This video has been in production since early December, and I see it as the mission statement for my channel. Hope you like it. BRAWLER Mode & Mayo merch here! teespring.com/stores/underthemayo Support me on Patreon. patreon.com/underthemayo UA-cam Memberships to my channel now available, click the "Join" button. Follow me on Twitch at twitch.tv/underthemayo
My biggest issue is games not using their medium to enhance the story or experience. Doom Eternal’s demons are relentless and violent so the player needs to become the badass that the story is telling them they are. It’s so annoying to see video games only tell their story through cutscenes or set pieces. Enhance your story through player interaction with the mechanics and gameplay.
This is pretty much God of War 4, all show but no talent. When the original trilogy describes how much of an absolute beast Kratos is, they make you understand why when you experience the gameplay for yourself, mind you this greatly helps immerse you in the fictional reality of GOW, but because Santa Monica wanted to play it safe and appeal to the generic medium (a.k.a. the Last of Us Sony exclusive homogenization) we instead got a weaker, less impactful sequel to what could've been a franchise comeback with limitless potential. It had a great atmosphere and story, but the way they butchered the mechanics practically blueballs the experience.
@@spimpsmacker6422 Yeah, remember when Kratos murdered almost the entire pantheon of Greek Gods in nothing but a skirt and sandals? Well, now you have to explore for crafting items, put on armour, take on generic enemies 1-on-1, you're better off staying away and just throwing the axe in most situations, can't jump, have a super limited moveset which goes on a cooldown timer, etc. I think literally every single gameplay decision they made was pretty awful ngl. I played the game first time on Hard too and Christ dude. Enemies just sponge everything and Kratos feels fucking pathetic even if you're playing flawlessly. Then with the story, I don't even think it's that good. I legitimately think the relationship between Baldur and Freya is the dumbest shit possible. "I love you son, and I never want you to feel pain." "MOOOM, I HATE THIS. TURN IT OFF!" "Well, I totally could but nah." *Ending of game where the spell is lifted* "Yaayy, I'm finally cured!" "Great! Now you love me and we can be family again right?" "Fuck off mom. I'll kill you." "Well okay, if that's what you want, please do." And Atreus has some abysmally written moments, especially where he becomes a little cunt after finding out he's a God. This information alone triggering such a huge change in the character is just the dumbest. Atreus literally talks about how if he was a God, he would use his power to help people and all of that. Literally what changed besides him finding out that he can now in fact realise those wishes? Also honestly, I'm kind of against Kratos even getting redemption and getting yet ANOTHER do over in his fucked up life. Kratos is a disgusting asshole and that's literally the point of his character tbh. He's a selfish, reckless, violent, asshole. His actions literally lead to the death of his entire realm. Why are we pretending as though he deserves redemption? Honestly, I hope the sequels touch on this if nothing else.
The tomb raider games have a massive disconnect between the cutscenes and gameplay. In cutscenes, Lara gets bodied by a single lone thief but in gameplay, she easily takes on hundred of armed soldiers and undead knights. It gets really annoying.
@@amarntsitran3406 “you’re better off staying away and just throwing the axe in most situations” Except there are enemies that have ranged attacks that are significantly easier to fight up close, and there are enemies fast enough to immediately close that distance, making throwing the axe useless. Then there are the enemies that just straight up dodge or block the axe whenever you throw it at them, rendering it useless once again. These enemies make up at least half the game’s encounter. “Have a super limited moveset.” You have: Light attacks, heavy attacks, parries and ripostes, dodge counterattacks, ranged attacks, Runic attacks for both the Blades of Chaos and Leviathan axe, Atreus’ arrows and his own Runic attacks, alternate fighting style modes for Leviathan Axe, Blades, and your fists, not to mention all the special attacks unique to each individual weapon, such as the Axe’s executioner’s blow, the Blades’ whirlwind attack, and the barehanded moveset’s shield slam followed by a shockwave. Every single one of these systems is extremely beneficial in terms of damage, staggering, elemental damage, and stuns, and can be combined together in a bunch of different ways. Your moveset is objectively fucking MASSIVE. Not to mention the only moves that go on a cool down timer are the Runic attacks, every other move I named can be done extremely frequently. Kratos feels pathetic when you’re playing perfectly? You must be playing it wrong. Even at the game’s hardest difficulty, many of Kratos’ attacks feel absolutely devastating. Not just the runic attacks, but also the Executioner’s strike, combo finishers, riposte attacks, charging attacks, and alternative style mode heavy attacks. Even on Give Me God of War, a highly skilled player can start juggling enemies and knocking them flying backwards pretty easily. Then we have you using the worst modern trend in criticism possibly ever, which is to take a story element, strip it of any context, depth, writing, and nuance in an attempt to demean it. Not to mention that you blatantly get shit wrong. “Why are we pretending as if he deserves redemption?” The game never suggests that Kratos DOES deserve redemption, I don’t know where you got that from. Kratos himself literally says constantly that there’s no way for him to atone for his sins, that he’ll do his best to become better, but he knows full well that he’s gone too far to ever be forgiven. I’m pretty lenient with Under the Mayo criticising God of War 2018, because he at least has salient criticisms. He’s not correct, but I can understand where he’s coming from. But Christ, your arguments are awful, and show a lack of understanding for the game’s story and design.
"instead of giving the power fantasy to the player, we work hard to make the player earn that power fantasy which helps the player slide into the fun zone which is where you play the game its meant to be played" - Hugo Martin, game director of doom eternal.
@@smugplush yup Hugo also admitted that this was a flaw of 2016. The gameplay became repetitive since the answer to everything was ssg or siege mode. Even though it felt nice and cool, there was no incentive to get better or any skilling ceiling to cross. Hugo said "ID will never make the same game twice".
“Instead of giving the power fantasy to the player, we work hard to give the power fantasy to all the enemies the player fights, while the player is stuck as a puny schmuck to get his shit kicked in.” - Hidetaka Miyazaki, game director of Dark Souls.
*Under the Mayo:* Let's look at one of the greatest games of all time... *Me:* Oh, boy! Here come Doom Eternal...! *Under the Mayo:* Super Mario 64! *Me:* A surprise, to be sure, but a welcome one.
meh. Sometimes i feel like the only person on earth who thinks that game is just ok at best. The internet has a weird way of sucking that games dick for no reason.
"It's just optional" "It's about accessibility" Games are about challenge, whether by performing mechanical operations with speed & accuracy, or solving mental problems - and overcoming that challenge. If a challenge is made infinitely scaleable, then there's no real resistance being offered to the player. Accessibility would be things like allowing rebinds for custom controllers - colourblind modes, photosensitive modes that eliminate or modify triggering lights, closed captions for the deaf, narration & audiovisual assists for the visually impaired. People who argue taking the challenge out of a game should be done for 'accessibility' are belittling & condescending to people with disabilities. Overcoming the challenge in the game mechanics is the 'point' of the game. Once you start making engagement of the core mechanics optional to progress - you're telling disabled gamers to play a different game than everyone else. Accessibility should mean taking away barriers from their being able to engage with & enjoy the game like everyone else does. It shouldn't mean taking the actual game away so they can have a more passive experience.
Exactly. I hate when people call difficulty options "accessibility". I think it should be more accurately called approachability for casuals and newcomers. Including accesibility options like closed captions, colorblind modes, and controller options doesn't affect the difficulty of the actual gameplay. They just make it more accessible to people with specific disabilities. I personally wouldn't benefit from turning those options on but there are many people who absolutely would. Difficulty options have nothing to do with disabilities or making games accessible to disabled players. They usually just dumb down the experience of gameplay so that people who have little experience with games can get through it. Ideally the low difficulty options prepare you to play the higher ones, rather than teach you bad habits that will get you killed when engaging with all the systems properly.
"Games are about challenge" not quite, journey exists, unless you don't think its a game "People who argue taking the challenge out of a game should be done for 'accessibility' are belittling & condescending to people with disabilities" how come? is it not a fact that disabilities can reduce how well a given player can perform in a game? "Overcoming the challenge in the game mechanics is the 'point' of the game." not always, subnautica and various explorative games can be fun even without a challenge its one thing to argue that developers should be allowed to make the games the way they want, its another thing to argue that difficulty modes doesn't help people with disabilities, especially motor related ones
Accessibility as a word doesn't only refer to disabled people. In general I agree with Mayo here. I'm a guy who loves the fuck out of Souls, Sekiro e.t.c. currently I'm at the end of my first NIOH 2 playthrough. I enjoy and think you need some level of difficulty in order to have a player feel something when they earn a victory. The big issue is that, like mayo said in the video, one person's easy is another person's difficult. I remember the first time I played a souls game (DS2 SotFS) it was fucking BRUTAL. Now I had fun, and the experience was great of having to earn my victories against PvE enemies for the first time maybe ever where their difficulty wasn't just linked to bullshit. I was also a pretty seasoned gamer by this point. I'd been playing shit for 7 years or something. Imagine someone who's newer to gaming, they very well might just not be able to enjoy that game at all, because it's so hard that they never hit the 'fun zone'. For that newer player, the game is not accessible. Or to take another example, I am a pretty heavy FPS player historically, I've had a good KD in various games like COD and BF, got to top 0.4% in destiny e.t.c. I'm not a CS god and I never played things like quake, but I know how to point my mouse at things and click decently. I came into DOOM Eternal off a maybe 3 month hiatus in FPS shit, so I was a tad rusty, but still better than most people at FPS shit. With the plethora of different skills the game wanted me to learn, dealing with...6? 8? weapons, I can't remember. I was struggling, not in the sense that I was dying much, I was struggling to have fun, struggling to learn what it wanted me to. I got to the point that I was having fun about midway through the game, I felt like I wasn't complete garbage, and then the game throws marauders at you, and then another thing, and another thing. So in the end, realistically I spent about 50% of the game feeling like I wasn't competent enough at the systems, and thus I wasn't having fun, I just felt like I was garbage and couldn't do any cool shit. The other 50% I was competent enough at the systems, and I did feel like I could do cool stuff, and had fun. Now take into account that most people don't play games through multiple times (I know I didn't. I like DOOM, but it doesn't interest me enough to go through all the difficulties or anything). So I had a 50% fun experience, when with a slightly easier experience, that could have been 75% or more fun. And on top of that I'm above average at pure aim, imagine someone worse than me and their experience of the game. For that player, the game is not very accessible, just like Souls is not accessible (this is why you get people posting reddit threads like the dude that was stuck on the DS3 tutorial boss for 40 DAYS). It's like if IRL you had a sporting event based on javelin throwing and hitting targets. All of the targets are in olympic javelin throwing ranges. A normal person, is completely unable to even participate, because they can't throw far enough. A non professional javelin thrower can sometimes do it, and can sometimes have fun with the game, and an olympic level thrower loves it, because of the challenge and complexity. Is that event accessible? Hell no. Is it fun if you grind to be good enough to participate? Yes. Is everyone able to reach that level with a reasonable investment of effort and time/is the work they'll have to put in worth the fun at the end for them? Hell no. For someone near that level, it's probably worth it, for most people, not even close.
@@DawnSentinelSimply, not everything is for everyone my guy. The issue here is most modern games trying to cater to everyone especially the AAAs. Most triple A games of the now are like cake walk bro. It is like the normal difficulty today is on very easy mode un-calibrated. Games used to always pose a challenge and it was like that from the start. You learnt to value the lessons of failure fast - It's the risk you take every-time you pickup a controller lol. Pong and the classics alike, though basic were akin to that. *Its in the footsteps of success where you'll see the trail of failure.* The reason why the Olympic level thrower (mentioned in your example) loves it -- is because of passion and drive. He/She fought through trial and error to find the ultimate resolve. Those who quit early on simply did not see javelin as a compelling life path thus there are other options. Most things in life are not fun at the start and learning can be quite a difficult task for many. Learning is actually difficult for me but fun is achieved when It is starting to click. It's the ability to overcome the challenges posed and make it out at the end that creates a memorable experience. The fun is not the start of the journey nor is it at the end of it. It is the journey itself. The whole joint. *If life itself was easy would it carry weight in meaning? If an easy button suddenly pop up in your face would you point your mouse over and click it?* I understand your reasoning behind making things accessible towards a more global audience. It allows more people to pick up a controller be it new timers or casuals. It further grows the appeal towards the industry, but look at our outcome. It is like gaming is hitting an invisible wall and not breaking its boundaries towards new grounds and to top it off every other game you pick up just feels as if they are afraid to challenge you. *The easy route is not always the best and most of the time isn't.* It is sad hearing people refer to SOULS as the pinnacle of difficulty today when back in the days - many games were on or surpass the difficulties of Souls. It's sad that games like cup-head are now the niche. Have you ever played Marble Madness my man - have you? Have you played Super Star Wars: Return of the Jedi on *JUST* normal my brother?! There are so many games I can list here. There existed a time long ago when games did not have save states -- some did not even have a difficulty setting. *It was also crazy how the world used to practically belittle you for playing vidjya games and now it is a global dish. Damn, things are ironic as hell. lol.* The issue I have with it all is watering down most games today to fit the general audience in hopes of raking in the casuals which will in turn thicken wallets. We all know this, that is why the video game industry is bigger than sports and movies combined! It is sad that the people who suffer the most are the ones who actually care about the future of gaming -- who can openly criticize its current motives and wish for better output in the medium. What's also ironic is that when it comes to multiplayer games there is a steep learning curve (in most) if you are to compete with human players. I don't see that stopping casual gamers. Games like Fortnite is a great example to this. It has a massive install base but if you look at the actual game mechanics of the its battle royal option - it's chaotic to say the least. You would be joking if you'd say you'd master its fundamentals in year's time but players of all calibers play it. Why? is it easy? I think players will adapt to what ever you throw at them as long as the core holds substance. You can not expect everyone to be Gamers as you can't expect everyone to be javelin throwers. *Everyone can hold a controller/javelin but you can't expect all of them to take it with them to the finish line.* In your summary I see you've underlined FPS as the games you play. Why do you play FPS games? Is it to detract you from the difficulties in life or do you play them in hopes to gain more color in yours? Why settle for FPS multiplayer, why settle for FPS almost exclusively?
@@legros731 "And you just picked the best example doom even the best cod player will struggle if they begin on ultra nightmare" Good thing there are easier difficulties they can pick to start on, and eventually work their way up to ultra nightmare. You just picked the best example to destroy your own argument.
I recently started playing Doom Eternal on nightmare recently. I really struggled, so I had to start using the faltering system, start weapon switching more, and started to open up to mods like microwave beam and destroyer blade, and WOW. The experience was so fun, like the feeling of microwaving a cyber mancubus and going in for the bloodpunch felt great. Doom Eternal is one of my favorite games of all time. Heck, I even started to play games like Prey differently, I started to Gloo and enemy, hit them with psycho shock, and the hit them with a shotgun blast. Doom Eternal has forever changed both how I look at games and how I play them.
I first tried doom eternal on ultra-nightmare thinking “oh I’m good at shooters” (which I am) but then I got into doom and on the first challenge room I spent 3 hours trying to make it. Lesson learned
This hole discussion has been really frustrating to see, mostly because I've seen multiple times people saying that they should be allowed to play however they want and therefore the game is not as good or even bad. Is like playing monopoly and suddenly someone says I dont want to manage my money after losing once and then saying that the game is trash. How can you criticise a game for its systems when you actually didn't try to engage in those systems? If you don't like that system is fine but at the very least try to engage with it before deciding if it's good or not.
*"I suck at the game, so the game is bad"* mentality need to go away. I even saw that in people that prefers 2016, lots of their argument is either lack of learning or just plain suck at Eternal. Not even a single flaw they pointed out worth dragging down Eternal, it's not credible enough imo. It sounds like a plain nitpicking & nostalgia blinded.
And this is why I love fighting games, the genre has literally infinite replay value because if someone is sweeping the floor with you, the game is encouraging you to learn the game, basically everything depends on the human component and how the systems work along with it, it shows you how important they are
I also really love fighting games but an unfortunate reality is that the systems are often obfuscated and made to be super ambiguous. It straight up took me like 2 years of hopping in and out of various fighting games, following streamers, watching guides and higher-levels of play before I could say that I am relatively confident that I at aleast understand the fundamental concepts and systems that are attributed to fighting games. I still suck huge ass at them, but I at least know what's going on now lmao. Tbh, I feel like I literally only figured out how neutral play should really work like a few months ago haha. I never grew up with FGs so this has been a fairly recent endeavour but that genre is a nightmare to understand. I remember when I decided that I legitimately wanted to get into the genre, I bought UMvC3 on sale and tried it out. That shit made no sense lmao. I got motions down in practice fairly quickly but to get them out in matches took way longer. Sometimes I'd attack an opponent and it just wouldn't hit them. I didn't really understand when I could and could not attack back when under pressure, etc. I couldn't even beat the Story on Normal for ages lmao. I just booted it up and my online record is 1-55 LMAO. Of course, I'm not gonna run into noobs on UMvC3 and I at least got that. Just think about it, Fighting Games are genuinely some of the most iconic brands in pop culture. Street Fighter has representation in Fortnite now among Marvel, DC and Star Wars ffs haha. That being said, the community and playerbase of the genre is relatively really small and I think this is a huge reason why. The genre doesn't push most people to learn and get better, I think it confuses and frustrates most into playing very casually and they'll basically only ever button mash or they just quit playing super soon.
@@amarntsitran3406 @Amarn T Sitran I see your point but the thing it's, it's the same as learning any other thing that's difficult, like martial arts, some survive and push through the complex and precise movements and mind games needed, others just want to play a game without breaking their brains or spending hours in training, but the point is, if the games didn't push you to learn there would be no reason to play them, it's extremely based on human component, I have been helped, stomped and I've helped and stomped others to get better because even if the community is small you need others to play and learn, which is pure human component. Fighting games are hard, that's why a considerable amount of players doesn't get out of "bronze" rank in SFV, but at the same time, it's not only hard because the games are complex and require many levels of various mental games, awareness of resources and hand dexterity, they are also hard because all has to do with you, you're the reason why of almost everything, and that's a heavy weight to carry for almost anyone who really wants to learn (which is why you need people to help you), all motivation from outside and inside pushes you to become a better player, the game isn't going to change if you learn how to do a hadoken, what changes is the human component, if you don't wanna learn the game, it just doesn't work for you and probably you would be better playing simpler fighting games that are easier to learn or just playing another genre, there's a wide spectrum of fgs from easy as pressing a button to do anything like Dive Kick, Footsies, Brawhalla, Smash, Fantasy Strike, to complex and more deep games like Marvel VS Capcom, Guilty Gear, or even SFV, but in any of them you require to get better at some point.
I've followed you since the release of Doom Eternal and I think this is your best video yet. I hope you keep making these design discussion style videos because you have a great way of setting up your arguments.
@@underthemayo I'm gonna nail this video to a door like Martin Luther's 95 Theses. You've done a wonderful job expressing these sentiments that I could never put into words, and now the world needs to hear them.
I think the downside of titanfall's ai was that it wasnt built for the campaign, it was built for multiplayer. They reused the same ai in the campaign as the multiplayer, which was a really bad idea because the multiplayer grunts are literally the most harmless thing possible. I dont even know how respawn gave a thumbs up to putting the "THEY'RE TRYING TO CORNER US" ai into an otherwise magnificent campaign.
I still think they make it just for a campaign tutorial purpose. The fact that was so mellowed is just for the purpose of introducing mechanics to better be prepared for the multiplayer experience. A bit long for sure, maybe too much, but adding a story to it truly makes it more enjoyable imo.
@@domenicopisano4383 I can understand wanting to dumb down the first few levels to make it easier to get into, but the ai in multiplayer was designed for point farming, not as an actual challenge the player has to overcome with hellstorm of other pilots and titans. What they should have done is made separate ai for the campaign and multiplayer so that you dont die constantly to grunts in multiplayer, but there is still a challenge in the campaign.
At least the highest difficulty does feel like you have to use parkour a little more, but yeah. Imo I think if modding ever came to be a quick and dirty fix for this would be to make AI deal less damage (~30%) but be WAY more accurate (~50 to 70%) and reduce their reaction times by 40% (60% for the robot units to make them feel more distinct). Titan combat is actually fine as is though, it really does the whole engagement through difficulty thing well.
The ticks, reapers, and even alien wildlife are all capable enough to be aggressive and pressure players to move a little, they could’ve incorporated them better into the game if they wanted to. I don’t think Respawn ever demanded anyone to be parkouring while shooting, if they did I don’t think they would’ve had the grunts and their hitscan damage be so prevalent in the game. The lack of challenge was probably intended.
@@f3z087 I was moreso talking about the grunts and stalkers, because at least in doom eternal gargoyles can punish you for slowing down and being out of position
Have played Sekiro, Hollow Knight, Dark Souls or every possible rogue-like game? Doom Eternal is just a joke if you compare difficult...even on ultra-nightmare.
@@nightmareking4491 Dark souls? Are you okay? That game is far easier than doom eternal on ultra nightmare, every other difficulty though dark souls is harder
Because doom eternal wasn't popular specifically for its difficulty like dark souls, so it attracted people that maybe just wanted an easy power fantasy
People think any Doom is just a shooty shoot fun game where you go gun front and left click everything to death. Namco Bandai are a bunch of stupid fucks that decided to promote Dark Souls for it's difficulty. DeS and DS1 were just old school design and never intended to be conventually hard. This is why later entries were more focused on diffficulty, than good design.
I’d say from software has taken more grief about there games being difficult than almost any other dev. Sjws have been hating on that series since demons souls, as they like the world and lore of the games but are too scatterbrained to take on the very accessible challenge they have on offer. Sekiro was just another example of the same bullshit that comes up every time from software drop another masterpiece.
@@KosmataBradva I hate that Fromsoft did that. I love all their games but I cant imagine the utopia where they dialed back some of the retarded shit because they didn't brand themselves as ultra hard, which is funny anyway cause 99% of the games become stupidly easy with a strength build, stunlocking and instakilling half the enemies, but no, they have to, they're "Souls games." I honestly think that Sekiro is the closest we're ever gonna get to a "fair" fromsoft game, I don't mean easy, I think it's harder at times, the only things in the whole game i ever thought were "bullshit" were either avoidable (don't try to stab your mentor that taught you the move that punishes thrust attacks/Mikiri counter) or justified (oh hey, that secret miniboss is hard.) Compared to Dark Souls, having shit like the Tomb of giants (rng if you actually get a lamp or not, you can only get a Sunlight maggot in a certain circumstance, the enemies will one shot you if you're wearing The strongest armor in the game with decent health while blocking) Bed of chaos (dumbass design) ceaseless discharge (rng boss fight whether or not he spams an AOE move that you have to dodge perfectly otherwise you get stunlocked) I liked Nitos boss fight, mixed with the respawning skeletons but the aoe attack and the ground spike are just friggin lame. I actually beat the 1st one with A fat roll only build (dlc made me quit that) and SL4 only build and these parts STILL gave me the same amount of trouble as a normal playthrough THAT'S bullshit.
