Heavy Metal Collector The only thing I can think of is Mortal Kombat Armageddon which has a *Character Action* mode, racing game mode, multiple puzzle game modes, and the fighting game
jsh020 so first of all, why would they do that o.O? and second, even if they did that, I bet it would actually be good when a good team at Capcom handles it. western devs just don't have what it takes to make good combat systems, while japanese teams have people with experience in that regard. Darksiders came close but you can tell the Zelda-like focus took away development time from the fighting system.
Unfortunately this is a technique that has always existed, long before videogames, in the art to avoid criticism. After all, when something’s new you can’t outright dismiss because we are a very curious species and everything that’s new and fresh is always appealing to some extent.
It doesn't remove it from comparison, it's primarily there to identify the variant of the larger genre your looking for and 2ndarily there to better analyze the focus and strengths/differences of those variants. Souls, Musou, Spectacle Fighter/ Character Action, and Action RPGs are all variants of Hack N' Slashes that are derived from those games which popularized them. You can't stop anyone from criticizing it, but stating the actual draw of that genre and its predecessors is a good start to a rebuttal. Outside of that, I don't see how GoW could have kept its previous play style and been successful. GoW unlike the other Spectacle Fighters actually gave a shit about its story and had a protagonist who was the opposite of the cool chill dude that's always led them. After GoW3, Kratos escape his Faustian Bargain. It isn't as amazing as the previous games, but GoW it's a good continuation and they can build on what they have.
In other news, "Why are RPGs called RPGs? Aren't you Playing a Role in every Game?" Edited to add: So are we all in agreement that taking a genre's name too literally is not a great idea?
Alseid Yeah even Shadow of war is a rpg and that's something that really bothers me because of its action game roots. So yeah, game genre can be really dumb
It used to mean playing specific roles like thieves, mages or paladins which are all different experiences. Also yes "The Witcher" would not fit this definition. Edit: So D&D essentially.
RPG is an old term, about 45 years now, that dates back to Tabletop RPGs. The term is used to distinguish games like Dungeons and Dragons from sports like Tennis, board games like Monopoly, card games like Blackjack, games like Chess, and so on. When video games began to emulate the Tabletop "RPGs" the RPG video game genre was born, where it took on it's more contemporary meaning of a game based upon the manipulation of abstract values (stats, attributes, levels), as well as narrative emphasis on player character expression, choice, and consequence. Same sort of thing happened to "Action-Adventure".
That still makes sense as the roleplaying is emphasized in those games. Uncharted has a bigger focus on characters than actual "character" action games
I know it's an old video, but I randomly thought of this name and couldn't get it out of my head until I settle on what this actually means, and I think that three things that we are missing here: 1. The term was coined in Japan, and Japan is weird. I mean probably makes more sense in Japanese 2. It was primarily used by game devs, not gamers or reviewers, so I think it has to do more with how the game is being developed rather than how it is played 3. It's basically a term to describe dmc-like games, similar to metroidvania which Japanese devs call "Search Action" Also I don't expect Japanese devs ever referred to their games as "Hack and Slash" so maybe this is literally just Japanese version of that genre, like J hack and slash
no its not, it started in western internet as well, but some people really don't understand what the sub genre is about, character action is a subgenre about making the character looking cool or being cool by learning with the game depth and how it works experimenting with is and making the character look cool and powerfull because you learn with the game and how to use the game mecanics to make the character looking cool, this is acorded for years but for some reason people really don't understand what the genre is, is a genre focused of the character, is about learn with the game mecanics and depth and make the character look cool by it and not by the game animations, that's the primal diference in the sub genre
@@elderleon1844 I specifically referred to "Character Action", there may have been plenty of other similar games in the west but I don't think the genre would be called like that if it started in the west, for example why do you it's "Action Adventure" and not "Adventure Action"?
"Character action" always struck me as more of a feeling than a real, definable genre. Kind of a linguistic shorthand for when people want to describe a particular kind of action game. When people do try to apply a long list of rules for qualification, I just zone out. About the best rule I've heard for it came from the Super Best Friends, whose qualifier was "does it have a launcher?"
It's not even really just a term used for that kind of action game. "Character action game" was also a vague term used to describe platformers. It's more a set of words meant to denote that the game is action-oriented and its focus is on the character you play as, in a presentation-and-marketing sense. Crash Bandicoot was developed as a "character action game." It was called the Sonic's Ass Game partly because of the difficulties in presenting a *character* from behind their back in such a game, as opposed to presenting them from the side as in games like Sonic the Hedgehog. That's how far from a genre label these words are in meaning. At some point "character action" became touted as a substitute for the "stylish action" sub-genre, which has been for a long while (at least as far as I remember) that sort of casual not-quite-a-genre-but-it-means-a-sort-of-genre-anyway label for games like Devil May Cry, God of War, Ninja Gaiden, Killer is Dead, et cetera and so on. Hell, it wasn't that long ago that I was hearing "character action" used as shorthand for the likes of Resident Evil 4, Uncharted, and that weirdly dissonant Tomb Raider reboot where they mimicked the Uncharted gameplay but made Lara all sympathetic and serious instead of bringing back the old Lara with the old gung-ho personality that would have geled better with the Uncharted combat style in terms of attitude and... uh... yeah, that's kind of an odd decision. Really the new Lara would have fit the slower, more perilous platforming-with-less-combat style of the older Tomb Raiders. What an odd creative decision. Erm, back on track. Character action. It was used for a while to refer to those highly marketable behind-the-back games, mostly shooters, but the shooting wasn't really a focus there. It'd probably have been applied to God Hand and the new God of War exactly for this reason, because developers were realizing that a mix of entertaining cutscenes and story with that immersive pulled-in-close over-the-shoulder camera was giving people a best-of-both-worlds mix between the intimate get-into-the-experience effect of a first-person camera and the character-driven presentation of the standard third-person camera. They could make characters be characters and sell them on that but still get players immersed into the nitty-gritty of what was going on, whatever the mood of it, and that was something that turned out to catch on really hard for a while and then just never really let go of gamers' imaginations. But even there it was only referring to the most marketable-at-the-time form of character action game. When it was platformers, it was platformers. The term is really only meant to stand in opposition to the other major type of player immersion, the "insert yourself into the experience" kind of game you'd see in first-person games and create-your-own-protagonist games, and the third type of game, in which there isn't a character focus at all, merely a task, challenge, or other occupation for the player to focus on (team sports games; puzzle games; simulation games; et cetera). These aren't GENRES. They're broad genre-categories, umbrellas under which genres gather. In truth, Ratchet & Clank, Devil May Cry, God of War OG, and God of War New School, as well as Uncharted, The Last of Us, Prince of Persia, and Resident Evil 4, are all character action games. But though Resident Evil 2 and Resident Evil 7 are technically both Survival Horror titles, only Resident Evil 2 is a character action game. Resident Evil 7 wouldn't qualify as one because Ethan Winters is portrayed in that patently player-insert-focused manner, where you don't even see his face (even his PSN avatar is just his stitched-on hand with the codex displaying a health meter). People using the term as *a genre* are misunderstanding its meaning and point of origin. And not even in the good way that leads to the English language becoming more to-the-point and concise, either. - Lewis
A better would be Spectacle fighter. TB put it forth in the past to denote the subgenre of games like DMC, Revengeance, GoW1-3, and Nier: Automata so they'd be easier to find, identify, and discuss. It also helps with getting devs to justify making them since they can actual use analytics to estimate the potential profits and thus budgets (instead of learning the hard way platinum did by almost going under to find out).
"Spectacle fighter" confuses action games with fighting games, but I'd be happy with "spectacle action." "Stylish" as a part of the "Stylish Action" term comes straight from Devil May Cry, informally giving it the same status Resident Evil got when it coined the term for the survival horror genre (even though, technically, Alone in the Dark came first, it was not acknowledged as a genre until Resident Evil happened). Whatever the term you use, though, it should actually say something about WHAT you're describing. Used correctly, "character action" does describe a specific aspect of a game's design and presentation mentality. But not the aspect that a lot of people have come to think it's describing. "Stylish action," "spectacle action," whatever--those terms work on this very basic level. - Lewis
>Ratchet and clank is a *"character shooter"* >Super mario bros is a *"character jumping"* >Assassin's creed is a *"character climbing"* >Street fighter is a *"character fighter"* >Metal gear solid is a *"character stealth"* >Devil may cry is a... *"CHARACTER ACTION!!"*
God of War is a game that I think is in the new genre of games that is "they don't know what genre they are in". The trend that genre stops mattering and even becomes subjective just shows how the jack of all traits but master of none kind of design mentality has permeated the 3A industry. Almost every 3A single player game seems wanting to encapsulate everything that is popular with little care for if the system reinforces the core gameplay or fits the theme. Nowadays, watching the debut gameplay of a game is less of "shit, this experience looks sick! I want to get my hands on!", but more of a "I think I played this before... but nice graphics I guess".
倪传历 Yes. Triple A developers spend a shit ton on games, and they need a return on investment. So they want to appeal to as many people as possible. So they play it safe.
If the game is all about using atmosphere and simple interactions to tell a story or sell an immersive experience, I'm all for it. The indie walking sim genre is kind of my jam. They know exactly what they want to be and what to include. Unlike those 3A games that basically have a feature creep addiction.
It has a genre and a focus. It's just derived from the Souls subgenre of Hack N Slash games rather the spectacle fighter as they fit the desired tone far better. Spectacle Fighters don't lend themselves well to maintaining a serious tone and having Kratos fight giant behemoths wouldn't really fit with how this game progressed from the originals. Unlike most spectacle fighters GoW actually had a serious tragedy as its story with a protagonist who's the opposite of the standard genre lead character-wise, so the story and cinematography focus make sense here. As long as we get back to the larger encounters in future games it'd be fine. On top of this, God of War changing like this won't effect the usual games of its style. They're either being made by Platinum or being meshed into Action JRPGs.
As far as I know, the term character action is used because games like Diablo used to be considered hack and slash games. And then games like Onimusha and DMC came out and were called hack and slash games too. The Character action term was really just a attempt to try and distinguish the hack and slash genre of games we know today. The God of War criticism you received though is still dumb, and just fanboys trying to justify why God of War is a "game of the generation masterpiece" that shouldn't be compared to better games.
Was just watching the behind the scenes again for R&C 1 as I just finished it up again. In that they're talking about redefining the "Character Action" genre with Ratchet and Clank. Seems like the term is older than you think. Figured I'd post this here in case you see it as I thought it was interesting.
I was introduced to the term "Character Action" in late 2013. At the time it was used to describe Metal Gear Rising, and Assassin's Creed. You tell me what those two have in common, and have in common over other games, and maybe there's a genre to be found.
My interpretation of the "character action" label is that the personality of the main character is reflected in the game's combat system. Dante is a cocky and charismatic dude, and DMC's combat is all about style and creativity. Bayonetta is a nimble and sexually provocative version of Dante, and Bayo's combat is a more evasive version of DMC with lots of suggestive imagery. Ryu is a taciturn and disciplined master of his craft, and Ninja Gaiden is all about efficiency and quick decision-making. Kratos is an unrefined brute, and GoW's combat is rooted in rough and primitive destruction. Gene is... Gene, and God Hand is... God Hand. Etc.
I feel I've written this exact comment in several forums before as well as YT videos. This is the first time I see someone using almost EXACTLY the same words as me to describe this. Gotta love the genre.
