AC veterans and the new boss design

[Maria Sharapova]

I am genuinely curious to understand what was so much better in the old ACs and why are people bashing what to me looks like an obvious improvement.

This was my first Armored Core and I love it. Halfway through NG+ and getting S ranks to unlock everything.

It feels like a lot of veterans complain most about the boss fights being too hard and then proceed to talk how challenging the old games were. How were they challenging? By stat-checking you? By being bullet sponges? I don’t get what other type of challenge could there be in a game like this.

I’m a pretty die-hard souls fan that has beaten all the titles over and over again, and aside from the spectacle of boss fights, I found no souls similarities.

I didn’t feel the need to completely switch builds, I just made small adjustments here and there, but the vision I had for my build was the same from start to finish and it felt alright, as opposed to Elden Ring which absolutely screws over certain playstyles in a huge amount of encounters.

I didn’t feel the need to learn patterns. I couldn’t even if I wanted to, because everything was just so incredibly overwhelming. I just focused on reacting and adapting. That’s a huge difference to souls where I trial and error for hours (Im not very good at first tries, I just persevere) until I master fights.

Here, it felt more like mastering my *OWN* AC movement and abilities, rather than the boss’s, and after that, I could outplay everything thrown at me.

I even managed to kill the chapter 4 boss which people claim is hard in like 10 minutes, and the final boss in the first try.

For comparison it took me 20+ hours over the course of a week to beat Malenia in Elden Ring

So, what is the difficulty in the old games? I feel like this game can be played with any build, as long as you are good at it and understand your strengths and weaknesses, and can be made into a total joke the more you adapt your build.

Yes, I understand there are other great aspects in the old games: more depth, more customization, negative credits. I would have loved to see these features, but the biggest complain here is the bosses, and I genuinely wished they were harder. Maybe not 20 hours of Malenia levels of hard, but beating the last boss in the first try as a new AC player, with a build I designed myself and with 0 tuning for the respective fight left me wanting more.

I hope to find some more challenging encounters in the subsequent playthroughs and mission paths.

[StoneGolem]

Making a game harder is not making it better.

Armored Core is a different IP then Souls series. It had it's own mechanics. THe whole game except bosses are very similar to previous games in the AC series. They are just improved and made better. I love level design and the general atmosphere a lot.

However, some of the boss fights borrowed mechanics from Souls games. If you're a souls fan, you might love them and maybe they are easy for you. If you are a competenet player, you might love them. However, it was not the case of previous Armored Core games.

if we think like the regular mission diffiulty is 4/10, previous AC game Bosses were 6/10. But Now they are 9/10 compared to previous installments. You might love it. But not everyone. You might love to die and replay the same boss fight 10 times, but not everyone likes such kind of gameplay.

If we requested a Souls game to become easy, that that would be nonsense. Now an AC game bosses become soulslike and people are asking "why not?" Because it is not a souls IP it's an Armored Core IP.

I have completed the game on PS5. My score for the game is: 85/100
I loved the game but I really disliked Balteus, SeaSpider and ibis mech fights. I have retried them many times and I didn't get any kind of achievement feeling after defeating them. It was just unnecessary time wasting for me. (not playing the game, wasting time on bosses)

Making a game harder is not making it better.

[Wintermute]

Originally posted by stonegolem:

Making a game harder is not making it better.

The bosses are more difficult because there is no debt system. Something needs to replace it, hence the bosses. If the bosses were painfully easy, then the missions would have no weight to them without the possibility of going into debt based on repairs and ammunition spent.

[BKo]

Originally posted by Wintermute:

Don't confuse players of 4 and after to be "veterans" of AC. The people that have played 1 - 3 seem to be the ones praising the game, and those who only played the later games seem to be struggling and saying it "isn't Armored Core".

AC1 (on your first playthrough) was much harder than this.

Basically these "vets" usually haven't played LR. Nothing in this game was as hard as Endboss Zinaida. Balteus wasn't even as hard as one of the first missions in LR. People would riot if they had to play actual AC today (not 4, which was on the easy side).

