Stinger Magazine: General Discussion on articles

Well, you said your playing NGB on MN mode, so if you get to alma then thats the most fresh experience in the mind.

http://www.stingermagazine.com/2017/12/happy-holidays-and-thanks-to-all.html

There we go! This one goes double for all you guys, thanks a metric ton for all the love and support :)

Just me spouting ideas for new articles:
- probably a Demon's Souls article to coincide with the going offline of the servers, also would be a good time to discuss the stigma's it brought to difficulty and setup the eventual Dark Souls articles.
- a piece on Combat Depth, what defines it and mostly to finally close the coffin on "move variety = depth".
- a History of the Stinger Move (mostly to coincide with the 1 year anniversary of the site).

An industry term for depth in games is ‘Possibility Space’. As in the possible space for variables that a game allows through its mechanics, areas, enemies and so on.

That may sound general but that’s what it is in objective terms, as what you can and can’t do within a games space is fact; You CAN jump cancel in DMC3 for example.

That's not a term I've heard, but Googling it yields some good reads. Thanks Gabe! Might be just what I was looking for!

I might be missing the point of your post so correct me if I am.

You CAN jump cancel in DMC3 for example.

But what if a game has a different set of mechanics? Many games don't have jump cancelling or even jumping, like God Hand or Lollipop Chainsaw, but they have a ton of their own stuff. In that case, does it come down to number? Game A has more moves than game B for example.

I don't think either case is valid in the argument of what depth is, or at least, what gives a game more depth over another.

I believe it is more about the options that are present at any given time that add an extra layer of choice and player inputskill. A game like Chaos Legion has less requirement of inputs, but requires more thinking of space, pointkills and how to and when to summon your legion; that's where its depth comes from.

One point I am going to tackle in that article is that tons of options do not equal depth, depth is much more than that.

Here's another awful topic on that.
Every post is garbage and wrong except for any posts I've made.

https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/691087-playstation-4/76236834

To me, depth has to do with complexity, learning curve and room for improvements, which also make for a high replay value. A deep game is one in which the player will have to dedicate many hours and focus to feel comfortable with the system, and he will never feel like he is a complete master at it, because he will feel there is always something he can improve about his gameplay.

In these regards, I always feel like Ninja Gaiden and Devil May Dry (edit: I'll keep this typo in the post because it's too funny XD ), in different ways, fall perfectly in this category. I guess there are a couple of other action games that could be mentioned too, I always hear good things about God Hand, Bayo, MGR and others. Though, I didn't spend enough time  on these games to judge them.

Though, a game can be good and fun without being deep, but I personally feel that a deep game is always more fun for me, because  I can't say I have totally mastered it, and I feel there is still a lot more that the game can offer to me. Nioh for example, I quit that game because I played hundreds of hours without stopping a single day, and needed a break, but I know I'll go back to it because there a lot of things I still want to try and learn in that game, and that makes it fun for me.

Those are some good points but I still don't believe that's all there is to it.

Okami is super easy to play, and there's nothing really execution heavy, yet it has tons of fun options with all the brush techniques. Stuff you can't do in any other game.

By complexity, do you mean the base mechanics, or what you can ultimately do with them?

I'm also not agreeing with the idea that a prerequisite to depth is that you'll never fully master the game. People, including myself, have mastered many action games. But this might depend on your definition of mastering. Do you mean we still take hits now and then, die sometimes? Make mistakes?

I do agree that there's something in the learning curve, but I don't see it as a rule because again, Okami is easy to learn, AND I found out new stuff this year in the remaster. Did a no upgrade run and found I could stand to improve. Constant improvements are good, and so is finding out new things years later. But again, if you find you can't improve anymore or find new stuff, I don't see that as a mark against the game's depth. Then there's the issue of not being psychic. You never know what you're actually going to find later.

> complexity/learning curve/room to learn
These add replay value sure, but all are container terms that are also open to interpretation. For instance in terms of complexity, Devil May Cry 3 isn't that complex in my eyes. There are only two mechanics at play (ground combat, which has no real combo oppertunities - and aerial combat which is all about JC'ing). But for another player it is complex, because there are so many combo-options.

God of War has a learning curve and rooms to improve in, but lacks complexity since there aren't a lot of combos, same with a title like Shinobi. But Shinobi is considered deep by many players, so why is that? You've only got 2 attacks (a slash and a kick), one ranged stun (kunai) and a jump and a dash, and that's it. So how is that game considered deep?

