Anachronistic samurai anime with a unique art style made me think of Drifters. It's Hellsings dark-isekai cousin from yesteryear.
Historic greats get snapped up at the moment of their deaths and enlisted to fight in a fantasy world war. Shimazu Toyohisa, Oda Nobunaga, Butch Cassidy and Hannibal to name a few. Fighting to save elves from Hitler (unironically).
Expedition 33 looks interesting - nice to see someone do something new with the turn-based format rather than replacing it with subpar hack 'n slash.
Doom: The Dark Ages has promise. I just hope they don't lean into the game design of Eternal.
Not sure how I feel about them repurposing the Doomguy player model for Joanna Dark though.
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.
Agreed. Ideally we'll include two difficulty options (focusing on AI behaviour and spawn number/type as opposed to just damage multipliers), but with designed encounters balance is especially time consuming. My thinking is if the moment to moment gameplay remains mechanically satisfying (not mindless, good game feel, decent variety) then one has some leeway.
Whereas most of the rest of the Action Genre makes you feel like a tiny ragdoll made of paper... Which creates a huge dissonance
I think it's just a matter of internal consistency, and that both the Souls games and NG actually do well on this front.
Dark Souls is an inversion of the traditional power fantasy, and perseverance in the face of powerlessness is thematically prominent throughout the series. That the game loop mirrors the cycle of hollowing is a nice flourish.
In NG, Ryu is an untested heir to a clan tasked with a mission of utmost importance. There's a "secret" difficulty mode that leans into this, in which a support character provides continued assistance - because regardless of your failings the mission comes first. Gameplay wise, cowardice is not an option. Enemies actively punish prolonged blocking with lethal grapples, so it's aggression or death - and few games make you feel like more of a badass when you get it right.
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."
Yeah, we're not going the scoring/combo-mad route and are instead treating movesets and weapon types, along with active abilities, as means of introducing meaningful alternatives - both to overcome contextual challenges and allow players to tailor their experience to some degree.
More than anything, I'm interested in ways of providing alternate avenues for the player to succeed - potentially easing mechanical difficulty beyond just a difficulty setting. The challenge is in designing something consistently available as to avoid difficulty spikes when it isn't applicable. Player knowledge as an advantage, in terms of obscure behaviours and enemy weaknesses, and battlefield control type abilities coupled with greater mobility seem the most viable to date.
Another idea is to move away from "in the moment" gameplay and offer a lot more "preparation."
This is something we thought about. Essentially treating stage challenges as combat puzzles, which the player could "solve" through secondary means. The problem again is balance. Designed encounters, in terms of enemy assortment and positioning generally provide more enjoyable and varied combat - which is a primary design goal. In practice, the two are quite hard to reconcile. We still intend to include this on a smaller scale - undermining area specific threats and constraints, easing certain difficulty factors and precluding some encounters, but it isn't prevalent enough to base a playthrough around unfortunately.
ability to specialize your playstyle to what feels most comfortable to you
Definitely. Our progression is classless and skill based. All builds have access to the most basic of mechanics from each route. How you play influences what you can enhance, and ultimately how your "power grid" ends up looking.
I still ended up rambling a lot there so hopefully its still coherent enough, and maybe useful to your goals.
It certainly is, thanks. Nuanced perspectives from someone mindful about mechanics and with a lot of gaming experience, but with different preferences, is never not useful. It's too easy to get locked into a single set of priorities/way of thinking when one is constantly iterating on a set design.
verb (dated, informal) - spoil or ruin
Seems on point tbh
Sure, but a good few studios up to ~2005 where the nerd-culture equivalent of fratty. Nerdy guys became rich and icons amongst their fandom; Strippers and blackjack inevitably followed.
The studios where fun to work in though, no-one walked on eggshells and great games where made as a result.
indistinguishable at times from something like a Tool-Assisted run because you truly can't do anything else and approach success
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.
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.
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).