Oh, really? I don't recall ever reading anyone else formulate it this way, but it's entirely possible I might have come across one of your comments at some point! It's an interesting topic, for sure.
By that logic, Souls is also a character action game, since ever weapon's animation fits whether your character knows and is able to use it or not, and we all know how much character your character has in Souls games.
Ksubzero1000 Didn't mean to imply you copied it, as a matter of a fact I find it interesting how several people can have a similar output on the subject. To the other commenters... it's about characterization THROUGH gameplay. Not anything of what you're saying applies.
Also props for using the DMC 4 Idol of Space and Time for the back ground music...my favorite song of the whole game...even have it as my PS4 menu theme...
I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. Genres exist because certain games have noticeably different design philosophies, and using them makes it easier for people who want certain kinds of games to see more of them, (for instance, if you like resident evil, why not try other survival horror games, like silent hill?) as well as helping people to better judge games on their own terms. This is why it's weird to imply that every game needs to have combat as complex as Devil May Cry, because making combat as complex as DMC requires you to sacrifice other things that game developers might want to focus on. You complain that Dark Souls's combat is very simple and not up to the same standards as DMC, but consider: does DMC have any levels as intricate as Anor Londo or Undead Burg? No, but it'd be weird to say DMC is bad because of it, because it's not even trying to have intricate level design in the first place. In DMC, the level design is simply a vehicle for the combat, and in Dark Souls, the combat is simply a vehicle for the level design. This is the difference between action games and action-adventure games, and why we separate the two, to better judge them on their own terms. But, going back to the main topic of this video, this doesn't mean the God of War reboot is in the clear. It's trying to be an action game, as well as an adventure game, as well as having rpg elements, and doesn't do any of them particularly well. It's a jack of all trades, master of none.
@@Frungi if you had infinite development time to make your game as complex as possible and account for all the ways that dmc's expressive combat could conflict with the level design, without making the game so complicated that it's inaccessible to most people, then yes. But that's an absurd thing to expect of developers.
@@Frungi good game design requires you to focus on a few key elements and design your entire game around making those as good as possible instead of trying to do literally everything as good as possible. If you try do everything, you fail at everything, that's just how it is. Criticizing a game for not doing an aspect as well as another game, when it's not even trying to do that thing as well as that other game is absurd because the standard you're setting is unrealistic. You might as well criticize Metroid Prime for not having combat as good as Doom.
@@horricule451 Thank you for the thoughtful responses. It probably is unrealistic to expect any game of significant scope to excel at literally everything (or even more than two things) it does. But from the sound of it, this reviewer felt the game suffered from a disconnect between the game design not putting its focus on making the combat interesting, and the active gameplay consisting mostly of uninteresting combat. Not to mention a disconnect between what the series _was_ and what the reboot is, essentially that it was a mistake to take it into the action-adventure direction. I still need to get the game for PC so I can find out if I agree. I will say, though, that I agree wholeheartedly that “character action” is a stupidly weird name for the stylish action subgenre.
I'd call God of War an action adventure, despite what you say there are sections of the game where you're exploring and traversing the environment. We don't necessarily place a game into the RPG genre for having some RPG mechanics, Call of Duty has had RPG mechanics.
The “stylish action game” sub-genre (which i prefer to call it) comprises of three main elements: •A diverse combat sandbox, allowing for a wide variety of different approaches & techniques to battle, thereby creating a sense of player freedom and self-expression •Emphasizes stylishness, but more specifically, having to create the stylishness yourself by familiarizing yourself with the mechanics, composing the tools of your arsenal together in an artistic-like fashion •Player versus enemy (PVE) gameplay This doesn’t exclusively apply to hack n slash games either. Games like Vanquish or Viewtiful Joe can also fall under the banner. Meanwhile games like God of War 4 don’t count because the combat doesn’t allow for any sense of style or player freedom. Even something like Dark Souls, sure the fighting is fairly technical but there’s no artsiness to it There can be “bad” stylish action games, many would point to something like DmC Devil May Cry. It isn’t common though because if a game goes as far as to feature such an expansive array of options, the developer usually has at least some passion for the game they’re making
I recently played the new GoW at a friend’s and decided that I’m gonna play the whole series. Playing the first one, its clear just how different it is comparatively to the latest installment. As for how I feel about it, GoW is more action in the sense of Dark Souls and not the previous faster pace games like DMC, Bayonetta, and the older GoW games. Which is fine honestly, the faster pace action games are here to stay and will continue to come out, regardless of whatever direction a series known for that style of gameplay takes.
Neat that I found you here, I'll share my thoughts on the Discord too but that site is an excellent resource for specific games and players but far too picky and vague about what counts by their own admission.
thelastgogeta nice to see you here as well. Yeah, that wiki is far too picky for it but I like some of the guidelines they pick for it. Thing is... The gameplay in many games doesn't push you into doing what the character would do... They don't push you into making you 'feel' like the character like DMC, NG and Bayonetta do. This could be a topic for the discord.
It'll definitely be a great topic for the Discord. If you peek in the Anime channel I'm already going back and forth about a similar topic too. I don't know exactly what you mean by "feeling" like a character but we can get back to it tomorrow or now if you're avaliable.
it was just a repository for stuff people discussed on the cuhrayzee games general thread on 4chan. if a game is on there, it's because people proved in-thread that it was worth discussing along-side DMC, bayonetta, god hand, etc. usually they would post videos of the combat and do short write-ups on advanced techniques. everyone has since jumped ship to other sites so the wiki is a bit of a relic
I don't think "character action" is a genre, it's more of a subgenre at most. Or even less than that. Like how "Souls-like" is simply a very specific style within a subgenre of action RPG, that's what "character action" games are to melee action games in general. It's true that there's no real decent definition for it though. I guess an over-the-top style? I would want to put a certain level of complexity and/or move set variety in there too, but I still think games like the GoW and No More Heroes games should be included. It's just one of those "you know it when you see it" kind of things. Not very helpful I guess, but at least that's honest and not trying to be elitist. Also I agree the name is stupid. Games have a hard time with genres and giving them good names in general, but "character action" is maybe one of the worst. There isn't much else that's better though. And no way am I using "spectacle fighter". I hate that term. Completely misleading and comes across as damning with faint praise. It's like saying these games are like Street Fighter, but all style over substance. Fuck that. And you can compare anything to anything. Context is important of course, but that doesn't mean comparisons of two very different things are somehow invalid. And the new GoW isn't that far away from the old games, or any other character action game, in the grand scheme of things. It's a mix of lots of genres, sure, but one of them is character action.
spectacle fighter is kinda a worse term because it doesnt include the most important part: focusing on the playable character's (the character in character action) personality and style and letting them fully come out through the system, with "spectacle fighter" you dont get to include games like Okami and re6 and Vanquish because of an arbitrary "i prefer this name because im a contrarian"
The important part is that the term is widely recognized as relating to the gameplay variant, element, or experience specified. You know its a character action/ spectacle fighter by its relation to the gameplay of that genre's prime example(s): Devil May Cry, Bayonetta, Nier: Automata, and Revengeance. It's simply meant to differentiate them for those who know or are interested in experiencing that variant of hack n slash, not perfectly explain it- that's what demos and play are for.
Or maybe, MAYBE, all genres are defined somewhat vaguely and yet still somehow manage to convey meaning in helpful ways because language and communication is complex and people aren't robots.
@singularon1 it feels easy to be on the other side and say that but if your interests were fullfiled by this game then you would know that its not so easy
I'm with Charlie on this one. A lot of developers and fans use meaningless distinction in Generes as a means of escape when their games don't hold up. Bad Combat? It's not a "Character Action" game. Boring turn-based battle system? It's a classic "JRPG". Shooting the same enemies for millions of hours with no deviation? It's a "looter-Shooter".
Alias Anybody Woow, so clever... Yes, I heard about chess genius. That doesn't mean that turn-based games should be dry and shallow just because they are "classic JRPGs". Charlie specified the problem with creating a phony genre in character action games in his video, but I stated that this problem exists on a much broader spectrum in the industry.
By that logic, 99% of all games are "action" games because they involve an action. Hidden objects games: action is to find hidden object. Adventure games: action is to explore. Sonic: action game cos he bops robots. Civilization: Action game cos you control units and settlements. Still think Genres are a "meaningless distinction?"
People want to classify those games as a different genre is because they like those specific DMC-like type of games and there's only one or two made every few years. If a genre is defined and popularised, more games of that type will be made.
I can definitely see both sides, but I feel like you could make a case. Sure, Dynasty Warriors, modern day God of War, and Devil May Cry are all hack n slashers at the end of the day, but how they go about doing it is completely different from each other. It's like saying all JRPG's are the same when so many franchises take on the genre in different ways, whether we're talking about turnbased Dragon Quest, first person Etrian Odyssey, MMO Xenoblade, Grid based Fire Emblem/Disgaea, button mashing Tales of/Star Ocean, etc. Anyways, good video. Interesting discussion to be had.
Man, I've actually stopped discussing the combat of Dad of Boi with people because it was just frustrating. I couldn't criticize the game without people telling me my criticism is invalid because "it's not supposed to be like DMC" or "it's a reboot, it's not like the original" or "it's good! Why are you hating on it so much!?". All while still acknowledging it's good points mind you. So I've just stopped talking about it. it was just pissing me off. I mean if you're gonna tell me Dad of Boi is the greatest game of the decade, I will damn sure compare it to, you know other similar games. I still have to finish Dad of Boi. I just lost interest in the game... But I'll finish it at some point... I guess...
MegaPhilX people still think it's a reboot? Whew lad then i guess all those references and connections flew over their heads (Also i love your work PhilX, been a fan for years
Twipz41 haven't you heard? These days you can reboot something but cram it with references of the previous installments you're trying to ignore because fanservice.
I think the reason people really like the combat is for the same reason people like the arkham combat, now god of war. Does have more depth then arkham, but is still overall pretty shallow but the game makes people feel cool and feel likke there doing while not doing really a while lot.
My issues with Dad of Boi are the camera and the lack of jump. You can't have an overview of the battle. And for some reason the camera stops focusing on an enemy you're attacking if it ends up slightly behind you to the side. Playing on Hard (especially near the start of the game) is a real struggle. I ended up always feeling like I have to resort to cheap tactics like pushing enemies off ledges in order to just barely make it out alive. And that doesn't make me feel like a badass. But to be fair, now that I've progressed a bit more in the game, it's gotten easier. But still, while I was getting my ass kicked, I was really missing a better camera and being able to jump. When I brought up that other games in the series before had jumping, why not this one; I've had people tell me that it's a new game. (sort of a reboot) It's okay. Doesn't have to be the same. And then there is bullshit like this: ua-cam.com/video/q7stuASKtz0/v-deo.html Like, when Japanese games do the whole invisible wall thing it sucks, but when this game does it, it's okay.
I personally think of it this way. When someone says "character action" it's not about the characters themselves, but more so that action itself has character. Devil May Cry for example where if you're good at it, you can pull off things that the normal person can scarcely comprehend. A combat system that has enough to offer a player mechanically to allow them to tailor how they play. Where you can playthrough it with the basics, but rewards the more experimental player with small rewards for pulling off some of the crazier tricks, or even the satisfaction of dispatching an enemy is an over the top and stylish way.
Yooooo.... let me just give my boy The Gaming Brit a big shoutout for bringing up Dustforce. You are a real man man. One of the most addicting games that you will ever play.
If anything, the new god of war is a character walk, or character adventure, or character letmeendwithacliffhangersoicansellyouthesequel. Yeah, that fits perfectly.
