Reply to Raeng.
>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.
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 not against per se. Quite the opposite: I consider it positive.
From my entry:
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 not against per se. Quite the opposite: I consider it positive.
From my entry:
From your article:
This is the depth in an action game. It is defined by the meaningful options you have and their differing uses and applications.
This is the depth in an action game. It is defined by the meaningful options you have and their differing uses and applications.
...
The defining word that separates depth and complexity is “meaningful”.
...
What you meant with your personal terminology was already clear for me. And I am not against it for being personal.
I wouldn't mind you calling them potato and tomato if the final categorization would make perfect sense. And here is where we disagree, because, as I said, the most part of Dante's arsenal is meaningful for its objective (even if it's not for Ninja Gaiden's objective).
More options in DMC are not just for the sake of more options. Each one has a role when designing/structuring a combo, for different reactions to enemies or aerial and ground movement. Even if you were to take techs with a similar structural function, like gun-rave vs rave-guard, they still have different meaningful functions, as the way you lose height is slightly different. Or how you could prefer rave-guard if you have shotgun equipped and there isn't really time to switch weapons/you want to keep it for the next part of your combo.
Additionally, if we were to suggest new terminologies, it's important to take as reference official and popular definitions, which anyway dictate in the long term the official ones (even though the official ones try to be more efficient and logical to avoid the deterioration of language).
Because one thing is to use potato and tomato, and another one words that are already used frequently in such contexts. With words used for vegetables the context would be so different, that there wouldn't be any conflict with popular or more official definitions. But if you want to use complex, it's important to consider the already existing definitions.
No, I am not saying pile of options is exactly what you meant with your personal definition of complex. Here, again, I am talking about a base/reference that would be adequate to start from.
There were plenty of examples in my entry and it was perfectly explained. I also expressed words that are already normalized such as superfluous to imply X element has a minor function/isn't as relevant as others for the objective of a specific system.
The games we discuss are more or less complex in different areas, and with different objectives (with their particular nuances, etc.).
From your article:
There were plenty of examples in my entry and it was perfectly explained. I also expressed words that are already normalized such as superfluous to imply X element has a minor function/isn't as relevant as others for the objective of a specific system.
The games we discuss are more or less complex in different areas, and with different objectives (with their particular nuances, etc.).
From your article:
When we dive into Dante’s moveset however, one can ask: wherein lies the difference of his moves? Some deal more damage than others, some are ranged, some knock down, others are longer strings, others short. Yet in their function, most of his moves serve the same goal: to kill his opponent.
If the objective of DMC was simply to kill stuff, regardless of how, it would be different. But as I explained, it's not the case. Which means that even under your terminology, DMC would have deep move-sets.
(Note: in certain situations and especially DMD, I would still consider this wrong even if it was merely about trying to kill enemies..., but let's leave it like this).
If the objective of DMC was simply to kill stuff, regardless of how, it would be different. But as I explained, it's not the case. Which means that even under your terminology, DMC would have deep move-sets.
(Note: in certain situations and especially DMD, I would still consider this wrong even if it was merely about trying to kill enemies..., but let's leave it like this).
In conclusion, either your terminology is inconsistent because of such statements, or there is a misconception about DMC (or both).
This is false.
From my entry:
I personally use the concept of depth to say I played "deeply X game" (or not), for example. To express how much I have dug into the potential of the game. Sometimes we have to play deeply first to know the complexity of a game.
In my entry I make a small analysis about how depth could be used before this. Below this I comment more about depth. At no point I use depth as your concept of complex.
You probably meant that what I describe as complex, you describe as deep. Which would make more sense (even though it's more complex...).
>...If you were to remove half of Dante's moveset, his depth would hardly change
>...If you were to remove half of Dante's moveset, his depth would hardly change
Again, precisely because of such statements I made my arguments in both, my blogpost reply to Neo and my tweets.
As you know, it is in the article too...:
As for Shinobi, the complexity in action games is not only about the move-set of the character we control. In this sense, even if I don't know Shinobi, the complexity would be somewhere else or we could say that it's not a complex game from the perspective of the character's move-set, but it's complex because of A, B, C aspects or X situations where you have to execute a complex analysis (even if the actions themselves are simple), etc., etc.