In the end I feel that often in this discussion people already have their opinion ready and the titles prepared of what they consider "deep" games because they are the only ones that they played, without even having defined what depth is and thinking further into it. Depth for instance, is generally pointless. Sure you can do an insane juggle in DMC3, or you can just spam the launcher and get the same effect with higher damage output even. So how is that depth? Ninja Gaiden has depth, but only if you chose not to use half the moveset because they break the game. So does depth mean you handicap yourself?

> Devil May Dry
This made me snicker.

Sums up by what up I mean by possibility space: The number of emergent experiential different possibilities OR Meaningful choices that come out of one rule set. Because what you can and can’t do within a games space is fact, it’s just our understanding that changes, i.e the meta games changes.

Like all the possible ways a game of chess can go, each piece is still governed by rules that limit how each piece functions within that games rule set, it’s the meaningful choices the player can make with them that matter. Meaningful possibilities you see.

But Shinobi is considered deep by many players, so why is that? You've only got 2 attacks (a slash and a kick), one ranged stun (kunai) and a jump and a dash, and that's it. So how is that game considered deep?
Don't forget the charge attack. Lots of cool stuff to do with that.

In the end I feel that often in this discussion people already have their opinion ready and the titles prepared of what they consider "deep" games because they are the only ones that they played, without even having defined what depth is and thinking further into it.
I find this to be the case often. Also the weird rule setting especially within the DMC community. Lots of moves automatically makes it the best action game ever with no regard for games with completely different mechanics doing things DMC doesn't do.

You didn’t answer his question Birdman, how and where does Shinobi get its depth from?
How does it’s depth manifest through its mechanics, input skill, defensive/offensive/movement options inter played with each other at any one moment during combat.

What can you do with the game presented in its entirely in other words.

I’d say but I honestly don’t know enough about Shinobi to articulate such points properly.

He wasn't asking me.

I also think people need to look at what a game is 'about' first. Look at that awful DMC Vs Souls topic.

Then I’m asking you, how and where does Shinobi get its depth? How does it’s depth manifest in certain terms would you put it kindly.

Examine the things I mentioned, like interplay of its mechanics for instance. But more importantly, start with fact. Because what you literally can and can’t do within a game is fact.

You haven’t exactly made your definition present, you’ve dissented but not put forth your views in their entirety. If you disagree, what do you agree with that was said thus far? What’s your criteria that depth is examined by?

Could you also give an example of a shallow game please? As you mentioned you do consider some games shallow, I’d like to see what constitutes shallow, for posterity.

Do you want me to write a FAQ for Shinobi or something? Just look it up.

I'm against rule setting like hundreds of moves defining depth, and any game that doesn't have that many moves is inferior and lacking depth. That's ultimately all I've ever really contested.

It's about mechanics to me. Look at Tekken, and compare with say, the new DBZ fighter or SF. Tekken has tons of characters with tons of moves. SF and DBFZ have less characters and far less moves by a gigantic margin, yet the mechanics are completely different and easily equal in depth. One is not better than the other. They're different.

http://cuhrayzee.wikia.com/wiki/Game_Criteria

Look at this. This kind of rule setting is what I really hate. I could quote each part that I don't agree with but I honestly can't be bothered with this shit anymore ,but I will note a few parts.

Q: What games don't count and why?

A: Fighting games, God of War, Heavenly Sword, Yaiba, Tales of, Asura's Wrath, Darksiders, Quake/Doom, Kingdom Hearts, Dynasty Warriors, Spiderman games, DmC, and all current Suda games are the common answers.

No GoW allowed EVER. What do you think of this? I can't speak for most of the others except Asura's Wrath which I own and Suda games. AW has some ok stuff, but it's largely QTEs, but no Suda games? That's just fucking LOL.

Fighting game style mostly ever consists of combos. More importantly, the technical depth you can reach inside practice mode is never rational for use during the real thing.
Funny, because I do it all the time. Huh. Must have been imagining it.

There is a lot of stuff about difficulty. If a game is difficult, then the stuff you learn isn't valid. So Okami isn't valid even though the combat is awesome according to these.

Also this.
Combos, though they are a stylish concept and helpful in consideration, are never the be-all-end-all of what is considered proper for the list. If combo depth was a necessity, we would reject games like Vanquish and God Hand. The focus is the context of gameplay which makes the style, not the other way around. If combos are all you have going, forget about it.

Probably the only thing I truly can agree on.

Birdman wrote:By complexity do you mean the base mechanics, or what you can ultimately do with them?

