So Assassins Creed Shadows released this week, and so far the discourse surrounding the game is really all over the place with lots of good and bad reviews across the spectrum. I was a big fan of the Assassins Creed games from 1-3, and then I skipped the PS4 console generation so I didnt play any of the more recent ones. But this new one is about ninjas, which is rad, so Ive been following news about the game.

One thing I noticed, which is the main thing I want to discuss, when seeing clips of the game online is the focus on sword combat, and more specifically open combat. I dont know if this is a thing that became more of a focus in earlier games like Valhala or if its more a response to the success of Ghost of Tsushima. Im wondering if anyone else has thoughts on how the role of combat has evolved as the series has advanced.

In my personal view, a ninja assassin game should have minimal focus on direct combat. The ideal way an assassination should go is something like this:

1. Do some early missions to gather intel or do prep work

2. Take on "the approach" to your target, which will involve a combination of parkouring over rooftops and stealth kills to remove guards. Your efforts in step 1 will make this easier or harder.

3. Get into position and wait for the right moment when the target moves into the right place

4. Spring your trap, whether that be pouncing on them with a dagger or setting off an explosive or whatever

5. Drop a smoke bomb, disappear into the shadows, maybe jump off a rooftop into a haystack for good measure

When pulled off correctly, it should be like you were never there. Aside from the dead guy. If you are getting into a direct head on confrontation as a ninja, you have fucked up at ninja. To this end, I feel that in a stealth assassination game open combat should be more of a penalty for when you screw up and get caught, not part of the core strategy.

Looking back at the early games, this concept was applied in AC1. Getting into a fight with a Templar was pretty difficult and tedious. You didnt want to get stuck doing it, and if you did it was often better to just run. The times you were forced to fight head on it felt like you were trapped in a dire situation that was not to your advantage, so it was a good way to apply pressure to the player to make a scene seem tense.

In AC2 the combat was reworked and became significantly easier. I actually really like the way it was implemented. Technically you can get away with just hammering away at most weaker enemies until you break their guard, but the combat really shines when you fight defensively. If you focus in dodging and counter-kills, big fights become a thing of beauty. Ezio dodges and weaves effortlessly through the crowd, doing a slick spin slash every so often to slice a bad guys neck. Its all very stylistic and elegant and graceful in a way that makes Ezio look like a badass but is still very evocative of the idea of a master assassin.

And then AC3 is fine, I don't have a ton to say about that one.

Returning to Shadows, when I look at clips of people playing the game there is a lot of sword combat. The combat seems to often follow a pattern where the enemy will perform a fixed attack pattern with visual indications like a colored aura around their weapon, which the player must mitigate through precision by either dodge rolls or parrys, after which there will be a pause during which the player can whack at the enemy a few times and reduce their health bar. Repeat a couple times until they are killed. I think it is specifically the hacking away at an enemy like you are taking a machete to jungle foliage that I dont like about this. Whittling away at an enemy who just tanks it and soaks up damage feels decidedly un-assassiny to me.

Now, if open combat is intended to be a big part of the game then I can see why this is the case. You cant make every enemy a long drawn out chore like AC1 because if youre going to have to do this like a hundred times that will get old fast. And you cant do glorified quick time events like AC2 because itd be too quick and a major pillar of your gameplay will feel trivial. So I can see why this newer style of combat is being used, I just don't feel its a great fit for the genre.

What are your thoughts? Are you a fan of stealth-action games? Do you enjoy dodge-roll-centric combat? How would you want to see combat handled in an assassins creed type game?

I've mentioned a few times I'm working on making a tactical RPG engine, and I'm finally at the point where I'm doing the actual important part of determining turn order.

It's a harder design decision than I thought, so I thought I'd ask for opinions.

I'm trying to make a game in the style of Shining Force, where the turn order is determined by a unit's status. There's quite a few games like that, but I'm wondering if that design is actually good. The thing that makes that style of game good is that they're actually fairly easy, and the "noise" of stat-based turn order, where you can't depend on a specific turn order, seems to make the game harder. Or at the very least, it closes the door on more precise tactics. I've had plenty of experiences where I thought a unit was safe because they had enough HP for one more hit, and the enemy ended up hitting them twice before their turn came up.