[Kil0]

Originally posted by Wykydtron:

bosses in AC6 are simply badly designed, thats all there is to it. Bosses play different game, infinite boost, infinite ammo(yup they did run out of ammo in older AC games), 100% accuracy, way faster movement that what players can achieve, bullet sponges. Also stagger mechanic is absolute BS that limits usability of light ACs. Also AC6 is extremely limited in builds.
For instance in older AC games it was possible to build dual blade super lightweight AC with near infinite energy and do 0 dmg runs on any mission since we were able to zoom like there no tomorrow and enemies would actually miss us since we were so fast but in AC6 fastest AC will be sniped across map if you don't boost in just right moment, that another thing in older AC games window for boosting out of danger was bigger and felt more natural, here you have always same 0,3-0,5s window to boost or you will get hit but in older games you could boost earlier or at very last moment and get away here autotracking will get you if you miss predesigned window.

I like AC6 overall, its still proper AC game. But out of curiosity i booted AC4A and yeah its soo soo much better.

This right here. In older games you could absolutely run a boss out of ammo, it was actually meta for some encounters. Weapons have ammo count for a reason. There was a management aspect. In general youd need mass target weapon for mobs (12 lock missiles), preferably a rifle or energy weapon (rifle ammo cheap so you dont waste so much money on ammo, and energy worked off generators and reduced EN supply when fired but had free ammo), and a dps weapon like grenade or large missiles. You used to have tp pick how you used your weapons instead of constant spam. The idea still exist, but ammo cost doesnt matter in this game. When you did arena there were hidden rewards like parts not just the 1. The bosses were AC with the same stats you would have with same parts, just master pilots. This action bullet hell for boss fights, the rest of the game is too easy. I do like this game, but given elden ring i kinda expected more care in the game. Even if you like the boss fights you can tell this wasnt a passion project. Considering i didnt like 5 and 3, and 4 was ok, ive been waiting 20 years for less gameplay and better albeit still outdated graphics. From a company who makes wonderful games its slightly disappointing. But new Armored Core is still new Armored core so thank you for this game From Soft

[Butler]

A lot of people in this thread already stated what I would about the differences. All I'm going to say, is that this is not Armored Cored. And if you need a refresher on what Armored Core is. I highly suggest you get the Dolphin Emu and play the past titles before you draw comparisons. Especially if this is your first AC. Because this AC ain't it. This is just Sekiro with a AC Paint job.

[Daikatan]

Originally posted by BKo:

Basically these "vets" usually haven't played LR. Nothing in this game was as hard as Endboss Zinaida. Balteus wasn't even as hard as one of the first missions in LR. People would riot if they had to play actual AC today (not 4, which was on the easy side).

Oh yeah, endgame Zinaida and Pulverizers battles were making you feel like it's Virgil battles from Devil May Cry again, haha!

[ptp120122]

Originally posted by Wintermute:

Originally posted by ptphetsavanh:

Nah, i played the crap out of the AC1 demo as a kid.

How long was that demo? Because AC1 has a very similar mission structure to 6 of going from incredibly easy to quite difficult. The first few missions of AC1 are mostly in quite open areas where you can easily boost and strafe and attack single enemies from a distance, then you're doing rescue missions in very narrow tunnels with doors that open to two MTS immediately firing at you, with mini bosses at the end. With the debt system, that made it quite unforgiving for a newcomer.

I still played the whole game when it came out.

Bro, that intro A6 helicopter is stronger than their same PCA intergalactic warship. It's not an MT walking with one animation for walking back and forth. AC1 AI weren't coded to compensate for the players' forward movement.

Guarding the freight train was probably the first hardest mission JUST cause controls were awkward using bumper buttons as look up/down, trying to kill jets, kill an AC, and protect the train. Other than that, you muscled your way through and just soak up bullets.