I mean what you can do with them. Also depends on the definition of "mechanics", which may be intended both as what the player can do and what the enemies can do. In games with a big combo system, genery the depth resides in what the player can do. In games about survival, it's more about the enemies and the way the player can interact with them. Also note that when we talk about enemy capabilities, we have to take into account not only the moves of a single enemy, but also the way how multiple enemies can work together to force the player to do mistakes or get caught by their attacks.

Birdman wrote:this might depend on your definition of mastering. Do you mean we still take hits now and then, die sometimes? Make mistakes?

I mean that you may be very good at the game and still find things within the system that you still can't do good. I take Ninja Gaiden as an example not be cause I'm a fanboy, just because it's a game in which I have experience, I don't want to talk about games I barely played. So, in Ninja Gaiden you may be very good at fighting most enemies in the game with a certain playstyle and with certain weapons, to the point that most people would agree that you are a master. Though, there may be some weapons you barely touched, or certain playstyles (fighting on the ground vs using air to air combos), or different styles of fighting bosses (safe vs aggressive). So, the game will still offer replayability through the different ways you can play it.

Royta wrote:For instance in terms of complexity, Devil May Cry 3 isn't that complex in my eyes. There are only two mechanics at play (ground combat, which has no real combo oppertunities - and aerial combat which is all about JC'ing). But for another player it is complex, because there are so many combo-options

DMC3 depth resides in multiple factors. First, you can play the game in many ways:

1 - S-rank/scoring
2 - trying to be good with different setups the game can offer, do full runs with a specific style/weapons setup and try to find the best strats for any situation
3 - try to be stylish with (again) a specific setup, experiment with various setups to see what cool things you can do
4 - combo design

From a subjective point of view, a player may not be interested in scoring, or combos. He may also find yourself enjoying only the rebellion/Beowulf and the swordmaster style. So, in that case, the game could be subjectively not interesting. Though, objectively, it offers the player a lot to play and experiment with.

Royta wrote:God of War has a learning curve and rooms to improve in, but lacks complexity since there aren't a lot of combos, same with a title like Shinobi. But Shinobi is considered deep by many players, so why is that? You've only got 2 attacks (a slash and a kick), one ranged stun (kunai) and a jump and a dash, and that's it. So how is that game considered deep?

A game can be deep even if it doesn't have combos or big movesets. Depth could be found in how complex is to get good at the combat, for example, so that may be where Shinobi depth is. Though I can't really tell because I didn't play Shinobi.

Royta wrote:Sure you can do an insane juggle in DMC3, or you can just spam the launcher and get the same effect with higher damage output even. So how is that depth? Ninja Gaiden has depth, but only if you chose not to use half the moveset because they break the game. So does depth mean you handicap yourself?

Yes, as I said before, this is a form of depth. "Deep" means that you can literally dig into something and find new interesting things way below the surface.

Birdman wrote:I'm against rule setting like hundreds of moves being depth and any game that doesn't have that many moves is inferior and lacking depth

Again I strongly agree on that.

> Extra Credits video
I always love their work, great videos. Really like their note on the balance between Depth and Complexity and how complexity and variation tried to introduce more depth. Also like how player-skill is a part of depth and how they explain it. Totally forgot about that little nugget.

> charge attack in Shinobi
I always forget about this one since I never really understood how to use it, for some reason I just never could get it to work (don't ask me why haha).

> depth in Shinobi
Depth in Shinobi comes from positioning (imo). It is all about knowledge of enemy patterns and how to manipulate them to such a degree that they line up perfectly for that instant-tate kill. Movement is the depth on display there. You can also see this in games like shooters where movement is nearly 90% of the depth, like in Painkiller and Unreal.

> amount of moves = depth
I am still curious if one developer will one day just make a PC action title where every button on the keyboard is a set of moves haha.

> souls vs DMC
There were some good comments though, I especially liked the one that called it a pointless discussion since the styles and genres are too different; and I agree.

> experimentation
One thing I never liked about DMC is how the experimentation is pointless and only there to make it seem like you are a smart player. Sure you can do amazing combos that require very precise inputs, but the overal result is the same as spamming the uppercut for 2 minutes straight (and that might even be safer/ more efficient). DMC is deep, but for me it is deep because a lot of moves have different applications and uses (knockdown, stuns, area controle, movement inplementation etc). The combos add nothing in my eyes except the ability to show off or make a bad video with Blink182 music badly edited over it.