Chess has simple rules and a few types of pieces with a few types of options to move. But it's utterly complex.
You add:
As you know, it is in the article too...:
In a sense 忍Shinobi is the opposite of Devil May Cry 4 as it barely offers any complexity but has a lot of depth. If a single element of Shinobi is removed, the whole design crumbles. But if Dante lost some of his moves like “Shredder”, “Rising Dragon”, “Gun Stinger”, “Mustang” or “PF013 Epidemic”, it wouldn’t really impact the depth of the game,..
Yes it would. That's the point.
DMC5 Dante may have more than 6 launchers, but each one of them has different properties and functions. Besides different final heights, timings, JCability at different points, etc., another function is something as essential as having a launcher at least every 2 weapons to reduce tripple switching for loadouts of 4 or more weapons.
Yes it would. That's the point.
DMC5 Dante may have more than 6 launchers, but each one of them has different properties and functions. Besides different final heights, timings, JCability at different points, etc., another function is something as essential as having a launcher at least every 2 weapons to reduce tripple switching for loadouts of 4 or more weapons.
As for Shinobi, the complexity in action games is not only about the move-set of the character we control. In this sense, even if I don't know Shinobi, the complexity would be somewhere else or we could say that it's not a complex game from the perspective of the character's move-set, but it's complex because of A, B, C aspects or X situations where you have to execute a complex analysis (even if the actions themselves are simple), etc., etc.
Chess has simple rules and a few types of pieces with a few types of options to move. But it's utterly complex.
You add:
Falling, as I said, in a contradiction or inconsistency: if it hurts what makes him unique, it means it hurts what's meaningful for the objective of DMC. Which would make him less deep as you use deep..., when you just said that his depth would hardly change in the beginning of the same sentence. And yes, I know that you refer to kill the enemy, but I already counter-argumented it.
Preaching to the choir. I don't see why you're making these arguments if the exact same elements are noted in the piece.
I said such things to establish a common ground when counter argumenting your terminology/to make sure we can agree on some base. Why your terminology ends up being inconsistent is explained in my entry, in my tweets and above.
>Resident Evil 3, The Evil Within, Vanquish, Metal Gear Solid 2 and the upcoming Daryl Stranding. But many of those titles are ignored because the equivalent of your "Muh inertia", namely "muh combos".
I honestly have read mostly the opposite. Shallow and non essential opinions like: DMC is just about combos, LoL; haha these idiots think that juggling makes a game better; DMC is a game for kids who like anime (this is aimed at least partly to the spectacular component of DMC, which is obviously related to combos).
Of course each one of us can be more sensitive about different types of comments and this makes us biased when perceiving the mainstream opinions, but even if it was true that such games were underrated, calling DMC less deep with such terminology is not very educational. For me you actually spread a misconception about DMC in your article, even if you had good intentions and the article is overall still an interesting attempt to define in a different way complexity/depth.
Also from these games I can only say that I started playing Vanquish the other day, and for now I definitely consider it complex.
>every argument when talking about God of War or Devil May Cry boils down to "but this game has much better combos". I've seen this from Reddit to Gamefaqs, NGrealm to my own forum as well as gaming outlets and in discussions with DMC veterans on why for instance they don't hold other titles in higher regard. It all comes down to the lacking combo-system, as well as that lack of expression at the start. Expression is there, just differently.
>Resident Evil 3, The Evil Within, Vanquish, Metal Gear Solid 2 and the upcoming Daryl Stranding. But many of those titles are ignored because the equivalent of your "Muh inertia", namely "muh combos".
I honestly have read mostly the opposite. Shallow and non essential opinions like: DMC is just about combos, LoL; haha these idiots think that juggling makes a game better; DMC is a game for kids who like anime (this is aimed at least partly to the spectacular component of DMC, which is obviously related to combos).
Of course each one of us can be more sensitive about different types of comments and this makes us biased when perceiving the mainstream opinions, but even if it was true that such games were underrated, calling DMC less deep with such terminology is not very educational. For me you actually spread a misconception about DMC in your article, even if you had good intentions and the article is overall still an interesting attempt to define in a different way complexity/depth.