The only other time I've heard of the term "Character Action Game" was in Andy Gavin's and Jason Rubin's blog posts on making Crash Bandicoot, and they used the name to refer to mascot platformers like Mario and Sonic. Specifically, they said mascot platformers games were "character platformer action games". They also referred to run 'n guns and beat 'em ups as "cousins" to the character action game or CAG for short. I think that really proves the nebulousness of this genre name than anything else. Someone else already brought it up, but I think Yahtzee's genre name "spectacle fighter" fits these games the best.
TotalBiscuit coined the term Spectacle fighter for this subgenre of hack n slash games. Like many game genres, the name is just what most ppl agree points to the group of games with a given gameplay variant.
CtisGaming | Yahtzee first used the term in his MacWorld review on April 15th, 2009, and even said he made it up in that review. If I see proof that TotalBiscuit used the term earlier and also said he came up with the term, then I'll agree and see it as the coincidence it is. www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/673-MadWorld zeropunctuation.wikia.com/wiki/MadWorld
I disagree with your comments on genre. Character action games or spectacle fighters are hack and slash style games with the mechanical complexity of a fighting game. I like it being a genre, as it lets me know what I'm getting when I buy a game. That said, while I like this genre a lot, not every action game needs to aspire to be a DMC 3 or Ninja Gaiden. Some place emphasis elsewhere. Bloodbore's combat is more about positioning and movement than pure offensive capability. Older God of War titles are more interested in the brutality of their combat than the complexity. Some games want you to feel like a god, some want to show you your mortality. Different strokes for different folks, and it really depends on what the dev wants to evoke.
you forgot to bring up the fact that there's an equally vague distinction between "character action" and "hack and slash" which are also apparently two different genres
I like character action genre, because it's a good way to show what I want in games. If character action becomes a genre, that means there would now be a standard for the games I want. I want this to be a genre with a billion titles, don't ruin this for me!
DMC3/4 is where you "choreographically" play with the enemy, new GoW is where you adapt to your enemy (old GoW is where you play with enemy, but with less possible movements per second like in DMC3/4).
Parrying is not supposed to be a major mechanic in dark souls. If it were the game would force you to use a shield, and the game is just as playable and fun without one. Two handing weapons even if you don't have to is a feature for a reason. Bosses being unparryable also makes sense because each boss is supposed to be its own unique thing, not just another enemy encounter (that said duels against knights that you can parry are pretty sick). Also if you feel the need to constantly dodge roll in fights, than that's a problem with you, not the game. While constant Dodge rolling will eventually lead to victory, if you pay close attention to an enemies attack patterns you can learn how to fight them very effectively without much dodging required. As for the lack of moves, Dark souls is not about making these crazy looking combos to utterly decimate your opponent, its about playing a game of cat and mouse where who's the cat and who's the mouse is constantly changing mid battle. You have to put more thought into a single enemy in dark souls than any group of enemies in Devil may cry. Also there are a boat load of weapons in the game, most of which have their own unique swing arcs, thrusts and other such attack animations that do impact how you play. Each individual weapon may not have many moves to choose, but in order to have even a remote chance of success, you have to choose what move to use and when to use it very carefully, and you have to figure out what works and what doesn't work against basically every enemy (and by extension against all different kinds of groups of enemies. what works against an enemy when he's alone might not work when he's in a group). Meanwhile in Devil May Cry, assuming you aren't going for a good rank (ranking systems are an arbitrary difficulty inclusion that only serves to mock more casual players),or playing on anything higher than normal, than you can just pick a weapon you like the feel of and find out which button combos are the best ones for said weapon and you're good, decimating any mooks you come across and only having to try against bosses and "Mini boss" enemies (example: The werewolves with fire and electric claws from bayonetta). Having more combos and more weapon moves does not inherently make a game more complex, how said moves are integrated and how the game wants and expects you to use said moves however does affect the complexity of the game.
Despite having someone beating dark souls 3 without rolling. I'd like to disagree on just walking and analizing a pattern to dodge something. Dark Souls enemies have a lot of "lock-on" to your character, even if you walk behind the boss, the boss will flip/slide mid-attack 180 degrees on his feet forcing you to roll out of it, there are exceptions, but the general rule is that. Fight Artorias, and you'll notice that he can change directions mid-air while doing his front-flip attack. Yes you could just "give a few steps back" or just "run" until you're out of range, but that could hinder your limited window of attack, heavily discouraging doing it and further rewarding timed dodges. Demon and Dark souls were pretty excellent even with these flaws because it was not the point of the game, more about being carefull and "on your feet" than having excellent reflexes and muscle memory... but then Dark Souls 2, 3 and BloodBorne happenned. All those games are very reliant on dodging as if the franchise was about action and not the inmersion of the experience. Pretty excellent example of this is Pontiff Sulhyvan, while hitboxes are a marvel that allow you to "side step" some of his moves, the devs have catched on the over-reliance of mindless dodging from players to tackle bosses, and their answer was having Sulhyvan wind up and hold up some of his attacks a little bit longer just to wait and catch players mid roll.
Fair enough i suppose. To be fair though bloodborne was actively trying to be a more fast paced and aggressive game. As for Dark souls 2, that game had a bigger emphasis on fighting groups of enemies, so it makes sense that you would have to play more defensively with the dodge rolling. I have yet to play Dark souls 3 (shameful i know) so i cant speak to how that game handles dodging as an overall mechanic.
Terrible, there's an overreliance on it. You're expected to fight at a DMC's pace while still having the sluggish dark souls animations, so there is a fuckton of enemies with room-wide attacks, broad sweeps and heat-seeking overheads that forced you to roll your full stamina bar to depletion or have excellent reflexes. Which is what TBGS was talking about, the combat felt "samey"/stalled with it's repeated iterations because it just doesn't work with the "action-esque" approach DkS3 took. I forgive bloodborne thought, since the main defense mechanic is a sidestep instead of a roll (Functions the same, but the goal of the game was being more aggressive)
>You have to put more thought into a single enemy in dark souls than any group of enemies in Devil may cry lmao what thought? You put a fucking single black knight against me and I wouldn't put any that much any thought because I can easily parry the guy and I can even say the same thing with multiple silver knights. Now in DMC you put a hell pride, hell sloth and hell lust together in the same room(which DMC 3 does a lot) you will put more thought into them simply because of how different their movesets are and they can break your momentum in combat. The only really enemy is threatening in the first Dark Souls was the bone wheels. Aside from that if you don't play a fucking idiot then most basic bitch enemy in any dark souls game wouldn't even really a problem. Also can people stop pretending that actually doing good combos in DMC 3 and 4 are easy? You watch one of those Donguri990 videos and people think that shit is easy to do. Those stuff are hard and requires hours and hours of practice. It only took me minutes to master parrying black knights, dark wraiths and basic bitch hollow enemies while it took me hours and hours to even do jump cancelling properly. >Each individual weapon may not have many moves to choose, but in order to have even a remote chance of success, you have to choose what move to use and when to use it very carefully, and you have to figure out what works and what doesn't work against basically every enemy lol almost every weapon in dark souls is viable in any enemy or boss. A long sword would just work as a balder swag sword or a silver knight straight sword. Even a fucking bandit knife can be just as viable as a Claymore on any enemy or boss(depending on the points you spend on strength or dex of course). Those whole " you have to figure out what works and what doesn't work against basically every enemy" is just pretentious bullshit and you're elevating souls combat to something it really isn't.
I always preferred the phrase "Spectacle Fighter" When referring to games like DMC, Bayonetta, and Wonderful 101. "Spectacle" as in fast, showboat encouraging, impressive combos. "Character Action" game sounds like it could literally describe any action game
I thought the genre was called a "Spectacle Fighter" since the emphasis of these games was to utilize the complexity of the combat system to create spectacles.
That's a very broad definition given the word "Spectacle". Almost any visually stimulating combat system will result in spectacles. The only exception that comes to mind are games whose combat is minimalistic or abstract.
I was wondering when Dark Souls would pop up on the channel haha. Great stuff as always, I’d never even heard of this “Sub-sub genre.” Seems arbitrary as hell.
The dev team behind Ratchet and Clank refer to it as a “character action game”, in the making of video, in the goodies menu. So the term is that old at least.
I'm certainly not here to argue that DMC has bad combat but I do think your implication that all action games should have combat like it is an incorrect conflation of complexity with quality. Lots of good games are well served by having simple combat so they can spend player focus elsewhere.
I think you bring a lot of good points, but I think the idea of creating this new genre comes from the fact that video games can't be put into genres in the way other forms of media can because of how many variables they have. I don't think it's fair to drop every game like this into hack n' slash, because games like God of War 2018, DMC4, and Dynasty Warriors you could all call hack n' slash games, but those are three completely different video game experiences and putting them all under one big umbrella is kind of unfair. Whether or not "character action" is a good descriptor is one thing but I do think there needs to be differentiation. You couldn't say "Oh you like God of War? Well you would also probably love this game in the same genre, Hyrule Warriors."
I don't see the problem of having more labels for genres. But i do see why you don't like the new GOW or it's combat. I enjoyed it for what it was, i know it's not very deep and kind of clunky, but i had fun. Not every game has to be DMC levels of complexity to be enjoyable
I think it's fine as a genre if only because people know what you mean if you say "character action". Likewise, if I say a game has "metroidvania elements", you will generally know what I mean even if the game isn't a 100% match. All they are are descriptors to make things easier. That said, I don't think genre is ever really an argument for mechanical misteps.
The first time I hear of "Character Action" was from Jason Rubin, when he used to talk about Mario, Sonic, Crash and Jak and Daxter... Well that's how I came across it
Well the New GoW and the Old GoW dose use a compleatly different combat style, which has it's pros and cons. So it's hard to directly compare them. So I would mention the things that stood out to me in this game. Here are the things that I have noticed in my "Give Me God of War" playtrough: . -Pros: The combat was much more hectic and chalanging for both good and bad(I explain those later) reasons. I couldn't use the usual bread and butter combo like in the old GoW games most of the time and I had to stay on my toes the whole time while I was fighting. The new gear and stat sistem dose give you a better costumization options as well which helps you picking a play style that you want. . -Cons: Status effects..... they went overbord with these. Every single one is extreamly anojing except for maybe burn: Frost effect slows your movement which is deadly on the difficulity that I played on. Poison delevels you, making every enemy harder. And Blind is the absolute worst! Play the game blindfolded! The Came is also a constant pain. This is a camera that is used in survival horror for a reason. It limits your sight making it harder to see the enemies around you(and this game LOVES hords), and having arrows point at the enemy dose not help. Since you can't see what enemy it is, what attack it uses and how far it is. I died so many times because of this. . This are the things that I can mention from the top of my head. But this is just what I experienced and maybe I just suck at it who knows.
I thought "character action game" meant an action game that focuses heavily on the protagonist. Like how 90's/00's games often marketed their games on how cool or badass or edgy their protagonist was.
Next time on Gaming Brit Show: Charlie calls every single game ever created an "RPG" because "dur, you play a role, why limit it to this specific subsection of games?"
