The Vent Club

Darn, busted haha! It's usually the way I handle those conversations, play the idiot and ask what they mean, see what comes out the other end. That said, topic feels harmless Birdman, not sure what's up? Hell 90% of the posters are users here too, only Oracle and Delta are absent, and Delta is usually pretty chill.

I just think these terms are nonsense.

The jumping guy strikes again but he has evolved. Now 3D games without jumping aren't 3D HAHAHAHA!!!

The action is 2D. Textures are irrelevant

Hahahaha this is special.

This is STILL wrong since in GH and Lollipop Chainsaw you have moves that launch you into the air.

Not familiar with the specific topic, but even on a purely technical level that argument doesn't hold any water considering the high and low attacks / up-dodge in God Hand. The vertical axis is very much an integral part of the game's systems.

It's from the topic I posted earlier on character action.

That guy is a known fool who believes an action game MUST have jumping to be good. I thought he had already totally lost it, but this 3D thing takes the cake.

I don't reply to him anymore because he wants us to.

I just wanted to say that I made that topic because I was genuinely curious about the origins and the general meaning of that term, but I was mostly expecting the reception it got (to be specific, the fact that most people thinks that the term itself doesn't give enough information *if any* to people about the gameplay found in a "Character Action" game, unless you do some research yourself).

Also, originally I wanted to ask that here, but at the time of creating that topic, I couldn't access this site via my phone, so I resorted to using the DMC5 board instead.

I find that what these terms have done is create these groups of mechanically blind assholes who use the terms as a metric to define if an action game is good or not.

If i'm going to be really stubborn about it, I consider these sorts of titles to be an evolution of the beat 'em up genre, and as such I consider "3D beat 'em up" to be the most accurate label for them.

I don't like "Character Action" as, to me, it really doesn't mean anything. Unless you know what is meant by the term, it doesn't give you any information about it.

"Spectacle Fighter" is another one that isn't helpful. Fighters are already a completely different genre, and using the word spectacle implies that games outside of this "genre" don't consider their spectacle as a key element. If you were to categorise DMC as a spectacle fighter, I suppose Uncharted must be a spectacle shooter with all those crazy set pieces, right?

"Stylish Action" is another term that gets used a lot, which splits the "character action genre" in to even more sub-genres. DMC is stylish action, God of War is not. Bayonetta is stylish action, Sekiro is not. If I remember correctly, Hideki Kamiya came up with the name as his personal description of DMCs gameplay. I don't think he particularly intended to cement it as a new genre. I think he actually said that the inspiration behind DMCs gameplay came from watching people showing off and bossing their way through arcade games on one credit in the 80s, which I'd imagine would include beat 'em ups. I could be wrong on that though.

I do understand the argument behind just calling games "action games" and being done with it, but for me that's not descriptive enough. 2D beat 'em ups, 3D beat 'em ups, third person shooters, first person shooters - these are all action games, and I think it's quite feasible that you could like one of these (sub-)genres but not the rest.

Well, I can't comment on all these mechanically blind people misusing this term, since I don't really use platforms like GameFAQs to discuss these things. But I can elaborate on my personal use of it if people are interested.

To put it simply, I often find that there's a nice correlation between the personality of the main character(s) and the intended gameplay style in what I call "character action games". For example:

Dante is a very confident individual who loves to demonstrate his physical superiority over the various demons he encounters. Meanwhile the DMC combat system expects me to play as stylishly as possible (like the Style system that discourages the spamming of the same basic moves), and I often end up taunting the enemies or using certain risky moves for primarily aesthetic / ranking reasons, something that is very much in line with Dante's behavior in the various cutscenes. Please note the parallel evolution of Dante becoming more and more confident while the gameplay systems become more and more complex and stylish as the series progresses.

Bayonetta is like a hyper-nimble and even more provocative version of Dante, which in turn translates into a lot of close-quarter dodges and grandiose finishers during the moment-to-moment gameplay.

Ninja Gaiden is a different beast entirely. Ryu is the complete opposite of a show-off, with his very taciturn demeanor and great economy of movement. Meanwhile the game expects me to find the most efficient way to prioritize and deal with the various foes as quickly and safely as possible. NG's combat feels like a genuine life-and-death situation that can only be overcome through sheer focus and discipline, which makes it almost the complete opposite to DMC in that regard.

Classic GoW is like a hyper-violent albeit slightly less precise version of the NG combat flow. Efficiency is still the key factor but with a lower execution barrier and occasional spamming being less of a deal-breaker. Plus there are some elements that amount to little more than brute-forcing your way through specific situations, like the stun-locking of certain enemies, the hyper-armor during Rage of the Titans or the gory finishers, for example. All of which is very much in line with the hyper-efficient but mindless brute that is Kratos.

