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.
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
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.
"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?"
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.
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!!"*
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.
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.
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.
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
@@elderjose9662 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"?
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.
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.
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.
The new God of wars combat gets very deep, you're just bad at it. It's weird how you havnt looked into the combat to see if you are maybe playing it fairly pathetically. And no it's not "stAts" based. I honestly agreed on the depth argument till a week later where I saw combo video's for the same game you heavily criticized the combat for. Tho I'm guessing you won't give this comment a second thought. So yeah "fight me"
Awakened Virtue what does the camera have to do with the combat depth. Also it's not exactly damage control if it was there from the beginning, the cone wasn't a post launch patch
Texan Yakkle ....okay? I'm talking about this game having more combat depth. Those guys played it normal and fought the harder enemies normal. I'm talking about move canceling and crazy combos
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.
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
The Amazing Lucas it wasn't trash, it was a solid 7. overrated as fuck, but not trash. it had all that awful AAA "look how adult and cinematic we are" shit, which almost makes it trash.... BUT the side quests actually had a few decent puzzles and almost none of that AAA shit, so those actually saved it.
+Pendant Balde If you haven't played the previous games, new Dad of Boi's story is a bland and overused story of an old dude (dad) trying to protect/raise a kid. I double down on what GamingBrit said in his video, without the series new Kratos is bland.
Mateusz I have played every GoW game dude. Whats with all this gatekeeping crap? If I were to never have done so and reviewed Dad of Boi and liked it, my opinion is invalid? Fuck that bullshit.
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?"
@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'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.
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.
I agree on basically everything (nitpicking the words of the term is kind of silly. What the fuck does Action Adventure or Role-Playing Game even mean?), but I feel like there's still a specific game type within the "Character Action" umbrella that needs some kind of word. If I play Bayonetta and want something like it, God of War will not satisfy that itch, but Ninja Gaiden, Devil May Cry, God Hand or even Wonderful 101 could scratch it. It's fucking hard to put my finger on it, but there's definitely something there that defines these games as a specific sub-genre, and I think there should be something to call them. Dumb terminology or not, looking for a "character Action" game will most likely find you exactly what you want if the cool kids club definition stands.
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.
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.
DMC5 Is the better than Sekiro. It's the perfect action game. IDK why Critics taking it for granted. It has the best combat system ever plus a cutting edge graphics
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
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.
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.
+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.
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.
thought I would mention I agree with the video, but you dumbasses shitting on new god of war ONLY because it’s “overrated mainstream AAA bad” are dumbasses, actually come up with criticisms and opinions please
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.
God of war sucks as an action game. The camera is not fit for the gameplay, especially when it comes to the flying enemies. The game is shallow and broken. 2 weapons for the entire campaign and the blades of chaos was a bore to play with. The boss battles were boring and enemies don’t respawn in locations you already been through. Crafting was pointless for a game like this. Enemies were boring to fight and level design was horrible. The axe puzzles were a chore and annoying. Game was flawed heavily
@rpr kjj He gave some valid points as to why he came to the conclusion that the game is riddled with flaws; do you want to write more, write less or shut up entirely because you can't handle the idea of someone vocalizing their dislike of a product? Because he'd have to write more about how "The axe puzzles were a chore and annoying" to further augment his statement for example, but you've berated him for writing a simple paragraph, so I don't understand your statement.
Mrkingkold187 I totally agree with you. God of War 4 is the absolute perfect example of what's wrong in modern game design. "let's make it rpg" but with no choice and consequence just about stats. "let's copy dark souls because that's what people like" being games with no similarity at all except maybe the Combat that's mostly flawed. "let's make the game more like a film" resulting In a game with alot of time wasted on unskipable walking ( and with the case of God of War climbing) section that has zero challenge. But that's nothing compared to the absolute disrespect to the Canon and the whole themes of God of War as a Greek tragedy saga. Instead of kratos being an antihero who got tricked by the gods and ended up waging war that destroyed the whole world and his own spirit as a character, kratos is now a dad that knows everything to teach his own son how to survive and somehow still alive despite commuting suicide in the end of God of War 3. The whole story was just so boring and the ending is the worst cliffhanger ever seen in a game ( which by the way was done alot better in God of War 2). This is a game that pissed me off considering God of War was really one of the most unique and interesting game series I've played becoming another "action rpg" with lackluster combat and disjointed narrative.
Genres exist primarily to make products easier to market, and for people to decide what to buy. "Character Action" describes a specific style of game - which for the most part - has the same audience. "Action" or "adventure" will bring up all sorts of games and doesn't really help. Google's results for "character action games:" Bayonetta Devil May Cry: HD Collection Yaiba: Ninja Gaiden Z Castlevania: Lords of Shadow 2 Transformers: Devastation Devil May Cry 4 Devil May Cry Furi Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance Three of these titles are by Platinum Games, three are Devil May Cry, one is an indie game, another a bad Ninja Gaiden game, and also a Castlevania game I haven't played but seems to have a focus on combat. Google's results aren't perfect, but you could enjoy most of these coming in with the same expectations. They're all potential games to buy for the person who might enjoy one of them listed there. Google's results for "action games" start with minecraft, fortnite, PUBG, and GTA V.
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.
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
Yea this is kinda new to me too. I kinda just thought we are all on the same page and most of these games were considered hack and slashs or beat'em ups.
Yeah, exactly. Some just have different design priorities. Even a hack and slash still falls into the (colloquial) beat 'em up category for me, because using melee weapons by default doesn't introduce enough mechanical difference to warrant a whole new genre name. Samurai Shodown is just as much a fighting game as Street Fighter II is, despite the weapon usage having an impact on the dynamics. A good, non-colloquial name for the beat 'em up genre as a whole would be "Melee Action", I guess, but I'm cool with beat 'em up.
I thought I was the only one that thought that name character action sound stupid however I do have a interpretation and I think it means that you're supposed to feel like the character. For instance in Devil May Cry Dante is cool and cocky in every battle. So when you eventually get the hang of the game eventually you start getting cocky because the game awards you for being stylish. The same thing goes for God of War Kratos is brutal as hell so the game encourages you to go all out and just be wild when it comes on to combat I hope what Im saying makes sense P.S Devil May Cry 5 is coming so you don't have to worry about talking about how much you don't like God of War anymore
You know what's a pretty good hack and slash with some pretty simple combat and rpg elements? Nioh. It has stance switching, which also switches your chosen special abilities, ways to chain stance switches into combos, a stamina recovery mechanic and few abilities relating to it, and a bunch of different boss fights, all of which have multiple variations depending on the mission and NG+ you're on. I wouldn't call the combat as deep necessarily, but rather strangely limited as the combos don't really serve proper functions and you can have only few special abilities chosen at once, along with there being only one move that chains a weapon switch into a combo, let alone the fact that you can wield only two weapons anyway. It's good, but not exactly on the deeper side of things. Oh and unlike the new God of War, it has actual level design and exploration, with actual enemy placements that affect how the player might approach the level exploration. ... I guess the main reason it isn't held up as high as GoW4 is because it doesn't have that interesting of a story.
