Anyone who played any beloved third-party NES game:
Oh, that's cute! 😏
Edit: Just so we're clear, I'm poking fun here, I like Demon/Dark Souls just fine.
but waay too many games get compared to them as though they're the first game with ball-retracting difficulty, lmao.
I've never played a Ninja Gaiden before (its reputation of "HARDEST GAME EVER" killed any desire to try), but all I got out of the first few minutes of that video was iFrames being the cornerstone of everything. Like, numerous attacks that clearly should have landed just not registering because he was in a combo or in the middle of a cinematic attack.
Which relying on is usually a symptom of what I was trying to describe, wherein the game is too punishing to do anything but that optimal subset of abilities.
Its the opposite but much the same of the prescriptive play issue, except instead of treating the encounter as a "solved" thing you have to work through, you instead treat your character as a "solved" thing where you memorize the moves that Power Armor or iFrame through attacks and constantly use it to get through each problem. The original God of War games were infamous for this, where you usually can use only 1-2 combos the entire game at the top difficulty.
Again, maybe I got the wrong bead on NG as I've not actually played it, seemingly as its fans want by how much they treated it as an impossible to play difficulty fest for most of its life, but that is a problem with a lot of other similar games regardless like the aforementioned GoW.
The Sigma release on PC (1, 2 has a lot of problems) adjusted the difficulty, making it less ridiculous and a great place to jump into the series. Harder difficulties are still there for people who either enjoy working to master complex mechanics or have reaction times sufficiently far outside of the mean. Very much a personal preference, but few games cater to that niche these days. Personally, the appeal isn't in the difficulty but in the attainable high skill-ceiling and the exhilarating gameplay that comes from it.
To a degree, and more so in NG2. NG1 is less permissive, and therefore more decisive. That said, essence (the orbs) are automatically absorbed when not blocking or attacking, so the player was blocking a lot. Some of those i-frames are the result of counters - no different to ripostes in FromSoft games albeit more fluid. Others require use of essence and good setup. In that regard I consider NG a better solution than its derivatives (God of War, notably), since that optimal subset is still fairly large and the "cinematic attacks" require quite a bit of thought to use effectively. That was largely my point - it's not just mindless action or rote input.
Soulslikes (Elden Ring in particular) fall apart quite quickly if you're outside of the intended skill bracket. All of the artificial challenge runs speak to this. Given the relatively small number of combat options, without sufficient challenge the game is essentially reduced to alternating 2-3 inputs with exact timing.
As someone working on a challenging combat system, I'd be very interested in hearing if you have any proposed solutions. You're clearly quite analytical when it comes to gameplay.
Unfortunately age has made complex mechanics involving reaction time well beyond me. Even games I used to be rather good at I am slowly losing my ability with, so the time to pick up such a series is long past.
Right, I'd never call it mindless by any stretch. Only restrictive to a point where its almost indistinguishable at times from something like a Tool-Assisted run because you truly can't do anything else and approach success. But again, that's my completely ill-informed opinion so its worth little.
As we spoke of earlier, they are more RPG than Action game. Which means the challenge level and the options are more diversified by your build rather than baked into the game itself. I'm a 1h sword and shield heavy armor guy by default so, as you said, something like Malenia completely crushed me and was highly difficult (mostly because of her heal on hit), wherein most bosses were just patience matches as I blocked my way through until an opening came. Something a mage or dex build would find the opposite of.
Which I think is the correct way for them to build their games. Most of the times all builds feel viable enough to beat the entire game with, sans a few that can't do early stuff due to lack of equipment. Some of them are overpowered for sure, but the bosses all feel doable by wildly different character types and playstyles with sufficient experience.
Its why Sekiro and to a lesser extent Bloodborne are so much less popular than Dark Souls/Elden Ring. They have limited playstyles that reward only one true type of fighter, so if it doesn't mesh with you then you just can't play it.
That's a broad question, so if you could narrow it down I'd be happy to give more useful thoughts rather than ramble aimlessly.
But I think really at the end of the day a lot of it comes down to "all games shouldn't be for everyone" and their difficulty level often reflects that. I've found certain games do scaling difficulty extremely well (Against the Storm is probably the best I've ever seen), and others that make me fucking hate the game ("Dynamic Difficulty" in Capcom games comes to mind).
Action games are hard to speak on as much because their "skill base" varies wildly across games, as does the intention. Like, I find DMC's focus on style to be incredibly unfun and ruins the game for me, but without it the game loses a considerable amount of difficulty or even reason to play.
