This game is not good

[Rod Serling]

It emulates the old-school games well, down to the abhorrent gameplay.

The single worst part about old games is how enemies damage the player just by touching them. That means even a single ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ pixel overlaps your sprite and you get damaged. Doesn't matter if you just walked against the enemy when they had their back turned to you, they apparently have claymore mines attached to their backs. We're not in the 90s anymore, it's much easier to make enemies actually attack the player now.

But the thing that made me create this discussion at all is the damned tower dog boss. Its flamethrower attack is quite honestly the worst boss attack I have ever seen so far in any game I've played. The moment you get hit by the flame attack, you're screwed out of a lot of health. The knockback is so strong you fly into either one of the dog heads and by the time you manage to jump away, you'll most likely land directly into the flame again, repeating the cycle for a few times. That's not to mention it's way too difficult to understand where's the hitbox for the flames or how big it is.

[Rod Serling]

Originally posted by EF_Neo1st:

Honestly, your topic would be better as a review of your personal opinion.

If you took it as anything else, that's on you. Since Steam only has Yes/No review options, I had no choice but to create this topic, expressing my opinion on this game. This game is not bad enough to warrant a "No", but also not good enough for a "Yes".

And for the Nth time, I never said this game is bad.

Obviously games such as this pull in players who know and like games like this one, much more than players who are not as proficient in side-scrolling platformers. As such the playerbase will be heavily skewed in favor of better players. But that does not, in any way or form, invalidate anyone's opinion on the game.

[EF_Neo1st]

Originally posted by Rod Serling:

Originally posted by EF_Neo1st:

Honestly, your topic would be better as a review of your personal opinion.

If you took it as anything else, that's on you. Since Steam only has Yes/No review options, I had no choice but to create this topic, expressing my opinion on this game. This game is not bad enough to warrant a "No", but also not good enough for a "Yes".

And for the Nth time, I never said this game is bad.

Obviously games such as this pull in players who know and like games like this one, much more than players who are not as proficient in side-scrolling platformers. As such the playerbase will be heavily skewed in favor of better players. But that does not, in any way or form, invalidate anyone's opinion on the game.

Well, no, I did not took it as "anythying else" but I also posted my opinions on the game and the fight itself.
If you took my posts as anything else that is also on you and the discussion starts with divergence of opinion (or maybe with someone that agrees with you, there is allways that chance tho you can see by the replies how many do agree with you).

"Opinions", but posting on a forum expect people to post about your opinion.
If you place your opinion as review you may even choose to not allow replies so it is just your opinion and that it is. Maybe as "warning" for others that dont like this kind of gameplay as you also did not enjoy it (the bossfight itself and the damage-on-touch when you touch the enemy).

Btw, Bauer is like a pay back for that and I dont remember (as I was using Buer andd Buer deals damage on touch and can combo enemies/bosses near walls quite fast) or if you put Bauer behind the enemy/boss, Buer will try to reach you but will bounce away with each of your attacks, meaning it is a huge combo every time you do that speeding the fight a lot. Upgraded Bauer also deals flame damage like a flamethrower that follows the target.

I was not using Buer by that bossfight and honestly I dont think it would be of much use by the size of the dragon heads, their movement and how Buer moves. Against "human sized bosses" (or close) it is amazing.

[CrowRising]

Originally posted by Rod Serling:

I don't believe average and good can be on the same level. Average is the middle point, while good has already tipped to the positive side. A good game does not need to go too much above and beyond, but it needs to do something to stand out more than other games.

Think about it like this: Say you have a watch. It tells the time accurately. It doesn't do anything particularly extraordinary otherwise, it just tells the time and it does it well. This is a good watch nonetheless. Its function is to tell the time, and it does. It would be strange to say "I got this watch and it gives me the correct time, but it's not a good watch".

Something being "good" doesn't require standing out. It just requires carrying out its core function. In the case of games, the function in question is to cause you to have fun. "good" is literally just achieving that bare minimum. Otherwise, literally everything that exists would cease to be "good" as soon as something better was made.

This is why "good" and "average" are not mutually exclusive. There are many good watches that aren't anything special, they are just average. The same goes for shovels, and calculators, and etc.