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 think the emphasis on style is what defines "character action." Bad genre name tbh but it's the fact that in DMC, bayonetta, god hand, metal gear rising etc are all focused on rule of cool stuff rather than anything else. In style centric hack and slash games theres things added for no other reason than it looks cool. For example in dmc1 the high time attack was added because kamiya thought it would be cool to launch your enemy and juggle them in the air using dante's guns. He wasn't thinking "oh well obviously being able to extend combos is a required part of an action or beat em up game" he just thought it would look cool. The torture attacks in bayonetta are presented the way they are because they are a cool way to finish enemies. Nothing more complex than that, no story explanation or some kind of reason that bayonetta would need to do that.
Character Action as a genre is influenced by the Japanese tendency to invent "new" genres for marketing purposes. For example, in Japan Bayonetta is an "Infinite Climax Action" game, Devil May Cry is a "Stylish Hard Action" game, God Hand is a "God Action" game, and Metal Gear Rising is, amusingly, a "Lightning Bolt Action" game. You may already be familiar with this idea, as even in the west Metal Gear Solid was marketed as a "Tactical Espionage Action" game. In practice, these are all just action games. The only real dividing line between, say, God of War 3 and Devil May Cry 4 is that in one, the combat and movement are a means to an end (beat the enemy and get to the end), and in the other the combat and movement are ends themselves (to the point that the DMC games had a series of fan tournaments dedicated entirely to how cool you could be in combat). That's really all there is to it. Character Action, then, can be described as any game in which you could ENTIRELY remove the textures, model details, level design, story, and sound, and STILL the game would be a good time (presuming familiarity of course). What does it have to do with "character"? I dunno, what does MGR have to do with lightning bolts?
[TL;DR] i guess we are discussing TRAITS ratter than GENRE here. And thats an interresting thing ratter than a reason for internet war. that said: I liked the idea to put everything under the umbrela of Action Games, its SAFE. but we might need some other names to further classification. There's enough traits there that make DMC style of games distinct enough from GOW2018 type of games. [Long Comment] You know whats funny about all this? when I saw your "just good action games" argument I was: -OOOOOOOOHHH SHIIITTT!!!!!! NOPE TO INFINITY!!!! and then i saw other youtubers tackle this and was like: -FUCK YEAAAAAAAHHHH, ARGUMENTS!!!!! and now i'm back here and after these brief 8 minute video i'm: -oh, these are good points actualy! oh my! it all reminded me about the same problem in "music taxonomy", if you will, with Metal. because Metal, has a lot of intricacies and those intricacies may be similar from band to band. People started associating TRAITS to GENRE. "I want a band like Evanescence" sort of stuff. Classifing a thing is only useful if you have a use for that. And since games are a product and products need clear distinction so that you can capitalize on those. but are those Traits genre defining? most "character Action games" were inspired by devil may cry which was inspired by Resident evil, so resident evil 6 is a character acion game! right? probably not. Theres another example as well Dark Souls is a Western RPG so is Dragons dogma, but FEEL completly different. if you breakdown their traits: a) Dark Souls 1 is a action game with rpg mechanics to sooth the dificulty with a metrovania-ish 3d level design with a specific approach to storytelling that feels like a table top rpg (reading description of itens and such). Also theres a "metahporical" component to it where EVERYTHING IN THE GAME FROM MECHANICS TO ITENS AND LOCATIONS have a reason other than just be as they are. b) Dragons dogma is a Western RPG with action elements where every class has different action sets to perform. You have 2 leveling systems that grants you better stats and access to those action sets. It has medieval theme with a twist at the end. A Co-op mechanic. Which is the better rpg? Which has the better story? Which plays better? Which does X Y and Z better? You cannot judge any of it in isolation. it needs the whole. Dark souls combat is clunky, slow, stale sometimes but thats a metaphore as is everything in the game. God of war is more about "showing how kratos is fucking brutal and god like" Devil may cry is about making the player feel awesome by making him use a set of actions in a creative way. Anyone can compare and prefer on over the other but they ARE aiming at different objectives they are not equal by design. should those OBJECTIVES be genre defining? or the means by which they try to acomplish it? or the Whole Thing? I vote for bigger picture here. God of war and Devil may cry are action games, but they serve different pourpuses. the same way Tekken and DBFZ are fighting games but one is an anime fighter and the other one is a REALLY complex 3d-fighting game Anime fighter is not a Anime fighter because it is just anime. There's is a set of mechanics that don't exist in other 2d or 3d fighters, namely (if i'm not mistaken) air dashing and some other funky stuff. you can FEEL those differences between 2d fighting games and say "this is a anime fighter". We don't HAVE that distinction in action games. We have the feel of it, but not the "naming" of what it is. we simply don't. and looking now, character action it's not descriptive enough...just like "souls' like".
If anything, the new god of war is a character walk, or character adventure, or character letmeendwithacliffhangersoicansellyouthesequel. Yeah, that fits perfectly.
For me ,"souls-like" (or borne-like?)is far worse. It's entire genre of games copying the same fucking mechanics and rules: slow combat,constant rolling/dashing,checkpoints, interconected map,you die easily,same camera system,same control squeme,same dark atmosphere,same storytelling method,you lose your shit when you die... And people like this. Why?! This is what ruined first person shooters in the 7th generation.
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.
That's really lame because Andy Gavin (creator of Crash Bandicoot) defined Crash as an "Character Action Game" (aka platforming game) just like Mario, Sonic and Donkey Kong. I think the roots of the this name is, in fact, an "Iconic Character Action Game", but it doesn't have any specific bullshit at all.
Ahem, “action game”. All character action games are action games, but not all action games are character action games. Its not really that hard to understand. I always describe it to people who dont get it like this- a character action games character will usually play like a fighting game character, with a similar level of depth and tech. Having combos done simply with button presses that dont link together? Not a character action game. Free flow combat? Nope. Souls like? Nope. Beat em up yakuza style? Nope. Dmc, Bayo, MGSR, Ninja Gaiden, Wonerful 101, yes. All yes. Also, the point of a character action game usually isnt to just kill the enemies, its to kill them stylishly to gain some kind of points that usually go towards whatever type of currency the game has for upgrades and such. But another way to narrow it down even further is to call the games “devilnetta” games. Like “metroidvania” it describes what this genre is pretty well. Not ever 2d side scroller is a metroidvania, not every 3d action game is a Devilnetta.