People love AC1 when it came out purely because it was some of the first customizable mech games that existed on the market, and created the precedence for what the next game after it could be. AC1 to AC2 is an entire world apart in terms of graphics, fidelity, and features, it was an insanely huge gap in improvement. AC5 to AC6, went backwards, stayed bout the same in graphics, better lighting, but left out tons of features from previous games to give it a action souls like mechanics.

Just from a programming/coding perspective, it's very souls action game genre-like.

[ptp120122]

Originally posted by BKo:

Originally posted by Wintermute:

Don't confuse players of 4 and after to be "veterans" of AC. The people that have played 1 - 3 seem to be the ones praising the game, and those who only played the later games seem to be struggling and saying it "isn't Armored Core".

AC1 (on your first playthrough) was much harder than this.

Basically these "vets" usually haven't played LR. Nothing in this game was as hard as Endboss Zinaida. Balteus wasn't even as hard as one of the first missions in LR. People would riot if they had to play actual AC today (not 4, which was on the easy side).

Y'all are crazy, that's not even close. She's the same as any other floaty AC. ONLY reason it would be hard is using a narrow view fcs, and purposely not aiming with her.

[Blackmage]

I've played and beaten every single Armored Core game except for gen5.

Mechanics: In the old games, most of the bosses followed most of the same rules as you. You could benefit from H+, and so could they. You could run out of ammo, and so could they. In a sense, AC6 could be seen as either an upgrade or a downgrade. Bosses are meant to be "superior" than you, not on equal footing. But it usually felt more fair, at least to me. I beat every old game without H+ and OP-I, but in AC6 it's kind of a given.

Characterization: You got glimpses into the story and villains, and that built up the stakes. You knew Nine-Ball was a bad ass. So you knew you had to bring your A-game to beat him. Balteus, the C-Spider, and Ibis, all just come out of no where. They exist solely to give you another boss battle for the sake of throwing in more boss battles.

Behavior: In the old games, it was a DPS race. It's still a DPS race in AC6. The only thing that has changed is the bosses have attack patterns in AC6. As someone who is a fan of Armored Core and not Dark Souls, this fact made the boss battles more challenging for me. I do not see the telegraphed attacks like Souls players. It is simply a skill I have not cultivated. I'm used to manually keeping my target in lock sight and avoiding my opponent's attacks at the same time. To me, that's easy. I ended up beating all of AC6 last night with dual shotguns and dual songbirds, a build I never would have used in the old games because getting up close like that meant taking unavoidable shots to the face and losing sight of your target; but it was the closest way I could play AC6 in the way I'm used to.
But for a Dark Souls to go back and play the old Armored Core games, it would be the reverse experience. You rely on the hard-lock feature and telegraphed attacks, you're not used to fighting your own AC's turn speed just as much as you're fighting your opponent, or getting stunned with each hit you failed to avoid.

[No me llamo]

my take on this are the difficulty spikes...everything is so trivial that it could not be in the game like MTs and other regular enemies, EVEN OTHER AC feel trivial and easy to beat and another ac should be equally good as you then you get to the chapter boss...there's no difficulty curve, its just a flat line until you hit a massive wall, then defeat that boss and repeat the same formula...it feels like theres a failed balance system so they decided to put the challenge compiled in one enemy it feels forced, and obviously those bosses are unfair

older ac games, there was no "souls like bosses" so the content could be considered easier...but there are no healing potions/repairs whatever you call it, there are no checkpoints, and there are no supplies before a boss fight...so you have to do it in one take or you restart the mission from the beginning there isnt "staggered" system so if at the end of the mission you have to face another AC every bullet you took from those regular enemies and every missile you spent to kill those regular enemies along the way mattered and added challenge to the fight. also the aim system was different

in other words...older games were challenging without the need to resort in these stupid wall of missiles, huge laser beams that take half of your life...and enemies that dash from one corner of the arena to the opposite like beam of light while they are giant robots

[Akira]

This game has AC formula at it's core, but they put boss fights in-between that are just absurdly overpowered/bulletsponges.

Past AC games felt balanced, hard and challenging yes, but it had balance. Enemies ran out of ammo just like you. Enemies ran out of energy, just like you. Everything was fair if you understood that the enemies were not infinite bullet spamming with huge AP numbers.

