next »

[s0]

I know there's some random attack selection and movement in certain boss fights from watching speedrun commentary (IE which move Artorias "decides" to use at the start of his fight influences quick-kill strategies). Not sure how omnipresent or relevant it is in general, though. A lot of enemies and bosses in the games "feel" unpredictable to me, but I've never sat down to truly analyze them the way I have with some of the aforementioned games.

souls AI is almost completely deterministic other than a little bit of random attack selection

[Squire Grooktook]

Don't get me wrong though. I do enjoy the best of the genre, and I do enjoy Super Metroid, SOTN, Zero Mission, several of the Igavania's, etc. It's more that they are the type of games that I only enjoy on occasional replay, and I don't have the same fervor that I do for games designed with pure depth and skill in mind.

Please explain what the bold words mean to you. Saying a good Metroidvania doesn't have depth just sounds a bit ridiculous to me, but I've a hunch that our definitions of "depth" are a little different here.

There are many different kinds of depth, yes. I'm mostly referring to my own preference for mechanical and skill based depth. Drive to mastery. High skill ceilings. Games that encourage you to play as if you're giving a performance on stage. Competition. ranking, etc.

These things are not really what most Metroidvania's are "about". They're worlds and pacing are usually designed with exploration and discovery in mind. They can be mechanically deep or challenging (Super Metroid's advanced movement options come to mind) but the vast majority of them aren't (the Igavania's in particular. Iga even said in an interview that he made his games deliberately easy, and IIRC preferred to focus on the toybox aspect of item collection). It's all about the world, the atmosphere, the adventure.

Keep in mind, I don't see anything wrong with that. It's just usually a different style of play (and perhaps a different style of depth) from, say, Street Fighter or Dodonpachi or whatever.

souls AI is almost completely deterministic other than a little bit of random attack selection

I think attack selection is pretty important in a 3d action game, since it determines the timing and direction of your dodges. Reading which attack is which is probably the most challenging aspect of the games. So a slight bit of randomness can go a long way to increasing intensity, in theory.

In practice, not sure if there's enough of it to make a difference if you know exactly how everything works.

[Raptor85]

I know there's some random attack selection and movement in certain boss fights from watching speedrun commentary (IE which move Artorias "decides" to use at the start of his fight influences quick-kill strategies). Not sure how omnipresent or relevant it is in general, though. A lot of enemies and bosses in the games "feel" unpredictable to me, but I've never sat down to truly analyze them the way I have with some of the aforementioned games.

souls AI is almost completely deterministic other than a little bit of random attack selection

Not to mention in dark souls 1 and 3 (as well as demon's souls and bloodbourne) they made sure enemies always had visual or audio tells on their attacks, plus the AI isn't COMPLETELY random in choosing it's attacks, it's weighted (depending on the enemy type) based on things like the players distance, angle from the front, etc, you can you pretty well control most fights with tight movement and good timing.  And it's fantastic game design, it allows difficult but fair gameplay

[s0]

it's actually interesting that someone considers souls enemies to be "unpredictable" because the deterministic ("stupid") AI is arguably a trademark of the series and exploiting it is part of the fun.

[Squire Grooktook]

it's actually interesting that someone considers souls enemies to be "unpredictable" because the deterministic ("stupid") AI is arguably a trademark of the series and exploiting it is part of the fun.

In my personal philosophy, a good boss fight is built around strategy and small amounts of controlled randomness.

The enemy should have a weakness that is exploitable with foreknowledge and creativity. However, a good boss should also have a very small amount of unpredictability, so that the fight still requires some element of reaction and improvisation (which are the funnest part of any video game, in my opinion). If the randomness is too big, it will cause difficulty to fluctuate, or remove strategy and variety from the fight. It has to be small and controlled.

A perfect example is Dracula's first form in the original Nes Castlevania. His fireballs are aimed directly at the player, deterministically. Once you know about the window of timing necessary to strike his head, you won't even need to look at the screen. However, his teleports are random and fast. Avoiding a "telefrag" requires extremely quick reflexes and has been known to give even speedrunners trouble. This is an ideal boss fight, in my opinion.