I call them Stylish Action games, and the new God Of War isn't one of them because, see, like most games on the market, it's all about taking down enemies efficiently, whereas in Stylish Action, it's about taking them down stylishly and in order to be able to play stylishly, you need options, which is why people judge these games by their depth because without options, you can't be stylish, thus you can't be a Stylish Action game. It IS a genre. It is my favorite genre, and I know one when I see one. The issue is that there's like 10 different names for this genre and everyone has a different way of naming it. Oh, but not the Gaming Brit, you glorious contrarion. "IT'S NOT A GENRE", drops mic. GG lol I couldn't disagree more. And the comparison to Dark Souls is unfair. That'd be like if I critiqued DMC for having enemies all spawn in once you reach a specific point, locking you in to the area until you defeat them. This is shallow in comparison to the Souls games which meticulously place the enemies throughout the world so that you can make use of the level design and spacing in the combat. SEE, it's not fair to look at it like that. It's oblivious to what DMC is trying to achieve just as you are oblivious to what GOW and Dark Souls are tyring to do and are instead judging them by DMCs merits rather than their own. Critique the combat, yes. But don't do what I've described above. THAT is what people have an issue with.
Okay, few things: 1) The lines that define game genres are actually quite thin and while not arbitrary, what it comes down to is differences in emphasis with regards to mechanics. 2) Who the heck calls these games "Character Action Games"? That's such a useless descriptor. To clarify my first point, genre distinctions are about categorizing games on the basis of the game's perspective and its mechanics. We call games like Mario or Sonic or Mega Man "platformers" because most of the emphasis in the game is on navigating obstacle courses and avoiding hazards. Yet a game like Contra or Metal Slug is normally referred to as a "Gun 'n Run" game, because while platforming is an aspect of the game, most of the emphasis is on gunning down enemies. One way to think of it is that "Gun 'n Run" is a subgenre of Platforming, and similarly, the "MetroidVania" interconnected world is also a sub-genre of platforming. For another example, the only thing that really sets apart the Hack-and-Slash genre from the Beat-Em-Up genre is whether or not the player characters are primarily using weapons, or their bare fists, for beating up enemies on screen. The mechanics of both genres is largely the same. As for games like Devil May Cry, Ninja Gaiden, and Bayonetta, I call them "Stylish Action" games because the nature of their combat mechanics is intentionally designed around the idea of skilled players performing a variety of flashy moves in a sequence, to give a sense of spectacle to both the player and to the audience watching it. When you get right down to it, a Stylish Action game is indeed just a sub-genre of Hack-and-Slash and Beat-em-Up games. At any rate, your argument here is kinda silly because you try to treat the question of Stylish Action as though the distinction comes down purely to one thing and not to a mix of things that work together. The thing about games like Devil May Cry, Ninja Gaiden, or Bayonetta, is that they ultimately try to measure a player's performance by a set criteria: 1) How skillful they are at playing. (Are you dodging or blocking those blows, and getting hits in?) 2) How much creativity or variety is going into the performance (at least with regards to Devil May Cry's style meter system.) 3) Your overall performance at moving through the level. (Side-objectives like collecting a set amount of x thing, finding secrets, how quickly you make it to the end of a stage, etc...) 4) The performance grade at the end of a mission. Ninja Gaiden keeps track of your performance by a combo counter. Bayonetta uses a Combo Meter that gives you more points depending on whether or not you do certain things (like activating Witch Time or performing Wicked Weaves.) On a final note, the thing that sets Stylish Action titles apart from other genres, is that the upgrades in Stylish Action titles are more focused on expanding the player character's toolkit, rather than just upgrading the player's damage values. As for the whole thing about people complaining on your review of the new Dad of War game, well... to be honest, criticizing it for trying to go the watered-down Action RPG route instead of committing to being a full-on Stylish Action game like its predecessors, is an entirely legitimate criticism. They can complain all they want, but you're not wrong. This change in direction does water down the game. The emphasis of any action title should be on the gameplay. The Story needs to take a backseat and only come up when it helps to get the player more invested in the gameplay. (This is why Devil May Cry 3 has the best story for a Stylish Action title. The cutscenes are meant primarily as transitions from one stage to the next, and to convey the personality of the boss to motivate the player to fight them. Not only that, but the conflict with Vergil in particular really serves to motivate the player to learn and grow in skill, to prepare for the next encounter.)
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!
I'll admit "character action game" is kind of a dumb name, but I'd argue it still serves a purpose. Games like DMC, Bayonetta, Metal Gear Rising, and Ninja Gaiden all share similar mechanics and "game feel" that distinguish them from other action games; when someone says "character action game" you know exactly what type of game they're referring to, it's no different than "roguelike" or "metroidvania".
Since this video is by it's delivery and topic meant to contentious, I'll say this here. Most if not all of your videos seem to be this "here's what I like, let me tell you how that's objectively better" even though you often run it back at the end that's still the sentiment. You conflate complex with good on multiple occasions. Mega man is dead simple combat wise but does the job for millions. Mario's platforming is dead simple as well. Now I agree with your preferences alot but you do borderline fun police a whole hell of alot. You seem to reverse engineer objectivity out of subjectivity. Keep it analytical yes but still don't get an inflated head about your personal preferences. Cover based shooters were the most over done genre for nearly a decade but the genre still has a sense of value and difficulty and sense of tension and stress that give it that value. Speed isn't objectively good as much as you like to suggest otherwise. I Love your work but it's just continued to nag at me each video.
D T what if the skill point of the game necessitates the usage of cover. What if mindful usage of cover is how you get gud. It all depends on how a dev uses a game mechanic not the mechanic itself. And I prefer old-school fps like quake, blood, doom and the like but again preferences aren't the same as objective value. Respect others view point and don't troll. These are single player games and we're just having fun. You want justified elitism get into competitive gaming or speed running something this has nothing to do with.
I agree that Brit can be real pretentious but complexity certainly does mean good. You can have simple ideas but if there is no complexity to a single one of them, what makes it elevate above the rest? Megaman doesn't have complex combat but it DOES have complex levels and bosses. That is what makes megaman and Mario games are very similar. Also, what makes cover based shooting fun can easily be applied to games without cover shooting. It's the challenge that cover takes away that makes it matter. And going fast is NOT fun to you? y
1. Character action is a sub genre. 2. It's to describe how the game plays. 3. We could boil all genres down to roguelikes, and zeldalikes, but genres are for games far from that concept. 4. If you really want to be critical, there are only 2 game genres. Action and Puzzle with some mixture of both. Puzzle, adventure, rpg, strategy and story are puzzle. Platformer, racing, fighting, beat em up, shooting are action. 5. As a subgenre dmc would be caa or character action adventure while nier:a would be carpg or character action role playing game. 6. Personally, the name character action means the internal systems and mechanics are mostly found in the character's particular actions. Witchtime, devil trigger, executions, etc. The genre however is about the freeform combat abilities within those mechanics. Launchers, stingers, juggles, etc. I'd even call the dishwasher series ca as a result. 7. The first CA game would be dmc, but one of the first successors was Ninja gaiden black. The problem immediately went from dmclike to a genre as ngb wasn't similar enough to be a like like how bayo is to dmc. Overall, this video doesn't explain well enough to just call it an action game and criticizing the name is pointless. Sure ngb has cool moments, but i wouldn't call it stylish as much as refined, but that separates the games rather than combing them them under the feel of the genre by judging it by the name. And your argument dismantles itself you say hack and slash or beat em ups or brawlers are a genre instead of action games.