Originally posted by Rod Serling:

This game is fun at times, but the positives are quickly balanced out by the negatives. That's what I mean by "I'm still having fun with this game." If I didn't have any fun, then I would call this game bad, really bad even. Does that make sense?

It's not that you aren't making sense to me, it's that you are setting a very strange standard that seems to be based on the notion that for something to be "good" it needs to be at least a little bit exceptional, which is a completely bizarre way to define anything as "good".

When talking about morality and ethics and etc. then sure, "good" leans towards positive. When talking about quality though, it's not a "good vs evil" scale, it's a "does it carry out its function as intended" scale. On such a scale, "good" is just another way of saying "average". It's right in the middle, the bare minimum to be considered passable. In this case, the bare minimum in question is that the game is fun. It doesn't need to be special beyond this to be good. The subjectivity comes into play in regards to whether you are having fun with it. If you are, then your subjective experience is that the game is good, even if only just so. If you are not, then your subjective experience is that the game is not good.

When games start going above and beyond and becoming something special, that's when they start leaning more positive and can be described as "really good" or "great" or "awesome" or etc. the same as how you would review a more objective quality such as how well a shovel performs it's function. If it's bog standard average, you'd say something like "It's good but it's not great, could be better".

[cnote261]

Please excuse me inserting myself here again, but I feel compelled to express some disagreement with your point.

To continue your watch example: I have owned many watches throughout the years and three immediately come to mind when discussing fitness for a purpose. When I was a child I got a watch from a box of cereal and I was super excited to have a watch of my own; but the band never fit, the little studs on the side were painful to press, and as I child I didn't need to know what time it was anyway. So despite keep time surprisingly well and being entirely fit for its purpose, I didn't think it was a very good watch.

In college I was .. well, I was one of those guys .. you know... Okay, I had a watch where the time was represented in binary by little LED bulbs. I could barely read the time when given a few minutes to figure it out; it was embarrassing how often I was asked for the time and needed to consult another timesource. As far as I was concerned, though, that was the coolest watch ever: "A watch no one can read? It's like a secret code only really intelligent people can understand! I'm special!" (It also kept terrible time, but I didn't care.)

Finally, I was recently gifted a smartwatch. It came loaded with all kinds of artsy analog-style faces that show time as swirls of color and wants to do anything else aside from tell me the time in a convenient fashion. If I want to know the time, the most convenient method is to use sign language and have the watch tap out a time-telling rhythm on my wrist. What? I'm done with college; I'm not that guy anymore. I think it's a pretty bad watch, really.

All of those watches performed their function, but whether they were good wasn't a matter of some objective fitness for their intended purpose but whether I found value in the way the watch achieved that purpose. I would go so far as to say I think fitness for a purpose is one of those "necessary but not sufficient" factors.

And to return to video games: I played No Man's Sky, Fallout 76, and Cyberpunk 2077. All of them where in a playable state when I experienced them shortly after release, and I certainly was entertained and had fun (of a sort); but I wouldn't say they were good. In fact, I would echo what I see as the essence of the original post: "It's not so bad that it's bad, but it's not good."

[Rod Serling]

Originally posted by EF_Neo1st:

Well, no, I did not took it as "anythying else" but I also posted my opinions on the game and the fight itself.
If you took my posts as anything else that is also on you and the discussion starts with divergence of opinion (or maybe with someone that agrees with you, there is allways that chance tho you can see by the replies how many do agree with you).

You didn't exactly give your opinion on this game mechanic as an opinion as much as trying to somehow refute/disprove my own opinion on it. You literally posted two videos as if saying I'm wrong for having my opinion just because other games have this gameplay mechanic. There's really no more than one way to look at your first reply.

On another note, I found the monkey boy (Simian) works rather well if I can't get the enemy to be close enough to the wall for a Buer summon. Managed to beat the Abyssal Guardian first try with that little jumpy boy. Probably helped that the Guardian is physically big. Just beat the old Alchemist guy first try as well (without monkey, though). Heck, I've managed to beat most bosses first try, honestly. Except Bloodless, screw her and her stupid red umbrella. And obviously the twin dragon dogs.

