(05-16-2014, 02:35 AM)synaesthetic Wrote: tbh I like the "plodding pace" of TERA, Monster Hunter and Dark Souls because it places a lot of emphasis on avoidance, observation and skillful tactics rather than quick combo mashing. Very fast paced hack-and-slash games like DMC don't have (and can't have) the same level of skill-based challenge that games like DS or MH, or even TERA to a degree.I absolutely cannot disagree any more than I do.
Humans just can't really react that quickly, so the avoidance mechanics are downplayed in favor of swarming the player with zillions of monsters to slaughter, but you aren't going to get oneshot by them.
Games like DMC or MGR Revengeance have a lot more in common with tab-target, even though they "feel" faster and more dynamic, they really aren't. They're rife with lock-on, auto-aim-assist, juggle combos that the computer basically does for you, and it's not about dodging so much as it's about killing everything before it overwhelms you.
They can still be fun, but I definitely prefer the deliberate avoidance-based games. Anyone remember Bushido Blade? That game was awesome. It felt incredibly slow compared to Street Fighter style tournament fighters, but it was much more skill and tactics based, when a single hit had a very high chance of killing you.
These games all have their own unique skillsets. You are patently wrong about Metal Gear Rising, for one example - being able to parry is ABSOLUTELY required if you want to be able to S-rank the game. Button mashing will get you nowhere. You have to be able to utilize Zandatsu effectively, know your enemies' movesets basically by heart, and be able to react on a moment's notice all at the same time. Trying to no-damage Monsoon is possibly one of the single most difficult things you can do in all of gaming, simply because of how good your timing must be with your parries.
Devil May Cry, meanwhile, puts a heavy, heavy emphasis on making the most of your entire moveset in order to bring up the combo score multiplier, something that is most definitely NOT a simple matter, in addition to your usual avoidance mechanics. Trying to argue that it does not require 'skill' just because it has less emphasis on simply dodging attacks is foolhardy AND false. To actually get a high score you essentially have to never be touched; you might not LOSE just because you got hit once or twice but for players who are trying to actually be, you know, good at the game, a single hit can warrant a restart at the last checkpoint.
It's a very different skillset from Dark Souls or MH (where your success is determined heavily by your ability to decide when to attack) and Tera is its own ball of wax since it mixes up action game-style hit detection with standard MMORPG elements. If anything, these games are much easier and simpler to play, especially once you know the movesets of your enemies, as it becomes a very simple matter of "avoid attacks; can I attack now? y/n" as your overall moveset is very small. Dark Souls in particular is exemplary of this as, once a player understands the game, there is essentially no challenge left, hence why they do all these crazy challenge runs like the Soul Level 1 run, the No Deaths/No Bonfire runs, and stuff like that.
And while Bushido Blade is indeed a very nice concept fighter, trying to say it requires more skill than Street Fighter is raw bullshit. Street Fighter has its own set of required skills and tactics that are very different from Bushido's. They are different, but they are in no way lesser. It's an especially absurd statement with regard to fighters as most of what determines how much skill you actually need is created by other players, hence the skill ceiling is literally determined by how strong your opponents are. Such a statement betrays a level of bias that is completely beyond rationality. You might prefer those kinds of skillsets but that doesn't suddenly make those other skillsets you do not prefer any less valid.
So, to summarize:
![[Image: PgUFtZi.gif]](http://i.imgur.com/PgUFtZi.gif)
It's one thing to say you prefer things a certain way, but you should not apply a value judgment to things that are inherently subjective. Doing so invites ridicule and criticism from others who hold the very opposite of your values and doesn't help your points stand any stronger. (And before someone calls me a hypocrite, the F2P vs P2P argument is one that is couched inherently in real-world finances and can be qualified with money, player spending habits, and developer patching habits.) What qualifies as "skill" (or rather, what you consider "skillful") is most certainly one of those things.
