Dvader said:

But you don't care about any of that, cause you seem completely incapable of seeing anything past your prism of critique. It seems like anyone who likes anything you don't is just a fool who doesn't have standards, anyone who doesn't like something you do doesn't have the expertise you do.

Sunshine have you read any of your inane ass posts? lol If anyone dares to disagree with one of your sacred children you have to find every sort of way to down play their opinion, as opposed to actually getting the fuck over it. Pot meet kettle.


I wrote a sentence sport, a sentence. Calling the game shallow, which it is if you actually play action games.

Dvader said:

  I don't know what you are doing with this enemy list thing, as I showed basically every enemy type in GoW3 has some kind of equivalent in GoW4. If there are fewer enemy types it's by so few that it doesn't matter and the enemy type so in gow4 are more interesting to fight. Souls and Nioh are absurd with the amount of enemies they have (though Nioh gets really repetitive, with its standard types). DMC never had that many enemies, neither doesn't bayo. The standard action game has around 30 types, GoW is right around there.

Bayonetta has 40, Bayonetta 2 has more than that. Ninja Gaiden has 48 before boss fights get included. God of War 4 flat out has less enemies, this isn't hard to get at. Given you like to fucking review your games on decimals, I'd say giving up 10 or more enemies is fairly signifcant. Especially for a sequel. Freakin Onimusha has like 30 not counting its bosses. Slice it anyway you like God of War does less than the top tier in the genre, and for a game that's supposed to be excellent, at best, it's been on par with the action games below the top tier.  

Dvader said:

Your example of navigating combat to raise your magic bar is a poor one. There are only a handful of fights in GoW3 with sirens or special enemies who actually give you magic when you brutal kill them. Few fights have chests around to refill. The grand majority of time the fight has no way to refill any magic. Contrast that to four slots with about 20 different moves to choose from, all with different levels of cooldown some as short as 15 seconds. Moves that give all kinds of attacks, some ranged, some buffs, some heal, some are AoE, some stun and each can be customized even further with level gains. Screw that a stupid magic button that lets out some crappy AoE attack every time you so happen to have energy is better than managing a bunch of moves. Not to mention how much better rage mode is in this game with its own set of attacks.

Except any larger set of enemy was going to give you some magic, hell the little goons give you some magic, albeit less frequently. Cool downs only have one general short coming: opportunity cost. The only decision there is use now, or use later. Which is mitigated by the time frame. A resource has added functions beyond opportunity cost, how much you're gonna use, can you quickly refill it, etc. And God of War's crowd control stuff was covered by its its dial combos, making magic just another quick DPS down you could put down. But sure Rage mode in 4 adds more moves to God of War 4, it does that one thing better. Neat. Most of your cool down moves on top of being cool downs, work very much in the way other games built around cool downs work. They are more abilities than they are interesting commands. Commands stuff like startup, active frames, recovery frames actually plays a role.


Cool downs your left with a quick popping ability that does its thing, with no little to no impunity and you go at it. move on to your next cool down move you are going to use, while you wait for the other one to cycle back down. Creating a late game where you are just running a rotation of abilities for the most efficient play.


And all of this ignores God of War isn't the only one to have a magic bar. Bayonetta also has one, Onimusha would be another example of expelling a resource, The Wonderful 101's batteries are effectively a magic meter.

Dvader said:

You can say the DMC and Souls/Nioh type games are deeper than this but to say the old GoW games had better combat is ridiculous.

You say this, but again one is more expressive than the other, one has less redundant options than the other, one has a larger enemy pool to work with, one plays faster than the other, and the other one gets oh right a bunch of rpg elements tacked on to an action game. Which while we're on the subject did you know that in Nioh n Souls games a low level run is actually viable, since those games actually reward a players skills at the game? God of War 4, in its infinite wisdom, does the usual western rpg move of making the player level an end all be all stat, regardless of where you pump your other stats with your gear. Because if you're about 3 levels too low of some enemies in God of War 4, it'll put the Warcraft/Witcher 3 red skull on enemies to get the point across that you can't do shit to the enemies.

Fuck me, that's what action games needed. Stats.

Dvader said:

The only reason GoW games are as good and better than many action games is cause it is half action adventure game.

They were never as good as the better action games. But at least the older God of War the platforming was like actual platforming and at least the puzzles while being limp, were at least sort of a puzzle. The new game has regressed even further in both, and those were the shallowest elements of a God of War game.

Dvader said:

Shit on the story and adventure elements all you want, doesn't change the fact that those additions make this a more interesting game than Nioh, than Bayonetta, than many of this just action games.

