I mean he's not wron - *Cue Kratos effortlessly jumping forward 5 feet without any momentum* Noooo wait, he's nothing _but_ wrong dadgummit!! Frankly as far as I'm concerned the original series did a much better job telling its story with its mechanics than NuwGoW does with its.
One of the local chinese game reviewers called gamker actually said "thank god for no jumping, just imagine how horrible the immersion will be ruined with jumping!" so yea.. dumbasses existed :(
I still don't quite understand why some people say that a game with juggling, on the fly weapon switching, parrying, unlockable moves and Devil Trigger can't be compared to other games with juggling, on the fly weapong switching, parrying, unlockable moves and Devil Trigger.
This is honestly a way better argument for GamingBrit's point about comparisons than anything he said in the video himself. He really bogged down his argument with a lot of baggage by trying to say people shouldn't bother with labeling subgenres.
It's not a very compelling argument, just a cheeky "Gotcha!". DMC does not have RPG elements, or exploration that directly impacts your power. In GoW4 exploration is most of the game, it's how you will get most of your returns for the time you put in. Granted that even though the exploration is good, the rest of the game falls short both in the action AND the RPG build variety. So it still sucks, but they're still different games. Really, stop for a second and imagine how you would implement an RPG system similar to Dark Souls in DMC. What happens when you let your players make a shotgun build? That fine tuned combat simply goes to shit and a meta of overpowered spams is created. You then cannot get around that without limiting the action variety to fit the RPG build variety.
Ikelos Holy shit, nobody's saying that Dad of War and DMC should be exactly the same game, but you have to be blind and deaf if you think that they have nothing in common and that Gow4 is so fundamentally different that they can't be compared to each other. Gow4 focuses alot on its combat and that combat has alot in common with games like DMC or the old God of War games. It's therefore completely unreasonable to say that it can't be criticized for that combat if it's worse by comparison, even if it wants to also have RPG elements now. I seriously have no idea how that is so hard to understand.
Ikelos I don't know why you're trying to bring dark souls into this, but fine, I don't really see how comparing its combat with that of other action games is inherently wrong either. There is a reason why I would criticize Dark Souls 3's obsession with "straight fights" when it comes to bosses, and that is simply because its combat isn't as deep as lets say DMC or Bayonetta, and that if I wanted "straight fights" I would play those games instead. But lets not forget that you're derailing the argument by bringing Dark Souls into the conversation and ignoring the blatant simillarities that Gow4 and games like old Gow and DMC have. Again, if a game lets me juggle enemies and has a Devil Trigger, like Gow4 undeniably does, I'm going to compare its combat with that of other games that let me juggle enemies and have a Devil Trigger.
Old GoW can 100% be compared to DMC. New GoW is an Action RPG. If you can't see the difference between Action RPG and Action after I explained it to you, I don't know what to tell you. You simply cannot have tight and fine tuned action combat while at the same time having serviceable RPG elements. The flipside of that coin would be something like FFXV, where Action was halfassedly spliced into what was just an RPG and ended up in a similar piece of shit game that does nothing right. At best you can complain that GoW suddenly became an OW RPG for no reason, which I agree was fucking stupid. You can say that they are bad, but just like it would be stupid of me to say that Bayonetta is shit because it's seriously lacking in RPG elements, you can't say that something like Dark Souls sucks because you only have a light and heavy attack instead of a system of combos. I brought Dark Souls into it because it's a successful version of what GoW4 was trying to accomplish, thought that was obvious.
Oh, yeah, when you get down to it, action games are action games. Sub-genre category labels are more there to state what the emphasis of the experience is on within that umbrella. The old "stylish action" labels and whatnot are a bit of a misnomer because they really refer less to style than to that kind of balls-to-the-wall fast-paced technical combat you see in those Devil May Cry type games, as opposed to something more grounded. But that's just there to tell people who like different kinds of action games what kind of action they're in for so they can pick and choose the action games they actually like. It's an unofficial categorization of games that loses value when people can't agree on what they mean, though. Case in point: "survival horror." These days I think we're pretty sure we all know what kind of game within the horror category we're talking about when we say those words, but at one point the definition of the genre got really confused. This is, of course, the era of gaming where Resident Evil 4 had thrown out Capcom's previously-favored formula and began the upward climb to "action horror." Then trends surrounding the horror genre became polarized and we got the equal and opposite karmic reaction, that type of horror game that seeks to terrify through powerlessness and suspense rather than the decision-making and nail-biting struggle of a survival scenario. The definitions blurred and most of the time when people said "survival horror" you actually had to see for yourself whether the game emphasized the survival aspect or was going in a more (or even less) action-focused direction. In some sense the massive shift that Resident Evil 4 represented for that series wasn't all too different from God of War 2018 in its weird backwards-ass way. And with that comes a certain difficulty in finding a shorthand way to describe its gameplay so that you can quickly and efficiently tell someone why they should or shouldn't look deeper into it. Arguments over genre classification for God of War 2018 versus God of War OG are kind of missing the point. Those sub-categories aren't there to tell you what you can or can't criticize, they're there to tell the audiences that like a certain kind of game *whether or not* they're that certain kind of game. That's why I bring up the Resident Evil 4 comparison; a lot of people did not and still to this day do not like what that game did to the franchise, well-executed or not, and that's okay. But we still got tons of arguing between one neck of the fanbase and the other as to whether or not it was a valid entry in the series or, god forbid, whether or not it was THE SUPERIOR DIRECTION!!!!!11!1!ONEONEEXCLAMATIONPOINT. It's all obfuscation. The only thing that matters to an individual gamer is whether or not the product as delivered entertains them. Even if Resident Evil 4 is worthy of all that critical praise, that's hardly a condemnation of the people who just didn't like it. Likewise, the people who prefer Resi4's direction over classic Resi (or Resi7) are hardly wrong to have that particular taste fueling their subjective preferences. People try to oversimplify all of this by arguing validity based on what makes a label. Resident Evil 4 "sucks" because it's "not survival horror" enough. Or it's "more survival horror" than the games that followed, and therefore "better." We're getting some of the same kind of discussion with God of War now, except it centers around (ironically) drawing a clear categoric division between the type of game this new God of War is and the type of games the previous entries were. It's in the same kind of spirit but it's approaching the question from the opposite direction. There's something insidious about that, though, because it seems to partially lean on the idea that the previous design and story direction was inferior. No real critical explanation for why, but an undercurrent of sentiment that its non-seriousness and cartoonish brutality aren't cultured enough. That's certainly the tone of the pre-release interviews and articles, and it seems to have been inherited by the people defending the game. It's less about whether they're all just action games, and more about saying in the most indirect manner possible, "but those games aren't artsy enough, so it doesn't matter whether they're mechanically superior." The problem is, that's subjective preference being touted as a hard category classification AS AN ARGUMENT AGAINST objective mechanical analysis. Kind of a lame way to defend a game, isn't it?
