Games That Would Be So Much Better Without the RPG Elements

[Casual Shinji]

Now you're just being silly. I don't care about criticism or personal taste. Games can have flaws but still be great and I really couldn't care less if someone didn't like a game I like. However with Bloodborne you completely make up 'problems' nobody has with the game but you. Which, again, could make you wonder how legitimate they are.

You know everyone's opinion on the game then? Wow!

I also didn't know opinions had to be shared to be legitimate. I guess I better check that the next time.

 

[kitsunefather]

As a fan of RPG elements in games, I'd have to say most modern era games could do with less/none of the elements, as they are mostly shoe-horned in to give the game a bit more of a skinner box feel rather than actually there to do anything.

Of the games I've played recently, I'd say Mad Max is the most egregious example; most of the stuff you "level" is upgrades to your gear or unlocking more facial hair options. And you use a levelling system based on reputation, kind of (like the Godfather game mixed with the karma system of Fallout), and that lets you spend the scrap metal you found on the ground to let you wear face paint.

 

[sageoftruth]

I've played loads of action focussed games that feel weighty but not rusty. They should've either made Bloodborne an action RPG with the same amount of RPG mechanics as a Souls game, or made it a straight-up action game.

What games for example? If that was truly the case it would seem you?d have the same problems, because with weight comes a different level of responsiveness and deliberation in the animations.

 

[sageoftruth]

Spoiler

Not to be 'that guy' but I think you're just really bad at videogames. Bloodborne's controls are flawless and you want to turn it into Platinum garbage. Bloodborne's combat is perfected almost to the frame and this precise control over your character is one of the reasons that makes it so good. Case in point I don't like action games much(DmC, Platinum, God of War) but love Souls and Bloodborne is probably my most favorite game of all time. The RPG elements is just extra flavor on top. These games combine all the best elements: gameplay, art design, world building, sound and atmosphere. All of which feels very grounded unlike almost any other game.

Yet you be that guy and assume I am anyway.

No, I'm not bad at videogames. Not the Souls games anyway, and not Bloodborne either. Bloodborne is probably the simpliest of them all, since there's very little tactic other than 'strike, dodge, dodge, strike'. This includes the Boss fights, which are mostly comprised of big beasts who just lunge at you.

The problem is that the controls don't feel natural for what is generally just an action game. They are FAAAAR from flawless. The fact that you can't aim your gun and that it's tied to a lock-on that's crap is enough proof of that. Though the biggest problem is the noticeable input delay to most of your attacks. There's no instant reaction to me pressing the attack button, meaning that when I'm stringing a combo I have to account for that delay ontop the regular effort of succesfully pulling off a combo. The controls force me to be preoccupied with the controls. This doesn't make the game hard just a hassle. And it prevents me from ever enjoying the action because the reaction time feels so inorganic.

The Souls games suffered from the same control problems, but being an RPG it gave you plenty of options to suit them to a play style that worked for you. Bloodborne doesn't -- It has the cons of RPG controls, but lacks the pros of RPG options.

Souls and Bloodborne have the tightest controls of pretty much any game let alone action games that have you string together flurries of combos by just mashing a button. Really, it's like you played a different game as I never had any problem with Bloodborne's controls and like I said find them extremely tight and responsive. Your criticism about the gun makes no sense either. It's designed to parry enemies not used like you would in a shooter. It seems everything that makes Bloodborne tick goes over your head. The bosses in Bloodborne are the best of any game ever made. Both mechanically and in their design. Ludwig, Orphan, Gehrman, Gascoigne, Maria etc just ''beasts who lunge at you''? That doesn't even makes any sense and makes me doubt you even made it past Cleric Beast.

No one even shares your negative opinion of Bloodborne which probably also says enough.

I have a feeling the input responsiveness and any perceived or actual differences is at least partially due to the mechanics being more physics-based and/or motion captured vs animation-based and hand drawn. Yeah, I get what Shinji is saying but it personally doesn?t bother me because I like that style of design. It feels more tactical and significant, like your character has a physical presence in the world than the typical action games that have them doing flashy stuff which makes it all just feel silly.

I also don?t understand the comment about not being able to aim the gun either. Guns are pointless for damage purposes unless you?re using the select one or two powerful options later on, and for aiming outside of lock-in range that?s where the monocle comes into play. But really that?s not much different - let alone less viable - than casting with the binoculars outside of range in Souls.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I've played loads of action focussed games that feel weighty but not rusty. They should've either made Bloodborne an action RPG with the same amount of RPG mechanics as a Souls game, or made it a straight-up action game.