@@underthemayo I didn't panick, my first impressions of Doom were, holy shit am I fast. And I don't have to stop to reload? Sick. Played it on UV first, because I ain't no bitch, and really enjoyed it, I just wished it pushed me to use more weapons like Eternal did, since I didn't start doing that on my own, and only started quickswitching after watching a few speedruns. Before I started quickswitching I found the game to be boring after a few playthroughs and thought it just didn't have much replay value. It was a great decision by ID to make Eternal so it pushes players into the systems much more than 2016.
@@underthemayo I would have been one of those guys if I hadn't discovered the arena FPS genre, a detox after years of cheap frags. I think I am among the few 16yo who play Unreal Tournament 99 Lmao (rip Unreal, 1998-2017)
@@underthemayo Doom 2016 was my first experience with a retro fps game after playing COD for the better part of a decade and I found it to be everything I wished COD was. I always wanted faster, more aggressive gameplay from it and I didn't realize that the perfect FPS genre for that was already created
Everything you said you nailed right on the head. I feel like if anyone seriously retorts with "You just want everything to be Doom Eternal," then they've completely missed the point of what you've been trying to say.
Not really. His Halo video was the worst example of this. He just kept comparing it to DE and whining that it wasn't like DE. Wishing it was like DE. Then not playing it in a way that took advantage of it's systems and mechanics, the entire point of this video.
@@youtubecommenter2527 He compared Halo to 90s shooter, not Doom Eternal. Slow, clunky, regenerative shields, two weapon limits and copy-pasta hallways. It was more a critic of the way fps developed since, than a critic of Halo itself. Personally, I think he treated Halo almost too gentle considering of what a stale regression this game represents.
@@stiefn3825 Doom Eternal and most console shooters would not exist were it not for Halo's enormous critical success. Halo doesn't represent regression, it's companies copycatting what worked with Halo and doing so over and over. It's more of other companies lack of originality than it is Bungie's fault making Halo. Saying Halo lead to regression is factually wrong and reductionist.
@@youtubecommenter2527 I doubt Halo is relevant to Doom Eternal's existence. What comes next, without Half Life 2 and Call of Duty there would have been no Quake 4? How is it factually wrong to blame the game that introduced almost every system which let to near two decades of stale fps? And how do these systems work in Halo but not in other games?
@@youtubecommenter2527 He didn't wish it was like Doom Eternal, he wished it was like '90s shooters in general. He wasn't actually saying it was a bad game, he just said he resents it for changing the industry to be something which doesn't please him as much. He's talked about it in a more recent video, saying he really enjoyed it after giving it another go.
"You want everything to be Doom Eternal" If what they mean is that I want every game to be a masterfully crafted experience full of amazing level design, good difficulty curves, great enemy designs and A.I. then the answer is yes, I want everything to be Doom Eternal.
If DMC started to specifically tell you want to do then than wouldn't that kinda eliminate player creativity. I do get the whole difficulty thing, but I was still having as much fun playing on normal, getting the abilities and slowly learning how the characters. I was a lot more ready for harder difficulties as I had the ability to flow my combos together the way I wanted to
No, because DOOM Eternal does the same thing and still allows for creativity. Even though the game shows you that the most optimal way to kill a cacodemon is by shooting a grenade into it's mouth and glorykilling it, it's NOT the only way to do so, in fact you can discover a better method in the game using the Ballista. What WOULD eliminate player creativity is by making it so that cacodemons could ONLY be killed by using that method, as in you have no choice BUT to grenade it's mouth and glorykilling it. DMC wouldn't suffer from that if it made the demons more challenging in this case, in fact it would actually encourage player creativity, not eliminate it.
Then you go on the harder difficulty and the things that you’ve been doing on normal doesn’t apply there anymore. And that’s the problem. You’ve given the player so much freedom to do whatever they want with no consequences (meaning that some players could be learning the game wrong), then you go on a harder difficulty and find out that your combos are either useless or you’re using the wrong combo at the wrong time. The “I had the ability to flow my combos together the way I wanted” is the issue because on the harder difficulties, you won’t have a lot of opportunities to flow your combos since the enemy will try to interrupt you. All you’ve done is basically learn to put together a combo and not how, when and against what enemy to use that combo. Then people will complain that the game was restricting their creativity because combos that worked on normal aren’t working on harder difficulties. Not a good approach to designing difficulty. So the game has failed to teach you the most important mechanics that is important for you to survive the encounters while playing stylish. You go on the harder difficulty and it feels like you’ve wasted your time learning combos that are ineffective on harder difficulty. What the game should be teaching you is the combos and the styles that will push you into the system, then give you more creativity to experiment with the styles that were already taught to you while making sure you understand what style, where and when to use them. Your style could just be smashing one button or alternating between two buttons. That’s not good. The game should punish you for that in normal and not on hard when the player went through the whole game just doing simple combos. Once you’ve learnt a game one way, it takes time and effort to rewire yourself so even on normal, the game should at least challenge the player. No challenge, you can do whatever you want, then when you play on the harder difficulty, the challenge becomes too much for you and you’ll have to relearn the game. Not a good feeling since it feels like you’ve wasted your time learning useless combos. And that is if the game pulls your attention enough to want to replay it, because to an average person, they could see the game as just mindless button smashing. How do you convince the average gamer who’s playing your game for the first time that it’s not a mindless button smashing game if the game doesn’t put forward any challenge and demands nothing from the player? By the time they finish the game on normal mode (or whatever it is), they’ll just move on with their life. They’ll remember the game as a mindless button smashing game and their boring first experience will be just that. The analogy by the other guy also already explains it. Restrictions to a scenario doesn’t restrict creativity, it enhances it. It forces the player to tap into their imagination on how to solve the problem in front of you. For example, look at the old games like Silent Hill. The ps1 hardware had limits so they couldn’t render things from long distance without losing the details close range. So they put a fog around the player and that decision helped with creating the unique atmosphere of silent hill. They’re remaking silent hill and even though they have the tech to render long distance objects, I hope they do NOT get rid of the fog. This is an example of where restrictions enhanced creativity. If there weren’t any restrictions, you’d be playing like Doom 2016, spamming that double barrel shotgun the whole game. If there weren’t any restrictions, you’d be smashing the same simple combo the whole game because that’s the most effective strategy against every enemies. Another example is the Marauder. People said that he restricted creativity. Videos on how to take out Marauders showed people stunning the Marauder in creative ways. Use his dogs against him, detonating missiles behind them, once stunned combining auto target rocket launcher, blood punch, grenade you name it. If the Marauder acted the same way as any other enemies out there, all those creative approaches would not be a thing.
Easy games need to exist, some people just want to watch an interactive movie, and I think that's OK. However, that is not to say that EVERY game has to be like that or have an "easy" mode. People need to understand that not every game is for everyone, it should be as easy as that.
The probem with that is, the interactive movie is still a game? As much as I love Life is Strange, The Last of Us and Day of the Tentacle, those are not videogames, they are not fun to play even, just fun to watch and interact occasionally. I don't think those things should be made as videogames because the people that makes them could use "all of that effort and time" with the "gameplay" directly on the movie and the story
@@zerot480 but there are plenty of people that do have fun with them, as well as plenty others that will also pay their $60 on a game that has a super-easy-breeze mode just because they want to see a story and press buttons while they're at it... I don't see the problem with that honestly, business is business. I only see a problem when this is forced upon games that were not designed with a super-casual audience in mind (like journos complaining that darks souls doesn't have an easy mode, for example)
@@zerot480 Last of us is fun as fuck. Put it on survival difficulty and don't do that listen through walls bullshit. It's incredibly atmospheric and the combat encounters are brutal and intense, having to conserve ammo or use it efficiently or else you gotta melee only or rely on stealth. Fuck outta saying Last of us isn't a game.
The fun zone game design philosophy helped me to make a really engaging level with my friend in LittleBigPlanet 3. (It's a PlayStation exclusive UGC sandbox platformer for the uninitiated.) The level is a bomb survival with a custom crossbow powerup that allows the player to shoot the bombs away. At first it was okay but it played like every other bomb survival and was too easy and boring because players could go underground early and camp. To push players into the fun zone, I sealed off the underground areas, added tracking missiles and made an orbital death ray that would track the player and charge up if they stood in one spot for too long. As a result, the level is really fun and I find myself playing it all the time trying to set new high scores! (I brought this up because it was relevant, I swear I'm not just here to advertise the level because it only has 15 plays! It's called "Crossbow Bomb Survival: Boom Town" published by h8yse if you want to play it though.)
Why would people like easy games? Sure at some point I had created an OP starting character in Crusader Kings 3 or used cheats in GTA San Andreas. It is fun for a while but it gets old really quick.
I feel like ultrakill is a great example of a game that pushes its design onto the player, The only way to get back health is to be up close when you’re damaging enemy so if you try and run away and hide you’re always going to die on higher difficulties.
not really. u can easily play through the whole game ignoring the style meter and spamming the pistol without learning any advanced movement. it was an odd choice to have neither reloading or ammo.
The first time a game truly pushed me into it's good combat systems in halo 1. Way back in the day when i completed it on legendary for the first time. You can't just run around with the assault rifle and blast away every enemy on legendary. You need to play a lot more strategically and carefully If you want to actually beat it. Many examples of this is making good use of cover, using the plasma pistol on an elite to destroy it's shields then headshot with the pistol. Understanding enemy weaknesses like how the flood are extremely weak to the shotgun. For reference, the shotgun can 1 shot most flood forms, but a sniper will take a lot more (like 8 or more shots). Whereas on blue elites, the sniper takes 2 shots (if you aim for the head), and 3 shots for the red elites (also when aiming for the head). The only enemy type you can effectively kill on legendary with the assault rifle alone is the grunts. If you want to use it on an elite you can, but take out the shields first with the plasma pistol, then gun him down. See what I mean how the game forces you into it's combat design? Plasma weapons are extremely effective against shields, and the game gives them a purpose on heroic and legendary difficulty, because other weapon types will take ages to take down those shields, which will get you killed. Legendary difficulty would be extremely easy if the elites didn't have shields, and you could use the assault rifle to kill flood forms in a few shots.
Absolutely. And even someone like me that doesnt really enjoy those systems can see that the game is designed well around those systems and that's a good thing.
Sometimes you do want that experience of relaxation, mindlessly achieving tasks and then other times you want your adrenaline to be on fire trying to take down Sekiro bosses, I think both should be welcome.
I want to add on your take on DMC5. The thing with DMC and games like it, that being bayonetta and some others. They are made to be played again and again and are made for People who like that. Thats why there is new enemy plasment on the higher difficultys. But cus of that. They like to make your first playthrough the same as a tutorial. And the replays become the Main game. That is also why so many of the games like this are so short. Wich i like, it lets you get used to the basics of the gameplay. But the problem with DMC5 is that it is not short, its around 15 hours long for most players. Where games like this only are about 8 or 9 hours. That being said DMC5 is still game of forever to me atleast
I disagree with his take on the style meter, as he disregards intrinsic motivation and its own allure, but he is right about the general difficulty. Son of Sparda had to be available from the start.
Another big issue with DMC5 isn't just the length, but that it's far easier than its predecessors and contemporaries. Older DMC games didn't have very forgiving Normal difficulties and, especially in the late game, will punish a player, if they haven't learned the systems, same with Bayonetta. Even the Special Edition of DMC3, offers a challenge on Normal and expects players to interact with its systems and not just spam one combo. Hell, I know there are plenty of players who probably get Easy Automatic offered to them once they encounter Cerberus. DMC5 just doesn't have any of that on its Normal difficulty and it kinda sucks.
Something else that bothers me with DMC 5 is that the mission ranking system is piss poor. In DMC 3 there was actually challenge in getting a mission S rank because you had to perform well, not take much damage etc. In DMC 5 by contrast, you basically get spoon-fed an S rank just as long as you don't use a continue, its pathetic. Then there's mission 10 which instead has an entirely different issue with consistency, with someone i saw on YT getting less stylish points than me on average, but getting an S rank, while I was stuck on A despite performing better than him in the mission (I still don't know what he did to get the top rank that I supposedly wasn't doing). Its really fucking stupid given how missions ranks are a big part of DMC and yet for 5, they decided to take a step backwards for whatever reason...
@@stiefn3825 Yeah, same here. SoS not being available from the start is dumb but at the same time, I didn't mind because I was hyped out of my ass just to play through the game and get the story regardless. Plus I never used the instant revive because that's some lame ass shit so there were encounters and bosses even on normal where I needed to learn and get better. The style ranking is a good motivator. I don't understand how somebody can see their ranking in real time, HEAR that it makes shit more hype, and gives you more red orbs, then proceed to say that they didn't care about it. That genuinely doesn't compute in my brain lmfao but to each their own I guess.
@@A_J0995 Yup, I've done well on Mission 10, better than I do on other missions where I get an S, but for some reason, the game still only gives me an A. I've noticed it's stricter on the ranking and weird about how many style points it gives you at the end of a combat arena. The whole system is busted. Still great fun, but the new system, like you said, just spoon feeds S ranks, except for one weird mission.
You know, what you just described was my experience with Metal Gear Rising. I thought the game was ridiculously difficult and unfun because I didn't understand its mechanics but worse yet, I didn't even engage with them. I was literally running around randomly swinging my sword at things and not thinking about dodging or parrying. Once I got that down, I finally understood what I've been missing out on, stringing together high damaging and flashy combos while being completely untouched by the enemy, and even landing perfect parries to open them up for a quick slice. Now that I've typed this all out, it just makes me want to replay that game again because I just realized that it's got that same design philosophy that DOOM featured. Hell, that's probably why I liked it so much.
13:43 "An entire generation has been ruined [...]" If they're havin fun, who cares? They like easy games, you like challenging ones, there's nothing wrong with either. The wrong thing is to think there is one style of game that should be applied to every single one. I really like challenging games, I'm currently on my third Ultra Nighmare run on D:E (all unsuccesful, sadly :c), but I really don't think that this "challenge → mastery → fun" applies to every game, and specially, everyone. Pathless and Journey offer no challenge whatsoever (unless you choose to), and both are amazing games imo, no matter how you play.
I think he’s more referring to the fact that they are aiming terrible criticism at great games simply because they’re not engaging with it. You can dislike a game but realise it’s just not for you, and is actually well designed. Instead these people throw hollow criticisms at a game that they just don’t know shit about.
I wish I liked REmake. I know the game is great... I just kind of hate the Crimson Heads. Going around needing to burn the enemies before they turn is too tedious for me personally and it genuinely ruined things for me. That being said, I do intend to give the game another shot at some point because I legit want to enjoy it like everybody else haha. We'll see though. Tbh, I need to beat the 3 classic RE games at some point. For some reason, of the Classic style RE games, I've only beaten RE0 lmfao.
@@amarntsitran3406 Weird, RE0 is way more tedious in every other aspect. On the Crimson Head point, it's really just there to test your resources and map knowledge. I never found it tedious though because the game tells you through the scarcity of oil that there's flat out not enough to burn every zombie. Just elevated the original game for me, adding another system where you have to pick and choose who you kill or who to burn. Actually made me wary of dead zombies. That being said you can always go for the risk strat of aiming your shotgun up, waiting for a zombie to lumber over, and detonate their head during their grab animation. Also 1, one Crimson Head alone is no problem if you can wait for them to get close and put them down with a shotgun blast, real glass cannons. RE4 is my favourite RE game, now and possibly forever, but RE1 is essentially a perfect game. I had it sitting on my console for years and after finally getting into it, probably beat it 9 times inside a week. You should definitely check it out again.
Never finished 0. I like the re lore and 0 makes no sense when you look at Becca Chambers. All 0 had to be was a series of side content chronicling the start and end of each bravo on that fateful night.
It's all about "flow." It's the state a person reaches when their entire focus is and attention is on the game they're playing and they enter a complete state of awareness on what's around them. Tetris and Doom: Eternal are two such games.
I can't believe this type of analysis is still needed... but it is, so thank you for taking your time to make this video and your whole channel! Keep it coming!
In my opinion, the thing with Devil May Cry 5 difficulty options is that it can be quite different depending on person. DMC5 was existing in age where storydriven and openworld games are being mainstream. Developers had to understand old fans opinions on improvement from older games and also wanted to have new comers for the series. So unlike DMC3, considered best one of the DMC series (which is really challenging with very first beginning of series' story and I really recommend Mayo), they decreased some contents of mainly high difficulty and platforming sections for other gamers who want to enjoy in the Hack n' Slash games outside of their familiar ones. Unlike series like God of War, DMC series does not actually have amazing story telling outside of DMC3 so gameplays mechanics and creativity of playable characters were being considered as main priority and so they were being perfected to current limit as in DMC5, thus, devolution and changes in OSTs, camera, enemies' AI, level designs, platforming, usable items, etc and especially challenges within their system and mechanics were inevitable considering what I said above. Also It was not like developers not believing in their players on difficulty, it was just that they decided for majority opinions on video games enjoyment. A game like Sekiro being amazing overall, even getting GOTY made some people mad and a lot of people not playing just with an excuse of being hard because they had different ways of enjoying videogames. Also an example like that one Doom Eternal review where the reviewer complained about game's difficulty while he was playing on Ultra Violence as an average player was also the reason why the developers decided for only letting two easiest difficulties when starting the game. (btw sorry for my bad English, not my first language and these were just my personal response to Mayo's opinion on DMC5 although I had already watched two of his videos about the game so peace)
They could've just let people choose son of Sparda on their first playthrough. The new and casual fans could've picked devil hunter and the people who wanted a challenge could've picked SOS. It doesn't make sense why they didn't even do that at the least.
@@braxxonlive3186 look at doom eternal it had expert difficulty which was available for the players from the beginning and people who were not bad players were certainly not enjoying it's overwhelming challenge and because of that they kept complaining that the game is bad. I know it is dumb to play on nightmare on the first playthrough but people nowdays have huge ego problem and think that they can play the game on any difficulty and even then they will still manage to enjoy the game on that difficulty without learning the game's mechanics. So I think DMC 5 is the way it is to prevent such fools from getting their butt kicked on higher difficulty. Sure the game could have been more enjoyable on the first playthrough if they would have not gave the players a hundred thousand red orbs from the beginning as it would have pushed the players to play more stylish for those much needed upgrades.
@@debashisprasadjena5075 I agree that the solution i previously said isn't the best one for this problem. There's a solution that I realized after playing the reboot and dmc5. They could make a new difficult in between devil hunter and son of Sparda. The reboot has this and its called nephelim. That's not the only problem with dmc5's difficulty though. The problem comes from the orb system also and the revive system. The revive system in the game is absolutely fucked because you get yellow orbs for simple things like logging into the game. You can also revive with red orbs (with the 100k orbs from the start you can unlock all the moves you need to win and the rest can go into revives). If they revert the revive system to back how it was in every other dmc game (at least dmc4 and reboot) and add an in between difficulty it would really help the game.
As someone who loves Titanfall 2, I can confirm. Nothing about the campaign pushes you into its movement systems. I learned it all from UA-cam. I still love the options, but it makes me question why they bothered to include such systems if they were never going to teach you them. The only time I think they teach some is in respwaning tips in multiplayer. Kingdom Hearts 2 is also notorious for not teaching the player anything. It has one of the lowest skill floors, and yet an amazing skill ceiling. But only the highest difficulty somewhat pushes you into the systems.
i didnt like much of mayo's titanfall 2 video but i see where he is coming from. the campaign was mainly made by the devs to just HAVE an actual single player campaign, which the first titanfall lacked. it was because the first titanfall was primarily a multiplayer pvp game with some multiplayer campaign missions. regardless, i think we can both agree that tf2's campaign implementation could've be way better, and i don't want to get into the why, as mayo and you explained it already. but the fact that he wasnt a multiplayer guy already put the game at a disadvantage for the review, as the campaign was most likely put in with love but not too much of detail put in gameplay, which hurts the experience. honestly his titanfall 2 video would've been fine if he called the campaign bad but also put time into the multiplayer, its like ignoring half of the entire game, which made me feel like his video was half of a review if you know what i mean.
sorry for the tangent, i went off topic but i do agree with you, titanfall 2's a wonderful game but its campaign really puts a dent in it, despite how cool some of the missions are
"You want everything to be DOOM Eternal" This... I've been watching Mayo for quite a while now and if someone was to actually have this criticism I don't think they actually watched his videos.... that's just... unbelievably ignorant.
A good example I can think of this is AD&D vs new editions. AD&D had a Parley mechanic that would allow players to talk/barter/reason their way out of a potential fight. This was important because a single hit could kill you and you had to choose your fights carefully. In newer editions combat is much more forgiving and there are more systems in place to prevent player death. Which ends up making combat just shoot them in the chest until they die. It's interesting how the idea of challenge has changed and permeates gaming culture in different ways. Excellent video as well, by the way.
I kinda agree with you in the case of DMCV, but I don`t think that it isn`t bad to lock higher difficulty. These Character Action Games usually have an arcade approach, relatively short gameplay time but with the high-replayability structure. Higher difficulty was given by beating the lower difficulties, so the new challanging itself was a reward to players. Rank system is similar, you would take the skin or special item on higher rank, but you don`t aim higher rank just for that. For example, When I play these kind of games, I blast through the normal mode and play more confidently on hard mode. If I got stuck in some point on hard, then I would go back to normal and try to get S ranks. So, In general, I think that this approach has its own merits, especially to short games. DMCV is, though, the bad case of execution for this type of approach. Its normal mode was realtively easy even in the standard of DMC series. It is almost ten years from DMC 4(except for spin-off/reboot), And the environment around gaming was changed. So I guess that devs want to make it more accessible to anyone and lower the normal difficulty... But this was not a good descision if you make the arcarde feeling games. The real accesibilty comes from the clear description to skills or enemies like Doom Eternal, not lowering the difficulty. Maybe it makes more people to try the game, but they would not remain longer and wouldn`t get the potential of the game.
for the Titanfall 2 part, may i recommend playing the game on master. this is where the game forces you to enjoy its mechanics as enemies can 2 shot you, if your not moving wall running or fast the enemies will just hit you. its a completely different game at this level and is 100% more fun, i promise you you can no longer just run into a room and blast people as you will get mown down going out of your way to search for powerful weapons in hard to reach spots is extremely beneficial stalkers terrify you with their beefy health and danger up close while they constantly and steadily hunt you down reapers are feared with their deadly missiles and ability to close long distance in a single just, as well as kill you with one hit combat scenarios require quick thinking and constant movement, as well as planning if you do not wish to be obliterated, this is where the game puts the challenge into making you learn its mechanics. i recently platinumed the game on ps4 and can confirm i played the campaign completely differently when the difficulty ramped up, its the definitive way to play the game and i emplore you to try it
I played a good chunk of the game on Master for my third playthrough and found it to be a pretty similar experience. And it's not that Master makes the AI better. You just get sniped faster for more damage so you have to be more cautious. It's like Uncharted difficulty. That was my experience.