I've never played a Ninja Gaiden before (its reputation of "HARDEST GAME EVER" killed any desire to try)
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.
first few minutes of that video was iFrames being the cornerstone of everything
you instead treat your character as a "solved" thing
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.
Its a problem with a lot of games, in which eventually the difficulty turns it from a game you play into a game you memorize.
I'd argue the opposite for NG. It's a stylish action game with an expressive combo system and excellent player mobility. Given that, and the dynamism of combat, no two instances of the same encounter play out the same. That's my point. In addition to having hugely satisfying combat, it plays a little like a spatial puzzle.
Sure, higher difficulties (which are reserved for subsequent playthroughs) require a lot of muscle memory in regards to actual input. Intuition is required for moves that require precise spacing and to exploit attack i-frames and not be murdered during longer recoveries. The closest it comes to prescriptive play is reducing your moveset to an optimal subset, but only when dealing with extreme pressure.
Just watch this, it'll do a better job of explaining than words ever will.
The windows are tight, but if you're good at parrying most of her moveset is punishable and bleed procs wreck her. Waterfowl dance isn't that hard to avoid; Trivial if you have distance enough to run.
I had an easy time. Friends who rolled heavy had a hard time. Haven't played a heavy/shield build since it ruined my first DS1 playthrough, so can't comment beyond that frame of reference.
I just finished a playthrough a week or two back. The only thing that game hurts more than your hands is your confidence with action games and your controllers L-stick. Literal controller drift. Too much gleaming blade.
Agreed on all points.
The comparison was more on a cognitive level though. Even when disregarding the RPG mechanics, most encounters require very little thinking.
Engaging large groups of mob enemies is discouraged by design. No-lock helps, marginally, but at some point damage is guaranteed by way of AI design and attack/recovery times.
Boss movesets aren't especially complex and are well telegraphed. Once learned, most From bosses are just a matter of responding to cues on time - where timing is the primary difficulty factor.
Isshin was a decent counterpoint - including 4 movesets during the course of the fight. Morgott, in Elden Ring, proved more difficult than many of the popular "hard bosses" during a no-damage no-summon boss run due to the depth of his moveset and the relative complexity of the move triggers. Even then, against a single enemy, it can all be predicted/influenced by the player.
In NG, by way of the number of enemies and the intricacy of the combat system, there really is no preparing for a fight and it takes a lot of quick thinking to excel. Enemies punish poor positioning, but also too much or too little movement. Enemies fatally punish excessive blocking, but it is required to delay essence absorption. Attack chains and enemy type influence essence drop. Essence is essential for quickly thinning large groups, as well as restoring ki and health. I could go on, but my point is despite the largely unparalleled speed of the game, harder difficulties are essentially hyper-violent chess.
Or even the later titles. Despite a highly autistic following, the first NG2 no-damage run on Master Ninja was 12 years after launch...
Isshin from Sekiro would probably be a better example of a tough, consistent FromSoft boss. Malena is very build specific. Friends who had heavier builds and where used to blocking suffered. I've run dex through the extended franchise, and she melted.
I still find the FromSoft type of difficulty, Sekiro included, more manageable than something like Ninja Gaiden. They're mostly about pattern recognition - learning a moveset and responding accordingly. Not easy by any means, but generally a matter of patience. Ninja Gaiden, especially on Master Ninja, is about split second, highly contextual decision making against a mob of more aggressive enemies.
Yeah, it's not looking hopeful.
While Angela is an important character, Maria is fundamental to the plot. Her appearance and demeanour are both of significance; A lack of contrast between her and Mary thematically lobotomizes the game.
could just be a matter of influencers/sites trying to jump on a headline opportunity
Makes sense. A misleading article to say the least.
"Following the coding standards is mandatory."
In the context it appears, I'd imagine that is for internal use and engine contribution - which is commonplace. Organisational coding standards aren't optional by default. Explicitly stating it is likely just to reduce friction, given the number of pull requests submitted.
From memory the EULA doesn't stipulate any requirements pertaining to the structure of your own code. A cursory search for relevant terms found no mention of the standards, either. I don't see how that would be practically enforceable.