A reason this discussion is important to me is that I often see good games slammed because "it doesn't have a huge movelist". Killer is Dead had great gameplay mechanics and depth in how to efficiently take down each level with a fine level of balance between going for ranks or style, or just handicap runs. But it was murdered because it had one weapon and no real juggles. And that's completely missing the point. In theory, DmC:DE has the most moves available at any given time to one player character - more than DMC4 Dante - yet that game is far from the deepest around and some even call it braindead. Why? Because they like DMC4 more, that's why. There's a lot of subjectivity going around in the topic and that's fine, but it can make it hard to see the facts at times.

If you haven't, try this article: http://www.stingermagazine.com/2017/03/weapon-switching-quality-or-quantity.html

I always forget about this one since I never really understood how to use it, for some reason I just never could get it to work (don't ask me why haha).
I know you need to be locked on and have enough energy.

Depth in Shinobi comes from positioning (imo). It is all about knowledge of enemy patterns and how to manipulate them to such a degree that they line up perfectly for that instant-tate kill. Movement is the depth on display there.
Also use of charge slash such as when to use it. Can you afford to? Can you get the energy back from your Tate? Shuriken and burst shuriken usage too. Your life is always draining and the more you kill the more powerful your sword is. When facing a group, which you always are, you want to take down the weaker enemy first to powerup your sword and work your way up.

But it was murdered because it had one weapon and no real juggles.
I often see a ton of similar arguments. No air combat or juggles is a common one. Yet what these people tend to ignore is that air and juggle are basically states. LC doesn't have air combat or juggles, but it has various stats you can put the enemy in that allow further follow ups. These are essentially the same thing in a sense.

I’m still working on my comments, but I’ll be mentioning stuff that this vid does for reference of the fundamental principles of defining depth: interplay, skill devide, possibility space, challenge/opposition, among other possible factors but that about covers it, sue me...



Roy the experimentation is where new possibilities come from, it’s where tech comes from, new ways to deal with situations with the mechanics presented. Even in GoW, a game about killing enemies in the most efficient way possible still has multiple equally valid WAYS of reaching that end, you’ll have to play different in a PAIN run for instance, adapt and use tech and tactics you never thought existed or could be used in such ways before. It’s more than a “1 right, 1 wrong answer affair”, you have multiple meaningful/useful means to reach that same end, the end result is you kill the enemy, its the decisions made that lead to that end that allow for depth, spamming fully upgraded magic can have the same end result of killing a group of enemies as using more advanced play(which requires greater knowledge and skill of the game), difference is spamming magic is reducing the games meta to just one option, the less decisions your making means less depth, to the point where your not even thinking to win is truly mindless play, there is no depth to this extent because there is no thoughtful decision making. Why bother learning the mechanics when i can just spam the best broken move with impunity?

Without experimentation we wouldn’t have increased the possibility space, we wouldn’t discover what the game actually factually allows for in its cold technical entirety, so then we can further evolve the meta. Experimentation leads us to know what we can and can’t do in a game first and foremost, that’s how we get tech, often indirectly new possibilities can be found. Testing the boundaries of the games ruleset. The whole point of handicap runs is to limit your options to potentially have a greater understanding of a game so new options may be presented.


>Gameplay ‘style’:
I think the more apt term for a gameplay style is ‘focus’ or ‘approach’ since that’s the focus or approach of that type of play. So NG’s and Shinobi’s focus is ‘efficiency’. More clear saying the gameplay focus is ‘style’ than gameplay style is ‘style’, haha...

Quick question, what are your guy's take on the articles recently? Still good quality? Worse? Better?

One Year Anniversary article, taking a closer look at the Stinger. Some nice tibits in here that I don't think a lot of people will know :)

http://www.stingermagazine.com/2018/02/the-stingers-storied-history.html

New article on Remember Me: http://www.stingermagazine.com/2018/03/remember-me-command-or-desire.html

Hard to write article because personally, I didn't enjoy the game much. But it has a lot of neat ideas.

Good read. If only this game had skippable cutscenes. There are parts I wouldn't mind replaying to test stuff, but I don't think I'll ever touch this again. I ended up spending more time glitching it than anything else.

This is as far as my knowledge extends on reminder me?

Cheers for the like. The game isn't all that memorable (really hard not to make puns like that all the time). It has some unique concepts but really could've used a more gameplay focused drive. Since all their other games are purely story, I think they found their direction.

Also, good to see you again Gabe :)

First draft of the hellish article DEPTH VERSUS COMPLEXITY is done. It is an absolute mess now haha. But the points do stand. Few things I target in the article:

- games with low options can be very deep. Mostly use Shinobi and GoW as an example
- its all about game motivation, if a game does not promote you to seek out the depth (through rankings or difficulty for example) you'll never find it unless you really try
- urge people to keep an open mind
- Square Square Triangle is shortly adressed.