@@underthemayo thats fair enough, i guess in my case i only tried master after over 200 hours on the multiplayer when i was a master at the movement, so my brain instantly reacted with full use of the movement system, i can see the games flaws and lack of enemy types is definitely one of them. still waiting for titanfall 3, maybe they'll make another brilliant game that makes you use the movement system beyond getting from one arena to the other. i guess the dificulty is in the multiplayer where if your still and slow, good players will blast you as they fly by at mach 3, that is what made me learn and get good (btw im a huge fan and you alone are the reason i platinumed doom eternal and made myself learn enough to complete both the main game and DLC on ultra nightmare. thank you)
I think this whole conversation comes down to player’s taste. Some are extrinsically motivated and need challenge to connect with a game. While other are more intrinsically motivated, they’ll engage with the mechanics for the sake of it. They’re coming for the power fantasy. There are exceptions and players in between. If you look at games you criticize for not challenging you into the mechanics, you’ll find players still doing so. Especially DMC 5 on a first playthrough.
One of the reasons I like monster hunter is the fact that the game really just start of simple allowing you to explore the systems and see them at first, but from the moment the difficulty spike hits you really are put to the test of knowledge with it. MHW didn't do this as good, but the expansion's first monster had some people surprised by what it actually could test you on for what is a fish. And the post game content having monsters that cover easy to abuse mechanics and weaknesses from monsters before brings it up a whole other level.
Yeah, the difficulty spike in Monster Hunter: World was pretty big when I was hit in it. I remember going through the entire main story and beating the final boss without failing a mission by fainting 3 times once in the entire run. Then the post game content immediately started kicking my ass repeatedly. On the one hand, it was frustrating, because I had been convinced that I was really good at the game. On the other hand, it was exciting, because it was a great challenge. Fuck Lunastra and Leshen though.
As someone who likes challenge and is also pro-accessibility, I absolutely agree that easy and hard difficulties and tweaks alike should be available out of the gate, and I would add that especially for games that use their challenge to help tell their stories such as horror games and Soulslikes, free midgame difficulty changing is a must so someone who doesn't want to be overly taxed can briefly try for real and "get the point", then dial things down to stand a chance. Don't forget to plop the mark of shame on their save tho. :
You are right. After many hours playing Doom Eternal the way it was meant to be played, I tried the multiplayer with my chilhood friends who gave up on hard games... Hearing them screaming: " ruuunnnn, ruuuunn, he is coming for you!!" was just awesome for the ego....
I agree that challenge is good, but i disagree that every game needs to force challenge on a player in order to elicit mastery. Devil May Cry is the game where I think your assessment is patently wrong. The reason why the game kind of low balls you in terms of challenge is because the game doesn't actually want difficulty to stop forward progression in the storyline, in makes it a point to patronize you for playing poorly but it accepts the fact that if you want to mash, you can mash, and if your goal is to simply see the story to the end it's fine with being a light hearted anime episode with few roadblocks. In past devil may cry games no where was this design philosophy more obvious than with consumables. They offer you a system to completely trivialize any fight through farming currency, and as a trade off for progression they tank your style score. Now the new DMC has no consumable but it's evidence that the game was never EVER interested in gating players because they couldn't demonstrate mastery. Even in Mario, you say some stars are easy but other are hard but the game doesn't require you to get every star to reach bowser, It is a perfectly acceptable playstyle to simply explore until you've found all the low hanging fruit and then beat bowser who is to be fair, pretty easy despite being the penultimate battle. The primary way DMC has always encouraged players to master the system was to have them set their own goals in getting good ratings and then providing the harder challenges in side areas and post campaign content. So to force YOUR criteria on a game and to call it a design flaw is probably a misrepresentation, you can claim that it made the experience less enjoyable for YOU but ultimately it was a calculated decision by Capcom. Look I'm not saying that illiciting mastery isn't a good thing, but to say that a game NEEDS to do it is to not understand the ultimate goals of the game your playing. Not only is mastery not necessarily the goal of the game it isn't really necessarily the goal of every player. So when people complain about the design of Darksouls or Doom Eternal it is definitely wrong of them to call the difficulty a flaw as you have so eloquently laid out in previous videos, but to even imply that the low difficulty attitude has ruined certain genres is the same bias simply pointed in the other direction. So do I think encouraging mastery is good design? Yes but do I beleive it is a necessary component to a good game, absolutely not.
@@underthemayo yes and no, stars in SMB each require a different skill set to obtain, some require you to use sliding, other requires timing, others require aiming, no single star requires full mastery, and players who haven't mastered some skills are encouraged to go somewhere else and finish the ones they can accomplish, thus players can do the tasks they are competent at, thus stating which stars are "hard" is a bit of a fools errand because its different per player. Still at no time does the game require full mastery or even half mastery (imo) to complete what it deems to be the "core" experience. Now I wouldn't say that is true of Doom Eternal, i would say that doom requires minimum good mastery even on middling difficulties to complete its core experience. Thats why i say, SMB doesn't require mastery to complete and Doom Eternal does. Hope that helps.
I agree in some aspects. When you look at a game at a whole, you'll see how Mayo misses points and is set in his own biases. The design philosophy of DMC as a whole is similar to old arcade style of playing a game. Beat it once, it gets tougher. Amass a crowd to watch you play. This video is about challenge though, so his point stands when referring to starting difficulty. Son of Sparda would have been a nice starting point for returning players - story and a challenge would have been fun. I do agree DMCV on Devil Hunter does not push you to use Nero's Exceed or Dante's style switching as much as it could. You can get by without Exceed and just using Trickster. Previous games in the series do this much better. I do agree with you however, challenge can also come from your own personal goals. DMC appeals to me because I like choreography. When I play the game, I get to create unique set pieces. I have it in my head to not use the same move twice, not to get hit, base a combo around using a certain move, etc. I really just wanted to watch myself do cool things. Others too! Another part of the appeal is sharing your combos with others.
Story should never get in the way of gameplay though, especially when it comes to challenge, a good game has the story and gameplay in one singular cohesive vision. And even then, playing a game SOLELY for the story is like watching a movie SOLELY for the visuals, it's not the main reason you're there. DOOM Eternal's challenge comes from the demons being relentless and varied in size, tactics, and abilities. Your low ammo capacity pushes you to weapon swap the right tool for the right demon, the mastery of the game involves managing and prioritizing threats, and if you choose to play Eternal a certain way, like how classic DOOM and 2016 DOOM allows you go throw whole levels using just one weapon, you're going to have a bad time because it's going to punish you. DMC5 plays less like DOOM Eternal and more DOOM 2016, you can weapon swap combo in DOOM 2016 like in Eternal to look cool, but it's not required in order to beat the game. DMC5 is essentially the same way, you can look cool doing flashy combos, but it's not a requirement to beat the game, which is what Mayo points out in this video, makes the feeling of pulling off a long flashy combo feel fleeting. Imagine if the demons in DMC5 were just as dangerous and relentless as the ones in DOOM Eternal, THEN you'd actually have a reason to pull of stylish combos beyond just looking cool, because if you don't, you're fucked. Besides, every game should have a hard mode unlocked at the start, it shows that the developers are confident in the player's ability to handle challenge. Guess what, Devil May Cry 3, both versions, had a hard mode unlocked at the start where the demons were dangerous and relentless.
Two wrong things at the same time: 1. The game patronizes you for playing poorly 2. If you want to mash you can mash Sounds like a parent who is constantly disappointed in you yet gives no guidence in how to conduct yourself in life, let's you drink beer at the age of 11 and let's you eat candy for breakfast.
The moment I saw the title of the video I was like, yeah, he's gonna talk about doom eternal. I was not disappointed. 10/10 would like again (just like all his videos).
Main reason I don't like fighting games, don't think any fighting game has ever taught me well enough nor forced me to engage with all the moves/systems, finding one move usually always breaks the AI for most of them and playing online is too difficult to ever learn. Most fighting game players exact you to spend hours in the training mode memorising them BEFORE you play, it's dumb.
That's because we kinda treat fighting games like a sport. Naturally, FG's are competitive. We want to prove we are better than our opponent. How can you be better than your opponent if they know TOD's, efficient BnB's, know their character/s inside out & learned the matchup when you barely know a quarter of what your character or even the games systems does? Fighting games isn't for everyone but it's ignorant of you to say they're dumb for "going into training mode to memorise combos before you play," that's like saying Doom Eternal is dumb because there's too many weapons. As for AI. Fighting Game AI differs between games but most of the time yeah they're bad & easy & don't help players push to become better. The only game I know that has excellent AI is Killer Instinct 2013 because you can create your own AI that learns FROM YOU! And then you can send that AI out to fight other players! That's so genius!
@@suto9233 the difference is, doom forces engagement with all of the weapons and systems through well design enimies and levels...most fighting games do not, as mayo puts it, the average mario player wouldnt find mario 64 fun if all the stars were easily attainable because it wouldnt force them to engage with the fun parts of the game...thats most fighting games for me. a training mode existing as well as fun systems isnt enough to call your game fun if the game makes no effort to get you to engage with them
@@RhysClark97 *works for me at least lol* In all seriousness though I think there are some games with decent single player modes that are pretty fun that do tell you to learn the mechanics but it's not something that many games do. And for as much praise as MK story modes get I actually think they are pretty weak in the actual single player teaching the game aspect
Not to be that guy, but if you don't care about rank in DMC, you probably won't enjoy it regardless. And you have to play on normal the first time through because hard is based around having most skills unlocked, and understanding the combat and how to deal with all the enemies.
You're wrong. I played on hard and enjoyed it very much WITHOUT caring about rank at all. Because it was challenging and I had to play well. Also, you're wrong about SOS because when you start it with all your skills you're overpowered and it's piss easy again for about half the experience. I should have had the option to play SOS immediately. Hell, they have a secret way for pros to get there right away. It should have been there for me too because while I was a DMC veteran, I am not a newbie to the genre at all.
@@underthemayo if you do get around to dmc3, there's a cheat you can put in at the menu that unlocks every difficulty from the start. It's also the hardest game in the series (and the best). I think you'd enjoy it
Alright, I gotta disagree with some of the statements made about DMC5 here, and maybe play devil's advocate for others. First up normal mode (aka Devil Hunter) is far more lenient with style ranking because your moveset is very barebones, and for first time players, you are just getting used to how Nero, Dante and V all play starting out and the ease of getting an S rank in style reflects that. I will also disagree that you can just "mash one button" to win, DMC2 this ain't, mashing one button will either get you bodied (especially trying that against Furies) or your style rank and end of level average will be crap. I will argue that while the game doesn't FORCE you to swap weapons, vary your attacks, etc the style meter is a good incentive to do so, especially with how DMC5 ties in its music with how high your style rank is. DMC5's normal is there to ease new or returning players into the game, but if anyone was a regular DMC player at the time of launch, or grasps how to play a stylish action game, of course normal's going to feel too easy. On the subject of difficulty, I'm sure you've heard from people before how hard the original DMC3 was when it was released in the US. Make no mistake, it was incredibly hard, to the point that you could go on gamefaqs and see in the message boards that people returned the game because it was TOO hard. Very few people made it past Cerberus, and if they did, Agni and Rudra would stonewall them. So yeah DMC3 is why capcom has since been reluctant to make normal in DMC TOO challenging in 4 and 5. As an addendum I do however agree with, in respects to Vergil, all difficulties should have been available to him from the start, because for most players on X1/PS4/PC they've had all blue and purple orbs found, or at least most of them, and enough orbs to get just about all of his moves before even starting anything. as for the 100k red orbs you get for either having the Deluxe edition pre-order or Vergil DLC, thats like, Enemy Step, Air hike and Nero's basic combos for red queen, not factoring in the staggering amount of orbs Dante needs, nor V's, or Vergils.
And also would add normal diffculty is on tutorial Dmd is the real dmc, plus legendary dark knight if you have The challenge is to maintain your style meter as high as possible in all encounters to make sure an s rank mission (though i miss how it was in dmc3) Also theres an item that would deduct the total rank, a convenient item like healing and gold orbs, in which ironically not helpful to you as it will deduct your obtained red orbs Also to incentivise you to regen your health is to earn dt, and by earning it is to have high style meter And for contrary to what he said about the enemy, dmd is the real deal that would challenge you (though i kinda agree that some enemies are so easy to punish unlike in dmc3)
@@debashisprasadjena5075 yeahbecause nornal is only tutorial Though i agree that dmd should be unlocked inthe beginning (or just son of sparda diff with optional ldk mode)
10:31 But the style meter DOES mean something, the higher your style meter gets the higher your ranking is at the end of each mission, the higher amount of red orbs you receive, and granted I found Normal to very easy as well, but I wasn't just button mashing because there are spongy enemies that need different combos to keep the style meter up, and there are enemies that counter you if you keep attacking them, like the Angelos or Death Scissors. TBH I really think you should've started with DMC3, that game was infamous for being challenging, then you would've seen how the characters, stories, and combat would have progressed.
The ranking system has nothing to do with a players success in the game, rendering it meaningless and arbitrary. And the game gives you 100k orbs at start and floods you with additional orbs through the levels, so you can easily unlock all the moves you want without ever getting stylish combos. I know this because that was the entire 15 hour playthrough I had my first time.
How reliant are you on extrinsic reasoning in games? Because if a game is literally extremely easy yet it's fairly obvious the game is nudging you not to use crutches do you find it difficult to engage with the game in it's intended form? Take DMC series, Wonderful 101 or Bayonetta (all technically cake walks if you believe score/style is meaningless), theres plentiful items to heal, nuke enemies and in the case of 101 it has a very convenient continue system. I agree that challenge matters and that intentional design to push players to engage with the game is important however I think those expectations can start to break down a little when you get into highly expressive or arcade like games.
8:08 "If every star could be collected by ignoring the game's systems, the systems would have no reason to exist" THAT is why we don't have the pistol on Doom Eternal, people. Stop asking for it.
The Stylish Meter in Devil May Cry, or Platinum Games for that matter, is in itself a push into the game's systems. S rank with items, forget it. Platinum rank in Bayonetta without finishing combat strings or using cover extensively in Vanquish, not a chance. But those ranking systems function on an intrinsic level and this difference between intrinsic motivation contra extrinsic motivation is what you seem oblivious to. Ask yourself, why did you create the Brawler Mode?
I still think that the core of the argument still stands, hard mode was locked out and it impacted his enjoyment of the game. Games should use multiple techniques to encourage the player to "find the fun" in a game, some people just want to have a high score, and some people want to flex on enemy's that kicked their ass i the past.
That's one of the reasons why I love Super Metroid so much. The game is challenging and its platforming mechanics are all fun. Once I learned about wall jumping, I started incorporating it on my second playthrough and it gave me a faster completion time for 100% runs. It didn't stop there with stuff like the Mockball or quick Morph from a Wall Jump and it got even more enjoyable with each subsequent run. It's why Super Metroid personally stands as one of the greatest games of all time for me. Learning the mechanics all led to me being a better player in platforming.
I had a discussion similar to this with a guy that was bumming on my couch. He would spend all day playing video games when I was working sixteen-hour days, he'd be on the same place on the couch not having moved all day and ordering take out delivery. I asked him, admittingly when I was upset, "how the fuck do you play games for nine hours a day but still suck-ass at all of them?" He grumbled something about story arches, he was playing assassin's creed on easy. This went on to me saying, "all you do is sit on your ass and play video games, and you're not even good at that one thing" He didn't understand what I was getting at, but it was essentially that, at least get better at what you are doing, even if it is just sitting on your ass. I tried to give him books to read because I was getting pissed off at him lecturing me on story structure yet him being too lazy to read, and talking about 'hand eye coordination' but sucking at all the games. He'd play a game for twelve hours and complain that he didn't get his monies worth so now he has to buy another game, and its like, bro you are literally fucking homeless and stealing my food- you do not need to buy another game, just replay it on hard or normal. I beat him at COD, which I don't play or really enjoy, he thought he would win but then he got all pissed off and finally moved out of my home when he got a stimulus check. Forgot what my point is, but people that play games 12+ hours a day but only on easy are the same people that are homeless, order take-out and steal your ravioli despite you offering fresh beans. They are missing out on the best part of life, always improving. Next time someone bums on my couch and only plays video games, I am challenging them at the end of each week for them to continue staying there. They don't even have to beat me, just show some semblance of improvement and not steal my food without first trying the fresh beans.
Valkyries are a joke because the game is so broken by the out of control RPG leveling mechanics. I mashed and spammed runic attacks through them all except Sigrun which I had to pay attention in. New Game + significantly improves the Valkyrie fights and they were all fun, the only fun fights in the entire game because you actually had to learn the game.
@@underthemayo Thanks for the feedback. I completely get the point, RPG elements ruined the challenge in gameplay there. BTW i started Doom Eternal last May and ended up playing it all year, even today. Initially there were so many points where i just thought to give up but your channel kept me motivated. Currently in my Nightmare run at Taras Nabad and getting my ass kicked daily, but man its so fun and addictive now.
11:19 With Dante you can pop in and out of Sin Devil Trigger with an SSS rating so there is a reason to keep it that high because being flashy rewards you with quick bursts of insane damage.
this is exactly my beef with many shit mmos, (warframe). All the players just wanna grind grind grind, and all the devs want that too as it takes less effort, no one want actual challenge, and therefore you get a game where the optimal strategy is just repeating the same move that does the most amount of damage. No challenge, just optimization. RIP warframe. I never loved you, but i did kinda like you
Yeah, I feel this one. This might be a big reason why I often find myself bouncing off of RPGs and MMOs. I used to really enjoy Assassin's Creed but since Black Flag that series has felt super empty to me. The combat became brain-numbingly easy in Black Flag, same with Brotherhood tbh which I think makes them massively overrated (among other things). And now, newer AC games are all about the hollow grind and I just can't stomach it. I have a clip of me attacking a single basic enemy for nearly 3 minutes straight on AC:Origins only for me to die in 1 hit and his health was down maybe like a third. Don't give me action combat if my skill doesn't matter in a fight is what I say lmao. I wish I enjoyed the new ones. I wanna play as a cool buff female Roman or Viking warrior but I know I'll hate those games after like one session.
Here's the thing about MMOs, and it's something even Hugo Martin talks about, and how he actually likes it: power through progression. Hugo is a big Destiny player, and he likes that system, but it's just not what they wanted to make with Doom Eternal. Also, in the specific case of warframe, I say this as an MR30 player with over 4k hours in the game--the LAST thing I want DE to start doing is adding "challenge" to the game...not because I think challenge is bad, but because DE is _utterly incompetent_ at implementing it, and they have no idea how to distinguish "challenge" from "obnoxious difficulty walls". In DE's case, they need to stay in their lane and leave warframe as a relatively mindless power fantasy. And no, that power is not "unearned"--you just earn it through time invested and understanding of the modding and upgrading systems rather than mechanical skill.
sad thing is there was a time in warframe's history that dealing damage was not all that mattered. Back when raids where a thing you had to cooperate with your team and mainly use crowd control instead of just killing everything, nightmare lor was the best mission warframe had and they removed it just so they could add generic ubisoft open worlds. in 2016-17 loki was considered the best frame without having a single dmg dealing move because he had great crowd control and could avoid dmg with invisibility, also frames like nyx and vauban and other CC frames were actually useful raid frames but with no raids damage was the only thing that mattered and the devs always adding enemies that where immune to CC after that didnt help. I still remember about two years ago before i quit when i was in an interception mission and two people made fun of me for using nyx, which was my favorite frame. Even in a mission where you have to stall the enemies instead of killing them, CC is still inferior to damage, dont know how the devs failed their own game so hard
@@Apothamos The fact that you used raids, or "trials", as an example of "good old days" of warframe is revealing. Those were removed for a reason. They were SO broken and SO buggy that even DE, who are _notorious_ for releasing broken and buggy content, decided it was too much. They absolutely sucked to play. Finicky mechanics, bugs, 8 player P2P hosted squads _(SHUDDERS),_ not to mention the fact that they almost entirely were "ignore the enemies and do brain-dead puzzles that only worked about 50% of the time" missions. And no, CC will never be a thing in warframe anymore as long as the numbers stay the way they are. It is impossible to make a "balanced" game where the difference between an unmodded weapon and a well-modded weapon is LITERALLY 5-6 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE. Everything is either "overpowered" or "useless", and the band between those two things may be no more than 10 minutes of a survival mission, in which the enemies may literally gain 100 _times_ more health and damage due to how fast they level. If you ever want a balanced game from warframe, then DE has to remake it literally from the source code up, because the core numbers to everything are completely untenable.
@@spamhere1123 yeah you right that cc will never be a thing again and that damage will always be king and that's why I quit the game two years ago as I said, despite having 1500hours and having bought multiple prime accessories as well as being MR24 with the max being around MR26 at the time. No new frame or weapon matters because my saryn or my mesa or any other frame that can nuke will be enough to complete any mission, all the variety warframe has now is meaningless, so there is no reason to grind for new stuff. Also another thing you ignored, DE keeps adding enemies that are immune to CC, like the drone in arbitrations which makes all CC focused frames worthless, it's not just the numbers, enemy design is also important, and DE has failed in that regard. The worst thing is how warframes don't compliment each other, in a co op game you would expect you would have a dmg dealer, an assist, a tank, etc. But in warframe all four players will be dmg, no synergy at all, that's where raids shined, everyone had a purpose. The loki would hack the terminals, the vauban would cover others with his CC and the trinity would give energy and health. The fact that raids were the best thing warframe had to offer (that wasn't fashionframe at least) is a testament about how shallow the game is, I'm not saying they were flawless. Also I mentioned nightmare lor specifically because that was actually hard to complete and required coordination, someone getting knocked of a pad at the second mission of the raid and you would fail. The base lor and the archwing raid where much easier but that was a way for new players to learn the raid, I wouldn't want a raid noob on nightmare lor. Also a few things you point out are rather unfair, 8 player raid? No one who knew what they were doing would do a raid with more than 5 people and for nightmare lor 4 was even better, because less people, less enemies would spawn. The reason raids were removed wasn't because they were buggy, they removed them because they weren't popular and the reason for that was that arcanes at the time were not explained at all, they didn't even have their own slot, you would attach them to cosmetics and anytime you wanted to switch syandana you would have to remove the arcane with a distiller from syndicates you were rank 5 in for 50k. So because casuals didn't even know arcanes were a thing raids were something most didn't even know existed. Finally, I really can't tell if you are trying to defend the current state of warframe, because you acknowledging that stuff is either useless or op tells me that you know warframe's game design is really bad
I've seen more and more comments/videos saying that a game is 'hard for the sake of being hard'. It's like people don't even want to be challenged and just want a movie. It's like they don't understand what makes video games fun
Doom Eternal was a transformative experience for me. I started out on Nightmare and my god, the game was harder than I thought games were allowed to be anymore. This wasn't like those RPGs I played where I'd finish the game with enough leftover elixirs to fill up a swimming pool, or those shooters where I could just use any gun I felt like as they're all the same: I was amazed at how the game pushed me to use every single bit of my arsenal, because if I didn't, I'd be dead. Playing the game was such an intense experience at times, I'd get so hot it felt like I had a fever: in some ways, I like to think of it as the game burning away all those silly habits, those parasitic sicknesses of modern casual game design that were so embedded in me, and finally giving me a proper challenge to let loose. Lots of games make you cry from giving you sappy, emotional stories, but nothing made me cry tears of joy more than ripping and tearing through two Cyberdemons at the same time. Anyway, thank you for the great videos
I think thats more of a perspective thing rather than an actual problem the game has. Specifically, with DMC5, sure you don't need to do sick combos or learn how to enemy step, juggle, dodge and at the same time manage DT, health and charges. But its an option available for those who want to take the game to that next level. On Dante must Die difficulty these options become essential to actually make it through the game. The analogy you used for DMC5 could also be applied to something like doom eternal, where I didn't need to learn weapon combos or quick switching or any of the semi high level stuff to get through the game on Nightmare (this was base Doom Eternal right after release), and I had a pretty smooth experience with it. But if I wanted to take it to that level, I had the option to do so. I think a good game makes it so that it introduces the basic game mechanics, and then allows the player to experiment and build on that. To use DMC5 as an example, you get introduced to new enemy types that require different approaches, new weapons, Devil Triggers, abilities and so on. Then once you finished the game the first time through, the next difficulty setting lets you apply what you learnt on beefier enemies that spawn more frequently, and as a result you are encouraged to build upon what you learnt. It shouldn't be an inherently bad thing if the game was too easy at the start. The biggest issue with these types of debates, is that fun is an extremely subjective thing. It can be applied to anything, and can vary differently from person to person. Something that was boring for you, might have been fun for others, and vice versa. They might find quick switching and weapon combos boring, while you find it fun. To quote Mauler; "shitting on the street with your friends can be considered fun".