In AC6, bosses have infinite ammo, infinite energy, ignore their bodies hitboxes and shoot straight through them, have frame perfect aim with prediction that goes way over what FCSs always were meant to do, and the newest Soulsborne trend: they combo the heck out of you every opportunity possible. Combos! Because bullet hell wasn't enough, they also need to have unstoppable chain attacks with wide ranges and AoE damage as often as possible.

But just to clarify, it's not a Souls game, it is Armored Core. It's just broken, they overdid the boss/gank fights too much, imo.

[Call Sign: Raven]

Originally posted by Tory:

Originally posted by Wintermute:

Don't confuse players of 4 and after to be "veterans" of AC. The people that have played 1 - 3 seem to be the ones praising the game, and those who only played the later games seem to be struggling and saying it "isn't Armored Core".

AC1 (on your first playthrough) was much harder than this.

yep!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This guy gets it.

I only ever played 1, 4, and FA. And I'm enjoying the game. Trust me, it's Armored Core.

[Larpy Larpen]

all 12 players who played anything before 4th gen like it apparently

[Akira]

AC 1-3 were hard not because of the game or enemies itself, but because of the ridiculously bad camera controls, which by the way they could've changed way earlier than AC3, but insisted not to because "it's our game style".
And when they decided to bring the game up to new standards what they did? Yeah, second analog as camera control... ironic no?

AC1-3 the enemies played with the same tools you had, they obeyed the same rules and had the same capabilites. AC4/4A and V/Verdict Day, they started the bull-hit of introducing gank squads against you alone, and bosses with more capabilities than any of you parts combined could do. In AC6 they made the bosses even more overpowered by raising their AP, removing their use of ammo or energy (they have infinite both), and plain disregarding their bodies as hitboxes, or having any angle restriction on how their weapons fire.

And people open their mouths to say veterans are not complaining, yeah...

[Kazeck]

Originally posted by sudebu:

Originally posted by Maria Sharapova:

I am genuinely curious to understand what was so much better in the old ACs and why are people bashing what to me looks like an obvious improvement.

better is subjective; things were different.
if you went into dark souls 4 expecting dark souls and found out that From had replaced core elements with things from Eternal Ring or something, you'd probably be a little put off, too.

Originally posted by Maria Sharapova:

It feels like a lot of veterans complain most about the boss fights being too hard and then proceed to talk how challenging the old games were. How were they challenging? By stat-checking you? By being bullet sponges? I don’t get what other type of challenge could there be in a game like this.

it's not that they're too hard; it's that they go from hilariously difficult with a normal build to hilariously easy with a hyper specific build.
there's very little in-between and it's particularly bad in chapters 4 and 5.
part of the charm of older games was that most builds felt viable and it generally felt like you and the enemies had the same general limitations.

Originally posted by Maria Sharapova:

I found no souls similarities.

because you have no point of reference.
you said yourself that this is your first armored core, so it makes sense that you wouldn't know how different things were in every single game up until 6.

Originally posted by Maria Sharapova:

I didn’t feel the need to completely switch builds, I just made small adjustments here and there, but the vision I had for my build was the same from start to finish and it felt alright, as opposed to Elden Ring which absolutely screws over certain playstyles in a huge amount of encounters.

I didn’t feel the need to learn patterns. I couldn’t even if I wanted to, because everything was just so incredibly overwhelming. I just focused on reacting and adapting. That’s a huge difference to souls where I trial and error for hours (Im not very good at first tries, I just persevere) until I master fights.

Here, it felt more like mastering my *OWN* AC movement and abilities, rather than the boss’s, and after that, I could outplay everything thrown at me.

I even managed to kill the chapter 4 boss which people claim is hard in like 10 minutes, and the final boss in the first try.

For comparison it took me 20+ hours over the course of a week to beat Malenia in Elden Ring

what general build did you run?
and for reference, this is one of the easier armored core games, but for all of the wrong reasons.

Basically everything you said I second.