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 think the use of "Character Action" is to denote the fact that those games are extremely different from your average hack and slash action adventure title. Devil may cry is nothing like Dark Souls, but Devil May Cry and Bayonneta for example, or Killer is dead, or Revengence, these games share very similar aspects. An encouragment to be as stylish and over the top as possible, rankings at the end of each fight... a single character who grows stronger through the acquisition of new moves and weapons, while the player grows better in skill learning the nuances of each different attack. Fast paced your here one moment and there the next game play. A game like Dark Souls... or the new god of war, or even something like Dynasty warriors don't have these sorts of mechanics, so it makes sense people would want to differentiate them, instead of lumping them all in the same category. It's better then saying "You should Play Dynasty warrior's it's an action game just like Bayonneta, or Have your tried Hell Blade, it's just like Devil May Cry.
While I agree with this to a degree; the way video game genres are used to label games down to vague and nebulous specifics clearly hurts outlook on games and damages the analysis of games throw a critical lens (Regardless of genre). Still, it is clear at least to me that God of War 2018, the previous entries are different even to a fundamental level. With this logic, should we just call 2D Metroidvanias, 2D platformers? You're taking the name of the genre way to literally. What if the complexity of "Hack and Slash" is what defines the genre and not just the hacking and slashing? Has it occurred to you that all the complexities you stated were found in said genre is what defines it as such? However, this is where I'm going to have to agree with you again because the definition of thee genre is vague and even top-down roguelikes or isometric Zelda style RPG's can get put in this genre' Maybe I'm misinterpreting your message but we cant say that there isn't a reason why this split in genre occurred. Action games game before "Hack and Slash" was even a genre after all. Clearly, something had to be noted to make a distinction between the two. Now that I think about it the only reason this is an argument is that genre's themselves are becoming somewhat obsolete. In retrospect, this may be the point you were trying to make. None the less, as little as 6 years ago this argument may not have proved valid at all. Well, at any rate, I can't deny that especially as of late games have been defined by their genre and not by their merits as a stand-alone title without considering genre. Yes, I do think it's unfair the compare the combat of god of war 2018 to one of another game that's going for a completely different style of gameplay. I can see why some people might thing thinking that way is hypocritical of what I just said. However, genre aside games are just different from each other sometimes. Is it wrong to acknowledge that?
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.
Well, in my country(and language) hack'n'slash refers to games like diablo - miniscule plot, mashing to kill hordes of weak enemies, whereas games like DMC or Ninja Gaiden are called slashers(i tried looking, but in english this term refers only to movies).
I feel you bro, but I do understand why the "character action" title exists. There are genres within genres to help you to find exactly what you're looking for. Dynasty warriors is hack 'n slash, but so is Ninja gaiden. One is "character action" and one is "musuo". I agree with your overall point tho, you make a great point.
I actually wondered if games like dmc, vanquish and bayonetta were a certain type of game before i discovered the "character action" term. I'm gonna keep on calling them that (i prefer stylish action). Just like resident evil is survival horror. Not just horror
Alright, I hate to say it dawg, but this was painful to listen to. First off, I feel you. As far as video games are concerned, they possess a significantly lower number of universally accepted standards for what each game should be classified under than other mediums. When you first realize this, as it seems you just recently have, it can be very frustrating. However, regardless of how much you like or dislike the term, we do have a word for this conundrum called "sub-genre". You can tack on as many of these as are appropriate to a game that you want to. Also, despite being generally considered poor form, when it comes to classifying stuff in the English language; it is perfectly acceptable to categorize any creative work you can think of, be it a game, movie, tv show, book, or oral story as being part of a subgenre of a subgenre. In addition, a game having a few traits from another genre does not change the games base genre. Just like in other forms of creative media, the standard approach to dealing with under-represented traits in a game is (if they're prominent enough) to simply keep them listed as a short note along with it's (sub)genre name. I'm sure you've heard "with a few RPG elements" at some point in your gaming career from other reviewers. As for what makes a game qualify for any given (sub)genre, unfortunately, due to a shortage of universal standards when it comes to games, that is totally up to social perceptions atm. However, once you take all the genre's you were confused about in this video and start treating them as subgenres instead, the mess gets significantly easier to manage. Literally, every medium has gone through something similar around this point in it's life cycle. Just be patient with it and standards will eventually make their way into the collective unconsciousness.
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.
To be fair, it's a japanese term iirc and some engrish makes very little to no sense to native english speaker. It's like how they call players/gamers 'users' in japan. But I think character action games are games like dmc, old gow, ninja gaiden, bujingai, genji dawn of samurai, etc. Action games with stylish mechanics.
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?"
Hey man, I agree. Games have a tendency to be well received when they change the formula or genre, and go in a different direction. Resident Evil 4 being a good example. The difference between that and God of War is that RE4 was still a RE game at it's core, and just enhanced the existing gameplay by making it more action-centric. God of War just completely changed genres and gameplay and doesn't feel the same at all.
Silly as it might be as a definition, people *do* know exactly what you mean when you say "character action game," so on some level the collective consciousness has narrowed down that vague term to delineate a certain family of 3rd-person-jumpy-fight-guy titles like those capcom used to churn out with alarming regularity.
"a 20-hour action game with a set character and linear series of events" + "really good combat" = character action game. Yeah it's a dumb name, but I'm not sure why you're having difficulty seeing it as a genre when you pretty much spelled out what it is in this very video.
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
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
"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.
"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?"
Yahtzee once referred to them as "Spectacle Fighters", and that's always what I've called them too.
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'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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
@@elderjose9662 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"?
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.
Perfectly argued and elaborated. Awesome video man!
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.
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.
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.
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
The new God of wars combat gets very deep, you're just bad at it. It's weird how you havnt looked into the combat to see if you are maybe playing it fairly pathetically. And no it's not "stAts" based. I honestly agreed on the depth argument till a week later where I saw combo video's for the same game you heavily criticized the combat for.
Tho I'm guessing you won't give this comment a second thought. So yeah "fight me"
Awakened Virtue what does the camera have to do with the combat depth. Also it's not exactly damage control if it was there from the beginning, the cone wasn't a post launch patch
I saw some vids showing them taking down the “tough” enemies and how they said it was a boring button mash.
Texan Yakkle ....okay? I'm talking about this game having more combat depth. Those guys played it normal and fought the harder enemies normal. I'm talking about move canceling and crazy combos
Dude I basically said I saw someone say this game has no depth because the game doesn't really give you as many options as DMC, Bayo, or other games.
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.
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
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
GOW was trash, and overhyped. Most positive reviews were by people who had never played the series.
The Amazing Lucas it wasn't trash, it was a solid 7. overrated as fuck, but not trash.
it had all that awful AAA "look how adult and cinematic we are" shit, which almost makes it trash.... BUT the side quests actually had a few decent puzzles and almost none of that AAA shit, so those actually saved it.
I've played every game in the series, and absolutely loved it. Easily one of the best games this year.