In reality, I'm actually pretty set on keeping this in my engine for better or for worse (boy, is it hard to resist expanding scope), but I'd be interested in hearing some opinions nonetheless

Fix an annoyance.
Take out a level.
Revamp a system.
Expand a world.
Etc.

Pick a game, any game, and tell us what ONE thing about it you would change, and why. It doesn’t have to be feasible or reasonable or whatnot. You’ve got a magic wand with one charge left.

Also, your goal CAN be to make the game better, but it doesn’t have to be! Maybe you want to make the game more challenging. More chaotic. More hilarious. More broken.

Entirely up to you!

Also, you only get one change per game, but it’s fine to talk about what you would do for more than one game.

Can you even call it microtransactions anymore?

Here's the link to the store page.

I have never bought a cosmetic in any game, ever, but this is absolutely insane to me, especially for World of Warcraft which usually had somewhat measured pricing on their real-money cosmetics (everything has always been below €25 to my knowledge) - that it's fully cosmetic is debatable though, seeing as you now have an auction house and mailbox wherever you are. Not all that game changing to be sure, but it's definitely a small advantage over those that are not rich in money or in-game currency.

There is an argument to be made that it's a way to influence the economy in the game - another gold-sink to reduce the huge wealth gap between players (it will cost nearly two million gold to reach the Battle.net balance required). However, two million gold is not that much.

I'm not quite dusting off my pitchfork over it, mind you, but still. And I just wanted to share to maybe foster some quality discussion on tildes about microtransactions maybe?

Thanks for the tags @mycketforvirrad, didn't really know what to put.

Recently I just finished Hitman: World of Assassination's campaign, where the main campaign is basically a tutorial for the main "meat" of the game, i.e. contracts, Freelancer, and pushing down your assassination time for the story missions.

I really like that style of game, on this site famously I'm always talking about Monster Hunter which functions similarly (main campaign into grinding out for materials and decos), and was wondering if anyone else had any similar games.

I think roguelikes fit this a bit too, but for the sake of this topic not devolving into "what's your favorite roguelike", hopefully there are different suggestions! (Backpack Hero does something like this lol)

I often starts playing a game, then quit because it simply doesn't feel like a PC game to me. Sometimes it is because it is a console port, but not always.

I just tried playing VAMBRACE, and got stuck when trying to open a door. There was an "open door" icon right at the door, but clicking it had no effect. Turns out I had to press the action button, which was the E on the keyboard. What's more, all the icons in the game works like this, having assigned a key you have to press. With me having a mouse which is designed especially to click on things on the screen, this makes little sense. It reminded me of the way early homemade DOS games let you use keyboard input, typically in this format:
<P>lay <M>anual <Q>uit
Obviously, VAMBRACE was designed to be played with an Xbox controller. But the end result is a control scheme which grew out of fashion thirty years ago.

I quite hate the Xbox controller. That wobbly thumbstick are just so so uncomfortable, with the forward direction forcing you to move your thumb forward and slightly left in the most awkward of movements. Despite most humans having 10 fingers, the majority of actions are performed by the right thumb which have to move between 4 different buttons. In the Xbox controllers defence, it had to have the wobbly thumbstick as a replacement from WASD + mouse first person shooter movement. But this doesn't change that I'm never going to like this silly gadget.

I can't say exactly what the difference is between PC games and console games. There are of course the controls, keyboard and mouse VS gamepad, but I also feel like there are also some differences in the basic feeling of the game. A lot of consolish games feel a bit like a tech demo with some light interaction throughout, sort of like a rollercoaster ride.

This was something I liked about NOITA. It is designed for PC from the ground up. The aiming requires a mouse cursor, and the wand tinkering would be pretty much impossible without a mouse.

I just posted this as a comment to someone who mentioned Horizon Zero Dawn, but figured there might be more discussion if I made a new post for it, so here goes:


Are there any games that you have enjoyed playing without the HUD or mini-map? If so, which ones and why?