I came back to this video after years because basically everything you said in this comment came to my mind. Thanks for saving my time because this is essentially my exact same thoughts on the matter. Great breakdown!
>DMC used to be strategy based. Like... the first DMC. After that its mindless hack n slash. lol no. Lobos jr(one of the most skilled Soulsborne player out there) just played the first DMC and mechanics just doesn't hold up. You can spam stinger to Nelo Angelo and you can win. That won't happen in DMC 3. Try spamming stinger to Cerberus or Agni & Rudra and see what happens. The game would probably recommend easy mode to you lol
DMC5 is such a wondrous story of consumers coming out on top for once it's still unbelievable sometimes. Glad the shitty reboot is dead and swept under the bus it's time for some real DMC action!
MrEvol94 ~ I counted 24 uses. Might have missed one or two because I zoned out near the end. Fun fact: The first 9 or so uses occur in roughly the first 2 minutes.
I think most of it comes from the fact that "Action" as a name doesn't do a good enough job of describing all these games. You can call both God of War 2018 and Dynasty Warriors action games but I don't think that the audience for those games has much overlap. I think it makes more sense to have some sort of differentation. But games in general are so big and so varied that I feel like it's common that genre is pretty polarizing, they're not like movies or books. That's why when JoJo Eyes of Heaven categorized itself as "Stylish Tag Team JoJo Action" instead of just "Fighting", it just felt right.
linkinman84 absolutely right, but he is to an extend correct but lets just let him make a different kinda video. I still like god of war for different reasons i like dmc4. Nothing is going to change that. Sure dmc4 might have more complex gameplay, and i do agree that the upgrading system in god of war is more like a novelty compared to older leveling systems in final fantasy with more complex rpg mechanics. I definitely see where gamingbrit is coming from and he's right. Just because an anime game is an anime game doesnt mean we cant compare it to better anime games or ufc games or whatever that are more complicated and interesting. But i do agree the combat in dmc4 is more complicated than god of war, and god of war really just borrows things from other games like DmC or other games im sure but i think it does a better job with merging ideas compared to horizon zero dawn which didnt like all that much. I think god of war lacks a compelling interesting platforming mechanics, repetitive action, and a limited open world. I think what the game does well at is the personality of kratos and how he fights his enemies, the environments and graphics are great, but i still think the game is ok.
a differentiation is needed when the fans of said genres don't overlap at all. a devilmay cry fan is not going to automatically be interested in a dinasty warriors or a zelda just because there's combat in it and thus you can put all of them under the umbrella of "action games"..but a devil may cry fan will probably at least glance at games in the same sub-genre like bayonetta, metal gear rising,ninja gaiden, and even the old god of war games. While he thinks that those subgenres are useless i think that the opposite it's true, that a non-descripting name like "action game" is an useless nomenclature since it tells absolutely nothing about the kind of gameplay there's in the game..just that you fight stuff..which happens in like 35% of the games ...in the other 55% you shoot at things (and someone might argue those are action games too) and the remaining 10% is puzzle games, sport games, simulators/managerial and other stuff. does that mean that you can't judge gow including combat in the pro or cons? of course you can and you probably should..but that has nothing to do about naming genres..it's just an excuse for fanboys.
You're both totally right, I'm not saying he's wrong here. My point is that I don't think games are straightforward enough to be put into such a broad box. To me it all comes down to intention as well as production. These games all serve different purposes and while I don't think it's fair to say that that should remove them comparison, I do think that it's a factor to take into account. I don't think it's right to compare a game like Naruto Ultimate Ninja Storm to Tekken 7 despite them both being fighting games, stuff like that is what I'm saying.
well a normal person would make a direct comparison. like if someone asked me about the new god of war id say its like devil may cry 4 with much worse combat but a better level design and more varied bosses and environments
nah, obviously GamingBrit is gonna start jumping on the KH bandwagon now. At least, he's probably gonna go in depth about 2's combat and how well it did to iterate on 1's. And Maybe complain about how BBS ruined this perfect balance.
Zomagedon I know it's not actually that, but like..you're still mashing buttons. It's probably the first thing you'll do when you first start playing a game. Then you become better at the game and slowly build a more complex set of moves in your head. On surface level, they are button mashers. But they become more complec the more you understand the mechanics. The whole "easy to learn, difficult to master" shit
I get the feeling you didn't watch the video at all. He exclaimed he doesn't care about either of those "sub"genres and just classifies things as different kinds of action games, some good in certain areas and others good in others.