You dont need to play the previous games to review the new GoW game. Agree or not whether Dad of Boi is bad, this is bullshit gatekeeping.
+Pendant Balde If you haven't played the previous games, new Dad of Boi's story is a bland and overused story of an old dude (dad) trying to protect/raise a kid. I double down on what GamingBrit said in his video, without the series new Kratos is bland.
Mateusz I have played every GoW game dude. Whats with all this gatekeeping crap?
If I were to never have done so and reviewed Dad of Boi and liked it, my opinion is invalid? Fuck that bullshit.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
God of war is not a character action game
It’s in the genre of a bland game
Non-game?
I agree on basically everything (nitpicking the words of the term is kind of silly. What the fuck does Action Adventure or Role-Playing Game even mean?), but I feel like there's still a specific game type within the "Character Action" umbrella that needs some kind of word.
If I play Bayonetta and want something like it, God of War will not satisfy that itch, but Ninja Gaiden, Devil May Cry, God Hand or even Wonderful 101 could scratch it. It's fucking hard to put my finger on it, but there's definitely something there that defines these games as a specific sub-genre, and I think there should be something to call them.
Dumb terminology or not, looking for a "character Action" game will most likely find you exactly what you want if the cool kids club definition stands.
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.
God of War 4 is not a hack and slash. It's obviously a puzzle platformer :^)
An axe puzzler.
Review Ninja Gaiden! You're almost there X|
Next up: An in-depth discussion on the genre-term "Metroidvania".
I mean, there ain't even any Metroids in Hollow Knight, what the fuck is this shit?
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.
DMC5 Is the better than Sekiro. It's the perfect action game. IDK why Critics taking it for granted. It has the best combat system ever plus a cutting edge graphics
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
NEW GOD OF WAR = MAINSTREAM NORMIE BAD REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
thought I would mention I agree with the video, but you dumbasses shitting on new god of war ONLY because it’s “overrated mainstream AAA bad” are dumbasses, actually come up with criticisms and opinions please
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
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.
God of war sucks as an action game. The camera is not fit for the gameplay, especially when it comes to the flying enemies. The game is shallow and broken. 2 weapons for the entire campaign and the blades of chaos was a bore to play with. The boss battles were boring and enemies don’t respawn in locations you already been through. Crafting was pointless for a game like this. Enemies were boring to fight and level design was horrible. The axe puzzles were a chore and annoying. Game was flawed heavily
MrKingkold187 you could’ve just said “it’s bad,” and accomplished just as much as this paragraph did. You’re not very good at arguing your points.
@rpr kjj He gave some valid points as to why he came to the conclusion that the game is riddled with flaws; do you want to write more, write less or shut up entirely because you can't handle the idea of someone vocalizing their dislike of a product? Because he'd have to write more about how "The axe puzzles were a chore and annoying" to further augment his statement for example, but you've berated him for writing a simple paragraph, so I don't understand your statement.
I don’t agree that the level design was horrible
Tentant lasket he didn't say it was bad to write a paragraph he said his comment was pointless because he didn't explain his argument.
Mrkingkold187 I totally agree with you. God of War 4 is the absolute perfect example of what's wrong in modern game design. "let's make it rpg" but with no choice and consequence just about stats. "let's copy dark souls because that's what people like" being games with no similarity at all except maybe the Combat that's mostly flawed. "let's make the game more like a film" resulting In a game with alot of time wasted on unskipable walking ( and with the case of God of War climbing) section that has zero challenge. But that's nothing compared to the absolute disrespect to the Canon and the whole themes of God of War as a Greek tragedy saga. Instead of kratos being an antihero who got tricked by the gods and ended up waging war that destroyed the whole world and his own spirit as a character, kratos is now a dad that knows everything to teach his own son how to survive and somehow still alive despite commuting suicide in the end of God of War 3. The whole story was just so boring and the ending is the worst cliffhanger ever seen in a game ( which by the way was done alot better in God of War 2). This is a game that pissed me off considering God of War was really one of the most unique and interesting game series I've played becoming another "action rpg" with lackluster combat and disjointed narrative.
Genres exist primarily to make products easier to market, and for people to decide what to buy. "Character Action" describes a specific style of game - which for the most part - has the same audience. "Action" or "adventure" will bring up all sorts of games and doesn't really help.
Google's results for "character action games:"
Bayonetta
Devil May Cry: HD Collection
Yaiba: Ninja Gaiden Z
Castlevania: Lords of Shadow 2
Transformers: Devastation
Devil May Cry 4
Devil May Cry
Furi
Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance
Three of these titles are by Platinum Games, three are Devil May Cry, one is an indie game, another a bad Ninja Gaiden game, and also a Castlevania game I haven't played but seems to have a focus on combat. Google's results aren't perfect, but you could enjoy most of these coming in with the same expectations. They're all potential games to buy for the person who might enjoy one of them listed there.
Google's results for "action games" start with minecraft, fortnite, PUBG, and GTA V.
Isn't Character Action just a subset of Hack and Slash? But yeah you make a lot of good points in this vid
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.
"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
Agreed. Wtf is character action. It's because of Foxcade bullshit. It's all just "Action" or Hack N Slash.
Keep the honest review coming modern games could use some testosrone
For me all of these “character action” games are just beat’em ups
Yea this is kinda new to me too. I kinda just thought we are all on the same page and most of these games were considered hack and slashs or beat'em ups.
They are in the same way beat'em ups are fighting games.
M7 S4i5l8v2a ok, would you explain the difference for me?
Yeah, exactly. Some just have different design priorities. Even a hack and slash still falls into the (colloquial) beat 'em up category for me, because using melee weapons by default doesn't introduce enough mechanical difference to warrant a whole new genre name. Samurai Shodown is just as much a fighting game as Street Fighter II is, despite the weapon usage having an impact on the dynamics. A good, non-colloquial name for the beat 'em up genre as a whole would be "Melee Action", I guess, but I'm cool with beat 'em up.
But don't the fact you run around a world make it different to a beat em up?...Although tekken force
I thought I was the only one that thought that name character action sound stupid however I do have a interpretation and I think it means that you're supposed to feel like the character.
For instance in Devil May Cry Dante is cool and cocky in every battle. So when you eventually get the hang of the game eventually you start getting cocky because the game awards you for being stylish.
The same thing goes for God of War Kratos is brutal as hell so the game encourages you to go all out and just be wild when it comes on to combat
I hope what Im saying makes sense
P.S Devil May Cry 5 is coming so you don't have to worry about talking about how much you don't like God of War anymore
I have never seen a rant/explanation video as entertaining as this, all your videos are pure gold my friend
You know what's a pretty good hack and slash with some pretty simple combat and rpg elements? Nioh. It has stance switching, which also switches your chosen special abilities, ways to chain stance switches into combos, a stamina recovery mechanic and few abilities relating to it, and a bunch of different boss fights, all of which have multiple variations depending on the mission and NG+ you're on. I wouldn't call the combat as deep necessarily, but rather strangely limited as the combos don't really serve proper functions and you can have only few special abilities chosen at once, along with there being only one move that chains a weapon switch into a combo, let alone the fact that you can wield only two weapons anyway. It's good, but not exactly on the deeper side of things.