The same can also be said to a certain extent of games like God Hand, Viewtiful Joe or The Wonderful 101, for example.

In other words, I find it difficult to dissociate these characters from the signature flow and mechanical systems of their respective games. Now compare and contrast to something like Dark Souls (where the main character is basically without any personality) or Yakuza (where there isn't really any correlation between the two), both of which I would squarely classify under the Action-RPG or Action-Adventure genre.

So basically, "Characterization through Gameplay" hence "Character Action Game". That's not a completely airtight definition of course, but that's how I make sense of it, at least.

>"3D beat 'em up" to be the most accurate label for them
If I had to go with one, it would probably be along this line.

>spectacle shooter
Yeah, they would have to be spectacle everything.

>stylish
Another term I despise. My argument is that a 99 hit combo, a 2 hit, or a single cool looking strike like Issen qualifies as stylish.

>can't comment on the mechanically blind
That's what I'm here for, and to do so viciously.

>characterization through gameplay
I get what you're saying with this link between the two. Dante and Bayo definitely fight like they behave, but what if their personalities vanished, today. What if Dante became a silent protaganist but the combat mechanics remained?

Birdman wrote:
>characterization through gameplay
I get what you're saying with this link between the two. Dante and Bayo definitely fight like they behave, but what if their personalities vanished, today. What if Dante became a silent protaganist but the combat mechanics remained?

You mean like in a hypothetical DMC6? Well then it would still belong to what I consider to be the character action genre simply because the genre codifiers like the first DMC and (3D!) Ninja Gaiden have already long determined the specifics of the genre. Now it's little more than an overarching umbrella term under which I file pretty much any dedicated non-hybrid action game. The literal meaning being little more than a nice bit of trivia at this point.

That's why I don't think it makes a lot of sense to split hairs about whether any individual games stick to the literal meaning of the term or not. Genre descriptors usually stem from a select few early examples, anything that comes after that is just a matter of practical classification and serves as an easily understandable distinction between other (sub-)genres.

Let me put it this way: Early platformers often had literal floating platforms as a cornerstone of their level design, hence the term. The fact that more recent 3D platformers may have a completely different style of level design without a single actual "platform" to be found anywhere doesn't change which genre they belong to nor does it invalidate the term itself.

Let me use an even more drastic hypothetical to illustrate my point: Let's say somebody were to make a retro horror game in the style of the classic RE or SH games. The narrative twist being that the protagonist could only interact with the game world while being asleep and with failure states being therefore re-contextualized as him/her waking up instead of dying. Well even in that case I would still classify it as survival horror despite the complete technical absence of any actual threat to the protagonist's life in this particular game.

Hope this clarifies things a bit.

>survival horror despite no threat to life
Yeah, that's exactly how I would see it because mechanically it's the same thing.

KSubzero1000 wrote:To put it simply, I often find that there's a nice correlation between the personality of the main character(s) and the intended gameplay style in what I call "character action games". For example:

Dante is a very confident individual who loves to demonstrate his physical superiority over the various demons he encounters. Meanwhile the DMC combat system expects me to play as stylishly as possible (like the Style system that discourages the spamming of the same basic moves), and I often end up taunting the enemies or using certain risky moves for primarily aesthetic / ranking reasons, something that is very much in line with Dante's behavior in the various cutscenes. Please note the parallel evolution of Dante becoming more and more confident while the gameplay systems become more and more complex and stylish as the series progresses.

Bayonetta is like a hyper-nimble and even more provocative version of Dante, which in turn translates into a lot of close-quarter dodges and grandiose finishers during the moment-to-moment gameplay.

Ninja Gaiden is a different beast entirely. Ryu is the complete opposite of a show-off, with his very taciturn demeanor and great economy of movement. Meanwhile the game expects me to find the most efficient way to prioritize and deal with the various foes as quickly and safely as possible. NG's combat feels like a genuine life-and-death situation that can only be overcome through sheer focus and discipline, which makes it almost the complete opposite to DMC in that regard.

Classic GoW is like a hyper-violent albeit slightly less precise version of the NG combat flow. Efficiency is still the key factor but with a lower execution barrier and occasional spamming being less of a deal-breaker. Plus there are some elements that amount to little more than brute-forcing your way through specific situations, like the stun-locking of certain enemies, the hyper-armor during Rage of the Titans or the gory finishers, for example. All of which is very much in line with the hyper-efficient but mindless brute that is Kratos.

The same can also be said to a certain extent of games like God Hand, Viewtiful Joe or The Wonderful 101, for example.