You should learn what a fact is. Because it's not a fact. You yourself find it more interesting, that could be a fact. But it doesn't inherently make the game more interesting. Those elements are vapid stretches of the game. You as a player are barely even tested or kept honest. Nioh n Bayonetta offer a lot more for the players investment and skill.

Dvader said:

GoW offers so much more than most action games while having a combat system that feels unique. But you don't care about any of that, cause you seem completely incapable of seeing anything past your prism of critique.

It's called having a criteria slick, it's pretty simple. If a game is going to make me do a thing, I expect said thing to be engaging and enjoyable. And I am engaged and enjoying a game when that comes down to its interactions. How satisfying they are to do, how much depth the gameplay loop has, and how the game extrapolates that depth from the systems. I do not value a game that tries a bunch of things, I'm not a fucking charity, I don't care that you tried. Actually execute. If you're going to make the deepest part of your gameplay loop combat, the combat should be better than okay for what is supposed to be a would be classic. More to it if a significant amount of time is spent on traversal segments or puzzle solving, both of those should be good. Not okay. Not "fine". Genuinely, good.

And in the case of Dad of War, they are nothing more than a bare bones "pacing" mechanism that frankly wastes my time.


I could get over what God of War does poorly, if the things it did "well" were actually better, as it stands they are par at best. I at the least got a chuckle out of "unique", lol. Yeah man a derivative mish mash of so many played out gamedesign tropes of the last decade is unique.

Well, he didn't start with one.

All this just makes me slightly more curious about it than I was before, when all it had going for it was (very likely) unintentional humour; now it offers me the chance to join in one of history's greatest debates.

If someone has a differences of opinion than me I will start a debate with them but won't be condescending, won't call everything I don't like total shit. You just seem to hate everything, everyone on this site sees it, here comes the guy shitting on everything. No fun allowed.

I acknowledging you are making fine points, for one I never once said GoW is top tier, it seems exactly why I told you to name me games not in the DMC/Bayo/NG class cause it's NOT top tier. I believe it is next tier, I will debate anyone who thinks old GoW has better combat. Yes I much rather have a rotation of abilities, abilities I can customize for my current fight. Instead of just using the on era strategy old GoW games give you, going after the magic givers to recharge, I can come up with a bunch of different strategies. That said just the abilities, ranged attacks are vastly inproved in this game. Move sets are deeper, the ability to freeze enemies out of a fight makes it deeper. The ability to use your environment in ways to get a quick instant kill is deeper. And I still think you are bullshitting this enemy count, counting every single enemy type in those other games and only sticking to major types in this one, there are like six different eyeball enemies alone. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, just shows how great these enemies are that I didn't feel fatigue with the regular grunts like I did in other action games like Nioh.

We simply don't agree on action adventure games then, can't do much about that. As I said give me the game that tries to do a lot, surprise me. I still love my one trick ponys as well, but I am a fan of action adventure games first than a guy hung up on just the combat system.

Gagan said:

It's the most condescending attempt at a peace offering. lol.

Get your butthole puckered over 28 words, a 10/10, and a hashtag, and then after all that try the enlightened approach. Lets pimp out the "there is no right or wrong way to like a thing" without once applying that logic to the inverse, that there is no right or wrong way to dislike a thing. And fuck that Tomas, 2018, learn fighting games. Your gaming diet has a ridiculous proportion of point n click garbage, and no where near enough fighting games.

Don't worry, I certainly won't be playing God of War (any time soon, anyway).

For awhile, however, you've been playing more point and clicks than I have, and shitter ones than I'd ever go near.

Dvader said:

Good god you are an awful judge of games.

IMHO that isn't starting a debate and if it's not condescending, it's certainly not accounting for differences in taste.

I don't mind heated arguments in the least, so don't take that as a criticism; I'm also not suggesting Gagan didn't return fire in kind.

I have called you foolz an awful judge of games before, same with Iga and others. In turn you have shot it back at me. Difference is you guys can be playful, I guess gagan is not.

Gameplay is much more than just how deep the combat is. You are going to sit there and tell me zelda games are awful cause combat isnt deep. Gameplay is everything, how a game controls, the level design, the enemy encounters, the variety in situations, puzzles, abilities, all of it. One game has room after room of just combat and another has rooms of combat mixed with puzzles and exploration, I'm going to usually take the one that does different things as long as its of great quality, which God of War is.

And seriously you are about the only person I have ever seen have the opinion that old GoW games have better combat. Everyone here that played this, do any of you think old games had better combat than this game?

I don't feel like the combat is better or worse than the old games, just different. I do prefer the new style though because to me it feels more visceral and in your face.

Dvader said:

Gameplay is much more than just how deep the combat is.

This is legit one of the more inane things you've written because it begs the question if you grasped anything you've read so far.