I would love Brit to do that, I have a friend whos always going on about how his Bioware games and Fallouts are just superior to any other type of game, specially hack'n slash games, cause there just "button smashing"
I don't think I 100% percent agree with you, (but maybe I just don't completely understand what you are trying to say). While I definitely agree with the part where you say, that GOW 4 deserves its criticisms, and claiming that it should no longer be viewed as being the same genre as the previous games is also complete BS. However, I might have a little issue, with your statement :"They are just action games, with good combat systems". I just feel that the term "action game" is just TOO broad of a term. I might be wrong here, but I believe that a word like "action game" can either refer to a Devil May Cry or to a Titanfall 2. Because both are indeed action games, yet played in completely different perspectives and have radically different combat systems. This is why a term like "first person shooter" helps, because it allows to differentiate Titanfall 2 from DMC. And this is why I always felt that a term like "third person spectacle fighter" was a pretty decent term to categorize games like DmC, Bayoetta and GoW (and yes, even the newest one). The "third person" in this case refers to the perspective in which the games are played, the "spectacle" referring to the general idea, that indeed these games allow for certain spectacle to be created by player expression and finally the "fighter" referring to the idea of combos and move-sets available for the player, and the way in which the player chains these together, which is also at the core of fighting games. This is however how I would categorize them, I am not saying this is the be all and end all.
God of War 2018 is defined as an ''Action-adventure'' genre game, a genre that combines core elements from the action and adventure genres. So yes, it is fair to compare its action elements to action games. End of story.
This series of videos is very useful to me, because it's letting me know which of my friends I should stop talking to about video games whenever I see them slagging you off in my discord server.
You know why I will always call Devil May Cry a hack and slash? Because I spend 90% of my time hacking and slashing my way through enemies, so cut me some slack.
I honestly think you’re over simplifying. Like, music has tons of genre branches that are all based off how you play the involved instruments. It doesn’t just branch off from Music to Jazz and just stop. There’s bebop, there’s big band, there’s chamber, there’s electro swing, there’s ethno and so on. I don’t think anyone would disagree with you that DMC is an action game. But labeling CAG is just to give that extra branch to describe the progression, difficulty structure, and combo structure. I honestly do this with shooters too. I consider military shooters very different from older shooters and like that we keep those as different branches and consider games like Bulletstorn a fusion. I get it. You wanna just talk about combat that feels good and combat that doesn’t and you should do exactly that. I’ll compare Breath of the Wild to Symphony of the Night lets go, but denying the branches is.... not the way to do it.
I don't think branches and genres themselves are really the issue, I just hate how nebulous the current genres are and how the branches are being used by some people as a haphazard way of deflecting criticism. In movies per say, genres are typically a lot more understandable. No one is in disagreement on what "Horror" or "Western" means. But for a much more complicated medium, games have really simplistic and kind of silly genre names. "First-Person Shooter" tells you practically nothing about a game. Quake is very different from something like Medal of Honor or Overwatch, and yet they're all considered the same genre. Yeah, sure, Portal is technically a "First-Person Shooter", you shoot a gun in first person. But that basically tells you nothing. Portal and Doom are completely different games. What I don't like is how "Character Action" or whatever the fuck people are calling it is more subtractive than anything. It's so thinly defined and no one agrees on its meaning. It can't simply be "DMC- style action games" or "Intricate Action" or something, and its not helped by that most of these "character action" games are actually quite different from eachother. Dad of war is a weird, plot focused and reductive reboot that has combat from a game that's literally DMC inspired to some degree. If its combat is a LARGE CHUNK OF THE GAME and is lackluster, I can't help but be a bit dissapointed. Its not that an action game has to have the best action ever to be good, I just don't want people using nebulous genre terminology to defend a lackluster action experience. Its okay to like God of War PS4, but you can't make it magically immune to criticism just because "its not the same genre."
The problem with your analogy is that in videogames you can't choose the pacing of the combat, whereas with instruments you can. For videogames, the choice is in the hands of the designer. It is, indeed, a design choice. I agree though that not every game should have to be compared to DMC. The question reiewers should ask is this:''What feeling did the combat designers tried to convey to me (by pacing the combat in a certain way), and did they succeed.'' The gamer should instead ask:''Do I like this? Is this the thing for me?''
1. I totally agree that we should compare and criticize games with similar focuses. Like DMC and GOW(2018) are heavily focused on action combat and its fair to compare them. 2. Yes there are many games were you have direct control over your in game avatar, many of those games feature combat, some of them suck at combat, some of them a great at combat. Sure you can compare them all, but that doesn't invalidate the idea of the "hack and slash"/"character action" sub-genre. Regardless of how silly the name may be. Gamers still know what you mean when you use the term and that's useful.Even if people go too far and underestimate the amount of overlap DMC has with other action games that doesn't mean it's wrong to consider it as part of a sub genre. 3. I love DMC and Ninja Gaiden. They're great action games. But to say that they are THE BEST ACTION GAMES PERIOD beyond any notion of sub-genre is so far into the realm of your own opinion that to state it as fact is laughable. Massive amounts of people will argue that THE BEST ACTION GAME is Modern Warfare. or The Last of Us, or Mario64, or Forza, or Fortnight. And they're not wrong. There are games that fall under the broad "action game" genre that you can't fairly compare. That's why there are sub genres in the first place.
