It's more complex.

Since active actions require a lot of precision, I consider obvious why melee, style and jump must be in the front buttons. So let's analyze weapon and style switching. Why are styles in the d-pad and not somewhere else? The reason is not related to the frequency of use per se, but more because of the logistics  in high or decent level of play (in some chops it's perfectly possible to find more style switches than weapon switches, especially if Dark Slayer is used). First of all, Weapon Switching and Style Switching have something in common: they are both  passive . You don't need a perfectly accurate timing for them, compared to active actions like using melee, JCing, style actions, etc. Switching weapons or styles simply has to happen before you really need the action related to the weapon/style you want to use after another one. It doesn't matter exactly when (SS cancels aside, some nuances with DSD...). Let's analyze then, why they make sense in th

The Strawman Your article is a long condescending strawman argument towards dedicated players and/or people who merely have a minimal understanding of how a learning process takes place in video games and its focus on something as obvious as reward . Regardless of being game developers or not. We may use a different terminology, but the concepts are pretty basic. We already know game difficulties aren't static, but related to the player. Actually much better than you. It's either manipulative or very naive to imply players (namely, players with a minimal knowledge and common sense) interpret difficulty as a rigid property. Even if it's presented in the form of let's make like we talk about what players think about us, game developers, when in reality we mean that your concept of difficulty is wrong. What's perceived as hard  can be perceived as easy after a learning process. Even a child can quickly realize this. Some activities or problems are commonly per

>He's a professional game designer himself... I wouldn't mind this as additional info to reinforce your argument. But not as definitive argument or anything nearly close to it, as it would be an appeal to authority. 1) Game developers aren't precisely linguists. 2) I doubt quite a lot all game developers consider the concept of complex simply as the quantity of elements, regardless of the type of relation between them (interactions) and functions. 3) Even if they would, it would only mean that they use the terms in an inconsistent way compared to many people. (Not denying the meanings could be shifting). From all the people with whom I have had minimally deep conversations that implied the concept of complexity, including all types of friends from the University (mathematicians and what not) ever since I was born, I have never ever met anybody that would consider equally complex a pile of car pieces put together in any away compared to a proper car where al

It was years ago when I gave the GoW series a shot. I played 1, 2 and 3. If I remember correctly, I didn't finish 3 because at that point I realized there wasn't any improvement that was going to make me enjoy the series. Being freestyle combos or more complex ones from combo MADs, in DMC the concept of combo implies the control of variables like: height, proximity, different timings (timings to JC, to switch weapons, to chain moves, to royal release, to direct the left stick for reversals and inertial techs, to lock-off/on and even to switch targets in freestyle), etc. In GoW such management is almost non-existent. The main weapon has a really long range and there is barely any necessity for precision in terms of positioning during a combo. There are obviously fewer options to connect, and the connections themselves aren't demanding in terms of timings either. It lacks a cancel system like JC (and there are other types of cancels in DMC), which drastically reduces the

>terminology Is personal. As noted earlier in the piece, these are my definitions of depth and complexity... Obviously I was totally conscious about it. Which is why I said I am not against such suggestions per se and I have operationalized terms many times myself in different areas. Words also have connotative and denotative aspects anyway. From my entry: One can still suggest a more consistent or logical normalization, but this is not the case. Not when complexity gets twisted in such a way, and oversimplified, simply to make more (meaningful) room for depth. What I mean here is that you force a second term (depth) to mean something that many and I already call complexity (and many also call depth anyway, which is actually fine). The reason why I say meaningful room is because depth is not overall as necessary in such contexts/it could be changed for complexity . It means that you try to give it a more meaningful function than a partial synonym. This is something I am

Romeo and Juliet is a comedy compared to this tragedy with no end. There was another recent tweet about this topic, but I ignored it (until now), because I am really sick at this point from all this nonsense and because I have debunked it endless times, in many conversations in discord and even in a long ass reply in 2be's Dante tutorial, where he complained about 2be implying Turbo is better. Lloyd has deleted the tweet, it seems, as he does many times, but thankfully I got a screenshot from another person. It was related to donguri's first video with Turbo in DMC5: Some people misunderstood the tweet. Lloyd wasn't really calling donguri retard.  It was aimed with sarcasm at himself, in the sense that he keeps playing a victim role like if people raped his family for playing without Turbo. What's hilarious and ironic is that he used sarcastically the expression healthy brain,  from the mentioned comment I replied with (in 2be's tutorial). The full