Referencing Souls was just an offhand comment (and I acknowledged I was unsure if it was an example of not) because enemies are similarly manipulatable and strategic, but seem to occasionally force on-the-spot timing adjustments via their attack selections. Again, I wasn't sure if this was actually the case. I haven't really disected the ai/patterns in the series the way I have in some of my other favorite games.

[muki]

"telefrag", there's a term I don't hear often! 

[Cobralad]

A perfect example is Dracula's first form in the original Nes Castlevania.

you are double fired again

[Squire Grooktook]

A perfect example is Dracula's first form in the original Nes Castlevania.

you are double fired again

No, the teleporting is random and they definitely require reflexes to dodge. I've confirmed this (both on my own, and from other players and speedrunners). If you have some proof to the contrary, I'd actually like to see it (I know a friend who's runs would benefit from the information).

One of the key programmers at Konami (who worked on Gradius, Contra, etc.) more or less confirmed this as a major design philosophy as well.

...We also thought it was boring if players always follow the exact same routes, so we’ve added a certain degree of randomness to things...

Source: http://shmuplations.com/gradiusii-kouji/

This dissection of Nes Contra's code also explicitly shows how all the "foot soldier" enemies are spawned on random timers and have random firing timers as well.

These subtle details are a big part of why these games stand the test of time as action games and are still exciting to play today. Memorization and strategy are key, but reflexes and improvisation are vital as well.

[Cobralad]

what do you think of sequelitis

[Squire Grooktook]

what do you think of sequelitis

The Jon Tron thing or whatever? Never watched, but I do remember friends talking about the exorbitant praise for Mega Man X's intro stage at the time.

RedLetterMedia is the only youtube persona crew I keep up on, these days.

[ProgramGamer]

It was actually made by Egoraptor, who is a much cooler dude than Jon.

[Photon]

what do you think of sequelitis

Wait, why did we start talking about sequelitis?

[Schoq]

it's another penalty box punishable thing to mention in a game design discussion

[s0]

im not sure what the problem is tbh. squire grooktook's posts are legit as far as im concerned. just some good old Tig Source Contrarianism i guess.

[Schoq]

Contrarianism III: The Alien Wars is my favorite

[Türbo Bröther]

Was Neo Contrarianism the one with a samurai in a top hat and the dog dressed up as Quote?

[Cobralad]

im not sure what the problem is tbh. squire grooktook's posts are legit as far as im concerned. just some good old Tig Source Contrarianism i guess.

i dont know, Dark Souls and Castlevania 1 have a bigest gaming cargo cult going on.
Dark souls already bore and onslaught of games with boring aesthetic that you drop after you beat the first boss. Castlevania is made into some sort of technobarocco masterpiece by normies for whom it was the first game.

[Squire Grooktook]

I can understand the Dark Souls backlash, but I can't remember the last time I heard massive buzz for Castlevania. Symphony of the Night maybe? But CV1 discussion is rare. It's not my favorite entry in the series (I prefer Bloodlines, and CV1's masterful pseudo-remake on the x68), but it's still a remarkably solid and well crafted game with some wonderful high points. It's also iconic, and a game most people are at least passingly familiar with, so it makes a good reference point for some design elements. If I referenced the She-Werewolf boss in the x68 game, for instance, I doubt most people would know what the hell I was talking about.

[Cobralad]

she werewolf sounds more interesting that essau on how blade runner is smart.

[s0]

im not sure what the problem is tbh. squire grooktook's posts are legit as far as im concerned. just some good old Tig Source Contrarianism i guess.

i dont know, Dark Souls and Castlevania 1 have a bigest gaming cargo cult going on.
Dark souls already bore and onslaught of games with boring aesthetic that you drop after you beat the first boss. Castlevania is made into some sort of technobarocco masterpiece by normies for whom it was the first game.

aka it sucks bc popular, aka tigsource contrarianism like i said