I don't agree that Dante's guns were overpowered in DMC. They made the game easier if you just sat around and dodged/shot the whole time, but it took a while. Swording people was much faster. Unless you're talking about DMC4, I have not played that one, and maybe the guns are overpowered in that one.
Enemies that can only be killed by projectiles are pretty annoying though.
Enemies that can only be killed by projectiles are pretty annoying though.
Well written piece!
The use of of projectile weapons in many action games often do lead to bad design choices, and I think your inclusion of NG2 was the most obvious and relevant choice for example.
Ranged weapons, when in the hands of enemies throughout any level, are definitely signs of bad level design. They come off only as unpredictable and unenjoyable distant reflex- and dodge-based obstacles.
In the case of boss fights, I don't mind using an auxiliary weapon for the sake of finding an effective or required strategy for success. Bosses should present more of a challenge than simply larger numbers associated with HP and damage dealt; forcing the players to try an unexpected method of attack. With that said, I definitely agree that they should still require the built-upon melee skills the player has honed during the course of the game.
I am not sure how the projectile/melee comparison will hold in a game like Beyonetta considering that summoning spells and other magic attacks seem to be the staple throughout the game.
The use of of projectile weapons in many action games often do lead to bad design choices, and I think your inclusion of NG2 was the most obvious and relevant choice for example.
Ranged weapons, when in the hands of enemies throughout any level, are definitely signs of bad level design. They come off only as unpredictable and unenjoyable distant reflex- and dodge-based obstacles.
In the case of boss fights, I don't mind using an auxiliary weapon for the sake of finding an effective or required strategy for success. Bosses should present more of a challenge than simply larger numbers associated with HP and damage dealt; forcing the players to try an unexpected method of attack. With that said, I definitely agree that they should still require the built-upon melee skills the player has honed during the course of the game.
I am not sure how the projectile/melee comparison will hold in a game like Beyonetta considering that summoning spells and other magic attacks seem to be the staple throughout the game.
I can't comment on DMC4 but I never felt the guns were interrupted the flow of the game or broke it in any way during the other DMC games. I felt the main idea of DMC's battle system was not primarily to be fast or frantic, but to look damn awesome while slaughtering demons. Guns just added to this for me. The first time I knocked an enemy into the air and juggled him with the pistols was amazing, and it never got bored throughout the rest of the game. Treating the shotgun like a nunchuck blew my mind when I saw it. I thought there was a great balance to the fighting engine in the game between the melee weapons and guns. I don't recall any enemies that required guns to be used but I can easily be wrong.
In any case, great article!
In any case, great article!
Well...Koei's Warriors series have ranged weapons too, though it varies depending on which game. Like...in the DWs I've played, everyone has a bow which is weak and if anything should only be used for sniping, which is very rare if you play like me. The enemies have them too, and they can range from a mild annoyance you can shrug off, or something dangerous that's gonna get your ass comboed to hell while you're moshing with the peons. Archers are also annoying as hell when you're on horseback because one arrow and you're sucking dirt while everyone kicks your ribs.
Samurai Warriors had a more dangerous long-distance unit, a rifleman, in with the regular archers. I haven't played much of that series in specific, but you couldn't just shrug off their shots, meaning you needed to take them out first. They were especially annoying in Warriors Orochi, where people no longer had a bow subweapon and only certain characters had a form of long-range attack. And even then, it came at the end of an attack combo, whereas very few had a dedicated long-range attack string. Even then...I'd rather beat up stuff up close than let the mobs come to me while I very slowly whittle away on them.
In summary, the Warriors series probably does a mix of long and short range well. In the core titles, using a bow doesn't turn the game into a shooter (though a very slow one at best), and even in WO someone with long-range attacks doesn't dominate the field, though many people are capable of extending their range to compensate. And hey, at least archers in each game don't kite you, at least, not in my experience. =P
Samurai Warriors had a more dangerous long-distance unit, a rifleman, in with the regular archers. I haven't played much of that series in specific, but you couldn't just shrug off their shots, meaning you needed to take them out first. They were especially annoying in Warriors Orochi, where people no longer had a bow subweapon and only certain characters had a form of long-range attack. And even then, it came at the end of an attack combo, whereas very few had a dedicated long-range attack string. Even then...I'd rather beat up stuff up close than let the mobs come to me while I very slowly whittle away on them.
In summary, the Warriors series probably does a mix of long and short range well. In the core titles, using a bow doesn't turn the game into a shooter (though a very slow one at best), and even in WO someone with long-range attacks doesn't dominate the field, though many people are capable of extending their range to compensate. And hey, at least archers in each game don't kite you, at least, not in my experience. =P

surf dtoid with 

Rising (10+)
People you follow


send message
follow
followers