I do see the logic in your points and I think it's the most sensible explanation of the term I've come across (I think you may have posted something similar on another topic here before if i'm not mistaken). However, I would raise a few counter-points.

All of the examples you've given are of games we could classify as "3D beat 'em ups" (with the exception of Viewtiful Joe, which could be considered a 2D beat 'em up). What about games that feature "characterization through gameplay" (good phrase, I like it!) that are part of other genres, like first-person shooter?

Doom Slayer is a silent protagonist, but we can tell from the character's expressions in DOOM 2016/Eternal that he's a no-nonsense soldier and he's gonna mess the demons up however he sees fit. He's a violent character who is out for revenge, and he takes it out on the player's enemies. The glory kills and gibbing in gameplay are reflective of the sort of character he is and world he lives in. Even the music is supposed to give you an idea of the rage the character feels. I'd think this would fit your criteria of character action, but would you not consider it part of the genre as it's an FPS?

What about Master Chief from Halo? He is a very cool and collected protagonist and if I remember correctly, occasionally has some witty one liners. His toolkit of weapons and abilities is very sci-fi influenced, but nothing particularly extravagent that we'd say is only there for the purpose of looking cool. Could we argue this is characterisation through gameplay? If Dante as we know him was the main protagonist of Halo, but only had Master Chief's moveset, he'd feel very out of place.

What about any Call of Duty protagonist? They use (mostly) realistic weapons and tactics (apart from when you're doing sick 360 no-scopes across the map, of course). Does this characterise the fact that they are soldiers that are there to get the job done and can't afford to be showing off on the battlefield? Admittedly, this one is a weaker example as CoD protagonists aren't really known for their personalities. Maybe Caleb from Blood would be a better example from the FPS genre (although i've not played that game, only seen bits of gameplay).

My point is that I think "characterization through gameplay" can be seen in a lot of games, but to varying extents. Could we have "character" variants of other genres too?

KSubzero1000 wrote:Please note the parallel evolution of Dante becoming more and more confident while the gameplay systems become more and more complex and stylish as the series progresses

This is an interesting point, but the canon of DMC sort of breaks this example. DMC 3 is a prequel and chronologically the first game in the series, yet features more complex gameplay systems than DMCs 1 and 2, with the intent of encouraging "stylish" gameplay. In the story, it doesn't make any sense that Dante would possess abilities that he would then lose later on, nor does it make sense that his personality changes between games. I know people try to justify this by saying he's older and more mature by the time we reach DMCs 1 and 2 in the timeline, but in the latest game he goes back to acting like his teenage self from DMC 3.

Obviously, the reason for DMC 3 being more "stylish" than 1 and 2 is simply because of the dev's ambition to try and make a bigger and better game, which is fine. However, it does draw a line in the sand between the character's narrative progression and mechanical progression.

Bemo-bashing aside, for he has to be trolling, I always find the whole genre-definition thing to be a weird element to discuss upon. It's a label, a name. On the one hand I sort of get it, since people like to have a banner to gather behind, but I've seen discussions on it get insanely brutal at some points (thankfully, not here), that I really wonder just what's going on. I also had this argument with my editor, who got slightly annoyed at me downplaying genre names at the time. He's a gamedesigner and apparently designers hold genre names in high regard since they are a goal.

My opinion: Action Hack and Slash, or just Action which is the overarching genre. Reasons can be found in the article I wrote on it ages ago: https://stinger-magazine.com/side-stories/action-games-genre/

I feel character doesn't make the genre more defined or clear, just as stylish, spectacle etc. Could mean anything, at least with Hack and Slash or Beat 'm Up, or even Brawler you have some semblence of an idea what you're in for. I do like the idea behind 'character' i.e. how KSub describes it, but then it is wholly a term for insiders.

Reason why I like Action so much, is that it opens doors. You like Devil May Cry? Chances are you like Doom or The Evil Within too, since they are also Action. But by using the extended genre name, i.e. Action Shooter and Action Survival Horror, you know they aren't exactly alike. If that makes any sense.

Regarding Character, as Gregorinho noted, that's purely for the first DMC game. Kamiya likes to give unique genre names to his games. If he ever makes a Schmup, you bet your ass it is called Superhero Extravaganza Blasting game or something haha.

> Dante's confidence
I honestly felt it got worse as the series progressed. In DMC1 he is the definition of 'in control'. He's not showboating, he knows he's practically god and nothing can stop him. In 3, but especially 4 and 5 he feels overcompensating to me, like he is in fact worried and hides it behind bravado. That's just my interpretation though.

I just call everything action if the combat is going to be the primary reason to play the game. That might be an overly simple way of looking at it but no one can really agree on what labels mean, and some “sub genres” don’t even have enough games for it to even be its own thing(how many “stylish” action games are there really, aside from DMC and Bayo?).