You know, it's really easy to see what you're saying, I've been following this channel for a bit now and I'm honestly more then just impressed, but i find it really funny that this is the second video you made on this topic, and the fourth or fifth talking about what works in action games, and there are still people coming up with the same excuses with different names
Hack and slash is the typical term for those kind of action games, regardless if it's stylish, good, clunky, etc. Just defined by an action games with a lot of hacking... and slashing. Just like beat 'em ups so popular in arcades were defined by fist fighting with rare occasion of weapon use. Or how shoot 'em ups were defined by a lot of shooting... Thy are ALL action games, nobody is disputing that, but defining it by a sub-genre is more describing.
Monster Hunter is an action RPG. If it's hack and slash though is up to debate, since hack and slash usually indicates you take on a lot cannon fodder enemies(such as you do in DMC, Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden, Metal Gear Rising, Dynasty Warriors, Diablo, etc). But if you wanted to, you could be more specific and also call it a hack and slash RPG.
Tiger Festivals Please do not refer to Monster Hunter as a "monster hunting" game if someone asks you to describe it. That will only be met with confusion and annoyance.
Drago Ridley Sure, but I'm gonna refer to God Eater and other Monster Hunter-likes as "hunting" or "monster hunting" games, because that's the subgenre that they're in.
This series of videos reminds me of how quite a few games will slap the "Action Adventure" genre name when the devs can't figure out what genre to classify it as. On a side note: I feel that the terms "Hack 'n Slash" and "Beat 'em Up" refer to the same genre due to there being no real difference in terms of mechanics.
The fact that you had to make so many of these is hilarious because it just spikes in the knowledge that folks didn't get it the first two times. >_> I still appreciate and will use hack-and-slash/character-action as a descriptor because it's a colloquial convenience; people know what it implies and it's like... Descriptive short-hand. I can evoke a very quick "vibe" or "feel" and spend less time explaining what I mean, and more time actually talking about the game. Having said that, yeah, crit whatever you want however you want, dude. Melee Combat is Melee Combat.
it's attempting to describe games that have you play as a particular character in a third-person action game, so it means nothing but it's synonymous with "stylish action" and the other vague terms being used to try and separate certain combat games from the average. It's pretty useless unless other people know what you mean, but whatever works for people to describe games is gonna be used.
I consider hack-and-slash games a fundamentally different type of game to a character action game. The hack-and-slash is much shallower, and more akin to a 3D take on side-scrolling beat-em-ups, whereas a character action game is a deep dive into a character's action toolset. This is why Ninja Gaiden, despite using a sword, isn't a hack-and-slash, it's a character-action game.
There is no such thing as a "character action game", its a retarded sounding thing i've only recently come to hear. *"3D take on side-scrolling beat-em-ups"* You're correct, Hack'N'Slash games are an evolution of beat'em'up games and DMC is a hack'n'slash game. It is what defined the genre in the first place.
You just contradicted yourself lol. You agree with him but then went on to say yo state those terms yourself so people know what type of game you are talking about...what?
Okay, you've convinced me. "Character Action" "Cuhrazy Game", just hair splitting, and after watching this video and your detailed analysis, I'm convinced. It's all action. No more hair splitting. Just bad guy splitting like ol' papa Dante.
I agree with your overall point, but I think Ninja Gaiden and God of War still count as "stylish." They both have very stylised combat. Just a different style to DMC/Bayo. Still, I get the point about it not being a useful point to define a genre by. "Stylish action" was just made up by Capcom to describe DMC, in an attempt to repeat what they did with "survival horror." So I guess you could say the origin of this whole idea of certain action games being too good for the genre was just a Capcom marketing ploy. And again I have to reiterate how awful a term "spectacle fighter" is. It's a terrible term and people only use it so much because TB used it, who picked it up from Yahtzee. Both critics with cult-like following. But neither are experts in the genre, and most of Yahtzee's writing is supposed to be a joke anyway.
hey brit need help with smth i "bought" the collection and dmc 4 se and i played them on this order 1-2-4 and now after having 50+ hours of dmc4 i just started dmc 3 and it feels rly restrictive with the combat even tho everyone says its rly good can i do smth to fix this expirience?
I had a friend who enjoyed the new God Of War a lot, and i made him play DMC 3 and he didn't really enjoy it(the guy was getting destroyed on like the first boss, that reaper thingy on the second mission.) He made an argument that God Of War has better combat because of how satisfying it was, when it came to spectacle and more crunchy, cathartic and satisfying, but i argued that DMC actually has better spectacle and more cathartic combat, it just expects you to actually learn the game to pull it off. We argued for a while and of course i eventually cultured him, but we ultimately came to a conclusion that both games can co-exist because they do strive for different things somewhat. For all we know, the developers of the game dont really enjoy that kind of DMC combat and are more of a fan of the kind of combat they implemented. I actually couldn't name anything wrong with GoW objectively(probably because im a moron), but i do know that i dont really enjoy the game, but that is because of my personal tastes, and my friend couldn't name anything objectively wrong with DMC, (probably because he was only on the second mission before quitting). GoW has seemingly simple mechanics because it really isn't looking to appeal to the more hardcore gaming audience, my friend looks at gaming as a simple hobby, but he is more dedicated to other things in life, unlike me, i treat gaming seriously and i look to have a career in designing them one day. So, that game is there for him to simply enjoy and he doesn't really have to dedicate hours of his life to learning deep mechanics to feel satisfied. I called him lazy but i think he is a hard worker, when he truly can put his mind to something, the same way i dont really care to learn advanced trigonometry or geometry, he doesn't want to learn advanced mechanics in video games, thus, he doesn't because it isn't important to him. DMC will be there for me and the gaming industry has proven that it still cares about hardcore gamers that spend hours of their life analyzing game mechanics and want to stay in the action constantly. That will be there for us, i dont agree with games simplifying themselves when they had somewhat strategic and deeper mechanics, i hope this doesn't happen to DMC, but i believe from what we saw that it wont. One of the joys of entertainment is how no-one, NO-ONE can definitely say they dont like a certain type of medium, because there is something out there for everyone, whether they wanna dig deep into mechanically complex gameplay, or they want to enjoy simple, yet cathartic experiences. They may not replay titles as often thus things that are important to me and many others(replay ability, constant uninterrupted actions and no unskippable cutscenes) wont be important to another side. I dont think this video is not as much of a criticism of the other side as it is a defense of our side and how we may see things in terms of action games. Someone may also or may have already made a defense of their side and their enjoyment of the GoW or other mechanically average games.