As you have rightfully said, challenge level is subjective. One person's easy is another person's impossible. Well, what constitutes fun - can also be very subjective. And in the world of videogames that's not a "can be", that's a fact. And yet if we look deeper, so eventually the whole challenge thing comes down to four elements: a margin of error, a degree of cheapness, a mastery factor and a reset factor. How many mistakes before having to retry, - the player agrees with. How complex is the mastery. How easy can the player be faltered and finally, - in the case of failure - how much of the already-cleared level content will the player have to repeat. Putting these together in a matter that is scalable for every player level - is what constitutes an intelligent design. And not putting these well together - makes it an ignorant or elitist design. As simple as that. I'll give Mortal Shell as a excellent example of a proper approach to design. I do know a thing or two about this game. I finished it many times and even made several very helpful video guides for it, which are well-liked. At a default-ish path, using the starting character - the game appears pretty unforgiving. Two mistakes - and you die. Recovery from mistakes is by far not straightforward, as the mechanics of healing in that game are rather tricky. But at the same time, you can locate and take over as another player character, who allows you much, much more than the measly two mistakes. Suddenly, the game starts to open up and the player does not feel incompetent. You are still not immortal or anything remotely like that (Mortal Shell is not one of those games), but you can try stuff and make conclusions and learn. You can have fun and not worry that a wrong click in a wrong place and it's back to square one. Then after some while, you get a grip on what works and what doesn't and you venture to try other characters - and explore their advantages and unique traits, whether you end up liking them or not. Eventually, you settle for the level of challenge that you are comfortable with. Whether you like to be a "glass cannon", or if contrarily - you find the concept of zero margin of error as a pinnacle of the ridiculous and you want a solid base to fall upon, or maybe you take a middle ground, or perhaps switching all of the above according to the situation. Whatever the player chooses, all options are ALWAYS on the table. Unforgiving, forgiving, middle ground. Always there. And that's the difference between an intelligent design of difficulty and a niche videogame fetish. The games would be wise to push a SKILLED player into its systems, but they would be even wiser to provide enough steps for a beginner to get to the said skill. That is IF and only IF the player expresses a desire to go that way in the first place. The original Doom games (yeah, the 1993) did that very well. A player choosing the easiest difficulty - didn't need to worry about a thing. As the settings were cranked up, - the enemy numbers increased and more dangerous monsters would appear earlier and more often. Less ammo, less health, more aggressive enemies with a quick reaction time and higher damage. A player could choose the EXACT amount of Doom that one needed. Exact. Same thing in Hexen II and in many other golden age FPS games. I play Hexen II exclusively on max setting, as i love the balance that it provides and can't imagine it otherwise. My friends play on normal and say that i am a masochist because i have to do all the micro-management, count shots and "survive on peanuts". And i say that they are the masochists - because they deprive themselves of the non-stop action fun with tough meaningful encounters which cannot be just clicked through and dismissed, while mistakes are limited and costly. So who's right?! We all are in our own way. Each player should get exactly what he needs from a game, not less and not more. What for someone is "not enough", - will be "too much" for someone else. That doesn't mean that both cannot enjoy a game. But each in their own way and degree of challenge.
One of the games I would most certainly praise for its systems is Batman: Arkham Knight. The combat is engaging, stylish, and encourages use of its many, many systems in order to eliminate an entire room of enemies as swiftly and efficiently as possible. Even on the easy difficulty, you will absolutely die if you just button mash, especially later on.
Batman: Arkham Knight is an interesting game because it’s combat is hyper focused on the player. The actual design of most of the enemies you fight in Batman: Arkham Knight are extremely simplistic, with almost all of them having 1 to 2 attacks with only a few variants. What makes the combat so compelling is how much the PLAYER can do. The enemies are extremely simplistic, but the sheer number of different things you as the player can do makes it incredibly fun to fight the. They are more a blank canvas of combat for you to go to town with in a million different colours. It’s the polar opposite to Dark Souls, where the player’s moveset and abilities are small and simplistic, but the enemies have a multitude of different attack combos and variety. Then there’s games like Doom: Eternal that combine both complex enemy designs with giving the player a huge number of options.
I was a bit surprised to see God of War 2018 featured when you talked about open world games, because THAT is a game that demands you interact with its systems, particularly in regards to the Valkyrie fights in the game. Those very much provide a challenge and require you to be on top of your gear, switching between Leviathan and the BoC, timing your dodges of all their moves, etc.
You should see his elden ring disaster stream. That video exposes what he really thinks about challenging games. It's a direct contradiction to this video.
Dark souls would be a good example, especially if you mention Bloodborne after it since most people think its effectively the same game, but approaching it that way will be really hard to get through
Yeah, Bloodborne is all about controlled aggression while Dark Souls is all about careful defense. Both games encourage tactical thinking, but in entirely different ways.
This is true, but RE1 Remake REALLY made me feel confused, however as you said I memorized everything after searching the next key items *For hours* it took me more than 10 hours to beat Jill's story and I Freaking played on easy, how was I supposed to know 2 was easy? terrible difficulty setting if you ask me, at least after that the game blatantly says normal-easy-hard yadayada, i'm doing Hard with chris now. Having a blast. I can say for sure challenges are way better, "Cinematic" casual games made me VERY rusty, though I do not like online competitive games lol. I prefer to master singleplayer games.
It sucks that you can’t enjoy titanfalls multiplayer. That’s where you find the true challenge. You start off thinking it’s just another call of duty but then you learn advanced movement systems like slide hopping and throwing yourself across the map with a grappling hook. Titan resource management cool down. The time to kill isn’t as high as COD so there’s more of a cat and mouse gameplay for both pvp and pvt. So yeah the challenge you where hoping for is in Multiplayer and the pilots are unpredictable.
Yup, tf2 is one of my all time favorite games and a game i play on a weekly basis...that beeing said, the Story is Nice for the Story and scenery, but trash for its gameplay and replay value, straight up garbage. Its all about styling and vibing with the movement in multiplayer, soaking in the Chaos and mayhem while creating unique gameplay moments on the fly. If under the mayo sees this, check out the UA-camr "PaperCut2U" He is a Titanfall 2 UA-camr that in my opinion is a Great guy to Show the dept of the tf2 Combat and movement. A true Master of the grapple but a bit tame on the movement at times IMO
It really sucks that lobbies on Tf2 are mainly dead, so I can basically only play the campaign missions that I really like so much I can play them over and over again (effect and cause)
Holy shit I just checked your subscribers and you're at almost 70K I remember subbing when I saw one of your, maybe even your first doom eternal video, you had like 19K I think and it was an amazing watch, your takes in games are very interesting and I totally agree that games should be challenging and kinda encourage us to find out how amazing it can really be, not just "me press button, I like cutscene" I hope you'll reach 100K soon
@@megashark1013 it still matters since it isn’t enough to unlock everything (I think the 100k given to players who bought the game at full price is enough for maybe one of Dante’s styles). It’ll take until end of SoS for most players to have everything
One of the first things i learned about game design, and i didnt even take a class, is that if you have a mechanic, you cant forget it. For example, a hat in time has a bunch of different hats with wierd abilities. Aside from the first hat, which just shows you the way to go, all hats are used all the time. Except also the time stop hat which is used once because its so late game some people might get it after beating the final boss.
The one game that kept popping up in my head while watching this video was Diablo 3. That game is so braindead it's like minesweeper but there are no mines on the field. You just click stuff. Diablo 2 on the other had is so easy to completely fuck up for your self when you don't understand the games mechanics.
What's the game being shown around 15:22 to 15:24 ? I recall seeing it at an acquiantance's house years ago, and that gimmick of switching between timelines (iirc) seemed pretty cool :)
Despite being 17, I grew up with sm64, DOOM, and Halo. I'm glad I did. My dad had a couple of softmodded Xboxes that had many emulators. If sm64 wasn't my most played game of the time it was a close second to Halo. But then when I got minecraft I stopped playing literally everything else for a few years lol.
There is actually a difficulty mode like that kind of, but only in the special edition release of the Reboot where you can only deal damage at S rank or higher
@@billyboleson2830 That's bold! Cool that there's a mode for that. I think some people in the comments think I just want the game to be "harder" as in the enemies are harder to kill etc. But really, you could take the normal devil hunter difficulty and fix it just by making the style meter important for upgrades like in the classic god of war. So it could still be easy and mashy, but there would still be real incentive for playing well.
@@underthemayo Yeah combo it with Hardcore mode and God's Must Die mode and it becomes arguably the hardest DMC game to date. Sadly this is all console exclusive I think Ninja Gaiden and GOW do it well where your rewarded for playing better or using the mechanics. Because in those games you really feel the difference between having no upgrades and having them
Weirdly, I associate so much of this with my gradual migration from arcade racing games through "simcade" and towards sim. Yes I can bang round the circuits almost on auto-pilot, with some neat rewind mechanics if I bin it, or just restarting the stage, but I've found I just get bored now. I'll never forget my first Dirt Rally "monthly" race where about 20 stages in out of 24, I rolled off a bridge and had to retire. A couple of hours of driving time over the course of a month gone because I made a small mistake 10 minutes into a stage. It was brutal, but it got me to understand that I had to get better, take it seriously, and find that zone just below "all out" and sit there. I still made mistakes, I still crashed straight after a service, and had to do the next 2 night stages with no light pod and only 1 headlight that went out if I braked too hard, but I had to learn.
About DMC5 I think the problem is DMC3 when it came out in 2005 a LOT of people were complaining about not even being able to go through Cerberus that's why they made the SE a few months later
Tbh, Doom Eternal doesn't push the players to get to the fun zone. Yeah, you get to use the weak points mechanics, but that's it. On normal, you won't even have to switch your key bindings and do quick swaps to win. I feel like many more people could have kept playing, if they knew about the "Doom dance". That's about the only criticism I have about the game.
It totally does. It hits hard, pushing you into flame belch and active health management. The ammo is low to encourage weapon switching. Weak points encourage mod switching. Platforming and arena design encourage movement. The whole first 4 levels of the game are about showing you the importance of the systems and how the fun zone works.
@@underthemayo maybe you're right after all. I don't remember getting into the fun zone in my first playthrough on normal, but I remember that I enjoyed the game enough to start a new game on a harder difficulty. :)
This entire video is subjective. The initial question of “if there’s no incentive to play better except for high scores, would people do it?”, the answer is yes. There are millions of people whose fun is derived largely from that. Needing the game to mechanically force the player to learn and engage with the mechanics for them to be satisfying is a personal problem, not a universal truth.
Style meter definitely matters with Dante, Triple S means being able to dip in and out of Sin Devil Trigger without depleting the entire meter; you can incorporate this otherwise cool down meter move at will whenever you want as long as you play well which leads to increased damage output in the challenging parts of the game. This is huge incentive to me; with Nero and V, your devil trigger replenishes with style metter being consistently high. Vergil, the DLC character, is entirely dependent on style because his systems increase in power relative to his style ranking. I agree that Devil Hunter mode is easy, at least for me it was. You yourself do assume that all players will find it easy, but I agree with you there generally. But this game Largely incentivizes you to play again and again, as you continue to unlock new mechanics and abilities even after your second playthrough. And on those higher difficulties, you absolutely have to make use of the games systems/mechanics and change up your play style. There is no way you'll get through DMD mode mashing buttons and just doing whatever. So that's just it, I'd argue that the first thing the game is incentivizng is to replay it, which then leads to the game incentivizing use of complex systems. And the rank system is euphoric, the game is letting you know how great you're doing apart from the mechanics attached to it which I mentioned. On top of the encouragement, DMC 5's animations and presentation when pulling these high level combos off is endorphin heaven. I do love Doom Eternal. Like ALOT. But whats stopping a player from playing on an extremely easy difficulty where the game's systems are made arbitrary? Again, I agree, DMC 5 is pretty easy first playthrough but the game is letting you know how much more there is to see after i.e Nero's devil trigger and devil arm, i.e Dante's increased arsenal capacity, unlocking Double Katalina Ann, unlocking the other half of your move list. Also, each system in this game, I would argue is reinforcing. Dante's Royal Guard when pulled off on time, leads to increased devil trigger and damage output. Nero's sword can be revved up to full capacity if you time the rev button perfectly after landing a hit, V (while not as fun) rewards you for staying closer to enemies while your familiar fight, which increases risk. The game's skill ceiling is sky high and nobody can deny that, I think. In the end the game won't be for everyone, similar to Doom Eternal. But for those who give it the time, I find it crazy to think that you'd say this game doesn't reinforce the use of its best mechanic; the combat. Good video as usual Mayo, but that DMC 5 slander is hurting my soul 😂
@@underthemayo yeah but for bloody palace? Or for replays, which again, are encouraged? Anyone who learns how to use it effectively, via Dante's triple S, can incorporate it into combos and increase damage output by an insane margin. Literally can use it infinitely if you take advantage of that skill which is a direct reward for maintaining a triple S rank.
I found that to be the case with KOTOR.... during my first playthrough, there were certain areas where I would constantly struggle with and when I went to those same spots in my second playthrough on a harder difficulty, I found them not to be as bad as I remembered because I learned what to do in those situations
I'm studying game development rn, and I've sorta done this in a way in my projects. For instance, I had to make a runner game (not endless though) and I had this dash ability. The fun in the game was jumping and dashing with good timing, it was cool. So my level design tried to force the player to do that, even though I also had to include slightly branching paths for an "easy" and "hard" mode, they both still encouraged players to dash a lot (it helped that I had an obstacle that needed the dash in order to defeat). A big experience I had with this was in another project, where I had to make a hypercasual. The game concept I ended up on was a game about ramming cars on a highway, it's really good, and I'll probably end up taking that concept further. So, I initially had the player score be determined based on distance and the cars rammed, but then in playtesting I realised that this caused the players to actually avoid cars, because they saw the numbers tick up the longer they lasted. In order to fix this, I removed the distance and replaced it with number of rams, and added feedback for the point gained for every car rammed, which really helped to encourage players to ram cars rather than avoid them. My lecturers have been sort of critical of me for my unyielding will to bend the players to my vision, but that's mostly because we are learning to make mobile games (before you scorch us, we're in Africa, mobile games will end up being the only way a lot of people experience games here) and such games can be deleted immediately. But I don't want to appeal to a huge casual audience if it doesn't align with what I and the game want the game to be.
All the best for your future work buddy! My dream is to become a game developer myself, and make triple A quality games with challenging systems like Doom Eternal no matter how much money I have.
All right, this has been bugging me for a while but can you please let us know the name of the music used in the background? I love the ominous feeling it gives off and leaves a lasting impact when applied alongside your discussions.
You sir, need to do a video on Fromsoft's games. I know you're not a fan of souls games but even then, you've Sekiro which is drastically different from souls games. I say this because when tackling the whole difficulty and challenge aspects, Fromsoft need to be in the discussion.
I've got 500+ hours on TF2 and am just now learning to air-strafe, which has both been a really fun challenge to take on, and improved my mobility in multiplayer. That being said, the game does a terrible job of pushing you into these mechanics, and you basically have to seek out tutorials to learn. You really only get to see its true potential when you go into multiplayer and get wrecked by some guy going 1000 mph across the map. While that may drive some people to seek out those skills, it also turns away a lot of new players who see that and just nope out of there. While a game needs to try to educate it's player, it also needs to actively avoid those miseducative experiences. Check out Razbuten's "Gaming for a Non-Gamer" series where he observes his non-gamer wife trying out different games. It is really interesting to see how frequently she misinterprets something the game is trying to show her, or how she'll "learn" something about the game that the game didn't actually want to teach her. A lot of that comes down the the designers assuming the player will have some context based on the norms of how most games are designed.
mayo may I ask, does strategy games fit into your challenge matters? I always like the difficulty of games like xcom enemy unknown, xcom 2, phoenix point (though not as much compared to xcom). is it alright i hear what you think of them?
This video has been in production since early December, and I see it as the mission statement for my channel. Hope you like it.
BRAWLER Mode & Mayo merch here! teespring.com/stores/underthemayo
Support me on Patreon. patreon.com/underthemayo
UA-cam Memberships to my channel now available, click the "Join" button.
Follow me on Twitch at twitch.tv/underthemayo
Try prototype 1
@@sreeram3802 Prototype and Infamous would be great for Him
Under The Mayo play blood 2
@@Nishan_117 try blood 2
@Sebastian Jönsson can you give me examples of games that have engagement divorced from challenge?
My biggest issue is games not using their medium to enhance the story or experience. Doom Eternal’s demons are relentless and violent so the player needs to become the badass that the story is telling them they are. It’s so annoying to see video games only tell their story through cutscenes or set pieces. Enhance your story through player interaction with the mechanics and gameplay.
Ah the infamous anime "i beat you but you beat me" cinematic
This is pretty much God of War 4, all show but no talent. When the original trilogy describes how much of an absolute beast Kratos is, they make you understand why when you experience the gameplay for yourself, mind you this greatly helps immerse you in the fictional reality of GOW, but because Santa Monica wanted to play it safe and appeal to the generic medium (a.k.a. the Last of Us Sony exclusive homogenization) we instead got a weaker, less impactful sequel to what could've been a franchise comeback with limitless potential. It had a great atmosphere and story, but the way they butchered the mechanics practically blueballs the experience.
@@spimpsmacker6422 Yeah, remember when Kratos murdered almost the entire pantheon of Greek Gods in nothing but a skirt and sandals?
Well, now you have to explore for crafting items, put on armour, take on generic enemies 1-on-1, you're better off staying away and just throwing the axe in most situations, can't jump, have a super limited moveset which goes on a cooldown timer, etc.
I think literally every single gameplay decision they made was pretty awful ngl. I played the game first time on Hard too and Christ dude. Enemies just sponge everything and Kratos feels fucking pathetic even if you're playing flawlessly.
Then with the story, I don't even think it's that good. I legitimately think the relationship between Baldur and Freya is the dumbest shit possible.
"I love you son, and I never want you to feel pain."
"MOOOM, I HATE THIS. TURN IT OFF!"
"Well, I totally could but nah."
*Ending of game where the spell is lifted*
"Yaayy, I'm finally cured!"
"Great! Now you love me and we can be family again right?"
"Fuck off mom. I'll kill you."
"Well okay, if that's what you want, please do."
And Atreus has some abysmally written moments, especially where he becomes a little cunt after finding out he's a God. This information alone triggering such a huge change in the character is just the dumbest. Atreus literally talks about how if he was a God, he would use his power to help people and all of that. Literally what changed besides him finding out that he can now in fact realise those wishes?
Also honestly, I'm kind of against Kratos even getting redemption and getting yet ANOTHER do over in his fucked up life. Kratos is a disgusting asshole and that's literally the point of his character tbh. He's a selfish, reckless, violent, asshole. His actions literally lead to the death of his entire realm. Why are we pretending as though he deserves redemption?
Honestly, I hope the sequels touch on this if nothing else.
The tomb raider games have a massive disconnect between the cutscenes and gameplay. In cutscenes, Lara gets bodied by a single lone thief but in gameplay, she easily takes on hundred of armed soldiers and undead knights. It gets really annoying.
@@amarntsitran3406 “you’re better off staying away and just throwing the axe in most situations” Except there are enemies that have ranged attacks that are significantly easier to fight up close, and there are enemies fast enough to immediately close that distance, making throwing the axe useless. Then there are the enemies that just straight up dodge or block the axe whenever you throw it at them, rendering it useless once again. These enemies make up at least half the game’s encounter.
“Have a super limited moveset.” You have: Light attacks, heavy attacks, parries and ripostes, dodge counterattacks, ranged attacks, Runic attacks for both the Blades of Chaos and Leviathan axe, Atreus’ arrows and his own Runic attacks, alternate fighting style modes for Leviathan Axe, Blades, and your fists, not to mention all the special attacks unique to each individual weapon, such as the Axe’s executioner’s blow, the Blades’ whirlwind attack, and the barehanded moveset’s shield slam followed by a shockwave. Every single one of these systems is extremely beneficial in terms of damage, staggering, elemental damage, and stuns, and can be combined together in a bunch of different ways. Your moveset is objectively fucking MASSIVE. Not to mention the only moves that go on a cool down timer are the Runic attacks, every other move I named can be done extremely frequently.
Kratos feels pathetic when you’re playing perfectly? You must be playing it wrong. Even at the game’s hardest difficulty, many of Kratos’ attacks feel absolutely devastating. Not just the runic attacks, but also the Executioner’s strike, combo finishers, riposte attacks, charging attacks, and alternative style mode heavy attacks. Even on Give Me God of War, a highly skilled player can start juggling enemies and knocking them flying backwards pretty easily.
Then we have you using the worst modern trend in criticism possibly ever, which is to take a story element, strip it of any context, depth, writing, and nuance in an attempt to demean it. Not to mention that you blatantly get shit wrong.