@Raeng it’s funny you mention Doom and TEW because those two games I’ve specially mentioned as top tier action games on a certain other site and users will ask how those could possibly be considered action games, let alone put in the same conversation as DMC. Well, both games have great combat, and are why most players are going to keep coming back to them...not sure why it’s such an outrageous line of thinking. /shrug

Should be noted that the ones who are very adamant about labels and separating games tend to be the closed-minded from what I’ve noticed.

Gregorinho wrote:
All of the examples you've given are of games we could classify as "3D beat 'em ups" (with the exception of Viewtiful Joe, which could be considered a 2D beat 'em up). What about games that feature "characterization through gameplay" (good phrase, I like it!) that are part of other genres, like first-person shooter?

Good post! I completely understand your question, but I think you're looking for a kind of literal consistency that simply doesn't exist. Genre names are never that precise or literal, they're umbrella terms meant to roughly categorize similar games.

Most games are based on the notion that we are playing the role of a specific character, right? And yet "RPGs" are still a very specific genre. The fact that we could technically extend the term to encompass almost every game on the market doesn't change its intended meaning and classification.

Likewise, we could easily argue that Half-Life 2 is a point-and-click adventure if we're only going by the literal meaning of the words. You are technically pointing you guns at the enemies, clicking on your mouse and going on an adventure over the course of the campaign. But it would make no sense to do so, everybody knows which is which.

Could we have "character" variants of other genres too?

I suppose we technically could, but I don't think it would make a lot of sense to do so considering most of them already fall within one neatly established category or another. I don't think it would be particularly useful to re-classify Doom: Eternal as a "character FPS" since there's no real confusion as to what an FPS is. Now with that being said, if the FPS genre were to branch out even more significantly in the future, with distinct character traits and associated gameplay loops on one hand and CoD clones on the other, then maybe it would make sense then?

In any case, I'm not using the "character action game" label to draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say "Aha! Only these counts because they're the only ones to feature characterization through gameplay!". I'm using it to refer to dedicated 3D third-person action games, with the added cool bit of trivia that most of the genre's pioneers have a neat correlation between the personality of their protagonists and the player behavior they try to encourage. That's about it, really!

Btw, "3D Beat 'em ups" is totally valid as well! The only reason I personally prefer not to use it is because I associate the term "Beat 'em ups" with a very specific sub-genre focused on hand-to-hand combat against hordes of humanoid enemies and very minimal level traversal, like Streets of Rage and its sequel. Basically like a martial arts conveyor belt. The gameplay loop of something like NGB puts it in a very different category to me. God Hand kinda sits somewhere in-between the two, though!

I do feel that RPG at least makes some sense, as those games tend to have gameplay and combat akin to Dungeons and Dragons, which was a role playing game, and where the term comes from. My biggest confusing factor is JRPG for me though. Asking if Dark Souls is a JRPG is to start a war haha.

Royta/Raeng wrote:I do feel that RPG at least makes some sense, as those games tend to have gameplay and combat akin to Dungeons and Dragons, which was a role playing game, and where the term comes from.

Sure, but if we go down that path, then where does the term being used to describe D&D come from to begin with? Why isn't chess also a role playing game? You're playing the role of a general supervising a battle, after all. Why isn't Monopoly also a role playing game? You're playing the role of a real estate capitalist, etc...

That's my point, really. Genre labels are almost always arbitrary and I don't see why "character action" should be held to such a higher standard than the rest. All this whataboutism is counterproductive, in my opinion.

KSubzero1000 wrote:Good post! I completely understand your question, but I think you're looking for a kind of literal consistency that simply doesn't exist. Genre names are never that precise or literal, they're umbrella terms meant to roughly categorize similar games.

Most games are based on the notion that we are playing the role of a specific character, right? And yet "RPGs" are still a very specific genre. The fact that we could technically extend the term to encompass almost every game on the market doesn't change its intended meaning and classification.

Likewise, we could easily argue that Half-Life 2 is a point-and-click adventure if we're only going by the literal meaning of the words. You are technically pointing you guns at the enemies, clicking on your mouse and going on an adventure over the course of the campaign. But it would make no sense to do so, everybody knows which is which.

RPG is a genre name I have an issue with too, as that's another one that that doesn't make sense unless you know what it is already - as you inferred, the player plays a role in every game! Genres tend to be named after the player's objective in the game, or the sort of mechanics that will be in play (e.g. racing, first-person shooter etc.). This isn't always the case, of course, but I think it's useful for categorization. I honestly couldn't tell you what makes a game an adventure game, as most games with a story/campaign mode take the player "on an adventure".