Right now it's nearly 8 pages long of random, super random and ultra random paragraphs but the order of them is correct. Just need to have them flow right now in one good story.

I'm seriously looking forward to this.

Roy, in recent GoW topics as well as that cgg podcast I showed you, I often see the S,S,T criticism. I've seen this for a ton of other games as well, that is, the claim that as long as you can win with one tactic, the game lacks depth or options or whatever.

Often you hear this from trolls or casuals who got mad, but I also often hear it from vets of certain games while criticizing others. In the podcast, you hear that GoW is all S,S,T and dodge roll. Yet in that same podcast, the player talks about other stealth players and how they're doing it wrong, and he was kind of right actually. But the point is, it seems they're allowed to say that, but the reverse doesn't apply to them.

Bayo and DMC can be beaten on harder modes with limited variety and tactics, yet if you say that they'll spew all this reasoning as to why you're doing it wrong and how you're limiting yourself or whatever (I know because I play them and I'd do the same. Been doing it for Chaos Legion and others for years) but when you apply this to GoW, or whatever game they don't like, nope. Not allowed. You're just wrong.

I wouldn't mind an article focused solely on this concept of using the easiest, most effective technique vs exploring all possibilities, or did you do one on this already?

Hmm. It's a hard topic to nail down. I already adress it a bit in my RPG article with the following quote:

" Many players cannot help approaching a game as an optimization puzzle. Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game - as said by Soren Johnson, current designer and programmer at Mohawk Games, also having worked on Civilization. "

Granted this was done more with stats in mind, not playstyle. It might be a worthy topic to use, but I'd say let me finish the Depth vs Complexity first. I think it will offer a lot of insight already into this topic that you might find useful to post. Not going to lie though, it is a big issue: period.
I think the motivational part is the most damning though. With the SST logic, DMC3 is Holy Water spam. Sure it destroys your rank but...who cares? I wonder if God of War had a style gauge people would love it?

I've sent you two PM's about this. If you don't feel this will cover it, let me know. I can always make a little side article about it.

You covered the comparison between SST and stuff on other action games well enough.

I think I'm just after that ultimate GoW tech guide to just shut people up lol.

Birdman wrote:You covered the comparison between SST and stuff on other action games well enough.

I think I'm just after that ultimate GoW tech guide to just shut people up lol.

Good to hear. Though I think the video (it has to be a video, ain't nobody got time to read apparently these days) will be hard to make. I could be able to make it but it would take a motherload of time extra. Not sure I can deliver on it and do it justice. I'll think about it. See if I can make something worth our while. No promises though.

Finished the article. Going to have it simmer and do some tweaking over the week, but I think it will go live around upcoming Friday. Which is nice because the Monday after that Yakuza 6 launches and I want to dive into that haha.

http://www.stingermagazine.com/2018/04/depth-versus-complexity.html

Here we go guys! Curious to hear the responses. Feedback?

Next article will be on Shinobi(PS2). Should be good :)

Oho I look forward to that one.

Quick note that will also be in the article, but for a long time there was a rumor that the JPN and EU versions of the game lacked Super difficulty, this is true but in NAME only. USA Super difficulty is renamed to Hard in those versions, while USA Hard is removed and an Easy Mode is added. Took some testing to get this data in.

Aren't there coins in Super though? Did they just shift the coins to US easy?

All Hard and Super coins from the USA version are in the EU version, but only available on EU HARD.

Let me put it like this:

USA Version
Normal (has N-coins)
Hard (has H-coins)
Super (has S-coins)

EU Version
Easy (no unique coins)
Normal (has N-coins)
Hard (has H-coins and S-coins)

The unlocks are, strangely, also vastly different in terms of progression. You get Moritsume way later (30 instead of 20 coins), but the EX-stage unlocks much sooner (40 coins, paired with Joe - instead of 50).

NOTE: Depth vs Complexity is the first non-interview to break 1000 readers. Color me happy! ^^

Hahaha I bet it did.

Birdman wrote:Hahaha I bet it did.

Controversy has its benefits ;p

I just read the Depth Vs. Complexity article. I mostly agree, I feel like "simpler" games are often treated as not lacking depth.