Peoples criticism were that you weren’t judging the game on what it was trying to do. You know judging something on it’s own merits. You were judging based on things it never even attempted. You criticize the wave of games influenced by cinema but never criticize cinema for being influenced by literature and photography. Art takes influence from art, it’s not that crazy that games start to do it. You imply it’s not a good direction in God of War but act as cutscene heavy games like Kingdom Hearts II and Metal Gear Solid 4 are worthy of defense when they do the same thing but even worse with their immersion breaking long scenes. I don’t have a problem with those games doing that because that’s what they were going for but you should if you leverage the same criticisms at God of War 4 but not those same games you’ve given your praises. There’s this sort of condescending elitist mentality in recent youtube game criticisms that deems certain things not “real games” or “walking simulators”. It’s simply boring intellectually inept criticisms, it’s pinning down a medium and saying “it’s not what I want it to be, so it doesn’t count or it’s inherently bad”. You don’t even do this tho, you’re just inconsistent with this philosophy and pick and choose which games it’s okay to do it. I love your videos but thought I would give my critical take on this whole thing.
Fidelio i feel the same way. It is more than ok to compare the game to its older iterations but i dunno its like he doesnt realize the company is trying something new. Of course their are gonna be flaws and honestly this is the deepest god of war has ever been besides kill stuff and shove orbs into stuff. It was clear imo that god of war wanted to be cinematic since the first game and it was obviously a route they would take when you look at the spectacles of god of war 3.
''Show, don't tell'' is a common critique in film. Comparing animation to a slideshow isn't positive either. It's not about influence, it's about not making proper use of the medium. Walking sections don't even work as cinema. Instead of carefully chosen camera angles and interactions you just have characters awkwardly walking around. You talk about judging games on their own merits but meanwhile you compare GOW to Metal Gear Solid 4 as if he can't like one and dislike the other. The games have completely different approaches to storytelling.
Fidelio Can't you skip cutscenes in KH2 and MGS4? Sorry for not engaging the whole post but you should know from the walking sim video or numerous parts in other videos that the cutscenes/walking are an issue when they get in the way or returning to the meat or have little to enjoy as you replay or play it for the first time.
So GOW4 never even attempted to have juggling, on the fly weapon switching, parrying, unlockable moves and Devil Trigger? Were these things just in there on accident then? I guess so because apparently that's the reason you aren't allowed to compare it to other games that do the exact same things (but possibly better). But I guess that's all irrelevant anyway, since we have to judge games on their own merits. Which basically means not judging them at wall since we don't have anything better or worse to compare them to. It's almost like pieces of art don't exist in a vacuum and ignoring very obvious similarities and differences (like KHII and MGS4 not having unskippable cutscenes and walking sections) between certain pieces is also pretty intellectually inept.
Screw positivity, these are the best. Edit: oh, my personal favorite is when you and some chaps discuss, like, details of mechanics and what you like or dislike about some parts of the game in particular, and then that guy appears and says "you wanted GOW to change, they gave you new stuff and now you complain about it, which means that you don't know what you want and just hate everything new". Then you just don't know where to begin, you know. Now you have to explain to him all of this meta-stuff, like describe how homogenization is plaguing the gaming industry or these genre shenanigans, then maybe tell him that it's not about "hating everything new", but rather about subtleties in implementation and so on. All of it runs in your head, an endless stream of counter-arguments, which most likely would be rendered useless stumbling upon your opponent's generalizations like "you don't like fun" anyway. Then, while them thought are piling up, in your mind this gap between you two turns into some abyss that can't be filled no matter how hard you try, so you just tell him to fuck off instead, but it brings no relief. It also doesn't help that English is not my native language, I really envy you people who can juggle them words with ease, putting the scum in their place. For me it's a fucking struggle every time, and that's why foreigners are more agressive, lol.
Maybe splitting "character action" and whatever GoW is, is like splitting arcade racers and racing simulators. They go for very different things and no one would criticize an arcade racer for being unrealistic like they would with a simulation racer.
As a game designer I cry every time someone says "character action" is a genre. We have action games. And we have non-action games. Those are basically the two big categories. Then you start delving into sub-genres of action, like FPS, platformer, adventure, basically anything that's real time and where you progress by performing actions. So, I totally understand the need to classify DMC, Bayonetta, etc. as a new sub-genre of action games, but please... For the love of god, stop using the term "character action", it doesn't make any sense. I'd even prefer "spectacle fighter" at this point, at least it properly describes what's happening on screen...
I think most people just like it when you judge a game based on its own merits and what it sets out to do, rather than compare it to other games with different combat styles, which is basically judging the game by what it isn't, or what it doesn't have. That would be like criticising every sci-fi movie for not being as deeply, visually complex or having the same kinds of themes as 2001: A Space Oddyssey
^This. I absolutely agree with thegamingbritshow in that if a game could be better, then why not aspire to be so, if character action sets the bar for engaging and fun gameplay then why not strive for that? All that is perfectly valid as an argument for why games should strive to be more like character action games (as an example). It just isn't an opinion on what the new God of War was, which is what people generally expect and want when looking at a review of a game, its an opinion on what the game is not. I think thats all the problem really is, like if the video had been called "why don't more games aspire to the gameplay of character action games" and used new GoW as an example then I doubt it would have gotten the backlash it received. However if your going to title the video THE GOD OF WAR 4 REVIEW and then hardly talk at all about what the game did and only compare it to other different things (not saying criticism isn't valid I understood this video) then I think you should expect people to respond negatively.
Why should he care about what "most people like" when it's his own opinion that he is free to share with to the rest of the world? It's kind of a "you" problem when you hate on another's opinion.
Ora Saikatsu The difference is that he's comparing a new God of War, with it's older games. You'd always expect sequels to improve, or at least be as good. Though instead of improving, God of War changed it's formular completely. Scrapping gameplay mechaniqs for visuals. There'd be no problem if it was a new franchise. But it's God of War, so it'll be compared to God of War games.
Yeah the genre lines and such are bullshit always. People just like to box things. And if you don't like God of War's combat, that's fine. I loved it personally. I didn't like Uncharted, a lot of people love that game series, but I didn't like it that much.
Personally, I think the term "character" in "character action" comes from the act of player expression. Every game that I would consider "character action" follows the same rule - they offer the player a large amount of tools and abilities in combat, and the depth comes from the simple act of giving the player the freedom to use all of those tools to create a near-infinite amount of playstyles. If you go watch high-level play of something like God of War (any of them, not just 4), almost all high-level play consists of the same things, the same strategies to effectively kill foes, especially when it comes to enemies that nullify most of your moves and require certain tools/attacks to take down (these are abundant in games like GoW4). If you look at something like Bayonetta or Devil May Cry, though, the amount of player expression through gameplay is insane - it's exceedingly rare that any two players will handle every situation they come across in the same way, and it's rare that there's a dominant strategy that defines how you handle encounters like there are in so many other brawlers. The "character", then, comes from the character that YOU define yourself as through your playstyle. Maybe not the most eloquent of terms, but I think it fits.
I've never heard of "Character Action". The most I would think of that is the term that would actually describe the genre of such fighters would be "Spectacle Fighter".
+AKheon Same here. I forced myself to finish it only because my subscribers were going to ask me about it, given my history with GoW-games. Half-tempted to review it.
Question: Have you guys played the game at all? edit: Just to make sure we can y'all aren't hating it just because and maybe you can point out the things you disliked about it so i can get a better understand on why you didn't like it.
Man, I was looking forward to more vids like this. To me, this vid is the best thing GoW remake has brought. also thanks for pointing out my feelings on Dark Souls combat after all the games
Hi, I am a fighting game guy. Character action games are basically single player fighting games. That's enough distinction to make them different from everything else. God of war is not a character action game because it lacks the depth. Depth is the gateway to character action and nothing else.
DEVIL MAY CRY IS PRIMARILY A RACER AND PUZZLE GAME HYBRID
deadeyemax and a dating sim, because why the fuck not?
WRONG! DEVIL MAY CRY IS ALL ABOUT EATING PIZZA AND GETING SKEWERED!
I'm gonna need an explanation as to how you came across that conclusion.
DEVIL MAY CRY BELONGS IN THE "TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLE" GENRE!
Heavy Metal Collector The only thing I can think of is Mortal Kombat Armageddon which has a *Character Action* mode, racing game mode, multiple puzzle game modes, and the fighting game
I propose we come up with a new definition for games like The Last of Us and GOW4. They shall be called "character walking" games.
Gears of War 4?
Or God of War 4?
@@DrHurricaneA115 Dad of War 4
@@SefniAsheforr 😂😂😂😂
Sad dad walking games
"God of Bore"
"The Snore of US"
The reveal for DMC5 is nigh, & my hype is through the roof.
maybe we should temper expectations to make sure they dont fuck it up, especially if it goes the souls route too
Neoxon THE TIME HAS FUCKING COME DOOD!
Not to mention, Resident evil 2 remake is on the horizon.
jsh020 so first of all, why would they do that o.O?
and second, even if they did that, I bet it would actually be good when a good team at Capcom handles it.
western devs just don't have what it takes to make good combat systems, while japanese teams have people with experience in that regard. Darksiders came close but you can tell the Zelda-like focus took away development time from the fighting system.
Betting it’s gonna be DMC: Battle Royale
1:14 rip donguri990
Sad times my friend
*SALUTE*
What happened to him?
He quit youtube.
he quit gaming apparently
"My new favourite game is immune from comparision to better titles because it's in a new genre I invented."
This encapsulates my feelings on the term "Soulsborne" entirely.
The term Soulsborne is dumb because saying Souls accomplishes the same thing, and it sounds fucking dumb.
+Gabagooosh
Soulsborne is used because some players try to exclude Bloodborne from the genre.
Unfortunately this is a technique that has always existed, long before videogames, in the art to avoid criticism. After all, when something’s new you can’t outright dismiss because we are a very curious species and everything that’s new and fresh is always appealing to some extent.
It doesn't remove it from comparison, it's primarily there to identify the variant of the larger genre your looking for and 2ndarily there to better analyze the focus and strengths/differences of those variants.
Souls, Musou, Spectacle Fighter/ Character Action, and Action RPGs are all variants of Hack N' Slashes that are derived from those games which popularized them.
You can't stop anyone from criticizing it, but stating the actual draw of that genre and its predecessors is a good start to a rebuttal. Outside of that, I don't see how GoW could have kept its previous play style and been successful. GoW unlike the other Spectacle Fighters actually gave a shit about its story and had a protagonist who was the opposite of the cool chill dude that's always led them. After GoW3, Kratos escape his Faustian Bargain.
It isn't as amazing as the previous games, but GoW it's a good continuation and they can build on what they have.
In other news, "Why are RPGs called RPGs? Aren't you Playing a Role in every Game?"
Edited to add: So are we all in agreement that taking a genre's name too literally is not a great idea?
Alseid Yeah even Shadow of war is a rpg and that's something that really bothers me because of its action game roots. So yeah, game genre can be really dumb
It used to mean playing specific roles like thieves, mages or paladins which are all different experiences. Also yes "The Witcher" would not fit this definition.
Edit: So D&D essentially.
Basically in 90% of the games you roleplay something. RPGs are defined by customizable role-playing experiences
RPG is an old term, about 45 years now, that dates back to Tabletop RPGs.
The term is used to distinguish games like Dungeons and Dragons from sports like Tennis, board games like Monopoly, card games like Blackjack, games like Chess, and so on. When video games began to emulate the Tabletop "RPGs" the RPG video game genre was born, where it took on it's more contemporary meaning of a game based upon the manipulation of abstract values (stats, attributes, levels), as well as narrative emphasis on player character expression, choice, and consequence.
Same sort of thing happened to "Action-Adventure".
That still makes sense as the roleplaying is emphasized in those games. Uncharted has a bigger focus on characters than actual "character" action games
Yahtzee once referred to them as "Spectacle Fighters", and that's always what I've called them too.