What makes an action game different from an action-adventure game? I'm genuinely not sure. If I had to guess i'd say the latter is weighted more towards exploration than combat, but still features both.

KSubzero1000 wrote:I suppose we technically could, but I don't think it would make a lot of sense to do so considering most of them already fall within one neatly established category or another. I don't think it would be particularly useful to re-classify Doom: Eternal as a "character FPS" since there's no real confusion as to what an FPS is. Now with that being said, if the FPS genre were to branch out even more significantly in the future, with distinct character traits and associated gameplay loops on one hand and CoD clones on the other, then maybe it would make sense then?

This is an interesting one, though - DOOM: Eternal has received some praise for being unlike other shooters, and even unlike the previous games in the series. I personally haven't played any other FPS games that demand you manage so many tools and systems at once, and in my opinion I don't think the complexity of that game has been rivalled within the FPS genre so far. If you look online you can see quite a few people unhappy with the fact it doesn't follow the same gameplay loop as other shooters. Could we argue in this case that it's worth categorising separately for the sake of people trying to figure out what games they will/won't like before they play them?

KSubzero1000 wrote:In any case, I'm not using the "character action game" label to draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say "Aha! Only these counts because they're the only ones to feature characterization through gameplay!". I'm using it to refer to dedicated 3D third-person action games, with the added cool bit of trivia that most of the genre's pioneers have a neat correlation between the personality of their protagonists and the player behavior they try to encourage. That's about it, really!

Btw, "3D Beat 'em ups" is totally valid as well! The only reason I personally prefer not to use it is because I associate the term "Beat 'em ups" with a very specific sub-genre focused on hand-to-hand combat against hordes of humanoid enemies and very minimal level traversal, like Streets of Rage and its sequel. Basically like a martial arts conveyor belt. The gameplay loop of something like NGB puts it in a very different category to me. God Hand kinda sits somewhere in-between the two, though!

I'm just playing devil's advocate for the sake of discussion! It's nice to talk about these sorts of things without it turning in to a fight like you might see on other forums...

I think the modern third person action game is the evolution of the old school beat 'em up you describe. Games in "the genre", however we'd describe it, have taken the "martial arts conveyor belt" as a base and tweaked it from there to add more varied environments, different shapes and sizes of enemies, all different kinds of movesets and abilities etc. I think it's fair to say the genre may not exist, or certainly would look different without the likes of Double Dragon, Streets of Rage and Final Fight.

Gregorinho wrote:What makes an action game different from an action-adventure game? I'm genuinely not sure. If I had to guess i'd say the latter is weighted more towards exploration than combat, but still features both.

Yeah, I think it's simply a matter of the balance between the various elements. Most of the games we're talking about have elements of both action (combat, bosses) and adventure (traversal, consumables) games. It depends on where the primary focus lies, really.

Gregorinho wrote:DOOM: Eternal has received some praise for being unlike other shooters, and even unlike the previous games in the series. I personally haven't played any other FPS games that demand you manage so many tools and systems at once, and in my opinion I don't think the complexity of that game has been rivalled within the FPS genre so far. If you look online you can see quite a few people unhappy with the fact it doesn't follow the same gameplay loop as other shooters. Could we argue in this case that it's worth categorising separately for the sake of people trying to figure out what games they will/won't like before they play them?

Yeah it might be worth categorizing differently for that purpose, at least in theory. But since Doom: Eternal is a bit of an exception instead of the standard bearer of an entire sub-genre, I'm not sure it would be necessary to come up with an entirely different classification at this point.

Gregorinho wrote:I think it's fair to say the genre may not exist, or certainly would look different without the likes of Double Dragon, Streets of Rage and Final Fight.

It is definitely fair to say that. But (following up from my previous point), I would argue that since those I like to refer to as "character action games" have since branched out and become distinct enough from their 2D roots, they would in turn be deserving of their own label. But it's a blurry line anyway.

Gregorinho wrote:It's nice to talk about these sorts of things without it turning in to a fight like you might see on other forums...

Definitely! Why do you think I stay completely clear from GameFAQs and the like?

My biggest issue with Character Action, and most other terms, it isn't really clear unless you're in the know, no matter how cool the description when given.
If someone were to grab a game from a shelf and it said "Character Action", he'd have no clue what he's holding in his hands since it's not really a description. Even the horrible terms like Soulslike and Metroidvania are more clear imo, at least then you know "oh it's like those other games", giving you some inkling of an idea if you know what those games are, which is why I still find them to be bad descriptors. Even something as wonky as Third Person Survival Adventure Platformer, at least you now kind of know what you're in for. Character Action tells me nothing other than that it has action, character is too vague.