Also from these games I can only say that I started playing Vanquish the other day, and for now I definitely consider it complex.
>every argument when talking about God of War or Devil May Cry boils down to "but this game has much better combos". I've seen this from Reddit to Gamefaqs, NGrealm to my own forum as well as gaming outlets and in discussions with DMC veterans on why for instance they don't hold other titles in higher regard. It all comes down to the lacking combo-system, as well as that lack of expression at the start. Expression is there, just differently.
Not even DMC is just about combos. There are high level freestylers that barely do combos, and even the ones focused on combos have to master, for example, ground movement, quick adaptation from dropped combos or getting hit, how to exploit the moves of the enemies to make interesting transitions and whatnot.
The players I know can appreciate the complexity of other games with other objectives and different areas, even if they don't prefer them.
Because of things like this I wanted to invite you to the DMC server, because you could meet proper high level players, and I doubt they would say anything with the tone muh combos. And what's more, it's not just about high level players, but just reasonable people who bothered to educate themselves or absorb knowledge, even if they are not top.
Having said this... The particular case of GoW is different. For me it's a game that's NOT complex in any area, or not complex enough to consider it seriously on the same level (even if differently). The reason is not just about combos. Let alone if it was only about combos. And no, this expression is not about mere pragmatism or efficiency to make such a comparison.
I could also write here why a well implemented combo system potentially makes action games more complex overall (and better) anyway... But let's leave it like this once more. DMC players do play and enjoy other games that aren't necessarily combo-friendly.
I could also write here why a well implemented combo system potentially makes action games more complex overall (and better) anyway... But let's leave it like this once more. DMC players do play and enjoy other games that aren't necessarily combo-friendly.
>Videos
1) GoW: Here it is cleared in around 5 minutes by a player with expert knowledge of optimal punishes, offensive tactics, enemy AI abuse, magic-meter managment, cancels,...
A high level freestyler in DMC can (and actually has to) do this while at the same time mixing-up/varying his strings of JC/attacks and movement, which generally implies the mastery of more and harder tech and abilities than probably anything in any GoW game.
A high level freestyler in DMC can (and actually has to) do this while at the same time mixing-up/varying his strings of JC/attacks and movement, which generally implies the mastery of more and harder tech and abilities than probably anything in any GoW game.
In DMC3 one has to even take into account knockaway/stun launching properties of different moves to juggle and relaunch DTd enemies.
Different games can excel in different areas, or be complex in different areas. But even if GoW has a different focus, it's still inferior to DMC and other action games.
Even if a table and a car are different enough to make the question "what's better?" dumb, a car is definitely much more complex than a table. And in this case we don't talk about vehicles and furniture, but 2 action games.
Different games can excel in different areas, or be complex in different areas. But even if GoW has a different focus, it's still inferior to DMC and other action games.
Even if a table and a car are different enough to make the question "what's better?" dumb, a car is definitely much more complex than a table. And in this case we don't talk about vehicles and furniture, but 2 action games.
2) NG2
I won't say much other than the fact that I already consider Ninja Gaiden an action game of a high standard, and the best in certain areas. Like I consider DMC the best in others. Especially 4/SE.
I could talk about what I dislike, or why I don't play it nearly as much as DMC, but it's not relevant for this point.
I could talk about what I dislike, or why I don't play it nearly as much as DMC, but it's not relevant for this point.
I said it has probably the most complex enemy AIs from all action games. Obviously it doesn't have a rich cancel system, the strings aren't nearly as interactive as DMC's actions, and what not regarding the character per se, but it's still a complex game when taking into account its objective: harassing the player with faster and more flexible enemies compared to other AGs, focusing on quick adaptation/reaction, and not creativity, for example. The actions themselves/strings aren't complex, but the analysis you have to make quickly (even though it gets automatized) is. Like scarecrows aren't nearly as complex as these:
On the outside, perhaps, once you get to the details and know how its slotting system works it generally becomes very predictable
Like any other enemy from any action game (since they don't have the complexity of Alpha Zero's neural network or proper chess engines that beat GMs)... The thing is that others are even more predictable and slower in comparison. Already made an example above. Same goes for a catana soldier from MGRR, a frost from DMC4, etc. There could be some isolated utterly complex enemy in another action game, but overall NG's enemies are the most complex ones (in terms of AI/move-set/their interaction).