That largely depends on your intention. High-score runs incentivise regular use of UTs (cinematic attacks) as time is scored and longer combo strings are rewarded. Outside of those, a number of players try to avoid them though. NG1 is entirely viable without them; NG2 makes this harder given the quantity of projectile-happy enemies. Given that I play for fun, I use them as necessary. Outside of infrequent moments of extreme pressure, the subset of "useful" moves is still respectable.
Thoughts on keeping combat cognitive/engaging (not just repeating the same actions on cue) while not being overly prescriptive (allowing players some freedom in playstyle) - in the context of an action RPG.
Many movesets are largely cosmetic - either because moves are similar in effect or because dominant strategies are present in their design. Varying contextual value of attacks/strings (ie. enemy state, stagger systems, position in relation to targets, exit position) is a good start. Used excessively, it can result in the same small subset problem and be pretty demanding on the player.
I like the idea of different kinds/layers of difficulty and/or player advantage. It grows the possibility space without directly influencing physical requirements (reaction time, precision etc) - fighting smart as a partial substitute for pure combat ability rather than numerical or RNG advantage (as is common in RPGs).
One of my big thoughts is finding a way to remove "attrition" from being a dominant part of the difficulty.
There exists no worse feeling than messing up a dodge or attack in the first 30 seconds and just letting yourself die because its not worth trying for the rest of the several minutes given you've already taken a hit/healed. Its one thing I think Bloodborne did really well, in that you can always recover from any hit for the most part with enough skill and aggression.
I don't have a perfect answer for how to solve the attrition issue, but I think its one that plagues the genre as a whole as the opposite (where healing/energy is showered upon you) often makes it far too easy at times if not limited.
As for movesets, I think its unironically something that requires the difficulty to be toned down to achieve the best results. Something I think the Musou genre does really well is that the game spends most of its time letting you feel powerful and you keep your moveset varied to just have fun doing wild shit.
Whereas most of the rest of the Action Genre makes you feel like a tiny ragdoll made of paper, especially on higher difficulties. Which creates a huge dissonance when your QTE and Cutscene attacks are fucking awesome and show you as an aggressive and skilled fighter, than in gameplay you are a running coward barely scraping by against fodder units.
Toning it down to allow for experimentation and the ability to find your own power fantasy I think is super important. And without a Scoring System which then punishes you for not constantly doing so (like DMC which makes more options almost feel like a downgrade at times). Letting the player define what is fun, whether its varied moves or tried n true, rather than cranking numbers around to force things to be "difficult."
I know that's a bit antithetical to what's trying to be accomplished, but I find that games that are difficult for the sake of being challenging usually come at a cost. Whereas games that are just that way because you are missing out on something and need to improve either knowledge or skill often feel much better to play. Dark Souls 1 vs 2 is a great example of the two different mindsets there, with 2 being absolutely way harder on purpose to the point where most people hate it.
Another idea is to move away from "in the moment" gameplay and offer a lot more "preparation." As in, being able to prepare for encounters by more specializing your gear to either your playstyle or what you expect to encounter as well as being able to effect the coming battle by committing tasks before it takes place.
Like, MGS5 let you run missions that would remove things like Cameras or Helmets from an area for a while. You could never accomplish all of the missions due to their time cost, so you had to pick what most effected your gameplay and then counter it before going in.
So in a more Action oriented game you could choose to blowup a warehouse to remove shields from the coming area or poison the food to thin their numbers or something like that more fitting to the game's theme. It shouldn't be easy to do these tasks and should always be limited so it doesn't become a game of just doing them everytime because why not, but having that as an option to either reduce the overall difficulty or simply counter the thing that counters you the hardest would offer a huge variability to the game.
I also rather liked Ghost of Tsushima's, and to a lesser extent Shadow of Mordor/War's, ability to specialize your playstyle to what feels most comfortable to you. Whether its an Archer, a Ninja or a Swordsman (with subsets in each) or simply capable of all three to weaker effect. While you can't play in it 100%, to prevent it becoming too easy, you can try to filter enemies towards your strong point to dominate them, or simply try to play all of them and work as a counter machine against whatever they throw at you. I think that's a great system instead of giving someone a set move pool and then demanding them use it to counter every situation.
While that does lean more into RPG levels, I think you could add it to more Action games with little loss. The old God of War games did it fine with the additional weapons that were pretty solid alternatives to the main blades and could offer completely different playstyles/counters.
I still ended up rambling a lot there so hopefully its still coherent enough, and maybe useful to your goals.