“Why are we pretending as if he deserves redemption?” The game never suggests that Kratos DOES deserve redemption, I don’t know where you got that from. Kratos himself literally says constantly that there’s no way for him to atone for his sins, that he’ll do his best to become better, but he knows full well that he’s gone too far to ever be forgiven.
I’m pretty lenient with Under the Mayo criticising God of War 2018, because he at least has salient criticisms. He’s not correct, but I can understand where he’s coming from. But Christ, your arguments are awful, and show a lack of understanding for the game’s story and design.
"instead of giving the power fantasy to the player, we work hard to make the player earn that power fantasy which helps the player slide into the fun zone which is where you play the game its meant to be played" - Hugo Martin, game director of doom eternal.
"Fun Is SUbJECTIVE"
@@smugplush they could do that in 2016.
@@smugplush yup Hugo also admitted that this was a flaw of 2016. The gameplay became repetitive since the answer to everything was ssg or siege mode. Even though it felt nice and cool, there was no incentive to get better or any skilling ceiling to cross. Hugo said "ID will never make the same game twice".
@@smugplush exactly
“Instead of giving the power fantasy to the player, we work hard to give the power fantasy to all the enemies the player fights, while the player is stuck as a puny schmuck to get his shit kicked in.” - Hidetaka Miyazaki, game director of Dark Souls.
*Under the Mayo:* Let's look at one of the greatest games of all time...
*Me:* Oh, boy! Here come Doom Eternal...!
*Under the Mayo:* Super Mario 64!
*Me:* A surprise, to be sure, but a welcome one.
meh. Sometimes i feel like the only person on earth who thinks that game is just ok at best. The internet has a weird way of sucking that games dick for no reason.
@@dontfallyoumighthurtyourse4694 Doom Eternal or Super Mario 64?
@@revenger8292 mario 64
Mario 64 is the G.O.A.T
is doom eternal the greatest fps game tho?
"It's just optional"
"It's about accessibility"
Games are about challenge, whether by performing mechanical operations with speed & accuracy, or solving mental problems - and overcoming that challenge. If a challenge is made infinitely scaleable, then there's no real resistance being offered to the player.
Accessibility would be things like allowing rebinds for custom controllers - colourblind modes, photosensitive modes that eliminate or modify triggering lights, closed captions for the deaf, narration & audiovisual assists for the visually impaired.
People who argue taking the challenge out of a game should be done for 'accessibility' are belittling & condescending to people with disabilities. Overcoming the challenge in the game mechanics is the 'point' of the game. Once you start making engagement of the core mechanics optional to progress - you're telling disabled gamers to play a different game than everyone else. Accessibility should mean taking away barriers from their being able to engage with & enjoy the game like everyone else does. It shouldn't mean taking the actual game away so they can have a more passive experience.
Exactly. I hate when people call difficulty options "accessibility".
I think it should be more accurately called approachability for casuals and newcomers.
Including accesibility options like closed captions, colorblind modes, and controller options doesn't affect the difficulty of the actual gameplay. They just make it more accessible to people with specific disabilities. I personally wouldn't benefit from turning those options on but there are many people who absolutely would.
Difficulty options have nothing to do with disabilities or making games accessible to disabled players. They usually just dumb down the experience of gameplay so that people who have little experience with games can get through it. Ideally the low difficulty options prepare you to play the higher ones, rather than teach you bad habits that will get you killed when engaging with all the systems properly.
"Games are about challenge" not quite, journey exists, unless you don't think its a game
"People who argue taking the challenge out of a game should be done for 'accessibility' are belittling & condescending to people with disabilities" how come? is it not a fact that disabilities can reduce how well a given player can perform in a game?
"Overcoming the challenge in the game mechanics is the 'point' of the game." not always, subnautica and various explorative games can be fun even without a challenge
its one thing to argue that developers should be allowed to make the games the way they want, its another thing to argue that difficulty modes doesn't help people with disabilities, especially motor related ones
Accessibility as a word doesn't only refer to disabled people. In general I agree with Mayo here. I'm a guy who loves the fuck out of Souls, Sekiro e.t.c. currently I'm at the end of my first NIOH 2 playthrough. I enjoy and think you need some level of difficulty in order to have a player feel something when they earn a victory.
The big issue is that, like mayo said in the video, one person's easy is another person's difficult. I remember the first time I played a souls game (DS2 SotFS) it was fucking BRUTAL. Now I had fun, and the experience was great of having to earn my victories against PvE enemies for the first time maybe ever where their difficulty wasn't just linked to bullshit. I was also a pretty seasoned gamer by this point. I'd been playing shit for 7 years or something. Imagine someone who's newer to gaming, they very well might just not be able to enjoy that game at all, because it's so hard that they never hit the 'fun zone'. For that newer player, the game is not accessible. Or to take another example, I am a pretty heavy FPS player historically, I've had a good KD in various games like COD and BF, got to top 0.4% in destiny e.t.c. I'm not a CS god and I never played things like quake, but I know how to point my mouse at things and click decently. I came into DOOM Eternal off a maybe 3 month hiatus in FPS shit, so I was a tad rusty, but still better than most people at FPS shit. With the plethora of different skills the game wanted me to learn, dealing with...6? 8? weapons, I can't remember. I was struggling, not in the sense that I was dying much, I was struggling to have fun, struggling to learn what it wanted me to. I got to the point that I was having fun about midway through the game, I felt like I wasn't complete garbage, and then the game throws marauders at you, and then another thing, and another thing. So in the end, realistically I spent about 50% of the game feeling like I wasn't competent enough at the systems, and thus I wasn't having fun, I just felt like I was garbage and couldn't do any cool shit. The other 50% I was competent enough at the systems, and I did feel like I could do cool stuff, and had fun. Now take into account that most people don't play games through multiple times (I know I didn't. I like DOOM, but it doesn't interest me enough to go through all the difficulties or anything). So I had a 50% fun experience, when with a slightly easier experience, that could have been 75% or more fun. And on top of that I'm above average at pure aim, imagine someone worse than me and their experience of the game. For that player, the game is not very accessible, just like Souls is not accessible (this is why you get people posting reddit threads like the dude that was stuck on the DS3 tutorial boss for 40 DAYS).
It's like if IRL you had a sporting event based on javelin throwing and hitting targets. All of the targets are in olympic javelin throwing ranges. A normal person, is completely unable to even participate, because they can't throw far enough. A non professional javelin thrower can sometimes do it, and can sometimes have fun with the game, and an olympic level thrower loves it, because of the challenge and complexity. Is that event accessible? Hell no. Is it fun if you grind to be good enough to participate? Yes. Is everyone able to reach that level with a reasonable investment of effort and time/is the work they'll have to put in worth the fun at the end for them? Hell no. For someone near that level, it's probably worth it, for most people, not even close.
@@DawnSentinelSimply, not everything is for everyone my guy. The issue here is most modern games trying to cater to everyone especially the AAAs. Most triple A games of the now are like cake walk bro. It is like the normal difficulty today is on very easy mode un-calibrated. Games used to always pose a challenge and it was like that from the start. You learnt to value the lessons of failure fast - It's the risk you take every-time you pickup a controller lol. Pong and the classics alike, though basic were akin to that. *Its in the footsteps of success where you'll see the trail of failure.*
The reason why the Olympic level thrower (mentioned in your example) loves it -- is because of passion and drive. He/She fought through trial and error to find the ultimate resolve. Those who quit early on simply did not see javelin as a compelling life path thus there are other options. Most things in life are not fun at the start and learning can be quite a difficult task for many. Learning is actually difficult for me but fun is achieved when It is starting to click. It's the ability to overcome the challenges posed and make it out at the end that creates a memorable experience. The fun is not the start of the journey nor is it at the end of it. It is the journey itself. The whole joint. *If life itself was easy would it carry weight in meaning? If an easy button suddenly pop up in your face would you point your mouse over and click it?*
I understand your reasoning behind making things accessible towards a more global audience. It allows more people to pick up a controller be it new timers or casuals. It further grows the appeal towards the industry, but look at our outcome. It is like gaming is hitting an invisible wall and not breaking its boundaries towards new grounds and to top it off every other game you pick up just feels as if they are afraid to challenge you. *The easy route is not always the best and most of the time isn't.*
It is sad hearing people refer to SOULS as the pinnacle of difficulty today when back in the days - many games were on or surpass the difficulties of Souls. It's sad that games like cup-head are now the niche. Have you ever played Marble Madness my man - have you? Have you played Super Star Wars: Return of the Jedi on *JUST* normal my brother?!
There are so many games I can list here. There existed a time long ago when games did not have save states -- some did not even have a difficulty setting. *It was also crazy how the world used to practically belittle you for playing vidjya games and now it is a global dish. Damn, things are ironic as hell. lol.*
The issue I have with it all is watering down most games today to fit the general audience in hopes of raking in the casuals which will in turn thicken wallets. We all know this, that is why the video game industry is bigger than sports and movies combined! It is sad that the people who suffer the most are the ones who actually care about the future of gaming -- who can openly criticize its current motives and wish for better output in the medium.
What's also ironic is that when it comes to multiplayer games there is a steep learning curve (in most) if you are to compete with human players. I don't see that stopping casual gamers. Games like Fortnite is a great example to this. It has a massive install base but if you look at the actual game mechanics of the its battle royal option - it's chaotic to say the least. You would be joking if you'd say you'd master its fundamentals in year's time but players of all calibers play it. Why? is it easy? I think players will adapt to what ever you throw at them as long as the core holds substance. You can not expect everyone to be Gamers as you can't expect everyone to be javelin throwers. *Everyone can hold a controller/javelin but you can't expect all of them to take it with them to the finish line.*
In your summary I see you've underlined FPS as the games you play. Why do you play FPS games? Is it to detract you from the difficulties in life or do you play them in hopes to gain more color in yours? Why settle for FPS multiplayer, why settle for FPS almost exclusively?
@@legros731 "And you just picked the best example doom even the best cod player will struggle if they begin on ultra nightmare"
Good thing there are easier difficulties they can pick to start on, and eventually work their way up to ultra nightmare. You just picked the best example to destroy your own argument.
I recently started playing Doom Eternal on nightmare recently. I really struggled, so I had to start using the faltering system, start weapon switching more, and started to open up to mods like microwave beam and destroyer blade, and WOW. The experience was so fun, like the feeling of microwaving a cyber mancubus and going in for the bloodpunch felt great. Doom Eternal is one of my favorite games of all time. Heck, I even started to play games like Prey differently, I started to Gloo and enemy, hit them with psycho shock, and the hit them with a shotgun blast. Doom Eternal has forever changed both how I look at games and how I play them.
I had the same experience of Eternal making me a better Prey player. Dusk too.
I first tried doom eternal on ultra-nightmare thinking “oh I’m good at shooters” (which I am) but then I got into doom and on the first challenge room I spent 3 hours trying to make it. Lesson learned
This hole discussion has been really frustrating to see, mostly because I've seen multiple times people saying that they should be allowed to play however they want and therefore the game is not as good or even bad. Is like playing monopoly and suddenly someone says I dont want to manage my money after losing once and then saying that the game is trash.
How can you criticise a game for its systems when you actually didn't try to engage in those systems? If you don't like that system is fine but at the very least try to engage with it before deciding if it's good or not.
It's because they've been spoonfed that stuff for 2 generations. "Here's 50 different guns. None of them matter. Just use the one you like."
Honestly that works with a lot of games, but much less with shooters or platformers.
* whole
*"I suck at the game, so the game is bad"* mentality need to go away. I even saw that in people that prefers 2016, lots of their argument is either lack of learning or just plain suck at Eternal. Not even a single flaw they pointed out worth dragging down Eternal, it's not credible enough imo. It sounds like a plain nitpicking & nostalgia blinded.
It's funny because mayo should be the last person to do a video like this, seeing how he has that mentality on other games
@@PasSpin
Could you give some examples?
@@verdugo5242 devil may cry 5
@@fantomuresa he literally criticized that game for NOT doing what this video talked about. for the first playthrough.
@@fantomuresa He said Devil May Cry 5 is a good game lol.
Challenge makes us human.
Challenge makes us excel.
Easiness makes the game word and powerpoint.
Word.
@@troop904 it really is an outlook to society, i agree.
Color makes us hungry, hunger makes us human.
@@SergeantZeta Everyone can see it
Everything's conected
And this is why I love fighting games, the genre has literally infinite replay value because if someone is sweeping the floor with you, the game is encouraging you to learn the game, basically everything depends on the human component and how the systems work along with it, it shows you how important they are
Yall can hate all u like but I was the first like
@@Jasdewisafarmer Epic
until you get an insurmountable amount of challenge where the curbstomp happens so fast that there is no opportunity to learn anything.
I also really love fighting games but an unfortunate reality is that the systems are often obfuscated and made to be super ambiguous. It straight up took me like 2 years of hopping in and out of various fighting games, following streamers, watching guides and higher-levels of play before I could say that I am relatively confident that I at aleast understand the fundamental concepts and systems that are attributed to fighting games. I still suck huge ass at them, but I at least know what's going on now lmao. Tbh, I feel like I literally only figured out how neutral play should really work like a few months ago haha.
I never grew up with FGs so this has been a fairly recent endeavour but that genre is a nightmare to understand. I remember when I decided that I legitimately wanted to get into the genre, I bought UMvC3 on sale and tried it out. That shit made no sense lmao. I got motions down in practice fairly quickly but to get them out in matches took way longer. Sometimes I'd attack an opponent and it just wouldn't hit them. I didn't really understand when I could and could not attack back when under pressure, etc. I couldn't even beat the Story on Normal for ages lmao. I just booted it up and my online record is 1-55 LMAO. Of course, I'm not gonna run into noobs on UMvC3 and I at least got that.
Just think about it, Fighting Games are genuinely some of the most iconic brands in pop culture. Street Fighter has representation in Fortnite now among Marvel, DC and Star Wars ffs haha. That being said, the community and playerbase of the genre is relatively really small and I think this is a huge reason why. The genre doesn't push most people to learn and get better, I think it confuses and frustrates most into playing very casually and they'll basically only ever button mash or they just quit playing super soon.
@@amarntsitran3406 @Amarn T Sitran I see your point but the thing it's, it's the same as learning any other thing that's difficult, like martial arts, some survive and push through the complex and precise movements and mind games needed, others just want to play a game without breaking their brains or spending hours in training, but the point is, if the games didn't push you to learn there would be no reason to play them, it's extremely based on human component, I have been helped, stomped and I've helped and stomped others to get better because even if the community is small you need others to play and learn, which is pure human component.
Fighting games are hard, that's why a considerable amount of players doesn't get out of "bronze" rank in SFV, but at the same time, it's not only hard because the games are complex and require many levels of various mental games, awareness of resources and hand dexterity, they are also hard because all has to do with you, you're the reason why of almost everything, and that's a heavy weight to carry for almost anyone who really wants to learn (which is why you need people to help you), all motivation from outside and inside pushes you to become a better player, the game isn't going to change if you learn how to do a hadoken, what changes is the human component, if you don't wanna learn the game, it just doesn't work for you and probably you would be better playing simpler fighting games that are easier to learn or just playing another genre, there's a wide spectrum of fgs from easy as pressing a button to do anything like Dive Kick, Footsies, Brawhalla, Smash, Fantasy Strike, to complex and more deep games like Marvel VS Capcom, Guilty Gear, or even SFV, but in any of them you require to get better at some point.
I've followed you since the release of Doom Eternal and I think this is your best video yet. I hope you keep making these design discussion style videos because you have a great way of setting up your arguments.
Thanks. I'd like this video to represent my channel for the next years.
@@underthemayo I'm gonna nail this video to a door like Martin Luther's 95 Theses. You've done a wonderful job expressing these sentiments that I could never put into words, and now the world needs to hear them.
Mayo: "Let's look at one of the greatest games of all time".
Me: DOOM Eternal
Mayo: SM64.
Well, it also works, but not what I was expecting.
Damn that Doom/Guts profile pic is really sick
@@CripplingMemeAddict Thank you.
Super Mario..... ' Homer sound ' : DOH!!
I think the downside of titanfall's ai was that it wasnt built for the campaign, it was built for multiplayer. They reused the same ai in the campaign as the multiplayer, which was a really bad idea because the multiplayer grunts are literally the most harmless thing possible. I dont even know how respawn gave a thumbs up to putting the "THEY'RE TRYING TO CORNER US" ai into an otherwise magnificent campaign.
I still think they make it just for a campaign tutorial purpose. The fact that was so mellowed is just for the purpose of introducing mechanics to better be prepared for the multiplayer experience. A bit long for sure, maybe too much, but adding a story to it truly makes it more enjoyable imo.
@@domenicopisano4383 I can understand wanting to dumb down the first few levels to make it easier to get into, but the ai in multiplayer was designed for point farming, not as an actual challenge the player has to overcome with hellstorm of other pilots and titans. What they should have done is made separate ai for the campaign and multiplayer so that you dont die constantly to grunts in multiplayer, but there is still a challenge in the campaign.
At least the highest difficulty does feel like you have to use parkour a little more, but yeah. Imo I think if modding ever came to be a quick and dirty fix for this would be to make AI deal less damage (~30%) but be WAY more accurate (~50 to 70%) and reduce their reaction times by 40% (60% for the robot units to make them feel more distinct). Titan combat is actually fine as is though, it really does the whole engagement through difficulty thing well.
The ticks, reapers, and even alien wildlife are all capable enough to be aggressive and pressure players to move a little, they could’ve incorporated them better into the game if they wanted to. I don’t think Respawn ever demanded anyone to be parkouring while shooting, if they did I don’t think they would’ve had the grunts and their hitscan damage be so prevalent in the game. The lack of challenge was probably intended.
@@f3z087 I was moreso talking about the grunts and stalkers, because at least in doom eternal gargoyles can punish you for slowing down and being out of position
Tetris hardest game ever, even harder than like DOOM.
Which tetris? Classic or modern
Have played Sekiro, Hollow Knight, Dark Souls or every possible rogue-like game? Doom Eternal is just a joke if you compare difficult...even on ultra-nightmare.
@@nightmareking4491 Dark souls? Are you okay? That game is far easier than doom eternal on ultra nightmare, every other difficulty though dark souls is harder
@@nightmareking4491 we're you any good though?
@@juanjoyaborja.3054 If Doom Eternal is considering "hard game" then why Ghostruner for example is not, or wolfenstein? Xddd
Since when has “it’s too hard” been a valid criticism of a game? Why is it ok for Dark Souls to be difficult but not games like Doom Eternal?
Because doom eternal wasn't popular specifically for its difficulty like dark souls, so it attracted people that maybe just wanted an easy power fantasy
@@jwanikpo They can play on hurt me plenty or even on I'm to young to die.
People think any Doom is just a shooty shoot fun game where you go gun front and left click everything to death.
Namco Bandai are a bunch of stupid fucks that decided to promote Dark Souls for it's difficulty. DeS and DS1 were just old school design and never intended to be conventually hard. This is why later entries were more focused on diffficulty, than good design.
I’d say from software has taken more grief about there games being difficult than almost any other dev. Sjws have been hating on that series since demons souls, as they like the world and lore of the games but are too scatterbrained to take on the very accessible challenge they have on offer. Sekiro was just another example of the same bullshit that comes up every time from software drop another masterpiece.
@@KosmataBradva I hate that Fromsoft did that. I love all their games but I cant imagine the utopia where they dialed back some of the retarded shit because they didn't brand themselves as ultra hard, which is funny anyway cause 99% of the games become stupidly easy with a strength build, stunlocking and instakilling half the enemies, but no, they have to, they're "Souls games."
I honestly think that Sekiro is the closest we're ever gonna get to a "fair" fromsoft game, I don't mean easy, I think it's harder at times, the only things in the whole game i ever thought were "bullshit" were either avoidable (don't try to stab your mentor that taught you the move that punishes thrust attacks/Mikiri counter) or justified (oh hey, that secret miniboss is hard.) Compared to Dark Souls, having shit like the Tomb of giants (rng if you actually get a lamp or not, you can only get a Sunlight maggot in a certain circumstance, the enemies will one shot you if you're wearing The strongest armor in the game with decent health while blocking) Bed of chaos (dumbass design) ceaseless discharge (rng boss fight whether or not he spams an AOE move that you have to dodge perfectly otherwise you get stunlocked) I liked Nitos boss fight, mixed with the respawning skeletons but the aoe attack and the ground spike are just friggin lame.
I actually beat the 1st one with A fat roll only build (dlc made me quit that) and SL4 only build and these parts STILL gave me the same amount of trouble as a normal playthrough THAT'S bullshit.
13:34-13:47 As a Zoomer that grew up with COD, I can confirm this to be true.
It was so interesting to see new kids come into Doom 2016 and panic. "Why isn't my health recharging? Where's the cover?" They needed a full detox.
@@underthemayo I didn't panick, my first impressions of Doom were, holy shit am I fast. And I don't have to stop to reload? Sick. Played it on UV first, because I ain't no bitch, and really enjoyed it, I just wished it pushed me to use more weapons like Eternal did, since I didn't start doing that on my own, and only started quickswitching after watching a few speedruns. Before I started quickswitching I found the game to be boring after a few playthroughs and thought it just didn't have much replay value. It was a great decision by ID to make Eternal so it pushes players into the systems much more than 2016.
@@underthemayo really? i need to see it for myself
Do you have the video or UA-cam link?
@@underthemayo I would have been one of those guys if I hadn't discovered the arena FPS genre, a detox after years of cheap frags. I think I am among the few 16yo who play Unreal Tournament 99 Lmao (rip Unreal, 1998-2017)
@@underthemayo Doom 2016 was my first experience with a retro fps game after playing COD for the better part of a decade and I found it to be everything I wished COD was. I always wanted faster, more aggressive gameplay from it and I didn't realize that the perfect FPS genre for that was already created
Everything you said you nailed right on the head. I feel like if anyone seriously retorts with "You just want everything to be Doom Eternal," then they've completely missed the point of what you've been trying to say.
Not really. His Halo video was the worst example of this. He just kept comparing it to DE and whining that it wasn't like DE. Wishing it was like DE. Then not playing it in a way that took advantage of it's systems and mechanics, the entire point of this video.
@@youtubecommenter2527 He compared Halo to 90s shooter, not Doom Eternal.
Slow, clunky, regenerative shields, two weapon limits and copy-pasta hallways.
It was more a critic of the way fps developed since, than a critic of Halo itself.
Personally, I think he treated Halo almost too gentle considering of what a stale regression this game represents.
@@stiefn3825 Doom Eternal and most console shooters would not exist were it not for Halo's enormous critical success. Halo doesn't represent regression, it's companies copycatting what worked with Halo and doing so over and over. It's more of other companies lack of originality than it is Bungie's fault making Halo. Saying Halo lead to regression is factually wrong and reductionist.
@@youtubecommenter2527 I doubt Halo is relevant to Doom Eternal's existence. What comes next, without Half Life 2 and Call of Duty there would have been no Quake 4?