Oh and unlike the new God of War, it has actual level design and exploration, with actual enemy placements that affect how the player might approach the level exploration. ... I guess the main reason it isn't held up as high as GoW4 is because it doesn't have that interesting of a story.
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 think the emphasis on style is what defines "character action."
Bad genre name tbh but it's the fact that in DMC, bayonetta, god hand, metal gear rising etc are all focused on rule of cool stuff rather than anything else.
In style centric hack and slash games theres things added for no other reason than it looks cool. For example in dmc1 the high time attack was added because kamiya thought it would be cool to launch your enemy and juggle them in the air using dante's guns. He wasn't thinking "oh well obviously being able to extend combos is a required part of an action or beat em up game" he just thought it would look cool.
The torture attacks in bayonetta are presented the way they are because they are a cool way to finish enemies. Nothing more complex than that, no story explanation or some kind of reason that bayonetta would need to do that.
Dude, your whole video is pointless cuz aint nobody calling anything a "character action" game.
you could not be more wrong. just because you've never heard a term before doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Character Action as a genre is influenced by the Japanese tendency to invent "new" genres for marketing purposes. For example, in Japan Bayonetta is an "Infinite Climax Action" game, Devil May Cry is a "Stylish Hard Action" game, God Hand is a "God Action" game, and Metal Gear Rising is, amusingly, a "Lightning Bolt Action" game. You may already be familiar with this idea, as even in the west Metal Gear Solid was marketed as a "Tactical Espionage Action" game. In practice, these are all just action games. The only real dividing line between, say, God of War 3 and Devil May Cry 4 is that in one, the combat and movement are a means to an end (beat the enemy and get to the end), and in the other the combat and movement are ends themselves (to the point that the DMC games had a series of fan tournaments dedicated entirely to how cool you could be in combat). That's really all there is to it. Character Action, then, can be described as any game in which you could ENTIRELY remove the textures, model details, level design, story, and sound, and STILL the game would be a good time (presuming familiarity of course). What does it have to do with "character"? I dunno, what does MGR have to do with lightning bolts?
Make a Ninja Gaiden video god damn it.
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?
@@TDJunkie226 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 "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
[TL;DR]
i guess we are discussing TRAITS ratter than GENRE here. And thats an interresting thing ratter than a reason for internet war.
that said:
I liked the idea to put everything under the umbrela of Action Games, its SAFE. but we might need some other names to further classification. There's enough traits there that make DMC style of games distinct enough from GOW2018 type of games.
[Long Comment]
You know whats funny about all this?
when I saw your "just good action games" argument I was:
-OOOOOOOOHHH SHIIITTT!!!!!! NOPE TO INFINITY!!!!
and then i saw other youtubers tackle this and was like:
-FUCK YEAAAAAAAHHHH, ARGUMENTS!!!!!
and now i'm back here and after these brief 8 minute video i'm:
-oh, these are good points actualy! oh my!
it all reminded me about the same problem in "music taxonomy", if you will, with Metal.
because Metal, has a lot of intricacies and those intricacies may be similar from band to band. People started associating TRAITS to GENRE. "I want a band like Evanescence" sort of stuff.
Classifing a thing is only useful if you have a use for that. And since games are a product and products need clear distinction so that you can capitalize on those. but are those Traits genre defining?
most "character Action games" were inspired by devil may cry which was inspired by Resident evil, so resident evil 6 is a character acion game! right? probably not. Theres another example as well
Dark Souls is a Western RPG so is Dragons dogma, but FEEL completly different. if you breakdown their traits:
a) Dark Souls 1 is a action game with rpg mechanics to sooth the dificulty with a metrovania-ish 3d level design with a specific approach to storytelling that feels like a table top rpg (reading description of itens and such). Also theres a "metahporical" component to it where EVERYTHING IN THE GAME FROM MECHANICS TO ITENS AND LOCATIONS have a reason other than just be as they are.
b) Dragons dogma is a Western RPG with action elements where every class has different action sets to perform. You have 2 leveling systems that grants you better stats and access to those action sets. It has medieval theme with a twist at the end. A Co-op mechanic.
Which is the better rpg? Which has the better story? Which plays better? Which does X Y and Z better?
You cannot judge any of it in isolation. it needs the whole.
Dark souls combat is clunky, slow, stale sometimes but thats a metaphore as is everything in the game.
God of war is more about "showing how kratos is fucking brutal and god like"
Devil may cry is about making the player feel awesome by making him use a set of actions in a creative way.
Anyone can compare and prefer on over the other but they ARE aiming at different objectives they are not equal by design.
should those OBJECTIVES be genre defining? or the means by which they try to acomplish it?
or the Whole Thing?
I vote for bigger picture here.
God of war and Devil may cry are action games, but they serve different pourpuses.
the same way Tekken and DBFZ are fighting games but one is an anime fighter and the other one is a REALLY complex 3d-fighting game
Anime fighter is not a Anime fighter because it is just anime. There's is a set of mechanics that don't exist in other 2d or 3d fighters, namely (if i'm not mistaken) air dashing and some other funky stuff. you can FEEL those differences between 2d fighting games and say "this is a anime fighter".
We don't HAVE that distinction in action games. We have the feel of it, but not the "naming" of what it is.
we simply don't. and looking now, character action it's not descriptive enough...just like "souls' like".
If anything, the new god of war is a character walk, or character adventure, or character letmeendwithacliffhangersoicansellyouthesequel. Yeah, that fits perfectly.
For me ,"souls-like" (or borne-like?)is far worse.
It's entire genre of games copying the same fucking mechanics and rules:
slow combat,constant rolling/dashing,checkpoints, interconected map,you die easily,same camera system,same control squeme,same dark atmosphere,same storytelling method,you lose your shit when you die...
And people like this.
Why?!
This is what ruined first person shooters in the 7th generation.
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.
That's really lame because Andy Gavin (creator of Crash Bandicoot) defined Crash as an "Character Action Game" (aka platforming game) just like Mario, Sonic and Donkey Kong. I think the roots of the this name is, in fact, an "Iconic Character Action Game", but it doesn't have any specific bullshit at all.
“I need some positivity back on this channel.”
Just remember: Metroid Prime 4 is getting made.
lol
It truly is, haha
Ahem, “action game”. All character action games are action games, but not all action games are character action games. Its not really that hard to understand. I always describe it to people who dont get it like this- a character action games character will usually play like a fighting game character, with a similar level of depth and tech. Having combos done simply with button presses that dont link together? Not a character action game. Free flow combat? Nope. Souls like? Nope. Beat em up yakuza style? Nope. Dmc, Bayo, MGSR, Ninja Gaiden, Wonerful 101, yes. All yes. Also, the point of a character action game usually isnt to just kill the enemies, its to kill them stylishly to gain some kind of points that usually go towards whatever type of currency the game has for upgrades and such. But another way to narrow it down even further is to call the games “devilnetta” games. Like “metroidvania” it describes what this genre is pretty well. Not ever 2d side scroller is a metroidvania, not every 3d action game is a Devilnetta.