Exactly this. It's been standard "industry policy" since ~2020, when Microsoft, Github etc. all enforced the same. Doesn't mean it has major adoption outside of corporate monoliths. Even at work such policies are ignored - largely because any sane developer is opposed to having identifiers dictated to them.
It's a virtue signal - the engine source largely conforms to it with the exception of master (with slave entirely absent). Does beg the question of why now though?
That makes me all the more curious about their back end workflow
Probably not unlike other studios tbh. Outside of specific requirements, like character creation or certain art styles, game character pipelines usually don't differ a great deal. I also doubt the characters are to blame for the performance problems. Open world in engines not tailored to it isn't an easy optimisation target.
I wonder if there's some real maths that can be done on topology still
No hard maths, unfortunately. There's simply too much variability between renderers, RHI's, target architectures, hardware configurations and scenes themselves.
The only advice I can really give is that game optimisation is a bit like software optimisation. Always profile and avoid premature optimisation (primarily micro-optimisation, like obsessing over topology). Dev time is finite, after all. Structural changes usually yield the greatest returns, but can become impractical in late development.
In practice, any number of things can introduce performance issues. That said, unless you have severely sub-optimal game systems or tricky requirements (eg. obscene NPC counts will require specific approaches to character animation, rendering and AI), environments are the most likely cause of poor performance in simpler projects.
Design your environments with your renderer in mind, starting with known limitations and general assumptions based on the rendering pipeline (forward, forward+, deferred all have "general" performance do's and don'ts). Starting in blocking, identify problematic sight lines and areas with poor occlusion or requiring a large number of dynamic and/or shadow casting lights. If you can't resolve these outright, you'll have to compensate with lesser fidelity in those areas. That should at least prevent you painting yourself into a corner/incurring significant rework.
Beyond that, efficient texture use, reasonable shader complexity, good use of instancing, good use of LODs and mesh aggregation, and a lot of care in regards to lighting and shadowing will be your primary means of producing something reasonably performant.
The co-founders left to form Hundred Star Games late in development. Took most of the talent with them I believe. Whether the final product is as intended or the result of external interference, time will tell.
My pleasure.
Quite understandable, if it weren't for the classics included in our literature curriculum I probably wouldn't have got started myself. They certainly have their own appeal though.
The illustrations add a lot, and have proven pretty influential in terms of subsequent creative works. Interestingly, the Dore illustrated bible was so sought after (and expensive) that it was regarded as a sign of social status. Righteous 19th century drip.
A shameless plug for European heritage, but one of the most influential illustrators of the 19th century, Gustave Doré, produced an illustrated version of The Divine Comedy. If anyone feels inclined to read the poem, or has an interest in illustration, I'd strongly recommend checking it out.
Abandon all hope, ye who let them enter here
Topology doesn't really have a noticeable impact on performance outside of polycount. Everything is triangulated, vertex cache optimisation is applied, etc. Uneven edge lengths and tri sizes can cause issues since they don't play nice with the clustered nature of rasterization (overshading), or more recently, the spatial indices used in raytracing, but outside of that your GPU isn't too concerned with how your topology looks.
The issue, assuming you wanted it watertight (which you might not), would be the resulting normals/tangents. But let's face it, shading artifacts would be a kindness.
Nah, that's letting them off lightly. It's clearly a bespoke mesh. Someone has to own making that. Someone without creativity, skill or the decency to rethink their career choice before completing it.
I wouldn't be surprised if you're right about the photogrammetry on the head though. I saw this posted over on NeoGAF. Another SBI self-insert?
Right? Overlooking the lack of internal consistency, and that the quality is consistent with photobashing together some gender studies majors DeviantArt account, it somehow manages to be utterly hideous and entirely mundane at the same time. It's... oddly impressive in that regard.
I wonder what the original Rocksteady staff will move onto. They collectively upped and left mid-development.
The +Nigger license has you covered