How is it factually wrong to blame the game that introduced almost every system which let to near two decades of stale fps?
And how do these systems work in Halo but not in other games?
@@youtubecommenter2527
He didn't wish it was like Doom Eternal, he wished it was like '90s shooters in general.
He wasn't actually saying it was a bad game, he just said he resents it for changing the industry to be something which doesn't please him as much.
He's talked about it in a more recent video, saying he really enjoyed it after giving it another go.
"You want everything to be Doom Eternal"
If what they mean is that I want every game to be a masterfully crafted experience full of amazing level design, good difficulty curves, great enemy designs and A.I. then the answer is yes, I want everything to be Doom Eternal.
If DMC started to specifically tell you want to do then than wouldn't that kinda eliminate player creativity. I do get the whole difficulty thing, but I was still having as much fun playing on normal, getting the abilities and slowly learning how the characters. I was a lot more ready for harder difficulties as I had the ability to flow my combos together the way I wanted to
No, because DOOM Eternal does the same thing and still allows for creativity.
Even though the game shows you that the most optimal way to kill a cacodemon is by shooting a grenade into it's mouth and glorykilling it, it's NOT the only way to do so, in fact you can discover a better method in the game using the Ballista.
What WOULD eliminate player creativity is by making it so that cacodemons could ONLY be killed by using that method, as in you have no choice BUT to grenade it's mouth and glorykilling it.
DMC wouldn't suffer from that if it made the demons more challenging in this case, in fact it would actually encourage player creativity, not eliminate it.
Then you go on the harder difficulty and the things that you’ve been doing on normal doesn’t apply there anymore. And that’s the problem. You’ve given the player so much freedom to do whatever they want with no consequences (meaning that some players could be learning the game wrong), then you go on a harder difficulty and find out that your combos are either useless or you’re using the wrong combo at the wrong time. The “I had the ability to flow my combos together the way I wanted” is the issue because on the harder difficulties, you won’t have a lot of opportunities to flow your combos since the enemy will try to interrupt you. All you’ve done is basically learn to put together a combo and not how, when and against what enemy to use that combo. Then people will complain that the game was restricting their creativity because combos that worked on normal aren’t working on harder difficulties. Not a good approach to designing difficulty.
So the game has failed to teach you the most important mechanics that is important for you to survive the encounters while playing stylish. You go on the harder difficulty and it feels like you’ve wasted your time learning combos that are ineffective on harder difficulty. What the game should be teaching you is the combos and the styles that will push you into the system, then give you more creativity to experiment with the styles that were already taught to you while making sure you understand what style, where and when to use them. Your style could just be smashing one button or alternating between two buttons. That’s not good. The game should punish you for that in normal and not on hard when the player went through the whole game just doing simple combos. Once you’ve learnt a game one way, it takes time and effort to rewire yourself so even on normal, the game should at least challenge the player. No challenge, you can do whatever you want, then when you play on the harder difficulty, the challenge becomes too much for you and you’ll have to relearn the game. Not a good feeling since it feels like you’ve wasted your time learning useless combos.
And that is if the game pulls your attention enough to want to replay it, because to an average person, they could see the game as just mindless button smashing. How do you convince the average gamer who’s playing your game for the first time that it’s not a mindless button smashing game if the game doesn’t put forward any challenge and demands nothing from the player? By the time they finish the game on normal mode (or whatever it is), they’ll just move on with their life. They’ll remember the game as a mindless button smashing game and their boring first experience will be just that.
The analogy by the other guy also already explains it. Restrictions to a scenario doesn’t restrict creativity, it enhances it. It forces the player to tap into their imagination on how to solve the problem in front of you. For example, look at the old games like Silent Hill. The ps1 hardware had limits so they couldn’t render things from long distance without losing the details close range. So they put a fog around the player and that decision helped with creating the unique atmosphere of silent hill. They’re remaking silent hill and even though they have the tech to render long distance objects, I hope they do NOT get rid of the fog. This is an example of where restrictions enhanced creativity. If there weren’t any restrictions, you’d be playing like Doom 2016, spamming that double barrel shotgun the whole game. If there weren’t any restrictions, you’d be smashing the same simple combo the whole game because that’s the most effective strategy against every enemies. Another example is the Marauder. People said that he restricted creativity. Videos on how to take out Marauders showed people stunning the Marauder in creative ways. Use his dogs against him, detonating missiles behind them, once stunned combining auto target rocket launcher, blood punch, grenade you name it. If the Marauder acted the same way as any other enemies out there, all those creative approaches would not be a thing.
Easy games need to exist, some people just want to watch an interactive movie, and I think that's OK. However, that is not to say that EVERY game has to be like that or have an "easy" mode. People need to understand that not every game is for everyone, it should be as easy as that.
The probem with that is, the interactive movie is still a game? As much as I love Life is Strange, The Last of Us and Day of the Tentacle, those are not videogames, they are not fun to play even, just fun to watch and interact occasionally. I don't think those things should be made as videogames because the people that makes them could use "all of that effort and time" with the "gameplay" directly on the movie and the story
@@zerot480 but there are plenty of people that do have fun with them, as well as plenty others that will also pay their $60 on a game that has a super-easy-breeze mode just because they want to see a story and press buttons while they're at it... I don't see the problem with that honestly, business is business. I only see a problem when this is forced upon games that were not designed with a super-casual audience in mind (like journos complaining that darks souls doesn't have an easy mode, for example)
@@zerot480 Last of us is fun as fuck. Put it on survival difficulty and don't do that listen through walls bullshit. It's incredibly atmospheric and the combat encounters are brutal and intense, having to conserve ammo or use it efficiently or else you gotta melee only or rely on stealth. Fuck outta saying Last of us isn't a game.
Then watch a movie.
@@tastycookiechip A good game shouldn't require you to artificially constrain yourself in order for it to be challenging.
i opened my eyes at 2:47 i felt like hes not gonna say open your eyes again
The fun zone game design philosophy helped me to make a really engaging level with my friend in LittleBigPlanet 3. (It's a PlayStation exclusive UGC sandbox platformer for the uninitiated.)
The level is a bomb survival with a custom crossbow powerup that allows the player to shoot the bombs away. At first it was okay but it played like every other bomb survival and was too easy and boring because players could go underground early and camp. To push players into the fun zone, I sealed off the underground areas, added tracking missiles and made an orbital death ray that would track the player and charge up if they stood in one spot for too long. As a result, the level is really fun and I find myself playing it all the time trying to set new high scores!
(I brought this up because it was relevant, I swear I'm not just here to advertise the level because it only has 15 plays! It's called "Crossbow Bomb Survival: Boom Town" published by h8yse if you want to play it though.)
Damn is the LBP community still active? I remember playing lbpvita a few years back and absolutely loving it, good times.
Good times bro.
Mayo trying reallly hard to not be condescending to people who like easy games is really funny
Kirby is easy fun. :D
Why would people like easy games? Sure at some point I had created an OP starting character in Crusader Kings 3 or used cheats in GTA San Andreas. It is fun for a while but it gets old really quick.
@@Grivian Because people are different?
Ah yeah sure, some people will leash out at you as long you're not saying that you love easy difficulty modes and that every game should have them...
I feel like ultrakill is a great example of a game that pushes its design onto the player, The only way to get back health is to be up close when you’re damaging enemy so if you try and run away and hide you’re always going to die on higher difficulties.
Plus the adrenaline you get when you quick switch and use all of the game’s mechanics. It’s a beautiful game, put about 143h into it
not really. u can easily play through the whole game ignoring the style meter and spamming the pistol without learning any advanced movement. it was an odd choice to have neither reloading or ammo.
@@Always.Smarter But that's not as fun as for example flying around on a rocket and blowing up all the enemies by using the power of money.
@@Always.Smarter Why did you buy the game if you weren't going to play it correctly
@@jarate8076 there is no such thing as a correct way to play a game, and i never said anything about the way i played it
The first time a game truly pushed me into it's good combat systems in halo 1. Way back in the day when i completed it on legendary for the first time. You can't just run around with the assault rifle and blast away every enemy on legendary. You need to play a lot more strategically and carefully If you want to actually beat it. Many examples of this is making good use of cover, using the plasma pistol on an elite to destroy it's shields then headshot with the pistol. Understanding enemy weaknesses like how the flood are extremely weak to the shotgun. For reference, the shotgun can 1 shot most flood forms, but a sniper will take a lot more (like 8 or more shots). Whereas on blue elites, the sniper takes 2 shots (if you aim for the head), and 3 shots for the red elites (also when aiming for the head).
The only enemy type you can effectively kill on legendary with the assault rifle alone is the grunts. If you want to use it on an elite you can, but take out the shields first with the plasma pistol, then gun him down. See what I mean how the game forces you into it's combat design? Plasma weapons are extremely effective against shields, and the game gives them a purpose on heroic and legendary difficulty, because other weapon types will take ages to take down those shields, which will get you killed. Legendary difficulty would be extremely easy if the elites didn't have shields, and you could use the assault rifle to kill flood forms in a few shots.
Absolutely. And even someone like me that doesnt really enjoy those systems can see that the game is designed well around those systems and that's a good thing.
Sometimes you do want that experience of relaxation, mindlessly achieving tasks and then other times you want your adrenaline to be on fire trying to take down Sekiro bosses, I think both should be welcome.
I want to add on your take on DMC5. The thing with DMC and games like it, that being bayonetta and some others. They are made to be played again and again and are made for People who like that. Thats why there is new enemy plasment on the higher difficultys.
But cus of that. They like to make your first playthrough the same as a tutorial. And the replays become the Main game. That is also why so many of the games like this are so short. Wich i like, it lets you get used to the basics of the gameplay. But the problem with DMC5 is that it is not short, its around 15 hours long for most players. Where games like this only are about 8 or 9 hours. That being said DMC5 is still game of forever to me atleast
I disagree with his take on the style meter, as he disregards intrinsic motivation and its own allure, but he is right about the general difficulty.
Son of Sparda had to be available from the start.
Another big issue with DMC5 isn't just the length, but that it's far easier than its predecessors and contemporaries. Older DMC games didn't have very forgiving Normal difficulties and, especially in the late game, will punish a player, if they haven't learned the systems, same with Bayonetta. Even the Special Edition of DMC3, offers a challenge on Normal and expects players to interact with its systems and not just spam one combo. Hell, I know there are plenty of players who probably get Easy Automatic offered to them once they encounter Cerberus. DMC5 just doesn't have any of that on its Normal difficulty and it kinda sucks.
Something else that bothers me with DMC 5 is that the mission ranking system is piss poor. In DMC 3 there was actually challenge in getting a mission S rank because you had to perform well, not take much damage etc.
In DMC 5 by contrast, you basically get spoon-fed an S rank just as long as you don't use a continue, its pathetic. Then there's mission 10 which instead has an entirely different issue with consistency, with someone i saw on YT getting less stylish points than me on average, but getting an S rank, while I was stuck on A despite performing better than him in the mission (I still don't know what he did to get the top rank that I supposedly wasn't doing). Its really fucking stupid given how missions ranks are a big part of DMC and yet for 5, they decided to take a step backwards for whatever reason...
@@stiefn3825 Yeah, same here. SoS not being available from the start is dumb but at the same time, I didn't mind because I was hyped out of my ass just to play through the game and get the story regardless. Plus I never used the instant revive because that's some lame ass shit so there were encounters and bosses even on normal where I needed to learn and get better.
The style ranking is a good motivator. I don't understand how somebody can see their ranking in real time, HEAR that it makes shit more hype, and gives you more red orbs, then proceed to say that they didn't care about it. That genuinely doesn't compute in my brain lmfao but to each their own I guess.
@@A_J0995 Yup, I've done well on Mission 10, better than I do on other missions where I get an S, but for some reason, the game still only gives me an A. I've noticed it's stricter on the ranking and weird about how many style points it gives you at the end of a combat arena. The whole system is busted. Still great fun, but the new system, like you said, just spoon feeds S ranks, except for one weird mission.
This makes me really happy.
Some people are so afraid of that "get good" mentality that they miss the things that makes games great.
You know, what you just described was my experience with Metal Gear Rising. I thought the game was ridiculously difficult and unfun because I didn't understand its mechanics but worse yet, I didn't even engage with them. I was literally running around randomly swinging my sword at things and not thinking about dodging or parrying.
Once I got that down, I finally understood what I've been missing out on, stringing together high damaging and flashy combos while being completely untouched by the enemy, and even landing perfect parries to open them up for a quick slice.
Now that I've typed this all out, it just makes me want to replay that game again because I just realized that it's got that same design philosophy that DOOM featured. Hell, that's probably why I liked it so much.
Still one of the greatest hack and slash games of all time.
13:43 "An entire generation has been ruined [...]"
If they're havin fun, who cares? They like easy games, you like challenging ones, there's nothing wrong with either. The wrong thing is to think there is one style of game that should be applied to every single one. I really like challenging games, I'm currently on my third Ultra Nighmare run on D:E (all unsuccesful, sadly :c), but I really don't think that this "challenge → mastery → fun" applies to every game, and specially, everyone. Pathless and Journey offer no challenge whatsoever (unless you choose to), and both are amazing games imo, no matter how you play.
I think he’s more referring to the fact that they are aiming terrible criticism at great games simply because they’re not engaging with it. You can dislike a game but realise it’s just not for you, and is actually well designed. Instead these people throw hollow criticisms at a game that they just don’t know shit about.
@@megashark1013 Which is a very ironic statement considering his stance on DMC5.
@@megashark1013 have you seen mayos ultra kill review? He does the exact same thing
So glad you highlighted re remake. Game is damn near perfect.
I wish I liked REmake. I know the game is great... I just kind of hate the Crimson Heads. Going around needing to burn the enemies before they turn is too tedious for me personally and it genuinely ruined things for me.
That being said, I do intend to give the game another shot at some point because I legit want to enjoy it like everybody else haha. We'll see though.
Tbh, I need to beat the 3 classic RE games at some point. For some reason, of the Classic style RE games, I've only beaten RE0 lmfao.
@@amarntsitran3406 Weird, RE0 is way more tedious in every other aspect.
On the Crimson Head point, it's really just there to test your resources and map knowledge. I never found it tedious though because the game tells you through the scarcity of oil that there's flat out not enough to burn every zombie. Just elevated the original game for me, adding another system where you have to pick and choose who you kill or who to burn. Actually made me wary of dead zombies.
That being said you can always go for the risk strat of aiming your shotgun up, waiting for a zombie to lumber over, and detonate their head during their grab animation.
Also 1, one Crimson Head alone is no problem if you can wait for them to get close and put them down with a shotgun blast, real glass cannons.
RE4 is my favourite RE game, now and possibly forever, but RE1 is essentially a perfect game. I had it sitting on my console for years and after finally getting into it, probably beat it 9 times inside a week.
You should definitely check it out again.
Never finished 0. I like the re lore and 0 makes no sense when you look at Becca Chambers. All 0 had to be was a series of side content chronicling the start and end of each bravo on that fateful night.
It's all about "flow." It's the state a person reaches when their entire focus is and attention is on the game they're playing and they enter a complete state of awareness on what's around them. Tetris and Doom: Eternal are two such games.
I can't believe this type of analysis is still needed... but it is, so thank you for taking your time to make this video and your whole channel! Keep it coming!
In my opinion, the thing with Devil May Cry 5 difficulty options is that it can be quite different depending on person. DMC5 was existing in age where storydriven and openworld games are being mainstream. Developers had to understand old fans opinions on improvement from older games and also wanted to have new comers for the series. So unlike DMC3, considered best one of the DMC series (which is really challenging with very first beginning of series' story and I really recommend Mayo), they decreased some contents of mainly high difficulty and platforming sections for other gamers who want to enjoy in the Hack n' Slash games outside of their familiar ones. Unlike series like God of War, DMC series does not actually have amazing story telling outside of DMC3 so gameplays mechanics and creativity of playable characters were being considered as main priority and so they were being perfected to current limit as in DMC5, thus, devolution and changes in OSTs, camera, enemies' AI, level designs, platforming, usable items, etc and especially challenges within their system and mechanics were inevitable considering what I said above.
Also It was not like developers not believing in their players on difficulty, it was just that they decided for majority opinions on video games enjoyment. A game like Sekiro being amazing overall, even getting GOTY made some people mad and a lot of people not playing just with an excuse of being hard because they had different ways of enjoying videogames. Also an example like that one Doom Eternal review where the reviewer complained about game's difficulty while he was playing on Ultra Violence as an average player was also the reason why the developers decided for only letting two easiest difficulties when starting the game.
(btw sorry for my bad English, not my first language and these were just my personal response to Mayo's opinion on DMC5 although I had already watched two of his videos about the game so peace)
They could've just let people choose son of Sparda on their first playthrough. The new and casual fans could've picked devil hunter and the people who wanted a challenge could've picked SOS. It doesn't make sense why they didn't even do that at the least.
@@braxxonlive3186 look at doom eternal it had expert difficulty which was available for the players from the beginning and people who were not bad players were certainly not enjoying it's overwhelming challenge and because of that they kept complaining that the game is bad. I know it is dumb to play on nightmare on the first playthrough but people nowdays have huge ego problem and think that they can play the game on any difficulty and even then they will still manage to enjoy the game on that difficulty without learning the game's mechanics. So I think DMC 5 is the way it is to prevent such fools from getting their butt kicked on higher difficulty. Sure the game could have been more enjoyable on the first playthrough if they would have not gave the players a hundred thousand red orbs from the beginning as it would have pushed the players to play more stylish for those much needed upgrades.
@@debashisprasadjena5075 I agree that the solution i previously said isn't the best one for this problem. There's a solution that I realized after playing the reboot and dmc5. They could make a new difficult in between devil hunter and son of Sparda. The reboot has this and its called nephelim. That's not the only problem with dmc5's difficulty though.
The problem comes from the orb system also and the revive system. The revive system in the game is absolutely fucked because you get yellow orbs for simple things like logging into the game. You can also revive with red orbs (with the 100k orbs from the start you can unlock all the moves you need to win and the rest can go into revives). If they revert the revive system to back how it was in every other dmc game (at least dmc4 and reboot) and add an in between difficulty it would really help the game.
@@debashisprasadjena5075 braindead opinion
As someone who loves Titanfall 2, I can confirm. Nothing about the campaign pushes you into its movement systems. I learned it all from UA-cam. I still love the options, but it makes me question why they bothered to include such systems if they were never going to teach you them. The only time I think they teach some is in respwaning tips in multiplayer. Kingdom Hearts 2 is also notorious for not teaching the player anything. It has one of the lowest skill floors, and yet an amazing skill ceiling. But only the highest difficulty somewhat pushes you into the systems.
i didnt like much of mayo's titanfall 2 video but i see where he is coming from. the campaign was mainly made by the devs to just HAVE an actual single player campaign, which the first titanfall lacked. it was because the first titanfall was primarily a multiplayer pvp game with some multiplayer campaign missions. regardless, i think we can both agree that tf2's campaign implementation could've be way better, and i don't want to get into the why, as mayo and you explained it already. but the fact that he wasnt a multiplayer guy already put the game at a disadvantage for the review, as the campaign was most likely put in with love but not too much of detail put in gameplay, which hurts the experience. honestly his titanfall 2 video would've been fine if he called the campaign bad but also put time into the multiplayer, its like ignoring half of the entire game, which made me feel like his video was half of a review if you know what i mean.
sorry for the tangent, i went off topic but i do agree with you, titanfall 2's a wonderful game but its campaign really puts a dent in it, despite how cool some of the missions are
Hopefully if Titanfall 3 is ever made they can actually make a campaign which pushes the player to actually use the movement.
"You want everything to be DOOM Eternal" This... I've been watching Mayo for quite a while now and if someone was to actually have this criticism I don't think they actually watched his videos.... that's just... unbelievably ignorant.
A good example I can think of this is AD&D vs new editions. AD&D had a Parley mechanic that would allow players to talk/barter/reason their way out of a potential fight. This was important because a single hit could kill you and you had to choose your fights carefully. In newer editions combat is much more forgiving and there are more systems in place to prevent player death. Which ends up making combat just shoot them in the chest until they die. It's interesting how the idea of challenge has changed and permeates gaming culture in different ways. Excellent video as well, by the way.
I kinda agree with you in the case of DMCV, but I don`t think that it isn`t bad to lock higher difficulty. These Character Action Games usually have an arcade approach, relatively short gameplay time but with the high-replayability structure. Higher difficulty was given by beating the lower difficulties, so the new challanging itself was a reward to players. Rank system is similar, you would take the skin or special item on higher rank, but you don`t aim higher rank just for that. For example, When I play these kind of games, I blast through the normal mode and play more confidently on hard mode. If I got stuck in some point on hard, then I would go back to normal and try to get S ranks. So, In general, I think that this approach has its own merits, especially to short games.
DMCV is, though, the bad case of execution for this type of approach. Its normal mode was realtively easy even in the standard of DMC series. It is almost ten years from DMC 4(except for spin-off/reboot), And the environment around gaming was changed. So I guess that devs want to make it more accessible to anyone and lower the normal difficulty... But this was not a good descision if you make the arcarde feeling games. The real accesibilty comes from the clear description to skills or enemies like Doom Eternal, not lowering the difficulty. Maybe it makes more people to try the game, but they would not remain longer and wouldn`t get the potential of the game.
I think it is a bad idea when your highest starting difficult option is a version of the game that requires no attention or learning of anything.
for the Titanfall 2 part, may i recommend playing the game on master. this is where the game forces you to enjoy its mechanics as enemies can 2 shot you, if your not moving wall running or fast the enemies will just hit you. its a completely different game at this level and is 100% more fun, i promise you
you can no longer just run into a room and blast people as you will get mown down
going out of your way to search for powerful weapons in hard to reach spots is extremely beneficial
stalkers terrify you with their beefy health and danger up close while they constantly and steadily hunt you down
reapers are feared with their deadly missiles and ability to close long distance in a single just, as well as kill you with one hit
combat scenarios require quick thinking and constant movement, as well as planning if you do not wish to be obliterated, this is where the game puts the challenge into making you learn its mechanics.
i recently platinumed the game on ps4 and can confirm i played the campaign completely differently when the difficulty ramped up, its the definitive way to play the game and i emplore you to try it
I played a good chunk of the game on Master for my third playthrough and found it to be a pretty similar experience. And it's not that Master makes the AI better. You just get sniped faster for more damage so you have to be more cautious. It's like Uncharted difficulty. That was my experience.
@@underthemayo thats fair enough, i guess in my case i only tried master after over 200 hours on the multiplayer when i was a master at the movement, so my brain instantly reacted with full use of the movement system, i can see the games flaws and lack of enemy types is definitely one of them.
still waiting for titanfall 3, maybe they'll make another brilliant game that makes you use the movement system beyond getting from one arena to the other.
i guess the dificulty is in the multiplayer where if your still and slow, good players will blast you as they fly by at mach 3, that is what made me learn and get good
(btw im a huge fan and you alone are the reason i platinumed doom eternal and made myself learn enough to complete both the main game and DLC on ultra nightmare. thank you)
@@SuperSocks7 I'm down for a titanfall 3 for sure!