I call them Stylish Action games, and the new God Of War isn't one of them because, see, like most games on the market, it's all about taking down enemies efficiently, whereas in Stylish Action, it's about taking them down stylishly and in order to be able to play stylishly, you need options, which is why people judge these games by their depth because without options, you can't be stylish, thus you can't be a Stylish Action game. It IS a genre. It is my favorite genre, and I know one when I see one. The issue is that there's like 10 different names for this genre and everyone has a different way of naming it. Oh, but not the Gaming Brit, you glorious contrarion. "IT'S NOT A GENRE", drops mic. GG lol I couldn't disagree more.
And the comparison to Dark Souls is unfair. That'd be like if I critiqued DMC for having enemies all spawn in once you reach a specific point, locking you in to the area until you defeat them. This is shallow in comparison to the Souls games which meticulously place the enemies throughout the world so that you can make use of the level design and spacing in the combat. SEE, it's not fair to look at it like that. It's oblivious to what DMC is trying to achieve just as you are oblivious to what GOW and Dark Souls are tyring to do and are instead judging them by DMCs merits rather than their own. Critique the combat, yes. But don't do what I've described above. THAT is what people have an issue with.
Okay, few things:
1) The lines that define game genres are actually quite thin and while not arbitrary, what it comes down to is differences in emphasis with regards to mechanics.
2) Who the heck calls these games "Character Action Games"? That's such a useless descriptor.
To clarify my first point, genre distinctions are about categorizing games on the basis of the game's perspective and its mechanics.
We call games like Mario or Sonic or Mega Man "platformers" because most of the emphasis in the game is on navigating obstacle courses and avoiding hazards.
Yet a game like Contra or Metal Slug is normally referred to as a "Gun 'n Run" game, because while platforming is an aspect of the game, most of the emphasis is on gunning down enemies.
One way to think of it is that "Gun 'n Run" is a subgenre of Platforming, and similarly, the "MetroidVania" interconnected world is also a sub-genre of platforming.
For another example, the only thing that really sets apart the Hack-and-Slash genre from the Beat-Em-Up genre is whether or not the player characters are primarily using weapons, or their bare fists, for beating up enemies on screen. The mechanics of both genres is largely the same.
As for games like Devil May Cry, Ninja Gaiden, and Bayonetta, I call them "Stylish Action" games because the nature of their combat mechanics is intentionally designed around the idea of skilled players performing a variety of flashy moves in a sequence, to give a sense of spectacle to both the player and to the audience watching it. When you get right down to it, a Stylish Action game is indeed just a sub-genre of Hack-and-Slash and Beat-em-Up games.
At any rate, your argument here is kinda silly because you try to treat the question of Stylish Action as though the distinction comes down purely to one thing and not to a mix of things that work together.
The thing about games like Devil May Cry, Ninja Gaiden, or Bayonetta, is that they ultimately try to measure a player's performance by a set criteria: 1) How skillful they are at playing. (Are you dodging or blocking those blows, and getting hits in?) 2) How much creativity or variety is going into the performance (at least with regards to Devil May Cry's style meter system.) 3) Your overall performance at moving through the level. (Side-objectives like collecting a set amount of x thing, finding secrets, how quickly you make it to the end of a stage, etc...) 4) The performance grade at the end of a mission.
Ninja Gaiden keeps track of your performance by a combo counter. Bayonetta uses a Combo Meter that gives you more points depending on whether or not you do certain things (like activating Witch Time or performing Wicked Weaves.)
On a final note, the thing that sets Stylish Action titles apart from other genres, is that the upgrades in Stylish Action titles are more focused on expanding the player character's toolkit, rather than just upgrading the player's damage values.
As for the whole thing about people complaining on your review of the new Dad of War game, well... to be honest, criticizing it for trying to go the watered-down Action RPG route instead of committing to being a full-on Stylish Action game like its predecessors, is an entirely legitimate criticism. They can complain all they want, but you're not wrong.
This change in direction does water down the game. The emphasis of any action title should be on the gameplay. The Story needs to take a backseat and only come up when it helps to get the player more invested in the gameplay. (This is why Devil May Cry 3 has the best story for a Stylish Action title. The cutscenes are meant primarily as transitions from one stage to the next, and to convey the personality of the boss to motivate the player to fight them. Not only that, but the conflict with Vergil in particular really serves to motivate the player to learn and grow in skill, to prepare for the next encounter.)
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!
I'll admit "character action game" is kind of a dumb name, but I'd argue it still serves a purpose. Games like DMC, Bayonetta, Metal Gear Rising, and Ninja Gaiden all share similar mechanics and "game feel" that distinguish them from other action games; when someone says "character action game" you know exactly what type of game they're referring to, it's no different than "roguelike" or "metroidvania".
Since this video is by it's delivery and topic meant to contentious, I'll say this here. Most if not all of your videos seem to be this "here's what I like, let me tell you how that's objectively better" even though you often run it back at the end that's still the sentiment. You conflate complex with good on multiple occasions. Mega man is dead simple combat wise but does the job for millions. Mario's platforming is dead simple as well. Now I agree with your preferences alot but you do borderline fun police a whole hell of alot. You seem to reverse engineer objectivity out of subjectivity. Keep it analytical yes but still don't get an inflated head about your personal preferences. Cover based shooters were the most over done genre for nearly a decade but the genre still has a sense of value and difficulty and sense of tension and stress that give it that value. Speed isn't objectively good as much as you like to suggest otherwise. I Love your work but it's just continued to nag at me each video.
Matthew Shafaf get out of that cover and git gud boy
D T what if the skill point of the game necessitates the usage of cover. What if mindful usage of cover is how you get gud. It all depends on how a dev uses a game mechanic not the mechanic itself. And I prefer old-school fps like quake, blood, doom and the like but again preferences aren't the same as objective value. Respect others view point and don't troll. These are single player games and we're just having fun. You want justified elitism get into competitive gaming or speed running something this has nothing to do with.
peek me bitch. nah you too much of pussy to do that anyway.
I agree that Brit can be real pretentious but complexity certainly does mean good. You can have simple ideas but if there is no complexity to a single one of them, what makes it elevate above the rest? Megaman doesn't have complex combat but it DOES have complex levels and bosses. That is what makes megaman and Mario games are very similar. Also, what makes cover based shooting fun can easily be applied to games without cover shooting. It's the challenge that cover takes away that makes it matter. And going fast is NOT fun to you? y
1. Character action is a sub genre.
2. It's to describe how the game plays.
3. We could boil all genres down to roguelikes, and zeldalikes, but genres are for games far from that concept.
4. If you really want to be critical, there are only 2 game genres. Action and Puzzle with some mixture of both. Puzzle, adventure, rpg, strategy and story are puzzle. Platformer, racing, fighting, beat em up, shooting are action.