The quality of the gameplay is directly tied to how much depth it has or doesn't have. Systems without interesting decisions to make (sans puzzles, because there is an argument/conversation to be had on wether or not puzzles are in fact games) or dull systems.


No Zelda games aren't just bad to me because their combat isn't deep. Their puzzles also happened to be shit until about Breath of the Wild (which is still a mixed bag in that department), their level design is literally only praised for a bunch of half baked concepts without anything concrete or a single tangible thing anyone can justify without tripping over themselves. Those games are shit, because the boss fights are pathetic. They are inferior to their 2d counterparts, because they actively have less interesting decisions for the player to make on a moment to moment basis. The games are shit, because they present themselves as this adventure, but you're railroaded all the way through on the most linear quest this side of Uncharted n Call of Duty. They skate by on typical "mah nintendo magic" n "mah polish'.



Point: it's doing multiple things poorly. I don't care if it does multiple things, if not one of them I can go "yeah well at least that's good". Hence give me the one trick pony, because depth trumps variety being paired with mediocrity.



So yeah you are correct gameplay incorporates all things, but depth isn't just tied to quantity of combos. Every art form the best stuff is separated from the lesser stuff based on the depth of the work. Welcome to basic criticism 101.

Foolz said:

This is an issue with games criticism in general. It criticises games only on complexity and tactility, which is why praise for Uncharted and the like has never been justified (which is not to say it couldn't be, just that it hasn't).

As a result, both your impressions are credible on one level, but incomplete; neither satisfyingly describing your two vastly different conclusions on the games in question.

There isn't any other level for many people, they either like the game or not. Someone who loves uncharted does not have to think hard to himself and philosophize on how can uncharted be viewed as an excellent game when the gunplay and game design is leaves the player with little freedom. Because some people don't need that, not every game needs that. As long as they explain why the game works, and with uncharted it's extremely clear why it's a classic and better than most shooters, it's a complete review for that person. Uncharted wants nothing to do with being a deep game, if that's all you want from a game to play something else. Judge the game, not what you want the game to be.

As you can see with his thoughts on zelda just how out of touch he is with most people's opinions on games. I guess he needs every game to have the combat mechanics of a devil may cry with it's advanced canceling technicques or every puzzle to be like something out of the witness to be interesting. Nope, level design the art, the best games take you on a well constructed journey beautifully guided by game designers to envoke memorable moments and engaging gameplay. Depth does not automatically mean engaging, depth can sometimes be extremely tedious and lead to bloated games.

So no, art isn't just separated by depth. Clearly the grand majority of people judging gaming sides with my opinions on game way more often than they do him.

Dvader said:

Clearly the grand majority of people judging gaming sides with my opinions on game way more often than they do him.

Welcome to the most age ol fallacy known to man. Argumentum Ad Populum. Just because a bunch of people think "x thing is true" does not however make it true nor is it even valid as a counter.  Added bonus it's not even a line of thought you would follow. You weren't exactly high on The Witcher 3 or Silent Hill 2. Guess what critical darlings and generally adored by the gaming public. Just sayin.


So congrats a 2 for 1, an appeal to authority, an authority that is neither that educated or an expert in their own fucking field, that you don't even use 100% unless it fits your exact opinion of it lol.

Dvader said:

There isn't any other level for many people, they either like the game or not. Someone who loves uncharted does not have to think hard to himself and philosophize on how can uncharted be viewed as an excellent game when the gunplay and game design is leaves the player with little freedom. Because some people don't need that, not every game needs that. As long as they explain why the game works, and with uncharted it's extremely clear why it's a classic and better than most shooters, it's a complete review for that person. Uncharted wants nothing to do with being a deep game, if that's all you want from a game to play something else. Judge the game, not what you want the game to be.

Fallacy 3, one I would also put at Tomas's feet. Academic writing on art is usually about its representation of a time period or yeah its depth of composition as a work. I am not asking Uncharted to be Vanquish, I'm judging on its own merits. And on its merits, it's shallow. That is 100% ripe ground for valid criticism, one that shouldn't simply be dismissed because "hur durr the game is pretty". It's not a matter of "every game needs it". It's more of a matter good game, really shouldn't be shallow. Shallow isn't a positive quality.

Dvader said:

I guess he needs every game to have the combat mechanics of a devil may cry with it's advanced canceling technicques or every puzzle to be like something out of the witness to be interesting.