I remember, as a kid in the 90s, that I expected serious challenge from every game. Was even kinda scared when playing for the first time :)
Same. I remember being scared of the spider boss in zelda ocarina of time
I think this whole conversation comes down to player’s taste. Some are extrinsically motivated and need challenge to connect with a game. While other are more intrinsically motivated, they’ll engage with the mechanics for the sake of it. They’re coming for the power fantasy. There are exceptions and players in between. If you look at games you criticize for not challenging you into the mechanics, you’ll find players still doing so. Especially DMC 5 on a first playthrough.
One of the reasons I like monster hunter is the fact that the game really just start of simple allowing you to explore the systems and see them at first, but from the moment the difficulty spike hits you really are put to the test of knowledge with it. MHW didn't do this as good, but the expansion's first monster had some people surprised by what it actually could test you on for what is a fish. And the post game content having monsters that cover easy to abuse mechanics and weaknesses from monsters before brings it up a whole other level.
Yeah, the difficulty spike in Monster Hunter: World was pretty big when I was hit in it. I remember going through the entire main story and beating the final boss without failing a mission by fainting 3 times once in the entire run. Then the post game content immediately started kicking my ass repeatedly. On the one hand, it was frustrating, because I had been convinced that I was really good at the game. On the other hand, it was exciting, because it was a great challenge.
Fuck Lunastra and Leshen though.
As someone who likes challenge and is also pro-accessibility, I absolutely agree that easy and hard difficulties and tweaks alike should be available out of the gate, and I would add that especially for games that use their challenge to help tell their stories such as horror games and Soulslikes, free midgame difficulty changing is a must so someone who doesn't want to be overly taxed can briefly try for real and "get the point", then dial things down to stand a chance. Don't forget to plop the mark of shame on their save tho. :
You are right. After many hours playing Doom Eternal the way it was meant to be played, I tried the multiplayer with my chilhood friends who gave up on hard games... Hearing them screaming: " ruuunnnn, ruuuunn, he is coming for you!!" was just awesome for the ego....
nice
I agree that challenge is good, but i disagree that every game needs to force challenge on a player in order to elicit mastery. Devil May Cry is the game where I think your assessment is patently wrong. The reason why the game kind of low balls you in terms of challenge is because the game doesn't actually want difficulty to stop forward progression in the storyline, in makes it a point to patronize you for playing poorly but it accepts the fact that if you want to mash, you can mash, and if your goal is to simply see the story to the end it's fine with being a light hearted anime episode with few roadblocks. In past devil may cry games no where was this design philosophy more obvious than with consumables. They offer you a system to completely trivialize any fight through farming currency, and as a trade off for progression they tank your style score. Now the new DMC has no consumable but it's evidence that the game was never EVER interested in gating players because they couldn't demonstrate mastery. Even in Mario, you say some stars are easy but other are hard but the game doesn't require you to get every star to reach bowser, It is a perfectly acceptable playstyle to simply explore until you've found all the low hanging fruit and then beat bowser who is to be fair, pretty easy despite being the penultimate battle. The primary way DMC has always encouraged players to master the system was to have them set their own goals in getting good ratings and then providing the harder challenges in side areas and post campaign content. So to force YOUR criteria on a game and to call it a design flaw is probably a misrepresentation, you can claim that it made the experience less enjoyable for YOU but ultimately it was a calculated decision by Capcom. Look I'm not saying that illiciting mastery isn't a good thing, but to say that a game NEEDS to do it is to not understand the ultimate goals of the game your playing. Not only is mastery not necessarily the goal of the game it isn't really necessarily the goal of every player. So when people complain about the design of Darksouls or Doom Eternal it is definitely wrong of them to call the difficulty a flaw as you have so eloquently laid out in previous videos, but to even imply that the low difficulty attitude has ruined certain genres is the same bias simply pointed in the other direction. So do I think encouraging mastery is good design? Yes but do I beleive it is a necessary component to a good game, absolutely not.
Are you saying that there are no difficult stars in the path to 70 in sm64?
@@underthemayo yes and no, stars in SMB each require a different skill set to obtain, some require you to use sliding, other requires timing, others require aiming, no single star requires full mastery, and players who haven't mastered some skills are encouraged to go somewhere else and finish the ones they can accomplish, thus players can do the tasks they are competent at, thus stating which stars are "hard" is a bit of a fools errand because its different per player. Still at no time does the game require full mastery or even half mastery (imo) to complete what it deems to be the "core" experience. Now I wouldn't say that is true of Doom Eternal, i would say that doom requires minimum good mastery even on middling difficulties to complete its core experience. Thats why i say, SMB doesn't require mastery to complete and Doom Eternal does. Hope that helps.
I agree in some aspects. When you look at a game at a whole, you'll see how Mayo misses points and is set in his own biases. The design philosophy of DMC as a whole is similar to old arcade style of playing a game. Beat it once, it gets tougher. Amass a crowd to watch you play. This video is about challenge though, so his point stands when referring to starting difficulty. Son of Sparda would have been a nice starting point for returning players - story and a challenge would have been fun.
I do agree DMCV on Devil Hunter does not push you to use Nero's Exceed or Dante's style switching as much as it could. You can get by without Exceed and just using Trickster. Previous games in the series do this much better.
I do agree with you however, challenge can also come from your own personal goals. DMC appeals to me because I like choreography. When I play the game, I get to create unique set pieces. I have it in my head to not use the same move twice, not to get hit, base a combo around using a certain move, etc. I really just wanted to watch myself do cool things. Others too! Another part of the appeal is sharing your combos with others.
Story should never get in the way of gameplay though, especially when it comes to challenge, a good game has the story and gameplay in one singular cohesive vision. And even then, playing a game SOLELY for the story is like watching a movie SOLELY for the visuals, it's not the main reason you're there.
DOOM Eternal's challenge comes from the demons being relentless and varied in size, tactics, and abilities. Your low ammo capacity pushes you to weapon swap the right tool for the right demon, the mastery of the game involves managing and prioritizing threats, and if you choose to play Eternal a certain way, like how classic DOOM and 2016 DOOM allows you go throw whole levels using just one weapon, you're going to have a bad time because it's going to punish you.
DMC5 plays less like DOOM Eternal and more DOOM 2016, you can weapon swap combo in DOOM 2016 like in Eternal to look cool, but it's not required in order to beat the game. DMC5 is essentially the same way, you can look cool doing flashy combos, but it's not a requirement to beat the game, which is what Mayo points out in this video, makes the feeling of pulling off a long flashy combo feel fleeting. Imagine if the demons in DMC5 were just as dangerous and relentless as the ones in DOOM Eternal, THEN you'd actually have a reason to pull of stylish combos beyond just looking cool, because if you don't, you're fucked.
Besides, every game should have a hard mode unlocked at the start, it shows that the developers are confident in the player's ability to handle challenge. Guess what, Devil May Cry 3, both versions, had a hard mode unlocked at the start where the demons were dangerous and relentless.
Two wrong things at the same time:
1. The game patronizes you for playing poorly
2. If you want to mash you can mash
Sounds like a parent who is constantly disappointed in you yet gives no guidence in how to conduct yourself in life, let's you drink beer at the age of 11 and let's you eat candy for breakfast.
The moment I saw the title of the video I was like, yeah, he's gonna talk about doom eternal. I was not disappointed. 10/10 would like again (just like all his videos).
@@slobb2964 uh, I think you might be replying to the wrong comment, I didn't say anything about dark souls.
Oh. I guess he either deleted his reply, or I was hallucinating earlier...
@@Bloxwess well there's a name in your reply so I don't think you imagined it
Main reason I don't like fighting games, don't think any fighting game has ever taught me well enough nor forced me to engage with all the moves/systems, finding one move usually always breaks the AI for most of them and playing online is too difficult to ever learn. Most fighting game players exact you to spend hours in the training mode memorising them BEFORE you play, it's dumb.
That's because we kinda treat fighting games like a sport. Naturally, FG's are competitive. We want to prove we are better than our opponent. How can you be better than your opponent if they know TOD's, efficient BnB's, know their character/s inside out & learned the matchup when you barely know a quarter of what your character or even the games systems does?
Fighting games isn't for everyone but it's ignorant of you to say they're dumb for "going into training mode to memorise combos before you play," that's like saying Doom Eternal is dumb because there's too many weapons.
As for AI. Fighting Game AI differs between games but most of the time yeah they're bad & easy & don't help players push to become better. The only game I know that has excellent AI is Killer Instinct 2013 because you can create your own AI that learns FROM YOU! And then you can send that AI out to fight other players! That's so genius!
Thankfully having friends to play casually with gets rid of this problem mostly so....
@@suto9233 the difference is, doom forces engagement with all of the weapons and systems through well design enimies and levels...most fighting games do not, as mayo puts it, the average mario player wouldnt find mario 64 fun if all the stars were easily attainable because it wouldnt force them to engage with the fun parts of the game...thats most fighting games for me. a training mode existing as well as fun systems isnt enough to call your game fun if the game makes no effort to get you to engage with them
@@billyboleson2830 no...it doesnt...did you not watch the video?
@@RhysClark97 *works for me at least lol*
In all seriousness though I think there are some games with decent single player modes that are pretty fun that do tell you to learn the mechanics but it's not something that many games do. And for as much praise as MK story modes get I actually think they are pretty weak in the actual single player teaching the game aspect
Not to be that guy, but if you don't care about rank in DMC, you probably won't enjoy it regardless. And you have to play on normal the first time through because hard is based around having most skills unlocked, and understanding the combat and how to deal with all the enemies.
You're wrong. I played on hard and enjoyed it very much WITHOUT caring about rank at all. Because it was challenging and I had to play well.
Also, you're wrong about SOS because when you start it with all your skills you're overpowered and it's piss easy again for about half the experience. I should have had the option to play SOS immediately. Hell, they have a secret way for pros to get there right away. It should have been there for me too because while I was a DMC veteran, I am not a newbie to the genre at all.
@@underthemayo if you do get around to dmc3, there's a cheat you can put in at the menu that unlocks every difficulty from the start. It's also the hardest game in the series (and the best). I think you'd enjoy it
@@utuberz123456789 I'm definitely gonna get to dmc3 someday!
Alright, I gotta disagree with some of the statements made about DMC5 here, and maybe play devil's advocate for others. First up normal mode (aka Devil Hunter) is far more lenient with style ranking because your moveset is very barebones, and for first time players, you are just getting used to how Nero, Dante and V all play starting out and the ease of getting an S rank in style reflects that. I will also disagree that you can just "mash one button" to win, DMC2 this ain't, mashing one button will either get you bodied (especially trying that against Furies) or your style rank and end of level average will be crap. I will argue that while the game doesn't FORCE you to swap weapons, vary your attacks, etc the style meter is a good incentive to do so, especially with how DMC5 ties in its music with how high your style rank is. DMC5's normal is there to ease new or returning players into the game, but if anyone was a regular DMC player at the time of launch, or grasps how to play a stylish action game, of course normal's going to feel too easy.
On the subject of difficulty, I'm sure you've heard from people before how hard the original DMC3 was when it was released in the US. Make no mistake, it was incredibly hard, to the point that you could go on gamefaqs and see in the message boards that people returned the game because it was TOO hard. Very few people made it past Cerberus, and if they did, Agni and Rudra would stonewall them. So yeah DMC3 is why capcom has since been reluctant to make normal in DMC TOO challenging in 4 and 5. As an addendum I do however agree with, in respects to Vergil, all difficulties should have been available to him from the start, because for most players on X1/PS4/PC they've had all blue and purple orbs found, or at least most of them, and enough orbs to get just about all of his moves before even starting anything.
as for the 100k red orbs you get for either having the Deluxe edition pre-order or Vergil DLC, thats like, Enemy Step, Air hike and Nero's basic combos for red queen, not factoring in the staggering amount of orbs Dante needs, nor V's, or Vergils.
And also would add normal diffculty is on tutorial
Dmd is the real dmc, plus legendary dark knight if you have
The challenge is to maintain your style meter as high as possible in all encounters to make sure an s rank mission (though i miss how it was in dmc3)
Also theres an item that would deduct the total rank, a convenient item like healing and gold orbs, in which ironically not helpful to you as it will deduct your obtained red orbs
Also to incentivise you to regen your health is to earn dt, and by earning it is to have high style meter
And for contrary to what he said about the enemy, dmd is the real deal that would challenge you (though i kinda agree that some enemies are so easy to punish unlike in dmc3)
@@crisschan2463 he agrees on the fact that the enemies are difficult to fight on higher difficulties he was saying that they are too easy on normal.
@@debashisprasadjena5075 yeahbecause nornal is only tutorial
Though i agree that dmd should be unlocked inthe beginning (or just son of sparda diff with optional ldk mode)
@@crisschan2463 then what is easy. And do you want to say that the tutorial for DMC 5 is 10 hours long.
@@debashisprasadjena5075 its tutorial for veteran players (or i would say warm up) for casual players its normal for them
10:31
But the style meter DOES mean something, the higher your style meter gets the higher your ranking is at the end of each mission, the higher amount of red orbs you receive, and granted I found Normal to very easy as well, but I wasn't just button mashing because there are spongy enemies that need different combos to keep the style meter up, and there are enemies that counter you if you keep attacking them, like the Angelos or Death Scissors.
TBH I really think you should've started with DMC3, that game was infamous for being challenging, then you would've seen how the characters, stories, and combat would have progressed.
The ranking system has nothing to do with a players success in the game, rendering it meaningless and arbitrary. And the game gives you 100k orbs at start and floods you with additional orbs through the levels, so you can easily unlock all the moves you want without ever getting stylish combos. I know this because that was the entire 15 hour playthrough I had my first time.
@@underthemayo I get your point, but I still think you should have started on DMC3 instead of 5.
@@Shrapnel-qy4xi Then DMC5 would have been even MORE boring on the first playthrough because he would already have experience with the series.
How reliant are you on extrinsic reasoning in games? Because if a game is literally extremely easy yet it's fairly obvious the game is nudging you not to use crutches do you find it difficult to engage with the game in it's intended form?
Take DMC series, Wonderful 101 or Bayonetta (all technically cake walks if you believe score/style is meaningless), theres plentiful items to heal, nuke enemies and in the case of 101 it has a very convenient continue system.
I agree that challenge matters and that intentional design to push players to engage with the game is important however I think those expectations can start to break down a little when you get into highly expressive or arcade like games.
8:08 "If every star could be collected by ignoring the game's systems, the systems would have no reason to exist"
THAT is why we don't have the pistol on Doom Eternal, people. Stop asking for it.
The pistol was complete garbage in Doom 2016 and was widely hated. My brother literally cannot get into Doom 2016 because of the pistol.
The combo meter in DMC5 serves to get a S rank at the end of the mission, which gives you a great red orb bonus. Great vid tho
Orb bonuses don't mean anything on a first playthrough when the game gives you 100k free orbs and more orbs are all over the level. And thanks.
@@underthemayo I forgot about that. I think that was added after release? I got it anyways because of the pre-order bonus so nevermind
The Stylish Meter in Devil May Cry, or Platinum Games for that matter, is in itself a push into the game's systems.
S rank with items, forget it. Platinum rank in Bayonetta without finishing combat strings or using cover extensively in Vanquish, not a chance.
But those ranking systems function on an intrinsic level and this difference between intrinsic motivation contra extrinsic motivation is what you seem oblivious to.
Ask yourself, why did you create the Brawler Mode?
I still think that the core of the argument still stands, hard mode was locked out and it impacted his enjoyment of the game. Games should use multiple techniques to encourage the player to "find the fun" in a game, some people just want to have a high score, and some people want to flex on enemy's that kicked their ass i the past.
Yesterday I lost my u.n. Acient gods run because the blood punch doesn't work lol
I'll take a moment of silence for you.
F
That's one of the reasons why I love Super Metroid so much. The game is challenging and its platforming mechanics are all fun. Once I learned about wall jumping, I started incorporating it on my second playthrough and it gave me a faster completion time for 100% runs. It didn't stop there with stuff like the Mockball or quick Morph from a Wall Jump and it got even more enjoyable with each subsequent run.
It's why Super Metroid personally stands as one of the greatest games of all time for me. Learning the mechanics all led to me being a better player in platforming.
Yeah, everyone touts Metroid Prime as the best Metroid game. And while it’s excellent, I think Super Metroid is still the best.
"Super Metroid" is SO GOOD!
I had a discussion similar to this with a guy that was bumming on my couch. He would spend all day playing video games when I was working sixteen-hour days, he'd be on the same place on the couch not having moved all day and ordering take out delivery.
I asked him, admittingly when I was upset, "how the fuck do you play games for nine hours a day but still suck-ass at all of them?" He grumbled something about story arches, he was playing assassin's creed on easy.
This went on to me saying, "all you do is sit on your ass and play video games, and you're not even good at that one thing"
He didn't understand what I was getting at, but it was essentially that, at least get better at what you are doing, even if it is just sitting on your ass. I tried to give him books to read because I was getting pissed off at him lecturing me on story structure yet him being too lazy to read, and talking about 'hand eye coordination' but sucking at all the games.
He'd play a game for twelve hours and complain that he didn't get his monies worth so now he has to buy another game, and its like, bro you are literally fucking homeless and stealing my food- you do not need to buy another game, just replay it on hard or normal.
I beat him at COD, which I don't play or really enjoy, he thought he would win but then he got all pissed off and finally moved out of my home when he got a stimulus check.
Forgot what my point is, but people that play games 12+ hours a day but only on easy are the same people that are homeless, order take-out and steal your ravioli despite you offering fresh beans. They are missing out on the best part of life, always improving.
Next time someone bums on my couch and only plays video games, I am challenging them at the end of each week for them to continue staying there. They don't even have to beat me, just show some semblance of improvement and not steal my food without first trying the fresh beans.
Man, play Sekiro shadows die twice.
it's a more mechanical and fast paced Dark souls with high difficulty, but with high reward.
Sekiro is brilliant. The game pushes you to its systems even more than Dark Souls. Either get good at parrying or die.
Hey Mayo, in terms of challenge and difficulty, whats your take on valkyrie fights in GOW 2018, specifically the Sigrun fight?
Valkyries are a joke because the game is so broken by the out of control RPG leveling mechanics. I mashed and spammed runic attacks through them all except Sigrun which I had to pay attention in. New Game + significantly improves the Valkyrie fights and they were all fun, the only fun fights in the entire game because you actually had to learn the game.
@@underthemayo Thanks for the feedback. I completely get the point, RPG elements ruined the challenge in gameplay there.
BTW i started Doom Eternal last May and ended up playing it all year, even today. Initially there were so many points where i just thought to give up but your channel kept me motivated. Currently in my Nightmare run at Taras Nabad and getting my ass kicked daily, but man its so fun and addictive now.
@@underthemayo Runic Attacks have 15-30 second cooldowns. Even on the best cooldown and Runic builds, they still cannot be spammed like you imply.
I disagree with DMCV, the reward for engaging with the systems is getting to hear the kick-ass music
I get that to some degree. It works that way in metal hellsinger.
11:19 With Dante you can pop in and out of Sin Devil Trigger with an SSS rating so there is a reason to keep it that high because being flashy rewards you with quick bursts of insane damage.
Also higher rank makes yout DT recharge faster.
I like mayo but whenever he starts talking about dmc its best to just tune out what hes saying.
@@tomholt1080 Agreed. He's good at reviewing Doom but I noticed he's a bit off when reviewing other games.
@@tomholt1080 Nope, that's not true.
DMCV's biggest sin is starting out so easy.
DMC3 was infamous when it first came out in the states, DMC4 even had some pretty tough spots.
this is exactly my beef with many shit mmos, (warframe). All the players just wanna grind grind grind, and all the devs want that too as it takes less effort, no one want actual challenge, and therefore you get a game where the optimal strategy is just repeating the same move that does the most amount of damage. No challenge, just optimization. RIP warframe. I never loved you, but i did kinda like you
Yeah, I feel this one. This might be a big reason why I often find myself bouncing off of RPGs and MMOs.
I used to really enjoy Assassin's Creed but since Black Flag that series has felt super empty to me. The combat became brain-numbingly easy in Black Flag, same with Brotherhood tbh which I think makes them massively overrated (among other things). And now, newer AC games are all about the hollow grind and I just can't stomach it. I have a clip of me attacking a single basic enemy for nearly 3 minutes straight on AC:Origins only for me to die in 1 hit and his health was down maybe like a third. Don't give me action combat if my skill doesn't matter in a fight is what I say lmao. I wish I enjoyed the new ones. I wanna play as a cool buff female Roman or Viking warrior but I know I'll hate those games after like one session.
Here's the thing about MMOs, and it's something even Hugo Martin talks about, and how he actually likes it: power through progression. Hugo is a big Destiny player, and he likes that system, but it's just not what they wanted to make with Doom Eternal.
Also, in the specific case of warframe, I say this as an MR30 player with over 4k hours in the game--the LAST thing I want DE to start doing is adding "challenge" to the game...not because I think challenge is bad, but because DE is _utterly incompetent_ at implementing it, and they have no idea how to distinguish "challenge" from "obnoxious difficulty walls". In DE's case, they need to stay in their lane and leave warframe as a relatively mindless power fantasy. And no, that power is not "unearned"--you just earn it through time invested and understanding of the modding and upgrading systems rather than mechanical skill.
sad thing is there was a time in warframe's history that dealing damage was not all that mattered. Back when raids where a thing you had to cooperate with your team and mainly use crowd control instead of just killing everything, nightmare lor was the best mission warframe had and they removed it just so they could add generic ubisoft open worlds. in 2016-17 loki was considered the best frame without having a single dmg dealing move because he had great crowd control and could avoid dmg with invisibility, also frames like nyx and vauban and other CC frames were actually useful raid frames but with no raids damage was the only thing that mattered and the devs always adding enemies that where immune to CC after that didnt help. I still remember about two years ago before i quit when i was in an interception mission and two people made fun of me for using nyx, which was my favorite frame. Even in a mission where you have to stall the enemies instead of killing them, CC is still inferior to damage, dont know how the devs failed their own game so hard
@@Apothamos The fact that you used raids, or "trials", as an example of "good old days" of warframe is revealing. Those were removed for a reason. They were SO broken and SO buggy that even DE, who are _notorious_ for releasing broken and buggy content, decided it was too much. They absolutely sucked to play. Finicky mechanics, bugs, 8 player P2P hosted squads _(SHUDDERS),_ not to mention the fact that they almost entirely were "ignore the enemies and do brain-dead puzzles that only worked about 50% of the time" missions.