I know it's an old video, but I randomly thought of this name and couldn't get it out of my head until I settle on what this actually means, and I think that three things that we are missing here:
1. The term was coined in Japan, and Japan is weird. I mean probably makes more sense in Japanese
2. It was primarily used by game devs, not gamers or reviewers, so I think it has to do more with how the game is being developed rather than how it is played
3. It's basically a term to describe dmc-like games, similar to metroidvania which Japanese devs call "Search Action"
Also I don't expect Japanese devs ever referred to their games as "Hack and Slash" so maybe this is literally just Japanese version of that genre, like J hack and slash
no its not, it started in western internet as well, but some people really don't understand what the sub genre is about, character action is a subgenre about making the character looking cool or being cool by learning with the game depth and how it works experimenting with is and making the character look cool and powerfull because you learn with the game and how to use the game mecanics to make the character looking cool, this is acorded for years but for some reason people really don't understand what the genre is, is a genre focused of the character, is about learn with the game mecanics and depth and make the character look cool by it and not by the game animations, that's the primal diference in the sub genre
@@elderleon1844 I specifically referred to "Character Action", there may have been plenty of other similar games in the west but I don't think the genre would be called like that if it started in the west, for example why do you it's "Action Adventure" and not "Adventure Action"?
"Character action" always struck me as more of a feeling than a real, definable genre. Kind of a linguistic shorthand for when people want to describe a particular kind of action game. When people do try to apply a long list of rules for qualification, I just zone out. About the best rule I've heard for it came from the Super Best Friends, whose qualifier was "does it have a launcher?"
It's not even really just a term used for that kind of action game. "Character action game" was also a vague term used to describe platformers. It's more a set of words meant to denote that the game is action-oriented and its focus is on the character you play as, in a presentation-and-marketing sense. Crash Bandicoot was developed as a "character action game." It was called the Sonic's Ass Game partly because of the difficulties in presenting a *character* from behind their back in such a game, as opposed to presenting them from the side as in games like Sonic the Hedgehog. That's how far from a genre label these words are in meaning.
At some point "character action" became touted as a substitute for the "stylish action" sub-genre, which has been for a long while (at least as far as I remember) that sort of casual not-quite-a-genre-but-it-means-a-sort-of-genre-anyway label for games like Devil May Cry, God of War, Ninja Gaiden, Killer is Dead, et cetera and so on. Hell, it wasn't that long ago that I was hearing "character action" used as shorthand for the likes of Resident Evil 4, Uncharted, and that weirdly dissonant Tomb Raider reboot where they mimicked the Uncharted gameplay but made Lara all sympathetic and serious instead of bringing back the old Lara with the old gung-ho personality that would have geled better with the Uncharted combat style in terms of attitude and... uh... yeah, that's kind of an odd decision. Really the new Lara would have fit the slower, more perilous platforming-with-less-combat style of the older Tomb Raiders. What an odd creative decision.
Erm, back on track. Character action. It was used for a while to refer to those highly marketable behind-the-back games, mostly shooters, but the shooting wasn't really a focus there. It'd probably have been applied to God Hand and the new God of War exactly for this reason, because developers were realizing that a mix of entertaining cutscenes and story with that immersive pulled-in-close over-the-shoulder camera was giving people a best-of-both-worlds mix between the intimate get-into-the-experience effect of a first-person camera and the character-driven presentation of the standard third-person camera. They could make characters be characters and sell them on that but still get players immersed into the nitty-gritty of what was going on, whatever the mood of it, and that was something that turned out to catch on really hard for a while and then just never really let go of gamers' imaginations.
But even there it was only referring to the most marketable-at-the-time form of character action game. When it was platformers, it was platformers. The term is really only meant to stand in opposition to the other major type of player immersion, the "insert yourself into the experience" kind of game you'd see in first-person games and create-your-own-protagonist games, and the third type of game, in which there isn't a character focus at all, merely a task, challenge, or other occupation for the player to focus on (team sports games; puzzle games; simulation games; et cetera).
These aren't GENRES. They're broad genre-categories, umbrellas under which genres gather. In truth, Ratchet & Clank, Devil May Cry, God of War OG, and God of War New School, as well as Uncharted, The Last of Us, Prince of Persia, and Resident Evil 4, are all character action games. But though Resident Evil 2 and Resident Evil 7 are technically both Survival Horror titles, only Resident Evil 2 is a character action game. Resident Evil 7 wouldn't qualify as one because Ethan Winters is portrayed in that patently player-insert-focused manner, where you don't even see his face (even his PSN avatar is just his stitched-on hand with the codex displaying a health meter). People using the term as *a genre* are misunderstanding its meaning and point of origin.
And not even in the good way that leads to the English language becoming more to-the-point and concise, either.
- Lewis
A better would be Spectacle fighter. TB put it forth in the past to denote the subgenre of games like DMC, Revengeance, GoW1-3, and Nier: Automata so they'd be easier to find, identify, and discuss. It also helps with getting devs to justify making them since they can actual use analytics to estimate the potential profits and thus budgets (instead of learning the hard way platinum did by almost going under to find out).
I thought people still used Stylish Action? Is that not a thing anymore?
Jesus christ Lewis lol
"Spectacle fighter" confuses action games with fighting games, but I'd be happy with "spectacle action." "Stylish" as a part of the "Stylish Action" term comes straight from Devil May Cry, informally giving it the same status Resident Evil got when it coined the term for the survival horror genre (even though, technically, Alone in the Dark came first, it was not acknowledged as a genre until Resident Evil happened).
Whatever the term you use, though, it should actually say something about WHAT you're describing. Used correctly, "character action" does describe a specific aspect of a game's design and presentation mentality. But not the aspect that a lot of people have come to think it's describing.
"Stylish action," "spectacle action," whatever--those terms work on this very basic level.
- Lewis
Cuhrazy is the genre name. Dante needed n e
>Ratchet and clank is a
*"character shooter"*
>Super mario bros is a
*"character jumping"*
>Assassin's creed is a
*"character climbing"*
>Street fighter is a
*"character fighter"*
>Metal gear solid is a
*"character stealth"*
>Devil may cry is a...
*"CHARACTER ACTION!!"*
No man it's a "Character Crying" game
Perfectly argued and elaborated. Awesome video man!
God of War is a game that I think is in the new genre of games that is "they don't know what genre they are in". The trend that genre stops mattering and even becomes subjective just shows how the jack of all traits but master of none kind of design mentality has permeated the 3A industry. Almost every 3A single player game seems wanting to encapsulate everything that is popular with little care for if the system reinforces the core gameplay or fits the theme. Nowadays, watching the debut gameplay of a game is less of "shit, this experience looks sick! I want to get my hands on!", but more of a "I think I played this before... but nice graphics I guess".
倪传历 Yes. Triple A developers spend a shit ton on games, and they need a return on investment. So they want to appeal to as many people as possible. So they play it safe.
great points.....I don't think that's a new genera tho..that's just action adventure
If the game is all about using atmosphere and simple interactions to tell a story or sell an immersive experience, I'm all for it. The indie walking sim genre is kind of my jam. They know exactly what they want to be and what to include. Unlike those 3A games that basically have a feature creep addiction.
It has a genre and a focus. It's just derived from the Souls subgenre of Hack N Slash games rather the spectacle fighter as they fit the desired tone far better. Spectacle Fighters don't lend themselves well to maintaining a serious tone and having Kratos fight giant behemoths wouldn't really fit with how this game progressed from the originals.
Unlike most spectacle fighters GoW actually had a serious tragedy as its story with a protagonist who's the opposite of the standard genre lead character-wise, so the story and cinematography focus make sense here. As long as we get back to the larger encounters in future games it'd be fine.
On top of this, God of War changing like this won't effect the usual games of its style. They're either being made by Platinum or being meshed into Action JRPGs.
It’s still a fun game to play. Derivative as it may be, it’s a blast to earn more moves as well as pull them off in sequence.
Oh my goodness this video absolutely needed to be made.
no it's not it was just a guy who don't understand a sub genre talking shit about it
As far as I know, the term character action is used because games like Diablo used to be considered hack and slash games.
And then games like Onimusha and DMC came out and were called hack and slash games too. The Character action term was really just a attempt to try and distinguish the hack and slash genre of games we know today.
The God of War criticism you received though is still dumb, and just fanboys trying to justify why God of War is a "game of the generation masterpiece" that shouldn't be compared to better games.
But isn't Diablo more of an action RPG?
That's a fucking lie, Diablo was called a Roguelike, because of the game Rogue
So. When's that ninja gaiden review
He'll do it when he reaches the $750 Patreon goal. Which he has several times now, but it always drops back below pretty quickly, so I don't know.
Capstain259 fair enough. Itd br good timing too since DOA6 got announced
I've been waiting forever for it.
I started with sigma. I like both equally
Except rachel...
I have never seen a rant/explanation video as entertaining as this, all your videos are pure gold my friend
Was just watching the behind the scenes again for R&C 1 as I just finished it up again. In that they're talking about redefining the "Character Action" genre with Ratchet and Clank. Seems like the term is older than you think. Figured I'd post this here in case you see it as I thought it was interesting.
I was introduced to the term "Character Action" in late 2013. At the time it was used to describe Metal Gear Rising, and Assassin's Creed.
You tell me what those two have in common, and have in common over other games, and maybe there's a genre to be found.
My interpretation of the "character action" label is that the personality of the main character is reflected in the game's combat system. Dante is a cocky and charismatic dude, and DMC's combat is all about style and creativity. Bayonetta is a nimble and sexually provocative version of Dante, and Bayo's combat is a more evasive version of DMC with lots of suggestive imagery. Ryu is a taciturn and disciplined master of his craft, and Ninja Gaiden is all about efficiency and quick decision-making. Kratos is an unrefined brute, and GoW's combat is rooted in rough and primitive destruction. Gene is... Gene, and God Hand is... God Hand. Etc.
I feel I've written this exact comment in several forums before as well as YT videos. This is the first time I see someone using almost EXACTLY the same words as me to describe this. Gotta love the genre.
Oh, really? I don't recall ever reading anyone else formulate it this way, but it's entirely possible I might have come across one of your comments at some point! It's an interesting topic, for sure.
KSubzero1000
This would make every game that has combat and isn't generic a character action game.
By that logic, Souls is also a character action game, since ever weapon's animation fits whether your character knows and is able to use it or not, and we all know how much character your character has in Souls games.
Ksubzero1000 Didn't mean to imply you copied it, as a matter of a fact I find it interesting how several people can have a similar output on the subject.
To the other commenters... it's about characterization THROUGH gameplay. Not anything of what you're saying applies.
How I love the DMC4 peacefull theme Ah man, I´m really hype about dmc5, I hope they´ll bring back Nero
Glad they did.
Also props for using the DMC 4 Idol of Space and Time for the back ground music...my favorite song of the whole game...even have it as my PS4 menu theme...
I need some positivity back on this channel again
*MEANWHILE E3 APPROACHES*
Edit:
But then again that DMC V tho.
Yeah, but it was meant to be an overly sarcastic and kinda cynical comment.
I'm actually pretty excited to see this E3
I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. Genres exist because certain games have noticeably different design philosophies, and using them makes it easier for people who want certain kinds of games to see more of them, (for instance, if you like resident evil, why not try other survival horror games, like silent hill?) as well as helping people to better judge games on their own terms.