What games for example? If that was truly the case it would seem you?d have the same problems, because with weight comes a different level of responsiveness and deliberation in the animations.

Onimusha, The Last of Us, MGS5, and Resident Evil 4 to name a few. These are games that roughly have the same level of weight and speed to the action, but don't control like RPGs.

I also don?t understand the comment about not being able to aim the gun either. Guns are pointless for damage purposes unless you?re using the select one or two powerful options later on, and for aiming outside of lock-in range that?s where the monocle comes into play. But really that?s not much different - let alone less viable - than casting with the binoculars outside of range in Souls.

Look, lock-ons in games are always iffy. More so in Soulsborne, because the range is never clear, it can not respond properly should the camera not be precisely angled. And the camera being stiff as the stiffest board can quickly turn the lock-on against you if you get to too close to an enemy. With a mechanic like this it's important to give the player free aim with a projectile weapon, not make it completely dependent on it.

Either give me free aim, put an indicator on screen showing me where my shot will go when I shift the camera, make my shots auto-target by default (like you said, these things barely do any damage and are primarily for staggering with the right timing, which would still be in effect, so it's not like this can be exploited), or make the ammo count recharge after a certain amount of time after having used them up.

And I'm sorry, using the monocle to aim the gun... No.

 

[stroopwafel]

I also didn't know opinions had to be shared to be legitimate. I guess I better check that the next time.

Not opinions but rather specific problems with the mechanics of the game. You argue they don't function properly and that the game would be better as a flashy action game but the opposite is true. If you argued you don't like Bloodborne and are more into God of War, Bayonetta etc ofcourse that opinion would be totally valid. Like my opinion could be that peanut butter tastes like strawberry cheesecake ofcourse that could be my opinion but fact remains that it would lack any kind of legitimacy.

I have a feeling the input responsiveness and any perceived or actual differences is at least partially due to the mechanics being more physics-based and/or motion captured vs animation-based and hand drawn. Yeah, I get what Shinji is saying but it personally doesn?t bother me because I like that style of design. It feels more tactical and significant, like your character has a physical presence in the world than the typical action games that have them doing flashy stuff which makes it all just feel silly.

Exactly, yes. The physicality is what makes the combat so good.

Onimusha, The Last of Us, MGS5, and Resident Evil 4 to name a few. These are games that roughly have the same level of weight and speed to the action, but don't control like RPGs.

Onimusha was a good game for it's time but I don't know how it compares to a modern game with it's fixed camera and pre-rendered backgrounds. The Last of Us, MGS5 and RE4 are (to one degree or another) third person shooters so I fail to see how they compare to an action-RPG(and it also kind of makes sense those games don't control like one).

Look, lock-ons in games are always iffy. More so in Soulsborne, because the range is never clear, it can not respond properly should the camera not be precisely angled. And the camera being stiff as the stiffest board can quickly turn the lock-on against you if you get to too close to an enemy. With a mechanic like this it's important to give the player free aim with a projectile weapon, not make it completely dependent on it.

The entire intent of the combat in Bloodborne is to move in close and take risks not to take pot shots from across the screen which is what your 'improvement' would entail. It's a deliberate design decision and one that gives the game it's character not a 'fault'.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I also didn't know opinions had to be shared to be legitimate. I guess I better check that the next time.

Not opinions but rather specific problems with the mechanics of the game. You argue they don't function properly and that the game would be better as a flashy action game but the opposite is true. If you argued you don't like Bloodborne and are more into God of War, Bayonetta etc ofcourse that opinion would be totally valid. Like my opinion could be that peanut butter tastes like strawberry cheesecake ofcourse that could be my opinion but fact remains that it would lack any kind of legitimacy.

Would you mind pointing at the exact spot I said I wanted it to be a flashy action game. Because I'm pretty sure I didn't. I said I wanted it to get rid of its terribly shallow and unnecessary RPG mechanics in favor of a smoother control scheme. This was after all the topic of conversation.

The entire intent of the combat in Bloodborne is to move in close and take risks not to take pot shots from across the screen which is what your 'improvement' would entail. It's a deliberate design decision and one that gives the game it's character not a 'fault'.