Your friends problem is that he doesn't enjoy hard things, or learning. If he learns it because "its important" instead of "because learning is fun" then that is his problem. I'm sure your friend does not come up short in work or other obligations, but he is absolutely lazy. If the passion of discovery and eureka, and the thrill overcoming odds does not outweigh the honestly marginal level of discipline it takes to play a hard action game, then I'm sorry, but I think your friend sucks. BTW, starting with DMC3 is sort of a mistake. That game absolutely is NOT a good starting point, because you can feel like there are 3 other style you "should" be playing because you don't know how to use yours. DMC1, 4, or 5 are MUCH better to start with.
The difficulty with subgenres is that they do tend to have vague and nebulous requirements but that doesn't mean that they're not useful descriptors of a certain type of game. If you get into the pedantic weeds, games like rogue and Xcom are "Just RPGs" but terms like"roguelike" and "strategy RPG" are still incredibly useful in instantly painting a picture of what those games are like. "Character action" is not nearly as well defined as Roguelike but still usefully describes single player linear action games with a focus on combat mechanics and exaggerated physics. Regardless, you're right about one thing: Subgenres are not gated communities like some people pretend they are and there's really no business using them as strict checklists by which to judge games. They're really useful labels for helping people find more of what they like and that's pretty much it.
i feel like the true underlying message that has been buried in these videos by your strong opinion on genre definitions is that if your game focuses on killing shit, make it good at doing so. thats always something i've said to my friends and they don't quite get it for whatever reason. dragon's dogma proved you can have fast paced action with variety in rpg's and nier automata proves rpg's can have platinum games levels of combat and destroys any excuse for skyrim levels combat.
6:36 but it does have a purpose if my friend (who doesn't know shit about video games, at least not the really video gamey video games) asks me about Devil May Cry and I call it an action game he's now going to have additional questions, whereas calling it by one of the aforementioned sub-classifications could more efficiently convey what it's about.
I know what genre new GoW is: Stylish Spectacle - because there's nothing more to that title, than showing off nordic/viking stylistic choices and pulling off overblown spectacles in cutscenes. What bugs me most about GoFour is all the devs had to do was remove Kratos from the game, make it about "just some dude" and then they could make a staggering reveal that he's some obscure god and, HOLY SHIT, for some reason Blades of Chaos are stashed somewhere along your way (best if they were an optional, secret weapon, which was absolutely overpowered - an homage to Kratos).
Dude just let people call it what they want. Action is such a broad term and people want to categorize stuff a little bit better. DMC and Uncharted aren't even remotely the same games, but they can both be seen as "action" games. Clearly Bayonetta, DMC, MGR, and Ninja Gaiden are similar to each other, you even understand that because you reference those games together a lot.
Just a note that went through my head around the 6:30 mark. I think one of the things to keep in mind when criticizing God of War 4, compared to something like DMC though, is what it's actually going for with its combat. I can honestly enjoy a less complex battle system more sometimes, all anyone has to do is look at Dark Souls for like two seconds to see that. But I still agree with your point overall, I do. All just Action Games.
I think why people want to put a name on it is because when asked, "Hey! What's this *insert new game here* like?" people don't want to say, "Oh you know... it's basically Devil May Cry with *insert theme here* The same way people get flak for saying, "It's like Dark Souls!"
I feel like all this genere confusion is on the fact that... Uhhh I feel like Western developed action games get held to a lower standard on pure, raw gameplay that Japanese titles. Now, I'm NOT saying any of these titles are better or worse than another as complete games, I'm just saying, on raw gameplay, Western developed action games aren't held to as high a standard, and that's unfair because I KNOW developers in the west are capable of creating intricate, high-level combat, and I feel like this issue is somewhere in the management or directorial side
Micaiah the Otaku Gamer [HybridAngelZero] It's because the goals aren't the same. Japanese action games almost always have trash-fire stories that are usually so bad they harm they harm the game. They also tend to have enemies so lacking that the complexity they do have goes to waste.
CtisGaming I don't quite agree with you, I think it has more to do with marketing. I think a lot of Western developed action games go for the largest audience, while Japanese games target a specific niche. I'm not insulting either type of game, here, more that I know western developers CAN make games with gameplay just as good, but I feel like their told not to because producers want accessiblity. Of course, there are exceptions, plenty of Japanese games are watered down for accessiblity, and plenty of western developed games have high skill ceilings, but I feel like Japanese games are judged more harshly in that case. Overall, we just need to stop judging games differently based on the region they were developed in.
Who the fuck really cares about story, lets look at God of War, no one really gives a fuck about Kratos or his story its all about the gameplay, the sad thing is that most japanese action games actually have an engaging stories and they aren't even trying to be wannabe hollywood oscarbait like GoW while having better gameplay.