And no, CC will never be a thing in warframe anymore as long as the numbers stay the way they are. It is impossible to make a "balanced" game where the difference between an unmodded weapon and a well-modded weapon is LITERALLY 5-6 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE. Everything is either "overpowered" or "useless", and the band between those two things may be no more than 10 minutes of a survival mission, in which the enemies may literally gain 100 _times_ more health and damage due to how fast they level.
If you ever want a balanced game from warframe, then DE has to remake it literally from the source code up, because the core numbers to everything are completely untenable.
@@spamhere1123 yeah you right that cc will never be a thing again and that damage will always be king and that's why I quit the game two years ago as I said, despite having 1500hours and having bought multiple prime accessories as well as being MR24 with the max being around MR26 at the time. No new frame or weapon matters because my saryn or my mesa or any other frame that can nuke will be enough to complete any mission, all the variety warframe has now is meaningless, so there is no reason to grind for new stuff. Also another thing you ignored, DE keeps adding enemies that are immune to CC, like the drone in arbitrations which makes all CC focused frames worthless, it's not just the numbers, enemy design is also important, and DE has failed in that regard. The worst thing is how warframes don't compliment each other, in a co op game you would expect you would have a dmg dealer, an assist, a tank, etc. But in warframe all four players will be dmg, no synergy at all, that's where raids shined, everyone had a purpose. The loki would hack the terminals, the vauban would cover others with his CC and the trinity would give energy and health.
The fact that raids were the best thing warframe had to offer (that wasn't fashionframe at least) is a testament about how shallow the game is, I'm not saying they were flawless. Also I mentioned nightmare lor specifically because that was actually hard to complete and required coordination, someone getting knocked of a pad at the second mission of the raid and you would fail. The base lor and the archwing raid where much easier but that was a way for new players to learn the raid, I wouldn't want a raid noob on nightmare lor.
Also a few things you point out are rather unfair, 8 player raid? No one who knew what they were doing would do a raid with more than 5 people and for nightmare lor 4 was even better, because less people, less enemies would spawn. The reason raids were removed wasn't because they were buggy, they removed them because they weren't popular and the reason for that was that arcanes at the time were not explained at all, they didn't even have their own slot, you would attach them to cosmetics and anytime you wanted to switch syandana you would have to remove the arcane with a distiller from syndicates you were rank 5 in for 50k. So because casuals didn't even know arcanes were a thing raids were something most didn't even know existed.
Finally, I really can't tell if you are trying to defend the current state of warframe, because you acknowledging that stuff is either useless or op tells me that you know warframe's game design is really bad
At this point mayo should start ending his videos with "Thank you for coming to my ted talk"
I've seen more and more comments/videos saying that a game is 'hard for the sake of being hard'. It's like people don't even want to be challenged and just want a movie. It's like they don't understand what makes video games fun
When is Skyrim 2 coming out Todd?
I love how you named that dude "Toad's Stool" in the youtube cut in. Love the feeling that goes into this man's videos.
Doom Eternal was a transformative experience for me. I started out on Nightmare and my god, the game was harder than I thought games were allowed to be anymore. This wasn't like those RPGs I played where I'd finish the game with enough leftover elixirs to fill up a swimming pool, or those shooters where I could just use any gun I felt like as they're all the same: I was amazed at how the game pushed me to use every single bit of my arsenal, because if I didn't, I'd be dead. Playing the game was such an intense experience at times, I'd get so hot it felt like I had a fever: in some ways, I like to think of it as the game burning away all those silly habits, those parasitic sicknesses of modern casual game design that were so embedded in me, and finally giving me a proper challenge to let loose. Lots of games make you cry from giving you sappy, emotional stories, but nothing made me cry tears of joy more than ripping and tearing through two Cyberdemons at the same time.
Anyway, thank you for the great videos
I think thats more of a perspective thing rather than an actual problem the game has.
Specifically, with DMC5, sure you don't need to do sick combos or learn how to enemy step, juggle, dodge and at the same time manage DT, health and charges. But its an option available for those who want to take the game to that next level. On Dante must Die difficulty these options become essential to actually make it through the game.
The analogy you used for DMC5 could also be applied to something like doom eternal, where I didn't need to learn weapon combos or quick switching or any of the semi high level stuff to get through the game on Nightmare (this was base Doom Eternal right after release), and I had a pretty smooth experience with it. But if I wanted to take it to that level, I had the option to do so.
I think a good game makes it so that it introduces the basic game mechanics, and then allows the player to experiment and build on that. To use DMC5 as an example, you get introduced to new enemy types that require different approaches, new weapons, Devil Triggers, abilities and so on. Then once you finished the game the first time through, the next difficulty setting lets you apply what you learnt on beefier enemies that spawn more frequently, and as a result you are encouraged to build upon what you learnt. It shouldn't be an inherently bad thing if the game was too easy at the start.
The biggest issue with these types of debates, is that fun is an extremely subjective thing. It can be applied to anything, and can vary differently from person to person. Something that was boring for you, might have been fun for others, and vice versa. They might find quick switching and weapon combos boring, while you find it fun. To quote Mauler; "shitting on the street with your friends can be considered fun".
He is not asking the normal difficulty to be more challenging, he is asking why they didn't make the higher difficulties available from the beginning.
no, its a game problem
accept it
As you have rightfully said, challenge level is subjective. One person's easy is another person's impossible.
Well, what constitutes fun - can also be very subjective. And in the world of videogames that's not a "can be",
that's a fact. And yet if we look deeper, so eventually the whole challenge thing comes down to four elements:
a margin of error, a degree of cheapness, a mastery factor and a reset factor.
How many mistakes before having to retry, - the player agrees with. How complex is the mastery. How easy can
the player be faltered and finally, - in the case of failure - how much of the already-cleared level content will the
player have to repeat. Putting these together in a matter that is scalable for every player level - is what constitutes
an intelligent design. And not putting these well together - makes it an ignorant or elitist design. As simple as that.
I'll give Mortal Shell as a excellent example of a proper approach to design. I do know a thing or two about this game.
I finished it many times and even made several very helpful video guides for it, which are well-liked.
At a default-ish path, using the starting character - the game appears pretty unforgiving. Two mistakes - and you die.
Recovery from mistakes is by far not straightforward, as the mechanics of healing in that game are rather tricky.
But at the same time, you can locate and take over as another player character, who allows you much, much more
than the measly two mistakes. Suddenly, the game starts to open up and the player does not feel incompetent.
You are still not immortal or anything remotely like that (Mortal Shell is not one of those games), but you can try
stuff and make conclusions and learn. You can have fun and not worry that a wrong click in a wrong place and it's
back to square one.
Then after some while, you get a grip on what works and what doesn't and you venture to try other characters -
and explore their advantages and unique traits, whether you end up liking them or not. Eventually, you settle for
the level of challenge that you are comfortable with. Whether you like to be a "glass cannon", or if contrarily - you
find the concept of zero margin of error as a pinnacle of the ridiculous and you want a solid base to fall upon, or
maybe you take a middle ground, or perhaps switching all of the above according to the situation.
Whatever the player chooses, all options are ALWAYS on the table. Unforgiving, forgiving, middle ground.
Always there. And that's the difference between an intelligent design of difficulty and a niche videogame fetish.
The games would be wise to push a SKILLED player into its systems, but they would be even wiser to
provide enough steps for a beginner to get to the said skill. That is IF and only IF the player expresses
a desire to go that way in the first place. The original Doom games (yeah, the 1993) did that very well.
A player choosing the easiest difficulty - didn't need to worry about a thing. As the settings were cranked
up, - the enemy numbers increased and more dangerous monsters would appear earlier and more often.
Less ammo, less health, more aggressive enemies with a quick reaction time and higher damage.
A player could choose the EXACT amount of Doom that one needed. Exact. Same thing in Hexen II and
in many other golden age FPS games.
I play Hexen II exclusively on max setting, as i love the balance that it provides and can't imagine it otherwise.
My friends play on normal and say that i am a masochist because i have to do all the micro-management, count
shots and "survive on peanuts". And i say that they are the masochists - because they deprive themselves of the
non-stop action fun with tough meaningful encounters which cannot be just clicked through and dismissed, while
mistakes are limited and costly.
So who's right?! We all are in our own way. Each player should get exactly what he needs from a game,
not less and not more. What for someone is "not enough", - will be "too much" for someone else.
That doesn't mean that both cannot enjoy a game. But each in their own way and degree of challenge.
God damn
One of the games I would most certainly praise for its systems is Batman: Arkham Knight. The combat is engaging, stylish, and encourages use of its many, many systems in order to eliminate an entire room of enemies as swiftly and efficiently as possible. Even on the easy difficulty, you will absolutely die if you just button mash, especially later on.
Batman: Arkham Knight is an interesting game because it’s combat is hyper focused on the player. The actual design of most of the enemies you fight in Batman: Arkham Knight are extremely simplistic, with almost all of them having 1 to 2 attacks with only a few variants. What makes the combat so compelling is how much the PLAYER can do. The enemies are extremely simplistic, but the sheer number of different things you as the player can do makes it incredibly fun to fight the. They are more a blank canvas of combat for you to go to town with in a million different colours.
It’s the polar opposite to Dark Souls, where the player’s moveset and abilities are small and simplistic, but the enemies have a multitude of different attack combos and variety. Then there’s games like Doom: Eternal that combine both complex enemy designs with giving the player a huge number of options.
I was a bit surprised to see God of War 2018 featured when you talked about open world games, because THAT is a game that demands you interact with its systems, particularly in regards to the Valkyrie fights in the game. Those very much provide a challenge and require you to be on top of your gear, switching between Leviathan and the BoC, timing your dodges of all their moves, etc.
You should probably browse his channel, you'll find his opinion about GoW 2018 quite... Interesting to say the least.
He doesn't like that game
this is one of the best videos about game i have ever seen
You should see his elden ring disaster stream. That video exposes what he really thinks about challenging games. It's a direct contradiction to this video.
Dark souls would be a good example, especially if you mention Bloodborne after it since most people think its effectively the same game, but approaching it that way will be really hard to get through
Yeah, Bloodborne is all about controlled aggression while Dark Souls is all about careful defense. Both games encourage tactical thinking, but in entirely different ways.
@@megashark1013 ive always played all of them mostly aggressive including elden ring
This is true, but RE1 Remake REALLY made me feel confused, however as you said I memorized everything after searching the next key items *For hours* it took me more than 10 hours to beat Jill's story and I Freaking played on easy, how was I supposed to know 2 was easy? terrible difficulty setting if you ask me, at least after that the game blatantly says normal-easy-hard yadayada, i'm doing Hard with chris now. Having a blast. I can say for sure challenges are way better, "Cinematic" casual games made me VERY rusty, though I do not like online competitive games lol. I prefer to master singleplayer games.
Have you played Ultrakill?
It sucks that you can’t enjoy titanfalls multiplayer. That’s where you find the true challenge. You start off thinking it’s just another call of duty but then you learn advanced movement systems like slide hopping and throwing yourself across the map with a grappling hook.
Titan resource management cool down. The time to kill isn’t as high as COD so there’s more of a cat and mouse gameplay for both pvp and pvt.
So yeah the challenge you where hoping for is in Multiplayer and the pilots are unpredictable.
Yup, tf2 is one of my all time favorite games and a game i play on a weekly basis...that beeing said, the Story is Nice for the Story and scenery, but trash for its gameplay and replay value, straight up garbage. Its all about styling and vibing with the movement in multiplayer, soaking in the Chaos and mayhem while creating unique gameplay moments on the fly.
If under the mayo sees this, check out the UA-camr "PaperCut2U"
He is a Titanfall 2 UA-camr that in my opinion is a Great guy to Show the dept of the tf2 Combat and movement. A true Master of the grapple but a bit tame on the movement at times IMO
It really sucks that lobbies on Tf2 are mainly dead, so I can basically only play the campaign missions that I really like so much I can play them over and over again (effect and cause)
Somebody knows the song that is playing when is talking about mario 64 ?
Holy shit I just checked your subscribers and you're at almost 70K
I remember subbing when I saw one of your, maybe even your first doom eternal video, you had like 19K I think and it was an amazing watch, your takes in games are very interesting and I totally agree that games should be challenging and kinda encourage us to find out how amazing it can really be, not just "me press button, I like cutscene"
I hope you'll reach 100K soon
Doesn't the higher style rank you have in DMC give you more orbs like god of war?
Yes, but you're already given a shitton of orbs right at the start of the game, so it doesn't matter.
@@megashark1013 it still matters since it isn’t enough to unlock everything (I think the 100k given to players who bought the game at full price is enough for maybe one of Dante’s styles). It’ll take until end of SoS for most players to have everything
Game journalsists and crybabies : ion see nothing
One of the first things i learned about game design, and i didnt even take a class, is that if you have a mechanic, you cant forget it. For example, a hat in time has a bunch of different hats with wierd abilities. Aside from the first hat, which just shows you the way to go, all hats are used all the time. Except also the time stop hat which is used once because its so late game some people might get it after beating the final boss.
The one game that kept popping up in my head while watching this video was Diablo 3. That game is so braindead it's like minesweeper but there are no mines on the field. You just click stuff. Diablo 2 on the other had is so easy to completely fuck up for your self when you don't understand the games mechanics.
What's the game being shown around 15:22 to 15:24 ? I recall seeing it at an acquiantance's house years ago, and that gimmick of switching between timelines (iirc) seemed pretty cool :)
Despite being 17, I grew up with sm64, DOOM, and Halo. I'm glad I did. My dad had a couple of softmodded Xboxes that had many emulators. If sm64 wasn't my most played game of the time it was a close second to Halo. But then when I got minecraft I stopped playing literally everything else for a few years lol.
What's your opinion on style meter being a dmg multiplier? 👀
Would be great if it were balanced, and I think it would also be cool to have style points unlock cosmetics.
There is actually a difficulty mode like that kind of, but only in the special edition release of the Reboot where you can only deal damage at S rank or higher
@@billyboleson2830 That's bold! Cool that there's a mode for that. I think some people in the comments think I just want the game to be "harder" as in the enemies are harder to kill etc. But really, you could take the normal devil hunter difficulty and fix it just by making the style meter important for upgrades like in the classic god of war. So it could still be easy and mashy, but there would still be real incentive for playing well.
@@underthemayo Yeah combo it with Hardcore mode and God's Must Die mode and it becomes arguably the hardest DMC game to date. Sadly this is all console exclusive
I think Ninja Gaiden and GOW do it well where your rewarded for playing better or using the mechanics. Because in those games you really feel the difference between having no upgrades and having them
Weirdly, I associate so much of this with my gradual migration from arcade racing games through "simcade" and towards sim. Yes I can bang round the circuits almost on auto-pilot, with some neat rewind mechanics if I bin it, or just restarting the stage, but I've found I just get bored now. I'll never forget my first Dirt Rally "monthly" race where about 20 stages in out of 24, I rolled off a bridge and had to retire. A couple of hours of driving time over the course of a month gone because I made a small mistake 10 minutes into a stage. It was brutal, but it got me to understand that I had to get better, take it seriously, and find that zone just below "all out" and sit there. I still made mistakes, I still crashed straight after a service, and had to do the next 2 night stages with no light pod and only 1 headlight that went out if I braked too hard, but I had to learn.
About DMC5
I think the problem is DMC3
when it came out in 2005 a LOT of people were complaining about not even being able to go through Cerberus
that's why they made the SE a few months later
That's so pathetic, cerberus was Chump Change
@@melvingenao550 In SE
@@andreadebernardis4390 on both
Tbh, Doom Eternal doesn't push the players to get to the fun zone. Yeah, you get to use the weak points mechanics, but that's it. On normal, you won't even have to switch your key bindings and do quick swaps to win. I feel like many more people could have kept playing, if they knew about the "Doom dance". That's about the only criticism I have about the game.
It totally does. It hits hard, pushing you into flame belch and active health management. The ammo is low to encourage weapon switching. Weak points encourage mod switching. Platforming and arena design encourage movement. The whole first 4 levels of the game are about showing you the importance of the systems and how the fun zone works.
@@underthemayo maybe you're right after all. I don't remember getting into the fun zone in my first playthrough on normal, but I remember that I enjoyed the game enough to start a new game on a harder difficulty. :)
You know, I feel like Sekiro does a really good job of encouraging the use of its mechanics as well as punishing those who neglect them.
This entire video is subjective. The initial question of “if there’s no incentive to play better except for high scores, would people do it?”, the answer is yes. There are millions of people whose fun is derived largely from that. Needing the game to mechanically force the player to learn and engage with the mechanics for them to be satisfying is a personal problem, not a universal truth.
Whats the music called that plays in the background at the beginning?
Always ask that myself it just sets such a great atmosphere
Style meter definitely matters with Dante, Triple S means being able to dip in and out of Sin Devil Trigger without depleting the entire meter; you can incorporate this otherwise cool down meter move at will whenever you want as long as you play well which leads to increased damage output in the challenging parts of the game. This is huge incentive to me; with Nero and V, your devil trigger replenishes with style metter being consistently high. Vergil, the DLC character, is entirely dependent on style because his systems increase in power relative to his style ranking.
I agree that Devil Hunter mode is easy, at least for me it was. You yourself do assume that all players will find it easy, but I agree with you there generally. But this game Largely incentivizes you to play again and again, as you continue to unlock new mechanics and abilities even after your second playthrough. And on those higher difficulties, you absolutely have to make use of the games systems/mechanics and change up your play style. There is no way you'll get through DMD mode mashing buttons and just doing whatever.
So that's just it, I'd argue that the first thing the game is incentivizng is to replay it, which then leads to the game incentivizing use of complex systems. And the rank system is euphoric, the game is letting you know how great you're doing apart from the mechanics attached to it which I mentioned. On top of the encouragement, DMC 5's animations and presentation when pulling these high level combos off is endorphin heaven. I do love Doom Eternal. Like ALOT. But whats stopping a player from playing on an extremely easy difficulty where the game's systems are made arbitrary? Again, I agree, DMC 5 is pretty easy first playthrough but the game is letting you know how much more there is to see after i.e Nero's devil trigger and devil arm, i.e Dante's increased arsenal capacity, unlocking Double Katalina Ann, unlocking the other half of your move list.
Also, each system in this game, I would argue is reinforcing. Dante's Royal Guard when pulled off on time, leads to increased devil trigger and damage output. Nero's sword can be revved up to full capacity if you time the rev button perfectly after landing a hit, V (while not as fun) rewards you for staying closer to enemies while your familiar fight, which increases risk.
The game's skill ceiling is sky high and nobody can deny that, I think. In the end the game won't be for everyone, similar to Doom Eternal. But for those who give it the time, I find it crazy to think that you'd say this game doesn't reinforce the use of its best mechanic; the combat.
Good video as usual Mayo, but that DMC 5 slander is hurting my soul 😂
Sin devil trigger is introduced far into the game in the first playthrough, so it means something for a couple levels at the end at most.
@@underthemayo yeah but for bloody palace? Or for replays, which again, are encouraged? Anyone who learns how to use it effectively, via Dante's triple S, can incorporate it into combos and increase damage output by an insane margin. Literally can use it infinitely if you take advantage of that skill which is a direct reward for maintaining a triple S rank.
@@faybiel4956 you got the void for boosting your skills so even bloody palace is irrelevant
I found that to be the case with KOTOR.... during my first playthrough, there were certain areas where I would constantly struggle with and when I went to those same spots in my second playthrough on a harder difficulty, I found them not to be as bad as I remembered because I learned what to do in those situations
@@HK-07 observation: that is an accurate statement, meatbag
@@HK-07 i do too, my fellow meatbag.... and yes, technically a burrito is just a type of meatbag when you think about it XD
I'm studying game development rn, and I've sorta done this in a way in my projects.
For instance, I had to make a runner game (not endless though) and I had this dash ability. The fun in the game was jumping and dashing with good timing, it was cool. So my level design tried to force the player to do that, even though I also had to include slightly branching paths for an "easy" and "hard" mode, they both still encouraged players to dash a lot (it helped that I had an obstacle that needed the dash in order to defeat).
A big experience I had with this was in another project, where I had to make a hypercasual. The game concept I ended up on was a game about ramming cars on a highway, it's really good, and I'll probably end up taking that concept further. So, I initially had the player score be determined based on distance and the cars rammed, but then in playtesting I realised that this caused the players to actually avoid cars, because they saw the numbers tick up the longer they lasted. In order to fix this, I removed the distance and replaced it with number of rams, and added feedback for the point gained for every car rammed, which really helped to encourage players to ram cars rather than avoid them.
My lecturers have been sort of critical of me for my unyielding will to bend the players to my vision, but that's mostly because we are learning to make mobile games (before you scorch us, we're in Africa, mobile games will end up being the only way a lot of people experience games here) and such games can be deleted immediately. But I don't want to appeal to a huge casual audience if it doesn't align with what I and the game want the game to be.
All the best for your future work buddy! My dream is to become a game developer myself, and make triple A quality games with challenging systems like Doom Eternal no matter how much money I have.
@@GameJunkyard11 thank you! And good luck on your journey as well!
@@JanbluTheDerg thank you!
All right, this has been bugging me for a while but can you please let us know the name of the music used in the background? I love the ominous feeling it gives off and leaves a lasting impact when applied alongside your discussions.
You sir, need to do a video on Fromsoft's games. I know you're not a fan of souls games but even then, you've Sekiro which is drastically different from souls games. I say this because when tackling the whole difficulty and challenge aspects, Fromsoft need to be in the discussion.
I've got 500+ hours on TF2 and am just now learning to air-strafe, which has both been a really fun challenge to take on, and improved my mobility in multiplayer. That being said, the game does a terrible job of pushing you into these mechanics, and you basically have to seek out tutorials to learn. You really only get to see its true potential when you go into multiplayer and get wrecked by some guy going 1000 mph across the map. While that may drive some people to seek out those skills, it also turns away a lot of new players who see that and just nope out of there. While a game needs to try to educate it's player, it also needs to actively avoid those miseducative experiences. Check out Razbuten's "Gaming for a Non-Gamer" series where he observes his non-gamer wife trying out different games. It is really interesting to see how frequently she misinterprets something the game is trying to show her, or how she'll "learn" something about the game that the game didn't actually want to teach her. A lot of that comes down the the designers assuming the player will have some context based on the norms of how most games are designed.
Which TF2 titanfall or team fortress?
@@Kolvat07 titanfall
You should totally play Hollow Knight some day. It's absolutely amazing and the fights with the bosses are so well refined to the players mechanics
I’m not sure if he plays Metroidvanias, so the backtracking might be a pain for him.
@@megashark1013 yah he stated in one of his videos that he don't like metroidvania games that much
mayo may I ask, does strategy games fit into your challenge matters? I always like the difficulty of games like xcom enemy unknown, xcom 2, phoenix point (though not as much compared to xcom). is it alright i hear what you think of them?
yes i didn't list many games but i haven't played many sorry