Originally posted by CrowRising:

It's not that you aren't making sense to me, it's that you are setting a very strange standard that seems to be based on the notion that for something to be "good" it needs to be at least a little bit exceptional, which is a completely bizarre way to define anything as "good".

Like I said - agree to disagree. It's all semantics anyway, so it doesn't really matter. Everyone has their own scale of rating for everything and mine apparently is not the same as yours. The same way you see mine as strange, I also see yours.

[EF_Neo1st]

Originally posted by Rod Serling:

Originally posted by EF_Neo1st:

Well, no, I did not took it as "anythying else" but I also posted my opinions on the game and the fight itself.
If you took my posts as anything else that is also on you and the discussion starts with divergence of opinion (or maybe with someone that agrees with you, there is allways that chance tho you can see by the replies how many do agree with you).

You didn't exactly give your opinion on this game mechanic as an opinion as much as trying to somehow refute/disprove my own opinion on it. You literally posted two videos as if saying I'm wrong for having my opinion just because other games have this gameplay mechanic. There's really no more than one way to look at your first reply.

On another note, I found the monkey boy (Simian) works rather well if I can't get the enemy to be close enough to the wall for a Buer summon. Managed to beat the Abyssal Guardian first try with that little jumpy boy. Probably helped that the Guardian is physically big. Just beat the old Alchemist guy first try as well (without monkey, though). Heck, I've managed to beat most bosses first try, honestly. Except Bloodless, screw her and her stupid red umbrella. And obviously the twin dragon dogs.

Originally posted by CrowRising:

It's not that you aren't making sense to me, it's that you are setting a very strange standard that seems to be based on the notion that for something to be "good" it needs to be at least a little bit exceptional, which is a completely bizarre way to define anything as "good".

Like I said - agree to disagree. It's all semantics anyway, so it doesn't really matter. Everyone has their own scale of rating for everything and mine apparently is not the same as yours. The same way you see mine as strange, I also see yours.

The two videos I posted were both from a new game and a remastered game of an old game, where by your words you implied the mechanic is from 90s games only (and for that reason alone, because you mention as if "enemy touch = taking damage is a thing from tje 90s because technology", it is not (reason why I mention other games, games of new and old franchises that still selling to this day)
The remastered game sold really well so goes figure, people like it (so it still opinion and I used both as example and I even say "you dont like the mechanic ... well too bad", or in other words: it is just your opinion but it dont change these games sell, people like it and it is just your opinion (and you are wrong in saying it was a technology or development limitation of the 90s or before, it was not, it is game design and just one you dont like).

[LHGreen]

Interesting convo. I've been following and wanting to add to it, but it got pretty dense, pretty fast. Still, I'll just say that, while I really don't want to agree with OP's position, and I certainly don't agree with or have the same reasons, I do kind of see where he's coming from and share a not-too-dissimilar sentiment. It's almost for the opposite reasons, though. Like, this game certainly isn't bad, far from it, and it has a lot of stuff in it that I love, but as for the main game mode, the story/campaign... well, eh, it could have felt more challenging.

I mean, I'd say more that it isn't that great, rather than it isn't good, but I also played Curse of the Moon, and that's honestly much more like what I thought I would be getting with Ritual of the Night, in terms of how combat feels, and the old-school boss fights. I've seen people complain about the metroid style of exploring the map, rather than the castlevania style of levels, too, but I quite like that part, so I accept it. But with being able to just heal whenever as much as you need, and give yourself all kinds of OP ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ shards and powers, it just felt too easy. And then when you try to medal bosses, it feels unreasonable.

Originally posted by cnote261:

In college I was .. well, I was one of those guys .. you know... Okay, I had a watch where the time was represented in binary by little LED bulbs.

Lol, wow, that's just deplorable. Truly, you were what's wrong with the world. jk

Originally posted by cnote261:

"A watch no one can read? It's like a secret code only really intelligent people can understand! I'm special!"

And yet, you admit that you yourself had trouble reading it. So what's that say? jk, again.