I get where you are coming from, I guess it depends on what you get out of each game. Ninja Gaiden, DMC, Platinum, God Hand, Vanquish, etc., have far more expressive mechanics than what Tales Of Berseria of GOW 4 (For the record I love ToB). In addition, those four I mentioned tend to have a more substantial skill floor, and that combination of skill floor and expression separate them from other 3D melee combat systems. And hell, you could go further with it. Do traditional 2D fighting games count as just action games? Is Doom an action game? I understand that you want to just define what each game tries to accomplish, I just think that clarity on what a game offers you is important to the player/consumer. Anyways, great video Charlie. Every video assures me that my $1 Patreon is worth it.
Compared to other FPS games, yeah i'd say doom 2016 is an action FPS game. much like how the metroid prime and borderlands games are more adventure focused FPS, with the latter series throwing in some rpg elements on it. Key thing though, they are all still FPS games at their core, and no amount of of subcatagories will change that.
Antichrist2000 Streets of Rage is not a fighting game. FGs are defined by their empahsis of 1v1 (very rarely 2v2) matches and giving the players as much clarity and as many options as possible to make matches feel fair and satisfying. SoF is just a traditional beat-em-um. You beat up CPU mooks to progress through the stage. And sorry, but I'd rather be able to describe what I'm talking about. Should we now only call apples and roasted beef food because that's what they are? No. An apple is a fruit and a roasted beef is meat, these words carry different meanings that allow us to differentiate the two. And btw, action-adventure often doesn't even describe games that focus on an adventure aspect, or action for that matter. It's not even a good umbrella term because it's so freaking misleading.
This seems perfectly valid to me. I think you just gotta move on at this point, whatever disagreements people have, you've made your position on this genre stuff very clear. To expand on my stance: In my opinion a lot of genres and especially subgenres of action is only helpful as a way to find games that are more or less similar to what you're looking for. Musou games, soulslike, spectacle fighters, they're all attempts to try and put together some common elements so it's easier to go "this is more like this other thing". They're just tags. I don't think you mentioned the term, but I often see "brawler" thrown around just as a "this is not a shooter" descriptor, on anything with a focus on melee combat. These games are not different beasts entirely that you can't contrast and compare, and definitely if you're just looking at the combat and seeing how each game handles it and how you enjoyed it in a separate title. It looks like some commenters are getting frustrated because naturally, something like Dark Souls, Senran Kagura and the new God of War have different design goals, different moods they wanna create, and very different approaches to stats and storytelling and presentation. They feel like comparing those are dumb, and that includes comparing the new God of War with the old God of War since they're going for a serious over the shoulder father & son hiking trip fantasy story this time around compared to the aggressive American DMC clone revenge story. You might not be able to put down some concrete definitions on what separates a "spectacle fighter" and a regular old "action game" or even "action RPG", but it's still a "I know it when I see it" kinda scenario where lots of people can tell something's changed. But the new God of War _is_ still largely combat, still largely _action_, and I don't think the changes in perspective and moves and the RPG elements layered on top makes it _invalid_ to compare that to the other games in the literal same series or have an opinion on how they pulled it off compared to other similar games, and even just not enjoy the direction they took it in. When you provided a ton of examples in that video on how the changes in perspective and move list limit your options and frustrate you with the camera, as well as annoy you with specific modern gaming storytelling trends like the walking and talking segments compared to the cutscenes of the original, I don't see how that's unfair in any way. I'm sorry people are giving you a hard time over this. I follow a streamer(old souls community mainstay and badly nicknamed EpicNameBro) who gets similar amounts of annoyed watchers when he compares the new God of War's and Nioh's combat favorably to the combat of Dark Souls and feels both are an improvement in terms of tactical depth and resource/meter management compared to Souls. That doesn't even mean he likes those games more than Souls overall- It just means he enjoys the combat more on a moment to moment basis. You've got to be able to talk about this stuff and explain where you're coming from without being nitpicked to death for comparing games in "different genres", or with different design goals. Thanks to anyone that bothered reading all that.
I may be 5 years late, but i feel character action game works, because the idea is to make gameplay reflect the character you are controlling, if your character is brooding and serious, the combat needs to be about efficiency. Meanwhile, a silly and less grounded character should reflect them, like Dante. A character action game is a character action game when the idea is to become the person you’re playing, by fighting how that person would
The problem is qualifying things as JUST action games, doesn't really give people an idea of what to expect, I think the biggest problem most people have is trying to classify things so strictly. A hack-and-slash can have some beat-em-up elements, and vice versa, but you'd generally go with the prevalent mechanic, just so people have a more general idea of what their walking into. A game CAN be a hack-and-slash/beat-em-up, it having both doesn't mean it can't be either. The more specific you are, the better idea people have of what they're walking into. Action is a broad term that can be any number of things, they're all action, but what kind of action?
“Beat em ups” are 2D fighter like games like TMNT: Turtles in Time, and the old X-Men arcade games where you fight multiple enemies in a more side scrolling 2D environment.
I think spectacle fighter is the proper genre, but it's not because it has spectacle, but because it's trying to get you to create your own spectacle. The distinction between something scripted and something the player creates from their movesets etc is important, as is something unintended versus something the game actively tries to get you to do. Stuff like combo meters, stylish ratings, a grade at the end of the mission that encourages you to optimise your gameplay as much as you can, that sort of thing.
I don't want to upset you or anything, but I do think games like DMC or Ninja Gaiden do deserve their own branch but due to the weight of their scoring system. For example, Devil May Cry rewards not spamming and taunting with more points, Ninja Gaiden rewards long combo strings (despite not being eficient at all) with more essence, the Original God of War sorta tried to mix long combo string bonus with style bonus like smashing petrified enemies or finishing them with a QTE when your combo was over 25 etc. Games like God of War 4, Yakuza or Nier Automata don't really want you to spend time improving upon your previous runs, rather they just want you to walk through the game the best way you can without any real sort of self-challenge subsystems. (I know Yakuza measures your overall time and kill count but come on, that won't make you play any better than a Style/combo meter). That said, I agree with you that the focus of any game should be its most polished aspect and that God of War deserves due criticism for that... it's just that it isn't really that bad that there isn't a combo meter or a bonus system in that one.