This is why it's weird to imply that every game needs to have combat as complex as Devil May Cry, because making combat as complex as DMC requires you to sacrifice other things that game developers might want to focus on. You complain that Dark Souls's combat is very simple and not up to the same standards as DMC, but consider: does DMC have any levels as intricate as Anor Londo or Undead Burg? No, but it'd be weird to say DMC is bad because of it, because it's not even trying to have intricate level design in the first place. In DMC, the level design is simply a vehicle for the combat, and in Dark Souls, the combat is simply a vehicle for the level design. This is the difference between action games and action-adventure games, and why we separate the two, to better judge them on their own terms.
But, going back to the main topic of this video, this doesn't mean the God of War reboot is in the clear. It's trying to be an action game, as well as an adventure game, as well as having rpg elements, and doesn't do any of them particularly well. It's a jack of all trades, master of none.
Best comment here
Could a game not have combat as complex as that of _DMC_ taking place in levels as intricate as those of _Dark Souls_ ?
@@Frungi if you had infinite development time to make your game as complex as possible and account for all the ways that dmc's expressive combat could conflict with the level design, without making the game so complicated that it's inaccessible to most people, then yes. But that's an absurd thing to expect of developers.
@@Frungi good game design requires you to focus on a few key elements and design your entire game around making those as good as possible instead of trying to do literally everything as good as possible. If you try do everything, you fail at everything, that's just how it is. Criticizing a game for not doing an aspect as well as another game, when it's not even trying to do that thing as well as that other game is absurd because the standard you're setting is unrealistic. You might as well criticize Metroid Prime for not having combat as good as Doom.
@@horricule451 Thank you for the thoughtful responses.
It probably is unrealistic to expect any game of significant scope to excel at literally everything (or even more than two things) it does. But from the sound of it, this reviewer felt the game suffered from a disconnect between the game design not putting its focus on making the combat interesting, and the active gameplay consisting mostly of uninteresting combat. Not to mention a disconnect between what the series _was_ and what the reboot is, essentially that it was a mistake to take it into the action-adventure direction. I still need to get the game for PC so I can find out if I agree.
I will say, though, that I agree wholeheartedly that “character action” is a stupidly weird name for the stylish action subgenre.
I'd call God of War an action adventure, despite what you say there are sections of the game where you're exploring and traversing the environment.
We don't necessarily place a game into the RPG genre for having some RPG mechanics, Call of Duty has had RPG mechanics.
Before you comment- please remember that this is a "character critique video essay" now, not a "review video."
The “stylish action game” sub-genre (which i prefer to call it) comprises of three main elements:
•A diverse combat sandbox, allowing for a wide variety of different approaches & techniques to battle, thereby creating a sense of player freedom and self-expression
•Emphasizes stylishness, but more specifically, having to create the stylishness yourself by familiarizing yourself with the mechanics, composing the tools of your arsenal together in an artistic-like fashion
•Player versus enemy (PVE) gameplay
This doesn’t exclusively apply to hack n slash games either. Games like Vanquish or Viewtiful Joe can also fall under the banner. Meanwhile games like God of War 4 don’t count because the combat doesn’t allow for any sense of style or player freedom. Even something like Dark Souls, sure the fighting is fairly technical but there’s no artsiness to it
There can be “bad” stylish action games, many would point to something like DmC Devil May Cry. It isn’t common though because if a game goes as far as to feature such an expansive array of options, the developer usually has at least some passion for the game they’re making
This
This should be the correct explanation
What makes this sub-genre is how much the game focuses on fighting mechanics over the other aspects
I recently played the new GoW at a friend’s and decided that I’m gonna play the whole series. Playing the first one, its clear just how different it is comparatively to the latest installment. As for how I feel about it, GoW is more action in the sense of Dark Souls and not the previous faster pace games like DMC, Bayonetta, and the older GoW games. Which is fine honestly, the faster pace action games are here to stay and will continue to come out, regardless of whatever direction a series known for that style of gameplay takes.
"Cuh-ray-zee" games. Have used that description for a while. Look up the Cuh-Ray-Zee wiki, it has good definition of this subset of games we enjoy.
Neat that I found you here, I'll share my thoughts on the Discord too but that site is an excellent resource for specific games and players but far too picky and vague about what counts by their own admission.
thelastgogeta nice to see you here as well. Yeah, that wiki is far too picky for it but I like some of the guidelines they pick for it. Thing is... The gameplay in many games doesn't push you into doing what the character would do... They don't push you into making you 'feel' like the character like DMC, NG and Bayonetta do. This could be a topic for the discord.
It'll definitely be a great topic for the Discord. If you peek in the Anime channel I'm already going back and forth about a similar topic too.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "feeling" like a character but we can get back to it tomorrow or now if you're avaliable.
it was just a repository for stuff people discussed on the cuhrayzee games general thread on 4chan. if a game is on there, it's because people proved in-thread that it was worth discussing along-side DMC, bayonetta, god hand, etc. usually they would post videos of the combat and do short write-ups on advanced techniques.
everyone has since jumped ship to other sites so the wiki is a bit of a relic
I feel like the argument for the character action genre falls apart when people call fucking no more heroes a character action game
I think people just call third-person action games "character action" games.
What about games like dark souls and the new god of war?
@@BIGJUNK1MILLION That's where it gets confusing. I think it's simply best to call them "third person action-games" because that's what they are.
i think the genre is defined by the game itself encouraging to mix your combos up throughout
I don't think "character action" is a genre, it's more of a subgenre at most. Or even less than that. Like how "Souls-like" is simply a very specific style within a subgenre of action RPG, that's what "character action" games are to melee action games in general. It's true that there's no real decent definition for it though. I guess an over-the-top style? I would want to put a certain level of complexity and/or move set variety in there too, but I still think games like the GoW and No More Heroes games should be included. It's just one of those "you know it when you see it" kind of things. Not very helpful I guess, but at least that's honest and not trying to be elitist.
Also I agree the name is stupid. Games have a hard time with genres and giving them good names in general, but "character action" is maybe one of the worst. There isn't much else that's better though. And no way am I using "spectacle fighter". I hate that term. Completely misleading and comes across as damning with faint praise. It's like saying these games are like Street Fighter, but all style over substance. Fuck that.
And you can compare anything to anything. Context is important of course, but that doesn't mean comparisons of two very different things are somehow invalid. And the new GoW isn't that far away from the old games, or any other character action game, in the grand scheme of things. It's a mix of lots of genres, sure, but one of them is character action.
TotalBiscuit called these (over the top style based fighter games) Spectacle fighter games, rip you will be missed
spectacle fighter is kinda a worse term because it doesnt include the most important part: focusing on the playable character's (the character in character action) personality and style and letting them fully come out through the system, with "spectacle fighter" you dont get to include games like Okami and re6 and Vanquish because of an arbitrary "i prefer this name because im a contrarian"
The important part is that the term is widely recognized as relating to the gameplay variant, element, or experience specified. You know its a character action/ spectacle fighter by its relation to the gameplay of that genre's prime example(s): Devil May Cry, Bayonetta, Nier: Automata, and Revengeance. It's simply meant to differentiate them for those who know or are interested in experiencing that variant of hack n slash, not perfectly explain it- that's what demos and play are for.
Or maybe, MAYBE, all genres are defined somewhat vaguely and yet still somehow manage to convey meaning in helpful ways because language and communication is complex and people aren't robots.
I thought the previous God of War video was spot on.
That's because it was. He hit the nail on the head with that video, and all the gamers with bad taste in video games got butthurt.
Mayo Rice It still won GOTY all the same. So I guess it wasn’t as spot-on as you’d like to admit
@singularon1 if your favourite game won the goty and some one like tgbs showered some hate on it how would you feel then
@singularon1 it feels easy to be on the other side and say that but if your interests were fullfiled by this game then you would know that its not so easy
@@benwasserman8223 Because people are sheep minded hype following shills.
It's about as real as most of these "genres" of music that come out of fucking nowhere...
I'm with Charlie on this one. A lot of developers and fans use meaningless distinction in Generes as a means of escape when their games don't hold up. Bad Combat? It's not a "Character Action" game. Boring turn-based battle system? It's a classic "JRPG". Shooting the same enemies for millions of hours with no deviation? It's a "looter-Shooter".
M.A
You do know turn based systems have a different focus than real time systems? You may have heard about chess.
M.A I can't agree more. Especially for the "loot shooter" example.
JRPG and Looter-shooter are far more revelatory descriptions than "character action" and I feel that's the point Charlie is making.
Alias Anybody Woow, so clever... Yes, I heard about chess genius. That doesn't mean that turn-based games should be dry and shallow just because they are "classic JRPGs". Charlie specified the problem with creating a phony genre in character action games in his video, but I stated that this problem exists on a much broader spectrum in the industry.
By that logic, 99% of all games are "action" games because they involve an action. Hidden objects games: action is to find hidden object. Adventure games: action is to explore. Sonic: action game cos he bops robots. Civilization: Action game cos you control units and settlements. Still think Genres are a "meaningless distinction?"
People want to classify those games as a different genre is because they like those specific DMC-like type of games and there's only one or two made every few years. If a genre is defined and popularised, more games of that type will be made.
I can definitely see both sides, but I feel like you could make a case. Sure, Dynasty Warriors, modern day God of War, and Devil May Cry are all hack n slashers at the end of the day, but how they go about doing it is completely different from each other. It's like saying all JRPG's are the same when so many franchises take on the genre in different ways, whether we're talking about turnbased Dragon Quest, first person Etrian Odyssey, MMO Xenoblade, Grid based Fire Emblem/Disgaea, button mashing Tales of/Star Ocean, etc. Anyways, good video. Interesting discussion to be had.
personally i define "character action" as a genre where your character goes "SWORDTRICKSWORDTRICKSWORDTRICKSWORDTRICKGUARDTRICKSWORDTRICKSWORD"
Man, I've actually stopped discussing the combat of Dad of Boi with people because it was just frustrating. I couldn't criticize the game without people telling me my criticism is invalid because "it's not supposed to be like DMC" or "it's a reboot, it's not like the original" or "it's good! Why are you hating on it so much!?". All while still acknowledging it's good points mind you.
So I've just stopped talking about it. it was just pissing me off. I mean if you're gonna tell me Dad of Boi is the greatest game of the decade, I will damn sure compare it to, you know other similar games.
I still have to finish Dad of Boi. I just lost interest in the game... But I'll finish it at some point... I guess...
MegaPhilX people still think it's a reboot? Whew lad then i guess all those references and connections flew over their heads
(Also i love your work PhilX, been a fan for years
Twipz41 haven't you heard? These days you can reboot something but cram it with references of the previous installments you're trying to ignore because fanservice.
Titanium Rain that sounds terribly familiar 🤔
I think the reason people really like the combat is for the same reason people like the arkham combat, now god of war. Does have more depth then arkham, but is still overall pretty shallow but the game makes people feel cool and feel likke there doing while not doing really a while lot.
My issues with Dad of Boi are the camera and the lack of jump. You can't have an overview of the battle. And for some reason the camera stops focusing on an enemy you're attacking if it ends up slightly behind you to the side.
Playing on Hard (especially near the start of the game) is a real struggle. I ended up always feeling like I have to resort to cheap tactics like pushing enemies off ledges in order to just barely make it out alive. And that doesn't make me feel like a badass.
But to be fair, now that I've progressed a bit more in the game, it's gotten easier. But still, while I was getting my ass kicked, I was really missing a better camera and being able to jump. When I brought up that other games in the series before had jumping, why not this one; I've had people tell me that it's a new game. (sort of a reboot) It's okay. Doesn't have to be the same.