All that said, 'issue' is overdone for me, you can call it Wibbily Wobbily Floppy for all I care, so long as we know what we're talking about haha, just don't expect me to change the headline of the site to "Stinger Magazine, for all things Wibbily Wobbily Floppy"

> chess
DnD, imo, is just that, you're playing a role, it's what the whole game is about at its core. While with chess the whole thing is strategy. If we're being factual, games like Baldurs Gate etc should more likely be called "Games with combat like in Roleplaying games from those books from the 70s" but that's a bit long haha!

>FPS
I am curious though when the term First Person Shooter was coined, as they were mostly called Doom games iirc when I grew up, even in magazines (or doom-clones, corridor shooter etc).

> games like Doom Eternal
I think in this situation it would help to use bold, if that were an option, like an emphasis. Painkiller is an Action Shooter, Doom Eternal is an Action Shooter, if you get my meaning. I still think it's a shooter, just of a different breed, same as comparing Quake to Arma - both shooters, both completely different galaxies (and sub genres i.e. Arena Shooter and Simulation Shooter or w/e).

That said we're avoiding the real question here. Is Doom Eternal a Survival Action Shooter? :O

I recently saw someone say Lollipop Chainsaw isn't character action. I've been laughed at and abused for saying Knack 2 is an action game and worse if I say it's a good one.

This is because they DMClones do not allow anything to share the label that they think is inferior. This is the main reason I hate them

LC and Knack 2 are better than most action games the drones like(GOW4). Gonna dive back into LC when I finish up Nioh.

> Action Shooter vs Action Shooter

If we say that action is the overarching genre and shooter is the sub-genre, how do you define a game as more action than shooter (or vice versa)? What does an action game have that a shooter doesn't?

I understand this concept for games like Resident Evil 4-6 which could be defined as action horror or shooter horror, but to use your example of Painkiller vs DOOM Eternal, what makes DOOM more action-y than Painkiller?

Don't take that example too literal, but just to argue a point on how it could be seen. In some games one genre is more 'dominant' than the other. Maybe Painkiller wasn't the best example, maybe Call of Duty? In CoD the shooter part is highlighted, while action is secondary, and in D:E it's reversed. Just spitballing, but that's how I see it. When I think of The Evil Within, I don't think Survival Action Horror, I think Survival Action Horror. It does have action roots, and great elements of that genre, just it's not the dominant part or something? I have no idea anymore haha!

Regarding Doom Eternal, I feel its emphasis on enemy movesets, arena management, positioning etc is what makes it more action. While Painkiller is a straight up shooter, enemies have mostly 1 move, there's no real resource management, the biggest emphasis is on using the right weapon, knowing when to take cover and how movement works. They are both shooters (and great ones at that), but I wouldn't categorize them the same if you get me. Same with my other example on how you can like Arma, but that doesn't mean you'll enjoy CoD or Doom. Same with how people can like NG and not DMC or vice versa.

I am curious how, in like 20-30 years, when probably most of the older game names are maybe forgotten, people will know of certain genre names like Soulslike and Metroidvania, but never have heard about the games that 'spawned' these names. That would be weird.

Royta/Raeng wrote:Don't take that example too literal, but just to argue a point on how it could be seen. In some games one genre is more 'dominant' than the other. Maybe Painkiller wasn't the best example, maybe Call of Duty? In CoD the shooter part is highlighted, while action is secondary, and in D:E it's reversed. Just spitballing, but that's how I see it. When I think of The Evil Within, I don't think Survival Action Horror, I think Survival Action Horror. It does have action roots, and great elements of that genre, just it's not the dominant part or something? I have no idea anymore haha!

Regarding Doom Eternal, I feel its emphasis on enemy movesets, arena management, positioning etc is what makes it more action. While Painkiller is a straight up shooter, enemies have mostly 1 move, there's no real resource management, the biggest emphasis is on using the right weapon, knowing when to take cover and how movement works. They are both shooters (and great ones at that), but I wouldn't categorize them the same if you get me. Same with my other example on how you can like Arma, but that doesn't mean you'll enjoy CoD or Doom. Same with how people can like NG and not DMC or vice versa.

I am curious how, in like 20-30 years, when probably most of the older game names are maybe forgotten, people will know of certain genre names like Soulslike and Metroidvania, but never have heard about the games that 'spawned' these names. That would be weird.

I totally see the logic in your points above and I'm not trying to call you out or anything like that - we all have our own interpretations on genres (and one of the biggest issues with using them to categorise things is that they aren't objective).