I think it's worth exploring different genre names even if there's a lot of controversy. When it comes down to it, if we include all these games under the same label, the label becomes meaningless since it encompasses a wide variety of games. I think the primary difference between "character action" games and games like GoW is that "character action" games focus almost 100% on combat mechanics, while the other games are more diluted. That's not a defense of GoW, but it does have more features than Bayonetta or DMC, features that many people value. I think it's worth categorizing them differently in order to provide greater clarity with fewer words. GoW sacrifices depth for the sake of breadth, and you may like that or not like it, but it definitely does make it different.
To be fair to your viewers, you did sound like you were taking the game personally (THE GOD OF WAR 4 REVIEW 24:00). More so than the Ratchet Reboot. The review sounded pretty open-minded until that point. right at the 99% mark.
*CCCHARACTER ACTION (Close Combat Character Action [also C-C-Combo])* your points are valid but I also see why people want to seperate certain games from others. like the new GoW is more like a beefed up Zelda than a toned down Bayonetta... knowwhatImean? Unless you'd put Zelda in the same pot as Devil May Cry and so on.. but I wouldn't.. their focus is way different. I dunno. it's just splitting hairs and no one wins it seems like. the difference to me seems to be whether or not DOING COMBO is the main focus of the game, or not. and your argument against GoW would still stand. it may not focus DOING COMBO, but it kinda feels like it should have, concidering the amount of combat there is. thats my 2 cents on this nerd discussion about nerd shit that I love dearly for some reason.
It's more the "way the action is done", then? Like, I'd say Zelda games, except maybe Skyward Sword and BotW, have just "fine" combat for being largely not-combat-focused. A game like GoW4... Its main thing is combat, and its combat is... Just okay.
I think the problem is that instead of using the category to distinguish the games genra it seems more like just a way to justify it's poor mechanics that could have been more thought out.
Trolling Troll Trolls Troll Troll Trolls It's not though. Character Action is simply used to identify a subsection of games and it clearly works since Brit literally mentions all of them and sees a distinction there. This genre existing doesn't stop him from criticizing it and even if it disappeared the same disagreement would stand. GoW4's combat is different from DMC's and while it can be improved, blindly copying dmc isn't the answer. Brit needs to actually give ways to expand on its combat without adding in stuff that doesn't fit or trivializes what's currently there. Things to let them bring back the giant bosses within the current game, etc... That's how his critique on it would be accepted, but as it stands it's irrelevant to anyone who took the game for what it is.
It's annoying you're sticking to this strawman that the only definition for 'character action' games is this nebulous, arbitrary bar of quality. I honestly haven't heard anyone try to classify them that way. I ultimately agree with your point but ignoring obvious components of the genre like upgrading movesets instead of purely stats, combat that emphasizes combos, and typically an emphasis on multiple playthroughs that reward mastery. These things aren't exclusive of course, but they can safely typify GOW, DMC, Ninja Gaiden, Godhand, etc. Though in the end, 'Action Game' is still probably the best name because it at least sounds less pretentious than 'Character Action' lol. I wish some of those more reasonable arguments were addressed than sticking with only the silliest comments from your previous videos.
Maybe something like this will fits more: If game is focus on fighting without ring, that is a Slasher. If game have distinct protagonist with his/her own move set, that is a Stylish Slasher. And if game have all above and judging system then that is a Spectacular Stylish Slasher. That Triple S system, it cannot be better then that. What you thinks about it, is better that "character action" or "action game"?
The problem with just calling them "just action games (with really good combat)" only really lumps them into a generic catagory of "action games". What constitutes an action game? Uncharted is an action game. Tomb Raider is an action game. Metal Gear Solid is an action game. Assassin's Creed is an action game. Hell, Gears of War can be considered an action game. We all know there is a clear difference between games like DMC, God of War, Ninja Gaiden, No More Heroes, Bayonetta, Metal Gear Rising, etc and games that clearly don't focus on nuanced combat. This is why people have taken up the idea of giving games that DO focus on that part of the gameplay a subgenre. BTW, the original term was Extreme Combat/Action: defined as a catagory "which concentrate on powerful heroes fighting hordes of foes with a focus on stylized action". I think that's a pretty acceptable term, which still separates them from the rather generic "action game" genre. I understand that trying to catagorize them under one genre is to remove confusion and attempt to grant more credit to titles that go above and beyond, but some games aren't simply not going to be made that way. Some of them are built to be simple and straighforward, without nuance and depth, regardless of what we want out of them. On the other side, an action game can encompass just about anything that doesn't sit in it's own genre. With all this said, whether it's in its own genre or not does not save it from criticism. God of War 4 has some serious issues that were only in that game, and not the original series. Killer is Dead also, regardless of how flashy it is, isn't safe, regardless of being an action game, or Extreme Combat game.
These videos are getting montnous. One, genres are always nebulous, it's pretty smug to think your the first person to recognize this. Two, quality of combat is not actually what defines "character action" genre as it includes games like Killer is Dead and Asuras Wrath which don't have good combat neatly fit the "eye test" for character action game. Three, all combat nay all mechanics of games are contextual. You seem to have a really hard to grasping with the idea that all mechanics are Text. They are saying just as much as the story is so having mechanics that divorce from explict text is poor writing. Divorcing these things is a failure to engage with the medium as more than a sensual experience. Undertale makes it's genocide route montonous to make a point. Dad of Wars story would be undercut by flashy high gloss combat. All of that is to say GoW isn't perfect but your criticisms are incredibly vapid and miss the point.