And then there is bullshit like this:
ua-cam.com/video/q7stuASKtz0/v-deo.html
Like, when Japanese games do the whole invisible wall thing it sucks, but when this game does it, it's okay.
I personally think of it this way. When someone says "character action" it's not about the characters themselves, but more so that action itself has character. Devil May Cry for example where if you're good at it, you can pull off things that the normal person can scarcely comprehend. A combat system that has enough to offer a player mechanically to allow them to tailor how they play. Where you can playthrough it with the basics, but rewards the more experimental player with small rewards for pulling off some of the crazier tricks, or even the satisfaction of dispatching an enemy is an over the top and stylish way.
I think "TotalBiscuit" (May he rest in peace.) used to call these games "Spectacle fighters"
ArmaBiologica35 total biscuit was a decent guy RiP
That term was coined by Yahtzee, and he's still bitter about the industry deciding to go with "character action" lol
Yooooo.... let me just give my boy The Gaming Brit a big shoutout for bringing up Dustforce. You are a real man man. One of the most addicting games that you will ever play.
If anything, the new god of war is a character walk, or character adventure, or character letmeendwithacliffhangersoicansellyouthesequel. Yeah, that fits perfectly.
I hadn't even heard of this "genre" until this video, so I'm on board with you. Nebulous at best.
“I need some positivity back on this channel.”
Just remember: Metroid Prime 4 is getting made.
lol
It truly is, haha
The only other time I've heard of the term "Character Action Game" was in Andy Gavin's and Jason Rubin's blog posts on making Crash Bandicoot, and they used the name to refer to mascot platformers like Mario and Sonic. Specifically, they said mascot platformers games were "character platformer action games". They also referred to run 'n guns and beat 'em ups as "cousins" to the character action game or CAG for short.
I think that really proves the nebulousness of this genre name than anything else.
Someone else already brought it up, but I think Yahtzee's genre name "spectacle fighter" fits these games the best.
TotalBiscuit coined the term Spectacle fighter for this subgenre of hack n slash games. Like many game genres, the name is just what most ppl agree points to the group of games with a given gameplay variant.
CtisGaming | Yahtzee first used the term in his MacWorld review on April 15th, 2009, and even said he made it up in that review. If I see proof that TotalBiscuit used the term earlier and also said he came up with the term, then I'll agree and see it as the coincidence it is.
www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/673-MadWorld
zeropunctuation.wikia.com/wiki/MadWorld
I disagree with your comments on genre. Character action games or spectacle fighters are hack and slash style games with the mechanical complexity of a fighting game. I like it being a genre, as it lets me know what I'm getting when I buy a game.
That said, while I like this genre a lot, not every action game needs to aspire to be a DMC 3 or Ninja Gaiden. Some place emphasis elsewhere. Bloodbore's combat is more about positioning and movement than pure offensive capability. Older God of War titles are more interested in the brutality of their combat than the complexity. Some games want you to feel like a god, some want to show you your mortality. Different strokes for different folks, and it really depends on what the dev wants to evoke.
you forgot to bring up the fact that there's an equally vague distinction between "character action" and "hack and slash" which are also apparently two different genres
I like character action genre, because it's a good way to show what I want in games. If character action becomes a genre, that means there would now be a standard for the games I want. I want this to be a genre with a billion titles, don't ruin this for me!
DMC3/4 is where you "choreographically" play with the enemy, new GoW is where you adapt to your enemy (old GoW is where you play with enemy, but with less possible movements per second like in DMC3/4).
Isn't Character Action just a subset of Hack and Slash? But yeah you make a lot of good points in this vid
I still like the name "spectacle fighter" for this subgenre
God of War 4 is not a hack and slash. It's obviously a puzzle platformer :^)
An axe puzzler.
i think people use "character action" as a sub-genre based on a "Stylish" visual design for combat.
Parrying is not supposed to be a major mechanic in dark souls. If it were the game would force you to use a shield, and the game is just as playable and fun without one. Two handing weapons even if you don't have to is a feature for a reason. Bosses being unparryable also makes sense because each boss is supposed to be its own unique thing, not just another enemy encounter (that said duels against knights that you can parry are pretty sick). Also if you feel the need to constantly dodge roll in fights, than that's a problem with you, not the game. While constant Dodge rolling will eventually lead to victory, if you pay close attention to an enemies attack patterns you can learn how to fight them very effectively without much dodging required. As for the lack of moves, Dark souls is not about making these crazy looking combos to utterly decimate your opponent, its about playing a game of cat and mouse where who's the cat and who's the mouse is constantly changing mid battle. You have to put more thought into a single enemy in dark souls than any group of enemies in Devil may cry. Also there are a boat load of weapons in the game, most of which have their own unique swing arcs, thrusts and other such attack animations that do impact how you play. Each individual weapon may not have many moves to choose, but in order to have even a remote chance of success, you have to choose what move to use and when to use it very carefully, and you have to figure out what works and what doesn't work against basically every enemy (and by extension against all different kinds of groups of enemies. what works against an enemy when he's alone might not work when he's in a group). Meanwhile in Devil May Cry, assuming you aren't going for a good rank (ranking systems are an arbitrary difficulty inclusion that only serves to mock more casual players),or playing on anything higher than normal, than you can just pick a weapon you like the feel of and find out which button combos are the best ones for said weapon and you're good, decimating any mooks you come across and only having to try against bosses and "Mini boss" enemies (example: The werewolves with fire and electric claws from bayonetta). Having more combos and more weapon moves does not inherently make a game more complex, how said moves are integrated and how the game wants and expects you to use said moves however does affect the complexity of the game.
True words.
Despite having someone beating dark souls 3 without rolling.
I'd like to disagree on just walking and analizing a pattern to dodge something. Dark Souls enemies have a lot of "lock-on" to your character, even if you walk behind the boss, the boss will flip/slide mid-attack 180 degrees on his feet forcing you to roll out of it, there are exceptions, but the general rule is that. Fight Artorias, and you'll notice that he can change directions mid-air while doing his front-flip attack.
Yes you could just "give a few steps back" or just "run" until you're out of range, but that could hinder your limited window of attack, heavily discouraging doing it and further rewarding timed dodges.
Demon and Dark souls were pretty excellent even with these flaws because it was not the point of the game, more about being carefull and "on your feet" than having excellent reflexes and muscle memory... but then Dark Souls 2, 3 and BloodBorne happenned. All those games are very reliant on dodging as if the franchise was about action and not the inmersion of the experience.
Pretty excellent example of this is Pontiff Sulhyvan, while hitboxes are a marvel that allow you to "side step" some of his moves, the devs have catched on the over-reliance of mindless dodging from players to tackle bosses, and their answer was having Sulhyvan wind up and hold up some of his attacks a little bit longer just to wait and catch players mid roll.
Fair enough i suppose. To be fair though bloodborne was actively trying to be a more fast paced and aggressive game. As for Dark souls 2, that game had a bigger emphasis on fighting groups of enemies, so it makes sense that you would have to play more defensively with the dodge rolling. I have yet to play Dark souls 3 (shameful i know) so i cant speak to how that game handles dodging as an overall mechanic.
Terrible, there's an overreliance on it. You're expected to fight at a DMC's pace while still having the sluggish dark souls animations, so there is a fuckton of enemies with room-wide attacks, broad sweeps and heat-seeking overheads that forced you to roll your full stamina bar to depletion or have excellent reflexes. Which is what TBGS was talking about, the combat felt "samey"/stalled with it's repeated iterations because it just doesn't work with the "action-esque" approach DkS3 took.
I forgive bloodborne thought, since the main defense mechanic is a sidestep instead of a roll (Functions the same, but the goal of the game was being more aggressive)
>You have to put more thought into a single enemy in dark souls than any group of enemies in Devil may cry
lmao what thought? You put a fucking single black knight against me and I wouldn't put any that much any thought because I can easily parry the guy and I can even say the same thing with multiple silver knights. Now in DMC you put a hell pride, hell sloth and hell lust together in the same room(which DMC 3 does a lot) you will put more thought into them simply because of how different their movesets are and they can break your momentum in combat. The only really enemy is threatening in the first Dark Souls was the bone wheels. Aside from that if you don't play a fucking idiot then most basic bitch enemy in any dark souls game wouldn't even really a problem.
Also can people stop pretending that actually doing good combos in DMC 3 and 4 are easy? You watch one of those Donguri990 videos and people think that shit is easy to do. Those stuff are hard and requires hours and hours of practice. It only took me minutes to master parrying black knights, dark wraiths and basic bitch hollow enemies while it took me hours and hours to even do jump cancelling properly.
>Each individual weapon may not have many moves to choose, but in order to have even a remote chance of success, you have to choose what move to use and when to use it very carefully, and you have to figure out what works and what doesn't work against basically every enemy
lol almost every weapon in dark souls is viable in any enemy or boss. A long sword would just work as a balder swag sword or a silver knight straight sword. Even a fucking bandit knife can be just as viable as a Claymore on any enemy or boss(depending on the points you spend on strength or dex of course). Those whole " you have to figure out what works and what doesn't work against basically every enemy" is just pretentious bullshit and you're elevating souls combat to something it really isn't.
I always preferred the phrase "Spectacle Fighter" When referring to games like DMC, Bayonetta, and Wonderful 101. "Spectacle" as in fast, showboat encouraging, impressive combos.
"Character Action" game sounds like it could literally describe any action game
Don't ever change.
Maze Mage sometimes people has to change to survive
Omio Rahman truth
I thought the genre was called a "Spectacle Fighter" since the emphasis of these games was to utilize the complexity of the combat system to create spectacles.
That's a very broad definition given the word "Spectacle". Almost any visually stimulating combat system will result in spectacles. The only exception that comes to mind are games whose combat is minimalistic or abstract.
I was wondering when Dark Souls would pop up on the channel haha. Great stuff as always, I’d never even heard of this “Sub-sub genre.” Seems arbitrary as hell.
The dev team behind Ratchet and Clank refer to it as a “character action game”, in the making of video, in the goodies menu.
So the term is that old at least.
I'm certainly not here to argue that DMC has bad combat but I do think your implication that all action games should have combat like it is an incorrect conflation of complexity with quality. Lots of good games are well served by having simple combat so they can spend player focus elsewhere.
I LOVE the dmc statue menu music in the background, always really soothed me for some reason, almost lulling me to sleep in between missions lol.
I think you bring a lot of good points, but I think the idea of creating this new genre comes from the fact that video games can't be put into genres in the way other forms of media can because of how many variables they have. I don't think it's fair to drop every game like this into hack n' slash, because games like God of War 2018, DMC4, and Dynasty Warriors you could all call hack n' slash games, but those are three completely different video game experiences and putting them all under one big umbrella is kind of unfair. Whether or not "character action" is a good descriptor is one thing but I do think there needs to be differentiation. You couldn't say "Oh you like God of War? Well you would also probably love this game in the same genre, Hyrule Warriors."
I just call it what it is a "stylish hack n slash" anything with over the top combat animations.
All I want is Dante to make sweet love to me during this E3
Highjacking the comment chain to say that Capcom just officialy bought the "DevilMayCryV.com" domain. It's HAPPENING
Lord Blue Balls EX which Dante?