[Rod Serling]

Never in any of my posts did I say this game mechanic is ONLY from the 90s. That's my whole point, one that completely missed you apparently. It's FROM the 90s (yes, you can take your point for pointing out I said it's an outdated mechanic), because back then developers had limited resources at their disposal, one of them being the limitation of the size of their games so that they'd fit on the cartridges. Since most if not all games were sprite-based, adding separate attack animations for all enemies would've meant adding 5+ sprites in their game, per enemy. Nowadays such limitations are mostly moot, since adding even 100 different sprites per enemy would be fairly negligible in terms of game size. Not to mention this game is not sprite-based but model-based, meaning they just have to have a separate animation tied to their 3d model.

Obviously I know it exists in newer games as well, otherwise I wouldn't be ragging on it in this game's discussions page. Showing me games from any year with this mechanic is pointless and doesn't achieve anything. Like I said, am I supposed to agree with using this mechanic because some popular game from even this year also has it? No, absolutely not, it changes nothing.

Microtransactions are one of the worst things implemented into newer games. But they're also in a lot of popular games. By your logic, it's completely fine to have that predatory mechanic in new games, because otherwise developers wouldn't implement it, right?

New games also have proper attack animations for enemies, which renders the contact damage not only unnecessary, but also stupid. Unless the enemy is visually or physically able to damage the player by walking into them, i.e enemy is on fire or has spikes on them. Then I can understand using it, otherwise cut the crap and only use the attack animations.

[The Trippy Pyro (MPH! MPH! MPH!)]

just say you hate the metroidvania genre.

[CrowRising]

Originally posted by cnote261:

Please excuse me inserting myself here again, but I feel compelled to express some disagreement with your point.

To continue your watch example: I have owned many watches throughout the years and three immediately come to mind when discussing fitness for a purpose. When I was a child I got a watch from a box of cereal and I was super excited to have a watch of my own; but the band never fit, the little studs on the side were painful to press, and as I child I didn't need to know what time it was anyway. So despite keep time surprisingly well and being entirely fit for its purpose, I didn't think it was a very good watch.

This doesn't sound to me like it was entirely fit for its purpose. In regards to the time keeping aspect, based on your description here it was a good watch. However, the watch didn't fit and provided you with discomfort, which certainly couldn't have been a deliberate intention and was likely a result of it being cheaply produced. As such, despite the time keeping function working, its function as an accessory was fairly lacking and as such it wasn't completely functioning as intended.

Originally posted by cnote261:

In college I was .. well, I was one of those guys .. you know... Okay, I had a watch where the time was represented in binary by little LED bulbs. I could barely read the time when given a few minutes to figure it out; it was embarrassing how often I was asked for the time and needed to consult another timesource. As far as I was concerned, though, that was the coolest watch ever: "A watch no one can read? It's like a secret code only really intelligent people can understand! I'm special!" (It also kept terrible time, but I didn't care.)

This watch seems to have failed its function on two counts as well; legibility and timekeeping. You go on to express similar sentiments about the watch in your next paragraph.

Originally posted by cnote261:

All of those watches performed their function, but whether they were good wasn't a matter of some objective fitness for their intended purpose but whether I found value in the way the watch achieved that purpose. I would go so far as to say I think fitness for a purpose is one of those "necessary but not sufficient" factors.

It seems to me based on your own descriptions that they did not in fact perform their function adequately. They were either uncomfortable to wear, were hard to read, and/or failed to conveniently convey the time. These hardly sound like descriptions of a good watch. The intended function of a watch is fairly straightforward; it should comfortably fit your wrist, not have any uncomfortable protrusions, and should reliably give you the correct time in a convenient and straightforward manner.

[Sigma]

Because every game just HAS to play the way YOU want it to.
If the game isn't up to your standards then tough ****. Go play another game.
This is how the devs wanted this game to be.
If an attack is so hard to dodge, find a way to exploit it. All games are exploitable... and for the record, all bosses can be beaten 1) without getting hit and 2) at character level 1. So it's not the game's problem, it's you.

[Russell]

Originally posted by LHGreen:

Like, this game certainly isn't bad, far from it, and it has a lot of stuff in it that I love, but as for the main game mode, the story/campaign... well, eh, it could have felt more challenging.