I think I would loosely define an action game as one that tests some combination of reflexes, precision and decision making (and/or strategy) in real time. The difficulty of these games aside, these elements apply to DOOM, Call of Duty, DMC, Double Dragon, Uncharted, God Hand, Painkiller, Viewtiful Joe - all of the games we've mentioned recently in these posts. They apply to varying extents, of course, but to play each of these games well you need to be able to react to incoming danger, you need to be accurate (both literally in game and with your inputs on the controller) and you need to be able to make decisions on how to play based on what abilities you and your enemies have as well as how and when they will be applied.

As you've mentioned, The Evil Within could be considered an exception as it has action elements but thematically is a horror game and is probably best categorised as such. I think we would call Amid Evil an FPS rather than putting it in the "fantasy" genre. For these examples it makes sense that the genre we apply to the game is the one we consider the game to "most associate" itself with.

I think my issues would be resolved if there was a clear cut definition to what we mean by an action game, but there are many different viewpoints on that. I guess my conclusion is that genres are both helpful and extremely problematic!

The issue is how they (mainly DMC fanatics) exclude other games that fit the definition.

Combos do not define this definition. They are just attacks. Hitting stuff.

Post #18. Sound familiar?
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/691087-playstation-4/78548289?page=1

and since you can't jump, it's like playing a 2d game

Behemoth recently came up with the claim the games without jumping are 2D. Now this guy says it. I smell an alt.

Isn't that the same guy who defended FF XV via letting videos do the talk for him, and when asked to actually give an explanation as for why that game is good in his own words, he either ignored it or directed those who demanded an explanation at the same video he already had posted 17 times?

Yeah.

My favorite example of his was when he was claiming Nier A had 'infinite variations of infinite weapon combinations and combos' or some shit. He says the same words so often it just blurs.

Anyway he said that it had more combo and variety and all that shit than DMC3 Dante and Vergil combined.

His evidence? Posts a 13 min video Dante combo video, then compares it to a 20+ min Nier video.

And here's the best part, and he ran for the hills when I pointed it out was the Nier video was just someone doing the base strings of each weapon once, then, hahaha, REPEATING IN SLOWMO!

It even featured cutscenes. His point was that the Nier video was longer and that alone proved it to be the more advanced game HAHAHAHA!!!

And you could tell he hadn't watched them. He ran after that, but always pops up later with the same topic. He couldn't even tell me the move list of the short sword. I made it easy and he couldn't do it.

>17 times

what the fuck

Birdman wrote:And here's the best part, and he ran for the hills when I pointed it out was the Nier video was just someone doing the base strings of each weapon once, then, hahaha, REPEATING IN SLOWMO!

It even featured cutscenes. His point was that the Nier video was longer and that alone proved it to be the more advanced game HAHAHAHA!!!

Wut!? I am... speechless.

I thought I had seen the worst of him in that XV topic... but this... wow.

Birdman wrote:And you could tell he hadn't watched them.

Yes, I noticed that too when he was talking about XV and its endless moveset variety.

I just don't believe he's serious unless he has a severe mental disorder.

>and Delta is usually pretty chill.
Too bad the guy is unable to give any meaningful input on anything that isn't DMC.

>Staying away from Gamefaqs
Why? It's the sole good gaming board that isn't a minimal community like this one or dedicated discords. The majority of the users here being gamefaqs users should be quite telling.

>Bemo's alt
Did a quick look into it and I highly doubt it.

They’re similar but Bemo shills DMC while the other guy shills Nier A and Monster Hunter.

Not a vent(quite the opposite) but I found something nice on that site:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/691087-playstation-4/78538334#46

Post #40 and 41: a fan and a converted fan! This made me happy.

One conversion is all we hope for in the buckets of trash we sift through, makes it all worth it. Good job man! Saw he was already talking about Akumu, that's good. Get them started.

@5does

> Delta
Ironically was thinking the same thing after the "mage" topic. That made me take a double take, especially his notion about ranged legions in Astral Chain. Clearly making statements about games he hasn't played which is a shame. Astral Chain is a fantastic game, people should play it. I wonder if he'll ever make his way over here.

> gamefaqs
Now that you mention it, I think a solid 90% of the users here is from Gamefaqs at the very least. Though mostly from niche boards like NGS2, Vanquish and GoW. Those are the only good boards imo, the niche smaller ones where it's just pure shop talk.

>something nice.
I've been keeping an eye on that topic. Warms my black heart.

>the fanboy
This guy doesn't know what he's talking about on any level.

>ever make his way
Let's hope not.

> makes his way here
Everyone is welcome here as long as they abide by the rules, gotta give people a chance Bird! At least, that's my take on it haha.

I suppose. But certain people in their current state won't last long

Oh absolutely! I've been thinking, but we haven't had bans yet which is a good sign. Only had to give out three warnings in the 3 years this forum has been up and running, and we had one person delete his/her account iirc which was a shame. Other than that, this board has stayed quite consistent in quality I'd say.