You can take potshots as is. And with the blood bullet mechanic you can unload quite a few while healing yourself, but it's not going to get you anywhere with the small amount of damage they do. And the game has very limited scope-out areas, with the level design being as claustrophic as it as, so sniping is not an option. And even if you could, you could just have a feature in place that stops bullets from doing damage past a certain range, at best using them to kite enemies.

 

[sageoftruth]

I've played loads of action focussed games that feel weighty but not rusty. They should've either made Bloodborne an action RPG with the same amount of RPG mechanics as a Souls game, or made it a straight-up action game.

What games for example? If that was truly the case it would seem you?d have the same problems, because with weight comes a different level of responsiveness and deliberation in the animations.

Onimusha, The Last of Us, MGS5, and Resident Evil 4 to name a few. These are games that roughly have the same level of weight and speed to the action, but don't control like RPGs.

I also don?t understand the comment about not being able to aim the gun either. Guns are pointless for damage purposes unless you?re using the select one or two powerful options later on, and for aiming outside of lock-in range that?s where the monocle comes into play. But really that?s not much different - let alone less viable - than casting with the binoculars outside of range in Souls.

Look, lock-ons in games are always iffy. More so in Soulsborne, because the range is never clear, it can not respond properly should the camera not be precisely angled. And the camera being stiff as the stiffest board can quickly turn the lock-on against you if you get to too close to an enemy. With a mechanic like this it's important to give the player free aim with a projectile weapon, not make it completely dependent on it.

Either give me free aim, put an indicator on screen showing me where my shot will go when I shift the camera, make my shots auto-target by default (like you said, these things barely do any damage and are primarily for staggering with the right timing, which would still be in effect, so it's not like this can be exploited), or make the ammo count recharge after a certain amount of time after having used them up.

And I'm sorry, using the monocle to aim the gun... No.

My personal impressions are as such -

Bloodborne?s weight and inertia with different weapons feels appropriate. I don?t remember much of what I played from Omnimusha so cant really comment.

TLoU had floaty and imprecise gun aiming (which IIRC could be upgraded...? Awful design choice if true), and melee didn?t feel any more responsive than what?s in Bloodborne. No matter though because I thought it was brilliantly done melee. Wipes the floor with the bouncing around crap that?s in the Arkham Games. Sprinting felt great too, but more dramatic done considering the thematic elements. Felt more like Gears roadie running without the camera shake than anything in Bloodborne.

MGSV feels significantly more clumsy to me than Bloodborne. The sprint itself is quick and cqc is well implemented but you?re only using your hands vs swinging a weapon. Snake?s sprint being tied to left clicking the control stick is awkward too though, and his navigation in general is clumsy, stuttering whenever encountering bumps in terrain. The horse controls are twice as bad. Controlling D-Horse is a nightmare compared to the dream of controlling something like Horizon: Zero Dawn?s rido-bots. To me, MGSV controls feel like an extension/amalgamation of 4?s but retaining the stiffness and awkwardness. Bloodborne controls feel like a knife through hot butter.

RE4 is older so more forgivable, but most of its movement is also stiffer and more wooden feeling than Bloodborne in general. The quick action attacks like roundhouse kick are purely animated and actually feel like a huge disconnect from the rest of the movements, especially the fact that you can?t even move at all while aiming/shooting. That was really something I always preferred Silent Hill for.

I will agree that Bloodborne?s camera movement felt stiff at first, at least next to DS1, but I got used to it because the only thing I use it for gameplay-wise is when locked on, which l?ve never had serious issues with. It may not always pick the intended target right off the bat due to camera centering troubles, but a quick flick or two and it?s right where I want it.

Not sure how manual aiming would help in a third person melee focused action game though. People already complain about aiming on console in 1st person or even 3rd person OTS; both of which should be far more manageable. The enemy crowds and the distant perspective would make it a crapshoot even if you had a reticle, which lock-on already has. There is no perfect solution because a soft lock/button hold lock-on mechanic that other games have would remove versatility from movement in general. The monocle/binocs are also why I?ve always shied away from caster builds in SoulsBorne, even though lock-on range is enough 99% of the time. I?ve not yet finished Bloodborne so not sure which guns are worth firing outside of range (sniper and cannon?), but it would seem arrows from Souls games would be a more useful application to manual aiming given its design is far more geared to useful ranged attacks.