... But with being able to just heal whenever as much as you need, and give yourself all kinds of OP ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ shards and powers, it just felt too easy. And then when you try to medal bosses, it feels unreasonable.

AFAIK one of the requirements boss designers had was to be able to defeat their hard/nightmare mode boss without getting hit, at level 1, and probably with a minimal set of gear. So if you use everything the game gives you, it's going to be too easy.

I actually almost quit the game because of this. Then I looked up to see you could access nightmare mode without beating the game (by using the name NIGHTMARE on a new account), and that the bosses give a shiny, and totally useless, medal if you beat them without taking damage. Naturally, at that point I had to collect them all. And the game suddenly took on a *very* different character, that I really enjoyed.

The game definitely has a weird difficulty curve where some of the earlier fights (and arguably literally the very first fight, if you're going for a nightmare/medals run) are some of the hardest in the game, while the final bosses are, by far, some of the easiest in the game. But I think that was intentional. You suffer and get rewarded with a character that just feels like a beast by the end. Normal difficulty and using your full repertoire instead felt like you just started out like a world-destroying beast, so there wasn't much of any sense of progression.

[EF_Neo1st]

Originally posted by Russell:

Originally posted by LHGreen:

Like, this game certainly isn't bad, far from it, and it has a lot of stuff in it that I love, but as for the main game mode, the story/campaign... well, eh, it could have felt more challenging.

... But with being able to just heal whenever as much as you need, and give yourself all kinds of OP ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ shards and powers, it just felt too easy. And then when you try to medal bosses, it feels unreasonable.

AFAIK one of the requirements boss designers had was to be able to defeat their hard/nightmare mode boss without getting hit, at level 1, and probably with a minimal set of gear. So if you use everything the game gives you, it's going to be too easy.

I actually almost quit the game because of this. Then I looked up to see you could access nightmare mode without beating the game (by using the name NIGHTMARE on a new account), and that the bosses give a shiny, and totally useless, medal if you beat them without taking damage. Naturally, at that point I had to collect them all. And the game suddenly took on a *very* different character, that I really enjoyed.

The game definitely has a weird difficulty curve where some of the earlier fights (and arguably literally the very first fight, if you're going for a nightmare/medals run) are some of the hardest in the game, while the final bosses are, by far, some of the easiest in the game. But I think that was intentional. You suffer and get rewarded with a character that just feels like a beast by the end. Normal difficulty and using your full repertoire instead felt like you just started out like a world-destroying beast, so there wasn't much of any sense of progression.

It all depend on how you play tho and how good you play.
It is like Sekiro, you dont fight bosses neither try to survive bosses, bosses fight you and desperately try to survive you. YOU are the boss at Sekiro since the very beginning, your char is absolutelly broken since the start and yes I beaten 70% of Sekiro lvl 1 without upgrading vitality for heallth and posture neeither upgrading my damage also not upgrading skills either and not using deflect even once, battles are just long af even more because I was not using deflect. People say that I should had played without kuro charm and activating the demon bell, still "I was not using defllect" and "not upgrading my own char" so none of that matter (and after beating the Monk at Fountainhead Palace I was fed up with how llong the fightws were taking, got the final piece of the Dancing Dragon Mask, used all my skill points into attack power and steam-rolled over everything left in the game from there on).

[DasaKamov]

Originally posted by Rod Serling:

As I already said, this is my opinion and none of you will change it by arguing. All your arguments are completely moot from the get-go. I don't understand how you don't understand that.

The most hilarious thing about this quote is that the OP is DESPERATELY trying to get us to change our opinions and dislike the game. All their arguments are completely moot from the get-go.

I don't understand how they don't understand that.

[LHGreen]

Originally posted by Russell:

I looked up to see you could access nightmare mode without beating the game (by using the name NIGHTMARE on a new account), and that the bosses give a shiny, and totally useless, medal if you beat them without taking damage. Naturally, at that point I had to collect them all. And the game suddenly took on a *very* different character, that I really enjoyed.

Huh. I probably should have known that ahead of time. Maybe I'll give it a shot. In the meantime, does anyone know if Zangetsu (that's his name, right?) can get those medals?