HAHAHAHA

Behemoth triggered as hell on the DMCV boards. He REALLY didn't like you guys hijacking it with Doom talk.

This is solid gold. Good to see him lose his mind.

It was hilarious seeing him empty all his GH hate ammo into one post when his bait was getting ignored. He even posted 'God Hand sucks' in the character action topic. He really spazzed out.

I get not liking Bayo as much as DMC or at all. I don't give a shit. I Like both equally.

But why aren't Bayo naysayers ever honest? Every mention is pretty much the same list.

-Too many QTEs
-Dial combos
-Can't reach finisher
-Heavy focus on weave finishes
-Belief that you rely on WT
-dodge offset sucks

No mention of all the individual attacks, movement options, or enemy hit reactions like sweeping or the fact that dodge offset handgun shots can juggle making it far more than just a dodge.

The high speed switch between offense and defense against highly aggressive enemies.

This obsession with reaching weave finishes is bizarre and as soon as someone mentions using WT you know that haven't touched NSIC.

Why is there no honesty?

And now dodging is a mistake because you commit to the string then have to dodge out of it lol.

Because in DMC we never dodge or jump cancel do we?

FFS these fanboys.

You know, the more I think about it... The more I realize that DMC is just not a series that's fully compatible with me. I don't actually recall any ultra-standout moments of enjoyment when I played those games beyond just being way too hyped about DMC5 when I first played it (And I came around to that), and I've never really went above and beyond beating DMD in each game.

It's certainly a classic, very well-made and designed action series. It's still a must-play for action game fans. I wouldn't ever deny that. but when I just take a second to think about my time with them, I've ended up coming to the conclusion that DMC is just a series that's not for me. I think it comes down to a combination of the focus in combat, and the look of the series after 3. Nothing wrong with either of those, but it's just not really my thing.

Wasn't really sure where to put this, this just kinda felt like a venting post to me.

I just realized I forgot to add details to that list.

The QTEs do suck, but what I'm getting at is it's always a surface level focus.

Talk about dial combos, ok, but why does no one mention the short strings, instant waves, and the various hit properties found in the individual strikes?

The general problem here, is that it is very noticable that it isn't a problem with the game. The player doesn't like Bayonetta because it doesn't align with that he's looking for, which is fine. Some people don't like certain games because they have certain expectations on how they should work (see also, me playing MGS while being an SC fanboy). And that's fine. But don't hide it behind "it isn't me, it's the game. It just doesn't work because X".

@TheFirmament1
There's no shame in that either. Not every game has to align with you. I personally love DMC1 and 3, 4 and 5 were enjoyable but I won't revisit them any time soon. Curious to hear though which game does align most with you. I mean, for me it's clearly NGII and Vanquish for example. Birdman is Chaos Legion and KnackII. Infinity is TEW, ZoE2, MGS. What's your preference?

>The player doesn't like Bayonetta because it doesn't align with that he's looking for, which is fine

Too bad they can't just say that instead of saying dumb shit.

Also, rene the stalker having a meltdown. Gold.

>surface level focus

This is what irks me about a lot of criticisms I see of games, they tend to always be the most basic of complaints repeated to death. I get that the complaints can be valid, but when it’s all you ever hear it becomes obvious a lot of people just haven’t played the game very much. 

Firma, I completely understand and agree with what you’re saying. I acknowledge they’re great games with a lot of strengths and unique traits, but they’re just not my thing. And that’s fine. Not every game is for everyone. The series has very passionate fans, and I’m glad they like something as much as they do, but I’ve gone back to DMC3 and 4 so many times only to drift away so quickly. I suppose it’s odd that as a self-proclaimed fan of the genre I can’t get into arguably the biggest series of them all, but oh well. 

>certain expectations on how they should work

This has always puzzled me. As you noted, I’m a massive fan of those games, but if a game can be released in those sub genres and do things differently, and do them well, I’d love to see it. I don’t need every stealth game to have an alert and caution phase, or dick punches like MGS: if a stealth game can push its own brand of stealth to the limits, I’d love to see it. I’d also love to see more horror TPS in the vein of TEW, but I also don’t think any game going forward needs to have a crossbow equivalent and matches. If the dev is talented enough, they can use whatever the hell mechanics they want to make a good experience. Not only that, if every game were to follow the blueprint of whatever I like, it would take away from the personality of each game.

@Royta/Raeng

Gotta say, that I think it's really Ninja Gaiden that aligns with me. Always love that feeling of danger, and that feeling of satisfaction when you manage to beat a fight within the time limit while being mostly unscathed.

I've also REALLY been liking Kingdom Hearts lately.