Plus if we are sticking to this idea that DMC's combat is "just better than" or "just deeper than" other action games then we might want to bring up Quake. Jump canceling and all other DMC movement/combo/style tech is literal child's play compared high level Quake movement, to say nothing of strategy. And yet, everyone just sort of knows that comparing these two "action games" makes no sense. I wonder why that is...
Do more videos on this like a list of games in these genres. You can do them by genres, put them in your own catagories, or put games that are similar to eachother together!
I've been giving this topic some thought, and I may have found a reason for why this whole genre debate popped up in the first place. As an older gamer, I noticed that deviating these particular games into this niche only really started about ten years ago, when the last console generation was a couple years into it's life cycle. I noticed the market shifting away from classic style action games and more toward fist and third person shooters. I really started seeing this phenomenon when someone asked me what my favorite type of game was. I thought for a moment and said "action," to which he replied something to the effect of "man, I feel sorry for ya". This took place around 2008 or 2009. I think what happened was that action games became so niche that the fanbases had to be really protective of them, lest they be swallowed by the TPS juggernaut.
First off: Oldschool genres are not useful and they haven't been useful in a while. Your video is basically "Heavy metal isn't a subgenre of Metal, it's just metal" Second: You said: "Whatever you're game is mostly focused on, that's the thing that needs to hold up to the most scrutiny." but... The new God of Wars isn't focused on the combat, its combat is as important and good as DMC's platforming. Dark souls isn't focused on being reckless, fast and with lots of moves. Rainbow Six 1 isn't focused on good reflexes. It's focused on being tactical, prepared and dealing with plans failing. The only thing I take from your two last videos is that: - "Action game" is a very vast category based on a pretty vague premisse. - That you need that vagueness to "objectively" critique parts of games focused on different game design and user experience goals but share superficial characteristics (hack&slash = you use swords to cut things). - You have a pretty restrictive and personal view of what qualifies a good game in such a vast category.
The genre works because the games in it are distinguished enough where they can fit into that category. It's just supposed to be a generic thing grouping similar games together, it's not supposed to describe the game itself.
DMC, GoW, Ninja Gaiden, Dark Souls, whatever, these are all action games, they just handle the action differently. DMC is fast paced, responsive and stylish. DS is slower, more methodical and relise more on the characsters stats. Is the action in DMC better than GoW? Yes, I'd say it is. Does it make GoW a bad game? No. GoW puts more emphasis on it's story telling and exploration than DMC does. They are both action games, but at the same time they are very different games. I think maybe it's time to put this topic to rest and stop coming down so hard on GoW. I think most people were hoping for a full video about DMC5 with a break down of the trailer and your thoughts and predictions.
Sure, GOW not having the same combat as DMC doesn't make it a bad game, but he's just trying to criticize the combat in general, and people aren't letting him because muh terms.
I think the problem everyone's having is that, from watching his videos recently, he's comparing the combat to devil may cry's or a similar style of combat. The two simply aren't comparible. I have many gripes with GoWs new combat but I think he's making a dead weight comparison to something that is, by certain definitions, of a different genre due to the direction of its gameplay
See, spectacle fighter fits a ton of games, and also separates action games with little spectacle from the ones with a ton of it. GoW, DMC, Ninja Gaiden etc, are all spectacle fighters. And that works. But then you have Uncharted, certainly not a spectacle fighter, but still a pretty damn good action game.
Fantasy Connect The name doesn't define the genre, it's a label used to identify games by their predecessors, spiritual or otherwise. It's a subgenre of action games not a different genre altogether. It's used to narrow the type of action game you want. His argument here is the same as saying shock and Doom games shouldn't be identified as such because FPS exists and includes both.
No. It's not "JUST action game". Everybody who played Devil May Cry, Ninja Gaiden, MG:Revengence, etc can feel the similarity and we categorize them because then it's easier to find something that you like. What you said is like saying "Its JUST first person game. So what there are some that are about leveling up in open world, some that are about building and surviving, some that are about pure shooting in a small levels and so on. They're all JUST first person game." Well, it's true that the name hack'n'slash/beat'em up/stylish action game is misleading though.
There can be RPG and Survival FPS game, you know. And no one's saying there can't be. The problem is, there isn't a consistent definition for what kind of game DMC is, same with the others.
First person is the "genre" of perspective, not the gameplay. Resident Evil 7 is a "first person" Survival Horror game, survival horror being the important part.
And "our brains" feel this similarity because they're similarly designed. But similarly designed games don't warrant a whole new category just because they're similarly designed. Who gets to decide what does and does not fit that mold? Your feelings? Well, those aren't good enough for definitions. And that's really the problem here, everyone's arguing this based on their feelings, but fact of the matter is, your feelings could make Bayonetta a strategy RPG, and we can't exactly have a civil discourse with that, now can we? There are some objective categories you can point out DMC being in: Third-person, and action. How you choose to describe that action, however, is the subjective part. For example, even though you can point out the complexity of Kingdom Hearts 2 for hours, with how many mechanics go into it, some people still think it's "Mash X to win". And ya know why they say that? Because their brain feels it. As for Bruce, if you play the game with a first person control scheme, that means that gameplay is first person. You realize there are different mechanics with first person games as opposed to third person games, right?
Bruce Ingram You are right. So how about strategy games? You can have turn based, army building, tycoons, team based (the one where you don't build your own army but you have a small team instead), something like football manager is probably type of strategy game too... or are all of those JUST a strategy games?