> DMC isn't less challenging. It has other challenges.
"And if a game doesn’t have that motivation, look for it yourself. Find ways of play to squeeze it out. Don’t level up, aim for the highest rank, don’t upgrade, don’t take damage, don’t care about rank, find your personal style, run like hell – differ the way you look at the game. See what lies beneath. In a way, the depth a game has is personal. "
This is what you're saying, almost verbatim. DMC isn't challenging, nor is God of War. But we find a challenge in it ourselves through different goals. For DMC its the deeper search for understanding of its combat mechanics to make for more personalized and creative fights. In God of War its through the likes of the infamous PAIN+ runs or Clones fight.
Except it has nothing to do with what I said.
You can try to beat Dark Souls no-damage, with only one hand, upside down hanging from some rope. That doesn't make the game more complex or challenging regarding its core objectives/focus. You don't need a personal challenge to see that DMC's objective is beyond killing stuff.
You can try to beat Dark Souls no-damage, with only one hand, upside down hanging from some rope. That doesn't make the game more complex or challenging regarding its core objectives/focus. You don't need a personal challenge to see that DMC's objective is beyond killing stuff.
Not going to comment much about the false equivalence because I already implied it in the comment about the GoW video: GoW isn't nearly as complex in any aspect compared to the most complex aspects of DMC3/DMC4/SE/DMC5/DmC.
And yes, mastering Dante's move-set and tech in DMC4/SE is complex and challenging, to the point that it could take you even years to be proficient at least in one area, like high level combo-making or freestyle. Let alone if you introduce personal challenges.
Your argument is wrong because what's personal is exactly how you use such mastery to express yourself, not the mastery itself. There are standards in the community and commonly understood objectives in the game.
Learning starraving, flying guard, ecstasy JC are not personal challenges, but some of the techs you should learn if you want to play at high level. Or even just at a decent one. And no, such techs are not just for combos.
And yes, mastering Dante's move-set and tech in DMC4/SE is complex and challenging, to the point that it could take you even years to be proficient at least in one area, like high level combo-making or freestyle. Let alone if you introduce personal challenges.
Your argument is wrong because what's personal is exactly how you use such mastery to express yourself, not the mastery itself. There are standards in the community and commonly understood objectives in the game.
Learning starraving, flying guard, ecstasy JC are not personal challenges, but some of the techs you should learn if you want to play at high level. Or even just at a decent one. And no, such techs are not just for combos.
I said I appreciated your effort despite disagreeing. There was nothing defensive in my first replies. Not even now I am triggered. At most irritated by some underlying strawman arguments and, even if it sounds harsh, lack of subtlety when trying to understand my points. Even though I also know you can feel attacked and/or think that it was me who lacked the mentioned subtlety.
Hopefully this time you can see that I had already understood the article and still disagree. Again, I am not against the terminology per se, but its implications, and I explained in detail why.
Such sentences are still part of the article and directly related to the system of definitions. I never denied that we agree on some basic topics.
Also... Before you say it... Yes, I know you said people and not you. But I consider pretty obvious that you are indirectly referring to me... Or at most warning me that I may look like such people.
Having to say the obvious, but nobody needs to be defensive or triggered to disagree with you and explain why accurately.
Hopefully this time you can see that I had already understood the article and still disagree. Again, I am not against the terminology per se, but its implications, and I explained in detail why.
Such sentences are still part of the article and directly related to the system of definitions. I never denied that we agree on some basic topics.
Also... Before you say it... Yes, I know you said people and not you. But I consider pretty obvious that you are indirectly referring to me... Or at most warning me that I may look like such people.
Having to say the obvious, but nobody needs to be defensive or triggered to disagree with you and explain why accurately.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario