Explicit Challenge vs Implicit Challenge.

This is a reply to this video. More specifically the part related to DMC, even if it's focused on 5:

Part about DMC5. Even though I would recommend to watch the entire video to understand his view.

____

Please, don't take anything from this reply as an attack towards you. I am only attacking a specific part of your arguments.

____

In broad terms, we could consider almost every single player video game a type of Simon Says sequence or system of tasks. The differences can be found in interactive variables like:

- How hard or complex is to execute what Simon says (headshots, reactions to very quick attacks, intricate inputs with high APM).

- How hard is to understand what Simon wants you to do (puzzles).

- How much variety there is in what Simon wants you to do (optional exploration, combo systems, multiple paths to reach a goal).

- How deceptive is Simon (intentionally unnatural movement from enemies to make them harder to parry, traps and ambushes in first playthroughs).

- How forgiving is Simon when you do mistakes (density of checkpoints, what you lose for every mistake and every death).

Etc.

So leaving additional factors like the setting, story, etc. aside, DMC (3 and further entries) is the type of Simon Says game with brutally high variety and high execution. To the point that you even forget about Simon, and you can even freestyle with enemies that have infinite HP.

Does this mean there isn't a challenge even in normal difficulty? Since you have extremely easy alternatives to kill enemies.

No. What it means is that the challenge is subordinate to the mastery of the tools that optimize said variety, the complexity of your own creation and the required execution. Basically, being able to reach the level where you can express what you want to express.

Denying this is like if I gave you a piano with instructions to learn to play it, and you said there isn't any challenge, because just learning a few notes is easy and I didn't give you a very concrete song (common for all players) which you should play to win the ultimate cookie.

And learning to play the piano and compound is probably extremely challenging.

Subjectivity tho.

The typical intuitive reply to this argument is that with so much variety we can't say what is good and what isn't good.

Or what is success in DMC, and what isn't. Because people have different taste and someone may say one combo is trash, while another person may say the same combo is beautiful. Or one freestyle chop looking good/bad.

This would be nonsensical as reply.

Not because it's not true that there could remotely be such extreme differences, but because there are more than obvious tendencies from relevant variables. Your whole video about how challenge matters is precisely an attempt to identify a relevant variable.

And yes, indeed. We are goal-oriented and challenge does matter. Video games are controlled tasks where fun is a pleasant psychological experience from a complex process. Challenge is one of the steps in said process (or one of the most relevant steps). We get stimuli and different types of objectives (sometimes personally modified, like challenge runs), which make us feel rewarded when achieving them.

This is why you, yourself, consider irrelevant if one specific person, or even several, don't care (or think that they don't) about challenges in a specific game and play because they like the setting, story, etc. What matters is that there will always be a tendency to feel better when challenges are present and achieved.

Thus the subjectivity tho type of discourse isn't really relevant. You know and realize this.

Then why would you have a double standard and say at 10:22 literally:

There isn't even a reason to use those abilities since the game is so easy.

When there is clearly a reason to use them, because otherwise one can't optimize the ability to express himself from the Simon says variety I mentioned above. Which obviously requires mastery. A really high implicit challenge. Even if 5 is much more forgiving in terms of execution.

What encourages players to master these systems isn't a concrete cookie or killing the enemy per se. It's the possibility to be able to express themselves in said variety.

The fact that you, concretely, or even X percentage of people don't like or don't like that much a game focused on creativity doesn't mean there isn't a relevant variable that makes those abilities meaningful once a player tries to express himself. This time you are simply outside the tendency (which is fine).

You can compound a song using 3 notes. Or you can compound a song using 10 notes.

The fact that both are songs doesn't mean those 7 notes are irrelevant. They had concrete functions in the second song, and in the ocean of variety that is music.

You can make metaphors with drawing as well, or other forms of expression. While analogies are never perfect, the point is that DMC is about expression and not just killing. And said expression requires mastery.

To further illustrate the concept of implicit challenge, and how the concept of success is still present in DMC (even if it's much more nuanced), which clip do you consider more successful?

1)

2) 

Do we really need a test or experiment to corroborate that a statistically significant amount of people would prefer the first clip?

One could play dumb and say: I consider both successful because the enemy died and that's all I care about. And I would have to simply change the question to: which clip do you consider more pleasant to watch, even if slightly, or which one would you prefer overall, or which one has higher quality... And then argument why preferential aesthetics from movement and structure are relevant for the concept of success and end result of the whole process (fun). As tendency.

As I have explained in several entries, something being subjective doesn't mean it's disconnected from the continuum of the causal flux.

If you are eating your cornflakes in your room and your dog or cat enters only to fart, you don't tell yourself: you know what... smell and taste are subjective... I will keep eating like nothing happened.

No, there are relevant variables that affect our perception. And analogously to the perception of beauty, even if people like different songs, there will be a tendency to dislike X type of songs (way too simple and unoriginal melodies, unsynchronized instruments, etc.) and like Y types of songs.

Not only. People will be able to distinguish high level music from low level music in a style that they don't even like. At least with a more experienced perception.

Hell, it works even with different types of art. You don't need to be an expert in ballet or even like ballet to appreciate the precision and elegance of certain moves compared to Joe dancing in the club.

High level DMC players have different styles, but yet all of them present patterns in their gameplay/combos that make you recognize them as high level players as long as you have been exposed to a minimal amount of videos to evaluate performance.

We even tried to make an experiment for something as concrete as the perception of inertial techs in DMC4 (it would be momentum, but people called it inertia).

The real problem of the style meter isn't that it's arbitrary, but how simplistic it is compared to human perception and tendencies in the evolution of standards.

What about other games with high variety in the Simon says process...

The fact that a game's point could be precisely said variety, with focus on expression and creativity, doesn't mean ANY game of this kind is as good as the rest.

You are free to play a piano as you want, and you are free to play a triangle as you want. But obviously both have very different potential and skill ceiling.

Not any game that has juggles and a generous move-set is as good as DMC4's systems regarding expression. The function of each move, how it interacts with the rest of functions, how it interacts with moves from enemies, the required execution, etc.

There are variables that can make a game focused on creativity better or worse. Explained more in-depth here.

If you removed what leads you to use certain weapons in Doom Eternal in specific situations, what makes you tend to approach different enemies in a certain way, and you removed weak spots, etc. You wouldn't have the DMC of shooters. Because the function of weapons and skills wouldn't be there even for expression (aside from superficially different types of flashy shots and movement of the char with super shotgun).

You wouldn't have a type of weapon and mod that launches X enemies, or causes a heavy knock back that you could cancel in something else that pulls the enemy towards you, etc. You wouldn't have something like BnB set-ups to structure freestyle combos like in DMC.

All notes would be too similar. Not really a piano.

There are some similarities between DMC and Doom Eternal, but they aren't that significant. Actually, it would be utterly hard to make a "DMC shooter" because the most of the attacks would have a long range. Making a dissection of functions less sophisticated. In DMC4 there are different reasons to use aerial rave instead of Yamato rave or Full House (a dive kick), but one is obviously range/positioning.

This is also why presence of freedom in a game about expression doesn't mean any move should connect with any other move in any situation. Similar to how much freedom you have in music, yet some notes after others sound like shit (including repetition of the same note over and over).

I would even say that it's much harder to make a good game focused on expression (a well done piano), than a much more restrictive one in terms of explicit challenge. This is why DMC is so unique. Or maybe I am wrong and simply not enough game developers even try it... But this is much more speculative and not really a part of my arguments.

Could it be even more challenging/more explicitly challenging...

Understanding properly my stance: I am NOT close-minded regarding more complex and more expanded AI in enemies. What's more. Enemies can be killed in very simplistic and cheap ways even in higher difficulties.

It's the other way around. I want myself a more complex AI in some cases in DMC4 (and 5, even though I rarely play it). Many players (myself included) are very critical with the games, and one of the most recent mods for DMC4 vanilla allows enemies off-camera to attack as well.

There are mods that increase their HP too, mods that make a certain boss more aggressive, mods that make every enemy instantly DT, etc.

The point of my reply isn't that it's wrong to demand changes in the line of more explicit challenge. The point is that some comments in your video imply that there isn't even an implicit challenge. 

While the implicit challenge of reaching this level of expression is immense:

The trade-off.

And there is another really relevant thing to keep in mind when asking for more explicit challenge...

There is a point where the type of Simon says game with high variety would transform into something else. Another Simon says game with much more limited variety.

Let's say we replaced absolutely all scarecrows in DMC4/SE with DTd DMD frosts. This type of frosts can jump out of juggles.

They are also more aggressive, have more moves, acquire other DT properties blablabla.

While yes, it would increase challenge in a more explicit and traditional way, at the same time... the variety would be reduced. Plenty of options and set-ups would be gone, and the necessity to master them (implicit challenge).

Same goes if we changed too many things in Ninja Gaiden.

I still don't think a real time weapon switch would be a negative implementation in Ninja Gaiden, unlike some NG players, who seem to consider it too harmful for restriction. But what's clear is that, if we added and added, and added options, even keeping the same AI and enemies, at some point NG would be another type of game.

You would acquire many options to kill enemies in more creative ways (which could be extremely difficult to master depending on how it's implemented), but you would lose at least part of the idiosyncratic harassment. Because it comes partially from limited options.

For example, giving Ryu reversals and Rapid Slash would allow him to move really fast on the ground, and long distances. Being able to escape more easily from some situations and then charge UTs without using landing versions or any optimization that you need because of harassment. Giving him a tool to pull enemies towards him from the air (something I don't like even in DMC, which is one of the reasons why I am not a big fan of Nero), would mean that he could stay in the air killing enemies consecutively without taking the risk of touching the ground and being surrounded... Giving him DMC5's gravity (lack of) and JCs with extremely generous hitboxes would mean that you could spam JCd aerial raves until each enemy dies.

You can implement changes and adjustments, but past a certain range, each game would lose its identity and would be something else.

And maybe I would love that hybrid, maybe it would be the perfect Action Game for me. But the point is that you can't go in one direction or the other without sacrificing a certain type of challenge. The explicit one or the implicit one.

Is it really implicit...

Note that I use this dichotomy and terminology simply to make things more clear regarding your view. Because the challenge isn't implicit for many people. When I started playing DMC3 for the first time, it was crystal clear for me what the game was about and its point. I didn't even pay attention to the style meter, but different connections, how to be as fluid as possible and other relevant variables for expression and perception. Obviously people have different backgrounds and I had played games like kof, Marvel Super Heroes and other FGs as teenager, where the concept of combo was present (even if it had different functions).

Basically, I don't really consider the challenge implicit. As I wouldn't consider the challenge implicit when hearing and seeing a great guitarist. I won't know exactly how hard is to do what he does, but I would definitely consider it challenging by default with a minimal knowledge. And I would consider obvious why he wanted to master playing that instrument to such degree, even if it's not my own preference.

There is a considerable overlapping at this point with other entries, and I don't want to do this more redundant than what it is. But I am just going to add that using a derogatory term like combo simulator is a non argument. As I said in the past, you can call football a bunch of guys running behind a ball or chess just some board game. It doesn't say anything about their complexity.

Even if DMC was a pure combo simulator (one enemy in a controlled environment), mastering a system like DMC4 Dante only for combos would still be utterly challenging. At most the discussion would be if it should be considered a combat system. But that's not the case, as high level freestyle is probably even harder and there isn't any good argument to not call it combat system in that context (and others like speedrunning).

Recommended videos:

Helps to see examples of what I called relevant variables. In this case movement.

High level freestyle (I would recommend to watch at least 2 minutes).

TL;DR

The possibility to express yourself to this degree, constructing your own style, is what constitutes the challenge in DMC and motivator to master its systems. And you couldn't make the game a MUCH more resctrictive Simon says without sacrificing part of this challenge (even if you implement new ones). I do concede, however, that DMC could do a better job at teaching basics in-game, and showing the point of its systems. Something like in-game examples of interesting freestyle chops and combo challenges, how to use JC and inertia at basic level, how one can use reversals for creative movement or just dodge, etc.