No on the contrary I still like Portal which wouldn't stack up favorably in complexity to The Witness which itself doesn't stack up favorably to something like SpaceChem. And I like plenty of things like Onimusha which on its best day wasn't in DMC's ball park, hell I like God of War 2 enough. The difference is I would argue Devil May Cry is excellent, where as God of War 2 at its best is bare minimum good, and nothing more than that. But sure I'm not impressed by the most basic wait, attack glorified turn based combat of Zelda or man, what a clever puzzle. I had to look for a texture to shoot an arrow with. Not my idea of compelling or engaging gameplay. There is an age old expression about assuming things tho.


But i'll continue.

Dvader said:

Nope, level design the ar

The games you apologize for right now I would also argue have shit level design to boot. Legend of Zelda in 3D isn't just lame for how wack its combat is, its dungeons are over praised for a whole lot of basic bitch design like its the second coming of christ. So when I get something like Zelda eventually I do not care how varied it looks. I care about what I do in said dungeon and how it plays out, because that's the "level design". Not how awe inspiring something is to look at. Zelda dungeons for instance get recent criticism for linearity, because they are rigid from start to finish. A lot of it is a bunch of straight forward walk to the next room, do what needs to be done in that room, and move on to the next room, rinse n repeat. There is rarely any back n forth plotting out paths, solving a puzzle that works through multiple rooms (weirdly enough the lone exception to this in Ocarina of Time, is the fucking water dungeon, the dungeon often hated on) or any of that. Even the puzzles it's not like they come up with a new set of rules that they build on. nah it's just a different way of hitting a switch. This switch can only be hit by arrows. This switch can only be hit by a hammer. This switch can only be hit by, you get the point.


That isn't an interesting decision. That's not an anything. The player is on auto pilot if they have half their brain working. On the flip side there is far more to the players interactions in something like Super Metroid n Metroid Prime (2 games that don't have great combat, and aren't exactly The Witness, but still have more intricate navigation n exploration elements), Dark Souls (no one is gonna mistake that series for fucking Devil May Cry), or Resident Evil (fuck the games don't even have the smoothest control or camera, they are literally carried by the scenarios presented by the level design).

Dvader said:

TDepth does not automatically mean engaging, depth can sometimes be extremely tedious and lead to bloated games.

This is just straight scrub talk lol. I have never in my life even humored the idea of saying the words "this game is simply too deep" nor have I even come close to reading the words "this game was simply too deep". Too hard, sure. Too complex, sure, but no one in their right mind is going to an argue that a game was poor because it gave the player too many interesting choices. That's the basic premise of what makes a game, a fucking game. It's what play is. Even if we ignored all your fallacies and went back to the "mah public" route. ....yeah guess why Chess n GO have stood the test of time as strategy games. Why people still play Starcraft to this day, why Counterstrike endures in spite of so many military shooters. Why the FGC thrives in a genre so niche. Why Mario's jump mechanic has stood the test of time. Hint because even with a simple mechanic, the developer was able to create a variety of possible gamestates around it. Gameplay will always matter, and while the deepest games aren't necessarily the biggest sellers. It's not a shocker that a lot of games that do play well tend to get an audience. And I'm not exactly fond of giving up depth for really video game stories that get gassed up because this medium's audience has atrocious taste in narratives.

And that still might not actually be the dumbest shit you wrote this thread, because this is

"I have called Foolz an awful judge of games before, same with Iga and others. In turn you ahve shot it back at me. Difference is you guys can be playful, I guess gagan is not"

Considering I'm in full condescend mode now, I'll add.



1. Your sentence basically reads I've been cunt to you guys before, I can't believe someone finally was a cunt to me back.

2. It's at best a really shitty option select of loliwasjusttrolling tier, nah mate, you were hot n bothered and wanted to condescend and weren't expecting it back for some fucking reason.

3. I'm actually plenty playful about it, if anything there is nothing more eggregious about the tone of my text versus what you started with when you responded to my random ass drive by post.

4. If you wanted to actually disagree n argue, you could have just disagreed, but like I said you wanted to be a cunt about it. Maybe don't be a fucking cunt about it, and I won't be a cunt back.

Foolz said:

False: your definition of depth is, so far as I can tell, "complex and good"; both academic and serious popular criticism generally put no greater emphasis on "complex and good" than "simple and good", unless that serious criticism is married to a specific movement that does; in which case, it isn't indicative of criticism as a whole. Nor does criticism in general focus on an artwork's place in time, for that matter.

Few would praise a statement for being shallow, but they would if it were succinct. Just as few would praise a statement for being complicated, but they would if it were deep.

My other point is that games criticism's vocabulary is more limited when it comes to praising the former, so praise for the latter usually creeps into it. I would theorise that this is because as games criticism developed, so too did the complexity of games; whereas the move to 3D has been a (partly illusory) step in the direction of simplicity.

You're just putting words in a random order now, aren't you?