I do want to say that I don't think complexity necessarily sacrifices depth. It can, but with care complexity can be added with the depth remaining unchanged. I do get that depth can be unclear when there are too many options, but that's just a thing with perception. High complexity can mean redundant options, yeah, but I don't think it's the redundancy that sacrifices depth, but rather overlapping redundancy. A move that launches and a move that breaks guards can both be obsoleted by a move that does both.

I also feel like enemy design should be mentioned: A game can have different options that do different things, with varying degrees of complexity and depth, but if the enemies themselves are not varied enough to necessitate using some of those other options, the effective depth *and* complexity can suffer. As an example, what if a game had a guard break but only one, enemy that never blocked?

In fact I can think of a game that does this right now: Horizon Zero Dawn. Has 2 different attack buttons, dodges, jumps and slides, knockdown mechanics and finishers. But they *only* come into play against the basic enemies you find at the beginning of the game. Against every other enemy, it's suicide to do anything but use stealth or shooting. If you just look at the combat options, the game does have good "depth", with each action having their own purpose, and it can seem like a good combat game if you just look at a fight with that one basic enemy. But all that goes out the window the moment you fight anything tougher, things that can't get knocked down or even react to melee attacks. So the combat's "effective" depth is *a lot* lower.

So yeah. I think it'd be good to emphasize that the variety of challenges you face should necessitate that you consider your options in different ways per fight.

I think I was a bit too black and white in terms of formulation on that part, since at the end I sort of round it all down to "depth is personal", because it is in each game: you just have to look for it. Some games have it on the surface, in others it is hidden behind a ton of complex mechanics that make it seem like it is all buttons, no saus.

Enemy Variation and design is also true, but that plays into the Motivation part as mentioned, maybe that wasn't clear enough (I note difficulty as a motivator to explore the depth). I agree that it plays a huge role, maybe the biggest. To me the biggest example of this is Yakuza as a game series. The whole series is filled with tons of combat moves, heat actions, weapon crafting, counters, just-frame moves, parries..the works. But you never need to use anything other than square if you want. Then came along Yakuza 3, a game where enemies were agressive, brought weapons, blocked like hell, countered and just went nuts. Most hated it, but I love it, it's the only game where I feel the need to actually PLAY the game because if I don't, it's back to the last savepoint for me.

I also feel like enemy design should be mentioned: A game can have different options that do different things, with varying degrees of complexity and depth, but if the enemies themselves are not varied enough to necessitate using some of those other options, the effective depth *and* complexity can suffer. As an example, what if a game had a guard break but only one, enemy that never blocked

This is why everyone should play Knack 2. The enemy design is great and requires you to use all the tools the game gives you, though I find some of these tools are a bit too strong.

>Horizon
I played this quite a bit. I wouldn't say using those things on tougher enemies is suicide, just very risky. I've actually been meaning to make a topic on the mechanics.

Take the Thunderjaw, which is the toughest you'll find outside of the DLC enemies. You can actually slide under it and shoot the power cells on its belly with shock arrows, which will cause the cells to explode. Best down with the slowmo aiming skill though. Slide can also be used as a dodge, and it can break line of sight easier than running.

Melee is limited, I agree, but you still have options if you set them up right. Again, it's riskier than stealth and all the shooting options, but it's possible if you really want to play like that. You can still inflict freeze and shock giving you a free critical and melee until the status meter runs out. Don't forget the rope caster. Or corrupting enemies then getting in free hits during the confusion (something I love to do while shooting).

Or using tearblast arrows to disable their weapons and armor so you have a better chance of melee being effective. I think if you want to focus on melee in Horizon, you really need to combine with shooting.

Good enemies, and them actually promoting the way you play the game as intended is so important. If anything, it is exactly what buried Devil's Third for me. While a great game, the enemies just didn't play ball in the way you'd want the game to play. Think this would make a good article.

http://www.stingermagazine.com/2018/05/shinobi.html

New article is up! Shinobi gets the spotlight! Trying to use those gif-like headers as an starting image now. Looks pretty sweet.

Fantastic article. Hope to see a Kunoichi article in the future.

When you mentioned Hotsuma being a generic ninja and his red scarf, I was surprised you didn't mention his bizarre mask/helmet with the 4 eyes. I remember first seeing the case and that, along with the scarf, were what caught my attention. I found the 4 eyes super cool but really creepy at the same time.

Glad you enjoyed it so much man! Kunoichi article is a long ways away since I never beat the game, let alone 'mastered' it enough to write about it. One day. Next article is, as always, a game design article. Might make it about Enemies and how they motivate you.

Any other suggestions?

Think the next real game article might even be about God of War 2018.