Constipated Dana I didn't and it still felt great
7:20 I like how RPG has come to mean "bunch of grindable stat points"
I don't see the problem of having more labels for genres. But i do see why you don't like the new GOW or it's combat. I enjoyed it for what it was, i know it's not very deep and kind of clunky, but i had fun. Not every game has to be DMC levels of complexity to be enjoyable
I think it's fine as a genre if only because people know what you mean if you say "character action". Likewise, if I say a game has "metroidvania elements", you will generally know what I mean even if the game isn't a 100% match. All they are are descriptors to make things easier. That said, I don't think genre is ever really an argument for mechanical misteps.
Review Ninja Gaiden! You're almost there X|
The first time I hear of "Character Action" was from Jason Rubin, when he used to talk about Mario, Sonic, Crash and Jak and Daxter... Well that's how I came across it
Well the New GoW and the Old GoW dose use a compleatly different combat style, which has it's pros and cons. So it's hard to directly compare them. So I would mention the things that stood out to me in this game.
Here are the things that I have noticed in my "Give Me God of War" playtrough:
.
-Pros:
The combat was much more hectic and chalanging for both good and bad(I explain those later) reasons. I couldn't use the usual bread and butter combo like in the old GoW games most of the time and I had to stay on my toes the whole time while I was fighting.
The new gear and stat sistem dose give you a better costumization options as well which helps you picking a play style that you want.
.
-Cons:
Status effects..... they went overbord with these. Every single one is extreamly anojing except for maybe burn:
Frost effect slows your movement which is deadly on the difficulity that I played on.
Poison delevels you, making every enemy harder.
And Blind is the absolute worst! Play the game blindfolded!
The Came is also a constant pain. This is a camera that is used in survival horror for a reason. It limits your sight making it harder to see the enemies around you(and this game LOVES hords), and having arrows point at the enemy dose not help. Since you can't see what enemy it is, what attack it uses and how far it is. I died so many times because of this.
.
This are the things that I can mention from the top of my head. But this is just what I experienced and maybe I just suck at it who knows.
I thought "character action game" meant an action game that focuses heavily on the protagonist. Like how 90's/00's games often marketed their games on how cool or badass or edgy their protagonist was.
Boiii get ready for DMC 5 at E3..
It's almost like all genres aren't actually real and only come about when people agree what thing goes into what category
Keep the honest review coming modern games could use some testosrone
character action is a character centric game where your character gameplay matches that of cutscenes ... atleast thats how i see it
Next time on Gaming Brit Show: Charlie calls every single game ever created an "RPG" because "dur, you play a role, why limit it to this specific subsection of games?"
"give me a game where everything is top notch baby am here waiting"
*DMCV walks in*
Peoples criticism were that you weren’t judging the game on what it was trying to do. You know judging something on it’s own merits. You were judging based on things it never even attempted. You criticize the wave of games influenced by cinema but never criticize cinema for being influenced by literature and photography. Art takes influence from art, it’s not that crazy that games start to do it.
You imply it’s not a good direction in God of War but act as cutscene heavy games like Kingdom Hearts II and Metal Gear Solid 4 are worthy of defense when they do the same thing but even worse with their immersion breaking long scenes. I don’t have a problem with those games doing that because that’s what they were going for but you should if you leverage the same criticisms at God of War 4 but not those same games you’ve given your praises. There’s this sort of condescending elitist mentality in recent youtube game criticisms that deems certain things not “real games” or “walking simulators”.
It’s simply boring intellectually inept criticisms, it’s pinning down a medium and saying “it’s not what I want it to be, so it doesn’t count or it’s inherently bad”. You don’t even do this tho, you’re just inconsistent with this philosophy and pick and choose which games it’s okay to do it.
I love your videos but thought I would give my critical take on this whole thing.
Fidelio good point.
Fidelio i feel the same way. It is more than ok to compare the game to its older iterations but i dunno its like he doesnt realize the company is trying something new. Of course their are gonna be flaws and honestly this is the deepest god of war has ever been besides kill stuff and shove orbs into stuff.
It was clear imo that god of war wanted to be cinematic since the first game and it was obviously a route they would take when you look at the spectacles of god of war 3.
''Show, don't tell'' is a common critique in film. Comparing animation to a slideshow isn't positive either. It's not about influence, it's about not making proper use of the medium. Walking sections don't even work as cinema. Instead of carefully chosen camera angles and interactions you just have characters awkwardly walking around.
You talk about judging games on their own merits but meanwhile you compare GOW to Metal Gear Solid 4 as if he can't like one and dislike the other. The games have completely different approaches to storytelling.
Fidelio
Can't you skip cutscenes in KH2 and MGS4?
Sorry for not engaging the whole post but you should know from the walking sim video or numerous parts in other videos that the cutscenes/walking are an issue when they get in the way or returning to the meat or have little to enjoy as you replay or play it for the first time.
So GOW4 never even attempted to have juggling, on the fly weapon switching, parrying, unlockable moves and Devil Trigger? Were these things just in there on accident then? I guess so because apparently that's the reason you aren't allowed to compare it to other games that do the exact same things (but possibly better).
But I guess that's all irrelevant anyway, since we have to judge games on their own merits. Which basically means not judging them at wall since we don't have anything better or worse to compare them to. It's almost like pieces of art don't exist in a vacuum and ignoring very obvious similarities and differences (like KHII and MGS4 not having unskippable cutscenes and walking sections) between certain pieces is also pretty intellectually inept.
BTW mr.Brit where is your super old Skyrim video I cant find it anywhere.
Screw positivity, these are the best.
Edit: oh, my personal favorite is when you and some chaps discuss, like, details of mechanics and what you like or dislike about some parts of the game in particular, and then that guy appears and says "you wanted GOW to change, they gave you new stuff and now you complain about it, which means that you don't know what you want and just hate everything new".
Then you just don't know where to begin, you know. Now you have to explain to him all of this meta-stuff, like describe how homogenization is plaguing the gaming industry or these genre shenanigans, then maybe tell him that it's not about "hating everything new", but rather about subtleties in implementation and so on.
All of it runs in your head, an endless stream of counter-arguments, which most likely would be rendered useless stumbling upon your opponent's generalizations like "you don't like fun" anyway. Then, while them thought are piling up, in your mind this gap between you two turns into some abyss that can't be filled no matter how hard you try, so you just tell him to fuck off instead, but it brings no relief.
It also doesn't help that English is not my native language, I really envy you people who can juggle them words with ease, putting the scum in their place. For me it's a fucking struggle every time, and that's why foreigners are more agressive, lol.
If you can do a launcher and combo after in the air then its a character action game.
Maybe splitting "character action" and whatever GoW is, is like splitting arcade racers and racing simulators. They go for very different things and no one would criticize an arcade racer for being unrealistic like they would with a simulation racer.
Yeah, racer being the genre and arcade/simulators being the subgenres. This is with subgenres of Hack N Slash.
Can't wait to get into the DMC Series also congrats on 100k, it's been a long road dude, you deserve it.
As a game designer I cry every time someone says "character action" is a genre.
We have action games. And we have non-action games. Those are basically the two big categories.
Then you start delving into sub-genres of action, like FPS, platformer, adventure, basically anything that's real time and where you progress by performing actions.
So, I totally understand the need to classify DMC, Bayonetta, etc. as a new sub-genre of action games, but please... For the love of god, stop using the term "character action", it doesn't make any sense.
I'd even prefer "spectacle fighter" at this point, at least it properly describes what's happening on screen...
What game did you make
I just wanna say I thoroughly and legitimately enjoy that you're involving more Ninja Gaiden footage in your action game videos
I think most people just like it when you judge a game based on its own merits and what it sets out to do, rather than compare it to other games with different combat styles, which is basically judging the game by what it isn't, or what it doesn't have. That would be like criticising every sci-fi movie for not being as deeply, visually complex or having the same kinds of themes as 2001: A Space Oddyssey
But nothing exists in a vacuum. People will always hold products to certain standards established by other products
Actually brainlets just gets annoyed when you tell them that they are tasteless plebs who never played good game before
^This. I absolutely agree with thegamingbritshow in that if a game could be better, then why not aspire to be so, if character action sets the bar for engaging and fun gameplay then why not strive for that? All that is perfectly valid as an argument for why games should strive to be more like character action games (as an example). It just isn't an opinion on what the new God of War was, which is what people generally expect and want when looking at a review of a game, its an opinion on what the game is not. I think thats all the problem really is, like if the video had been called "why don't more games aspire to the gameplay of character action games" and used new GoW as an example then I doubt it would have gotten the backlash it received. However if your going to title the video THE GOD OF WAR 4 REVIEW and then hardly talk at all about what the game did and only compare it to other different things (not saying criticism isn't valid I understood this video) then I think you should expect people to respond negatively.
Why should he care about what "most people like" when it's his own opinion that he is free to share with to the rest of the world? It's kind of a "you" problem when you hate on another's opinion.
Ora Saikatsu The difference is that he's comparing a new God of War, with it's older games. You'd always expect sequels to improve, or at least be as good. Though instead of improving, God of War changed it's formular completely. Scrapping gameplay mechaniqs for visuals. There'd be no problem if it was a new franchise. But it's God of War, so it'll be compared to God of War games.
I assume Character Action games are 80% walking simulators with 20% battle... do not want
Yeah the genre lines and such are bullshit always. People just like to box things.
And if you don't like God of War's combat, that's fine. I loved it personally. I didn't like Uncharted, a lot of people love that game series, but I didn't like it that much.
The simplicity of dark souls combat is its greatest asset imo
Thanks, I really wanted 9 minutes of disingenuous arguments
Personally, I think the term "character" in "character action" comes from the act of player expression. Every game that I would consider "character action" follows the same rule - they offer the player a large amount of tools and abilities in combat, and the depth comes from the simple act of giving the player the freedom to use all of those tools to create a near-infinite amount of playstyles. If you go watch high-level play of something like God of War (any of them, not just 4), almost all high-level play consists of the same things, the same strategies to effectively kill foes, especially when it comes to enemies that nullify most of your moves and require certain tools/attacks to take down (these are abundant in games like GoW4). If you look at something like Bayonetta or Devil May Cry, though, the amount of player expression through gameplay is insane - it's exceedingly rare that any two players will handle every situation they come across in the same way, and it's rare that there's a dominant strategy that defines how you handle encounters like there are in so many other brawlers. The "character", then, comes from the character that YOU define yourself as through your playstyle. Maybe not the most eloquent of terms, but I think it fits.
God of war is not a character action game
It’s in the genre of a bland game
Non-game?
I've never heard of "Character Action". The most I would think of that is the term that would actually describe the genre of such fighters would be "Spectacle Fighter".
Nu-GoW is bland without comparing it to anything else. It’s dull and clunky in its own right, whatever genre it pretends to be.
findlestick Come on, it's a way better game than you make it out to be.
I might not have even finished my first playthrough of the game, had it been called anything else but "God of War"...
+AKheon Same here. I forced myself to finish it only because my subscribers were going to ask me about it, given my history with GoW-games. Half-tempted to review it.
Really, still with the GOW hate? Its a fantastic game, if you didn't like it then thats on you.
Question: Have you guys played the game at all?
edit: Just to make sure we can y'all aren't hating it just because and maybe you can point out the things you disliked about it so i can get a better understand on why you didn't like it.
Man, I was looking forward to more vids like this. To me, this vid is the best thing GoW remake has brought. also thanks for pointing out my feelings on Dark Souls combat after all the games
Make a Ninja Gaiden video god damn it.
Hi, I am a fighting game guy. Character action games are basically single player fighting games. That's enough distinction to make them different from everything else. God of war is not a character action game because it lacks the depth. Depth is the gateway to character action and nothing else.