Sekiro without Kuro's charm and learn how to better utilize the tools and arts. Once you really learn how to incorporate those mechanics in with the base attack/deflect mechanic, it really opens the game up. You can do some amazing combos.
It was on your flop list, but I think Wo Long had some pretty interesting ideas with the parry that I hope they build on in a sequel that I doubt will happen.
1. Double-tapping the parry button results in a dodge; The parry window is pretty lenient, but it at least ensures that you keep your inputs somewhat precise.
2. Parrying also moves you in the direction you hold your stick in. The game doesn't lean into this as much as I wish it did, but there are some bosses like Zhang Liao where you can essentially parry your way around a combo, and escape it early to get in some attacks of your own while the enemy continues to flail forward. This can also come into play with group encounters, since you have to think about where you want to parry towards, though group encounters in Wo Long are not often used.
3. There are moments where parrying is a wasted action; If your spirit bar is full and you're still parrying, you could be using that spirit to use a martial art, some of which can evade enemy attacks just by virtue of how they position you.
There are still a lot of problems with it in practice, but I find it to be a much more thoughtful implementation of parries than most games these days.
Yeah I wouldn't take my flops super seriously as I said in the vid that was more of a for fun from the gut list than any kind of definitive review ha. I was mostly disappointed by wo long being sort of ehh rather than being a bad game or anything ha. One team ninja game I m def gonna follow up on though is stranger in paradise 😊