5. As a subgenre dmc would be caa or character action adventure while nier:a would be carpg or character action role playing game.
6. Personally, the name character action means the internal systems and mechanics are mostly found in the character's particular actions. Witchtime, devil trigger, executions, etc. The genre however is about the freeform combat abilities within those mechanics. Launchers, stingers, juggles, etc. I'd even call the dishwasher series ca as a result.
7. The first CA game would be dmc, but one of the first successors was Ninja gaiden black. The problem immediately went from dmclike to a genre as ngb wasn't similar enough to be a like like how bayo is to dmc.
Overall, this video doesn't explain well enough to just call it an action game and criticizing the name is pointless. Sure ngb has cool moments, but i wouldn't call it stylish as much as refined, but that separates the games rather than combing them them under the feel of the genre by judging it by the name. And your argument dismantles itself you say hack and slash or beat em ups or brawlers are a genre instead of action games.
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 think the use of "Character Action" is to denote the fact that those games are extremely different from your average hack and slash action adventure title. Devil may cry is nothing like Dark Souls, but Devil May Cry and Bayonneta for example, or Killer is dead, or Revengence, these games share very similar aspects. An encouragment to be as stylish and over the top as possible, rankings at the end of each fight... a single character who grows stronger through the acquisition of new moves and weapons, while the player grows better in skill learning the nuances of each different attack. Fast paced your here one moment and there the next game play. A game like Dark Souls... or the new god of war, or even something like Dynasty warriors don't have these sorts of mechanics, so it makes sense people would want to differentiate them, instead of lumping them all in the same category. It's better then saying "You should Play Dynasty warrior's it's an action game just like Bayonneta, or Have your tried Hell Blade, it's just like Devil May Cry.
At the end of the day, God of War is still boring and shallow
aGrimyHippo And at the end of the day, a lot of people do love it. So it's whatever
While I agree with this to a degree; the way video game genres are used to label games down to vague and nebulous specifics clearly hurts outlook on games and damages the analysis of games throw a critical lens (Regardless of genre). Still, it is clear at least to me that God of War 2018, the previous entries are different even to a fundamental level.
With this logic, should we just call 2D Metroidvanias, 2D platformers? You're taking the name of the genre way to literally.
What if the complexity of "Hack and Slash" is what defines the genre and not just the hacking and slashing? Has it occurred to you that all the complexities you stated were found in said genre is what defines it as such? However, this is where I'm going to have to agree with you again because the definition of thee genre is vague and even top-down roguelikes or isometric Zelda style RPG's can get put in this genre'
Maybe I'm misinterpreting your message but we cant say that there isn't a reason why this split in genre occurred. Action games game before "Hack and Slash" was even a genre after all. Clearly, something had to be noted to make a distinction between the two. Now that I think about it the only reason this is an argument is that genre's themselves are becoming somewhat obsolete. In retrospect, this may be the point you were trying to make. None the less, as little as 6 years ago this argument may not have proved valid at all.
Well, at any rate, I can't deny that especially as of late games have been defined by their genre and not by their merits as a stand-alone title without considering genre. Yes, I do think it's unfair the compare the combat of god of war 2018 to one of another game that's going for a completely different style of gameplay. I can see why some people might thing thinking that way is hypocritical of what I just said. However, genre aside games are just different from each other sometimes. Is it wrong to acknowledge that?
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
Woah what, did you just make fun of Sonic Heroes? unsubscribed
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.
Well, in my country(and language) hack'n'slash refers to games like diablo - miniscule plot, mashing to kill hordes of weak enemies, whereas games like DMC or Ninja Gaiden are called slashers(i tried looking, but in english this term refers only to movies).
Boiii get ready for DMC 5 at E3..
I feel you bro, but I do understand why the "character action" title exists. There are genres within genres to help you to find exactly what you're looking for. Dynasty warriors is hack 'n slash, but so is Ninja gaiden. One is "character action" and one is "musuo". I agree with your overall point tho, you make a great point.
tl,dr: god of uncharted sucks.
The God of Us to be more precise.
I actually wondered if games like dmc, vanquish and bayonetta were a certain type of game before i discovered the "character action" term. I'm gonna keep on calling them that (i prefer stylish action). Just like resident evil is survival horror. Not just horror
Let's not kid ourselves, the naysayers were just people who cannot admit to themselves that the new god of war games are insanely mediocre.
Alright, I hate to say it dawg, but this was painful to listen to. First off, I feel you. As far as video games are concerned, they possess a significantly lower number of universally accepted standards for what each game should be classified under than other mediums. When you first realize this, as it seems you just recently have, it can be very frustrating. However, regardless of how much you like or dislike the term, we do have a word for this conundrum called "sub-genre". You can tack on as many of these as are appropriate to a game that you want to. Also, despite being generally considered poor form, when it comes to classifying stuff in the English language; it is perfectly acceptable to categorize any creative work you can think of, be it a game, movie, tv show, book, or oral story as being part of a subgenre of a subgenre. In addition, a game having a few traits from another genre does not change the games base genre. Just like in other forms of creative media, the standard approach to dealing with under-represented traits in a game is (if they're prominent enough) to simply keep them listed as a short note along with it's (sub)genre name. I'm sure you've heard "with a few RPG elements" at some point in your gaming career from other reviewers.
As for what makes a game qualify for any given (sub)genre, unfortunately, due to a shortage of universal standards when it comes to games, that is totally up to social perceptions atm. However, once you take all the genre's you were confused about in this video and start treating them as subgenres instead, the mess gets significantly easier to manage. Literally, every medium has gone through something similar around this point in it's life cycle. Just be patient with it and standards will eventually make their way into the collective unconsciousness.
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.
To be fair, it's a japanese term iirc and some engrish makes very little to no sense to native english speaker. It's like how they call players/gamers 'users' in japan.
But I think character action games are games like dmc, old gow, ninja gaiden, bujingai, genji dawn of samurai, etc. Action games with stylish mechanics.
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?"
Hey man, I agree.
Games have a tendency to be well received when they change the formula or genre, and go in a different direction. Resident Evil 4 being a good example. The difference between that and God of War is that RE4 was still a RE game at it's core, and just enhanced the existing gameplay by making it more action-centric. God of War just completely changed genres and gameplay and doesn't feel the same at all.
Don't ever change.
Maze Mage sometimes people has to change to survive
Omio Rahman truth
Silly as it might be as a definition, people *do* know exactly what you mean when you say "character action game," so on some level the collective consciousness has narrowed down that vague term to delineate a certain family of 3rd-person-jumpy-fight-guy titles like those capcom used to churn out with alarming regularity.
Thanks, I really wanted 9 minutes of disingenuous arguments
"a 20-hour action game with a set character and linear series of events" + "really good combat" = character action game. Yeah it's a dumb name, but I'm not sure why you're having difficulty seeing it as a genre when you pretty much spelled out what it is in this very video.