One of my favorite gaming experiences was playing Zelda BOTW in its entirety without any HUD elements, just using the game's scenery and story to guide me. I loved it so much that I tried doing the same in other massive open-world games like Skyrim, Fallout 4, The Witcher 3, and Assassin's Creed Origins, but found that they relied too much on small details or markers in the minimap. So instead of feeling more immersed and in-tune with the game world, I just felt more frustrated at not knowing exactly where to go or which specific person or item to click on without the game explicitly telling me. I'm sure it can be done, but I found it nowhere near as pleasing as BOTW.

I just recently picked up Horizon Zero Dawn and wondered if it could be played in a similar manner, without the map or other HUD elements, or if I'll end up needing some of them to know where to go or who to talk to.

I'd love to hear any other recommendations or thoughts on this matter.

What game mechanic, boss or puzzle in a game got you to give up?

For me it was a drivers license test in Gran Tourismo 2 on the Playstation. I was so into racing sims that I had a decent steering wheel and pedals set (like $80 in 1999). I even found a better coffee table to more comfortably fit it all. I had so many hours into GT1, various NASCAR entries, MOTO Racer, various Need For Speed games, etc.

GT2 had a system where you had to upgrade your license to unlock more tracks. There was one where you had like 15 or 20 seconds to slolem through a course and then do it in reverse. After hours almost every night for a month straight of getting to within .5 seconds of qualifying for the license to unlock more tracks I just couldn't anymore. I gave up racing/car sims for nearly 15 years until XBox heavily pushed Forza Horizon and I gave it a try.

It certainly didn't help that I had just recently been scarred from being stuck in a similar system in X-Wing vs TIE. There was a training mission where you had to take your X-Wing through a course with barrel rolls before you unlocked something (another ship or more dangerous missions?) that I was stuck on. After like 6 weeks of getting within a second or less to completion I finally found a cheatcode to bypass it. By then the damage to my enjoyment of the game had been done and I never did finish that game.

Now the topic may be inflammatory, so let me walk it back and say "in some cases" - let me explain;

Just got me this gamepad and I absolutely adore it - for folks not wanting to click on a link, think of it as a fancy SNES pad.

I got it as a fightpad and for that it is marvelous - and while I have no intentions of playing a 3d action game with it, I booted up some 2d indies and platformers to take it for a spin ... and realized that apparently, 6 buttons + dpad just aren't enough anymore.

Since when do you need to have a light and hard attack as separate buttons? And need an analogue stick on top of the dpad to navigate through inventory? The amount of "simple" games needing to use all the buttons on the modern controller - without a viable alternative - is ridiculous.

Yes, there are some workarounds but just wanted to vent.

I'm installing some random titles from my backlog (I have 800+ on my backlog through bundle deals, giveaways, etc.) and it's a crapshoot, not in my favor.

Thanks for coming to my TedTalk.

Edit: Yes I realize the modern controller is standardized to the "two sticks + pad + 4 face buttons + 4 shoulder buttons" design; what I'm saying is that while for some game that design is essential, a lot of other games use up all the buttons without a baked-in viable alternative, or worse yet, use buttons for the sake of using buttons!

As the games industry continues to grow there are many new things introduced which sometimes players don't like, but then overtime we either get used to them, while still disliking them (only a bit less maybe) or we realize "hmm, yes it's good to have this actually". Of course any such mechanic can be implemented very well or quite poorly. I'm not asking about specific implementations, but the mechanic itself as a whole.

Personally I can think of some quality of life changes that at first I thought are not needed or would make a game needlessly easier. When playing I would always try to go for full immersion, but overtime as I've had less and less time to be able to play in long uninterrupted stretches I've come to appreciate things like fast travel and quest markers and other features which would help resuce "wasted" time when playing.

I'm looking for some new rpgs to play and I'm interested in stories that they and act like tye player character is some clueless out of towner to basically act as an avatar for the player.

I feel like most of the gltimes I've seen this done its pretty hamfisted and doesnt seem like the interactions go right. I'm wondering if anyone has encountered good examples of this idea?